No Comments
trent.hunter on October 20th, 2006
Yeah I did,
“One radical Christian said organizers of the exhibition — partly funded by the Norwegian government — should “burn in hell”, Soeli said. Laws describing homosexuality as a “crime against nature” are still on the statutes in some countries.”
This guy is right in the sense that ALL OF US should burn in hell. For, any denial God’s rightful authority over our lives is an offense against his glory of an infinitely tragic proportion!
He is wrong, however, in saying this without moving to Christ (Not that the paper would have included the gospel if he had). We would agree, an abomination is an abomination – but the grace of God is greater than all our sin-even the sin of homosexuality!
But the point you make is so true! There is a reason this man was quoted. There is a kind of either/or that is set up. Only jerks are Christians and only jerks oppose the idea that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle. So if you don’t want to be a jerk, embrace the homosexual lifestyle!
There is subtle reality communicated in this article that you have seen. Namely, a view that includes any and all forms of sexuality is itself an exclusive view, hidden under the guise of “inclusivism” – a view that rejects a Creator and rejects design.
Aaron on October 21st, 2006
I appreciate this truth as my wife and younger sister struggle with our Abercrombie world. I have found that when men continue to tell them they are beatiful, it helps them fight against the message of the media. All it takes is a few seconds to tell your loved one that they are pretty, but it makes all the difference.
trent.hunter on October 22nd, 2006
To any bulldogs out there, I lend my most genuine apology for stereotyping you as hard headed. I know that many of you are very pleasant and that your reputation is often tarnished by your few public moments of rage (which we are all guilty of) and by the neglected anger-issues of others. Please respond with any questions or concerns.
trent.hunter on October 22nd, 2006
Right on Aaron! There are few things my wife enjoys more than hearing me call her beautiful! This is a husband and a fathers great privilege – to be the one to whom the women of his family look for a reflection of what God thinks of them.
Focus on the Family Deals With Ted Haggard’s Moral Failure « matt perry dot com on November 6th, 2006
[...] Also, Above All Things has an excellent blog entry about Three Signs of Ted Haggard’s Conversion that is well worth reading. Also, Don Whitney’s sermon, “The Almost Inevitable Ruin of Every Minister … and How To Avoid It” is a must-listen for every pastor. [...]
msc on November 10th, 2006
Thank you for your take on this situation.
Barry on November 11th, 2006
Good thoughts, and I appreciate your closing warning. How very much every one of us need to hear it and take it to heart.
I wandered over here from the SBTS blogs page, and have enjoyed browsing your entries…
Bless you brother!
mark on November 20th, 2006
You stated: “Our servers should feel a strange sense that they have just been visited by the Lord Jesus himself!”
Yes, of course.. now what do we mean by that? I’d say that the ppl who are throwin’ ya the bible honestly think that Jesus would do the same. And clearly we would take issue with that. But that’s just how they’ve been conditioned (not discipled) into Christianity.
Jake on November 21st, 2006
Mr. Hunter,
I stumbled across your blog, googling names of old chums from Moody. I think your absolutely right on the dining out thing. It is bothersome that Christians have a horrible, often true, stereotype in this type of a setting. Keep up your thinking and your writing, I will be reading.
trent.hunter on November 22nd, 2006
Mark,
Thank you for your insight! You are perceptive to inquire as to what I mean when I write “Our servers should feel a strange sense that they have just been visited by the Lord Jesus himself!” Allow me to refine the meaning of this statement a bit and, in the process, address your very good point.
First, I don’t expect that the server will feel like Christ was with them because our example meets their expectation of what that would entail. If they do not know him, how can they know what it is to know him? Rather, our presence should define and, in many cases, redefine what that means for those whom we meet. This statement from the post caputures how this works, “The love that characterizes their own relationships envelopes the server into its joy and gives him or her a taste of what it is to know Christ.”
Now, as it concerns the Christian’s vision of what it means to be Jesus to the people in our lives, this, of course, must be shaped by the Scriptures! Surely, it is a mark of the sin in our own hearts to value some of what Jesus says and ignore the rest. In John 17, we learn that Christians are sent into the world by Jesus as he was sent by his Father. We are to be sanctified by the truth for the sake of our own souls and the souls of those for whom we are sent!
As our example, Jesus said with ndlythis life that love and truth are intertwined in such a way that to neglect one is to neglect the other. He did this most profoudly in his death on the cross. In a resturant, the convergence of truth in love in the miracle of our converted heart meet the view of a server. Our calling requires that we love our server by showing due respect, honor and friendliness and that we communicate the truth of where that love comes when we point to Christ as the reason for the graciousness and generosity we display! We should be attaching Christ to our transformed lives and that assumes a transformed life!
Abigail on December 7th, 2006
Follow…
The tradition of all the dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brain of the living…
trent.hunter on December 7th, 2006
What on earth?
Rachel on December 11th, 2006
Is this merely a new effort to get at Promise Keepers’ goals? My fear is that these men feel threatened and that, alas, they are going to try and relieve that sense of threat through Christianity. All the while embarassing the church and so many Christians.
R. Mansfield on December 15th, 2006
Christian is misspelled in your title.
trent.hunter on December 15th, 2006
Wow! That’s ridiculous…Thank you!!!!!!
Randy on December 21st, 2006
Well, at least you are humble about it….
trent on December 21st, 2006
Actually, I will go ahead and give my award to you Randy. You deserve it every bit as much as I do.
Drew on December 22nd, 2006
WOW! I’m impressed at the honor you’ve received! After looking at the cover, i see that you’re really quite a good looking guy!
trent.hunter on December 22nd, 2006
That was good.
Drew on January 7th, 2007
Great thoughts…looking forward to Part II
trent.hunter on January 8th, 2007
Thanks man! I’ll let you write it.
Ben C. on January 9th, 2007
Dude, I’m so putting Time Person of the Year, 2006 on my resume now. That’s just awesome.
Drew on January 9th, 2007
i’m excited to put down that i’m the brother of Time’s Person of that year.
Who would question that?
Timmy Brister on January 11th, 2007
I don’t know what to say either man. There is nothing like hearing it from the horse’s mouth. I can’t help but think about Paul’s admonition to preach the Word because the time would come when people would turn aside from the truth to myths because of their itching ears. Indeed, they would accumulate for themselves teachers according to their own liking, and here are the answers to America’s itching ears. The problem is we have left them without the truth.
trent.hunter on January 11th, 2007
When I listen to Osteen talk with Larry King, I can’t help but believe we have the real man coming out here. He speaks with confidence to his people but cannot even articulate the simples aspects of the gospel – this, of course, is in wild contrast to the Apostle Paul’s boldness and clarity. May we, like him, be unashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ, with all of its implications (Rom. 1:16).
Ben C. on January 11th, 2007
Osteen is nuts.
Osteen on Larry King — A different perspective « RCS Web Solutions on January 11th, 2007
[...] Osteen on Larry King — A different perspective This post is in response to a friend’s blog post . [...]
Randy on January 11th, 2007
If trackbacks only worked…
My response can be found here:
http://rcswebsolutions.wordpress.com/
Just remember how the Lord tells us to deal with people who we disagree with:
And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.
I would respectfully point out that Ben’s comment about Osteen is just as unbiblical as the things Osteen said on Larry King. It is easier to see the speck in the other’s eye than it is to see the log in our own.
For what it is worth, while I think Osteen is wrong on many things, he has a gentleness and kindness about him that are very biblical. He does a great job of encouraging people. Does he always do it with biblical truth, unfortunately I think many times the answer is probably “no.” However, that doesn’t mean we can’t learn something from him.
Lets remember that we have all had times in our life when we have been less than bold in our witness for Christ. Mr. Osteen has the unfortunate experience of having his shortcomings recorded, debated, and talked about over and over again. It seems a lot of us are willing to pick up and cast the first stone. We should make a better effort at being theologically modest and less antagonistic. Is the gospel offensive to some? Absolutely. Does that give us license to be smug about it? Absolutely not.
He also posted a follow-up letter on his church’s website in which he stated clearly his belief in the biblical gospel and asked for forgiveness. What more can a man do?
His letter of apology has since been removed from the church’s website. However, it can still be found in the internet archives.
Ben C. on January 11th, 2007
Randy,
Totally understood. I probably fall short in being a little to blunt sometimes. I honestly think he deserves the comment though. Someone with no Biblical background (other than growing up in a Word of Faith church, which is hardly Biblical) and a degree in marketing (his teachers must be so proud of him since he’s made so much money marketing God) and can’t even stand up for Christianity on Larry King Live shouldn’t be the most influential person. It’s just wrong.
I’m ok with the log in my eye. I know my problems and I’m dealing with them. If I thought Osteen could even see the log/speck in his eye I probably wouldn’t say anything, but I think satan has a grasp on him. Matthew 7:15.
Bottom line: I think it’s great he’s brought people to the Lord. No question about that. I just worry about his witness and am fearful for the day when he fails or is called out as a false witness for Christ and the backlash to the Christian community as a whole because he is such a public figure now.
Am I making sense? I don’t feel like I have the gift of words.
trent.hunter on January 11th, 2007
Hey Gentlemen!
I was pleased to see a little back and forth here on the blog. Of course, as the host, it is fitting that I chime in. But first, because the blogosphere can be impersonal and because people are more than what they post, allow me to introduce friends -
Randy, meet Ben! Ben is a long time friend in the Lord who welcomed me into a friendship shortly after I was invited to church for the first time back in 8th grade. He was one of the first people to clearly explain the gospel to me. We reconnected after about 6 years just this week. I thank God for him.
Ben, meet Randy! Randy is a good friend of mine here at Southern Seminary. I met him through our common interest in web design and Randy and I collaborate on web projects from time to time. I appreciate Randy’s talent as a web programmer and his devotion as a husband and father.
On to the topic at hand. A few thoughts,
Ben,
In fairness to Mr. Osteen, he is aware of the speck in his own eye and did confess a clear commitment to the exclusivity of the gospel at his church following a firestorm of criticism by his church and even his closest followers. For this he is to be commended and God is to be praised. My post really should have included a link to this confession. Concerning Osteen’s placement as the most influential Christian, we might remember that history is full of influential men without formal theological education – DL Moody, for example. Along these lines, I think of Acts 3:13, “Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated, common men, they were astonished. And they recognized that they had been with Jesus.” So, education has little to do with gospel clarity and I see no reason why a man without theological training could not be the most influential Christian. But it should not surprise us that the most influential Christian of our times is at the same time not altogether Bible saturated or gospel centered. Osteen said for himself, “I just try to teach practical principles. I don’t even bring the Scripture in till the end of my sermon and I don’t feel bad about that.” I join you with disappointment over what these statistics must mean and thank God that your concern for the gospel’s clarity has not faded since you shared it with me back in 1994. Thanks for posting your thoughts, friend.
Randy,
I am thankful for the balance you are concerned to strike. I cannot help but think of Peter in watching these videos. I think it’s fair to say that Jesus’ reaction to Peter’s denial would have been closer to deep sorrow instead of sarcasm. But while a call to seriousness or sadness over sarcasm and silliness would have been appropriate, in my estimation, a call to “theological modesty” instead of sarcasm, in this instance, misses the mark. The tragedy of millions of people who were confused about the gospel is a serious matter indeed! I’m sure you agree brother. And while Jesus has required us to take the log out of our own eyes, as you have reminded us, we are nonetheless required to address the speck in another’s – and on gospel matters the New Testament bears this out. The quarreling about which the Apostle speaks in 2 Timothy 2:24 refers to quarrels about matters that should not divide believers – but matters of gospel are matters that matter! Gospel matters are not specks – they are not logs – they are forests! But I know that you love the gospel, brother, and praise God for your own seriousness about the cross. Who after all has “the glory of God in Christ” in the tag line for their web-programmers blog? It is this seriousness that gives way to your concern that we embrace Mr. Osteen after his confession and I hear it. May God continue to be praised in your work, in your family and in your life. Welcome to the blogosphere and thank you for posting! Time to work on Yard Birds!!!
In Closing,
Gentlemen, let’s be reminded of our example in Peter, who after rejecting Christ, lived and died for his sake. Osteen’s confession and request for forgiveness does lay a demand on us all and I thank Randy for pointing us to Dr. Mohler’s example, when Dr. Mohler wrote,
Mr. Osteen’s statement is encouraging on several fronts. First, it is encouraging to know that the constituency of Joel Osteen Ministries was so upset about the interview. Second, Mr. Osteen’s statement includes a clear and unambiguous affirmation of the exclusivity of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Third, the timeliness of the statement underlines the importance of the issues at stake. Fourth, Mr. Osteen’s apology is free from the evasions typical of the pseudo-apologies so often issued to the public. He did not say that “statements were made,” but instead acknowledged that he had failed to communicate Gospel truth. The humility and honesty of the statement serve to fortify its authenticity.
This is a reminder to all of us who appear in the media. Statements made to an audience of millions are difficult to retract and are often impossible to correct. When Mr. Osteen writes, “I hope that you accept my deepest apology and see it in your heart to extend to me grace and forgiveness,” the only proper response is to extend the very forgiveness for which he asks — and with equal humility. Other concerns can wait for another day.
With this in mind, let us be always mindful, that while witness is not only words, witness is never less than words. If we fail in what we say about the gospel, we have just provided a false explanation to everything else we attempt in Christ’s name! All of the kindness and encouragement in any name but Christ, the Christ who is the Way the Truth and the Life, is kindness and encouragement in the wrong direction. When put on the hotseat for the foundational truths of the gospel I hope and pray that each of us would maintain a clear head and a confident heart to display the goodness and the truth that Jesus died to save sinners because sinners – all sinners- deserve the eternal pain of hell.
And let’s remember, the cross invites strange looks, for the cross is foolishness to those who do not believe. But the cross is what they need. Let’s take our lead from Paul, who spoke confidently, constantly and clearly about the cross;
Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. 1 Corinthians 1:20-25
Randy on January 12th, 2007
“But while a call to seriousness or sadness over sarcasm and silliness would have been appropriate, in my estimation, a call to “theological modesty” instead of sarcasm, in this instance, misses the mark. The tragedy of millions of people who were confused about the gospel is a serious matter indeed!”
I guess then that maybe it would be helpful for you to explain the purpose of the post. The way I read it, Osteen was given the award talked about previously and you were posting the YouTube videos as reason why the award was erroneous. You were basically saying, “Look at how this guy responded on Larry King, there is no way he should be America’s Most Influential Christian.” Now, that could be the wrong impression since you “didn’t know what to say” about the videos 
.
In my opinion, the Larry King interview should be dead in the water for any Christian commenting on Mr. Osteen. He has explicitly asked for forgiveness on this issue. To forgive someone for a sin means:
1) I will not dwell on the sin myself (i.e. in thought)
2) I will not hold the sin against you in any way
3) I will not talk to others about your sin (in person or written in a public forum)
Therefore, any Christian who wants to rehash this event is, in essence, not extending the forgiveness that Mr. Osteen has asked for. Dr. Mohler says:
“When Mr. Osteen writes, “I hope that you accept my deepest apology and see it in your heart to extend to me grace and forgiveness,” the only proper response is to extend the very forgiveness for which he asks — and with equal humility.”
Hence my call to theological modesty. We should extend the forgiveness requested, recalling how many times that we have failed to share the gospel and how many times our Lord has forgiven us. Knowing that we too, despite the best biblical training, are certainly wrong on many accounts.
Now, as to “the tragedy of the millions of people who were confused about the gospel,” I agree that this is a tragedy. However, the scope of Mr. Osteen’s sin should not confuse us into thinking he is exempt from wholehearted forgiveness. The post, as written, doesn’t help a single one of those million viewer’s who don’t understand the gospel. It simply rehashes Mr. Osteen’s sin (IMO).
I agree that there are reason’s why Mr. Osteen should not be America’s Most Influential Christian. There are also reasons why he should (it reveals what America is looking for in it’s pastors). I agree that there are many things that Mr. Osteen does that are biblically and theologically detrimental to the Christian faith. However, as Dr. Mohler said:
“[We must extend forgiveness.] Other concerns can wait for another day.”
