Just a quick reminder for you to be thinking about your year-end list. What particularly impressed you this year, and what did not? Particularly, I want you to be thinking about how the Gospel has come to bear on all of the choices you make (hopefully it has!). I’m looking forward to browsing your lists!
The guidelines are simple:

• Please follow the guidelines.
• Please submit responses only for the listed categories.
• Please try to include at least a sentence or two on why you made each selection. This makes for a much more interesting read and it’s actually the whole point.
• Please return submissions (by e-mail) no later than: Saturday, December 23.
• Please include a small JPEG photo of yourself if possible, or a link to one if online.
• Please include your name, city and state of residence and a link if you are somewhere online.
• Please e-mail your list to me at kpita@yahoo.com.
• Please pass this on and get as many people as you can to participate!

Please submit responses for as many categories as you’d like, but don’t feel the need to answer for all the categories. For example, if you really don’t watch many movies, then don’t feel pressed to include selections for that category. Again, please try to include a short bit about why you made the selection you did; give us some insight as to why you think this is the year’s best.

The Categories (In no particular order):

Music:

• Album(s) of the Year - Must have been released in 2006, may be from any genre.
• Music “Find(s) of the Year” - Something that you “discovered” during 2006 but it may have been released any time. The key is that you first heard it this year.
• Song of the Year - Again, must have been released during 2006.
• Back Catalogue(s) of the Year - What artist did you discover this year and investigated further?
• Artist/Performer of the Year - What artist has impressed you the most during 2006?
• Misc. music thoughts for 2006.

Movies:

• Movie(s) of the Year - Must have been released in 2006.
• Movie “Find(s) of the Year” - Released any time, but you first saw it in 2006.
• Actor/Actress of the Year - Who has particularly impressed you this year?
• Misc. movie thoughts for 2006.

Reading:

• Book(s) of the Year - Must have been released in 2006 in any genre.
• Book “Find(s) of the Year” - published any time, but you first read it in 2006.
• Author of the Year - What author has made a particular impression on you or just made a huge impact in 2006 and why?
• Misc. reading thoughts for 2006.

Pop Culture:

• Person of the Year - You decide the criteria (most influence, etc.)
• Pop Culture Moment(s) Or Trend of the Year - What will 2006 be remembered for?
• Misc. cultural thoughts for 2006?

Faith:

• What theological Truth(s) has particularly “hit home” for you this past year?
• What have you been meditating on throughout the year?
• In what areas have you grown the most this year and why?
• Has any particular Scripture really impacted you this year?
• Misc. faith thoughts for 2006?

Misc.:

• This is where you can include anything you think I should have, thoughts about the Cardinals winning the World Series, what have you. Notice that I don’t have a “Sports” category, so if you do, it would go here.

Please e-mail submissions to me at kpita@yahoo.com no later than Saturday, December 23, 2006.

Rediscovering The Natural Law In Reformed Theological Ethics
Stephen J. Grabill
Published by Eerdmans, 2006
310 pages, paperback

Stephen J. Grabill is a research scholar in theology for the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty and the inaugural editor of the Journal of Markets and Morality who blogs at Common Notions. Grabill holds degrees from Liberty University and Calvin Theological seminary, including a Ph.D. According to his bio on the Acton Institute’s site, “Grabill’s research interests include Protestant social thought, the thought of Abraham Kuyper, and Christian social ethics.”

While one might expect a book on natural law and reformed ethics written by a “research scholar” to be dry and academic, Grabill’s book exceeds expectations. His style is clear, concise and informative. He clearly informs and interacting with a broad range and depth of material. So what exactly are the issues Grabill is interacting with?

Over the course of history, the doctrine of the natural law (which is closely associated with “natural theology“) has come under the disfavor of many reformed theologians. At root is the issue of just how much the Fall affected the imago Dei (the image of God) in man. Many reformed theologians have come to reject the notion of natural law because they believe that it begins to underemphasize the true severity of the Fall. Yet, Grabill insists that his book’s

“aim is to assist contemporary Protestant pastors, denominational officials, theologians, ethicists, public intellectuals, seminarians, graduate students, and general readers to rediscover and rehabilitate natural law and related doctrinal concepts (2).”

