By the way, today is our 2 year anniversary. In the words of Al Pacino, "Hoo-ah!"
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
How will they know we are Jesus'?
It seems to me that there is a lot of interfaith hatred being thrown at the Emergent Church and its leadership. I have read countless blogs, articles, and personal agitations against the movement. I have a 5 cd discourse by J.P. Moreland, who if you haven't read of any of his stuff you need to, on the dangers of postmodernity and the Emergent Church. Now, he dismantles their argument but in a way that is done with love and that makes sense. He boldly and clearly articulates his position and offers great insight to what should be done. This stands in stark contrast with the majority of critiques I have read.
Unfortunately, it seems that a majority of people lump every Emergent leader and quasi-Emergent person into one large group of heresy. And on some of their tenets I can understand. But to immediately throw them under the bus and ridicule them seems a little harsh.
Before I go any further I should say that I understand Jesus' love and his anger. He did deal harshly with the people of his time who were the religious authorities. But was this because of their radical opposition to Jesus? Were they so close to Jesus' side that He wanted them to make that final step into his camp? Jesus clearly hates sin and those who commit sin are doomed for hell outside of Christ. But those within the walls of Christianity are our brothers and sisters and we need to love them.
All I am saying is that to an outside world who already despise Christians for a whole host of reasons (see the book UnChristian) we are just adding to the already gaping hole in our foot. We continually tear down the veil covering our hatred for all things outside of our denominational boxes and the world is watching. Why in the world would anyone want to join the ranks of those who so blatantly hate each other for peripheral reasons? We agree on the core foundations of Christianity and it is there we must gain a foothold and grab the hand of our fellow believer. From there we must unite in our efforts to show our world the life that is in Christ. The lives and worldviews of the world are not the ways it is supposed to be. Jesus came to earth to show us this new/before-sin world. And it is to this end he has called us. We are to love God and love our neighbors. This includes our own. As Jesus said in John 13:35, "By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."
Unfortunately, it seems that a majority of people lump every Emergent leader and quasi-Emergent person into one large group of heresy. And on some of their tenets I can understand. But to immediately throw them under the bus and ridicule them seems a little harsh.
Before I go any further I should say that I understand Jesus' love and his anger. He did deal harshly with the people of his time who were the religious authorities. But was this because of their radical opposition to Jesus? Were they so close to Jesus' side that He wanted them to make that final step into his camp? Jesus clearly hates sin and those who commit sin are doomed for hell outside of Christ. But those within the walls of Christianity are our brothers and sisters and we need to love them.
All I am saying is that to an outside world who already despise Christians for a whole host of reasons (see the book UnChristian) we are just adding to the already gaping hole in our foot. We continually tear down the veil covering our hatred for all things outside of our denominational boxes and the world is watching. Why in the world would anyone want to join the ranks of those who so blatantly hate each other for peripheral reasons? We agree on the core foundations of Christianity and it is there we must gain a foothold and grab the hand of our fellow believer. From there we must unite in our efforts to show our world the life that is in Christ. The lives and worldviews of the world are not the ways it is supposed to be. Jesus came to earth to show us this new/before-sin world. And it is to this end he has called us. We are to love God and love our neighbors. This includes our own. As Jesus said in John 13:35, "By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."
Thursday, August 21, 2008
A Rant
Working in the public school system has enabled me to relax and get some work done this week. Now this work may not be tangible, quantifiable "work" but more along the lines of reading articles and seeing what is going on in the evangelical/Christian world. I use the term evangelical lightly because it has come under the disdain of many Christians, myself included. Not that I disagree with everything labeled evangelical but there are many things that greatly annoy me.
One thing is an article I read today about a church known as the 6th most influential church in America. How they came up with that, I have no clue. Regardless, this church and its senior pastor have the endorsements of Rick Warren, Bill Hybels, and a few more of the prominent evangelical leaders of America. I came across this church by way of reading an article/podcast of the senior pastor blaming his congregants for their lack of a biblical worldview. They were surveyed and it was concluded their lack of belief in salvation through Christ alone, biblical inerrancy, and a few other Christian tenets. The pastor went on to say that the blame is theirs for not believing these things. His solution to the problem? A few more minutes added to the service to bolster their faith. Even better, they were going to provide more time for parking at the church so people wouldn't hate each other. No mention of any form of discipleship or biblical teaching. He didn't take any of the blame as the pastor. He is the shepherd of the church and should be the one leading them into biblical truth. This, of most importance, is the reality of Jesus' salvation. He is alive today and is the sole means of redemption. If your church is not solidly founded on this then what in the world are you believing?
