What I Read Online – 05/04/2013 (a.m.)

• How Technology Made me a Better Christian | HeadHeartHand Blog

  • Affordable resources
  • Searchable books
  • Economy and clarity of words
  • Current comment
  • Christian fellowship
  • Christian diversity
  • Outreach and Mission
  • Usability of biblical languages
  • Digital sanctification

• How to Change a Society in 5 Easy Steps – The Gospel Coalition Blog

  • Step #1: From Unthinkable to Radical
  • Step #2: From Radical to Acceptable
  • Step #3: From Acceptable to Sensible
  • Step #4: From Sensible to Popular
  • Step #5: From Popular to Policy
  • Sadly, such inaction has never happened and is unlikely to occur in the near future. America has produced an overwhelming number of Christians who are adept at explaining why they can support issues that are antithetical to Christianity and depressingly few who can give reasons why we should adhere to the teachings of scripture and the wisdom of the church.

• The Emperor is not Naked – Reformation21 Blog

  • would make sure that no man with a fee schedule or a minimum attendance requirement ever spoke in any church or Christian gathering anywhere; only those who never raise the issue of ‘How much?’ or “How many?’ (distinctly un-Pauline concerns, I would suggest) are worth listening to.  There are well-known men like that.  But not as many as there should be.  The Emperor is not naked but actually has clothes: tailor made silk suits from Savile Row

• What Is the Difference between Affections and Emotions? – Justin Taylor

  •  

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Affections	Emotions
    Long-lasting	Fleeting
    Deep	Superficial
    Consistent with beliefs	Sometimes overpowering
    Always result in action	Often fail to produce action
    Involve mind, will, feelings	Feelings (often) disconnected from the mind and will

     

    He explains why affections are different than emotions:

  • Affections, on the other hand, are always the fruit or effect of what the mind understands and knows. The will or inclination is moved either toward or away from something that is perceived by the mind

• “The internet is where people are”: Paul Miller is back after a year without the Internet

  • People use the Internet to communicate. If you’re not using it, you fall out of the loop.

• Speaking of Beautiful Things in a Beautiful Way: Complementarianism “New” or “Old” – Pure Church by Thabiti Anyabwile

  • When you’ve been fighting on one front for so long you can begin to respond to every front much the same way. Everything looks like a nail to a hammer. But these men and women are not calling for an oppressive patriarchy as I understand it. To equate them with patriarchal oppressors of women does them a significant disservice and fails to pay proper respect to the gains they’ve won for us all. Hence, again, the need for definition and carefulness
  • But I’m less sanguine than Alsup (perhaps?) because feminism responds to oppression by placing an explosive charge at the very pillars of a biblical understanding of gender and gender roles.

• New Wave Complementarianism: A Question and a Concern – Kevin DeYoung

  • So I’m left with my original question. I don’t mean it as a challenge or an insult, but as an honest question: Who are the old wave complementarians we should leave behind? Are we talking about the complementarianism of Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood? Are we talking about CBMW? What is new about the new wave other than the rejection of Susan Foh’s article and a dubious understanding of the imago dei in Genesis 1:27? These aren’t rhetorical questions. I’m trying to understand the attraction to a new complementarianism. Are there specific authors or books in mind? Or are we really talking about the abuses of complementarianism that we know of through painful personal experiences?
  • My one specific question leads naturally to a note of general caution. I hope that younger complementarians will not define themselves by the complementarians they’re not. I don’t doubt that complementarianism can be perverted, just as every other theology or practice can be perverted. I’m sure many points of doctrine could use a power wash every now and then, just to make sure we can see what the clean version is supposed to look like. But in a world awash in sexual confusion and deliberate gender ambiguity I wonder if the main thing we need to do is really convince people we’re not that kind of complementarian.

Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.