Randy on January 12th, 2007
Ben,
Nice to meet you by the way.
“Am I making sense? I don’t feel like I have the gift of words.”
I understand your concern. However, I would still say that your insistence on calling him “nuts” doesn’t help anyone, least of all Mr. Osteen.
“[speak] the truth in love” Eph. 4:15
“Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear.” Eph. 4:29
“And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness.” 2 Tim. 2:24
Please consider how God would have us respond to those with whom we disagree.
Blessings brother!
trent.hunter on January 12th, 2007
Randy,
I am better understanding your point! The term Theological modesty” seems to imply an acceptance of one’s theology. But, I take it, you mean to encouage us to accept a man who has recanted of his compromising theological statements. Though I am not sure that forgiveness entails forgetting (we still read about and learn from Peter’s denial of Christ), it does ential fairness – and in fairness to Mr. Osteen, as I mentioned in my words to Ben, it would have been right and good to frame those videos within the larger context of his confession and provide some indication as to my purpose in noting his recent award – to provide an observation as to who has the attention and the affection of American evangelicals and what that might mean. Surely Osteen preaches the gospel at home, but his painful ambiguity was revealing, and a wake up call to all of us. In my opinion, it is worth remembering – but in application of your encouragement from Scripture, it is not worth mentioning without remembering his confession. As I mentioned earlier, Dr. Mohler is our example in this and so many similar matters. My inclusion of his letter was to affirm my agreement with his words. I remember his reaction to Mr. Osteen following the show, as well as his response following his confession and being encouraged my the pattern he set in both instances. Thanks for your thoughtfulness, brother!
Ben C. on January 12th, 2007
Randy,
Nice to meet you too! Any friend of Trent’s is a friend of mine. He has such good taste in people (we both should know, right?? 
) My comment about Osteen being nuts was flippant and uncaring. I was really just trying to be funny (I’m really a funny guy… at least I think I am!), but I probably should have explained myself further and using different words.
You know, I think this is something that I’m going to have to agree to disagree with you guys on. I do not feel that his apology is from the heart. I feel it is from his pockets. My mom always said, “If you were really sorry, you wouldn’t have done it in the first place.” This was only said about things we knew to be wrong in the first place, as Mr. Osteen should have known he was basically denying Christ when he dodged Larry King’s question. I will, however, make a commitment to pray for him and his church and pray that the Lord will use him to bring many to His Kingdom.
I guess this could bring up one interesting question that I’m going to have to think about. If Joel Osteen brings one person to the Lord, but leads thousands astray, is it all worth it? (and I we don’t have to single out Mr. Osteen, it could be anyone). Maybe I’ll work on a blog post of my own for that one. I’ve got a really good ethical question to post today though, so it will have to come at a later time.
God be with you both!
trent.hunter on January 12th, 2007
Ben,
Your perception of Osteen’s heart condition may be right – but who can know? It is God who judges the “thoughts and intentions of the heart” by means of his word and it is before God that “no creature is hidden” and to whom “we must give account” (Hebrews 4:12, 13). All we have to go on, unless we are to claim omniscience, is what he has said – and his confession was plain and it was specific. Now, fruit does bear witness to what’s really going on in the heart – but as far as I can see, his health and wealth bent does not rule out his sincerety in affirming the gospel, just another misunderstanding as to the nature of the gospel’s benefits and demands on the Christian.
In my estimation, and this is all the speculation with which I am comfortable, Osteen is genuinely unclear as to the unavoidable implications of the gospel. This reality, coupled with a misplaced desire to be liked by his hearers, gave way to his blindness before a home run opportunity to talk about the meaning of the cross with his national audience. He was likely thinking more about man than he was God – and, I think, more than money.
Our prayer might be that the Lord would use the whole experience as a wake up call for Pastor Osteen and that he would take it as an opportunity to think through just how to honor Christ in future similar public appearances. We will see him again on TV. Let’s pray he is clear and uncompromising. May Pastor Osteen and each of us put the opinion of God before the opinion of people, for the sake of the gospel of Jesus Christ!
Thanks for getting the discussion rolling Randy.
Ben C. on January 12th, 2007
Trent,
You are right. We can not know his heart, that’s why I said I “feel” his apology was not from the heart. It’s just a feeling I get whenever I see him on TV, or read a story about him, or hear one of his sermons (I’ve listened to a few over the last 2-3 years). I just get a cold, dark, disingenuous feeling from him. When I saw him on the 10 most fascinating people of 2006 I actually shivered. Only God will be the true judge of him, but God gave us discernment and right now my heart tells me to beware. I will remain wary of him, but will definitely keep him in my prayers. He can do a lot of good with the “power” he has, but he can also do a lot of damage to Christianity as a whole, unfortunately.
Yes Randy, great discussion. I’m enjoying it immensely!
Drew on January 15th, 2007
I just searched for “the heart is deceitful above all things tank top” and you’re web site was the only one that came up.
trent.hunter on January 15th, 2007
It looks like my recent post just increased my rank! Fabulous!
Drew on January 17th, 2007
Hey Ben!
-trent’s little brother
zvester on January 17th, 2007
Thanks for the post. I remember hearing this on Larry King, but tried to forget it!
Jay McCumber on January 17th, 2007
I have that tank top. I wear it to preach on Sundays…every Sunday.
Ben C. on January 18th, 2007
Hey Drew! It’s been a LONG time! I remember how you and Trent used to fight all the time. Looks like (based on the HunterHome blog) you guys get along great now! My brother and I have a similar relationship now that we’ve grown older too. Congrats on marriage too! It’s got to be the best thing God ever invented.
Adam Utecht on January 19th, 2007
I think I saw Albert Mohler appear on CNN with a tank top once…
Adam Utecht on January 19th, 2007
Here I am late in the game on this blog. I will enter my thoughts anyway. Where do I begin? My bent is toward anger, sarcasm and retaliation of words when I see this video. Then my heart changes a bit when read Mr. Osteen’s apology letter. It exposes the judmentalism in my own heart, and I repent. However, I feel that my feelings are not wholly wrong. Part of my angry response is, I believer, righteous anger. I sincerely think that my feelings are due to the sadness deep within me that people have been led astray by the failures of this man. It is true that to whom much has been given, much will be required. It is also true that we who are pastors and/or teachers must be sober-minded and fearful, for “you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness” (Jas 3:1). This is an exhortation to us as much as to Mr. Osteen.
We must forgive and we cannot judge the heart of this man, because, we do not know it as God does. But I share in Ben’s cautions. I saw the interview with Barbara Walters on the recent “Heaven” program around Christmas on ABC. Mr. Osteen did not clearly articulate the gospel in this interview either. She asked him about sin and judgment and hell and why he does not preach about these things. I cannot quote exactly his response, but it was somewhere along the lines of “I don’t like to focus on the negatives” and “We want to encourage people and not bog them down with such matters.” If someone has the exact transcript, feel free to post it. Sin is a central issue that CANNOT be avoided or neglected. Without the clear preaching of mankind’s desperate state (Rom. 6:23a), there is no need for “the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Rom. 6:23b). Without the awareness of sin, we will never come to the cross of Jesus Christ. If I am correct, Mr. Osteen never talks about this to his audiences. The problem may not simply be avoiding the preaching of the EXLUSIVITY of the Gospel, but the neglect of preaching ANY Gospel at all.
My desire is not to throw mud at this man, for I have many deficiencies. If I am ever on Larry King (highly unlikely), I will also feel the pressure of pleasing man and not God. I do pray that I will in every situation be bold in proclaiming the Gospel of my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
trent.hunter on January 19th, 2007
Well stated, Adam. Miss you man!
Better than a transcript – here’s the video!
Ben C. on January 22nd, 2007
Holy cow! I did not hear about this. How tragic and sad that a company would do this! Also, I bet if they did it about Muslims and had them renounce Allah or something people would be up in arms and call them insensitive… Crazy, crazy World. At least we have something to look forward to after this life!
Ben C. on January 22nd, 2007
I was reminded this weekend of another thing Mr. Osteen says… He says that he preaches life application and not doctrine. In my opinion, how can you understand the application if you do not know the doctrine. This is a dangerous path he’s going down.
Adam, I hope you get on Larry King Live someday! hahaha! I’m sure there is a lot of pressure on that show. There would probably be a huge battle between good and evil inside a man before going on there to speak in front of the World.
trent.hunter on January 22nd, 2007
Ben – that is a very good insight. You are right.
trent.hunter on January 22nd, 2007
Application is weightless without doctrine. And doctrine without application isn’t honored. A read across the New Testament bears this out. The epistles are marked by this relationship. The book of Ephesians, for example, explores the glory of God, the sinfulness of humankind, God’s plan for our salvation in Christ, etc. The second half of the book is an application of that doctrine to life and relationships. I love it! That to say, you hit the nail on the head, Ben.
Ben C. on January 22nd, 2007
Sometimes I wonder why we have to be non-violent… (I’m joking) but Christians are easy targets because the media/World knows we won’t go out and burn down a building, or start stampeeding a marketplace becasue someone offended us. God never guaranteed that the Christian life would be easy!
Ben C. on January 22nd, 2007
Yay! I’m studying Ephesians right now, so that is what led me to those remarks. It’s good to know I’m already getting the major points.
Dan Barnett on January 22nd, 2007
I know I’m really late on this. I agree with you guys about Osteen being off-base on this stuff. I am a little offended by one comment, that I may take out of context on the offense, and if I do let me know. I forget which one of you said it, but you said that A man with no degree shouldn’t be the most influencial christian. I understand you said more in that sentence, and it was directed at Joel. I am troubled that so many people require a biblical degree of some sort to be an effective minister, christian, pastor, etc. I would challenge you to look at yourself, all of you, and see if you deep down really think that, whether you deny the thought out loud. I don’t want to accuse you of saying what I have paraphrased. I’m really just pointing out a concern. I agree that Osteen shouldn’t be the mot influencial christian, but he is. That’s the sad part. Whether he knows Christ or not, we must pray for him and trust God to be in control. Jesus said the we would be his witnesses to the world. It wasn’t a choice. What scares me is, not only Joel, but other highly influencial christians with money in their name, are being Christ’s witnesses. We either direct others to Him or away, and these men are not directing people toward the true Christ. All that said, I would challenge you guys, to examine your mind and see if you hold that belief that a man, not educated by a christan school can be the most influencial christian.
Dan Barnett on January 23rd, 2007
I would like to add….after my dial-up finally loaded the utube vids, This is frightening. What’s sad is I think this man and others like seriously believe this stuff. Sure the Hindus are serious about their faith, but it’s placed on false idols. I find this very much a reflection of a dangerous post-modern, relative belief.
Ben C. on January 23rd, 2007
Dan,
I’m going to stand by my comment on the degree thing. The Bible teaches us that we are all ministers, educated or not, but a pastor, a leader, should have some sort of formal training. Would you allow me to remove perform brain surgery on you? (ps. I’m not a brain surgeon) I think it’s a sign of respect not only to God, but to the people a pastor is leading. You’re telling them, “Listen, I want to be the one to lead you, God has called me to do that, so out of respect for Him, I will learn as much as I can about how to interpret the Bible, the history behind it, etc… so that we can understand and apply a document that was written 2,000 years ago to our lives today.” It’s actually very dangerous to let a man preach when he doesn’t know what he’s doing. If you could go to my in-law’s church you would know what I’m talking about (or maybe watching some of Osteen’s sermons would show you) because that guy has no clue and no training.
That being said, the Holy Spirit leads. I won’t deny that. I could be called to leave my job today and preach to people in China or something. I’m just saying that if you are called to be in that capacity. Wouldn’t you want to be the best you can be? For the glory of the Lord? Our church just lost a pastor 2 years ago because he decided that he needed to get his Dr., he already went to college for 4 years, already got his M-Div, but still he sought the Word and strived to know more and more.
Maybe it’s just a personal choice for me, maybe I’m an elitist, maybe I’m wrong, but I think someone who’s going to lead me, someone who I want to ask questions of, etc… should have more formal training than I have.
Ben C. on January 23rd, 2007
Man, when I was in high school our Civics teacher (Mr. Nix, if you had him Trent) made us do a debate and we had to take the side we didn’t believe in. He gave this one girl the pro life speech. She was totally pro-choice (typical liberal California kid) and was devastated she had to go with pro-life. When she got up to do her debate she could not stop crying. She was so guilty that she was ever pro-choice that her debate was basically a 30 minute apology to the world and a warning against what it actually does to a baby. It was crazy to see that. I think she even lost some friends over it (she was in the popular crowd), but she didn’t care. It was quite a change. Very interesting to see. I think more people would turn to pro-life if they really knew what was going on.
Dan Barnett on January 23rd, 2007
Ben, I agree with you whole-heartedly on a leader wanting to learn more and be the best he can be. I’m behind you whether this response says it differently and sounds as I’ve missed your point. I’ll be honest, at this point in my life compared to this point in yours, if you and I got into a debate, you can out-doctrine me hands down. I do know, however, a few men who are pastors and don’t have a college degree. These men are some of the wisest and Godliest men I have ever known. How did they get there? They had men over them in the church pouring into them, and they disciplined themselves to learning all they could. One of them spent a full career as a horseshoer. I’m encouraged to hear your pastor wants to further his professional studies. I won’t comment on him because I don’t know anything about the story, though I could speculate and make assumptions to disagree with how he goes about it, but I won’t because I would be dead wrong to. I’m more encouraged to know that there are pastors like him who have the time and resources to be able to go to school. I feel the same for those of you who have been blessed with the finances somehow to go. Every bit of training thus far for me has been through men in my life. Unfortunately for years I ignored and am fighting to gain more wisdom and knowledge. I won’t sit here and say your wrong. That would open the two of us to a debate. If that occurred I would lose more than an argument. You could find things to prove me wrong, thus I would not learn but be defeated. I trust that this wouldn’t be your intention in such a debate, but for what I’ve put my heart through, it would hurt too much to know nothing more than I’m wrong as far as I can tell. So I will stand by my opinion for now, and I give your my word that I will search for truth whether different or not from what I believe now. Thanks for your kind and gracious response. You don’t get those much in the church anymore. “Press On.”-Philippians
trent.hunter on January 24th, 2007
Gentlemen, good discussion.
One exchange from the Barbra Walters’ interview is worth reflection as we discuss the nature and necessity of theological education for the pastor.
Walters: “You have no theological training, and yet here you are telling people how to live their lives. I mean, where do you get that authority? Where do you get the nerve?”
Osteen: “I guess I just get it from God. I don’t know it just comes out of me.”
The answer to where a pastor gets his authority is indeed “from God,” but the authority a pastor has from God is never to be understood as being separate from the God’s Word. That Osteen did not make a B-Line to the Scriptures as the grounds for his authority to teach reflects the same philosophy of ministry expressed in his interview with King; “What I just try to do is teach practical principles. I may not bring the Scriptures in until the end of my sermon, and I don’t feel bad about that.” But Paul did not tell Timothy in 2 Timothy 4 to “teach practical principles” an save the Scriptures “until the end,” but to “preach the word.” The word is that which is authoritative and the word is the sum and substance of our preaching. Principles follow.
Randy on January 24th, 2007
You gotta love it when people start quoting themselves
I think Trent has laid out Scripture’s position on this topic pretty well for a short blog comment.
Now, quit yappin’ and get my Yardbirds work done…
trent.hunter on January 24th, 2007
Allow me to restate my previous response to Ben’s original comment,
Concerning Osteen’s placement as the most influential Christian, we might remember that history is full of influential men without formal theological education – DL Moody, for example. Along these lines, I think of Acts 3:13, “Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated, common men, they were astonished. And they recognized that they had been with Jesus.”
The wonder of the gospel is precisely that it DOESN’T require formal training for its apprehension or dissemination. God has so designed our salvation that education is not a prerequisite to being saved or to ministering the gospel for the salvation of others.
