Reformation 21- A Reformed Perspective

2012-01-16T09:10:00.000-08:00

Heavenly Wisdom

Sorry its been so long since I posted.

Neh 6:12-13 ESV And I understood and saw that God had not sent him, but he had pronounced the prophecy against me because Tobiah and Sanballat had hired him. (13) For this purpose he was hired, that I should be afraid and act in this way and sin, and so they could give me a bad name in order to taunt me.

Here's the situation: Nehemiah and the Jews were rebuilding the wall and their chief opponent was Sanballat. They had hired a false prophet so as to ruin the reputation of Nehemiah. If they could get him agitated he might do something stupid and provide grounds to remove him from the project. I've been in this situation.

When I was a chaplain I had a supervisor that was an equal opportunity bigot. He didn't like anyone. It got so bad they began doing an investigation as a precursor to a court-martial. Then he came into my office and told me that he was retiring and going back to school. Would I write a letter of recommendation for him? I told him I would think about. And I prayed. It "dawned" on me (!) that if I did so then my testimony in the investigation would be suspect and throw everything into doubt. I eventually refused to write the letter and he was very, very angry.

This is why, as Paul Miller paraphrases Jesus, "We must be warm, but wary." The schemes of Satan are not often blatant and above ground. Pray for wisdom from the Father of lights so that you might walk blameless in a world infected deeply by dark sin.

2011-05-10T09:56:00.001-07:00

Moses and The Lord's Supper

Then Amalek came and fought with Israel at Rephidim. So Moses said to Joshua, "Choose for us men, and go out and fight with Amalek. Tomorrow I will stand on the top of the hill with the staff of God in my hand." So Joshua did as Moses told him, and fought with Amalek, while Moses, Aaron, and Hur went up to the top of the hill. Whenever Moses held up his hand, Israel prevailed, and whenever he lowered his hand, Amalek prevailed. But Moses' hands grew weary, so they took a stone and put it under him, and he sat on it, while Aaron and Hur held up his hands, one on one side, and the other on the other side. So his hands were steady until the going down of the sun. And Joshua overwhelmed Amalek and his people with the sword.(Exo 17:8-13 ESV)

I always fence the table (Reformed term to bring those in the congregation to consider the soberness of the Lord's table) with a brief sermon. It has always been the Reformed position that the Lord's table would NEVER be served without a sermon. Pretty much in our service after the Sermon follows the Lord's table. Sunday morning's personal reading was Exodus 17- where Israel is attacked by King Amalek. Now you may be wondering what in the world do Moses' arms have to do with the Lord's table?

I was pretty confused about this passage. Having been in combat, shot at, mortared, etc., I wondered what kind of way to make war is this? Moses was following God's strict instructions. Let me ask the question a different way- how would God best teach Moses that every footstep, every challenge, and every battle could not be accomplished without God. 1 Sam.17:17 couldn't make it clearer:the battle is the Lord's.

Jesus said, "Apart from me you can do nothing." In other words, Moses' tired arms were a very clear lesson that God's redemption of Israel was God's doing. When we gather at the Lord's table the simple breaking of the bread and serving of the wine serve to tell us a couple of things (there are more than this, but for now...). First, all of our own efforts, no matter how noble, no matter how noble could never bring us into a relationship with Christ. In other words, we are insufficient to redeem ourselves. The fact that it required and requires broken bread- the broken body of Christ shows our insufficiency. The spilling of of Christ's blood demonstrates our insufficiency to cover our sins (atone for them) and to assuage the wrath of God against sin.

Secondly, the bread and the wine serve as a very clear statement that Christ alone is sufficient to have lived a perfect life in obedience to the Law and endured as a perfect sacrifice for our sin. They are not simple reminders though- they are present realities, also, of Christ's sufficiency as the one who presently feeds and nourishes our souls for our spiritual nourishment and growth in grace.

Next time your arms get tired think of Moses...and Christ.

2011-03-05T13:58:00.001-08:00

On Using Info Here

Please feel free to link to this blog. I can't figure out how to reply to individual comments.

2011-03-04T16:35:00.000-08:00

Locking Arms

"A word came to me in secret-- a mere whisper of a word, but I heard it clearly. (13) It came in a scary dream one night, after I had fallen into a deep, deep sleep. (14) Dread stared me in the face, and Terror. I was scared to death--I shook from head to foot. (15) A spirit glided right in front of me-- the hair on my head stood on end. (16) I couldn't tell what it was that appeared there-- a blur . . . and then I heard a muffled voice: (17) "'How can mere mortals be more righteous than God? How can humans be purer than their Creator? (18) Why, God doesn't even trust his own servants, doesn't even cheer his angels, (19) So how much less these bodies composed of mud, fragile as moths? Job 4:12-19 MSG

Someone has once said about Job’s friends, “with friends like these who needs enemies?”

Job was not having his best day. His family had been wiped out along with his health. And Satan wants him to curse God and die. The question was not really why is there evil, but how can a good God be glorified in the midst of suffering and pain? Not only did Satan send calamity and wasting disease, worse, Job’s three “friends” show up.

In the first round of their responses to him, Eliphaz tries to make a case for his opinion all the while standing on the rickety ladder of “a scary dream” and a spirit which “glided” right in front of him. Commentators debate whether this was an experience he had or even one that Job had previously had. Nevertheless, the Message makes it sound downright laughable in a terribly painful situation.

It seems to me that Job already had Eliphaz’ number well before this happened. But when disease, sickness, job-loss, family problems or even death shows up on your doorstep the odd balls come out of the woodwork. I’ve had people come up to me on several occasions and said, “Why did you sin that God would do this to you?” or the ever-popular “God told me…” and then you can fill in the blank.

Now, there’s no arguing with a person who claims to have had this kind of experience. Like Eliphaz they say, “"Yes, this is the way things are--my word of honor! Take it to heart and you won't go wrong." (Job 5:27). It is useless to debate with them. Even Job responds, “"If my misery could be weighed, if you could pile the whole bitter load on the scales, (3) It would be heavier than all the sand of the sea! Is it any wonder that I'm screaming like a caged cat? Job 6:2-3 MSG”

Let me offer a suggestion- one that doesn’t come from an extra starring in Ghost Hunters. When the Hebrew Christians were undergoing very real persecution the author calls them to grab hold of what they learned about Christ and his priesthood and then (and don’t miss this) lock arms like they already had been doing. He uses a word that means “co-sufferers” in 10:34 (…For you had compassion on those in prison).

We probably aren’t going through persecution like they did (but many are in different countries around the world). Many, though, are getting slammed with bad news from doctors, the trials of raising children in a post-Christian/post-modern age, and a shaky economy. And the author of Hebrews says knowing what we now know about our Great High Priest let’s lock arms with each other. By way of illustration, I just finished watching the presentation by Apple President Steve Jobs on the new Ipad 2. He ended it with something poignant. He showed a street sign that said “technology,” and the other “liberal arts.” He said that their competitors are striving to come out with their own tablet devices and are talking “feed and speed.” But he said they’re missing the point. Apple has always tried to marry technology with the humanities to make a product (and I quote) “To make the human heart sing.” Wow! The author of Hebrews is saying the same thing. We get the right theological technology under our belts but we lock arms with our fellow Christians to “make our hearts sing” to God.

Take a lesson from Eliphaz and don’t try to encourage by singing Ghostbusters, but encourage one another by locking arms.

2011-03-04T16:34:00.000-08:00

Noteshelf for Ipad

A reader noted that the link to noteshelf for Ipad was down. I just checked and it is now working.

2011-01-24T08:30:00.000-08:00

Noteshelf App for Ipad

I am hopelessly addicted to taking notes. I had piles of notes from sermons I listened to and then went through the process of scanning them in each Sunday for storage. Now there's Noteshelf for Ipad.

I took the program through its paces yesterday in the Adult Sunday School class. First I opened one of my bible programs and took a screen shot. Next Noteshelf let me paste it into the notepad and then you can use one of several colored pens to annotate anything on the page (as you can see from the picture). I also pasted a portion of the Greek text into the notes.

The only drawback is that I would like to have the app be able to highlight rather than just underline or annotate. I'm sure this is coming or I haven't found it. You can take notes with your finger doing the writing, but I'm not fond of this. I have a couple of different stylus' (styli?) for the Ipad and the one I use most is the Boxwave stylus. You can adjust the width of the pen in Noteshelf so even having the stubby tip of the Boxwave stylus is not an issue.

The Ipad is notoriously sensitive and will detect if your hand is touching the screen. Noteshelf adds the option of using a slider on the side of the screen to eliminate this problem so your entire hand can rest on the screen as you take notes. Also, you can use the zoom mode to get a better result/better script writing on the notepad itself.

The app then gives the user several options for exporting what you have noted (pun intended). You can email the document as a PDF or upload it to several social networking sites. This really is a wonderful app. Available on the Itunes store for 4.99

2011-01-13T08:16:00.000-08:00

An Approach to Translation

Here is an update on the presentation I did with new charts comparing translations.

Just mouse-over to slow or stop the slide show for viewing

2011-01-13T07:25:00.000-08:00

And he stayed in Joppa

Sorry it has been so long since I've posted. Halloween, Christmas, and New Year's, along with some hospital visits, have kept me away.

Back in the 1950's, in the deep south, there were several demonstrations by both blacks and whites at Kress Soda fountain. Not only was this unheard of, it received stinging opposition. It "simply wasn't done." Now you get the feeling of what happened at Joppa, in Israel.

Acts 9 teaches us about the conversion of Paul to Christianity. But there was another conversion, of a sorts, going on in that chapter. Dr. Luke tells us that Peter healed Tabitha and then Aeneas, apparently at Joppa. Then there is one simple line, one verse that Luke slips in that blows the chapter out of the water,

And Peter stayed many days in Joppa with a tanner named Simon.Act 9:43 NASB. For the Jew it was prohibited to touch anything dead. You would become ritually unclean (Lev.13:11; Num.2:6; 9:2). Peter was staying in the home of Simon, a tanner. The place must have reeked with the smells of dead carcasses, leather being tanned, and vats of solution to tan the hides. And Simon himself was in constant contact with dead animals. To physically be in the house Peter himself would have become ritually unclean. Yet here he is.

Unfortunately, in Christianity, there is a strong separatism left over from Fundamentalist influences. There are some churches that have up to three "degrees" of separation; i.e., with whom they would not fellowship. While we are not to fellowship with those who pretend to be Christians according to Paul, I'm struck with Peter's wilingness to cross religious and social boundaries for Christ. It is an strong encouragement to reach across our boundaries and be uncomfortable to stay with them and fellowship with those whom some would place on the outside.

2010-10-18T12:31:00.000-07:00

Pillar of Fire

The LORD was going before them in a pillar of cloud by day to lead them on the way, and in a pillar of fire by night to give them light, that they might travel by day and by night. (22) He did not take away the pillar of cloud by day, nor the pillar of fire by night, from before the people.Exodus 13:21-22 NASB

2010-10-02T14:20:00.000-07:00

Bible Translations Compared

I have a friend that asked me about different bible translations. I put together a quick powerpoint presentation that you can view below.

2010-09-28T07:55:00.000-07:00

Ignorance is Bliss

Survey: Americans don't know much about religion - Yahoo! News

According to the article above, "Christians" are woefully ignorant of Christianity. What a surprise! Pardon my sarcasm but this is pretty much a vindication for me personally and professionally. Years ago I went through an assessment by a religious agency to see whether or not I was qualified for a position. One person asked me, "They tell me that you're 'intellectual.' How will you relate to people then?" I (sarcastically) replied, "Oh...I'll just tell stories."

Now, 5 years later the Pew Forum surveyed over 3000 Americans and discover they don't know much about religion. Atheists (!) scored the highest, knowing more about religion than Protestants or Jews. Postmodernists, at least "religious" postmodernists, have a mantra: Jesus is not a doctrine...he's a person. The fact that this has nothing to do with their main point aside, one has to have CONTENT in order to have a "relationship" with Jesus Christ. The writer of the book of Hebrews wrote to a Jewish-Christian congregation:

About this we have much to say, and it is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing. (12) For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic principles of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food, (13) for everyone who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, since he is a child. (14) But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil.Hebrews 5:11-14 ESV

They had heard the gospel (Heb.2:3) and trusted Christ as Messiah. But now they were in danger of turning their backs on Christ to return to the synagogue because of Roman persecution. It seems modern Protestants are in danger of turning their backs on Christ because they are more interested in the "I just want to love Jesus" mantra. I had an interesting conversation with a "pastor" some time ago. While we were talking about a mutual admiration for a fellow pastor's preaching ability he remarked that he didn't care for anything "deep." He just wanted to love Jesus. As we conversed I sensed that his Christianity was about a mile wide and 1/8 inch deep. And this kind of Christianity will not hold you up when tough times come: when you find out that you have aids, cancer, or your son is on methamphetamine.

According to one source over 100 million bibles were sold world wide. This doesn't include the number of bibles that were distributed free by various agencies throughout the world. Yet there is still this woeful ignorance. And that number likely includes all the latest study bibles to come along.

Historically, the Reformed expression of Christianity, and especially Presbyterians, have been leading the forefront in Christian education. When John Calvin, the Swiss Reformer, was challenged by his Catholic opponents over the issue of statues he had an interesting reply. They challenged him because they said most parishioners could not read so the statues and portraits of the saints helped them in their faith. Calvin replied that we need to teach them to read.

So rather than just be an angry curmudgeon over this let me encourage you to begin digging into your bible and reading it on a daily basis. Instead of listening to the local radio station, Rush Limbaugh or some CD, get the free Iphone app Bible.Is, and begin listening to the bible on your daily drive to work. Purchase an audio bible or get one from the library and listen to it. You might also find "You Version" bible app valuable. Both are free. The Navigators, among many others, have a daily bible reading guide. Dig, Dig, Dig. You won't be sorry.

Acts 17:10-11 ESV The brothers immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived they went into the Jewish synagogue. (11) Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.

2010-08-12T19:08:00.000-07:00

Law...without Grace

Now it came to pass, when the time had come for Him to be received up, that He steadfastly set His face to go to Jerusalem, 52 and sent messengers before His face. And as they went, they entered a village of the Samaritans, to prepare for Him. 53 But they did not receive Him, because His face was set for the journey to Jerusalem. 54 And when His disciples James and John saw this, they said, "Lord, do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them, just as Elijah did?" 55 But He turned and rebuked them, and said, "You do not know what manner of spirit you are of. 56 For the Son of Man did not come to destroy men's lives but to save them." And they went to another village. (Luke 9:51-56, NKJV)

I was reading this passage the other day and it struck me that the apostles John and James didn't get it. By this time in John 4, there had already been a revival in Samaria, led by the woman at the well. Gospel harmonies place this event contemporaneous with John 9. So it would seem in the minds of these two "sons of thunder" (read: hotheads) were likely very upset that Jesus, who had been so popular previously among the Samaritans, was now being rejected by them. They rejected him because he was determined to go to Jerusalem. And that was the wrong side of the tracks for the Samaritans.

The Samaritans were the old, sick and very young who were left behind when Nebuchadnezzar had invaded Jerusalem between 606 and 586 b.c. And to make matters worse Nebuchadnezzar had re-populated Samaria with people groups from among those he had conquered. Historically they changed the location of worship from Jerusalem (see John 4), and had altered the Law of Moses to fit their perspective and worship. They were considered by the run-of-the-mill Jew to be ranked right down there with Gentiles (non-Jews) as idolaters. So in one sense it is understandable that John and James showed no compassion. But Jesus' remarks point out that they simply didn't get it.

Jesus rebuked both of them and his remarks reveal some incredible viewpoints about how God views . First, Law without Gospel mandates punishment with no provision of grace that leads to repentance. In one sense, the Samaritans had rejected Jesus, the Son of God and Messiah. That in itself deserved punishment- to reject the anointed one of God was to place one's very soul in jeopardy. We read in the life of David that he dared not even to think about touching God's anointed king, at that time was Saul. Their mindset was punishment first- or..."Zap 'em, and let God sort 'em out."

Secondly, when our Lord said they did not know what kind of spirit that they were of, it shows us how they viewed themselves and Jesus and his mission. They apparently, like many of us, considered themselves "good sinners." Larry Bridges has a great book which the title says it all, "Respectable Sins." James and John considered themselves 'respectable sinners." Oh sure, they had been unbelievers, but hadn't they been there from the beginning? Hadn't they followed John the Baptist? And weren't they the first ones to follow him home and accept his invitation to become discipled? They had become..."churched." And they no longer saw themselves as on the same spiritual level as those to whom Christ had come to save.

Thirdly, Jesus' mission is ever-most at the forefront of who he is and what he does. He doesn't come to destroy men's lives. We've all been in the situation where we have heard the fire and brimstone preacher scream condemnation upon us for sins that we are ever aware of (thanks to the Spirit of God), yet he leaves the pulpit having bruised and battered the congregation, with no answer and no hope of being set free from the Law of God.

The Law of God is good- it does what God intended for it to do. It condemns our sin for what it is and shows us, not only what God requires for us to have a relationship with him, but the punishment for breaking his Law. Yet it has no power to enable us to fulfill what God commands. Either we leave hearing the sermon becoming an atheist because we been poisoned with frustration or we invent a new set of rules by which we think God will now accept us. J. Dwight Pentecost (my professor at Dallas Theological Seminary) said in his book, Design for Discipleship, that when we think we are going to be more acceptable to God because we keep a law, whether that be the Law of Moses, or a man-made law, then we have become legalists. And legalists are like forming a close friendship with prunes.

Michael Horton, professor at Westminster Seminary in California, has noted the Law is like a clipper ship at sea. It has a direction, sails, a captain, crew and rudder. It has maps to tell it where to go. The problem is that there is no wind. No matter how many maps you store on board, no matter how many times you wiggle the rudder, no matter how many times the captain screams at the crew to go, go, go, the ship isn't moving if the sails aren't full of wind. It is the Spirit of God who is given to us as a blessing and benefit of the New Covenant (Jer.31) that enables us to do what God commands.

Jesus' mission was to save men's lives. Sure, they must repent and believe: those were Jesus' first words in his first sermon (Matt.4). And by the way, every time you read an Old Testament prophet who brought the news of God's condemnation of sin (like James and John-Law) he also brought the good news of God's road to repentance (grace).

James and John are a lot like us. We are "churched" sinners who are in desperate need of re-contemplating the incredible grace of God to us who have been saved by grace. Law and grace are certainly not incompatible. With Law alone we are like the quadraplegic who just got his cane knocked out from under us. With grace by itself, with no repentance for breaking God's Law is like inviting the man to a group hug...there is only confusion as to why he would need it. Many preach about the love of God but leave out his righteousness. Many preach about the Law of God (his righteousness) but leave out his grace.

To be on the same mission with Jesus...we must teach and live both Law and grace. That's the gospel.

2010-08-11T20:51:00.000-07:00

Starving...and feeding the Soul

Someone once joked, "If fish are great brain food, are brains great fish food?" (Groans all 'round).

I don't know. But I do know that sometimes people foolishly starve their souls. Proverbs 10:21 reads,

The lips of the righteous feed
many,
But fools die for lack of
understanding.

There are a couple of Polaroid portraits here that are very vivid. The first one is the picture of a righteous person shepherding people and the second is the fool who starves himself in the middle of a banquet.

The "classic" word for righteous in Hebrew is "tsadiq." It is not just a moral position but one that portrays a believer in Yahweh, whose character splashes over into his conduct. It is the requirement for fellowship with God, in a legal sense, but deeply affects his character and relationship with other people. Those who are righteous before God (from a New Testament perspective- by faith alone in Christ alone through grace alone) don't keep it to themselves. The picture in Proverbs 10:21a ("feed many") really is one of lush green pastures. In other words, the words and teaching by righteous people are a banquet to the soul of those who listen.

In contrast, the fool is one sitting at a banquet and starving to death. He could care less what the righteous are saying- his way, he thinks, is always right. But do not think the fool in Proverbs is stupid; i.e., lacking some mental capacity. By no means. Often the fool is very intelligent. He simply is terribly unwise. The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament states,

"[fool] primarily refers to moral perversion or insolence, to what is sinful rather than to mental stupidity. This kind of a fool despises wisdom and is impatient with discipline. He who does not fear God is a fool and will be unable to grasp wisdom or benefit from godly discipline (Prov 1:7). While the wise accept godly instruction, the boastful or babbling fool who rejects it will fall down by the predicaments he makes for himself (Prov 10:8). Because a fool feels that his own way is without error, he does not seek or listen to counsel as the wise one does. The fool is overbearing in his attitude since he has all the answers (Prov 12:15). A fool despises his father's instructions, in contrast to the one who shows good sense in regarding reproof (Prov 15:5)." (Bibleworks Vol.8, electronic version).

The the character of the fool, then, also spills out into the world around him. And his soul shrivels at a banquet of wisdom. Do not think though that there aren't any repercussions for his foolishness. Note that key idea: "[the]...fool who rejects it will fall down by the predicaments he makes for himself (Prov 10:8)."

2010-08-09T12:47:00.000-07:00

Christ- the Wisdom of God
Solomon gives us a great video of wisdom in Proverbs 8:

Does not wisdom call? Does not understanding raise her voice? On the heights beside the way, at the crossroads she takes her stand; beside the gates in front of the town, at the entrance of the portals she cries aloud: "To you, O men, I call, and my cry is to the children of man. O simple ones, learn prudence; O fools, learn sense. Hear, for I will speak noble things, and from my lips will come what is right, for my mouth will utter truth; wickedness is an abomination to my lips. All the words of my mouth are righteous; there is nothing twisted or crooked in them. They are all straight to him who understands, and right to those who find knowledge. Take my instruction instead of silver, and knowledge rather than choice gold, for wisdom is better than jewels, and all that you may desire cannot compare with her. "I, wisdom, dwell with prudence, and I find knowledge and discretion. The fear of the LORD is hatred of evil. Pride and arrogance and the way of evil and perverted speech I hate. I have counsel and sound wisdom; I have insight; I have strength. By me kings reign, and rulers decree what is just; by me princes rule, and nobles, all who govern justly. I love those who love me, and those who seek me diligently find me. Riches and honor are with me, enduring wealth and righteousness. My fruit is better than gold, even fine gold, and my yield than choice silver. I walk in the way of righteousness, in the paths of justice, granting an inheritance to those who love me, and filling their treasuries. "The LORD possessed me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of old. Ages ago I was set up, at the first, before the beginning of the earth. When there were no depths I was brought forth, when there were no springs abounding with water. Before the mountains had been shaped, before the hills, I was brought forth, before he had made the earth with its fields, or the first of the dust of the world. When he established the heavens, I was there; when he drew a circle on the face of the deep, when he made firm the skies above, when he established the fountains of the deep, when he assigned to the sea its limit, so that the waters might not transgress his command, when he marked out the foundations of the earth, then I was beside him, like a master workman, and I was daily his delight, rejoicing before him always, rejoicing in his inhabited world and delighting in the children of man. "And now, O sons, listen to me: blessed are those who keep my ways. Hear instruction and be wise, and do not neglect it. Blessed is the one who listens to me, watching daily at my gates, waiting beside my doors. For whoever finds me finds life and obtains favor from the LORD, but he who fails to find me injures himself; all who hate me love death."
(Proverbs 8:1-36 ESV)

What I find amazing is that if you think of Christ as the wisdom of God, as Paul says,
And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, (1 Corinthians 1:30 ESV)

then you have a great portrait of Jesus

2010-08-09T12:25:00.000-07:00

She Cries out Downtown

I've always been deeply impressed by the wisdom found in the Bible and specifically in Proverbs. Solomon portrays wisdom in metaphor as if it were a woman downtown crying out for foolish people to listen to her. He writes,

Lady Wisdom goes out in the street and shouts. At the town center she makes her speech. In the middle of the traffic she takes her stand. At the busiest corner she calls out: "Simpletons! How long will you wallow in ignorance? Cynics! How long will you feed your cynicism? Idiots! How long will you refuse to learn? About face! I can revise your life. Look, I'm ready to pour out my spirit on you; I'm ready to tell you all I know. As it is, I've called, but you've turned a deaf ear; I've reached out to you, but you've ignored me. "Since you laugh at my counsel and make a joke of my advice, How can I take you seriously? I'll turn the tables and joke about your troubles! What if the roof falls in, and your whole life goes to pieces? What if catastrophe strikes and there's nothing to show for your life but rubble and ashes? You'll need me then. You'll call for me, but don't expect an answer. No matter how hard you look, you won't find me. "Because you hated Knowledge and had nothing to do with the Fear-of-GOD, Because you wouldn't take my advice and brushed aside all my offers to train you, Well, you've made your bed--now lie in it; you wanted your own way--now, how do you like it? Don't you see what happens, you simpletons, you idiots? Carelessness kills; complacency is murder. First pay attention to me, and then relax. Now you can take it easy--you're in good hands."
(Proverbs 1:20-33 MSG)

She's at the busy intersection of your city's downtown area. You can just picture her there as the people go past her on Blackberries and Iphones. When she does get their attention, she's treated as if she were some strange street preacher with a tin-foil hat that keeps aliens away from her mind. But there is a consequence for refusing wisdom- catastrophe will strike like a tornado. And in the midst of the rubble when one cries out for help...she will not be found.

Knowledge is simply not enough. I've seen the phrase "the truth will set you free" chiseled into some government buildings. That is sheer nonsense. It is nonsense because it leaves out the most important part of the quote- the part that Jesus said about our relationship to him: So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him, "If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." (John 8:31-32 ESV). So we're back to wisdom's Lady downtown.

Wisdom is the right application of the right amount of knowledge for the right situation at the right time. And what keeps many from wisdom, according to the Lady, is cynicism. Cynicism is hypocritical. A person pretends to maintain an aloof, "objective" posture to be able to see both sides of all questions and an "I doubt" attitude. But really it is cutting yourself of from the pain of a relationship when that relationship gets hurtful (I'm indebted to Paul Miller and his book, A praying life," for these insights). It is a way to be uninvolved. It is pride pretending to care.

Let me encourage you to pick up the book of Proverbs today and listen to the Lady downtown.

2010-08-09T12:18:00.001-07:00

Bible.Is

You can see below a way to make your own audio bible. It will cost you about 50 bucks or so for different versions. Yesterday I discovered the Iphone app Bible.is. One of the comments below also referred to it. You can find it here.

I have to say I'm truly blown away by this bible app. When the Iphone 3G came out I paid about 39.00 for a bible app that had the ESV and NASB. Bible.is. has those, plus many, many more, for free. And there is a built in audio bible reader that will stream plain reading or a dramatized version. PLUS (as if that's not enough) there are several bible reading plans built into it such as McCheyne's. AND...(!) the app has a tunnel to post verses and plans to your Facebook page or Twitter. Check out the video here

2010-08-06T10:12:00.000-07:00

Audio Bible kit

Sorry it has been so long since I've posted. I have a friend who is in dialysis three times a week for many hours. He was really excited about his new Iphone so I worked up an audio bible for him. Here's how to do it. (PC only)

You'll need:
1. Text of a bible- I used the ESV- you can obtain it by downloading the free program e-sword (Link is on this page).
2. 2nd Speech center. It is NOT a free program, but worth every penny.
3. A "voice" installed to read the speech using 2nd Speech center. I use several of the voices available- they do have a cost (Such as Cepstral Lawrence), but again, it is worth it.
4. SAPI- this is the engine that drives the text-to-speech. You can download it here.

Install everything.

How to create the audio bible:
1. Using e-sword select the book/chapter that you want.
2. Copy the text- in e-sword you can select the range of verses that you want. Select the verses that you want and copy. You also can select the format the text will be in; i.e., with verse numbers, straight text, etc.
3. (Optional- use your word processor and paste the text into a new file. Save it)
4. 2nd Speech Center will automatically pop a window up asking if you want to paste the copied text into a new file. Select New.
5. Use the settings in 2nd Speech center to save the file as an mp3 or format that you want to use- I use the mp3 so that I can download it to my Iphone.
6. Click "read to mp3."
7. Then download the mp3 to your device.

Tips:
1. You will have to teach 2nd speech center how to pronounce some of the words/names.
2. I've discovered that Cepstral Lawrence, a British accent voice, has a hard time with some simple word such as "lives." Is this pronounced as "he lives" or a possessive as in "their lives." Also, if you opt for verse numbers in the text such as 1:1 it will read aloud "1 to 1."
3. To "teach" the pronunciation go to 2nd Speech center, select options, pronunciation, and in the right hand side type the word to read and a phonetic equivalent below it, then test it. You'll have to experiment here. If you can live with what is already there, then don't bother.

Enjoy driving, hiking, jogging while listening. There are things you pick up when the text is read that you don't notice when you're reading. This process sounds (!) elaborate but it really is easy. I just let things run in the background while I do other work and finished the entire bible porting the text to mp3 over two or three days.

Another advantage of e-sword is that there are several different versions available so you can listen as you please. Also, though I used Lawrence a lot, for Ruth and Ester I used a female voice. More voices are at this link.

2010-04-23T12:37:00.000-07:00

Tactics- A tactical review

Gregory Koukl has written a wonderful book on sharing Christianity through conversations. What I really enjoyed about the book was the simple, direct approach that he offers- this is no swoop-in-kamikaze evangelism, but genuine conversations with people whom you come into contact with on a daily basis.

Koukl's basic approach is the "Columbo" technique where you ask simple questions that clarify statements made by the other person in the course of conversation. He deals with a lot of the standard silly comments that people make such as "There are so many different interpretations," or "the bible was just written by men," etc.

I do have to say that this is not a casual book for the casual evangelist. You really have to want to be able to engage your neighbor. While you don't necessarily have to have a degree in apologetics, it is wise for you to study in each of the areas that Koukl explores. He does give very good references in the book so that you may follow up as you need to.

Highly Recommended

2010-04-20T19:10:00.000-07:00

Waltke and Theistic Evolution

Dr. Dominic Aquila, president of New Geneva Seminary and head honcho at the Aquila report brought my attention to Dr. Bruce Waltke's position on evolution that eventually led to his resignation from Reformed Theological Seminary.

Dr. Waltke is a Hebrew scholar of the first kind. He had already moved on when I arrived at Dallas Theological Seminary in the mid-1980's. But his works, including the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament are standards for the scholarly pastor. But it seems to me that being very learned in one area doesn't necessarily mean that one is qualified in another area. (I hope you sense the irony here- Dr. Waltke's degrees are in language...mine in theology).

Waltke makes it very clear he holds to two ideas: 1) He is not a scientist and 2) He holds to theistic evolution or a modified form of intelligent design. Now, back in the late 90's/early 2001 I realized I had gotten way behind in reading in the creation-evolution debate. So I began reading from all quarters to include theistic evolutionists like Hugh Ross, evolutionists such as Stephen J. Gould (Structure of Evolutionary Theory. The one thing I discovered was that there was no way I could ever come out of the mix as a theistic evolutionist.

Gordon Clark, the Reformed Christian Philosopher noted that there are no such things as "free floating facts." IF we believe that scripture is sufficient for faith and practice, we are at the same time affirming that the areas in which it speaks, these must de facto be true. This is NOT to say that Genesis 1-3 is a science manual. It was never intended to be. And yes (a nod to the "framework" guys) something can be both a polemic (against the polytheism and henotheism) during Moses' period while ALL THE WHILE BEING LITERAL. This means that instead of free floating facts subject to whatever interpreter is the cleverist, we take the biblical view on creation.

Yes, the Presbyterian Church in America holds that the Westminster Divines were not all unanimous in their view of a literal 24hour-day creation. That doesn't mean either the PCA or the Westminster Divines for that matter are correct. We must first, and foremost, go to the scriptures and let them speak.

I believe that Genesis 1-3 is literal; i.e., that God created the world in 6 24 hour day periods and rested on the 7th (taking "rest" as cessation from his creative work). Here's the reasons why:
1. There is nothing in Genesis 1-3 that suggest we do not take the information there at face value.
2. When "day [yom]" in Hebrew is used with a number it means 24 hour day periods.
3. Theologically, the Sabbath system rests on the fact of a literal 24 hour day period (Ex 19, 20)
4. Adam must be taken as literally as a day since Hosea 6 and other Scriptures affirm the historicity of the first man.
5. Theologically, the historicity of the story of the Fall is the foundation for Paul's apostolic teaching on the justification of faith of the many (Romans 4, 5).
6. Historically, Jesus held to the historicity of a historic person named Adam.
7. And as, on the Night line or 20/20 show, Answers in Genesis points out that if theistic evolution is true ala Waltke and Ross, then how can Paul say with any sincerity that by one man sin entered the world, and through that sin, death. There would have to be LONG periods of time where evolution percolates, animals and men-like creatures live, die, live die. This is central to theistic evolution (but not to intelligent design) and ultimately undermines the theology of sin, and salvation and therefore Christ's work on the cross.

A Christian CAN hold to theistic evolution, though I think, like Ricky Ricardo said to Lucy, "You got a lot of 'splainin to do." But I believe if a professor holds to that view, it means that he ultimately is influencing young minds of men and women that encourages them to NOT think synthetically but to be shaped around the mold of this world (Romans 12:1-2).

2010-02-23T11:10:00.000-08:00

Trouble's Shadow

I was studying Proverbs 12:21 this morning: 21 No harm befalls the righteous, But the wicked are filled with trouble. (NASB). That sounds like a promise but one has to be careful.

Firstly, Proverbs are general statements of truth. They are applicable sometimes, depending on the context. For example, Proverbs 9:8 reads: Do not reprove a scoffer, or he will hate you, Reprove a wise man and he will love you.NASB You just have to figure out whether the person you're talking to is foolish or wise.

Proverbs 12:21 doesn't mean that bad things won't happen to the righteous. The word "harm" means an evil that leads to more evil and ultimately to the emptiness of idolatry. In other words, those that are (Biblically) righteous (by faith in Christ alone), will not fall away permanently so as to become evil at the root of their nature and will not become idolatrous. Unfortunately, the wicked not only swim in evil they're inner life is empty idolatry.

Those are strong words, to be sure. But there is a qualitative difference between those who walk with Christ and those who don't, or at least it should be. The Westminster Divines, those men who crafted the Westminster Confession of Faith, wrote in Chapter XVII:2, II. This perseverance of the saints depends not upon their own free will, but upon the immutability of the decree of election, flowing from the free and unchangeable love of God the Father;. This, of course, is not permission to sin since "once saved always saved." One who believes that hasn't read Romans 6. We do not swim in sin so that grace might increase. Rather, sin no longer has authority over us to mandate our behavior. In other words, we are free to not sin. Nor does this imply that we can come to a spiritual state of "perfected holiness" where we no longer continue to sin. Rather it means that, generally speaking, the believer, the "righteous" person, is to walk humbly and is not characterized by practiced empty idolatry.

2010-01-14T11:21:00.000-08:00

Wise as serpents

Jesus told the apostles, before he sent them out to preach, that they had to be as wise as serpents but as harmless (innocent) as doves. It is clear that Pat Robertson has ignored his bible. Let's suppose that his comments about Haiti making a pact with the Devil are true. Let's suppose that even 10%percent of the population did this 200 years ago. Is this something that you want to hear at the height of the most devastating disaster to hit this country in 200 years? I would ask what efforts have been made by CBN (the broadcasting arm of Robertson) to relieve the Haitians of their pagan ways?

There is an interesting exchange at Newsbusters.org on this.

2010-01-14T11:16:00.001-08:00

Update to Pat Robertson video

I'm not a fan of Rachel Maddow. I think she is just another talking head with little substance. In fact, she once criticized a conservative who quoted from the preamble to the US constitution by saying there was no preamble. (We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.). Yet interviewing the ambassador from Haiti on her show provided a good service to viewers. The Ambassador notes that the revolution of the Haitian slaves provided for the Louisiana purchase (at .03 cents an acre), and the freedom of South America.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

2010-01-13T13:02:00.000-08:00

Haiti...and God's Judgment?

By now most of you have heard of the devastating earthquake in Haiti. The Drudge Report lists that perhaps as many as half-a-million people may be dead. The first thought that went through my mind (other than 'How can you wrap your mind around such devastation and suffering?') was "I wonder how long it will take for some prophetic pundit to opine that this is God's judgment on Haiti. Well...getting back to my desk I discovered that Pat Robertson is at it already:

Pat Robertson on Haiti Disaster
Uploaded by burghnews. - News videos from around the world.

Essentially he says, the Haitians made a deal with the devil to get rid of the French.

The Haitians threw off the domination of the French in 1791. Fighting and negotiations went back and forth until 1804 when they declared independence. But picture what Robertson is REALLY saying. He is saying that God has been holding a grudge for 206 years and is now just getting around to punishing them.

It is clear from the Bible that many natural "disasters" are the result of direct intervention by God. A cursory reading of the following passages will demonstrate this: (ESV) Eze. 2:5; 6:14; 24:27; 25:11,17; 26:6; 28:23,24,26; 29:9,16,21; 30:8,19,26; 32:15; 33:29,33; 35:15; 36:38; 38:23. And it is clear from those passages that God is specifically bringing judgment upon Israel and the surrounding nations for their presumptuous sin and pride. BUT, (and this is a big one) how does one know if ANY particular disaster, such as this earthquake, is directly from God... or the result of living in a fallen world where tectonic plates rush up against each other?

The answer is, without direct revelation, one cannot know. Sure, many Haitians are involved in pagan religions: Santeria, Voodoo, witchcraft, etc. But there are also strong Christians from many denominations there as well. Is God taking it out on them? Yes, the righteous often suffer along with the unrighteous. But without a specific prophecy from a biblical prophet, saying things that Robertson has said is just harsh and judgmental. In the clip, you can see that they are soliciting money for Haiti. If Haiti is being judged as Robertson says, then why bother helping them? Wouldn't that be going against God? You can see where this eventually goes.

My take on this is if you want to help, pray first. Then any financial aid should go to International Relief societies such as the International Red Cross.

2010-01-04T08:30:00.000-08:00

Avatar of the Avarice

Let me say at the outset that I really enjoy watching movies. Except chick flicks. I also have to say that I've not seen Avatar. I will see it soon. And I'm not against relaxing or entertainment. But I was a bit shocked that the movie has now a 1 billion dollar income. How can you picture a billion dollars? Look at the picture here. This is some 900 plus million dollars.

When I was in Iraq the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) gave one million dollars to the Ar Ramadi Province. I walked into the meeting and here is 1 million sitting in a nice stack on the table. Most of us had our pictures taken with the million smackers. It was amazing that there was that much money in the room.

It amazes me that people have one billion dollars to spend on being entertained. Imagine where that money could have gone. I know, I know, it was Judas who griped that the money which could have come from the perfume used to anoint Jesus could have been given to the poor. What he really wanted was his cut which he would have skimmed off the top. And Jesus' response was that it is proper to worship him and you would always have the poor with you. But just imagine how many churches could be built, how many poor could be fed, how many missionaries could be supported with a billion dollars. A cynic might say that some Christian should produce an Avatar movie. That's not likely to happen considering evangelicalism's disdain for the arts.

Scratch beneath the service and 1 billion spent on entertainment seems to me to be a bit like self-worship. And I include myself with some shame.

2010-01-04T08:23:00.001-08:00

Thanks,

I've not posted for some time for two reasons.

1. People can be vicious. I admit, I don't have the stomach anymore for people sending me nasty-grams. I tend to spend a considerable amount of time studying and thinking, in writing and in various projects. When I want to learn something, I read all I can on the subject. I wouldn't say I'm an expert but I like the term "fluent." Then, inevitably, someone comes along whose entire reading and study on the subject is what they have gleaned from the latest Spiderman comic (I like Spidey). They pontificate viciously. This is postmodernism at its best... or worst. They care little for information but defend and proselytize an idea because they fell it SHOULD be what they are saying. (By the way, read Robert Bork's "Tempting of America" if you want to see how this applies to politics and the Supreme court since this country's inception). Again, I just get tired of this.

2. I can be vicious. Look, I survived Catholic school. I love the education I got- no one can beat Sister Pierre, Ignatius, Aloysius for instilling good theology (the Trinity) and a love of reading. But I survived because I learned how to fight. It isn't becoming and really is a mark of a fool- Pro 12:16 ESV The vexation of a fool is known at once, but the prudent ignores an insult.

Someone sent me a nice note today- and it encouraged me to keep going. BLessings on you as God works on me.

2009-11-11T10:08:00.000-08:00

New Covenant people don't believe in hell

What a biblically unsound mess this is

Notice that this is a parody of God. He is portrayed as petulant, begging people to trust him, and that his singular defining characteristic is "love." Yet if one bothers going to the bible, you will find that God's sovereignty is first and foremost, and permeated by his holiness.

In Ezekiel 25, God pronounces judgments on Ammon, Edom and the Philistines. Note these verses:
(Eze 25:5) I will make Rabbah a pasture for camels and Ammon a fold for flocks. Then you will know that I am the LORD.

(Eze 25:11) and I will execute judgments upon Moab. Then they will know that I am the LORD.

(Eze 25:14) And I will lay my vengeance upon Edom by the hand of my people Israel, and they shall do in Edom according to my anger and according to my wrath, and they shall know my vengeance, declares the Lord GOD.

I will execute great vengeance on them with wrathful rebukes. Then they will know that I am the LORD, when I lay my vengeance upon them."

Some who would have you think that God is "nice" miss these verses where God's wrath (ultimately demonstrated upon Christ on the cross for our sin...and yes, in hell for unforgiven sin) is THE medium whereby God makes himself known. A "nice" God most certainly wouldn't say things like those said in Ezekiel. But a holy God whose very person is deeply and infinitely offended at sin would. Here's a refutation of some of the things this "Doctor" says

greatest fool- He states only the greatest fool would believe in hell. I don't think he wants to go where this will take him. Jesus clearly taught a doctrine of hell. This doc says that the Hebrew and Greek bibles do not have the word hell. This is just plain silly. Of course it doesn't have English in Hebrew and Greek. One of the Hebrew words is "Sheol" which can mean a hole in the ground (or cave) as a burial plot, it can mean the unseen underworld of punishment. In Greek the words are Gehenna, Hades, etc. Gehenna referred to the burning garbage dump outside of Jerusalem and was referred to by Jesus in the gospels. Vine's (electronic) Expository Dictionary of New Testament words states,

geenna (G1067) represents the Hebrew Ge-Hinnom (the valley of Tophet) and a corresponding Aramaic word; it is found twelve times in the NT, eleven of which are in the Synoptists, in every instance as uttered by the Lord Himself. He who says to his brother, Thou fool (see under FOOL), will be in danger of "the hell of fire," Mat_5:22; it is better to pluck out (a metaphorical description of irrevocable law) an eye that causes its possessor to stumble, than that his "whole body be cast into hell," Mat_5:29; similarly with the hand, Mat_5:30; in Mat_18:8, Mat_18:9, the admonitions are repeated, with an additional mention of the foot; here, too, the warning concerns the person himself (for which obviously the "body" stands in chapter 5); in Mat_18:8, "the eternal fire" is mentioned as the doom, the character of the region standing for the region itself, the two being combined in the phrase "the hell of fire," Mat_18:9. To the passage in Matthew 18, that in Mar_9:43-47, is parallel; here to the word "hell" are applied the extended descriptions "the unquenchable fire" and "where their worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched."
That God, "after He hath killed, hath power to cast into hell," is assigned as a reason why He should be feared with the fear that keeps from evil doing, Luk_12:5; the parallel passage to this in Mat_10:28 declares, not the casting in, but the doom which follows, namely, the destruction (not the loss of being, but of wellbeing) of "both soul and body."
In Matthew 23 the Lord denounces the scribes and Pharisees, who in proselytizing a person "make him two-fold more a son of hell" than themselves (Mat_23:15), the phrase here being expressive of moral characteristics, and declares the impossibility of their escaping "the judgment of hell," Mat_23:33. In Jam_3:6 "hell" is described as the source of the evil done by misuse of the tongue; here the word stands for the powers of darkness, whose characteristics and destiny are those of "hell."
For terms descriptive of "hell," see e.g., Mat_13:42; Mat_25:46; Phi_3:19; 2Th_1:9; Heb_10:39; 2Pe_2:17; Jud_1:13; Rev_2:11; Rev_19:20; Rev_20:6, Rev_20:10, Rev_20:14; Rev_21:8.
Notes: (1) For the rendering "hell" as a translation of hades, corresponding to Sheol, wrongly rendered "the grave" and "hell," see HADES. (2) The verb tartaroo, translated "cast down to hell" in 2Pe_2:4, signifies to consign to Tartarus, which is neither Sheol nor hades nor hell, but the place where those angels whose special sin is referred to in that passage are confined "to be reserved unto judgment"; the region is described as "pits of darkness." RV

all sin has been dealt with- This is the standard Universalist claim. It rests on a slippery foundation since it is clear that the Old Testament and New Testament both teach that there will be people, nations cast into the outer darkness, and especially in Revelation, a place prepared for the devil and his angels, where the smoke of their torment arises FOREVER.

What a further penalty says about the judge- The speaker states that this implies God is petty and revengeful. But when one understands the speaker's take on what caused the fall (eating fruit and talking to snakes) he makes a parody of God's holiness. Wrapped around the fall of mankind is the mandate of obeying God. God is not capricious but chose that man should live in relationship with God, in perfect obedience and love. His disobedience (it could have been eating a hotdog or wearing his jeans backwards...the point is that God was disobeyed) is an offense to a perfect, righteous and holy God. God's penalty for sin is death (Rom.3:23, Rom.6:23). Christ died for our sin.

sweet Jesus angry God- He pits Christ against God. Isn't it amazing that "sweet" Jesus said that the religious clerics of his day would "die in their sin" if they didn't believe in him as Savior(Jn.8:21-24). This "sweet" Jesus is an ancient heresy where Marcion rejected the "vengeful" God of the Old Testament. God very clearly states that he loved Jacob, (one of the Patriarchs) and hated Esau.

something sick about a Father like that- There's only something sick if God is not holy. If he is holy then it is we who are sick.

No one would rationally think about such a hell- This is why we have revelation from God in the bible that tells us, very clearly, that hell is reserved for those who reject Jesus Christ as Savior. And this is why Christ died on the cross for our sin.

Let me recommend that not only do you read the bible and what it says about hell, but also recommend Robert Peterson's book "Hell on Trial." I have taken classes from Dr. Peterson and he refutes, point by point, those who would deny hell.

2009-11-11T09:18:00.000-08:00

Fear of Islam and PC

It has now been several days since the horrific shooting at Fort Hood. And the media pundits are apparently ganging up on the US Army that they "should have known better" and alerted SOMEONE concerning the alleged psychiatrist Army major. Having been an Army chaplain perhaps I might provide some insight into the issue.

Someone has once said that hindsight is 20/20 prophecy. While that may be true I believe the human mind recoils at the thought of someone going into a crowd and shooting. It most certainly isn't part of our daily experience. Having served with Muslim chaplains (and many other 'faiths') the idea isn't foremost in my mind. Yet there is a political correctness in the Army chaplaincy... as there is in ANY institution. The question is what kind of pc is present. In most chaplain gatherings there isn't a discussion of interfaith theology. This isn't bad or good, it just tends to be that way. But there is a subtle hands-off pressure when it comes to Muslim chaplains and female chaplains. No one wants to appear to be a bigot or misogynist. I have seen female chaplains do highly illegal (financial) things and yet get promoted. I've also seen male chaplains do immoral things and get promoted. I once had a supervisor who was a female Lieutenant Colonel. During my evaluation report review she candidly said she never would know whether she got promoted on her merits as an officer or whether they promoted her because she was a female. That nagged at her and I can readily understand why.

The first question I suppose is whether or not someone had the pc policy in play when they promoted this major. Usually what happens is that one's remarks don't get into the Officer Evaluation Report. There are three people in this chain of reporting. The first is usually the Executive Officer. Next up is the chaplain supervisor, and the senior rater is usually the Commander (for the chaplains). For the Psychiatrist in question his intermediate rater was likely his medical supervisor. If those comments of his did not affect his job performance then they were likely ignored. But curious is that the Major's behavior was apparently full of indicators of suicidal ideation. He began to say good bye to people, he purchased hand-guns, he went to a strip club, etc. By themselves these aren't indicators of suicide. But put them together and one creates a clearer profile of a man who has made some decisions about ending his life. Army life is terribly busy. And likely no one thought to look at these patterns.

The Army right now is likely going through the process of a psychological autopsy. This procedure is done when a person suicides, but can be applied to the living to understand behavior. The Psych's, medical personnel, chaplains, supervisors and commanders that had experience with the alleged shooter are going through the evaluation process to determine what happened. They likely will find that most, if not all, missed all the warning signs. Then they will likely implement a stronger set of training standards to detect this kind of behavior.

The media is also debating the role that Islam played in the tragedy. Some, like Bob Schieffer over at CBS said there are plenty of nuts in Christianity (I wrote them but they deleted the email without reading it- apparently CBS could care less about their viewers- perhaps their advertisers will be more interested). But one commenatator on Fox News, a retired LTC, noted that President Obama said the tragedy was incomprehensible. He was offended at this because he said it isn't incomprehensible- a Muslim shouting the "God is Great" mantra, with a strong background of anti-Army, anti-American sentiments killed 13 people in an act of terrorism, shooting many others. He was commended by a radical Islamic cleric. The LTC stated if this wasn't a religious issue, then why don't we see more Souther Baptist suicide bombers, or Methodists sacrificing themselves in a crowd? It is clear that there is a political agenda that the media wants to avoid. It is clear that the anti-abortionist who killed the abortion provider was called a religious terrorist. It appears then that the media does not want to appear to be close minded. This is simply disingenuous.

We will grieve with the families who lost loved ones to this act of terrorism. But it is important to call it what it is.

2009-11-09T08:48:00.000-08:00

2009-11-01T06:24:00.000-08:00

The Death of Community

Our church is having a Harvest Festival outreach this next week and yesterday I was going around, asking local businesses if I could put up a poster announcing the event. At a McDonalds (Thank you manager person) they told me they could post it for two days. I went over to another chain market and they did not have a community bulletin board. Neither did Wal Mart, or several others. I had just read John 6 while munching at the McDonalds and thought this doesn't portend well.

Look at the strip malls, shops, stores in your community. I'll bet you they look much like mine- Subways, Nail care places, Wendy's, Hobby Lobby, King Soopers, Albertsons. But what you won't notice is that most of these businesses are not part of the community. There is no community. They are there to do business. Some of the clerks and managers may know you, and are really great people. But there is no interface with the community. That died a long time ago.

In John, the Apostle writes, Therefore the Jews were grumbling about Him, because He said, "I am the bread that came down out of heaven." (42) They were saying, "Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does He now say, 'I have come down out of heaven'?Joh 6:41-42 NASB " Those who were following Jesus, up to that point, grumbled because of the contrast between knowing what he was saying (I came down from heaven) and knowing his family who lived up the block. Perhaps several had tables made by Joseph and Son. They saw him at feasts, bar-mitzvah's, and other holidays. In other words, because of the INCARNATION of Christ, they knew him... or so they thought. The point is that the "God with us" incarnation was in community.

Do any reading at all and you'll know that "community" has shifted from geography to data bits- twitter, facebook and myspace all purport to be community. But what is missing is incarnation. We've all lamented the internet nastiness that comes across the data stream in emails and on blogs. Sure, there are cameras but they're grainy and not quite the same thing. (You can sit playing solitaire, looking at the screen and your friend(s) won't know the difference in what you're actually looking at). Some churches have hopped on the satellite bandwagon by not having a second pastor at a second site (at least one who delivers a sermon and sacraments) but pipes in the main sermon and we all watch a screen. In fact, one writer lately noted that in some of the larger churches they have a screen in the main sanctuary that shows the pastor in tandem with him live- but we're watching the screen.

I'm not angry- just a bit sad because I really do enjoy sitting down, having coffee, chatting without a keyboard... incarnating Christ. Creating community is the work of the Spirit of God, taking messy people with messy problems and resting in Christ to work it all out. The risk is that people get to know you. The pop-psych term is "Transparency." And the risk is they may reject you.

2009-10-28T08:03:00.000-07:00

Now on your local channel- Blasphemy

Over at Newsbusters.org there is an article about a recent episode of "Curb Your enthusiasm" where one of the main characters goes into the bathroom and splashes urine on a portrait of Jesus. Whether or not we should be making portraits is a discussion for another time. What follows this (literal) bathroom 'humor' is as blasphemous as the act itself.

I don't have cable tv. It isn't because I think TV is bad. It is because I don't like giving that money away when I can be using it for other things. This sacrilege just underscores that commitment.

I have spent over two years in the middle east, both in Kuwait, Iraq, Dubai, Qattar and other locations. I've met with and ate with the most powerful sheiks of western Irag, met with top Immams in the Sunni Triangle. They would go to war over something like this if it had been a portrait of Muhammad. HBO would likely issue an apology...while laughing up their sleeve. One gets the impression that a bank of writers are exorcising their high-school bathroom humor demons and catching up on all the times they couldn't write on the bathroom walls. I'm suprised that Jerry Seinfeld was in the episode. How about if we take pictures of the ovens at Dachau (where I have been as well) or the dead people trying to cross the Berlin wall and make fun of that as well? How about we make hilarity of 6 million Jews being killed in the concentration camps or Crystal Nacht in Germany? You probably won't see that happening.

Christians are fair game and our Savior is the target. The writers, producers and director(s) of this program simply do not care. But they would if people with a conscience, Christian or not, were to not watch the show. Many say, "If you don't like it, just change the channel." Okay- let's do that. Let's change the channel. Better, let's cancel HBO and its affiliate cable channels so that the advertisers have to pull their spots. I've never advocated boycotting before. Its time.

The Apostle Peter wrote, This is now the second letter that I am writing to you, beloved. In both of them I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder, (2) that you should remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles, (3) knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires.2Pe 3:1-3 ESV. I say,let these people scoff. Let them laugh as hard and as long as they can. It is hard to pray because it appears, "...they DO KNOW what they do."

2009-10-20T08:33:00.000-07:00

UFO Family

It is turning out that the ufo boy here in Colorado was a publicity stunt designed by the father to get a reality show. What I'm interested in is what this says about some people. Proverbs 12:9 reads, Better to be a nobody and yet have a servant than pretend to be somebody and have no food.NIV This is a hilarious image- a man all dressed up for dinner, with his guests, waiting for a servant who doesn't exist for food that has not been prepared. Fame is so fleeting- just Google, "whatever happened to..." and you'll get my drift. I wonder what would happen if this man just poured all that energy into his family?

2009-10-17T10:15:00.000-07:00

A Hermeneutical Framework

Recently I had the privelege of attending a meeting of the PCA Standing Judicial committee to address a complaint against the Rocky Mountain Presbytery. In the PCA we have three "courts," or arenas in which to address problems and discipline. The first is the session: ruling and teaching elders. The second is the Presbytery: all the elders in a given geographical location. The third is General Assembly: all the rulers in all the areas. As the Westminster Confession of Faith states, councils may err and the ultimate decider is the Bible. So when a session, Presbytery, etc., are perceived to err or make a mistake, Presbyterians can file a formal complaint. This formal complaint then can work its way up the chain.

The nature of the complaint- The RMP ordained a man, after several examinations, that held views that I and some others maintained were not only out of accord with our standards (The Bible, the WCF and the Book of Church Order), but strikes at the vitals of "our religion." This complaint was turned down on the Presbytery level so we took it up the chain to the Standing Judicial Committee (SJC). The SJC was very kind but firm with us. The complaint was straightforward: the Presbytery erred in sustaining this man's exam because his view strikes at the heart of our system of doctrine.

Now this likely is going to get some comments but it is the position of the PCA. We do not ordain women to the office of the elder. This is one of the main reasons the PCA broke away from the (then) PCUS which later became the PCUSA (Presbyterian Church in the United States of America). Though the candidate affirmed that he was complimentarian (that women can use their gifts under the authority of the elders) he redefined that position to mean, "women can teach, lead, mentor and counsel men under the authority of the elders."

The SJC had to determine whether this was out of accord with the constitution of the church. Many will say, "Just quote 1 Timothy 2:12;i.e., "I do not allow a woman to teach or have authority over men, but to remain quiet." But the issue is not that simple. There are some recently who have stated that this is a hendiadys.

A hendiadys is a construction where one verb (or noun) is taken to modify the main verb (or noun). So they hold that "To teach or to have authority" means "to teach authoritatively." The most famous one with nouns is "and he has given some to be...pastors and teachers" (Eph.4:11). There are 29 instances in Paul's letters where two present infinitives appear in one sentence (two and sometimes three). In none of these occurrences does a hendiadys appear. If this is a hendiadys then the odds of it being one are 28 to 1- on the whole, really bad odds. Further, no deceased theologians (Calvin, Luther, Warfield, etc.) hold that it is a hendiadys.

When the reader goes to 1 Tim.2:12 he/she finds the two verbs "to teach," and "to have authority." "to teach" never means to preach. It means to convey information in a formal or informal setting; i.e., content and possibly behavioral goals such as "learning how to please God. (1 Thess 4.) But to preach has an entire host of contextual ideas: the call of the preacher, the nature of the office of an elder, the nature of the role of an ambassador and herald that PROCLAIMS God's Word (and therefore the commensurate obedience to be applied. Therefore though the passage does not say "preaching" we have to understand that it MEANS to include preaching, at a minimum (a greater to lessor argument).

The candidate maintained that a woman may teach a man under the authority of the elders according to Acts 18 (where Prisilla and Aquila instruct Apollos) and Romans 16 (where Paul sends greetings, and names Phoebe, a deaconess). Though the candidate was asked 4 times where the elders are in view, he did not answer until pressed, and then admitted elders are not in view. This then raises the question of how one interprets the bible.

Most interpreters, both pastors and conservative Christians, maintain that one interprets the bible from a literal, grammatical, historical and rhetorical framework. In other words, words have meaning, and the author intended a meaning. To arrive at an interpretation one has to take into account the author, the audience, the setting(s) of the book, the type of literature (prophetic, poetic, narrative, didactic). The bible student studies these, the words in their original contexts and associated literature that is outside of the bible; i.e., extra biblical literature such as letters, manuals, etc., written by people in that timeframe. For example, when Jesus says I am the door (Jn.10:7) we know that he is not made out of wood- he is using a metaphor.

One then has to ask, "How 'tight' is one's interpretive framework?" For example, I spent 7 years in the Charismatic movement. In one denomination I was in their statement of faith included, "We believe in the baptism of the Holy Spirit, according to Acts 2:4, with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues, for all who ask for it." Applying our interpretive framework we find that it is important to ask the question, "Does the book of Acts teach this idea?" When one goes to Acts, he/she will find that there are 24 conversion events in the book. 5 of them have miraculous events associated with them and 3 of them definitely have tongues as acommpanying miracles. So one would be forced to say that not all speak in tongues and the book of Acts is not teaching this principle.

This leads us to another issue: when one reads the bible is the passage under consideration to be taken as a prescription; i.e., something that is normative for us to practice or it is descriptive of an event? In Acts we would have to conclude that it is a description of the early church events immediately after Jesus' resurrection to several years beyond it. And those 24 events are not prescriptive.

Bringing this back to the discussion at hand, is Acts 18 a prescription that women may instruct or exposit scriptures to men? One would have to say it is not. Of course, this doesn't settle the issue. One also has to consider all the other passages where this topic is addressed in some form. But let's stretch this out a bit further.

Paul, in the book of Acts takes a Nazarite vow, shaves his head, heads to Jerusalem and circumcises a Gentile. Are these to be taken as prescriptive and practices that we are to do today? Most Christians, in most denominations, would reply, "no." So then, why do some take Acts 18 and Romans 16 as prescriptive? Answer: either they are pushing an agenda or they have a looser hermeneutic than the text allows.

In Reformed circles there is the operative phrase, "Scripture best interprets scripture." A corollary of this is the "Analogy of faith." This is to say that the less clearer passages are interpreted by the more clearer passages. So while there are many questions about the nature of what Priscilla and Aquila did with Apollos (less clear) it most certainly cannot disagree with 1 Timothy 2:11ff, if we believe that all scripture is inspired by God (2 Tim.3:16) and therefore without error in the original manuscripts. It is possible that Paul in 1 Timothy was addressing a local problem and therefore this passage is not applicable to the church at large. But this is not the case, since in 1 Tim.2:13ff Paul reasons from the creation and created order of headship. It is the same argument Paul uses in Romans 5:12ff to demonstrate our connected to Adam and the effects of the fall. If 1 Timothy 2 is a local situation then so much original sin be a local problem in the church at Rome.

Back to the hearing: the candidate affirmed that a woman can exposit the bible to men non-authoritatively under the authority of the session. Let's take this apart. What does non-authoritative teaching look like? One must consider the nature of spiritual authority. By deduction we look at the Book of Church order and it states that the elders (and deacons) have spiritual authority from Christ to oversee the church. This authority is explained in detail in BCO in the Preliminary principles:

Our blessed Saviour, for the edification of the visible Church, which is His body, has appointed officers not only to preach the Gospel and administer the Sacraments, but also to exercise discipline for the preservation both of truth and duty.

12-5, d:

d. To call congregational meetings when necessary; to establish and
control Sunday schools and Bible classes with special reference to
the children of the church; to establish and control all special groups
in the church such as Men in the Church, Women in the Church and
special Bible study groups; to promote world missions; to promote
obedience to the Great Commission in its totality at home and
abroad; to order collections for pious uses;

We now come to the issue at hand: does this candidate's view violate the BCO? My answer is yes since it challenges and calls into question that authority. If the authority of the elders is merely permission; i.e., you can go ahead and teach but without authority, then is empties the authority of the elders. If that authority is spiritual in nature, coming from Jesus Christ to his church, then it must be, at least, an authorization and endorsement (to some degree) of the process of teaching, the content of the teaching and the goal of the exposition by the teacher. Let me see if I can make this a bit clearer.

For example, the BCO does not say that a woman cannot preach. It does not use those words. It wasn't set up and written that way (by the way, neither does the Westminster Confession). Therefore we cannot approach the issue in that manner, but in the manner that the BCO DOES address the issue. But what the BCO DOES say is that, the elders, "...ensure that the Word of God is preached only by such men as are sufficiently qualified(BCO 4-4, 53-2, 1 Timothy 2:11-12)(12:5e). I was challenged on this point. I failed to make myself clear though. Again, I say, the BCO does not state that a woman cannot preach. What it does say is that the Word of God is preached only by such men...". Here we have the issue: what does it say and what does it mean? It says "men only." It does not say "no women." What it MEANS is that in stating this (what it says) it means "no women preaching the word of God." As I've mentioned above, though 1 Tim.2:12 does not use the word "preach" it at least includes the idea of not preaching, a lessor to greater argument.

One of the arguments offered was that many PCA churches are already allowing men to sit under the exposition of the scriptures by women. And the second point given was we can all learn from them. What a denomination DOES is not the issue. A denomination can be wrong. And as for learning from women, I heartily agree (some will accuse me of being a narrow minded misogynist). But that isn't the issue. The issue is what is the clear, apostolic command given in scripture? It can die a thousand deaths from qualifications but it still is very simple, clear and direct.

Where does this leave us? Firstly, we're not at a point where we just break fellowship with those who hold a differing view. At least not yet. But we must be very careful that not only what we say is important but what we mean by what we say. We are commanded to rightly handle the word of God (2 Tim.2:15). This is not a suggestion. Secondly, it is clear that some in the PCA have an agenda to move the denomination to the approval of deaconesses and likely women elders. This gets into motive and motivation which is a heart issue and I, for one, cannot look into the hearts of these people. They can only be discerned by the results and the constant pressing from many quarters for greater consideration of these issues. Thirdly, there must be a genuine honesty from the men that hold the position of the candidate. I overheard one teaching elder state as an aside, that he agrees with the candidates position. This is simple dishonesty. The PCA has a means to change the Book of Church order. And every ordained elder takes a vow to uphold our constitution. The constitution (except the Bible) may be changed by a procedure of overture and voting throughout the denomination. I strongly suggest that we adhere to this rather than a surreptitious influx of men who say one thing but really mean another.

2009-08-28T16:50:00.000-07:00

What about Internment for Faith?

A friend sent me this article from World Net Daily. It basically says the government has ordered a 10 year old girl to stop being home schooled for her Christian beliefs:
Court orders Christian child into government education
10-year-old's 'vigorous' defense of her faith condemned by judge

Posted: August 28, 2009
12:35 am Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
A 10-year-old homeschool girl described as "well liked, social and interactive with her peers, academically promising and intellectually at or superior to grade level" has been told by a New Hampshire court official to attend a government school because she was too "vigorous" in defense of her Christian faith.

The decision from Marital Master Michael Garner reasoned that the girl's "vigorous defense of her religious beliefs to [her] counselor suggests strongly that she has not had the opportunity to seriously consider any other point of view."

The recommendation was approved by Judge Lucinda V. Sadler, but it is being challenged by attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund, who said it was "a step too far" for any court.

The ADF confirmed today it has filed motions with the court seeking reconsideration of the order and a stay of the decision sending the 10-year-old student in government-run schools in Meredith, N.H.
The dispute arose as part of a modification of a parenting plan for the girl. The parents divorced in 1999 when she was a newborn, and the mother has homeschooled her daughter since first grade with texts that meet all state standards.

In addition to homeschooling, the girl attends supplemental public school classes and has also been involved in a variety of extra-curricular sports activities, the ADF reported.

But during the process of negotiating the terms of the plan, a guardian ad litem appointed to participate concluded the girl "appeared to reflect her mother's rigidity on questions of faith" and that the girl's interests "would be best served by exposure to a public school setting" and "different points of view at a time when she must begin to critically evaluate multiple systems of belief ... in order to select, as a young adult, which of those systems will best suit her own needs."
According to court documents, the guardian ad litem earlier had told the mother, "If I want her in public school, she'll be in public school."
The marital master hearing the case proposed the Christian girl be ordered into public school after considering "the impact of [her religious] beliefs on her interaction with others."

"Parents have a fundamental right to make educational choices for their children. In this case specifically, the court is illegitimately altering a method of education that the court itself admits is working," said ADF-allied attorney John Anthony Simmons of Hampton.

"The court is essentially saying that the evidence shows that, socially and academically, this girl is doing great, but her religious beliefs are a bit too sincerely held and must be sifted, tested by, and mixed among other worldviews. This is a step too far for any court to take."
"The New Hampshire Supreme Court itself has specifically declared, 'Home education is an enduring American tradition and right,'" said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Mike Johnson. "There is clearly and without question no legitimate legal basis for the court's decision, and we trust it will reconsider its conclusions."

The case, handled in the Family Division of the Judicial Court for Belknap County in Laconia, involves Martin Kurowski and Brenda Kurowski (Voydatch), and their daughter.

The ADF also argued that the issue already was raised in 2006 and rejected by the court.

"Most urgent … is the issue of Amanda's schooling as the school year has begun and Amanda is being impacted by the court's decision daily," the court filing requesting a stay said. "Serious state statutory and federal constitutional concerns are implicated by the court's ruling and which need to be remedied without delay.

"It is not the proper role of the court to insist that Amanda be 'exposed to different points of view' if the primary residential parent has determined that it is in Amanda's best interest not to be exposed to secular influences that would undermine Amanda's faith, schooling, social development, etc. The court is not permitted to demonstrate hostility toward religion, and particularly the faith of Amanda and Mother, by removing Amanda from the home and thrusting her into an environment that the custodial parent deems detrimental to Amanda."

"The order assumes that because Amanda has sincerely held Christian beliefs, there must be a problem that needs solving. It is a parent's constitutionally protected right to train up their children in the religious beliefs that they hold. It is not up to the court to suggest that a 10-year-old should be 'exposed' to other religious views contrary to the faith traditions of her parents. Could it not be that this sharp 10-year-old 'vigorously' believes what she does because she knows it to be true? The court's narrative suggests that 10-year-olds are too young to form opinions and that they are not yet allowed to have sincerely held Christian beliefs," the ADF said.

"Absent any other clear and convincing evidence justifying the court's decision, it would appear that the court has indeed taken sides with regard to the issue of religion and has preferred one religious view over another (or the absence of religion). This is impermissible," the documents said.

The guardian ad litem had an anti-Christian bias, the documents said, telling the mother at one point she wouldn't even look at homeschool curriculum.

"I don't want to hear it. It's all Christian based," she said.

This reminds me of the position that many Puritans had during the reign of Queen Elizabeth and subsequent rulers. They were called Puritans and Dissenters. Charles Haddon Spurgeon was proud that his grandfather had been imprisoned for "unlicensed" preaching. Bunyan, author of Pilgrim's Progress, was also imprisoned for his Puritan views.

One might try to argue the First Amendment here but that only works if the government actually believes in the Constitution. We are WAY past the view that most hold that the Constitution is "a living document" and can be interpreted according to our present needs. They say that if the Constitution doesn't address the issue then it should have and we have to make it say what we want. This was the central issue, by the way, over Robert Bork's examination by Congress. He was all in favor of integration in the school system but wrote against the Brown vs. the Board of Education decision that integrated busing. When asked by the committee during his hearings whether he believed in integration, he affirmed it boldly. But he stated that it is not in the constitution.

What happens if the young 10 year old attends public school and continues to be "vigorous" in her Christian beliefs? Does she get detention where she has to attend sensitivity training (read: indoctrination)? Does she get expelled? Does she get interred? There are no more frontiers for Puritans like her to seek geographical independence from oppressive governmental regimes.

2009-08-15T08:27:00.000-07:00

Hopping Mad

I'm hopping mad. Every morning I come downstairs, cup of tea in hand, settle in with Buster, my dog, to look at the news. This morning I came across two articles; one on the Washington Post, the other on MSNBC. Riddle me this: what does a bus sign and a school principal praying have in common? Answer: the ACLU.

First up- there is a school in Northern Florida where the principal and the atheletic director are charged with a criminal act... of praying. It seems they were at a school function and were asked to pray. They did. ACLU caught wind of it and now they face a 5,000 dollar fine and 6 months in jail. Things had gotten so bad at the school that the students who were Christian could not have a speaker who addressed religious themes. So the students, 300 of them, put crosses on their mortar boards and stood up for an impromptu(!) recitation of the Lord's prayer.

Next up- The Atheists & Freethinkers in Iowa wanted to post signs on buses that read "Don't believe in God? You are not alone."This is part of a national campaign, some of which people have seen here in Colorado Springs. The district transit authority turned them down. Now the ACLU is in the mix. " Lilly Kryuchkov, spokeswoman for Iowa Atheists & Freethinkers, said the group was surprised by the bus agency's decision and believed the group's right to free speech was being trampled." The ACLU looked at the bus policy, and in the favor of the transit authority they found that certain messages (such as the legalizing of marijuana) could legally be turned down.

What burns me is the sheer hypocrisy of the ACLU. Either there is liberty of speech for all, regardless of race, creed, color, or religion or there is not. It is a constitutional right. Yes, I know, some will say, as in the Post article, that the aggressive Christian principles at the Florida school violate the same ammendment. The school is accused of of proselytizing by being instructed "to take every opportunity to inculcate Christian values." Yet in California there are mandatory classes that grade schoolers have to attend that makes them dress up in Islamic-style clothing (middle-eastern?) and recite the Quran.

I grant you that prayer is a very personal, religious, spiritual activity, as is reading from a book considered to be scripture, whether that is the book of Mormon, the Quran, or the gospel of Judas, at least from a secular viewpoint. But to guarantee a right to atheists, and atheism IS a religious belief, concerning free speech with one hand, then taking it away from the Christian, is sheer religious bigotry.

I guess this ought not to surprise me. Jesus said, "Do not be surprised if the world hates you. They hated me first."

2009-08-15T08:25:00.000-07:00

Art (?) that moves

In Beijing there is an exhibition of the Mona Lisa that has been converted to a 3d digital interactive image. It can talk, move its head and hands, and interact by answering questions. Watch the end of the clip below to see the other piece of art that moves... and has the last supper.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

2009-08-01T11:34:00.000-07:00

Jesus, Obama, Satan and the Anti-Christ

When I lived in Dallas, I became very interested in the JFK assassination- I lived only a few miles from the Texas School Book Depository. In all the material I read I learned of an odd underground culture that linked up unusual and separate events into hidden conspiracies. But they have nothing on this video.

Watch it first then see my analysis below:

As you can see, they draw the conclusion that Jesus was secretly telling the apostles that Obama is the Anti-Christ. And how they get there to this conclusion is an adventure.

1. Commit the word study root fallacy.
D.A. Carson in his Exegetical Fallicies book points out that often people will look at a textbook definition of a particular word, and then infuse those meanings into different occurences of the same word.

The words in question in this video are heavens (Greek-ouranos/Hebrew-Bama) and lightning (Greek-astrape/Hebrew- Baraq. Then the author of the video infuses Barack Obama into Jesus' words. Wrong, wrong, wrong. If this were true, there would be at least one occasion that we could go back and look up heavens and lightning in other passages and get the same or similar meaning. We can't.

2. Commit the "original language" fallacy.
I had an interesting discussion with a Roman Catholic once over the issue of Jesus giving authority to Peter (alone). The discussion circled around Jesus' use, in Greek of "Peter" (little stone) and Rock (Huge boulder). The person told me that Jesus spoke in Aramaic so my distinction from the language made little difference.

The author of the video commits the same mistake. While it is true that Jesus spoke Aramaic- a distant cousin of Hebrew and Arabic, the apostles and their associates (Luke) recorded the New Testament in GREEK. Putting meaning into Jesus' mouth here;i.e., that Barak Obama is the Anti-Christ presupposes that there is no authoritative Greek manuscripts that flowed from the pens of the authors. It has to take you back three steps- Greek to Aramaic to Hebrew. This seriously undermines the authority and content of the Greek New Testament. The historical doctrine of the inspiration and infallibility of the original texts of the Greek New Testament is founded on the GREEK MANUSCRIPTS and NOT on what Jesus might have said in Aramaic. This presupposes the idea (2 Tim.3:16) that the Holy Spirit superintended (oversaw) the writing of the New Testament in its Greek form. While understanding that Jesus did speak Aramaic assists us in understanding facets of the Greet text, it is the Greek text and not Aramaic that is inspired. The video author's view point is similar to trying to draw a straight line from Kennedy's head to the Grassy Knoll to the CIA. It is just silly.

3. Ignore the Author/author fallacy.
In New Testament hermeneutics (interpretation) there is the concept of the Author/author meaning. It states that God as Author had an intended meaning that may or may not have been in the mind of the human author (small a). Yet the document when written as well as the audience that originally heard what is recorded in the document had an intended meaning.

This video stretches meaning to the point of breaking it completely. Let's suppose Jesus' original audience DID suppose that when they heard (the supposed reference to) Satan (antichrist) falling from the heavens (Bama) like lightning (Barack) that they made the connection to Satan in the Old Testament as the author purports. But it is inconceivable that they made the connection to Anti-Christ and absurd that they made the connection to a 21st century person who would occupy an elected office in a distant land of which they had no knowledge. I grant that prophecy in the bible has the "already/not yet" facet. This is to say that some prophecy has an immediate sense of fulfillment of which the original audience may have been aware- such as Daniel understanding from his reading of Jeremiah that Israel would be in Babylon for only 70 years. But it is silly to think that Jesus was coding secret messages.

4. Ignoring Progressive revelation.
Progressive revelation is the idea that God has revealed things to come in a progressive manner. For example, Genesis 3:15 is a very obscure reference to a coming one who will crush Satan's head. It would be absurd to think that Adam and Eve understood that this would be a man named Jesus, born in Bethlehem, died on a cross in Jerusalem and rose from the dead three days later. It takes several centuries before we even see references in Jonah about 3 days in the belly of the fish as a type of the 3 days of Jesus being in the tomb.

Jesus nowhere makes a reference to the anti-Christ. He does, in the Olivet discourse, make a reference to being brought before kings and many killed. Jesus does make a reference in Matthew 5 and 10 and 12 about being persecuted for Christ's sake. But it will not be until the Apostle Paul and his writing in 1 and 2 Thessalonians, as well as John in Revelation where we learn of the "spirit of the Anti-Christ." Reformed scholars differ from Dispensational scholars in that many do not believe there is a single person named Anti-Christ but those who oppose Christ are all called anti-Christ.

Interesting is that in the Westminster Confession the Pope is named as the anti-Christ. Both Luther and Calvin held this position. But I doubt they had in mind that Christ was referring to Obama. Christians should spend time just studying the bible for what it says, not for what they might use as polemics against a president they do not like.

2009-07-24T07:32:00.000-07:00

So...tell me why this Jesus of yours is different?

I came across this video by Rob Bell. Bell is the pastor of Mars Hill church in the Michigan region of the country. He is a leader in the growing emergent church movement (though I think he would probably not be comfortable with that 'label.'). Watch the video then scroll down for some thoughts. When I did my doctorate on preaching at Covenant Seminary, during the oral exam on my dissertation, one of the examiners asked me if I had researched Rob Bell. I said that I had, but from the perspective of the dissertation, I did not find anything that had an impact on what I had done. They encouraged me to add a line in the dissertation, that more research could be done, "...because many of the guys here are watching Bell and look up to him as a model."

Having watched the video there are some good things...and some things that, though not surprising, less than unique or best.

Good:

1. Bell is a good communicator.
He has the ability to take complex ideas and make them simple and communicable. This is a great quality for any preacher/pastor.
2. He is affable.
I'm reminded of the line from the movie about Wyatt Earp. (Tombstone). Earp tells his friend that he is "affable," but he does it in a negative way. He was TOO affable for the job of the rough and tumble sherriff of the town. But Bell really is affable in a good way. He's the kind of guy that you would enjoy just sitting down and having a cup of coffee.

Less than best: Probably here is the core of what I think about the presentation and content that derails the good.
1. Bell undermines the gospel.
Bell's main point: Jesus' death and resurrection is not a unique teaching and is so much like the tales of that day, the beliefs of the religions of the day, that Christianity really needed something more to distinguish it from the crowd.
The problem is that this is NOT where the bible places the emphasis. Paul writes in his letter to the Corinthians (some were denying the resurrection),

Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, (2) and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you--unless you believed in vain. (3) For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, (4) that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, (5) and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. (6) Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. (7) Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. (8) Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.1Co 15:1-8 ESV

Though Bell does note these three main ideas the context is that it really wasn't all that different, and that this was the claim of the Christians, as if somehow their experience is the focus, rather than the objective event of the resurrection.

2. Bell "transmutes" the gospel
I'm reminded of the comic strip Calvin and Hobbes- Calvin turns a cardboard box into a "transmogrifier" and can change into anything he wants. This is what Bell does. When you gut the gospel by deemphasizing the resurrection of Christ then the only thing that you're left with is an appeal to "what's in it for me?" While Jonathan Edwards was criticized for making common appeals to those who were not Christians, he never gutted the gospel.
The gospel is gutted when sin is eliminated or transmogrified into something else. For Bell it is the unwarranted domination of power of an institution (Rome) over people. He hints at the idea that the (modernistic/traditional) church is characterized by this domination (a very clear reference to postmodern beliefs about institutions). And Bell then says what made the church so different is that the early Christians lived without the imposition and domination that so clearly characterized the Roman Empire.
I agree with Bell that the church used words that were common and in vogue; i.e., Casaer is Lord, evangelists, etc. But he scoops out the biblical meaning of sin (any transgression against God [not just against one's neighbor] or failure to obey what God has commanded) and transmogrifies sin into "brokeness."
Brokeness is a biblical concept but it is a symptom of sin. This is akin to describing a rash on your arm- the problem is not the big red welts. The problem is what is causing the welts. This vocabulary is becoming standard among postmodernists because it allows a person to see the emotional side of the symptoms of sin and often without having to deal with sin itself. And if Christ came to heal my brokeness... what happens when I keep acting in ways that reflect that brokeness? Calvin said that the heart is a little idol factory. Brokeness is an idol that we keep trying to glue together and the problem is not the idol but the heart which manufactures that brokeness.

3. Bell's view of Christ's mission.
Christ is said to have come to earth to restore the earth and fix the brokeness of people. There is little difference between this and the old-school liberalism of the 1930's-1960's. Back then it was called social action. This is NOT to say that the church is not to be concerned with mercy or social justice. But those are generated by a strong belief that sin has separated us from God and neighbor.
IF one guts the gospel then the only thing that is left behind, or left in the system is social ethics. This is why church men like Brian McClaren are denying hell. Hell, as terrible and horrifying as it is, is reserved for those who have sinned and do not repent. McClaren holds that if God tells us to forgive (he does) then it is out of concert with God's love to not forgive those that hate him.

I remember going through the 60's. I grew up in the San Francisco bay area and the hippie/Jesus people movement. I attended a coffee house weekly in Martinez, California. There was an atmosphere and ambiance that I was a part of something that was new and fresh and stood uniquely against those in the institutional church who had virtually abandoned the 'outsiders' of the church. But it didn't last. It couldn't last because one has to institutionalize the phenomena of the movement (or reject it) and railing against the institution lasts until you become the institution, as Mars Hill will eventually.

I'm saddened that Bell seems to hold that the gospel consists of making me a nicer person. I know that I'm broken because of sin. I idolize myself and things in the world around me. Being nicer, giving away my possessions, and volunteering at the dog shelter or homeless shelter should move me to a greater compassion. But that is simply a veneer that disguises the dry rot in one's soul.

2009-07-23T10:31:00.000-07:00

Mixed messages

I'm always taken aback a bit when I am in a gathering of Christians and one of the speakers is lecturing on "being yourself," "acceptance in Christ," being humble with who God has made you to be. Then they whip out some quote, some profile of a Christian that totally wipes out what they just said.

When I was in Seminary, we had to attend chapel every day. With the pressure of mid-terms or finals looming overhead the sermon would usually be directed at eliminating worry. I remember the (then) president of the seminary telling us that no one checks our grade report when we become a pastor and so we were not to worry. Then he introduced that morning's speaker, "Today we are privelged to have Dr. xxx, the author of 47 books. He recieved his masters degree at Yale, his first Ph.D. from Scotland and his other Ph.D. in bio-everything from Harvard. This morning, let's have a warm welcome for Dr. xxx." What a mixed message.

I was recently in a seminar and the same thing happened. In one breath the speaker talked about the deceptiveness of the world apart from Christ: it holds before us a sparkly ideal and bids us to take the bait. He said we need to recognize that we are accepted in Christ (we are). Then he spoke about one of his parishioners who was the CEO of a multi-million dollar company, a brilliant person with all sorts of degrees and he came to the church to serve. I applaud the heart but I balk at the description. Which is it? Do we value the biblical teaching about being a servant and humility (Mk.10:45) or do we sparkle when the "important" people descend from the mountain to honor us with their presence.

I'm uncomfortable with the dichotomy. I have more letters after my name than one can shake a stick at but I also know that they matter little to the world, and for more reasons than I can name here, they matter little when it comes to crafting a biblical character.

I would like to think that Jesus would not be very impressed with all my education. I imagine myself sitting in the crowd listening to Jesus teach. Were I to take the mental posture, "I'm going to check out what he has to say," I would soon think that my measuring stick of what is valuable and important would shrink from little to nothing. Those who listened to Jesus as recorded in the gospels seem to be absolutely amazed, not only at the content of what he was saying but HOW he was saying it. He taught as one with authority, not as the scribes and Pharisees (Mt. 7). They were amazed at his wisdom to the point where they asked each other from where did he obtain this teaching?

Lest I come across as judgmental (which I don't intend to be) it is very humbling to measure one's own thoughts against that of Jesus', or one's values against his. What is important seems to lose its sparkle in comparison. Perhaps this is what the hymn writer meant when he wrote,

"And the things of the earth will grow strangely dim
In the light of his glory and grace."

2009-07-08T09:48:00.000-07:00

The Old is New

After many years of work, the Codex Sinaiaticus is (mostly) on line. The story of how it got there is fascinating.

Count Von Tischendorf was on a trip to the middle east to secure ancient biblical manuscripts. He managed to meet and stay with the monks of St. Catherine's monastery. One morning he awoke and it was cold so he warmed himself by a fire that another monk had started. He happened to notice the material the monk was burning... it turned out to be pages from ancient codexes in Greek. He quickly rescued what he could. What is interesting at this juncture is that some sources say Tischendorf stole the leaves of what became Sinaiaticus. Nevertheless, pages were scattered around the world. Until now.

One can go to http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/ (the link is down right now) and view these historical finds.

2009-07-05T07:01:00.001-07:00

Atheist Camp

Atheists are back in the news. There are several articles in various newspapers about the rise of summer camps for kids whose theme is atheism. Camp Quest is one among many. Richard Dawkins, the British atheist, is said to help fund these camps. What I find so fascinating is the clear lack of the fear of God in these men. The youtube video here features an interview with Christopher Hitchens, another British and very vocal atheist.

The Apostle Paul wrote,as it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one; (11) no one understands; no one seeks for God. (12) All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one." (13) "Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive." "The venom of asps is under their lips." (14) "Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness." (15) "Their feet are swift to shed blood; (16) in their paths are ruin and misery, (17) and the way of peace they have not known." (18) "There is no fear of God before their eyes." Rom 3:10-18 ESV.

It seems to me that if someone didn't want to hear about God the natural reasoning process would be to not send one's child to a church camp. Jonathan Edwards used to tell young people that they had better be very, very careful because if they heard the gospel and refused Christ that they were in great danger, storing up for themselves a greater punishment for the day of wrath. One young girl said that when she went to the Christian camps she felt "pressured" to pray. At the atheist camp she stated she wasn't pressured at all. While one cannot force faith it is important to expose children to the claims of Christ. If those claims are true (they are) then it stands that the Christian has an obligation to tell the truth to those who will hear. Paul wrote elsewhere, For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil. (11) Therefore, knowing the fear of the Lord, we persuade others. But what we are is known to God, and I hope it is known also to your conscience.2Co 5:10-11 ESV.

Click here for an excellent article on atheism.

2009-06-30T10:35:00.000-07:00

The Ark...revealed?

The head of the Orthodox Church of Ethiopia has stated that the Ark of the Covenant will be revealed to the public. There are many who believe that the Ark was secreted away in Ethiopia and that it rests there today. The priests in the area also point to the Jewish artifacts present in the area as proof; i.e., tongs for removing a sacrifice from the fire, basins and other elements.

Curiosity was raised when Spielberg did his first film in the Indiana Jones series. Claimants like Ron Wyatt have said they found the ark under the temple mound in Jerusalem. But Wyatt's claims (finding the ark of Noah) are suspect and many of the facts simply do not fit his claims.

But what if the Patriarch in Ethiopia makes good on his promise? I doubt that it will be brought to light though it may well be in Ethiopia. And I doubt that it would make little difference to most people who are not Christians. There has been so much written on the historicity of the bible, even when some of its claims, at the time, were unable to be verified. Years later those claims were vindicated (such as the presence in history of Pontius Pilate, when a large inscription was found at Caesarea Philippi bearing his name), it still made little difference to those with closed minds. The same is true for the ark of the covenant. Even if there was a stamp on the bottom saying "made by Moses" (though another craftsman made it), along with Moses thumbprint it would make little difference. Arguments would be raised about it as a religious icon and many would dismiss it as a "battery" to generate electricity, a pagan symbol designed to rally the oppressed Jewish people, or just one religious symbol among many. The ark itself does not testify or witness to anything. It just "is."

What if they find it? Historically it would be marvelous to find such an ancient relic. Religiously it would show the practices of the Jews during the time of Moses. Spiritually, some may even decide to worship it. But biblically, God no longer dwells over the ark. Christ is the ark of God and in him all the fullness of the Godhead resides. We have Christ. Pretty boxes are just that.

2009-06-30T10:06:00.001-07:00

The Quick and the Dead

There is an interesting article over at the Baltimore Sun about a woman who was healed of cancer, supposedly by praying to Seelos, a 19th century Maryland priest. That she has no present cancer is true and according to her doctors, unexplainable. That she prays to the dead...well that's another issue.

There are three tacts that one can take to this issue. Firstly, that she was healed by praying to Seelos. Experience is a hard wall to argue against. The issue though is whether this really is a straight-line, cause and effect issue. I'm pleased that this woman is healed. I've watched many a person die from cancer and wouldn't want anyone to die from it.

Secondly, a second possibility is that God sovereignly chose to heal her despite prayers to a deceased priest. God often answers prayers despite our theology.

Thirdly, one might look for natural explanations whose causes we simply do not know.

The modernist in me looks to the third answer and that is my demerit. Miracles are intrusive and they don't fit our (my) molds well, despite the fact that I believe in miracles. It just shows you how swamped we are in the streams of our culture.

The postmodernist in me is satisfied to call it a mystery and dance with her in joy over her healing. Let's face it- she's healed.

But the Bible student in me balks at the first tact- praying to the dead. The Westminster Confession of Faith (ch.32) clearly states, IV. Prayer is to be made for things lawful, and for all sorts of men living, or that shall live hereafter; but not for the dead, nor for those of whom it may be known that they have sinned the sin unto death. While this specifically prohibits prayer for the dead the implication is also that it includes prayer to the dead. The Confession states in chapter 8 concerning Christ, Which person is very God and very man, yet one Christ, the only Mediator between God and man. Therefore prayer to a dead priest is prohibited by the Bible itself (assuming the Confession rightly interprets the Bible). There is only one mediator, not many. The idea that a holy priest, no matter how holy he is, has more influence with God because he is holy undermines the biblical idea of Christ's unique relationship to the Father.

Having grown up Catholic I understand the reasoning behind these types of prayers and relics. It is based on the idea that those who are "holy" and righteous accumulate a treasury of merit with God. The holier the person, the more merit they accumulate, often more than they themselves can use. And God is said to be gracious in allowing people to draw upon the holy stature of these "saints," the highest among them being Mary, the mother of Jesus. These works are called "supererogatory." Combine them with the supererogatory works of Christ and it is believed that the Christian can draw upon them while on earth.

The Bible knows no such understanding of 'good works.' In fact, it teaches the exact opposite. Christ himself said

"Which of you, having a slave plowing or tending sheep, will say to him when he has come in from the field, 'Come immediately and sit down to eat'? (8) "But will he not say to him, 'Prepare something for me to eat, and properly clothe yourself and serve me while I eat and drink; and afterward you may eat and drink'? (9) "He does not thank the slave because he did the things which were commanded, does he? (10) "So you too, when you do all the things which are commanded you, say, 'We are unworthy slaves; we have done only that which we ought to have done.'"Luk 17:7-10 NASB

I rejoice that this woman was healed. I don't know how she was healed. But it wasn't by praying to a dead priest. Perhaps it is evidence of God's grace to her through Jesus Christ. Shouldn't God alone get the honor and glory?

2009-06-12T17:20:00.000-07:00

Glary Utilities Free

I've been using Glary Utilities and thought you might like to try it to speed up your PC. Here's an invitation to download the wonderful tools of Glary Utilities Free Version /Pro Version.
To download now: http://download.cnet.com/Glary-Utilities/3000-2094_4-10508531.html

I discovered that my computer was slowing down repeatedly, being bloated with all sorts of entries in the Windows registry. I tried at least 10 different "shareware" utilities to alleviate the problem from Registry Mechanic to Reg Run. Using Reg Run it did clear up some problems but added others such as changing the way the computer started up, adding a longer boot period, etc. Others were obviously trick ware: they stated on their sites that you could try it for free...but locked the user into a "fill in the credit card" information loop of screens. It was a clear bait and switch. But Glary utilities- I found it at ZDNet downloads, (see the address above) but it is a great utility.

It scans your registry and with one click fixes the problems.

If you never heard about Glary Utilities, please visit www.glaryutilities.com. You will get a big surprise to explore one of the most popular and free PC optimization utilities which offers abundant services such as:
Optimize, clean and speed up your PC;
Simple and user friendly interfaces;
Protect your privacy & security;
Block spyware and adware;
Run fast and efficiently.

I recommend glary utilities to anyone who wants to avoid at least a day searching for a fix and to avoid all the problems.

2009-06-12T07:36:00.000-07:00

Over time with an Overtime God

"Do not be afraid of them; remember the Lord who is great and awesome." Neh.4:14a

The past couple of days I have been re-reading my journal. This particular one began in the middle of the Iraq war (July 03). Over the years I began to write down particular prayers and specific prayers alongside of those events that were part of my days. And as I read, I took particular note of the prayers God answered and those that he didn't.

As I've been preaching through Nehemiah, one of those areas that some of us Presbyterians are not really comfortable with is the "subjective impressions" that God will lay on our hearts. I know, because having spent 6-7 years as a card-carrying Pentecostal/charismatic I have watched people's faces when I tell them that biographical anecdote. Nehemiah, in Chapter 2 goes and surveys the walls. THEN he gathers together the nobles, priests, lay people, etc., and tells them what God laid on his heart and recalls what favor God had poured out on him...and them.

Jonathan Edwards called these impressive moments "illuminations," and said they do not happen often. Edwards was well known for spending 11 hours in study which included meditations on his studies in the word of God. While I am definitely not in the "Emergent" church or "postmodern" church camp, I think our Christian church in that area is more comfortable with mystery. By mystery I mean being comfortable with coming up to the brink of an idea and stopping there, saying to ourselves that knowledge and the Spirit have brought me to this point and no further. We look into a chasm and must be content to stop alongside of the Spirit. John Calvin cautioned us in his Institutes that if we sought a will (reason) for something, or some event higher than God himself (what he already has revealed in Scripture) then we would be guilty of idolatry. And when we do look back on these moments, and prayers that were made with their answers in varying degrees we discover that God is always faithful.

Bringing this back to journals and prayers. I had prayed that God would give me a particular pastorate while I was praying for being in the pastorate in general. God didn't answer positively for two specific churches. At the time I was disappointed, but as I look back at the two men who were selected, I can't think of a more perfect fit for those churches.

I know that in some quarters, journaling is viewed as some sort of odd, out of step, introspective means of getting in touch with your "inner __________" (fill in the blank). But the memory is a faulty thing- you will forget many of the details surrounding that which caught your attention, especially over a period of years. Writing your concerns, prayers, etc., will keep your mind in tune to remember God's faithfulness to you in those moments of doubt and discouragement.

2009-04-29T08:22:00.001-07:00

Christians and the Arts

Dallas Jenkins over at Breitbart has a significant and insightful article as to why Christian movies are so bad. Now before many of you send me Christian hate mail about "Fireproof" (one of the latest "you've got to see this movie" says the Christian at church) please...wait. There are three things you need to know first.

First, I love movies. I always have- from being a kid and watching the B horror flicks, musicals, Dr. Doolittle (the original) to the great films such as The Roaring Twenties (Jimmy Cagney) and White Heat (my favorite). Secondly, I have lots and lots of education: no bragging, just that I'm over-educated in Christian circles. Thirdly, I'm a performer/artist- I've been doing magic, sleight of hand and ventriloquism since I was six (46 years). I've said the last because magic is often shoved by Christians into the same vein that Jenkins talks about.

One of the significant reasons he offers is that in the 60's Christians had virtually vacated Hollywood by creating their own Christian culture. As Michael Horton (Professor at Westminster Theological Seminary) has said, Christians attach the word "Christian" in front of the noun and somehow that "sanctifies" the product. With magic, some slap a picture of Jesus on a piece of equipment and do a very, very bad trick. But with Mel Gibson's the Passion, Jenkins note Hollywood turned its eyes towards an untapped market: Christian or faith-based films.

Jenkins also notes that young Christians are not encouraged by their churches (or at least in the modernist sense) to become quality artists themselves; i.e., to learn what good filmaking (or magic) is. This, I think, is largely due to the animosity against "worldliness" (redefined from the bible). The Christian-sub-culture swims in values that are not necessarily biblical and therefore the product (film, magic, painting, music) is tepid at best.

Some of the best offerings lately have been the films Luther and Amazing Grace (The story of Wilberforce who lobbied for 25 years to eliminate slavery in the British empire).

Its time Christians, young Christians, took up the gauntlet and become artists in all the fields.

2009-04-17T09:46:00.000-07:00

Ehrman Smoked on Colbert

Self-proclaimed agnostic Bart D. Ehrman appeared on a recent episode of the Colbert Report. I'm not a big fan of Colbart but this is a good take on the historical accuracy of the New Testament. Ehrman has a long list of impressive credentials, to be sure. What I find interesting is that he raises old arguments and puts them in new clothes. For example, he states that the ending of Mark 16 is not original to the gospel of Mark. While many present day scholars would agree, there is something that is being left out. Codex Siniaticus, discovered by Tischendorf greatly disagrees with Codex Vaticanus, some of the earliest manuscripts (4th century) of the New Testament. Siniaticus leaves out the Mark 16 extended ending. If you'll look below, I have an extended discussion of the theories surrounding textual criticism; i.e., how we know what parts of the New Testament were original to the text or added later.

2009-04-16T09:17:00.000-07:00

Shack 2- The defining quality

One thing, and its a big thing, I left out below on The Shack, was the foundational presupposition of Open Theism, which finds its way into the Shack. In Open Theism its adherents believe that the defining quality or characteristic of God is love. This characteristic, it is said, is at the forefront and affects all other characteristics almost (for practical purposes) squeezing out the others. This is why, then, that God finds the expression of love in relationships with us.

Theologian John Frame, in his Doctrine of the Knowledge of God and Doctrine of God, notes that the defining characteristic of God as revealed in the Bible is his sovereignty. This sovereignty is eschewed by The Shack. There, as with Open Theism, sovereignty is viewed as power, control and a violation of God's creatures' wills. It is said that no true relationship is possible where there is one person seeking to exercise authority, power, and control over another.

Here, I think, is where we stand on the brink of a mystery. God is sovereign and purposed before time began to have a relationship with mankind (1 Peter 1:2, 3) and where implementing this plan began with covenanting with Christ to be the "lamb slain before the foundation of the world." The Bible does NOT explain how this is just that it occurs.

But God's sovereignty and man's acceptance of Christ as Savior are not mutally exclusive since it is God who enables us with faith to place trust in him alone.

2009-04-15T12:43:00.000-07:00

Shacking up...or down?

William P. Young's "The Shack" is a runaway bestseller, among the top 100 books on Amazon.com (#7) and #1 on the New York Times Bestseller list (paperback). I suppose just about every evangelical pastor has been asked, "What do you think of The Shack?" I was. But I hadn't read it. I have to confess, I don't read much "Christian" fiction. I find the writing to be poor and the plots contrived, generally speaking. I did enjoy a sci-fi tale written by an astronaut that was a committed Christian and enjoyed his story that spanned over three novels. But I digress.

Last week I sat down and read through The Shack. William P. Young, who goes by the name of Paul, is the son of missionaries and says that he was abused as a child among the tribes of New Guinea. Some fifteen years ago he had an affair and went through a process of healing relationships. The Shack was privately published and was intended only for a close circle of friends. But it took off and became a bestseller.

The Story: Mackenzie Phillips is a man in pain. In the story, three years prior to the plot beginning, he lost his little girl Missy to a grisly kidnapping/murder while he was saving his daughter and friend from drowning. He plunges into a deep depression which is exacerbated by his memories of his father physically abusing him. His father was a public religious figure and private drunk, child abuser and wife abuser. The authorities find a bloodied red dress belonging to his daughter in a mountain shack- but no body is found. He receives an enigmatic letter asking him to return to the shack- it is signed by "Papa," his wife Nan's name for God. There he encounters God, the Trinity. The Father (Papa) is an african-american woman who loves to cook, sit and share. Jesus is a (stereotyped Jew, read: antisemtically portrayed?)carpenter in jeans and a work shirt. The Spirit is an Asian woman, Sarayu who seems to float around in a shimmering dress and loves gardening. Over a period of days Mac has interviews, meals and encounters with each of the Persons of the Trinity. I won't tell you how the book ends- no spoilers here.

The Shack has been raved about (See Eugene Peterson's [The Message] glowing tribute). It has also been slammed by a large number of evangelicals (Southeastern Baptist Seminary President Albert Mohler called it "undiluted heresy.")

What I like about it: Young is very aquainted with personal, intrapersonal, and interpersonal pain. And Young takes the reader on a journey that many of us would give our right molars for- a few days in retreat with God and the pain is somehow cauterized when Mac deals with it. "Papa" is a very likeable character who has great comfort about her. Jesus is the kind of guy that you might like to hang out with. The "retreat" that Mac goes on is something that many Christians long for- peace, quiet, introspection, interaction with God, working through pain and coming out with a renewed hope.

What I don't like about it:
Scripture Orientation- there is just enough (veiled) scripture truth to swallow this tale. God is love, Christ died on the cross, God is present with those who believe in him. But that is about as far as it goes. The danger of this book is that in order for Young to carry the plot, he has to create the three characters of Papa, Jesus and Sarayu. And Young puts words and Papa deliberately says there is no wrath of God. That's not what she is about (in the book). But the wrath of God against sin is clearly taught in the bible (cf. Romans 1:18-32). If you haven't read the bible The Shack is appealing and palpable.

Theological Hobo Stew: The shack is a hobo stew with just about every heretical mistake thrown in to flavor it. Aside from the error about wrath (above), Papa tells Mac that She/he and Sarayu (the Spirit) became incarnate. This is an early heresy rejected by the church and most certainly not taught in Scripture. Secondly, Jesus in the book seems to be perpetually amazed at what he has (already) created; i.e., the stars in the sky and the trout he's been trying to catch. While it may seem biblical for God's creation to reflect his glory (Natural revelation) I don't believe he is surprised by it (see below). Sarayu comes off like a new-age, empty-headed mystic that you would find at a psychic fair. She doesn't seem to land and would be a rather strange person to invite to a dinner party. While everyone else is sitting and enjoying dinner (in the book) she's floating around the room in a sing-song voice, spouting about God's love. One wonders whether or not she has been in the sun too long.

The greatest error, and most serious, is the Shack is a polemic for Open Theism. This theological heresy has been floating around the past several years (cf. "The Openess of God." Essentially the theology states that true relationships can never be tainted with power or control. If they are, one person over another, then genuine relationships (and choice within them) is not possible. Therefore, God is said to self-limit both in power and knowledge. In other words, God has purposely limited both his plan(s) and his knowledge of what will happen in the future. This insures, within this theological mish-mash, that genuine relationships are possible.

It is clear that the bible does use human terms to describe both God and his interaction with human-kind. The bible talks about God's "ear," his "arm," his "eyes," his "memory," his posture (the throne of God, the position of the right hand of God). But as Calvin noted, these are for our benefit (anthropomorphisms) and are essentially condescension to us as "baby talk." Jesus told us that God is Spirit (Jn.4:24). But this in no way is to be taken that God self-limits. The question becomes, what is the nature of a genuine relationship to God? How does it start? Who starts it? The answer is that we, left to ourselves, apart from God, would never seek God (Rom.3:10). We, as sinners by nature and choice, run screaming in the other direction. This leads us to the notion taught in The Shack of "free will."

While we will not solve or resolve the issue of free will here, the church has dealt with this subject very thoroughly. And it is divided into two camps. There are those who hold that we can choose God and Christ, because God has given us free will. The other camp, usually termed "Reformed," holds that our wills are captive to our nature. Augustine clearly articulated this and Luther in his Bondage of the Will explores the subject completely. Unless God takes the first step and regenerates the fallen human being, we will never choose God. We cannot choose something, that Luther said, is "above" our natures. For example, you can demand that your dog fly and push him off a cliff. But he won't fly. Its not his nature. Or you could push your friend off the same cliff. He'll only fall. But when God renerates a person (Eph.2:5-9; Titus 3:5) he has a new nature (2 Cor. 5:17). Now he is free, gifted by faith, to choose that which is spiritually good; i.e., God.

In my opinion, The Shack attempts to make such a case for us choosing God that it ignores our fallen nature. It only pushes the question of why is there evil back one step in this regard.

Further, The Shack redefines unbiblically the Trinity. In the book one of the God characters says there is no hierarchy in the Trinity. This is sheer nonsense. Read any one of the gospels and you will find Jesus submitting to the will of the Father, but absolutely no where in the bible will you find the Father submitting to Christ or the Spirit. Even more heretical is the idea in the book that the Godhead submitted to humankind. Christ DID become a man but he never submitted himself to mankind.

Most abhorrent is there is no clear gospel in the book. There is a smarmy definition of sin which is somehow something that makes us miserable but no clear understanding as to WHY Christ died other than for a relationship and to somehow show us that God loves us. It is clear that the bible teaches God loves us (Rom.5:8) and directly connects that to Jesus' death. But if it is ONLY that, we are left with a rather cruel God. If this is the only way to show God's love, he surely could have chosen a less bloody path than the slaughter of Christ on the cross. Imagine a young man who wants to get engaged and marry the love of his life so they can have a deep, interpersonal relationship. They go on a picnic and he pops the question. She asks, "How do I know you love me?" So the young man jumps in the lake and drowns himself to show her how much he loves her. But... if God chooses to have a relationship (through his covenant) with us and the biggest obstacle is our sin against his holy person, then Christ is the only sacrifice possible BY TAKING OUR PLACE AND DYING IN OUR PLACE FOR OUR SIN. In other words, Christ endured God's wrath (not taught in The Shack) on the cross and his sacrifice satisfied God's wrath against sin and sinners.

From a practical standpoint, Young asks the right questions most of the time: why is there evil, how do I get free from the crippling consequences of sin (mine and others)? Granted that this is a novel. But it is an easy answer that attempts to show one can have spiritual change apart from the gospel and even the God of the Bible. All you need to do is to choose it. And if we can just "choose" to have our best life now, then what do we need Christ for? But if we are spiritually dead, and not just spiritual cripples with a decision-making problem, then we must be changed deep within. The Shack teaches that we can have God, apart from the Bible and apart from the Gospel and apart from true spiritual conversion.

The Shack slams the church of Christ. Christ in the book says he didn't create any institutions because they just use power and control over other people. Apparently Jesus of the Shack had Matthew 16 and Ephesians 4 ghost-written. In those passage Christ said he would build and gift his church to build the kingdom of God. The Jesus of the Shack says that he is in love with his Bride the church but passes off a stylistically airbrushed bride as the church of Jesus.

One might ask, would I recommend the book? No, not if you want to grow as a Christian. What would you need to study before you read the book, if you must read it? You should read your bible several times through to see what God actually says about himself. Secondly, you should study about the Trinity to understand the operations of the Trinity. Thirdly, you should study what the bible has to say about what the Gospel actually is.

Some will say that this book really helped their spiritual walk. I'm glad for them. And as I said, I like the questions Young is asking. But there is no true spiritual success or growth based on theology, principles, or applications that are directly contrary to how God has revealed himself in the Bible. I suppose this is my greatest complaint about The Shack. Someday we will see Christ as he is the Apostle John tells us. There will be no more tears or sorrow. We will enjoy God's presence forever. The Shack invents a revelation of God (in the bible this is called a prophecy) where Young puts words in God's mouth (not a metaphor, despite what Eugene Peterson says) that are contrary to scripture.

Highly NOT-recommended.

2009-04-15T12:33:00.000-07:00

Response to Decline in Christianity in America

Below you can find a link to the Newsweek article about Christianity's (present) decline in America. First Things First has a response. Noteworthy is that Newsweek's article came out right before Easter (coincidence?). Secondly, except for some odd-balls in the Christian extreme right (those in the Theocratic/Theonomy movement) no respected religious leader has called for America to be a theocracy. My take: from an unchurched, or non-Christian perspective (they are not the same thing), the campaigning for Pro-Life, Pro-Marriage, etc., IS viewed as an imposition of the Bible on the political sphere. They do not make quite the clear division between biblically founded principles (there are atheists who are Pro-Life) and appending a verse reference to a Senate bill. Thirdly, the decline in numbers of those professing to be Christians seems to have come from Meachem's research from MAIN LINE DENOMINATIONS. What was NOT mentioned was the significant growth in numbers from independent or non-denominational churches. For example, New Life Church in Colorado Springs, grew by 500 members in March 2009.

2009-04-15T07:32:00.000-07:00

Arks Everywhere

There is an interesting article this morning over at the Wall Street Journal. It seems both the faithful and financially savvy are building replicas of Noah's ark. There's a great slide show there as well. The builders in Hong Kong are clearly trying to get a message across- in the midst of a financial down turn life goes on. For some of the others...well, you discern why they built what they built. Some of it is sadly tragic- pastors claiming visions who run out of money, for example. As far as educational benefits go, I would love to visit one of the full size replicas. Years and years ago I was a youth group leader and for one of the lessons we paced off the dimensions of the ark in a huge field.

2009-04-14T08:08:00.000-07:00

Christians and Muslims Piece

There is a great interview over at the Wall St. Journal site that discusses President Obama's recent trip to Turkey and how that relates to the treatment of Christians in Saudi Arabia, Iraq and other places.

(Sorry, I couldn't get the code to work)

2009-04-13T05:32:00.000-07:00

hitchens is not great

I spent the weekend reading Christopher Hitchens' book "god is not great." Some of my Christian friends said they got half-way through it and felt they weren't learning anything from his rant. I was interested in what he had to say.

Hitchens blames religion for every ill and evil in the world. This is his basic thesis of why God is not great. He comes across as very, very angry. I suppose due to his vast experience (I'm not being sarcastic here) he has had a long look at the evil in the world and attributes it to religion. In many cases he is correct. All religions have some rotting dead dogs of evil on their doorstep. The question is does this 'disqualify' Christianity?

Hitchens goes for the textual criticism jugular when he attacks the bible, the Quran and the book of Mormon. Unfortunately, his scholarship in this area is out of date. He raises the long dead specter of liberal German scholarship of the late 19th century as proof that the Bible is a mish-mash of poorly written and strung together mythical stories. Somehow this is supposed to undermine the accuracy of the accounts in the Bible whereas it exposes his ignorance (read: lack of knowledge or purposed evasion) of current scholarship in textual criticism).

Then Hitchens raises several philosophical corpses to testify on his behalf: Darwin, Freud, and David Hume are the contestants in Hitchens' Religious Weakest Link Game who vote out religion from the contest. Unfortunately for Hitchens I think I would have chosen others if I were him. Even Steven J. Gould in his Structure of Evolutionary Theory admits that Darwin began with unconfirmed presuppositions such as the age of the earth and proceeded from there. Arguments about the complexity of the eye have been detailed by those over at AnswersinGenesis.com. David Hume philosophized himself into an existential corner when he tried to prove that God did not exist. He basically wound up saying that there is no experience which we can ultimately know to be true. This would be funny if it weren't so tragic. Why buy a book from a man who doesn't know if he exists?

What I find, though, to be absolutely hypocritical of Hitchens is that he is a former Marxist and has been through several marriages. Ultimately, if there is no God, then who is Hitchens to tell us, or anybody, what is right, wrong, moral or immoral? On what basis does he do this? He rails against the religious who caved in to Adolf Hitler but one cannot appeal to the general morals of a society held by the (non-religious) majority as a way of standing on an ethical soapbox fuming at the religious. Either Hitchens is just plain ignorant (which I doubt) or he purposely ignores other resources that have discussed this, such as Francis Shaeffer. If there is no Judeo-Christian ethic undergirding the decisions of a political body then the only way to enforce the law (will of the state) is the end of a gun. It is the ultimate power of political force and will. Therefore the political entity must multiply laws and have the will to enforce them. And if the majority is right then Hitchens is wrong. If it is not, then on what basis does Hitchens make his moral decisions? Ultimately, one would have to admit that the basis is either what he thinks or what he feels. This is a recipe for chaos. But this is exactly the foundation from which Hitchens would have us believe is the way to live. He cites his teacher who taught him about nature and the bible. He concludes at the wise age of nine years old that he "felt" that she was wrong about the nature part and therefore was wrong about the Bible part. He says, "He just knew it." This isn't science. It is existentialism. It is Hitchens' definition of faith of which he will condemn later in the book. Science will not tell you that it is immoral to abuse women, to plagarize a colleagues writings, or to steal from work. It wasn't designed for that. I'm reminded of a Far Side Cartoon where a carpenter is on the roof of house hammering shingles with the butt of a pistol. His friend below remarks, "So...they tell me you're pretty handy with a gun." Only a fool would use a gun to hammer a nail. Wrong tool for the right job.

Hitchens is obviously well-educated. But he seems to miss the simplest explanation of why there is a history of evil in religion. Jesus himself said that the church (and here I take it that Jesus is speaking of those who profess to be Christians) would be populated with imposters and imitators:

Jesus presented another parable to them, saying, "The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field. (25) "But while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went away. (26) "But when the wheat sprouted and bore grain, then the tares became evident also. (27) "The slaves of the landowner came and said to him, 'Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?' (28) "And he said to them, 'An enemy has done this!' The slaves *said to him, 'Do you want us, then, to go and gather them up?' (29) "But he *said, 'No; for while you are gathering up the tares, you may uproot the wheat with them. (30) 'Allow both to grow together until the harvest; and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, "First gather up the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them up; but gather the wheat into my barn."'"Matthew 13:24-30 NASB

Noteworthy it is the enemy of the kingdom of heaven that does this. Of course Hitchens would deny that there is a cognizant personality known as Satan. Instead, he denies that people sin. It seems more of an excuse to do what he desires than an intellectually honest assessment of the presence of evil in the world.

I asked myself, what I would say to Hitchens (or ask him) should I have the opportunity. Though Hitchens argues against the question "On what moral basis do you make your decisions?" his answer in the book is a non-answer. He just points to those who are religious and gives us the ethical equation: the more religious you are the more immoral you are (citing the abuse by Catholic priests, the slavery of the Muslim, the crusades of the Catholics, the anti-semitism of Luther, and the burning of Servetus by Calvin). His modus operandi is to call anyone who disagrees with him stupid, ignorant, mammals, etc. I believe his answer to the presence of evil in the world is simply the biological result of being the most advanced primate on the planet. IF (and I don't want to put words into his mammalian mouth) this were the case, then let's push the illustration a bit. I've never heard in all my reading about Jane Goodall of Chimpanzees or Gorillas going on trial for killing and eating each other. There is no good/bad/moral/immoral in their world. Whoever is the strongest (which is a basic principle of evolutionary theory) survives and wins. To stand in Hitchens' shoes, on whatever continent he has visited, is to knock him over, take his wallet, punch his nose and go spend his money IF we are simply mammals. Why would we appreciate literature (as the highest food for the soul as Hitchens claims) versus watching porn, reading the most vile pornography, and then acting it out in terms of killing and cannabalizing each other (as Chimpanzees do) and as Jeffrey Dahmer did? This is where Hitchens arguments break down and show their greatest inconsistency.

Organized religion DOES have a lot to answer for. And they will- in front of the judgment seat of Christ. As far as Christianity is concerned, God has used imperfect people such as Martin Luther to draw the church back to its biblical roots. In a hypothetical interview with God Hitchens poses the question as to why he didn't believe, as if it were coming from God. His answer is that he felt God would want intellectual and moral honesty (unbelief) rather than jaded and feigned belief in a god he didn't believe in. That would be hypocrisy. But Hitchens will not allow this choice for others, specifically those within the Christian church who chose to NOT believe what the Bible says about loving God and loving neighbor (such as Pope Julius II or Pope Leo X who figure prominently in the Protestant Reformation). What Hitchens grants to himself he withdraws from others. If the much vaunted "free will" is given to atheists then one must be consistent and grant it to those who would chose to do evil. It is hypocritical to say that religious people cannot chose but Hitchens can. I find it distasteful that a Marxist and twice married writer would presume to lecture me on morality. We can lay the moral blame for Marxists and their Communist progeny for exterminating millions in the name of their ideology.

Hitchens denies that atheism is a faith. It most certainly is. And what I find ironic is that he rails so adamantly against a being that he says doesn't exist. What do psychologists call a person who vents against beings that do not exist? Delusional schizophrenics. There are pills for that.

2009-04-12T06:54:00.001-07:00

Government and the Pulpit

There is an interesting article on the increasing attacks of the homosexual interest groups in prohibiting the expression of religious beliefs. The bottom line: if a religious person or group holds, by conscience, a belief that in any way prohibits them from an interaction with a homosexual (either by providing a service or expression)the person or group is legally harassed, threatened or prosecuted. This means that if a doctor will not perform an artificial insemination of a lesbian, or a pastor preaches against homosexuality, the doctor can be prosecuted and the church can lose its tax-exempt status. But the chilling news is what follows.

With Obama getting the government to bail out all sorts of businesses, the government, in effect, will apply its vision of "right and wrong" to those businesses. It is clear that there are some dangerous strings attached to the cash given for bailouts. Suppose that GM has a group of people who meet, off-site, for a bible study during their lunch hour. It is a simple matter for the government to tell them that they cannot meet because it violates the governments view of the establishment of religion. There is an old story of a little girl who was walking in the snow. She spies a rattlesnake and it says, "Please put me in your pocket to keep me warm. I promise not to bite you." "No," says the little girl, "You're a rattlesnake." "I promise I won't bite." So she picks it up and just before she gets home she feels a sharp pain in her hand. She flings the snake to the ground and yells, "You bit me! YOu promised!" The snake says, "You knew what I was when you picked me up." We should beware of this new vision of the government for the enforcement of the homosexual agenda.

2009-04-10T07:45:00.000-07:00

Debate: Christopher Hitchens and Ken Blackwell

MSNBC hosted a "debate" between author Christopher Hitchens (author of "God is not great") and Ken Blackwell of the Family research council.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Notable is Hitchens lumping all religion together- this is a historical inaccuracy. Hitchens is CORRECT though when he notes that Franklin and Jefferson were deists but to call one a deist is not the same thing as an atheist. I agree that Hitchens is correct when he says that America was not founded (in the era of the "Founding Fathers") by Christians. But he waffles when challenged on the subject of the Pilgrims/Puritans and the Mayflower compact, who were and was Christian. The point that Blackwell is making is that prior to the Founding Fathers this nation was founded on Christian principles. This is not to say that the United States was a "Christian" nation nor is it to say that the most recent incarnation within the Republican party is Christian, though some would like it to be. We must strive to keep the gospel separate from the political wrappings of the Christian right. But this also mandates that we hold fast to the idea that Christianity is not a "private" religion with no voice in the public square.

It is a small step from pushing Christianity to the fringe then off the map. There is freedom of religion in the 1st Amendment but not freedom FROM religion, which Hitchens and others would have us believe

2009-04-07T07:02:00.000-07:00

The End of Christian America

Over at Newsweek there is an excellent article on the "End of Christian America." Prompted by a poll that reveals the northeastern section of America increased from 8 to 15 percent those who are not affiliated with religion the author makes a case for keeping religion and politics/civic life separate. Before conservative Christians go off half-cocked the point is not that religion is private but the author extols the virtues of not making the civic arena the church itself. There are those who vehemently disagree and Jon Meacham points out that this was revivalist Charles Finney's position in the early 19th century. This was based on Finney's theology which said that Christianity was simply making the correct moral choice. The outcome in one venue was prohibition.

Historically, John Calvin, the Genevan Reformer would balk at this article. He had experienced one run-in with the Genevan city council and was told to leave. He did. The issue was that Calvin (and William Farel) believed it was the church that restricted or permitted discipline to the Lord's table. The city council disagreed. He eventually was invited to return, but his condition was the city council would let the church be the church. It was a tenuous wedding to be sure. THe city council restricted the celebration of the Lord's table to a few times a year. Further, Calvin felt that it was the obligation of the government to further the gospel.

I believe Calvin erred. While he agreed that there is no mandate of imposing the Israeli form of Old Testament government upon the current civic government, he seems to have missed the point in Romans 13 that the government is an institution to serve God by punishing evil doers and rewarding the righteous. There is no indication anywhere in the New Testament that the Law (of Moses) was or is to be imposed on government. In the late 60's and 70's there was a movement known as Theonomy which seeks to impose the Law of Moses upon civil society. Some PCA Presbyteries endorsed this though those that did have largely faded or pulled out of the PCA. They're considered to be aberrant.

The great danger in seeing America as a "Christian" nation (besides being historically inaccurate) is that the gospel gets mixed up with politics. Billy Sunday, an early 20th century evangelist, said that if you're a good American, you're a good Christian. But it seems that this brand of Christianity, culminating in the religious right during the Bush era, isn't as exportable as biblical Christianity. And it becomes, for some, the watershed mark of a "Christian," as well as a target for atheists like Christopher Hitchens.

Christianity, biblically considered and presented, is foolishness to those who are perishing: For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.1 Corinthians 1:18 ESV. To mate the Gospel with any political expression is to empty the cross of Christ of its power. While I grieve that there are those who have no spiritual interest and will perish without Christ, the "post-Christian" findings of the survey reveal a world that is much closer to that of the New Testament than was perceived 20 years ago.

The larger question then becomes what are people doing and thinking to fill the void left by the absence of a "Christian consensus"? Spiritual life abhors a vacuum. One can hear the phrase "I'm not religious, but I am spiritual." The question over the next 20 years will be what does 'spiritual' mean?

2009-02-26T07:51:00.001-08:00

Earmarks of the Soul

I'm absolutely livid right now. In the new Federal budget there are over 8500 "earmarks," (special projects to "return" money to our elected officials' home states. Some of them include studying pig fumes, buying a tatoo machine to remove tatoos of gang members (supposedly helping them with their self-esteem). Here is how it works. We send a congressman or senator to Washington to represent us, the taxpayer. They increase our taxes (note the articles floating about the internet on taxing how far we drive because we are being "green" or conservative in how much we drive because now they don't have an oil-based tax revenue like before). Then, in order to garner the affection of these same (abused) tax payers as well as giving business to big contractors they tell us how much they are helping us by bringing these projects to our neighborhoods. So now they want us to re-elect them. There is another word for this: stealing.

The book of Micah in the Old Testament describes these less-than worthy elected officials. They strip the cloaks off of those returning for war, the religious clergy (prophets) will say whatever you want them to for a beer. The good news is that when Messiah came he would set the example of a godly ruler. The new budget makes us long for the return of Christ.

2009-02-22T16:12:00.001-08:00

Huzzah for University of St. Thomas

When many evangelical churches have abandoned the text of the Bible, rightly exposited, opting out for funky sermons on 30 days of great sex, financial management seminars, or laying around the room listening to New Age music in self-induced hypnotic trances, the University of St. Thomas in Houston hosted a marathon Bible reading. From Friday to Sunday night, around the clock, this Roman Catholic University sponsored a reading of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation. This is wonderful. The ABC News clip here tells the viewer several of their reasons. Though I wouldn't personally agree with every person interviewed, most poignant is the young man telling the audience that reading the bible every day, a small passage, directs our attention to God. How true...and how sad that many evangelicals rarely crack open their bible. Again, Huzzah (that means "hip hip hooray!") for the University of St. Thomas.

2009-02-18T08:01:00.000-08:00

On those who deny...

As many of you know, there is an ultra conservative Bishop Richard Williamson who continues to deny the holocaust. While it is a blight on the Vatican, they are dealing with it to some degree.

I was a young man, newly enlisted in the Army, and assigned to the 59th Ordinance Brigade in Pirmasens, Germany. One weekend, a couple of friends and I took off for Munich just to get away. It would become one of the most sobering weekends that I ever experienced. We went to Dachau "prisoner of war" camp. It was fairly well cleaned up and the kitchens, offices, etc, had been turned into a museum of sorts. The barracks were all torn down except for one or two reconstructions. On the North side was the picture in this post- translated "Work will make you free." It was through this gate that thousands marched to their deaths. In an area separate from the barracks compound was a long strip of a building. On the west side of the building were showers. I remember standing in that room and there was a large, poster-sized photograph of bodies stacked like cordwood. I looked at the room, then back at the picture, then back at the room. The photo was of the very room I was standing in, bodies stacked some four feet high. Further to the east were several ovens, complete with stretchers to insert the bodies. Though the ovens had been cleaned out you could still see some ash.

Years later I would meet a retired Army sergeant, Roy. Roy was one of the liberators at Dachau and had to stand guard night after night by those ovens. His tales were chilling.

What is sad and immoral is for Williamson to refuse to visit one of these sights. Millions of people of all faiths were killed wholesale in these furnaces from hell. We still weep for them...but I weep more for Williamson. Perhaps he should take a lesson from the message at the gates- do some work on the holocaust, it will set you free.

2009-02-17T08:43:00.000-08:00

Back

It has been a while since I posted ANYTHING. Please forgive the hiatus. Since the turn of the new year I've been thinking about quite a bit of things. We've had a lot happen: the inauguration, the continued fall(ing) of Ted Haggert and some interesting responses to some blogs about Catholicism.

What I find interesting about the latter is that many assume that I know next to nothing about Roman Catholicism. Not so. I was raised Catholic, was an altar boy, attended Catholic schools until I was 16 and once considered becoming a priest. I've written one book on the Roman Catholic view of Scripture. I did my doctoral work connected with the contrast between Calvin's view of preaching and the (then) Catholic view of preaching. I'm keenly aware of the movements within Catholicism, both conservative and traditional. I became a Christian at a Catholic retreat for young people in 1972.

But what I find amazing is the propensity for many evangelicals to assume that since their Catholic friends believe a certain thing or doctrines concerning Christ, faith and the Bible, that it is wrong to say that Roman Catholicism in its doctrine is incompatible with Reformed theology. There is always what I call "Faria's rule of religion." That rule is "As is the preacher...so are the people." In simple terms, those who regularly attend a particular church TEND (but are not required) to believe what the preacher is saying. There are many Catholic priests that seem to be more evangelical in their doctrine than many evangelicals. But this most certainly does not mean that the Roman Catholic church has changed its position on justification by faith alone. Nor has it ceased requiring the priests in their ordination to take a vow of obedience.

It is intellectually dishonest, in my opinion, to take a vow as to one's beliefs then to hold to another that is antithetical to the original vow. Here's a short list of teachings that the Roman Catholic church has not rescinded:

* Those would say that they are freely justified by God's grace alone and that works do not merit or cooperate with God they are condemned by the Church. Specifically, CANON XI.-If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favour of God; let him be anathema.

*CANON XII.-If any one saith, that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ's sake; or, that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified; let him be anathema.

CANON XIII.-If any one saith, that it is necessary for every one, for the obtaining the remission of sins, that he believe for certain, and without any wavering arising from his own infirmity and disposition, that his sins are forgiven him; let him be anathema.

CANON XIV.-If any one saith, that man is truly absolved from his sins and justified, because that he assuredly believed himself absolved and justified; or, that no one is truly justified but he who believes himself justified; and that, by this faith alone, absolution and justification are effected; let him be anathema.

CANON XV.-If any one saith, that a man, who is born again and justified, is bound of faith to believe that he is assuredly in the number of the predestinate; let him be anathema.

Those are just for starters. In the second Vatican Council the canons of that council declared Protestants to be the "separated brethren." In other words, the Church has NOT moved in its position. They are assuredly welcoming those from the Protestant camp into the arms of the mother church but they count that it is the Protestants who moved away and not the Roman Catholic church.

In our post-modern world it makes little difference whether one quotes the Canons of Trent or the current Catechism. It is not "nice" and considered to be "bold" to say that someone is wrong. But in answering that I humbly side with the Apostle Paul.

There was a heresy that was making headway into the churches of Galatia. It even tripped up the Apostle Peter. Jewish Christians were teaching that one had to follow the Law of Moses and circumcision to be a "real" Christian. Paul responded:

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel-- (7) not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. (8) But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. (9) As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.Galatians 1:6-9 ESV

Rest assured this was not simply a war of words but wrestling over what truly the Gospel of Christ was. The Reformed categories of justification and sanctification can never be mixed. We are justified freely by God's grace with no additions. This is not to say that sanctification is without good works. But those good works in no way contribute to our salvation. From first to last, salvation is the work of God in the undeserving sinner. The Reformers made if very clear that it is a faith without works in contributing to our salvation but a faith that results in works that stem from our salvation.

Rome and the Protestant church are at odds in this, both doctrinally and how it works out practically in the Christian life. They will never be reconciled until Rome recants concerning justification by faith ALONE.

2008-12-19T08:38:00.000-08:00

Rick, take two blessings out of petty cash

Bravo to Rick Warren. Warren did an interview with Dateline that will appear this evening. Today Show anchorette Anne Curry asked pointedly whether Warren was homophobic and if science were to discover that homosexuality was biological, would Warren change his position. Warren denied being homophobic and noted that Saddleback had helped the homosexual community with AIDS. He then went on to note that nature disposes him to have sex with every beautiful woman he sees but that doesn't make it right.

Bravos and blessings to Warren. I say this because he is holding to a biblical standard despite social pressure. Now if he could just be as clear about salvation as he does this. Warren did great job, at least on this piece.

2008-12-16T08:43:00.000-08:00

Newsweek's Mutual Joy

The December 22 issue of Newsweek features a cover story by Lisa Miller. Her article deals with justifying homosexual marriage. Bottom line: religious homosexuals are in a committed relationship and the bible does not condemn homosexual "committed" relationships.

Miller builds her case by stating that the Bible is a living document, people have changed and ministers and liberal Bible "scholars" support gay marriage. This age-worn methodology sounds good but it draws upon outdated presuppositions from 19th Century German liberalism that supports the idea that the Bible is nothing more than a book, written by men. Further, Miller ignores the framework that the Bible builds around itself; i.e., a developing redemptive-historical framework. One can get the Bible to say almost anything, like a bad ventriloquist act, by simply pulling verses and ideas out of context, willy-nilly. For example, Miller points out that the Bible "endorses slavery." But Miller fails to recognize that this was a form of indentured servitude that had to be terminated in its seventh year. And it was most certainly not the same form of slavery that was practiced in the United States. It was a welfare system designed to save a Jew from total financial destitution. Further, what Miller ignores is that from a Reformed perspective Old Testament Law is not imposed upon the church or society at large.

Miller does a hack job on Jesus and Paul in the New Testament. She says that Jesus was indifferent and Paul said the ultimate reason for marriage is to control animal lust. If someone is going to quote the Bible they should quote it (or paraphrase it) accurately. Jesus was by no means indifferent and Paul likely was married at one point but both have an overriding inertia: the gospel of the Kingdom of God.

The one point Miller misses entirely is that there is more than just the "committed love" aspect of marriage. It is that marriage is to reflect the person and character of God; i.e., his imageness if you will. And God's image is reflected in man AND woman, not man and man in a committed relationship. Genesis 2:24 speaks of husband and wife being of one flesh. Miller pokes fun at this and says that it likely refers to the physical joining of man and woman. Perhaps on the surface. But it is no surprise that God describes himself in the great Shema (Deut.6:4)as "one"- the same word that is used in Genesis 2:24.

Christians who do not believe in homosexual unions are referred to (by Miller) as literalists in a condescending fashion. Of course they would be. One has to believe that the Bible must be twisted, out of context, and out of its redemptive historical framework to arrive at homosexual unions. Miller tries to prove this when she points out the 'sins' of Abraham (having sex with his servant girl), Moses marrying a foreigner and not a Jew, multiple marriages and the pinnacle relationship between David and Jonathan. Imagine, though, what a trip to Rome might be if you knew absolutely nothing about the Romans. You could view the Coliseum and claim it was built by aliens, or view the statues in the Vatican and say that they are 1:1 models of real life people, albeit 15 foot tall people. In other words, Miller drags up her 'facts' regardless of the context of the text; i.e., social, religious, redemptive, covenantal, and arrives at the conclusion that the Bible can be anything we want it to be. She says "we change" and the bible must, therefore, accommodate us. Or at least the Christians should.

But if the Bible DOES have a context, both cultural and theological, then it is the book(s) that reveals the unchanging character and person of God. It is like an anchor that will not be lifted lest the ship dash itself against the rocks. The struggle then becomes one of pitting God against the fallible sinfulness of humans that long for justification for their lust.

2008-12-04T10:04:00.000-08:00

Hannity and Colmes better evangelists

Conservative/liberal commentators Hannity and Colmes intereviewed Purpose Driven Rick Warren, regarding a new book for Christmas that he has written. The transcript can be found here. It is "trendy" to take pot shots at Warren for his unusual approach to Christianity but on many occasions several wiser than me have noted that Warren is not preaching a biblical gospel. I noticed several things:

1. It is Hannity who quotes scripture, not Warren. Warren seems to deliberately avoid reference to any scripture. This does not mean that a "biblical" preacher lets scripture roll off his tongue in every other sentence. But I find it curious that Warren does not.

2. Colmes zeros in on the issue: trusting Christ as "personal savior." Warren does not. He uses several euphemisms; i.e., God has sent a (Christmas) gift, we need to unwrap it, etc. After repeated attempts Colmes just seems to give up trying to get a straight answer.

3. Warren speaks freely of God's love. But he NEVER addresses why anyone needs God to love him. The biblical answer is that we are unlovable: we are sinners by nature and by choice, rebelling against God and have offended him. Some may balk at this thinking God is way too petty- if God is infinite surely he can get over it, can't he? A low view of God's holiness always makes for a high view of man. God is an infinitely holy being. As such rebellion against him is an eternal, cosmic action with eternal consequences; i.e., his very nature demands that sin be punished.

4. Warren and pragmatism. Warren, like many other pastors, is stuck in the rut of the pragmatic side of "trusting Jesus." He notes in the interview that Colmes should "try Jesus" for 60 days. Again this brings us to the question of why one would need Jesus? The closest Warren gets to answering this is that if we didn't need one, God wouldn't have sent one. That is not an answer. He (Warren) goes on to say that Jesus meets our deepest needs. Oh? Is that the reason that scripture gives? My biggest problem is that my deepest needs aren't being met? And if that is true (its not) then God is essentially cruel because he slaughtered Christ on the cross because I need some (unknown) set of needs to be met. This is classic 1930's liberalism that scoops out the biblical definition for words like sin, love, offense, salvation, and infuses them with unbiblical definitions. Sin is not offense against God but becomes "my greatest needs that I attempt to satisfy."

What is even poorer is that Warren doesn't seem to have a clue where this could lead. The history of revivalism shows that when people "walk the aisle," or "make a commitment" based not on the biblical understanding of repentance and faith in Christ alone, they quickly fall away (Read McGloughlin's works on revivalism). And as a result they become "burnt out."

So "try Jesus for 60 days"? What the heck does that mean? Does it mean that I go to church, listen to the sermon (from the guy in the Hawaiian shirt), and ....then? This is just nonsense. It is consumerism wrapped in religious language that promotes the idea that Jesus is there to be consumed, like any other product on the shelf. And what happens when Colmes realizes that he isn't happier, more wealthy, loses his job or his wife leaves him (1 Cor. 7)? Warren's "gift of Christmas" is a ticking time bomb just waiting to catch the unwary.

Hannity is a better evangelist. Colmes is a better evangelist quickly narrowing the issue: Does one have to accept Jesus Christ as one's Savior to have eternal life? The answer is resoundingly yes. The first sermon Jesus preached was "Repent, the kingdom of heaven is at hand." God is not a poor waif knocking at Scrooge's door begging him to "unwrap the gift" so Scrooge will have a better life and not be so nasty.

2008-12-03T08:43:00.000-08:00

Giving up on Parker

There is a silent little war going on between Kathleen Parker, columnist for the Washington Post and the politicos over at Focus on the Family. Parker wrote a condescending article that opined in order for the Republican party to continue to exist (and therefore succeed) it must give up on God. Or at the very least, it has to privatize religion ("where it belongs"). She gives several reasons:

1. Religion should be private.
2. America has changed and (twice noted) no longer consists of white middle class people.

In response, Focus on the Family is calling for email bombs to Parker (not in the terrorist sense, but to email her en masse). My opinion is that this rarely succeeds. All Parker has to do is to set her email client to scan for the subject line and it will automatically dump the emails.

In response, let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that Parker wrote this article to irritate the Christians. It worked. But it exposes a far wider and deeply embedded posture: It is perfectly permissible in America to trash Christians than it is other religions. Islam is politically hands off. Judaism is protected politically and economically as well. Hinduism may be off limits simply because it is so complex that few westerners understand it well enough to slam it. But Christianity seems to be fair game. What the "cognoscenti" hate is the absolutism of Christianity's claim; i.e., that Jesus Christ (alone) is the Savior and there is no other way of salvation. That simply is viewed as too-closed minded, provincial and therefore is "armband religion" (read: Nazi-like). But let me respond in kind.

Firstly, though the first amendment (and the WP) give Parker the right to freedom of expression it most certainly allows her to demonstrate her foolish presuppositions for all to see. Since when has Christianity (or at least a biblical expression of if) taken its lead from those who do not believe in Jesus Christ as Savior? This clearly is a clash of kingdoms: the kingdom of this world vs. the kingdom of God. EVERY TIME organized religion has attempted to make nice with atheism, agnosticism and its variants, it has lost out in the transaction. It seems perfectly permissible to demand that Christians compromise their beliefs;i.e., make 'religion' private, but atheists, agnostics and the like do not seem to want to reciprocate (read: DUH!). (Then again, when you do not believe in God what is there to compromise?)

Parker then goes on to exemplify the "William James" school of religion: religion has value if it works. She writes, "...it isn't necessary to evict the Creator from the public square, surrender Judeo-Christian values or diminish the value of faith in America. Belief in something greater than oneself has much to recommend it, including most of the world's architectural treasures, our universities and even our founding documents." But if one's religion or beliefs (if one is a Christian) are privatized, isn't that the same thing as evicting the Creator from the public square"? Note also the vagueness for political correctness: "something greater." That, for Parker, is intellectually acceptable. Parker equates belief in a Creator (deism?) fine as long as you don't call him/it/higher power/her/whatever the Judeo-Christian God as demonstrated by her lambasting Sarah Palin for using evangelical lingo in speaking of God "opening a door" for her to run as a presidential candidate in the next election.

Secondly, I'm always amused by the apparent "open-minded" posture that writers such as Parker make much pretense to (I know...never end a sentence with a preposition). She states that America has changed and it is no longer white and Christian. Has she looked in the mirror lately- she is a successful white woman who likely is NOT middle class but moderately well-off. If not well-off she most certainly is not drawing welfare checks. She essentially is saying, "See? I'm educated and open minded enough to stand like an avatar above the simple-minded huddled masses who are too ignorant to fend for themselves and I can see the broad horizon of all viewpoints." This is exactly what Alan Bloom wrote about in his Closing of the American Mind. He noted that not only did most (if not all) incoming freshman to America's colleges hold that there are no such things as absolutes, but also if one believed there were, you are viewed on par with those who still believe in Santa Claus (his point about being the avatar is above).

But it is also important for Christians to listen very carefully, albeit, between the lines of Parker's column. Wrapping the gospel in the American Flag has backfired and Parker's article is one of the salvos in an ever increasing call to the evangelical church to stop. This is the essence of Dobson's article. I do think that FOF has done some damage over the years in this area. So has George Bush. It may be patriotic to sing "God shed his grace on thee" but it is dangerous to say that if you are a good American you're a good Christian (Evangelist Billy Sunday). Some worship services have gone off the end of the pier by turning the Sunday morning service into a patriots-only parade. This we cannot afford to do. In the truest Reformed sense, there are two spheres of authority- that of the civil magistrate, and that of the church. There is some overlap for the individual Christian but there cannot be for the church.

The Republican Party (or any other for that matter) is not a denomination. But neither is Parker. It is ironic that she calls for the Republican Party to give up on God... all the while missing the point that she is hammering religious and philosophical nails into the planks of her own party.

2008-11-01T13:21:00.000-07:00

Better video of Sai Baba

In this video Baba produces a golden 'egg', a necklace from the air, and ash from 'nowhere.' Audio is good on this one.

2008-11-01T13:09:00.000-07:00

Sai Baba

Back in 1997 I was honored to be selected by the Army Chief of Chaplains to obtain a second master's degree in World Religions. I chose Columbia International University because of their new Islamic studies program. During that time one of the instructors introduced me to a book about Sai Baba, an Indian Shaman who apparently did miracles of producing ash from thin air among other things. He had (has?) a large following. But he is another in a long line of charlatans duping people for money and power. Here is a short video on how he produced the ash. (Unfortunately, parts have no audio but you'll get it.)

2008-11-01T13:06:00.000-07:00

Debunking Yogi "god men"

Bravo to these Indian exposers to demonstrate how easy it is to fool someone.

2008-11-01T12:53:00.000-07:00

A Yogi Deception

"If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or wonder that he tells you comes to pass, and if he says, 'Let us go after other gods,' which you have not known, 'and let us serve them,' you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams. For the LORD your God is testing you, to know whether you love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. (Deuteronomy 13:1-3 ESV)

Some of you might know that I've been doing magic tricks since I was six years old. It paid for college and seminary. I'm currently the president of the Society of American Magicians Assembly 170 here in Colorado Springs. I am also on the committee for the investigation of paranormal and the occult for SAM. I came across this video on Yogi Levitation. I rarely will EVER tip how to do a trick. But what disturbs me is the religious aspect of this.

In the first picture you can see the fakir "levitating." Notice that there are several people praying either to him or one of the gods. In the next pic it is a clear levitation. But in the third you can see the method.

This man is using his illusion 'skills' (and a very old trick I might add) to induce people to a) give him money and b) deceive them spiritually. This is specifically prohibited by the Old Testament Laws. The emphasis in the Bible is NOT the method, but in the product that is produced...to lead people to other gods whom they have not known. The video (short) is posted below.

2008-10-14T17:06:00.000-07:00

Eternity in a 4 1/2 pound package

The new English Standard Version Study Bible by Crossway is now out. I saw a preview copy at the PCA General Assembly in Dallas last June and decided to go ahead an order one. Mine came today. This is just a preliminary review. I'll post a more in depth review once I've had the chance to use it a bit.

The hardback version weighs in at a hefty 4 1/2 lbs. Some of the features are:
*2752 pages
* 20,000 notes
* 200 plus charts
* 200 color images
* 50 articles

The English Standard Version is a fairly literal translation and is an update of the Revised Standard Version which was an update of the American Standard Version. Unfortunately the RSV had a liberal agenda and deliberately mistranslated some words due to their theological bias. It is true that every translation reflects the presuppositions of the translators. But both the New American Standard Version (updated in 1995 or so) and the ESV are very good translations. I have a friend, a fellow minister, who calls all these study bibles "Agenda Bibles." In other words they reflect a marketing trend to cater to particular tastes. In part that is true, especially when you see the remarkably silly "Golfers Bible," one among many agenda Bibles. Nevertheless I rejoice when anyone publishes a bible that helps me to understand it better.

The notes, according to the preface in the ESV Study Bible are from a "classically Reformed Orthodoxy." Time will tell if this is true. But a glance at those who wrote the notes for particular books reveal their authors to be mostly Reformed in their approach. The ESV study bible is balanced in that it also includes commentary notes that clarify positions from Roman Catholics and others. This is not to say that the ESV Study Bible is going to be welcomed by non-Reformed denominations.

The Study Bible is available in hard cover, tru-tone, Genuine and Bonded leather and Premium Calfskin. Another feature is that those who purchase the ESV study Bible are given a code to access the ESV study bible online. This is a definite added perq.

My only preliminary criticism is that it seems that Crossway, like many publishers today, skimped a bit on the quality of the paper. In my opinion Oxford bibles and many of the Thompson chain reference bibles, as well as the Holman bibles use extremely high quality paper. I, like many others, enjoy making notations in my bibles as I read and study and cheaper papers tend to make pens bleed through the pages.

All said, it looks like Crossway has given the Christian community a product that will last beyond any agenda bibles. You can order it at Crossway. Unfortunately, you won't get the pre-publication price but you can still get it at 15% off what you will pay in stores.

UPDATE: I discovered that amazon.com has significant discounts close to the pre-publication prices on the study bibles. You can find them here.

2008-08-13T09:03:00.000-07:00

Barack...The One?

This is a hilarious ad put out by the McCain campaign. Either they or Barack are believing his publicity.

2008-08-13T08:38:00.000-07:00

Dinosaurs 1, Christians 0

According to a Fox News Article a federal judge has ruled that the University of California can refuse to admit high school graduates who studied from Christian textbooks. Essentially he stated that the books failed to foster critical thinking and learning which must be a hallmark of public school texts and instruction.

The Bottom Line: The Federal judge has just violated the first amendment. Back in the late 1960's there was a court case that demonstrated evolution as a religious point of view. Now, the judge has basically stated that his and the University of California's viewpoint is THE only viewpoint as to how to think. Right thinking (evolution) is now the order of the day.

Have you looked at any public high school textbooks recently? I have. They go from excellent to the worst kind of fodder being foisted on kids. Though I am adamantly opposed to some of the cultic influences within the home-schooling movement, at least many of their text books are solid.

What is also interesting about this case is that the University of California DOES admit high school students who used books promoting Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism. This is a clear case of religious preferences masquerading as Law

2008-08-13T08:35:00.000-07:00

A Brave Young Man

Mosab Hassan is a very brave young man. He converted to Christianity from Islam. Fox News has this report concerning Hassan. What is fascinating about the interview is that he avoids the cheap grace that often accompanies these stories. In other words, he is very intelligent and considered Christianity from more than one perspective.

2008-08-11T07:50:00.000-07:00

Jesus Junk

It seems like every time I open my mouth (read: write something) someone comes along and slams me. Recently I made a few posts on another blog, or comments, and one gal decided because I didn't speak in tongues that I 1) Did not have the Holy Spirit and 2) Was not saved. (This is an old heresy from the early church whose founders were kicked out of the church by the way). Nevertheless... even when I change the tone from confrontation to something else someone comes along and complains. So... that being said, I found a news article on ABC News that piqued my interest. It was about "Christian retailing" (read: Jesus Junk).

This is nothing new. The Web site "A little leaven" has been posting these abominations for quite some time. In the video on the site you can watch several Christian retailers hawking Jesus bobbleheads, walking nuns, Testamints, and even a "body by God." I think that somewhere in the mix the message is missed though because the products are so tawdry. Moreover, they make Christ irrelevant. And they cheapen the gospel. It is a multi-million dollar industry to be sure. And many of the manufacturers and creators of these items are sincere. But sincerity is not the measure of truth. One of those interviewed stated that they do have questionable items for sale but if that prompts discussion then it is okay. I beg to differ. The death of Christ on the cross turned into a chocolate treat is blasphemous. No wonder Christianity is rapidly becoming one of the minority religions in the world. Christ didn't die for a sweet tooth. He died for our sin because sin is an offense to the holiness of God.

When one looks back to the Protestant Reformation it was the sale of indulgences and abuses within the Roman Catholic church that sparked the beginnings of the protests. Luther was appalled that the Catholic church published a catalog of prices for indulgences. He was convinced that Albrect and the Pope would never do anything like this. He was dead wrong. Now, instead of indulgences, the Protestant retail community sells bobble heads. We've come full circle.

2008-07-23T09:14:00.000-07:00

A Feeling of Helplessness

Every morning I sit down at the computer and with coffee cup in hand and dog on my lap I read the electronic versions of the major newspapers, watch news videos and generally catch up on what is happening in the world. I often come away with a feeling of helplessness.

I read widely on religion, politics, local government and there is a feeling among many of those who respond to the articles that are posted that is reflective of this helplessness. One gathers the sense that our representatives in government are seriously out of touch with the constituency. The Denver Post, as well as sites like newsbusters note that representatives and staffers preparing for the Democratic National Convention have access to and are using the tax-free city pumps for their vehicles. Since when did this come into effect that political parties get a free ride? For years, as a military chaplain, I've never understood why gasoline is at least as expensive and sometimes more than the civilian counterparts off post. According to one website that analyzes gasoline prices 24% of the price we pay at the pump is a combination of local, state, and federal taxes. This means on a 4.00 a gallon gas we pay almost 1.00 dollar tax. Why would DNC representatives not have to pay while thousands of members of the military pay all while serving their country for low pay. I just watched a video (AP News) of an excerpt of John McCain calling for a temporary tax relief on gasoline. (And before any of you holler at me telling me that the taxes go for road repair to a struggling infrastructure that is crumbling as we speak, I know, I know, I know).

But from a Christian perspective or at least a Reformed perspective we know that nothing catches God by surprise. We know that God can turn the heart of a nation's leader whatever way he chooses (Prov.21:1). And he judges nations. Sinclair Ferguson once mentioned in a sermon that the reason God brings judgment on a nation is because nations do not have souls, so they must be dealt with in a temporal fashion.

I am not saying that the U.S. is under God's judgment, as others are currently writing. I am saying that when one feels helpless there is great comfort in knowing that God is in control regardless of who is in office.

2008-07-22T08:29:00.000-07:00

Scott...What Happened?

I just finished reading Scott McClellan's recent book, "What Happened." It is a fascinating account of the Bush Whitehouse and McClellan's experiences leading up to and including his resignation as the White House Press Secretary. Scott basically states that the Bush presidency failed on three issues:

1. The Iraq War
2. The Valerie Plame/Joe Wilson Debacle
3. Hurricane Katrina

Underlying all three of these was the implementation of what is known as the "Permanent Campaign." (The Permanent Campaign and Its Future by Norman J. Ornstein ). Orignally, Bush as governor of Texas was forced to work across the aisle due to the nature of how the branches of government in Texas are constitutionally arranged. He vowed to continue this at the Whitehouse. But that quickly fell by the way-side and moved to a continual campaign for various issues (No child left behind, Social Security Reform, Modernizing the Military, etc.). This then engendered an in-built two-fold result; i.e., secrecy and failure to work in a bi-partisan manner.

1. The Iraq war- this first issue led to the second. As the Bush machine ramped up they looked to Iraq. One can postulate all sorts of opinions as to why we went to war; i.e., oil, Bush seeking revenge for the attempt on his father's life, etc. Nevertheless, when I was in Kuwait in 2001/2002 I remember an upcoming briefing on Dec 15, 2002, that was going to be presented to Bush on the invasion of Iraq. In other words, it was good military planning and a done-deal (that's bad). Spend any time in the military and one recognizes that if the president was in Africa, for example, and remarks to his wife how neat those elephants are, you can bet that someone overhears it and by the time it gets down the pipe, someone is saying that the president wants an elephant at the Whitehouse. I believe the same thing happened with Iraq. Information that didn't undergird the Bush idea that Saddam was seeking nuclear material and WMD's was quickly dismissed. McClellan says as much. This led to the second issue.

2. Plame/Wilson affair. Wilson was sent by someone (McClellan is confusing at this point) to Niger to ascertain whether Iraq was seeking yellow cake nuclear materials. Former Ambassador Wilson discovered that the documents were a forgery and the notion was untrue. At this point, with the Permanent Campaign threading its way through everything, the decision was made to discredit Wilson and thus hopefully discrediting his findings. Ultimately the dog came to rest at the door step of Scooter Libby, Cheney's Chief of Staff. But apparently Karl Rove was also in the loop. They floated (at a minimum) the idea that Wilson's wife, Valerie, was a covert operative for the CIA. McClellan asked Rove point blank whether or not he gave Plame's name to Reporter Robert Novak. Rove replied that he didn't, that he didn't know her name. The true was quite different. Emails show that while Rove may have not known her name, he gave her (Mrs. Joe Wilson) identity to a reporter two days before he talked with Novak. In other words, his answer was technically correct but still revealed the information. McClellan went in front of the press and told them that Rove had nothing to do with it; i.e., the impression that Rove gave. Scooter Libbey said the same thing. McClellan was put in front to take the heat.

3. Hurricane Katrina- McClellan says that most of the impressions of the president as ineffective were due to his permanent campaign posture (stay the course.

Why talk about these politics here? McClellan states that he is a man of faith; i.e., a Christian, and I take him at face value. What he discovered and was so painful was the idolatry that is incipient in politics. While the government can be a minister for God (Romans 13) it often assumes to itself ways and means that are essentially idolatrous and self-serving. McClellan states that he does NOT believe that Bush knowingly mislead or lied to him. I believe that to be true. But the book is a testament to the pain that comes when one realizes that his idols are no longer serving him in the manner that he thought they would... or should. McClellan strikes me as an honorable man, but somewhat nieve. He rightly recognized, but after the fact, that politicians accumulate power for their agendas. This can be a good thing in that if their agenda is selfless and in the service of the governed one can accomplish great things. But when this power is used as a club, as in the permanent campaign, and demonstrated by the purposely scare-tactic campaign concerning the failure of social security, it becomes manipulative and ultimately destructive.

I had the impression that McClellan thought he was higher up on the political food chain than he really was. This doesn't circumvent the pain that he experienced in standing up for beliefs and people that he deeply believed in. But wisdom would and should dictate that one must be wary of promises made and "truths" told. Was McClellan betrayed? I think so- he was hung out to dry and made the target for the machinations of a political machine that had inertia which swept him downstream where he did not want to go. I can guarantee you this: He will be much wiser now about to whom he gives his loyalties and will probably check the next idol for cracks in the clay feet.

2008-07-22T07:49:00.000-07:00

Codex and the Man

According to MSNBC portions of the Codex Sinaiaticus will be available on the internet this coming Thursday. That article (mentioned) details Tischendorf's search for ancient Greek Manuscripts of the New Testament. Bruce Metzger's book on The Text of the New Testament details this fascinating and almost "Indiana Jones"-like search. In short Tischendorf was staying with the monks at St. Catherine's monastery at Sinai and discovered one cold morning a monk warming himself by a fire...which he was stoking with these ancient leaves of Greek manuscripts. Tischendorf was not completely honest but managed to spirit away the Codex Sinaiaticus from the monks.

There is a lot of controversy over this codex (book). Firstly, it is a fourth century manuscript. So it is somewhat removed from the earliest, Alexandrian types. Secondly it (along with Codex Vaticanus) differs from the most ancient manuscripts. Here's where it gets sticky.

There are some in Christendom that hold to a philosophy called "King James Only." They maintain that the most ancient manuscripts (which are fewer in number and usually called Alexandrian in their "type"-they were discovered in or are associated with the city Alexandria, Egypt) were a corrupted form of the original texts of the New Testament. They base this on a number of reasons including the influx of Greek philosophical beliefs into biblical or New Testament theology. Among those skewered are Origen and Clement of Alexandria.

Some of the early church fathers, such as Origen had some unusual ideas. Origen, for instance, thought that eventually even Satan would be saved. Tertullian who was NOT friendly with Greek philosophy eventually joined the Montanists; an early "Pentecostal" movement that rejected much of the Old Testament.

The KJV-only folks maintain that the Majority text (a conglomeration of a multiple family of texts- Antiochan, Byzantine, Western, etc) all witness to a unified content of the New Testament, while the early (Nestle-Aland, Westcott-Hort) texts are in disarray.

As far as I can understand the arguments, they boil down to the following:
1. The most ancient is the most accurate- but they are few in number.
This philosophical belief (and it is a belief) is that the closer one is to the source (both in age and type) the more accurate the text is. Those who hold to this belief (as do most New Testament scholars) maintain that it would be terribly difficult to alter the text.

2. The most prolific number of manuscripts, both in number and geographical dispersion are the most accurate.
This view maintains that the later texts 4th century and onward are the most accurate because they have such a wide distribution and tend to agree in their readings for the most part. The majority text is based on these texts. It is postured that it would be next to impossible to introduce a different sentence, paragraph or word into the text since from Spain to Syria and beyond the texts were already in agreement.

Most of the KJV only arguments are butressed on a philosophical/theological foundation that states God preserved the text of the bible. SOME (but not all) of the doctrine is founded on : Isa 55:11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it. (KJV). In order for this to occur, God must preserve the content of the Bible.

An excellent source for understanding this argument is the introduction to the New Geneva Study Bible (which is New King James). The KJV only brothers reject this translation by the way.

To gather this all together, the Codex Siniaticus would be rejected by the KJV only groups. Unfortunately, in my experience, this entire field of study has been tainted by several streams. Firstly, seminaries from the 1920's to the present have been adversely affected by what is known as Higher Criticism. It was perceived to be standing in judgment over the text of the bible. Basically the theory is that if you begin at a document, let's suppose, that is from the 16th century then move backwards through time and several earlier documents one would be able to tell where and how changes might have been introduced into the text. These changes occur both externally and internally. For example an internal change results from a copyist making a mistake by letting his eye skip down three or four lines in the original to a similar or identical phrase and copying that phrase into his next generation manuscript. This was more common with Greek texts than was Hebrew texts. Hebrew scribes were known to be excellent copyists (see Josh Mcdowell, Evidence that demands a verdict, Vol 2). Eventually it is believed that one will go back to the original reading, through several families of texts. Unfortunately, in my opinion, this is based on the singular premise, that the most ancient are the most accurate. In my opinion that is a statement of faith that cannnot be proven.

Secondly, those who were theologically liberal in this field treated the text(s) with less respect than they ought to have. As a result, huge portions of text were thrown into question.

So where do we end up? I believe that we cannot prove either premise; i.e., that the Alexandrian text type or the majority text type is better than the other since both are essentially grounded on unprovable premises. It seems to me that we would benefit from studying BOTH types. And as many who have said before me, we arrive at a 99.99999999999% accuracy of the text.

2008-07-13T17:40:00.000-07:00

Power of words

There is one whose rash words are like sword thrusts, but the tongue of the wise brings healing. (Pro 12:18 ESV)

I ran across two very powerful public service announcements today. They both can be found at http://www.ncpc.org/newsroom/current-campaigns/cyberbullying/cyberbullying-radio-public-service-announcements. What I find so amazing is that it so strongly reflects the biblical value of how words cut like a knife.

Some of us are wired more rationally, some more relationally. Unfortunately, I tend not to be aware of how cutting my own words are or their effect on my neighbor. It is a character flaw to be sure. Else where the scriptures tell us that the words of the righteous are a fountain of life (Prov.10:11). And I believe that it is the Spirit of God that enables us to bring this healing life-giving quality to our words.

I admit that some of my past blogs have been fairly cutting. Perhaps this is why James makes it ever so clear that we ought not to be so quick to become teachers because we have to give a greater account. Blessings on the folks at these public service announcements for doing us so great a public service.

2008-06-26T10:12:00.001-07:00

A long road

I just completed my Doctor of Ministry Degree at Covenant Theological Seminary. It is the end of a long road of study that began back in 2001. I knew then that I wanted to work in the area of preaching. Someone has once said that when you graduate from seminary you think you have all the answers... to questions no one is asking. Then given some years of ministry experience you long to go back to the class room to ask all the questions that you know that you do not have the answers for. Covenant Seminary has an excellent D.Min program. Despite what Dr. David Wells has written about D. Min programs Covenant's program is a good mixture of solid theological study and practical integration with congregational/pastoral life. My favorite classes:

* Dr. Wilson Benton's Pastoral Theology class.
* Dr. Dan Zink's Counseling class.
* Dr. Chapell/Dr.Thomas Grace Centered Leadership class.

You might be wired differently so you'll likely have other classes that you can add to the list. And they don't let you off the hook when it comes to writing your dissertation either. It is high-caliber advising when you have many sets of many eyes upon your dissertation (Hats off to Dr. Agan and Dr. Bradley).

2008-06-26T09:56:00.000-07:00

New Visit to an Old Friend

A couple of weeks ago I attended the PCA General Assembly in Dallas, Texas. Back in 1985 I enrolled at Dallas Theological Seminary. So at GA I was able to go an visit an old friend, the DTS campus. 20 years is a long time and there have been so many changes at the Seminary. As I walked the grounds there were a lot of memories, some good and some bad. I walked into the student lounge and it seemed much smaller than I remember... and a little scruffier. But the many, many conversations I had around those tables came to mind. Walking by the classrooms and library I remembered all the long hours of study, lectures and tests.

I think if I had to do it all over again, I would be much quieter and focused on learning more. As a young man, I was very brash and very proud, which is very humbling. Chuck Swindoll has said that it takes 5 years to get seminary out of your blood. I think he was right. But I also remember the training under godly men, such as Don Sunujkian, Reg Grant, Dr. Lightner and (now) President Mark Bailey. I would have talked less and listened more. I would have profited by having a mentor that pointed me to all the people that over the next 20 years would have the ministry of DTS invested in their lives. I would have spent more time visiting I think.

Seminary, especially one's like DTS, are like drinking from a firehose. The high caliber, information heavy classes are good training. One of the things I would have benefited from would have been to have put all of it into perspective. No institution is perfect and no attenders are either. But I have to say if you want to learn how to preach DTS is still faithful to train men in expository preaching.

But after all the years I don't think any seminary can teach you how to pastor. My first year of ministry after seminary I realized that I did not have the kind of love for my "flock" that Paul did (1 Thess.2:7). Most seminaries focus on developing the all important skill sets that are necessary to become a pastor. But the qualifications in 1 Tim.3 focus on character qualities. It is a hard balance, to be sure. DTS had some excellent classes on pastoral theology and I remember the gentle instruction of Dr. Toussaint. So one must pray for God to grant a supernatural care for one's congregation. And he loves them more than we ever could and it seems to me that he is pleased to grant these requests, despite our weaknesses and in full view of them.

So visiting an old friend helped turn the pages of the past 20 plus years for me.

2008-06-19T10:02:00.000-07:00

I've been thinking a lot about Galatians 6:4

But may it never be that I would boast, except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.
(Gal 6:14)

I believe spending time in the Bible is a means to an end. When we boast about something, it will either be ourselves or about Christ. If we boast about ourselves, and I more than often seek my own glory, rather than Christ's, then we really have not had the world crucified to us. Positionally, or theologically it is true. But daily/experientially, we are valuing whatever it is we think the world can give us more than we value God. This takes us to a place of conviction and judgement. Isaiah 44 writes,

Surely he cuts cedars for himself, and takes a cypress or an oak and raises it for himself among the trees of the forest. He plants a fir, and the rain makes it grow. Then it becomes something for a man to burn, so he takes one of them and warms himself; he also makes a fire to bake bread. He also makes a god and worships it; he makes it a graven image and falls down before it. Half of it he burns in the fire; over this half he eats meat as he roasts a roast and is satisfied. He also warms himself and says, "Aha! I am warm, I have seen the fire." But the rest of it he makes into a god, his graven image. He falls down before it and worships; he also prays to it and says, "Deliver me, for you are my god." They do not know, nor do they understand, for He has smeared over their eyes so that they cannot see and their hearts so that they cannot comprehend.
(Isa 44:14-18 NASB)

v.18 may refer to the idol(s) itself or to the people committing the idolatry. We laugh at the sarcasm, but oh, how true it is. Replace the piece of wood with a piece of paper (a degree), a promotion ceremony, a new car, a new house, a larger bank account, a child going to Yale or Princeton and you get the picture. Isaiah continues,

"Present your case," the LORD says. "Bring forward your strong arguments," The King of Jacob says. Let them bring forth and declare to us what is going to take place; As for the former events, declare what they were, That we may consider them and know their outcome. Or announce to us what is coming; Declare the things that are going to come afterward, That we may know that you are gods; Indeed, do good or evil, that we may anxiously look about us and fear together. Behold, you are of no account, And your work amounts to nothing; He who chooses you is an abomination.
(Isa 41:21-24 NASB)

Isaiah is specifically commanding the idol(s) to DO SOMETHING...but they are of no account. In v.24 they are literally disgusting and a "breath," meaning they are as vaporous and visible as a human exhalation.

In order for us to spend time in the Bible, we have to love God more than we love our idols. The imagery that Paul tells us, "the world has been crucified to me," must become explicitly our experience. All that the world offers, i.e., prestige, accolades, stroking our pride and self-worship have to be nailed to the cross of Christ. And that requires dying. The struggle that we have is that I do not believe we can do this- the lure is too strong, and the bait is too good looking and appealing (James 1:14). I am suspect when I listen to someone who says, "Oh... that doesn't appeal to me." Throwing half a log on to the fire and fashioning an idol from the other half really doesn't "float my boat." But when I stand in line at the airport in jeans and beat up shoes and watch businessmen in $500.00 suits and $2000.00 Rolex's stroll by to the no-wait line to get in first class, I turn green. And then I have to walk past them in the plane to sit next to the bathroom with all its odors. This is something I think Paul understood- he was the Pharisee of Pharisees, well-known to all the Supreme Court justices of the Jewish Sanhedrin, mentored by the R.C. Sproul of his day (Gamaliel). Yet he counted it all crap (if you pardon the grossness of that imagery).

We need to sense a strong sense of helplessness to resist the siren song of the world that draws us and our sinful nature to crash on the rocks of idolatry. We know it is not only bad for us but also that it is self-destructive to our walk with God. Here is where God the Spirit must crucify us to the world, the second half of Paul's verse (above). I think this is two-fold in how it works out.

Our radical American individualism tempts us to start making a list, such as "I will read the Bible every day." But unless God pours into us a love for him greater than the love of the world our efforts will come to nothing because we're still in love with someone or something else. The solution is that we, in Christ, die daily, on the cross. In other words, we count as true what has already happened and accomplishes its effects on us daily (Paul uses the past perfect, "...have been crucified." The "negative" side of this is always in play. This means we will likely grieve over our idols. And when someone usually urges us to read our Bible, study, learn from the great men of the faith, it is akin to someone telling us our shapely trophy wife has died and someday we will meet another. Death of an idol and our grieving over it does take time. Nevertheless, I believe were we to be in God's immediate presence his incredible holiness expressed in his glory would create an instantaneous longing in our hearts, a thirst only that he can quench. This is what we want to experience now. A greater love for God through Jesus Christ. This is why Paul prays for the Ephesians,

that He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with power through His Spirit in the inner man, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; and that you, being rooted and grounded in love, may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled up to all the fullness of God.
(Eph 3:16-19 NASB)

So our love for the Bible must begin with prayer that we would love God more than anything and anyone else. But we must be prepared for God to seek his highest good and glory in us and the pain of the death of our idols. No reading program will ever accomplish this...but it will start us on the path to learning about God. This is why Paul prays previously,

I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened, so that you will know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, and what is the surpassing greatness of His power toward us who believe. These are in accordance with the working of the strength of His might (Eph 1:18-19 NASB)

Notice that Paul says that we would "know the hope of his calling." Paul uses an intensive form of the verb for knowledge. In other words, it is more than knowing a fact (the dog is black). It is knowing the grand vista of what God has done in Christ in us together with the church, the body of Christ.

What we're really talking about is forming the image of Christ in us- and that is a work to which God is absolutely committed. If we are able to sit on the porch and look at the grandeur displayed in the sunrise or sunset and just catch a glimpse of the beauty, how much more when we read and study the scripture and grasp the incomparable surpassing greatness of the love of Christ (Eph. 3:18, 19).

2008-06-03T16:57:00.000-07:00

Our Basic Christianty Class 1

2008-05-16T13:58:00.000-07:00

New Perspectives on new perspectives

I recently had a post on the new perspectives on Paul (NPP). Unfortunately, I failed to communicate what I really wanted to and it simply served to muddy the waters when it came to this perspective. For this I apologize. Let me be as clear as I can be- there are quite a few views of how one can interpret Paul. If we discard the excessive views that might be found we still end up with the NPP folks and the other two main viewpoints: Protestant and Catholic. I did not intend to communicate that if one holds to NPP that one is not a believer in Jesus Christ. N.T. Wright himself is a good example- though I disagree with many of his conclusions, he is an affable and excellent writer, as well as a staunch defender of the scripture and the bodily resurrection of Christ. That being said, it is always better to discuss in the light rather than to argue in the dark.

2008-04-28T08:27:00.001-07:00

FCC and religious imposition

The FCC is now proposing that radio broadcasters are out of touch with their local communities.04-233 Report on Broadcast Localism and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

It is audacious and condescending to think that a board in Washington, DC (FCC) is more in tune with a broadcast station's audience than the station itself. A simple mental exercise would reveal that a local station or group of stations market itself after doing assessments and surveys to assist not only the programming content but the sales ads that it sells to advertisers.

The FCC is simply making an ad hoc statement in order to shoe-horn a political agenda. This adversely affects the religious community broadcasting on religious issues. To set up a Federally mandated community board of advisers is not only ludicrous but contradicts the First Amendment of the Constitution. Such a board could be mandated under new FCC rules to be comprised of non-religious and anti-religious people that could mandate what the religious broadcasters are sending out over the airwaves. This is as non-sensical as having Midas Mufflers advising McDonalds on how to make hamburgers quieter.

The FCC needs to follow the mandates of the Constitution rather than imposing a political agenda from afar.

You can go to http://www.nab.org/AM/aspcode/fcccomments/FCC_Comments_MB_04_233.asp to file a complaint or opinion but it must be filed today as today is the deadline.

2008-04-22T11:00:00.000-07:00

Jesus wore cowboy boots

There is a church in Sidney, Ohio that has begun new services in a bar and features cowboy country music. It is called the Country Rock Church. I suppose we're suppose to be shocked that they're meeting in a bar. I really don't have any problem at all with that. Our men's study for Westminster Presbyterian meets on Saturday mornings in a bar and grill called "Frankie's too!" But what bothers me about this Country Rock Church is their approach to worship. According to their website they say, "Top regional bands, pizza, wings, rowdy fun & a short message." The church is saying that the purpose of a worship service is all about what someone gets out of it. They're saying the purpose of the service is to have fun. But Jesus said that people are supposed to worship God, not each other, and to worship the Father in Spirit and in Truth. I don't think Jesus would object at all to pizza, wings, rowdy fun and regional bands. I think he would enjoy them. But I don't think he would enjoy them being the focus of a gathering of the saints which is to focus on the Father and not on rowdy fun.

This is rank consumerism. It is one thing to reach people in bars and such- we do that ourselves at Westminster. Jesus did it, Paul did it. But the focus is on God in a worship service. If you'll notice the sign for the church it says "Show starts at..." The bottom line: this church believes worship is to entertain people rather than to hear God's word.

2008-04-03T11:06:00.001-07:00

Why the little "E-Sword"?

A couple of months ago I came across a Free Bible program called E-Sword. I downloaded it and started using it. I was skeptical because I've been using Bibleworks for a long time. But I now use E-sword as my main study program. Here's why:

* Ease of Use- you don't have to spend tons of time learning the program. And there are very clear and easy training vid's on the e-sword web site.

* Ease of additions- There are lots of modules available for E-Sword that are high quality. The Bibles that are available free: ESV, KJV, KJV with Strongs, Greek NT. I bought the NASB module for 20.00 and love it. There are also free Keil & Delitsch, Robertson's Word Pictures, several dictionaries. All of the BIbles can be viewed individually or up to 4 parallel versions.

* Easy to personalize- most of the bible modules out there have a little note window. But E-Sword not only allows you to put your own notes in the study portion but allows you to create your own clickable bible text. So for example, you're studying Ephesians 1:17. In your window you write several texts that cross reference "the Father of Glory." Moving your mouse over these brings up an immediate pop-up window with that reference displayed in whatever search version you are currently using. How cool is that?

* Low Price- its free. That's right, it is free. BUT...I highly encourage you to make a donation since this is a very powerful package.

Things I'd like to see:
* Easier selection of different font types in the pull down menu. Type the first letter of the font and it appears. This is a standard windows interface.

* More updated add-on modules. While there is the NASB and NIV (at a small fee) I'd like to see more commentaries like James Montgomery Boice, or others. Also things like Word Bible Commentary, IVP Background Commentary, Greek and Hebrew Grammars, etc. It would greatly enhance this already great program's features.

2008-03-21T10:31:00.000-07:00

He is Risen

Every Easter you can count on the media bringing out all sorts of "controversies." These usually question the resurrection or something associated with the resurrection. This morning I saw a video on MSNBC on the Shroud of Turin. For those who do not know much about the Shroud it purports to be the burial cloth of Jesus. But it didn't show up until the late 12th century then was hidden until the middle ages.

As a former Catholic I was introduced to the Shroud when I was in 2nd grade through the book by Pierre Barbet. While the subject is fascinating it would make little difference if the shroud was actually Jesus' burial cloth, which I don't believe it is. It is likely the result of medieval methods of photography via what is called a "camera obscura." Using the materials available at that time to artists, the cloth was covered with a mixture of solutions and placed in a darkened room. Opposite this was a corpse or statue, the image being transferred to the cloth which essentially acted as a piece of film.

The Gospels and Acts do not place the emphasis upon a cloth. They place the emphasis on an empty tomb and the resurrection. They place the emphasis on a living, breathing Jesus who interacted with his people for 40 days after the resurrection. The message of Easter is not a cloth but a Christ who died and rose again.

2008-03-15T14:00:00.000-07:00

Respectable Sins,

I've been reading Jerry Bridges' "Respectable Sins." Though he has a good grasp of the gospel and grace, I was disappointed when I moved on to the chapters such as Ungodliness, anxiety, etc. It seemed to me to be moralistic- he encourages the reader to glorify God, consciously, in every waking moment, whether driving in your car or brushing your teeth. That inward look into our hearts is only going to be frustration and cause us to lose our objectivity in our growth in Christ. To use Jesus' example, he is the vine and we are the branches. The branches are branches. They don't have to look inwardly every second to see if they're branches. I once lived in a house that had grape vines growing outside of my window. I NEVER heard a single branch grunting and groaning to squeeze out a grape. It was the nature of the branch to yield grapes. In the same way, while we work with God in our sanctification, making wise use of what he has given us in word and in prayer, etc., we ARE Christians. While I agree with Bridges that we have come to accept some sins as lesser sins and offenses and that is wrong, but to do this constant inward inventory is pietism at its worst. The question will arise sooner or later whether or not I am driving godly...enough, or being kind...enough. And those are subjective, unverifiable things. Rather, I would rest in Christ that as a believer I strive to do what God pleases- and that is listed in the Bible for me. Of course, I will fail. But by grace I can succeed.

2008-03-11T08:08:00.000-07:00

Contemporary... or contemptible?

The BBC is going to launch an Easter drama portraying Judas and Pilate in a good light. As you know Judas was one of the twelve apostles and betrayed Jesus to the Romans. Pilate was the governor or procurator of Jerusalem and surrounding areas, a representative of the Roman empire. The writer of the drama stated, "We are not seeking to subvert or rewrite the Gospel narrative – we are just retelling it to bring it alive for a contemporary audience." Further, he noted that he was never comfortable with the (Bible) story that does not explain why Judas betrayed Jesus.

I cannot count the number of times that I have heard, from ministers, the same thing; i.e., that we need to make the bible come alive for a contemporary audience. Underlying this statement is a set of presuppositions which may or may not be consciously held on the part of the writer of this statement. For him, it sounds like one source among many. In other words, there is no submission to the scriptures that is binding upon one's life and world view. If this were true he might have said, we don't know why Judas betrayed Jesus, but we accept the story as true. Secondly, there is the presupposition that God somehow short-changed us in not telling us what we want to know. Or you might put it this way: God is bound to answer my questions. But last time I read the bible I found that the truth is actually the other way around- I am bound to answer God's questions. This is not to say that one can't ask God the questions of life, and the really hard questions at that. But the book of Job lets us know our place- God is Creator and we are creature and never the two shall meet or be mixed.

What we do know of Judas is that he was a thief. John 12:6 tells us that Judas was in charge of the Apostle's money box. He was their "comptroller." And all the apostles (and Jesus) knew that he was stealing from it. We also know that he took 30 pieces of silver from the priests to betray Jesus. We can deduce some things about Judas then. Firstly, he was not motivated by Jesus' teaching about the kingdom of God. Go back and read Jesus' parables about the kingdom and you find that he often compared the kingdom (God's rule in the human heart) to one searching for something valuable- a treasure or a pearl that was very costly. Judas made a clear choice- he was motivated by personal gain. This was the controlling factor in his life. He cared little about the kingdom. Secondly, he sold Christ for cash. Jesus, in other words, was a way for Judas to forward his own personal agenda- Christ as a cash cow. He hitched his wagon to Christ's as a way to get rich. Today we call this theology "prosperity gospel." Christ is not the Christ of the bible, but the Christ of one's personal agenda.

Pilate, on the other hand, is portrayed in the bible as a measly and weak governor in the backwater of Jerusalem. According to the New Testament History, by F.F. Bruce, we discover that Pilate was also ruthless. In the bible we discover that Pilate mixed the blood of some Jews with their sacrifices (Luke 13:1). He was not interested in truth but only keeping things quiet so that Rome would not remove him from his post. In other words, he was much like Judas in that his personal agenda was first and foremost.

When people begin to tell us that they want to make the bible more relevant to the contemporary audience it betrays a fundamental problem. They rarely go to the scriptures to find out what it actually says. It is an attempt to make God and Christ in their own image

2008-03-10T07:21:00.000-07:00

Being Drawn... and quartered

If you'll read the post immediately before this one we were discussing churches that were moving to a more contemporary expression of worship in their music. But underlying this is a set of presuppositions that I believe is very dangerous to the church.

One of the hallmarks of Reformed theology is that God elects whom he wills and brings them to faith in Christ. In John 6 Jesus states, " No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day." John 6:44. It is the "job" of the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity, to testify about Jesus. My point? Since it is God's Spirit who draws people to Christ, who are we in the church to tell the Spirit who he can and cannot draw to Himself? More than once I've been told that unless I draw "legitimately unchurched" people to the church plant then I'm not really planting a church: I'm only reshuffling the deck. What nonsense. The bible does not make that distinction.

Take a long look at the book of Acts. The Apostles and Paul consistently went where religious people were in their own society. They went to synagogues and marketplaces, city gates where people discussed philosophy and the news of the day. They went to homes to find religious converts to Judaism and preached the good news. And once Paul was told not to go to a locale he had his eye on, despite the fact there were the "legitimately unchurched" there.

I'm saddened that there are those who make such distinctions. There are bruised reeds and smoldering candles, people which life has beat upon in their marriages and their jobs. And they are Christians, Jews, Muslims, Wiccans, Atheists, Agnostics and even Presbyterians. We do not stand at the door of the church with a security wand waving it over their hearts to discern whether they are "unchurched" for real. Can you imagine anyone telling them, "No... you can't come, you're not enough of an unbeliever?" In reality, this is telling the Holy Spirit...you can't bring them here, they are not wanted.

2008-02-14T08:16:00.000-08:00

Just one question

Over the past two weeks I have had three people call me and begin the conversation with "Can I ask you just one question."

Westminster Presbyterian Fellowship is our new church plant in Eastern Colorado Springs. And we purposely chose a different route in which to plant this church. Firstly, we were told that we had better not use the name "Westminster." We were told that it would only attract Reformed Christians. Then we were told that we shouldn't use the term "Prebyterian" because it would only attract Presbyterians. THEN we were told we shouldn't use traditional music because it would only attract traditionalists. By the way, these were all ministers that were speaking.

Meanwhile, back to the phone call. These people wanted to know only one thing: "Is your music traditional or contemporary?" They collectively communicated that they were being driven from their churches because they had either hopped on the Purpose Driven train, or wanted to sing occasionally some of the hymns that deeply communicated their hearts to God in song. (By the way, I'm not saying that all contemporary music is bad and that all traditional hymns are good). But their questions exposed a deeper rift that is being perpetrated on God's people.

In our hopes of reaching out to groups of people that would normally not come to church, churches are changing their worship styles. And this is not just within the PCA. And it isn't all bad either. But every style has a set of presuppositions attached to it. And it is these presuppositions that are being wielded like a club over the heads of God's people. Back east a minister friend of mine told me that after bringing on a younger pastor to "attract a younger crowd," he sold off their organ, got rid of the piano, fired the choir and brought in a rock band. The parishioners sat their with eyes as big as saucers watching a performance rather than participating in worship. One woman told me she was tired of being entertained in church.

This most certainly isn't something new. Since the Second Great Awakening in the first part of the 1800's the revivalists changed services to "reach" the lost. They would blow into town, build a huge building and hold evangelistic services. They gathered a choir, had people sing "specials" and preached that one could simply choose Jesus. Then they left town after the revival. And they left bodies in their wake. Yes, God can use anything and anyone to bring a person to Christ. But the result of these revivals according to William McGloughlin, a revival historian, is that there was no growth in church membership after the revival had come through the streets. George Barna of the Barna Group noted the same thing in his book "Marketing the church."

We can argue all day long about the traditional vs. the contemporary but I don't think that is where we need to spend our time. I think we ought to be discussing our presuppositions about what worship really is. More later

2008-02-14T08:08:00.000-08:00

Ron Gleason and Deacons

My friend Dr. Ron Gleason publishes a blog/article that is extremely well researched. With his permission I am posting his latest. Blogs are inherently one-sided- they're opinions and facts about opinions and facts. But I note that Ron has come to the same conclusion as I have stated below on this issue.

A Matter of Concern in the PCA
I am Woman; I am a Warrior

Over at the Bayly blog (http://www.baylyblog.com/), a torrid discussion has been raging surrounding Ms. Carolyn Custis James, wife of Frank James, President of Reformed Theological Seminary—Orlando. I truly liked Ms. James’ encouragement to women to become better theologians in her book When Life and Beliefs Collide.[1] The first part of her first book was quite good and to the point. The second half read more like a rant by an angry woman and she lost me, but, as I say, the first part was beneficial. If she could have ground her ax and left it at that, we all would have understood. As it stands, however, the rant was longer than her initial point. I still support her thesis that Christian women ought to be good theologians.

Since the time of the release of that book, Ms. James has published and spoken more and has made some outlandish statements, especially about the Hebrew word rz<[Eß ((((‘ezer) that she desires to translate in the vein of “warrior.” Thus, Eve was not a real “helper” to Amsterdam in the sense that the Church has understood that term, but rather she was more of a “warrior.”

When I first heard this at a seminar led by Ms. James at the Chattanooga PCA General Assembly, I had certain questions that I put to Ms. James that, to this point, she has never answered. In fact, when I asked these questions, Ms. James entered the “spin zone” and danced around the issue until we were out of time. What were the questions I asked? First, I wanted to know which commentary or lexicon she had used to acquire this translation of rz<[Eß since I have read a number of English, Dutch, and German commentaries that don’t head in that direction.

Second, I was curious why the word “warrior” was necessary for Eve in the pre-fall situation. In short, where was the fight? In contemporary categories, if Eve said to her husband, “I have a dog in this fight!” his response would have been “What fight?”

Third, I wondered why Eve would have been given a pugilistic name and her husband not. Ms. James does not find evidence that the man had to be some kind of warrior as well and one can only wonder why, unless Adam was the prototypical “girly man.” Or, he was willing to let her fight for who knows what while he watched ESPN.
The Growing Trend of Unordained Women Deacons in the PCA

In reality, however, the Carolyn Custis James discussion on the Bayly blog morphed into something else that I want to address now. One participant on that blog site, who is apparently a PCA pastor, commented that there are already women Deacons in the PCA. That’s a very interesting concept as I shall show from the PCA’s Book of Church Order in a moment. This same man went on to say that in his PCA church and his sister churches in the region, they also have women Deacons. His justification for having female Deacons is the following: “This has been a tremendous blessing to our Deacons’ boards and our church members who have been greatly ministered to.”

This is becoming an increasingly common phenomenon in the PCA.[2] More and more PCA pastors are thumbing their noses at the BCO and going their own way. It is possible that these men disagree with the wording of the BCO, but there are church-orderly ways of attempting to change the BCO. Until the time that the BCO has been modified, Teaching and Ruling Elders in the PCA are duty bound to adhere to the contents of the BCO, since they have given their word that they would. By any stretch of the imagination, making such a vow carries with it enormous ethical implications and applications.

The pastor’s appeal on the Bayly blog is primarily to a perceived blessing; a nebulous blessing that remains virtually undefined. From there, it is only a short hop to an equally nebulous number of church members “who have been greatly ministered to,” whatever that means. This is a self-fulfilling prophecy; a self-serving argument. But the notion is that if a number of church members were greatly ministered to it really doesn’t matter what Scripture or the BCO says. This is the kind of approach that is finding favor and acceptance in the PCA and for those who want to play by the rules (which, by the way, as I just stated, we vowed we would do, but apparently being “greatly ministered to” trumps vows), this is a disconcerting turn of events.

It should also be noted that we have lost two PCA churches to the “women’s ordination” issue already. City Church in San Fran, under the leadership of Fred Harrell left the PCA for the notoriously liberal Reformed Church in American (R.C.A.) precisely because Fred wanted to ordain women. Fred’s congregation had a similar situation vis-à-vis unordained female Deacons. Most recently, Sam Downing’s congregation in Denver, CO pulled out of the PCA and also joined the R.C.A. You might recall that Sam had a woman on staff with the title of Minister of Congregational Life. Sam swore up and down, left, right, and center that this was not an ordained position and that having a woman on staff enabled him better to relate to the “cultured despisers” of Christianity in Denver. Right. Apparently, the law of “unintended consequences” kicked in along with Murphy’s Law. In case you are not familiar with the R.C.A., it is the professed denomination of Robert Schuller. It is the American branch of the old Dutch State Church (Hervormde Kerk) that was abysmal in 1834.

I won’t even comment on the debacle that the PCA is sponsoring called the “Missoula Project.” When you have a pastor that says, “I don’t trust anyone who won’t drink a beer with me,” then you are in deep, deep ka-ka folks. That’s just about the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. Even some of the pagans in that “gathering” wonder why the pastors want their opinions on things in what is supposed to be a Christian congregation. It takes a pagan to state the obvious that seminary trained pastors cannot fathom.

In addition, I have been sent “letters” of explanation written by PCA pastors explaining why women are taking more and more of a prominent position in the worship services. Headquarters in Atlanta is remaining strangely silent as this scenario unfurls. It is next to impossible to locate a responsible party there. Supposedly, the ecclesiastical buck stops somewhere, but no one either knows or wants to take the responsibility for something they helped to create. I won’t place the guilt at any one door, but without a doubt the Mission to North America branch has played a role and it appears that our Reformed University Fellowship is slowly following suit. If we have a headquarters in Atlanta—which we do—then someone, somewhere must be responsible.

Did I mention that on the Harrell and Downing church plants about $1.5 million of PCA money was spent? This is merely the tip of the iceberg. The jury is still out on how much PCA money has been lost on PCA plants that have gone “belly up.” Is anyone, anywhere out there in headquarters-land reflecting on why these church plants failed? I have not seen or heard any reports about failed church plants and what can or should be done to correct or revamp the PCA’s approach. In fact, all we see is the Missoula Project, which seems as goofy and loopy as the now-defunct Provo, Utah debacle. Simultaneously, my own Presbytery has witnessed a number of PCA church plants (and they were all “hippy-dippy; happy-clappy. When they died their slow but certain death, not one member remained PCA, if they even knew what it was in the first place. The dirty little secrets are that they were “Presbyterian under the radar” and were loathe to get Elders. You know, the types of experienced, godly brothers that just muck up a young pastor’s vision for his church plant.) It would seem—it would seem—that when a pastor like Harrell or Downing jumped ship as they did that as pastors they would have some ethical compunction about taking the money and then, when it was no longer convenient, expedient, or when the PCA no longer resonated with them, finding a way to pay part or all of the money back. It doesn’t happen.

So the “traditional” PCA churches contribute to the “askings” of the PCA, while the church plants and those who are less concerned about advertising that they are PCA pay little or nothing. Then after those churches squander millions of PCA dollars, PCA headquarters asks the traditional churches to pony up more money because headquarters has a shortfall. There is something dreadfully wrong with that picture. But I digress.
What Does the Book of Church Order Say?

On the matter at hand: What does the BCO say about females as Deacons, even if they have greatly ministered to church members? A common ploy is to assert that Deacons hold their credentials as either ordained or unordained, as if it really doesn’t matter and is simply a preference. One PCA congregation has unordained male and female Deacons; another has ordained males and unordained females; it’s all the same. But according to the BCO, Chapter 9 (The Deacon), it isn’t. In 9-3, here is what we read: “To the office of deacon, which is spiritual in nature, shall be chosen men (emphasis mine) of spiritual character, honest repute, exemplary lives, brotherly spirit, warm sympathies, and sound judgment.” Where might unordained women—or men also for that matter—fit into a Deacon Board? BCO 9-7 settles the matter: “It is often expedient that the Session of a church should select and appoint godly men and women of the congregation to assist the deacons in caring for the sick, the widows, the orphans, the prisoners, and others who may be in any distress or need.” This clarifies matters enormously, but apparently for some it isn’t enough.

This approach, although finding acceptance with some, begs a number of questions: If one is not ordained, how can one be said to have credentials? What are the credentials that an unordained Deacon has? This is a “tough sell” for those looking for women serving as Deacons. You could ask the same question this way: What authority does an unordained male or female Deacon actually have? Is the charge to the congregation given according to BCO 24-6.6? Does it matter? Is the right hand of Christian fellowship extended for being unordained into the office of Deacon? Why or why not? Does the pastor declare “that _____________ has been regularly elected, ordained (or unordained) and installed a Deacon in that particular congregation, agreeable to the Word of God, and according to the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church in America; and that as such he (or conceivably she) is entitled to all encouragement, honor and obedience in the Lord”? (cf. 24-6.6).

How does an unordained Deacon function differently than an ordained deacon? That is to say, are there instances in the congregational life where a Deacon might have to exercise (financial) authority? In my experience, the answer is Yes. Does a woman have the biblical right to exercise authority over men, even though some church members have been greatly ministered to by women Deacons? Does it matter?

Do the Scriptures, Westminster Confession of Faith and BCO make this distinction? The clear and simple answer is that the unordained Deacon phenomenon is a man-made product. It is the outworking of the “a woman can do anything an unordained man can do.” Susan Hunt and Ligon Duncan write, “Some churches assert that women can do anything that unordained men can do. The proponents of this approach say that since women are mainstreamed into the total ministry of the church, a women’s ministry is irrelevant or redundant. The vulnerability of this position is that it denies the uniqueness of woman’s design and role and leaves men and women susceptible to egalitarianism. Without a biblical apologetic of womanhood, and a mechanism for women to be discipled by godly women, the church will imbibe the world’s apologetic, and this distortion will create confusion and conflict among men and women.”[3]

Theology and Ethics; Biblical Truth and Christian Conduct

When Paul wrote to the Church that she was not to be conformed to this world, but to be transformed by the renewal of her mind (cf. Rom. 12:2), he had already laid down a solid foundation of biblical truth in the preceding eleven chapters. Many today want to jettison the doctrinal truth and biblical distinctions between the sexes and in the offices and go straight for the pragmatism of the world and the ideals of our pagan culture. Bruce Ware, for example, has made the following observation: “Today…the primary areas in which Christianity is pressured to conform are on issues of gender and sexuality. Postmoderns and ethical relativists care little about doctrinal truth claims: these seem to them innocuous, archaic, and irrelevant to life. What they do care about, and care with a vengeance, is whether their feminist agenda and sexual perversions are tolerated, endorsed and expanded in an increasingly pagan landscape.”[4]

Every Reformed or Presbyterian theologian worth reading makes an impassioned plea for the inseparable connection between Theology and Ethics; doctrine and conduct. Herman Bavinck, for example, puts the relationship this way: “Dogmatics describes the deeds of God done for, to, and in human beings; ethics describes what renewed human beings now do on the basis of and in the strength of those divine deeds. In dogmatics human beings are passive; they receive and believe; in ethics they are themselves active agents. In dogmatics, the articles of the faith are treated; in ethics, the precepts of the Decalogue. In the former, that which concerns faith is dealt with; In the latter, that which concerns love, obedience, and good works. Dogmatics sets forth what God is and does for human beings and causes them to know God as their Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier; ethics sets for what human beings are and do for God now; how, with everything they are and have, with intellect and will and all their strength, they devote themselves to God out of gratitude and love. Dogmatics is the system of the knowledge of God; ethics is that of the service of God. The two disciplines, far from facing each other as two independent entities, together form a single system; they are related members of a single organism.”[5] The Dutch ethicist, Jochem Douma, says the same thing slightly more succinctly: “Dogmatics without ethics is empty; ethics without dogmatics is blind.”[6]

Either way, compromise is occurring in both doctrine and conduct in the PCA at an alarming rate. It is difficult to unravel which compromise is worse: the one where ethical compromise comes first and doctrinal sellout follows or where doctrinal indifference undermines biblical ethics. Both are devastating. To this date, ByFaith magazine, under the editorship of Dick Doster has not run a single article criticizing the manifestly detrimental aspects of the Emergent church movement, but it has run at least two praising it or at least finding leaders such as Don Miller amusing.

There are clearly PCA churches embracing certain facets of the Emergent church movement and we’re still trying to figure out where the proverbial buck stops. If we don’t discover that location very, very soon, we’re going to wake up one morning and no longer recognize the “P” in PCA.

Pastor Ron Gleason, Ph.D.

Yorba Linda, CA

2008-01-31T07:57:00.000-08:00

Hindu-0 Christians-1

Rajan Zed is an "evangelist" for Hindus. He went on a tour to promote his religion and has managed to squirm his way into the U.S. Senate to open its session in prayer. In the video below, he is called "chaplain." But apparently some very vocal Christian or Christians shout in prayer to Christ and interrupt him several times.

I'm not sure whether this is one of those watershed, fish-or-cut-bait moments. On one hand the U.S. Government is forbidden to make any laws establishing religion or prohibiting the free exercise of religion according to the First Amendment. It is clear that in allowing one religion to pray suppresses the expression of another, as seen in this video. To excise both is to suppress. To allow both is to establish. Were I in the Senate I would be extremely offended that a Hindu is praying to the great oversoul of the universe or the god that is within the earth (as Zed prays). It seems then that the Christian who shouts his prayer is engaging in an act of civil disobedience.

The framers of the Westminster Confession of Faith made it very clear that the church and state were to occupy two separate spheres of authority and power. But not all of them were in agreement on this. One of the parties of ministers at the framing of the Confession was called "Erastian." They believed that the state had the obligation to oversee and promote the church. Believe it or not, this was also Calvin's position. He held that the government had a clear responsibility to promote the gospel. Some of the original framers of Covenant Theology such as Olivianus held that God had made two covenants- one was between him and the king (or magistrate) and the other was between the magistrate and the people. He held that if the king/magistrate broke the covenant(s) with either God or the people that the people had a right to overthrow that king/magistrate. This found its way into our Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Paul the Apostle wrote in Romans 13 that the government was established by God to be a minister to promote the good and to punish evil. Many Christians, including myself, hold that when the government ceases to function as a minister of God the Christian must cease to submit. This is essentially Francis Schaeffer's position in his book A Christian Manifesto. So the question of whether or not this Christian in the Senate was 'correct' will have to be left to one's conscience. This issue is not whether he was out of order in the Senate or breaking a law. The issue is whether or not the government has ceased to function, in this instance, as a minister of good for God.

2008-01-26T09:01:00.000-08:00

They're at it again

I just got back from our Presbytery meeting for the Rocky Mountain Presbytery. We have been dealing with a few significant issues within the Presbytery that have scratched below the surface to expose some divisions. No one wants to be a church that is simply a group of automatons marching lock-step in the same direction. But to be of the same mind is a biblical value. Much of what I will say below will offend many. But that is simply part of the package when the biblical value taught by Scripture clashes with a worldly value.

This debacle started with City Presbyterian in Denver, Colorado. One of the women on the staff at City Pres was given the title "minister." She was not ordained. This ruffled quite a few feathers within the Presbytery since the PCA does not ordain women. We conduct business according to a document that is known as the Book of Church Order. This, along with the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Catechisms are distillations or expositions of how we understand the Scripture. And in the BCO it states that the offices of Elder and Deacon are ordained and for men. Before the Presbytery meeting we met with Sam Downing, the pastor and Teaching Elder at City Pres. He had published a paper that basically stated his egalitarian approach to the scriptures. The meeting ended on the note that Sam was correct and that the elders in the Presbytery were wrong.

A complaint was issued against City Pres stating that they had violated the book of Church order. The vote was 28 to 27 that City Pres had NOT violated the BCO. At a subsequent Presbytery meeting a complaint was brought against the Presbytery that IT had violated the BCO in this vote. Again, 28-27 vote stated that the Presbytery had not violated the BCO.

But what I found interesting was that during a discussion time Sam Downing said that if the Presbytery did not vote with City Pres that City Pres would leave the presbytery. Despite the vote in favor of City Pres we discover before our last Presbytery meeting that Sam is leading the church out of the PCA to join another denomination. What is curious is that he issued another paper that stated the Rocky Mountain Presbytery was litigious, that we did not cooperate with other denominations. On the floor of the Presbytery I publically stated that I was confused. First we're told that the issue is about a title. When we addressed that issue we were told that it was about women ministers. Then when we addressed that issue it was about being snotty to City Pres and to other denominations. In other words every time we put a finger on the supposed problem it squirmed away and was presented in a different light.

I was told at the meeting that this was not a "monolithic" single issue but that it was a moving target. Sam was presented as the victim in this "fight." But there are some deeper issues that are causing a rift in the PCA and in the Rocky Mountain Presbytery.

For me the first issue is what does Scripture say. In other words, what is the interpretive (hermeneutical) framework that one uses to approach the scriptures. One can quote from narrative portions of the bible but the question is do we make policy based on those portions that are somewhat unclear and most certainly not prescriptive or do we interpret them in light of prescriptive passages that are very clear. 2 Timothy 2:12 states very clearly that women in the church are not to teach or to be put in a position where they have authority over men. This is not a case of one having the correct genitals. It is a case where Paul discusses the hierarchy that God has established in the church. The arguments against this position are that Paul was a misogynist and this was a situation that was solely locked into issues surrounding the cultural problems endemic to Timothy's church. The problem with this is that Paul gives instructions to Timothy on how people are to conduct themselves in the church, the role of women and ministry, then following this he gives instructions for the qualifications for church elders and deacons in 1 Timothy 3. Either those are instructions that are hemmed in by cultural issues and not applicable to the church universal or they are applicable. The over arching rule of thumb in biblical interpretation is called the analogy of faith which teaches us that less clear passages are interpreted by clear passages.

The second issue is what I call ministry by niceness. Many of those who favor women in ministry do so because they genuinely want to reach the unchurched who hold values and opinions that are contrary to scripture and these church planters and pastors are struggling to discover tools that will reach into the receiving cultures. That is to be applauded. The problem is then when the culture becomes the driving factor that determines your methodology. The Scriptures, by their very nature, are intrusive and judge every culture as being in opposition to God.

This was exposed in our discussing with Downing. At first he told elders that when City Pres has an inquirer's class they make it very clear that they do not ordain women and that they were "okay" with that. Then we were told in the same meeting that when there was an ordination for Deacons at the church that people wanted to know why this wasn't done for the woman who was the 'minister.' One cannot have it both ways. Either they were accepting of the church's position or they were not. One is not saying that there cannot be a mixed bag. But it demonstrates that the church was NOT okay with the position.

Then at the Presbytery meeting in January an overture was presented requiring those who were being examined and presented for licensure, ordination or transfer of credentials that they believe and apply the BCO 9-3 when it comes to deacons; i.e., that it is an office for men, and that women were not allowed to become deacons. 9-7 of the BCO clearly states that men and women may assist the deacons in their execution of their office of symphathy and service.

What bothers me is the notion that one can hold a different belief in the PCA but is allowed to be endorsed and ordained by the BCO anyway. One questions what the candidate actually hopes to receive from the PCA if he is out of accord with its basic documents.

I do believe that this entire wrangle has exposed a deep rift within the PCA when it comes to the role of women in the church. We're not likely to have solved it in our meeting and it will come to the floor of the General Assembly at some time in the future. There are many churches that are avoiding the issue (and discipline) by not ordaining their deacons thus "allowing" both men and women to occupy those positions. This is deceptive on their part. And to quote an often used metaphor this is a slippery slope that plunges one into a morass of confusion about how to do God's business in God's church. It is sad that our Presbytery has taken this approach. I am not saying that one is not a Christian if he/she believes women are to be ordained to ministry. That is not what salvation is all about. But if my neurosurgeon who operated on my back fusing my spine executed his surgery with the same lackadaisical approach that the Presbytery did with these two issues I would be a quadriplegic right now.

Often the excuse offered is that there is a broader "kingdom" focus and a narrow PCA focus. While I grant that it is possible that the two may be at odds since a denomination can get off track. But covering unbiblical practices with the veneer of the "kingdom" is to set a church against itself.

2008-01-22T07:25:00.000-08:00

American Idol-atry

I confess I do not watch American Idol. I haven't watched it. I have little idea about who does what. I did see a small snippet of Simon Cowell ripping into a disabled person some time ago. But now they have ripped into someone who stood up for himself. Bruce Dickson is a Christian young man, 19 years old. And when he told the American idol panel of no-talent judges that he had never kissed a girl they tore into him like lions hunting game on the African plains. Ryan Seacrest, who apparently is a co-host sent him off with the comment, "Maybe he'll come back as a man instead of a boy."

Dickson was later interviewed and made this comment: "I respect women and don't think of them as a sexual object, and I'm the freak?" Great comment Bruce.

What this event does is to expose the superficiality of reality shows. Think about it for a moment- there are two African Americans that are judges. How would they respond if someone had said "I haven't owned any slaves?" If people are objects to be used for one's personal enhancement then slavery would be just as legitimate as using a woman. Without a moral base, anything and anyone is fair game. One simply has to look at those "celebrities" who are "on the top" of the business and how far they fall when Hollywood decides they are no longer marketable (read: we can't make money off of them anymore). We discover hundreds of people that are thrown aside after a TV show closes. There even are agencies devoted to helping child stars make the transition to a life outside of Hollywood. I think of Gary Coleman, Todd Bridges and Dana Plato from the TV show Different Strokes.

Coleman has had a difficult time- when he no longer was the cute little kid he had a very difficult time making the transition to adulthood. He now works as a security guard and tries to sell autographed clothes on ebay to make money. Todd Bridges plunged into drug addiction, crack houses and a score of arrests. Dana Plato plunged into pornography and then died from a self-inflicted overdose of drugs.

Jesus was very understanding of how badly this world can beat people up. In Matthew 12:20 the text reads, "A battered reed he will not break off, and a smoldering wick he will not put out." People are not objects to be used but to be loved for their highest good. Our highest good is not to use people for our own gratification but to enable them to reach all that God has in store for them. Jesus did this by dying on the cross for us. When we were most broken he was broken for us. We are not idols to be worshipped but a people to be cared for.

Bravo for Bruce Dickson.

2008-01-21T08:52:00.002-08:00

Maher is at it again

On newsbusters.org there is an article about Bill Maher who hosts his own political/comedy show. The article in part reads: No finer example of Maher's disdain for theism and Judeo-Christian principles occurred on Friday's installment of "Real Time" when he actually declared, "At least half of the [Ten] Commandments are stupid!"

Maher went on to comment that several current politicians would have to be stoned to death for adultery if we actually enforced the Commandments. My comment is two-fold.

First, DUH!!!! His last comment betrays a woeful ignorance of the holiness of God. Secondly, let's suppose we go ahead and toss out the "half" of the commandments he refers to. So now it is okay for kids to kill their parents, for me to shove a gun into Maher's ribs and steal his wallet, his car and his wife. Not being satisfied then one can pull the trigger and kill him with no fear of punishment. I'm not advocating this by the way. But if the commandments aren't part of our moral law then chaos ensues. As Francis Schaeffer once said if we have no moral base for our laws then the only way to enforce the law is to wield the biggest gun. It never ceases to amaze me that pundits like Maher use the law when it suits them to spout their hatred and then claim that we should have no laws.

2008-01-20T16:53:00.000-08:00

This just in: JESUS IS HELD HOSTAGE!!!!

Okay, so it isn't Jesus... its a statue of someone that looks like Jesus. Apparently a woman who has several dogs went into her front yard to discover that her Jesus statue had been kidnapped. The would be statue terrorists called her house and in a scruffy voice told her to check the mailbox. In the mail, she found the ransom note. She is supposed to go through the entire neighborhood and clean up the droppings her furry friends have been leaving behind. Then she'll get the statue back. It would seem to me that if they held her pooches impounded then she likely would clean up the stuff faster. Actually, according to the report, she HAS been cleaning up her doggy left-overs.

I hate it when people take things that don't belong to them. What next- a wise-man statue raid on all the neighbors?

2008-01-05T10:43:00.000-08:00

Bill Maher and racism

One of my daily news stop-overs is newsbusters.org. They are focused on how the liberal media slams anything conservative. There's an article noting Bill Maher's latest tirade. Maher started out as a comedian and hosts a show (or used to) on HBO that is part comedy part political pundit. But when he appeared on Conan O'Brian last Friday nite he slammed Christianity and especially Roman Catholicism. He said one has to be "schizophrenic" to go about life normally for six days a week only to, on the seventh go to church and believe that when drinking communion wine one is drinking "the blood of a 2,000-year old space god.

This would be true if it were true. In other words Maher demonstrates his ignorance and his racism against Christians who hold the biblical teaching that Christ feeds his people at the Lord's Table. If Christ is not who he said he was then to call him a "space god" is just silly. It takes more faith to believe that then anything else. Christ never claimed to be a space god. He claimed to be THE GOD. And if that is true (and it is) then to feed his flock via the Lord's Table is not a difficult concept. Calvin noted it is not the priest who brings Christ down to the table and somehow transmutes the bread into Jesus. It is the Spirit of God who lifts up the believer to Christ and communicates Christ's life to the believer.

Secondly, Maher exposes his ignorance of biblical Christianity when he says that people can live "normally" for six days. What is normal? Paul wrote at one time that we as unbelievers lived and walked as the living dead following the world like a silly cow (Eph.2:1,2). One cannot by the furthest stretch of the imagination call that "normal." Is it normal to reject the witness of over 500 people who saw the resurrected Christ AFTER he was killed on a cross (1 Cor. 15)? I think not. It is blind racism and hatred. This raises the significant issue of why anyone would do this.

Christianity at its core is about the grace of God through Christ alone given for sinners. One must wrestle with the damning fact that we are sinners. And I would venture that Maher doesn't either like this message or rejects this message for "normal" living. It uncovers our sin like light uncovers darkness and exposes us for what we really are. Jonathan Edwards remarked once that it was the Spirit's grace to us to not let us see fully the sin that we bear in our hearts. If He did so it would crush us. Maher's problem is not seeing sin for what it is because he rejects God for who God is. Were we to see God as he really is, in Jesus, we would fall on our faces (like Peter and Isaiah) and beg, beg, beg God to spare us.

2008-01-04T15:18:00.000-08:00

A Heartwarming Story

Those who have been in combat know what it is like to be part of an elite "band of brothers." Below is a heart warming story about two Vietnam vets and a lost bible.

2007-12-26T11:04:00.001-08:00

Anonymous and Willow Creek,

A little while ago I posted a video from a speaker who is associated with Willow Creek. His basic idea is that we should go back to ancient forms of Catholicism (Franciscan and Dominican monks, contemplative prayer, etc). "Anonymous" (read below) has been telling me I'm wrong, he/she goes to Willow Creek, get my facts straight, blah blah blah. Ok...so to set the record straight:

Mark Van Steenwyk is the speaker on the video.

Mark Van Steenwyk is a speaker for the Group life Conference hosted by Willow Creek Association. (http://www.willowcreek.com/events/grouplife/glaf_fri_exp.asp)

Willow Creek Association hosted an Ancient & future community Conference in Sept of 2007: http://www.willowcreek.com/events/grouplife/glaf_fri_exp.asp

Bill Hybels is Chairman of the Willow Creek Association: http://www.willowcreek.com/GLcommunity/

So are my facts straight enough about the genealogy of the video speaker? Willow Creek and its associated venues is responsible for advocating a return to unbiblical "spiritual disciplines" that were anti-Protestant (remember Wycliffe and John Hus) and anti-scripture. Mark Van Steenwyk does not know his church history. He is one of the leaders in the Emergent church movement (http://www.blogger.com/profile/15750433637794186308) that is telling us we need to go back to pre-Reformation practices of monasticism, aceticism, etc.

This isn't rocket science folks. I have done my homework. I exhort "Anonymous" to read (or re-read) Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion. You'll find there a wonderful explanation of the sources of Roman Catholic practice that set itself against the Bible. I grew up Catholic and can confirm what he says there.

Oh...by the way if you go to Alittleleaven.com you can find that I'm not the only one who is appalled at where the church is going.

2007-12-26T08:04:00.001-08:00

Christians should just go away

There's an interesting article/post on the Washington post website by Ramesh Ponnuru. He notes an article by a "Sally," who was coerced into saying she had "accepted Jesus as her Savior." But what is more interesting are the comments made by respondents. Almost the entire content of the comments are anti-Christian and basically one is left with the feeling that they not only want Christianity to go away but that there is a strong hatred of Christianity and Christians. One even goes so far to mock persecution of Christians as a fable. Apparently the commenter has not read about the 12 churches in India that were burnt, the Christians being chased out of the churches and one Christian killed.

One thing is refreshing: at least they get some of the truth right. Christianity is exclusive in its claims about Christ; i.e., that he is the Son of God, salvation is only through Christ, one must repent of his sin and trust Christ alone.

The other issue is the condemnation of Congress for passing a resolution honoring Christmas. Cries of separation of church and state are consistently brought to the forefront. I am NOT one of those who feel that the government should be attempting to establish Christianity as the major religion of the land. And likely they should have kept silent about Christmas. But they also should have kept their mouths shut about Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and a host of other religions as well. Christians seem to think that if they can coerce the government into a favorable posture on Christianity that things will go well for the church. That's possible. But it is a tenuous dance at best. From a Reformed perspective, there are clear lines or demarcation or spheres of power when it comes to the "Civil Magistrate" and the church. Neither can exercise power over the other and the government has absolutely no business attempting to do so. What is important to understand is that the government, like all fallen institutions, does not do, characteristically, what it should do... but only what it could do. In like fashion the church also must resist the temptation to go "off mission" and attempt to become a political entity by usurping power and authority from the secular state.

This is not to say that people like Huckabee ought quit using Jesus' name in political ads. One has to determine for himself or herself whether or not Huckabee, or any candidate for that matter, has a secret agenda of establishing religion in the political square. I wouldn't vote for Huckabee simply because he is a Christian (there are others in the race that are Christians also). I would likely vote for a person who would honor the constitution. But here's the rub that many are missing: the Constitution is not the bible. It is a great document that was well thought out. And as some of those who commented on Ramesh's article state, it covers all U.S. citizens. It isn't perfect but it does work well.

Christianity hasn't gone away and is not going to. People have killed more Christians in the 20th century for their faith than in all of the other centuries combined. Jesus said, 17 "This I command you, that you love one another. 18 "If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you. 19 "If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you. (John 15:17-19). He prefaces this with the standard for Christians: Love one another. Do Christians make mistakes and sin? Of course. If "Sally's" comment about being coerced to say she had "accepted Jesus" is true (and we have no reason to think otherwise) then that teacher was absolutely wrong. She was her own version of the Inquisition.

A last note about "tolerance": the Constitution is often viewed and summarized in the sense that there are many voices and they're all equally right. This is simply not true. It was written from the stand point that there were those people and governments in the world whose goal it is is to oppress (as King George and Parliament were doing). But it does hold that there are many voices and they all have the equal right to be heard. This boils down to epistemology and to objective truth. How do we know what we know and can we know it is true? The answer to the former part of the question is complex and it would be reductionistic for me to simply say "The bible tells me so." But theological and philosophical arguments aside we function in the world around us with the assumption that both questions can be affirmed in the positive. In other words, when you go to the store you assume there is an objective world outside of yourself. And when you pull the can of peas off the shelf and swipe it across the bar code reader you accept that what the machine is telling you is true: that it costs 1.49. My point: we must be consistent to live in our world. And when we do we find that there is an objective historical record of events outside of ourselves that tells us that the God of the universe had spoken and spoken authoritatively. Christians who actually believe the bible should put it into practice.

2007-12-25T10:34:00.000-08:00

Most Useless Bible,

Scientists have inscribed the Bible on a head of a pin. It was the hope of the Reformers that even the most "mean" ploughboy would be able to read the Bible in his own language. Now we have come full circle. No wonder the scholastics were so opposed by people- doing useless things and asking useless questions such as "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"