tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-60975814295952334392024-03-13T04:35:00.297+03:00More Than WordsThe personal weblog of David AndersonDavid Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13177521181432533108noreply@blogger.comBlogger1202125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6097581429595233439.post-49854910540005432802024-02-24T16:36:00.004+03:002024-02-24T16:36:26.619+03:00Have you ever put anything at risk for the Lord?<p><i>1 Corinthians 15:30 And why do we stand in jeopardy every hour? 31 I affirm, by the boasting in you which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily.</i></p><p>In context, Paul explains that his ministry made sense, and only made sense, in the light of the fact of the resurrection of believers. Jesus Christ is already risen, and believers will also rise - and this is why they live as they do in the present age, offering their lives up for Jesus Christ. This is the rational way to live, because they cannot everything - even if they die, they shall be raised up again. Jesus is risen, and we shall rise too. Hence, risk makes sense - because ultimately, the victory is already won. It makes no sense for believers to jealously guard their comfort, their security, their peace, because these things are not in ultimate jeopardy: the resurrection means that these things cannot be lost in the end. And actually it makes no sense to try to cling on to them as the highest good, because they can't be kept. We shall lose this earthly body, so that we shall rise again in a glorious resurrection body.</p><p>I do wonder that if Paul were writing back to churches in the year 2024, if some of them wouldn't respond to him and suggest that he needed a break. "Paul, we're very concerned about you, and the extreme things that you are writing. In jeopardy every hour? This lies far outside the parameters established by our care committee and operational guidelines. You are taking yourself too seriously. Relax. Don't you believe in God's sovereignty? God doesn't need you to do this. We suggest you take a long period of leave for your mental health, and to reflect upon best practices." That is the atmosphere that we are immersed in in the modern West; these are the ideas that spontaneously come to us if we have lived there long enough. But Paul didn't believe in those ideas. He believed in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and his own future resurrection because of it. Do you?<br /></p><div class="blogger-post-footer">--
More Than Words: http://mothwo.blogspot.com</div>David Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13177521181432533108noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6097581429595233439.post-44451869489321438292024-02-22T14:59:00.000+03:002024-02-22T14:59:11.016+03:00Meekness and Majesty<p> I've been singing the beautiful hymn "Meekness and Majesty" since I was a small boy, but only in the last few weeks came across its inspiration.</p><p><i>"He is thy Lord, worship thou him... He is meek, but it is the kind of meekness that likewise takes nothing away from his majesty. The meekness and majesty of Jesus. I wish I could write a hymn about that or compose music about it. Where else can you find meekness and majesty united? The meekness was his humanity. The majesty was his deity. You find them everlastingly united in him. .... the majesty of the man who was God."</i> - "Worship every day of the week", A W Tozer.</p>
<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/oDGF3c8tsko?si=n2cvRrcXN81mSkkY" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe><div class="blogger-post-footer">--
More Than Words: http://mothwo.blogspot.com</div>David Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13177521181432533108noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6097581429595233439.post-55635377355246045382024-01-25T19:34:00.005+03:002024-02-22T15:01:29.916+03:00Are painless and comfortable deaths possible?<p> I can't help noticing that in the media, two separate but linked debates go on in parallel:</p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><b>Capital punishment</b>: the trend of opinion in our Western culture is that this is always inhumane, and that no effective means exist for putting someone to death that are not degrading and unconscionably painful.</li><li><b>Euthanasia</b>: here, we are told that a painless and dignified death is medically and scientifically possible for everyone, and that the only reason why euthanasia isn't generally available is because of cruel and arbitrary legal hurdles, which should be removed.</li></ul><p>I'm not, here, going to rehearse the arguments in favour of either one or the other (though, for the record, I believe that capital punishment can be justified and is the proper judicial response to certain crimes such as murder or rape; and that euthanasia defined as the deliberate application of procedures or substances (as distinguished from the contrary declining to apply them) to cause death is morally wrong).</p><p>Rather, I'd just like to point out what you've probably already spotted: the things said about the possibility of a painless and dignified death in the case of the two debates are mutually contradictory. If such a death is possible in the case of euthanasia, then it is also possible in the case of capital punishment. Conversely, if such a death is impossible in the case of judicial punishment, then it is also impossible in the case of someone's elective decision to end their own life. Or in other words, in at least one of these two debates on this particular point, the proponents of the arguments for the popular position (against capital punishment, for euthanasia), are lying. They say that a thing is both impossible in one case, and possible in the other, in a direct formal contradiction. A painless and dignified death is either available or non-existent depending on what is being argued for and nothing else. This is deception. People making either argument should have this contradiction pointed out to them, and be challenged as to which of the two they believe to be true: pick one side and then accept the implications, not both or neither depending upon your goal.</p><p>Note that here I'm not claiming that you have to either favour both capital punishment and euthanasia, or vice-versa be against both. Either, neither or both could be argued for despite conceding that death either can or cannot be dignified and painless. My point is that if the argument is being made based upon this supposed possibility or impossibility, then the argument has to be consistent; and currently, the arguments are being made based upon the possibility or impossibility of dignity as a central plank of the argument.<br /></p><p>The question in general of whether death can or should be made dignified or not, and to what extent (and whether the answer to that depends upon whether the death is a penal infliction or not), is worth exploring. So are the ideas of personal choice and freedom and control in Western culture and how they relate to death. But that will all have to wait for another day.<br /></p><div class="blogger-post-footer">--
