The following is another excerpt from a book edited by Kevin Vanhoozer, Everyday Theology: How to Read Cultural Texts and Interpret Trends (pgs. 31-32).

Dr. Vanhoozer believes that culture does four distinct things.  In his opinion, one aspect of culture is that it “cultivates” the lives of the people that swim within its water (For a definition of culture, see my post on What is Culture?).  In other words, the things that we read, the music that we listen to, to the shows and movies that we watch, all have ideas, beliefs, and values communicated through them that in term “cultivate” our own.  Basically, we become what consume.

Culture Cultivates

Bacteria, we may recall, can be grown or “cultivated” in a petri dish.  What exactly does culture cultivate?  The short answer is the human spirit…Given culture’s ability to orient us and reproduce itself, we must acknowledge culture itself as a means of spiritual formation, a process that shapes our spirits, or “hearts.”

My point in describing culture as a process of spiritual formation is not to say that we are helpless and hapless victims but rather to call our attention to the fact that spiritual formation is happening to us and to our children all the time.  Culture trains us in what philosophers call the transcendentals, honing our sense of what is true, good, and beautiful…

Take, for example, the spirit-forming cultural implement of television: “All television is educational television. The question is merely, ‘What is it teaching?’…Its teaching comes not in the form of explicit statements but rather through what it does, namely, through what philosophers of language call the illocutionary act (what is done with words)…

We need carefully and honestly to ask ourselves in what world of meaning do we dwell, at Christmastime or in ordinary time?  Where do we spend most of our time, in our bodies and, just as importantly, in our imaginations?  We need to guard what enters and inhabits our hearts.  We should be dwelling in the real world displayed in Scripture, not the counterfeit worlds projected by other, non-canonical texts.  Sleepwalkers of the world, awake!

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.

Consider sharing this post:

The following is from Everyday Theology: How to Read Cultural Texts and Interpret Trends, ed. by Kevin J. Vanhoozer (pgs. 59-60).  Following these 10 steps will help us from being to quick in writing off new cultural trends, popular T.V. Shows, Movies, Music, etc… by forcing us to delve deeper into their meaning and what people are seeing in them.  For a brief example of how this works, you can see my piece on Finding Community in “The Office”.   You may also be interested in my 3-Part Series in understanding the relatioship of Christianity with the world in Creation, Fall, and Redemption.

1. Try to comprehend a cultural text on its own terms (grasp its communicative intent) before you “interpret” it (explore its broader social, political, sexual, or religious significance).

2. Attend to what a cultural text is doing as well as saying by clarifying its illocutionary act (e.g., stating a belief, displaying a world).

3. Consider the world behind (e.g., medieval, modern), of (i.e., the world displayed by the cultural text), and in front of (i.e., its proposal for your world) the cultural text.

4. Determine what “powers” are served by particular cultural texts or trends by discovering whose material interests are served (e.g., follow the money)

5. Seek teh “world hypothesis” and/or “root metaphor” implied by a cultural text

6.Be comprehensive in your interpretation of a cultural text; find corroborative evidence that makes best sense of the whole as well as the parts.

7. Give “thick” descriptions of the cultural text that are nonreductive and sensitive to the various levels of communicative action.

8. Articulate the way of being human to which a cultural text directly or indirectly bears witness and gives commendation.

9. Discern what faith a cultural text directly or indirectly expresses.  To what convictions about God,. the world, and ourselves does a cultural text and/or trend commit us?

10.Locate the cultural text in the biblical creation-fall-redemption schema and make sure that biblical rather than cultural texts have teh lead role in shaping your imagination an dhence your interpretative framework for your experience (If you are unaware of this framework, you may want to take the time and read Creation, Fall, and Redemption: Understanding the Relationship of Christianity with the World).

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.

Consider sharing this post:

By Rev. Joel Pelsue of Arts and Entertainment Ministries:

Tell me something I don’t know, right?   Well, though we live here in Los Angeles, and we see our share of fantastically ridiculous behavior, I was recently surprised and grieved to learn more about the narcissism in this city and how it is effecting our culture at large.

