• Think before posting.
• Avoid the foolish.
• Help the foolish.
• Know when to walk away.
• Watch what you read.
• Be humble.
• Avoid the arrogant.
• Mind your own business.
• Don't be a troublemaker.
• Examine why you write.
• Be careful what you teach.
• Be a friend.
• Meditate upon what you write.
• Walk with the Lord.

Let us cleave to Christ more closely, love Him more heartily, live to Him more thoroughly, copy Him more exactly, confess Him more boldly, follow Him more fully. Religion like this will always bring its own reward. Worldly people may laugh at it. Weak brethren may think it extreme. But it will wear well. At even time it will bring us light. In sickness it will bring us peace. In the world to come it will give us a crown of glory that fadeth not away.

This has remained Yong's pressing question: Is it possible that the Holy Spirit is active not only among Christians of all denominations but also among believers of non-Christian world religions?

The question arises in each of Yong's most important publications: Spirit-Word Community (Ashgate, 2002), Beyond the Impasse (Baker Academic, 2003), and The Spirit Poured Out on All Flesh (Baker Academic, 2005). His central thesis is that, because the Spirit of God is universally active in creation and new creation, "the religions of the world, like everything else that exists, are providentially sustained by the Spirit of God for divine purposes." Where most Pentecostals see the devil's work, Yong sees the Spirit's. Concretely, that means Christians should be open to learning from and being enriched by the Spirit's work in world religions. Dialogue must take place alongside evangelism, he argues, so that all the religions—including Christianity—can learn from each other what the Spirit is doing.

. . . .

Yong has yet to answer where his investigations are leading him. Does the Holy Spirit reveal something of God truthfully in non-Christian religions? Does the Spirit work salvation through them? Does this salvation look anything like what Jesus describes to Nicodemus in John 3 or what Paul depicts in Romans 8? On the one hand, he underscores the dynamic and unpredictable work of the Spirit in world religions; on the other hand, he always links Word (Christ) and Spirit together. Is he leaning toward religious pluralism or promoting inclusivism? One thing is certain: He regards these traditional categories as too static and is looking for an alternative.

This raises a second question: What criteria should we use for discerning the Spirit's work in non-Christian movements? Yong hesitates to elevate Jesus Christ to exclusive status for such discernment. For him, "signs of the kingdom," such as personal and social transformation in love, might serve as such tools. The Spirit might be active, then, wherever the kingdom of God is being advanced, whether or not Jesus Christ is central to the religious messages and practices. But can Christians ever separate the person of Jesus Christ from the kingdom of God? That seems problematic and will raise doubts in many Christians' minds about Yong's project.

"Our co-producer Lou 'Buster' Brown says we're taking God's word and we're gel capping it: surrounding it with elements that make it more palatable for mass consumption in today's marketplace," says Kyle Bowser, one of the quartet of Emmy- and Grammy-winning co-producers from Inspired By Media Group. The group instigated the multimillion-dollar project with financing and text provided by Zondervan, the nation's largest Bible publisher.

Yuck, she said. A sex scene. And right at the beginning of the show, her friend chimed in.

"Big Love," HBO's new take on a fictional polygamous family in the suburbs of this city, was on the television. The Viagra-popping Bill Henrickson (Bill Paxton) was thrashing in bed with Margene (Ginnifer Goodwin), the youngest of his three wives. The five women watching the show — covering their eyes during the sex scenes, chiding the competitive wives, urging Bill to take control — were critics with special credentials: a current or past polygamous marriage.

And despite the show's flaws, these women called "Big Love" a cultural benchmark, one with the potential to cast a warmer light on their lives.

"It's a more realistic view of a polygamous family that lives out in society than people have known," said Anne Wilde, a widow who was part of a multiple family for 33 years. "It can be seen as a viable alternative lifestyle between consenting adults."

Presbyterians this June will be asked to ratify a new report on Trinitarian theology that describes the cornerstone doctrine in various metaphorical terms, including a controversial description of the triune God as “Mother, Child and Womb.”

“[The report] aims to assist the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) in reclaiming the doctrine of Trinity in theology, worship and life,” the introduction to the 40-page report, “God’s Love Overflowing,” states.

The report, which has been underway since 2000, includes theological and liturgical sessions that are meant for use in study sessions on the doctrine.

