If you don’t see this movie, well there’s no hope for you.

I knew that would get your attention.

Two months ago, I wrote a post, the subject of which was the then-upcoming movie titled The Blind Side.  Well, the movie is now out and showing in theaters nationwide.

I will save you the time of reading another blog on top of my earlier one  (that included two official trailers and an ESPN special feature on the real-life family that is the subject of the movie) and simply say YOU SHOULD SEE THIS MOVIE!

Crazy Love

Crazy Love, Overwhelmed by a Relentless God written by Francis Chan is one of those books that a serious and thoughtful Christian cannot read without knowing that their individual sanctification has a lot more upside potential than we had perhaps previously thought.  As one who holds to the concept of “progressive sanctification,” which I acknowledge is not universally held within Christendom, this book seems to speak directly to that point, with humbling examples of how out of touch we are with reality when we think we are seriously and consistently walking in the way of Christ in our day to day lives, irrespective of how devoutly we think we live our faith.

All 10 chapters of this book are terrific, and make penetrating  points about the outward evidence of our faith.  But none are perhaps stronger than chapter 4, titled “Profile of the Lukewarm.”  Just a few of the examples of “the lukewarm” are:

Lukewarm People give money to charity and the church…as long as it does not impinge on their standard of living.

Lukewarm People are moved by stories about people who do radical things for Christ, yet they do not act.

Lukewarm People seldom share their faith with their neighbors, co-workers or friends.

Lukewarm People gauge their morality, or “goodness” by comparing themselves to the secular world.

Lukewarm People love God, but not with all their heart, soul and strength.

Lukewarm People love others but do not seek to love others as much as they love themselves.

Lukewarm People will serve God and others, but there are limits to how far they will go or how much time, money, and energy they are willing to give.

Lukewarm People think about life on earth much more often than eternity in heaven.

Lukewarm People are thankful for their luxuries and comforts, and rarely consider trying to give as much as possible to the poor.

And there are more!

Chan’s chapter titled “Profile of the Obsessed,” as you might expect from its title, is the antidote to being lukewarm.  And to the degree that the profile of the lukewarm describes you (me), the less likely you (I) will be able to identify affirmatively with the obsessed.

This book is simultaneously easy and difficult to read.  In terms of its size, format and writing style it is very reader friendly, but the content is incredibly convicting, as you might have sensed from the examples cited above.  Chan is an engaging person, both in print and in the videos that are referenced in the book and which can be viewed for free on the Internet.  I recommend this book without reservation, to  any and all readers, especially those who come to it humbly and with a willingness to be called-out, but also encouraged and stirred up.  (Heb. 10: 24) 

How’s that atheism working for ya’ now?

This LINK will take you to a rather long, but none the less interesting article about Madalyn Murray-O’Hair, the infamous atheist, who was successful in arguing for the removal of prayer from public schools.  I admit my interest in the article was in part because I had the dubious distinction of being in the same high school graduating class (Austin-McCallum, 1972) as her son Jon Garth Murray, shown in the picture to the left along with O’Hair’s granddaughter Robin.

The last time I saw Jon was over 27 years ago, at our 10th reunion.  I think to virtually everyone’s surprise, he attended.  And I have to say that a badge of graciousness needed to be awarded to the person who did the work to research where he was living so that an invitation could be extended. 

When I read this article, the question for these three that entered my head was “how’s that atheism working for ya’ now?”

HT: Challies A La Carte

John Calvin…love him, or hate him, this is a really good article.

From Christianity Today, John Calvin, Comeback Kid.

Read it, and I guarantee you’ll learn something new.  Or I’ll cheerfully rufund your money.

