I was reading once again in C.S. Lewis' The Screwtape Letters and I came across a bit on temptation that I wanted to share with you. It deals with a certain ploy of the demons to prolong our lives, thereby making us more likely to give in to their temptations, especially temptations of worldliness. (Remember the letters are written from a senior level devil--Screwtape--to a junior grade devil--Wormwood.)
"The truth is that the Enemy [God], having oddly destined these mere animals [humans] to life in His own eternal world, has guarded them pretty effectively from the danger of feeling at home anywhere else. That is why we must often wish long life to our patients; seventy years is not a day too much for the difficult task of unravelling their souls from Heaven and building up a firm attachment to the Earth....But, if only he [Wormwood's 'patient'] can be kept alive, you have time itself for your ally. The long, dull, monotonous years of middle-aged prosperity or middle-aged adversity are excellent campaigning weather. You see, it is so hard for these creatures [humans] to persevere. The routine of adversity, the gradual decay of youthful loves and youthful hopes, the quiet despair (hardly felt as pain) of ever overcoming the chronic temptations with which we have again and again defeated them, the drabness which we create in their lives, and the inarticulate resentment with which we teach them to respond to it--all this provides admirable opportunities of wearing out a soul by attrition. If, on the other hand, the middle years prove prosperous, our position is even stronger. Prosperity knits a man to the World. He feels that he is 'finding his place in it,' while it is finding its place in him. His increasing reputation, his widening circle of acquaintances, his sense of importance, the growing pressure of absorbing and agreeable work, build up in him a sense of being really at home on Earth, which is just what we want. You will notice that the young are generally less unwilling to die than the middle-aged and the old."
I have found both of Lewis' insights to be spot on. We humans do struggle persevering. We struggle with discouragement when our lives fall short of our hopes and dreams or when we feel as though time has passed us by OR we struggle with prosperity and success when things go as planned or even better. Either way it is worldliness! It is being too attached and focused upon this world! And all the while God has made us for another world! We need to live with an "other-worldliness."
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Prayer Revisited
Let me offer one more reason for why, according to Thomas Brooks, we ought to engage in much private prayer. Here is the 7th reason that I have given...
"Consider, that secret duties [i.e., private prayer] are the most soul-enriching duties.
"Consider that, as secret meals make fat bodies, so secret duties make fat souls; and as secret trades bring in great earthly riches, so secret prayers make may rich in spiritual blessings, and in heavenly riches.
"Private prayer is that privy key of heaven that unlocks all the treasures of glory to the soul. The best riches and the sweetest mercies God usually gives to his people when they are in their closets upon their knees. Just as the warmth the chickens find by sitting close under the hen's wings cherishes them, so the graces of the saints are enlivened, and cherished, and strengthened by the sweet secret influences which their souls fall under when they are in their closet-communion with God.
"[T]he more our gifts and parts and graces are exercised, the more they are strengthened and increased. All acts strengthen habits. The more sin is acted, the more it is strengthened. And so it is with our gifts and graces; the more they are acted, the more they are strengthened."
Pray, my friends!
"Consider, that secret duties [i.e., private prayer] are the most soul-enriching duties.
"Consider that, as secret meals make fat bodies, so secret duties make fat souls; and as secret trades bring in great earthly riches, so secret prayers make may rich in spiritual blessings, and in heavenly riches.
"Private prayer is that privy key of heaven that unlocks all the treasures of glory to the soul. The best riches and the sweetest mercies God usually gives to his people when they are in their closets upon their knees. Just as the warmth the chickens find by sitting close under the hen's wings cherishes them, so the graces of the saints are enlivened, and cherished, and strengthened by the sweet secret influences which their souls fall under when they are in their closet-communion with God.
"[T]he more our gifts and parts and graces are exercised, the more they are strengthened and increased. All acts strengthen habits. The more sin is acted, the more it is strengthened. And so it is with our gifts and graces; the more they are acted, the more they are strengthened."
Pray, my friends!
Friday, June 22, 2007
Breakfast with a leper
This morning we had one of the largest crowds of men ever to gather together for breakfast, Bible study, and prayer. The passage under investigation was Matthew 8:1-4, which describes an occasion when Jesus heals a leper who comes to Him. One of the unusual things about this healing is that Jesus reaches out and touches the leper to heal him. Now, each one of us would readily admit that Jesus had no need to touch this leper to heal him. He could simply have said the word and this man would have been healed. That is exactly what He did in the very next passage (Matt. 8:5-13) when He heals the centurion's servant. But here Jesus touches the man. Why?
