As we near the beginning on 2012, I wanted to take a minute to encourage everyone to make reading through the Bible in 2012 a priority. I've been extremely blessed by doing so in the past, and I'll be starting a new plan on January first.

If you're looking for some different plans to choose from, Justin Taylor had a great post which brings together many of the options. One of those options is George Guthrie's "Read the Bible for Life Chronological Plan." I just finished Guthrie's book Read the Bible for Life (one of the best books I read this year), and was very encouraged. Through a series of discussions with friends, scholars, and pastors, he walks through each part of the Bible and helps readers think through how to best read each part (i.e. don't read the prophets the same way you read the narrative stories of Jesus' ministry). He also has some practical tips and encouragement as to why reading the Bible, and doing so with a structured plan, is so important.

I'll be using Guthrie's Reading God's Story: A Chronological Daily Bible this year. He tries to lay out the whole Bible in a mostly chronological way that gives readers the overarching story God tells in the Bible. Looks very well done and I'm excited to get started.

I've also done a straight-through the Bible plan and a customized, Old-and-New-each-day plan in the past. If you've never done one before, I would probably recommend a plan that has you in both the Old and New Testaments regularly. The straight-through the Bible plan was difficult at times (although getting to the coming of Jesus was very powerful). Regardless of which plan you choose, I would highly encourage you to spend daily time in the Word with a structured approach to help keep you motivated. The rewards of doing so are huge, I promise.

This is fantastic...and makes me miss the old NBA.

HT: Joe Thorn

I was in full-on discipline mode. My 2 and ½ year-old son had fixated on what he wanted, and he was willing to whine/cry/yell as much as would be needed to obtain said item. Ever the diligent father, I was faithfully fulfilling my fatherly responsibility to discipline my son and correct his thinking and actions.

HT: Ray Ortlund

Some of these books weren't published in 2011. In fact, some are much older, but these are my favorites that I read this year. Some were read solely for pleasure earlier in the year, and some were required reading for seminary, which I started in August.

I make no claim of objectivity or ability to discern what is necessarily the "best" book. As I looked back over the books I read this year, these are the ones I enjoyed and/or was edified by the most.
_________________________________________________

1. Russell Moore - Tempted and Tried: Temptation and the Triumph of Christ
Struggling Saints everywhere need to read this book. Modern Evangelicals tend to appear to have everything together as we fear being exposed as not what we say we are (and mostly want to be). We feel isolated. Like Adam and Eve in the garden, this cycle causes us to turn further and further inward into hiding, away from people and more importantly, away from our Father. This book will help you fight those urges. It will help you begin to take steps to walk in the Light. It will encourage you to see yourself rightly in relationship to God through Christ. I’m thankful for men like Dr. Moore who understand the gospel so well and can articulate the themes and passages to help struggling sinners like me.

2. Jared Wilson - Gospel Wakefulness
Many believers today seem to have intellectually assented to belief in the traditional doctrines of the Christian faith, but they exhibit no evidence of a really changed heart that has had its affections towards God awakened and stoked. In this book, Jared Wilson tries to expound on the glory of God in the gospel and outline what he calls "gospel wakefulness," a sort of second awakening to the gospel that results in a believer's increased sanctification and conscious love towards God. He makes clear that it's not a second conversion experience, nor does it place believers into two "tiers" (plain believers and "super" believers), but I was edified and encouraged by his vision of the Christian life and how it impacts the ways we interact with life. Very powerful.

3. Greg Lucas - Wrestling With An Angel
In a world that tends to define a person by their utility, their usefulness to others, and deem those of little use of little worth, this book was a breath of fresh air and an emotional powerhouse. Greg Lucas outlines the impact of raising his son, someone with multiple disabilities and challenges. Ever conscious of the way the gospel addresses these situations, Lucas outlines what his son has taught him about our relationship to God and grown him in Christlikeness. There were multiple times while reading this book that I had to simply set it down and take a deep breath. The ways Lucas recounts personal stories and then brings out the gospel truths in the stories is simply masterful. I would especially recommend this for parents of these children, but also for all believers to help them understand how we should think about disabilities and God.

4. Wesley Hill - Washed and Waiting
Christianity has struggled to find a balance with how to address the sinful nature of homosexuality without demonizing those who recognize their need to fight against it. This book strikes that balance for me. Hill is very clear about the Bible’s teaching, but that doesn’t make his obedience to it easy, and it’s obvious he’s only made it through because of supportive believers in his life. I wish every gay believer had these kinds people to love, support, and encourage them. If more people read this book, more of them probably would.

