It seems that every waking second is being spent putting together my thesis. Every other second is dedicated to starting a job hunt. I will then have to find more seconds to devote to our little girl who is arriving in October.

In all, this leave zero seconds for the site at the moment.

However, the archive is rich with content – so please browse and enjoy. Use the search bar and browse the 650 or so posts written over several year by numerous people.

Colin

1. A person or group can create a virtual character of another person or group that becomes “real” for those who hear the gossip. Truth out of thin air.
2. Gossiping requires and presumes no obligation to act upon the gossip. It is merely there for promulgation and evaluation. Gossip is passive.

Unfortunately I can say this, and many Christians will likely agree: being a Christian enables one to see and hear a lot of gossiping. That is sad.

A Brief and Hopefully General Anecdote
Big surprise – the family of God can be dysfunctional. I, and particularly my wife, have been on the wrong end of gossip. And it is from that experience and my perception of injustice which makes this sin “exceptionally sinful” in my eyes. When someone finally admits to years and years of malicious, targeted, vengeful and enviously motivated slander and gossip, particularly about one’s spouse, it tends to colour one’s view. When that person continues to engage in gossip and outright slander even after such an admission, it can be a real challenge to be like Christ.

I would never say that the actions in this anecdote are acceptable – gossip isn’t. But the gospel informs me that in my sinful condition I deserve worse, and that no one, no one has sinned against me or my wife as much as I have sinned against God. I have no right to condemn another person, moreover, one whom God has saved (I presume this person was a Christian who struggles with the sin, rather than an unregenerate sinner masquerading as a Christian).

Confronting Gossip
Because gossip is a sin which at its root promotes self-righteousness, pride and ultimately an alternative reality of “false truths,” confronting it is incredibly, incredibly problematic. Not only does confronting gossip challenge a person in the way that all admonition does, it also challenges the self-righteousness which has been built up, and furthermore threatens or destroys that alternative reality which has hitherto been unchallenged (in actually, that guy isn’t a jerk; that woman is not cheating on her taxes; that couple is not having intimacy problems). Even more dangerous, if that alternative reality was created to justify or mask even further sin, then things can get especially dicey (that 19-year-old boy was not actually looking at pornography, and in fact he is an upstanding young man and the boy who spread the gossip was jealous of his new girlfriend). In that situation, challenging the gossip could threaten an entire worldview with potentially years of invested sin and “false truths” wrapped up and conflated together.

Yes, even for Christians, gossip can run that deep. Much of the time, however, much of the gossip in churches is in the form of information about others which is not particularly damaging or even false, but nevertheless conforms to the definition of being bypassing and passive. Gossip does not have to be false in order to still be gossip.

All sins have consequences. Some such as adultery, anger, gossip (to name a few) generally have very personal and direct consequences. A husband whose wife has been sleeping with another man has been incredibly damaged by his wife’s sin in a personal way. Confronting gossip then has the tendency itself to carry with it those sins which are the refuge of victims (unforgiveness, bitterness, and so on). Sometimes gossip is confronted with more gossip. Sometimes with sinful anger. The reality is that it is incredibly difficult to deal with heavily personal sins in an objective manner.

Disarming Sin: Overlooking or Confrontation
While I would never suggest ignoring sin, the bible does allow for “overlooking” some personal sin (Proverbs 19:11). This does not mean “avoidance,” as some might use “overlooking” language to avoid confronting sin while simultaneously cultivating bitterness and malice. A person who has not confronted a sin against them, and is still bitter about it weeks later, is not overlooking sin – in fact they are actively allowing sin to fester and thrive.

Rather, the bible speaks of overlooking in a context of being slow to anger. Again, the gospel always applies. In light of our sin and the marvellous wonderful grace we have been shown, can we at least overlook some sin against us? This means not only forgiving it (as we should forgive all sin, including the sin of people who do not apologise or repent) but forgetting it. If we find ourselves in anger, jealousy, etc… even after we have “forgiven” someone, then we are in fact not overlooking it, and we need to confront it.

Confrontation does not mean going straight to church leaders. That is just perpetuating the problem and will likely make it worse. Only going to the person is confrontation.

I had a friend once who was accused of looking at pornography. A woman made this accusation in the midst of a group of women from his church. Rather than ask some critical questions of this person and what they were saying, these women took what was said at face value and in turn told other people. Eventually a group of men decided to hold an impromptu confrontation at the man’s house. By the time this happened, many in the church and the leadership had accepted the “truth” and this man and his wife eventually left the church, forever branded. By the time the man was “confronted,” half of his church had already tried, judged and convicted him on a piece of hearsay.

