The Emperor Goes Soul-Winning

or, "Why in the world is this guy bragging about THAT?"

Here is a quote from a prominent church's website, touting their pastor's career stats as his bona fides:

"Before becoming the pastor of the [church name], [pastor] served as the youth pastor. Under his leadership, the [church] teenagers have been used by the Lord to see over 260,000 people won to Christ, with over 30,000 of those following the Lord in baptism."

In other words, just over 1 in 10 of these supposed converts actually demonstrated obedience to God. Why in the world is this guy touting this statistic? All it proves is that either (a) God is really bad at follow-up, or (b) this pastor has no CLUE about the Gospel.

Hilarious

Check out the funniest guys since Victor Borge:

Why "Wronger" Should Be a Word

Reading Charles Ryrie's Basic Theology in preparation for a Sunday school lesson, and came across a phrase that was so wrong that it begs a new, more intensive word: there's wrong, but then there is wronger. Now, I'm not knocking Ryrie or his book, as a whole. But this particular claim was pretty far off the beam:


"Historically, this consideration has been labeled the ordo salutis, or way of salvation, and it attempts to arrange in logical order (not temporal order) these activities involved in applying salvation to the individual. But like the question of the order of the decrees in lapsarianism, the ordo salutis in reality contributes little of substance."
- Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Basic Theology : A Popular Systemic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth (Chicago, Ill.: Moody Press, 1999), 374.

Au contraire, mon ami. There is a universe of difference between a soteriology that begins with faith, and one that begins with regeneration. One is synergistic; one monergistic -- and that is two totally different gospels at the core. In fact, I would argue that the ordo salutis is one of the watershed issues of the whole debate!

True Courage

Studying for Sunday's sermon, from Ruth 1. Alexander MacLaren captures Ruth's character beautifully:

Put the sweet figure of the Moabitess beside the heroes of the Book of Judges , and we feel the contrast. But is there anything in its pages more truly heroic than her deed, as she turned her back on the blue hills of Moab, and chose the joyless lot of the widowed companion of a widow aged and poor, in a land of strangers, the enemies of her country and its gods? It is easier far to rush on the spears of the foe, amid the whirl and excitement of battle, than to choose with open eyes so dreary a lifelong path. The gentleness of a true woman covers a courage of the patient, silent sort, which, in its meek steadfastness, is nobler than the contempt of personal danger, which is vulgarly called bravery. It is harder to endure than to strike. The supreme type of heroic, as of all, virtue is Jesus Christ, whose gentleness was the velvet glove on the iron hand of an inflexible will. Of that best kind of heroes there are few brighter examples, even in the annals of the Church which numbers its virgin martyrs by the score, than this sweet figure of Ruth, as the eager vow comes from her young lips, which had already tasted sorrow, and were ready to drink its bitterest cup at the call of duty. She may well teach us to rectify our judgments, and to recognise the quiet heroism of many a modest life of uncomplaining suffering. Her example has a special message to women, and exhorts them to see to it that, in the cultivation of the so-called womanly excellence of gentleness, they do not let it run into weakness, nor, on the other hand, aim at strength, to the loss of meekness. The yielding birch-tree, the ‘lady of the woods,’ bends in all its elastic branches and tossing ringlets of foliage to the wind; but it stands upright after storms that level oaks and pines. God’s strength is gentle strength, and ours is likest His when it is meek and lowly, like that of the ‘strong Son of God.’

- Alexander Maclaren, Expositions of the Holy Scripture (DEUTERONOMY, JOSHUA, JUDGES, RUTH, 1 SAMUEL, 2 SAMUEL, 1 KINGS, AND 2 KINGS Chapters I to VII), 130.

Stealth Mysticism

There is a widely-accepted rule in hermeneutics called the Law of (or the Principle of) First Mention. I remember hearing about it in church when I was growing up, indeed hearing entire sermons based on a "truth" derived by the First-Mention Principle. I don't remember hearing it taught in the first Bible college I attended because they, somewhat tellingly, did not even OFFER hermeneutics (the last thing a hireling needs is someone being taught shepherding skills!). I was, however, taught this principle in a hermeneutics class in the second Bible college I attended.

