A couple posts back I described the reasons for which my family last summer left Independent Bible Church and began looking elsewhere. In this post I'll finish that story on the unlikely chance that anyone is actually reading this story and wants to know how it ends.
For myself, I was not out to find the perfect church. There is no perfect church, and if I were ever to find one, I would certainly not fit in. The main criteria I had when selecting a church body to be part of were 1) that I would get along well with people without a lot of conflict, frustration and disagreement over the issues, and 2) that my family and myself would be in an environment consisting of sound teaching from the Bible. It didn't matter so much if the church was large or small.
However as I said before, IBC is not such a bad place. If it were I don't suppose we would have stayd there for over six years, nor would it have been a big deal for our family to leave. For what it is, it could have a whole lot more issues than it does. So automatically eliminated from my list of possibilities were all churches that I thought would not be an improvement from IBC. This eliminated from consideration pretty much any church where a driving force was keeping up with what's cool in modern evangelicalism. IBC does not (except insofar as a bit of this occurs as "baggage" within modern evangelicalism) embrace "liberal theology," where denominations wander from scriptural inerrancy and play fast and loose with God's Word, to keep up with popular trends in culture. So all churches that were more "liberal" than IBC were also out of the question. So that narrowed things waaaay down right away! Actually, with those factors plus the need for a church that baptizes babies, I could really only come up with two other options.
So, we spent some time in August and September at Faith Lutheran Church in Sequim. I actually liked a lot about it. The liturgical format of the worship service didn't bother me in the least. It seemed like a pretty healthy church overall where people got along well, though there were not a lot of younger folks in the church. It felt a lot like the churches I grew up in, and perhaps a little too much. I decided Lutheran theological distinctives, viewed as odd by some Christians, were something I could eventually learn to live with even if I didn't quite agree.
But after a few talks with people there, including one pastor, I hit a few bumps in the road. Lutherans seem very friendly to what has been called amillennial "radical two kingdoms" theology, where Christian culture and "secular culture" operate in two different spheres. No one really put it in those terms but I remember picking up that vibe from conversations and sermons. It's a little tough to pin down what I mean by that, but here are a few hints. Some Christians have the idea we need to go far out of our way to get along with heathens, and make concessions scripture does not require. "Live at peace" and "submit to the governing authorities" are blown out of their context in scripture. God, it is said, doesn't vanquish his enemies, and certainly not using his people; that was Old Testament. I reject this view as unbalanced and naive.
A bigger bump was the rather poor quality of sermons by the other pastor. They were so short (compared to what I was used to) that when the end came, I was surprised, and said to myself "that was a sermon?" the first few times until I got used to it. However a sermon on Deuteronomy 6:4-7 which managed to completely avoid the topic of Christian education was so bad that I had to conclude I cannot trust this person as a reliable expositor of scripture. I thought I could do better when it came to who was teaching my family, or I may as well remain at IBC.
So then it was on to Redeeming Grace Orthodox Presbyterian Church in Port Angeles. My wife was reluctant to continue with this church because it was hard to perceive an advantage from IBC at first, especially given the distance from home was just the same. We hit a few bumps in the road here as well, but in my view they are relatively minor bumps. (I might share these someday in a separate post--for now, since they are so much lesser concerns than the issues with IBC and the Lutheran Church, I won't worry about it.) We like the smaller church environment and the chance to get to know the pastor and the other people in the church without feeling lost. My wife has benefited from the teaching here, especially the Sunday School hour which is very instructive. My son really likes it although it took him some time to adjust. And we are still there now.
So there you have it. This has been quite a long road for our family--I, for one, have had an aversion to church membership in general since narrowly avoiding joining Mars Hill Church in Seattle (which would have been a bad idea given problems that developed there later), and IBC. My wife had some other issues of her own to go through as well. It has taken a long time to go through the membership process but we have finished the class with the pastor, and are hopefully very close to being received as members and having the children baptized. I think this will take place within the next month. I'll feel much better knowing that is done, and that I have made the best choice I can!
Saturday, May 21, 2016
Thursday, May 19, 2016
Neutrality in education: fact or fiction?
I'll just give away the answer: it's fiction. But read on anyway!
In the previous post, I already demonstrated from scripture that moral neutrality is fiction. Also, I had mentioned in passing that a pretense of neutrality results in a corrupted view of educational options for Christian parents. And here I shall go into more detail about what I meant. It will seem like I'm changing the subject for a paragraph or two, but I promise to return to the point.
As Christians, we look to scripture for guidance for all of life. But scripture is clearer on some issues than on others. In the last post I mentioned the issue of infant baptism, where I believe one position and IBC believes another. Now I grant that, despite the claims of some, the Bible does not plainly say that infants should or should not be baptized. One sentence from Jesus or Paul would have easily settled this debate. But because scripture does not explicitly say somewhere "Thou shalt baptize infants" or "Thou shalt not baptize infants," the issue is not perfectly clear at a first glance of the scriptures. A consistent theology incorporating other parts of scripture exists on both sides of this issue, and I have measure of respect for the opposing position to mine, as we all should. So this is an example of an issue on which scripture is less clear than some. It's still an important issue, but Christians shouldn't divide over it.
Now let's look at education. By contrast, there is nothing remotely ambiguous in scripture about how this topic is presented. That Christians are to provide children an explicitly Christian education is as plain as day when one reads Deuteronomy 6. This is reinforced throughout the scriptures, including the book of Proverbs and in various parts of the New Testament. All Christians who care what the Bible says (is that redundant?) should be agreed on this. I won't spell out all the details here, since we don't want this blog post to be a mile long; but this would be a great time to actually go look it up!
Parents need to consider how the objective of training children to love God and obey his law with all of their hearts, minds, souls, and strength relates to educational options before us today. Deuteronomy 6:7 is worthy of particular attention. When should we teach our children this stuff? All the time. By extension, is it a grand idea for our children to spend 35 hours a week in an environment where they are not explicitly taught to love God and live according to his standards? Hmm, let me think. That would be a no. Parents need to ask how the education their children are receiving is supporting and reinforcing these goals. And why any parent, wanting the best for their children, and wanting to themselves be obedient to the instruction in God's Word, should settle for less than an education that explicitly teaches their children to love God.
So here's where the "neutrality" issue comes in. Public education is often viewed by Christians as a "blank slate" of sorts, to which any religious or philosophical perspective may be added. And this is the pretense whereby many Christian pastors find public education to be an acceptable option. I believe this is a grievous error, because it should be plain by now that children in public schools are recipients of an education that is anything but neutral, and often by the schools' own admission. Students are indoctrinated with a particular ideology that is generally hostile to Christianity, which includes aspects of socialism, Darwinism, humanism, hedonism, feminism, environmentalism, and moral relativism. Those are not neutral philosophies, and they often take on a religious character of their own (just ask anyone who wants to defend global warming). To a large degree God is neither welcomed nor acknowledged on campus, as any teacher will quickly find out if they want to say a prayer to Jesus Christ in front of the class.
Then there's the whole bathroom issue, and Obama's edict that public schools ought to let students use whatever bathroom they like. I'm not so sure why anyone is shocked at this sort of thing; once you have blocked God out of education in favor of conflicting ideologies, this kind of ridiculous nonsense is just what you will get.
