Here is a real-life scenario of a friend of a friend of mine. I'll call the young lady Laura. She has been dating a Baptist guy for a year (I'll call him John). Her parents are Church of Christ and pretty hard-core about it.

John talked to her parents last week to ask for Laura's hand. The parents told him that the only way they would give their blessing is if he becomes CoC. He told them that was going to be a decision they would make as a family, but neither he nor Laura have a desire to become Church of Christ (or, in her case, to remain Church of Christ). They have been attending a non CoC church together. Laura has expressed that she has learned more about God's grace from her friends, John, and her new church than she ever did from her parents or their church.

Her parents have made remarks to Laura that John is leading her to hell, and they are worried about her soul. The parents want to sit down and talk with them both.

What advice would you give this young couple? They are both believers. I am not familiar enough with the Church of Christ to know how to approach this.

John and Laura gave me permission through my friend to post this on Thinklings. Any help will be greatly appreciated. I'd especially love to hear from those of you in the Church of Christ or who have CoC friends or family, but if you have any advice or knowledge at all on this your insight will be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!

From Think Theologically: How to worship when you think the songs suck. Some excerpts, below:

And that my friend, brings us to the point. “How do I worship when I think the songs suck?” you might ask. Well first off, you don’t express that you think the songs suck to anyone else. You may ruin a genuine worshipful experience for them by your complaining. While they were perfectly fine worshipping to that particular song, your comments could forever taint it for them. You are certainly free to mentally critique the artistic and theological merits of the songs you sing each Sunday. But when you decide one or more are duds, don’t rain on everyone else’s parade.

The church has enough people complaining about enough things.

Yes.

I am guilty of ruining songs for other people. And I'm not talking about songs that have bad theology. I'm talking about songs that don't float my boat, or have an emphasis problem or metaphorical turn that I find slightly troubling.

I hadn't thought of it this way: I may be ruining a worship experience for someone else when I do that. I may be stealing worship from God, and replacing it with confusion or cynicism.

This still leaves the question though of “how do I worship when I think the songs suck?” The answer, in short, is that the worship set wasn’t picked for you, and part of being in community of believers gathered to worship is forfeiting your preferences in deference to others. A prime example of this is theologian John Frame. While a classically trained organist who doesn’t like contemporary worship music, Frame nonetheless argues for its legitimate place in worship services. I’m sure he might cringe as well at some of the current praise choruses that are popular out there, but out of love for his brothers and sisters in Christ, he lays down his preferences and worships alongside those who sing songs he might not particularly like.

I think this is the ultimate answer to the question. When you think the songs suck, you can still, and should still worship God as fervently and freely as you would when its your absolute favorite song being sung. You may however need to mortify your critical spirit and get over yourself first, but you should still strive to worship God through song each Sunday whether you particularly like the selections or not.

Jesus didn’t die on the cross so you could sing your favorite songs every Sunday. He died so that you might learn to die to self as well. Part of doing that might just be singing songs you don’t like, and singing them as genuinely as the songs you do.

Amen.

[H/T Parchment and Pen]

Jared, on preaching. Good stuff! I especially liked the ending.

Video for TheNINES: "How I Do" Preaching from Jared Wilson on Vimeo.

[H/T Gospel Driven Church]

Born this day 1703 was (arguably) America's greatest theologian-pastor. Here is an excerpt from the sermon of his that most resonates with my soul:

If you are a poor, distressed sinner, whose heart is ready to sink for fear that God never will have mercy on you, you need not be afraid to go to Christ, for fear that he is either unable or unwilling to help you. Here is a strong foundation, and an inexhaustible treasure, to answer the necessities of your poor soul, and here is infinite grace and gentleness to invite and embolden a poor, unworthy, fearful soul to come to it. If Christ accepts of you, you need not fear but that you will be safe, for he is a strong Lion for your defense. And if you come, you need not fear but that you shall be accepted; for he is like a Lamb to all that come to him, and receives then with infinite grace and tenderness. It is true he has awful majesty, he is the great God, and infinitely high above you; but there is this to encourage and embolden the poor sinner, that Christ is man as well as God; he is a creature, as well as the Creator, and he is the most humble and lowly in heart of any creature in heaven or earth. This may well make the poor unworthy creature bold in coming to him. You need not hesitate one moment; but may run to him, and cast yourself upon him. You will certainly be graciously and meekly received by him. Though he is a lion, he will only be a lion to your enemies, but he will be a lamb to you. It could not have been conceived, had it not been so in the person of Christ, that there could have been so much in any Savior, that is inviting and tending to encourage sinners to trust in him. Whatever your circumstances are, you need not be afraid to come to such a Savior as this. Be you never so wicked a creature, here is worthiness enough; be you never so poor, and mean, and ignorant a creature, there is no danger of being despised, for though he be so much greater than you, he is also immensely more humble than you. Any one of you that is a father or mother, will not despise one of your own children that comes to you in distress: much less danger is there of Christ's despising you, if you in your heart come to him.