What interests me is the move from saying that no wording or metaphor will ever exhaust everything that can be said about God's Triune Being to saying that therefore we need supplement the divine vocabulary with our notions about the Godhead. This is a common and deeply concerning strategy in postmodern theology generally: using the finite limits of the human mind as an excuse for ignoring or supplementing what God has said in His Word. Shouldn't the fact of our finitude move us in exactly the opposite direction, so that our admitted inabilities make us more careful about only believing what the Bible says about God?

• Part 1
• Part 2
• Part 3
• Part 4

Am I saying the the missional emphasis of the emerging-missional church has its roots in Reformed thinking?
Yes I am. The emerging-missional church has placed a stronger emphasis on the sovereignty of the Triune God in the area of mission, an emphasis with a clear heritage back to the 1950's. The idea of "missional church' has always seemed Reformed to me. Especially the idea that God is sovereign over his missional aims and the role of the church is more participation than innovation. Sometimes I wonder if we are reverting to the days of William Carey who argued for the use of "means" for the work of missions in response to those insisting that God would sort it out Himself. Except the emerging-missional church might be on the other side of the table from William Carey.

Now thats an interesting thought.

Andrew--I've always thought that Lesslie Newbigin's work was seminal to the whole missional/emerging church movement, and he was deeply Reformed. But, frankly, the emerging church has been just as shaped by the Hauerwas/Anabaptist model of church-as-culture. Newbigin and Hauerwas do not, on the surface, appear all that compatible, but if you swirl them together you can account for an awful lot of the missional/emerging church emphases.

Andrew,

I agree with Keller: the missional emergent foci are only tangentially Reformed. There is a radical low-churchness about emerging that cannot be accounted for with Reformed; and the trinitarian emphasis, depending upon whom one draws from, could be classically creedal, Eastern Orthodox (if the emphasis is thrown onto perichoresis as it is with Stan Grenz), or Reformed.

And the holistic emphasis, though one can find such in the Kuyperian line of thinking, seems to derive from a variety ofsources, not the least of which is liberation theology and the social justice emphases of Wallace, Sider, and the like.

Maybe I just haven't seen it, but I don't see that much emphasis on the sovereignty of God but more on the necessity of striving.

“I'm happy to say I think FSM hurts the evolutionists' program since, by mocking the Christian tradition … it reinforces the correct impression that there is genuine contempt for biblical faith in that camp,” says Mark Coppenger, a pastor who teaches at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville. “Besides, the parody is lame, and there are few things more encouraging than cheap shots from one's opponents.”

I have found the blogosphere to be somewhat slow around the weekend, so I have decided to post some kind of edifying work from the past on Saturdays.

This post continues a series from J.C. Ryle (1816-1900, Bishop of the Anglican Church): "Forgiveness." It is a wonderful, gospel-centered work. Here is the first part.

I ask particular attention to this point, for none can be more important. Granting for a moment that you want pardon and forgiveness, what ought you to do? Whither will you go? Which way will you turn? Every thing hinges on the answer you give to this question.

Will you turn to ministers and put your trust in them? They cannot give you pardon: they can only tell you where it is to be found. They can set before you the bread of life; but you yourself must eat it. They can show you the path of peace; but you yourself must walk in it. The Jewish priest had no power to cleanse the leper, but only to declare him cleansed. The Christian minister has no power to forgive sins; — he can only declare and pronounce who they are that are forgiven.

Will you turn to sacraments and ordinances, and trust in them? They cannot supply you with forgiveness, however diligently you may use them. By sacraments “faith is confirmed and grace increased,” in all who rightly use them (See Article 27). But they cannot justify the sinner. They cannot put away transgression. You may go to the Lord's Table every Sunday in your life: but unless you look far beyond the sign to the thing signified, you will after all die in your sins. You may attend a daily service regularly, but if you think to establish a righteousness of your own by it, in the slightest degree, you are only getting further away from God every day.

Will you trust in your own works and endeavours, your virtues and your good deeds, your prayers and your alms? They will never buy for you an entrance into heaven. They will never pay your debt to God. They are all imperfect in themselves, and only increase your guilt. There is no merit or worthiness in them at the very best. The Lord Jesus Christ says expressly, “When you have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants” (Luk 17:10).

