My Church Is Better Than Your Church

Rick Warren, one of America’s most popular pastors, tweeted earlier today to his 130,296 Twitter followers, “I challenge any church in America to match the spiritual maturity, godliness & commitment of any 500 members of Saddleback.” This tweet came on the heels of two earlier tweets:

RickWarren: Mary, it’s true. Over 10,000 Saddleback members have now served in missions overseas through our network & P.E.A.C.E. plan.

RickWarren: For 30 yrs our plan was to turn spectators into participators, consumers to contributors, an audience into an army. It worked!

The final tweet was later deleted, but managed to get quite a few responses from the Christian twittersphere. Here are a few:

ScottyWardSmith: I challenge any church in America to show me 500 of their members who need the gospel more than we do in Christ Community Church.

timmybrister: Re: @rickwarren twitter hype – It’s a good thing that no one else has a better gospel than I do, because that’s all I have to vouch for.

stevekmccoy: Yo @RickWarren, I’m happy for Saddleback & I’mma let you finish, but Corinth had the most mature Christians of all time!

jaredcwilson: I challenge any 500 Saddleback members to compare their commitment & godliness to Christ, whose righteousness belongs to every believer.

LaneChaplin: Rick Warren challenges us to make his congregation our standard for godliness, maturity, and commitment. http://bit.ly/bv6j44 #GospelFail

erikraymond: @RickWarren Looking to self to vindicate or validate shows the gospel’s been forgotten—especially ur sinful state.

Some thoughts on the situation:

  1. It’s not clear whether Warren was making a statement about the superior spirituality of the least spiritual 500 in his church or trying to stir others up to love and good works (He 10:24). When you have only 140 characters, you need to choose your words carefully.
  2. Is there biblical warrant for this kind of competitive statement? Paul discouraged comparison (2 Co 10:12; cf. 1 Cor 1:12; 3:4), but he also talked about outdoing each other (Ro 12:10) and encouraged others to immitate him (1 Co 4:16; 11:1; Phil 3:17; 4:9; 1 Th 1:6; 2 Th 3:9). Is all comparison bad? Is there room for healthy competition in the pursuit of godliness? Scripture often commends the behavior of certain Christians to others (e.g., Mt 8:10; Ac 17:11; He 12:1).
  3. There’s seems to be an appropriate kind of pride one can have in those he shepherds (1 Co 15:31; 2 Co 7:4; 8:24; 9:2; 1 Th 2:19).
  4. It’s not necessarily a denial of the gospel to encourage others to follow the example of those who are modeling godliness. Christ is our ultimate example, but there are other lesser examples that point to Him. Christ is our perfect righteousness, but others can model the righteousness of life that God calls us to pursue.
  5. What you say on the Internet has potential to reach far more people than you may intend. Warren has more than 130,000 Twitter followers, but the reach of his comment far exceeds that number when you take into consideration the hundreds of people who retweeted it or tweeted about it to all of their followers (not to mention those who blog about it, share it on Facebook, etc.). Keep in mind that the potential audience of what you say online numbers in the hundreds of millions.
  6. The fact that Warren later deleted his tweet probably means that he had second thoughts about posting it. We all make mistakes and say things we wish we could take back. But there’s a good lesson to be learned here. Once you put something online—especially if the content gets syndicated or cached (e.g., Twitter, RSS, automated emails, Internet Archive)—it’s virtually permanent and can’t be easily or entirely undone.
  7. Twitter lends itself to expressing your thoughts before you’ve taken time to stop and ponder them. That’s often not a good thing.

Update: Warren apparently defends his tweet yesterday—or at least responds to his critics—with these follow-up tweets:

RickWarren: Paul COMPARED the Macedonia church’s commitment to Corinth’s & challenged them to MATCH it 2 Cor. 8:1-8. Wise teaching tool

RickWarren: ”I want to test the sincerity of your love by comparing it with the earnestness of others.” — Paul 2 Cor. 8:8

RickWarren: BIBLICAL leaders use themselves as examples to challenge others. Paul often did. See David’s courageous model! 1Chron 29:2-5

Read full story Comments { 7 }

Free Amazon Prime for Students

Amazon PrimeAmazon is currently offering a free one-year subscription to Amazon Prime, which will give you free two-day shipping on most items that Amazon sells with the option to upgrade to one-day shipping for $3.99. The annual cost for Amazon Prime is $79, so this is a great deal that every student should take advantage of, even if you only shop at Amazon occasionally.