The advances in modern medicine have taught us a lot about leprosy (Hansen's Disease). But before these advances, people were extremely fearful of the disease and of those who had it (kind of like AIDS in our day!). Lepers were shunned and no one dared to come near, much less to touch one.
We don't know much about our leper in Matt. 8. We know that he called out to the "Lord," knelt before Him, and asked Him to make him clean "if you are willing." So, apparently, he knew something about the Lord before he approached Him, enough to give him the boldness to come into the open and approach Him. We don't know how long it had been since this leper had had contact with another human being. We don't know how long it had been since he had last been touched by another human being. But we do know that Jesus reaches out His hand and touches him.
Surely we are to see in this occasion the deep compassion of Christ for people, especially for those who are the "outcasts" of society, those who respectable persons want nothing to do with. Sometimes it is easy to live in our walled houses, drive in our walled cars, work in our walled offices, and basically operate in our walled worlds, and never venture outside of these walls. Jesus ventured outside the walls of His society to show compassion on this leper. What is more, He ventured outside the walls of Jerusalem ("outside the camp," see Hebrews 13:11-12) to die for your sins and mine, for all who would ever believe on Him. I, for one, am glad that He did.
Isn't it interesting, though, that Hebrews 13:13, after stating that Christ went outside the city walls to die for us, says: "Therefore let us go to him outside the camp and bear the reproach he endured." Let us, then, venture outside our walls and go to Him, even if it means bearing the reproach of a world that loves its walls!
The advances in modern medicine have taught us a lot about leprosy (Hansen's Disease). But before these advances, people were extremely fearful of the disease and of those who had it (kind of like AIDS in our day!). Lepers were shunned and no one dared to come near, much less to touch one.
We don't know much about our leper in Matt. 8. We know that he called out to the "Lord," knelt before Him, and asked Him to make him clean "if you are willing." So, apparently, he knew something about the Lord before he approached Him, enough to give him the boldness to come into the open and approach Him. We don't know how long it had been since this leper had had contact with another human being. We don't know how long it had been since he had last been touched by another human being. But we do know that Jesus reaches out His hand and touches him.
Surely we are to see in this occasion the deep compassion of Christ for people, especially for those who are the "outcasts" of society, those who respectable persons want nothing to do with. Sometimes it is easy to live in our walled houses, drive in our walled cars, work in our walled offices, and basically operate in our walled worlds, and never venture outside of these walls. Jesus ventured outside the walls of His society to show compassion on this leper. What is more, He ventured outside the walls of Jerusalem ("outside the camp," see Hebrews 13:11-12) to die for your sins and mine, for all who would ever believe on Him. I, for one, am glad that He did.
Isn't it interesting, though, that Hebrews 13:13, after stating that Christ went outside the city walls to die for us, says: "Therefore let us go to him outside the camp and bear the reproach he endured." Let us, then, venture outside our walls and go to Him, even if it means bearing the reproach of a world that loves its walls!
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Men and Church
I'm back after a week at our denomination's General Assembly in Memphis, TN. And I thought I'd begin with a little controversy...sound interesting?
A few days ago, the local newspaper carried a story about men and how few of us are in church on a regular basis nationally. The article began by stating that, "When it comes to who fills the pews, every Sunday is Mother's Day in most mainstream American churches." Sadly, that is the truth in far too many churches. Many churches cite pragmatic reasons for ordaining women ministers and elders; they can't find enough men.
So, why is it that our men are missing?
One guy, who I gather is supposed to be an "expert" on the topic, suggested that churches themselves are to blame for the absence of men: "What churches are doing isn't getting the job done. Mom is having to take the kids to church because Dad doesn't want to go. That leaves Mom in charge of the spiritual upbringing of the children, which means faith is a Mom thing and not a Dad thing."
I want to wade in to these waters by offering the following thoughts on the subject:
1. Perhaps there is something that churches are (or aren't) doing that is keeping men away. I for one believe that our churches have become feminized, especially in the sermons that are being offered. We have opted for pop-psychology and feelings-based sermons from the pulpit instead of serious Biblical exposition and application. Sermons like "10 ways to a good marriage" or "7 steps to raising great kids" or "How to get in touch with your inner child" or some such nonsense are all the rage. My opinion is that we need to get back to teaching the Bible and applying it to people's lives. Wasn't that what Jesus and the apostles did? Hmmmm...