Now this is not to say that Christians who can't get their children into a Christian school or home school for legitimate reasons (i.e. money is tight) ought to be treated as second class Christians. We just all need to be doing our very best. We need to acknowledge that a Christian education is the ideal type of education for our children because the Bible says it is. The lives and finances of parents ought to be prioritized around Christian education. Families that are well off need to be financially assisting those that are not. Hey, the Bible says it's important! Read Deuteronomy 6:3-4 again. "Hear, O Israel" means PAY ATTENTION!!! This is big. And Christ himself reiterates loving God with all we have as The Most Important Commandment. Should we not do all we can to make sure our children get it?
In a future post I'll go into why such a great number of Christians, and especially pastors, seem to ignore this scriptural imperative, or get muddled on it, and why their reasons for doing so are ill-founded. And I haven't even touched on numerous other subtopics, such as what a financial disaster public education is, but this is getting long so I must stop somewhere.
Some good reading on education is to be found at the American Vision website. This recent blog post is a good starting point. I don't claim the expertise to know that all the history here is 100% accurate, but it is certainly thought provoking and challenges our assumptions about public education.
Still not convinced? Next time some creep is peeping in on your daughter in the public school bathroom, just ask yourself, how's that "neutrality" working out for you? Because yes, that is exactly what this is about.
In the previous post, I already demonstrated from scripture that moral neutrality is fiction. Also, I had mentioned in passing that a pretense of neutrality results in a corrupted view of educational options for Christian parents. And here I shall go into more detail about what I meant. It will seem like I'm changing the subject for a paragraph or two, but I promise to return to the point.
As Christians, we look to scripture for guidance for all of life. But scripture is clearer on some issues than on others. In the last post I mentioned the issue of infant baptism, where I believe one position and IBC believes another. Now I grant that, despite the claims of some, the Bible does not plainly say that infants should or should not be baptized. One sentence from Jesus or Paul would have easily settled this debate. But because scripture does not explicitly say somewhere "Thou shalt baptize infants" or "Thou shalt not baptize infants," the issue is not perfectly clear at a first glance of the scriptures. A consistent theology incorporating other parts of scripture exists on both sides of this issue, and I have measure of respect for the opposing position to mine, as we all should. So this is an example of an issue on which scripture is less clear than some. It's still an important issue, but Christians shouldn't divide over it.
Now let's look at education. By contrast, there is nothing remotely ambiguous in scripture about how this topic is presented. That Christians are to provide children an explicitly Christian education is as plain as day when one reads Deuteronomy 6. This is reinforced throughout the scriptures, including the book of Proverbs and in various parts of the New Testament. All Christians who care what the Bible says (is that redundant?) should be agreed on this. I won't spell out all the details here, since we don't want this blog post to be a mile long; but this would be a great time to actually go look it up!
Parents need to consider how the objective of training children to love God and obey his law with all of their hearts, minds, souls, and strength relates to educational options before us today. Deuteronomy 6:7 is worthy of particular attention. When should we teach our children this stuff? All the time. By extension, is it a grand idea for our children to spend 35 hours a week in an environment where they are not explicitly taught to love God and live according to his standards? Hmm, let me think. That would be a no. Parents need to ask how the education their children are receiving is supporting and reinforcing these goals. And why any parent, wanting the best for their children, and wanting to themselves be obedient to the instruction in God's Word, should settle for less than an education that explicitly teaches their children to love God.
So here's where the "neutrality" issue comes in. Public education is often viewed by Christians as a "blank slate" of sorts, to which any religious or philosophical perspective may be added. And this is the pretense whereby many Christian pastors find public education to be an acceptable option. I believe this is a grievous error, because it should be plain by now that children in public schools are recipients of an education that is anything but neutral, and often by the schools' own admission. Students are indoctrinated with a particular ideology that is generally hostile to Christianity, which includes aspects of socialism, Darwinism, humanism, hedonism, feminism, environmentalism, and moral relativism. Those are not neutral philosophies, and they often take on a religious character of their own (just ask anyone who wants to defend global warming). To a large degree God is neither welcomed nor acknowledged on campus, as any teacher will quickly find out if they want to say a prayer to Jesus Christ in front of the class.
Then there's the whole bathroom issue, and Obama's edict that public schools ought to let students use whatever bathroom they like. I'm not so sure why anyone is shocked at this sort of thing; once you have blocked God out of education in favor of conflicting ideologies, this kind of ridiculous nonsense is just what you will get.
Now this is not to say that Christians who can't get their children into a Christian school or home school for legitimate reasons (i.e. money is tight) ought to be treated as second class Christians. We just all need to be doing our very best. We need to acknowledge that a Christian education is the ideal type of education for our children because the Bible says it is. The lives and finances of parents ought to be prioritized around Christian education. Families that are well off need to be financially assisting those that are not. Hey, the Bible says it's important! Read Deuteronomy 6:3-4 again. "Hear, O Israel" means PAY ATTENTION!!! This is big. And Christ himself reiterates loving God with all we have as The Most Important Commandment. Should we not do all we can to make sure our children get it?
In a future post I'll go into why such a great number of Christians, and especially pastors, seem to ignore this scriptural imperative, or get muddled on it, and why their reasons for doing so are ill-founded. And I haven't even touched on numerous other subtopics, such as what a financial disaster public education is, but this is getting long so I must stop somewhere.
Some good reading on education is to be found at the American Vision website. This recent blog post is a good starting point. I don't claim the expertise to know that all the history here is 100% accurate, but it is certainly thought provoking and challenges our assumptions about public education.
Still not convinced? Next time some creep is peeping in on your daughter in the public school bathroom, just ask yourself, how's that "neutrality" working out for you? Because yes, that is exactly what this is about.
Tuesday, May 17, 2016
Leaving Independent Bible Church
So, way back when, I produced some posts about Independent Bible Church, which were generally of a positive nature. And I still like and appreciate a lot about that church. However, last summer our family made the decision to pursue other options. To be honest this was pretty much on my initiative, but so far I think we have made the best choice for our family and things are working out well.
What got the ball rolling, so to speak, was the problem of how to baptize our new baby, since my wife and I both believe infant baptism ought to be practiced, but IBC does not facilitate that. They might say we can go get our baby baptized elsewhere then come back, but any Bible-believing church that would do that for us would want to know we were members at IBC, which we were not. (I had been hesitant to join for a long time, and I think my reasons for hesitation were well grounded, as you will see if you keep reading.) Going to some "liberal" church that would baptize our kid without caring if we were members of anywhere was not a viable option in my view.
Then there was the question asked by certain friends, "If your church won't baptize your baby, then why don't you go to a church that agrees with your convictions?" I didn't really have a great answer for that one. Why don't we go to a church that agrees with our convictions?
This issue of infant baptism by itself is not, I think, huge enough to be worth leaving a church over in general. In this case, however, we were not really members to start with, so don't feel as bad for leaving. Also, some other concerns about IBC tipped me over the edge.
Last summer a meeting was held to address concerns of members who had issues with a Global Leadership Conference the church was hosting. To IBC's credit, I'm glad they had this meeting--great idea. Not to their credit, the outcome of the meeting didn't seem to make much difference. Some concerns raised I did not really share. But a really good one was, why are we inviting non-Christians to teach in our church at this conference? Would Jesus do something like this? The answer from our pastor was something like, "Well, I haven't heard these folks preach anything that is against Christianity, so this is all just fine."
I call BS on that. A pretense of neutrality simply does not have its basis in scripture. Our Lord Jesus Christ, a person of some significance to the Christian faith, is perfectly clear when he says "Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters." He also has some choice words for people who are "lukewarm" in Revelation 3. Jesus would not select anyone who is against God to teach in a church in any capacity. I really can't even take that idea seriously. All the apostles he chose had in common an important thing called faith, except for one whose life ended in destruction.