If that don't ring your bell, your clapper's broken.

And now, O sons, listen to me,and do not depart from the words of my mouth.
-- Proverbs 5:7

As we cling doggedly to the theology our fathers fought for and passed down to us in good faith, the doctrinal dilettantes of the day nag, "What ever happened to semper reformanda?", positing evolving boundaries, a flexible orthodoxy, working on the assumption that our position in history gives us a better understanding of what the Bible really says.

The way we play with the shape of evangelical theology today arises from straight-up chronological snobbery.

In the New York Times last April we find this historical item related to the recent tsunami and devastation in Japan:

The stone tablet has stood on this forested hillside since before they were born, but the villagers have faithfully obeyed the stark warning carved on its weathered face: “Do not build your homes below this point!”

Residents say this injunction from their ancestors kept their tiny village of 11 households safely out of reach of the deadly tsunami last month that wiped out hundreds of miles of Japanese coast and rose to record heights near here. The waves stopped just 300 feet below the stone.

“They knew the horrors of tsunamis, so they erected that stone to warn us,” said Tamishige Kimura, 64, the village leader of Aneyoshi.

Hundreds of so-called tsunami stones, some more than six centuries old, dot the coast of Japan, silent testimony to the past destruction that these lethal waves have frequented upon this earthquake-prone nation. But modern Japan, confident that advanced technology and higher seawalls would protect vulnerable areas, came to forget or ignore these ancient warnings, dooming it to repeat bitter experiences when the recent tsunami struck.

Their ancestors knew what they were talking about. They had learned the hard way. And they erected markers: Don't build past this point. But we post-postmoderns are arrogant. We know better. We are smarter, more enlightened. And we have to accommodate more and more people. So we ignore the markers. We want to grow!

We must be reminded that semper reformanda does not mean "always morphing." It does not mean that the faith is ever changing, progressing into something better. In many respects, to be always reforming is to be always returning to the gospel. It is to be continually sloughing off the baggage of doctrinal add-ons and distractions, cutting out the ever-rising innovations, theological and otherwise. To be always reforming is to keep going back to the ancient markers in the face of constant temptation and taunting from those who'd have us play with heterodoxy ever-newly. Let us keep contending, keep trusting, keep returning.

Follow the pattern of the sound words that you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. By the Holy Spirit who dwells within us, guard the good deposit entrusted to you.
-- 2 Timothy 1:13-14

From Christianity Today:

Rob Bell is reportedly working on a television drama called Stronger with Carlton Cuse, executive producer and screenwriter for the show Lost, according to New York magazine and Deadline.

New York's Vulture site reports that the show will be loosely based on Bell's life story as a musician and eventual founder of his church, Mars Hill Bible Church. The show will feature a musician named Tom Stronger who ends up becoming a benefactor and spiritual guide, the site reports. Josef Adalian writes:

While based on biblical principles, Bell's brand of spirituality is not about hard-core evangelical, fire-and-brimstone teachings. Instead, his goal is to service folks' spiritual needs without the overlay of religious dogma (see also: Oprah). Stronger is similarly expected to explore spiritual themes but without being as on-the-nose as other recent series that have tackled these issues, such as 7th Heaven and Touched by an Angel. There's also expected to be a narrative twist to the project that will make it a bit unconventional, but for now, that detail is being kept secret (this show is from a Lost-ie after all).

. . .

The author of controversial Love Wins announced last week that he would leave his church to move to Los Angeles and launch a tour. Shane Hipps will take over preaching at Mars Hill Bible Church in the spring after Bell leaves.

"There are two kinds of grief. One is the grief you feel when someone dies or you find out you have cancer. The other is kind of grief you feel when your child goes off to college," Hipps said in a statement to Christianity Today. "The second grief is mingled with joy, and hope, and gratitude. Our grief is clearly the second kind. Rob is graduating, and we send him with sadness and joy into a big world."

