Praising God for 35 Years with Ann!
Sam Storms
May 26, 2007
Today, May 26, 2007, is my thirty-fifth wedding anniversary. I simply had to take this opportunity to break from my regular series of biblical meditations and say something about the most awesome woman in the world, my wife Ann.
I first laid eyes on her at the University of Oklahoma at a Campus Crusade for Christ meeting in early October of 1970. Actually, I was gazing with admiration at two young ladies, Ann (although I didn’t know her name at the time) and one of her sorority sisters. I was trying to figure out which of them was prettier and therefore deserving of my calling and asking for a date. Yes, I know that’s immature and prideful and countless other things, but I was an immature and prideful young man of 19 at the time! Later that Wednesday night, I called Ann and asked her out. Praise God, she said Yes! For our first date, we drove to Oklahoma City to watch the movie, Dr. Zhivago.
As many of you have heard, Yes, it’s true, I proposed to her later that evening! No, I do not recommend this to anyone else. Yes, it was silly and arrogant and unwise. No, she didn’t say Yes immediately. She was too stunned to take it seriously.
If that first date wasn’t weird enough, it got even stranger in the weeks that followed. When Thanksgiving arrived, Ann returned home to Tulsa and I to Duncan, Oklahoma. I called her and asked if I might drive to Tulsa and bring her back to school at Norman. She said yes. What I didn’t know at the time was that upon returning to Tulsa for the holiday break, her former high school sweetheart had called her and asked if she would be willing to drop out of school at OU and transfer to in-state rival OSU. That was bad enough, but he then asked her to get engaged with a view to marriage the following summer. Worst of all, she said Yes! You’ll have to ask her why, but I think it had something to do with not believing the sincerity of a young man silly enough to propose on the first date!
Her plan, following my phone call, was to break the bad news to me during our drive from Tulsa back to school at OU. But before she could inform me of her recent engagement, I told her that I wanted to solidify our commitment and begin a more steady dating relationship. Lo and behold, she said Yes again! But No, she never told me about having said Yes to her high school boyfriend, at least not until many years later (a wise decision, indeed).
Needless to say, we made a lot of mistakes along the way, but God was gracious and forgiving and probably got more than a few laughs out of us as well.
On May 26, 1972, we sealed the deal. Not once in these thirty five years have I regretted the decision (although I certainly can’t speak for Ann!). What an unspeakable blessing she has been. She has given me two beautiful daughters and a lifetime of love and sacrifice and support.
I read Proverbs 31 and say, “Sorry lady, but you ain’t got nothing on Annie!” She has given herself to her family and to others in need in ways that I can’t begin to describe. She is a true servant and revels in the opportunity to hide away behind the scenes and do whatever unpleasant tasks everyone expects but few fulfill. If you want to get a good definition of the spiritual gift of “helps”, look it up in the dictionary and you’ll see Ann’s photograph. She embodies mercy and kindness in ways that remind me, fittingly, of Jesus himself.
But best of all, she loves her Lord Jesus more than anyone or anything. What more could a man want in a wife? I thank God daily for her presence in my life, for her words of counsel and wisdom, for her undying support even when I’m stupid and reckless and say dumb things.
Sadly, I’m in Scotland today on a lengthy ministry trip and unable to share this anniversary with her except by way of e-mail and a brief telephone call. But we’ll celebrate together soon. In the meantime, Ann, thank you for everything: for your love of God, for your love of me, our children, our grandchildren, and countless others, many of whose names you didn’t know but whose lives were forever transformed because of your kindness and tender-hearted compassion.
Grateful for thirty-five years and expectant of many more,
Sam
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Jerry Falwell dies At 73
By Lisa Anderson
Tribune National Correspondent
Published May 15, 2007, 1:02 PM CDT
NEW YORK -- Influential conservative televangelist and Moral Majority founder Jerry Falwell died at a Lynchburg, Virginia hospital early this afternoon after being found unconscious in his office at nearby Liberty University.He was 73.
Falwell had "a history of heart challenges," according to Ron Godwin, the university's executive vice president. "I had breakfast with him, and he was fine at breakfast," Goodwin told the Associated Press. "He went to his office. I went to mine, and they found him unresponsive.