Undergraduate and graduate students qualify for the free subscription. To sign up, you’ll just need to do enter your .edu email address and choose your state, school, year, and major. I’m not sure how long they’re running this special, but if you’re a student, I’d recommend signing up soon.

Read full story Comments { 1 }

Writing Standards for the Web

The Yahoo! Style GuideIs it e-mail or email, Internet or internet, Web site, Website, or website? In a new book that deals with standards for writing online, Yahoo addresses these questions and many more. Coming in at 528 pages, The Yahoo! Style Guide: The Ultimate Sourcebook for Writing, Editing, and Creating Content for the Digital World is available for pre-order from Amazon for $14.84 and is scheduled to ship on July 6. Some of the content is also available online, as well as supplementary content not available in the book.

Standard guides like The Associated Press Stylebook1 and The Chicago Manual of Style will remain useful and worth consulting. But there’s a lot these tried and true guides don’t cover, and I find them to be a tad dated when it comes to keeping up with the fast-paced world of the Facebook, Twitter, blogging, etc. For example, AP just recently switched from Web site to website.

More than just writing standards, The Yahoo! Style Guide discusses “techniques for streamlining copy, basic Web codes, Internet law, search engine optimization, and more.” According to one reviewer, it’s “a complete and straightforward guide to search engine optimization, basic HTML, website design, and that mother of all multimedia skills—clear, concise, and engaging writing for the Web.”

I pre-ordered a copy today for our department at work and would encourage those of you who blog or otherwise produce content on the Web to consider doing the same.

HT: Mashable

Footnotes

  1. The new 2010 edition isn’t available at Amazon yet.
Read full story Comments { 2 }

Edwards on Faith and Works in Justification

Justification by Faith Alone by Jonathan EdwardsIn my estimation, Jonathan Edwards’s Justification by Faith Alone contains one of the most important and misunderstood1 evangelical discussions on the relationship between faith and works as they pertain to justification and salvation. Delivered in 1734 and first published in 1738, it may be found in 1:622–54 of his two-volume Works (Worcester rev. ed.),2 4:64–132 of his four-volume Works (Worcester ed.), 5:351–452 of his ten-volume Works (Dwight ed.), 19:147–2423 of his twenty-six volume Works, as an individual volume, and online in as many as seven different places.

As I continue my discussion on whether evangelicals, who affirm sola fide, are forced to sweep the passages that insist on holiness and good works under the rug, I turn to Jonathan Edwards, against whom no informed person would make such an accusation, as you can see for yourself in the quotations below. Except for the first, all of these selections come from his third and fourth sections, which discuss evangelical obedience and answer objections. I’ve bolded the most relevant portions.

Though faith be indeed the condition of justification so as nothing else is, yet this matter is not clearly and sufficiently explained by saying that faith is the condition of justification, and that because the word seems ambiguous, both in common use, and also as used in divinity. In one sense, Christ alone performs the condition of our justification and salvation. In another sense, faith is the condition of justification, and in another sense, other qualifications and acts are conditions of salvation and justification too. There seems to be a great deal of ambiguity in such expressions as are commonly used (which yet we are forced to use), such as condition of salvation, what is required in order to salvation or justification, the terms of the covenant, and the like, and I believe they are understood in very different senses by different persons. And besides, as the word condition is very often understood in the common use of language, faith is not the only thing in us that is the condition of justification. For by the word condition, as it is very often (and perhaps most commonly) used, we mean anything that may have the place of a condition in a conditional proposition, and as such is truly connected with the consequent, especially if the proposition holds both in the affirmative and negative, as the condition is either affirmed or denied. If it be that with which, or which being supposed, a thing shall be, and without which, or it being denied, a thing shall not be, we in such a case call it a condition of that thing. But in this sense faith is not the only condition of salvation and justification. For there are many things that accompany and flow from faith, with which justification shall be, and without which, it will not be, and therefore are found to be put in Scripture in conditional propositions with justification and salvation, in multitudes of places. Such are love to God, and love to our brethren, forgiving men their trespasses, and many other good qualifications and acts. And there are many other things besides faith, which are directly proposed to us, to be pursued or performed by us, in order to eternal life, which if they are done, or obtained, we shall have eternal life, and if not done, or not obtained, we shall surely perish. And if faith was the only condition of justification in this sense, I do not apprehend that to say faith was the condition of justification, would express the sense of that phrase of Scripture, of being justified by faith. There is a difference between being justified by a thing, and that thing universally, necessarily, and inseparably attending justification: for so do a great many things that we are not said to be justified by. . . .

