The Good News that Amazon Can't Save You

If you are a Christian, there are undoubtedly times when you actually wonder if you are, in fact, a Christian. There are times when you really struggle with assurance of your salvation. Lingering sin in your life causes you to seriously consider whether your faith is genuine; whether you love Christ with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength.

When these considerations plague us, we tend to search diligently for evidence of salvation. We look for reasons to believe we are believers. We want so badly to "confirm our calling and election" (2Pet 1:10).

One of my concerns is that we look to less-than-valid evidences for confirmation. I fear we are more rationalistic than is helpful. I fear we have only modified the Cartesian creed under Christian pretense. Instead of saying, "I think, therefore I am," we say, "I think Christian, therefore I am Christian." Thus, to make our calling and election sure, we try to identify and develop certain [Christian] thoughts or intellectual practices in our life as evidence for our belief.

But there is a huge problem with this. Intellectual alignment with orthodoxy is not the best evidence for faith since it can be found in those who have no faith at all (cf. Matt 7:21). More than this, in the Christian life loving is more important than thinking. The heart is primary, while the mind is secondary. Please note that I did not say that thinking is not important; but that it is not primary.

Consider our own experience. How many times do we know what is right, but fail to love what is right? How many times does our heart contradict our mind? It is during these times we struggle with assurance the most. It is during these times when we know our mind isn't enough. And it is during these times when we despair of all our efforts to strengthen our intellect because it just doesn't work.

We look at the book about sexual addiction and shake our heads. We turn from our spouse in an argument only to find Keller's new book on marriage on the bed-side table. We read em both. What happened?!

This is what happened: Our minds, no matter how learned, have failed (again) to change our hearts.

I am thankful that the Scriptures steer us away from this sort of [Christian] rationalism. In them we learn that Christ directs his initial efforts at the human heart, from which his Spirit produces fruit in us (Ezek 36). It is this fruit that lets us know we are his disciples.

Consider (among many passages) John 15:2, 8, "Every branch in me that does not bear fruit he takes away, and every branch that does ear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit...By this my Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit and so prove to be my disciples."

If these verses are true, we ought to be looking for fruit of the Spirit in our lives for proof that we are his disciples. All the knowledge in the world is useless if it is without love. We can memorize the catechism, but should we fail to see joy, peace, patience, kindness, faithfulness, etc., in our lives, we should have no assurance at all that we are in Christ.

And this is good news. When we see the Spirit work patience in us, we see change in the most significant place - in the heart. When we freely and joyfully forgive someone, we experience a satisfaction that surpasses our understanding, but that invades every part of our being. Sometimes our minds have to catch up to what we feel. Sometimes we have to really consider where the fruit came from because it certainly didn't come from our own intellectual efforts.

It's time to put the books down, at least for a moment, and consider our own foolishness in thinking that we can think our way to Christ. The feeling we get when we learn something new is not necessarily faith. The Spirit gives us something more sure. He produces fruit within us - especially when we are fools - to let us know he is there, that he loves us, and that he has saved us.

And, might I add, this should inflame our evangelistic efforts. For too long we have burdened the subjects of our proclamation with an extrabiblical rule - that they must become as learned as we in order to be saved. Destroying the stronghold of Christian rationalism frees us all from such tyranny. And it liberates, even the most unlearned "whosoever" to simply confess and believe in the Lord Jesus for salvation.

Curiosity on Mars - AMAZING!

Mars Panorama - Curiosity rover: Martian solar day 2 in New Mexico

You can go here for the site.

I Have a Confession to Make...

That's what I told my wife the other day while we were driving down the road. As I felt frustratingly handcuffed by the new laws prohibiting phone usage (namely, texting and use of apps) while driving and while stopped at intersections, I came to the realization that I am a phone addict.

It's a problem that seems so trivial and silly, but it is a problem nonetheless. Though relieved I was only confessing a problem with my phone, my wife did agree with me. Later, I even went and asked my seven-year-old daughter if she thought I loved my phone too much.

She said she did.

I doubt I am alone in this. If you are one who still carries around a flip-phone, you may think it weird I would be writing about such a thing. Or, you may even be saying, "See, that's why I refuse to get an iPhone!" But, if you have a smartphone, you probably know exactly where I am. You probably have had the same concerns.

