Brit Hume has gotten quite a reaction for stating on a Fox News Broadcast that Tiger Woods needs to turn to Christ in this difficult time in his life.  In this age of tolerance this has been viewed as insensitive and intolerant.  I found this quote from the Washington Post found on Justin Taylor’s blog very helpful.

From Michael Gerson’s article on the Brit Hume kerfuffle:

True tolerance consists in engaging deep disagreements respectfully — through persuasion — not in banning certain categories of argument and belief from public debate.

In this controversy, we are presented with two models of discourse. Hume, in an angry sea of loss and tragedy — his son’s death in 1998 — found a life preserver in faith. He offered that life preserver to another drowning man. Whatever your view of Hume’s beliefs, he could have no motive other than concern for Woods himself.

The other model has come from critics such as Shales, in a spittle-flinging rage at the mention of religion in public, comparing Hume to “Mary Poppins on the joys of a tidy room, or Ron Popeil on the glories of some amazing potato peeler.” Shales, of course, is engaged in proselytism of his own — for a secular fundamentalism that trivializes and banishes all other faiths. He distributes the sacrament of the sneer.

Who in this picture is more intolerant?

“The North American Christian community today is in a missionary location….There are two obstacles, however, that must be overcome in trying to take our missionary location seriously. One is that many people in today’s Christian community are too fond of the culture that makes up our missionary location [e.g. Christians addicted to American materialism, the god of technology and pop culture]. The other is that many people in the Christian community are too disdainful of this culture [e.g. Christian separatists, legalists and the 'angry at the world' religious Right].”

- Richard Mouw, “The Missionary Location of the North American Churches,” inConfident Witness – Changing World, ed. Craig Van Gelder

(ht:ap)

I found this quote to be challenging on multiple levels.  One, it reminds us of the great mission field that we live in, America.  Second, it calls us to inquire within whether or not we are embracing that challenge.  Are we too in love with the world to be desirous of it being transformed?  If you love something too much you really don’t want it changed.  When this comes to sin and worldliness this is a real spiritual problem.  Or there is the second problem of being too separate to be able to help those who are lost and dying.  If all we ever do is bash and hate the world then it will be difficult for us to relate in love to the world.  

Jude reminds us of the need to find this balance

17 But you must remember, beloved, the predictions of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ. 18 They [6] said to you, “In the last time there will be scoffers, following their own ungodly passions.” 19 It is these who cause divisions, worldly people, devoid of the Spirit. 20 But you, beloved, building yourselves up in your most holy faith and praying in the Holy Spirit, 21 keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ that leads to eternal life. 22 And have mercy on those who doubt; 23 save others by snatching them out of the fire; to others show mercy with fear, hating even the garment [7] stained by the flesh. (ESV)

Facebook turned five yesterday.  Happy birthday to them.  In honor of their birthday, Dr. Mohler recently wrote  a good article about the use of Facebook on his blog.   He listed 8 suggestions on how a Christian should use this social networking tool.

1.  Never allow social networking to replace or rival personal contact and communication.

2.  Set clear parameters for the time devoted to social networking.

3.  Never write or post anything on a social networking site that you would not want the world to see, or anything that would compromise your Christian witness.

4.  Never allow children and teenagers to have independent social networking access (or Internet access, for that matter).

5.  Do not allow children and teens to accept any “friend” unknown to you.

6.  Encourage older friends and relatives to sign up and use the technology.

7.  Use the social networking technology to bear witness to the Gospel, but never think that this can replace the centrality of face-to-face evangelism, witness, and discipleship

