Blogging Can Be Doing, a Response to @PastorMark

Pastor Mark Driscoll* tweeted this last week:

That he is no fan of bloggers is no secret. He’s been known in the past to be quick to use his sharp wit to lampoon the critical blogger. I realize also that by responding to him I am probably becoming one of those “pontificating” bloggers that he so disdains. Fair enough, but I thought this might serve as a decent opportunity to share the benefit of blogging.

On one hand I totally agree with Pastor Mark. Pontificating about what others are doing while doing nothing yourself can be very annoying. There is no doubt that one of the negative aspects to blogging is that people can waste away their days arguing about semantics more than discussing that which is significant. Blogging certainly has a dark side. Yet, at the same time I find Driscoll’s words very unhelpful (not to mention hypocritical in that he is pontificating about what others—bloggers—are doing).

Mostly Pastor Mark’s tweet is unhelpful because he paints with too broad of a brush (as often happens on Twitter) and is marked by unhelpful assumptions. 

Two Assumptions

1. Bloggers aren’t doing. The massive assumption in this tweet is that bloggers aren’t doing. I strongly disagree. If I believed that my blog had no kingdom value I would quit this day. But I believe that what I do here at Borrowed Light in some small way displays Jesus Christ as the only boast of this generation. I believe that what I write can be helpful for pastors as they disciple people. I also believe that what I write can be helpful to disciples of Jesus as we attempt to follow Him. Blogging can be doing if it is done well.
2. There is no value except for doing. I imagine that there is a story behind this particular tweet from Driscoll. Perhaps he read a harsh critique by a blogger (or maybe even a legit one). Again, I agree that it’s much easier to sit back and be an armchair quarterback than to actually do the work of ministry. But at the same time let’s not assume that there is no value in someone using the Scriptures to assess what we are doing. There is value in receiving criticism—even if it from a pontificating blogger. I doubt Pastor Mark is arguing for a total pragmatism here but it’s hard not to read his tweet that way.

These are two of the assumptions in this tweet. Driscoll has highlighted the dark side of blogging but he paints with such a broad brush that he also belittles and minimizes the work of faithful bloggers. If Driscoll’s tweet applies to you then perhaps you ought to close up shop. But for those that are faithfully presenting Christ through their blogs I say keep it up.

Blogging can be doing if it is done well.

---

*The point of this article is to use the words of Mark Driscoll to not only disagree with his statement but mostly to say that there is a place for faithful blogging in the kingdom.

This is not an invitation to make this a discussion about Mark Driscoll or his ministry, only about what he tweeted on this particular occasion.

Review of Real Marriage by Mark and Grace Driscoll

If you have yet to hear of Mark Driscoll’s latest book Real Marriage you are a little late to the party.  There are countless reviews already (see here, and for some of the earlier ones see here).  Honestly if I was not contractually obligated (ala got the book for free in exchange for a review) and if I did not feel a pastoral obligation to read and review it, I would probably keep my mouth shut. 

Summary

The book is divided into three sections (really two).  One section on marriage that covers the first five chapters.  This section chronicles some of the Driscoll’s story and also has a chapter each devoted to men and to women.  Chapter 5 is given to the necessity of forgiveness.  The second section, and probably the most controversial, deal with sex.  First the Driscoll’s attempt to establish a theology of sex, then for a few chapters they tackle tough issues like abuse, pornography, and selfishness.  Chapter 10 is perhaps the most controversial as it is the “Can We ____?”  chapter.  The last section/chapter is a helpful tip for reverse-engineering your marriage.  There are also 5 appendices in some versions of the book.


My Thought

A good friend asked me if I liked the book.  My response was simple.  I like the book about as much as a thirsty man that just drank out of a toilet only to realize that there was a refreshingly (not to mention clean) glass of water right next to him. 

Let me explain.

