The post The only thing that makes sense appeared first on The Funny Conservative.

How to Give with a Cheerful Heart Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give‚ not reluctantly or under compulsion‚ for God loves a cheerful giver. – 2 Corinthians 9:7 A pastor once recounted how‚ as a child‚ his mother sent him to pick a quart of raspberries. Reluctantly he dragged himself to the berry patch. His afternoon was ruined for sure. Then a thought hit him. He would surprise his mother and pick two quarts of raspberries instead of one! Rather than drudgery‚ his work had now become a challenge. He enjoyed picking those raspberries so much that fifty years later‚ that incident was still fresh in his mind. His job hadn't changed‚ but his attitude did. Instead of focusing on the hard work of picking berries‚ he focused on how he could use his time to bless his mother. And it was this change in perspective that made his job so much easier. Many Christians today see giving as a task or a chore that they check off a list so they don't get in trouble. Sadly‚ because this is their perspective‚ they miss out on the joy that comes by contributing to God's purposes. But what if‚ instead‚ you thought of giving with the end goal of supporting God's work in mind? You see‚ when you give‚ you bless others and you show God's love to those who need it. Giving is not about putting a little money in the offering plate‚ it's about being an active part of God's work here on earth. And when you see it that way‚ you can't help but to give cheerfully! Prayer Challenge: Ask God to give you a Kingdom perspective when it comes to giving. Pray that when you give‚ you would do so with His purposes in mind and because of that‚ you would give cheerfully. Visit the Senior Living Ministries website The post How to Give with a Cheerful Heart – Senior Living – December 1 appeared first on GodUpdates.

“We have to entertain first. It’s not about messages.” The post Disney CEO Admits ‘Wokeness’ Made Company ‘Broke’ appeared first on Frontpage Mag.

After a long day of travel on a dusty mountain road‚ a local pastor and I finally walked toward his village. He described how the gospel first came to this remote area two decades earlier. His parents had been devout followers of Hindu gods‚ but that changed when they were unable to conceive children. They tried various remedies to appease the spirits‚ whom they viewed as the source of the problem‚ but nothing worked. Finally‚ they heard from a Christian in a neighboring village that they should ask Jesus to help them since he’s more powerful than the Hindu gods. His parents prayed‚ conceived‚ and had a son. As a result‚ they gave their allegiance to Jesus. Over the years‚ I’ve heard many stories like this‚ but what stood out to me was what the pastor said next. Even though his parents identify as followers of Jesus‚ it wasn’t until recently that they began to understand the meaning of Jesus’s death on the cross. For them‚ Jesus was primarily a god who was more powerful than the other gods. However‚ if you were to ask them why Jesus died for them‚ they couldn’t give even a basic answer. They wanted to follow Jesus because of the power he could give them over sickness and spirits. But if Jesus can give healing and power because of who he is‚ why did he need to die on the cross? For missionaries in contexts like this one‚ there’s a related question: How should we proclaim the gospel in a culture dominated by fear and power? More specifically‚ how should we explain the atonement? Danger of Reductionism In recent years‚ there’s been a growing emphasis on contextualizing the atonement doctrine across cultures. Many have highlighted that the atonement is like a multifaceted diamond that shines with unique glory depending on the angle of view. Just as sin and its effects are multifaceted‚ Christ’s work on the cross addresses all the problems caused by sin. The atonement doesn’t only provide forgiveness of sins for the guilty; it gives us victory over sin‚ Satan‚ and death and removes our shame before God and others. Furthermore‚ some missiologists argue Western theologians have truncated the gospel message by focusing only on penal substitutionary atonement‚ reducing the atonement to only one dimension. Admittedly‚ there have been times throughout church history when the atonement has been reduced to only one theory or model‚ especially when polemics prevailed. For instance‚ in the 20th century‚ many theologians responded to C. H. Dodd’s reformulation of God’s wrath and thus rejection of penal substitutionary atonement. Those who