Austin, Texas

I am in Austin, Texas this week for work! It's been useful and fun so far, which has been great. We had lunch at a Vietnamese restaurant today, and went to a Ben & Jerry's store on Monday - a whole store full of Ben & Jerry's ice cream! This is a picture of downtown Austin (you can see the capital building)

Today is a special day...

As it is officially the FOURTH day in a row that I have been sock-free! Go good weather!
** Note: athletic socks worn in conjunction with tennis shoes do not count in the sans-sock count

This looks like a good book

I thought this was a thoughtful quote from another book, found on the STR blog:
From A God Entranced Vision of All Things by Donald S. Whitney:

In contrast to Edwards's example, most people seem to lean one way or the other, favoring devotion or doctrine, piety or theology. But strong piety will not excuse us from the study of theology, nor will a strong theology compensate for a lack of piety. Edwards models the fact that a real understanding of the truth of God will set the heart on fire, and that the heart set on fire by God will burn with a love for learning his truth. As it was with Edwards, sometimes the things of God should appear so beautiful to our minds that we can't help but study and meditate on them and so ravish our hearts that we want to weep or sing (p. 128).

Good Music

I don't think I have ever made a post about music. But we sang such a rousing tune at church this morning, I had to recommend it: "Look What the Lord has Done"

And while I'm at it, I will recommend a song I didn't think I would like, but really really do:

"Brand New Day" by Van Morrison
(It made me think of Heaven and redemption, thank you Mr. Morrison)

And I guess I have liked Sam Cooke for a long time, too, but just didn't know the artist's name. A few favorites:

"Wonderful Day"
"Chain Gang"
"Twistin' the Night Away"

Bible Verses No One "Claims"

I came across this in my lunchtime reading, I thought it was interesting:
From: http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2007/03/bible_verses_no.html
Bible Verses No One "Claims"
It seems virtually every sermon I hear in Evangelical churches these days does violence to the text. Verses taken out of context, conveniently lifted to serve some point the speaker is trying to make.

But what we never see is Evangelicals doing violence to the imprecatory Psalms by taking them out of context. Why? Probably because these Psalms are so violent.

Imagine hearing a typical pastor preach in topical style. He focuses on lots of single verses spanning thousands of years, different cultures, and different literary genres and links them to points not flowing directly from the text. But this Sunday, instead of focusing on nice verses like II Chron. 7:14, Phil. 1:6, and Jer. 29:11, he focuses on four phrases from Psalm 109:

"Let another take his office." (v. 8a)
"Let his children be fatherless and his wife a widow." (v. 9)
"Let the iniquity of his fathers be remembered before the LORD." (v. 14a)
"And let strangers plunder the product of his labor." (v. 11b)

He then gets to the point of his sermon: we should hope and pray for harm to come to neighbors that offend us.
Why would this never happen? Sure, few people see even the whole Psalm taken in context as worthy of our sermon time, but that's beside the point. The reason none of us takes these verses out of context is because we are motivated by the graphic nature of the text to take it seriously, to consider the author's intent, the genre, the historical context. When reading phrases like these, we also reflect on the whole counsel of Scripture and remember that God is loving, gracious, kind, and just. We know God cannot sponsor indiscriminate killing or an evil intent of the heart. We rightly seek to relate these phrases to the larger context of Scripture. In other words, we are doing good Bible study.

So why is it so easy to leave these verses in their context but it's so hard not to take the nice verses out of context? I suggest that we are both lazy and prone to fantasy. We're lazy because we'd rather not do the hard work of interpretation every time we sit down to read the text. And we fantasize that God wants all of the nice Scriptures about blessing and good things to apply to us.

In addition to laziness and fantasy, we also have allowed our reverence for Scripture to lead us to believe that we need a Scripture verse to back up any idea we have. When we can't find the idea we need pre-packaged in the text, we force it into a package ourselves, lifting it out of its context, feeling very sure we are honoring God by honoring Scripture.

But we’re not. We're getting messages God didn't intend. And if we're the ones preaching, many times we're teaching bad Bible study methods, too.

Here's a crazy idea. If we want to say something to our congregations that the text doesn't say within its context, let's follow Paul's example (I Cor. 7) and clarify that we are simply speaking from our own mind. There's nothing wrong with this. In fact, we're already doing it every Sunday. Let's just be honest that we're giving people a piece of our own minds and not necessarily a piece of God's.

(Want to do better Bible study? Greg Koukl's article "Never Read a Bible Verse" treats the topic of this blog more completely and explains a very practical tool called the "paraphrase test." Sign up for Solid Ground to receive "Never Read a Bible Verse" free, along with free training material every month!)

Article: Church Membership

I have been thinking about church membership a lot lately (I have never been a member of a church before), and found this really helpful and interesting.

From: http://www.boundless.org/2005/articles/a0001460.cfm
Common Law Church by Suzanne Hadley
You've been answering questions for nearly an hour. In front of you sit five men wearing suits. They are friendly — excited even — but intent. You've signed the papers and presented your case, laying your history and reputation on the line. If this round goes well, in a few weeks' time you will stand before a crowd of 500. After the specifics of your character and qualifications are proclaimed, the crowd will vote on your suitability for the position. Majority rules.

Think you're at a job interview? An audition for the Apprentice? Seeking nomination to candidacy before the caucus? Not even close. You're on your way to becoming a member of Capitol Hill Baptist Church.

Members Only
While the term "membership" may call to mind grandparents who weathered 50 plus years in the same pew, a majority of the members at Capitol Hill Baptist Church located in Washington, D.C., are under 35.

When senior pastor Mark Dever preached his first sermon at CHBC in October of 1994, the church had 130 members — most of them in their 70s and 80s. Today, the church is thriving with nearly 550 members of all ages and 800 in attendance on Sunday mornings.

How did Dever accomplish the envious task of attracting Capitol Hill's young and influential? Not through slick programming or a coffee shop atmosphere. "By God's grace," Dever says, "through the singing of old hymns and the preaching of hour-long expositional sermons, young people started coming. Strangely enough." And don't forget membership.

Visit CHBC's Web site, and you will see a "How to Join" button. Membership is clearly a priority. Reading through the requirements for membership — the confession of conversion, the signing of a doctrinal statement and covenant, an interview with the pastor and elders, a voting in at the members' meeting — one might bristle at the seeming exclusivity. The process seems formal and calculated. Judgmental even.

But spend a few minutes talking with 47-year-old Dever, and his passion for the value of such a process becomes clear. "There are a lot of churches you can go to where your Christianity is still a very private affair," Dever says. "I don't think church is supposed to be like that."

Dever, author of Nine Marks of a Healthy Church and executive director of 9Marks Ministries, believes church membership is a biblical mandate. Without the establishment of a covenant, he points out, how can a church enact the command to break fellowship with an unrepentant sinner?

"We have to realize it's possible for us to deceive ourselves," Dever says. As an example, he cites the circumstances recorded in 1 Corinthians 5, where a man who was in the church was sleeping with his father's wife.

"That guy clearly thought he was a Christian," Dever says. "How is he supposed to know he's not unless the church is part of it?" This provides support for church membership, because, according to the 9Marks Ministries Web site, "Formal exclusion presupposes formal inclusion."

