GOD LOVES ALL ATHEISTS BUT HE'S STILL GOING TO SEND THEM TO HELL

John Shore wrote the following article. It originally appeared on the Huffington Post and can be read HERE. This is one of the most thought provoking posts I have read in a long time.

Sitting at Starbucks yesterday I'm pretty sure I overheard the following exchange between two men whom I'll call Chris and Stan. (For the record, I'm a Christian. And I know: it's amazing how precisely I can recall what each of these two men said to each other. The acoustics in the Starbucks I hang out in must also be extremely good.)

Stan: But that just doesn't make any sense.

Chris: What doesn't?

Stan: That if I don't believe in the reality of the same God that you just told me loves me, then that God will condemn me to hell for all eternity. It's not possible for him to love me and do that to me.

Chris: Yes, it is. God loves you enough to let you determine your own fate.

Stan: But at the end, if he wanted to, God could change the fate that, in my ignorance, I've chosen for myself. If God really wanted me to be okay after I die, he could choose to send me to heaven instead of hell. He could commute the sentence I brought upon myself. He has that power, right? Because he's all-powerful?

Chris: God can do anything.

Stan: Which can only mean that if I end up in hell, that was, in fact, due entirely to God's will. God wanted that to happen to me, so it did. God actively chose hell for me. He could have put me somewhere else, but he chose not to.

Chris: You chose hell for yourself by refusing to accept Jesus Christ as your lord and savior.

Stan: That I made that mistake doesn't alter the fact that God has chosen to punish me for that mistake by forcing me to spend eternity being physically tortured. And anyone who would choose that for me -- who would choose for me to suffer horribly throughout eternity as punishment for nothing more egregious than having used the mind and soul he gave me to arrive at a conclusion that doesn't hurt one single person on earth, but only displeases him--cannot possible love me. Under no definition of the word does that qualify as love.

Chris: It's divine justice.

Stan: Really? That's justice? I've got the little tiny span of my lifetime to try to figure out a whole bunch of stuff about God and man, and, with the extremely limited range of information available to me in the course of that time, I decide wrong -- I guess there's not a God, or I decide that I just can't be sure either way, or I choose to believe in a different God than the one prescribed for me by Christianity -- and, as punishment for that mistake, God decides to condemn me to spend the rest of forever having the living flesh seared off my bones. And you're comfortable with that as a definition of the word "justice." That doesn't strike you as ... oh, I don't know ... excessively punitive? Like the kind of unbelievably cruel thing you might expect from a petty, egomaniacal despot, rather than a God of love?

Chris: It's God's judgment upon the sinner who refuses to accept God's love.

Stan: We can talk forever about what it is. But there's no question whatsoever about what it's not, which is love. Look: After I'm dead, God either has the power to send me to heaven instead of hell, or he doesn't. If he doesn't have that power, then he's too weak to matter. If he does have the power to send me to heaven instead of hell, and he wills me to go to hell, then he's without compassion--or at the very least he certainly doesn't love me. That's your choice. By your own definition, your god is either not all-powerful, or not all-loving. But he can't be all-powerful and all loving, and I -- a nice guy, a loving guy, a guy who gives to charities and actually does help people in the world -- can end up in hell. I can't love somebody and shoot them in the head because they refused to answer my phone calls.

Chris: You're looking for rational explanations for mysteries that only God comprehends.

Stan: That's so typical. Whenever Christians run into a simple logical inconsistency that cuts directly to the viability of their entire belief system, they resort to the only "argument" left to them, which is that we inferior sinners, who are so pathetic that we think it's a good idea to use our rational minds to help us understand things that don't seem to make sense, can't possibly begin to grasp how and why God works in the "mysterious" ways he does. At the slightest challenge, you absolutely abandon logic. It's ridiculous -- and at best should be embarrassing to you. If you can't explain the simplest, most obvious, most terrible contradiction in the qualities you say your God possesses--much less in the primary quality you say he possesses, which is his love for all mankind--then how in the world do you expect anyone but a sheer moron to take you or your religion seriously?

Chris: God bless you, man. I fear for your soul.

Stan: Bypassing all the repelling, presumptive arrogance inherent in that statement, I'll tell you one thing: I fear for your mind.

TROLOLO: YOU'VE BEEN RICKROLLED ... RUSSIAN STYLE!

Somebody dug up this 1976-recording by Russian Soviet-era singer Eduard Khil (aka Edward Hill) and put it on Youtube, earning it almost four million hits since November 2009. Apparently, this is a style of music known as vocaliz - or singing without words (why, never!). The song is titled "I Am So Happy to Finally Be Back Home." As if not enough, it is also a cover version - a remake which was sung in some 1960's Russian movie.

