As I write it is Monday afternoon. I just exited Justin Taylor’s breakout session entitled: “A New Kind of Christianity? A Look at the Emerging Church Movement.” Playing off of the conference theme “Humble Orthodoxy,” this is certainly an appropriate consideration given the fact that so many within the EM (Emerging Church Movement) seek to hijack the concept of humility, trying to force it to equal uncertainty.

Let me simply be honest upfront. I was a bit curious to see just how objective Taylor would be given his ties to Wayne Grudem and John Piper. There is a tendency within Reformed Circles to give more weight to the negatives about the EM while ignoring many of the goods that are indeed coming from the movement. I say that not as a proponent of “emergence” but knowing that I have been guilty of these exact things. With that being said however, I feel that Taylor was very fair and evenhanded (but then again, that could be just because I agreed with most of what he said!).

He began by humbly admitting that he is not an expert on the movement. He was not there to simply provide conclusions, but rather, to help us to learn to think biblically for ourselves, using Dr. Mohler of a good example of how this is done. He opened with the biblical exhortations that “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction” (Proverbs 1:7) and that we must actively call out for this wisdom (Proverbs 2:1-5). Directly applying this to the considerations at hand, Taylor admonished that we must “understand before we evaluate.”

The problem in understanding EM though is that there is not a standard, uniform definition. Taylor did a good job of distinguishing between Emergent (an organization) and “emerging” (a movement, dialogue, discussion, conversation, etc. ad naseum). He noted some popular definitions that ranged from calling it a “collection of high profile churches that are youth-oriented,” to asking “aren’t those the people that use a lot of candles and couches in church?” He noted that we might go to three different sources for a definition: 1) the Sources, 2) the Critics, 3) Sociologists, etc. He rightly argued that in seeking to “understand before we evaluate,” we must start with the sources but we cannot stop there.

Going only to the emergents to understand EM, says Taylor is like going to the personal ads. Everyone always says something like: “Hobbies included listening, long walks on the beach and giving people flowers.” No one says: “Hobbies are drinking a lot of Mountain Dew, staying up late to play video games and I have bad breath.” In order to get the full picture, we must seek input from all angles, not just the “personal ad” perspective.

Taylor lists a couple of different lists of “Four Things that EM is Concerned With” One of the lists, taken from Wikipedia, the first list includes: 1) Authenticity, 2) Missional Living, 3) Narrative Theology, 4) Christlikeness and the second list taken from Emergent includes: 1) Commitment to God in the way of Jesus, 2) The church in all its forms, 3) Committed to God’s world and 4) Committed to one another. Notice that in all of these affirmations is the implicit charge that the “other people” don’t do these things.

Taylor rightly argues that EM cannot fully be understood apart from Postmodernism, which cannot be understood apart from Modernism, which in turn, cannot be understood apart from Premodernism. Broadly (VERY broadly) speaking, Taylor argues that Premodernism might be summarized in the word “supernatural,” Modernism in the word “scientific” and Postmodernism in the bumper sticker “Question Authority.” While these are admittedly oversimplified, they are at least somewhere to begin.

Here Taylor made the interesting note from Michael Horton who argues that “Postmodern is actually Most-Modern.” In other words, if the trend in Modernism was reason, then Postmodernism is simply the extension and internalization of reason to the point that it becomes the key deciding factor for many.

Taylor continued to “understand” EM by citing Ed Stetzer “3 Movements Within the Movement and then moved to the “evaluate” phase. He quoted J.I. Packer’s statement that “a half-truth masquerading as the whole truth becomes a complete untruth.” In other words, some of what EM says is true, but the fact that much of it is not means that we ought to exercise extreme caution, especially when dealing with the likes of Brian McLaren (more on that in a bit).

Taylor gave four broad categories by which to consider EM: 1) God’s Word. Here he noted the move towards “narrative” over “proposition” and argued that “the first thing out of Satan’s mouth is not a lie but a question (Genesis 3:1). The warning here was particularly against McLaren who seems to pride himself on “questions,” which in reality work to undermine the authority of Scripture. Moving back to the narrative/proposition argument, Taylor noted that Scripture is more than propositions, but it is not less than propositions. In other words, yes it is narrative, but those narratives include propositional truth, without which we no longer have the Gospel.

