Always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason

May 24, 2008

Comments

I'm changing comment systems. I'm sick of having to delete 50+ SPAM comments every day, if not every 4 hours.

I'm going to try to install Disqus, so I am closing all comments on all posts right now. If it doesn't work, I'll look for something else. The existing comments won't go anywhere, and I'm not sure if I can import existing comments into the system yet, so this will be for posts going forward.

Sorry, folks. I'm not happy about having to do this either, but I'm spending way too much time deleting SPAM.

{edit} So I can't do what I want to do. I can mark all future posts as 'comments closed' but can't change the old ones. I'm working on another option, and hope to use Disqus. The more I look at it, the more I like it.{/edit}

Posted by: Warren Kelly at 08:43 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 143 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Contemporary Â“WorshipÂ” Music I am fully aware of the difference between praise and worship music. To worship is to revere, to bow down in spirit, admire in awe; and to praise is an appreciation, commendation, or hallelujah. Both have a place in our churches. I believe the Bible teaches that both are proper. That said, allow me to express what I feel todayÂ’s Sunday Morning Contemporary music advocates are failing to recognize. God deserves more than a Â“Pop MusicÂ” or Â“knee slappinÂ” attitude from us during Sunday Morning Worship Service. IÂ’m not referring to the lyrics, the subject, or instruments used; but the mood which, in many cases inspires jiving, body motions, and results that imitate secular music concert movements. This in the same service where pastors orate mightily in a Â“holyÂ” tone of voice and use inflections that simulate heavenly auras. These pastors know the value of awe and holy seriousness when delivering heavenly messages. They use no knee slapping and grooving. They use no Â“rapÂ” forms of speaking. They know the awe and respect in worship of which an Almighty God is worthy. During praise services, e.g., youth meetings, camp meetings, concerts, evening praise services, or in the home, or during private music listening sessions, contemporary religious music can be used to satisfy musical tastes that have been cultivated by years of listening to secular, pop scene renditions. The argument that many have been won to Christ through the use of contemporary music, therefore should be used during Sunday Morning Worship Service, is not appropriate. Winning the lost should be through witnessing, and living observable Christian lives, then hearing the spoken word that explains the meaning of and way to obtain salvation. If the only effective tool to cause the unsaved to hear the Â“Word of GodÂ” is through baiting them with contemporary music in order to draw them in the front door of the church on Sunday Morning, then something is desperately wrong with such a church. The unsaved are not coming to worship, they are coming to a hear secular sounds that incidently contain religious words. And those individuals who insist on contemporary music during worship services may be worshiping the sounds, atmospheres, and moods engendered by the popular, secular music of the day. If musically great hymns and gospel songs make the unsaved turn away then perhaps poor performance has something to do with it. Incidently, many of the contemporary religious music performances fall far short of musical excellence. To those who would remind me that some hymn tunes, when written, were originally popular secular tunes of the day I would respond: there is a very wide diversity in the present culture between secular Â“down and dirtyÂ” and Â“easy listening and lyricalÂ” tunes. Both can be called popular tunes of the day but there is a vast difference in the mood that is set by their use. Too much of the contemporary religious music styles employed during Sunday Morning Worship services in our present age come close to the Â“down and dirtyÂ” genre. On a personal level, I have often observed many young people and adults alike looking at each other as they are swaying and clapping to the secular beat of contemporary praise music during the Sunday Morning Worship service. There is no way I can judge what their thoughts are at the moment, but, through experiences of a lifetime, I have observed the same bodily movement responses and moods as I performed in night clubs during my early adult life. Do advocates of contemporary music use during Sunday Morning Worship services also desire to see the sacrament, scripture reading, praying, and preaching performed in a secular contemporary mode? The logic with which the argument is made would dictate the desirability of such performances. Should the art on the walls and atmospheres in our sanctuaries be similar to that in the cityÂ’s pubs and gathering places in order to draw the unsaved to our churches? Why only music?

Posted by: Ralph at February 05, 2009 12:53 PM (Em2nV)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

May 21, 2008

Conservatives Ready to Throw Christian Group Under the Bus

A perfect example of why Christian groups need to be cautious when hitching themselves to a specific political party or ideology is the Christian Coalition's battle with free market advocacy group FreedomWorks over Net Neutrality.

