http://www.fallacydetective.com/chrisalexion/ en calexion@zoominternet.net Copyright 2008 2008-03-08T15:49:52-06:00 chrisalexionhttp://feedburner.google.com http://www.fallacydetective.com/chrisalexion/read/david-waiting-on-the-world-to-change/ http://www.fallacydetective.com/chrisalexion/read/david-waiting-on-the-world-to-change/#When:14:49:52Z "The Lord said to Samuel, 'How long will you grieve over Saul, since I have rejected him from being king over Israel? Fill your horn with oil, and go. I will send you to Jesse the Bethlehemite, for I have provided for myself a king among his sons.'" So begins the story of David, possibly Israel's greatest king, in 1 Samuel 16:1. David's beginnings weren't auspicious. He wasn't the top draft pick for the next king of Israel. In fact, when Samuel arrives to meet Jesse's sons, no one even thinks to call David in from tending the sheep (16:11). But God's choice was clear. "For the Lord sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart" (16:7). The best leader isn't always the one we think would make the best leader. God's leaders aren't culled from the ranks of the secular elite, or the most talented, or the most popular. The temptation for today's church is to compromise intellectually and ethically with the secular systems around us, just as Israel clamored for Samuel to "appoint us a king to judge us like all the nations" (8:5). Not only did David's road to kingship begin humbly, but it didn't accelerate quickly, either. Samuel anoints the young king in chapter 16, but David doesn't inherit a unified Israel until the book of 2 Samuel. The intervening chapters/years are filled with trials, temptations, struggles, hopes, fears, triumphs, and blood. How does David respond to this long road? More pertinent, what do we get out of David's response? We could take the Sunday School route and point to how faith slays giants. We could also use David's life as some kind of motivational story. But I'd suggest that David's primary witness to us is that young leaders only grow into older, wiser leaders by maintaining faith in God's timing. Easy to say, but incredibly hard to practice. And what right do I have to say this, anyway? Because I know firsthand how hard it is to live the "young man" part. I don't naturally want to wait for God's timing. I figure I know best. Yet look at David. He was promised the kingdom, but had incredible trials to pass through first. His patience is key. Still, I don't suppose we could leave David's life without mentioning Goliath. David's battle with the giant Philistine was the breakout moment of his life of leadership, and demonstrated the young man's immense courage (he either didn't fear death, or, more importantly, did his job in spite of fear) and faith. The battle also highlights David's true motivation and the source of his power. "For who is this uncircumcised Philistine, that he should defy the armies of the living God?…The Lord who delivered me from the paw of the lion and from the paw of the bear will deliver me from the hand of this Philistine" (17:26,37). The young leader here shows us two very important things: (1) His motivation was God's honor. It wasn't so much that Goliath had insulted Israel; it was that he had defied the living God. This enraged David. (2) His strength wasn't his own. The young David was confident, not cocky; he knew better than to trust his own strength. "This day the Lord will deliver you into my hand, and I will strike you down and cut off your head…that all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel, and that all this assembly may know that the Lord saves not with sword and spear. For the battle is the Lord's, and he will give you into our hand." This will turn out to be a key theme in the Psalms: a horse is vain for safety, no king is saved by his great armies; if the Lord had not been on our side, we would have perished. So David slew the giant. You'd expect that now his leadership career would be set. He received the priestly anointing and proved himself in combat. But David has one more trial to experience: politics. David doesn't skyrocket to kingship; he has to work his way up the ranks under King Saul, who grows extremely jealous of the young commander (18:8). Saul manipulates circumstances in order to try to get David killed (18:17ff), but God is with David even there. Finally the threads holding Saul's sanity together begin to snap, and David finds himself a wanted man, hiding in hills and caves (21:1ff). What happened to God's promise? What kind of timing is this? Instead of becoming king over Israel, David