[tip o' the hat to our friend Phil over at Brandywine Books]

Have you heard of Gungor? Gungor is a Christian band (or, if that bugs you, a band that happens to be Christian :-) that has put together some pretty good music over the past few years. I'm not that familiar with them, but our College and Young Singles ministry contains some young people who are huge fans. I've heard that their concerts are great worship experiences. We've even used some of their songs for our before-teaching worship on Sunday mornings and at our homegroup on Friday nights.

Gungor has a new album out called Ghosts Upon The Earth. Our friend Quaid pointed me to the blog post in which Michael Gungor and his wife Lisa describe the album.

Now, before I excerpt part of it, I have to come clean: while I consider myself fairly current and I have a taste for newer music, if you're under the age of 25 or so, I could be your dad. So keep that in mind. I'm not exactly a hepcat. Plus, I admit that I've had this little yellow warning light going off on my discernment panel in my inner control room for awhile when it comes to Gungor. It's not a siren, just a small warning that now and then goes beeeep. One concern I have is that, while their music is great, I haven't been able to detect a clear Christology in it. That's for what I've listened to, which is certainly not their whole catalog. Of course, I could be wrong. I've been wrong plenty in my lifetime.

So, with that said, I'd be interested in your thoughts on Michael Gungor's notes about his song "Wake Up Sleeper".

This song puts music to that side of Jesus’ message. When Jesus spoke most of his nice, comforting words like “blessed are the poor”… or “don’t worry about tomorrow”, etc., he was primarily talking to a group of people on the underside of power. He was talking to the poor. To those who had fallen short in their weaknesses, Jesus said things like “neither do I condemn you, go and sin no more.”

But he wasn’t always so gracious toward those with power and religious authority. He would say “Woe to you Pharisees…you whitewashed tombs…you brood of vipers” and so on. The Pharisees of Jesus’ day worshiped a religious system, a book, or a law more than they did the very Spirit of God. They worshiped their own place and thoughts and understandings of God rather than simply worshiping God. This seemed to infuriate Jesus.

In my opinion, this hasn’t changed much. Much of the Christian world right now worships the Bible more than it worships God. If you go to the website of a typical protestant, evangelical church right now, there’s a good chance that under the belief section you will come across the Bible before you come across any language about Jesus. You will probably find more theology about what you need to do to go to Heaven than you will about following the teachings of Jesus, or the Kingdom of God, or anything like that.

I feel like much of modern American Christianity should actually change its name to something else, maybe something like Bible-anity. As a whole, we’re rich, we’re arrogant, we’re judgmental and we’re dead inside. Sounds like the Pharisees to me.

This song is a call to repentance, a call to wake up. It’s an invitation to join the poor and the sinner and the broken once again that we may come alive and join with God again.

[Emphasis mine]

So, what do you think of that? Should most of us drop the Christian tag and start calling ourselves "Bible-ians"?

I have to admit this troubles me. I'm wanting to cross-check my opinion on this with some of you. Let me acknowledge first that there is probably some truth to his point. But is it accurate?

For what it's worth, I went to my church's website to see our statement of belief. The first three paragraphs deal with God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, before paragraph four, which deals with the Bible. And we're fairly conservative, evangelical and protestant. So maybe we're an outlier?

Secondly, I read every lyric of the new album. There isn't a mention of Jesus anywhere, or much of anything that couldn't be sung in a Unitarian church, even though the whole album deals with spiritual themes. Now, of course, just because you are a Christian and you make music doesn't mean you have to sing about Jesus in every song, or in any song. But if you're going to scold others for not mentioning Jesus prominently enough on their websites . . .

Thirdly, trust me, I know that there are plenty of problems in the American church. But I've never thought that one of them is that we pay too much attention to the Bible.

Finally, I get spooked when people begin talking about the Bible like it's something that is getting between a person and God, especially when it's so easy to create a false god for oneself when sailing the windblown seas without the Bible for a rudder.

I am interested in your thoughts on this, so if you have any, especially if you are a Gungor fan, please leave them in the comments. Thanks.

Tomorrow is our pastor's last Sunday at church. He has answered a call from another church in another state. It saddens me; I've gained a lot from his Biblically sound preaching.

It's interesting that this has caused me a good amount of cognitive dissonance. A month or so ago my father in law mentioned that there had been someone sitting on the front row at church, taking notes. "I'll bet he's from a church that's going to call [our pastor's first name]."

I remember thinking that that was kind of crass. I wanted to give that guy (I hadn't noticed him during the service) a piece of my mind. Who did he think he was, sneaking around, taking notes on our pastor?

It's pretty funny that I thought that, because I did the exact same thing six years ago. I was on the pastor search team that called our pastor to our church. I remember flying to another state, and attending a service at his then-church. I took notes. After the service I surreptitiously found him - we had already talked and he knew I was coming - and arranged a place for him and his family to meet me for lunch.

I remember having a really good lunch conversation. A month or so later we called him as our pastor. Keep in mind that we only approached pastoral candidates that had sent us their resumes and expressed interest. I think this is the common practice, and to do anything else would be unethical.

This happens all the time. Most experienced pastors in evangelical churches have been called away from other churches by pastor search teams.

So why does it bother me that it just happened to us?

“Dear Lord, I refuse henceforth to compete with any of Thy servants. They have congregations larger than mine. So be it. I rejoice in their success. They have greater gifts. Very well. That is not in their power nor in mine. I am humbly grateful for their greater gifts and my smaller ones. I only pray that I may use to Thy glory such modest gifts as I possess. I will not compare myself with any, nor try to build up my self-esteem by noting where I may excel one or another in Thy holy work. I herewith make a blanket disavowal of all intrinsic worth. I am but an unprofitable servant. I gladly go to the foot of the cross and own myself the least of Thy people. If I err in my self judgment and actually underestimate myself I do not want to know it. I purpose to pray for others and to rejoice in their prosperity as if it were my own. And indeed it is my own if it is Thine own, for what is Thine is mine, and while one plants and another waters it is Thou alone that giveth the increase.” - (A.W. Tozer, The Price of Neglect)

[H/T David Guzik's commentary on Haggai 2]

From Rachel Held Evans' blog, check this out: Blessed are the un-cool.

Some excerpts below. This expresses a conviction that's been growing in me for some time.

People sometimes assume that because I’m a progressive 30-year-old who enjoys Mumford and Sons and has no children, I must want a super-hip church—you know, the kind that’s called “Thrive” or “Be” and which boasts “an awesome worship experience,” a fair-trade coffee bar, its own iPhone app, and a pastor who looks like a Jonas Brother.

While none of these features are inherently wrong, (and can of course be used by good people to do good things), these days I find myself longing for a church with a cool factor of about 0.

That’s right.

I want a church that includes fussy kids, old liturgy, bad sound, weird congregants, and…brace yourself…painfully amateur “special music” now and then.

Why?

Well, for one thing, when the gospel story is accompanied by a fog machine and light show, I always get this creeped-out feeling like someone’s trying to sell me something. It’s as though we’re all compensating for the fact that Christianity’s not good enough to stand on its own so we’re adding snacks.

Read the whole thing.

Saw this on Ray Ortlund's blog

“From Scripture we know that God has deliberately limited the number of Christians He has chosen to be successful. In the latter part of the first chapter of I Corinthians and in the first part of the second chapter the Apostle Paul explains why. He says that not many wise, not many influential and not many noble have been called by God. Then he gives two reasons why. The first is that there is a tendency, even among Christians, to glory in their accomplishments. Yet God does not want any of us to do this in His presence. The second reason is related to the apostle’s own experience with the Corinthian church. He said that he came to them in weakness and in fear and in much trembling. This was because he did not want their faith to stand in his wisdom but in God’s power. Far too frequently successful Christians tend to attract others to themselves rather than to the Lord. . . . From Scripture we know also that God’s people down the centuries have stood adversity far better than they have prosperity. That may be another reason why few of us are successful.”

Hudson T. Armerding, “The Challenge of Success,” Baccalaureate Address, Wheaton College, 21 May 1978.

This Armerding quote verbalizes a gut-feeling I've had for a long time, particularly when I've heard or read Christians (generally bloggers) lament the general low-brow culture of Christianity or the artless nature of the Christians they know (present company, always, excepted). There is usually an added, unspoken lament: "If only Christians were more [fill in the blank], the world wouldn't think we were such losers". Even more often unspoken is the follow up thought: ". . . and I wouldn't be so embarrassed to be associated with those people who call themselves Christians."

My rejoinder: what did you expect?

This isn't a cop-out for things I have done or other Christians have done that were in the flesh and dishonoring to God, but, scripturally, Christians are not expected to be the cream of the crop. The early church was roundly and rightfully criticised for its low-class occupants.

God is building his church, his Bride. Yes, reform is needed, constant refining, further beautification. But have faith that this work of art is, and is indeed becoming, beautiful.

"But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong;" - 1 Corinthians 1:27

Loved this conversation between Tim Keller, Nancy Leigh DeMoss, and Collin Hansen.



HT: Dane Ortlund

Why so many expend such sweat and precious breath to fluidize and demonize Christianity is simply quite beyond me. Surely there are infinitely more negative and disruptive forces at work in the universe than something that gives hope and comfort, let alone refuge, aid and medical assistance to countless millions. I imagine it’s pretty much the same old bag of rattling bones, the detractors and stone throwers bitch and whine while negativity and selfishness runs rampant in their insular worlds. When was the last time you heard of “The American Atheist Association” building schools and housing for the homeless and disposed on the frozen slopes of China or bringing in medical supplies and vaccinating poverty stricken tribes in the African wilderness while warring factions try to kill them?

That's from a dizzying -- and quite bold -- rant by Bernie Taupin, perhaps best known as Elton John's longtime songwriting partner. You should read the whole thing.

(HT: Daniel)

Now the tax collectors and sinners were all drawing near to hear him. And the Pharisees and the scribes grumbled, saying, “This man receives sinners and eats with them.”

So he told them this parable: “What man of you, having a hundred sheep, if he has lost one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the open country, and go after the one that is lost, until he finds it? And when he has found it, he lays it on his shoulders, rejoicing. And when he comes home, he calls together his friends and his neighbors, saying to them, ‘Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep that was lost.’ Just so, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance. - Luke 15:1-7

I want to tell a story about someone - I'll call her Denise. Denise was a leader in our student ministry. She led Bible studies, went on every mission trip, worked on every service project, and appeared to really love the Lord. But sometime in her Junior year, something slipped. She became confused in her faith and despondent. She stopped coming to church as much as she had, and she dropped out of leadership. She had questions, and doubts. She decided not to go to student camp that year.

Then she just disappeared.

Denise became a lost sheep. The thing is, I don't know how many people reached out to Denise after she left. I like to think I did, and I know that others did too (they must have). But in a bitter rant on her MySpace a year or two later she leveled her complaint at "church people". She complained that only two people had ever reached out to her after she quit going to church. In her words, all her friends "ditched her". She fell into some bad choices and I don't really know how she's doing these days.

I've seen this pattern repeated, numerous times. I've watched it in frustration and powerlessness.

The Luke passage above points to some answers, though. These are pointed directly at me as much as at any of you.

Move quickly. I believe that most lost sheep want to be found when they first become lost. Don't worry about your dignity and forgo any nonsense about "giving them space". They want to be found. But only for awhile. There are numerous lost sheep I know that I didn't act quickly on who, frankly, don't want to have anything to do with church or with me anymore. And they were once my brothers and sisters and some like sons and daughters. I've failed them

Never, ever, ever assume that it's OK, because your numbers are still good. This is a heartless response to the death of faith. Jesus speaks as though it's natural for us to leave the ninety-nine for the one.

Is it?

Excuse my french, but please, screw church growth strategies that teach that it's more important to bring in new bodies than it is to keep the ones you've got. Jesus didn't teach that, and the Biblical model is to both feed and nourish your own sheep AND add to them daily.

Add to the joy of heaven. The heavenly hosts rejoice over a lost sheep restored. Launch a rescue mission, if you can. Invite someone who has dropped off the face of the earth out to dinner, or over to watch movies. Let them know you care and you miss them, and that you love them even if they never come back to church. You might win them back.

Screw church growth strategies that teach that it's more important to bring in new bodies than it is to keep the ones you've got. Oh, wait, I think I already said that. :-)

If you've been in church anytime at all, you know someone. Reach out to them today. I'll do the same.

And pray for my friend Denise today.

[Cross posted at Out of the Bloo]

This is Emma. She is awesome.

Emma goes to our church and we are very proud of her, because she was recently selected to join a Samaritan's Purse/Operation Christmas Child "SPY" team on a mission trip to Uganda this summer.

