A book you should love

I panned a book from Crossway over in the meta of TeamPyro yesterday, and I have a small stack of books from them on my shelf which I have been trying to get reviewed for about 4 months now. So to offset the panning they got at the other blog, I'm going to gush a little about a book about house churches.

Tim Chester and Steve Timmis have written what I think is a fabulous book about the life of the local church called Total Church: A Radical Reshaping Around Gospel and Community. It's in the RE:LIT series co-branded with Mars Hill Church in Seattle, and I love it.

Before I get all gushy over this book -- which I think is ridiculously-easy to do -- let me point out some of its limitations. For example, in the chapter on "Theology", it takes a swipe at Protestant models of Scriptural authority and salutes the "Anabaptist" model of "Gospel in community" over that. Eh. I though the point needed more work to convince me than they gave it in the 4 paragraphs on pp 158-159, but at least their point of view is transparent.

Another shortcoming of this book is its radical focus on a church without walls. The idea that a church is a community and not a building is a great maxim, an excellent and transformative point when you really "get it", a great theological point. But I think that, truth be told, in Western Civilization, every significant local community with a particular common interest in the last 500 years at least has raised up a place where it can assemble and demonstrate whatever it is they have in common -- be it a love of a sport or a love of fine art or a love of beer. Our God does not live in a temple, as Paul would say, but I would add: His people need someplace to call home, at least for now.

But that said, there isn't anyone reading my blog who can't learn something significant, church-improving, and of Gospel-centered seriousness from Total Church. Chester & Timmis have really made a labor of love to advance for the church a practical theology of the church which advances beyond the core of the Gospel without for one second taking the Gospel for granted.

The first chapter, in fact, underscores their focus -- it is called "Why Gospel?" Their conclusion is that the Gospel is a word, therefore the church must be word-centered. But it is not to be word-encased -- the word is not a tomb or a bunker in which the church resides, but a place which calls people out of the world, and into community.

How that community ought to -- and can -- work is the case made in the rest of Total Church, and as is my habit I'm not going to poison it for you by trying to distill it for you. Go out and buy this book, read it, and apply directly to your church.

They can do better, I think

I was watching the Norma McCorvey video at JT's blog, and after it was over, this kid's face turns up:



Now, before you hit "play", LANGUAGE ALERT, OK? It's very average YouTube fare. But I post it here for you to think about something. If you watch this to the end, his argument is that a baby is better off dead than poor. Think about that: he's proud enough of this argument to post it on YouTube.

Better dead than poor. And his back-up is "better dead than 'unwanted'" -- with the "pwn" that babies put up for adoption have no place to go.

Information always improves opinions, right? Here's some information: Since the end of World War II, interest in adoption primarily has focused on healthy, young infants. By the mid-1950's, the demand for healthy infants grew so significantly that it exceeded the number of children available for adoption, a trend that has accelerated with each passing decade.[adoption.com]

No snark for this one. I'm really stunned that someone would make this argument this plainly about this subject.

what he can't fix

Now that Barack Obama is President of the United States, he has a lot of things to fix. His plate is full, yes?

He can't fix this, or anything like it. That requires a savior.

Short and sweat

Faithful reader and pretty-boy David Regier gets the nod this week with this classic:

---

There was a man who, having taken a shower, put on the sweaty, grungy t-shirt that he had been wearing for the whole week. It fit him well, and it was very comfortable. But no one wanted to get near him. At last he figured out that people don't like seeing a dirty t-shirt, so he put a clean one on top. It was really uncomfortable and tight, but it covered up the smell some, at least for a little while.

Global Parable Writer's entry #3

I heard this story in church this weekend, so I can't take full credit for it, but I am retelling it in my own words.

---

There was a young man -- a doctor -- who was sent off to war, and he left behind a young wife and a 7-month-old baby girl. He was away at the war for two years, and was faithful to his wife. In writing to her frequently, he sent back a portrait of himself to her and the baby as a promise that he would return home soon.

He returned two years later, and the baby was now a toddler who didn't know him. In fact, in some ways she didn't want him in their house. He was a stranger, and he didn't belong. She only knew the portrait.

One Saturday the young doctor was sitting on the couch reading the paper when the toddler got up from her bed and slowly came down the stairs. He didn't want to antagonize her, so he just sat and read, watching her out of the corner of his eye.

She started in the kitchen, then the dining room, then came into the living room sort of watching him, sizing him up. She came to the other end of the sofa, and then pointed at the portrait.

"That's my daddy. Some day he's coming home," she said, looking at the portrait.

