God's Not Dead

During the July 4th holiday I actually purchased and began reading a book. Amazingly, I found a good one as I was looking around a Barnes and Noble. My wife and I went there to get coffee. As I was trolling for something to look at I came upon God's Not Dead.

The book's subtitle explains well what it is all about, "Evidence for God in an age of uncertainty." The author, Rice Broocks, penned this excellent book in apologetics. He argues in a straightforward manner for the existence of God based on a number of reasons including life having meaning, the reality of good and evil, the fine tuning of the universe, the start of the universe, Jesus' resurrection, the witness of scripture, and the change in the lives of Jesus' followers.

This book has enough depth to make it worth the time, but is it not heavy or boring. Broocks includes numerous personal anecdotes that make it fairly easy to read. I highly recommend God's Not Dead for all Christians and anyone wondering about Jesus Christ.

Wow, God Must Have Been Really Tired!

"Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God finished his work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work that he had done. So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it God rested from all his work that he had done in creation." Genesis 2:1-3

The first few verses of Genesis chapter two tell us what God did on the seventh day of creation. He rested. I take this to mean that God rested for a 24 hour period (count me in with AIG on this one). While I do not know what it means for God to rest, I do know that He rested for a day.

There are many who do not believe that the word "day" in Genesis chapters one and two refers to a 24 hour period. Rather, they believe it instead points to much longer periods of time, usually millions of years. The folks at Biologos, for example, think this.

If "day" in Genesis chapter one speaks of thousands or millions of years, then "day" in Genesis chapter two must mean the same. That means, according to this view, that God must have rested for thousands or millions of years. My response to this is astonishment; God must have been really tired!

We quickly see the absurdity in this. God by definition is omnipotent, sovereign, and above physical limitation. He has no need to rest for millions of years. He doesn't get tired (Jesus got tired on earth, but that was His humanity).

The word "day" is used very consistently in Genesis one-two. When interpreting this passage, we cannot simply pick-and-choose how long we think a day is. It should be the same in each instance.

If God's rest was a short one, and it certainly appears it was, then each day would have been a short period of time. Twenty-four hours sounds about right.

If there is any further question about this, the Ten Commandments make it clear how long a day is.

The 10 Commandments Tell How Long a Day Is

A final short note on creation:

Much of the debate in the church about the world's beginnings centers on how long a day is. Genesis chapters 1-2 use the word "day" repeatedly. A straightforward reading indicates that the author meant a 24 hour period. Despite this, some Christians claim that the days in Genesis actually refer to periods of millions of years. Which is it?

God has told us in Exodus how long a day is. In fact, He did so right in the middle of the 10 Commandments so that there would be absolutely no confusion about the issue. Exodus 20:8-11 says the following:

"Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."

The main focus of the above paragraph is obviously the Sabbath. However, look at what Moses writes in the next to last sentence. He says, "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day." Right in the middle of the context of the Hebrew Sabbath, which was clearly a 24 hour period, Moses mentions the creation account. He describes the two as having a one-to-one correspondence. As God created in six days and rested the seventh, the Israelites were to do the same.

Interestingly, I never hear theistic evolutionists claim that the Sabbath language in Exodus 20 refers to millions of years. If that was the case, I suppose the Hebrews would still be resting somewhere in the desert in the Sinai Peninsula.

The same language for "day" is used in both Genesis 1-2 and Exodus 20. This, combined with the language of the Exodus 20 Sabbath paragraph, shows that God clearly meant a 24 hour period in Genesis 1-2.

No one is confused about the length of the OT Sabbath. As it was 24 hours in Exodus 20, it is also 24 hours in Genesis 1-2.  That's because a day is 24 hours.

But What About the Food Adam and Eve Ate?

A short post today to close out this creation series:

I made the claim yesterday that death comes from sin. No death existed in God's good creation until after Adam and Eve sinned.

One counter to this claim is to ask about the food that Adam and Eve ate. The question/reasoning goes something like this, "Adam and Eve ate of the fruit of the tree. This is the killing of plant life. Therefore, death did come before sin. So why do you say that death only came after sin?"

At first this question seems to have some merit. However, a closer look shows that it simply does not. The question makes a claim itself: that eating fruit is killing. But is it?

I like apples. I eat one almost every day. In doing this, am I killing? I would be if I was killing the plant. However, the plant is just fine. That's because the plant is the tree. When we eat of the fruit of the tree or vine we are not killing because the plant itself remains as healthy as ever. In fact, it probably continues to produce more fruit.