is leading a band of rejects in the mountains (22:2). And Saul still wants him dead. Wouldn't many people–many Christians–lose hope and take matters into their own hands? Through everything, however, David trusts in God's timing, even when presented with what looked like golden opportunities to kill Saul and seize the kingdom (24:4ff, 26:10ff). Young people can wait–and I'm not just talking about sex. We can trust God in a multitude of areas, and the results are always better this way. David's example is incredibly relevant to issues facing young people. Take relationships–some of us are single, maybe coming off a painful relationship that didn't work out. We haven't met "the one," and we don't know when or how we will. Do we stress out and try to take matters in our own hands? Or take career pathing–not all of us know exactly what we're going to do with the rest of our lives. The future is hazy; heck, even the present gets a little foggy. Do we have the patience to live life as it unfolds? I'm not talking about using faith as an excuse to do nothing. There are obviously things we need to do to take charge in our lives–"waiting on God" shouldn't be code for sitting on our hands. But the question is whether, as we do these things, we rely on our own strength or wisdom to get us through, and whether we get frustrated because we can only see so far ahead. David had only bits and pieces; he was only given enough at one time to take the next step in his life. What made it possible for David was that he knew the One who was doing the unfolding. Is that good enough for us? Ethics & the Church 2008-03-08T14:49:52-06:00 http://www.fallacydetective.com/chrisalexion/read/saul-popular-but-wrong/ http://www.fallacydetective.com/chrisalexion/read/saul-popular-but-wrong/#When:11:22:31Z Saul, the first king of Israel, was People magazine's choice for "King of the Year." Well, not exactly. But he was the people's choice. He was "a handsome young man. There was not a man among the people of Israel more handsome than he. From his shoulders upward he was taller than any of the people" (9:2). Apart from his Matt-Damonesque looks, Saul apparently had spirituality and humility. He prophesied (10:10) and at first shied away from the honor of kingship (10:22). Saul was also a valiant warrior; his rule was marked by incredible military success. First he came to the rescue of one of Israel's cities and whipped the Ammonites (ch. 11). Then he and his sturdy son Jonathan fought successfully against the Philistines (ch. 13-14). To sum up, "When Saul had taken the kingship over Israel, he fought against all his enemies on every side, against Moab, against the Ammonites, against Edom, against the kings of Zobah, and against the Philistines. Wherever he turned he routed them. And he did valiantly and struck the Amalekites and delivered Israel out of the hands of those who plundered them" (14:47-48). So far, so good. A mighty and patriotic leader. The headquarters of modern-day Israel's intelligence service is even located on a boulevard in Tel Aviv named for King Saul. But something was wrong. Maybe it was present all along; maybe it began to grow in Saul only after he became king. Maybe it was pride; mabye it was rebellion; maybe emotional problems were involved. Whatever it was, Saul failed to do what had made Samuel great: He failed to listen to God. Saul's dark side first surfaces in chapter 13. Saul is about to battle the Philistines and is waiting for Samuel to arrive so the sacrifice to the Lord can be offered. Saul is not a priest, and he was specifically instructed to wait for Samuel. Samuel doesn't show. Saul waits. Still Samuel doesn't come. Finally Saul offers the sacrifice himself. In a twist of irony we read, "As soon as he had finished offering the burnt offering, behold, Samuel came" (13:10). Saul tries to make an excuse, but as we saw in the last post, Samuel confronts him plainly with his disobedience and prophesies the loss of Saul's kingdom. You might think Saul would learn from this experience. Yet sometime later, after his victory over the Amalekites, he disobeys God again. God had commanded, for reasons of His justice, that the nation of Amalek be completely destroyed, livestock and all. No one was to be spared. Saul, however, knows better. He takes the king, Agag, as a prisoner of war and keeps the livestock for his army. "All that was despised and worthless," however, "they devoted to destruction" (15:9). God had, of course, explicitly forbidden this, and again it falls to Samuel to rebuke the wayward king. Even though the past two