May you be strengthened with all power, according to his glorious might, for all endurance and patience with joy, giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in light. He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. (Colossians 1:11-14)

Oh, my great God and King, that I wouldn’t disqualify that which you have qualified.

You see the Father has qualified us, Christians, to share in the inheritance of the saints in light. Therefore we should no longer walk in the ways of darkness. “Let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us” (Hebrews 12:1) lest we disqualify ourselves.

Let’s say that I receive a letter in the mail stating that I qualify for a special vacation offer in New York City because I am a twenty-something male with a glabrous scalp (I shave my head). A year goes by and I finally respond to the offer, submitting the necessary forms and including a picture ID to prove that my head is shaved; one slight problem, however, is that I haven’t cut my hair in the past year. I receive a letter back informing me that I no longer qualify for the offer because my long hair has disqualified me for this shaved-head-only offer. Qualified and then disqualified.

What offers might God make to us that we might disqualify ourselves from because of our sin? “Share the gospel with this porn addict.” Oh, wait, I can’t because I visit sites I shouldn’t. Disqualified. “Speak to this group of teenagers about having purity in all areas of your life.” Oh, wait, I can’t because I download videos and music illegally. Disqualified. (I can say this because I’ve recently had to change my downloading habits. Don’t think what you do on your computer will affect things in the “real” world, your Christian life and your relationship with your Creator and King? Wrong. It will.)

Preach the gospel to yourself first (and daily).

Before God worked in my heart and made me a new creation from the inside out (before I got saved), I was disqualified to share in the inheritance of the saints in light because I was in sin, in the domain of darkness, and without forgiveness of sins. But, thanks be to God for Christ in whom I have redemption, the forgiveness of sins; through whom I have been qualified.

What is disqualification? Disqualification is harboring sin in my life after I’ve been transferred to the kingdom of God’s beloved Son; being in the light but hiding darkness. Is disqualification the loss of salvation for a Christian? By no means. Forgiveness of sins is forgiveness of sins.

Disqualification hinders my effectiveness for God.
Disqualification gives the nonbeliever a reason to reject my faith because I’m a hypocrite.
Disqualification taints and hardens my conscience.
Disqualification keeps me from becoming more like Christ.

What sin are you harboring that, if God chooses to use you, might disqualify you? Downloading illegally from the Internet? Pornography? Lust? Hating your Christian brother or sister? Whatever it is, let me encourage you to stop. It’s irrational because sin is irrational. It’s ephemeral; promising pleasure but leaving a bitter aftertaste and regret. That sin is contrary to the qualification God has given you in Christ.

Instead pick luscious, satisfying fruit from the Tree of Life. You have, after all, been transferred, qualified and forgiven.

May we be strengthened, giving thanks to the Father; not weakened by lingering sin.

In reading the history of the church, one is likely to come across the Battle of Tours in which Charles Martel (“The Hammer” [Can I get a manly nickname like that?]) saved the West from being overrun by Islam in the Middle Ages. Is it right and proper to thank God for men such as Charles Martel? Can you picture Muslim conquerors traversing the Pyrenees eager to convert by the sword, after successfully diminishing Christianity throughout North Africa and the Middle East? They would occupy Spain for 700 years before being expulsed in 1492 by that famous regent couple Ferdinand and Isabel. Can you feel the fear gripping the Iberians? Can you then thank God that they were stayed at Tours? First, a digression:

A fleeting thought arises that reminds me of the orientation of my worldview—the supremacy of Christianity across the globe and time—how does “thanking God for Charles Martel” sound to a Muslim? I would venture to say it’s tuned to the same pitch as claiming the resurrection (and crucifixion) of Christ. Perhaps the statement “thank God for Judas” can create a similar feeling in me as “thank God for The Hammer” does in some.

Does this attitude of thankfulness reinforce a stereotype of Western barbarians? (I don’t have a beard; nor do I say “bah bah” except, of course, when singing that ever-so catchy tune, Barbara Ann). In order words, am I aloud to feel thankful for Charles Martel and his stand against Islam? Do Christians permit me? Do Muslims permit me? Does that make me a militant evangelical, if I do? For, honestly I tell you, I felt grateful for Charles Martel today when I read of the Battle of Tours. However, it is cold to reduce a battle to a name detached from the reality of death, fatherless families and pain. People died: Christian and Muslim. Humans.