. . .

It having been shown out of the Scripture, that it is only by faith, or the soul’s receiving and uniting to the Savior who has wrought our righteousness, that we are justified. It therefore remains, that the acts of a Christian life cannot be concerned in this affair any otherwise than as they imply, and are the expressions of faith, and may be looked upon as so many acts of reception of Christ the Savior. But the determining what concerns acts of Christian obedience can have in justification in this respect, will depend on the resolving of another point, viz. whether any other act of faith besides the first act, has any concern in our justification, or how far perseverance in faith, or the continued and renewed acts of faith, have influence in this affair. And it seems manifest that justification is by the first act of faith, in some respects, in a peculiar manner, because a sinner is actually and finally justified as soon as he has performed one act of faith, and faith in its first act does, virtually at least, depend on God for perseverance, and entities to this among other benefits. But yet the perseverance of faith is not excluded in this affair. It is not only certainly connected with justification, but it is not to be excluded from that on which the justification of a sinner has a dependence, or that by which he is justified.

. . .

So that although the sinner is actually and finally justified on the first act of faith, yet the perseverance of faith, even then, comes into consideration, as one thing on which the fitness of acceptance to life depends. God in the act of justification, which is passed on a sinner’s first believing, has respect to perseverance, as being virtually contained in that first act of faith, and it is looked upon, and taken by him that justifies, as being as it were a property in that faith. God has respect to the believer’s continuance in faith, and he is justified by that, as though it already were, because by divine establishment it shall follow, and it being by divine constitution connected with that first faith, as much as if it were a property in it, it is then considered as such, and so justification is not suspended. But were it not for this, it would be needful that it should be suspended, till the sinner had actually persevered in faith.

. . .

On the whole, it appears that the perseverance of faith is necessary, even to the congruity of justification, and that not the less, because a sinner is justified, and perseverance promised, on the first act of faith. But God, in that justification, has respect, not only to the past act of faith, but to his own promise of future acts, and to the fitness of a qualification beheld as yet only in his own promise. And that perseverance in faith is thus necessary to salvation, not merely as a sine qua non, or as a universal concomitant of it, but by reason of such an influence and dependence, seems manifest by many Scriptures. . . .

. . .

And thus it is that a truly Christian walk, and the acts of an evangelical, child-like, believing obedience, are concerned in the affair of our justification, and seem to be sometimes so spoken of in Scripture, viz. as an expression of a persevering faith in the Son of God, the only Savior. Faith unites to Christ, and so gives a congruity to justification, not merely as remaining a dormant principle in the heart, but as being and appearing in its active expressions. The obedience of a Christian, so far as it is truly evangelical, and performed with the Spirit of the Son sent forth into the heart, has all relation to Christ the Mediator, and is but an expression of the soul’s believing unition to Christ. All evangelical works are works of that faith that worketh by love, and every such act of obedience, wherein it is inward, and the act of the soul, is only a new effective act of reception of Christ, and adherence to the glorious Savior. . . .

. . .

These things [eternal life and salvation] being promised to our virtue and obedience, argues no more, than that there is a connection between them and evangelical obedience, which, I have already observed, is not the thing in dispute. All that can be proved by obedience and salvation being connected in the promise, is that obedience and salvation are connected in fact, which nobody denies, and whether it be owned or denied, is, as has been shown, nothing to the purpose. There is no need that an admission to a title to salvation should be given on the account of our obedience, in order to the promises being true. If we find such a promise, that he that obeys shall be saved, or he that is holy shall be justified, all that is needful, in order to such promises being true, is that it be really so: that he that obeys shall be saved, and that holiness and justification shall indeed go together. That proposition may be a truth, that he that obeys shall be saved, because obedience and salvation are connected together in fact, and yet an acceptance to a title to salvation not be granted upon the account of any of our own virtue or obedience. What is a promise, but only a declaration of future truth, for the comfort and encouragement of the person to whom it is declared? . . .