Allow me to propose the criteria of “Gospel faithfulness” over, though not against, the criteria of “formal education.” That is, this is the criteria which we might hope the most influential Christian to meet. 2 Timothy 1:15 is clear enough, “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.” So, we ought to expect diligence out our leaders, discipline, a knowledge of and love for the Scriptures – but formal education, I think, while an important means to competence is not a required means for competence in the pastoral task of teaching and preaching. As we all know, formal training doesn’t necessarily lead to a qualified person – morally or theologically! A passion for the glory of God reflected in a moral character that reflects the nature of God is tantamount! That’s what I might call “gospel faithfulness.” So, while the Apostles were “uneducated men,” they knew and were transformed by Christ – and were, thus, fully equipped for the the task of gospel ministry. They gave their lives for the gospel and their influence is felt to this day. These uneducated men are among the most influential of human history.
The issue we all have with Pastor Osteen is having to do with the clarity of the gospel. Were Pastor Osteen clear on this matter, no one would be complaining about his lack of education.
trent.hunter on January 24th, 2007
Now that’s kinda funny. Here I looked at the comment I just posted and thought, “I really ought to break that up into two.” So I chopped it up and by the time I posted, Randy responds and the very text to which he is responding now appears below his response. Yardbirds, here I come. So, for the record, Randy’s response was to the analysis that immediately followed his last comment.
Ben C. on January 24th, 2007
Guys,
I hear your points. I was thinking about it a lot last night and had a discussion with my wife about it. We both agreed that for us, we would prefer to have a pastor that was formally educated, but that you guys are completely right, it does not take a formally educated man to lead. It just takes the grace of God and that man’s love for God and his gift from God to understand text and be ablet to use it to bring others to the Kingdom of Heaven. (was that a run-on sentence?) It’s hard sometimes because we (and by we, I mean me) want to put limits on God’s power, but if I say that a man without formal education can’t be a pastor, or I would never go to a church with a pastor that didn’t have a degree, then I’m saying that I can’t trust that God would give someone the natural wisdom and authority to preach, teach and pastor a great church. I would definitely want to do some checking into what the church believes doctrinally and listen to the pastor preach a few times, but I think we would all do that of any church whether or not the pastor was formally educated or not.
Trent, glad you have this site man. I think Dan is right that it’s hard to get into a good discussion with Christians without being spiteful or mean anymore. That’s truly sad. I’m pretty easy going (but I am opinionated), so you really could say anything to me and I probably wouldn’t even know you were insluting/making fun of me.
On a side note… And maybe you could do a blog entry on this Trent… I just met an alumnus from my school who’s looking for a church here and she told me she’s “Egalatarian” (sp?). I had never heard of that before! What are your thoughts? It’s something about men and women being equals in the church or something. I haven’t had much time to dig into it yet. Very touch issue I would imagine.
Adam Utecht on January 24th, 2007
That video is horrifying. I fear for our country and other countries around the world who are allowing the genocide of countless babies every year!
Randy on January 24th, 2007
Ben,
Concerning Egalitarianism, I believe it to be an unbiblical position. The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood has a lot of material on this topic and most of it is free:
I would recommend that you start with their 50 crucial questions:
http://www.cbmw.org/questions/
and then take a look at their free online books:
http://www.cbmw.org/resources/books.php
Particularly, “Biblical Foundations for Manhood and Womanhood” by Wayne Grudem (it is at the top of the list of free online books)
trent.hunter on January 24th, 2007
Ben,
Well, I’d have agree with you. I would lean toward a church with a pastor who has received formal training. Just because the Peter was “uneducated,” doesn’t make a lack of education a criteria for faithfulness. It is just to say that education isn’t everything.
As far as Egalitarianism, Ben – this is huge! The feminist movement within our culture has a counterpart within the church. Its aim is to flatten gender roles within the church and family. You might visit the site for the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood at http://www.cbmw.com. Also, the first mp3 at http://www.cbmw.org/resources/audio.php might be of help. It is an interview with Wayne Grudem about his new book, “Evangelical Feminism: A New Path to Liberalism?” Basically, he exposes the hermeneutical tricks pulled by those who attempt to flatten gender roles and shows their outcome – such principles of Biblical interpretation will lead toward a functional denial of the authority of Scripture. A kind of creative interpretation that has characterized the liberal movement within mainline protestantism (ie. The Episcopalian church and it’s ordination of homosexual bishops). I would highly recommend Grudem’s book to you for a good fly over the land of the topic, it’s importance and it’s implications.
Ben C. on January 24th, 2007
Thanks guys! I’m going to check this stuff out. I couldn’t believe it when I read some blurbs about it when I spent a few minutes checking it out after I got the email from her asking for help finding a church. It seemed un-Biblical to me, but was too unfamiliar with it to take a stance and be able to back it up!
Dan Barnett on January 24th, 2007
Hey guys. Thanks for the encouraging support of the discussion between Ben and myself. Ben, I too, as well as probably many Christians, would lean toward a church where the pastor is schooled. I just wanted to raise a concern as far as the degree thing went. I respect you greatly for being open and humble. I also know you weren’t pointing at this topic directly in your comments on Osteen. Your comment just triggered a concern I’ve had with some people. I appreciate this site as well. You guys are really just kind in your arguments and open to criticism. Thanks guys.
Dan Barnett on January 24th, 2007
Great vid man. Ben, awesome story. God is great. I know they’ve launched an effort to put an ultrasound machine in every pregnancy clinic in the US. The turn-around rate for abortive mothers(those pregnant women who are planning on aborting the current child) is either 75% or 95%. I can’t remember which. My wife and I lost a baby at about 4-6 weeks recently. It breaks my heart to see babies that age literally slaughtered and hacked to pieces. Praise God we’re 12 weeks along on our fourth(third by the world) child. Pass this blog to all you guys know through email or posts.
Ben C. on January 25th, 2007
So, I checked out a lot of those “50 questions”. I can’t deny the scripture, but some of it sounds pretty harsh… Like how a woman can not speak in church and should ask her husband any question, etc… Does that mean my wife shouldn’t talk in our Sunday school class? She should wait until the end and then ask me questions when we get home? If we take the scripture literally it appears to be yes. Maybe I missed some of the questions and answers (I’ll finish them today), but maybe someone here has some input?
trent.hunter on January 25th, 2007
Hmm… let me go read them.
trent.hunter on January 25th, 2007
Ben go here for a clarification. I think you misread the question or the answer.
Ben C. on January 25th, 2007
Exactly what I was looking for! That’s what I get for stopping at number 21 or something like that… Been busy here at work today (which is unusual… I have a really boring job), so I hadn’t had time to read the rest! Thanks Trent! That will teach me to post something before I finish it
trent.hunter on January 25th, 2007
I love it. I am probably due for a post on this issue.
Ben C. on January 26th, 2007
This is a tough one Trent. The sin of homosexuality is no greater than any sin you or I commit (if we do not repent, and I think that is the key… People think we get all high and mighty, but it’s not that, we would refute the sin if someone didn’t repent whether it was for being homosexual, or coveting your neighbor or whatever). I had a gay roommate in college (what an experience!) and at a Christian school he had a very hard time. We were friends before he “came out” and continued to be friends afterwards. I love him with the love of Christ and we would talk frequently about his “condition”. It seemed to just wrap itself around him and he thought it was the only way for him. There was no convincing. He left the school later that year and we don’t get to talk much anymore unfortunately. He just got wrapped up in that world.
I read that article yesterday too. I wish Christians (especially someone with a national voice like the VP) would say, “I love my daughter. I don’t love what she’s doing. It is a sin and we talk about it, but she’s not ready to deal with it. I will support her with the Love of Christ and I will support her daughter, my grand daughter.” – Something along those lines. We don’t need to embrace it. Just love the person. Honestly, none of us deserve any sort of love. At all. But Jesus called us to love our neighbor.
Enjoy my Friday morning ramblings! Really, my job is boring. This is all I have to do all day… hahahaha! I’m a total troll. I know it.
trent.hunter on January 26th, 2007
Well, looks like the conversation has gotten started. Every situation, of course, will require its own unique response. I’m glad for your relationship with your friend from college. It sounds like you are doing a good job of being conversationally Christian. The best thing you can do for your friend is to point him to Jesus Christ through the display of God’s glory in your own life and marriage and to point him to Jesus Christ as the Lord of the universe who knows best, who gives us good commands and who bought us that we might glorify God in our bodies, freeing us from the destructive power of sin.
Randy on January 26th, 2007
I have a thought on homosexuality that I am want to bounce off you guys.
Often times people with homosexual desires claim that this is just the way they are, they are “born this way” and the thrust of the argument is that this makes it natural and therefore morally acceptable.
I have often thought that a response something along these lines could be used:
As a heterosexual man, I was not born with the natural desire to be in a monogamous relationship with a wife. It is my nature to be attracted to many women and desire to have sex with them. I am sure, but for the grace of God in my life, that I would do just that. The desire for sexual gratification in a sinful way is not unique to a person with homosexual desires, we all struggle with it.
The question is, do we gratify those desires or do we take them captive? The issue is not that a homosexual is “born that way.” We are all “born that way” in one sense or another. The issue is, do we submit to God’s plan for our life or do we live our life gratifying our desire any way we choose.
Having said that, I don’t mean to imply that the scope of the problem is the same. I think it would be a legitimate argument to say that it is much easier for me to get married and remain faithful than it is for a person with homosexual desires to overcome them and either remain single or get married. However, hard is not bad:
“Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few” (Matt 7:13,14).
Thoughts?
trent.hunter on January 27th, 2007
Well stated Randy, and I agree. Often, Christian’s will respond to the claim that “homosexuality is not a choice” by saying, “sin is a choice.” The only problem with that statement is that it’s not consistent with a Biblical view of sin as the enslavement of desires – and we don’t pick our desires. Where we go wrong is in assuming that just because we don’t pick our desires that we aren’t responsible for them or what we do with them! We can’t help but sin – and we are nonetheless guilty for it! Your illustration of the heterosexuals struggle with a lust for many improper relationships nails it. We were all born liars – but lying isn’t right! We were all born with a desire to steal, but stealing will never be right.
I appreciated something that Dr. Mohler said some time ago along these lines. Christians, he said, can bank too much on the scientific data that demonstrates that homosexuality is not in the genes. The evidence truly is on our side. But what if homosexuality is in the genes? That, Mohler said, would not be a problem for the Christian. That’s because the Christian view of sin entails the corruption of the entire cosmos, including our desires, including the weather, including our genes!
This whole discussion is truly reinforcing to me the importance of authority. Without the authority of a word of God, what can we stand on? We are left to make up our own morality – and that cannot be good.
trent.hunter on January 27th, 2007
Here it is! From Mohler’s commentary titled, “Biology and Morality – What if There is a Biological Basis for Morality?”
The biblical doctrine of sin should lead us to expect some biological impact from human sinfulness. The effects of the Fall were truly catastrophic, bringing devastating effects upon every aspect of creation. The first sin led to the judgment of death, and the human genetic code became encoded with death and decay. Biology does not trump morality.
Has a biological basis for homosexuality been proved? Not by a long shot. Much of the so-called research has been proved to be highly suspect and unverifiable. Claims lacking in scientific credibility are often presented in the media as evidence of what science has “proved.” But remember this: If the scientific community does come to a sustainable and credible finding related to a biological basis, this doesn’t change the moral status of homosexual behavior in any way. Such a finding would simply affirm what we should already know — that sin brings consequences; and those consequences may even be passed on from generation to generation. Such a finding might actually lead to a discovery of how to help homosexuals out of homosexuality. But that, of course, is exactly what some fear.
trent.hunter on January 27th, 2007
More from Mohler. This quote is from his article titled, “What about the Gay Gene? An Honest Look at the Evidence.” This is such good stuff.
Conservative Christians believe that homosexual behavior is sinful, not because of scientific evidence or the absence of a biological basis, but because the Bible is so clear in its condemnation of all homosexual acts, and even of homosexual desire (Romans 1: 27). The Rice and Ebers study does reveal the weakness of the biological argument put forward by homosexual activists, but evangelicals must be cautious in denying the possibility of any biological factors related to homosexuality.
…Both serious and ludicrous arguments are now put forth claiming a genetic basis for, among other things, alcoholism, gambling addictions, violent behavior, and even excessive television watching. All of these represent efforts to remove social stigma and to classify sinful behaviors as normal, or at least understandable. Dean Hamer has moved on to argue that belief in God is linked to a “God gene.”
The flight from moral responsibility is a hallmark of the modern age. We hope for modern science to heal our diseases and excuse our sins. The Bible will not allow this evasion. Our sinful behavior, rooted in biology or not, is a matter for which we are fully accountable. After all, as the Psalmist confessed: “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me” (Psalm 51:5).
The doctrine of total depravity reminds us that no part of ourselves is free from sin and its injury. That certainly includes our genetic code as well. As the church father Ambrose of Milan (340-397) stated, “Before we are born we are infected with the contagion, and before we see the light of day we experience the injury of our origin.” In the end, the scientific evidence is not morally important, though it may be medically useful.
The church’s witness to the biblical condemnation of homosexuality as sin is a crucial test of faithfulness, no matter where the biological research may lead. In the end, the church must take its stand on the Word of God–not on the latest genetic analysis.
Ben C. on January 29th, 2007
hahaha, I read about that. I thought the same exact thing! Now he’s going to have to go out and shoot another duck, which, in turn, will probably waste more energy gained from eating that ducks meat than if he would have just re-killed (or, I guess, killed for the first time) the duck that was in his fridge.
We raised our own turkey’s for Thanksgiving one year. They’re not that hard to kill. It’s also easy to tell when they’re dead. This guy must not be a very good hunter.
Ben C. on January 29th, 2007
Randy and Trent,
I’ve never thought about it that way before… You’re right, we are at a constant battle with our “animal urges” to spread our seed, but we choose the love of Christ and the church and to be with only one woman. Is homosexuality merely giving into that sin and not a genetic disorder?
I just finished reading the book “Next” by Michael Crichton. It’s a fictional story, but pretty much all the scientific material is real and actually happening today (this book has the most footnotes I’ve ever seen!). It appears that there is a genetic makeup for EVERYTHING. However, when you hear someone say “I found the gene for X” what it really means is they found one, or part of something that is different in one test subject (who is gay) from another test subject (who is not gay). It may or may not be the actual gene. Just something different. So, I guess it would not be totally absurd to think that there is a “gay” gene. It’s something that person will struggle with their whole life. Isn’t there something in the Bible about sins of the father affecting their sons and daughters? If there is, that’s probably part of it. Forgive me for not knowing specific scriptures.
Ben C. on February 2nd, 2007
That picture is disturbing. Poor girl was walking around with that for who knows how long! Hopefully it didn’t do any permanent damage to her. Now, remember to get regular check-ups! The doctor is not scary, what can happen if you don’t go is!
Rachel on February 5th, 2007
It’s spelled lose.
and WOW.
trent.hunter on February 5th, 2007
Done. =)
Ben C. on February 12th, 2007
I see this problem in the workplace! I got an email from someone here and it was all in “text speak”. Stuff like that really heats me up sometimes and I sent it back to him and asked him to translate it to English. Probably wasn’t the best thing to do, but this is a business! We’re supposed to be professional! (although my response probably wasn’t very professional… guilty!)
The girl that sits next to me just got her 10yr. old a cell phone. I was a little wary of it, but it’s from Disney Mobile and apparently they have all these “blocks” you can put on it so she can only call certain people, use it during certain times of the day, and even has GPS so she can track her online! Certainly amazing! It will make me think twice when I have kids and they want cell phones (but by that time you will probably be issued a phone when you’re born just like a social security number!).
Drew on February 12th, 2007
Hey… you may want to fix the link to that test. You must have given the link to YOUR test results or something.
R. Mansfield on February 13th, 2007
Anna Nicole Smith never looked happy to me.
