The reason Science in the classroom doesn't include God, is because God is beyond Science. God can be neither proven nor disproven (i.e. unscientific ).

Yes, God is beyond science. But guess why? He created it! Gravity and all that! [Scientific language is totally beyond me. Besides, I don't even understand how phones and radios and computers and TVs work. ] How can you study science and not study the amazing and creative works of God?! Or mention His name?! God = Creator! Laminin = L.O.V.E. cells! Evolution is false science and bad science. True science = creation!

@daughter: thanks for giving your thoughts. I said before that raising one's hands in worship depended on personality, since not everyone does this or is comfortable with it, but we also need to examine our motives. Is something other than personality a reason we might not raise our hands, whether or not we're comfortable with doing so? That's all I'm saying. And does it matter to God whether or not we raise our hands? I think so. I think He likes to see passion for Him in us -- as well as reverence. We need a balance between the two. I said before that raising one's hands was an act of submission in the Bible. Priests did it in tabernacle and temple worship all the time. I think the Israelites did too. Btw, I've never danced in a service -- at least not in the flesh. I don't like it when people dance in the altars -- in the flesh [like it's a disco] rather than in the Spirit. True dancing in the Spirit is something I rarely see.

220Christian your beliefs are dangerously close to those of Christo-platoists (I think that's what they're called) - that any earthly pleasure is sinful. Not cool.

I'm not sure that was what 220 was refering to W4J. There is a difference between having pleasure on earth and wordly pleasure. Having pleasure on earth is simply doing the things we like. I like to play video games, watch movies, play sports, read a book, etc. These things do give me pleasure but none of them are sinful. However wordly pleasure (which I believe is what 220 is refering to) is seeking pleasure in anything but God. What also gives me pleasure is doing the things God wants me to do. I love being with kids, doing ministry, and serving where I can. So having pleasure is one thing; having pleasure in things of the rebellious worldview is something else.

Thank you, Fencer, for the eloquent defense. I was referring to worldly pleasures rather than pleasures on earth. But guess what? I know what it is for simple, God-given pleasures to become worldly ones. I know what it is to leave God out of what I delight in. And besides, shouldn't our greatest delight and pleasure be in God Himself? If we take too much pleasure in, or seek satisfaction in, anyone or anything else besides God, it's sin and idolatry.

@Bookwyrm: what is "Jesus healing?" I have no idea.

@Shantih and GB: glad you mark in your Bibles. Doing so isn't desecration. Thinking it is ... idolatry? As Gladius noted, the pages and ink aren't sacred ... the message is!

@Shantih: "I'm an unashamed marker of books" too, whether or not they're mine. But my uncle doesn't like my using pencil in library books.

I watched a video clip in church this morning. It's from a secular foreign-language film called "Most," i.e. "The Bridge" [?]. But this clip is an excellent example of John 3:16! Please watch it! You know what I realized while watching this clip and listening to the pastor's sermon on the Father heart of God [as seen in John 3]? That the only way to bridge a gap between people -- parents and children, old and young in church, different races and cultures and economic classes -- is through sacrifice, giving, humility, and submission ... with the motive of love. That's what the Father did in giving us His Son! That's what Jesus Christ did in Gethsemane and on the cross!

EDIT

It most emphatically not a rule book. It the story of God's dealings with His people; it is the grand tale of the Gospel. If you diminish it to the status of a rule book you lose sight of grace and the finished work of Christ--the whole meaning of the Ressurection!--and you put us back under the Law, under Works.

For the Christian, the Law is only a soul-template--the shape of what we wish to become, what we are becoming, and what me must inevitably become. Not a rule-book. It is the image of Chirst, to which God conforms us daily, and to which we wish to be conformed--for he has transformed our hearts and given us new desires. Please don't degrade the Bible to what has often been called "Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth." That totally misses the point.