Second was the Cross/Atonement. Here he noted that many emergents argue that the atonement is “bigger than substitutionary atonement.” Again, while that might be true, it is certainly not less than substitutionary atonement and we are not free to question or redefine the essential elements of atonement or we are very close to renouncing our faith altogether. He noted Steve Chalke’s book “The Lost Message of Jesus” in which he refers to the traditional view of substitutionary atonement as “divine child abuse,” he calls it “twisted” and “morally dubious.” Brian McLaren refers to this as the book which could “help save Jesus from Christianity.”

Next, Taylor noted the ideas of Truth and Knowledge. Again referring to McLaren (because as Taylor noted, he’s written the most, many look to him as a spokesperson and he says the most outrageous things), Taylor noted that we cannot accuse McLaren and others of disbelieving in absolute truth. They simply believe that we cannot know truth absolutely. Taylor noted that “doubt is not a virtue” and that many “confuse exhaustive knowledge with certain knowledge.” In other words, I cannot know God exhaustively, but I can know Him with certainty.

Last, Taylor touched on Sexual Ethics, noting that many are now questioning whether premarital sex is actually sin, and of course touching on McLaren’s recent comments on homosexuality and his call for a “five year moratorium on pronouncements.” Here Taylor noted that “we have to call a spade a spade” and note that McLaren’s comments are simply foolishness. Not that he is a fool in the pejorative sense, but in the biblical sense; there is a fog that prevents him from seeing God’s clear moral commands. Taylor referenced 2 Timothy 3:7 which reads: “always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth” as an apt description of McLaren.

Before questions, Taylor asked “What’s the Alternative?” In other words, how do we move on some of the valid criticisms raised by EM and avoid the extremes of McLaren and others? Taylor argued that first we must adopt a “humble orthodoxy” and reclaim biblical humility from those who would define it as uncertainty. Secondly, we need what he called a “contextual confessionalism.” In other words, we must learn to communicate the Gospel in culturally-sensitive ways without sacrificing its nonessential elements, citing Tim Keller as an example of how to see this done well. Next, Taylor reminded us that we must “speak the truth in love” (Ephesians 4:15), which is a parallel to the call for “humble orthodoxy.” Lastly, we must always turn the critical gaze inward and see if there is any validity in the criticisms being offered up by EM.

Overall, I thought that Taylor’s presentation was fair. Of course he leans toward one side, everyone does, but he intentionally tried to focus on many of the postive aspects coming from EM while not turning a blind eye to the many negatives as well. I’d love to hear thoughts from anyone else who was able to attend.

As I posted yesterday, I am currently in Louisville, KY at the New Attitude conference with several of the college-aged people from our church. I had hoped to post something regarding each of the main sessions, but life and over-scheduling have interfered, so while I have a moment, I’d like to simply post some general thoughts now that we’re about half-way through the conference.

As already noted, Joshua Harris’ session regarding the “Humble Orthodoxy” theme led off the main sessions. Harris is Senior Pastor of Covenant Life Church in Maryland. As a pastor, I can say that I greatly appreciated his call for both humility and truth and that neither can be sacrificed. What a great theme for a conference of any stripe. There is such a need for balance and it is certainly something quite difficult to strive for. I appreciate that a conference of this stature would tackle such an important theme.

Moving from the main theme to consider some practical questions of what this might actually look like in life, Mark Dever of Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington D.C. preached his overview message of the entire Bible. I know that this biblical theological approach to Scripture is quite foreign to many and I appreciate Dever’s insistance on the unity of all Scripture pointing to and finding its fulfillment in Christ. His “Promises Made/Promises Kept” umbrella focuses well on these truths.

Moving ever more into the practical “how to” considerations, Mike Bullmore, Senior Pastor of Crossway Community Church (somewhere in WI) spoke on how to bring the Gospel to bear on specific areas of life, something with which we all struggle. He did a good job at presenting the “concentric circles of consideration” when wrestling with Scripture. The innermost circle represents those Scriptures which explicitly teach about the Gospel itself. The next is what he refers to as “Gospel Truths,” those things which are true because the Gospel is true but which are not the Gospel itself. Last was “Gospel Behavior;” how should we now live? While this is a helpful pattern, several of the comments I overheard revolved around the idea that they wished more specifics had been included. However, I think it’s probably better that he left the hearers to work out many of those individually.

