(It may be helpful to first read the prologue to this post.)

It appears some of my comments have been reinserted into the relevant posts at DefCon. Some remain missing.

I continue with this conversation, because my chief aim - believe it or not - is not to whine about having my comments deleted at DefCon. My chief aim is to expose a real problem in large sections of the conservative, Reformed, heresy-hunting (I don't use that term derogatorily - heresy needs to be hunted and vanquished) blogosphere.  The problem is slander.  Baseless accusations of heresy, blasphemy and open sin abound at DefCon and elsewhere.

I am not immune to this error. Reading the reactions to Piper and Driscoll regarding this pseudo-controversy at DefCon and elsewhere has opened my eyes to the real danger of slander. I pray that God would use this to guard my own heart against a cold, thoughtless and self-righteous need to constantly tear down every professing Christian and Christian ministry over the most minor of perceived errors.  (I want to emphasize perceived.  Much of this supposed error and sin is nothing of the sort.) And I pray the folks at DefCon and similar blogs (like this one) would take a second look at how they approach this very important work of discernment, for we certainly live in an age that desperately needs it.

------------------

On September 25, 2008, Coram (DefCon editor/contributor) posted Would the Real John Piper Please Stand Up?. Coram calls out John Piper for stating Jesus Christ was "damned" upon the cross and for inviting "potty-mouthed prodigy", Mark Driscoll, to the 2008 Desiring God National Conference. The issue of Christ being "damned" on the cross was initially raised by Steve Camp in his post, THE SCREAM OF THE DAMNED... was Jesus really damned by God for our salvation?.

I commented:

(September 28, 2008 at 1:00 PM)

Steve Camp said in his post on “The Scream of the Damned”:

“The Scream of the Damned seems like language that is meant to provoke thought, solicit listenership, entice questions and entreat discussion rather than expound and exegete Scripture.”

Exactly. So, why have we bunched our undies over this? Christ was FORSAKEN BY GOD, BECAME A CURSE, but He wasn’t “damned”. Aren’t we parsing words, when any reasonable observer, including Mr. Camp, realizes the phrase wasn’t intended to be a precise exegesis of any particular text(s)? I’m not arguing for the phrase as particularly useful or helpful, but, in its context, it certainly isn’t heretical.

This comment was initially deleted or indefinitely held in moderation, because "bunched our undies" was found to be offensive and "Driscoll-esque". The comment has reappeared, however the substance of my challenge was never addressed. I followed this comment ten minutes later with another:

(September 28, 2008 at 1:10 PM)

And Camp also acknowledged in the comments section that R.C. Sproul also referred to Christ as “damned” in his sermon at the same conference. But apparently that was OK, because he used it “with reservation”.

Hair-splitting can be tedious work.

This comment remains deleted. Apparently, "hair-splitting" was also "Driscoll-esque" and found to be unfit for public viewing. Or perhaps, it remains deleted because Team DefCon is not quite ready to damn Sproul, but would have to in order to remain consistent. I dunno...

Earlier in the comments thread of this post, Desert Pastor, a DefCon editor (contributor), wrote:

(September 27, 2008 at 8:52 AM)

John, it is fully agreed that it is a sad day when something happens to a minister of the gospel. Yet, this is not an isolated incident. This has been on-going with John Piper now for the last couple of years at least. Yes, there are heretics out there which need to be addressed and will continue to do so with the use of blogs like this one.

Piper has been warned and admonished both privately and publicly because he has chosen a path which brings dishonor and shame on the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ. He chooses to continue down a path which actually seems to be separating him from the path which was truly contending for the faith.

Sadly, many who claim to be ministers of the gospel (like Driscoll and Tripp) are merely a reproach to the church.

(Emphasis mine.)

(See entire comment here.)

My response to Desert's above comment:

(September 28, 2008 at 1:23 PM)

DP,

You said, “Piper has been warned and admonished both privately and publicly because he has chosen a path which brings dishonor and shame on the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ. He chooses to continue down a path which actually seems to be separating him from the path which was truly contending for the faith.”

Yikes, bro! Are you sure you want to say that kind of thing in public? That’s a pretty vague accusation. What, exactly, was he admonished for? By whom? How is it you became aware of this private admonishment? Who decides when, where and how a particular pastor has “separated from the path which is truly (as you are, I presume) contending for the faith”?

This has been a very sad week for me as well in regards to the Driscoll/Piper hubbub, though for very different reasons.

God Bless

= (

This comment was also initially censored, but has since reappeared.

Desert's reaction to my request to detail his allegation of Piper's admonishment:

(September 28, 2008 at 8:59 PM)

My statement was deliberate. It was meant to be said in public otherwise I would not have stated what I shared on this post. I stand by what I have said. As for what he has been admonished for, by whom, and how I was made aware of such private admonishment is really not open for discussion.

Piper has chosen a path which is slippery and only leads away from what he has seemed to stand for over the past number of years.

(See entire comment here.)

My response:

(Unknown time stamp - comment remains deleted.)

DP,

You said, "As for what he has been admonished for, by whom, and how I was made aware of such private admonishment is really not open for discussion." But it IS open for public proclamation? So we are to take your word that Piper has been admonished for SOMETHING?! But you won't tell us for what? Or by whom?

Repent, brother.

Oh wait, am I not allowed to call for repentance here? Is that the sole domain of the DefCon team? I guess we'll find out.

[Indeed, we did find out - the comment was deleted.]

CD,

I just re-listened to the offending Piper sermon. Piper does say, "Jesus Christ perfectly righteous and perfectly damned on the cross in our place." I guess you'll have to explain why this is "BLASPHEMY!" and why Piper is a "LIAR!" Was he not merely stating that Christ perfectly became a curse and sin? That He was perfectly forsaken by God? That He perfectly absorbed the wrath of God that rightly abided upon you and I?

Again, I think the DefCon problem is that y'all passionately slime people with very... dare I say... Driscoll-esque labels, and leave it at that. You actually have to demonstrate that these things are true. Your mere proclamation doesn't make the case.

With that in mind, why is this particular word – “damned” - sinfully and blasphemously distinctive from "cursed", "forsaken by God", "made sin", etc.?

I would restate my plea to Desert: Repent, brother! You cannot publicly claim that a minister of the word has been publicly and privately admonished, and then refuse to back that up! Admonished for what? Admonished by whom? And I remain dumbfounded at how exactly Desert became aware of this supposed private admonishment! To intentionally leave this kind of vague accusation floating around the Internet, to refuse elaboration, is definitionally slander.

And I have yet to see any of the DefCon boys explain why "damn" is blasphemously distinct from "forsaken by God", "cursed", "made sin", etc.

After my comment from September 28, 2008 at 1:23 PM (above), Coram replied:

(September 28, 2008 at 1:29 PM)

Jim B.

