Introducing Reformation Hardware! Reformation Hardware is a store that offers a (growing) handful of Reformation related items, tastefully done. We’re nailing the Reformation to the 21st century. T-shirts, mouse pads, stickers with Reformation mottos and images. I just ordered the mouse pad.

At this point, Reformation Hardware is a CafePress storefront, but we hope to move to an independent operation. As Reformation Hardware grows, we be able to add more products. Take a look and check back regularly, there are more logos to come.

Update: Just added a John Calvin design in its own storefront.

Well, well. It looks like “sodium lithium boron silicate hydroxide with fluorine” or as we like to call it “kryptonite” may be real! Now, can we please locate Superman? We need some help in Iraq. Tell him that we promise not to use jadarite, er, kryptonite on him. Promise. For reals. And we won’t let Lex Luthor out of prison this time either.

I got the feedback from my assessment today. Here is the summary:

• The assessment team recognizes Tim as an elder caliber man who is more of a waterer than a planter.
• The assessment team recommends that Tim pursue placement in an established ministry as either a solo pastor or associate.
• The assessment team recommends that Tim develop his commitment to church planting by leading an established church to become a multiplying ministry.

So in the end I am not a church planter. Our district superintendent made the comparison between Apollos and Paul. Paul is most often found amongst unbelievers starting new things. Apollos is found amongst Christians feeding and watering. That illustration was helpful for me since I tended to feel guilty about not being more like Paul. It is okay to be Apollos. I am still very interested in church planting and a big advocate. They said that the role I seem to fit the best is not church planter but leading an established church to go become a church planting church. I couldn’t agree more!

This really rewrites my internship plans for this summer and totally retools my vision for what happens after I graduate. Can’t wait to see where the Lord leads next!

Added: I have been asked and yes, I am fine with this. I’d rather know this now than find out later. It is actually a bit of a relief because what I heard is that it is ok for me to be who I am and I can still have an effective ministry.

A recent article at First Things points out that:

This Lent we have seen the Discovery Channel airing a documentary about the “Lost Tomb of Jesus,” a New York confectioner making a life-sized Jesus out of chocolate, Newsweek boldly asking “Is God Real?,” and the New York Times discussing both theism as the outgrowth of brain architecture and the myth of the Exodus. The History Channel graced Easter Sunday night with “Banned from the Bible,” two hours about all that nifty stuff that was “deemed unfit to grace the pages of the sacred scriptures for Jews and Christians . . . heresy or hidden truth?”

The author then reflects on the “many-branched assault on the fabric of Christendom” but it got me thinking in a different vein. With every attack on Christianity this “olde tyme religion” answers her critics often soundly defeating them. The Da Vinci Code got whomped and so did Jesus’ tomb. Along the way the reality of the person of Jesus and the reality of his resurrection gains more credibility. The historicity of the “Christ event” ¹An academic term for the events recorded in the gospels. I really don’t like it because Jesus is a person not an event but it is useful shorthand for the entire story. is shown over and over to be a trustworthy thing.

And yet the media feeds on these pseudo-scholarly attacks on Christianity. They believe it will sell and so they go for it. I’m not convinced that they have an axe to grind with Christianity, I don’t really think the folks who run our media: a) care, b) understand, or c) have a conviction stronger than their bottom line. But their greed really does a service to the cause of Christ. By airing this trollop, they also provide an opportunity for Christian scholars to refute the errors and offer support for our truth claims. ²Another scholarly word that I’m not keen on. If it is truth it isn’t a claim. But that isn’t what it means and I need to chill out. :)

This is what happened in the early centuries of the church. Critics would write horribly misguided critiques of Christian beliefs and men like Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Jerome got to write lengthy and detailed refutations and statements of what the true faith is. But their letters were not made as public as our responses are. We get to use a media that beams the answer around the globe. We have electronic media that can duplicate those responses instantly instead of having to wait for monks to transcribe the work.

In the end I am glad to see the attacks on the faith. May God grant the church more powerful apologists like those in the past to stand up and defend her.

[HT: Herr Luther]

My Google news aggrate picked up an interesting article in the Burbank Leader which was printed on Saturday before Easter. Various religious traditions were asked about the reality of Jesus’ resurrection. Take a look for yourself, it is a fairly short read but a revealing one.

Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.

But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 1Co 15:12-20

He is risen indeed!

Happy Easter.

