I absolutely love what Christian George is doing with highlighting these neat artifacts of Spurgeon’s life and ministry.
As a Pastor, Did You Use Church Growth Strategies
I love John Piper’s answer to this question.
We Need to Win the Aesthetic, Not the Argument
I wonder if this could be strengthened by saying not just the argument.
A Checklist for More Persuasive Presentations
I need to bookmark this one.
Every time I go to Springfield a Chick-fil-A trip is at least a possibility:
“We should stop singing to one another and singing to God.”
Oddly enough, I’ve heard a critique leveled against both hymns and contemporary music. And it’s true that both styles of music will on occasion sing songs more to one another than to (or about) Almighty God. The idea—from whichever side of the fence you are on—is that the music part of our worship time is designed for an individual to focus on God alone. The conclusion,then, is that any music which is horizontal and not vertical is inappropriate.
I get the logic of this but there is one massive thing which causes me to disagree. That massive thing is the Bible. I’ll ignore for a moment the nature of the Psalms—the singing to one another component to them—and just focus on one particular verse in the New Testament:
And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit, addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart, (Ephesians 5:18-19 ESV, emphasis mine)
Did you notice that? There is a dual component to the way we engage in corporate singing. Yes, absolutely, we should be making melody to the Lord with our hearts. But there is a very biblical component to worship that is focused on addressing one another. Perhaps as we sing theologically rich songs, like some of those precious hymns, we are proclaiming and teaching the excellency of God from one generation to another. Or maybe as we sing some of the emotionally encouraging modern songs we are encouraging one another to hold fast to Christ.
We must not forsake either dimension of worship. To only sing vertically is to forget that we were saved into a people. It isn’t just me and Jesus. My relationship with God is intimately connected to the vital companionship I share with my brothers and sisters. So we need to sing songs together. And to one another.
Likewise if I only sing horizontally I will be missing the personal aspect of my relationship with God. And eventually we won’t have much to sing. Our worship ought to be corporately Godward. There shouldn’t be a deep split between the vertical and horizontal. As we sing about the Lord and to the Lord we are doing this together and encouraging one another.
But let’s stop feeling guilty and pretending like we are displeasing God by singing to one another as well as making melody to the Lord. Both are vital. Both please the Lord.
Now certainly there is a man-pleasing type of worship where our focus in music selection and the songs we sing is whether we like the songs or not. If that is what we mean by “singing to one another” then by all means throw it in the trash. But let’s not forsake this very biblical practice of encouraging and admonishing one another in song simply because we have a terrible propensity to make worship about us.
—
Photo source: here
To me this is a great reason why we should simply never visit terrible, divisive, and unhelpful websites.
8 Reasons Why Pastors Shouldn’t Leave Churches for the Same Reasons as Members
What is being said here is very helpful. This is really a list of eight not so good reasons why people leave churches.
What is difficult about this is that pastor’s are often the only ones who really know about the weight of pastoral ministry. And when a pastor brings up something like this he puts himself in danger of seeming lazy. So, I appreciate men like Kevin DeYoung standing in the gap with articles like this.
Danger Signs of an Unhealthy Dating Relationship
Pay attention to these.
Here is a bit from Mark Dever on sermon prep:
I read an absolutely heart-wrenching article last week. An Indiana mom smothered her two children with her hands. I’m such a visual person and so reading this article was incredibly painful as I pictured these sweet children dying at the hands of their mother. What was even more sickening is that she said she “gave them a choice”. Their choice was to “live traumatized lives with their mother” or “go to heaven now”.
Obviously this woman is not mentally stable. Sin has so corrupted her mind and heart that she put herself into the position of sovereign over the lives of her children. She took a life that she had no right taking. No matter how she spins this she will not get sympathy. You do not kill a child to prevent them from potential future harm.
Or will she get sympathy?
I say that because I have heard very similar logic from those who are not pro-life and want to uphold Roe v. Wade. If a child is going to be born into extreme poverty, or if he/she has severe disabilities that will impact their ability to have a healthy and thriving life, is it not more loving to keep them from such suffering? I cannot see how the “choice” given these children is much different than the non-choice given to children in the womb.
As we are outraged by this mother and saying things like, “Why not just put these kids up for adoption? Why not pursue giving them a better life? Why have such a defeatist mentality?” I cannot help but ask the same thing of those who hold to a pro-choice position.
I know the counter-argument. We are asking these mothers to carry a child for nine months, go through the pain of child-birth, and all of this for a child they do not want. They need to be in control of their bodies. How dare we legislate what a woman can and cannot do to her body? But let’s be honest, are we merely saying what a woman can and cannot do to her body, or are we also legislating what a woman can and cannot do to another human? I would argue that it is the latter—which is why I am saying as repulsed as we are by the story of the mother suffocating her children, is it any more sanitized when a mother chooses to have a doctor do the work for her?
I’m not intending, here, to throw condemnation and shame upon women who have made a similar choice. I’m guessing that if you have a relationship with Jesus you’ve felt more than enough conviction. And I’m also certain that if you have a relationship with Christ you have experienced the balm of his forgiveness, and the work of the Spirit it transforming our minds. I too have things that I’ve done in the past that I am not proud of, which cause great pain, and which I’m deeply grateful are covered by the blood of Christ.
All I’m attempting to do here is to show how pro-abortion logic doesn’t stand up. If it doesn’t work outside the womb then it shouldn’t work in the womb. When we make moral compromises and when we engage in situational ethics we end up losing our voice to stand up against things which are reprehensible. And I would argue that the only one who can rightly condemn the actions of this Indiana mother are those who have a consistently pro-life position.
If you are appalled at Amanda Pasztor’s actions you should be equally appalled at the thought of taking the life of a child inside the womb for similar reasons.
—
Photo source: here