Glenn You Nailed it Again

August 10th, 2008

and in the process nailed me.

I am an eternal optimist, sometimes to a fault. I always assume the best and sometimes miss things. Here is what Glenn Packiam had to say about  mature believers and “The Shack”

Why Do So Many Smart, Mature Christians Like This Book?
I am a bit mystified by this. But here’s my guess: mature believers tend to read their well-grounded doctrines and view of God into everything. This is why some Christians can watch “Braveheart” and see Jesus while others watch it and see blood and violence. Mature believers automatically weed OUT or ignore ideas they know to be false and read IN the truth they already believe. Younger believers, however, tend to read OUT of a book the ideas that seem the most comforting without realizing they are the most dangerous. Again, you can find God and truth everywhere. This is HIS universe. But some sources are richer, purer, and come with less baggage.

Sorry to imply that I am a “Smart, Mature Christian”. I am simply saying the above describes exactly how I responded to this book. I stand by my previous statements regarding my belief “The Shack” may be a response to some really bad theology that has driven people away from relationship with God. I now realize how I missed the broader picture.

I am so thankful for the body of Christ. Thank you Glenn for pointing this out to me.

Blogged with the Flock Browser

This happened to me last year

August 6th, 2008

Just when I was starting to feel good on the bike. I’m at 1000 miles for the year. Not much by some standards quite a bit by others. For me I’m halfway to my goal for the year.

Just like last year about this time the weather is perfect in the morning until about mid afternoon and then the clouds roll in. Which by itself is not so bad. The lightning however is completely different set of circumstances. We have had 3 people that I know of struck by lightning this year. I don’t want to be the 4th.

On top of everything else I have been so busy I haven’t been able to ride as much. So my options are too get up in the morning. Not a great option but an option none the less. Or come in a little earlier and take a long lunch. I have been doing that a couple times a week but I rely on at least one or two evenings to get my miles in.

Oh well if it’s that important, and I believe it is for my sanity, then I will have to make time.

In the meantime. My quiet times have been sweet. Though still not as regular and consistent as I would like when I am able to make time they are sweet. I so love the presence of God and His still small voice. The Word of God is amazing and always timely, always weighty. I am so blessed.

I hope you are able to keep your priorities straight and make time for the one thing that is selfish and feeds you.

Blessings,

Blogged with the Flock Browser

An open letter to Tim Challies

August 1st, 2008

A response to A Readers Review of THE SHACK

Mr. Challies,

Thank you for your thoughtful review of THE SHACK. I sincerely appreciate the time and thought you have invested. I believe you are truly trying to help people come to the truth. I appreciate your tone, your principled stand, and your use of scripture to support your points however, I must take exception with some of your conclusions.

My purpose is not to defend THE SHACK rather to address some of the arguments to which I believe THE SHACK is a response. I read the book before I discovered all the controversy and though I have problems with some of the theology it caused me to remember why I chose to be a follower of Christ. I chose to enter into relationship with Him not to be a student of the Bible, be in ministry, to evangelize, or to serve my church. I am engaged in all of those things but I entered into relationship with Him because He loved me, (Galatians 2:20) rescued me from Hell, (Romans 6:23) and promised to be with me always. (Matthew 28:20, Psalm 27:13, Psalm 23)

My biggest issue in your review is you seem to deify the Bible at the expense of relationship with a personal God. Also your assertion we can no longer walk with God in the cool of the day and we are bound by a mediated communication is flatly untrue. God’s heart has always been to reveal Himself to His people (Exodus 19:4) and to talk with them face to face. (Exodus 19:4, 29:46, 19:11) The idea of having a mediator was not God’s idea. It was God’s response to the children of Israel who rejected Him at Mount Sinai. (Exodus 20:19, Deuteronomy 5:28-29) Consider Enoch who never tasted death but walked with God and was no more, (Gen 5:24) because he pleased God. (Hebrews 11:5) Noah walked with God. (Genesis 6:9) Abraham and God spoke personally about Sodom and Gomorrah. (Genesis 18) All through the Old Testament are examples of God reaching out to His people. The people didn’t have to wonder “how can we approach God directly?” God was very clear about it. Over and over He said if you will keep my commandments I will be your God and you will be my people.

Simeon knew by the Holy Spirit he would see the Lord before his death. (Luke 2:25) God spoke to Ananias regarding Saul. (Acts 9:10) John the Apostle communed with God after Jesus’ death. (Revelation 1:10) God has always yearned to reveal Himself in the context of relationship and community. It is the very nature of the Trinity. Knowing God is not simply an intellectual exercise.

It is true the Bible is the complete revelation of God and the standard by which everything must be evaluated. When we think we have “heard from God” either by His specific revelation (the Bible) or His general revelation (His creation) there is a process to help us confirm our suspicion. It begins with measuring what we perceive we heard or saw with the inerrant word of God. Then we confirm our conclusion by asking the question. “Does my conclusion reflect the character and nature of God?” or “what part of God’s nature does my conclusion reflect?”

It is true our sin separates us from God but when we appropriate, by faith, Jesus final sacrifice (Romans 6:10) we are able to come boldly to the throne of grace (Hebrews 4:16). Jesus became sin so that you and I may be the righteousness of God. (II Corinthians 5:21) You are correct, the new covenant mediator is Jesus however, you misrepresent Jesus role as mediator. He is the Word of God (John 1:1) and He (the Bible) does not separate us from relationship with the father rather he reconciles us to the Father (II Corinthians 5:18). We don’t approach “despite” our sin but because Jesus mediated the new covenant on our behalf.

I have no quarrel with your statements regarding the wrath of God. Just be careful not to give an incomplete gospel. There is more to God than His wrath. Before His wrath is meted out He pursues us passionately (James 3:5, Jeremiah 7:13, 25) and will go to extreme measures to draw us to Himself. (Matt 18:12, Numbers 22)

My final comment relates to suffering. As much as John Piper is correct, it is an incomplete answer and does not reflect the character and nature of God. John Piper seems to say God causes, or allows, suffering to glorify Himself which is utterly absurd. Suffering is part of the curse. (Deuteronomy 28) Though God can be glorified in it, suffering exists because the world is still in a fallen state and Satan is still loose deceiving men. It is the presence of sin that causes suffering. Until believers stop playing church (Isaiah 29:13) and take the stewardship of the kingdom of heaven on earth seriously suffering will increase. It is not because God wants to glorify Himself or because He is not engaged. He accomplished everything on the cross and restored the kingdom on earth. There is nothing left for Him to do (2 Peter 1:3) it is now in our hands (the church). We have been given responsibility (Psalm 115:16) and authority. (Matthew 28:18-20) The assertion that institutional Christianity, with notable exceptions, has been a stumbling block to intimate fellowship with God and hindered our effectiveness in the world is entirely accurate. Until we embrace Him and walk in obedience to His word (John 14:15) and His voice (John 15:14) we will not establish the kingdom before He returns. When I consider how the church places stumbling blocks in the way of relationship with God, my heart breaks.

Though I have concerns those not grounded in truth will read THE SHACK and not hear the whole truth. I applaud the authors for starting a discussion that believers can capitalize on. We must not judge the authors motives. (Romans 2:16, I Corinthians 4:3-5) I have read their answers to most of the concerns raised and I believe them to be men of good faith. We must engage in principled spirited discussion but we must not attack them. Believers must use this momentum to talk with those who are searching and allow the Spirit of Truth to guide them into all truth (John 16:13).

Thank you for your consideration,

Gary Trobee

Also see:

A Gentle Balance to the “Shack Attack”

Reading in Good Faith

Why I can’t recommend “The Shack”

God’s Not the Defendant

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Why do I need to be planted in the church?

August 1st, 2008

Sorry I’m so full of video and not much substance lately. I am working on a serious post which I hope will be up today sometime.

I saw this last night. It’s amazing and a great illustration of the protection  we can expect when we are planted in the church.  Hope you enjoy it.



Embedded Video

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Should we still wear neckties?

July 31st, 2008

Interesting thought. I don’t totally agree and I don’t totally disagree.

What do you think?


Embedded Video

Blogged with the Flock Browser

glenn packiam’s blog: A New Kind of Leader: Why We May Have It All Wrong

July 3rd, 2008

I think Glenn nailed this one. As followers we must give unconditional submission, not unconditional obedience, God gives us permission to disobey for only one reason. As leaders this article is right on the money. Below is Glenn’s conclusion but the whole article is worth a read.

