Regarding an LHT 3500-word (!) post with which he agrees, the “Admin” at Slice declares that those who choose not to read it are “lazy”.  Over-arching labels are no real surprise from that site. I note it only because it’s relevant to a later point.

To be honest, I found the statement that appeared two sentences later to be kinda funny:

Those who actually care about the wolves entering the flock will read this report …

Isn’t that just a derivation of the statement at the bottom of the “[Fw: [FWD: [Fwd: [FW:” email (that you got from Aunt Martha) that says that if you really love Jesus, you’ll pass this on to 10 friends?

But I was taken aback by the sentence in-between these two (referring to the afore-mentioned “lazy”):

These kind are inheriting the unbiblical and dangerous theology they deserve.

Our entire faith is about us not getting what we “deserve”.  I have to say that I’m really surprised by the candid nature of how Slice has delineated itself from, ya know, Christianity.

I thought that maybe we could use a bit of levity, especially now that the U.S. folks have to go back to work after a 3-day weekend.

Tim Challies highlights a 1959 book called “Soul-Winning Made Easy”.  One could go on for days about the actual spiritual problems with this book, but (virtual) Mondays aren’t generally for shooting fish in barrels, so just enjoy the overall hokey-ness.  (You can tell the sinner in the pictures, because he isn’t wearing a tie.)

Two alternate things to observe:

1. For a touch of irony, note that Tim gets thrown back under the bus on Slice by a writer who obviously doesn’t get the difference between “occasionally … pointing out the absurdity within the church” and gorging oneself on it.
2. For the ultimate irony, though, recall all the kvetching that was done on Slice because Tim didn’t “name names” when he wrote about blogs that live off of bad news.  Then note that this new post was written by “Admin”.

Well, now that American Idol is finally over, we can move on to French Idol.

(Sorry to beat you to the punch, Chris R.  I assume this’ll be on your blog soon, too.)

There’s an Arabian proverb that says that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”.  It’s an idea that’s older than dirt, but was more recently ascribed to Saddam Hussein.  One would have to think a bit about anything that came out of that man’s mouth (maybe even use a bit of discernment), yet it seems that many people are very anxious to live by this nugget of “wisdom”.

A couple of examples:
__________________
I recently had an exchange in the meta of another blog.  The blog owner, Lanny*, said several things about Steve (another blogger), one of which was that Steve had allegedly stated that Lanny wasn’t a Christian — a certainly valid complaint on Lanny’s part.  A third blogger, John, agreed with several things that Lanny was saying about Steve and unequivocally stated that Steve was not a Christian.  Lanny made no move to correct John for engaging in the same sin as Steve, but basically high-fived John and went on with the conversation.

I called foul.  After several rounds of dodging my actual point, Lanny finally pulled out the “big guns” and accused me of believing the exact same things as Steve.  This was interesting as (1) I hadn’t raised any issue of beliefs, and (2) I actually believe very differently than Steve on a great number of issues.  My point was the double-standard that Lanny and John were employing.  Not surprisingly, my comment pointing out these issues was never approved, and so it never saw the light of day on Lanny’s blog.

In the context of the Arabian proverb, by stretching the term “enemy” to include someone that you disagree with, and the term “friend” to include someone that you agree with:

• Lanny had set himself up as an “enemy” of Steve
• I set myself up as an “enemy” of Lanny
• Lanny assumed that I was a “friend” of Steve

________________________________

Recently, another blog was critical of a proposal that came from the Obama administration.  A writer on this site proposed that maybe the other blogger’s interpretation of the proposal was not reflective of what was intended.  Within just a few comments, the writer and several others on this site were labeled as “Obama fans”.

Using the same terminology as before:

• The writer on the other blog set up as an “enemy” of Obama
• Our writer had set himself as an “enemy” of that writer
• It was assumed by defenders of the first writer that our writer was a “friend” of Obama

_______________________

OK, time for a geek lesson.  At its core, all data is represented by a 0 or a 1.  The numerical system behind this is called binary.  If something is not a 0, then it must be a 1.  And vice versa.  And so if something is “not not 0″, then it must be “not 1″, or 0.

This is the only environment in which “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” can hold true — in a binary world.  Or to put it in less geeky terms, in a (literally) black-and-white world.

But this is not the world in which we live.  If it was, then Paul was clearly in error when he wrote Romans 14, the Bible has errors in it, and we’re all doomed.

Are there black and white issues in this world?  Certainly.  But are those the only colors in this word?  Certainly not.  If they were, then God was clearly in error when He created the rainbow, God is imperfect, and we’re all really doomed.

So why are so many people so eager to doom themselves?

* Names are all changed, as it isn’t necessary.  I know this will upset those that insist that we always “name names”, but seeing as how they expect nothing but bad things from this site anyway, who am I to disappoint them?

I got an audio cassette in the mail the other day.  It  was unmarked, the envelope had no return address, and the postmark was illegible.  As best I can tell, it’s from a church service.  It appears to be a re-working of Fanny Crosby’s “Rescue the Perishing“.

I had to listen to it a few times to pick up all the lyrics.  I’ll reproduce them here for you.

If anyone knows anything more about this recording, let me know.

 

 Point Out the Perishing: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Point out the perishing, notice the dying,
Snark at them — how pithy — they won’t get on board.
Tsk o’er the erring one, trample the fallen,
Call it a ministry, it’s good in the Lord.

Refrain
Point out the perishing, notice the dying,
You don’t think like I do; you’re going to hell.

Since they have slighted Him, their fate is sealed.
It’s just too late for God to intervene.
Deride them constantly, use lots of quote marks.
They’re dead already; it’s not being mean.

Refrain
Point out the perishing, notice the dying,
You don’t think like I do; you’re going to hell.

Down in the human heart, crushed by the tempter,
Feelings lie buried that you can divine;
You know their deepest thoughts, God told them to you.
Be sure to scoff if someone says “Be kind”.

Refrain
Point out the perishing, notice the dying,
You don’t think like I do; you’re going to hell.

Point out the perishing, God called you to it.
Strength for your blogging the Lord will provide;
But He’s a little short with the finances
Ask for donations while you’re being snide.

Refrain
Point out the perishing, notice the dying,
You don’t think like I do; you’re going to hell.
Point out the perishing, notice the dying,
My God’s a wrathful God; you all are screwed.

Q: Why are Southern Baptists opposed to pre-marital sex?
A: Because it leads to dancing.

If you are now or have ever been a member of an SBC church (like I was at one time), you’ve probably heard that joke.

Sadly, for some, it’s not a joke, but rather another in a long line of (1) focusing on the wrong thing, (2) elevating opinion/preference to the level of doctrine, and (3) drawing definitive conclusions that have little or no basis in reality.

Such is the case for Mary Kassian in her criticism of William P Young’s The Shack.  Now, I am by no means a fan of the book.  It contains some (at best) questionable theology, has a troubling back-story, and many of its more strident fans often can’t seem to decide which genre it is in.

If you aren’t familiar with the book, Kassian’s criticism largely revolves around the fact that God the Father appears as a black woman named Papa.  Criticisms regarding this issue are numerous and have ranged from concern that Young has crossed a line to emphatic assertion that Young is promoting “goddess worship”.

It is fairly clear that what Young was probably trying to accomplish was to shake up the reader’s image of God, addressing the unfortunate issue that we have often created Him in our image, particularly in Western culture.  Unfortunately, Young’s attempt falls flat in that he trades in one humanly recognizable (and ill-conceived) image for another.  (Put another way, while it is true that God is not Wilford Brimley, He’s not Aunt Jemima, either.)

Setting aside the myriad negative motives that Kassian ascribes to Young, it would appear that she doesn’t even think that an assertion of goddess worship promotion is strong enough. Alluding to a mid-80s sculpture of a female Christ hanging on a cross, Kassian claims:

If you [don't think that The Shack contains terribly wrong concepts about God], then you’re well on your way to accepting the image of the Christa on the cross. In a few years, you’ll be hanging her up in your church.

No cautions that the wrong concepts could lead to other problems.  Rather, absolute and definitive statements of what will, without question, happen.  Do not pass GO.  Do not collect $200.  (Somebody call God and tell him that Kassian said He isn’t sovereign anymore.)

The only comment that I’ll make about her very next sentence (”I don’t think I’m overstating the case”) is to allude to gunplay, aquatic creatures, and large cylindrical containers made of wood.

Kassian’s criticism is not only over-the-top, but in some cases, just as theologically bad as — if not worse than — the book she is criticizing.  As part of her overall context of examining the imaging of God, she states (emphasis hers):

In the Old Testament, God instructed his people to reject female goddess images and images of God as a bi-sexual or a dual-sexual Baal/Ashtoreth-type collaboration. God hated this imagery so much that he had his people destroy it and all those who promoted it.

Combining these statements with others peppered throughout the article, Kassian comes dangerously close to (if not outright) implying that God’s main problem with Baal/Ashtoreth wasn’t the whole false god thing, but simply that those who worshiped Baal/Ashtoreth had imaged God wrong.  This is the same lousy logic that says that the Allah that Muslims worship is the same entity/person as Jehovah.

I have, on numerous occasions, cited my dismay with those that espouse an idea and then search the Scriptures for support of that idea (see also, “cart before the horse”).  But at least such eisegesis is only a misapplication of the text.  It’s sad that Kassian apparently feels that, in order to criticize the re-imaging of God, she must engage in the re-imaging of His Word.

I’ve told you before that I am a loyal reader of Modern Reformation magazine which is edited by the estimable Michael Horton–no shallow Calvinist I assure you. Besides my hero DA Carson (and maybe John Calvin) I’m not sure there is a more deeply devoted-to-Reformation-theology Christian on the planet than Horton. (Maybe Brendt.)

Well, in the most recent issue, March-April 2009, Michael Horton wrote: “As Richard Foster observes, Protestant Movements such John Wesley’s ‘holy clubs’ and the ‘inner mission of the Norwegian Pietists have their roots in the heritage of Catholic spirituality, identified with medieval writers such as Thomas a Kempis (1380-1471)” (page 48, my emphasis).

It may be nothing, but I could have sworn Richard Foster was on the list of confirmed heretics. And now the bastion of conservative Reformed theology, host of the White Horse Inn, author of many books, editor of Modern Reformation, professor at Westminster Theological Seminary, is quoting him? I know this is an innocuous quote, but it is a quote. Maybe there’s another Richard Foster that I’m unaware of and in that case, this post can be safely ignored. But if he is quoting the Richard Foster (the one constantly dragged through ADM mud, author of many dangerous books on spiritual disciplines, and perpetual Guilt By Associator) then this is a whole new ball game.*

*

Phil Johnson has long been critical of Mark Driscoll.  As an admitted Driscoll fan-boy, this would bug me, particularly when he employed tactics similar to those who have a blind hatred for the man (and an utter distaste for actual, ya know, facts).

But on Friday, at the Shepherd’s Conference, Johnson tipped his hand and revealed to the world that he’s just been kidding the whole time.

Early in his message, Johnson quoted the opening sentence of the recent New York Times piece that was laregely on Driscoll:

Mark Driscoll’s sermons are mostly too racy to post on [an] evangelical Christian ‘family friendly’ . . . Web site.

This is an easily demonstrable lie.  Well, perhaps the NYT writer wasn’t lying, but was just phenomenally ignorant of her main topic. *

But Johnson is not ignorant.  He knows that that statement is false.  And yet, he did nothing to discredit it.

Now, I wouldn’t dream for a second that Johnson would knowingly deceive his listeners just to bolster his point.  And the clue that he wasn’t doing this is in the title of his message: “Sound Doctrine, Sound Words” and the Titus 2:7-8" href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=titus%202:7-8;&version=50;" target="_blank">Scripture he used as his main text.

Knowingly deceiving your Christian brothers isn’t in the same zip code with sound doctrine (or sound anything for that matter).  So he clearly was being ironic.

Good one, Phil. Ya got me.

* Insert your favorite “research” joke here.

Let me start by saying that I think * I agree with the overall point of this C?N post — publicly using others’ material without acknowledging the source is a Bad Thing ™.

But two things about this article give me pause — one serious and one kinda funny.

—- Seriously (in the literal sense) —-

The title of the post is “Sermon Copying: When The World Has More Integrity Than The Church”.

Now, it’s ridiculous to compare a Christian with an unsaved person to show when the Christian is better than the unsaved person.  Even comparing Christians with each other is silly.  The only relevant measuring rod for the Christian is Jesus Himself.  We all fall short, but (thankfully) the Christian has Christ’s righteousness attributed to him.

So why isn’t it just as ridiculous to compare a Christian with an unsaved person to show when the Christian is worse than the unsaved person? Again, the only relevant measuring rod for the Christian is Jesus Himself.  Whether the Christian is better or worse than another person is beyond irrelevant.

A less charitable person would note that a lot of the ADM posts seem to have a subtext of “Luke 18:11" href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2018:11;&version=50;" target="_blank">at least I’m not that bad“.

—- Seriously? (in the facetious sense) —-

In support of this (fallacious) comparative point, the author asks three rhetorical questions early in the post.  In order to coincide with this point, the answer to the questions must be “no”.  Let’s look at the first two and the implications of assuming that the answer is ‘no’:

… can you imagine a member of congress standing up and saying “Last night I was doing some research and 74% of …” when he didn’t, but was reciting another person’s experience?

I would like to welcome the author to America.  This is the only explanation that I can fathom.  Who else but a person new to this country wouldn’t know that 99% of what congresspersons claim as their own, isn’t really?

Or what about a CEO standing in front of his board of directors saying “I remember it like it was yesterday,” while every word he speaks is another person’s history?

This question makes me happy for the author.  It’s quite clear that he has not spent one day in corporate America.  Spending time in corporate America is not something that I’d wish on my worst enemy, so I’m glad that he hasn’t had to endure this grotesque, soul-sucking torture.

* I say “I think” because I (admittedly) didn’t read every one of the 2653 (!) words of that post.

Rich Mullins* on a factor in which he found that Roman Catholicism more closely matched Scripture than evangelicalism:

I had read a book called Exploring Spiritual Direction by Alan Jones. That whole evangelical discipleship thing really turned me off, as most evangelical things do. I was just so depressed from meeting all these kids that were turning into caricatures of great old men or great old women, these great saints. People were thinking [that] the way to become spiritual is to imitate the lives of really spiritual people.

Berit Kjos of Lighthouse Trails:

We don’t “need” mentors and human models “to grow” as Christians; we need to trust God and follow His ways!

It is truly encouraging to see that LT is apparently willing to learn from our RC brethren and sistren.

* Full disclosure:  I was the interviewer that Rich was talking to.