What a Friend indeed

I just thought that I would pass on a simple, yet magnificantly profound, truth that was a great source of enrichment to me spiritually today. Today during the worship service a woman sang "What a friend we have in Jesus". She sang the song with such convincing sincerity that I could hardly resist my tears.
I quickly found myself reflecting upon the reality that when I am "weak and heavy laden, cumbered with a load of care" I have a gloriously real "precious Savior, [who is] still our refuge [and I can] take it to the Lord in prayer". I then wanted to scream to myself, "Adam!" "Why?" "Why do I not take it to the Lord in prayer?" For "In His arms he'll take and shield me-Take it to the Lord in prayer".
Again, I had to rebuke myself with the truth of, "O what peace I often forfeit, O what needless pain I bear, All because I do not carry EVERYTHING to God in prayer". I mean, "who will all my sorrows share? Jesus knows my every weakness-Take it to the Lord in prayer".

As this women sang to encourage the faint-hearted I found myself oddly refreshed while being altogether rebuked. So, it is I find with the merciful hand of God, He remembers our frame and that we are but dust (Ps. 103.10-14). Jesus my merciful Savior is also my truest friend. Praise be to God.

What SAY You???

Am I just absolutely missing it? Or perhaps, I am losing my mind and any amount of theological discernment, which the good Lord bestowed upon me, no matter how small the actual bestowment was?
I say that to say, I am getting exhausted with fighting ridiculous wars. Ok, maybe not 'wars' per-se, but awkward confrontations none-the-less.
What's the battle (or confrontation) you ask? Inerrancy? Imputation? The deity of Jesus the Son? NO! I wish! The confrontation is over simple terminology and choices in vocabulary. No, I am not talking about @#$% or anything of the sort, at least not in my mind anyway. Rather, I am talking about TULIP. In that, I am not even suggesting that you must believe all aspects of TULIP in every way, shape or form, but I am suggesting that TULIP ought to no longer be considered to be synonomous with the unpardenable sin!

I am arguing for a reenlistment of basic terms that enable us, and have enabled God's people for centuries, to understand propositions of Scripture in an orderly and profitable fashion. For many of us, this is simply called Systematic Theology! It has been a beloved practice of the church since its birth in Acts!

Why then, (if this is so beloved) can some say that 'I use only biblical terms' and with that treat you as though you are being unbiblical (nearly ungodly) in your theological statements and therefore rendering you as irresponsible in your handling of the holy Scriptures? It is also spun that those who are challenging the reenlistment of TULIP are self-serving and or arrogant. This MUST stop!
The same folks that say to only use biblical terms also encourage, yea, preach, the need for systematic theology! Sometimes, I wish I could ask, "Is there ever a mention of the word systematic in the Scriptures?" I do not recall (correct me if I am wrong) of there ever being an admonition for a systematic ordering of Scripture at ALL or by ANY given author? So, I ask you, how can systematic terms, which have been proven to be brilliantly potent for the sake of the church for literally hundreds of years be cast aside, so too those who use them be cast aside, by the same men who claim to "cherish" the Systematic treatment and understanding of Scripture?

For example, the words "systematic" and "unconditional election" are both extra biblical terms employed by the church for the sake of understanding propositions within the holy Scriptures in a discernable and orderly fashion. How then is it that we can so easily choose one to be rendered a blessing (the word and idea of 'systematic') and the other (unconditional election) nearly to be damning (in the context of public teaching)?

In sum, I find this subjective selectivity of "ok" theological terminology to be utterly maddening! Either I am losing my mind or, well, I'm right, and that would be aaaaaallright.

Can I get a witness?

Update On Detroit Playaz'

Sorry for all of you who might read this blog periodically and are not from Detroit so, quite frankly could not possibly care any less about Detroit sports, but I have to give a shout out to my detroit playaz'. I mean, the Pistons went down in a sort of "crash and burn" fashion (as Chris Bruno mentioned (CRBlog) and then the Wings were really no different, doing pretty much the same thing. However, the Tigers, who are really Detroits last option for sports glamour (the Lions actually might take that one. I don't really know, they both have really stunk for years) is now the ONLY Detroit story going on! Featured here is Marcus Thames, who currently is the Left fielder for the Tigers (I think, I have to listen to the games on the internet, its one down side to living in VB) and he is playing RED HOT. He is hitting 11 hiome runs in his last 127 at bats including 9 in his last 23! The guy is a playa'! Although the Tigs only got 2 hits against the BlueJays this afternoon the 2 they got counted. Both hits were home runs, and my man Thames smacked one of them! Currently the Tigs have more wins than anyone else in the 'bigs'. So, I say, play on playa'!

"Sell all that you have and give it to the Poor"

I was reading the latest issue of "CT" (Christianity Today) and I came across an article entitled, "Rock Un-Solid" (p65). The article is about "Christian" rock bands that are struggling to make it in the "real band" world. That is to say, Godless rock bands are the only "real" bands that exist according to these...might I say, Punks. The article captures the much shared sentiment among "cross-over" bands, which is "We're Christians, but we're not a Christian band", to which I respond than you are NOT Christians.

At stake here, in my mind anyway, is whether or not a Christian can at anytime or in any situation be anything other than a Christian!? I mean c'mon! Did not Christ extend a much more deadly message than, "We're Christians, but we're not a Christian band"? Christ's message was one of bidding us unto death. For he would say, "Follow me, and leave the dead to bury their own dead" (Mtt 8:22). Consider also, "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple" (Lk 14:26ff).

The article surrounds mainly a band by the name "Mute Math". The keyboardist and cofounder Paul Meany is quoted as saying, "I had no desire to be the Christian version of a real band". This punk, who used the Christian community as a starting point to get his little quasi rock band going, goes on to say, "We wanted total mainstream credibility, and then to have it sold back into the Christian market if it were successful in the mainstream" (quotes from p63).

So I ask you, is this Christian? Can the individuals that make up "Mute Math" call themselves Christ's disciples at all, though they claim the name of Christian? They say that they are Christians, but I say that Christ's message of what that means has been monumentally unnoticed or sinfully ignored. This is not the markings of Christianity!

Finally, I would say that if you (anyone, including Mute Math) have not been found to hate your music for Christ's sake than you are not a partaker of his covenant. This message might seem harsh, but I think that all ought to seriously consider it. May we never be a bunch of Joel Osteens', but rather biblical Christians despising this worlds glamour for the sake of a better and far more lasting Kingdom.