gdp's Comments

PROPHEZEI : Yeah right.

Wed, 31 Dec 2008 15:22:24 +0000

Grrr...I'm having issues with comment appearing.

PROPHEZEI : Yeah right.

Tue, 30 Dec 2008 20:23:46 +0000

kevin d, My complaint is not with technology in and of itself. The problem with the above comment by Mr. Stetzer (and the research behind it) is the inherent assumption that the changes that have been made in churches over the last forty years or so are stylistic only and that the biblical nature of our worship has remained unchanged. The truth is that along with the stylistic changes came new understandings and practices of worship and that is what has worked to empty our churches and see a marked decline in new converts. I mean, you can go with Mr. Research Man Ed Stetzer and call some guy in a sweater on a bar stool giving a warm and fuzzy talk a sermon but we all know it would be better described as "Mr. Rogers Time". You're not going to get the truth that we see a qualitative difference between what was a sermon back then to what it is today from the information Mr. Stetzer presents or from the conclusions he makes as a result of reviewing this particular research survey. I'm happy to admit technological innovation into the worship of God's people as long as it truly remains transformative to the culture around us and the underlying biblical purpose is not ignored or tampered with--I just don't see that in contemporary churches today on the whole. After all, the mass printed hymn books themselves are the product of technology invented some five hundred years ago but their legitimate use over that period of time served not only to enrich the legitimate biblical worship of God's people but also influence the culture around them in ways that is likely incalculable. I don't see the same thing happening with powerpoint and digital projectors, frankly. If anything, in that case, the influence goes quite simply in the wrong direction and the culture around us has transformed the church. It is little wonder then that people would rather go see a movie on Sunday than appear at church ready and able to worship God. To your last point on the imperfection of worship 'down here'--I can only heartily agree and say that our Lord uses our weaknesses to confound the wisdom of the wise and to work His purposes in this world. Additionally, no one should use their dislike for how worship is conducted in their church to avoid going to church, keep from being a part of church, or staying away from the worship of God's people.

PROPHEZEI : Yeah right.

Tue, 30 Dec 2008 20:07:43 +0000

Donb, I can always count on you to play devil's advocate! Hymnals are better than plain powerpoint lyrics because the music is written on the page with the words and allows those who are trained to read music to sing in harmony with one another. That is not possible when everyone is singing stuff like "I can sing of your love forever" on the screen without the benefit of the musical arrangement in front of your eyes. I realize that most people today don't know how to read music but that shouldn't keep us from teaching them and taking advantage of the rich hymnody we have historically had in our churches. Additionally, harmony emphasizes the diversity of the Body of Christ by its very nature and is yet another liturgical way to illustrate that which is plainly taught in the Scriptures (cf. 1 Cor. 12). Worship should transform a culture and not seek to be the same as the surrounding culture. There is nothing to transform if our worship and the corresponding secular culture are the same. It's akin to the salt losing its saltiness. If you read my posts about the Eucharist carefully, you'll see that I have no need to define one particular era (or even style) of the Church's practice over the years to be part and parcel of what's done in worship on Sunday morning for it to actually be worship. However, it is important that what is done is transformative in nature and biblical by design.

PROPHEZEI : Mark Driscoll Cries Like A Baby

Wed, 24 Dec 2008 17:56:52 +0000

Donb, I was not speaking to Driscoll's personal motivations about anything in this post and you can only get from here to there by making a few assumptions of your own along the way.

PROPHEZEI : One Of My Favorite Christmas Carols

Wed, 24 Dec 2008 17:51:43 +0000

Hans...thanks...looks like someone jacked the domain for the cyberhymnal site. Anyway, I provided an alternate link to the Hymnary--I like that site better anyway.

PROPHEZEI : One Of My Favorite Christmas Carols

Tue, 23 Dec 2008 16:58:11 +0000

Jim, You're welcome to use or quote anything you find on this site. Obviously when possible a link back is appreciated. I don't have the exact source where that quote by von Balthasar came from but I'm pretty sure it was from his work, Love Alone is Credible.

