This Site has Moved

Click HERE to go to the new blog

After some thought and research, I've realized that Wordpress is the best place to continue forward with this blog. It has more features and a cleaner layout, and also makes it easier to actually write, which was the whole reason I started blogging in the first place. Everything from this blog has been imported onto that blog, and is pretty much the same with a better look and better features. Please keep on visiting!

Time for a Switch?

I'm thinking of changing over to wordpress. I really like the appearance of their sites as well as some of the other features that are offered.

Any bloggers out there have preferences of one vs. the other?

Considering Seminary?

For any of y'all out there considering seminary - you don't have to go to Southeastern, but be sure to go to a place with professors like this:

Who am I? That's a silly question to be asking! But I'm writing the preface to my book on discipleship so the topic has come up, at least in my own mind. Am I a conservative or a liberal, right-wing or left? Though my theology is conservative, I've learned much from my brothers and sisters on both ends of the evangelical spectrum. Some of my friends think only about Israel, others only about Palestine. Some complain about the 3,000 unborn who are killed every day in America, while others focus almost exclusively on the 30,000 children who die of starvation every day in the world. I see no need reason to establish boundaries of love. If we mourn the loss of 4,000 U.S. service personnel in Iraq (as we should), we must also mourn with the same outrage and passion the life of every innocent Iraqi civilian who was lost. Some evangelicals believe that right-wing politics hangs the moon; others support the liberal left. I pledge my allegiance to neither. Folks, I just want to be a Christian -- a simple, radical, marginal, downwardly-mobile follower of Jesus. There's nothing unique or spectacular about being a Jesus-follower. You just remember that God's love is borderless. You just declare the Good News to the poor, as He taught us to do. And it all happens through relationships, not programs or organizations. And here's something strange: I am learning to fall in love with people and not just ideas. And I love ideas! Crazy people like Jim Elliott are finally beginning to make sense to me. I'm learning how to reprioritize my values and resources. Just think -- the average American consumes as much as 520 Ethiopians do. Can we do anything about it? You bet! Because of our website Becky and I receive gifts for reading glasses and protein bars and pre-natal vitamins Bibles and meeting houses and evangelists' salaries and equipment to show the Jesus Film with and food to feed hungry prisoners and on and on the list goes. No fancy organization, no 501 c(3), no overhead, no bureaucracy, no HQ. Just Jesus-people connecting with Jesus-people.

Mark Driscoll on the nature of a church

A.M. Metzger sent me this definition of the church today from Mark Driscoll. Andy said he'll be blogging about it soon so I eagerly await his thoughts.

"The local church is a community of confessing believers in Jesus Christ who obey Scripture by organizing under qualified leadership, gather regularly for preaching and worship, and scatter to evangelize and care for people everywhere. They observe the Biblical sacraments of baptism and
communion, are unified by the Spirit for mission in the world, and discipled to live out the Great Commandment and the Great Commission to the glory of God."

By the way, the Mars Hill podcast now has a great message about preaching from Mark Driscoll, and when I can find the link I will post it here.

What's Wrong with Preaching Today? (A.N. Martin)

Two quotes from A.N. Martin's What's Wrong with Preaching Today?:

"How could men ever teach some of the things they teach in the name of orthodoxy if they were on their knees poring over the Scriptures? No, they are not on their knees poring over the Scriptures, and hence they are simply parroting what their peers have said. How can we who say we believe the biblical doctrines speak of them in such a perfunctory way if we are receiving those truths from God in the context of living communion with Him? We shall speak of them with the glow and fire of heaven upon our souls if we are receiving them in the glow of His presence. Hence, the problem of preaching today lies in the man who preaches, first of all in the area of personal devotional life."

and

"One of the elements of powerful preaching is preaching as a man that has been liberated. Liberated from what? From the ensnaring effects of the fear of men. You are never free to be an instrument of blessing to your people unless you are free from the effects of their smiles and their frowns. People know when you can be bought by their smiles and beaten by their frowns. It will not take them long to discern whether or not you are a man who is not affected either by their smiles or by their frowns. Such a man is a free man in Christ. [...] if your eye is to men, you will be unable to give utterance to that which you know you ought to."

Is it football season yet?

If this doesn't give you goosebumps, then something is wrong with you.

A New Direction

Jonathan Parnell and I's blog, Did Not Our Hearts Burn, is adding a new emphasis as we'll be discussing church planting. In Jon's words:

This blog is heading into a revised direction. Our subject material is expanding from biblical theology to include church planting, and the necessary ingredient that unites the two– gospel proclamation. To be clear, the intention here concerns a limited audience. I realize that the review posts are long and probably unfit for the blog genre. What I hope to see happen is
conversation between men who are passionate about these subjects (even if its just Bryan and me). I want to learn more about them, see them working together… to gain deeper knowledge theologically, and proactive wisdom that puts feet to doctrine.

The conviction is drawn straight from the Scriptures. When I think about Luke-Acts, the two themes that come to mind are Jesus’ hermeneutics and the rise of the church. Biblical theology and church planting are so intimately connected in the Word that I don’t want to conceive of one without the other.

Avoiding Extremes when Preaching

I preached this morning, and as usual after preaching I am quick to think back and try to identify what I could have done better. While preachers are often their own toughest critic, I recognized that one mistake that I tend to fall prey to is going to the extreme in order to make my point.

For example, while preaching yesterday in Acts 1 about keeping the main thing the main thing, I discussed that in vv. 7-8 Jesus points out to the disciples that they are not to know about the end times but instead called to be His witnesses. Trying to make the point that the church often gets sidetracked by non-essential issues, I took a few minutes to discuss some of the theological labels that we sometimes give to ourselves to identify who we are in Christ, when really it should be Christ who defines us.

I made a comment that I would take back now when discussing titles like, "Arminian," "reformed," "pre-trib," "post-mil," etc. I said, "if you don't know what those titles mean, God bless you." Thinking back on it, that was really stupid. I went to the extreme there to try and make a point. I think it's a good thing to know what those titles mean since being theologically literate is never a bad thing. It's only a bad thing when it becomes more important to us than Jesus and impedes our mission for Him (as seen in Acts 1:8).

