Wednesday, September 7, 2011

Scattershot on a Wednesday Morning

No Invitation. The Southern Baptists are upset that neither some of them, from the nation’s largest Protestant body, nor any other evangelical leaders have been invited to participate in the prayer vigil marking 9/11 to be held at the National Cathedral next Sunday at 8:30 AM. According to a news report the service “will feature the dean of the Cathedral, the Bishop of Washington, a rabbi, Buddhist nun and incarnate lama, a Hindu priest, the president of the Islamic Society of North America and a Muslim musician.” Now the question is, “Why would the Southern Baptists or any others professing to hold to the historic Protestant (evangelical) faith attend, much less want an invitation to participate in the leadership of the service?” It’s pagan, syncretistic, and, blasphemous. 

Arguing from Consequences. It is legitimate to consider the consequences of conclusions we draw. But consequences do not clench arguments about facts. It is right to say that, if Jesus was not raised from the dead, then preaching and faith are in vain, we are still in our sins, and are to be pitied above all men. But, what if Jesus is dead? Then he is dead. Considering the dire consequences of it not being true does not make it true. What makes the difference is that Christ was raised and seen by many witnesses. It seems to me that too many would be Christian apologists try to settle arguments that touch on matters of historical and scientific fact by appeal to the consequences of their belief not being true. 

Jimmy Hoffa. Jimmy Hoffa, the son of the infamous Jimmy, is catching heat from conservatives, including Christian ones, for saying that the unions and Democrats will “take out” the Tea Party “son-of a bitches” in November 2012. This is a classic case of getting one’s underwear in a wad over nothing. This is not to recommend that any Christians adopt Hoffa’s language in public discourse, but, if anyone should decide to do it, please get the grammar right. It’s sons-in-law, not son-in-laws.

The Ophthalmologist Tests for Song Acuity.

Which better expresses evangelistic/missionary zeal?

Shine Jesus shine
Fill this land with the Father's glory
Blaze, Spirit blaze,
Set our hearts on fire
Flow, river flow
Flood the nations with grace and mercy
Send forth Your word
Lord and let there be light

Or This?
Pity the nations, O our God,
Constrain the earth to come;
Send thy victorious Word abroad
and bring the strangers home.

We long to see thy churches full,
that all the chosen race
may with one voice and heart and soul
sing thy redeeming grace.

Which expresses true devotion?

Shout to the lord, all the earth, let us sing
power and majesty, praise to the king
mountains bow down, and the seas will roar
at the sound of your name.

I sing for joy at the work
of your hands,
forever I'll love you,
forever I'll stand,
nothing compares
to the promise i have
in you.

Or This?
When morning gilds the skies,
My heart awaking cries:
May Jesus Christ be praised!
Alike at work and prayer
To Jesus I repair:
May Jesus Christ be praised!

Does sadness fill my mind?
A solace here I find,
May Jesus Christ be praised!
Or fades my earthly bliss?
My comfort still is this,
May Jesus Christ be praised!

Which is true Christian Experience?

Perfect submission, perfect delight,
Visions of rapture now burst on my sight;
Angels, descending, bring from above
Echoes of mercy, whispers of love.

Perfect submission, all is at rest,
I in my Savior am happy and blest,
Watching and waiting, looking above,
Filled with His goodness, lost in His love.

Or This?
Here I raise mine Ebenezer;
hither by thy help I'm come; 
and I hope, by thy good pleasure, 
safely to arrive at home. 
Jesus sought me when a stranger, 
wandering from the fold of God; 
he, to rescue me from danger, 
interposed his precious blood. 
O to grace how great a debtor 
daily I'm constrained to be! 
Let thy goodness, like a fetter, 
bind my wandering heart to thee. 
Prone to wander, Lord, I feel it, 
prone to leave the God I love; 
here's my heart, O take and seal it, 
seal it for thy courts above. 

1 comment:

Rod said...

"It seems to me that too many would be Christian apologists try to settle arguments that touch on matters of historical and scientific fact by appeal to the consequences of their belief not being true." I think I see where you're coming from here. But remember that a hallmark of presuppositional apologetics is the "impossibility of the contrary." If Christianity is not true, then the results negate any ability to make any claims at all. So the unacceptable results are used to buttress the truth of Christianity in argument.