Eccl. 3:2 a time to be born, and a time to die;
a time to plant, and a time to pluck up what is planted;
3 a time to kill, and a time to heal;
a time to break down, and a time to build up;
4 a time to weep, and a time to laugh;
a time to mourn, and a time to dance;
5 a time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together;
a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;
6 a time to seek, and a time to lose;
a time to keep, and a time to cast away;
7 a time to tear, and a time to sew;
a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;
8 a time to love, and a time to hate;
a time for war, and a time for peace.

Here you are, from the Wall Street Journal of Sept 19 of this year.

A member of our church (and our neighbor here in the Cliff!) passed the article  along to me.  In addition to Wallace’s winsome prose, his insight into the human condition is remarkable.  He seemed to understand so much, and yet seemed to disallow the possibility that the very means by which we are liberated from the idolatries to which we are so prone does not exist in us naturally.

This morning he speaks, I think, most aptly to our condition:

Consumers don’t make good disciples

Yesterday we began thinking about the folly of fighting your Goliath in your strength. As we saw, Alan Wolfe’s The Transformation of American Religion warns that many of us are consumers more than we are disciples, self-reliant rather than God-sufficient

For instance, one-third of Americans subscribe to the proposition that “people have God within them, so churches aren’t necessary” (p. 38). The day of denominational loyalty is largely over. Now people join a church that meets their needs—whatever they are, whatever the church is

Here’s an example. Gwinnett County, in suburban Atlanta, was for many years the fastest-growing county in the United States. In 1929, a town in that county named Dacula was 65.8 percent Baptist and 31 percent Methodist. Now its denominations include Christian and Missionary Alliance, Anglican, Assembly of God, Church of Christ, Christian Science, Episcopal, Nazarene, Presbyterian, independent Full Gospel fellowships, Southern and Independent Baptist, United Methodist, and African Methodist Episcopal. Not to mention the Eastern Orthodox, Unitarian, Roman Catholic, Jewish, and Hindu residents of the town, nor parts of a Wiccan coven or feminist spirituality groups (p. 112)

A group of church members were surveyed regarding the purpose of the church; 90 percent of the members said the purpose of the church is to meet members’ needs—10 percent said it is to fulfill the Great Commission. Only 25 percent of self-described evangelicals knew the Great Commission (p. 205).

Christians want to meet the needs of our members and community, of course. Jesus always started with felt need and moved to spiritual need. The woman at the well came for water, so Jesus started there and led her to spiritual water

The problem comes when our faith becomes more about us than our Lord. When we ask God to help us solve our problems in our strength. When we want him to bless our decisions and our actions. When he becomes a means to our end, serving us. When we go to battle with our weapons and strategy, our strength and soldiers, and ask him to help us succeed. He is God and we are not.

What do we do then?

But as one located in the “buckle” of the Bible Belt, you find yourself surrounded primarily by churches of a Baptistic nature.  If in a baptistic church, then baptism is reserved for those who can make a personal profession of faith; it is therefore not to be extended to infants or children who cannot enunciate their profession of faith because they do not know that profession.

And if you’ve spent any time in the baptistic wing of the church, then, perhaps, you are at least a bit confused by what happens each month when an infant is baptized.  Why is there a difference in practice between Baptistic churches and Reformed churches? (Now, I should say Reformed Covenantal churches to be more precise, since there are in fact Reformed Baptist churches: those that hold to the historic confessions of the Reformation and, largely, to the doctrines of grace as articulated by Calvin, but do not extend the rite of baptism to those who cannot make public profession of their faith.)

This post will not attempt to line out those differences, nor in what ways those differences may or may not be significant.  But, if you’d like a bit of historical context, at least from the context of the Reformation in England, as it relates to the understanding of baptism; and thus, why PCPC as a Reformed Church believes baptism is to be both for believers and their children, then you might set aside a little over an hour to hear from Dr Sinclair Ferguson, erstwhile presence here at PCPC and now senior pastor at First Pres, Columbia, SC.  You might find this duller than actuarial tables (with apologies to those of you in that profession), but if you have the slightest interest in why we baptize babies and why we think it matters, have a listen here.

And once you’re done listening and cogitating on what you’ve heard, I’m sure we’d benefit from hearing from you–either of your assessment of his lecture, or of the questions it poses.  Believe me, no question is dumb when it comes to this matter.  I’d like to say the basis for belief in baptism only for believers (credo-baptism), or baptism for children too (paedo-baptism) is a simple set of arguments.  But you will find that it involves a much larger discussion of how we see the history of redemption outlined, and how the Old and New Testaments fit together. 

Live a little: engage in this mind-stretching matter, and if need be, imagine Michael Scott sitting on the front row laughing at Sinclair’s jokes while trying not to let on that he doesn’t get them.

