I’m trying NOT to make weekend posting a habit, but I couldn’t resist sharing this with you on Mother’s Day.

It’s just TOO quaint.

You got to love epic poems that tackle fantastic topics like the biblical Fall…

Not only are they sweeping in imagination, but their language is often noble, polished and–absurd? Frightening? Mawkishly sentimental because of drunkenness?

I don’t have the answer, but John Milton’s Paradise Lost has got such language. Let me give you an example.

The setting is the garden of Eden. It’s morning and Adam is leaning over Eve who is still sleeping. This is what he says:

This, my friend’s is how he awoke her. Ever said THAT to your wife as she wakes up? Yeah. I didn’t think so.

Adam is making us look pretty bad, men. But wait, women, you’re not off the hook. Here’s how Eve responded:

O Sole in whom my thoughts find all repose, My Glorie, my Perfection, glad I see Thy face,

My Glorie? My Perfection? How dreamy!

Eve goes on to relate a bad dream she had and of course Adam comforts her…all very charming deeds in a garden bower that makes a Martha Stewart-designed bedroom look like a living space you’d find in a half-way house.

According to Milton, the mother of creation got top-notch treatment. Something we can seriously regard when it comes to our own mother’s AND wives this holiday Sunday.

So let’s practice husbands: “Awake My fairest, my espous’d, my latest found, Heaven’s last best gift, my ever new delight.”

And what about a version for mothers? Can you write something? Use Adam’s line as a template. Happy Mother’s Day!

Related posts:

1. Why Did God Create Woman?
2. Why Did God Create Man?
3. John Piper on John Calvin: The Supremacy of Christ in All Things | DG 2009

In London, A Stirring ‘War Horse’ Of A Drama
Life-sized horse puppets and a compelling story makes this both a visual and emotional powerhouse of a play.

The Hole in Our Gospel
[Free Audio Book from Christian Audio] World Vision CEO Richard Stearn uses his personal-professional story to explore the hollow gospel our church culture promotes.  [You have to give up your email address to get it, but it's worth it.]

BREAKING: Large Air Spill at Wind Farm
Wonderful little hoax paying tribute to the BP oil rig disaster in the Gulf.

The Wild Faith of Bear Grylls
Relevant magazine’s cover story on Man v. Wild star. This is one of Relevant’s better interviews.

10 Ways Christians Tend to Fail
While John Shore’s occasional touchy, near-snooty blog posts can make my skin crawl, this one demonstrates he gets the problem with our contemporary church culture.

A Brilliant Idea from the United Nations
Didn’t think it was possible, did you? The Economist  asks, “Why let only one despot endow and name a new prize when so many others deserve acclaim?”

Fallen and Flawed Makes Top 98 Christian Blogs
I have a very vague idea of who Christian Counseling Degree.org is, but heck–I’ll take any recognition I can get. And who’s going to complain about being lumped in with celebs like Jon Acuff, Joel Osteen and Tim Challies?

Just Pray on the National Day of Prayer
Matter-of-fact article that argues prayer is a lifestyle–not an annual event.

By the way, DON’T forget MOTHER’S DAY. It’s this Sunday. Buy a gift. Now.

Related posts:

1. Link Happy [Favorite Posts before 5.1.10]
2. 10 Classic Fallen + Flawed Posts on Christian Blogging
3. What I Learned During My 31 Day Blogging Break

Annihilationism is the belief that the final fate of those who are not saved is literal and final destruction…

A belief that runs against the traditional Christian understanding of hell.

So naturally as I worked through the doctrine of hell during my stint on last things, in the back of my mind I considered whether I’d address annihilationism.

It was bound to come up at some point, right?

And indeed, it did.

But when I went to do my homework, I realized quite quickly that I couldn’t possibly do the topic justice…

A handful of people before me have already answered all the arguments for annihilationism so much better than this half-baked intellectual could.

How can I add anything original to the discussion? Fact is, I couldn’t.