But the more I reflected on it, this Principle of First Mention is a serious fallacy. Think about it: if the key to interpreting any person, place, thing, or idea in Scripture is to be found in its first appearance, this is the opposite of progressive revelation. The key to understanding redemption, for example, is not Genesis 3:15; it is the full exposition in Paul's writings. If the key to understanding lions is the first mention of a lion in the Bible, what exactly are we to learn from Genesis 49:9

          “Judah is a lion’s whelp;
          From the prey, my son, you have gone up.
          He couches, he lies down as a lion,
          And as a lion, who dares rouse him up?"

Are we to, upon later learning that Christ is the lion of Judah, teach that He had made sin and death His prey, and, let's see . . . He crouches, He lies down, so that refers to His resting after completing His work . . .

Oh, the sermons we could write. Oh, the ears we could tickle. The only problem is that NONE of that is in the Text! And the Principle is shown to be a quiet, stealthy infiltration, an unguarded back-door through which allegorizing and spiritualizing creeps in.

I'd be interested to learn the provenance of this First-Mention Principle. Who came up with this idea? Were they prone to spiritualizing the Text in other ways?

And are there other fallacies lurking in the methods we employ to prepare the weekly meal for His flock?

Who Cares?

Came across a new religious phenomenon today. From Wikipedia:

"Apatheism (a portmanteau of apathy and theism/atheism), also known as pragmatic or critically as practical atheism, is acting with apathy, disregard, or lack of interest towards belief, or lack of belief in a deity. Apatheism describes the manner of acting towards a belief or lack of a belief in a deity; so applies to both theism and atheism. An apatheist is also someone who is not interested in accepting or denying any claims that gods exist or do not exist. In other words, an apatheist is someone who considers the question of the existence of gods as neither meaningful nor relevant to his or her life."

And from apatheist.tribe.net:

"Every religion has dogma, and insists that their particular version answers the question of whether one or more gods exist. Apatheists insist that the question itself is irrelavent.

"If you get frustrated trying to decide if you're really an Atheist or an Agnostic, or a member of any other religion, and also realize that, in your day to day existence, it doesn't really MATTER which religion you belong to, then you might be an Apatheist!"

More commentary later.

More Texts to Avoid

Haven't done one of these for a very long time, so I thought I'd bring this text back to your attention. Here is a text you definitely want to avoid, if you want to remain comfortably Arminian:

1 Corinthians 1:22-31
22 For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom;
23 but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness,
24 but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
26 For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble;
27 but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong,
28 and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are,
29 so that no man may boast before God.
30 But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption,
31 so that, just as it is written, “Let him who boasts, boast in the Lord.”

Hear, Hear!

I know it's old news, but it still stirs me.

The Ultimate Counseling Technique

Theology Matters, Indeed!

As James White is fond of pointing out, "theology matters". Our theology, particularly our soteriology, will drive the way we evangelize. It will dictate the form our apologetics will take. From Spurgon:

"Other forces, more mighty, but not so visible, have been employed to promote the sway of Jesus. Never has he invoked the secular arm, he has left that to Antichrist, and the seed thereof. No demand has been made by him upon human governments to patronize or enforce Christianity. On the contrary, wherever governments have patronized Christianity at all, they have either killed it, or else the infinite mercy of God alone has preserved it from extinction. Jesus would not have the unbeliever fined, or imprisoned, or cut off from the rights of citizenship; he would not allow any one of his disciples to lift a finger to harm the vilest blasphemer, or touch one hair of an atheist’s head. He would have men won to himself by no sword but that of the Spirit, and bound to him by no bands but those of love. Never, never, in the church of God has a true conversion been wrought by the use of carnal means, the Lord will not so far approve of the power of the flesh. You do not find the Lord calling in the pomp and prestige of worldly men to promote his kingdom, or see him arguing with philosophers that they might sanction his teaching. I know that Christian ministers do this, and I am sorry they do. I see them talking their places in the Hall of Science to debate with the men of boastful wisdom; they claim to have achieved great mental victories there, and I will not question their claim, but spiritual triumphs I fear they will never win in this way. They have answered one set of arguments, and another set have been invented the next day; the task is endless; to answer the allegations of infidelity is as fruitless as to reason with the waves of the sea, so far as soul-saving is concerned. This is not the way of quickening, converting, and sanctifying the souls of men. Not as a book of science wilt thou triumph, O Bible, though thine every word is wisdom’s self! Not as a
great philosopher wilt thou conquer, O Man of Nazareth, though thou art indeed the possessor of all knowledge; but as the Savior of men and the Son of God shall thy kingdom come!"

