I think the preparation should be both spiritual and physical. Like the division between joint and marrow, locating the boundary between the two natures (spiritual and physical) isn't easy. How we treat the one affects the other. That said, I think the latest issue of the The Warhorn (subtitled Fear, Love, and Persecution) is excellent and I commend it to you. One of the tips on spiritual preparation (or is it physical?) is teaching our children to eat veggies. You'll especially appreciate the piece called "Walmartyr."
I often lay here at night wondering where are all the pastors who should be in the pulpit telling their people to take a stand and to be prepared for the spiritual battle ahead. There's to much "go along to get along" and too much watering down the gospel. It's good to hear some straight talk, thanks Tim!
Could you give more details on what we should do to prepare ourselves and our families for persecution? Are there things we should be doing besides preparing spiritually?
How terrifying. We must pray for him.
We moved away from Bloomington after that first summer conference in 2009. Every year we've made the trek back with our small children (now four of them, all under age five)...and from much farther away than Iowa. So this video strikes a familiar chord. :) While we probably cannot come this year, it's not because the conference isn't child-friendly! The children's programming was wonderful and we've always been welcomed with so much hospitality. I highly recommend the Clearnote Conference!
>> But as it is written, the reader would conclude that either you painted an overly bleak picture to make your point, or your own situation was unusually unfortunate in that respect (which I am glad to learn it is not.)
Nah, it was just Jake being humorous. Didn't you catch the humor? I did. Thanks, Jake, for telling us about the conference. Can't wait for it!
Sure, I got that was your real point. But as it is written, the reader would conclude that either you painted an overly bleak picture to make your point, or your own situation was unusually unfortunate in that respect (which I am glad to learn it is not.)
Just this past February my wife and I took an overnighter to Cincinnati thanks to the generosity of many different folks in our congregation who were willing to shoulder the weight of watching our kids. They even seemed to enjoy it. Who knew?
And then we had a brother/sister combo of college students come and stay the night and take our kids to church the morning our latest daughter was born--just a month ago. Between Mary and Sarah and Emily and Anna and Tabitha and Ethan and Stacia and De and Emily and Dani and Hannah and Emily and Cole and Selena and others--we manage just fine.
My point isn't that our church body doesn't help us out. Nothing could be farther from the truth. My only real point in the post was that to come to our conference you don't have to worry about those kinds of logistics--by design.
You don't need to leave your wife or husband at home. And you don't need to arrange for the kids to be cared for. Just bring the whole family. You can register your entire family for less than the cost of one individual ticket to one of the high dollar national conferences and there's something for everyone.
For families like mine, that's a relief. A welcome one. And one more families should consider signing up for. We know families that plan their vacation around the conference and just stop in on their way to wherever it is they're going. That's something I'd like to see more of in the future.
"Anyone want to sign up to watch my kids for three days? For free?
Didn't think so."
You might be surprised. When we had only one baby, we housesat for a family of six kids while the parents went away, a couple of times. They were 11 and under the first time, so it's not quite the same. And we did it mostly out of friendship, but were compensated with an offer of travel rewards points since the husband was a frequent business traveler (we wound not up being able to take advantage of them, long story) which not everyone is able to do, and I guess that stuff isn't transferable nowadays. But you just might find a young couple with few enough responsibilities of their own and be able to think up some kind of non-monetary barter that would feel like a fair return for their efforts.
Amen on conferences and the "need" to have a good long time of separation from the family. But with regards to taking a bunch of kids in, two families have taken four and five of my kids in while the fifth and sixth were born. That was a blessing.
As a mother of 8 children (and also, incidentally, a Taylor graduate), this was a wonderfully encouraging article. Thank you so much for reminding us women of these sweet truths.
Well, since no one else is commenting here, I will.
Great job, ladies! Well said.
Please note the text of this post is Pastor Andrew Dionne's—not mine. But of course, I agree with him, and thank him for his watchcare.
>>in the Greek version of this passage is there any verbiage which can be considered equivocal?
Sure, rebels always find ways to justify their rebellion, and simpletons always get sucked in by these justifications. This is the reason the Apostle Paul warns Timothy against wasting his time in arguments about words (1Timothy 6:3,4; 2Timothy 1:13; 2:14; see also 2Peter 2:3).
