Skip to content

Blog

Published on Leave a comment on Razor tongued journalism

Enjoyed reading this far too much.

Every night, [Simon Cowell, creator of The X-Factor / American Idol] paces the empty corridors of his monochrome mansion, worrying whether he has calibrated correctly the mix of trainwrecks/ugly nightingales/Iraq-based backstories, or whether something – somewhere – is askew. Will one mistimed child teardrop in episode three be the Toto that pulls back the curtain, finally revealing that the great karaoke wizard is in fact nothing but a diminutive man working the levers of public taste with a mixture of enthusiastic opportunism and gnawing inner despair at how easy it is?

Read the whole thing.

Published on Leave a comment on I’ve got a question

Dale Neumann

A man accused of killing his 11-year-old diabetic daughter by praying instead of seeking medical care has been found guilty of second-degree reckless homicide. 

Dale Neumann, 47, was convicted over the March 23, 2008, death of his daughter, Madeline, from undiagnosed diabetes.

Prosecutors argued he should have rushed the girl to a hospital because she could not walk, talk, eat or drink.  Instead, Madeline died on the floor of the family's rural home as people surrounded her and prayed. Someone called an ambulance when she stopped breathing.

Neumann stared at the jury as the verdict was read out in the courtroom in Wausau, Wisconsin.

Defence lawyer Jay Kronenwetter said they will appeal against the verdict.

Neumann, who once studied to be a Pentecostal minister, testified that he believed God would heal his daughter and he never expected her to die. God promises in the Bible to heal, he said.

"If I go to the doctor, I am putting the doctor before God," Neumann testified. "I am not believing what he said he would do."  (As reported here)

Why is it lack of faith to call a doctor but not lack of faith to use a lawyer??
.
 Pray for these parents.  And renounce this theology.

Published on Leave a comment on I've got a question

Dale Neumann

A man accused of killing his 11-year-old diabetic daughter by praying instead of seeking medical care has been found guilty of second-degree reckless homicide. 

Dale Neumann, 47, was convicted over the March 23, 2008, death of his daughter, Madeline, from undiagnosed diabetes.

Prosecutors argued he should have rushed the girl to a hospital because she could not walk, talk, eat or drink.  Instead, Madeline died on the floor of the family's rural home as people surrounded her and prayed. Someone called an ambulance when she stopped breathing.

Neumann stared at the jury as the verdict was read out in the courtroom in Wausau, Wisconsin.

Defence lawyer Jay Kronenwetter said they will appeal against the verdict.

Neumann, who once studied to be a Pentecostal minister, testified that he believed God would heal his daughter and he never expected her to die. God promises in the Bible to heal, he said.

"If I go to the doctor, I am putting the doctor before God," Neumann testified. "I am not believing what he said he would do."  (As reported here)

Why is it lack of faith to call a doctor but not lack of faith to use a lawyer??
.
 Pray for these parents.  And renounce this theology.

Published on Leave a comment on Trusting God’s sovereignty – Trusting God’s Son

A re-post for Thawed-out Thursdays

 

When times are tough - what is your comfort?  When comforting others, where do you point them?

In the circles in which I move the encouragements of choice involve variations on the theme of 'God's got a plan.'  Many's the time when a well-meaning brother (usually a brother) has said 'I guess at moments like this, all you can do is cling onto God's sovereignty.'  Often I've heard friends say that only sovereignty has enabled them to get through the hard times. 

Something's gone wrong here.   Over a billion Muslims navigate through life clinging onto 'insh'Allah' (God willing).  800 million Hindus believe that karma will work everything out.  And how many unbelieving westerners, even in the face of terrible suffering, will still believe 'everything happens for a reason.' 

This was really brought home to me about 5 years ago.  I was praying with a new convert from Islam.  We were worried about his visa application, but I was amazed at how he was 'trusting God's sovereignty'.  In fact he was using language that I usually associate with the most mature of reformed Christians.  I told him I was very impressed, he shrugged his shoulders and said 'In Pakistan we have a saying: 'God willing' - it means that whatever God wills will happen.'  I almost physically slapped my forehead.  Of course!  He's just translated Insh'Allah into a Christian environment. 

Yet surely a Christian account of sovereignty involves more than simply transfering deterministic agency from Allah to the Father!  Surely there's got to be a gospel-shape, a Christ-focus, a trinitarian dynamic to Christian sovereignty.  Yet what was so striking about my friend's translated insh'Allah was that it sounded so completely like the Christian pastoral wisdom sketched out above.

Two years ago I went to northern Nigeria and the difference between Muslim and Christian accounts of sovereignty struck me again.  When I wanted something done by Tuesday, the Muslim would tell me 'It will be ready, insh'Allah'.  The Christian would tell me, 'It will be ready, if Jesus tarries.'  Hallelujah!!  Isn't that brilliant??  (King James' English lives on in Nigeria!).  But isn't there all the difference in the world between a future determined by an inscrutible divine will and a future opened up in the gospel-patience of Jesus?  I've tried to get people using 'If Jesus tarries' over here, but it hasn't taken.  Yet.

