andre's blog

"Fyodor Dostoevsky," by Peter Leithart

2011-10-13T17:27:00.000-07:00

Peter Leithart, in his latest installment in the Christian Encounters Series, “Fyodor Dostoevsky,” brings us another compelling and fascinating biographical sketch of an important Christian writer. The first praise that I have for this small volume is its presentation: Leithart on Dostoevsky on Dostoevsky. The book presents the biographee as his own biographer, an intriguing and entertaining approach to telling a life story. The setting is Dostoevsky’s study, Fyodor himself is an aged man, and is recounting his life to an old friend.

Dostoevsky’s life was one of literary and political battles. Almost perishing on multiple occasions due to his flirting with anarchism earlier in life, he later came to the position of what might be called Russian Purism. Leithart doesn’t get too in-depth here, but he emphasizes Dostoevsky’s holistic approach to culture: anti-Western, very Russian and very Christian. A true and honest Russian identity is what Dostoevsky was after, one that did not need the help of European nations to find its own unique offerings to the world.

Although he spent his early life chasing youthful lusts and squandering his money gambling, Dostoevsky matured into a man dedicated to his wife Anna and loyal to his family, despite their constant money-grabbing. I recommend this biography, and my thanks to Thomas Nelson for the complimentary review copy.

Fascinating Biography of George Carver

2011-09-06T08:00:00.000-07:00

God gives his children all sorts of miraculous gifts and talents, some more unusual than others. In George Washington Carver's case, God gave him the gift of botanical insight. John Perry brings us "George Washington Carver," a small but well-written biography publicised under the recent Christian Encounters series.

Carver began his life as a slave and eventually, through his patience, desire to learn and love of nature, found himself in Iowa State University as one of the favorite students of his professors. Later joining Booker T. Washington at the Tuskegee Institute in Alabama, Carver further developed his unique skill of cultivating different uses for various vegetation and plant life. Relatively unknown outside of Alabama till later in his life, Carver eventually found over 250 uses the peanut, and hundreds of uses for other vegetables including the sweet potato and pecan.

John Perry does well to elucidate the life of Carver, showing us his struggles, his failures, and his victories. Throughout his life, Carver struggled with a desire to be accepted and praised by others, but all the while overcome with a greater desire to please the Lord with his gifts and excite others to see what God had made.

Many thanks to Thomas Nelson for this complimentary review copy of this excellent biography.

Marvelous little Knox Bio

2011-09-03T11:42:00.001-07:00

“The Life of John Knox,” written by an unknown author (I couldn’t find his name anywhere in the publication) is a fantastic little volume. In this work there are several scenes in Knox’s life that are unavailable in other biographies, most notably his encounters with Mary, Queen of Scots.

Myself being on a bit of a Knox bent lately, when I heard about Attic Books’ republication of a long forgotten work, I was interested right away. Of course the book can be somewhat difficult to read at times, but not nearly enough to have no idea what the author is trying to convey. At times, the specificity is quite helpful, and the thoughtfulness of his writings is much appreciated.

The book does hammer away at the Roman Catholicism of Knox’s day (and for good reason), so do not be shocked at some of the author’s bold statements in this regard; intertwined with this are the leaders of that day, political and otherwise, who were generally evil people in search of power and affluence. This power and affluence could in many ways be granted by the corrupt Roman church, which in many ways helped to give rise to the Reformation.

Knox’s encounters with Mary, Queen of Scots are marvelously portrayed in the book. Also, her character is unveiled as a duplicitous and unworthy Queen, oftentimes herself lying and going back on her word to the detriment of the people under her leadership. If you are interested in a small Knox biography, this perhaps may not be the first to read (for that I would recommend Wilson’s “For Kirk and Covenant”), but it is great for looking into those points of Knox’s life that you are left hanging in the other biographies. Highly recommended.

I would like to thank New Leaf Publishers and Attic Books for the complimentary review copy of this wonderful book.

"The Unwavering Resolve of Jonathan Edwards," by Dr. Steven Lawson

2011-08-18T21:26:00.000-07:00

"The Unwavering Resolve of Jonathan Edwards," a biography by Dr. Steven Lawson, is an interesting yet somewhat frustrating read. On the one hand, Lawson lists many of Edwards' resolutions and explains their beauty and discipline, citing much of Edwards' own diary for how he wrestled with them throughout his life. On the other hand, the biography comes off as hagiographic, painting Edwards in a slightly less-than-believable light. The humanity of Edwards, for the most part, seems to shine through the quotes present, and not much at all through Lawson's commentary on them.

The book, for the most part, is organized around Edwards’ famous resolutions, those pithy charges of self-accountability. Brilliant insights and penetrating declarations line the resolutions, and you cannot help but feel the gravity of Edwards’ desire for personal holiness. The resolutions, coupled with Edwards’ diary entries speak much of his personal life, struggles, and victories.

Perhaps this book is better categorized as a commentary than a biography. But it is a decent commentary, with its share of insights. Yet, desiring to meet with Edwards himself as I read, I felt more like I was at his funeral, where only nice things are said, and we don't get the full, sympathetic picture.

I'd like to thank Reformation Trust Publishing for this complimentary review copy of "The Unwavering Resolve of Jonathan Edwards," and look forward to forthcoming volumes in the series.

Knox, Great Man of Weakness

2011-07-18T18:11:00.001-07:00

Douglas Bond brings us the latest in Reformation Trust’s “Long Line of Godly Men” series; a biography of John Knox entitled The Mighty Weakness of John Knox. Bond uses the first quarter of the book to set out a brief outline of Knox’s life, making mention of important events and dates, while using the remainder of the book to explain notable events in finer detail, and Knox’s theology in general.

While the book is quite short and merely meant as an introduction to Knox and his influence on the church and Scotland, Bond does quite well in his short treatment. While I would have liked more of a traditional biography, I believe this particular series does not intend to contain strictly biographical sketches. Bond mentions most of the key events in Knox’s life: his time as a bodyguard, his encounters with Mary Queen of Scots, his denunciations of Bloody Mary, and some of his travels to Geneva and Frankfurt. But each of these events is mentioned with such brevity that we really do not get much of an impression of the man. We get more of a blur.

Bond spends most of his time on Knox’s theological views and influence in the church, and that is where the strong point of this book lies. Numerous quotes are offered from Knox himself that really help the reader to understand Knox and his desperation in trying to recover the integrity and majesty of Christ’s Kirk in not only Scotland, but around the world. I would like to thank Reformation Trust Publishing for this complimentary reading copy.