Just like a thirsty man would have his thirst satiated by drinking toilet water, there are things in Real Marriage that may actually benefit your marriage.  (see Aaron Armstrong’s review for some of the good things in the book).  The only problem with drinking out of the toilet---wait, one of the problems with drinking out of the toilet—is that there is a pretty good chance you are going to get some sort of unhelpful bacteria that will make you sick.  You may even get away with it—but at the end of the day there is a reason that we usually relieve ourselves in a different location than we do our dishes or give our kids drinks of water. 


The Toilet

My response to my friend is only good if Driscoll’s book can actually be compared to drinking from a toilet.  There are a few places in the book that I would liken more to dropping an awesome donut on the floor, picking it back up and eating it.  Yeah, it’s probably not the best but it’s not a huge deal.  Love can cover over a multitude of sins.  But there are at least four spots that I would compare to drinking from a toilet. 


First, feel free to call me a prude or someone that is stuck in Victorian England.  I can take it.  But there were places in the book that I would not feel comfortable reading to members in our congregation.  There are even places I would not feel comfortable reading to my wife.  There are words and phrases in this book that are so blunt and juvenile that I hadn’t heard them since junior high.  Maybe I need to get out more and rub shoulders with more lost people, but I don’t really expect to feel dirty reading a book written by a pastor.  The fact that I’m not quoting any of these is evidence to my point.


Secondly, I will reference what I will call “the haircut comment”.  On page 109 Driscoll helpfully says this, “one of our culture’s powerful lies—fueled by pornography, sinful lust, and marketing—is that having a standard of beauty is in any way holy or helpful”.  This seems to contradict Driscoll’s earlier remarks concerning his own wife:

In this season we shifted into ministry-and-family mode, neglecting our intimacy and failing to work through our issues.  This became apparent to me when my pregnant wife came home from a hair appointment with her previously long hair (that I loved) chopped off and replaced with a short, mommish haircut.  She asked what I thought, and could tell from the look on my face.  She had put a mom’s need for convenience before being a wife.  She wept.  (11)

This is one example of several that highlights what seems to be a lack of tenderness towards Driscoll’s wife.  I could just be wrongly sensitive to things that others are not.  But it seems to me that Mark’s bluntness with men is sometimes even present in his relationship with his wife.  I could be wrong about this and will welcome any correction. 

I mention the “haircut comment” only to say that if I (or other men) began treating their wives with what seems to be a lack of tenderness then I don’t think marriages will be benefited. 


Thirdly, the book is extremely practical.  In fact it is often too practical or perhaps pragmatic may be the better word.  What ends up happening is that rather than applying principles and general concepts that can apply to all marriages this book ends up almost doling out a new law. 

Take chapter 10 as an example.  On page 101 the Driscoll’s decide not to share specific examples of redemptive stories.  Instead they say, “We are hoping that rather than admiring another couple’s redemptive story you will make your own by God’s grace and the Holy Spirit’s power.”  My thought with this was simple; why didn’t you do this in chapter 10?

In Chapter 10 they provide what some may consider a helpful way of thinking through “Can we ____” type of questions.  Personally, I even question the wisdom of the grid they apply—but that is another topic altogether.  So, let’s just say for the sake of argument that their grid is immensely helpful.  What we do not need then is to take a bunch of practices through this grid to see it in play.  Because what it ends up happening is that the readers are no longer applying an “is it beneficial” grid to their own marriage but instead they are being influenced by the Driscoll’s opinion.  It’s like laying down a new law with Driscoll being Moses and saying—these things are okay.  It seems to undercut what they were attempting to do. 
The marriage books that I have found most helpful are the ones that deal with big picture, gospel meta-narrative, idol-exposing, universal type principles that all of humanity deals with.  I have the Holy Spirit.  I can make personal application on my own.  I do not need a detailed description of ________ to determine whether that would be beneficial to my marriage. 

That’s not to say that marriage books shouldn’t be practical and only pie-in-the sky.  But that does mean that it is counterproductive to answer these “Can we ____” questions with specifics. 