A church's responsibility to its members doesn't end with accountability and discipline, Dever points out. It must also provide an environment that encourages, celebrates, instructs and loves.

Till Death Do Us Part?
During college, I joined a large Bible church in Portland, Ore. I needed ministry credit, and teaching Sunday school at this church required that I become a member. I filled out an application, and after a 10-minute meeting with one of the elders, my member status was official.

I taught fourth-grade Sunday school at the church for two years. Because the church had thousands of members, the only person who really knew me was the Sunday school superintendent, who met with me monthly. At the end of my service, I graduated from college and moved away. I called the church and explained that I would no longer be a member due to geographic location.

Though I've lived in Colorado for six years, my parents continue to receive mail from this church. After repeated attempts to dis-member myself, I finally gave up. As a result, I viewed membership as an exercise, involving the signing of a doctrinal statement and indelible induction into a database.

Naturally, when I moved to Colorado, I opted out of membership at my new church. Still, I attended every Sunday, gave 10 percent of my income, served on the leadership team, led a small group and started a drama ministry. Because I was actively involved in the church, I saw no reason to become a member.

Common Law Church
There's a prevalent sentiment that a marriage certificate is "just a piece of paper" and far less important than the love and commitment between two people. A similar feeling has invaded our thinking regarding the church. If I'm already participating fully in the church I'm attending, I may wonder at the value of signing a piece of paper to make it "official." My relationship with my church effectively becomes like a common law marriage; I'm living the commitment minus the binding contract.

Dever explains that certain benefits, as well as expectations, accompany formal membership that can come by no other means. At CHBC, the member signs a covenant that he will attend Sunday morning service (he is also asked, but not required, to attend prayer meeting on Sunday night), give 10 percent of his income to the church, attend members meetings to vote on church business, be present for communion and pray daily for other members. "We ask them to pray through a page of the membership directory a day," Dever says.

In return, the church body commits to providing the member with accountability, financial help, prayer support, biblical teaching and training in evangelism. An additional benefit for the member is being known and nurtured by the pastors, elders and fellow members. Maybe it is this "belonging" that attracts young adults, the least loyal of all church attendees, to membership.

A Place to Call Home
Ellison Research recently discovered some troubling statistics regarding church loyalty. Out of all churchgoers, 13 percent have been attending their current congregation for less than a year with an additional 16 percent attending for less than two. One-third of all churchgoers expressed that they were not certain they would continue to attend the same church in the near future. Not surprisingly, those under 30 were most likely to abandon their current churches.

Working within the biblical metaphor of the church as a body, imagine the damage done as the body is disassembled each year and put back together with different members. A body performs best when its parts hold solidly together, perfecting the performance of each muscle and joint. Athletes rely on muscle memory and endurance gained through years of strategic workouts. If church attendees are arms and legs, perhaps membership is the ligaments.

Because young adults are more likely than older generations to have attended multiple congregations in their lives — and less likely to pursue membership — it is possible that they have never experienced a properly functioning body.

"One of the things I'm concerned about with the younger generations is that there's a lack — more than a lack — a deep reluctance to commit themselves to groups," Dever says. "I'm scared if we don't [commit to the church], then all our Christianity could be just a sham or a fake."

Without a binding contract that ensures accountability and service, Dever says, church can become, for young people, merely a place to hang out with friends.

"When you join a local church, you can be loving people who are 90 and loving people who are kids. Loving all kinds of people — that's more what it looks like to love Jesus, I think."

The success of the membership model at CHBC is unlikely given statistics — particularly in the transient community of Capitol Hill. But perhaps it proves that the demographic least loyal to church is most seeking something worth committing to. Dever is convinced the covenant relationship found in membership is the key.

"Find a good church," he says, "and you're going to have the time of your life."
Copyright © 2007 Suzanne Hadley. All rights reserved. International copyright secured.

Embarassing Moment of the Day

I thought I would depict my experience artistically. The first picture is what our driveway looked like before I tried to leave for work. (The green car is mine)

This picture is what our driveway looked like about 20 minutes after I tried to leave for work. 2 roomates + strong neighbor man with sand = picture #1 again after a couple minutes.

I have never been very good at backing up, but this was embarrasing :)

Have you ever wondered about the accuracy of internet weather forecasts?

Wonder no longer! Someone has already thoroughly researched this:

http://www.omninerd.com/2007/02/08/articles/69

The fine people at Boundless have done it again...

http://www.boundlessline.org/2007/02/the_circus_ring.html

For dark-beer lovers: God hates light beer?

"Wash yourselves. Cleanse yourselves.Remove your evil deeds from My sight.Stop doing evil...Your silver has become dross,your beer is diluted with water." -Isaiah 1:16,22

From: http://www.brettmaxwell.com/2007/02/god-hates-light-beer.html

I am excited about this:

This is a survey a website put together about modesty. I think it is a good effort and look forward to the results. I have often found that men and women have different views on "what is modest" and as a woman with a lack of husband/brother/male relative figure, it is a confusing topic at times.

A new site to read

Since http://purgatorio1.com/ has gone on hiatus, it's nice to know someone else is promoting satire: http://tominthebox.blogspot.com/

My Favorite Puritan Names

I cannot guarantee the accuracy of my findings, but if they are true, it's pretty great:
http://www.gaminggeeks.org/Resources/KateMonk/England-Medieval/Puritan.htm

My favorites:
Diffidence, Discipline, Dust
Fly-fornication, Kill-sin, Weep-not, Love-well

Troubled with a "DTR" (Define the Relationship)? Take the test!

It's disappointing that this is necessary - and interesting - and funny - all at the same time. I think they have good motives, but I still think it's kind of funny:

http://www.boundless.org/dtr/

Funny!

http://tominthebox.blogspot.com/2007/01/net-finney-guards-families-against.html

Book Quote

I have been reading some old children's books, and this little bit made me glad:

"Are you a sinner?"
"We are all sinners, Eric. The bigger the man, the bigger the sinner, I believe. Yes, I'm a pretty big sinner, I expect."
"I'm so glad," said Eric, cheerfully. "Then Jesus died for you and me. I don't quite know what that means; but it is something good, didn't you say?"