"J.R.R. Tolkien," by Mark Horne

2011-07-16T23:44:00.001-07:00

“J.R.R. Tolkien”, by Mark Horne, is a new biography of Tolkien that acts more as an introduction to Tolkien rather than a full biography. Although coming in at 130 pages, this short work is quite a nice overview of Tolkien’s life. This book genuinely makes one want to read not only Tolkien’s work, but also fuller biographies of his life.

Horne’s emphasis throughout his biography was Tolkien’s desire to create stories that would not only stand the test of time, but would inspire and radiate beauty to his readers. Tolkien, very much a perfectionist, held himself very strictly to this standard, and was extremely hesitant to release any of his writings. Were it not for some of his students, his wife, or friends like C.S. Lewis, we might not have The Hobbit or The Lord of the Rings. These people did not simply supply encouragement, but also pushed Tolkien to share his work with the public.

While Horne shows us Tolkien as academic and Tolkien as fantasy-writer, he also shows us the adventurous years of his youth, such as Tolkien hijacking a bus and driving it through Oxford.

Despite its brevity, this biography does what all good biographies should do: give the reader a desire to delve into the person’s work. I’d like to thank Thomas Nelson for this complimentary book to review.

Galileo, Ecclesiocentrist

2011-06-19T19:15:00.000-07:00

“Galileo,” by Mitch Stokes, is an eye-opening biography. Galileo, commonly assumed to be a warrior of science, is said to have stood up valiantly against the church’s hatred of such, and comes out the martyr. This is of course a sorely misrepresented picture of Galileo.

Galileo lived an era dominated by a pagan view of the cosmos, namely, the Aristotelian view. Such a view holds that the cosmos is divided into two sections: the imperfect, below-the-moon area, where moth and rust destroy and change occurs; and the perfect, that which is outside of the orbit of the moon and is immovable (other than the planets, the “wanderers”). And of course, the main characteristic of the Aristotelian model is geocentrism, the idea that the earth is the center of the universe. Galileo, however, was a proponent of the Copernican model of heliocentrism, but was not as dogmatic as many think in our day.

Stokes unveils the fact that Galileo was much more for the church than against it. Throughout his life, he clearly established that his view was simply a theory, and that he was in no way attempting to subvert the church’s authority or challenge church doctrine. In a very powerful letter near the end his life, Galileo states that “the falsity of the Copernican system must not on any account be doubted, especially by us Catholics, who have the irrefragable authority of Holy Scripture interpreted by the greatest masters of theology, whose agreement renders us certain of the stability of the earth and the mobility of the sun around it” (174). Now, this could be taken to be tongue-in-cheek, but we really have no reason to assume this the case, because it is in line with his approach to the subject throughout his life. Thanks to Thomas Nelson for the opportunity to review this great book.

"Defiant Joy," by Kevin Belmonte

2011-03-31T12:42:00.000-07:00

Defiant Joy, by Kevin Belmonte, is an odd book. While it claims to be a biography, only about 20% is actually biographical. Now, being a great Chesterton fan, I had high hopes for this book. It started out well enough, but over the course of five chapters or so, it went from Chesterton's childhood to his adult life. At that point, the book became somewhat of a series of book reports, each chapter focusing in on a different novel or series of essays that Chesterton wrote, moving consecutively through his life.

While an interesting concept, the reader is left wondering what Chesterton himself was actually doing at these points in his life. We do manage to get glimpses every now and again: Chesterton struggling with finances here, or engaging in debate there. But by and large, we get...book reports. I would consider this book more of a loose introduction to Chesterton himself, and would classify it as more of a literary biography than a personal one. All these things taken together, and despite the desire to promote all things Chesterton, I reluctantly give this book a two out of five. However, the book did prompt me to pick up Maisie Ward's biography of Chesterton. My thanks to Thomas Nelson for this review copy.

Bread and Wine, or Concerning the Elements used in Communion

2011-01-12T17:51:00.000-08:00

Sometimes when an argument becomes clouded by emotion, it is helpful to introduce an analogous or extreme example to help shed some light on things.

See this commercial:

http://palpular.com/video.php?videoid=4215

Now, this commercial is obviously ridiculous, but what can we take away from it? Is any food or drink acceptable to be used in the Lord's Supper? Is it dangerous to use elements not prescribed by our Lord? Soda instead of wine, chips instead of bread?

How about grape juice instead of wine?

What do you think?

"The Quotable Chesterton," by Kevin Belmonte

2011-01-04T12:40:00.000-08:00

"Brevity is the soul of wit," wrote Shakespeare; "but it would be quite as true to say in such cases that lengthiness is the soul of satire," added G.K. Chesterton. In Chesterton we have a master of satire, and as he would later come to be known, the Prince of Paradox. This is a fine collection of Chesterton quotes, from both his fiction and non-fiction. The author has even interspersed short articles describing Chesterton's various authorial hats that he wore throughout his lifetime. These can be interesting, though they seem to be a little out of place, landing in between a slew of Chesterton quotes. As far as catholicity of the included quotes, the author has done a fine job, although I was sad to see some of my favorite quotes absent. Considering, however, the enormous task of compiling a compendium of quotes from this enormous author, Belmonte has done well with the amount of pages he has dedicated to the task. I would love to see this volume as a springboard for a more thorough and elaborate collection to be arranged in the future.

The format of the book is quite nice, as the quotes are sequenced alphabetically. This is most suitable due to the vast subject matter that Chesterton addressed, and makes for quick reference during debate, conversation, or soiree. Entertain your friends and become the life of the party as you channel Chesterton's brilliance, but be prepared to be misunderstood, as many of his thoughts require reflection and explanation. Better yet, read his books; but then again, if you've bought this collection of quotes in the first place, odds are you are already a Chesterton fan.

If you have not yet had the pleasure of reading anything by Chesterton, I would suggest starting with "Manalive" as far as his fiction goes, or "Heretics"/"Orthodoxy" for non-fiction. Also, be sure to check out the American Chesterton Society's website, chesterton.org, for tons of information about this literary and philosophical giant. My gratitude to Booksneeze for providing me with this ARC.