So instead I decided to pull together all the resources I could possibly find online–and share them with you.

In case you care, of course. [I know you do.]

Listen: Everything that I list here is going to be critical of annihilationism. But everything I list here is also very conversant with the advocates and arguments for annihilationism.

In other words, you can learn the arguments of annihilation advocates from reading the objections.

Of course nothing beats first-hand interaction–that is if you have the time. Enjoy.

Articles on Annihilationism

The Destruction of Hell Destroyed: Annihilationism Examined
Jeff Spencer concludes the the moral, linguistic, and exegetical arguments for the doctrine of annihilation all fall to the ground due to a lack of reason, lack of lexical evidence, and a lack of good, solid exegesis.

Is Hell Forever?
Stanley J. Grenz writes a nice, 2-page summary of annihilationism and it’s problems for Christianity Today.

Evangelicals and the Annihilation of Hell: Part One | Part Two
In a two part series, Alan W. Gomes examined the scriptural teaching on the doctrine of hell, paying particular attention to key passages from the Gospel of Matthew and the Book of Revelation.

Has Robert A. Peterson Defeated Annihilationism?
Glenn Peoples examines and challenges Peterson’s argument against annihilationism–and says it fails.

Is Hell Forever?
Professor of Theology at Southern Baptists Theological Seminary Milliard Erikson takes a swing at annihilationism.

Evangelical Annihilation in Review by J. I Packer

Unless Jesus Says Otherwise Hell Exists Asserts Evangelical Report
British group acknowledges differences on annihilationism, but says doctrine of hell must be preached again.

United Kingdom: Hell Isn’t Obsolete, Brits Say
The reality of hell, and the teaching that it is “occupied to some degree,” is reaffirmed in a 140-page report published in April by the Evangelical Alliance of the United Kingdom.

Undying Worm, Unquenchable Fire
What is hell—eternal torment or annihilation? Robert A. Peterson looks at the Evangelical Alliance’s The Nature of Hell.

The Hermeneutics of Annihilationism
Robert A. Peterson explores the theological methods of Edward Fudge, defender of annihilationism.

Destroyed for Ever
Tony Gray argues that annihilation is at the very least an option which ought to be considered fairly and honestly.

Eternal Punishment and John Stott
Kenneth MacLeod addresses Stott’s suggestion that the topic requires more humility.

B. B. Warfield on Annihilationism
Monergism has got a nice layout of this article by Warfield.

An Examination of Annihilationism
A systematic, detailed, scriptural argument against annihilationism by James Patrick Holding. Probably one of the best I’ve encountered.

Hell and Annihilationism
Sam Storms works over annihilationism using Revelation 14.

Is Hell Real or Simply Annihilation?
Nothing new to add to the discussion except a table with the scriptural realities of hell–which you might find helpful.

We Reject the Doctrine of the Annihilation of the Wicked
A nice creed-style rejection of annihilationism by J. H. Gosden found in What Gospel Standard Baptists Believe.

The Annihilation of Hell [1]
Martin Downes shares an excerpt of an interview with Robert A. Peterson [found in his book Risking the Truth].

The Annihilation of Hell [2]
Then Downes shares even more of that interview.

Historical Mentions of Annihilationism

Dialog with Trypho
Embryonic forms of conditional immortality can be found in the writing of Justin Martyr [d. 165].

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magneseans
Ignatius of Antioch [d. 107] is also supposed to be a conditionalist according to some conditionalist writers.

Against the Heathens
Some suggest it is also found in the writings of Arnobius [d. 330]. See paragraph 61, last sentence.

Books on Annihilationism

The Doctrine of Eternal Punishment by Harry Buis

Four Views on Hell Contributions by Walvoord, Crockett, Hayes and Pinnock

Hell Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents Eternal Punishment Contributions by Beale, Block, Ferguson, Mohler, Moo, Packer and Yarbough

Repent or Perish: With a Special Reference to the Conservative Attack on Hell by John Gerstner

Death And The Afterlife by Robert Morey

The Doctrine of Endless Punishment by William Greenough Thayer Shedd

Hell on Trial: The Case for Eternal Punishment by Robert A. Peterson

Two Views of Hell A theological discussion of annihilationism between Robert A. Peterson [against] and Edward Fudge [for].

