In spite of the fact that this is like the third post involving Mike Huckabee, these really aren't meant to be endorsements (personally, I've not decided who I'll vote for). This is, however, a really good response to question regarding evolution in a recent debate.

Labels: David C. Price, Evolution, politics

Massachusetts, a state I have a love-hate relationship with (love the state, hate the socialism), now has a proposal to ban spanking of children in all cases except extreme danger...even in your own home.

The proposal, submitted by a nurse, would ban corporal punishment, including spanking, in all cases for children under 18 unless it is to save them from danger. Parents would face charges of abuse or neglect, according to The Boston Herald.

I think it's ridiculous. All real spanking (as opposed to beatings) is to save them from danger. The kids in the most danger are those who do not receive such punishment and allowed to do whatever they wish (which they're not equipped yet to do). Is it just me or is the Massachusetts government illustrating, once again, they're over the wall?

Labels: David C. Price, Parenting, politics

I received an email yesterday asking me to sign a petition pledging to boycott the new anti-Christian movie, The Golden Compass. This will go to distrubutors, I believe, and voice our displeasure. What a great opportunity for Christians to bind together and stand up for our rights, right?

This idea of boycotting is something that I have pretty definite feelings about and have written on before. So, I've decided to simply re-post my response to an old call for boycott.

Back in June of 2005, it was a call to boycott Ford Motor Company for their support of the homosexual agenda. Today, it's over a movie that is reported as anti-Christian. Neither of these "agendas" do I support. However, I will not openly boycott them either. I will personally boycott them by simply not giving them my money. I will not let my child be exposed to it and I hope no one else will either. I may even encourage those within my sphere of influence not to see it...probably will (just did), but that's the extent of a boycott or petition I, personally, will take part in. Why? Glad ya asked. Here is my response, originally posted here:

I am no fan of boycotts. Sure, they often have something of an effect in changing the minds of those to whom the boycott is directed (or at least gives them pause), but I am concerned that it is the kind of situation where one can win the battle but lose the war.

Rarely does the general population look at those who are calling for a boycott with favor. No, I am not advocating a "friend with the world" mentality, but please, if these well-meaning folk want to do more than simply force people to act differently through punishment, I believe a different approach might be called for. In my humble opinion, boycotts, generally speaking, serve only to isolate and marginalize the group boycotting, punish the group being boycotted, and galvanize the group the offending company is supporting. I don't know, sounds like a lose, lose, lose scenario to me.

If Christians are to stand against evil but love all individuals involved, perhaps a different strategy is called for, because with this one, the Christian is seen as someone who merely wants bad things out of society so he doesn't have to look at them. It appears self-centered. That is not the call of Christ. Should Christians stand up and be heard? Absolutely, but it must be done in such a way that fellow sinners know that they are being treated with love and compassion, just the way we all want to be treated. It must also be done in such a way that the Christian Church does not look like just another special interest group. That's a tough one to be sure.

What's an alternative? I think there is nothing wrong with an individual withholding money from any group or company that doesn't share his or her core values. People do that all the time. Further, I think there is nothing wrong with individuals communicating with the company, expressing displeasure for something that company is doing with the money that is being given it by consumers. That, too, is done for various reasons regularly.

Frankly, I see nothing wrong with a group like the AFA communicating the facts about a company with its members or subscribers in order for them to make informed decisions about their spending habits. But that's where I think it should stop. Individuals should then act on their own convictions and in such a way that the door remains open to communicate love to a world in need of a bunch of it without having to overcome the obstacles of punitive actions towards a corporation.

Is there ever a time for a boycott? Perhaps, but we should always err on the side of mercy without sacrificing the integrity of the message of Christ. There are many companies from which I have withheld financial support, but that doesn't mean that I must, in so doing, mis-communicate to the world that I hate an entire group of people. Do what your convictions tell you to do with your money, but leave the door open to demonstrate compassion and love for the world around you.

More on the subject of boycotts.