Oregon is always doing it differently

Is Oregon always on the cutting edge for college football? They've already got the odd-looking jerseys, and this is one way of recruiting that I've never seen before:

Back in 2005, Oregon coaches enlisted students to design custom comic books for the Ducks' top 20 recruiting targets. Each comic portrayed the recruit as a hero who leads the Ducks to a national title. Oregon sent each prospect one page per week during the recruiting period. Here is the entire comic made for running back Jonathan Stewart, one of the nation's top recruits at the time.

Here's a few pictures - what a unique way of recruiting:

Men Rejecting Passivity & Accepting Responsibility

If you saw the news today you saw that Kansas City Chiefs TE, Tony Gonzalez, saved a life last night. What was so amazing about this was part of Gonzalez's report of the event:

"She was screaming, "He can't breathe, he can't breathe,"' Gonzalez said by phone from California, where he lives in the offseason. "The whole restaurant was quiet. Nobody was doing anything."

Colin Cowherd made a comment today that this quote by Gonzalez gives a picture of the current state of manhood in America. Fifty years ago there would have been men fighting one another to help. Now, there is a room full of passivity. What has happened to our society that we will watch another person die without feeling any responsibility to help?

As Robert Lewis, founder of Men's Fraternity writes, a real man rejects passivity and accepts responsibility. Thank goodness Tony Gonzalez did that last night.

Georgia Dome Renovations

The Falcons are in the process of renovating the Georgia Dome to make it more "spirited." Looks good. Thank goodness there's no more teal and aquamarine colored seats in there.

Can a long distance relationship work?

Conventional wisdom would say no. However, this weekend would say yes. Megan and I made the trip to Louisville to see one of my best friends and former roommate, Matt Thomas, get married to Ms. Tara Lynn West (now Mrs. Tara Thomas). Matt and Tara met on a WorldChangers trip before college and dated from then until two days ago when they were married. Not only did they date throughout college, but they also survived a long distance relationship as Matt attended USC while Tara attended Western Kentucky. I told Megan as we made the 9.5 hour drive out to Louisville that I had a new respect for Matt and Tara's relationship that they could make it through that sort of distance. It provided another tangible example of one of my strongest convictions - that love is first and foremost a commitment - commitment that will help them in the future to overcome little mishaps like this:

Why I love used bookstores

As part of our trip to Matt Thomas' wedding in Louisville, Megan and I made a step in Beckley, WV where we came across a small used bookstore. After thinking that there wasn't anything worth buying I came across three volumes of the Anchor Bible Dictionary (vols. 4-6). Each was being sold for $5. I checked the actual cost on Amazon.com today and found that each one is being sold for $85. There's nothing like making a rare find at a used bookstore! As one of my professors here says, "the good thing about used books is that they work just as well as new books..."

Are Apologetics Dead?

While many have claimed that apologetics are not neccesarry in the "post-modern age," clearly this is not the case.

My Wish

Every year Sportscenter does a "My Wish" series where children who have been or are seriously ill get to have their sports-related dreams come true. I have to admit it gets a little emotional here in the Barley household when videos like this come on...

Vacation

Megan and I are enjoying a week of vacation in Clarksville, VA, enjoying sunsets just like this on beautiful Kerr Lake.

Wall-E Theology

Megan and I are both big fans of Pixar movies and we went and saw Wall-E tonight. I won't give any of the details away, but let me just say that 1) I really enjoyed it but 2) it definitely was not what I expected. I just want to give my brief thoughts about the film and what I've noticed to be a growing trend in our culture.

The movie is very much one big "go green" message. If you have been watching tv anytime lately you'll know that this is not a new trend. Numerous tv channels are promoting "going green," and there are a number of movies out (i.e. "The Happening") that are also sharing this message. As I told Megan, I in no way disagree with proper stewardship of the resources that have been given to us. There is certainly a responsibility to take care of our planet and not take it for granted. But here are my fears with this growing trend...

I fear that culture is beginning to put a greater emphasis on the sacredness of nature than it is on human life. We will fight for the ozone layer before we will fight for the poverty that overwhelms the nations or the thousands of children forced into prostitution. MTV and CNN will give more time to water saving tips than they will to the issue of genocides in Africa. I understand both these channels have at times (rarely) profiled matters of social injustice, AIDS, or poverty. But when have we seen "international justice week" on CNN? If the coverage is proportionate to that which we find most important and value the greatest, then the human life comes in a distant second.

The same goes with animals. Was I outraged when Mike Vick killed dogs for fun? Absolutely. But what makes me even more outraged is that the average American can identify Vick as a dog-killer but can't tell you who Leonard Little is. Who is Leonard Little? Only a serious sports fan would recognize this name. He is a defensive end for the St. Louis Rams who killed a woman while driving drunk in 1998 (he only got a 90 day sentence and an 8 game suspension from the league) and was arrested on a DUI just 6 years later. He still plays for the Rams and played in 12 or more games every year from 2000-2006. Have dogs become more precious than a mother in our society? If the level of protest is any indicator, then this is unfortunately the case.

Is our environment important? Yes. Are animal rights important? Absolutely. But we must be careful to not stress these to a point that human rights are minimized, and the preciousness of the human being becomes secondary. Let us champion all these rights, but those of the human first.

My NFL Fanhood is up for grabs... (part 2)

I last left off with narrowing down my choices to the Titans, Skins, and Falcons. Randy asked me in the comments section why I didn't include the Panthers in my choices. In response to that...

I have a perfectly legitimate reason that I can't cheer for the Panthers. Two words: Ross Cushnie. He is a good friend from high school who happens to be the worst UVA fan I know. Such disgust with his fanhood has overflown into the fact that I could never possibly root for the same teams that he does, and he happens to be a die-hard Panthers fan. To root for the Panthers would be to go against any and all rules of legitimate fanhood.

So with the Panthers eliminated I narrowed my teams down to three, which are now eliminated to one. I chose to eliminate the Redskins because I feel like if I actively chose not to like them as a child, I have no right to start liking them now. The Skins were Richmond's team while I was growing up, and I never rooted for them. Plus, one of the few people I liked within the organization, Joe Gibbs, is now gone. This leaves Daniel Snyder as the face of the franchise. Ugh.