2. My first point aside, let me ask a question. Why is it that the first thing people point to when there is a problem with attendance is the church? Why is the first reason we offer for why men are not coming to church because the church isn't doing something right? Maybe the problem is with the men themselves. Maybe they don't understand what the Bible has to say about church attendance and worship.
Maybe they don't understand that worship will be THE business of heaven (Revelation tells us so). Worshiping Christ will be what Christians revel in and find supreme joy in. If they don't have that attitude toward worship now, then that should serve as a big warning of a potentially serious heart problem.
The 18th century minister Jonathan Edwards once said that whatever it is in your life that you most yearn for, that is your God. Why is it that men are not in church on Sundays and at a football game or fishing instead? Sadly, one reason is because far too many yearn for football or fishing or something else mundane more than they yearn for Christ.
Maybe they don't understand that being a Christian means, by definition, that one is united to Christ. This means that Christians are united to others who are themselves united to Christ and are, thus, part of the corporate BODY of Christ. God does not save individuals by themselves and leave them by themselves and bring them to heaven by themselves so that they can be by themselves for eternity. He saves individuals and unites them to Christ and to the vast multitude who are themselves united to Christ. The church is an assembly (albeit an imperfect one on earth) of those who are united to Christ gathering together to worship (which, again, will be the business of heaven) and to meditate upon God's Word and to encourage one another in living the Christian life.
Maybe they don't understand that church is the only place where all of God's appointed means of grace can be found. God has appointed certain means for His children to grow up to maturity (Word, prayer, Lord's Supper, Baptism, fellowship). And they can only be found together at church. If we skip out on church, we are deciding to skip out on growing in grace.
Maybe they don't understand that the spiritual upbringing of the children is not to be a "Mom thing" but a Dad thing instead. The Bible continually points to the father as the one who is to be responsible for the spiritual upbringing of the family. Isn't it interesting in Ephesians 6, right after Paul charges children to obey their parents in the Lord, he refers to the 5th commandment which says that they are to honor their father and their mother. But then he turns to the fathers (note, not to the fathers and the mothers) and charges them not to exasperate their children but to bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.
Maybe the church has failed. But whatever the reasons are for men skipping out on church, one thing is plain. We, as a nation, need men to step up. We need men to take up their crosses and follow after Christ. We need men to set the examples for their families and for the nation and world. We need men to teach their families and to pray with and for their families.
A few days ago, the local newspaper carried a story about men and how few of us are in church on a regular basis nationally. The article began by stating that, "When it comes to who fills the pews, every Sunday is Mother's Day in most mainstream American churches." Sadly, that is the truth in far too many churches. Many churches cite pragmatic reasons for ordaining women ministers and elders; they can't find enough men.
So, why is it that our men are missing?
One guy, who I gather is supposed to be an "expert" on the topic, suggested that churches themselves are to blame for the absence of men: "What churches are doing isn't getting the job done. Mom is having to take the kids to church because Dad doesn't want to go. That leaves Mom in charge of the spiritual upbringing of the children, which means faith is a Mom thing and not a Dad thing."
I want to wade in to these waters by offering the following thoughts on the subject:
1. Perhaps there is something that churches are (or aren't) doing that is keeping men away. I for one believe that our churches have become feminized, especially in the sermons that are being offered. We have opted for pop-psychology and feelings-based sermons from the pulpit instead of serious Biblical exposition and application. Sermons like "10 ways to a good marriage" or "7 steps to raising great kids" or "How to get in touch with your inner child" or some such nonsense are all the rage. My opinion is that we need to get back to teaching the Bible and applying it to people's lives. Wasn't that what Jesus and the apostles did? Hmmmm...
2. My first point aside, let me ask a question. Why is it that the first thing people point to when there is a problem with attendance is the church? Why is the first reason we offer for why men are not coming to church because the church isn't doing something right? Maybe the problem is with the men themselves. Maybe they don't understand what the Bible has to say about church attendance and worship.
Maybe they don't understand that worship will be THE business of heaven (Revelation tells us so). Worshiping Christ will be what Christians revel in and find supreme joy in. If they don't have that attitude toward worship now, then that should serve as a big warning of a potentially serious heart problem.
The 18th century minister Jonathan Edwards once said that whatever it is in your life that you most yearn for, that is your God. Why is it that men are not in church on Sundays and at a football game or fishing instead? Sadly, one reason is because far too many yearn for football or fishing or something else mundane more than they yearn for Christ.