From Eric's Good News in "A Collection of Fireside Readings"

"Speak of the Devil"

I was at a meeting at work today and someone was being talked about, and they suddenly walked in! Someone said "speak of the devil!" and I have heard of that before, but thanks to Forrest, I thought I would look up the origins of this rather scandalous phrase:

From http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/speak-of-the-devil.html

This phrase is used to acknowledge the coincidence of someone arriving at a scene just at the time that they are being talked about. Clearly, nothing sinister is implied by this and it is just a jokey way of referring to the person's appearance. In fact, many people using the phrase might not be aware that, prior to the 20th century, the term wasn't meant lightheartedly at all. The full form goes like this - "speak of the Devil and he will appear". The phrase originated in England, where it was, and still is, more often given as 'talk of the Devil'.
The phrase is old and appears in various Latin and Old English texts from the 16th century. The Italian writer Giovanni Torriano has the first recorded version in contemporary English, in 'Piazza Universale', 1666:
"The English say, Talk of the Devil, and he's presently at your elbow."
Also, in 'Cataplus, a mock Poem', 1672 - re-printed in Hazlitt's Proverbs
"Talk of the Devil, and see his horns."
These both imply that the term was widely known by the mid-17th century. It enshrined the superstitious belief that it was dangerous to mention the Devil by name. This prohibition was strong, like the prohibition on speaking the name of God. The numerous synonyms for the Devil - Old Nick, Prince of Darkness, the Horned One etc. are no doubt a consequence of this.
People may not have believed that the mention of the Devil would cause him to actually appear. Shakespeare, for example, uses the term quite often. In The Comedy or Errors:
"Marry, he must have a long spoon that must eat with the devil."
Nevertheless, an open reference to the Devil or the occult was considered, at the very least, unlucky and best avoided. This belief was reinforced by the clergy. Richard Chenevix Trench, Dean of Westminster, 1856-63, wrote:
"'Talk of the devil and he is bound to appear' contains a very needful warning against curiosity about evil."
The original phrase began to lose its power during the 19th century. By then it began to appear as a homily warning against eavesdropping, as here from the Stevens Point Journal, Wisconsin, February 1892:
"No good of himself does a listener hear,Speak of the devil he's sure to appear"
The migration away from anything sinister, or even serious, continued when the phrase was taken up as an Ozzy Osbourne album title. The record company did hold with literary tradition though, by issuing it as 'Talk of the Devil' in the UK.

Funny & Rather Right-On

http://manspeak.wordpress.com/2007/01/23/women-arent-men/

Go ESV Bible People...again

Fun, interesting AND useful!

http://www.esv.org/blog/2007/01/mapping.nt.social.networks

My new dream kitchen appliance

http://www.willitblend.com/ - the demonstrations are quite powerful.

Funny Story

So I get to work today and find out my clothes don't match :( at all :(  Go fem-gineer style!  It doesn't really matter though, but I thought it was funny.

Also, I thought this was super cool!!  http://www.biblemap.org/

New Reality Show Idea

From Tim Challies: http://www.challies.com/archives/002260.php - heehee!

Mooo-ving...

I moved most of my things tonight to my new home (just a couple miles away from current home) - wow do I have a lot of things! (I will be sending out a "I moved!" email soon) Isn't it amazing that many (most?) people in the world probably "own" less than a boxful of stuff, and I have boxes upon boxes of things just for ME - very crazy.

Happy New Year!

Here is a picture of my "happy new year" cheese ball - isn't it silly?

Funny picture from Yahoo mail!

This is cool!

Check this out for your 2007 Bible reading plan, courtesy of the fine ESV folks:

http://www.esv.org/blog/2006/12/visualize.reading.plans

Helpful tips for airplane-traveling Ninjas this weekend:

Current list of martial arts and self-defense items allowed on a plane:

UPDATE: Snow globes regardless of size or amount of liquid inside, even with documentation, are prohibited in your carry-on. Please ship these items or pack them in your checked baggage.

From : http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/prohibited/permitted-prohibited-items.shtm#8

	Carry-on	Checked
Billy Clubs	No	Yes
Black Jacks	No	Yes
Brass Knuckles	No	Yes
Kubatons	No	Yes
Mace/Pepper Spray - One 118 ml or 4 Fl. oz. container of mace or pepper spray is permitted in checked baggage provided it is equipped with a safety mechanism to prevent accidental discharge. For more information visit www.faa.gov., click on Passengers, then Preparing to Fly.	No	Yes
Martial Arts Weapons	No	Yes
Night Sticks	No	Yes
Nunchakus	No	Yes
Stun Guns/Shocking Devices	No	Yes
Throwing Stars	No	Yes
NOTE: Any sharp objects in checked baggage should be sheathed or securely wrapped to prevent injury to baggage handlers and Security Officers.

Divorce and Remarriage

I found this (and the previous article I posted a while ago) a few years ago but just re-read it recently. I find it really interesting, because it's not something I have thought about a lot (Biblical study of divorce & remarriage), but there is quite a lot of divorce in my family, so it's good to revisit and think about, for me. What do you think, o 3 or 4 readers of mine? :) Side note: Who would have ever thought that my readership would have quadrupled in a year or so!

http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/TopicIndex/135/1543_A_Statement_on_Divorce_and_Remarriage_in_the_Life_of_Bethlehem_Baptist_Church/

A Statement on Divorce & Remarriage in the Life of Bethlehem Baptist Church

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By John Piper May 2, 1989
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This statement on divorce and remarriage is the product of several years of study and discussion by the Council of Deacons of Bethlehem Baptist Church. The final approval of its present form was given May 2, 1989. It should be read as the official statement of the ruling Council of the church beneath the authority of Christ and the congregation. While there are aspects of this statement that some deacons and pastors do not hold as personal convictions, we all assent to this statement being the church guide for membership and discipline. Ideally it should be read in connection with the paper, The Meaning of Membership and Church Accountability.

Part 1
Introduction
Divorce is painful. It is emotionally more wrenching than the death of a spouse. It is often long years in coming and long years in the settlement and in the adjustment. The upheaval of life is immeasurable. The sense of failure and guilt and fear torture the soul. Like the psalmist, night after night a spouse falls asleep with tears. Work performance is hindered. People draw near or withdraw with uncertain feelings. Loneliness can be overwhelming. A sense of devastated future can be all consuming. Courtroom controversy compounds the personal misery.

And then there is often the agonizing place of children. Parents hope against hope that the scars will not cripple them or ruin their own marriages some day. Tensions over custody and financial support deepen the wounds of years. And then the awkward and artificial visitation rights can lengthen the tragedy over decades.

Because of these and many other factors people with sensitive hearts weep with those who weep. They try not to increase the pain. And sometimes this care is confused with compromise. People think that loving care is incompatible with confrontation—that the tenderness of Jesus and the toughness of his demands can't both be love. But surely this is not right.

Jesus was an extraordinarily caring person. His teaching on divorce and remarriage was also firm: "What God has joined together let not man put asunder" (Mark 10:9). In fact firm and loving confrontation with the demands of Christ IS a form of caring, because a sinful decision is just as harmful to a person as the emotional pain.

The great challenge to the church in the face of divorce and remarriage is to love Biblically. John wrote, "By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and obey his commandments" (1 John 5:2). In other words, the test of true love to people is not only the feeling of compassion in the heart but also conformity to the commandments of God in behavior. The great challenge is to mingle the tears of compassion with the tough love of obedience. This alone will honor Christ and preserve the spiritual health and power of the church.

Why Is there a Special Concern with Divorce and Remarriage?
There are at least nine reasons for devoting a special position paper to this issue.

1. People who come to Bethlehem want to know where we stand on this issue.

2. Inside the church people need clarification about where the leadership of the church stands and what the church position is.

3. Divorce involves sin that is more destructive than many others. The hurtful impact of a broken marriage on the spouses and the children and the web of relationships surrounding the marriage is immense.

4. Divorce is thrown into the public limelight by the recognition in our society that it must be handled by the civil courts.

5. Marriage, divorce and remarriage involve the mingling of solemn oaths and sacred physical union unlike any other relationship.