Context - Context - Context

"The Bible ought to be treated in the reading of it as any other book is treated, only with much more of reverential regard. Suppose that Milton’s “Paradise Lost “were used as a text-book, and that its general mode of usage were to take separate lines disconnected from the rest of the great poem, and consider them as positive statements, and suitable topics of meditation; it would he a dangerous experiment, the great poet might well stir in his grave at the proposal.
"Such a mode of study reminds me of the Grecian student, who, when he had a house to sell, carried a brick about the streets to show what kind of a house it was. The Bible ought not to be torn limb from limb, and its joints hung up like meat in the shambles. Beyond all other books it will bear dissection, for it is vital in every sentence and word. Since it is a mosaic of priceless gems, you will be enriched even if you extract a jewel here and there, but to behold its divine beauty you must contemplate the mosaic as a whole. No idea of the magnificent design of the entire Scriptures can enter the human mind by reading it in detached portions, especially if those separated passages are interpreted without reference to the run of the writer’s thoughts. Let Scripture be read according to the rules of common sense, and that will necessitate our reading through a book and following its train of thought. Thus shall we be likely to arrive at the mind of the Holy Spirit."
- C. H. Spurgeon
"The Gentleness of Jesus"

Classic

Hilarious, as always.

He Didn't Sweatt the Details

I finally got around to seeing what all the kerfuffle was about (and to finding an opportunity to use the word "kerfuffle").

Last month, at a regional FBFI conference, Pastor Dan Sweatt of Berean Baptist Church ranted (one could hardly call it "preaching") about the mass defection of young preachers from the ranks of fundamentalism (read: fundamentalist circles approved by the IFB pantheon) toward conservative evangelicalism as represented by men like MacArthur, Piper, et al.

This message was particularly significant to me, as I was reared in fundmentalist, independent Baptist circles. And I, too, have begun to identify more with the preaching ministries of John MacArthur, Alistair Begg, and others. I made the move because fundamentalism absolutely refuses to police itself. Fundamentalism, as a movement, has no problem with shepherds who have mutton on their breath. At the same time, in MacArthur, James Kennedy, et al I sensed a love and compassion for people and a commitment to careful expository preaching -- something else sadly lacking in those hailed as heroes of fundamentalism. So, it sounded like Sweatt was going to tell my story.

And he did, though not, I would guess, in the way he intended to. His talk (I refuse to call it a sermon) consisted of a heterogeneous blend of personal anecdotes (of which he was the hero, or into which he somehow inserted himself regardless of the point of the story), quick head-bobs at prooftexts, fawning devotion to men that he SHOULD identify as hirelings but instead venerates, and red-faced invectives against other Christian leaders.

And, of course, he manages to work in some Calvin-bashing as well. Good times.

Here's a news flash for ya, Dan-o -- that is EXACTLY why I fled your camp, never EVER to return. You represented, on that platform, everything that is wrong with fundamentalism, everything that drives thinking people away. Everything from your mistreatment of Scripture, to your gross misrepresentation of Calvinism, to your internally inconsistent critiques of anyone who falls outside your self-erected boundaries of orthopraxy -- all of this drives us away. In a nutshell, we're leaving fundamentalism because the guys being allowed to drive fundamentalism are jerks.

I'm not going to bother with an item-by-item reply to the nonsense that was belched out at that conference. Others have devoted time to that task. For a detailed (and much more level-headed) rebuttal of Sweatt's offal, see this article from Central Seminary's Kevin Bauder (HT: John Piper).