Listening to it in an English context, seeing the very serious effort mr Khil put into lip-synching his very difficult song, and finding that Google put the spread of the Youtube video clip in the same league as Rick Astley's song (from which we get the new word Rickroll, obviously), I couldn't resist putting the clip here for your viewing enjoyment as well. Thanks to www.knowyourmeme.com for this info. Since we have internet words that make trololo sound as if the guy can't stop laughing, the clip is really, really ... ee really funny.



And, by the way, mr Khil can really sing, just listen to this.

FOUND ON THE INTERNET THIS WEEK

Last week I reported on Julian Müller's Afrikaans article about finding a new theological world view. As expected, some serious reaction on his embracing of panentheism erupted. One reaction came from Johann Ernst, pastor at the DRC Doornkloof in Pretoria and currently serving as the chief legal advisor of the Dutch Reformed Church's general synod. Hy makes valid, good and equally thought-provoking points while counter-arguing Müller.

I really enjoy these debates, as it helps us to redefine our place in the world. Although we have a premodern world view in the Bible and although we live with a late-modern world view, we are confronted with the reality that we need to think new on how we formulated our theological interpretations of Scripture - not by rejecting the Biblical world view, but by rethinking our interpretation through modernistic categories such as theism and panentheism. My personal opinion is that we should rather go back to Scripture and try reading it from a first-century perspective before interpreting it. We live in truly challenging times.

* * *

If you are interested in using Social Media for church or other ministry, this blogpost will be of great interest to you.

* * *

David Hayward - aka The Naked Pastor - made a case in this article for pastoring from a position of personal weakness.

* * *

Even though I tend to disagree more with Gerda de Villiers than agreeing with her (mostly because of the hermeneutical framework with which she exegetes the Old Testament), she wrote a good article on the creation narrative on Genesis 1:1-2:4a and the Enuma Elish. Note: the article is written in Afrikaans.

* * *

Finally, Gary Thomas wrote this piece on the phenomenon of Christians equating faithful living with perpetual guilt about pleasure.

NOTE: THEOLOGY, MISSION & MINISTRY DOESN'T NECESSARILY ENDORSE THE VIEWS REPRESENTED IN THIS OVERVIEW.

READ HERE IF YOU WANT TO KNOW HOW SERIOUS THE JUDGMENT OF YOUR SIN IS GOING TO BE

Thanks to Tripp Crosby I could find this post from the blog People of the Second Chance. Its amazing how easy it is to decide on the severity of sins and then assign judgement accordingly.

We all do it.

WHEN SUPERMODELS AND CAFETERIA WORKERS FALL

Posted by Mike Foster: Follow Mike On Twitter

Last week The Tonight Show with Jay Leno played two video clips of people falling down.

One was a cafeteria worker who slipped and fell hard on the floor.

The next clip was of a beautiful supermodel who took a tumble on a fashion show catwalk.

Both were similar falls while at work. Both had lots of people looking on.

Can you guess which one of them got help from others? Yep, the supermodel!!!

Not 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 but FIIIIIIIVVVVVEEEE (5) people helped her back up!!!! No big surprise right?

And how many helped the cafeteria worker? ZIP! NADA! NOBODY! The people just watched and then went back to eating.

It was a funny comparison of how people respond to basically the same situation.

The problem is we do the very same thing when hand out grace. Too often our mercy is conditional and inconsistent. We are picky and choosy of who we help.

Dope smoker….Forgiven.

Crack whore….Judgment.

Porn watcher….Forgiven.

Porn maker…Judgment.

Straight sex….Forgiven.

Gay sex….Judgment.

People who have the same struggles as us…Forgiven.

People who have different struggles then us…Judgment.

You get my point.

Grace doesn’t discriminate and a second chance should seek equality. (Btw, for those thinking I’m just throwing out the reality of consequences to our actions, I’m not. Don’t miss my point here.)

My hope is all of us can be a little more consistent when handing out a second chance.

Don't Cast the First Stone

The latest offering from The Naked Pastor, I present it as commentary on the judgemental attitude of many Christians. For reference, read John 7:53-8:11.

CELEBRATING ST PATRICK'S DAY

I know St Patrick's Day was on March the 17th. I initially decided not to say something about it, even though I try to celebrate the day every year by wearing something green - my great grandfather was from Ireland; it is sort of a cultural thing. That is, until I discovered this article by Mark Driscoll, illustrating the missional legacy of Patrick of Ireland. From now on I will try to celebrate this day yearly as part of my personal spiritual journey, not only by wearing green but also by sharing the story behind the secular festivities.

Mark's original post can be read HERE.

St. Patrick: One of the Greatest Missionaries Who Ever Lived

Mark Driscoll Preaching Pastor at Mars Hill Church

I am a servant of Christ to a foreign nation for the unspeakable glory of life everlasting which is in Jesus Christ our Lord. – Patrick

My family name was originally O’Driscoll until it was changed a few generations ago by relatives hoping to more fully assimilate into American culture after immigrating from Ireland. Though I was raised Irish Catholic, I knew virtually nothing about Saint Patrick other than the green beer, parades, shamrocks, leprechauns, and drunken Red Sox fans that celebrated in his honor every March 17th.