Grabill argues that the theologians of the Reformation actually “carried over, though with some critical modifications, certain theological, philosophical, and legal ideas common to the western Christian church” (2). In other words, the Reformers were actually more ecumenical in their thought than their followers. Grabill establishes this point by tracing the broad historical flow, demonstrating that John Calvin, Peter Martyr Vermigli, Johannes Althusius and Francis Turretin (chapters 3, 4, 5 and 6 respectively) all held to (albet it somewhat modified versions) some form of natural law.

Grabill also briefly interacts with modern theologians such as Richard Mouw, demonstrating that the doctrine of natural law is not isolated, but in fact has ramifications for not only our view of common grace, but practically, things such as the arts. Though these insights are scattered throughout the book, they are important, reminding us that all of our doctrines impact one another. Though the book is specifically about natural law, Grabill reminds us that our doctrines cannot be separated from one another and he does a good job incorporating some of the larger theological spectrum into the conversation at hand.

Grabill argues extensively (chapter 1) that it was Karl Barth more than any other theologian who displaced natural law in contemporary Protestant theology. Grabill goes to great lengths detailing Barth’s opposition to natural law and its subsequent influence. Grabill does a good job distilling the essence Barth’s 1934 debate with Emil Brunner into understandable yet challenging concepts, no small task indeed.

This is perhaps one of the high points of the book itself. Grabill is not dealing with “lite” subject matter and in fact interacts at length with some fairly technical philosophical arguments. He does, however, succeed in writing in such a way that both the initiated and the uninitiated will benefit and glean new insights.

Grabill demonstrates that it was Barth’s influence that greatly diminished the acceptance of natural law in reformed ethics. But he also does a fine job demonstrating that traditional reformed theology has actually held a place for natural law while still affirming the severity of the Fall; the two do not necessarily have to be in contradiction to one another. Grabill concludes:

“Calvin, Vermigli, and the Reformed scholastics all share the conviction that Scripture is the cognitive foundation (principium cognoscendi) of theology and that moral arguments can be based on axioms derived from that principium” (191).

Grabill continues:

“Consequently, they recognize the existence of a natural knowledge of God that is present in the natural order and discernible either in conjunction with or apart from Scripture. This knowledge, however, has no saving efficacy and merely serves to render all people to be “without excuse” for their moral infractions, as Romans 1:20 attests” (191).

Grabill concludes that, “contrary to current scholarly opinion,” “some of the most formative voices in the Reformed tradition thought the diminished human faculties still function sufficiently to reveal the general precepts of the natural moral law” (191). This is the central thesis of the book and Grabill succeeds in historically proving that holding a positive view of natural law is in fact within the bounds of confessional reformed thought.

• Read Rediscovering The Natural Law In Reformed Theological Ethics by Stephen J. Grabill

One of the things about being a Christian for any period of time is that you soon notice the use of “Christian-ese.” Others have occassionally referred to this phenomenon as “Bible speak.” Christians develop certain vocabulary items. Sometimes these items will be reserved for conversations with other Christians, but others are used more broadly.

Sadly, when one probes these issues, it quickly becomes apparent that many Christians use certain phrases without ever completely understanding what they mean. While this is certainly not a problem specific to Christians, it is nonetheless, disconcerting.

It becomes even more troublesome when some of these phrases actually flag the tip of the iceberg for very large cultural issues. With all of the talk recently about family values and seeking to narrow the definition of marriage, one of those phrases has become “God hates divorce.”

It’s common to hear this sentiment from well-meaning people trying to protect marriage. The problem is that it is simply given as a reason in and of itself without ever considering to ask why God hates divorce. The sentiment is particularly drawn from Malachi 2:16, which, in the NIV and the NASB among others, reads:

“I hate divorce,” says the LORD God of Israel, “and I hate a man’s covering himself with violence as well as with his garment,” says the LORD Almighty. So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith (NIV).

There is some textual debate concerning whether this is the correct rendering. For example, the ESV translates it as:

“For the man who hates and divorces, says the LORD, the God of Israel, covers his garment with violence, says the LORD of hosts. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and do not be faithless. (ESV).

Regardless of the exact translation, there does seem to be enough Scriptural material to assert that God does indeed hate divorce. Considering a broad overview, we see from the beginning that it was God who instituted marriage, noting that it is not good for man to be alone (Genesis 2:18) and that He would create for the man a “helper fit for him.” Paul gives specific directives about the role of husband and wife, giving the startling truth that marriage is ultimately a picture of the relationship between Christ and the Church (Ephesians 5:22-33). Jesus goes so far as to say that the only reason divorce has ever been allowed was because of “hardness of heart” (Matthew 19).

