Holiness is What I Long For, (But What Is It?)

I consider this article in Christianity Today, a must read for every Christian:

Still, as we maintain the priority of our union with God in Christ, we must also acknowledge that we are not yet holy. For our holy relationship with God in Christ requires of us—or better yet, enables in us—a response. “I urge you,” says Paul, “to live a life worthy of the calling you have received” (Eph. 4:1); and, “Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God” (Rom. 12:1); and finally, “Continue to work out your salvation in fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose” (Phil. 2:12-13).

Such passages make clear that there is no place for cheap grace in the economy of God. Rather, the purpose of God’s saving work in Christ is to free us to live out the holiness we already enjoy in him. The wonder and beauty of the gospel is that God deigns to manifest his love and goodness through creatures created in his image. By virtue of God’s gracious initiative and through union with Christ, we participate in God’s holiness in a way that transforms our lives and manifests God’s grace: “For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works” (Eph. 2:10).

Contrary, then, to any notion of mere moral conformity, true holiness is a grateful collaboration with God in seeking to live out the form of human life that he intends.

To me, I think we’ve fallen into rules rather than Spirit, or simply doing whatever we want and expecting God to pay the tab on judgment day. The result is a lack of commitment to God that isn’t attractive to the outside world and fails to live out the meaning of the faith and show what the power of God can do.

Linked by the Random Yak

When Super Soakers Are Outlawed…

From Tennessee, some sillyness from Democrats:

Won’t the Tennessee State University be a safer place now that toy guns are banned? Next on the list–extending your index finger forward while holding your thumb up.

On yesterday’s radio program, we interviewed State Rep. Stacey Campfield regarding a change to TSU’s campus laws that appeared before a government committee in Nashville. Campfield said that the vote to ban toy guns passed on a party line vote. According to Campfield, Republicans voted against banning toy guns…Democrats voted for.

The problem according to one of the sponsors is as follows:

But TSU Campus Police Chief Sylvia Russell said toys can be mistaken for the real thing.

“Officers, unfortunately, when they come to an incident, they are responding in an emergency situation. They can’t tell if it’s a toy or not so they are going to treat that person like they have a very real weapon and that could result in injury or death,” she said.

Think about this for just a moment. Who exactly is going to be at risk with a fake gun. Probably someone who’s acting in a threatening manner, like someone who decides they want to take everyone hostage with the toy gun, but it’s just a toy gun. And they think the law will stop someone who is risking prison time, etc. for holding people hostage or intimidation will make them not do it because of some University policy.

The policy would be a little more reasonable if we were talking only about “realistic-looking guns” but any police officer who drops a skinny college kid carrying a super green and orange super soaker has some serious ‘splainin to do.

Hat Tip: Instapundit.

Prosecuting Thought

The Mountain Goat Report has gone form attacking Bill Sali’s decision to oppose any legislation that a large majority of Congress supports (Mountain Goat Report: 350 Members of Congress Can Never Be Wrong.) to responding on the issue, regarding hate crimes Mountain Goat Report writes:

While it it true that any crime against any person, minority or otherwise, is important, there is a difference between a guy that randomly picks a family and ultimately murders four [Sali’s account of the Groene case omits one of the victims] in the kidnapping of two kids and the murder of someone because he’s black or perceived to be gay. Both cases are heinous and share a violent motivation but it’s the character of the motivation that’s important…

Hate Crime legislation is saying to those who would practice this form of domestic “minority terrorism” that we abhor both your physical actions and the terroristic motivation behind them. Congressman Sali’s position ignores that.

In other words, it’s the thought that counts and it’s the thought that should be prosecuted, and it’s any thought in opposition to homosexuality that is suppressed. Don’t believe me? Go to Canada and speak against Homosexuality and you’ll get dragged before the Human Rights Commission. Jerry Falwell has to edit his show for it to appear on airwaves in Canada. The result of hate crimes bills is that the state invariably gets into the business of punishing people for what they say, not because they’re inciting violence against homosexuals, but because it can be taken that way. Dangerous stuff, that. Sali was right.

The Legacy of Darwinism

From Evolution News and Views:

By Darwinian logic, everything we do that’s connected to reality is a mating ritual. The effort to deny it is…a mating ritual. Darwinism itself is… a mating ritual. And the only way to feel better about all of this is to pretend that it’s not all a mating ritual. But… that’s a mating ritual!

What to make of this nonsense? Darwinism has given us second-rate science, lethal social policy (eugenics), and puerile philosophy. But Wright is right. Don’t be depressed. Just imagine that Darwinism isn’t true!

No wonder I’ve been feeling so cheery lately.

Buck Romney in the 24th 1/2 Century

I read this quote from Mitt Romney with some interest:

“In France, for instance, I’m told that marriage is now frequently contracted in seven-year terms where either party may move on when their term is up. How shallow and how different from the Europe of the past.”

My first reaction was, really? Islam has long practiced temporary marriage as an option and I could see this happening. Some more well-travelled bloggers have realized this is in error. Where did it come from?

According to the New Republic:

Actually, I think I know what he’s talking about. There’s an Orson Scott Card novel in which marriages actually are contracted out for seven years (don’t ask how I know). And Romney is a big fan of sci-fi. So maybe that explains it.

Doh. “Well, Orson Scott Card novels, the New York Times” just all kind of runs together. Look, there are enoughh real reports of problems with marriage without someone making up junk like that. Mitt Romney is so minor league. Egad.

On Debating Atheists

An interesting observation on Christian v. Atheist debates:

First, while faith in God is eminently reasonable (the world’s greatest minds, including everyone from C.S. Lewis to Isaac Newton to Francis Collins, have affirmed Christian faith), faith is still required, for “without faith it is impossible to please God.” Second, while Christian faith made scientific discovery possible and many of the world’s first and greatest scientists have been Christians, restricting the debate to things scientific unfortunately plays into the current prejudice that the only “facts” that are real or valiid are based in science. But there are many fields of inquiry that are not open to the scientific method (history being one of them). Thus, the terms of the debate will only take us so far.

I remember the time my wife and I sat down with a friend who had lots of questions about Christianity. At the onset I asked him if he would become a Christian if we answered all his questions. He said yes. Then we talked and we answered his questions, one by one. But he still declined to become a Christian. It was not for a lack of facts. It was a lack of will. As the Bible says, “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God.'” I don’t think a debate restricted to scientific facts, however it goes, will change that.

An interesting observation from the comments as well:

More often than not, Jesus asked questions of his hecklers and skeptics. A rather different approach, no? Admittedly, it is an approach that is better suited to personal contact than TV broadcasting, but still…

Perhaps a method to consider.

Podcast #252: Hedging His Bets

Today, I talk about John Edwards absurd posturing on his position with a hedge fund.

Click here to download. Click here to add my podcast to your I-tunes.

‘

Related:

Seacoastonline:

Edwards Hedge Fund Stint A Financial Review

RSS Reader as a Tool

Joe Carter has a great post illustrating why RSS readers are great tools for blogging. Give it a read. Too many bloggers are still visiting news sources individually whick takes too much time. Joe uses Google while I use bloglines. It doesn’t matter which software you use, it’s a must in the world of blogging.

Nail on the Head

Rarely do I agree with James Carville, but he nailed the whole Rudy-Planned Parenthood issue (via Pam’s House Blend):

Planned Parenthood — let’s be factual here — is a group that provides information on birth control and is an abortion provider. And he contributed $900, and he stands up and he says he hates abortion.

I don’t know, but, if I were, as many members of my own family, are very pro-life, I would think that they would be upset.

And I noticed this Mr. Richard Land down at the Southern Baptist Convention, I don’t think he’s too impressed with this whole thing. And I think there are a lot of Christian conservatives who are pro- life that don’t really believe that Giuliani really hates abortion. If you’re pro-life, it’s pretty hard to reconcile.

If somebody said they were anti-discrimination and gave four checks to the Klan, I would probably be skeptical of them.