6. Marriage is unique among all relationships in that it is set apart by God to signify to the world the relationship between his Son and his bride the church (Eph. 5:21-33). Therefore the breaking of this bond is extraordinary among all human bonds.

7. Divorce falls into that group of acts which when they are committed are very hard to undo. The words, "I'm sorry," can make right many sins against another person. But divorce and remarriage cannot be made right like that.

8. Divorce happens by plan and intention of one or both spouses. It is not like a habit against which one struggles with successes and failures.

9. Divorce has reached epidemic proportions in our culture to the extent that even secular leaders are groping for a place to stand that may preserve the stability of the home.

Is Divorce or Remarriage the Unforgivable Sin?
When divorce begins to be discussed in this way it is common for someone to ask whether divorce is the unforgivable sin. The answer is found in the following texts.

"Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins" (Hebrews 9:22).

"(Jesus said) this is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the forgiveness of sins" (Matthew 26:28).

"Every one who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name" (Acts 10:43).

"All sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter; but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin" (Mark 3:28f.).

"Let the wicked man forsake his way and the unrighteous man his thoughts; let him return to the Lord, that he may have mercy on him, and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon" (Isaiah 55:7).

"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1 John 1:9).

From these wonderful promises we learn that forgiveness for sins is available on the basis of the shed blood of Jesus. Forgiveness is available for all sins, without exception. Forgiveness is received freely through trusting Christ. And trusting Christ involves confessing sin as sin and turning away from it to embrace the ways of God with joy.

The only unforgivable sin is the sin that we refuse to confess and forsake. We commit unforgivable sin when we cleave to a sin so long and so tenaciously that we can no longer confess it as sin and turn from it. The blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (Matthew 12:31f)is the resistance of his convicting work to the point where he withdraws, leaving the sinner in helpless hardness of heart.

Neither divorce nor remarriage is in itself the unforgivable sin any more than murder, stealing, lying or coveting. "All sins will be forgiven the sons of men." God is faithful and just to forgive—he will honor the worth of his Son's sacrifice for all who confess their sin and bank their hope on the saving work of Christ.

Forgiveness is NOT unconditional. It is conditional. This does not mean it can be earned. It means forgiveness is given to those who truly trust Christ. Trust is not an act by which anything can be earned. It calls attention to the worth of God's grace, not the worth of our action. But trust is not mere intellectual assent to Biblical facts. It involves hearty affirmation of the will of Christ. Therefore trusting Christ involves confessing sin as sin and taking up arms against it.

Therefore the ultimate form of church discipline (excommunication) is never a simple response to past sin. It is always a response to sin that a person continues to affirm or practice. No past sin that is renounced, confessed and forsaken is a ground of church discipline.

Therefore marital sin is in the same category as lying and killing and stealing when it comes to church discipline and church membership. If someone has lied, killed, stolen, or illegitimately divorced, the issue is not, can they be forgiven? The issue is do they admit that what they did was sin? Do they renounce it? And do they do what they can to make it right?

If a person in the church was known to affirm lying, killing or stealing as appropriate behavior for a Christian, that person would be liable to the discipline of the church. Not because they have lied, killed or stolen in the past and cannot be forgiven, but because they go on affirming NOW that sin is not sin.

Or if a person was openly planning to lie, kill or steal with a view to receiving (cheap!) forgiveness afterward, that person too would be liable to church discipline.

In all these ways illegitimate divorce and remarriage are NOT in a class by themselves. They are not the unforgivable sin. When it comes to church discipline and church membership they should be treated the same way other public sins are treated.

What makes divorce and remarriage seem to be a special matter of concern in the church is that very seldom does someone affirm the rightness of lying, killing, and stealing. But people often affirm the rightness of divorce and remarriage.

In other words what usually causes the conflict is not whether divorce and remarriage are unforgivable sins, but whether they are sins at all —to be confessed (from the past) and to be avoided (in the future).

If a person has stolen things in his past and wants to join the church, no one would say that we are treating stealing as the unforgivable sin if we insist that this person confess his sin and begin to make amends to those he defrauded. A sin is not unforgivable because it must be confessed as sin, renounced as an option, and its effects made right (as far as possible).

So it is with illegitimate divorce or remarriage. It should not keep anyone out of the church nor put anyone out of the church any more than a past life of robbery. But there must be a heartfelt confession of the sin committed and a renouncing of it and an affirming of what is right, just as with all other sins of the past.

When we affirm the church covenant we are not only affirming what we pledge to do. We are also affirming what we believe ought to be done. In other words church membership is a commitment to hold in common convictions about what is right and wrong in behavior (Church Covenant) as well as in doctrine (Affirmation of Faith). Without this shared conviction the possibility of holding each other accountable is gone.

So the decisive issue concerning divorce and remarriage at Bethlehem is what we can agree on from the Scripture is right and wrong. Is there a Biblically legitimate divorce and remarriage which is not sin and so does not need to be confessed or avoided? If so what are the circumstances that define it?

Diversity of Viewpoints in Bethlehem and the Wider Church
Among the membership of Bethlehem in 1989 complete unanimity does not exist concerning the question what divorces and what remarriages are Biblically permissible. This lack of unanimity is a reflection of the evangelical church worldwide.

Devout evangelical Biblical scholars disagree. John Murray has written a standard work on the topic called Divorce, (Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed Pub. Co., 1961). In this book he defends the view that divorce and remarriage are Biblically permitted when a partner is adulterous or when a partner deserts willfully and irremediably.

On the other side William Heth and Gordon Wenham have written a book called Jesus and Divorce (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1984). They defend the position that while divorce may at times be unavoidable, all remarriage while the partners are living is wrong. There are many other books on both sides. [1]

This contemporary lack of agreement among evangelical Christians also reflects historic positions that have been taken for centuries. The historic protestant position that John Murray was defending was enshrined in the Westminster Confession of 1647. The pertinent part reads like this:

In case of adultery after marriage, it is lawful for the innocent party to sue out a divorce, and after the divorce to marry another, as if the offending party were dead. (Article 24, paragraph 5) [2]

Interestingly, when the Baptists of England adapted the Westminster Confession to their own use in the Second London Confession of 1689 this paragraph permitting divorce and remarriage was deleted from the section on marriage. [3]

Even more startling and convicting is the following fact: "In the first five centuries (among Christians) all Greek writers and all Latin writers except one agree that remarriage following divorce for any reason is adulterous. The marriage bond was seen to unite both parties until the death of one of them." [4]

This is all the more startling in view of the fact that both the Jewish and Roman culture of the time allowed divorce with remarriage. The followers of Jesus stood over against this culture with their radical prohibition of remarriage. In spite of this extraordinarily high, counter-cultural standard the church grew like wildfire for 400 years.

Many of those in leadership at Bethlehem share this early Christian consensus that remarriage after divorce is wrong while the spouses are still living. Pastor Piper's efforts to understand the Biblical teaching on divorce and remarriage led him to this conclusion some years ago. [5] While he does not count this view the normative one for the staff, deacons or church, it is the guideline for his own counsel, preaching and performance of weddings. The same freedom of conscience applies to each of the other pastors as well.