Maybe they don't understand that being a Christian means, by definition, that one is united to Christ. This means that Christians are united to others who are themselves united to Christ and are, thus, part of the corporate BODY of Christ. God does not save individuals by themselves and leave them by themselves and bring them to heaven by themselves so that they can be by themselves for eternity. He saves individuals and unites them to Christ and to the vast multitude who are themselves united to Christ. The church is an assembly (albeit an imperfect one on earth) of those who are united to Christ gathering together to worship (which, again, will be the business of heaven) and to meditate upon God's Word and to encourage one another in living the Christian life.
Maybe they don't understand that church is the only place where all of God's appointed means of grace can be found. God has appointed certain means for His children to grow up to maturity (Word, prayer, Lord's Supper, Baptism, fellowship). And they can only be found together at church. If we skip out on church, we are deciding to skip out on growing in grace.
Maybe they don't understand that the spiritual upbringing of the children is not to be a "Mom thing" but a Dad thing instead. The Bible continually points to the father as the one who is to be responsible for the spiritual upbringing of the family. Isn't it interesting in Ephesians 6, right after Paul charges children to obey their parents in the Lord, he refers to the 5th commandment which says that they are to honor their father and their mother. But then he turns to the fathers (note, not to the fathers and the mothers) and charges them not to exasperate their children but to bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.
Maybe the church has failed. But whatever the reasons are for men skipping out on church, one thing is plain. We, as a nation, need men to step up. We need men to take up their crosses and follow after Christ. We need men to set the examples for their families and for the nation and world. We need men to teach their families and to pray with and for their families.
Friday, June 08, 2007
Be a Good Christian...break the law?
Yet again the local paper comes through with an article that I just have to respond to. This time it's about a theology professor in Los Angeles, who has written a new book on our immigration problems from a supposedly Christian point of view.
This (I'm sure) well-intentioned professor of theology is trying to encourage the church to "minister" to the immigrant population. So far so good. The main problem, and it's just a teenie little one (note the sarcasm here), is that he advocates breaking the law to do this. He insists that "the Gospels describe Jesus as a border violator." And so Christians ought to follow in Christ's footsteps and "start violating local borders." Whoa! Hold on there fella!
Let me respond to his "Christian" view from a Christian point of view (!):
1. Jesus definitely challenged the accepted norms of His day, no doubt about that. He questioned the traditions of the day, but did so by calling people back to what the Bible says not to any personal agenda. And, in challenging the norms of the day, Jesus NEVER broke the law NOR did He ever advocate anyone else's doing so. He was totally without sin (2 Cor. 5:21; Hebrews 4:15).
2. Jesus clearly went outside the "camp" (a la Hebrews 13:11-13) or "borders" of Judaism and brought the Gentiles in. And, as Ephesians so eloquently instructs us, Jesus breaks down the "borders" between nationalities, between sexes, between classes, and between races. Again, no question here. But Paul is speaking from a spiritual perspective about the church rather than from a geographical, national, or physical perspective. There is no slave and free in Christ. There is no black and no white. There is no Jew and Gentile. All who believe in Christ are ONE spiritually, and, thus, they are to be one spiritually. And we are to labor to make sure this is so. But this oneness does not necessarily apply geographically, nationally, or physically.
3. Jesus always had a HIGH regard for the law. His criticism of the Pharisees was NOT that their view of the law was too high but that their view of the law was too low. See, for instance, the "you have heard but I say" discourse in Matthew 5. Here Jesus says things like you Jews have heard "do not murder," but I say to you that whoever insults his brother in anger will be judged (Matt. 5:21ff). In other words, Jesus was teaching them that the law "do not murder" meant more than simply "don't physically murder someone." It also meant "do not murder someone's reputation" or "do not murder someone with your words" and, conversely, "love one another." See also the occasion when Jesus calls the religious leaders to task for being exacting in their obedience of parts of the law but ignoring the weightier matters of it (Matt. 23, especially vv. 23-4).
4. The Bible clearly teaches that Christians are to obey the civil laws of the land. For instance, Romans 13:1-2 says: "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment" (ESV). THUS, the one who resists the governing authorities is not actually following Christ but is resisting Him!
5. Jesus oftentimes broke with accepted traditions that were added to the laws. In other words, the religious leaders would typically develop their own ideas of what it means to obey a certain law. For instance, in regard to the Sabbath law, the religious leaders developed an intricate system of their own do's and don'ts, their own opinions of what it meant to keep the Sabbath command. Oftentimes they would add loopholes so that they could "keep" the law without actually having to keep the law.