Am I technically an "addict"? I don't really know. All I know is that I have a problem. And here are some ways I came to this realization.

1. Phone usage in the home has been a touchy issue for some time. My wife and I don't necessarily nag each other about using our phones, but we do recognize when we are using the phones (for whatever reason) too much. I know I have a problem when I get upset with her when she asks me to look away from my handheld devise while the children are speaking to me. If an issue is "touchy," there may be a problem.

2. I can't seem to keep my hands off of it. When I am idle, even for a minute or two, I cannot resist looking at my phone - even when there is no indication of communicative activity. I will just turn it on, look at it, and wonder what I can look at next. News? Facebook? Instagram?

3. I use it when I know I am not supposed to. I have often understood that if a person is willing to sin, or break a good law in order to have something, that something is an idol.

I text while driving.

I even play chess with friends while I'm driving too.

It's hard for me to admit and confess those things. This fact is just adds to the evidence of my problem.

4. As mentioned before, I use my phone when my children are around; and even when they are actively engaging me. This makes me sick when I think about it. The last thing I want them to say when they grow up is their daddy loved his phone more than he loved them. And I sure don't want to confront their potential problems with technology only to have them say, "I learned it from you."

5. It is more common for me to touch my phone in the morning before I touch my wife. It is more common for me to communicate to others via phone (typically through email), before I communicate with my wife via a kiss. Enough said.

6. My phone usage communicates to others that what they are saying to me is not important to me. I text message while in staff meetings. I want to look at my phone during session/elder meetings. I am sure my boss notices this. I am sure friends notice it too. My confession is probably been known for some time by others. My phone is something in my life that makes me less than loving.

7. I think my brain and attention span has been altered - seriously. Before my smartphone days, I could sit and read, study, or think for hours. Now, I can barely do those things for 20 or 30 minutes without looking to my phone. This is a problem.

I am sure I could list other reasons (or symptoms!), but these will suffice for now. I think it would be good at this point to list some things I am doing to address the issue.

1. I confessed and repented of my idolatry. I repented to my wife and my children. I want them to know that my behavior is not right - that it is less than what the Lord desires. Last night, I also prayed with my wife and repented to the Lord for loving my phone (and what my phone gives me) more than him and others.

2. I am trying very hard not to use my phone while I drive (at all). Talking will be a rare exception, but certainly no texting or reading or gaming.

3. While I am with other people (family, friends, co-workers, etc.) I put my phone away. If I am at home, I leave it on the dresser (note: this may be why I am not returning calls, texts, or emails as quickly as I used to). And if I am with others outside of the home, I simply don't look at it. The only exception I have made to this rule is if I receive two consecutive calls as this could mean emergency.

4. I am trying to actively engage my idle times as opportunities for prayer, and waiting on the Lord. I am fighting to think on things above and resist the overwhelming temptation to know more (whether news, "likes" on Facebook, new pics on Instagram, etc.).

Technology is a glorious thing - even a wonderful thing. I am ashamed that I have made it god-like. Please pray for me as I detox and make every effort to love people better. I'm not going to get rid of my iPhone. I don't think that's the solution. Rather, I hope to move forward in faith and repentance, allowing others to correct and encourage me, as I use my phone for the glory of God.

My Thoughts and Concerns about the Book "Fifty Shades of Grey"

There is no questioning the fact that the book, Fifty Shades of Grey, is both popular and scandalous. It is the first book to sell more than 1 million Kindle e-books in the U.K. And it is the topic of undoubtedly many discussions around the world where people praise, question, or even condemn its content. I have personally heard it brought up multiple times by Christians and non-Christians alike. I have been asked what I think about it at least a few times.

My goal here is not to answer every question. I can't. I haven't read the book. My goal therefore is to state what I know to be true about the book, and give my concerns in light of those truths.

First, the book, like I said before, is scandalous. It is full of explicit sexual content - much of which is apparently itself quite scandalous - which provokes the reader to be either morally repulsed or sexually excited. According to an article in Parenting Magazine, there are many people who read this book, women especially, and are drawn into sexual activities (or, the desires for those activities) that were previously either uncommon or non-existent.