If we are to be a Biblical church—a church with mutual accountability and proper discipline—the question that must be faced is, what convictions concerning divorce and remarriage can we agree as a church to make the foundation of our accountability and discipline?

When the Church Covenant binds every member to be "faithful in our engagements" and to "sustain (the church's) worship, ordinances and discipline," what will we understand as faithfulness in the engagement of marriage vows?

Church discipline cannot be based on the convictions of a pastor or of a small group of leaders. The Bible says that a matter of discipline is to be taken "to the church" (Matthew 18:17). This means that under the Lord the church is the final court of appeal in all church discipline. This is only possible if the leadership and the church are largely in agreement on the matter at hand.

No one in leadership can be asked to act against his conscience (Romans 14). Therefore each pastor will teach and counsel and perform marriages according to his personal conviction within the parameters of this statement. But when it comes to church membership and church discipline we must find a level of expectation for marital relations that we can agree no member of Bethlehem may violate while remaining a member in good standing.

In other words what we need is a statement of the kind of divorce and remarriage which the church, as a concerned and responsible body, will regard as clearly outside the Biblical limits of what is acceptable.

Let it be made clear again what was said above: there is NO past divorce or remarriage that in itself brings church discipline. None of the divorced and remarried members of Bethlehem will automatically come under discipline because their divorce or remarriage falls in a category which this statement declares to be unbiblical. An expression of genuine repentance for the sin involved is all that is needed to settle the matter and make a person a member in good standing.

Even if a person is already a member of Bethlehem and finds himself or herself among a small minority that cannot affirm even the minimal expectations of this statement, they will not be disciplined or excluded from membership for that reason, because they joined the church during a time when these expectations were not made known to them. Our prayer is that all divorced and remarried brothers and sisters will gladly affirm this statement either because they believe their situation was Biblically legitimate, or because they now see that it was not, and are genuinely repentant as they look back.

Part 2
Statement of Guidelines for Mutual Accountability
Marriage is a human relationship ordained and instituted by God (Malachi 2:14-16). [6] His original design was one man and one woman united by covenant and sexual union for life (Genesis 2:23-4). The relationship was a mystery in that it set forth symbolically in physical form the relationship between himself and his people (Eph. 5:21-33; Isaiah 54:5; Hosea 2:14-23; Ezekiel 16; Jeremiah 3:20). Therefore God hates divorce for what it does to people and for what it does to the glory of his own covenant with the church.

Nevertheless, because of the deceit and power of sin and because of the remnants of corruption in our own hearts, divorce still happens in the lives of some Christians. A mature and spiritual Christian may be forsaken by a disobedient or unbelieving spouse. Two professing believers may drift so far from the Lord that they no longer acknowledge in their hearts the authority of the Lord Jesus or the binding nature of their marriage covenant.

The church, as a spiritual family with radical commitment to Christ and earnest love for each other, should be ready to minister forgiveness, healing, reproof, discipline, correction and restoration wherever appropriate to its members. General guidelines for our life together are found in the Church Covenant and the Church By-Laws, and are explained in the paper entitled "THE MEANING OF MEMBERSHIP AND ACCOUNTABILITY IN BETHLEHEM BAPTIST CHURCH." Specific guidelines are needed regarding divorce and remarriage, and these are given below.

The following guidelines should be read in the light and spirit of the preceding introductory pages.

They should be read with the constant awareness that for many of us in the church they represent a minimum expectation for Christians and a weakening of Biblical standards. Even those of us who affirm them as entirely Biblical can imagine a married couple, previously held back from a divorce by the conviction that it would be contrary to Scripture, now going ahead with it because they can see an "out" in one of the statements below. None of us wants these guidelines to encourage divorce or weaken the commitment God means for us to have to our marriage covenant.

To encourage this kind of sensitive reading and careful application of the following statements we will expand on the statements with words that bring out the differences among us. In this way we will avoid giving the impression that all the statements are put forth as ideal positions.

The Guidelines
1. A believer and unbeliever should not marry (1 Cor. 7:39; 2 Cor. 6:14-15).

2. Since death breaks the marriage bond (Rom. 7:2-3; 1 Cor. 7:39), remarriage is permissible without sin for a believing widow or widower, if the marriage is with another believer.

3. Divorce may be permitted when a spouse deserts the relationship, commits adultery, or is dangerously abusive (1 Cor. 7:15; Matthew 19:9; 1 Cor. 7:11). [7] We are not here dealing with remarriage (see #4 and #5). We simply acknowledge that there are times when the Bible permits separation.

Some of us want to stress that "divorce" in this statement should not imply a decisive and permanent end to the relationship while the spouses are alive and not remarried. Even after long periods of separation and alienation reconciliation can happen, as when the people of God return to the Lord after periods of waywardness (Hosea 2:14-23). Others of us want to stress that decisive divorce in certain cases is permitted, and that this leaves the deserted, or abused spouse free to remarry (see #5).

We all want to emphasize that the phrase "may be permitted" holds out the possibility that inquiry may reveal that the deserted partner engaged in a wrong behavior that drove the other away, so that a change is called for at home rather than divorce.

In addition we all want to stress that forgiveness and reconciliation between sinning spouses is preferable to separation or divorce even where adultery has occurred. This is implied in Matthew 18:21-22, "Then Peter came and said to Jesus, 'Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him?" Jesus said to him, 'I do not say to you seven times, but seventy times seven.'" (See Luke 17:3-4)

4. The remarriage of the aggrieving, divorced spouse may be viewed as severing the former marriage so that the unmarried spouse whose behavior did not biblically justify being divorced, may be free to remarry a believer (Matthew 19:9), if he or she has confessed all known sin in the divorce, and has made significant progress in overcoming any destructive behaviors and attitudes.

Recognizing the honest and devout differences of conviction in the church, those of us with more limiting standards for remarriage consent at this point not to make them normative for the whole body. Others of us, who regard this fourth statement as fully Biblical, respect those among us with a more limiting interpretation and do not require or expect them to act in any way against their consciences in attending, supporting or performing enactments of marriage they regard as contrary to Scripture.

All of us urge every member who contemplates remarriage to struggle in prayer and study with all the relevant Scriptures, with the sole aim of glorifying God through full obedience to his word. Consider fairly the arguments against remarriage and those for it.

Moreover we want to affirm the goodness and beauty of a life of singleness in God's service both before marriage and after marriage. It is commended in 1 Corinthians 7:7,11,32-35, and elevated by the examples of Jesus and Paul and hundreds of great single saints.

5. After serious efforts have been made toward reconciliation the aggrieved partners referred to in guideline #3 may, together with the leadership of the church, come to regard their marriages as irreparably broken. In such cases remarriage may be a legitimate step, if taken with serious reckoning that this cuts off all possibility of a reconciliation that God may yet be willing to produce.

This guideline is for some of us the hardest concession to make. Remarriage after a divorced spouse marries again (see #4) at least has in its favor that the possibility of reconciliation was decisively cut off before. But while the spouse is still unmarried and alive reconciliation is still Biblically possible. This makes it very hard for some of us to condone a step that decisively cuts asunder what God meant to be permanent and which could yet be permanent (1 Corinthians 7:10-11).