As a new testament leader this should be our guiding principle. The greatest must be the servant of all.

A leader is one who demonstrates God-given authority by serving others and earning their trust. 

Your authority comes from God; your leadership comes from trust.

glenn packiam’s blog: A New Kind of Leader: Why We May Have It All Wrong

Were America’s Founders Deists? - CWN

July 2nd, 2008

Were America’s Founders Deists?

By Brannon Howse

Joseph Story served on the U.S. Supreme Court from 1811 to 1845, and in his commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, he wrote:

Now, there will probably be found few persons in this, or any other Christian country, who would deliberately contend, that it was unreasonable, or unjust to foster and encourage the Christian religion generally, as a matter of sound policy, as well as of revealed truth. In fact, every American colony, from its foundation down to the revolution, with the exception of Rhode Island, (If, indeed that state be an exception,) did openly, by the whole course of its laws and institutions, support and sustain, in some form, the Christian religion; and almost invariably gave a peculiar sanction to some of its fundamental doctrines. And this has continued to be the case in some of the states down to the present period, without the slightest suspicion, that it was against the principles of public law, or republican liberty.13

The reason Story mentions that some think Rhode Island should be an exception is that, in considering the place of the Ten Commandments in their system of law, “Rhode Island adopted the last six of the Commandments, but not the first four.”14

The strategy of secular humanists is simple: If you say something often enough, people tend to believe it. So, in various forms, they repeat the myth that America’s Founders held to a secular, deistic worldview.

Deists generally do not believe the Bible is a book of supernaturally revealed truth from God to man. They also tend to believe God created the world and then “walked away”; the logical conclusion being that God does not govern in the affairs of men. So, knowing whether or not the Founders were deists is significant.

Dr. M. E. Bradford of the University of Dallas conducted a study of the Founders to look at this very important question. He discovered the Founders were members of denominations as follows: twenty-eight Episcopalians, eight Presbyterians, seven Congregationalists, two Lutherans, two Dutch Reformed, two Methodists, two Roman Catholics, and three deists.15

Notice Dr. Bradford’s study found that only three out of fifty-five Founders were possibly deists. These are Hugh Williamson of North Carolina, James Wilson of Pennsylvania, and Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania. Hugh Williamson, though, was licensed to preach by the Presbyterian Church, which makes it questionable just how serious a deist he really was.

Benjamin Franklin clearly was a deist as a young man, but he later became disenchanted with deism. While Franklin probably never became a Christian in the orthodox sense, he came a long way from deism in his eighty-four years.16 At the Great Convention it was Franklin who called for prayer, declaring that “God governs in the affairs of men.”17 (Remember, according to deism, God does not so intervene.)

Consider also this comment from Founder Noah Webster, author of Webster’s Dictionary, who believed the rejection of a Christian worldview was at the root of all evil: “All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery, and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible.”18

Benjamin Rush, who helped found five schools and universities, wrote in 1791 about educational policy in which he discussed the danger of removing the Bible from America’s schools: “In contemplating the political institutions of the United States, [if we remove the Bible from schools,] I lament that we waste so much time and money in punishing crimes and take so little pains to prevent them.”19

Dr. Rush believed the best way to make sure our children become good citizens is to teach them to be good Christians by teaching them the Bible: “We profess to be republicans, and yet we neglect the only means of establishing and perpetuating our republican form of government; that is, the universal education of our youth in the principles of Christianity by means of the Bible. For this Divine Book, above all others, favors that equality among mankind, that respect for just laws, and those sober and frugal virtues which constitute the soul of republicanism.”20 He even lists specific reasons for using the Bible as a textbook in America’s schools:

Before I state my arguments in favor of teaching children to read by means of the Bible, I shall assume the five following propositions:

I: That Christianity is the only true and perfect religion, and that in proportion as mankind adopts its principles and obeys its precepts, they will be wise and happy;

II: That a better knowledge of this religion is to be acquired by reading the Bible than in any other way;

III: That the Bible contains more knowledge necessary to man in his present state than any other book in the world;

IV: That knowledge is most durable and religious instruction most useful when imparted in early life; and

V: that the Bible, when not read in schools, is seldom read in any subsequent period of life.21

Robert Winthrop served as speaker of the House of Representatives and mentored Daniel Webster. Winthrop declared that when Christianity is practiced there is little need for stringent government; but if the Christian worldview were rejected, crime would increase and governmental force become more necessary. As a result, Americans would have less freedom:

All societies must be governed in some way or other. The less they may have of stringent state government, the more they must have of individual self-government. The less they rely on public law or physical force, the more they must rely on private moral restraint. People, in a word, must necessarily be controlled, either by a power within them or by a power without them; either by the Word of God or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible or by the bayonet. It may do for other countries and other governments to talk about the state supporting religion. Here, under our free institutions, it is religion which must support the state.22

President George Washington believed that it was impossible for a nation to be moral without religion: “[L]et us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds, . . . reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principles.”23

Rev. Dr. John Witherspoon, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and president of Princeton University (1768–76), so believed in the congruence of God and country that anyone who was not on the side of God was an enemy of America: “[H]e is the best friend to American liberty who is most sincere and active in promoting true and undefiled religion and who sets himself with the greatest firmness to bear down on profanity and immorality of every kind. Whoever is an avowed enemy of God, I scruple not [do not hesitate] to call him an enemy to his country.”24

Founding Father Fisher Ames was responsible for the final wording of the First Amendment as passed by the House. And how did Ames feel about Christianity in America’s schools? He was concerned that—even in his day—the Bible was taking a backseat to new textbooks: “Why then, if these books for children must be retained, as they will be, should not the Bible regain the place it once held as a school book? Its morals are pure; its examples captivating and noble. The reverence for the Sacred Book that is thus early impressed lasts long, and probably, if not impressed in infancy, never takes firm hold of the mind.”25

Even early outside observers could readily see the impact of Christianity on our country. Alexis de Tocqueville traveled from France to America to find out what made America great. Tocqueville shared his observations in his book, The Republic of the United States (sadly, the title of recent editions has been changed to Democracy in America). Tocqueville writes, “Upon my arrival in the United States, the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention. And the longer I stayed there, the more did I perceive the great political consequences resulting from this state of things to which I was unaccustomed. In France, I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom pursing courses diametrically opposed to each other. But in America, I found that they were intimately united, they reigned in common over the same country.”26 Tocqueville did not perceive a separation between America’s Christian religion and its institutions: “Religion in America . . . must . . . be regarded as the foremost of the political institutions of that country.”27

Even into the middle of the nineteenth century, our leaders understood the inviolable connection between America’s faith and its governing principles. On March 27, 1854, the U.S. Congress released a report stating, “Had the people, during the Revolution, had a suspicion of any attempt to war against Christianity, that Revolution would have been strangled in its cradle. At the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and the amendments, the universal sentiment was that Christianity should be encouraged, not any one sect. . . . In this age, there can be no substitute for Christianity. . . . That was the religion of the founders of the republic and they expect it to remain the religion of their descendants.”28 And two months later the U.S. Congress again declared, “The great, vital and conservative element in our system is the belief of our people, in the pure doctrines and the divine truths of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.”29
Footnotes:

13 Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 3rd ed. (Boston, 1858).

14 See Alvin W. Johnson, Sunday Legislation, 23 KY. L.J. 131 n. (1934–35). Sited by William J. Federer, The Ten Commandments and Their Influence on American Law (St. Louis, MO: Amerisearch, Inc., 2003), 15.

15 M. E. Bradford, A Worthy Company: Brief Lives of the Framers of the United States Constitution (Marlborough, NH: Plymouth Rock Foundation, 1982), iv–v.

16 John Eidsmoe, Christianity and the Constitution (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1987), 44.

17 Ibid.

18 Noah Webster, History of the United States (New Haven: Durrie & Peck, 1832), 339.

19 Benjamin Rush, “A Defense of the Use of the Bible as a School Book,” Essays, Literary, Moral and Philosophical (Philadelphia: Thomas and Samuel F. Bradford, 1798), 112; addressed to the Rev. Jeremy Belknap of Boston.

20 Ibid., 93–113.

21 Ibid.

22 David Barton, “Either by the Bible or the Bayonet,” Education and the Founding Fathers, quoting Robert Winthrop, Addresses and Speeches on Various Occasions (Boston, MA: Little Brown & Co. 1852), 172.

23 Ibid.

24 Ibid., 324–25, quoting John Witherspoon, The Works of the Rev. John Witherspoon, vol. 3 (Philadelphia: William W. Woodward, 1802), 46.

25 Fisher Ames, Notices of the Life and Character of Fisher Ames (Boston: T.B. Wait & Co., 1809), 134–35.

26 Alexis de Tocqueville, The Republic of the United States of America and Its Political Institutions, Reviewed and Examined, Henry Reeves, trans., vol. 1 (New York: A.S. Barnes & Co., 1851), 337.

27 Ibid., 334.

28 David Barton, The Spirit of the American Revolution (Aledo, TX: Wallbuilders Press, 2000), 21, quoting Reports of Committees of the House of Representatives Made during the First Session of the Thirty-Third Congress (Washington: A. O. P. Nicholson, 1854), 6–9.

29 Ibid., quoting B. F. Morris, The Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States (Philadelphia: George W. Childs, 1864), 328.

Were America’s Founders Deists? - CWN

AWOL

July 1st, 2008

Sorry I’ve been gone so long.

It’s been a tough couple of weeks and I’m not out of the woods yet. I’ve been afraid to post anything for fear of letting the cat out of the bag. Well the cats all the way out and were moving on.

Sometimes doing the right thing is painful but if we trust God as the source and the substance of all our needs He will look after us. Josh McDowell in his book “Right from Wrong“  makes the statement that anything with a long term benefit has a short term cost and anything with a short term benefit has a long term cost. Something to keep in mind when making decisions.

I also believe that if we are faithful stewards of what God has put in our hands He will look after His people. We must always remember that they are His people. Our purpose is to establish the kingdom on earth and when we do that with everyone fulfilling their individual and corporate purpose everything works. Sorry I’ve been a bit vague just know I’m trying to work things out and appreciative of all your prayer and encouragement.

I have been riding. I’ll get back to posting rides soon. Last weekend was my 25 year high school reunion. Got in 75 miles over the weekend and this weekend I am meeting the ninja at 10,000 ft for a ride. I’ll let you now how it goes.

Blessings,

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Happy Fathers Day.

June 15th, 2008

Another beautiful day in Colorado Springs, but first happy fathers day to all you dad’s.

Especially to my dad. He taught me a lot about commitment, doing what you say your going to do. My dad always does more than is expected. He’s a great craftsman and a very hard worker. I will call him later this evening and tell him how much I appreciate him.

On to the ride. My fathers day gift from my family was 3 hours on my bike it was great.

I loaded up two 16oz water bottles and my camel back with two cliff bars and headed out with the goal of 50 miles without going into the red zone. The wind was perfect and the temp was good. Warm but not too hot. I only went into the red zone 3 times. the first time a black ant flew into the vents in my helmet on the first big climb after Palmer Lake. I didn’t want to stop on the climb so I hammered to the top, took off my helmet and shook him loose. He only bit me a half dozen times so I’m good.

The second time was the top of Larkspur pass, it’s a steep one, and the final climb after Larkspur. It’s long and I was tired so I spun it up to the top. The rest of the ride was good. I had good legs all the way home. Here are the numbers:
3:15:39, 50.09 miles, 15.3mph avg, 42.4max, burned 3485 calories, bring on the shortcake, and avg hrt of 153, weighing in at 162 & something, about 20% body fat, who can tell with my goofy scale.
Looking forward to a good week. I’ll check in Monday if I ride. It’s my 18th anniversary and I’m trying to get my wife to go out with me.

Blogged with the Flock Browser

I admit it.

June 15th, 2008

I wimped out. I gave in to the wind. I love Colorado Springs but it’s June 15th and we have only had about 4 days of summer. The last few days have been nice so I’ve had some nice rides.

the first follows:
Friday was almost a perfect day. The only wind was a slight tail wind on the way home.

I haven’t had a single ride this year that I averaged 16mph so that was my goal. Here are the numbers:
1:15:40, 21.44 miles, 17 mph avg :-) , 44.1 mph max, burned 1426 calories with an avg hrt of 165. Weighing in at 164.8 and somewhere around 20% body fat.

I’ll post todays ride next.

Blogged with the Flock Browser