PROPHEZEI : Living the Lie

Mon, 22 Dec 2008 21:49:57 +0000

CD...I think perhaps we just need to up your standards a bit...Wilson should be looked at with the same criticality as any other minister or other public figure. That would likely reconcile our views on the whole.

PROPHEZEI : Living the Lie

Mon, 22 Dec 2008 18:07:01 +0000

CD, I'm guessing we'd have some serious disagreements if we really fleshed this out...much of what I know I've learned by experience regarding the CREC, Douglas Wilson, and their other leaders. Nevertheless, I never referred to them as a cult though what I did say is that they often exhibit cultic behavior and I mean that in the sociological sense and not in the way it is often taken by evangelicals looking at groups which have either left the faith or never were a part of it in the first place (ie. Jehovah Witnesses/Mormons). As far as Wilson's "genuine" motives--really, I don't see how you can claim to know that. Actions speak louder than words and from everything I've seen in terms of what he has done and how he has acted in certain situations I'd just have to strongly disagree. So, while you are inclined it seems to give him the benefit of the doubt, I have no such inclination because I've learned the hard way that what these men say is not always what they mean nor is it of necessity connected to what they do. I would also take issue with your contention that cult leaders do not use logic or argumentation or that they're somehow uninterested in the behavior of their followers. If you can see C.J. Mahaney as a cultic figure, I see little reason for Douglas Wilson to escape the charge. In fact, I'd argue that there is more prima facie evidence publicly available for a man like Wilson to muster up a credible charge in that regard. Last, you are mistaken to think that the CREC is a niche denomination serving a niche community. Like many denominational advocates in other contexts, they consider their understanding and implementation of the faith, the discipline of their churches (and anyone else within their purview), and their implementation of the Mosaic Law as pure blood Rushdoony theonomists to be the only and right way to run the Church and the world. They are as deceptively ecumenical only in the same way Rome is. Though they would disagree with Rome in terms of her theology, they stand together in terms of her legalism and exclusivity were they able to take the reins of power from the rest of Christendom. It matters not now that they are able to get along with other Christian groups and brethren at this point in time given that they are forced by the nature of our democratic society to consider all men and other churches free and legitimate in their own right within the bounds of creedal or biblical orthodoxy (and truthfully, even that is strained since Wilson has no problem interfering in church disputes which are not his own), but you have to ask how they would govern the Church were they in charge of the entire Body. The answer to that question reveals the endgame as far as they are concerned and what they are really working to accomplish. They are postmillenial for a reason and it might do you well to give that part of their writing some attention when examining these things.

PROPHEZEI : Looking For Me?

Mon, 22 Dec 2008 15:23:13 +0000

Jordan, It kind of deconstructed on its own over a year or so--it was a conversation and place to hang out for a time but I've suspended it mostly because the vast majority of those who originally participated found themselves in different places some years after starting it and the conversation we had going sort of ended as each embarked on their own separate faith-filled journeys. I may bring it online again at some point in the future, but for now I'm devoting effort to this site. Hope you enjoy it too.

PROPHEZEI : As If It Were The Only Way To Worship

Thu, 18 Dec 2008 16:13:11 +0000

You know...there were comments attached to this thread besides trackbacks...I have no idea what happened to them. Weird.