failures had determined the end of Saul's reign, the end was still a ways off. Saul continues as king, and his spiritual condition worsens. Things even start to go poorly militarily, until a young man named David appears and slays a Philistine giant named Goliath. Saul welcomes David; his son Jonathan treats David like his own brother. But a new evil springs up in Saul. Before, he was disobedient to God; now he's jealous of his fellow man. His blood boils when he hears the Jewish women singing, "Saul has struck down his thousands / and David his ten thousands" (18:7). He'd thought he was People's hottest man of the year; who is this David to take his place? Saul's life quickly spirals out of control. A "harmful spirit from God rushed upon" him (18:10), robbing him at times of his own sanity. He attempts to kill both David (18:11, 19:10-17) and Jonathan (20:33). He still pursues David, even though David spares Saul's life twice. He dabbles in witchcraft (ch 28), a perfect complement to his rebellious spirit. Eventually Saul, the great warrior, falls on his own sword after losing both a battle and his three sons (31:4). What do we take away from Saul's life story? What most grips us about his rule and its violent end? It seems shallow to say "Saul should have listened to God" or "Saul should have been less self-absorbed," because we know deep down that we don't listen to God, and that we're just as self-absorbed–only in "nicer" forms. These PowerPoint cliches don't cut past the surface. It's like watching Training Day and then saying, "Don't do drugs." Maybe it would be more worthwhile to put ourselves in Saul's place and try to identify the places where our leadership choices line up with his. When was the last time we judged success by victory on the "battlefield" of dollars or stats? Where have we predicted a good leader based on appearances? Why did we throw that verbal barb at someone whose success threatened ours? Where have we cut corners, ethically, to get ahead? What "accepted," "expected," and "common" things have we done along with everyone else? All of this self-judgment, of course, can't be separated from the Gospel of redemption. It's redemption that Saul's life, ended by his own sword on a bloody field, so sorely lacks. Saul's choices made him more and more of an enemy of God. That's us. We were God's enemies, until, as Paul reminds us, "while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son" (Romans 5:10). Ethics & the Church 2008-03-02T11:22:31-06:00 http://www.fallacydetective.com/chrisalexion/read/samuel-listen-to-the-voice-of-god/ http://www.fallacydetective.com/chrisalexion/read/samuel-listen-to-the-voice-of-god/#When:15:12:13Z The life of Samuel, one of Israel's greatest prophets, begings with a unique story. We start with an average Jewish man and his two wives (we won't go there right now). One wife, Peninnah, has children, and the other wife, Hannah, is childless but beloved by her husband. Now, Peninnah is a little jealous. Even though she bore her husband children (the ultimate goal or status symbol of a woman in that particular culture), she's upset that childless Hannah gets a double portion of the ritual meal during the yearly sacrifice. A bitter Peninnah routinely taunts and provokes Hannah. This goes on for years. Hannah can only bear so much; she weeps and can't eat. Her husband Elkanah asks, "Hannah, why do you weep? … And why is your heart sad? Am I not more to you than ten sons?" (1:8). Now it's a little unclear how to take Elkanah's question here. Elkanah probably means well, even if he spits a somewhat lofty view of his own game. But Hannah is unconsoled. "She was deeply distressed and prayed to the Lord and wept bitterly" (1:10). It doesn't help that Eli originally misunderstands her fervent, silent prayers, thinking she's drunk. But when he learns of her situation, he gives her his blessing. God soon gives His, and Hannah has a son she names Samuel. Hannah keeps her word–she had promised that she would dedicate this son to God's service, and when Samuel is just a few years old (the text says as soon as he was weaned), she takes him back to the temple and leaves him there to learn from Eli and serve God. Out of this unique background comes Samuel the prophet. I recap the story because it shows that God's providential hand works behind the scenes in the formation of a leader. God uses our circumstances–including even mundane elements of childhood–to shape and mold us. Hannah's story also shows the role of faith and prayer in the preparation of a leader, as well as the crucial role a godly