Presuming Grace

R.C. Sproul:

I wonder if we really are amazed by grace? I think we express more amazement at God's wrath than at His mercy. We've come to the place, I think, in our religious thinking where we assume that God will be merciful, that God will be kind, that God will be gracious, and so we're not surprised whenever we experience His kindness. . . .

One of my favorite illustrations about the dilemma that we face with respect to understanding God's mercy goes back to the early days of my career as a teacher in college and seminary. One of my first teaching assignments was to teach 250 freshmen a required course on "Introduction to the Old Testament." Here I had 250 students assembled in a large lecture hall, very uncomfortable, trying to communicate with so many students at one time. I had to print up in advance the requirements for the course because I'd already learned, very quickly, that college students are all budding Philadelphia lawyers. You have to "dot your i's and cross your t's" to make sure that the assignments are clearly set forth. I gave them a published syllabus and told them what their requirements would be. I said, "We have three very small papers, book report type things, that are required during this semester. The first one is due at noon on September 30, the on second October 30, and the third on November 30. Now here's the way it goes: I want these finished, on my desk at 12:00 noon on the appointed times unless you are physically confined to the hospital or the infirmary or there is a death in the immediate family." We had to spell out all this sort of thing for the college students. I said, "Does everybody understand the assignment?" They said, "Oh, yes indeed."

So, September 30 came around and 225 of my students brought their papers in and presented them dutifully at the proper time. 25 of these poor souls had failed to complete their assignments and they were scared to death. These were freshmen, just making the transition from high school and they were in a posture of abject humility. They said, "Oh Professor Sproul, please don't give us an 'F' for this grade." I had told them that if they didn't get their paper in on time they would get an "F" for that assignment. They said, "Please give us some more time, give us one more chance." They were begging me for grace, for mercy. They wanted an extension. I said, "Okay, I'll give you an extension. But don't let it happen again. Remember the next assignment is October 30. I want those papers on time." They said, "Absolutely. They will be there."

October 30 came around. 200 of my students came and put their term papers on my desk. 50 of them were now assembled outside in terror because they hadn't planned their time properly, and were not prepared. So once again these students came to me pleading. They said, "Oh Professor, we didn't budget our time properly. It's mid-term, we have so many assignments all coming in at the same time, so many pressures, it's Homecoming. Please give us just one more chance." They begged me with earnest faces and I was a soft-hearted guy and I said, "Okay, okay. I'll give you one more chance, but don't let it happen again." You know what they did? They began to sing spontaneously, "We love you Prof. Sproul, oh yes we do." So I was the most popular professor in the school for 30 days.

But 30 days later the third paper came due. This time 150 students came into the classroom with their papers prepared and the other 100 came in as casual, as cavalier, as you can imagine. They didn't have their papers, they weren't worried in the slightest, and I said to them, "Where are you term papers?" They said, "Hey Prof, don't worry about it. We'll have it for you in a couple of days, no sweat." I stopped them right there in their tracks and I took out that dreadful little black book and I took out my pen and I said, "Johnson, where's your term paper?" He said, "I don't have it Professor." So I wrote an "F" in the book. "Greenwood, where's your paper?" "I don't have it, sir." I put "F" in the book. What do you think was the response of those students? Unmitigated fury. In one voice they called out, "THAT'S NOT FAIR!"

I said, "What was that? Johnson, did I just hear you say that's not fair?" He said, "Yes, that's not fair." He was furious. I said, "Okay. I don't ever want to be thought of as being unfair or unjust. Johnson, it's justice that you want?" He said, "Yes!" I said, "Okay, if I recall, you were late the last time, weren't you?" He said, "Yes." I said, "Okay. I'll go back and change that grade to an 'F'." So I erased his passing grade and gave him an "F." I said, "Is there anybody else that wants justice?" Nobody wanted justice. Do you see what has happened here? The first time they were pleading with me in utter, pathetic humility, and I said sure. The second time they begged. By the third time, not only did they begin to assume mercy, but they began to demand it. They assumed now that I was obligated to be gracious to them.

Friends, that's what we do with God.

(HT: Dane Ortlund)

The New Scarlet Letter is H

(via Kevin DeYoung)

Here’s a good piece by Matthew J. Franck in the Washington Post on the ubiquitous role of the “hate card” in debates over homosexuality and gay marriage.

The upshot:

Marginalize, privatize, anathematize: These are the successive goals of gay-marriage advocates when it comes to their opponents.

First, ignore the arguments of traditional marriage’s defenders, that marriage has always existed in order to bring men and women together so that children will have mothers and fathers, and that same-sex marriage is not an expansion but a dismantling of the institution. Instead, assert that norational arguments along these lines even exist and so no refutation is necessary, and insinuate that those who merely want to defend marriage are “anti-gay thugs” or “theocrats” or “Taliban,” as some critics have said.

Second, drive the wedge between faith and reason, chasing traditional religious arguments on marriage and morality underground, as private forms of irrationality.

Finally, decree the victory of the new public morality – here the judges have their role in the liberal strategy – and read the opponents of the new dispensation out of polite society, as the crazed bigots of our day.

Read the whole thing.

What if Mary and Joseph had our technology?

Christianity is War

Yes, there is a mean, violent streak in the true Christian life! But violence against whom, or what? Not other people!

It’s a violence against all the impulses in us that would be violent to other people.

It’s a violence against all the impulses in our own selves that would make peace with our own sin and settle in with a peacetime mentality.

It’s a violence against all lust in ourselves and all enslaving desires

• for food
• or caffeine
• or sugar
• or chocolate
• or alcohol
• or pornography
• or money
• or the praise of men
• and the approval of others
• or power
• or fame.