Maybe "rule book" was a poor choice of words. But "Basic instructions before leaving Earth" isn't bad. What is the central message of the Bible? The gospel of Jesus Christ. And what is that Gospel? That through the love and power of the risen Christ we can obey the holy law of God -- with our whole being cause we want to! [as you noted]

Jesus Christ came to this earth to do the will of the Father – give His life as a substitute for the punishment of our sins. His blood for ours. That’s what Gethsemane and Calvary are all about. Christ obeyed and fulfilled the holy law of God [Matthew 5:17-19]. And what did Jesus tell us before He left? If you love Me, keep My commandments [John 14:15, 21, 23, 15:10, 12, 14, 17] = love God with your whole being + love your brothers and sisters in Christ as I love you = sacrifice, humility, submission. In and through Christ, we obey the law. Love is the fulfillment of the law [Romans 13:10, Galatians 5:14]. It’s not law vs grace. It’s grace to obey the law – through the power of the Holy Spirit. Why create a conflict where there is none?
/EDIT

The discussion about marking up Bibles reminds me of a joke I once heard:

(Person A brings a Bible to Person B)
B: "What are you throwing away this Bible for?! Look, it's one of the original KJVs, printed right off the first Gutenburg printing press! This is worth millions!"
A: "Nah, no way. Some guy named Martin Luther scribbled all over it."

Anyways, I would say Creationism would fit better in a religion class than a science class. At the same time, I still have my doubts as to how much the standard macro-evolution theory (outside of observable natural selection) is actually "science", too. A lot of that reeks of extrapolation, and bad things can happen when you extrapolate. But that's just my beef.

I do think that Christianity should be taught in public schools: obviously, trying to outright preach it would be bad, but at the very least, it should be presented as what it really is, without the negative biases so many people like to put into it. As it is, a lot of people seem to have an awfully flawed view of Christianity. (Though the actions of some of the... less mature members of the faith certainly aren't helping.) A good, relatively-objective presentation of major world religions definitely isn't a bad thing.

*tiptoes in*

Just a few remarks...

As has been noted already, it can be a fine line between enjoying the pleasures life offers here on earth and enjoying them over the Father from whom they come ("worldly pleasures"). John Piper has referred to this as "Treasuring the gifts rather than the great Giver" (paraphrased). I find that phrase a nice reminder and benchmark when pondering this issue.

Regarding the question of "what others may think" as opposed to "what Jesus thinks," perhaps there's a slightly different nuance to consider here:

So if there's anything to be concerned about, I'd be more concerned about how we appear to the world we're trying to witness to. Whether it's the noisy dancer or the silent starer, we're called to be Fools for Christ, not Weirdos for Christ.

In response, 220 wrote:

Personality is one thing. However, caring what others think is another. And that’s an inhibition. I’m not convinced it’s a good one either. We need to examine our hearts and ask ourselves, do we care more about what others think or about what Jesus thinks? Whom do we try to please? I don’t care how I appear to the world. I’m not here to please the world....

These points are well-taken; we are to please God first. But perhaps what TOM means is that we are to consider how we "adorn the gospel" (to use an old phrase) to a lost world around us. In this case it does matter how we appear to the world - though it's not so much caring about what others think of us, but how we display Christ to those around us - that is, any concern for "what others think" would have at its heart a desire for God to be glorified in our actions and attitudes toward them.

Consider Peter's admonition - how we present or defend the gospel to those around us makes a difference:

...but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect... (emphasis added)

In this context, it's likely less about what happens in church, with (primarily) other believers, but our lives out in the world - work, school, recreation. But all we do is worship, not just what happens in church.

And here personality and temperaments come into play - God has filled His Body with many different types of people. So, what "desiring to please God first" looks like for me will likely be different than it is for someone else.

For example, my most profound and intimate times of worship often come alone (or with a few friends) out under a dark sky filled with stars. This may involve quietly standing in awe in the presence of the Maker, or a deep yet quiet conversation about origins, theology, or the like (such questions come naturally when presented with the glories of nature). To someone who's 'wired' for a freer expression of emotion or worship, this might seem boring - but surely it can be just as significant and God-glorifying as those other expressions of worship.

