Christina Rossetti's, "Christmas Eve"
Christmas hath a darkness
Brighter than the blazing noon,
Christmas hath a chillness
Warmer than the heat of June,
Christmas hath a beauty
Lovelier than the world can show:
For Christmas bringeth Jesus,
Brought for us so low.
Earth, strike up your music,
Birds that sing and bells that ring;
Heaven hath answering music
For all Angels soon to sing:
Earth, put on your whitest
Bridal robe of spotless snow:
For Christmas bringeth Jesus,
Brought for us so low.
Read more...
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
David Cross on Same-Sex Marriage in Britain
Several of you have indicated that you are eager for a report on the appearance of Dr Peter Naylor last night on the ITV 24-hour cable/satellite News Channel. The issue was that legislation allowing for same-sex unions came into effect yesterday and the first ceremony under that legislation occurred in Belfast between 2 lesbians.
I should explain that this was a program called “News Extra” in which an interviewer has two people on opposing sides of a current issue and puts questions, some of which are called in by viewers. Both people are given the opportunity to answer. The Lesbian (who has been a media representative for their view for some time) was in the London studio while Dr Naylor was in a small room at the Cardiff studio and connected by video link. Peter was at a distinct disadvantage, with no human face to interact with and with the media clearly against everything he had to say. (One of the reporters of the news leading up to the interview went to Canada earlier this year to “marry” his homosexual partner). About 15 minutes (half of the program) was given to this issue.
The points Dr Naylor was able to present included:
1. To the challenge that Religion is all about love; he said that the Bible does teach us to love our neighbour but it also tells us that there are right and wrong expressions of love, for example people who have an attraction to children or who want to marry two women.
2. To the challenge that these are private affairs, he said that moral action has public consequences and the Bible says that righteousness exalts a nation. He said that the present government has been leading the nation down an immoral path and that we cannot expect blessing and things to go well for us as a nation if we disobey God.
3. To the challenge that Homosexuals can/should be allowed to raise children, he said that God created the human race and marriage between male and female and that is the proper context in which children should be brought up.
We have no naïve expectations that this appearance will transform the direction of British life – even though our goal is to see the gospel transform society. What we do hope is that some who saw it, and were glad to see an expression of biblical moral commitment, might look for Peter Naylor or the Presbyterian Church on the internet and find www.epcew.org.uk or www.lpcr.org.uk.
We also hope for additional opportunity to present a biblical world-view. In fact, this interview opened the door for Peter to do a taped radio interview this afternoon for a station that covers much of South Wales.
Getting this opportunity reminds us of how little we know about making effective use of the media. We will need to “debrief” the experience for the future opportunities that may come our way.
Thank you for praying.
Let me also take this opportunity to wish you a Merry Christmas and a fruitful New Year.
David L Cross
_______________
Team Leader
MTW – Team Britain
Read more...
I should explain that this was a program called “News Extra” in which an interviewer has two people on opposing sides of a current issue and puts questions, some of which are called in by viewers. Both people are given the opportunity to answer. The Lesbian (who has been a media representative for their view for some time) was in the London studio while Dr Naylor was in a small room at the Cardiff studio and connected by video link. Peter was at a distinct disadvantage, with no human face to interact with and with the media clearly against everything he had to say. (One of the reporters of the news leading up to the interview went to Canada earlier this year to “marry” his homosexual partner). About 15 minutes (half of the program) was given to this issue.
The points Dr Naylor was able to present included:
1. To the challenge that Religion is all about love; he said that the Bible does teach us to love our neighbour but it also tells us that there are right and wrong expressions of love, for example people who have an attraction to children or who want to marry two women.
2. To the challenge that these are private affairs, he said that moral action has public consequences and the Bible says that righteousness exalts a nation. He said that the present government has been leading the nation down an immoral path and that we cannot expect blessing and things to go well for us as a nation if we disobey God.
3. To the challenge that Homosexuals can/should be allowed to raise children, he said that God created the human race and marriage between male and female and that is the proper context in which children should be brought up.