Labels: Christianity, David C. Price, Film

My wife and I are going through this class at church called "Starting Point". It comes with a book and set of cd's originally done by Andy Stanley at North Point Community Church. On one of the cd's today he said one of the most interesting and thoughtful things I've heard in a long time. I listened to it like a hundred times trying to memorize it, so I hope I can do it justice. (I could have written it down but I was too lazy, plus I didn't have a pen handy and it was too much to text into my phone) He says, (and I quote loosely),

"One of the greatest evangelistic tools, that is, one of the greatest environments where non believers can become believers is by being around Christians who are simply being 'Christians'. It is the closest they will ever get to being in the presence of Jesus Christ."

Wow...that's amazing. Did it hit you like it did me? In case you might misunderstand, let me put it in context. He was talking about how it is the responsibility of believers to build healthy relationships with one another becuase it is through followers of Jesus Christ that God continues to work in the world. He was relaying that just as God worked during the time of Abraham, Moses, David, and the Prophets, he now works in the world through Holy Spirit in the church and through His people.

Now please view his statement in this context. He wasn't trying to say that unbelievers were never "in the presence of God" in the sense that God was not "around" them or working "in" them drawing them to salvation. He was simply rephrasing the old adage that "You may be the only Bible another man ever reads". It was just a little more potent.

In other words, there is something supernatural about the healthy relationships that believers have with each other. They truely are "brothers and sisters" in Christ. As a result, the work of Jesus in their lives together and the observations that unbelievers draw as onlookers is one of the most powerful "tools" as he says, to draw unbelievers to Christ. It kinda sounds like something else I once read...

"By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another"
-Jesus in John 13:35

Labels: Kim Reeder

Alex's post got me thinking about the whole "black friday" phenomenon. Having worked in retail now for ten years (yes, what was I thinking?) I experience each year the rush and pandemonium that surrounds this eventful day.

Last year, I arrived at my workplace at five in the morning to meet between ten and twenty people standing at the door in the freezing cold just to get their hands on a massive deal we had on televisions. We didn't even open the doors till six. To keep them happy and to keep them from leaving, my manager sent me to Walmart to buy donuts and coffee. This year wasn't so crazy at a different store where I work...we didn't have any tv's, but some lesser deals that weren't so popular.

I suppose I have mixed emotions about the whole experience. On the one hand, Black Friday creates a lot of excitement for the true "shopper". I've known some people who relish the whole challenge of getting to a store at four in the morning, just to be the first in line. If you are of that thinking, Black Friday is a fun and enjoyable experiences. Just to get home at the end of the day and know you were the "early bird that got the elmo" is somehow satisfying. It's the whole "thrill of the hunt" idea. Somehow I think these people would be the ones who, if they lived in the country, would pull up at your house at six in the morning in their pick up truck, get you out of bed, just to show you that big 12 point buck they got on the first day of deer season. Where else in our society can we get that kind of rush? Except maybe in trying to beat the other drivers to the nearest parking spot?

Then there's the matter of stewardship. Say I wanted to buy my wife a new leather jacket for Christmas. Would it be better to spend 200.00 dollars on a regular priced one or 50.00 between the hours of five and eleven am on black friday on a special buy? Or say I needed a new saw from Home Depot. I can pay 99.00 everyday or 59.00 on T-giving weekend? I know which I'm choosing.

On the other hand, there's the danger that Alex mentioned in his previous post. We live in the most blessed nation in the world, yet marketing gurus know how to get under our skin. Flashy ads convince us there's one more gadget we can't live without. So, this hype and frenzy builds in our minds to the point that instead of spending Thanksgiving day actually being thankful, we spend it pouring over Black Friday ads planning where we're going to be at 4 am the next day.

One more little tidbit. Ever wonder why it is that most of the "special" deals at retailers are usually "while supplies last" and if you show up on Saturday they'll be gone? I'll tell you. Many of the black friday specials are "one time only" deals. Some of that stuff is regular stuff reduced for the weekend, but most of it just comes in for that day. Retailers know that if they lived on those specials, they would go out of business. They are just "teasers" to get you into the store. They know that if you'll get to their store first, you won't go somewhere else, and after you've "saved" your money on that special buy, you'll often "spend" your money on something else because "oh, well we're already here, and look at that other great deal!" So, like Alex indicated. Let's keep it in perspective.

