What Google can't provide

Having just finished Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, I can concur with Julia Keller's comment that "Google can't provide the goose bumps that go along with being in the presence of a 14th century book." This is just another way of saying that sometimes (often?) the incarnated form is better than the dazzling graphics on our various media devices no matter how high the dpi.

How dark were the dark ages?

5 minutes that debunks so many misconceptions...

A good summary comes at the 5'10 mark where Professor Esolen asks the following question:

Who is more civilized?

We dismiss the achievements of our ancestors and fall short of them

They honoured their ancestors and surpassed them.

Let the reader understand but if struggling watching the video for some light...

Spurgeon on when we should tolerate evil

We shall, as we ripen in grace, have greater sweetness towards our fellow Christians. Bitter-spirited Christians may know a great deal, but they are immature. Those who are quick to censure may be very acute in judgment, but they are as yet very immature in heart. He who grows in grace remembers that he is but dust, and he therefore does not expect his fellow Christians to be anything more; he overlooks ten thousand of their faults, because he knows his God overlooks twenty thousand in his own case. He does not expect perfection in the creature, and, therefore, he is not disappointed when he does not find it.... I know we who are young beginners in grace think ourselves qualified to reform the whole Christian church. We drag her before us, and condemn her straightway; but when our virtues become more mature, I trust we shall not be more tolerant of evil, but we shall be more tolerant of infirmity, more hopeful for the people of God, and certainly less arrogant in our criticisms.” 

― Charles Spurgeon, in a sermon he delivered on Sunday Morning, August 14, 1870, at the Metropolitan Tabernacle. For the full text of the sermon go here

Atheist epitaph?

Sad eh? Truth is they're going somewhere but tragically it'll be too late to change!

How many Christians [sadly] choose a church

Dear husbands, you are responsible for all your wife does!

The Old Testament basis:

Numbers 30 says that if a man takes a vow before the Lord, he is responsible to fulfill the vow, pure and simple (Num. 30:2). However, if a woman “in her father’s house in her youth” makes a vow, her vow is subject to her father’s confirmation or nullification (Num. 30:3-5). Now one striking thing to note is that this passage does not single out young men still residing in their father’s house. It only references the young women...

The New Testament basis:

...we see the same principles showing up elsewhere in Scripture, namely the New Testament: the husband is to take responsibility for his wife (Eph. 5:25-29). Paul says that the husband is to imitate Christ who loved the Church and gave Himself for her. Jesus took all our liabilities on Himself. He pays the debts that we owe, and He cancels the debts we should have never promised to pay with His perfect wisdom and justice [...] The husband is to view his wife as occupying the same position as his own body. This means that her troubles are his troubles, her actions are his actions, her vows are his vows. 

Some applications:

In other words, if the wife decides to shoplift she is guilty of sins and crimes personally, but the moment her husband finds out about it, he incurs responsibility to act to put things right. In fact, he is arguably already responsible for the act before he knows about it because he is covenantally united to his wife. When she acts, he is acting. But he has a duty to respond, to lead her out of this situation the moment he hears of it. But the same principle applies to less lurid scenarios: a man is responsible before God to lead his wife. He leads by initiating discussion, planning, directing, and affirming some decisions of his wife and children and vetoing others.

For more, check out this helpful + biblical post

Should Christian infants receive communion?

Here is St. Augustine's answer:

“Those who say that infancy has nothing in it for Jesus to save, are denying that Christ is Jesus for all believing infants. Those, I repeat, who say that infancy has nothing in it for Jesus to save, are saying nothing else than that for believing infants, infants that is who have been baptized in Christ, Christ the Lord is not Jesus. After all, what is Jesus? Jesus means Saviour. Jesus is the Saviour. Those whom he does not save, having nothing to save in them, well for them he is not Jesus. Well now, if you can tolerate the idea that Christ is not Jesus for some persons who have been baptized, then I am not sure your faith can be recognized as according with the sound rule. Yes, they’re infants, but they are his members. They’re infants, but they receive his sacraments.They are infants, but they share in his table, in order to have life in themselves.” (From Sermon 174)

Agreed?