We have no naïve expectations that this appearance will transform the direction of British life – even though our goal is to see the gospel transform society. What we do hope is that some who saw it, and were glad to see an expression of biblical moral commitment, might look for Peter Naylor or the Presbyterian Church on the internet and find www.epcew.org.uk or www.lpcr.org.uk.
We also hope for additional opportunity to present a biblical world-view. In fact, this interview opened the door for Peter to do a taped radio interview this afternoon for a station that covers much of South Wales.
Getting this opportunity reminds us of how little we know about making effective use of the media. We will need to “debrief” the experience for the future opportunities that may come our way.
Thank you for praying.
Let me also take this opportunity to wish you a Merry Christmas and a fruitful New Year.
David L Cross
_______________
Team Leader
MTW – Team Britain
Read more...
Men of The Covenant Luncheon Spring Schedule Set
MEN OF THE COVENANT LUNCHEON
FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH
Spring 2006
The First Thursday of the Month in Miller Hall
11:45 a.m. – 1:00 p.m.
________________
Series Title: “The Character of a Christian Leader”
February 2
The Reverend Joseph Wheat
Senior Minister of Highlands Presbyterian Church, Ridgeland, MS
Joseph began his pastoral minister as an assistant pastor at First Presbyterian Church of Augusta, GA before moving to Tuscaloosa, AL where he founded Trinity Presbyterian Church. Rev. Wheat has been faithfully preaching at Highlands since July, 2005. He currently serves as Chairman of the Board of New Geneva Theological Seminary in Colorado Springs, Colorado.
March 2
The Reverend Guy Richard
Senior Minister of First Presbyterian Church, Gulfport, MS
Guy studied at Reformed Theological Seminary and the University of Edinburgh, Scotland. He was recently moved, along with with his wife, Jennifer, and their two children, Schyler and Jane Barton, to the hurricane ravaged Mississippi Gulf Coast region to minister to the First Presbyterian Church congregation.
April 6
Dr. David Elkin
Psychologist at the University of Mississippi
Medical Center
Dr. Elkin currently works as a psychologist and Associate Professor in the department of psychiatry at UMC. He is the Director of the Psychology Training Program at UMC and the VA. Additionally, Dr. Elkin serves as Acting Chief of the Division of Psychology at UMC, the Vice Chairman of the Institutional Review Board which oversees ethics of all human-subject research at UMC, and is the father of four wonderful girls.
May 4
Dr. Bill Harper
Cardiologist with Hinds Cardiology Clinic
Dr. Harper is a Ruling Elder at First Presbyterian Church, Jackson, and he has served in numerous leadership positions throughout the church and community. He has a passion for the knowledge and application of God’s Word to all of life.
The cost of lunch is $5.00 and no reservations are required. Please call the Discipleship Office at 973-9118 if you have any further questions.
Read more...
FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH
Spring 2006
The First Thursday of the Month in Miller Hall
11:45 a.m. – 1:00 p.m.
________________
Series Title: “The Character of a Christian Leader”
February 2
The Reverend Joseph Wheat
Senior Minister of Highlands Presbyterian Church, Ridgeland, MS
Joseph began his pastoral minister as an assistant pastor at First Presbyterian Church of Augusta, GA before moving to Tuscaloosa, AL where he founded Trinity Presbyterian Church. Rev. Wheat has been faithfully preaching at Highlands since July, 2005. He currently serves as Chairman of the Board of New Geneva Theological Seminary in Colorado Springs, Colorado.
March 2
The Reverend Guy Richard
Senior Minister of First Presbyterian Church, Gulfport, MS
Guy studied at Reformed Theological Seminary and the University of Edinburgh, Scotland. He was recently moved, along with with his wife, Jennifer, and their two children, Schyler and Jane Barton, to the hurricane ravaged Mississippi Gulf Coast region to minister to the First Presbyterian Church congregation.
April 6
Dr. David Elkin
Psychologist at the University of Mississippi
Medical Center
Dr. Elkin currently works as a psychologist and Associate Professor in the department of psychiatry at UMC. He is the Director of the Psychology Training Program at UMC and the VA. Additionally, Dr. Elkin serves as Acting Chief of the Division of Psychology at UMC, the Vice Chairman of the Institutional Review Board which oversees ethics of all human-subject research at UMC, and is the father of four wonderful girls.