Labels: Kim Reeder

There is something ironic about the fact that "Black Friday" (so named because retailers hope to get into the black, which is to say, make a profit) follows on the heels of Thanksgiving, a day set aside for expressions of gratitude. Black Friday is the banner day for a consumer culture, the day that retailers look forward to as they anticipate shoppers heading out in droves to purchase the latest must have items.

Now, I say this is ironic because the consumer culture, driven by advertising, thrives on producing discontent, which is the fruit of an ungrateful heart. The singular goal of most advertising is to make consumers discontented until they get a particular product, without which life is not complete. That discontent fuels the consumer culture as shoppers hurry out to buy the newest wares.

Of course there's nothing wrong with giving gifts this time of year... as long as we guard our hearts against ingratitude and discontent.

Labels: Alex Forrest

...judge a book by it's cover.


Related

Also...
Paul's official website.

Labels: David C. Price

You should.

The Team Espresso guys want to wish fellow blogger, Alex Forrest, a happy b'day today. Have a good one, A.

Labels: David C. Price

For the longest time, I have heard opponents of abortion argue that the government should let the states decide whether abortion should be legal or not. This argument is advanced with the hopes that at least some of these states would criminalize abortion. I am an avid pro-lifer, but I must confess there has always been something about that argument that has nagged me, but I had never thought through the issue long enough to put words to my uneasy feelings. A few days ago, in the simplest terms, presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, comparing abortion rights to slavery, addressed his particular concerns with this argument:

It's the logic of the Civil War...If morality is the point here, and if it's right or wrong, not just a political question, then you can't have 50 different versions of what's right and what's wrong. For those of us for whom this is a moral question, you can't simply have 50 different versions of what's right

When I heard that, the light bulb went off for me. This was it! This is exactly why I have never been totally gung ho about this argument. Huckabee, in that brief sound bite, put words to my feelings, and he is exactly right.

Abortion is not a mere political issue. It is not on the same level as taxes or social security. It is more on the level of slavery. Abortion, like slavery, denies personhood to an entire class of people. It’s actually worse than slavery because the objective with abortion is the death of the other person, every time. While it is perfectly acceptable for the speed limit to be different from state to state, what kind of message is being given if you have infanticide being forbidden in one part of the country but being just fine in other states? Have we now reduced the issue to a matter of preference of the people from state to state? Have we reduced the issue to the same level as whether or not we should be permitted to drive 55mph or 65mph? Are we simply being pro-choice ourselves by letting the state make the choice?

On the one hand, a move to let the states decide could save more babies. In some states, most likely conservative southern states, abortion might be criminalized. For that I would be profoundly thankful because more lives could be saved. I would not fight such a shift.

On the other hand, I am concerned that a move to let the states decide may send the wrong message to America and reduce the significance of this issue. If abortion is such a deep moral issue, then we must not be satisfied with leaving this question up to the states. We cannot be satisfied with 50 different perspectives on the value of a pre-born baby. If we stop there, the pro-life cause has stopped short of what needs to be its ultimate goal, that every child be welcomed into life.

In the end what is needed is a heart change among the people of America. In the political sphere, the debate about abortion will never end. It will go on and on while more and more babies are executed. While the talking heads in Washington debate, we can make a change by taking our own beliefs and convictions into our own spheres of influence, sharing our hearts with gentleness and respect.

Ultimately, the answer to this issue is the gospel of Jesus Christ, not politics. The gospel is what truly changes hearts of stone into hearts of flesh. It is the power of the gospel that breaks down walls and brings reconciliation not only between God and man, but also between man and other people. We see in the Bible how the gospel breaks down barriers between Jews and Gentiles, and men and women. The abolitionist movement was informed by a Christian worldview, recognizing the value and dignity of all peoples because they are made in the image of God. I believe this same gospel can also break down the barrier between adults and infants. The message and transforming power of the gospel has always been the greatest hope for the oppressed, the disenfranchised, the weak, the underdogs, and the defenseless. Let us pray that more and more people in our nation will bend the knee to the God of Life. He is the answer to the abortion question.