In sum, I am all in favor of finding ways to minister to immigrants. But, whatever we do, we need make sure we are staying within the bounds of the law. Maybe the current laws are bad laws. Maybe they need to be changed. The answer is to work to change them not to disobey them. Shame on this theology professor for advocating that we do so and all to support a social (not Biblical) cause!
This (I'm sure) well-intentioned professor of theology is trying to encourage the church to "minister" to the immigrant population. So far so good. The main problem, and it's just a teenie little one (note the sarcasm here), is that he advocates breaking the law to do this. He insists that "the Gospels describe Jesus as a border violator." And so Christians ought to follow in Christ's footsteps and "start violating local borders." Whoa! Hold on there fella!
Let me respond to his "Christian" view from a Christian point of view (!):
1. Jesus definitely challenged the accepted norms of His day, no doubt about that. He questioned the traditions of the day, but did so by calling people back to what the Bible says not to any personal agenda. And, in challenging the norms of the day, Jesus NEVER broke the law NOR did He ever advocate anyone else's doing so. He was totally without sin (2 Cor. 5:21; Hebrews 4:15).
2. Jesus clearly went outside the "camp" (a la Hebrews 13:11-13) or "borders" of Judaism and brought the Gentiles in. And, as Ephesians so eloquently instructs us, Jesus breaks down the "borders" between nationalities, between sexes, between classes, and between races. Again, no question here. But Paul is speaking from a spiritual perspective about the church rather than from a geographical, national, or physical perspective. There is no slave and free in Christ. There is no black and no white. There is no Jew and Gentile. All who believe in Christ are ONE spiritually, and, thus, they are to be one spiritually. And we are to labor to make sure this is so. But this oneness does not necessarily apply geographically, nationally, or physically.
3. Jesus always had a HIGH regard for the law. His criticism of the Pharisees was NOT that their view of the law was too high but that their view of the law was too low. See, for instance, the "you have heard but I say" discourse in Matthew 5. Here Jesus says things like you Jews have heard "do not murder," but I say to you that whoever insults his brother in anger will be judged (Matt. 5:21ff). In other words, Jesus was teaching them that the law "do not murder" meant more than simply "don't physically murder someone." It also meant "do not murder someone's reputation" or "do not murder someone with your words" and, conversely, "love one another." See also the occasion when Jesus calls the religious leaders to task for being exacting in their obedience of parts of the law but ignoring the weightier matters of it (Matt. 23, especially vv. 23-4).
4. The Bible clearly teaches that Christians are to obey the civil laws of the land. For instance, Romans 13:1-2 says: "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment" (ESV). THUS, the one who resists the governing authorities is not actually following Christ but is resisting Him!
5. Jesus oftentimes broke with accepted traditions that were added to the laws. In other words, the religious leaders would typically develop their own ideas of what it means to obey a certain law. For instance, in regard to the Sabbath law, the religious leaders developed an intricate system of their own do's and don'ts, their own opinions of what it meant to keep the Sabbath command. Oftentimes they would add loopholes so that they could "keep" the law without actually having to keep the law.
In sum, I am all in favor of finding ways to minister to immigrants. But, whatever we do, we need make sure we are staying within the bounds of the law. Maybe the current laws are bad laws. Maybe they need to be changed. The answer is to work to change them not to disobey them. Shame on this theology professor for advocating that we do so and all to support a social (not Biblical) cause!
Thursday, June 07, 2007
Supermodel speaks out
I thought I would tackle a little something different today, maybe a bit more controversial! In this morning's paper there was an article about international supermodel Gisele Bundchen and her recent criticism of the Roman Catholic Church's position on birth control and abortion. Now, I don't want to get into a debate on whether or not the Roman Church's position on these things is right (by the way, if you're interested, I think that the Roman Church is wrong on the first and right on the second!), but I do want to unpack several comments that Ms. Bundchen made in her criticism that are revealing in terms of the way people think today.
Ms. Bundchen states that the Roman Church is wrong to oppose birth control and abortion, because these beliefs are "hopelessly outdated." They were adopted, she says, in a day when "the women were virgins, [and] the guys were virgins." But since "no one is a virgin when they get married" today, the Roman Catholic Church's position needs to be modernized. Because "no one is a virgin" today, Ms. Bundchen concludes, it's "impossible" to prohibit people from using birth control and "also" prohibit them from having abortions.
Whether or not the Roman Church is correct in believing as they do, at least their convictions are just that...convictions...i.e., they are time-transcending beliefs that stem from what they perceive to be the Truth. Ms. Bundchen's statements are time-dependent conventions rather than convictions; they are based not upon objective Truth but, subjectively, upon what is currently in vogue. It's kind of reminiscent of my son or my daughter who say, "But Dad, everyone's doing it."