Technically, Saint Patrick is not even a saint, as he was never canonized by the Roman Catholic Church. Additionally, Patrick was not even Irish. Rather, he was a Roman-Britain who spoke Latin and a bit of Welsh.

Patrick was born around 390 A.D. When he was roughly 16 years of age he was captured by pirates and taken to Ireland on a ship where he was sold into slavery. He spent the next six years alone in the wilderness as a shepherd for his masters’ cattle and sheep.

Isolation

Patrick was a rebellious non-Christian teenager who had come from a Christian family. His grandfather was a pastor, and his father was a deacon. However, during his extended periods of isolation without any human contact, Patrick began praying and was eventually born again into a vibrant relationship with Jesus Christ. Patrick endured the years of isolation in rain and snow by praying up to 100 prayers each day and another 100 each night.

In his early twenties God spoke to Patrick in a dream, telling him to flee from his master for a ship that was waiting for him. Amazingly, Patrick made the 200-mile journey on foot without being caught or harmed to find a ship setting sail for his home, just as God had promised. The sailors were out of food for the journey, and after Patrick prayed a herd of pigs miraculously ran toward the ship, providing a bountiful feast for the long voyage home.

God Speaks to Patrick

Upon returning home, Patrick enrolled in seminary and was eventually commissioned as a pastor. Some years later God spoke to Patrick in a dream, commanding him to return to Ireland to preach the gospel and plant churches for the pagans who lived there.

The Roman Catholic Church had given up on converting such “barbarians” deemed beyond hope. The Celtic peoples, of which the Irish were part, were an illiterate bunch of drunken, fighting, perverted pagans who basically had sex with anyone and worshiped anything. They were such a violent and lawless people, numbering anywhere from 200,000 to 500,000, that they had no city centers or national government and were spread out among some 150 warring clans. Their enemies were terrified of them because they were known to show up for battles and partake in wild orgies before running into battle naked and drunk while screaming as if they were demon-possessed. One clan was so debased that it was customary for each of their new kings to copulate with a white mare as part of his inauguration.

Unique Missionary Strategy

In faith, the forty-something year-old Patrick sold all of his possessions, including the land he had inherited from his father, to fund his missionary journey to Ireland. He worked as an itinerant preacher and paid large sums of money to various tribal chiefs to ensure he could travel safely through their lands and preach the gospel. His strategy was completely unique, and he functioned like a missionary trying to relate to the Irish people and communicate the gospel in their culture by using such things as three-leaf clovers to explain the gospel. Upon entering a pagan clan, Patrick would seek to first convert the tribal leaders and other people of influence. He would then pray for the sick, cast demons out of the possessed, preach the Bible, and use both musical and visual arts to compel people to put their faith in Jesus. If enough converts were present he would build a simple church that did not resemble ornate Roman architecture, baptize the converts, and hand over the church to a convert he had trained to be the pastor so that he could move on to repeat the process with another clan.

Patrick gave his life to the people who had enslaved him until he died at 77 years of age. He had seen untold thousands of people convert as between 30-40 of the 150 tribes had become substantially Christian. He had trained 1000 pastors, planted 700 churches, and was the first noted person in history to take a strong public stand against slavery.

Roman Opposition

Curiously, Patrick’s unorthodox ministry methods, which had brought so much fruit among the Irish, also brought much opposition from the Roman Catholic Church. Because Patrick was so far removed from Roman civilization and church polity he was seen by some as an instigator of unwelcome changes. This led to great conflicts between the Roman and Celtic Christians. The Celtic Christians had their own calendar and celebrated Easter a week earlier than their Roman counterparts. Additionally, the Roman monks shaved only the hair on the top of their head, whereas the Celtic monks shaved all of their hair except their long locks which began around the bottom of their head as a funky monk mullet. The Romans considered these and other variations by the Celtic Christian leaders to be acts of insubordination.

In the end, the Roman Church should have learned from Patrick, who is one of the greatest missionaries who has ever lived. Though Patrick’s pastors and churches looked different in method, they were very orthodox in their theology and radically committed to such things as Scripture and the Trinity. Additionally, they were some of the most gifted Christian artists the world has ever known, and their prayers and songs endure to this day around the world, including at Mars Hill where we occasionally sing the "Prayer of Saint Patrick" and the Celtic hymn "Be Thou My Vision."

PASTORS WHO STOP BELIEVING

The Washington Post recently reported on research done among American ministers of religion, probing their faith and the loss thereof.

The report I'm referring to can be read HERE.