Labels: abortion, culture, Demer Webb, ethics, morals, politics, worldviews

When you really think about it, thanksgiving ought to be present deep in the core of faith in Christ. A proper understanding of who we are and who God is then leads to a greater understanding of and appreciation for the work of Christ on our behalf. Thus our gratitude increases with our understanding of the Gospel. The close companion of gratitude is, of course, humility, for they both flow from a heart that understands these great truths. (It requires humility to be grateful). So may we grow in humility and gratitude, and may it be rooted in a growing love for the Gospel. Here's a thought from John Piper that will help point us in the right direction:

"When I say that God Is the Gospel I mean that the highest, best, final, decisive good of the gospel, without which no other gifts would be good, is the glory of God in the face of Christ revealed for our everlasting enjoyment. The saving love of God is God's commitment to do everything necessary to enthrall us with what is most deeply and durably satisfying, namely himself. Since we are sinners and have no right and no desire to be enthralled with God, therefore God's love enacted a plan of redemption to provide that right and that desire. The supreme demonstration of God's love was the sending of his Son to die for our sins and to rise again so that sinners might have the right to approach God and might have the pleasure of his presence forever."

- John Piper, God Is the Gospel, 13-14

Reason for Thanksgiving!

Labels: Alex Forrest, Gospel, gratitude, Piper, Thanksgiving

According to an article in the Christian Post, parents are spending much of their hard-earned bucks on stuff that may lead to hard-hearted kids. That's obviously not breaking news, except that the article focuses on a study by the Barna Group that shows many of these are Christian parents who often disagree with the very stuff they are buying to satisfy their kids:

Seventy-eight percent of Christian parents had purchased DVDs of movies and TV programs in the past year for their teenagers and 87 percent had purchased DVDs for their children under 13, the latest Barna Group study found. Yet 26 percent of them did not feel comfortable with the DVD products they purchased.

About six out of 10 parents bought music CDs for their teen children but one out of every three of them had concerns about the content. Also, slightly more than half of all Christian parents had purchased video games for their children yet nearly half (46 percent) of parents of teens admitted to concerns about the content of those games.

As I read through the article, I tried to figure out how this happens and what is the root problem here. Is this simply a result in confusion of roles, where the children are "ruling the roost," convincing or, sometimes, demanding that weak parents get them what they want regardless of the parents objections or is it that the parents, though they may not fully endorse the products, feel it will not affect their children negatively?

I think both of those things may be true, but the article points to another point of danger for all of us. Apparently, those parents more saturated in media themselves were most likely to be lenient on their kid's media choices. I can see the truth in this, as what parent under the age of 50 isn't driven by media themselves? I know our house is almost completely wired (or wireless, as the case may be). We're so used to media, it's hard to put it down. Case in point: I'm tapping on it right now.

I think even more problematic is an underlying desire of parents to allow their kids to "fit in" with the society in which they live. In a media-driven society, it is difficult to teach our kids to be "in the world, but not of it." Barna points to this tug-o-war that many parents find themselves in:

"Millions of Christian parents want to appear to be relevant in their children’s eyes, and to provide gifts that fit within the mainstream of postmodern society," George Barna, lead researcher of the latest study, noted. "The problem is that many of the entertainment products that meet those criteria conflict with the moral precepts of the Christian faith. Parents have to make a choice as to what is more important: pleasing their kids’ taste and sensibilities, or satisfying God’s standards as defined in the Bible. When the decision made is to keep their children happy, the Christian parent is often left with a pit in their stomach."

It would be easy for me to self-righteously throw stones at all of these irresponsible parents who provide objectionable material for their kids and preach about how they should stand up and be the parent. Though that is absolutely true that we must be the parent, I do understand the difficulty of that last reason. As the parent of a seven year-old, I'm already facing this struggle. Obviously, there are firm lines that must be drawn, but unless you take your kids out of the greater society, there are difficult choices to be made.