Fourthly, this book is mostly unnecessary.  The main reason why I am not suggesting this book is because the positives—and as I mentioned earlier there are some helpful things—are not unique to this book.  You can find the positives elsewhere without having to endure the graphic and juvenile nature of this book.  It’s not blunt it’s vulgar and unnecessarily so. 


Conclusion

Go elsewhere.  I appreciate much that Mark Driscoll has done in the kingdom of Christ.  I appreciate that he preaches the gospel.  I appreciate a good amount of his theology.  But I do not appreciate this book.  I think it causes an unnecessary distraction.  I do not see this book as really applying the gospel (marriage as a picture of the gospel seems to take the back seat to pleasurable sex).  I’m saddened that those that dislike Driscoll will have lots of fodder for their down with Pastor Mark cannons.

But mostly I’m saddened that I cannot suggest this book.  I love Driscoll’s openness (to a degree) and their honesty.  I love that they share their brokenness.  I love their points of confession.  I actually thought chapter 3 was very helpful.  There are some things that I genuinely like about this book.  And I know that Driscoll understands the gospel and knows how to apply it in very helpful ways.  I just wish that a marriage book was one of those. 

Steer clear.  I’d suggest Tim Keller’s The Meaning of Marriage.  Paul Tripp’s What Did You Expect.  Dave Harvey’s When Sinners Say I Do.  Tim Challies Sexual Detox.  Redemption by Mike Wilkerson or Rid of My Disgrace by the Holcomb’s.  Read only one of these and you find far more benefit. 

This Week in Blogworld 4/17

John MacArthur confronts explicit teaching on Song of Solomon. (AKA Mark Driscoll) Read part 1, 2, 3, and 4.

The more I read the writings of Kevin DeYoung the more I appreciate him. He has begun a series (that is almost finished) on our high places. In these he is focusing on our idolatrous blind spots. Read The lack of Psalm singing, Worldliness in entertainment, The idol of youth, and Our lack of church discipline. Part 5 should be up some time within the next day or so.

Did Christ Have Gray Hair? Turns out your answer is more important than you think…

Great words from Dr. Moore: The Devil is a Boring Preacher: The High Stakes of Dull Sermons. Here is an excerpt: “If lost people don’t like your message because they’re hostile to the gospel, you’re in good company. But if you’re boring the people of God with the Word of God, something has gone seriously awry. It may be that you preach just like the devil, and that you don’t even know it.”

It sure is sad that Piper is defiling himself by having such conferences as this: Advance ‘09. UPDATE: I apologize for not being initially clear--I'm being silly by saying Piper is defiling himself by having such a conference as this. I think Advance '09 will be awesome. I even would love to attend--but will probably not be able to. So, sorry if anyone misunderstood and thinks I'm hating on the Advance conference.

Nathan White wonders why we have “altars”…I’ve wondered the same thing.

JT points us to an interview with Paul Tripp about marriage.

This is powerful:

Cardboard Stories from The Austin Stone on Vimeo.

HT: Jared

The Ripple Effect of Humble Confession

I have a confession to make I sometimes struggle with doubt. Deep doubt. Sinful doubt. One of the greatest areas that I battle is in regards to God's ability to change believers. The sinfulness of believers (myself the chief) causes me to question whether or not God really is able to sanctify his followers. Yes, I know that we have to choose holiness over sin and I know that this is a huge part of the slowness of our progress in holiness.

One of the greatest areas that causes me pain (as I am sure it does Christ as well) is when believers are involved in ridiculous slander and pride. I can be horrible about this myself. I know that I stand guilty of slander and deep pride. Of this I must confess and repent anew.

This is proof that God is in the process of redeeming a people for Himself and that He is able to conquer our sinful hearts and bring unity where there once was discord. Only God could have done what is taking place in the heart of Steve Camp as it concerns Mark Driscoll. You have to read Steve Camp's humble confession and repentance. It caused my heart to leap for joy and my confidence in the power of God to grow. Grace truly does reign.