Last night, C.J. Mahaney focused on the “centerpiece,” the “jewel” of Scripture as they’ve been referring to it; Christ Himself. He preached from Isaiah 53 and meditating greatly on Christ’s substituionary atonement and how that reveals God’s love and ought to continually bring joy to our weary hearts.

This morning, Jeff Purswell preached regarding the person and work of the Holy Spirit in bringing us to a “humble orthodoxy.” I hope to post more on this sometime, but this is perhaps where I differ the most from Sovereign Grace Ministries. Though I would not consider myself a full cessationist, I am by no means “charismatic” in the sense that they are. I am greatly hesitant about their use of the terms “prophecy,” “prophet,” “prophetic” and anything within that realm. I felt that some of Purswell’s handling of Acts as prescriptive rather than merely descriptive was forced and I was uncomfortable with his line of “place yourself in the channels where the Holy Spirit dwells and you’ll receive His annointing” approach.

However, with that being said, I greatly appreciate the fact that they would take an entire session and focus on the work of the Holy Spirit. This is a doctrine (and practice) which is often greatly misunderstood and neglected, particularly within Reformed circles (which this would still be). I do think that the ground for agreement here is much larger than disagreement but I would simply like to express some hesitant caution at some of the language and practices (more on that later I pray!).

This afternoon (it’s Monday morning as I write) are the breakout sessions (I’m hoping to hear Justin Taylor address some “emergent” concerns; should be interesting.) and then two more main sessions. There are also two late-night concerts. Last night was Voice and this evening features Telecast, whose “Beauty of Simplicity” is one of my favorite “worship” discs.

Overall, I must say that the conference is very beneficial and extremely well produced. From the venue to the organizational details, everything has been handled with excellence. The theme is pertinent (I will avoid the term “relevant”) to our modern situation, the speakers are passionate and the listeners equally so. I pray that the issue raised here will not stay here but will find themselves lived out in many ways for many days.

I’m back in Louisville. Just a couple of weeks after attending the “Together For the Gospel” conference with our staff and elders, I have returned to the New Attitude conference, bringing some of our singles and college-aged people. As I write, it’s Saturday night and I’ve been up for approximately 20 hours or so with about an hour nap sometime during the almost 14 hour drive.

This evening’s main session featured Joshua Harris preaching from 2 Timothy 2 regarding this year’s theme, “A Humble Orthodoxy.” This of course is the serious side of the tongue-in-cheek “Save the Wheel” campaign. The campaign, highlights the obvious fact that:

“certain things shouldn’t be reinvented. The wheel is a perfect invention; its tried and true design has held up for thousands of years. The packaging may have changed (we don’t use wheels carved out of stone anymore) but the concept has stayed the same.

Like the wheel, Truth never changes. You can’t reinvent or improve on Truth. This is the Wheel: unchanging Truth established by God.

It’s truth that He has established about Himself, His Word, His church, and His plan for our redemption for His glory. Our role shouldn’t be to remake these truths in our own image, but to rediscover and recommit to them. We don’t show up and change Truth. We let Truth change us.

Harris’ initial message 2 Timothy 2:15 as the central theme of the passage. Reading “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.” Throughout his message and from the conference title itself, it is clear that the conference clearly has Brian Mclaren and his “Generous Orthodoxy” in mind.

This became all the more clear for those familiar with McLaren’s “humble” approach. In truth, this approach claims that in “humilty,” we ought to be very slow to say that anyone else is wrong. In response and reading a quote from Mark Dever, Harris asserted that it is not humble to question things on which Scripture is clear. Though it was not stated, one has to wonder how much McLaren’s “certainty is dangerous” actually undermines not only Scripture but the Gospel.

Joining the “Together For the Gospel’s” voice, this conference is calling believers to first and foremost “rightly handle the Word of truth,” and to understand that there are some things regarding which we not only can but must be certain on. That is the very nature of orthodoxy; the understanding that there are historical, common beliefs from which we cannot depart, hence the term unorthodox. McLaren’s approach undermines this very concept, and while he may indeed ocassionaly say some insightful things, it seems that that’s simply because he talks so much he’s bound to say something good once in a while.

The charge of arrogance and judgmentalism often follows those who call for a stand on absolute truth. Hence the title “Humble Orthodoxy.” We cannot allow McLaren and others to define humility as being unwilling to take stands. Paul certainly took hard stands and we are called to do no less, but when it comes to that, we must be drenched in tears and bathed in prayer. Too many of us have liked being right more than anything else, and as a result, we’ve closed many ears that might have otherwise listened.

Towards the end of his message, Harris made the insightful clarification that we must have both aspects of the equation. We may have a harsh orthodoxy that turns people off with its approach, but all the humility will save no one if it does not accompany the truth. I pray that these renewed calls for “humble orthodoxy” will indeed be heard and applied that we may see this generation truly “Do our best to present yourself to God as one approved.”

Fridays are special days here at the blog. We set aside some time to revel in the arts. I regularly link to the photography of Steve McCoy, Joe Thorn, Alex Forrest, Timmy Brister, and Joe Kennedy as well as the history musings of Will Turner. I also take time to highlight a specific poet and include at least a couple of poems since we’re all about using language, it’s nice to see it done well! I also try to highlight a different musical artist that has music available for free downloading.

This week’s poet is Carl Sandburg (1878-1967). During his career, Sandburg won two Pulizter Prizes for literature. Much of his poetry focused on life in Chicago where he lived. And now on to the poetry:

Lost
Desolate and lone
All night long on the lake
Where fog trails and mist creeps,
The whistle of a boat
Calls and cries unendingly,
Like some lost child
In tears and trouble
Hunting the harbor’s breast
And the harbor’s eyes.

To a Dead Man
Over the dead line we have called to you
To come across with a word to us,
Some beaten whisper of what happens
Where you are over the dead line
Deaf to our calls and voiceless.

The flickering shadows have not answered
Nor your lips sent a signal
Whether love talks and roses grow
And the sun breaks at morning
Splattering the sea with crimson.

• Read Wikipedia’s entry on Carl Sandburg.
• Buy Selected Poems by Carl Sandburg.

Today’s music downloads come from a band I was just recently introduced to (I don’t remember how). They are an instrumental folk band from Sweden called Det Gamla Landet (literally meaning “The Old Country”). Their simple sound consists of banjo, guitar, melodica, and the occasional drum and organ. Sometimes resembling the instrumental pieces of Halifax Pier or Max Avery Lichtensten, this band has a tremendously warm and inviting sound. Definitely one of my favorite recent instrumental finds. Enjoy.

• Download Tolv Under
• Download Åtta År Av Krig Är Värt Ett Bröllop
• Download När skåne slocknar
• Watch a three minute live video from Le Le, Malmö, 6th March 2004.
• Visit Det Gamla Landet’s official website
• Buy Det Gamla Landet’s music

Another week marked off more, stuff to browse, more pages to turn, more mouses to click, more junk-mail to toss, more voice-mails to delete, welcome to the Weekly Town Crier! Here’s some of what caught my attention ever-so-briefly this past week:

Read the East Tennessee State University School Newspaper’s pick for 21 best albums of this century thus far. Selections include Sigur Ros - Ágætis Byrjun, “everything by Ryan Adams,” which seems a bit of a stretch, Heartbreaker I can see, but everything; Wilco - Yankee Hotel Foxtrot, Radiohead - Kid A, and Sufjan Stevens - Come On Feel the Illinoise (curiously missing is anything by the Flaming Lips, is that just me?).

Browse the official website for this year’s “Bang On a Can” marathon featuring music by John Adams, Aphex Twin, Michael Nyman and performances by Amiina (formerly Amina), So Percussion and others.

Read James White’s thoughts on seeing the Da Vinci Code movie.

Visit our church’s website and learn about our new preschool ministry.

Read Pitchfork’s piece pondering the possibilities of the new crop of music recommendation services.

Read CNN’s newsflash that Madeline Albright is troubled by George W. Bush’s faith. She ought to be.

Read Christianity Today’s piece “It’s a Selfish System” featuring an interview with guitarist Phil Keaggy, in which he says what many feel. Speaking of the “CCM” model, he says that “we’re so discouraged by the selfish system put in place, based upon the model of the world.”

Ars Technia profiles eMusic, a favorite download service of mine. Sign up for eMusic, expose yourself to a world of new music and help me get free downloads in the process!

Look into my ears and see what I’ve been listening to.

Freepay has changed its rules and imposed deadlines, so please, Please PLEASE, help us both earn a free laptop, a free Mac Mini, a free iPod video or a free iPod Nano. Come on, help a brother out….I now only have until May 30.

Send a Bible to China through VoM’s “Bibles Unbound” program.

Read Blender’s list of the fifty worst songs EVER, topped off by “We Built This City” by Starship, a questionable selection to say the least (not that it will appear on any “Best Songs Ever” list either!).

Read and read Tim Challies’ thoughts regarding Mark Driscoll in which he expresses concern over issues of irreverance and vulgarity, just as I did here.

Read Justin Taylor’s thoughts about Tim Challies’ thoughts about Mark Driscoll.

Read Lark News‘ parody piece regarding the “2006 Pastor’s Draft.” Good stuff, thanks Carey.

For you runners, read about the Nike/Apple iPod collaboration.

Peep Mark’s “Wrestler of the Week,” this week featuring “Hillbilly Jim.” He’s one I don’t remember, though I was a fan of wrestling as a child.

Read “Left Behind by the Da Vinci Code” by Al Mohler in which he responds to recent comments by Brian McLaren arguing that the best-selling Christianity bashing book and movie as not as dangerous as the “Left Behind” series. Mohler summarizes his thoughts on McLaren’s approach by stating, “This is just not a responsible way to deal with a serious theological challenge.” I have to be honest, the more I hear from McLaren, the more worried I become that he is allowed to have any influence at all.

Read Alex Forrest’s “Marriage Protection Sunday?” in which he questions this most-recent Southern Baptist fad.

Read Jim Hamilton’s interesting “Salvation Through Judgment For the Glory of God” in which he argues for the centrality of judgment in salvation.

Every once in a while, those entertainment/news programs highlight some “tough love” program. On rare occasions, this means a lot of yelling and perhaps physical abuse. However, in the vast majority of cases, it means that consequences are consistently administered. Something has gone terribly awry when we must place the qualifier “tough” before what should simply be biblical love.

Our society has come to define love as simply forgiving (time after time after time ……..). Any notion of consequence is immediately dismissed as harsh, unloving and worse, judgmental. No one wants to be judgmental, after all, doesn’t Matthew 7:1 say “Judge not, that you be not judged?”

Yet, whatever jesus meant, we know that He did not intend for sin to go either unconfronted or without consequences, for only 11 chapters later, He gives clear and detailed instructions for doing just that, resulting in the exclusion from fellowship (Matthew 18:15-20). We know that “God is love” (1 John 4:7) and yet we see throughout Scripture God both enacting and calling His people to enact consequences for sin.

As for the modern interpretation of Matthew 7:1, we must argue that it is lacking at best and less than Scriptural at worst. Paul himself admonishes the church at Corinth for not judging the sin in their presence (1 Corinthians 5). In 1 Corinthians 5:12, he even instructs them explicitly to judge the sin in their presence, saying: “Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge?” Christ’s admonition was two-fold, we are not to possess judgmental spirits and we cannot condemn, that belongs to God alone. Christ certainly did not mean that we let sin go unconfronted under some false pretense of love.

Indeed, many have done a poor job at communicating the heart and spirit behind both accountability and church discipline. The goal is never exclusion, but always restoration. The spirit is never condemning but always broken. If it is done otherwise, it is done outside the confines of Scripture. Too many professing, well-intentioned Believers have not only tolerated but promoted sin under the banner of the world’s defnition of love rather than that of Scripture.

Christians must take personal holiness and the purity of the Church with deadly earnestness. We take sin far too lightly and we misunderstand love. The result is that too many churches resemble the world far more than they resemble Christ. We must lovingly call sin sin and we must humbly be willing to enact consequences at a progressing level.

In Matthew 18:15-20 when Jesus gives instructions regarding the confrontation of sin, there is a clear progression of events:

If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 18Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 19Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.

Notice that the very first step is that the offended party must not only recognize the action as sin (something itself too commonly missing!) but must tell the offender his fault! We’re commanded! Then, if they don’t listen, go with others! If they still don’t listen, tell it to the church! If they still don’t listen, put them out of the church! How foreign from so many modern approaches that call themselves Christian.

I discipline my children because I care. I correct because I love them. If I see a friend whom I know is easily offended racing towards a cliff, I don’t say, “well, I love him, I’ll let him plummet.” No, I say, “BECAUSE I love him, I have to tell him! I’ll tackle him if I have to!”

We must be intentional in being shaped by Scripture rather than the world and we must understand that true love is always tough love.