He lowered the paper, and looked at her -- both bursting with pride at her confidence and aching on the inside from her ignorance.

She looked at him again, and pointed at the portrait. "That's my daddy," she said certainly, and looked straight at the young doctor.

Then there was a curious silence as her face changed.

"You're my daddy," she said breathlessly.

Frank Turk: liar

Phil Perkins is opening up a debate blog which he will moderate, and I'll be posting the exchange in parallel at the actual DebateBlog, on a thesis statement yet to be determined. I anticipate that Phil will also be posting all of the e-mails associated with setting this up just because he can.

So I am a liar: that wasn't the last Phil Perkins post. The truth is out: do with it what you will.

fox to hound: don't guard chicken house

Time for President Obama to sit down and chat with our "friends" in Iran.

making it worse for himself

He wants "so help me God" taken out of the oath of office for the President, but he has lost about 6 or 8 other similar suits in the last 10 years. I think this guy doesn;t realize that, at some point, the precedent he has helped shape by tossing off his vanity lawsuits will have damaged his legal point irreparably.

I say let him knock himself out.

Last Phil Perkins Post – EVER!

We’ve had quite the laugh thanks to Phil, but there comes a point where jokes get old, so this is the last Phil Perkins post at this blog ever – without regard to anything Phil might say or post.

The quoted stuff is from a comment Phil posted at his blog, and before we go any further into that field, I find it a little disturbing that Phil blocks comments which have answered his questions point blank and then calls that action a failure to respond on my part. If Phil wants to find dishonestly, there is a mirror in the rest room which he should check.

Please, read this entire comment. There is a common logical mistake that you made and even if you disagree with me, there's a logical lesson for you to learn that will help you think better in the future.

I'll just give you a couple of evidences you can read right here in the last four or five posts and comment threads.

1. He pretended to be able to judge translations, but doesn't even know the languages. And when asked, he refused to answer.

One of the underlying problems with appealing to “logic” is “truth”. You know: I can come up with a valid logical syllogism like:

All bloggers are porn stars.
Phil Perkins is a blogger.
Therefore, Phil Perkins is a porn star.

Logically: perfect. Factually: a ludicrous slander. Because all bloggers are in fact not all porn stars, the conclusion is false, not true.

In the same way, Phil says, “I refuse to answer” whether I know the languages or not. Sadly, my alert readers here at this blog already demonstrated to Phil that I never claimed to know Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. In fact, I admit and publicize that I cannot read these languages, as our little context last week demonstrated.

But far worse for Phil, I posted repeated comments to his blog denying that I can read Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic, and Phil has refused to post them.

So the problem is not that not all bloggers are porn stars: it is that Phil refuses to listen to anyone who denies that all bloggers are porn stars – calling their denials in fact “silence”.

2. He actually contended that the biblical command not to tamper with God's word only applies to prophets. Follow the provided links starting with Part II of THE SECRET SINS OF THE ODMs.

As interesting as Phil’s accusation sounds, he’s referring to Deu 18 – in which his exegesis is, at best, of a single note and that not quite in the right key.

See: Phil doesn’t want to say what he means by “change the words” – and my example comparing the KJV, NIV and NASB has (as far as I have seen – he’s welcome to post a link correcting me) gone unremarked upon. In my view, for example, the TNIV is guilty of aberrant translation in Eph 2:15 – not because they changed the words but because they changed the meaning of the passage. And in changing what the passage communicates to the reader, they find themselves in violation of the clear command of Rev 22 – which, oddly, Phil’s blog takes its name from.

So when Phil tosses out a transparently-incorrect statement about me, ignoring evidence which overturns his complaint, and suppresses my own responses, maybe Phil should go get a soda and a sandwich or something – cool out and find a hobby which isn’t so factually-intensive.

Now unless he actually doesn't know better than that he's lying.

If he DOESN'T know better, then he ought not pretend to know much about the Bible.

See: in Phil’s world, all logic results in binary choices: either I’m a liar or a fraud. Either I’m a deceiver or a failure. It can’t be – as I believe is true in his case – that I am merely incorrect, or misguided, or ill-informed. I have to be a villain.

I wonder why it is important that I be a villain and not merely a person who has made )(in Phil’s opinion) mistakes?

3. He pretended right here (again just read) that the TNIV differs in its gender references only because of a different opinion about translation. But the fact is that Zondervan has openly admitted the differences have to do with marketing.