May 4
Dr. Bill Harper
Cardiologist with Hinds Cardiology Clinic
Dr. Harper is a Ruling Elder at First Presbyterian Church, Jackson, and he has served in numerous leadership positions throughout the church and community. He has a passion for the knowledge and application of God’s Word to all of life.
The cost of lunch is $5.00 and no reservations are required. Please call the Discipleship Office at 973-9118 if you have any further questions.
Read more...
Monday, December 19, 2005
Luther on Christmas: "No joy but in this Boy"
"If you will have joy, bend yourself down to this place. There you will find that boy given for you who is your Creator lying in a manger. I will stay with that boy as he sucks, is washed, and dies. . . . There is no joy but in this boy. Take him away and you face the Majesty which terrifies."
"I know of no God but this one in the manger. . . . That person lying in the manger is both man and God essentially, not seperated one from the other but as born of a virgin. If you separate them, the joy is gone. O Thou boy, lying in the manger, thou art truly God who hast created me, and thou wilt not be wrathful with me because thou comest to me in this loving way-- more loving cannot be imagined."
Read more...
"I know of no God but this one in the manger. . . . That person lying in the manger is both man and God essentially, not seperated one from the other but as born of a virgin. If you separate them, the joy is gone. O Thou boy, lying in the manger, thou art truly God who hast created me, and thou wilt not be wrathful with me because thou comest to me in this loving way-- more loving cannot be imagined."
Read more...
Sunday, December 18, 2005
CSL: Translator and Smuggler
The timing is right to remind ourselves that C.S. Lewis was far from perfect. I have serious disagreements with Lewis about several vital theological doctrines. But, to be fair, we must remember how Lewis viewed his evangelistic task.
Position: Christian Layman
Lewis was not a theologian by vocation. He never claimed to be. He was a college tutor, university lecturer, and literary historian, first at Oxford, then at Cambridge. He made his living in the fields of philosophy, medieval and renaissance literature, and English language and literature. In sharp contrast to his popular Christian books, the themes of his university lectures include, “The Good, and its position among the values,” “Some Eighteenth-Century Precursors of the Romantic Movement,” “The Prolegomena to Medieval and Renaissance Studies,” and “Elyot, Ascham, Hooker, and Bacon.” From his position as Christian layman he does not hesitate to criticize clergy and purposefully teach what he considers to be the ancient, orthodox doctrines of Christianity. Lewis sees dire consequences for the future of the church should these clergy continue to mislead their flocks. He says, “Missionary to priests of one’s own church is an embarrassing role; though I have a horrid feeling if such mission work is not soon undertaken the future history of the Church of England is likely to be short.” Although Lewis was never ordained, his commitment to “mere Christianity” compels him to reluctantly enter the mid-twentieth century theological fray.
Method: Praeparatio Evangelica
After his conversion to Christianity in 1931, Lewis made his commitment to evangelism unequivocal. He tells his audience at Westcott House: “woe to you if you do not evangelize.” He did not approach lightly his personal responsibility to evangelize: “My feeling about the people in whose conversion I have been allowed to play a part is always mixed with awe and fear.”
Lewis sees himself primarily as a pre-evangelist. He works to prepare the way for the proclamation of the Gospel. He attempts to remove doubts, reveal contradictions, and “undermine . . . intellectual prejudices.” He maintains,
Mine are praeparatio evangelica rather than evangelism, an attempt to convince people that there is a moral law, that we disobey it, and that the existence of a Lawgiver is at least very probable and also (unless you add the Christian doctrine of the Atonement) that this imparts despair rather than comfort.
Lewis pursues his evangelistic goals through methods best described as “smuggling” and “translating.” When he realizes that reviewers did not recognize the subtle Christian imagery in his first science fiction novel, Out of the Silent Planet, he writes,
But if only there were someone with a richer talent and more leisure, I believe this great ignorance might be a help to the evangelization of England: any amount of theology can now be smuggled into people’s minds under cover of romance [romantic, imaginative literature] without their knowing it.