PROPHEZEI : Neglecting the Weightier Part of the Law

Wed, 17 Dec 2008 22:15:17 +0000

Jordan, I'm not so concerned with "Catholic law" but more interested in general principles drawn from the Bible which is God's Law. The hierarchy of the Catholic Church has gone well beyond failure on this--in many instances they have conspired against law enforcement, their own parishioners, and attempted to protect the institution over and above their own parishioners (which is exactly the point of my post). As to the state of these men...no, I don't believe you'll find scriptural support for returning ordained men back to lay status but you will find false teachers and others like them condemned with the sort of anathemas that ought to make us all quake in our boots. The matter of public forgiveness and restoration to the church is irrelevant to those who either will not repent of what they've done wrong or do everything possible to avoid legitimate societal punishment of their crimes. Legitimate repentance is not seen in a shirking of the responsibilities (which is what they are doing when avoiding prosecution, etc) you have in accomplishing that repentance which would include public repentance and the seeking of forgiveness from those that they have hurt as well as being willing to suffer the appropriate prison time. Of course, none of these things can happen when you are trying to avoid prosecution. And, legitimate repentance is not seen in holding church services after being accused of such things while ignoring everything else. Personal forgiveness may be another matter altogether and is chiefly the domain of those who have been so terribly violated at the hands of these and other men. But, a sacramental or sacerdotal view of penance here is part and parcel of the problem. The sin is bigger than these wicked men going to their bishop or another priest, confessing their sin, and then expecting absolution after a pittance of penance being offered by them to clear them of the matter as far as the Catholic Church is concerned. In the Bible, when you stole a neighbor's sheep you had to pay it back four times over--and given that we know that the people of God are constantly compared to sheep in the Scripture it ought to be enough for us to see (after all, 'God is not concerned about oxen', is He?) that there is not only incalculable damage in abusing one of God's children sexually but also that the payment in return to right the matter is more than we could ever bear. I have no doubt that our Lord Himself could bear their sin but it is never done without real repentance. And, real repentance would be seen in real actions of love towards the victims as far as possible and a real willingness to 'serve time' in suffering for their sin if worldly consequences via the State were a part of reconciling the matter. I don't see that in current practices of the sacrament of penance when it comes to these sort of men and if anything the Church has gone way overboard in protecting wicked priests and those who have worked to cover up their sin. By way of contrast, we see that biblical repentance on the part of a man like Zaccheus resulted not only in a changed heart about his sin but also a change in paying back men what he really owed them--several times more than necessary. It would be one thing if the Catholic hierarchy and these sorts of priests met just the minimum requirements of dealing with these issues, but anyone at all familiar with this problem in the Roman Catholic Church knows that they do almost everything possible to work against legitimate repentance and recovery because as usual they are protecting an institution to their shame and to the shame of the overall Body of Christ in this world.

PROPHEZEI : Neglecting the Weightier Part of the Law

Wed, 17 Dec 2008 18:29:05 +0000

Jordan, Sadly, it's a mistake to think that repeated sexual aggression against children by a priest is not an excommunicable offense. The notion, also, that it is something which is not public is ludicrous given that families in the church would be affected let alone the children involved. 'Fellow Christian', Tell that to the victims. You'll find no pity for abusive clergy here.

PROPHEZEI : Neglecting the Weightier Part of the Law

Tue, 16 Dec 2008 19:10:19 +0000

Natalie, Part of the reason that this sin is so heinous is that we most certainly are connected with our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters in the covenant (visibly or otherwise) and as a result must bear some representation corporately of that communion's guilt in that regard. I do not mean that we are to be ashamed of our Shepherd, Jesus Christ, far from it! But, not everyone today immediately connects the term "Christian" with Jesus Christ, sadly. It is the worst sense of the word found in the illegitimate, wicked, and dishonorable conduct of the worst among us that I despise this day that only serves to give all the faithful a bad name. But, I would rather own a bad name in opposition to this sort of wickedness than see anyone else terribly victimized by these men. Hope that makes some sense.

PROPHEZEI : Living the Lie

Sat, 13 Dec 2008 22:13:16 +0000

Don, I appreciate the call for moderation, but some of us are not so far from these men as we would like to pretend. And, I'm not comfortable just leaving it alone while people continue to be deceived. But, I appreciate the spirit of your inquiry anyway if I understand what you are saying.

PROPHEZEI : Living the Lie

Sat, 13 Dec 2008 05:31:10 +0000

Donb, I'm not sure my motivation is really relevant to what I've outlined in the post though I understand the question and why you might ask it. The qualifications for one Christian minister to attack another in public are likely quite near to someone fairly anonymous on the Internet criticizing a minister in public--a concern for the truth and for our brothers particularly those who remain unaware or who need help. Paul had no problem disagreeing with Peter and getting personal publicly, I wonder why we do. As for planks in my own eye...yes, of course, I have them and if you have been reading my stuff long enough you'd have some idea of what they are because on occasion I have talked about them or made them plain.

