Bread Crumbs

2011-07-13T18:33:00.000-07:00

"Past Wisdom" is Still Wisdom

I have friends who would wonder why a Christian guy would devote any real time to writing about what our President is doing. I would ask in return, "Why not?" He is after all, our elected leader and what he does--how he fulfills that role is a testimony to others within this nation and without. How he performs and how he comports himself in his role as our President is important.

The negotiations between President Obama and the GOP leadership in the matter of raising the nation's debt ceiling could be described so far as unproductive at best and vituperative at worst. Today the President left the negotiations in a bit of a tiff. He doesn't like anyone challenging his authority, but President Obama has in my mind has acted shamefully. In saying that he could not guarantee that Social Security checks would be mailed out on August 3rd if an agreement is not met, he misrepresented the situation. That's actually a false statement. He actually has the ability to make sure those checks go out. We have enough revenue this month to pay for the military, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, etc. etc.. The problem is the President's penchant for discretionary spending.

He evidently didn't always think the way that he does now about the debt ceiling. In 2006 as "Senator" Obama, he voted against raising that limit and said the following:

"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."

I think that was a fine statement. What's changed?

2011-06-28T19:57:00.000-07:00

I spent a little bit of my time listening to a speech given in Iowa today by President Obama. He actually said that he believes that our country should live within its means. I snorted. I actually wondered for just an instant, "Does he really believe what he's saying?" This is a man whose policy it has actually been to spend the country out of a financial breakdown---to print up money and dole it out in the hopes that spending it will encourage the building of revenue through job creation. As if. There are only three possible answers to the question of whether or not he really believes his own statement. The first possible answer is that he actually believes something like this when he says it. The second is that he knows he's misrepresenting what he believes because to do so serves an agenda of some kind. The third possible answer is that he's deluded. A deluded person despite all evidence to the contrary, will believe something untrue because they have surrendered their mind to it.

I don't think President Obama is delusional. I think that he's serving an agenda that he deeply believes in. I think too, that he keeps that agenda to himself. I know for a fact that John P. Coale, a litigater and former campaigner for both of the Clintons stopped his support for the Obama campaign because he said that Mr. Obama is not the man that he purports himself to be. I don't find that difficult to believe. My pastor said that people shouldn't too be surprised by what President Obama has done generally in office, because he has for the most part done what he promised to do, as sad as that is.

A man I know told me once that when Bill Clinton was elected president that he and his wife hugged each other in their living room and wept together because they believed that America had tragically embraced and elected a president with an outwardly immoral agenda. He openly affirmed the practice of abortion and vowed to advance the causes of homosexual activists in the United States, promising to do away with any prohibition of gays in the military and as well to seek equal (special) rights for gays at large.

I've never asked how his wife and he reacted when President Obama was elected. I'm sure they were just as disappointed as I was. As a nation, his supporters and even those of us most opposed to his election to the office seemed to know it was coming. He had so much support from the left. The alarming thing is though, that he had so much support from conservatives who absolutely should have known better. Sure, there were the Emergent pastors who proclaimed support for him. That was no surprise. But there were also more conservative pastors and Christian writers who supported him. Those who did sounded like Robert Schuller at his rationalizing best. I hope now, that are aware of their mistake.

President Obama declared that he, like former President Clinton would support gay causes and support the rights of women to take the innocent lives of the unborn. He's only made good on those promises. Since being in office, he's said that he hopes that one day homosexual marriages would be accepted as every bit as normal and noble as heterosexual marriage. So, he's hoping for something very wrong and sinful to be seen as normal. In this part at least, he's deluded himself. Oh I'm sure that one day it will be seen as noble and acceptable by the world, but in that he believes it is not a sin, he has deluded himself, and he's seeking to deceive others in this way. Last February, he ordered the Justice Department to quit defending the Defense of Marriage Act in the nation's courtrooms. He said that he believed the law to be unconstitutional. I guess he thinks that his powers supercede those of the Supreme Court? I guess he doesn't like our nation's system of checks and balances? He swore to not only protect the United States Constitution, but to enforce the laws of this land. Evidently he has decided that he personally will determine whether or not laws are contitutional and not the Supreme Court. Should we keep the Supreme Court? If he's going to make such arbitrary decisions, what do we really need them for?

This is a man who says that he believes that Jesus Christ is his Savior. That's great, but at the same time he acts like a man wants very little to do with God, or wants God to have very little to do with this nation. Just last December, he was taken to task by fifty members of Congress for mistating our national motto last November at a university speech in Jakarta, Indonesia. He said our motto was E pluribus unum (out of many, one). The fact of the matter is that our national motto for over fifty years has been "In God We Trust". Those same fifty members also took the opportunity to point out to our President that every time he quotes a certain part of our Declaration of Independence, he does so incorrectly. I think he does this on purpose. Why? Because the part he always gets wrong is the part where it says that our Creator is supposed to be mentioned. He leaves it out. He says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and that they have certain unalienable rights..." He leaves out that they are "endowed by their Creator." Why? I guess he's either a very principled man who forgets those particular words every time, or he's a very unprincipled man who just can't bring himself to acknowledge God in even the generic way that He is in our nation's recorded documents.

On June 19th, NBC deleted the words, "under God" from the pledge of alegiance during their broadcast of the U.S. Open Golf Tournement. After a very immediate and negative audience response, they decided to make an apology for doing so. I wonder, would they have done this if we had a different leader in office, a leader who led by a different example?

Isaiah 5:20 Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!

It's a shame that Thomas Jefferson's "wall of separation between church and state" reference to the Danbury Baptist Association has been so removed from its context and misapplied elsewhere. There's a type of ignorance involved here that is self-imposed, and people have been knee-jerking on this point for many decades now and it's getting worse. Our constitution says nothing whatsoever about separating church and state. What it says it this: we have freedom of religion and there shall not be a state-run church. That's pretty much it. There's no reason not to mention God at state-sponsored events. There's no reason we have to avoid saying prayers to God either. Praying God doesn't establish a church. Saying that we are one nation under God doesn't establish a church either. Referencing "our Creator" in the document that says there can't be a state-run church.....I don't think that one just got by the writers, or the signers.

2011-05-08T21:15:00.000-07:00

Happy Mother's Day

I had a nice day this Mother's Day. I had to work, but I was able to take my mother out to breakfast before going there. We ate early, and had opportunity to talk over breakfast. My mother loves me. I am so grateful for that. I'm grateful because it's wonderful to be loved without fear of judgment and I only hope she knows how much I love her too.

She's a wonderful mother. She works hard enough to shame many persons who are much younger than she. She still works ten hours most days in a business she owns, heads for home and does work there too. She has a large lawn and I mow it for her, but sometimes I'll get there and she has part of it already mowed. She takes care of her yard, and even likes to cut up her own firewood. She still loves to cook. Did I mention that she's eighty-three? Yeah, and she's still as sharp as a tack with a very impressive memory.

Like my father, she's somewhat of a heroic figure to me. She was one of eight children, and she was delivered in her family's own home by her eleven year old sister. The family was poor, moving often, and she attended eleven different schools to get through twelve grades. She even attended a one-room schoolhouse that I visited with her when I was ten years old. Of course it had doubled in size by then. Two rooms.

She acquired her work ethic from a very young age, working in the fields picking everything from hops to strawberries. At one point she was a champion hops picker. I never knew there was such a thing, but I have no doubt she could achieve it. She and her brothers and sisters worked wherever they could find it, and for very little pay. It wasn't that people were cheap. Rather it was that the average person had little money to pay, as she grew up in the depression era.

She was a very young woman when WWII ended, and that's when she met my father. He was a returning veteran. They built a life together. They had two children in the years soon after they wed and my father was gone for work two weeks at a time for their first four years together. It was hard, but my father wanted to work for himself. There third child came along and they made a bold move to move to another state and begin the business which she still owns and operates to this day. I came along a couple of years after that.

I have loved and admired both of my parents, but my work ethic came directly from my mother. She is the one I spent more time with growing up. She's also the one who liked whining only marginally more than having her face scrubbed with a rock. In other words, whining is something she did not put up with from her children. Good thing too, because I could have a real tendency to whine if I went unchecked. I whined about having to get up. I whined about having to go to bed. I whined about homework. I whined about having to eat vegetables. I whined about having to do yard work. She taught me the proper perspective about such things, and sometimes that involved handing out punishments. She was very adept at that. (Laughing here) She had a skill level that allowed her to stir dinner, mop the kitchen floor and smack one of us at the same time. I'm grateful for that too.

She has always been a patient person. She has always overlooked my faults, and I have a lot of them. Most importantly, she has always loved Jesus, since before I was born. She used to tell me, "David, you should make your bed as though you thought Jesus was going to lay down on it." I must confess. I have failed to do that. You know what? She still loves me anyway.

2011-05-03T22:38:00.000-07:00

What Other Way Is There?

I take a literal/historical view of the Bible, and language and grammar are very important in the centrally interpretive motif of God's glory and holiness for me. I have brothers and sisters in Christ who completely disagree with me on that. I'm used to my atheist and agnostic friends expressing incredulity with me when I tell them that I believe the Genesis account in a literal way. I'm usually a little surprised when a Christian asks something like, "You mean you believe that Adam and Eve were real, historical individuals?" They usually follow that with, "Don't you know that Genesis is allegorical?" I don't know if this is because they haven't read Genesis, but have only believed what they have been taught about it from the pulpit by someone else. I don't know if that's because they have only skimmed Genesis and have never bothered to harmonize the passages there with the rest of the Scriptures.

Obviously there are plenty of church denominations which teach that much of Genesis is allegorical. The only reason that they can really come up with for doing so is that they don't trust what parts of what the Bible says there to be true. They are willing to trust it as truth illustrated by allegory, but not that those events or persons truly happened or existed. They find the notion of God creating the earth in six literal twenty-four hour days, and a man out of the dust of the earth on the sixth day, just "too far-fetched" and "silly".Though I love my friends who think that way, it always kind of gives me pause. I ask them things like, "Do you believe that God created the universe?" and they will answer unequivocally in the affirmative. I usually say, "Okay," and I move on from there with them if they're willing to talk about it, but internally I'm shaking my head. I'm doing that because I find there's a strange inconsistency in the way a person can believe that God had and has the power to create the UNIVERSE...........and yet the ability to do it as described in the initial chapters of Genesis somehow escapes Him. They hold it to be true that the God of the universe could dwell on earth as a man, suffer and die for our sins, and raise Himself from the dead....but that Garden of Eden business....tsk tsk tsk.

I'm not making fun here. I am relating accurately the attitude of some of my friends and acquaintances in the Lord. Where I work, we had an Episcopal priest who was a customer for decades. He was a lovely man. He also didn't believe in the virgin birth of Jesus. That little miracle provides the basis by which Jesus was able to be born without a sin nature, avoiding also the curse that would have prevented Him from sitting upon His future throne. All of these things are more than just a little important. They also flood over us with the importance of understanding the continuity of the wisdom and foreknowledge of Almighty God.

Jesus confirmed the Genesis record. In Mark 10:6 Jesus said, "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female." The Lord is referencing Genesis 1:27 there, and in doing so He affirmed the historicity of Adam and Eve as the first two human beings on the planet. He affirmed also that they were created "in the beginning", not billions or millions of years later. Someone might be asking, "Aren't those a general reference to the time---later on---when man was created?" My answer would be no. The words of Jesus Himself confirm this in Matthew 23:35-36 when He was rebuking the Pharisees for their hypocrisy. He said: "34 Therefore, behold, I send prophets and wise men and scribes to you. And you will kill and crucify some of them. And some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city; 35 so that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Berachiah, whom you killed between the temple and the altar." Jesus was speaking literally of the blood of Abel, slain by his brother Cain, just as he referred to Zechariah as a historical person.

Jesus confirmed the existence of Noah, and the existence of the ark and by logical extension---the Noahic Flood. (Matthew 24:37) "But as the days of Noah were, so shall be the coming of the Son of Man. 38 For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day Noah entered into the ark." If one is a Christian, the Lord Jesus must be taken for His word on this, because He said ; "......but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things." That's pretty plain, and He knew what He was talking about.

The New Testament teaches us about how sin entered into the world, and we are taught that it entered through one man, Adam. "Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come." (Romans 5:14) The original sin of the first man Adam and the Law which was given to Moses on Mount Sinai. Death reigned from a figurative, allegorical character to Moses, a real historical man? That doesn't make any sense does it? Want another one to think about? Try 1 Timothy 2:13 "For Adam was first formed, then Eve." Paul was converted from being a sin-filled man to being a born-again, Spirit-filled Scripture illuminated man after he had a rather radical encounter with the Lord Jesus Christ on the road to Damascus. God inspired him and used him as an instrument to pen much of the New Testament. Paul identified Adam as the first human being to be formed by God, just as it was written in the Book of Genesis.

If one wishes to see the harmony of the Scriptures and how they confirm the historicity of the persons and the events of the Genesis record, there is more. Much more. One only has to invest the time, and trust that the Lord could do---just as He said.

2011-04-21T23:14:00.000-07:00

Centennial Reflections

My dad would have been 100 years old yesterday. He passed away nearly twenty years ago. It's difficult and strange for me that he is no longer here, but lovely in a way. He's in heaven, and that makes me happy, but I still miss the man. I still grieve. Stranger still, at times I still 'smell' him as though he had not left us. I still 'feel' his arm around my shoulders. He would have appeared an ordinary everyday man to some, but he was my hero, and only the word 'extraordinary' applies to him for me.

My mother is now 83 and still quite active. As strong as my emotions are in this area, I can't imagine what a day like yesterday means to her. She and I went to his grave site yesterday. She brought fresh flowers. A nice surprise was that my brother and his wife were already there to greet us.

It's funny, the things one takes for granted. The gift of memory is one such thing. I don't know that I have really appreciated having a decent memory beyond the practical side of things. My memories of my dad are so fresh. I can 'hear' him saying things, and I can 'see' so many episodes of my life with him transpiring again.

What a precious gift that is from God, and oh so highly valued. Sure, we can remember the bitter with the sweet, but there is a strength that can be gained from some of those memories too. They can be painful, but they can keep us honest. The painful memories often bring to the fore our appreciation for loved ones lost, but they can also heighten our anticipation for renewal and heavenly reunion.

I miss my dad, but what wonders has he seen? One day we will know. My wife and my mother and I, and all of our brothers and sisters in Christ will step out of these bodies and into eternity to meet my dad once again, and so shall we ever be with the Lord. What a promise that is. Amazing. Just....amazing.

2010-09-23T23:15:00.000-07:00

I feel sometimes like I am living in a police state. I recently received a copy of the "American Community Survey". It's a twenty-eight page booklet that random people have the "privilege" to fill out following the recent census forms.

I sort of set it on the back burner when I got it. I find these things annoying. So....the U.S. Dept. of Commerce sent me out a second one. I found that annoying too. I was informed on the outside of the envelope that I was required by law to fill it out and return it under penalty of law. They ask questions really, which they have no constitutional right to ask, and no business knowing. They demand to know the hour and the minute at which I leave my home to head for work each morning. They demand to know how many minutes I spend driving home.

They demanded to know my exact income for the last twelve months, and my wife's income as well. Since they couldn't settle for the financial total on my last IRS return, but instead from September to September, I had to ask my boss for this information to make sure it was accurate. So not only was I affected, but my boss's time was used for this. It isn't like the government doesn't have access to this information already. They just want something from me and they have the power to threaten me. I find that really annoying, because it's a misuse of the government's power.

They want to know how many cars I have, or whether I own a truck. They asked detailed questions about my heritage, but in a way that categorizes me in a general way. It goes on. If I don't answer the questions properly, I am informed in that I will likely receive a follow-up phone call and possibly a visit to my home by a person I can only assume to be a government representative with unstated powers, since failure to return the "survey" will result in a misdemeanor charge.

Satan rose up against Israel and influenced David to take a census, and perhaps I feel that the same thing is happening here and now. I guess what annoys me beyond the unconstitutionality of forcing me to give them information they have no right to, is the fact that I know...I know that the government will somehow bend this information and use it improperly. This kind of thing is not the government's job. Their job is to insure the greater good for the country. This survey will not be used to further that end. It has already cost the taxpayers a fortune.

The final insult came on the back of the stupid thing. I am thanked---for "participating" in the survey. We're all just one big happy rainbow of a family. It wasn't exactly like my options were very flexible. I love my country. People I have known and loved have died defending it. I don't believe they sacrificed their lives in order to allow others to subvert the constitution they fought and died to protect.

2010-09-18T22:43:00.000-07:00

I've trained in the martial arts since 1984. It has been quite a journey. There have been physical ups and downs that have taken me from the heights of enjoyment at my abilities to do certain things and which have given me to long periods of therapeutic recovery. I am emerging from one of those prolonged stages of recovery right now.

I have come through some rather lengthy knee problems which seem to be healing up nicely. Then there is the hip problem from when I was knocked off a loading ramp at work by a piece of motorized equipment. That has pretty much healed up too. I have given my self more time that was probably necessary to heal, but I know that my own impatience to return to training could betray my common sense. It can be hard to put off doing something you tend to like a great deal.

Sometimes I think that there is as much to be gained from going through the waiting periods between times of training as there is in the training times.

2010-09-16T22:57:00.000-07:00

I teach a little Bible study online on Thursday evenings at an irc server. It's an interesting format in which to teach. When I first started doing it years ago it was quite a challenge. I would sit down in front of my computer and get nervous and sweat. Fortunately, God put someone into my life to work alongside me and mentor me in a way that allowed me to learn from my own mistakes and work my way through the challenges while doing something productive and glorify the name of Jesus.

When I first began the process I would write my studies out beforehand and copy and paste them as I went. I tended to try to stick to the "script" like glue. Inevitably, someone would interrupt my carefully laid out plans with a question. This would sometimes through me off kilter and sometimes not. Sometimes the question would get ahead of what I was teaching and take things out of the careful order I had tried to place them in and sometimes not. Questions added to my nervousness because I am just an orderly kind of guy. After a time though, and with enough questions, I learned to field them by placing them into the greater context of the subject matter and understanding that they needn't be a distraction, but rather something that served to reinforce the larger meaning of the study.

As time went by, my mentor guided me to teach the text I was in, but also to see the text in light of the larger, more full picture of the Scriptures as a whole. As I grew more comfortable doing the studies I started to go to more of an outline, mental or otherwise instead of using copy-and-paste. Using the tools I have naturally and the tools I was mentored with, I have learned to become very familiar with the text I'm teaching out of and allow it to teach itself. Of course, the most important factor in all of this is prayer. I pray beforehand.

Tonight I concluded the second chapter of 1st Timothy, and even covered what some would consider a controversial passage concerning the role of women in the church. It went quite well, praise God. Sometimes there are things that I wish Paul had not written. (Laughing here) Just kidding about that, but it can get touchy for some folks. Not everybody likes to hear everything that is recorded in the Scriptures. Still, it is a pleasure to teach through even the difficult or problematic passages, because in all of it---I think I learn more than anyone else does. Either that is a sign that I'm a poor teacher, or it's a major perk of the job.

2010-08-22T21:51:00.000-07:00

Church was awesome today. I miss church awfully bad when I have to miss. It isn't just that I miss the people. I do miss that though. It isn't just that I miss the surroundings, the joy of sitting in an outdoor amphitheatre enjoying the backdrop of God's creation while taking the study in. I do miss that though. It isn't just that I miss the.....okay I miss all of it.

I miss the people who hug us and tell us they're glad to see us. I miss the family in Christ that we have come to have there. I miss the Jesus we see in other people.

I have heard two very talented, godly and Christ-devoted pastors (who could not be more different by the way) who have never met each other talk about church fellowship. Both of them said that what happens when Christians drift away from church, they become weird. Kind of strange in ways. That only makes sense. I've also heard any number of people who don't like church say that "organized religion" is a man-made enterprise that God has no part in. That depends on what you're talking about. If one is talking about the kind of gathering together that the Bible tells us to be faithful about, then one is talking about the kind of thing Jesus organized.

We're told not to forsake the assembling of ourselves together as some do. There are reasons for that. Going to church allows us to rub elbows with like-minded people in Jesus who have different things to share. They have hurts that need talking about, or joys to share to help lift one another up. There are the hugs, the love and the sharing together about Jesus and His Word that is so vital in the life of a Christian. We 'bounce' things off one another.

I think that about the time a guy thinks he has it all sewn up---that he doesn't need or can't appreciate input from anyone else---he's in trouble. At the very least he's in danger of becoming "weird". Someone might be saying, "I know a lot of 'weird' church-going Christians." I do too. Hey, I'm weird myself. I'd be even stranger if I didn't belong to a fellowship of believers. The Holy Spirit lives within each of us as Christians, and we ought to appreciate that about one another. Being confident and independent in one's mature Christian faith and walk is fine to a point, but if it comes down to thinking we don't need to fellowship with other believers....one is fooling one's self.

2010-06-22T16:55:00.000-07:00

Government of Autonomy

When I was a kid, the socialistic, morally relativistic, soft-on-crime, pro-abortion, pro-gay lifestyle, love "the mother", anarchistic type "liberal" thinking individual was kind of a political oddity. The reason for that was simply that most people knew that the thinking of people like that was well...just----"out there". These days, political personalities who largely fit that profile are commonplace in the United States. Right now, persons who could generally and fairly be described as thinking that currently hold the majority of power in the U.S. executive and legislative branches of government.

It was also when I was just a child that the "counter-culture" movement was well under way, and there were a lot of encounter group gurus out there duping huge groups of followers into believing their nonsense. "Dr." Timothy Leary was a pretty good example of how bad things had become in the 1960s. He coined a phrase in 1966 when he said that he only had three things to say to young people at that time---"Tune in, turn on, drop out." He was an anarchist whose drug-influenced thinking infected millions through word-of-mouth or by his writings, lectures and recordings. He was one of only many bad examples. The general influence of his kind of thinking is very prevalent today. So is the influence of those within social movements of the 1960s and early 1970s who advocated violence for social change. In my little circle of friends and family, we all thought they were nuts. I remember years later in the early 1980s reading an interview with a former well-known college radical (whose name I have forgotten). In the interview he admitted, "We didn't know anything." In other words.....he and his compatriots were simply caught up in the fervor of the "anti-establishment" movement.

That's one of the dangers of electing a leader whose whole campaign strategy is built upon "change". That is a pretty broad-sweeping word to use if no one can nail down exactly what is meant by it. If for example things are messed up because they aren't being carried out in a constitutionally proper way---correct those things. If on the other hand one simply doesn't like the constitutional foundation upon which this country is based......then that is change I can do without. Leaders whose desire it is to radically change an already democratic republic from the ground up are usually out to change it into something other than a democracy. Such a strategy depends on people who don't have a clue about politics, or whose young hearts, uninformed by life experience and swing them to your side. They are simply easier to sway. It is an informed citizenry that keeps this kind of thing from happening. Unfortunately, I know too many people my age and older who got pulled into the liberal thinking, anti-establishment movement of the 1960s. They still think like that. They raised their kids to think like that. Guess what? A lot of those kids are still like that. They are "anti"-normative in just about every way. The deal is, the kids are a lot more smooth, and a lot more sophisticated about implementing what they believe and getting it called righteous and reasonable by society.

This nation is fast becoming less of a representative republic than a burgeoning socialist experiment. It's infrastructure and management are being deconstructed and reconstructed differently right in front of us every week---by the present White House administration, and I know I'm not alone in hoping that it isn't too late to do anything about it. This nation dodged a serious bullet when President Obama decided not to sign sweeping international climate change legislation in Copenhagen last December. Had he done as was hoped by Ban Ki-moon, Gordon Brown and others, this nation would be far less concerned about how BP may handle the oil disaster. It would have all become a U.S. responsibility entirely. Fortunately, President Obama still valued American autonomy enough to avoid doing something that would have been so immediately disastrous on most every level for this nation.

Even at that, President Obama's popularity is dwindling right now. That's happening because even some of the people who fancy themselves to be liberals are at odds with his policies. I understand that. I am having trouble agreeing with the President on just about every policy he's come up with in one way or another. That isn't the big deal though. What I really find astonishing is that he acts without constitutional support so often, and no one seems to be able to do anything about it. How about the BP oil disaster that I mentioned earlier? What constitutional provision allows the President to take money from BP and dole it out to people who have been damaged financially by the disaster? Seriously? I'm not doubting that people's lives are being disrupted and financially wrecked by this disaster. I'm not at all unsympathetic to their situation. There is a constitutionally provided way for these concerns to be addressed however, and that just doesn't appear to be happening. James Harrison was credited by John Adams as saying that this is supposed to be "A government of laws and not of men."

BP is likely to cough up 20 billion dollars, and it is President Obama's intention to provide those monies to persons which he believes need to be financially compensated. Where was (where is) the "due process of law"? This oil disaster is not something which Barrack Obama can turn around and blame on the Bush administration. It happened on his watch and we are well-beyond any such lame notion. How the President deals with this disaster is being watched by the whole world, friends and enemies alike. That fact will determine the President's reactions to what goes on, because he will weigh the disaster and his responses carefully for political considerations. He has more of a free hand than any past president I can think of. His unique position, backed by a super-majority of party members, gives him an almost free pass to use his expanded powers to govern in a way that was never intended, let alone granted the president by this nation's constitution. Because of these factors, he seems to be able to impose his personal will onto people in both the private and public sectors. Such actions are not those of a person who believes in government of the people, by the people and for the people.

2010-06-21T20:31:00.000-07:00

A World Upside Down

I've been fascinated with public opinion on the Gaza flotilla fiasco since it began. It seemed pretty obvious to me that even the IDF commandos who boarded the (Turkish) Mavi Marmara on May 31st were ill-prepared for the reaction they experienced. There are still those who believe that the ship was actually what it purported itself to be. In other words, a ship of persons driven by purely humanitarian motives. It might sound arrogant, especially since I'm not Jewish, but I believe that there are plenty of experienced, weary and battle-hardened IDF soldiers who still don't recognize the level of hatred that exists for them in the eyes of Islam, and particularly in the hearts of Islamic extremists.

The hatred was demonstrated when dozens of militants on board proceeded to attack the IDF commandos with stun grenades, metal rods and with knives. They even charged one commando and tossed him over the side of the ship. The skirmish became quite bloody, and some nine militants were killed and others were injured. The international media largely treated the event as a one-sided and unprovoked aggression by the Israeli government upon some selfless humanitarian agents for good. I've been a martial artist for twenty-six years. I could do a lot of damage with either a metal rod or a knife. I think it's a testament to the IDF's training that there were no fatalities among them.