Christ died to win worshipers from every tribe, tongue and nation (ethne). People of all pedigree are seen worshiping around his throne in Revelation; that includes Western barbarians and Islamified Arabs alike won. Is it then right to thank God for The Hammer who protected with the sword? Yes, because evil was stayed. Is it right to feel sorrow at the death of Muslims who without Christ receive hell? Yes, because people died without Christ.

This is that for which I am grateful: that evil was stayed. That’s the principle.

A similar quandary arose with the assassination of the Taliban leader whose name escapes me. Is it right to thank God that this man was killed?

Joshua Harris has a good post My One and Only Week on Facebook in which he gives several reasons for his ditching the famed socialization portal:

1. “I don’t need another reason for staring at a computer screen.”
2. “I found that it encouraged me to think about me even more than I already do…I need to grow in self-forgetfulness. I need to worry more about what God is thinking of me. I need to be preoccupied with what he’s written in his word, not what somebody just wrote on my ‘wall.’”
3. “And, finally, I need to read more.”

Computers can be a double sin (if there’s such a thing): creating opportunity for sin and keeping one from more profitable things.

Have many books could I have read with all the time I’ve wasted on my laptop?

God can use a wasp.  In him, the wasp lives and moves and has its being (Acts 17:28).

Walking home from work yesterday, I was listening to the Stand to Reason Podcast (see Bored). Listening to the discussion on faith versus reason made me want to drink from the fountain of God’s word. The whole way home I felt excited to get home and crack open my Bible and sit in the quiet house to read about Jesus. I then remembered I forgot my keys at work and Emily wouldn’t be home and I’d have no way to get inside to read my Bible. I prayed that somehow one of the doors would be unlocked or the window wouldn’t be latched so that I could slide it back. I get home and first try the front door. Locked. Front window? Bingo. It slid right back. Thanks, God!

Once inside, I grab something to drink and out of habit head upstairs into our computer room, and am about to push the Power On button on my laptop when appears a wasp sitting right in front of the computer. No joke. First reaction? I run out and close the door. “How’d he get in? The window’s closed. Maybe he slid it back like I did the one downstairs.” I go into the bedroom and got a shoe with a nice flat bottom. Waiting for him to land on a flat spot, I cocked the shoe. He lands, I swing, I miss, he’s angry, I close door. As I stood by the door plotting my next move, it struck me, “I was so thirsty for my Bible when I was walking, but when I get home, out of habit, I ascend the stairs and head straight for the computer. What did I need the computer for anyways? Who knows. Is this wasp a coincidence? I think not. He’s guarding my computer.”

When we rattle off that God will give us the desires of our hearts, do we include within that that he might use a wasp? Reading my Bible was (and is) the actual desire of my heart. How quickly that desire got overshadowed by lust for my computer when I got home. But God still gave me the actual, momentarily forgotten desire of my heart (reading the Bible) by keeping me from my computer with the wasp. I guess my momentary desire for my computer was actually lust. My desirings have been changed to align with the things of God. It then pleases God immensely to give me the desires of my heart because they not only please me but him.

Is Christianity an enemy of reason? Richard Dawkins has a new documentary out by this name and seeks to show how various forms of religion are against reason. I would agree with his conclusion based on the example religious practices mentioned in a description of the program:

Is it rational that the dead can communicate with the living and give sound advice on how they should live their lives? What about sticking pins into your body to free the flow of Chi energy and cure your illness? Or the bending of spoons using your mind alone? Is that rational? Richard Dawkins doesn’t think so, and feels it is his duty to expose those areas of belief that exist without scientific proof, yet manage to hold the nation under their spell. He will take on the world’s leading proponents in their field of expertise, meet the victims who have used them and expose the history of the movements – from the charlatans who have milked these practices to the experiments and testing that have failed to produce conclusive results. (NSS)

Bending spoons with the mind doesn’t interest me, nor does releasing Chi energy to cure diseases, because quite frankly, I agree with Dawkins that this is against reason. What concerns me is whether the person of Jesus Christ and his resurrection are seen as enemies of reason. Is it against reason to look at the historical proof surrounding the life of Jesus and conclude (at least) that he existed and wasn’t your typical 1st century Jew? I don’t think it is. Is it then against reason to believe the claims of Jesus? I don’t think this is either. There is a lot of evidence surrounding Christianity one must deal with before calling it an enemy of reason. Does one conclude that Christianity is an enemy of reason because it is a religion and other religions are enemies of reason? This conclusion is an enemy of reason.

Arguing from the Bible, Dawkins is an enemy of reason. There is nothing new here. Looking atRomans 1:18-22, let the reader understand that two thousand years later I believe with Paul and Dawkins believes with the atheist who suppresses the truth.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools.

Finally, what concerns me most is the animosity with which religion is denounced by the very people that deify tolerance. I feel for Dawkins who is grasping for what he can while suppressing the truth.

This is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. (John 3:19-20)

It’s painful to come into the light, but, here, at the right hand of God are truth and pleasures forevermore. Dawkins, come into the light and be saved.

The blogosphere (the vast quantities of blogs and bloggers publishing) is exploding. I’ve started to wonder where I fit into the mix and where I would like to fit into the mix. I want to share my main hopes and reasons for having this blog and then by way of story share some thoughts on where I might fit into the blogosphere.

Impetus

Primarily, I want my blog to encourage right, critical thought and lead to spurring on others to love and good works (Hebrews 10:24) which should all well up to the glorification of our great God and King. This shall be my single passion. Subsumed under this is thinking critically about current events, culture, evangelicalism, Christianity, theology and pretty much anything I find interesting. (However, I do realize that sometimes I post things that really don’t have much to do with anything–see the previous post for an example.)

Secondarily, this blog is an extended writing project through which–Lord willing and the creek don’t rise–my writing skills can develop. In a sense then, this blog is an experiment. Having the blog and the domain name KataDrew.com (not that anyone else would want the site name) spur me on to write more regularly, precisely, and carefully. As Augustine notes, “I count myself as one of the number of those who write as they learn and learn as they write.” May I be included here.

Place in the Blogosphere

Unfortunately, I’ve been working on this post in pieces over several days, and I don’t remember the story I was going to tell by way of introduction into where I fit into the blogosphere. So, let me tell you plainly.

I am subscribed to about 50 blogs in Google Reader. (See my shared items on the right–posts I found intriguing and wanted to share). Most days when I open it up to see what’s buzzing around the blogosphere, it’s the same articles regurgitated ’round and ’round. “Mohler blah blah.” “Piper blah blah.” “Grudem and Piper blah blah blah.” “Christian and Muslim blah blah blah.”

There are few novel blogs. Most of us just link to the good stuff instead of writing it ourselves. I would like to think that my place in the blogosphere would be quality over quantity, but every post I’ve written disqualifies me from that, even this one! Dare I say I’ve missed the mark? That’s why I wanted to set forth my impeti (impetuses?) for writing: glory to God and better writing. Not to blog for 2,000 days consecutively. Isn’t life more than blogging? Don’t worry about what you’ll blog for the day’s worries are sufficient for the day.

My place in the blogosphere? KataDrew.com.

I saw a gentleman yesterday decked out in white, snow camouflage (hat, shirt, shorts) and to top it all off, Crocs with socks. And we thought socks with sandals were bad. Then, it turns out, George W. has been caught in similar attire, save the camo. One small difference though: it looks as though his socks have the presidential seal on them!

This is too funny and therefore dedicated to Geth.

Peep the posters. Dare I reproduce them here? Maybe just one:

Everyday I want to ask myself why I’m here. I need the reminder. Jesus’ words about worrying ring in my ear, Isn’t life more than eating and drinking? (Matthew 6:25). My friends the drafters of the Westminster Catechism nailed it: I’m here to glorify God and enjoy him forever; not to drive around looking for somewhere to drop $50 on dinner; not to find nice threads to cloth my body with; not to read loads of books and impress my friends; not to make sure every conversation leads back to me.

I’m at seminary. I live in a seminary town. Driving from the main highway down to my apartment I can see the very tip top of the steeple of our chapel barely holding its neck above the tree line. That represents why I’m here. To me, seeing that steeple reminds me that I’m here for Jesus.  My life is more than GAP clothing and Cheesecake Factory BLTs. In fact, I’m not my own therefore glorify God in my body (1 Corinthians 6:19-20).

This is a daily process that needs daily renewing and I need daily reminding.

Drew,

I can’t help feeling a bit sorry for Uzzah. There he was, walking along hot and tired, chatting to his mates. An ox stumbles; Uzzah tries to stop the Ark from getting damaged, doesn’t want it to get scratched. He reaches out to help and he gets struck down by God. I know God is almighty and can do what he wants and maybe Uzzah had done other things to deserve God’s wrath. But the way the Bible puts it Uzzah sounds like an innocent man only trying to help. The nature of God in th Old Testament seems to conflict with the mesage of love and forgiveness in the New. Can they be reconciled? Jesus allowed people to touch him, even healed them. I’m thinking of that woman whose haemorrhage was cured when she touched Jesus cloak. I can’t imagine Jesus cutting down Uzzah for touching him. Has the Old Testament got God wrong? Is he as vengeful and bloodthirsty as it suggests? Maybe the New Testament is too loving and forgiving and God is stern and demands respect above love? Am I talking nonsense, Drew?

Jack

Jack-in-the-Email,

You’re not talking nonsense. I feel sorry for Uzzah, too: literally trying to lend a helping hand; but I guess when God says “don’t touch,” he means it. Sometimes I feel like if I do something [wrong] I may get arbitrarily zapped like Uzzah or worse yet get eaten from the inside out by worms like Herod inActs 12; but then I remember that God isn’t arbitrary or capricious. He gave specific, explicit instructions for handling the ark, and Herod, well, he was just stupid for accepting deification from his people.

Should we then marvel if people are judged on the spot? We should marvel like the Psalmist when justice is delayed and cry out for the day, as Martin Luther King impassioned in his famous sermon quoting the prophet Amos, saying: “let justice roll down like waters” (Amos 5:24). The topic of justice is a nice segue into your email concerning the two seemingly opposing views of God presented in the Old and New Testaments.

A lot of people want to pit the Old Testament against the New Testament, but I would like to argue that they’re not at odds but complimentary. Is there reconciling to do between the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament? Are there two gods at hand? If one has a cursory knowledge of the Bible and/or his view of the “Gods” of the Bible is taken from hearsay, I can understand that he may feel that there is a noticeable inconsistency when comparing the two Testaments; but after becoming familiar with the Bible as a whole, this inconsistency in the mind of the reader should decrease. What the Old Testament contains, the New Testament also contains. It is the error of Marcion to insist that two separate “Gods” exist in the Scriptures because the Testaments seemingly present two opposing views.

“But there is the wrath of God poured out on people in the Old Testament such as in the case of Uzzah, something Jesus would not condone.”
Consider the case of Herod in the New Testament who was smitten by the Angel of the Lord and eaten by worms. Consider Jesus depicted in the final book of the New Testament, Revelation, coming with a robe dipped in blood to judge the earth.

“The God of Jesus seems so loving but this aspect of God isn’t presented in the Old Testament.”
Consider the Psalms which are songs addressed to God: “your steadfast love is better than life” (Psalm 63:3). Also, the Law contains provision for the widow and and the poor and the foreigner that should find themselves in Israel. In fact, the golden rule comes originally not from Jesus in the Gospels but from Leviticus (book of law in the Old Testament): “you shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18).

The New Testament affirms the God of the Old Testament. Indeed he is the same, not two different, and both Testaments testify to him. It is necessary when thinking of God not too allow yourself to concentrate on only one attribute. Yes, God is love but God is also a righteous judge. These two attributes are not at odds. If we feel he needs reconciled to himself, we lack understanding and knowledge of the whole person of God.

I can see where one would think that the wrath of God in the Old Testament in opposed to the love of God in the New Testament, but I would encourage that person to read the Bible and see that both the love of God is presented in the Old Testament and the wrath of God in the New Testament.

“Let the peoples praise you, O God;
let all the peoples praise you!
Let the nations be glad and sing for joy,
for you judge the peoples with equity
and guide the nations upon earth.
Let the peoples praise you, O God;
let all the peoples praise you!”
Psalm 67:3-5