Please read DefCon’s Rules of Engagement to gain a clear understanding of why some of your comments haven’t (and never will) see the light of day on this blog.

While you may freely employ vitriolic ad hominem attacks and belittling rants at your own blog, you may not do so here. Conduct yourself as a mature adult and you’ll be treated as one, likewise conduct yourself as an angry, frustrated child and you’ll be treated as one. As a professing believer in the Lord Jesus Christ the standard for civil behavior is set higher, not lower than the visitors we regularly received from the world.

In Christ,
CD

[Emphasis mine.]

Remember, the comments containing these supposed offenses had been removed (or at least indefinitely suspended). So, no one would ever know if I had actually employed “vitriolic ad hominem attacks” or “belittling rants”, or whether I had comported myself as an “angry, frustrated child”.

(For the record, I am both angry and frustrated at the baseless slander being almost daily tossed from Team DefCon in the direction of my pastor and other godly ministers of the Word.)

My response:

(September 28, 2008 at 2:13 PM)

CD,

This is to you, because I doubt this will make it through the DC filter. I have NEVER been deleted from a blog. And (probably to my shame) I comment on a LOT of blogs. Charismatic blogs. Mormon blogs. Leftist blogs. Etc. This is a first.

I’d be curious to know exactly how I violated your Rules. I’ve read and reread my comments and can’t figure it out. The only rational explanation I can conjure is that, contrary to your preamble [see Rules of Engagement link above], you are afraid of dissent. My email is posted on my blog if you don’t care to interact further on this public medium.

God Bless

P.S. You know, I could consider your above comment an ad hominem. You’ve publicly stated that I’ve been vitriolic, belittling, ranting, immature, childish, angry, frustrated and uncivil. You and I both know neither of my brief comments would have engendered such a reaction from anyone but you. To insinuate otherwise, in the absence of my comments, is essentially… ad hominem - attacking the man, not the argument. (In case you were unaware, “ad hominem” is not merely a synonym for “mean”.)

(Allow me to state here that my gripe with DefCon is not their criticism of me or my comments, here or at their blog. I'm a big boy and my feathers don't easily ruffle. My concern is with the willingness of Team DefCon to denounce my commentary as offensive whilst simultaneously and baselessly slandering men like Piper and Driscoll on this most public of forums.)

Coram's response:

(September 28, 2008 at 3:13 PM)

Your record stands because none of your comments have been deleted, some have merely been held in moderation. [NOT TRUE]

Furthermore I’m sorry if you can’t see that your moderated comments ending in accusations of “hair-splitting” and “bunched undies” were at best unproductive and at worse gratuitous swipes. Maybe this is a blind spot for you, I’m not sure.

(See entire comment here.)

Coram also said at the end of this comment, "Your Driscoll-esque comments are simply not going to be permitted at this blog, especially in this particular forum."

Again, I don't really have a problem with these accusations per se.  I did come strong against Team DefCon, because I feel very strongly about their public slander.  My gripe is with their hypocrisy.  I just cannot understand how my comments are out of bounds, yet their incessant, and very strongly worded, slanders emanate daily from their blog.  If you're going to dish it out, you really ought to learn how to take it.

------------------

On September 28, 2008, Coram posted John Piper - Desiring What?. Coram again attacks Piper for inviting Driscoll and fellow "potty-mouth", Paul Tripp. At issue with Tripp is his use of the "s-word" in a Desiring God video.  Coram here refers to Driscoll and Tripp as " the spiritual equivalents of "Beavis & Butthead"" and rips Piper for giving both a "platform from which to spew their filth".  Again, it supposedly is not Team DefCon that has a problem with language, but Driscoll & Tripp (and me, I guess).

My response:

(September 29, 2008 at 6:13 AM)

CD,

I just re-watched the Tripp video. Is your sole complaint the use of the s-word? Instead of sliming Tripp with words like “potty-mouth”, “smut”, “Beavis & Butthead”, “filth”, etc. (and you have a problem with MY language?), why don’t you interact with the content of his argument? Do you believe ALL language is objectively sinful or holy? Do you believe ANY language is culturally subjective and defined? Do you not believe some words are merely impolite? Do you not believe the use of language (outside obviously sexually vulgar or damning language) is a matter of the heart and may bend and flow given the particulars of circumstance?

If you disagree with any of the above points - made explicit in Tripp’s video commentary - why don’t you interact with those, instead of emptily proclaiming him a “potty-mouth”?

The very next comment is from Ingrid Schlueter, rushing headlong to defend Team DefCon and join in their slander:

(September 29, 2008 at 8:56 AM)

Stop making excuses for sin. Scripture says let no corrupt communication come out of our mouths. References to human excrement as humor, (Mr. Tripp thought it was hilarious) is corrupt. Putting this out on YouTube for purposes of promoting a conference with John-DesiringGod-Piper is corrupt.  ...Christians in general, and minsters in particular, need to get their mouths washed out by the cleansing of the blood of Christ or need to stop talking about holiness altogether.

(See entire comment here.)

Again, Ingrid and Team DefCon are content to digitally decree what is and what is not sinful language, without actually making a case.  And not having made an intelligible argument that this or that word is necessarily off-limits and sinful, they nevertheless continue to publicly accuse men like Piper of "corruption" and even suggest they cease from speaking to issues of holiness altogether.

My response to Ingrid:

(September 29, 2008 at 11:01 AM)

Ingrid,

Where in Scripture (you know, our sole rule of faith and practice…) is the s-word prohibited? Are you OK with “feces”? “Excrement”? What about “poop”? “Poopie”? I use the latter two fairly regularly with a 1 and 3 year old at home. Should I repent of these? If not, what distinguishes them from the s-word, other than a subjective culture?

I’m not arguing for the s-word, and neither was Tripp. He was simply wrestling with an issue most Christians have at one time or another wrestled with: Why is some language offensive and other (similar) language not offensive? You’ve completely missed the point of Tripp’s argument. He states at the end that he would use the s-word with a brother if he believed it would edify and encourage him, and bring glory to Christ. I think he would agree that this would likely be a rare occasion.

I would challenge you (or anyone here) to demonstrate from Scripture exactly how and why Tripp sinned in using the s-word in the context in which he used it. You can’t just proclaim from on high that it is sin without using Scripture to support it.

Or you can all enjoy your echo chamber here and (again) delete my comment. (BTW - I’m keeping copies of my deleted comments. I feel I have no choice but to post them on my blog since you’ve repeatedly accused me of acting uncharitably and violating your rules. Since no one else can see the comments, I’ll have to post them and let those who care to judge for themselves.)

[I'm a man of my word.  ;) ]

Censorship in the absence of clear vulgarity or incivility is cowardice. But, whatever. It’s your echo chamber.

Ingrid never responded.  She's busy with her own slice of slander.