5. Stephen Altrogge - The Greener Grass Conspiracy
My generation is one that operates on principles of entitlement and discontent. Many have even painted discontent as a positive quality, in that we should never be satisfied and should always “push for more.” God’s people shouldn’t lack ambition, but it shouldn’t be motivated by a lack of contentment. Paul wrote to the Philippians that he had learned to be content in any circumstance (which included much more than most of our struggles that lead to discontent). How? Through Christ, who strengthened him. That’s the source of our contentment. This book will help you love Christ more, and in doing so, will point you to the source of true contentment, regardless of your temporal circumstances this side of heaven.

6. Robert Stein - Jesus The Messiah
An excellent survey of the life of Christ from the four gospels. I read this for my New Testament class covering the four gospels and really enjoyed it. It has a great balance of academic and devotional feel to it.

7. N.D. Wilson - Notes from the Tilt-a-Whirl
One of the more creative explorations of the implications of the Christian faith I've read. Wilson is a storyteller, and he uses that skill powerfully to interact with the seemingly ordinary things of life and make them seem extraordinary in light of the gospel.

8. Joe Thorn - Note to Self 
Don’t “assume the gospel” in your daily life and live on auto-pilot. Force the truth of the Bible into your heart. This book is a great example of how to do that.

9. Jerry Bridges and Bob Bevington - The Great Exchange
Jerry Bridges is one of my favorite writers. In this book, he and Bob Bevington explore the idea that Christ became sin so that we might become the righteousness of God. Fantastic look at the book of Hebrews and Christ as the passover lamb and fulfillment of the priesthood.

10. Tim Keller - King's Cross
Keller shows how the Gospel of Mark builds on different ideas and how different narrative sections further the gospel storyline. The result is an encounter with Jesus that is truly intense and forces readers to make decisions about what they will believe about the man.

Honorable Mention:

Tim Keller - The Meaning of Marriage (Likely to be a favorite once I finish it)
Gilbert Meilaender - Bioethics:A Primer for Christians
Casey Lute - But God…
Tim Challies - The Next Story
Wendell Berry - Sex, Economy, Freedom, & Community
Trevin Wax - Counterfeit Gospels
Elyse Fitzpatrick - Give Them Grace
Sam Crabtree - Practicing Affirmation

All Sons & Daughters - "Your Glory"

This is Part 4 of my response to my Christian Ethics final exam. Please take some time to read the scenario at Dr. Moore's blog and read Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3 of my response if you haven't. Here's the final piece, Part 4.

This is Part 3 of my response to my Christian Ethics final exam. Please take some time to read the scenario at Dr. Moore's blog and read Part 1 and Part 2 of my response if you haven't. Here's part 3.

This is Part 2 of my response to my Christian Ethics final exam. Please take some time to read the scenario at Dr. Moore's blog and read Part 1 of my response if you haven't. Here's part 2.

I just completed my first semester at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. One class I took was Christian Ethics with Dr. Russell Moore. Our final exam was to think through a hypothetical situation and walk through our steps in how we might handle it as a pastor.Introduction

Josh Garrels - "Farther Along"

Awesome. These guys are fantastic.

Men and women are different. Ya think?

Amazingly beautiful.

I just finished Jared Wilson's new book Gospel Wakefulness. Seriously fantastic book. Here's a quick summary from Amazon:

From Desiring God:

Over the years, we have chosen not to include Santa Claus in our Christmas stories and decorations. There are several reasons.

First, fairy tales are fun and we enjoy them, but we don’t ask our children to believe them.

Second, we want our children to understand God as fully as they’re able at whatever age they are. So we try to avoid anything that would delay or distort that understanding. It seems to us that celebrating with a mixture of Santa and manger will postpone a child’s clear understanding of what the real truth of God is. It’s very difficult for a young child to pick through a marble cake of part-truth and part-imagination to find the crumbs of reality.

Third, we think about how confusing it must be to a straight-thinking, uncritically-minded preschooler because Santa is so much like what we’re trying all year to teach our children about God. Look, for example, at the “attributes” of Santa.

• He’s omniscient—he sees everything you do.
• He rewards you if you’re good.
• He’s omnipresent—at least, he can be everywhere in one night.
• He gives you good gifts.
• He’s the most famous “old man in the sky” figure.

But at the deeper level that young children haven’t reached yet in their understanding, he is not like God at all.

For example, does Santa really care if we’re bad or good? Think of the most awful kid you can remember. Did he or she ever not get gifts from Santa?