Now, I must confess I love the current reality TV show Celebrity Rehab which is hosted by Dr. Drew Pinsky.  It’s a less than glamorous show where cameras capture celebrities in the context of struggling to recover from their addictions and destructive lifestyles.  Now, I don’t watch it because of some desire to see people at their worst, but rather because of the honesty.  Recovering addicts are forced be honest about their addictive and pathological struggles the way that God commands us to be honest about our struggles with sin.

In May, my wife and I sat in a lecture here in Los Angeles listening to Dr. Drew Pinsky and Dr. Mark Young talk about their new book for which they are co-authors, The Mirror Effect: How Celebrity Narcissism is Seducing America. We went to this lecture to better understand some of the people we minister to here in L.A., as well as to better understand how to protect our children.  The title was intriguing, of course.  The lecture was entertaining.  The content was both surprising and heart-breaking.  At several points during the lecture, my heart was overwhelmed with grief over the dangerous situation our culture is in, and the tremendous brokenness of celebrities and their fans.

The core shift in thinking about Hollywood and narcissism was precipitated by these two men a couple of years ago.  After researching celebrities they published something quite contrary to prevalent assumptions:

“Narcissism is not a byproduct of celebrity, but a primary motivating force that drives people to become celebrities.” – Journal of Research in Personality in October 2006.

They explained that it is actually a particular type of brokenness rooted in self-loathing and self-hatred which drives them to pursue public acclaim.  Dr. Drew spoke of how all of the people admitted into his care have experienced serious childhood trauma, without exception. He recalled how he has challenged his medical students to find an exception, but the exception has not been found. He noted also that childhood trauma has increased algorithmically since the 60’s, and this alone is a major contributing factor to where our society and it’s celebrities are today.   Pinsky and Young write, “Celebrity narcissists aren’t egomaniacs with high self-esteem.  Rather, they are traumatized individuals who are unable to connect in any real way with other people.  They are driven to attain fame, with its constant stream of attention, flattery, and empowerment, because they need the steady trickle of adoring recognition to take the place of any kind of real self-love or self-respect.”

Where is narcissism at it’s height?

Reality TV seems to draw narcissists like nothing else. When fame is the goal, and talent is irrelevant – all that is required is outlandish behavior in order to become famous. The tragic part here is that they worship the idol of fame so intensely that they will sacrifice almost anything else to satiate this idol. Producers have even been shocked at the lack of embarrassment these people have after seeing their behavior when the show is aired.

How does this really effect us, as the audience? Well, There are two main responses:

On the one hand viewers may take the celebrity’s bad behavior as inspiration for acting out and feeling like the rules shouldn’t apply to them either. On the other hand viewers find this as an occasion to sit in self-righteous judgment. Both responses are spiritually dangerous because we fail to see our own sinful nature, and then fail to see these people as wounded, broken souls in need of grace.

Pinsky also points out that so much of the audience is not simply jealous of these stars, but the American public is becoming increasingly envious. Envy, unlike jealousy, involves a desire to be on the same level with those we envy. We either want to be given the same benefits as those we envy, or we want them to lose their benefits so we are all on the same level. As you can see, this becomes an incubator for aggression, and hatred as the focus becomes what we don’t have, what we deserve, and what we think others do not deserve. The scary part of this is much of our nation seems to be infected with this envy, and is living vicariously through these celebrities either in order to get a taste of “the exciting life”, or to dash the celebrities when they crash and make ourselves feel better by sitting in judgment. Just think of the response to Anna Nicole’s death, where everyone wants the details about how many mistakes she made, but no one really mourns.

Leaving the lecture, my wife and I took the elevator to the parking garage – lamenting all that is broken in this “City of Angels”.  And to be honest, I know why the lecture was so moving – I am broken too.  Christians have been quick in the past to boycott and attack these deeply hurting people- sometimes forgetting that they are people.  It hasn’t helped Hollywood’s perception of Christians, and has made it harder to share the gospel with them.  Yet, that gospel is what their brokenness yearns for.  Actually.  Truth be told.  It’s the same gospel my brokenness yearns for every day.  To be fully known, and yet to be forgiven, and loved- not just by faceless fans, or the public press, but by the God who died to make me whole again.