When prompted to think about God’s attitude about divorce, most people, if they have thought about it at all, will go so far as to note that it is a God-ordained institution. Others might go so far as to note the deeper meaning of Chirst and the Church, but the more I’ve thought about this, I think there is still a deeper reason why God might actually “hate divorce,” and the answer is found in what might seem to be an unexpected place, the third commandment (Exodus 20:7):

You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain.

Most take this commandment to mean that we should refrain from using God’s name in swearing. It certainly means that, but it means much more than that as well. We too quickly forget that the original context more likely had in mind oaths and vows. Many had come to swear by God as a surety for their agreements. Calvin’s treatment famously remarks:

The Third Commandment enjoins three things: 1) That whatever our mind conceives, or our tongue utters, may have a regard to the majesty of God; 2) That we may not rashly abuse his holy word and adorable mysteries for the purposes of ambition or avarice; 3) That we may not throw obloquy on his works, but may speak of them with commendatians of his Wisdom, Long-suffering, Power, Goodness, Justice. With these is contrasted a threefold profanation of the name of God, by perjury, unnecessary oaths, and idolatrous rites; that is, when we substitute in the place of God saints, or creatures animate or inanimate.

Divorce is nothing less than the breaking of a covenant, a God-ordained covenant. By participating in marriage, we are, in fact participating in an oath, the breaking of which is not only a sin but taking the Lord’s name in vain. The fact that we do not think of marriage as serious is a stark reminder of not only how low our view of oaths has come but more importantly, our view of God.

I wonder how many well-intentioned Christians really understand the seriousness of divorce. Some surveys suggest that Christians in fact do not understand the serious nature of divorce, arguing that divorce rates within and outside of the church are no different (Barna). For many, we have a continued failure to understand God’s rule over and role in every area of life, which we must recapture if we are to ever really understand “family values.”

• Read The Institutes of the Christian Religion by John Calvin

One of the benefits of getting away is the increased ability for extended periods of Scripture meditation. While we often wrongly associate “meditation” with completely emptying one’s mind, biblically it is exactly the opposite, it is the practice of filling our minds with Scripture.

Recently, my family and I had the opportunity to go to the Rocky Mountains for a week of renewal. While we were there, I spent a considerable time meditating on Psalm 46 which reads:

1God is our refuge and strength,
a very present help in trouble.
2Therefore we will not fear though the earth gives way,
though the mountains be moved into the heart of the sea,
3though its waters roar and foam,
though the mountains tremble at its swelling.
Selah

4There is a river whose streams make glad the city of God,
the holy habitation of the Most High.
5God is in the midst of her; she shall not be moved;
God will help her when morning dawns.
6The nations rage, the kingdoms totter;
he utters his voice, the earth melts.
7The LORD of hosts is with us;
the God of Jacob is our fortress.
Selah

8Come, behold the works of the LORD,
how he has brought desolations on the earth.
9He makes wars cease to the end of the earth;
he breaks the bow and shatters the spear;
he burns the chariots with fire.
10“Be still, and know that I am God.
I will be exalted among the nations,
I will be exalted in the earth!”
11The LORD of hosts is with us;
the God of Jacob is our fortress.
Selah

Many of us know this section because of the admonition of verse 10 that we “be still” and know that He is God. However, I wonder how many of us have truly stopped to consider that verse in its context. If we have not, are we truly graspong the power of this command?

God reminds His people that He is their “refuge and strength” in trouble. He then goes on to define some of this “trouble” as the earth giving way, the mountains falling in to the sea and the nations raging. It is in this context that God asserts Himself as the refuge for His people, reminding us that even as the nations “rage” and “the kingdoms togger,” The LORD’s voice melts the earth. He is greater than all of our problems, no problem is too big for Him nor is any detail too small.

It is in this context that God commands that we be still. He is speaking to people in the midst of difficulty, caught in strife and He commands them to be still. Being still in such contexts means admitting that we cannot do it on our own, it means letting go of anxiousness (Matthew 6:25-34) and admitting that fear is not of love (1 John 4:13-21). This does not imply that we simply lay back and do nothing, but it does mean that we admit that God is not only greater than our problems, He is greater than we are and “His strength is perfected in our weakness” (2 Corinthians 12:1-10).