------------------

I could go on and on - and realize that I already have.  Nevertheless, to briefly illustrate my point further, check out some of Team DefCons recent work:

Mark Driscoll Rejects McLaren But Embraces Contemplative (No, he doesn't.)

Mark Driscoll Mocks the Sinlessness of Jesus Christ (Nope.)

Pied Piper? (Ugh... This was taken from Steve Camp's blog here.  While I think Mr. Camp walks the line of graceless slander pretty tight at times (a line across which Team DefCon has taken permanent residence), at least Camp attempts to extend Piper a little grace and offers some contrary evidence.)

------------------

God, I am prone to this kind of error.  Keep me from it!  Never let me become so sure of my flawless orthodoxy that I become cold and hard, unwilling to extend the smallest mercies and graces to those with whom I have even the smallest disagreements!

We need to be "Ignited by the truth of the Bible." - John Piper

Joy is not masking over hardships and afflictions in life to put a plastic smile on your face during Sunday morning church.  Joy is the overflow of Christian freedom to express great sorrow in situations, with the solid, steel-beam truth that we can yet "rejoice always" (1 Thess. 5:16) because of all that God is for us in Jesus Christ.  Our God is in control and is always for us.  Despite being sorrowful, broken, depressed, afflicted, tired, and weary, we can come to Jesus with great joy and happiness because he is greater than anything in this world.  So, when we sing, we can sing with great joy.

Next week, when you go to church, and singing is hard, express your sorrow and despair in hope that God is sovereign.  This is joyful singing.  You cannot sing joylessly.  You will not find joy in looking at your circumstance -- no matter how good or bad.  You will only find joy in looking to the all-powerful and all-knowing God, who has given us his Son, so that everything that stood between you and him might be broken down.

Here's how Jonathan Edwards puts it in his book The End for Which God Created the World.

"[Praising God] implies joy in God, or rejoicing in his perfections, as is manifest by Psalm 33:2. 'Rejoice in the LORD, O ye righteous, for praise is comely for the upright.' Other passages to the same purpose, see in the margin. How often do we read of singing praise! But singing is commonly an expression of joy.  It is called, making a joyful noise. And as it is often used, it implies gratitude or love to God for his benefit to us" [cf. Ps. 30:12; 35:18; 63:3-4: 66:8-9; 71:6-8; 79:13; 98:4-5; 100:4; 107:21-22; 138:2].

Writing is a process of learning for me. The more I write out my thoughts, the more they become concrete or discarded, depending on how fruitful that thought actually is. So as is stated in my "Bio" section, this is my yellow legal pad of ideas that get scratched in just so I can make a mental note. It's a means for preaching to myself, as spiritual mentors have often told me to do. But more than just being for myself, this blog is a means for me to encourage whoever may come across this sliver of the other reality we call the internet. Reading is a means of learning for others. This is in no way to say I have anything really to offer in the way of knowledge, but in the same way I find value in other people's thoughts on things concerning faith, life, and nonsense, I would safely assume the sentiment is reciprocated.

But all this again to get to the heart of blogging. I preach not a gospel of Dan Ko, but the good news of Jesus Christ. No, I won't always have 40 page devotional material on my exegesis of Romans, because in all honesty, no one wants to read that! (in fairness, maybe I'll have a 1 page devotional here and there) But yes, I will continue to post, as my tag line reads, stories of salvation. Stories born out of the salvation that Christ is working out in me. And I hope to write them in an effort to be an encouragement to anyone who may stumble upon these pages...

John Piper articulates these 3 questions to focus the pastor who wishes to blog:

1. What are your motives before the Lord? Get on your knees - Fear God, not man.

2. Is this the most effective way? Use your time wisely - Spend hours thinking about your next blog post vs. Spend hours with a brother or sister in need of a listening ear.

3. Who's the audience and why them? Refocus - Please God, not man.

It's not just that there's a lack of a Christian way of thinking -- a "Christian mind" -- but there is hardly a mind at all.

Some years ago I read an article in Newsweek about a husband and wife team of scientists who studied ducks. In order to observe their habits, they built a blind by a pond, then settled in to watch. During their investigations, they observed among the ducks incidences of what they called gang rape. While it was not written in so many words, the bottom line of the article was this: If gang rape takes place among the ducks, we shouldn't be surprised that it takes place among human beings, too. And, sad to say, Newsweek is not the only source of this "man is no better than an animal" philosophy. An article in another publication featured a prominent photograph of an adult baboon holding an infant baboon it had killed. The conclusion was that if animals can kill their young, so can we. With media output like this, is it any wonder our society permits abortion and the murder of a million-and-a-half babies in this country every year?

You see, if we do not have a perspective on life that is higher than what we can touch, taste, and see, we cannot appreciate that life is not an accident of evolution, but a gift of God and so ought to be preserved. Instead, when the only direction we can look is down, we conclude that we have evolved a bit up from the animals. And because we define ourselves by the creation, we cut ourselves off from God-the source of every good and perfect gift. Is it any wonder, therefore, that we find ourselves and our society justifying sinful, wicked behavior by appealing to the animals? If we do not retain the knowledge of God in our minds, but rather suppress it, we experience what Paul so clearly documents in the first chapter of Romans: the revealing of the wrath of God. The result is we act like the animals, and in the end we do what even the animals will not.

I am convinced the great problem in America today is that people are not thinking. It's a cultural phenomenon that has spilled over into the church. It is not just that there is a lack of a Christian way of thinking-a "Christian Mind"-but there is hardly a mind at all. In our day and age people, Christian and non-Christian alike, just do not think. We act and we react, but we do not consider and contemplate. There are many ways to explain this phenomenon: secularism, relativism, materialism, or just the fast pace of our lives. But we cannot overestimate the fact that our society has become so obsessed with entertainment that it has never learned to think. And this is because we have embraced a television culture rather than the print-based culture of our ancestors.

Do not get me wrong; I am not crusading against television. I would just as soon watch a movie on television as go to the theater. It is cheaper and I can do it in the comfort of my own home. There is nothing wrong with that. But we must stop believing that television is making us think. Television does not make us think; it entertains. And I am not alone in this opinion. Let me illustrate it by appealing to a couple of men who, as far as I know, are not Christians, but who understand the television medium.

The "Vannatization" of America

In 1988 Ted Koppel, host of ABC's Nightline program, gave a speech at Duke University. He chose as his subject matter the Ten Commandments. He began by pointing out that they were not the Ten Suggestions but rather the Ten Commandments. He then proceeded by going through each commandment and showing its relevance to the great moral issues of our day. He related "Thou shalt not bear false witness" to the insider trading scandals on Wall Street. "Thou shalt not commit adultery" was tied to the scandals associated with TV evangelists. And so on. But what impressed me most about his address was something he said at the very beginning, in the very first line of his speech. He said, "America has been Vannatized."