What about Santa’s spying and then rewarding you if you’re good enough? That’s not the way God operates. He gave us his gift—his Son—even though we weren’t good at all. “God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (ROMANS 5:8). He gave his gift to us to make us good, not because we had proved ourselves good enough.

Helping our children understand God as much as they’re able at whatever age they are is our primary goal. But we’ve also seen some other encouraging effects of not including Santa in our celebration.

Run Kid Run - "Daylight"

If you didn't see Kurt Warner's comments about Tim Tebow, here's what he said:

The idea behind this and other counsel to young master Tebow to lighten up on the Jesus talk is that talking about Jesus turns people off, so one should just be a good person instead. I've now seen both Christians and non-Christians suggest this approach.

There are a few problems with this advice:
1. It assumes Tim isn't already "being a good person."
2. It assumes one can simply imply the gospel with actions and it be understood.
3. It assumes that the gospel isn't offensive, really, but is made so through verbalizing it too much.

All of those assumptions are incorrect. Clearly for Tebow (who I respect and appreciate as a person -- my football loyalties lay elsewhere :-) which is a good thing since even though "he just wins," he's not a very good quarterback (yet?)) speaking the gospel and demonstrating its implications is not an either/or proposition. He rightly understands you cannot do one without the other.

I listened to a guest on Jim Rome's ESPN2 show yesterday say Tebow would commend his message more if he stopped talking about it and simply became a good football player. What all these folks appear to be saying is this: "Tebow turns people off by talking about his message so much." But what my ears hear is this: "Tebow's message makes me really uncomfortable and I don't like it, so I wish he'd just shut up and 'be nice'."

In fact, the Rome guest used the words "shoving it in our face," which is what offended parties often say about people who actually don't shove anything in anybody's face but merely talk most about what's most important to them. Last I heard, Tebow was not randomly showing up at people's homes and workplaces and cornering them with an evangelistic appeal. People are asking him questions, requesting interviews, wanting to hear what he has to say. And what Tebow has to say is directly influenced by the most direct influence on his life. Shouldn't this be true of everyone who claims Christ saved them?

What most of us seem ill-equipped to understand is a public figure so enamored with the love of Jesus he won't shut up about it. May his tribe increase, I say.

Tebow is apparently not the kind of star interested in paying Jesus some lip service when he wins a game or award. He's apparently a guy whose mouth is connected to the overflow of his heart.

The truth is that the gospel is a scandal. I wish brothers like Kurt Warner would factor that into their consideration. That people are blanching at Tebow's Christ-centered words is not because Tebow is offensive but because Christ is.

The truth is that faith comes by hearing, not by deducing through comfortable apprehension of good deeds. An implied gospel is a gospel fail.

Why can't guys be more like Barry Sanders and act like they've scored a touchdown before? Great stuff from Bob Costas here.

Russell Moore re-posted his provocatively titled post from AIDS day a couple years ago. Very powerful stuff.

Jesus has AIDS.

Just reading that in the type in front of you probably has some of you angry. Let me help you see why that is, and, in so doing, why caring for those with AIDS is part of the gospel mandate given to us in the Great Commission.

The statement that Jesus has AIDS startles some of you because you know it not to be true. Jesus, after all, is the exalted son of the living God. He has defeated death in the garden tomb, and defeated it finally. Jesus isn’t weak or dying or infected; he’s triumphant and resurrected.

Yes.

Yes, but, what we’re often likely to miss is that Jesus has identified himself with the suffering of this world, an identification that continues on through his church. Yes, Jesus finishes his suffering at the cross, but he also speaks of himself as being “persecuted” by Saul of Tarsus, as Saul comes after his church in Damascus (Acts 9:4).

Through the Spirit of Christ, we “groan” with him at the suffering of a universe still under the curse (Rom. 8:23,26). This curse manifests itself, as in billions of other ways, in bodies turned against themselves by immune systems gone awry.

That’s why the church is to suffer, continually, with Christ as we take his presence into the darkness of a fallen creation. The Apostle Paul says, then, “I rejoice then in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church” (Col. 1:24).

Some of Jesus’ church has AIDS. Some of them are languishing in hospitals right down the street from you. Some of them are orphaned by the disease in Africa. All of them are suffering with an intensity few of us can imagine.

Some of you are angered by the statement I typed above because you think somehow it implicates Jesus. After all, AIDS is a shameful disease, one most often spread through sexual promiscuity or illicit drug use.

Yes.

