The Preacher's Thoughts

What Does a Pastor Do?

2009-09-05T11:51:00.006-04:00

I love John MacArthur and the ministry that he has. He's been going strong for something like 50 years of preaching now, and his books and messages are a great tonic for me whenever I get depressed.

I recently took over as the interim pastor of a small church in my town, and found quickly that the temptation to do everything can be very overwhelming, so when I saw this pasted on Facebook, I wanted to read it immediately. It will hopefully serve to remind me of why I'm ultimately there - to feed the flock of God. You can read the entire article at Grace To You's website, but here's a teaser.

If you’re a pastor, you have one job...you have one job. It’s this, Shepherd the flock of God among you....that’s your job. You are not a cultural evangelist, you are not a society penetrator, you’re not an entrepreneur, you’re not a revolutionary, you are a feeder of the flock of God.

Jesus said:
“I will build My church and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.”
“All whom the Father chose will be called.”
“All who are called will come.”
“All who come will be received by Christ.”
“All whom Christ receives, He will keep. All whom He keeps, He will raise at the last day.”

Our job is to feed His sheep. And the day you move your eyes beyond the people sitting in your church who belong to Christ, that’s the day you just lost your purpose.

Names of God

2009-02-04T08:41:00.004-05:00

When I was a student at Northland, we used to have a memory verse for the week and a name of God listed on the overhead for chapel every day. As I was praying for a friend's dad today, I was reminded of one of those names - Jehovah Rophe, the Lord who heals. I found this list of God's names, and wanted to share it with you, in an attempt to stir up a desire to learn more about what God calls Himself and to motivate people to study Him more. The list is available at: http://ldolphin.org/Names.html

I've also done some housekeeping on the blog. The first and hopefully most obvious section is to the immediate left - I created a section to online Bible study resouces, and broke that out seperately from the recommended reading section in an effort to clean up what was becoming a cluttered list. I've also added a link to TheoSource, a book review website, and another website that lists commentaries as well.

Christ in Me - the Light of the World

2009-01-22T13:27:00.006-05:00

I read this earlier today:

"One line in the book of Common Prayer made sense to me: the mystery of the Word made flesh. If only my friends would admit that it was a mystery, and stop giving me explanations! I wrote in my journal: 'I talk to people - oh, people I respect, and people I like - and yet I never feel any sense of terrific excitement in their own lives about Jesus, in the way that the early Christians must have been excited so that they were transfigured by Jesus. In no one, no one, no matter how loudly they talk about salvation being possible only through Jesus, do I find this great thing showing in them, glowing in them, lighting their lives, as it must if it is to make any sense today at all.' I was, I am sure, less than fair; nevertheless that was what reasonable explanations did to me."

-A Circle of Quiet, Madeleine L'Engle, ISBN 9780062545039.

I had a few thoughts on this:

1. Do I show Christ like Madeleine L'Engle talked about? Or do people only see me and not Him?

2. If not, then how do I get that way - what did I do to dim the light of Christ's working in me?

3. The more I read SharperIron and the more I participate in theological discussion, the more I am aware of how little I know. It's easy - too easy - to give answers and explanations, like she alluded to above, but it's also easy to diminish the greatness and majesty of God when I do that in an attempt to make God understandable. Does anyone else feel that way?

More Music For You

2008-03-10T09:00:00.000-04:00

I found this old hymn earlier in the week on Greg Linscott's blog, and thought that it would be worth passing on to you all. As I noted in my last blog entry, I'm really becoming disillusioned with Fundamentalism as a movement, and wish that we could begin to recapture some of these older and more valuable legacies that have been left for us. This hymn, in particular, is what I would like to see Fundamentalism begin to reclaim - music with theological purpose. Now if I can just figure out the "Jupiter" music that they are referring to, I should be set!

The hymn is titled "O God, Beyond All Praising"

O God Beyond All Praising
By Michael Perry
Tune: THAXTED

O God beyond all praising,we worship You today
And sing the love amazing that songs cannot repay;
For we can only wonder at every gift You send,
At blessings without number and mercies without end:
We lift our hearts before You and wait upon Your Word,
We honor and adore You, our great and mighty Lord.

Then hear, O gracious Savior, accept the love we bring,
That we who know your favor may serve you as our King;
And whether our tomorrows be filled with good or ill,
We’ll triumph through our sorrows and rise to bless You still:
To marvel at Your beauty and glory in Your ways,
And make a joyful duty our sacrifice of praise.

Lost...and found [again]

2008-02-18T11:16:00.008-05:00

No, I didn't lose my blog...I swear. =)

I've really been at a crossroads and crisis of my own making for approximately several months now, and everything kind of coalesced at the same time - right around April/May of 2007. While I won't go into all the boring [read: painful] specifics, let it suffice to say that I lost my job, got a new one, moved out of my apartment on less than three weeks notice, left not one but two Baptist churches, and may have put an end to a deeply personal relationship of over ten years.

When all of that hits at one season, it's time to step back from the keyboard for a bit, you know?

The good thing that came out of it is that I feel like I can think clearer now, and I know that God has used it. To what end, I'm not sure, but I know that He does. Or, if you are a fan of Star Wars, you might say that "we are Christians, and we strengthen ourselves through sacrifice" [Star Wars:Legacy of the Force - Betrayal, p. 425]. [Just as an aside, the sacrifice I am referring to is our own pretty whims and goals. But more on that later.]

I refer to myself as "lost" in the title, because all of those aforementioned events have served to create and strengthen my disillusionment with my walk with God and where I 'align' myself spiritually - ie, which what parties I will/will not join with. It is no longer sufficient to think that since I attend a 'good' church, sit under 'good teaching', live a 'good' life, and am a success [by this I mean that I have money in the bank, have a nice and well-adjusted family, or am able to 'own' a home and retire with wealth]. It is no longer sufficient to be published on SI, or to speak at a BJU event by their request, or to even be well-respected. All of that stuff is dross - either trinkets devised by our own arrogance and pride that will be destroyed when the Lord judges our actions [I Cor. 3] OR distraction - something that exists to pull us away from our purpose. All of those things are good. But not all of those things - or how they are presented to others, even if we desire them - are used for good - as a matter of fact, my fleshly nature or Satan can make them be bad or even dangerous.

Furthermore, I am finding that the Fundamentalist movement, in particular, has problems. Not that it shocks any of you to know this, but I'm concerned about things that I'm seeing, especially the ugly heads of Nepotism, Pragmatism, and a lack of clear focus on what is truly important. I'm also concerned about the growth of ivory tower preachers and ministers who specialize in theology but don't have a clue as to how life works for the people in their congregations.

So let me point three areas in particular that have been on my mind before I go:

1. Where in the Scripture does it specify that churches must have full-time ministers? If something like 80% of pastors are bi-vocational in some way, then why do IFB schools keep emphasizing full-time pastors, and worse yet, now sub-specialties for IFB organizations like youth/music pastor or Bible translator or church educator?

2. Why is it that so many IFB organizations and associations have so many of the same people involved on so many different levels? I'm tired of seeing the same guys over and over again. For all the emphasis on discipleship, it doesn't seem like any of the 'disciplees' are showing up, except for the well-connected [see above].

3. Maybe if "Fundamentalists" would sit down and write out their list of Fundamentals, it might help bring vision, focus, and clarity to their speech and actions. I had thought that SharperIron.org would help do this, but now I don't think that I can believe that.

I want to come back and revisit those three points later. After I've found the words for what I want to say.

Another Quote...

2007-08-16T14:09:00.000-04:00

This one is from Abraham Lincoln:

I have been driven, many times, to my knees by the overwhelming conviction that I had no where else to go.

The trick, as a Christian, is not to be 'driven to your knees' only by not having any where else to go, but to be driven to our knees dozens of times a day. Not that we have to physically take a position on our knees, but that our hearts and focus would be so strong that, whenever faced with a choice, we automatically look up to our Father and seek His counsel.

Now if I could only do that, instead of just writing it, I'd be in good shape. Lord, help thou my unbelief!

Ashamed?

2007-07-26T23:40:00.000-04:00

Yes, I know that it's been two months since I've posted. I had to take a hiatus [again] because of some personal crises that have since been [mostly] resolved. The Lord has been at work in wonderful and mysterious ways, and although I never would have chosen to go down the path that He took me, my life has improved dramatically and I am grateful to Him for it. I actually wrote this post back in May, but did so on my Treo and simply haven't thought to post it. If you're really interested in some of what was going on, there are several posts on SI within the May - June timeframe that I really should substitute for blog posts.

In any case, I actually first heard the following poem/challenge when I attended one of the opening revival meetings as an NBBC Student. Kevin Brownfield was the guest evangelist [he's on staff now], and he read it to us at the conclusion of one of his messages; I found it to be so compelling that I actually purchased the cassette tape - yes, I am a dinosaur, I know - transcribed it, and kept it in various forms and places. My wonderful wife saw it posted in my old bedroom, and was kind enough to research it online, reproduce it on some nice paper, and hang it up in the bedroom for me to review every day. It has proven to be a real challenge - and, at times, an encouragement, so I've reproduced it here for you. It's called the "Fellowship of the Unashamed".

I am part of the Fellowship of the Unashamed. The die has been cast. The decision has been made. I have stepped over the line. I will not look back, let up, slow down, back away, or be still. My past is redeemed, my present makes sense, and my future is secure. I am finished and done with low living, sight walking, small planning, smooth knees, colorless dreams, tamed visions, mundane talking, cheap giving, and dwarfed goals. I no longer need preeminence, prosperity, position, promotions, plaudits, or popularity. I do not have to be right, first, recognized, praised, regarded, or rewarded. I now live by faith, lean on His presence, love with patience, live by prayer, and labor with power. My face is set, my gait is fast, my goal is heaven, my road is narrow, my way is rough, my companions are few, my Guide is reliable, and my mission is clear. I cannot be bought, compromised, detoured, lured away, turned back, deluded or delayed. I will not flinch in the face of sacrifice, hesitate in the presence of adversity, negotiate at the table of the enemy, ponder at the pool of popularity, or meander in the maze of mediocrity. I will not give up, shut up, let up, or slow down until I have stayed up, stored up, prayed up, paid up, and spoken up for the cause of Christ. I am a disciple of Jesus. I must go till He comes, give till I drop, preach till all know, and work till He stops me. And when He comes for His own, He will have no problem recognizing me, for my banner is clear.

My SharperIron Signature

2007-07-18T17:26:00.000-04:00

Since we aren't allowed to have full signatures on SharperIron anymore, I've decided to make a permalink to my old one. I normally don't do things like this, but it bothered me enough that I decided to do an end-around on the SI rule.

And Elihu the son of Barachel the Buzite answered and said: "I am young in years, and you are aged; therefore I was timid and afraid to declare my opinion to you. I said, 'Let days speak, and many years teach wisdom.' But it is the spirit in man, the breath of the Almighty, that makes him understand. It is not the old who are wise, nor the aged who understand what is right. Therefore I say, 'Listen to me; let me also declare my opinion.'
[Job 32:6-10]

All Scripture is quoted from the ESV unless otherwise noted.

Another Interesting Quote...

2007-05-31T12:20:00.000-04:00

I found this today on a Starbucks cup of coffee, and wanted to share it with you.

The Way I See It #224

Darwinism's impact on traditional social values has not been as benign as its advocates would like us to believe. Despite the efforts of its modern defenders to distance themselves from its baleful social consequences, Darwinism's connection with eugenics, abortion, and racism is a matter of historical record. And the record is not pretty.

--Dr. Jonathan Wells, Biologist and author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design.

I don't know much about Dr. Wells, but this quote is absolutely dead on. I suppose that I will have to add this book to my 'books to read' list.

Housekeeping

2007-05-05T09:21:00.000-04:00

BLOG COMMENT OF THE DAY: "As Time’s 2006 Person of the Year, I have to say I’m deeply disappointed that Time has sunk to such sensational and politicized levels. Would someone please tell me who I should contact at Time to give back my award?"

Heh.

h/t - Instapundit

I've added a new link to the sidebar - the Baen Free Library. Basically, it's a place for authors to share their works with the public for no cost. There's everything from pulp fiction to multi-novel series, and it's all for free, so go check it out. There's also Project Gutenberg, which has been around longer and has more content, especially religious content. I have collected more than a few books on PDF format from them.

I also fixed a broken sidebar link that someone pointed out - sorry about that. Too many //'s will do that to you. =)

Blogging has fallen off because I have a new SI article that's way overdue, and because I've been spending a lot of time on SI dealing with KJV-Inspired people, and because I'm still working two jobs - one full time and one part timer. I promise to be a better blogger.

I also changed the layout of the site - Blogger asked me to upgrade to their new version - not from the old Blogger to the new, but to use their "new and improved" templates. I did that, and a lot of the specialized formatting that I had done to make this site look decent was lost in translation. I'll try and fix it back the right way.

Another Hymm We Never Sing...

2007-02-21T13:28:00.000-05:00

Whenever I find music that is doctrinally rich, I try to post it up here for other believers; they seem to be of much more value that the trite "Fundapop" music that seems to be so endemic to Fundamentalism or Baptistic circles. Thanks go to the blogmaster of My Two Cents for posting it; make sure you hit the hyperlink at the bottom of his post if you want more info on it.

Boy, isn't this song just a *little* different from songs like "The Old Rugged Cross" and "In The Garden"?

Jesus, Thy Blood and Righteousness

Jesus, thy blood and righteousness
my beauty are, my glorious dress;
‘midst flaming worlds, in these arrayed,
with joy shall I lift up my head.

Bold shall I stand in thy great day;
for who aught to my charge shall lay?
Fully absolved through these I am
from sin and fear, from guilt and shame.

The holy, meek, unspotted Lamb,
Who from the Father’s bosom came,
Who died for me, e’en me to atone,
Now for my Lord and God I own.

When from the dust of death I rise
to claim my mansion in the skies,
even then this shall be all my plea,
Jesus hath lived, hath died, for me.

Jesus, be endless praise to thee,
whose boundless mercy hath for me
for me a full atonement made,
an everlasting ransom paid.

O let the dead now hear thy voice;
now bid thy banished ones rejoice;
their beauty this, their glorious dress,
Jesus, thy blood and righteousness.

My Two Cents also notes that the stanza below is usually omitted... Can't imagine why...

Lord, I believe were sinners more
Than sands upon the ocean shore,
Thou hast for all a ransom paid,
For all a full atonement made.

If you know or have any more good hymn links, post them in the comments and I'll put them up. Thanks.

What Is Love?

2007-02-14T17:30:00.000-05:00

No, I'm not quoting the old rock song...

On the holiday devoted to "love" [which increasingly isn't about love, but lust - just look at the ads], I thought it might be helpful to mediate on what love is, and more importantly, how it manifests itself, because love isn't just a good feeling. Love always results in actions, and for a believer, love from God resulted in the highest actions - death, even the death of the cross. For us, love should result in total selflessness and the exaltation of others, but most especially, Christ. Think about that in conjunction with this passage.

And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience--among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ--by grace you have been saved--and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
[Ephesians 2:1-10]

When God Smacks You Down...

2007-02-08T00:03:00.000-05:00

The last couple of months have been...difficult, which is part of the reason why I haven't blogged as much. Finances have been tight, I've been ill, and stress abounded. In the middle of all this, my focus drifted off of God and onto myself - what I needed to do, how I could make things work, et cetera et cetera. Because of this, it's been a long tough slog. Well, after several weeks of discouragement and frustration, the Lord taught me that it is indeed hard to kick against the pricks, and that I need to depend - fully depend - on what He's doing.

I got another reminder of this today, while I was reading in the Bible. I happened to open my ESV to Luke 12, and read:

And he said to his disciples, "Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you will eat, nor about your body, what you will put on. For life is more than food, and the body more than clothing. Consider the ravens: they neither sow nor reap, they have neither storehouse nor barn, and yet God feeds them. Of how much more value are you than the birds! And which of you by being anxious can add a single hour to his span of life? If then you are not able to do as small a thing as that, why are you anxious about the rest? Consider the lilies, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin, yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. But if God so clothes the grass, which is alive in the field today, and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, how much more will he clothe you, O you of little faith! And do not seek what you are to eat and what you are to drink, nor be worried. For all the nations of the world seek after these things, and your Father knows that you need them. Instead, seek his kingdom, and these things will be added to you. "Fear not, little flock, for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom. Sell your possessions, and give to the needy. Provide yourselves with moneybags that do not grow old, with a treasure in the heavens that does not fail, where no thief approaches and no moth destroys. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
[Luke 12:22-34]

So I write this to say that I am thankful to God for his discipline. I know that when God decides to discipline, he does it hard enough to make sure you or I know what's going on, but gently enough that he doesn't break a bruised reed.

Interesting Quote

2007-01-28T00:14:00.000-05:00

I saw this quote at the American Museum of Natural History last weekend, and wanted to share it with you...

If I must choose between righteousness and peace, I choose righteousness.

-Theodore Roosevelt

Did You Get The Point?

2007-01-16T17:00:00.000-05:00

I've been quietly reading and trying to decide what I think about Dr. Bauder's articles on Entertainment that have been posted on SharperIron. I must admit that I will need to go back and re-read them all, now that the final installment is out, but as I read the newest post today, I find myself essentially in agreement with one portion of what he's written:

To the extent that theater is a moral phenomenon and to the extent that it appeals to the appetites, I suspect that our ability to evaluate it is similarly limited. At any rate, I have noticed this in myself: the more I expose myself to theater (whether stage or screen), the more of it I want and the less thoughtful and discerning I become in what I want. I can easily allow myself to be captivated by stuff that I know is wrong. If someone challenges me, I find that I respond viscerally rather than rationally. If my wife snaps off the TV, I am instantly irritated because I want to see that ungodly stuff. If I continue exposing myself to profane perspectives and depictions, they quickly carry over into the real world, and I find myself no longer shocked at sin.

Sounds depraved, doesn’t it? In fact, it is. My depravity takes only a bit of stirring up, and it is ready to go. The point is, however, that I don’t begin by seeking out theater that will give me wisecracking attitudes, foul language, inhumane violence, or risqué double entendres. I start out looking for a bit of amusement. I want a diversion, and I begin with something that looks innocent. Once that choice is made, however, the slide begins. How far it would carry me eventually, I don’t know. And I hope I never find out. That’s one reason why I have chosen to distance myself from the medium.

Maybe I am the only one whose depravity works this way. Perhaps what I’m admitting is so unusual that others are never bothered by it. They may even find it bizarre. I have noticed, however, that when the topic of theater comes up, contemporary Christians tend to react just the way that I do when my wife snaps off the television...Merely to raise the issue is to ask for abuse.

I've noticed this myself - just the other day as a matter of fact. I was going through some old videogames and wondering why I'd even bothered to buy some of them that were obviously wrong for a believer to own. The answer? It started out quietly and slowly - with just a little diversion, or something to help me unwind.

I'm not going to come out and say that all theater, TV, music, or whatever is sin. What I am saying - and what I think the point is - is that we need to be sober and vigiliant because not only do we have an adversary in the Devil and his legions, but within our own selves. I hope that the people who read this article get that point before we all engage in Christian Jihad on someone who points out the 'beam in our eyes'.

Merry Christmas!

2006-12-25T00:01:00.000-05:00

But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.
[Galatians 4:4-5]

For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful[,] Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this.
[Isaiah 9:6-7]

He was despised and rejected by men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes we are healed.
[Isaiah 53:3-5]

The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John bore witness about him, and cried out, "This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me.'") And from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace.
[John 1:9-16]

Then Pilate said to him, "So you are a king?" Jesus answered, "You say that I am a king. For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world--to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice." Pilate said to him, "What is truth?" After he had said this, he went back outside to the Jews and told them, "I find no guilt in him. But you have a custom that I should release one man for you at the Passover. So do you want me to release to you the King of the Jews?"
[John 18:37-39]

And it was the third hour when they crucified him.
[Mark 15:25]

But Peter, standing with the eleven, lifted up his voice and addressed them, "Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and give ear to my words..."Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know-- this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it...Brothers, I may say to you with confidence about the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants on his throne, he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses. Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing. For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he himself says, "'The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.' Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified." Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?" And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself." And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, "Save yourselves from this crooked generation." So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.
[Acts 2:14-41]

Thanks be to God for his inexpressible gift!
[2 Corinthians 9:15]

Here's the Quote...

2006-12-12T13:17:00.000-05:00

that I promised yesterday. Now, perhaps, my earlier posting will make more sense.

Because the Christian is a citizen of two kingdoms - one earthly, the other heavenly - he has an obligation to both. He cannot divorce himself from either. He is under divine mandate to both. Nevertheless, he realizes that the one is temporary and the other is eternal. Yet that in no way prohibits his involvement in the temporal; in fact, it enhances it. The Christian cannot merely sit by and passively watch society self-destruct. Something within him - namely, the Spirit of God - cries out for truth and justice. Wherever the cry has been articulated into action, truth and justice have prevailed.

-Ed Dobson, Blinded By Might, p. 44

Still Thinking About Politics...

2006-12-11T17:32:00.000-05:00

I found a great quote from the book "Blinded By Might" this afternoon, one that reminded me of this section of the Scriptures. I'd love to share the book excerpt with you, but that will have to wait until tomorrow. In the meantime, I'll share the passage, with the important part in bold for your meditation.

So Pilate entered his headquarters again and called Jesus and said to him, "Are you the King of the Jews?" Jesus answered, "Do you say this of your own accord, or did others say it to you about me?" Pilate answered, "Am I a Jew? Your own nation and the chief priests have delivered you over to me. What have you done?" Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world." Then Pilate said to him, "So you are a king?" Jesus answered, "You say that I am a king. For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world--to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice." Pilate said to him, "What is truth?" After he had said this, he went back outside to the Jews and told them, "I find no guilt in him.
[John 18:33-38]

Happy Thanksgiving!

2006-11-23T15:32:00.000-05:00

Whereas, it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; Whereas, both the houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me “to recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness!” Now therefore, I do recommend next, to be devoted by the people of the states to the service of that great and glorious being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be, that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country.
-George Washington

War Isn't Tiddlywinks.

2006-11-12T23:39:00.000-05:00

There's been a lot of talk, now that the elections are over, about getting out of Iraq. I cannot but vehemently disagree with that kind of cowardice, and think that the authors of the Weekly Standart are right on the money in this article. I do strongly feel that if we do what is popular, or what is easy, or that if we decide that the freedom and liberty that the Iraqis have now enjoyed at the cost of so many good men and women is not worth the sacrifice they made, that the Iraqi generations to come will curse us for our cowardice and stupidity. No, all of the generations of humans who will "live" in countries where the Kim Jong Il's, the Husseins, and the Ayatollahs rule with absolute law and authority will curse us.

War isn't like tiddlywinks...unfortunately, it's not pretty or easy. Cutting and running is, and I hope that President Bush has enough backbone to tell the incoming Majority leader that we aren't leaving Iraq until the job is finished.

That being said, here are some highlights from the Weekly Standard:

Don't throw good money after bad. When you're in a hole, stop digging. If you've been running in the wrong direction, the first thing to do is, turn around.

These are the kinds of things Americans are hearing and saying about the war in Iraq. It's understandable: Those familiar sayings are often useful. When you gamble and lose, the natural tendency is to double your bet--and when that doesn't work, mortgage everything you have to try to retrieve your losses...

All of which seems to apply to Iraq, in spades. A seemingly quick and easy military victory has turned sour. The costs, in blood and treasure, have escalated. Victory looks uncertain and distant. It seems the time has come, if not to cut and run, then surely to cut our losses. If ever the principle of sunk cost applied to warfare, it would seem to apply here.

But that instinct is wrong. Warfare is not like investment banking...[W]illingness to raise the stakes often wins the game. Why do insurgent gangs, who have vastly smaller resources and manpower than the American soldiers they fight, continue to try to kill those soldiers? The answer is, because they believe they only have to kill a few more, and the soldiers will leave. They need not inflict a military defeat (which would be impossible, given the strength of the American military)--all they need to do is survive until American voters decide to throw in the towel, which might happen at any moment.

The proper response to that calculation is to make emphatically clear that the fight will not end until one side or the other wins, decisively. That kind of battle can only have one ending, as Abraham Lincoln understood. In a speech delivered a month after his reelection, Lincoln carefully surveyed the North's resources and manpower and concluded that the nation's wealth was "unexhausted and, as we believe, inexhaustible." Southern soldiers be gan to desert in droves. Through the long, bloody summer and fall of 1864, the South had hung on only because of the belief that the North might tire of the conflict. But Lincoln did not tire. Instead, he doubled the bet--and won the war.

Politics

2006-11-11T11:06:00.001-05:00

Well, the Republicans were soundly whupped on Tuesday, losing both the Senate and the House, and it looks like it would have been worse. This is going to be one of my longer posts, and I'm going to deal with the politics first...but then I'll be circling back to my forte, so bear with me.

I can't really say that I'm all that surprised about the results - it seems like there's been one gigantic GOP misstep after another - Harriet Meiers for Supreme Court, the Dubai Ports deal, the failure to remove or even address corrupt GOP Senators [Stevens is the first that comes to mind], and Immigration. Glenn Reynolds has a pre-election postmortem that pretty much summed up a lot of my complaints both with the GOP controlled House and Senate, and also with the President himself. [BTW, I still support the war in Iraq, so that's not a bone of contention for me - unless you want to argue that we have prosecuted it enough, because I don't think we have.]

It would be easy to despair, especially with some of the rumblings coming from the Democrat-controlled legislature - Alcee Hastings for the House Permanent Standing Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI), along with several other Democratic senators who are facing serious conflicts of interest, is a fiasco that you'll never hear about in the papers, tax cuts - for people making anywhere from $100,000 to $500,000 dollars...note these paragraphs from the Washington Post:

Democratic leaders this week vowed to make the alternative minimum tax a centerpiece of next year's budget debate, saying the levy threatens to unfairly increase tax bills for millions of middle-class families by the end of the decade...

The complex and expensive tax was designed to prevent the super-rich from using deductions, credits and other shelters to avoid paying the Internal Revenue Service. But because of rising incomes, the tax is expected to expand to more than 30 million taxpayers in 2010 from 3.8 million mostly well-off households in 2006...