I also eliminated the Titans. What was I thinking? I would have been a bandwagoner to pick this up and coming team. I didn't even like Nashville the only time I've visited.

Which leaves...


The Atlanta Falcons - maybe I never really left them in the first place. I don't know. I guess you just have to stick with your team no matter how bad things get. What almost pushed me over the edge is that they stole USC's defensive coordinator. But let's be honest, USC went ahead and stole Arkansas' DC a day later. That's just football. Also, they have a great owner in Arthur Blank, who has cleaned out the franchise of problems (many of which were, sadly, VT players). I wish they had picked up Darren McFadden in the draft, but maybe Matt Ryan will work out even if he strikes me as being no better than Joey Harrington. The franchise has the opportunity for a fresh start this year, and it's an exciting time to be a fan. I think they even have a chance to make the playoffs considering how weak the division is. So I've been with them all along - fly Falcons fly.

My NFL fanhood is up for grabs... (part 1)

I've never been a huge NFL fan. The college game has always been far more entertaining, and I've been much more connected to the college game since that's what I grew up on. I've never even been to a regular season NFL game before. But I do find the NFL entertaining to watch in the fall. The first team I really cheered for in the NFL was the Falcons because it seemed that they were filling their roster with VT and South Carolina players. Plus, they were led by one of my childhood heroes, Michael Vick. But...

Then came Bobby Petrino. Then came the dog-fighting allegations. Then came the proof. Then came Vick being put into jail. Then came the Falcons players wearing "Free Mike Vick" t-shirts. Then came the Falcons cleaning out almost any trace of Hokies from their roster. The real kick in the gut came this past January, when Falcons owner Arthur Blank, who had lectured for weeks about the importance of honoring contracts in light of the Petrino fiasco, stole defensive coordinator, Brian vanGorder, away from South Carolina just weeks after he had signed to coach for the Gamecocks and promised to stay with Carolina for a long, long time.

As these events took place, my fanhood for the Falcons was hurt considerably, and I chose to no longer be a Falcons fan. It was too much to keep rooting for a team with everything that was listed above take place. After a year of not really cheering for anyone (though I did cheer for the Redskins in the playoffs) I'm ready to get back into the game, but am starting with a clean slate. My NFL fanhood is up for grabs.

So I opened up to possibly making any team "my team." But I needed to do this with care. This is a big decision - my sons could be cheering for this team because of me and I don't want them rooting for a dead-end franchise! After talking to my buddy, Ross, about this for a while I was able to narrow down the teams. I used the following criteria:

1) I can't just pick a front-runner. For example, picking the Patriots is out of the question.

2) Some sort of connection to the team - this would generally mean that they have Gamecocks or Hokies on their roster (or at least some SEC guys that I watched play in college).

3) Geographic location - they need to be close enough that I can watch them reguarly. A team out west would only be on tv in North Carolina once a year. I flirted with the idea of cheering for the Raiders for a while because of the amount of SEC players on their roster, but could I realistically cheer for a west coast team? The same goes with another team I considered - the Houston Texans. But they're just too far away and have a UVA guy as their starting QB.

4) Not underestimating the "gut factor." Sometimes there's just weird reasons that you do or don't like a team. For example, I considered the Vikings because they have former Gamecock WR Sidney Rice. However, there's no way I could root for a team who wears purple. Out of the question.

With all that said, here's the teams that I narrowed it down to:

Washington Redskins

Tennessee Titans

Atlanta Falcons (I know, I know - but part of me just wants to stay with them through these tough times.)

More to come...

So apparently it wasn't true...

Apparently I missed all the articles that the whole "new tribe" thing was a hoax (though the pictures were real. The tribe was discovered in 1910). Many thanks to Ross Cushnie, the "anonymous" commenter on the previous post, for bringing this to my attention.

The article is here: http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,23911019-948,00.html

Thanks for the comment, Ross. If UVA was as good at football as you are at finding mistakes in my blog, they could possibly beat VT more than once this decade. Click clack!

Uncontacted tribe photographed near Brazil-Peru border

This is from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24880941/. Apparently they have found an uncontacted tribe in South America. This was just so cool I had to post some pictures below - it goes to show how "big" the world can be in an age where we talk about how "small" it has become because of technology.

On Resolution Number 6 at the SBC

First off, I feel like I've officially become a part of Southern Baptist life with a blog post title like the one above.

But, an exciting resolution passed at the recent Southern Baptist Convention that looks something like this:

SBC Resolutions
6. On Regenerate Church Membership And Church Member Restoration June 2008
WHEREAS, The ideal of a regenerate church membership has long been and remains a cherished Baptist principle, with Article VI of the Baptist Faith and Message describing the church as a “local congregation of baptized believers”; and
WHEREAS, A New Testament church is composed only of those who have been born again by the Holy Spirit through the preaching of the Word, becoming disciples of Jesus Christ, the local church’s only Lord, by grace through faith (John 3:5; Ephesians 2:8-9), which church
practices believers’ only baptism by immersion (Matthew 28:16-20), and the Lord’s supper (Matthew 26:26-30); and
WHEREAS, Local associations, state conventions, and the Southern Baptist Convention compile statistics reported by the churches to make decisions for the future; and
WHEREAS, The 2007 Southern Baptist Convention annual Church Profiles indicate that there are 16,266,920 members in Southern Baptist churches; and
WHEREAS, Those same profiles indicate that only 6,148,868 of those members attend a primary worship service of their church in a typical week; and
WHEREAS, The Scriptures admonish us to exercise church discipline as we seek to restore any professed brother or sister in Christ who has strayed from the truth and is in sin (Matthew 18:15-35; Galatians 6:1); and now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Indianapolis, Indiana, June 10-11, 2008, urge churches to maintain a regenerate membership by acknowledging the necessity of spiritual regeneration and Christ’s lordship for all members; and
be it further
RESOLVED, That we humbly urge our churches to maintain accurate membership rolls for the purpose of fostering ministry and accountability among all members of the congregation; and be it further
RESOLVED, That we urge the churches of the Southern Baptist Convention to repent of the failure among us to live up to our professed commitment to regenerate church membership and any
failure to obey Jesus Christ in the practice of lovingly correcting wayward church members (Matthew 18:15-18); and be it further
RESOLVED, That we humbly encourage denominational servants to support and encourage churches that seek to recover and implement our Savior’s teachings on church discipline, even if such efforts result in the reduction in the number of members that are reported in
those churches, and be it finally
RESOLVED, That we humbly urge the churches of the Southern Baptist Convention and their pastors to implement a plan to minister to, counsel, and restore wayward church members based upon the commands and principles given in Scripture (Matthew 18:15-35; 2 Thessalonians
3:6-15; Galatians 6:1; James 5:19-20).