Yes, but those are the very kinds of people Jesus consistently identified himself with as he walked the hillsides of Galilee and the streets of Jerusalem, announcing the kingdom of God. Can one be more sexually promiscuous than the prostitutes Jesus ate with? Can one be more marginalized from society than a woman dripping with blood, blood that would have made anyone who touched her unclean (Luke 8:40-48)? Jesus touched her, and took her uncleanness on himself.

AIDS is scandalous, sure. But not nearly as scandalous as a cross.

Doug Wilson:

We do this because we are convinced that Jesus used wine when He first established the meal, and we believe that we do not have the authority to alter what He established. The Jews used wine in their Passover meals, and Jesus established this sacrament in the context of that meal. The “cup of blessing” that Paul refers to (1 Cor. 10:16) was the third cup in the Passover meal, and it was a cup of wine. Indeed, in an age without refrigeration, it would not have been possible to keep and maintain what we think of as grape juice.

One of the ways we know that the wine in the Bible was alcoholic is through the constant reminders not to drink too much of it (Eph. 5:18). If biblical wine were simply grape juice, these moral exhortations make no sense. The master of the wedding feast at Cana was not amazed that the best grape juice had been saved for last, after all the third rate grape juice had dulled everybody’s senses (John 2:10).

Some might feel that including alcoholic drink in a sacramental meal is somehow disrespectful. But this is actually a modern version of letting the traditions of men (which can exert a powerful influence) set aside the Word of God—which Jesus said not to do (Mark 7:9). In the Old Testament, tithe money was to be used to buy shekar or strong drink (Deut. 14:22-26). In the New, the word for wine is oinos, and is clearly alcoholic as multiple contexts make clear.

There is one more point worth emphasizing. The wine we use in communion should be like the gospel—and that is potent. As with anything potent, abuses are possible (e.g. “shall we sin that grace may abound?”), but the possibility of abuse should not be allowed to replace the authority of Scripture. We want in the first place to be biblical people. This means we do not want a grape juice gospel, but rather a gospel with a kick.

116 - "Man Up Anthem" (ft. Lecrae, KB, Trip Lee, Tedashii, PRo, Andy Mineo, and Sho Baraka)

HT: The Thinklings

Desiring God posted this today:C. S. Lewis, The Chronicles of Narnia, on Jill's thirst and search for water:

The birds had ceased singing and there was perfect silence except for one small, persistent sound, which seemed to come from a good distance away. She listened carefully, and felt almost sure it was the sound of running water.

Jill got up and looked round her very carefully. There was no sign of the lion; but there were so many trees about that it might easily be quite close without her seeing it. . . . But her thirst was very bad now, and she plucked up her courage to go and look for that running water. . . .

The wood was so still that it was not difficult to decide where the sound was coming from. It grew clearer every moment and, sooner than she expected, she came to an open glade and saw the stream, bright as glass, running across the turf a stone's throw away from her. But although the sight of water made her feel ten times thirstier than before, she didn't rush forward to drink. She stood as still as if she had been turned to stone, with her mouth wide open. And she had a very good reason: Just on this side of the stream lay the Lion. . . .

How long this lasted, she could not be sure; it seemed like hours. And the thirst became so bad that she almost felt she would not mind being eaten by the lion if only she could be sure of getting a mouthful of water first.

"If you're thirsty, you may drink." . . .

For a second she stared here and there, wondering who had spoken. Then the voice said again,

"If you are thirsty, come and drink." . . .

It was deeper, wilder, and stronger; a sort of heavy, golden voice. . . .

"Are you thirsty?" said the Lion.

"I'm dying of thirst," said Jill.

"Then drink," said the Lion.

"May I — could I — would you mind going away while I do?" said Jill.

The Lion answered this only by a look and a very low growl. . . . The delicious rippling noise of the stream was driving her nearly frantic. . . .

"Do you eat girls?" she asked fearfully.

"I have swallowed up girls and boys, women and men, kings and emperors, cities and realms," said the Lion. It didn't say this as if it were boasting, nor as if it were sorry, nor as if it were angry. It just said it.

"I daren't come and drink," said Jill.

"Then you will die of thirst," said the Lion.

"Oh dear!" said Jill, coming another step nearer. "I suppose I must go and look for another stream then."

"There is no other stream," said the Lion.

The Silver Chair, (New York: Harper Collins, 1953), Kindle Edition, locations 219-238.

Twenty One Pilots - "Car Radio"

A little poignant and insightful Friday humor. Couple mildly objectionable words, FYI.