But the bottom line, for me, is this: until fundamentalism does a better job of repudiating this sort of behavior, my prayer is that more and more young preachers leave. I am GLAD to hear of empires crumbling, of indoctrination centers closing. It's a GOOD sign. Until fundamentalism discovers a love for real expository preaching and a hatred of eisogetic spleen-venting, until fundamentalism discovers a love for people and a hatred for numbers-oriented pragmatism, until fundamentalism discovers that holiness is defined by Christ-likeness, not activity . . . then the best thing for the body of Christ would be for fundamentalism to continue to shrink into irrelevance.

And, if you're going to interact with any theological discussion, Danny Boy, you need to stop playing for cheap amens and Sweatt the details before you speak.

Credit to the Unaccredited

As I watch this bailout debacle unfold, partcularly with regard to the automakers, I realize something: this is why so many Christian schools were absolutely right to fear accreditation. Just ask 25% of Chrysler's dealers who are fighting for their lives -- some of whom are being threatened with closure despite successful, profitable sales records.

Balanced Soteriology

Came across this quote from Spurgeon in studying for Sunday. Yet another evidence that expository preaching brings a unique balance that will be lacking in topical "preaching":

"Our conviction is, that Arminian theology, to a great extent, makes God to be less than he is. The professors of that system have come to receive its doctrines, because they have not a clear
understanding either of the omnipotence, the immutability, or the sovereignty of God. They seem always to put the question, “What ought God to do to man who is his creature?” We hold that that is a question that is never to be put, for it infringes the sovereignty of God, who has absolute right to do just as he wills. They ask the question, “What will God do with his promises, if man change his habit or his life?” We consider that to be a question not to be put. Whatever man doeth, God remaineth the same and abideth faithful, though even we should not believe him. They put the question,’ What will be done for men who resist God’s grace, if in the
struggle man’s will should be triumphant over the mercy of God?” We never put that question: we think it blasphemous. We believe God to be omnipotent, and when he comes to strive with the soul of man, none can stay his hand. He breaks the iron sinew, and dashes the adamantine heart to shivers, and ruleth in the heart of man as surely as in the army of the skies.
A right clear apprehension of the character of God we believe would put an end to the Arminian mistake.
We think, too, that ultra-calvinism, which goes vastly beyond what the authoritative teaching of Christ, or the enlightened ministry of Calvin could warrant, gets some of its support from a wrong view of God. To the ultra-calvinist his absolute sovereignty is delightfully conspicuous. He is awe-stricken with the great and glorious attributes of the Most High. His omnipotence appals him, and his sovereignty astonishes him, and he at once submits as if by a stern necessity to the will of God. He, however, too much forgets, that God is love. He does not make prominent enough the benevolent character of the Divine Being. He annuls to some extent the fact, that while God is not amenable to anything external from himself, yet his own attributes are so blessedly in harmony, that his sovereignty never inflicted a punishment which was not just, nor did it even bestow a mercy until justice had first been satisfied. To see the holiness, the love, the justice, the faithfulness, the immutability, the omnipotence and the sovereignty of God, all shining like a bright corona of eternal and ineffable light, this has never been given perfectly to any human being, and inasmuch as we have not seen all these, as we hope yet to see them, our faulty vision has been the ground of divers mistakes. Hence hath
arisen many of the heresies which vex the Church of Christ.
Now, my brethren, I would have you this morning look at the way in which our Lord Jesus Christ regards God: — “Father, Lord of heaven and earth.” If you and I cannot know the Almighty to perfection, because of His greatness and of our shallowness, nevertheless let us try to apprehend these two claims upon our adoration, in which we owe to God the reverence of
children, and the homage of subjects."

I Can't Wait!

Okay, so I know it's been a while since I've shouldered my way onto the Tokyo commuter train that is the blogosphere, but I got an email today that warrants a quick post:

My very-most-favoritest Christian musicians have released a new CD. Be sure to listen to clips and order one of these for your music library. Check them out here.

Why We Must Preach Repentance

Came across an illustration of why we MUST abandon the ear-tickling topical preaching that is so popular.

Some years ago a fearful railroad wreck took a dreadful toll of life and limb in an eastern state. A train, loaded with young people returning from school, was stalled on a suburban track because of what is known as a "hot-box." The limited was soon due, but a flagman was sent back to warn the engineer in order to avert a rear-end collision. Thinking all was well, the crowd laughed and chatted while the train-hands worked on in fancied security. Suddenly the whistle of the limited was heard and on came the heavy train and crashed into the local, with horrible effect.

The engineer of the limited saved his own life by jumping, and some days afterwards was hailed into court to account for his part in the calamity. And now a curious discrepancy in testimony occurred. He was asked, "Did you not see the flagman warning you to stop?"

He replied, "I saw him, but he waved a yellow flag. I took it for granted all was well, and so went on, though slowing down."

The flagman was called, "What flag did you wave?"

"A red flag, but he went by me like a shot."

"Are you sure it was red?"

"Absolutely."

Both insisted on the correctness of their testimony, and it was demonstrated that neither was color-blind. Finally the man was asked to produce the flag itself as evidence. After some delay he was able to do so, and then the mystery was explained. It had been red, but it had been exposed to the weather so long that all the red was bleached out, and it was but a dirty yellow!

Oh, the lives eternally wrecked by the yellow gospels of the day -- the bloodless theories of unregenerate men that send their hearers to their doom instead of stopping them on their downward road!

H.A. Ironside, Illustrations of Bible Truth, Moody Press, 1945, Page 62-63.

Cure for Mondays

The brilliant delivery of Fry & Laurie:

Someone Missed the Memo

Hey! I thought Dispensationalism was invented in the early 1900s by men like Darby and Scofield. What is John Wesley doing talking about it?

Our Lord, secondly, declares that he which is least in the kingdom of God (in that kingdom which he came to set upon earth, and which the violent now began to take by force), is greater than he—not a greater prophet, as some have interpreted the word, for this is palpably false in fact; but greater in the grace of God and in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, we cannot measure the privileges of real Christians, by those formerly given to the Jews. Their “ministration” (or dispensation) we allow “was glorious,” but ours “exceeds in glory.” So that whosoever would bring down the Christian dispensation to the Jewish standard, whosoever gleans up the examples of weakness recorded in the Law and the prophets, and thence infers that they who have “put on Christ” are endued with no greater strength, doth greatly err, neither “knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God.”
- Heritage of Great Evangelical Teaching : Featuring the Best of Martin Luther, John Wesley, Dwight L. Moody, C.H. Spurgeon and Others. (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1997, c1996).

Whence our power?

“O, man! learn from the precept what you ought to do; learn from correction, that it is your own fault you have not the power; and learn in prayer, whence it is that you may receive the power.”

John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, II, v, 4.

What About "Good People"?

"If every soul is subject to such abominations as the apostle boldly declares, we surely see what would happen if the Lord were to permit human lust to wander according to its own inclination. No mad beast would rage as unrestrainedly; no river, however swift and violent, burst so madly into flood. In his elect the Lord cures these diseases in a way that we shall soon explain. Others he merely restrains by throwing a bridle over them only that they may not break loose, inasmuch as he foresees their control to be expedient to preserve all that is. Hence some are restrained by shame from breaking out into many kinds of foulness, others by the fear of the law-even though they do not, for the most part, hide their impurity. Still others, because they consider an honest manner of life profitable, in some measure aspire to it. Others rise above the common lot, in order by their excellence to keep the rest obedient to them. Thus God by his providence bridles perversity of nature, that it may not break forth into action; but he does not purge it within."

Calvin, Institutes, II,iii,3

Superman flies above the recession

The last thing I would ever want to do is to downplay the serious financial difficulties that many people are experiencing today. But one has to wonder if the situation is as bad as we are being led to believe when reading articles such as this one, from Fox News:

"Action Comics #1," published in June 1938, is considered to be the world's most valuable comic book and valued at an estimated $126,000.
"It's the Holy Grail of comic books," comic expert Stephen Fishler, who created the 10-point grading scale used to evaluate comic books, told Reuters.
"This is the one that started it all. There was no such thing as a super hero before it. No flying man. Comics weren't even that popular. It's the single most important event in comic book history," he said.
Only 100 copies of the No. 1 edition are known to exist and those in "fine" condition are worth about $126,000, he said, but this one could sell for several times that.
Bidding for the comic book begins at $1 and is sure to go up, up and away.
The owner, who has not been identified, bought the comic in 1950 when he was 9-years-old after begging his father for 35 cents.
"Lots of kids bought comic books in the '50s, but almost all of them eventually tossed them out," Fishler told Reuters. "This guy understood its value and took good care of it — that almost never happens either."
Fishler and Vincent Zurzolo, co-owners of Metropolis Collectibles, will offer the comic on their Web site for two weeks beginning Friday.

I truly wonder how much the fear-mongering of the media has worsened the recession by heightening concerns and causing people to further reduce spending.

How to Survive the Ministry

Pastor Lon Solomon of McLean Bible Church presented this important message at a recent leadership conference. This is a MUST-HEAR.

Fascinating

Since we're right in the middle of the medical diagnostics ordeal with our youngest daughter, I throught this news item was especially fascinating. (Pardon any lead-in commercials. The news story is worth the wait.)

Video Courtesy of KSL.com

Another FREE Resource

This morning I was thrilled to discover another free resource (HT:John Piper). Jonathan Edwards was one of the greatest theologians in American history as well as the greatest philosopher America has produced. Yale has made the complete works of Jonathan Edwards available to the public in a searchable online format. Be sure to bookmart this link and add it to your Bible Study Favorites!

Calvin on the Blessed Trinity

The more things change, the more they stay the same. Calvin had to face those who employed faux piety to denounce the Trinity by objecting to words not found in the Bible (a term, I like to point out to them, not found in the Scriptures).

"Now, although the heretics rail at the word 'person,' or certain squeamish men cry out against admitting a term fashioned by the human mind, they cannot shake our conviction that three are spoken of, each of which is entirely God, yet that there is not more than one God. What wickedness, then, it is to disapprove of words that explain nothing else than what is attested and sealed by Scripture!
". . . we ought to seek from Scripture a sure rule for both thinking and speaking, to which both the thoughts of our minds and the words of our mouths should be conformed. But what prevents us from explaining in clearer words those matters in Scripture which perplex and hinder our understanding, yet which conscientiously and faithfully serve the truth of Scripture itself, and are made use of sparingly and modestly and on due occasion? There are quite enough examples of this sort of thing. What is to be said, moreover, when it has been proved that the church is utterly compelled to make use of the words 'Trinity' and 'Persons'? If anyone, then, finds fault with the novelty of the words, does he not deserve to be judged as bearing the light of truth unworthily, since he is finding fault only with what renders the truth plain and clear?"
Institutes, 1.13.3

Calvin on Scripture

"Just as old or bleary-eyed men and those with weak vision, if you thrust before them a most beautiful volume, even if they recognize it to be some sort of writing, yet can scarcely construe two words, but with the aid of spectacles will begin to read distinctly; so Scripture, gathering up the otherwise confused knowledge of God in our minds, having dispersed our dullness, clearly shows us the true God. This, therefore, is a special gift, where God, to instruct the church, not merely uses mute teachers but also opens His own most hallowed lips. Not only does He teach the elect to look upon a god, but also shows Himself as the God upon whom they are to look. He has from the beginning maintained this plan for His Church, so that besides these common proofs He also put forth His Word, which is a more direct and more certain mark whereby He is to be recognized." Institutes, 1.6.1

Boom or Fizzle?

Since this book was written for kids, I want to present two perspectives: mine as an adult reader and parent; and then my kids'.

This book takes me back to my childhood. Specifically, to the part where my mother says, "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all."

Sorry, Mom, but this book was just dreadful.

This book just didn't work for me. In fact, I was almost ready to pack it in by the end of the first chapter. A plot twist on page 1 of chapter 2 pulled me back in, but the plot developments--mostly implausible and jarring to the narrative--weren't enough to sustain any real interest. The book never really seemed to decide on a voice: was this Andy Griffith or Lemony Snicket? Mark Twain or Roald Dahl? The nostalgia is so delightful that the comic fantasy doesn't fit. For me, the humor misses more than it hits.

A couple of theological elements bothered me, although they were incidental to the plot. The biggest problem I found was a plug for ecumenism on p. 67: ". . . in Boomtown one's religious affiliation never interfered with the more important duty of working closely with fellow citizens."