8.  Do all things to the glory of God, and do not allow social networking to become an idol or a display of narcissism.

I appreciate his balance in acknowledging that these sites are something Christians can use, but also pointing out some obvious dangers.  I believe all his points are helpful but want to draw attention to several in particular.  First, never write anything or post anything that you would not want the world to see.  Many seem to treat Facebook like it is IM, where only they and one or two friends can read or see what is posted.  However, it is going out to all your “friends” and then any friend that is linked to them and down the line.  All that to say, many times your reputation is on the line with a much broader audience than you may think.   I recently read an article written to artists that pointed out that when something is posted on Facebook, Facebook then has the rights to all material, to use however they desire.  That ought to give some concern, but I read another article in a secular magazine that said Facebook is one of the top reference websites companies are now using to check a persons background and character, and have had many people who hire college age people say it is always checked by them.  Yahoo, suggests one in five companies use such sites when hiring.  So, any posts or pictures that you put up or that a “friend” posts of you may impact your ability or inability to get a job in a very demanding job market.  Look at the impact one action or one photo has had on Mr Phelps this past week in the secular world.  None of these points mention anything about the more important fact that as a Christian or a child in a Christian home you take the name of Christ with you even into your Facebook account.  Now for one seeking to honor Christ this should not be anything that scares them, but for some it may be a good reminder.  If you don’t want Christ to see or read it, don’t put it out there for the rest of the world to read.  If you don’t want Christ’s name attached to a photo, post, or comment, then don’t post it.

Second, Dr. Mohler mentions that no child or teenager should have independant access to a Facebook type account.  This may seem too harsh or untrusting for some parents but consider this.  Facebook and other networking sites are “a whole new world”, and a world for which many parents have never guided or taught their children how to behave in.  When are children are younger we spend so much time teaching them what is appropriate and inappropriate behavior wise when in the home, at church, or in public.  The internet offers a world that is unreal, yet where reputations are made, lost, and lived out in today’s world.   Take a look at one of these sites and begin sifting it through simple biblical principles.  One principle that seems often overlooked is that of considering the weaker brother.   (Do your photos and posts and comments exhibit such love?)  There are other more blatant ones like gossip, modesty, humility, joy (Do your status updates exhibit the fruit of the Spirit?)  The point is not to enter into legalism to to try and help our children and teens.  Children are not naturally going to be able to discern all of this, for that God has given them parents.  Are we guiding our children and teens as to what is appropriate and honoring to Christ in the world of Facebook?

Dr. Mohler also mentions that you should encourage older family members to sign up.  It is a wonderful way for them to keep up with you, but also creates accountability.  A world with people all the same age often creates all kinds of problems and self absorbtion or generation absorbtion.  Knowing that grandma will be seeing or reading what is posted might help you to think twice before you pose for a picture or type a quick response, and may help you determine what is truly appropriate or non-appropriate.

So, in conclusion, use Facebook, but use it for the glory of God!  This does not mean that you have to mention God or Christ all the time, but it does mean that every post, every comment, every photo ought to be done with their honor in mind.

We often look back and think that the grass was greener in other centuries.  However, when you read Luther, Ryle, Spurgeon, Lloyd-Jones and men from other centuries you quickly find out that even though circumstances may differ our sin nature often act out the same.  We are prone to being predominately concerned with the things of this earth and do not seek first the kingdom of God.  Over at Church Matters Michael Mckinley had this to say:

I was reading Richard Sibbes the other day (because, you know, that’s what the cool kids do) and I came across a complaint of his. It seems that he was frustrated by Christians who made life decisions (like, for instance, where they should live) based on superficial criteria rather than the most important thing: the ability to hear God’s Word preached.

Sibbes writes:

In our buildings and dwellings we look for good air, good soil, good neighbours, but where is the main? Who inquireth what minister have we? What means of salvation? Tush! this enters not into their thoughts; and thus do they invert God’s order.

Two things stand out to me:

1. He said “Tush!” in a sermon.

2. He’s got a good point. If hearing the Word of God is the “one thing necessary” (Luke 10:42), then choosing a good church should be our first priority when considering a move. No?

This is not a political blog and I have no intent on it becoming one.  My intent is not to set one party against the other, but to put forth some helpful article that will cause us as Christians to think biblically about what is going on and what is at stake.

As Americans politics play into our lives and religion.  We have rights and responsibilities.  John Piper wrote a helpful article that I believe will challenge us to exercise our right to vote and help us as Christians to keep this upcoming election in perspective with God’s Word.