The problem is their lack of gospel truth. They are proud to be a seeker sensitive church, but to what ends? To bring people into the church where they continue in their unbelief? To have a church full of people stagnant in their spiritual conditions? I even went to the website and looked at a few of their "Teaching Highlights." The name of Jesus wasn't even mentioned. Their pastors' bios look more like little boys having a peeing contest. They are full of credentials and statements of their own praise. What in the world is going on?
The church needs to be a place of teaching and preaching to the believers present in order for them to reach their worlds. You empower them at church to send them out to the lost. Now, obviously, non-Christians come to church and we need to be aware of them. But we can't water down the gospel in order to meet the needs of them. What does that produce? A bunch of people who don't know the first thing of their condition or what the Bible says about life. We must preach the hope of Christ and how he gives us life and life abundantly. Then we missionally and incarnationally live that out in our neighborhoods, at work, etc. It's not a matter of mode of preaching; it's a matter of substance. Preach the Triune God and allow him to work. It's not about us and our credentials. It's about making disciples who live out their faith in our world.
One thing is an article I read today about a church known as the 6th most influential church in America. How they came up with that, I have no clue. Regardless, this church and its senior pastor have the endorsements of Rick Warren, Bill Hybels, and a few more of the prominent evangelical leaders of America. I came across this church by way of reading an article/podcast of the senior pastor blaming his congregants for their lack of a biblical worldview. They were surveyed and it was concluded their lack of belief in salvation through Christ alone, biblical inerrancy, and a few other Christian tenets. The pastor went on to say that the blame is theirs for not believing these things. His solution to the problem? A few more minutes added to the service to bolster their faith. Even better, they were going to provide more time for parking at the church so people wouldn't hate each other. No mention of any form of discipleship or biblical teaching. He didn't take any of the blame as the pastor. He is the shepherd of the church and should be the one leading them into biblical truth. This, of most importance, is the reality of Jesus' salvation. He is alive today and is the sole means of redemption. If your church is not solidly founded on this then what in the world are you believing?
The problem is their lack of gospel truth. They are proud to be a seeker sensitive church, but to what ends? To bring people into the church where they continue in their unbelief? To have a church full of people stagnant in their spiritual conditions? I even went to the website and looked at a few of their "Teaching Highlights." The name of Jesus wasn't even mentioned. Their pastors' bios look more like little boys having a peeing contest. They are full of credentials and statements of their own praise. What in the world is going on?
The church needs to be a place of teaching and preaching to the believers present in order for them to reach their worlds. You empower them at church to send them out to the lost. Now, obviously, non-Christians come to church and we need to be aware of them. But we can't water down the gospel in order to meet the needs of them. What does that produce? A bunch of people who don't know the first thing of their condition or what the Bible says about life. We must preach the hope of Christ and how he gives us life and life abundantly. Then we missionally and incarnationally live that out in our neighborhoods, at work, etc. It's not a matter of mode of preaching; it's a matter of substance. Preach the Triune God and allow him to work. It's not about us and our credentials. It's about making disciples who live out their faith in our world.
Monday, August 11, 2008
Be careful little eyes what you see...
48% of America's Minors Exposed to R-rated Entertainment: Dartmouth College Study
By Jenna Murphy
HANOVER, NEW HAMPSHIRE, August 12, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A newly released study by Dartmouth College experts reveals that movie ratings are ineffective when it comes to barring minors from R-rated (18+) films.
Dartmouth researchers found that approximately 22 million of America's young people between the ages of 10 and 14 (12.5%) have viewed one or more restricted films. The most alarming numbers were recorded for the film Scary Movie with an estimated 48% (10 million) of this same age group having viewed the film despite the 'restricted' rating.
The online, family-friendly film reviewing site, Screenit.com, gives "Scary Movie" an "extreme" rating (the highest possible) for sexuality, violence and profanity.
"Our data reveal a disturbingly high rate of exposure among 10-14 year olds nationally to extremely violent movies," says Keilah Worth, the keynote author of the study and post-doctoral fellow at Dartmouth Medical School and at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center's Norris Cotton Cancer Center. "In Britain, no adolescent would be admitted to these movies unless they were 18. The R-rating in this country is clearly not preventing our young people from seeing them."
It is no secret that exposure to violence as entertainment leads to eventual desensitization. In a joint statement, the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychological Association and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry confirmed that violence in television, in music, in video games and in movies increases violence among children. "Its effects are measurable and long-lasting," the four groups say in a statement. "Moreover, prolonged viewing of media violence can lead to emotional desensitization toward violence in real life."
Dartmouth Researchers were able to pinpoint that Black youth from families with a lower socioeconomic status were most at risk for early exposure to R-rated films.
"No expert in child development would advocate for subjecting children as young as 10 to this level of violence, yet the study shows that such exposure is commonplace in this country," says James Sargent, the senior scientist on this study and a professor of pediatrics at Dartmouth Medical School.
"We should re-think the current movie rating system, which has been in place for 40 years, and was designed when kids could only see movies in theaters. Ratings need to be more prominent on all movies, whether they are seen in theaters or purchased in the store, and we need clearer messages to parents. Pediatricians and child advocates should instruct parents to strictly abide by the movie-age guidelines and to closely monitor movie viewing."
I work in a middle school and these stats are dead on. I am amazed at how many of my 12-14 year olds come in on Monday mornings, or other mornings for that matter, having seen the newest raunchy R-rated movie. Our kids are playing sex and violence filled video games, seeing every kind of foul and perverted thing in movies and yet we wonder why they act the way they do. I know I sound "old fashioned" but have you seen the unbelievable way kids, especially young girls, dress today? Our kids are maturing faster physically today than they are emotionally. They are dressing in ways that their emotions and minds cannot respond to. The amount of skin that is visible in middle school is more than ever should be allowed. There is a direct correlation. We must protect our children from allowing all sorts of trash into their minds because it is our thoughts that control our actions. Thoughts lead to actions, which lead to habits, which eventually turn into lifestyles. The line from the children's song, "be careful little eyes what you see," seems to carry a much heavier meaning to it nowadays. Be aware of what you see because it will affect you.
By Jenna Murphy
HANOVER, NEW HAMPSHIRE, August 12, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A newly released study by Dartmouth College experts reveals that movie ratings are ineffective when it comes to barring minors from R-rated (18+) films.
Dartmouth researchers found that approximately 22 million of America's young people between the ages of 10 and 14 (12.5%) have viewed one or more restricted films. The most alarming numbers were recorded for the film Scary Movie with an estimated 48% (10 million) of this same age group having viewed the film despite the 'restricted' rating.
The online, family-friendly film reviewing site, Screenit.com, gives "Scary Movie" an "extreme" rating (the highest possible) for sexuality, violence and profanity.
"Our data reveal a disturbingly high rate of exposure among 10-14 year olds nationally to extremely violent movies," says Keilah Worth, the keynote author of the study and post-doctoral fellow at Dartmouth Medical School and at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center's Norris Cotton Cancer Center. "In Britain, no adolescent would be admitted to these movies unless they were 18. The R-rating in this country is clearly not preventing our young people from seeing them."
It is no secret that exposure to violence as entertainment leads to eventual desensitization. In a joint statement, the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychological Association and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry confirmed that violence in television, in music, in video games and in movies increases violence among children. "Its effects are measurable and long-lasting," the four groups say in a statement. "Moreover, prolonged viewing of media violence can lead to emotional desensitization toward violence in real life."
Dartmouth Researchers were able to pinpoint that Black youth from families with a lower socioeconomic status were most at risk for early exposure to R-rated films.
"No expert in child development would advocate for subjecting children as young as 10 to this level of violence, yet the study shows that such exposure is commonplace in this country," says James Sargent, the senior scientist on this study and a professor of pediatrics at Dartmouth Medical School.
"We should re-think the current movie rating system, which has been in place for 40 years, and was designed when kids could only see movies in theaters. Ratings need to be more prominent on all movies, whether they are seen in theaters or purchased in the store, and we need clearer messages to parents. Pediatricians and child advocates should instruct parents to strictly abide by the movie-age guidelines and to closely monitor movie viewing."
I work in a middle school and these stats are dead on. I am amazed at how many of my 12-14 year olds come in on Monday mornings, or other mornings for that matter, having seen the newest raunchy R-rated movie. Our kids are playing sex and violence filled video games, seeing every kind of foul and perverted thing in movies and yet we wonder why they act the way they do. I know I sound "old fashioned" but have you seen the unbelievable way kids, especially young girls, dress today? Our kids are maturing faster physically today than they are emotionally. They are dressing in ways that their emotions and minds cannot respond to. The amount of skin that is visible in middle school is more than ever should be allowed. There is a direct correlation. We must protect our children from allowing all sorts of trash into their minds because it is our thoughts that control our actions. Thoughts lead to actions, which lead to habits, which eventually turn into lifestyles. The line from the children's song, "be careful little eyes what you see," seems to carry a much heavier meaning to it nowadays. Be aware of what you see because it will affect you.
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Parade of Nations
The other night my wife and I were watching the Opening Ceremonies of the Olympics. Holy crap what a show. I mean, honestly, have you ever seen a show like that? The whole Chinese technology being light years ahead of us? Yeah it's correct. Anyways...the whole show lead up to the parade of nations. I heard the athletes had to wait several hours in their suits in 90 degree heat just to walk in. As I was watching it got me thinking (and yes this is going to be theological so get ready).
The majority of the entire world was present via their athletes. They are the best of the best in their respected field. The whole point of the Olympics to be better than your opponent and to win the gold. This will in turn bring honor and glory to your country. So, in essence, the Olympics and everything that goes into it (viewers, stations, pictures, athletes, etc.) centers in on the worship of athleticism and competition.
Revelation 7:9-10 After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could count, from every nation and all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, and palm branches were in their hands;
and they cry out with a loud voice, saying, "Salvation to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb."
Now that is the picture of a parade of nations! It reminds me of a concert when everyone's attention is given to the band. It's almost as if the crowd is worshiping the band. What a foreshadowing for the day when every knee will bow and give praise to Jesus. He is the only one worthy of our praise. Unlike the Olympics, every persons' effort will be given to the glorification of Christ. There will be peace. Not individual peace, although that is part of it, but worldly peace unlike any Olympics could ever attain. I know I will not be a part of the Olympics parade of nations but I can't wait to be in Jesus'.
The majority of the entire world was present via their athletes. They are the best of the best in their respected field. The whole point of the Olympics to be better than your opponent and to win the gold. This will in turn bring honor and glory to your country. So, in essence, the Olympics and everything that goes into it (viewers, stations, pictures, athletes, etc.) centers in on the worship of athleticism and competition.
Revelation 7:9-10 After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could count, from every nation and all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, and palm branches were in their hands;
and they cry out with a loud voice, saying, "Salvation to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb."
Now that is the picture of a parade of nations! It reminds me of a concert when everyone's attention is given to the band. It's almost as if the crowd is worshiping the band. What a foreshadowing for the day when every knee will bow and give praise to Jesus. He is the only one worthy of our praise. Unlike the Olympics, every persons' effort will be given to the glorification of Christ. There will be peace. Not individual peace, although that is part of it, but worldly peace unlike any Olympics could ever attain. I know I will not be a part of the Olympics parade of nations but I can't wait to be in Jesus'.
Interesting way to spend a day in school...
Legislature Passes Bill for "Gay Day" Celebrations in California Public Schools
By Peter J. Smith
August 8, 2008, SACRAMENTO (LifeSiteNews.com) - California public schools soon will be planning "gay day" celebrations every May 22 unless Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoes the legislation.
Thursday the California Assembly approved AB 2567, which designates May 22 as "Harvey Milk Day." The 43 to 26 vote occurred on party lines with Democrats for, Republicans against. Earlier this week, AB 2567 passed the California State Senate on another party line vote 22-13 - Democrats for, Republicans against.
The bill will require all public schools to "conduct suitable commemorative exercises" in commemoration of the anti-religious, homosexualist agenda of the late San Francisco Supervisor Harvey Milk.
According to a Senate analysis of the bill, "This bill requires the Governor to proclaim May 22 as Harvey Milk Day…The designation of a day of significance triggers statutory encouragement for public schools to observe and conduct commemorative exercises suitable to the day."
