In many things, I have learnt not to be too caustic towards other people. I often adopt this tone when I really dislike something–under the guise of sarcasm, I make very disparaging remarks, and the lines between where I’m being serious and joking blur. Unfortunately people get offended easily, especially when something as sacred as the modern pilgrimage to overseas countries, is questioned. It is certainly something that is important as being born again for many Christians today.
A lot time has to be spent at the beginning of any conversation exerting that I was generalising. I wasn’t talking about all missions trips, and I wasn’t judging any specific one. It was a general trend that I’ve been assessing and thinking about, not any specific trip I was thinking about.
An excerpt from a sermon delivered on August 17, 1856 by Charles Spurgeon at New Park Street Chapel, Southwark on the topic of “Pride and Humility”. I find paraphrasing a useful exercise for me, so I have done some editing, removing “thy” and “thou”s from the text, as well as some liberty in the substitution of archaic words and phrases. Nevertheless:
“In the first place, pride is a groundless thing. It stands on the sands; or worse than that, it puts its foot on the billows which yield beneath its tread; or worse still, it stands on bubbles, which soon must burst beneath its feet. Of all things pride has the worst foothold; it has no solid rock on earth on which to place itself. We have reasons for almost everything, but we have no reasons for pride. Read more of this post
The Apostle John argues in his letter to Christians, that to love is the mark of a Christian.
“Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love.” 1John 4v.7
In other words, essentially, the Spirit of God is a Spirit of love. The knowledge of God that is given to us when we are saved is essentially a knowledge of a loving God. All else would be in vain if we did not have the knowledge of the provision for sin through the love of a Saviour in us. Matthew Henry says that it is “love [that] oils the wheels of his affections”–and surely this is a sign of being born again: being compelled to love.
“In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through Him.” 1John 4v.8
John then proceeds to explain what the application of this love is: in the image of Jesus. Jesus was God’s only Son, the manifestation of everything–there was no other son that God had left. What Jesus accomplished on this earth was that we would live through Him. What is love, if we do not continually relate it to Jesus? What life is there of the Christian, if we are not continually comparing ourselves against what standard Jesus set for us?
Too often, I think it is too simple to compare ourselves to other people and see how ‘good’ we are compared to them. I can look at the Pat Robertsons and Rick Warrens of this world and think I am better than them, superior in the faith perhaps, and that could be no further from the truth. I am continually needing grace when I see myself and how Jesus needed to die on the cross for all of my sin.
“In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.” 1 John 4v.9-11 (English Standard Version)
In another reiteration from John to emphasize and expand his point, he describes specifically the work accomplished in the death and resurrection of Jesus. What John is describing is not a menial love, that cannot stretch far–but a love that goes till the death. That if we were to love with the love of God which has filled us, it should be a lot that sacrifices itself totally for one another.
The description that John gives a complexity beyond just loving those who deserve love, but those who do not deserve our love. The same applies to grace, that we not only are lavished with this unmerited favour, but we are so fallen beyond deserving or even seen as neutral before God. I like to think of it as a negative bank account balance, no bank would dare give us a loan. The reality is this: that we can only love, when we realise that we are loved undeservingly. We can only love if the love of God inhabits within us.
==
I was in church the other day, and there was a man who was struggling with addictions. He described how it would go in cycles, he would stop for a time and then when he thought he was victorious, it would come back with a vengeance. There was a certain doubt and defeatism that had entered this man’s heart, that he couldn’t believe in himself to fight this any longer. In an open conversation, my pastor gave two points:
1. The Holy Spirit in our hearts is the only thing that can truly change us. Him, entering our hearts will undoubtedly change us and conform us into what God would want us to be like. Freedom from alcoholism, freedom from drug abuse, and even greater–from sin and the eternal bondage to these depraved things.
2. I can guarantee you that everyone in this church would die for you. We all believe in the Holy Spirit’s power, and His love toward us–I think I am safe in saying that everyone here loves you so much that they would do anything for you.
It’s a monumental statement from my pastor to proclaim that anyone would die for him. He certainly knew his own worthlessness better than anyone else in the church, therefore, better than anyone else in the church should he know of what a love there is in the Church. Where there is a worthless feeling, surely this should be matched with love–that there is a value assigned to us in Christ. To be afraid of love, is to be afraid of God and who He essentially is. I am certainly reminded of what Saint Francis of Assisi said many years ago:
“Where there is hatred, let me sow love. Where there is injury, pardon. Where there is doubt, faith.”
