 |
 |
|
home | archives: May 2008 |
 |
Welcome |
|
FeaturesChrist’s death, God’s wrath: the vital connection
Jul 30, 2009 Are you missing the point of Scripture passages? Jul 21, 2009 Modeling misjudgments: Clothing, contradictions and Miss California May 14, 2009 Exploring The Last Battle’s Emeth element May 11, 2009 MacArthur on sex and the sacredness of the Song Apr 14, 2009 Heaven and Earth, part 1 — Fixing our eyes away from the lies Apr 13, 2009 Fighting on broader battlefields of Biblical spiritual warfare Apr 11, 2009 Keeping the Cross in focus this Good Friday Apr 10, 2009 An open letter to Jennie Chancey from the Devil Mar 12, 2009 Capitalism, socialism and critics’ Rush to judgment Mar 10, 2009 |
 |
Search |
|
Updates |
|
Recently read:
|
|
Recently read:
|
Josh Harris: Ripping, Burning, Eating — A Right Response to God’s Word |
|||
 |
by
Dr Ransom
at
11:35 AM ET
,
Saturday, May 31, 2008
|
Permalink | |
| Categories: Columns, Deep Doctrine Magic: Life Applications, New Attitude | |||
The New Attitude 2008 conference in Louisville, Ky., began at 7:45 pm Saturday, May 24, with about a half-hour of songs, hymns and spiritual songs — as in previous conferences, hybridized and stylized to the point where I lost track of which was which. A new song might have words so doctrinally grounded that they seem antiquated; an old one might have new music, and/or a new chorus. And I’ve found I really like this sort of arrangement. It’s not about whether a song/hymn is “new” or “old” — but does it glorify God and His Truth and Grace? At New Attitude, hosted by Sovereign Grace Ministries, glorifying God is the goal. Eric Simmons, Covenant Life Church co-pastor and initiator behind New Attitude 2008, kicked off the conference’s speaking portion with a grand welcome to all, of course, and either facts for new attendees or review for previous ones. We’re all about humble orthodoxy. If you get lost, consult a Courtesy Ninja, he said — that is, half of a Young Married Couple with Sovereign Grace Ministries who is trained to offer help, and perhaps also coffee and donuts and perhaps pens and candies (and presumably limited martial arts skills). Also, you have with you this year’s New Attitude guide, which this year consisted of a single journal with maps around the conference center and city beyond, the conference schedules and space for notes. It was far too little space for notes, some including me observed, at least for messages of this magnitude! Speaking of which, the first message of magnitude was by Josh Harris, pastor and author (of both of the Mush Books, of course, along with Stop Dating the Church which actually isn’t about Mush). After a delay several years ago, Harris wanted to re-start the conferences, Harris said, and everyone here is benefiting from his vision and leadership. Thanks, Josh! Simmons said, leading to applause — and to Harris’s opening message on “Ripping, Burning, Eating — A Right Response to God’s Word.” |
|||
Looking back on New Attitude 2006 |
|||
|
by
Dr Ransom
at
12:50 PM ET
,
Thursday, May 29, 2008
|
Permalink | |
| Categories: Columns, Deep Doctrine Magic: Biblical Theology, Life Applications, New Attitude | |||
The New Attitude conference in Louisville, Ky., held by Sovereign Grace Ministries and with speakers including Josh Harris, John Piper and Al Mohler, concluded its four-day duration early Tuesday afternoon. On that day I returned home, with guests in tow, along with bountiful thoughts about the event's offerings regarding Scripture — specifically to me, the Biblical balance between meditating upon and delighting in God's Word. One is head, the other is heart. One is mental and thoughtful, the other, emotional. God's Word itself does not present any sort of dichotomy between them. It's “living in active” for both! Many, many other realizations and reactions will result from this conference, I'm sure. And I hope to share them on FaithFusion in the coming weeks, and perhaps even more quickly within the coming days. Unlike NA 2007 — during which I flamed out halfway through, based on depression, fatigue and other factors — I not only stayed during the whole conference, but I: 1) Didn't miss a community group or even part of a session; 2) Tackled the conference with multiple friends this time, some I'd known for a long time, and some new after the four-day event; 3) Took as many fastidious notes as I could, using either my often-low-battery-afflicted laptop, or actual paper and pen. Lest this seem bragging, please note that I'm still a bit depression at missing all the marvelousness last year. In response to the apparent success of this conference for me, I will certainly credit the Creator/Savior Who wrote the Word that inspired it — and secondly, the existing and new friends who made the constant “fellowship” time so amazing and enjoyable. 2006 'New' review It has occurred to me frequently during the past two years that finding previous New Attitude notes, heavily supplemented by my later editins, is difficult on this site. That's partly because several blog features are broken at present, including (last I checked) monthly archiving. Updates are definitely in order! |
|||
The Chestertonian Perspective |
|||
|
by
Roccondil
at
04:23 PM ET
,
Friday, May 16, 2008
|
Permalink | |
| Categories: General, Deep Doctrine Magic: Biblical Theology, Catholicism | |||
Originally posted by me at Faith and Philosophy: One of my favorite writers (if you haven't guessed already) is G. K. Chesterton, the great British apologist, theologian, novelist, and philosopher who was writing from about 1900 until his death in 1936. He is chiefly known for his apologetic works such as Orthodoxy or The Everlasting Man as well as for his short stories but really he wrote more than that: he wrote from a perspective that looked at the world upside-down . . . or is it we who look at the world upside-down? I think it's because of this “uncommon sense for the world's common nonsense” that I have begun to describe myself as a Chestertonian. It is a paradox worthy of Chesterton himself (“the prince of paradox”) that I describe my views this way. Chesterton would probably have found it amusing that I, whose theology is decidedly Calvinistic (though I prefer the term “Reformed”), would be such an admirer of this Roman Catholic apologist (though, I would argue, I am just as “catholic” in the apostolic sense)..... Read the rest of the article here. |
