 |
 |
|
 |
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 |
|
Archives |
 |
Search |
|
Updates |
|
Recently read:
|
|
Recently read:
|
Are you missing the point of Scripture passages? |
|||
 |
by
Dr Ransom
at
05:41 PM ET
,
Tuesday, Jul 21, 2009
|
Permalink | |
| Categories: Columns, Deep Doctrine Magic: Biblical Theology, Churchianity, Life Applications | |||
(Edited from the originally written version, available here.) Here is something I’ve had on my mind for a while, based on a little series of broadcasts called “Discover the Word,” by RBC Ministries. In early May, I mini-blogged this to my website: Just now I’m finishing my catchup with the most recent “Discover the Word” broadcast, by RBC Ministries. They’re doing a fantastic series about misreading of Scripture, including Matthew 18: 19-20 ... offering the true context of this passage that I hadn’t seen before ... They continued the Biblical Context series for about a month, dealing with misunderstood, misinterpreted or misapplied passages of Scripture that people take out of context all the time and may not even know it. More and more I’ve learned that many passages I’ve had up in my head that I subconsciously thought said one thing actually say nothing of the sort. And in some cases, the out-of-context idea may be Biblical — just not what the verse is talking about there. Reading random letters For instance, take Matthew 18, actually verses 15-20. The whole passage is about what steps to follow if you’re offended by a fellow Christ-follower, right? But somehow or other, folks tend to see this passage (along with other Biblical texts) as sort of a child’s summer-camp letter, as Dr. Haddon Robinson so aptly phrased it: jumping from thought to thought to thought like a kid who says, “Hi Mom. It’s hot here at camp. I captured a frog. Yesterday I went swimming. Please send money for snacks. ‘Bye.” So instead of finding that all of what Jesus said in this passage is about reconciliation between believers, and in the Church, Christians think Jesus suddenly changes his mind and starts talking instead about prayer meetings, or “binding Satan,” or the power of faith to get stuff. “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother.But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses.If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven.For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.” Pretty cool so far, right? Most readers would track right along with this if they began reading the chapter — or the book of Matthew altogether — from the beginning. Jesus started talking about personal reconciliation, which may or may not require church leaders to be intermediaries, and He hasn’t left that topic. So when why — I ask myself this too, with a silly grin on my face! — do we sometimes while reading verses like this suddenly assume Jesus had some kind of ADD and then got distracted by spiritual warfare and how God is always there at prayer meetings? That’s the way many Christians have traditionally understood the following verses, at least when they’re quoted by themselves like “sound bytes,” without context. |
|||
On spiritual sophistry, sarcasm, and Dr. Sarfati |
|||||
|
by
Dr Ransom
at
12:01 PM ET
,
Monday, Feb 23, 2009
|
Permalink | |||
| Categories: Columns, Science: Genesis, Rebuttals, Politics: The Left Wing, Deep Doctrine Magic: Biblical Theology, Churchianity, Cross Firings, Life Applications | |||||
More controversy is brewing on the Boundless webzine, the site for young adults that covers all manner of discipleship, worldview and lifestyle issues. Debate over there is nothing new. What is new is that it involves a true apologetics hero whose arguments, though sparkling with light and truth, also carry static shock that’s even rubbing fellow Christ-followers the wrong way.