Yeah, as for comments I posted to Phil’s blog which he failed to post, I’ll offer that I have in fact mentioned that conundrum that we may not in fact need a “new” New international version – that the NIV was refreshed by the Zondervan for the sake of marketing a new product.

But factually, the TNIV does differ in translation philosophy from the NIVB. The innovation of gender-neutral translation is a new development since the 1970’s when the NIV was first produced. And those changes are supported by the UBS – whether I agree with them, or not.

What Phil ignores is the larger debate which has gone on over and against the publication of the TNIV where people like John Frame have campaigned against the translation philosophy behind TNIV and people like Craig Blomberg have rebutted those arguments and supported the TNIV. This wasn’t hardly a strident move by Zondervan to do something no one really believes in – in spite of their clear marketing motives.

But of course, in Phil’s world, there are only different kinds of devils, and Zondervan can only be a profiteer or an apostate.

4. He claimed that he didn't monitor the net to try to protect his image, yet he proved right here that's not true.

You see: coming back to discuss the issues Phil brings up – and hoping he’ll at least engage, if not change his mind – is “protecting my image”. I wonder what Phil would say if he was completely ignored?

We’ll find out in the future.

5. He claims to actually be a Christian, but still supports Tim Challies, who is in open sin.

Says Phil. I say: Phil – contact Challies’ pastor and ask him to start discipline. Turn it up a notch, wiseguy. If a local pastor and elders discipline Tim for sin and he doesn’t repent, I’ll disavow him right here.

But here’s the thing: if they find him guiltless, you have to repent. For the first time in your life, maybe. Repent, Phil.

There are five lies right there. But it's even worse than that.

But his sin is deeper even than that. Go back and read what he started his comments. At least half of what he said, starting with his very first sentence, was simply taunting like one expects on a playground. This is not the sort of behavior of a Christian man.

Indeed – we should all be dour and sour when someone slanders us – because by a long shot, that will cause the slanderer to repent.

Take Phil for example ...

AND, if you think these men show any sort of grace and honesty with brother who confront them over their sin, I'm not the only one who has experienced their scorn.
You can read that in Edward's comments, too.

Edward who? Should I google it to see what he’s talking about, or should I ... oh nevermind ...

Here is the logical lesson I mentioned:

Since you don't know what I may or may not know about Turk, aren't you uninformed about whether or not I'm informed in my judgment?

You admitted you don't know, so be consistent and logical.

If you e-mail me, Phil, I’ll give you my cell phone number, and you can tell me all the things you know or don’t know about me. Until then, thanks for the laughs – but this sort of humor is funny for a very short time, and then it gets old.

I am sure you can find me when you’re ready. Until then, grace and peace.

The Offer

This is what I get for not just getting ready for work in the morning. I read this this morning:

The old Calvinist saw is right: everyone limits the atonement, but only with respect to its effectiveness. That is, unless you’re a universalist, in which case the atonement is thoroughly effective at bringing people into God’s Kingdom in the end.

But, leaving aside universalism, we should admit the old Calvinist saw. However, the charge people are bringing against the Calvinist doctrine of limited atonement is that, by Calvinist lights, the atonement is not merely limited in its effectiveness, but also in the extend of its offer. Calvinists aren’t logically compelled to accept this, but there is a line of reasoning that very easily leads to this.

Suppose that one is a Calvinist and believes in (1) limited atonement and (2) unconditional election. If the doctrine of unconditional election is correct, God chooses those for whom the atonement will be effective from the foundation of the world. But suppose God then offers atonement universally. Doesn’t this offer sound a bit disingenuous? Here’s an analogy: it’s as if I determined my students’ grades before the semester begins, and then told them that, if they work hard enough, they can get an A. In short, there’s a lot of tension in holding the Calvinist doctrines of limited atonement and unconditional election together with the idea that God freely offers salvation to all. Of course, since everyone mystery-mongers at some point, the Calvinist is free to follow suit here.

Heh. Mystery-mongering.

The mystery is how this person reads the Bible and can't admit that this is not a Calvinist invention, but actually what the Bible teaches -- that God has both predestined sinful men for salvation AND makes the offer of the Gospel to everyone who will believe.

Another way to look at this problem is to consider why the atonement is limited. For Calvinists, it seems that the ultimate cause is God’s unconditional election. Accepting this seems incompatible with holding people responsible for their sin. This is what ultimately lead me to reject unconditional election in favor for some bizarre Molinist view. I’m not a Molinist anymore, but that’s only because I am a theological skeptic. I don’t feel obliged to have settled views on the matter anymore.

Poor Jesus -- I don't know what he will do without you.