The [Democratic -ed] focus on the AMT is hardly surprising, given that victims of the tax have been concentrated in high-cost urban areas such as Washington, New York and San Francisco -- places that tend to vote Democratic. Rangel, Hoyer and Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), the presumptive House speaker, all represent states hit hard by the AMT, which is sometimes called the "blue-state tax." To map states with the highest concentrations of AMT taxpayers is to draw bull's-eyes over California and the Northeastern seaboard...

By 2010, "the AMT will become the de facto tax system for filers in the $200,000 to $500,000 income range, 94 percent of whom will face the tax," according to a report by the Tax Policy Center. About half of tax filers making $75,000 to $100,000 will have to pay the tax, including 89 percent of married couples in that income bracket who have at least two children....

[BTW - $75,000-100,000 is hardly "middle class" - not when the median US family income is $43,389, according to Wikipedia, but I digress.]

In any case, it's pretty obvious that neither party is looking out for the rest of us "normal" Americans...But that's OK. Psalm 20:7 says:

Some trust in chariots and some in horses, but we trust in the name of the LORD our God

and Psalm 115:3 tells us that "Our God is in the heavens; he does all that he pleases." That even includes who is running Congress.

So while it doesn't look like the House or Senate won't be looking out for you or I, we can still trust in God, who controls the heart of the kings and turns them wherever he will. And even though [if] they aren't looking out for us, well, Romans 13 is still binding on everyone:

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good.

Don't Forget To Pray For Your NEW Leaders

2006-11-10T17:30:00.000-05:00

I've been thinking - a lot - about the believer's relationship to the State lately, and this article seems to have clearly articulated a lot of the conclusions that I'm coming to, so I've decided to link to it and also quote it at length. I'm hoping to eventually develop my ruminations into a article for SharperIron, but I have to finish moving and unpacking before I can even think about attacking that [or any other] job. So, I've decided to to share this with you all as a sort of primer for what's coming, as result of what transpired last night in the elections, and because well written articles that are Biblically based deserve attention.

Nancy Pelosi Is My Prayer Partner
Thursday, November 09, 2006

The Moore household has a new prayer-partner, and her name is Nancy Pelosi.

I suppose partner isn't the right word since the soon-to-be-Speaker of the United States House of Representatives doesn't know anything about our kitchen-table intercession. Nonetheless, my boys will soon learn how to pronounce the words "Speaker Pelosi" as they ask God's blessings for her.

It's not that I'm a Pelosi supporter...Nonetheless, my wife and boys and I will be praying for her. And I hope this Sunday a wave of Southern Baptist churches and families will join us.

It is easy for Christians to pray for political figures who court our votes. There are several organizations out there devoted to encouraging believers to pray for President Bush. Our offertory prayers often ask God's blessings on President Bush as he leads our country. And this is right. We are commanded to pray for President Bush. But our responsibility doesn't end there.

...For whatever reason, this past Tuesday God decided that Nancy Pelosi will be sitting behind President Bush at next year's State of the Union address. And God decided that outgoing Speaker Denny Hastert would not be seated there.

As the apostle Paul urges us to obey the "governing authorities," we must keep in mind that he is not speaking of the religious Right of the Roman Empire. He is speaking of a bloodthirsty and pagan Caesar, a government that was directly responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus. Caesar never sought the evangelical vote-or any other vote, for that matter.

It is not simply, though, that we as Christians are to obey our governmental leaders as long as they exercise legitimate authority (boundaries the Spirit sets forth in Romans 13 and elsewhere in the Scripture). We are also commanded to pray for these leaders. Paul writes to Timothy, "First of all, then, I urge that petitions, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for everyone, for kings and for all those who are in authority" (1 Tim 2:1-2a HCSB). Again, this is in the context of a pagan and ungodly first-century Roman Empire. Paul singles out kings and governing officials for prayer and he tells us why he does so: "So that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity" (1 Tim 2:2b HCSB). The "we" there is, of course, the church of Jesus Christ. We pray for our leaders precisely so that the church's mission may be unimpeded by Caesar's whims....We should pray for a government that allows the church to be the church, so that the church can call the lost to be saved.

This doesn't mean that we don't criticize our governing authorities. John the Baptist didn't hesitate to do so, and lost his head in the process. Jesus sarcastically derided King Herod as "that fox" in a public forum (Luke 13:32).

...But at the same time, I am going to respect her as one who wields a power given to her by my God, and teach my children to do the same. I am going to love her and pray that God grants her health, happiness, and wisdom to govern. I am going to pray that she will seek the punishment of evildoers and mercy for the poor and the vulnerable-including the unborn babies upon whose corpses she, sadly, has built a career. I'm going to pray that Speaker Pelosi's admirable love for the weakest among us will one day extend to the most vulnerable of all.

It isn't easy to love and pray for someone who stands at odds with your worldview. But it pleases the God who wants all to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

H/T - SharperIron

My New [Old] SharperIron Article Is Up!

2006-10-26T19:48:00.000-04:00

You can read it at SharperIron.

There's a lot of changes in my life right now, including a housing move in the near future, so blogging will be lighter than usual for a bit, and hopefully I'll be back by November 20th or so. Thanks for your understanding.

Another Creed for Study

2006-10-14T05:59:00.000-04:00

I recently heard about this creed and found it to be quite useful. It's a descendant of the famous Niagara Bible Conferences from so long ago, and frankly, ought to be more well known than it is. Since I ran a series of threads on creeds and confessions several months ago, I wanted to add this one in to that collection as well. The creed [as reproduced] is taken from Wikipedia.

"Niagara Creed."

1. We believe "that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God," by which we understand the whole of the book called the Bible; nor do we take the statement in the sense in which it is sometimes foolishly said that works of human genius are inspired, but in the sense that the Holy Ghost gave the very words of the sacred writings to holy men of old; and that His Divine inspiration is not in different degrees, but extends equally and fully to all parts of these writings, historical, poetical, doctrinal, and prophetical and to the smallest word, and inflection of a word, provided such word is found in the original manuscripts: 2 Tim. 3:16, 17; 2 Pet. 1:21; 1 Cor. 2:13; Mark 12:26, 36; 13:11; Acts 1:16; 2:4.

2. We believe that the Godhead eternally exists in three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; and that these three are one God, having precisely the same nature, attributes and perfections, and worthy of precisely the same homage, confidence, and obedience: Mark 12:29; John 1:1-4; Matt. 28:19, 20; Acts 5:3, 4; 2 Cor. 13:14; Heb. 1:1-3; Rev. 1:4-6.

3. We believe that man, originally created in the image and after the likeness of God, fell from his high and holy estate by eating the forbidden fruit, and as the consequence of his disobedience the threatened penalty of death was then and there inflicted, so that his moral nature was not only grievously injured by the fall, but he totally lost all spiritual life, becoming dead in trespasses and sins, and subject to the power of the devil: Gen. 1:26; 2:17; John 5:40; 6:53; Eph. 2:1-3; 1 Tim. 5:6; 1 John 3:8.

4. We believe that his spiritual death, or total corruption of human nature, has been transmitted to the entire race of man, the man Christ Jesus alone excepted; and hence that every child of Adam is born into the world with a nature which not only possesses no spark of Divine life, but is essentially and unchangeably bad, being enmity against God, and incapable by any educational process whatever of subjection to His law: Gen. 6:5; Psa. 14:1-3; 51:5; Jer. 17:9 John 3:6; Rom. 5:12-19; 8:6,7.

5. We believe that owing to this universal depravity and death in sin, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless born again; and that no degree of reformation however great, no attainment in morality however high, no culture however attractive, no humanitarian and philanthropic schemes and societies however useful, no baptism or other ordinance however administered, can help the sinner to take even one step toward heaven; but a new nature imparted from above, a new life implanted by the Holy Ghost through the Word, is absolutely essential to salvation: Isa. 64:6; John 3:5, 18; Gal. 6:16; Phil. 3:4-9; Tit. 3:5; Jams. 1:18; 1 Pet. 1:23.

6. We believe that our redemption has been accomplished solely by the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, who was made to be sin, and made a curse, for us, dying in our room and stead; and that no repentance, no feeling, no faith, no good resolutions, no sincere efforts, no submission to the rules and regulations of any church, or of all the churches that have existed since the days of the Apostles, can add in the very least to the value of that precious blood, or to the merit of that finished work, wrought for us by Him who united in His person true and proper divinity with perfect and sinless humanity: Lev. 17:11; Matt. 26:28; Rom. 5:6-9; 2 Cor. 5:21; Gal. 3:13; Eph. 1:7; 1 Pet. 1:18,19.

7. We believe that Christ, in the fullness of the blessings He has secured by His obedience unto death, is received by faith alone, and that the moment we trust in Him as our Savior we pass out of death into everlasting life, being justified from all things, accepted before the Father according to the measure of His acceptance, loved as He is loved, and having His place and portion, as linked to Him, and one with him forever: John 5:24; 17:23; Acts 13:30; Rom. 5:1; Eph. 2:4-6, 13; 1 John 4:17; 5:11, 12.

8. We believe that it is the privilege, not only of some, but of all who are born again by the Spirit through faith in Christ as revealed in the Scriptures, to be assured of their salvation from the very day they take Him to be their Savior; and that this assurance is not founded upon any fancied discovery of their own worthiness, but wholly upon the testimony of God in His written Word, exciting within His children filial love, gratitude, and obedience: Luke 10:20; 12:32; John 6:47; Rom. 8:33-39; 2 Cor. 5:1, 6-8; 2 Tim. 1:12; 1 John 5:13.

9. We believe that all the Scriptures from first to last center about our Lord Jesus Christ, in His person and work, in His first and second coming; and hence that no chapter even of the Old Testament is properly read or understood until it leads to Him; and moreover that all the Scriptures from first to last, including every chapter even of the Old Testament, were designed for our practical instruction; Luke 24:27, 44; John 5:39; Acts 17:2, 3; 18:28; 26:22, 23; 28:23; Rom. 15:4; 1 Cor. 10:11.

10. We believe that the Church is composed of all who are united by the Holy Spirit to the risen and ascended Son of God, that by the same Spirit we are all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, and thus being members one of another, we are responsible to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, rising above all sectarian prejudices and denominational bigotry, and loving one another with a pure heart fervently: Matt. 16:16-18; Acts 2:32-47; Rom. 12:5; 1 Cor. 12:12-27; Eph. 1:20-23; 4:3-10; Col. 3:14,15.

11. We believe that the Holy Spirit, not as an influence, but as a Divine Person, the source and power of all acceptable worship and service, is our abiding Comforter and Helper, that He never takes His departure from the Church, nor from the feeblest of the saints, but is ever present to testify of Christ, seeking to occupy us with Him, and not with ourselves nor with our experiences: John 7:38, 39; 14:16, 17; 15:26; 16:13, 24; Acts 1:8; Rom. 8:9; Phil. 3:3.

12. We believe that we are called with a holy calling to walk, not after the flesh, but after the Spirit, and so to live in the Spirit that we should not fulfill the lusts of the flesh; but the flesh being still in us to the end of our earthly pilgrimage needs to be kept constantly in subjection to Christ, or it will surely manifest its presence to the dishonor of His name: Rom. 8:12, 13; 13:14; Gal. 5:16-25; Eph. 4:22-24; Col. 3:1-10; 1 Pet. 1:14-16; 1 John 3:5-9.

13. We believe that the souls of those who have trusted in the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation do at death immediately pass into His presence, and there remain in conscious bless until the resurrection of the body at His coming, when soul and body reunited shall be associated with Him forever in the glory; but the souls of unbelievers remain after death in conscious misery until the final judgment of the great white throne at the close of the millennium, when soul and body reunited shall be cast into the lake of fire, not to be annihilated, but to be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of His power: Luke 16:19-26; 23:43; 2 Cor. 5:8; Phil 1:23; 2 Thess. 1:7-9; Jude 6:7; Rev. 20:11-15.

14. We believe that the world will not be converted during the present dispensation, but is fast ripening for judgment, while there will be a fearful apostasy in the professing Christian body; and hence that the Lord Jesus will come in person to introduce the millennial age, when Israel shall be restored to their own land, and the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord; and that this personal and premillennial advent is the blessed hope set before us in the Gospel for which we should be constantly looking." Luke 12:35-40; 17:26-30; 18:8 Acts 15:14-17; 2 Thess. 2:3-8; 2 Tim. 3:1-5; Titus 1:11-15).

"Born Again" Thieves

2006-10-11T13:22:00.000-04:00

The LA Times has a compelling story available on their website about "Born Again" pirates.

There's a lot that I could say, but I don't have much time, so I'll let Isaiah 5 do the talking and come back later with more:

Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!

Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, and shrewd in their own sight!

Woe to those who are heroes at drinking wine, and valiant men in mixing strong drink, who acquit the guilty for a bribe, and deprive the innocent of his right!

Therefore, as the tongue of fire devours the stubble, and as dry grass sinks down in the flame, so their root will be as rottenness, and their blossom go up like dust; for they have rejected the law of the LORD of hosts, and have despised the word of the Holy One of Israel.

Therefore the anger of the LORD was kindled against his people...For all this his anger has not turned away, and his hand is stretched out still.

Do I Not Love Thee?

2006-09-26T19:51:00.000-04:00

Do not I love Thee, O my Lord?
Behold my heart and see;
And turn each cursèd idol out,
That dares to rival Thee.

Do not I love Thee, O my Lord?
Then let me nothing love;
Dead be my heart to every joy,
When Jesus cannot move.

Within the darkness of this heart,
Other gods would vie for my affections.
But Thou art exalted far above all gods.
Let nothing keep me from Thy love.

Thou know’st I love Thee, dearest Lord,
But O, I long to soar
Far from the sphere of mortal joys,
And learn to love Thee more!

Found this via the BJU Bloggers' aggregator, and this whole concept of "Lord, I believe -- help my unbelief!" has been on my mind and heart as of late. It just seems like I can't bring myself to love God like I ought because I'm too attached to everything else here on earth. I took some refuge and solace from the words, and wanted to pass along them for you.

The original post, along with some other commentary and another version, is available at Stray Thoughts.

Osama Bin Dead?

2006-09-23T15:52:00.000-04:00

Lots of reports are flying around on the internet that Osama bin Laden is dead; I actually heard it reported on CBS News this morning as I drove back home from work.

Places that are reporting this are:
FOX News
A Greek Newspaper
The Kaleej Times
[Apparently, the Kaleej Times isn't sure...]
Time Magazine

CNN is reporting:

Osama bin Laden has a water-borne illness, a Saudi intelligence source told CNN on Saturday, a report that conflicts with an article in a French newspaper saying that the al Qaeda leader is dead.

The Saudi intelligence source told CNN's Nic Robertson that there have been credible reports for the past several weeks that bin Laden is ill, but there has been no word of his death.

The questions came in response to the publication of a report in the French regional newspaper L'Est Republicain on Saturday.

The article cited a confidential French foreign intelligence document dated September 21 in which a source said the Saudis had received confirmation that bin Laden died of typhoid in Pakistan on August 23.

There's a big roundup at Gateway Pundit, for those interested in reading more.

While I am not putting a lot of stock in these rumors, since they haven't been confirmed by US or Pakistani sources [and I doubt that they ever will be, when Osama does die], I also think that it's worth noting that if it is true, then Osama is in what may be the worst place in the universe right now - Hell - and that's nothing to laugh or joke about; it's certainly not worth celebrating over. No matter how bad this guy is.

I, Too, Like BJU!

2006-09-01T13:48:00.000-04:00

It seems to me that a lot of people on SI have an axe to grind against BJU. Why that is, I do not know. It does bug me, however. It bugs me a lot.

Part of it is that I am indeed a BJ Grad [MA, Pastoral Theology, 2004], but part of it seems to be some kind of pointless institution bashing that exists wherever there are good colleges - I remember many a time at Northland where my roommates and I referred to Nathanael's famous proverb [although we typically inserted Maranatha Baptist Bible College instead of Nazareth].

So it did my heart good to see this post at Pensees earlier today. I thought I'd share some of it with you, but do take a minute to head over and read it. I'll be posting some additional thoughts tomorrow, probably, while this tropical storm pours down on my head.

Here's a excerpt for you:

I so often criticize fundamentalism that some think that I must also be a BJU-hater. After all, isn’t Bob Jones University the bastion of fundamentalism? The fact of the matter is that Bob Jones University is a bastion of fundamentalism and though it has represented some of the worst elements of fundamentalism in its long and storied history, it has also symbolized and become home to the very best of fundamentalism, the part of fundamentalism I love. Its unapologetic, consistent, dogged determination to excel while proclaiming its original core convictions of the faith in an era when few schools, if any, are anything like what they were when they first began is a wonderful testimony of God’s grace on a much maligned ministry.

Thoughts for Young Men, Part I

2006-08-28T14:00:00.000-04:00

I started this a couple of weeks ago, and want to take some time now to conclude what I began. I'll be working through the book chapter by chapter, and would strongly recommend that you avail yourself of the resources at www.gracegems.org, which includes this book. I turned 28 this morning, but I thing that it's probably still applicable to me.

That being said, I'll let Bishop Ryle do the speaking now, with some of my thoughts interspersed.

I. REASONS FOR EXHORTING YOUNG MEN
What are the general reasons why young men need specific exhortation? I will mention several of them in order.

(1) For one thing, there is the painful fact that there are few young men anywhere who seem to be Christians. I speak without respect of persons; I say it of all. Rich or poor, gentle or rough, educated or uneducated, in the city or in the country--it makes no difference. I shudder to think how few young men are led by the Spirit, how few are on that narrow road which leads to life, how few are setting their affections on things above, how few are taking up the cross, and following Christ. I say all this with sorrow, but I believe, in God's sight, that I am saying nothing more than the truth.

Apparently, times have not changed all that much since Bishop Ryle's day. I continually look around at the landscape of Fundamentalism - or at least my segment of it - and wonder/worry about the shape I see. There simply aren't that many young men who I believe could be counted on to preach and teach God's word. There is no zeal for missions, prayer, or godly leadership. Every man is following after money, fame, power, or possessions, and our churches die for lack of leadership by younger men. If I had to list my concerns for Fundamentalism, I think I'd probably put this one at the top of the list. But back to Ryle...

Young men, your time is short. Your days are but a brief shadow, a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes, a story that is soon told. Your bodies are not made of brass. "Even the young men," says Isaiah, "stumble and fall" (Isaiah 40:30). Your health may be taken from you in a moment: it only needs an accident, a fever, an inflammation, a broken blood-vessel, and the worm would soon feed upon you in the grave. There is but a step between any one of you and death. This night your soul might be required of you. You are fast going the way of all the earth, you will soon be gone. Your life is all uncertainty, your death and judgment are perfectly sure. You too must hear the Archangel's trumpet, and go forth to stand before the great white throne of judgment, you too must obey that summons, which Jerome says was always ringing in his ears: "Get up, you dead, and come to judgment."

On a side note, I had an acquaintance from high school was killed within 10 months of our high school graduation back in 1996. We'd known each other from classes and from working together, and I'd never dreamed that he'd be dead within a year. I think, so far, that I've lost 5 acquaintances from my high school class, and it will be ten years this June. That's a lot of people in such a short amount of time.

It is an awful mockery to suppose you can give the flower of your strength to the world and the devil, and then put off the King of kings with the scraps and remains of your hearts, the wreck and remnant of your powers. It is an awful mockery, and you may find to your loss that the thing cannot be done.

I dare say you are planning on a late repentance. You do not know what you are doing. You are planning without God. Repentance and faith are the gifts of God, and they are gifts that He often withholds, when they have been long offered in vain.

It is the goodness of God, Paul says in Romans [I believe] that leads to repentance. Nothing else. There are a lot of us - Christian and Non - who take God's grace for granted.

Satan knows very well that you will make up the next generation and therefore he employs every trick to make you his own...You are those on whom he puts his choicest temptations. He spreads his net with the most watchful carefulness, to entangle your hearts. He baits his trap with the sweetest morsels, to get you into his power. He displays his wares before your eyes with his utmost ingenuity, in order to make you buy his sugared poisons, and eat his accursed treats. You are the grand object of his attack.

...He will try to throw dust in your eyes, and prevent you seeing anything in its true colors. He would eagerly make you think that evil is good, and good is evil. He will paint, cover with gold, and dress up sin, in order to make you fall in love with it. He will deform, and misrepresent, and fabricate true Christianity, in order to make you take a dislike to it. He will exalt the pleasures of wickedness--but he will hide from you the sting. He will lift up before your eyes the cross and its painfulness– but he will keep out of sight the eternal crown. He will promise you everything, as he did to Christ, if you will only serve him. He will even help you to wear a form of Christianity, if you will only neglect the power. He will tell you at the beginning of your lives, it is too soon to serve God--he will tell you at the end, it is too late.

Satan himself, Paul says later in Corinthians, masquerades as an angel of light. But if I may, I would disagree with Bishop Ryle. I do not think that we need to fear Satan as much as we need to fear our own selves, and our sin nature.

...Seek the Lord early, and so you will be spared many a bitter tear.

This is the truth that Job seems to have felt. He says, "You write down bitter things against me and make me inherit the sins of my youth" (Job 13:26)...Beza, the great Swiss Reformer, felt it so strongly, that he named it in his will as a special mercy that he had been called out from the world, by the grace of God, at the age of sixteen.

Go and ask believers now, and I think many will tell you much the same. "Oh that I could live my young days over again!" He will most probably say, "Oh that I had spent the beginning of my life in a better way! Oh that I had not laid the foundation of evil habits so strongly in the springtime of my journey!"

Young men, I want to save you all this sorrow, if I can. Hell itself is truth known too late. Be wise in time. What youth sows, old age must reap. Do not give the most precious season of your life to that which will not comfort you in the latter days of your life. Sow to yourselves rather in righteousness: break up your hard ground, don't sow among thorns.

Sin may be easy for you to do with your hands, or run smoothly off your tongue now, but depend on it, the effects of your sin and you will meet again in time, however little you may like it..."Experience," says the proverb, "is a hard school to attend, but fools will learn in no other." I want you all to escape the misery of learning in that school. I want you to avoid the wretchedness that youthful sins are sure to entail. This is the last reason why I exhort you.

There's a lot to chew on here, and those are just the excerpts that I took from the the first chapter of the book. I would encourage those of you who read it, though, to make sure that you give this little book the time that it properly deserves. I wish I had found and read it earlier myself.

Wow...

2006-08-21T17:18:00.000-04:00

This is another one of those posts that's off my normal beaten path, but I just couldn't believe what was said.

This is Kevin Drum, a blogger for the Washington Monthly, speaking on Iran. I have emphasized what is in bold.

So what is it that Beinart really wants from antiwar liberals? The obvious answer is found less in policy than in rhetoric: we need to engage more energetically with the war on terror and criticize illiberal regimes more harshly.

Maybe so. But this is something that's nagged at me for some time. On the one hand, I think Beinart is exactly right. For example, should I be more vocal in denouncing Iran? Sure. It's a repressive, misogynistic, theocratic, terrorist-sponsoring state that stands for everything I stand against. Of course I should speak out against them.

And yet, I know perfectly well that criticism of Iran is not just criticism of Iran. Whether I want it to or not, it also provides support for the Bush administration's determined and deliberate effort to whip up enthusiasm for a military strike. Only a naif would view criticism of Iran in a vacuum, without also seeing the way it will be used by an administration that has demonstrated time and again that it can't be trusted to act wisely.

So what to do? For the most part, I end up saying very little. And Beinart is right: there's a sense in which that betrays my own liberal ideals. But he's also wrong, because like it or not, my words — and those of other liberals — would end up being used to advance George Bush's distinctly illiberal ends. And I'm simply not willing to be a pawn in the Bush administration's latest marketing campaign.

I don't have a very good answer for this dilemma. And I'm not very happy about it. Feel free to whack away in comments.

As the old saying goes, the enemy of my enemy [from Iran's perspective, of course] is my friend. And here I was thinking that truth is truth and ought to be defended as such, regardless of whether or not it helps Bush, Clinton, or anyone else. But I guess that's just me...

H/T - Instapundit and Junkyardblog

A GOOD Piece of Christian Music

2006-08-14T13:29:00.000-04:00

I was following Technorati tags at lunchtime today [instead of actually eating, that is...] and I came across this post by Jeremy Pittsley. He's writing about a terrific old hymn that I'd never heard before. It was written by Isaac Watts, and I wish that it had a wider circulation.

I must admit that I am not impressed by much of what passes for "Christian" music these days, especially as 'Christian music [and publishing] companies are increasingly bought up by secular, profit driven ones. Perhaps the solution is to rediscover - and re-emphasize - good hymns like this one instead.

Thanks, Pitts, for the hymn stanza; also, thanks go out to Challies for mentioning a subject that has concerned me for some time now. Now I just have to find the tune for this hymn...

I Have A New Favorite Eagles Player!

2006-07-31T13:38:00.000-04:00

Although I don't think that he's going to dethrone Brian Dawkins, who is my all time favorite, anytime soon... and there's some competition from Reggie Brown too...

First preseason game is Sunday night! I can't wait!

BETHLEHEM, Pa. -- As I peered through the big picture window in the weight room at Lehigh University on Wednesday at around 8:30 a.m., on the leg-curl machine, in full uniform and pads, was the Eagles' defensive leader, Jeremiah Trotter. He wasn't lifting to warm up; the man was going at it hammer and tongs.

Practice was due to start at 8:45, so I decided to wait and ask him what the heck he was doing, lifting like a madman before a 2½-hour, very physical practice. So at about 8:40, he came into the stifling eastern Pennsylvania sun and haze, sweating bullets already, and I asked him.

"Peter!'' he said. "Gotta wake 'em up! Gotta wake the muscles up!''

Wednesday was one of those hot mornings during which players just bake on the practice field. They cover themselves with SPF-45 Bullfrog and pray they don't miss a spot. They look for any sliver of shade, like next to the big telephone pole in the middle of the practice field...