(I hasten to add that this example isn't a response to this thread's discussion - I don't intend to set up a straw man just to knock it down. It's just another possible aspect of the original comment above).

For the moment, I'm tiptoeing clear of the creation/evolution discussion, though I find the subject interesting. Perhaps later I'll give in to the temptation to post on it.

(edited)

While the Bible is the Word of God, its paper body is not in any way superior to the paper body of any other book. It's just paper and ink--nothing sacred.

Wait but paper and ink in book form is sacred. *shudders at the idea of writing in any book* I hated it when I forced to highlight in a book for a class in high school. I about died when I was forced to not only write in a combination textbook / workbook but also tear out and hand in the pages. I'm much more of a take notes or mark with sticky notes kind of person. I do understand that it can help people to mark in books and the Bible and is part of reading strategies / Bible studies, but I've always felt it is rather a sin to write in any book (unless it is a workbook only). However, I will highlight copies taken from books and make notes on them. I'm not exactly sure where I got my idea about not writing in books since I often see my dad highlighting books and I think I've seen markings in my mom's Bible(s).

(some exaggeration was used in in the previous paragraph)

As far as education of evolution vs creation in public schools, again, the state should not be the one that determines what is taught in the schools. It is quite interesting that teachers are usually allowed to teach whatever they want. One history teacher in particular comes to minid. The class was pre-Civil War US History. I got more of his opition of then President W Bush than I got of pre-Civil War US History. I asked to talk to a dean about it because I wasn't getting the education I was paying for, and they said there was nothing they could do about it.

I've had professors like that. I do find it odd that there was nothing they could do about it. Some of the students in one of my classes complained to the dean that we weren't getting the education we were paying for, and the dean talked to the professor about it. From all that I've heard it is quite different in the K-12 schools. There teachers have very specific guidelines as to what they can and cannot teach.

Not only that, in spite of the 1st Admendment, the US government is enforcing evolution. I don't mind if teachers want to teach it. But teachers are being forced to teach it and only it. And if they reveal anything to the contrary, they are often fired. I know several who have been simply because they would not teach evolution as fact when it is just an unprovable theory (with so many errors and holes that have been growing exponentially). On top of that, any time a scientist discovers something that reveals another hole in the evolutionary theory, their funding gets cut immediately. This is more the rule than the exception.

I've heard that often the teachers aren't allowed to teach anything except evolution. Much of what we learn in science as "truth" or "fact" is really just something that has been found to be true repeatedly. It is almost impossible to prove anything. I think I learned this in a science (and/or math) class along the way. It would only take one apple falling up to make us rethink the law of gravity.

I agree with GB that a teachable moment was missed in ILF's class, but I disagree about exactly what it was. I would have created some sort of assignment to research and present evidence for both views. I would have the students find out the arguments and evidence (or interpretation of evidence) that both sides are using. Some kind of a chart comparing and contrasting the theories would probably be helpful. I would not promote one over the other but let the students make up their own minds. I don't think Evolution should be present as the one and only answer and an infallible truth. We can't know for sure how things worked in the past. A major part of science is learning and discovering more and adjusting one's ideas as the evidence is unveiled.

I agree that it might be a little dicey presenting the idea of ID or Creationism in a science class, especially with how closely the issue is monitor. I remember someone telling me that at school creationism wasn't even allowed to be discussed if the students' brought it up. However, the teacher shut the door to the room and let the students discuss it. It is often hard to get students involved in learning and when we find something that excites them we are told they can't discuss it. If the Evolution vs. Creationism debate is not discussed in a science class, it ought to be brought up in some other class. For many years it has been an ongoing debate in the "real" world, and we are doing students a disservice if we don't make them aware about what is happening outside the walls of the school. If we teach them in school how to look at both sides of an issue and how to discuss such issues in a civilized way, it might help make debates / arguments / controversies a little more polite. The views on this particular issue could fit in a history / social studies class or even a literature class since their is a play based on the trial that happened when people first tried to get evolution taught.