HT:  JT

Ancient Word, Changing Worlds

Ancient Word, Changing Worlds the Doctrine of Scripture in a Modern Age by Stephen J. Nichols and Eric T. Brandt, is another one of those jewels that I ordered largely on the basis of needing to increase my order for some other books, to recieve free shipping.  I’ll grant you that the title of this book caught my attention, but I was not really shopping for a book on the doctrine of scripture.  Nevertheless, I am very glad I bought it.  I found it to be an informative and helpful read.  I am also pleased that I now have this as a resource in my library because it contains the writings of some really brilliant minds, representing orthodox and reformed Christian theology.  More about this in a moment.

While perhaps not in the league with a seminary textbook on the subject of the doctrine of scripture, this book still provides a tremendous overview on the subject, and one that particularly focuses on the changing and “emerging” views that have characterized modernity and post-modernity. 

The authors have organized the book in a very friendly and readable structure.  The book first of all, centers around three critical words with respect to the doctrine of scripture, inspiration, inerrancy, and interpretation.  These three words receive treatment from the authors in a separate chapter dedicated to each.  In these chapters, they provide a narrative of the history and development of these three critical words as they relate to scripture and the differing points of view that have materialized from the mid-1800’s to the present.  Following each of these chapters is another dedicated to select readings from the primary source documents that were used to construct the author’s narratives. 

I don’t believe I have ever read a book structured quite like this, and I admit that initially I didn’t quite “get it.”  But it proved to be very effective.  Effective in the sense that rather than quoting a reference and simply footnoting it, the authors provide the actual texts from which they drew their conclusions, in the succeeding chapter.  The three chapters containing these source readings are titled, fittingly enough, “In Their Own Words.”  The theologians represented in these source readings include Hodge, Warfield, Wescott, Manly, Machen, Preus, Henry and Packer among others.  But the authors also include some opposing views to these conservative theologians such as Barth, Berkouwer, Beegle and Fosdick along with others, who have succumbed to varying degrees to modernist/post-modernist sensitivities.

Ancient Word, Changing Worlds is an excellent book, but definitely not suited for the casual reader of “religious non-fiction“.  Although it reads easily, and I found it incredibly helpful, anyone who is comfortably challenged theologically by authors such as Max Lucado or Rick Warren will likely be very frustrated by the technical content and more academic nature of this book.  My guess is you will be frustrated within the first chapter.  You will find a vast resource of information in this book, but very little in the way of reflection and contemplation, such as you might expect in books written by those two authors and others who are similar.  But, if you are interested in a challenge and a trip that takes you much deeper into the important, let me correct that, the essential teaching of the authority of scripture, this really is an excellent book.

Just Do Something

 Just Do Something, written by Kevin DeYoung, a pastor in East Lansing, MI, offers a terrific perspective on a subject that impacts all of us, at least all Christians…how do we think about seeking and acting upon God’s will for our lives.  The subtitle to the book is probably the best indication of the direction DeYoung intends to take his readers.  That subtitle is:  A Liberating Approach To Finding God’s Will – OR – How to Make A Decision Without Dreams, Visions, Fleeces, Impressions, Open Doors, Random Bible Verses, Casting Lots, Liver Shivers, Writing In The Sky, etc. 

This is a relatively short book, 128 pages in length, and those pages are bound in a compact paperback format of only 5 x 7″.  So, when I say short, I mean short.  It literally can be read in a couple of evenings.  Maybe one evening if you are a fast reader.

DeYoung’s basic premise is that there are essentially two legitimate ways to think about God’s will.  The first, is God’s will of decree.  That is, everything that comes to pass, is according to God’s sovereign decree.  What God wills, will happen, and what happens is according to God’s will.  This necessarily raises the question of how evil plays into both the sovereignty and will of decree of God.  While the answer to that could take the space of many blogs, the short version would be that God works all things for the good of those who love Him, including acts of evil that are perpetrated by His human creations.  Best evidence of this is the ultimate solution to our sin which was brought about by evil acts, that resulted in the murder of Jesus.  Christ’s death (including the evil acts of men leading up to it), was accomplished according to God’s will of decree.

