Spritual Warfare: A Biblical & Balanced Perspective - A Review

Many books on spiritual warfare either greatly emphasize Satan or completely ignore his operation in the life of believers.  Either ditch poses grave danger to the believer.  Brian Borgman and Rob Ventura navigate this thorny, yet very important, topic. 

I was a bit skeptical about this book, and I'm glad I gave it a shot.  This is one of the best books I've read in the past two years (ranking, for sure, in the top 3, and it contends for the top spot).  I've read others on the topic of spiritual warfare, much to my detriment. Some overly emphasize the role of the demonic.  Some emphasize the believer's walk.  In the forward, Steven Lawson states, "there are three formidable foes with which we contend - the world, the flesh and the devil."  Borgman and Ventura lay out a model for fighting, regardless of the front.

I was impressed with the expository approach they take to the topic.  The book is anchored on Ephesians 6:10-20, and they take one topic per chapter.  Each topic is explained, sometimes from several viewpoints, and then practical ways to employ the topic are expressed.

One unusual aspect to the book is notable: the enemy isn't given much print space.  He is not ignored, but, starting from the position that we fight from a place of victory in Christ, the adversary isn't given the press he gets in other books.

As I stated, Spiritual Warfare quickly rose to the top of the books I've read, both on this topic and others.  The principles expressed I'm employing immediately.  If you are in a spiritual battle (hint: if you're breathing and have a pulse, you are), I cannot commend this book to you enough. 

Thank you, Pastors Borgman and Ventura.  This book has been a true gift to me.


Note: I received a review copy of the book from the publisher.  I was required to provide an honest, not necessarily favorable, review, and the opinions expressed are mine.

Why I'm Unfriending Facebook (even for a time)

I'm unfriending Facebook. This may be for a time, and it may be for good.  That decision will come later.  For the time being, however, I'm leaving Facebook.  Why I'm leaving will take some explanation.

I don't know when it happened, but there was a decided shift in our culture. Somewhere along the line we confused disagreement with dislike, and we substituted debate for hatred.  In the wider culture, if someone disagreed, it was a sign the person didn't like the other person.  To engage in debate is now considered hatred, and, depending upon the topic, it's labeled as "hate speech" and can be a crime.

Facebook was different.  It was originally set up by college students for college students.  In the very early days (before I joined), it was a place for upcoming graduates to connect with employers.  It was a tool that was later replaced by LinkedIn (and others) as a method of networking.

It evolved from there to chronicle the lives of students (and maybe even record what the students couldn't remember).  This may not have been the healthiest of uses, and it was quickly replaced by likes of SnapChat and other, seedier, social media outlets.

Its further evolution took it into, what I term, a "Wild West college" phase; this was a time when Facebook was a place with few rules and lots of debate. Unlike the university system, honest debate happened. Sometimes it got ugly, but it was more open and honest.

As time went on, some of the culture's views on debate crept in.  I saw it from the faith community first. Disagreement on some theological issues was viewed as "unloving" or "divisive".  Disagreements were to be discounted; outright heresy was was to be ignored.  The only acceptable answers to anything theological was to praise the comment, regardless of its theological value.  Even a non-like on a re-post must be an indication of divisiveness.

Next, I saw this creep into social topics. It seemed the only topics and views allowed were those championed by the editorial board of the New York Times.  To disagree meant you must be one of a host of "-ophobe's".

My comments, and my responses to others' comments, have damaged relationships.  It's not that it was my goal, but it's the way of our society; to disagree with a comment apparently means I hate the person. My real-life relationships are more important to me than my online presence.

I'm unfriending Facebook, at least for a time.

Why Christ Came - A Review

"Our salvation does not depend on our performance but on Christ's." - Joel Beeke and William Boekestein, "Why Christ Came - 31 Meditations on the Incarnation"

I've read several books by Joel Beeke.  I've enjoyed all of them, but many are written with a college level in mind.  This book was different, but that doesn't mean it was a theological lightweight.

I was drawn to the concept.  Beeke and Boeestein explore 31 reasons Jesus came.  While timely for the advent season, this book is much deeper than the Baby in the Manger.  Much like John Piper's "Fifty Reasons Jesus Came to Die,"  this book explores topics outside of the normal meditations.

I really appreciate how scripture-soaked the book was.  Every topic is bathed in Bible passages.  This (1) adds credibility to the arguments, and (2) gives a starting point for further meditation. 

To give a little flavor of the Gospel-rich writings, I quote this from Chapter 26, "To Restore Human Nature to Holiness":

"Many people are quite satisfied with a religion of external rules and ceremonies because they have a superficial view of sin.  Perhaps they have fairly loose rules, such as a minimum requirement to attend public worship now and then. Or maybe they have stiff and complex rules consisting of behaviors almost as  intricate as a Japanese tea ceremony.  Either way, changes in behavior cannot purify the heart, for it is the seat of our corruption."


The authors continue to explain the Gospel in clear, concise terms.

This book would be great all year, although Advent or Lent would be great times to read.  The chapters are relatively short, which would make this a great devotional.  Fathers, if you're looking for a good family devotional for your older children (maybe 12+), this would be great; younger kids probably wouldn't grasp some of the ideas, but it's not inappropriate for that age group. 

I highly endorse this one.  Well done, Mr. Beeke and Mr. Boekestein.

Note: I received a review copy of the book from the publisher.  I was required to provide an honest, not necessarily favorable, review, and the opinions expressed are mine.

AsaSure

Now that ObamaCare is the law of the land, and now that the bill's been passed and we can now see what's in it, I've decided we need to propose something similar for auto insurance.  I hereby introduce AsaSure.

First of all, everyone will need to participate in AsaSure.  If anyone chooses to drive without insurance, it drives up the cost for everyone. If you don't drive, you'll still need AsaSure, in case you do. But don't worry, if you like your current insurance, you'll be able to keep your insurance, provided it meet some common-sense standards. 

Every policy will need to cover some basic, common-sense standards.  Body work, collision and routine maintenance will need to be covered.  So will window-tinting, filters, fluid changes and roadside assistance. Custom wheels and high-performance tire replacements will be covered under AsaSure.

Even though the very young drivers have traditionally cost more in claims, we cannot burden this very vulnerable age group.  Therefore we will switch to a community rating system, where everyone in a geographic area will pay the same, regardless of claim history.

Oh, and to protect drivers (and potential drivers) from those evil insurance companies, we'll preclude pre-existing incidents.  But don't worry; drivers are too honest to add AsaSurance after the accident.

Again, like I said at the outset, if you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance.  Unless, of course your policy is underinsurance (meaning you don't have roadside assistance or prepaid fuel); then, if your policy changes, even the premiums fluctuate a few cents, your policy will no longer be valid, and you'll have to purchase an AsaSure.

One final benefit of AsaSure.  We'll set up private exchanges for AsaSure-eligible companies to compete for your business.  Oh, sure, we'll collect ALL of your information in our secure (as we define secure) system and will know whether you purchase.  And we promise the exchange will be fully functional with no major outages.

AsaSure.  The better way to insure driving. 

The Looming Shutdown

Tomorrow could be an interesting day in my world of forecasting business trends.  This Government has done pretty much everything possible to screw up our feeble recovery.  From the Republicans' Obamacare fight (ignoring the larger spending problem - even ADDING to spending merely to repeal Obamacare) to the President's unwillingness to do any negotiation to Harry Reid's idea that negotiation is "give me everything I want, and we'll talk later."

This was wholly unnecessary.  The Republicans zeroed in on Obamacare at the expense of entitlement spending.  They successfully took focus off the President's signature legislation and turned onto themselves....all negative.  The better strategy would have been to force the bill to be implemented as written and focus on bigger spending problems we have; let Obamacare collapse in on itself and propose true free-market solutions to fix the entire mess.

The president has been no better. His list of negotiable items was so short, it could be written on a 1x1 post-it note.  He's claimed a willingness to compromise, but the amount he's been willing to move is so miniscule it's hardly detectible.

And then there's Harry Reid.  He's said he'll talk after the debt ceiling is raised and Sequester 2.0 (I still can't call an 83% open government "shut down") is ended.  This would be like offering to buy a car, getting the seller to sign over the title and handing over the keys, and then negotiating a price several months later.

And who's to blame?  We are.  You and me.  We cast our ballots, and we got what we voted for.  I've talked to several people at conferences lately, and they all say the same thing: elections have consequences.  I guess we have ours.