And anyway, why is having this conference such a dire need in the first place? Did we run out of Christians who are able to teach in the context of the necessary work of the church? I doubt it.
As an aside, we might add that this false pretense of neutrality clouds IBC's view of Christian vs. public education. IBC has the main Christian school in the community as one of its ministries and gives it significant financial assistance, yet is totally lame about supporting Christian education in what is actually taught. I'll have to address that in a future post.
Certain things then became crystal clear to me at that point. Why does the music at IBC continue in the particular direction of modernizing and keeping up with what's cool? Why is it always out with the old, in with the new? Well it's the same reason as why they "need" to have a Global Leadership Conference. The current driving force among the leadership at IBC is the need to keep up with what's popular in modern evangelicalism. As far as I can tell this seems to be clouding the judgement of the elders. I'm not sure what else to conclude. Too much modern evangelicalism, and not enough purposeful acting on what scripture prescribes.
Another recent example is the "children's church" ministry. They had one, but it wasn't cool enough as it was, so it has now been re-vamped, because the first time it was vamped wasn't good enough. If someone wants to convince me that scripture sets a precedent for children being absent from their families during the worship service then perhaps I'll consider getting excited about it. I think one finds the opposite to be true in books like Exodus, Deuteronomy and elsewhere.
It sounds like I'm completely bashing IBC. That isn't my intent, believe it or not. There are still many things I appreciate about it, and it could be far worse for what it is. There are many people at IBC who I consider much stronger Christians than I am and have a lot of respect for.
In a future post I'll describe our process of church selection and reveal where we have ended up!
What got the ball rolling, so to speak, was the problem of how to baptize our new baby, since my wife and I both believe infant baptism ought to be practiced, but IBC does not facilitate that. They might say we can go get our baby baptized elsewhere then come back, but any Bible-believing church that would do that for us would want to know we were members at IBC, which we were not. (I had been hesitant to join for a long time, and I think my reasons for hesitation were well grounded, as you will see if you keep reading.) Going to some "liberal" church that would baptize our kid without caring if we were members of anywhere was not a viable option in my view.
Then there was the question asked by certain friends, "If your church won't baptize your baby, then why don't you go to a church that agrees with your convictions?" I didn't really have a great answer for that one. Why don't we go to a church that agrees with our convictions?
This issue of infant baptism by itself is not, I think, huge enough to be worth leaving a church over in general. In this case, however, we were not really members to start with, so don't feel as bad for leaving. Also, some other concerns about IBC tipped me over the edge.
Last summer a meeting was held to address concerns of members who had issues with a Global Leadership Conference the church was hosting. To IBC's credit, I'm glad they had this meeting--great idea. Not to their credit, the outcome of the meeting didn't seem to make much difference. Some concerns raised I did not really share. But a really good one was, why are we inviting non-Christians to teach in our church at this conference? Would Jesus do something like this? The answer from our pastor was something like, "Well, I haven't heard these folks preach anything that is against Christianity, so this is all just fine."
I call BS on that. A pretense of neutrality simply does not have its basis in scripture. Our Lord Jesus Christ, a person of some significance to the Christian faith, is perfectly clear when he says "Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters." He also has some choice words for people who are "lukewarm" in Revelation 3. Jesus would not select anyone who is against God to teach in a church in any capacity. I really can't even take that idea seriously. All the apostles he chose had in common an important thing called faith, except for one whose life ended in destruction.
And anyway, why is having this conference such a dire need in the first place? Did we run out of Christians who are able to teach in the context of the necessary work of the church? I doubt it.
As an aside, we might add that this false pretense of neutrality clouds IBC's view of Christian vs. public education. IBC has the main Christian school in the community as one of its ministries and gives it significant financial assistance, yet is totally lame about supporting Christian education in what is actually taught. I'll have to address that in a future post.
Certain things then became crystal clear to me at that point. Why does the music at IBC continue in the particular direction of modernizing and keeping up with what's cool? Why is it always out with the old, in with the new? Well it's the same reason as why they "need" to have a Global Leadership Conference. The current driving force among the leadership at IBC is the need to keep up with what's popular in modern evangelicalism. As far as I can tell this seems to be clouding the judgement of the elders. I'm not sure what else to conclude. Too much modern evangelicalism, and not enough purposeful acting on what scripture prescribes.
Another recent example is the "children's church" ministry. They had one, but it wasn't cool enough as it was, so it has now been re-vamped, because the first time it was vamped wasn't good enough. If someone wants to convince me that scripture sets a precedent for children being absent from their families during the worship service then perhaps I'll consider getting excited about it. I think one finds the opposite to be true in books like Exodus, Deuteronomy and elsewhere.
It sounds like I'm completely bashing IBC. That isn't my intent, believe it or not. There are still many things I appreciate about it, and it could be far worse for what it is. There are many people at IBC who I consider much stronger Christians than I am and have a lot of respect for.
In a future post I'll describe our process of church selection and reveal where we have ended up!
Monday, May 16, 2016
Why I have trouble getting along
[Editorial Note: This post appeared on my other blog on 3/24/12. I'm just moving it over here to put all posts that are a good fit for this blog in one place.]
So I haven't posted anything in almost four months. Whatever. Will have to work on that little problem. But I have something to get off my chest now, so here we go.
Sometimes I suddenly, or not so suddenly, realize things. And this may be one of those times. I would like to make an observation. People nowadays are way too obsessed with facts. I guess I've got nothing against facts per se, but facts sure seem to be a big deal when it comes to certain topics; say, history, or science. Whether something is really true. Whether something actually happened. People demand hard evidence. They demand the scientific method (I hate the scientific method!!). Sometimes the presence of witnesses and a written record aren't enough, apparently: otherwise the whole world would accept the historicity of Christ's triumphant rise from death.
Tolkien once commented that truths are communicated most profoundly through myths. Not silly myths, or childish myths, like the tooth fairy or something. But actual, substantial myths that entire cultures used to believe before society became so overwhelmed with facts and science. And I think I am starting to understand with increasing clarity what he meant.
The consequence of being "overwhelmed with facts and science" as I just stated is that we have displaced real, substantial myths to the realm of silly, useless myths. The problem is that in our modern arrogance we forget that the people who developed these myths were real people just like us. They were not stupid or savage, though their ways were very different from ours. They thought much differently - their entire worldview would actually have been completely foreign to us - but they were not stupid. In fact, they interpreted the world around them using the best knowledge available to them at the time, just the same as we do now. Perhaps the old myths should not be cast aside so lightly?
Many ancient and medieval historians have failed to withstand scrutiny when it comes to modern fact-checking. They would muddle things up, change names, change times, and "skew the facts" based on their own perspectives. Thus the modern complaint is that far too much of history remains uncertain. My point is, why dwell on the specifics? These muddles and discrepancies were not significant then, so why should they be now? It is not about the exact date something happened. Sometimes it is not even about whether something is truly historical or fictitious. Of far greater significance is the story or message itself, and its meaning to the author and readers. If you don't believe me, ask why bookstores (those still in business despite the rise of online booksellers) have a huge section devoted to Fantasy. The only difference now is that we have sectioned it off, in the name of science, or facts, or maybe just an irrational fear of muddling things up. Like we fear fantasy is somehow going to attack the rest of the bookstore and take it over or something.