Slaves of the Master, Free in Christ

2010-12-23T20:49:00.001-08:00

Now, I must admit that I am not a huge John MacArthur fan, although I do appreciate a lot of the work he has done. His most recent book, entitled “Slave,” is most assuredly among the work that I appreciate. MacArthur, simply yet methodically, explains why the Christian ought to be most comfortable with the title of “slave,” more so than anything else. This sounds ridiculous to the modern Christian, which is precisely why “Slave” is such a potent book. The term “slave,’ MacArthur explains, is one of the Bible’s oft-used metaphors to describe the follower of the Lord, and for good reason. He then proceeds to explain the historical precedent of the relationship between slave and master, and by placing us within this context, allows the reader to grow comfortable with his thesis, and understand the necessity of preserving this metaphor. What seems shocking at first becomes the Christian’s comfort, acknowledging himself as completely guided and provided for by the Master, that is Christ the Lord. One criticism I have for the book, however, would be that MacArthur tends to go on rabbit trails, although they tend to be beneficial. One such would be a somewhat irrelevant, yet fascinating, account of John Huss’s life and martyrdom. My thanks to BookSneeze for this complimentary review copy of John MacArthur’s, “Slave.”

Anne Bradstreet's Poetic Femininity

2010-08-19T05:57:00.000-07:00

Why on earth would anyone want to read a biography about an early American proto-feminist bent on freeing herself from the shackles of 17th century misogyny? Heck if I know, but that character is the precise opposite of Anne Bradstreet. Unlike what I was (almost) led to believe in the public college classroom, D.B. Kellogg delightfully conveys Bradstreet’s biblical femininity. Bradstreet, who was born in England, was transplanted to the recently founded Massachusetts Bay Colony shortly after marrying Simon Bradstreet. During this difficult time of upheaval, along with countless struggles of adaptation that resulted, Bradstreet found immense comfort in her husband, in her children (she had 8 altogether), and in her God. Feminists will surely bemoan Bradstreet’s elegant poetry in high praise of her husband, and her enjoyment of organizing and caring for his household. But even more striking than the culture shock we get from her femininity, is the confidence that Bradstreet has in God as comforter, especially when everything around her is most uncomfortable: “My Sun’s returned with healing wings, / My Soul and Body doth rejoice: / My heart exalts, and praises sings / To him that heard my wailing Voice. / My winter’s past, my storms are gone, / And former clouds seem now all fled; / But, if they must eclipse again, / I’ll run where I was succored.” [Thanks to Booksneeze for this ARC].

Jane Austen's Playful Piety

2010-04-19T07:06:00.000-07:00

“I think I may boast myself to be, with all possible Vanity, the most unlearned, & uninformed Female who ever dared to be an Authoress;” so Jane Austen speaks self- deprecatorily. But such is evidence of her characteristic humor and deep wit. “Jane Austen,” a new biography by Peter Leithart, sheds light onto the person and work of the famous novelist. What Leithart calls Austen’s “playful piety,” is her uncanny ability to not take herself seriously. Spending most of her time editing her own work, Austen wrote nearly entirely for pleasure, fashioning stories for the entertainment of her family. Leading a relatively simple life, Austen never got married, never procured for herself a career (as was the norm for women in that era), and thus left for herself much time to write and story-craft. Her blessing is surely our gain. I myself have never read any of Austen’s novels, but I went out and bought a set after reading this biography. Safe to say, it accomplished its task, and I enjoyed it tremendously. My only criticism (and a small one at that) is that it seemed unnecessarily detailed at times, such as describing precise ongoings of Austen’s extended family, introducing them all in the first chapter. That aside, I give my thanks to Thomas Nelson for giving me this ARC.

The Doctrine of Resistance

2010-04-05T20:32:00.001-07:00

Now, I'm not afraid to admit that I am quite the amateur when it comes to understanding this topic; I am neither a noodle-spined pacifist, nor a hardcore theonomist. Rom. 13 obviously has much to say in the way of respecting and honoring leaders whom God has appointed. Likewise, God also requires disobedience to rulers in certain situations (e.g. Daniel and his buddies refusing to bend the knee to King Nebuchadnezzar). All this to say, I came upon an interesting quote by John Knox, the great Scottish Reformer:

"If their princes exceed their bounds, Madam, no doubt they may be resisted, even by power. For there is neither greater honor, nor greater obedience, to be given to kings or princes, than God hath commanded to be given unto father and mother. But the father may be stricken with a frenzy, in which he would slay his children. If the children arise, join themselves together, apprehend the father, take the sword from him, bind his hands, and keep him in prison till his frenzy be overpast 4 think ye, Madam, that the children do any wrong? It is even so, Madam, with princes that would murder the children of God that are subjects unto them. Their blind zeal is nothing but a very mad frenzy, and therefore, to take the sword from them, to bind their hands, and to east them into prison, till they be brought to a more sober mind, is no disobedience against princes, but just obedience, because it agreeth with the will of God" (http://www.reformed.org/master/index.html?mainframe=/documents/knox/knox_to_mary/knox_to_mary.html).

The basic question arises: what separates subjection and rebellion? In the case of Knox's illustration, it is the "dutiful" son that binds his father when his father goes mad, and the non-dutiful son that blindly obeys, that being the death of him (and surely others). Furthermore, might some see this son as rebelling against his father? This sounds silly, but why? Would this son not be in strict disobedience to his father were he deny his father's request of his son's blood?

This running illustration gained some traction in my mind due to the recent Obamacare bill. This bill will most likely result in tax-funded abortions. The dots seem to connect quite nicely with Knox's illustration; but is the answer simply to refuse to pay taxes to the government? My initial answer is yes. I don't want to give my "father" the means to satisfy his thirst for innocent blood. But my out-of-context- Romans 13 side says, that no matter to what extent my rulers shake their fists at Almighty God, I am bound to give to them whatever they request of me.

The short answer: I don't know. I'm not sure how Christians should respond should that evil day come when our labor funds murder. Some men say pay up; others say think twice.

Thoughts?

