Sound Off 11.03.09
Written by Editor
Your comments for the week of November 3, 2009:
Share the goodness
Dan Soltys (Registered) 2009-11-04 08:14:36
I really enjoyed your article titled "Eco-Guilt." Bravo!
) 2009-11-05 13:18:11
Thanks. It is sad how cultural pressure on environmental issues have snookered so much of evangelicalism into, essentially, granting the need for another savior of the earth. This is where a real understanding of postmillennialism is essential. When we understand Christ's claims for the earth, then we ought to see that other claims to save the earth are at odds with the Gospel.
Kyriosity (Registered) 2009-11-06 16:52:07
The new C/A isn't a magazine; it's a group blog. Not that group blogs don't have their place, mind you, but they is what they is and they ain't what they ain't.
I think I'd like it better if new content were posted in clumps -- maybe once a month or so. Then maybe I'd print it all out, staple it together and place it in the smallest room in the house, where magazines are meant to be read. ;-)
) 2009-11-06 17:18:53
We would love staying a magazine as well. It was so much more impressive when I could tell my grandma that I edited a 'magazine.' But then there are those costs. So, we improvise, adapt, and overcome. But, if it means that much to you, you can probably get wireless in that little room. (I don't know how to do winky brackets, or I would.)
Yeah, I know, I know....
Kyriosity (Registered) 2009-11-06 17:45:49
...but mayn't I mourn aloud just a wee little bit? Even if it sounds suspiciously like whining?
And the wireless reaches there, but I just can't afford an extra computer.
(Winks all 'round.)
thoughts on Job
Natalie (Registered) 2009-11-07 00:19:10
I had a really hard time with the Job article because I really struggle with the idea of a God who demands that we come close to Him and then essentially destroys us when we come close. I understand that we are called to be living sacrifices, that God isn't tame, and that Christian life isn't about safety. But I wish someone could explain Job to me in light of God's role as our Father and Christ's role as our intercessor. Perhaps because my parents rather neglected both roles I tend to view God has rather aloof and potentially waiting to smack me on the head. At any rate this article scared the fajitas out of me. I want to come close to God, but I'm scared of being broken down and abandoned just when I'm most trusting and vulnerable. Any help?
tsumpter (Author) 2009-11-07 18:47:56
Good questions. And actually I do think Job offers answers. The whole point of sacrifice is the drawing up of worshipers into the presence of God our Father. I didn't emphasize this point in the article, but the whole sacrificial sequence - as painful as it may be - can and should be seen as the Father drawing faithful sons (and daughters) to Himself. That's where Job ends up, actually conversing with God and vindicated before his accusers. The fire that God has lit in our lives is His Holy Spirit, it is the Spirit whom Jesus calls the Comforter. We may naturally fear the pain, like Jesus did in Gethsemane, but Job shows us where the trials end for those who persevere in faith. They end with resurrection and glory in the presence of God; they end with vindication and blessing beyond our wildest imagining. And that means the path we will have traveled to get there will have been nothing less than the unceasing loving care of our Faithful Father.
tsumpter (Author) 2009-11-07 18:49:07
I tried to develop some of this in more detail in my series in Job this summer. Those sermons can be found here:
Natalie (Registered) 2009-11-08 18:22:03
Thanks for taking the time to flesh that out a little more for me. I'll be thinking about it for sure.
The Title Said It All
Simuliustusetpeccator (Registered) 2009-11-08 07:31:25
Valerie's right. The new C/A is more of a group blog than a magazine. And Ben, I understand that cost is a reality with which y'all have to deal.
But providing the readers with Credenda/Agenda - things to believe, things to be done - was the strength of the magazine for so long. The unifying theme of each installment laid before the reader manifold ways in which the central argument of the issue could be understood AND lived out: Husbandry, Femina, Kinder, Presbyterion, Stauron, etc. Here are several noteworthy examples: She Blinded Me with Science (on scientism and a Trinitarian response), Charasmatic Cud-de-Sac, Contending in the Gate (covenant succession and the future of the church).
From a few hours of reading these challenging articles, a reforming Christian came away with an azimuth for action in the multiple spheres in which he was called to operate on a daily basis.
Perhaps a look at the previous editorial slant is needed. Maybe more contributors n...
The Title Said It All - II
Simuliustusetpeccator (Registered) 2009-11-08 07:34:52
Got truncated - ouch!
Perhaps a look at the previous editorial slant is needed. Maybe more contributors need to be enlisted.
Like all new things, it's going to take a while for the new C/A find its level. My prayer is that whatever the medium or format, C/A will give its readers just that, things to believe and things to be done.
ndwilson (Publisher) 2009-11-09 11:27:39
A couple notes on this concern:
1. We like shiny pages. Very much.
2. We don't, however, like how ineffective shiny pages have become. While this new site is still extremely young and skeletal, it creates opportunities for the magazine (in readership and impact)that haven't existed since the mid-90s. We don't see going digital as a retreat--this is a planned advance in its early stages.
3. Even if we were flush and overflowing with cash (we're not), this is still a tactical shift we would be pursuing. And you can expect us to be maintaining 'things to be believed/things to be done' as our overarching vision.
4. Thanks so much for reading through the years, and for having the same appreciation for those old hard-copies that we do. I hope you'll enjoy the site as it gains meaty pounds in the coming months.
Ahhhh! Attack of the Homonyms!
m_dow (Registered) 2009-11-09 17:52:13
Re: the Post-Mill group-think poll
Indiscrete means "not distinct, not separated into parts." I would hope that *nobody* was separated into parts in college. Wouldn't even wish that on Plato.
I think you meant "indiscreet," i.e. lacking discretion.
Only registered users can write comments!