It’s a violence against the impulses in our own soul toward racism and sluggish indifference to injustice and poverty and abortion.

Christianity is not a settle-in-and-live-at-peace-with-this-world-the-way-it-is kind of religion. When Jesus said, “the truth will set you free”, he didn’t mean without a battle. He meant that truth would win the war of liberation in the soul.

Christianity is war. It is a declaration of all-out combat against our own sinful impulses. The apostle Peter said, “Beloved, I urge you as sojourners and exiles to abstain from the passions of the flesh, which wage war against your soul”. To become a Christian is to wake up to the reality that our soul – the eternal joy of our soul – is at stake. Therefore, Christianity is mortal combat for true and lasting joy.

- John Piper, When I Don’t Desire God: How to Fight For Joy, 102-103

Who Needs Marriage?

TIME Asked the Question — Do You Have an Answer?

Al Mohler opines: http://www.albertmohler.com/2010/11/29/who-needs-marriage-time-asked-th-question-do-you-have-an-answer/

December Book Giveaway (and it's a good one)

Christmas Bonus: Sign up at Zach Nielsen’s blog to win several good books from Crossway.

Touching Sensitive Areas, or TSA For Short

Doug Wilson on the latest non-sense sweeping the nation--the TSA demanding we temporarily lay down our liberties in order that they can protect... our liberties.

Yeah, right.

And if the day comes when terrorism is eradicated, do they ever intend to give them back? I thought not.

Read what Wilson has to say:

Here are some points to keep in mind as the controversy about the TSA wends it way through our various news cycles and perhaps, let us hope, into a bill in the new Congress.

1. It does the old heart good to see people get riled up with government incompetence and . . . what's the word I am looking for? Nincompoopery, I believe that's it.

I do not say this as one who believes that the radical Muslim threat is tiny. I think that I actually take it more seriously that our government does. If they were worried about terrorists, they would be looking for terrorists, and not for my nail clippers. Their procedures are risible, their hubris astounding, their reasons justifying that hubris minimal, and their folly incandescent.

To illustrate: Remember the first phase of this imbroglio where the government had to back down -- back when they were running pilots through their drill? They were checking pilots for excessive amounts of shampoo in insulting ways, right before said pilots sat down in the cockpits of the big, flying bombs? The takeway lesson here is that if you want us to believe that you are taking the war on terror seriously, you have to stop fighting it like idiots.

2. We are being told that we must surrender some of our liberties because we are in a war on terror. I see. And when is this war likely to end, and will we, or our grandchildren, or great grandchildren, get our liberties back at that time? Ah, I thought not. The war on Eastasia goes on and on and on, or so the Ministry of Truth informs us. Perpetual war justifies perpetual sacrifices, does it not? And when we have become accustomed to the sacrifices that perpetual war requires, which apparently amounts to a willingness to be herded instead of governed, and Eurasia eventually conquers our beloved Oceania, will they encounter a freedom-loving people, prepared by the long war for some real resistance to the invaders? Ah, I thought not. You cannot fight a genuine long war by making your people docile. You can, however, fight a charade war that way.

The conservative case for just war, as opposed to the national-greatness case for it, is clear. Identify the enemy, declare an objective, make sure the objective is just, achieve that objective, and get the heck out.

Some might object that my invocation of Orwell above is overblown, but if Orwell were to come back now, what do you think he would be more shocked by -- the number of cameras all over the UK or the number of people who had read his book and yet did not see any connection?

3. It appears that it was more important for the TSA to not let any protests get traction than it was to catch bad guys this last Thanksgiving holiday. I read that a bunch of the new scanners were not in use, and therefore opting out of them would not cause newsworthy dislocations. And speaking of opting out, I would suggest that any travelers who are concerned about this issue should opt out -- if you get the pat down, you know exactly what you are getting, and can serve as a witness of the whole transaction. But if somebody off in another room is getting his jollies by looking at your daughters, you have no idea and cannot serve as a witness, except as a witness to the general degrading spectacle. Also, if you opt out, I would have a small slip of paper that you can hand to the person who hunting on your person for threats to our nation's liberties. It should read something like:

"My need to travel should not be taken as my consent to the unconstitutionality of warrantless searches of my person and my possessions. I am accepting this process under protest."

And you should make sure your phone is set on record.

4. Informal survey: from family traveling this week, it appears that the number of travelers was unusually light for the days just before Thanksgiving -- partially full flights, and that kind of thing. I would be interested to hear if anybody else had a similar experience or not. And I am sure somebody can figure out how to get the raw numbers on many people flew last Wednesday, as oppposed to previous years. It would be interesting to discover if the opt-out protest was not successful because a large number of people opted out of flying at all.

5. So then, let's talk about political correctness and sexuality for a moment. As it stands, the ladies are patted down by women, and the men by men. Could we agree then, that lesbians and homosexual men ought to pat down nobody? They can't pat down members of the opposite sex without a badge saying, "It's okay, I'm homosexual," and they shouldn't be able to pat down members of the same sex for obvious reasons. Now this is the moment in the discussion when your opponent draws himself up to his full height, and says, "This is outrageous. These are hard-working, trained professionals and . . ."

"Trained professionals, you say?"

"Yes," they say.

"Nothing sexual about it?,? you ask.

"Nothing whatever," they reply.

"Okay," you answer, "let's have everybody pat down everybody then. Trained professionals, you know."

"Oh, we couldn't do that. It would be upsetting to the sensibilities of too many travelers."

Right. Like you care about that.

6. Not satisfied with having their panties in a wad, they are now trying to help us rearrange our panties. There needs to be a way for a civilized people to say, "Back off, perv," and not have to then worry about being frogmarched out of the airport, and fined for maintaining your decency.