The second legitimate aspect of God’s will, is His will of desire.  This is best understood as His commands.  These are perhaps the easiest to find, as scripture is filled with commands and imperatives.  These are a clear indication of the way things should be, according to God’s will.

The way in which we get side tracked and distracted is when we seek a third aspect of God’s will, which is unfounded, according to DeYoung.  That aspect might be called God’s will of direction.  He goes on to describe the pitfall we get ourselves into from time to time, all with the noble and pious pursuit of “God’s will.”

“Does God have a secret will of direction that He expects us to figure out before we do anything?  And the answer is no.  Yes, God has a specific plan for our lives.  And yes, we can be assured that He works things for our good in Christ Jesus.  And yes, looking backward, we will often be able to trace God’s hand in bringing us to where we are .  But while we are free to ask God for wisdom, He does not burden us with the task of divining His will of direction for our lives ahead of time.”

Dispelling the notion that we are obligated to seek God’s will of direction for every decision we make about our lives is the subject of the rest of the book.  DeYoung utilizes an enjoyable mixture of what I would describe as wry humor, mixed with examples that can be understood and applied by people of all ages, but perhaps especially by those who are in their early 20’s through mid 30’s (the demographic that characterizes his church, which is located adjacent to the campus of Michigan State University).  But even for someone who completed his college education 33 years ago, his points still ring true for me as well.

This is a quick and easy read, but it is nonetheless, filled with good insight.  I recommend it for everyone who is serious about comprehending the subject of ”God’s will” and especially my college-aged friends who have lots of big decisions that they will be making over the course of the next few years, all of which I am sure they would like to make “according to God’s will.”

A Praying Life

“IT’S HARD TO PRAY.”   These are the first words written in the Forward to A Praying Life:  Connecting with God In A Distracting World, by Paul E. Miller.  They come from the pen, or more likely the keyboard, of David Pawlison, from the Christian Counselling and Educational Foundation.  Those four words really struck a chord with me.  Because that is exactly my sentiment when it comes to prayer.  For something that ought to be so easy and available, the truth is, it’s hard.  

From the book’s introduction all the way to the final chapter, Miller expands on this idea that prayer generally does not come easily or naturally.  Mostly because of the presuppositions and misunderstandings that we carry with us into the process.  He brings these points to life, largely from well described examples from his personal experience.  But he is careful, and effectively so, to not leave the reader with the impression that this book is about him.  Instead, he uses his difficulties and equally his times of satisfaction and “success” in prayer as helpful examples of what is possible for the reader.

The book is organized into 32 relatively short chapters, grouped into 5 parts.  The titles of these 5 parts give a good indication of where the reader will be taken on their journey into an improved prayer life.  The titles of these parts are:

Learning To Pray Like A Child
Learning To Trust Again
Learning To Ask Your Father
Living In Your Father’s Story
Praying In Real Life

The number of gems-of-wisdom that I underlined as I read this book would be far to many to even begin to excerpt in this blog.  Instead, they serve as a serious encouragement to me to re-read this book in about a month and reclaim the findings once again.  Reading a book a second time is unusual for me.  But that’s how good, deep, and helpful this book is.  Paul Miller successfully diagnoses many of the common problems we have with prayer, and offers very practical ways to overcome them.  I am tremendously encouraged by what I have learned.

I have read several commendable books this year, but this one is by far and away the best.  No matter how satisfied you think you are with your prayer life, I think this book is a MUST read.  I can’t think of another book (apart from the most obvious one) that I can say that about.

You know, we really should just give credit where credit is due.

The organization known as Sociologists for Women in Society, is a group advocating a feminist agenda, according to their own website.  I have not scoured their entire site, but I suspect (in complete fairness) that scattered around within their various initiatives, there may be a few things that are helpful to women’s causes in a very general sense.  And to the extent that is true, I applaud their efforts.

However, some of the topics they deal with in their journal “Gender & Society,” are informative (to me, at least) as to what is probably their larger motivation with respect to the feminist movement.  From their website in support of the journal, I found the following:

“Just some of the relevant, timely, and important topics covered in recent issues include:  Queer Parenting, Sexuality, and Transgenderism.”