For us right now, it's pokemon. Every little boy in my son's class is into trading pokemon cards and, though that is pretty benign in comparison with some of the video games being sold to young kids these days, I'm not totally comfortable with some of those cards. So what do we do? We're compromising, letting him play with the cards in order to "fit in," but spending a lot of time talking with him about them and the issues that arise from his participation. Are we wrong to even let him? I don't know. I hope not. I do know that not letting him participate removes him from virtually all social interaction with his classmates, so it's a decision we felt we had to make.

I think Barna rightly summarizes the point as it relates to making a choice between pleasing God in our parenting and always pleasing our kids (who often, to some degree, become products of society). Perhaps more times than not, we will not be able to do both:

"Many Christian parents are striving to serve two conflicting masters: society and God. They refuse to believe that they cannot satisfy both," he said. "Sadly, this Christmas season will produce enormous stress for numerous Christian parents who don’t want to disappoint either God or their children, but whose ultimate choices will disappoint both God and themselves, while providing gifts that are not in the best interests of their children. For Christians, the Christmas season should be a time of celebration and appreciation of the life of Jesus Christ. Instead, that joy is being minimized by the pressure and confusion introduced by our focus on material consumption and fulfillment."

In my opinion, this ultimately comes down to an issue of discipleship. For parents, a lack of training in living out their faith in all areas of their lives (most importantly at home), leads to a lack of understanding of just how damaging much of the media content their children are exposed to can be. Further, we're not discipling our kids, teaching them that there are often limits we must place on ourselves in order to please God and, thereby, lead lives of purpose and peace.

It's a tough, highwire act to walk, but unless we do, our kids are the ones who will fall into the abyss.

Labels: Christianity, David C. Price, Family, Parenting

Wouldn't it be great if all of those endless presidential commercials were more like this?

Labels: David C. Price, humor, politics

For many of you, this may be old news since the story actually came out about a month ago, but somehow I missed it up until last week. It turns out something extraordinary happened recently: Willow Creek Church, pioneers of the "seeker-sensitive" movement, has declared they made a mistake. What mistake, you ask? The seeker-sensitive movement. When all is said and done, that may be a bit of an overstatement, but writer and radio host, Bob Burney, published an article for Baptist Press recently discussing the shocking revelation:

Willow Creek has released the results of a multi-year study on the effectiveness of their programs and philosophy of ministry. The study's findings are in a new book titled "Reveal: Where Are You?," co-authored by Cally Parkinson and Greg Hawkins, executive pastor of Willow Creek Community Church. Hybels himself called the findings "ground breaking," "earth shaking" and "mind blowing." And no wonder: It seems that the "experts" were wrong.

The report reveals that most of what they have been doing for these many years and what they have taught millions of others to do is not producing solid disciples of Jesus Christ. Numbers yes, but not disciples. It gets worse. Hybels laments:

"Some of the stuff that we have put millions of dollars into thinking it would really help our people grow and develop spiritually, when the data actually came back it wasn't helping people that much. Other things that we didn't put that much money into and didn't put much staff against is stuff our people are crying out for."

That's huge. I mean it's huge that they admit it. Seriously, to their credit, having spent literally millions on this stuff, to admit they were wrong is a big deal.

Many, including myself, have known for years it was a mistake to focus on "felt needs" and have said so many times. Though it should have been a no-brainer, the number of people being reached was hard to argue against. That doesn't mean we agreed, it just meant few people listen when it seems to be so effective. Numbers don't lie? Burney sums up the truth of the issue:

If you simply want a crowd, the "seeker-sensitive" model produces results. If you want solid, sincere, mature followers of Christ, it's a bust. In a shocking confession, Hybels states: "We made a mistake. What we should have done when people crossed the line of faith and become Christians, we should have started telling people and teaching people that they have to take responsibility to become 'self feeders.' We should have gotten people, taught people, how to read their Bible between services, how to do the spiritual practices much more aggressively on their own."