Now he knew nobody in that audience knew what he meant-he'd just coined the term-so he explained it. It's "Vannatized" as in "Vanna White," the very attractive and immensely popular woman on television's "Wheel of Fortune." She is, without a doubt, the major factor in the success of that program. She's imitated all over the world: there's a Vanna counterpart on German, French, and even Australian TV. Ted spent quite a bit of time talking about how popular Vanna White is. Then he said, "It's interesting, isn't it, that on that show you never hear Vanna say a word?" "How can that be?" he asked. "How could it be that someone about whom we know absolutely nothing is so popular?" "That," Koppel said, "is the very nature of television."

The reason she is so popular is not because she is telling us who she is, but because she is an image on the screen and we project onto the screen our feelings about her. That is the way television operates. That is the kind of medium it is. So if you are unhappy in your marriage and you say, "Boy, I wish I had a good looking mistress like that," she fulfills that role. Or if you are a young girl just beginning to go through puberty and a little bit uneasy about yourself and about what you are going to be, she could be your big sister-you're going to grow up to be like her! Vanna is anything you want her to be. Koppel said, "That's our world."

You see, we think of ourselves as being the best informed generation in history because of television. Television is everywhere-I read somewhere that there are more television sets in America than there are indoor toilets. Furthermore, they are on all the time: The average household watches television six hours a day. And because of that we think we know more than any generation in history. But as a matter of fact we do not. Instead, what television is doing, if I may put it bluntly, is entertaining us to death.

Laughing Our Heads Off

Neil Postman is a professor of education and special education communication techniques at Columbia University in New York City. A number of years ago he wrote a book titled Amusing Ourselves to Death. It was all about television, about the changes that have come over the western world and especially American society as a result of television. The book is divided into two parts. The first analyzes the changes television has brought about; the second the effects of television's commitment to be entertaining.

In the first section of his book, Postman contrasts our age, which he calls the entertainment age, with the prior age, which he calls the age of typography. In other words, he maintains that our age has brought about a fundamental paradigm shift. Our age is concerned with entertainment; the former with communication-and that via a verbal medium. When he talks about the former age as being an age of typography, he is talking about words.

What Postman is saying is this: Words work in a certain way. For example, if you are trying to communicate in an article, you put down what you want to say. Sometimes you indicate your point by the heading, then you develop it with arguments to explain why it is true and with answers to objections. You then form conclusions and make applications.

When you come across an article written like that, you read it carefully and with a certain amount of detachment. People admire something that makes sense and is well written, but you do not usually break into applause after reading carefully crafted prose. You see, there is a certain distance there, a distance inherent in the written medium. If you do not understand something you read, if it uses a vocabulary you don't understand, the distance allows you to look up the words. If the concepts are new and you need a little bit of time to assimilate them, the distance permits you to do that and continue on. The distance endemic to written communication permits the consideration and contemplation essential to thinking.

People who grew up in an age of typography could think in rational categories. Even their verbal discourse reflected that approach to knowledge. Postman details at length what he considers probably the greatest and best informed period in American history, the time shortly before the American Civil War. In the debates that took place between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas, common people would gather in an open area while the debaters stood on a platform and spoke. Lincoln and Douglas would debate campaign issues for six or seven hours and people would stand and listen, following the discussion and grasping the issues. Furthermore, the debates were written up in newspapers and spread across the country. Those who read the newspaper reports were able to participate in the debates, too. Postman says we have lost all that today because what we have is not a typographical age, an age where people know how to think because they have been trained to think in words. Rather, we have an age where people are not trained to think-indeed are kept from thinking-because they are being entertained continuously. That is what television does; it is an entertainment medium.

Now, this does not mean that you cannot have educational items on television, of course, and Postman admits that. But even with educational programs you do not get what you think you get. After all, in order to educate by means of television, you must have pictures, and the necessity of pictures itself predetermines the subject matter you can present. You cannot effectively teach philosophy on television, for example. It is abstract reasoning. You can, however, educate children about deep sea fishing because you can show nice pictures of being out at sea and catching fish, and you can talk about the ocean. But basically you still have entertainment.

In the second section of his book, Postman has a chapter detailing television's effects on religion, and he concludes that when you put religion on television, religion becomes entertainment. It will only survive on television in an entertainment format. And, by and large, the programs that do well are those that are designed to entertain. Either they are a vaudeville show, with the prerequisite song and dance numbers done in Christian guise, or they are talk shows along the lines of Merv Griffin; people sitting around and telling stories. But notice: They are not talking about theology. They are not teaching the Bible. They are telling stories: "Look what God did for me!" and "Listen to the miracle that happened in my life last week!" Or they are pitching a product: "What miracle do you want, brother? While you pray, we'll do a miracle." That plays well on television because that's entertaining.

Now, when Billy Graham is on television, that is an exception. Billy Graham is an exception to everything. If people tune in to watch Billy Graham, it is not because it's good television, but because they want to hear what Billy Graham has to say. There are other exceptions, too. But, by and large, the programs that do well are those in an entertainment format. Listen to what Postman says, "CBS knows that Walter Cronkite plays better than the Milky Way and Jimmy Swaggart comes across better than God." Ever wonder why Swaggart was so popular on TV? It's because, Postman says, "God exists only in the mind, while Swaggart is there to be worshipped and adored." He concludes, "I'm not a theologian, I may not know the right word for this, but I think the word for it is blasphemy."

Perhaps you are saying to yourself, "What difference does it make? If entertainment is the way television operates, why not have religious entertainment? Wouldn't it be better to have that than what the networks offer?" And I am inclined to agree with you here, except for two points. First, if what people expect from religion is what they see on television, then there is going to be (and as a pastor I assure you there already is) enormous pressure on churches to conform to the entertainment motif. Out goes expository preaching, because people cannot concentrate very long. Forget theology: People are not interested in theology, and they can't follow an argument anyway. Let there be funny stories, and let them be short. As for the worship service, bring on lively ditties that make people feel good! Surely God will be blessed. And, above all, do not permit long prayers.

Postman asks, "What happens when you put religion on television, what do you lose?" His answer is, you lose everything that is important, specifically, a sense of the transcendent. It is God who is missing when religion is put on television. And I am afraid that when television is allowed to reshape our churches, God is missing from them too.

My second objection is a point I've already made: we must not believe that television is making us think. It is not. If we are to learn to think, we must go about it in a different way. We'll have to leave the set off more often and begin thinking.

Thinking and the Church

So what is the answer? How do we combat the entertainment agenda infiltrating our churches? How do we stop being entertained to death and learn to think? We do it by following Paul's instruction in Romans 12:2: "Be transformed by the renewing of your mind." That's the way it happens. The answer is to study the Word of God. That is how we learn not only to think but to think as God does. I used to say, "If you're not feeding yourself with the Bible all the time, you will be thinking like the world." In view of our television culture, I have amended that saying to, "If you are not feeding yourself with the Bible all the time, the world is going to entertain you and you'll end up not thinking at all."

This presents a unique opportunity for churches today. The world is filled with entertainment and entertainment is fun and people like it and will go where they can have a good time. But sooner or later some will get sick of being entertained-they are made in the image of God, you see, and part of that image is the capacity to think. They will realize that life is more than entertainment, more than just a good time. They will come to a crossroad and say, "There has to be more to life than this. I'm not here just to be entertained, to be sold products, to spend my money on what people want me to buy. Aren't I more important than this?" They will come looking for an alternative. Now, it will not be the vast majority of people, but it will be the people with whom God is working. Churches, if they have not sold themselves wholesale to the entertainment agenda, will be that alternative. "Yes, you are more important!" they will say. "You're infinitely more important because you are made in the image of God. God has made you to be like Him!" Then the churches will point them to Jesus Christ and encourage them to be "transformed by the renewing of [their] minds." But if churches have absorbed the entertainment mentality, if they have themselves lost the ability to think, they will offer seekers nothing more than what they have already. Instead of pointing out the path of the righteous which is like "the first gleam of dawn, shining ever brighter till the full light of day," these churches will be like "clouds without rain, blown along by the wind; autumn trees, without fruit and uprooted" and will leave the lost on a downhill path with the vision of God becoming increasingly dim. Then, like the Newsweek article I referred to earlier said, they will be no better than so many ducks on a pond.

See Modern Reformation for mroe

A Phobia of Fearing God

June 10 , 2008

by Bo White

The teacher in Ecclesiastes, after a tour of our material existence, writes, “Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man” (Eccles. 12:13, ESV). Frankly, this doesn’t seem to be a common theme from pulpits around our country and it certainly isn’t the theme of the worship songs streaming on the contemporary Christian music scene. In fact, the whole idea of fearing God seems to be lost in many respects. The logic goes something like this: God is a loving God and Jesus tells us over and again to not be afraid and when we address God, we should say “Our Father in heaven” (Matt. 6:9). Therefore, let’s talk to God, draw near to God, and even invite God into our “family” meetings where the children of God gather to feel his presence. And while much of this is true, it’s only a half-truth. And half-truths are worth very little.

John Bunyan writes, “The presence of a king is dreadful to his subjects, even if he carries himself ever so condescendingly. If then there is so much glory and dread in the presence of a king, what fear and dread must there be in the presence of an eternal God!”[1] Kings invite their subjects into their presence; the subjects never invite the king. I was in a worship service recently where the pastor began with these words: “We invite you God to come and be here with us.” I couldn’t help but think that instead of proclaiming the beginning of worship, the pastor was actually proclaiming the end of it. Why would I kneel before someone I had the power to invite over to our little church building? What awe is there in a deity that needs an invitation?

The concern churches have of creating a community that is grace-centered and characterized by sincere love has lead to a God who is increasingly more familial than majestic. In a very real sense, we believers seem to be afraid to fear God. Now, I am phobic in my fear of snakes. I don’t like them; and so I run from them because inwardly I feel threatened, insecure, and simply do not want to find out if a specific snake is a friend or foe. There isn’t much logic to it, which is why it’s a phobia. It’s unreasonable for me, in many respects, to fear snakes, simply because most of them can do me no harm. I frankly don’t like them and oftentimes it’s for no good reason.

But God created all things by the power of his word. God sustains all things by his word. At the word of God, every living thing in the universe came into existence. The wind and the waves obey the words of Jesus (see Mark 4). Let the truth of the power of the word of God sink a moment into your mind and heart. You can scream your lungs out at a thunderstorm and that will affect absolutely nothing. But the still small voice of God can make it rain for forty days and forty nights. God is, in a word, awesome.

Bunyan puts it this way, “For if God shall come to you, indeed, and visit you with the forgiveness of sins, that visit will remove the guilt, but increase the sense of your filth—and the sense of this, that God has forgiven a filthy sinner, will make you both rejoice and tremble.”[2] Notice that Bunyan doesn’t leave us with an either/or option. When God forgives us through grace alone on the merit of Christ alone, we indeed rejoice and we also tremble. Jesus is both Son of God and King of Kings. By our union with Christ, we are both adopted children of God as well as servants of the Almighty King. We are not only sons who can rejoice in being near to God, nor are we simply servants who are subjects to a loving King. We are inseparably both sons and servants.

In Luke 15, the famous parable of the Lost Son ends with not only a royal banquet scene but with the prodigal understanding that he longs simply to serve in his loving Father’s house. The tension the follower of Christ lives with then is that through Jesus our sins have been eternally paid for and there is now no sacrifice needed. Jesus paid it all. Yet Jesus invites us to live in a kingdom, not the Democratic Republic of God. We are forgiven and free, but we have no vote. God alone is sovereign.

During the 1770s, lining the streets of Boston were signs that read: “We serve no sovereign here.” My concern is that these same signs unwittingly hang today in some church buildings because there is no awe, no willingness to bow a knee, and no authentic reverence or fear of God. We don’t want a sovereign God who can do whatever he ordains or pleases. We want a serving God who will do whatever we want. And this is revealed with our current obsession, as Christians, to be relevant.

Let’s be clear. Jesus is the exact representation of God (see Heb.1:3), so Jesus is a revelation. So many churches though plead for Jesus to be relevant more than a revelation. And in being relevant, the fear of God is gone. And when the fear of God is missing, then believers will turn to slick marketing, trendy music, and emotional highs rather than to the Jesus who can calm storms and walk out of his own grave. The longer the church strives to become relevant, the longer there is a phobia for fearing God, and the longer the wait will be for renewal and reformation. “You see, all true reformation and genuine spiritual renewal comes from Christ alone. True reformation is not worked up by human effort. The last church in the world to be visited by spiritual renewal will be the church which thinks it can produce it.”[3] After all, if God is sovereign, then he will initiate the movement of his Spirit, not the other way round.

So, yes, on the one hand, let’s draw near to God because “no one has sins forgiven, no one goes to heaven, no one has peace until there is faith in Jesus Christ.”[4] But, on the other hand, let’s be crystal clear: “No one comes to me [Jesus] unless the Father who sent me draws him” (John 6:44). The fact that God has drawn us near to him should leave us not only free of all chains with a peace that passes understanding, but also on our knees saying, “I know you love me. What’s next? I am at your service.

Bo White, a graduate of Covenant Theological Seminary, is a teaching elder in the Presbyterian Church in America. He currently attends New Valley Church in Phoenix, Arizona, and is chief messaging officer of Food for the Hungry, an international organization committed to a gospel-centered approach to ending poverty worldwide.

This episode is a must-listen-to for every Christian who is serious about Jesus and His Church. Christians must guard against becoming like the culture. For example if the culture becomes godless the church will also (or has it become like this already??) There is a dumbing down taking place in Western culture and Christians must not let themselves follow suit. God gave us a brain for a reason; let's start using it again! It's not about being an academic or an intellectual giant. It's about seeking to understand God's Word and to apply it to our lives. This goes for the guy with no High School grades to the Girl with a Doctorate in Rocket Science!

Listen to this edition of the White Horse Inn here

• A Conversation: Tim Keller, John Piper, and D.A. Carson (1 of 6)
• A Conversation: Tim Keller, John Piper, and D.A. Carson (2 of 6)
• A Conversation: Tim Keller, John Piper, and D.A. Carson (3 of 6)
• A Conversation: Tim Keller, John Piper, and D.A. Carson (4 of 6)
• A Conversation: Tim Keller, John Piper, and D.A. Carson (5 of 6)
• A Conversation: Tim Keller, John Piper, and D.A. Carson (6 of 6)

My thanks to Justin Taylor for this.

Nothing is more indecent than a dead preacher speaking to dead sinners the living truth of the living God. -Richard Baxter

Why is it that the majority of "preaching" today is reminiscent of Larry King Live fireside chats?

When Paul charges Timothy to "preach the Word," he uses the Greek word kerusso. Kerusso does not mean fireside, conversational "chats." Rather, it means to herald; to proclaim; to announce with a loud voice; always with a suggestion of formality, gravity, and an authority which must be listened to and obeyed.

The third mark of true biblical preaching is blood-earnestness. So much preaching today is weak because it lacks weightiness and blood-earnestness.

John Calvin remarked,

Preaching is the public exposition of Scripture by the man sent by God, in which God Himself is present in judgment and in grace (emphasis mine).

Commenting on the aspect of blood-earnestness that must be found in preaching, Dr. Steve Lawson writes, 

...exposition is not merely for the transmitting of information; it is for the effecting of transformation. It presses for a decision and calls for a verdict (emphasis mine).

Martyn Lloyd-Jones called this kind of preaching,

...theology coming through a man who is on fire.

Listen to what Lawson further says,

Biblical preaching must come from the life of one who is fervent for the glory of God, zealous for the Word of God, and aflame for the souls of men, women, and youth.

Instead of a fire coming from the pulpit with weightiness and blood-earnestness, we instead see theatrics as the pulpit is transformed into a comedy club. Countless jokes and stories are told, laughs are had, and people leave the service comfortable. There is no conviction. There is no convincing argument. There is simply comfort and ease. People love laughter. They love to feel comfortable.

Listen to this penetrating thought by John Piper,

Laugher seems to have replaced repentance as the goal of many preachers. Laughter means people feel good. It means they like you. It means you have moved them. It means you have some measure of power. It seems to have all the marks of successful communication--if the depth of sin and the holiness of God and the danger of hell and need for broken hearts are left out of account.

When the preacher steps behind the pulpit, let him always be reminded that heaven and hell are open before him. Therefore, let no man trifle with the souls of men and women, with heaven, with hell, and with the pulpit.

If you want to preach in such a way that the majority of your content is illustrations and stories and jokes, please go somewhere else--like a comedy club. In a time of crisis that we find ourselves currently in, we don't need these kind of charlatans flooding the pulpits and seminaries.

For Further Reading...
Famine in the Land: A Passionate Call for Expository Preaching - Dr. Steven J. Lawson
The Supremacy of God in Preaching - Dr. John Piper
Preaching & Preachers - Dr. D. Martin Lloyd-Jones 

I would like to reproduced some paragraphs written by my friend David Porter who followed the conference and wrote about it in his blog:

As I am now later composing this blog post, I am listening to Dr. John Piper address the audience of 6,000 women.  Here is his main point:

"True Womanhood, is a distinctive calling of God, to display the glory of God, and His Son, in ways that would not be displayed, if there were no Womanhood."

Speakers at this conference include Nancy Leigh DeMoss, John Piper, Marry Kassian, Karen Loritts, Dannah Gresh, Janet Parshall, and Joni Tada. You can now listen to these messages, online here.

Another important part of this conference was the True Woman Manifesto, which thousands of women, all over the world, have signed on with their hearts.

This was clearly a powerful conference, and the word of God was clearly proclaimed to the 6,000 women in attendance.

I thank God for encouraging news like this. I read the two-page manifesto mentioned above and was amazed that it manages to include so many important points that Christian women today need to believe, affirm and declare.

The coming days will hopefully see these women and other godly women around the world continue on a path that is very different from that of modern women of the world, as the Manifesto says:

As Christian women, we desire to honour God by living counter-cultural lives that reflect the beauty of Christ and His gospel to our world.

Ilustratie este dupa cum urmeaza:

La magazinul din zona, un om a pus o masa in fata acestuia, plina cu sticle de diferite culori. Pe una din sticle scria “ulei de sarpe – facut din veninul unui sarpe din India. Vindeca orice de la dureri de cap pana la negi.” Pe o alta sticla puteai sa citesti, “Apa tonica magica – facuta din plante mistice gasite in muntii din Africa.” Omul acesta nu fusese niciodata in India sau Africa. El doar pusese alcool in diferite sticle si adaugase diferiti coloranti. Omul vindea de fapt minciuni intr-o sticla. Omul nu era doctor, el doar stia cum sa pacaleasca oamenii pentru bani. Acum, un doctor adevarat a trecut pe langa masa acestui om, si a realizat ca toate aceste sticle sunt fara de folos in a-i ajuta oameni. El decide sa instaleze si el o masa chiar langa omul care vindea ulei de sarpe. Pentru ca este doctor, el stie cum sa ii trateze pe oameni in conformitate cu ceea ce au. Pe masa doctorului erau medicamente adevarate. Cand cineva treacea pe langa si se oprea sa cumpere de la vanzatorul fals, doctorul adevaratat striga, “Nu te duce la el, vino la mine, am exact ceea ce ai tu nevoie. Daca te doare inima, am aspirina. Omul acesta de langa mine o sa-ti vanda ceva care nu functioneaza.” Altcineva cu o mana rupta, trece pe langa si din nou doctorul adevarat striga, “Nu te duce la omul care vinde ulei de sarpe. Ce bine ii va face mainii tale rupte? Eu o sa te bandajez si o sa iti dau ceva pentru durere.”

Nu este Isus doctorul nostru cel bun? El nu este arogant cand ne spune sa mergem la El si numai la EL. Acesta de fapt este un act de iubire din partea Lui pentru a ne conduce departe de langa doctorul fals. El are remediul adevarat pentru bolile noastre. El nu ar fi un tata plin de iubire daca ne-ar directiona spre sticlele cu ulei de sarpe. El este un tata iubitor care ne atrage la El. Moartea Lui pe cruce este remediul nostru prin credinta. Il glorificam de fiecare data cand ne uitam la El si ignoram doctorul cel fals. Gloria Sa este singurul lucru care ne va satisface.

M. C. Babcock

In my previous post, I asked whether your TV is killing you.  Several visitors commented and made some helpful observations.  I encourage you to read that discussion.

Andy asked whether Piper should have addressed internet use as well.  Should we completely avoid the internet?  If so, both of us are in trouble.  Another commenter pointed out that there are some significant differences between the two mediums.

I rarely watch TV, but I love the internet.  Too much, I'm afraid.  It has a dangerous attraction for an information junkie.  It is a vast repository of knowledge, much of it unnecessary, some of it useless, and some of it deadly poisonous.

But putting aside those elements that are clearly destructive, the amount of time wasted in the pursuit of trivial information is still a little scary.  I mentioned in a previous post that Americans spent 302 billion minutes online in July.

I discovered recently that there is even a website devoted to providing the world with random tidbits of Unneccessary Knowledge at the click of a mouse.  Here are some of the things I learned there:

Close to 73% of girls in Bangladesh are married by age 18

The plastic tips on the ends of shoelaces are called "aglets"

According to a study by the nation's largest auto insurer, most accidents occur between 3 and 6 p.m. on Friday

There is One AK-47 for every Nine people on Earth

The most popular first name in the world is Muhammad

The Barbie doll has more than 80 careers

There is enough fat in the average adult human body to make seven bars of soap

I could easily have spent a lot more time on that one page.  Click.  Click.  Click.  Click.  And for me, at least, that's the heart of my problem.  Is the time I spend online just a harmless diversion, or am I frittering away my life sitting in front of a computer screen?

Tick.  Tick.  Tick.  Tick.  Wasting time can easily and quickly translate into wasting life.

Spoiler Warning: I just watched the movie "Iron Man" again.  Near the beginning of the movie Yinsen saves fellow prisoner Tony Stark's life with a crude invention designed to keep shrapnel from penetrating his heart.  Stark is saved again a little while later when Yinsen sacrifices his own life in order to buy Stark the time he needs to finish powering up his newly fabricated suit.  Stark thanks Yinsen for saving his life, and with his last breath Yinsen says to Stark, "Don't waste it.  Don't waste your life."

That phrase grips my heart.  No one wants to look back on their life and realize they wasted it on things that don't matter.

(Some of you may recognize Yinsen's admonition as the title of a John Piper book.  You can read the book online for free, subscribe to the video podcast, and more at Don't Waste Your Life.)

Jesus saved my life.  I don't want to waste it.  Not on TV.  Not on the internet.  Not on fun and recreation.  Not on good things.  Not on bad things.  Not on anything.

I want to heed Yinsen's warning.  "Don't waste it.  Don't waste your life."

Randy Alcorn

Coalition Leadership Discussion 2008 >>>

Topics include forming and defending ministries of mercy, finding gospel-transformed pastors, gospel-centered living in place of legalism and licentiousness, freedom from pornography through the gospel, and having more than a mere intellectual grasp of the gospel.

As you can tell, these men love the gospel! The things covered in this conversation are deeply profound. It's also interesting to observe these guys' mannerisms, especially Keller. At one point he prefaced a comment on something Carson was saying by raising his hand and saying, "Footnote!"

Here's the discussion, divided into six parts:

• Part 1
• Part 2
• Part 3
• Part 4
• Part 5
• Part 6

I offer this post to him because he has recently begun a study on the gospel of John.  And without sounding bias, this new sermon series rocks!  So, I want to make sure all of you know about it.  Follow this link to his resource page, from there click on the podcast link, which will then take you to the iTunes page for Piper's podcast.  Download the following casts:

The New Commandment of Christ: Love One Another As I Have Loved You

In the Beginning was the Word

In HIM was Life

(Remember to subscribe to his podcast so the upcoming sermons will be downloaded automatically.)

• A Conversation: Tim Keller, John Piper, and D.A. Carson (1 of 6)
• A Conversation: Tim Keller, John Piper, and D.A. Carson (2 of 6)
• A Conversation: Tim Keller, John Piper, and D.A. Carson (3 of 6)
• A Conversation: Tim Keller, John Piper, and D.A. Carson (4 of 6)
• A Conversation: Tim Keller, John Piper, and D.A. Carson (5 of 6)
• A Conversation: Tim Keller, John Piper, and D.A Carson (6 of 6)

The final event of the "Politics of Jesus" conference, held on October 9-10 at the First Baptist Church of Durham, NC and sponsored by the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina, was a panel discussion with several young evangelical leaders from various sectors of society.  The four people involved were: David Sanders, who recently wrote a piece for the Wall Street Journal, Tom Strowd, a worker in a pro-life ministry in Durham, NC, Sean Cordell, a young pastor from the area trained by John Piper, and Joshua Trent, a former White House employee.  The discussion of the relationship between faith and issues of politics and culture was stimulating and personally refreshing. 

The following is a rough abbreviation of the question-and-answer period.

Question for David: What changed and took you from a “Jesus is a Republican” mindset to writing columns that reflect a Christian mindset of a very different type?

             A: I’m still very active, very conservative; grew up in a SBC pastor’s home.  A lot of people in the movement I knew identified more with a political party than with Christ.   The piece I wrote in the Wall Street Journal expressed concern over the fact that the Arkansas governor who recently ran for President seemed to be making tertiary matters first-tier matters.  My criticism was that I was being labeled as not “pro-life” simply because I didn’t desire to support pregnant women with public funds.  I want to lean on the Holy Spirit in my political life; I’ve struggled with how this works out.  

Question for Josh: What were some characteristics you noticed in your time in the White House working with a number of evangelicals?

A: I was in the President’s Personnel Office.  I recruited for about half of the slots available in the administration.  Evangelicals all agreed on sanctity of life issues, generally.  Questions like how Christians formulate policy on energy drew some disagreement.

Question for Tom: How can we approach the abortion issue today?  Is this still a huge issue?

             A: There have been 49 million babies killed in America since Roe vs. Wade in 1973.  There are 45 million abortions per year in the world.  God has created us for a purpose: God has created man for the purpose of worshipping and glorifying Him.  We are all about trying to preserve life that God has created for a purpose.  Others are perpetuating a holocaust. The multi-generational and multicultural nature of the church must galvanize us to help imperiled parents, especially African-Americans women who are aborting their babies in massive numbers.  I hope that we will look back years from now and see that this point in history was a turning point.  The Catholics in the 1960s caught this issue; evangelicals in the 1970s.  There is now a third wave of cultural pro-life agitation, and that is in the African-American community.  Pastors need to see this as a defining issue.  By age 45, 43% of women have had an abortion in this country (Center for Disease Control), and 1 in 4 evangelical women have had abortions.  The church must embrace this issue.  It is a multicultural matter. 

Question for Shawn: What have you learned in inner-city ministry?

A: When I preach, and I know there’s one man who has a murder in his past, and a woman who’s had an abortion, I am so comforted to know that the gospel has the power to change.  The gospel is not just for unbelievers but for believers who need it to change.  We moved into a low-income community on purpose, bought a house to show stability in a transient area.  We were called the “Caucasian invasion” and thus took pains to be in the community.  You take this into the pulpit with you.  Tim Keller has said that we’re all mastered by something.  We’re all idolaters of some sort.  Inner-city people have addictions and so do white-collar people.  We need someone to rescue us from ourselves.  Sin, according to Keller, is a cruel master.  It never satisfies.  So Christians have the opportunity to meet a master who satisfies and saves.  You see this when you meet a single woman with three kids and the family is altogether struggling and the Blood gang comes around them and makes a family for them.  The gospel needs to bear on these people’s lives.  None of us have a natural propensity for deferred gratification; so it’s hard to train people to follow Christ and to live sacrificial lives of love in His image.  The gospel, then, is central in my preaching; I want it to impact those to whom I preach.

Question for Shawn: What do you do in terms of social ministry to lead people out of misery?

A: We connected with a local rescue mission that allows us to witness.  I speak to the men and do devotions with them.  Some of the men come to the church.  Right now we meet in an IMAX theater.  Some guys walk over to our place.  10-12 homeless guys come to our church.  We train greeters to interact with the needy.  We need to try to care for people without a superiority complex; it can be easy to forget the gospel and think we’re superior to those we are reaching.  Perhaps 25 folks in the church have moved into the city.  To love the poor you have to love them for the long-haul.  People’s lives do get changed in a moment; and yet many people come to Christ by a day-by-day-by-day approach, laboring with them relentlessly to bring them to Christ.

Follow-up question: 25% of your church moved into the city?  Really?

A: Yes. We want people to love people and live sacrificially wherever they are.

Question for Josh:  How should we think correctly about government-sponsored, faith-based initiatives?

A: Tough question.  I worked with the Refugee Resettlement Office in the White House for my last job.  The USA has more refugees come in per year than the rest of the world combined.  I am not an attorney; two years ago a landmark case ruled in favor of the WH’s case for faith-based groups.  I also know that in multiple agencies career staff have seen the value of the government getting out of the way of faith-based agencies for the sake of that valuable work. 

Question for Tom:What’s the greatest weakness of evangelicalism?

A: The gospel is not just about creed—it’s about deeds as well.  The evangelical church must pursue both to be faithful and fruitful in the world.

 Question for Shawn: What’s the greatest weakness of evangelicalism?

A: To rob God of His glory by living life in a self-focused way that seeks the satiation of one’s own pleasures and delights.  Living for yourself means making God small; living for God means making much of Him and in turn finding incredible joy for oneself.

Question for David: What’s the greatest weakness of evangelicalism?

A: I can’t improve upon that answer.  This conference has been a bit of a fire-hose experience.  We need to simply concentrate on being the embodiment of the Lord Jesus Christ.  We must know who we are and what we are to do.

Question for Josh: What’s the greatest weakness of evangelicalism?

Recently I came across several bloggers who (following the lead of Andy Naselli) have posted their thoughts about the following excerpt from a sermon Piper addressed specifically to pastors.

Turn off the television. It is not necessary for relevance. And it is a deadly place to rest the mind. Its pervasive banality, sexual innuendo, and God-ignoring values have no ennobling effects on the preacher's soul. It kills the spirit. It drives God away. It quenches prayer. It blanks out the Bible. It cheapens the soul. It destroys spiritual power. It defiles almost everything. I have taught and preached for twenty years now and never owned a television. It is unnecessary for most of you, and it is spiritually deadly for all of you.  (Read the rest.)

Deadly. That's a strong word.  He uses it twice in that one paragraph.  Not only does Piper admonish preachers to turn off the television, but in a different article he advises them to teach the people in their congregations to do the same.

Help your people to turn off the television. Few things in our culture are more spiritually numbing than the television. Even the so-called "good" shows are by and large banal and low-minded and anything but cultivating of a rich, deep capacity to enjoy God. And when you add to that the barrage of suggestive advertisements that accompany virtually every program, I do not wonder why so many of our professing Christians are spiritually incapable of experiencing high thoughts and deep emotions. (From the article Advice to Pastors)

This certainly is radical, counter-cultural advice.  Is it good advice? Try to be honest and objective.  What do you think?

Here is the blurb from an email from Desiring God:

6,200 women and 1 man. That was the context last night in Chicago at the first True Woman conference as John Piper addressed the topic "The Ultimate Meaning of True Womanhood."

Gretchen Naugle, wife of Desiring God's Lukas Naugle, was on hand and writes,

Pastor John called all women to examine the depths of their womanhood and their faith. He stated, "If you base your womanhood on competency you diminish the glory of Christ."  When we as women embrace our God-given role, we proclaim the glory of Christ at Calvary. We were called to proclaim the glories of Christ in all that we do, even the countless diaper moments that come with being a mom and in the hard, sacrificing moments of being single.  We need strong theology to stand strong through the challenges of this life, because as Pastor John said, "Wimpy theology makes for wimpy women."

Sola Dei Gloria

John Piper's message last night at the True Woman's conference is now available: The Ultimate Meaning of True Womanhood. For those of you who are not familiar with this conference you can read about how it all started here.  The True Woman conference exists in order to help women:

• Discover and embrace God's created design and mission for their lives
• Reflect the beauty and heart of Christ to their world
• Intentionally pass on the baton of Truth to the next generation
• Pray earnestly for an outpouring of God's Spirit in their families, churches, nation, and world

At the conference they have also proposed a True Woman Manifesto calling women to sign and commit their lives as God has designed for women to live.  Below is an excerpt from John Piper's talk.

My aim in this message is to clarify from God’s word the ultimate meaning of true womanhood, and to motivate you, by God’s grace, to embrace it as your highest calling. What I will say is foundational to the “True Woman Manifesto” which I regard as a faithful, clear, true, and wise document.

The Opposite of a Wimpy Woman

I would like to begin by stating one huge assumption that I bring to this task tonight. I mention it partly because it may give you an emotional sense of what I hope you become because of this conference. And I mention it partly because it explains why I minister the way I do and why this message sounds the way it does.

My assumption is that wimpy theology makes wimpy women. And I don’t like wimpy women. I didn’t marry a wimpy woman. And with Noël, I am trying to raise my daughter Talitha, who turns 13 on Saturday, not to be a wimpy woman.