Book Review: "Isaac Newton," by Mitch Stokes

2010-03-10T19:40:00.000-08:00

“Isaac Newton,” a biography authored by Mitch Stokes and part of the Christian Encounters Series, was a very informative and entertaining read. As most know, Newton is hailed for his many unique and valuable contributions to the fields of mathematics and natural philosophy. The most enjoyable aspect of this particular work, as with most biographies, is learning what motivated and drove him along in his brilliance. Newton, a lifelong solitude-seeker, worked best alone, for no teacher could come close to the rigor he demanded from himself. Yet his keen intellect did not prompt him to arrogance, for he was a humble Christian man, as evidenced by his desire to understand his Lord better by seeking to understand God’s created order. What I found most surprising was that Newton wrote more on the topics of theology and Christian doctrine than any other. While not completely orthodox in his views of the Trinity (which he kept to himself throughout his life), he championed God’s gospel by glorying in God’s goodness. God, he never ceased to maintain, was the axiomatic starting point for all science inquiry; and what’s more, seeking to understand God’s ordered universe is an act of worship, for God reveals himself in the general ways of mathematics, physics, optics, and natural philosophy. Thank you Thomas Nelson for this ARC, and this outstanding biography of one of Christendom’s greatest saints.

Musical Chronological Snobbery

2009-06-29T22:00:00.000-07:00

A few years ago, a woman came up to me after the worship service, and asked why I looked so solemn during the singing. "Worship should be joyful," she argued. I responded that I was truly joyful, and that my serious composure was the result of being joyful in the presence of the Holy Lord...or something like that.

The attitude that many Christians have and assume is that older music doesn't have any use for us today. "It is outdated." "It was cool back then, but not now." "We want music that we find cool." On and on the modern thought goes.

By what standard? Now that is a good question. By what standard is the music we bring before the throne of God worthy? Firstly, none of our music is ever worthy of God. Secondly, the standard by which must judge our music is Scripture. Yes, even the tempo, yes even the rhythm, yes even the instruments played. Questions asked may include: "Does instrument A help us to focus our corporate attention on the Lord better than instrument B?" "Does this rhythm communicate an enjoyment of self more than an enjoyment of God?" "Does the melody of this piece have a sacred sound? Is that important?"

We need to be asking ourselves more revealing questions about the song-singing in our churches. We must do so for the sake of the Kingdom.

Source article: http://www.christkirk.com/Literature/Worship.asp

Also check out: http://www.amazon.com/Reaching-Out-Without-Dumbing-Down/dp/0802841023/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1246338515&sr=8-1

Christian Hilarity

2009-05-26T22:17:00.000-07:00

civitas Dei

2009-05-23T11:10:00.000-07:00

"It would be nonsense to say this of a particular group of people: 'Though they do not wear uniforms, are not organized by rank, do not employ military language, do not enforce rules of military conduct, never perform any military ceremonies, and never engage in military operations - yet in spite of this they are the military.' (Or, it would be nonsense unless it were describing the French military.) Military culture is the sum of all these activities and practices.

Culture is not a shadowy something existing in secret "behind" its "manifestations" in language, rites, and discipline. Culture is a people organized and united by its language, rites, rules, and mechanisms of enforcement.

So also is the covenant.

So also is the Church." (Against Christianity, Peter Leithart)

Counterfeit Virtue

2009-03-21T12:40:00.000-07:00

Alcohol is synonymous with sin for many. Still for others it is considered an act of Christian love to perpetually abstain from alcohol, to provide a good Christian witness to others. My beef with the latter view (the former being easily dismissed on account of Scripture, and also condemned in the heresy of Manicheism) is that it creates a counterfeit virtue for the Christian.

The erroneous logic is as follows: 1. Alcohol itself is not inherently bad. 2. Perpetual abstinence from "stumbling" consumables is commanded from Scripture for reason of providing a good Christian witness. 3. Therefore, perpetual abstinence from alcohol is not bad; it is in fact a virtue.

My claim is that perpetual abstinence from alcohol is not good, and Scripture by no means condones this false conviction; it is in fact a counterfeit virtue.

Starting from the first premise: alcohol is not inherently bad. The positive of this negative statement is that alcohol is inherently good. Alcohol, being a creation of our Lord, is intrinsically good. Unlike the Manichees who understood evil to be tangible, Jesus states that "it is not what enters into the mouth that defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man" (Matt. 15:11). Evil is not tangible; evil is spiritual. This the Bible makes this absolutely clear (Gen. 1:11-12, Matt. 15:11, Romans 14:14, 1 Tim. 4:3).

The second premise is where things have gotten hairy in many modern churches; this is where my disagreement lies. In Kenneth L. Gentry Jr.'s book, "God Gave Wine," he devotes an entire chapter to the exegesis of Romans 14. In that chapter, Paul is speaking to the Romans about the doctrine of Christian liberty. There were a few things that stuck out to me in this chapter. One such point is the term "stumbling block" that many Christians like to throw around. What does this cryptic saying mean? What constitutes as a "stumbling block?" Gentry defines the Greek word used here: proskomma. As it turns out, this Greek word does not simply mean something that causes someone to feel uncomfortable or irritated. The meaning is much stronger than that. Proskomma in the Greek refers to something that causes someone to fall into sin against God. Notice the word "cause." If the effect of my cause is rebellion against the Lord, then I should not do what is in question. On how many occasions is moderate alcohol consumption a cause for sin? Let us answer the question with care, for our Savior Himself consumed alcohol in public, around the society's lowest, most likely some of which may have been tempted with the sin of drunkenness.

The fact is that Christ did not cause anyone to sin. "Cause" implies intent. If it is my intent to cause someone to fall into sin, then I have sinned; I am responsible. We cannot cause someone to sin if it is not our intent to do so. If our intent is not to make others sin and simply enjoy God's goodness and providence, then the responsibility literally does not lie with us for the sin they may commit as the result of our lawful activity. We cannot unknowingly cause someone to sin, according to the very nature and definition of the word proskomma.

So how, then, should we approach alcohol? In the same way we approach everything else. With sobriety of mind and spirit, and with praise for our Lord on our lips. He is good, and all that he has created is good. Alcohol abstention is, in fact, nothing more than a counterfeit virtue, a "virtue" that Christ Himself did not practice.

It is dangerous business indeed to try and be holier than Christ; that was the Pharisee's fatal game. Let us give thanks to our Maker for the good things he has given to us to enjoy; let us praise Him by enjoying alcohol as He meant for it to be enjoyed. Cheers!

In Relationship - "The Doctrine of Eating What you Want To," Part II

2009-02-09T19:05:00.000-08:00

Hey all, here's an article that Wilson wrote, along the same vein of my previous blog. Tell me what you think:

"In Relationship"

"One of the most difficult things for us to do is the task of locating sin properly. One common mistake, one that we have addressed a number of times before, is the mistake of locating sin in stuff. This mistake thinks that sin must be resident in material things—in sex, in alcohol, in refined sugar, in tobacco, and so on.