Isn't it amazing the ripple effect that a humble confession can have? It really proves the truth of Scripture in regards to the unity of the body of Christ. Sin hurts every member and repentance heals! Oh, how I long for the day when the bride is in unity and we stand before Jesus pure and spotless.

Borrowed Light: Today in Blogworld 03/12-14

There is quite a stir among my Calvinist brethren over the upcoming Jacobus John 3:16 Conference. Rhett from the Reformed Mafia, believes we are being set up for the kill. Tom Ascol continues to have hope. Dr. James Galyon has a very thoughtful response to Steve Lemke.

Frank Turk has an interesting take on the Rick Warren call to Mark Driscoll. (Hey, blogosphere, I just used the name Driscoll and Warren in the same post...can I anticipate 3,000 hits today?)

Great post at The Gate: A Reality Check, It's Not All About Me. (HT: Jared)

How do you apply the gospel to pastoral ministry? This is a phenomenal article by Rich Richardson. Seriously. Read it twice. Then apply.

John Piper offers 6 Apsects of Humility.

The Irish Calvinist (that makes it sound like there is only one guy in Ireland that is a Calvinist, doesn't it), has a wonderful post on Preaching. Here is a sample quote that rips into my small intestine: "Jesus just unfolds the Scriptures...This is a rebuke to those of us who teach and find more power in a pithy quote from a theologian than the precise and power-packed Word of God. Let’s preach and teach as men who are under the authority of the Word. May it be clear when we teach who the authority is. Sometimes contemporary preachers, particularly in the Reformed wing, tread dangerously close to a Protestant Magisterium with all of their appeals to “heroes” of the faith. If you are a preacher, does your word possess authority? If you are preaching the Word then it does. Men, preach to put God on display and make Jesus the hero."

Josh Harris and CJ Mahaney address how a pastor monitors the health of his own soul. Here is a similar article by CJ.

Very convicting statements by Dan Phillips. Here is the foundational point in his article: "Sure, God says to do ___, but I've figured out that that won't work. So I don't have to do it. And I won't. Because I'm too smart."

For those involved in the Purtian Reading Challenge, Timmy Brister offers his monthly biographical on our author of the month. This month is Thomas Watson.

Michael Patton asks, How Many Beliefs Can One Abandon and Still be Called Christian? I'm guessing the magic number is 7, but that's just because God seems to like that number. Maybe you should read Michael's article, it's probably more scholarly than my guess of 7. By the way, this article is really about what doctrines are essential to the Christian faith.

Thougts on Driscoll, Acts 29, Emergent, and those that oppose

Before I begin these thoughts I need to make 2 points of disclosure. 1) I reserve the right to be wrong. I do not propose to solve this problem, if it were so simple, that somebody like myself could solve it, then it probably would no longer be an issue. 2) I am certainly not Emergent, I do not agree with Driscoll/Acts 29 on everything, but I would not consider myself in opposition (at least to Driscoll/Acts 29). This is my humble offering to this discussion. Knowing that it can be a form of pride to take the "nobody is right in this issue" road, I timidly will take that position. Probably the most difficult thing in this discussion will be defining the issue. Usually by the time someone has nailed the proverbial jell-o to the wall, the discussion is already so confusing that the implications or application is thrown out the window. So for sake of clarity, knowing there are a gazillion other issues at stake, I will try to address only one major point: the idea of "making the gospel relevant".

Since I am not emerging/emergent I doubt I can give them a fair shake. In fact I only include them in this discussion because of their supposed association with the Driscoll/Acts 29 crowd. A true Emergent person would probably be speaking of something different by "gospel" anyway. Rather than asking, "how do we preach the gospel in such a way that someone comes to know Jesus", they are probably asking, "how do we live the gospel in such a way that someone lives a better life and has a better understanding and grows a soul-patch". I'm not concerned at this point with addressing the Emerging Church, it would be a distraction. But a distinction must be made. On issues of the gospel and soteriology ACTS 29 IS NOT EMERGING.