I truly believe that to love others truly it demands everything of us, and this in turn, is a monumental task. I daily realise how far short I fail in this standard and where I don’t have enough faith, I doubt. What does love demand of you, and what ? Is your life different from before you knew Christ, are you loving more?
Okay, that’s a lie–a lot of Mass Effect 2. I am really enjoying it a lot, it really brings back the joy into playing video games where you play one which you connect with immediately. It’s just the right amount of fighting (not too much gore) and open-ended nature of the story line.
I’ve clocked in about 20 hours in the past 3 days or so, which is a lot considering that is probably the amount of video games I have played this whole year combined. The storyline is wonderful, being able to control every action of your player who is going around picking up soldiers to join his team. Going from planet to planet, there is an assembly of diverse creatures that you have to convince to join your team to fight a group that is threatening the existence of the universe as we know it.
One of these is Thane Krios–”a drell assassin, the most skilled in the galaxy. Unlike most assassins, who prefer to snipe their targets from a distance, Thane prefers to get up close and kill his target personally, utilizing a mixture of stealth, firearms, and hand-to-hand combat abilities. Despite his profession, Thane is a deeply spiritual man who prays for success in his missions, and asks for forgiveness after each kill, even going as far as to ignore those in his immediate vicinity until he is finished doing so.” (s)
The spirituality of Thane is what fascinates me. He is an assassin, yet he is deeply spiritual. Meeting him for the first time, he gives an interesting insight into what he does:
Shepard: Can we talk? I came a long way to talk to you.
Thane: One moment, prayers for the wicked must not be forsaken.
Shepard: She certainly was wicked.
Thane: Not for her. For me.
It is a wise saying that he muses–if we take the vengeance of God within our own hands, do we become the judges, not God? Who then, is the wicked one if we judge with partiality?
“The cross is the perfect statement both of God’s wrath against sin and of the depth of his love and mercy in the recovery of the damaged creation and its damagers. God’s mercy, patience, and love must be fully preached in the church. But they are not credible unless they are presented in tension with God’s infinite power, complete and sovereign control of the universe, holiness, and righteousness.
And where God’s righteousness is clearly presented, compassionate warnings of his holy anger against sin must be given, and warnings also of the certainty of divine judgment in endless alienation from God which will be unimaginably worse than the literal descriptions of hell. It is no wonder that the world and the church are not awakened when our leadership is either singing a lullaby concerning these matters or presenting them in a caricature which is so grotesque that it is unbelievable.
The tension between God’s holy righteousness and his compassionate mercy cannot be legitimately resolved by remolding his character into an image of pure benevolence as the church did in the nineteenth century. There is only one way that this contradiction can be removed: through the cross of Christ which reveals the severity of God’s anger against sin and the depth of his compassion in paying its penalty through the vicarious sacrifice of his Son.
In systems which resolve this tension by softening the character of God, Christ and his work become an addendum, and spiritual darkness becomes complete because the true God has been abandoned for the worship of a magnified image of human tolerance.” (1)
I think at every moment there is a tendency to rush towards one or the other. The cross is love poured out; the cross is wrath poured out. Binaries fight out in our mind, and we become ingrained on one side of the expanse. We have tried to create a dialogue between the two extremes, but it is impossible. And it is impossible except through what we have known. Then, we remember that Jesus’ sacrifice is sufficient for the sins of the whole world–great enough to cover the great expanse, and wash our doubts away.
Enough for my haughty heart, enough for my lifeless soul.
Great enough to cover my lack of love, and my lack of righteousness.
Is the cross meaningful if you remove the wrath of God away from it? Is the cross meaningful if you remove the love of God away from it?
(1) (Lovelace, Richard. Dynamics for Spiritual Life, 84-85) the irony is that both those buildings could readily be defined as modernist.
In the waters of gender roles, I am dipping my metaphorical blogging toes.
There is a passage in Genesis that is somewhat controversial in how it assigns the role of women as a helper. The context was God had just created the whole earth and the heavens, He created man, and he lived within the Garden of Eden. He had just finished telling the man that he should not eat from the tree in the centre of the Garden–“then the LORD God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.”” Genesis 2:18 (English Standard Version)
On the surface, perhaps it is a bit misogynistic—a justification to belittle females and make them lesser than men. In fact, I am sure this mindset has been played a million times by atheists in an attempt to ridicule Christianity as men being power-hungry and seeking to control lives. In many ways, there is some truth in this claim looking at Christianity of ages past–but the problem has been the interpretation, not the actual Bible.