The questions posed by the Washington Post is this:

• What should pastors do if they no longer hold the defining beliefs of their denomination?
• Do clergy have a moral obligation not to challenge the sincere faith of their parishioners?
• If this requires them to dissemble from the pulpit, doesn't this create systematic hypocrisy at the center of religion?
• What would you want your pastor to do with his or her personal doubts or loss of faith?

What would YOU answer to these questions?

GETTING YOUR PRIORITIES RIGHT

This anecdote was sent to me via email by Annelize Liebenberg. It makes one think about priorities in life.

A boat docked in a tiny Mexican fishing village. A tourist complimented the local fishermen on the quality of their fish and asked how long it took him to catch them. "Not very long." they answered in unison. "Why didn't you stay out longer and catch more?" The fishermen explained that their small catches were sufficient to meet their needs and those of their families. "But what do you do with the rest of your time?"

"We sleep late, fish a little, play with our children, and take siestas with our wives. In the evenings, we go into the village to see our friends, have a few d
rinks, play the guitar, and sing a few songs. "We have a full life."

The tourist interrupted, "I have an MBA from Harvard and I can help you! You should start by fishing longer every day. You can then sell the extra fish you catch. With the extra revenue, you can buy a bigger boat."

"And after that?"

"With the extra money the larger boat will bring, you can buy a second one and a third one and so on until you have an entire fleet of trawlers. Instead of selling your fish to a middle man, you can then negotiate directly with the processing plants and maybe even open your own plant. You can then leave this little village and move to Mexico City, Los Angeles, or even New York City !!!" From there you can direct your huge new enterprise."

"How long would that take?"

"Twenty, perhaps twenty-five years." replied the tourist.

"And after that?"

"Afterwards? Well my friend, that's when it gets really interesting, "answered the tourist, laughing. "When your business gets really big, you can start buying and selling stocks and make millions!"

"Millions? Really? And after that?" asked the fishermen. "After that you'll be able to retire, live in a tiny village near the coast, sleep late, play with your children, catch a few fish, take a siesta with your wife and spend your evenings drinking and enjoying your friends."

"With all due respect sir, but that's exactly what we are doing now. So what's the point wasting twenty-five years?" asked the Mexicans.

BOOK REVIEW: "DEEP CHURCH" BUILDS BRIDGES

This article originally appeared in the newspaper of the Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa as an Afrikaans contribution. Since I’m the author of the review, I gave myself permission to translate it into English and repost it on my blog here. You can leave the original Afrikaans article HERE.

Jim Belcher is pastor of Redeemer Church, a congregation of the Presbyterian Church in the USA. He was initially invovled with the Emerging Chruch Movement. He has since ended his involvement with the movement and wrote this book as a result of his theological journey.

At the beginning of his book Belcher sketched his journey through the Emerging Church landscape and how he arrived atht eh Presbyterian Church. He tried to establish a theological starting point for the discussion and subsequently found it int the Ecumenical Creeds as unity documents that provide the parameters for theological differences.

First, Belcher investigated postmodernism. He came to the conclusion that churches with a strong theological limitation – the traditional view – as well as churches with a relativistic relational ethos at the cost of good theology – the emerging movement’s extreme side – should move towards a centered approach. With such an approach the theological foundation is established, yet the relational experience is strongly focused on Christ. This draws people in without letting them feel they have to adhere to certain theological prerequisites before they can belong to the body of Christ.

Belcher expaned on this them by talking about evangelism. He pleaded for an approach of open relationships that enables anyone to feel welcome, with disregard to his/her past but without losing the theological depth of the faith community. That is way a discussion of the kingdom of God is important to him. The greatest criticism against the Emerging Church writers’ focus on the kingdom of God is the fact that they reduce the message of the cross to a social gospel. Therefore, the Deep Church approach is one where the meaning of the gospel message – Jesus’ redemptive death and resurrection – should be the starting point of believers’ kingdom life.

Then Belcher spoke about praise and worship. The debate focused on dead, traditional worship with choir and organ, against multisensory entertainment performances that syncretistically utilises contemporary culture. For Belcher, the alternative lies in the balancing of Scripture, church tradition and culture in a creative threeplay.

This discussion expanded to include a chapter on preaching and Belcher tried to bridge the extremes: oneway monlogue against a relational hermenutic that depends on the conclusions of the participants. He crossed this bridge by searching for Biblical balnce int eh way Scripture is studied, with the inclusion of the imperatives and indicatives of Biblical texts as well as the narrative flow of the story. Witht this, he argued, one can unlock the answers to questions.

Then Belcher discussed ecclesiology. His solution for the traditional church’s institutionalism against the emerging church’s rejection of organisation lies in the following vision: Ecclesiology = Bible + Tradition + Mission.

Belchers conluded his book with a chapter on culture. Whereas the traditional church is negative toward culture, the emerging church embraces it. For Belcher the answer lies in understanding the church as institution as well as organism. As institution the church provides a radical alternative to the world. As organism it moves Christians out of their safe alternative world in the surround society to be salt and light. This, he said, happens when church members learn to be God’s almost secret agents in their secular contexts.

One does not have to agree with everything Belcher wrote. His choice to illustrate his deep church alternative from the story of his congregation also felt superficial. Yet, Deep Chruch presents an important contribution to the ecllesiological strife that currently dominates the church at large. Belcher succeeded in showing traditional church and emerging church aren’t two opposing poles fighting each other. They are partners in the same battle who need each other and should learn from each other.

VISION OF HEAVEN

This is what I trust NOT to be doing one day in heaven!

Thanks to the drawing skills of ASBO Jesus.

STUFF FROM THE INTERNET THIS WEEK

Julian Müller, academic and lecturer at University of Pretoria, wrote this post on his personal quest to move away from theistic language when we speak about God. Its in Afrikaans, unfortunately. I'm quite sure (already visible from the comments his article generated) that he's going to receive serious fall-out on this rather thought-provoking piece. Its sad, actually, as he is really trying to positively contribute to the dialogue about God in our era.

One doesn't have to agree with everything he wrote, but we could appreciate the way he is trying to guide us away from premodern theological constructs that derives their meaning from the biblical worldview to new avenues exploring how we can speak about God and the biblical message from the perspective of our current context.

I got this tip on saving your books after they get wet. Tried it (put a "Huisgenoot" in the sink - filled with water) and now I'm waiting for the outcome. Thank you, Scot McKnight, for sharing the tip.

Michael Hyatt posted this guest post with advice on having a more successful blog.

The website Social Media Examiner provides some insights on how to use Twitter as a listening tool.

Finally, Jeff Dionise and Sam Ward wrote this insightful article for USA Today on how cybercriminals invades social media networks and companies.

A FRESH PERSPECTIVE ON PRAYER

Stephan Joubert offered this fresh perspective on prayer. You can read the original posting HERE.

“We just need to pray more. Then it will go better with the country.” That’s what someone said the other day. Everyone agreed immediately. “How do you know that?” someone asked out of the blue. While everyone just sat there with the mouths full of crowned teeth, one answered: “The Bible says so.” “Yes,” the rest agreed. “Where in the Bible do you read that prayer’s primary function is to ensure safer life circumstances for everyone?” this person continued. Again there was silence. Someone said: “It’s written somewhere that you should ‘pray and you shall receive.’” “Yes, but does that mean that everything in our country will suddenly be better if we send larger volumes of prayer heavenwards?” the questioner wanted to know. “Do you really think that there’s a prayer-meter that measures how long each of us prays and how many people pray for a particular matter and then these matters get a higher priority from God?”

He carried on: “Prayer is not a quick fix. It is primarily about God and his glory. If there is someone who needs to be changed by prayer, then it is primarily the one who prays himself.” About then everyone started talking at the same time. Some agreed, some not. I walked away with some new perspectives on prayer.

I believe that prayer is important for God’s will to happen. But maybe my prayers are selfish. Sometimes I pray for a better country just in order for us to be able to continue in our comfortable lifestyles. Do we really care about those who suffer, or do we only want to avoid being the next victims of some bad thing? That’s why today I plead together with the disciples from Luke 11: “Lord, teach us to pray!”

A STORY ABOUT A BROKEN MARRIAGE

"When I got home that night as my wife served dinner, I held her hand and said, I've got something to tell you. She sat down and ate quietly. Again I observed the hurt in her eyes.

"Suddenly I didn't know how to open my mouth. But I had to let her know what I was thinking. I want a divorce. I raised the topic calmly.

"She didn't seem to be annoyed by my words, instead she asked me softly, why? I avoided her question. This made her angry. She threw away the chopsticks and shouted at me, you are not a man! That night, we didn't talk to each other. She was weeping. I knew she wanted to find out what had happened to our marriage. But I could hardly give her a satisfactory answer; she had lost my heart to Dew. I didn't love her anymore. I just pitied her!

"With a deep sense of guilt, I drafted a divorce agreement which stated that she could own our house, our car, and 30% stake of my company.

"She glanced at it and then tore it into pieces. The woman who had spent ten years of her life with me had become a stranger. I felt sorry for her wasted time, resources and energy but I could not take back what I had said for I loved Dew so dearly. Finally she cried loudly in front of me, which was what I had expected to see. To me her cry was actually a kind of release. The idea of divorce which had obsessed me for several weeks seemed to be firmer and clearer now.

"The next day, I came back home very late and found her writing something at the table. I didn't have supper but went straight to sleep and fell asleep very fast because I was tired after an eventful day with Dew.

"When I woke up, she was still there at the table writing. I just did not care so I turned over and was asleep again.