Faithful Christians know better than this, knowing that sin is a function of the thoughts and intentions of the heart. But there is a subtlety here also. We sometimes forget that hearts do not exist in any solitary way. Think of this another way. All sin, every sin, is always a sin in relationship to others.

If you could be alone, truly alone, you could not sin. Moreover, you could not be you if you were genuinely, completely alone. In the world God made, relationship with others is as necessary as contending with height, breadth and depth. Even if you were to go off into the mountains to live alone, every moment of every day, you will still be living in relationship with the triune God in whom we all live, move and have our being.

So sin is not found in material stuff. Neither is sin found in a solitary human heart. Sin is always found in the human heart in relationship to other hearts. But notice what follows from this. When sin is in the stuff, sin is simple. That is why people are attracted to the legalistic systems that operate on this calculus. "Don’t drink beer" is the rule, and you are either obeying or you are not. When sin is in your own heart, and it is your solitary heart that you are thinking of, sin is simple. Sin is defined by how you think and feel about things. You descend into your own heart to look for sin, and as it turns out you always look in the same old places, and you don’t look in the nooks and crannies—the first places that others would look.

If sin is a function of relationship, then the complexities are such that only the grace of God can sort it all out. And sin is a direct function of relationship, isn’t it? What are the two great commandments, the two commandments that sum up all ethical responsibility that can be found in the Bible? What are those commandments? Love God and love your neighbor. All the law is encompassed in relationship. This means that sin cannot be understood, analyzed, confessed, or forsaken without reference to the thoughts, loves, intents, and desires of those others.

Therefore . . . love God. Love one another."

Now, sin is commonly understood as Wilson has defined it above: taking place in realtionships, and exlusively at that. Therefore, no physical thing is inherently sinful. This is extremely helpful in understanding things we consume: all food and drink (and yes, even smoking, if you enjoy that sort of thing) is permissible - God's Word affirms this, as my previous post explored and explained. However, "all things edible" leave the realm of permissibilty once they either A) inhibit our relationship with the Father, or B) inhibit our relationships with others. What say you?

The Doctrine of Eating What You Want To.

2009-01-26T14:15:00.000-08:00

Food: everyone's favorite topic, especially for many Christians today. We've all heard people speak of "health" and "eating right," but where should Christians draw the line? What does the Bible have to say about this issue?

Douglas Wilson, one of my favorite authors, has written a great article entitled, "The Fat is the Lord's" in the latest issue of "Credenda Agenda." He claims that the modern dieting and health-pursuit craze can be classified as worldliness, of which Christians should take care to "not be conformed to" (Romans 12:2). As Christians, we should feel no need whatsoever to rule out certain food or drink! Matthew states that "John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, he hath a devil. The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children" (Matt. 11:18-19). God spoke to Noah, and told him that "every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you" (Gen. 9:3). In the Garden, God told Adam and Eve to eat freely (Gen. 2:16).

Now, what about modern foods? So much fat, grease, MSGs and the like; what of those? Obviously, the Bible speaks of none of these, so it is impossible for Christians to hold as law a charge to not consume them. Author James Jordon puts it this way: "it is not a serious matter for a physician to advise abstaining from foods for medical reasons, based on human wisdom. It is, however a very serious thing when men advocate abstaining from foods for religious reasons...valuable as exercise, good diet, and the like may be, they are not delineated in God's revealed law" (from his book, Pig Out?).

Now, this may prove offensive to many Christians, but there are many verses, some of which I have already quoted, that simply stand at odds with diet-crazed moderns. Isaiah, when speaking of the New Covenant, states that "on this mountain shall the LORD of hosts make unto all people a feast of fat things, a feast of wines on the lees, of fat things full of marrow, of wines on the lees well refined" (Is. 25:6). God's design for His people is for them to enjoy all things edible. I'll close with a final quote from Wilson:

at the root of all the problems, we should be able to detect a false doctrine of God. Ours is a lost generation, in the grip of a deep father hunger. Because we have not had healthy relationships with our human fathers, God, we naturally assume, is parsimonious. He is tight-fisted with His abundance. We slander Him in our hearts. If it tastes like gravel, it must be from God, so the thinking goes, and restaurants tout their 'death by chocolate' concoctions as 'decadent' or 'sinful.' Something is desperately wrong here. God - not the devil - was the inventor of pleasure, sex, goodness, fermentation, and satisfaction. He was the designer of all our nerve endings and our taste buds and over a million tastes, and He gave men the ingenuity to be able to figure out how to combine all those tastes in ways that would create a trillion more. Where could we have possibly gotten the idea that He was stingy? An enemy has done this.

The Chicken or the Egg?

2009-01-05T22:11:00.000-08:00

I've recently heard arguments from a friend of mine who says that Scripture is itself subject the the authority of Tradition. This view is most identifiable from within the Roman Catholic camp of Christianity, and it presents itself quite convincingly, at face value. The argument goes something like this: Scripture is infallible inasmuch as those who canonized were themselves infallible; therefore, these men, operating from within the Holy Tradition, bear the weight and authority of Tradition onto the canonized Scripture. In conclusion, we have the Scripture, arranged and canonized by men, which is subject to the authority of the men operating from within the Holy Tradition.

As I have said, this can sound very convincing at first, but there are some big problems with this reasoning. The biggest error that I can see is the lack of objectivity given to God's Word, the Scriptures. The way I see it, if we can give math the benefit of objectivity, we should do likewise for God's Word. Going further in this example of mathematics, we find men in the past who have developed theorems and proofs that men before them had not developed, hence they “discovered” those theorems and proofs. But it would be silly to say that they invented the very principles of math that they sought to theorize and make useful in theorem form. Most certainly math exists outside of our knowledge of it. Two and two make four, quite regardless of whether I acknowledge that or not. This objective view of math can be very helpful when searching for the authority of Scripture. Just as the objective principles of math can be acknowledged by men, so those who helped to canonize Scripture recognized its authority outside of themselves, or objectively.