The second half of God’s admonition is central, isn’t it? We are to be still and know that He is God. He is our Creator and our Sustainer, and He is also a very present help in times of trouble. Without this recognition we cannot truly be still in the midst of life’s troubles. It is not only seeing God for who He is, but also seeing ourselves for who we are: creatures. We are not self-sufficient but dependent.

This is a central aspect to much of the Christian life. We must learn to rely on God more than ourselves in all aspects. We must learn to “be still” in the midst of life’s storms, knowing that He is God and that He promises to protect and care for His people.

• Read James Montgomery Boice’s commentaries on the Psalms
• Read Heart Aflame: Daily Readings From Calvin on the Psalms

We’re going to do something a bit different today. Typically I try to devote Fridays to two separate posts: one highlighting both poetry and music and the other offering some of the links I found interesting for the week. But since my internet access has been quite limited this week, there hasn’t been any browsing and the one poetry/music post that I have written features link to a band that, for some reason has had their site taken down!

Much of the American perception of the holiday of Thanksgiving revolves around eating. At its most fundamental, we have driven many hundreds of miles to share a meal with family and friends. Yet eating with people is more than a simple utilitarian act, it is a shared experience and it is a deeply cultural phenomenon. As you can tell, I’ve been thinking some about food this week.

My family and I have had the privilege of living in some different parts of the country. My three boys have each been born in different state (though, Lord willing, there won’t be another move for quite some time!). As we have the chance to go back and visit some of the places we’ve lived, we find ourselves saying “we have to eat at ________ before we leave.”

It’s interesting how integral food is to many of our experiences. When we’re in the Phoenix, AZ area, we always try to eat at Chino Bandido’s Takee Outee, which is a combination of Mexican, Chinese and American. Not that they serve all of the above, their dishes actually combine all of these elements into one tasty goodness! While in the west, my wife also makes a point to try to get fish tacos and when in Louisville, KY, we make a point to try to get to Ramsi’s Cafe on the World. There are certain foods that have come to, for us, encapsulate certain geographical regions.

God has created us as “whole” people and the very act of nourishing our bodies can become a sensory-filled opportunity to make friends, deepen bonds and create memories. Eating together is (almost always) about more than simply eating with other people in the room. In biblical times, exclusion from table fellowship was quite severe. Paul warns the Corinthians not even to eat with the sexually immoral (1 Corinthians 5:11). I wonder how many of us think of eating as a religious experience.

What are some of the foods or restaurants that you associate with places and why? When you’re in “X,” where do you “have to go” before you leave? Please share.

• Visit the Chino Bandido official website

I generally try not to “recycle” posts by repeating them but today I’m going to do exactly that. Well, I’m actually adapting the post a bit but in essence, this is a post from last year. However, as I sat down to write some quick Thanksgiving thoughts, I found myself repeating many of the same sentiments. That, combined with the fact that it literally takes me about 20 minutes to access anything on my parent’s computer decided the issue for me!

It is tremendously convicting for us that we have to set aside one day a year to intentionally meditate on something that ought to be a way of life for every Christian and ought to be an everyday experience. In a familiar passage to many of us, Paul addresses this very subject as he commands that we:

Though we might debate about the extent to which it is happening, few if any would argue the fact that America’s attention span is growing ever shorter. It’s not enought for us to get the news, we barely listen to a talking head, picking up major details while we glance at the news-ticker racing across the bottom of the screen as we check our e-mail and talk on the cell-phone. We want things in byte-sized portions and we want them quickly.

This fits well with the way we even celebrate our holidays. For most, Thanksgiving really isn’t about giving thanks at all. It’s about saying the obligatory once a year thanks for all the neat stuff we have, follwed by several hours of gluttony, followed by a period of slothfulness in front of a football game, all the while preparing for a day of non-stop materialism as the year’s best sales hit the floor. We set aside one day out of 365 for giving thanks and then we pat ourselves on the back for being so humble that we can take time from our busy lives, “just to give thanks.”

This will not do for those who claim to have something for which to truly be thanksful. For the believer, one day of thanks is not sufficient. In 1 Thessalonians 5:16-18, Paul lists three characteristics which are to mark the identity of the Believer, culminating with the admonition that we “give thanks in all circumstances.”