You will not understand this discussion until you come to that conclusion. There are some areas that Acts 29 will look like an Emerging Church. Their methodology sometimes will have the appearance of evil Emerging. But soteriologically speaking they are far from Emerging. You cannot brand them heretics. Doing so is irresponisble and just plain wrong.

On the other hand folks in the Acts 29/Driscoll crowd have the same foundational desire that Emerging Churches have; the desire to change the present structure and be relevant in their culture. The buzzword now is missional. You have to exegete your culture and figure out a way to make the gospel relevant. You do not sell out the message. But you have to make certain to speak the language of the culture. That is the mindset. Sometimes that gets a little shaky. What do you do if the culture you are ministering to eats monkey brains? Well, you eat monkey brains. What if the culture you are ministering to uses crass language? Well, you use crass language. Or do you? And here is the big discussion.

Those who oppose Acts 29/Driscoll say that you must not use crass language just to reach the culture. That is selling out the gospel. Methodoloy matters. If you are drinking a beer with an alcoholic, you are not doing him any favors. Total abstinence is the best way to share the gospel. The lost person, must see that your life is different. Then maybe at some point he'll ask questions. "Hey, buddy, why don't you drink"? Then you can share with him that it is because of your relationship with Jesus Christ, and that you have found happiness outside of a bottle. Maybe you were once a drinker. You can use this as a launching point to share your testimony. But the best way to share the gospel is not to become like the culture. That can lead to sin.

But wait, 1 John says that "greater is he that is in me". Wouldn't we all have been in a pretty precarious position if Jesus himself had not went to these sinful places? Doesn't Jesus say, "I have not come to call the righteous but sinners?" If Jesus always stayed out of bars then why did they call him a drunkard and a glutton. And as far as offensive language is concerned have you read Ezekiel? Do you pick up on some of the language of Paul? Does he not also use, inspired by the Holy Spirit, scatalogical language? So, are we not just following the methods of Paul and Jesus? Because of Jesus and his power we are getting as close to sinners as possible. Our task is to be like Jesus and Paul, they did not run away from sinners and hope that they came to them. They went to sinners. They engaged the culture.

So who is right? Before I begin to answer that question I have to add something else to the mix. Reformed Theology. Acts 29/Driscoll claims to be solidly Reformed. Many that oppose Driscoll claim to be solidly Reformed. Many that oppose Driscoll are not Reformed and oppose him based upon this point, but missionally speaking they might agree. This is the way I see the discussion. Driscoll/Acts 29 says, we are Reformed and because of the awesome power of the gospel we believe that God calls us to engage the culture with it, whatever that means. Reformed guys that oppose Driscoll, we believe that God is powerful enough in His Word that you do not have to add to it with all of this "engaging the culture" mumbo jumbo. Just preach the Word, and God will bring the increase. The non-Reformed Driscoll opposer will either dislike his theology, or dislike his methodology. This camp believes that people are won over to Christ by what we do. If they agree with the Acts 29 methodology then they will probably change their seeker-sensitive churches into Acts 29 churches...or, hey theology doesn't matter much...so why not just be Emerging. Or maybe they disagree with the whole alcohol issue. Maybe the methodology does not square with them. Nobody will be won to Jesus by a drinker. Then you have opposition from this side.

So who is right? All sides believe we are to engage the culture--at least in as much as that means "win lost people to Jesus". Note that I asked, "who is right", not what wins the most people. This is not a pragmatic question. If we make it so, then we will side-track this. You cannot say look at all those people Driscoll and Acts 29 is reaching. That's not a good argument, because look at all those people Joel Osteen is reaching. To which we respond, reaching with what? They key issue is this...who is most faithful to the gospel, as presented in the Word of God?