"In the morning she presented her divorce conditions: she didn't want anything from me, but needed a month's notice before the divorce. She requested that in that one month we both struggle to live as normal a life as possible. Her reasons were simple: our son had his exams in amonth's time and she didn't want to disrupt him with our broken marriage.

"This was agreeable to me. But she had something more, she asked me to recall how I had carried her into out bridal room on our wedding day.

"She requested that everyday for the month's duration I carry her out of our bedroom to the front door ever morning. I thought she was going crazy. Just to make our last days together bearable I accepted her odd request.

"I told Dew about my wife's divorce conditions. She laughed loudly and thought it was absurd. No matter what tricks she applies, she has to face the divorce, she said scornfully.

"My wife and I hadn't had any body contact since my divorce intention was explicitly expressed. So when I carried her out on the first day, we both appeared clumsy. Our son clapped behind us, daddy is holding mummy in his arms. His words brought me a sense of pain. From the bedroom to the sitting room, then to the door, I walked over tenmeters with her in my arms. She closed her eyes and said softly; don't tell our son about the divorce. I nodded, feeling somewhat upset. I put her down outside the door. She went to wait for the bus to work. I drove alone to the office.

"On the second day, both of us acted much more easily. She leaned on my chest. I could smell the fragrance of her blouse. I realized that I hadn't looked at this woman carefully for a long time. I realized she was not young any more. There were fine wrinkles on her face, her hair was graying! Our marriage had taken its toll on her. For a minute I wondered what I had done to her.

"On the fourth day, when I lifted her up, I felt a sense of intimacy returning. This was the woman who had given ten years of her life to me.

"On the fifth and sixth day, I realized that our sense of intimacy was growing again. I didn't tell Dew about this. It became easier to carry her as the month slipped by. Perhaps the everyday workout made me stronger.

"She was choosing what to wear one morning. She tried on quite a few dresses but could not find a suitable one. Then she sighed, all my dresses have grown bigger. I suddenly realized that she had grown so thin, that was the reason why I could carry her more easily.

"Suddenly it hit me... she had buried so much pain in her heart. Subconsciously I reached out and touched her head.

"Our son came in at the moment and said, Dad, it's time to carry mum out. To him, seeing his father carrying his mother out had become an essential part of his life. My wife gestured to our son to come closer and hugged him tightly. I turned my face away because I was afraid I might change my mind at this last minute. I then held her in my arms, walking from the bedroom, through the sitting room, to the hallway. Her hand surrounded my neck softly and naturally. I held her body tightly; it was just like our wedding day.

"But her much lighter weight made me sad. On the last day, when I held her in my arms I could hardly move a step. Our son had gone to school. I held her tightly and said, I hadn't noticed that our life lacked intimacy.

"I drove to office... jumped out of the car swiftly without locking the door. I was afraid any delay would make me change my mind... I walked upstairs. Dew opened the door and I said to her, Sorry, Dew, I do not want the divorce anymore.

"She looked at me, astonished, and then touched my forehead. Do you have a fever? She said. I moved her hand off my head. Sorry, Dew, I said, I won't divorce. My marriage life was boring probably because she and I didn't value the details of our lives, not because we didn't love each other any more. Now I realize that since I carried her into my home on our wedding day I am supposed to hold her until death do us apart. Dew seemed to suddenly wake up. She gave me a loud slap and then slammed the door and burst into tears. I walked downstairs and drove away.

"At the floral shop on the way, I ordered a bouquet of flowers for my wife. The salesgirl asked me what to write on the card. I smiled and wrote, 'I'll carry you out every morning until death do us apart.'

"That evening I arrived home, flowers in my hands, a smile on my face, I run up stairs, only to find my wife in bed - dying from the illness she hid away from me."

ARE YOU SATAN'S SLAVE?

Thanks to a tweet by Mynhardt van Pletzen I can share with you the sad humour of a church sign discriminating against people with brains.

It can also be viewed at Failblog.

TESTIMONY OF SOMEBODY WHO WAS HIJACKED

My friend, Andries Louw, recalls this incident in his life. I truly hope his testimony will encourage all South African Christians - as well as people from around the world - who suffered from senseless, crime-inspired violence. You can read the original posting HERE.

Yes, you heard me correctly and I’m not mad and I’m not in denial. Today I experienced firsthand how the informal networks in my local communities collaborated to help, support and care for me as a victim of crime and how these networks linked with the police to hunt down suspects. No arrests have been made yet but I will not be surprised if it happens within the next 24 to 48 hours.

This morning I was on my way to visit a friend in Alexandra when I stopped at a red traffic light around 11:10. Before it turned green I saw a hand coming through the open window and I heard a voice instructing me to leave the key and my cell phone and to hurry up and get out of the car quickly.

The voice, which strangely enough didn’t sound aggressive, belonged to a young man in his early twenties. I looked down at his other hand that was pointing a firearm at my abdomen inside the car. I thought it looked like a toy gun but I didn’t want to take any chances so I just followed instructions. He had two buddies on the other side, one also with a firearm, or was it a toy gun?