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.

Consider sharing this post:

From the commentary of R.T. France on The Gospel of Matthew (pgs. 219-220):

Matthew 5.38

You have heard that it was said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.”

“Eye for eye, tooth for tooth” occurs three times in the Pentateuch: Exod. 21.24; lev. 24.20; Deut. 19.21, in each case as part of a longer list of equivalents, and in a context of formal trial….They may have been intended originally to limit the extravagant vengeance associated with an oriental blood-feud, but the OT texts do not express this intention; rather, in Deut. 19.21 the list is preceded by “Show no pity,” to ensure that judges did not mitigate the full penalty required…But by the time of Jesus appropriate financial compensation had generally taken the place of physical mutilation, so that it is probably not physical brutality as such which Jesus is here opposing, but rather the essential principle of even legitimate retribution.

Matthew 5.39

But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil.  But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Jesus is often quoted as opposing retaliation, a stance for which there are several parallels in the OT and other Jewish writings and among pagan philosophers.  But Jesus’ words go further than that: even resistance is forbidden, and no distinction is made between active and passive resistance, violent and nonviolent, legal and illegal…

The startling teaching of this passage is that these are bad people, intent on getting the better of the disciple, but even their admitted badness does not justify the disciple in resisting them.  The issue, then, is not whether one should stand up for good in principle, but whether one should stand up for oneself when under threat.

For illustrations follow…The first results from a slap on the right cheek.  To slap another’s cheek was a serious insult (2 Cor. 11.20; cf. Lam. 3.30) for which legal redress could be claimed (the code of Hammurabi deals with this too, in paragraphs 202-5, with penalties ranging from a small fine to the cutting off of an ear, depending on the social standing of the two parties involved), but to slap the right cheek required (if the assailant was right-handed) a slap with the back of the hand, which was far m ore insulting and would entail double damages.

This is more a matter of honor than of physical infjuy, and honor required appropriate recompense.  Yet Jesus tells the disciple to forgo the financial benefit to which he is legally entitled, to accept the insult without responding, and even to offer the left cheek for a further, if less serious, insult…In a culture which took honor and shame far more seriously than ours, this was a paradoxical and humiliating demand.

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.

Consider sharing this post:

From the Faith and Reason Column of the USA Today, Youth in lawless Haiti at risk for sex trade, slavery, murder

Brace yourself for a new level of horror in Haiti: Vulnerable children and teens sold into slavery and the sex trade, or simply shot in the streets for no reason.

You can take it from an expert on these miseries. Nicolette Gramms, who worked with an human rights agency, the International Justice Mission that specialized in rescuing the victims, writes for The Atlantic that “natural disasters unfailingly bring us new business.” She says:

In today’s world, the twin causes of human slavery — poverty and vulnerability — increase exponentially after natural disasters… Even without the pandemonium unleashed by a 7.0 earthquake, an estimated quarter-million Haitian children are trafficked (into slave labor or the sex trade) within the country each year.

Now, Rev. Mark Driscoll, the pastor of Seattle’s Mars Hill Church who is known nationwide for his blunt talking sermons and in-your-face evangelism, has seen the sex trade revving up amid the rubble.

Driscoll and James MacDonald of Harvest Bible Chapel in Chicago raced down to Haiti to assess the damages to the church infra-structure and launch a drive to rebuild places of worship, churcheshelpingchurches.org.

Faith groups offer the fundamental social network for education, welfare and health in a nation with virtually no government — and that was true before the quake. .

Driscoll’s reports on quake deaths of church choirs, pastors who have lost families flocks and buildings included two particularly chilling experiences, posted to his PastorMark Twitter page and Facebook accounts.