|||
Fourth ‘Doctor’ season brings new alien agendas — part 2 |
|||
|
by
Dr Ransom
at
01:02 PM ET
,
Thursday, May 08, 2008
|
Permalink | |
| Categories: Columns, Media: Film and DVD, Storytelling | |||
(Simulposted to the Speculative Faith blog as of today. ...) Last week’s column (my first in a long time on Speculative Faith) focused on not-so-hidden intellectual invasions inherent in Doctor Who, courtesy of the British sci-fi programme’s head writer/producer, Russell T. Davies. His goals were made more explicit in a British newspaper’s article early last month, as the series’ fourth season was underway: Davies gushes, for example, over a guest appearance by angry Atheist Richard Dawkins in a forthcoming episode, and claims directly that he hopes young boys will imitate one series character’s example and declare their own homosexuality. However, I’m actually not going to undertake another one of those anti-culture Christian rants, like the kind you read about in email forwards. To be sure, Christendom often needs those sorts of rants (even in email forwards), to oppose truly harmful movies, television programs or other art forms, politicians, organizations or whatever. This column, continued from last week, just isn’t going to be one of them. Instead, the Doctor practices such heroism and wages true battle against evil influences, resembling other famous fictitious Christlike-figures, that it’s well worth seeing. This meat may have indeed been sacrificed to idols by its makers (a la 1 Corinthians 10: 23-33), in the hope of furthering anti-Christian agendas. But Biblical truths are there in these epic stories anyway — like the time-traveling TARDIS ship itself, surrounded by a perception filter, it seems the writers may just not be able to see such “” elements. |
|||
Liberalism and Abortion: a Chestertonian Perspective |
|||
|
by
Roccondil
at
12:04 PM ET
,
Saturday, May 03, 2008
|
Permalink | |
| Categories: Columns, Politics: The Left Wing, Deep Doctrine Magic | |||
The following was originally written by me as part of an essay contest for the American Chesterton Society and has been expanded for Faithfusion: In today’s world a revolutionary is not one who espouses a new idea, but one who would dare to bring back an old one. The reason is that the new ideas are generally boring and mundane while old ones are fresh and exciting because they have been packed away for so long. In today’s world, a boorish man is generally accepted because it is new and respectable to be rude; being chivalrous, on the other hand, is decried as sexist and offensive because it is an old idea. Thus, those who call themselves “liberal” and embrace the new ideas tend to be the critics rather than the idealists. It was with something of this in mind that G. K. Chesterton wrote in Varied Types, “He is a very shallow critic who cannot see an eternal rebel in the heart of a conservative.” One issue in which this can be clearly seen in modern American politics is the issue of abortion. Probably no issue has been so polarizing as whether or not a woman ought to have a legal right to, in the language of the “pro-choice” party, “terminate an unwanted pregnancy,” or in the language of “pro-life” advocates, “kill a baby.” However, because the idea of abortion is so relatively recent, that it is politically and socially acceptable while pro-life advocates are condemned because they dare to argue for a traditional understanding of life as beginning at conception. The Humanity Question Scientifically, of course, this has been proven. The “blob of tissue” does, in fact, have a different genetic structure from that of the woman. It is, in fact, a human forming inside a woman: a human being like us with all the feelings and emotions that come with being human. Even the term used, “fetus,” is the Latin word for baby. The ancient Roman who heard the word would have thought of a wonderful laughing little human being in the arms of its mother. What he did not think of was a developing blob of tissue. The being inside of a woman is a human being. Of course, philosophically there is no question that the being inside a woman is human. The only differences between a baby outside the womb and the “fetus” inside are in development, location, and level of dependency, none of which are critical to our humanity. Take level of development: is an adult more human than a child? Of course not. Yet we say that because a “fetus” is more developed than a baby that somehow it is not yet human. It's really a preposterous idea. The other two categories are just common sense: your location does not determine your humanity and neither does dependency (anyone who has done long-term caregiving can attest to that). |
|||
Fourth ‘Doctor’ season brings new alien agendas — part 1 |
|||
|
by
Dr Ransom
at
11:04 AM ET
,
Thursday, May 01, 2008
|
Permalink | |
| Categories: Columns, Media: Film and DVD, Storytelling | |||
(My first column in literally four months to the Speculative Faith co-op blog went live just now. ...)  More hideously scary monsters are coming to the new season 4 of the smashing British sci-fi series Doctor Who. Like the Cybermen, a race of metallic soulless humanoids who want to “upgrade” all humans to be like them, this threat arises from a surprising source and threatens the existence of planet Earth, by compelling people to be subject to certain extraterrestrial modes of thought.And it’s courtesy of none other than Doctor Who’s very executive producer and head writer, Russell T. Davies. “Wait wait wait wait!” While I say that, please imagine me holding up my hands in a faux-panicked manner, reminiscent of the Tenth Doctor, right before I whip out a clever solution to avoid being killed. This is because, unlike some Christian writers and culture pundits, I seem to find myself unafraid of Davies’ own ideological invasions. |
|||