They quickly sped off with my car which also contained a bag with some cash, my wallet with all the important cards that are so irritatingly difficult to replace and my beloved cell phone – eish…

The first person to help me was a total stranger who operates an informal public phone business right there on the corner where I was hijacked. He allowed me to call my wife free of charge. The firestation let me make a few more phone calls.

An eyewitness told me that he knows one of the suspects. He accompanied me and two friends to the police station. My friend who lives in a shack with his parents paid the taxi fare for the four of us. They stayed with me all the time and allowed me to use their cell phones as needed. One of them, a new friend, called me again tonight to hear how I was and how my family was.

They gathered excellent information about the suspect and my car was recovered around 14:30, just a few blocks away from the crime scene. The Alexandra police were very helpful and professional.

The gardener/caretaker at the property where we rent a home drove to the police station twice to assist me. On our way home he dropped me at our local community police chief who passed all the relevant information on to a community policing contact in Alex to be followed up. I was informed that an arrest could be expected soon.

My dear wonderful lovely wife Cecile not only organised lunch and a bottle of water to be delivered to me at the police station but also took care of a lot of other calls and arrangements. She even organised me a new temporary cell phone nr complete with sim card in my old phone.

I was never scared. Instead I felt loved and cared for. I’m very grateful that I wasn’t hurt. After today I love South Africa even more because the majority of our people hate crime and injustice. Tonight I feel an incredible peace and a special solidarity with the victims of crime who have come off far worse than me. Most importantly I sense that we will not be overcome with hopelessness and dispair. By the grace of God we will overcome.

HOW FACEBOOK KILLED THE CHURCH

I found this article thanks to a tweet from Leonard Sweet with the link. It is written by Richard Beck, Associate Professor and experimental psychologist at Abilene Christian University.He blogs at Experimental Theology. You can read the original post HERE.

There has been a great deal of hand wringing in the Christian community about the onset of Web 2.0 relationality (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, blogs, MMOGs). The concern you often hear is that "virtual" relationships are no replacement for "authentic" relationships.

No doubt this is true. But I've done some research in this area and here's my general conclusion: Facebook friends tend to be our actual friends.

No doubt, the vast majority of the people in a friend list on Facebook are strangers, acquaintances, or old school friends you haven't seen in years. But no user of Facebook is confused enough to think that she is "in relationship" with any of these people. These are just the penumbra around the core of our Facebook interactions, connecting with people we actually know and are friends with.

In short, Facebook isn't replacing real world relationality. Rather, Facebook tends to reflect our social world. For example, in a soon to be published study some ACU colleagues and I used Facebook to predict student retention at our school (i.e., which freshmen return for their sophomore year). We found that on-campus Facebook activity was significantly correlated with measures of "real world" relationality. Further, on-campus Facebook activity also predicted who would come back for their sophomore year. For example, if you had a lot of Facebook Wall Posts you felt more socially connected and were more likely to come back to ACU for a second year. Which makes sense. Who would be posting on your Wall day to day? Sure, old friends might give you a shout out from time to time on your Wall. But for the most part Wall posts come from people who you'll actually see today. Or at least this week, month or year. The point is, you know these people. Talking with them via Facebook is authentic relationality. It's staying in touch, coordinating plans, offering up encouragement, saying a prayer, working out misunderstandings, and sharing a moment.

Over at my friend Mike's blog there was a recent discussion about why Millennials (also known as Generation Y) are leaving the church. His question was, why are they leaving? Most of the answers took aim at the church. Churches are too shallow, hypocritical, judgmental, or political. Many surveys have shown these attitudes to be widespread among Millennials. Consider the Barna research summarized in the book unChristian. Young Christians and non-Christians tend to feel that the church is "unChristian." Too antihomosexual. Too hypocritical. Too political. Too judgmental. That's how young people see "the church." And it's hard to blame them.

But my argument at Mike's blog was that the church has always been this way. Is the church of 2010 much different from the church of the '50s, '60s, '70s, '80s, or '90s? I don't think so. So, yes, the church is screwed up. Always has been. The church has been a depressing constant over the generations. So the change isn't with the church. The change is with the Millennials. If so, in what way and how has this change related to the church?

The most obvious change is in mobile and Web 2.0 connectivity. Generation X didn't have cell phones. Nor did they have Facebook or text messaging. And you can't tell me that Millennials see the church any differently than Generation X saw it. Look to the right at cell phone subscriptions plotted by decade. Most have Generation X as birth dates between 1961 to 1981. Which has Gen X as college students in the years 1979 to 1999. As you can see, most Gen X'ers didn't have cellphones. And based on the sociological evidence Gen X was much more cynical and anti-establishment when compared to the Millennials. So you can't tell me Gen X'ers didn't see the church as judgmental, hypocritical, or sold-out. They did.

