No More Chocolate!!

Dreadful news.  This Mail Online article out of the UK says we are losing our sustainable cocoa bean growth worldwide, due mostly to unrest in West Africa where most of the beans are grown.

Scary.  Reading it made me get out a some chocolate for a snack.  If you think things would be bad when the world runs out of oil...just watch what happens if we run out of chocolate!

In the mean time, I think we should all buy a few industrial-sized cans of Hershey's Cocoa Powder and sock them away like we did for Y2K.  I'm going to Sam's today to get some.  And some marshmallow creme.  Just in case...

;-)

Discussions, Controversies, and Divisions- Where's the Line?

In the blog bailiwick where I hang (see the list on the side column), there isn't a lot of controversy.  I tend to read a more monolithic set of blogs.  When I want an opinion contrary, I know where to go find it (like Roger Olsen's blog...if he says the sky is blue, then I assume it must be something else...he's the author of How to be evangelical without being conservative, for example).  I seek those out as the need arises, but the need does not often arise.  Having grown up a semi-Pelagian, I am familiar with the other side of the Calvinist-Arminian debate.

Frank Turk has a blog he shares with a couple other fellows called Pyromaniacs.  It is usually a fun read, and there isn't much there I disagree with, though there's often stuff I don't fully understand.  Today, Frank published An Open Letter to Michael Horton. 

That got my attention.  I like Mike.  He co-hosts a radio program called The White Horse Inn, which I would listen to more often if I had time, but catch when I can.  Horton has written several outstanding books, including Christless Christianity and it's sequel, The Gospel-Driven Life.  I recommend both (though they can get heavy in places).  He just came out with a new systematic theology that I blogged about earlier today. He edits a magazine called Modern Reformation, to which I also subscribe.  I like Mike (did I mention that?).

So when I started in to Turk's letter, I was a bit ambivalent.  Nothing improved much after reading the very interesting post (found here).  It pointed out how much Turk appreciated and looked up to Horton, as do I. No disagreement there. But it also pointed out a possible problem with the results of the way Horton portrays the gospel.  Turk didn't say Horton said anything wrong at all...on the contrary, he completely agrees with Horton on the gospel.  The problem, Turk said, was how some people might react to what could be a bit of imbalance in the results of the presentation of the gospel in a indicative/imperative dichotomy.  (If you've read my blog in the past, you know I've presented the same dichotomy at times, leaning heavily on Tullian Tchividjian in the process.)

I noticed a lot of comments were already posted, and the article wasn't but a couple hours old.  Unusual.  In fact, there were over 200 comments in less than four hours.  Very unusual. While some of what Turk said made sense to me, I was still skeptical of Turk's thesis, so I started skimming the comments.  I quickly ran across a guy named Charlie (read the post and the comments, down to Charlie's, for the full effect).  Charlie was living, breathing, walking, talking empirical evidence that the problem Turk was fearing was a real problem...in living color.

A few months ago, I read a blog post (or maybe an interview, I don't recall for sure) by John Piper on what he saw as some threats to the integrity of the relatively new reformed resurgence, or as it is sometimes called, the YRR (young, restless, and reformed) movement.  Piper listed a few, but he missed one that I think is a real threat, and that is exemplified by Charlie in the Pyromaniacs comments section.  It's hard to summarize the problem, but it basically involves those of a certain reformed perspective denying that anyone outside their perspective can call themselves 'reformed' in any meaningful way.  Charlie uses name-calling to make his point:  he's a Baptist-hater.  He calls Baptists anabaptists, Arminians, Pelagians, and adherents to Roman Catholicism.  Wow.  He makes so many errors of basic logic, it is hard to even start on a criticism.  But that's not the main point.  I digress.  Back to the main point: divisiveness.

