Archive for the ‘Miscellaneous’ Category

Hackers?!?!? Problem solved!

Wednesday, March 25th, 2009

I wake up this morning, and all of my links are messed up!  I’m trying a back-up and upgrade of my WordPress software.  Stay Tuned!

Update: I tried upgrading the Wordpress software, which (maybe?) should have rebuilt all the links.  It didn’t work.  That’s all I can try for the moment–I might be down for a day or two.  (I hope my entire database isn’t corrupted!  I’m not sure how to fix that.)

Further Update: I remembered that there’s a “Permalinks” setting, where you can change what the URLs for you site will look like.  So I played with that, and that forced all the urls to get fixed.  Yay!  I’m not sure how the problem started, but I’m glad it was an easy fix.  (Especially since I didn’t have a recent backup of the blog!)

On the Dangers of Podcasts

Sunday, March 22nd, 2009

Frank Turk did a post of miscellaneous thoughts, including some commentary on celebrity culture in Christianity.  It included the following gem for podcast aficionados:

May we all have the opportunity to use our gifts for the goods works God intended them to be used for, amen? But let’s never forget that while it is a virtue to do those things which God has ordained beforehand, it is not a virtue to merely admire those who are doing what God has ordained and then nothing else. You are not a Paul-plus-James Christian if you merely enjoy the podcasts from all the T4G guys and all the Gospel Coalition guys. You are a Paul-plus-James Christian if you count trial as joy, and can say that you see that the aim of what the apostles taught is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.

That hit home for me.  I love the T4G guys, and I listen to podcasts somewhat obsessively.  And I’ve noticed some dangers:

  1. Letting podcasts act as a substitute for your devotional walk with God.
  2. Spiritual pride based on the people you listen to/like.  Justification by podcast.
  3. Picking podcasts for the interesting controversy, rather than the edification.

Aside from the podcast issue, Frank’s point was key, about how “the aim of what the apostles taught is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith”.  (How much easier to be a hearer-but-not-a-doer, in this age where hearing is so easy?)

There’s (not) a Virus on NPR’s Website! <– Whoops, false alarm.

Monday, February 16th, 2009

<Deleted>

Cancel this warning.  I was getting a virus warning from AVG Free about NPR’s website.  But it turns out that it’s a false alarm–AVG fixed it with their most recent virus definitions.

Ben Stein on Financial Crisis, 1979 vs. 2009

Thursday, February 5th, 2009

This is a rather good perspective on the financial crisis.  Add a dash of the Sermon on the Mount, let simmer, and serve.

Thirty Years Ago, by Ben Stein

Advice on Prayer

Wednesday, January 28th, 2009

A recently received piece of advice about personal prayer:

Pray out loud, not silently.  That way you know when you’ve stopped praying.  (If your mind drifts, you stop talking.)

Santa-tized

Tuesday, December 23rd, 2008

From the illustrious Sacred Sandwich:

I Think My Wife’s A Calvinist

Tuesday, December 23rd, 2008

Stolen from the Internet Monk:

More on the Morality of Voting

Monday, November 17th, 2008

In the comment section of the previous post, I linked to a debate, Is it Immoral to Vote for McCain/Palin?, and the associated discussion thread.

One side was arguing that it is wrong to vote for the lesser of two evils.  (They argued that McCain is evil on abortion, because of his willingness to allow abortion to be left up to the states, along with his support for rape & incest exceptions, and his support for some government funding of embryonic stem cell research.  That this is morally equivalent to wanting it to be legal to lynch black people, or to beat women.  And that wanting something to be legal leaves you effectively guilty of the crime itself.  There was more–you can read their arguments to get the full picture.)

The “morality of voting” issue turns out to be a more difficult question than I thought.  Think about it this way:  Take some heinous evil, and imagine a candidate who thinks it ought to remain legal.  Would that make it impossible for you to vote for him?  (This is single-issue refusal-to-vote, not quite single-issue voting.)  Could you ever vote for an avowed member of the Klu Klux Klan?  For someone who wants it to be legal to lynch black people?  Could you give approval to such a candidate?

Internet debate can be really bad sometimes.  And some of the debate and discussion was painful to read.  But it was good food for thought.  I posted my conclusions to the discussion thread.  It was a bit long, so I’ll just post the major bullet points here, and follow up with the link, if you want to read more.

1.) Do not do evil to avoid bigger evil. In your actions, words, and thoughts, do not compromise God’s standards. Ends don’t justify means.
2.) To figure out this question, you have to figure out what a vote means.
3.) If voting is inherently an act of approval, support, or participation in the proposed policies of your candidate, then you shouldn’t vote for a candidate with any policies that violate God’s law.
4.) If voting is only a tool for affecting what happens, then you should vote to have the best possible effect, according to your best judgment about what everything that will happen.
5.) I’m not sure how to view voting. I suspect there isn’t an objective answer. When Christians differ on this point of political philosophy, then they’re disagreeing over disputable matters–not over the teaching of Scripture or over the demands of God’s Law.

