Christ and Culture

An Incredibly Sad Comment by a Woman Who Had Two Abortions

2011-11-30T00:00:00.001-05:00

Gizmodo is one of the websites that I regularly visit for tech news. It offers a diverse array of stories ranging from reviews of Android apps to humorous videos to futuristic innovations. One of their favorite topics these days is Siri, the intelligent assistant built into the Apple iPhone 4S (as an Android guy, I assure you that blogging about anything related to Apple is quite difficult for me, but I digress). Tonight, as I checked out Gizmodo, I ran across an article entitled, "Is Siri Pro Life? Apparently Yes."

The article went on to detail how numerous reports by users show that Siri lacks the ability to find an abortion clinic when asked. As expected, hundreds of commentators weighed in and by the time I logged on to view the article, the discussion had become a full blown debate on abortion. As I read through the comments, the one below hit me particularly hard. To me, it shows the inherent selfishness of the pro-abortion crowd. And it reveals once again that those who have abortions very often do not do so for altruistic reasons, but for their own well-being. A woman with the moniker VerdantWater posted this:

OK then, I killed a person (actually 2), which is my legal right to do, because I didn't want another human being using my body for 9 months, and possibly hurting or killing me (childbirth is still the number one killer of women worldwide). I stopped something from affecting my health, the ability to do my job, from ruining my psychological life, and I prevented passing along my family's not-so-great genes onto the next generation. And the 'life', which had no consciousness (and I don't believe in souls as an atheist) never even knew it, and it happened in a totally natural way (I used IU486 both times, so exactly like a miscarriage). I'm morally totally fine with that. If you are not, then don't have an abortion, that's fine with me. I could not live with children of my own, nor could I afford it - at 34 I am currently finding a home for my cat because I'm unable to provide adequate care for her.

To whoever said that women who have had an abortion live with it for the rest of their lives - I say yes, and thank goodness I don't have two kids right now. I'm glad for that every single day. Incredibly thankful. If I had to kill two non-conscious, 5-week old balls of DNA that could become people one day, I really have no issue with that.

How sad is that?

Courageous: A Brief Review

2011-11-09T00:41:00.002-05:00

On Sunday night, November 6th, I finally got a chance (thanks to the help of my visiting mother-in-law and grandparents-in-law) to view, with my lovely wife, Courageous, the new movie by Sherwood Pictures. As you probably already know this is the latest installment of motion pictures produced by Sherwood Baptist Church in Albany, GA. With each new release, the studio gets larger, the movies are shown in more theaters, and, as I will show below, the films get better. Courageous represents Sherwood's most ambitious project to date, having clearly spent more money and time on every aspect of the movie. But, before I go and hand over any Oscars, I do have to say that there are some elements that still need improvement. And so here is my brief review of the movie - the good and the bad.

THE GOOD

Courageous is by far the best Christian film I've seen. The storyline, the acting, and the cinematography all far exceeded any previous Christian movie. The Kendrick brothers have certainly progressed as filmmakers and the future of Christian cinema looks brighter.

The storyline was terrific. It was believable, emotional, and heartwarming. Nothing about it seemed contrived or odd. I wasn't forced to suspend reality in order to accept the scenario presented. The conflict and rising action were presented well, there was good character development, and the climax and resolution were complex and believable. Everything at the end wasn't neatly tied with a bow (e.g., the young officer still left trying to reconnect to his long-lost daughter), forcing the viewer to continue to process the movie, long after it ended.
The acting was far better than in previous films and, for the most part, better than most movies labeled "Christian." Alex Kendrick (Adam Mitchell) is clearly maturing as an actor. Ken Bevel (Nathan Hayes) was even better the second time around. T.C. Stallings (T.J.) was terrific and convincing. But the guy who had the best acting chops in the whole film (and probably the most experience) was undoubtedly Rusty Martin, who played Dylan Mitchell, the son of Adam Mitchell (Kendrick), the main character. He didn't have a lot of lines, but he delivered them well and the subtly of his derisive and dismissive looks were perfect. He performed like a real teenager would in the situations of his character.
The cinematography was excellent. The HD format brought out a richness to the film that few other low budget productions are able to emulate. The close-ups and camera angles didn't distract the viewer, but rather accentuated the film and made the emotions even more real. In the shootout scene, the gunfire, the broken glass, the chaos, and even the physical altercations were all accentuated by the filmmaking, leading to heightened senses and racing pulses for the moviegoers.
The message was clear - Biblically-faithful fathers are vital in the lives of their sons and daughters. But it wasn't forced or contrived. The viewer saw struggle, conflict, emotion, victory, and joy, but none of it came without honest heartache and realistic storytelling. Regardless of whether one is a Christian or not, this film leads the male viewer to reassess his character and his role as a father. And in that way the message came through loud and clear.

THE BAD

With any lower budget film, especially those produced by Hollywood outsiders, there are going to be issues. And with any Christian film specifically written to reach a broader audience, there are going to be some elements that appear more secular than sacred. Courageous is no exception to these two rules.

While the acting has certainly improved, it is by no means Oscar-quality. Alex Kendrick, as the main character, was much more believable this time around, but he's still a bit stiff and at times unnatural. Whenever his character attempts humor, it looks forced. He seems much more comfortable with dramatic scenes. And at times, he's very good in those aspects of the film; other times, not so much. I thought Ken Bevel was great again, but there are times when he sounds like he's reading lines instead of actually acting. And, like most films unfortunately, the worst acting comes from the supporting cast. In this case, it was the Latino couple, Javier and Carmen Martinez (played by Robert Amaya and Angelita Nelson). I really wanted to believe in their performance, but it was just too cheesy at times. At other times, it was far too stereotypical, though some of the fault there may lie with the writers. However, having said that, it is true that one of the best scenes in the film (and certainly the funniest) was delivered by Amaya in the back of the patrol car.
The timeline of the film seemed to be completely ignored at times. I couldn't figure out how much time elapsed between the beginning of the film, the tragedy, the signing of the resolution, and the shootout. Sometimes it seemed like the events took place over a series of a few weeks. At other times it seemed like months had passed. Some events took too long to materialize (the young officer's reconnection with his daughter and the Father-Son 5K) and others seemed too short (the young officer's participation in the resolution ceremony, and partner officer's imprisonment). This was certainly a detail to which the filmmakers should have paid more attention.
With any Christian movie, there are sappy elements that fit in better in a low-budget, secular film and Courageous unfortunately contains a couple of these. One such sappy moment is the solo dancing scene at the bank by Adam Mitchell (Kendrick). Other elements often found in Christian movies are the contrived "Evangelism" and "Spiritual Advice" scenes. The presentation of the Gospel by Bevel's character is far too scripted and delivered with too much stiffness. The pastor's advice to Kendrick's character lacks strong Biblical conviction. It's sounds a lot like what a secular hospital chaplain would say. The Bible is merely referenced at times and rarely quoted. As a pastor, I am disappointed that there is not more uniquely Biblical speech in the movie. It often sounds too much like a Hallmark card and not enough like Pilgrim's Progress.

THE CONCLUSION

Despite some glaring problems with the film, I would grade it a B+ or 4.25 stars. It was by far the best Sherwood production and indicates how bright the genre of Christian film is becoming. The message of the movie was presented well and, like any good movie, with strong emotion. I would see this movie again and highly recommend it to any Christian. Men should especially go and see this movie and I pray that its impact is far-reaching in Evangelicalism. Thanks to the Kendrick brothers and Sherwood pictures for producing a film for which Evangelicals can be proud.

Thoughts on the GBC's Younger Leaders' Forum

2011-10-27T16:29:00.007-04:00

On Tuesday of this week, the Georgia Baptist Convention sponsored a forum for pastors and ministers 45 years of age and younger. The purpose of the forum seemed to be to allow younger leaders to voice their concerns to the convention and for the convention to address some of those concerns. There were approximately 120 of these younger leaders gathered together in the same room, along with Dr. Robert White, Executive Director of the GBC, and many of the employees of the GBC.

Without going into much detail about the format of the forum, we essentially divided into groups based on specific concerns that you most wanted to address. Then each table presented their concerns to the entire group and the microphones were opened to allow other leaders and/or Dr. White to respond to and address those particular concerns. After each table presented, there was an open forum with open mic time to deal with anything not brought up previously or to hammer down further on the ones already addressed.

After having attended the meeting, participated in both the presentation and open forum time, and talked with others there, I wanted to offer 5 observations:

1) It was good to meet other younger pastors and ministers who are concerned about some of the same things that I am.

It's always good to know that you aren't alone in how you think. And this forum showed me that there are a number of other guys under 45 years of age who feel exactly as I do when it comes to the GBC and convention life in general. However, it may be disturbing for some to learn at the meeting that pastors aged 45 or younger in the GBC make up only 20% of the total number. That's a tremendous amount of older pastors who will be leaving pulpits in the next 25 years or so only to see those pulpits filled with today's younger pastors. In other words, 80% of the pastors in GBC Churches are halfway to retirement or closer. This fact alone should get the attention of the GBC.

2) Younger Leaders are concerned about money - particularly the use and abuse of Cooperative Fund giving.

We seemed to spend an inordinate amount of time talking about money at the meeting. So much so that when we finally moved on, I tweeted in celebration. Younger leaders want to know that the money they are sending in to the GBC is being put to good use. They are concerned about the $43 million dollar building in Duluth that seems to be a money hog, draining needed resources from ministry and putting them to use in decorating, maintaining, and utilizing a huge structure. In answering the concerns, Dr. White was gracious, but really offered nothing that hadn't already been said before, save one statement in which he did admit that had he known what would have taken place with the economy after the building was built, he never would have supported it. That was helpful, but I don't know if it went far enough to dissuade people from further criticism. More helpful was the comment that what's done is done and we can't sell the building and hope to recuperate enough costs to do any better now. Thus, we should quit complaining and move on to better stewardship in the future. Still, it would have been nice to hear, "We made a mistake in erecting a building this large, this opulent, this unnecessary. We should have done better." Perhaps even, "I wish David Platt would have written Radical and Francis Chan, Crazy Love, before we built the building - it would have saved us a lot of grief knowing how the younger crowd would react later on" (because I think we all know that those two books and individuals probably have done more to influence the under-45 crowd in regards to stewardship that any other books or personalities in the last 50 years).

3) Calvinism was a topic the younger leaders wanted to discuss and deal with, but unfortunately most were disappointed in the lack of response by the GBC representation.

Calvinism came up in the very first presentation. Ric Blazi, who was ~~coerced~~ chosen to speak on the topic, described some older pastors' take on Calvinism as "the great red dragon" who was coming to get them. A question immediately went up on the Twitter feed as to how many people in the room were "Reformed." Wayne Bray, President of the GBC Pastors' Conference and one of the facilitators of the event, stopped and asked the "4+ pointers" to raise their hands so they could see exactly how many identified themselves as Calvinists. To some people's surprise (probably those facilitating and those who were employed by the GBC), easily a little more than half of the younger leaders gathered there raised their hands. There was, however, little to no discussion on the topic during the response time and we moved on quickly to the next set of presentations. Later, I brought the topic up during the open forum time, asking the GBC leadership and other influential pastors and leaders to help tone down the rhetoric against those who identify themselves as Reformed. There was no discussion or response. A final time it was mentioned was in regard to a comment made by Ryan Lyons, an Acts29 Church Planter in Milledgeville, who remarked that he wasn't sure if he and other Acts29 planters were welcome in the GBC. Again, there was little to no discussion. In the end, I think many of the Reformed guys were disappointed that Calvinism wasn't addressed by Dr. White or other GBC facilitators. Obviously, it is a huge concern and a point of contention between younger and older leaders. Yet, it was given less importance than the discussion on money.