Will you trust in your own repentance and amendment? You are very sorry for the past. You hope to do better for time to come. You hope God will be merciful. Alas, if you lean on this, you have nothing beneath you but a broken reed! The judge does not pardon the thief because he is sorry for what he did. Today's sorrow will not wipe off the score of yesterday's sins. It is not an ocean of tears that would ever cleanse an uneasy conscience and give it peace.

Where then must a man go for pardon? Where is forgiveness to be found? There is a way both sure and plain, and into that way I desire to guide every inquirer's feet.

That way is simply to trust in the Lord Jesus Christ as your Saviour. It is to cast your soul, with all its sins, unreservedly on Christ, — to cease completely from any dependence on your own works or doings, either in whole or in part, — and to rest on no other work but Christ's work, no other righteousness but Christ's righteousness, no other merit but Christ's merit, as your ground of hope. Take this course and you are a pardoned soul. “To Christ,” says Peter, “give all the prophets witness, that through His name whosoever believeth in Him shall receive remission of sins” (Acts 10:43). “Through this Man,” says Paul at Antioch, “is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins, and by Him all that believe are justified from all things” (Acts 13:38). “In Him,” writes Paul to the Colossians, “we have redemption thro u g h His blood, even the forgiveness of sins” (Col 1:14).

The Lord Jesus Christ, in great love and compassion, has made a full and complete satisfaction for sin, by suffering death in our place upon the cross. There He offered Himself as a sacrifice for us, and allowed the wrath of God, which we deserved, to fall on His own head. For our sins, as our Substitute, He gave Himself, suffered, and died, the just for the unjust, the innocent for the guilty, — that He might deliver us from the curse of a broken law, and provide a complete pardon for all who are willing to receive it. And by so doing, as Isaiah says, — He has borne our sins; as John the Baptist says, — He has taken away sin; as Paul says, — He has purged our sins, and put away sin; and as Daniel says, — He has made an end of sin, and finished transgression (Isa 53:11; Joh 1:29; Heb 1:3; Heb 9:26; Dan 9: 24)

The contentious enterprise is at something of a crossroads. Two new studies are about to report no benefit of having people pray for the sick, the only study underway is nearing completion, and the largest, best-designed project is being published in two weeks. Its eagerly awaited findings could sound the death knell for the field, breathe new life into such efforts, or create new debate.

Opposition to same-sex marriage dropped sharply across the country during the past two years, though just over half of Americans still oppose allowing gays and lesbians to marry, according to a poll by the Pew Research Center released Wednesday.

The poll also showed increased support for allowing same-sex couples to adopt children, and substantial backing for the rights of gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military.

Why am I whipping out the ninth commandment? Because some in the church have grown careless here. I have been careless here. There are a lot of accusations flying around these days in our Baptist periodicals, in our seminary student assemblies, and they rage in our internet publications. While I believe in theological debate, and am convinced it is necessary to call people out when they are teaching false doctrine, I am greatly troubled by the baseless accusations being made to make brothers and sisters look bad. “Those guys are hyper-Calvinists. They don’t evangelize, and they kill churches.” No evidence, just sensational language that riles people up and perpetuates prejudices. But it’s not just the Calvinists who have to walk through unjust accusations.

Recently some men have been accused of being “liberal” theologians. Vague generalizations are being made, people are not quoted, sound argument is not made, but naked assertions and accusations are released in an effort to warn others to stay away. “That guy is a liberal in evangelical clothing!” My trouble is that in some cases these accusations amount to unrighteous distortions of the truth. And I have to say, I am grieved.

Look, if you think someone’s theology is dangerous, then deal with it. Use the man’s words, and show where his words speak heresy or false doctrine. I believe this is one of the tasks of our pastor-theologians and professors. But it must be done with care and precision, not passion and presumption. This forces everyone to be honest and fair.

I have found the blogosphere to be somewhat slow around the weekend, so I have decided to post some kind of edifying work from the past on Saturdays.

My first post will be a series from J.C. Ryle (1816-1900, Bishop of the Anglican Church): "Forgiveness." It is a wonderful, gospel-centered work.