To understand the financial matters afoot is not merely a matter for economists or pundits. What’s happening in the highest echelons of commerce and government is an issue worth the consideration of Christians, too. There are cautionary tales here for us about the human heart, and how corporate (not in the sense of business, but in the sense of collective) sin is a force to be reckoned with–a reckoning that may extend beyond acknowledgment and into legislation.

All of which inevitably provokes the comment, “you can’t legislate morality,” to which I put forth a quote from one notable (also sent my way through the awfully thorough folks at BTW)

Now the other myth that gets around is the idea that legislation cannot really solve the problem and that it has no great role to play in this period of social change because you’ve got to change the heart and you can’t change the heart through legislation. You can’t legislate morals. The job must be done through education and religion. Well, there’s half-truth involved here. Certainly, if the problem is to be solved then in the final sense, hearts must be changed. Religion and education must play a great role in changing the heart. But we must go on to say that while it may be true that morality cannot be legislated, behavior can be regulated. It may be true that the law cannot change the heart but it can restrain the heartless. It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me but it can keep him from lynching me and I think that is pretty important, also. So there is a need for executive orders. There is a need for judicial decrees. There is a need for civil rights legislation on the local scale within states and on the national scale from the federal government.

Before you plunk down another $10-spot on a film at NorthPark, you might plunk down $15 (or less if you use addall.com) on his book.

Terrell Owens of the Dallas Cowboys!

Consider this gem of self-aggrandizement:

”It doesn’t matter what they say about me now,” Owens said. ”The Lord has obviously blessed me with a lot of talent.”

WIthout further ado, question 1: “what is the ONE piece of advice you have for singles wanting to get married?”

Today, though, a thought related to dating. Sunday afternoon brought us in touch with one of Ken Burns’ American Stories. Here’s the link of the relevant segment:

PBS – THE WEST – P.S. I Like You Very Much

In this segment, Burns lets Ethel Waxman and George Schlichting tell of their courtship by way of their letters to one another over several years. It’s a fascinating display of assertiveness, humility, carefulness, and measured speech. It’s a kind of relational transaction: offer, consideration, counter-offer, deliberation–all of which results finally in a pledge to one another in marriage. And all from hundreds of miles away. Particularly interesting to me and my wife was how George takes the risk of revealing his affections for her, but without any sense that she obligated to reciprocate. He promises his unwavering respect for her even if his affections are unrequited.

That, my friends, may be the only way to “date”, to put it anachronistically in the case of Ethel and George. To befriend and then take the risk of revealing one’s affections for the other, all with the understanding that there shall be no umbrage taken should their respective appreciation for the other not be mutual–that’s the risk that love takes and the only way for love to exist.

But have a look at the letters. Feel free to comment on whether their “transaction” here is “portable” into our day.

Technorati Tags: dating, ken burns, marriage, young adults

Is Google Making Us Stupid?

What about “making culture” as a perhaps better approach for Christians in their attempt to live “in,” but not “of” the world?

Andy Crouch has a new book, just released this week, entitled, “Making Culture.”

Here’s the website.  For those of you who have grown tired either of trying to keep up with the culture, outstrip the culture, or give into the culture, making culture as Crouch defines it is perhaps in order.

God alone makes things from nothing; but He has created us with a capacity to create at least out of a meditative musing on what is good, excellent, praiseworthy, and enduring.

A capable cell phone today has more computing power than the computer that took the Apollo astronauts to the moon. It gives instant access not only to your friends’ voices but to all the information on the internet. Are you keeping up or falling behind in the race for the latest electronic fashions?
Science and technology get a lot of attention because of the new gadgets they spin out. I love science, because it displays God’s wisdom (Proverbs 8:22-31). I love technology, because it shows what great gifts God has given to us, and what great human capacity God has given us to exercise dominion (Genesis 1:28-30). But I see hopes placed in science and technology that they cannot fulfill. Science, it is said, will solve the problems of world hunger. It will bring world peace. And more and better technology will solve the problems introduced by lesser technology.

Well, sometimes; and in some ways. Maybe science will find an efficient way to harness nuclear fusion to produce clean power—or maybe not. But we can be awash in technology and still be hate-filled or lonely. You can have 200 friends on Facebook and have no one who really knows you, no one who loves you.

Sometimes science only increases the problem. If, instead of seeing the wisdom of God in it, you listen to the propaganda of scientism, it will solemnly assure you that you inhabit a faceless, lonely, materialistic universe that is heading only toward ultimate death. And the gadgets of technology become Band-Aids to cover spiritual wounds and empty hearts. One more electronic game or one more DVD movie or one more pop song holds back the slide into boredom and depression. We search for one entertainment after another to keep back the dread of facing the hollow inside