The Christian Coalition, along with other conservative groups like Gun Owners of America and the National Religious Broadcasters, is concerned that internet providers will start offering high-speed data transfer rates only to organizations that can afford to pay a premium, adversely impacting grass-roots organizations. The Coalition supports net neutrality, which would make such discrimination illegal. By taking this position, the Coalition finds itself working with long-term foes like MoveOn.org, and against folks like FreedomWorks.

Rob Wasinger, chief of staff to Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), went so far as to say that the Christian Coalition has moved "off the reservation," and that net neutrality is not "a red-meat-conservative issue."

Jim Backlin of the Christian Coalition characterizes this as a simple disagreement. "ThatÂ’s one of the issues where friends get to disagree."

If only it were really that simple. Adam Brandon of FreedomWorks says, "Â“We would gladly welcome them back into the fold if they all of a sudden realized that 'We have to get back on the right side of the ball here.' Nothing personal.Â”

The problem, apparantly, is that they don't think the CC is pulling it's weight on social issues. Wasinger is concerned that teaming with people like MoveOn.org is adversely affecting the CC's impact.

It seems to me like the conservative powers that be are upset that the useful idiots are having an independent thought, and they're ready to dump them. "Come back to us when you can toe the line, and understand your role." We don't need partners like that.

Net neutrality is an idea I am behind. I don't like excessive regulation of business, but it's clear to me that without some legislation, small groups (including churches, private schools, etc.) are going to be left in the dust. Freedom of speech is at stake. This is where government needs to step in and pass good laws that protect companies and individuals who don't have the clout to protect themselves.

Posted by: Warren Kelly at 05:21 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 376 words, total size 2 kb.

Give It Away!

Tim Challies is giving away $200 to spend at Monergism.

What are you still doing here???? Go enter!

Posted by: Warren Kelly at 04:27 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 24 words, total size 1 kb.

May 16, 2008

The Future Of the CCM Industry

Charlie Peacock has an outstanding analysis of the future of the CCM industry. Go read the whole thing when you have a minute, but I wanted to throw a few excellent quotes out there:

Christian musicÂ’s alliances with mainstream entertainment corporations will all prove eternally less than successful, since they all bet first on the power of the market to deliver results and not the hand of GodÂ—something God has never been fond of. (See Bible for evidence.)

This has been a common complaint about the state of the industry. Steve Camp has said similar things in the past. The problem as I see it started when we stopped thinking of Christian music as a ministry and started thinking of it as an industry. If it's an industry, you partner with whoever will help your bottom line. If it's a ministry, you realize that your bottom line has nothing to do with money.

When convenient or strategic, Christian artists will return to using the term gospel in order to describe their music. Â“CcmÂ” has faded as an accurate moniker and will disappear altogether.

I've seen this already. Artists are either using the 'gospel' label or they describe their music in terms of "secular" genre tags like "emo" or "metal" or "hardcore" -- things like that. There are increasingly few Christian artists who identify themselves as CCM artists; many don't even self-identify as Christian, even those who are explicitly so lyrically and ministerially. If you don't believe me, browse through MySpace. There are still some artists who self-identify as Christian, and some of those are quite good, but by and large the major acts don't do it, whether out of frustration with the industry or because they are trying to be accepted first as musicians, or perhaps some less noble reason.

Christian music with Â“worldviewÂ” lyrics is dead in the church and reborn in the world where Christian indie and major label artists will carry the torch. The majority of Christian music fans and gatekeepers in the church proved too immature or disinterested to discern whether or not a lyric was speaking to a topic from a Christian worldview. The problem of maturity and literacy will continue.

And podcasters will lead the way. Take a listen to The Bored Again Christian or The Habanero Hour for some Christian worldview music that you won't hear anywhere else. And, of course, you can check out The PewCast too. I play a different genre than Just Pete or Brent play is all.
But I think that this is the wisest thing that Peacock says, "... the real and trustworthy future of Christian music is Christ. Find out what HeÂ’s interested in, and let that be the musicÂ’s future."