4) It was clear that there are many younger leaders who want a say in the Convention and some are just downright frustrated.

It was said at the meeting that 25% of the under-45 pastors in the state participated. That's a pretty good crowd considering that the event was held over lunch on a Tuesday in Duluth (not the best time or place for almost anyone). That shows how much younger people want to be involved in the conversation. And that was clear in the discussions, which were often times passionate (though never disrespectful). Hearing the tone of those of those at my table and during the open mic times led me to believe that many people are frustrated with the GBC and the SBC in general. They want to see change, they want to be a part of the change, but they aren't sure how to get a seat at the table. If anything comes of this meeting, it has to begin by trying to find a way to get more younger leaders to the table of influence in the GBC, which brings me to my last observation:

5) If this meeting is the last one of these, or if nothing is done to intentionally include more younger leaders in the GBC leadership, then it will have been a waste of time.

It was obvious when the meeting was over that we could have gone another couple of hours had we been given the time. Though the event was scheduled to take place over the course of 3 hours, it really felt like it was not nearly enough. The discussions were hurried, the mic time cut short, and in the end much was left unsaid or undealt with. And as one person on Twitter put it, there was no "action plan" given for what should happen next. So this cannot be the end of the younger leaders' forum. If so, then we will have wasted our time. There must be more discussion, more clarification, more opportunities for feedback. After all, within 25 years, this group will move from being 20% to 80% of the GBC. And then they will have all the say in the direction of the Convention. Regardless, this was a good start.

Emir Caner Should Apologize for Tweet: UPDATED!!

2011-05-18T15:31:00.003-04:00

***SEE UPDATE BELOW

On Monday, Dr. Emir Caner, President of Truett-McConnell College in Cleveland, GA took to his iPhone to tap out the following tweet:

The military discovered a large stash of pornography in bin Laden's compound. I was unaware that Islam had its own Acts 29 Network.

It's hard to imagine the president of a Southern Baptist college, which is supported by the Cooperative Program ($1 million a year in fact), would stoop to such levels as to place on his Twitter account such an unChristlike statement.

There has been some reaction and backlash to Caner's tweet, but from my standpoint not enough. I am thankful for Danny Akin's tweet yesterday:

@EmirCaner I love you my brother & I am proud of U in so many ways. You a better man than your bin Laden/Acts 29 tweet.

My hope is that Dr. Caner will recognize his error and how it hurts the Body of Christ and causes division and seek to rectify this wrong by apologizing and removing the tweet from his Twitter page. If you join me in calling Dr. Caner to apologize, please say so in the comments. I hope to direct a trustee or two of Truett-McConnell to my blog tomorrow.

***UPDATE***

This morning, Emir Caner posted the following statement to his blog:

I have come to realize over the past few days that Driscoll's vulgarity is far too serious an issue to simply put out a satirical tweet. While it is easy to find Driscoll crossing the line (see articles by John MacArthur and Cathy Mickels) it should not be likewise with me, and for that I apologize.

Soon after seeing this I was contacted by a few pastors who expressed their displeasure with Caner's statement. While speaking to one such pastor, I was contacted by Mike Dorough, Youth Pastor at Second Baptist Church, Warner Robbins, GA, and current Chairman of the Board of Trustees for Truett-McConnell College. He noted that Emir Caner had asked him to call and hoped that his statement would be sufficient.

I informed Mr. Dorough that no one that I have spoken with was pleased with the statement. Mr. Dorough's words were that it was more than he had expected Dr. Caner to say and that he had spoken to others who felt the statement was sufficient.

After a tense, but (I believe) God-honoring discussion by both of us, we parted ways without any resolution, but (I hope) without any ill feelings. Mr. Dorough is a fine man and I appreciated very much his call to me. However, during the discussion one area of disagreement we had was on whether or not I should have blogged about this incident.

As I indicated to Mr. Dorough, Dr. Caner's original inappropriate tweet was public and thus his call to repentence should be public as well. Mr. Dorough brought up the principle of Matthew 18 - a passage that I believe is very essential for us as Christians to understand. I explained to Mr. Dorough that Matthew 18, when read properly speaks about private sin ("if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone"), not public sin. The two passages that show us how to deal with public sin are Galatians 2 (where Paul confronts Peter publically) and 1 Corinthians 5 (where Paul calls out a couple engaged in sin that is publically known). Again, because Dr. Caner's actions were performed in the public domain, a public call to repentence is necessary.

Now, having read Dr. Caner's statement and his tweet, what do you think about his apology? Is it enough? How might Dr. Caner's statement been more conciliatory and satisfying to his brothers and sisters in Christ that he harmed?

Why Eugene Peterson is Wrong on Rob Bell and Love Wins (Among Other Things)

2011-03-18T14:09:00.010-04:00

While reading up on the recent controversy over Rob Bell's new book, Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived, I came across several in the larger "evangelical" community who are actively defending Rob Bell against his critics (and even against himself). One of the largest names in that group is Eugene Peterson, author of the most popular paraphrase of the Bible, The Message. Peterson is currently Professor Emeritus of Spiritual Theology at Regent College in Vancouver, BC. He is also an accomplished author, with some of his books winning awards and becoming best sellers.

Peterson's defense of Rob Bell started even before there was a controversy. Peterson supplied Bell's publisher, HarperOne, with the following endorsement blurb for Love Wins:

It isn’t easy to develop a biblical imagination that takes in the comprehensive and eternal work of Christ . . . Rob Bell goes a long way in helping us acquire just such an imagination--without a trace of soft sentimentality and without compromising an inch of evangelical conviction.

Recently Peterson spoke to Timothy Dalrymple of patheos about his endorsement and the controversy that has erupted over the book. When asked why Peterson endorsed the book, he said:

Rob Bell and anyone else who is baptized is my brother or my sister. We have different ways of looking at things, but we are all a part of the kingdom of God. And I don’t think that brothers and sisters in the kingdom of God should fight. I think that’s bad family manners.

I don’t agree with everything Rob Bell says. But I think they’re worth saying. I think he puts a voice into the whole evangelical world which, if people will listen to it, will put you on your guard against judging people too quickly, making rapid dogmatic judgments on people. I don’t like it when people use hell and the wrath of God as weaponry against one another.

I knew that people would jump on me for writing the endorsement. I wrote the endorsement because I would like people to listen to him. He may not be right. But he’s doing something worth doing. There’s so much polarization in the evangelical church that it’s a true scandal. We’ve got to learn how to talk to each other and listen to each other in a civil way.

There is much in Peterson's statement with which we could disagree. In fact, I would disagree with almost all of it. But I think it reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how we as believers are taught to confront error in the Bible. Before I get there, Peterson was asked the follow-up question, "Do evangelicals need to reexamine our doctrines of hell and damnation?" and he replied:

Yes, I guess I do think they ought to reexamine. They ought to be a good bit more biblical, not taking things out of context.

But the people who are against Rob Bell are not going to reexamine anything. They have a litmus test for who is a Christian and who is not. But that’s not what it means to live in community.

Luther said that we should read the entire Bible in terms of what drives toward Christ. Everything has to be interpreted through Christ. Well, if you do that, you’re going to end up with this religion of grace and forgiveness. The only people Jesus threatens are the Pharisees. But everybody else gets pretty generous treatment. There’s very little Christ, very little Jesus, in these people who are fighting Rob Bell.

Again, Peterson sounds like a man who both doesn't understand the significance of the Doctrine of Hell and hasn't read the parts of the Bible where false doctrine is confronted and condemned. And interestingly he includes in his defense against arguments in the Church a quote by Martin Luther, a man who saw no small amount of criticism levied against him for his overly sharp tongue.

Let's take a minute here, though, and examine what Peterson actually says about Bell and about the criticism directed towards him. First, he starts out by saying, "Rob Bell and anyone else who is baptized is my brother or my sister." Now, I am going to give Peterson the benefit of the doubt here and assume that he is referring to the "baptism of the Holy Spirit" (i.e., regeneration through the gift of the Holy Spirit). I shudder to think that Peterson would believe that the act of baptism either saves or confirms that one is truly a born-again believer of Jesus Christ.

But then he builds on that statement and claims that he doesn't "think that brothers and sisters in the kingdom of God should fight", that doing so is to practice "bad family manners." I hate to tell Peterson this, but Jesus argued with His disciples. Paul argued with Peter. The Apostles argued with one another at the Council of Jerusalem. Members of the Kingdom argue. And often times it is quite beneficial. In Church History, debate has not always been kind, but very often it has been healthy. To claim that we shouldn't argue over doctrine because it's "bad family manners" is Biblically and historically ignorant.

Peterson adds further down, "I don’t like it when people use hell and the wrath of God as weaponry against one another." I agree wholeheartedly with Peterson here, but is this really what is happening? Are people using the issues over the Doctrine of Hell as weapons against Bell? Of course not! In the ironic words of Billy Joel, "we didn't start the fire". The Doctrine of Hell has invoked heated arguments in the Church for centuries. And Bell threw himself into the line of fire by writing a book which advocates for a position against the one universally agreed upon by the Church for 2000 years. "Hell and the wrath of God" isn't a weapon being wielded against Bell, but rather are the objects of the firestorm that Bell ignited by writing a book on these subjects.

Now, from there I believe Peterson's words better represent a man who hasn't read the Bible, not one who wrote a bestselling paraphrase of the Bible and who taught classes on the Word of God and spirituality for decades. Two statements Peterson makes lead me to this criticism. First, he says, "...the people who are against Rob Bell are not going to reexamine anything. They have a litmus test for who is a Christian and who is not. But that’s not what it means to live in community." Then he says, "The only people Jesus threatens are the Pharisees. But everybody else gets pretty generous treatment. There’s very little Christ, very little Jesus, in these people who are fighting Rob Bell."

Has Peterson read Galatians lately? How about 1 John? Maybe he needs to reread the Gospels, particularly John 8. And heaven forbid he stumbles upon 1 Corinthians 5 or Matthew 18, where confrontation is not only spoken of, but encouraged by both Paul and Jesus, respectively.

Both Paul and John advocate for litmus tests for Christians. Jesus, Himself, does the same thing. Living in community means precisely that we confront one another for not only sin, but false doctrine as well. Paul tells the Corinthians to cast people out of the community for sin and in Galatians he pronounces curses on those who advocate for a different Gospel. And I'm guessing that all of those he was speaking of were probably thought to have been baptized by the Holy Spirit. The fruit of their actions and beliefs, however, communicated otherwise.

Finally, Peterson saves his most damning words for the end. He claims that that the "only people Jesus threatens are the Pharisees" and based on that he concludes that "there's very little Jesus, in these people who are fighting Rob Bell." Not only is Peterson making a huge assumption about the spiritual lives of those "who are fighting Rob Bell" (notice how Peterson personalizes it, instead of relegating it to theological debate), but he is also completely wrong about Jesus.

In John 7:45, prior to the passage on the adulterous woman, we see that Jesus is speaking to the Chief Priests and the Pharisees. After v.11 of Chapter 8, Jesus picks up his conversation with the Jews (many have rightly concluded that 7:52-8:11 is out of place here in John and is not original to this Gospel, but rather represents good oral tradition which eventually found a home here). But in v.21, it appears that Jesus' conversation with the Pharisees is overheard by other Jews and they begin to talk among themselves in v.22. Jesus answers these Jews in v.23. Then further down in v.31, John identifies another group to whom Jesus is speaking as "the Jews who had believed in Him." Peterson identifies these in his Message as, "the Jews who had claimed to believe in Him."