7. This issue has legs, and this is a good reason for writing about it. If it has legs, then one of the things we can do to make air travel dignified again is to make sure it keeps those legs. Tell stories, circulate stories, write about it. Like here, for instance.

8. Why are the supposed great lions of civil liberties silent about this? Where is the ACLU? [Update: I stand adjusted on this one. See comments.] When the Bush administration wanted to have computers analyze cell phone chatter under the Patriot Act (which Obama extended), there were howls from the predictable quarters. So when the Bush administration wants to analyze that great heap of ones and zeros that constitutes a sludge pile of inviting cell phone data, they go nuts, but when the Obama administration wants to go through our skivvies, they fall silent?

And just for the record, I don't like Republicans without warrants anymore than I like Obama without one.

9. Extend the logic for this lunatic way of fighting terrorism, and see how you like it. In a free society, crowds gather in more places than in airports. And when they gather, they are vulnerable to anybody with a bomb, an automatic weapon, or a canister of poison gas. Make a short list -- malls, football games, concerts, etc. If the TSA imbecility is sound with regard to airports, then the first successful attempt on life at some public event (as was attempted a few days ago at a Christmas tree lighting ceremony in Portland) will necessitate nude scanners and pat downs at city squares, subways, bus stations, train stations, basketball games, etc. When they are done securing our liberties, we can all rest easy. The radical Muslims can never get at our liberties now. We don't have them anymore. Our liberties are in a box in a TSA warehouse, along with 10,000 nail clippers.

So if such security measures are not consistent with life in a free society on the ground, then they are not consistent with life in a free society in the air. We need to do something differently. As in completely differently, and I don't mean changing the color of the TSA uniforms. We need to spend all that money on hunting terrorists. We should be looking for certain kinds of people, not certain kinds of objects.

10. You cannot reason with bureaucracies. You can only stand on their oxygen hose, which I suggest. The new House can defund the TSA. They are going to be looking for areas to make budget cuts anyway -- two birds with one appropriations measure. So to speak.

But the reason why politicans hate to do things like that is because covering your rear end is expensive -- as your doctor could tell you as he is ordering a bunch of unnecessary medical tests because tort reform has not yet occurred. Politicians in this case don't want to defund the TSA just in case someone afterwards highjacks a plane with a weapon cunningly fashioned out of three pair of nail clippers. And then his opponent can say that the incumbent voted against the Transportation Safety Administration. This is the kind of thing that makes politicians wake up with the night sweats. And so what they want is not security for you, but plausible security theater for themselves and their campaigns. Always remember that this is very expensive security theater, and not security.

So this is why politicians will usually cast a courageous vote only when three hundred thousand people are holding their hand, and patting the back of it. Let's help them out.

A La Carte

Samplings from across the net (All via Trevin Wax):

Where does your denomination fit?

Jeff Young, a Reclaiming the Mind/Credo House Ministries board member created these as part of his research for our ministry. I thought they were too good not to share. This first one shows denominations according to a breakdown.

Whoopi, Joy, and Barbara do theology:

A few days ago, Joel Osteen was on the show to help kick off the Christmas season, but Barbara Walters immediately ambushed him with a question about homosexuality. Not for the first time, the ladies began showing off their expertise in Christian ethics.

Pope Benedict says he would resign if unable to carry out the duties of the papacy. This news signals a major shift from the past:

With startling candor, the 83-year-old Benedict floats the possibility of something Catholic Church officials do not like to talk about because it could open a doctrinal can of worms.

CBMW on the NIV 2011:

Though we are genuinely thankful for the many positive changes in the new NIV (2011), and though we are deeply appreciative of the very different process by which our friends at the CBT and Zondervan pursued and unveiled this new version, we still cannot commend the new NIV(2011) for most of the same reasons we could not commend the TNIV… In spite of the many good changes made, our initial analysis reveals that a large percentage of our initial concerns still remain.

A La Carte

All via Tim Challies:

The Third Amendment and Porn Scanners - Doug Wilson writes about the frustrations and deeper meaning of airport security. “If the Bill of Rights were being considered today, the Third Amendment would involve airport security, not quartering troops.”

NIV 2011 Forces a Choice - Trevin has written a good article about the new NIVand the choice it forces upon some people. “A few years ago, upon considering the resistance from some evangelicals toward the TNIV, Zondervan assured Bible-readers that the 1984 NIV would remain available. But no such assurance is given now. In fact, the publisher has expressly indicated the desire for the NIV 2011 to replace both the original NIV and the TNIV.”

5 Dangers for Young Men - J.C. Ryle speaks from a century ago with 5 dangers all young men will face.

Contemporary Art Meets the Bible - This looks like a very interesting project coming from Crossway and artist Makoto Fujimura. “Makoto Fujimura, one of the century’s most highly regarded artists, has illuminated the Four Holy Gospels. Fujimura is known for his use of traditional Japanese Nihonga techniques and his passion for reconnecting Christian faith with fine art. ”

New Weapons Need New Rules - I appreciated some of what this article had to say regarding the new weapons we fight wars with and the new rules they necessitate. These new weapons tend to make killing another person so easy, so abstract.

Lessons from Lausanne

from Kevin DeYoung by Kevin DeYoung

Mike Milton is a PCA minister and the Chancellor-elect for Reformed Theological Seminary. Over at his blog he’s giving updates from the Third Lausanne Congress on World Evangelization in Cape Town, South Africa. The stories and reflections are worth reading.