Keep Reading

Voting Your Conscience

Tuesday, November 4th, 2008

What does it mean to vote your conscience?  What is the meaning of a vote?

I have two conservative, pro-life friends who can’t stand Obama, but also do not want to vote for McCain.  Instead, one says that he is going to leave the ballot blank.  I’m not sure what the other is going to do–she may be voting third-party.  But in both cases, they do not want to vote for McCain because they do not believe he is authentically conservative–especially on pro-life issues.  Their conscience won’t allow them to vote for him.

So that makes me wonder… How do you view your vote?

I think my friends are probably thinking about it this way:

“I don’t want to vote for the lesser of two evils.  I want to vote on principle!  Am I going to vote on principle, or am I going to vote pragmatically?”

If you think about it that way, you’ll probably vote “on principle”.  You won’t be willing to vote for the lesser of two evils.

But what if you think about it this way?

“I really don’t want candidate X’s policies to go through.  Am I going to vote to affect what happens, or am I just going to vote to make a statement?”

If you think that way, you’ll probably vote for the lesser of two evils.

So, how should you think about your vote?  How will your conscience reason?

  • A principled vote vs. a pragmatic vote?
  • A vote to make a statement or a vote to affect what happens?

Criticism — Constructive, Destructive, Gentle, & Stinging

Saturday, October 4th, 2008

Michael Patton is a graduate of Dallas Theological Seminary with a ministry called Reclaiming the Mind.  He’s got a lot of good resources–the Parchment & Pen blog, the Theology Program, Theology Unplugged Radio, and Converse with Scholars.  There’s a wealth of audio, video, & written material, all freely available.

He has a very irenic style.  I appreciate it.  I’ve learned.  But the danger for him is that he will be so irenic–so polite–so nice–so even-handed–that he will fail to rebuke well, or fail to press home the urgency of believing rightly, or fail to press home the danger of error.

He recently posted Criticism from a Reader, which contains a well-articulated, gracious criticism from a reader along those lines.  It–and the comments–are worth reading.

Some observations:

1.) Irenic, gracious speech is very important.

We’re supposed to speak the truth in love–our words should be gracious, seasoned with salt.  Our criticism of brothers should be helpful, loving, and hopeful.

2.) Charity police can be some of the least charitable people in the world.

If you read many blogs on the internet, you will find people who speak very uncharitably–they’re constantly unnecessarily harsh in tone and unreasonable in how they interpret others.  You will also find people who are obsessed with accusing others of being uncharitable.  You can call them charity police.  And those guys can be some of the least charitable people around–accusing others of uncharity at the drop of a hat or the slightest hint of language that isn’t excessively polite.  Majorly unreasonable & oversensitive.

We should be gracious with each other in addressing their mistakes–including mistakes of style.  And we shouldn’t be too quick to assume the worst.  But we must be discerning & watchful.  We must correct each other.  Just be careful in how you do it, and how you interpret people.

3.) There’s a place for hard words.

Hard words are sometimes necessary & right.  The Bible is full of examples.

I have found that very confusing.  I’ve had difficulty reconciling gentleness and harshness.  I haven’t known what to do with it.

4.) Doing both well is very difficult.

Myself, when I err, I usually err on the side of being too polite/nice.  Others usually err on the side of being too harsh.

Mark Driscoll recently spoke on the subject at the Desiring God national conference.  Give it a listen.  It’s worth thinking about.  (And, BTW, Driscoll himself doesn’t claim to do perfectly on this, in his practice.  But his teaching about it is sound.)

Part of the task is to know when to speak in what ways.  Driscoll says to feed the sheep.  Rebuke the swine.  Shoot the wolves.  Bark at the dogs.

For the full explanation with a definition of those groups, check out the message.  (I’ve listened twice.  It’s good, convicting, humbling, funny, tender, and hard.)

How Sharp the Edge? Christ, Controversy, and Cutting Words by Mark Driscoll

5.) The wounds of a friend are faithful.

Prov. 27:6

Driscoll’s thoughts on “the wounds of a friend”:  A friend is someone who has love for you, and hope for you.  And who prays for you more than they criticize you.

When you criticize a brother, seek to do it as a brother.  As a friend.

6.) Aim for more pervasive & consistent humility, grace, and love.

The reason I mentioned “charity police” is that a couple of them showed up in the comments at Michael Patton’s blog.  Or… Well, that was the way I labeled it.  That was the way I categorized them.

To pile irony upon irony, I was in danger of uncharitably dismissing them, instead of correcting as a brother.

Isn’t that interesting?  It is so easy for us to fall into the mistakes that we’re criticizing.  We need to keep praying for God’s heart-transforming grace