Jesus then begins to speak to these Jews and they don't seem to like what He's saying. By the time the conversation is over, Jesus has told them that they are not children of Abraham or children of God, but rather they are children of their father, the devil. In v.47, Jesus says, "Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God." Now, I don't know about you, but it seems clear her that Peterson's claim that "the only people Jesus threatens are the Pharisees" is not only terribly incorrect, but a false basis for his further claim that "there’s very little Christ, very little Jesus, in these people who are fighting Rob Bell."

I've always respected Eugene Peterson, but in this case he's wrong. He's wrong on Rob Bell, he's wrong on the significance of the Doctrine of Hell, he's wrong on how to live in community, and more importantly, he's wrong on Jesus and on what the Bible teaches about confronting those teaching false doctrine. I get why Peterson doesn't like controversy in the Church and why he believes it is "bad family manners". None of us find it comfortable to confront sin or enjoyable to correct false teaching. But unfortunately, Peterson's attitude doesn't line up with the Bible and consequently it is him and not Bell's critics in whom one can find "very little Jesus."

The Holy Spirit and the Exclusivity of the Gospel

2011-03-15T00:33:00.003-04:00

Unless you have been away from the Christian blogosphere for the last month, you are probably aware of the rampant controversy surrounding Rob Bell's most recent book, Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived, which was released today. In response to the book, which seems to advocate for inclusivism or even universalism in regards to the salvation of those who do not actively place their faith in Jesus Christ, it seems appropriate to consider the historic, orthodox position of the Church - exclusivism.

According to Theopedia, exclusivism "refers to the fact that orthodox Christian doctrine maintains only faith in the Jesus Christ of the Bible leads to salvation or heaven. Christianity is exclusive in that its teachings indicate that the faith of other sects or religions will not lead to eternal life; or in other words, that Jesus Christ is the only true way to God."

Exclusivism is a doctrine that has no shortage of credible defenses. It is not my goal to rehash the numerous arguments that have been made which seem to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Bible teaches an exclusive position on salvation. Instead, I want to point out one specific argument that is rarely considered, but is significant because of its Trinitarian focus.

Very often the contemporary Evangelical Church speaks of salvation only in terms of the work of Jesus Christ. Jesus is said to have propitiated the wrath of God through His substitutionary work on the Cross. Every once in a while, you might actually hear talk of Christ's active obedience in securing the perfect righteousness which is imputed to us (credited to our account). But much less often do we speak of the work of the Holy Spirit in salvation.

So what exactly is the Spirit's role in redemption? Well, first we must recognize that the Spirit has placed Himself in subjection to both the Father and the Son. John tells us that the Holy Spirit is sent by the Father and by the Son in the name of the Son and that He does whatever He is told to do and says whatever He is told to say. In this way, the Holy Spirit acts as a sort of ambassador for the King and His Son. He is co-equal with these Regents, but His role is to work in the world. And as an ambassador, it is His job to point back to Those from whom He is sent, namely the Father and Son. Regarding the Spirit's work, Jesus says:

And when [the Holy Spirit] comes, He will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment: concerning sin, because they do not believe in Me; concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see Me no longer; concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged. I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all the truth, for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak, and He will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take what is Mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is Mine; therefore I said that He will take what is mine and declare it to you (John 16:8-15, ESV).

Here Jesus says several things about the work of the Spirit in salvation. First, He convicts of sin. This is the first action wrought in the believer. Salvation does not come without conviction of sin. Those who are poor in spirit understand that conviction. And notice that the sin directly relates to their unbelief in Christ. So not only does the believer get convicted of sin, but of unbelief in Christ. Then the Holy Spirit guides the believer into truth and glorifies Christ. Finally, He discloses the Father's will and Christ's words and deeds to the believer so that He might be sanctified, another act of the Holy Spirit.

Now, those who believe in a salvation for people who do not confess Christ as Lord, they have no outs here. There is nothing in this text or any other that suggest that the Holy Spirit works apart from Christ and glorifies God without glorifying Christ. Both Father and Son are uplifted by the Spirit. Further, the Spirit brings life. He is the one who applies the work of salvation to the believer. Thus He only applies it by means of the formula given by Peter in Acts 2:38, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (ESV). The Holy Spirit can only apply the work of salvation to those who by faith acknowledge the Lordship of Christ. Otherwise, He would be working outside of His jurisdiction and thus be making Christ a liar and usurping His subordinate role. Furthermore, the Holy Spirit would be denying Christ His due glory -- the glory due His name, the name at which all men will bow.

So, what we have here is a thoroughly Biblical argument which once again ends in the exclusivity of the Gospel call. No one can be saved apart from the work of the Holy Spirit. No one can inherit eternal life without the righteousness of Christ. And the Holy Spirit cannot give anyone that righteousness anonymously. He must do it as every good ambassador does, by means of His King, the One who sent Him. In this case, it is Jesus Christ, the Son of the Living God.

As Rob Bell's book appears, let's pray that the Holy Spirit continues to glorify Christ by reminding us of the truth that He has communicated for 2000 years - the truth that He inspired Peter to communicate in Acts 4:12:

...there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.

Show Me "More Friday Funnies"!! - Family Feud Edition

2010-10-15T10:50:00.003-04:00

Despite the recent, ridiculous controversy over a previous segment of Friday Funnies, I am still determined to make the few readers I have left laugh out loud. Here is a great clip of the old Game Show, Family Feud, where Richard Dawson absolutely loses it at the response of one of the contestants. Enjoy.

A Life Shaped by Books

2010-10-06T14:55:00.001-04:00

Last week at SBC Voices, Dave Miller asked the question, "What are the books that have formed your views on ministry or have helped you to be more effective in what you do?" The Title of the post was "Books that Shaped My Life and Ministry." Taking those two together, I essentially posted on the books that have shaped me as a person and therefore as a minister. As I said in the comments, "There are a lot of books I could include in my top 5, but as far as shaping my life and ministry, there are very few." Here are some that came to mind in no specific order:

1) God Came Near by Max Lucado - this book is what actually got me into reading Christian books on my own, without being forced to because of some teacher. Though today it wouldn't be considered one of my favorite books, it certainly started me down the path of reading Christian Living books.

2) Desiring God by John Piper - Piper opened by eyes to how theology truth could profoundly affect me both emotionally and spiritually. His concept of "Christian Hedonism" showed me how I could pursue happiness by pursuing God.

3) A combination of The Gospel According to Jesus by John MacArthur, The Race Set Before Us by Tom Schriener and Ardel Canaday, and Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners by John Bunyan - Starting with MacArthur's book, during my time just after seminary, I started to understand what salvation was actually supposed to look like and how our behaviors should affect how we perceive our perseverance and assurance.

4) Systematic Theology by Wayne Grudem - This book, combined with the 2 theology courses I took under Dr. Stan Norman at NOBTS led me to inerrancy and a deep love for theology. It also drew me away from Dispensationalism. I think it is probably the best basic, Baptist Systematic ever written.

5) Power in the Pulpit by Jerry Vines and Jim Shaddix - This book, combined with the "Proclaiming the Bible" class I took with Dr. Shaddix at NOBTS is essentially how I was taught to preach. I refer to it often and the method is deeply inscribed in my preparation each week, though I am not nearly as organized in presentation as Shaddix or Vines advocate.

There are so many more I could list that have had big influences on me like, The Pursuit of God by Tozer, Knowing God by Packer, Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood by Piper/Grudem, Fresh Wind, Fresh Fire by Cymbala and Brothers, We are Not Professionals by Piper. Recently, I can say that Father, Son, & Holy Spirit: Relationships, Roles, & Relevance by Bruce Ware has been extremely impactful to my ministry.

What books have shaped your life and ministry?

Lottie Moon Christmas Offering: Ideas to Up Your Small Church Giving

2010-10-04T00:56:00.000-04:00

As a small Church pastor, sometimes I am overwhelmed by the need that I see around the world and the lack of resources that my Church has to offer. I want to lead my Church to give as much as possible to international missions (IMB - Lottie Moon), domestic missions (NAMB - Annie Armstrong, hunger relief (World Hunger & Relief Fund), child evangelism (Samaritan's Purse - Operation Christmas Child), and tons of local ministries like food banks, shelters, clothes closets, battered women's shelters, and alcohol and drug rehabilitation ministries. In short, there is so much need, but few resources in a small Church like ours.

Out of all of those, by far our largest offering each year is the Lottie Moon Christian Offering, which goes to support international missions through the IMB of the Southern Baptist Convention. Over the past two years, our giving to LMCO has more than doubled previous years' offerings. During my first year as pastor in 2008, we gave over $2500, an amount close to $50 per active member. Last year (2009), our Church gave almost $4300, which is over $80 per active member.

So how did we do it? How did we raise our giving by $30 per active member? Quite simply, we did one simple fundraiser - A YARD SALE! That's right. All we did is hold a Church-wide yard sale on the property. That sale, combined with a small benevolence offering, took in over $1700. That's almost as much as we gave in personal offerings!

This past Saturday we held our yard sale for this year. It was another successful year. Despite not being listed in the local paper (which was the paper's fault, not ours), we still raised over $700, which is 25% of our offering goal. So in essence, due to a simple 5-hour yard sale, our giving is going to be 25% higher than our simple offering contribution.

Another way we plan on upping our giving by an additional 10-15% is through what we call the "Lottie Moon Post Office". In a small Church like ours, everyone sends Christmas cards to everyone else in the Church. Instead of sending them through the mail and paying the Post Office 44 cents per card, we give 50 cents per card to our youth group members, who then deliver the cards before our worship service on Sunday mornings during the month of December. We estimate that this year we will raise some $300-400 more through the "Lottie Moon Post Office."

I hope that if you are a small Church pastor (or even a member of a small Church), these suggestions will help you to raise your international missions giving this year. If every small church our size raised just $700 through a yard sale and/or a "Lottie Moon Post Office", then our giving over last years total Lottie Moon Christmas Offering would be $17.6 million. That's an incredible amount of ministry that could be done simply by selling our unnecessary junk and sending Christmas cards to one another.

If you're a pastor or a member of a small Church, let me know what other programs have worked in your Church, which have fueled your Lottie Moon giving to new heights.

Ergun Caner Agrees with Kevin Ezell on Bloggers in the Basement

2010-09-29T13:35:00.002-04:00

In recent days, Kevin Ezell, the new President of the North American Mission Board, came under attack for comments he made to his congregation about bloggers. The Associated Baptist Press first reported the statement Ezell made to his congregation prior to his election as NAMB President. Ezell told Highview Baptist Church:

Because of the visibility of the position, there are people across the United States who want to look for things that perhaps I do not do as well or they think we should do different, and perhaps be critical of myself or of Highview, just to try to get their name in the paper,” he said. “Typically those are bloggers who live with their mother and wear a housecoat during the day. Just ignore them, but I apologize if you are hurt by anything that they might say about me or indirectly about you.

Quickly the news spread and was picked up by SBC Voices where he was criticized by blogger Dave Miller and many of his readers. Additionally, other Southern Baptist bloggers like Peter Lumpkins and Wade Burleson blasted Ezell for his words as well. On Monday, September 27th, James R. White of Alpha & Omega Ministries posted a video regarding recent comments of a similar nature made by Ergun Caner, the former President of Liberty Theological Seminary who was removed from his position earlier this year for what a Liberty University investigative committee called "factual statements that are self-contradictory." White referenced David McGee's article published by the Media General News Service on September 25th, entitled, "Caner Defends Background in Bristol Speech", in which Ergun Caner, speaking after his appearance at Bristol’s (VA.) 12th annual prayer breakfast at the Holiday Inn Hotel & Suites, made the following statement regarding bloggers:

We saw it (controversy) coming. My brothers and I have been dealing with it for years. This just happened to bounce big, and I paid no attention. News means little to me, and the Web is — well, bloggers for the most part — are just frustrated people in their basements.