More Than Words: http://mothwo.blogspot.com</div>David Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13177521181432533108noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6097581429595233439.post-2451264587173960202024-01-06T18:33:00.004+03:002024-01-06T18:39:52.143+03:00Time for self-evaluation over Covid?<p>A little under 4 years ago, across the UK, churches closed their doors and ceased to meet for corporate worship, meekly accepting the UK government's announcement that the worship of Almighty God, unlike in-person food shopping or physical exercise, was a non-essential activity. Church services could, it appeared, be conducted over Zoom or Youtube - whereas everyone was allowed to exercise their own discretion over whether to buy their groceries online or in person.</p><p>Whatever you think of this, I hope that we might agree that what should have happened <i>afterwards</i> is that churches carried out an analysis and evaluation of their decisions and responses. When new announcements were being sprung by governments with rapid fire, it could be difficult to step back and think through the principles (though you might also say that there was plenty of time during the lockdowns, and in between the lockdowns, to catch up). But supposing that it was for some reason not possible to do at the time, there's now been a few years since. What are the principles, and how should they be put into practice?</p><p>I don't hear of churches or other organisations in the UK doing this. Why not? Do we have principles? What are they and how do they relate and get applied in the difficult cases? Was this event - the making of corporate worship to be illegal - big enough to matter enough that we need to think this through? I like to think that evangelicals have principles, and that they think it's important to think through how to apply them in events of this size. It's been nearly 4 years now... please can we hear something soon?<br /></p><div class="blogger-post-footer">--
More Than Words: http://mothwo.blogspot.com</div>David Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13177521181432533108noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6097581429595233439.post-76767166222952232602024-01-01T17:06:00.004+03:002024-01-01T17:08:53.610+03:00The year of our Lord, 2024<p>This year, the Father, Son and Spirit invite us to grow nearer to them. We are invited to have communion with the blessed and Eternal Trinity in prayer and personal worship, in meditating upon the Word, and in the corporate worship and fellowship of God's people.</p><p>The year will bring lots of duties of different kinds, according to the station that God has appointed us to in life. There will be a mixture of blessings, challenges, griefs, sorrows and joys, according to his good and perfect and loving will. But whatever else comes to pass, we are assured that there is nothing which need leave us further away from our God and Saviour. If anything does, then that is through our response to it, not through any lack of willingness or resources on God's side to draw us nearer.<br /></p><p>It is always helpful at times of pause and reflection in the year to remember that <b>a lot more is possible than we have yet experienced</b>. The Bible teaches this clearly and repeatedly. "If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him!” - Luke 11:13. "Yet you do not have because you do not ask. You ask and do not receive, because you ask amiss, that you may spend it on your pleasures" - James 4:2-3. "But you, when you pray, go into your room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in the secret place; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you openly" - Matthew 6:6. Christian history and experience teach us too. Currently I am reading "Island Aflame", perhaps the most historically rigorous account that we now have of the 1949-52 Lewis revival (<a href="https://www.christianfocus.com/products/3130/island-aflame">https://www.christianfocus.com/products/3130/island-aflame</a>). There are many people who have known and experienced more of God than we have, and every last one of them was a son or daughter of Adam with the same sinful propensities, and the same glorious Saviour and God of grace, as we have. At a time around 18 years ago I had the privilege of knowing a believer in our own locality who was in Lewis at the time of the revival, and it was such a thrill to hear from him about it and pray with him. <b>The God of the Bible, and the God of all the advances of the Christian church in the past, is alive today.</b> He invites us to know him and walk with him. There is a cost in doing so. But it is nothing compared to the price paid if we waste our lives doing something else.</p><p>May 2024 be a year in which God visits our souls, our churches, our prayer meetings, our missions, our families and our nations, to put us down in the dust and to lift up his own glorious name, through our Lord Jesus Christ, Amen.<br /></p><div class="blogger-post-footer">--
More Than Words: http://mothwo.blogspot.com</div>David Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13177521181432533108noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6097581429595233439.post-27434522341633532072023-11-29T17:32:00.001+03:002023-11-29T17:32:35.328+03:00Beloved<p>1 Timothy 6:2 - <i>"And those who have believing masters, let them not despise them because they are brethren, but rather serve them because those who are benefited are believers and beloved. Teach and exhort these things."</i></p><p>It's often useful to notice not only what is said as the main/direct point in a verse, but also what is assumed.</p><p>The above verse is an instruction from Paul to Timothy about what should be taught to believing slaves about how to relate to their masters - in this verse, particularly, believing masters.</p><p>"[T]hose who are benefited are believers and beloved."</p><p>Because, it is implied, all believers are beloved. If you are a believer, and you meet a fellow believer, or work alongside them, or under them, or whatever, then this is your attitude to them: they are beloved, for Jesus' sake. The Beloved One counts them as beloved, and so, of course, do all of his brethren.<br /></p><div class="blogger-post-footer">--