What I find fascinating is that the word used for “helper” is the word, “`ezer” which means according to Strong’s Dictionary, “to surround, to protect or aid” The reference of the Bible translators when they say, help is in context with being all encompassing in their aid.
In Maori culture (the indigenous of New Zealand), in iwi meetings where the whole tribe would meet in the central marae or town hall–women were and still are forced to sit at the back row while men sit at the front of the tribe meetings. Yet, this is not out of male domineering, but out of respect, that women are more valued than men in this context.
Moreover, the function of a helper is a Holy function because God is a helper. The 54th Psalms was written by David when the Ziphites went and revealed his hiding place to Saul, saying that he was hiding in their land. David’s praise was to God:
“Behold, God is my helper; the Lord is the upholder of my life.” Psalms 54:4 (English Standard Version)
The word used for helper here is “`azar”, which is the variant on the root “`ezer”, and means exactly the same as before. So then, perhaps, if God is a helper then perhaps being a helper is not an undesirable aim in life? Therefore, the problem perhaps is not so much what is wrong with the functions of a bridegroom and bride—but what functions we have assigned to God. Perhaps, we have imposed an idea of what we expect God to be and creating a hierarchy of what His nature should be, instead of seeking to submit to what He is. Changing the God is often much easier and simpler than changing the natural closed nature of our hearts.
If I could posit the question: Is our idea of God a strong arm that swipes away all that defies Him, that we are struck with fear to obey Him? But also, do we believe a God that helps, that stoops down to help me, even the most stubborn of creatures?
One thing I am learning more and more, is that though there are many that find it difficult to stomach the vengenance of God in the Old Testament, but truly this one thing is sure: He truly did love Israel. Though, however many times He was disobeyed, he still loved Israel and continued to provide for them. There are perhaps two harsh opposites of the nature of God when we read the Old Testament, there is the holiness of God occurring, but there is also the loving hand of the Helper as well working in unison together in marriage together.
“The LORD is on my side as my helper; I shall look in triumph on those who hate me.” Psalms 118:7 (English Standard Version)
I promised to myself that I would not mention him anymore, but he does glorify God in his foolishness. In fact, it is impossible for him to not glorify God because all things– they are servant of God’s. It is impossible for us to not glorify God.“By your appointment they stand this day, for all things are your servants.” (Psalms 119v.91) We are all servants, whether we are turned towards God or away from him he continues to use us. I am beginning to realise how false the attitude is that thinks that if you do not believe in God, then, you are apart from God and away from his control, but you still are.
In light of this, I am reminded to think about how little I really am–how futile it is to disobey God, how little faith I have that I am not doing what God has chosen me to do. Jonah felt the same way, he ran away from God. And still, even in his disobedience, he glorified God.
He was called by God to go and preach to the inhabitants of Nineveh. “But Jonah rose to flee to Tarshish from the presence of the LORD. He went down to Joppa and found a ship going to Tarshish. So he paid the fare and went on board, to go with them to Tarshish, away from the presence of the LORD.” Jonah 1:3 (English Standard Version)
Even still while he was sleeping on the boat to run away from God, God brought a tempest.
He was glorifying God by sleeping.
His crew woke him up and they pleaded with him, to pray to his god. This was a ecumenical crew that resided on this boat–so much so that whoever would calm the storm, they were willing to listen to. Admittedly, because of the current situation at the present time, the storm was the focus of their attention, not any divine beings. All gathered on the top deck, they were all praying to their various gods filled with fear at this storm that threathened to capsize the boat at any moment.
Still God was glorified: he was sustaining the boat till Jonah came, and none of the other gods would listen.
Surely, Jonah was then tossed into the sea because it was apparent it was his disobedience that was causing the storm. After the casting of the lots, the blame fell on Jonah, and he was the one that was guilty of running away from the One True God. He was tossed into the sea, this was even after they had tried every way to get out of this predicament.
God was glorified, there was no other way but only one who was called by God to sacrifice his life for many. However disobedient he was in running away from God, He was not far from God who is in everything. On that ship, Jonah became sin for everyone on the ship in recognising his sin, and the necessity of putting His trust in God. Only when someone is born again can they seek to give their own life for many—even for these who worshipped their own gods—Jonah was the catalyst for repentance on that ship.