But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they went to the tomb, taking the spices they had prepared. And they found the stone rolled away from the tomb, but when they went in they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. While they were perplexed about this, behold, two men stood by them in dazzling apparel. And as they were frightened and bowed their faces to the ground, the men said to them, “Why do you seek the living among the dead? He is not here, but has risen. Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee, that the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men and be crucified and on the third day rise.” – The Gospel According to St. Luke, chapter 24, verses 1 through 7

Devotion to God–there is no substitute for this in the preacher’s character and conduct. Devotion to a church, to opinions, to an organization, to orthodoxy–these are paltry, misleading, and vain when they become the source of inspiration. God must be the mainspring of the preacher’s efforts, the fountain and crown of his toil. The name and honor of Jesus Christ, the advance of His cause, must be all in all. The preacher must have no inspiration but the name of Jesus Christ, no ambition but to have Him glorified, not toil but for Him. Then prayer will be the source of his illuminations, the means of perpetual advancement, the gauge of his success. The continual aim, the only ambition the preacher can cherish, is to have God with him. – E. M. Bounds, Power Through Prayer, chapter 8

Recently on Fresh Air Terry Gross did back to back shows where she interviewed the famous atheist Richard Dawkins and Francis Collins, the head of the human genome project and a believer in Jesus Christ. I’ve downloaded the podcasts but haven’t had a chance to listen to them yet.

This morning I was poking around CNN and found Collins’ commentary on how and why he became a believer. There are some good points and some that bother me a bit. I really appreciated this comment:

I had to admit that the science I loved so much was powerless to answer questions such as “What is the meaning of life?” “Why am I here?” “Why does mathematics work, anyway?” “If the universe had a beginning, who created it?” “Why are the physical constants in the universe so finely tuned to allow the possibility of complex life forms?” “Why do humans have a moral sense?” “What happens after we die?”

Science can do many and great things for humanity, but ultimately it can only answer “how?” and that only to a certain degree. Science can never answer “why.” Collins ran into that wall and went searching. Was belief in God rationally possible? Somehow he came across C. S. Lewis and found the answer to be a resounding yes.

I do side with Collins on the issue of faith and reason:

But reason alone cannot prove the existence of God. Faith is reason plus revelation, and the revelation part requires one to think with the spirit as well as with the mind. You have to hear the music, not just read the notes on the page. Ultimately, a leap of faith is required.

But I am uneasy about this “leap of faith” business. I’m not so sure it is a leap as much as an appropriate application of reason. Anselm’s idea of “faith seeking understanding” is more appealing to me. Otherwise, if we start with reason which has been distorted by the fall we are likely to allow that distortion to affect our faith. This is true even in a heart that has been renewed by the Holy Spirit.

So I am a concerned when Collins says something like this:

True, this is incompatible with an ultra-literal interpretation of Genesis, but long before Darwin, there were many thoughtful interpreters like St. Augustine, who found it impossible to be exactly sure what the meaning of that amazing creation story was supposed to be. So attaching oneself to such literal interpretations in the face of compelling scientific evidence pointing to the ancient age of Earth and the relatedness of living things by evolution seems neither wise nor necessary for the believer.

This is where we must ask about the relationship between general revelation (what can be learned by studying creation) and special revelation (the Bible). This most often comes up in light of Darwinism and Genesis 1.

I believe it is wisest to start with the Biblical account and move out from there. I do not think an “ultra-literal” interpretation of Genesis 1 is demanded from the text. Genesis 1 appears to be Hebrew poetry and we shouldn’t take poetry literally. But notice that this discussion starts with hermeneutics not genetics. Beyond that, there are other texts of the Bible which seem to rely on six days of creation and one day of rest. I’m not sure if that means that the universe had to be created in six 24-hour days but what is being expressed in the poetry is an important pattern or cycle that is not included in Collins’ synthesis of science and Scripture.

So the struggle goes on. The reconciling of general revelation with special revelation struggles forward. I think Collins will be helpful in that movement but the work must be done not only by scientist but also by theologians and all of it in faith and under the headship of Jesus Christ.

P.S. The link at CNN that took me to this commentary read “Why one scientist believes in God” so I thought it was fascinating that Collins refers to “he 40 percent of working scientists who claim to be believers.” CNN’s comment could be taken to imply (though not necessarily so) that there is only one scientist who believes in God.

Derek Webb has a new CD coming out. This one is more rock than his previous CDs were. If you preorder (no, I haven’t yet but am considering it) you get a 96-page graphic novel and you can download the CD before it is release. When I get the CD I’ll post some comments. The previews are encouraging.