I find it a shame that three men are fighting over the paternity of her child–what does that mean, that she had sexual relations with at least THREE men in the last year?
But the real shame to me is not the immorality of her actions, but my hunch that these men aren’t so concerned over the child herself, but the potential half-billion dollars attached to her.
Dale on February 13th, 2007
Trent,
I’m really liking your blog. Sorry I don’t comment more. Your “cool test” destroyed me by the way
Anyway, doesn’t this whole Anna Nichole thing teach us how our society values our worth by how many (or few) people want to have sex with us, assuming that sexuality is not a monogomous thing?
Money, power, sex … you’d think after a few thousand years and seeing guys like Nebuchadnezzar eat grass that people would learn that stuff doesn’t satisfy.
By the way, I’m joining the blogging world. I’d love for you to check my new blog out. http://www.lookingforredemption.blogspot.com.
trent.hunter on February 14th, 2007
Dale, You are the man! Welcome to the blogosphere. Write thoughtfully and write Christianly. You will make a great contribution. – But your link doesn’t work!!!!! At least when I tried it!
Ben C. on February 15th, 2007
R. Mansifld:
To answer your question, I believe it means she had sexual relations in (about) the same 2-week period with all 3 men that would lead them to believe they could be the father. It just gets worse and worse…
I agree with you about the not being happy part. Maybe it’s just the pictures the media used, but you could totally see it.
It’s never a happy thing when someone passes away (we can assume she wasn’t saved) and it’s just a shame that no one was able to witness to her, or that she was able to accept the Lord as her Savior before it came to this tragic end. We can only pray for her daughter now. That poor baby is going to go through a lot.
Gospel Planet » Powlison on the Five Love Languages on February 16th, 2007
[...] Original post by Above All Things [...]
Andrew Lindsey on February 16th, 2007
The link came up “not found on server” when I tried it.
trent.hunter on February 17th, 2007
It’s fixed! Thanks Andrew!
Dale on February 18th, 2007
Figured out the problem with my link, Trent. It was trying to put a period at the end after the .com and that was making it mess up. Try this one…
http://www.lookingforredemption.blogspot.com
That should take you there. Looking forward to an interactive blogging relationship … which is much better than a relationship with the t.v.
Sean Gould on February 20th, 2007
Very good thoughts that need to be heard over and over again in this media driven culture….
Ben C. on February 20th, 2007
I play World of Warcraft online and I’ve met some great people (and have been able to witness to them from another country! Lots of Australians on my server!). You’re right though, there is a huge need of balance in this area. I know people that play 8 hours/day. I play (if I’m lucky) 8 hours/week and that suits me just fine. I play after my wife goes to bed so it doesn’t get in the way of our time together!
I know my neighbors, but don’t get to talk to them very much. I live in a mormon neighborhood and (surprisingly) they keep to themselves! Plus, in Arizona, we’re not outside very much in the summer, so it’s hard to stand outside and talk.
Dale on February 23rd, 2007
Wow. Well I guess the police needed to arrest him and file the charges. However, I hope that his lawyer pleads him “not guilty” by virtue of the Good Samaritan Laws that most states have on the books. Even though there was no woman present, this man’s loud porn certainly gave probably cause for a neighbor to believe another human was in peril. Do we really want to discourage people from helping a woman in a rape situation because it might just be some loser watching porn? I think this case could help set a precendent that not only are Good Samaritan Laws applicable in absolving guilt while helping an injured person but they are also applicable in helping prevent the infliction of a crime upon an innocent victim, even if that victim’s reality is only a reasonably perceived notion.
trent.hunter on February 23rd, 2007
Well stated sir! Always an honor to have you chime in Dale.
Ben C. on February 23rd, 2007
I’m guessing a woman would rather marry the sword-wielding guy rather than the porn wathcing guy. Although, my wife did make me give away all my swords when we got married… hahahaha
trent.hunter on February 23rd, 2007
That’s completely awesome! I remember that you liked swords. You should have given them to me dog.
Drew on February 24th, 2007
amazing. the guy in the background in the lakers jersey playing the video game was trent.
Kyle Barrett on February 24th, 2007
Thanks so much for the pub Trent!
Ben C. on February 26th, 2007
I gave them to Andrew McIntyre. I think you should remember him. He’s got them hung up all over his room. I made a deal with him that he had to hand them down to a single friend when he gets married (and I’m still waiting for him to…) and so on. I’ll be interested to see where they end up! I did keep the swords I bought on a missions trip to Armenia. No way I was giving those up! It was a lot of trouble getting them back into the country!
Sean Gould on March 7th, 2007
oh yeah…you can find it, at the market, we talkin bout flea market…..its just like, a mini….mall.
trent.hunter on March 7th, 2007
The great thing about this magazine is that they review everything. Living rooms, bedrooms, dinettes. They even review cell phones.
trent.hunter on March 8th, 2007
Looks like the Flea Market is actually mentioned in the Wikipedia article on this topic,
“Flea Market Montgomery in Montgomery, Alabama is a 75,000 square-foot flea market specializing in furniture that has recently gained fame for the advertisements of owner Sammy Stephens, and his subsequent appearance on Ellen.
“
Kyle Barrett on March 12th, 2007
Trent…
You should read Lewis’ The Four Loves. Incredible book. It’s fairly short but full of great stuff. I think it’s probably my favorite of his except for maybe A Grief Observed.
kb
trent.hunter on March 13th, 2007
YES, YES – I agree. I remember reading four loves and thinking, “this explains all of my relationships!” I cannot tell you a thing about the book – perhaps I should take your advice!
G. F. McDowell on March 14th, 2007
I believe that the best way to minister the gospel to someone is to can the canned presentations, and get someone talking. It may take a while, but their entire theology, anthropology, and epistemology will come out, and once they see that you actually care and listen to what they think, they will want to know what you think and why. Then is the season to share the reason for the hope that is within you. When a woman has had an abortion against your advice and pleading, and she is isolating herself from you, If you’re going to have any hope of ministering to her, it is only going to be after you’re able to re-establish the relationship. An internet e-card with some sentimental tripe in it isn’t going to do much to achieve this end, but a heartfelt letter or email might. Pray and ask the Lord to help you consider what issues might be getting in the way of your relationship, and be sure to take a long look in the mirror as you consider how to be reconciled. As we all are sinners, it is a near certainty that you’ve managed to sin against her in SOME way, so come to her confessing your sin and seeking her forgiveness, without the expectation of reciprocity. Do whatever it takes to re-establish a relationship, and wait until it comes up naturally in the conversation or she asks before you cram judgement down her throat. Real-life evangelism takes a long time, and isn’t very sexy.
trent.hunter on March 15th, 2007
McDowell,
Thanks much for your thoughtful response. I can tell that you are concerned for people to understand and embrace the gospel and that you embrace the truth that our manner of presentation must reflect the nature of the truths we bring. We can actually prove what we are saying in the way we say it! I can appreciate anyone who labors to think through how our form of presentation may appropriately reflect the truths it carries.
A few responses for the sake of a good conversation,
1) As it regards e-cards, let me be clear – I am not a pro-post-abortion e-card proponent.
2) As it concerns our approach to evangelism, amen to the canning of canned presentations. With no one could I imagine a greater need on our part to carefully tailor a response. Each woman and the circumstances surrounding her decision are different. For, abortion serves many different gods. The god of work, the god of safety, the god of having a perfect kid, etc. Each religion requires its own apologetic!
3) As it concerns your outline for how to respond to a friend who has committed an abortion, a few thoughts. You are right. Evangelism is a dynamic thing and listening is important if we are to speak to our friends particular form of unbelief and magnify that aspect of God’s glory to which they are most blind.I would like to suggest that there are actually situations in which the best thing to do for a friend who knows where you stand is to accept the idea that you may not be the one to crack them open. For example, what of the person who makes the continuation of a friendship rest on your acceptance of their decision – or at least an agreement to “leave it in the past?” How difficult! A friend of mine is faced with just this situation. She can respond a few ways. She can accept the terms with the hope of it coming up “naturally.” She can, I suppose, think of something she has done in sin against this woman, as you have suggested – except her conscience is clean. A letter she received from the mother expressing deep love and appreciation for her friendship, lauding her for her faithfulness and concern speaks to the consistency of my friends testimony. So while confessing sin is always appropriate where there is sin – in this case, confession would make no sense. May I suggest that in addition to canning canned content, we also need to can canned approaches to relationships. Prayer, the gospel and love are our basic ingredients! Timing, confession, and the like are flexible.
4) Concerning the importance of not “cramming judgment down her throat” – well, of course! But this simply cannot be what it is to share the gospel faithfully regardless of the context or circumstances or time at which it is shared. For, the gospel is not a message of judgment but a message of deliverance from judgment – it is the power of God for salvation for anyone who believes! A gospel of “you are wrong” is no gospel when it fails to speak of the rightness and the righteousness of Christ who covers our wrongs and makes us right with the God we’ve offended. A message of a living hope, an inheritance that is unfading, and a salvation that entails the eternal enjoyment of Jesus Christ is never “cramming judgment down a persons throat.” I am sure you agree.
Again, thank you so very much for your comment! Perhaps the Lord will use this point of interaction to provide for our own more careful response the next time we are confronted with this most difficult of situations, the abortion of an unborn child.
Blessings,
Trent
Ben C. on March 15th, 2007
This is definitely a conversation that we all need to keep an eye on. Thanks for keeping us up on it!
Above All Things » Blog Archive » Mohler Stirs it up! on March 15th, 2007
[...] of the extent of humankind’s corruption – which extends to our genetic patters. Please see my original post which includes the substance of his original article concerning the nature of homosexuality and a [...]
Ben C. on March 19th, 2007
Unfortunately we maybe have seen too much “death” in movies and TV programs and we’ve been de-sensitised to it (myself included). We don’t take death nearly as seriously as we should. If it was someone I don’t know I try to make my first question, “Was he/she a believer?”, but often I find myself just saying, “Oh, that’s very sad.” and get on with my day. Usually not giving it a 2nd thought (I guess sort of like the ear plug guy, minus his complaining).
Ben C. on March 21st, 2007
I live in AZ and I hope to drive up to the Grand Canyon to see this soon! I’m totally afraid of heights, so I don’t know if I would even go out on it.
Remember our hike up Half Dome Trent? Talk about God’s glory!
trent.hunter on March 21st, 2007
Ben, that trip is MONUMENTAL for me. I actually remember thinking, as we hiked up the side of that rock, “if someone asked me if I wanted to become a Christian, I would do it now.” If at that time I truly understood what it is that Christ did for me, that desire was likely a mark of saving faith already. I remember standing out and looking over and thinking, “God made all of this. He made it!” I had never thought that way about creation before. I had never given God credit for his creation.
That’s also the trip where you named me trentdawg! You and Norrie and George took me in, included me in all the hang out time you shared. Your enthusiasm about this skinny Freshman without any friends and your willingness to take me in, answer my questions, etc. was the means by which God brought me to himself! Seriously man.
I cannot thank you enough!
Ben C. on March 22nd, 2007
Awesome. Thinking back, you were very different after that trip. That just shows that EVERYONE has the internal knowledge that God exists and we can tell by his creation.
I still remember all of us cramming into that small tent and having a bear brush up against me the 1st night! Yikes! Glad we didn’t keep any food in there!
Drew on March 23rd, 2007
Great Plan! There really can be several easy steps to hearing God’s voice – rather, just one step! How much would my reading of God’s Word and diligence to know it skyrocket if I really grasped the significance of what it was!
This still raises a question – how do we understand it when one does think he’s heard God’s voice outside of the Bible? I think Piper says that this does happen, but it isnt to be over(!)-emphasized. How do we explain the idea that one gets, like in the article, that we should give our money to such and such a person, or do this or that helpful thing? Can we know that that is God’s authoritative voice speaking to us? Is this the Holy Spirit’s “leading” in certian decisions? Or is this the informed (by the Bible) conscience or Spirit of God influencing our emotions to apply what we know the Bible to be saying? ie. I want to give $150 to Joe for a certain reason… because God’s word says to help people (to give a broad example). Any thoughts?
Adrian Warnock on March 23rd, 2007
Thanks for linking to this great article by Piper. There is some intersting discussion going on about this article over at my blog
trent.hunter on March 24th, 2007
Drew,
Thank you for your thoughtful response and for your concern to think Biblically and in a way that honors God. Surely God has chosen to speak to us through the written word. Piper is so right to remind us of the wonder of this truth. For, just like the Corinthians, we can value good things disproportionately. They loved the flashy gifts but had not love! Piper, obviously, at some level embraces the idea that God, in some way or another, communicates to us today! This is the part of his writing that has most of us thinking. I am reading around in the blogosphere and its interesting to see the diversity of opinion on what Piper has written! Warnock’s blog is helpful to catch a sense of the discussion. Personally, I think this was brilliant! As I was reading, I was thinking, “Oh Gosh, I hope he is going where I think he is going with this…if he isn’t, it’s hilarious to consider that only John Piper would report God as speaking to him in this way and about these things – this just goes to show that it’s the Spirit using the Word!”
As it concerns the question of revelation and knowing what God is and isn’t saying and when, God has indeed spoken to us finally and completely in His Son, Jesus, and those writings that point to (OT) and reflect (NT) on his person and work, that the church has uniformly embraced as being from God, are sufficient for correcting, rebuking, and training in righteousness! However, I would hesitate to say that, since God’s first century revelatory activity, he entered some kind of deistic mode. So, while I might not label an impression that I get late at night as authoritative, I don’t know that we should shun every spiritual leaning we have out of fear that it might not really be God putting it there.
That said, you provide a healthy control – the necessary control – Scripture! It’s God’s will for us to do certain things, such as sharing the gospel with my friend from work, because God has commanded that we are to preach the gospel! There are many things that we can know God wants us to do. Upon prayer and reflection on the Scriptures, it is more than likely that we will feel moved to certain specific acts of obedience to God’s word! We may, without worry, affirm those inclinations as a work of the Spirit, who is but using his sword to convict us of sin and propel us to obedience. How else does a sinner ever desire to please God with specific acts of obedience?
So what of a desire to give specifically $150 to a guy named Joe for some important purpose that accords with God’s will? God is glorified when our hearts express their love for him in generosity to people! So, $150 to Joe can’t be sin if it’s yours to spend, you’ve paid your rent and you’ve fed your family. This is especially true if you are debating on whether to send it to Joe or to buy a video game =).
trent.hunter on March 26th, 2007
I remember someone from our group going to the restroom and a bear following them, blocking the entrance at night.
And please do reflect on how I was different? What precisely do you remember? My memories are scant. I have images of the site, mountains, and moments here and there. That trip provided for my first serious reflection on the Scriptures and the truth that God made the world and he made me!
Ben C. on March 27th, 2007
hahaha, yeah, I think that was Norie. Poor guy was trapped there for like 10 minutes!
Honestly, I think you calmed down a bit. It’s hard to imagine because I’ll bet even now you’re still pretty high energy, but you are a bit calmer. You listened more. I think we were ALL awestruck while we were there. Then, when we got back to Pleasanton your energy came back, but it was for the Lord. For some reason I remember you being sort of an angry person. After that trip, I think a lot of that anger left. Let me tell you, it was good for me because to see you like that as a new Christian because I was sort of a “stagnant” Christian at the time. It was good for me to see that new believer energy! Even getting reconnected with you now after what, 5 years or more has me feeling that inside again!
For what it’s worth, that’s what I remember. I hope it helps to jog your memory! I’ve been searching for some pictures from that trip. I know I’ve got some somewhere, but they might still be at my parents house. I hope I can find them. I’ll scan them and send them to you if I do.
This is Abortion « Growing Up Slowly Learning More Every Day on March 27th, 2007
[...] sins of gays and blasphemers get week-long discussions. Spread this around and get the word out. Here is the link to his post so you can get [...]
Randy on March 27th, 2007
I am glad to see that self-esteem made this list.