defended the traditional atonement view‚ such as Leon Morris‚ conceded that the response was so focused on this one aspect that it resulted in a functional reductionism. The other metaphors of the atonement were affirmed by those who held to penal substitution‚ but in practice‚ they were sidelined. Still today‚ missionaries who maintain a priority for penal substitution must guard against reducing the atonement to only one dimension. Recognizing the many facets of the atonement enables us to proclaim the full glory of what Christ achieved on the cross. This multidimensional reality enables evangelists to tap into different groups’ values and concerns‚ providing us with an opportunity to contextualize the gospel. Contextualizing the Atonement One book that tries to help missionaries do this is The 3D Gospel by Jayson Georges. It explains the three major atonement theories recognized throughout church history: ransom‚ satisfaction‚ and penal substitution. Georges emphasizes we need all three aspects to fully grasp the gospel’s multifaceted glory. However‚ while he contends we shouldn’t truncate the gospel to only one dimension of Christ’s atonement‚ his 3D model for contextualization may lead practitioners to make this very mistake. Missionaries who maintain a priority for penal substitution must guard against reducing the atonement to only one dimension. Georges argues that people in different contexts are likely to understand one of these atonement metaphors better than the others. Therefore‚ missionaries should proclaim the most culturally plausible one. In a fear/power context (i.e.‚ one dominated by traditional religion and the fear of spiritual powers)‚ we should preach the atonement metaphor of ransom‚ or Christus Victor‚ which focuses on Christ’s victory over sin‚ Satan‚ and death. Meanwhile‚ in a shame/honor context‚ Georges believes missionaries should use the satisfaction metaphor‚ focusing on our debt of honor to God and on Christ’s payment of that debt. Finally‚ for a guilt/innocence culture‚ he suggests penal substitution would be most appropriate. Georges is right to highlight the atonement’s multidimensional reality. Different aspects or features may resonate with different cultures. Yet there’s an inherent weakness in this contextualization model: it’s built on a relativistic atonement theology. Danger of Relativism Missiologists who take the approach proposed by Georges utilize what’s sometimes called a “kaleidoscopic view” of the atonement. This perspective gained a wider audience around the turn of the century‚ following the release of Joel B. Green and Mark D. Baker’s Recovering the Scandal of the Cross. Green and Baker argue the Bible uses many different metaphors to describe the atonement’s nature. Therefore we shouldn’t elevate one motif over another. While this approach avoids the error of reducing the atonement to only one aspect‚ it swings too far in the other direction by relativizing the atonement themes. I don’t mean that this approach assumes those themes are void of any objective truth (i.e.‚ postmodernism) but that the themes aren’t shown to have an intrinsic relationship or logical order among them. According to the kaleidoscopic view‚ there’s no scriptural (and transcultural) framework for how the atonement metaphors might be integrated. Furthermore‚ even though Green and Baker indicate all metaphors should be considered valid and utilized where appropriate‚ they reject penal substitution as a biblical metaphor. For them‚ penal substitution is a cultural product of life in the West rather than a biblical doctrine to be taught in every context. While Georges doesn’t reject penal substitution in The 3D Gospel‚ he does approve something similar in Ministering in Honor-Shame Cultures‚ a book he coauthored with Baker. He writes‚ “When people absolutize this theology [penal substitution] contextualized in the West‚ elevate it to the level of biblical truth and export it internationally‚ [it leads] to a type of theological/cultural colonialism.” Integrated Atonement Theology Contrary to this dis-integrated and relativistic approach to the atonement‚ several theologians in recent years have shown how the various aspects of the atonement are integrated in Scripture. For instance‚ in The Crucified King‚ Jeremy Treat demonstrates how penal substitution provides the necessary mechanism for the Christus Victor motif. Similarly‚ Joshua M. McNall shows in The Mosaic of Atonement how the atonement metaphors fit together and how each is necessary to make sense of the others. Notably‚ both authors point to Revelation 12 as an example of this intrinsic relationship between the metaphors. In that passage‚ John depicts Christ’s sacrifice in cultic‚ legal‚ and military terms‚ revealing believers have victory over Satan because of Christ’s penal substitutionary sacrifice. This is nothing less than the culmination of Scripture’s entire redemptive-historical narrative from Genesis 3:15 on—Christ defeats Satan and death through his suffering in the place of sinners. Penal substitutionary atonement is‚ therefore‚ foundational to and necessary for our victory. The reason humanity is enslaved to sin‚ Satan‚ and death isn’t merely because we’re victims who need to be rescued. Rather‚ we’re rebels who have caused disorder at a cosmic level (Rom. 8:20–21). It’s because of Adam’s sin against God that we lost dominion over the earth and are now born as slaves who need to be redeemed (Eph. 2:1–3). Satan‚ the Accuser‚ can inflict fear on us because we’re under just condemnation before God (Heb. 2:13–15). We can only find freedom and deliverance from the powers of darkness when this root problem of our sin against God is dealt with. Jesus accomplished this by disarming the powers and authorities through his substitutionary sacrifice that removes our sin debt (Col. 2:13–15). Substitution’s Centrality in Atonement Theology Christ’s substitutionary death isn’t foundational and indispensable only for the Christus Victor dimension of the cross but for all other dimensions. Jeremy Treat rightly points out in his latest book‚ The Atonement: An Introduction‚ that “we must acknowledge the key distinction between what Christ accomplished (the outcome) and how he accomplished it (the means).” The atonement’s outcome is multifaceted. Yet beneath all outcomes is the means by which God secured them: Christ’s substitutionary death on the cross. This isn’t one dimension among others that can be set aside depending on the cultural context. It’s central and necessary for rightly communicating any dimension of the atonement. Substitution’s centrality is confirmed from both the testimony of Scripture and the doctrine of God. First‚ Scripture establishes a substitution pattern throughout the Old and New Testaments. For example‚ in Genesis 3:15‚ after the fall‚ God promises he’ll crush the Serpent’s head through the sacrifice of a promised seed. Furthermore‚ God clothes Adam and Eve with the skins of animals who died to cover them. In the New Testament‚ the biblical authors repeatedly point to the substitutionary nature of Christ’s death. Jesus himself indicates this when he says he came “to give his life as a ransom for many‚” an allusion to Isaiah 53 (Mark 10:45). The New Testament writers portray Christ’s sacrifice as the great exchange. Jesus takes on himself the penalty of sin we deserve‚ and we receive his perfect righteousness. Additionally‚ a biblical doctrine of God reveals that God is unable to overlook sin. If he’s to save sinners‚ he must provide a perfect substitutionary sacrifice. Christ’s death achieves many things‚ but it’s the “self-substitution of God” (to borrow John Stott’s phrase) that satisfies God himself and thus enables all the atonement’s benefits to be applied to his people. Contextualized and Integrated This brief sketch shows the atonement metaphors are interconnected; we can’t understand them rightly in isolation from one another. We should reject any atonement theology that reduces or relativizes the biblical framework of the cross. An intrinsic and causal relationship exists between the atonement metaphors‚ and penal substitution is central to them all. Yes‚ Christ’s work on the cross does achieve more than the removal of our guilt before God. But only once our guilt is addressed can all other derivative problems‚ such as shame and fear‚ be resolved. The atonement metaphors are interconnected; we can’t understand them rightly in isolation from one another. If we’re to preach the gospel across cultures faithfully‚ we may begin by connecting with the issues that most resonate with people’s hearts in their cultural contexts. But then we must move to the core of our sin problem and show why Christ’s penal substitutionary death on the cross solves their guilt before God and results in the benefits championed by the other atonement metaphors. In the case of my friend from the village‚ his family was drawn to Jesus because of a desire for power over spiritual forces. When ministering to others like them‚ it’s certainly appropriate to present the gospel in terms of Christus Victor‚ explaining that one of the reasons Jesus died on the cross was to overthrow the powers of darkness and deliver us from fear and bondage. This could be a powerful connection point. However‚ we shouldn’t evangelize in a way that isolates the atonement motifs. In explaining why we’re in bondage to Satan and spiritual powers or why there’s sickness and suffering in the world‚ we’ll need to explain humanity’s rebellion against God and our guilt before him. As we explain the victory Jesus has won‚ we need to explain how that victory was achieved through his penal substitutionary death on the cross. Preaching the Cross With that in mind‚ here are three key suggestions for contextualizing the cross. 