"This bad bill will teach impressionable schoolchildren the anti-religious, homosexual-bisexual-transsexual agenda of Harvey Milk," warned Randy Thomasson, President of Campaign for Children and Families.
"If signed into law, AB 2567 will mean an official day commemorating homosexuality, bisexuality, and transsexuality in California government schools…This will harm children as young as children as young as kindergarten."
By Peter J. Smith
August 8, 2008, SACRAMENTO (LifeSiteNews.com) - California public schools soon will be planning "gay day" celebrations every May 22 unless Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoes the legislation.
Thursday the California Assembly approved AB 2567, which designates May 22 as "Harvey Milk Day." The 43 to 26 vote occurred on party lines with Democrats for, Republicans against. Earlier this week, AB 2567 passed the California State Senate on another party line vote 22-13 - Democrats for, Republicans against.
The bill will require all public schools to "conduct suitable commemorative exercises" in commemoration of the anti-religious, homosexualist agenda of the late San Francisco Supervisor Harvey Milk.
According to a Senate analysis of the bill, "This bill requires the Governor to proclaim May 22 as Harvey Milk Day…The designation of a day of significance triggers statutory encouragement for public schools to observe and conduct commemorative exercises suitable to the day."
"This bad bill will teach impressionable schoolchildren the anti-religious, homosexual-bisexual-transsexual agenda of Harvey Milk," warned Randy Thomasson, President of Campaign for Children and Families.
"If signed into law, AB 2567 will mean an official day commemorating homosexuality, bisexuality, and transsexuality in California government schools…This will harm children as young as children as young as kindergarten."
Saturday, August 2, 2008
Is living together the answer?
Here is some interesting data pointing to the reality of premarital cohabitation:
Reality Says Cohabitation a Disaster for Marriage but Poll Shows Public Believes Otherwise
By Peter J. Smith
UNITED STATES, August 1, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Despite increasingly high divorce rates, nearly half of the US public now clings to the belief that pre-marital cohabitation will make divorce less likely according to a recent national poll.
A USA TODAY/Gallup Poll of 1,007 adults released for the weekend shows 49 percent believe living together reduces the chances of divorce. 13 percent said cohabitation makes no difference at all on marriage's success. Only 31 percent held the view that shacking up before marriage increases the risk of future divorce. 7 percent had no opinion.
"If you're living with someone, you actually get to know somebody more than you would not living with them," Christopher Sekulich, 37, of Melvindale, Michigan told USA Today.
Living together before marriage has skyrocketed since the 1960s, when Western cultures began to cast off traditional sexual mores; but the same period has seen a correlating upsurge of divorce.
The evidence has prompted a number of studies that have indicated that by trying to avoid divorce by cohabitation, unwed couples seriously compromise their marital success. A 2006 report published in the journal Demography indicated one-half of all cohabiting unions collapse within a year and 90 percent within five years.
"The common view of cohabitation as a steppingstone to marriage needs to be seriously questioned," commented Daniel Lichter a professor of policy analysis at Cornell University and the study's lead researcher. "Instead, serial cohabitation may be an emerging norm as cohabiting unions form and break up," he said. "If marriage promotion programs hope to target poor cohabiting women, our results seemingly suggest that the likelihood of success is not assured." Most respondents also said they had little concern about the effect upon children of living in an unmarried cohabiting household. 47 percent insisted it makes no difference, and 12 percent believed there would be positive benefits.
However, the sentiments match up little with the reality that children suffer the brunt of collapsing marriages, and unmarried cohabitation creates an insecure situation for their development. A study by the Vanier Institute of Family entitled "Cohabitation and Marriage: How Are They Related?" compiled results from hundreds of research papers that examined the social, emotional and financial effects of cohabitation and marriage on women, men, children and society.
Anne-Marie Ambert, the study's author, concluded that cohabitation is inherently unstable and carries a high cost on children's physical and psychological development.
Ambert noted, "Commitment and stability are at the core of children's needs; yet, in a great proportion of cohabitations, these two requirements are absent."
Reality Says Cohabitation a Disaster for Marriage but Poll Shows Public Believes Otherwise
By Peter J. Smith
UNITED STATES, August 1, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Despite increasingly high divorce rates, nearly half of the US public now clings to the belief that pre-marital cohabitation will make divorce less likely according to a recent national poll.