It will get some thinking going, which unfortunatly is not being taught in schools. Students are being told what to think, not how to think. If schools spend more time teaching students how to think instead of what to think, evolution would not still be there. So keep thinking.

Tell me about it. The ironic thing is that my education classes stressed that we need to make students think and teach them critical thinking skills. Yet, once in the schools, teachers are expected to teach for the tests and are limited in some subjects as to what they can teach. I could go on and on complaining about the way schools work but I'll save everyone the pain of reading it. One more thing, I read in one of my textbooks that teachers (in public schools of course) shouldn't and/or are not allowed to wear cross jewelery or even tell the students which religion they belong to. That's one of the main reasons I want to get a job teaching in a Christian school. [/rant](I mean it this time )

glad you mark in your Bibles. Doing so isn't desecration. Thinking it is ... idolatry?

I guess I'm an idolater then. Seriously though, I'm not opposed to it in moderation. That's key. I have a problem when I see nothing but highlighter pen marks and zig zag lines going helter-skelter all over the place. But it's your Bible, do with it what you will. If it helps you to reference better than mark away.

"I'm an unashamed marker of books" too, whether or not they're mine. But my uncle doesn't like my using pencil in library books.

With your books it's one thing but with books that belong to someone else...well, that's just not cool. Especially if they're from the public library. My wife works at the library and would have a conniption! Actually, if you want to get technical about it that could loosely be considered grafitti since you're writing on public property...

Of course you could be joking too, and I haven't ruled that possibility out.

*shudders at the idea of writing in any book* I hated it when I forced to highlight in a book for a class in high school.

I'm kind of the same way. I guess this makes you an idolater too . The one book in high school I marked in was a dinky little paperback copy of Shakespeare's MacBeth, and it was already marked in. My sister Kathy had a copy she took notes in during English class, and when it was my turn she bequeathed it to me, and I added more notes. Finally my younger brother Andrew took the class and I ended up borrowing it to him. Sort of like a weird family heirloom thing. I still have it stuffed away in a box somewhere, although the front cover fell off years ago.

*weighs on the writing in books discussion*

I have no problems writing in Bibles. Doing so just for the sake of doing so doesn't make any sense but as long as it's something you're actually interested in...it's a good thing cause say if you're listening to a sermon and have a sudden brainwave you can write it in the margin and when you read the verse/chapter again you'll be reminded of it.

I don't usually write in books (Except my name, date, and age in the front page), but I don't think it's a bad thing. I would never do it in a library book though!

And to go further up the page...what to teach in schools...I think it'd be a good idea for teachers to present several different "worldviews" (or whatever they're called), like Athiests, Christian, and any others...same with teaching Creation and Evolution...instead of one or the other, teach both (or more!) so that instead of feeling like they're being brainwashed kids can see the pros and cons to each option and make a much more informed decision. Also it might help them respect other beliefs more.

@Bookwyrm: what is "Jesus healing?" I have no idea.

Eh, ignore that question. It twas the result of a random blonde moment.

I totally agree Valiant Lucy. Teaching people to think critically and to explore what they believe and why is incredibly important and avoids a sheltered, naive outlook on life. It also helps one to grow as a person (and if you're a believer) to grow in your faith in God.

Yes, I do agree with Valiant Lucy and W4F that there is room to teach children to think for themselves. But I think that is already being done in our schools, public or not. I thought the papers set for last year's HSC were really difficult, compared with what I remember from my own school days.

I do think that Christianity should be taught in public schools: obviously, trying to outright preach it would be bad, but at the very least, it should be presented as what it really is, without the negative biases so many people like to put into it. As it is, a lot of people seem to have an awfully flawed view of Christianity.