I don't mean to be discordant but I have to tell you, when I read this I breathed a huge sigh of relief. Finally, the seeker-sensitive movement has been revealed for what it is...a sham. It is a well-meaning sham, but a sham, nonetheless. It was a matter of feeding people what they wanted rather than what they needed, leading people to bounce around to find a church that made them feel good rather than making them disciples. Sadly, here is the reality...a reality that I hope this mass of "seeker-sensitive" shopping malls can admit to and remedy:

The foundation of thousands of American churches is now discovered to be mere sand. The one individual who has had perhaps the greatest influence on the American church in our generation has now admitted his philosophy of ministry, in large part, was a "mistake." The extent of this error defies measurement.

Then the reality of what this all means sets in: there always seems to be the desire to improve on the model set out in Scripture. Rather than really doing life together (which often gets very messy and uncomfortable), dedicating ourselves to the Word of God with all the difficulty that discipleship demands, giving up our own desires, taking up our cross and following Christ wherever He leads and finding joy in the journey, certainly there must be something better; there must be some other way that leads to massive church growth (never mind that doing it the Scripture way led to 3,000 converts in a single day--when was the last time you saw that happen?). Nah, looks like it's back to the old drawing board for the seeker-sensitive, church growth professionals...which is where the new and very real danger lies:

Perhaps the most shocking thing of all in this revelation coming out of Willow Creek is in a summary statement by Greg Hawkins: "Our dream is that we fundamentally change the way we do church. That we take out a clean sheet of paper and we rethink all of our old assumptions. Replace it with new insights. Insights that are informed by research and rooted in Scripture. Our dream is really to discover what God is doing and how he's asking us to transform this planet."

Isn't that what we were told when this whole seeker-sensitive thing started? The church growth gurus again want to throw away their old assumptions and "take out a clean sheet of paper" and, presumably, come up with a new paradigm for ministry. Should this be encouraging? Please note that "rooted in Scripture" still follows "rethink," "new insights" and "informed research." Someone, it appears, still might not get it. Unless there is a return to simple biblical (and relevant) principles, a new faulty scheme will replace the existing one and another generation will follow along as the latest piper plays.

That is a warning I hope we all take to heart. As people of The Word, we have to ask ourselves how we can really expect to improve on a perfect model? New ways of applying the unchanging biblical principles are fine...we need to be able to communicate with 21st Century culture, but we must not abandon the heart of the Gospel and basics of authentic discipleship in the process.

Labels: Christian, Christianity, Church, David C. Price, Seeker-Sensitive

What an honor it is to be a part of this team blog. An honor, and an irony. . . considering I absolutely, positively, without a doubt HATE coffee. I do like the smell of the beans, but other than that, I just can't do it. I'll admit I tried.

When my grandfather was alive he always offered it to me when I went to his house. I tried sugar and lots of it. It might as well have been coffee flavored corn syrup. I tried lots and lots of milk or cream. I even tried three quarters milk to one quarter coffee with a ton of sugar. Yeah. Nothing. He loved coffee so much that he would make a pot in the morning, and then just leave it on the table all day, and yep, drink it all day. I didn't like it in the morning, much less in the afternoon.

Of course anyone who knows David knows that he's one of the best at preparing a good steamy cup of Joe. When we lived in Louisville, it was for that reason alone my wife loved going to the Price's house for dinner because he made such good coffee afterwards. And yes, he offered to make me a watered-down weeny version of espresso just to try to get me hooked but I always resisted. I would make a horrible missionary, you know, eating and drinking the local fare...especially if it was coffee. Fortunately, our friendship was never based on a like or dislike of coffee so when we met at the coffee shop he drank coffee, I drank vanilla chai and he made fun of me. But that's ok. I'm comfortable in my non-coffetic lifestyle. (Did I just make up a word?)

Then there's my wife. She happens to love coffee, which works out great for me because she makes it, I can smell it, don't have to touch it, and don't have to feel guilty that a pot of coffee was made that I didn't drink. That is, until the pot sits on the counter for a week and turns into a green science project...then well, it's time to do something. There's nothing like waking up and saying, "Hey baby, could I have a steamy cup of penicillin?" I don't think they serve that at Starbucks. But I digress.

