fundamentalism by blunt instrument
Google Reader is dead. I guess it is old news, but it is scheduled to happen on July 1, apparently. I thought I was safe, since I was using FeedDemon. Alas, I discovered that since FD depends on on GR, it, too, will die on July 1.
Mad search ensues… the winner, for me, is RSSOwl, a nifty feed reader that has some neat features FD did not (and a few minor ones that FD had are missing…). If you scan a lot of blogs, as I do, RSSOwl might be for you.
A ‘mostly sensible’ pastor’s wife offers us a testimony about “music in my life”. I’d encourage you to read it, especially in light of the many wrangling posts about music all over the internet.
One thing this lady points out is that there is a line somewhere, but where? It seems that even the advocates for a looser standard for music (in the fundamentalist orbit and its derivatives) agree that some music isn’t acceptable for worship. Most will also agree that some music isn’t acceptable for Christians, period.
Since we agree that there is a line, why must we insist on drawing it in the middle of a genre that mimics the world in its styles? The line becomes very subjective that way and the basis for setting it boils down to “what I like.” Given my human nature, my susceptibility to pride, my self-centeredness… that’s not a real safe strategy. Far better to draw the line at what I am sure God likes, what for sure glorifies him, not what is questionable.
So I miss out on some songs that might be acceptable? Please! Life is too short for that. I don’t live for music. I live for God. (Well, that’s the idea of what I am trying to do, anyway.)
Go have a look at the ‘mostly sensible’ pastor’s wife. I think you will find her testimony edifying and refreshing. A quick look at the rest of her blog suggests that she tends to write a lot about things that would interest Christian women. I’d encourage the ladies who read this to look over her writings and see if she might add an edifying perspective to your reading as well.
Amidst all the pressure to make nice with evangelicals, there are some key issues that are often overlooked. You can pick up these key issues occasionally in commentaries, less often in bold clearly stated articles or sermons. To put it in a nutshell, I think the issues I am talking about can all be summed up in one word: inerrancy.
I would say most who call themselves fundamentalists would say “Yes” to inerrancy and many evangelicals would also. In fact, many evangelicals have gone so far as to sign an official statement on inerrancy, The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. Search for it on the web and you will find many references to this document.
So far so good, but only so far.
I was thinking about Christian liberty the other day on my walk. I wrote up a little illustration on it and posted it to Proclaim & Defend. You can read it here.
A funny little vignette from my reading of A Brief History of Britain 1660-1851: The Making of A Nation.
It seems that in the late 17th and early 18th centuries, the people of Britain were very concerned with crime. Many crimes were considered capital crimes, including theft. In 1693 a reward of 40 pounds was introduced to anyone who apprehended and successfully prosecuted highway robbers. Later this was extended to burglary. It was hoped that this reward would cut down on crime. One thing it did was create an entrepreneurial opportunity.
I have just posted an article called “Proverbs 31 – How ‘my son’ turned out after all” over on the FBFI blog, Proclaim & Defend. In it, I argue for the significance of the passage as the conclusion of the whole matter that is offered to us in the book of Proverbs. I think the passage neatly ties the whole book together and serves to demonstrate Solomon’s wisdom and skill in compiling all the material (even though one small portion was added later by the men of Hezekiah, though still the work of Solomon).
I bring it to your attention here because some of you might not be regular readers of P&D.
In a recent exchange elsewhere, I was taken to task over my use of the word ‘apostasy’ with reference to the change in emphasis in another Christian ministry.
This leads me to some thinking on the term. What is ‘apostasy’ anyway? What is ‘the apostasy’ (the specific usage that was challenged)? Is it legitimate to use the term in connection with Christian brothers? So a little Bible study ensues…
The latest audio from the GBCvic
Comments