Not only so, but, in what she says, she reveals her belief that humans cannot and, therefore, ought not to control their sexual desires. That is why it is "impossible" for the church to prohibit both contraception and abortion. Sex is, after all, just an appetite waiting to be satisfied, isn't it? When we're hungry, we eat. When we're thirsty, we drink. When we're aroused, we sex. NO, NO, and again NO.
I remember reading C.S. Lewis poking fun at the view that sees sexual desires as appetites that need to be satisfied in the same way as hunger/food. He said something along these lines: Can you imagine a college student walking into their room and sitting on his/her bed and salivating at the posters he/she has on the wall...posters of a TURKEY fresh out of the oven, or of CHICKEN CORDON BLEU, or of a piping hot fresh APPLE PIE! It's ludicrous!
We can and do control our desire for food. We sometimes fast and most of us diet. We skip meals or don't eat certain foods or even don't eat at all for a time.
Of course, if we do not eat for long enough, we will die. The same thing CANNOT be said about sex. We will never die from abstaining from sex. Actually, in our culture, the opposite is closer to the truth--we may die from not abstaining from sex!
The main point that I'm trying to get us to see is this: Are the Roman Catholic Church's beliefs on contraception and abortion RIGHT? Or are they WRONG? Who cares whether or not they are unpopular? I would urge the Roman Church to hold firm on their convictions rather than give in to popular conventions. As Christians, we ought to be people of conviction rather than people of convention! God has given us "Way" in His Word (His Truth)...we are to be people of His "Way" not people of the world's way.
Ms. Bundchen states that the Roman Church is wrong to oppose birth control and abortion, because these beliefs are "hopelessly outdated." They were adopted, she says, in a day when "the women were virgins, [and] the guys were virgins." But since "no one is a virgin when they get married" today, the Roman Catholic Church's position needs to be modernized. Because "no one is a virgin" today, Ms. Bundchen concludes, it's "impossible" to prohibit people from using birth control and "also" prohibit them from having abortions.
Whether or not the Roman Church is correct in believing as they do, at least their convictions are just that...convictions...i.e., they are time-transcending beliefs that stem from what they perceive to be the Truth. Ms. Bundchen's statements are time-dependent conventions rather than convictions; they are based not upon objective Truth but, subjectively, upon what is currently in vogue. It's kind of reminiscent of my son or my daughter who say, "But Dad, everyone's doing it."
Not only so, but, in what she says, she reveals her belief that humans cannot and, therefore, ought not to control their sexual desires. That is why it is "impossible" for the church to prohibit both contraception and abortion. Sex is, after all, just an appetite waiting to be satisfied, isn't it? When we're hungry, we eat. When we're thirsty, we drink. When we're aroused, we sex. NO, NO, and again NO.
I remember reading C.S. Lewis poking fun at the view that sees sexual desires as appetites that need to be satisfied in the same way as hunger/food. He said something along these lines: Can you imagine a college student walking into their room and sitting on his/her bed and salivating at the posters he/she has on the wall...posters of a TURKEY fresh out of the oven, or of CHICKEN CORDON BLEU, or of a piping hot fresh APPLE PIE! It's ludicrous!
We can and do control our desire for food. We sometimes fast and most of us diet. We skip meals or don't eat certain foods or even don't eat at all for a time.
Of course, if we do not eat for long enough, we will die. The same thing CANNOT be said about sex. We will never die from abstaining from sex. Actually, in our culture, the opposite is closer to the truth--we may die from not abstaining from sex!
The main point that I'm trying to get us to see is this: Are the Roman Catholic Church's beliefs on contraception and abortion RIGHT? Or are they WRONG? Who cares whether or not they are unpopular? I would urge the Roman Church to hold firm on their convictions rather than give in to popular conventions. As Christians, we ought to be people of conviction rather than people of convention! God has given us "Way" in His Word (His Truth)...we are to be people of His "Way" not people of the world's way.
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
Camp Hope News
This week, we have a group of about 50 volunteers in town, most of which are from St. Louis, MO. After a down month (in terms of the numbers of volunteers), it was certainly nice to join together with a full house tonight.