Voting is like marrying and crying and laughing and buying. We should do it, but only as if we were not doing it. That’s because “the present form of this world is passing away” and, in God’s eyes, “the time has grown very short.” Here’s the way Paul puts it:

The appointed time has grown very short. From now on, let those who have wives live as though they had none, and those who mourn as though they were not mourning, and those who rejoice as though they were not rejoicing, and those who buy as though they had no goods, and those who deal with the world as though they had no dealings with it. For the present form of this world is passing away. (1 Corinthians 7:29-31)

It is important that we, as Christians, do not forget about the moral issues at stake in the upcoming election.   Randy Alcorn has a thought provoking article on whether or not Abortion should still be an issue Christians keep as a priority when voting.

Every Christian should take these teachings seriously. Is the unborn an innocent human being? If you claim to be prolife in the historical meaning of the word, then your answer is yes. Is abortion the shedding of innocent blood, the taking of human life created in the image of God? If you say you are prolife, your answer must be yes. (Please do not redefine the meaning of the word prolife and say “I’m prolife” if you’re really not.)

So, is the candidate’s stand on the issue of shedding innocent blood important enough to disqualify him as a candidate? Yes. While a single issue can’t qualify a candidate, it can disqualify him.

He also links a video that is graphic but is helpful in understanding how much life is in an unborn baby and how many are being destroyed/killed.

Tim Challies continues to deal with comments on his review of The Shack. In a post today he writes a very helpful critic of the pragmatism used in the arguments people make against his reveiw.  It is broadly helpful in dealing with our culture, not just those who love or hate The Shack.

The first is pure pragmatism, implying that the book should be judged not on theological arguments, not on the basis of comparing it to Scripture, but on the basis of how people have reacted to it. Because so many people are responding positively to this book in opposition to “stodgy old religion,” we must believe that it is good. “William Young wrote a novel – a story that inspired me and thousands of others to want to have a closer, more intimate relationship with God. All your theological arguments can’t erase that.” The danger of such an argument is that it effectively places us over the Bible and over God. No longer do we judge right and wrong by what God says, but we judge right and wrong by how we feel. If the book inspires people to be intimate with God, we must judge it to be good. If it stirs emotions we like, we judge it to be good.

There are profound implications here. Pragmatism necessarily causes us to lose our focus on the absolute standard God has given us in His Word to determine right from wrong. When we lose that focus the church is placed on the slippery slope to becoming like the world. When we discard God’s standards we must depend on our own deeply flawed standards. We begin to trust in ourselves and lose our trust in God. We lose our reliance on His Word as the tool for discernment.

John MacArthur has some wonderful thoughts on Luther and compromise and its application for today’s church.

It is interesting to speculate what the church would be like today if Martin Luther had been prone to compromise. The pressure was heavy on him to tone down his teaching, soften his message, stop poking his finger in the eye of the papacy. Even many of his friends and supporters urged Luther to come to terms with Rome for the sake of harmony in the church. Luther himself prayed earnestly that the effect of his teaching would not be divisive.
When he nailed his 95 Theses to the door, the last thing he wanted to do was split the church.

Yet sometimes division is fitting, even healthy, for the church. Especially in times like Luther’s—and like ours—when the visible church seems full of counterfeit Christians, it is right for the true people of God to declare themselves. Compromise is sometimes a worse evil than division. Second Corinthians 6:14-17 isn’t speaking only of marriage when it says,

Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said, “I will dwell in them and walk among them; And I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
Therefore, come out from their midst and be separate,” says the Lord.

Sometimes we lose sight of the cost of not being faithful in all areas and with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength.  It is easy to think that we are saved and we are okay, the details are not that important.  Maybe we see others who claim to be Christians and are tempted to think they are so much happier and better off because they are not so concerned with being abandoned to God.  Imagine what the condition of the church could be like if Luther had shared such logic.  We are to live for the Kingdom of God, not ourselves.  This means that we should not be content with compromise because even if it has no realized effect upon us it may cost those around us or generations to come.