Risking The truth: Handling error in the church by Martin Downes Contains the interview with Robert A. Peterson.

Your Turn

If you know of a resource not included here [especially mp3s, which I couldn't find anywhere], please share in the comments. I’ll add to them to this post and give you credit.

Related posts:

1. Hell: What’s at Stake If We Neglect It?
2. Anti-Christ [Not a Doctrine of Idle Speculation]
3. The Millennium: Can We Safely Neglect this Doctrine?

If you’re like me, you get anxious and marginally depressed when you see all the new books published each year.

It can happen at Barnes and Noble or while scanning the New York Times bestseller lists.

But the result is always the same: an acute sense of failure. How in the world can I read all of these books?

Fortunately, most books published each year will end up on the remainder pile–forgotten, useless and cheap.

Really cheap.

And while reading new books is a great way to stay on top of the latest ideas, I think it’s much better to make a habit of reading older books.

Here are nine reasons why. Enjoy!

1. Past the classic test.
Old books are books with ideas and stories that endure for 50, 100–even thousands of years. When you read an old book, you can be confident it’s quality writing. Not so with new books.

2. Fewer old books.
Random House’s list of the 100 best novels [all classics, though that could change in 50 years] can be read in one year. You couldn’t possibly manage to do that will all the new fiction published in one year.

3. Look odd, somewhat-sophisticated.
Reading classics adds a depth to your cocktail conversations you can’t get from new books. “You know, while I was reading Oedipus this morning, I thought of a way to solve our modern transit problem. All we have to do is….” See how that works? You just look cool.

4. Learn about the past.
Classic novels, for instance, can teach you about a particular time of history–whether it’s reading Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby [1920s] or Augustine’s City of God [100 BC to 400 AD]–while you’re enjoying yourself.

5. Cheaper.
If you’re the type of worm who likes to own all your books but don’t have deep pockets, then Barnes and Noble re-packages old books in hardcovers and sells them for less than $10. You can also almost always find used copies of old books on Amazon.

6. Free.
Since most classics are in the public domain, you can find them free at many sources online, like the Project Gutenberg [print versions] or LibriVox [audio versions].

7. Available at your library.
Naturally you have a better chance of finding old books at your library. How many times have you been on a waiting list for new, popular fiction? Too many, I’m sure.

8. Lots of commentary.
One of the things I enjoyed about reading Steinbeck’s Of Mice or Men or Dickens Bleak House was hunting down the surrounding discussion on those books. The depth of supporting literature on old books grossly out weighs that of new.

9. Quality is better.
If it’s a classic, this is obvious. Why else would it endure? But what makes a new book a classic? Themes that touch all people across time is one trait. Another trait is a sense of novelty. The book explores an idea for the first time of experiments with an new technique.

Your turn. What reasons can you think of that would convince someone to read more old books? Did I miss anything?

And what do you think make books like Luther’s Bondage of the Will or Paul Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress classic? What qualities make a story like Homer’s Iliad timeless?

Please share. I look forward to your thoughts.

Related posts:

1. What Are You Reading? And Why?
2. 5 Posts to Make You Wise [A Reading Primer]
3. How to Read John Piper

**Guest post by Rob Powell.**

Bertrand Russell was a genius.

He had a bibliography as long as his mustache, was a pioneer in several fields and employed a sharp mind–and even sharper wit.

For all his achievements though he may be best remembered in internet culture today for his teapot analogy…

It goes a little something like this:

“Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake.

“If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes.

“But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. “

His point is well taken, that you can’t prove a negative–but nobody believes there is a vessel of 3 degree Kelvin Earl Gray floating around between the Earth and Mars.