“For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment” (Rom 12:3)
The verse as I have used it is somewhat out of context, but the principle holds none-the-less.
trent.hunter on March 27th, 2007
That’s so interesting you say I was angry. I know what I was like at home, but I have to wonder what that would have looked like out and about. I suppose we will all get a big surprise when we enter eternity and look back on our lives with perfect moral clarity to see just how far short of God’s glory we fell.
Still growing every day!
trent.hunter on March 27th, 2007
Right on Randy!
Tony Kummer on March 28th, 2007
Great post. He seemed to come down harder on “posh-ness” than in the 1999 audio. There was some nervous laughter in chapel.
What did you think when he said, “Its hard to be a Christian at Southern Seminary?” The inference was that many of us are not!
trent.hunter on March 28th, 2007
Thanks Tony,
Piper’s statement, that “It’s hard to be a Christian at Southern Seminary” likely refers to how the nature of comfort frustrates the fight of faith. It’s doubtful that he is actually saying that some of us aren’t Christians – at least for this reason explicitly. In truth, we arrive here from a variety of backgrounds. I take Piper to mean that its hard to live and think and feel Christianly when such comforts provide a buffer to the kind of pain that refines and deepens and enriches the kind of faith that finds its all in Christ.
Thanks for dropping a line! I enjoy the back and forth.
Trent
Ben C. on March 29th, 2007
Oh, I wholeheartedly agree with you! I will be so embarrassed when looking back on my attitude towards other drivers on the freeway. I’m generally mild-mannered Ben, but I turn into crazy, psycho Ben on the freeway! It’s something I’m getting a lot of prayer for from my small group at church. It’s definitely helping, but I have a long way to go!
Above All Things » Blog Archive » Tag-Line Change on March 31st, 2007
[...] of Jesus Christ to the glory of God revealed in God’s name and his word in the “About this Site” page. The only problem with this, is that while I may have said it clearly on the [...]
Tory on March 31st, 2007
Great blog. I don’t even know how I got here, but I like it. Smooth writing.
Tory
trent.hunter on March 31st, 2007
Well, thanks Tory! I am so thankful that you stopped by! I will add your blog to my blogroll and to the blogroll at my family site, http://www.thehunterhome.com. Stop by and interact any time! We loving having you as a part of our Sunday School class at Ninth and O.
Above All Things » Blog Archive » Rick Warren & Sam Harris on April 2nd, 2007
[...] in his recent conversation with Sam Harris, hosted by NewsWeek, does not bow to itching ears (see here). Every Christian should consider the questions posed by this interviewer and be ready with an [...]
Jonathanchristman on April 9th, 2007
Hey bro, just a shout. I hope you can enjoy your spring break. and by the way Rick Warren is my uncle man..
trent.hunter on April 9th, 2007
Get out?
Brandon on April 10th, 2007
I saw this article as well, and was dumbfounded at the lack of Biblical warrant for what they are trying to accomplish. I appreciated your words and clarity, and your desire for Jesus to be lifted up in Biblical masculinity.
Erwin Dale on April 11th, 2007
Just curious, what’s the basis of the comment, “flack that megachurches should get”? You seem to suggest that just because a church is large there is something wrong with it?
trent.hunter on April 12th, 2007
Erwin,
Thanks for chiming in! I don’t know that I have met you but appreciate the chance for dialog. And a question like this is always helpful in allowing me to both think through something more carefully and provide a more focused explanation for something I said.
To quote exactly from the post, “For all the flack that Mega-Church pastors do and, often, should get…”
For clarification, what I did not say here is that “mega-churches” get flack because they are large, but that “mega-church pastors” get flack. From the media and, relevant to my post, from within evangelical circles, mega church pastors are widely criticized for various reasons. Some of those reasons are without Scriptural warrant, but some are not.
In highlighting Warren’s faithfulness to the gospel, I hope to have provided some context for understanding the word “should.” That is to say, mega-church pastors, as with all Christians, should be confronted for confusing statements as it concerns the gospel message. That’s what I mean by “bowing to itching ears.” For all the publicity that pastors of unusually large churches get, its fair to say that clarity on gospel matters is not the hallmark of their contribution. And it is fair to conclude that a lack of gospel clarity may be, in some cases, cause for a larger crowd. But if a church grows to an unusual size by means of a faithful gospel ministry, praise be to God! And, of course, this does happen.
While some of Warren’s peers may beat around the bush on the exclusivity of Christ and other matters central to the heart of the gospel, Warren has been consistently unapologetic in his representation of Christ in the public square. For this reason, the post was designed to be a positive appraisal of the public Christian representation of a partner in the gospel.
Again, thank you for posting your response! If anyone else mistook my statement to mean that big churches are bad because they are big, then I am all the more glad that you provided the occasion for this clarification. Big churches, as with any churches, are problem churches if they compromise their stance on the gospel!
Trent
Adam Utecht on April 13th, 2007
The mere presence of testosterone does not put a smile on God’s face. Turning a local body of Jesus Christ into a hockey game is an affront to the sacrifice that was made to make believers one. What about the women (and presumably children)? This sounds like a PK event where the leadership got drunk and decided to try some new things. Actually, it is worse, because this monthly event replaces fellowship in a real church. It would almost be better for these men to stay out on the golf course or on the can at home, because now they feel like they are spiritually safe. God help us!
trent.hunter on April 13th, 2007
Well said Adam! That is why I generally stay on the can at home myself.
Dale on April 20th, 2007
I know your point #2 hits on this, but I think it’s an important addition that the main point of Jesus’ life was to bring healing and true life to people who had offended him, while the only purpose I can gather from Cho’s life was to bring death and destruction to his (mostly only) perceived enemies.
If you get a chance to read Cho’s one-act plays online, you’ll get an even more disturbing picture of the way his sinfulness had warped his thinking.
trent.hunter on April 20th, 2007
It’s unfortunate that Cho did not have a good enough grasp on the person and work of Jesus Christ to reject it for what it was – or, were this according to God’s sovereign design, embrace Christ as his own! Perhaps he did, at some point, hear and even comprehend the truth of the gospel. It seems clear enough that Cho’s own blindness to the beauty of truth had him thinking himself like the Son of God. What a tragic misperception! I’ll have to read those plays.
Tory on April 20th, 2007
Trent… this was excellent. Thanks, buddy.
PORFIRIO MATOS on April 21st, 2007
WE CAN FIND MANY ISSUES SURROUNDING THIS TRAGEDY BUT WE MUST LEARN SOME LESSONS THAT COULD HELP US IN THE FUTURE. THIS YOUNG KILLER WAS ONCE A CHILD. WE NEED TO START SHARING THE LOVE OF GOD WITH EVERY PERSON WE ENCOUNTER IN THIS LIFE. AS SOON AS THE LOVE OF GOD IS POURED IN OUR LIVES WE SHOULD START POURING IT OUT TO EVERY PERSON THAT WE CAN TOUCH. LET’S GET THE PASSION OF JESUSCHRIST FOR THE LOST. LET’S LOVE THE PEOPLE FOR WHOM JESUS GAVE HIS LIFE AT THE CROSS IN CALVARY.
THIS IS AN ISSUE WORTH VISITING. GBY.
trent.hunter on April 21st, 2007
Good reminder Porfirio! I must ask myself how many Christian’s have known Cho without taking an interest in his soul. I have to ask myself the same question! And the tragedy of Cho taking peoples lives is not the greatest tragedy. The greatest tragedy is that he wasn’t himself sharing the gospel with those same people! Urgency in sharing the gospel is so very important. Thanks.
R. Mansfield on April 22nd, 2007
You misspelled “Christianly” in your title.
trent.hunter on April 22nd, 2007
Well thank you very much! It’s one of those words FireFox will always tell me I have misspelled, so I tend to gloss over it. Thank you!
Dale Harris on April 26th, 2007
I hadn’t read any graphic description about partial birth abortion since Lexi was born last May. But reading this made my whole body convulse as I pictured someone jabbing scissors into my baby’s neck and sucking out her brains. Having seen the helpless little hands clench and also the beauty of an innocent smile makes takes the abortion thing into a new, more intensely personal arena.
It’s sickening to think how cavalierly we justify the inhumane solely to alleviate ourselves of the consequences of irresponsible, sinful sex.
Dale on April 30th, 2007
I’d be curious to know how these social researchers decided that these thousands of years old artifacts were really sex toys.
trent.hunter on April 30th, 2007
I’m with you dale. Wither way, WORLDVIEW determines what we do with fact of ancient sex toys! Is it normative and good or is it an adoration of what is right and a perversion of what is ultimately good?
Dale on May 2nd, 2007
Can I take issue with you here, Trent? I think saying “stay at home motherhood is the highest calling and the greatest privilege” might be a bit of an overstatement.
Let me defend that biblically. I think you’d agree that Proverbs 31 is the hallmark passage for describing a godly wife. Check out Proverbs 31:16 (”She considers a field and buys it; out of her earnings she plants a vineyard.”) and 31:24 (”She makes linen garments and sells them, and supplies the merchants with sashes.”).
Both those verses indicate that bringing in and utilizing her monetary income was a key form of service for the godly wife of Proverbs 31. I’m not saying all Christian mothers should work (my wife has only a very small job that averages 20 hrs/month or less), but I struggle with the viewpoint that says staying at home is somehow biblically the better option. I guess I just don’t see it in the text.
Drew on May 3rd, 2007
Hey Dale. Good thoughts. I am not so sure if the phrase “stay at home mom” itself necessarily excludes the concept of doing some “leaving the home” work. I think that the Proverbs 31 woman, although she did do some “leaving the home” work, would still definately be termed a “stay at home mom.” It may not be the most helpful term, but like others, it communicates a general concept without including all of the qualifications within it. No one takes “stay at home” to mean that the wife is forbidden to leave at all. In fact, it is assumed that she will leave to go to the market. I suppose a better term could be found, but it is less cumbersome to say “stay at home mom who can leave to do things away from home, and even, for a small portion of time, conduct business activities.” Nevetheless – you have a good qualification that ought to be recognized, if not communicated more often.
Drew on May 3rd, 2007
correction… “it is less cumbersome *than* to say…”
trent.hunter on May 3rd, 2007
Thanks Dale. Of course you can take issue with me =). It seems that my one line blog entries always draw some reaction. Rightly so. Clarity is important! So, allow me to clarify and refine my statement.
First, allow me to say that context is important, isn’t it. We have all been in environments where women are afraid to admit they desire to be a mother and to nurture a family for fear of being looked down on as second rate citizens. These women must be commended and celebrated for their aspiration. This is where this post is aimed – at holding high and promoting the goodness of caring for and nurturing the souls of children. The quote from Reuters reminds us that staying at home is not a lazy woman’s job, as some might say. I am thinking particularly of Linda Hirshman, author of “Get to Work: A Manifesto for Women of the World.” In an interview with beliefnet.com, she says of stay-at-home moms; “their description of their lives does not sound particularly interesting or fulfilling for a complicated person, for a complicated, educated person.” But, in our celebration of stay-at-home mothers, as you would remind us, we cannot react to such a statement by looking down on those women who aren’t mothers, that do work or even those that must! There is inherent dignity in the vocation they fill in the meantime. It is not a holding pattern or a necessary evil, but a significant way to glorify God.
Having provided some context for my enthusiasm for this topic, I think Proverbs 31 actually makes both of our points well. From her example, we learn that “highest” does not mean “only,” and that “stay at home” does not mean “never leave home.” In fact, for many reasons, “staying at home” means going out!
She is not first a career woman, but a family woman. In her work, the text says, “she looks well to the ways of her household.” In such things as buying property, making clothes, etc, she teaches us that the calling of motherhood is a calling that entails many callings! Her work is valuable in itself, but especially as a means to the provision and care for the needs of her family.
Considering the purpose of this proverb as an instruction for young single women, we see that the Bible holds up motherhood as a part of mature womanhood. While not possible for all women – due to singleness, infertility or a single parent situation – it is nonetheless upheld as part of God’s creation ideal. In her diligence and resourcefulness, we see that the creation mandate to be fruitful and multiply, which entails the nurture of children, does not exclude but entails the responsibility to subdue the earth. As such, both should be esteemed and held highly. But motherhood and the responsible devotion that motherhood entails should be esteemed more highly than career.
In light of your rightly Biblical concern to validate and esteem the goodness of work and women who perform work, perhaps “high calling and great privilege” would have held motherhood high enough while avoiding a lack of clarity.
I appreciate you Dale and have always enjoyed our exchanges!!!! You have always been a catalyst and a model for careful Christian thinking!
Dale Harris on May 3rd, 2007
Trent,
Thanks for some well-thought responses. I appreciate (1) the focus, as Drew also helpfully pointed out, that the term ’stay-at-home’ does not preclude by definition some outside the home activity as well as (2) the distilling of Proverbs 31 into the key central truth that a godly wife’s highest priority (besides her walk with God) should be the care of her family. In both these cases, the clarifications helped highlight that the issue was semantics, not some deep biblical disagreement.
I’m becoming conviced that much of the “Christian subculture language” that we used/heard in the 80’s and 90’s has become either overly nuanced or overly politicized to the point that we might do better to find a new term. For example, in our discussion here, the term ’stay-at-home mom’ has become somewhat of a polarizing term, with career-first women (like the author you cited) seen as the ‘enemy’ of the traditional Christian wife who eschews secular employment while raising a family. In my (our) quest to see the Bible rightly lived out, I believe we both would say that the issue from the Bible is one of priority (family first) not a legalistic ban on any form on employment – or even the more common feeling of pity or disdain for any woman who would choose/need to work. So in order to get past the semantics of religious politics that reflect a subculture more than the Word, I might say, “Whether a woman chooses to work or devote the entirety of her time to her family at home, her overarching priority must be providing for the physical, emotional and spiritual needs of her family. So then, each mother must choose whether having a job would be the most God-glorifying choice she could make. Either choice, if done to the glory of God and in good conscience belief that it is to the greatest benefit of her family, is biblically acceptable. However, for anyone to put down another believer because of their choice in this matter is biblically wrong (Romans 14).” Neither side can/should claim biblical superiority. And, if fact, in an ideal church there would be no sides … everyone would celebrate the freedoms of each woman to work or not work as God led in her life.
This is really helping clarify some theology of family issues for me, Trent! Thanks for your careful reply and your good thinking. Your ability to articulate yourself in writing has blossomed into a real strength since our days at Moody … I praise God for that demonstration of his work in your life! Your perspective on Proverbs 31 was very helpful and well done.
However, it does leave me with another question, one I’ve not been able to answer … although I haven’t spent much time studying it and I’m guessing you’ve invested more efforts through looking into gender issues. My question is: How does your statement – which I’ve often heard and rarely seen challenged – that motherhood is a creation ideal square with Paul’s thoughts in 1 Corinthians 7 where he says that singleness is to be preferred? Did Paul change the ideal? Was he saying something totally different? If you’ve done any thinking in that regard, I’d be curious to know your thoughts.
trent.hunter on May 3rd, 2007
Dale,
I think your assessment of the terminology problem is right on. Upon your initial response, my first thought was, “he is likely taking me for the hard edged legalism that I have seen and do not embrace.” While I am attempting to buck a cultural assumption that a woman “ought” to work instead of stay home, you are bucking the Christian reaction of legalism that says that a woman “ought not” work. I am with you.
There is a tendency in embracing a gospel centered view of all of life to ascribe to its implications the kind of weight and importance that we ascribe to the gospel itself – as if staying home to nurture children is what saves us! Certainly not! But staying home to nurture children will be something that we come to value and treasure as a result of the gospel’s transformative power in our lives to reorient our affections according to those things that God loves most highly.
As for your question about the calling of singleness and the ideal of marriage and parenthood, obviously Paul’s inspired words must contribute to our Scripture-wide understanding of the nature of marriage. Let’s start by considering the Biblical data,
1) Men and women, physically, emotionally and spiritually are quite clearly made for one another. The command to “be fruitful and multiply” is the first command to the first couple. God made eve for Adam because it was “not good” for him to be alone. I take it, both men and women were made to enjoy God in their enjoyment of their mate. Marriage is not a result of a fallen need but of a created need! So, as for whether or not we should question marriage as a creation ideal – that, in my estimation, is not really up for discussion.