Soli Deo Gloria!

Here is a helpful post on Desiring God’s Blog dealing with common sins we like to blame others for rather than confessing them and turning from them. 

1) Anger:I wouldn’t lose my temper if my co-workers were easier to get along with, or if my kids behaved better, or if my spouse were more considerate.

2) Impatience: I would be a very patient person if it weren’t for traffic jams and long lines in the grocery store. If I didn’t have so many things to do, and if the people around me weren’t so slow, I would never become impatient!

3) Lust :  I would have a pure mind if there weren’t so many sensual images in our culture.

4) Anxiety :  I wouldn’t worry about the future if my life were just a little more secure—if I had more money, and no health problems.

5) Spiritual Apathy :  My spiritual life would be so much more vibrant and I would struggle with sin less if my small group were more encouraging, or if Sunday school were more engaging, or if the music in the worship service were more lively, or if the sermons were better.

6) Insubordination :  If my parents/bosses/elders were godly leaders, then I would joyfully follow them.

7) A Critical Spirit :  It’s not my fault that the people around me are ignorant and inexperienced.

8 ) Bitterness :  If you knew what that person did to me, you would understand my bitterness. How could I forgive something like that?

9) Gluttony :  My wife/husband/roommate/friend is a wonderful cook! The things they make are impossible to resist.

10) Gossip :  It’s the people around me who start the conversations. There’s no way to avoid hearing what others happen to say. And when others ask me questions, I can’t avoid sharing what I know.

11) Self-Pity :  I’ll never be happy, because my marriage/family/job/ministry is so difficult.

12) Selfishness :  I would be more generous if we had more money.

On his blog today, John Piper reflects on how reading G.K. Chesterton’s Orthodoxy impacted his own life. Despite Chesterton’s Anti-Calvinistic position, the book drove Piper deeper in his appreciation of these biblical truths.

If I thought his broadsides against predestination really hit home and undid true biblical doctrine, I would keep my mouth shut or change my worldview. But his celebration of poetry and paradox undermines his own abomination of the greatest truth-and-mystery-lovers around today, the happy Calvinists.

Nothing in this Calvinism-abominating book came close to keeping me from embracing the glorious sovereignty of God. On the contrary, the poetic brightness of the book awakened in me, along with the works of C. S. Lewis, an exuberance about the strangeness of all things—which in the end made me able to embrace the imponderable paradoxes of God’s decisive control of all things and the total justice of his holding us accountable.

One of the reasons that Calvinism is stirring today is that it takes both truth and mystery seriously. It’s a singing, poetry-writing, run-through-the-fields Calvinism.

It’s the Arminians that are the rationalists. Arminianism trumps biblical sentences with metaphysics: God can’t control all things and hold us responsible. God can’t choose some and love all.” Why? Metaphysics. Out with mystery! It just can’t be!

So Chesterton’s anti-Calvinist shotgun sprays all around today’s poet-Calvinist and misses the mark.

Click on the Picture to enter the drawing.

This month’s sponsor is Franklin Springs Family Media. Franklin Springs exists “to provide families with top-quality DVDs that set forth a vision for the fullness of a God-honoring family life.” Their vision “is focused squarely on providing a picture of the exciting reformation that’s happening in families across the country. It’s a world of courageous servant/leader fathers, nurturing mothers who embrace the nobility of raising children, and children who embody the joyous adventure of being raised in a unified family.” If you have read this blog for any length of time you’ll know that I have reviewed most of the existing Franklin Springs titles and have found them well worth owning and well worth viewing.

The Prizes

• First prize: Five Films Gift Pack: Still Standing: The Stonewall Jackson Story, Inherit the Land: Adventures on the Agrarian Journey, The Eden String Quartet: A Bountiful Blessing, A Journey Home, The Peasall Sisters: Family Harmony.
• Second prize: New Films Pack: Still Standing: The Stonewall Jackson Story, Inherit the Land: Adventures on the Agrarian Journey.
• Third Prize: Still Standing: The Stonewall Jackson Story.