So when I look at old myths - which I don't do a whole lot, since I am not too eccentric yet, but perhaps will more in the future - I will not think of them as strictly fictitious or false histories. To what degree they are historical is beside the point. The ability to convey truth does not equate to historical accuracy. Myths are not idle fancies. They demand deeper consideration and the whole of our imagination to appreciate them.
When the time comes for me to die, which it will someday, am I going to sit and wonder whether my life has been vindicated by science? Will I be satisfied to recall the historical accuracy of particular events in my life? No way. Who cares about that stuff? It just plain doesn't matter. Faugh. I could continue typing, but I have probably made my implications clear enough for now, and leave the rest open to interpretation.
So I haven't posted anything in almost four months. Whatever. Will have to work on that little problem. But I have something to get off my chest now, so here we go.
Sometimes I suddenly, or not so suddenly, realize things. And this may be one of those times. I would like to make an observation. People nowadays are way too obsessed with facts. I guess I've got nothing against facts per se, but facts sure seem to be a big deal when it comes to certain topics; say, history, or science. Whether something is really true. Whether something actually happened. People demand hard evidence. They demand the scientific method (I hate the scientific method!!). Sometimes the presence of witnesses and a written record aren't enough, apparently: otherwise the whole world would accept the historicity of Christ's triumphant rise from death.
Tolkien once commented that truths are communicated most profoundly through myths. Not silly myths, or childish myths, like the tooth fairy or something. But actual, substantial myths that entire cultures used to believe before society became so overwhelmed with facts and science. And I think I am starting to understand with increasing clarity what he meant.
The consequence of being "overwhelmed with facts and science" as I just stated is that we have displaced real, substantial myths to the realm of silly, useless myths. The problem is that in our modern arrogance we forget that the people who developed these myths were real people just like us. They were not stupid or savage, though their ways were very different from ours. They thought much differently - their entire worldview would actually have been completely foreign to us - but they were not stupid. In fact, they interpreted the world around them using the best knowledge available to them at the time, just the same as we do now. Perhaps the old myths should not be cast aside so lightly?
Many ancient and medieval historians have failed to withstand scrutiny when it comes to modern fact-checking. They would muddle things up, change names, change times, and "skew the facts" based on their own perspectives. Thus the modern complaint is that far too much of history remains uncertain. My point is, why dwell on the specifics? These muddles and discrepancies were not significant then, so why should they be now? It is not about the exact date something happened. Sometimes it is not even about whether something is truly historical or fictitious. Of far greater significance is the story or message itself, and its meaning to the author and readers. If you don't believe me, ask why bookstores (those still in business despite the rise of online booksellers) have a huge section devoted to Fantasy. The only difference now is that we have sectioned it off, in the name of science, or facts, or maybe just an irrational fear of muddling things up. Like we fear fantasy is somehow going to attack the rest of the bookstore and take it over or something.
So when I look at old myths - which I don't do a whole lot, since I am not too eccentric yet, but perhaps will more in the future - I will not think of them as strictly fictitious or false histories. To what degree they are historical is beside the point. The ability to convey truth does not equate to historical accuracy. Myths are not idle fancies. They demand deeper consideration and the whole of our imagination to appreciate them.
When the time comes for me to die, which it will someday, am I going to sit and wonder whether my life has been vindicated by science? Will I be satisfied to recall the historical accuracy of particular events in my life? No way. Who cares about that stuff? It just plain doesn't matter. Faugh. I could continue typing, but I have probably made my implications clear enough for now, and leave the rest open to interpretation.
I figured out where all our money went...
[Editorial Note: This post appeared on my other blog on 11/30/11. I'm just moving it over here to put all posts that are a good fit for this blog in one place.]
Imagine this: It's the mid-1980s, and (for better or worse) you're Canadian. You buy a house in Vancouver for $280,000. Which, it might be noted, was probably equivalent at the time to somewhat under $200K in US dollars. Fast forward 26 years later to 2011, and you're house is worth... wait for it... 6 MILLION dollars???
Well, that's actually a true story - one of several like it that I heard on my trip to Vancouver, BC earlier this week. One chap with a very nice three story house says that his place is worth about 4.5 million dollars. But it would be worth a little more without the house on it, because the house is just in the way of a bigger house. Then he showed me a place down the street where a 6,200 square foot house built in 1992 with all the decorations and trimmings, was torn down and replaced with a bigger house because it wasn't big enough.
And we thought real estate values (at least up till a few years ago) had gotten ridiculous in the USA.
So what's going on? Apparently our neighbors to the north have encouraged foreign investment in real estate with some remarkable results. If you're a wealthy Chinese or Taiwanese or Indian businessman, Vancouver is THE place to be. They also have their fare share of Iranians and other nationalities. Numerous different cultures are taking over the city and not being required to integrate very well, while folks of European descent are rapidly becoming the minority - and not just that, but a financially disadvantaged minority. Basically no one who is actually from BC can afford to get into the Vancouver area housing market, if they missed their chance 25 years ago.
It is interesting to note that the huge sums being paid for these houses is largely "our" money from here in the US. We have accommodated so much Chinese business and they have gotten rich by trading with us. Meanwhile our jobs have been severely devalued in the worldwide market: it's increasingly difficult to find a "regular job" that pays enough for a good living, and forget about trying to find many types of products made in the USA.
One wonders what the end result of all this will be. If so many cultures come together with this kind of financial inequity, is it realistic to expect they will ever integrate? Of course, one could say they don't need to. But then what happens? Does the country fragment into a bunch of little factions after Quebec finally succeeds in seceding? Do the Chinese attempt some sort of more serious, determined political takeover of the city? I guess we shall see.
Vancouver, therefore, is quite an odd place: great to visit, but I really wouldn't want to live there. I'm not saying that because I have anything against Chinese people, but there were clearly (to me) problems with the policies that allowed this to happen, and the whole situation is just odd. I just hope that Vancouver public works and related departments are capitalizing on all this investment and putting money back into the city. It looks like they are: I drove through about 25 km of major freeway construction on Hwy 1 as I was trying to get out of town.
Imagine this: It's the mid-1980s, and (for better or worse) you're Canadian. You buy a house in Vancouver for $280,000. Which, it might be noted, was probably equivalent at the time to somewhat under $200K in US dollars. Fast forward 26 years later to 2011, and you're house is worth... wait for it... 6 MILLION dollars???
Well, that's actually a true story - one of several like it that I heard on my trip to Vancouver, BC earlier this week. One chap with a very nice three story house says that his place is worth about 4.5 million dollars. But it would be worth a little more without the house on it, because the house is just in the way of a bigger house. Then he showed me a place down the street where a 6,200 square foot house built in 1992 with all the decorations and trimmings, was torn down and replaced with a bigger house because it wasn't big enough.
And we thought real estate values (at least up till a few years ago) had gotten ridiculous in the USA.
So what's going on? Apparently our neighbors to the north have encouraged foreign investment in real estate with some remarkable results. If you're a wealthy Chinese or Taiwanese or Indian businessman, Vancouver is THE place to be. They also have their fare share of Iranians and other nationalities. Numerous different cultures are taking over the city and not being required to integrate very well, while folks of European descent are rapidly becoming the minority - and not just that, but a financially disadvantaged minority. Basically no one who is actually from BC can afford to get into the Vancouver area housing market, if they missed their chance 25 years ago.