With Kevin Ezell being roundly criticized by many in the Baptist Identity camp, will these same men and women, who previously backed Caner during the height of his controversy, now in turn criticize him for the essentially same comments? Will this even make news in Southern Baptist circles? Only time will tell. Meanwhile, I've got to get out of the basement - I have ministry to do.

ANNOUNCEMENT: Debate with Wade Burleson on Complementarianism v. Egalitarianism - SBC Annual Meeting 2012

2010-09-27T16:37:00.000-04:00

In recent days I have found myself fed up with constant attacks against the clear Biblical teaching that God designed men and women with distinct roles in mind for each to fulfill in both the home and in the Church. For 2000 years, the Holy Spirit has illuminated texts like Ephesians 5 and 1 Timothy 2 consistently to reveal that God intends that men and women to take on different roles and created them to do just that.

But, let's face it - the culture has changed (or at least it has in America). Increasingly, Christians have begun to eschew their fidelity to Scripture in favor of adopting cultural mandates in regard to gender roles. They have even radically reinterpreted passages, with no historical or exegetical precedent in order to render them incapable of providing the very clear instructions God gave us through the Biblical writers by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

In light of this assault on Biblical truth, I have decided that enough is enough and challenged one of the most vocal critics of the Biblical position to step out from behind his keyboard and debate me publicly on the main Scriptures which those who hold to the traditional position (known popularly as the Complementarianism) find the most compelling.

Wade Burleson, Southern Baptist pastor of Emmanuel Baptist Church in Enid, OK and owner and operator of the very popular Baptist blog, Grace and Truth to You, in both public and private correspondence has accepted the challenge and agreed to debate me on Complementarianism v. Egalitarianism at the Annual Meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention in 2012, which will be held in New Orleans, LA. In the coming weeks I hope to secure an organization to sponsor and a venue to host the event. Check back for more details.

My hope is that through this debate the Word of God will be illuminated, the Glory of God magnified, and the design of God's creation celebrated.

Prosperity Gospel in the News Again

2009-08-18T13:35:00.001-04:00

The "Prosperity Gospel" is in the news again, with an article in the New York Times about the recent Southwest Believers' Convention held in Fort Worth, TX, August 3rd through the 8th. As you may know, I am absolutely no fan of the "Prosperity Gospel", as I believe it is another gospel, that is really no gospel at all. In fact, I love this video produced by Desiring God Ministries (John Piper) a few years back

For those of you who are interested, Albert Mohler has a good commentary on this event, and the "Prosperity Gospel" as a whole. This is something that I believe that my moderate and liberal friends and I can agree on - the "Prosperity Gospel" is dangerous and tragic and should be opposed by all of God's people.

Another Edition of the Friday Funnies

2009-07-31T14:30:00.002-04:00

I know I promised more posts, but so far, I have been unable to deliver. Thankfully, the Friday Funnies are still in gear, and here is yet another edition. Inspired by the recent grandstanding of former President Jimmy Carter, who once again resigned from the Southern Baptist Convention (hadn't he already done that? And hasn't he figured it out by now that you can't "resign" from the denomination, especially when you remain a member of an SBC Church?) over the issue of the SBC's stance on female roles in the Church and home, I thought some Jerry Clower would cheer all of us up, particularly his meeting with "The She-Coon of Women's Lib". **See my comments below for clarification on the term "she-coon".**

**Though I published this post over a year ago with no controversy whatsoever, in recent days I have come under attack from some bloggers who claim that the term "she-coon" is an obvious racial slur. However, this viewpoint is far from legitimate reality. First, the term "she-coon" is itself a Southern colloquialism which refers to a woman who is in charge and at times dominate. Like a mother raccoon, she is willing to attack when necessary. While this term is as common today as it was in the past, it is nonetheless, still used. You can find it used by a female journalist in this article and a male journalist here (both of which are in reference to Janet Reno). If the term was such an obvious racial slur, then neither article would have made it past the copy editor and certainly someone would have made a stink about it by now. Finally, there is the issue of who exactly Clower was speaking of when he used the term. Here is an article by Darrell Huckaby where he claims that the person in question is no other than Gloria Steinem, certainly the dominate woman in charge of the women's liberation movement. Thus, there is no sensible reason to conclude that Jerry Clower's use of this term was in any way meant to be a racist slur.**

The Triumphant Return of the Friday Funnies

2009-07-18T01:43:00.007-04:00

I got a bit distracted Friday and didn't have a chance to post this, but I wanted to pick back up on a tradition that I started way back when - the Friday Funnies. Everybody back then seemed to be a photographer, and I wasn't. They had cool Friday pictures that had awesome names like "The Friday Foto" or "Phriday Photos". I was jealous, so I started the Friday Funnnies - after all I needed some more humor in my life. I still do, especially after some of the recent conversations I have had on other blogs. But enough of that. Without further ado, I give you another installment of the Friday Funnies:

A New Church Website Means I Have to Get Back to Blogging

2009-07-15T15:19:00.002-04:00

You've heard it before. I'm going to start blogging again. Did you see the last time I posted? It was over a year ago! But, recent developments in the Southern Baptist Convention, controversies over theological positions that long ago should have been settled, and the fact that our Church is now fully exposed on the internet, have led me to want to come back to the keyboard and punch out some more of my thoughts - even if no one is listening anymore.

One reason I want to do this is in hopes that some of the members of my congregation will begin to catch a vision for a greater Evangelical purpose and see themselves as part of a national and, more importantly, global network of Christians seeking to glorify and exalt the name of Christ.

Internet hot-spots like Facebook and Twitter present opportunities for Christians to put their best feet forward in regards to the Gospel and Orthodox Theology. More than ever we need each other to counteract the vast influences of both the secular culture and the insulated Christian community (read "Suburban, middle-class, Republican, disengaged, self-focused, and man-centered"). Pointing my people, as well as those I encounter from my past and present on Facebook, toward Gospel-centered, Christ-exalting, globally-focused ministries and tools helps us as a universal Christian community grow together in unity and move ever more swiftly in the direction of glorifying God to the ends of the Earth.

I have never been more optimistic about the present effectiveness of the Gospel's influence and the Holy Spirit's power than I am right now. Revival is coming and I want to be a part of that, even if it means the Church down the street grows, but ours doesn't. If we just become a more generous, Christ-centered, and spiritually mature congregation, then I will count my ministry a success. Far too often, we get wrapped up in what God is doing (or not doing) visibly in our own Church and forget that it's not about us, it's about His glory. So if my blog can be used to point those who may read it toward the encouragement and optimism that I have experienced over these past few months, then it is effective. And that's really all I can ask - to be effective in actively glorifying Christ and bringing His Kingdom to bear on the Earth.

So check out our new Church website and listen to some of these guys' sermons:

Cleveland Road Baptist Church
David Platt
Francis Chan
John Piper

The Gospel and Jeremiah Wright

2008-04-30T12:15:00.000-04:00

I have avoided speaking about Barack Obama's former pastor at Trinity United Church of Christ, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, for about as long as possible. There are a number of reasons for this. Foremost among them is the irritation I have felt in seeing political pundits and news personalities (most of them unbelievers), attacking a pastor for view he expressed from a pulpit in a church. Now, don't get me wrong. I disagree heartily with what the man said, whether or not it was taken out of context. But I am very uncomfortable with a pastor being criticized publicly for his views by those outside of the faith. And yet, this has become the norm in the U.S. these days - and that worries me a great deal.

I recently wrote a comment on another man's blog about the criticism being heaped upon Wright (and consequently, Barack Obama), and pointed out that, while I am disgusted by the media's treatment of Rev. Wright, I do believe there are some upsides to the controversy, namely that it puts a spotlight on the inherent problems of Liberation Theology and its influence in the African-American church. I don't have the time, nor the patience (or really the education) to dive deeply into Liberation Theology, so let me offer a few links for further study:

An article, "What is Liberation Theology?" at GotQuestions.org
An interview with Eric Redmond, an African American Pastor in Maryland, by Albert Mohler
A partial transcript of that interview at Townhall.com entitled, "Is Jeremiah Wright Mainstream?"
Eric Redmond's post, "Jeremiah Wright’s BLT" (Black Liberation Theology), on his blog, A Man From Issachar

Suffice to say, the problems of Liberation Theology are vast, and they are a stumbling block to the gospel. As one commenter at Townhall.com wrote:

Liberation theology creates further division.
Liberation theology counters racism with racism.
Liberation theology is man-made and runs perpendicular to the gospel.
Liberation theology is no gospel at all.

I would agree with this assessment. And since Rev. Wright resurfaced a few days ago and today was blasted by Barack Obama for remarks he made at the National Press Club Monday in Washington, I have been thinking even more about Wright and his theology. As I was considering this, I stumbled across Warren Kelly's post on Wright at his blog View From The Pew. Kelly discusses Wright's answer to a question posed to him by a moderator after his speech at the National Press Club on Monday. The moderator stated, "Jesus said, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man cometh unto the father but through me.'" Then the moderator asked, "Do you believe this? And do you think Islam is a way to salvation?" Wright replied simply, "Jesus also said, 'Other sheep have I who are not of this fold,'" seeming to indicate that indeed Muslims and those of other religions would inherit eternal life apart from a personal relationship with Christ. Sadly, applause followed his comment. Kelly noted,

Wright had what I call an Osteen moment. He had the chance to share the Gospel in front of millions. Not only that, but he had the chance to calm the fears of evangelical Christians that his church was somehow not really a Christian church. He could have done so much, but he decided not to.

He then wisely observed that, "Jeremiah Wright did to Jesus exactly what the news media have been doing to him -- taken [sic] a part of a sermon, quoted it out of context, and made it sound like something that wasn't intended."

Denny Burk, Assistant Professor of New Testament at Criswell College in Dallas, Texas. and blogger extraordinaire picked up on the story as well and explains what Jesus was actually referring to in John chapter 10:

When Jesus says that he has “other sheep who are not of this fold,” it’s likely that he is referring to Gentiles who would later come to faith in Christ. The sheep that are following Him at that point in the narrative are Jews, but Jesus aims to have followers from among the Gentiles as well. Whoever the “other sheep” are understood to be, they nevertheless have the characteristics of “sheep.” They listen to and follow Christ, and they are saved only by Him.

Additionally, he points out that, "To say that 'other sheep' refers to unbelievers (or followers of Islam in Reverend Wright’s case) simply runs roughshod over the plain meaning of the passage."

So, as I noted to the other blogger in my comments referred to at the start of this post, Jeremiah Wright's pulpit rhetoric doesn't really bother me - it's his misunderstanding of the Gospel and disregard for the fundamentals of the faith that worry me.

Another Inappropriate Response to Earth Day

2008-04-23T04:05:00.000-04:00

In my last post, I noted two inappropriate ways to respond to Earth Day. Ethics Daily yesterday gave us yet another inappropriate way to respond to the environment - TheGreenBible.org. This is from the article announcing it:

The site, from Baptist Center for Ethics and EthicsDaily.com, is a warehouse of information on the biblical mandate to care for the environment--and what people of faith can and should do.

"The Bible is God's green book," Parham said. "The green Bible gives us the responsibility to guard the garden. The green Bible calls us to love our neighbors. And my friends the only way we can love our neighbors across time is to leave them a decent place to live."

Did you catch that last sentence? "[T]he only way can love our neighbors across time is to leave them a decent place to live." I beg to differ. The way we love our neighbors across time is not by refocusing all of the Gospel on a social directive aimed at combating the supposed effects of "global warming." It is by making sure that we hand off the Gospel to each generation - by being dilligent to preach the same Gospel that the apostles, the Early Church Fathers, and men like Wycliffe, Hus, Knox, Luther, Calvin, Owen, Fuller, Spurgeon, and Graham preached. For in that way, we truly love our neighbor. Seriously? What does it profit a generation to save the planet, yet not preserve the very thing that could save men's souls? Our goal is ultimately not to save a dying planet, but to glorify God through preaching the glorious Gospel that Christ came in human flesh, died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and was raised on the third day. That, my friends, is how we love our neighbors across time.

HT: the big daddy weave

A Christian Response to Earth Day

2008-04-22T04:23:00.000-04:00

Since today is Earth Day 2008, I felt compelled to post to post a response from a Christian worldview. After all, the original purpose of this blog was to respond to a post-Christian world with a uniquely Christian viewpoint. And it seems that nothing dominates this culture's attention these days than does the phenomenon of Green. Environmentalism has become a new religion, a new way for individuals to feel as though they are a part of something larger than themselves and thus inflict change upon a society that seems stagnant at times.

I want to begin, however, not with how I believe Christians should respond to Earth Day, but rather how they should not. There are two extremes which clearly should be avoided.

1) We must avoid becoming obsessed with environmental aims. Not long ago I saw an article praising a youth Disciple Now weekend in which the theme was "Go Green." The author (a speaker at the event) noted that "the curriculum allows students to explore why the environment is important and what they can (and should) do about it." Disciple Now events often have a huge impact on a youth group and many result in revivals in the lives of the youth who participate. Yet, this church chose to focus not on the Gospel, but on the environment. This is a tragedy and an inappropriate response to environmental concerns. We have to remember that this world we live in, while it is under our charge, is ultimately passing away. We should expect that it will deteriorate and ultimately be destroyed. Romans 8:19-23 speaks to this reality.

For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.

2) The opposite response, while not as dangerous, is also inappropriate. That response is apathy, or even contempt, for environmental issues. A friend recently told me of his mega-church pastor who declared before his congregation - in response to the idea of global warming - that because such was false, we should gleefully turn on every light in our household and to be as wasteful as we desire. He claimed that Jesus was coming back soon anyway, so why worry about the environment? After all, a new heaven and a new earth is soon to appear! There are many problems with this response. Besides the fact that it is built upon a false eschatological view, the greater problem is that it does not take seriously our God-given responsibility to rule and reign over the Earth. We are called to be good stewards of all that is within our realm of responsibility. And certainly the Earth is one of those things. Another problem is that our excesses often causes others' insufficiency. I believe we are beginning to see the fruit of that in current food shortages.

So what should our response be?

1) We should reject the cult of environmentalism and not be swayed by the so-called "science" that seems to change daily. We should not place our faith in charts, weather patterns, or biofuels. Our faith firmly rests on Jesus Christ. He is not surprised by what has happened in our world. In fact, He is sovereignly in control. He alone controls the weather, the amount of radiation emanating from the sun (which actually was determined thousands of years ago), and technologies which either alleviate or add to our sufferings. Additionally, we must remember that our stewardship of this earth is not our ultimate command, nor even our penultimate one. No, we are called to be like Christ, who said nothing of taking care of the earth. His concern was that we glorify Him by being holy, loving His children, and pointing others to Him. To the extent that caring for the environment does these things, we should be involved. When it distracts us from our central message we should refrain from emphasizing it.

2) We should do what we can to insure we are indeed fulfilling our duty to attend to the creation placed in our care. That involves conservation by using our recycling bins and reducing our use of resources. We must be mindful that overuse causes a burden on others. I can't imagine that mega-church pastor preaching to the people of my congregation in Georgia that they should use as much water as they want and not worry - after all Jesus is coming soon! (For those who do not know, last year Georgia had a drought so severe that some places were forced to ration water so the supply did not completely run out.) In such cases, it is the poor who suffer the worst, since they have less resources from which to draw help. Imagine if this country experienced a famine, or energy crisis, or widespread water shortage. The impact would be massive on the poor. As the people of God we are charged to remember the poor - alleviate their suffering and prevent them from being burden.

Thus, by watching our lifestyles and taking steps to protect our world, we can fulfill God's call without losing our focus and hindering the work of the Gospel. So here are five practical ways we can make an impact on the Earth while being fixated on Christ:

1) Replace your incandescent bulbs with CFL's. This will not only lower your electricity bills, it will also lessen the load on your power grid. If whole churches did this, they could save thousands a year and make a huge impact on our energy needs.
2) Recycle. This is an easy one for most of you. All it takes is placing your recyclable items in a specific bin and placing it outside of your home with the rest of your garbage. For others, it may mean driving a short distance. But, if more did this we could lower the cost of oil-based products, and possibly oil itself, which would lessen strain on families struggling with the current fuel costs.
3) Adjust your water heater or replace it. Lowering your water heater setting to "warm" can save hundreds of dollars a year. Also, consider wrapping your heater with an insulated blanket. For more savings, replace your gas water heater with a tankless one. These cost upwards of $2000, but a federal tax credit is available for it. Finally, for the truly adventurous, you can build your own solar water heater for a few hundred dollars. Not only will you save money, but you may help alleviate the current oil shortage (which may last a long time).
4) Weather-proof your home. This is a practical, inexpensive solution that can save you hundreds of dollars a year. Weather-stripping is relatively cheap and there are plenty of guides on the internet as to how and where to apply it.
5) Purchase and use a programmable thermostat. Costs range from $40-200, but the Energy Star website claims that when properly used you can save up to $150 a year. And again, by using less energy you can lessen the burden on others.

Hopefully, this was helpful and challenged you as a Christian to take care of creation and alleviate suffering without feeling as though you have to accept the theory of global warming (which I, by the way, do not), or worship at the altar of environmentalism.

Together for the Gospel Reflections

2008-04-18T22:16:00.000-04:00

Words cannot express how grateful I am that I could be a part of the Together for the Gospel 2008 Conference (Listen to all the messages here). It was truly a life-changing experience. And that's not because of some sort of spiritual high I felt, nor was it due to some commitment I made or remade. No, it was because through T4G, God touched not only my heart, but especially my head. There are so many things I came to understand intellectually during the conference that it would be hard to write them all down, or even to understand their significance at this time. But what I want to do is highlight just a few things that I came to conclude during this conference and why these things are important and will continue to be so in my life and ministry. Bear in mind that these thoughts are in no particular order (I'm not sure that I could place any measure of priority on them even if I tried).

Theology changes and shapes men's hearts. Reading and understanding theology has always brought me into a closer relationship with God, but I always felt as though I was unique in that way. Now, that's not to say that I believed I was the only one like this, but rather that there just weren't many of us. After worshipping with over 5,000 other believers and seeing the difference in the passions displayed in corporate musical expression before the messages of the speakers and then afterwards, it seems crystal clear that the idea that theological truth stirs the affections is much more universal that I had once thought. Thus, it leads me to conclude that the more deep theological truth is conveyed in the pulpit, the more likely our churches are going to have believers in them whose hearts are stirred, who minds are altered, and whose lives are changed.

Worship should seek to connect the heart with what the mind has just encountered. This builds upon my first observation and acknowledges that when men and women properly understand God they naturally desire to express their appreciation to Him. After the proclamation of the Word of God at T4G, it was evident that those men and women gathered there were mentally affected and had a desire to express it. I think this is a highly neglected arena of worship. While I was a member of Pontchartrain Baptist Church in New Orleans we revamped the worship services and placed the preaching of the Word early on in the service. Then at the point of the invitation, the call was expanded to everyone to respond to the Word that had been preached. That doesn't sound all that groundbreaking (and in reality it wasn't), but it did have a profound effect on how I viewed the invitation time, and I think it allowed those in attendance to express themselves in worship in ways that couldn't have been done otherwise. After all, once the Word has been preached on most occasions (if we are honest), we simply start thinking about lunch, not more about God.

Where the emphasis is on Christ, fellowship with believers is sweet, refreshing, and necessary. Being a shy individual and often an introvert, I was a bit intimidated going to T4G by myself. Sure, I had friends I would be meeting there, but that's an awful lot of people gathered in one place, especially when you consider that a great many of them are larger than life figures whom I greatly respect as men of God. That said, it was interesting to see how the emphasis wasn't on big personalities, but rather on our Big God. Conversations didn't center on how good the messages were, but rather on the importance of the doctrines presented to our churches. And I didn't leave being impressed by great men, but rather with the impression that I am a part of a great revival of theology and Biblical studies that threatens to renew our churches in a way that goes far beyond current fads that ebb and flow every few years. I feel refreshed knowing that so many others believe like me, preach like me, and have the same desire I do to teach their flock the deep things of God.

Like other pastors, I need other pastors to minister to me. During panel discussions it was evident that those who spoke clearly ministered to those who organized the conference. This was never more clear than in the discussion after John Piper spoke. The panel, as usual, included Mark Dever, Ligon Duncan, Al Mohler, and C.J. Mahaney - all pastors and leaders who bear ultimate responsibility over other individuals. Yet when Piper sat among them, it was clear that they saw him as their pastor at that moment. I needed to see that. I needed to remember that no matter what a pastor, teacher, theologian, or whoever accomplishes through the Holy Spirit, nor how intimate their relationship with Christ seems to be, they need others to minister to them. They, too, need to hear Biblical preaching. To that end, I plan to listen to no less than 2 sermons by other ministers each week.

So there you have it, my reflections on T4G 2008. I am sure that there are many more things I could say about what God taught me during the conference, but suffice to say that I cannot wait until T4G 2010.

More Changes

2008-04-15T01:32:00.000-04:00

Over the past few months (o.k. the past year), I have neglected my blog. I have had plenty of things to say (as most of you know), but unfortunately, I have been lazy in my writing. However, I hope to once again begin to blog soon.

Just to update those of you who still visit the blog or who subscribe by RSS, I have recently accepted a position as Pastor at a church just outside of Athens, GA - Cleveland Road Baptist Church. My wife and I will be moving there in the next couple of weeks and my first Sunday is tentatively set for May 4th. We are thrilled to have been led by the Lord to serve this congregation.

Because of that, I believe I should get back in the habit of blogging, not just for myself, but for those in my congregation, and those considering attending Cleveland Road in the Athens area. Currently we do not have a church website, but I hope to eventually put one together and link my blog to it. And I am considering a second blog, specifically for the congregation, which would be a 5-day devotional reading related to the Sunday morning sermon.

To those ends, tomorrow I will be attending the Band of Bloggers fellowship, which coincides with the Together for the Gospel Conference, which I will also be attending this week. Hopefully, I will be able to fellowship with fellow bloggers and possibly get some ideas about how to make my site better and more pointed. One of the things I have struggled with over the past year is what I should or shouldn't post on my blog. Having the title of "Christ and Culture" seems like it allows a great deal of flexibility, but in reality I believe that I want narrow the focus to issues which Christians should consider in the public square. I think other points of interest, such as liberal theological positions and Scriptural interpretation are important, but often so wide that my blog ends up being about everything instead of anything in particular. Thus, my ideas are too plentiful to create a true niche in the Christian blogosphere.

So, be patient and watch for future posts. And pray for the new chapter of our life to unfold with wonder and awe and that it would be glorifying to God.

Brand It!

2007-09-20T16:51:00.000-04:00

With all that has been happening in our lives lately, you may wonder why I am posting on something seemingly so silly. But, I think Marc Ecko is quite a genius when it comes to business and when I saw that Barry Bonds, when referring to Ecko's plans after purchasing his 756th home run ball, stated, "He's stupid...He's an idiot" I couldn't resist giving Ecko a little time on my blog (at least for the 3-4 readers who still check it out).

Marc Ecko is of course the very successful founder and president of Marc Ecko Enterprises. He started out as a t-shirt designer and turned his business into what is now hailed as the most succesful urban clothing line. What is most unique about Ecko is that his background is far from that of his current customer base. While his clothing tends to be worn by those most affiliated with the "Hip-Hop" culture, Marc grew up as a Jewish kid in a New Jersey town outside of Manhatten. His parents were real estate agents and his life was far more suburban than that of most of his customers. But, through hard work and uncanny "street smarts", Ecko went from nearly bankrupt to the No. 1 designer in his field.

So what does all this have to do with Barry Bonds? Well, Ecko was the winner of the auction just recently held by Sotheby's for Bonds' record-breaking, 756th home run baseball. And he has decided to let the fans vote on what should be done with the ball. He set up a website, http://www.vote756.com/, where fans can vote to either "Bestow It" to the Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, OH, "Brand It" with an asterick and then send it to Cooperstown, or "Banish It" by reportedly shooting it into outer space. And yesterday, The San Francisco Chronicle (which you may recognize as the newspaper whose reporters wrote the book on Barry Bonds' alleged steriod use - you can read my review of the book, Game of Shadows: Barry Bonds, BALCO, and the Steroids Scandal that Rocked Professional Sports, by clicking here), reported that when asked about Ecko's intentions Bonds replied, "He spent $750,000 on the ball and that's what he's doing with it? What he's doing is stupid."

What I find most entertaining about this story is that Bonds just seems to not get it. He doesn't get it that people believe he cheated and should be punished, not celebrated for such an act. He doesn't understand marketing either. Heck, it's clear from his well-known brushes with the media that he doesn't understand the power of the media and the sway of the court of public opinion.

Barry Bonds is wrong - Marc Ecko is a genius. He has just created friends in the baseball culture he never had before by doing this. And those who hate what he is doing? They can simply dismiss him as another crazed fashion designer. But the genius of this act shines brightest in the numbers. As of my visit, there were 3,611,765 votes cast. And how did I vote? See below.

Goin' Back Home

2007-06-06T16:09:00.000-04:00

"This ain't my home...I'm just a passin' through."

Apparently this has been my theme song since I graduated from high school. Over the past thirteen years I have lived in five different cities and have had over 40 different roomates, not including my current roomie, who shall remain so "until death do us part," though it's likely we will have some younger roomies join us in the not too distant future. And now that I have returned to the start of it all, Memphis, TN, I have to say that I feel very blessed to have made the journey I have over these past few years.

To update those of you who have not heard we moved to Memphis on the 2nd of June to begin new jobs and new lives. Brandi, my wife and the much better looking of the two in the pic you will find to the right, has begun her job at Baptist Memorial Hospital East as a nurse in the ICU Step-Down Unit. I have accepted a job with Edward Jones Investments as a Financial Advisor. Hopefully, I will be located in Olive Branch, MS, where we are currently looking for a home. As of now, we are stranded on the island that is my parents' house in Colonial Acres in East Memphis.

So please pray for us as we seek God's will for a house and especially for a new church. Thanks to all our friends and family that helped us to move and continue to endure with us while we transition from Louisville to Memphis.

Obama Not as "Green" as He Would Like You to Think

2007-01-30T16:32:00.000-05:00

Future Presidential candidate Barack Hussein Obama might not be as "green" as he appears. And I don't mean "inexperienced." Last year Obama came under fire from conservatives for giving a series of speeches on the need to reduce carbon emissions by breaking America's addiction to SUVs, while arriving and departing in a GMC Envoy. When the story broke, Obama's press secretary, Tommy Vietor, issued a statement saying that Obama liked to roll in a Flex-Fuel SUV, which suggested that he was indeed practicing what he preached. Unfortunately for Obama, many clever conservatives did their research and found out that the GMC Envoy does not come equipped with Flex-Fuel technology.

But now, Obama's committment to being Green is being challenged by environmentalists on both sides of the aisles (Washington Post article here). In a Grist article entitled, "Even Stevens?" reporter Amanda Griscom Little descibes the problems environmentalists have with the "Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Promotion Act of 2007" co-sponsored by Obama and Kentucky Senator Jim Bunning. According to the article, "Coal-to-liquid (CTL) technology uses a highly energy-intensive process to convert coal into diesel fuel for cars or jet fuel for airplanes -- an appealing prospect to the coal industry in Obama's home state of Illinois, but not to [environmentalists] and others concerned about global warming." Little goes on to explain the problems with CTL technology:

David Doniger, policy director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's Climate Center, has supported coal gasification as a viable alternative to coal-burning power plants, but explains that CTL is not as promising an alternative to conventional gasoline or biofuels. "Coal-to-liquid is, in the best-case scenario, no worse for the climate than oil-derived gasoline -- and no better," he says. The best-case scenario assumes that CTL producers find a way to capture their carbon emissions. Problem is, none of the current CTL projects actually involve carbon capture. Without that step, the climate impacts of CTL fuel are far worse than those of gasoline. According to an NRDC analysis, a 35-mpg car powered by the CTL fuel that's currently available would generate as much carbon dioxide pollution as a far less efficient 19-mpg car that runs on conventional gasoline.

The Bunning-Obama bill "which would expand tax incentives for CTL and help jumpstart the industry with public-private partnerships, was first introduced by the senators in spring of last year." It appears that for Obama, regional politics trump environmentalism. It will be interesting to see how many of his Democratic collegues will support the bill and undermine the Dems climate control promises. One thing is for sure: Obama's "100 percent approval rating from the League of Conservation Voters for his environmental voting record in the Senate last year" is certain to decrease this time around.

John Kerry Reporting For Duty Once Again

2007-01-28T19:05:00.000-05:00

Unfortunately, Kerry's duty these days includes offending the very Americans he claimed to want to serve two years ago and misrepresenting the facts about his own country. After Kerry's claim of a "botched joke" pretty much did in his potential 2008 Presidential run, he now seems to be in a full spiral downhill. This week the "John Kerry Self-Destruction Tour" stopped off in Davos, Switzerland, where the world's leaders are gathering for the World Economic Forum.

Kerry, while sharing the stage with the former President of Iran Mohammad Khatami during a discussion entitled, "The Future of the Middle East," took the opportunity on foreign soil nonetheless, to blast away at American foreign policy. Kerry said, "So we have a crisis of confidence in the Middle East - in the world, really. I've never seen our country as isolated, as much as a sort of international pariah for a number of reasons as it is today." He added, "When we walk away from global warming, Kyoto, when we are irresponsibly slow in moving toward AIDS in Africa, when we don't advance and live up to our own rhetoric and standards, we set a terrible message of duplicity and hypocrisy."

What's most hypocritical and duplicitous about this statement is that Kerry actually favored not ratifying the Kyoto treaty, along with the rest of the Senate in 1995. In a unanimous 95-0 vote, the Senate passed the Byrd-Hagel Resolution, which stated the following:

Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that--
(1) the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol to, or other agreement regarding, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1992, at negotiations in Kyoto in December 1997, or thereafter, which would--
(A) mandate new commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for the Annex I Parties, unless the protocol or other agreement also mandates new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for Developing Country Parties within the same compliance period, or
(B) would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States; and
(2) any such protocol or other agreement which would require the advice and consent of the Senate to ratification should be accompanied by a detailed explanation of any legislation or regulatory actions that may be required to implement the protocol or other agreement and should also be accompanied by an analysis of the detailed financial costs and other impacts on the economy of the United States which would be incurred by the implementation of the protocol or other agreement.

Additionally, Bill Clinton never submitted Kyoto to the Senate to be ratified and even Al Gore admitted that he would not ratify an ammendment until it had been written to include developing nations as well.

So basically, Kerry voted against it before he voted for it. Duplicity and Hypocricy - John Kerry style. So to recap - Kerry lied and whined - all on foreign soil. What a great American!

"Studio 60" And the New Attack on Christianity

2007-01-23T20:26:00.000-05:00

If you haven't noticed, I love a little controversy. Sometimes my wife will ask me why I watch a particular program or read a particular book and I always tell her, "It's like watching a train wreck." I can't seem to take my eyes off of disaster or controversy. And maybe that is the reason why I continue to watch the new show on NBC, "Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip."

Every week the writers of "Studio 60" find some way to attack Christianity. Often times it is an adolescent attempt at humor based on ignorance and arrogance. And usually it revolves around one of the central characters, Harriet Hayes (played by Sarah Paulson), a confessing Christian who seems to walk a tight line between saint and sinner. In the first episode of the series, we find out that Harriet has been involved in a relationship with the very anti-Christian writer of the fictional show, Matt Albie (played by Matthew Perry of "Friends" fame). In another, Harriet gives an interview in which she notes that homosexuality is considered a sin in the Bible and later finds herself in a physical altercation with three gay men.

In last night's episode, Harriet again finds herself embroiled in controversy as Albie tries to find a way to swallow his pride and donate money to an abstinence-only education program via an online auction in order to win a date to an awards show with Harriet (who he is finding himself falling in love with once again). Albie argues with Hayes about the effectiveness of abstinence-only education and at one point he blindsides her with "evidence" from a study that shows that those who signed abstinence pledges were more likely to become infected with a sexually-transmitted disease (STD). Harriet reacts by smiling and continuing to discuss with him what she originally desired to talk about, almost conceding his point.

The problem with Albie's evidence (or should I say Aaron Sorkin's, given that he is the Executive Producer and has a penchant for attacking all things Christian and conservative?), is that it is based on a faulty report that has been discredited by several other studies, most notably by the Heritage Foundation (article accessible by clicking here), who examined not only the study itself, but the methods of data gathering used by the two authors, Peter Bearman and Hanna Bruckner. The Heritage Foundation found numerous problems with the Bearman and Bruckner study, including the sampling, the data interpretation, and the overall reporting of the results. Essentially, what they found was the study showed (yet under reported the fact) that "On average, individuals who took virginity pledges as adolescents were 25 percent less likely to have STDs as young adults than non-pledgers from identical socioeconomic backgrounds." Other independent studies have show even wider differences between those signing abstinence pledges and those not signing.

The point of bringing this up is that we shouldn't be surprised to see such shotty writing and willingness to attack Christianity at every level. The actions and beliefs of Christians have been under attack since its inception with the resurrection of Christ. Christians have always been cast off as ignorant, puritanical, and naive, yet Christianity has continued to grow and thrive amongst criticism. This new attack on Christianity led by the media outlets who no longer seem to fear repercussions will likely continue. Political pundits, talk-show hosts, and even sit-com writers will probably become more and more comfortable making fun of Christians, telling the easily-duped masses how much more dangerous Biblically-minded Christians are than Islamo-fascists who seek to impose Sharia Law on all lands.

So, how do we prepare for this new attack? We shore up the troops, we encourage one another, we train. And most of all we seek to bask in the hope of the return of Christ, our Commander-in-Chief who will judge all the nations with equity and bring all things into submission under His feet.

My Thoughts on Election 2006

2006-11-08T16:45:00.000-05:00

As I browse the blogosphere, I have found very few conservative Christian bloggers who have reacted to yesterday's election. What I think is happening (and has been happening for a few months now) is a lethargic reaction to politics by the majority of Evangelicals. In some circles there is even an outright dislike of the entirety of the political realm. After reading David Kuo's book, Tempting Faith, part of me rejoices that this is the case. But the other part of me worries that while the Dems will not spare any expense to bring about corporate or global regulations, they will likely push to de-regulate everything from abortion to cloning to the internet, which may mean a much worse climate could result in this country than what is proposed by global warming watchdogs.

I had thought about discussing the reasons why I think Christians have become at least lethargic about politics, but what I would rather talk about is what I see as the pro's and con's of this election. So here they are in no particular order:

The Pro's:

The Democrats put forward a few pro-life candidates like Heath Schuler and Bob Casey, Jr. Only time will tell whether they tow the party line or do indeed help hold the line against a sure onslaught of abortion deregulation legislation. My hope is that if these candidates are successful and helpful to the Dems, we might actually see more candidates like these in the future, allowing Christians like myself to vote on issues like the environment, poverty reduction, welfare reform, and border security.
I think this election sent a clear message to Republicans that Evangelicals will not be counted on in the future simply because one claims to be pro-life or suggests they care about families. More than simply appointing a few nominally pro-life judicial nominees must be done to secure our votes.
I think this election shows the power of the Evangelical voting block, which seemed to be split fairly evenly this year between Republicans and Democrats in states like Pennslyvania, Virginia, and North Carolina. David Kuo's book no doubt had some impact and Evangelicals showed once again they they are savvy enough to speak their mind at the polls.
I think this showed the weakness of the Evangelical voting block (yes, that's right I am seemingly contradicting myself - but hold on). Evangelicals are divided on what the main issues are. Many are beginning to believe exactly what David Kuo has been screaming from the mountaintop over the past couple of months - that we can't truely change the country through politics. To the extent that this re-focuses Christians on acting locally to impact the kingdom of God eternally, this is a very good thing.
I am encouraged by all of the talk by Nancy Pelosi, Rahm Emmanuel, and Chuck Shumer that they desire to work in a bi-partisan manner in Washington. Only time will tell whether or not this is an empty promise. But if it is true, then maybe they would be willing to sacrifice the more controversial issues like funding embryonic stem-cell research and raising the minimum wage by 50% within 6 months in favor of throwing more money at cord-blood stem-cell research and raising the minimum wage gradually over the next 3 years or so (you know, something that wouldn't send the economy into a tailspin and ruin that 4.4% unemployment bonanza that we just saw a few days ago).
Finally, I am encouraged that after all the talk (including one crazed liberal who already claimed the election had been stolen before it began), there were actually very few voting irregularities and almost no significant reports of voter intimidation or fraud. Hopefully, this will invigorate voters and put a stop to the seemingly endless barrage of charges ranging from racism to classism to outright conspiracy theories about the Illuminati rigging the elections.

The Con's:

Obviously this win by the Democrats will hurt the hard-charging economy. Just this morning the markets dropped significantly (this after the single largest one-day gain in the Dow Jones in over a year). While Dems will certainly focus on the impoverished to a degree, they might end up hurting these people by causing job growth to slow to a crawl and hurting middle class retirees who live off their 401K's and not their Social Security checks. If they stop further legislation for border security they run the risk of a population increase in low income workers that will eventually crush the economy of not only the U.S., but Mexico as well. If they move quickly to roll back the tax breaks for corporations and wealthy individuals they will certainly remove money that is reinvested into the U.S. economy, which always results in more job growth and less unemployment.
The pro-life position will no doubt take a hit. The Dems will likely move to fund embryonic stem-cell research, which will result in an increase in the destruction of human embryos, given that those that scientists claim could be used now are not nearly in enough quantity to make a dent in the research needed for adequate conclusions. Meanwhile groups who are working with adult stem cells and those from cord blood will lose out and this will probably lead to fewer medical developments in the next few years, as all the energy will be focused on bringing embryonic stem-cell research to the forefront. Additionally, there may be rollbacks in legislation regulating abortions and Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion groups will probably recieve even more federal funding.
There is a great possibility that attacks will skyrocket in Iraq as the insurgents recieve the news that they "Tet Offensive" has worked to change the climate in Washington. This may eventually result in a drawdown of troops that will cripple the region and effectively end any hope of stability being restored to the Middle East. Hope for a free Iraq - an ally in the Middle East and a haven of religious freedom - will be dashed. The Dems will blame Bush and we will likely be immersed in oversight hearings for years, as more troubles mount in the region and Israel becomes a more likely target.
Finally, the whole election shows that this is a nation that is deeply divided. Races in all the states were fairly close. They show that while the Independents and Moderates probably carried the day for the Democrats, there are still hard-liners on both sides that dominate the landscape of the parties and will continue to engage in culture war. Had it not been for the Iraq War, this election would probably have had a very different outcome, but people are war-weary and I believe that swayed the vote toward the side intent on change.

In the end, the truth is that there were dangerous implication for this country had either side come out on top. Politics cannot solve the problems that only the inbreaking of the Gospel can. Hopefully, Evangelicals will grow weary of politics over the next few years, as policy makers control Washington, pushing each side back and forth through a tide of partisanship and gridlock. Maybe, just maybe, this will cause Christians to begin to focus inward and work on change in their own communities, taking the Gospel again to their neighbor next door.

Christians and the Welfare State

2006-10-25T12:27:00.000-04:00

Last night I picked up David Kuo's new book Tempting Faith: An Inside Story of Political Seduction. The media outlets have created a firestorm around this book and Kuo has been on every political T.V. and radio talk show from "Bill Bennett's Morning in America" to "The Colbert Report" (see video here). Much of what is being reported is in an effort to do two things: 1) Make George Bush look bad and 2) Make Christians look stupid - so naturally I felt I should pick the book up and browse through it. What I found in the introduction was not the media take, but an honest assessment of Christian political engagement by a serious Evangelical thinker. So I bought the book and hopefully will write a book review/response to it soon.

One thing that has happened in my mind as I reflected on the content of Kuo's book and on this discussion about "Red Letter" and "Black Letter" Christians is that I have continually been reminded of something I heard Tony Campolo say almost 10 years ago. He was talking about poverty and the need for the Church to be proactive in helping those who need it most. He said that for too long we have allowed the government to do what the Church ought to be doing, and that is to take care of "the least of these." We have installed a "welfare state" into our government - one that allows us to stop caring about actually engaging the poor and just allowing our tax dollars to do it for us.

And in that regard, what I am thinking is that both conservatives and liberals have allowed this to persist in our thinking and to undercut the work of the Church. Conservatives have decried the "welfare state" and asked for money through Bush's Faith-Based Initiatives so they can do it themselves, not realizing that money would hang like a carrot over their heads (and not considering if it was indeed ethical to take it at all). And liberals have allowed the "welfare state" to take on some sort of cult status as a fulfillment of the "Sermon on the Mount," thus helping liberal lawmakers to keep a strangle hold on disenfranchised voters, while pushing a morally corrupt social agenda. In this paradigm, both sides of the Christian aisle (so to speak) lose and neither is found to be fulfilling the "Great Commandment" or the "Great Commission."

Jesus did not call the Church to set up secular governments that would take care of the poor. He called the Church to feed the poor and take care of widows and orphans personally. And in doing so, to spread the message that "Christ is Lord," calling men everywhere to repent and believe. A "welfare state" ends up hindering this calling and hurting everyone in the process - the poor who are caught in the cycle of poverty, the low-income families who begin to despise those who use government money while they, themselves, struggle to make ends meet, the middle class who see many examples of corruption in the welfare system and begin to foster bitterness instead of developing compassion toward those less fortunate than themselves, and the rich who can buck their responsibilities to be good citizens because they know they are the ones footing the bill for the welfare state to exist.

This might sound harsh, but I think this is where the Church finds itself in the 21st century. What we must do as a Christian people is to stop letting the politicians do for us what we, ourselves, ought to be doing. For a better, more compassionate take on this, see an excellent article by Brent Thomas at his Colossians 3:16 site entitled, "Pure and Undefiled Politics?"

Are You a Red or Black Letter Christian?

2006-10-22T14:49:00.000-04:00

Red Letter or Black Letter Christian? Which one are you? If you aren't sure, then you are in good company. "Red-Letter Christian" is a new distinction suggested between conservative and liberal Christians which has been proposed by guys like Tony Campolo and Jim Wallis. My favorite raving Baptist liberal Bruce Prescott picked up on this a while back and now once again has posted on this in response to a well-written critique by Mark Tooney, Director of the United Methodist committee at the Institute on Religion and Democracy in Washington, D.C. Prescott uses the term "Red Letter Christian" in conjuction with another new distinction "Black-Letter Christian" in hopes of showing how much more Christlike these "Red-Letter Christians" are. In Tooney's article, "Red Letter Leftists," which was published by FrontlineMagazine.com on October 18th (and which Prescott has failed to link to in his comments on it), Tooney alleges that "[f]rustrated by the conservative tendencies of most religiously active Americans, a group of liberal religious activists have started "Red Letter Christians" to espouse political themes of the left." So what are "Red Letter Christians"? According to their website, located at Jim Wallis's Sojourner's website, "The Red Letter Christians are a network of effective, progressive, Christian communicators urging an open, honest and public dialogue on issues of faith and politics." They go on to state the following:

We believe and seek to put in to action the red letter words in the Holy Bible spoken by Jesus. The goal of the group is to advance the message that our faith cannot be reduced to only two hot button social issues - abortion and homosexuality. Fighting poverty, caring for the environment, advancing peace, promoting strong families, and supporting a consistent ethic of life are all critical moral and biblical values.

Additionally, under the subtitle, "Why We Are Speaking Out" the group says:

For decades, leaders of the Religious Right have attempted to convince Christians and the American public that people of faith and strong moral values have only one option when it comes to voting. This narrow view continues to overshadow the majority of Christians in America whose faith motivates them to care deeply about a range of ethics and values. Our nation is hungry for an open dialogue on moral values and its role in the public square. God is not a Republican or a Democrat, and candidates should be measured by examining an array of social and economic issues.

Jim Wallis, editor-in-chief of Sojourners Magazine recounted in an article on his website entitled, "Red Letter Christians: Somehow, Jesus Has Survived Even the Church" how this term first came to be used:

“I’m a secular Jewish country music songwriter and disk jockey,” my interviewer on a Nashville radio station said. “But I love your stuff and have been following your book tour.” He told me he loved my “riffs” and would like to spend an evening together just to get some lines for new music. “You’re a songwriter’s dream.” Then he told me he believed we were starting a new movement, but noticed we hadn’t come up with a name for it yet. “I’ve got an idea for you,” he said. “I think you should call yourselves ‘The Red Letter Christians,’ for the red parts of the Bible that highlight the words of Jesus. I love the red letter stuff.”

Wallis goes on to say that,

The truth is that there are many people who like the “red letter stuff,” and many of them are not even Christians. Try it yourself sometime. Go out on the street or to your school or workplace and take a poll. Ask people what they think Jesus stood for. You’re likely to hear things like “stood with poor people,” or “compassionate,” or “loving,” or “he was for peace.”

In another article on the Sojourner's site, Tony Campolo weighs in with a commentary called, "What's a 'Red-Letter Christian'?" (originally published by BeliefNet on 2-27-06). In this article he further explains the motivation to refer to himself and others as "Red-Letter Christians":

In those red letters, He calls us away from the consumerist values that dominate contemporary American consciousness. He calls us to be merciful, which has strong implications for how we think about capital punishment. When Jesus tells us to love our enemies, he probably means we shouldn’t kill them. Most important, if we take Jesus seriously, we will realize that meeting the needs of the poor is a primary responsibility for His followers.

Moving on to "Black Letter Christians", Bruce Prescott says regarding them that they

. . . believe that the words of Jesus are too liberal and utopian for life in the real world. While claiming allegiance to biblical authority, in practice they deny any temporal authority for the words of Jesus. They emphasize the values of the neo-conservative police state -- pre-emptive strike defense, unregulated capitalism, social darwinism and Christian nationalism.

I find that these sort of distinctions only blur the debate that should be the focal point of discussion between moderate, liberal, and conservative Christians - and that is the authority of the Bible. What we have seen throughout history is that the axis upon which all of Christianity turns is the Biblical witness. When Christians have been made to emphasize one aspect of the Biblical record to the exclusion of another, then the Gospel itself has been compromised. So the question remains, "Which group is de-emphasizing certain parts of the Biblical text - 'Red Letter Christians' or 'Black Letter Christians'?" Bruce Prescott seems to indicate that it is the "Black Letter Christians" who are doing so, but since he seems to have invented the distinction, then the burden of proof rests on him to actually prove that what these Christians are doing is ignoring the words of Jesus to act in certain ways politically (which is a whole 'nother topic, given that Prescott blurs the lines here between political action and living out a Biblical worldview). What we can gather from Prescott's article is that it is certain that "Red Letter Christians" do ignore or de-emphasize a portion of the Biblical record in favor of another portion. Notice his words here:

While recognizing the authority of the entire Bible, "Red Letter" Christians believe that the words of Jesus should have precedence when weighing biblical values. They emphasize the values of peace, justice, equality and the common good. They are concerned about poverty, global warming, human rights, and health care.

Ignoring the fact that Jesus never spoke on global warming or heath care (and I say that not because I believe that to be a legitimate critique of Prescott's position, but because I find it a bit interesting given that Prescott must go outside the "Red Letters" to find support for such a position Biblically), what Prescott has done here is to openly admit that he and others who consider themselves "Red Letter Christians" actually do place an emphasis on certain passages. What we have seen in history is that this generally results in causing those who hold this type of view to do so to the detriment and exclusion of other relevant and authoritative Scripture passages (from early on certain figures like the Docetics, the Gnostics, and men like Arius and particularly Marcion, whose opposition to the Old Testament was starkly refuted by Tertullian, flesh out this tendency).

Additionally, what I think is happening here is exactly what began transpiring in the Southern Baptist Convention many years ago and eventually was brought to a head during the Conservative Resurgence (*note: this comment is not meant to endorse all the actions that took place during that time period in SBC life, but merely to point out that this sort of debate regarding the authority of Scripture provided a spark that resulted in the the conservative, moderate, and liberal in-fighting during those years). And so over the next week or so I hope to publish an article or two that deals with the idea of whether certain points of Scripture ought to be emphasized above other parts and on whether or not "Black Letter Christians" do in fact de-emphasize the words of Jesus, as Prescott has charged. Meanwhile I welcome your thoughts about the validity of such a distinction.

Guns and The Amish School Shooting

2006-10-04T15:40:00.000-04:00

I am tired of not writing. I have spent plenty of time away from my blog. I needed to get some perspective, be challenged, and consider writing some more relevant pieces than I had been previously. Hopefully, my blog will be marked with a tone that is both challenging and accepting and I really desire that those with whom I have intellectually sparred over the course of the past couple of months will visit and engage me as I have them. So with that, let me address a subject that I am tired of hearing about over the last couple of days . . . GUN CONTROL.

Before I begin, let me clearly state that I personally don't own a gun. I never have and I probably never will (except maybe my father's 9mm police service pistol that will never be shot nor loaded -- it still has the protective orange clip in it, which will remain there). I am not a big fan of guns and I have never shot one. I would go hunting, except I don't own land and no one has ever invited me, but I don't think I would keep a gun in the house even then. On a trip to Toronto I was impressed at how few gun deaths that city has had because the nation of Canada is generally handgun free. And I have always been in favor of legislation that does not violate the 2nd Amendment, but does stop criminals from obtaining guns.

Having said all that, let me clearly state that I am tired of all the blogs and editorials talking about gun control in the wake of the Amish school shooting in Pennsylvania. The gunman, Charles Carl Roberts IV, obtained all of his guns legally and to my knowledge no legislation has ever been introduced that would have denied him access to any of the weapons he brought to the school that day. Many people would like to blame the NRA or the Republican Party for voting down potential laws that would have stopped such an act, but the truth is NO ONE has tried to enact legislation that would have even curbed the possibility of such an action one bit. If these people want to blame someone they are going to have to settle with writing commentaries denouncing the Founding Fathers who inserted into the Constitution the Second Amendment.

Now, does that mean I don't support legislation like the Brady Bill, which went into effect in 1994? Of course not! As I said above, I fully support government action that keeps guns out of the hands of criminals and away from children. But while the Brady Bill probably did help to curb some violence, it was powerless to stop Charles Carl Roberts IV from entering into a school in Pennsylvania and using his weapons to viciously kill children. And I believe those who are bringing this subject up right now ought to be honest about that. Instead of harping about how bad the NRA is or how much the Republican party is contributing to violence, why not talk about the real source of evil in the this situation - SIN.

The sinful condition, brought about at the Fall, is what motivates men to act in evil ways. In these last days we have seen an increase visually in what has always been present in the heart of man. Nothing man-enacted will curb violence. The only thing that will stop violence is a repentance of sin and a turning toward the one and only Savior, Jesus Christ. The one thing that I have heard over and over again during the televised coverage of this massacre that we can all rejoice in is the attitudes and actions of the Amish people during this difficult time. The humility and Christlike grace that these people have shown in the midst of tragedy is compelling and glorifying to God. Never has the reality of the peace that Christ brings so dominated the news than in the last few days. And that is what I would like to see more Christian bloggers - left and right speaking out about. Let's talk about the reality of sin and the forgiveness extended to us by our Heavenly Father, not about legislation that will never change the impact of either of those two.

One Book Tag

2006-08-10T08:23:00.000-04:00

I usually hate blog tagging and especially MySpace tagging. I put it in the same category as those stupid emails you get that say at the end, "If you love Jesus you will send this to everybody you know so that you can know that you really love Him!" Yeah, Blah, Blah, Blah . . . But Michael the Leveller tagged me via email some time in the last week or so with a really great posting on books, so I thought I would get past my secret anger of being tagged and oblige on this one. So here goes . . .

One book that changed your life:
Well, besides the Bible (the obvious choice), it would be Desiring God by John Piper. Piper's concepts such as "God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in Him" and "We exist to glorify God by enjoying Him forever" are thoroughly ingrained in me and make a difference daily in how I understand how I am to live. But, this book is probably been most influential to me in just introducing me to and helping me to see the complete truth in the fact that God's greatest passion is His own glory. This one fact opens up to me a whole world of understanding redemptive history and Christ's coming kingdom.

One book you've read more than once:
I've read Kris Lundgaard's The Enemy Within cover to cover twice, but find myself going back to it again and again. It's basically a laymen's version of John Owen's classic works, Indwelling Sin and The Mortification of Sin. This book, more than any other, reminds me of my continual state of sinfulness and my need to fight my sinful nature. I highly recommend picking it up if you haven't already got a copy, as it is quickly becoming a classic.

One book you'd want on a desert island:
Again, besides the obvious, I would say Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology. It's an easy read for a systematic book and it's choked full of Scripture references and footnotes that you can spend a day reading through in each chapter. I don't know what I would do if I didn't have it by my side any time I do research or write a sermon. It's that invaluable to me.

One book that made you laugh:
I am going to go three ways on this. First, All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten by Robert Fulghum was probably the first book to ever make me laugh and the first one I read for myself and not because my teachers made me. Second, I laughed quite a bit when I read Blue Like Jazz by Donald Miller. Though I disagree with him and often get irritated with some of his statements, he is a great writer and this book was worth my time. Finally, doctrinally-speaking, What Love is This? by Dave Hunt often made me angry and consequently laugh hysterically at his horrid misunderstanding and mischaracterization of Calvinism. It's hard not to laugh when a guy writes a chapter called "Calvinism's Surprising Catholic Connection" and he's serious.

One book that made you cry:
This doesn't happen often, in fact, never. It takes a lot to make me cry so it follows suit that it takes quite a book to bring me to shed a tear. But, I do have a clear memory of the first time that I cried while reading a book. It was "Pistol" Pete Maravich's autobiography, Heir to a Dream. I received it as an award for obedience at Spirit Express basketball camp when I was 11 (those of you who knew me back then likely either think this is some kind of sick joke or I am outright lying, but alas 'tis true). I read it cover to cover and was moved to tears when Maravich recapped his father's death. I thought about my own father's eventual death and how it would likely tear me apart. I believe that when that day comes, I might very well lose it for a while.

One book that you wish had been written:
9/11: The Plot to Bring Down the Twin Towers and How it Was Foiled by the CIA. Roosevelt said that December 7, 1941 was "a date which will live in infamy," but how much more so will September 11, 2001? World War II ended on August 15, 1945 - not four years later. The War on Terror started on that day in 2001, but now, as we approach the fifth anniversary of 9/11 there seems to be no end in sight.

One book that you wish had never been written:
The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin. This book has single-handedly brought about the eternal severing of science and religion. No longer can Evolutionists and non-Evolutionists work together in the fields of biology, chemistry, or genetics and not feel the elephant of Darwin in the room with them. Darwinism has spun out of control, helping to bring about the mentality of "survival of the fittest" within all ranks of life. And this book has helped to lead millions and millions of people away from the harder question of "What does it all mean?"

One book you're currently reading:
I have been trying to get started on When I Don't Desire God by John Piper for some time now, but every time I start to get into it I feel like I need to reread Desiring God and then just end up putting it down for long enough that I have to go back and reread what I already read of it. It's been really frustrating.

One book you've been meaning to read:
JUST ONE! I wish - there's plenty that fit into this category. I guess the one I most want to sit down to is Manhunt: The 12-Day Chase for Lincoln's Killer by James L. Swanson. I have heard it is fantastic and a real page turner. As much as I love history, I am disappointed that I haven't gotten to it yet. I actually have quite a list of history books that I want to read and would love to spend time reading some biographies of great Christian men and women, Presidents of the U.S. and a few infamous characters like Hillary Clinton. And then there's always the books on doctrine, Christian living, politics, marriage, child-rearing, home design, and . . . shall I go on? You get the picture and I'm getting depressed thinking about it.

Now tag five people:
If you read this list, then consider yourself tagged. I am not going to go on naming folks on my blog who probably won't do this anyway. I enjoyed it though, and am glad that Michael sent me the email and told me I should do it.

Friday Funnies: Terry Tate - Office Linebacker

2006-07-28T09:16:00.000-04:00

I couldn't resist posting this - it is absolutely hilarious. If you are a fan of the movie Office Space, or you even work in an office environment, you will probably appreciate this. I will warn you though, there is one obsenity in this short film, but it was not well pronounced and you will probably miss it if you aren't listening closely. There is a actually a whole collection of Terry Tate videos on You Tube and again, if you don't mind a few obsenities, and you enjoy this short clip, then you should probably check them out. And so without further adieu, Enjoy!

Alcohol and the SBC: A Call for Peace

2006-07-26T06:40:00.000-04:00

Since Resolution No. 5 was affirmed by the messengers to the 2006 Southern Baptist Convention Annual Meeting, there has been an unproportionate amount of words written concerning alcohol use by Christians by everyone from seminary presidents to bloggers and from mega-church pastors to laymen of small congregations. So forgive me for adding another few hundred words or so to this now out-of-control debate. I have previously stayed away from the discussion and for good reason - it is clearly causing division in the body of Christ. And for that reason alone, I feel I can no longer be silent.

That division is occurring is irrefutable. Reading any of the articles written by those in the above categories indicates that there are few, if any, that are advocating for an end to the debate. Almost everyone who is writing about the topic uses rhetoric that suggests that this issue is anything but insignificant and some suggest that nothing short of fidelity to Sola Scriptura is at stake. