CML in its chronic phase can be treated with Gleevec and most patients respond well to it. But unfortunately, some do not. The disease can progress to what is called ‘blast phase’ where things go from bad to worse in a hurry.

Today’s article has to do with an apparent discovery of the cause for the transition from chronic to blast phase. Here it is:

They found that chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) progresses when immature white blood cells lose a molecule called miR-328.

That’s it. The white blood cells lose ONE MOLECULE. (The disease is initially caused by a mutation resulting from one part of one chromosome breaking off and reattaching itself to the DNA in a different spot on the chain.)

That isn’t much of a big deal to kill you, eh? One chromosome mutates and soon you have a chronic and life threatening disease. Left untreated, after some time, one white blood cell loses ONE molecule (and then many follow), and suddenly you are in blast phase. And shortly after that, if untreated, you are gone from this world.

A couple of observations:

1. Are their any good mutations? How can anyone believe that chance can produce any beneficial change in any organism that is then perpetuated to new generations? Every part of our body is essential. All it takes to kill you is one chromosome change and one molecule loss. Mutations are not good.
2. What a mighty God we serve! He designed us, in all our complexity, to live as we do in a complex, interdependent world. His mind conceived it all. Though the struggle with cancer can be daunting and is often tragic, it ought to remind us of how great God is.

P.S., I am working on an article to follow up my ‘godliness’ post a few days ago. It is getting longer and longer as I work. Maybe it should be more than one post. It will definitely become a series in our Bible Study time at our church. I think the idea of godliness (godly living) is vital for Christians in our world. So more is coming… in the meantime I am putting up links to things that interest me…

All I know is now I have an excuse for how much older I am feeling.

The camel they were on stood out from the rest. As soon as it rose to its feet, it lunged forward and tried to take a chunk out of another camel. When they arrived at their destination, all the riders safely disembarked (after the camels lay down to allow it). My brother noted that their camel was treated differently from the rest – after all the riders were off, his camel was made to stand and led away from the rest of the group. Apparently some of the other riders didn’t notice this special treatment, as they came back by the camels for pictures. My brother’s camel decided that two fellows approached too closely for its liking and tried to take a chunk out of them as well. (The fellows were also preachers…)

So, what does this tell you?

Clearly, the camel was a fundamentalist.

1. He was separated from all the others
2. He was mean and nasty
3. He had a low tolerance level for other preachers

Of course, I am using ‘he’ in a generic sense because I don’t know if the camel was a ‘he’ or a ‘she’, but I’m thinking it was a ‘he’ because fundamentalists don’t believe in women preachers. [UPDATE: a conversation with my sister-in-law confirms that all the camels that day were males. So there you go.]

The Connection between Sin and Death (Rm 5:12)

In the Bible study session, we conclude our recent study:

The Christian and Sin (3)

And in the afternoon service we take a look at what is a controversial subject (but really shouldn’t be!):

God Desires All to be Saved (1 Tim 2:3-4)

~~~

Not sure what happened to our Psalm from last week. I’ll update this once I find it.

What is godliness?

Godliness is a manner of life dominated by reverence for God that is displayed in a respect for other men that is visible to outside observers.

The word translated ‘godliness’ in the New Testament is eusebeia. According to Kittel, the root ‘seb-’ has the idea of ‘shrinking back’ or ‘falling back from’. With the prefix ‘eu-’ we could call it the ‘good shrinking back’. It is good because the term eusebeia speaks often of a proper attitude to the gods – piety – which is reflected in one’s conduct to men. Perjury, for example, is not godly. Caring for a dying father is godly. This conduct reflects an attitude of reverence towards deity and respect towards men.

In the New Testament, the term is occurs mostly in the pastoral epistles where its meaning is very parallel to Greek usage. It refers to conduct in relation to God, conduct that is no ascetic constraint but is positive expression of faith in the new life that now is and the life that is yet to come (1 Tim 4.7-8). This conduct is displayed by care of widowed mothers because such conduct pleases God (1 Tim 5.4). It is a life that is motivated by the Lord’s return, a life lived with ‘eternity in view’, since the things of this life are to be destroyed (2 Pt 3.10-11).

Godliness isn’t just private piety – it is visible piety. The gospel of grace teaches us that we are to live it out in this present world, before witnesses (Titus 2.11-12). It is to mark out the man of God, who, in contrast to the deceivers who trouble the church, is to pursue godliness rather than riches, content with his reward in heaven rather than profit on earth (1 Tim 6.1-12). It is that life to which God has provided the things pertaining to its essence and its conduct through the full knowledge of who called us by his own glory and excellence (2 Pt 1.3). God is excellent, the believer is called to excellence in this life.

In 1 Tim 2.2, the term is connected with the term ‘dignity’ (translated ‘honour’ in the KJV). Godliness speaks to the conduct of one’s life before God; dignity speaks to the quality of that life by virtue of a transformed inner man.

Godliness is given lip service today. For many people, if considered at all, it seems to simply mean, “having the right theology.” In the ancient world, some thought godliness merely meant keeping the rituals of religion, whether it be the Law of the Jews or the cultic practices of the Greeks. I am afraid many Christians today are quite satisfied with that kind of godliness today. “Get the form right, and I am all right.”

What we are after is a heart religion that reverences God and accordingly respects men. A heart religion that is no friend of the world, but a friend of God. Can it be that Christians who embrace the world and its ways are also friends of God? Are they godly?

It may be that godly Christians will come to differing applications on some specific matters of conduct, but the life of every godly Christian will be headed in the same direction: with fear toward God and respect towards men that outside observers can see – and will not confuse with worldliness.

Godliness is a manner of life dominated by reverence for God that is displayed in a respect for other men that is visible to outside observers.

One commercial we have been seeing over and over up here is promoting Tim Horton’s coffee shops, almost a national institution up here. It is one of those very few commercials that you don’t get tired of, so I thought my American readers might enjoy seeing it:

The screen here in Canada says it is based on a true story, but I haven’t been able to find any background on it.

I did find this discussion of it, which I think helps capture the emotion of the spot… and the ‘Canadian-ness’ of it as well.

My name has a long and sometimes storied history. It belongs to a whole host of characters. According to wikipedia, it is the second most common name in the USA. Alas, in the land of my forebears (Scotland), it doesn’t even make the top 20.

As I understand it, my name originally meant that its bearers were descended from one John (Iain), son of the MacDonald, who branched off and formed his own smaller clan, the MacIains (son of John, i.e., Johnson – or Johnston as we were known in the Old Country).

My name has caused me a little trouble. Some unsavoury characters share the name. No end of mocking occasionally ensues when some Johnson publicly embarrasses the rest of us possessing the name.

The worst trouble I had with my name ended up with having to resort to the intervention of our government representative (MLA – Member of the Legislative Assembly, equivalent of a State Representive in the USA). The worst of it was the fellow to whom we had to appeal for help was the man who had soundly defeated my dad in the election for the seat in the Legislature. Oh, the irony… Oh, the ignominy…

As it happened, a certain fellow (who cannot remain nameless) not only shared my last name, but also my first name and one of my two middle initials. It seems that this fellow was not a good boy like me and had been apprehended driving a vehicle while rather intoxicated. The problem was that something happened on the way to suspending his license and the notice came to me (while I was a preacher boy at BJU, no less!!). And of course the offense was published in my local newspaper, whose editors, being political opponents of my dad, were only too happy to splash his name in the headline announcing ‘my’ misdeeds.

So you can see, my name has caused me some trouble. The little incident mentioned above was eventually sorted out, but had to involve the help of the MLA I mentioned. I am not sure if the paper ever published any retractions.

In any case, I have been thinking about the trouble caused me by my name. What should I do about it?

• Should I change it?It seems to have lost some of its original meaning, eh?
• Should I use it only as an ‘in-house’ name for my own family members, lest I should experience more ridicule by those on the outside?
• Should I be concerned that others might think that I am a Johnson like those drunken Johnsons they know down the street from them?

What do you think?

Personally, my name is Johnson, and I’m comfortable with it. It is who I am and describes the line from which I am descended. I think I’ll live with it, no matter what my lunatic possible relations might do.

P. S. Disclaimer for the humour-challenged: If you don’t see any humour in this post, you are either unaware of what I am referring to and/or possibly one of those narrow-minded f________ists that you aren’t comfortable being known as.

Here is the first article, “A Roller Coaster Chase for a Cure”

Here is the second, “After Long Fight, Drug Gives Sudden Reprieve”

UPDATE: Here is the third and last article in the frustrating fight against melanoma, “A Drug Trial Cycle: Recovery, Relapse, Reinvention”

Another complicating factor in making these comparisons is that the ‘competing’ ministries are represented by ministries strongly identified with a popular individual on the conservative evangelical side as opposed to more institutional or group oriented ministries/organizations on the fundamentalist side.

Others have noticed this difference also. The Conservative Evangelical brand is largely led by ministries centered around prominent individuals. The Fundamentalist brand, these days, really has no star power in its leaders and it tends to find whatever leadership it has in collective efforts, rather than in individual ministries.

That is a generalization, of course. There are, I suppose, some exceptions to the rule, but I think the generalization holds.

For example, when you think Conservative Evangelical, you think of a list of names: Dever, Piper, Mahaney, Mohler, MacArthur, etc. Some of these men represent institutions and work closely with a number of other men, but there is a sense that they are the focal point of the brand.

On the other hand, when you think Fundamentalism, what comes to mind? Bob Jones University, the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship, Maranatha, Detroit, Central, the Wilds, etc. Of course, individuals lead these ministries and fill up their staffs, but I would suggest that even fairly well informed observers would have to think a bit to get the individual leaders of ALL of these ministries. On the CE side, if we simply named 9Marks, Desiring God, Sovereign Grace, Southern Seminary, Grace to You… most observers – regular readers of this blog – would be able to put the names to those ministries without any effort.

Isn’t that a curious difference? It wasn’t always so in Fundamentalism. And that involves both an irony and a sign of generational change.

The irony is this: One of the big complaints against fundamentalism is that fundamentalism is personality driven, led by larger than life dictators, and ‘that’s gotta stop!’

Ironically, which brand is led by personalities these days?

Isn’t it interesting that so many of those who complain about a ‘personality driven movement’ are moving towards a real personality driven movement? Just who is ‘man-centered’ here, anyway?

The generational change is this: When I was going through university and seminary, fundamentalism was dominated by big names. Hyles, Jones, Rice, and others like them were very prominent. As these men passed off the scene, who really took up the same kind of prominence in leadership?((Before you jump all over the Hyles reference, please be aware there was a time when he was relatively mainstream in fundamentalism – a time before he took some infamously extreme positions.))

The FBF, for example, is led by a collective group of men on the board, some fairly well known, others less well known. Dr. Bob III is still a prominent name, but his style is different from his fathers. He is more of a transitional figure between the older generation and men my age (the leadership age – or the mid-life crisis age, take your pick). No one from the next generation of men have really emerged as any kind of dynamic leader as yet.

So there has been a change in fundamentalism. Is this the natural process of things? Is the current state of affairs better or worse? It could be considered better, if the idea of dynamic and dominant personal leadership is actually as bad as it is made out to be. On the other hand, it could be that the lack of dynamic leadership is contributing to the restlessness of the natives. Having no chief to follow, the Indians are straying to other reservations where there are heap big chiefs aplenty.

~~~

I don’t think someone should now set out to become the fundamentalist guru to rally the troops around his dynamic version of fundamentalism. But I do wish that some of our more prominent leaders would talk up the idea of a Bible-believing, soul-winning, orthodoxy-loving Fundamentalism once again. It seems to me that we need a bit more outspoken leadership in the Fundamentalist direction than we are getting.

He suggests that it is easy to summarize in a few short words or a phrases the essential vision of various evangelical ministries, but questions whether that is true of fundamentalist ministries or institutions. I don’t happen to think that he is right, but he seems to think that the ‘visions’ of the evangelicals are more compelling than the lack of vision of fundamentalists.

Another complicating factor in making these comparisons is that the ‘competing’ ministries are represented by ministries strongly identified with a popular individual on the conservative evangelical side as opposed to more institutional or group oriented ministries/organizations on the fundamentalist side. In some ways we aren’t really comparing apples to apples here.

Having said that, the idea of ‘vision’ (or ‘mission statements’) leaves me cold. Too much corporate psycho-babble for me.

I wonder, however, if a few readers would like to chime in on the subject by giving us their brief ‘vision statements’ for the various ministries mentioned. Here is the list:

• 9Marks
• Ligonier
• Grace To You
• Desiring God
• BJU
• FBFI
• Sword of the Lord

I am going to post the complete post I am reacting to after the jump, so I would suggest that it would be best if you write out your vision/mission statements first, without looking at the post or other comments. Then click through to my comments section and post your reaction.

We can discuss various other aspects of this post as well, but let’s start with how well we can define these ministries without looking up their mission statements on their web-sites or doing any research about them. If you aren’t that familiar with a ministry, ‘I don’t know’ is an acceptable response.

More below…

Here is the post I am reacting to in it’s entirety:

Will Dudding says:

February 12, 2010 at 9:20 pm

Don, Piper makes Calvinism understandable and makes us see the connection between the head and the heart. All he does is parrot Jonathan Edwards.

Anyway, to get back on topic, I’ve said before on a discussion on SI a while ago that another reason people are flocking to these ministries is about leadership, not the music.

• When I look at 9Marks Ministry, without going to their website, I can tell you what they’re all about – they are trying to strengthen the local church by bringing people back to a Biblical model.
• Ligonier Ministries – They want to awaken people to the glory and holiness of God.
• Grace To You – They want the Word of God to powerfully change people through expository preaching,
• Desiring God – they want to awaken people to the pleasure of knowing God as their supreme pleasure.

On the other hand, name me any Fundamentalist institution and ask someone what they exist to accomplish…would anyone beside their faculty be able to answer that with clarity?:

• BJU – To preserve fundamentalism??
• FBFI – to make resolutions every year??
• Sword of the Lord – to preserve revivalism?

I know that my own alma mater has sent letters encouraging support of their college to keep the “old time religion” around.

To tell you the truth, I like the visions of the CE’s better!
So, fundamentalists have a choice – they can keep dumping on these guys and drive more of their best people to them, or they can acknowledge what they’re doing right and figure out what they’re not doing right, have the guts to admit it, change it and keep some of the young generation to carry on.

I’ll offer my own articulation of the vision of each ministry in the comments after we have collected a few from others. I am afraid my summaries may not be quite as ‘fresh’ as yours might be, I am already influenced by Will’s and will have read any that come in before I post mine. I have already written out most of mine, but let’s see what someone else might say before I put them out there. (That is, assuming I have any readers interested enough to post.)