Yet again (!), we have Scott and Vickie Herwig in town helping with the running of the Camp. This is the Herwig's fifth trip down here. Of the 21 months since the hurricane, they have spent over 5 of them with us here! They have been a HUGE encouragement to us. Just last month, when I had the privilege of preaching in Annapolis, MD (right near where the Herwigs live), they were gracious enough to come and hear me preach (as if they hadn't already heard enough of me in the 5 months they have been here!). What a testimony of God's grace they have been to us.
By the way, make sure to put next Wednesday on your calendars. We will be having a pig roast out at Camp Hope at the usual 6pm until...We have a large group of 120 some-odd folks coming in town. It looks to be a great evening with them! Make it a point to be there.
Yet again (!), we have Scott and Vickie Herwig in town helping with the running of the Camp. This is the Herwig's fifth trip down here. Of the 21 months since the hurricane, they have spent over 5 of them with us here! They have been a HUGE encouragement to us. Just last month, when I had the privilege of preaching in Annapolis, MD (right near where the Herwigs live), they were gracious enough to come and hear me preach (as if they hadn't already heard enough of me in the 5 months they have been here!). What a testimony of God's grace they have been to us.
By the way, make sure to put next Wednesday on your calendars. We will be having a pig roast out at Camp Hope at the usual 6pm until...We have a large group of 120 some-odd folks coming in town. It looks to be a great evening with them! Make it a point to be there.
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
Back again to Prayer
I haven't forgotten, I assure you! Here we are, at last, back on the subject of prayer. But, alas, it is not to complete Thomas Brooks' reasons why we should pray; only to use E.M. Bounds to do a similar thing. So, here is E.M. Bounds on why we should engage in private prayer:
"The men who have most fully illustrated Christ in their character, and have most powerfully affected the world for him, have been men who spent so much time with God as to make it a notable feature of their lives.
"Charles Simeon devoted the hours from four till eight in the morning to God.
"Mr. Wesley spent two hours daily in prayer. He began at four in the morning. Of him, one who knew him well wrote: 'He thought prayer to be more his business than anything else'....
"Luther said: 'If I fail to spend two hours in prayer each morning, the devil gets the victory through the day. I have so much business I cannot get on without spending three hours daily in prayer.' [How unlike the modern mind is Luther's comment here. Our thinking is that we have so much business to get done that we cannot afford the time to pray. And, if we do find the time to pray, our pressing schedules keep us from praying very long.]
"Archbishop Leighton was so much alone with God that he seemed to be in a perpetual meditation. 'Prayer and praise were his business and his pleasure,' says his biographer.
"Bishop Ken was so much with God that his soul was said to be God-enamored. He was with God before the clock struck three every morning.
"Bishop Asbury said: 'I propose to rise at four o'clock as often as I can and spend two hours in prayer and meditation.'
"Samuel Rutherford, the fragrance of whose piety is still rich, rose at three in the morning to meet God in prayer.
"Joseph Alleine arose at four o'clock for his business of praying till eight. If he heard other tradesmen plying their business before he was up, he would exclaim: 'O how this shames me! Doth not my master deserve more than theirs?'
"One of the holiest and among the most gifted of Scottish preachers says: 'I ought to spend the best hours in communion with God. It is my noblest and most fruitful employment, and is not to be thrust into a corner. The morning hours, from six to eight, are the most uninterrupted and should be thus employed. After tea is my best hour, and that should be solemnly dedicated to God. I ought not to give up the good old habit of prayer before going to bed; but guard must be kept against sleep. When I awake in the night, I ought to rise and pray. A little time after breakfast might be given to intercession.' This was the praying plan of Robert McCheyne.
"The memorable Methodist band [among whom were, perhaps most notably, John and Charles Wesley and George Whitefield] in their praying shame us. 'From four to five in the morning, private prayer; from five to six in the evening, private prayer.'"
Let us pray!
"The men who have most fully illustrated Christ in their character, and have most powerfully affected the world for him, have been men who spent so much time with God as to make it a notable feature of their lives.
"Charles Simeon devoted the hours from four till eight in the morning to God.
"Mr. Wesley spent two hours daily in prayer. He began at four in the morning. Of him, one who knew him well wrote: 'He thought prayer to be more his business than anything else'....
"Luther said: 'If I fail to spend two hours in prayer each morning, the devil gets the victory through the day. I have so much business I cannot get on without spending three hours daily in prayer.' [How unlike the modern mind is Luther's comment here. Our thinking is that we have so much business to get done that we cannot afford the time to pray. And, if we do find the time to pray, our pressing schedules keep us from praying very long.]
"Archbishop Leighton was so much alone with God that he seemed to be in a perpetual meditation. 'Prayer and praise were his business and his pleasure,' says his biographer.