“So they picked up Jonah and hurled him into the sea, and the sea ceased from its raging.”Then the men feared the LORD exceedingly, and they offered a sacrifice to the LORD and made vows.” Jonah 1:15-16 (English Standard Version)
God was glorified, in the spreading of the Gospel on that boat. No other way could the realness of God have come onto these men without the immediacy of the material calming of the storm. They were convinced this was the one true God, and this man they had tossed into the sea, He was a servant of this Most High God. Only through the sacrifice of Jonah could they have had knowledge of the One True God who made the sea and dry land. The God who created the storm and the peace afterwards–He was the reason for the storm, and also the calming of the storm.
Surely, Harold Camping glorifies God in his eternal plan in showing the folly of man without Scripture. Moreover, God is glorified in the many ways I fall short, and the times that I forget to shine the Light. I pray daily that He would continue to grant me the Holy Spirit that I may be an instrument of his grace more effectively.
Francis Chan’s new book Erasing Hell will be coming out July 5th.
That isn’t important though, the more important thing is that this post is better than the JesusneedsnewPR blog. Teehee, I’ll delete that sentence later, but anyway–I can’t say I’m a fanatical fan of Francis Chan, I’m excited with what he says and what an influence he has on other people. Ask any youth group who their favourite preacher is and it most likely will be either Rob Bell or Francis Chan. I much prefer the latter by a long shot, and indeed, Francis Chan has, since the release of “Crazy Love”, exploded in popularity. I’m currently listening to Crazy Love through audiobook, and I’m about halfway through it and I can see why. There is a certain humility in his work, that is relevant and relatable to the audience to whom he is addressing. This is further amplified listening to him speak, he speaks with utmost conviction, which comes across, you’ll see in the video below. Reading that he has given all royalties from Crazy Love to a ministry to children trapped in sex trafficking — his ambition and convictions are ever clearer.
There is another side to Francis Chan that makes me uncomfortable though. I’ve read Forgotten God before–actually I’ve read it a couple of times because I was blessed by it a lot the first time. It undeniably has had a great influence on my Christian walk actually. Yet for all its importance and relevance, what is distressing to me so is how little was dedicated to the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. I’m not doubting he knows his material about the Holy Spirit, but he jumps quickly to the application of the Scripture without addressing the subject where he drew it from. Without creating that Scriptural foundation, his applications seem bare and according to his own agenda. Why yes, in case you were wondering, I do have complaints about every single author out there! Naw, I truly do like Francis Chan, he’s a great guy. I truly hope you get to the time to watch the video and purchase his new book though — you won’t regret it.
Nevertheless, I always look forward with anticipation to any new project of his. This one seems in a direct reaction to he-who-shall-not-be-mentioned. There is a simple honesty and down-to earth attitude that pervades everything that he says, and I admire that in him above all else that he does. Apparently in the youtube comments, his honesty and fervour is taken as over-acting and false, but I would argue otherwise. I see his willingness to engage and provoke thought in people is wonderful.
There is a moment in the video where he muses the relationship between God and men described by Paul as the relationship between a clay and a potter. He laments how he is a piece of clay, and it is expected of him to teach other pieces of clay about the Potter, and what he is like. At about 1 minutes in, his genuine nature comes through especially in this scene. I wonder what depth that statement truly means in our own lives–perhaps with greater humility we do need to approach things.
There was an interview I read where Francis Chan was asked about the emergent church, a potential hot potato that no one wants to own up to or reject often. This is what he said: “As a pastor I hear a lot of emergent leaders talk about what is wrong with the church. It comes across as someone who doesn’t love the church. I’m a pastor first and foremost, and I’m trying to offer a solution or a model of what church should look like. I’m going back to scripture and seeing what the church was in its simplest form and trying to recreate that in my own church. I’m not coming up with anything new. I’m calling people to go back to the way it was. I’m not bashing the church. I’m loving it.”
What do you think about Francis Chan, which books of his have you read? Would you be purchasing Erasing Hell? Does he have a lesser emphasis on doctrine and understanding, and greater emphasis on the application of bible verses? Do you see this in his writing, and how does it compare to other authors who have written on similar topics like “Don’t Waste Your Life” by John Piper or even, “The Irresistible Revolution” by Shane Claiborne?