We look at these admonitions, that we rejoice always, pray without ceasing and give thanks in all circumstances and we either lower the standard, because of course Paul can’t mean that we are to always do these things, can he? Or we try to redefine what they mean; pray without ceasing just means that we should pray as often as we remember to, right? Wrong. Another common reaction is that we become discouraged, recognizing the high bar that Scripture sets for the Christian life. Instead, we should see such texts as wonderful encouragements, describing for us the blessing that ought to be the Christian life. Who wouldn’t want to rejoice always, experience fulfilling relationship always with God and, instead of being driven by greed and gluttony, dwell in humble gratitude?

Christians are admonished to give thanks always and in every circumstance. And when we realize the glorious truth that is the Gospel, that God did not spare His own Son, but gave Him over for us all (Romans 8:32) and that in Him we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins (Colossians 1:14) and we are even made heirs of God’s treasures (Romans 8:17).

This Thanksgiving, as we sit down to family, friends and fellowship, it is appropriate that we take stock of our lives and give thanks for the many blessings we have. But it must not end there; this Thanksgiving, and every day, we must overflow with gratitude with the glorious Gospel of grace that God has delivered through His Son.

I’m in a coffee shop somewhere in Albequerque, NM on the way to AZ for the Thanksgiving holiday. Lots of great comments yesterday that I hope to interact with a bit, but since this post was already written and we’re on the road, I don’t have time to process many of the good comments the way I need to. In the meantime I’ll go with an already-written post for the day. Hope you don’t mind!

Philippians 2 has been the object of much consideration for many. What has come to be known as the “kenosis passage,” often draws our attention with the question: “what exactly did Christ empty Himself of?” While this is an appropriate theological reflection, I’m not so sure that’s the point of the passage. Rather than reflecting on Christ’s divinity, the passage encourages us to relfect on His humility and we are to follow in His footsteps.

Within the context, it’s as if Paul is asking a rhetorical question: “Do you want to know how to make your pastor happy?” This seems idea is what seems to be driving the discussion. Look again at this familiar passage (though the thought actually seems to begin at 1:27 with Paul’s admonition to “let your manner of life be worthy of the Gospel of Christ,” we’ll begin at 2:1-8):

So if there is any encouragement in Christ, any comfort from love, any participation in the Spirit, any affection and sympathy, complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

Paul begins almost sarcastically, as if he’s saying, “Of course there will be encouragement in Christ! Yes you will find comfort in love, you will participate in the Spirit and find affection and sympathy!” In verse 2, he takes this for granted and then says, “complete my joy,” or “make my joy complete” as some translations read. How will the Philippians do this, how will they “complete Paul’s joy?” Paul’s glad you asked!

Paul then immediately launches into a description of a unified Body, having the same mind and love, putting rivalry and conceit to death and, counting others as more significant than themselves, looking out for one another’s interests! Paul then admonishes that we are to have the same mind as our Savior and then moves in to a discussion of Christ’s life of humility, even to the point of death on a cross.

As a pastor, I would venture to say that I’m not alone in saying that seeing these things lived out in local congregations would surely “complete my joy.” The Church is to be marked by humble unity lived out in love and service. Disunity kills local churches. Though we’ve been assured that not even the gates of Hades will prevail (Matthew 16:18) against the universal Church, local bodies, carrying within them members of the true Church, seem to die everyday.

We’ve been wondering aloud lately why so many churches seem so unfriendly. It’s the same reason that so many churches experience so much disunity. We are guilty of pride. Pride focuses inward rather than outward. Pride elevates non-essential issues to the status of “deal-breakers” and it certainly refuses to consider others as more significant than itself.

Satan thrives on disunity. When a church lacks unity, most of its time and energies are spent on internal battles (concerning everything from theology to the color of the carpet) rather than on expanding the kingdom of Christ. Disunity thrives on pride because pride insists on having its own way (more often than not, on issues that ought to be compromised). While we must stand firm on and not negotiate the Gospel, we must also admit that most issues that have split churches have not truly been “Gospel” issues and have been the result of years of growing disunity and combat rather than working together.

Paul, here and elsewhere (1 Corinthians 12:12-21, etc.) underscores the fact that of all people, Christ’s people ought to be unified. The fact that so many churches experience anything but true unity means that at some point, they have taken their eyes off of their first love, off of Christ and placed them squarely on themselves. Unity begins with each one of us looking to Christ above all else. Instead, we must look “to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God (Hebrews 12:2) and strive for unity under the banner of the Cross.

• Read The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience: Why Are Christians Living Just Like the Rest of the World? by Ronald Sider
• Read The Transformation of American Religion: How We Actually Live Our Faith by Alan Wolfe