"Bishop Ken was so much with God that his soul was said to be God-enamored. He was with God before the clock struck three every morning.
"Bishop Asbury said: 'I propose to rise at four o'clock as often as I can and spend two hours in prayer and meditation.'
"Samuel Rutherford, the fragrance of whose piety is still rich, rose at three in the morning to meet God in prayer.
"Joseph Alleine arose at four o'clock for his business of praying till eight. If he heard other tradesmen plying their business before he was up, he would exclaim: 'O how this shames me! Doth not my master deserve more than theirs?'
"One of the holiest and among the most gifted of Scottish preachers says: 'I ought to spend the best hours in communion with God. It is my noblest and most fruitful employment, and is not to be thrust into a corner. The morning hours, from six to eight, are the most uninterrupted and should be thus employed. After tea is my best hour, and that should be solemnly dedicated to God. I ought not to give up the good old habit of prayer before going to bed; but guard must be kept against sleep. When I awake in the night, I ought to rise and pray. A little time after breakfast might be given to intercession.' This was the praying plan of Robert McCheyne.
"The memorable Methodist band [among whom were, perhaps most notably, John and Charles Wesley and George Whitefield] in their praying shame us. 'From four to five in the morning, private prayer; from five to six in the evening, private prayer.'"
Let us pray!
Monday, June 04, 2007
America and Television, Once again
Yet again, there was an article in the local paper about the impact of television on our culture. The study cited in the article claimed that 40% of our children regularly watch TV by the age of 3 months. Three Months! It also said that 90% of our children watch TV an average of 1 1/2 hours per day.
Contrary to common perception perhaps, parents are "plopping" kids down in front of the television set not for its built-in babysitting advantages but for its perceived educational benefits. According to this study, this is a misunderstanding of television as a medium. Television, as the study says, actually works against learning rather than to foster it. Among the detrimental consequences of television watching upon our young people is: poor grades, attention deficit problems, obesity, and an increase in violence.
Now, I realize that we shouldn't take every study that comes along as the gospel truth. But I also realize that this study is just part and parcel of a bigger picture that has been "preached" since at least the 1950s. Television, as the sermon goes, does negatively affect thinking. It works against thinking by not giving enough time to interact with anything that comes across its picture tube. Take the typical news program, thought by most to be among the most "educational" programming on television. The average news story requires about 1-2 minutes of air time. Then, it's on to another news story for another 1-2 minutes or to several 30 second commercials. The time allotted is hardly adequate to treat accurately and comprehensively these news stories, much less to digest them accurately and comprehensively and to think about them critically.
This is at the same time that our educational system is imbibing the use of television in the classroom and working more on memorization than on critical thinking skills.
It's no wonder that we are producing people who, though they may make excellent grades, cannot think critically about a given subject.
That's the problem. There's much more that could be said and needs to be said. But we need to concentrate on the solution. Television is here to stay. The solution is not to throw out our TV sets. The solution is to compensate for the impact of television in our homes and in our schools. How do we do this?
Thoughts?
Contrary to common perception perhaps, parents are "plopping" kids down in front of the television set not for its built-in babysitting advantages but for its perceived educational benefits. According to this study, this is a misunderstanding of television as a medium. Television, as the study says, actually works against learning rather than to foster it. Among the detrimental consequences of television watching upon our young people is: poor grades, attention deficit problems, obesity, and an increase in violence.
Now, I realize that we shouldn't take every study that comes along as the gospel truth. But I also realize that this study is just part and parcel of a bigger picture that has been "preached" since at least the 1950s. Television, as the sermon goes, does negatively affect thinking. It works against thinking by not giving enough time to interact with anything that comes across its picture tube. Take the typical news program, thought by most to be among the most "educational" programming on television. The average news story requires about 1-2 minutes of air time. Then, it's on to another news story for another 1-2 minutes or to several 30 second commercials. The time allotted is hardly adequate to treat accurately and comprehensively these news stories, much less to digest them accurately and comprehensively and to think about them critically.
This is at the same time that our educational system is imbibing the use of television in the classroom and working more on memorization than on critical thinking skills.
It's no wonder that we are producing people who, though they may make excellent grades, cannot think critically about a given subject.
That's the problem. There's much more that could be said and needs to be said. But we need to concentrate on the solution. Television is here to stay. The solution is not to throw out our TV sets. The solution is to compensate for the impact of television in our homes and in our schools. How do we do this?
Thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