There is one particularly moving story about a young Korean woman’s testimony that left the delegates in tears. The upshot:

Then, her voice began to crack just a bit. A lump appeared in my throat. She paused and continued, “Please pray for my people. Please pray for North Korea that they will hear the Gospel of Jesus Christ…” and her words finally gave way to sobs. The audience intuitively stood and applauded. We applauded not only for this courageous girl, but for the work of God in her and through her. She had been through unimaginable horror. Yet she is giving her life to return to identify with her people.

Pray for the hard places and the hidden people in this world. And pray for Lausanne as it meets through the rest of this week.

Is This the Nastiest Election Season Ever?

from Justin Taylor by Justin Taylor

Joe Carter:

Whenever I hear a pundit or politician say—as they do every two years—that this season has seen the nastiest, most negative electoral campaigning in American history, I wonder: “Who was their history teacher?” Because the midterm elections of 2010 ain’t got nothing on the election of 1800.

Where's Waldo?

Who knew Waldo was actually "an artsy piece of German angst-ridden existentialism?"

(HT: Kevin DeYoung)

What is This World Coming To?

by Kevin DeYoung

What a monstrosity! The fiendish scalawags at thekitchn.com even dare to boast: “Look! Savoury Broccoli Cupcakes.” For shame.

Gummy Bears in cotton candy ice cream is a good idea. Peanuts in M&Ms is a good idea. A gush of juice in a fruit snack is a good idea. Custard in a doughnut is a good idea. Cheese in a pizza crust is a good idea. Pretty much cheese in anything is a good idea, even tater tots. But broccoli in dessert is straight out of Screwtape’s kitchen.

Pelagians and positive thinkers beware, the doctrine of original sin is now beyond cavil.

HT: Joe Carter (via JT)

The Pumpkin

I generally disdain schmaltzy, kitschy email forwards with a Christian twist.

I still kind of really hate the Pumpkin one. But as I re-read it, I was able to attach some decent theological terminology to it--various components of the ordo salutis (Maybe. It may very well just be a hodge-podge of theological lingo I threw at it):

(Indulge me. It's 3AM and I feel loopy)

A woman was asked by a coworker,
'What is it like to be a Christian?'

The coworker replied, 'It is like being a pumpkin.' God picks you from the patch, brings you in, and washes all the dirt off of you. Then He cuts off the top and scoops out all the yucky stuff.
He removes the seeds of doubt, hate, and greed. Then He carves you a new smiling face and puts His light inside of you to shine for all the world to see.'

God picks you from the patch=predestination

Brings you in= irresistible grace

Washes all the dirt off of you=justification

He cuts of the top and scoops out the yucky stuff=regeneration

He removes the seeds of doubt, hate, and greed=sanctification

New face, inner light for all the world to see=Indwelling of the Holy Spirit/Spirit of Witness

Lame, I know. But, I haven't blogged in a while. Thanks for tolerating me.

John Piper: The Superiority of God

John Piper:

We need to ponder the superiority of God as our great reward over all that the world has to offer.

If we don’t, we will love the world like everyone else and live like every one else.

So take the things that drive the world and ponder how much better and more abiding God is: take money or sex or power or popularity. Think about these things.

First think about them in relation to death. Death will take away every one of them: money, sex, power, and popularity. If that is what you live for, you won’t get much, and what you get, you lose. But God’s treasure is “abiding.” It lasts. It goes beyond death.

It’s better than money because God owns all the money and he is our Father. “All things are yours, and you are Christ’s and Christ is God’s” (1 Corinthians 3:22-23).

It’s better than sex. Jesus never had sexual relations, and he was the most full and complete human that ever will exist. Sex is a shadow, an image, of a greater reality—of a relationship and pleasure that will make sex seem like a yawn.

The reward of God is better than power. There is no greater human power than to be a child of the Almighty God. “Do you not know that we shall judge angels” (1 Corinthians 6:3)?

It’s better than popularity. Fame is a pipe dream if you are only known by human nobodies. But if the greatest beings know you, that is a popularity of another kind. The greatest popularity is to be known by God (1 Corinthians 8:3; Galatians 4:9). And when it comes to angels: “Are they not all ministering spirits, sent out to render service for the sake of those who will inherit salvation” (Hebrews 1:14)?

And so it goes on and on. Everything the world has to offer, God is better and more abiding. There is no comparison. God wins—every time.

The question is: will we have him? Will we wake up from the trance of this stupefying world and see and believe and rejoice and love? And suffer?

A Million Monkeys

By Tim Challies

Andrew Keen is a bit of a curmudgeon. It’s hard to know how much of his own words he actually believes and how much of it he writes simply because it has become his niche, what people expect of him. But he’s still a lot of fun to read. Here’s a brief excerpt from his book The Cult of the Amateur. While it’s a little bit one-sided in its attack on bloggers and musicians and YouTubers and everyone else who creates content on the web today, I think we can all identify to some extent, with his frustrations. It begins with a conversation he had with a San Francisco software producer who was describing his new product.

“It’s MySpace meets YouTube meets Wikipedia meets Google,” he said. “On steroids.”

In reply, I explained I was working on a polemic about the destructive impact of the digital revolution on our culture, economy, and values.

“It’s ignorance meets egoism meets bad taste meets mob rule,” I said, unable to resist a smile. “On steroids.”

He smiled uneasily in return. “So it’s Huxley meets the digital age,” he said. “You’re rewriting Huxley for the twenty first century.” He raised his wine glass in my honor. “To Brave New World 2.0!”

We clinked wine glasses. But I knew we were toasting the wrong Huxley. Rather than Aldous, the inspiration behind this book comes from his grandfather, T.H. Huxley, the nineteenth-century evolutionary biologist and author of the “infinite monkey theorem.” Huxley’s theory says that if you provide infinite monkeys with infinite typewriters, some monkey somewhere will eventually create a masterpiece—a play by Shakespeare [An editorial addition I can’t resist—“It was the best of times, it was the blurst of times!? You stupid money!”], a Platonic dialogue, or an economics treatise by Adam Smith.