mother plays. No Hannah, no Samuel. The first "plot point," if you will, of Samuel's career occurs when he's a "young man" (3:1). It was a sign of Israel's decline that "the word of the Lord was rare in those days; there was no frequent vision." Yet one night Samuel hears an audible voice waking him from sleep: "Samuel!" At first Samuel thinks the old priest Eli is calling him, but Eli eventually realizes (after Samuel is called for the third time) that the Lord is the one calling Samuel. "Go, lie down, and if he calls you, you shall say, 'Speak, Lord, for your servant hears'" (3:9). Samuel does listen, and what he hears is the chilling curse on Eli's house we saw in the last post. Listening to God is another key trait of a good leader. Depending on our own wisdom, strength, insight, or panache won't cut it. We need the "word of the Lord." As we'll see later in 1 Samuel, the godly leader David frequently sought and accepted God's counsel on important decisions–and sometimes his life depended on hearing from God. This may sound simplistic. But if it's so simple, why do we neglect it so much? We tell ourselves that we too would listen to God more if we could call for a priest to bring the ephod so we'd know His will. But we already have a much greater revelation. It's written in our language, written by men moved by the Holy Spirit, and shame on us if we don't listen to it, whether for our home, church, or work life. How often do we say, "Speak, Lord, for your servant hears"? We also learn from Samuel that a godly leader isn't afraid to speak what he's heard. The next morning, Eli asks Samuel what God had said. Samuel, of course, knew Eli wouldn't enjoy hearing the truth. But Eli charges him, "Do not hide it from me. May God do so to you and more also if you hide anything from me of all that he told you" (3:17). Young Samuel does repeat God's words for Eli, and begins his career of prophetic confrontation. Later he will confront unruly Israel over their demand for a secular king: "And in that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have choses for yourselves, but the Lord will not answer you in that day" (8:18). He will also confront rebellious King Saul, who broke a clear command from God: "You have done foolishly. You have not kept the command of the Lord your God. . . . [N]ow your kingdom shall not continue. The Lord has sought out a man after his own heart, and the Lord has commanded him to be prince over his people, because you have not kept what the Lord commanded you. . . . The Lord has torn the kingdom of Israel from you this day and has given it to a neighbor of yours, who is better than you" (13:13-14; 15:28). Learning the art of skillful confrontation is a must. While certainly confronting someone requires caution–a pugnacious leader is a disgrace (Titus 1:7)–there are times when refusing to confront sin is itself a sin. Eli was guilty of this offense, and, sadly, even Samuel wasn't in the clear. The apostle Paul's standards for leadership include that one's children "are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination." A leader with kids, in other words, has a responsibility to be a good father. While there's no specific guarantee that the children of Christians will automatically become saved, we do have a right to expect that a godly leader will bring up his children in the "discipline and instruction of the Lord" (Ephesians 6:4). Samuel, unfortunately, had sons who "did not walk in his ways but turned aside after gain. They took bribes and perverted justice" (8:3). This gross misconduct contributed to Israel's desire for a king: "Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah and said to him, 'Behold, you are old and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now appoint for us a king to judge us like all the nations'" (8:4-5). This doesn't excuse the elders of Israel from rejecting God for a king. But you can almost see their point. And that hammers home one more thing: Leadership begins at home. ----- Ethics & the Church 2008-02-29T15:12:13-06:00 http://www.fallacydetective.com/chrisalexion/read/eli-afraid-to-use-the-axe/ http://www.fallacydetective.com/chrisalexion/read/eli-afraid-to-use-the-axe/#When:01:21:14Z Eli the priest appears in the first chapter of 1 Samuel when he blesses Hannah, soon to be the mother of Samuel, for her faith. But it's not really until the next chapter that we learn what kind of a leader Eli was. 2:12 tells us something important: "Now the sons of Eli were worthless men. They did not know the Lord…." The passage goes on to describe how Eli's two sons "treated the offering of the Lord with contempt" because they used it as a means to make gain for themselves. They threatened force against their fellow Israelites if they didn't comply with their demands, and slept with the women who served at the entrance to the tabernacle. Eli knew what his sons were doing. "Now Eli was very old, and he kept hearing all that his sons were doing to all Israel, and how they lay with the women who were serving at the entrance to the tent of meeting. And he said to them, 'Why do you do such things? For I hear of your evil dealings from all the people. No, my sons; it is no good report that I hear the people of the Lord spreading abroad'" (2:22-24). So Eli rebukes his sons for their evildoing. Good, right? An act of godly leadership? But less than a page later, a man approaches Eli with a message from God. "Why," he asks, "do you scorn my sacrifices…and honor your sons above me by fattening your selves on the choicest parts of every offering of my people Israel?" (2:29). The prophet continues: Therefore the Lord, the God of Israel, declares: "I promised that your house and the house of your father should go in and out before me forever," but now the Lord declares, "Far be it from me, for those who honor me I will honor, and those who despise me shall be lightly esteemed. Behold, the days are coming when I will cut off your strength and the strength of your father's house, so that there will not be an old man in your house. … The only one of you whom I shall not cut off from my altar shall be spared to weep his eyes out to grieve his heart, and all the descendants of your house shall die by the sword of men." (2:30-33) Harsh words. But what was Eli's mistake? He didn't do these things; his sons did. And he rebuked them for it. So where's the problem? It becomes a little clearer in 2:11-14: Then the Lord said to Samuel, "Behold, I am about to do a thing in Israel at which the two ears of everyone who hears it will tingle. On that day I will fulfill against Eli all that I have spoken concerning his house, from beginning to end. And I declare to him that I am about to punish his house forever, for the iniquity that he knew, because his sons were blaspheming God, and he did not restrain them. Therefore I swear to the house of Eli that the iniquity of Eli's house shall not be atoned for by sacrifice or offering forever." Giving his sons a fatherly talking-to wasn't enough. Eli, as priest, failed to "restrain them." He allowed them to remain in their ministerial roles even when they were perverting justice. As priest he should have taken steps to ensure the purity of the house of God. And for this the sin of his own house was never forgiven. A godly leader, then, must exercise biblical discipline within his office. Kenneth Lay can't blame Arthur Andersen when Enron's books don't line up. Bush can't blame everything on Rove, Libby, or Rumsfeld. In other words, there's a sense in which a leader becomes responsible for the actions–even the mistakes–of those who serve under him. A true leader will use his authority to "restrain" evil quickly, before it brings down the entire structure. Ethics & the Church 2008-02-28T01:21:14-06:00 http://www.fallacydetective.com/chrisalexion/read/1-samuel-flesh-and-blood-leadership/ http://www.fallacydetective.com/chrisalexion/read/1-samuel-flesh-and-blood-leadership/#When:03:20:38Z 1 Samuel may be a history book, but it's a history book with a key emphasis: leadership. And since the stories in this book are historical, the style isn't that of a preachy New York Times bestseller. Rather, the book is incarnational, giving us flesh-and-blood examples of four leaders who were smart, lazy, wicked, good, brave, cowardly, cruel, and–above all–human. Throughout the book God is present, either in the story or what we might call "editorially," providing the divine perspective on these human leaders. So why should you care? Because you either are or will be in a position of (1) leadership; or (2) someone under leadership. Groundbreaking revelation, right? Either way, we'll need to know what biblical leadership looks like, especially young people like me who need God's wisdom to take leadership and initiative in our own lives. In the next few posts we'll look at four flesh-and-blood leaders: Eli, Samuel, Saul, and David. We'll see the good and the bad, the wise and the foolish, the greatness and the flaws. And hopefully we'll take it to heart. Ethics & the Church 2008-02-26T03:20:38-06:00 http://www.fallacydetective.com/chrisalexion/read/the-bravery-live/ http://www.fallacydetective.com/chrisalexion/read/the-bravery-live/#When:18:15:18Z I had a chance to see The Bravery in concert in Philly last night. A good show overall, and one I hope to see again. Sam Endicott's vocals weren't quite on par with the studio version–few singers can manage to sound the same live–but he was a great frontman, throwing his entire body into his performance. Michael Zakarin was also high-energy, especially while providing lead vocals on a previously unrealeased number. Though it would have been nice if bassist "Dirt" Hindert had picked up some of the energy. The band kicked off the set with "Split Me Wide Open" and worked through old and new favorites from the self-titled debut and The Sun and the Moon. "Believe" was great, and the guys completely electrified the room with "Time Won't Let Me Go." They also introduced three songs from the upcoming album The Sun and the Moon Complete, which Sam called "the Moon Album"–all of the songs from The Sun and the Moon re-recorded as never before. The three they rolled out were "This is Not the End," "Tragedy Bound," and "The Ocean," all of which had an edgier, more urgent sound. The album comes out in March. ----- Music & Film 2008-02-23T18:15:18-06:00 http://www.fallacydetective.com/chrisalexion/read/postmodern-pretenders/ http://www.fallacydetective.com/chrisalexion/read/postmodern-pretenders/#When:01:00:42Z "The reason I want nothing to do with postmodernism (in all its current forms) is because they are pretending to be at odds with modernity. They are pretending to run away from home. They are pretending that having a spat with a fellow priest of Baal is the same thing as razing the temple. "You want something to describe a full-throated rejection of modernity and all its idols? Do you want to reject modernity, and its cheap knock-offs, like postmodernity? Tired of rejecting the idol of Britney Spears in the name of Christin[a] Aguilera? Tired of casting out the demons of Mammon with the devils of Money? Tired of rejecting this kind of secular neutrality for that kind of secular neutrality? Tired of banishing Howdy on the authority of Doody? "Then you don't want postmodernism; you want Christendom. And if you want Christendom, you should pray for Christendom, as the Lord taught us to pray, saying — 'Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.'" - Doug Wilson, "Pray for Christendom" Quotable 2008-02-20T01:00:42-06:00 http://www.fallacydetective.com/chrisalexion/read/the-pharisee-within/ http://www.fallacydetective.com/chrisalexion/read/the-pharisee-within/#When:20:11:53Z I once heard a story. A man driving through a bad part of town was carjacked by a local gang. They beat him within inches of his life and stripped him of his cash and credit cards. The man lay there, unable to move, as his blood darkened the pavement. After some time, a noted Reformed scholar happened down the road. Seeing the wounded man, the Reformed man thought about helping, but, realizing that the man could have been a heretic in need of divine judgment, passed by on the other side. More time elapsed. A Southern Baptist preacher came upon the robbery victim. He too would have helped the man, only he was late for an important meeting. The preacher looked down the street, glancing between the horizon and his watch, and finally drove off, giving the wounded man a wide berth. Surely someone would come in time. Finally, someone did come by. This man was a homosexual who attended a liberal mainline church. Seeing the injured man, the homosexual stopped the car and checked the man's pulse. He was alive–barely. The driver put the man in his own car and drove him to the nearest hospital. Since the man's wallet was gone, the hospital had no idea as to his identity or insurance coverage, so the gay man arranged to be billed himself for the man's care. "Now," said the man who told me the story, "which one of these was the victim's neighbor?" I heard another story. This story takes place in a quiet church, and two men are praying inside. One, a conservative Christian, begins by thanking God. He thanks God that he is not like the world around him; he protests abortion, tithes weekly, and is faithful to his wife. He casts a quick glance at the other man and thanks God that he is not a Clinton Democrat, robbing the people through taxation. The Clinton Democrat is afraid to even raise his voice or eyes to God. He only murmurs, "God, be merciful to a sinner like me." "I ask you," said the storyteller, "which of these two men went away right with God?" * * * Perhaps these parables are a little incendiary. It's intentional. They have to be, because we so easily distort the truth. Even our reading of Scripture is tainted by our fallen nature, and unless the Holy Spirit enlightens us as we read–comparing spiritual things with spiritual–we'll remain blind and deaf to the text. We always want to tacitly separate ourselves from Scripture's rough criticism. The ancient Israelites, for instance, were a stiff-necked people–a silly, faithless mob. I'm glad we're not like them. See how it works? Even Jesus' parables are victims of this coloring or misinterpretation. We know the "right" answer, and we subconsciously identify ourselves with the person in the parable that we want to be. But what if we allow ourselves to complacently become the exact target Jesus meant to spear? We then miss His whole point and rob His parables of their razor edge. We create a de-clawed Jesus. Take, for instance, the parable of the Good Samaritan. That's us, right? We're the good Samaritan, not the arrogant scribes and Pharisees. But "Good Samaritan" is now such a cliche that we've forgotten what it would have meant to Jesus' audience. Samaria was a half-Jewish, half-pagan nation resulting from the repopulation of the Northern kingdom after the war with Assyria. The Samaritan religion was a heretical mixture of God's Word and pagan ideas. No respectable evangelical minister would have had anything to do with it. And yet in Christ's story, the orthodox preachers pass by on the other side, and the heretic does what God requires. "The Good Samaritan" wasn't a heartwarming tale; it was a slap in the face to the religious establishment of Jesus' day. It would be like saying that a homosexual did the right thing, and two straight Christians failed. Or consider the two men in the temple. We automatically recoil from the Pharisee; we're the humble publican. But if we as evangelical, Reformed people become puffed up at our "savedness," distance ourselves from "them" on the "outside," and equate politics with the Gospel, we become the Pharisees. We're not any better because we're saved; it's simply a testament to God's mercy that He saves and preserves us in spite of our thick heads. Calvinists have a special temptation: We believe that God chose us by free grace before the foundation of the world. So that makes us better than the rest, right? How do we fight our own Pharisaical tendencies, instead of just pointing out the problems of others? For instance, finding Christians who look down on gays is easy. Finding one who treats them as human beings and neighbors who need to be loved and given the Gospel is harder. According to Jesus, we're all sexual sinners (Matthew 5), so we need salvation just as desperately. Also, getting caught up in left-wing/right-wing politics is easy. Keeping Christ central is harder. Being saved by all five solas of the Reformation doesn't mean jack squat if we're proud of ourselves for knowing them. But one more temptation is ready to seduce those of us who get the message and strive to root out the Pharisee inside us. Are we better than other conservative evangelical Christians or fundamentalists who don't get it? Are we a better, more humble, more relevant breed of Christian? Two men were praying in the temple. . . . ----- Ethics & the Church 2008-02-18T20:11:53-06:00 http://www.fallacydetective.com/chrisalexion/read/luther-on-spiritual-warfare/ http://www.fallacydetective.com/chrisalexion/read/luther-on-spiritual-warfare/#When:17:15:25Z I can't believe that, in my final post on Ephesians, I forgot one of the Reformation's greatest quotes on spiritual warfare. Did we in our own strength confide, Our strivings would be losing; Were not the right Man on our side– The Man of God's own choosing. Dost ask who that may be? Christ Jesus, it is He. Lord Sabaoth His name; From age to age the same– And He must win the battle. And though this world, with devils filled, Should threaten to undo us, We will not fear, for God has willed His truth to triumph through us. The prince of darkness grim, We tremble not for him; His rage we can endure– For lo: his doom is sure. One little word can fell him. - Martin Luther, "A Mighty Fortress is Our God." Quotable 2008-02-16T17:15:25-06:00 http://www.fallacydetective.com/chrisalexion/read/not-so-postmodern-after-all/ http://www.fallacydetective.com/chrisalexion/read/not-so-postmodern-after-all/#When:22:43:08Z "The postmodernists, falsely so-called, think they are going west because they have walked a few feet west down the center aisle of an airplane flying east." - Douglas Wilson, "Postdrunkenness" ----- Quotable 2008-02-15T22:43:08-06:00