So what happened? Why didn't Gen X leave the church while the Millennials are leaving in droves?

The difference between Generations X and Y isn't in their views of the church. It's about those cellphones. It's about relationships and connectivity. Most Gen X'ers didn't have cell phones, text messaging or Facebook. These things were creeping in during their college years but the explosive onset of mobile devices and social computing had yet to truly take off.

So why has mobile social computing affected church attendance? Well, if church has always been kind of lame and irritating why did people go in the first place? Easy, social relationships. Church has always been about social affiliation. You met your friends, discussed your week, talked football, shared information about good schools, talked local politics, got the scoop, and made social plans ("Let's get together for dinner this week!"). Even if you hated church you could feel lonely without it. Particularly with the loss of "third places" in America.

But Millennials are in a different social situation. They don't need physical locations for social affiliation. They can make dinner plans via text, cell phone call or Facebook. In short, the thing that kept young people going to church, despite their irritations, has been effectively replaced. You don't need to go to church to stay connected or in touch. You have an iPhone.

Sure, Millennials will report that the "reason" they are leaving the church is due to its perceived hypocrisy or shallowness. My argument is that while this might be the proximate cause the more distal cause is social computing. Already connected Millennials have the luxury to kick the church to the curb. This is the position of strength that other generations did not have. We fussed about the church but, at the end of the day, you went to stay connected. For us, church was Facebook!

The pushback here will be that all this Millennial social computing, all this Facebooking, isn't real, authentic relationship. I'd disagree with that assessment. It goes to the point I made earlier: Most of our Facebook interactions are with people we know, love, and are in daily contact with. Facebook isn't replacing "real" relationships with "virtual" relationships. It's simply connecting us to our real friends. And if you can do this without getting up early on Sunday morning why go to church? Particularly if the church is hypocritical and shallow? Why mess with it?

Why are Millennials leaving the church? It's simple. Mobile social computing has replaced the main draw of the traditional church: Social connection and affiliation.

Basically, Facebook killed the church. May it Rest in Peace.

How To Talk To A Fundamentalist

This article was written by by David Hayward, blogger at The Naked Pastor. Read his blog HERE.

We are all fundamentalists at some time or another over certain issues. It is just the intensity of fundamentalism that varies. So, if I was a fundamentalist (not the extremist kind), how would I want a non-fundamentalist to converse with me?

1. You must realize from the beginning that I don’t require scientific proof to believe something is true.
2. Respect me me a person. I am not stupid. You can disagree with my ideas, but don’t think I’m an idiot.
3. I will try to be gracious, even in my inflexible insistence upon certain truths.
4. I would appreciate finding areas we can agree on before we debate things we disagree on.
5. If we do disagree on what I think is a foundational issue (what I would call a fundamental truth), I will still try to be gracious even though I think you are gravely and perhaps even foolishly mistaken.
6. If you try to change my mind on a fundamental issue, it would be dishonest of me and naïve of you not to expect emotions to become involved in the discussion.
7. Even though I may vehemently disagree with one of your fundamental truths and even consider it foolish, I will not hate you for it.
8. Even if I believe you are going to Hell, I will not treat you as an inferior person. My beliefs are mine. They are not your problem to try to fix.
9. Some of my beliefs are offensive to you. I understand that. But you need to understand that I could find some of your beliefs offensive to me.
10. Compassion would demand of me that I desire you to believe as I do.

LIVING TOGETHER BEFORE THE WEDDINGIS BAD FOR YOUR MARRIAGE - A RESEARCH REPORT

This insightful report on American research deserves some attention. It was originally posted on the South African website health24.com and the original can be read HERE.

Cohabitation bad for marriage

Living together before going to the altar increases the risk that the marriage will fail, says a U.S. study.

Their analysis of data from the National Survey of Family Growth in 2002 found that a marriage was 6% less likely to last 10 years if a couple lived together before they tied the knot, The New York Times reported.

The study by researchers at the National Centre for Health Statistics also found that the proportion of women in their late 30s who had ever cohabited had doubled in 15 years, to 61%.

Among the other findings:

• Half of couples who cohabit marry within three years.
• If both partners are college graduates, it's more likely that they'll marry and that their marriage will last at least 10 years.
• Couples who marry after age 26 or have a baby eight months or more after they get married are also more likely to stay married for more than 10 years.
• About 62% of women ages 25 to 44 were married and 8% were cohabiting. Among men, figures were 59% and 10%, respectively.
• Overall, one in five marriages will fail within five years. One in three will last less than 10 years.

"Cohabitation is increasingly becoming the first co-residential union formed among young adults," wrote the study authors, The Times reported. "As a result of the growing prevalence of cohabitation, the number of children born to unmarried cohabiting parents has also increased." - (HealthDay News, March 2010)