The bible is expressly and unequivocally clear on how to confront sin - go to the person, go to the person, go to the person (Matt 5, Matt 18). The woman who first said such a thing publicly, regardless of what she said, should have been spoken to about gossip right away. The man should have been confronted privately by one person. Especially if the information was false, the woman who said the thing should have publicly recanted and apologized.

Even with righteous motives the means are just as important. God cares about means. The gossip of man does not produce the righteousness of God.

Taking It To The Leadership
This brings up why the church (and right doctrine) is so important. Godly pastors and elders serve as a useful mediator in such circumstances where personal sins can get the best of us. This is of course predicated on the idea that one is both going to a church and that the pastors are qualified. If either of these isn’t the case, then these need to be addressed first.

I have had mixed experiences with this. I have seen leaders who were critical in their questions about the gossip, encouraged unresolved conflicts to be solved biblically, seeking out potential for sin in all parties and, above all, seeking a solution that glorified God and was redemptive towards all parties. I have also seen leaders dismiss gossip (or participate in in themselves), take gossip as fact or leave it unchallenged, avoid conflict resolution entirely, take a biased view or not excuse themselves where there is a high potential for personal bias (for instance, where the pastor’s mother is a party or there is some other vested interest highly in favour of one party), seek a solution which is penal and condemning in nature. So much depends on the leader – my wife and I put our own situation in front of two different leaders with two completely different approaches and two completely different results.

Grace
The key in all of this seems to be to be remembering that we are dealing with Christians.  Christians may be regenerate, but they are still sinners who were saved by grace, not by becoming sinless. Moreover, their identity is first in Christ, not in their sin. A Christian may be gossiping habitually, but calling them “a gossip” is unhelpful, non-redemptive and (I have come to realise) scripturally wrong.

At the same time, gossip (like all sin) has such a damaging affect on both individuals as well as entire churches and communities. Obviously the sin is serious and people need to be protected. But the key is grace. Christians do horrible, horrible things – they sometimes do these things to each other. But nothing, nothing, can be done to man which even approaches the heinousness of our sin towards Christ. We would do well to remember that as we deal with sin against us.

Perhaps like me, you cringe everyone someone says that they would like to “give back” to the community. Of course, if someone stole something from the community, they should “give back.” But people who earned money or fame from their talents, wisdom or business saavy hardly need to give back.

This video exposes the fallacy behind the idea that profits are theft. It reminds us that a society which endorses profits is one which ultimately endorses morality.

HT: Charles N. Steele

Jack Hunter is one of the great commentators who no one has heard of. This video in particular is a good immunisation shot against the day when the current fad of small government rhetoric is gone from the conservative movement.

Hunter analyses the mentality of voters in the US, and their head-numbing flip-flops and unwillingness to embrace any principles whatsoever. Why are so many conservatives who absolutely loathed, ridiculed, mocked and dismissed Ron Paul in 2008, suddenly embracing him and viewing him as reasonable sage-figure in 2012? Ron Paul hasn’t changed a single one of his policies. What has happened is that conservatives have completely flip-flopped. We shouldn’t be surprised when we see them flip-flop back, which could happen as early as this years once they pick a big-government GOP presidential candidate to back. If Mitt Romney’s “front-runner” status is anything to go by, this process is likely well on its way.

Is Rebellion Against Rulers Rebellion Against God?

…not all resistance to state authority is rebellion against God. There are times when one must “rebel”, e.g. Daniel and the three young men, Peter and John. Consequently, the state’s word is not God’s Word by any means—except coincidentally at times. So how is it that most contemporary preachers are content to say that rebellion against the state is rebellion against God, except when the state does a few things on the short list of big no-nos? Such logic opens Pandora’s Box. Just who decides what is on the short list? The short list becomes arbitrary and capricious.

For me, the jury is still our on whether Christians can engage in active rebellion against the state, even an oppressive one. This is a tough one because (I think) I believe in the right to self-defense for individuals. If I believe in this right, why should self-defense against the state be any different? This two-part article helps the reader get to the nature of whether and where the line is between the authority of the state and the authority of God.

Should the Founders have Submitted to Government More?

The Scripture is silent (or at least not conclusive) on whether Christians can revolt against the state when they have the means to do so. We do not know what Paul and Peter would have done or taught if pro-Christian forces were able to muster sufficient resources to defy Nero. Yet the Scriptures seem to indicate that Christians have a right of self-defense (Luke 22:36), which could be taken as the right of defense against both criminals and state plunderers like King George III—or George W. Bush for that matter. Or should we simply believe that apostolic teaching regarding submission to (and honoring of) civil rulers prohibits Christians from ever defending themselves against them?