2) Marriage is the norm throughout the OT. I think of couples such as Abraham and Sarah, and Jacob and Rachel and Isaac and Rebbecca, etc. I think of proverbs 5:18 where we are told to “rejoice in the wife of your youth.” In Song of Solomon, marriage is esteemed as a good and sacred and desirable institution to be pursued and enjoyed without reservation!
3) Then we get to Jesus! Jesus wasn’t married! He was the divine Son of God. That would have made for some interesting dynamics in terms of a physical dynasty. There is likely good reason for his exception =). But Jesus did say some interesting things about marriage for the rest of us. Apparently, there will be no giving or taking in marriage in the new creation. Now that’s interesting! So our redeemed and glorified state will be a higher and superior experience than even our original created situation. Very, very cool.
4) Then we have Paul esteeming singleness to his Corinthian readers! Also, very interesting. What we don’t have with Paul is an overturning of marriage as an institution but the embrace of marriage as a fundamental expression of the gospel itself (Ephesians 5). But his words about singleness stand. I heard John Piper propose that the “order of redemption overturns the order of creation.” I am still not quite sure how to manage the Biblical data, myself.
Here are helpful reads for all of us as we approach the topic of singleness, especially in our contemporary context.
Piper’s recent sermon on Singleness
Dr. Mohler’s review of Andreas Kostenberger’s recent book, God Marriage and the Family
Part 1 and especially Part 2 of Dr. Mohler’s commentary, “The Mystery of Marriage.”
Andreas Kostenberger’s article, “The Gift of Singleness.”
Deborah Reeves on May 4th, 2007
This Judge can’t judge his own infantile behaviour, I wouldn’t want to see him on a bench. This is a tantrum of the silliest kind, if he behaved this way as a child I could see a time out for acting like a spoiled brat, or maybe he acts like this because he didn’t get a swift kick in the pants as a kid. He needs to learn to play well with others.
trent.hunter on May 5th, 2007
That’s what I’m talking about!
Linda Tilley on May 9th, 2007
Love the billboard! It only speaks the truth. There are so many marriages that are just marriages for the sake of being married. People fall in love way too quick (or they think they are in love), get married, get too comfortable and start taking each other for granted. I read a statistic the other day that stated ” 35% of all people that join a dating service are already married”. That number is probably more like 65%…only 35% would probably admit it. So yes, life is too short to stay in a rut and be unhappy. People need to find themselves and get to know themselves from within. They would be a lot happier just being themselves without having to identify themselves with a marriage. Put the billboard back up!
AmyD on May 10th, 2007
I am a thirty year old American mother of three, and I have just become aware of this program. I would like to say that I am personally appalled at the treatment the children in the Lebensborn program suffered after the war. I wonder how so many could treat these children as they have been treated. It was a horrible program, contrived to fulfill an unspeakable destiny. BUT, the children born-or kidnapped- are surely the victims here. For them to suffer the stigma of choices made by their parents to bring them into whatever world they were striving for is wrong. Every child is born pure, and should be treated no different than any other, regardless of parentage. I wish to extend my love to all those who have suffered in any way, be it physical, mental, or social. I can’t do anything else but give my sympathy and urge whoever reads this to remember that children don’t ask to be born into the families they enter. These people are not the enemy. Himmler and the SS were.
James Grant on May 11th, 2007
Thanks for the link to my website ["In Light of the Gospel"].
Drew on May 14th, 2007
great quote
Dale on May 15th, 2007
Great quote. That’s exactly what I tried to do with the latest entry on my blog. Unfortunately, I’ve got a couple guys commenting on there calling me a heretic. Since your post here indicates you’re thinking through the same issues, I’d value your input on my blog. I want some guys I trust to tell me if I really am “blaspheming the Word of God.” Anyway, you can check it out at http://www.lookingforredemption.blogspot.com
Thanks for thinking through this with me, Trent!
Said at Southern Seminary » Boundaries For Blogging on May 15th, 2007
[...] It may have spiritual benefits. I hear new perspectives. There are a lot of pictures and videos and more videos. Reading this or this should get you academic credits. One can even take a break without getting [...]
Sean Gould on May 16th, 2007
Awesome video!! What a cool tortoise. It’s nice to see that other animals hate cats too…
Ben C. on May 18th, 2007
Is that the same Joshua Harris that wrote, “I Kissed Dating Goodbye”? My sister gave me that book when I was dating a girl she didn’t like (remember Meghan Kelly?)! hahaha!
Seriously though, I’m a believer in online dating. I have no less than 4 Christian friends who have found their wonderful Christian wives through online dating services. You do definitely have to be careful though. As with anything man creates, man perverts it. A lot of people are on there for “hook-ups” and not dating. The guidlines set forth in that article are very good.
sluker on May 21st, 2007
Hitchens says he is not an atheist, but an ‘anti-theist’, in that he actively believes that religion is wrong and the if there were a God it would actually be a bad thing.
Thats the difference between himself and, for example, myself as an atheist, as I simply couldn’t care less either way. You can go pray to your God, as so long as your views don’t effect my life. That it is not a religion; non-belief and ambivalence is not a belief.
Did Fulwell deserve such vitriol from Hitchens? I guess anyone who believes the 9/11 attacks were God’s punishment on a sinful America and that the separation of church and state is the work of the devil deserves all the verbal bashing that can be thrown at him.
trent.hunter on May 21st, 2007
Slucker,
I am genuinely glad you stopped by and want to thank you for starting some back and forth on this post. I would like to respond to each of the points you made in your response.
First, in fairness to yourself, it would be good to draw a distinction between the atheist and the anti-theist. You are the former and Hitchens is, quite clearly, the later.
In fairness to Dr. Falwell, he was confronted by the Christian community for his remarks following 9/11 and retracted them and apologized for them. They were an embarrassment to Christians because they did not honor our Christ. Go here, here and here for a Christ honoring Biblical response to such a tragedy as 9/11. I am with Albert Mohler, when he says, “We must speak where the Bible speaks, and be silent where the Scripture is silent. Christians must avoid offering explanations when God has not revealed an explanation…Christians must respond to a crisis like this by weeping with those who weep, by praying with fervent faithfulness, by offering concrete assistance in Christ’s name and, most importantly, by bearing bold witness to the Gospel of Jesus Christ–the only way to bring life out of death.” Go here, here, here and here for his response to the Tsunami.
In fairness to Falwell as it regards his conception of church state relations, Falwell was not shooting for a state church but a state whose elected officials reflected the values and worldview of the many Christian people whom they represent. When a politician says he is a Catholic, a Mormon or a Protestant Christian but claims this will have not effect on his leadership, he is either lying about his intention or deceived about his own beliefs. When a voter says the same thing about how he will vote, he is guilty of dishonesty or self deception as well. Democracy entails the freedom of people to vote according to what they believe, not the freedom of people from people who are religious. Falwell showed his hand and mobilized voters who agreed with him. That’s democracy.
But as it regards your own personal system of belief or, as you might call it, non-belief – I would like to zero in on that word “deserve” that you used on two occasions in your response. In a universe without a God where the material is all there is, how do you account for this sense of justice? The idea that a person could deserve slander points to some moral code that grounds your judgments about the rightness and wrongness of peoples actions. If all there is is matter, are not all of our actions determined by the infinite regress of shifting matter? How do you ground morality in an amoral universe?
Allow me to show my hand =). To be sure, we would agree, all kinds of people do all kinds of terrible things and for these terrible things, they deserve something in return (I am speaking of people in general now). But a theistic worldview is the only system of belief that can account for the non-material moral standards that we embrace and the non-material sense of justice that we demand. More than that, the Christian worldview is the only worldview that truly delivers on the justice that we all know evil actions truly “deserve.” Since morally wrong actions, thoughts or words are chiefly against our Maker, Scripture says, “the wages of sin is death” (Ro. 6:13). Thankfully, however, God’s perfect justice is also the reason why our salvation requires trust in the perfect life, substitutionary death and resurrection of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of our sins and a right standing before God. That’s why that same verse in the Bible also says, “the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”
Falwell didn’t lead a perfect life and he said said some things that were inconsistent with the Christ he embraced, but the death of Christ was in place of the death he “deserved” because his trust and hope was in him.
Again, thanks for your response. I would so enjoy continuing this conversation with you and look forward to your response to by question about the ground of morality in an atheistic universe.
Tory on May 21st, 2007
I had never even heard of a cicada until I was in college watching one of Letterman’s little silly games called secada/cicada. I always knew them as locusts. I bet you drink ‘pop’ too?
Nice post.
Tory
trent.hunter on May 22nd, 2007
I drink pop and soda. I was born in Ohio, moved to Chicago, moved to California, moved to St. Louis, went to college in Chicago, lived in St. Louis and moved to Louisville. I can call anything anything I want.
sluker on May 22nd, 2007
‘Morality in an atheistic universe’ and how to ‘ground morality in an amoral universe’ are interesting concepts. I maybe interpreting what you say incorrectly, but those sentences assume that atheism = amorality… a form of nihilism, if you will. It intimates that that the only thing making us behave is belief in a higher entity I don’t think that’s the case, however.
All behaviour, including morality (you use the word twice, I notice!) is a nurture issue – we are all brought up within spheres of ethical ‘normality’. Unless you had a ‘revelation’ of some kind, you probably have your faith because of how you were brought up and your parents – if not you personally, than many people like you. The same with political persuasion – children in a Neocon household often grow up to be a neocon; ‘political alignment’ its called. Just like the tribes in the Peruvian rainforest grow up to show deference to the Sun.
I was brought up within a moral framework which says, more or less ‘live your life unhindered, as long as your actions do not hurt other people (and do your best to help others, too)’. There are many interpretations of ‘Christian’ values, but from what I’ve heard of Fullwell, that makes me, although non-Christian (a lapsed Catholic schooled by Jesuits, actually) more in harmony with the teachings of Jesus than Fulwell often was.
“Justice”, as you mention, is the same – a manmade construct formed over the centuries by evolving political and social enlightenment. Predating that, there was a different sense of ‘justice’ (Spanish Inquisition, for example) and if I lived in Roman times, I’d have a vastly different concept too. Even those who do believe in God have vastly differing ‘moral frameworks’ from the peace and love ethics of someone like Ghandi (OK he was a Hindu) to those Christians who believe fervently in the death penalty – its all a matter of interpretation wherever the inspiration comes from.
I’m glad you acknowledge that Fulwell said some things that were ‘inconsistent with the Christ’ – even if thats somewhat of an understatement. I just wonder how someone with such inconsistencies could call himself a reverend and become so popular with messages often containing nothing but hate?
But regard to your response regarding separation of church and state you are totally correct that their faith can and does effect people’s leadership (G.W Bush), but I assume that Jefferson had in his mind when the constitution was formed that the state as a collective would put faith and dogma to one side and do what was best for the people regardless. I say this as a non-American, so I might be on shaky ground here.
Finally, you say “the Christian worldview is the only worldview that truly delivers on the justice that we all know evil actions truly “deserve”. I might ask why the Christian worldview is more correct than any other religious worldview, but as an atheist know that the proof people have offered me before on this subject unconvincing. But ‘Deserve’ – a word I used, too – is based on my own moral framework. The way you used it (“we all know”) makes it seems like a fixed point, without interpretation. However, ask 1,000 Christians what a murderer or wife beater ‘deserves’ and you’ll get 1,000 different answers.
trent.hunter on May 22nd, 2007
Sluker, I so appreciate your response. Though you may not agree with me, I believe that God has given you a mind to think and think well! But as a Christian, I believe that your human mind, like mine, is corrupt and capable of all forms of self deception! The Bible says we “suppress the truth in unrighteousness” (Romans 1), and that our minds serve our “deceitful desires” (Ephesians 4:17-24). I’m in the middle of a few things but look forward to showing how you are doing this very thing! And yes, without “revelation,” none of us will think well enough =).
trent.hunter on May 22nd, 2007
Slucker, so I got to it sooner than I thought =).
Of course, there are many directions a conversation like this could take. We could continue talking about Falwell and our respective visions of what constitutes Christianity relative to his life and ministry. I will only commend you to this post, this post and this post for a balanced and honest reflection on his life. In a little reading, I hope that Hitchens’ accusation of Falwell as a grotesquely immoral man, even a “toad,” will look ridiculous. But my chief concern is your understanding of the greatness of Jesus Christ, not Falwell – he was a great sinner and Christ is a great savior. So, allow me to return to the topic of the nature and ground of morality.
I want to make a few clarifications and then return a question your way. First, when I say that “a theistic worldview is the only system of belief that can account for the non-material moral standards that we embrace and the non-material sense of justice that we demand,” I do not mean that we will all agree on what is right or wrong, but that we will all agree that there is a such thing as right or wrong. My worldview entails the fallenness of the human mind and its propensity to distort and pervert the obvious. Neither do I mean that “the only thing making us behave is belief in a higher entity,” but that the reality of a higher entity is the only explanation for the reality of morality in the first place. You have argued that morals are culturally conditioned as a product of “nurture.” I do commend you on this point for consistency with your own worldview. If matter is eternal then our universe but shifting atoms and our present moment the result of an infinite regress of causes and effects. Naturally, what we believe and what we do will be conditioned by our environment. Our environment makes us.
But this is precisely where your atheistic worldview breaks down. This explanation of our moral impulses, I would argue, is consistent with atheism, but it is not consistent with the world you live in. Of course, I agree that we are complex creatures and that we can be and are conditioned by our environment. But if that is all that makes us who we are, how can a determined behavior be right or wrong? To return the question to the context of your first commend, how can Falwell “deserve” anything in return for his actions. You admit, you speak from “[your] own moral framework,” but why should your moral framework matter for Falwell? Aren’t you breaking your own requirement of religious people when you say they are free to exercise their religion “as so long as your views don’t effect my life?”
In answer to your question as to “why the Christian worldview is more correct than any other religious worldview,” I would simply say that it’s the only worldview that makes sense out of the moral world in which I find myself and it is the only worldview that provides a satisfying solution for the problem of my own moral corruption.
So my questions to you, is this, how does an atheistic worldview, where morality is environmentally determined, ground morality.
As it regards how I arrived at this position, that is of no consequence for the truthfulness of my belief, as it is of no consequence for the truthfulness of any belief. I did not grow up in a Christian home. I became a Christian when I was fifteen. My conversion to Christianity was a miracle of God in which he brought certain people into my life to show me the greatness and glory of God, the sinfulness of my own truth suppressing heart and the sufficiency of the life and death and resurrection of Jesus Christ to save me from the wrath of God.
The Bible says, “Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God” (1 Peter 3:18). He suffered for sins because sins are a serious moral problem! They are a problem with God! In hopes that you will renounce your self-deception and embrace Christ, I would commend you to the story of how I became a Christian. Yes, I am trying to convert you – but only as God can perform that miracle.
iconoclasm on May 22nd, 2007
I was thinking you were going to take this in a different direction and say they are sort of a bad thing that came as a result of the fall. That scientist sounds rather silly trying to find meaning and purpose in them. I don’t know that a couple holes in the ground every 17 years is really that important and “natural pruning” sounds like a nice way to say, “They eat the leaves off everything in sight.” I think of them as a fall related curse, a “thorn and thistle” from Genesis 3:17-19, but that is not to say that their design cannot be impressive.
sluker on May 23rd, 2007
Hi again – I don’t desire to talk about Falwell either, but will briefly. You ask “should your moral framework matter for Falwell?” and the answer is “no – not one bit”. It doesn’t mean I can’t have an opinion though. But its all about cause and affect: when you say horrible things about people, you cannot be entirely surprised if people come back and say horrible things about you. Is that the right thing to do? No. But without an opposing opinion, Falwell will only be seen from one side. The problem is, if someone like him were to have attained significant political power, then his interpretation of “righteousness and virtue” could have been, in part, foisted upon an unwilling public.
Ultimately, though his views don’t affect me in the UK (unless you give credence to what Hitchen said about his effect on Middle-East peace). But when I say “affect me”– perhaps I should also add “condemning me out-of-hand”, which although doesn’t change my life, is rather presumptuous. I’m talking in relation to those usual Christian bugbears – premarital sex, contraception, restricted Sunday shop opening hours etc etc. If people don’t wish to shop on Sunday that’s fine, but please don’t try to stop me.
I should also add my issues stem when I see religion adversely effecting others. When the pope condemns hundreds of thousands in Africa to AIDS death through ludicrous edicts about contraception it does seem to be a negative force in the world, which is especially awful the Church is supposed to be a power for good.
But you ask “how does an atheistic worldview, where morality is environmentally determined, ground morality”. I could ask how does a religious worldview grounds morality? Behaviour is determined right or wrong by what society deems right or wrong at that time. There is leeway, but if you deviate from what is ‘right’ you become ‘wrong.’ And how do we define wrong? In its purest sense, its that which impinges upon others adversely. Why is this wrong? Because we have empathy (and are also pretty selfish) and thus don’t want the same thing to happen to us.
I don’t agree that a higher entity is the only explanation for morality – if it were then morality would have been a fixed reference since the beginning of man. I think, like religion or consumerism, morality is a (relatively) recent human construct. Being essentially mammals we came from a place with little morality, but have evolved. Ironically, other mammals are rarely intentionally malicious.
As an aside, the UK is one of the most secular countries in the world and I used to think rampant consumerism had slowly replaced it – almost as if a new religion. However, then I see America – a place stubbornly evangelically religious compared to Europe but also the place where consumerism is out of control to the point where it threatens our environment and realise I was wrong. I think in Europe we’re just further along a curve (or on a differernt curve all together).
I see from your bio you were once very consumerist but changed. My same rationality towards religion is also used on consumerism (and indeed politics), so I don’t have a credit card, or buy obsess about the latest fashions. I read the newspapers not to tell me the news but to read *their version* of what they think the news is. With this in mind, perhaps you can understand when I find religion retrograde, as it absolves humans of their own actions, while often dictating a way of thinking and limiting free thought.
Also, in reply to you saying the Christian worldview is the only one for you that makes sense out of the moral world, I would suggest it might just have been the one which came to you in the right place at the right time. You’ll disagree with me, but it could be argued you swapped one obsession for another.
And finally, as for trying to convert me, if 12 years of Catholic Jesuit schooling can’t do it, I’m afraid no-one will – and as I don’t believe in God its unlikely he will either. Even as a 11 year old I didn’t find it credible. I’ve read the bible a fair few times (I like to be able to discuss accurately with creationists) and have found it unconvincing, illogical and contradictory (and yes, I’m aware if the various counter-arguments). I won’t go into it however, as I suspect you’ve heard my kind of views from others before. Nonetheless its interesting to discuss these issues with someone who comes from a totally opposite perspective!
Ben C. on May 23rd, 2007
Trent,
I love how you bring all these news stories back to a Christ-centered vision. It’s got me looking at all news in a different way. Thanks!
Tony S. on May 23rd, 2007
Hey Trent,
I loved this entry because me and some friends were talking about these coming swarms yester and I’m going to forward this to them. Hopefully it will open up talks with them about my faith so that I can share it. Later
Bill on May 23rd, 2007
Justin Taylor has killer notes on Tim Keller’s speech from the Gospel Coalition Conference.
You got to check them out,
http://theologica.blogspot.com/2007/05/keller-gospel-centered-ministry.html
Just sharing the wealth!
-Bill from ProvocativeChurch
Drew on May 24th, 2007
i saw them today. There were thousands. I’m in landscaping and our lawnmower “had at” them (we had a job to do – i’m not endorsing violence to the critters. They have waited quite some time to come out – i think we should let them be)… FYI – they can still crawl even if they are only a head with a couple legs attached.
Ben C. on June 4th, 2007
How about… We don’t always see/understand the message God is trying to tell us? That sounds like a good “Sunday School” answer, right?
trent.hunter on June 4th, 2007
Hmm. good one Ben =). Maybe an illustration for not reading the Bible carefully. Maybe an illustration for how not to read the local news as it regards Jesus’ return. Only he knows the hour!
Ben C. on June 4th, 2007
Very interesting. Hitchens didn’t really seem to say much except for “I disagree with Christianity and I don’t care what you have to say about it.” I really liked Wilson’s illustration with the spilt milk about asking us to prove with physical evidence that God created the universe. Who would ask the milk how it got there? It doesn’t know, it’s just milk! haha! That’s great!
Ched on June 8th, 2007
Good thoughts on this.
Ryan B on June 14th, 2007
I don’t know what to say. And, yet, I really, really want one.
Trent on June 14th, 2007
I would like to see Dr. Wellum use this on Sunday morning sometime.
Above All Things » Blog Archive » Desiring God & Desiring iPhone. on June 30th, 2007
[...] Fair enough, the iPhone is really cool. If you have the money (and you have to have it!) and it’s yours to spend, go for it. Just remember how to think about the iPhone! [...]
Bryant Owens on July 9th, 2007
Wonderful insight. Thank you for a well thought out discussion of aesthetics and our fascination with all things shiny and beautiful…but then there comes the failing disappointment. Alas…we are sinners saved by grace.
Thank you Jesus!
I too have a commentary on the iPhone
http://jesusmind.blogspot.com
propjets on August 9th, 2007
wait…how exactly do fluffy planets glorify God? And, btw, things within God’s creation generally seem to have a explanation consistent with the laws He created…
just saw your blog on Said at Southern, thot I’d check it out… looks like I’ll subscribe…
–propjets @ propjets.no-ip.org
trent.hunter on August 9th, 2007
Thanks for stopping by! My reflection was theological in nature. That is, with the scientists, I have no clue what’s going on to make these planets fluffy – but fluffy or solid, they exist for one reason. That is, they exist to bring glory to God in their role in providing a hospitable environment for God’s most important creation – us! And, according to Psalm 8, they glorify him specifically in the picture they provide of the greatness of his glory and a reminder of our smallness in comparison to him. All this so that we might wonder and revel in his love for us, and that, specifically and climatically in Christ. Fluffy planets!
Sean G on August 9th, 2007
Good final thoughts….
propjets on August 9th, 2007
Ok, cool. I get what you are saying, and I suspected something of the sort when I read your post, I guess I just felt like nitpicking somebody. Sorry for being intentionally obtuse…
propjets
trent.hunter on August 9th, 2007
Thanks Sean!
Aaron Wojnicki on August 15th, 2007
Praise God for Matthew 16:18! As a church planter, this is a passage that I treasure dearly. Piper’s words from this text are very encouraging.
trent.hunter on August 15th, 2007
Word to a church planter! He’s the chief cornerstone and the builder. I am thankful for your faithful work of ministry here in Louisville, friend. Continue the work.
Drew on August 17th, 2007
Thanks for the quote. On the rare occassion that these thoughts cross my mind, I am usually wondering why I dont think about it more. Where did you come across this quote?
Ben C. on August 20th, 2007
Wow. I’m at a loss. I’ve never heard of the Vhemt. I mean, God put us in charge of the Earth, so that means we can’t just run it over, we should take care of it, but that doesn’t mean we have to get rid of ourselves… Those people must be pretty crazy. Or extremely lost. I’d probably stick with crazy though.
trent.hunter on August 20th, 2007
Thanks Ben. It is an amazing thought to consider a human promoting the voluntary extinction of the human race, isn’t it? In answer to your suggestion as to why, I think both of your answers are correct. Lostness – which is life without God – is a form of craziness. When we suppress the truth in our unrighteousness, as Romans 1 says we do, we live in denial of the obvious. It is obvious that humans are special and it is obvious that the universe was made for us. Only self deception leads to any other conclusion.
Just yesterday I was read this in Genesis 1, “And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth.” And it was so.”
That our wonderful planet would sit among the stars unique and full of life is no random thing. And you are right, our responsibility to subdue the earth entails a responsibility to care for it – not to abandon the planet =). And so, with this precious knowledge, it is our privilege to enthusiastically share the truth that we were made in God’s image and that sinners may be conformed to the image of Christ through the gospel.
Ben C. on August 24th, 2007
I had a myspace account for a while. I got rid of it because of the adds that popped up on the side of the screens which were very trashy and my feeling is, if I woudln’t feel comfortable with my wife sitting there next to me, then I don’t need to see it. I assumed all social networking sites are that way, so I never even looked into facebook. Maybe I’ll give it a try.
Megan on August 25th, 2007
Nasty, nasty, NASTY!!!
Danny McDonald on August 30th, 2007
This raise the question … how in the world is he able to sever the snake’s head with his mouth?!? Amazing. I would’ve lost teeth if I’d attempted this feat. Ugh.
7 Posts For the Weekend | Said At Southern Seminary on September 1st, 2007
[...] The Christian Blogosphere: A Place Where… [...]
Ben C. on September 4th, 2007
Maybe he’s like that metal-mouthed guy Jaws from the James Bond movies???
Above All Things » Blog Archive » What Apple Knows. on September 9th, 2007
[...] How to Think About the iPhone. [...]
Blog Roundup for 9/15/2007 | Said At Southern Seminary on September 15th, 2007
[...] Hunter at Above All Things shares his reflections on Dr. Mohler’s message from [...]
Blog Roundup for 9/15/2007 | Said At Southern Seminary on September 15th, 2007
[...] The theology of Apple Computers. [...]
“Jesus Christ’s name is a proposition!” | Said At Southern Seminary on September 17th, 2007
[...] transcribed several paragraphs from Dr. Mohler’s most recent chapel sermon. Read about it on Above All Things or download Dr. Mohler’s sermon on the SBTS website. Sermon date was Thursday, September 13, [...]
Aaron on September 17th, 2007
Thank you for this post and your prayers for our children.
trent.hunter on September 17th, 2007
Your welcome, friend, and it is our joy. We learn much from you both.
Gender Blog from CBMW | Said At Southern Seminary on September 18th, 2007
[...] format will be news-commentary based and frequently updated. Check it out. HT: here, here, here, here, and a quote from Denny Burk: The Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) launched a new [...]
Drew on September 21st, 2007
congratulations on the certificate. I can’t wait to see the hard-copy!
Ben C. on October 1st, 2007
Hmm… How about man can not create anything perfect.
It is another example of Microsoft putting out an incomplete and junky product too. And all the lemmings in the business world are still following suit and buying into it… (sorry about that, I have to work with MS products all day and I’d much rather be at home on my Mac!).
trent.hunter on October 1st, 2007
Ben, you are funny. It is a funny few digits that give the program trouble. And you are right, for all we get right, God is perfect.
Ben C. on October 8th, 2007
That gives new meaning to “Don’t do the crime unless you’re willing to do the time.” saying, huh? If he tried to steal my donut I probably would have stabbed him in the back. No one gets between me and a donut. So maybe he’s lucky he’ll just end up in jail!
More popular than I knew. on October 9th, 2007
[...] people have viewed one of my photos on flickr. Apparently it’s a hit with atheists and fundamentalist Christians alike. Who [...]
trent.hunter on October 11th, 2007
Ben, I am with you on that!
Terry Delaney on October 19th, 2007
I was wondering if that was a seminary student. Wave 3 (NBC) simply stated that he attributed the tree not crushing the roof to a higher power then they cut back to him as if he would reiterate what they just said. However all he said was that a few more feet he would have been crushed. Basically, what Wave 3 did was to make it sound like he was any other nominal, faithful person by saying he thanked a “higher power” and not God Himself.
I am glad all made it home ok. My wife was also at her SWI class (Baptist History I & II). To God be the glory!
Ben C. on October 19th, 2007
That picture is crazy! Look how the branches curve just above the roof of his car. Clearly the work of God! Who else could have made the tree grow in just such a way as to not crush Sean!
trent.hunter on October 19th, 2007
That’s an interesting observation, Ben. Not only is the timing God’s, but every inch of the shape of every tree is God’s! Trees declare the glory of God on their own, but how great a work God does when he uses a tree and one of his people to articulate in words the design in such events as this!
trent.hunter on October 19th, 2007
Terry, I have update the post with a quote from the Wave3. You are right, “higher power” almost sounds new age. It truly carries no specific referent for people today and it’s certainly not the language that Sean employed in describing God. With you, I praised God for the safety of my bride.
propjets on October 22nd, 2007
*speechless*
Travis on October 24th, 2007
Okay, I figured it out!!! Trent, when you hummed this song to me (just one line of the melody), it reminded me of THIS video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDCUlirsTdI&eurl=http://t3sk3y.com/?p=263
Travis
P.S. – Hope you’re feelin’ “trippy”! Don’t know what I mean? You will after you watch the link.
Travis on October 24th, 2007
Oh, and one more thing… are those 1/32nd notes he’s playing during the climax?!? Geez. You’d love Don Ross. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uADkFy7DZXY
Land on GOP ‘08: No Rudy, No Way, No How!! Roundup for 10-26 | Said At Southern Seminary on October 26th, 2007
[...] Trent Hunter blogs about Keyes and Obama’s abortion exchange. [...]
Betty on November 5th, 2007
This is very interesting. We will be starting these lessons
propjets on November 6th, 2007
The debate over what the government should do is an interesting one, and I agree about his critcism of the libertarian position.
The apostle Paul tells us what government is for in Romans 13:1-7.
Due to space limitations, I will merely sum up his main points, go read the passage for yourself.
1. Because God created government, we should submit to it. (Romans 13:1-2, 5-7)
2. Rulers should punish evildoers. (Romans 13: 3-4)
3. Rulers should reward well doers. (Romans 13:4)
4. Punishing evildoers includes capital punishment! (Romans 13:4)
5. Because rulers are God’s servants and are doing His work, we should pay them (taxes). (Romans 13:6-7)
6. We should also pay them respect! (Romans 13:7)
(for a more in-depth discussion of this topic, see this article: Should the government ‘do’ justice?
Ben C. on November 26th, 2007
I wonder if these people are part of the VHEMT. Didn’t you do a post on that a while ago? Those guys are sort of crazy. If only they could have that passion for Christ, rather than selfish desires!!!
R. Mansfield on November 27th, 2007
Pardon the hyperbolic nature of my comment, but you would think that if these people were so concerned about the burden humans put on the planet that they would do the only logical thing and check out themselves.
trent.hunter on November 27th, 2007
Ben and Mansfield, both of you though of something that did not occur to me until last night. You are right, the logic of the immorality of having children can only mean the immorality of staying alive at all. If the planet’s protection is the highest good, than like good soldiers we ought all be willing to die for this cause.
Wayne Smith on December 3rd, 2007
I’m not sure I can follow this logic. These people seem to be enviromentolists and vegetarians. If they ate animals they could reduce their carbon footprint more than eating carbon reducing vegtables. If we could make some of the larger animals extinct wouldn’t that assist in the global warming problem? If I killed a couple of elephants and a few rhinos every year I could have a child and a round the world trip every year.
View from Here on December 4th, 2007
April DeConick’s piece on the Gospel of Judas fiasco is excellent. I was particularly interested in what she said about the Dead Sea Scrolls:
“The situation reminds me of the deadlock that held scholarship back on the Dead Sea Scrolls decades ago. When manuscripts are hoarded by a few, it results in errors and monopoly interpretations that are very hard to overturn even after they are proved wrong.”
From what I understand, the consequences of the Scrolls monopoly are indeed still continuing today, in an exhibit taking place in San Diego. See this article for an example of the kind of horrifying conflict this has led to:
http://www.nowpublic.com/culture/did-christian-agenda-lead-biased-dead-sea-scrolls-exhibit-san-diego
So I would suggest that an important question is whether serious biblical scholars who, like April DeConick, seek to do their research in accordance with basic principles of scientific humanism rather than any specific religious agenda, will frankly condemn what has been going on with the Dead Sea Scrolls in one museum exhibit after another for the past ten years. Or will we have another decade of silence, innuendo and embarrassed shrugging of shoulders?
propjets on December 13th, 2007
Good application of this news story! I read about it on Drudge the other day, but it was just like, oh, that’s cool. I hadn’t thought about the application it has for us.