That won't work, folks.  Having heard Charlie, I now see Frank Turk's point, and he's right.  We need to balance the presentation of the gospel with the implications of the gospel, just as scripture does.  No, we don't need to call the gospel 'law' or call law 'gospel', and we certainly don't need to confuse justification with sanctification, but we need to be cognizant of what it means when the gospel is proclaimed and people believe.  We can't divorce the message of the gospel from what it means to us.  Good news is only good news if it is good news to the hearer.  The fact that someone won the Powerball Lottery on Saturday was good news to them, but it didn't mean much to me.  So that means that news was a subjective kind of good news.  The gospel is not subjective, it is objective, in the sense that it is universal good news to 'all He came to save'.  It is not simply an academic concept, as real, objective, and historical factual as it is.  The content of the gospel is express in words (not how we live), but words mean things (to quote Rush Limbaugh).  And the gospel means something very real to all of us.

Turk approaches the issue with fairness and brotherly love, and I have to think Horton will answer in the same way.  (Hopefully the right way to dialogue about disagreements will truly embarrass Charlie and he can see how disruptive his tact can be.  The 'line' in the title of this post?...Charlie crossed it, in my opinion.) I don't say this pointing a finger only at Charlie, however. I can see myself falling into the same trap, if not careful.  I usually lack balance because I'm such a black-and-white person, and I need constant biblical correction from my peers (thank God for my wife and my fellow SS classmates) to not get unbalanced.  If Iva Bates was a knee (a reference that those of you who worked through Experiencing God will get), I'm a foot.  As in, 'I'll-plant-my-size-12-Nike-in-your-hiney' kind of foot. I hope I never grow to old to listen to correction and rebuke from other Godly people.  If I dish it out, I gotta take it!

I also look forward to Mike Horton's reply, as I think it will build up the kingdom (knowing Horton) and God will be honored (knowing Turk).

Horton's, "The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology"

I just got my copy of Mike Horton's new systematic theology.  It is MUCH bigger in the hand than it looks in the amazon.com photo.

I've been waiting on this for a while.  I have used Grudem for years, and still love it and recommend it.  (I don't know of any systematic theology more accessible to the layperson than Grudem.)  There are, however, a few areas of Grudem I don't like as much, and I'm curious to see how differently Horton treats them.  (I think Grudem flirts with old-earth creationism a bit too much, and I tend to be a bit more cessationist than Grudem is, for a couple of examples.)

I'll post a review of this book down the road.  Probably way down the road, as systematic theologies tend not to be page-turners at times, and this one is right at a thousand pages long.

The Church in a Post-Feminist Culture

Here's a neat article (interview) with Mary Kassian on the church in a post-feminist culture.  (Yes, it will help you figure out exactly what a 'post-feminist culture' is.)

Mary Kassian on the Church in a Post-Feminist World

Purpose-Directed, but Promise-Driven

This tidbit was too good not to pass on.  Mike Horton wrote a fantastic article (found here) in Modern Reformation magazine called, "The Great Announcement".  Here's a good summary of the article-

"The Great Commission actually begins with the declaration, 

“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me” (Matt. 28:18). 

This is the rationale for everything the church is called to do and to be. 

The church’s commission is indeed directed by a purpose 

(“making disciples of all nations”), but it is driven by a promise."

This is just another reminder of how often we miss the idea that gospel imperatives (the things we are commanded to do) are always stated in context with gospel indicatives (what Jesus has already done).

Rick Warren's book (Purpose Driven Church) got a lot of attention, but I fear it only reinforced many of us missing the main point.  Go read the Horton article for all the details.  If you want the Cliff's Notes version, Tullian Tchividjian has summarized it here.

Importance of Regenerate Church Membership- An Example

Thom Ranier, president of Lifeway, posted this blog on the importance of regenerate church membership.  He calls it, "Responding to the great distraction."