Now I'm not denying for a second the sovereign rule of the Father through the Son and by the Spirit.  And perhaps in future posts I'll outline some thoughts on what a truly gospel-shaped, Christ-focused, dynamically-trinitarian account of sovereignty might look like.  But for now I will simply question the pastoral wisdom of referring the suffering Christian to the sovereignty of God as though 'God's in charge' was the sum and substance of the Christian hope.

All too often this amounts to a 'light at the end of the tunnel' comfort.   How much better to encourage a person that Christ joins them in the tunnel.

I want to know Christ and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in His sufferings.  (Philippians 3:10)

Christ is with us in suffering.  He is especially near to the broken-hearted.  As Spurgeon used to say, He never throws His children in the fire without joining them in it (cf Dan. 3; Isaiah 43:2).  In suffering we get to know the Suffering Servant with greater depth and intimacy than ever before.   To simply point to the God over and above us in suffering is deficient.  We must also point to the God beside and within us.

The gospel is not the truth that, while I may be buried in muck, God remains untouched in pristine glory and one day I'll be there with Him.  The gospel is about God joining us in the muck.  The gospel is that He stoops, sympathises and suffers alongside us.  And that He raises us with Him to the throne.  

Now we know that the good news is not that God remains in heaven and we battle on till glory.  Well then, why does so much of our pastoral exhortation assume exactly such a 'gospel.'

Why do we so often point people to God's sovereignty and so rarely point them to God's Son?  Why is the focus on the light at the end of the tunnel and so little on the One who joins us in the darkness?  The one kind of exhortation produces tight-lipped soldiers, the other produces broken-hearted lovers.  Let's aim for the latter!

.

Published on Leave a comment on Trusting God's sovereignty – Trusting God's Son

A re-post for Thawed-out Thursdays

 

When times are tough - what is your comfort?  When comforting others, where do you point them?

In the circles in which I move the encouragements of choice involve variations on the theme of 'God's got a plan.'  Many's the time when a well-meaning brother (usually a brother) has said 'I guess at moments like this, all you can do is cling onto God's sovereignty.'  Often I've heard friends say that only sovereignty has enabled them to get through the hard times. 

Something's gone wrong here.   Over a billion Muslims navigate through life clinging onto 'insh'Allah' (God willing).  800 million Hindus believe that karma will work everything out.  And how many unbelieving westerners, even in the face of terrible suffering, will still believe 'everything happens for a reason.' 

This was really brought home to me about 5 years ago.  I was praying with a new convert from Islam.  We were worried about his visa application, but I was amazed at how he was 'trusting God's sovereignty'.  In fact he was using language that I usually associate with the most mature of reformed Christians.  I told him I was very impressed, he shrugged his shoulders and said 'In Pakistan we have a saying: 'God willing' - it means that whatever God wills will happen.'  I almost physically slapped my forehead.  Of course!  He's just translated Insh'Allah into a Christian environment. 

Yet surely a Christian account of sovereignty involves more than simply transfering deterministic agency from Allah to the Father!  Surely there's got to be a gospel-shape, a Christ-focus, a trinitarian dynamic to Christian sovereignty.  Yet what was so striking about my friend's translated insh'Allah was that it sounded so completely like the Christian pastoral wisdom sketched out above.

Two years ago I went to northern Nigeria and the difference between Muslim and Christian accounts of sovereignty struck me again.  When I wanted something done by Tuesday, the Muslim would tell me 'It will be ready, insh'Allah'.  The Christian would tell me, 'It will be ready, if Jesus tarries.'  Hallelujah!!  Isn't that brilliant??  (King James' English lives on in Nigeria!).  But isn't there all the difference in the world between a future determined by an inscrutible divine will and a future opened up in the gospel-patience of Jesus?  I've tried to get people using 'If Jesus tarries' over here, but it hasn't taken.  Yet.

Now I'm not denying for a second the sovereign rule of the Father through the Son and by the Spirit.  And perhaps in future posts I'll outline some thoughts on what a truly gospel-shaped, Christ-focused, dynamically-trinitarian account of sovereignty might look like.  But for now I will simply question the pastoral wisdom of referring the suffering Christian to the sovereignty of God as though 'God's in charge' was the sum and substance of the Christian hope.

All too often this amounts to a 'light at the end of the tunnel' comfort.   How much better to encourage a person that Christ joins them in the tunnel.

I want to know Christ and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in His sufferings.  (Philippians 3:10)

Christ is with us in suffering.  He is especially near to the broken-hearted.  As Spurgeon used to say, He never throws His children in the fire without joining them in it (cf Dan. 3; Isaiah 43:2).  In suffering we get to know the Suffering Servant with greater depth and intimacy than ever before.   To simply point to the God over and above us in suffering is deficient.  We must also point to the God beside and within us.