PROPHEZEI : Living the Lie

Fri, 12 Dec 2008 22:47:33 +0000

Don, I know open and public criticism of Christian leaders is discouraged in our politically correct society, but yes, I believe it is necessary and prudent. People's lives often hang on an inability to discern the truth or error in the words of a man like Wilson and I'm committed to doing everything I can to make sure that honesty and openness are the order of the day in regards to things like this. Additionally, I'm not really concerned whether you believe me regarding what I have already said about Wilson if you at least give some thought to the principles behind what I have outlined regarding Christian ministry. Let's suppose for the moment that I'm completely off my rocker concerning Wilson and his understanding of Christian leadership. Even if that's true, there's more to consider about the nature of Christian ministry in what I've outlined and I hope you can at least see that.

PROPHEZEI : Living the Lie

Fri, 12 Dec 2008 20:38:34 +0000

Yes, brother, fundamentalists are everywhere, sadly. Thanks for the kind words...a breath of fresh air!

PROPHEZEI : As If It Were The Only Way To Worship

Wed, 10 Dec 2008 17:36:09 +0000

Donb, "Some" support is exactly my point--it is not a conclusive case for universal support of weekly communion in the early history of the Church. As far as the "2,000 years of precedence" and the supposed inapplicability of the practice during and after the Reformation--I can only strongly disagree. Five hundred years of the 2,000 is the Reformation and her children. So, even if we go with your understanding, you really only have some 1500 years of supposed "universal" precedence and it is hardly universal in nature. For example, you cannot prove that the first three hundred years (as I have noted in my original post) found universal support and practice of weekly communion. And, the Reformation and later evangelical witnesses should not be discounted--their voice is just as important as any other part of our common history in the Church. Last, your assertion that this is a matter of one group that respects tradition versus another (in varying degrees) that deprecates it is simply unfounded and unnecessary. As I said, I'm happy to embrace the traditions of our fathers when they make pastoral sense in our own context and when they are in line with the Scriptures. But, unqualified use and acceptance of the various traditions within Christianity would create a great deal of confusion and misapplied practices in our churches. We have to realize that this is not the acceptance or rejection of one univocal tradition regarding worship in the Church but that throughout the centuries things were done differently and as a result we too must exercise wisdom and pastoral discretion when addressing these issues.

PROPHEZEI : As If It Were The Only Way To Worship

Wed, 10 Dec 2008 17:18:50 +0000

Dan, I appreciate the question. The cold hard truth is that the Scriptures don't do anything other than potentially imply weekly communion if they imply anything at all. The passage in 1 Corinthians 11 does not at any rate clearly state what weekly communion advocates would like it to and there is enough in the passage that may throw considerable doubt on the idea that anything is being implied in the first place. The phrase "as often as you eat" in verse 26 could signify weekly communion but more likely it just means what it says--as often as you celebrate communion, this is what happens. Additionally, verse 33 definitely outlines that this gathering is not necessarily the singular Sunday gathering of worship for the church but that the Corinthians were specifically gathering to celebrate the Supper itself. That said, the passage itself does not forbid weekly communion either. My own opinion is that we do not appreciate enough our own freedom as a church in these matters. I'm not at all distressed by churches and communions that want to celebrate the Supper weekly as a part of their Sunday services. I wouldn't even necessarily be opposed to daily celebration either. But, the point remains that valid worship in our churches is not of necessity always tied to the performance of the communion rite and further that we are free to set the schedule of communion as pastorally wise and appropriate both locally and in our combined fellowships.

PROPHEZEI : As If It Were The Only Way To Worship

Mon, 8 Dec 2008 22:06:57 +0000

I suppose I should add one additional thing... If we for the moment grant that weekly communion took place early on in the life of the church and even universally, there would still be a need on the part of weekly communion proponents to justify the legislation of something like that in our churches today. We have to get away from the idea that just because something happened in Christian history (even early history) it must therefore mean we should pattern our own practices today off of it. There may very well be good pastoral reasons why you would want to withhold communion from the church in a timely and well thought out manner. And, vice versa. But the presence of a practice in antiquity is no immediate endorsement of the same in our own day. We need to be a bit wiser than that.