Reflecting upon the importance of imaginative writing for apologetics and evangelism, he says, “I thought I saw how stories of this kind [fairy stories] could steal past a certain inhibition which had paralyzed much of my own religion in childhood. . . . Could one not thus steal past watchful dragons? I thought I could.” He adopts this subtle “smuggling” as one way to pre-evangelize. Out of the Silent Planet, Perelandra, The Chronicles of Narnia, and Till We Have Faces evidence this approach.
Lewis argues that the typical individual living in post-Christian England does not understand the traditional language of Christianity. The content of the Faith needs to be made understandable. To Christian apologists he charges, you “must translate every bit of your theology into the vernacular.”
Speaking to a church in which theological liberalism and apostasy were rampant, Lewis stresses that Christianity must be preached primarily because it is true, not because it is good for marriages, families, culture, or any other pragmatic purpose. When a man is preaching the Gospel, he is preaching “objective fact.” The historic, orthodox Christian Faith must not be altered just because certain doctrines do not comport well with contemporary scientific opinion. Being “slaves of fashion” is especially dangerous for clergy. Lewis charges that both liberal and orthodox theologians of his time make basic Christian doctrine obscure:
Our business today is to present that which is timeless (the same yesterday, today, and forever) in the particular language of our own age. The bad preacher does exactly the opposite: he takes the ideas of our own age and tricks them out in the traditional language of Christianity.
“Any fool,” Lewis writes, “can write learned language. The vernacular is the real test. If you can’t turn your faith into it, then either you don’t understand it or you don’t believe it.” The Problem of Pain and Mere Christianity are examples of this approach.
Audience: Those Outside
Because Lewis sees himself as a layman working to communicate common Christianity through methods best described as apologetic and pre-evangelistic, he is often at pains to emphasize the importance of keeping theological controversy behind the closed doors of the church. He makes no attempt to hide his own theological convictions, and he believes doctrinal disputation to be important for clarification and defense of the faith.
He is writing primarily to those outside of the church. “Our divisions should never be discussed except in the presence of those who have already come to believe that there is one God and that Jesus Christ is His only Son,” he argues. So, he continues, “I think we must admit that the discussion of these disputed points has no tendency at all to bring an outsider into the Christian fold.” Outsiders must be presented with the basic Gospel and challenged to make decisions and take actions based upon this information.
In 1958, Dr. Norman Pittenger wrote “A Critique of C.S. Lewis” for the Christian Century. In this article he accuses Lewis of writing in Miracles that miracles violate the laws of nature. He criticizes Lewis’s interpretation of Jesus’s claims of deity in the Gospel of John, his emphasis on the transcendence of God, his claim that men are sinners, and not “caring for” the Sermon on the Mount.
Lewis’s response, “Rejoinder to Dr. Pittenger,” serves to further illustrate Lewis’s design for his Christian writings. Lewis charges Pittenger with misunderstanding why, and to whom, he is writing his Christian books: “He [Pittenger] judges my books in vacuo, with no consideration of the audience to whom they were addressed or the prevalent errors they were trying to combat. . . . But I was writing ad populum, not ad clerum.” Lewis writes to materialists, naturalists, and atheists. He directs his efforts toward those who reject supernaturalism and misunderstand traditional Christian terminology. “I was writing for people who wanted to know whether the things could have happened rather than what they should be called; whether we could, without absurdity, believe that Christ rose from the emptied tomb.” If an unbeliever responds to plain language, then “vulgarity must be endured.” Lewis admits that he may not always be completely accurate theologically, and his style of communication may not be perfect, but he is working for the conversion of “storekeepers, lawyers, realtors, morticians, policemen and artisans.”
Yes, he was far from perfect, but we can still learn much from CSL.
Read more...