With that said, I want to be fair: this book wasn't written for me; it was written for my kids. So, I had my two oldest boys (both avid readers) read the book and prepare their firt book reviews a la book reports. In short, my boys loved this book as much as I hated it.

My thirteen-year-old wrote:

"It is very funny, especially the story about the church's twenty-four pastors, one of whom fell into an open case of nitroglycerine [Note from dad: should I be worried here?] The town founder, Chang, made hand grenades. Also, the Stickville Slugs with their forty-year losing streak -- that was also funny. This is a good book to read."

My ten-year-old wrote:

"Welcome to Boomtown, Washington, with barbers that you don't want to make mad, and a church where the search committee is on their 25th pastor. The last 24 died in accidents including snake bites, nitroglycerine cases, and flash floods. I think this book is hilarious!!"

So, there you have it. Boomtown: kid-tested, daddy disapproved. Maybe I need to unclench; maybe my kids need to spend more time reading Dickens and Hawthorne. Here's a preview of the book. You decide.

The Other Side of God

For my daily Bible currently I am reading in Genesis, Psalms, Proverbs, and Matthew. This morning, that produced an interesting effect. In Genesis I read about the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Then, in Psalms, I read:

5 You have rebuked the nations; you have made the wicked perish;
you have blotted out their name forever and ever.
6 The enemy came to an end in everlasting ruins;
their cities you rooted out;
the very memory of them has perished.
7 But the Lord sits enthroned forever;
he has established his throne for justice,
8 and he judges the world with righteousness;
he judges the peoples with uprightness. (Psalm 9:5-8, ESV)

We must never tell of God's love in isolation from His righteousness. We must never slip into a half-gospel that knows nothing of sin, judgment, and the need for the bowed knee of repentance.

Another Evidence for God

Reading through Calvin's Institutes this year, and came across this:

"The miserable ruin, into which the rebellion of the first man cast us, especially compels us to look upward. Thus, not only will we, in fasting and hungering, seek thence what we lack; but, in being aroused by fear, we shall learn humility. or, as a veritable world of miseries is to be found in mankind, and we are thereby despoiled of divine raiment, our shameful nakedness exposes a teeming horde of infamies. Each of us must, then, be so stung by the consciousness of his own unhappiness as to attain at least some knowledge of God. "Thus, from the feeling of our own ignorance, vanity, poverty, infirmity, and-what is more-depravity and corruption, we recognize that the true light of wisdom, sound virtue, full abundance of every good, and purity of righteousness rest in the Lord alone."

Whenever lost man recognizes in himself some lack, some defect, is this not evidence of their innate knowledge of God -- of Romans 1 in action! Against whom (Whom!) are they making the comparison when they recognize the lack?

Your OTHER Reading Plan for 2009

With 2009 being the 500th birthday of John Calvin, I thought it would be a great idea to read through the Institutes again. Lo and behold, Princeton has obliged with an online plan to read through this masterpiece systematically in one year. Here's the link to the program. I would particularly recommend this to those who have bought into any of the silly caricatures of Calvinism that are circulating today. If Dave Hunt had actually, um, read Calvin's Institutes beyond searching for quotes that could be yanked out of context, What Love is This would never have been written.

Here's a sample from today's reading. How relevant is this?

"For ungodly men have so far prevailed that Christ's truth, even if it is not driven away scattered and destroyed, still lies hidden, buried and inglorious. The poor little church has either been wasted with cruel slaughter or banished into exile, or so overwhelmed by threats and fears that it dare not even open its mouth. And yet, with their usual rage and madness, the ungodly continue to batter a wall already toppling and to complete the ruin toward which they have been striving. Meanwhile no one comes forward to defend the church against such furies. But any who wish to appear as greatly favoring truth feel that they should pardon the error and imprudence of ignorant men. For so speak moderate men, calling error and imprudence what they know is the most certain truth of God; calling untutored men those whose intelligence was not so despicable to Christ as to prevent him for bestowing upon them the mysteries of his heavenly wisdom! So ashamed are they all of the gospel!"

Happy reading!