1. Remember Christ’s atonement is multidimensional. As missionaries‚ we must guard against the tendency to reduce the atonement to only one dimension. Those in the West must remember that the gospel not only removes our guilt before God but also addresses our fear and shame. Meanwhile‚ those in the East should remember they need a perfect righteousness for their guilt‚ not merely greater power or honor. 2. Connect aspects of the atonement with cultural values. The various dimensions of Christ’s atonement can provide unique entry points to the gospel in different contexts. By connecting with the issues that resonate with your audience (fear‚ shame‚ etc.)‚ you can gain a hearing and show how the gospel addresses the problems people face. (Georges’s 3D model aligns with these first two points but differs with my third and final recommendation.) 3. Proclaim an integrated atonement theology. We mustn’t reduce the gospel to only penal substitution‚ nor should we ignore its absolute necessity and centrality. Without Christ paying the penalty for our sin through his death on the cross‚ there’s no victory over sin‚ Satan‚ or death. There’s no removal of our shame or restoration to honor. We may start our contextualization process by connecting with a cultural value through a corresponding atonement metaphor‚ but we must always bring it back to the heart of the atonement and preach Christ’s penal substitutionary death for sinners. Only then can we proclaim the cross’s full glory and make disciples with a true understanding of Christ’s work on our behalf.

Read You have put more joy in my heart than they have when their grain and wine abound. (Ps. 4:7) Reflect When I was younger‚ Christmas seemed to have a split personality. Religious Christmas was deep and serious. It was weeks of waiting‚ candles in the dark‚ and four-stanza hymns. It was extra church services and listening to Luke 2 (again) before opening gifts. It frowned on things like commercialism‚ Santa Claus‚ and saying “Happy Holidays!” Secular Christmas‚ on the other hand‚ was bright and glittery. It was lights‚ parties‚ and kitchen countertops loaded with cookies and chocolate. It was snowmen with black hats and reindeer with red noses. It was cousins to play with and a mountain of presents under the tree—some from Santa. It can almost make you wonder if Christians know how to have fun. Is Christianity just a bunch of rules keeping you from the real pleasures of life? Don’t buy too much. Don’t believe in magic. Don’t drink too much. Don’t have sex with your boyfriend. Don’t swear. Don’t gamble. But if you dig into this‚ even a little bit‚ the lie gives way. The lesser amusements we turn to for happiness—sex‚ alcohol‚ a perfectly clean house‚ a new car‚ a bigger bank balance—deliver a burst of bliss that quickly wanes. Secular Christmas‚ with its enthusiastic sparkles‚ dumps us into the cold gray of January. Christian joy is much weightier‚ more durable. It comes from a clean conscience washed by Jesus’s blood (1 John 1:7)‚ from confidence in a future God controls (Prov. 19:21)‚ and from knowing we cannot be separated from a God who’s working everything for our good (Rom. 8:28‚ 38–39). Christian joy is also fun. “You shall rejoice before the LORD your God seven days‚” says Leviticus 23:40. “Shout for joy!” exclaims Psalm 32:11. “Sing and rejoice‚ O daughter of Zion‚” the Lord declares in Zechariah 2:10. For comparison‚ here’s a quote from Ruhollah Khomeini‚ the grand ayatollah of Iran. Allah did not create man so that he could have fun. The aim of creation was for mankind to be put to the test through hardship and prayer. An Islamic regime must be serious in every field. There are no jokes in Islam. There is no humor in Islam. There is no fun in Islam. There can be no fun and joy in whatever is serious. Islam does not allow swimming in the sea and is opposed to radio and television serials. Islam‚ however‚ allows marksmanship‚ horseback riding and competition. Place that next to Isaiah 65:18: “Be glad and rejoice forever in that which I create; for behold‚ I create Jerusalem to be a joy‚ and her people to be a gladness.” Or David dancing before the Lord with all his might (2 Sam. 6:14). Or the Israelites whose “mouths were filled with laughter‚ [their] tongues with songs of joy” (Ps. 126:2‚ NIV). Secular Christmas‚ with its enthusiastic sparkles‚ dumps us into the cold gray of January. Christian joy is much weightier‚ more durable. Our Creator is the One who invented jokes and belly laughs and parties. He gave us friendships‚ dance moves‚ and the ability to come up with a perfectly timed one-liner. Jesus’s first miracle wasn’t to destroy the wicked or even to feed the hungry but to add wine to a week-long wedding party. When he returns for us‚ the celebration is going to be even more magnificent (Rev. 19:6–9). I used to think Christmas had a split personality‚ but it doesn’t. In truth‚ religious Christmas includes both “Silent Night” by candlelight and the pile of gifts around the tree. It’s both serving at the food pantry and platters of food at Grandma’s house. It’s both “Joy to the World” and “Jingle Bells.” The solemnity of Advent wreaths and Bible reading add to the joy of family celebrations‚ twinkling light displays‚ and penning Christmas cards. Out of the deep joy of being right with God springs laughter and lightness. A heart that rests secure in God is best positioned to enjoy family events (even difficult ones)‚ to sing loudly‚ to delight in the gifts others receive‚ and to savor homemade cookies fresh out of the oven. The Lord has put more joy in our hearts than they have when grain and wine abound. Respond Which religious aspects of the holiday seem dull or tedious beside the shine of secular Christmas? How can you remind yourself that a heart filled with joy in the Lord produces the best laughter? Rejoice Angels we have heard on high Sweetly singing o’er the plains And the mountains in reply Echoing their joyous strains Gloria‚ in excelsis Deo Gloria‚ in excelsis Deo – James Chadwick (English paraphrase)‚ “Angels We Have Heard on High”

In his message at TGC Netherlands 2023‚ Collin Hansen discusses Tim Keller’s insights into cultural apologetics and mission in a post-Christian era‚ focusing on the background of Keller’s book Making Sense of God. Keller‚ influenced by thinkers like James Davison Hunter‚ Charles Taylor‚ Alasdair MacIntyre‚ Philip Rieff‚ and Robert Bellah‚ critiques the Enlightenment and its inability to provide meaning and justice in the absence of Christian resources. Hansen outlines seven steps inspired by Keller’s approach‚ including challenging prevailing social assumptions‚ integrating multidimensional faith‚ and demonstrating Christian community. He emphasizes the urgent need for apologetics in a cross-pressured‚ secular age.

NBC Nightly News presented an oddly cobbled together news item on Elon Musk that‚ more than anything‚ seemed intent on extending the controversy over a recent post and further instigating an ad war against X. Here is the entire report‚ as aired on NBC Nightly News on Thursday‚ November 30th‚ 2023 (click “expand” to view full transcript). A sample clip doesn't do it justice- you really need to see the whole weird hit: LESTER HOLT: It was Elon Musk unfiltered during an interview as the world's richest person defended himself and his social media company amid a string of controversies. Here is Emilie Ikeda.  EMILIE IKEDA: It was back to business for Tesla CEO Elon Musk today‚ with the highly delayed and anticipated initial delivery of the EV company's otherworldly Cybertruck.  ELON MUSK: Finally‚ the future will look like the future. [ Cheering ]  IKEDA: It comes less than 24 hours since Musk's stunning sit-down with CNBC's Andrew Ross Sorkin.  MUSK: If somebody tried to blackmail me with advertising‚ blackmail me with money‚ go [ bleep ] yourself. Is that clear? I hope it is. Hey‚ Bob.  IKEDA: That was the bombshell message from the world's richest person to advertisers‚ including Disney's CEO Bob Iger and NBC's parent company Comcast for pulling ad spending from his social media platform. An exodus this month after Musk appeared to endorse an antisemitic post on X.  MUSK: I'm sorry for that tweet or post. It was foolish of me.  IKEDA: Musk said he meant to suggest Jewish people shouldn't fund organizations that support groups that want their annihilation. Overnight‚ X CEO Linda Yaccarino posting that the platform is “enabling an information independence that's uncomfortable for some people.” Her boss making clear he’s not concerned with people's comfort of him‚ boasting the success of his wide ranging businesses that traverse social media‚ space‚ cars‚ and tech.  MUSK: Hate me‚ like me or indifferent: do you want the best car or do you not want the best car?  IKEDA: According to research firm Insider Intelligence‚ ad revenue for X was already forecast to drop 54% this year. Musk himself acknowledges a new advertiser boycott could bankrupt the company. Lester. HOLT: All right. Emily. Thanks. So what the report did is that it glued several things together: Elon Musk’s interview with Aaron Ross Sorkin of CNBC wherein he told various corporations to go blank themselves‚ the long-awaited release of the Tesla Cybertruck (NBC were the only ones to report that tonight)‚ and the ongoing controversy over X advertising resulting from a Musk post that was perceived as antisemitic.  And the post is really the centerpiece of the story‚ when you look at it. I know this because only a tiny portion of Musk’s clarifying remarks were included in the report‚ to wit: I'm sorry for that tweet or post. It was foolish of me.  But that was only part of what Musk said regarding the post‚ and this selective depiction what Musk said in clarification of the post he obviously regrets. Here’s part of that statement:  Of all the posts I’ve done on the platform‚ I think there might be 30‚000 or something like that‚ right? Once in a while I’ll say something foolish and I have. And I would certainly put that comment that you’ve said the actual truth among perhaps one of the most foolish‚ if not the most foolish thing I’ve ever done on the platform. And I did do my best to clarify afterwards that I certainly do don’t mean anything antisemitic in that. The nature of the criticism was simply that the Jewish people have been persecuted for thousands of years. There is a natural affinity therefore for persecuted groups. This has led to the funding of organizations that essentially promote any persecuted group or any group with the perception of persecution. This includes radical Islamic groups. Everyone here has seen the massive demonstrations for Hamas in every major city in the west. That should be jarring. Well‚ a number of those organizations received funding from prominent people in the Jewish community. They didn’t expect that to happen. But if you generically without condition sort of fund… If you fund persecuted groups in general‚ some of those persecuted groups unfortunately want your annihilation. And what I meant by that‚ when I subsequently clarified is that it’s unwise to fund organizations that support groups that want your annihilation. Is this coming across clearly it at this point? That’s a far different picture than “I’m sorry for that tweet or post”. And having part of that statement in a tear sheet isn’t the same as video. The tone is entirely different in what the reporter is trying to convey.  This is an item meant to keep the controversy alive‚ and to further instigate the advertising boycott against X‚ a site that has done its level best to defend free speech and regain its place as the digital public square since being acquired by Musk.  

An FBI employee was carjacked in the nation's capital on Wednesday."At this time‚ we can confirm that an FBI employee was carjacked on the afternoon of November 29. The vehicle was recovered‚ and the FBI Washington Field Office and the Metropolitan Police Department's Carjacking Task Force are investigating‚" the FBI said in a statement‚ according to reports.The MPD Carjacking Dashboard reports that there have been more than 900 carjacking offenses so far this year.Democratic Rep. Henry Cuellar of Texas was carjacked in early October."Detectives from the Metropolitan Police Department's Carjacking Task Force seek the public's assistance in identifying the suspects of an armed carjacking of a federal agent in the 100 block of 12th Street‚ Northeast‚" MPD noted."On Wednesday‚ November 29‚ 2023‚ at approximately 3:44 p.m.‚ two suspects approached the victim‚ who was outside of their vehicle‚ two suspects carjacked the victim at gunpoint while the victim was getting out of the victim's vehicle. The suspects fled the scene in the victim's vehicle. The vehicle was found at 4:10 p.m. in the 1000 block of 15th Street‚ Southeast‚" MPD added. "The Metropolitan Police Department and Federal Bureau of Investigation currently offer a joint reward of up to $20‚000 to anyone who provides information that leads to the arrest and conviction of the person or persons responsible for a violent crime committed in the District of Columbia." Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!