THERE is a clause near the end of the Belief, or Apostle's Creed, which, I fear, is often repeated without thought or consideration. I refer to the clause which contains these words,” I believe in the forgiveness of sins.” Thousands, I am afraid, never reflect what those words mean. I propose to examine the subject of them in the following paper, and I invite the attention of all who care for their souls and want to be saved. Do we believe in the “Resurrection of our bodies”? Then let us see to it that we know something by experience of the “Forgiveness of our sins.”

I. Let me show, first of all, our need of forgiveness.

All men need forgiveness, because all men are sinners. He that does not know this, knows nothing in religion. It is the very A B C of Christianity that a man should know his right place in the sight of God and understand his deserts.

We are all great sinners. “There is none righteous, no, not one” — “All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God” (Rom 3:10, 23). Sinners we were born, and sinners we have been all our lives. We take to sin naturally from the very first. No child ever needs schooling and education to teach it to do wrong. No devil or bad companion ever leads us into such wickedness as our own hearts. And “the wages of sin is death” (Rom 6: 23). We must either be forgiven, or lost eternally.

We are all guilty sinners in the sight of God. We have broken His holy law. We have transgressed His precepts. We have not done His will. There is not a commandment in all the ten which does not condemn us. If we have not broken it in deed we have in word; if we have not broken it in word, we have in thought and imagination, — and that continually. Tried by the standard of the fifth chapter of St. Matthew, there is not one of us that would be acquitted. All the world is “guilty before God.” And “As it is appointed unto men once to die, so after this comes the judgment.” We must either be forgiven, or perish everlastingly (Rom 3:19; Heb 9: 27).

And then what is the Lord God, whose eyes are on all our ways, and before whom we have one day to give account? “Holy, holy, holy,” is the remarkable expression applied to Him by those who are nearest to Him (Isa 6:3; Rev 4:8). It sounds as if no one word could express the intensity of His holiness. One of His prophets says, “He is of purer eyes than to behold evil, and cannot look on iniquity” (Hab 1:13). We think the angels exalted beings, and far above ourselves; but we are told in Scripture, “He charged His angels with folly” (Job 4:18). We admire the moon and stars as glorious and splendid bodies; but we read, “Behold even to the moon, and it shineth not, yea the stars are not pure in His sight” (Job 25:5). We talk of the heavens as the noblest and purest part of creation; but even of them it is written, “The heavens are not clean in His sight” (Job 15:15). What then is any one of us but a miserable sinner in the sight of such a God as this?

Surely we ought all to cease from proud thoughts about ourselves. We ought to lay our hands upon our mouths, and say with Abraham, “I am dust and ashes;” and with Job, “I am vile;” and with Isaiah, “We are all as an unclean thing;” and with John, “If we say that we have no sin we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us (Gen 18:27; Job 40:4; Isa 64:6; 1Jo 1:8). Where is the man or woman in the whole catalogue of the Book of Life, that will ever be able to say more than this, “I obtained mercy”? What is the glorious company of the apostles, the goodly fellowship of the prophets, the noble army of martyrs, — what are they all but pardoned sinners? Surely there is but one conclusion to be arrived at: — we are all great sinners, and we all need a great forgiveness.

See now what just cause I have to say that to know our need of forgiveness is the first thing in true religion. Sin is a burden, and must be taken off. Sin is a defilement, and must be cleansed away. Sin is a mighty debt, and must be paid. Sin is a mountain standing between us and heaven, and must be removed. Happy is that mother's child amongst us that feels all this! The first step towards heaven is to see clearly that we deserve hell. There are but two alternatives before us, — we must either be forgiven, or be miserable for ever.

Perhaps about a year ago, I approached a good friend, Eric Schumacher, about composing a church covenant in verse form that could be sung by our congregation. How great it would be, I thought, to have a covenant, composed in verse form and wedded with great music, indelibly written upon our hearts!

A gay man who is a lifetime member of the LDS Church could be facing disciplinary action and excommunication after legally marrying his partner in Canada.

Buckley Jeppson, 57, said he's been informed verbally that his life is incompatible with the doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and that a disciplinary council will address the matter.

Jeppson, of Washington, D.C., married Mike Kessler in Toronto on Aug. 27, 2004.