Sometimes I want to whack parents as much as their children.
Not to excuse the human responsibility, each person has a responsibility to conduct themselves in such a manner, no matter what their upbringing. Saying you were born a homosexual, give justification to act on those impulses, just as all of us were born sinners from the mother’s womb. That being said, the platform of homosexuality being genetic is arguable as well. Nevertheless, the point is the nurture has a important function in how we turn out in this world. There are a multitude of people that I wish had the joys of God-fearing parents, or at least pair of parents that cared for them in their distress – and in the absence of this, their hearts are broken and in need of repair.
Growing up in a strict evangelical family with many constricting ideals – among other things, the only book she was allowed to read was the Bible, and listening to secular music was a no-no. Even the term, “Dirt Devil” referring to vacuum cleaners was banned in her household. To me, her parents sound like hypochondriacs, that she would catch the “devil” disease of some sort. I’m not arguing for a parenting that is totally ecumenical and open to all things, but I am arguing for a sound parenting ideal that doesn’t encroach on understanding.
“I didn’t have a childhood,”
Perry said in the interview. Now, she’s somewhat a far fling from that strictness, embracing all kinds of interesting things, to put it lightly. For one whose hit single is called, “I Kissed A Girl”, the apple has fallen very far from the tree indeed. In many ways, I see Katy Perry as a personification of many teens growing up in Christian homes today and losing their faith later when they see the world, giving the confused a voice. Growing up without doubts and challenges leads to lethargic Christianity, I found this the case for me personally. Without constant troubles and suffering, I would not be the same person I am today. I have said many times before that suffering removes the false faith we have in ourselves and brings out the faith in Christ. For this reason, it pains me when pushing people to youth group meetings is all the form of Christianity evident within a household. The hypocrisy begins to show. But don’t doubt my admiration for the dedication and faithfulness in bringing up children in the Lord, but the ambitions are somewhat misdirected.
In the book of Deuteronomy, the LORD speaking through Moses says:
“And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart.”You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise.” Deuteronomy 6:6-7 (English Standard Version)
Notice the order that the Scriptures go from primarily the Scriptures within the parents hearts first, then a holistic embodiment of the Word in life. I truly do not believe that Christianity is summed up by laws and rules, rather law and rules sum up what is good and true Christianity. God commanded the Israelites to write His Mosiac Law as “a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.” Deuteronomy 6:8-9 (English Standard Version)
Now those verses come straight after that God has said that His words shall be within their hearts, but God puts a physical manifestation to these words in place. But especially when God says that His words shall be a frontlet between the Israelite’s eyes, a headband of sorts – Moses, I believe, is referring more to the way we see the world tempered by God’s perspective and His victory. Perhaps, the Israelites took what God said about writing the Laws on their heads a bit too literally when they attached these boards onto their heads as a means to applying these words, they would only be useful to people looking at them. Similarly, law within context have only an exterior effect on our hearts to convince us that we are deserving of salvation, but only true love of the law would bring internal change because the Holy Spirit can awaken such liberty in our hearts.
So, that is what my humble word on parenting is – Christianity is not tabulated within a bunch of oppressive laws. That is what the Israelites did, and they faltered and petered off into legalism as evidenced by the Pharisees of Jesus’ time. Lasting conversion lives within the confines of understanding, that is, understanding what the law point to, give us a meaning to the law and we can joy in taking up our crosses following Christ. On the outside of the Perry household, I can understand why the parents would have instituted those rules in their household, but I don’t understand why Katy Perry called it strict, unless she did not understand.
In many ways, Christianity is not laws, it is Jesus. Laws are useless if they are not pointing to Jesus, and Jesus is useless if we do not follow his laws. It is a mutual relationship between religion and relationship, I don’t believe they are incompatible and none can exist without the other.
At the moment, I’m working through the book, “Why We’re Not Emergent” by Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck. To be honest, I’m only picking it up because David F. Wells wrote the foreword, and he’s a fantastic theologian, one of my favourites.
I’ve only finished the first chapter so far, so I have no particular opinion on the book so far. In the introduction though, there was something fascinating with how much of my form of Christianity is similar to the emergent Christianity described within the book. I admit I’m a bit of a hipster, but the correlations to emergent Christianity is interesting, almost when alternativeness is taken to an extreme and applied to theological epistemology.