This is a great article.  I wish more churches would agree with this view of church membership.  Ranier says, "First, the standards of church membership have been low in many churches for many years. As a consequence our churches have more and more unregenerate members. Frankly, I would be not be surprised if some of the most vitriolic criticisms come from those who are not Christians."  I agree.  While we can't see regeneration directly, we can see fruit.  Some of the fruit I've seen has been pretty rotten at times, and it is all the more visible because of the contrast with some of the good stuff that is also very much apparent in others. As a member of a church where grumbling and nasty folks have been making the lives of some of the staff miserable, I think Thom has hit the nail on the head.

By the way, just out of curiosity, does anyone who reads this blog know of any scriptural reason why the church should be though of as a democracy?  I've heard arguments both ways, neither being well-supported by scripture; mostly the pro-democracy argument was an Americo-cultural view of what the church should be.

???

Logos Bible Software Training

I was fortunate to be able to attend Camp Logos 1 given by Morris Proctor this past week in Albuquerque.  I purchased Logos about a year ago, and have been using it (a little bit) for my Sunday School lesson prep.  I hadn't touched what the software is capable of doing.

The training was well worth the cost and time involved.  I highly recommend Morris Proctor's seminar for anyone who has the Logos software.  The software is capable of doing amazing things, and we got into many of those things at the training.  There is a second-level course, called Camp Logos 2, which I will attend first opportunity I get.

Over the next few weeks, I'll post some examples of what the software will do in terms of both general bible study, original language study, and the library that is self-contained in Logos.  It makes what used to be time-consuming study quick and easy, and adds a lot of fun in the process.

Abortion: A Rational Look at an Emotional Issue (Book Review, part 3)

Here is the conclusion of my review of Dr. Sproul's book.  If you missed the first two parts, they are here-

  Part 1
  Part 2

Part Three is titled, A compassionate response and strategy.

Ch 11- 'Is Abortion the Unpardonable Sin?'- This is a short but effective chapter. Sproul starts with David and explains how God deals with sin in our lives. He leaves no uncertainty about abortion being a forgivable sin. He then explains clearly how to apprehend that forgiveness.

Ch 12- 'A Pro-Life Strategy'- Sproul attacks the issue of what to do in this chapter. He uses comparisons between Wilberforce's work against slavery in England two hundred years ago with our work against abortion today.  On page 144, he says, "On one occasion, Lord Melbourne stated, 'Things have come to a pretty pass when religion is allowed to invade public life.' Doesn’t that sound like today’s media quotes in the United States?" 

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Sproul says we should speak up where appropriate, target pro-choice (not pro-abortion...see chapter 9 for the difference), target (liberal) churches that support abortion, target the medical community (which has been done effectively already), target political officials, and target parents and families.  The strategy for each of these groups varies, but is not complex, and he gives short descriptions of each.

He ends with the idea that the struggle must continue until the time when, "...no human child is destroyed under the sanction of law." (p. 153)

I heartily agree.

There are two appendices included in the book:  (A) Testimony on the Beginning of Human Life, and (B) Pro-Life Resources. 

The testimony section is fascinating.  It is the recorded testimony of a geneticist at a trial about a dispute involving frozen human embryos.  Just this testimony is worth the price of the book.  I wonder why this hasn't made wider rounds?

The second appendix has contact information, including URLs, for various pro-life organizations.

There are summaries and discussion questions at the end of each chapter for group or personal study use.  There is a bibliography, not exhaustive but very good, and a useful index.

I suppose the best summary of the whole thing, and the best way to end the discussion might be a question Dr. Sproul asks in page 115-

"Do we have the moral right to choose what is morally wrong?"

_______________

Here's the link to the book on Ligonier's website-

   http://www.ligonier.org/store/abortion-hardcover/

Portions used in this review were used by permission, per email on December 6, 2010, from D. Finnamore.

This book's copyright information: © 2010 by R.C. Sproul, Published by Reformation Trust Publishing. All Rights Reserved.

Abortion: A Rational Look at an Emotional Issue (Book Review, part 2)

Picking up where we left off in the first part of this review-

Part Two is titled, An Analysis of Pro-abortion and Pro-choice Arguments.

