Archive for July, 2010
Loving thinking-about-God more than God / Loving worshipping-God more than God
This is a good word from Piper about replacing God with aspects of religion. It seems like it’s right, but it’s really pride. I’m definitely prone to fall into this sin. Check it out!?
Related Posts:
No commentsMaking Malorie T-Shirt Design
These are two different shirts that I recently designed for my 2nd favorite worship band* – sorry guys, I’m still a die-hard Charlie Hall guy, but MM rocks! The concept was to make kind of an old school team mascot shirt, but with a little bit of a twist since we added the scientific name for each animal. Fun project! Look for these shirts this Summer anywhere MM is playing.
Related Posts:
No commentsBook Review: The Prodigal God by Tim Keller
Three Down
The Prodigal God marks the third Tim Keller book that I’ve read this year. All three books (The Reason for God, Counterfeit Gods, and now The Prodigal God) were gifts from my brother Andy and his family. They’re all worth your time.
A Revealing Twist on a Old Favorite
Tim Keller has an uncanny ability to take Bible stories that you’ve heard many, many times before and reveal their relevance in previously unthought of ways. The Prodigal God is a striking example. The entire book explores the parable of “the prodigal son,” or as Keller likes to call it, “the parable of the two lost sons.” As Keller’s renaming of the parable might suggest, he finds as much meaning and significance in the story about the older brother as he does in the story about the younger brother.
The title, “The Prodigal God” is also a bit of a twist on the normal understanding of this parable. The word “prodigal,” according to Keller, means “recklessly extravagant,” or “having spent everything” (1). And he aptly applies this title to God, who recklessly loves His people and who spent the life of His son for our redemption. Keller claims that he has “seen more people encouraged, enlightened, and helped by this passage, when he explained the true meaning of it, than by any other text” (XIII).
I don’t think Keller is stretching the meaning of this story. I think He’s right, and it’s amazing to see all the applications that this story entails.
Personally Speaking
For me personally, I can identify with “the older brother” in this parable. I know my standing before God is one based on Jesus’ performance and not my own performance. But sometimes, in the midst of life, I find myself believing that my performance is the ground upon which God is either proud or disappointed. Sometimes in these moments, especially when I think I am excelling in my pursuit of God, I am the most judgmental person you’d ever want to meet. I start expecting people to live up to my standards. This is pride, and it’s older brother syndrome. The Prodigal God, and about ten other things in my life right now, have helped remind me that I have plenty of faults, and I need to be humble. After all, when I am humble, I am most useful to God.
This is a good book. Easy to read. Life-changing. I wish it weren’t twenty bucks, because I’d buy about fifty copies and give them away.
Related Posts:
No commentsBrief Book Review/Rant: The Revolution by Ron Paul
Between Now and Eternity
Let me start out by saying that the ultimate hope for any government is only Jesus. On this side of eternity, every political theory is lacking. The only perfect government will be the future one, where Jesus is king and the heart of every individual has been made perfect. Until that glorious kingdom is fully made known, every government will be less-than-perfect. Political party affiliation, political candidates, and political ideas will all be found lacking. So I don’t put an exorbitant amount of hope or time into politics. However, I do think we are called as Christians to live out the implications of the gospel to the various cultures that we find ourselves in, and this includes the political culture within America. Between now and eternity, I want to recommend the ideas of Ron Paul as a good solution to a lot of America’s problems.
A.S.A.P.
To be perfectly honest with you, to fully review this book would be a waste of your time and mine. To fully say all that I wish to say about the book, would be to quote the whole book. Rather than writing a lengthy review, I would rather you just read The Revolution. In fact, if you want to stop reading this review right now (which honestly is not much of a review anyway), and instead go read Ron Paul, I would applaud you. There is no portion of The Revolution that I wish to synopsize. I like every word. There is no part I disagree with. It’s all good.
The two political parties, as they currently exist, both promote a future for America that is heading towards total and complete futility. Ron Paul offers an alternative path. Bush was an awful president. Obama seems no better. Does either one intend to lead America into futility? No. But the politics they promote are like a heavy weight tied around the ankle of this country. The nation is drowning. These days America is not the America that we wish it to be. It is not the America that the founding fathers wished it to be. And personally speaking, I like the America that they envisioned better than they one we currently have. So I’m recommending this book.
Simply put, and I know this sounds awfully dogmatic, I dare you to read this book and consider its ideas honestly. Maybe you’ll disagree with some of them, but I think you’ll agree with a lot of them. And that at least will be a step in the right direction.
P.S.
This is an awfully good audiobook (concise, about 5.5 hrs), that’s how I read it. But, I’m thinking of buying a physical copy so I can go back and underline some stuff (see previous post).
Related Posts:
No commentsBook Review: Whoredom: God’s Unfaithful Wife in Biblical Theology by Ray Ortlund Jr.
The book has now been retitled, and this is the new cover.
Borrowed Books
Reading a borrowed book is like a bad dream to me. If I can’t underline, then the endeavor is almost worthless. It’s at best frustrating. Not that I don’t immensely appreciate the sentiment that goes behind loaning a book to a friend, I do, but reading without a pen is death. I find this same frustration listening to audiobooks. I try my best to write down page numbers and quotes when I get the chance, but I still feel like I miss out on remembering some of the content that I would otherwise be able to recall If I could underline. Libraries are of limited use to me for the same reasons. I want to write in the book. So I buy a lot of books and help stimulate the economy.
Whoredom
Now that I’ve got that out of my system, I should explain that I just finished a borrowed copy of Whoredom: God’s Unfaithful Wife in Biblical Theology. And while I enjoyed the book, and found it helpful, I feel that I can’t remember all that I would like to because you can’t underline in a borrowed book. But, I’ll attempt to recall a bit for this review anyway. As a side note, I’m a little tempted to go buy a copy of the book and skim it with pen in hand. But whatever!
In Whoredom, Ortlund traces the idea of “spiritual adultery” through the Bible. The idea of God’s marriage to His people is first alluded to in the Law, developed rather extensively in the writings of the prophets, and then brought full circle in New Testament. The theme is extensive throughout the Bible and often pushes the biblical text into “R” rating territory. Think I’m lying? Go read Ezekiel 23:20 and make it your life verse. Then quote it when people ask “What’s your favorite verse in the Bible?” Watch the jaws drop. God’s point, I think, is that He treats our spiritual adultery, our idolatry, our un-love, pretty seriously. The drastic nature of the Bible’s language in this area brings us face to face with the ugliness of our sin, and points us to our need for a Savior.
This book is primarily consumed with examining the development of the “spiritual adultery” theme throughout the Old Testament. But Ortlund takes time in chapter six to show the relation between all of the Old Testament’s proclamations of spiritual adultery to the New Testament’s idea of Jesus as the Bridegroom. My favorite quote in the whole book might be:
“The gospel reveals that, as we look out into the universe, ultimate reality is not cold, dark, blank space; ultimate reality is romance. There is a God above with love in his eyes for us and infinite joy to offer us, and he has set himself upon winning our hearts for himself alone. The gospel tells the story of God’s pursuing, faithful, wounded, angry, overruling, transforming, triumphant love. And it calls us to answer him with a love which cleanses our lives of all spiritual whoredom” (173).
A Great Study Tool
I used this book mainly as a study tool and commentary on parts of the book of Hosea. Ortlund vividly portrays all the key passages that deal with the spiritual adultery theme in the Bible. These include passages in the Law, Hosea, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Ephesians, and Revelation among others. For being a book that I expected to be quite complex, Whoredom was rather straightforward and easy to read. I recommend it highly if you’re at all interested in studying this Biblical theme. It’s also a great read if you just want to understand the Bible better as a cohesive whole. The appendix, which deals with feminist interpretations of the Bible’s sexual language, is especially entertaining if you’d like to get a good look at absurd examples of Biblical interpretation.
Related Posts:
No commentsJohn Piper on Environmentalism
My favorite line from this is:
“Love for people, not love for mother earth. Who cares about mother earth, as a mother!”
Related Posts:
No commentsBook Review: Dispensationalism by Charles C. Ryrie
Why this book?
I don’t consider myself a dispensationalist. I’m not sure what I consider myself, but not a dispensationalist. For one thing, I think dispensational premillennialism is a little silly. It complicates the Bible’s teaching on the end times in an attempt to be clear. Certain interpretations of Old and New Testament texts seem farfetched. And I don’t think a “literal first” approach to hermeneutics is always the best way to interpret the Bible.
So why did I read this book? One might assume that it was just to gain a better understanding of dispensationalism in order to further discredit it as a theological system. But in truth, this was not the main reason I chose to read Dispensationalism by Charles C. Ryrie. The largest factor contributing to my desire to read this book was the quote on the front cover. It says, “No one, whether friend or foe of dispensationalism, can avoid consideration of this important work.” And with that little bit of marketing, I thought I’d check out the theological system known as dispensationalism from one of its prime proponents, Mr. Ryrie.
It’s a Good Book.
I have to say that this is a pretty good book. Ryrie’s explanation of dispensationalism clears up several misconceptions that I had been taught about the beliefs of dispensationalists over the years. Ryrie does a good job of creating a level playing field upon which everyone can interact with dispensational teachings, whether for or against. And that’s good because this is a family fight so to speak. I don’t doubt for a second that normative dispensationalists are evangelicals and Christians. And even if I disagree with them, they’re brothers. So a level playing field is a good thing.
Central Teachings of Dispensationalism
To quote Ryrie, the three central teachings of dispensationalism are:
1. We believe in the clear and consistent distinction between Israel and the church.
2. We affirm that normal, or plain, interpretation of the Bible should be applied consistently to all its parts.
3. We avow that the unifying principle of the Bible is the glory of God and that this is worked out several ways – the program of redemption, the program for Israel, the punishment of the wicked, the plan for the angels, and the glory of God revealed through nature (247).
I disagree with Ryrie on all these points.
1. Truthfully I do see a distinction between Israel and the church, but not to the extent that dispensationalists do. I think both groups will share the same future, not separate futures. “The summing up of all things in Christ” seems in my mind to do more justice to the Old Testament’s prophecies and promises than does a future, earthly, millennial kingdom.
2. I don’t think that literal interpretation is always the method of interpretation that the text demands. Sometimes an overly literal approach creates more confusion than clarity. And it wasn’t the hermeneutical method always employed by the apostles. I am by no means claiming to be an apostle, but I do think it’s suspect to say that they can interpret the Old Testament one way, but we must interpret it another way.
3. I think that the unifying principle in the Bible is the glory of God through Christ, not the glory of God through multiple means in the various dispensations. I do see evidence for different dispensations, or periods of time, or economies within the Bible, but I think they all led up to, and were summed up in Christ.
I agree with Ryrie on Some Things
I agree with Ryrie that the extent to which the Old Testament saints understood that their salvation was through Christ was hazy at best. However, my understanding of salvation in the “other dispensations” is still different from Ryrie’s. He says that “Jesus Christ was not the conscious object of their faith, though they were saved by faith in God as He had revealed Himself principally through the sacrifices that He instituted as a part of the Mosaic Law” (139). Conversely, I believe that OT saints understood that their salvation was a result of God’s ability to pardon sin based upon an individual’s faith. Salvation was a result of faith in God’s ability to pardon, which was later shown to be through Christ (Rom 3:23-26). Progressively OT saints did understood that this would be through the Messiah, but obviously they didn’t understand the part that the Messiah would fully play in this pardoning with equal clarity in all ages. So I agree with Ryrie that the OT understanding of salvation through Christ was hazy, but I still conceive of it differently than he does.
I also agree with Ryrle that the validity of dispensationalism and covenantalism should be judged true or false based only upon the Bible, and not upon other factors. Oftentimes both sides are disparaged due to false accusations and the use of straw-man apologetics.
Middle Ground
In the end, I think dispensationalism is short-sided. It has a lot to teach us, but it is short-sided. And by the way, so is really dogmatic covenantalism. Both sides have things to teach us, but ultimately they both need to give a little bit and come towards the middle. The “middle” is not sacred because it is the middle, but in this case the “middle” seems to be more Biblical, and thus better.
Related Posts:
No comments