Second, the book uses words rather than images to be sexually explicit. The same article calls it "mommy-porn." It is apparently uncomfortably vivid as it describes a variety sexual acts.

Third, because of this, many people question its moral acceptability. Those who don't think porn is wrong have no problem with the book. Parenting Magazine being one of them, praises the book and even promotes it as good for a couple's sex life. Those, however, who believe porn is wrong, question whether the book can and should be categorized as wrong. It's not images, but words. It is not a movie, but a novel. Is the woman who reads this book performing the same activity as a man who views a pornographic movie on the internet? I certainly have my opinion.

Fourth, the content of Fifty Shades of Grey draws people into a world of sexual fantasy. Given the testimonies I have read, it even excites them to sexual action.

Now for my concerns.

First, I am very uneasy with anyone observing, thinking/fantasizing about, or partaking in any sexual activity outside of their own marriage bed. I believe this keeps sex good and holy. I believe it answers the question, "How holy can I be? (which is more pleasurable) than, "What can I get away with?"

Some will undoubtedly ask the question, "What about those who read the book and place their spouse in that fantasy?" We must be careful here. I don't necessarily think fantasizing about one's spouse is wrong? But having those fantasies introduced, dictated, and detailed by an author, with objective characters, is hardly fantasizing about one's spouse. Sure, the person may look like the spouse; but what about that person's actions? Are they the spouses actions? According to what I have heard and read, this is typically not the case.

Second, this type of reading is, at least initially, one-way. It draws a person into being individually excited about certain sexual activities. It is less than relational.

Not only are many singles reading this book (which is difficult in itself); but, when those who are married read it, they are faced with the (often problematic) reality that "it takes two to tango." Beginning sexual activities or conversations this way can be very dangerous and damaging. Because sex is an extension of our selfless and sacrificial love for our spouse, the best way to approach it is with the question, "What would you like?" rather than the statement, "This is what I want."

Is it wrong or unhealthy to inform your spouse what you would like? Of course not, as long as it is done humbly, without expectation, and sacrificially. Books and movies like Fifty Shades do more to prohibit this countenance than encourage it.

Third, the reason why the last statement is true is because pornographic material brings a person to believe, "I must have what I see (with my eyes and/or imagination) or I will not be satisfied." Sexual temptations and fantasies are extremely powerful - powerful enough to override reason and conscience. They commonly leads us into throwing other people into an objective world that exists only for our selfish convenience, dictation and pleasure. When sexual material is being read or watched, sexual images are soon idolized and worshiped.

Fourth, I fear that Fifty Shades may do more damage than pornography, because it successfully avoids the categorical taboo pornography carries. I do believe the book is pornographic. There, I said it.

Anyone will have a hard time convincing me that the words of a novel are not as powerful and productive as images on a screen in exciting the dangerous realms of a persons sexual lusts. My memory, at times, is my own worst enemy in my fight against pornography. And, at times, it is a more dangerous one. It's easy to close a book or turn off a computer. It's not so easy to suppress the imagination or memory.

Fifth, I have a particular concern for women. If this were a book marketed and popular among men, the lines would not be so blurred. But because women have been more the victims than the users of pornographic material, we tend to pay less attention to what may capture and enslave women "pornographically". More and more women, statistics show, are becoming addicted to sexually explicit material.

This book is the serpent's way of stealthily slithering into the lives of many women. I am writing this post because women's hearts are at stake.

Simply put, it is not loving to leave this book uncategorized as harmful, pornographic, and wicked. The fact that many supposedly need this book for "sexual-CPR" is not an indication their marriages are healthy. It is more of an indication that our culture, especially from a marital standpoint, is desperately sick. It is not an indication that these marriages are sexually fulfilled, but that they are emotionally and spiritually deficient.

And in a culture such as ours, mommy-porn is the last thing we should be reading. We would all be far more satisfied reading about One Faithful Savior in White, than fifty shades of grey.

Good News for Those Who Also Hate Fitted Sheets

Thanks to my good friend AV for sharing this via doghousediaries.