More Than Words: http://mothwo.blogspot.com</div>David Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13177521181432533108noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6097581429595233439.post-81964989155013215112023-11-28T18:43:00.002+03:002023-11-28T18:43:49.791+03:00The Christmas inn-keeper is a fictional character<p>The few words about his birth in the Bible indicate that the Son of God was born in a poor family home, not in a community stable for travellers which a fictional inn-keeper sent them to. </p><p>It's much better to teach children to study the Bible carefully, than to leave them believing a sentimental version that they later find out has the flimsiest basis in the actual text (really, a misunderstanding built upon a single word): <a href="https://www.psephizo.com/biblical-studies/jesus-was-not-born-in-a-stable-and-it-really-matters/">https://www.psephizo.com/biblical-studies/jesus-was-not-born-in-a-stable-and-it-really-matters/</a><br /></p><div class="blogger-post-footer">--
More Than Words: http://mothwo.blogspot.com</div>David Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13177521181432533108noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6097581429595233439.post-62326899009785734512023-11-14T13:55:00.008+03:002023-11-14T14:03:35.218+03:00The sometime fantasy land of paedobaptist apologetics<p>Baptists who are Baptists by conviction (i.e. not simply by default, but who have taken the time to seek to understand and analyse paedobaptist arguments), will be aware that a good number of paedobaptist arguments effectively exist in their separate universe. They convincingly refute arguments that either nobody made, or if they did, they are a representative not of a serious or representative attempt to argue that baptism is intended for those who profess faith, but of some off-the-cuff comment that nobody would mistake for a serious argument, of the kind dealt with when seeking to get the best version of an argument. </p><p>Of this sort are arguments like "Baptists are Baptists because they are hyper-individualists who see the kingdom of heaven as following the American dream, but we paedobaptists believe in the community of God's people", or "Baptists believe that the Old Testament is a failed plan, but paedobaptists believe in the continuity of God's plans and people throughout the ages" or "Baptists think the church began with revivalist preachers preaching in tents in the 19th century", and such like over-simplifications. Well, fine, if someone does believe that, then do refute it, but please can you do so without the "Baptists believe" prefix?<br /></p><p>Of this ilk is Douglas Wilson's recent blog post, <a href="https://dougwils.com/the-church/the-grace-of-all-forgiveness.html">"The Grace of All Forgiveness"</a>.</p><p>It opens: "Some have argued that baptism should be withheld from infants and children because they think it a sign, not of inclusion in Christ, but rather as a sign of ordination—as a sign of taking on the mantle of service for Christ."</p><p>Really? Who argued that, and where? Baptism is not a sign of inclusion in Christ, but solely of being appointed to serve him? And this is a viewpoint found significantly amongst Baptists?</p><p>Again, perhaps "some" have indeed argued this. But the suggestion to people that this is a representative or common viewpoint, or that recognising that "Baptist is a sign of inclusion in Christ" is a belief that leads one towards paedobaptism, is absurd.<br /></p><p></p><p>I invite my paedobaptist friends to leave the fantasy land of what they too often tell themselves round in circles concerning the strange things Baptists believe, and to read some serious works of Baptist apologetics instead. Then we can mutually discuss our beliefs, and endeavour together to understand which more accurately represents the mind of the Lord.<br /></p><div class="blogger-post-footer">--
More Than Words: http://mothwo.blogspot.com</div>David Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13177521181432533108noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6097581429595233439.post-61887749241079804292023-09-18T14:50:00.006+03:002023-09-18T14:55:17.400+03:00The biblical duty of exiting a denomination that tolerates false teachers<p>In my previous post, <a href="http://mothwo.blogspot.com/2023/09/avoiding-false-teachers.html">"Avoiding false teachers"</a>, I noted that the Bible does not simply instruct us to avoid <b>false teaching</b>, but to avoid <b>false teachers</b>.</p><p>And this inevitably implies the further duty to exit compromised churches, partnerships and associations. i.e. To depart from denominations or groupings of churches which do not discipline and ultimately excommunicate false teachers. False teachers will arise, but the question is what happens to them when a disciplinary case is lodged.<br /></p><p>Believing brethren in, to pick an obvious example, the Church of England, generally seek to avoid <b>false teaching</b> via not teaching it themselves, and teaching against it, and telling them hearers not to go and listen to false teachers. (I've never actually heard of a brother who even tried to lodge a disciplinary case against any of them).<br /></p><p>However, the Church of England in general tolerates and propagates false teaching. In a Biblical organisation, this could be dealt with via disciplinary cases against the false teachers - for example, those who deny that Christ's sacrifice on the cross was both penal (a punishment for sins) and substitutionary (a punishment endured in the place of others), those who deny that sin will ultimately be punished through eternal punishment in hell, or those who deny that the Scriptures in their entirety are God's inspired word, without error.</p><p>Once an organisation no longer disciplines false teachers, by ejecting them, the only way that remains to obey God by separating oneself from false teachers, is by oneself voluntarily departing.</p><div class="blogger-post-footer">--
More Than Words: http://mothwo.blogspot.com</div>David Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13177521181432533108noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6097581429595233439.post-22644297172031030752023-09-13T14:07:00.006+03:002023-09-13T14:10:31.362+03:00Avoiding false teachers<p> "But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies" - 2 Peter 2:1</p><p>Whilst looking at a related verse, I can't help but notice that whilst the Bible consistently warns believers to identify and avoid <b>false teachers</b>, the emphasis in modern times in the evangelical church (where indeed there is any such emphasis) is on identifying and avoiding <b>false teaching</b>. </p><p>I think we are indulging the proud conceit that we're kinder to people in general and to Christ's sheep in particular than God is. Let's resolve to repent of this, and follow the ways of the Good Shepherd (who, when on earth, clearly practised the Biblical pattern rather than ours) instead.<br /></p><div class="blogger-post-footer">--
More Than Words: http://mothwo.blogspot.com</div>David Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13177521181432533108noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6097581429595233439.post-27820541514857463932023-02-26T01:13:00.004+03:002023-02-26T01:14:38.955+03:00The highest favour that heaven confers<p>"A minister when he comes to die, feels that the highest favour which heaven has conferred on him has been in turning his feet away from the paths of ambition, and the pursuits of ease or gain, and leading him to that holy work to which he has been enabled to consecrate his life." - Barnes' commentary on 1 Timothy 1:12<br /></p><div class="blogger-post-footer">--
More Than Words: http://mothwo.blogspot.com</div>David Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13177521181432533108noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6097581429595233439.post-2484293568251521852023-01-01T02:00:00.004+03:002023-01-01T02:00:33.587+03:00The Year of Our Lord, 2023<p>At the end of the year it's natural to look back, take stock, reflect on what has been done, and what has not been done. Indeed, this is one of the reasons why, as we understand as we read in Genesis 1, God divided our lives with years, seasons, months, weeks. They break up our lives, help us to give meaning to and perceive patterns in different phases, and have time to relate it back to our Creator's purposes for us.</p><p>But when we do that, we must not stop with only the reflection upon what we have done, and what we have not done. Because that will always be inadequate. At best we will only be able to say "we are unworthy servants; we did no more than it was our duty to do". From there we must proceed to rest in what Jesus has done for us. Our years will have had many inadequacies. But the righteousness of Christ in which we stand clothed in the presence of God, has no lack, no defects - it is perfect and entire. The offering he made for our sins, and the life that he lived to the glory of God - in these we can rest. We can say "it is enough, and much more". We can lay our heads down at the end of another year and say "Jesus is sufficient to lead me out of this year, and into the next, and as many as there shall be, until I see his face."</p><p>The Year of Our Lord 2023 dawns. May the glorious name of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit be glorified throughout yet more of the earth. Amen.<br /></p><div class="blogger-post-footer">--
More Than Words: http://mothwo.blogspot.com</div>David Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13177521181432533108noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6097581429595233439.post-83615663026536219662022-12-25T02:08:00.001+03:002022-12-25T02:08:16.928+03:00O Holy Night<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ITIaYoWCPkE" width="320" youtube-src-id="ITIaYoWCPkE"></iframe></div><br /><p></p><div class="blogger-post-footer">--
More Than Words: http://mothwo.blogspot.com</div>David Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13177521181432533108noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6097581429595233439.post-63962372313675588292022-12-16T15:15:00.006+03:002022-12-16T15:15:49.371+03:00Lead us not into temptation<p>“Pray that you may not enter into temptation.” - Luke 22:40.<br /></p><p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
From this we can infer that the person who thinks lightly of entering into temptation, is a
person who thinks lightly of sinning. If we are commanded by Jesus to pray against entering into temptation, then can we then lightly enter into temptation?<br /></p>
<p><style type="text/css">p { margin-bottom: 0.21cm; background: transparent }</style></p><div class="blogger-post-footer">--
More Than Words: http://mothwo.blogspot.com</div>David Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13177521181432533108noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6097581429595233439.post-10838160503050336272022-09-20T17:35:00.001+03:002022-09-20T17:35:16.158+03:00Sauron is alive and well, and writing Guardian editorials<p><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/sep/19/the-guardian-view-on-the-queens-funeral-stirring-emotions-that-transcend-logic">https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/sep/19/the-guardian-view-on-the-queens-funeral-stirring-emotions-that-transcend-logic</a></p><p>One of the great insights of Tolkien in the "Lord of the Rings" triology is that those who are corrupted by their thirst for power and desire to re-make the world in their own image cannot understand the motives and actions of those who aren't. They misunderstand and misinterpret what's going on, because it is beyond their self-limited way of interacting with the world. They can't foresee the way that others who aren't similarly corrupted will act, and are baffled when they do things that would never enter their own minds.<br /></p><p>On which note, the above link is to the Guardian's editorial on the funeral of Queen Elizabeth II. Sauron is apparently alive and well, and drawing his salary these days from that particular periodical.<br /></p><div class="blogger-post-footer">--
More Than Words: http://mothwo.blogspot.com</div>David Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13177521181432533108noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6097581429595233439.post-16139345219644893052022-03-07T17:30:00.003+03:002022-03-07T17:31:54.134+03:00Don't "invest" in Bitcoin<p>Luke Plant does a great job of explaining why nobody, and Christians in particular, should be investing in so-called crypto-currencies such as Bitcoin, which are neither genuinely net-beneficial inventions nor genuine investments, but in practice simply marketing hot-air schemes to profit the early "investors" (i.e. people at the top of the pyramid) at the expense of the later ones (i.e. the suckers at the bottom), with various other intrinsic costs externalised to other people:<br /></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><a href="https://lukeplant.me.uk/blog/posts/the-christian-case-against-bitcoin-and-blockchain/">The Christian case against Bitcoin and blockchain</a></li><li><a href="https://lukeplant.me.uk/blog/posts/the-technological-case-against-bitcoin-and-blockchain/">The technological case against Bitcoin and blockchain</a></li></ul><p>It's too common when something new arises for one set of people to reflexively say "it's bad" without examining it, another set to uncritically say "it's good" because they see opportunity to profit, and another group to then arbitrarily declare the supposedly nuanced wisdom of "we must distinguish the good from the bad, it is a mix". Sometimes, an invention is actually bad (without it being relevant as to whether that badness was intentional or not), and the nuanced position is the one which gives you the explanation of why it's bad. Luke has done a good job of that in the above articles.<br /></p><div class="blogger-post-footer">--
More Than Words: http://mothwo.blogspot.com</div>David Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13177521181432533108noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6097581429595233439.post-67077908419896247842022-01-01T01:47:00.007+03:002022-01-01T01:48:49.037+03:00The year of our Lord 2022<p>A happy new year to you. May our ambition in 2022 be to "grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory both now and forever" (2 Peter 3:18).</p><p>What will 2022 bring? God knows - and God does know. And he knows that it will be good for his people, to accomplish his goal of conforming them to the image of his Son. </p><p>"Those who have ears, let them hear," is ever his word to us. He speaks, and he tells us to take up the cross and to follow him; to rejoice in difficulties because they teach us patience and ultimately to find joy in his eternal love to us; to understand that this world is full of vanity, but that he has prepared an eternal kingdom for those who love him, through the death and resurrection and ascension of he for whom all things are, Jesus Christ. We keep filtering this message through our own false ideas that we are owed a life which is reasonably comfortable, that suffering should have a limit which is reached quite soon and then must pass away, that any sort of radical measures in serving Christ would be over the top and aren't really called for, and that it is quite reasonable to indulge our sinful natures to some extent day by day. </p><p>One thing that a new start - day, month, year, etc. - gives to us is the reminder that his mercies are always new. Despite all that folly and slowness, yet he still seeks patiently again to teach us the lesson: take up the cross and follow Jesus, through the cross, to the grave, to the eternal glory. Die to self, and you will live with him. That's the only route, and that is the route, and if we keep plodding, we will get there, through his mercy.<br /></p><div class="blogger-post-footer">--
More Than Words: http://mothwo.blogspot.com</div>David Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13177521181432533108noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6097581429595233439.post-33347999046065493612021-11-02T20:09:00.014+03:002021-11-02T20:26:25.858+03:00When secularists feel their hegemony is threatened - does it bother us that this doesn't happen very often?<p><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/02/christ-church-idaho-theocracy-us-america">https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/02/christ-church-idaho-theocracy-us-america</a></p><p>This attempt at investigative journalism is alternately so bad and so sad that you won't know whether to laugh or cry.</p><p>A secular journalist encounters a church whose members don't believe they're meant to accept secularism as the goal and glory of human history. And, it frightens him. Really frightens him. The article is written in the tone of someone peeping out from under the blankets and hyper-ventilating, not often very coherently.<br /></p><p>But whether it really should frighten us or not, the reader will never learn. Because, all we get in the article is a few sentences of vague and unclarified insinuation on one topic, before the journalist then moves onto the next topic and a new set of ambiguous insinuations, for paragraph after paragraph.<br /></p><p>This, of course,is quite a common style today. After all, if 100 insinuations are made, then you only need 1% accuracy for there to be a problem, right? If we can blow enough smoke, then there must be fire, and it must have been someone else who started it (pay no attention to that matchbox in my other hand, focus on the thing I'm pointing to please!).<br /></p><p>My point in making this post is not to defend Christ Church, Idaho, or any of its leaders. Because to make a defence of something, you have to have heard a case made against it. Biblically, that means something that is in a real sense analogous to, if not being, the "two or three witnesses" concept of Scripture. But vaguely suggesting that there is something weird or odd if a church member has a successful business, or if church elders are also involved in setting up other institutions that reflect their beliefs, or if people who work together in church also work together in other settings, or if a significant number of people in the town are Christians, or if other Christians admire it and some of them move there, etcetera, etcetera, or if Christians believe that the world was created in six days (that's <b>six</b> days, my friend, not <b>seven</b>, this is not a hard point to grasp, this is where the label "six-day creationist" comes from, and if ever you feel in danger of getting confused, you can refresh yourself by reading page 1 of the Bible, or just get to number 4 of the ten commandments, which a good number of journalists at least used to have heard of....), and people quoted who insinuate other vague things on the condition that they're not named (imagine how brave you have to be to say things like "the church already had a disproportionate presence in the downtown area" under condition of anonymity!), throwing together ill-defined terms and then moving on before asking any questions or any level of nuance - these are not "charges" or "allegations" in any normal sense. Youtube removed one of his videos recently - surely that settles it? It's just the scatter-gun/mud-throwing attempt to start a fire and then insist that the person you're pointing at must have been involved somehow.<br /></p><p>As I say, making a counter-argument is not my point. I draw attention to this piece for another reason entirely. It's much more interesting to look at "in between the lines". What does it pre-suppose, what does it assume, what is the world-view of the person writing it?</p><p>Clearly, the writer is terrified of the idea that somewhere out there, there are people who are not doctrinaire secularists - or at least, not people who are secularists fully in practice, no matter what they are in theory. (Though as it is common to observe, it's odd that these sorts of articles are much rarer to find written about other religions. "Muslims believe that Islam is good and should be put into practice" somehow doesn't seem to be the sort of article they're interested in - but "Christians believe in Christianity and want to live it out beyond their own front doors" does get written and published in all seriousness as something concerning). The idea that anyone except secular government should establish or run institutions is one that he finds bizarre and horrifying, and worthy of an "investigation". Now, that doesn't tell me much about churches in Idaho. It does tell me quite a bit about the journalist, the Guardian, and what he assumes its readers find normal or weird- i.e. the sort of theological world that <i>they</i> inhabit. "Basic tenets of US life such as legal abortion," says the author. Right. Every small town American grew up enjoying mum's apple pie, baseball, and cutting the unborn up into small pieces. If anyone else says otherwise, they're probably a Christian Taliban! "Tells" of this kind are revealing far more about him than about his intended targets.<br /></p><p>But it also says something about evangelical churches in the UK, doesn't it? I mean, why did he have to go so far in order to write such an article?</p><p>It's surely not Douglas Wilson's in-my-view unhelpful habit of detailing his every last opinion about all the minutae of governmental response to Covid (though, let us note that John MacArthur turned out to be right in his stance according to the law in his state, and the state paid his church damages...) that has aroused the reporter's ire. It's the fact that his church simply doesn't believe that Christianity is a 10.30-12.00 Sunday-only affair. <b>This fact is apparently thought worthy of a detailed shock-and-awe-tone investigation, even though the reporter hasn't managed to find anything that his leading article shows he felt any personal confidence in making stick</b> (and so he went for the scatter-gun "let me raise three dozen different issues and give each three lines' consideration each" approach instead). Yes, I think Pastor Wilson, especially for those of us more used to the culture of South-East England, can be an easier target for a Guardian journalist to attempt this with. People in that part of the world certainly do the American Gung-Ho style which grates with us Brits a lot more. But observing that people from Idaho aren't like us (surely superior, what ho!) Brits is far too easy an observation to make and then stick with, isn't it? Because as I say, the article says something about us. The chances of the Guardian writing a "we're shocked, Christians actually think that Christianity should influence society, that God is God over the world, that Jesus has authority on earth as well as in heaven, and that this makes a difference to how one should educate children, organise society, etc." article about us are very low, aren't they? How would you rate them?</p><p>Rather than thinking, as the Internet often pushes us to "what is my opinion about this or that church, thousands of miles away, in a place I've never been to, based upon lines I've read here or there at second or third hand?", shouldn't we be thinking "doesn't it sound a bit like, whatever else there is, there's something they must be doing right, which we're doing wrong?" The Bible doesn't have a verse "isn't it marvellous when the world doesn't hate you, even though it insists on point after point that good is evil and evil is good, and in theory you disagree with them". It has one that says "do not marvel that the world hates you". As I perceive it, the world, in general, hates UK evangelical churches in the abstract, only. In the specifics, it doesn't really mind us very much and leaves us alone, because we don't give the secular hegemonists any actual trouble. We leave their hegemony alone, and they leave us alone - how lovely! They survey the lie of the land, and basically, it's theirs, and their peace is largely undisturbed. So whilst there are the secular fanatics who can't live with the fact that somewhere out there there are pesky Christians who privately disagree with them, by and large, all's not too bad for them. But if journalist Jason Wilson finds that, somewhere thousands of miles away, there's a church that thinks that Christianity is actually meant to make a difference to things like children's education - then this is quite different, and he's so breathless that you wonder if you ought to start looking around for breathing equipment before he turns an even deeper shade of blue.</p><p>So, what we should take away from this article isn't "hey, I'm glad I'm a polite Englishman, and would never be so vulgar as to turn up in this sort of article." It's "why aren't the secular fundamentalists who write this sort of article in the Guardian remotely bothered about the things we're up to? Why did they have to look so far to find people whom doctrinaire secularists find troubling?" That really should worry us.<br /></p><div class="blogger-post-footer">--
More Than Words: http://mothwo.blogspot.com</div>David Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13177521181432533108noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6097581429595233439.post-30642034078117565462021-09-11T18:39:00.000+03:002021-09-11T18:39:14.152+03:00Nothing more than survival adaptations?<p>Some Internet atheists are found of Carl Sagan's dictum, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", which they then apply within a framework in which atheism is accepted as a default belief, and anything which is not atheism is <i>a priori</i> deemed to be extraordinary.</p><p>There are many problems with this approach. Who got to decide that an ultimately uncaused universe was deemed a default, and a caused universe was extraordinary? Arguably, the idea that anything at all can result from nothing is extraordinary. It's also a naked assertion that there needs to be a "default" at all. Again arguably, a claim should be accepted on the basis of the strength of the evidence for its truthfulness, independently of any (likely value-laden) prior assessment of how extraordinary it is or isn't supposed to be.</p><p>But in any case, let's run with the idea. According to the atheist, with his belief in the evolutionary myth, all human faculties - <b>all</b> human faculties (please think about that for a moment) - are explainable as beneficial survival adaptations. Or stated the other way round, there are precisely <b>zero</b> human faculties or abilities which are anything other than an adaptation to allow individual humans to be more successful, not just at any activity in general, but at breeding in particular, and breeding only.</p><p>That's quite an extraordinary claim, isn't it?<br /></p><div class="blogger-post-footer">--
More Than Words: http://mothwo.blogspot.com</div>David Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13177521181432533108noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6097581429595233439.post-23401340682057578012021-08-30T19:36:00.004+03:002021-08-30T19:36:53.100+03:00How's that Christ-less "nation building" thing going for y'all?<p>Let's talk about Afghanistan, and the West's "nation building" program that's been carried out there for the last two decades there since the West established control over the territory. How's it going?<br /></p><p>All the wisdom, technology, finances, material resources, etc., of the contemporary Western world. Enough military might to enforce their will, enough financial resources (a few trillion dollars invested) to do whatever they like, and 20 years to do it in. The task: to carry out the West's view of "nation building".</p><p>That view is essentially that, given those time, money, resources and technical expertise, a country can be turned into a peaceful modern democracy. Whatever issues of culture, whatever other issues exist - we have the power and the intelligence to build a working nation!</p><p>So, how's that turning out? We all know, as indeed many have known (and been saying) for years (think of Rory Stewart MP - I believe for at least a decade since he stopped being the governor of a province, he's been proclaiming that we have really not the slightest idea what we've been doing there, or how to go about it).<br /></p><p>Is it a surprise? Not to anyone with a Bible. Not to anyone who reads what's written there.<br /></p><p>The West has still-mostly functioning societies (for how much longer?) not because of its resources of expertise, but because of the grace of God working through a sufficiently Christian understanding of the cosmos - mediated through respect for the Bible as the word of God, to be the ultimate basis for life and society in general - and enough will to actually see that implemented; and implemented in a Biblical way (which means that the implementation depends on vast amounts of bottom-up spade work, seeing individual lives changed by Jesus Christ, not simply top-down force, in the style of, say, political Islam). Yes, mixed up with lots of bad things, other motives, and other things (everything's a work in progress, with plenty of room for version 2.0 to supersede 1.0, until Jesus returns). But there was, by the grace of God, enough of it, mixed with grace in its implementation, to see something quite remarkable: societies based on the rule of law, care for the weakest, universal human dignity, etc. The good done to the world has been immense.<br /></p><p>We have been busy for some time throwing all of that away. And the current mythology to justify throwing it away is that Christianity has little to do with the historical success of Western societies. (And they have been successful - freedom, peace, human dignity respected across society - these are historically astonishing anomalies, not the norm). The belief promulgated by those desirous to rid their own societies of Christianity is that secular government, with its wise technocratic leaders, can just achieve these things with the right policies. But this is a myth. It's the same sort of myth promoted by the new Lord of the Manor, grandson of the original Lord whose sweat and toil built the place, and son of the second Lord who was taught and trained by him and managed to maintain it. It's the mythology of the know-nothing self-indulgent dilettante who has his own hair-brained scheme which will remove the foundations, whilst proclaiming to the world that this is simply a fresh new take on the original vision, with clever modifications just suited to a new time (c.f. David Cameron, proclaiming that the reason he was in favour of radical redefinition of marriage was because he was a conservative!). They don't want to believe that the Cross of Christ ultimately built the good things in the modern West (with some notable exceptions, even amongst non-believers, such as the historian Tom Holland). The implications of accepting that are too uncomfortable. So they have to proclaim that whilst jettisoning the Cross of Christ, they have preserved the bits that were essential to making the world still work.<br /></p><p>Well, Afghanistan is the ultimate putting to the test of that set of beliefs. The modern secular (read: atheism with marketing) technocratic mindset with all the resources you could want, has now met reality. And reality, as it always does, has won handily.<br /></p><p>If you want to build a real nation, you'd do better to just give free visas and invites to orthodox evangelical missionaries who are ready to suffer for the sake of serving Jesus and teaching his word. It's less politically correct. It's less pleasing to the egos those who think they are the masters of the global-acronym-organisation universe and just need a large enough stage to demonstrate their brilliance to us on. But 2000 years of history all proclaim that it builds the sort of nations in which people learn how to live together, beat their swords into ploughshares, and learn how to serve people instead of killing them. Christ has conquered, and carries out his conquest, by shedding his own blood. And until the world learns that ultimately you do it *that* way, rather than by shedding other people's blood, we're going to have a lot more hard lessons to learn, if we are listening at all.<br /></p><div class="blogger-post-footer">--
More Than Words: http://mothwo.blogspot.com</div>David Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13177521181432533108noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6097581429595233439.post-42110743498555236032021-07-15T01:33:00.004+03:002021-07-15T01:33:56.593+03:00Expose big porn<p><i>"<span dir="ltr" style="font-family: serif; font-size: 11.4px; left: 34.0158px; top: 434.55px; transform: scaleX(0.87512);">Over the past 20 years, a vast, global pornography </span><span dir="ltr" style="font-family: serif; font-size: 11.4px; left: 34.0158px; top: 447.751px; transform: scaleX(0.889589);">industry has sprung up online. This commercial </span><span dir="ltr" style="font-family: serif; font-size: 11.4px; left: 34.0158px; top: 460.952px; transform: scaleX(0.87715);">behemoth dwarfs its print predecessor in every way - in </span><span dir="ltr" style="font-family: serif; font-size: 11.4px; left: 34.0158px; top: 474.154px; transform: scaleX(0.891842);">scale, profitability and extremity - making old fashioned </span><span dir="ltr" style="font-family: serif; font-size: 11.4px; left: 34.0158px; top: 487.355px; transform: scaleX(0.88638);">porn mags seem almost quaint by comparison. </span><span dir="ltr" style="font-family: serif; font-size: 11.4px; left: 34.0158px; top: 513.757px; transform: scaleX(0.889641);">However, unlike other global industries, online </span><span dir="ltr" style="font-family: serif; font-size: 11.4px; left: 34.0158px; top: 526.958px; transform: scaleX(0.887949);">pornography has avoided virtually all regulation, scrutiny </span><span dir="ltr" style="font-family: serif; font-size: 11.4px; left: 34.0158px; top: 540.16px; transform: scaleX(0.889706);">and accountability, which has allowed it to pursue profit </span><span dir="ltr" style="font-family: serif; font-size: 11.4px; left: 34.0158px; top: 553.361px; transform: scaleX(0.885952);">without restraint.</span></i></p><p><i><span dir="ltr" style="font-family: serif; font-size: 11.4px; left: 34.0158px; top: 553.361px; transform: scaleX(0.885952);"></span><span dir="ltr" style="font-family: serif; font-size: 11.4px; left: 34.0158px; top: 579.763px; transform: scaleX(0.890236);">Make no mistake, the online porn industry is neither </span><span dir="ltr" style="font-family: serif; font-size: 11.4px; left: 34.0158px; top: 592.964px; transform: scaleX(0.877882);">naive nor neutral. Free from oversight, it has monetised </span><span dir="ltr" style="font-family: serif; font-size: 11.4px; left: 34.0158px; top: 606.166px; transform: scaleX(0.881147);">videos of rape, abuse and other non-consensual sex acts, </span><span dir="ltr" style="font-family: serif; font-size: 11.4px; left: 34.0158px; top: 619.367px; transform: scaleX(0.889121);">failing victims and survivors who call for help. Always at </span><span dir="ltr" style="font-family: serif; font-size: 11.4px; left: 34.0158px; top: 632.568px; transform: scaleX(0.884232);">the forefront of tech advancement, the porn industry has </span><span dir="ltr" style="font-family: serif; font-size: 11.4px; left: 34.0158px; top: 645.769px; transform: scaleX(0.870272);">designed its sites to ensure that vast numbers of visitors </span><span dir="ltr" style="font-family: serif; font-size: 11.4px; left: 34.0158px; top: 658.97px; transform: scaleX(0.875263);">stay for as long as possible and return again and again - </span><span dir="ltr" style="font-family: serif; font-size: 11.4px; left: 34.0158px; top: 672.172px; transform: scaleX(0.874425);">even if they are child"</span></i></p><p><span dir="ltr" style="font-family: serif; font-size: 11.4px; left: 34.0158px; top: 672.172px; transform: scaleX(0.874425);">Did you know that one big, powerful company that you've probably never heard of (but which receives more web traffic than Twitter, Instagram, Netflix, Zoom, Pinterest, and LinkedIn combined) has a virtual monopoly on the billions of pounds of profit being generated from 24/7 exploitation?</span><i><span dir="ltr" style="font-family: serif; font-size: 11.4px; left: 34.0158px; top: 672.172px; transform: scaleX(0.874425);"><br /></span></i></p><p><span dir="ltr" style="font-family: serif; font-size: 11.4px; left: 34.0158px; top: 672.172px; transform: scaleX(0.874425);">Read the full report and what can be done here: <a href="https://cease.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/210607_CEASE_Expose_Big_Porn_Report.pdf">https://cease.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/210607_CEASE_Expose_Big_Porn_Report.pdf</a></span><i><span dir="ltr" style="font-family: serif; font-size: 11.4px; left: 34.0158px; top: 672.172px; transform: scaleX(0.874425);"><br /></span></i></p><div class="blogger-post-footer">--
More Than Words: http://mothwo.blogspot.com</div>David Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13177521181432533108noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6097581429595233439.post-63355096734652826652021-06-26T15:08:00.001+03:002021-06-26T15:08:04.845+03:00Caleb Saunderson, with Christ<p>Caleb was a genuine and kind friend and brother in the Lord to me for as long as I can remember him (we have been part of the same church - with various periods in which we have been elsewhere - since 1986). Caleb is somewhere in the region of 6,7, 8 years older than me, but when I was an awkward adolescent and he was an adult, this didn't stop him in the slightest from taking a genuine interest in me, catching up on how I was doing and encouraging me in the Lord - which is what he kept on doing ever since.<br /></p><p>You can read some of Caleb's more recent history on his blog, <a href="https://mesofarsowhat.wordpress.com/" target="_blank">"Meso Far So What", here</a>. The title is a reference to Mesothelioma, a major factor in his life the last 5 years (he outlived the average life expectancy of a diagnosee by around 4). But not the major factor. If you head over, you can see what all those who knew him experienced - not just in this cancer (which was his third, the first coming in teenage years), but throughout his life, his testimony was that to live was Christ, and to die would be gain. As a believer, a husband, a father, an elder and just general all-round good bloke, Caleb kept on through the years pointing us to Jesus and serving him. Much more could be said, but it'd be better to <a href="https://mesofarsowhat.wordpress.com/" target="_blank">head over to his blog and read him directly</a>.<br /></p><div class="blogger-post-footer">--
More Than Words: http://mothwo.blogspot.com</div>David Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13177521181432533108noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6097581429595233439.post-61375333456216234152021-05-24T16:48:00.003+03:002021-05-24T16:48:27.683+03:00Rod Dreher: Creating monsters, summoning demons<p>When even vendors of breakfast cereals are going all-in on promoting the idea that your child might need to mutilate their body in order to express their true self, then it really is time for Christians to think about what living their lives in exile from mainstream society and its institutions, and for churches to be well into the process of creating their own institutions for their children, isn't it?</p><p><a href="https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/wokeness-creating-monsters-summoning-demons/">https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/wokeness-creating-monsters-summoning-demons/</a><br /></p><div class="blogger-post-footer">--
More Than Words: http://mothwo.blogspot.com</div>David Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13177521181432533108noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6097581429595233439.post-86932819477040827812021-04-19T19:23:00.000+03:002021-04-19T19:23:00.731+03:00Secular humanism - its roots, development and the danger its adherents pose to society today<p><a href="https://www.christian.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/secular-humanism.pdf"> https://www.christian.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/secular-humanism.pdf</a></p><div class="blogger-post-footer">--
More Than Words: http://mothwo.blogspot.com</div>David Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13177521181432533108noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6097581429595233439.post-55884249409495304612021-03-16T20:21:00.005+03:002021-03-16T20:21:47.085+03:00Liberty redefined - families, individuals and liberty<p>This is very clear and timely, and sadly something a lot of Christians are very muddled (or have never really thought) about: <a href="https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/liberty-redefined.html">https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/liberty-redefined.html</a><br /></p><div class="blogger-post-footer">--
More Than Words: http://mothwo.blogspot.com</div>David Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13177521181432533108noreply@blogger.com0