"Falwell was found unconscious and unresponsive in his office, located in a stone cottage on the campus grounds, at about 10:45 a.m, said Goodwin.Falwell's death came just days before Liberty University will graduate its first law school class on May 19.
Born and bred in Lynchburg, Falwell came back after college to found the Thomas Road Baptist Church in 1956. That church currently has 24,000 members.The church is on the same property with Falwell's education complex that includes schools from pre-K through PhD programs.The law school was the most recent addition, opening in the fall of 2004.
In an interview at his Liberty University office on May 1, Falwell spoke to the Tribune about his dream."More than 40 years ago, I had already been pastor of Thomas Road Baptist Church here in Lynchburg for 10 or 11 years and I began building a dream. The dream was a Christian institution of education providing preschool, kindergarten, elementary, high school, liberal arts university, graduate schools, seminary, law school, engineering school, medical school. Well, the engineering starts this fall and the medical is five years down the road," he said proudly.
"We bought 5000 acres of land over the years. It's called Liberty Mountain," he said.
Falwell is survived by his wife of nearly 50 years, three grown children and eight grandchildren.
Jonathan Falwell, one of his two sons, is the executive pastor of the Thomas Road Baptist Church.
By Lisa Anderson
Tribune National Correspondent
Published May 15, 2007, 1:02 PM CDT
NEW YORK -- Influential conservative televangelist and Moral Majority founder Jerry Falwell died at a Lynchburg, Virginia hospital early this afternoon after being found unconscious in his office at nearby Liberty University.He was 73.
Falwell had "a history of heart challenges," according to Ron Godwin, the university's executive vice president. "I had breakfast with him, and he was fine at breakfast," Goodwin told the Associated Press. "He went to his office. I went to mine, and they found him unresponsive.
"Falwell was found unconscious and unresponsive in his office, located in a stone cottage on the campus grounds, at about 10:45 a.m, said Goodwin.Falwell's death came just days before Liberty University will graduate its first law school class on May 19.
Born and bred in Lynchburg, Falwell came back after college to found the Thomas Road Baptist Church in 1956. That church currently has 24,000 members.The church is on the same property with Falwell's education complex that includes schools from pre-K through PhD programs.The law school was the most recent addition, opening in the fall of 2004.
In an interview at his Liberty University office on May 1, Falwell spoke to the Tribune about his dream."More than 40 years ago, I had already been pastor of Thomas Road Baptist Church here in Lynchburg for 10 or 11 years and I began building a dream. The dream was a Christian institution of education providing preschool, kindergarten, elementary, high school, liberal arts university, graduate schools, seminary, law school, engineering school, medical school. Well, the engineering starts this fall and the medical is five years down the road," he said proudly.
"We bought 5000 acres of land over the years. It's called Liberty Mountain," he said.
Falwell is survived by his wife of nearly 50 years, three grown children and eight grandchildren.
Jonathan Falwell, one of his two sons, is the executive pastor of the Thomas Road Baptist Church.
Here is a statement regarding Beckwith's resignation from the Evangelical Theological Society written by the editor of the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Dr. Andreas J. Kostenberger:
"May 8, 2007
"On May 5, 2007, Dr. Frank Beckwith resigned as President of the Evangelical Theological Society. This resignation has come as a result of his decision to be received into full communion in the Roman Catholic Church, which he did on April 29, 2007. Dr. Beckwith has informed the Executive Committee that this was a decision he came to “after much prayer, counsel, and consideration.” Subsequently, after further prayer and reflection, Dr. Beckwith has voluntarily withdrawn his membership from the Society as well.
The members of the Executive Committee wish Dr. Beckwith well in his ongoing professional work. We have come to appreciate him as a scholar and a friend. On behalf of the Society, we want to express our gratitude for his work organizing and coordinating the 2006 Annual Meeting in Washington, D.C., with the theme, “Evangelicals in the Public Square.” No one, perhaps, appreciates how much labor is involved in such a task, except those who have undertaken it in the past, as is the case with most of the members of the Executive Committee. And so, we thank Dr. Beckwith for his service to the Society.