On the other hand, I am hooked on caffeine. Coka cola caffeine. I can easily down four or five a day like it's nothing. I'm talking about a serious problem here folks. If you own stock in Coke, I've quite possibly made you rich. I'm contributing to your retirement as you read this. Just the thought of a can popping open makes me salivate.

A new day has dawned though. We went to the store last night and I was out of, you guessed it, Cokes. When I walked down that aisle, thought of the price of gas, and saw a 12 pack for 4.39 or 4.99 or something like that, and I asked myself, "Could this be good stewardship gone bad?" What does it say when it costs less to purchase a gallon of gas (at these prices) than a pack of cokes that I can make disappear in two days? So I did it. I just said "no". That's right. I said no to the temptation. And today you wanna know how I felt? Elated? Victorious? Nah. I had a massive caffeine headache. So when I got home, I downed the closest glass of tea I could find. I could have taken Excedrin which has some caffine in it, but then where would I get a massive load of sugar that I can get with a big ol' glass of sweet tea? I guess I"m just trading one bad habit for another.

Anyway, I think this blog is actually intended for Christian commentary on life which I suppose may not have much to do with my view of coffee. Unless we're going to talk about caffeine addiction as an alternate drug and the hypocrisy of being a non drug user but being hooked on caffeine...but that's just too heavy a topic just before bed time. So anyway, thanks for making me part of this group even though I'm the non-coffee-drinking-non-conformist. So pull up a chair, pour yourself a cup, and let's sit a while. You can drink the coffee, I'll just smell the beans.

Labels: Kim Reeder

I am very happy to announce the re-launch of Espresso Roast today as a team blog. With it, I welcome three very intelligent (mmph!) and respectable (ckkk!). I'm sorry, I'm sorry...really, great guys.

Just kidding. I do consider myself fortunate to have Alex Forrest, Kim Reeder, and Demer Webb joining Espresso Roast as contributors. Some of you know Alex from his personal blog that he has written on for the last three years or so. Alex was one of my partners-in-crime in the Apologetics and Worldviews program at Southern and brings a great perspective and tremendous insights in theology and cultural issues.

Kim Reeder (uh, it's a guy) comes to the blog with a fresh writing style and wit to match. Don't get too much caffeine in him or there's no telling what will come out.

Demer Webb (that's pronounced Deemer) is one of those guys you could sit and carry on a deep and meaningful theological conversation most of the night...given there's plenty of pizza and no-doze.

Each of these men bring a great deal to this blog and I am truly honored to have them writing here. As to what you can expect: Well, probably more of the same as far as commentary and analysis of life, theology and culture. However, our desire is that this will be a place where you are challenged and encouraged. We may point out some of the absurdities of life from time to time, champion a cause here and there, or put up something just to hopefully make you smile.

The bottom line is I'm not sure what this will look like, exactly, or how frequently there will be posts. I've left a lot up to the guys to post what they're feeling or thinking. Based on these guys background, experience, and education, I do think it will be interesting and informative and I encourage you to check here regularly. As a matter of fact, the best thing you can do is subscribe to the feed or our email update list.

We encourage you to interact with us, posting encouragement or challenges to our positions. If you have insights we didn't think of, tell us. We may or may not respond, but know that we're reading what you write. One thing, though: make sure you read the House Rules before you comment. We hope you enjoy this "new" blog and if you like it, please spread the word.

Blessings!
David

Labels: David C. Price

Coming Monday, November 19, Espresso Roast will be re-launched as a team blog. I have invited several people to join me here at Espresso Roast in order to take this blog to the next level and work to make this a place for top quality commentary, information and conversation that will challenge your thinking and your living.

I am excited about this change because each person invited to be a part of this blog brings a great deal to the table and I assure you, it will be worth the time you take to read what these men post.

Make sure you don't miss a thing by subscribing to this blog using the link to the right and we'll see you Monday!

Labels: David C. Price

Today marks the third anniversary of Espresso Roast Blog. It's been a fun three years so far. I want to say thank you to those who've been with me since the beginning. I'm sorry I've not had more time to do much substantive writing over this last year, but it's been fun for me, nonetheless.