With this in mind, it comes as no particular surprise when I read that research published by the Sociologists for Women in Society ”blames” Disney and other producers of G-Rated films for creating what they call “heteronormativity.”  Isn’t that a great word?  Researchers who are affiliated with the University of Michigan studied the highest-grossing children’s films during the period 1990-2005.  From these films, they conclude that:

Children’s films “construct heterosexuality” through “depictions of hetero-romantic love as exceptional, powerful, transformative, and magical,” and “depictions of interactions between gendered bodies in which the sexiness of feminine characters is subjected to the gaze of masculine characters.”

“Characters in love are surrounded by music, flowers, candles, magic, fire, balloons, fancy dresses, dim lights, dancing and elaborate dinners.” ”Fireflies, butterflies, sunsets, wind and the beauty and power of nature often provide the setting for – and a link to the naturalness of hetero-romantic love.”

Really, the naturalness of hetero-romantic love.  Imagine that.  Romantic love between members of the opposite sex.  I wonder who originally thought THAT up?  I would have never guessed that it was the people at Disney?

They continue: 

“Both ordinary and exceptional constructions of heterosexuality work to normalize its status because it becomes difficult to imagine anything other than this form of social relationship or anyone outside of these bonds.”

“These films provide powerful portraits of a multifaceted and pervasive heterosexuality that likely facilitates the reproduction of heteronormativity.”

On some level, this research suggests that the naturalness, or normative quality of heterosexuality is something that has been creatio ex nehilo (created out of nothing) by the imaginations of the creators and producers of these family films.  Furthermore, it almost appears that absent these films, there would be no natural or normal opposite-sex attraction that is rooted deep in the souls of the young people who watch the films.  Apart from the influence of these films, would sexual orientation just be some sort of free-for-all?

 I know it would be perhaps too much to ask, but rather than “blaming” Disney and others, the researchers should go to the source of sexuality and find out what the original, natural, and normative design was.  That is where the credit is due.  No blame is necessary.  Granted, the model was later corrupted by sin, but it remains the original, natural and normative model nonetheless.  As a hint to the researchers from the University of Michigan, it can be found in Genesis 1: 26 through Genesis 2: 25.  (That’s in the front of the Bible, by the way.)

As an aside, I wonder how much of OUR money was used through federal grants to conduct this crazy research?

HT: Tim Challies

The thin veneer of self-righteousness

Mark Sanford was one of the rising stars in the GOP .  Even as governor of South Carolina, he was making a national name for himself by rejecting Obama’s bailout money, tossed out to the states earlier this year.  And the news wags and political pundits mention his name often as a prospective candidate for the presidency in 2012. 

Clearly that changed last week after his announced 8-year relationship and affair with an Argentine woman.  Now his falling stock price is declining even further as the details come out from an Associated Press interview given today.  He confesses to having “crossed lines” with several other women, but never the “ultimate line.”  Don’t you just love that qualification?  He lays this out for us with the appearance that the even broader betrayal of his wife’s trust, not to mention the breach of the promise he made to the God he professes, are so trivial as to justify a kind of smug self-righteousness at having NOT ”crossed the sex line” on these other occasions. 

There is something narcissistic about these latest admissions.  I understand the need for confession, but I am not certain that these announcements today conform to the Biblical requirement given that I, for example, was not sinned against, yet I am now made aware of them along with the rest of the world.  Sanford had already come clean with his whereabouts when no one could reach him a week or so ago, his political career is over, and now all he is doing is piling more shame and embarassment on his wife and four young boys.  While Sanford may in some way feel some catharsis by having gotten these matters off his chest, his wife now is once again publicly humiliated by the greater degree to which her husband is known to be a philanderer.  The stomach turning nature of his admissions to the indiscretions with the other women beyond his Argentine lover might only be matched by his comment that his mistress is his “soul mate.”  BUT, he wants to fall back in love with his wife. 

Mark Sanford’s fall from “stardom” in contemporary politics has largely been by virtue of the contradiction between his squeaky-clean, devoted family-man image and the reality of an apparently pathological inclination for spousal betrayal and moral failure.  I am grateful to God for His restraining grace, that I do not share in the specific nature of Mark Sanford’s sin.  But Sanford’s good-guy outward image prior to the disclosure of his misbehavior, is a great reminder that any righteousness that WE produce and project outwardly, is nothng but a very thin veneer that covers absolutely wicked hearts and minds.

I am grateful that real righteousness has been given to me by God himself.  Not by virtue of any merit I possess.  Instead, this righteousness was awarded to me through the greatest exchange that was ever conceived, when my sins, different from Sanford’s but equally deserving of Holy judgment, were imputed (credit by transferal), to Christ’s account on the cross.  In that same exchange, Christ’s perfection, His righteousness was imputed (credit by transferal), to my account.  

The practical, day-in, day-out evidence of grace and the genuine manifestation of true righteousness in my life is still caught up in the process of progressive sanctification.  I pray that I will never experience the type of moral failure that Mark Sanford has.  But I am certain that like Sanford, I will be inclined to continue to manufacture my own thin veneer of self-righteousness to gloss over the stumbles I do have.  But by God’s grace, I am growing more and more in the image of Christ with each day, or at least that is my hope and my goal.  And I believe that is God’s goal for me as well, in Christ Jesus.

Basic Christianity

Basic Christianity is a “modern” classic I suppose.  The original edition was dated 1958, and the second (and most recent) was 1971.  The reason why I paid attention to these dates is because there were sections of the book, wherein the author, John Stott, made commentary about our modern culture, that was was, well, very contemporary.  I kept looking to see how recently the book had been edited.  I suppose a whole blog post could be devoted to the idea that our culture today is, in many ways, not appreciably different than it was in the early 1970’s.  And yet, in so many ways it is much worse.  But that, for another time.

Basic Christianity is divided into four sections or parts as Stott refers to them:  Christ’s Person; Man’s Need; Christ’s Work; and Man’s Response.  Within each part, there are two or three chapters.  This alternating style between the study of Christ and corresponding reflection on mankind, works very well as Stott lays out a VERY foundational understanding of our Christian theology and man’s response to it. 

Given the title, I give a modest amount of credit to Stott for not tipping his hand in any significant way as to his soteriological leanings, although it seemed in more than just a few instances his attempts at keeping his vernacular simple seemed to point to an obvious Arminian predisposition to the working of God’s grace in salvation and Stott’s descriptions of man’s work to ”seal the deal.”  Another complaint I have, although it does not occur too often is his use of scripture completely out of context, again seemingly to make a point, or out of an interest in using relatively simple terminology, or perhaps better said, terminology that would be familiar to anyone who had even the remotest background in the scriptures.   

The most peculiar of which was Stott’s insistence that Christ knocks at the door of all people, awaiting a response.  While I would agree that there is a general call made to all people to repent, I understand scripture to say that this proactive “knocking” by Christ is reserved for the saved elect.  Had Stott not cited Revelation 3: 20 for his use of this concept, I might have chocked it up to his trying to use nice metaphor.  But the exact context for this knocking of Christ, is to already existing believers in the Church at Laodicea, and NOT unbelievers.  In its original context, Christ is sending a message of conviction to the backsliden believers in Laodicea, who needed to step up their faithful obedience, not become saved.

This oddity and a few others aside, Basic Christianity is a good book, and its durability over the course of the last 50 years is evidence of that.  Strangely enough, and in betrayal of its title, I probably would not recommend it to someone exploring the faith because of the matters described above, but instead offer it as a good book for group discussion among more mature Christians who can discern some of the points that Stott makes from whatever theological stream he originates from, and accept or reject them based on their own more developed understanding of scripture.