The film footage from the debacle is stunning, and though people can see before their eyes what happened, it seems the only entity that they can see to blame for what happened is that of the Israeli government. This despite the fact that Israel offered to allow the six flotilla ships to offload their aid materials to trucks and drive them into Gaza. Rejected. This despite the fact that Israel repeatedly warned the flotilla that it would not be permitted to reach Gaza. Ignored. Since a spokesperson for the effort stated that they would be "breaking Israel's siege" against the Gaza Strip, it also seems pretty plain that their intention was to provoke Israel to the point of active response. It worked. Israel was left with little choice. Yet the press largely insists that Israel is the villain here.

In retrospect, it doesn't look like there was much of a military threat posed by the flotilla. That wasn't the goal however. The threat to Israel's securtiy yet again, was political. I think Benjamin Netanyahu's position was practically impossible. Give the European and Turkish sympathizers and Islamic extremists the incident they wanted, or protect the Israeli citizenry from a potentially high security threat? He did what he had to do. So many people have said that the ships should have been allowed to dock as they have in the past. That's just ducky, unless there's a dirty bomb on board. The Israelis have no way of knowing whether something like that's a reality unless they check it out, and would it be better to check that out at sea--or on dry land so much closer to the population centers?

So the Israelis choose to repel down ropes from helicopters to board the ship in the water. For doing that, for acting in the best interests of their tiny country, it looks like they are being condemned by most of the world. It looks like any hope of restoration between Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and his country is gone. Even America seems to be giving them the stiff-arm as they look for supporters. Admittedly, diplomacy is a tough nut, but who will have the courage to look at the situation objectively and see the truth? It isn't likely to come from Ban Ki-moon or through the auspices of the United Nations. Any investigative entity involving the U.N. will likely disintegrate into another investigative enterprise that devises diplomatic ways to suggest that Israel is a nation of occupiers who ought to give all of their land back to the Palestinians.

I wonder if any of those in power have bothered to listen to the ship's radio sound-bites that were released from the hours prior to boarding the Mavi Marmara. Crew members from the Mavi Marmara aggressively rejected the warnings of the IDF and told those listening to "Shaddup. Go back to Auschwitz." The IDF was told, "We have permission from the Gaza Port Authorities to enter." They were also told, "We're helping Arabs, going against the U.S.. Don't forget 9/11 guys." Charming.

This is the mentality we are dealing with. They are hateful, violent and fanatical. So why is the world siding with them? Don't be mistaken. The world is siding with these people. This country is decidedly inflicted with a short-term memory problem. The terrorists are having to remind not only us, but the rest of the world about 9/11. If you're screaming at your screen----I haven't forgotten either, but a lot of us have very faded memories of that day. They've been clouded over by the Michael Moores, the Rosie O'Donnells and the Joy Behars out there and all of the other rebels without a clue. They've been softened by an incredibly short amount of time and other memories. New York City is prepared to allow the Cordoba House project at Ground Zero to go right ahead. It's supposed to foster good relations between the West and Muslims at large. Right.

I haven't forgotten Muzzammil Hassan. He's the man---the Muslim man who founded a television station in Buffalo, New York to counter Muslim stereotypes, and thereby bridge the ideological gap between Muslims and non-Muslims. His station was called "Bridges TV". He started it in 2004 as a way of responding to the 9/11 attacks. He looked like anyone else in a suit and tie. His intentions seemed good. Seemed good. He sort of lost credibility however when he beheaded his wife "Aasiya" in February of 2009. She'd had the audacity to file for divorce from him months earlier.

Now, out of the tens and tens of people who read this blog---there might be another set of people shaking their heads at the screen. Yes. I know there are "nice" Muslims. I've met them. In the same way that there are nice "Christians" I have met. People who accept the trappings of their religion without any real depth of knowledge about what true faith in Jesus Christ is. They are "pick and choose" about what they believe from the Bible, and most have not really read it or studied it. It is no different with Islam. There are those who believe it is the "religion of peace" simply because peace is what they want---not because by any stretch of the imagination that peace is what true Islam devises or espouses. I am a fundamentalist Christian. I believe that the Bible means what it says, and says what it means. The Muslims who attacked the IDF commandos are fundamentalist Muslims. They believe that the Qur'an means what it says, and says what it means---and they act on it.

I am not surprised in the least by any of this. I've paid attention to history. The Qur'an hates freedom. It teaches a genocidal hatred of Jews, and hatred of Christians. Anyone who denies this is only wishfully desiring a watered-down version of Islam---the kind you see here in the United States for the most part. Just today in Great Britain, Muslim activists protested returning British Soldiers while carrying signs which read, ""Shariah law will be in London before democracy will be in Afghanistan." They don't care about equality. They are more interested in global domination. They have been working for it for over a thousand years. The protesters called the returning UK soldiers "butchers" and "cowards".

I have watched Muslim protests before. I have heard them with my own ears, saying that Americans are stupid, and that they will use America's laws and freedoms against her. I have no doubt that they will do everything they can to make good on that promise, and it is true. America is acting stupidly, and naively in the face of an Islamic threat. Ignorant politicians and far-leftists may laugh off any such threat, but it is the reality.

Sadly, even much of mainline Christianity is ignorant about what the reality is: “WASHINGTON (UMNS) — The United Methodist Board of Church and Society has joined other church groups in condemning the May 31 interception of six vessels carrying humanitarian aid to Gaza, resulting in nine deaths. Jim Winkler, the board’s chief executive, called the Israeli troops’ boarding of the ‘Freedom Flotilla’ in international waters ‘symptomatic of a broader, hopelessly flawed policy by Israel to subjugate the Palestinian people, allegedly to protect its own security. Defending the action, the Israeli government has said its blockade was necessary to protect Israel against the infiltration into Gaza of weapons and fighters sponsored by Iran. “The World Council of Churches, U.S. National Council of Churches, Churches for Middle East Peace and leaders of the Episcopal Church, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, United Church of Christ and Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) also expressed alarm over Israel’s actions against the flotilla.”

The boarding of the Mavi Marmara is probably considered a small story, shunted to the back pages as the BP oil spill catastrophe and all of the Obama White House political considerations come to light as the President prepares to put out fires while addressing the nation later this evening. No story like this is small. WWI started with a "small" story. "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" Isaiah 5:20

2010-06-13T10:52:00.000-07:00

Marketing to Children

I stayed home from work to get well yesterday. I am rarely home on a Saturday. Saturday morning TV is a lot different than I remember it. As kid, I used to look forward to Saturday mornings. By the time I was nine, I had things to do like mowing the lawn and mowing the neighbors lawn and other chores, but I tried my best to get those pesky things out of the way at other times so that I could have my Saturday mornings free. Why? Because I wanted to watch cartoons. I could go out and play baseball and stuff later, but I wanted to watch "The Jetsons". They were for fun and amusement. After that I would turn to the serious drama--like "Johnny Quest". Hey, I had my priorities.

Some forty years later, I still remember many of the commercial products that I used to see advertised while watching those programs. Johnny Quest for example, used to tell me that "PF Flier" tennis shoes would help me to run faster and jump higher. That was it. I had to have a pair. (Hey. I was a chubby kid and almost everybody could run faster than me at that time. You take your edges where you find them.) I don't remember if I nagged parents for a pair. I do remember however, my father telling me that I must know that the claims were bogus. I wanted them anyway and my folks acquiesced. I wore them out pretty fast. All that running and jumping, I guess.

I have been watching, and it seems that kids still want things that they see advertised. What a shocker. I'm glad I was a kid when I was and not now. There is no telling what I might want to have, or how much I might bug my folks to attain what I would want. I'm trying to remember if companies were even allowed to aim advertisements at kids as much as they do now. They probably were, but there are different things to sell these days. That last statement probably pegs me as the captain of Geezerville, but the truth is that we didn't have PCs or interactive role-playing video games or MP3 players when I was growing up.

It's shocking to me just how heavily bombarded today's kids are by advertisers for the companies that are trying to reach them and their disposable dollars, or those of their parents. Just the fast food company ads aimed at kids alone is shocking. Every big movie that comes out (and most are not suitable for young children) seems to get contracted for advertising to sell products by fast food chains. "Get some fries, and while you're at it---buy into our agenda film. Get enough of our product and we'll sell you a cheesy toy modeled after characters in the movie."

That's the least of it though. If you watch carefully, these advertisers aren't just looking to merely sell kids a toy these days. They are selling them products that have much more far-reaching consequences in their lives. They aren't just telling a chubby kid he'll be able to run faster and jump higher. They aren't just telling kids that they can have loads of fun with a "slinky". (I still own one.) Their marketing strategies are aimed at changing a child's mindset by altering their world paradigm. They study their target market. They study little kids intensely. Does anyone else find that disturbing? I mean, child predators do some of these things the very same way. I hope that sounds as harsh a comparison as I mean it to.

Every so often, before pushing a political agenda, you will hear activists say things like "Children are our most precious resource." Advertisers don't even have that much integrity. They make no such recognition or distinction in pursuing their goals. The result is a three-hundred-sixty degree assault on the child's reality and the way that they view it--and this begins happening very early in the child's development. If I had a child who was became the shallow kind of consumer that these big companies evidently would like him or her to be....I think I would weep my nights away.

So what is to be done? Parents...are you seeing what your children are seeing? Are you allowing them to watch programming unsupervised, where they get immersed in colorful, attractive, musical and happy-sounding outreaches through other kids who are telling them what they need? No? Try watching for just a few hours. Get out a pad and pen. Write down what you recognize as aimed at your child and what the goal of that aim is. It might surprise you.

Take charge of what they see if you want to help them to walk in godliness. Take parental control. Give them the feed that you want them to have. That's still your right. Don't allow your kids to be objectified. They're your kids.

2010-05-02T23:09:00.001-07:00

There are folks out there in Christianity these days saying that apologetics is an endeavor that is past its time or that it is dead. If that's true, what does one do with 1st Peter 3:15? And where does that put the Christian with the gift of communication who hears apostasy preached openly? There are so many men and women out there these days claiming to be part of Christianity who aren't. I hate to say it, but their bent is just so....liberal----that they have left the gospel behind. It's no longer the blood of Jesus that has any real place or importance in their services. Their affections are all wrapped up in social justice and in this world, when their affections are supposed to be centered on the world to come. Yes, the world to come. The world to come is all about Jesus. He will be the unshakable center of it, and when we concentrate on Him, and upon doing the work He told us to do here, namely giving the gospel to any who will listen and showing them His love, the social justice thing will have its proper place.

Brian McLaren is one of those guys who claims Christianity but whose teaching is focused elsewhere. It has enough elements from Christianity within it to qualify in the minds of some genuine, but it is really more like something from a malfunctioning copier whose image grows more and more unrecognizable with each appearance. With each transmission, it seems to lose more and more of the original information, and it gets replaced with something else.

McLaren reportedly participated in a worship service in Seattle, where he suggested that the interpretation of John 3:16 which contextually and conceptually has always been understood and applied to personal salvation---was actually referring to the earth. His thinking was that the word "world" was talking about the cosmos, and that the real concern was the environment. I read that he gave an altar call in which people had the opportunity to walk forward and run their hands through some dirt and make a covenant to save the earth from destruction.

This kind of thing needs to be confronted when it reaches the public domain. Guys like this are increasingly being asked to speak at seminaries and universities. Why? They have enough of their own writings in print certainly to gain a handle on their apostate perspectives. Does one have to hear them in person? Doesn't that contribute to and promote in a way to their popularity? To their strange success and ability to proliferate their works? I mean, once a publishing company has any idea that crud like this man's stuff will sell and be read, they are like a hound on a trail.

There is a popular pastor out there now whose books and programs have caused a lot of unnecessary upheaval and church splits. He's been asked by another pastor who has always been a solid teacher to attend a yearly conference. It's caused a lot of hoopla because enough people recognize that it's a bad idea. Why give place to someone who has a huge platform but consistently does a very poor job (when he does it) of explaining the gospel. I say, don't attend the conference. Stay away. Sure there will be some people there who are just curious enough to attend, but I think not giving place to this kind of poor teaching would send a message to those in leadership who are making these decisions. We have leadership in our churches. They are to be prayed for, respected, encouraged and helped. But there are the rank and file Christians who sit in the pews too. I am one of those rank and file types, and I believe that the chief burden of responsibility for these kinds of things happening lies squarely on our shoulders.

We aren't supposed to sit in the pews and become complacent about whether or not our brothers and sisters in the faith actually know the fundamentals of the faith they profess to have, much less the ability to articulate the gospel or how to defend it. Week after week, I meet Christians who believe that their Biblical knowledge is solid, but who believe things that are diametrically opposed to what the Bible has to say. Apologetics is not dead. Discernment is dying slowly. Those two facts alone make it important that rank and file members know how important their vote is. What vote? The vote they can make with their feet. If your pastor invites a Brian McLaren or someone like him to speak at your church or conference, and he doesn't respond to your reasonable requests to change his mind, then keep your feet out. Keep them somewhere else where they will do more good.

2010-04-04T22:14:00.000-07:00

Had a wonderful day today. It was a day to recharge, physically and spiritually. I absolutely love our church family. I love our pastors. I love our fellow worshipers. I have been away from church for a while and it seems like forever. I have had to work Every Sunday since the last Sunday in February.

I can count on my church family because they count on Jesus. I know that when I walk into the service that we are in every way encouraged to share in worship in corporate and in personal ways. I know that the Bible will be opened up and that the Word will be taught and the gospel will be proclaimed. I never tire of hearing it. There were people there today who desired to have salvation. I don't know if they came there looking for it or if they were dragged there by friends, and then couldn't wait for the guy up front to stop talking so they could go out and get something to eat. I do know this though. They ended up having an appointment with the Lord, and what a cool day to get saved. I will likely have to work again next Sunday, but I will munch on this for quite awhile.

Glen, thanks for the call, and this is for you. He is risen.

2010-03-22T20:11:00.001-07:00

One of the funniest memories I have as a child was listening to a performance of Bill Cosby's, "To Russell, My Brother, Whom I Slept With". My aunt happened to be visiting at the time with her husband, and with him she had raised my cousins, her two boys. She was pretty "straight-laced", and had always struck me as being fairly stoic. I loved her to pieces. Her brother (my uncle) and his family were present too. He was the family joker. Great sense of humor. Loved him to pieces too. I was ten or so and I thought it might be fun so I asked them all if they would like to listen to it. I got precisely the opposite reaction from those present than I (or anyone else for that matter) expected.

As the reenactment of things between the Cosby brothers progressed, I thought my aunt was going to die. I had never seen her laugh so hard. She was sitting on her chair.....sort of. In parts of the story, she was only lightly touching down on it as she rolled from one side to the other. She actually waved people in the room off and slapped her knee at points. She was absolutely delighted. My uncle on the other hand, was nonplussed. No. That's not accurate. He was annoyed. He seemed genuinely miffed. The idea of being entertained by misbehaving children for him was an idea that was apparently completely foreign to him. He sat through the entire thing---stone-faced. It made quite an impression on me. Never did figure it out. People react to things often times in unexpected ways.

This week I surprised myself. I made a huge pickup at work and it took real time and laborious physical effort. My job is physical, but this was over the top. Somewhere in the process, I must have injured my right knee. I either injured it or over-taxed it. I don't know which. I began to limp and it got worse and worse. The pain in my knee was horrible. I had to sit down at work and rest it between customers, which did absolutely no good whatsoever. I'm very used to doing physically, anything I want to. I have a lot of energy, and can put forth a real high burst of it for short periods of time, or I can pace myself and usually outlast most that I work with. That isn't a boast, it's just the way I have trained myself to survive in the work place. It is for that reason, that when something like this happens, I can be pretty "Woe is me." I don't like having my energies or abilities curtailed in any way. Due to the concentration of pain in an area of my body that so diminished my ability to function, I was surprised at my own reaction.

I don't know what the deal is there. I would like to call it growth in my walk. Heh. lol Maybe it is. Maybe I happened to have gotten up on the right side of the spiritual bed that morning a week ago. I don't know, but what I do know is that my reaction was positive. I began praying to God to get me through it, and reminding myself that I should think to thank Him for things like this, just as I thank Him (hopefully) for the things He provides which I so enjoy. His grace and His mercy in something like this are always....and I do mean always present, even if we can't see how He is using it to the good, but use it He does. Perhaps I just needed slowing down a bit for my own good. We normally have three or four employees and I have been working by myself for a while. She needed some time off in the middle of this and mentioned out of concern, "I don't want to kill you by working you this way, but I don't want to kill myself either." She talked about closing the business for a couple of weeks because of my knee. I told her that I didn't believe that would happen.

All is well now, a week later. lol We've hired two new guys. I went to the doctor and walked out armed with a prescription for anti-inflammatory drugs and a newly fitted knee-brace along with instructions for icing techniques and a system of exercise to repair an injured calf-muscle. Life can have some really unexpected ups and downs, but there is one thing we can be sure of, and that is that Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow---and He loves us to pieces.

2010-03-22T20:11:00.000-07:00

2010-03-16T12:07:00.000-07:00

The Bible is full of "pictures", of physical things that are intended to point us to spiritual realities. For thousands of years in the Old Testament, people furiously attempted to achieve "rest" from the Law by obedience to the Law. In my experience, this is something that people still struggle with, even many people who claim Christianity to be what guides their worldview. That's one of the problems with claiming a thing as something that orders one's worldview. It ought not to be a "thing"---but a person. The person of Jesus Christ.

I think that following "Christianity" is one of the reasons that "rest" is so often not experienced by even people who claim themselves to be Christians. The Bible doesn't just tell us that the Christian's "rest" is something to be looked forward to in heaven, but that it is to be enjoyed now-----today. "Rest" comes with a soul's confidence in, and contentment with one's relationship with Jesus Christ.

I believe it's a tool of the enemy that many, if not most Christians are so busy that they become too distracted to experience the rest that knowing Jesus is supposed to give them. After all, if the enemy can't keep one from becoming a Christian, he takes pleasure in contributing to one's ineffectuality for Christ. It is no secret that while we live here--while we make this sojourn--that the physical and spiritual are interactive. Of course the spiritual matters much more, but one can affect the other. It seems that physical rest in the Bible is prescriptive for a reason, if we are to embrace and enjoy the spiritual rest which we are to have in our Savior. If we "rest" from some of our works, if we eliminate some of the many things crowding our schedules, we can enjoy more time with Jesus, and see growth added to our walk with Him. We can see meaning added to our lives. By making these eliminations we are not losing. We are gaining.

2010-03-10T19:53:00.000-08:00

Life has a lot of unexpected moments. My co-worker (Mike) called me Monday night to tell me that his brother had died suddenly earlier that evening. Yesterday, Mike himself was admitted to the hospital with chest pains. As it turns out, he has been having leg cramps and the doctors believe that some plaque broke loose from a femoral artery in one of his legs. This in turn caused a series of cascading events which resulted in the chest pain. He's still in the hospital this evening.

He had to be in a lot of pain to go in. I walked into our workshop one day and wondered why there were drops of blood on the floor. He had just pulled a molar from his own mouth with a pair of pliers. He didn't want to go to the dentist and pay $400 to have it removed so he decided to do it himself. He's been a professional bouncer and when he was a younger guy (before he became a Christian) he used to get into a ton of fights. I once saw the clear outline of a chain across his shoulders. It looked like a perfect purple tattoo of a chain. Someone had hit him with it. Suffice it to say he has a very high level of pain tolerance.

He hates hospitals. I'm not terribly fond of going to them myself. Everybody is sick or broken in hospitals. I am going to use some Christian "lingo" here.....I have given it all to God. So many folks probably wonder what that means.

When I say that, I am saying that I can't deal with it, and I have to entrust whatever happens to the hand of God and know that His wisdom and will is infinitely greater than my own. I had to work my day off for Mike yesterday and I wondered about him all day long. I prayed at different times and today we had one of the largest deliveries that we make each year and I made it by myself. Through the lifting and driving and hustling through it to make it on schedule without help I thought about the deliveries Mike and I had made together in the past. You can get to know someone fairly well by working with them day in and day out for years, and by struggling through difficult days with them, working...side by side.

I have been blessed in life, so very much. Many of the struggles I have worked through have been of my own creation. In some struggles I have not been my own worst enemy. In either case....God has been right there....at my side. I have heard from Him in the way that He has orchestrated things through these struggles. The merciful hand of the Master at work is almost always more easily seen by me when looking back. There have been plenty of times where I have nearly given myself a forehead slap and wondered how I could have missed it.

Even in the seven years that my father battled cancer, and the last several months when he was paralyzed from the chest down, there were many hidden blessings. A great blessing was gaining a little more insight about my father, and growing a little closer to my father as he graciously accepted whatever God gave him, but the greatest blessing was gaining a little more insight about our heavenly Father, and growing a little closer to Him through all that He graciously gave. Cancer for seven years? Paralysis? An agonizing struggle for a time the night that death came? Some might ask, "How can there be any blessing in things like that?" Believe me, they were there, and I will treasure them for the rest of my life.

My hope and prayer for Mike and his family is that as a Christian father, Mike will be able not only to see the blessings, but to gain insight from God and grow closer to God as He helps Mike work through these struggles....right at his side.

2010-03-06T19:15:00.000-08:00

Of Deep Concern

Hi. It's been a while since I have posted. To those twos and twos of readers out there who are faithful about it--my apologies. I have been spending less time online for the last several months. When I have been writing online, most of those efforts have been put into communications and various debates with non-Christians and cult members. The exchanges have been cordial for the most part, and as to whether or not they have or will prove useful is up to the Almighty.

Things that surprise me about unbelievers most of the time, at least the ones that I deal with online are very few and far between. Oh, they're in the world like me, but they belong to it, and I belong to Jesus. I can't brag about me, but I can brag about Him. Thing is, most of them don't want to hear it. Some are seeking. I think about them. I have prayed about them all---those who appear to be seeking and those who don't, but there is something different about praying for unbelieving folks you are close to.

I have a friend, and he and I could not have grown up with more disparate family and spiritual backgrounds. I grew up in a family with a Christian mom and dad who were solid and dependable. He lost his mother early in life after a tragic home accident. My life was stable, while his was very strange. He was raised by a step-father whom all in my family believe to be his biological father. Long story. His "step-father" had a colorful background. He was an intellectual kind of guy with no clue about spiritual things who thought he had the answers for everything. He hated Jesus. If you are wondering why I would say that, it's because he had abominable things to say about Him. Expletive things. Despicable things. He knew I was a Christian, and he always treated myself and my wife very nicely. He demonstrated and outward patience with us and especially me, and a forgiving sense of generosity, but he made no bones about the fact that he couldn't stand our Savior.

My friend grew up in that household, and yet, he loved the household I grew up in. He loves me and my family, and most especially my mom. I think he admires her really. He trusts our family, but only to a degree. People are generally faithful to what they want. I am faithful to Jesus, because I want Him. Do I fail Him? Absolutely, because I'm weak, but I endeavor to please Him. My heart is soft toward Him. My friend is faithful to his varied wants. Of course I have always known this, but he has always demonstrated a waywardness that wanted for direction. In other words, he has been lost....but searching for something stable.

A few days ago, I happened to stumble onto his facebook page. To tell you the truth, I was saddened by what I saw there. I have always pretty much know that he was wilder in his life away from me and my family than he would ever pretend. He's an actor, and for that matter, he is almost always "on". It is in those rare times with me when he lets his guard down that there are moments of clarity. I used to be able to see that he truly wanted what I have. I haven't seen him in person for about five years now, and I am ashamed after reading his facebook page to realize that I have not been praying regularly for him lately. That's over. You see, I believe that prayer changes things. So why haven't I been praying for him? Well, that is a failing on my part, for whatever the reason.

So what was so shocking about his facebook page? Nothing really. It was just disheartening to see him so opening announcing his affiliation with the world and the things the world embraces. They are things that he knows no one in my mother's household would ever approve of. They are things which are diametrically opposed to what he knows I believe as a Christian. It isn't that I can't deal with having people disagree with me. I've got great friends who disagree with me on things all the time. I have fun with the fact that they disagree with me. But those are Christian friends. The things we disagree about aren't things that matter a whole lot. I'm fine with that. What bothers me is that he is so opposed to the things that Jesus declares to be right and true.
How so? Okay, picture he and I as Richard Dawkins and Ravi Zacharias. I would like to say the differences in worldviews are not that extreme, but they are.

For several days now, I have been dealing with this. When I told my wife how disappointed I was she asked, "Are you really surprised by this? Look at the life he has lived." Knowing him as we do, I had to answer, "No, but I am hurting."

I have Christian friends who can say, "Hey, you've told him the truth. Lay your head on your pillow and sleep well tonight." While I won't lose sleep over this thing, I am just not built that way. This will dog me. I know that. It will dog my thoughts at some place most days, and it will drive me to pray. Hey---I pray for my Christian friends and they have Jesus and eternally worshiping Him to look forward to. So far, the best thing my friend has to look to is, well....the life he is living now---the things he wants now.

Is he more sinful than I am? Does that really matter? I have heard people say as I have said myself....Just a single sin on one's account will keep one out of heaven. Of course when I've said that I have been speaking about the perfection and purity of God compared with that of mankind, but it is not strictly speaking--sin--that keeps one out of heaven. It is a heart that is hardened toward God that keeps one from knowing Jesus, and therefore out of heaven. Sin is the compacting tool that hardens the heart toward God, and he is embracing a lifestyle, or has embraced a lifestyle that will only move him further away from a worldview that lends any willingness to encounter the goodness of God.

Have some time? Just a moment? Please pray for my friend and his wife. Their names are Donald and Yvonne.

Blessings

2009-10-27T18:19:00.000-07:00

The Gospel, the Nature of God and Works Righteousness

I've been corresponding for some months with a member of a cult of Christianity. He is a very passionate person. He has an analytical mind, and a very strong sense of self. He is very firmly entrenched in his convictions and as is many times the case it is unknown to me at this point whether any of our interaction with one another will bring forth fruit.

Having met on an Internet forum our interaction grew in ways not uncommon to real life friendships (in person). We were drawn together in a common area of interaction, shared ideas, had disagreements and agreements and even occasioned an outburst followed by a rebuke and an apology.

The relationship has ended poorly though, and I find myself caught between knowing I did the proper thing for the many, but harboring sorrow for the few. If that does not make very much sense to the reader--my apologies, but suffice it to say that I wish the gentleman's parting could have been avoided.

This gentleman finds the concept of a Triune God to be ridiculous, and insists that the idea was born of the Council of Nicea in 325. With everything I contributed came a parry and a riposte. Claims that I avoided answering his questions abounded as I endeavored to put questions to him that would cause him to consider the truth. The fact of the matter is that I did answer his questions. He just had no use for my answers.

Does the gospel demonstrate the Triune nature of God? No, but the gospel accounts do. God the Father speaking from heaven, the Son standing in the water for baptism while the Holy Spirit descends from heaven to "alight" on Him. As time and our correspondence rolled by it became clear that this man believed that Jesus was not Divine until about the time He began His ministry, at around thirty years of age. This is thoroughly unbiblical and the Bible says that we must understand Him rightly.

I can be a very slow learner sometimes. There are things I pick up on very quickly to the surprise of some people, but most of the time things come slowly to me. What I'm getting at is that these cult members always end up attaching some sort of work to the salvation process, and I never wondered why until recently. With this gentleman it was no different. He could be described as a "oneness" theologian. I guess he has published a book and is writing a second. He is eloquent of speech and has a very good command of the English language. Unfortunately, that gift lends itself to Scripture twisting as well.

He does not have a right understanding of the Godhead. Does a young child necessarily understand the Triune nature of God? Perhaps. Perhaps not, but a little child has an innate, probably less corrupted (by age and experience) ability to accept good things.

Without a right understanding of God, cult members in turn have a faulty understanding of the gospel of Jesus Christ and the grace of God. At some point, they have to figure out how to gain heaven with a diminished kind of savior in the lead. It always falls to works---one's own works, or a work of some kind. It was no different with this gentleman.

More than ever, the words of the Savior come to my mind with renewed meaning...."Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it at all."

2009-05-25T16:53:00.000-07:00

Distinctions

Ever have one of those fleshy moments when you just want to well....react to someone? I had one such moment. I was talking with another believer I'm barely acquainted with, and he began talking about end-times events and what is currently happening in the Middle East. He said something like, "Things are really lining up aren't they?" I could tell that he was excited about the subject and wanted to talk about these things, and agreed with him that they were in fact, "lining up". This prompted a dear friend who was listening to interject a comment. She said, "I don't interpret prophecy by reading newspaper headlines." I answered her by saying, "I don't either." I was feeling a bit defensive I guess. My friend does not share my eschatology. My acquaintance and I immediately dropped the subject and changed to another one. In my flesh I wanted to say something to my friend but (gladly) the Lord had given me the restraint to be gracious.

It isn't that I believe that what my friend said was necessarily wrong, as reading prophecy through the headlines is a dumb thing to do. However, when headlines confirm prophecy, I think it would be a weird thing to ignore what is happening all around us. One used to have to spend real time if one wanted to look for headlines related to Bible prophecy. Here are a few that I read just this morning from a single website:

"Russian Official Says that Israel is Behind Continuous Tension in the Middle East"

"Ahmadinejad: Iran Will Not Negotiate on Nuclear Program"

"Atheists roll out ad campaign: "In the Beginning, Man Created God"

"Half of Israelis back immediate strike on Iran"

"Church of Scotland backs gay minister"

"Russian FM praises ties with Hamas"

My friend later sought me out and evidently wanted to explain her comment. We were having a general conversation when she blurted out, "I have looked at what some people believe about what God will do in the end times and it just makes Him look so mean!" Once again, I dropped the subject. I love this person and it just didn't seem worth the effort to try to explain why I believe in a pre-tribulation rapture of the church, a seven year period of tribulation in which astounding judgments will take place and a literal, millennial reign of Jesus here on earth to be followed by the great "white throne" judgment of people's souls. God isn't mean. He is patient, and mankind brings judgment upon itself. If anything, the fact that He allows judgment while men are still living in order to wake them up to their own sinfulness is an act of total kindness. They cannot say they were never warned of what is to come. My friend's eschatology is so vastly different from my own and it is after all, a "non-essential" doctrine as regards one's salvation. I almost never bring the subject up in any conversation with people outside of my own church family.I have met few people outside of my own church whom I can talk to about the subject of eschatology whose defenses don't immediately snap on. I have actually seen people stiffen up when the subject is broached. So why bother? Is eschatology more important, or is salvation more important? Salvation is. No question. It is preeminent.

So why do some people get so upset when talking about their eschatology? Is it some kind of unwritten Biblical taboo? I don't know all the answers to that. I do know that some have a loyalty to what they have been taught about it and that they believe only they have the answers. I know that some believe that end-times prophecy can't be understood at all and therefore it is a waste of time. I know that some take the approach that prophecy related study and discussions are a potential distraction from the work of spreading the gospel and therefore nothing to be concerned with. Some folks have simply never bothered to look into it for themselves, perhaps because their pastor does not teach expositorily, and the subject simply has never come up. I could go on. None of these reasons will change the fact that prophecy and eschatology are subjects worth studying just like any other subject or type of passage in Scripture.

The fact is that current headlines about the Middle East do have something to do with end-times events because we have been living in the end-times for some two-thousand years. Ever since He departed into the clouds, His followers have been expecting His return for them. A pastor friend of mine was asked, "When do you think Jesus will come for us?" He answered her, "Today." As believers, that should always be our answer and our attitude. We have a promise that Jesus will come back and that some of His followers will never die. It could happen today. He gave general descriptions about the kinds of things that would be happening that would precede that event, and He also told us to be aware of such things. Not to do so would to be to walk around in a sort of self-imposed ignorance.

I see things related to prophecy to be indeed--"lining up", and moving forward at an amazing rate of speed. That is the deal. People who are not believers are going to be caught by surprise by end-times events. Believers should not be caught off-guard. Just as in the case of a Broadway play production, the stage has to be set. Each prop has to be put into its proper position for the players to interact with them. That has been slowly happening for a long time. What makes our current time seem so different is that we are living close to the culmination of what has been slowly building for such a long time. I've heard several persons say that very thing, "But that's been going on for a long time." Exactly.

If a huge house was being framed up over a couple of thousand years, one generation might not easily notice that a stud or two had been set into place from the generation before. But at some point the gradual work that has been done brings one to a house that is very near completion, and that is more noticeable than all of the work that has gone on before. That is somewhat like what is taking place now in regards to biblical prophecy. The stage is being "set". Headlines today reflect that fact. Whether or not one can see that has to do with whether or not one views the headlines through the lens of God's prophetic passages. Some Bible students have been desensitized to what's going on in the Middle East presently, by what has gone on before.

There has been so much effort by politicians and political organizations to achieve "peace" in the Middle East between Israel and those nations who would see her obliterated, that many have lost sight of how significant peace for Israel is with regard to end-times events. For a generation now, ambassadors from many nations have been offering their worldly wisdom to Israel, pushing their fleshly plans for peace on her and to the nations around her in order to bring about a halt to the tumultuous events that have become such daily occurrences so as to numb the sensibilities of everyone watching. That Israeli mothers and fathers must wear an UZI in a sling over their shoulder while riding on their children's school buses is commonplace----goes beyond the notice of those who dismiss what is happening there as nothing important. The world over, people condemn Israel and cry out for "peace and safety".

Iran is threatening Israel with total destruction. Many say, "Oh nonsense. That's been going on for thousands of years." True. But until now, Iran could not make a bonafide thermonuclear threat. Israel is at the very center of a situation wherein her enemies could trigger the chain of events that will usher in the Tribulation period--at any instant. We have become so accustomed to small-minded dictators making nuclear threats that we have become detached from the significance of what such statements mean. We have gone from a generation who was trained to hit the floor and stay away from windows to a generation of those who wave such possibilities off and say, "Whatever", with a smirk. But Jesus said, "And what I say unto you I say unto all, Watch." (Mark 13:37)

The Lord wasn't kidding around when He told us to be watchful, and with respect to those who find prophecy a distraction, people do get so involved in things prophetical that they forget what the first order of business is for believers. That business is Sonship--winning souls to heaven through Jesus Christ. In Matthew 28:19 and 20 Jesus spelled it out for us in the Great Commission, "19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen." Work---and watch. There is and must be a balance as He commanded us to do both. A balance does not come about if the prophecies He spoke are ignored or dismissed altogether.

We are to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ to the whole world. “And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem” (Luke 24:47) and telling people: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” (John 3:16).

The very culmination of end-times prophecy cannot come about until His truth has been proclaimed throughout the entire world and to every person with a willingness to hear it. In Matthew 24:14, Jesus tells us; “And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come." He wasn't saying, go throughout the world and bring about social change, so that people can see how concerned and fair-minded Christians are. He told us to preach the gospel so that hearts can be changed--now. It is the same gospel that Paul obediently preached and wrote of in 1st Corinthians 15:3 and 4.

The peace overtures which have assailed Israel are worldly and Bible prophecy tells us that they come before "sudden destruction" and a host of other events which will precede His coming to take His church out of the world. We ought never to stop paying attention to prophecy, and to the fact that time is growing short, so that we may be more than ever spurred on to work to see that as many as possible will come to faith in Jesus Christ while we are here--where we live and while we sojourn here.

2009-05-20T20:18:00.000-07:00

"Ida"-- The Latest "Missing Link"

I love watching the History Channel. There are some great shows, and there are some real stinkers. Such is the case with the upcoming, "The Link". Yesterday I saw a commercial for an upcoming special program detailing the story of "Ida", the lemur-like fossil that has now been declared--the missing link. It is claimed that she had an opposable right thumb. The fossil was found about 30 kilometers south of Frankfurt, Germany, and is said to have been dated at around 47 million years old. (Carbon dating *cough*)

Apparently a group of scientists have been keeping the discovery of this fossil a closely guarded secret for some two years now. I guess they didn't want anyone else messing with their discovery, or making any kind of speculation about their conclusions. A "dream-team" of scientists have been doing the honors. Professor Phillip Gingerich has already declared, "Well, it's kind of Rosetta Stone, because it ties together parts we haven't been able to associate before." They are billing it as the oldest and most complete fossil of a human ancestor.

Sir David Attenborough, the British narrator of "Nature" is just glowing about the find. He said, "This little creature is going to show us our connection with the rest of the mammals. This is the one that connects us directly with them.....Now people can say, 'OK, we are primates, show us the link,'" The link they would have said up to now is missing – well, it's no longer missing."

There are though, already detractors within the evolutionary ranks, and I think that some of them are more than a bit blind-sided by the media circus that is happening all around this little fossil. Even Chris Baird, the curator of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburg, PA said, "I would be absolutely dumbfounded if it turns out to be a potential ancestor to humans." I guess he needn't worry about that.

There have been a ton of fossil discoveries over the years that have been declared to be the all-important missing link that shows a direct evolutionary relationship between present-day man and this or that animal. Most of them have been proven to be the product of hucksterism, and the rest have been shown over time to be just----well.....bad science.

I have no idea whether this fossil will be shown to be a fabrication or not, but it doesn't really matter. What is going on here is pure hype. Don't be fooled. All of the hoopla surrounding it is going to reverberate around rooms across the country for a while, and then it is going to be seen for what it is--just another fossil that some men and women jumped to some conclusions about.

Some within the school of evolutionary thought have asked people to settle down and back off from the sensationalistic claims that "Ida" is a link in the human/evolutionary line. I can see why they would. They pretty much know that every predecessor to her has already been shot down in flames. Good thinking.

2009-05-10T18:38:00.000-07:00

Sailing

The journey had begun with an unexpected step.
Knowing, he had not known.
Seeing, he had not seen.
Every idle word a testimony.

A life--a heart forever changed.
The alienation followed, but welcome in a way.
Knowing now, that he knew.
Seeing--he wanted only to see more.

The ache bent him over, but the urge drove him onward.
Standing, again and again---he strained to reach toward the prize.
Punishment. Suffering.
By the hands of others. By consequence for choices made.
The model--shining forth and impossible to attain even for his mammoth strength, yet there.
There, and within him.

He yielded to it.
He had stepped aboard with gladness.
Drawn by the goodness. Submitting. The turning was a gift.
Now the path was fixed. Neither to the right or to the left would be his course.
His ship had neither tiller nor oar, and the Captain's word was beautiful song each morning.

2009-04-01T21:07:00.000-07:00

Signs of the Times

I would be one of those persons that many people would call a dispensationalist eschatologically, though strictly speaking I don't think I quite fit the label. I believe for a lot of different Biblical reasons that the church will be caught out of this world before a seven year long period of tribulation, and spared from the judgments that will be poured out on mankind during that time. This isn't something I will argue about with folks. It is just a belief I have arrived at after many years of studying the Bible.

There are many prophetic events leading up to that time, and events and occurrences that take place during those seven years and after. It has always been fascinating to me. While I don't believe it should be any kind of distraction, it is a huge component of the Scriptures that like the rest, should be studied. As time is winding down, I think it should be a great motivator for us to speak to people about sin, righteousness and the pure judgment of God.

The early church was motivated out of love for Christ to reach the lost, and perhaps also because they expected Jesus to return in their lifetime. They knew that the time could be very short. There are different reasons for that. For one, some in that day thought that perhaps the apostle John would still be living when He came back because of what he said to Peter before He ascended. (John 21:22) In Matthew 24:44 He said that "for in that hour you think not, the Son of Man comes," and to the apostle John he said, "Behold, I come quickly:" (Revelation 3:11). The sense was that His appearance would be "sudden", and could come at any moment, and that is how they and we ought to live.

To humans though, two thousand years is a chunk, especially to unbelieving human beings. Peter wrote of this in his second epistle saying, "3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished." (Chapter 3)

There are scoffers like that today, surely. I have talked with them online and in person. No shortage there, but things are changing. There seems to be to be a trend toward questions among the unbelieving about the things prophesied in the latter days. Sure, you get the questions about whether or not some leader is the anti-Christ or about how America fits into Biblical prophecy or not, but people are starting to perceive that what is spoken of in the Bible may actually have some validity.

This inkling that people in the secular realm have that unexpected things are happening suddenly makes some of them uneasy. They may regard what they see happening and any connection to Bible prophecy in the same way that they might see the writings of Nostradamas or some other false prophet, but some people are paying attention. I do not think it is a good idea to base prophetic teaching on headlines, but I don't see a thing wrong with recognizing how events are lining up with Biblical prophecy. Jesus said in Matthew 24:36 that we would not know the day or the hour of His return, but just three verses earlier He said that when certain events were seen that men should know that His coming was very near. Likewise, there are events that precede those events, and people are seeing some of those events in the beginnings of their formations.

One good example of those events is the current economic crisis. It isn't just here in the United States. It is a global crisis, and since the key prophetic passages in Daniel, Matthew and the Book of Revelation dealing with end times speak in global terms, people are paying attention. Our leadership in the United States at present is acting extremely irrationally, pushing fiscally irresponsible bills through the House and Senate at record speed, all the while telling the American public that every dollar spent will somehow generate a buck-and-a-half in return. Hence, spending by the trillions. This is just nuts. President Obama plans to spend in his presidency, more than the sum total that all of the forty-three presidents who preceded him have spent--combined. He is literally gambling with the financial welfare of an entire nation. If he succeeds in spending the kind of brain-tripping figures that he wants to spend, it is likely a policy that will not only eventually demand extremely high taxes, but is also one from which not only this nation, but the rest of the world will probably never recover. It is likely also to be a catalyst for more cascading end times events.

The fact that people are so polarized about this policy and so many still approve of what the President is doing is amazing to me, even in 2009. What happens when this insane gamble fails as the end times wind down? More insanity will probably ensue. Will the Federal Reserve, if it still exists will be pulling out the I.O.U. and using the old Steve Martin joke and say, "I'll put them here---in my white coat."?

Many people know that the Bible says that there will be a future leader who sets into place a financial system wherein nobody can by or sell without his approval. That approval will be in the form of a "mark" the Bible says on the forehead or upon the right hand. (Revelation 13:16-17) At the present time, there are fewer people on the planet that believe that is nonsense. Before this last month, most unbelievers and a lot of Christians for that matter regarded a global currency as a ridiculous notion from conspiracy theorists. Headlines from the last couple of weeks have made many reconsider that position. A United Nations economic team not only approves of dumping the dollar as the global currency reserve that it has been almost by default, but has come up with a plan to replace the U.S. dollar with a world currency reserve. That announcement followed one by China's central bank to do the same thing.

These other governments are looking for financial stability right now, and they don't see the answers for that coming out of U.S. leadership. The U.S. is in turmoil right now because our whole system of government is being changed before our eyes. It smells a lot like socialism, and while that may not bother a great deal of the people who live here, it bothers a great deal of others. There are many "tea parties" going on throughout the U.S., and there will be more to follow. These are peaceful demonstrations so far, but I have a feeling that there will be problems and more and more people in upheaval as the leadership here tends in their arrogance to ignore them. In any event, the Bible says that things will destabilize and people will be calling for peace. They will be looking for a leader to bring that peace about.

I'm fifty-one years old, and I have never heard so many people speculate about who the anti-Christ may be. I know full well that we are not to be looking for this man, so truthfully, I don't bother. We are to be looking for Jesus. That said, it is predictable that the world would be more interested in who the anti-Christ is than in Jesus. I think that many view the anti-Christ as sort of an equal/opposite of Jesus. Nothing is further from the truth, but still the interest remains.

With all of this financial instability and craziness at the forefront of the headlines, and as some of the world's most high profile leaders are meeting in the UK to discuss it, I wonder how the nation of Israel will figure into their discussions. That tiny little country has remained in the headlines not matter what else has been happening. Try as it might to remove Israel from the land God promised to it, the world just can't seemed to take its eyes off of it. Whether because she does something independently or whether she is defending herself, the U.N. consistently condemns Israel and sympathizes with terrorist movements within the borders of her neighbors. Leaders are defined by how they deal with Middle East concerns and now, as fanatically led Iran moves ever closer to having nuclear weapons, our current president wants to appease and pander to that nation and to others who harbor terrorist factions. That only purports the leaders of those nations to be fools who can't see the error of their ways. That isn't the case. They know exactly what it is that they wish to do. They wish to erase Israel from existence by any possible means.

Some people are beginning to understand that Israel has only survived thus far by the grace of Almighty God, because He is not finished with her. They are beginning to see that with all of the fiscal upheaval in the world that perhaps those crazy prophecies in the Bible aren't so crazy after all. They are beginning to see that this world needs more than a financial and political Savior. But---I urge those brothers and sisters in Christ who might be reading this post to act for the Lord---because truly we do not know how long this window will be open. The tide could turn at any moment--suddenly.

1st Thessalonians 5:1 But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you. 2 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. 3 For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape. 4 But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief. 5 Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness. 6 Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober.

2009-03-14T19:31:00.000-07:00

BACK IN THE DAY

Just the other day I caught part of a Christian radio show, and a young student called in to speak about the difficulty he was having with his teacher, (history I presume). The problem he was having was that his teacher took issue with his use of the standard epoch indication for recorded history before the birth of Jesus, namely--B.C.. The student was told to change the indication to B.C.E., which stands for "Before the Common Era." I had trouble hearing the whole account because I was at work, but it sounded as though the kid said he wished to use B.C., and was told by his teacher that he would either change his paper or his grade would be forfeit.

I only took notice of the "new" indicator about fifteen or twenty years ago. I really don't remember. I know that it has been in use for much longer than that. In my earlier years I just didn't happen to invest time in the kinds of history books or technical journals that might have used B.C.E. or C.E.. There are good teachers and there are bad teachers. Some bad teachers can be egotistical intellectual bullies. I have two nephews who have earned 4.0 grade averages all through their academic careers. One of them was accepting a paper back from one of his college teachers who was well aware of their academic record. He took out his pen in front of my nephew and told him point-blank that he didn't think any student should go through school with straight 'A's. He change his grade to a B+ right there. When I heard the story, I wanted to drive the three-and-a-half hours to my nephew's college and throttle his professor. I didn't, of course.

The interesting thing is that such heavy-handedness by an unfair or deeply opinionated teacher can actually be a valuable lesson for a young person with the right mindset. "Golly, thanks Mr. Cleaver." I'm laughing here, but it's very true. My nephew was upset but he rose above it, valuing the job he did as the best he could do and accepting the outcome.

I didn't get to hear the advice that the host gave the kid on the radio, but if they had asked me (as if) I would have just told him to use B.C.E., rejoice and remember that for him it stands for "Before Christ Emmanuel." Works for me.

2009-03-13T21:30:00.000-07:00

It's Still Rock and Roll To Me

There are a lot of rock and roll songs from my youth that I instantly recognize or that might even get stuck in my head like a tape loop to this day. Many songs are memorable for me, but usually because of the beat or the music. I have always found the lyrics to be a bit simplistic in rock and roll. From my early teens I came to understand that rock and roll actually was about rebelling against authority. Before then, when I heard some older person say something like that I tended to dismiss the notion because I thought they didn't understand the genre.

The fact of the matter is that rock and roll's own proponents have said the same thing on many an occasion. The list of rockers who readily admit that fact is very long. Rock and roll has its very roots in sexual rebellion. Many of the early songs in rock and roll were virtual tributes to fornication, and they were written in a semi-code system so that 'old fogies' wouldn't get it. Even the words, "rock and roll" are a slang term for that particular sin. The old fogies figured it out anyway though. Album after album has been devoted to rebelling against authorities of many kinds---religious, moral, parental, legal, artistic. You name it and rock and roll has rebelled against it and made fun of it.

Rock and roll has demonstrated great disrespect for God, but often seems to fancy itself in a sort of strange 'cat and mouse' relationship with Him. On the one hand, it is fond of rejecting and blaspheming mean old God the Father, but appealing to that really nice guy, Jesus. Well, that is when they are not busy blaspheming His name. They certainly have no problem deriding His church.

Sarah MacLachlan has a new 'tune' out titled "Dear God". She doesn't pull a single punch. In her diatribe against Him she blames Him for the world's ills. She says that He is the cause of wars and even accuses Him of drowning babies. That's a new one. She calls the Holy Trinity an unholy hoax perpetrated on mankind and ends the song by telling Him that she ..........doesn't believe in Him. I understand that the song is an open letter to a God she purports not to exist, but there's a strange inconsistency in her logic that does not escape me.

Christians can be awfully naive at times, just like anyone else. We shouldn't be, but we can be. Rock and roll has had such an influence on the minds of most young people, that when they become young believers they are reluctant to leave it behind with the other worldly influences that they have turned their back on. They even strive to bring it into the church. I don't have a problem with the music and beat to a certain degree. I always liked that, but when the volume prevents worship, or when the lyrics are watered down to the point that finding anything worshipful in it, or anything edifying, then I do have a problem with it.

Which brings me to.....U2. Sorry if you are a big U2 fan. I just never have been. U2 has always seemed to be members of the 'cat and mouse' club that I mentioned before. I have heard or read many times that U2 was a Christian band. The thing is, I don't know if I have ever heard that statement made by someone I know to actually be a Christian. There is no question that U2 are one of the most recognizable rock bands of all time. Their front man Bono is much more highly recognized than any of the other band members. That is probably due the fact that he claims to be a Christian, is a very vocal person and quite active in calling for and securing aid to African nations. He, along with Bob Geldof, have been up for the Nobel Peace Prize in the past for their efforts in that regard. I admire their efforts, but I think that the people in those African nations are worse off now than they were before the efforts, due to politically corrupt leaders and dictators in those same countries.

Just this month, U2 has come out with a new album. Yesterday I read another one of those articles that asked if perhaps with this one that U2 might be returning to its 'Christian' roots. Huh? Probably the song I remember of U2's that ever came the closest to being more than remotely spiritual would be "The Joshua Tree". When Bono sang the he believed in the 'kingdom come' and that "You broke the bonds and you loosed the chains" and then "Carried the cross of my shame", it sounded fairly moving. Unfortunately, it fell back into that cat and mouse category for me when the next line was belted out--"But I still haven't found what I'm looking for."

Why this new album is reputed to be a Christian one is a mystery to me. There are only a couple of songs with slightly spiritual mentions or words in them, and nothing of any real consequence. I have heard metal band songs with more Scriptural references. Lots of songwriters have hijacked Scriptures to make a buck without any real affinity for them. If Bono were singing these songs as a worship leader, then he would be the leading contextualized performer on the planet. He manages to use the 's' word in one of them. The fact is that rock and roll music shouldn't have any real fellowship with the church. It's really no different from a believer consciously choosing to marry an unbeliever. Light and darkness. It just shouldn't happen.

Obeying God rather than men does not qualify as rebellion, since God's authority supersedes that of any of His creation. He permitted them whatever authority they have in the first place.

If songwriters want to write that breakout song, or if they still feel a need to rebel against something that matters, perhaps they should rebel against sin. Contrary to what Sarah MacLachlan evidently believes, sin the real reason that wars are fought, why people are starved, why children are abused and neglected, why there is any kind of human depravity and why the earth is in midst of the turmoil it is currently experiencing. Why not rebel against unbelief, and seek to make disciples of Christ?

Jesus said, "Love your neighbor as you love yourself." In order to do that, rebellion would have to be left behind by everyone, but the world would sure be a different place than it is right now.

2009-03-10T15:17:00.000-07:00

Discerning Falsehoods

Time and again in Scripture, we are told to test all messages in order that we might not be deceived and misled. Paul commended the Bereans for searching the Word of God to see if what they were being taught was in fact true. If the apostle Paul made this a practice, shouldn't we? A friend of mine gave a Bible study once wherein he urged those of us present to know what we believe, because the sad truth of the matter is that most Christians have little knowledge of the Bible and a worldview that is only a couple of inches deep.

It is tragic when someone who professes a faith in Christ is unable to test anything because they are ignorant of what the Word says. Believers are sometimes starved for spiritual food in their own churches, because what they get fed amounts to pop psychological garbage and positive thinking reinforcement. As believers, we need to be in the Word every day. We need to learn to test doctrine by comparing it to Scripture. 1st Thessalonians 5:21 states; "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." Not to be able to do this could make one a target for deception.

Just as in times past---but with even greater numbers today, false prophets are all over the place. In my eschatology, they are a definite sign of the times and they point to the soon return of Jesus. He Himself warned this would happen in the end times. In fact, it is the very first end time sign He spoke of in the Olivet Discourse, most extensively recorded in Matthew 24. It is also the only sign He repeated in that discourse, and He could not have been more explicit; "And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many."

Paul was strongly emphatic about this very thing. In the Acts Chapter 20, he said, "28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. 29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. 31 Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears."

John and Peter also warned of what false prophets, saying such men and women would; "secretly will bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them," 2ND Peter 2:1. John gave Jesus' followers one way to test such men. He instructed, "2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: 3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God:....." 1st John 4 He followed that up by teaching that anyone who would not acknowledge that Jesus had come in the flesh had "the spirit of antichrist."

John's teaching is the starting point, because today we have cults who will make that confession. The problem is, their confession is false, because it means something completely different from what it is they are saying. For example if I say, "I love to fly," most people with common sense would know that what I am saying is that I love to ride in airplanes. However, when someone says, "I love to fly," they might literally mean that they believe that they can fly without any external aid, and that they love doing it.