I tell you that to put Trotter's morning workout into perspective. I'd already seen him play like a Tasmanian devil on Monday and Tuesday, flying around like a rookie free agent trying to make the team. And here on Wednesday, for the entire practice, he did every drill the same way. Fast. Very fast. And this is a man five months shy of 30.

In a scrimmage drill against the offense, Trotter ran into the flat as Donovan McNabb rolled right, pressured slightly. McNabb looked downfield and, seeing no one open, dumped a pass to 6-foot-5, 257-pound tight end Matt Schobel in the flat. Schobel caught the ball, turned upfield and boom! Decleated by Trotter. The 1,000 or so folks in the bleachers next to the field sounded like 50,000. They just went nuts. Trotter, in turn, flexed for them and jumped up and down like he'd just won the Super Bowl.

"I know this is hard to believe,'' he told me later, sweat pouring off his face, "but I feel like I'm 20. Physically, I've never felt better in my life. It sounds crazy, but my best days are ahead of me.''
-taken from CNNSI.com

Iraq and the Media

2006-07-26T15:47:00.000-04:00

There's a great article in the Wall Street Journal today regarding the rise of the 'milblogging' movement. For those of you not in the know, 'milbloggers' are soldiers that also run blogs dedicated to military and war coverage.

I've been wanting to write about this for a long time, but I've resisted the temptation because it's not really within my realm of expertise. But I also think that the media has been undercutting President Bush's decision to remove Saddam from power and also that they have been fast to 'up-play' all of the 'bad things' that have happened there - Abu Ghraib [sp], Haditha, Halliburton, et cetera et cetera, which bothers me to no end. It's not that these things aren't horrible or never occurred - they did, and we've dealt with them - but also because if the media is right, and Bush is an evil, dirty rotten lying scoundrel, then he should be impeached. But the press reports, IMHO, don't jive with the character that I've seen, heard, and read of, in President Bush, especially right after the attacks of Sept. 11.

The way I see it, boiled down to a nutshell, is this:

1. The President and his cabinet, including the Joint Chiefs, have access to information that you and I NEVER will. And that journalists won't ever see either.

2. Because the President has access to this information, he is better informed than most of us and can decide when to apply 'the big stick' of the military to a leader that was no better than a terrorist thug with an awful lot of money.

3. Even if you do rule out the first two points because of a presupposition, you must consider that Iran and Iraq were using poison gases and WMD's on each other during the Iran / Iraq war, and that the UN had repeatedly - 17 times, at my last count - told Hussein to disarm. He did not do so.

4. The UN was never going to take action, because both Russia and France were selling weapons and military equipment to Saddam [illegally, I might add] to Saddam. Both countries have veto powers for the UN "Security Council", and were in a serious conflict of interest, which nullifies any 'authority' that they might have had.

I know that I'm treading on dangerous ground now, and as I said, politics isn't my thing - theology is. But it does bother me, and it should bother any other Christian as well, to see the character and integrity of Bush dragged through the mud by people who are claiming to have an objective view but who may not.

One last thing before I wrap up. According to the Washington Times, more people believe that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq NOW than there were last year. So apparently I'm not the only one questioning the conventional wisdom, or maybe the media's just overplaying it's hand.

Hat Tips to Instapundit, and especially to Captain's Quarters, who has continually been noting the documentation that we are finding and that is being de-classified on his blog.

With Fear and Trembling...

2006-07-25T13:34:00.000-04:00

I present to you my first ever 'published' work, available at SharperIron's main page! Group discussion on it is available here, although you will need to register there in order to comment.

This is the 'special project' that I alluded to several days ago.

John Piper Hurt Me

2006-07-23T04:31:00.000-04:00

when he wrote this in the book "A Hunger For God":

The greatest enemy of hunger for God is not poison but apple pie. It is not the banquet of the wicked that dulls our appetite for heaven, but endless nibbling at the table of the world. It is not the X-rated video, but the prime-time dribble of triviality we drink in every night. For all the ill that Satan can do, when God describes what keeps us from the banquet table of His love, it is a piece of land, a yoke of oxen, and a wife [Luke 14:18-20]. The greatest adversary of love to God is not His enemies but His gifts. And the most deadly appetites are not for the poison of evil, but for the simple pleasures of earth. For when these replace an appetite for God Himself, the idolatry is scarcely recognizable, and almost incurable.

..."The pleasures of this life" and "the desires for other things" -- these are not evil in themselves. These are not vices. These are gifts of God. They are your basic meat and potatoes and coffee and gardening and reading and decorating and traveling and investing and TV-watching and Internet-surfing and shopping and exercising and collecting and talking. And all of them can become deadly substitutes for God.

I suppose that I shouldn't be nearly as convicted as I was [am?]; after all, isn't Satan the Master Deceiver? Doesn't my body contain "no good thing"? But the idea that even 'neutral' activities - like the ones he described in the third paragraph above - need to be 'redeemed for God' really struck me.

Oh Lord, open my eyes to what time we waste and help me to seek You in all of it - even the meat, potatoes, and Internet-surfing!

Why So Silent, Good Monsieur?

2006-07-12T18:11:00.000-04:00

A little "Phantom of the Opera" humor there for you all...unfortunately, or maybe fortunately, since I don't know how to write operas, which is probably best for all parties concerned...

Anyway, things here have been very busy; a friend's wife has been hospitalized and is in ICU; I've made a new friend and we're trying to get together for the first time; my church is gearing up for VBS next week and the week after, which means that I'm helping with all the painting AND I've got a special project in the fire. Oh, wait; I've got an appointment with a new doctor tomorrow morning and then a Board Meeting tomorrow night as well. The fun never stops!

As soon as things calm down - hopefully next week, when I'm on vacation - I'll be back, and I promise to fill you in on the special project and hope to finish the articles that I've been wanting to post from Ryle's book, which I'll likely be taking with me or reading online.

In the meantime, here's a little excerpt from Psalm 94 for you...

For the LORD will not forsake his people; he will not abandon his heritage; for justice will return to the righteous, and all the upright in heart will follow it. Who rises up for me against the wicked? Who stands up for me against evildoers? If the LORD had not been my help, my soul would soon have lived in the land of silence. When I thought, "My foot slips," your steadfast love, O LORD, held me up. When the cares of my heart are many, your consolations cheer my soul. Can wicked rulers be allied with you, those who frame injustice by statute? They band together against the life of the righteous...[b]ut the LORD has become my stronghold, and my God the rock of my refuge.
[Psalms 94:14-22]

At The Gates...

2006-07-01T04:53:00.000-04:00

SharperIron highlighted this post by BayleyBlog earlier today; apparently a group of men have decided to take a stand against the adult bookstore in their city, and they're having an impact by doing so.

Sometimes, I wish that I could properly understand and emphasize how dangerous pornography and sexual sin is to the Church of Christ; all too frequently we tend to sit back and address this issue in particular from the safety of our pulpits and nowhere else. These men have begun to address it in a particularly aggressive manner, and I think that they're right and brave to do so.

That being said, we have to be so careful about how it is 'performed' in order to make sure that our testimonies are above reproach from passersby and also that we aren't breaking any laws, either state or federal. I'm sure that the owners of this store in particular are not happy, and won't be surprised to see if they file a harrassment lawsuit against the group. Like I said, there are a lot of details that I'd need to know, but I thought that the idea is a noble one and is worth a mention on my blog.

If anyone knows of similar programs, please let me know; I'd like to see more things like this come from Fundamentalism / Evangelical churches.

Shepherds, Overseers, Deacons, Elders, and What Really Makes A Church Work...

2006-06-22T13:31:00.000-04:00

I was following hyperlinks at lunchtime today, and I came across this post at "Bowing Down", a blog run by Brian McCrorie and Josh Larsen. It's titled Sheep Make Baaaaad Shepherds, and it's all about how most churches are run - whether in a CEO style, where the pastor is the chief director of the church, with a close group of advisors [typically called deacons or elders]; or in a Board-type style, where the pastor sees himself on equal footing with everyone on the board.

There is issue for disagreement here, I think, and it's important that we don't argue and counterargue based off of what 'seems to work' or 'what the government requires' - although those are very obviously important criteria. Our authoritative guidelines are the Scriptures, and I think that this is an issue where "wherever the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty" [II Cor. 3:16-17, KJV]. Finally, at the same time, it is important to see what other believers claim, because the universal church of the redeemed of Christ is it's own arbiter, at least here on Earth.

While I haven't thought a lot about this issue, it is something that I think that every Christian should at least research and think about. I realize that my comments above may not explain the discussion or post clearly, but it was the best I could do with my time right now. I trust that you will read the article and the accompanying comments/discussion and think about it so that your own beliefs may be challenged and encouraged.

From Psalm 86

2006-06-21T18:23:00.000-04:00

Teach me your way, O LORD,
that I may walk in your truth;
unite my heart to fear your name.
I give thanks to you, O Lord my God, with my whole heart,
and I will glorify your name forever.
[Psalm 86.11-12, ESV]

"Such Are The Warnings I Give You"

2006-06-11T14:50:00.000-04:00

I sat down this morning with a copy of J. C. Ryle's excellent little book, "Thoughts For Young Men"; you can download or read the work at Grace Gems. There were some points that I felt were worth reiterating simply for my own well-being, but I hope that they will be an encouragement to others as well.

These are all taken from chapter 2, titled "Dangers Of Young Men". I re-ordered the first paragraph posted here in order to have Ryle preface his own remarks and give you some idea for where he's going and why he is doing so. Please excuse the 'artistic license'. I have emphasized some sections that I found to be especially encouraging or convicting.

[inserted text here]
I know well that all souls are in fearful peril. Old or young, it doesn't matter; all have a race to run, a battle to fight, a heart to humble, a world to overcome, a body to keep under control, a devil to resist; and we may very well say, Who is sufficient for these things? But still every age and condition has its own peculiar snares and temptations, and it is well to know them.
[end insertion]

(1) One danger to young men is PRIDE.

How common is it to see young men with big heads, high-minded, and impatient of any counsel! How often they are rude and uncourteous to all around them, thinking they are not valued and honored as they deserve! How often will they not stop to listen to a hint from an older person! They think that they know everything. They are full of conceit of their own wisdom. They think elderly people, and especially their relatives, are stupid, and dull, and slow. They want no teaching or instruction themselves: they understand all things. It almost makes them angry to be spoken to. Like young horses, they cannot bear the least control. They must be independent and have their own way. They seem to think, like those whom Job mentioned, "You are the people, and wisdom will die with you" (Job 12:2). And all this is pride.

Young men, I beseech you earnestly, beware of pride. Two things are said to be very rare sights in the world--one is a young man that is humble, and the other is an old man that is content. I fear that this is only too true...

Do not be proud of your own abilities, your own strength, your own knowledge, your own appearance, your own cleverness. Do not be proud of yourself, and your endowments of any kind. It all comes from not knowing yourself and the world. The older you grow, and the more you see, the less reason you will find for being proud. Ignorance and inexperience are the pedestal of pride; once the pedestal is removed--pride will soon come down.

Remember how often Scripture sets before us the excellence of a humble spirit. How strongly we are warned "Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought" (Romans 12:3). How plainly we are told, "The man who thinks he knows something does not yet know as he ought to know!" (1 Corinthians 8:2). How strict is the command, "Clothe yourselves with humility" (Colossians 3:12). And again, "Clothe yourselves with humility" (1 Peter 5:5). This is the garment of which many seem not to have so much as a rag.

2) Another danger to young men is the LOVE OF PLEASURE.

Youth is the time when our passions are strongest--and like unruly children, cry most loudly for indulgence. Youth is the time when we have generally our most health and strength: death seems far away, and to enjoy ourselves in this life seems to be everything. Youth is the time when most people have few earthly cares or anxieties to take up their attention. And all these things help to make young men think of nothing except pleasure. "I serve lusts and pleasures:" that is the true answer many a young man should give, if asked, "Whose Servant are you?"

Young men, time would not permit me to tell you all the fruits this love of pleasure produces, and all the ways in which it may do you harm...All things that give a feeling of excitement for the time--all things that drown thought, and keep the mind in a constant whirl--all things that please the senses and delight the flesh--these are the sort of things that have mighty power at your time of life, and they owe their power to the love of pleasure. Be on your guard. Do not be like those of whom Paul speaks, "Lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God" (2 Timothy 3:4).

Remember what I say: if you would cling to earthly pleasures--these are the things which murder souls. There is no surer way to get a seared conscience and a hard heart towards the things of God, than to give way to the desires of the flesh and mind. It seems like nothing at first, but it tells in the long run.

3) Another danger to young men is THOUGHTLESSNESS.

Not thinking is one simple reason why thousands of souls are thrown away forever into the Lake of Fire. Men will not consider, will not look ahead, will not look around them, will not reflect on the end of their present course, and the sure consequences of their present days, and wake up to find they are damned for a lack of thinking.

Young men, none are in more danger of this than yourselves. You know little of the perils around you, and so you are careless how you walk. You hate the trouble of serious, quiet thinking, and so you make wrong decisions and bring upon yourselves much sorrow...

Some, I dare say, will object that I am asking what is unreasonable; that youth is not the time of life when people ought to be grave and thoughtful. I answer, there is little danger of their being too much so in the present day. Foolish talking and kidding, and joking, and excessive amusement, are only too common. I don't argue the fact that there is a time for all things; but to be always flippant and joking is anything but wise. What does the wisest of men say--"It is better to go to a house of mourning than to go to a house of feasting, for death is the destiny of every man; the living should take this to heart. Sorrow is better than laughter, because a sad face is good for the heart. The heart of the wise is in the house of mourning, but the heart of fools is in the house of pleasure" (Ecclesiastes 7:2-4). Matthew Henry tells a story of a great statesman in Queen Elizabeth's time, who retired from public life in his latter days, and gave himself up to serious thought. His former merry companions came to visit him, and told him that he was becoming somber: "No," he replied, "I am serious; for everyone around me is serious. God is serious in observing us--Christ is serious in interceding for us--the Spirit is serious in striving with us--the truths of God are serious--our spiritual enemies are serious in their endeavors to ruin us--poor lost sinners are serious in hell--and why then should you and I not be serious too?"

Oh, young men, learn to be thoughtful! Learn to consider what you are doing, and where you are going. Make time for calm reflection. Commune with your own heart, and be still. Remember my caution--Do not be lost merely for the lack of thought.

(4) Another danger to young men is CONTEMPT OF CHRISTIANITY.

This also is one of your special dangers. I always observe that none pay so little outward respect to Christianity as young men. None take so little part in our services, when they are present at them--use Bibles so little--sing so little--listen to preaching so little. None are so generally absent at prayer meetings, Bible Studies, and all other weekday helps to the soul. Young men seem to think they do not need these things--they may be good for women and old men, but not for them. They appear ashamed of seeming to care about their souls: one would almost fancy they considered it a disgrace to go to heaven at all. And this is contempt of Christianity--it is the same spirit which made the young people of Bethel mock Elisha--and of this spirit I say to all young men, Beware! If it is worthwhile to be a Christian, it is worthwhile to be in earnest about it.

...Contempt of holy things is the straight road to hell.

(5) Another danger to young men is the FEAR OF MAN'S OPINION.

"The fear of man" will indeed "prove to be a snare" (Proverbs 29:25). It is terrible to observe the power which it has over most minds, and especially over the minds of the young. Few seem to have any opinions of their own, or to think for themselves. Like dead fish, they go with the stream and tide: what others think is right, they think is right; and what others call wrong, they call wrong too. There are not many original thinkers in the world. Most men are like sheep, they follow a leader...

The thought, "What will my friends say or think of me?" nips many a good inclination in the bud. The fear of being looked at, laughed at, ridiculed, prevents many a good habit from being taken up. There are Bibles that would be read this very day, if the owners dared. They know they ought to read them, but they are afraid: "What will people say?" There are knees that would be bent in prayer this very night, but the fear of man forbids it: "What would my wife, my brother, my friend, my companion say, if they saw me praying?" Oh, what wretched slavery this is, and yet how common!

"I was afraid of the people and so I gave into them," Saul said to Samuel, "and so he violated the Lord's command" (1 Samuel 15:24). "I am afraid of the Jews," said Zedekiah, the graceless king of Judah: and so he disobeyed the advice which Jeremiah gave him (Jeremiah 38:19). Herod was afraid of what his guests would think of him: so he did that which made him "greatly distressed," he beheaded John the Baptist. Pilate feared offending the Jews: so he did that which he knew in his conscience was unjust--he delivered up Jesus to be crucified. If this is not slavery, what is?

Young men, I want you all to be free from this bondage. I want each of you to care nothing about man's opinion, when the path of duty is clear. Believe me, it is a great thing to be able to say "No!" Here was good King Jehoshaphat's weak point--he was too easy and yielding in his dealings with Ahab, and therefore caused many of his troubles (1 Kings 22:4). Learn to say "No!" Don't let the fear of not seeming good-natured make you unable to do it.

Such are the warnings I give you. Take them to heart. They are worth thinking about. I am greatly mistaken if they are not greatly needed. The Lord grant that they have not been given to you in vain.

8964

2006-06-05T17:05:00.000-04:00

Remember this photo?

It's been 17 years since this individual took his stand.

It's actually 17 years and one day [as of today, June 5, 2006] that the Chinese government crushed the peaceful protesters in Tiananmen Square via their military. Aren't you glad that you have the liberty to speak and worship freely?

By the way, did you know that bloggers in China face prison time for doing what I'm doing right now?

More info at:

Wikipedia - Tiananmen Square Protests of 1989

Instapundit links to Chinese bloggers and also to a memorial video, again made by Chinese citizens.

** Warning - the video is extremely graphic and is not suitable for small children. **

Remember The Purpose...

2006-05-29T22:19:00.000-04:00

Of today's vacation day.

Here's A Thought...

2006-05-27T15:41:00.000-04:00

from the book Fresh Wind, Fresh Fire, by Jim Cymbala; it's on page 71.

The feature that is supposed to distinguish Christian churches, Christian people, and Christian gatherings is the aroma of prayer. It doesn't matter what your tradition or my tradition is. The house is not ours anyway; it's the Father's.

Does the Bible ever say anywhere from Genesis to Revelation, "My house shall be called a house of preaching"?

Does it ever say, "My house shall be called a house of music"?

Of course not.

The Bible does say, "My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations." Preaching, music, reading of the Word - these things are fine; I believe in and practice all of them. But they must never override prayer as the defining mark of God's dwelling. The honest truth is that I've seen God do more in people's lives during ten minutes of real prayer than in ten of my sermons.

Now here's a few of my thoughts, for your own consideration-

1. What is "real" prayer? How is it manifest in my - or your - life? Is it at all?

2. Why do we always emphasize solid Biblical preaching in our church services over prayer? In most churches, far more time is given to preaching than it is to prayer, and I daresay that prayer is usually just 'tacked on' as an afterthought.

What A Screwed Up World This Is...

2006-05-24T13:07:00.000-04:00

It's nice to know that the Judeo-Christian God offends enough that we need to airbrush the "In God We Trust" logo off of schoolbook covers, but that Islamic prozelytization is acceptable, especially when it's being practiced in public school curricula.

What a screwed up world this is. *sigh*

Hat Tip to Michelle Malkin

What is Justification?

2006-04-30T03:57:00.000-04:00

I read this earlier this morning and it struck me so powerfully that I wanted to share it with you. It's the first verse from Psalm 16, and I've taken it from the ESV.

Preserve me, O God, for in you I take refuge.
I say to the LORD, "You are my Lord;
I have no good apart from you."

That is what the theological term 'justification' is, at its' very essence - knowing that there is no way that I could ever approach God on my terms, but claiming Christ Jesus as my only hope and righteousness.

Want to Blog Better? Read This!

2006-04-28T19:23:00.000-04:00

This website has some great tips for those who are beginning blogging, like myself, or anyone who might like some advice. While I'm not wild about the language used in the article, I thought that it might be helpful to others, even non-bloggers, so I figured I'd pass it along.

Hat Tip - Instapundit

Not Of Us!

2006-04-25T17:11:00.000-04:00

It appears that Iowa has taken the first steps to ban the 'protests' of 'Pastor' Fred Phelps and his ridiculous anti-gay protests at the funerals of dead US Military Personnel.

As a [lay] minister, I am continually grieved at the shame and harm that this man is bringing not just on the 'ministry profession', but on the name of Christ. It's one thing to preach that homosexuality [or premarital sex, or adultery] are wrong - sin is sin, and should be called out as such, whether it's hetero or homosexual sin; It is ridiculous to equate some sins as 'bad sins' and some other sins as 'worse sins'. Sin is always offensive to a Holy God, whether it's accidentally telling a lie or deliberately choosing to murder a person in cold blood. The only sin that Jesus mentions as especially grievous is the blaspheming of the Holy Spirit in Mark 3:28-30.

It's a totally different ball of wax to say that God 'hates someone' - especially if you align that person with a specific target sin. After all:

But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it--the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
-Romans 3:23-26

I'm sure that Mr. Phelps - I refuse to acknowledge his 'ministry' anymore - has disqualified himself from ministry. I view his efforts as simply an attempt to snatch the spotlight and thrust himself in the public eye.

Mr. Phelps, if you read this - why don't you worry about God and His reputation instead of trying to hog the TV cameras? God knows what you are doing, you whited wall, and homosexuals aren't the only one that will be standing before God to account for their deeds. Or have you forgotten these passages:

According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and someone else is building upon it. Let each one take care how he builds upon it. For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw--each one's work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work that anyone has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If anyone's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.
[I Cor. 3:21-23]

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'
[Matthew 7:21-23]

He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality.
[Romans 2:6-11]

Or perhaps this passage is actually more apropos -

Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.
[I John 2:18-20]

Hat Tip to SharperIron.

SharperIron's Triumphant Return

2006-04-24T17:05:00.000-04:00

Did I mention that SI has re-opened? Go there and check it out!

Do You Ever Get The Feeling...

2006-04-24T16:43:00.000-04:00

that God is trying to get your attention?

Among the forces behind his financial success, Mr. DeVos maintains, is his faith. He is a life-long practicing member of the Christian Reformed denomination (a group of Calvinist evangelicals). His deeply held beliefs are evident in all areas of his life, particularly his philanthropy and business practices.

Mr. DeVos tells me that when he was married 53 years ago, his wife, Helen, informed him they would be tithing their income, according to biblical teaching--10% to charity and no excuses. They have never deviated from this rule, he says, even during the early years of their marriage when they faced financial hardship. They have also always practiced the habit of giving 50% of their charity to explicitly Christian causes. Over the years the couple has donated nearly $400 million to charitable causes in health, education, the arts, public policy and--especially--religion.

For those of you who don't know, which probably includes most of you [us], I had no idea that Mr. DeVos founded AmWay, or that he is a Christian. But the section on tithing was what really caught my eye.

For many years now, I've discouraged the practice of tithing in favor of just "giving as you are able to". Not because I don't want people to give their money to their local churches, but because the 'scriptural case' for it has always seemed quite weak and because presentations on tithing are usually heavily augmented - at least every time I've heard it - with 90% "stories of experience", which I tend to discount. After all, there are lots of stories that have been backed up by experience but not by truth - for example, all of the pictures of Jesus, Mary, and now Mohammed on things like stained windows, tortilla shells, or even on the sides of fish.

I suppose it's time for me to start re-reading all those tithing passages and forum conversations again.

Have You Read Your Bible Today?

2006-04-16T06:22:00.000-04:00

Courtesy of John Piper's book "When I Don't Desire God":

Entering the day without a serious meeting with God, over His Word and Prayer, is like entering the battle without tending to your weapons. It's like taking a trip without filling the tires with air or the tank with gas. The human heart does not replenish itself with sleep. The body does, but not the heart. The spiritual air leaks from the tires, and the gas is consumed during the day. We replenish our hearts not with sleep, but with the Word of God and prayer. Thousands of saints have discovered that starting the day by filling the mind with the Word Of God will bring more joy and more love and more power than traveling on yesterday's gas.

Those Intolerant, Fundamentalist Christians....and Why They Should Be Permitted to Speak

2006-04-11T17:04:00.000-04:00

The LA Times ran an interesting article [registration required] yesterday about the problems that Christians face with speech policies.

7/25/06 edit - the article has been taken down from the LA Times' website, but you can read it here. Thanks to the anonymous commenter who pointed that out.

In short, as schools and businesses have begun to place and enforce policies regarding what you can and cannot say in regards to protecting "workplace diversity", they have begun running into problems with those intolerant Christians, who want the right to refuse to agree to their policies or to say things against homosexuals.

To be fair, I felt that the LA Times did a good job of representing the concerns of Christians. Here are a few of the quotes from their article:

The legal argument is straightforward: Policies intended to protect gays and lesbians from discrimination end up discriminating against conservative Christians. Evangelicals have been suspended for wearing anti-gay T-shirts to high school, fired for denouncing Gay Pride Month at work, reprimanded for refusing to attend diversity training. When they protest tolerance codes, they're labeled intolerant.

A recent survey by the Anti-Defamation League found that 64% of American adults — including 80% of evangelical Christians — agreed with the statement "Religion is under attack in this country."

"The message is, you're free to worship as you like, but don't you dare talk about it outside the four walls of your church," said Stephen Crampton, chief counsel for the American Family Assn. Center for Law and Policy, which represents Christians who feel harassed.

and

As they step up their legal campaign, conservative Christians face uncertain prospects. The 1st Amendment guarantees Americans "free exercise" of religion. In practice, though, the ground rules shift depending on the situation.

and

...The open question is what constitutes harassment, what's a sincere expression of faith — and what to do when they overlap.

"There really is confusion out there," said Charles C. Haynes, a senior scholar at the First Amendment Center, which is affiliated with Vanderbilt University. "Finding common ground sounds good. But the reality is, a lot of people on all sides have a stake in the fight."

I am beginning to wonder if this issue - the issue of free speech - will be the key battleground in the 21st Century America. I'm not saying this because I am a Christian Fundamentalist and have very strong and very unpopular views. Should we clearly guarantee the right to say whatever you want - and protect lunatics like Fred Phelps or the Klu Klux Klan? Or do we strip away that privilege and begin making judgement calls as what is and what is not permissible to speak, thus sliding into, even no matter how innocently, totalitarianism?

It is for this reason that Fred Morrissey of Captains' Quarters felt that we should protect that given liberty. He wrote:

The travails of Christianity aside, these speech codes really do constitute a threat against the ideal of free speech. As I have written many times, the proper remedy for bad speech is more speech, not prior restraint. While private schools have the right to regulate debate, the use of speech codes at public institutions, especially universities, creates a precedent for state infringement on speech in all areas. If we cannot trust university students to handle offensive speech, can we trust any adult to do so? When do we draw the lines, and who gets to draw them?

The use of such restrictions lead to all sorts of mischief, and we are already seeing the results of our capitulation of freedom to achieve the illusion of comity. Our political process has been restricted to restrain the offensive nature of political campaigning by people who feel passionately about controversial issues. Our media refuses to fully cover stories regarding terrorism in order to avoid offending Muslims. We spend so much time worrying about being offended that we forget that the very concept of republican freedom was an offense against the Crown that meant death for anyone who espoused it.

It's a damned good thing that our forefathers didn't worry as much about speech offending people. In fact, that is the reason for the First Amendment -- to guarantee that people can speak their minds about the issues of the day without fear of government intervention. If it hadn't been for the First Amendment, the same groups asking for speech codes now would never have progressed as far as they did. Not that long ago, some people felt offended by speeches and demonstrations against Jim Crow, against the Klan, against many things we see now as injustices, thanks to the people who used speech instead of violence.

I've thought about this a lot - beginning right around the time of the 2004 elections, when the news of RatherGate and the Swift Boat vets broke. And as much as I hate to guarantee the right for anyone to say absolutely anything they want, no matter how tasteless or disrespectful, I am far more concerned about a government that 'approves' what I have to say than I am about some lunatic who is spouting off racist and sexist rhetoric on his own website, and who opens his own mouth just enought that we can fight against what he's saying.

Captain Ed is right - the antidote to darkness [in this case, bad speech] is the light [good speech]. One of the things that I love so much about SharperIron is the fact that I can respond to misrepresentations of important topics and still be heard. I hate fighting out the KJV-Inspired issue, and the 5-Point Calvinist issue, and all the other 'hot-button' topics that seem to plague the site. But I would be making a gigantic mistake to brush off those issues and let them fester in peace and quiet. And I'm also concerned about the potential of someone deciding that maybe those Intolerant, Fundamentalist Christians should be the ones being banned from speaking, writing, and publishing, because that sword that I'd like to swing will cut off my own head too, if I'm not careful.

Update - Just realized I never linked to CQ's original post. My apologies.

Accountability, Maturity, and Wisdom

2006-04-04T13:06:00.000-04:00

I've always been concerned about how Christians represent themselves in cyberspace, especially because of some past problems that I've experienced firsthand and because of some of the content that I've seen posted on SharperIron, the BJ Forums, and even in one or two of the posts that I've written.

I think that a large part of this problem can be traced to two reasons.

The first reason is because many of my peers and fellow-bloggers and SI members are younger and are far more comfortable with technology than those who have taken the hard knocks, developed accountability, maturity, and wisdom, and know when - and especially how - to address certain issues or topics.

The second reason is because the Internet, particularly blogging and posting on a forum, is an instanteous method of making your opinion known, and it is a simple, but addictive, drug. I was talking about this same topic with a co-worker the other day, and a few verses in Jude came to mind as I was doing so:

These are blemishes[e] on your love feasts, as they feast with you without fear, looking after themselves; waterless clouds, swept along by winds; fruitless trees in late autumn, twice dead, uprooted; wild waves of the sea, casting up the foam of their own shame; wandering stars, for whom the gloom of utter darkness has been reserved forever.

Unfortunately, I do not have the time or tools right now to exegete that passage properly. I did find it interesting, however, that one of the signs of these people, whether 'false teachers' or 'grumblers', is that they make their own shamelessness well known - and glory in doing so.

BTW, I certainly don't mean to imply that those who blog or post [which would include me!] are 'reserved for the utter darkness'. Just wanted to clarify that :)

So when I came across this article [courtesy of the ever-popular Instapundit], I felt that it would be a good time to post it for some prayerful consideration. I have reproduced some of it at length; if you find it interesting, you can read the entire article.

When I joined GayPatriot, I had hoped that by posting to a blog with an open-comment thread, we might generate the kind of discussion that began that snowy night in the 1980s, where, when we rationally put forward ideas at odds with those of our left-wing peers, our critics would come to appreciate our arguments, even when they disagreed. And we have seen a good deal of that kind of discussion in the comment section. To keep such a conservation going I have occasionally e-mailed critics who have put forward thoughtful dissents to encourage them to keep contributing.

But, alas, too often, our critics, and sometimes, even our defenders, are like that professor from Smith, persistently attacking ideas (and their proponents) which they refuse to understand. One of those civil critics (with whom I correspond) e-mailed me frequently during my very busy phase to complain about the tone of some of our defenders. Following up on his e-mail, I read the comments in question and saw how, those defenders often compromised their own solid arguments by calling our critics names.

Friends, you make a better case when you leave out the ad hominem.

I could go on and on (and on) about the number of our critics who use our comments section not to take issue with our ideas or engage us in serious discussion, but to bait us, issue outlandish (and inaccurate) broadsides against Republicans and conservatives in general and the president and gay conservatives in particular. One of our more thoughtful defenders e-mailed me last night to say he will no longer contribute, observing:
For far too long now, your site’s actual debate on issues has been hijacked by trolls who have shown no willingness to actually debate. The obvious result is a site largely dominated by liberals who simply cannot tolerate the mere existence of a conservative worldview. The end result are comment threads largely dominated by responses to trolls who refuse to answer any substantive questions put to them.
He makes a valid point. Too many of our critics do refuse to tolerate the mere existence of gay conservatives. They see us as delusional self-hating dolts, eager only to be embraced by those who (they claim) hate us. Theier own comments make clear they have no idea who we were, what we believe or even those with whom we socialize.

I have wondered sometimes whether we should delete these angry comments. We have banned a number of individuals from this site, critics who regularly insulted our readers — and us. I am generally loath to ban critics, believing that their own diatribes discredit their causes. Their comments show that many on the Left refuse to take conservative arguments seriously, particularly those of gay conservatives. Moreover, the angry vacuousness of their comments proves they are running on emotions, not ideas. In short, they simply don’t understand the gay conservatives they belittle.

I put extra care into most of my posts because I want to make solid arguments and want also to address concerns that our critics might bring. I strive to eliminate any expression which might be offensive to responsible people — or easily misunderstood. And to put forward facts about my own experience as an openly gay man in conservatives circles (and an openly conservative manin gay circles.) I delight in the exchange of ideas and make every effort to put mine forward in most readable means possible.

Given the effort I put into my posts, I would hope that others would respond with a similar care. And sometimes they have. All too often, alas, they have not.

On that snowy day in the 1980s, I discovered the true pleasure of a serious discussion with an intellectual adversary. In the spirit of that evening, I hope you will join me in showing respect for those with whom you disagree and for the ideas we put forward on this blog.

-Dan

I think that Dan is right. Let those who want to voice their opinions loudly and proudly do so. That is exactly what 'free speech' is. But we, as Christians, ought to take special care that our character and conduct, especially in cyberspace where no one knows anything about you other than what you put on your website, does not overshadow what we have to say.

Because the internet is such a battleground of ideas and ideologies, I've stopped subscribing to so many threads on SI, although I am on the site daily. It is why I've stopped dealing with the KJV-Inspired folks, the 'you can't be a true Christian unless you have a certain escatological, eccesiological [sp?] or harmartiological position [to name a few], and especially the people who, to quote another passage, are there simply to "stir up division in the Body of Christ". These kind of people, according to Titus 3:9-11, are to be warned once, then twice, then ignored.

As I've said before, who you are is more accurately portrayed by what you say in cyberspace than it is in how you look. So be mindful, friend, because your "walk really does talk louder than your talk talks".

Abdul Rahman

2006-03-22T17:25:00.000-05:00

There's a great article by the National Review Online about Abdul Rahman, the Afgani Muslim who converted to Christ and is now facing the death penalty for it. I've reproduced it here for you.

An Affront to Civilization

We should have no illusions that Afghanistan — in many ways the backwater of the Islamic world — will soon embrace Western-style religious pluralism. But the trial of Abdul Rahman, who faces a potential death sentence for converting to Christianity some 15 years ago, is an affront to civilization. If there is always a balancing act between accommodating the religious beliefs of a traditional society like Afghanistan and coaxing it toward reform, the Rahman case is not a close call — killing or jailing someone for his religious beliefs is always wrong, and is especially galling in a country so dependent on American military forces and aid.

The Afghan constitution is a work of studied ambiguity when it comes to religious liberty. Article 2 says Islam is Afghanistan's religion, but it also stipulates that other religions are free to perform their ceremonies “within the limits of the law” (whatever that means). Article 7 says the state shall abide by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights — which includes the right of conversion — but Article 130 says, where there is no guidance for the constitution or other laws, Islamic laws apply. This is the kind of “living constitution” Ruth Bader Ginsburg can only dream about in the U.S. The Afghan document was deliberately written vaguely to bridge the divide between the country's modernizers and its Islamists. The latter surely want to use the Rahman case to embarrass our ally President Karzai and to advance their interpretation of the constitution.

Yesterday, the State Department's Nicholas Burns adopted the right tone and substantive position when asked about the case by reporters. He said that, as far as the U.S. is concerned, the Afghan constitution guarantees religious liberty, and therefore Rahman shouldn't be punished for his conversion. But he also emphasized our respect for Afghan sovereignty. It is important that, while we push for justice in the case, we don’t play into the hands of Karzai's enemies, who are eager to capitalize on the fears of a very traditional society. We should make it clear privately, but very firmly to Karzai — who would have to sign Rahman's death warrant — that we expect him to find some Afghan way to short-circuit the case before it ever gets to that point.

Conservatives in this country have been admirably willing to accept the compromises and frustrations that come with President Bush's attempts to reform recalcitrant parts of the world. The judicial murder of a Christian convert by a government that exists only on the basis of American power and good will, however, would be intolerable.

Students in Seminary Up, Ministers are down

2006-03-22T13:00:00.001-05:00

The NY Times ran an interesting article in their paper on Monday, March 13. In short, it was a look at why students are attending seminaries but are rejecting church ministry as an occupation / calling. The Times writes:

Across the country, enrollment is up at Protestant seminaries, but a shrinking portion of the graduates will ascend the pulpit. These seminarians, particularly the young ones, are less interested in making a career of religion than in taking their religion into other careers.

Those from mainline denominations are being drawn to a wide range of fields from academia to social service to hospital chaplaincy, said the Rev. Daniel O. Aleshire, executive director of the Association of Theological Schools in the United States and Canada. Students who are evangelical Protestants, meanwhile, often end up at advocacy groups, sometimes called parachurches, which have defined the priorities and solidified the influence of conservative Christians.

Only about half of those graduating with a Master in Divinity now enter parish ministry, Mr. Aleshire said. The portion has fallen sharply in a generation, he said, and declined 10 to 15 percentage points in the last five years alone.

If their survey reviewed only mainline denominations, then I think that their data might be slightly skewed. I would wager, if I were a betting man, that most [let's say 80* or better] of most of the Independent Baptist / Reformed Presbyterian / other Fundamentalist Seminary students are actually working in some kind of full time ministry role. Those of us who are not [like myself] are probably working full-time jobs [or two, in my case again] to pay off bills/debts or because they have to in order to support their families. However, just because we aren't in full time ministry doesn't mean that we've given up on church - we're just busy serving as teachers, deacons, trustees, assistants, or just about anywhere else people are needed.

I also felt that the NY Times answers it's own question about halfway down in the story:

Often, seminary education, with its focus on personal spiritual growth, theology and social justice, introduces students to the idea that one's calling need not be answered in church every Sunday.

Ronald Galvin enrolled in Candler because he "wanted to make a difference in the world in some way." Since graduating in 2000, he has worked as a community activist, most recently at the Center for Working Families Inc. in Atlanta. Many of the poor people he encounters think he must be a minister and call him Reverend, he said.

"Seminary really gave me the space and the moment of pause that I needed to develop the skills to analyze the world," said Mr. Galvin, 37, who was raised Catholic. "It expanded my faith, gave me a greater appreciation for folks who are struggling, and showed that there are many sacred ways and that God is with us no matter where we are."

Don't get me wrong - Christians do have an obligation to help those less fortunate - parts of the book of Isaiah, for starters, makes this clear. But liberal theology's 'existential focusedness' - as in religion is experience, the essence of Fredrich Schleiermacher's teachings, as opposed to a focus on 'the Word and Doctrine and Personal Integrity' that conservative Christian colleges and Seminaries emphasize - is what propels students from the hard task of teaching and preaching, into more 'experiential' and self-chosen fields.

I'd be interested to get feedback from others, especially those who like myself, are not in a full time ministry role.

USA Today Article

2006-03-19T02:24:00.000-05:00

Found this in the USA Today website and thought it was a quite good article. Here's the link for your enjoyment/perusal. The author of the article is Episcopalian, and he's probably liberal in his theology - I just don't see USA Today publishing the thoughts of self proclaimed Independent Fundamental Baptists - but some of what he said is pretty good.

Here are a few quotes to help whet your interests; I have made a few minor changes to fix spelling and punctuation; they have the hard brackets around them.

Preachers and Sunday school teachers are pulling their punches these days regarding morality. Our nation needs ethical and religious instruction in the basics: honesty, fidelity, humility, sharing wealth, sharing power and sacrifice. Yet those are the last topics one is likely to hear in churches.
Instead, for more than a decade, preachers have been grandstanding about such secondary issues as sexuality, Christmas greetings and institution-building.

Attending church surely doesn't make one immune to ungodly deeds[-]we are all sinners, after all[.] [B]ut churchgoers should be able to get guidance on how to lead a responsible life, not reminders of church politics, from the pulpit.

...Our nation needs better from us. We don't need extremist politics masquerading as Christian morality. We need solid and consistent instruction in the basics of godly living. We can't hold churches accountable for what parishioners refuse to hear. But we can hold them accountable for what they shrink from saying.

Iraq, Saddam, and WMD

2006-03-17T13:37:00.000-05:00

Read this.

Church Planters Needed...

2006-03-08T13:20:00.000-05:00

Take a look at this map, if the picture below doesn't load correctly.

Then pray the Lord of the Harvest to send out laborers [Luke 10].

The map is a color-coding presentation of people who claim some kind of 'religious affiliation'. You can find the original map and a related article by going to Wikipedias' entry on "Religion in the United States".

There is a lot of work to be done.

Update
My version of FireFox [1.5.0.1] does not seem to be displaying the picture properly inside my post. Try using Internet Explorer or another browser instead if you can't see it; I do know that IE is showing it correctly. I'll try and figure out what's going on later tonight.

Theopedia

2006-02-28T18:52:00.000-05:00

Challies.com mentioned this website on his blog today; it's a wikipedia [online encyclopedia that anyone can edit] written specifically for and about 'Biblical Christianity'. The site is called Theopedia, and you can get to it by clicking on that link above.

While I don't know too much about the website itself, the first page or two look well done and it appears quite useful for any Christian. If/when I get time to review it some more, I'll do so.

End Of The Road for End of The Spear?

2006-02-06T15:52:00.000-05:00

There's been a considerable uproar in Christian circles about the new movie, The End of The Spear. I've actually started writing a little post on the whole thing, but I felt that I needed to mention the newest post about it on SharperIron.

THIS reason is why I am opposed to the End of the Spear; the issue with Chad Allen, in my opinion, is almost irrelevant. Let me note some of the arguments that have been conveniently made for me:

The missionaries were not portrayed as the godly, evangelical missionaries that they were...I would contend that you cannot separate the Gospel from the lives of these men and be telling the same story. The Gospel was their passion. It was their ultimate motivation for living in Ecuador at all. Introducing the Gospel that saved them to other sinners was the crux of their mission—as evidenced in their journals. How can it be, then, that the movie-version missionaries engage in no spiritual activity prior to their slaying? The producers are careful to show them as real people...but the missionaries themselves never pray, never read their Bibles, never mention Jesus, nor converse about God. No church services are shown or implied. There is no mention of their daily devotions, nor of the spiritual journals that we know these men were careful to keep. Twice, the word “missionary” is used, but other than that, viewers could honestly mistake these “missionaries” for anthropologists or Peace Corps workers rather than authentic Christian missionaries...

The supposed Gospel message in the film was not a uniquely evangelical Gospel.
The combined content of the spiritual message was:
1. Some people are ready for heaven and some are not.
2. The missionaries are followers of God.
3. This God is the friend of the missionaries.
4. God has left his message in carvings (taken to mean revelation).
5. This God sent His Son who was speared but didn’t spear back so the people spearing Him would one day live well.
6. The idea of prayer was mentioned over a CB conversation twice.
7. It is predicted (by his unbelieving fellow-tribesmen) that Kimo will soon start building a house for God.
8. The following of God’s path causes people to live differently.

This belief set could be describing a contextualized Catholicism, Greek Orthodoxy, Mormonism, or Jehovah’s Witnesses. What a travesty—a wasted opportunity to proclaim the Gospel of salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone, not by works. When believers have control of the content of the film, the Gospel should be presented in all of its fullness. This film could have easily been a promotion of pacifism or non-violent response to persecution.

...Many churches would say that they were led to believe this would be a movie about the Gospel. I heard from a pastor named Kenny who pastors in La Mirada, CA. He said, “I also saw a test screening of this movie back in the fall. That Every Tribe has taken such a strong marketing campaign toward the local church really makes me feel uncomfortable. I have received [literally] a dozen calls from a distribution rep and receive emails inviting me to sign up to rent out a theater almost every day this past month. It just doesn’t square.”

Thousands of packets were sent to churches; and the message churches received was to use this as a tool for evangelism. A website was even set up to help churches use this for outreach. Anger and frustration results when believers actually view the film and begin to feel like the latest victims in a game of bait-and-switch...

The seeker-sensitive approach to the Gospel is not in keeping with the Gospel itself, nor with the legacy of the men who died for it. Even if there were less measurable results of the Gospel’s impact among the Waodani, the evidence is abundant that the Gospel defined the lives of the missionaries. If their story is to be told, the Gospel cannot be muted or extracted from it...You can show some results of the Gospel message, but, in a story so profoundly and inextricably rooted in the Gospel, the Gospel itself must be told. The blood atonement is nowhere in the movie. It is not alluded to, illustrated, explained, implied, or even hinted at.

On the other hand, it was obvious to anyone who might inspect closely that ETE was careful to avoid “evangelism” talk that might not be seeker-savvy. It is difficult even to find the word “Christian” on their website. They were even careful with their terminology amongst believers. In an email sent out to Christians the week before the release, you can see where the emphasis lies.
We're calling for an army of prayer warriors who will join us to fast and pray through the 7 days leading up to the release of End of the Spear in theaters next Friday. Can you set aside an hour a day, one of the seven days, or join with us to fast and pray all 7 days?

Beginning Monday, January 16th through January 22nd:
1) Pray God would be honored through the widespread telling of the story.
2) Pray millions of people will be impacted and inspired to begin an adventure that will take them out of their comfort zone to live out the words of the Bible in the world around them.
3) Pray End of the Spear will capture the interest of national media and press.
4) Pray End of the Spear will be #1 in the Box Office on Opening Weekend.
5) Pray the success in USA theaters will spread to theaters in nations around the world.
6) Pray the Church will use the film to make contact with youth, families, and their community.

This was clearly an earnest letter with good intentions. But it is also indicative. Notice [that] Christians were never asked to pray that the Gospel would be proclaimed clearly or that people might be pointed to the Christ for whom these martyrs died—the same Christ who died and rose again for our sins, according to the Gospel. Instead of risking necks and pocketbooks for the Gospel’s sake, we pray for the effectiveness of a diluted version. We pray, not that God’s truth would be glorified and powerful, but that theater-owners and unbelieving viewers might be open-minded enough to “take an adventure” into our way of thinking.

ETE has been careful to handle the criticism by clarifying that they were telling the story from the perspective of the Waodani. While I think that may have been a poor decision (since the audience is American), the sadder part is what that statement actually says about the Waodani’s understanding of the Gospel. If this movie truly depicts the perspective of the Waodani, they do not understand crucial events and elements of Gospel and remain lost in their sins. From all that I have read, many of the members of the tribe are true believers, but why do the Waodani in their version of the story leave out the entire theology of the cross?

I could quote many other portions, but this is some of the most pertinent info. Read the whole article, and hopefully I'll have my personal thoughts about the entire mess up by the end of the week.

Court Case To Watch?

2006-02-01T12:52:00.000-05:00

I saw this story today in The Economist magazine, and thought that it's worth keeping an eye on and letting others know about.

This is a story with potentially far-reaching ramifications, and it's certainly got the ability to go all the way to the Supreme Court, if it does indeed wind up in court. According to the article, pre-trial arguments are being analyzed by a federal judge; I'm fairly sure that means that the issue is being adjudicated, probably by Calvary Chapel Christian Schools. I'll see if I can find more evidence online later this week.

"Christian" Culture and the World Around Us...

2006-01-24T22:50:00.000-05:00

Do yourself [and me] a favor, and head over to Paleoevangelical and read the article on "End of The Spear". He nails down one of my largest concerns with 'Christian' movies, music, tv, and other 'culture'. His analysis is dead on and well worth the four or five minutes that you'll spend reading it.

Schiavo Redux

2006-01-22T22:03:00.000-05:00

According to CNN.com, Terri Schiavo's former husband has remarried. I don't know how to really feel about this. I kind of expected it to occur eventually, and by both Scriptural and US Law, he's free to remarry, although I would note that his previous cohabitation with his [now] wife is un-Biblical.

I still think that the government had no business getting involved with the Schiavo case, and am somewhat disappointed to see that the Schiavo case has largely fallen off of theologian's radar now that she has died. Many of the positions that were publically taken need serious, careful, thoughtful study, should a situation like this ever occur again. Lord willing, it won't. But we are still commanded to be ready to make a defense [I Peter 3:14-17].

Sex, Society, and the Christian

2006-01-21T03:34:00.000-05:00

There has been a considerable uproar lately over two new movies that have been released - the first being "Brokeback Mountain", which recently picked up a few Golden Globe awards, and the second being "End of The Spear", a new film that was released in theaters yesterday. The vast majority of the controversy has revolved about the homosexual beliefs and lifestyle of both the actors and, in "Brokeback's" case, in the film itself.

I have a lot to say about this issue, so let me split up the comments and deal with just Brokeback Mountain today. If you need some information on the film, then you can check out Wikipedia's article about the movie.

I originally didn't have much to say about this movie, because frankly, it doesn't bother me that Brokeback has a homosexual act in it. It's not a film that I would care to see, nor is it one that I would recommend for others, especially Christians. It does not surprise me that Hollywood has finally gotten around to releasing a movie like this, and frankly, it doesn't worry me in the least. While some may argue that there is a plot to normalize homosexuality via the media, and I might even agree with those who believe that; my typical responce has been something along the lines of "Homosexuality is not going away - so deal with it."

As a Christian Fundamentalist, I believe in the moral depravity of mankind. This is not the belief that everyone will be evil to the fullest extent that they can, but rather that all mankind is 'warped' - morally speaking - into rejecting the Lord and seeking their own selfish pleasures, and that they will always make sinful choices. While I could wax eloquent about this, let me just quote a minor snippet of the book of Romans as a foundation for my argument. It reads [and I'll use the King James Version for this post]:

[W]e have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin. As it is written [ed. note - see Psalm 5], There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

They are all gone out of the way,
they are together become unprofitable;
there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Their throat is an open sepulchre;
with their tongues they have used deceit;
the poison of asps is under their lips:

Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:
Their feet are swift to shed blood:
Destruction and misery are in their ways:
And the way of peace have they not known:
There is no fear of God before their eyes.

Now we know that [whatsoever] things the law saith, it [says] to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

If this is the true position of mankind [and I believe that it is], then I frankly don't understand why so many Christians are so startled and shocked by this movie. I *expect* people who do not know or love God to disobey His Word. If I, a Born-Again Christian Fundamentalist with two degrees in Pastoral Ministry, can't possibly serve and obey God with a perfect heart, then why should I be shocked that people who are not Christians don't either? I realize that I'm probably oversimplifing the issue a bit, but this is one of my key concerns with this topic. Why are God's people, if we are indeed God's people, so shocked to realize that the unsaved will act like unsaved people? Are we that doctrinally weak?

Here's my second key concern. I'm sure that at least one movie in 2005 had a sexual relationship that was displeasing to God - either [heterosexual] pre-marital sex or adultery. Where is all the outrage when movies come out with that contains 'normal' sex in it? It seems foolish and misguided to rail on the evils of movies with homosexual activity in them, and then to sit and watch movies - or even recommend them to other Christians - that have 'just a little bit of bad stuff' in them. If your teenage daughter was sleeping with her boyfriend, would it really be that much worse if she was sleeping with her teenage girlfriend? Would it really comfort you to find out that your son is sleeping with women outside of marriage instead of men? Or would both sins shock and affect you equally? They should!

As a rule, I don't watch films with sex, of any kind, in them anymore. It's because sin is sin, whether it's heterosexual sin, homosexual sin, or any other kind of sin - sexual or not. And ALL sin brings eternal punishment for failing a Holy God [see Romans 3 through 6].

One final point, and with this I close. I understand that Christians must resist moral decay in society. It is easy to slip into the traps of arguing that homosexuality is the 'be all, end all' sin that will destroy America and to treat homosexuals as the 'enemy'. Homosexuals are not our enemy -they are our mission field, just like Rahab [prostitute] and Bathsheba [adulteress] were. If we slip into that trap, then we will not only disparage the Name of our Matchless Lord and Savior, but we will eliminate any hope of reaching people with the Gospel of Christ. That, I think, will be the more grievous sin than homosexuality ever could be.

I'm Not Alone...

2006-01-02T10:40:00.000-05:00

...with my worries about internet communication between believers.

Some backstory is needed here, so bear with me. As I sat down to write that last post, I came across another blog that I'd never visited, and they linked to another blog that I'd never heard of called "The Armoury". It was kind of funny, actually, because I had intended to write about something else entirely [hence, the Jude reference], but the post at the Armoury did a terrific job of summing up some of my concerns. I'd advice everyone to head over and read "The Quest For Biblical Blogging". Here are some highlights for you:

This is a post that I feel very compelled to write. Its importance is of such a level that I will probably include it in my "Rules for this Weblog" page....

So while I can say that this “weblog” forum is a helpful one, I must also say that there are a lot of potholes out there on the internet. On the one hand, there are a number of weblogs that are honoring Christ and bearing a Christian testimony - for this I am thankful to the Lord; but on the other hand, there are some weblogs that frankly taint the testimony of Christ through bitter argumentation, unwholesome words and even a callous approach to the lost. The kind of autonomy that the internet gives us as individuals has produced a kind of virtual fellowship that is devoid of any oversight. In a very distant sense, it is even like a church that is without godly elders...What I see as a modern trend is the perpetuation of ungodly blogging, that is to say, e-conversations which seem to lack the charity, grace, maturity, humility and sobriety that is consistent with Christian discipleship - and it is not excusable simply because "it is the way of most blogs." The electronic venue itself offers no excuse for believers whatsoever. I can't blame my keyboard, nor my computer, for making posts which spew pugnacity, arrogance and pride: computers are mindless machines - they only produce what we humans give them... This post is an open letter that is designed to give a word of encouragement and a word of rebuke wherever it is needed. Concurrently, it is offered up as a warning to myself, lest I might degrade into the kinds of conversations which bring shame to the fair name of Christ.

...In one particular case, a non-Christian entered into a rather unfortunate rant on a Christian blog and in frustration queried if this is what it means to be a Christian. When I read this, it grieved my spirit - Is this how brethren want to manifest the glory of Christ in this world? But in addition to my own sense of grief, I couldn't help but to consider the wonderful value of this man's question. His question was worthy of a very serious answer - but instead, he was only mocked for what he had to say...

...[Therefore,] I will offer a series of thoughts that have to do with godly discourse - among brethren and within this world...

1...In the matter of the internet and weblogs, it is important for us all to be careful about the liberties that we take in our posts. Here in America, we are free to do and say just about anything - however, as Christians, we need to be careful to use our freedom responsibly...Our freedoms need to be measured by the greatest of all standards - the standard of Christ; therefore we must carefully measure our words in view of our privileged position as the bondslaves of God.

2. This is the WORLD WIDE WEB, not your private living room: Weblog dialogues are not private conversations - they are public conversations which are being conducted on the World Wide Web. Because of this, we should keep in mind that a very wide variety of people are constantly listening in on what we are [typing]...

3. Self control includes our tongues: One of the greatest diseases within the church is the uncontrolled tongue. Like a small rudder and flame, the words spoken by our tongue can foster great ungodliness and corruption (James 3:4-6) if it is not used for edification and encouragement (Ephesians 4:29)...

4. Some conversations must be held in private - period...

5. Some conversations (blogs) ought to be avoided altogether: We must all remember that when we participate in a blog discussion, we become the willing participants of that conversation. Whether a public or private conversation, we have to consider whether we want to be associated with such a discussion or not.

6. The testimony of brotherly love: The love of the brethren is a great part of our testimony to the world that we are the disciples of Christ:

...When brethren manifest the sweet aroma of grace, patience and love for one another - they manifest the very image and likeness of Christ Himself; but when we engage in name calling with one another, then we evidence great foolishness - or in the worst of all cases, a disingenuous faith...

7. The testimony of faithfulness and truthfulness: Paul, as we all know, was accused by the Corinthians of being a hypocrite. They charged that he was a kind of chameleon who was willing to write things that he couldn't back up in person...

Paul was a man of great consistency and faithfulness. What he was in letter, he was in person - in other words, he wasn't a two-faced man. When believers place their fingers on the keyboard, they ought to consider what they are about to type and ask themselves this question: "would I be willing to say these same things in person?" If you wouldn't be willing to make such remarks to someone's face, then put a lid on it.

8. As the advocates of sovereign grace, we should be a most gracious people...

Conclusion: To the brethren reading this, let me encourage you to think very carefully about these principles from Scripture; as the little children’s song goes: “O be careful little hands what you do.” Perhaps we could revise the words in this way - “O be careful little hands what you type...” I can assure you that at the moment our fingers touch the keyboard, the principles of Scripture do not change - because they never change. There is indeed a time and a place for public rebukes - but we ought to be very sober and serious minded when doing so. Biblical errorists should be rebuked, but when such a need arises, we ought to be humble and very grave about the matter. Finally, to those who are reading this who are not Christians, let me say this: if you find yourself at a blog that names the name of Christ, but that seems to be many miles away from the above principles, then let me encourage you to move along to something else.

The folks at such a blog may be having a bad day...or you may have come to a place that only names the name of Christ, but has nothing to do with Christianity. In either case, let me encourage you to find a blog which is practicing the above principles - at a place like that, I would be more confident that you would get what you truly need.

...and I hope that this blog is one of the ones that practices and shows Christianity to the world. If you do not feel so, then please, leave a comment!

Appropriate To The Task...

2006-01-02T08:51:00.000-05:00

Argue your case with your neighbor himself, and do not reveal another's secret, lest he who hears you bring shame upon you, and your ill repute have no end. A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in a setting of silver. Like a gold ring or an ornament of gold is a wise reprover to a listening ear.
[Proverbs 25:9-12]

Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.
[Jude 1:3]

There's been something on my mind now for the last few weeks, and I think that it's about time that I said it. I have been considerably dismayed by several comments made, at differing times and on differing threads, by self proclaimed fundamentalists. The posts or comments haven't necessarily been the problem; I was usually in agreement with the person's point. What I DID have a problem with is the fact that no one seems to be realizing one critical fact - it's one thing to banter theology carelessly in the safe confines of a Seminary classroom. It's a totally different story to be flippant or sarcastically biting on a website that can be monitored by thousands or even millions.

Case in point... I would [and have considered myself to already have] 'broken fellowship' with Billy Graham. I have read/studied out a few of his books and some decidedly 'pro-Graham' friends of his. I have also read several books by Graham's detractors - the most recent book [although it was a while ago] being "Evangelicalism Divided", by Iain Murray. I have come to the conclusion that while Graham is a nice guy and a well-loved, global figure, that I cannot endorse or assist in his efforts to evangelize. Why is that? It's because Graham has continually worked with other theologians, of all kinds, and consistently endorsed their theology and their methods - even when they contradicted his own or the historic understanding of salvation. "Peace with God" [to borrow from his own book's title and Romans 5] is available only through the atoning work of Jesus Christ's life, death, and resurrection. Graham claims to agree with this, but has no problem preaching his gospel and then sending people who want to be saved into churches and faiths that turn people from the Cross.

Yet for many fundamentalist websites, comments are made like:
"Billy Graham is a heretic"
"Billy Graham is possessed by demons"
"Billy Graham is not a true Christian when he ____________________."
...And then we wonder why no one wants to listen to Fundamentalists [or Independent Fundamental Baptists].

Don't get me wrong - the gospel is offensive. It offends me all the time. It offends other people. It even [perish the thought!] offends people who don't read it. If you don't believe me, take a quick look at Romans:

I am under obligation both to Greeks and to barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish. So I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome. For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, "The righteous shall live by faith." For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.
[Romans 1:14-18]

Jesus himself said that:

"Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person's enemies will be those of his own household. Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.
[Matthew 10:34-39]

So I'm not arguing that all Christians everywhere ought to always get along, especially when it comes to doctrine. But I would advise all of my brothers and sisters in the Lord, to be as "wise as serpents and harmless as doves", to "keep your conduct among the Gentiles honorable", and to realize that while we are supposed to be "working out our own salvation with fear and trembling", we should only do so in places that are appropriate to the task, and not on websites.

2006

2006-01-01T04:57:00.000-05:00

This evening and morning I was thinking about what, if any, formal resolutions I should make for 2006. As I was listing them in my head, it seemed like all of them revolved around the same basic idea - a better relationship with Christ. They are all pretty well summed up in an old hymn that most of you should know, so rather than list them all, I'll just put the lyrics here for your edification and enjoyment; hopefully all of your resolutions are similar to these. In any case, have a happy, safe and blessed 2006!

MORE LOVE TO THEE, by Elizabeth Prentiss

More love to Thee, O Christ, more love to Thee!
Hear Thou the prayer I make on bended knee.
This is my earnest plea: More love, O Christ, to Thee;
More love to Thee, more love to Thee!

Once earthly joy I craved, sought peace and rest;
Now Thee alone I seek, give what is best.
This all my prayer[s] shall be: More love, O Christ to Thee;
More love to Thee, more love to Thee!

Let sorrow do its work, come grief or pain
Sweet are Thy messengers, sweet their refrain
when they can sing with me: More love, O Christ, to Thee;
More love to Thee, more love to Thee!

Then shall my latest breath whisper Thy praise;
This be the parting cry my heart shall raise;
This still its prayer shall be: More love, O Christ to Thee;
More love to Thee, more love to Thee!

StrikeBlogging...

2005-12-20T18:09:00.000-05:00

No, my wife and I aren't affected - yet - although we may be, if her customers' husband[s] can't get into or out of NYC for the next few days. A few people at work have husbands that work in the city, so I'll bet that they are all quite angry right now.

Lots and lots to say, but I think I'll just provide some links and make my comments at the end:

First off, hit Michelle Malkin's blog for more info; she's done a terrific job of wrapping up a good deal of blogosphere reaction. Then head over to Ragged Thots, which is run by a man who apparently lives in NYC proper. There's also blogosphere reaction at Instapundit, who is always worth reading. I second his call to automate the rail lines!

If you don't trust blogs and or want to see what the papers are saying, you can read a couple different websites. There's there Post, and the Daily News. I'm not going to include the NY Times anymore for a bunch of reasons, one of them being the fact that I simply can't stand the obviously slanted coverage of, well, just about anything that Bush does anymore. You can look that up yourself - it's not very hard; googling 'NY Times' and 'Bias' will probably give you everything that you need to know.

Next, make sure that you read this report, issued by the State of NY, which outlines many of the concerns that I've had ever since moving to the area - basically that the MTU / MTA's answer for being broke is to make their customers pay ever more and not to cut costs in any way - apparently rate hikes are already scheduled for 2009 and 2012.

The attitude by everyone I've talked to here about it has been amazingly similar - something along the lines of GOP and the City's comments, which are available at Michelle Malkin's website and also the GOP and the City blog.

You can get direct feedback from stranded commuters at 1010 WINS, which is hosting a 'gripe page' [actually, here's another one as well].

Kudos to Mayor Bloomberg for holding firm and calling them what they really are - economic and social terrorists. I'll link to his statements later.

Since I do deal primarily with theological issues on this blog [as a matter of fact, it's all I try and deal with here], there's one big issue that I feel needs to be said. Since this strike is illegal, I don't see how anyone who is serious about obeying the commands of Scripture could participate in light of Romans 13:

Romans 13, ESV
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.

It's pretty obvious from that passage that God is directly responsible for the appointment of human authorities, even Nero, who was roasting Christians alive for his garden parties and other charming things while this letter was written. You may not like what the ____________ may say, but as long as they are your manager or appointed official and have legal responsibility to take care of you, you should obey.

Hard, I know. I remember the Clinton years. But it's the right thing to do.

**Updated**
The TWA had made a blog for information on the strike, and their IT manager failed to disable the comments on that blog. While they caught the mistake several hours later, the damage was already done. They disabled the comments section, but several places permalinked the comments in their own blog. If you'd like to skim the roughly 700 comments made on the day of the strike, you can go to Dartblog.

Also, lest someone wonder why I have so many issues with the NY Times, let me be short. First of all, having lived in NY for a full year and a half has given me ample opportunity to review their work firsthand. I could list many examples, but most of my concerns have been covered or amplified in the Public Editors' blog. The recent NSA 'spying' story has been the best illustration of this. I won't bother to recap all my problems with it, because the Public Editor does that for me with his story on the story.

The Average and Faithful

2005-12-12T17:26:00.000-05:00

Pastor Frank Sansone has recently run a few threads on his weblog about 'The Best And Brightest In Fundamentalism'. Normally I skipped over the links to the articles on SharperIron, but I went through and read the entire thing today, and I found something that he wrote in a past blog entry fascinating.

In his post, titled "The Best and the Brightest - Criteria for Evaluation", he wrote:

I believe that a big part of the problem of much of the hand-wringing over losing The Best and the Brightest is that many have taken the world's criteria and used that in evaluating who is The Best and the Brightest. I believe that even some of the "older" men who are in the leadership at these institutions that were previously mentioned have fallen into this trap. We jump up and down about the false view that numbers = blessing when we are denouncing "leaders" in New Evangelicalism (and rightly so), yet, we often find ourselves making the same type of errors.

For many, The Best and the Brightest are those guys who have the following traits:

1. Popularity - were they a "big man on campus"?
2. Positions - did they have the "important" positions as a student?
3. Personality - do they draw people to themselves with their winsome ways?
4. Preaching - do they have an exciting style that grabs an audience?
5. Academic Prowess - are they at the top of their class?

I think, just based on my experiences in undergrad and my grad schooling, that Dr. Sansone nails one of the most critical concerns that I've had with Fundamentalism...namely, that the criteria used for determining 'faithfulness' and 'blessing' by Fundamentalists have been extraordinarily similar to those that the world might use. I can think of multiple times, in multiple schools, when I've sat in a chapel service and the President or Vice President has introduced someone for a chapel presentation with the following comments-

1. Always has a child or children who have attended [or currently attends] the school in question
2. Has a large church [large meaning approximately 300 or over]
3. Is a regional leader in some kind of Baptist association
4. Has regional [not just state, but even sometimes national] 'name recognition'
5. On the board of __________________ College / University
6. Has been a 'close friend of' either the school or an Administration officer.

I'm not arguing that any of these things are necessarily bad. I AM, however, arguing that to say that we should recognize someone on the basis of that criteria is to play a favorite, which is what we are expected to AVOID doing as per James 2:1-3.

Maybe I'm just bitter about this because I was never a "Big Man on Campus" in my undergrad or grad years, but I remember having several really long heart to heart talks, with men that I befriended and still hold in very high esteem, from multiple places and institutions, about this specific issue.

Our problem wasn't that the BMOC's were chosen, because they were good men and were godly and all of that, but that a lot of us were fighting just to get by and stay by the stuff [my 2.68 GPA in undergrad bears this out ;) ] and none of us were being praised as 'faithful' or 'good stewards' or any of the accolades that the BMOC's consistently did. For a school, college, seminary, or church to preach the necessity of 'staying by the stuff' and 'being faithful to God' and then recognize the same 3 or 4 guys over and over again - even when they were saddled with responcibilities like being a Hall Leader or Class Chaplain - smacked of favoritism and made us angry and frustrated. It became a question of 'how do I prove, in the 2, 3, or 4 years that I'm here, than I can handle something other than being a student?'

In short, it DID seem the school / church administrative staff were playing favorites. What made it all the more frustrating was that you had to have some kind of 'in' in order to be a BMOC - dating the _____________'s daughter or being on the Dean's List [in the right way, of course] made you 'stand out' so that you could become a BMOC. I never knew a BMOC who didn't have some kind of 'in' like that, and could supply countless examples [well, maybe not countless, but you get the idea].

And those of us who weren't BMOCs just 'slipped through the cracks'. Personally, I'm glad that I never was a BMOC - I think, based on my own recollections, that I wasn't ready for any kind of leadership responcibilities like that. But I certainly knew plenty of men who would have been [and who, I think, are] superior leaders that never got a fair shake because the BMOC's had already crowded them out.

Am I bitter about it? In my head, I say no. I wasn't ready to be used by God in a BMOC way. But could I have been a room leader, or extension leader or assistant? Maybe. God only knows.

Let me close with one illustration that I hope makes my point clear. I had hounded a guy in the dorm in undergrad about a new extension that he was starting. I periodically dropped into his room, asked about the new extension, helped with getting the extension's equipment ready or cleaning up after the extension or just doing whatever I could to help out. My Senior Year, there were a lot of problems and most of the people who had been on the team couldn't or weren't able to help. They filled out the team again, and still had one spot to fill. The leader approached me, apologized for overlooking my work for the three previous years, and offered me the spot, which I promptly accepted.

I don't see a lot of this kind of 'faithfulness recognition' today. I don't see it the churches I've been in and through, in the schools I attended, or even, dare I say it, on SharperIron. Perhaps if Fundamentalism wants to be serious about keeping 'the Best and the Brightest', than maybe they should look at the 'average and faithful'.

Iraq

2005-12-03T02:47:00.000-05:00

There's something that's been on my mind for a while now, and it's been Iraq. I supported [and still do support] President Bush's decision to invade Iraq and to depose Saddam Hussein. But it has bothered me, for a few months now, that I haven't been able to show my support for the troops by sending letters or something. I'm sure that there are 'adopt a soldier' programs out there, but working two jobs and taking care of my wife and running the teen group at church have left me with little time for researching things that I want to do [like being able to blog on a more regular basis :)].

This morning I finished up my duties at my second job and was flipping through the USA Today when I saw this little note in the corner of the Op-Ed section:

More than 100,000 American military men and women serving in Iraq and Afganistan won't be home for the holidays. USA Today would like to publish your messages to the troops. We hope that relatives will share what they miss most about their absent loved ones, and that veterans will offer advice on spending holidays abroad. Letters from servicemembers are welcome, too, as are the public's holiday wishes.

Please send your comments to editor@usatoday.com or fax letters to 703-854-2053. Non -returnable photos also will be considered. Mail them to Letters to the Editor: 7950 Jones Branch Drive, McLean, VA 22108.

I have had the experience, both in my undergrad and grad schooling, of being away from home for the holidays. Regardless of whom you voted for, I think that it would be appropriate for anyone who reads this blog to acknowledge the debt that we owe to our military forces by sending in a simple note of thanks and encouragement.

One of the things that is supposed to characterize true Christians is an attitude of thanksgiving - here's an opportunity for not only myself, but others, to do so. I trust that you can spare a few moments to send them an email of encouragement.

Making much of sin

2005-12-02T12:38:00.000-05:00

I saw this post today and thought that Dr. Johnson did a great job in clarifying what worldliness is. There's been a few threads on SI that have discussed it, and the most recent one on CCM was kind of stoked my mind to think harder on this topic. Since there have been so many people talking about music and movies and basically how we respond in to it as Christians, I thought it might be helpful to quote a small excerpt, but you can read the entire thing here.

This is the [OK, not so small] excerpt that I found interesting:

Worldly simply means "pertaining to this earth." On the one hand, Hebrews 9:1 speaks of "a worldly sanctuary"—i.e., an earthly and material one, contrasted with the "True tabernacle"—the heavenly temple, "which the Lord pitched, and not man" (8:2). So something can be "worldly" (like the Tabernacle) without being sinful.

On the other hand, Titus 2:12 speaks of "worldly lusts," meaning passions that are set on earthly and temporal things. Love for earthly things is inconsistent with true love for God, because the passions that drive this world's philosophies and value-systems are all characterized by pride and sinful lust (1 John 2:15-17).

The sin of "worldliness" is the tendency to set one's affections on things of the earth rather than on heavenly things (cf. Colossians 3:2). "Friendship with the world is enmity with God" (James 4:4). It is positively sinful to love this present world and imbibe its values more than we love heaven and order our lives according to heavenly values (cf. Philippians 1:23; Romans 8:5-6; Matthew 6:19-21; 16:23).

In other words, worldliness is a sin of the heart.

Conversely, worldliness isn't necessarily related to movies, music styles, the latest fashions, or other typical fundamentalist taboos. Those things certainly can be worldly and obviously do have a tendency to provoke sinful worldliness insofar as they naturally appeal to our passions and tempt us to become obsessed with earthly things.

But there's an even worse kind of worldliness than that. Religion—even conservative, doctrinally-sound religion—can be worldly too.

Think about it: if a person cares less for heaven and heaven's values than for the trappings of "a worldly sanctuary"—be it an ornate cathedral, a megachurch with a Starbucks kiosk in the foyer, or a lowbrow church where snake-handling provides the entertainment—that person is worldly and living in disobedience to God.

I think that Dr. Johnson hit the nail on the head, and he didn't even use the most famous 'is of the world' text to do so. Worldliness isn't easily definable because it is dependent on the person's heart and motives for what is 'worldly' and therefore sinful. For example, I wanted to see Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith since literally we knew the name of it. That desire, in me anyway, created strong desires or a craving to see it.

Did it automatically make seeing RotS sin for me? Maybe, maybe not; I am not inclined to believe so. The issue of whether or not watching RotS is sin is a different topic for another time. But I think that ultimately all the arguments and questions about pop culture and it's influence on us [or vice versa] boils down to this question:

Be IN the world, but not OF the world.

IMHO, that means being aware of the world - what new things are popular, what the latest politicans are doing, who is the 'wise' of the age - but not allowing that knowledge to change our stands and views as Christians. To paint everything that is in the world is to make more of sin than there may really be.

Maybe this is what Paul means when he says in Philippians 2:12 and 13:

"Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure."

**Updated**
I just realized that I never linked to the original post on Phil Johnson's website. Here's the link, and I've fixed the reference at the top of this post as well. I apologize for the inconvenience and confusion.

Cats and the Sovereignty of God

2005-11-11T13:05:00.000-05:00

Over the last few days, there's been some discussion in my house and elsewhere about what it means to be 'elect', how God chooses 'the elect', and what ramifications that has for us. I experienced a situation similar to election recently, and thought that it might be helpful to tell others about it to see if it helps them understand.

Back in August, we had to have our cat put to sleep because of a massive malignant tumor that was in her hip and keeping her from walking around the house. Well, I started my second job working nights in October, and I was concerned because my wife was spending an awful lot of time in the house alone while she's still trying to get her synthroid levels stabilized. The old Genesis passage about it 'not being good for man to be alone' came to mind one night, so I asked my wife if she was ready to start looking for another cat yet. Now personally, I'm a dog type of person, but cats are her thing, and all we can really get away with right now because of a few different things, is a cat. So one Friday night, she decides to go 'cat-shopping' at the local pound. She swings by, explains what's going on, and I leave work to go with her.

So I get to the pound and walk in. Immediately in front of me, there's a cage with baby kittens - like 2 pound, 4 inch, 20 day old kittens. Of course, the lady at the desk can't go out to help us because she's busy with someone else, so my wife and I are looking at the kittens and cats in the other room. Finally someone comes to get us and we go back into the main room.

There were probably over 125 cats in this place. Big cats, little cats, old cats, young cats, cats with leukemia, cats with feline HIV, snoring cats, climbing cats, hissing cats, friendly cats, black cats, grey cats, white cats...you get the idea. On one wall, there was what looks like quad beds - think of bunkbeds stacked on top of each other to be 4 beds high - and on each bed, lined up like some kind of inspection, are more cats sleeping or laying on pillows, as if there aren't enough wandering around by my feet. There's a few of the tall scratching post/bed things [complete with cats], a cat 'walkway' that goes around the top of the room, and little cat 'hammocks' [which were, IMHO, pretty cool].

So my wife and I start exploring. First we're in the main room, then we go into the 'special needs' room - cats, that for whatever reason, can't be out with the other cats, like ones that have just been spayed or that may be missing an eye or have asthma. [Never knew that cats could get asthma before, did you? Neither did I.] We check out the one cat that we both wanted to see, and then go on a longer tour, into and through the F HIV room, into the 'quiet room' [cats that are more shy and tend to be picked on by the other cats], back into a secondary room with normal cats, and then back out to the office again.

So by now, the wife and I have a 'shopping list' of about 30 cats that we've each liked and could possibly adopt. We fill out the paperwork and on the way home, start knocking the list out. Each of us have our personal favorites. I would have taken a whole slew home with me if I could have. Why? For different reasons. The F HIV / Leukemia / Special Needs cats can't go home with a regular cat, so we're inclined to take one of those, and I'm leaning towards one of those because no one else adopts the 'sick' cats. My wife feels the same way.

This is where the 'election' allegory comes in. There was no objective criteria that we went with - we just want to have 'fellowship' [if I can use the word loosely] with a cat. The wife would prefer a black and white 'tuxedo' cat, but that's really a preference, not a need. I just want something that will be halfway sociable to me, will keep my wife happy, and won't get sick and die in a year or less. There are all kinds of cats that meet that criteria, and I would love to bring them all home.

But my choices were determined by the cat's reaction to me. One cat, for example, jumped on my jacket, climbed up to my shoulders, and sat down and purred like mad, which really freaked me out, but at least I knew that she [it?] liked me. Another cat climbed into my lap, but when I picked it up to give to my wife, hissed and clawed at me [getting not only me, but also my wife] until I put it [well, dropped is probably the better term] down. The choice, as the [future] pet owner, is completely and totally mine. I look down the corridors of the pound, pick out the ones that seem friendly, and then go from there.

So it is with God. God 'elects' or chooses to save some, knowing [with a far more perfect knowledge than I] how they will respond to His Gracious Gift. Some, He knows, will hiss and fight against him and reject it, to their everlasting shame; and some will [to extend the metaphor], accept the Gift of Christ, 'jump into his lap' and give Him the affection and praise that He is due. But ultimately, God makes the decision, similar to me making my decision of which cat to purchase.

Does what the cat do affect the way I decide? Yes. Did we ultimately make our choice and 'elect' one to come home with me? Yes, although we can't pick it up yet. Neither of the two are dependent on each other, but both work together jointly to influence my decision. So it is with God. When He sees all that could and might and will ever happen, He automatically knows [due to His perfect knowledge] which will be 'friendly enough' to take the Gift of Our Lord. Those who choose to take it are His, even though they may not be here [on Earth] yet. And those are the ones, like the cats I described, who will be taken Home to be with him forever.

Or, as Paul describes in Romans 9:

But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but "Through Isaac shall your offspring be named." This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. For this is what the promise said: "About this time next year I will return and Sarah shall have a son." And not only so, but also when Rebecca had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad--in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call--she was told, "The older will serve the younger." As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

...What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory--even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? As indeed he says in Hosea,

"Those who were not my people I will call 'my people,'
and her who was not beloved I will call 'beloved.'"

And in the very place where it was said to them, 'You are not my people,' there they will be called 'sons of the living God.'"

And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: "Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved..."

So, yes, we are 'elect', to use the term. But, as I heard someone say tongue in cheek - there are other 'elects' who are out there - let's go find some!

Footblogging

2005-11-07T17:57:00.000-05:00

I don't normally blog on sports issues, but I'm going to do so today, in light of the recent Philadelphia Eagles situation.

When TO first came to Philly, I was excited. I knew that he'd been a huge problem when in SF, and I wasn't really excited about all the issues that he obviously carried, but I knew that, deep in my Eagles-Green heart, the Eagles would never make it to the Big Dance without a threatening wide receiver corps. I knew that TO was exactly what I felt we needed - someone that the other team has to gameplan around. All was good for the first year as TO racked up dozens and dozens of yards and almost 15 touchdowns by himself. The Eagles made it to the Super Bowl, and [in my heart] should have won it all. They were very close to beating the Pats.

Then the whole situation exploded immediately after the Super Bowl was over. TO took shots at McNabb [the quarterback] about getting ill. Then he went on the record and demanded a brand new contract, despite signing a seven year, almost 49 million one the year before.

I watched the whole grim mess play out afterward, and two things struck me about it.

The first was that TO is a me-first player. I thought that Reid and Co. had straightened him out when he came to Philly. TO was practically accepted as God there for the first year. Then he tore his own mask off and revealed the face of Satan himself. I like how one writer put it:

The truth is this: There is no "I" in T.O. or in team. But there are three in narcissistic.

-Adam Schefter, NFL Analyst, "T.O. just not worth the trouble."

It's obvious now that TO is so selfish that he's willing to destroy an entire team just for his own sake. I don't remember who said it now, but another quote is damning - TO will never be happy until he gets paid like a quarterback. He expects - no, demands, that kind of treatment. I know that he's had a hard life, growing up in an abusive home and rejected by his peers, but it's obvious that is merely an excuse. Selfish, naked, pride drives this man to do what he does. He wants to be a football god.

And that's where the second lesson came into play. The Eagles do not make football gods out of anyone. TO is not the first player to learn that lesson the hard way. Jeremiah Trotter, Hugh Douglas, Freddie Mitchell, and Duce Staley all learned that if they want to be treated like NFL elite and command huge salaries, they have to be willing to work with the Eagles to help build a team around them that can contend for the Championship. If, on the other hand, they exalted themselves above the team, then they would be smacked down to earth. Trotter and Douglas got the axe when their contracts were up because they wanted huge money that the Eagles didn't want to pay them. Each of them went to another team, played for 2 years, and then were cut by those teams. Each, I believe, decided to go back to the Eagles for maybe a little less than market value, but stuck with them. Trotter is still playing, and Douglas got himself back into the spotlight this week because he was the only player on the team who was willing to go toe-to-toe with Terrible Owens. He's been serving as a Team Rep for the Eagles, and if I know Philly, he's practically a legend there now. Freddie Mitchell, on the other hand, suffers from an unstoppable condition that made him more of an 'on camera' than 'on field' threat. After making his own outrageous demands for a new contract, he was held onto, released the day after the NFL draft [tell me THAT wasn't planned], signed with Kansas City, and then was cut from KC in three months' time, which has ended his NFL career to this point. Duce also wanted the big bucks, took his train ride to Pittsburgh, and now is in jeopardy of becoming an unnecessary third running back on a team loaded with talent that will [probably] contend for the AFC Championship this year.

At the time each player was cut, I was worried and frustrated because these guys were so good and I didn't know how the Eagles would fill the gaps. But they did, and every year got a little closer to the Lombardi trophy.

Some people are saying that the only thing the Eagles can contend for now is a good draft pick. I disagree. The Eagles' schedule consists of:

*Dallas [tough but winnable; at home]
*Giants [ditto, although a little harder since they're on the road]
*Packers [should win, home]
*Seahawks [winnable, at home]
*NY Giants [see above, but this time they're at home, so a little easier]
*Rams [winnable, away]
*Cardinals [winnable, but could be a 'trap game', away]
*Washington [winnable, home]

If the Eagles can beat Dallas, Washington, and the Giants once AND beat the Packers, Rams, and Cardinals, then they finish the season at 10-6. They'll be a playoff team and could possibly still win the NFC East. That's a big if, though, because Dallas, Washington, and the Giants are good - the NFC East, at this point, is a roll of the dice. If the Eagles win the games like I said, then we probably go to tiebreakers to determine the East. And nothing, absolutely nothing at all, is pre-ordained in the NFL playoffs. Not a single blessed thing.

Here's the other reason why I'm not giving up hope. The Washington game, as ugly as it was, came down to the wire -- It was still winnable. Washington was furious after their ugly 33-0 loss to the Giants last week and certainly brought their "A-Game".
I think that the NFL teams are going to write off Philly now because of TO's suspension. I think that the Eagles are finally going to get their act together, because there's no more worrying about TO's crazy, nutjob antics and they can worry about the reason why they are all there - to win football games. There's no more distractions - Westbrook is locked up, McNabb is locked up, David Akers, their 'money' Field Goal kicker is locked up, Reggie Brown and Billy McMullen look like they'll be decent, and Reid is exploring trading or drafting a WR right now, so we should finally have a decent receiving corps at least in '06, if they can't work something out this year. I do think they need to start handing the ball to Westbrook so that they aren't so one-dimensional, but it looks like they are going to start doing that, especially on Sunday. I know that Westbrook only had 17 touches, but that's a whole lot more than he's had in a while - he's averaging only 10.5 touches a game, and that includes the 17 attempts in yesterday's Washington loss. I think that Reid was depending so heavily on passing in an attempt to keep TO happy, which he doesn't have to do anymore, and he's certainly going to sleep better tonight than he has in a long, long time. I am slightly concerned about the defensive secondary, but if we can lock down LaDamian Tomlinson and hold him to less than 30 yards in a game [as compared to the 4 touchdowns and 107 yards on Sunday].

So everyone climb back down from the Delaware Memorial Bridge or City Hall. There's lots of football left in the 2005 season, and our next game is against our most hated adversaries - the Dallas Cowboys. At Home. On National Television. After an embarrassing 33-10 whipping earlier this year.

Somehow, I just don't think that the Eagles will be unprepared for this one.

...Behind the turmoil of busy lives

2005-10-27T13:18:00.000-04:00

A Separate Peace
by Peggy Noonan

It is not so hard and can be a pleasure to tell people what you see. It's harder to speak of what you think you see, what you think is going on and can't prove or defend with data or numbers. That can get tricky. It involves hunches. But here goes.

I think there is an unspoken subtext in our national political culture right now. In fact I think it's a subtext to our society. I think that a lot of people are carrying around in their heads, unarticulated and even in some cases unnoticed, a sense that the wheels are coming off the trolley and the trolley off the tracks. That in some deep and fundamental way things have broken down and can't be fixed, or won't be fixed any time soon. That our pollsters are preoccupied with "right track" and "wrong track" but missing the number of people who think the answer to "How are things going in America?" is "Off the tracks and hurtling forward, toward an unknown destination."

I'm not talking about "Plamegate." As I write no indictments have come up. I'm not talking about "Miers." I mean . . . the whole ball of wax. Everything. Cloning, nuts with nukes, epidemics; the growing knowledge that there's no such thing as homeland security; the fact that we're leaving our kids with a bill no one can pay. A sense of unreality in our courts so deep that they think they can seize grandma's house to build a strip mall; our media institutions imploding--the spectacle of a great American newspaper, the New York Times, hurtling off its own tracks, as did CBS. The fear of parents that their children will wind up disturbed, and their souls actually imperiled, by the popular culture in which we are raising them. Senators who seem owned by someone, actually owned, by an interest group or a financial entity. Great churches that have lost all sense of mission, and all authority. Do you have confidence in the CIA? The FBI? I didn't think so.

But this recounting doesn't quite get me to what I mean. I mean I believe there's a general and amorphous sense that things are broken and tough history is coming.

Let me focus for a minute on the presidency, another institution in trouble. In the past I have been impatient with the idea that it's impossible now to be president, that it is impossible to run the government of the United States successfully or even competently. I always thought that was an excuse of losers. I'd seen a successful presidency up close. It can be done.

But since 9/11, in the four years after that catastrophe, I have wondered if it hasn't all gotten too big, too complicated, too crucial, too many-fronted, too . . . impossible.

I refer to the sheer scope, speed and urgency of the issues that go to a president's desk, to the impossibility of bureaucracy, to the array of impeding and antagonistic forces (the 50-50 nation, the mass media, the senators owned by the groups), to the need to have a fully informed understanding of and stand on the most exotic issues, from Avian flu to the domestic realities of Zimbabwe.

The special prosecutors, the scandals, the spin for the scandals, nuclear proliferation, wars and natural disasters, Iraq, stem cells, earthquakes, the background of the Supreme Court backup pick, how best to handle the security problems at the port of Newark, how to increase production of vaccines, tort reform, did Justice bungle the anthrax case, how is Cipro production going, did you see this morning's Raw Threat File? Our public schools don't work, and there's little refuge to be had in private schools, however pricey, in part because teachers there are embarrassed not to be working in the slums and make up for it by putting pictures of Frida Kalho where Abe Lincoln used to be. Where is Osama? What's up with trademark infringement and intellectual capital? We need an answer on an amendment on homosexual marriage! We face a revolt on immigration.

The range, depth, and complexity of these problems, the crucial nature of each of them, the speed with which they bombard the Oval Office, and the psychic and practical impossibility of meeting and answering even the most urgent of them, is overwhelming. And that doesn't even get us to Korea. And Russia. And China, and the Mideast. You say we don't understand Africa? We don't even understand Canada!

Roiling history, daily dangers, big demands; a government that is itself too big and rolling in too much money and ever needing more to do the latest important, necessary, crucial thing.

It's beyond, "The president is overwhelmed." The presidency is overwhelmed. The whole government is. And people sense when an institution is overwhelmed. Citizens know. If we had a major terrorist event tomorrow half the country--more than half--would not trust the federal government to do what it has to do, would not trust it to tell the truth, would not trust it, period.

It should be noted that all modern presidents face a slew of issues, and none of them have felt in control of events but have instead felt controlled by them. JFK in one week faced the Soviets, civil rights, the Berlin Wall, the southern Democratic mandarins of the U.S. Senate. He had to face Cuba, only 90 miles away, importing Russian missiles. But the difference now, 45 years later, is that there are a million little Cubas, a new Cuba every week. It's all so much more so. And all increasingly crucial. And it will be for the next president, too.

A few weeks ago I was chatting with friends about the sheer number of things parents now buy for teenage girls--bags and earrings and shoes. When I was young we didn't wear earrings, but if we had, everyone would have had a pair or two. I know a 12-year-old with dozens of pairs. They're thrown all over her desk and bureau. She's not rich, and they're inexpensive, but her parents buy her more when she wants them. Someone said, "It's affluence," and someone else nodded, but I said, "Yeah, but it's also the fear parents have that we're at the end of something, and they want their kids to have good memories. They're buying them good memories, in this case the joy a kid feels right down to her stomach when the earrings are taken out of the case."

This, as you can imagine, stopped the flow of conversation for a moment. Then it resumed, as delightful and free flowing as ever. Human beings are resilient. Or at least my friends are, and have to be.

Let me veer back to the president. One of the reasons some of us have felt discomfort regarding President Bush's leadership the past year or so is that he makes more than the usual number of decisions that seem to be looking for trouble. He makes startling choices, as in the Miers case. But you don't have to look for trouble in life, it will find you, especially when you're president. It knows your address. [The] White House is a castle surrounded by a moat, and the moat is called trouble, and the rain will come and the moat will rise. You should buy some boots, do your work, hope for the best.

Do people fear the wheels are coming off the trolley? Is this fear widespread? A few weeks ago I was reading Christopher Lawford's lovely, candid and affectionate remembrance of growing up in a particular time and place with a particular family, the Kennedys, circa roughly 1950-2000. It's called "Symptoms of Withdrawal." At the end he quotes his Uncle Teddy. Christopher, Ted Kennedy and a few family members had gathered one night and were having a drink in Mr. Lawford's mother's apartment in Manhattan. Teddy was expansive. If he hadn't gone into politics he would have been an opera singer, he told them, and visited small Italian villages and had pasta every day for lunch. "Singing at la Scala in front of three thousand people throwing flowers at you. Then going out for dinner and having more pasta." Everyone was laughing. Then, writes Mr. Lawford, Teddy "took a long, slow gulp of his vodka and tonic, thought for a moment, and changed tack. 'I'm glad I'm not going to be around when you guys are my age.' I asked him why, and he said, 'Because when you guys are my age, the whole thing is going to fall apart.' "

Mr. Lawford continued, "The statement hung there, suspended in the realm of 'maybe we shouldn't go there.' Nobody wanted to touch it. After a few moments of heavy silence, my uncle moved on."

Lawford thought his uncle might be referring to their family--that it might "fall apart." But reading, one gets the strong impression Teddy Kennedy was not talking about his family but about . . . the whole ball of wax, the impossible nature of everything, the realities so daunting it seems the very system is off the tracks.

And--forgive me--I thought: If even Teddy knows . . .

If I am right that trolley thoughts are out there, and even prevalent, how are people dealing with it on a daily basis?

I think those who haven't noticed we're living in a troubling time continue to operate each day with classic and constitutional American optimism intact. I think some of those who have a sense we're in trouble are going through the motions, dealing with their own daily challenges.

And some--well, I will mention and end with America's elites. Our recent debate about elites has had to do with whether opposition to Harriet Miers is elitist, but I don't think that's our elites' problem.

This is. Our elites, our educated and successful professionals, are the ones who are supposed to dig us out and lead us. I refer specifically to the elites of journalism and politics, the elites of the Hill and at Foggy Bottom and the agencies, the elites of our state capitals, the rich and accomplished and successful of Washington, and elsewhere. I have a nagging sense, and think I have accurately observed, that many of these people have made a separate peace. That they're living their lives and taking their pleasures and pursuing their agendas; that they're going forward each day with the knowledge, which they hold more securely and with greater reason than non-elites, that the wheels are off the trolley and the trolley's off the tracks, and with a conviction, a certainty, that there is nothing they can do about it.

I suspect that history, including great historical novelists of the future, will look back and see that many of our elites simply decided to enjoy their lives while they waited for the next chapter of trouble. And that they consciously, or unconsciously, took grim comfort in this thought: I got mine. Which is what the separate peace comes down to, "I got mine, you get yours."

You're a lobbyist or a senator or a cabinet chief, you're an editor at a paper or a green-room schmoozer, you're a doctor or lawyer or Indian chief, and you're making your life a little fortress. That's what I think a lot of the elites are up to.

Not all of course. There are a lot of people--I know them and so do you--trying to do work that helps, that will turn it around, that can make it better, that can save lives. They're trying to keep the boat afloat. Or, I should say, get the trolley back on the tracks.

That's what I think is going on with our elites. There are two groups. One has made a separate peace, and one is trying to keep the boat afloat. I suspect those in the latter group privately, in a place so private they don't even express it to themselves, wonder if they'll go down with the ship. Or into bad territory with the trolley.

*************
Ms. Noonan is a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal and author of "John Paul the Great: Remembering a Spiritual Father," forthcoming in November from Penguin, which you can preorder from the OpinionJournal bookstore. Her column appears Thursdays.

I read this today at the Wall Street Journal; it's an excellent article about what may really be driving America today. I liked it so much that I put it at the top of the post, rather than at the bottom, like I normally would. I know that most of you don't come here to read the WSJ, but to see what I think and how, as Christians, we need to adapt and or respond to what's going on. Ms. Noonan has absolutely nailed the everwidening chasm of despair behind the turmoil of our busy lives.

I think, for a large part, that the argument that she's making is correct, but to limit it to 21st Century America is wrong...it's a cultural malaise that can also be seen in the book of Ecclesiastes-

2Vanity of vanities, says the Preacher,
vanity of vanities! All is vanity.
3What does man gain by all the toil
at which he toils under the sun?
4A generation goes, and a generation comes,
but the earth remains forever.
5The sun rises, and the sun goes down,
and hastens to the place where it rises.
6The wind blows to the south
and goes around to the north;
around and around goes the wind,
and on its circuits the wind returns.
7All streams run to the sea,
but the sea is not full;
to the place where the streams flow,
there they flow again.
8All things are full of weariness;
a man cannot utter it;
the eye is not satisfied with seeing,
nor the ear filled with hearing.
9What has been is what will be,
and what has been done is what will be done,
and there is nothing new under the sun.
10Is there a thing of which it is said,
"See, this is new"?
It has been already
in the ages before us.
11There is no remembrance of former things,
nor will there be any remembrance
of later things yet to be
among those who come after.

So what's the solution to this crisis? Solomon says - Love and Serve God [Eccl 12:13, 14].

As Christians and Fundamentalists, we talk about "the need to go into all the world and make disciples" and that "sin ruins lives" and that, as we were reminded in Chapel at BJU, that "people are dying and going to Hell today", but perhaps the best reason of all for missions and evangelism [ultimately worship], is what John Piper so powerfully wrote more than ten years [and two editions ago] - that God is most pleased with us when we are satisfied in him. That's the cure for our own discouragements and fears. No matter what you need, want or desire - in searching after God, you will find not just 'happiness' - the sensation that accompanies a new puppy or gold necklace, but everlasting JOY!

Perhaps we should 're-tool' our evangelistic efforts, so to speak, and help people address this problem at the foot of the cross, so that God can be glorified.

I'll add some more thoughts later, but wanted to share at least a few thoughts on that article now.

Dr. Dobson, Do Us All A Favor...

2005-10-20T13:31:00.000-04:00

I like Dr. Dobson and Focus on the Family, but lately it seems like he's spending more time on politics than he should. Dr. Dobson - do us all a favor and focus on your family and business!

There's a lot more I could write, but I'll let John Fund of the Wall Street Journal speak for me. You can read his article here.

Why The Truth Matters In Preaching

2005-10-20T11:13:00.000-04:00

A thread on SharperIron led me to do some quick research on the famous "Down-Grade Controversy" of Charles Spurgeon's day. In the process of reading, I found this quote and thought that it was something worth minding:

"I have long since found," says [Orton] "(and every year that I live increases my conviction of it), that when ministers entertain their people with lively and pretty things, confine themselves to general harangues, insist principally on moral duties, without enforcing them warmly and affectionately by evangelical motives; while they neglect the peculiars of the gospel, never or seldom display the grace of God, and the love of Christ in our redemption; the necessity of regeneration and sanctification by a constant dependence on the Holy Spirit of God for assistance and strength in the duties of the Christian life, their congregations are in a wretched state; some are dwindling to nothing, as is the case with several in this neighbourhood, where there are now not as many scores as there were hundreds in their meeting-places, fifty years ago. . . . There is a fatal deadness spread over the congregation. They run in 'the course of this world,' follow every fashionable folly, and family and personal godliness seems in general to be lost among them. There is scarcely any appearance of life and zeal."

Thanks to Phil Johnson, who is quoting from John MacArthur's fantastic book Ashamed of the Gospel at his website. You can read more on the Down-Grade Controversy there, if you wish.

Heh

2005-10-18T12:34:00.000-04:00

Daniel J. Solove, a blogger over at Concurring Opinions, examines the culture and life of bloggers in his most recent post. It's pretty funny; check it out here for some good laughs.

Of course, I'd probably be just like that too, if I had the luxury of free time. :)

The Trivialization Of God

2005-10-13T13:41:00.000-04:00

I'm on vacation this week, so blogging has been light. I've taken a few books with me, and thought that I'd quote some of one for you. It's taken from "The Trivialization Of God" by Donald McCullough. Normally, this isn't a book that I'd pick up and read because Dr. McCullough is [was?] the President of San Francisco Theological Seminary.

Here's what he has to say:

Visit a church on Sunday morning - almost any will do - and you will likely find a congregation comfortably relating to a deity who fits nicely within precise doctrinal positions, or who lends almighty support to social crusades, or who conforms to individual spiritual experiences. But you will not likely find much awe or sense of mystery. The only sweaty palms will be
those of the preacher unsure whether the sermon will go over; the only shaking knees will be those of the soloist about to sing the offeratory.
The New Testament warns us, "offer to God an acceptable worship with reverence and awe; for indeed our God is a consuming fire" [Hebrews 12:28-29, NRSV]. But reverence and awe have often been replaced by a yawn of familiarity. The consuming fire has been domesticated into a candle flame, adding a bit of religious atmosphere, perhaps, but no heat, no blinding light, no power for purification.
When the true story gets told, whether in the partial light of historical perspective or in the perfect light of eternity, it may be well revealed that the worst sin of the church at the end of the twentieth century has been the trivialization of God.

"Why do people in churches seem like cheerful, brainless tourists on a packaged tour of the Absolute?" asks Annie Dillard.
On the whole, I do not find Christians, outside the catacombs, sufficiently sensible of the conditions. Does anyone have have the foggiest idea what sort of power we so blithely invoke? Or, as I suspect, does no one believe a word of it? The churches are children playing on the floor with their chemistry sets, mixing up a batch of TNT to kill a Sunday morning...
We prefer the illusion of as safer deity, and so we have pared God down to more managable proportions. Our era has no exclusive claim to the trivialization of God. This has always been the temptation and the failure for the people of God. Pagan gods have caused less trouble than the tendency to re-fashion God into a more congenial, serviceable god.

Ouch.

Bible Stuff

2005-10-06T13:35:00.000-04:00

Found two links this afternoon I wanted to pass on to you-

http://www.esv.org/blog/2005/09/roberts.wordpress.plugin - this will allow you, if you are using WordPress, to link verse chapter and verses to the actual verse text via Tooltips or to do straight Block Quotes in your posts. Very cool!

http://www.zondervanbiblesearch.com/ - Another Bible Search Website. I like this much better than Bible Gateway [which is what I typically use], but it doesn't have the ESV, so I won't be using it much :(.

Thank You, Teens!

2005-10-06T13:23:00.000-04:00

"Iron sharpens iron, and one man sharpens another" - Proverbs 27:17, ESV

So I'm teaching in the teen group last night, and we ended up having a 'discussion time' instead of the normal 'preaching' time, because one of the men involved brought an article from Time Magazine on gay teenagers. After he gave his speech, I stepped in to field the comments and questions and to moderate [the heated!] discussion between him and the rest of the teens. We probably discussed the matter for 45 minutes before I finally had to call it a day and send everyone else home. We dismissed the group and ended up doing even more discussions on a one on one basis for the next 20 minutes or so.

Thank you, teens, for making me think on my feet and be consistent with what I believe while under some heavy pressure; thanks for helping me to realize the importance of considering your input when we study the Bible; thank you for reminding me that my own lusts and temptations are no different from a homosexual's; and finally, for making me go back into the Scriptures last night and this morning to make sure that I accurately represented what the Lord says about this subject.

I hope the discussion was as enjoyable [well, maybe not enjoyable!] and profitable for you as it was for me.

The Nicene Creed

2005-10-03T13:27:00.000-04:00

This creed is pretty straightforward, so I won't say too much about it. The one thing to keep in mind is that most of the early creeds and catechisms were written as responces to heretical doctrines; The Nicene Creed is a good example of that. It was written because of some questions regarding the Trinity and Jesus' place in it - whether or not Jesus WAS God or whether or not Jesus was LIKE God. So this was written to defend the full deity of Christ along with His full humanity, which explains the obvious emphasis in the second paragraph on Jesus' nature.

The Nicene Creed

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.

Who, for us men for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.

And I believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

The Apostles' Creed

2005-09-30T12:50:00.000-04:00

The next creed that I want to look at is probably one of the oldest and most well known. I normally wouldn't refer to it because of some obvious theological problems for us, but I do feel that it deserves at least a mention.

The theological problems in here actually contribute to its popularity - because it takes no stand on the Inspiration / Preservation of Scripture and sanctification [two name just two key areas], many theological liberals and neo-orthodox feel free to use it; the other problem with creeds and things like this in general is that the words can be redefined so that when we say a word and when a neo-orthodox says it, they are actually two totally different concepts. While we're on the subject, the word "Catholic" in the creed actually means "Universal", so don't think I'm recruiting for the Pope!

The whole 'Jesus Descended Into Hell' thing, in particular, is a problem and I do not feel that there is sufficient scriptural evidence to support this. For an excellent study of this creed, you should look for a copy of John MacArthur's book "Truth Matters". That book was never released for sale; it was only made available via Grace To You's mailing list. Basically, it's a compilation of what the Deacons at Grace Community thought were his best chapters from all of MacArthur's books; it's a terrific little work that I've read several times with great enjoyment.

But enough about that. Here's the Apostles Creed:

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:

Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.

He descended into hell.
The third day He arose again from the dead.

He ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,
whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic* church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.

Amen.

***Sections in bold have been corrected after the blog was originally posted. We regret the error.***

Happy Birthday!

2005-09-27T19:14:00.000-04:00

To Google, who turns 7 today. So what was my wife's reaction to the news? "Wow, only seven? Seems like we've always had Google."

Indeed. Thanks, guys, for the great job you do!

Chalcedon

2005-09-27T07:32:00.000-04:00

Continuing our study of old creeds and catechisms, I'd like to take a look at another one, which although it may not be as well known, is just as foundational for Biblical Christianity.

For the first few centuries after Jesus' death and resurrection, on of the most widely argued topics was Jesus' humanity and divinity. Theological positions swung rapidly from one extreme to the other, and many struggled with explaining Jesus to those who did not understand how he could be both fully God and fully Man. Finally, in the late 440's, scholars and theologians from all over Europe got together to try and settle the issue once and for all. They formulated the Chalcedonian Creed, which may be the best explanation of Christ's humanity and divinity there ever is. You can get some additional background from Wikipedia, and read the creed itself, in its entirety, below.

Council of Chalcedon (451 A.D)

Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.

Creeds, Catechisms, and other Important Things

2005-09-26T20:35:00.000-04:00

Fundamentalists have a tendency, at least in my opinion, to overlook or ignore many of the major documents of the early church. It has been my experience that only Reformed churches use these things to help their own church and to teach the lessons of Scripture to their children. While I am not sure that I'd ever want to make my kids memorize these documents, I am sure that I have been profiting greatly in my own walk with God because I am familarizing myself with them.

For a good starter list, you can go to Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology - in the very back is a listing of the major ones. Over the next couple of days, I want to start posting them here just to expose my readers to them. As I noted yesterday, I may not necessarily agree with everything in them, but I have found them to be quite valuable and worth study.

The first one I want to start off with is actually one of the most recent; it's the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, formulated in 1969. I'm starting off with it because it was one of the first I read, because of yesterday's post, and because the inerrancy of the Scriptures is the foundation for all the other creeds and catechisms and of course, our precious faith. If you are interested in reading the background on the statement, I'd encourage you to go to http://www.reformation.net/COR/ICBIbkgrnd.htm If I've whet your interest and you'd like to read more of the classics [not all of which I'll be posting or mentioning], you can go to http://www.reformed.org/documents/index_docu.html.

Below is the Chicago Statement On Biblical Inerrancy in its' entirety.

THE CHICAGO STATEMENT ON BIBLICAL INERRANCY

Preface

The authority of Scripture is a key issue for the Christian Church in this and every age. Those who profess faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior are called to show the reality of their discipleship by humbly and faithfully obeying God's written Word. To Stray from Scripture in faith or conduct is disloyalty to our Master. Recognition of the total truth and trustworthiness of Holy Scripture is essential to a full grasp and adequate confession of its authority.

The following Statement affirms this inerrancy of Scripture afresh, making clear our understanding of it and warning against its denial. We are persuaded that to deny it is to set aside the witness of Jesus Christ and of the Holy Spirit and to refuse that submission to the claims of God's own Word which marks true Christian faith. We see it as our timely duty to make this affirmation in the face of current lapses from the truth of inerrancy among our fellow Christians and misunderstanding of this doctrine in the world at large.

This Statement consists of three parts: a Summary Statement, Articles of Affirmation and Denial, and an accompanying Exposition*. It has been prepared in the course of a three-day consultation in Chicago. Those who have signed the Summary Statement and the Articles wish to affirm their own conviction as to the inerrancy of Scripture and to encourage and challenge one another and all Christians to growing appreciation and understanding of this doctrine. We acknowledge the limitations of a document prepared in a brief, intensive conference and do not propose that this Statement be given creedal weight. Yet we rejoice in the deepening of our own convictions through our discussions together, and we pray that the Statement we have signed may be used to the glory of our God toward a new reformation of the Church in its faith, life, and mission.

We offer this Statement in a spirit, not of contention, but of humility and love, which we purpose by God's grace to maintain in any future dialogue arising out of what we have said. We gladly acknowledge that many who deny the inerrancy of Scripture do not display the consequences of this denial in the rest of their belief and behavior, and we are conscious that we who confess this doctrine often deny it in life by failing to bring our thoughts and deeds, our traditions and habits, into true subjection to the divine Word.

We invite response to this statement from any who see reason to amend its affirmations about Scripture by the light of Scripture itself, under whose infallible authority we stand as we speak. We claim no personal infallibility for the witness we bear, and for any help which enables us to strengthen this testimony to God's Word we shall be grateful.

* The Exposition is not printed here but can be obtained by writing us at the Oakland office: ICBI / P.O. Box 13261 / Oakland, CA 94661 / (415)-339-1064.

A SHORT STATEMENT

1. God, who is Himself Truth and speaks truth only, has inspired Holy Scripture in order thereby to reveal Himself to lost mankind through Jesus Christ as Creator and Lord, Redeemer and Judge. Holy Scripture is God's witness to Himself.

2. Holy Scripture, being God's own Word, written by men prepared and superintended by His Spirit, is of infallible divine authority in all matters upon which it touches: it is to be believed, as God's instruction, in all that it affirms, obeyed, as God's command, in all that it requires; embraced, as God's pledge, in all that it promises.

3. The Holy Spirit, Scripture's divine Author, both authenticates it to us by His inward witness and opens our minds to understand its meaning.

4. Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God's acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God's saving grace in individual lives.

5. The authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited or disregarded, or made relative to a view of truth contrary to the Bible's own; and such lapses bring serious loss to both the individual and the Church.

ARTICLES OF AFFIRMATION AND DENIAL

Article I

We affirm that the Holy Scriptures are to be received as the authoritative Word of God.

We deny that the Scriptures receive their authority from the Church, tradition, or any other human source.

Article II

We affirm that the Scriptures are the supreme written norm by which God binds the conscience, and that the authority of the Church is subordinate to that of Scripture.

We deny that Church creeds, councils, or declarations have authority greater than or equal to the authority of the Bible.

Article III

We affirm that the written Word in its entirety is revelation given by God.

We deny that the Bible is merely a witness to revelation, or only becomes revelation in encounter, or depends on the responses of men for its validity.

Article IV

We affirm that God who made mankind in His image has used language as a means of revelation.

We deny that human language is so limited by our creatureliness that it is rendered inadequate as a vehicle for divine revelation. We further deny that the corruption of human culture and language through sin has thwarted God's work of inspiration.

Article V

We affirm that God' s revelation in the Holy Scriptures was progressive.

We deny that later revelation, which may fulfill earlier revelation, ever corrects or contradicts it. We further deny that any normative revelation has been given since the completion of the New Testament writings.

Article VI

We affirm that the whole of Scripture and all its parts, down to the very words of the original, were given by divine inspiration.

We deny that the inspiration of Scripture can rightly be affirmed of the whole without the parts, or of some parts but not the whole.

Article VII

We affirm that inspiration was the work in which God by His Spirit, through human writers, gave us His Word. The origin of Scripture is divine. The mode of divine inspiration remains largely a mystery to us.

We deny that inspiration can be reduced to human insight, or to heightened states of consciousness of any kind.

Article VIII

We affirm that God in His Work of inspiration utilized the distinctive personalities and literary styles of the writers whom He had chosen and prepared.

We deny that God, in causing these writers to use the very words that He chose, overrode their personalities.

Article IX

We affirm that inspiration, though not conferring omniscience, guaranteed true and trustworthy utterance on all matters of which the Biblical authors were moved to speak and write.

We deny that the finitude or fallenness of these writers, by necessity or otherwise, introduced distortion or falsehood into God's Word.

Article X

We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.

We deny that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant.

Article XI

We affirm that Scripture, having been given by divine inspiration, is infallible, so that, far from misleading us, it is true and reliable in all the matters it addresses.

We deny that it is possible for the Bible to be at the same time infallible and errant in its assertions. Infallibility and inerrancy may be distinguished, but not separated.

Article XII

We affirm that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit.

We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.

Article XIII

We affirm the propriety of using inerrancy as a theological term with reference to the complete truthfulness of Scripture.

We deny that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations.

Article XIV

We affirm the unity and internal consistency of Scripture.

We deny that alleged errors and discrepancies that have not yet been resolved vitiate the truth claims of the Bible.

Article XV

We affirm that the doctrine of inerrancy is grounded in the teaching of the Bible about inspiration.

We deny that Jesus' teaching about Scripture may be dismissed by appeals to accommodation or to any natural limitation of His humanity.

Article XVI

We affirm that the doctrine of inerrancy has been integral to the Church's faith throughout its history.

We deny that inerrancy is a doctrine invented by Scholastic Protestantism, or is a reactionary position postulated in response to negative higher criticism.

Article XVII

We affirm that the Holy Spirit bears witness to the Scriptures, assuring believers of the truthfulness of God's written Word.

We deny that this witness of the Holy Spirit operates in isolation from or against Scripture.

Article XVIII

We affirm that the text of Scripture is to be interpreted by grammatico-historicaI exegesis, taking account of its literary forms and devices, and that Scripture is to interpret Scripture.

We deny the legitimacy of any treatment of the text or quest for sources lying behind it that leads to relativizing, dehistoricizlng, or discounting its teaching, or rejecting its claims to authorship.

Article XIX

We affirm that a confession of the full authority, infallibility, and inerrancy of Scripture is vital to a sound understanding of the whole of the Christian faith. We further affirm that such confession should lead to increasing conformity to the image of Christ.

We deny that such confession is necessary for salvation. However, we further deny that inerrancy can be rejected without grave consequences both to the individual and to the Church.

More On Fundamentalism

2005-09-25T09:08:00.000-04:00

A few weeks ago I touched on the idea of what a Fundamentalist is and believed; the post is here, if you don't know what I'm talking about or want to review it.

On SharperIron yesterday, I saw that I'm not the only person struggling with the issue, so I figured that I'd add some links so you could get some more background on what a Fundamentalist is.

The first post I read, and by far the best of the bunch, is found at Stuff Out Loud, by Larry Rogier. I'd never heard of this guy before, but he has an absolutely terrific post on what Fundamentalism is and why it came into existence, including what may be one of my favorite quotes ever. It's fairly long for a blog post, like he says, but it's very much worth the read.

Another Blogsite, Tall Skinny Kiwi, is another one that I know very little about, but he is interested in learning in and about Fundamentalism because apparently quite a few of us have been active on his website. So you may be inclined to read his post as well, and to follow some of the other links given. Make sure you read some of the comments as well, as they are also quite good. Another person also explains why he takes the name of Fundamentalist at Challies.com

Yet another person studies the differences between "Fundamentalists" and "Evangelicals"; the book that he notes and cites from [Reforming Fundamentalism, by George Marsden] is also a terrific book that is highly recommended.

And, of course, I must insert the standard disclaimer-

"While The Preacher may link to these websites, it does not necessarily mean that he endorses the comments, thoughts, written words, works, or anything that the person ever has written or will write. As a matter of fact, that may also apply to this website. It does mean, however, that he read it and thought, for whatever reasons that went through his mind, that you may find it enjoyable, challenging, aggravating, or infuriating, or possibly some combination thereof. You are hereby warned that anything linked to or quoted is not considered The Authoritative Gospel Truth, with the exception of The Scriptures themselves."

One of these days I'll come up with a shorter and better version of that. Hopefully it gets at least one good laugh from you, especially if you've ever looked at the little pink slips that BJ puts in its' library books.

...and that's why I'm not King James only

2005-09-24T10:58:00.000-04:00

I've been thinking about posting on this for a long time now; since I hit on it recently at SharperIron, I thought that now would be a good time to do so. I really don't like discussing this issue at all. However, since I quote from the ESV here and not the standard KJV, I hope this explains the reasoning behind it.

I've excerpted one of my posts from SharperIron to provide some background for you; I wrote this in responce to a charge of being Anti-King James Version by another member-

I apologize for anything said here on the forums that would seem to imply that those who are KJV preferred or KJV only are heretics; we certainly do not want to cause unnecessary fighting or divisions [which is what a heretic is, when you boil it down]. My pastor is extremely strong on the KJV, my churches have only used the KJV, and I've attended schools where some teachers [that I've had] have said that they are KJV only and would not ever change that. Frankly, what Bible version you and the others on this Forum use doesn't bother me in the least, as long as it's a decent translation.

The "KJV Only" crowd [in quotes] is what I'm arguing - yea, even fighting - against...the militant, hostile, "You must use the KJV because [Westcott and Hort were Anglican ministers or because the Vatican kept some Scriptural manuscripts or, even worse, because God preserves his Word [and then goes to cite an out of context Psalm]" or somesuch nonsense. I have had a few experiences with the "KJV Only" crowd that have made me want to take their KJV's and whack them with it. I know what it's like to have a friend say that he can't fellowship with me anymore because of this issue...it hurts!

I feel so strongly about this issue in part because of all the bad experiences, and also because... I wasn't saved out of the KJV, have almost always done my Bible reading out of another translation [NIV, then NASB, now ESV], and would preach from another translation if I were able to. I understand that most Fundamentalist schools are KJV only for their classes and chapel sessions [as school policy - inserted for clarity's sake here] and am fine with that. But as I am beginning my own ministry working in a teen group and teaching the Scriptures, I'd much rather have them reading a translation in modern English than having them struggle through the KJV. People won't love what they can't understand, and I fail to see the point in setting up a Fundamentalist "Shibboleth" that they must conform to in order to be considered a brother or sister in the Lord.

When I have adults coming to me and confiding that since they've switched to the _____ version, their devotional lives and Scripture memorization has gotten easier, more interesting, and more desirable, then I praise the Lord for it and encourage them along in it.

I was reading the Westminster Confession the other day and was struck by these two paragraphs...

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Westminster Confession, Article VII

All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Westminster Confession, Article VIII

But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated in to the vulgar [common] language of every nation unto which they come, that, the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner; and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.

That's the position that I am taking. I'm not doing it to offend you or anyone else and again apologize if I did; I'm doing it because the people of the 21st Century have the right to read the Words Of God in 21st century English, like the Westminster Confession's authors wrote.

The more I read and think about this 'debate', the more frustrated and obnoxious I become with the whole thing. If we are serious about God's Glory, then we ought to be serious about discipleship and evangelism. If we are going to be serious about discipleship and evangelism, then we ought to welcome whatever means appropriate [such as the printing press, and blogs, for two quick examples] to disseminate the Words given by God in the language[s] of the people that we are reaching out to.

I made a comparison, several weeks back in a different SharperIron post, to a child who wants to eat fruit cocktail. Instead of giving the child a can opener with the can so that they can eat the fruit cocktail, the adult hands them a can itself and tells the child that they can eat what's inside of the can after they can get it open. The child can't open the can with their bare hands, of course, so they walk away, frustrated and still hungry. So it is with the Scriptures. To hand someone newly converted a King James version and tell them to use that for their Bible study when there are perfectly acceptable alternatives out there in 21st century English, like the ESV, NIV, NASB, or the NKJV, is to handicap and cripple not only their study, but also their desire to read it and learn, which is the more grievous sin, at least to me.

When Mount Calvary Baptist Church in Greenville, SC began discussing the possibility of using two additional translations for preaching, they paid for each of the board members to have a copy of the NASB, which was one of the translations considered and eventually approved. A church elder/deacon, when called upon the night of the congregational vote, said that his spiritual life had been greatly improved since he'd started using the NASB, I sat up and took notice. You can download the audio of the entire meeting and vote at http://www.mountcalvarybaptist.org/translations.aspx; it's the third option down, titled "Mount Calvary's Translation Decision".

Over the last few weeks, I've been tracking how well the people that I know read from and learn from their KJV's. Many people within struggle with reading aloud the text itself. Some read it, and then accidentally impose on the text a meaning that is radically different from what the text actually means. When the people of God can't read or understand and accurately apply the Word of God, I grow extremely worried about the future of that church's congregation.

As those of you who are regular readers know, I recently started teaching in the teen group in my local church; the vast majority of them are unchurched [they only come once a week for the teen group and do not attend the regular church services]. All of them [last week we had around 19-25] stutter and struggle with reading the King James verses aloud. Some of it is that their reading skills are not as good as they might be. Some of it might be the pressure of reading aloud in a group setting. Some of it may be learning disabilities. All of it, however, could be counteracted by the use of a good common English version.

A friend of my mother's, recently diagnosed with cancer, asked her the other day for a copy of the Bible. She asked me about a particular study Bible, and I gave her my opinion. When I told my wife about the incident, she told me that we should get her an ESV. I found it interesting that even though my wife dearly loves the KJV and has told me in no uncertain terms that she will never switch from her KJV, she still immediately recommended an ESV for someone who has never read the Bible.

I would rather be thrown out of Fundamentalist circles than to weigh people down with a translation of the Scriptures that, although very good, is held on for too long to too many Christians' detriment. I would rather be rejected from my Alma Mater than cripple the desire of even one unbelieving person to read and understand the Word of God. I would rather be branded an outcast and heretic than to keep people from the Kingdom of God itself.

And that's why I'm not King James Only.

At Least A Shame

2005-09-23T07:55:00.000-04:00

But if this loss of biblical literacy is not disastrous, it is at least a shame, the fading of an aspect of our civilization that has enriched it. Without the set of archetypes and fount of wisdom in the Bible, our lives would be thinner and poorer. I know my own life would have been immeasurably less if I had never encountered the majestic language of scriptural stories, as told in the King James Version. I think of the Bible as our great joint cathedral, a place where, as Philip Larkin wrote in "Church Going," "someone will forever be surprising / A hunger in himself to be more serious."

Excerpted from The Wall Street Journals' Opinion Journal page. You can read the full thing here. While I don't agree with everything he says [although I don't even agree with what I say some of the time!], I think that he's right.

I've noticed in the last few weeks just how many people I know, including many kids in the church I attend who claim to be Christians, who are Biblically illiterate. Oh, they may know how to put the Bible books in order or to spell "Nehemiah", but the idea that the Bible might be inspired by God astounds them; an attempt to defend justification by faith from the Scriptures - short of "It's in the Bible" - is an utter failure. I remember teaching from the Old Testament for a Sunday School opening and having to look up the page numbers in the pew Bibles for the book I was speaking from so that they could find it. The audience, in case you are wondering, consisted of little infants to aged grandparents, with a fair smattering of the church leadership thrown in for good measure. To be fair, that book was from the Minor Prophets, where it's easy to get lost, and true, the things I've listed are easier for me, since I've had 6 years of Bible schooling [4 years undergrad and 2 grad], but I should hope that their faith rests on something other than 'It's in there somewhere...'

I don't know; maybe I'm being too critical. But it worries me greatly when people are better equipped to defend the car they bought last year than to defend the beliefs that are foundational to the Church and to the Faith that they supposedly hold to.

Why No Posts?

2005-09-13T19:44:00.000-04:00

No, I'm not on hiatus...not yet anyway. :)

The last two or three weeks have been extraordinarily exhausting and difficult for me; I do not intend to beg your your mercy or compassion, nor to whine to high Heaven about the cruelties of life. While I do not intend to fill you in on everything that's happened [if/when I ever decide to]; I will say this.

The temptation to use this blog as my personal sounding board is appealing. Too appealing, as a matter of fact. There are times when I have blogged simply for the satisfaction of blogging, not because I have anything that I particularly feel needs to be said. Some of my Katrina posts are like that. A few weeks ago, as I was reading either SharperIron or The BJ Grad Forums, someone mentioned, as an aside, what really drives people to blog. I wrote that question down and meant to revisit it later - in a certain sense, I still intend to. But in order to blog about it, I have to ask myself that question first.

Then Dr. Kevin Bauder had to come along and write a terrific post on his blog on the same lines. I'd encourage all of you to read it. So God has worked in my heart and head [the latter, of course, taking far more work on God's behalf before it finally sank in ;)] about reexamining why exactly I'm doing this, if it's profitable, and my priorities.

I say my priorities because right now I'm counseling two families, running a teen youth group, working a full time job, looking for another part time job or possibly a better paying full time one, and tending to my wife's health, which is still nowhere near where it needs to be. So my solution to this has been to pull a "turtle" and to withdraw myself from blogging until I'm sure why and how to do this so that it's not just Jay's kneejerk reaction on [insert hot topic here]; rather, that it's a well thought out and constructive [edifying] influence to those who read it, especially Christians.

I'm not going away forever - hopefully I'll be back with some more answers by this weekend, but that's why I've been so silent. I would ask you all to be praying for me as I examine what I need to do to be the best servant for Christ that I can be. Thanks.

Quick Thought

2005-09-12T23:10:00.000-04:00

"No one means all he says, and yet very few say all they mean, for words are slippery and thought is viscous."
-Henry Adams

Back to Normal?

2005-09-06T17:56:00.000-04:00

I know that I said earlier today that I would be touching lightly on Katrina, but I saw this earlier and figured that I'd pass it along. I would say that I'll be back to normal theological posting, but due to not only Katrina but some personal things, there will never be a return to 'normal' - at least not for me. I'll explain later.

Anyway, most of you may be familiar with Dr. Kevin Bauder, head of Central Baptist Seminary. He's recently begun writing articles for SharperIron and also began his own blog last month. He posted a new article yesterday on the Supreme Court vacancies that I found interesting and since it tied in with an earlier post of mine, I figured I'd link to it. You can read the full article here, and this is a little excerpt that I found interesting:

...Frankly, however, it is a mistake to aim for a [Supreme] court that will set conservative policies.

It is a mistake to have a court that sets policies at all. The business of courts is not to make laws, but to interpret them. The power of judicial review is not the power to shape national policy, but merely the power to determine the constitutionality of a given law.

Some liberals insist that the Constitution is a living document and that the court has the right to add to or subtract from the meaning of the text in order to make it relevant. Some conservatives object to the idea that the Constitution ought to be a living document at all. Both are wrong.

These conservatives are wrong because the Constitution was not intended in advance to cover every conceivable situation. When new circumstances arise, some mechanism must allow for the flexing of the constitution through addition, deletion, or both.

These liberals are wrong, not in thinking that the Constitution must be a living document, but in looking to the courts to breathe into it the breath of life. The Constitution grows and changes, not through the power of judicial review, but by amendment. The power to amend is reserved to the Congress and the states.
[Bolded words are added for clarity's sake]

This basically summarizes my thoughts on legislation and the judicial system. While I am in favor of passing laws that protect and serve the general public, I would disagree with those who would use the laws and the courts to shape public morals. The reason why I disagree with this principle is that the hand that wields the hammer changes - for example, the 'religious right' [whatever that means anymore] may have the power now to ban, say, homosexual marriages, but five years down the road that law may be repealed, like Prohibition was. Of course, that shouldn't stop us - we are called to preach the Word of God [I Timothy 4:1-2]. I also think that too many of God's people are too busy trying to usher in the Kingdom of God by the power of politics and not by the power of God.

In any case, I would recommend that you read the article and bookmark Dr. Bauder's blog.

Katrina Timeline

2005-09-06T08:27:00.000-04:00

As the focus of society shifts from 'what can we do' to 'who should we blame', I would think that a timeline on Katrina would be appropriate for anyone who is willing to use this disaster as a platform for political or social attacks. I still think that now is not the time for politics or grandstanding, but I also think that if you are going to be the despicable, that you ought to at least have your facts straight in terms of what happened and when.

Someone already put a timeline of Katrina related events together using the New Orleans Times Picayune as their basis. If you are interested in getting the straight story, click here.

In intend to go back to theological blogging this week, including the 'problem of pain', as I believe that C.S. Lewis put it, but there are still one or two things that I'd like to touch on, and I've got a whole new list of candidates for the Hall of Eternal Shame.

And, of course, if you haven't given yet, please go to Operation Renewed Hope and do so. It's the right thing to do.

Hall Of Eternal Shame, Part II

2005-09-02T08:32:00.000-04:00

Instapundit linked to this article sometime late last night; everyone here is eligible for the HoES award.

Here it is in full; Thanks go to Arthur Chrenkoff, who compiled the entire thing.

Hurricane exploitation - the quotes
Arguably not as stupid and inane as some of the quotes following the Asian tsunami (see here and here), one of the biggest natural disasters in American history has nevertheless provided many with a delicious opportunity to bash President Bush and the right side of the politics and the country generally. Here's the selection of some of the choiciest commentary.

1. Robert F Kennedy Jr suggests God is punishing those who scuttled the Kyoto Agreement:

As Hurricane Katrina dismantles Mississippi’s Gulf Coast, it’s worth recalling the central role that Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour played in derailing the Kyoto Protocol and kiboshing President Bush’s iron-clad campaign promise to regulate CO2…

Now we are all learning what it’s like to reap the whirlwind of fossil fuel dependence which Barbour and his cronies have encouraged. Our destructive addiction has given us a catastrophic war in the Middle East and--now--Katrina is giving our nation a glimpse of the climate chaos we are bequeathing our children.

In 1998, Republican icon Pat Robertson warned that hurricanes were likely to hit communities that offended God. Perhaps it was Barbour’s memo that caused Katrina, at the last moment, to spare New Orleans and save its worst flailings for the Mississippi coast.
When in the aftermath of the 2004 presidential election some observers suggested that the Democrats should "get some religion", I don't think that's quite what they meant.

2. Kennedy Jr. finds himself on the same wavelength as Muhammad Yousef Al-Mlaifi, director of the Kuwaiti Ministry of Endowment's research center, who penned an article titled "The Terrorist Katrina is One of the Soldiers of Allah, But Not an Adherent of Al-Qaeda":

When the satellite channels reported on the scope of the terrifying destruction in America [caused by] this wind, I was reminded of the words of [Prophet Muhammad]: 'The wind sends torment to one group of people, and sends mercy to others.' I do not think – and only Allah [really] knows – that this wind, which completely wiped out American cities in these days, is a wind of mercy and blessing. It is almost certain that this is a wind of torment and evil that Allah has sent to this American empire. Out of my absolute belief in the truth of the words of the Prophet Muhammad, this wind is the fruit of the planning [of Allah], as is stated in the text of the Hadith of the Prophet.

But before I went to sleep, I opened the Koran and began to read in Surat Al-R'ad ['The Thunder' chapter], and stopped at these words [of Allah]: 'The disaster will keep striking the unbelievers for what they have done, or it will strike areas close to their territory, until the promise of Allah comes to pass, for, verily, Allah will not fail in His promise. ' [Koran 13:31].
As a citizen of one of the major oil producing nations in the world, I have a feeling that Al-Mlaifi probably doesn't share Kennedy Jr.'s attitude towards the Kyoto Protocol.

3. Assorted Jihadis, however, are on a similar wavelength:

Islamic extremists rejoiced in America's misfortune, giving the storm a military rank and declaring in Internet chatter that "Private" Katrina had joined the global jihad, or holy war. With "God's help," they declared, oil prices would hit $100 a barrel this year.
4. Robert Kennedy Jr. was just one of a long list of those blaming the hurricane on global warming and therefore on that environmental vandal Bush. Ross Gelbspan in “The Boston Globe” was another one, but with far greater sweep:

The hurricane that struck Louisiana and Mississippi on Monday was nicknamed Katrina by the National Weather Service. Its real name is global warming.

When the year began with a 2-foot snowfall in Los Angeles, the cause was global warming.

When winds of 124 miles an hour shut down nuclear plants in Scandinavia and cut power to hundreds of thousands of people in Ireland and Britain, the driver was global warming.

When a severe drought in the Midwest dropped water levels in the Missouri River to their lowest on record earlier this summer, the reason was global warming.

In July, when the worst drought on record triggered wildfires in Spain and Portugal and left water levels in France at their lowest in 30 years, the explanation was global warming.

When a lethal heat wave in Arizona killed more than 20 people in one week, the culprit was global warming.

And when the Indian city of Mumbai received 37 inches of rain in one day - killing 1,000 people and disrupting the lives of 20 million others - the villain was global warming.
Global warming, currently curdling milk in Bulgaria and stealing pennies from orphans in central Africa, was unavailbale for comment.

5. Germany's environmental minister Jürgen Trittin couldn't agree more, although he didn't have much to say about the recent spate of tornados, earthquakes, freak meteorite strikes and locust that devastated parts of Bavaria:

By neglecting environmental protection, America’s president shuts his eyes to the economic and human damage that natural catastrophes like Katrina inflict on his country and the world’s economy... Many Americans have long been unwilling to follow the president’s errant environmental policy. Indications are multiplying that Bush has more than Katrina’s headwind blowing in his face... When reason finally pays a visit to climate-polluter headquarters, the international community has to be prepared to hand America a worked out proposal for the future of international climate protection. The German Government stands ready.
The citizens of southern states are very much appreciative of Germany's offer to provide them with an emergency new climate change framework, which I'm sure can be used for kindling fires and as a toilet paper substitute (seriously though, as James Taranto points out, the German government has actually offered some real help, which is always appreciated).

6. But Germany's environment minister was not the only one laying into the United States - Germany's economy minister Wolfgang Clement was also on hand to give a free kick:

Germany said on Wednesday the United States was partly to blame for record oil prices and should look to extend its refining capacity after Hurricane Katrina wreaked havoc at U.S. refineries, hitting output.

Economy Minister Wolfgang Clement told German radio that the damage to U.S. refining capacity caused by the storm would likely prompt American industry to buy more oil in Europe, which could further inflate prices.

"On this I must say the United States has had insufficient refining capacity for a long time, and this is presumably now impaired, so the situation is coming to a head," he said.

"It's a U.S. problem, a problem with American policy. It's to do with American planning rights which lead to yield expectations in investments in the sector not being high enough. I hope the American government reacts differently to this."
If I were cynical, I would think that there is an election coming up in Germany and the current Social Democrat government is way behind in the opinion polls. But I'm not a cynic.

7. Foreigners, however, were positively civil and constructive in their criticism of the Bush Administration. The real venom came from one's own, like Bob Brigham at Swing State Project:

Remember, this was a top-three "likeliest catastrophic disasters" and Bush shelved the study of how to protect against Category 5 hurricanes like Katrina? For most of Bush's time as President, FEMA has been saying this could be the deadliest scenario facing America. And Bush cut the preparedness funding, sent our strategic reserve National Guard troops to fight an unnecessary war and then went on vacation. Not only is Bush the worst President ever, but he is also a total a**hole for f***ing over New Orleans.
In the same vein, Patricia Taylor at the Daily Kos:

Historically, it is the National Guard, along with other emergency personnel, who attempt to provide emergency services to the community in disaster relief situations like Katrina.

And where are these National Guard right now?

Iraq.

If they are alive.
And Democrank at Democratic Underground:

EMERGENCY! EMERGENCY! I'm taking over for the Commander in Chief since he's busy lounging in California, all tanned and buff. Got to hand it to him.... he's got this wake-me-when-it's-over thing down pat. Just like during the Vietnam War. What a guy.

I want to reach the Louisiana and Mississippi National Guard units stranded in Iraq. Thought I could test this new Iraq "democracy" by asking each of them to vote either "yes" or "no" on coming home to help their family and friends. Katrina wrecked their states.
Or Mary MacElveen at Radio Left:

As we pray for those who are suffering in the aftermath of this horrific hurricane, in their memory let us fight back. Let us expose the duplicity and dishonesty of the Bush administration to all. He spent billions ending lives instead of using those billions to help a suffering people.
The angry left wasn't quite sure whether the Louisiana National Guard was unnecessarily getting killed or unnecessarily killing in Iraq, but all agreed that they should be brought home. A fuller list of natural disasters to pray for is being currently worked out to enable the left to call for the withdrawal from Iraq of the National Guard units from all other states. As an aside, it will be interesting to see whether the left, which criticised the Bush team for not getting the US military to stop the looting in the post-liberation Iraq, will now call for the troops to be brought back to shoot the looters in New Orleans.

8. The prize for originality in "blame the Republicans" stakes, however, goes to Russell Shaw at the Huffington Post, for whom basing the current Republican president is not enough:

Would New Orleans and the nearby Gulf Coast be suffering so terribly today if President Carter beat back Reagan in 1980?...

I am wondering if those voters in Louisiana and Mississippi who helped polluter-allied Reagan win in 1980 would have found themselves fated differently under a second Carter term. If Carter came in, we could have had an alternative fuels program and tighter auto emission standards in effect by now.
Ronald Reagan who, as we all know, served as President from 1980 to 2000, should indeed be condemned. Would I be suffering so terribly today if President Carter beat back Reagan in 1980 is indeed a question that I ask myself every day of my life.

9. Aside from bashing Bush, the Katrina disaster has also enabled the left to show their compassionate side, like Blunderford at Blogcritics:

I just stopped at the grocery store to pick up a candy bar... An employee approached me and said, "Would you like to give a dollar for Hurricane Katrina?"

I said, "No."

First off, I'm offended that the store employees are wandering around fundraising instead of helping customers, especially when it's so obvious that the store conglomerate uses these do-it-yourself machines to cut down on the number of employees necessary to help customers so that the store conglomerate can turn a larger profit while having fewer of those pesky union workers to deal with.

But beyond that, I'm sick of footing the bill for George W. Bush and the rest of his so-called compassionate conservatives.

Let Bush open his wallet. I'm sure he's still got a few nickels rolling around his pockets from flipping the Texas Rangers like a Miami condo.

You 60 million losers who voted for this loser open YOUR wallets. This president declared war on the poor long ago, and while some of us cared enough to vote for someone who gave a damn, you buried your heads in the sand, babbled about abortion and family values, and voted for the doofus.

And now you want to act all high and mighty and come asking me for a buck or two to help these poor people? Sorry, Charlie. Take an extra buck or two out of the fund you set aside to buy seventeen Support Our Troops magnets to stick all over your car to show how patriotic you are.

You want disaster relief? Impeach George W. Bush.
Oh well, but they care. Of course, when disaster strikes New York or Los Angeles, we can expect the same reaction from the right. Surely? Guys?

10. Joseph Cannon at BradBlog was initially feeling just as compassionate, but then he changed his mind - somewhat:

So why was I thinking of starting a movement against giving aid to the stricken areas?

Because these are red states. They voted for Bush. These ninnies obviously wanted these policies, and they deserve to live with the consequences of their votes.

A large part of me still believes that many of these W-worshipping numbskulls deserve to suffer and to die. They brought it on themselves. Let them look to Jayzuss for aid: It's time they stopped leeching off the more productive blue staters...

But then (to paraphrase the old song) I thought I'd better think it out again.

Many of the victims, the ones who have suffered the most, are poor. The hardest hit were the blue state folk living among the red state maniacs. New Orleans, we should note, went heavily for Kerry.

And that's why we must help. Although it was very tempting to say otherwise.

But let us make one thing clear: We WILL politicize this issue.

The Republicans did not shirk from making political use of 9/11, and we should not shirk from reminding the country that Bush turned what should have been a mere problem into Ragnarok.

Conservatives may accuse us of lacking taste if we use this sad occasion to point out sadder facts of political life. Cable news pundits will try to pretend that now is not the time for partisan politics.

If they say that, screw 'em.

If the Bush-voters want Californians and New Yorkers and other blue staters to fork over dough, then they damn well had better take our words as well. Republican policies caused this catastrophe. Force them to hear that message -- again and again. That message is the price of the charity they now demand.
Helping people based on the way they voted? Nah, who would ever accuse you of lacking taste?

11. But why not - after all, it has all been a conspiracy to drown the lower class - at least according to Flip Floss at the Daily Kos:

They will be scandal and rioting and rightly so in my opinion as the "Negroes" of New Orleans and tourists were left to drown.
More reading:

Global warming and hurricanes - The hurricanes aren’t historically on the increase, and the number of the most serious – category 4 and 5 – is down compared to previous decades (EU Rota has some nice tables). Hurricanes are also a part of a natural decades-long cycle of changing temperature of the Atlantic Ocean.

Bush diverted the money away from flood-proofing New Orleans - Two problems with that – New Orleans has been on notice since the previous devastating hurricane Betsy in 1965. Bush has been in the White House for only the last five of these past 40 years, so one might as well blame every other President since LBJ for not doing enough – and then ask, why should all the blame be laid at the feet of the feds, instead of sharing it with state and local authorities?

Experts in the Netherlands expressed surprise that New Orleans' flood systems failed to restrain the raging waters.

With half of the country's population of 16 million living below sea level, the Netherlands prepared for a "perfect storm" soon after floods in 1953 killed 2,000 people. The nation installed massive hydraulic sea walls.

"I don't want to sound overly critical, but it's hard to imagine that (the damage caused by Katrina) could happen in a Western country," said Ted Sluijter, spokesman for the park where the sea walls are exhibited. "It seemed like plans for protection and evacuation weren't really in place, and once it happened, the coordination was on loose hinges."
There's plenty of blame to go around for the past four decades.

More On New Orleans [Updated]

2005-09-01T19:08:00.000-04:00

Some more links and thoughts on New Orleans; I don't have lots of time, so I'm just going to provide some links and a few comments, like Instapundit, which is rapidly becoming one of my favorite websites.

First off, go to Operation Renewed Hope, if you haven't already done so, and make a donation - as large a one as you possibly can. I'd advise any pastors reading this website to take this ministry to their church boards and missions agencies for continuing support if possible; I hope to present it to my pastor and church board either tonight or tomorrow. It's operated under the auspices of Tri-City Ministries, so Fundamentalists don't need to worry about Separation or money being misused or anything like that. Then hit Anchor Baptist and see how you can help them. And finally, get involved with other Christians who want to help out at SharperIron.

Someone named Donald Sensing wants to know where the leaflets telling people in the hurricane stricken areas are, which seems to me like a great question.

Updated - Added Link - The issue of defensive force has been raised by several people; as much as I hate to say it, I think they're right. There's no reason to keep people there anymore - not with the entire infrastructure of the city utterly smashed, and when people are beginning to snipe at supply trucks, helicopters, and people evacuating others from hospitals, then I'd say that the kid gloves need to come off. I don't know about shoot to kill, but I'd be shooting first and asking questions later if it was my family or survival.

More first hand reports from the New Orleans Times-Picayune newspaper [which is currently publishing on a blog only format] and the ScienceGuy. There was some confusion as to whether or not Jefferson Parish is under Martial Law, but this story from Yahoo! News seemed to lay that to rest. There's some more horror stories here too.

That, of course, leads to the popular question of "What is the government doing, and are they doing it fast enough?" Check here, here, here, and finally here [more Instapundit] for some more thoughts.

Of course, someone thinks that Mayor Nagin has done a lousy job. Seems to be the case to me too, and I thought that before I read this. Another person agrees with him too, commenting:

People are crying out for the federal government to help New Orleans because the local leadership has failed. Where was the planning for potential disaster of the city's levees failing? It wasn't the hurricane that destroyed New Orleans but the subsequent breaching of the levees. The city was primarily structurally intact but the rising waters drowned the city.

It does not seem that Mayor Nagin of New Orleans and Governor Blanco of Louisiana implemented any plan for the collapse of the levees, in fact it does not seem that there was any plan at all. New York City's police department trains over and over for potential disasters from debilitating snowstorms to terror attacks. The perception being created is that New Orleans police were unprepared on how to react to city-wide chaos because they never trained for such a catastrophic event.

Someone else jumps on anyone and everyone who is trying to take advantage of this situation to bash the President. I've noticed this too, and the following people / nations deserve to be entered into the "Hall of Eternal Shame" [if there is such a place]:

Muslim extremists [big shocker there, huh?] Anyone who says that Katrina was a soldier of Allah and prayed that oil prices would reach 100.00 / barrel deserves it. Maybe it's just me, but don't rescue vehicles of all types need gas too?
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez [yes, the same one that Pat Robertson so famously talked about last week] for saying Bush is a 'cowboy' and is 'failing his people'.
Anyone who comments on my blog entries on Katrina in order to sell a product. No, I'm serious. I deleted six comments this morning that were sales pitches.
Anyone who even considers price gouging of any kind. People like that ought to be dropped into the middle of New Orleans with the clothes on their back and that's it. Let them make their way out on their own.

On the other hand, praise to all the countries who have already pledged or sent aid to help:

Switzerland
Germany
Japan [currently under a typhoon warning, to boot]
Saudi Arabia [they COULD cut gas prices, which would help a lot. But that's just me.]
Canada
Russia
England [the government and also the Muslim Council of Britain]
Australia
France [FRANCE??]
Philippines
Israel
India
Netherlands
Italy

[Hat tip for all the above goes to The Bad Hair Blog]

Update - Added - More candidates for the Hall of Eternal Shame, courtesy of OpinionJournal. You will need to scroll down a bit to get to the list; unsurprisingly, it starts off with Cindy Sheehan, moonbat extraordinaire. OpinionJournal has pointed them out before, but I'm angry enough that I'm going to mention it publicly - this link is to their Tuesday list and they acknowledged another NY Times slam in yesterday's edition of "Best Of The Web Today":

But We'll Do It Anyway...
"This seems like the wrong moment to dwell on fault-finding, or even to point out that it took what may become the worst natural disaster in American history to pry President Bush out of his vacation."--editorial, New York Times, Aug. 31 [Italics added by Jay]

To imply that the President had to be 'pried out of his vacation' is not only a cheap shot, but it's also unfair and flat out wrong. Bush was already making arrangements for Federal Disaster Relief and discussing troop and National Guard deployments with the Joint Chiefs; the Navy ships that have just arrived had to get orders and supplies from somewhere. Most of us should realize that a 'vacation' for the President is not a vacation like you or I take where we can leave work totally behind.

This guy is absolutely right...it's not about politics or race or social standing anymore - it's about being American and helping out our fellow countrymen and women. I do wish, however, he'd paid more attention in Grammar class =).

More On New Orleans

2005-09-01T12:06:00.000-04:00

Here's another sitrep excerpt [Situation Report], courtesy of the Washington Post. The aforementioned link will take you to the entire story.

Officials in Baton Rouge, La., yesterday painted a bleak picture of New Orleans' immediate future. Its 485,000 inhabitants are refugees or soon-to-be refugees -- ordered out of town because the town is unlivable.

Electric power is gone. Drinking water is gone. Sewage service is gone. Roads are destroyed. Tens of thousands of homes are buried in contaminated floodwaters. The dead -- still uncounted -- float in drowned neighborhoods or lie pinned beneath debris.

"I surmise that there are people in New Orleans who will not be able to get back to their homes for months, if not forever," said Michael D. Brown, undersecretary of homeland security for emergency preparedness and response. "It will be a Herculean undertaking."

News From New Orleans

2005-09-01T12:04:00.000-04:00

Via Instapundit:

Dear Colleagues,

I'm not sure how many of you know Bill Quigley. He is an amazing person, law professor at Loyola New Orleans, head of their clinic there. . . .

Anyhow, Bill's wife is an oncology nurse in New Orleans, and therefore decided she could not evacuate but would need to stay with her patients at the hospital. Bill apparently decided he would do likewise. Below is an interview with him about the situation in that city as of early Wednesday morning.
....

BILL QUIGLEY: This is sort of the nightmare scenario that everybody was really worried about, but the problem for New Orleans is that everybody who had their health, had money and had a car, they left. Okay, so we have probably 100,000 people trapped in the city right now, maybe 50,000 or 60,000 people in the Superdome who are there without electricity, without flushing toilets, without food, without water. And they are people who had to walk over there or take a bus, because they didn't have a car to get out.

There are people in nursing homes, there's people in these little hospitals all over the place.

And then there's still -- YOu can see when you're looking out the window at night, you can see flashlights in the water where people are walking around out in the neighborhoods completely dark. You see a flashlight where somebody's walking down the water. As you said, tomorrow night, you are not going to see those flashlights, because tomorrow night, they expect that we're going to have nine to 15 feet of water. So those people that are walking out there with flashlights, they're not going to be there.

And the hospitals are full. The hospitals are turning people away, because they don't have enough food and water to be able to take care of the people who are in the hospitals. So, the boatload of people that came apparently to the hospital this morning or this afternoon, a father, a mother and two little kids came in a boat, and the people at the hospital turned them away, sent them away, because they didn't have room for them. Another 20 people walked up to the parking lot -- parking garage. They had been in the Holiday Inn downtown. That Holiday Inn lost electricity, lost everything. So those people just left, and they have been wandering around the city looking for a place to stay, and the security guards had to turn them away. They sent them back into the flood waters because they didn't have enough food or water or that to even be able to take care of necessarily the people that are here.

So who's left behind in New Orleans right now, you are talking about tens of thousands of people who are left behind, and those are the sickest, the oldest, poorest, the youngest, the people with disabilities and the like, and the plan was that everybody should leave. Well, you can't leave if you're in a hospital. You can't leave if you're a nurse. You can't leave if you are a patient. You can't leave if you're in a nursing home. You can't leave if you don't have a car. All of these things. They didn't have - there was no plan for that.

And so, we are talking about somewhere in the neighborhood, I think, of 100,000 people probably in the metropolitan New Orleans area that are still here. And the suggestions from local officials are, you know, in the suburban parish next to us, they announced on the radio -- we have one radio station, have no TV, have no cell phones. Nothing. The only calls we are able to get are the calls that come in. And the suggestion was that people should take a boat over toward the interstate, and then they would pick them up there.

But, you know, these people don't have a car, people who live in an apartment with their mother, you know, people who are sick. That's why they couldn't leave. They don't have cars. They certainly don't have boats!

And so, there's a huge humanitarian crisis going on here right now.

AMY GOODMAN: Bill Quigley, I wanted to ask -- this is a bit of an odd question. You're a law professor. We usually talk to you about the crisis that's going on in Haiti, where you have been a number of times and represent, among others, Father Jean-Juste, who is in prison there. How does what you are seeing in New Orleans right now, how does it compare to Haiti?

BILL QUIGLEY: Well, you know, I had always hoped that Haiti would become more like New Orleans, but what's happened is New Orleans has become more like Haiti here recently. You know, we don't have power. We don't have transportation. At this point, I think, at least the people in the hospital have some fresh water, but they're telling people you can't drink the water out of the taps. So there's people wandering around the city without water, without transportation, without medical care. So in many senses, we have about a million people in the New Orleans area who are experiencing, you know, what Haiti is like.

AMY GOODMAN: Have you seen any National Guard?

BILL QUIGLEY: There are apparently some National Guard who are on the roof, who are helping with the helicopters. We have seen one or two here or there. There's been reports that there's thousands of them that are coming in, but again, I don't know how they would get in. People are not able to - you know, the communication system is so bad that for a large part of the day, the mayor, the chief of police, the governor and those people couldn't call the one working radio station. And so they had to walk into the radio station to be able to talk to the people who are out here trying to figure out what's going on.

So it is really a disaster, and the people who aren't in New Orleans, I know, are dying to get back to their houses. But the people who are in New Orleans are, in all honesty, dying, and there could be a lot more casualties unless there's a lot of help real fast.

AMY GOODMAN: Bill Quigley is a law professor at Loyola University. He was speaking to us from the hospital he is staying at, Tenant Memorial Hospital in New Orleans, where his wife Debbie is an oncology nurse. After we spoke to him early this morning, the electricity, backup electricity, went out at the hospital.

Completely and Totally Gone

2005-09-01T00:01:00.000-04:00

I haven't had time this week to say anything about New Orleans or the hurricane relief efforts in Louisiana, Mississippi, or Alabama, but I've got a few minutes now.

I think at this point we're no longer asking "Can we rebuild New Orleans?" but "Should we rebuild New Orleans?". I hate to even say it, but it's the truth...Bush is right. This cleanup project going to take years; the entire infrastructure for the city is gone. Completely and totally gone - the power company, Enterngy, has gone on record as saying that they will need to rebuild their entire power grid, and apparently all the societal infrastructure is destroyed, which means that we'll need to re-lay all the water lines, sewage lines, and natural gas lines [just for starters]. For two excellent blog posts on this subject, head to Captain's Quarters
here and here. There's also first hand blog reporting at Pink Flamingos.

A lot of blogs are posting links and urging people to donate for the disaster relief efforts; there's a fairly comprehensive list
here. Personally, I'd urge all Fundamental Christians to donate primarily to www.operationrenewedhope.org as well as some of the others, like the SPCA or American Red Cross. Also, don't forget to give blood - the Red Cross is already running perilously low this year in their blood supply and this is going to hurt them a lot.

As for the theology concerning this, I think what happened in the Gospel of John is appropriate for the day:

And his disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" Jesus answered, "It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him.
-John 9:2 and 3, ESV

There's also a better and fuller discussion of Fundamentalism's response to this disaster at SharperIron; kudos to Randy Melchert for getting the ball rolling.

Some people may wonder why I'm pushing hard for this kind of stuff, but it seems like Christian Fundamentalists are more typically known for the stupid things they say and do [e.g. Pat Robertson] than for doing the right thing. This is a chance for us to step up and show otherwise. Or as James said:

But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves. For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks intently at his natural face in a mirror. For he looks at himself and goes away and at once forgets what he was like. But the one who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer who forgets but a doer who acts, he will be blessed in his doing. If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person's religion is worthless. Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.
[James 1:22-27, ESV]

What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and filled," without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. But someone will say, "You have faith and I have works." Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe--and shudder! Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless?
[James 2:14-20, ESV]

[UPDATE] Apparently I'm having a problem linking to the Operation Renewed Hope website; Don't ask me why because all my other links work fine as far as I know. Hit the comments section and let me know if they aren't. I had to pull the link for ORH and put in the website title; just cut and paste it into your web browser. [/UPDATED]

[UPDATED 2] Fixed the link to Operation Renewed Hope. I really need a primer on Blogger's code since I'm used to putting it in manually instead of clicking on the little buttons all the time.[/UPDATED 2]

The Rocks Still Cry Out

2005-08-29T13:12:00.000-04:00

These are old stories; I bookmarked them a while ago and simply hadn't gotten around to blogging about them yet. The first story is taken from the New York Times, and the complete story is called "Digging Deep for Proof Of An Ancient Jewish Capital"; some archaeological research has turned up what may be the palace of King David. You can read the entire story here.

I'd give you the exact NYTimes link, but Blogger is having issues today and I don't feel like going through my post line by line for the bad snippet of code that's screwing me up. Sorry. The link above is the entire story reposted on another website.

Here's a brief excerpt describing why Ms. Mazar decided to search where she did:

Based on the Bible and a century of archaeology in this spot, Ms. Mazar, 48, speculated that a famous stepped-stone structure excavated previously was part of the fortress David conquered, and that his palace would have been built just outside the original walls of the cramped city, on the way to what his son, Solomon, built as the Temple Mount.

"When the Philistines came to fight, the Bible said that David went down from his house to the fortress," she said, her eyes bright. "I wondered, down from where? Presumably from where he lived, his palace."

"So I said, maybe there's something here," she added, referring to East Jerusalem.

The next story, although similar, is a little different. I caught this post at Ben's Friends blog, and here's the hyperlink to his story. Apparently a lot of major theological scholars had been using the non-existence of the Pool of Siloam as 'proof' that John's Gospel was not true. It would appear that those who believed John's account have now been vindicated with a whoop. Here's a paragraph from it:

The pool was fed by the now famous Hezekiah's Tunnel and is ``a much grander affair'' than archeologists previously believed, with three tiers of stone stairs allowing easy access to the water, according to Hershel Shanks, editor of Biblical Archeology Review, which reported the find Monday.

``Scholars have said that there wasn't a Pool of Siloam and that John was using a religious conceit'' to illustrate a point, said New Testament scholar James H. Charlesworth of the Princeton Theological Seminary. ``Now we have found the Pool of Siloam ... exactly where John said it was.''

Apparently, even the rocks are still crying out in favor of Christ.

Another loss... [Updated]

2005-08-28T01:25:00.000-04:00

My grandfather had a heart attack yesterday [8/27] and passed away around 12:45 AM this morning [8/28]. Please be praying for all of us as we deal with another loss in the family. Thanks.

Funeral arrangements are set for Wednesday, August 31 @10 AM. My current pastor will be doing the ceremony, and my wife and I will have to travel back up to NY the same day because of some scheduled things on Thursday. I will appreciate any of your prayers.

Why We Can't Illegalize Abortion

2005-08-26T13:27:00.000-04:00

Saw this earlier this week on the Wall Street Journal's Op-Ed page; it summarizes, in a nutshell, why I think that any effort to illegalize abortion in America is doomed to failure. The complete article is here.

This is a teaser to get your interest...

I fear the opposition to Justice _______ from the abortion lobby is not at all about abortion rights, because abortion rights are not affected by a mere notice statute. The opposition to Justice _______ is not really about abortion rights, it is about abortion profits.

By the way, there's a convenient E-Mail edition of the WSJ op-eds and their hysterically funny "Best Of The Web Today" collections available at their website. It's well worth reading, if you can spare five minutes a day [or even if you can't].

Grrr

2005-08-25T20:38:00.000-04:00

I'm having a lot of problems properly formatting my blog lately, and I don't know why. Please bear with me while I try and get the problems resolved. Thanks.