Here is a second problem. No Roman Catholic would argue with the fact that there have been false, or bad traditions that have disguised themselves as tradition in the past. Many have not even been disguised. Now, I acknowledge that many bad or false traditions have been purged from the Roman Catholic church over the years, and that is a good thing. What I find contestable are the words good and bad, when applied to Tradition. Now, if it is true that Roman Catholic's place the Holy Tradition as their highest degree of authority, then how in God's Name can subjective terms such as bad or good be applied to it? If the Holy Tradition is the yardstick by which we must measure everything else, then how is it even possible that it can be questioned or deemed bad? That would be like saying that there is such a thing as good math or bad math. Now, when I say bad math I do not mean one who is poor at math, nor when I say good math, one who excels at math. I mean math itself. Math itself has no subjective qualities about it; it simply is. We must conform our minds to the principles of math, not the other way around. Likewise, if Holy Tradition is the highest authority, how then would it begin to make sense to question it? If it is, in fact, the highest authority, then we should conform ourselves to it, no questions asked. But once we begin the nonsense of saying there is good absolute authority, worthy of our devotion, and bad absolute authority, then we have begun to hold Tradition up to a higher standard, a standard objective to it's subjectivity. Now what would be the candidate for Tradition to be subject to? Men, who are creatures prone to change? I shouldn't think so. Then what? Why, the Holy Scriptures of course.

The last argument that many Roman Catholics like to raise goes something like this: both Tradition and Scripture are subject to divine revelation, which comes from God and empowers both equally. Now, this is perhaps the best of their arguments so far, but it remains unconvincing. One must ask this crucial question: How do we receive divine revelation? Of course, this is the key point where Protestants and Roman Catholics answer differently, Roman Catholics answering that they receive divine revelation from the papacy, Tradition, and Scripture, while Protestants answer only the Scriptures. Personally, in reference to the Catholic argument, I can think of nothing more circularly problematic. Maybe I just need to ask the Lord to increase my faith...for when receiving divine revelation from the papacy, Tradition, and Scripture, which have all erred in the past, sans Scripture, then I'd consider myself in deep doodoo if I placed my foundation upon something that has failed, and is certainly prone to fail again.

The Christmas Child, by George MacDonald

2008-12-20T09:50:00.001-08:00

"Little one, who straight hast come
Down the heavenly stair,
Tell us all about your home,
And the father there."

"He is such a one as I,
Like as like can be.
Do his will, and, by and by,
Home and him you'll see."

Through Pain without Stain

2008-07-30T14:33:00.000-07:00

Why does God allow pain, people often ask. Do we think that it is God's primary concern is to maky us happy? How about making us perfect! Our perfected souls are what brings the most glory unto Himself. If us being happy brought God the most glory, than He would do all that He possibly could to make us the happiest beings possible; but that is not how it works. When and how are people most glorified? Why, it is when they are honored, when people pay tribute to them, when they are regarded as a more worthy being.

But why does God allow pain? C.S. Lewis once said that "God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks to us in our conscience, but shouts in our pains: It is His megaphone to rouse a deaf world." Pain wakes us up; it allows us to see things differently; it helps us to ask life's more important questions. Most of all, it makes us more aware of the result of sin: death.

Another question may be asked at this point: why does God allow good? I came across this verse while reading Romans 2, and it brilliantly answers this question: "do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance?" (emphasis mine). Pain awakens us to God; goodness is meant to lead to repentance. Both pain and pleasure are meant to lead us to God. Fancy that.

I will again quote C.S. Lewis (you can never have too much Lewis): "God, who foresaw your tribulation, has specially armed you to go through it, not without pain but without stain." Pain is a crucible, meant to present the inbiber a more complete person in Christ. Without stain, without blemish, a closer-to-perfect being on the other side. "For to you it has been granted for Christ's sake, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake" (Phil. 1:29).

Praise be to God for being wiser than us, for suffering is His method of choice to achieve perfected followers. "Consider it all joy, my brethren, when you encounter various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith produces endurance. And let endurance have its perfect result, so that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing" (James 1: 2-4). May we endure pain with joyful hearts, knowing that our suffering is meant to produce in us Christ-likeness.

God Fully-Clawed

2008-07-24T22:49:00.001-07:00

"Fearing God? What are you talking about? God is love!" This is the rallying cry of the misinformed Christians of our day. Since "the fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom," it would follow that having no fear of God would leave a person with no wisdom.

But doesn't fearing God mean being afraid of Him? Certainly not! Moses addresses the Israelites, right after delivering the ten commandments, and says, "do not be afraid; for God has come in order to test you, and in order that the fear of Him may remain with you, so that you may not sin" (Ex. 20:20). Do not be afraid. Fear God. These two propositions do not contradict. To be afraid seems to give the connotation of being unaware of consequences or the future, but to fear something, in this case, means that you know well and good what the consequences are. God makes us fully aware what our consequences will be for our sin: death. This fear we are to have for God includes reverence, honor, and respect [Heb. "yir'ah" - awesome or terrifying thing (object causing fear), respect, reverence, piety]. Were it not for Christ, this consequence of eternal seperation from God would be a reality for us all.

All of this to say that modern pagans, and even many Christians, have spent their lives judiciously and fervently declawing God, and in turn His church. Shirking the sharps pains of persecution, ridding ourselves of church purity, emphasizing God's love much more than His other attributes, the list goes on and on. Christians have got to think iconoclastically! We must constantly be vigilant in destroying heretical (wrong-thinking) views of God, and in their place, inserting orthodox (right-thinking) views of God. The ever-present heresy of our day and age is that God is not to be feared. May we rid ourselves of this in order to see God in a more orthodox way, one that honors His omnipotence and wrath toward sin.

Remember, Aslan is not a tame Lion.

Ok, we should fear God, but isn't He "safe?" Don't we know everything there is to know about Him? Don't we have Him in our back pocket? I can say it no better than Mr. Beaver, so I'll let him make response:

"Safe?" said Mr. Beaver. "Don't you hear what Mrs. Beaver tells you? Who said anything about safe? 'Course he isn't safe. But he's good. He's the King, I tell you.

Thank you, Mr. Beaver. Love, in and of itself...is an oxymoron. True love does not exist without fear and trembling and honor, all of which are immortal things. Let's get back to a more robust and honorable view of our King. God is love, certainly, but He also commands fear and trembling from all creation (Phil. 2:12, Heb. 12:21).