It is believed that if Jeppson is excommunicated, it would be the first time a Latter-day Saint in a legal same-sex marriage would be punished by the church, said Olin Thomas, executive director of Affirmation, an advocacy and education group for gay Latter-day Saints.

Some of the nation's leading journalists gathered in Key West, Florida, in December 2005 for the Pew Forum's biannual Faith Angle Conference on religion, politics and public life. Conference speaker Grace Davie, who has a chair in the Sociology of Religion at the University of Exeter and is the director of the University's Centre for European Studies, challenged current perspectives on modern secularism in Europe and examined how Europeans view American religion.

• Missiology Class


• ESF Lunch with Dr. John Franke


• The One and the Many: Toward a Theology of Christian Pluralism


• A Conversation about the Emerging Church – Part I


• A Conversation about the Emerging Church – Part II


• Emergent Pittsburgh Cohort Gathering with John Franke

Yesterday, Tim Challies included a link to the Way of the Master Radio Show in his daily "A La Carte." He pointed to the March 10th radio show, which included an interview with Mark Dever.

Well, Today's show includes J. Ligon Duncan explaining the need for apologetics and answering the question: "does God know the future?"

I admit, now I'm hooked! And it is great to be challenged to evangelize. It almost makes me want to go out and buy the Left Behind movies... OK, not really. But I will continue to listen.

Ryan is a Christian who's actually seen the movie. And the point of his review is that, whatever its agenda, the movie unwittingly deconstructs its own message.

Now, I figured that if anyone would be offended by the review, it might be Christians who missed the point of what Ryan was saying.

The film doesn't intentionally present a Christian worldview. Rather, it ends up presenting a Christian worldview in spite of itself.

And, as a matter of fact, his review did trigger a very negative reaction. Mind you, Triablogue is no stranger to controversy, so that's fine with me.

As it turns out, though, all the hue and cry came, not from the Evangelical community, but from a weblog linked to The Secular Outpost, which is an arm of The Secular Web.

And it's very instructive to see how unbelievers behave when their back is to the wall.

To Own a Dragon is not the book to teach a man how to be a father, or a son to love his dad. It is what it is, one man's reflections on growing up fatherless. His answers sometimes aren't what we need, but we need to hear the questions, because they are being asked all around us by men without the platform or eloquence of Don Miller. Some of them cannot look us in the eye, hiding behind a ball-cap or an unruly swath of hair.

This is a sad book, but it is a sadness we need to hear. The title comes from Miller's belief that he knows as much about what it is to have a father as he knows about what it is to own one of the dragons he read about his childhood fairy tales. We need to hear this man's story, but we need more than this to confront the dangers of father hunger. We need a more robust announcement of the gospel, even when that means saying some hard things to fatherless non-Christians. A generation of lost young men may not know what it is to own a dragon, but the Bible tells us that a Dragon owns them (Rev 12). That's what's really at stake when fathers abandon their children--the gospel itself. And that's even sadder than Miller's tale, even bluer than Jazz.

Since the 1990s, the ascendant mode of conservative American faith has been the megachurch. It gathers thousands, or even tens of thousands, for entertaining if sometimes undemanding services amid family-friendly amenities. It is made possible by hundreds of smaller "cell groups" that meet off-nights and provide a humanly scaled framework for scriptural exploration, spiritual mentoring and emotional support. Now, however, some experts look at groups like Jeanine Pynes'--spreading in parts of Colorado, Southern California, Texas and probably elsewhere--and muse, What if the cell groups decided to lose the mother church?

The meeting could be a sidebar gathering of almost any church in the country but for a ceramic vessel of red wine on the dinner table--offered in communion. Because the dinner, it turns out, is no mere Bible study, 12-step meeting or other pendant to Sunday service at a Denver megachurch. It is the service. There is no pastor, choir or sermon--just six believers and Jesus among them, closer than their breath.

Critics fret that small, pastorless groups can become doctrinally or even socially unmoored. Thom Rainer, a Southern Baptist who has written extensively on church growth, says, "I have no problem with where a church meets, [but] I do think that there are some house churches that, in their desire to move in different directions, have perhaps moved from biblical accountability." In extreme circumstances home churches dominated by magnetic but unorthodox leaders can shade over the line into cults.