One of the more (sometimes) entertaining aspects of being a pastor is the “would you look at this and let me know your thoughts” process. I must say that I feel incredibly blessed to minister in a congregation that takes the care of its own souls seriously as well as the application of the Word; they are great about weighing everything against the Word and I pray that I might simply aid in that process. But as people bring items for my thoughts, some of them are more entertaining (shall we say odd?) than others.

I recently encountered one that took more than a second look to make sure I was reading it correctly. A friend recently brought the book “The Real Meaning of the Zodiac (Special TBN Edition)” by D. James Kennedy, Ph.D. with the “what are your thoughts” question. I must say that at first I had to do a double-take. Though I’ve had some concerns regarding Kennedy over the past few years, none of them prepared me for a “Special TBN Edition” of one of his books, complete with Paul and Jan Crouch on the back.

According to the book flap, “Cataclysmic events have shaken world. Uncertainty is on the rise, and so is interest in the occust and astrogology.” But thank goodness that “Startling discoveries related by eminent theologian Dr. D. james Kennedy prove that God created the Zodiac! God intended the stars to foretell the future of the world.” Friends, fear not because now we can “Discover what Dr. Kennedy calls biblical astrology or the Gospel in the stars.”

You read correctly. D. James Kennedy wrote a book defending the practice of astrology and it was published by TBN ministries. Kennedy bases his arguments from Genesis 1:14 which reads:

And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years

As you might guess, Kennedy bases his argument on the admonition that the “lights in the expanse” are to be for “signs.” He pauses here to ask “what is a sign” and answers: “A sign is something which proclaims a message.”

From this flimsy foundation, Kennedy moves to reference Job 38:31-32 which mentions “Pleiades” and “Orion” and Psalm 19:1-3 which says that:

The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge. There is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not heard

Kennedy argues that

The Gospel in the stars is just another example of God’s original message being perverted by Satan and sinful men. Instead of trusting the Christ to which the stars point so gloriously, people who practice astrology trust in the stars themselves. The modern corruption of astrology expresses the idea that some mysterious, magical, and supernatural powers emanate from the houses of the zodia which affect and control destiny and lives. That is the lie of Satan which will destroy every soul that believes it. Instead, what God put in the stars is a glorious sky-painting of Jesus Christ as the Lord of Glory. Our goal is to rediscover this original message and proclaim it for God’s glory.

throughout the rest of the book, Kennedy argues through each of the twelve signs of the zodiac, arguing how each of them points to Christ and that believers ought to learn the art of astrology to learn these “signs” God has given us. As you can see, Kennedy’s book is not strong on exegesis. In fact, it is extremely poor in its handling of Scripture and potentially dangerous in its portrayal of astrology as something somehow “Christian.”

I won’t spend too much time refuting Kennedy’s arguments other than briefly looking at Genesis 1:14 which he uses as his foundation. Umberto Cassuto argues that

“Various interpretations of the clause, and particularly of the word signs have been suggested. The correct explanation appears to be this: the verb is used in its normal connotation of “signs”, that is, let them serve as signs unto the inhabitants of the world (Gunkel), to wit, as signs for the determination of the seasons and for the division of time.”

Likewise, Allen P. Ross notes that the

“verse may be translated ’signs for the fixed seasons, that is, days and years. What folly it was to follow the astrological charts of the Babylonians or to look to the sun god of the Egyptians, thinking that the answers to destiny were there. Rather, Israel must trust in the personal God who created all these stars and planets by his Word.”

In other words, yes the stars were placed in the sky as “signs” but not in the astrological sense. Rather, they serve to mark the passing of time and the progression of seasons. One possible sense in which the stars might be used for “signs” not mentioned is navigational, but that hardly qualifies as a “story in the stars” as Kennedy would like to argue.

Kennedy argues that “there exists in the writings of virtually all civilized nations a description of the major stars in the heavens - something which might be called their “Constellations of the Zodiac.” He therefore concludes that since “virtually all civilized nations” have engaged in astrology, that it must be from and for God!

Kennedy’s book is a sobering reminder for us all that Scripture is the final authority. Simply because we can argue that something might be used for Christian purposes, this in no way means that we ought to use everything. Kennedy’s careless use of Scripture is a terrible reminder that all of us are prone to following the thinking of the world rather than of God and that discernment is often harder to practice that we might like to think.