In the pre-Internet age, T.H. Huxley’s scenario of infinite monkeys empowered with infinite technology seemed more like a mathematical jest than a dystopian vision. But what had once appeared as a joke now seems to foretell the consequences of a flattening of culture that is blurring the lines between traditional audience and author, creator and consumer, expert and amateur. This is no laughing matter.

Today’s technology hooks all those monkeys up to all those typewriters. Except in our Web 2.0 world, the typewriters aren’t quite typewriters, but rather networked personal computers, and the monkeys aren’t quite monkeys, but rather Internet users. And instead of creating masterpieces, these millions and millions of exuberant monkeys—many with no more talent in the creative arts than our primate cousins—are creating an endless digital forest of mediocrity. For today’s amateur monkeys can use their networked computers to publish everything from uninformed political commentary, to unseemly home videos, to embarrassingly amateurish music, to unreadable poems, reviews, essays and novels

Books and E-Books

By Tim Challies

On Tuesday I offered you 5 Reasons Books are Better Than E-Books and on Wednesday 5 Reasons E-Books Are Better Than Books. Today I want to tie up those two posts with a few thoughts on why we need to be very, very careful about moving from the book to the e-book.

Media and Messages

Anyone who studies media or technology must run into Marshall McLuhan and Neil Postman. These two men were leaders in the field with McLuhan being the teacher and Postman the disciple. If there is anything we have learned from these men it is summed up in McLuhan’s little phrase, “the medium is the message.” What McLuhan sought to show people is that every medium, whether book or television or computer, carries within it some kind of ideology, some kind of idea. He wanted people to see that this, this ideology, is often as important or perhaps even more important than the message the media conveys. Such ideologies predispose us to see and understand the world in one way rather than another. So the content of a news program may be less important than the subtle messages fed to us by the medium of television (which might be that pictures convey truth better than words or that immediacy is virtuous or that information itself, without context or analysis, is inherently good).

While I do not fully follow either McLuhan or Postman, I do think they were correct in this point. There is more to a book than the words it contains; the medium itself is important since it coveys certain truths, certain messages of its own. There is more to a television, more to a computer than the content it carries; the device itself is important. One device or one technology may not be better than another, but certainly they are different because they convey different messages to us.

So the first thing we need to understand is that we cannot neatly separate the medium and the message. In many ways the medium is the message or, at the very least, it contributes to the message.

Goodbye to the Book

For centuries now people have prophesied about the end of the book but such prophets have always proven wrong. They have seen that one media or another would displace the book and have wrongly assumed that these media would replace it. The television drew society away from the book, but it could never carry content like a book and thus never stood a chance of replacing it. It displaced it so that in many cases people gave up books in order to watch television, but it couldn’t ever replace it. Today, though, we have digital devices that can carry text in a digital format and do so with some degree of excellence. Amazon’s Kindle, first released in 2007, very quickly rose to prominence and it has been followed by a host of similar devices, selling in the millions. Though the printed book will remain with us for some time, it seems likely that its days are now, finally, numbered.

I don’t think the printed book will ever fully disappear, but I do think it will more and more be replaced by e-books. Books may be relegated to the place of records today—quaint collector’s items and special editions for the old fashioned. This will not happen immediately, but I do think it will happen eventually. Many of you who are reading this article have e-reading devices and many of you are quickly switching from books to e-books. You may be early adopters, but many others will soon follow.

The impact of this is nicely summarized by Mark Bauerlein when he says “To replace the book with the screen is to remove a 2,500-year-old cornerstone of civilization…” He is not commenting on the morality of such a change and is not saying that it is necessarily bad. He simply wants us to understand that moving from book to screen is moving away from a medium that has been a cornerstone of our civilization. Books have long been the medium that carries our most important ideas. Books carried the teachings of the Reformers, books were absolutely integral to the formation of Protestantism and books have shaped what we believe today. Our faith has not been shaped only by the content of those books, but by the medium of the book as well.

The second thing we need to see, then, is that books are now finally being replaced by something (e-books) and that this is ground-shaking in that for centuries the book has been the carrier of our most important ideas. We are now entrusting our ideas to a new carrier, a new medium.

From the E-Book To…

When a new technology is introduced to the world, it tends to be introduced in reference to an existing one. The automobile was first known as the “horseless carriage” and the train as “the iron horse.” In both cases people saw what the technology would replace or supercede and gave it a name that related it to the old. Of course in both cases the reference soon disappeared as the technology grew into something all its own. Both the automobile and the train shaped society in ways no one could have predicted.

I think it is very likely that a decade from now we will no longer use the term e-book. Not only is it just a silly term, but also, as the medium grows it will distance itself from the book. The book will serve as the starting-point, but whatever it becomes will inevitably be much different in the end.

And here is the third thing we need to see. While we currently see the clear relationship of book to e-book, the pattern of history is that eventually the e-book will resemble the book as much as the horse resembles the train in form, function and importance. In other words, the book is just the smallest starting point for what the future e-book will be.

Think!

What concerns me in all of this is that Christians are being very quick to make the switch from books to e-books and that we are doing so absolutely thoughtlessly. As I looked back to my 5 reasons that e-books are better than books, I was struck by how many of those reasons are reasons of convenience. At least in its current form, the e-book and the accompanying e-reader offer little advantage over the book except in the area of convenience. And when should we ever allow convenience to dictate something as important as the medium that carries our most important ideas? When it comes to the tools of understanding and the tools that allow us to truly absorb information, to turn that information into knowledge and wisdom, the book reigns supreme.

Do you see my concern here? It may well be that the e-book will prove to be a superior medium to the book. I hope that is the case, that the ideas embedded within it will serve us rather than hinder us. What distresses me is not seeing people begin to transition from books to e-books, but to see people do so thoughtlessly, to cast aside that “2,500-year-old cornerstone of civilization” like it is old and defunct and pathetic in order to embrace what is new and untried and untested and, most of all, convenient. I would like to think that Christians would be very careful, very thoughtful in moving from one defining medium to the next. But that just hasn’t been the case.

So Christian, I encourage you to think and to think deeply as you transition from book to e-book. Think about what it means to move from one to the next and think about how great ideas, the ideas that shape our world and shape our faith, may be carried in book or e-book format. The words may be the same, but because the medium is not, the end result may well be very different.

This is either insanely true or truly insane…

HT: Borrowed Light

“To lose the heavenly warmth and spiritual liveliness of your affections is undoubtedly a far more considerable loss than to lose the wife of your bosom, or the sweetest child that ever a tender parent laid in the grave…It is better for you to bury ten sons, than to remit one degree of love or delight in God.”

This from John Flavel in Facing Grief. His counsel is either insanely true or truly insane. It all depends on how glorious God really is.

I am especially mindful of these sentiments, as, what with all this up and coming wedding and marriage stuff, I am extremely prone to focus the vast majority of my affections to my earthly Love, and often neglect my heavenly Father.

A la Carte

Things from all over the Internet that I found especially interesting (HT: Challies):

Culture Shock - This is an interesting look at American culture through the eyes of missionaries who have just returned to the country after a long time in the field.

BP’s Photoshopping - BP has been photoshopping images of their work in the Gulf. And, not surprisingly, people have noticed and called them out on it. You can see their really bad Photoshop work at the link.

Facebook’s 500 Million - Facebook recently welcomed its 500 millionth user (! - that deserves an exclamation mark). Here is an infographic telling a little bit about who those 500 million people are, where they come from, and so on.

Seven Lines a Day - “Take 74-year-old John Basinger. When he was 58, he decided on a lark to see if he could memorize Milton’s Paradise Lost. The whole thing. All 60,000-plus words. It took him nine years, but he pulled it off and has even recited it in public. That takes three days. It’s a long poem.”

Dangers Facing Over-Churched Kids - Tony Kummer has some good warnings for parents of church kids. “These are the children who attend every service, and can’t remember anytime when they didn’t come to church. In my ministry, most of these kids also attend a Christian school. They can recite the books of the Bible, they’ve memorized countess Scripture verses, and they know details about Bible stories that I can’t even remember.”

Filthy Calvinists - Frank Turk writes about people who love to hate Calvinism.

What Amazon Didn't Say

Amazon announced the other day that it had reached a "tipping point" as e-books sales have overcome paperback sales. CNET examines what they didn't tell you.

http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-18438_7-20011038-82.html

Personally, I hope the day never comes when Barnes and Noble, Borders, or hardback/paperback books are no more. Not to be apocalyptic, but I would venture to guess that that could lead toward a very destructive path.

HT: Challies

I Write Like

I Write Like - Just for fun. “Check which famous writer you write like with this statistical analysis tool, which analyzes your word choice and writing style and compares them with those of the famous writers.”

Not sure how accurate it is, or how accurate I am. I pasted 7different essays, articles, journal entries, etc. that I had written this past year, and I supposedly write like 4 different authors:

Dan Brown (oh boy...)

James Joyce

Cory Doctorow

Chuck Palahniuk

I've never even heard of the last 2.

I was hoping for Dickens, or Lewis, or Homer. Oh well. Not sure if this device only uses contemporary authors or not.

Try it. It's fun.

Imitate Me

(via Justin Taylor)

D.A. Carson, in his new little book From the Resurrection to His Return: Living Faithfully in the Last Days(Christian Focus), asks: “Do you ever say to a young Christian, ‘Do you want to know what Christianity is like? Watch me!’ If you never do, you are unbiblical.”

The Apostle Paul hit this theme a number of times in his letters. For example:

1 Cor. 4:15-17: “For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel. I urge you, then, be imitators of me. That is why I sent you Timothy, my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, to remind you of my ways in Christ, as I teach them everywhere in every church.”

1 Cor. 11:1: “Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.”

Phil. 3:17: “Brothers, join in imitating me. . . .”

Phil 4:9: “What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me—practice these things, and the God of peace will be with you.”

2 Thess. 3:7-9: “For you yourselves know how you ought to imitate us, because we were not idle when we were with you,nor did we eat anyone’s bread without paying for it, but with toil and labor we worked night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you. It was not because we do not have that right, but to give you in ourselves an example to imitate.

2 Tim. 3:10-11: “You, however, have followed my teaching, my conduct, my aim in life, my faith, my patience, my love, my steadfastness, my persecutions and sufferings that happened to me at Antioch, at Iconium, and at Lystra. . . .”

In Paul’s discipleship of fellow pastors he likewise exhorts them to serve as examples for other believers to emulate and imitate:

1 Tim. 4:12: “Let no one despise you for your youth, but set the believers an example in speech, in conduct, in love, in faith, in purity.”

Titus 2:7-8: “Show yourself in all respects to be a model of good works. . . .”

In the book referenced above, Dr. Carson recounts a story from his student years related to this issue:

As a chemistry undergraduate at McGill University, with another chap I started a Bible study for unbelievers. That fellow was godly but very quiet and a bit withdrawn.

