In preparation for Halloween Reformation Day (same difference), perhaps it is time to look at -

THIS DAY IN HISTORY – October 27, 1553

From Wikipedia:

As Servetus was not a citizen of Geneva, and legally could at worst be banished, the government had consulted with other Swiss Reformed cantons (Zurich, Bern, Basel, Schaffhausen), which universally favored his condemnation and the suppression of his doctrine, but without saying how that should be accomplished. Martin Luther had condemned his writing in strong terms. Servetus and Philip Melanchthon had strongly hostile views of each other. Those who went against the idea of his execution, the party called “Libertines”, drew the ire of much of Christendom. On 24 October Servetus was sentenced to death by burning for denying the Trinity and infant baptism. When Calvin requested that Servetus be executed by decapitation rather than fire, Farel, in a letter of September 8, chided him for undue lenity, and the Geneva Council refused his request. On 27 October 1553 Servetus was burned at the stake just outside Geneva with what was believed to be the last copy of his book chained to his leg. Historians record his last words as: “Jesus, Son of the Eternal God, have mercy on me.”

Happy Reformation Day (a few days early), Michael!

[Please do note, that Calvin requested that Servetus be decapitated, instead of burned at the stake. So don't ever say that the creator of the so-called "doctrines of grace" was a heartless, graceless guy...]

HT: VV, with more here.

* Sarah Palin has said nothing about the clubbing of innocent baby seals.

* Every year over 200,000 baby seals are clubbed to death for their fur.

* Headline reads “Sarah Palin joins the ranks with seal clubbers!”

I know, I know… that is absolutely asinine. Why would anyone ever make those jumps in logic? Well, apparently one writer over at CRN has decided to do so. Here’s the logic found in this article

* Rob Bell has made few definitive statements about homosexuality.

* The Gay Wisconsin City Cream Choir, an organization that doesn’t claim to follow Christ, is singing songs that are not theologically correct.

* Headline reads “Rob Bell Sing the siren song of the Self”

WHAT!?! How on earth do you make those conclusions and connections!?! It’s absolutely incredible that someone who calls themselves a researcher and a mouth piece for God himself would make such wild and strange statements. If you have some type of vendetta against Rob Bell, then I guess anything and everything pagan could and should be tied to him.

So much for solid research.

As a number of you may have noticed, we have a new “Submissions” form, which sends your submissions for article ideas to the authors of this site in a way that sticks with the actual intent, rather than becoming a rogue discussion thread.

While we’ve gotten some good submissions (which have been expanded into articles – or referenced in new articles), the expected issues with ‘hate mail’ of course crop up, since there is less accountability.  This is, of course, always a danger in granting even slight anonymity here on the ‘net.

I have to say, though, that our most recent comment from Ms. Parker Tressa Ellis certainly takes the cake. (Read below the fold for more, realizing that Ms. Armchair Ellis uses some language that would likely be condemned by the ODM’s with which she likely finds validation …)

Read the rest of this entry »

Friends,

The author of Slice is on the prowl again…searching for someone to devour…and she found her victim. A church was donated $3 millions by someone who won the lottery. The author of Slice is unhappy that the church is praising God because this happened commenting: “See? Gambling does pay off!” The author of Slice did not tell her readers this part:

Crabbe said that only he and his wife, Jennifer, know the identity of the donor, whose only stipulation was anonymity. The donor bought the $10 ticket in Middle Island on July 19 and told Crabbe the same day. The congregation’s 12-member leadership board spent the next week deciding what to do.

Eventually, they decided, “we’re giving that whole first year away,” said Melissa Joles, of the church planning team.

The bulk of the first-year money, $102,225 after taxes, would go to Love’, a New Haven-based charity that looks to end child sex trafficking. The Lighthouse Mission in Patchogue, which feeds the poor, and Prodigal House in Port Jefferson Station, a halfway home for boys, will also get donations. After that, the church has promised to tithe at least 20 percent of the earnings and use the rest for a bigger meeting place.

Isn’t it strange that the author of Slice would complain about this? Those heretics!! I am simply floored at the half-truth reporting by SOL. To the author of Slice: When are you going to get it? When will you stop telling half-truths? When will you stop criticizing everything you see just because you can? I am almost persuaded that the author of Slice posted this in jest. One can only hope.

Soli Deo Gloria!

Tags: money, offerings, Slice of Laodicea

At what point should Guilt by Association warrant a fair reading? At what point should I stand up and take notice? At what point can I merely dismiss it as a witch hunt? Or at what point should I ignore the see-I-told-you-so attitude of someone with an ax to grind?

There is a subtle, nuanced difference between helpful research and self justification. Helpful research is factual with substantial proof. Self justification looks for anything and everything that would bolster your case, no matter how many logical fallacies you have to commit to get there. While it is a small difference that often goes to motivation it is an important distinction that should be made by anyone claiming expertise in an area.

Ingrid wrote a very touching piece on adoption, sharing some of her own personal experience on the subject. It really had a beautiful message for her readers.

BUT THEN…

Pastor-Teacher Ken Silva decided to tack this headline onto it and use it for his own agenda. Talk about taking something meant for good and using it for selfish gain.

A side of the so-called “ODMs” that hunters of heresy hunters, say like a Richard Abanes, might wish you wouldn’t see.

That’s all I have to say. You be the judge on motives, intentions and whether or not this sounds like pastoral behavior to you.

From the Fundamental Baptist Information Service

NEED SOME URGENT HELP FROM YOU PASTORS ABOUT GIRL AND PANTS

I have a problem that you can help me with. All I ask is that you write and let me know what you would say to the following situation. It might even sound humorous to you, but I can assure you that it is a serious matter.

There is a teenage girl in a church. The church teaches that pants are not the most appropriate and modest attire for women. The girl is from a very poor family (six people living in one room), but she was the first member of her family to come to Christ about three years ago.

She has been growing in the Lord and is faithful to church and prayer meetings. Recently she got a scholarship to a school that requires the female students to wear lose pants. Though someone from the church approached the school leaders and asked them to make an exception for her, they refused. Since the girl has decided to attend the school anyway, the church won’t allow her to teach Sunday School anymore because she will no longer meet the standards for workers.

But there is a prominent person in the church who is not content with this. He thinks she should be disciplined after the fashion of 1 Corinthians 5 and she should not be allowed to take the Lord’s Supper.

What do you think?

The more pastors I can hear from on this, the better.

Thank you!

In Christ,
Brother Cloud

This situation literally made me sick to my stomach and boiling angry. I commend Ingrid for her thoughts on this post. I find it so ironic that contemporary/post-modern churches are criticized for being focused on external and futile elements in church (lighting, projection systems, coffee bars, etc.). However, in my experience, it is the traditional churches that are obsessed with the externals in the congregation. I dare someone in a traditional church to take away the choir ropes — heck, change the choir robe colors — and see what happens. Have the pastor dress in his everyday clothes and see how many people leave. Change the color of the carpet and watch the people scatter like ants.

Last week Erwin MaManus was doing talk on diligence, and I knew that one of my non-believing neighbors would really connect with the subject. I went down and invited him to come, and he immediately said “I can’t afford it right now.” Puzzled at his response, I told him that it was free and that I didn’t want him to even think about giving money in the offering that day. He began to tell me how he had walked to a church when he was 16 the Sunday after his parents got a divorce. He was disparate for answers during that time. After a great service, he was walking out when the pastor stopped him at the door to greet him. The pastor said “We are so glad to have you as a guest, son.” He chuckled and then said, “How bout you dress up a bit next time for our Lord.” He came from a very poor family and all he had was jeans and t-shirts. He has been afraid to step into church since.

Now, everyone might not have that dramatic of an experience, but there is a disgusting religious spirit that is focused on the externals in many “traditional” churches.

P.S. I had a prayer session this morning, and the LORD convicted me about putting titles on my posts. I repent of my untitled ways and return to the straight and narrow.

I really don’t want to bring the whole he said, he said between Ken Silva and Richard Arbanes back to life but I found this thread to be interesting in the comment section. Many were up in arms that RA would threaten to sue a “brother” in KS. Indeed, there is not agreement here amongst the writers on the entire issue. What makes this comment thread interesting is the team politics that is happening. You see, I think this entire thing is more about a “us” verses “them” mentality than anything else. According to Mr. Silva someone else has gone to him privately and asked him to alter a post or that person would have to go to Mr. Silva’s Biblical authorities. What has Mr. Silva done? He has refused to follow the Biblical mandate and simply said, “no.” I’ll deal more with that later. But I want you to read Mr. Chew’s comment. He is saying that the Scriptures don’t apply to KS because RA violated them. Later, he goes on to say that the Bible doesn’t apply to the situation he is talking about b/c he is talking about free speech. The reading is unbelievable.  For people who like to rail against the emergents they deem heretical because of gray areas it certainly seems as though they are making a run at a little ambiguity for their own benefit. At the end of the day I am convinced this is about team politics than it is about following God, Jesus or the Bible. It’s about preserving what they are comfortable with and having something and someone to fight against. Below is the quote.

Daniel Chew Says:
August 5, 2008 at 9:14 am

CD:

Amen.

Phil Naessens:

Pastor Ken broadcast this mess because the ISP threaten him with the removal of his website unless he removed that “offending” article. So there was real action involved which have implications for the entire issue of free speech as well. If Abanes would just threaten Pastor Ken, or slander him, then yes, he should have turn the other cheek. As for 1 Cor. 6 and Mt. 18, they do not apply since Abanes has already violated them in going after Pastor Ken.

There you have it. What else can be said really?

First, let me be open and honest with everyone.  More recently, I have not read the ODM sites all that much.  I really have decided that their constant negativity was just not worth worrying about.  This afternoon, though, I decided to look at CRN, and, really I am just about flabbergasted.  This has to be a new low.

It is one thing to attack pastors or authors.  It is quite another to attack a pastor’s wife.  Especially over some quite innocuous remarks she made at gathering where she was launching her book talking about the perils and pitfalls of serving in the church.  Jane Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury’s wife, said the following about serving in the church in this article:

“The Church can be a thankless employer, with poor boundaries between private and public space, vague practices about holidays and days off, laughable job descriptions and few opportunities to congratulate oneself on a job well done and completed.”

Now anyone who has served in just about any capacity in a church of any size would immediately realize the veracity of this statement.  Growing up in a pastor’s family, I would say Mrs. Williams is even being too polite.  But this is what the “Editor” over at CRN has to say:

Well, we’re guessing Jesus might ask her, “Where are the nail prints in your hands?”

OK, let me be honest again here.  I’m not a violent person, but if someone was this jerky when talking about my mother or wife, I would be seriously tempted to punch that person in the nose if I were in the same room as him.  This is just uncalled for.  It is pure, unadulterated self-righteousness.

The thing that makes the “Editor’s” self-righteousness so over the top is generally mild nature of Mrs. Williams’ statement, which can hardly be classified as whining.  If anything, her statement is an effort on her part to get those considering becoming ministers to count the cost - something Jesus Himself admonished us to do.  The fact that she is speaking to a gathering of Anglican leaders is also lost on the “editor”.  This is the very thing that is needed in the Church – an open and honest discussion about life in the Church.  What we don’t need is more people hiding behind self-righteous masks.  It is sad that there are those who think the correct response to honesty is ridicule.

I woke up this morning to this. I have to say it wasn’t the best thought as I sipped my extra dry cappuccino at Pete’s Coffee and Tea. I actually began to feel incredibly sorry for the many people who read this and will actually believe it. I mean, imagine walking through life wondering if the purpose God has for you is a good one, or one that will lead to total destruction. How would that change how we live… in complete and udder fear of the future. I mean, life becomes one big turn of the dice. Will God give me a good purpose in life, or will He not?

You see, this is the God of illogical predestination. He randomly chooses some to have a good purpose in life, and randomly chooses some who will not. And, you will / can never know which one he will choose for you. We are simply pawns on some divine chess board.

Now, we may not have the ideal life by human standards. I am sure that Jim Elliot was not planning on being speared to death, leaving his family behind at such a young age. But was his purpose still good? Sure. Hundreds came to the faith. And, if you ask Elisabeth Elliot if she has any regrets over the situation, she would probably tell you the same. His life had a beautiful purpose. Pastor Martin Luther King Jr. was probably not planning on being assassinated. But the good and blessed purpose of His life has left ripples in eternity. For those that follow the Lord, there is a great purpose for our lives (and Rick Warren would agree that following God is the prerequisite for having a good purpose in life).

If course, the ironic thing is that most of the people who would hold to this view probably believe that they all have a good purpose in life. This poster and ideology would only apply to anyone other than themselves and their pack of Christian friends.