God is Not into Microwaves

Idols of the Heart by Elyse Fitzpatrick is one of those books that works its way into the deep fabric of a person's being. In the book Fitzpatrick helps us to understand the deep longings of our heart, and how those longings help or hinder our relationship with God. Here is a snippet I thought especially encouraging:

"I love the convenience of the microwave, don't you? Just pop the casserole in and, presto, instant dinner. Life is better in our house since the invention of the microwave...I enjoy all of our modern conveniences, don't you? But, in the middle of this instant, Give it to me quickly! It better be convenient! culture, we tend to think that God should work in our lives in the same way. Just zap me and make me holy- and quickly, Lord, if you don't mind.

God's work in us is sometimes slow moving. Although it's true that all Christians know some change (even if it's minuscule), God's work, our sanctification, is a process. This process involves learning (what I hope you'll do here), growing, falling, changing, becoming convinced again of the truth, and developing holiness over our lifetimes. With that in mind, don't expect that this book will make you instantly holy. Only God through His Holy Spirit can make you holy, and He's not going to operate according to our hurried lifestyle."

Passages like this help me through the process of sanctification. They help me deal with the irony of being a sinful Christian. It is this understanding of life that supports me as I struggle with significant sins in my own life. I am thankful for people who write books like this. They are a true asset to the Kingdom as they help us manage our redemptive expectations. They help shape our eschatological worldview. And they help deepen our Christian faith.

Confronting Atheism in a World That is Not How It's Supposed to Be

Every time I receive a notification on my phone saying, "Breaking News," my first inclination is to cringe. Lately, breaking news has been nothing less than tragic news - horrifying news about how one person has murderously taken the life of (at least) one other person. It's "breaking news" because it has a tendency to get the attention of the masses. Most people will follow the link out of a deeply strange curiosity - out of a desire to understand why things like this happen.

The Christian faith provides a moral framework by which one can look upon such actions as wrong and inherently evil. Christians can rightly and, without arbitrariness, say, "This is not the way things are supposed to be."

There is another worldview, however, at work in our day. It is the atheistic evolutionary worldview whereby its proponents seek to answer the questions of human existence and experience. Science alone is sufficient to provide us with these answers (given we simply observe the evidence through a naturalistic lens).

To the naturalist, our universe is nothing more than the product one "thing" bumping into another "thing" a long time ago, and producing another "thing" which produced another "thing" when it bumped into some"thing" else (whew!). After billions of years, these chain reactions produced the organism we call human.

For the naturalistic atheist, people are nothing more than the product of genes trying to survive. Staying alive and reproducing other bodies that are good at staying alive is the only purposeful mechanism of cellular life in the world. This is the process of nature to winnow out less-than-efficient molecular organisms. The strong survive. The weak die off. This is just the way things are.

I wonder, however, what the naturalist thinks when he receives the type of "breaking news" I spoke of before. What goes on in his mind when he hears the news of a six year old little girl who was video taped by her father as she was forced to perform oral sex on him (this happened, by the way, a few years back - the man is now, thankfully, in prison).

Do they see it "scientifically" as the cause and effect process of molecular survival? Will they go to straight to the scientific method in an effort to figure out what is going on in this poor girl's sphere of the universe? I wonder if they will begin with a hypothesis before they jump to a judgment. I wonder if their initial deepest problem lies in the question "What is this?" rather than the judgment, "This should not be!"

I doubt it.

The naturalistic, evolutionary world view has no category at all for the repulsive feelings every image bearer feels when they hear such a story. A person like Richard Dawkins can only make observations about "what is". He has, however, absolutely no basis for making assertions as to "what ought to be." He can only state that the father did this to his little girl; not that the father should not have done it.

And this is the danger of atheistic naturalism. It reduces humanity to the product of mindless molecular reactions. It handcuffs these "products" from making moral judgments about what "ought" and what "ought not" be. In a society in which this worldview pervades, and where objective morality is reasoned away, only the strong survive. The weak are left to die off.

This world, for the evolutionist, is nothing more than natural selection taking its course - the genetic quest for survival. Some genes are not so efficient (like the father mentioned above), and consequently die off.

Am I saying all atheists condone what this father did? No. I'm not. I know atheists who would deeply desire the man's judicial punishment. All I am saying is, given their worldview, they have no basis for those judicial desires. The fact that they jump to judgments faster than hypotheses, is evidence that people are more than the product of mindless molecular reactions. The deep conviction they have, that "this is not how things are supposed to be," is evidence of the very God they seek to deny.