Driscoll described those experiences to me in his first interview back in the states last night.

They were standing at the near the entrance to the Evangelical Theological Seminary, a 75-year-old school on a hill that is now sheltering 5,000 homeless Haitians, when they heard, “Pop! Pop!”

They looked just a few feet outside of the refuge and there they found a teenage boy has been murdered “for no apparent reason. He was just shot in the head and left in the street.”

 

Driscoll and Macdonald also saw a glimpse of what lies ahead for many young girls. His posting on line: 

If u want a phone, cigarettes or a teenage girl you can get them here in Port au Prince. Like the American who said he’s on a relief mission and bought a hungry girl despite our confrontation.

I asked Driscoll more about that scene in a brief phone interview with him last night, minutes after his return last night to the USA.

We were downtown loading up our film crew. There were no police, no medics, to be seen by a huge park with hundreds of people camping out with no where else to go. There was a little cart with a red umbrella and a man selling cell phones and cigarettes — and a few young girls.

“You want to buy loving?” the guy asked me. I said, “What in the world are you talking about?”

But there was another guy there, who claimed to be a translator for a relief agency, who was negotiating a price for a girl. I asked him what he was trying to do. He said, “Oh, she’s a friend of mine. We’re just trying to connect.”

That’s ridiculous. A young girl. A man 20 or 30 years older. I told him this was unacceptable. MacDonald confronted him, too. But there were no police and you could argue all you wanted but the girl took his money and they walked away.”

The pastors plan to send the man’s photo to the relief agency where he claimed to work but the incident has left Driscoll, a father of four, including a teenage daughter, shaking with anger.

So, if you’re within sound or reach of Driscoll or MacDonald this Sunday — and more than 80,000 people are part of their church networks, millions more download Driscoll’s sermons or tune in the MacDonald’s radio show — expect harrowing stories and a challenge from the pulpit that won’t mince words. Driscoll says,

We’re not going to compete with existing aid groups. We just want to use our influence to help churches effectively mobilize to raise funds for relief…

People are desperate. Young girls are ripe for the worst you can imagine.

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.

Consider sharing this post:

The following is an excerpt from Dr. Albert Mohler’s blog on “Does God Hate Haiti?“  His article is clear and concise and well worth the few minutes to read over.  This excerpt is especially pertinent for those that speak on behalf of God and claim that the earthquake in Haiti is directly related to their religious practices.

Rabbit Trail:

Why do so many Christians claim to speak on behalf of God in ascertaining why something occurred?  I get so peeved that Christians haphazardly attribute the earthquake in Haiti to God’s judgment.  In all honesty, such a statement is verging on being  asinine.  Here are my points of contention.

“Bad” things cannot be directly attributed to the judgment of God.  For instance, consider the following:

Was Joseph’s treatment by His brothers a sign of God’s judgment (Genesis 37.12-36; 45.5, 7; 50.20)?

Was Job’s treatment by Satan a sign of God’s judgment (Job 1-2)?

Besides, did not God silence Job (Job 40.3-5) when he presumably spoke upon His behalf in how God does and does not govern His creation (Job 38.1-40.2)?

What is more, are not God’s thoughts higher and above our own thoughts (Isaiah 55.8-9; cf. Psalms 145.3; 1 Corinthians 2.9, 11)?    This point was well made by the Apostle Paul, who declared:

Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God!  How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!  For who has known the mind of the Lord…(Romans 11.33-34).

In other words, mankind – who is finite – is incapable of understanding exactly what God’s role is behind anything.

For now, one last point.  In the Gospel of Matthew we observe that God “…makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust” (Matthew 5.45).  On one hand, good things happen to bad people.  On the other hand, bad things happen to good people.

The events in our life do not determine rather or not God is blessing us or judging us.  They can be as easily attributed to decisions we make or simply living in a fallen world that is under the domain of sin and Satan and naturally experiences earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes and the like (Ephesians 2.1-4; Romans 8).

To place in the “for what it’s worth category,” here are my final thoughts.

God has revealed for us everything we need to know pertaining to life and godliness in the Bible (2 Timothy 3.16-17).  It are these “things” that are specifically revealed that we have the ability to speak upon.  The “things” that are hidden, such as God’s role behind the earthquake in Haiti, that belong to Him and are not revealed to us.  Since this is the case, we need to leave it this way and not to presume to speak upon His behalf.

In the words of Moses,

“The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we do all the words of this law” (Deuteronomy 29.29)

Oh, and one final word.  For those that go around pronouncing God’s judgment, why don’t you instead opt for proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ that heralds a message of mercy and salvation, not judgment and damnation.

O.K., enough of that.  Here is Dr. Mohler’s thoughts that are much better articulated than my own.

God’s rule over creation involves both direct and indirect acts, but his rule is constant. The universe, even after the consequences of the Fall, still demonstrates the character of God in all its dimensions, objects, and occurrences. And yet, we have no right to claim that we know why a disaster like the earthquake in Haiti happened at just that place and at just that moment.

The arrogance of human presumption is a real and present danger. We can trace the effects of a drunk driver to a car accident, but we cannot trace the effects of voodoo to an earthquake — at least not so directly. Will God judge Haiti for its spiritual darkness? Of course. Is the judgment of God something we can claim to understand in this sense — in the present? No, we are not given that knowledge. Jesus himself warned his disciples against this kind of presumption.

Why did no earthquake shake Nazi Germany? Why did no tsunami swallow up the killing fields of Cambodia? Why did Hurricane Katrina destroy far more evangelical churches than casinos? Why do so many murderous dictators live to old age while many missionaries die young?

Does God hate Haiti? God hates sin, and will punish both individual sinners and nations. But that means that every individual and every nation will be found guilty when measured by the standard of God’s perfect righteousness. God does hate sin, but if God merely hated Haiti, there would be no missionaries there; there would be no aid streaming to the nation; there would be no rescue efforts — there would be no hope.

The earthquake in Haiti, like every other earthly disaster, reminds us that creation groans under the weight of sin and the judgment of God. This is true for every cell in our bodies, even as it is for the crust of the earth at every point on the globe. The entire cosmos awaits the revelation of the glory of the coming Lord. Creation cries out for the hope of the New Creation.

In other words, the earthquake reminds us that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only real message of hope. The cross of Christ declares that Jesus loves Haiti — and the Haitian people are the objects of his love. Christ would have us show the Haitian nation his love, and share his Gospel. In the midst of this unspeakable tragedy, Christ would have us rush to aid the suffering people of Haiti, and rush to tell the Haitian people of his love, his cross, and salvation in his name alone.

Everything about the tragedy in Haiti points to our need for redemption. This tragedy may lead to a new openness to the Gospel among the Haitian people. That will be to the glory of God. In the meantime, Christ’s people must do everything we can to alleviate the suffering, bind up the wounded, and comfort the grieving. If Christ’s people are called to do this, how can we say that God hates Haiti?

If you have any doubts about this, take your Bible and turn to John 3:16. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. That is God’s message to Haiti.

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.

Consider sharing this post:

Well, in short, no.  However, Stephen Mansfield reminds us of the historical involvement of Christians in perhaps encouraging and refining the brewing of beer out of temperance (i.e. self restraint) and an alternative to higher alcoholic drinks and polluted water.

From In Search for God and Guinness, pgs. 20-21:

I find it interesting, given the controversies over alcohol that would eventually erupt in the history of the Christian church, that the arrival of Christianity in the world and its eventual sway over the empire did not diminish the Roman love of beer.

For the early Christians, drunkenness was the sin – as their apostles had repeatedly taught – and not the consumption of alcohol.  After all, their Lord had miraculously created wine at a wedding feast, the fledgling church drank wine at its sacred meals, and Christian leaders even instructed their disciples to take wine as a cure for ailments.  Clearly, beer and wine used in moderation were welcomed by the early Christians and were taken as a matter of course.  It was excess and drunkenness and the immorality that came from both that the Christians opposed.  Many historians have noted that this positive Christian perspective on alcohol probably even encouraged brewing, because it both sanctioned a temperate love of beer and welcomed beer as an alternative to more high alcohol drinks.

