I admit, I love blogging. I love reading blogs, I love writing blogs.
But, I spend too much time doing all of the above.
Along with that, I spend too much time on Facebook, Google+, and a bunch of other time wasters.
So, here's the deal. I am working on a new blog that is currently under construction. I do not have a launch date, but if all goes well, I am aiming for the end of November 2011. New name, new site, new blog. What will happen to "Deliver Detroit"? I don't know yet. I imagine the domain will transfer links to the new name, but that is still to be determined.
I am also in dyer need of spending some time studying for my State Licensing Exam for Social Work. I also have a back log of books to read and review that are collecting dust.
Most importantly, I want to spend more time with my wife and daughter in the Word of God.
So you might see an occassional book review, theological thought, or link to something nifty, but as of today, Deliver Detroit is officially on a blog sabbatical.
See you in November!
Oct 24, 2011
Oct 23, 2011
And the Winner is...
Andrew won the book giveaway contest for Van Parunak's book, "Except for Fornication: The Teaching of Lord Jesus on Divorce and Remarriage."
When asked if this issue was one reserved for elders or if all believers should be informed of the dilemma, Andrew responded,
"All Christians should know where they stand. We're currently dealing with a potential divorce situation at our church and the people who haven't thought much about the issue aren't helping the situation much."
I agree with Andrew. As Van stated in the preface to his book, an old professor encouraged his students to know where they stand now, so when they face the issue they will not be struggling to counsel others when they are needed most.
Not being informed of our position on scriptural matters lends more to confusion and poor counsel. Let us be students of the word and study to show ourselves approved workmen.
Congratulations Andrew.
When asked if this issue was one reserved for elders or if all believers should be informed of the dilemma, Andrew responded,
"All Christians should know where they stand. We're currently dealing with a potential divorce situation at our church and the people who haven't thought much about the issue aren't helping the situation much."
I agree with Andrew. As Van stated in the preface to his book, an old professor encouraged his students to know where they stand now, so when they face the issue they will not be struggling to counsel others when they are needed most.
Not being informed of our position on scriptural matters lends more to confusion and poor counsel. Let us be students of the word and study to show ourselves approved workmen.
Congratulations Andrew.
Oct 19, 2011
Free Book Giveaway: Except for Fornication, The Teaching of the Lord Jesus on Divorce and Remarriage
**Due to a limited response and apparent commenting errors, this giveaway has been extended. If you have problems commenting, please email me thegospelisgood(AT)hot(mail)(Dot)com and please see the details below.
That's right. You read it. Free book.
I love free books. Matter of fact, I love free books so much, I would like to give one away to someone else!
To enter, submit a comment with your answer to the question,
"Should all Christians know where they stand on the matter of divorce and remarriage, or is it only something that elders should deal with?"
All comments must be submitted by Tuesday, October 18th 2011 Saturday, October 22nd, 2011. I will draw a winner and post the results on October 19th Sunday, October 23rd here at the blog.
BONUS: If you have a blog or personal website, create a post and share a link back to this blog entry. Once you have, leave an additional comment below with a link back to your blog or website and I will enter your name an additional time.
No extra entries for Facebook, Twitter, or Google + link backs, but they would be appreciated nonetheless!
In September, I reviewed this entry of the Energion Aeropagus Series, "Except for Fornication." This book has proved very useful to me in personal study concerning the issue of divorce and remarriage, and I believe it to be something of worthy consideration to any serious bible student.
Whether you already have a settled opinion regarding this matter or not, a free book, less than 80 pages, and some serious exegesis to wrap your noggin around is very worth it.
I look forward to hearing from all of you!
That's right. You read it. Free book.
I love free books. Matter of fact, I love free books so much, I would like to give one away to someone else!
To enter, submit a comment with your answer to the question,
"Should all Christians know where they stand on the matter of divorce and remarriage, or is it only something that elders should deal with?"
 |
| Purchase this book on Amazon! |
BONUS: If you have a blog or personal website, create a post and share a link back to this blog entry. Once you have, leave an additional comment below with a link back to your blog or website and I will enter your name an additional time.
No extra entries for Facebook, Twitter, or Google + link backs, but they would be appreciated nonetheless!
In September, I reviewed this entry of the Energion Aeropagus Series, "Except for Fornication." This book has proved very useful to me in personal study concerning the issue of divorce and remarriage, and I believe it to be something of worthy consideration to any serious bible student.
Whether you already have a settled opinion regarding this matter or not, a free book, less than 80 pages, and some serious exegesis to wrap your noggin around is very worth it.
I look forward to hearing from all of you!
Oct 18, 2011
Free Book Giveaway: Except for Fornication, The Teaching of the Lord Jesus on Divorce and Remarriage
Apparently there was a commenting error causing people to be unable to post there comments.
The corrected comment form is available at this link http://www.deliverdetroit.com/2011/10/free-book-giveaway-except-for.html
Or by just scrolling to the most recent post on this blog.
Sorry for the inconvenience.
The corrected comment form is available at this link http://www.deliverdetroit.com/2011/10/free-book-giveaway-except-for.html
Or by just scrolling to the most recent post on this blog.
Sorry for the inconvenience.
Oct 11, 2011
Accused of church aversion
This post was originally written in 2008. In this post, I reflect on the position experienced by those who begin questioning the traditional patterns of the church in our day. Have you ever been accused of having an aversion to modern church?
One might become ostracized when discussing ecclesiology with individuals whose only exposure to it is that of the position justified by tradition, then proven from scripture. The perspective of 'church' being implemented as it is found in practice throughout the New Testament is often frowned upon and dismissed as being impossible to embrace due to cultural restraints we now face daily. As emergent as many may find this to sound, I think it's at least owed a second look in our study.
Some of us can discuss this openly, humbly, and in Christian love. But most of us, will dismiss the other party as a confessing heretic only to never find ourselves in fellowship with one another again. Whether or not fellowship ever existed between parties to begin with bears little relevance when the topic matter creates enough friction to cause harm or hatred toward a brother.
Most often, proponents of this perspective are misunderstood. Rightly so, as the norm is created by those who are zealous and promote a complete retreat to the other end of the spectrum where there is no return to the middle in sight. Either way, we need to remember that the disillusioned generation that has spawned and multiplied under the wing of emergent theology, there is still a part of that group that still resides under the wing of biblical theology.
One that does well to seek discipleship under the teachings of our Lord, also does well to understand that it isn't a retreat that's needed. It's a recovery. So when you encounter someone who may share in this thinking, you could remember to hear out the evidence first. Or just do what's always done, accuse, dismiss, and then accuse them of having an aversion toward preaching, institutions, or true church. Or in other words, dismiss their legitimate aversion toward cultural christianity and assign them false convert status because they don't meet the status quo.
One might become ostracized when discussing ecclesiology with individuals whose only exposure to it is that of the position justified by tradition, then proven from scripture. The perspective of 'church' being implemented as it is found in practice throughout the New Testament is often frowned upon and dismissed as being impossible to embrace due to cultural restraints we now face daily. As emergent as many may find this to sound, I think it's at least owed a second look in our study.
Some of us can discuss this openly, humbly, and in Christian love. But most of us, will dismiss the other party as a confessing heretic only to never find ourselves in fellowship with one another again. Whether or not fellowship ever existed between parties to begin with bears little relevance when the topic matter creates enough friction to cause harm or hatred toward a brother.
Most often, proponents of this perspective are misunderstood. Rightly so, as the norm is created by those who are zealous and promote a complete retreat to the other end of the spectrum where there is no return to the middle in sight. Either way, we need to remember that the disillusioned generation that has spawned and multiplied under the wing of emergent theology, there is still a part of that group that still resides under the wing of biblical theology.
One that does well to seek discipleship under the teachings of our Lord, also does well to understand that it isn't a retreat that's needed. It's a recovery. So when you encounter someone who may share in this thinking, you could remember to hear out the evidence first. Or just do what's always done, accuse, dismiss, and then accuse them of having an aversion toward preaching, institutions, or true church. Or in other words, dismiss their legitimate aversion toward cultural christianity and assign them false convert status because they don't meet the status quo.
Sep 29, 2011
Christianity and Social Work - Part 4
This is the fourth entry in a series of posts addressing Christianity and Social Work. The purpose of these posts is to view questions proposed from a friend a few years back when he learned that I was pursuing a degree in Social Work. You can see the entire series as it is posted by clicking here. So, here is the next entry, enjoy!
Q. How does Social Work interface with Christianity?
A. Good question! There are a plethora of views on this topic that could be better explored independently of this discussion. But, for our purpose, I would assert that Christianity is the foundation behind the 'movement' and profession we often label Social Work.
To ask where these two entities 'interface' automatically assumes that they are in a dichotomous relationship. While the contemporaneous demonstration of social work and its academic institution across the land have set the modern precedent of what 'social work' is and how it is carried out, it really has its root in the outpouring of a Christian value and core faith tenet, loving one as he loves himself.
In closing, I will post a few links at the bottom of this entry, and include a quote from Alan Keith-Lucas' book "So You Want to be a Social Worker: A Primer for the Christian Student." I believe the author sums up the dilemma posed in this question rather well. It really does get to the bottom of our thinking when we as "Christians" begin to look at social work as a profession appointed to those who have been professionally trained, and not the tenet or vocation itself being born out of one's values and intrinsic convictions of faith.
Therein lies the disconnect. There has to be an "interface." For most of us, that is acceptable to create those borders and lines that distinguish areas of our lives of when we are one thing and other times another. But for me, my life in social work is because I am Christian. Therefore, they interface at the cross of Jesus Christ.
Charles Loring Brace and the Orphan Trains
Jane Addams and the Settlement House Movement
Q. How does Social Work interface with Christianity?
A. Good question! There are a plethora of views on this topic that could be better explored independently of this discussion. But, for our purpose, I would assert that Christianity is the foundation behind the 'movement' and profession we often label Social Work.
To ask where these two entities 'interface' automatically assumes that they are in a dichotomous relationship. While the contemporaneous demonstration of social work and its academic institution across the land have set the modern precedent of what 'social work' is and how it is carried out, it really has its root in the outpouring of a Christian value and core faith tenet, loving one as he loves himself.
In closing, I will post a few links at the bottom of this entry, and include a quote from Alan Keith-Lucas' book "So You Want to be a Social Worker: A Primer for the Christian Student." I believe the author sums up the dilemma posed in this question rather well. It really does get to the bottom of our thinking when we as "Christians" begin to look at social work as a profession appointed to those who have been professionally trained, and not the tenet or vocation itself being born out of one's values and intrinsic convictions of faith.
"The real difference between Christians when it comes to theology does not lie in their secondary or tertiary beliefs. It lies in their whole attitude toward the Good News. Is is essentially a matter of emphasis. There are Christians, for example, whose interest in their religion is directed towards their own relationship with the Almighty. They are concerned chiefly with their own salvation. Theirs might be called a vertical religion. All communication is upwards and downwards, between themselves and God. Their relationships with people are not seen as part of their religion, except, perhaps, as they try to obey the commands that God has given them about justice and mercy and "loving one's neighbor as oneself", which they conscientiously try to do, but without any real concern for what their neighbor is thinking or feeling. The result, in too many cases, is a concern only for the spiritual state of their neighbors, a narrow form of evangelism and a lack of concern for such things as tolerable living conditions for others. They sometimes express their views by speaking of the "spirituality" of the church. The church, in their view, should be concerned only with the saving of souls, and need not trouble itself with the plight of the hungry, the oppressed or the troubled. It should also steer clear of any temptation to become involved in questions of social justice."
Therein lies the disconnect. There has to be an "interface." For most of us, that is acceptable to create those borders and lines that distinguish areas of our lives of when we are one thing and other times another. But for me, my life in social work is because I am Christian. Therefore, they interface at the cross of Jesus Christ.
Charles Loring Brace and the Orphan Trains
Jane Addams and the Settlement House Movement
Sep 28, 2011
Vantage Point: Sermons and Peter the Pulpit Preacher - Part 1
The sermon is under attack. Its accusers claim that it is ineffective or out of date. In contrast to such criticism, the sermon is heavily emphasized and utilized in many Christian meetings to communicate biblical data to the masses, and as a brother from our assembly points out,
The post offers a highly insightful and well reasoned presentation in defense of the sermon. It may even surprise you that this brother's idea of a sermon allows for questioning and verbal interaction. In the end, the post itself rests upon the premise that sermons are biblical, and have precedent through scriptural reference. I will not argue against the points made in the above post but will instead direct us to consider the nature of Peter's message in Acts 2:14-36. Was it extemporaneous, or was it carefully planned as the author states in the following?
My observations of the oratory given by Peter lead to another conclusion. Peter's 'sermon' was not a sermon at all. It should be noted that the schema in which we process the idea of a 'sermon' must be addressed. A sermon from the perspective of modern day pulpit preaching comes to mind, and the presentation places the deliverer in front of his audience. This same schema connotes planned preparation and crafted rhetoric. Reading such contemporary perceptions back into the texts of scripture can easily lead us astray.
I do not wish to offer a refutation of the above articles or point out invalidity of any of this brother's statements. What I would like to offer for you is a series of posts that will highlight some points from the book of Acts that provide evidence of genuine apostolic doctrine in action. While this brother's conclusions result in a case for careful preparation prior to confronting the masses with rhetorical structuring and systematic exposition, what I have found is that Peter was more of an opportunist and evangelist than a trained exegete or sophist.
What do you think? Do you think that Peter's sermon in Acts 2:14-36 was a prepared sermon? What indicators in the text lead you to this conclusion or disagreement? I hope to offer more in the next post in this series, Vantage Point: Sermons and Peter the Pulpit Preacher - Part 2.
*Arthur Sido asks a similar question at his blog - "A different perspective on sermons."
"The Sermon is so central to many groups that its delivery is one of the main duties of a professionally trained and salaried individual, the pastor."The same brother, in his post, "In Defense of the Sermon" highlights not the problems with sermons, but the specific problems affecting today's sermons in our modern context. The post will in turn draw your attention to biblical anecdotes, the effectiveness of a good sermon, and even how to benefit as a listener.
The post offers a highly insightful and well reasoned presentation in defense of the sermon. It may even surprise you that this brother's idea of a sermon allows for questioning and verbal interaction. In the end, the post itself rests upon the premise that sermons are biblical, and have precedent through scriptural reference. I will not argue against the points made in the above post but will instead direct us to consider the nature of Peter's message in Acts 2:14-36. Was it extemporaneous, or was it carefully planned as the author states in the following?
To be clear: what I mean by “sermon” is an extended lecture on a biblical text or theme, prepared in advance by one individual who delivers it orally to a group of people. Unlike a discussion, the presentation is asymmetric (primarily from the teacher to the congregation, though it may be interrupted by questions). Unlike a meditation, it develops its content with an argument that usually takes some time to present. Unlike an extemporaneous address, the teacher devotes effort to preparing it in advance.Before reading on, please be sure to have read the original article. When you finish that, read a follow up to one reader's comment "Peter's Planned Presentation."
My observations of the oratory given by Peter lead to another conclusion. Peter's 'sermon' was not a sermon at all. It should be noted that the schema in which we process the idea of a 'sermon' must be addressed. A sermon from the perspective of modern day pulpit preaching comes to mind, and the presentation places the deliverer in front of his audience. This same schema connotes planned preparation and crafted rhetoric. Reading such contemporary perceptions back into the texts of scripture can easily lead us astray.
I do not wish to offer a refutation of the above articles or point out invalidity of any of this brother's statements. What I would like to offer for you is a series of posts that will highlight some points from the book of Acts that provide evidence of genuine apostolic doctrine in action. While this brother's conclusions result in a case for careful preparation prior to confronting the masses with rhetorical structuring and systematic exposition, what I have found is that Peter was more of an opportunist and evangelist than a trained exegete or sophist.
What do you think? Do you think that Peter's sermon in Acts 2:14-36 was a prepared sermon? What indicators in the text lead you to this conclusion or disagreement? I hope to offer more in the next post in this series, Vantage Point: Sermons and Peter the Pulpit Preacher - Part 2.
*Arthur Sido asks a similar question at his blog - "A different perspective on sermons."
Sep 27, 2011
Faith that's quotable: Leonard Ravenhill
This is a really difficult one to pass up, and no this series would not be well served without including brother Leonard Ravenhill.I remember the first time I heard this man speak. It was via an audio compilation called "The Revival Hymn." His words cut to the heart and spurred motivation in the deepest recesses of my spirit that I never knew existed.
Ravenhill has written a great deal and is looked upon with admiration by many. But one thing Mr. Ravenhill would most likely detest is admiration of him to the neglect of the words he spoke.
Leonard Ravenhill was a powerful bible teacher and prophetic messenger in our time, certainly he possessed a faith that's quotable,
"One said, "If I lead somebody to Christ on the street, which church should I send him to?" (Sending someone to church today is) like taking a newborn baby and putting it in a refrigerator. I want a place that vibrates with God, vibrates with eternity."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)