The Scissors with Two Blades

2008-03-12T15:08:00.000-07:00

We must never completely dismiss anything that has even a bit of truth to it. The answer to legalism is not anti-legalism, in the same way that the answer the intellectualism is not anti-intellectualism. We must dismiss the corruptions of legalism and intellectualism, but keep the truth found in them. Many evangelicals seem to toss out legalism completely, leaving only a hollow shell of a faith and refusing to learn and retain the truth it was founded on. Works and order and tradition are pivotal and necessary for the Christian. These elements do not save us, but neither does anything, or anyone I should say, besides for Christ. So is no creed but Christ the answer? May it never be! Without works and order and tradition, Christianity is free to become a religion of the times, and will sway like the tree in a fierce wind, giving way here and there, only to be uprooted in the end.

So, what is the answer to legalism? Why, it must be to place works as subject to God. Everything must be subject to God. If we do not choose this for ourselves, God will choose it for us in the end. But isn't faith more important than works? To quote C.S. Lewis, "Regarding the debate about faith and works: It’s like asking which blade in a pair of scissors is most important." Without works, faith is rendered impotent, and without faith, works are rendered impotent. So are works necessary? Are you telling me that I must do good works in order to be saved? These are the wrong sorts of questions. Asking these questions is like asking to be given ways on how to become a saint. To ask for a method of becoming a saint is asking for something that is less than sainthood as a means of attaining sanctity. There are no shortcuts. But back to the issue: works and order and tradition and history are crucial, and Christianity will soon hold no water without them. Naturally if they become idols, we are to cast them out and purify them with fire. But once they are purified, we must bring them back, we must cling to them once more, and we must continue to do so or our religion is doomed to collapse. Christ pours truth from Himself. To accept Christ is to accept His faith and His works, as well as His laws, His history, His traditions, His mind, His will, those whom He blesses, and those whom he curses. Christ ceases to be Christ when we prune Him of these things. So the answer to legalism is not anti-legalism; the answer is to carry your cross and follow your Lord.

I end with a quote from Martin Luther:

"O it is a living, busy active mighty thing, this faith. It is impossible for it not to be doing good things incessantly. It does not ask whether good works are to be done, but before the question is asked, it has already done this, and is constantly doing them. Whoever does not do such works, however, is an unbeliever. He gropes and looks around for faith and good works, but knows neither what faith is nor what good works are. Yet he talks and talks, with many good words, about faith and good works."

No Place for Truth

2007-12-31T20:37:00.000-08:00

I know, I stole my blog title from the book by David F. Wells, but I've been reading through his book, which is titled the same, and as many of you know it is very dense and rich with information. Here is a quote that has stood out in my mind the past weeks:

The great sin in Fundamentalism is to compromise; the great sin in evangelicalism is to be narrow.

Now this statement must be understood in its context. Over the course of the 20th century, fundamentalism has been overridden by evangelicalism on a wide scale. The fundamentalists fought tooth and nail to uphold the wall between the church and the world. They thought this the best way to keep the church a holy and sanctified body. However, in the late 20th century, evangelicalism gained prominence over fundamentalism. This meant breaking down the wall of separation in many respects. This meant moving away from the narrow thinking of the fundamentalist's. We now widely live from and among this wave evangelicalism, this world-friendly Christianity. What the fundamentalist's fought so hard to repel, the evangelicals welcomed and continue to welcome with open arms. So, is the great sin compromise, or to be narrow? I say it is compromise.

So why do I say that the great sin is compromise? Something inescapable from Christianity is that it is an historic and traditionally-based religion, so when people want to do things as they haven't been done in the past, we would do well to examine and hold it up with what we know to be true. This isn't to say that we shouldn't sing new songs of worship or adopt new forms of ministry. The point is that we must always hold these things up to the guidelines of God's Word. Our best example of this is the church, for it is not a new thing to struggle with conforming to the culture. Christians have protected the church for hundreds of years from the culture, and we would do well to follow their lead. Now how does this compromise often guise itself in our day and age? postmodernism.

Postmodernism, which plagues many minds today in the church, is a way of thinking that discredits tradition, weakens history, and glorifies in relativity. It discredits tradition by relegating it contextual, it weakens history by sweeping it under the carpet, and it glorifies relativity by indulging in the latest fad and fashion. The postmodernist always looks for new ways to "do church," and will state that whatever "works" (this term itself is often ambiguous, but usually refers to the quantity and supposed interest of the congregants) is the optimum choice.

Here is a quote from J.P. Moreland that I have recently come across that shows the devastation of this worldview:

"Faced with such opposition and the pressure it brings, postmodernism is a form of intellectual pacifism that, at the end of the day, recommends backgammon while the barbarians are at the gate. It is the easy, cowardly way out that removes the pressure to engage alternative conceptual schemes, to be different, to risk ridicule, to take a stand outside the gate. But it is precisely as disciples of Christ, even more, as officers in his army, that the pacifist way out is simply not an option. However comforting it may be, postmodernism is the cure that kills the patient, the military strategy that concedes defeat before the first shot is fired, the ideology that undermines its own claim to allegiance. And it is an immoral, coward’s way out that is not worthy of a movement born out of the martyrs’ blood."

Feel free to post your thoughts.

Bonus: I met David Wells at a conference in SoCal last week! I got his signature in my copy of No Place for Truth, and a picture with him too!

New Bibles vs. New Commentaries

2007-10-02T11:02:00.000-07:00

The Message 2.0 Remix! Extreme Teen Bible! Adventure Bible! Bride's Bible! There are so many different "Bibles" out there, and I started thinking about what my beef is with all these different versions. I did a search of different Bibles on cbd.com, and received an astounding 3,208 results! Why so many? Because the Bible is a potential hot-seller...

Then I got to thinking, why do people constantly feel the need to create not only new versions of the Bible, but guise them according to teen culture, middle-aged women culture, and everything in between? I think it's because they recognize that by going under the name Bible, not that they are deviating from it's intended message per se, but that it will help sell their version/packaging. They figure that we all take the Bible as authoritative, so my version/packaging will make its mark on my intended audience.

I think we need less of these versions and packagings of the Bible to be honest. Many of these end up being only one thing to one people, and that's not the message of Scripture. What's the alternative then? write a commentary. No need to claim the authority of Scripture, you're either a bad commentator or a good one. No potentially changing or weakening the meaning of the actual text, just your interpretation; because that's what it usually comes down to: the author in question's interpretation. By all means, I'm not saying that we need more commentaries, I'm only questioning how people choose to get their one-peopled messages across. If you really feel that what you want to say will be beneficial for a certain people, first examine your motives, then examine the necessity, then go write a commentary.