I had the mouth, I fear, so by default it fell on me to lead the study. The two of us did not want to be outnumbered, so initially
we invited only three people, hoping that not more than two would come. Unfortunately, the first night all three showed up, so we were outnumbered from the beginning.

By week five we had sixteen people attending, and still only the initial two of us were Christians. I soon found myself out of my depth in trying to work through John’s Gospel with this nest of students. On many occasions the participants asked questions I had no idea how to answer.

But in the grace of God there was a graduate student on campus called Dave Ward. He had been converted quite spectacularly as a young man. He was, I suppose, what you might call a rough jewel. He was slapdash, in your face, with no tact and little polish, but he was aggressively evangelistic, powerful in his apologetics, and winningly bold. He allowed people like me to bring people to him every once in a while so that he could answer their questions. Get them there and Dave would sort them out!

So it was that one night I brought two from my Bible study down to Dave. He bulldozed his way around the room, as he always did. He gave us instant coffee then, turning to the first student, asked, ‘Why have you come?’ The student replied, ‘Well, you know, I think that university is a great time for finding out about different points of view, including different religions. So I’ve been reading some material on Buddhism, I’ve got a Hindu friend I want to question, and I should also study some Islam. When this Bible study started I thought I’d get to know a little more about Christianity—that’s why I’ve come.’

Dave looked at him for a few moments and then said, ‘Sorry, but I don’t have time for you.’

‘I beg your pardon?’ said the student.

‘Look,’ Dave replied, ‘I’ll loan you some books on world religions; I can show you how I understand Christianity to fit into all this, and why I think biblical Christianity is true—but you’re just playing around. You’re a dilettante. You don’t really care about these things; you’re just goofing off. I’m a graduate student myself, and I don’t have time—I do not have the hours at my disposal to engage in endless discussions with people who are just playing around.’

He turned to the second student: ‘Why did you come?’

‘I come from a home that you people call liberal,’ he said. ‘We go to the United Church and we don’t believe in things like the literal resurrection of Jesus—I mean, give me a break. The deity of Christ, that’s a bit much. But my home is a good home. My parents love my sister and me, we are a really close family, we worship God, we do good in the community. What do you think you’ve got that we don’t have?’

For what seemed like two or three minutes, Dave looked at him.

Then he said, ‘Watch me.’

As it happened, this student’s name was also Dave. This Dave said, ‘I beg your pardon?’

Dave Ward repeated what he had just said, and then expanded: ‘Watch me. I’ve got an extra bed; move in with me, be my guest—I’ll pay for the food. You go to your classes, do whatever you have to do, but watch me. You watch me when I get up, when I interact with people, what I say, what moves me, what I live for, what I want in life. You watch me for the rest of the semester, and then you tell me at the end of it whether or not there’s a difference.’

This Dave did not take up Dave Ward on the offer literally. But he did begin to watch him and to meet with him, and the Lord drew him. Today he is serving as a medical missionary.

Carson writes:

You who are older should be looking out for younger people and saying in effect, ‘Watch me.’

Come—I’ll show you how to have family devotions.

Come—I’ll show you how to do Bible study.

Come on—let me take you through some of the fundamentals of the faith.

Come—I’ll show you how to pray.

Let me show you how to be a Christian husband and father, or wife and mother.

At a certain point in life, that older mentor should be saying other things, such as: Let me show you how to die. Watch me.

Pastors and elders: to hear an outstanding meditation and exhortation on these themes, I’d encourage you to listen to this installation address from Mike Bullmore, delivered at New Covenant Bible Church in May 2010:

Popout

Original audio source (201005022.mp3)

Why Are Parents So Unhappy?

And Who Would Settle for Happiness, Anyway?

Al Mohler opines

Predestination and Evangelism

From Ligonier:

If God has already predestined who will be saved, then why evangelize or be involved in missions?

http://www.ligonier.org/rym/broadcasts/audio/beautiful-feet/

Bible Quotation FAIL

If you can’t read the quote, it says, “If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine. – Luke 4:7″

If you don’t know why that’s funny, then read Luke 4:7 in its context!

HT: Gairney Bridge

Salvation is NOT Turning a Blind Eye to My Sin

UNDERSTANDING THE TIMES
Salvation is NOT Turning a Blind Eye to My Sin

by Dr. Derek Thomas

In 2 Corinthians 5:19, Paul writes that "in Christ God was reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them." It is not uncommon to discover that this is the kind of God in whom people delight to believe in. There is an admission of sin, or at least of failure; "to err is human" wrote Alexander Pope. But, God turns a blind eye to my sin - He does not count it against me. Forgiveness is His business.

However, that is not what Paul intends in this statement. Several considerations need to be taken into account. First, he tells us in verse 10 of this same chapter that "we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil." Clearly, on the Day of Judgment God will count sin against some. Second, we need to appreciate the significance on the first two words in the text: "in Christ God was . not counting their trespasses against them." What Paul is saying here is that God does not count sins against those who are "in Christ."

Again, we need to be careful that we do not misunderstand this affirmation. Is Paul suggesting that God does not count sins against those who are "in Christ" merely because God wills not to do so? Not at all! The reason why the sins of those who are "in Christ" are immune to His judgment is because they have been counted against Christ, and judged in Him. Without the cross, there can be no immunity from the punishment that our sins deserve.

This is the heart of the gospel - the substitutionary atonement! Our sins were counted against Christ; His righteousness is counted as ours: "[God] made Him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God" (2 Cor. 5:21). Our sins - the totality of them - were laid on Christ and received the judgment of God's wrath. Indeed, God's wrath was exhausted upon them. Jesus fully bore their punishment, drinking of the cup of God's retribution - it was not the will of the Father for the cup to pass from His Son. And in place of sin's punishment, those who are "in Christ" receive the righteousness of Christ - the perfection of Another's life of obedience counted against us. This "Great Exchange" as the Reformers called it, is the very essence of the gospel.