1) The gospel must be clear. It is very true that God's Word has power in itself--it doesn't need my help to accomplish its purpose. But it seems that there is a need for a preacher. (Rom. 10:14) And it appears that there is a need to preach in the "native tongue". (See Acts 8:26-40) So, there is some credence to this idea of "making the gospel relevant". But

2) Making the gospel relevant, if it is to remain biblical, must mean NO MORE than preaching the gospel in the "native" language. It does not mean that you have to make the gospel appealing. Paul models this in 1 Corinthians 2:1-5. It seems as if Paul labored to make the gospel unappealing. He did not want the Corinthians to be won over by his eloquence, but instead to be won-over by the message. But, Paul did labor to be like a Jew when he was with the Jews and like a Gentile when he was with the Gentiles. What does this mean? It means that Paul laobred to speak in their native tongue. He was not doing this to make the gospel appealing, he was doing this to keep from putting up stumbling blocks. He ate monkey brains, if his hearers ate monkey brains. But it is also important to note:

3) Speaking the native language does not necessarily mean engaging in native rituals and removing ALL stumbling blocks. Paul did not allow Titus to get circumcised. Nor did he sacrifice to pagan idols. You do not become a prostitute to minister to prostitutes. But this point is where we get into arguments. Is Mark Driscoll becoming a "prostitute" to minister to "prostitutes" when he uses coarse language to minister to those with "coarse language"? Do Acts 29 guys prostitute themselves when they have a beer to minister to those that drink? These are difficult questions and ones that must not be settled in a vacuum. Despite what some may believe this is not as black and white as it would appear. Therefore,

4) The Church and the church plays a critical role in taking the gospel to the nations; or to put that another way, you are not supposed to "make the gospel relevant" by yourself. That is why we must consider, and 99.4% of the time submit, to the authority of the consensus of the Church universal and, how this will be lived out most generally, to the local church. There are times that we need Martin Luther's. But, seriously, those are going to be really really rare. As long as the Church is being the Church then even if we have a few warts, we are genuinely the body of Jesus that he is caring for. She is worth submitting to for the sake of others. So what are the implications of this?

Let's take Driscoll's language for an example. Language can be a funny thing. What may not be offensive in Calcutta may be offensive in New Hampshire. And the reverse is also true. In Missouri I can walk side by side with my wife. But I better not do that in many Muslim countries. I realize that is not an example of language, but it serves my point well. There is nothing really innately offensive about words...only the meanings that they carry.

But lets consider this through our first four points. 1) To make the gospel clear, is it absolutely necessary for Driscoll to talk the way that he does? I do not know Seattle culture, but I am not certain that speaking the way that he occasionally does is necessary. 2) Is he doing it to make the gospel clear or appealing? It appears to me that his reasoning is to make the gospel "relevant", and by that I mean appealing. 3) Is he engaging in a sinful cultural ritual? This could be debatable. I would lean towards, yes; but lets try giving the benefit of the doubt and see what happens? Let's consider it a non-issue for the moment. 4) If you post a video on youtube it better be acceptable for not only Seattle but also the Bible belt. Why? Because you risk offending the body of Christ as well as creating a needless stumbling block for an unbeliever from a different culture. And I understand that we can easily do this unknowingly. But, you cannot tell me that Driscoll has no clue that what he says may offend somebody in New Hampshire.

Should it offend them? That's not the issue. Is it central to the gospel? No. Do you need to speak that way to preach the gospel? No. You do not need to say "knockin' boots" just to put the gospel in the native tongue. The issue to consider is this, are you trying to make the gospel understandable or appealing? If you say appealing then you are on really shaky grounds. Therefore, I believe Acts 29/Driscoll should abandon the use of potentially offensive "edgy" language. There may be instances where words are not innately sinful. Maybe saying "knockin' boots" is not offensive to folks in Seattle. But it is offensive to your brothers and sisters elsewhere. Therefore, for the sake of unity, and because it is not central to the gospel--abandon the practice.