Resolutions with the SBC are somewhat tricky in the sense that this is not a new requirement for all churches in the SBC but rather a strong exhortation. However, it is a great step to having church membership actually mean something. The only questions are 1) what took so long? and 2) will it make a difference? To the first, I understand that other victories - such as the battle for the Bible - needed to be won before something like this would make sense. As for the second, I have seen many say that nothing will change but I really see this as a challenge to pastors to actually have a biblical model for church membership. More than anything, this resolution makes me even more thankful that we attend a church where nothing has to change when it comes to church membership.

Returning to Acuna

It looks like I'll be returning to Acuna, Mexico next spring! Details to come...

Judge sides with Duke: Your football team stinks

(from espn.com)

A Kentucky judge has confirmed what Duke fans have known for years: their football team is as bad as it gets.

Bad enough that Louisville should have to find another football team to replace the Blue Devils without penalty after Duke pulled out of the final three games of a four-game contract last season.

In a lawsuit filed late last year, Louisville asked for $450,000 in damages and any additional damages the court saw fit.

But Duke's lawyers argued that the Blue Devils' performance on the field was so poor that any Division I team would suffice as a replacement. Duke is 6-45 over the past five years, 13-90 since 1999.

Judge Phillip J. Shepherd of the Franklin County (Ky.) Circuit Court agreed, according to the Louisville Courier-Journal.

"At oral argument, Duke [with a candor perhaps more attributable to good legal strategy than to institutional modesty] persuasively asserted that this is a threshold that could not be any lower," Shepherd wrote in a summary judgment issued Thursday, according to the paper. "Duke's argument on this point cannot be reasonably disputed by Louisville."

Duke, according to the suit, asked the Cardinals to find a replacement opponent and promised to pay Louisville only if the school could not find one after a "good faith" effort. A $150,000 penalty for each game was included in the contract if a "team of similar stature" could not be found to fill the date.

The two schools were to meet four times between 2002 and 2009. Louisville beat the Blue Devils 40-3 in September 2002, but Duke opted out of the final three games, to be played last season and in 2008 and 2009.

Louisville claimed it struggled to find another team and received "little, if any, help from either Duke or the [Atlantic Coast Conference]" in finding a replacement.

"We're disappointed with the ruling," Louisville spokesman Kenny Klein said, according to the Courier-
Journal. "We will take our time to review the decision and explore our future options."

Information from The Associated Press was used in this report.

So the Mormons came to Visit...

I just want to make sure before I write all this that anyone who reads this knows that this is in no way meant to be a bragging session or a slam on the Mormons who came to visit me. It's not my desire to boast of how I won an argument. Instead, I hope that this is edifying for those who want to see how I personally dialogued with a couple of mormon missionaries last night. I also wanted to stress the importance of us trying not to win an argument, but also win these people to Christ. So here it goes...

One of the things Norman Geisler encouraged us to do was to read texts like the Book of Mormon and the Koran in order to be able to better dialogue with people of those faiths. I figured that if I could find a free Bible online then I could find these other two texts for free as well. I ordered both for free last week from various websites, and I figured that there would be Mormon missionaries who would personally deliver the Book of Mormon. I was right, and yesterday I received a call from them and we set up an appointment for them to come last night and visit. What follows are some observations from what took place.

First, let me say that the two guys who came by were really nice, respectful, and personable. Both were former athletes and big sports fans, and were very down to earth. I certainly think these were two guys I could be friends with. I think that we as evangelicals sadly salivate at the chance to nail a Mormon in a debate. We must defend doctrine boldly, but we must also remember that this is an opportunity to show the love of Christ and to hopefully bring two more people to the place where they make a decision to truly accept Jesus Christ. I think that we can defend doctrine but still not be nasty about it in situations like this. I pray I did that last night - my first comment to them was actually telling them that I didn't agree with them whatsoever, but I did love them with the love of Jesus and looked forward to having a friendly debate).



So here's some random thoughts -

1. It's important for we Christians to know what we believe in respect to Mormonism. We can't rely on a few Mormon stereotypes as our defense - those will be shot down quickly. Instead, we must be better equipped than that. I was thankful that I had done a good bit of research before they came last night. There were a number of verses that they quoted out of context that I was glad that I had read up on before they came.



2. There were three places in particular where I posed questions that I did not get any real answer to:

A. The first was when I asked them if the Bible is inerrant and without any error and they said, "yes, absolutely." I then turned to Mark when Jesus comments that there is no marriage in heaven and asked them how they can have a doctrine of eternal marriage if Jesus clearly teaches in the Bible that they claim is without error that there is no marriage in heaven. (Note: I had researched what their response would probably be - that Jesus was saying that no one will get married in heaven. If anyone reads that passage in its context Jesus is responding to a question about a woman who was married here on earth, so clearly that is not what he is saying. Also, the verse that was used to defend this was when Jesus says, "whatever your bind on earth shall be bound in heaven." This is again a clear example of the need to understand verses in context.)

B. The second was the issue that they believe that God is still giving revelation today to their prophets. I asked them if their prophets ever made a mistake and they said no, but there was a prophecy made by Joseph Smith that a huge temple would be built in Missouri within his generation. They said that this prophecy was not fulfilled because of "circumstances," by which they mean that the Mormon church was persecuted at the time of the prophecy making it impossible to build the temple. I asked them how it can be that Joseph Smith could be a true prophet if

a. the criteria for a biblical prophet is that his prophecies always come true,

b. that true prophecy is the word of God (who does not lie),

c. that God is all-knowing and sovereign and therefore no "circumstances" catch Him off guard that makes Him have to modify His prophecy.

d. Therefore, if they believe that God is in sovereign, all-knowing, and doesn't lie, then there cannot be true prophecy that God has to change just because His church was persecuted.