The same thing is true of false teachers who use terms common to orthodox Christianity, but which mean something absolutely different from what the Bible declares. Mormonism for example, is full of such dualistic terms. When a Mormon says they "believe Jesus Christ is the Savior" and that they believe that "He came in the flesh", it sounds like it passes John's initial test, right? It does sound like that, but upon further inspection, they are talking about a completely different Jesus than the Jesus of the Bible. The Jesus they believe in was born spiritually in heaven to a heavenly father and mother, who they believe in turn fathered and gave birth to Lucifer (making him the spiritual brother of Jesus) and the rest of the human race. When a Mormon says that he or she believes in "Heavenly Father", that sounds okay. The truth is that the "Heavenly Father" of Mormonism is a created being that was once a man like us who became a god, in a line of gods that stretches back ad infinitum.

When our spiritual 'nose' gets a whiff of falsehood, we need to delve further. We need (lovingly) to ask questions. False prophets often hold back information and they do so for a purpose. They refrain from elaborating on their doctrines, because not to do so will immediately define them and separate them from true followers of the Jesus of the Bible. This gives people an impression that they hold to Christianity, and it allows false teachers to push their deceptions until people unaware of the truth get indoctrinated into their system of falsehoods. Again, Mormonism is a perfect example of what is going on in a world full of false prophets and teachers today. They have a corporate and collective desire to be accepted as followers of the Jesus Christ of the Bible. The truth is, they are not. One simple question that you could ask your Mormon friend is this, "If I accept you as a Christian, will you accept me as a Mormon?" Chances are, that if they know anything about their own belief system, you will be rejected, and that is because they believe something completely different than we do.

Generally speaking, false prophets and teachers can be exposed by shedding light on two areas: 1) What do they believe about the identity of God? and 2) What is God's method of salvation? These two questions lay at the foundation of what John was telling us to do, because Jesus is the head of the body, and the foundation of the church. It is only through Him that we can come to the Father. When someone redefines who God is, and how we get saved, they are false teachers presenting a false gospel.

We need to be loving with people, but we need to be bold about the truth while being loving. In today's postmodern, politically correct and morally relativistic culture it seems that the biggest way to insult someone is to say that they are---wrong. But people are wrong, and many of them will go to hell for having placed their faith and trust in anything other than Jesus. So how loving would it be for us not to delve further, and once having discovered deception, not to lovingly guide someone to the truth? I don't think it would be loving at all. Sometimes, we have to realize that we will be going through some painful realities in order to give someone the truth.

The question is, does that matter to us? I think it ought to. Charles Spurgeon once said, "Have you no wish for others to be saved? Then you are not saved yourself. Be sure of that."

This is just one more reason to study the Word, and to be able to discern these things and to reach out to those who are willing to hear the truth. We need to be vigilant about our own spiritual laziness and apathy. It should never be that way with us. We ought always be ready and willing to to reach out to the lost, and if that means to be willing to lovingly confront falsehood and take the possible consequences, then so be it.

2009-03-09T20:10:00.000-07:00

Deja Preview?

On March 2ND, I wrote on this blog;

"Now we have the Prime Minister of the UK pushing for a "global new deal" with President Obama this week. He has already made sure to spin his proposal in the press so that his intent will be as optimistically met as possible with the President.

Skipping down...

--One wonders how ambitious the plan for a "global new deal" might be. Buckle up, because if the President is interested it could really get bumpy, chiefly because any worldwide "new deal" plan will be linked to global warming."

I read an article yesterday that detailed how Secretary of State Hillary Clinton last Friday (March 6TH) said that President Obama's administration is bent on advancing the EU/US relationship to a whole new level, with a strong emphasis on climate change and the present economic crisis, and that they must be dealt with together.

If a shlub like me can spot this coming before it gets here, then those in power ought to be able to. What can they do about it? I don't know. But I know that we can pray. I think prayer is all that is left to those of us in my state who call themselves conservative. Both of our Senate members here in Washington State are Democrats. These two ladies tend vote just about the opposite of how I would in close to every single circumstance. They both adore voting for big government spending, oppose a ban on same sex marriage, love spending money to battle climate change and a host of other unfortunatly very wrong choices. Worst, along with our governor they are endorsed by and rated 100% by NARAL.

For those of you who don't know, NARAL is probably the most infamous pro-choice PAC out there. They are very active lobbyists. They just love Barack Obama's stance on abortion too. Rated him 100%.

So conservatives here in WA can look forward to zippo in the way of cooperation from those who are supposed to represent all of their constituents. Again, prayer is the order of the day, and asking that God will direct us as we work to glorify His name as we navigate the times.

2009-03-08T00:42:00.000-08:00

Hijacking Christianity

I wish those people who wish to break away from Christianity in pursuit of something different would simply do so instead of labeling themselves Evangelical Christians. I know. My mother has always said, "If wishes were horses, beggars would ride." Just a few days ago "Faith In Public Life", a religious political action committee (the best way that I can describe them), issued a press release entitled, "Top Christian Leaders Welcome Sebelius." The subtitle read; "Sebelius Good for Common Ground on Abortion."

This press release is a complete hash. It's skillful wording does a very good job of presenting this organization's stance on the very serious issue of abortion in this nation. It sings the praises of Kansas Governor Kathleen Sabelius and the perceived achievements under her leadership as a Democrat in a largely Republican state. It welcomes President Obama's choice concerning her as Secretary of Health and Human Services and says that "by all accounts" she is a person of deep faith. So what? What the heck does that necessarily mean?

The release goes on to backhand anyone who might try to discredit her "commitment" to achieve measurable goals of reduction in abortions. It further stresses their hopes that any such attempt will not distract from what she has achieved in her state.

You know....any type of barter with the devil is always a bad thing. They are all the same sows pigs. "Obama will reduce abortions" they say. "Sabelius will reduce abortions." That is their new theme. Who are "they", and is their new tack a legitimate one?

Well, let's look at just a few of the names from the list of signatures endorsing the President's choice.

Joel Hunter, Senior Pastor, Northland, A Church Distributed, Northland, FL, the man who at the closing benediction or the 2008 Democratic convention said: Now, I interrupt this prayer for a closing instruction: Because we are gathered in a country that continues to welcome people of all faiths, let us personalize this prayer by closing according to our own tradition. On the count of three, end your prayer as you would usually do … one, two, three __________ (”in Jesus’ name”) AMEN! Let’s go out and change the world for good!"

Brian McLaren, Author and Founding Pastor of Cedar Ridge Community Church, Spencerville, MD, Mr. Emergent.

Tony Jones, Author, Speaker and Theologian, Edina, MN, former National Coordinator of Emergent Village

Paul De Vries, Board Member, National Association of Evangelicals, President, NY Divinity School, New York, NY

The National Association of Evangelicals just got rid of Richard Cizik a few months ago, and I was happy about that. I had hope for the group that says that it generally represents me and a lot of other Christians. Well, they don't. I want out. They didn't ask me for my opinion and they have hijacked a term that means something much different than what it is that they represent. Why is it that guys who want to be radically different from what Christian Evangelicalism has always represented have chosen to stay within its ranks and change it from the inside out? It is somewhat like gays who want to stay within the Boy Scouts and force the Scouts organization legally to accept their lifestyle as legitimate. The big difference is that the gays are at least being up front about what they wish to do. The men and women in the emergent church movement and religious PACs like this one are much more subtle about the kinds of changes which they are intent on making within Christianity.

For the most part, these are highly educated people. They have an agenda and they are accomplishing it. I wish they would at least work on that using someone else's appellation. I wonder what they must think about the people I know in my own church who work diligently at our local pregnancy center, reaching out with compassion to mothers and families in love with education and options other than abortion? And most of these services are volunteer and much of it comes free of charge. There are thousands of such centers around the nation and they are not simply spewing rhetoric on the life issue. They are right in the thick of it, depending on the Lord for guidance and understanding. Hoping that what they do will make a difference as the continue to speak out against this most heinous social injustice, all the while knowing the futility of partnering with those who seek to oppose them.

The rallying cry of those who voted for Barack Obama in the hopes that the man will reduce the number of abortions are just fooling themselves. I don't know if people have noticed, but the new President has a thing that he almost always does when he talks about an issue. He almost always throws out a conciliatory nod to the position of the other side. Then he talks about coming together across party lines or about how Americans want non-partisan solutions to the problems they face. Then he goes right ahead and does uncompromisingly and precisely what he intended to do from the outset. When it comes to working across party lines, he is all about appeasement without any quid pro quo.

The people in these quasi-religious organizations can be a little mysterious. On the one hand, I understand that those I've mentioned are largely universalist. Barack Obama is a universalist. There is an attraction there. They don't have a good grasp of Scripture in that they have a very low view of the word. They twist it to mean what they wish it to mean, because a plain reading of it doesn't agree with their agenda. So does Barack Obama. More affinity there. Barack Obama already has twisted and ignored Scripture to accommodate his belief that homosexuality is acceptable in God's sight.

I'm convinced that Barack Obama doesn't care very much about what these people want as regards abortion. Last March at a campaign whistle-stop, he answered a voter question asked about sex education at the elementary school level. He said, "Look, I got two daughters - nine years old and six years old. I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."

What does that statement mean? First, it means that Barack Obama believes in abortion on demand, and that abortions for the sake of "convenience" are acceptable. Second, it implies that he thinks that is just AOK for minors. Secondly, Barack Obama apparently thinks that babies are a form of "punishment" that his daughters should be spared. Does he realize that what his daughters would be aborting are his grandchildren?

Part of the problem with the abortion issue in this last election cycle is that not only was the media silent on the issue, but so mostly, were the politicians on either side. A couple of issues are considered the "third rail" for politicians, and abortion is one of them. It had to be left up to Pastor Rick Warren to put the plain questions to the two major candidates. It is no secret now that Barack Obama tried to be glib and performed poorly. He may have apologized for his mistake, but that is no more than the kid who gets caught with his hand in the cookie jar. He apologized because he looked bad. He still wanted the cookie, and these religious PACs bent on abortion reduction just don't realize what he's hungry for.

Well, and I hesitate to use the word---more orthodox Evangelical Christians know that partnering with Barack Obama and those he chooses to fulfill his policies regarding abortion is a bad move because they know that he won't really try to reduce abortions. He will expand their availability. We don't just want them reduced. We want them gone. So Paul De Vries, Brian McLaren, Tony Jones et al, get out. Just get out. Stop calling yourselves Evangelical Christians. Stop taking the moves from Obama's playbook meaning, quit telling us that you want to bring people together in Christian love while trying to break Evangelicalism down and rebuild it into something that you want. The life issue is not something we can overlook or compromise on. It isn't up for negotiation, and a proposed reduction in numbers is just not acceptable. How hard is that to understand? So get out, and find another name for your movement, because Evangelical Christianity doesn't describe it.

2009-03-02T16:06:00.000-08:00

Staggering Waste or Staggering Opportunity

I am not a doom-and-gloomer. Our Savior is too wonderful for us to ever be one. Does that mean that I never get bugged by stuff? Hardly. (Laughing here) I get bugged by the stuff the world does all the time. No one living today, has ever seen the likes of what is going on financially in the world at this time. Sorry, but my parents both lived through the depression. My father graduated high school in 1929, the year the stock market crashed. He went to a college and studied to become an osteopath, but he couldn't make enough to support himself and study too. He tried a lesser school with a different goal but soon found himself struggling once more. Eventually he found himself working in the fields picking different types of produce until he literally dropped. Ultimately in the mid-1930s he joined the Army in order to be able to have regular meals.

His story was not unusual, and there were many people who had a much rougher time than he did. My own mom was born in 1927 and her experiences were bleak. She and her large family lost their father in the middle of the Great Depression and often ate what she called "lard sandwiches". Homemade bread topped with lard. I asked her once (idiot) if she liked lard sandwiches and she looked at me with compassion for my ignorance and said that she and her family hadn't eaten them because they liked them, they had eaten them because they were hungry. Not everyone had food every day. Will that sort of scenario happen again? Yes, it will because the Bible tells us that it is coming. I know some will argue that I have the prophecy misplaced, but that's okay. This is my blog, not theirs. (Laughing here)

The sheer scope of the global financial crisis that is being played out before us is staggering to me, to say nothing of how fast it is happening. It's no secret that the stock market reacts strongly to social phenomena connected to economic events, and the steady flow of bad news that has been streaming out since late last August or early September (I can't remember which) has seen the injection of in excess of ten trillion dollars into our financial framework by the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve.

That hasn't seemed to help much. Our country's economy is still failing. Just last week, a projected 2009 deficit of one hundred seventy-five trillion dollars was announced by the Obama administration. Why? Last year's deficit was four hundred thirty-five billion by comparison. That is a difference of one trillion, three hundred forty billion dollars. We just went from a grossly irresponsible deficit to a mind-boggling ridiculous sum of money in one fell swoop.

The rest of the world is not immune to what is happening here by any means, but the difference here in the United States is in the shift in the minds of many people toward a socialistic solution to the problem. For two hundred thirty-three years, this nation has thrived with a free-enterprise philosophy of opportunity and individual liberty. That's a bit of an over-simplification, sorry, and there have been bail-outs of one sort or another here and there through the years, but now we have corporation heads getting billion-dollar checks from the government. That just pushes the United Stats citizenry toward a collective eventually desensitized and tacit approval of such practices. Many are thrilled with the idea already. Many (myself included) are angered by it.

Now we have the Prime Minister of the UK pushing for a "global new deal" with President Obama this week. He has already made sure to spin his proposal in the press so that his intent will be as optimistically met as possible with the President. The twenty richest nations in the world that will be meeting for the G20 summit April first will be considerably poorer this year than last year. The immense spending by the U.S. government will be matched only by the interest debt it will incur. Hard but true--every dollar the government spends translates into a dollar of interest and taxation to come. It has to be paid back, and we don't have it, so the government will borrow money and the cycle will continue.

Barack Obama is an idealistic novice, and it shows. So apparently, is Gordon Brown. President Obama along with the his supporters did not bother to read the eleven hundred plus pages of the stimulus package. That was reckless and irresponsible. One wonders how ambitious the plan for a "global new deal" might be. Buckle up, because if the President is interested it could really get bumpy, chiefly because any worldwide "new deal" plan will be linked to global warming. I know that I should get the "broken record" award but it happens to be true. In absence of scientific fact, man-caused global warming proponents have made "consensus", and that is worse. It allows alarmist factions to make inroads into government, and it will be one of the tools with which governments will construct bridges from one economy to another. I could easily be wrong about that but any way you slice it, a "global new deal" will cost even more staggering amounts of money. We likely have already surpassed our ability to pay back what we now owe. Any additional grandiose plans by this government coupled with those of other governments will solidify that fact.

I listened to 1st and 2ND Kings yesterday, and I became mindful of the programs that Solomon implemented to bring about the goals he had in mind. He so burdened the people of Israel with labor that the country rebelled and split in two after his reign. People will not be happy when they are taxed to the point of spending most of their labors to pay back a debt that they ultimately will believe that they did not incur. They will get tired of the current guy promising to get them out of this economic mess, and they will begin to look for help from a financial hero to come riding to their rescue. Who will that be? Will the Antichrist front that agenda too?

I don't really look upon all of this mess as a spiritual burden. I look at it as a blessing. People will be wanting real solutions for their problems and real answers to their questions. We have the real solution, the real cure for their pain. We have the answer to any man's sin problem, and because of all of this we may have an even more attentive audience. President Obama's new Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel has said, "Never allow a crisis to go to waste." I could not agree more. This may be perhaps in centuries the best opportunity that many of us have had to show benevolence and care to unbelievers, and to reach out to them with the gospel of Jesus. My prayer is that the time does not pass wasted.

2009-03-02T00:10:00.000-08:00

Praying For the Innocents?

Back in mid-October I blogged about the upcoming elections and wondered if evangelical Christians in this country were awake or not regarding the elections. I am not a political blogger. But where politics concern morality, and they usually do, I tend to be vocal about the subject. I mentioned back then that abortion in this country was the watershed issue for me. I couldn't vote for Barack Obama for a host of reasons, but chiefly because of his stance on abortion.

I am not surprised that Barack Obama hasn't signed the Freedom of Abortion act as yet, because that is just a matter of political maneuvering. A number of self-proclaimed evangelical Christian pastors and authors supported the President with their votes in an act of trusting the man will do as he implied and reduce the number of abortions. So did a lot of other evangelicals. I'm sorry they fell for his rhetoric, and for a compromised approach to solving such a heinous and shameful crime against humanity. Actually I hope that they feel some shame for their mistake and make better choices in that area in the future, but I seriously doubt they will, because they have been taken in.

The President is at it again. It appears that on Monday, he will officially announce that Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebellius has accepted his request to become the nation's Health Secretary. It is no wonder that she is being tapped. She is about as radical an abortion proponent as you can find. What works for her? The Democrats hold very close to super majority in the Senate. They have breezed through just about any nominee who hasn't had tax problems exposed to the public. What works against her? She is associated with a late-term abortionist (George Tiller) in her state who is being brought up on charges of performing illegal abortions.

White House officials have said that this could be a problem. Duh. I hope so, because if she is confirmed as Health Secretary she would be an integral player in crafting a national health care plan, a pet project of the President. In such a position, Sabellius could push for taxpayer funds to pay for abortions and perhaps demand that independent insurance companies be responsible to pay for abortions in their plans. As well, she could roll right over the pro-life protections that President Bush established protecting pro-life physicians and clinics. She could also help to pave the way for wide open embryonic stem cell research, which is something the President has promised will become a reality.

If the evangelicals who voted for Barack Obama in November think that the Governor isn't likely to play such a radical role should she be confirmed by the Senate, they should check her out. She vetoed pro-life legislation in 2003, '04 and '05. She vetoed a bill that would have made explicit medical reasons for a late-term abortion mandatory. Golly. Who needs one of those pesky ol' reasons anyway? Just last April she vetoed a bill that the state legislature approved, because it would have solidified the state's limitations on late-term abortions. Can't have that.

Last August, Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann of the Archdiocese of Kansas City officially requested in a newspaper column that she refrain from taking Holy Communion until she changed her stance on the issue. Good for him. Unfortunately, she went ahead and partook of the sacraments anyway because of course, no church authority figure is going to tell her what to do. He wrote another letter asking her to respect his request. I think he should bar her from taking it. If it were at my own church and the pastor told her the deal, she would not be allowed. Seriously, who is driving this train? Paul was pretty clear about putting blatantly unrepentant people out of the church until they towed the Biblical line, and it seemed to work. Nancy Pelosi is told by the very Pope that she needs to knock it off and she could apparently give a rip either.

If an Associate Press article is true, Governor Sabellius' spokeswoman Nicole Corcoran said that Sabellius hasn't "seen" the column written by the Archbishop. That's just a cute way of saying that she doesn't care to read it and she doesn't want to. That's kind of like that little kid who wants his parents to think he's sleeping, but when they check in on him, see that his eyes are clamped tightly shut. She isn't fooling anybody except for those who wish to be fooled.

2009-02-18T22:29:00.000-08:00

The Foundation for "Christian" Studies?

Today I came across an msnbc article online about the Foundation for Christian Studies. An alarm bell went off while I was reading the article, and I decided to go directly to the web site. It took under a minute to determine that the "Foundation for Christian Studies" is an LDS (Mormon) web site, and not a Christian site at all.

There is a global emblem toward the upper left corner of the home page denoting the global outreach of the web site, and it sports a fish of course, and also dove holding an olive branch in its beak. I guess they just wanted to be certain that the site was well-represented by Christian symbolism.

This is just the latest effort from one of the largest cults of Christianity to gain acceptance within the faith that their founder said was condemned by God as false, namely---mainstream Christianity. "I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong." Mormon founder and all-around famous dead guy--Joseph Smith.

Set those aside who are assaulting justification, sanctification, the Grace of God, and on and on who also want to be called mainline Christians. Among those who hold to the truth of God's word--the Bible, and who agree on essential doctrine, mainline Christianity is full of godly, loving, caring and solid churches. It is not perfect, but the body loves Jesus. Mainstream Christianity was not all wrong when Joseph Smith made his original claim, and it isn't all wrong now.

What is wrong, is that despite the fact that the LDS church refuses to acknowledge that they believe in a god who is completely different from the God of the Bible. They continue to insist that they do, but that we Christians just simply don't have all the facts. I won't bother to try to list the immense differences between the god of their record (The Book of Mormon) and the Biblical God I have placed my faith in, but suffice it to say it wouldn't matter, because this web site is an effort to intersect their religious beliefs with true Christian faith, and they do that with a new wave of Mormon "apologetics". It is slick, and it is clever, but don't be fooled.

A mixture of truth and falsehoods is what Satan used in the garden. The tactics have not been changed here. Know your Bible. Pray for these people, because they are very deceived, and avoid that web site. There is nothing Christian about it.

2009-02-11T22:37:00.000-08:00

H.R. 1

http://www.rules.house.gov/111/LegText/111_hr1_text.pdf

I have been reading through the 647---that's right--- 647 pages of the now infamous "stimulus package". But let's call it what it is---an appropriations bill. When I was younger, I would not have had the patience to get through this thing. I would have said that it is esoterically written and too tedious to go through. I can pretty much say the same now, with one exception---scary though it is----I understand it.

I still don't have the patience to read every word, partially because it makes me so angry, and partially because I recognize legal filler. So I have been going from heading to heading and getting an overview. There are so many holes in this thing that it reads like Swiss cheese.

It is a pity that President Obama, himself a lawyer, did not bring some of that accumen and reputed genius to bear on this document, instead of handing it off to his subordinates to write. As such it is a poor substitute for a successful financial strategy, but then he is not an economist, and it shows. The solution for working people when they are deep in debt is not to try to spend spend spend themselves further into debt in order to rid themselves of the problem.

I think most responsible people seem to recognize that except the Democrats and a few liberal Republicans. The temptation to act quickly, combined with the ability to appropriate funds to fuel political opportunities that have often eluded the Democratic Party in the past has just proved too much.

There is just not enough oversight in this bill. There are far too many gaps between figures allotted and minimum figures supposedly chiselled in stone. Anybody who gets a maximum allotment of appropriation money for some dumb pork program is simply going to figure out a way to spend the rest of the money.

For example, under Subtitle C----Science, for NASA, the document states:For an additional amount for "Science", $400,000,000, of which not less than $250,000,000 shall be solely for the development of the tier 1 set of earth science climate research missions recommended by the National Academies Decadel Survey.

TRANSLATION: Four hundred-million bucks are going to be spent on manmade global warming research by NASA, even though tons of scientists have said that it is bogus, especially since the earth is now in a cooling trend. That might stimulate some people's minds, but it won't stimulate the economy. Oh and science gets several billion more for other research. More stimulation.

That is far from the least of it. If one has the heart to read it. Nancy Pulosi's own district has a $30,000,000 earmark to save an endangered mouse. Golly. I bet that will stimulate the economy.

By contrast, funds allocated to small business loans, the backbone of the economy, and where a hefty portion of funds should be made available to stimulate the economy by creating businesses and jobs, received far less than many other pet projects.

But then, when your aim is a generally socialistic society wherein huge government runs everybody's lives for the "greater good", who needs small business?

This bill is not just selfish, hastily and poorly written---it is shameful.

2009-02-10T18:53:00.000-08:00

Literal Sense

I use the historical/grammatical method of interpretation when I study the Bible. Many would refer to that method as being a "literal" method. Whether that is the most common method of interpretation, I could not say. But in light of the kinds of widely and I might add, wildly varying opinions of even the most clear passages in Scripture, I think it would be valuable to revisit the notion.

In other words, when you go through and look at what the Bible has to say to these people in the different books, you have to read it in the way that they took it, and in the way that it was meant in that time, and in that historical context. You don' get to go back and say it doesn't mean that, because as soon as you start doing that, then I need you when I read my Bible and that is just not the way it was meant to be. The Bible is written so that I don't need you to read it properly, and so that you don't need me to read it properly.

True, not every sentence in the Bible is meant to be taken literally. The When in John 10:9 Jesus said, "I am the door. If anyone enters by Me, he shall be saved and shall go in and out and find pasture." He was not saying that He was a structural door. However, as the Good Shepherd, He was speaking in the kind of sheep-tending terms that anyone from that society, in that geographical, historical context would readily have understood. Those to whom He was speaking knew precisely what He was talking about. Most middle-eastern sheep pens of that day were a circular stone enclosure with a single opening through which to enter or leave. They realized that the good shepherd would be the one standing or laying in the gap between the fold pen and freedom. It was only by his permission that a sheep could either enter or leave the pen and find pasture grass to eat. Would you not agree that a little bit of applied historical understanding helps to clarify and even add some meaning to the passage in John 10?

The upshot is that what is in view in John 10 is that Jesus is the true way, that He knows our hearts, and that we can trust Him. Through His grace, only Jesus provides the way of salvation for His sheep. I could come up with any number of bogus interpretations about what being "the door" was meant to say, but because Jesus knew just what to say from the Father to His audience, the meaning should be clear as long as we don't play around with it. The Bible is written so that we can sit down with it and God can speak to us individually, all by ourselves, in a room, alone. You don't need me to read it. I don't need you. So any time I come up along side anybody who says that a simple mention in the Bible doesn't mean this, or it doesn't mean that, that person is putting himself in a position where I need them every time I read my Bible.

Another good example of how things can take a left turn can be found in Chapters 7 and 14 in the Book of Revelation. Verse 7:4 reads; "And I heard the number of those who were sealed, one hundred and forty-four thousand sealed from every tribe of the sons of Israel:" Seems fairly straightforward. Then follows Chapter 14 verse 1: "Then I looked, and behold, the Lamb was standing on Mount Zion, and with Him one hundred and forty-four thousand, having His name and the name of His Father written on their foreheads."

I have seen tons of different interpretations about these two verses. Most of the time, they miss the mark entirely. Some modernist theologians might say that this number was just a large number to the people of that day and is meant to have a staggering impact on their imaginations, but not to be a "literal" number. Right then, I have to have those theologians sitting with me to read my Bible, because if I don't, I can't tell the players without a program.

There are plenty of cults out there who include these verses prominently in their cultic eschatology because they have read things into them that just aren't there. The Jehovah's Witnesses are just one good example. The problem is, an interpretation involving these verses often include women within this number. Is that so? Take a look at Chapter 14, verses 3 and 4: "And they sang a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and the elders; and no one could learn the song except the one hundred and forty-four thousand who had been purchased from the earth. 4 These are the ones who have not been defiled with women, for they have kept themselves chaste. These are the ones who follow the Lamb wherever He goes. These have been purchased from among men as first fruits to God and to the Lamb."

Now it becomes clear that these one hundred and forty-four thousand are: male. They are Jewish, they are virgins and there is no reason to believe that they number any different than the one hundred forty-four thousand that the Bible says that they do. The same thing is true about the church and Israel. A straight, thorough reading of the entire Biblical text does not remove Israel from any historical significance. God makes it plain in His prophetic text that He is not done with her yet, and mixing up references to Israel and the church will only serve to confuse things.

When I study and interpret the Bible, using an historical, grammatical set of hermeneutical principles I don't really know if I can pin down a central interpretive motif. If I had to, it would likely be an over-arching conglomeration of the following: God' holiness, goodness and grace. Toward that end, I have written down a set of hermeneutical principles that were passed on to me by a friend and former pastor of mine. They have helped me. Maybe they will help someone who takes the time to read all of this.They are as follows:

1. Determine the historical background, the geographical setting, and the chronological period of the Scripture event, saying, or teaching being studied.

2. Consider the relevant socio-economic and cultural factors of the time the event, saying, or teaching occurred or was intended to be heard or observed.

3. Interpret the Bible naturally, normal or literally unless the language or context suggests otherwise. “Literal” interpretation here means the opposite of figurative, allegorical, or mythical interpretation.

4. Consider the contextual setting of the Scripture passage being interpreted. This should include the immediate context, the book context, the testament context and finally the whole biblical context. Scripture should be compared with and interpreted by other Scripture.

5. Consider the grammar, syntax and definition of the words in the text. Knowledge and use of the original languages is most helpful here, but not absolutely necessary. Good Bible translations and exegetical commentaries help immeasurably.

6. Build doctrine rationally, biblically and systematically. Theology should grow out of the biblical text, be supported by it, and systematized with the whole of it.

7. In preaching, teaching, witnessing, counseling, or any other practical use of the Bible two rules are important: (a) Determine the original meaning and intent of the text. (b) Apply the eternal, trans-cultural truth of the passage to people today.

2009-02-08T20:44:00.000-08:00

What More Sacrifice?

----"This is the worst, the most intense, the most global that it's been in most of our memories. And the effort to get the good people to stand up is not easy,"----

What is being spoken of here? It is a kind of racial prejudice. For the last two thousand years it has shown its ugliness in appearances again and again in many places all over the world. Not very long ago, it escalated to a horrible point, and many hoped in their hearts that such ugliness would be gone forever. The reality is, it has never left us.

Abraham Foxman, U.S. head of the Anti-Defamation League, spoke those words just two days ago in Palm Beach, Florida. He says that Israel's military offensive against Hamas in Gaza has seen responses of outright hatred and attacks against Jews "from Austria to Zimbabwe." Information collected by the Anti-Defamation League includes reports of two Israeli men being shot by a man of Palestinian descent in Denmark. There have been large protests against Israel here in the United States, Great Britain and in other countries as well. Synagogues have been damaged or desecrated in Greece and in Chicago here in the U.S. as well. Two cars loaded with fire bombs were involved in an attack on a synagogue in Toulouse, France a month ago. An Israeli basketball team was chased off of the court by Turkish citizens who yelled after them, calling them"killers". There, as well as in France, Italy and South Africa Jewish owned businesses have been threatened with boycotts.

This last week at least two rockets have been fired by Hamas led militants into the southern city of Ashkelon. The rockets were poorly aimed, and only some minor injuries and property destruction resulted, but negotiations for a new cease-fire were being firmed up when the last one was launched. I honestly don't know why Israel keeps trying with these terrorists, because their spoken pledge is to wipe Israel out.

Mr. Foxman said, "We need to insist that the civilized world stand up and say 'No' in every single country in the international arena to condemn this vicious, hideous violence," He's right of course, but even now, here in the U.S., we have a another in a series of Presidents who evidently espouses a misguided notion of how peace should be achieved. President Obama gave his first televised White House interview to al-Aribya, an Arab television news organization. When speaking to them, he said the following:

"But I also believe that there are Israelis who recognize that it is important to achieve peace,’ He also said, ‘They will be willing to make sacrifices if the time is appropriate and if there is serious partnership on the other side." I am afraid that this is precisely the type of future U.S. policy attitude that we can expect. The question is, what sort of sacrifice does President Obama expect Israel to make? I don't mean to be disrespectful, but does he have any sort of grasp on Israel's history, especially its more recent history?

For some reason, people seem to act as though there was no anti-Semitism before the Holocaust during WWII. It's as if they think the Holocaust happened and then the Jewish people appeared in the Middle East on a bunch of boats and mistreated those poor 'Palestinian' people. The President and other international leaders need to recognize that Israel has already made geographical sacrifices for the sake of peace to the point where it has almost returned to an area that resembles the pre-1967 sequester. Yet, our President thinks they need to make even more sacrifice. This is ludicrous thinking.

It should not come as a surprise though because in that same interview he said that he would like to see us sharing "the same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago" That is a very naive statement for a President to make. Islamic terrorism neither desires peace nor partnership. Their desire is to wipe out Israel and ultimately to coerce the world into their belief system. The following statement from an article by David Horowitz sums up what has been Islam's attitude not only for the last thirty years, but for many years before.

“The unspoken truth about the fighting in Gaza, which began on December 19, 2008, when Hamas rockets broke a voluntary truce, is that this is the frontline of a much larger war. This war began 30 years ago with the Islamic Revolution in Iran and is now global in scope. Its agenda is the extermination of the Jews and the destruction of the West. The Islamic terrorist organization Hamas makes no secret of this agenda. Its Egyptian founders and Palestinian inspirers were active followers of Adolf Hitler and enthusiasts of the Nazi Holocaust. The founding charter of Hamas, which promises that ‘Islam will obliterate Israel,’ memorialize the Egyptian admirer of Hitler, Hassan al-Banna, as ‘the martyr…of blessed memory.’ The same document contains the genocidal incitement of the Prophet Mohammed to ‘kill the Jews,’ to hunt them down ‘until they hide behind the rocks and the trees, and the rocks and trees cry out “O Muslim, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him”" (David Horowitz, "The War Against the Jews," FrontPageMagazine.com,1/9/09).

As believers in Christ, we ought to speak out against the atrocities of Islamic terrorism against the Jews and their nation as readily as we do when we ourselves are attacked. Israel is still the nation chosen by God through whom His Son would be revealed. He is not done with her yet. Psalm 48 refers to Jerusalem as the city of the great King. That's Jesus. Zechariah 14:4 states: "And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south."

That prophecy has not been fulfilled yet. It will be. King Jesus will one day reign from there on earth for a thousand years whether people believe that or not. Our President should not be calling upon Israel to sacrifice land for peace. He should be standing up for their right to exist without being attacked.

2009-02-05T00:15:00.000-08:00

Depending on God

I like listening to people's views on Biblical things. I learn a lot, and often I head to Scripture to compare what I have heard with what the Bible says. This is the third time I have commented on a related discussion about the binding of Satan. Can Satan and his minions (demons) be bound under the authority of God by believers? My position has not changed on this. The answer is a resounding 'no'.To me this gets back to our total dependence on God.

It seems to me that when folks go about 'binding' the devil, they are proceeding from a flawed hermeneutic. Just the other night, I listened to a discussion between two professed believers in disagreement over weather Satan was in fact, or could be "bound". The person who insisted that Satan is currently bound was quite adamant. I have never found any Biblical support for this. The Bible does speak about Satan being bound for 1,000 years, but that clearly takes place at the beginning of the stated millennial reign of Christ at His second coming.

Some folks don't mind picking and choosing Scripture that is more sensationalistic in nature to build a doctrine from, even though it tends to render a lot of their theology senseless. Some of the same folks who claim Satan is bound claim to be dispensational and believe in a pretribulational rapture. I am not terribly fond of the word dispensational as I don't think it technically applies to me, but it comes close I guess, and I do believe in a pretribulational rapture. From that eschatological position, a person has to be premillennial too, and if one is premillennial, one has to believe the Satan will not be bound until King Jesus establishes His kingdom here on earth. Two things come to mind. A) Satan is not bound now and B) Jesus alone will dispatch an angel to bind Satan for those one-thousand years.

Another thing; God is our almighty sovereign Lord and King. He is all-powerful. He may choose to act through us, but believing that we have any power to bind Satan for any length of time speaks of an anthropocentric view of God. It is as if to say that for all of His power, we are still the ones in control of certain things. To me, this runs contrary to the Word. We make choices, true, but even at that any growth in holiness that we have comes from Him and from His goodness manifested in our lives. Clearly the Biblical mandate is to submit to God-- resist Satan, and in so doing he will flee from us. (James 4:7)

Proverbs 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. 6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.

2009-02-01T20:34:00.000-08:00

On "Our Mutual Joy"

Because it came out in early December, I really haven't had time to read religion writer Lisa Miller's now famous article in Newsweek about homosexual marriage, "Our Mutual Joy," until today. For the most part, Christian scholars and journalists tend to be very respectful of the work done by those outside of Christianity, even when they tend to violently disagree with one another. I understand why they are so. It promotes an atmosphere wherein discussion can continue because emotional and intellectual walls have not been erected by differences that would prevent further communication in the hopes that one might be able to swing unbelievers to Jesus. While I commend that, I am not a scholar nor a journalist.

Plainly said, this article has to be the foremost example of Scripture twisting that I have read on the subject of homosexuality since the Rev. Walter Wink's article on "Homosexuality and the Bible". Not only that, but Ms. Miller is pretty adept at rewriting history as well. This article is ultimately about inclusion. The author has used just about every possible postmodern approach to not only argue for the acceptance of homosexuality and same sex marriage, but to accept just about every existing religiously held belief as well.

She wields a fair amount of skill to argue the way she does, I'll give her that. However, there are only certain people who are going to be swayed by her arguments. 1) Those people who already believe the way that she does and exist as a cheering section 2) Those people who don't know their Bible and history well and believe her flawed arguments make a kind of sense and 3) People who are sympathetic to others beyond a sense of practical reason. This is not a comprehensive list, and these four groups for the most part overlap one another.

Ms. Miller expends a good deal of effort to discredit the thinking of people who present a case against homosexuality and gay marriage from the Scriptures. That means the Scriptures are naturally what take the biggest beating in Ms. Miller's painfully misguided sense of hermeneutics. She writes, "A mature view of scriptural authority requires us, as we have in the past, to move beyond literalism. The Bible was written for a world so unlike our own, it's impossible to apply its rules, at face value, to ours." Two prominent concepts about Scripture in her article are these: 1) The Bible does not say at all what conservative Biblical scholars say that it does [meaning she believes homosexuality is not a sin] and 2) Any objection to gay marriage is not to be found in Scripture but exists rather in tradition and culture alone. She accomplishes that in several instances by quoting what "progressive" scholars think has heretofore been missed in Scripture and goes on to rearrange the meanings of different passages into something entirely different than what they truly are. Of course contextually, as in Walter Wink's article, there is absolutely no genuine foundation for what is being changed. All of this leads to the main drive of her article, positing that what the Bible teaches about love actually supports the gay lifestyle and gay marriage, not denouncing it in any way.

What about this passage? "Matthew 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." Viewed in light of where other passages deal with homosexuality, one has to jump through the kind of hoops "progressive" scholars do to get the Scriptures to where they want them to be.

I think that, for me perhaps the most disturbing way she goes about achieving this goal is the way that she represents not just Paul, but the Lord Jesus Himself. "The New Testament model of marriage is hardly better. Jesus himself was single and preached an indifference to earthly attachments—especially family." Indifference? Hardly, but this is what comes of "red-letter" hermeneutics. Scripture must be viewed in light of the whole. Isolating one passage or passages from others presents a jaded view of the truth. As a God, Jesus went willingly to the cross for His family. As a man, He valued and honored family enough to make arrangements for the care of His earthly mother to be taken care of---from the cross, just as the Spirit of Jesus inspired Paul and Peter to pen words of compassion and care in love for parents and their children.

What Ms. Miller carefully tries to wend her way around is the existence of sin and the consequence for it. She misses entirely what the consequence for sin says about not only God's justness, but about precisely what the Bible teaches us about God's love, and about His grace. Because God is infinite truth, His word shows mankind with all of his warts and blemishes. Ms. Miller points out that Abraham slept with Hagar, Jacob had two wives and slept with servants. David, Solomon and the kings of Judah and Israel were all polygamists she writes. What Ms. Miller seems to do with that is to take the kindergarten approach toward their sin and say, "These men were heroes of the Bible, and look at what they did?"

Abraham was his family's spiritual leader. He compromised and sinned when he slept with Hagar. Jacob sinned by taking two wives. David and his family paid a huge price for his sin of polygamy. Solomon did too, and so did his subjects. Because he took wives for political considerations, he compromised and sinned allowing the corruption of idolatry to flow into Israel like a river. Let's go back to kindergarten for a moment. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Ms. Miller even dregs up the tired old nonsense about the relationship between David and Jonathon being possibly (in the eyes of many worldly people) a homosexual one. After Jonathan's death David wrote: "2 Samuel 1:26 I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women."

She defers what happened between those two great men of the Bible privately to be left to; "history and our own imaginations". Why would we need to do that when the Bible represents them well enough already. Why should a deep sense of closeness between men indicate necessarily something other than a platonic relationship? I have a male friends whose passing would cause me deep grief, even though I am confident that they will be with the Lord when they pass from this world. This kind of stereotypical thinking about male relationships is just beyond me.

There is so much wrong with Ms. Miller's thinking contained in her article that I could write a much larger article than a simple blog post like this to address it, but I will address just one final set of statements that she made. She wrote; "The Bible endorses slavery, a practice that Americans now universally consider shameful and barbaric. It recommends the death penalty for adulterers (and in Leviticus, for men who have sex with men, for that matter). It provides conceptual shelter for anti-Semites." Not one of those three statements is accurate. They are not even intellectually honest for one who thinks the Bible is a living document.

The recent trend toward equating the denial of the "right" to gay marriage to the right to freedom denied to slaves here in America is just nonsense. The Bible does not endorse slavery. I can't tell you how many people I have heard say that in the last few years. It simply is not true. The kind of "slavery" that went on in the Old Testament was contractual. People had free will then as now. They entered into agreement, much like Jacob did with his deceptive father-in-law Laban. In the case of such bond-servitude, an agreed upon end came to one's indentured-ness, and there were high penalties to pay if one mistreated one's "slave". Where this practice was concerned, God patiently brought people out of the practice, and that can be seen revealed through the course of Scripture. Jesus accomplished this by turning his followers into brothers and sisters. Paul's letter to Philemon is a good demonstration of this.

The third statement in the set is just tragic. It applies misunderstanding to logic. Jesus loved His people. He loves all people so much that He died to make a way for them to be able to have eternal life with Him, if they should so desire it. Anti-Semitism is something the world practices generally, not the people of the Most High God.

Finally, the second of those three statements. Yes, God's holy word demands the death penalty for adulterers, and for those who practice homosexuality. It would perhaps shock some people to know that God's position has not changed one bit since Leviticus was penned. His justice still demands that adulterers and practicing homosexuals be punished with death. He also demands the same of those who blaspheme, who lie, who steal, who covet, who fornicate, who carouse, who cause strife and who do many other evil things. That's what Ms. Miller doesn't understand. She doesn't understand why Jesus came to earth. He didn't just come to bring some sort of soft and peaceful understanding of social justice to earth because He cared about poor people. He didn't come to earth to heighten our sympathy toward those who say that despite what the Bible says that they are good and kind people.

When He was on earth, He demonstrated that no one is without sin, save Him. He made it clear also that no one may get to heaven and to the Father except through Him. Not one of us is worthy of Him, and that means we are not worthy of heaven either. The good news is that because of His willingness to take our place on the cross, and the punishment which is due for our sins, and because He paid that price with His death, that we can go to heaven after all. The thing is, we must repent of our sins, and we can't ask Him to forgive those sins if we won't admit to ourselves and to Him, that we are sinners in the first place.

2009-01-28T22:45:00.000-08:00

More Restraint Needed

You know, I am not a conspiracy theorist. I'm just a working stiff, but I have been saying since 2006 in so many words that the anthropogenic global warming scare has been a tool for globalization. Now I have been joined in that opinion by respected meteorologists from all over the globe.

I only mention the above because what I am about to say will come off as sheer conspiracy theory to many, so if that puts you off go ahead and click the little X where it says, "Bread Crumbs" now.

About a week ago I wrote the following:
"I don't know what sort of honeymoon President Obama will have now that he has taken the oath of office. He is awfully young, and the temptation to have a tendency to act decisively can be very compelling when further thought is needed. I appeal to all who read this to pray for wisdom and restraint for our new president."

I don't even want to talk about the "stimulus package" that is being pressed upon us, except to say that it is just a very large, ineffective and burdonsome tool that the Democratic Party seems to want to use to forward its own liberal social agenda.

I was prepared to wait and give President Obama a chance to demonstrate some of the restraint I had hoped he would. It has only been a week, and I can see that he is already making decisions at breakneck speed (for Washington D.C.) and they are going to have far-reaching affects on not only this nation, but the rest of the world.

In his first week he has reauthorized taxpayer funding of abortions overseas. He said while campaigning that the first thing he would do would be to sign the Freedom Of Choice Act, and that may not be far behind. He has placed a man whose ability to handle his own tax returns is questionable in charge of the Treasury Department. He has already touted (with some reservations) the "Saudi Peace Initiative". This is just wrong.

President Obama is so inclusive because of his own upbringing that he simply cannot see the forest for the trees. The Saudis do not want peace. They want control. Nothing they will offer will bring peace about. Their plan asks Israel to make enormous concessions that will only flood Israel with vast amounts of Arab citizens that will serve to weaken the nation on several fronts. This seems to be transparent to anyone but liberals. I hope he will reconsider his present opinion.

That he started with increasing abortions worldwide is no shocker to me. Sad but not surprising, because abortion rights has become one of the things that defines the Democratic Party. Only one Democrat from Nebraska voted against it. Ironically, there is a new ad being aired by catholicvote.org that is very powerful. The camera shot pulls slowly toward the ultrasound image of an unborn fetus. As it moves in, the following words are added sentence by sentence;

"This child's future is a broken home. He will be abandoned by his father. His single mother will struggle to raise him. Despite the hardships he will endure this child will become the 1st African-American President."

The ad is flawless in my view, and the President's position, when he, by his own admission declares he does not know when life begins, is indefensible.

2009-01-26T01:05:00.000-08:00

Thoughts on the Canon

I had a conversation with a lady and a gentleman that I know. The conversation ran to why the apocryphal books a not found in Protestant translations of the Bible. I kind of blurted out some of the things I know about it and they really sort of just looked at me. I don't know, but when I believe that I know something I tend to speak with real confidence about it. I guess that since I'm not a Biblical scholar or anything that when I tend to talk that way it might be construed as a sort of arrogance. I don't mean it to be.

They wondered why those books weren't included, and if perhaps they really had something to offer believers. What I told them was that the New Testament books were either recorded by someone who was an eye-witness to the life of Christ, or by someone closely associated to such a person. I think they understood me, but wanted to know where I got that information. The answer is mostly to be found within those books and some extra-biblical historical writings by the early church fathers which confirms what came before.

Augustine was about the only one who included the additional books along with the canonical writings. It is my understanding however that he conceded that they were not authoritative. As far as I know, those books weren't accepted into the canon until the council of Trent around eleven hundred years after Augustine in 1546. That's when the Roman Catholic church decided to add them.

The thing is, the canonical writers of the New Testament included around two-hundred-fifty quotes from the Old Testament. They quote every book with the exception of Esther, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Solomon. In the Apocrypha, there isn't a single Old Testament quote. That carried a lot of weight with those who settled on the books that we have in our Bible. What carries even more weight was the fact that Jesus made a statement in Luke 11 that helps to define some guidelines from which to work. He's going after the Pharisees for their blatant hypocrisy, and he tells them that they are guilty of killing God's prophets, shedding the blood of the righteous from: "...Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple:" (Verse 51)

Abel's murder by his brother Cain takes place in Genesis 4. Zechariah gets murdered in chapter 24 of 2nd Chronicles. In the Hebrew Bible, the books are arranged from Genesis to 2nd Chronicles I believe, and so the record Jesus quoted ran from beginning to end of the Scriptures that had been preserved at that time. What I have read is that Jesus didn't include any of the murders that were written of in the Apocrypha in that statement. That fact gives even more authority to the canonical books. Of course, there are other reasons that one could write about, but these are some of the most meaningful to me.

There is an interconnectedness between the canonical books too that one can see by reading them. The technical term would probably be "self-authenticating." I have not read the Apocryphal books even to learn their historical value, nor do I desire to. I believe that is something I can look up anytime, if were necessary. I have read excerpts and found the parts I have read to be incompatible with the truth of the canonical books. I guess I just don't want the rest of it in my head. There's enough junk in there already.

2009-01-21T20:11:00.000-08:00

The Hope For Peace

Yesterday I had the luxury of a day off from work. I say luxury because it is an option that many people do not have. While doing this and that, I was able to take in much of the inaugural coverage on TV. It was certainly a grand event. There were a lot of memorable moments, and several were quite moving. I was particularly touched by the relationship between the President and Mrs. Bush and President and First Lady Obama that has no doubt been established during the transitional period since the election.

That America's transfer of power between the outgoing and incoming presidents is marked by peace is well-known, but there was something pretty special about the apparent good rapport between these four people. There were smiles and laughter between all on the walk toward Marine One. There were sincere embraces all the way around, and as President Bush paused before stepping into the interior to make one last wave, I could see that he was overcome with emotion.

I hope history is kind to this man and his family. I have stated before on this blog that most people on the planet, myself included do not have a clue about the amount of stress it takes to hold up as president in a wartime environment, and hold a nation together when others are trying to tear it apart, especially when for two years the president is opposed by a house and senate controlled by politicians from an opposing party. That President Bush was able to do this was no small feat. He helped introduce legislation in 2005 that might have made considerable difference in our nation's current financial situation, if he had had the cooperation of the house and senate, but they had an agenda of their own. One thing that seems to be overlooked about him is that he did more for people in Africa and to combat the spread of AIDS there than any leader I can think of who doesn't live there. But then President Bush never really seemed to have a fat head. He spoke about the positive side of programs he endorsed, but he had a sense of humor about himself and he never blew his own horn.

Genuine. That is the word that keeps returning to my mind about President Bush. When he said something, you just knew that he meant what he said and that he would do whatever he could to deliver. I'm not naive. I know that probably every president says things for the purpose of political expediency, but I believe that this man was a grownup. He had to have heard all of the rhetoric from people who constantly insulted his intelligence, and called him dis compassionate and uncaring. I believe the opposite is true, and I think that will be revealed in time.

Now, he has been succeeded, and the presence of mind that President Obama and the First Lady showed by their courtesy to President and Mrs. Bush, waiting until they were out of the line of sight before they turned and walked away up the steps was very telling and respectful.

I don't know what sort of honeymoon President Obama will have now that he has taken the oath of office. He is awfully young, and the temptation to have a tendency to act decisively can be very compelling when further thought is needed. I appeal to all who read this to pray for wisdom and restraint for our new president. Internationally, there is under his direction, our nation's collective treatment of the Nation of Israel, and at present domestically, he seems poised to press forward with an economic stimulus program that could surpass one trillion taxpayer dollars before all is said and done. On top of all of that, we are in the middle of a war being fought on several fronts. These things will either meet with success or reap dire consequences for the people of this nation. Pray that ultimately this man will make the kind of decisions in the future that will help this nation to glorify God.

2009-01-19T22:14:00.000-08:00

Thoughts On Self and Selfishness

Today was quite a hectic day. My mother went to a local Target store and while transferring her purchases into her car, she inadvertently left her purse behind in her shopping cart. She didn't discover the problem until she met up with me, and I drove her back to see if we could retrieve it. Unfortunately, twenty-five minutes had elapsed and someone else had beat us to the cart and her purse. When she checked with a young woman at customer services she was told that no one had turned in a purse.

The afternoon was spent canceling credit cards, checks and considering having locks re-keyed. I had hoped that someone would leave a message on her answering machine telling her that they had her purse, and while checking that out three hours later, I decided to call the store again. After some checking, a young guy told me that her purse had indeed been turned in to lost and found.

A quick trip out there revealed that almost everything she left was intact, save some cash. She had $260 in her checkbook, and $160 of it was missing. The thief missed a crisp $100 bill that sort of stuck to the back of her checks. The first two times she fanned through her checkbook, even she missed it. It ticked me off that someone would steal from my mother, but she has a different attitude.

She said that whoever took the $160 must really have needed it, and after all, she tempted them by leaving her purse out there. If you could see the look on my face you would know that I disagreed with her. Technically, she may have indeed accidentally provided a source of temptation, but the example we have in Christ Jesus is that no temptation has overtaken us except what is common to man, and the simple way out would have been not to rip off my mother. Still, she insisted that $160 was not too bad all in all. "After all," she said, "I was going to give $100 of that to you." I laughed so hard that I had to take my glasses off in order to wipe my eyes. I must say, her attitude about the whole thing was much better than mine.

Learned something about attitude assessment from Mom today.

2009-01-18T22:20:00.000-08:00

Inaugural Presence of Mind

As Inaugural ceremonies go, I have only seen parts of a few. I was too young and too interested in playing and having fun to remember much about Richard Nixon's, and I remember Gerald Ford's being quite somber, due to the Watergate aftermath. He had been chosen to replace a vice-president who'd left under less than ideal circumstances and he then replaced a president who left office in disgrace. Again, not the ideal circumstance, but President Ford made it known that having not been elected by the people and he asked Americans to confirm his presidency with their prayers, and hoped for many more prayers of support to come. I admired that.

The election in 1976 was the first one I was able to vote in. I was not surprised with the outcome. I didn't think at the time that a republican president would be elected after Watergate, and I seemed to become aware at that time in a shift in the way the media reported the news. The ugly presence of bias was noticeable. For a while I thought it was just me, but it became clear that reporters were shading their reports with their own opinions. Granted, reporters have brains and they are individuals with their own opinions, but outside of labeled commentaries, they are not supposed to editorialize the news. They are supposed to report it accurately. Who says so? Anyone who wants to make an informed opinion or decision of their own, and who does not wish to have to wade through inaccuracies.

For many years, people outside of the news industry had no idea how conservative or liberal the reporters they watched were, because their personalities were not the issue. The news was the issue. Look at Walter Cronkite. He was the anchor man for CBS news for many years and was called "The most trusted man in America", yet he was and is extremely liberal and the general public pretty much had no clue which way he leaned politically until after he retired. That's the way it should be. Same deal if he had been extremely conservative.

Things are much different now. ABC, CBS, CNN and NBC are all liberal leaning networks. Oh sure, they have conservatives working there, but they definitely lean to the left, and they don't really try to hide that fact. They just tend to act as if no one can do anything about it. MSNBC is so liberal that they have been criticized by other liberals just this year over their shamefully biased reporting during the McCain-Obama campaigns. MSNBC even demoted Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann for their continuous ranting and railing against Republicans and other conservatives. Liberal critics said that their sort of bias actually hurts the cause of liberalism.

At this juncture, I cannot see how that concern was well-founded. The people who have conservative views are not going to watch a show like Matthews' or Olbermann's unless they want a quick headache. The FOX news network is another story altogether. I know that most liberals probably don't turn to it for the first report. I have watched it though, and time and again a reporter will be criticized for work on the same story by both conservatives and liberals. That says to me that a lot of the time, the facts are being reported as best they possibly can be. Certainly there is a lot of conservative commentary there, but I am talking about straight reporting. Most of the time it is hard to see a bias.

This last year I paid pretty close attention to the campaign for the presidency. Body language can be very telling. I watched reporters interview John McCain. I watched them interview Barack Obama. For the most part, one would have to be blind physically or by self-imposed ignorance not to see the difference in the way those candidates were greeted and spoken to in the conduction of those interviews.

This election was not a landslide victory for Barack Obama. He won with a margin, but as margins go it was not an immense one. The picture that one is gathering from most of the media right now however as they progress down the inaugural road is one of well---gushing. It is as if he won by a total landslide victory. Do I want the country divided by this man? No. I simply can't remember this kind of attitude represented by the press after any previous election.

People may say what they want, but Barack Obama has been nearly worshiped in this country by many. I have seen people demonstrate a hope in him that ought not to be placed in any human being. I voted against Barack Obama and I disagree with several of his positions on a number of issues. I believe whole-heartedly that he will take this country in some very wrong directions. He seems to be a very unprincipled man, as he tends to swing back and forth on things, guided by which way the political winds are blowing. One could say that about most politicians, but he is quite a master of double-speak.

Different sources claim that evangelical Christians by numbers of 38% voted for Barack Obama. Certainly younger evangelicals were taken with Obama's persona. Young people often respond that way. A close look at his stances on abortion, same sex marriage, homosexuals in the military, the military itself, taxes and any number of other issues ought to have clued them in about how they ought to vote due to where he stands on moral and practical things. In part, the reason that they did not discern these things is the high-profile nature of the evangelical leadership that led the way for them.

Red Letter Christian Tony Campolo, Brian McLaren, Tony Jones, the Reverend Jim Wallis, Donald (Blue Like Jazz) Miller and even recently resigned N.A.E. vice-president Richard Cizik did not surprise me with their choice to vote for Barack Obama and seek for an "abortion reduction agenda", even though he said he intends to sign the "Freedom Of Choice Act" which will only serve to increase their number by many thousands per year. I must admit, I was very surprised to find out that Darrell Bock, a professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary voted for President-elect Obama.

I look back on the election with a bit of wonder. I know that there must be a sort of "fatigue" factor involved there or something because of the way that conservatives have dropped the ball in leadership, but I believe that the media played a huge role by the sheer magnitude of their sphere of influence. I have for some time seen change coming in the ranks of evangelical Christianity where politics is concerned and frankly again, I think that many Christians have just thrown in the towel on taking a moral stance against heinous political positions that carry deeply affecting consequences for the nation at large.

It seems as though a heavy percentage have just decided to draw upon an "ecumenical" sensibility and try to work within the ranks of liberal politics to reduce sin and travesties of justice on different levels. I hate to say it, but I also see a universalistic influence here. Barack Obama embraces universalism, and is quite open about that. Young people who find the exclusivity of Jesus Christ to be to divisive probably flock to that easier way and so I think that appeals to many of those who voted for him that label themselves evangelical Christians. We shall see how it all works out.

I have the day off Tuesday, and my wife and I will likely spend it taking in a lot of the ceremony coverage and listening to the speeches. I find it all very fascinating. It is after all, history in the making.

2009-01-12T18:43:00.000-08:00

What is True Tolerance?

There are different perspectives as to what "tolerance" is. The word of course has been around for a long time, but the meaning has changed. Over the years there have been many a political and moral substitution for the word through different historical movements. One political or religious group states a norm, and when others don't conform to what they establish, they are denounced for it. In the past at times, the consequences were tragic.

These days generally, when tolerance is brought up, it has a very negative connotation, even when one is proclaiming one's self to be so. Often when one in today's politically correct climate accuses someone else of intolerance it simply means that the "intolerant" individual does not share the same view of their accuser. Not always so, but generally. What follows is usually a detailed description of the accused person's shortcomings either intellectually or morally, or both.

This is known as the "loudest possible squeaking wheel demands the grease and all others can just get out of the way" tactic. A good example of this is the trend toward calling whoever disagrees with you a racist. That is happening more and more every day. Folks who didn't want Barack Obama to be president because of his stance on many issues were called racist. Someone implied my mother was a racist because she told them she didn't want him in office representing her. On a separate occasion, I was asked point blank by someone if I voted against Barack Obama based on his race.

Another example of political bullying under the guise of tolerance is that people who voted for Proposition 8 in CA two months ago are being called racists now, because same sex marriage advocates and homosexual rights activists are calling their cause a civil rights issue when it is nothing of the sort. Their position is that they were "born" gay, while I oppose that belief. Their tolerance for my position on the issue is non-existent because I disagree with them, and they believe my belief on the matter is intolerant. I believe they have the right to vote on issues put before the people just like I do, but still and others like me are seen as intolerant because they believe the majority has no right to vote on the rights of the minority. They see that is intolerant. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger sees the people's vote as intolerant too. The outcome of the vote has been compared by various politicians and celebrities to slavery laws, anti-interracial marriage statutes and voting rights for women. The Governor has vowed that the people's decision must be reversed through the court system.

The other night, I was chatting online at a Christian chat site. A young atheist woman told another chatter that Christians were obsessed about a particular sin. Without saying it, she painted an intolerant picture of the average Christian. I told the chatter that there would always be those who, because we hold to a Biblical worldview that sees things as sinful or not, that we would be seen as preoccupied with sin. Why? Because the world is steeped in sin, and they do not want dissenting voices.

We tolerate the sinner for the most part, but not the sin, and in this country, we still have the right to express our opinion. It will not be that way too much longer. Focus On the Family is not allowed now to broadcast some of their programming in Canada because of hate speech laws there. What hate? Shows about the sin of homosexuality and how to leave the lifestyle? What happened to choice? The tide will swell and eventually that wave will break into the United States too.

In my mind, in order for tolerance to be enacted, there must be differences of temperament, opinion or belief. As believers, if we are to be like Jesus we are going to love the lost enough to listen to them. Sometimes people become abusive and we discern that a conversation is a waste of time or even dangerous depending on the circumstances, but we are to love them even if we don't agree with them. It is the tolerant thing to do.

2009-01-11T16:49:00.000-08:00

Global Skepticism

"I am a skeptic ... . Global warming has become a new religion." -- Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

That is basically a nutshell statement from not one, but many dissenting and very credible scientists on the subject of man-made global warming. I look forward to hearing what the impact will be from these men and women after they addressed the U.N. conference on climate change in Poland last month. So far I haven't really seen any. I just finished watching a segment on the History Channel wherein one scientist said that there were only about twelve scientists out there who don't recognize that global warming is a real threat.

In answer to that; "It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don't buy into anthropogenic global warming." ----U.S. Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA, (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration)

I read that a significant number of the scientists who attended the conference in Poland either are now, or were until recently members of the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I read that six-hundred-fifty scientists attended the conference as dissenters. That number dwarfs the number (fifty-two) who participated in the IPCC "consensus" report.

Here are some more quotes from some of the participants at the conference in Poland, who later addressed their concerns in a U.S. Senate Minority report.

------Warming fears are the "worst scientific scandal in the history ... . When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists." -- Dr. Kiminori Itoh, Japan, U.N. IPCC, an award-winning Ph.D. environmental physical chemist.

----"The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn't listen to others. It doesn't have open minds ... . I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists." ----Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia, Geologist, Punjab University--- also a board member of the U.N. backed International Year of the Planet.

----"Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly ... . As a scientist I remain skeptical." -- Dr. Joanne Simpson, Atmospheric Scientist--First female recipient of a PH.D. in meteorology, former NASA scientist the first woman in the world to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology.
------- "The models and forecasts of the U.N. IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity." -- Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, Researcher, Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico.

----"Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapor and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will." -- Geoffrey G. Duffy, professor, Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, New Zealand.

----"After reading Pachauri's *** comment (comparing skeptics to) Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet." -- Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs. Dr. Briggs was referring to U.N. IPCC Chairman Rajendra K. Pachchauri's comment on those who are skeptical of anthropogenic Global Warming as pushed by fellow Nobel Prize winner Al Gore. Chairman Rajendra is an economist. Dr. Briggs specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation and serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an associate editor of "Monthly Weather Review".

----"For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" -- Geologist Dr. David Gee, the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress science committee chairman, author of over 130 peer-reviewed papers, Professor Emeritus at Uppsala University in Sweden.

----"Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp ... . Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact." -- Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, former member of the Dutch U.N. IPCC committee, now a global warming skeptic.

The last two quotes I've chosen are two that go hand-in-hand with much that I have said over the last couple of years on this blog regarding global warming. I list them particularly because a friend of mine has reminded me that globalization is a predicted Biblical fact, and that it is coalescing as I write.

----"Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense ... . The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning." ---- Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, Environmental Scientist, author of over 150 articles.

---- "CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another ... . Every scientist knows this, but it doesn't pay to say so ... . Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver's seat and developing nations walking barefoot." -- Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor, Institute of Science and Technology Research, Chubu University, Honshu, Japan.

Anyways, only a month has passed since the conference. Where is the controversy over these statements? For once I would like to see it. Perhaps not much will come of it because most people think that the panic over global warming is just as ridiculous as I do. However, the United Nations IPCC is still a reality that shapes decisions. The courage to speak up and change their positions may not be a factor. The truth is, those involved with the U.N. IPCC may just simply have the agenda that Dr. Takeda Kunihiko states that they have, and they are unwilling to give it up.

"While the earth remains, Seedtime and harvest, And cold and heat, And summer and winter, And day and night Shall not cease." Genesis 8:22

2009-01-06T17:45:00.000-08:00

More Rambling

I caught some buzz on the Internet today about a low budget movie coming out later this year. "The Rapture" is filming now under the direction of one William Steel. I've seen a few Rapture related movies before that were specifically made as outreach films to the lost and speculative Biblical entertainment (hopefully to be used as a witnessing tool) for those who know Jesus Christ. They were okay for the most part. I can't even remember the titles of them all. All of them were low budget. The caliber of acting is usually fairly untried or amateur at best, and you aren't likely to see a Don Cheadle in one of these types of films.

I know nothing about writer/director/casting director William Steel and I went to the film's web site, but apparently it had been disabled, so it's difficult to determine whether or not the production is being made by Christians. If not, it could be one of the first significant films on an End Times event made by non-Christians. Oh sure, there have been End Times Films made by non-Christian filmmakers before, but those scripts were so far from anything resembling Biblical prophecy and so full of the horror film element that it made the resulting films unwatchable for me. I can't remember their titles either.

Mat 24:40 At that time two will be out in the field; the one is taken away, and the one is left;
Mat 24:41 two grinding at the mill; one is taken away, and one is left.

1Co 15:52 In a moment, in a glance of an eye, at the last trumpet; for a trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall all be changed.

1Th 4:16 Because the Lord Himself shall come down from Heaven with a commanding shout of an archangel's voice, and with God's trumpet. And the dead in Christ will rise again first.
1Th 4:17 Then we who remain alive will be caught up together with them in the clouds to a meeting with the Lord in the air. And so we will always be with the Lord.

Mat 24:44 Because of this, you also be ready, for in that hour you think not, the Son of Man comes.

These are just a smattering of verses from passages that speak of the Rapture. Here are some other verses;

2Peter 3:3 first, knowing this, that during the last days scoffers will come walking according to their own lusts,
2Peter 3:4 and saying, Where is the promise of His coming? For from which time the fathers fell asleep, all things remain so from the beginning of creation.
2Peter 3:5 For this is hidden from them by their willing it so, that heavens were of old, and earth by water, and through water, having subsisted by the Word of God,

I have unsaved friends who are very interested in the prophecies of the Rapture and the Last Days. A lot of unsaved people are. They want to know if the Rapture will actually happen, but in the cases where people have come to me with questions about it, I can't say whether it was productive or not.

Whatever one's eschatology is, Rapture, no-Rapture, pre-trib, mid-trib, post-trib, no trib--whatever--it is the goodness of God that leads men to repent of their sins and turn to Him for forgiveness. Can a movie like this be used by God? Sure. He uses what He will to do what He wills. Would I invite an unbelieving friend to watch it with me? Certainly not without seeing it first. If they asked me about it, maybe then.

Right now, people with a good handle on Biblical prophecy are seeing events that bring to mind the notion that we live in interesting times. It would be pretty difficult to make any sense of this world unless one takes Biblical prophecy into consideration. In the midst of a global financial meltdown, Russia has cut natural gas supplies by 20% to most of Europe in sub-zero temperatures while global organizations are still shoving man made climate change down our public throats. Israel is at the center of the world's attention, and it is currently ignoring international calls for the nation to stop defending itself against Hamas rocket attacks, while it is reported that 70,000 student volunteers have registered to be suicide bombers willing to lose their lives in order to aid Hamas efforts in Gaza.

Protests against Israel have been occurring daily in the United States and Great Britain, which comprise about the only two countries who have said they understand why Israel has moved into Gaza to defend itself, having endured almost non-stop aggression since they transferred power in Gaza into the Palestinians hands about three years ago.

Eventually, Israel will make a big mistake by entering into a peace agreement with its Arab enemies. Israel will come to the end of itself and instead of depending on God to establish peace and safety for them they will surrender themselves to solutions brought by politicians with a humanistic worldview.

Over the last few years I have noticed more secular films with warped Biblical themes being made. Sensationalistic movies and series about Nephilim have been and will likely continue to be made. Video games and comic books over the last decade especially have become unbelievably blasphemous as they twist Scripture and add and subtract from it fit an "entertainment" agenda. The kind of disgusting "adult" cartoon shows like South Park which openly mock the Savior are now common. My guess is that as we sojourn in these Last Days, and as morality declines further and further, and the honor of God is subjected to disdain, we will be presented with more and more opportunities to gently correct, to inform, and to show people the reality of the goodness of God in the gospel of Jesus, in contrast to these things. My prayer is for the body of Christ to be properly equipped and courageous enough to do so.

2008-12-29T18:44:00.000-08:00

The Focus of the End Times

I mentioned eschatology in my previous post. Eschatology is the branch of theology which deals with the latter days of the history of mankind, or "the end times". What sort of things can we expect to happen? The disciples asked that sort of question of Jesus in Matthew ch. 24. In His response, Jesus told us of the signs of the end times and what the condition of the world would be as they approach. Many folks have a tendency to believe that only New Testament prophecies speak about the end times, but there are Old Testament prophecies that do so as well.

A common misconception about the End Times is that the world will be blown out of existence. What is true is that the world will change drastically from the way it exists today. The Bible tells us that Jesus will be coming back to earth and that He will establish a New Kingdom, but before He does so the world will be plunged into a state of chaos unlike any previous time in history. Because of the unrepentant, sinful nature of mankind there will be devastation on many levels. 2008 saw over 220,000 people lose their lives in natural disasters. Those kinds of things will only increase the Bible tells us, until Jesus returns. He will return for a final battle against those who reject Him as Lord, and He will utterly win that battle.

It's important to remember that the Bible tells us that every knee will bow, and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is the Lord, and that each of us will give an account of ourselves to God. I say that because I have a dear friend who regards my eschatology as close to heresy, saying that what I believe makes God sound "so mean!" Everyone has opportunities to repent of their sins or not. We will see the promises regarding those who do as well as those who don't, fulfilled.

The truth is that we don't want to focus on what will happen to the unbelieving who reject Jesus and call God mean for the consequences which they bring upon themselves. To do so might be a distraction from God's glory, and the fact that we should be grateful that God will bestow unfathomable blessings upon the faithful as He has promised to do. We do however want to remember to share at every opportunity in the diverse and wise ways available to us through His empowerment, the goodness and grace of God in Jesus Christ, His Son.

2008-12-29T16:01:00.000-08:00

Israel's Response to Hamas

Depending on one's eschatology, we are heading into a very interesting and violent 2009. As usual, Israel is at the center of international attention. Last week, Israel's defense minister served warning to Hamas that they would pay a heavy price if they persisted in strikes against Israel. Hamas responded by lobbing some eighty mortar shells and rockets into Israel. Israel's warning had been plain. They were fed up, so they retaliated. Now, over three hundred people are dead and a lot more are injured. Hard to say whether Hamas controlled and somewhat isolated Gaza will be able to do too much about it, but that isn't where the more serious military threats to Israel lay.

Hezbollah throughout Syria, Lebanon and especially Iran are the real threats to stability there. Syria is still whining about real estate they lost in the Six-Day War. Lebanon has unstable elements, and Iran's presidential leadership under the Ayatollah is radical to say the least. Now, the rumors are that Russia has delivered S-300 long range missiles to Iran to help stave off a pre-emptive strike on their nuclear facilities by Israel or anybody else, though Russia has publicly denied it.

Who knows if Iran will actually try to strike Israel with nukes. Israel is such a small country that it wouldn't take much of a strike to wipe it out. That fact alone makes it imperative to do something about Iran's nuclear capability. Iran is so radical, and its violent rhetoric is so extreme that one has to take them seriously. For the last several months, pundits have been saying it's likely that the Bush Administration would do something militarily about Iran before the President leaves office. With his administration soon to be on the way out, it doesn't look as though that will happen.

So what will happen with a president-elect entering the office who has publicly stated that "...what I have also said, though, is that I will take no options off the table in dealing with this potential Iranian threat," ? Hard to say whether President-elect Obama's desire to have negotiating talks with Iran will mean much during this gap between his upcoming administration and the out-going one.

Right now, Hamas enjoys a time where condemnation of Israel no matter what they do seems to be ridiculously high. Only the United States and Great Britain have expressed understanding for Israel's right and desire to defend itself from it's attackers. Hamas and Hezbollah are both fanatical groups whose desired goal is to rid the world of not only Israel as nation, but Jews as a people. For now, Hamas has used the now ended cease-fire to smuggle more arms into Gaza. I just listened to a pundit who said he did not know whether Hamas expected this kind of retaliation from Israel or not. They would be stupid not to. Israel usually follows through with their intentions when they are under the gun. They have to. This is the last stand for them as a people, so to speak. After being persecuted just about everywhere else on the planet, and with so many calling for their extermination, bad ideas like "land for peace" have proved to be ridiculously wrong, yet international political pressure continues to point toward that end. Israel may now have come to its senses after battling through waffling positions on the part of wishy-washy and short-sighted leadership. I hope so. I don't like war, but I like terroristic bullies even less, and that's what Hamas and Hezzbollah are.

2008-12-18T21:21:00.000-08:00

Hidden Blessings

The last couple of days have been a trip. I was up until one a.m. Wednesday morning in four-degree weather, up to my ankles in snow, unstopping our kitchen drain. I finally got it flowing when I accessed the cleanout cap outside. Amazing how trying to use bonafide plumbing tools failed the task, only to be shown up by shoving a length of garden hose into the pipe. Swoosh. One of the nicest sounds I ever hear is the singsong voice of my wife telling me it's working. I could have waited until yesterday to work on it, but that would have meant doing so after work. I'm glad I tackled it when I did, because I discovered that my only outside water faucet was slightly frozen. That meant a little thawing, and improvising a thermal insulator out of a Styrofoam box. It may not be a thing of beauty, but it worked anyway.

Today we woke up to an additional six inches of snow atop the ice and snow already on the ground. We had deliveries and pick ups scheduled at work and somehow, I became the only candidate to make them. I felt like an ice-road trucker. I was glad to be able to come home. All-in-all, I felt quite blessed. There are always hidden blessings that come about through these things. If you can, you may want to try and figure out what some of them are. May the Lord be praised.

2008-12-13T20:08:00.000-08:00

Life and Decisions

This has been an interesting week. One of our nephews graduated today from college. He and his brother have had amazing academic careers. One thing my mother has expressed numerous times over the last several years is that she wanted to watch him graduate from college before she passes on. Yes, she says things like that. The plan was for us both to take a day off from our family business, which we rarely are able to do at the same time, and my wife was going to run the show while I drove my mother three-and-a-half hours away in wintry weather over roads I have never seen before. To be honest, though I wanted my mom to be able to see him graduate, I was not looking forward to the five a.m. wakeup in order to arrive there in time enough for the 10:30 a.m. ceremony.

I have been watching the weather forecast all week and things looked fine. Against my better judgment, I said nothing. I had this nagging statement from my father made years ago in the back of my mind. He told me that in the winter months, weather could change in a heartbeat without warning. He taught me not only to be prepared for that eventuality when traveling, but to have good sense about whether to travel or not in the first place. I know my wife though and I told her about my misgivings. Had she personally determined that the roads could be abnormally treacherous, she would have strenuously objected to the trip. Well, late Thursday night, we watched the forecast change dramatically, and yesterday morning my mom expressed to us that she didn't think we should go. She was fairly apologetic until I told her, "Hey mom--- I think you have come to your senses." She let out a sigh and a big smile and told me that she was very relieved to hear me say so. We were in complete agreement. Family members were somewhat disappointed, but such is life. I had no regrets whatsoever. That's what video is for.

Early this afternoon, my brother (who also declined to make the drive) called us to tell us that he had just heard from one of his friends. His friend's brother and sister-in-law went to the same graduation ceremony my nephew was in this morning. His sister-in-law is dead, and his brother is in the hospital. Yes. They had a car accident driving in the snowy conditions and she died. It was tragic to hear for this family, to say nothing of the young person whose family was coming to attend the observance.

I can't really describe the feelings that went through my head at the news of that call. Conflicting, to say the least. Sorrowful, and at once grateful for the decision we had made. My own sister and her husband made it back this evening and described the drive, having had whiteouts and slick roads as "tight-jawed" a couple of times. As human beings, I think we might be the only creatures on earth who are willing to do things we know are not complimentary to our own safety and survival for what are really, well---stupid reasons. Let's say that as a son, I desired (as I did) to help my mom see my nephew graduate and I drove her there only to have a wreck and see here killed before the ceremony, what would my life be like after that? I know that may sound a bit melodramatic normally, but not in view of the news we received earlier today.

My body doesn't belong to me. It belongs to God, and for His purposes. I will make an effort to live sensibly, and to keep it safe for Him to use as He sees fit. His hand is in what happens to me. I want to be able to say from here on out that I didn't make wasteful use of this gift.

2008-12-11T19:59:00.000-08:00

Repentance...A Fad?

I listened to a pastor on a download today. I don't know his name as his sermon was excerpted on another program. What I did hear was an interesting diatribe however on how people should be leading unbelievers to salvation. He sounded pretty upset, and his complaint was about Christians who maintain that men are sinful creatures with wicked and deceitful hearts. He also seemed quite annoyed with the notion that men must repent to be saved. He called repentance a "fad", and a "trend". He said those concepts were not to be found anywhere in the Bible.

I guess I could laugh at that, but it isn't really that funny. I guess one could arrive at a different meaning for the word somehow, but saying the concept of repentance and its relationship to salvation is not to be found in the Bible is just ridiculous. Perhaps this fellow has a wrong-minded preconditioned theological connotation attached to the word. An illegitimate totality transfer of that connotation to the word might explain his problem. I don't know. "Metanoia" and "metanoeo" are the Greek noun and verb forms of the word "repent". Repentance is about changing one's thinking, and the context in which it is used has to determine what in particular is involved in how and why one's thinking changes.

When salvation is in view in a passage, the word is about turning away from an allegiance to self, to trusting in one's own works for salvation, and turning to trust in Christ and the completed work that He did on the Cross. It is an "about face", where one turns one's back on sin and entrusts one's self to the grace of God, and it should be an outgrowth of our response to the very goodness of God, but repentance must come. It is part of that change of heart that describes one who loves Jesus, knowing that He alone is worthy and has the power to save us. If we do not change in this way, we do not love Jesus, but rather our own works and our own sin.

I know there are those who would flatly disagree with the notion that one must repent to be saved, but where is salvation without repentance? It is like faith as described within the book of James. Faith out of which works for God with an end toward glorifying His name is a living faith. A faith without that natural outgrowing of works is a stagnant, dead faith. As works must be part of a living faith, repentance must take place in order for God to be first in our hearts and lives. Mankind's heart is not something that is basically good. God said that the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth. He said that our righteousness is like filthy rags. His word says that until we get saved by Him that we are His enemies in our minds, alienated from Him by our own wicked works.

Repentance a fad? A trend? No. Repentance as an important element of salvation is nothing new. It is necessary, and as old as mankind. If anything, this type of thinking is a "new" old fad from new age thinking that has been around for a long, long time. The idea that man's heart is not wicked is a notion that denies the need for a repentant heart. That is just a part of the growing, emerging spirituality of which so many postmodern thinkers a part these days. A pastor was on "Hannity and Colmes" talking up his new book last week. When pressed by Jewish Alan Colmes about the exclusivity of Christ, the pastor challenged him and others to "give Jesus a try. Give Him a sixty day trial." I could not tell if meant it or if he was being flippant. Either way, how does one respond to that? It is seeker sensitive in the extreme.

That kind of thinking is based upon taking Jesus and making Him into a God that one can be comfortable with. "Try Him out, and see what He brings to your life. I just bet in sixty days your life will be better." Quite likely it will only produce a false convert. What part does repentance play there? Where in that concept does man need to recognize that he is full of sin? That he is fully in need of a Savior, because his greatest problem is his sin, and that he is incapable of earning his own way to heaven?

Clearly, because we see God's goodness and recognize our own sinfulness, Jesus becomes the object of our repentance. To believe--to trust in, cling to and rely on Jesus instead of our own work--is to repent of trusting in our own works. We must repent and trust to be saved. Is this a work of our own? No. This is a response of the heart to a good God who saves a sinful man by grace, through faith.

2008-12-09T20:12:00.000-08:00

The Rightness of Calling Things Wrong

Had a day off today with lots to do. When I finally finished it was about 3:00 p.m.. I was happy to be done with stuff. I was able to catch the tail end of an old movie I like titled, "Since You Went Away." Filmed during WWII in 1944, it was about the experiences of a family whose patriarch has headed off to the European Theater to fight in the war.

I thought about that a bit. I've read people's recollections from those times and watched a lot of documentaries, and I still don't know a thing about what it's like to go through something like that. I can only imagine. I remember when my own brother, ten years my senior, left to fight in Vietnam. I worried a lot about him as an eight year old, and and received some serious reassurance from a very kind neighbor girl whose own father had left to serve a second tour there. We were both fortunate to see our loved ones come back alive, but the experiences of an eight year old in the sixties share little in common with those of people whose entire lives were invested in support of a nation's effort to prevent a madman and those joined with him from dominating the free world.

The tenor of people's lives change dramatically when living life together to serve a common purpose, when there is an indivisible commitment to do what is good and right, despite great personal cost. People did not want to be in a world that had to answer to the leader of another misguided European ideology. I have read sermons from those times. Some of them are pretty interesting reading. Peter Marshall comes to mind. I enjoyed reading the things he wrote, and sermons from that period of time.

People could see the immediacy of the consequences involved in their decisions. They had to act. I think things were easier for people to see at that time. Good and evil seemed to be more easily contrasted. Sure, there were Hitler sympathizers. There are so today. That's no different. What is different is how people perceive good and evil.

In a postmodern world, moral relativism is so pervasive in people's thinking that most folks just can't think of a way to say that something is, well... wrong. As a family on Thanksgiving, we prayed after the bombings for the family and friends of those killed or injured in Mumbai, India by criminals. Yes, criminals. It should be easy to say. Some people just cannot do it though. These were Muslim thugs, and they committed another cowardly criminal act in order to terrorize people. Why is it that the blame for something like this is not placed on Islam?

The wisdom of not wanting to alienate peaceful Islamics is not lost on me, but I think it ought to be plain that that another of a long line of criminal acts has been once again perpetrated by Islamic fundamentalists. Pretty simple, right? Wrong. I challenge anyone to find a logical reason outside of their "faith" that explains why they murdered 200 people. The thinking of Islam is just plain wrong and still about the only way one could hear a connection mentioned between these "extremists" and Islam was to go to the Internet. Major news sources wouldn't do it.

I guess it is unlikely that people in the media will have a good understanding of what is happening in the world without an equally good understanding Bible prophecy. That statement probably labels me as a nut ball, but people who see time as winding down to an expected end usually are. I am liable to lumped in with the grocery store rags that say the world is ending on Monday, so be sure to read about it in Tuesday's paper. That's okay. It isn't any secret that as things wind down, that right will be exchanged for wrong. One of the ways that happens is that few will be willing to shine any light on wrong things and call them so for fear of offending some "group".

So am I advocating drawing battle lines? Standing on a soapbox and yelling out things at passersby? No, though sometimes in this world things like that become necessary. I am saying however, that we as believers need to stand up for the Word of God in our churches, and in our lives. We must hold unswervingly to what we know is of God, and do what He tells us to do. We must demonstrate with our behavior the steadfastness and strength that Jesus Christ gives us to reach the hearts and minds of people who do not know Him, with wisdom and a gentleness of spirit, and if necessary, declare what is wrong and who is to blame for it.

2008-12-02T17:40:00.000-08:00

Responsibility Trampled Upon Again

I was at work Friday afternoon when I heard that an employee at a Walmart in New York State had been trampled to death. One of my co-workers told myself and another person that it had happened. I had been asked just two days before on Wednesday evening by a friend if I had planned to do any "Black Friday" shopping. I had told him no, and had added in all seriousness that here where I live, "ladies charge the doors," and that I wasn't interested.

When my co-worker told us, my initial reaction was only brief surprise followed by a mixture of disgust and anger. I said, "I hope those folks were all happy to save ten bucks."

If that sounds harsh, my co-workers shared the same sensibility. It is easy to point fingers when judging the actions of others. Yet, I am continually amazed at the human capacity for blame-shifting. I have seen the legal commentaries just this evening. Basically they are saying that the responsibility for this tragedy belongs squarely on the shoulders of Walmart. My question is why?

Did Walmart provoke this behavior? It will be argued that it did. Is Walmart responsible to anticipate that there would be an unstable crowd control factor? It will so be argued. My problem with that kind of thinking is-- so what?

Who is responsible for the actions of the people who were so covetous, so greedy, so competative and so cheap, that they scrambled like hungry chickens to peck the feed? The answer is, every single person who charged those doors is responsible for doing so. They would appear to me to be complicit in the death of this thirty-four year old young man.

I can recall sharing with plenty of folks who do not think that they have any responsibility for their actions. They disavow any responsibility for their sin. They blame-shift. They often shift the blame even to God. "He made me this way." "He allowed this to happen." Or, they make Him a partner in the crime, "He understands. He knows we're only human."

It should come as no surprise. I have been guilty of it myself in the past. Blame-shifting started very early in mankind's history, "And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat. " Genesis 3:12

This trend has grown in our society. It has been fueled by the public examples of different types of leadership, from law enforcement officials, from the world of politics and from within the body of Christ as well. The "no apology apology" seems to be the order of the day. Politicians have teams of professional PR advisors who word what they say for purposes of face-saving and damage control. Godly people who should know better, often seem well-skilled at the art of the "no apology apology" from an early age. The actual offense itself is not actually apologized for. They basically say something like, "I'm sorry that this happened. I hope that we can have healing. I covet your prayers etc. etc.... ad infinitum. What they don't do is say, "I did this, and I am responsible for it. I am truly sorry, and I ask for your forgiveness. That would be very refreshing. Politicians I get, but Christians? We need to apologize not only to God, but to those whom we've let down. Those whom we have injured.

I have friends who truly apologize when they do something wrong to me. Over the years they have touched my prideful heart, and I have learned how to apologize properly too. It says so much to other people. I know of one gentleman at my church who is now in the body because another Christian man apologized to him. He flat out told him that he became curious about Christianity because this Christian man accepted responsibility for his action, and then actually apologized to him.

Blowing off what we do to others as, 'not that big a deal', and thinking in our hearts, "Oh he or she will get over it and forgive me" is the sort of thing I hope I am well-past in my growth, and at least I know what to look for. My own responsibility for what I do is something I really want to own, because though I may fall on my face and sin, I know that I can get up and that a loving Savior has washed the dirt of my sin off of me with His blood. The very least I can do is own up to the fact that I have done something wrong and repent of it and apologize for it.

2008-12-01T10:28:00.000-08:00

Emerging Evangelical Reformations and the Modern Church

Sometimes, listening to an emergent pastor can be a strain for me. The tendency to pile on verbiage that is usually on the provocative side, reformative to say the least, is the norm. There is a lot of talk about how we as Christians (especially fundamentalist evangelicals) must change to live in a "postmodern" society. Unfortunately, this often involves a lot of talk that aims to deconstruct not only modern Christianity, but the meaning of Scripture itself in order to reconstruct them into something that fits their agenda. That agenda seems to be chiefly about social justice, as near as I can tell.

I guess that I could have the Christian spiritual couch potato attitude about what emergent teachers say about reforming the church and just wave my hand at it, but the truth is, I get mixed feelings about the things they say. On the one hand, I know that is a part of their aim. On the other, their aim is usually off, and that is unfortunate. There is a lot of talent there.

I heard excerpts the other day from an interview with a leading emergent pastor. It turned out to be about three years old when I found the transcript on the internet. He said that Jesus' mission statement was the first thing out of His mouth when he began His ministry. He reminds us that Jesus said that He came to declare that the kingdom of God is at hand. This fellow then goes on to use Isaiah 65, starting in verse 17 to illustrate his belief that Jesus was talking about a kingdom of this world.

This gentleman appears to be spear-heading a new movement called "Red Letter Christianity". It focuses on the words of Jesus, again with an emphasis on social justice. So much so, that it seems to be the predominant concern of its following. Here's some red letters for consideration;

"Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." Matthew 4:17

It is Jesus there, echoing the truth that His herald John spoke in the previous chapter, (in black letters no less) that the kingdom of heaven is at hand. The sort of "kingdom now" theology that the emergent movement espouses is a base for errors that much of their problems springboard from. It has led to the deconstructionist tendency they have, and moreover to the wider mercy, or more universal salvation view that more and more of the movement shares.

More red letters;

"....My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence." John 18:36

Again, Jesus said that His kingdom is not of this world. So let's not ignore these black letters; "But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him?" 1st John 3:17. The Apostle John wrote those reading his epistles that compassion for a brother in need was a sign of God's love at work in His people. Am I throwing the reader a curve-ball? Absolutely not. Back to the red letters;

"For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother." Matthew 12:50

So when coupled with 1st John 3:17, does the above verse discount the poor and oppressed who are not Christians, who are not our brother, sister and mother? Hardly. We are to be taking care of the poor, those within the body of Christ first, as well those without.

More black letters;

"Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world." James 1:27 Does this mandate that social justice is the highest priority for the follower of Christ? No it does not. Speaking of the practical necessities of life, Jesus told us to "........seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you. "

In the light of all of this, it should not escape our notice that only two verses after Jesus called men to repent in Matthew 4, telling them that the kingdom of heaven was at hand, that He told Peter and Andrew to; "Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men." They learned to do that by following Jesus' example, by preaching the good news of the gospel. Sure, Jesus fed the poor. He even told His followers to do so, but there is also the example that such could become a distraction for people, even a potential distraction from the gospel. Back to the red letters --Jesus answered them and said, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled. Labor not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed."

Am I saying we should not give to the poor, feed the poor or cloth the poor? No. But we have to remember that what we win them with is what we will win them to. The gospel must be first in the order of things. What good does it do to feed, cloth and house a man's body, which will perish, if in doing so that we neglect his soul, and allow it to perish too?

Do I think that the emergent movement is indifferent to the salvation of souls? No, but I believe that the high-profile emergent leaders are seriously misiguided about who gets saved and how it happens. Some would say that soteriology is the biggest problem within the emergent movement. Possibly, but I think that grows naturally out of where their focus lies. There are subtle changes that pop up from time to time that should be glaring testimonials to where his head is at. I read in a letter that he wrote recently to another blogger, that in accord with Scripture that he believes Acts 4:12, speaking of Jesus is true. He then turns around and states that he while he acknowledges that Jesus is the only Savior, that he isn't convinced that Christians are the only ones who will be saved. That kind of conflictive statement us the sort that plagues the emergent movement, and frankly that should separate it from evangelicalism.

The gentleman in the interview I read said that there are some two-thousand verses that call upon us to stand up for the poor, feed the poor and bring justice to the poor. I don't know if that is accurate. Doing a study like that can be tricky, because including contextual verses that don't use the word "poor" would be a part of it. If it were the case, that would mean out of the 31, 102 or three verses (depending on whose sources you use) in the Bible, one in fifteen of them would be about the poor. I guess I just don't believe the number. And since when was it decided that the larger mention of a thing determined its priority in the Scriptures? I mean that has a certain sense of worldly logic, but not necessarily the ring of Scriptural truth.

These folks are now saying that they are having a hard time calling themselves evangelicals anymore. Man, it would be fine with me if they simply stopped doing it. I don't mean that to sound snarky. I just want to cut out the confusion that wildly differing views cause within something called the same movement. Evangelicalism is too full of "change agents" anymore. Certainly, evangelicalism has its share of internal issues. Hucksterism, heretical teaching, scandals and not to mention just plain bad teaching are only a few. We don't need the emergent movement to throw more heresies at the ones that already exist in order to solve them.

The rank and file evangelicals that I know are flawed like anybody else, but well-rounded believers who for the most part are concerned for the poor to the point that they do something about it and train their children to do something about it as well. Social justice is not their chief concern, but it is among their actionable concerns. I learned about that from my Christian mother, and she learned it from Jesus, but setting that agenda as the primary way to witness and spread the gospel is not something I see as a Scriptural mandate. What I see as the Scriptural example, while doing right and caring for the poor, the widowed, the orphaned (but placing the spreading of the gospel first) is the different ways that the Apostles shared the gospel with all people--poor, rich, commoner and kings. All of these inspired and led by the power of the Holy Spirit, who endows His followers with the creativity to do the will of the Father. This is not driven by an emphasis on social justice. It is driven by the necessity for men and women to be saved, because salvation concerns ones eternity and where one will spend it. The poor can be ministered to with the highest of motivation, compassion and care that is possible to give. If they do not have Jesus Christ, they will not spend their eternity worshiping God. Not here, and not in heaven. What does it gain a man to have his practical needs taken care of in even the most loving way, even when people being helped can see it is motivated by God, if they do not repent of their sins? Their eternity must come first, and let the body of Christ then help them out of poverty.

Through rambling. More on this later maybe.

2008-10-27T20:24:00.000-07:00

Voting One's Conscience

There is a lot of negativity expressed about the current election cycle and the constant barrage from the press about Barrack Obama becoming the next president of the United States. I don't know who will end up being president and I hope it will not in fact, be Senator Obama. If one is to believe the press at large and countless polls, the likelihood of his being president is high. Having already spent 2 million dollars toward a spanky victory party in Chicago, probably including a thumpin' sound system and laser show, there is little doubt that Senator Obama believes it.

I talked with at least one Christian friend who is dismayed by the apparently commanding lead Obama has in most accounts. There are those who are holding out for a surprise McCain victory. I haven't given serious thought to that. The fact of the matter is that I really don't have a horse in the race yet. I think it is very important not to vote for Barrack Obama for so many reasons, but it doesn't automatically follow that I must vote for John McCain. I live in a notoriously blue state. I could write in Buzz Lightyear and it wouldn't make an electoral difference. I am not saying one should do something like that. I merely mention it to illustrate the fact that voting one's principial beliefs by choosing a candidate from without the two-party system is not a dunder-headed thing to do. Would I be giving my vote away by doing so? Depends on what one's world paradigm is. I probably don't share one with John McCain, and I certainly do not share one with Barrack Obama.

I would rather vote my principles than vote pragmatically. But is pragmatism being evidenced by voting for John McCain in order to defeat Barrack Obama? I don't know who will be sworn into office next January 20th, but whoever it is will be allowed to do so through God's permissive will. The Lord told Pilate that he would have had no power over Him had it not been given to Pilate by the Father from above. We shouldn't allow ourselves to get all worked up about this sort of thing. That may be easier said than done. I have some nice friends in a couple who knelt together and cried when Bill Clinton was elected the first time.

But what will happen if the press is correct? What if Barrack Obama hasn't wasted a couple of million bucks on his lavish victory dance? Let's say that he puts his plan into action, and with the help of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi the nation continues financially into a depression era recession. What will happen? Perhaps American Christians and non-Christians will have some hard times. Some might lose their homes, jobs and possessions. Perhaps many Christians need to go through some hard times to help them realize that there is work to be done. Perhaps non-believers need to go through hard times to have a change of perspective too. When people are living cushy lives of contentment, they are less likely to see their own spiritual state, that they are wretched, miserable, poor, blind and naked.

Who of us knows? Perhaps a few years of an Obama presidency will lead to an immense revival for God's glory.

We have been in the last days for a couple of thousand years now. Time is winding down. Impending global economic disaster, moral decay and apostasy are things that ought to be expected in these times. They are only a reflection of the dark, prophetic portrait that was brushed out in God's word. We aren't allowed the luxury of withdrawing from everything that makes us uncomfortable in our lives. Voting one's conscience can be fairly uncomfortable, when faced with the notion that doing so will usher a Barrack Obama into office, and I have to wonder why most of the conservative Christian political groups that were so vocal and active in previous elections are so seemingly quiet this go-around. The real questions on my mind are, aren't we to vote for candidates whose platform will serve God? Are we not to seek to glorify Him by voting with hearts that trust Him to know what He is doing, even if voting our conscience looks as though we are "giving our vote away"?

"And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God." Romans 12:2

2008-10-20T16:22:00.000-07:00

The Importance of Not Voting for Barack Obama

Talk around the water cooler is cheap. Whatever the election pollsters are saying, a lot can happen to change things in the minds of voters immediately prior to a national vote. Candidates can affect the vote with a series of gaffs as they get either anxious or even over confident about their campaign status.

I am amazed at the number of Christians that claim to be conservatives who say they are backing Barack Obama. There are some currently high profile types backing him who just one election cycle past, were saying that Christians should stay out of politics--because it could hurt Christianity. One emergent church pastor/author in particular is touring with the Obama Faith Family and Values Tour. He has said that he is voting for Senator Obama because, "Barack is the only candidate willing to talk about his faith in Jesus."

Hillary Clinton talked about her faith. Mike Huckabee talked about his. Just two months ago, John McCain spoke about his faith at the Saddleback Mountain Church alongside Barack Obama. Didn't John McCain talk about his faith then? Guess he missed that. This man also stated that he supports Barack Obama because Barack is his Christian brother.

The trouble with that statement is of course, that Barack Obama does not take Jesus at His word. Senator Obama told Saddleback Pastor Rick Warren that Jesus Christ is his Lord and Savior. But he is also the man who has said, "‘I am rooted in the Christian tradition,’ but followed that statement with, "I believe there are many paths to the same place and that is a belief there is a higher power, a belief that we are connected as a people." We may all be connected by sin, but Jesus never said that there are many paths to the same place. In fact, He said quite the opposite.

Many of Jesus' followers turned from Him and left Him when He told them the truth. His closest followers stayed with Him however, because He had "the words of life". The hard truth is, if one believed in universalism, one is not a Christian. Whether one is sporting a universalist view in one's theology, or whether one calls one's self a New Ager, the end result is the same. One is essentially saying that Jesus' suffering and death on the Cross was not necessary. Some universalists may argue, "Oh but it was necessary. His atoning death covers all of those who don't know Him." What they don't realize is that their own argument argues against them.

I could go on, but the fact of the matter is that Barack Obama makes a claim to Christianity that are just not backed up by the things he states about his beliefs. Many people fall into that. They don't have a right understanding of the Jesus of the Bible. It is really no wonder that Barack Obama has such a following. He is inter spiritual believer. He is following a different gospel than the one of the Bible.

I asked a question of a Mormon friend once, and when he grasped the truth of it as related to the heresy he was trying to impress upon me, he could no longer think of anything to say. I asked him, "If you were the devil, and you wanted to deceive the world, what would you say to them?" He gave me a rather disconnected answer, and I told him, "No. You would tell people exactly-- what they wanted to hear."

It is no surprise that Barack Obama has gained a worldly following, because he is telling people exactly what they want to hear. What gets to me, is that while he is telling the world what they want to hear ( abortion is okay, embryonic stem cell research is okay, same sex marriage is okay, socialistic values are best) some identified with the Christian community of the United States are following along as if what Senator Obama says pleases their ears too.

Back in December of 2006, Peggy Noonan wrote that the reality of Barack Obama's candidacy seemed to be "part of a pattern of lurches and swerves" that the voting parties had been swaying through over the past odd decade or so, read that: from Clinton to Bush and back. I am not advocating centrism, but I think she was right, and Barack Obama, as the most liberal senator, probably in U.S. history, is about as swerving a left turn as we could take, not to mention that putting him in office would create a power shift to a very liberal Democratic Party the likes of which this nation has never seen. An unchecked Democratic super majority with the nation's most liberal liberal at the head could create issues that plague this nation for many years to come.

I talked with a felon yesterday who has lost his right to vote, and I asked him if he was going to petition to get that back. He said it was a pretty low priority for him. Christian--if you have the right to vote, don't sit back with the same kind of apathy this convicted felon has. Don't sit back and feel tired of fighting for the rights of the unborn. Lives are at stake. If other issues are of serious concern to you too, then vote for the candidate who has said he will preserve life, and then get serious about writing letters to your congressman and to the president elect about how strongly you feel about those issues. Get up. Get serious. Think about it--and vote.

2008-10-19T00:36:00.000-07:00

Trends

I am usually well behind the times on church "trends". The church my wife and I belong to is fairly insular in one respect. We don't spend too much time worrying about what other churches are doing. Because we study line by line, chapter by chapter through books of the Bible, we do spend time talking about cults when we read passages that are related to the subject. We certainly talk about how church should be done when we are studying passages related to that. Basically, we let the Bible guide what we do and how we do it.

One of the semi-recent and I might add building, "trends" of post-modernism in Christianity is the emergent church movement, or "conversation". From what I have observed, this is a movement that has, depending on one's point of view, grown out, or grown away from the fundamentalist church movement over the past few decades. They have identified things which in their view were defective in the church and have caused them to ask why church was done the way it was being done. They moved away from what they saw as defective, and are in an ongoing, self-monitored emergence from the old way of doing and being a church, morphing slowly into something they view as a better, more Biblical way of being a church.

One of the aspects that those in the emergent movement seem to concentrate on is their serious commitment to what they view as their responsibility to the culture at large. On the one hand, some of the inroads they have made into connecting with the larger culture of the world could be viewed as small indications of success with their thinking. On the other hand, one has to wonder, in their pursuit of ways to enter into a meaningful relationship with the culture, has the culture of the world spread into the emergent church movement?

I think the question is worth asking in view of the inroads that the emergent church movement has made into evangelicalism. Those in the movement seem to be very deeply motivated with an interest in impacting the culture for Christ through social justice. From what I have seen however, it looks as though the world culture has had more impact on the emergent church movement than they have had on the culture they are trying to reach. For all intents and purposes, it really seems to me as though the emergent church is actually following the world culture, acting in ways like culture instead of impacting it. There is an old story about the hunter who chased the tiger until the tiger caught him.

I think that the whole reason this sort of thing happens has to be with this movement's general understanding of the kingdom of God. The emergent church movement is kind of hard to nail down though, because it is fairly casually connected within itself. It has a lot of younger pastors who want the body to live "missionally" and take the gospel of Jesus Christ to the culture at large. That in itself sounds just fine, but there are problems. Whatever the motivations and best intentions were of those who founded the conversation, I see it as having degraded from something that could have been promising into something that threatens the faith.

Somewhere around ten years or so old, the emergent community's way of thinking has bled into Bible colleges, parachurch organizations, seminaries and churches. I read stuff from all over the world that is peppered with the "lingo". Like I said, it is a movement that is about as easy to nail down as fastening Jell-O to a wall, but there does seem to be two evident branches of this denomination, for lack of a better term. The "emerging" branch would admit to having acquired methods which are harmonious with a postmodern cultural mindset while retaining a sound theological pedigree. The "emergent" branch is comprised of people who while, they have may also have adopted a similar, harmonious approach to culture, may be attacking essential doctrines. That is a very real concern. It has even brought some raised eyebrows from the emerging branch.

I don't mean to say that there aren't things within Christianity that couldn't be corrected, but it seems to me that usually, when someone within Christianity cries out, "I've got something new! I have a better way!" one is better off distancing one's self from it. Liberalism in theology past wanted to appease and accommodate moderns to gain converts. Liberalism today seems to want to appease and accommodate postmoderns. I think that the way that either branch approaches their view of the kingdom of God is a bit off. It has led them to misunderstand the role of the church. That misunderstanding in my view has given them a distorted grasp of the gospel itself.

As I stated before, nailing down a position in the emergence can be difficult, but the one doctrine that the two branches largely agree upon is that as they put it is, "the kingdom of God is here now". I say largely, because even at that, there are some who will say that they aren't always certain of what is meant by the term when it is used.

Emergent authors Geoff and Sherry Maddock have said that, "Our principle desire is to see God’s kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven. We believe this happens when God’s people are renewed around God’s mission of love and justice in the world." Wanting to see God's kingdom come on earth, as in heaven is fine, but how that gets accomplished is another matter altogether. It looks for all the world like what they are saying is that although the kingdom is here presently, that is in a progressive state of growth. What facilitates that growth in their view is Christians living "missionally" on earth. But some key words are, "on earth as it is in heaven." When Jesus told His disciples to pray as He did, I believe that part of the prayer was prophetic. It certainly hasn't happened yet, and it will not happen until Jesus has returned to the earth.

The emerging view of the kingdom of God would likely be in contrast to say, a premillenialist view of the kingdom for example. In; "Adventures in Missing the Point", Tony Campolo wrote of dispensationalism, "This is a theology that – with its implicit threat of being left behind, of time running out – is used by Dispensational preachers to great evangelistic effect. It has been a very effective goad to conversion… To the contrary, the history of the world is infused with the presence of God, who is guiding the world toward becoming the kind of world God willed for it to be when it was created. Human history is going somewhere wonderful."

He sort of misses the point. It has certainly been used to goad to conversion, but just because a theology might be improperly used doesn't lessen its validity. As someone who agrees with the premillennial position, I see it as information that the understanding believer will not use as a club, but instead see as further motivation to spread God's word in as profitable a way as possible, given that time is indeed, "running out."

N. T. Wright claims that the church has had a basic misunderstanding of the teachings of Paul since the church was founded. Wright's stance is that Paul was relating a message to the unsaved world that Jesus had overcome evil, and "was creating a new world in which justice and peace would reign supreme." I have said before that Wright is the unofficial father of the emergent church movement, and nothing has changed my mind about that. His errant notions of hell and his tendency toward universalistic thinking are reflected more and more in the emergence as well. It all depends though on which pastor one is talking to. Some are universalist and some are not.

According to the emergent's most prolific author, Brian McLaren, the ultimate goal of the Godhead is to establish His kingdom here on earth, and He will do that through the good works of His followers. Another popular emergent is Rob Bell. He wrote, "For Jesus, the question wasn’t how do I get into Heaven? but how do I bring heaven here?... The goal isn’t escaping this world but making this world the kind of place God can come to. And God is remaking us into the kind of people who can do this kind of work." Ignoring certain passages about end times events can allow someone to think in such a euphoric fashion, but thing truly, will get a ton worse on this planet before they get better, and they simply will not get better until Jesus returns.

With their emphasis on building a progressively better kingdom, the theology of emergence places a strong emphasis on the restoration of justice, the environment, overcoming poverty and the like. Those things are fine, and they should not be lost on the church, but are they necessarily where the focus of the church should be? While the emergence sees them as a means to an end, I see them as a side-issue. Taking care of those issues will not usher in more quickly, the kingdom of God. Neither of those teachings are to be found in the Bible.

With no silly time of great tribulation to distract them, or a notion that Jesus is coming to judge the wicked, the emergence can concentrate on improving the world. While those efforts again, are okay, it is not a great idea to walk around in quiet optimism when the truth of the word should be jutting out from the pages of the Bible. His kingdom coming will be by His work, and His alone. There will be no prelude to it. It will just happen when He comes, and not through any cumulative efforts of our own. While it is good and right to try to eliminate human depravity and injustice, our actions do nothing to usher in the kingdom of God.

2008-10-17T20:07:00.000-07:00

Are Evangelicals Awake?

What exactly is going on? We're less than three weeks away from an election that seems to be unlike any this country (The United States) has ever seen. I would agree that many folks may think that is the case nearing any election, but if one cannot see the differences between this presidential election and those before it, they are not paying attention.

What is the deal? Are Evangelical Christians just sitting back and quietly waiting to pounce on November 4, sending Barack Obama packing? I certainly hope so. Maybe they are upset because John McCain is their other choice. Hey, I am not terribly thrilled about that either. Our choices are, as a friend of mine put it to me yesterday, between an ultra-liberal candidate and a liberal candidate. When is the last time we can say we were faced with such a choice?

I live in Washington state, and by the time the nominating, primary election process rolls around to our state, things are all but decided. Granted, the initial choices were not all that inspiring, but now I am faced, along with every other voter, with a serious choice to make. I really would have preferred not to have voted for either one of these men, but the consequences of not voting may be such that I could very possibly regret them for many years to come.

Even though both of these candidates fall onto the liberal side of the political spectrum, the differences between them are staggering enough that they should give all conservatives pause, especially Evangelical Christians. Why that group in particular? Abortion. It is and still should be the watershed issue. http://ourbreadoflife.blogspot.com/search?q=watershed+issue Where has the issue been though? Who has been talking about it, publicly?

People think the Catholic Church is harsh because it says that if one supports (speaks out for or votes for) abortion rights as Joe Biden has, one cannot receive communion. Tough. The Catholic Church has every right to exercise church discipline as it sees fit. People shouldn't fall for the rhetoric either. Joe Biden says that while he personally adheres to the position of the Catholic Church on abortion, he doesn't wish to impose his religiously held belief on anyone else in a "pluralistic society". Got news for you Senator Biden, someone is always going to disagree with you. Get used to it. That's called politics. Where have you been?

I mean, if you believe something is morally wrong, then stand up for your belief. Show a little backbone. Senator Biden is not the only one who seems spineless on this issue. I really believe that a good portion of the church has lost sight of the issue. There are elements within the ranks of Evangelicalism now who openly endorse Barack Obama, even though he is about as supportive of abortion as someone can be. How can they do that, and what can they be thinking? The right to life, protecting the innocent unborn is about as important to the Lord as it gets. If you don't think so, then read the passages where Jesus talks about kids. It leaves little doubt as to where He stands on that.

One has to attach one's self firmly to presuppositions and jump through exegetical hoops to think that the unborn do not matter to God. Not to protect them, to ignore the issue, is to say that what God wants is not important. It demonstrates a certain hardness of heart. I wondered in a February blog post if I would really have anyone to vote for when November 4 rolled around. I stated that unless John McCain had changed from his year 2000 run position and made more of a declarative statement for a pro-life stance, that I didn't think I could vote for him. Well, at least his team has stated his position as pro-life many times though I haven't heard it from him. He has also voted pro-life consistently, and that will have to be good enough.

Barrack Obama can say more words and speak less substance than almost any man I have ever heard. He has an eloquent style of speech with a cadence that many people seem to enjoy, but aside from that, what does he really have to recommend him? He has voted four times against legislation that would have concretely helped to protect babies who survive botched abortions. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uYDxZlRqx4 This seems to get very little notice on most mainstream media outlets. Where is the outcry?

Will the "religious right", especially Evangelical Christians, step up to the plate and hit one out of the park in this election? Or has the Evangelical Christian church become so desensitized to the issue of abortion that it is actually apathetic about it? I sincerely hope not.

2008-10-14T13:54:00.000-07:00

Richard Cizic Does Not Represent Me

Vice President for Governmental Affairs of the National Association of Evangelicals (and probably the NAE's chief lobbyist) does not represent me. I don't really care who put him into his position. He says he's of the opinion that people (translate; evangelicals who simply aren't as educated, informed and enlightened as he is) are going to vote Republican no matter what. Fine. Lot's of people think that way about evangelical Christians. Because the Republican party candidates are typically more conservative on moral issues, I'm sure there is some truth to his assumption.

In an article from Beliefnet's God-o-Meter, he stated that party line voting is unbiblical. It says you don't think. I would have to generally agree with that, but party line voting does not mean that one has not thought and considered the parties and what they represent, so there are differences in party line votes, depending on the reason. He also stated that, "If you're simply voting on same sex marriage and abortion, you're not thinking. What I'm saying is that a lot of evangelical don't think, sad to say." This statement made no doubt because he also said, "I am interested in broadening the agenda of concerns (for Evangelicals)."

Wow. Golly. Richard Cizik is so open-minded. Well I'm happy for him. I guess because Richard Cizik wants to broaden the agenda of Evangelical concerns, I guess I should let my reluctance to see the fabric of family and marriage be casually ripped apart and destroyed by the Democratic Party's most liberal candidate ever just slip on by. Because Richard Cizik want to broaden the agenda of Evangelical concerns, I should forget that Barack Obama's wretched voting record on the issue of abortion should be ignored, and I should forget that four-thousand, four-hundred innocent unborn babie's lives are being snuffed out almost every day in the United States.

How can someone who claims to represent the interests of Evangelical Christians think that either one of these matters is less significant in the light of paying attention to other political, domestic or foreign concerns? What concerns is he dwelling on? Health care? The economy? Jobs? How in the world does he think that the importance of the two issues of same sex marriage and abortion can be averaged out against other concerns? He must have been listening to Joe Biden.

When interviewed by Tom Brokaw, Biden stated. “I'm prepared as a matter of faith to accept that life begins at the moment of conception. But that is my judgment,” he said. “For me to impose that judgment on everyone else who is equally and maybe even more devout than I am seems to me is inappropriate in a pluralistic society.”

That my friends, is a classic political cop-out. That sort of stance is one without integrity. Al Gore was supposedly intensely opposed to abortion just six months before Bill Clinton tapped him as a running mate, and then he completely flip-flopped on the issue. This spineless approach to the issue, or the adamant adherence to being pro-choice is what one can expect from most members of the Democratic Party. It is simply a fact. Following a close second is the average Democrat's support, either outright or tacitly of same sex marriage.

So what haven't I thought about if I decide to vote with the party that is most generally opposed to murdering the unborn? What haven't I thought about if I decide to vote with the party that most generally is opposed to recognizing same sex marriage as something acceptable and normal, and approved of by God? What thought have I not put into the decision?

The world's banking system is falling apart at the seams. The United States economy is struggling in ways it never has before. For the sake of argument let's assume that Barrack Osama has all the answers to that problem. Jesus said however, "For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?" Matthew 16:26

I won't give my soul away to keep money in my account Richard Cizic, or even to keep my house. Put that in your political pipe and smoke it. Your thinking does not represent mine.

2008-09-30T00:11:00.000-07:00

Labels

My sister belongs to an interdenominational women's Bible study group. She has been teaching over the last year or so. She was speaking to one of the women there about me, and mentioned that I attend a Calvary Chapel. The woman told her that Calvary Chapels were charismatic churches. While that is not the case, I wondered what her definition of charismania actually is. For that matter, it made me think about what the differences are between a charismatic and an evangelical, as those two terms are not always used for what they must mean. I always think of "Inigo Montoya" from "The Princess Bride" at times like this, because he said, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." (laughing here)

"Charismatic" usually refers to a believer who practices certain spiritual gifts, like speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing, prophecy or the receiving of a "word of knowledge". I don't know who dubbed those gifts "charismatic", but that's the way it is. A lot of non-charismatics believe that those gifts did exist in New Testament times as a sign to the unbelieving, but that those gifts no longer exist. They believe they have "ceased". Charismatic believers and non-charismatic believers would probably agree that the 'other' gifts, like teaching, giving, administration or the gift of prayer for example, are all gifts that remain to this day.

I think more than that, there is a 'style' of worship among charismatic churches that might be characterized as more, well...'energetic' than other churches, wherein the services are a lot more emotional? I could be wrong, but the thing is, a lot of the things that thirty years or so ago may have bull's-eyed a church as 'charismatic' have now come to be accepted and practiced by much larger numbers of mainstream Christian denominational and non-denominational churches.

These days, the word evangelical can refer to either a charismatic Christian or a non-charismatic Christian. In my thinking, evangelicals are those who hold to those doctrines that show that Christianity is not a religion, but rather a personally interactive relationship with Almighty God through His Son, Jesus Christ. I'm talking about believing in Jesus' virgin birth, that He was fully human, His substitutionary, atoning death on the cross for sinful man, His resurrection, His grace. When I think evangelical, I think of people who believe that the Bible means what it says, and says what it means. I think of people who believe that all have sinned and are deserving of God's wrath, and that the only way to salvation is through Jesus Christ and what He did for them on the cross--in their place. I think of people who trust solely in Him to have provided the way for their sins to be forgiven, and who believe that He has resurrected, ascended to heaven and that He is now with the Father, interceding for them.

I am not a cessationist, even though I grew up in a more liturgical, conservative church. Raising one's hands during the church service was never seen. Forget it. My wife grew up in a church much like the one I grew up in. She would not have thought of raising her hands in worship. But-- my wife and I belong to a church now where that sort of thing is accepted, and if people want to dance in the Lord, they are not discouraged from doing so in an orderly way. Not too many folks usually do, but it is not discouraged.

As far as the terms, "charismatic" and "evangelical" go when applied generally to churches, if one wants to get down to where the rubber and the road meet, I would say that it has more to do these days with the origin of those movements, (and what they might dwell upon), so the two are not interchangeable, but on a surface level they can share certain things. Certain, 'superficial' things we might do at our church might be totally unacceptable in another evangelical church down the road, even if my church does not accept an over-emphatic, preoccupation with spiritual gifts and experiential signs and wonders.

2008-09-28T13:45:00.000-07:00

Forgiving a Sinning Brother

Recently, I have been talking with a brother who is involved in ongoing sin, and his problem is severe. It is the kind of problem that could easily trash his life and destroy his family. I read an article the other day about the doctrine of "Eternal Security", and the author said that if a person who once saved, should turn their back on Christ and throw themselves into a life of sin, that that person would not lose his or her salvation. The author wrote that such a person would lose some heavenly rewards, but would still go to heaven. I was kind of surprised to read that, because the argument usually is, "That person was never truly saved in the first place. He was obviously a false convert."

I have never agreed with that thinking, and though I have heard compelling arguments from learned Biblical scholars, I have never been able to see where it is truly backed up with Scripture. Besides, why is it that one moment the thinking is: "We can't know another man's heart. Only God knows a man's heart." and the next moment one can say, "He was not truly saved."?

19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, 21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. Galatians 5:19-21

In the passage above, Paul wrote about practiced behaviors that demonstrate a sin lifestyle. He said that those who practice, meaning habitually live these works, would not inherit the kingdom of God. He did not say, "they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God--except those who have already been saved."

I agree that only God truly knows the full contents of one's heart. That doesn't mean though, that we can't necessarily know the general state of a man's heart as related to his salvation. God gives us the ability to discern, and the general state of a person's heart is often revealed to us by God in different ways. Sometimes, people simply up and tell us. "I don't believe in your God." But if a person is living a lifestyle that is devoted to sin, like the ones Paul wrote of, they will not go to heaven. That is what the Bible is saying. A man cannot serve two masters. A man must either serve God, or he is a slave to sin.

But what of the believing person you know who is falling ever-deeper into sin, so much so that it looks for all the world like an unbeliever living a sin lifestyle? We may believe in our judgment that such a person may have turned away from God and rejected His salvation, but that knowledge and decision is up to God alone. Where does that leave us in dealing with people when they are not repentant of their sinful behavior?

There are a couple of different things going on here that the Scriptures can shed some light on. First, we are bound to always be generally forgiving in our spiritual nature to never allow bitterness to gain a foothold in our lives. We should never "hold a grudge." If we do, how would we be able to extend our hearts in love to help another person heal, to help them in Christ to be triumphant over a sin-dominated lifestyle? On the other hand, we are also soft and foolish to ignore the persistent and unrepentant stubbornness of a rebellious believer. We are also bound by love to rebuke (in love) that person, and if he or she is unwilling to deal with their sin and repent and confess it to God, we are responsible to refuse to fellowship with them in a typically intimate fashion. Paul instructed the Corinthian church goers to do just that in 1st Corinthians five. That may sound harsh, but love isn't always easy. The failure to recognize and turn from sin and confess it to God is a serious indication of a rebellious heart. It can lead to deadly eternal consequences to one's self, and to real problems for others and for the church.

It isn't the goal to be vengeful or hurtful. The goal by doing this is to restore and to heal. The idea is to get the sinning person to turn away from the sinful path that may lead them away from God, and to get right with the Lord. We want that person to rid themselves of the sin "wall" he or she has built between themselves and God so that they can allow Him to work freely in their hearts to grow and change them.

"Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted." Galatians 6:1

2008-09-22T16:48:00.000-07:00

How Close We Came

I love September. I always have. Here where I live in southeastern Washington state, the month of September hits and "ding" the weather changes. We still have warm days, often through the latter part of the month, but the days finally start getting cooler, and now that fall has arrived, I am looking forward to those crisp fall mornings. It would almost help me be able to ignore what is going on in our country. The far-reaching effects that the events of this month will have are only going to be known in time.

Huge financial institutions in this country have been failing right and left. This month has seen Lehman Brothers holdings file the largest bankruptcy in the history of the nation. AIG (American International Group), the largest insurer in the world, was bailed out by an $85 billion loan from the federal government. Merrill Lynch always had those big ads on TV. That's what I remember about them, and they were saved from bankruptcy by merging with Bank of America. On top of all that, the United States government has taken over Fannie Mae (Federal National Mortgage Association) and Freddie Mac (Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation).

It is alarming to me that the federal government has become this nation's lender. All of the money that the fed has thrown at these problems places the burden for these enormous monies squarely onto the shoulders of Joe Average. I wonder if Joe average is even thinking about it though. Nobody seems to be that upset about it. I wonder if America's financial practices have become so outlandish that most folks are just desensitized to these issues.

The fact is, Joe and Josephina Average are the ones who fund the federal government. That means that as taxpayers, we are, with all of these bailouts subject to about a $90,000.00 commitment. Do you have ninety grand lying around if something goes wrong? I don't. Most people don't, and that sends a clear message to nations all around the world about our present financial situation. Doesn't look very good.

Last night at church, a couple of guys were chatting with me before worship, and one of them was throwing out statistics that I found appalling but not surprising. One of those was that the U.S. people in 2007 spent $27.9 billion on wine consumption. Statistics like those, coupled with this year's national quarterly growth reports were what he used to bolster the idea that the U.S. is financially sound. This nation came very close to financial collapse last Thursday. He apparently didn't notice. Short-sightedness really bugs me, especially when there are voices all around calling for caution and restraint, and there has been seemingly no one listening. Let me throw another thought out for consideration. The presidential elections are coming up. Hypothetical situation--all of those nations which supply the U.S. with oil decide to cut us off cold turkey. Which candidate is most prepared for that scenario? Which candidate even has a plan for such a scenario? We are at such a bad place financially, that I am fairly confident that something like that would take us from where we are to certain financial doom.

How much does all of this matter in the bigger picture to us as believers? I don't really know. I can say that the outcome of the election has nothing to do with Jesus' kingdom in my view, but how we as citizens of heaven deal even in our small ways with what is happening, can say a lot to those unbelieving who are watching, and have no doubt, they are watching.

2008-09-16T14:43:00.000-07:00

Musings on Israel

Lately I've been listening to both Christian and non-Christian friends who have had things to say about either the nation of Israel or in general, the Jewish people. Their understanding of what is going on disappoints me. The folks at the church I belong to have a handle on it, but the more that I talk with people outside of that setting the more I am curious about how they arrive at their particular perspectives on what Israel is, and about what significance it has, or the role it plays in Biblical prophecy. I chat online with folks too, both in live chat and on chat boards, and the opinions vary wildly.

Setting the prophetic perspectives aside, Israel is a tiny country, just over eight-thousand square miles in size, maybe just a little smaller than the state of New Jersey, and their prospects do not look good from a worldly standpoint. With a population of under six-million people, it is dwarfed by the 322 odd million Arab peoples that surround her. Those 22 Arab nations, which cover lands over a five-million square mile area, share a bond, in that they all wish to see the Jews wiped out, erased from the face of the earth. If that seems far-fetched to anyone, there are still Jews walking around with concentration camp tattoos to remind us that more than Israel's current population were targeted and slaughtered by the Nazis in WWII. Just a couple of days ago, it was reported that (a shocked) Paul McCartney was warned that if he went ahead and performed in Tel Aviv on September 25th, that he would be targeted for terror, threatened by Muslim extremists.

Israel is not even getting much support from its own current leadership. Ehud Olmert said just yesterday, "The notion of a Greater Israel no longer exists, and anyone who still believes in it is deluding themselves." It is reported now that the Prime Minister has discussed transferring 98.1 percent of the West Bank to the Palestinians. When will people learn that appeasement does not work when violent and petty dictators are the target for appeasement? That sort of policy didn't work in WWII with Hitler. It only emboldened him to press his insane agenda even harder. It achieves the same result with Israel's enemies, and all they will only continue to want will be more and more submissive responses from the Israeli government until Israel is no more.

The rest of the world seems to be blindly trying to force Israel's hand as well.

International political and religious organizations, from the United Nations to the Vatican are all in favor of Israel turning over significant portions of its lands to the Arabs. They are in favor of Israel giving up half of its capital city over to the Arabs. Even the United States and Russia are in agreement that there should be a Palestinian state in what is now Israel. This kind of short-sightedness baffles me. Such a state would simply become a strategically advantageous base of operations for the complete take-over of Israel.

This type of thinking comes at what I see as a bad time for Israel. She is wearing down a bit. Her Prime Minister's attitudes bear that out. He has apparently lost whatever Zionist vision he may ever have had. Sixty years of constant hostilities have also tired the citizenry of Israel out. It isn't easy for dad's and moms to have to take shifts aboard school buses while carrying Uzis and M-16s, and Israel's non-Arab neighbor, Iran waits in the wings, led by a president who has all but announced that as soon as his country is nuke capable, he will lob bombs on them. That has to be wearing, plus there are diplomatic threats against Israel almost every day.

Bringing prophetic perspectives back into the discussion, there are Christians cannot see the significance of Israel in Biblical prophecy. Part of that comes from the fact that certain mainstream denominations have had historic missions in that geographical vicinity for centuries now, and the current nation of Israel has never played well for them there. Sad, but true. Replacement theology has shifted Israel from its factual place in biblical prophecy, to a sort of insignificant political sideline position as an accident of history. Such theology pretends to understand Israel as something other than what it is. Unfortunately, because the prophecies about Israel become spiritualized in order to explain them away, one can't tell the players without a program.

It isn't that Israel is the "key" to prophetic revelation, but that it is a component. As with the rest of Biblical prophecy, one cannot pick and choose. Take the virgin birth of Jesus for example. Some believers for some reason can't accept it. So they spiritualize the passages in the Bible that refer to it, or ignore it altogether. The problem with that is that there is a cascading effect, which causes problems with one prophecy to the next. The Bible's prophecies are either one-hundred percent accurate, or they are worth nothing.

I realize that the subject of whether or not God's promises to Israel were unconditional or not will come up, but that really doesn't hold water. There are fulfilled prophecies in the Bible, and there are unfulfilled prophecies in the Bible, and a number of unfulfilled prophecies have to do with Israel, and with her eventual restoration to God through Jesus Christ. It is clear presently, from today's headlines that that has not happened, and through the Bible's prophecies, that it will.

2008-09-06T22:26:00.000-07:00

Silly Thoughts on Life Up and Life Down

Two nights ago I taught a Bible study online. It went alright. I enjoy doing it, even though at times I find it challenging. (I am not the world's greatest teacher.) Immediately afterward, I discovered that our washing machine drain tub was clogged. This I do not enjoy. ( I am not the world's greatest plumber.) I did enjoy it however when I got it to drain again.

Last night, after a long day at work, it was the kitchen drain which started to drain slowly. ( Nothing had changed--I am still not the world's greatest plumber.)

Today at work, I was on the job with only four hours of sleep in the bank, and I was to head out at four in the afternoon to pick up three-hundred chairs and sixty eight-foot banquet tables by my lonesome, as my helper had to leave early. I was busy enough without that. Fortunately, the client's eight-hundred person farewell bash ended early, so I had a helper. Don't ever let anyone tell you that you can't fit sixty banquet tables and three-hundred folding chairs into a pickup truck and a 5' x 12' trailer. I have done it twice in one day. Strangely enough, I enjoyed the challenge of doing it. (What an idiot--laughing here.)

Tonight, we had our family over to celebrate my mother's eighty-first birthday. A good portion of the family was present, although my mother had to do without grandchildren for the evening. We bought Chinese takeout and of course, had way too much food for seven adults. Oh well. Need some sub gum chicken chow mein? How about some crab puffs or breaded shrimp?

Anyways, we had a nice time of fellowship, and the things contended with during the day were forgotten. It makes me wonder at why, when I am in the moment, that anything ordinary ever seems like a struggle. That sage of science fiction, Yoda, said, "Never his mind on where he is--what he is doing!" or something like that. I think it is important to have one's mind on what one is doing when one is doing it, certainly, but the idea that strenuous or annoying jobs are anything but a temporary things is well, not realistic. This whole life is temporary. What am I rambling about? Well, I think I am on about an attitude change. I tend to be a fairly mellow person for the most part, but I do get bugged by things. I am thinking that even though my mind must be on whatever I am doing, that if I can't enjoy it, I must remind myself that its brevity is cause for happiness. Does that make sense? Life will tell.

2008-08-16T23:49:00.000-07:00

I am fighting sleep. Don't know why I do that at times. I'm fifty now, soon to be fifty-one. I have to say, for all the guys I've heard say that they are feeling it, being older, slowing them down a little, I haven't yet. I guess I'm blessed that way. I'll take it.

For all of that, this has been one of the most physically taxing weeks I have ever worked. We have had steady, hot weather through this last week, up over the 'century' mark, and tomorrow is slated to be around 105 degrees. Until yesterday, I spent most of my work-week out of doors. Yesterday and today it was in/out, in/out. To top that off, we were a man short all week, and we loaded and delivered more equipment than we have all summer.

I am fine in the heat, as long as I hydrate consistently, but constant movement and exertion is wearing. I loaded some guys up yesterday who were at a loss for how to get 266 folding chairs and 27 --5' round tables into the back of their pickup. I informed them that they would be making three trips. I loaded the chairs for them using our dolly and pallet system, which is a fancy way of saying I pushed them up a ramp on a cart. I don't perspire a ton, but this time I was drenched.

I have consistently come home and laid down after showering and nodded off all night while trying to watch the Olympic coverage. My wife and I are pretty big on that. I prefer the summer Olympic games for some reason. Maybe because I don't like to be cold, I don't know. Right now though, shushing down a slope somewhere sounds pretty good.

2008-08-13T22:46:00.000-07:00

I taught my little, private martial arts class this evening. It went a little long. One of my students was studying early for a college program he will take in less than a month, so he couldn't make it. It turned out to be a strange but funny night that was one of the best (most instructive) and most fun classes I can remember.

We train outdoors in the warmer weather, and I was warming up before class by kicking the heavy bag. The class started by my getting chased around the place by a swarm of wasps that had taken up residence in my heavy bag stand. My student showed up to see me fighting them off. He quickly joined in and was knocking them out of the air with his fighting stick. I was impressed with his accuracy. Once we had routed the ornery little buggers, class began in earnest.

There are different dynamics when one is teaching a class like this with different numbers of students. I have instructed larger numbers of students at one time years ago and, as was the case earlier tonight, a single student. I have to say that I much prefer the kind of intensive one-on-one or two encounters that I had tonight.

It allows me to concentrate solely on the weaknesses and strengths of the individual I'm training, and to better help them overcome the former and enhance the latter. I also get to participate on a more personally active level in sparring and exploring different techniques, which is something I enjoy a lot.

For the first have of the class, we concentrated on stick-fighting techniques. There are various ways of stick-fighting, and many different 'styles'. The three I have been trained in are all Filipino styles (originated in the Philippines) which very closely resemble each other, namely; Arnis de Mano, Eskrima (which means skirmish) and Kali. Usually a school will adopt a set number of "angles of attack" (typically twelve to twenty-one or so) out of which to learn and train. My experience was no different. I learned several different sets and adopted one of my own.

The twelve angles of attack that I initially teach students are designed to help them learn to strike or defend from any position, even on the ground. The man I taught tonight is my most advanced student. He is motivated and intense when he trains, but he also has a good sense of humor. I was in the middle the middle of training him to throw full-power strikes with proper follow-through, which depends heavily on solid footwork, when something strange happened.

I have an older, well-used heavy bag and I had him banging away on the bag. He had only thrown about twenty five strikes when his 1-1/8" diameter rattan stick simply snapped into three nearly equal pieces. His eyes were huge when it happened. I maintained my composure until he laughed, and then I just lost it. We had a good laugh. I told him that he could now brag officially about the power of his strikes, in that I had never seen anyone manage to break a rattan stick in two while hitting the heavy bag before. As a matter of fact, I have never seen one break like that at all.

All in all, it was a good night of training. I took a few minor shots with the padded fighting sticks, but I was able to convey some very important concepts to my student. All in all, a very satisfying night of training.

2008-07-12T22:37:00.000-07:00

Life in Abundance

Alright, I am in a nit-picking mood. (laughing here) I am getting to the bottom of just what the word "life" means in John 10:10. I looked at the Greek text and John quoted Jesus as saying He came to give us life---"zoe", not "bios". When He used that word I believe he was putting His emphasis on the quality of life He was giving, not just on life--ongoing. You see the same adverb "perisos" (abundantly) translated as "superfluous" in 2 Corinthians 9:1.

In John 10:10, Jesus was showing Himself in the context of the Good Shepherd, and in using that analogy, several things are involved. He chooses the pasture land. He tends and takes care of the sheep. He feeds them and waters them, and they respond only to His voice, because they know that they can trust Him alone, and that His words mean life. He gives His sheep more than just the ability to live, He gives them life in the richest and most full sense of the word. In Him they can find spiritual stability and joy in the depths of their souls. Yet, since we are currently physical beings as well as spiritual ones, we cannot ignore that connection. Neither does He. We have differing desires on both levels, and He is knows our hearts. How can we not give all of who we are to Him?

2008-07-11T22:07:00.000-07:00

For the last couple of nights I was trying to help my sister. She lives in a larger city than I do, and the company she works for is building ties with a new engineering subcontractor here where I live. They will be opening an office here shortly, and I started to search out some information for her. As usual, when I start to work on something, I find out how much I don't know about it. (laughing here)

Fortunately, I have a very knowledgeable brother-in-law who was only too happy and capable of helping out. He provided more information almost immediately than I could have with hours of research. He has been an engineer for over twenty-five years. Basically, after my efforts, it was like telling my sister......"Yeah. What he said." Oh well. My heart was in it.