It is interesting to note that the huge sums being paid for these houses is largely "our" money from here in the US. We have accommodated so much Chinese business and they have gotten rich by trading with us. Meanwhile our jobs have been severely devalued in the worldwide market: it's increasingly difficult to find a "regular job" that pays enough for a good living, and forget about trying to find many types of products made in the USA.
One wonders what the end result of all this will be. If so many cultures come together with this kind of financial inequity, is it realistic to expect they will ever integrate? Of course, one could say they don't need to. But then what happens? Does the country fragment into a bunch of little factions after Quebec finally succeeds in seceding? Do the Chinese attempt some sort of more serious, determined political takeover of the city? I guess we shall see.
Vancouver, therefore, is quite an odd place: great to visit, but I really wouldn't want to live there. I'm not saying that because I have anything against Chinese people, but there were clearly (to me) problems with the policies that allowed this to happen, and the whole situation is just odd. I just hope that Vancouver public works and related departments are capitalizing on all this investment and putting money back into the city. It looks like they are: I drove through about 25 km of major freeway construction on Hwy 1 as I was trying to get out of town.
The chuch as a conversationalist
[Editorial Note: This post appeared on my other blog on 11/17/11. I'm just moving it over here to put all posts that are a good fit for this blog in one place.]
This is a great commentary on something that many churches might be doing better today with their worship services: involving the entire church body. I sure appreciate it when a worship service facilitates everyone's involvement rather than the spectator/performance format.
The church as a conversationalist
This is a great commentary on something that many churches might be doing better today with their worship services: involving the entire church body. I sure appreciate it when a worship service facilitates everyone's involvement rather than the spectator/performance format.
The church as a conversationalist
Vexing societal commentary of the day
[Editorial Note: This post appeared on my other blog on 11/17/11. I'm just moving it over here to put all posts that are a good fit for this blog in one place.]
So I went public with the blog and then didn't post anything for a week and 1/2 - isn't that great? But hey, I'm not going to post just because I'm bored and waste readers' time. I'll post when I have something of significance to say, I hope. Also, I have been preoccupied with some other projects lately, such as preparing the nursery for winter which looks like it could arrive this weekend.
So here's something that's bugging me. I hope as much as anyone that Sky Metalwala is found alive and in good health, as unlikely as that may seem right now. I don't quite see why there shouldn't be some provision within the investigation procedure why both parents shouldn't be subject to repeated interviews and cross-examination, especially when they seem uncooperative. But that's not exactly my business. What's bugging me is how much everyone cares about this kid while at the same time hundreds of kids are killed every day through the practice of abortion, and that doesn't bother anyone at all. What's the difference with Sky other than he's a little older and relatively more independent (if you can call a 2 year old independent)?
I realize I'm pretty much "preaching to the choir" here. It just seems like such a blatant and preposterous inconsistency in the way our society thinks. If he's two years old we all want to find him and hope its ok, and feel vengeful toward the mother for her neglect. If he's unborn well then it's fine to kill him. That doesn't work for me.
So I went public with the blog and then didn't post anything for a week and 1/2 - isn't that great? But hey, I'm not going to post just because I'm bored and waste readers' time. I'll post when I have something of significance to say, I hope. Also, I have been preoccupied with some other projects lately, such as preparing the nursery for winter which looks like it could arrive this weekend.
So here's something that's bugging me. I hope as much as anyone that Sky Metalwala is found alive and in good health, as unlikely as that may seem right now. I don't quite see why there shouldn't be some provision within the investigation procedure why both parents shouldn't be subject to repeated interviews and cross-examination, especially when they seem uncooperative. But that's not exactly my business. What's bugging me is how much everyone cares about this kid while at the same time hundreds of kids are killed every day through the practice of abortion, and that doesn't bother anyone at all. What's the difference with Sky other than he's a little older and relatively more independent (if you can call a 2 year old independent)?
I realize I'm pretty much "preaching to the choir" here. It just seems like such a blatant and preposterous inconsistency in the way our society thinks. If he's two years old we all want to find him and hope its ok, and feel vengeful toward the mother for her neglect. If he's unborn well then it's fine to kill him. That doesn't work for me.
I-1183
[Editorial Note: This post appeared on my other blog on 11/8/11. I'm just moving it over here to put all posts that are a good fit for this blog in one place.]
I've decided to go for a yes vote on I-1183. I am not concerned that public safety will be compromised by this. I also generally disfavor state control of most things. Many who ought to perhaps be in favor of the initiative have criticized it for favoring big businesses such as Costco so heavily that it will hardly make a difference for smaller local producers of alcohol. I share this sympathy to a point but still feel like it is worth voting yes because I-1183 is a small step in the right direction, and because of what it represents as far as state control. I mean, you can't wait forever for the perfect initiative to come along - yet that may still happen in the future even if this one passes.
As for "the Tim Eyman initiative" - well, I don't think we'll go there right now. All I have to say is that I'm glad I don't live in the immediate Seattle area.
I've decided to go for a yes vote on I-1183. I am not concerned that public safety will be compromised by this. I also generally disfavor state control of most things. Many who ought to perhaps be in favor of the initiative have criticized it for favoring big businesses such as Costco so heavily that it will hardly make a difference for smaller local producers of alcohol. I share this sympathy to a point but still feel like it is worth voting yes because I-1183 is a small step in the right direction, and because of what it represents as far as state control. I mean, you can't wait forever for the perfect initiative to come along - yet that may still happen in the future even if this one passes.
As for "the Tim Eyman initiative" - well, I don't think we'll go there right now. All I have to say is that I'm glad I don't live in the immediate Seattle area.
Last Sunday at Independent Bible Church
[Editorial Note: This post appeared on my other blog on 11/8/11. I'm just moving it over here to put all posts that are a good fit for this blog in one place.]
Some time ago I recognized that it is best to go to a church service with an attitude of humility, repentance and teachability, rather than being critical about surface details. I have more than a couple of friends who are Christians, yet strongly dislike such people as Mark Driscoll because they are too "cool" or "hip." In that category one might also place pastor Aaron who provided the message for us last Sunday. But I say, whatever. If we as Christians have our focus in the right place, we ought to be less concerned about how the pastor or other church leaders appear and act, and more interested in meeting with God and learning what he as to teach us as we participate in the service. (And again I suppose I'm saying this to remind myself as much as anyone else.)
It has been two days now since the service, so I type this to remind myself of a couple important points. The message was about prayer, and pastor Aaron offered some commentary on the Lord's prayer. He challenged us, asking whether we have made any changes to our prayer life following his previous sermon about prayer. I had to say honestly, no, I haven't. And I still haven't. So I'll pray now that I will, now that I have reminded myself to do it.
He also said - and this was more of a passing comment - that the main reason churches split is by allowing divisiveness to grow and failing to reconcile. This is so true, and I have seen enough of it to know there are certain churches I would not last long in without either getting kicked out or losing all my friends in the congregation. I don't think I would at this point last long in the Reformed Presbyterian Church or Christian Reformed Church where I was raised, or the Evangelical Free Church I attended in college; all because of the divisive attitudes people have. I am not saying there is never a time to disagree as certain issues are indeed important. I have come to appreciate that IBC has a strong commitment to both the authority of scripture and the maintenance of healthy relationships in the church where not everyone has to agree on the finer details to get along with and befriend each other. These factors are paramount to the health of any church body, but seem to be lacking in many of them.