. . .

. . . the Scripture doctrine of justification by faith alone, without any manner of goodness or excellency of ours, does in no wise diminish either the necessity or benefit of a sincere evangelical universal obedience. Man’s salvation is not only indissolubly connected with obedience, and damnation with the want of it, in those who have opportunity for it, but depends upon it in many respects. It is the way to salvation, and the necessary preparation for it. Eternal blessings are bestowed in reward for it, and our justification in our own consciences and at the day of judgment depends on it, as the proper evidence of our acceptable state; and that even in accepting of us as entitled to life in our justification, God has respect to this, as that on which the fitness of such an act of justification depends: so that our salvation does as truly depend upon it, as if we were justified for the moral excellency of it. And besides all this, the degree of our happiness to all eternity is suspended on, and determined by, the degree of this. So that this gospel-scheme of justification is as far from encouraging licentiousness, and contains as much to encourage and excite to strict and universal obedience, and the utmost possible eminency of holiness, as any scheme that can be devised, and indeed unspeakably more.

Edwards needs to be read in context—of the entire treatise, of his massive written corpus, and of the historical setting in which he wrote—to fully understanding (or avoid misunderstanding) what he’s saying. He’s emphatic that our acceptance before God is based solely on the merits of Christ’s work and not on our faith, perseverance, or Spirit-empowered works. A shallow reading of his words can lead to a different conclusion.

The beauty of Edwards’s treatise is in its demonstration that evangelicals need not choose between a salvation that is by grace alone through faith alone based on the work of Christ alone and the necessity of holiness and good works. Edwards doesn’t shy away from acknowledging that Scripture presents works as not only recommended and important, but as certain and even necessary. There’s no salvation, no heaven without them. They are necessary conditions4 to justification in particular and salvation as a whole.

So how does he avoid the notion that our works, even to some small degree, contribute to why God grants us salvation? Very simply put, a thing can be a necessary condition without being meritorious or the basis for something. There are many things that are necessary to our receiving final salvation that in no way contribute to our deserving that salvation of serving as its basis. Being physically alive (i.e., existence) is a necessary condition to salvation, but it does not merit it or serve as its basis. Understanding this distinction is vitally important to avoiding the errors of antinomianism and legalism.

Without exception, the sinner God justifies He regenerates, sanctifies, and causes to persevere—holiness and good works necessarily flowing forth from these works of God by His Spirit. These are ways of describing the person justified by God, not the reasons he is justified or the basis for his justification.

Footnotes

  1. If you’re concerned about Edwards’s view on sola fide, Don Kistler’s post on the Puritan Board is a helpful clarification.
  2. Cf. Amazon, CBD, Logos, and WTS Books.
  3. Or 19:143–242 including the editor’s preface.
  4. Keep in mind that a condition is not necessarily a pre-condition, but may be a post-condition.
Read full story Comments { 0 }

More Than One Third of the Internet Is Porn

A recent study by Optenet finds that more than one in three pages on the web is pornographic, and it’s growing at a faster rate than last year.

Predominant content on the Internet is pornography, which makes up 37% of the total number of Web pages online, according to a new study published by Optenet, a pioneer and global leader of enabling SaaS offerings  and delivering “on-premise” security solutions.

The report, which includes a representative sample of approximately 4 million extracted URLs, shows that adult content on the Internet as well as illegal content such as child pornography and illegal drug purchase has undergone a significant increase of 17% in the first quarter of 2010, as compared to the same period in 2009.
. . .

Ana Luisa Rotta, director of child protection projects at Optenet, said that, “When you consider that more than one third of the Internet’s content is pornographic, combined with the overwhelming increase in young people now curiously visiting web sites with such ease of access, it is becoming increasingly imperative that adults take responsibility for the management of home PC security.”

