Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day-- 17 things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ. 18 Let no one keep defrauding you of your prize by delighting in self-abasement and the worship of the angels, taking his stand on visions he has seen, inflated without cause by his fleshly mind, 19 and not holding fast to the head, from whom the entire body, being supplied and held together by the joints and ligaments, grows with a growth which is from God. 20 If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as, 21 "Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!" 22 (which all refer to things destined to perish with use)-- in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men? 23 These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against
3:1 Therefore if you have been raised up with Christ, keep seeking the things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. 2 Set your mind on the things above, not on the things that are on earth. 3 For you have died and your life is hidden with Christ in God. 4 When Christ, who is our life, is revealed, then you also will be revealed with Him in glory. 5 Therefore consider the members of your earthly body as dead to immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed, which amounts to idolatry. 6 For it is because of these things that the wrath of God will come upon the sons of disobedience, 7 and in them you also once walked, when you were living in them. 8 But now you also, put them all aside: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and abusive speech from your mouth. 9 Do not lie to one another, since you laid aside the old self with its evil practices, 10 and have put on the new self who is being renewed to a true knowledge according to the image of the One who created him-- 11 a renewal in which there is no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, but Christ is all, and in all. 12 So, as those who have been chosen of God, holy and beloved, put on a heart of compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience; 13 bearing with one another, and forgiving each other, whoever has a complaint against anyone; just as the Lord forgave you, so also should you. 14 Beyond all these things put on love, which is the perfect bond of unity. 15 Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in one body; and be thankful. 16 Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you, with all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with thankfulness in your hearts to God. 17 Whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks through Him to God the Father (2:16-3:17, NASB).
Looking at the various viewpoints regarding women in ministry and having dealt with the related biblical passages, this writer agrees with the . . . reasons for the participation of women in ministry, under the leadership of the Holy Spirit . . . This writer, at least in part, agrees . . . that social distinctions are meant to be transcended, not perpetuated, within the body of Christ. They have been unfortunately perpetuated with a vengeance.Of course, we should expect Bruce Prescott to pipe up in light of this revelation and give us his take on what motivated Frank Page to change his mind on such an issue. And as usual, he concludes it was power - not the Holy Spirit, not Biblical revelation, and certainly not intelligent discernment. While he is at it, he finds time to attack Dr. Albert Mohler, President of Southern Seminary for retreating from theological liberalism, suggesting again that it was purely motivated by power, and not at all by anything remotely related to the Holy Spirit.
. . . started with a general unrest in my thinking. But then it exploded with a comment made to me in personal conversation with Dr. Carl F. H. Henry in the mid-1980s. Walking across the campus, Dr. Henry simply stopped me in my tracks and asked me how, as one who affirms the inerrancy of the Bible, I could possibly deny the clear teaching of Scripture on thisMohler goes on to add that after the dust settled, he found "my study of the question led me to a very uncomfortable conclusion - my advocacy of women in the teaching office was wrong, violative of Scripture, inconsistentent with my theological commitments, injurious to the church, unsubstantiated, and just intellectually embarrassing. "
question. I was hurt, embarrassed - and highly motivated to answer his question.
And from the Daily Star again on June 30th:
"People don't always do what they should do," he said.
Anyway, he said, it's little different from religion, which he also said is based on incentives.
"What does God say? Do what you're supposed to do and I will reward you with eternal life in heaven," Osterloh said. "The only thing that we're saying is do what you're supposed to do and vote and we'll reward you with $1 million."
Osterloh said the concept of rewards is not so odd. He said it actually comes from the Bible — that if you do the right thing, you get into heaven.So, there you have it. Good reason why politicians shouldn't be theologians -- because they apparently don't understand the Bible. Osterloh's works-based scenario, besides being unethical, is just a cheap way of garnering support from religious conservatives. Unfortunately, it will probably work, since most Christians don't understand theology either.
"If incentives are good enough for God, they're good enough for Arizona," he said.
Voice was an attendee at the recent Together For the Gospel conference in Louisville and Taylor asks him for his opinion of the rap parody that Lig and John Duncan performed. You can go over and check out his critical analysis of their music career possibilities.
For this next question I’m thinking about increasingly smaller circles. In the first circle you have all the musicians in the world. Within that circle is a much smaller one that holds all the rappers in the world. Within that is a smaller one yet of guys trying to live a fairly clean, moral lifestyle. Within that you have Christian rappers. And finally, you have perhaps the smallest segment of all—Reformed Christian rappers. But you’re not the only one, are you? Who are some of the other Reformed brothers out there doing hip hop and rap?
Right now the guys I listen to are Christcentric (Christcentric.net) Shai Linne and Timothy Brindle (Lampmode.com). These guys, groups influence me the most and the ones I like to listen to. There are more but I don’t listen to them as much.
To rip out of context the words of the author of Hebrews in 8:13 (but only to borrow the logic behind them), "When He said, 'A new covenant,' He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear." Whoever wrote this clearly points out that there must be something "new" in Christianity. The "old" is just not cutting it apparently in their opinion and thus is "obsolete." And notice that in the second paragraph, the writer says, "a small number of Christians across the globe have begun taking on this challenge" (emphases mine). It seems clear that these guys think they hold the key to the future of Christianity. Even Brian McLaren, the humble pied-piper of Emergent reflects this attitude in his writing. In the introduction to A Generous Orthodoxy he writes,
This complex and many-faceted transition calls for innovative Christian leaders from all streams of the Christian faith around the world to collaborate in unprecedented ways. We must imagine and pursue the development of new ways of being followers of Jesus … new ways of doing theology and living biblically, new understandings of mission, new ways of expressing compassion and seeking justice, new kinds of faith communities, new approaches to worship and service, new integrations and conversations and convergences and dreams.
In recent decades, a small number of Christians across the globe have begun taking on this challenge, and now they are beginning to find one another to share insights and encouragement and hope. Growing networks in Africa, Latin America, Asia, Europe, and North America are coming together in person and online for thoughtful conversation, prayer, worship, and action as part of this transforming mission.
The real purpose of this book, and much of my writing and preaching, is to try to help us relign our religion and our lives at least a little bit more with Someone. Doing so, I believe, will be good for us and good for our world. Christianity is the biggest and richest religion in the world, and if it goes anemic or compromised, backward or confused, aggressive or passive -- everyone loses. Christian and non-Christian. If its heart is right and its vision clear, everyone wins. In my own feeble and flawed way, I hope I can contribute to the church's health and vision . . . with your help, and of course, God's.Clearly, McLaren think that something is amuck in Christianity and needs to be fixed. Like any good writer, he makes clear the problem and hints at the solution. To be fair (as McLaren asked in his "Friendly Note"), let me post his next paragraph, which balances what he says, but still reveals his belief that Christianity, in its current expression, is flawed and, as such, must be in some way "re-formed":
For some reason my name is often associated with a book I wrote, A New Kind of Christian. That title might suggest a claim to understand and even exemplify a *New! and ***IMPROVED!!! kind of Christianity. In this book I hope to people will understand how a new kind of Christian is also an old kind of Christian, a person who knows and embraces our shared Christian history (the sweet, the spicy, the sour, and the smelly), and who seeks to move forward into the future resourced by the church in all its many current and past forms.I think what I am most perturbed about when someone like Zach (the "defender of all things Emergent" on Brent Thomas's blog) writes what he did in an attempt to discredit Brent's critique or deflect attention away from glaring problems in some of the Emerging Church's theological positions (or lack thereof), is that I agree with Brian McLaren and the other Emergent guys quite a bit. In fact, I think they are on to something, especially when as it relates to the practical exhibition of the Gospel in the postmodern culture. I think they are right-on to criticism an Evangelicalism that associates itself more with the Republican party than it does with the persecution of the saints in North Korea or when it boasts more about helping to elect a President than in helping provide for the poor. But, I am critical of the movement (read "conversation", for those who are sticklers about this) when it dismisses historical tenets of the faith or at least reduces them to mere non-necessities for fellowship or even salvation. And unfortuntely for those like Zach, who seem to want to dismiss such criticism, there are plenty who are smack-dab in the middle of the "conversation" who at times feel the exact same way as Brent or I do. Guys like Mark Driscoll, Tim Keller, Joe Thorn, Steve McCoy, and Ed Stetzer have all critiqued the Emergent conversation (or at least a participant or two in the conversation) at one time or another because of something theological that they believed was mishandled or irreverently pushed aside.
I hope to provide some more commentary on this church and their new statue. For now, here are a couple of articles about it:
I will say that some have interpreted it as a Church-State statement, but I think something more insidious is going on here. But more on that later. Thanks to Jay at TheMemphisMonkey.com for bringing it to my attention.
Paul was not interested merely in the ethical principles of religion or of ethics. On the contrary, he was interested in the redeeming work of Christ and its effect upon us. His primary interest was in Christian doctrine, and Christian doctrine not merely in its presuppositions but at its centre. -- J. Greshem Machen.