Ch 7- 'A Woman's Right to Her Body'- Sproul deals with these issues in this chapter- the constitutional 'rights' to privacy; are a woman's rights to her own body absolute?; is the fetus a part of the woman's body?; does a father have rights in reference to the fetus?

Ch 8- 'Three Frequent Assertions'- In this chapter, the three basic assumptions of the pro-abortion argument are considered:  (1) If abortion is illegal, women will have dangerous 'back-alley' abortions; (2) It is inconsistent to be anti-abortion and pro-capital punishment; and, (3) Men should not speak about abortion because it is a women's issue. 

First, Sproul logically argues that for those who believe abortion is the killing of a human being, continuing to protect those who are having abortions is 'ethically intolerable' (p. 105).  He also argues that if abortion is unjust, then the protection of those who engage in the practice is not a duty of the state.  (In other lectures, I've heard Dr. Sproul more fully develop this idea that laws against abortion are not a matter of asking the state to be the church, but rather asking the state to be the state.  I wish he developed these ideas a bit more fully here.)

Second, he refutes the second objection by showing the logical inconsistency that even if anti-abortion people are wrong on the issue of capital punishment, that doesn't make them wrong on abortion.  This is an example of poor logic and is easily illustrated to those who use such an argument.

Third, Sproul shows how the third argument about abortion only being a women's issue is 'specious' (p. 107). Jesus was a man...does he have a right to speak on the issue?  All arguments such as this one are ad hominem.

Ch 9- 'The Pro-Choice Position'-  Because of time and political tactic, the real difference between 'pro-abortion' and 'pro-choice' has been obscured in this country.  Sproul give a good historical analysis of the two, and how they become one.  This chapter is very different than what we usually hear on the subject of abortion from either side of the issue, and may be the most helpful and most informative chapter in the book for many people.

The following paragraph from page 115 answers Dr. Sproul's question, "Do we have the moral right to choose what is morally wrong?"  In other words, is the argument opposing laws against abortion because they restrict freedom-of-choice a valid one?

"Again, every law enacted limits or restricts someone’s
choices. That is the very nature of law. If we do not wish to
restrict other people’s choices through legislation, we must stop
legislating and cease voting. I think that most people will grant
that freedom of choice is not an absolute freedom. No human
being is an absolute law unto himself. Unless we are prepared to
buy into an ethical system of pure relativism by which law and
society become impossible, we must flee as the wind from the
proposition that the individual is autonomous."

In moving to application of the abstract, Sproul says on page 116,

"To move from the abstract into the concrete, I wonder
whether pro-choice activists object to laws protecting their
personal property rights? Does the thief breaking into a home
to steal someone’s television have the inalienable right to make
that choice? Does a man have the right to choose to rape a
woman? These extreme examples make it obvious that freedom
of choice cannot be considered an absolute right."

Ch 10- 'The Problem of Unwanted Pregnancies'- Sproul deals with the important idea that the central issue, abortion on demand, should not be clouded by peripheral issues such as rape or medical abortions. Undesirability is never a moral justification to kill a child, either after or before birth. He then confronts the actual statistics around the number of pregnancies resulting from rape or necessary in therapeutic (medical) abortions.  Those numbers are small, but real to the person in the situation.  Sproul offers reasons why and how to avoid killing the fetus in these situations.

_______________________

Here's the link to the book on Ligonier's website-

   http://www.ligonier.org/store/abortion-hardcover/

Portions used in this review were used by permission, per email on December 6, 2010, from D. Finnamore.

This book's copyright information: © 2010 by R.C. Sproul, Published by Reformation Trust Publishing. All Rights Reserved.

Update on Abortion Topic

Ironically, as I was preparing to post the second part of my review of R. C. Sproul's book on abortion, I ran across this news article via a Twitter 'tweet'.

There are no words, other than maybe, 'so much for safe abortions'.