The gospel is not the truth that, while I may be buried in muck, God remains untouched in pristine glory and one day I'll be there with Him.  The gospel is about God joining us in the muck.  The gospel is that He stoops, sympathises and suffers alongside us.  And that He raises us with Him to the throne.  

Now we know that the good news is not that God remains in heaven and we battle on till glory.  Well then, why does so much of our pastoral exhortation assume exactly such a 'gospel.'

Why do we so often point people to God's sovereignty and so rarely point them to God's Son?  Why is the focus on the light at the end of the tunnel and so little on the One who joins us in the darkness?  The one kind of exhortation produces tight-lipped soldiers, the other produces broken-hearted lovers.  Let's aim for the latter!

.

Published on Leave a comment on How Jesus views the collection plate

41 Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. 42 But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a fraction of a penny. 43 Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, "I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. 44 They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything--all she had to live on."  (Mark 12:41-44)

The way we usually carry on you'd imagine that Jesus watches the collection plate like a hawk, biting His nails to the quick, hoping against hope that we'll give enough to finance His kingdom aspirations.  That's basically how we think anyway.

But Jesus is not like that.  Actually He's watching us.  He's not bothered about what we throw in so much as what we hold back.  For Him it's not the amount but the sacrifice that counts.  Because - honestly - He's not on edge waiting to see whether His gospel agenda is financially viable.  He's interested in the givers not the gift.

I was once staying with some millionaires in the States.  They had a massive house, massive swimming pool, even a man-made lake stocked with fish.  They called it a pond.  It wasn't.  It was a lake.  My friend was also staying there and one night I wondered aloud to him how much the kingdom would benefit if they gave their wealth away.  My friend was wiser.  He said 'Maybe.  But if they gave away more of their money, the real benefit would be for them.'

Jesus is not watching the missions giving fund.  He's watching the givers.  That's where His real concern lies.

.

Published on Leave a comment on Two conversion stories

Dan Barker of the Freedom from Religion Foundation tells of his past in evangelical Christianity

I was a "doer of the word and not a hearer only." I went to a Christian college, majored in Religion/Philosophy, became ordained and served in a pastoral capacity in three California churches. I personally led many people to Jesus Christ, and encouraged many young people to consider full-time Christian service.  (Here)

And here's his conversion to atheism as told to a journalist here

[Barker] lay on a burlap cot in a church in a Mexican border town where he'd come to give a guest sermon. As he peered out at a splash of stars, Barker had a sudden profound sensation that had nothing to do with intellect, the kind of deeply felt moment more commonly associated with finding God than losing Him. He was, Barker understood, utterly alone here.

"For my whole life there had been this giant eyeball looking at me, this god, this holy spirit, this church history, and this Bible. And not only everything I did but everything I thought was being judged: Was God pleased? I realized that that wasn't there anymore. It occurred to me, 'I own these thoughts. Nobody knows what I'm thinking right now. There's no fear of hell, no fear of judgment, I don't have to be right or wrong, I can just be me.'" It felt as if charges had been dropped for a crime for which he had been falsely accused. It was exhilarating and frightening all at once. "When you're ready to jump out of an airplane to skydive, you can be terrified but excited at the same time," he says. "There's a point where you go, all right, let's do this."

It strongly reminded me of John Bunyan's conversion:

"As I was passing in the field, and that too with some dashes on my conscience . . . suddenly this sentence fell upon my soul, Thy righteousness is in heaven; and, methought withal, I saw with the eyes of my soul Jesus Christ at God's right hand, there, I say, is my righteousness; so that wherever I was, or whatever I was a-doing, God could not say of me, He wants [lacks] my righteousness, for that was just before him. I also saw, moreover, that it was not my good frame of heart that made my righteousness better, nor yet my bad frame that made my righteousness worse; for my righteousness was Jesus Christ himself, the same yesterday and today for ever (Heb. 13:8)."

"Now did my chains fall from my legs indeed, I was loosed from my affliction and irons, my temptations also fled away, so that from that time, those dreadful scriptures of God left off to trouble me; now also went I home rejoicing for the grace and love of God."

In both conversions naturally enough it was their view of God that changed and that changed them.  Both were weighed down under the scrutiny of Heaven.  Both found a joyful liberation in the death of God.  (Of course Barker's empty heaven does not remove his spiritual masters but multiplies them).

Nonetheless, I think the similarities are very instructive. 

Because what did/does Barker need?  More theistic proofs?  These would only have strengthened his notion of a 'giant eyeball' in the sky.  And who could blame him if he wants to be free of that?

Yet there are a hundred apologetic strategies that drive the Barkers of this world firmly into atheism, not away.

What should we do instead?

Let's seek to give them what Bunyan got - true freedom through Christ crucified.

.

Twitter widget by Rimon Habib - BuddyPress Expert Developer