More recently, Boundless has been publishing columns by him and other CMI staff. And Sarfati has also been getting into several blog discussions — and riling reactionary responses. That’s not surprising. Skepticism will always assail someone who believes, and much more so proclaims, such ideas as: God created the world 6,000 years ago; science has limitations in proving origins beliefs and is never “objective”; the global flood of Genesis, not millions of years, is responsible for almost all fossils; evidence fits better with creationist presuppositions. But Sarfati likes to get into politics, too, and as one friend of mine once said, he seems to know American politics and the Constitution better than most Americans. His style and criticisms are very reminiscent of Ann Coulter, another favorite conservative writer of mine (I’ll admit it). In a recent comment, Sarfati generalized Leftists as “elitists who regard themselves as above the rules they foist on others,” and employed the use of amusing names for Liberals such as “Debtocrats” or “celebutards.” Other Boundless commentators blasted him back — some of them are left-leaning professing Christians — yet a few others, such as myself here, agreed with the content, yet questioned Sarfati’s style: Just a few changes [. . .] to remove the name-calling and over-generalizing, would go a long way toward making the truth of the arguments even more poignant. Dr. Sarfati, I would agree with you that in some situations, even Coulter-esque invective can be entertaining. But coming from a Christ-follower, the juvenile verbiage seems unnecessary. And I would even more strongly suggest that it is also un-Christlike. Sir, I greatly respect your work for the apologetics and Scripture defense cause, but is [it] a more-powerful argument, and furthermore Scriptural, to “speak the truth in love”? To that, and other objections, Sarfati noted, How can following Christ's own challenge-riposte be “un-Christlike”? Have these critics actually even read what Christ said? There is nothing in the Bible demanding that we should be like [C]hrist only when He was gentle, but not when He used riposte. It seems Sarfati’s response bears a more-direct and comprehensive answer. Dare I go up against one of my apologetics heroes and suggest he’s wrong? No, I dare not. Rather, I prefer coming alongside him as a Christian brother, and admirer, and hope only to suggest graciously a more balanced approach to dealing with folks, and especially professing Christians. |
|||||
Substitute mediators and ‘CINOs’: a response to one Catholic |
|||
|
by
Dr Ransom
at
02:28 PM ET
,
Monday, Feb 02, 2009
|
Permalink | |
| Categories: Columns, Rebuttals, Deep Doctrine Magic: Biblical Theology, Churchianity, Cross Firings | |||
“Medieval Catholicism” was the topic of one column written by my brother on his own blog, offering many creative and comical observations of a cathedral he toured while in Washington, DC, for the pro-life march. Among more-substantive critiques of Catholic over-veneration of tradition and saints and such, he offered a recurring and hilarious “Monty Python” reference (the first one to find them and mention them wins a prize, namely, in-comment bragging rights). And he made a comparison I'd never seen made before. There were splendid and massive frescoes, paintings, displays, statutes and bas-relief carvings. There was a massive pipe organ towards the back. There were numerous vestibules off of the main chamber to give homage to the various and sundry saints and “Our Ladies” of the Catholic history. I nearly broke out into peals of laughter (I managed to channel it into muted chortling) because of the number of different saints and titles that were displayed, reminding me of the silly role-playing games with dozens of characters and +1 abilities. But then came a critical comment from a professing Catholic, who said he had found Dave's column on the Google Blog Search and just happened to stop by to attempt addressing his arguments. I don't think the critical comment-writer did too well. And though Dave will very likely write his own rebuttal, I hoped to do the same in the meantime. Here it is, though with some additions for clarity. Ah yes. I figured you would be having the zealous Catholic apologists come after you over this one, Dave. ;-)