DeYoung gives a long list of attributes which are somewhat generalised, but such measures are important when describing a diverse and somewhat undefined movement in Christianity. Then again, it is all the more dangerous because there is no single proponent of it, but a collective message of many pastors who are more subtle in their change. It is difficult to combat because there is no Le Corbusier, no Jean Paul Sartre, no Thomas Hardy, no one pushing ambitiously the movement forward.
Anyway, the following quote is a checklist of sorts that I seem to somewhat fulfil most, which is kind of disparaging to me, for all my efforts to be not one of this group:
“You might be an emergent Christian:
If you listen to U2, Moby, and Johnny Cash’s Hurt (sometimes in church), use sermon illustrations from the Sopranos, drink lattes in the afternoon and Guinness in the evenings, and always use a Mac; if your reading list consists of primarily of Stanley Hauerwas, Henri Nouwen, N. T. Wright, Stan Grenz, Dallas Willard, Breannan Manning, Jim Wallis, Frederick Buechner, david Bosch, John Howard Yoder, Wendell Berry, Nancy Murphy, John Franke, Walter Wink and Lesslie Newbigin (not to mention McLaren, Pagitt, Bell, etc.) and your sparring partners include D. A. Carson, John Calvin, Martyn Lloyd-Jones, and Wayne Grudem; if your idea of quintessential Christian discipleship is Mother Teresa, Martin Luther King Jr., Nelson Mandela, or Desmond Tutu; if you don’t like George W. Bush or institutions or big business or capitalism or Left Behind Christianity; if your political concerns are poverty, AIDS, imperialism, war-mongering, CEO salaries, consumerism, global warming, racism, and oppression and not so much abortion and gay marriage; if you are into bohemian, goth, rave, or indie; if you talk about the myth of redemptive violence and the myth of certainty; if you lie awake at night having nightmares about all the ways modernism has ruined your life; if you love the Bible as a beautiful, inspiring collection of works that lead us into the mystery of God but is not inerrant; if you search for truth but aren’t sure it can be found; if you’ve ever been to a church with prayer labyrinths, candles, Play-Doh, chalk-drawings, couches, or beanbags (your youth group doesn’t count); if you loathe words like linear, propositional, rational, machine, and hierarchy and use words like ancient-future, jazz, mosaic, matrix, missional, vintage, and dance; if you grew up in a very conservative Christian home that in retrospect seems legalistic naive and rigid; if you support women in all levels of ministry, prioritise urban over suburban, and like your theology narrative instead of systematic; if you disbelieve in any sacred-secular vide; if you want to be the church and not just go to church; if you long for a community that is relational, tribal, and primal like a river or a garden; if you believe doctrine gets in the way of an interactive relationship with Jesus; if you believe who goes to hell is no one’s business and no one may be there anyway; if you believe salvation has a little to do with atoning for guilt and a lot to do with bringing the whole creation back into shalom with its Maker; if you believe following Jesus is not believing the right things but living the right way; if it really bugs you when people talk about going to heaven instead of heaven coming to us; if you disdain monological, didactic preaching; if you use the word “story” in all your propositions about postmodernism – if all or most of this torturously long sentence describe you, then you might be an emergent Christian.”
How emergent are you? Does it worry you that your favourite blogger is seesawing on the fringes of emergent churchery?
In many things, I have learnt not to be too caustic towards other people. I often adopt this tone when I really dislike something–under the guise of sarcasm, I make very disparaging remarks, and the lines between where I’m being serious and joking blur. Unfortunately people get offended easily, especially when something as sacred as the modern pilgrimage to overseas countries, is questioned. It is certainly something that is important as being born again for many Christians today.
An excerpt from a sermon delivered on August 17, 1856 by 
The Apostle John argues in his letter to Christians, that to love is the mark of a Christian.
I’ve been playing a bit of Mass Effect 2.
“The cross is the perfect statement both of God’s wrath against sin and of the depth of his love and mercy in the recovery of the damaged creation and its damagers. God’s mercy, patience, and love must be fully preached in the church. But they are not credible unless they are presented in tension with God’s infinite power, complete and sovereign control of the universe, holiness, and righteousness. 
In the waters of gender roles, I am dipping my metaphorical blogging toes.
Harold Camping glorifies God.
Sometimes I want to whack parents as much as their children.
At the moment, I’m working through the book, 
