Tuesday, October 26, 2010
GOD IS "PRO-LIFE"
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Friday, October 22, 2010
NORMAL SEXUALITY PART IV
Page CXVI - Hymns I & II
For all you musicians out there, here are the complete chord charts for both albums:
Chord charts for Hymns I
Chord charts for Hymns II
Thursday, October 21, 2010
NORMAL SEXUALITY PART III
Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. 25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.
7:1 Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.”
2 But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. 3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
NORMAL SEXUALITY PART II
PARENTAL WARNING: NOT FOR YOUNG CHILDREN; READ WITH CAUTION
Believe it or not, sex is a topic that the Bible has a lot to say about. The prevailing thought for many has been just the opposite: If the Bible has anything to say, we're certainly not going to talk about it, and if we do, all we'll say is that it's bad and dirty. Done. Unfortunately, the people of God when it comes to this subject, have often times found themselves being more prudish than God, and that to their shame. The fact is, if their was ever a time the Church needed to speak with clarity on sex, it is now. Not that immorality wasn't around before, but it seems that in America we're exposed to it constantly on Billboards, T.V., the Internet and on and on it goes. We are sex crazed and mores about it are not determined by God's view on the subject, but are based on what the culture tells us, or worse, what our own bodies tell us. To counteract this, let's take some time to detail what the Bible forbids, and tomorrow we'll discuss what the Bible encourages in regard to sex.
1. Adultery- This of course is the sixth commandment (at least according to us Lutherans) and really sets the tone for everything else the Bible teaches on sexuality. The idea behind this of course is that one must always remain sexually faithful to their spouse (whether married yet or not) in thought, word, and deed, (Matthew 5:27-30). So, right off the bat, we learn that sex is not always prohibited. As a matter of fact, one of the first commands to Adam and Eve (the first married couple) was to have sex and lots of it ("be fruitful and multiply"). Sex was something that God created to be enjoyed between a married couple with the ultimate result being multiplication. The Bible even seems to imply in Genesis 2:24 that the marriage wasn't consummated until the sexual union took place!
So then, any sexual activity outside of the marriage bed in thought, word, or deed is prohibited and thereby sinful. Any sex outside of marriage would be considered abnormal and deviant, not reflecting God's plan. After all, since He created it, He probably knows how it works best. Everything else I will write about are different facets of adultery.
2. Masturbation- Many a teenager has sought to show that the Bible doesn't say anything specifically about masturbation and therefore it's ok right? Not exactly. It is true that the subject is not really brought up in it of itself, but the principles the Bible teach clearly speak against it. Jesus said, "But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman (or a man) with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart." In one's minds eye, if lust is going on for someone who is not your spouse, than it's forbidden.
3. Pornography- Going along with number 2 of course is number 3, pornography. There is no allowance for this at all; it is cheating mentally with another person's spouse, or daughter, or son. I know this is obvious to most of you, but more and more, porn has become acceptable in the broader society.
4. Trans sexuality- Again, not to strike on the obvious, but any sort of trans sexuality is forbidden. God made sex for a man and a woman in marriage, not a man dressed as a woman with another man, or a woman dressed as a man with a man, or any other deviancy.
5. Homosexuality- Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 6 plainly state that homosexual behavior is considered abnormal, and thereby sinful, by God. Remember, God as the Creator of sex says that He created it for the purpose of a married male and female.
6. Necking, Making Out, Feeling Up, Dry Sex, Oral Sex etc, etc.- Outside of marriage, all of these things are forbidden. Once again, how many seek to justify some of this behavior because they say it's not "sex". LOL, please...
I'm sure there is much more that I could say here about what's forbidden, but I think you get the point. Every person at some time or another has struggled with temptation towards immorality, and frankly, failed. How does the Bible say we should handle this temptation?
1 Corinthians 6:18- Flee from sexual immorality.
1 Corinthians 10:13- No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.
1 John 1:9-10- If we confess our sins He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
Tomorrow, we talk about what Godly sexuality actually is....
Soli Deo Gloria,
Pastor Erick
RECEIVING FROM CHRIST....GROWING IN CHRIST....GOING WITH CHRIST....
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
NORMAL SEXUALITY?
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Friday, October 15, 2010
The Reason for God DVD
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Free Education
Here are a bunch of free MP3's from D.A. Carson's lectures and sermons from recent visits to the Ridley Mission and Ministry College in Melbourne, Australia. Take advantage of these. The students who attend these universities pay hundreds and, in the case of Ridley, thousands of dollars for them.