At the same time, the Executive Committee recognizes Dr. Beckwith’s resignation as President and subsequent withdrawal from membership as appropriate in light of the purpose and doctrinal basis of the Evangelical Theological Society and in light of the requirements of wholehearted confessional agreement with the Roman Catholic Church.
The work of the Evangelical Theological Society as a scholarly forum proceeds on the basis that “the Bible alone and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs.” This affirmation, together with the statement on the Trinity, forms the basis for membership in the ETS to which all members annually subscribe in writing. Confessional Catholicism, as defined by the Roman Catholic Church’s declarations from the Council of Trent to Vatican II, sets forth a more expansive view of verbal, infallible revelation.
Specifically, it posits a larger canon of Scripture than that recognized by evangelical Protestants, including in its canon several writings from the Apocrypha. It also extends the quality of infallibility to certain expressions of church dogma issued by the Magisterium (the teaching office of the Roman Catholic Church), as well as certain pronouncements of the pope, which are delivered ex cathedra, such as doctrines about the immaculate conception and assumption of Mary.
We recognize the right of Roman Catholic theologians to do their theological work on the basis of all the authorities they consider to be revelatory and infallible, even as we wholeheartedly affirm the distinctive contribution and convictional necessity of the work of the Evangelical Theological Society on the basis of the “Bible alone and the Bible in its entirety” as “the Word of God written and . . . inerrant.”
In recent years, Evangelicals and Roman Catholics have often labored together in common cause addressing some of the critical social and moral issues of our contemporary culture. We welcome this and fully expect it to continue. A number of publications have appeared comparing Evangelicalism and Roman Catholicism. Certainly, the two traditions share many common Christian doctrines. However there are important theological differences as well. We expect that the events of these days will bring a renewed discussion of these matters. We welcome and encourage this as well.
Finally, regarding the Presidency of ETS, Dr. Hassell Bullock, President-elect will also serve as acting President until the annual meeting at which time elections for the officers for 2008 will take place.
We are grateful for Dr. Beckwith’s past association with ETS, and we pray that God will continue to use his considerable gifts.
C. Hassell Bullock, President-Elect (Wheaton College)
Bruce A. Ware, Vice-President (The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary)
Edwin M. Yamauchi, At-large member (Miami University)
Craig A. Blaising, At-large member (Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary)
Gregory K. Beale, At-large member (Wheaton College)
David M. Howard, Jr., At-large member (Bethel Seminary)
James A. Borland, Secretary-Treasurer (Liberty University)
Andreas J. Köstenberger, JETS Editor (Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary)
"May 8, 2007
"On May 5, 2007, Dr. Frank Beckwith resigned as President of the Evangelical Theological Society. This resignation has come as a result of his decision to be received into full communion in the Roman Catholic Church, which he did on April 29, 2007. Dr. Beckwith has informed the Executive Committee that this was a decision he came to “after much prayer, counsel, and consideration.” Subsequently, after further prayer and reflection, Dr. Beckwith has voluntarily withdrawn his membership from the Society as well.
The members of the Executive Committee wish Dr. Beckwith well in his ongoing professional work. We have come to appreciate him as a scholar and a friend. On behalf of the Society, we want to express our gratitude for his work organizing and coordinating the 2006 Annual Meeting in Washington, D.C., with the theme, “Evangelicals in the Public Square.” No one, perhaps, appreciates how much labor is involved in such a task, except those who have undertaken it in the past, as is the case with most of the members of the Executive Committee. And so, we thank Dr. Beckwith for his service to the Society.
At the same time, the Executive Committee recognizes Dr. Beckwith’s resignation as President and subsequent withdrawal from membership as appropriate in light of the purpose and doctrinal basis of the Evangelical Theological Society and in light of the requirements of wholehearted confessional agreement with the Roman Catholic Church.
The work of the Evangelical Theological Society as a scholarly forum proceeds on the basis that “the Bible alone and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs.” This affirmation, together with the statement on the Trinity, forms the basis for membership in the ETS to which all members annually subscribe in writing. Confessional Catholicism, as defined by the Roman Catholic Church’s declarations from the Council of Trent to Vatican II, sets forth a more expansive view of verbal, infallible revelation.