A USA TODAY/Gallup Poll of 1,007 adults released for the weekend shows 49 percent believe living together reduces the chances of divorce. 13 percent said cohabitation makes no difference at all on marriage's success. Only 31 percent held the view that shacking up before marriage increases the risk of future divorce. 7 percent had no opinion.
"If you're living with someone, you actually get to know somebody more than you would not living with them," Christopher Sekulich, 37, of Melvindale, Michigan told USA Today.
Living together before marriage has skyrocketed since the 1960s, when Western cultures began to cast off traditional sexual mores; but the same period has seen a correlating upsurge of divorce.
The evidence has prompted a number of studies that have indicated that by trying to avoid divorce by cohabitation, unwed couples seriously compromise their marital success. A 2006 report published in the journal Demography indicated one-half of all cohabiting unions collapse within a year and 90 percent within five years.
"The common view of cohabitation as a steppingstone to marriage needs to be seriously questioned," commented Daniel Lichter a professor of policy analysis at Cornell University and the study's lead researcher. "Instead, serial cohabitation may be an emerging norm as cohabiting unions form and break up," he said. "If marriage promotion programs hope to target poor cohabiting women, our results seemingly suggest that the likelihood of success is not assured." Most respondents also said they had little concern about the effect upon children of living in an unmarried cohabiting household. 47 percent insisted it makes no difference, and 12 percent believed there would be positive benefits.
However, the sentiments match up little with the reality that children suffer the brunt of collapsing marriages, and unmarried cohabitation creates an insecure situation for their development. A study by the Vanier Institute of Family entitled "Cohabitation and Marriage: How Are They Related?" compiled results from hundreds of research papers that examined the social, emotional and financial effects of cohabitation and marriage on women, men, children and society.
Anne-Marie Ambert, the study's author, concluded that cohabitation is inherently unstable and carries a high cost on children's physical and psychological development.
Ambert noted, "Commitment and stability are at the core of children's needs; yet, in a great proportion of cohabitations, these two requirements are absent."
Well I just finished Surprised by the Power of the Spirit. My good friend, Steve Evans, let me borrow it, I think knowing it would open my eyes a little. The whole premise of the book is that Jack Deere used to be an OT prof at Dallas Theological Seminary. If you don't know, DTS was one of the main proponents of dispensationalism but is now leaning more towards covenant theology. It is also the seminary of choice for most Philadelphia Biblical University students and faculty. Again, if you don't know, PBU is where I did my undergrad studies. All this to say, that I whole heartedly can see where the author is coming from and the underpinnings of his theology and practice.Prior to some significant happenings in his life, and his eventual dismissal from DTS, Deere was a cessationist. This simply means that he thought the works of the Holy Spirit, i.e. tongues, miracles, and healing, had stopped after the apostles died. Thus, the beginning of this book starts out as his theology is challenged again and again by God. Without going into great detail, he lays out a biblical foundation for the relevance and need for the work of the Spirit today. There are a few things that I took away, besides the work of the Spirit, which I think are paramount for many Christians today. But I'll just mention one.
Deere discusses how his theology came about from study but mainly from "good" Christian teachers telling him what the Bible says. He gives a story of a doctoral candidate at DTS who couldn't give one Scriptural reference for his beliefs. From this it began to dawn on him the probability that the majority of Christians, and seminarians/pastors, could not give a valid biblical account for their beliefs. Rather, they were simply taught that the Bible teaches this and therefore you must believe it as well. The point is do not take a "good" teacher's word for the Word. I can't tell you how many things I was told/taught at PBU that I wouldn't hold to now. I truly enjoyed my PBU experience but their one downfall was their lack of objective teaching. Now I know that they are entitled to their position and all that. But when professors are telling students to put their hands down when they have an opposing view there has to be something said. How can we honestly expect well-rounded students who have weighed all the biblical interpretations and have earnestly looked to God for guidance when they aren't allowed to voice their questions? Are certain profs to afraid to allow questions to be heard? Don't they know their own arguments well enough to face a 20 year old? OK now I'm ranting. I hope and pray that there aren't more schools and situations like this where there is no flexibility or openness to other faith traditions. Jesus is a person not a philosophy who works in the lives of every believer not just one's with him in a box.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