Again, I find myself entirely on the fence here. On the one hand, the results of the revolution were unquestionably an advancement of liberty. However, is it more important that we submit to governments even to the point of death if it honours God? Does that actually even honour God? If that is the case, then the revolutionaries, even while making the world a more free and prosperous place, ultimately were acting in disobedience to God. It it just as arbitrary to equate “liberty” with “good” or “God’s will” when we are talking about these things? How we view the rightness of a past act of revolution plays a prescriptive part in how we accept or reject violations of our liberty today.

Is it Time to Resist Tyranny?

Jesus taught his disciples to not only be concerned about the evil doctrine emanating from false religion but also to beware the evil public policies of the civil authority. “Then He charged them, saying, ‘Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod’” (Mark 8:15). Herod’s leaven was promulgated through wayward public policy. Christians have many enemies in the world, both religious and secular (or civil). If Christians cannot flee (Luke 21:21), then perhaps some of them will have opportunity to defend their families from criminals and tyrants. If they can neither flee nor fight, then they will surely become martyrs to the Glory of God (Revelation 2:13).

We live in a materially prosperous and affluent society. At the same time, there are many evils perpetrated by government – from outright property theft, to the killing of innocent people both on American soil and overseas. Maybe it is easier to accept these abuses because we are rather distracted by our own general state of peace and harmony.

But what about a scenario, which seems more and more likely, where the state suddenly has you in its cross-hairs?

While I wouldn’t defend my property, I think I would, without question, defend myself and my family from the state if it came down to it. But I am not sure if this is actually right? I lean towards the idea that it is right. But I am not wholly convinced. If there was a general war of defense and I were not directly threatened, I do not think I would enlist. I think I would flee as far as is possible and only fight if it came down to no other option. But again, I am not sure if any of that is biblical.

There will almost certainly be another civil war or revolution in the US. It may be five hundred years in the future, but it will happen. It is inevitable. How should Christians respond?

Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament

1. Ignore them
2. Claim they don’t exist, and come up with ways to explain them away
3. Acknowledge them, and – understanding the literary tradition of the Scriptures – recognize that they don’t impact the accuracy and reliability of the Scriptures.

What sort of contradictions? How about this one, right in the Ten Commandments themselves. Exodus 20:11 says:

“For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.”

In contrast, Deuteronomy 5:15 says:

“Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and that the LORD your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the LORD your God has commanded you to observe the Sabbath day.”

So which is it? Is the Sabbath an observance of God’s creative power in making the world, or a celebration of Israel’s deliverance from Egypt? It may not seem like a big deal, but if the Bible can’t even be consistent about the Ten Commandments, that should give one pause to think.

Enns suggests that we must look at the historical context and figure out what the passage meant to those at the time it was written. Our perspectives on the Scriptures don’t matter so much. Exodus and Deuteronomy were written for different audiences and different purposes, and so the different focus of the Ten Commandments is not a problem. Both are correct. Sure they contradict each other, but that’s not because one is wrong. Both are true, from a certain perspective.

Later, Enns deals with the problem of how the New Testament writers handle the Old Testament scriptures. By all modern interpretive standards, the apostles’ misuse of the Scriptures is blasphemous. They rip passages out of context, misquote Scriptures, and read brand new meanings and ideas into passages. That’s the kind of re-interpretation of Scripture that would get someone marked as a heretic today. What gives?

Enns says that the traditional explanation–that the apostles were given special permission to take liberties with the OT that we are not permitted–doesn’t fly. We should emulate the NT writers by also seeking to interpret the OT in light of the incarnation of Jesus Christ. We too should read new meaning into old Scriptures by viewing it in light of Christ. Further, Enns suggests we go one step further: we should read new meaning into the Old and New Testaments by interpreting them in light of the Church.

I’m not sure I completely agree with Enns about interpreting the NT in light of the church age. How do we guard against heresy? But his suggestion is the best I’ve heard. I’ve heard the evangelical answer: Oh, the apostles can do that kind of wild reinterpretation because they were specifically led by the Holy Spirit. We’re not led like that anymore, so we can’t take such liberties. I don’t buy it. The whole Protestant idea is that the individual believer interprets the Scriptures with the illumination of the Holy Spirit – as opposed to the Catholic idea that the Church interprets the Scriptures. So why shouldn’t we be free to interpret in new ways, relying on the guidance of the Holy Spirit?

Candidates at the GOP Debate: CBS News.

Candidates Present: Rick Santorum, Michelle Bachman, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Tim Pawlenty, Herman Cain

Adopting Ron Paul’s Rhetoric
Each and every candidate relied on Ron Paul’s rhetoric – a clear indication that he has had a strong influence on the GOP base. When Ron Paul was preaching about needing a sound currency, Gingrich was vigorously nodding his head and agreeing. Pawlenty praised Paul by name twice, one time even using his term of “crony capitalism.” Too bad so many of those candidates, most particularly Santorum, Gingrich and Romney have undeniable legacies of big-government intervention in the economy. Nevertheless, this was completely different to how Paul was treated in 2008.

Never Let John King Moderate Again
John King was a terrible moderator. I can’t list the number of questions where every two seconds a timid “uh” could be heard coming from King, who could not control the candidates both when they went off topic and went over time. Santorum outright ran over King twice before he could even ask a question. King should never moderate a debate again.

Fear
The discussion on Islam was absolutely disturbing. Gingrich alluded to McCarthyism while Cain’s remarks were outright dangerous. There was discussion of loyalty tests specifically for Muslims. Christians need to remember that every law they advocate for Muslims may one day be the instrument of their own persecution.

Scratching Below the Surface
The candidates put on a veneer of “small government” but when they were forced to give specifics, the results were typically a preservation of the status quo. Pawlenty called for “fair trade,” which is a known euphamism for protectionism. He also was unwilling to end the space program. Although Gingrich’s solution was even worse: effectively creating space corporations which would be funded by the federal government. The only thing worse than NASA would be yet another corporatist federal program. On food safety, Cain made voters aware that he has no problem with Federal food safety laws and bureaucracies.

Republicans can talk all they want about cutting government, but when it comes to specifics they refuse to act. If GOP voters want more than just the rhetoric to change, they would do well to vote for a candidate who has actually legislated to cut government.

• Historical Premillennialism: This version of premillennialism is labeled historical to differentiate itself from the relatively new Dispensational interpetation. Christ will return to Earth and reign over an earthly kingdom for a thousand years (that’s the millennium.) During this time, the promises made to the nation of Israel will be fulfilled, though we don’t know precisely how.
• Dispensational Premillennialism: Similarly to the historical premillennialism, the dispensational model expects Christ to return and reign for a thousand years in an earthly kingdom. The main difference is that dispensationalists see history as divided into “dispensations”, e.g., periods of time where God works in specific ways. This is the dominant theology within Evangelicalism.
• Postmillennialism: As the gospel is preached and disciples are made throughout the world, the world will generally get better and better. Eventually, Christianity will become the dominant force in the world. Although sin will not be eradicated, it will be reduced to a minimum. This period of Christian dominance is the millennium–although it may not be a literal thousand years. At it’s end, Christ will return.
• Amillennialism: There is no literal millennium–or rather, the millennium represents the church age. We are currently living in the millennium, and it will end when Christ returns.

This book is a great idea, but it’s poorly executed. The four different scholars aren’t really on the same page; the Historical Premillennialism chapter is pretty good, but the Dispensationalism chapter focuses on explaining the model of biblical interpretation behind the theology, and neglects to really explain what Premillennial Dispensationalism teaches. On the other end of the spectrum, the Postmillennialism essay explains in great detail what will happen in the end times, but neglects to mention Scripture or to discusses Revelation 20 at all. The Amillennialism essay isn’t too bad, except that it relies on a novel interpretation of Revelation that the author fails to defend.

After each view is presented, the other contributers respond to it. And this is where the book really disappoints. None of the writers seem terribly interested in responding in any detail to the others’ arguments. Although in some cases, I agree: it’s pretty much useless to respond to a Dispensationalist who calls his viewpoint the “biblical” view — as if the other folks are reading some other book. And there’s not much to say in response to the Postmillennialist who fails to discuss the Bible when presenting his view of the millennium. But at least a genuine effort at dialog and critique would have been a help.

Unless you already have a decent understanding of the different views of the millennium, I would skip this book. It’s a poor introduction to the topic. If you already know the basics, this book might help you realize that the different theologies arise from differing models of biblical interpretation. The conclusions you draw from the Bible are based largely on how you read the Bible and how you interpret prophecy. Each of the views is consistent and logical (well, more or less; I have my doubts about Dispensationalism) based on the assumptions of how to properly interpret the Bible.

Will there be a rapture and can we know the details of the end of the world?