Great as always from the peeps at Sojourn.

Mary Kassian offers some helpful answers to misconceptions about biblical submission. She also answers how her marriage defies the stereotype of submission and what her marriage of 29 years looks like living out the biblical view.

1. Submission is universal—the directive applies to all women, even those outside of the faith community.
2. Submission is gender-exclusive—it’s just for women.
3. Submission is generic—every woman submits to every man.
4. Submission is a right—a husband has the right to demand his wife’s submission.
5. Submission is indiscriminate—it means mindless acquiescence.
6. Submission precludes mutuality—it creates lopsided, one-way relationships.
7. Submission promotes abuse—it encourages husbands to be domineering, self-centered boors.

I especially liked her answer to the question: “Why might some (think secular audience) be surprised to learn that you submit to your husband. In other words, how do you yourself defy the stereotype?

She says:

My husband takes his responsibility to love me as Christ loves the Church seriously. I take my responsibility to submit to him seriously. That means that I am cherished and have a voice. That means that he is respected and supported. I work with him, and pull in the same direction. Some might be surprised that I believe in submission because my marriage displays a unity, intimacy, and mutuality that is deep, profound and enviable. I am flourishing. I have what most women want. And it is a great paradox how it is has been achieved. The way of faith is the way of paradox: lose your life to live it, give to receive. It is also a great paradox that honoring God’s pattern for authority and submission in marriage fosters unity and mutuality.

This is the question for my Ethics final with Dr. Russell Moore at Southern Seminary. How would you answer it? Just posting this for people to think about. Please don't post any comments addressing the situation at all since I'm not allowed to read the comments on Dr. Moore's blog either.

You find yourself far away from this ethics class, twenty years from now in your ministry, serving a church in south Florida. Pablo is a man you met, with his wife Hannah, after they attended a small-group Bible study in the home of a family in your church. Both of them, after hearing you explain the gospel, were convicted of sin and, after several weeks of conversation, both announced they were ready to confess Jesus as Lord and to follow him in baptism.

Before the baptism, though, Pablo approaches you to say that he’s not sure he meets the requirements for Christian baptism. He’s not sure he’s a repentant sinner. He sees himself as guilty, he is sorry for his sins against God and others, and he wants the forgiveness that comes through Jesus’ bloody cross, the new life that comes from Jesus’ empty tomb.

But there’s something that kindles fear in him.

Pablo tells you he is an undocumented worker, what some would call an “illegal immigrant.” Years ago he left conditions in El Salvador that, due to famine there, led him to near starvation. Moreover, he worked, like others in his village, for a multinational plantation where he was physically beaten and sexually abused. There were no other options for him, as the only employers in the country were made up of similarly exploitative companies. He slipped into this country undetected and has since lived with an artificial Social Security number he purchased on the black market, enabling him to work in this country.

Pablo’s employer knows his immigration status, but operates with a “don’t ask/don’t tell” policy when it comes to such questions about his workers. Indeed, several outside financial consultants say that, without such labor, this employer’s business would be financially unfeasible and would have to close, since there is not a sufficient employee base among native-born Americans willing to work in such a job.

The employer is Tyler Rogers, also a member of your church, one of your most Christlike people in the congregation, and he teaches the Bible in a large Tuesday night small group. It was at his family’s house that you met Pablo and Hannah, since he had been sharing the gospel with them for months and inviting them to hear more through your church.

The United States immigration policy is, if anything, more restrictive than it was when you were in ethics class at Southern Seminary. No longer can a green card be obtained by marrying a U.S. citizen, so Pablo’s marriage to Hannah is irrelevant to his immigration status. According to current law, if Pablo turns himself in, or is caught, he will face immediate deportation to El Salvador, along with a penalty making him ineligible to apply to entrance to the United States for no less than ten years.

Moreover, returning to El Salvador and applying for immigration is a process that takes, in the best of scenarios, ten years from start to finish. An admission of illegal status, plus a return to El Salvador, would mean crushing poverty, possible starvation, and almost certain bodily harm in dangerous working conditions. It would also mean being separated from Hannah for ten to twenty years.

Pablo and Hannah have three children: an eleven year-old girl, a six year-old boy, and a two year-old girl. Hannah is also pregnant with their fourth child, due next Spring.

Pablo has, since arriving in the United States, been sending a portion of his paycheck back to El Salvador, to his elderly mother who is caring for Pablo’s nieces and nephews since Pablo’s brother was killed due to the unsafe working conditions in the factory and his brother’s wife abandoned the children. Without this money, Pablo fears the children, two of whom are babies, and his mother would starve to death.