I note, Timothy, that you've bypassed Dave's tongue-in-cheek comparisons of Catholicism's “veneration of the saints” to role-playing game players with various fantastic abilities. Surely you can laugh along with this even a little, seeing how this can look to non-Catholics while also knowing that in Catholicism (as in Protestantism) even good things like respecting other saints can be overdone, even to superstitious extremes as you yourself pointed out? As you have attempted with Dave, I now do with you, in offering a point-by-point rebuttal. As you have also claimed, I hope to adhere to Scripture, not just church traditions. However, I hope to avoid overcorrecting and dismissing all traditions entirely. [Dave had written about one chanter in the march, “He ended his 'hail Mary' the exact same way each time...'blessed are you and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.' ”] First, regarding the veneration of Mary, you somewhat subtly-sarcastically responded, That would be Luke 1:42. Catholics are fond of memorizing and reciting scripture. Hmm, the implication here is that Dave, or other non-Catholic Christ-followers, is not. Also, I didn’t read Dave objecting to a quote from the famous Magnificat. It was the “Hail Mary” part that he, other non-Catholic Christ-followers, and myself, see as at best questionable, at worst, anti-Biblical. The arguments for and against the veneration of Mary are well-known and documented. If you were truly interested in the Protestant side, I have no doubt you would have already seen those. Suffice it to say, yes, informed Protestants take the “one mediator” stuff to mean that only Jesus can intercede on our behalf before the Father, not Mary, and not other saints (more on this later, regarding your bait-and-switch about 1 Timothy 2:5). Praying to Mary, or in the name of Mary or another saint, is thus rendered illogical at best, and “over-veneration” at worst. These people are heroes of the faith, yet not omniscient like God. How can we know they will hear us anyway? (In all fairness, Christians who declare that they “bind Satan” or some such nonsense seem to ignore the fact that the Devil is not omniscient, either. How would they know the devil even heard?) “It seems that most of the March is, in fact, comprised of Catholics.” Yes, the Catholic Church’s position on the evil of abortion is well-known, and commendable. I didn’t see any criticism of this fact. It was just a statement of fact, that most of the March seems to be comprised of Catholics. In your apparently hasty defense, did you miss the part in which Dave described his own involvement with the pro-life march? “[H]alf of Catholics are registered Democrat, and voted for Barack Obama in numbers greater than for McCain.” Fully agreed, and I will remark that it was not only “cultural Catholics,” but also “cultural Protestants” (Christians In Name Only, CINOs), or naïve Christians, or ill-informed Christians, who voted for a leader who is so clearly opposed to Judeo-Christian social and government morality. |
|||
Dr. Michael Horton: 'Christless Christianity' |
|||
|
by
Dr Ransom
at
06:21 PM ET
,
Thursday, Oct 09, 2008
|
Permalink | |
| Categories: Deep Doctrine Magic: Churchianity, Cross Firings, Media: Books | |||
Only sporadically have I posted shorter items here, and I certainly don't mean to detract from Roccondil's excellent essay below, Abortion and the Role of a Leader. Also, I've never posted a video link on this site. Yet this introduction to a lecture series on “Christless Christianity,” also the subject of a new book, both by Dr. Michael Horton, is a great place to start. Should Christianity really be a list of moral to-dos, whether liberal or conservative? Is the Church really fine with its doctrine — creeds — but bad with its actions — deeds? Or is the problem that with either “creeds” or “deeds,” far too much focus is being placed on humans instead of God and His glory? |
|||
Passion |
|||
|
by
Roccondil
at
04:20 PM ET
,
Tuesday, Apr 15, 2008
|
Permalink | |
| Categories: Deep Doctrine Magic: Churchianity | |||
After some recent reading and thinking on the subject I thought I'd talk a little bit about passion and its importance in the church. A little background here: I'm a Presbyterian. I have grown up in two conservative PCA churches, one of which educated me very well in doctrine and biblical history. I still sometimes trade biblical trivia with a good friend of mine and love it. The great strength of this, of course, is that I know my way around a Bible and can tell you where to find stuff on a lot of subjects. I also know my Church History and can tell you which theologians come where, what the major movements were, and what happened in the crusades (and I seriously had trouble with coveting when I saw a t-shirt with “Jonathan Edwards is my homeboy” on it). The problem is that often I have all this head knowledge and no heart knowledge. I can quote chapter and verse on the great theologians from the Apostle Paul to R. C. Sproul, but if I don't have any heart, it's nothing. It doesn't do me any good because I'm not living it. I was convicted several weeks ago when I was listening to R. C. Sproul talk about the Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard. On a side note, Kierkegaard was a Christian, albeit a controversial one and one who has (unfortunately) had a legacy that he didn't intend in the form of existentialism. As I was saying, Sproul was explaining that Kierkegaard's concern was that the church of his day had no passion for God. They had theology, oh yes they had it, and they had good liturgy, but they had no passion: they were a dead church. Kierkegaard's philosophy was meant to reawaken a flame of passion for God in the church of his day. So in honor of Kierkegaard, here are some places where the church needs passion. |
|||
On Truth, the trivial and theology |
|||
|
by
Dr Ransom
at
12:38 PM ET
,
Monday, Feb 11, 2008
|
Permalink | |
| Categories: Columns, Media: "Narnia: AWAKE", Rebuttals, Deep Doctrine Magic: Churchianity, Cross Firings, Gnosticism, Storytelling | |||
(Here, after a too-long absence of FaithFusion contributions, is my elsewhere-posted rebuttal to an old acquaintance who has recently resurfaced on the NarniaWeb forum, claiming among other things that we can find alternate “gospels” in other places and that Christians’ presentations of the guilt-and-sin-and-God’s-wrath message are inherently self-righteous.) Welcome back, BenAdam — I haven’t seen you on the forums for a while. In fact, most haven’t seen me on the forums for a while, either. Hereby I heartily express my gratitude for your inspiring at least this return of mine, then. As WiseWoman said, we haven’t had a more-intense discussion in Narnia and Christianity for a while. You may not recall, but you and I have “tangled” before in late 2005. That exchange, particularly about the true natures and definitions of sin, rebellion and God’s love, ranks among the most interesting in which I’ve been involved. It seems, though, that you not only got busy after that, but also that your mind was not changed any. Since then, though, at least one thing has changed with me: I have found time to read all seven Harry Potter novels and have enjoyed them immensely — though I cannot find all that supposed Christian symbolism in there, save perhaps for the battle-between-good-and-evil generality which always reflects the true Battle. But, that doesn’t mean I cannot enjoy terrific writing and plot formation: a story certainly does not have to be a direct Christian allegory to be appreciated (unlike some Christians will, perhaps unknowingly, contend). Now, to your great surprise I’m sure, I have a few objections to what you’ve submitted above. |
|||
Forthcoming: The '4Hs' and 'Harry Potter' |
|||||
|
by
Dr Ransom
at
06:11 PM ET
,
Tuesday, Jan 23, 2007
|
Permalink | |||
| Categories: Media: Books, Deep Doctrine Magic: Biblical Theology, Churchianity | |||||
Tomorrow on Speculative Faith comes a column I've been looking forward to writing for a while, likely the first in a series. He's an excerpt:
After reading through the first three books in
the series during 1.5 weeks, I’m still wondering where all the absolutely
repugnant parts are. Then it came to me: perhaps I had accidentally retrieved the Cliffs Notes version from the library instead. After all, the more-recent books in the series, which are stacked 12 and 16 deep on stores’ cardboard display cases, are about double the thickness of your standard copy of The Fountainhead. But no. These are the real books. I double-checked and they haven't been edited in any way. So why are the first three books so, to me anyway, seemingly non-offensive? Maybe it’s because they aren’t so wicked. Or maybe it’s because I’m compromising. You decide. Of course I’m speaking of the (in)famous Harry Potter series. This will likely be a short series, dealing with the troublesome and redemptive aspects of the stories — at least from what I've read of them so far. And of particular interest to me, anyway, is if we as Christ-followers can be “open” to fantasy stories like this, which do not contain specifically Christian elements: Perhaps any story that seems to include “magic”
as some neutral force, limited to certain individuals and useful for good or
bad causes — is inherently negative, opposed to the Christian worldview. However, that would mean we must get rid of Peter Pan, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, Beauty and the Beast and all of those fairy tales. [. . .] By Wednesday at midnight, it will be published on Speculative Faith. |
|||||
Evolution of a debate: Survival among the extremes |
|||
|
by
Dr Ransom
at
06:31 PM ET
,
Monday, Jan 22, 2007
|
Permalink | |
| Categories: Columns, Science: Genesis, Rebuttals, Deep Doctrine Magic: Churchianity, Cross Firings | |||
Recently I have fallen back into a bad habit, and began engaging in a back-and-forth with evolutionists — and creationist defenders of Kent Hovind — on the forum of the Pensacola News Journal. The members fall into two extreme factions: 1) Kent Hovind is a “Christian gentleman” who did nothing wrong and who now has been silenced by the Government. Rarely does a “standard” Biblical creation advocate as myself enter the fray and suddenly acquire the appearance of a Moderate. Yet this is what has happened here. The Hovind-advocates have tried to ignore my questions, and criticisms of the now-convicted “Dr. Dino,” and the evolutionists merely offer their tried-and-trite ad hominem screeds. |
|||
Debatable droppings from 'Dr. Dino' and Co. |
|||
|
by
Dr Ransom
at
02:13 PM ET
,
Saturday, Jan 20, 2007
|
Permalink | |
| Categories: Columns, Science: Genesis, Rebuttals, Deep Doctrine Magic: Churchianity, Cross Firings | |||
Yesterday Kent Hovind, longtime speaker on the Biblical-creationist circuit — and one much more prone to wild generalizations, theatrics and questionable “proofs” — was sentenced to 10 years in prison for tax evasion. Pensacola News Journal reporter Michael Stewart ultra-summarizes the story. And frankly, I don’t want to hear any shouts of “Liberal bias!” right now, as the article is almost too stilted and objective in its style: After a lengthy sentencing hearing that last 5 1/2 hours, U.S. District Judge Casey Rodgers ordered Hovind also: Facing temporary extinctionEven for a guy who shoots rubber bands at the audience during his lectures, as Hovind does, 288 years seems a bit extreme. The solution is that the sentences are concurrent. One may be for 14 years; the other, for 9 years. The actual maximum would be 14 years.“Dr. Dino” was arrested and indicted July 14 last year, and convicted Nov. 3. That conviction followed the exposure of apparently the better-known Ted Haggard. And despite his much more serious offense — and seemingly even-flakier doctrines — Haggard seemed actually remorseful. Hovind does not. On his blog, although he seems humble, he acts as though he were Paul and Silas, tossed in jail for preaching the Word. He was not. He was put in there for income tax-evasion. And the best his followers can do is either agree with his extreme-libertarian, Jews-are-running-everything conspiracy-theory positions, or else seemingly ignore them and pray about his needs, etc. Hovind’s online frustration with friendly fire is particularly telling: It was disappointing to me to see the way thousands of “Christians” and even quite a few preachers have believed the worst about me in direct violation of Proverbs 18:13. “He that answereth a matter before he hearth it, it is folly and shame unto him.” Oh well, not much has changed in the Lord’s church in 2,000 years. “Christians” in quotes? This is most disagreeable. Anyone who does not agree with him is not saved, then? What contemptible arrogance, to say the least. The Bible passage (Authorized Version only, of course) is irrelevant. We know exactly what he did: we hath hearth (“heard”) “the matter,” and he admits it — tax fraud — blatantly proclaiming in violation of law that he owes the federal government nothing because He’s God’s Man. Hovind’s lawbreaking was bad enough. I would love to excuse him — and even forgive his absurd “prove evolution and I’ll give you $100,000” ministry “challenge” — but he is unrepentant. And what can we say about his promising to hand over whatever the IRS wants — not from his own property, but from the future donations of his ever-so-willing followers? This is perhaps saddest at all, that Hovind’s “disciples” have placed their faith in him like this. It is dangerous. |
|||
Observing the fall of fallible men |
|||
|
by
Dr Ransom
at
11:22 AM ET
,
Saturday, Nov 04, 2006
|
Permalink | |
| Categories: Columns, Science: Genesis, Media: Left-Handed News, Politics: The Left Wing, Deep Doctrine Magic: Churchianity, Life Applications | |||
Kent Hovind, self-styled “Dr. Dino” and one among the more-“flaky” kind of young-earth creation believers, was convicted yesterday for tax evasion. His defense lawyers didn't even try a defense, according to the Pensacola News Journal: Hovind faces a maximum of 288 years in prison. His wife faces up to 225 years. Her charges include aiding and abetting her husband with 44 counts of evading bank-reporting requirements. At last check, nothing on the “Dr. Dino” website references his ongoing troubles — neither were any updates posted in July of this year when he was charged with 58 counts of tax-evasion and related offenses. An apparent master of legal and political carefulness, Hovind immediately began declaring that as an evangelist and Man of God he shouldn't even have to pay taxes anyway — which perhaps explains why his lawyers avoided bothering about a defense. Wikipedia has several references chronicling the whole tax-evasion story beginning earlier this year. So: first someone named Ted Haggard, and now Kent Hovind — but the latter likely has nothing to do with the election, unlike the absolutely, hilariously, transparent attempt to take out Mr. Haggard and thus somehow upset the conservative base. (Haggard's accuser admitted wanting to expose “hypocrisy” among those freaks who want to maintain real marriage and all of that; the man had been sitting on the story since May 2006.) You conservatives out there: are you upset? Does your whole world seem dissolving? Do you trust in fallible men — “of God,” and otherwise — so much that you will abandon your principles when they fall, and fall hard? If you maintain focus on Christ, and not just corrupt practitioners of faith, I should say not. One can argue that Hovind was falling all along. His rhetoric is ridiculous, and he accepts the most weird and Coast-to-Coast-AM-radio-like “evidences” for Biblical creation. Though his belief there is accurate, his methods are not. I've criticized him before, though not directly, for treating his own cultural traditions and exterior perceptions just as the same as actual Biblical truth — scroll down to the ‘We must — be — protogolegorically correct!’ section of Churchianity, part 2: The Unwritten Rules of God's House. Thus, I for one am actually reluctantly satisfied that this “village idiot” of Biblical creation might be put away, though as my brother remarked in properly accented fashion, “I pity the fool.” Meanwhile, my familiarity with Haggard is limited. He could be right or wrong; it matters little for the faith of informed Christ-followers, and for true Christendom altogether. And it matters even less in regard to the election, despite whatever hyped-up “questions” the left-leaning media outlets try to self-generate. Trust not in man, and don't even think that conservative or Republican candidates must be perfect in order to win your vote. Right-wingers are far from perfect — many of them are far from Christ, even — but secular-liberals are far worse. |
|||
Salvation by works — of Christ alone |
|||
|
by
Dr Ransom
at
12:05 AM ET
,
Sunday, Sep 03, 2006
|
Permalink | |
| Categories: Columns, Deep Doctrine Magic: Churchianity, Evangelism | |||
On April 30, 2006, a young collegian and decade-long church member, baptized, known to dozens, and frequent participant in missions and teaching positions, prepared to stand before a church congregation and tell them about his only recent redemption by Grace. First, Pastor David Prince summarized his own forthcoming message and prefaced Moore’s testimony. Let me give you a little brief background. Jacob’s been in this church many years. There are people here this morning who are here as Christians because Jacob Moore spoke the truth of the Gospel to them. He’s been involved in mission projects; he’s been involved in serving and leading and teaching and all kinds of different ministries in the life of this church. The following is the Jacob's unabridged testimony. I’ve transcribed his entire message, truncating only to account for false starts, ums, rare grammar errors and such. Since then, Jacob has become absolutely certain of his true redemption, and has continued his mission work out of love for Christ and His glory — not to add points to his own scorecard of spirituality.
|
|||
Cameron and Kaufman on watered-down evangelism |
|||||
|
by
Dr Ransom
at
06:35 PM ET
,
Thursday, Jul 20, 2006
|
Permalink | |||
| Categories: Deep Doctrine Magic: Churchianity, Evangelism | |||||
Look who's on Boundless today — Kirk Cameron, one of my all-time favorites — post-television fame, of which I only learned after he had been drawn to Christ and to Ray Comfort's “Way of the Master” ministry. True to form, Kirk offers a Biblical rebuke of watered-down milk “evangelism,” which too often ensures that no one really feels all that guilty for anything, really, or at least not for long: [Quoting a chuch's altar call speech (more about Antique Evangelism):]“Let's face it, we've all made honest mistakes. You're not perfect, I'm not perfect, nobody's perfect. But God doesn't expect you to be perfect, that's why He sent His Perfect Son — so that you could have that relationship with Him again.Now you may be thinking, “What's wrong with that?” What's wrong is that it's not the gospel; it's a recipe for disaster. Sin is not an honest mistake and Jesus did not die to make you happy. Sins aren't accidents and God is not a lovesick celestial being, hoping for some nice person to ask Him into their heart so He can make them happy — as though He has a man-shaped hole in His heart that only we can fill. Might we hear more from Cameron in coming weeks on Boundless? Meanwhile, on the other page this week, Matt Kaufman discusses the faults of other “divine hug” evangelism methods: [N]o one was ever won to the faith without being “cut to the heart.” C.S. Lewis, describing the process, noted: “The Christian religion is, in the long run, a thing of unspeakable comfort. But it does not begin in comfort. It begins in the dismay I have been describing, and it is no use at all trying to go on to that comfort without first going through that dismay.” One can certainly be more optimistic about the future of Christendom with all of these Christ-centered warriors banding together like this. |
|||||
Nine Simple Steps to Selling a Subculture Success |
|||
|
by
Dr Ransom
at
07:00 AM ET
,
Friday, Jul 14, 2006
|
Permalink | |
| Categories: Columns, Deep Doctrine Magic: Churchianity, Cross Firings, Subculture Shop | |||
So, Pastor Ralph Lee Laufenburger! You’ve gone through youth ministry, Bible school, several conferences on church growth, and finally a ministerial position at Christian-Light Community Church in Kansas City, a middle-size congregation that you’ve made even larger during the space of 11 years. Your church, already on local television, is soon to go on syndication to many spiritually oriented cable networks, as well as TBN. And now, you’ve written a proposal for a very notable book that you are certain may prove quite lucrative. Here we have for you a lengthy list of proven marketing methods, sure to work at first in Christian bookstores nationwide, and then, eventually, even the featured-items aisles and displays of real bookstores as well. Such strategies have been proven to work on multiple occasions, and we are sure the following steps will also bring about certain success! 1. Table of contents As for the actual book material, your proposal is definitely impressive. Jesus Wept is a very catchy title, and based on a short, pithy Bible verse that is often overlooked. Your style, as written, will certainly prove appealing, and of course you will portray your thesis of realizing anew the value of anyone weeping as Jesus once did as the “magic bullet” to everything that ails not only the Church, but people’s personal lives. Here’s the suggested back-cover text (replaced in later editions by your own photo). Have you ever wondered if a wise being, somewhere, is looking upon the state of his world, and crying? More helpful, though, will be only single verses at the beginning of each chapter, on which the chapter’s contents will be based. Other sources, including rare quotes from other bestseller authors, poets, filmmakers, mystics, and the Rev. Robert Schueller, will be cited in the back bibliography. |
|||
'The Coalcar Kids and the Church of Mystery' |
|||
|
by
Dr Ransom
at
10:19 PM ET
,
Wednesday, Jul 12, 2006
|
Permalink | |
| Categories: Columns, Deep Doctrine Magic: Churchianity, Storytelling | |||
This short story was written some months ago, and overall I'm satisfied with it, though somehow I feel it became a little too preachy at the end. A change of pace, for this site? Not at all. Sometimes fiction says it best — but “it” must always come through naturally, letting people and plot, not propaganda, be central ... This is the story of The Coalcar Kids and the Church of Mystery. You can read it by yourself on this screen. You will know it is time to scroll down the page when you reach the end of a last paragraph, like this. Let's begin now. The Coalcar Kids and the Church of Mystery One sunshiny Sunday morning, four children stood in front of a small church with walls of old stone surrounded by palm and cypress trees. No one knew them. No one knew where they had come from — the children, that is. Their grandfather, Mr. Walden, was with them, all waiting for six-year-old Benny, the youngest, to read the church’s sign. “‘First Church of Mystery,’” Benny read. “Good reading, Benny!” said Grandfather, clapping Benny on the back. But Henry, the oldest of the children at 16, was surprised. “It’s Sunday,” he cried, laughing. “We’re supposed to be having a day of rest, not of Mysteries.” “But it doesn’t say ‘Mystery,’” replied 10-year-old Violet. “It says, ‘Mster.’” “Somehow the letters have disappeared,” observed Jessie, who was 12. They climbed the steps and walked inside. There, a woman greeted them. “I’m Mrs. Nickerson!” she said. “Welcome.” “We’re visiting,” said Mr. Walden. “Are you from out of town?” she asked. “Yes,” replied Jessie. “Grandfather took us with him on another business trip, to Cape Canaveral. We spent a month on the Moon, actually, where we solved a Mystery.” “We like to solve Mysteries,” Violet added. “Oh, my,” said Mrs. Nickerson. “Then I think you will like it here! This is the Church of Mystery.” Henry asked, laughing, “What makes it so Mysterious?” “I don’t know. But churches are Mysterious sometimes!” Mrs. Nickerson pointed down the hall. “Would you like to try our Sunday-schools?” “That sounds like fun,” said Violet. So the children and Mr. Walden went to the classes. |
|||