Adam and Eve ate the fruit. They did not eat entire trees. We get no sense that they even had to prepare food of any kind. Instead, they just walked over to the plant, picked whatever fruit they desired, and partook (there was that unfortunate incident with one specific tree, but that's another topic).

No killing involved whatsoever.

For illustration purposes, do we consider ourselves to have killed when we get a haircut? Of course not. The reason is that even though the hair is trimmed, the roots remain. They probably even benefit from a little trim.

We can see, then, that Adam and Eve did not kill plants. Therefore, their eating habits did not in any way bring about death. Why is this? The reason is that in God's sovereign wisdom, death is a consequence of sin. This means that death has to come after sin.

Again pointing to Romans 5:12, "Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned..." (ESV).

Death Before Sin?

This is a re-post, with some minor changes, from 2009. My thoughts have not changed on this topic in the past three years:

With this being the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin, there will undoubtedly be much discussion this year of his impact upon society. Since 2009 is also the 150th anniversary of the publication of The Origin of Species, Darwin will be difficult to ignore.

It does not surprise me that secularists in general and atheists in particular believe that the world came about through evolutionary processes. It makes sense that people who do not know Jesus Christ will also hold faulty views about the beginnings of the universe.

It does surprise and trouble me that some Christians believe that God used evolutionary methods to bring His creation into existence. I've heard this many times from people who I have no doubt are followers of Jesus Christ. I believe that these Christians mean well.

Despite their good intentions, Christians who believe in some sort of evolution (macroevolution, not microevolution) have a big theological problem on their hands. The big problem is this: in their view, death must come before sin. If plants and animals existed for millions of years prior to the first humans, then there must have been a great deal of death before any humans walked the earth.

However, the bible tells us that death is a consequence of sin. Death comes from sin and after sin. This is what we see when we give a literal reading to Genesis 1-2. Years later Paul writes, "Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned..." (Romans 5:12, ESV)

A related problem for Christians who hold to evolutionary beginnings is this: if death comes before sin in Genesis 1-2, then to be consistent death must still exist in Revelation 21-22. Is the Christian/evolutionist ready to say that death will exist after sin is done away with by Christ? We certainly can't believe that this will be the case. Revelation 20:14 even says, "Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire." Death will be done away with forever by Christ.

It saddens me that many Christians are willing to sacrifice theological truth on the altar of secular scientific theory. Christians must realize that evolution today is pushed and promoted by secularists. It is secular scientists who are trying to force their beliefs on our culture. On the other hand, many scientists who are also Christians believe that the objective scientific data corresponds closely with a literal reading of Genesis 1-2.

It is a great biblical truth that death only came after sin. We also know that after sin is gone, death will be gone as well.

I have never once heard a good answer from a Christian/evolutionist as to how death can come before sin.

I'm still waiting.

Evolution is a Slippery Word

(I include the above photo simply for fun.)

The word "evolution" is a slippery one. I'm referring to the fact that it is used in a variety of ways by various people. This often leads to lack of actual communication and accompanying consternation/frustration for everyone involved.

In general "evolution" means change. We've all seen change, both good and bad, occur in almost uncountable ways in our lives. For example, the technological evolution just during the past thirty years is immense. I can remember when we bought our first microwave oven. Nowadays we can't live without the internet. These are significant changes.

When it comes to the world's beginnings, we must be clear in what we are talking about. Darwinian evolutionists demand that macro evolution occurs through processes of natural selection, mutation, and random chance. They state unequivocally that no higher intelligence is behind it. No discussion/debate on the issue is tolerated (especially within secular universities).

This is fascinating because the positive changes we've experienced in this world occur through much planning and intelligence. The evolution we have seen in technology has come from many smart techno-folks logging long hours to create software, computers, cell phones, flat screens, etc. None of these types of changes have happened through people simply sitting around waiting for something to happen by chance.

Evolution, when simply meaning change, can be a positive thing only when intelligence is behind it. On the other hand, evolution apart from intelligence and planning leads only to a big mess or worse. A great example of this is the state of my kids' bedrooms. I've blogged about this before, so I'll simply say here that order does not stem from chance. Their bedrooms only become clean through much effort and planning.

This is not to say that God controlled evolutionary processes to bring this world into existence. That is simply not the case. Genesis 1-2 makes it clear that God crafted this world in a highly organized, step-by-step process.

Changes do, however, occur in this world. Evolution, meaning simply change, even happens within species over time. However, it never happens at the macro level. Species tend to remain the same, not change from one to another.