Thanks for the reminder.
–propjets
Ben C. on December 14th, 2007
I saw this yesterday and wondered if you would comment on it. Having a pregnant wife myself, I thank Him for designing women in a way that they have little things that make the pregnancy easier for them even though because of sin child birth is now to be a painful experience.
**side question: If child birth (Biblically) is supposed to be painful, should we encourage women to get an epidural to numb the pain? It’s a discussion my wife and I have been having lately. No difinitive answer between us yet.
trent.hunter on December 15th, 2007
Ben,
Thanks for another thoughtful reply. In response to your questions, a few thoughts.
Of course, the most important thing any of us can do is conform our thinking about the world and our living in the world to what God has revealed to us in his Word. When we do this, we are bucking our born tendency to do as Adam did in rejecting God’s authority and we are taking Christ’s lead in trusting the Father. So, wherever we come out on the question of such a thing as an epidural, we must agree – whatever God would have us do, we will do.
Concerning the nature of pain in childbearing, I have to agree with you. Life in this present world is painful because God has made it so and he put the creation and his creatures into the difficulty of our present circumstance because of our sin. Every tornado, every tsunami, every itch we can’t quite reach is a reminder that we are great sinners. Work is hard for men and giving birth is hard for women. Genesis 3 and Roman 8 are enough to ground a hardy affirmation of your conviction. There is pain in childbearing because God put it there.
And so we ask the question, is it ok to numb the pain of a woman in the birthing process?
There is something right and good about facing the horror and reality of the fallen world as it comes to us. Such activities and TV, internet surfing and video games are all strategies for avoiding the more difficult things in life like hard relationships or work. There is a sense in which this may even apply medically. For example, when a person is dying, do we numb them from pain such that they can’t process their final moments of life? Isn’t there something good about experiencing pain when it might mean waking up to the reality of one’s need for the Ultimate Healer?
But in answer to your specific question, I would say, Yes. The application of human genius to the dulling of pain in child birth is acceptable for Christian people. I’ll give three reasons.
First, In Genesis 3, God’s curse for the women to experience “pain in childbearing” is not a command but a description of what is. Throughout the rest of Scripture, we don’t find commands to suffer tied to these curses.
Second, throughout Scripture, we don’t find the command to experience the pain of childbirth to its utmost. In fact, women are not commanded to feel pain at all – Genesis 3 only provides a description of what is. This is an argument from silence, but it has to mean something. No where that I am aware of are we commanded to do or not do a certain thing so that we might more fully experience the pain that God inflicted on creation because of sin.
Third, the Bible actually affirms human desire to dull pain in this life. Jesus himself heals people. Paul prays for the removal of his “thorn in the flesh” and expects that God can take it from him (1 Corinthians 12). Paul even told Timothy to “use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and frequent ailments” (1 Tim 5:23). So we actually see the desire on the part of human persons for the removal of physical pain honored by God and affirmed by the apostles.
Fourth, these same three arguments apply with respect to other curses as well. For example, with regard to the curse that God put on the man for the frustration of his work, no where are we commanded to forgo the use of tools or other methods for the simplification of ease of work. Instead, we find diligence and creativity in work rewarded. And with regard to God’s curse on all of creation, we would all affirm the goodness of hiding from a tornado or even the use of other medicines for such things as a common cold, also a result of the fall. Of course, that we accept these things doesn’t make them acceptable, but the reason we accept them is because Scripture gives us no reason to think otherwise. So, for example, I think the Jehovah’s Witness from Portugal should accept medical treatment for his 12 pound tumor that engulfs his face and threatens to take his life (http://www.foxnews.com/story/ 0,2933,314869,00.html).
Of course, there are other factors to consider in the pursuit of the best decision for your family. For example, I understand that there are some legitimate risks that come with an epidural. I had a friend whose wife has suffered severe back problems for more than ten years as a result of her epidural. With regard to the baby, I understand the newborn to be much more alert upon birth than when an epidural is employed. Bright eyes and immediate responsiveness might make for precious and valuable moments after birth and even, I suppose we might say, a unique opportunity for bonding.
I hope these thoughts have been helpful to you, Ben. At the end of the day, women are still going to throw up during their pregnancy and men are still going to sweat when they work – so, if you go with it maybe that will make you feel better=). If you find my affirmation of the use of an epidural to conflict with Scripture, I will gladly stand corrected. Otherwise, I think this is a decision that involves the weighing of many factors. A yes or a no is acceptable for Christian persons who wish to honor and glorify their Lord.
Ben C. on December 17th, 2007
Trent, as always, you are wise beyond your years! That is a great explanation and I fully understand the scripture, reason, and logic behind your agruements. I guess I didn’t think about it as a statement and not a commandment (per say). Yes, it will be painful, but no, I don’t want you to suffer (we brought that upon ourselves). God has given us the minds and means to develop ways to ease our suffering. Thanks for taking the time dude.
Oh, and it’s a girl!! Yay! We just found out on Friday. (I think I sent you a text. Maybe not though. It was a whirlwind of phone calls and text messages)
trent.hunter on December 17th, 2007
Yes, Ben. I did get a text. Kristi and I are both thrilled for the news.
As for your decision, before throwing the final switch on your decision, I would certainly recommend consulting with your pastor of someone whom you respect who knows and lives the Scriptures.
propjets on December 19th, 2007
This is certainly consistent with my experience of LDS beliefs: unless pressed, they do their best to present their beliefs and laws as being compatible and consistent with mainstream Christianity. This is especially the case when they stand to gain politically from the perception that Mormonism is Christian.
The sad thing about all this is the number of ignorant Christians who allow themselves to be sucked into the lie that Mormonism is consistent with the Bible. We need to make sure we know what we believe, and avoid traps like this one.
Ben C. on December 20th, 2007
yeah, I asked my pastor about it… He sort of laughed (he’s got 5 kids), but he’s going to get back to me on it later since this is a really busy time for a pastor, especially a pastor of a small church. I think his wife was going to punch me!!
In the Blogosphere « Kingdom People on December 21st, 2007
[...] Cool story. Christmas card arrives after 93 years. [...]
Ben C. on January 18th, 2008
Looks like this is also a case of sinful, selfish, human love. Poor kids. I pray for a safe return and for them to get help. Hopefully the Christian community around them will embrace the parents at this time and show them Christ’s LOVE.
The Hunter Home - » Reflections on the Anniversary of Roe vs. Wade on January 22nd, 2008
[...] This video from helps us to grieve as we ought every time we consider the reality of abortion. This video is graphic, but the only reason that disclaimer is necessary is owing to the fact that these are images of human persons. Watch and grieve. [...]
The Hunter Home - » The Gould’s One Year Anniversary on January 30th, 2008
[...] Sean and Adrian at Louisville’s Thunder last year in April and Sean, if you remember, was my friend who was almost killed by a tree this fall. Enjoy this [...]
Ben C. on February 11th, 2008
I would say music is the most heated topic at any church! It’s tough to get a good balance of music that appeases everyone. I don’t agree with churches doing a “contemporary” and “traditional” service at all and when we moved to AZ I wouldn’t attend a church that did. There’s already too many divisions/factions within a church to add one more (and a big one at that). We’re all there to worship together. When I lived in LA I went to some of the megachurches and they actually PAY musicians to come in on Sunday morning. Some of my college classmates made as much as $250/week to play on Sunday morning and show up to one practice a week. Most of the churches didn’t even care if you were a Christian or not!!! They felt it was outreach, but I’ve never seen anyone pay people to come to church. I think a lot more people would go if they did get paid (unfortunately)! Anyway, it’s nice to see a healthy discussion about it and not a “flame war”. Both have very good points. Our pastor did a sermon a few months ago and he had the worship team up there with him and they played hymns throughout it to augment his points. It was really powerful and moving. I think even the people who like to “rock out” on Sunday morning were moved by it and it showed them a different side of worship they had not explored because they want to be young and youthful.
Thanks for sharing this Trent!
Above All Things » Blog Archive » “And Tango” Pulled From Shelves on February 17th, 2008
[...] little over a year ago, I published a post about a book by the title, And Tango Makes [...]
Megan on February 18th, 2008
Wow, is all I can say. I wonder how many people who viewed this episode could relate to this man’s struggle.
Ron Forseth on February 19th, 2008
Hi,
I work for Outreach and appreciate the concern that we guard against robbing God of his glory. God alone is worthy of worship and we wholly affirm that. At the same time, pointing people to the reason for Christ’s death according to Romans 5:8 is also an appropriate message for a church to proclaim: “But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” He died for us. He died for me. I worship him for it!
As for Rick Warren’s opening, “It’s not about you,” I see this as an affirmation of the Lordship of Christ. Amen!
As for Reggie McNeal’s title from Lifeway, “Get a Life! It IS All About You” I see this as a reference to God’s unique design and care for each and every individual. Praise God for his lovingkindness toward us!
P.S. I absolutely love the writings and sermons of Jonathan Edwards. But that’s an individual thing–not an Outreach thing.
Ben C. on March 5th, 2008
I wish we could get an honest answer from Obama on that one… Sadly, I doubt it will ever be addressed. Abortion has to be the worst thing man has ever done.
Southern Baptists & Cultureal Engagement | Said at Southern Seminary on March 8th, 2008
[...] Trent Hunter tackles the Problem of Evil. Next problem to tackle: Bad Spelling, dude. [...]
Southern Baptists & Cultureal Engagement | Said at Southern Seminary on March 8th, 2008
[...] Hunter tackles the Problem of Evil. Next problem to tackle: Bad Spelling, [...]
Above All Things » Blog Archive » Reflections on a Resurrectionless Easter on March 18th, 2008
[...] days ago I posted a letter from First Look, a publisher of children’s curriculum in which the publisher attempted an [...]
Ben C. on March 19th, 2008
Great reflection Trent. It’s easy to just be outraged and condem people for doing something like this, but to go through it rationally and Biblically and present a counter point is awesome. Keep up the good work.
Ben C. on March 20th, 2008
This is going up on my cube wall.
trent.hunter on March 20th, 2008
Ben,
You are my faithful commenter! Yes, this is a tremendous resource of untold value.
Trent
Drew on March 21st, 2008
I have personally benefited from this resource already. I was planning on studying at this point, but have been musing about the chart… I suppose I have created a new box to add: “if there is a blog to comment on, leave a comment.”
Ben C. on March 21st, 2008
Drew,
That is a GREAT addition.
“Do you have friends w/ Blogs, or read other blogs”
“Yes” – Read and comment
“No” – Return to email
Maybe even a box saying to write your own blog entry? maybe a blog about how you’re not doing what you’re supposed to be doing…
Reflections For The Holy Weekend | Said at Southern Seminary on March 22nd, 2008
[...] doubts that the account of the resurrection should be off-limits to preschoolers. [...]
Reflections For The Holy Weekend | Said at Southern Seminary on March 25th, 2008
[...] reflects on a resurrectionless easter. [...]
Megan on March 25th, 2008
Good ol’ Verizon!
trent.hunter on March 25th, 2008
Megan, you are hilarious! One day I am sure that Travis or I will have someone come in and cite this story in asking for the retrieval of some long lost voice mail or greeting =)
Trent
Drew on April 19th, 2008
what was the paper about?
Ben C. on April 21st, 2008
Alright man! Great to have you back! It’s amazing how time flies sometimes.
Ben C. on April 30th, 2008
I LOVE Homestar Runner! I used to be a daily visitor to their web site and wasted many work hours playing their quirky flash games. I haven’t been there in years though! Thanks for posting this, I just bookmarked them again. Now I can waste more hours catching up!
Tory on May 21st, 2008
Great find Trent. At first glance I thought the advertisement was a parody of the UCC, only to realize that it was actually a product of their own marketing. I guess in this light one could effectively argue that Rev. Wright is a warmly welcomed figure within the denomination–in that he embodies the organization’s hermeneutic.
Tory
trent.hunter on May 24th, 2008
Tory,
I have to agree my friend. It’s an anti-gospel cloaked in Christian language.
Trent
Grace on May 31st, 2008
We have them everywhere and they are quite loud. Luckily I’m a nature person and realize they have a purpose here on earth.
And, what in the world does pop or soda have to do with anything?
People all around the US and the world call things different names in other areas. Live and let live and enjoy the differences. As my grandfather always said, “it takes all kinds to make a world.”
Ben C. on June 2nd, 2008
Will Smith used to be a decent Christian voice in Hollywood. Too bad he’s getting into Scientology. Remember to pray for him and his family to see the lies that are being fed to them.
Ben C. on June 26th, 2008
I can’t beieve she didn’t know they were there! I’ve been by there during the day and night when people around me were speeding and they have a HUGE flash. It’s almost distracting to all the other drivers, especially at night. It was also dumb of her to throw the tickets away too. All you really have to do is fill out the inside form saying that it’s not you in the car and you don’t know who it is and the ticket goes away! Not that I’ve done that before or anything…
Drew on August 10th, 2008
Ray Ortlund’s thoughts – http://christisdeeperstill.blogspot.com/2008/08/yet-again.html
Ben C. on August 19th, 2008
Come on! Who HASN’T, on occasion, taken a bath in a sink at Burger King??? They’re blowing this way out of proportion…
Ben C. on September 15th, 2008
I think Oprah is scary… She’s drunk with influence over the American women. She’s got some “spiritual advisor” that she touts all the time (can’t remember his name right now), but his big thing is that it’s all about “YOU”. Rumor has it (I’ve read it in a few places) that she’s actually trying to start her own religion. It’s kind of a non-religion though, since it will be different for everyone (that’s where the “you” part comes in), but a religion just the same. Of course, that could just be blogger gossip… Still, she’s a dangerous person.
The House built on the Rock « Chris’ Original Blogbeque on September 20th, 2008
[...] This blog post brought to my attention the above photo of a solitary home still standing in the town of Gilchrist, TX, after Hurricane Ike passed through the state last week. The owners of this home had their previous house destroyed by Hurricane Rita– they re-built with a plan for a building that could survive a Category 5 storm. [...]
Brother Hank on September 21st, 2008
Great post. Thanks for this reminder…
Will Revelation 11:18 be Green? « Via Emmaus on September 24th, 2008
[...] who clued me in to the Green Bible’s release, makes several cogent points in his blog on the Green Bible. He [...]
Ben C. on October 20th, 2008
I hate to be a conspiracy theorist, but the drug companies will do something to refute these findings, or find a way to take funding away from this group. Luckily, a lot of parents who’s children have these disorders do a lot of internet searching now, so hopefully they’ll find this article.
Dave on December 7th, 2008
I’m going to have to agree with Ben here. What they don’t report in these kind of news stories is that that young man did not have a bathtub in his house. By bathing at work what he did was ensure that he would offer the customers of that fine Burger King a clean employee. And if they get a small little toe hair in their burger, come on, small price to pay.
Ben C. on January 21st, 2009
Amen. Becoming a father myself this year, I don’t understand how someone like Obama who has witnessed the miracle of life growing in his wife’s womb through the birth of his child could support abortion. An ultrasound at a mere 8 weeks shows a heart beat! Life is truly amazing. I hope we’re all in constant prayer for this administration.
Matthew Perry on January 22nd, 2009
I remember these guys! Thanks for bringing them back to my attention!
drew on March 20th, 2009
yo – the link in the post didn’t work.
Reborns on May 18th, 2009
Interesting post – I cant see a link to the RSS feed though.
Jonathan on October 19th, 2006
I posted on this as well – did you notice in this article the picture that was painted of Christians via the “one radical Christian” that they mention. This news article was in no way “unbiased”. Of course I’m sure they know that and do not care.