Since (in the eyes of those who apparently control such things) I’m going to hell anyway, let me add to my list of “transgressions” by saying that I agree with how a Roman Catholic handled an issue.

(insert profound gasp here)

You are probably aware of “Wafergate” by now.  If you aren’t, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, recently attended the funeral mass of former governor-general Romeo LeBlanc.  When communion was served, Harper allegedly pocketed the communion wafer rather than consuming it.

In Protestant circles, this action would have been inappropriate.  But Roman Catholics, because of their belief in transubstantiation, would consider it sacrilege.  The incident was captured on (stunningly inconclusive) video and immediately the outcries against Harper arose, including accusations of anti-Catholic behavior by the Protestant Harper.

Only one minor issue — he didn’t pocket the wafer; he consumed it.

One of the priests involved in the service, Father Arthur Bourgeois, confirmed what Harper asserted when the accusations started flying — that he did consume the wafer.

Technically, Harper did break Catholic church law by taking communion as a Protestant.  And Fr. Bourgeois did note this.  He also implied that Harper followed the spirit of the law, and so did not condemn him for his actions.  And, Fr. Bourgeois even advised Harper on proper protocol for a Protesant in a Catholic service, should such an occasion arise again.

In short, Fr. Bourgeois did not conceal or back off of his beliefs, but spoke the truth (as he understood it) in love.

Hmmm — speaking the truth in love — almost sounds like a Bible verse.

Hello all!

It’s been quite awhile since I’ve written an actual post here, and the main reason for that is that these last two months have been quite challenging for my wife and I.  In the beginning of May, my wife was diagnosed with a bacterial infection that ended causing her to be hospitalized for six weeks, with four of them being in the ICU.  The good news is that she has since made a miraculous recovery, and though she isn’t completely out of the woods, she has come so far.  One thing I would appreciate prayers for is her kidneys.  The infection caused acute kidney failure, and as result she has been on dialysis for a while.  Her kidney is improving, and we believe God is going to bring them back to full function, but your continued prayers are appreciated!

Anyway, during these past few months, I’ve had time to re-evaluate certain things in my life, and I’ve taken a second look at how I spend my time.  While all this was happening, being concerened about what some ODM I’ve never met said about some pastor I never met really never crossed my mind.  It really became obvious how little most of the opinions expressed Christian blogosphere matter.  On the other hand, I do appreciate that I was able to share prayer requests with the writers here, and that through modern technology, more people were able to pray for wife than would have been possible before.

Another thing that I really appreciated during this time was how I was able to depend on the body of Christ when I needed it most.  While my wife was lying in a hospital bed, on a ventilator, with all sorts of tubes coming out of her, it really didn’t matter to me what my friends thought of Rob Bell, the Rapture, or a lot theological issues.  All that mattered is that they we there for me.  What mattered was that friends gave up their time to be with me in the hospital.  What mattered is that I knew people loved my wife and I.

So, yes, I will acknowledge that a lot of the things we discuss here will fade away during times of crisis.  That doesn’t mean it’s wrong for us to discuss and disgree about them.  It just means they each have their place.  However, it has also heightened my sensitivities about people attacking my brothers and sisters in Christ needlessly.  What we are involved is truly spiritual warfare, and unfortunately it seems that some have chosen to take aim at those they should be fighting with and for.

I’ve seen many examples of this, but perhaps one of the most ridiculous I’ve seen recently is this.  Now, I have to admit that I actually have been to one of Ken Ham’s lectures, and at the time I actually found him to be smart and articulate.  It’s perhaps because of that fact that I find his attacks on Hugh Ross to be saddening.  I would have no problem if he simply stated he disagreed with Ross on many issues, but what good is done labeling him a “compromiser”?  Aren’t they actually working toward the same goal – convincing people that God is the Creator and that the Bible can actually be trusted?  Granted, Ham and Ross would interpet that statement in different ways, but I don’t believe that one of them loves God more than the other because of that.

I do not want this post to become a young earth/old earth debate.  I really have little interest in debating those views.  Yes, I have an opinion, and I’m sure most people who read this do as well.  But if we can’t share our opinions on a subject without showing love to those we are debating, I believe both sides have already lost the debate.

I guess my point is this.  As Christians I believe that it’s easy to forget that we are in a war, and that are enemy is real.  We cannot afford to be taking each other out with “friendly fire”.  This becomes most evident in our times of greatest need, and I hope that we are able to remember it in our everyday lives as well.

Grace and peace.

My son introduced me to this gem, a send-up of the 90’s Boy-Bands.

Probably the only improvement that could be made to this parody would be if there were more feeling (over)poured into it.

This got me thinking – in the Christian music market, much of the truly creative, artistically excellent music rarely receives airplay on Christian music stations, in favor of blandish pap and recycled “classics”.  What would a Christian version of “Title of the Song” look like?  What might the lyrics be?  What would it sound like?  Who would record it?

Ah, the possibilities…

Here you go.

Discuss.

Sometimes, I think there may not be an angrier subset of humanity than Christians. Certainly, we have plenty of proof in the internet and blogosphere, and that’s a post for another day. Quick, answer this question: “Who’s more abusive, pastors or congregations?” I bet your answer is strongly tied to which side of the pulpit you’ve spent most of your life on.

Pastors can be mean and abusive. Congregations can do great impersonations of slave owners.  Blogs allow people on both sides to write scathing critiques of others. Pastors are leaving their vocational ministry by the droves. Families are being destroyed.  How does Christ speak into this? How does love speak into this? How do we as Christians act like Christians? Well, to start we forgive. Take a bland sheet of paper. Seriously, go get one. Now, write down the names of the people in your congregation who have wronged you, abused you, unfairly criticized you, hurt you, and attacked you and your family.

Now, go ahead and do the same thing if your not a pastor. I’m sure we all have a list. Are you willing to forgive them? Are you willing to say that out loud? I forgive ___________.

We’ve just finished a three part series on forgiveness. I would strongly encourage everyone to download all three sermons and take a listen. Please note this does not mean I will engage anyone in conversations about Rob or Mars beyond the scope of these teaching times. I want to write more on this later but as I attended the last day of Poets, Prophets and Preachers today sitting next to someone who’s words were being used to hurt my teaching pastor I realized that there are those who live to hurt the church.  There are those people who are toxic. They don’t have to be engaged, but they must be forgiven. Forgiveness sets us free. Forgiveness leads to Resurrection.

A grieving child:

Ingrids take:

This is slightly outside the realm of our commentary here at Slice, but the mawkish, vomit-inducing spectacle in L.A. today over the death of a desiccated, prescription drug-abusing pop star demands a reality check…

…God help this nation, and may we always remember the young people who have died in the service of their country, unsung and unnoticed, while Americans behave like fools over a dead singer with a proclivity for young boys.

emphasis mine.

More Christian love here

Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from a religious conviction.

-Blaise Pascal

“It is not so easy to ask what God has done, penetrate it, and accept His own account of His way of doing it.”–PT Forsyth, The Justification of God, 158

Tags: Forsyth

Here’s a quick post to direct your attention to a fantastic sermon by Tim Keller from the 2009 Gospel Coalition National Conference. This sermon, from the book of Acts, delves deep into the problem of idolatry in the church.

The sermon was particularly pointed and caused me a great deal of discomfort as I realized that I have far too many idols in my own life–idols that I was unaware that I possessed. I was quite surprised, for example, that preachers can make idols of preaching! Wow, that was shocking to my system. I am certain, if you are brave enough to listen, you will find Keller attacking your idols too. I love Tim Keller and the more I listen to him, the more I am convicted by his powerful and penetrating Gospel-centered sermons.

I fully realize that there are plenty of points where Keller’s commitment to Reformed Theology will grate against your sensibilities, but give him a chance. I think you will be far less concerned about his commitments when you are finished listening to him confront and destroy your idols.

In particular, pay close attention to minutes 36-45 or so where he talks about ‘religious idols’: “Those who worship religious idols think they are very devoted to God; but they’re not.”  In those minutes he will expose, attack, and dismantle one of our favorite idols here in the world of the www: our blogs. Pay attention, and learn. I did. Three things very busy people idolize: Truth, gifts, and morality.

For example, concerning truth, a religious person might say, “Is it possible to say, ‘I am ok, saved, by the rightness of my belief’, instead of ‘I am ok because Jesus Christ made it possible?’” (Minutes 39-40 here are especially pertinent to the world of blogs.)

The Grand De-Mythologizer: The Gospel and Idolatry

Even for those who find Keller’s theology somewhat abrasive, there is something here for them to learn. I highly recommend this sermon. It takes about 60 minutes.

Tags: idolatry, Tim Keller

Came across this tonight. Wondered what you all thought of this–especially since Pastor/Teacher/Prophet Silva doesn’t permit comments from his sycophants readers detractors congregants disciples anyone at his ‘blog’:

[concerning John 10: 1 — "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter by the door into the fold of the sheep, but climbs up some other way, he is a thief and a robber."]

The sentence before us is a powerful and humbling one. That is [sic.] condemns the Jewish teachers of our Lord’s time all men can see. There was no “door” in their ministry. They taught nothing rightly about Messiah. They rejected Christ Himself when He appeared,—but all men do not see that the sentence condemns thousands of so-called Christian teachers, quite as much as the leaders and teachers of the Jews.

Thousands of ordained men in the present day know nothing whatever of Christ, except His name. They have not entered “the door” themselves, and they are unable to show it to others. Well would it be for Christendom if it were more widely known, and more seriously considered! Unconverted ministers are the dry-rot of the Church. “When the blind lead the blind” both must fall in the ditch.

If we know the value of a man’s ministry, we must never fail to ask, Where is the Lamb? Where is the door? Does he bring forth Christ, and give Him his rightful place? (Expository Thoughts on the Gospels, Vol. 3, 176)

J.C. Ryle

Thousands?

Could you please provide some statistical proof of such an assertion? I’m genuinely interested because the way I see it, it’s more like thousands of ordained men and women are actually leaving the ministry every year because people like you, who also inhabit, occupy, and wear-out the pew, have no concept of what it actually means to be and do the gospel.

So, in the interest of the Gospel, could you please provide some actual evidence to validate and support your assertion?

(PS–I think Ryle, for all his erudition, has quite missed the point of John 10:1 (2-6) and, consequently, Pastor Silva has erred too in his haste to make some larger point validating his own ‘ministry’ while running down and passing judgment upon the ministries of others. For all his talk about pointing to the Lamb, and the Door, and bringing forth Christ to his rightful place, he, Ryle, is doing exactly the opposite. The passage is, actually, demonstrating how Jesus is the expected one, Messiah; the Good Shepherd.

It is rather dangerous to extract verse 1 from its greater context of verses 1-6, indeed chapter 10 entirely. The focus of these verses is not the false teachers that are leading sheep blindly, even though they are clearly in the background (say, Ezekiel 34), but Jesus’ claim to be the True Shepherd whom the sheep recognize and follow. This passage is not pointing to ‘false teachers’ or ‘unconverted ministers’ of our day, or even in Jesus’ day, but to the True Shepherd of every day. Ryle has made a common hermeneutical mistake by attaching meaning to a verse that he has extracted from its context. Out of context, it can mean anything he wants it to mean. In it’s context it has but one meaning: The Sheep recognize the good shepherd and follow him; those same sheep reject all false shepherds, Messiahs. Turns out sheep aren’t so dumb after all. “Christ’s sheep inevitably follow him” (DA Carson, The Gospel of John, 383).

I have just a couple of points about Ryle’s application. First, Ryle says that “Thousands of ordained men in the present day know nothing whatever of Christ, except His name.” This may well be true, but that is not what Jesus says here, nor is it on his mind. Jesus says his sheep recognize him, his voice, follow him, and will not follow the voice of strangers at all. Ryle asserts a negative while Jesus is asserting a positive–and one quite opposite of Ryle’s point.

Jesus as ‘Good Shepherd’ here stands in contrast not with teachers or ministers–whether converted or un-converted, but with other shepherds, dangerous shepherds, who are rejected by those who are truly Jesus’ sheep. He, the Good Shepherd, is the one, he says, who ‘lays down his life for the sheep’; he is the Promised Davidic Shepherd: “The mingling of the foci–the promised shepherd is the Lord, or the promised shepherd is the Lord’s servant David–is peculiarly appropriate in a book where the Word is God, and the Word is God’s emissary, distinguishable from him” (DA Carson, The Gospel of John, 382). Thieves and robbers are not the Good Shepherd.

Second, Ryle writes, “They have not entered “the door” themselves, and they are unable to show it to others.” But that is not what Jesus is talking about, is it? The one who enters through the door in verse 2 is neither ‘converted ministers’ nor ‘unconverted ministers’ nor anyone else for that matter, but the Good Shepherd. Jesus said, “But he who enters by the door is the shepherd of the sheep…I am the Good Shepherd.” Jesus is talking about himself! The contrast is not between ‘converted’ and ‘un-converted’ ministers, but rather between the True Davidic Shepherd who was promised by God and those pretenders to the position, of whom there were, and are, many. Those who are in our day, and were in Ryle’s day, ministers, have nothing to do whatsoever with John 10:1-6. The passage is about Jesus–the True Shepherd who enters through the door and is recognized and followed by his sheep.

²³ I will place over them one shepherd, my servant David, and he will tend them; he will tend them and be their shepherd. ²⁴ I the LORD will be their God, and my servant David will be prince among them. I the LORD have spoken. (Ezekiel 34)

Now this is not to say there are not ‘un-converted’ preachers or bad shepherds of the sheep. It is to say that Ryle’s and Silva’s use of John 10:1 to demonstrate it is a decidedly wrong application of the Scripture. Paul warns of false teachers in the church, as does Jesus. But not in John 10. I hope that clears up Ryle’s muddled and confused and decidedly wrong exegesis of this passage of Scripture. And I hope it helps Pastor Silva too as both he and Ryle are dangerously wrong because neither one is pointing to Christ, the Lamb, or bringing forth Christ and giving him his rightful place in their blanket condemnation of ‘thousands’.)