Behold the man upon the cross,
My sin upon His shoulders.
Ashamed, I hear my mocking voice
Call out among the scoffers.
It was my sin that held Him there
Until it was accomplished.
His dying breath has brought me life;
I know that it is finished.

[Stuart Townend]

The PCA GA Soon Underway

by Kevin DeYoung

GUEST POST from Jason Helopoulos:

This week is the Presbyterian Church in America’s (PCA) annual General Assembly. Over a thousand Presbyterian pastors and elders will be descending upon Nashville, Tennessee. Now that may sound boring to you (and if I am honest—it is at times), but it is always one of the highlights of my year (I know, I need a more exciting life). Here are a few thoughts and things to watch for at this year’s PCA GA:

Why I love attending General Assembly

1. There are few things like hearing 1500 men sing at the opening worship service. Is there anything better than a convention hall full of men’s voices (sorry ladies—I really do like men’s voices) singing the great hymns and psalms of our faith?

2. Robert’s Rules of Order—I know….I know…it is sick, but there is something beautiful about hearing it wielded like a sword cutting everything to precision.

3. Unity—Few things amaze me more at General Assembly than hearing respectful and heated debate. I remember being awed by this at my first GA. Here were men arguing vigorously for things that matter, spiritual things, and yet there was always (o.k. almost always) a tone of respect and honor.

4. Seeing Like-Minded Men—It is encouraging to see a room full of like-minded men, who are ministering in every part of the United States and the world. Often we feel like we are laboring alone and it is good to be reminded that there are many faithfully believing the same thing and laboring in the same Kingdom throughout the world.

5. Seeing the Church in Action—I love seeing the Church at work during the week. This is the Church at work, though it is not as celebrated as missions or corporate worship.

6. Being reminded of the seriousness of our call—It is hard not to think Gospel ministry is serious work when you are around 1500 Presbyterians for a week!

7. Refreshment—Each year I walk away being refreshed by hearing testimonies of churches planted, missions established, and students converted. And I always walk away stimulated by conversations with new and old friends.

What to watch for at this year’s General Assembly

1. Deaconess Issue—This has become the issue of debate in recent years within the PCA. Can women be deacons? If no, then can they fulfill the roll of deacons and just not hold the office? If they can’t be ordained as Deaconesses, can they be commissioned? If women are commissioned to help and assist deacons in their work, can these women be referred to as Deaconesses? There are different overtures before the Assembly this year to attempt to define this issue one way or the other.

2. Central Funding—The PCA has no required giving to the denomination, its agencies, or committees. In the eyes of some, this has caused major problems. Each agency has to try and persuade churches to support it. In the eyes of others this is a good thing. There has always been concern in the PCA about agencies holding too much power (there is a lot of history here in Presbyterianism), so mandatory funding has been shunned. However, there is a proposal this year to require giving by churches and presbyteries to the Administrative Committee/Stated Clerk’s office or those churches (their ruling elders and pastors) would not be unable to vote at the General Assembly. This would be a big change in the PCA.

3. Strategic Plan—There is a report before the Assembly this year (which includes the Central Funding above) which purports to help prepare the PCA for future ministry and the changing times. There has been a great deal of conversation about the proposals over the past few weeks in the blogosphere. Too much to recount here. However, it is safe to say that this plan—if adopted—will have wide-ranging effects upon the PCA, its future, and its relationship with other Reformed bodies and broader Evangelicalism. Many are focused on the Deaconess issue, but the GA’s decision on this plan (the portion which it is being asked to approve) will have far wider and deeper effects upon the future of the PCA. This is the issue to watch.

The PCA has grown rather quickly over the past 37 years. It is not the same, small, southern denomination it was at its inception. And this has created great opportunities and problems. The PCA is trying to figure out what it will look like going forward. This year’s assembly will have a great deal to say about that. And I will be on the floor with my little voting card and heart bowed in prayer praying that this branch of the Lord’s Church would honor Him and continue to uphold the banner of Christ for generations.

John Piper on Spiritual Leadership

John Piper’s marks of a spiritual leader:

The spiritual leader knows that ultimately the productivity of his labors rests in God and that God can do more while he is asleep than he could do while awake without God. He is not so addicted to work that he is unable to rest. He is a good steward of his life and health. He maximizes the totality of his labor by measuring the possible strains under which he can work without diminishing his efficiency of unduly shortening his life.

HT: Trevin Wax

When Tradition Turns Toxic

from Kevin DeYoung

There’s a lot that can be said for tradition. Tradition helps us know what to expect, helps us know our roles. Tradition can mark special events like weddings, funerals, and holidays. Tradition is good because it is respectful of the wisdom of those who have gone before us. It connects us with the past.

I’m a big fan of tradition. But Jesus wasn’t always. “Tradition is the living faith of the dead,” to quote Jaroslav Pelikan. “But traditionalism,” he went on to say, “is the dead faith of the living.” Tradition can be horribly abused. It is a wonderful servant and a terrible master. Some of the dumbest and most hurtful things we do in life are owing to unthinking allegiance to tradition. Tradition sometimes turns toxic.

In Mark 7:1-13, Jesus rails against tradition. He cites two problems with the traditions of the Pharisees. Tradition turns toxic when (1) we enforce man-made traditions as God-made commandments, and (2) when we use man-made traditions to nullify God-made principles. Sometimes as conservatives we forget that adding to Scripture is just as deadly as subtracting from it.