Let's be careful in our definitions. Statements such as "I don't believe in evolution" are not helpful because they are not precise enough. In order to have intelligent conversation on this issue, we must define what we are talking about.

There was no evolution in the creation process.

There is evolution (meaning simply change) in the world as we know it. Positive change only stems from intelligence and planning.

Changes that come from lack of order or planning are only negative ones. Order never comes as a result of disorder.

As followers of Jesus we must be clear in what we are talking about as we engage the world on these issues.

Scary Implications for Interpretation

The bible is a book of truth and facts. It is also literature. In light of these things, we must put forth effort to interpret and understand it correctly. Ultimately, our goal is to accurately comprehend what God means through the scriptures. No sane person reads the bible, or any other book for that matter, while hoping to misunderstand it.

One aspect to correct interpretation is consistency. This means that when we look at the same types of literature, we interpret them using the same methods. Since the bible has various types of literature within it, we must be thoughtful in our approach. However, when looking at the same types of writing, we must take meaning in the same way.

The bible is written for our understanding. Most of it was penned in a manner that is extremely straightforward. For example, when we read the gospels we see an account about the life of a real man in a real place doing real things. There is no reason to do anything but interpret this literally.

The same can be said of Genesis chapters 1-11. Specifically concerning Genesis chapter one, we see a real God speaking a real planet into a real existence. God does this in space and time. As with the gospel accounts, there is no reason to understand it in any way other than literally. We do not have the right to pick and choose how we interpret the bible. God has given it to us according to His standards.

When scripture is our ultimate authority, we never have to allow outside influences to affect how we understand it. It is to be interpreted on its own merits. This applies to all information in the bible, including the creation narrative.

However, if scripture is not the starting point for thinking about this world's beginnings and some type of theistic evolution is embraced, then a big issue immediately surfaces. That issue is how to interpret Genesis chapters 1-2.

A fair reading of Genesis 1-2 indicates six 24 hour days. This is what happens when the passage is treated as being literal.

Those who adhere to theistic evolution must, therefore, interpret it in some other way than literally. Many think of it as an allegory or fictional story of some type. The specifics are explained away by saying that it is only meant to give us the idea that God is in charge of creation. They claim chapters 1-2 are not intended to provide any actual scientific data.

The scary aspect of this is that it smacks of subjectivity and relativism. Who has given them the right to treat Genesis 1-2 as if it is not to be taken literally?

The only reason the theistic evolutionists do this is because it doesn't fit their worldview (which stems from secular scientific naturalism).

If they interpret Genesis 1-2 as being non-literal, then why do they interpret any passages in a literal fashion? What is their reasoning for thinking (as many do), for example, that Adam and Eve did not exist but that Jesus did?

More specifically, why do they believe in a literal gospel message? Why do they think God literally came to earth, lived, died, rose again, and ascended? Why think any of the miracles in scripture literally occurred?

Every true Christian by definition believes in a literal Jesus. However, those who hold to a non-literal rendering of Genesis 1-2 are in a scary position. Their choice for what is to be taken literally and what is not appears to be simply that: an utterly subjective choice.

There are two consistent positions when it comes to Genesis 1-2. The first is to take it literally and accept it. The second is to treat it as fanciful and reject it wholesale (as most secular scientists do). The untenable position is the one that tries to find the middle of the road. That's what we see with theistic evolution.

Their inconsistency and subjectivity is scary for what it says about their understanding of the rest of the biblical message.

Starting in the Right Place

I'm writing about creation this week because I'm concerned about the rising influence of Biologos within the church. Biologos is an organization that promotes theistic evolution.

I'm going to be relatively short and to the point in this post. Christians who hold to theistic evolution are starting in the wrong place. Specifically, their authority is wrong when it comes to creation.

When the bible is the place we begin, and we read Genesis 1-2 in a straightforward manner, we can see that God created this world in six 24 hour days. Interestingly, the facts of science support this.

When Christians begin with secular scientific findings, they end up with evolution. This puts them in a pickle. What can they do? Answer: they force Darwinian theory upon scripture and come up with theistic evolution. This theory basically says that God controlled evolution to bring about this world.

This is not a science versus bible issue. Rather, it is a secular atheism versus Christian theism issue. The problem with theistic evolutionists is that they have surrendered authority on the issue to the secular academy. They have bought into secular theories about the world's beginnings in the hope of being accepted by secular scientists.