Some time ago I recognized that it is best to go to a church service with an attitude of humility, repentance and teachability, rather than being critical about surface details. I have more than a couple of friends who are Christians, yet strongly dislike such people as Mark Driscoll because they are too "cool" or "hip." In that category one might also place pastor Aaron who provided the message for us last Sunday. But I say, whatever. If we as Christians have our focus in the right place, we ought to be less concerned about how the pastor or other church leaders appear and act, and more interested in meeting with God and learning what he as to teach us as we participate in the service. (And again I suppose I'm saying this to remind myself as much as anyone else.)
It has been two days now since the service, so I type this to remind myself of a couple important points. The message was about prayer, and pastor Aaron offered some commentary on the Lord's prayer. He challenged us, asking whether we have made any changes to our prayer life following his previous sermon about prayer. I had to say honestly, no, I haven't. And I still haven't. So I'll pray now that I will, now that I have reminded myself to do it.
He also said - and this was more of a passing comment - that the main reason churches split is by allowing divisiveness to grow and failing to reconcile. This is so true, and I have seen enough of it to know there are certain churches I would not last long in without either getting kicked out or losing all my friends in the congregation. I don't think I would at this point last long in the Reformed Presbyterian Church or Christian Reformed Church where I was raised, or the Evangelical Free Church I attended in college; all because of the divisive attitudes people have. I am not saying there is never a time to disagree as certain issues are indeed important. I have come to appreciate that IBC has a strong commitment to both the authority of scripture and the maintenance of healthy relationships in the church where not everyone has to agree on the finer details to get along with and befriend each other. These factors are paramount to the health of any church body, but seem to be lacking in many of them.
Response to "Does an Unbelieving Child Disqualify an Elder?"
[Editorial Note: This post appeared on my other blog on 11/4/11. I'm just moving it over here to put all posts that are a good fit for this blog in one place.]
In You asked - does an unbelieving child disqualify an elder? Justin Taylor concludes, hm, not really I guess. It was difficult for me to follow his argument. Read it and see what you think. Some of the readers' comments are brilliant.
His comparison of the two passages on the subject seemed like the usual "we can't quite make sense out of this so we'll slice and dice the concepts here until they fit our mode of thinking." We have confused "allowing scripture to interpret scripture" with "allowing certain passages to be weighted against each other to come up with some sort of artificial 'balance' while ignoring the remainder of scripture."* (I've seen enough of that ridiculous method I can smell it a mile away.) I think he misses the point when he says "believers can also be translated faithful" - I would like to suggest here that faithfulness isn't some vague concept left for us to define as we wish, but something that requires an object. Faithfulness to something... which (I don't think it is a stretch to conclude, given the context) would be the Christian faith.
A particularly confusing aspect of this discussion (and of many others) is, how do we know when someone is genuinely "faithful" or "believing?" This is one of many passages where a distinction between two categories of people, Christians and elect is helpful. The biblical basis for this is scattered throughout the Bible, and would require a lengthy, separate post to describe in full. For now, however, I would urge you to note that these terms (and other parallel terms) are not used interchangeably, and there is no reason why they shouldn't mean something different. Christian is a term originally applied by unbelievers to a group of people based on who they are following. The elect, on the other hand, are those whom God has chosen, who are written in the book of life, and who are ultimately known only to God. And this is always how these terms are used in scripture, as far as I have found to date. This has been a statement of controversy, but I'm certainly ready to retract this position if it can be demonstrated to be unbiblical. As you might guess, I find it very helpful.
Therefore, the answer to the question posed in my previous paragraph is, we don't know in an ultimate sense who is genuinely faithful, but that doesn't render these verses meaningless. God does not expect us to be able to divinely discern who truly belongs to the elect. I propose, therefore, that if my kid is a Christian on all outward appearances, according to the best possible human judgment, that is sufficient to qualify as faithful. Conversely, if he is un-Christian according to the best possible human judgement, he's not faithful, and his father is disqualified from eldership. How do you judge a tree? By its fruit. It seems pretty straightforward to me; why muddy the waters?
I would also like to take the opportunity to provide clear answers to all of his "uncomfortable questions" (oh no, we can't have uncomfortable questions!) using the term "believing" in the outward, "Christian" sense described above:
1. What do we make of an elder who has a number of believing children, walking faithfully with the Lord---but one who is not?
He's automatically disqualified according to scripture, plain as day.
2. If most of his children are believers, is he not a good manager of his household?
Is anyone good at anything apart from Christ? That's not really the point, scripture still disqualifies you. (Another application of "how do you judge a tree?"...)
3. Or does the one unbelieving child call into question his overall managerial ability?
I should hope so, since that seems to be the logical conclusion of these passages.
4. If it does, then why did any of his children turn out to be believers?
Why does anyone at all turn out to be a believer? Parents can and should do everything within their ability to raise children in the faith, while recognizing it is ultimately a work of God.
He also uses the term a couple times "control of your kids." Well I don't quite get what that is supposed to mean, but I would rather my kid(s) be under God's control than mine. I still believe parents are under a very real obligation to train their children up in the way they should go, but that's not the same thing as a pretense of real, ultimate "control." The word in the bible is translated as "manage" which doesn't quite mean the same thing. As one commenter said (paraphrasing here), children need to find their own faith and not just believe in/because of/according to their parents.
And I'm still lost with this statement: "Paul does not spell out what this looks like in every case, nor does he spell out all of the specifics of what will disqualify an elder." Um, what? Isn't that what both of these passages are about? It's a list of qualifications for elders. Am I missing something???
In short, I appreciate that this is being discussed, but I'm unable to agree with the conclusion. Yes, if you have unbelieving children, you're disqualified. That's what it says.
*To his credit, the rest of scripture is certainly considered in the statement "Requiring that his children have genuine saving faith is to require personal responsibility for the salvation of another" - I agree with that as far as it goes, but not with the conclusion he draws from it.
In You asked - does an unbelieving child disqualify an elder? Justin Taylor concludes, hm, not really I guess. It was difficult for me to follow his argument. Read it and see what you think. Some of the readers' comments are brilliant.
His comparison of the two passages on the subject seemed like the usual "we can't quite make sense out of this so we'll slice and dice the concepts here until they fit our mode of thinking." We have confused "allowing scripture to interpret scripture" with "allowing certain passages to be weighted against each other to come up with some sort of artificial 'balance' while ignoring the remainder of scripture."* (I've seen enough of that ridiculous method I can smell it a mile away.) I think he misses the point when he says "believers can also be translated faithful" - I would like to suggest here that faithfulness isn't some vague concept left for us to define as we wish, but something that requires an object. Faithfulness to something... which (I don't think it is a stretch to conclude, given the context) would be the Christian faith.
A particularly confusing aspect of this discussion (and of many others) is, how do we know when someone is genuinely "faithful" or "believing?" This is one of many passages where a distinction between two categories of people, Christians and elect is helpful. The biblical basis for this is scattered throughout the Bible, and would require a lengthy, separate post to describe in full. For now, however, I would urge you to note that these terms (and other parallel terms) are not used interchangeably, and there is no reason why they shouldn't mean something different. Christian is a term originally applied by unbelievers to a group of people based on who they are following. The elect, on the other hand, are those whom God has chosen, who are written in the book of life, and who are ultimately known only to God. And this is always how these terms are used in scripture, as far as I have found to date. This has been a statement of controversy, but I'm certainly ready to retract this position if it can be demonstrated to be unbiblical. As you might guess, I find it very helpful.