Pablo wants to do what Jesus would have him to do, to be a godly man. What do you advise him to do? If you advise him to turn himself in or to return to El Salvador, how do you square that with the biblical mandate that one who “does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Tim. 5:8)? Can you really, from that point forward, consider yourself “pro-family” or “pro-orphan” or even “pro-life”?

If you advise him to stay with his family, how is he keeping the biblical mandate to “obey the governing authorities” (Rom. 13:1)? How also is he avoiding the sin of bearing false witness, about himself and his legal status? Can you baptize Pablo? After all, is he really showing repentance from sin?

What do you do or say, if anything, about Tyler and his employment practices? If nothing, then why not?

How do you equip the congregation to understand how to deal with this situation, and what implications does it have for how you respond to the mission field where God has placed you, with a large and growing community of undocumented Latin American workers, many of whom need to hear and believe the gospel, and are watching how you respond to this family.

Walk through each step of ethical reflection, showing why you reject some options and why you embrace others. Ground your answer in Scripture, the gospel, the Christian tradition, natural law, and common grace. Think through the implications of your answer in each situation for unintended consequences, and show how those can be ethically resolved.

Switchfoot - "Restless"

My wife and I attended a benefit for pureHOPE last night, an organization committed to fighting for purity and justice within a highly sexualized and immoral culture. They fight against human trafficking, prostitution, and pornography, all of which tend to be much more related and integrated than people think.

Shai Linne - "Lord of Patience"

Ted Kluck:

One of the most natural things that most of us do with teams and sports figures is to ascribe a greater degree of moral value to them than they actually deserve. For years the Penn State program was upheld (somewhat rightly) as a beacon of everything that was good in the morally-compromised, seemingly God-forsaken world of Big Time College Football. Aside from the occasional bar fight or DUI, the football program remained mostly scandal-free and boasted above-average graduation rates and almost universally-decent kids. And they never messed with their uniforms (bonus).

For the Penn State fan who has probably papered his basement with team photographs, and adorned his body for decades with officially-licensed team gear, and who has probably talked for years about how We Do Things the Right Way Here, the Sandusky situation really is an occasion for grief. The Penn State posters and officially-licensed jerseys are looked at and worn differently in light of what has recently become public.

It should be added that almost all fans do this with their programs and individual heroes. Northwestern fans say, “At least we have our academic standards,” Auburn fans tried to defend Cam Newton’s honor (and naiveté) in last year’s scandal, and even fans of USC – perhaps the most successful pro football team in the Los Angeles media market – defended Reggie Bush’s actions (in his own scandal) as the natural reaction of a talented kid and his family being exploited by a cash-cow program.

This deep-seated drive to attach nobility to and defend the programs we love is probably in some weird way proof of our creation in God’s image. We want them to be more than football players, we want them to be Symbols of Something (see: Tebow, Timothy). Tebow’s actions have been debated and defended with scary, mouth-frothing intensity by media and fans alike (and the non-Christians are even worse…okay, not really).

As people ask me about the Penn State situation I’m reminded of the following, stated hopefully in the least-pious way possible:

One, I’m sad. Whenever something like this happens, it’s an occasion to put aside rooting interests and genuinely feel grieved for all of the people involved. But two, I’m reminded of something that we say a lot but I think rarely internalize and actually live: The idea that nothing good is possible apart from Christ. As proud and hopeful as Penn State football made us feel over the years, this story is an occasion to be reminded that Christ is our only comfort, and our only source of joy. It’s a chance to be reminded that God gives football and God, sometimes, in his sovereignty, takes it away.

And I think it’s an occasion to question our own tendency toward hero-worship. If we say that we worship the author and perfector of our faith, why then do we have an almost insatiable and semi-embarrassing drive to create heroes in other walks of life?

Interesting commentary from David Gushee over at USA Today:

Once again, a presidential race is becoming a piety contest.

As an American and also as an evangelical Christian, I can hardly bear to watch this nightmare unfolding all over again. It's bad for America. It's bad for Christianity. Here is my take on the sorry spectacle of Christian politics — and how to fix it.

Politicians continue to use and abuse the language and symbols of Christian faith in order to win political support. They speak of God, Jesus, Christian faith and Christian values. They bow their heads in prayer at a million chicken dinners. Then Christian voters — perhaps flattered, perhaps reassured — think that these evocations of holy Christian symbols and terms actually mean something...