Scripture makes it clear that as followers of Jesus we will be outcasts in society. Our view of how the world began is part of this. We reject Darwinian theory in favor of what God has done. In His grace, God has shown us what He did. He's given us plenty of details in Genesis 1-2, and, more broadly in Genesis 1-11.

This is not a core gospel issue (theistic evolutionists can be saved). However, it does have theological and interpretive consequences. As an example, scripture tells us that we all fell when Adam fell. Because of this, all can be redeemed through faith in Christ. If evolution is true, then all did not come from Adam. Various humans would have evolved from different sources. This being the case, how are those saved who did not come from Adam? Theistic evolution lends itself to all sorts of theological problems.

The worldview of scientific naturalism wages war against biblical Christianity. We must not accept it in any way. We have to have the correct starting point for our beliefs. The bible must be the place we start. If we begin in the right place, we have a great chance of drawing the right conclusions. A correct beginning leads to a correct ending.

All scripture has been breathed out by God. When Paul writes this in II Timothy he is talking about the Old Testament. This includes Genesis 1-2. While the bible is divinely inspired and free of error, science is imperfect at best. Even Christian scientists are imperfect people looking at imperfect data in an imperfect world. Science has flaws.

When we look to scripture as our authority, we will have an accurate understanding of this world and its beginnings. True scientific data will only support what we have already read in the bible. A great example of this is the fossil record. It corresponds perfectly to the global flood account.

Let's begin with the bible.

Proverbs 9:10, "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is insight."

Why Are Campouts Great? Community

Last weekend we had the opportunity to go on a campout with a group of other Christian families. Some we know pretty well, while others were new to us. We all have daughters in the American Heritage Girls.

The campout took place at beautiful Magnolia Springs State Park, which is about two hours from here. We all stayed at a pioneer campsite, which means sleeping in tents, cooking over outdoor stoves, sitting around the fire, and using a scary outhouse. It was real camping (as opposed to staying in some sort of cottage with electricity. O.K. I admit to having done that before).

We enjoyed fishing, going on hikes through the woods, playing games, eating lots of good food, watching the animals, etc. Personally, it was great just to breathe in a lot of fresh air (I work in a construction equipment factory with less than the best air quality).

As I think back on the campout, it is clear what made it great. It was the community. Campouts like this provide the rare opportunity to spend many hours with friends away from the distractions of everyday life. While group camping, all the tents are within a few feet of each other. Most electronic distractions are a non-issue. There isn't much to do but hang out and talk. This may involve taking hikes and playing games, or it might just mean sitting in chairs in a circle. Regardless, it provides something that is difficult to come by most of the time: a lot of time to talk and simply be together.

It strikes me that the church would benefit from functioning much like folks at a campout. We would spend a lot of time together, hanging out, eating, playing games, and talking a lot. We would share our lives together for bulks of time (this, of course, is not all the church would do.)

We can learn a lot from campouts. I hope we are able to go on another one soon.

I Love Watching Greatness

I think I could watch Secretariat run all day long. This video shows his victories in the three 1973 Triple Crown races. It seems as if God decided to create nearly the perfect race horse in Secretariat. His victory in the Belmont, the third race, is the most stunning and dominating performance I've ever seen in any sport. He is simply a joy to watch.

Three Questions for Atheistic Evolutionists

I realize that not many atheistic evolutionists read this blog. Despite this, I still want to ask a few questions. In doing this, I'm differentiating between atheistic evolutionists and theistic evolutionists. Although I strongly disagree with theistic evolution, I also believe that a person can be a theist (and even a Christian) and hold this position.

Now to the three questions. These are, I believe, fair questions that need to be answered by atheistic evolutionists. Frankly, I'm curious. So here they are:

1. Does your life have meaning?

2. If you answered "Yes" to question number one, why?

3. If you answered question number two with something like, "Because I give it meaning," would you please elaborate on that?

I'm asking these questions because atheistic evolutionists are becoming an increasingly loud minority voice in our society (especially on secular university campuses). If people are going to hold this position, then they need to answer some significant philosophical questions.

It strikes me that the logical outcome of holding an atheistic evolutionary position is one of utter despair. If life began as a cosmic mistake, and we are simply part of that, then that means that my life personally is a mistake. Therefore, it holds no inherent meaning. If life has no meaning, then what is there to live for?

Creation, Resurrection, Evolution, and Biblical Interpretation

I've heard a number of Christians say that it doesn't really matter how we interpret Genesis chapters 1-2 as long as we have accepted Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. While I agree that salvation does not directly depend on what we believe about the first two chapters of the bible, I profoundly disagree with the idea that "it doesn't really matter." It matters a great deal because it tells a lot about how we interpret scripture, what our ultimate authority is, and whether or not we are being consistent in how we read the bible.