The “rapture” passed last week without incident and we’re left with two conclusions. Either the rapture did in fact occur and God took almost no one up to heaven, or it was a complete hoax. The latter certainly seems the most plausible, but lets examine the first scenario through a series of thoughts about what we actually can and cannot know about The End.

What We Cannot Know
I grew up in a semi-Christian environment and actually became a Christian when I was a teenager. I then spent my formative Christian years in a church where the rapture was taught as absolute truth. In fact, sometimes it felt as though the eschatology taught in the church was of equal weight with basic tenants of the gospel. We went through portions of revelation several times in my ten years there. The pastor broke his rigorous adherence to expositional teaching for “prophesy updates” with about the same frequency as major holidays (once a year or so). The theology was roughly equivalent to the Left Behind series, formally called premillenial dispensationalism (PMD).

I never had many qualms with this view, though I would have questioned just how sure we can be that PMD was “proven” by passages in the bible. That John, for example, was told to ““Come up here” in Revelation 4:1 was certainly not sufficient – but I liked what PMD had to say about the importance of looking to the return of Christ (rather than certain signs and wonders).

Whether There Will Be A Rapture
But I would like to suggest something right out of the gate. We cannot know for sure that there will be a rapture along the exact lines of PMD. I am not saying that Christ isn’t returning, that the Church will not be taken up into heaven, or that the earth will not be judged. I am saying that PMD is an hypothesis at best.

The 70 weeks of Daniel, the various characters, events and allusions in Revelation, Matthew 24, 1 Thessalonians 4:17 and other proof texts of PMD require a lot of, shall we say, “encouragement” in order to be speaking specifically about PMD. I am certainly not interested in dismissing PMD in one short blog post. While I think sometimes my sinful arrogance knows little bounds, I am certainly not going to presume to solve a debate which has been raging for centuries among scholars and theologians much smarter than I.

When Christ Will Return
We cannot know the day when Christ will return. There are biblical passages seemingly supporting this idea explicitly (Matthew 24:36, for example). But more obvious is the logic of the gospel. If God wanted men to know when he is going to return, he would have told us clearly. Speculation about when exactly Christ is returning is diversionary – especially when we could be busy doing the things which God has explicitly commanded us (evangelism, worship, fellowship, etc). Existence as we know it is about God’s glory. Period.

What We Can Know
There are some things that we can know about The End, and they are worth thinking about.

Christ Will Return
We may not know when or even exactly how, but we know that Christ is coming back to gather the church. It will happen. For the church, it will be a glorious day. For those whom God has not saved, it will be a horrible day, worse than anything imaginable.

All the Earth Will Be Judged and Changed
All that is not redeemed will be consumed and purged. Unredeemed peoples will be cast into hell and tormented by the wrath and anger of God for eternity. According to a common misconception, Hell is the place where God is not – because God is not there, neither is peace, love, etc… But the Bible says that Hell is a place where God most surely is – only he is there in full fury – his terrible wrath bringing down eternal punishment on unrepentant sinners. Only what God has chosen to redeem will remain along with a new heaven and new earth.

There is Still Time to go to Heaven
Knowing that God intends to judge the earth so thoroughly, and yet still has withheld judgement, tells us that there is still time to go to heaven. Moreover, it tells us that God is incredibly merciful, patient and loving. Every minute God stays his hand of judgement is a wonderful grace.

But more than that, God has provided a way for us to get to heaven. The reason God can punish us is because we all rebel against God. We have broken his laws in word, action and thought. All of us, from even our childhood, are running headlong away from God. No one on the earth is seeking after God. But God has chosen to reveal his mercy by saving such rebels. Moreover, he has done this by pouring out the punishment which we sinners deserve on someone else: his son Jesus. That is why he died on the cross. He was bearing the full weight of God’s anger for our sin. Only God himself, in the person of Jesus, could endure such punishment – and he proved this by rising from the dead after he was killed.

All those who believe in what Jesus has done are made justified. God sees them as completely innocent, because Jesus already paid for their rebellion. Moreover, Christ was sinless, and his sinless life is accounted those who believe, such that on top of innocence, they are found worthy to enter heaven.

We may not know the day and time of the end, but we do know that there will be an end. Perhaps more important than knowing when the end will come, is knowing whether we are prepared for it.

Paul showed clearly that while President Obama and some senate leaders are trying to stick it to the oil companies, it is actually the Federal Government itself which is making 18% profit off of gasoline. The oil companies are currently making 7%.

Paul also pointed out some basic economics to a body which often completely rejects fundamental economic principles. Raising taxes on oil companies leads to higher costs, which will in turn lead to higher prices.