...This version of Christian politics is inherently corrupting to Christian faith, ethics and witness. It encourages politicians to take God's name in vain, and to do so routinely. (That would be a violation of the Ten Commandments, if Christians still cared about such things.) It tempts church leaders to abuse their offices and abandon their core vocations as they entangle themselves with politics. It confuses the message of Christianity with that of the politician of the moment. It damages the moral witness of Christians in culture. It makes it harder for millions to even consider the claims of historic Christian faith. It drives many away from God altogether.

This kind of Christian politics is also corrupting of American politics. When a significant minority of the body politic votes mainly on the basis of what amounts to religious tribalism, it encourages everyone else to do the same thing. But tribal politics is toxic. It has destroyed nations from Yugoslavia to Lebanon. And it does nothing to bring to office leaders with the skills to actually solve our everyday problems. We need effective leaders, not religious symbols.

Christian politics also contributes to a weaker understanding of the purposes and limits of American government. The United States has one of the most brilliantly constructed political systems in the world. But fewer and fewer Americans understand either its structure or the reasons for that structure. Constitutionalism, majority rule with minority rights, checks and balances, federalism, the tripartite diffusion of power — not to mention religious liberty and the separation of church and state — these are treasures, admired and imitated all over the world. But when political allegiance is determined first and foremost by religious litmus tests, these treasures are put at risk.

My father-in-law passed this on to me. Really good stuff.

John Mark McMillan - "Sheet of Night"

Thought this was funny in parts...

Call it an occupational hazard, but I can’t look at the Occupy Wall Street protesters without thinking, “Who parented these people?”

As a culture columnist, I’ve commented on the social and political ramifications of the “movement” - now known as “OWS” - whose fairyland agenda can be summarized by one of their placards: “Everything for everybody.”

Thanks to their pipe-dream platform, it’s clear there are people with serious designs on “transformational” change in America who are using the protesters like bedsprings in a brothel.

Yet it’s not my role as a commentator that prompts my parenting question, but rather the fact that I’m the mother of four teens and young adults. There are some crucial life lessons that the protesters’ moms clearly have not passed along.

Here, then, are five things the OWS protesters’ mothers should have taught their children but obviously didn’t, so I will:

Here's the trailer for the new album, out today.

Ryan Adams - "Lucky Now"

Love this speech of Martin Luther, and I love Joseph Fiennes' delivery of it.

This guy is insane. I love the restraint in this type of movement.

Russell Moore:

Many believe if they really have embraced the gospel, they ought to have a moment, a date, they can point to as the instant they passed from the kingdom of darkness to the kingdom of light.

Sometimes our churches reinforce this misunderstanding. Preachers talk about assurance of salvation as though it were about remembering a past experience, and doing a mental autopsy on the sincerity of that. The people we allow to give “testimonies” in our churches and in our publications all seem to have a dramatic tale to tell.

That’s not what the gospel is about.

In our culture, we make a big-to-do about birthdays. Other cultures don’t. I could ask you right now, “When were you born” and you could probably tell me month, date, and year. But how do you know that? It’s because there were people there, usually your parents, who could tell you that information. You don’t remember emerging from the birth canal (and that’s probably a very good thing).

Other people, in other cultures at other times, don’t recognize dates but seasons. They might not know what day on the weekly calendar or what year in the solar calendar they were born. But do they then question whether they are alive? Of course not. How do you know if you were in fact born? You look to see if you’re alive…now.

It’s no accident that Jesus compares entrance into the kingdom of God to physical birth. There is a kind of helplessness that we experience in the biology and history of our births. No one can boast about an easy delivery. No one should feel guilty about prompting a Caesarean section. The important thing is that you’re here.

The same is true for the gospel. Some of you were brought to Christ suddenly and dramatically. Your past life as a prostitute or a drunk or a warlord gave way to a radically different direction as a disciple. In that, your situation is quite similar to the Apostle Paul’s. Others of you, though saved just as truly in some point in time, aren’t able to identify that time. Your memory is of a slow realization of the gospel, and you can’t necessarily pinpoint when you were converted in that time-frame. Your situation sounds more like that of Paul’s disciple Timothy. The point of the gospel isn’t celebrating an experience; it’s believing a Man who is your crucified, resurrected, reigning Life.

Really great post for moms here.

Have you ever noticed that when there is more than one straw in a milkshake, everyone sucks faster? Everyone knows they are competing, and every sip from someone else means less for you. People start breathing through their noses to minimize lost time.

