Dawkins and Lennox Debate & Conversation

For my current independent study I am listening to the God Delusion Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox, both Oxford professors. I thought I'd share the link for your enjoyment. What I love about John Lennox in the debate and the conversation that came some months later is his tone. He is warm and generous and it is very clear to me that he is genuinely trying to understand where Dawkins is coming from.

Here's the a link to the video of the two hour debate. And here's a link to the 45 minute conversation from the summer of '08.

Kevin DeYoung: Core or Crust

I run the danger of annoying some, but this post by DeYoung is very good. Not sure I like this part, "Let us be more like a chocolate covered raisin, likeable on the outside and surprisingly good for you on the inside, and less like a tootsie roll pop with its brittle, crunchy exterior that must be broken through before anyone can get to the good stuff." I'd rather have a tootsie roll pop over a raisinette any day, but here's the point, "If we are to be fruitful and godly Christians we need to have a theological core without being theologically crusty."

More and more I run into people, especially college students, especially Reformed students, who are sizing up someone's reformedness and ready to pounce on anything that sounds at all unReformed. Others are ready to pounce on anything that smacks of Emergent. Don't mention NT Wright to others, you'll get a reamed a new one. What about the core fella's? I will be the first to admit that I have sometimes been 'crusty', wearing my distinctives on my sleeve. What has changed me? Well, saying it that way probably assumes too much, but I'm not trying to be so 'crusty' anymore. Why? Because I've been in great Christian fellowship and partners in ministry with people who share the core and not the crust, and I've loved it. There's something joyful and God honoring in it that I want to embrace, and call other's to embrace as well. That is one of the beautiful things about the church I work in. I've never been in a place so diverse theologically and philosophically. It has it's challenges, but it is beautiful too.

Thoughts from Exodus 7-8

I'm a little behind in my 'read through the Bible chronologically' plan, but I was reading the early chapters of Exodus yesterday and it kick started a line of meditation that was encouraging to me all day. Here's a few things I noticed:

1. In Moses' confrontation with Pharaoh, Pharaoh's magicians who practice the 'dark arts' are able to copy the miracles of God worked through Moses to a certain point. When God turns Moses' staff into a snake, the magicians turn theirs into snakes as well (though they get eaten by Moses'). Thus, Pharaoh's heart remained hardened. When God turns the water of the Nile to blood, the magicians follow suite. When God sends a plague of frogs, the magicians are able to keep pace. The next plague, the plague of gnats is where the magicians drop out, no longer to match the miracles of God. However, up to that point Satan had used the counterfeit miracles to harden Pharaoh's already hard heart.

Reading this yesterday brought to mind the book of Revelation and how we see in those chapters Satan mimicking God and his miracles, thereby deceiving the world. Even the Dragon, the Beast and the False Prophet serve as a counterfeit Trinity performing counterfeit miracles, including a fake resurrection (Rev 13:3) even making a statue of the Beast come to life and deceiving people into worshiping it (13:13-17).

Certainly, "This calls for a mind with wisdom" (Rev. 17:9a). If Satan was wielding his power in Moses' day to distract people, deceive people and harden people to the true work of God, and if we see that this activity will be true in the 'last days', doesn't it follow that Satan is doing the same kinds of things today? After all, we are living in the 'last days' (Heb 1:2), Satan is the Father of lies (Jn. 8:44), and the spirit of antichrist is in the world already (1 John 4:3). Let's continue to pray for wisdom.

2) On a more encouraging note, notice that Satan's power is limited. He can't do all that God does even when God's power is mediated through a person, namely Moses. Satan's power working through the magicians is entirely destructive, God's is destructive (in judgment) but also restorative (in mercy). I found this very interesting. While the magicians could copy what God had done in the first two plagues, they couldn't undo what God had done. They could turn water to blood, but they couldn't heal the waters. They could call forth a plague of frogs, but they couldn't make the stinky little buggers go away. Look at Ex. 8:6-8,

"So Aaron stretched out his hand over the waters of Egypt, and the frogs came up and covered the land of Egypt. But the magicians did the same by their secret arts and made frogs come up on the land of Egypt. Then Pharaoh called Moses and Aaron and said, “Plead with the Lord to take away the frogs from me and from my people, and I will let the people go to sacrifice to the Lord.”"

Satan can't undo destruction, it's not in his nature/power to truly heal or work restoration. He is a destroyer. Revelation 9:11, "They have as king over them the angel of the bottomless pit. His name in Hebrew is Abaddon, and in Greek he is called Apollyon" [Abaddon means destruction; Apollyon means destroyer]. God is good and works judgment in wrath and restoration in mercy.

Finally, I love the fact that the magicians can't undo what God has done because it reminds me of the finality of God's pronouncements - his judgments stand! Satan is our accuser, but he can't reverse God's pronouncement over us. God calls us his children, Satan cannot change that. God calls us Righteous Holy Saints, Satan can't undo it. God's judgments are final, his purposes stand.

Romans 8:31-39, "What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? As it is written,

“For your sake we are being killed all the day long;
we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered.”

No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord."

{Comment on picture: Luther, "The best way to get rid of the Devil, if you cannot kill it with the words of Holy Scripture, is to rail at and mock him. Music, too, is very good; music is hateful to him, and drives him far away." Sound exegetical reasoning my friend!}

Song of the Week

This is going back a while, but I still like this album a lot. Enjoy!

The Beauty Of Gray - Live

Shoddy Journalism

I am no fan of Nancy Pelosi, but the CNN piece Ridiculous items in stimulus plan, by Ruben Navarrette Jr., is so shoddy and misrepresentative that an apology should be issued. Aware that this post is in danger of dying the death of a thousand qualifications, let me say I am not in favor of Pelosi's position nor of the stimulus package as a whole. However, to equate Pelosi's position with the radical agenda of Margaret Sanger is shameful. This is guilt by association of the worst kind.

Basically, Navarrette's argument is that for a brief moment what Pelosi said sounded like something Sanger would have said. Sanger was an awful person who wanted to forcefully sterilize Jews and Italians. How awful. Pelosi's taking us down that path.

Here's an example: "When you make the argument that contraception is a cost-saving measure for state and federal government, some might think what you're implying is that the babies who would otherwise have been born were destined to become dependent on welfare and other public services. (emphasis added). Navarrette deals more with how Pelosi's argument might be construed and possible links to a radical social engineering agenda than he does criticizing the actual argument she makes (in which there is plenty to criticize!). In essence, his mode of argument would be like someone saying, 'When pastor Dan says Jesus was fully human, some might think he's denying the deity of Jesus'. Navarrette should deal critically with what she said, not with how some might take her words.

This is the next paragraph in Navarrette's piece [with comments]: "Now, maybe that isn't where Pelosi was headed with her comments. It doesn't matter. [YES IT DOES] She shouldn't have said what she said [I disagree. If that's why she want's more funding for contraception/abortion, be honest and say it. Better that than hiding behind political double speak]. Imagine if these remarks had come from a conservative Republican from a red state instead of a liberal Democrat from a blue state. The left-leaning media would have gone nuts. [Yep. And here you are going nuts. What's the difference]"

Enough demonizing people and assuming the worst. Deal with positions, deal with them accurately. That's my two cents worth.