Back from TJ

2007-08-13T17:23:00.000-07:00

As some of you may have known, I went to Tijuana this past week to help out a ministry by the name of La Roca. We aided in various work projects including serving at an orphanage, jail, rehabilitation center (a branch of the La Roca ministry), and some nearby towns.

Most noteworthy perhaps were the lessons that Mark Tannehill and myself were alotted to teach every morning to the group. We chose the general topic of the importance of understanding. The daily lessons were as follows: Monday - General Overview and the Necessity of Serving God with our Mind, Tuesday - Calling Ourselves Truth-seekers, Wednesday - The Weight of our Words, Thursday - Defining Clear Prayer, Friday - The Diciple's Call to Suffer, and lastly Saturday - Defining the Kingdom of Heaven. It was a blessing to be able to offer this study to the others in the group, and it was great being able to solidify my thoughts on many of these issues via a few friendly arguements with fellow team members.

Overall, the trip went very well. The team remained unified and we served our Lord in a practical way. Solo deo gloria.

Evangelism = the Great Commission?

2007-07-30T21:15:00.001-07:00

Short answer: no.

Long answer: No, no it does not.

Longer answer: The great commission is usually what the church calls Matthew 28:19-20, which reads "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." It is here we find the distinction between evangelism and the great commission.

Evangelism simply means "the preaching or promulgation of the gospel." A disciple, however, is defined as "a disciplined follower of Christ." The verse above clearly states that we are to make disciples of all nations, not simply evangelize to them (although we must start preaching the gospel in order to build disciples). Even when we think about the subject logically, it just doesn't pan out: evangelism is preaching the gospel, preaching the gospel makes people knowledgeable of the kingdom, therefore evangelism makes......what? the answer is that evangelism makes people knowledgeable of the kingdom; and that's our purpose as Christ's followers right? Wrong! As followers of Christ, we are to build disciplined followers of Jesus Christ, not simply preach the gospel and leave it at that.

Lastly, evangelism is not to happen in the church. The church is strictly for training and disciple-making. Simply put, evangelism takes place outside of the Church, discipleship takes place in the Church.

Any comments?

Words

2007-07-21T18:06:00.000-07:00

Words have consequences. Ideas have consequences. Words are the most prominent characteristic of God found throughout Scripture, and being made in God's image, we have been purposefully created with the abilty to wield the power of words. Words have destroyed nations and built empires. How is it that we continue to believe that what we say and read doesn't matter? God records every word that we say, and we will be judged accordingly. Here's a quote from Douglas Wilson's Classical Education and the Homeschool on the subject:

God created the world by speaking. The Fall came through false speech. The Law came in "ten words." Redemption came through the Word made flesh. The Holy Spirit was poured out through the tongues of many nations. And in the end, we will be judged "by every idle word" we speak.

Every word we say and write is of eternal consequence. Each book we read, each prayer we offer, each conversation we partake in is of eternal consequence. Paul tells the Corinthians to "take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ" (2 Cor. 10:5). Every thought and every word is either bringing us closer to the kingdom or further from it.

The Kingdom of Heaven

2007-07-14T17:05:00.000-07:00

Ok, here I am at work again with a lot of time on my hands, so I figured I'd post another blog. This one is going to be about heaven.

Modern Christianity seems to hold many misinterpreted beliefs in our modern day, most of which are not rooted in the Bible. Consequently, I think the result of many of these beliefs will be harsher than just a slap on the wrist. One of the most common misbeliefs is a false picture of heaven; a heaven designed solely for our pleasure, a sort of magical place where all our dreams come true.

"When anyone hears the word of the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what has been sown in his heart. This is the one on whom seed was sown beside the road" (Matt. 13:19). This verse states that those who do not understand heaven (the kingdom) in its true nature will be snatched up by the enemy, so it is imperative that we don't follow or teach our own ideas of what heaven is. The kingdom of heaven resides wherever God is recognized and served as King; it is God's area of dominion, and it's our job as Christians to bring that dominion here. When Jesus returns, the earth will be joined fully with the kingdom of heaven, and that domonion will be made perfect. "The kingdom of the world [will] become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he will reign for ever and ever" (Rev. 11:15).

Last but not least, is the view of heaven as a deciding factor of the Christian life. We should not think of Christianity as 'do I want to go to heaven?' (and how often does this come along with a pleasure-driven version of heaven as stated above...). No doubt being in God's presence for all eternity is preferable to an eternity of suffering, but that is no reason to follow God. Even the Israelites, having no knowledge of heaven, followed God. Our highest claim as Christians has to be that we follow God because He is true.

Thoughts on Prayer

2007-07-07T09:57:00.000-07:00

I've been thinking about prayer for these last few days, more than usual anyhow. Here's what I have to say (or write I suppose):

A question that I've thought to ask myself is 'who am I praying to?' All too often, we aim our prayers at a god who isn't really there; an imagined god who grants wishes, pardons sin without repentance, and a god who is our equal. This is not the God found in the Bible. This God demands obedience, repentance, and a fearful heart. We often take prayer too lightly: meaningless repetition, taking God's name in vain (usually by means of repetition), selfishness, and asking for things we don't really want (most often the request to be rid of a particular sin). All of these things plague our prayers. Basically, it comes down to this: do I take God seriously? do I really want a life of cross-bearing service to Him?

Time Well Spent

2007-07-04T13:57:00.000-07:00

So, I have been thinking about what kind of man I want to become. I claim to follow Christ. I intend to obey Him. Now, what to do with these claims:

We tend turn into that which we pretend to be.

This is an elementary principle of humanity. Whoever or whatever you spend most of your time with, you will inherit a growing resemblance to that person or thing. For instance, if you spend most of your time watching television, you will become entertainment-driven and accepting of most of the nonsense that modern society says and promises. If you spend most of your time with people who laugh at followers of Christ and mock the Church, you will begin to do the same. We can be accepting of these imitations, but why not so when it comes to being a disciple of Christ? Only by spending time with godly men and studying truth, will you yourself become a godly man and a man who navigates with truth.

So, the only question here is: 'what will I spend my time doing and who will I spend my time with?' These choices directly determine who you will be, as the end result. The question isn't: 'how can I still claim to follow God, but invest no time in studying His Word or imitating my life after godly men?' It does not work that way. We are imitative creatures. This is how we are built.