Read the rest.

The study doesn’t define what constitutes pornography, but something tells me that it probably refers to complete, erotic nudity rather than just “printed or visual material intended to stimulate sexual excitement” (Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 11th ed.). I imagine if a broader definition like this were used, it would be well over 50%. I also wonder what is means. What if a page just has one little inappropriate web ad in the sidebar? There are plenty of pages on the web that arguably aren’t porn but do contain it—even if only in its milder (and more subtle and danger?) form. Could 75% of the internet contain content “intended to stimulate sexual excitement”?

This is a good reminder of how important it is for Christians to guard their hearts (Pr 4:23) and the hearts of those under their care while online.

See these recent related posts from elsewhere in the Christian blogosphere:

HT: Thinq via Slashdot

Read full story Comments { 1 }

Luther on the Necessity of Good Works

I’m involved in a discussion where the claim was made that the Protestant church has distorted the gospel by removing the necessity of good works for salvation—something the early Christians unanimously affirmed. Luther was singled out as one who cared nothing about good works—at least not in the context of salvation. I pointed out this section from Luther, in which he indicates that “works are necessary to salvation.”

I reply to the argument, then, that our obedience is necessary for salvation. It is, therefore, a partial cause of our justification. Many things are necessary which are not a cause and do not justify, as for instance the earth is necessary, and yet it does not justify. If man the sinner wants to be saved, he must necessarily be present, just as he asserts that I must also be present. What Augustine says is true, “He who has created you without you will not save you without you.”1 Works are necessary to salvation, but they do not cause salvation, because faith alone gives life. On account of the hypocrites we must say that good works are necessary to salvation. It is necessary to work. Nevertheless, it does not follow that works save on that account, unless we understand necessity very clearly as the necessity that there must be an inward and outward salvation or righteousness. Works save outwardly, that is, they show evidence that we are righteous and that there is faith in a man which saves inwardly, as Paul says, “Man believes with his heart and so is justified, and he confesses with his lips and so is saved” [Rom. 10:10]. Outward salvation shows faith to be present, just as fruit shows a tree to be good. (“The Disputation Concerning Justification,” LW, 165)

Footnotes

  1. N21: Sermo 170. Migne 38, 923.
Read full story Comments { 0 }

Calvin on God’s Permissive Will

Calvin: Institutes of the Christian ReligionAfter reading my post on Zac Smith’s cancer a while back, a friend of mine saw a link in the sidebar to a related post, “The Grace of Cancer,” and left a comment challenging my choice of words when I repeatedly said that God gave cancer to a man from our church to bring him to repentence.

I responded by encouraging him to read Calvin’s InstitutesI, xviii (esp. 1), where he discusses the “distinction [that] has been invented between doing and permitting,” and Piper’s “Don’t Waste Your Cancer.”

I spent some time rereading Calvin’s chapter on the issue of permission, “The Instrumentality of the Wicked Employed by God, While He Continues Free from Every Taint,” and I thought much of it was worth quoting here at length. I’ve bolded the most pertinent portions.