Those women and men who wrangle over words, seeking to mislead and destroy the faithful, must be silenced—not coddled by sophisticated discussions of the meaning of this and that word, nor granted study committees, nor engaged in floor debate. They are just run-of-the-mill rebels and should simply be disciplined for attacking God's Creation Order revealed in His Word.
But they never are—disciplined, that is—and thus their rebellion spreads. The Biblical command is to silence such men, but effeminate pastors and elders today, both conservative (antiquarian) and liberal (hip), care more about their reputation than the protection of their flock, so they make themselves nice and try to craft a place where false shepherds can stand within the PCA without giving up their false doctrine. You know, "believe but not teach or practice." Or "believe and teach, but not practice." Or, Tim Keller's own ploy concerning woman officers, "believe and teach and practice, but stop just shy of ordination."
The men who refuse to discipline these rebels are more culpable than the rebels themselves:
He also who is slack in his work Is brother to him who destroys. (Proverbs 18:9)
>>What do you call a woman priest?
A pseudo-pastor. They can't actually be pastors so they are pretending to be pastors.
Amen to the last line in your post. The theology basis Paul say in his command is deep as well as being edifying by its bringing a new treasure out of the acts of God in Genesis. The upshot of the command only requires obedience.
What do you call a woman priest? A priestess? A priest? A Teaching Elder? How about hypocrite?
To follow up on Tim's concise cite of the below passage, since I'm kind of a dumb redneck, in the Greek version of this passage is there any verbiage which can be considered equivocal? I'm not seeing any in the English translation. Let's face it though (I've seen this first hand when I was regularly attending a Methodist church.), today's churches strive for political correctness and inclusion because more congregants equals more money in the back pocket of church leadership. True bible believing churches that teach the actual Bible as opposed to the weak as water PC/inclusive version will tend to have limited long term attendance and the church leadership won't be driving Rolls Royce's. (And no, just getting the base model Rolls ain't gonna fly either.)
12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.
13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.
14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.
15 But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.
Does the PCA have no guts to just kick them out? Lock the doors of their pretty buildings till they go away, and maybe convert them into some outposts for the homeless. They might be better used and there might be actual sheep to be found and fed, literally and figuratively.
I used a credit card at Target on nearly the last day of their security breach. Within a month, without a request from me, the bank from which the card was issued had sent me a card with a new number. Target had a poster in their store offering free credit monitoring for anyone who used their cards during the breach, but it was a moot point for me with my new number. I am going to guess that Michaels will offer the same monitoring, and banks will replace cards without being asked.
"It turns out that credit card monitoring services are mostly worthless."
An illustration: if you work in a large company, you likely have security process to follow, e.g. having "3 points for verification", better if each point is a different KIND of information from the others, and even better if they are not, in fact, all contained on the bills put into your mailbox: they usually are such that security is, really, a joke.
My point here is: companies live or die by meeting demand, "consumers" (I hate that term) can't demand what they don't even understand and, more importantly, "value": security, like helping poor people, is an after-thought that occurs when something dire happens. Before that, they angrily rage at you for requiring that information before you offer your labors to who could otherwise be a complete stranger and no customer at all, or who could be attempting to access your customers' accounts and information.
For credit cards to be secure, there must be some technical understanding, and Americans are not only woefully technically incompetent, they've surrendered technology to the very liberal, who are often those disaffected by their conservative parents heartlessness and in turn become a sort of twisted breed of heartlessnes, zealotry for faux care in reaction to the faux concerns of their parents, and contemptuous of ordinary people--or at least dismissive when anyone cries at pain when their bank accounts get dumped.
All day long, we take calls from people who suffere problem after problem because they cannot be bothered to learn anything about the machines they use every day to live by, and they also refuse to learn basic security and to stop browsing...*risky*...sites. But the most common problem is simply impatience to read: you DON'T click "just to make these dang windows go away!!!!" You respond to them intelligently--and if you can't, call someone who can or do some research: most end-up installing tons of garbage, toolbars, and simply letting mob-sponsored attacks right on to their computers.
And then they call raging at you, an agent for an ISP, for their carelessness and something that's not even your liability: their computer. Try explaining the difference and they get angry, using the addition of "...with a computer" or simply the inclusion of "computer" somewhere as a automatic termination of thought. Get them to accept it, e.g. "your computer is like your faucet, the internet is like the water sent to your house by the utility; we aren't liable for your faucet", and they simply start threatening to cancel.
I gave-up caring (or pleasing my QAs) about such stupid threats and childishness and my productivity has ballooned: don't know if/when I'll be fired but servicing the typical American demands just isn't worthwhile. There is a significance to all this though:
Credit cards, like our entire banking cartel, are built on very old technologies: known quantities that are hard to be rid of not only because legislators, like businesses, only do what their constituents make a deal out of--or what they can twist to be meeting such demands--and they have put in place the financial system and control it like they do the lives of homeless (they're illegal). They are tied into that system, and they are fundamentally insecure. Quite a lot could be done to make fraud, etc., impossible: nothing is. They're probably worried about customers inundating them with calls to retrieved passwords that are long enough to be secure, or requiring passwords every swipe, no excuses.
And like the "just make it work" pathetic beings who call every day, their customers value convenience and ease and immediate gratification over anything substantial, designed well, secure, conscientious: so they get what they deserve--and in the process harm the innocent--because giving them more would likely be the difference between being competitive and inviable. Put another way, they whine about corporations being careless and psychopathic, but really if they're not run sociopathically they lose rather than make money, and nobody there wants to be on the streets in today's America: they know how Americans actually are to those who are unsightly and without representation, and who can't be made a big cause to feel good about and therefore be worth helping so people can feel good about themselves.
And I wish this was cynicism, but as someone long in such a position of neediness/exposure, I know better than to think otherwise. The up-side is if I ever get out, I know now what it means to be helpless, and the importance of being their advocate and aid. I think this sums pretty well the truth of Western Society in regards the true poor,
As for Mark Robinson's comments, I am reminded of Revelation 7:9 and Revelation 5:9.
Speaking as an outsider, admittedly, but dealing with diversity can be hard work. In our city, the leading Baptist church was wanting to reach out into a very poor 'sink estate' (housing project) and realised that getting the people along to their own city church was going to be a struggle in every way imaginable. So they chose instead to support a church in the area itself, realising that things would need to be done differently, and got as its pastor someone who in a previous life had done time for burglary and violence!
I wonder if Mark Robinson would be on stronger ground if he were challenging the PCA to church-plant in specifically African-American areas, and in ways that acknowledged the (significant) cultural differences which would be involved. From what I can tell the SBC has made a specific effort to work in this way. Disagreements with this POV welcome.
I hope we get some time to talk as well. We will be attending at clearnote in a short while. And like my last transition it will be a rather krass difference to what I am used to. This might be more appropriate to mention in private, but due to the nature of the beast I would like to share in public: I am currently attending at Emmanual RPC, my first extended exposure to "hard line" reformed culture/mindset/lingo. I don't care much for large institutions and strong ties to a denomination - but I really, really love this church family and faithful elders who took me under their wings. There is a spirit of love and truth and genuine friendship here. Most of the time we care much to see each other walk obediently and joyfully with the Lord. It would be hurtful if the church I attend is at odds with another church family I care for deeply. Know what I mean? That's my reason for asking questions. Thank you for your kind responses to my questions and the helpful clarification. I appreciate it
I'm smiling. Horses are great so I'm not offended in the least. And if someone was offended at my words in the original post, thanks for giving me an opportunity to explain myself.
You wrote: "you are not criticizing the other denominations but denominationalism."
Sure, if "denominationalism" is how you'd sum up what I wrote. What I'm really opposing is Christians—particularly Reformed Christians—promoting a party spirit and schism by resenting and opposing souls developing the gift of discernment in their choice of a church home. But you know, when the "split peas" (what my Presbyterian Dad always called tiny Presbyterian groups like the PCA and OPC) get done splitting, some people think the only way to survive is by promoting a party (what I refer to as a religious non-profit institutional) spirit.
Our Lord, on the other hand, commanded us to love and serve one another.
So again, my gratitude to you for providing the opportunity for this exchange, dear brother. Here's hoping I get to talk to you for two minutes sometime.
I am not implying that you are a horse, by the way.
That was a bit more than I expected. To summarize - you are not criticizing the other denominations but denominationalism and you are challenging church seekers on Indy to not limit themselves to their "preferred" denomination dor the denominations sake, if I understand you rightly. I had some friends who misunderstood your post, I believe. Just wanted to hear it from the horses mouth.