As far as I know, Christianity, itself, was always taught in public schools and in class, one way or another. I remember my children attending scripture classes though I sometimes had to supply notes to allow them to do so. When I grew up, myself, the gripe with the Catholic schools was that they taught too much religion and not enough of the other stuff, like maths, science, history etc, where Christianity also looms large.

In those days Creationism, let alone ID was never heard of, and Evolution was taught as a matter of course, even though there was less known about it than today. When we had regular Scripture lessons, and ISCF associations in a predominantly Christian society, more so than today, and when there was little alternative to public schools apart from Catholic schools. Unless you went to a boarding school or orphanage.

Public Education is for everyone, believer and non-believer alike. Of course the government, as an instrument of collective will, should set basic curriculum standards.

And part of those standards should be covering prevailing Scientific thought, including Evolution. Teachers do have some leeway in setting curriculum, but it is in the collective interest to ensure that basic standards are met, without favouring religion in general or particular.

Religion should only be brought up in a Public School setting in a neutral manner in comparative religion classes, or in context of its Historical impacts on Culture. The reason "Church and State" is invoked particularly against Christianity is because Christianity is the prevailing religion in our society. In a prevailing Islamic republic, it would behoove them to inveigh against promoting Islam in the schoolroom.

I'd agree but up to a point. Religion, especially the Christian religion, as the predominant one, definitely was taught at the public schools I attended as was the case for my children as well. It always has been, and it is only recently that non-Christians of various sorts have had an objection to prayers, attending scripture lessons and school activities attached to special occasions like Christmas, Easter, or Anzac Day.

But long before Comparative Religion became an HSC subject, the Christianity we learned was taught in a non-denominational way, to allow for children with wildly different denominational backgrounds, including, Catholic, Orthodox, and whether or not they were one of the mainstream Christian denominations. And to my knowledge, even in their own schools, Catholics and Orthodox religions or the interdenominational private schools available now, including Anglican schools, would not teach Creationism or ID as an alternative to Evolution in Science classes.

That idea of 'inveighing against the promotion of the Islamic faith' in public schools in predominantly Islamic countries is an interesting idea, and I wouldn't think that would ever be a likely scenario, with the possible exception of Turkey. Here, there are many schoolgirls who wear hijabs to school. which they are allowed to do, so long as they conform to the school uniform colours. What would you make of school students who want to do a lot more than that? Wearing the jilbab (a long coat to be worn even in hot weather), or the niqab (a face covering) for instance?

And what do you make of the ban on religious attire in French schools? France is a republic, and like the USA, a secular society.

I don't really know how their government is set up, but I'm surprised they were able to pass that law. It certainly would never be allowed here, but then religious apparel is doubly protected by freedom of religion and freedom of expression. To me, banning religious attire is borderline fascism.

It's only banned in public schools, precisely to avoid fascistic behaviour by students towards each other. Personally, I prefer more freedom of expression for minors myself, and stronger enforcement of anti-bullying laws. But even in the US, more and more communities are opting for school uniforms and banning adornments, and it is often supported by "conservatives" and "liberals" alike.

Last year a student (I think in Oregon or Northern California) was suspended for wearing TIGGER socks in violation of the school uniform code . WAY over the top, if you ask me .

GB

France has always had a firm view on separating religion and the state so this ruling didn't surprise me. It seems to have the aim of other uniform rules though, and I can agree with that. I always quite liked my school uniform and it made life easier, especially when running late for school

At my old school you'd have got told off for tigger socks (black or white socks only) but not suspended. Unless you tried to make some sort of sock related protest...who knows

Personally, I prefer more freedom of expression for minors myself, and stronger enforcement of anti-bullying laws. But even in the US, more and more communities are opting for school uniforms and banning adornments, and it is often supported by "conservatives" and "liberals" alike.

When given the choice between trying to fix a problem and just beating everyone into submission with a senseless rule, governments will nearly always pick the second one. The schools in our area went to uniforms several years ago and it was a disaster at first. Almost no one carried the outfits the kids were supposed to wear and those who did decided to charge a fortune for them. It's not such a big deal anymore, but I still find the idea that making kids dress like drones will keep them from bullying each other to be one of the truly stupidest ideas politicians have come up with.