At this point it probably seems as if I am not taking the "high road" of disagreeing with both sides. It sounds like I am coming down hard on Driscoll/Acts 29. So, this is where I disagree with the opposers.

1) I do not think that Driscoll really is considering all of the ramifications of his every action. I do believe that he is far too entrenched in his culture. But, is he a heretic? No. Is he blasphemous? I really think that is too strong of a charge. And such a statement might create shock but I am not sure that it furthers the discussion.

2) In discussing these matters with Acts 29/Driscoll people, are you trying to speak in their native tongue? We will not win our brother by name calling. Is it possible that you ought to bear their burden? Ought you not gently instruct and rebuke?

3) Are there some issues that they may be right on? Are these brothers in Christ? If so are we guilty of slander? Are we not also responsible for the way that we engage in our discussion with them? Might we cause undue offense by the way that we discuss these matters? Is it really helpful to the body of Christ to call those that follow Driscoll "Kool-Aid drinkers"?

4) Things are not as black and white as you wish they were. Engaging the culture is a difficult thing. Do we eat monkey brains? Do we pick a sheep up out of a well on Sunday? How close to sinners do we get? How do I keep from being culturally anorexic? How do I keep from being culturally gluttonous? These are very difficult questions. In no way does this statement negate the absolute sufficiency of Scripture. But you cannot always point to a biblical text and determine whether or not it is okay to watch a Rated-R movie. You cannot pull out Scripture that speaks of coarse language when the coarse language of Paul's day is different than ours. There are general principles, but it is NOT as black and white as we wish. To act like it is will be dangerous, and will not engage our brothers and sisters. We cannot ignore these issues. Nor can we simply make blanket statements and hope that it all goes away.

So here is my conclusion, to this rather long post. If you are a follower of Acts 29/Driscoll then you ought to repent and cling to Jesus and His gospel. If you oppose Acts 29/Driscoll then you ought to repent and cling to Jesus and His gospel. And I just bet that as we are both draw closer to our great King we will be drawn closer to each other. Maybe we all will give up our pride in the process.

Borrowed Light: Today in Blogworld 02/20-21

Imagine this...Mark Driscoll has stirred up controversy. The discussions start with Challies review of Driscoll's Vintage Jesus. Then he asks, How Do You Solve a Problem Like Mark Driscoll? Brian Thornton weighs in, as does Carla Rolfe.

David, The Thristy Theologian, explains Why He is a Calvinst, today he discusses Depravity.

I'm not the biggest fan of the title, but the Reformed Mafia, is showing the Trouble with Frank Page. It's a play off Page's, ridiculous work, The Trouble with Tulip. If you have read Page's book you'll appreciate the review. See Part One and Two.

What does it mean to avoid every appearance of evil? Dan Wallace answers. This is a quality article, and very important given many of our recent discussions on alcohol, card playin', etc. Here is his conclusion: "To wield 1 Thess 5.22 as a weapon to restrict a believer’s personal freedom is against the general tenor of the New Testament and of the Lord’s life in particular. Ironically, to avoid every appearance of evil is far more in keeping with the Pharisees’ model of righteousness than with Jesus’!"

Michael Patton continues his series on the Emergent Church. Today he asks, "Are You Emerging"? He has also recently compared Fundamentalists, Evangelicals, and Emergents.

Are we under the Law? Nathan Busenitz continues his series with part two and three.

Our church is currently trying to reframe our mission statement and put together a few statements to go with it. Perhaps we should consider the words of Dr. Bart Barber. This flies in the face of your typical outreach material; I love it. (HT: Henry Institute)

David Mathis gives us a very helpful list on resources for Bibliology.

Thabiti has a really wonderful article on highly gifted pastors in small fields of labor. Are Our Gifts to be Big for Our Field of Labor?

David Wells guest blogs at 9Marks. He asks, Are We Fiddling While Rome Burns? In case you cannot pick it up by the title, this article is about alternate forms of "having church".

Lastly, Michael McKinley offers a Hypocrites Guide to Preaching.