I have felt for a long time that when you have little children, they have a straw that taps directly into your energy. The milkshake cup is me, and the milkshake is my energy, and every child is armed with a straw. Infants who are either in the womb or nursing have a competitive edge on this, and get to take as much as they want before it even hits the glass.

The thing is, when the glass is full, things are pretty pleasant. No matter how much milkshake the kids are drinking, there is still some left. It feels pretty good. I am happy to feed them all. But when you hit the last inch of milkshake, all the straws start making that horrible noise as they swab around in the bottom of the glass looking for anything they could snag. They all feel the panic of limited supply. They all start getting intense and sucking much, much harder. They are panicked. I am getting panicked. I want everyone to stop so I could have a chance to whip up a new batch. No one stops, because they are trying to get the last of the film off the glass, leaving nothing behind and all that.

The demands for your attention and energy get suddenly loud and obnoxious when you feel like there isn’t anything left to give. The truth is, your children aren’t demanding anything different than what they were made to need. Usually, when they use this straw, they get fed. Right now, when they use this straw, mom gets eggy...

...When we are at home with our children, this is our sanctification. This is the testing of our faith. And it is Christ’s faithfulness that enables ours. It is our job to cast off sins, to be faithful. It is Christ’s job to renew us. We need to be faithful, because He is faithful to us. We can trust him to fill our milkshakes, because His never runs low.

This new trailer for David Murray's book, How Sermons Work, might be the most creative one I've seen yet. Very entertaining.

Dan Phillips offers his example of an abortion-exception-for-rape conversation:

MORGAN: But you’ve had children, grandchildren. If one of your female children, grand children was raped, you would honestly want her to bring up that baby as her own?

PHILLIPS: As opposed to...?

MORGAN: < blinks > As opposed to allowing her freedom of choice.

PHILLIPS: Freedom of choice to...?

MORGAN: Well, to terminate the pregnancy.

PHILLIPS: Well Piers, every pregnancy terminates. You are a terminated pregnancy, I am a ter... I mean, it's not like our moms are still pregnant, right?

MORGAN: Yes, well, of course. That's not what we're talking about.

PHILLIPS: Oh? What are we talking about?

MORGAN: Abortion.

PHILLIPS: Okay, killing a baby before it's born. Or, if you're a Democrat, while it's being born. Or, if you're Senatrix Boxer, after it's born but before it's taken home. Yes, what is your question?

MORGAN: About rape. Would you make an exception for rape?

PHILLIPS: I'm not sure why you won't just say it plainly. Does your position embarrass you?

MORGAN: No, of course not. This isn't about my position.

PHILLIPS: All right. Well, what is your position?

MORGAN: No no no, this isn't about me. I'm not running for President. What is your position?

PHILLIPS: On abortion? Didn't I already say? I'm pro-life. Innocent children should be protected.

MORGAN: Even in rape?

PHILLIPS: Why? What'd the baby do?

MORGAN: Sorry?

PHILLIPS: What did the baby do? I didn't even know you were pro-death-penalty, and here you're suggesting a death-penalty for the baby. What did the baby do?

MORGAN: It isn't about the baby...

PHILLIPS: < scoff > If they could speak for themselves as the blades get closer, I think they'd beg to differ with you, Piers.

MORGAN: So, the woman is going through this terrible experience, and you would force her to keep that child.

PHILLIPS: The woman is going through a terrible experience, because she is a victim. I don't see how I would help her by turning her into a victimizer, by suggesting that she make her baby a victim. Wouldn't you say that being torn limb from limb or burnt to death is a "terrible experience"? How does having her put an innocent child through a terrible experience help her with her terrible experience — if that is our concern?

MORGAN: But --

PHILLIPS: Hang on a moment. We all agree, I hope: criminals should be punished. I hope we also all agree that only criminals should be punished. Right?

MORGAN: Okay, but --

PHILLIPS: Work with me here, Piers. You'll get your straight answer about the What, plus at no extra charge you'll get the Why. So criminals, and only criminals. OK, there's been a rape. Who's the criminal?

MORGAN: The rapist.

PHILLIPS: The rapist. Not the woman?

MORGAN: Of course not! That kind of thinking...

PHILLIPS: Oh, I agree. The woman is not a criminal, because she did not deserve this. Last question: did the baby deserve it? Did he do something? Should he be punished for his father's crime?

MORGAN: So you would prohibit abortion even in the case of rape.

PHILLIPS: < chuckles > The jury will note that you don't want to think rationally about this issue. But to give you the promised straight answer: a Phillips administration would oppose death penalties for innocent victims, including children of rape.