First, somehow it’s just very cool to hear that both Warrior 4 Jesus and Pattertwigs Pal have been reading Alcorn’s fantastic Heaven. Sometime I’ll quit recommended that nonfiction book on the topic and switch to the much-more-mercenary of my own work-in-progress, a novel that includes themes of the After-world along with many others. But methinks it would need to be published first.

Also, if you liked Heaven, a natural followup would be Alcorn’s recent book If God is Good. After exploring the wonders of the perfect world to come, it makes sense to deal more directly with this issue: why, if God is good, does He allow sin, suffering and death in the old world?

I’m skipping the science-in-schools topic, and I’ll only note that I have never made notes in my Bible. This is out of habit, not some deep conviction. Somehow I have never highlighted in any book, either.

Finally, it’s great that everyone could talk about the First Amendment in the U.S. and similar laws in other countries without getting into politics!

April Fool’s

The April Fool’s Day subtopic seems to have faded. Yet let me take this opportunity to, well, pile on:

1. Jesus was God, but also Human. And He is a Man forever (I can prove this Biblically if anyone thinks it sounds weird — in short: He didn’t shed His glorified body on the way up to Heaven from Earth at His ascension).

2. Humans laugh, and make jokes, and the best can even engage in sarcastic slams on their opponents for God’s glory. We catch Jesus doing this multiple times. His hyperbole and mockery was often at the expense of the Pharisees, who made up their own laws to follow and ignored the real Law that pointed to Himself. (Side note: the Pharisees’ wrongs were not primarily in simply oppressing people and being unloving.)

3. It’s up to an “April fools” critic (220 or anyone else) to prove that a holiday is first, dishonoring to God, secondly, actually harmful to humans. Paul in Romans 14 says some things may not necessarily be sins(including holidays or festivals, especially with religious connections), but believers should avoid them so as not to cause real offense or causing a brother to stumble. Does April Fool’s really do this? If not, then one’s convictions end up as little more than personal preferences that try to catch sin in its perceived execution, but not where it starts: the heart.

4. Humor, even April-Fools-style pranks, gives Christians more chances to laugh at themselves. Based on the fact of our foolish, laughably ridiculous continued sense of pride, we need more of this. I can offer no better proof than C.J. Mahaney’s “Don’t Waste Your Humor” message (free MP3 here).

5. I did miss wagga’s April Fool’s story. My mistake!

Natural selection

Hate to burst your bubble, Doc, but really both ILF and Gandalf’s Beard are right, not you. Because if it is true that Creation-believers are promoting natural selection then they are in a roundabout fashion promoting Evolution.

No, they’re not. And they’re not the same. Here are a few reasons why.

It’s not about whether genetic change happens, which no one should dispute, but what kind of change: new gene information, or sorted information that is actually lost or corrupted with every generation?

1. Natural selection: genetic information, from an original source, “sorted” into offspring within a certain kind of creature, such as dogs or horses.

2. Perceived evolution: genetic information improved or built upon itself over generations, with new features resulting from changes or mutations.

Natural selection is observable. What has not been proved is new species or brand-new genetic information resulting from DNA sorting. Dogs may change over time, but this isn’t from new information. It’s from “sorted” data, going downward from an original source that has more information. “Evolution” requires upward improvement, and new information. Natural selection is not the same as apes-to-man evolution.

I’ve found and read that it’s not helpful to talk about “micro-evolution” versus or alongside “macro-evolution.” This could wrongly imply that all these little genetic changes are adding little bits of new information, which could add up into a species change too.

Answers in Genesis recommends against using the “macro-evolution versus micro-evolution” comparison.

Arguments that should be avoided (because further research is still needed, new research has invalided aspects of it, or biblical implications may discount it)

[. . .]

[Argument:] Microevolution is true but not macroevolution. (People usually mean that we see changes within a kind but not between kinds; however, the important distinction is that we observe changes that do not increase the genetic information in an organism.)

I can point to other sources about real natural selection, but for now it’s enough to say they are most decidedly not the same. Dogs change over time; they are still dogs. Horses change over time; they are still horses. Genetic information gets sorted over generations. Mutations or offspring result in information loss, never gained genetic information from nowhere.

Religious “secularism”

And ILF has every civil and civic right to post what she did, being entitled to an education under Australian law. It may not reflect her religious beliefs at all. And what happened to separation of church and state?

Sounds like most of this has been hashed out, but I’ll add a little here too.

I’m not saying anyone doesn’t have a legal right to say what she did, or that they were within Australian law or whatever. My perspective isn’t based on what’s legal, but what’s religious and what’s not religious. And if one claims somehow to be above a system of morality or “neutral” between religious ideas, that is not a “neutral” view.

One may believe it’s neutral — yet that’s just more religion, believing that one has a superior morality to other beliefs or moral worldvies.

I don’t oppose that at all. Let’s hash it out, see who’s right and whether the Bible agrees or disagrees with an idea. But let’s be wary of nonsense about supposed “neutrality” or non-religion.

Hands raising

Personality is one thing. However, caring what others think is another. And that’s an inhibition. I’m not convinced it’s a good one either. We need to examine our hearts and ask ourselves, do we care more about what others think or about what Jesus thinks? Whom do we try to please?

Yesterday I wrote more on this topic, based on the discussion here.

[W]hile I know some raise (ha ha!) the objection that if we’re worshiping, it doesn’t matter what people think around us … yes, it does.

If you’re worshiping by yourself, it may not matter as much what “style” you have, more-charismatic or otherwise.

Yet believers worshiping together must be loving and sensitive to others. If this were not necessary, Paul would not have written so much, especially in 1 Corinthians 12-14, about the need to worship with different spiritual gifts “decently and in order.”

Christians can and should worship by themselves. Yet worship with other believers bring many more needs into play. And applying the Romans 14 principles of not wrongly offending “weaker brothers” would also mean we should be careful about what even our heartfelt expressions of worship might mean to those around us. Clearly, Paul thought this was true about tongues and other means of spiritual gift-practice.

And adding to that: neither Paul nor other apostles made worship so individual when we’re with other believers that we need not worry about others’ style or practice. Yes, we should worship in spirit and in truth. But that doesn’t always mean we should go dancing in the aisles, especially if, say, the aisles are those of a supermarket. One might think God is glorified in your personal spirit, but your body hasn’t glorified Him at all to fellow shoppers and management, who will be asking you to leave.

daughter of the King, thanks much for your balanced thoughts here! We need more people like my wife, and you apparently, who enjoy expressive worship, but are not so single-minded about it that they fail to see the place for sitting still and “soaking it in,” and that others may not get the whole dancing thing.

Christians (like myself!) who don’t raise hands, dance, or understand the response of those who do, ought to seek to understand and appreciate the “other side.” The same is true in reverse: failure to respond physically in worship does not always (or even often) mean the worship is heartless.

Christ’s bride

Redemption is personal. Jesus drank MY cup – the cup of God’s wrath for MY sins.

Amen! Faith and salvation are absolutely personal. Yet God’s Kingdom is made up of many people, gathered together in churches that are part of the Church. I am not saying either/or. Scripture gives us both/and.

I’m sure some Christians overdo the whole “the Kingdom is many people” thing. Worse, some professing Christians are claiming or acting as though personal repentance and faith in Christ is not necessary; instead, Jesus died to save everybody, and you’re a part of the Kingdom even if you don’t know it! This is a tragic lie, and true Christians should oppose it.

But — I know we’ve discussed this before — an equally tragic lie is overemphasis on one’s self as Christ’s bride, minimizing the truth that He has died to secure the salvation of many people, His Church, those who repent and believe in Him.