A simple reading of Genesis 1-2 suggests a literal six day, 24 hour creation. If we hold to the bible as our final authority, then we will come to this conclusion. Since I believe all of the bible is true, I am a young earth creationist.

Christians who are theistic evolutionists may say that they believe the bible is true. However, they look to secular science as their authority on how the universe came to be as it is. Therefore, they believe that God used some form of evolution to bring about His creation. This conclusion cannot come from scripture. Genesis 1-2 does not even hint at this. Therefore, theistic evolutionists force scripture to fit into what secular science says.

We see, then, a significant difference. When it comes to how things are, creationists look to the bible as their final authority while theistic evolutionists look to secular science.

Let's now turn to the resurrection of Jesus Christ. This is a core doctrine of our faith. If you reject the truth of the resurrection, then quite simply you are not a follower of Jesus Christ.

Creationists, like myself, read in the bible that Jesus rose from the dead. The bible says it and I believe it. Despite the fact that secular science rejects the idea that a dead man can rise from the dead three days later, I still believe it is true. This is a literal interpretation of scripture. This view believes the bible is the final authority.

This is where theistic evolutionists who claim to be Christians have a significant problem. By embracing evolution, they have shown that secular science is their final authority. Therefore, the bible is not. Secular science rejects the resurrection. The bible proclaims it. Which will they choose?

Christian theistic evolutionists obviously agree with the resurrection of Christ. By definition they have to. In doing this, they claim that biblical truth supersedes secular scientific theory on this issue. The clear problem is this: theistic evolutionists are completely inconsistent in what their final authority is.

On the issue of creation, they reject the bible in favor of secular science (they would not say this, but listening to them force scripture to say things it doesn't further proves the point). On the issue of the resurrection of Christ, they reject secular science in favor of what the bible teaches.

As the saying goes, "You can't have your cake and eat it, too." Theistic evolutionists cannot fairly claim different sources of authority. Either the bible is true in all aspects or it should be rejected.

When we look at the issue this way, we see how clear it becomes. The position of theistic evolution is one that all Christians must reject. Even many ardent atheistic evolutionists despise the theory of theistic evolution because of its inconsistency. At a basic intellectual level, it is an embarrassing position to hold.

We must be consistent with what we believe is true and why we believe it. The resurrection of Jesus matters, but so does the account of how the world began. How life began is absolutely critical. It is one of the most fundamental questions we can ask and answer. To reject the bible's answer to one of these questions but then embrace the bible's answer to the other is inconsistent and dangerous.

If we are to be consistent in how we read and interpret the scriptures, the only fair conclusion we can come to about creation is that God did it in six 24 hour days, just like it says in Genesis 1-2.

God's Purpose for Creation

Earth As Art

God created this world to display His infinite glory. Because of this, I enjoy seeing photos like these that show the earth as art.

(TC)

A Great Family Weekend

We had a great time as a family this past weekend at Magnolia Springs State Park. For the first time in years, our family, my sister's family, and my parents all spent a chunk of time together away from the busyness of life. We went canoeing, walked trails, played games, sat around the campfire, consumed burgers and s'mores, found alligators (to watch, not play with), and just enjoyed being together. Additionally, it was wonderful to have some time to enjoy God through His creation. In other words, instead of just admiring the beauty of nature, I wanted to enjoyed the Creator of the beauty in which I was basking. God is good to show us glimpses of His glory through what He has created.

This is Mary and me canoeing. I would have smiled but the sun was temporarily blinding me (notice Mary's tinted lenses).

Me standing by a fallen tree stump

Caroline by a very dead pine

Gator relaxing in pond / us safely on bridge above

Gator on the prowl

Then and Now

Thanks to my good friend Micah for this one.

Courtesy of AiG

Apollo 8 Genesis Reading

I love this video. The NASA Apollo 8 mission was the first to fly around the moon. On Christmas Eve 1968, the astronauts read from the Genesis account of creation.

Random Thoughts for 10/13/10

These are some short, somewhat random (at least in order) thoughts that have been bouncing around in my head.

-Christians should be the nicest people in the world. That may not seem too deep theologically speaking, but it is true. I wonder why this so often is not the case.

-Job Fairs are good for making you humble. I attended one yesterday here in Savannah. I saw many people, including me, all hoping to land what amounted to jobs that weren't that attractive. I'm glad God is sovereign because if I have to rely on my own skills and abilities to get a job, I could be unemployed for quite a while. That could be part of God's plan, but if it is I know He will provide.

-I'm a sports fan. That's one of the reasons we got rid of our T.V. - so I wouldn't watch so much. Last night, via the internet, I saw something very thoughtful happen after the Texas Rangers defeated the Tampa Bay Rays to advance to the ALCS. Since one of their players struggles with alcoholism, the team decided to use Ginger Ale for their celebration instead of champagne. I realize that the whole thing of spraying one another with liquid is pointless, but it was nice to see a team alter what it normally does for the good of a teammate.

-This past Saturday we experienced a very small example of the Lord giving and the Lord taking away. We received an e-mail from a friend offering a Guinea Pig for free. We decided to accept the offer. This was a blessing to our daughter Mary who really wanted a pet she could play with. We had a Russian Dwarf Hamster, but it couldn't do much more than run in its wheel. It was not cuddly. Well, just before the Guinea Pig arrived at our house, we realized that the Dwarf Hamster wasn't moving. Simply put: it died. We buried it, and a little while later the Guinea Pig arrived. I think of it as an upgrade. We do see, however, that the Lord both gives and takes according to His perfect timing.

-If you suggest on Facebook - as I recently did - that Christian women should not wear bikinis and Christian men should not enjoy women wearing bikinis, watch out! While some people will heartily agree with what you have written, others will beat you up with "Christian liberty" and "Judge not lest ye be judged." Modesty has certainly become a thing of the past in most sectors of our society, including much of the church.

-In thinking through the issue of creation and Genesis chapters 1-2, it bothers me that the creationism issue has been framed by many as a "culture war" issue. I think it is actually bigger than that. I believe it is an issue of biblical interpretation itself. If we say that Genesis chapters 1-2 should not be taken literally (and I realize there is a little wiggle room in what this means), then where do we stop with this method of interpretation? A fair reading of the text suggests that God's actions are explained literally to us. If we reject this, what else do we reject? How far do we go in this? I believe it is impossible to reject a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-2 and then turn around and accept a literal interpretation of other key truths of the bible like the resurrection of Jesus. And if there is no resurrection, there is no salvation. We must be consistent in how we interpret scripture.

-Regarding simple church/house church life, one of the primary reasons I hear people reject the concept is that these same people "have seen it and it doesn't work." I've read and heard many variations on this same thing. Basically it boils down to the fact that these people have in their own experience seen house churches that have not worked (usually blown apart or fallen into false teaching). Therefore, they conclude, house churches cannot work in our culture and should not be trusted or attempted. This reasoning is problematic for one main reason: it doesn't involve the bible at all. The biblical model shows house churches. Do they have problems? Of course they do - they're made up of people. However, this remains the model. Therefore we should at least accept the idea of house churches existing. We must let scripture inform and lead our decision making instead of our own experiences.

-Yesterday I had a wonderful two-hour conversation with a friend of mine. He is heavily involved in institutional church ministry, but he is also open to simple church ideas. We don't agree on everything, but it was refreshing because he is willing to ask hard questions about the Christian life, including the church, and also try to find the answers. We are in agreement that the American church is in a desperate crisis of discipleship. We had a good time talking about ways to combat this problem. We certainly don't have all the answers.

-If you attend a Southern Baptist seminary, you will in general receive an excellent education. The best part will be your original language classes and your theology classes. The most disappointing classes will be those that mention the church but don't really deal with what the bible says about it. Regardless, if you plan to attend, go here.

-We are in a dangerous spot if we automatically avoid books that have been given a certain label by others. One of these labels is "emergent." For example, I've been told to avoid certain books "because they are emergent literature." The problem is that the word emergent has come to mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people. My point is simply this: let's let the book stand on its own merits and not be afraid to read it just because of a subjective label someone else has given it.

-I just received this book in the mail. I'm looking forward to taking a while to read it (over 500 pages).

-Read this excellent post about how to write about those with whom you disagree.

Favorite Falls Foto

I love this photo from Niagara Falls. That's my daughter Mary and me standing at the base of the American Falls back in July. After going down an elevator on the Cave of the Winds Tour, we walked to the bottom of the falls. Yes, that is falls water splashing down our backs. Refreshing!

Gorgeous Double Rainbow

Thanks to Dave Black for sharing this amazing video of a double rainbow. "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork." Psalm 19:1