In Uganda, Emma's team will conduct six Operation Christmas Child shoebox distributions throughout the country. They will also work with the Samaritan's Purse project office on two projects:

Livestock Programs
After families are given an animal, they are required to reimburse Samaritan’s Purse with the animal’s offspring, allowing us to distribute animals to new beneficiaries. All families receive basic training in improved livestock production.

Household Water Program
Poor access to safe drinking water and a limited knowledge of hygiene and sanitation can negatively impact health. Bio-sand filters, shallow well protection, and rainwater harvesting used in conjunction with education and training has improved the quality of life in many villages in the Kamwenge district.



Emma needs to raise around $4,000 for this trip. Our church is paying the bulk of this expense, but due to some recent medical expenses, Emma's family is in need of help raising the remainder of the money needed. So she's fundraising. And this is where me and you come in. I want to help her raise money by giving you the opportunity to help her receive money. :-)

If you'd like to contribute to Emma's trip to Uganda, you can make a donation of any size via PayPal using our church's email address: MSCChurch AT gmail DOT com
Please indicate in the note portion "For Emma."

And if you give $25 or more to Emma via PayPal by next Monday (the 30th), you will automatically be entered to win an Abide Leader Kit ($70 value). I'm gonna give 2 kits away, so your odds of winning are good. Winners will be randomly selected and will be contacted on the 30th or shortly thereafter by email. (Note: If you've already given via PayPal, you are already entered for the drawing.)

The Abide Leader Kit includes:
- copy of the book Abide
- Enhanced CD (Includes: Leader Guide with step-by-step guide to leading discussion, including insightful questions that will help encourage authentic community; Articles from Biblical Illustrator to help you dig deeper; 5 songs off the Abide Playlist; and more.)
- DVD (Includes: Video sessions and promo segment)
---

If you'd prefer to snail mail a check, you'll miss out on the drawing, but can do it anyway to:
Middletown Springs Community Church
PO Box 1187
Middletown Springs, VT 05757
(please write in the Memo field "For Emma")

All contributions to Middletown Springs Community Church are tax deductible.

John Piper answers the question, "Did Christ descend into hell, as the Apostles' Creed states?"

There are two passages in the New Testament that, taken a certain way, would seem to indicate that he did. One is in Ephesians 4:9 where it says that Christ descended into the lower parts of the earth. This probably means that he descended to the earth, which is the lower parts. The "of" there doesn't mean that he is going under the earth. So I don't think that text warrants the interpretation that he descended into hell.

The other text is 1 Peter 3:18-20 where it says that Christ went to speak to the spirits who are now in bondage. That is, they have died—having lived in the days of Noah—and they are now in bondage; and Christ went to speak to them. Some take that to mean that between Good Friday and Easter Christ went to hell and he preached the gospel there. But I don't think that is the meaning of this text either. I think it means that when these people were alive in the days of Noah, in the Spirit Christ spoke to them through the preaching of Noah; and now they are in prison.

So my conclusion is that there is no textual basis for believing that Christ descended into hell. In fact, he said to the thief on the cross, "Today you will be with me in paradise." That's the only clue we have as to what Jesus was doing between death and resurrection. He said, "Today—this Friday afternoon, after we're both dead—you and I will be in paradise together." I don't think the thief went to hell and that hell is called paradise. I think he went to heaven and that Jesus was there with him.

So I don't say that phrase "he descended into hell" when I recite the Apostle's Creed. But study it yourself and see whether you think there are other foundations for it. As for me, though, I would say that the foundation for that particular sentence in the Apostle's Creed is pretty weak biblically.

We have been reciting the Apostles' Creed corporately at my church each Sunday for the last year. At that point in the creed, rather than not reciting the traditional line, we have changed it (making a translator's interpretation) to read "He received the wrath of God." This captures the spirit of the credal line, echoes Calvin's view of this portion of the creed, and, in our estimation, is biblically accurate.

Trevin Wax with a helpful article:

Here are a number of urban legends that get repeated in sermons. Some are more pervasive than others, even appearing in commentaries and scholarly works.

1. The “eye of the needle” refers to a gate outside Jerusalem.

“It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God,” says Jesus in Mark 10:25. Maybe you’ve heard of the gate in Jerusalem called the “eye of the needle.” The camel could pass through it only after stooping down and having all its baggage taken off.

The illustration is used in many sermons as an example of coming to God on our knees and without our baggage. The only problem is… there is no evidence for such a gate. The story has been around since the 15th century, but there isn’t a shred of evidence to support it.