Others of us believe that 1 Corinthians 7:15 ("If the unbelieving partner desires to separate, let it be so, in such a case the brother or sister is not bound.") gives freedom to a Christian to remarry if abandoned. We also believe that denying remarriage puts an unwarranted strain on the chastity of the divorced person who may not believe he or she has the gift of celibacy (1 Corinthians 7:7).

But we all agree that serious efforts should be made at reconciliation, including the intervention of the church if necessary, before any aggrieved spouse is resigned to singleness or is free to remarry.

6. The aggrieving partners referred to in #3 (who were guilty of abandonment, adultery or abuse) should repent and be reconciled to God and to their spouses (1 Corinthians 7:11; 1 John 1:9). If it is too late because their spouses have remarried, then they should remain single because they left their first marriage without Biblical warrant (Matthew 19:9; Luke 16:18; 1 Corinthians 7:11).

7. If a second marriage ends in death or divorce, the widow or widower in this case is not permitted to return to the first spouse in marriage (Deut. 24:1-4).

8. Persons remarried after divorce will forego positions of official leadership at Bethlehem which correspond to the role of elders or deacons (1 Tim. 3:2, 12).

9. The amount of time that has passed and the change in standing from unbeliever to believer does not alter the application of the guidelines for divorce and remarriage (See Matthew 19:4-6 which highlights the fact that enduring marriages are part of God's plan for all his human creation, not just his redeemed people.)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] For example, on the side of leniency toward remarriage there is Larry Richards, Remarriage: A Healing Gift from God (Waco: Word Books, 1981); and on the more rigorous side there is J. Carl Laney, The Divorce Myth (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1981); and Geoffrey W. Bromiley, God and Marriage (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1980).

[2] Found in Philip Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, vol. 3, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1977), p. 656.

[3] See William Lumpkin, ed. Baptist Confessions of Faith (Valley Forge: Judson Press, 1959), pp. 284-5.

[4] The evidence for this is compiled in Heth and Wenham, Jesus and Divorce, pp. 19-44. The quote is taken from p. 22. Some of the writers in view are Hermas, Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Theophilus of Antioch, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origin, Tertullian, Basil of Caesarea, Gregory Nazianzsus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, John Chrysostom, Ambrose, Jerome, etc. The one exception was Ambrosiaster.

[5] The summary of that study can be read in "DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE: A Position Paper" (July 21, 1986) in the church office files. Also Tom Schreiner, a church member and Sunday School teacher at Bethlehem, and a professor at Bethel Seminary came to the same conclusion independently. His study is entitled "DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE: BIBLICAL AND PASTORAL CONSIDERATIONS."

[6] "The Lord has been a witness between you and the wife of your youth, against whom you have dealt treacherously, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant. But not one has done so who has a remnant of the Spirit. Take heed then, to your spirit, and let no one deal treacherously against the wife of your youth. For I hate divorce" says the Lord, the God of Israel, "and him who covers his garment with wrong," says the Lord of Hosts. "So take heed to your spirit, that you do not deal treacherously."

[7] Note: Not all of us would want to use Matthew 19:9 as a support for this statement, since we believe the "exception clause" in this verse ("except for unchastity") refers to fornication not adultery, and is meant to exonerate those, like Joseph in Matthew 1:19, who break a betrothal because of unfaithfulness. Others of us believe it refers to adultery in marriage and is meant to exonerate those who divorce and remarry after a spouse has been impenitently unfaithful.

Topics for Conversation When a Man and a Woman Are Considering Marriage to Each Other

I thought this was a really interesting little article.  Maybe this is what people do in premarital counseling, but I found to be pretty comprehensive.  And it seems like one should want to answer many of these questions well before you consider marriage to someone.   But I have been known to be uber-practical... :)  Coming soon...John Piper's writings on divorce & remarriage, stay tuned!!

Topics for Conversation When a Man and a Woman Are Considering Marriage to Each Other

---

By John Piper January 1, 1995

---

In each of these sections one item could be added that I have not listed, namely, How do you handle and live with differences? How do you decide what can remain differences without jeopardizing the relationship? So as you deal with each subheading, include that in the discussion.

Theology

• What do you believe about . . . everything?
• Perhaps read through the Bethlehem Baptist Church Elder Affirmation of Faith to see where each other is on various biblical doctrines.
• Discover how you form your views. What is the reasoning-believing process? How do you handle the Bible?

Worship and Devotion

• How important is corporate worship? Other participation in church life?
• How important is it to be part of a small accountability/support group?
• What is the importance of music in life and worship?
• What are your daily personal devotional practices? Prayer, reading, meditation, memorization.
• What would our family devotions look like? Who leads out in this?
• Are we doing this now in an appropriate way: praying together about our lives and future, reading the Bible together?

Husband and Wife

• What is the meaning of headship and submission in the Bible and in our marriage?
• What are expectations about situations where one of you might be alone with someone of the opposite sex?
• How are tasks shared in the home: cleaning, cooking, washing dishes, yard work, car upkeep, repairs, shopping for food, and household stuff?
• What are the expectations for togetherness?
• What is an ideal non-special evening?
• How do you understand who and how often sex is initiated?
• Who does the checkbook—or are there two?

Children

• If and when, should we have children? Why?
• How many?
• How far apart?
• Would we consider adoption?
• What are the standards of behavior?
• What are the appropriate ways to discipline them? How many strikes before they're . . . whatever?
• What are the expectations of time spent with them and when they go to bed?
• What signs of affection will you show them?
• What about school? Home school? Christian school? Public school?

Lifestyle

• Own a home or not? Why?
• What kind of neighborhood? Why?
• How many cars? New? Used?
• View of money in general. How much to the church?
• How do you make money decisions?
• Where will you buy clothes: Department store? Savers? In between? Why?

Entertainment

• How much money should we spend on entertainment?
• How often should we eat out? Where?
• What kind of vacations are appropriate and helpful for us?
• How many toys? Snowmobile, boat, cabin, Segway?
• Should we have a television? Where? What is fitting to watch? How much?
• What are the criteria for Movies and theater and video/DVD? What will our guidelines be for the kids?

Conflict

• What makes you angry?
• How do you handle your frustration or anger?
• Who should bring up an issue that is bothersome?
• What if we disagree both about what should be done, AND whether it is serious?
• Will we go to bed angry at each other?
• What is our view of getting help from friends or counselors?

Work

• Who is  the main breadwinner?
• Should the wife work outside the home? Before kids? With kids at home? After kids?
• What are your views of daycare for children?
• What determines where you will locate? Job? Whose job? Church? Family?

Friends

• Is it good to do things with friends but without fiancé, or without spouse?
• What will you do if one of you really likes to hang out with so and so and the other doesn't?

Health and Sickness

• Do you have, or have you had any, sicknesses or physical problems that could affect our relationship? (Allergies, cancer, eating disorders, venereal disease, etc.)
• Do you believe in divine healing and how would prayer relate to medical attention?
• How do you think about exercise and healthy eating?
• Do you have any habits that adversely affect health?

---

© Desiring God

Permissions: You are permitted and encouraged to reproduce and distribute this material in any format provided that you do not alter the wording in any way, you do not charge a fee beyond the cost of reproduction, and you do not make more than 1,000 physical copies. For web posting, a link to this document on our website is preferred. Any exceptions to the above must be explicitly approved by Desiring God.