Posted by: Warren Kelly at 08:26 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 463 words, total size 3 kb.

R.C. Sproul on the Exclusivity of Christ

Posted by: Warren Kelly at 08:00 PM | Comments (25) | Add Comment
Post contains 14 words, total size 1 kb.

May 07, 2008

The Evangelical Manifesto

The Evangelical Manifesto was released today, and the Christian end blogosphere is abuzz with comment. At the end of this post I'll list the articles I've seen on the subject; I'm certain that there are many more that I've missed, so if you've seen one or written one yourself, let me know in the comments and I'll add it in.

On the whole, this is a very positive document, and one that I support 100%. Evangelicals have been defined by our politics for far too long; it is time we're defined by our theology, since evangelicalism is after all a theological movement. My hope is that it becomes more than just another piece of paper that is ignored in a few weeks; that it becomes a pattern of behaviour among Evangelical Christians.

Just a few thoughts on specific quotes from the Manifesto: more...

Posted by: Warren Kelly at 12:59 PM | Comments (55) | Add Comment
Post contains 1477 words, total size 10 kb.

May 05, 2008

Christianity Without Christ

In light of some recent topics here, I present GetReligion's story about Gretta Vosper. Interesting article about an interesting minister.

I almost used scare quotes there, but decided not to. She probably does minister to people. But I think she falls short of the Biblical definition of the term -- she seems to leave out a central need when meeting peoples' needs: the need for a Savior.

Posted by: Warren Kelly at 02:29 PM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 73 words, total size 1 kb.

May 04, 2008

How Inclusive Is God?

In the comments of my post on Jeremiah Wright (which has been a great discussion, by the way), this statement was made:

The common Christian idea that non-Christians are all damned just strikes me as incompatible with the mercy and justice of God.

The speaker is asserting that the "other sheep" that Jesus mentions in John 10:16 are people who aren't creedal, confessional Christians, but instead are people who are simply good enough, and are trying to follow the "social gospel." I'm probably oversimplifying things a bit; read the comments on that post for a complete picture.

So the question is this: just how inclusive is the God of the Bible, anyway? After all, it says that He's not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance, right? God is love, right? So He'll let everybody in, right?

That's what we want to believe. That's what is most comfortable to believe. A God who lets everyone in.
more...

Posted by: Warren Kelly at 07:42 PM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 557 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Hi again : ) If we are going to focus on inclusiveness, could you give me a better sense of where you are coming from. So if accepting Christ is the only way, do you believe that everyone who died before Christ is simply damned? Do you really believe that all non-Christians who lived after Christ came are damned? (I'm asking because there is some variation in this among Christians. For example, Catholics would say that salvation has to be through Christ but they also allow for the possibility of "anonymous Christians"... people who are saved through Christ without necessarily being confessional Christians)

Posted by: abdul-halim at May 04, 2008 11:17 PM (Ev9kD)

2 I think Jesus Himself eliminates the possibility of "anonymous Christians" when He says in Luke 12 "8 Â“And I tell you, everyone who acknowledges me before men, the Son of Man also will acknowledge before the angels of God, 9 but the one who denies me before men will be denied before the angels of God. " Romans 1 teaches us that the people of the world are ultimately without excuse, but that Christians are commanded to go and tell. This is the reason for the great missionary emphasis in Christianity throughout history. When Jesus says that the way to Him is narrow, and not many people will find it, I think He means just that. It's not an easy path. I also believe that if there is a group of people who will believe if they only hear and get the opportunity, that God will send someone to them. God's in charge, after all, and in His omniscience He knows who will believe. As far as pre-Christians, their faith in God and obedience to Him is counted to them as righteousness. That's what Hebrews 11 tells us -- it gives us examples of faith exercised by people who lived before Christ. So, yes, I believe that Jesus was telling the truth when He said "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No man comes to the Father but by Me." Would I be happier if God had done things differently? Sure. As with Jeremiah, the message that God has given to His people is not a popular one, and it's one that is rejected frequently. But as a Christian I have to stay faithful to what the Bible teaches, and it's pretty clear on this point.