Scripture’s analogy for the saved Church is a bride. Scripture’s analogy for someone’s personal salvation is being adopted as a son. Nowhere in the Bible does any writer compare someone personally to Christ’s bride.

What about Song of Solomon? It’s clearly allegorical.

The Jews didn’t originally think so. And Christians do see today that any marriage is an allegory of Christ’s love for His Church (Ephesians 5), and that the Song of Solomon might reflect that. But it’s not only allegory. The Song encourages real, passionate, intimate, wild, awesome-marital-love-that-I-will-not-elaborate here. Read carefully: if everything is allegorical, things get really gross. Pay special attention to the grapes.

Not either allegory, or not-allegory. At best, both/and.

I’m not sure I’d go as far as Mark Driscoll, who has exposed all of the Song’s lovely little comparisons in front of whole congregations, including singles and children. But the Song started out as real love poetry about real lovers, for real lovers, and Christians shouldn’t minimize that or imply that it’s only allegory. (Of course as a faithful NarniaWebber I must add here that the same applies to the Chronicles of Narnia!)

Gospel definition

220, I hope it hasn’t seemed like I’ve only picked on what you’ve said. If it does seem that way, kindly consult Beard and wagga, with whom I’ve also been engaged in discussion!

But, um ...

And what is that Gospel? That through the love and power of the risen Christ we can obey the holy law of God — with our whole being cause we want to!

I am sure you’ll agree with me, but do know I’m sensitive (rightfully I think) to definitions of the Gospel that leave out the whole repent element and skip over the justifying-Grace part in favor of only Grace-as-power-to-obey part. God’s grace is both. But some religious teachers (such as Bill Gothard) only ever talk about Grace-as-God’s-power-to-obey. Maybe they expect the other stuff to come from someone else.

Again, I am very sure you believe just as I do that Grace is more than just God’s power through Christ to help us obey. However, when one says “what is the Gospel?”, then minimizes at all the crucial element of Christ suffering God’s righteous wrath for the sins of His people, especially when non-Christians are reading, I want to point out the other side.

What is the Gospel? The following description is Tweet-able:

God created everything. He is loving, perfect. You are not. Only God can save us. He in Jesus died for us. Repent/believe Him to be saved and live eternal life.

One more time: the Gospel also includes the power-from-the-Spirit-to-be-more-like-God part. James is clear that faith without works is dead — implying that real faith will never be without works. But the Gospel is not limited to that element. And God’s grace to obey is not for us simply to come back under the Law. Paul in Galatians explicitly refutes this. Christ fulfilled the Law. We are no longer under its effects. Our motivation to grow in holiness is not just to follow the Law, but to be more like Jesus, the One we now love and to Whom we are forever grateful for saving us. It’s personal.

And again, I’m sure you would agree it’s personal. But perhaps be more careful with your language? Christians are not saved simply so they can obey the Law, but for a far greater end: to glorify our infinite, loving God.

And that’s all for now.

I might as well throw my two cents in here while were at it . Hope I'm not offensive at all. These are just my opinions!

I think the Gospel can be summed up as the message of Christ. This, in turn, would be the message of love. I believe that love is the utmost important part to understand in the gospel. John 3:16. However, we musn't judge love by what we simply understand it to mean. If we were to do that we would have a misinterpreted, emotional, and a misguided view of love. To understand what love is I believe it is important to look at the Bible and Christ. Once we see what Christ did and the way Paul defines love in Corinthians, we begin to see a more clear picture of true love. The gospel is also a message of hope. From the love of Christ extends the gift of salvation and the hope of eternity with God.

The fulfillment of the law comes as a byproduct of love. The greatest commandment is to love God with all your heart. When you love God, with God's help, you keep the commandments. John 14:15. From this love births true faith and hope. It's a process that I believe is meant to start from the inside and not from the outside. Paul talked a lot about faith where as James talked about works. Both go hand in hand. I do believe though that true faith births works and not the other way around.

Well, I'm done now