Therefore, the answer to the question posed in my previous paragraph is, we don't know in an ultimate sense who is genuinely faithful, but that doesn't render these verses meaningless. God does not expect us to be able to divinely discern who truly belongs to the elect. I propose, therefore, that if my kid is a Christian on all outward appearances, according to the best possible human judgment, that is sufficient to qualify as faithful. Conversely, if he is un-Christian according to the best possible human judgement, he's not faithful, and his father is disqualified from eldership. How do you judge a tree? By its fruit. It seems pretty straightforward to me; why muddy the waters?
I would also like to take the opportunity to provide clear answers to all of his "uncomfortable questions" (oh no, we can't have uncomfortable questions!) using the term "believing" in the outward, "Christian" sense described above:
1. What do we make of an elder who has a number of believing children, walking faithfully with the Lord---but one who is not?
He's automatically disqualified according to scripture, plain as day.
2. If most of his children are believers, is he not a good manager of his household?
Is anyone good at anything apart from Christ? That's not really the point, scripture still disqualifies you. (Another application of "how do you judge a tree?"...)
3. Or does the one unbelieving child call into question his overall managerial ability?
I should hope so, since that seems to be the logical conclusion of these passages.
4. If it does, then why did any of his children turn out to be believers?
Why does anyone at all turn out to be a believer? Parents can and should do everything within their ability to raise children in the faith, while recognizing it is ultimately a work of God.
He also uses the term a couple times "control of your kids." Well I don't quite get what that is supposed to mean, but I would rather my kid(s) be under God's control than mine. I still believe parents are under a very real obligation to train their children up in the way they should go, but that's not the same thing as a pretense of real, ultimate "control." The word in the bible is translated as "manage" which doesn't quite mean the same thing. As one commenter said (paraphrasing here), children need to find their own faith and not just believe in/because of/according to their parents.
And I'm still lost with this statement: "Paul does not spell out what this looks like in every case, nor does he spell out all of the specifics of what will disqualify an elder." Um, what? Isn't that what both of these passages are about? It's a list of qualifications for elders. Am I missing something???
In short, I appreciate that this is being discussed, but I'm unable to agree with the conclusion. Yes, if you have unbelieving children, you're disqualified. That's what it says.
*To his credit, the rest of scripture is certainly considered in the statement "Requiring that his children have genuine saving faith is to require personal responsibility for the salvation of another" - I agree with that as far as it goes, but not with the conclusion he draws from it.
If you're not into yoga... if you have half a brain...
[Editorial Note: This post appeared on my other blog on 11/4/11. I'm just moving it over here to put all posts that are a good fit for this blog in one place.]
This is a brief and admittedly not very informed response to Mark Driscoll's recent post Christian Yoga? It's a Stretch. [Note: as of 5/16/16, this link does no longer takes you to the article in question.] To start with I would like to say that the article appeared to be well researched and was informative and interesting to read. To his credit, Mark generally does a great job in general of researching a topic before posting about it. The result is a thought-provoking and challenging post that is well worth reading.
Before continuing I should say that I have no experience with yoga whatsoever. I am not in a position to judge how well it helps some people or whether it could possibly help me. Certainly it doesn't seem that hard to survive without it and there are other avenues to relieve tension and stress. I wonder what Mark would have to say about some of the Far-Eastern martial arts.
Mark concludes that Yoga "as defined here" (which is essentially a description of how it defines itself) should be rejected outright. This sounds really wishy-washy but I still have to wonder if it's possible to agree with that, but maybe still not reject yoga, with certain qualifiers. I agree in the sense that his case is well-stated, coherent, and Biblically grounded. Yet before reaching the "reject" conclusion I think we would do well to address a few more general questions applied to this topic, such as:
Should Christians who "unwittingly" participate in idolatry be judged differently than those who do on purpose? (And, once you have read Mark's post describing what it really is, are you then without excuse?)
Is there anything God can't redeem? If yoga is really that useful is it worth exploring a Christian alternative to it?
Titus 1:15 (an oft-neglected passage) reads, "To the pure, all things are pure; but to those who are defiled an unbelieving, nothing is pure, but both there mind and their conscience is defiled." To what degree is this a license to participate in debatable activities such as not-deliberately-idol-worshiping yoga? Does Mark's position come too close to legalism?
In a world of anything-goes postmodernism I appreciate Mark sticking to his guns on this topic, and defining specifically what it is, and what's wrong with it. Although I don't agree with Mark on everything, I may conclude in this case that he is correct, but in the meantime I think a little further discussion wouldn't hurt. I would love to hear your thoughts.
Oh and you're welcome for getting that song stuck in your head.
This is a brief and admittedly not very informed response to Mark Driscoll's recent post Christian Yoga? It's a Stretch. [Note: as of 5/16/16, this link does no longer takes you to the article in question.] To start with I would like to say that the article appeared to be well researched and was informative and interesting to read. To his credit, Mark generally does a great job in general of researching a topic before posting about it. The result is a thought-provoking and challenging post that is well worth reading.
Before continuing I should say that I have no experience with yoga whatsoever. I am not in a position to judge how well it helps some people or whether it could possibly help me. Certainly it doesn't seem that hard to survive without it and there are other avenues to relieve tension and stress. I wonder what Mark would have to say about some of the Far-Eastern martial arts.
Mark concludes that Yoga "as defined here" (which is essentially a description of how it defines itself) should be rejected outright. This sounds really wishy-washy but I still have to wonder if it's possible to agree with that, but maybe still not reject yoga, with certain qualifiers. I agree in the sense that his case is well-stated, coherent, and Biblically grounded. Yet before reaching the "reject" conclusion I think we would do well to address a few more general questions applied to this topic, such as:
Should Christians who "unwittingly" participate in idolatry be judged differently than those who do on purpose? (And, once you have read Mark's post describing what it really is, are you then without excuse?)
Is there anything God can't redeem? If yoga is really that useful is it worth exploring a Christian alternative to it?
Titus 1:15 (an oft-neglected passage) reads, "To the pure, all things are pure; but to those who are defiled an unbelieving, nothing is pure, but both there mind and their conscience is defiled." To what degree is this a license to participate in debatable activities such as not-deliberately-idol-worshiping yoga? Does Mark's position come too close to legalism?
In a world of anything-goes postmodernism I appreciate Mark sticking to his guns on this topic, and defining specifically what it is, and what's wrong with it. Although I don't agree with Mark on everything, I may conclude in this case that he is correct, but in the meantime I think a little further discussion wouldn't hurt. I would love to hear your thoughts.
Oh and you're welcome for getting that song stuck in your head.
A little about Independent Bible Church
[Editorial Note: This post appeared on my other blog on 10/30/11. I'm just moving it over here to put all posts that are a good fit for this blog in one place.]
Now that I have posted something about a guest pastor, some of you may be wondering where I am attending church. We (I and my family of three) have been at Independent Bible Church, Port Angeles now since about 2009. You can check it out here. For a long time we were not able to attend regularly or be very involved because of my work schedule. Even now it is difficult since it is about a 28 minute drive away for us in Sequim. But we think we like it better than anything closer. Some folks come from as far as Quilcene to go there; now that's quite a drive. It is a rather large church, attendance typically ranging 7-800 per week but split up among three services.
It was apparently started in 1888 by a group of eight men who thought Port Angeles needed a Christ-centered, bible-believing church. I think that is pretty amazing that what was started so long ago has been blessed to grow to its current size. IBC declares itself to be self-governing and free of any ecclesiastical authority. I may comment more on that later, but for now I'll just say I think that is just fine by me. Scripture never said we have to have all these denominations with complex structures of church government. On certain matters that divide congregations, it claims a neutral stance, although I feel paedobaptists are very few if any here. Another subject for a future post.
We really like Pastor Mike, who preaches most of the sermons. He has a splendid expository preaching style and preaches right through books of the Bible, delivering a clear and profound message without a lot of distracting stories and topical studies. I appears he may be retiring or semi-retiring soon; I'm not certain. We also go to a Sunday school class which has been of a more topical nature. We are not yet members at IBC, but I think that may be in our rather near future, probably. If you are ever in Port Angeles or just passing through, we welcome you to come and visit IBC with us.
Now that I have posted something about a guest pastor, some of you may be wondering where I am attending church. We (I and my family of three) have been at Independent Bible Church, Port Angeles now since about 2009. You can check it out here. For a long time we were not able to attend regularly or be very involved because of my work schedule. Even now it is difficult since it is about a 28 minute drive away for us in Sequim. But we think we like it better than anything closer. Some folks come from as far as Quilcene to go there; now that's quite a drive. It is a rather large church, attendance typically ranging 7-800 per week but split up among three services.
It was apparently started in 1888 by a group of eight men who thought Port Angeles needed a Christ-centered, bible-believing church. I think that is pretty amazing that what was started so long ago has been blessed to grow to its current size. IBC declares itself to be self-governing and free of any ecclesiastical authority. I may comment more on that later, but for now I'll just say I think that is just fine by me. Scripture never said we have to have all these denominations with complex structures of church government. On certain matters that divide congregations, it claims a neutral stance, although I feel paedobaptists are very few if any here. Another subject for a future post.
We really like Pastor Mike, who preaches most of the sermons. He has a splendid expository preaching style and preaches right through books of the Bible, delivering a clear and profound message without a lot of distracting stories and topical studies. I appears he may be retiring or semi-retiring soon; I'm not certain. We also go to a Sunday school class which has been of a more topical nature. We are not yet members at IBC, but I think that may be in our rather near future, probably. If you are ever in Port Angeles or just passing through, we welcome you to come and visit IBC with us.
Guest preacher today
[Editorial Note: This post appeared on my other blog on 10/30/11. I'm just moving it over here to put all posts that are a good fit for this blog in one place.]
Contrary to sentiments earlier in my life, I've decided I usually like to be at the church service when we have a guest pastor, because he will have something interesting to say that deviates from my usual expectations. This week was certainly unusual. I'm not really sure what to think of this guy - and I mean that in a non-judgemental way. I think sticking by one's firm convictions is great and I probably would disagree with him on plenty of points, but I still recognize that God put him there so I could be convicted and learn something.
So this fellow - I've already forgotten his name, so that's no good - has traveled the world doing some sort of missions work and/or church planting. But he shows a distinct preference for operating outside of conventional norms and models that churches use to undertake missions. To which I say, great, as long as we're focused on bringing people to Christ and on scripture and what it says about how to do that. He started the sermon quoting a number of texts from scripture about how God's love is meant for the whole world. (I thought to myself great, another postmillenialist! But that's beside the point.) Then he dived into what it means to be a Christian, focusing on some of the basic commandments Jesus gave as a starting point. Love God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength. Love your neighbor as yourself. Proclaim the gospel to all nations, making disciples and baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
So that was the convicting part. Do I really do any of those things well? Sometimes I think I'm not doing them at all, honestly. Somewhere in there he also mentioned that Jesus will grant us anything if we ask in his name. So this part of the message compelled me to search my heart and ask Jesus to work in me and do whatever it takes to empower me to do those things.
At the end of the message was a rather eclectic list of pitfalls to avoid. His definition of legalism was confusing, as it seemed like he was defining it both as works righteousness and as emphasizing faith alone to the detriment of works. He also stated it is important not to confuse legalism with obedience--sounds great in theory but his extrapolation on this point was so confusing I can't really remember it. So at that point I feel my response is to focus on what scripture teaches about the subject as it can't be any more confusing than this message. Also in the list was libertarianism. I'm not sure why, thought that was an odd one to pick out (and I don't call myself a true libertarian), since it was the only item in his list with political implications.
So, you can pray with me that this week I will learn to love God, love others around me, and preach the gospel and make disciples in whatever capacity I can this week. And after that too, for that matter.
Contrary to sentiments earlier in my life, I've decided I usually like to be at the church service when we have a guest pastor, because he will have something interesting to say that deviates from my usual expectations. This week was certainly unusual. I'm not really sure what to think of this guy - and I mean that in a non-judgemental way. I think sticking by one's firm convictions is great and I probably would disagree with him on plenty of points, but I still recognize that God put him there so I could be convicted and learn something.
So this fellow - I've already forgotten his name, so that's no good - has traveled the world doing some sort of missions work and/or church planting. But he shows a distinct preference for operating outside of conventional norms and models that churches use to undertake missions. To which I say, great, as long as we're focused on bringing people to Christ and on scripture and what it says about how to do that. He started the sermon quoting a number of texts from scripture about how God's love is meant for the whole world. (I thought to myself great, another postmillenialist! But that's beside the point.) Then he dived into what it means to be a Christian, focusing on some of the basic commandments Jesus gave as a starting point. Love God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength. Love your neighbor as yourself. Proclaim the gospel to all nations, making disciples and baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
So that was the convicting part. Do I really do any of those things well? Sometimes I think I'm not doing them at all, honestly. Somewhere in there he also mentioned that Jesus will grant us anything if we ask in his name. So this part of the message compelled me to search my heart and ask Jesus to work in me and do whatever it takes to empower me to do those things.
At the end of the message was a rather eclectic list of pitfalls to avoid. His definition of legalism was confusing, as it seemed like he was defining it both as works righteousness and as emphasizing faith alone to the detriment of works. He also stated it is important not to confuse legalism with obedience--sounds great in theory but his extrapolation on this point was so confusing I can't really remember it. So at that point I feel my response is to focus on what scripture teaches about the subject as it can't be any more confusing than this message. Also in the list was libertarianism. I'm not sure why, thought that was an odd one to pick out (and I don't call myself a true libertarian), since it was the only item in his list with political implications.
So, you can pray with me that this week I will learn to love God, love others around me, and preach the gospel and make disciples in whatever capacity I can this week. And after that too, for that matter.
Welcome and Introduction
So I used to have this idea that I would write a blog for pretty much whatever is on my mind. But I now see that isn't going to work. I am far too scatterbrained to maintain an audience that way. So I'm splitting things up. First of all I continue to maintain my professional blog as such, which as been in existence since 2006. Second, my other blog on this platform will remain as an outlet for sharing about hobbies, fun stuff, and commentary that may interest a broad audience. This blog is where I will dump all the controversial stuff: Commentary of a religious/theological nature, political commentary, and so forth. Don't expect any great quality commentary here; remember you pretty much get what you pay for.
Now I may be accused of living a double life for keeping this stuff separate from the rest. And I may continue to grant that is a legitimate accusation. But for now, I'm going with it just to keep myself organized. The reason the other blog never got anywhere was it lacked direction. Now it has direction, and this one has direction.
Now it remains to be seen whether I have time to keep on posting!
Now I may be accused of living a double life for keeping this stuff separate from the rest. And I may continue to grant that is a legitimate accusation. But for now, I'm going with it just to keep myself organized. The reason the other blog never got anywhere was it lacked direction. Now it has direction, and this one has direction.
Now it remains to be seen whether I have time to keep on posting!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)