FROM other passages, in which God is said to draw or bend Satan himself, and all the reprobate, to his will, a more difficult question arises. For the carnal mind can scarcely comprehend how, when acting by their means, he contracts no taint from their impurity, nay, how, in a common operation, he is exempt from all guilt, and can justly condemn his own ministers. Hence a distinction has been invented between doing and permitting, because to many it seemed altogether inexplicable how Satan and all the wicked are so under the hand and authority of God, that he directs their malice to whatever end he pleases, and employs their iniquities to execute his judgments. The modesty of those who are thus alarmed at the appearance of absurdity might perhaps be excused, did they not endeavour to vindicate the justice of God from every semblance of stigma by defending an untruth. It seems absurd that man should be blinded by the will and command of God, and yet be forthwith punished for his blindness. Hence, recourse is had to the evasion that this is done only by the permission, and not also by the will of God. He himself, however, openly declaring that he does this, repudiates the evasion. That men do nothing save at the secret instigation of God, and do not discuss and deliberate on any thing but what he has previously decreed with himself and brings to pass by his secret direction, is proved by numberless clear passages of Scripture. What we formerly quoted from the Psalms, to the effect that he does whatever pleases him, certainly extends to all the actions of men. If God is the arbiter of peace and war, as is there said, and that without any exception, who will venture to say that men are borne along at random with a blind impulse, while He is unconscious or quiescent? But the matter will be made clearer by special examples. From the first chapter of Job we learn that Satan appears in the presence of God to receive his orders, just as do the angels who obey spontaneously. The manner and the end are different, but still the fact is, that he cannot attempt anything without the will of God. But though afterwards his power to afflict the saint seems to be only a bare permission, yet as the sentiment is true, “The Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away; as it pleased the Lord, so it hath been done,” we infer that God was the author of that trial of which Satan and wicked robbers were merely the instruments. Satan’s aim is to drive the saint to madness by despair. The Sabeans cruelly and wickedly make a sudden incursion to rob another of his goods. Job acknowledges that he was deprived of all his property, and brought to poverty, because such was the pleasure of God. Therefore, whatever men or Satan himself devise, God holds the helm, and makes all their efforts contribute to the execution of his judgments. God wills that the perfidious Ahab should be deceived; the devil offers his agency for that purpose, and is sent with a definite command to be a lying spirit in the mouth of all the prophets, (2 Kings 22:20.) If the blinding and infatuation of Ahab is a judgment from God, the fiction of bare permission is at an end; for it would be ridiculous for a judge only to permit, and not also to decree, what he wishes to be done at the very time that he commits the execution of it to his ministers. The Jews purposed to destroy Christ. Pilate and the soldiers indulged them in their fury; yet the disciples confess in solemn prayer that all the wicked did nothing but what the hand and counsel of God had decreed, (Acts 4:28,) just as Peter had previously said in his discourse, that Christ was delivered to death by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, (Acts 2:23;) in other words, that God, to whom all things are known from the beginning, had determined what the Jews had executed. He repeats the same thing elsewhere, “Those things, which God before had showed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled,” (Acts 3:18.) Absalom incestuously defiling his father’s bed, perpetrates a detestable crime. God, however, declares that it was his work; for the words are, “Thou didst it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun.”1  The cruelties of the Chaldeans in Judea are declared by Jeremiah to be the work of God. For which reason, Nebuchadnezzar is called the servant of God. God frequently exclaims, that by his hiss, by the clang of his trumpet, by his authority and command, the wicked are excited to war. He calls the Assyrian the rod of his anger, and the axe which he wields in his hand. The overthrow of the city, and downfall of the temple, he calls his own work. David, not murmuring against God, but acknowledging him to be a just judge, confesses that the curses of Shimei are uttered by his orders. “The Lord,” says he, “has bidden him curse.” Often in sacred history whatever happens is said to proceed from the Lord, as the revolt of the ten tribes, the death of Eli’s sons, and very many others of a similar description. Those who have a tolerable acquaintance with the Scriptures see that, with a view to brevity, I am only producing a few out of many passages, from which it is perfectly clear that it is the merest trifling to substitute a bare permission for the providence of God, as if he sat in a watch-tower waiting for fortuitous events, his judgments meanwhile depending on the will of man.

See also R. C. Sproul’s post on the Ligonier blog “Exposing the Permissive Will of God.”

Footnotes

  1. 2 Sam. 12:12; Jer. 50:25; Is. 5:26; 10:5; 19:25; 2 Sam. 16:10; 1 Kings 11:31; 1 Sam. 2:34.
Read full story Comments { 2 }

Was the Oil Spill an Act of God?

Rick Warren tweeted earlier today, “When people call an ocean oil spill caused by human drilling ‘an Act of God,’ THAT, friends, is taking God’s name in vain!”

To my surprise, I enjoy a lot of what Warren tweets, but in this case I think he has it precisely backwards. Failing to attribute to God complete sovereignty over all of the events of His world—even the “accidental” ones for which man is at some level responsible—is to rob God of His glory.

Amos wrote a few thousand years ago, “Does disaster [רָעָה] come to a city, unless the LORD has done it?” (Amos 3:6). Amos was speaking of intentional disaster (an invading army seeking to overtake a city), not events resulting accidentally or from carelessness like an oil spill. If the former is rightly attributed to God, certainly the latter would be as well.

Job’s response to the loss of his children by a great wind bringing the house down upon them was, “The LORD gave, and the LORD has taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD” (Job 1:21).

Both of these biblical writers saw God as the ultimate actor behind natural disasters and the evil of men.

And let us not forget that the cross itself, with all its evil, was an act of God (Acts 2:23; 3:18; 4:27–28).

What’s interesting here is not that Warren rejects God’s active sovereignty over evil, but that he’ll be speaking at this year’s Desiring God National Conference, Think: The Life of the Mind and the Love of God. John Piper has been strongly criticized for his decision to invite Warren, but he’s defended it on a couple of occasions. In one of the videos, Piper maintained, “[Warren] would be probably theologically more at home with where I am than where an Arminian is.” After following Warren on Twitter for the last several months, I have my doubts.

It’s well known that Piper differs sharply with Warren on this point. When evil men intentionally caused mass destruction by flying planes into the Twin Towers, Piper insisted that it is utterly unbiblical to say, “God did not cause the calamity.” Scores of additional examples could be provided, but that’s unnecessary. What’s clear is that Warren is nowhere near Piper on this issue. I do hope that changes as a result of their interaction.

Update: Someone called to my attention that Warren may have been using “Act of God” to refer not to the theological concept but the legal term as used by insurance companies, etc. to indicate that no one can be held responsible for the calamitous event. If that’s the case—and it seems likely since he did capitalize the term—then his tweet was intended to convey that it’s inappropriate to escape responsibility for one’s actions by putting the responsibility on God, with which I’d certainly agree. I haven’t followed the details of the oil spill closely enough to know if the original incident was due to negligence or not, so I don’t have much of an opinion on this (the proper?) interpretation of Warren’s tweet.

Two observations:

  1. I’m not sure what Warren’s opinion is on whether the oil spill was an act of God in the theological sense. My comments above may or may not apply. But I’ll give Warren the benefit of the doubt and assume they don’t until I have more evidence than a misreading of a tweet!
  2. The term “Act of God” in its legal sense may be an unfortunate one and lead to a faulty view of God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility. Something’s being an act of God in no way removes man’s responsibility for it (assuming man was in some way involved either by choice or negligence). Everything is ultimately an act of God, so to apply the term to unfavorable events in order to free man of responsibility is potentially confusing.
Read full story Comments { 3 }

Memorial Day vs. Trinity Sunday

Today was a special day in many churches around the world. Some churches in the US anticipated Memorial Day and remembered those who have fought to defend our nation’s freedoms. Others celebrated Trinity Sunday and reflected on the Christian doctrine of the Trinity—God’s being both one and three. Some may have done both; others neither. I’m curious what your church did.

Take the poll.

What did your church remember today?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...
Read full story Comments { 1 }

Logitech Webcam Pro 9000 for $55

Logitech Webcam Pro 9000Living thousands of miles away from where we grew up (Ohio and Minnesota), we’ve been incredibly thankful for modern technology that allows us to have face-to-face conversations with our families. We almost exclusively use Skype now instead of our mobile phones to communicate with our parents and siblings. A really cool new feature coming in Skype 5 (currently in beta) is the ability to have video conversations between three and five computers at the same time. It looks really cool, but unfortunately it sounds like it may not be free.1

Along with Skype, we use the Logitech Webcam Pro 9000 (formerly called the Quickcam Pro 9000) and love it. It’s an HD webcam that outputs video at 720p, so you get a really nice quality picture. If you’re wondering whether it’s worth the extra money, I can assure you that it is if you plan on using it regularly. Your family will thank you, especially when you have a little one come along like we did six-and-a-half months ago.

The Logitech Webcam Pro 9000 usually runs somewhere between $75–100, but Amazon currently has it on sale for only $55 with free shipping. That’s a really good deal for this webcam. If you’re in the market for one or want to get one for someone in your family as a gift, I’d strongly encourage you to pick this one up while it’s on sale.

Footnotes

  1. The Skype 5 page says, “This beta version comes with a free trial of group video calling.”
Read full story Comments { 0 }