D.A. Carson is research professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois. He has been at Trinity since 1978. Dr. Carson's areas of expertise include biblical theology, the historical Jesus, postmodernism, pluralism, Greek grammar, Johannine theology, Pauline theology, and questions of suffering and evil. He is a member of the Tyndale Fellowship for Biblical Research, the Society of Biblical Literature, the Evangelical Theological Society, the Canadian Society of Biblical Studies, and the Institute for Biblical Research. Dr. Carson has written or edited more than fifty books.
Thank you to Ridley for making them available and thank you to the Gospel Coalition Blog for posting them on their blog.
Sermons on Five Psalms
Workshops on Preaching and Biblical, Systematic, Historical, and Pastoral Theology
Cross-Cultural Training
Christ-expo: How Can We Believe?
Five evangelistic sermons on the Gospel of John (each followed by Q&A)
- How Can We See God? (John 1:1–18)
- How Can We Start over Again? (John 3:1–21)
- How Can God Have a Son? (John 5:16–30)
- How to Get the Best Bread in the World (John 6:25–59)
- How Can I Believe Jesus Rose from the Dead? (John 20:24–31)
Sermon at St. Alfred’s
THE ATTRIBUTES OF A GODLY MAN
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Being Missional May Kill Your Church
Here is an insightful post from Pastor Mark Driscoll:
You may be thinking, “Seriously? I thought being missional was cool?” or “I thought being missional was going to grow my church?” Well, I have good news and bad news for you.
Missional Shift
The good news is there is a healthy mission shift happening in the church. Missional is the new sexy. The shift that is taking place in the church is called by some the “Missional Church Shift.” Churches are becoming missionaries in their communities that do not focus on strategies and formulas that have worked among people who live in other areas. Instead they find strategies that help them connect with the people in their context.
In Breaking the Missional Code, Ed Stetzer explains how the church has shifted to missional thinking in the following way:
- From programs to processes
- From demographics to discernment
- From models to missions
- From attractional to incarnational
- From uniformity to diversity
- From professional to passionate
- From seating to sending
- From decisions to disciples
- From additional to exponential
- From monuments to movements
Before you get too stoked, not everyone is going to like this. Before you and your church become missional you may want to count the cost first.
Everyone wants to blog about being missional, but few people actually want to live on mission. Why? Being missional will cost you something. Look at Jesus in John 6. When Jesus told the people what it really meant to follow him, many of his followers bailed on him. And I have news for you; people will bail on you too.
What If It Means Killing Your Church?
Warning: Being missional may actually kill your church. Notice I said, “Your church.” Being missional will not kill Jesus’ church, but it just might kill your church. In many circumstances, this is exactly what needs to happen.
Too many of our churches are built on personalities, buildings, and programs instead of Jesus and his mission. We are addicted to our church subcultures, numbers, and personal agendas. If we are honest, we all want our churches to be successful. But what if being successful meant focusing on a few instead of the multitude? What if being successful meant losing a lot of our church crowd who don’t really want to follow Jesus or live on mission anyway?
Before you try to transition your church from programs to processes, from models to missions, from attractional to incarnational, from uniformity to diversity, from professional to passionate, from seating to sending, from decisions to disciples, and from monuments to movements, ask yourself—am I ready for a throwdown? But when the dust settles, you will see Jesus’ church emerges.
Advice For Becoming Missional
If this sounds like I am discouraging you from leading your church to live on mission, I am not. In fact, I challenge you to begin to lead your church on mission today. Go for it!
Here are a few ways to begin a missional shift in your local church:
by Mark Driscoll on Sunday, October 10, 2010 at 1:00pm
- Take baby steps. Don’t blow your church up all at once. Your church will never be missional if you don’t have anyone left.
- Personally live and lead on mission. It all begins with you. As the pastor or lead church planter, you are the example that others will follow.
- Recognize the needs of your community and pray about how you can meet their needs.
- Begin to preach and teach on mission. Remember, baby steps.
- Just do it. Get people to leave the four walls of the church and get out into the community.
Friday, October 8, 2010
World View Matters
Four views of God
Froese and Bader's research wound up defining four ways in which Americans see God:
•The Authoritative God. When conservatives Sarah Palin orGlenn Beck proclaim that America will lose God's favor unless we get right with him, they're rallying believers in what Froese and Bader call an Authoritative God, one engaged in history and meting out harsh punishment to those who do not follow him. About 28% of the nation shares this view, according to Baylor's 2008 findings.
"They divide the world by good and evil and appeal to people who are worried, concerned and scared," Froese says. "They respond to a powerful God guiding this country, and if we don't explicitly talk about (that) God, then we have the wrong God or no God at all."
•The Benevolent God. When President Obama says he is driven to live out his Christian faith in public service, or political satirist Stephen Colbert mentions God while testifying to Congress in favor of changing immigration laws, they're speaking of what the Baylor researchers call a Benevolent God. This God is engaged in our world and loves and supports us in caring for others, a vision shared by 22% of Americans, according to Baylor's findings.
"Rhetoric that talks about the righteous vs. the heathen doesn't appeal to them," Froese says. "Their God is a force for good who cares for all people, weeps at all conflicts and will comfort all."
Asked about the Baylor findings, Philip Yancey, author of What Good Is God?, says he moved from the Authoritative God of his youth — "a scowling, super-policeman in the sky, waiting to smash someone having a good time" — to a "God like a doctor who has my best interest at heart, even if sometimes I don't like his diagnosis or prescriptions."
•The Critical God. The poor, the suffering and the exploited in this world often believe in a Critical God who keeps an eye on this world but delivers justice in the next, Bader says.
Bader says this view of God — held by 21% of Americans — was reflected in a sermon at a working-class neighborhood church the researchers visited in Rifle, Colo., in 2008. Pastor Del Whittington's theme at Open Door Church was " 'Wait until heaven, and accounts will be settled.' "
Bader says Whittington described how " 'our cars that are breaking down here will be chariots in heaven. Our empty bank accounts will be storehouses with the Lord.' "
•The Distant God. Though about 5% of Americans are atheists or agnostics, Baylor found that nearly one in four (24%) see a Distant God that booted up the universe, then left humanity alone.
This doesn't mean that such people have no religion. It's the dominant view of Jews and other followers of world religions and philosophies such as Buddhism or Hinduism, the Baylor research finds.
Rabbi Jamie Korngold of Boulder, Colo., took Baylor's God quiz and clicked with the Distant God view "that gives me more personal responsibility. There's no one that can fix things if I mess them up. God's not telling me what I should do," says Korngold. Her upcoming book, God Envy: A Rabbi's Confession, is subtitled, A Book for People Who Don't Believe God Can Intervene in Their Lives and Why Judaism Is Still Important.
Others who cite a Distant God identify more with the spiritual and speak of the unknowable God behind the creation of rainbows, mountains or elegant mathematical theorems, the Baylor writers found.
This distant view is nothing new. Benjamin Franklin once wrote that he could not imagine that a "Supremely Perfect" God cares a whit for "such an inconsiderable Nothing as Man."
The Baylor researchers' four views of God reveal a richness that denominational labels often don't capture. They found that Catholics and mainline Protestants are about evenly divided among all four views, leaning slightly toward a Benevolent God. More than half of white evangelicals identify with an Authoritative God; that view is shared by more than seven in 10 black evangelicals, they said.
How we see daily life and world events
How did we get to this multifaceted state? A three-night TV series starting Monday on PBS, God in America, examines our religious history, one rife with people contesting over visions of God.
It begins with the first Europeans arriving with visions of a New Eden and clashing immediately, first with Native Americans, then with each other.
Even in 1680, it was clear that "European religion would not survive unchanged" in America, says Boston University religion professor Stephen Prothero, one of the narrators for the series, created by Frontline and WGBH-TV Boston.
By the time of the Founding Fathers, "God was seen as a more distant deity, not someone who will row the boat across the Delaware for us," series producer Marilyn Mellowes says.
History is portrayed in the PBS series as waves of mini-dramas: challenges to religious order, the rise of concepts of political liberty, the establishment of First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and religion — and the fits and starts of working out what it means to be a nation without one state-sanctioned religion.
Each generation makes righteous claims for social justice, for God on their side in combat, for the truths they want to teach their kids, Mellowes says.
The PBS series finds today's fights over Muslim efforts to build mosques echoes past religious liberty struggles such as the fight in the 1770s by Baptists in Virginia to be free to preach, or the 1940s push by Catholics in New York to educate their children outside Protestant-run public schools.
When asked about Baylor's findings, Prothero says views of God are splintering, even though "Protestants had control of the culture right up into the 20th century. ... It shouldn't be surprising that the model now is more like a different God for every person. Baylor found four Gods; other researchers could have found eight or maybe 16."
Bader and Froese looked at themes, including:
•Morality. People with an Authoritative God are about three times more likely to say homosexuality is a choice, not an inborn trait, than those who see a Distant God — affecting their views on gay rights, particularly on marriage and adoption.
•Science. Those who see God as engaged in daily life (authoritative or benevolent) are nearly twice as likely as those whose God is critical or distant to say that God often performs miracles that defy the laws of nature.
•Money. "We are all values and pocketbook voters now," the Baylor sociologists write. "In general, your values reflect your God and your God reflects your pocketbook."
In research done at the height of the recession, the authors found "lower economic status is strongly related to the belief that God harshly judges and is angry with the world." This reflects a view that it is personal faith or faith-based action, not the government, that solves poverty, they write.
•Evil, war and natural disasters. Does God cause mayhem, allow it or have no role? "When we talked about Hurricane Katrina and 9/11, the Authoritative God type was most likely to think God had a hand, directly punishing us for society's sinful ways," Bader says.
But believers in a Benevolent God "will focus on a fireman who escaped, or the people who rebuild homes, or the divine providence of someone missing a flight that crashed on 9/11," Bader says.
To someone who sees a Distant God, the 9/11 terror attacksamounted to a sign of man's inhumanity, not God's action or judgment, Bader says. And they see a storm as just a storm.
Believers in a Critical God say whatever happens now, "God will have the last word," Bader says.
So how do our views of heaven differ?
Political scientists Robert Putnam of Harvard and David Campbell of Notre Dame address this in their new book, American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us, also based on nationwide surveys.
They found unifying threads: Americans of every stripe overwhelmingly believe that all good people go to heaven, that many faiths contain truth and that religious diversity is good for the nation.
Putnam and Campbell's optimistic conclusion is that we are able to live with vast religious diversity because we are "enmeshed" in networks of people we care about — your Catholic aunt, your Methodist spouse, your spiritual-but-not-religious child and your evangelical neighbor.
The Baylor sociologists also see this.
"With our high level of religious freedom and pluralism," Froese says, "all kinds of views of God will do very well."
The national conversation about God, Bader says, is "much richer than showdowns between screaming evangelicals and screaming atheists. This is the way we tell the stories of the world around us."
(Note: I'm struck at how all of these titles for God, authoritative, benevolent, critical, and distant could accurately be attributed to the true God of the Bible. The problem often in our thinking is not that we don't think about God, we just don't think about Him rightly. Also, I am not necessarily agreeing with their definitions of the various "gods"; what they say is "authoritative" I might say is "holy", etc; not having looked at all the questions, I'm not sure. Again, just showing that the way you think about God is directly related to how you think about other things.)
Grace and Peace,
Pastor Erick
RECEIVING FROM CHRIST....GROWING IN CHRIST....GOING WITH CHRIST....
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
BIBLICAL MANHOOD PART II
Biblical Manhood in Changing Times
Man Up or Man Down? Newsweek Redefines Masculini
R. Albert Mohler Jr.
September 24, 2010
“We’ve arrived at another crossroads,” declares Newsweek — and this one represents a crisis for masculinity. As the magazine’s current cover story asserts, “The prevailing codes of manhood have yet to adjust to the changing demands on men.” With this cover story dedicated to “rethinking” masculinity, Newsweek launches itself into a very relevant cultural conversation.
“Man Up!” is the message the magazine conveys on its cover, though by the time a reader actually reads the article, he or she may be forgiven for having little idea of what this means. If, indeed, the traditional male is “an endangered species,” where does this leave men?
Writers Andrew Romano and Tony Dokoupil get right to the heart of that matter when they ask, “What’s the matter with men?” They point to the recent recession, which we now know has led to a significant and seemingly permanent change in the workforce — and largely at the expense of men. By some estimates, eight out of ten jobs lost in the recession were in sectors of the economy that are traditionally dominated by men, such as construction and manufacturing. In 1945, the male share of the labor force was 70 percent. Now it is less than 50 percent. In the nation’s largest cities, women often make more than men on average do. Women now outnumber men at virtually every level of higher education, starting with a six to four advantage in undergraduate registrations. The list goes on.
So, how do men recover? By reasserting masculinity? Here is a warning from Romano and Dokoupil:
But suggesting that men should stick to some musty script of masculinity only perpetuates the problem. For starters, it encourages them to confront new challenges the same way they dealt with earlier upheavals: by blaming women, retreating into the woods, or burying their anxieties beneath machismo. And it does nothing to help them succeed in school, secure sustainable jobs, or be better fathers in an economy that’s rapidly outgrowing Marlboro Manliness.
Well, men will certainly not recover a healthy manhood by aping crude stereotypes or cultural constructions of “Marlboro Manliness.” At the same time, the path to recovery doesn’t lie in denying the truth about gender differences or roles.
The authors point to a “New Macho,” a redefined masculinity that is shaped around what Newsweek sees as the new realities in both the economy and the home. The new man is a nurturing man, they argue, as ready to change a diaper as to change a tire. And as for work, even as jobs in the traditionally male sectors of the society disappear, men must find new roles in sectors previously associated primarily with women. These are also concentrated in nurturing roles or positions in the information economy.
The new jobs are to be found in health care and education, for example. Future projections call for over 500,000 new teaching jobs in the next decade, along with 582,000 new nurses. Newsweek predicts that 6.9 million new jobs will appear in the social sector of the economy, where men have often been thin on the ground.
Men, Romano and Dokoupil argue, are ill equipped for this new economy, under-educated and often unemployed. Men will adjust to the new reality or be left behind.
The most interesting portion of the Newsweek cover story concerns the home front. The authors admit that the “New Macho” is “a path to masculinity paved with girly jobs and dirty diapers.”
American readers of the magazine are likely to note very quickly that Romano and Dokoupil seem quite enamored with Europe and its welfare and social policies. They highlight Sweden’s liberal parental leave policy as evidence of how government can act to redefine a reality as basic and ingrained as gender roles. In Sweden, “men are expected to work less and father more” and to see themselves as equally competent at child-rearing.
The message is plain — men will have to redefine masculinity as they take on “girly” jobs, transform themselves into nurturers, and celebrate a fully egalitarian society in terms of gender. Working for a female boss will become standard, as will the expectation that a stay-at-home father is as common as a stay-at-home mom.
On that point, Newsweek confidently points to a future that is not likely to happen quite as described. Americans may say that they are for services like paid parental leave, but when it comes to any tangible policy, economic factors are likely to scuttle the plan.
Of course, the call for men to be more engaged with their children is never wrong. Indeed, in this case, the political Left is picking up on themes long driven by the Right, and by conservative Christians in particular. The difference is that the Christian concern for asserting a man’s responsibility and fulfillment in fatherhood is not about social egalitarianism. Rather, it is driven by a biblical conception of true manhood as defined through the roles of husband and father.
Still, as much as we might complain about Newsweek’s rather predictable tip of the hat to the welfare state and the end of many gender distinctions, there is a sense in which the writers come very close to getting a big point just right.
They explain:
The truth is, it’s not how men style themselves that will make them whole again—it’s what they do with their days. The riggers, welders, and boilermakers of generations past weren’t wearing overalls to feel like men, as Susan Faludi, the author of books on both sexes, has pointed out. Instead, “their sense of their own manhood flowed out of their utility in a society, not the other way around,” she writes. “Conceiving of masculinity as something to be”—a part to play—“turns manliness into [something] ornamental, and about as ‘masculine’ as fake eyelashes are inherently ‘feminine.’?”
We may be surprised to find ourselves in agreement with Susan Faludi here, but she is absolutely right. Our fathers and grandfathers did not put on overalls to play dress up. They were headed for work. Faludi is profoundly right when she writes that “their sense of their own manhood flowed out of their utility in a society, not the other way around.”
A true masculinity is grounded in a man’s determination to fulfill his manhood in being a good husband, father, citizen, worker, leader, and friend — one who makes a difference, fulfills a role for others, and devotes his life to these tasks. Most of our fathers went to work early and toiled all day because they knew it was their duty to put bread on the table, a roof over our heads, and a future in front of us. They made their way to ball games and school events dead tired, went home and took care of things, and then got up and did it all over again the next day.
Today’s men are likely to be more nurturing, but they are also statistically less faithful. They may be changing more diapers, but they are also more likely to change spouses. Men must be encouraged and expected to be both faithful fathers and faithful husbands. Otherwise, any society is in big trouble.
The Newsweek cover story is an undisguised alert that the world is changing. A healthy masculinity should motivate men to find their way in this new world of changed economic realities and work opportunities, and to do this while remaining men. The unanswered question fromNewsweek’s analysis is this: Will men change the new work of work, or will the new social realities change men?
Though barely mentioned in the article, the most haunting question is about today’s boys. The magazine’s cover features a shirtless man holding a young boy. It is the boy’s face that looks at the reader. We had better hope that the “new masculinity” of the uncharted future is one that leads that boy and his generation to become authentic and faithful men.
More on men and what makes a Godly one tomorrow....
Soli Deo Gloria,
Pastor Erick
RECEIVING FROM CHRIST...GROWING IN CHRIST....GOING WITH CHRIST....