Specifically, it posits a larger canon of Scripture than that recognized by evangelical Protestants, including in its canon several writings from the Apocrypha. It also extends the quality of infallibility to certain expressions of church dogma issued by the Magisterium (the teaching office of the Roman Catholic Church), as well as certain pronouncements of the pope, which are delivered ex cathedra, such as doctrines about the immaculate conception and assumption of Mary.
We recognize the right of Roman Catholic theologians to do their theological work on the basis of all the authorities they consider to be revelatory and infallible, even as we wholeheartedly affirm the distinctive contribution and convictional necessity of the work of the Evangelical Theological Society on the basis of the “Bible alone and the Bible in its entirety” as “the Word of God written and . . . inerrant.”
In recent years, Evangelicals and Roman Catholics have often labored together in common cause addressing some of the critical social and moral issues of our contemporary culture. We welcome this and fully expect it to continue. A number of publications have appeared comparing Evangelicalism and Roman Catholicism. Certainly, the two traditions share many common Christian doctrines. However there are important theological differences as well. We expect that the events of these days will bring a renewed discussion of these matters. We welcome and encourage this as well.
Finally, regarding the Presidency of ETS, Dr. Hassell Bullock, President-elect will also serve as acting President until the annual meeting at which time elections for the officers for 2008 will take place.
We are grateful for Dr. Beckwith’s past association with ETS, and we pray that God will continue to use his considerable gifts.
C. Hassell Bullock, President-Elect (Wheaton College)
Bruce A. Ware, Vice-President (The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary)
Edwin M. Yamauchi, At-large member (Miami University)
Craig A. Blaising, At-large member (Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary)
Gregory K. Beale, At-large member (Wheaton College)
David M. Howard, Jr., At-large member (Bethel Seminary)
James A. Borland, Secretary-Treasurer (Liberty University)
Andreas J. Köstenberger, JETS Editor (Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary)
Friday, May 11, 2007
As some of you may have heard, Frank Beckwith, President of the Evangelical Theological Society, has resigned his post. His reason is quite shocking: He is returning to the Catholic Church. However, if I understand correctly, he is to remain a member of the ETS.
The biggest question is, as far as the Society is concerned, is the question of whether or not Beckwith remains an evangelical. I'll get to that in a second. Here, in his own words, is why he went back to the Catholic Church:
"he past four months have moved quickly for me and my wife. As you probably know, my work in philosophy, ethics, and theology has always been Catholic friendly, but I would have never predicted that I would return to the Church, for there seemed to me too many theological and ecclesiastical issues that appeared insurmountable. However, in January, at the suggestion of a dear friend, I began reading the Early Church Fathers as well as some of the more sophisticated works on justification by Catholic authors. I became convinced that the Early Church is more Catholic than Protestant and that the Catholic view of justification, correctly understood, is biblically and historically defensible. Even though I also believe that the Reformed view is biblically and historically defensible, I think the Catholic view has more explanatory power to account for both all the biblical texts on justification as well as the church’s historical understanding of salvation prior to the Reformation all the way back to the ancient church of the first few centuries. Moreover, much of what I have taken for granted as a Protestant—e.g., the catholic creeds, the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation, the Christian understanding of man, and the canon of Scripture—is the result of a Church that made judgments about these matters and on which non-Catholics, including Evangelicals, have declared and grounded their Christian orthodoxy in a world hostile to it. Given these considerations, I thought it wise for me to err on the side of the Church with historical and theological continuity with the first generations of Christians that followed Christ’s Apostles."
I want to pick at this a little. I mean, that's what I do, isn't it? :) First of all, he says, "...there seemed to me too many theological and ecclesiastical issues that appeared insurmountable." That has to be the theological understatement of 2007. What has tended to separate the Catholic Church from Protestants, essentially and at the core, is the disagreement of the doctrine of justification by faith. Reformers say that we are justified by grace through faith alone. Catholics leave out the "alone," insisting that a person is also justified by works, ala the Epistle of James. However, there is much more to Catholic faith than a simple disagreement on justification by faith. For instance, what about the teachings of Marian divinity?
He also said, "I became convinced that the Early Church is more Catholic than Protestant and that the Catholic view of justification, correctly understood, is biblically and historically defensible. "
Really? I still do not get how one can read any of Paul's epistles and get the Catholic version of theology. He goes on, "Even though I also believe that the Reformed view is biblically and historically defensible [now really, can both be biblically and historically defensible?], I think the Catholic view has more explanatory power to account for both all the biblical texts on justification as well as the church’s historical understanding of salvation prior to the Reformation all the way back to the ancient church of the first few centuries."
Okay, one cannot have this both ways. Either the Pauline passages on justification by faith work with each other, or they work against each other. It is much easier for Protestants to explain James in its proper context with the Pauline passages than it is to squeeze multiple Pauline epistles into a warped interpretation of James, even with historical understanding. What Catholics fail to understand is the justification by grace through faith alone is the historical understanding of justification. The necessity of displayed works was a must historically because of the persecution and the subsequent diaspora that the Epistle of James mentions in his very first verses and was seen only as confirmation that one truly had met the Christ.
I am saddened by this news. Not because I think that a brother has slipped from the faith. I have always had a bit of sympathy for Catholics. After all, they want to hold on to the unity of the universal church and they have to do it with all the baggage of the Church. Catholic Church history is filled with blemishes and excesses. Some of these were the very reasons Protestants came into existence; the protested the excesses of the Catholic Church. Hey, we all want unity. But I won't do it for the sake of essential doctrines.
There are essential doctrines. And I do believe that you have to hold to these in order to be considered a Christian. It is hard to say whether or not Beckwith has crossed a line, but I will say that he should not be considered an evangelical. According the Oxford Pocket Dictionary that I found online, the term "evangelical" as an adjective means "of or according to the teaching of the gospel or the Christian religion [in other words, is a certain doctrine considered evangelical?] or denoting a tradition within Protestant Christianity emphasizing the authority of the Bible, personal conversion, and the doctrine of salvation by faith in the Atonement" (italics added). If this definition is correct, and I believe that it is, then Beckwith is no more an evangelical than Mickey Mouse.
James White makes an interesting note on his blog:
"[The] ETS has already shown that it is unable to expel from its ranks those who are Open Theists, and this due to the maddening brevity of the statement of faith. And, I have learned today as well, this entire discussion may be irrelevant, since there are already Roman Catholic members of ETS. But while Open Theism, at least in the form promoted by such men as Boyd, Sanders, and Pinnock today, was not even in the minds of the founders of ETS when they formed the organization, Roman Catholicism...was. And while membership is one thing, can anyone seriously argue that the election would have gone the way it did with a confessing Roman Catholic running for the Presidency?"
It seems that the ETS has become a bit of a joke, don't you think? White also tells an interesting story:
"In 1998 I attended the national meeting of the ETS in Orlando, Florida. At one of the sessions some of the founding members were being asked questions about why they did certain things, why they wrote the statement of faith as they did, etc. A woman asked a question of the panel. 'Why did you write 'the Bible alone' in the statement of faith?' The ETS statement of faith is very, very short. It reads:
Roger Nicole rose, slowly, and made his way to the podium. He looked out at the lady and said, 'Because we didn't want any Roman Catholics in the group.' He then turned around and went back to his seat. While most sat in stunned silence, I and a friend with me broke into wild applause. The brevity of the response, and Nicole's dead-pan look, was classic. Most looked at us like we were nuts, but we appreciated what he said. Here, one of the founding members made it clear that the ETS was founded as a Protestant organization and that primary to their own self-understanding was a belief in sola scriptura."
As much sympathy as I have for a good Catholic trying to maintain the unity of the universal church despite numerous Catholic atrocities, it is their own fault when they depart from the Scriptures. And when they depart, they should not be considered evangelical. An Evangelical Catholic is an oxymoron.
While I admire Beckwith's courage, however misguided, lets not fool ourselves. He is not an evangelical and he needs to resign from the ETS. Either he's got it wrong or they have it wrong. There is one other option.
Perhaps they both have it wrong.
The biggest question is, as far as the Society is concerned, is the question of whether or not Beckwith remains an evangelical. I'll get to that in a second. Here, in his own words, is why he went back to the Catholic Church:
"he past four months have moved quickly for me and my wife. As you probably know, my work in philosophy, ethics, and theology has always been Catholic friendly, but I would have never predicted that I would return to the Church, for there seemed to me too many theological and ecclesiastical issues that appeared insurmountable. However, in January, at the suggestion of a dear friend, I began reading the Early Church Fathers as well as some of the more sophisticated works on justification by Catholic authors. I became convinced that the Early Church is more Catholic than Protestant and that the Catholic view of justification, correctly understood, is biblically and historically defensible. Even though I also believe that the Reformed view is biblically and historically defensible, I think the Catholic view has more explanatory power to account for both all the biblical texts on justification as well as the church’s historical understanding of salvation prior to the Reformation all the way back to the ancient church of the first few centuries. Moreover, much of what I have taken for granted as a Protestant—e.g., the catholic creeds, the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation, the Christian understanding of man, and the canon of Scripture—is the result of a Church that made judgments about these matters and on which non-Catholics, including Evangelicals, have declared and grounded their Christian orthodoxy in a world hostile to it. Given these considerations, I thought it wise for me to err on the side of the Church with historical and theological continuity with the first generations of Christians that followed Christ’s Apostles."
I want to pick at this a little. I mean, that's what I do, isn't it? :) First of all, he says, "...there seemed to me too many theological and ecclesiastical issues that appeared insurmountable." That has to be the theological understatement of 2007. What has tended to separate the Catholic Church from Protestants, essentially and at the core, is the disagreement of the doctrine of justification by faith. Reformers say that we are justified by grace through faith alone. Catholics leave out the "alone," insisting that a person is also justified by works, ala the Epistle of James. However, there is much more to Catholic faith than a simple disagreement on justification by faith. For instance, what about the teachings of Marian divinity?
He also said, "I became convinced that the Early Church is more Catholic than Protestant and that the Catholic view of justification, correctly understood, is biblically and historically defensible. "
Really? I still do not get how one can read any of Paul's epistles and get the Catholic version of theology. He goes on, "Even though I also believe that the Reformed view is biblically and historically defensible [now really, can both be biblically and historically defensible?], I think the Catholic view has more explanatory power to account for both all the biblical texts on justification as well as the church’s historical understanding of salvation prior to the Reformation all the way back to the ancient church of the first few centuries."
Okay, one cannot have this both ways. Either the Pauline passages on justification by faith work with each other, or they work against each other. It is much easier for Protestants to explain James in its proper context with the Pauline passages than it is to squeeze multiple Pauline epistles into a warped interpretation of James, even with historical understanding. What Catholics fail to understand is the justification by grace through faith alone is the historical understanding of justification. The necessity of displayed works was a must historically because of the persecution and the subsequent diaspora that the Epistle of James mentions in his very first verses and was seen only as confirmation that one truly had met the Christ.
I am saddened by this news. Not because I think that a brother has slipped from the faith. I have always had a bit of sympathy for Catholics. After all, they want to hold on to the unity of the universal church and they have to do it with all the baggage of the Church. Catholic Church history is filled with blemishes and excesses. Some of these were the very reasons Protestants came into existence; the protested the excesses of the Catholic Church. Hey, we all want unity. But I won't do it for the sake of essential doctrines.
There are essential doctrines. And I do believe that you have to hold to these in order to be considered a Christian. It is hard to say whether or not Beckwith has crossed a line, but I will say that he should not be considered an evangelical. According the Oxford Pocket Dictionary that I found online, the term "evangelical" as an adjective means "of or according to the teaching of the gospel or the Christian religion [in other words, is a certain doctrine considered evangelical?] or denoting a tradition within Protestant Christianity emphasizing the authority of the Bible, personal conversion, and the doctrine of salvation by faith in the Atonement" (italics added). If this definition is correct, and I believe that it is, then Beckwith is no more an evangelical than Mickey Mouse.
James White makes an interesting note on his blog:
"[The] ETS has already shown that it is unable to expel from its ranks those who are Open Theists, and this due to the maddening brevity of the statement of faith. And, I have learned today as well, this entire discussion may be irrelevant, since there are already Roman Catholic members of ETS. But while Open Theism, at least in the form promoted by such men as Boyd, Sanders, and Pinnock today, was not even in the minds of the founders of ETS when they formed the organization, Roman Catholicism...was. And while membership is one thing, can anyone seriously argue that the election would have gone the way it did with a confessing Roman Catholic running for the Presidency?"
It seems that the ETS has become a bit of a joke, don't you think? White also tells an interesting story:
"In 1998 I attended the national meeting of the ETS in Orlando, Florida. At one of the sessions some of the founding members were being asked questions about why they did certain things, why they wrote the statement of faith as they did, etc. A woman asked a question of the panel. 'Why did you write 'the Bible alone' in the statement of faith?' The ETS statement of faith is very, very short. It reads:
'The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs. God is a Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each an uncreated person, one in essence, equal in power and glory.'
Roger Nicole rose, slowly, and made his way to the podium. He looked out at the lady and said, 'Because we didn't want any Roman Catholics in the group.' He then turned around and went back to his seat. While most sat in stunned silence, I and a friend with me broke into wild applause. The brevity of the response, and Nicole's dead-pan look, was classic. Most looked at us like we were nuts, but we appreciated what he said. Here, one of the founding members made it clear that the ETS was founded as a Protestant organization and that primary to their own self-understanding was a belief in sola scriptura."
As much sympathy as I have for a good Catholic trying to maintain the unity of the universal church despite numerous Catholic atrocities, it is their own fault when they depart from the Scriptures. And when they depart, they should not be considered evangelical. An Evangelical Catholic is an oxymoron.
While I admire Beckwith's courage, however misguided, lets not fool ourselves. He is not an evangelical and he needs to resign from the ETS. Either he's got it wrong or they have it wrong. There is one other option.
Perhaps they both have it wrong.
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
Ohio woman drops Starbucks habit because of coffee cup quote
Tuesday, May 8, 2007 7:58 AM
SPRINGBORO, Ohio (AP) — A southwest Ohio woman who loves Starbucks coffee has decided to drop the Starbucks habit because she was offended by a religious-related statement the company printed on the side of a cup.
Michelle Incanno, of Springboro, said she got an unexpected jolt when she saw the statement on a cup of coffee she bought last week.
Printed on the cup was: “Why in moments of crisis do we ask God for strength and help? As cognitive beings, why would we ask something that may well be a figment of our imaginations for guidance? Why not search inside ourselves for the power to overcome? After all, we are strong enough to cause most of the catastrophes we need to endure.”
The statement is attributed to Bill Schell, a Starbucks customer from London, Ontario, and was included on the cup as part of an effort by the company to collect different viewpoints and spur discussion.
“As someone who loves God, I was so offended by that. I don't think there needs to be religious dialogue on it. I just want coffee,” said Incanno, who is Catholic.
Incanno wasn't satisfied with a company disclaimer saying the quote is the author's opinion, not necessarily that of Starbucks. It invites customers to respond at www.starbucks.com/wayiseeit.
Tricia Moriarty, spokeswoman for the Seattle-based Starbucks, said the collection of thoughts and opinions are inspired by “the old coffeehouse tradition of thoughtful discussion” on a variety of issues, including religion.
The company chooses about 30 new quotes every few months, she said. By the end of 2007, nearly 300 quotes will have been printed since the program began in January 2005.
http://www.columbusdispatch.com/dispatch/content/local_news/stories/2007/05/08/star.html
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
I am sitting here in Panera Bread in Massillon, Ohio, after a long few days of moving and am now trying to adjust living in a basement in a house with my wife and my in-laws, including a sweet, but a very 10 year old sister-in-law. For instance, I learned last night that Heather, my sister-in-law, gets overly excited and hyper when American Idol is on. But what can I say? Last night was Bon Jovi night. I was a little excited too.
This past Friday, April 27, 2007, my wife and I celebrated our five-year anniversary. We celebrated with dinner at Buffalo Wild Wings (her choice and I wasn't complaining) and then having Hot Fudge Brownie Cake that my mother-in-law had made. All in all, probably not the way I would have chose to celebrate, but with circumstances being the way that they are, I was quite pleased.
These past few weeks have been marked by some real turbulence in my Spirit and in my prayer life. I sometimes feel like I have literally fought with God. Trying to find His exact will is often very tumultuous. I have tried to be a good Christian, a good soldier, and "dig in." I have tried to continue reading my Bible every day as I am trying to remain on track for reading in all in two years. I am also going through a demanding program at my in-laws church (not ours yet and I'm not sure it will be) called BILD. It's a good program, from what I can tell, although I haven't completed the first lesson yet because of that crazy move.
This morning, in my devotions, I read the "Shema." It is Deuteronomy 6:4-9:
4 “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. 5 You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. 6 And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. 7 You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise. 8 You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. 9 You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.
I have been struggling lately with the idea of people who always talk about God and/or Jesus, like it's the only conversation they know how to have! With all due respect to their love for Christ, I have noticed that most of these people are more heavenly minded than they are earthly good. I have often thought, rather erroneously, that God should be a component of my life. While that is somewhat true, it is not fully true. The Shema tears down that idea completely. It says that you shall love the Lord (LORD in the KJV; denotes the use of the proper name of God spelled YHWH, often written as "Yahweh" and pronounced "Adonai") your God with all your heart, soul, and might. While God can remain a component of your life, we are commanded to love Him with everything we have. In the context of this passage, what God was saying is that YHWH was clearly saying that HE is GOD. He was saying this to a people who were prone to embrace multiple gods. God is clearing saying here, "YHWH is God, not a god among many that you can put on your shelf and worship with the others. YHWH is the God." God is clear that he is not to be a part of a polytheistic culture, but a monotheistic one. He is God, He is the only God and he deserves to be worshiped as the only God with all of our heart, soul, and might and not to be shared with anything else.
You ever asked a question and just had God answer it directly? Well, there you go...
I urge you to do what verse 6 says. Keep these things in your heart. Dwell on them throughout the day. Love YHWH with all your heart, soul, and strength.
This past Friday, April 27, 2007, my wife and I celebrated our five-year anniversary. We celebrated with dinner at Buffalo Wild Wings (her choice and I wasn't complaining) and then having Hot Fudge Brownie Cake that my mother-in-law had made. All in all, probably not the way I would have chose to celebrate, but with circumstances being the way that they are, I was quite pleased.
These past few weeks have been marked by some real turbulence in my Spirit and in my prayer life. I sometimes feel like I have literally fought with God. Trying to find His exact will is often very tumultuous. I have tried to be a good Christian, a good soldier, and "dig in." I have tried to continue reading my Bible every day as I am trying to remain on track for reading in all in two years. I am also going through a demanding program at my in-laws church (not ours yet and I'm not sure it will be) called BILD. It's a good program, from what I can tell, although I haven't completed the first lesson yet because of that crazy move.
This morning, in my devotions, I read the "Shema." It is Deuteronomy 6:4-9:
4 “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. 5 You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. 6 And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. 7 You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise. 8 You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. 9 You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.
I have been struggling lately with the idea of people who always talk about God and/or Jesus, like it's the only conversation they know how to have! With all due respect to their love for Christ, I have noticed that most of these people are more heavenly minded than they are earthly good. I have often thought, rather erroneously, that God should be a component of my life. While that is somewhat true, it is not fully true. The Shema tears down that idea completely. It says that you shall love the Lord (LORD in the KJV; denotes the use of the proper name of God spelled YHWH, often written as "Yahweh" and pronounced "Adonai") your God with all your heart, soul, and might. While God can remain a component of your life, we are commanded to love Him with everything we have. In the context of this passage, what God was saying is that YHWH was clearly saying that HE is GOD. He was saying this to a people who were prone to embrace multiple gods. God is clearing saying here, "YHWH is God, not a god among many that you can put on your shelf and worship with the others. YHWH is the God." God is clear that he is not to be a part of a polytheistic culture, but a monotheistic one. He is God, He is the only God and he deserves to be worshiped as the only God with all of our heart, soul, and might and not to be shared with anything else.
You ever asked a question and just had God answer it directly? Well, there you go...
I urge you to do what verse 6 says. Keep these things in your heart. Dwell on them throughout the day. Love YHWH with all your heart, soul, and strength.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