Let me say that there are some major changes coming to this blog in the next week or so. That's all I'll say for now, so stay tuned to see what's coming next. It gets much better from here.

Labels: David C. Price

So, you remember yesterday when I said there are some things I'm not necessarily against but just don't support? Yeah, well, this ain't one of them. I am necessarily against what this "church" does. The infamous Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas (you remember them, right? The "God Hates Fags" people?) have been busy picketing soldiers funerals and, you may have heard, has just lost a case where they were sued for $11 million. Here is an excerpt of the story from CBS News:

On Friday, July 7, Army 1st Lieutenant Forrest P. Ewens was buried at a respectful ceremony in Arlington National Cemetery, which many consider to be the most hallowed ground in the United States. But the peace was disrupted by protests from members of the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas. In a cordoned-off area by the entrance to the cemetery, they carried signs with anti-gay and anti-American slogans and proclaimed that Ewens' death in Afghanistan on June 16 was another sign of God's impeding doom on the nation. Westboro has taken what it calls "love crusades" to military funerals across the country. The church was not protesting at the funeral because Ewens was gay, but because he died, in their view, serving a country that has incurred the wrath of God by accepting and tolerating homosexuality. Now the father of a slain serviceman whose funeral was disrupted is suing the church in an attempt to fight back against what he views as the abuse of military families with a message of hate.

I've been to their websites and, I assure, there is no "love crusade" going on here. Yes, they have a point that God's wrath is displayed against all ungodliness (Romans 1 is clear on this point), but it is not the job of any church to taunt and condemn the world. That's not what Jesus did. Instead, He met people where they were and called them to repentance. The ones He was most harsh with were the self-righteous religious establishment.

This seems to be a case of hyper-calvinism, in which this group has a misunderstanding of reformed principles, believing that God hates those who are not elect and are damned to hell anyway and should, therefore, be judged here and now. These people see no reason to show love or compassion to those whom they have determined show evidence of being "of the world" and, thus, outside of God's saving grace.

OK, so here's my beef: Scripture clearly teaches the doctrine of election and that the only way we can get to God is for Him to reveal Himself to us. Salvation is the work of God from start to finish, not the slightest bit that can be credited to man and even our very faith is a gift from God (Eph. 2:8-9). I believe this. I believe Romans 9 that declares God makes a sovereign choice and some are not chosen for reasons only God knows and that He shows mercy on some and hardens others. This is hard to argue with as Jesus makes similar statements throughout the Gospel of John.

However, the Church is called to reach and love all people, as we are not God and have no idea who He will or will not show mercy to. I am not God, therefore any person I talk with may be moved to repentance by God leading to a saving knowledge of Him. It's not my work, it's God's. Think about it for a minute: following this church's judgment policies, the woman at the well would have been rejected along with the woman caught in adultery, at least most of the apostles and most certainly that murderous guy, Paul (you know, the one who wrote most of the New Testament). These would have been people who, in their pre-Christian state, would have been condemned by this church, not knowing God had other ideas for them.

Are these horrible events, such as droughts, floods, fires, war and global warming evidence of God's judgment? I don't know but find it doubtful. God's judgment in Scripture was usually preceded by clear calls for repentance and warning that God's judgment was coming in specific ways. To me, this sounds more like evidence of the "birth pangs" of the end times. Not to say that means that the sky is falling, but simply that, regardless of the abundance of sin, these type things are going to happen as we get closer and closer to the return of Christ.

As best I can tell, the wrath of God being poured out on sin described in Romans 1 has less to do with God bringing about disaster and more to do with God doing...nothing. Verse 24 says, "Therefore, God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts...". In verse 26, Paul says, "For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions." (italics added) In other words, God did nothing. He no longer convicted; no longer warned; no longer stopped them. God did nothing which is the worst possible kind of expression of wrath.

Ironically, based upon their actions and attitudes, it could be that God has given this fringe group of religious zealots over to their own hatred...in His wrath.

Related: A very good article on the subject from the Boston Globe.

Labels: culture, David C. Price, God, religion