Russell goes on to say that:

“If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time. “

Dr. Russell is implying that the only reason we don’t think it’s crazy to believe in God (who’s negation we can’t prove either) and not the teapot is that our parents, pastors and polite society have brainwashed us into thinking God is real.

In reality, Russell would say, God is no more real than a celestial teapot, unicorn, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

He’s just more socially acceptable.

So what’s the difference between God and this imaginary teapot–and where does this cute little analogy ultimately break down? Let’s take a look.

The Brittle Tea Pot Analogy

There are many hidden assumptions to this comparison but a primary one is that if something is real then science should be able to document it.

We’ve talked about scientism before because it has been a perennial favorite amongst the “brights” since the Enlightenment.

So Russell makes his teapot so far and distant that science can’t detect it–but that doesn’t make it God-like.

In theory we could go to the coordinates of the teapot and take it’s picture. Even if we didn’t know exactly where it was we could scour the range of coordinates and given enough time and effort we could find it or rule out its being in a certain area or at the very least based on its size and the volume it’s contained in say we are X% sure it’s not between Earth and Mars.

But since God is unembodied we could know the exact location of every quark in the universe and still not know where God is and He could still be real or at least authentic to the description given to Him in those ancient texts.

What Russell has done is placed on God the burden of being scientifically detectable in order to be real. But he offers no reason why God can’t exist without fulfilling this requirement?

Is God less God-like if He is uncaliperable?

Dr. Russell is also comparing something with no proof for its existence outside of his fanciful testimony meant to be a zinger to something who’s existence we do have good arguments for.

The ontological, teleological, cosmological, moral…these arguments have kept our greatest thinkers busy for over a thousand centuries.

The list of theists is long and illustrious and will make any honest skeptic pause.

This doesn’t make God real but it does mean that you can be a rational human being and believe in God. Not so much for his teapot.

The Tea Pot Is Under Strain

Let’s ask a question: When is lack of evidence evidence of lack?

Suppose you enter a cozy one room cabin and someone asks you if there are any Kodiak bears in the room. If you don’t see, hear, or smell any Kodiak bears you can assert with confidence that there are no Kodiak bears in the cabin.

But what if you enter the cabin and someone asks you if there are any gnats in the room? You can stare and listen but you will have a much shakier foundation to affirm that there are no gnats in the cabin.

In the first case we can go easily from “I don’t see any bears” to “there are no bears”. In the second case we can only go from “I don’t see any gnats” to “I don’t know if there are any gnats.”

The difference between the two is our epistemic situation, which in broad terms is the limits on our ability to know something through our primary sources of knowing (sense, memory and reason).

Using the terms we usually do around here we could say we’re atheistic about bears in the cabin but remain agnostics about the gnats.

Three Reasons for Our Evidence of God

What Russell is trying to do is stretch our atheism about the teapot into atheism about God. But is that a legitimate analogy? In order for that argument to work two criteria have to be met.

1. If God exists then we would expect there to be evidence for God.

2. If there is evidence for God then we would expect to have knowledge of this evidence.

We deny the bears in the cabin because we expect sufficient evidence to know if bears were in the cabin–but we lack it.

We are less sure about the gnats because even though we lack evidence for them we wouldn’t necessarily expect to have any evidence if they were there.

So with respect to God we would have to expect to have evidence of His existence but lack it to affirm atheism.

But should the skeptic expect to have this evidence? Here’s three reasons why they shouldn’t.

1. Sin
People are fallen and flawed and have willfully and purposefully closed their eyes toward God. We do this because we are proud, licentious, and wicked people in desperate need of a savior.

A crystal clear example of this is atheist Thomas Nagel saying, ” I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers… It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want a universe like that.”

Could a mindset like that cause him to knowingly or not close his eyes to evidence for God?

2. Demands for unreasonable types of evidence.
God could better prove His existence by painting a vibrant picture of Jesus in a different color Snuggie up in the clouds every Sunday from 11 to noon.

Or maybe he could cause frogs to say John 3:16 instead of “ribbit”.

Whatever the demand the implication is that God has a moral obligation to people to make Himself more clearly–even ridiculously!–evident because then more people would believe in God and avoid hell.

This leads us to the last reason.

3. Humble versus forced submission to God.
God doesn’t desire that people merely acknowledge His reality but that they have a redemptive, meaningful, ongoing relationship with Him. He wants to be every bit of our Lord and Father–not just our acknowledged reality.

Would cloudy Snuggie clad saviors and talking frogs lead more people to this type of relationship? Maybe, but I doubt it. We are still bent toward evil and incapable of doing good on our own.

It might just lead to more people like the demons who acknowledge Him but refuse to submit to his authority.

What separates God from Santa Claus, tooth fairies, teapots, and other imaginary beings is that where we can’t necessarily expect to know about evidence for God we would expect to know about evidence for the others.

But our epistemic situation is better.

Evidence of God Superior to Evidence for Tea Pots

We would expect to find factories at the North Pole, orphans getting quarters under their pillows and astronauts telling us about the teapot they left on the wing of Mariner IV.

Now I’ll admit the other option for the teapot could be that it just spontaneously popped into being from nothing in a solar orbit and while that would be extremely more likely than the entire universe doing the same trick (which atheists also believe) nobody really believes that could happen (which makes you wonder why it’s okay for the universe but not a measly teapot).

Which leads me to one final thought.

The crux of this argument is that there is no good reason to believe in the teapot other than widespread indoctrination. Russell is asserting that blind fideism puts faith and reason at odds–and reason must triumph.

You knew we would get here eventually but enter Jesus as the anti-teapot. The uniter of heart and mind.

God saw fit to come to earth in the form of Jesus and become very detectable so that we might know Him, repent, believe, and live in redeemed relationship with Him.

The historicity of the life of Christ allows us to have a reasonable faith. We can study His life, His words, and the lives of the people He interacted with.

In Russell’s analogy he’s given us no reason to believe him about the teapot. If the teapot’s creator had authored a now ancient text describing the out of sight teapot we could study it.

If we had reason to believe the author we’d have reason to believe in the teapot. The same must be said for Jesus. But in Jesus’ case, his life, death and resurrection exist not as dogma but as historical evidence. In other words, facts. Not so for the tea pot.

Related posts:

1. The Puddle: An Elegant but Not-Perfect Analogy
2. Darwin’s Dilemma: A Review
3. The Enemy [It's Not Who You Think]

That headline up there is a complete and utter figment of my imagination. No such monster exists.

Except in my mind. And Don and Jill Dudley’s mind.

Let me explain.

Four days ago Don Dudley [of You See Dry Bones fame] emailed me and a handful of bloggers and asked if we’d like to use our blogs to raise awareness for human trafficking in the month of May.

I thought it was a great idea for two reasons.

One, human trafficking is a horrific crime. Twenty-seven million people are enslaved today, often as sex slaves. This includes children.

Human trafficking deserves attention.

The other reason I though raising awareness on human trafficking was a great idea was because I’ve never really stood for anything on my blog outside of a clear, graceful articulation of the cross of Christ.

That’s a good thing. But it’s time I elevated my eyes off of my orthodoxy and put my doctrine to work.

While this isn’t much, and I’m not 100% sure how this blog awareness is supposed to look like, I think blogging about it and asking people to do something [see list below] is a great start…

And this is where I need your help.

1. If you’re a blogger, devote three or four articles to human trafficking this month.  Point back to Jill’s original post on human trafficking. At least her website. [This is what I'll be doing.]

2. Go visit Not For Sale an organization devoted to freeing modern-day slaves. Blog about their site.

3. Google “human trafficking” and bone up on the topic. If this is your first exposure to it, you’ll be astonished by what you learn.

4. Donate to an organization like NFS.

5. Pray for an end to modern-day slavery.

6. Create a team at your church or business or home to raise money or awareness. You can even do this as a family.

7. Finally, give me some more ideas on how we can raise more awareness on human trafficking and make the “First-Ever Human Trafficking Blog Awareness Month” not only a reality, but a success.

Next Monday I’ll share my story on how I first learned about human trafficking and hope you’ll do the same. So start thinking about that.

Remember, if you’re a blogger, blog about this topic this month. At least once. Four times would be great.

Now, got any ideas on how we can make this month a success? Please share and do your part. Thank you!

Related posts:

1. Fallen and Flawed Takes Month-Long Sabbatical
2. 10 Classic Fallen + Flawed Posts on Christian Blogging
3. Top Ten Blogs I Love to Read

I’m breaking two laws today.

One spoken. The other unspoken.

The spoken law I am breaking has to do with a vow not to post on Saturday.

I’m making an exception since I’ve been posting only four times a week instead of five.

The unspoken law is about a personal pledge not to do posts devoted to sharing articles I like.

I reserved Twitter and Facebook for that.

But since I’ve abandoned Twitter and Facebook until May 23, my main source for sharing favorite articles is gone. So I’m sharing here.

Enjoy.

Survey: 72% of Millenials ‘More Spiritual Than Religious’
Little here to encourage you. Most notable: “Many are unsure Jesus is the only path to heaven: Half say yes, half no.”

Confession of Faith Guanabara
Brazilian blogger Jorge Bessa says it’s one of the oldest confessions of faith of Reformation era–written by four missionaries sent by John Calvin to the newly-founded Rio de Janeiro. [Click on the American flag to translate to English.]

Grilled Squid
Drawn to this article by the headline and sub-headline. That’s the headline up there. Here’s the sub: “A ghastly day on Capitol Hill for Goldman Sachs’s top brass.” Why I like the Economist.

Mind Over Money
Darling little 60-minute show by PBS on the battle between behavioral scientists and rational economists over this question: Can markets be rational when humans aren’t? Great sidebar resources, too.

Breaking Things Down to Particles Blinds Scientists to the Big Picture
I quote: “We want to believe we will understand nature if we find the exact right tool to cut its joints. But that approach is doomed to failure. We live in a universe not of clocks but of clouds.”

The Challenge of Writing about David Foster Wallace
I was immediately charmed when I learned DRW wrote a 1,300 page, heavily annotated, footnote dense novel. Then I read it. Thinking writing about him is hard? Try reading him.

By the way, do you mind if I do more posts like this? Yes or no? Give me your opinion. I’m thinking of doing more.

Related posts:

1. Life-Sized Horse Puppets, Free Book and Odd Prizes [Link Happy 5.7.10]
2. 10 Classic Fallen + Flawed Posts on Christian Blogging
3. Five Posts You Haven’t Seen–But Should

I’m always curious to know what books you are reading–helps me discover titles I might have never uncovered.

I’m also curious to know WHY you are reading those particular books.

In return, I like to share what books I’m reading in hopes I might introduce you to something new.

By the way: I’m trying to read 100 books this year. But guess what? I’m hopelessly behind.

[Let that be our little secret.]

Nonetheless, in my delusional quest to read 2.25 books a week perhaps I’ll break last year’s record…[which might be a little hard to determine since I never kept track of the books I read last year. Oh well.]

Anyway, here are the six books I’m working through right now.

Old Testament [Out of the Apologetics Study Bible]
Hoping to read this in about a 5 week period. By the way, does each book of the OT count as one book? If so, then I’ll have read 33 books in 5 weeks. [Please tell me it does!]

Why I’m Reading It: I don’t think a mature Christian you make without a solid understanding of the OT under your belt. So I make reading it an annual event.

Theological Interpretation of the Old Testament
Book-by-book survey of the OT. Reading it in lockstep with the OT.

Why I’m Reading It: See the above reason.

Coaching for Improved Work Performance
A business book geared for managers hoping to increase productivity. Insights so far: managers need employees more than employees need them and work is simply “renting a certain behavior.” In my case, writing behavior.

Why I’m Reading It: I always want to be better at what I do. At this time it’s being a better editor.

Paradise Lost
John Milton’s classic tale of the Fall. I have to confess: I’m actually listening to it. But you can, too. For free: Paradise Lost at LibriVox.

Why I’m Reading It: Never have. And I love the rich language. As a writer, this is important. I’d recommend all writers to read classics like Paradise Lost. [Or listen to it.]

City of God
St. Augustine’s classic defense of the Christian faith. Reading about 3 pages every morning, which will take me the entire year. In just 300 pages though I’ve got an extensive education on pagan religions and Platonism. Didn’t expect that. [I like those little surprises.]

Why I’m Reading It: I don’t interact with ancient texts [history in general] enough, which restricts my understanding of my faith. Hoping to bridge that gap.

Statistics Demystified
One of those DIY books on the branch of mathematics that deals with the collection, analysis and interpretation of data. It’s got a freaky cover. [So says my kids.]

Why I’m Reading It: I’ve always been fascinated with mathematics. But woefully ignorant of the topic. Plus, I like to learn about things wildly out of my field and exercise parts of my brain that are asleep.

So, what are you reading? And why? Also, are you a library fanatic? [I am.] Or do you prefer to buy books? New or used? I look forward to comments.

Related posts:

1. 5 Posts to Make You Wise [A Reading Primer]
2. Looking for a Good Book? Here Are 10
3. 9 Reasons Why You Should Read More Old Books

You can’t find a more popular portion of the Bible than 1 Corinthians 13.

It’s the bubbly “love” chapter, clamping down on the biblical meaning of love.

Or so you think.

First Corinthians 13 at first blush is perfect for weddings. Hallmark cards. Little plaques above your kitchen sink [where ours hangs].

Who wouldn’t love the simplicity of “Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude”?

It carries a certain charm–an almost mystical hold on us when it comes to love.

I once found this chapter in an anthology of love poems, alongside the likes of Lord Byron and Kahlil Gibran. Unusual bedfellows if I ever saw any.

Never the Purpose of 1 Corinthians 13

I know during one of my crankier moments in life [that extended from birth to MAYBE just a couple of weeks ago] I memorized this chapter in hopes that it would manage to make me a more kinder, gentler man.

It didn’t work.

Why? Well, it was never intended to be a charter on sweetness. Or seventeen habits of highly-sentimental people.

Paul intended it to be a lot dirtier than that.

Just think were the chapter is embedded…in between two very tough chapters on spiritual gifts.

But you’re still being very narrowed minded if you leave it at that. You must step back even further.

Think about Who Paul Was Writing To

First Corinthians 12-14 are couched in a letter to who? The Corinthians. A self-absorbed, smug, stingy set of church members.

That means while writing his letter hunched over, pen in hand and brow furled bent on setting the Corinthians straight, Paul didn’t sit back and say, “I feel like writing a splendid little reverie on love. Barnabas, did you hear that? I’m going to write a love poem!”

No.

He intended chapter 13 to serve much like God intended the ten commandments to serve: a schoolmaster who drives the disobedient to Christ.

Think about this: Paul is saying, “You think you know what love is? You don’t have a clue what love is. Love does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful….”

In other words, 1 Corinthians 13 is a reprimand. Not an elegant poem that gives us the warm and fuzzies.

A Good Sermon on 1 Corinthians 13

Alistair Begg makes this point in a wonderful series on 1 Corinthians 13. He explains that taken in isolation, 1 Corinthians 13 is often abused, as I noted above.

But once you understand Paul’s original meaning and purpose behind the chapter, you’ll appreciate the chapter so much more.

In the end, 1 Corinthians 13 is a statement against the popular notion [that still holds today] that love is out of our control.

Paul declares that godly love is manly and willful:

It does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

It takes guts to endure all things.

What to Do Next

But Paul’s point in the end is that we will never measure up to the standard laid out in 1 Corinthians 13. There is only one person who did such a thing. Jesus Christ.

And what that means is that we will always struggle with this love–a love that never ends–until we humbly submit to the only living person who ever fully and completely fulfilled the law of love–Jesus Christ.

Does this mean you throw out that plaque hanging over your kitchen sink? No. It means you look at it and remember that you will never measure up to that standard until you bow down to the very lord of love–Jesus Christ.

Related posts:

1. What the Song of Solomon Really Means
2. A Christ-Centered Approach to Bible Study–Part 4
3. Resist Christ as Lord [Our Condition Apart from New Birth]

Yesterday’s candid post on the Song of Songs prompted some interesting comments.

My wife said: “Ummm, babe, I think someone just hijacked your blog.”

Yes, I take that as a compliment.

My buddy Scott said, “This is by far the toughest sentence I have ever read.” He was referring to this statement:

Contrast this with the ephemeral, capricious and shallow character of contemporary loveand you see God’s vision for marriage involves a volitional, muscular emotion that has a singular and solitary intent to honor the object of it’s affections.

That’s actually my most favorite-ist sentence. And yes, I take his comment as a compliment.

Richard DeVeau’s comment is a different story.

He said, “Perhaps it’s my age, but when I read about apples, raisins, figs, walnuts and spices, I only think about pie.”

That nearly brought my yogurt through my nose.

Then another good buddy said, “Very well done. I feel that this is one of the most beautiful books of The Bible.”

I have to agree.

Finally, there’s Rob’s comment…a comment which pointed out that our silence on the topic of love and sexuality has led the culture to dominate and define it.

This is not good.  Rob went on to say:

[Songs] clearly shows that sex, and even boyish giggle inducing when you talk about it sex, is a glorious & God-honoring blessing to man and woman and the only stipulation is within the hedge of protection provided by marriage.

In other words, sex within in a monogamous, heterosexual marriage is not only part of God’s original plan for creation [and indeed, a pivotal ingredient if we are going to succeed in this thing called "our cultural mandate"]–but it can also be erotic, deeply emotional and ultimately satisfying.

Rob closes his comment with two penetrating questions. Questions I want you to respond to:

How many Christian couples do you know that struggle with this? How many unbelievers do you know that have gotten a flawed view of sexuality from the church and that’s lead to them dismissing Jesus altogether?

I have to confess that my own view of sex within a Christian marriage has been distorted in the past. It wasn’t until pastors like Piper and Driscoll and a book by Kostenberger that I began to have a healthy, balanced view of love, sexuality and family.

This brings to mind something Grudem expresses the “Introduction” to his Systematic Theology. In essence, Grudem said that part of growing as a Christian involves exposing our views to the light of the Bible–and allowing it to bend us away from ourselves and more towards Christ.

That’s not easy to do. But it’s part and parcel of developing a mature Christian mind.

And while the second question might sound shallow and baseless and somewhat offensive to an agnostic or atheist, it’s really not.

The reasons for dismissing Jesus and Christianity are often emotional and moral–not intellectual. Thus a flat, flawed view of sex within Christianity amounts to a dull, boring life…

“No thanks,” the non-believer might say.

That’s why I think it’s important to get this topic right–both for the believer AND the non-believer.

On the one hand a healthy, Christian view of love and sexuality avoids frustration and division within a marriage. Instead, it invites joy and unity.

On the other hand it allows us to control the cultural conversation and express a genuine benefit to unbelievers [not that we're trying to attempt to bribe them...merely taking an excuse away] about the passion and bliss found in Christian love and sexuality.

So what about you: Do you struggle with what love and sexuality look like within a Christian marriage? Besides reading and studying a book like Songs, how have you attempted to remedy that? And do  you know anybody who’s dismissed Jesus and Christianity because of a flawed view of love and Christian sexuality?

I look forward to your thoughts. Brutal and all.

Related posts:

1. What Is the “Post-Evangelical Wilderness”?
2. Death Lessons: What You Can Learn When Someone Dies
3. Happy Good Friday?