2. The high priest tied a rope around his ankle so that others could drag him out of the Holy of Holies in case God struck him dead.

Various versions of this claim have been repeated by pastors, but it is a legend. It started in the Middle Ages and keeps getting repeated. There is no evidence for the claim in the Bible, the Apocrypha, the Dead Sea Scrolls, Josephus, the Pseudepigrapha, the Talmud, Mishna or any other source. Furthermore, the thickness of the veil (three feet) would have precluded the possibility of a priest being dragged out anyway.

3. Scribes took baths, discarded their pens, washed their hands, etc. every time they wrote the name of God.

As a way of getting across the reverence of the Jewish and Christian scribes toward God, preachers like to describe the honor given to God’s name. Unfortunately, there’s no evidence that scribes did these sorts of rituals every time they came across the name of God.

4. There was this saying among the sages: “May you be covered in your rabbi’s dust.”

This is one of the most pervasive and fast-spreading stories to flood the church in recent years. The idea is that as you walked behind your rabbi, he would kick up dust and you would become caked in it and so following your rabbi closely came to symbolize your commitment and zeal. Joel Willitts explains:

This is powerful stuff isn’t it? Well the only problem is that it just isn’t true… The context in which it is given in Mishnah Aboth 1:4 is expressly not what is assumed by those who promulgate this idea.

5. Voltaire’s house is now owned by a Bible-printing publisher.

Voltaire was famous for saying, “One hundred years from my day there will not be a Bible in the earth except one that is looked upon by an antiquarian curiosity seeker.” There is a myth out there that within 50 years of Voltaire’s death, his house was owned by a Bible society that used his own printing press to make Bibles. Sounds like a great story, but it’s not true. Regardless, Voltaire’s prediction of the demise of the Bible was vastly overstated.

6. Gehenna was a burning trash dump outside Jerusalem.

I’ve used this illustration many times. But there isn’tevidence to support this idea. Still, because it seems like a reasonable explanation for the origin of the Hinnom Valley as “hell,” commentators and preachers have accepted it. It’s possible that the verdict may still be out on this one, but not if Todd Bolen is right:

“The explanation for the ‘fire of Gehenna’ lies not in a burning trash dump, but in the burning of sacrificed children. Already in Old Testament times, the Valley of Hinnom was associated with the destiny of the wicked. That the valley was just outside the city of Jerusalem made it an appropriate symbol for those excluded from divine blessing.”

7. NASA scientists have discovered a “missing day” which corresponds to the Joshua account of the sun standing still.

Please don’t repeat this myth. There has been no “missing day” discovered, and the legend has been circulating longer than NASA has been in existence, with different scientists playing the part.

Actually, I don't know the kid, so I don't not like him as a person. But as a counterpoint to Shrode's previous adoring tribute to Bieber's towering greatness, I offer this borrowed post from my brother, honorary Thinkling Stroke:

just hear me out. i'm not hating on bieber in the sense of "i hate his music and teeny-bopper culture." i don't have strong issues with those who are fans of his, really, either. what i don't like (and i'm not calling shrode out on this, i'm just reminded of it by his post) is people trying to tout bieber as a good Christian influence amidst a sin-filled environment. (from what i read, shrode was hopeful that bieber could stand for something other than the world and that bieber came from a faithful family that he was rooting for to direct justin in the right direction.)

this has probably been addressed at stuff Christians like, but i know that Christians like to root for famous/successful Christians. heck, i praised tony dungy and kurt warner on this very blog for the confusing contentment they've demonstrated in their post-nfl lives.

on a minor level, the danger here is promoting a celebrity as Christian in such a way that they become models in the faith when they shouldn't be. on a an extreme level, the danger is following a "Christian" celebrity so that we can label our idol worship as something much more tame, like "support."

back to what spurred this line of thinking... in the thinklings post referenced above, bieber's faith-walk was wondered about and certain evidences were given in hopes that he might be a believer who is working hard at keeping his nose clean and sending out good clean, positive vibes. (i really hope i'm not misstating or misquoting anyone.)

in the comments, someone mentioned that bieber's rolling stone cover was already a sign that he was headed for or already on a slippery slope. i went looking for said photo because i had seen things of bieber on SNL that already concerned me. i really didn't think he was a Christian role model, anyway, based on the fact that he's a secular artist. shamefully, it's the cynic in me that doubts a believer who is serious about their faith can really be wildly successful in the entertainment industry.* to me, you have to sell out to some extent to be THAT successful. at the very least they aren't characterized by their faith in Christ. i could be wrong. please remind me of examples where i am.