...Mark Henkel, who, as founder of the Christian evangelical polygamy organization TruthBearer.org, is at the forefront of the movement. His argument: if Heather can have two mommies, she should also be able to have two mommies and a daddy. Henkel and Hammon have been joined by other activist groups like Principle Voices, a Utah-based group run by wives from polygamous marriages. Activists point to Canada, where, in January, a report commissioned by the Justice Department recommended decriminalizing polygamy.

• C.H. Spurgeon, "A Radical Change"


• John Gill, "The Meaning, Causes, and Subjects of Conversion"


• D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, "Temporary, Counterfeit, and True Conversion"


• William S. Plumer, "Conviction and Conversion"


• William S. Plumer, "Repentance and Conversion"


• William S. Plumer, "Faith and Conversion"


• A.W. Pink, "Seven Things to Consider"


• J.C. Ryle, "Do You Think You are Converted?"

• Russell Moore


• A-Team Blog

"Big Love" should be an oddly comfortable fit with "The Sopranos," which makes its long-awaited return an hour earlier. But despite the similarities (family tussles, power plays and such), there are obvious differences. For instance, on "Big Love," the language gets no rougher than "Oh, my heck," "You dumb-head" and "There's no way in H I'll do that."

With religious fervor, "Big Love" chronicles the struggle to escape an old order, then to pass as conventionally wholesome somewhere new. It's about making big choices and honoring them.

Including wives. "They're the path you've chosen," says Don to Bill. "You gotta pray for guidance, walk it with decency."

On a show full of fascinating murkiness, decency seems the operative reference point. At least, that's one way of seeing "Big Love."

In any case, there's no way in H you should miss seeing it.

Webster’s dictionary defines “theology” as “the study of the religious faith, practice and experience.” Generally speaking, theology is God (theo) talk (logy). We are doing theology when we talk about God.

But it’s so much more than that. Moses, inspired by the Holy Spirit, said that God’s people are to love “the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength” (Deuteronomy 6:5). Jesus picked up on that theme again in the Gospels, going so far as to say that is the greatest commandment of them all. That love to which we are exhorted includes our minds as well as our affections. When we do theology, when we think about the difficult teachings of the Bible, we are loving God. In fact, theology is an act of worship.

Yet, many in our pews enjoy an impoverished form of worship because they’ve divorced orthopraxy (right practice) from orthodoxy (right teaching). Doing so is wrong-headed and dangerous.

Still trying to decide whether your church is "traditional" or "contemporary"--and which is better? That's the wrong question. The real issue is whether your church is a biblically faithful church able to relate to the culture around you. In short, what matters is if your church is missional.

The M word has been around for a while, but has only recently become more accepted. That's good. It means that churches are asking hard questions about biblical ministry in community. What kind of church will be the most biblical and faithful in their community? If we're going to reach a changing North America, we have to contend for the unchanging faith (Jude 3) using forms that are relevant to all kinds of people (1 Corinthians 9:22-23). That's a missional church--a church acting like a missionary to the community around it while partnering with others to be missional across North America and around the world.

Why all the fuss over a word? Can't a church do what it's been called to do for more than two millennia and not mess with semantics? It certainly can. But, the reason is not the word, it's the emphasis. Churches are discovering the need to be missional in their communities. So, the important question is, "What is a missional church?"

• "Christian TV empire savors a tax blessing"


• "Trinity Broadcasting has wealth and critics"


• "Trinity programs seen in 'just about every country'"

Just as it makes perfect sense that people are fleeing newspapers -- there so many other options -- it also makes sense that they aren't exactly flocking to blogs. There are millions of blogs now. Who has time for that? The blog explosion of the last few years has made it much harder for any new blog to draw an audience and succeed. It's just math.

In my browser's Favorites list, I have a folder called "Good Blogs." It has fewer than two dozen links, to blogs I truly enjoy and visit often. I keep the list short on purpose. I meet new blogs all the time, through word of mouth and serendipity, and we have some nice moments together. But I don't usually crave a second date. Life is too short.

Evidently, others feel the same way. So blogs are not about to conquer the world. But does that mean they have failed, as the new headlines suggest? Hardly. In fact, I think the end of hype-fueled blog mania might be the best thing that could happen to blogs, because it had created such absurd expectations.