Please include the following statement on any distributed copy: By John Piper. © Desiring God. Website: www.desiringGod.org. Email: mail@desiringGod.org. Toll Free: 1.888.346.4700.

Dating Jesus

I can't remember if I have posted this (or something similar) before, if so, I will delete it later!  What do you think?

 

Dating Jesus

When 'lover of my soul' language goes too far.

Agnieszka Tennant | posted 12/06/2006 08:43AM

From: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/december/17.56.html

God loved the world with an extravagant tenderness. He spun into our genes a strand of divine DNA. Imago dei, this God with us—it's an astonishing intimacy.

Related articles and links

The Bible shows it from various angles: God is a hen, and we are the chicks. God is a Shepherd, and we are the straying sheep. God is a Bridegroom, and we, his church, are the bride.

We can see God draw near, and it is dizzying.

But does all this closeness mean that Jesus is the personal boyfriend of Christian women? That God is my fiancé? That the First and the Last is my husband? That he and I are dating?

So it appears to some.

In a popular book, I learn of women who set up date nights with Jesus. Christie enjoys her Friday nights by going to Barnes & Noble "to drink coffee with the Lord and to read whatever book from the Christian living section he guides me to" or by cooking a wonderful meal and setting the table for two, then "talking to God as if he is actually sitting there at my table with me, because I know that he is."

The author of this book calls women to "prayer, praise, and pampering" retreats: "Although God certainly loves us even with unshaven legs, no makeup, and a bed-head hairdo, he also deserves to occasionally have his princess sit at his feet while she is looking and feeling her best." She casts these retreats as exciting dates. "You are running away with your Lover, not confining yourself to a convent."

In another book, the author assures her readers that "you are the one that overwhelms his heart with just 'one glance of your eyes,'" quoting from the Song of Solomon. "His gaze is fixed on you," she writes. "He is captivated by your beauty."

These teachings have spread into churches. My friend's mother took part in a "tea with the Lord," during which she and the other women wore their wedding gowns—those, at least, who managed to squeeze into them—and fancied themselves as brides of Christ. An influential Kansas City church teaches thousands of people the so-called Bridal Paradigm, which encourages a quasi-romantic relationship with Christ. And who among us hasn't detected an eerie resemblance between a contemporary Christian song and a pop diva's breathy rendition of a sensual love ballad?

But such eros-laced sentiments directed at Jesus aren't a new trend. Neither is reading the Song of Solomon and other biblical passages as erotically charged letters addressed directly to the reader.

Several of those whom liturgical Christians call saints considered themselves wives of Christ. Catherine of Siena received a vision in which Christ married her and gave her a ring. It was made from foreskin left over after his circumcision. Before you laugh, consider this: After this event, Catherine devoted herself to the sick and the poor.

According to Women and Gender in Medieval Europe: An Encyclopedia, edited by Margaret C. Schaus (Routledge, 2006), medieval nuns used to participate in marriage liturgies as brides of Christ. The tradition continues in various forms today. The bridal imagery "presents explicit erotic content, yet also extols celibacy and pronounces the inherent sinfulness of sexual desire (concupiscence)."

Some men, too, managed to see themselves as brides.

The great poet John Donne besought God in the often-quoted sonnet:

Divorce me, untie or break that knot again,
Take me to you, imprison me, for I,
Except you enthrall me, never shall be free,
Nor ever chaste, except you ravish me.

I don't question the devotion of anyone who says she loves Christ intensely, whatever language she uses to express it.

But I have little patience for taking biblical metaphors too far and giving one's relationship with God an air of irreverent chumminess. Somehow, the scenario in which "his princess" shaves her legs for a date with Jesus seems to leave little room for fear of God.

And consider how unhelpful this misreading must be to single women who are hormonally awake. The cruel message they get is: If Jesus is really your husband, what's your problem? Be satisfied!

The Bible is replete with breathtaking metaphors that hint at God's love for us. Thank God, we don't always take them to illogical ends: I've never heard a preacher take the Good Shepherd image to mean that God raises his children to ultimately kill and eat them.

So, yes, in addition to being the Shepherd, the Bread of Life, and the Vine, Jesus is, poetically speaking, the Bridegroom. And we—the church—are his bride.

But that doesn't mean I'll be getting into my wedding gown anytime soon. Not that it would fit.

Finally, the reason why I have to pluck my beard!

Way too much education! More seriously, movies like these remind me why I prefer the term "complimentarian" rather than "traditionalist" when describing my views on Biblical manhood and womanhood. No disrespect to "traditionalists" but Tradition <> Truth! Anyway, enjoy :)

Excellent Christmas Gift Idea

http://www.jumpinjammerz.com/

Happy Birthday One Day Late Joanna!

Joanna's birthday was yesterday :( and I forgot yesterday was November 27. I was planning a blog celebration complete with high school pictures, but alas, I did not. I am sorry. You're probably not.

Link: Reformation Day Reflections

I thought this was a great blog about the meaning of the Reformation for one person:

From: http://purechurch.blogspot.com/2006/10/reformation-day-reflections.html
Reformation Day Reflections
The Pope of blogging (Tim Challies) has called all bloggers to post reflections on the Reformation and its meaning for us today. In obedience to the pontiff of posts, I thought I’d kiss the ring and share my two cents on so important an observance.What does a German monk nailing a long list of complaints on a church door have to do with an African American ministering in a small, international Caribbean island? Luther’s world and my own couldn’t be farther apart it seems.But on closer inspection, I would not be in Cayman if it were not for that massive Christian church split some 500 years ago. I’ve been thinking a lot about church splits lately… and this one I am quite thankful for. I could wish that the result had been sweeping reform in the Roman Catholic Church. But failing that, I’m thrilled for the recovery of the Gospel.If there had been no recovery of the Gospel of Jesus Christ—the grand promise of justification in the sight of God by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone to the glory of God alone—I and most African-Americans and Caribbean peoples would likely be utterly and eternally lost today.The greatest miracle of the Reformation is that enslaved Africans heard, above the din of rattling chains and the back-slashing crack of whips, the free Gospel call at the hands of slave traders and many less-than-heroic gospel preachers in the plantation south. That untutored Africans, imprisoned in a foreign land and surrounded by hostile wilderness, heard with clarity the learned oracles of Christ, were spiritually set free, and found the glorious banks of Zion is astounding!However crude, however hampered by their conditions, however assaulted and persecuted by white brothers and sisters in Christ, the Reformation found expression among African descended peoples. There was every earthly reason why it should not have happened. But the one heavenly reason why it should – justification by grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone – prevailed even among the meanest slaves of the south and the Caribbean.You see… this gospel truly makes everything level at the foot of the cross. The conversion of African Americans and Afro-Caribbean peoples proves this. Despite caste and castigation, slaves came to Jesus! It’s inexplicable apart from the power of the Gospel of Jesus Christ! Why would the master’s Master become the Master of the mastered? Because He is Master of all.Clifton Johnson’s classic collection of slave conversion stories, God Struck Me Dead, makes the point in the slave's own words. One slave recalled:
I saw in a vision, myself in two bodies, a little body and an old body. My old body was dangling over hell and destruction. A voice said to me, “My little one, I have cleansed you of all iniquity. By grace are you saved and it is not of yourself but the gift of God. Weep not, for you are a new child. Abide in me and you need never fear.” I looked in the distance and saw the rejoicing and singing.
I know that I have been dug up and made alive and my soul made satisfied. (God Struck Me Dead, p. 48).The slave understood God’s sovereignty in election (and all things for that matter) in a way that many of us still fail to grasp:
He (God) spoke to me once after I prayed and prayed trying to hurry Him and get a religion. He said, ‘I am a time-God. Behold, I work after the counsel of my own will and in due time I will visit whomsoever I will (p. 7).Another convert tells a similar story: “I began to pray for my soul more and more and began to hurry God. He gave me the gift in His own time. He was drawing me all the time but I didn’t know it” (p. 41).They knew the sovereign election of sinners in their own experience:
I was born a slave and lived through some very hard times. If it had not been for my God, I don’t know what I would have done. Through His mercy I was lifted up. My soul began singing and I was told that I was one of the elected children and that I would live as long as God lives (p. 23; emphasis added).“How can we find God? God has a chosen people. He has always had a chosen people and He calls whomsoever He wills. Any child who has been born of the spirit, knows it for he has felt His power, tasted His love and seen the travail of his soul.”“After I passed through this experience (a vision of Jesus and the city) I lost all worldly cares. The things I used to enjoy don’t interest me now. I am a new creature in Jesus, the workmanship of His hand saved from the foundation of the world. I was a chosen vessel before the wind ever blew or before the sun ever shined.
“Religion is not a work but a gift from God. We are saved by grace and it is not of ourselves but the gift of God” (p. 57).These are the testimonies of field hands at the twilight of chattel slavery. To these we could add the more educated voices of Jupiter Hammon, Lemuel Haynes, Phillis Wheatley and country preacher Joseph Bayesmore (Weldon, NC) and a host of others. As John Saillant put it: “the Calvinism provided the deepest structuring elements of their thought.”The miracle is that the Reformation Gospel came to African America and the Caribbean.The work that’s left before us is to recapture it and to reform our churches according to the Word of God. There’s much to celebrate this Reformation Day… and much work to be done once the celebration is over.

Wow, wow and more wow

http://www.librarything.com/

This is so cool!

Interesting Article

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15653706/site/newsweek/

Losing Our Religion

A gathering of scientists and atheists explores whether faith in science can ever substitute for belief in God.

By Jerry Adler (Newsweek) - Updated: 11:43 p.m. CT Nov 11, 2006

Nov. 10, 2006 - The great Danish physicist Niels Bohr, it is said, had a good-luck horseshoe hanging in his office. "You don't believe in that nonsense, do you?" a visitor once asked, to which Bohr replied, "No, but they say it works whether you believe in it or not."

If one thing emerged from the "Beyond Belief" conference at the Salk Institute in LaJolla, Calif. it's that religion doesn't work the same way. Some 30 scientists—one of the greatest collections of religious skeptics ever assembled in one place since Voltaire dined alone—examined faith from the evolutionary, neurological and philosophical points of view, and they concluded that some things only work if you do believe in them. Richard Dawkins, the British evolutionary biologist and author of the best-selling book "The God Delusion," said he couldn't have a spiritual experience even when he tried. After another panelist, neuroscientist V.S. Ramachandran of the University of California, San Diego, explained that temporal-lobe seizures of the brain create profound spiritual and out-of-body experiences, Dawkins disclosed that he had participated in an experiment that was supposed to mimic such seizures—and even then he didn't feel a thing.

Dawkins obviously feels this loss is a small price to pay for freedom from superstition. But even physicist Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate and an outspoken atheist, acknowledged that science is a poor substitute for the role religion plays in most peoples' lives. It's hard, he said, to live in a world in which one's highest emotions can be understood in biochemical and evolutionary terms, rather than a gift from God. Instead of the big, comforting certainties promoted by religion, science can offer only "a lot of little truths" and the austere pleasures of intellectual honesty. Much as Weinberg would like to see civilization emerge from the tyranny of religion, when it happens, "I think we will miss it, like a crazy old aunt who tells lies and causes us all kinds of trouble, but was beautiful once and was with us a long time."

To which Dawkins retorted, "I won't miss her at all." Only in the most extreme circumstances would he deign to take account of the consolations offered by religion. He would not, for instance, try to talk a Christian on his deathbed out of a belief in Heaven. He didn't say what he would do if he were the one near death, but it's unlikely he would be calling for a priest. The atheist philosopher Daniel Dennett had been expected to attend, but two weeks earlier had been rushed to the hospital with a near-fatal aortic rupture. At the conference, people handed around copies of Dennett's essay entitled "Thank Goodness," posted on the science Web site Edge.org, in which he described how annoying it was to hear from friends that they had been praying for his recovery. "I have resisted the temptation," he wrote, "to respond, 'Thanks, I appreciate it, but did you also sacrifice a goat?'"

It's hard to be a skeptic, that much was clear from the conference. Hard for the astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, director of the Hayden Planetarium in New York, who described trying to offer up thanks "to the scientists who made this abundance of food possible" at a friend's Thanksgiving dinner, only to be shouted down by demands for a proper grace. Hard for atheist author Sam Harris ("Letter to a Christian Nation") who likes to point out that people today believe in God based on no more evidence than the ancients had for believing in Zeus or Poseidon—with the result that in addition to all the mail he gets from Christians, he's now getting angry letters from pagans who claim he's insulted their beliefs, as well.

The moderate position at the conference was represented by physicist Lawrence Krauss, who took the view that "science doesn't make it impossible to believe in God, it just makes it possible to not believe in God." The majority view was best articulated by Tyson, who said that atheism is not just the only intellectually coherent position, but a positive boon to humanity. He makes much of the statistic that only 15 percent of the scientific elite in the United States, defined as members of the National Academy of Sciences, express belief in a personal God who takes an active role in the world. That's approximately the mirror image of the population as a whole—but to Tyson, the mystery is that the number of believers among the scientist group isn't zero.

Tyson is a commanding public speaker, which is why his fellow astronomer Carolyn Porco, the head of the imaging team for the Cassini space probe to Saturn, nominated him at the conference to be the first minister of her proposed (although not very seriously) "Church of Science." She thinks science is a perfectly adequate substitute for religion. "Being a scientist and staring immensity and eternity in the face every day is as grand and inspiring as it gets," she says. "No religion offers anything comparable." To the promise of immortality, she counters with the proposition that all the atoms of our bodies will be blown into space in the disintegration of the solar system, to live on forever as mass or energy. That's what we should be teaching our children, not fairy tales about angels and seeing grandma in Heaven. "If anyone has something to replace God," she says, "I think scientists do." Of course, it's not clear that anyone else is looking for one.

The play is finished

Our last night! Tonight, very sad/happy to be done. I only cried once, so that was less than previously expected.

Question...

If Joanna had to choose between the following color combinations, which would she choose?

 

Black/Silver Red/silver Purple/gold Purple/silver   I think she might prefer a red/gold, but since that's not an option, it's been a tough question for me.