Position: Christian Layman
Lewis was not a theologian by vocation. He never claimed to be. He was a college tutor, university lecturer, and literary historian, first at Oxford, then at Cambridge. He made his living in the fields of philosophy, medieval and renaissance literature, and English language and literature. In sharp contrast to his popular Christian books, the themes of his university lectures include, “The Good, and its position among the values,” “Some Eighteenth-Century Precursors of the Romantic Movement,” “The Prolegomena to Medieval and Renaissance Studies,” and “Elyot, Ascham, Hooker, and Bacon.” From his position as Christian layman he does not hesitate to criticize clergy and purposefully teach what he considers to be the ancient, orthodox doctrines of Christianity. Lewis sees dire consequences for the future of the church should these clergy continue to mislead their flocks. He says, “Missionary to priests of one’s own church is an embarrassing role; though I have a horrid feeling if such mission work is not soon undertaken the future history of the Church of England is likely to be short.” Although Lewis was never ordained, his commitment to “mere Christianity” compels him to reluctantly enter the mid-twentieth century theological fray.
Method: Praeparatio Evangelica
After his conversion to Christianity in 1931, Lewis made his commitment to evangelism unequivocal. He tells his audience at Westcott House: “woe to you if you do not evangelize.” He did not approach lightly his personal responsibility to evangelize: “My feeling about the people in whose conversion I have been allowed to play a part is always mixed with awe and fear.”
Lewis sees himself primarily as a pre-evangelist. He works to prepare the way for the proclamation of the Gospel. He attempts to remove doubts, reveal contradictions, and “undermine . . . intellectual prejudices.” He maintains,
Mine are praeparatio evangelica rather than evangelism, an attempt to convince people that there is a moral law, that we disobey it, and that the existence of a Lawgiver is at least very probable and also (unless you add the Christian doctrine of the Atonement) that this imparts despair rather than comfort.
Lewis pursues his evangelistic goals through methods best described as “smuggling” and “translating.” When he realizes that reviewers did not recognize the subtle Christian imagery in his first science fiction novel, Out of the Silent Planet, he writes,
But if only there were someone with a richer talent and more leisure, I believe this great ignorance might be a help to the evangelization of England: any amount of theology can now be smuggled into people’s minds under cover of romance [romantic, imaginative literature] without their knowing it.
Reflecting upon the importance of imaginative writing for apologetics and evangelism, he says, “I thought I saw how stories of this kind [fairy stories] could steal past a certain inhibition which had paralyzed much of my own religion in childhood. . . . Could one not thus steal past watchful dragons? I thought I could.” He adopts this subtle “smuggling” as one way to pre-evangelize. Out of the Silent Planet, Perelandra, The Chronicles of Narnia, and Till We Have Faces evidence this approach.
Lewis argues that the typical individual living in post-Christian England does not understand the traditional language of Christianity. The content of the Faith needs to be made understandable. To Christian apologists he charges, you “must translate every bit of your theology into the vernacular.”
Speaking to a church in which theological liberalism and apostasy were rampant, Lewis stresses that Christianity must be preached primarily because it is true, not because it is good for marriages, families, culture, or any other pragmatic purpose. When a man is preaching the Gospel, he is preaching “objective fact.” The historic, orthodox Christian Faith must not be altered just because certain doctrines do not comport well with contemporary scientific opinion. Being “slaves of fashion” is especially dangerous for clergy. Lewis charges that both liberal and orthodox theologians of his time make basic Christian doctrine obscure:
Our business today is to present that which is timeless (the same yesterday, today, and forever) in the particular language of our own age. The bad preacher does exactly the opposite: he takes the ideas of our own age and tricks them out in the traditional language of Christianity.
“Any fool,” Lewis writes, “can write learned language. The vernacular is the real test. If you can’t turn your faith into it, then either you don’t understand it or you don’t believe it.” The Problem of Pain and Mere Christianity are examples of this approach.
Audience: Those Outside
Because Lewis sees himself as a layman working to communicate common Christianity through methods best described as apologetic and pre-evangelistic, he is often at pains to emphasize the importance of keeping theological controversy behind the closed doors of the church. He makes no attempt to hide his own theological convictions, and he believes doctrinal disputation to be important for clarification and defense of the faith.