Posted by: Warren at May 07, 2008 01:10 PM (Y0tXa)

3 1. I thought it would maake more sense to go back to the "original" question. In terms of the Luke passage, we could interpret that in the light of the "least of these" passage. There people who acknowledge Christ are the ones who acknowledge "the least of these " 2. I think you are misreading the passage in Romans. [19] For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. [20] Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; [21] for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. So God's existence and some of his nature is evident from the creation. That's what we don't have an excuse for rejecting. But this passage says nothing about believing in Jesus Christ or accepting the rest of the structure of Christian theology (Incarnation, Trinity) 3. In terms of pre-Christians don't Jews and Muslims today have a faith which would have been a saving faith before Christ? Why wouldn't it be a saving faith after Christ?

Posted by: abdul-halim at May 12, 2008 10:55 AM (Ev9kD)

4 "1. I thought it would make more sense to go back to the "original" question. In terms of the Luke passage, we could interpret that in the light of the "least of these" passage. There people who acknowledge Christ are the ones who acknowledge "the least of these "" Exactly. The people who believe (those who have faith) are the people who do the good works. Their faith leads them to works, not the other way around. 2. You have to consider the passage in Romans in light of the rest of what Paul is saying to the Roman church. Paul doesn't teach that salvation is in anything other than faith in Christ. His statements at the beginning of the book have to be taken in context. 3. Jews who looked forward to the coming of the Messiah had saving faith. They believed in Him who the Father was going to send. There were no Muslims before Christ, so the question is moot. Today, the object of the pre-Christ Jews' faith is made known, and all men are called to faith in Him.

Posted by: Warren at May 12, 2008 08:28 PM (Y0tXa)

5 1. Yeah, text in Luke doesn't say that. You are carrying that over from Paul and imposing it on the text. 2. The passage in question only says that God's "invisible nature" is clearly perceived. It says nothing about belief in Jesus. 3. My point is that the saving faith of the Jews before Christ is not that different from Islam. These Jews would not have had all the theological baggage of the Incarnation and the Trinity. Just a vague hope of a Messiah and belief in God. Well, if that was sufficient for salvation, then Muslims are even closer. The Quran teaches that Jesus was the Messah, born of a virgin, who by God's permission healed the sick and raised the dead, and ascended into heaven and will return again in the Last Days. That's a more developed theology than even the "good thief" had.

Posted by: abdul-halim at May 15, 2008 09:49 AM (Ev9kD)

6 1. Well, since Luke traveled and worked with Paul, it's pretty safe to assume that his theology was similar. The problem is that you're putting the cart before the horse -- the people Christ is talking to and about are already believers in Him. They've come to Him by faith, and now they are learning the implications of that faith. 2. As I said, you cannot take a passage and isolate it from the context of the book and have a clear understanding of what Paul is talking about. Romans is Paul's systematic theology, and must be taken as a whole, not in pieces. 3. What good works did the dying thief have? All he had was faith in Christ alone for his salvation. Nothing he did in his own life merited any favor from God -- he was a thief, and confessed as much on the cross. His faith saved him. Of course, Jesus was always telling people that their faith saved them. Not their theology, and certainly not their works. Their faith -- the belief that He alone could save them, that only through Him did they have any hope of heaven. Their dependence on Him is what saved them. But I guess He was wrong -- they had to do good works, didn't they?

Posted by: Warren at May 15, 2008 04:40 PM (Y0tXa)

7 1. not worth arguing about at this point 2. all i'm saying is that the one verse you mentioned doesn't correspond to the claims you were making. if you want to say that the book of Romans as a whole is still consistent with your position fine, but it isn't by virtue of your proof-text. 3. ultimately i would want to go back to the original discussion on how inclusive christianity is. To be honest, the faith v. works discussion isn't as important to me as the point that its not just Christians who are saved. I definitely believe in the power of repentance and the power of God's mercy so I'm really not bothered your claim that he had no deeds. For me the interesting thing is that Jesus clearly says he is saved, while his theology is so minimal as to include Muslims

Posted by: abdul-halim at May 15, 2008 07:06 PM (Ev9kD)

8 What did the thief put his faith in? What are Muslims putting their faith in?

Posted by: Warren at May 15, 2008 08:37 PM (Y0tXa)

9 God in both cases...

Posted by: abdul-halim at May 20, 2008 04:26 PM (zQ0OQ)

10 For the latter, I take you at your word - my education on Islam is unfortunately stunted. I heartily agree with you on the former, though. Of course, I'm surprised you admit that Jesus is God. "Luke 23:42 Then he said to Jesus, 'Lord, remember me when You come into Your kingdom.'"

Posted by: Warren at May 20, 2008 04:40 PM (Y0tXa)

11 The thief DOESN'T say Jesus is God. [39] One of the criminals who were hanged railed at him, saying, "Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!" [40] But the other rebuked him, saying, ***"Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation?*** [41] And we indeed justly; for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong." [42] And he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom." [43] And he said to him, "Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise." Note that if acknowledging Jesus' kingdom means accepting his Messianic claim (something which the Quran and all Muslims accept) but doesn't imply divinity.

Posted by: abdul-halim at May 20, 2008 08:04 PM (Ev9kD)

12 But the thief never prays to God the Father. He knows he stands condemned before Him. So he calls on the Son for mercy. He asks Jesus for mercy. It's Jesus that he's trusting in. So either he believed Jesus was God, who could declare someone forgiven (as Jesus frequently did, to the Pharisees' consternation), or the thief was a polytheist.

Posted by: Warren at May 20, 2008 09:50 PM (Y0tXa)

13 I think you are trying to put more weight on the thief's words than they were meant to bear. The thief doesn't mention the Trinity at all so I don't think it makes sense to argue that he was somehow excluding God the Father. The thief also doesn't say "Forgive me for my sins" he just says "remember me" which is something ordinary Christians can ask one another without implying divinity as well.

Posted by: abdul--halim at May 20, 2008 11:38 PM (Ev9kD)

14 When does the thief call out to God? All I see in that passage is a conversation with Jesus, and a request that Jesus not forget him when Jesus enters His kingdom. Point is, IF the thief is relying on God (as you said, and I agreed), he's treating Jesus as God.

Posted by: Warren at May 21, 2008 08:13 PM (Y0tXa)

15 What you are saying doesn't follow from the text. It's not like the thief recited the entire Nicene Creed from the cross. What is clear, is that (like all Muslims) the thief believes in God (verse 40) and believes Jesus is the Messiah (verse 42). There is nothing in his words which imply he believed Jesus was God.

Posted by: abdul-halim at May 21, 2008 11:11 PM (Ev9kD)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

May 03, 2008

RSS Readers

For those who are subscribed to the feed, an apology and a promise. At some point, I changed the feed settings to only post an excerpt of the full article. I regret doing that, and wish I could change it. Problem is, I don't remember what I changed.

I thought it was a Feedburner setting, but I can't find it there. I can't find it in my blog settings with Movable Type. I have no idea what I changed, but I'm trying to find it so I can change it back. Please bear with me.

Posted by: Warren Kelly at 05:41 PM | Comments (42) | Add Comment
Post contains 99 words, total size 1 kb.

An Evangelical Manifesto

I just found out about this, thanks to Dr. Bock's blog. CNN had the story Friday.

The declaration, scheduled to be released Wednesday in Washington, encourages Christians to be politically engaged and uphold teachings such as traditional marriage. But the drafters say evangelicals have often expressed "truth without love," helping create a backlash against religion during a "generation of culture warring."
"All too often we have attacked the evils and injustices of others," the statement says, "while we have condoned our own sins." It argues, "we must reform our own behavior."

I'm looking forward to reading this on Wednesday - it sounds like something I could get behind.

Posted by: Warren Kelly at 05:11 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 114 words, total size 1 kb.

93kb generated in CPU 0.0416, elapsed 0.3942 seconds.
66 queries taking 0.3755 seconds, 337 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Search Thingy

Monthly Traffic

Pages: 47516
Files: 636
Bytes: 260.4M
CPU Time: 22:51
Queries: 2209717

Content

Posts: 1039
Comments: 3758

Feeds