C. Sadly, I asked them when they decided to repent of their sin and recognize the need for a savior and reconciler towards God. Both testimonies were almost identical - they consisted of reading the book of Mormon and asking God if it was true and said that the "Holy Ghost" had confirmed it for them.

3. I think a lot of these guys really just need to lovingly be shown the contradictions in their doctrine. As I was pointing stuff out to them it seemed (at least to me) that they were somewhat surprised by many of these contradictions and had not considered them before.

4. Why are these guys so much more evangelical than we are? They have a faith that is built mostly on a book that is not historically reliable whatsoever. We Christians have a book that is the most historically reliable document in all of ancient history. We should be embarrassed that the Mormons are more eager to talk about a distorted Jesus than we are to talk about the Biblical Jesus.



There was much more that happened over the course of our 90 minute discussion, but these were just a few points that I was thinking over today.

Is Single Issue Voting Wrong? (from John Piper)

I'm going to write more on this in the next few days, but I've recently felt the conviction to become stronger in my political knowledge. I was once a die-hard politics guy, but grew fairly apathetic because of the politicization of the religiousright as well as cable news channels (see CNN, Fox News) encouraging political screaming matches between republicans and democrats more than encouraging a pursuit of truth and progress. I don't think I'll ever feel really passionate about politics again other than with major issues like abortion, but I do recognize the responsibility to be informed and to vote well.

Christians are often criticized for being single-issue voters, that is, that their vote can be swayed by issues like whether or not a candidate is pro-life or pro-choice. Below is an excellent paragraph from John Piper addressing this issue:

"No endorsement of any single issue qualifies a person to hold public office. Being pro-life does not make a person a good governor, mayor, or president. But there are numerous single issues that disqualify a person from public office. For example, any candidate who endorsed bribery as a form of government efficiency would be disqualified, no matter what his party or platform was. Or a person who endorsed corporate fraud (say under $50 million) would be disqualified no matter what else he endorsed. Or a person who said that no black people could hold office—on that single issue alone he would be unfit for office. Or a person who said that rape is only a misdemeanor—that single issue would end his political career. These examples could go on and on. Everybody knows a single issue that for them would disqualify a candidate for office [...]

It's the same with marriage. No one quality makes a good wife or husband, but some qualities would make a person unacceptable. For example, back when I was thinking about getting married, not liking cats would not have disqualified a woman as my wife, but not liking people would. Drinking coffee would not, but drinking whiskey would. Kissing dogs wouldn't, but kissing the mailman would. And so on. Being a single-issue fiancé does not mean that only one issue matters. It means that some issues may matter enough to break off the relationship.So it is with politics. You have to decide what those issues are for you. What do you think disqualifies a person from holding public office? I believe that the endorsement of the right to kill unborn children disqualifies a person from any position of public office. It's simply the same as saying that the endorsement of racism, fraud, or bribery would disqualify him—except that child-killing is more serious than those."

Some thoughts from spending a week with Norman Geisler

This past week, my good friend J.P. Harmon and I decided to man up and take an entire class in one week. The class was Christian Apologetics & World Religions with Dr. Norman Geisler, one of the leading thinkers of the 20th century in Christian apologetics. This was particularly momentous for me because Dr. Geisler had had a unique impact on my decision to come to seminary. He taught and inspired Ravi Zacharias while at Trinity, and Ravi's sermons, lectures, and question and answer sessions on college campuses had a major impact on me feeling the responsibility to be intellectually prepared for ministry. Dr. Geisler was also an author I would read when trying to understand the usual criticisms of the Christian faith.

Needless to say, the experience was incredible. We spent the mornings having Dr. Geisler lecture through his twelve-step apologetic method which is the following:

1. Truth about reality is knowable

2. Opposites cannot both be true

3. The theistic God exists

4. Miracles are possible

5. Miracles performed in connection with a truth claim are acts of God to confirm the truth of God through the messenger of God

6. The New Testament documents are reliable

7. As witnessed in the New Testament, Jesus claimed to be God

8. Jesus’ claim to divinity was proven by an unique convergence of miracles

9. Therefore, Jesus was God in human flesh

10. Whatever Jesus (who is God) affirmed as true, is true

11. Jesus affirmed that the Bible is the Word of God

12. Therefore, it is true that the Bible is the Word of God and whatever is opposed to any biblical truth is false

Following morning lectures, we were given an hour for lunch in which that we spent watching the Euro 2008 with fellow students from across the world who knew an exponentially greater amount about soccer than I did. The afternoons were spent watching some of Dr. Geisler's debates with leading thinkers in secular humanism or other religions, as well as lectures on other world religions.

The experience was powerful and made me all the more thankful for men like Dr. Geisler who I could look to while at USC when challenged with difficult questions and criticisms of Christianity in my various classes. While the world doesn't often admit it, there truly are great thinkers who also happen to be conservative, evangelical, Bible believing Christians.

C.S. Lewis said...

"The world might stop in ten minutes; meanwhile, we are to go on doing our duty. The great thing is to be found at one's post as a child of God, living each day as though it were our last, but planning as though our world might last a hundred years."

- God In The Dock

Ravi Zacharias said...

"G. K. Chesterton correctly remarked that the problem with Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting but that it has been found difficult and left untried. In response to an article in The Times of London entitled 'What's Wrong with the World?' Chesterton replied,

'I am.

Yours truly,

G. K. Chesterton.'

That is precisely Jesus' point - we are wrong with the world."

A Week with Norman Geisler

If any of my 3 faithful readers are wondering why I haven't written in the past week, it's because I'm doing a semester's worth of material in one week. I am in the middle of spending an incredible week studying underneath one of the leading Christian apologists of the 20th century: Norman Geisler. After three days I have been so encouraged and challenged to love the Lord with all my mind. To the right is the book that I've been getting familiar with all week. (By the way, if you ever get the chance to study with a guy who has written an entire encyclopedia on a topic, take it!)


I'll be posting some more thoughts when I'm able to come up for air, as well as the second part of the series I started titled, "Just want to be like Jesus?" Also, I will be sure to post some responses to the criticisms received from Clemson and UGA fans on the best entrances in college football. The fall is almost here, and it's about time to start talking some smack. J.P. Harmon and Bert Watts have posted responses on their blogs. Gentlemen, prepare for a response soon enough...

What Makes a Great College Football Entrance?

While I'm a lover of all sports, there will always be one that holds a special place in my heart: college football. I think it was probably because I grew up spending Saturdays making the long drive into the beautiful of mountains of southwest Virginia to see Virginia Tech play. I was a Hokie fan at the right time. My first game was spent nearly freezing to death in a late-fall game where the Hokies beat a Syracuse team led by freshman Donovan McNabb. The first year I remember well is VT's 1995 season where true pocket-QB Jim Druckenmiller led the team to the Sugar Bowl where they defeated Texas. From then on, I was hooked. The next few years would be the beginning of the golden years for Hokie football. Greats such as Bryan Still, Ken Oxendine, pre-incarcerated Michael Vick, Cory Moore, John Engleberger, Lee Suggs, and Kevin Jones would be just a few of the greats that I would consistently witness on beautiful Blacksburg Saturdays.

I wouldn't attend Virginia Tech for college and instead went to the University of South Carolina. While the two schools were different in their campuses and student bodies, they were the same in their zeal for football. Also similar was the fact that at both schools people said, "you HAVE to be there for the entrance of the players. Both schools do have great player entrances - for VT, it's the playing of Metallica's "Enter Sandman" and the jumping of all the Hokie faithful. For Carolina, it's 2001 - a tradition started by the late Joe Morrison who wanted to provide something unique for his Gamecocks to run out to. I still remember my first 2001 - it was against UGA with ESPN's College Gameday in town, and all day I talked to strangers who got wide-eyed and said, "I can't believe this is your first 2001," as if I had been deprived of one of the essentials of life for 18 years. 2001 lived up to the hype, but the team did not (we blew a lead and lost), and I was officially a Gamecock fan. It would describe much of the next few years of my time at Carolina football games. Great entrance, disappointing play. But no matter how bad the team played, 2001 was always special.

So that got me thinking - what makes a great pre-game atmosphere and entrance? The following are my brief thoughts on the matter, along with a few videos to illustrate:

Fan Passion

First and foremost, a team's entrance has to excite the fans. For example, there are plenty of schools where the stadium doesn't fill up until after the team has run onto the field. A great entrance must be something that the fans want to be there for. That's what really struck me about 2001 at USC. The stadium was full before the players took the field because everyone wanted to witness it. I would say the same for VT. Basically, don't claim that your school has an incredible entrance and then have 10,000 fans show up after it's done. If your own fans don't make the effort to be there for it or aren't going crazy during the entrance, then it's really not that great. For example, check out the VT entrance and see if there's an empty seat as the team comes out:

VT Entrance:



Tradition

Also important is tradition. If your entrance is only the playing of a recently popular hard-rock song and your players run out on the field from a tunnel, then you're not doing anything that's worth getting fired up for. It's important to not change your entrance every 5 years (whether it's the song or the method of entry). That's why the following schools' pre-game environments are so well known:

The M Club Supports You:



Script Ohio:



Splitting the T at Tennessee:



Uniqueness

In the world of sports if you do something weird or unique long enough it becomes cool. That's what has made 2001 so popular at Carolina. I've heard many talk about when they first started using 2001 as the entrance, and that many of the fans had no idea what was going on or even didn't like it. But, after a couple of decades it has become a trademark of Gamecock football.

A Classic 2001:



The same thing, just twenty years later:



The same can also be said for Mr. Two Bits down in The Swamp:



Don't Use Stupid Videos

Most importantly, DON'T USE STUPID PRE-GAME VIDEOS! Sorry to use the all-caps, but that's how strongly I feel about it. Now that any respectable school has a jumbotron, there is almost always a video that precedes the team’s entrance. Unfortunately, this privilege has been horribly abused. I've given two examples below. A pre-game video should never include 1) An animated movie with your mascot beating up the other team's mascot as seen in the Arizona State video below and at UVA games or 2) your players doing any sort of extensive acting (and by extensive, I mean doing anything beyond looking at the camera in an intimidating fashion). A plus for entrance videos, as seen in the A&M video below, is using old clips to show off the program's accomplishments. Write this down: show football players playing, not acting.

Arizona State entrance video:



A Nebraska entrance video:



A Good example: Texas A&M's video:



So what's important? Fan passion, consistency, tradition, uniqueness, and an avoidance of stupid videos. Most importantly, always build up your own school's entrance and never acknowledge your rivals' entrance as being cool or intimidating, which is exactly why I've chosen not to include any discussion of Clemson running down the hill in this post. Go Gamecocks!

I Think I may be Beginning to like Soccer ("football")...

So I've been watching a little European soccer from time to time this summer. I'm not sure if it's the passion of the fans, the skill of the players, or the fact that I'm becoming delusional during the (real) football off season. Anyways, I don't know if I could ever become passionate about soccer because of one element of the game that is characterized in the video below:

Supplement to Part 1

Interestingly enough, I came across this today. It turns out that D.A. Carson wrote about the very issue of RLCs (see the previous two posts) in the most recent Southern Baptist Journal of Theology. Here's just an excerpt of what he said:

A particularly virulent form of this approach is hidden behind what Tony Campolo now approvingly calls “red letter Christians.” These red letter Christians, he says, hold the same theological commitments as do other evangelicals, but they take the words of Jesus especially seriously (they devote themselves to the “red letters” of some foolishly printed Bibles) and end up being more concerned than are other Christians for the poor, the hungry, and those at war. Oh, rubbish: this is merely one more futile exercise in trying to find a “canon within the canon” to bless my preferred brand of theology. That’s the first of two serious mistakes commonly practiced by these red letter Christians. The other is worse: their actual grasp of what the red letter words of Jesus are actually saying in context far too frequently leaves a great deal to be desired; more particularly, to read the words of Jesus and emphasize them apart from the narrative framework of each of the canonical gospels, in which the plot-line takes the reader to Jesus’ redeeming death and resurrection, not only has the result of down-playing Jesus’ death and resurrection, but regularly fails to see how the red-letter words of Jesus point to and unpack the significance of his impending crosswork. In other words, it is not only Paul who says that Jesus’ cross and resurrection constitute matters “of first importance” (1 Cor 15:3), and not only Paul who was resolved to know nothing among the Corinthians except Jesus Christ and him crucified (1 Cor 2:1–5), but the shape of the narrative in each canonical gospel says the same thing. In each case the narrative rushes toward the cross and resurrection; the cross and resurrection are the climax. So to interpret the narrative, including the red-letter words of Jesus, apart from the climax to which they are rushing, is necessarily a distortion of the canonical gospels themselves.

Part 1 - Why I Believe the Apostles' Teaching

I don't know how often you've heard something like the following: "Jesus didn't even teach about something like homosexuality, so who are we to say if it's right or wrong?" This is not a discussion of the homosexual issue, but this was where I most commonly heard this sort of reasoning used in a college classroom. The statement implies that it doesn't really matter whether or not the apostles may have written on this issue - if Jesus didn't explicitly say it, then we don't have the right to confidently say what God views as right or wrong.

I understand that it's easy to see those red words of Jesus on the page and think, "these really are the words of God." This hermeneutic does not overstate the authority of Jesus's words, but instead neglects the fact that the other words of Scripture contain the same authority since they all have the same Author. If the red words mark the words of God, then really everything from Genesis to Revelation should be marked in red! There are numerous verses I could cite to show God's involvement in Scripture. Here is one passage that is rarely quoted but is beautifully specific in its explanation of how God was intimately involved in the development of Scripture:

"We have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."
- 2 Peter 1:19-21 (italics mine)

I love that expression "carried along by the Holy Spirit." The beauty of Scripture is not that it has a hodgepodge of uneducated authors who stuck their own opinion onto paper and claimed it as the word God. Instead, Scripture has one Divine Author who used a number of human authors throughout history to write the story of redemption and the Redeemer. I believe that this reason is sufficient in itself to explain the authority of the apostles' teaching. Since the Holy Spirit moved and guided them to write, we can trust their words as being the words of God. However, in case anyone regards this as being too simple a defense I also wanted to give the other big reason that I believe the teaching of the apostles.

Does it really make any sense that someone would regard Jesus' teaching as being authoritative but at the same time ignore the writings of the apostles - those whom He lived and ministered with, taught how to interpret Scripture, and gave them authority to continue His mission on earth? If anyone would be trustworthy to explain all that Jesus taught beyond what is written in the Gospel accounts, it would be men like Peter, John, and Paul (who obviously was not a part of Jesus' pre-resurrection ministry, but was as directly impacted and influenced by Jesus as anyone else in Scripture). Luke 24 talks about how the resurrected Christ personally opened the disciples' minds to be able to understand how to interpret and preach Scripture:

v. 32 - They said to each other, “Did not our hearts burn within us while he talked to us on the road, while he opened to us the Scriptures?”

v. 44-48 - Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, and said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things.

When studying history most people view the original source documents as valuable information when trying to understand what a man was really like. If studying Washington, any writing by his closest generals would be priceless. But with Christ, we have made ourselves the authoritative interpreter of what He was really like and what He really meant. The problem stems from understanding history in an evolutionary fashion, which assumes that we're smarter and better now than we were 2,000 years ago, and we are therefore more qualified to explain what Jesus meant and taught than His disciples. Such historical arrogance is not only misinformed, but also dangerous.

Let's also think about this logically- someone says that they believe the words of Jesus but not the words of apostles. Who do they think wrote down the words that are attributed to Jesus? There is no such thing as believing only in the words of Jesus. It's actually believing selectively in the writings of the apostles.

We may have computers, airplanes, air conditioning, and other cool inventions, but as for me, I will trust the words of the apostles in a heartbeat over my own naturally biased method of interpretation that is as far removed from the context in which Jesus taught and lived as can be. When it comes to understanding what Jesus preached and believed beyond the direct quotes of Him in the four gospels, I'll take the inspired words of those he was closest to without thinking twice.

Introducing the Issue: Some Scripture is God-breathed?

This is the introduction to the following two-part response to "red-letter Christians" (RLCs). The first part is called "Why I Believe the Apostles' Teaching," while the second is titled "Just Want to Follow Jesus?"

Allow me just a minute to specify what it is I'm addressing. I am not addressing the political movement led by men such as Tony Campolo or Brian McLaren. Instead, these are two essays discussing a hermeneutic (method of Biblical interpretation) that views Jesus' words (the red words in some Bibles) as authoritative and without error while the rest of Scripture is interpreted as having less authority, being the opinions of ordinary men, or being the production of various unsophsticated cultures that, when compared to the advancements made today, are thought to be obsolete.

This is not a complete defense of the inerrancy of Scripture, but instead a pair of brief essays that I hope will show 1. the reliability and authority of the apostles' teaching in the New Testament, which therefore means we should submit ourselves to their teaching, and 2. how often RLCs apply their selective hermeneutic on the red words they claim to fully believe.

C.S. Lewis said...

"By the way, did you ever meet, or hear of, anyone who was converted from scepticism to a 'liberal' or 'demythologised' Christianity? I think that when unbelievers come in at all, they come in a good deal further [...] A man who first tried to guess 'what the public wants,' and then preached that as Christianity because the public wants it, would be a pretty mixture of fool and knave."

- Letters to Malcolm, 119-120

A New Christian Debate Resource

(This post is a work in progress and will be cleaned up and improved upon in the coming days).
Last updated 5/29

This is something I'm incredibly excited about working to put together. I often enjoy listening to debates more than anything else because it can never be a one-sided argument. Of course, when the Christian debates the atheist I don't side with the atheist; however, a debate presents both sides of the argument and provides the opportunity to hear the Christian response and defense to objections. This is a facet that is not always offered in a sermon since that is not the proper forum for such objections.

Therefore, after realizing that I have not been able to find a site (though it may be out there, I'm not trying to be revolutionary here) that offers audio or video of Christian debates, the following is what I have found on the internet that either has audio or video files. I have listened to many of these debates, but not all of them in their entirety. I don't necessarily agree entirely with every Christian who is represented here, but just hope to provide a resource that will be useful to any who enjoy Christian apologetics and learning by hearing both sides of the argument. I will be adding to this list and updating the post regularly as I come across more debates that are on the internet. I have divided the list into two sections. The first is debates on theology, and focuses more on debates within Christian circles on theological matters such as Calvinism or eternal security of the believer. The second division is broadly labeled as debates proving the existence or nature of God. These are between Christians and and those of other faiths, atheism included. I recognize that this is also a theological matter, so my labels are not entirely accurate, but this was how I deemed it best to divide the categories. Without further delay...

Debates on Christian Theology:

Al Mohler (president of Southern Seminary) and Paige Patterson (president of Southwestern Seminary) "discuss" the matter of Calvinism at the Southern Baptist Convention here.

My reaction: This is one of the best debates out there - Mohler and Patterson present their positions in a clear and respectful fashion. I think pretty much anyone in the SBC should be required to listen to this.

Mark Driscoll debates Dan Corner over the eternal security of the believer here.

My reaction: Good debate - the audio quality is not great, but Driscoll does a good job defending the security of the believer.

Debates on The Existence/ Nature of God:

"The Great Debate" - Greg Bahnsen (Christian apologist) debates well-known atheist, Gordon Stein, here.

My reaction: Excellent - one of the most famous debates out there. Greg Bahnsen is brilliant

John Lennox (Oxford mathematician & Christian Apologist) and Richard Dawkins (Oxford scientist & author of The God Delusion) debate here.

My reaction: This is a great debate between one of the leading Christian apologists and probably the best known atheist of our generation. The worst part of this is the debate format. It doesn't seem like the moderator really let the two talk without interrupting. Having heard Lennox speak at Southeastern chapel, many of his best arguments (especially his conclusion) were cut off as he was getting to them because of time restraints.

A video conversation between Alister McGrath (of Oxford) and Richard Dawkins here.

My reaction: This video format is somewhat awkward. You can see the same interview on YouTube in a series of ten minute videos as well. This is a good video that is more of a conversation than a debate. This comes from Richard Dawkins' website, so it's important to recognize that he is asking the questions to McGrath. Therefore, Dawkins is able to be on the offense throughout the entire discussion - a significant advantage.

Ray Comfort (from The Way of the Master) vs. Ron Barrier (atheist) here attempting to prove/disprove the existence of a Creator.

My reaction: This is a very poor debate, and I've included it only for the sake of completeness. Barrier's arguments are very poor and mostly simple logic that appeal to the emotions of his audience. Comfort isn't too impressive either for the Christian defense...

William Lane Craig (Christian apologist) debates Jamal Badawi (Muslim apologist) at Emory Univeristy. Part of 1 of 11 is below, and the remaining 10 parts are also on YouTube.

More pictures from Acuna, Mexico

We said that we would post more pictures later on. Here are a few more pictures from our mission trip to Acuna, Mexico a few months ago...
A picture of one of the houses in the area.

Here's one of the camp's baseball games in process.

A beautiful Mexican sunset.

This was what it looked like when crossing the border. We are crossing from the U.S. into Mexico, and as you can see, there was no wait to get into Mexico. But on the other side, U.S. border police were sure to check each and every car.

Megan was the camp nurse. As you can see, her services were greatly needed!

There are a good number of thiefs in the area. This is one of the many guard dogs that seemed to be in front of almost every house to let residents know if there's an intruder.

Here's Megan with her host family for the week and her friend Alyson.

And finally, here's the cutest girl I think we've ever seen.

We met John Edwards

So we met John Edwards at the Durham Bulls game last week. Despite him being a former Clemson student (for just a year, I think), a UNC student, and a Democrat, we were able to have a good, brief visit with him.

Lessons learned from my first year at Southeastern Seminary

It's hard to believe, but as I finished my Old Testament II final on Wednesday I also finished my first year of seminary. It has been a wonderful and rewarding experience which has far exceeded Megan and I's expectations. Here's just some quick thoughts on different things I've learned or experienced after my first year...

In the past year I completed classes such as Hermeneutics, Greek I and II, Evangelism, and Theology I. I would say that almost every class has been great, with each professor adding their own twist to the class through their unique personalities. Top professors for the last year have been Dr. Akin (hermeneutics), Dr. Black (Greek I, II and NT II), and Dr. Reid (Evangelism).

I will probably stay away from the "practical" classes for my last two years (by practical I mean classes like counseling, pastoral ministry, etc). It's not that they aren't rewarding, but I've found that seminary is a place to learn things that you could never learn on your own. I found that I probably could have learned as much about counseling by just reading the books that were assigned. If you're serving in a good church you should be learning the practical aspect of ministry there, which will save your seminary electives for classes like the languages.

I came into seminary being strongly discouraged from pursuing anything in the field of apologetics. In the past year I didn't take anything within Christian philosophy because of it, but I have found that my love for apologetics has crept back! In the summer I will be taking a class with Dr. Norman Geisler (more on this later) on Christianity in relation to the other world religions, and in the fall I will take two classes with Dr. Bruce Little: Christian Philosophy and Critical Thinking & Argumentation.

Megan and I could be anywhere two years from now. We came in thinking that we were willing to go anywhere or do anything, but we weren't (at least I wasn't). Many professors here are "afflictors of the comfortable," and they challenge you to look beyond the U.S. to find your place of ministry. Megan and I talk about this often, and we look forward to see where the Lord takes us.

The consistent piece of advice I received coming in was to take professors, not classes. They were right - a class is made or broken by its teacher.

Who would have thought that I would enjoy Greek? I'm on to my third semester this summer...

Half of the education in seminary is interaction with the other students. That's why I strongly feel that being a full-time, on-campus student is a huge advantage, and should be chosen (if possible) over online courses. You hear what people are reading, thinking, experiencing, and who they listen to (sermons).

For the last 18 months Megan has been encouraging me to pursue my PhD after finishing seminary. For the last 14 months or so I strongly disagreed, but am feeling more and more called to continuing my education after graduating from Southeastern. I'm hesitant about this, because I want to make sure this isn't a pride thing, but as of now I see this as a likely next step.

I'm so thankful to be at a "Great Commission" seminary. I had many hesitations about coming to a "confessional seminary", but I am so thankful that we came to Southeastern. God has used it to change me substantially, and developed my heart for the nations.

That's all for now, and if I think of more I'll post them as they come to me...