anyway, what i found on rolling stone's site was not the cover photo in question, but a picture of bieber flipping the bird to some paparazzo. granted, this does not mean he isn't a believer. but it is evidence that we should be extremely careful in promoting any human as a role model who isn't characterized by imitating Christ.

i don't doubt that bieber is talented. i don't doubt that his music is positive. i don't doubt that he's a generally good kid. BUT what that all adds up to is as eternally significant as charlie sheen's recent tirades. beyond that, it might even be more dangerous than sheen's "words of wisdom" because bieber is safe, cuddly and encouraging. sadly, anything short of Christ just makes for a safe, cuddled and encouraged journey to hell (unless you side with rob bell (oooooh, booyah, didn't see THAT coming did you? obligatory rob bell reference: check.)) basically, #tigerblood is just as God glorifying as #bieberfever.

so, to sum up: i don't mind if you're a bieber fan. i really don't. shoot, continue to pray for him, hope he stays out of trouble, etc. but please don't try to champion him as a Christian role model or put him on a pedestal. it's ok to enjoy secular music, really it is. as long as we don't glory in it and don't idolize those who represent it. and whatever we do, we dare not label it as "Christian" so we can embrace, stomach and parade our worship of anything/anyone other than Christ.

looking for role models? look for this attitude: "Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ." 1 Corinthians 11:1

wondering what to worship/promote: "Some boast in chariots and some in horses, But we will boast in the name of the LORD, our God." Psalm 20:7

"But may it never be that I would boast, except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world." Galatians 6:14




*i believe pro athletes are different because their profession/success is based more on their athletic ability than their image or message/brand.

Hey, Houston-area peeps! The first Gospel Wakefulness Conference is April 1-2 in Conroe, Texas. You can view the conference schedule and register here.

This is a free event, at which I will share with you an eternally rich message. That's a great deal, don't-ya-know. ;-)

Via Justin Taylor:

Robbie Low, writing in Touchstone (June 2003), points to an interesting 1994 study in Switzerland about the connection between the churchgoing habits of fathers and mothers and the effect on their children when they are grown.

Here’s a summary:

In short, if a father does not go to church, no matter how faithful his wife’s devotions, only one child in 50 will become a regular worshipper. If a father does go regularly, regardless of the practice of the mother, between two-thirds and three-quarters of their children will become churchgoers (regular and irregular). If a father goes but irregularly to church, regardless of his wife’s devotion, between a half and two-thirds of their offspring will find themselves coming to church regularly or occasionally.

A non-practicing mother with a regular father will see a minimum of two-thirds of her children ending up at church. In contrast, a non-practicing father with a regular mother will see two-thirds of his children never darken the church door. If his wife is similarly negligent that figure rises to 80 percent!

The results are shocking, but they should not be surprising. They are about as politically incorrect as it is possible to be; but they simply confirm what psychologists, criminologists, educationalists, and traditional Christians know. You cannot buck the biology of the created order. Father’s influence, from the determination of a child’s sex by the implantation of his seed to the funerary rites surrounding his passing, is out of all proportion to his allotted, and severely diminished role, in Western liberal society.

... [W]hen a child begins to move into that period of differentiation from home and engagement with the world “out there,” he (and she) looks increasingly to the father for his role model. Where the father is indifferent, inadequate, or just plain absent, that task of differentiation and engagement is much harder. When children see that church is a “women and children” thing, they will respond accordingly—by not going to church, or going much less.

Curiously, both adult women as well as men will conclude subconsciously that Dad’s absence indicates that going to church is not really a “grown-up” activity. In terms of commitment, a mother’s role may be to encourage and confirm, but it is not primary to her adult offspring’s decision. Mothers’ choices have dramatically less effect upon children than their fathers’, and without him she has little effect on the primary lifestyle choices her offspring make in their religious observances.

Her major influence is not on regular attendance at all but on keeping her irregular children from lapsing altogether. This is, needless to say, a vital work, but even then, without the input of the father (regular or irregular), the proportion of regulars to lapsed goes from 60/40 to 40/60.

And of course what is best for kids is not dad simply attending church regularly, but dad loving and leading 7 days a week in response to the gospel's capture of his heart.