He is writing primarily to those outside of the church. “Our divisions should never be discussed except in the presence of those who have already come to believe that there is one God and that Jesus Christ is His only Son,” he argues. So, he continues, “I think we must admit that the discussion of these disputed points has no tendency at all to bring an outsider into the Christian fold.” Outsiders must be presented with the basic Gospel and challenged to make decisions and take actions based upon this information.
In 1958, Dr. Norman Pittenger wrote “A Critique of C.S. Lewis” for the Christian Century. In this article he accuses Lewis of writing in Miracles that miracles violate the laws of nature. He criticizes Lewis’s interpretation of Jesus’s claims of deity in the Gospel of John, his emphasis on the transcendence of God, his claim that men are sinners, and not “caring for” the Sermon on the Mount.
Lewis’s response, “Rejoinder to Dr. Pittenger,” serves to further illustrate Lewis’s design for his Christian writings. Lewis charges Pittenger with misunderstanding why, and to whom, he is writing his Christian books: “He [Pittenger] judges my books in vacuo, with no consideration of the audience to whom they were addressed or the prevalent errors they were trying to combat. . . . But I was writing ad populum, not ad clerum.” Lewis writes to materialists, naturalists, and atheists. He directs his efforts toward those who reject supernaturalism and misunderstand traditional Christian terminology. “I was writing for people who wanted to know whether the things could have happened rather than what they should be called; whether we could, without absurdity, believe that Christ rose from the emptied tomb.” If an unbeliever responds to plain language, then “vulgarity must be endured.” Lewis admits that he may not always be completely accurate theologically, and his style of communication may not be perfect, but he is working for the conversion of “storekeepers, lawyers, realtors, morticians, policemen and artisans.”
Yes, he was far from perfect, but we can still learn much from CSL.
Read more...
Thursday, December 15, 2005
Dr. Albert Mohler on "post" American culture.
Dr. Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and the speaker at FPC's upcoming Mid-South Men's Rally (Jan. 27, 2006) recently said, "The most basic contours of American culture have been radically altered. The so-called Judeo-Christian consensus of the last millennium has given way to a postmodern, post-Christian, post-western cultural crisis, which threatens the very heart of our culture."
Mohler's concerns are reinforced by Barna and Gallup research:
85% of Americans represent themselves as "Christians" (90% in 1996).
72% have formal membership in churches, synagogues, or temples
40% attend regularly (almost weekly), 31% in 1996.
Regular Sunday school attendance dropped from 23% in 1991 to 19% in 1998 (17% in 1996).
67% reject belief that absolute truth exists.
68% believe that all religions are equally valid and that their faithful adherents will make it to heaven or its equivalent.
60% believe that people in all religions pray to the same God.
30% believe in reincarnation, up from 25% in 1992.
36% read horoscopes regularly and 26% believe that they are scientifically accurate.
20% identify themselves as New Age practitioners.
34% believe in a New Age form of God.
Adult atheist = male 5%, female 2%, teenagers 7%.
70 % of Americans have a high view of the Bible.
11% claim to be conscious atheists or agnostics (cf.8% in 1992).
31% are unchurched (@60 million), cf. 27% in 1997; 20% in the South, 1:5 ratio.
39% of Baby Busters are unchurched (cf. 31% in 1997).
40% of those 18-29 are unchurched.
Born Again Christians
40% of Americans make this claim.
Yet 37% of them reject the infallibility of the Bible.
41% believe in pluralism (cf. 68% of population).
53% reject the belief in holding absolute truth (cf. 67% nationally).
58% said they definitely would not attend a weekly Bible study.
28% believe that Jesus sinned.
35% deny Jesus raised from the dead (cf. 39% general population).
7% are solid evangelicals (1998), down from 8% (1996), and 12% in 1992.
27% have been divorced.
23% buy a lottery ticket in a typical week.
6% define success in relation to spirituality.
Only 66% say they are "absolutely committed to the Christian faith.
32% said that they have never experienced God’s presence.
50% believe Satan is only a symbol of evil rather than a real being (cf. 62% national).
55% believe the Holy Spirit is only a symbol of God’s presence and not a living being (cf. 61% nationally).
Read more...
Mohler's concerns are reinforced by Barna and Gallup research:
85% of Americans represent themselves as "Christians" (90% in 1996).
72% have formal membership in churches, synagogues, or temples
40% attend regularly (almost weekly), 31% in 1996.
Regular Sunday school attendance dropped from 23% in 1991 to 19% in 1998 (17% in 1996).
67% reject belief that absolute truth exists.
68% believe that all religions are equally valid and that their faithful adherents will make it to heaven or its equivalent.
60% believe that people in all religions pray to the same God.
30% believe in reincarnation, up from 25% in 1992.
36% read horoscopes regularly and 26% believe that they are scientifically accurate.
20% identify themselves as New Age practitioners.
34% believe in a New Age form of God.
Adult atheist = male 5%, female 2%, teenagers 7%.
70 % of Americans have a high view of the Bible.
11% claim to be conscious atheists or agnostics (cf.8% in 1992).
31% are unchurched (@60 million), cf. 27% in 1997; 20% in the South, 1:5 ratio.
39% of Baby Busters are unchurched (cf. 31% in 1997).
40% of those 18-29 are unchurched.
Born Again Christians
40% of Americans make this claim.
Yet 37% of them reject the infallibility of the Bible.
41% believe in pluralism (cf. 68% of population).
53% reject the belief in holding absolute truth (cf. 67% nationally).
58% said they definitely would not attend a weekly Bible study.
28% believe that Jesus sinned.
35% deny Jesus raised from the dead (cf. 39% general population).
7% are solid evangelicals (1998), down from 8% (1996), and 12% in 1992.
27% have been divorced.
23% buy a lottery ticket in a typical week.
6% define success in relation to spirituality.
Only 66% say they are "absolutely committed to the Christian faith.
32% said that they have never experienced God’s presence.
50% believe Satan is only a symbol of evil rather than a real being (cf. 62% national).
55% believe the Holy Spirit is only a symbol of God’s presence and not a living being (cf. 61% nationally).
Read more...
Wednesday, December 14, 2005
Churches Closing on Christmas Sunday
Collin Hansen of Christianity Today has it right when he queries the logic of closing churches on Sunday because Christmas happen to fall on that day of the week this year. Here are his comments:
"With Christmas landing on a Sunday this year, some trendsetting churches have decided to stay closed that day.
"At first glance it does sound contrarian," said Gene Appel, senior pastor of Willow Creek Community Church, which will close. He told the Chicago Tribune, "We don't see it as not having church on Christmas. We see it as decentralizing the church on Christmas—hundreds of thousands of experiences going on around Christmas trees. The best way to honor the birth of Jesus is for families to have a more personal experience on that day."
Indeed, churches designed for people who don't go to church will not attract many on Christmas morning. And Willow needs a lot of money and volunteers to pull off their Sunday services. Why not just shift those resources to another day?
Well, because thousands of family experiences around Christmas trees cannot replace worship with the family of God. This family gathers around the center of the gospel. "For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures" (1 Cor. 15:3-4). Worship with the body of Christ is the best way to remember the meaning of Christmas.
Well said Collin. We agree.
Read more...
"With Christmas landing on a Sunday this year, some trendsetting churches have decided to stay closed that day.
"At first glance it does sound contrarian," said Gene Appel, senior pastor of Willow Creek Community Church, which will close. He told the Chicago Tribune, "We don't see it as not having church on Christmas. We see it as decentralizing the church on Christmas—hundreds of thousands of experiences going on around Christmas trees. The best way to honor the birth of Jesus is for families to have a more personal experience on that day."
Indeed, churches designed for people who don't go to church will not attract many on Christmas morning. And Willow needs a lot of money and volunteers to pull off their Sunday services. Why not just shift those resources to another day?
Well, because thousands of family experiences around Christmas trees cannot replace worship with the family of God. This family gathers around the center of the gospel. "For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures" (1 Cor. 15:3-4). Worship with the body of Christ is the best way to remember the meaning of Christmas.
Well said Collin. We agree.
Read more...
Monday, December 12, 2005
Aslan provokes enmity in England
Polly Toynbee rages against grace when she argues that "Narnia represents everything that is most hateful about religion."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1657942,00.html
Read more...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1657942,00.html
Read more...
Wednesday, December 07, 2005
Brad Mercer Reports on Gene Veith's take on the Narnia Movie and kids
Brad quotes Gene Edward Veith of World Magazine fame as follows: "I saw the Narnia movie last night at an advanced screening. Reviews are supposed to be embargoed until the movie comes out, so I shouldn't say too much. Suffice it to say that, yes, the Christian theme of Redemption comes across loud and clear. The movie changes some things in the book--leaving out and adding in--and while some of the changes detract from the message, others actually add to it. You will definitely want to see this movie. You can take the kids, unless you have a child who is unusually affected by scary stuff. (There are "gotcha" surprises, some ugly monsters, and sadness at Aslan's death, but the latter is quickly turned to joy when he rises again and there is no gore or bad language.) Once you see it, there will be LOTS to talk about. Let's plan on doing that here. On Friday, for the weekend blog, I'll post some discussion threads and we can talk it through."
Read more...
Read more...
Saturday, December 03, 2005
Nine Lessons and Carols
In December, the Sunday and Wednesday services will reflect the texts used by the famous Festival of Nine Lessons and Carols broadcast annually from King’s College, Cambridge. This year’s service was broadcast on the BBC a week ago.
History of the service
THE Festival of Nine Lessons and Carols was first held on Christmas Eve 1918 at King’s College, Cambridge. A revision of the Order of Service was made in 1919, involving rearrangement of the lessons, and from that date the service has always begun with the hymn ‘Once in royal David’s city’. The original service was, in fact, adapted from an Order drawn up by E.W. Benson, later Archbishop of Canterbury, for use in the wooden shed, which then served as his cathedral in Truro, at 10 p.m. on Christmas Eve 1880.
Almost immediately other churches adapted the service for their own use. A wider frame began to grow when the service was first broadcast in 1928 and, with the exception of 1930, it has been broadcast annually, even during the Second World War, when the ancient glass (and also all heat) had been removed from the Chapel and the name of King’s could not be broadcast for security reasons. Sometime in the early 1930s the BBC began broadcasting the service on overseas programs.
Today, the service has become a quintessential portent of Christmas—one of those things that signal what Christmas is about. The texts reflect a belief that the Old Testament is to be viewed as signaling the coming of Jesus Christ, our Mediator. It begins with Genesis 3:15, the so-called protoevangelium—the first gospel promise, and ends in Bethlehem, with the birth of Messiah.
Let us go even unto Bethlehem to see this thing which has come to pass…
Read more...
History of the service
THE Festival of Nine Lessons and Carols was first held on Christmas Eve 1918 at King’s College, Cambridge. A revision of the Order of Service was made in 1919, involving rearrangement of the lessons, and from that date the service has always begun with the hymn ‘Once in royal David’s city’. The original service was, in fact, adapted from an Order drawn up by E.W. Benson, later Archbishop of Canterbury, for use in the wooden shed, which then served as his cathedral in Truro, at 10 p.m. on Christmas Eve 1880.
Almost immediately other churches adapted the service for their own use. A wider frame began to grow when the service was first broadcast in 1928 and, with the exception of 1930, it has been broadcast annually, even during the Second World War, when the ancient glass (and also all heat) had been removed from the Chapel and the name of King’s could not be broadcast for security reasons. Sometime in the early 1930s the BBC began broadcasting the service on overseas programs.
Today, the service has become a quintessential portent of Christmas—one of those things that signal what Christmas is about. The texts reflect a belief that the Old Testament is to be viewed as signaling the coming of Jesus Christ, our Mediator. It begins with Genesis 3:15, the so-called protoevangelium—the first gospel promise, and ends in Bethlehem, with the birth of Messiah.
Let us go even unto Bethlehem to see this thing which has come to pass…
Read more...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