This theory is supported by the fact that beer is so intertwined with the history of the Christian faith that it is tempting to believe that Christians discovered it.  Perhaps in its holy and moderate use, they did.

You may also be interested in A Biblically Positive View of Alcohol.

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.

Consider sharing this post:

Have you ever set back and asked yourself, “Who determines what a cuss word is?  Why am I offended by some things and not others?”  Well, I have.  Apart from what this says about me; let’s consider what “offensive language” is and what the Bible has to say about it.

What is Offensive Language?

Offensive language is defined in the Encarta Dictionary as language that is “upsetting, insulting, or irritating” that causes “anger, resentment, or moral outrage.”  Now, defining what qualifies as offensive language is as difficult as nailing Jello to the wall.  This is so for various reasons, including the following:

• The regular addition of new words,
• The near non-usage of words that were once readily spoken,
• The meaning of words may change over time,
• The meaning of words can differ between cultures, and
• The ability of words to lose their offensive edge,

Consequently, it would be nearly impossible to compile a list of offensive words.   

Since we know what offensive language is in principle, let’s briefly consider what the Bible has to say about offensive language.

What does the Bible say about Offensive Language?

Apart from blaspheming God (Exodus 20.7; Lev. 18:21; Matt. 5.34), the Bible does not actually contain a list of forbidden and offensive words.  Even though this is the case, there are some things we can glean from the Bible about offensive language and how we, as Christians, can glorify God in all that we do (1 Cor. 10.31), especially in our speech. 

There’s More to Speaking Offensive Language than Offensive Language Itself

Say what?  I know, this does sound somewhat schizophrenic.  So let me put it to you this way.  Our speech is indicative of the condition of our heart.  That is, what we say and how we say it serves as a barometer in measuring the purity of our heart (Matt 12.34).  In following the theme of purity in speech, let’s take a closer look at what we say and how we say it.      

What we Say

Like I said above, apart from blasphemy the Bible does not provide a list of offensive language that Christians should avoid.  Some may use this point as a means of justifying whatever they say; however, this should not be the case.  Although the Bible does not condemn certain words, it does provide us a template in guiding our speech. 

In following the theme of purity in speech, the Bible has much to say:

Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving (Ephesians 5.4).

Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things (Philippians 4.8).

But now you must put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and obscenetalk from your mouth (Colossians 3.8)

I’m not exactly sure why God decided against forbidding certain words, but in some ways I’m glad He didn’t.  You see, what is considered filthy, crude, impure, and obscene differs throughout history, cultures, and people groups. 

Writing in response to John Piper’s comments on God being an “ass kicker” at a conference (which he later regretted), Wayne Grudem provided great insight into understanding what these previous passages are getting at:

Using the words commonly thought to be offensive in the culture seems to me to be sort of the verbal equivalent of not wearing deodorant and having body odor, or of going around with spilled food on our shirts all the time. Someone might argue that not wearing deodorant or wearing dirty clothes are not morally wrong things in themselves, but my response is that they do give needless offense and cause others to think of us as somewhat impure or unclean. So, I think, does using words commonly thought to be “obscene” or “offensive” or “vulgar” in the culture generally. Plus it encourages others to act in the same way. So in that way it brings reproach on the church and the gospel.

So, words are not intrinsically evil based upon a certain combination of letters, but rather their understood meaning in context.  In other words, words in-and-of themselves are not bad, it’s the ideas associated with them which can change throughout history and place-to-place.

Words are not only affected by historical and cultural context, some words, such as “damn” and “hell” have an appropriate and offensive way they can be used. 

How We Say It

On one hand, call me crazy but I imagine telling someone, “Go to hell,” or “Damn you,” would be considered offensive.  On the other hand, talking about “hell” or “damnation” would be appropriate.  Writing for the Christian Courier, Wayne Jackson reminds us that, “It is the manner in which such terms are employed, i.e., hatefully, vindictively, in a pejorative [i.e. expressing criticism and/or disapproval] fashion, that makes the use of them wrong.”

Now that I’ve briefly addressed what and how we say things, I would like to end by providing some basic parameters that I’ve learned and am learning to live with it in guiding my own speech as a Christian. 

Sometime this week, maybe next depending upon time, I’ll look to share from what I’ve learned on the template the Bible provides in our speech. 

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.   

Consider sharing this post:

With all jokes aside, as husbands we should be reminded that we are to love our wives as Jesus Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her (Ephesians 5.25).  What does this mean?  Well, when our women make slimey, sloppy eggs, we should allow the grace of God to fight the sinful compulsion of doing harm and lead us to love them all the more.  Now honey, if you’re reading this, I need you back in the kitchen pronto.

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.   

Consider sharing this post:

In March 1977 Yoko traveled with John Green to Catagena in Colombia to meet a witch who had been recommended to her as someone “who could do anything.” Green had to accompany her to check out the witch’s validity. Yoko paid the witch sixty thousand dollars to perform a series of rituals culminating in the sacrifice of a dove. When they returned to New York; Yoko insisted that they had to fly via Los Angeles and Alaska to avoid having to fly in a northeasterly direction because she believed this would bring her bad fortune.

Next came one of the most extraordinary turnabouts in John’s life. A television addict for many years (it was his way of looking at the world since he could no longer walk around anonymously), he enjoyed watching some of America’s best-known evangelists—Pat Robertson, Billy Graham, Jim Bakker, and Oral Roberts. In 1972 he had written a desperate letter to Roberts confessing his dependence on drugs and his fear of facing up to “the problems of life.” He expressed regret that he had said that the Beatles were more popular than Jesus and enclosed a gift for the Oral Roberts University. After quoting the line “money can’t buy me love” from “Can’t Buy Me Love” he said, “It’s true. The point is this, I want happiness. I don’t want to keep on with drugs. Paul told me once, ‘You made fun of me for taking drugs, but you will regret it in the end.’ Explain to me what Christianity can do for me. Is it phoney? Can He love me? I want out of hell.”

Roberts sent him a copy of his book Miracle of Seed Faith and several letters explaining basic Christian beliefs. In the second of his letters Roberts said:

John, we saw you and the Beatles on television when you first came to America. Your talent with music was almost awesome and your popularity touched millions. Your influence became so widespread and powerful that your statement-the Beatles are more popular than Jesus- might have had some truth in it at that moment. But you know, our Lord said, I am alive for ever more. People, the Bible says, are like sheep and are often fickle, following this one day and something else the next. However, there are millions who have received Jesus Christ as their personal Savior and have been filled with the Holy Spirit. They love him. To them He is the most wonderful and popular man who ever lived because he is the Son of God and His name endures.

I thank God that you see this, John, and finally regret thinking any man or group could be more popular than Jesus. Jesus is the only reality. It is Jesus who said “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” So, you see, your statement that because of your hard background you’ve never wanted to face reality is actually really saying you’ve never wanted to face our loving Lord. What I want to say, as I tried to say in my other letter, is that Jesus, the true reality, is not hard to face. He said, “Come unto me all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. … For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.” You said, John, that you take drugs because reality frightens you. Remember as you open your life to Jesus, He will take all the fear away and give you peace. Peace that passes all understanding. 

This correspondence and his exposure to TV evangelism didn’t appear to have any effect until he suddenly announced to close friends in the spring of 1977 that he’d become a born-again Christian. He had been particularly moved by the U.S. television premiere of Franco Zeffirelli’s Jesus of Nazareth, starring Robert Powell as Jesus, which NBC showed in two three-hour segments on Palm Sunday, April 3, 1977. A week later, on Easter day, he took Yoko and Sean to a local church service.

For the rest of the excerpt, click here.

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.   

Consider sharing this post: