Julie Halitzka (cool name, huh?) summarises David Powlison’s critique of Gary Chapman’s Five Love Languages concept.  Got to be careful, because it’s only a summary, but it certainly lines up with a couple of other critiques I’ve read and heard from David Powlison.  I’ve written three posts (1, 2, 3) explaining why I disagree with him on the issue of “a passive need for love”.  It relates also to the criticisms in Julie’s post.

I’ll merely add, for now, that yes, there is potential for self-centered living, but I think Powlison is only looking at the extremes and not allowing there to be a balanced working out of the concept.  While I also agree with what I know about his views on the idolatry of the heart being the beginning of all sin, that, too, can be unbalanced.

My own personal view is that the idea of the need for love and the idolatory of the heart are actually two sides of the same coin - it seems Powlison does not grant that.  Maybe one day.  Meanwhile, may God continue to bless his ministry.

It’s up at Jevlir Caravansary.

Thanks to Glenn’s planet, I’ve added another blog to the link section.  It’s called, The Continuing Adventures of ASBO Jesus.  Check it out.

In keeping with my prior thoughts about how to approach the abortion issue, I wrote a piece on the specific practice of aborting fetuses that have a high probability of having Down’s Syndrome. I showed it to my wife, and she had a couple of problems with it.

1. It really says nothing new. Paula liked the piece, but thinks everyone knows that aborting fetus’ with a high probability of having Down’s Syndrome is discriminatory.
2. Paula also suggests that if I am going to offer to look after children born with Down’s Syndrome, we need to be involved in fostering or community groups that are already dealing with people with Down’s Syndrome or other conditions. Otherwise no one will take us seriously.

I have had disagreements with my wife often enough to realise that I can be very wrong and she can be very right, even though I don’t see it at the time. So, I’ve opened this up hoping to get other opinions.

• Do you agree that the following article merely states the obvious and adds little to the argument?
• And do you agree that we need to be involved in caring for children or work with people who have Down’s Syndrome or other conditions in order to be able to offer taking a baby with Down’s Syndrome in?

Please leave a comment.

Stop Discrimination Against People with Down’s Syndrome.

When Paula and I discovered she was pregnant, we returned to the fertility specialist for a check up. During the consultation, the doctor suggested we get a nuchal fold test done to determine the possibility that we would have a baby with Down’s syndrome.

Continue Reading »

That’s one of my aliases.  Apparently.  At least, according to this entry on what looks like a completely random computer maintained blog.

Ahh, with a little googling, I discover that I have been mixed up with another blog that is actually called tohu va bohu and is a transliteration of the Hebrew in Genesis 1 that means in English “without form and void”.

Curious way to describe your blog.  Still, it seems that the latest post written there isn’t “without form and void”, so perhaps they’ll need to change the name soon.

You search the Scriptures…it is they that bear witness about me… (John 5:39) 

The account of the Fall has an incredible amount of types of Jesus - mostly anti-types.  Some are well known, some I haven’t heard so often. 

• The serpent (Satan - Revelation 20:2) tempted Eve (Genesis 3:1) - Satan tempted Jesus (Matthew 4:1, Mark 1:13, Luke 4:2).

• the woman was a human who wanted to be like God (Genesis 3:5,6) - Jesus was God who was content to be human (Matthew 4:3-4).

• the woman doubted God would look out for her best interests and so acted (Genesis 3:5) - Jesus believed God looked out for his best interests and so did not need to act (Matthew 4:5-7).

• the woman followed Satan’s path to gain in the short-term but death in the long-term (Genesis 3:3-5, 19) - Jesus followed God’s path to death in the short-term but gain in the long-term (Matthew 4:8-10, Philippians 2:6-11).

• the woman took fruit from the tree to become wise like God (Genesis 3:6) - Jesus died on a tree in the “foolishness of God” (1 Corinthians 1:22-23).

• Adam followed his bride, not God, and ate from the tree (Genesis 3:6) - Jesus followed God, not his bride, and died on the tree (John 19:30, 1 Corinthians 15:3).

• Adam and his wife were naked, then covered themselves (Genesis 3:7) - Jesus was clothed, then stripped naked (Mark 15:20, 24).

• Adam and Eve hid from God and God called out to them (Genesis 3:9) - God hid from Jesus and Jesus called out to him (Matthew 27:46).

• Adam and Eve passed on the blame that belonged to them (Genesis 3:12-13) - Jesus accepted the blame that belonged to others (1 Corinthians 15:3).

• God clothed Adam and his bride in animal skins (Genesis 3:21) - God clothed Jesus and will clothe his bride in a resurrected body (2 Corinthians 5:1-5 - refers specifically to believers, but also applies to Jesus).

• God drove Adam and his bride out of paradise in case they ate from the tree of life and lived forever (Genesis 3:22-24) - God welcomed Jesus into heaven (Hebrews 9:24) and we his bride will be gathered to him and live forever (2 Thessalonians 2:1).

The curses themselves also have Jesus in them.

1. Jesus is the offspring of the woman who crushes Satan’s head and who’s heel is bruised (dies) (Genesis 3:15).

2. As non-Christians (and too often as Christians) we desire to take our Jesus’s place as our husband, and his rule seems harsh to us (Genesis 3:16).

3. Jesus works to bring good out of his cursed creation and we produce thistle’s and thorns (Genesis 3:17-18).

Please alert me to any more you are aware of.

Want this badge?

It’s been a while since I linked to these:  no. 212 is up at Evangelical Ecologist.

Eusebius begins this dialogue asking how the meetings should be carried out. Continue Reading »

Diane from Crossroads has written an interesting post called, “Are Lack of Social Skills in Churches Sinking Outreach?“  She follows it up with another post here.

Initially I wondered whether she was being a little snobby, but as I read on I realised that she was stating the importance of social graces in a mature person.  Mature personhood certainly does mean people are able to relate to others more easily - even without formal training when a person is able to consistently know God’s love for them and therefore love God and others from that knowledge, inevitably there will be an ability to relate to others with respect and social grace.  The lack of social skills is actually an indication that a person is immature.

The ironic thing is that Diane points out many non-Christians and liberal Christians have far more social skills than evangelical Christians.  My take on this, as I commented on her second post, is that evangelical Christians are expected to be perfect in every way and this actually prevents maturity because of the pressure and self-criticism it brings and produces an unnatural and false veneer.  Non-Christians and liberal Christians, on the other hand, are far more accepting of imperfection and actually expect everyone to have strong and weak points and to be happy about them.

Does this have an impact on “outreach”?  For sure.  God does use the weak things of the world to fool the strong, but I still believe social graces (or the lack of) in Churches points to a need that should be addressed…not by ettiquite classes, but by pointing back to the grace of God in Jesus Christ where you are accepted and acceptable as you are and the love of Jesus through the Spirit enables us to be secure in our attitudes and love for others.

(Note: On my computer the font seems unusually large.  Perhaps this is an important topic!  Whatever the reason, I’ll try and fix it…anon.)

This will be really interesting.

Kevin Rudd kept his promise and apologised without reservation to the Stolen Generation on behalf of the Parliament and the country.

As he said, a first step. I believe that compensation is inevitable and appropriate.

Looking forward to the future with excitement, but realistically, it’ll be no easy road.

I’m liking C. Michael Patton’s writing over at the Parchment and Pen.  Today I read his latest offering called, “Is the threat of divorce ever justified?”  It’s typical of his writing - addressing real life situations where our gut feeling solutions are different from accepted Christian solutions and trying to find the mind of God in it all.

In his post, Patton asks whether a marriage should have the real threat of divorce in the background (for reasons other than adultery or abuse) in order to encourage each person to work to keep the marriage going instead of taking advantage of the fact that the other will never, never bring up the “D-word”.  He throws in examples like God threatening and carrying out threats on Pharoah when Moses asked him to let Israel go.  I think the threat of hell to protect a person’s relationship with him can be added to that. 

I gave a few thoughts in the comments, though I’m not sure I answered the main query.  Divorce for reasons other than adultery or abuse is recognised in the New Testament, but only as a concession, not permission, and remarriage is prohibited.  What this tells me is that the apostles themselves lived in the real world where sin took its toll on Christian relationships as well as non-Christians relationships.  They knew that divorce happened, and even though Paul regulated it, they didn’t throw people out of the Church for it.

That being the case, I think it behooves every Christian entering marriage to recognise that their behaviour directly affects their partner and there is biblical recognition that, while discouraged, divorce (without remarriage) is an option for their spouse.  So, in my understanding, a real threat of divorce is legitimate, though should be broached only after considerable pray and thought and ideally in consultation with wise advisors.  (And where are they?)

I spoke at Church last night on Luke 19:1-9 and after I’d finished, I felt a bit uneasy about it all.  For some reason I felt that, despite trying to avoid it, what I said had the potential to condemn.  What was wrong?  I don’t think hard words are to be avoided, but it is possible to speak hard truths and not leave people feeling like rubbish.

Couldn’t figure it out…until I was lying in bed trying to sleep.

The cross.  Yes, I mentioned it and encouraged people to look to it, but I didn’t explain it.  I even had it down in my manuscript, but because I didn’t follow my manuscript on the night, I missed it completely.  Knowing Jesus had been mentioned, knowing our imperfection and unworthiness had been mentioned, but the mechanics of the cross had been left out.  Man, I feel stink.

You see, if I missed it out, it’s because it wasn’t foremost in my mind or heart on the night, and without presenting that truth to the people, there is really not much use speaking to them at all!

So for anyone who was there, here is the missing part.

Zacchaeus had not done anything to be “in”.  In fact, everything he’d done in his life meant he was “out”.  But when Jesus accepted him by inviting himself over stay, Zacchaeus was declared to be “in”.

We are exactly the same.  None of us deserve to be “in”.  We are all “out”.  And it is only when we realise this and come to Jesus anyway, he will look at us and say, “You’re in”.

How does this work?  The reason Zacchaeus could be counted “in” - the reason we can be counted “in” - is that Jesus was nailed to another tree [refering back to the tree Zacchaeus climbed] and while there he took on himself our imperfections, our sins, our wrong-doings and all the punishment those things deserve and died for what we should have died for.  And then, because of his righteousness, God brought him back to life so that we can live with him, and he with us.  If you can look at the cross and know that it applies to you - that Jesus took your sins and has left you forgiven and pure - then you are “in”.

I can only trust that God will use what I did say despite this vital missing piece.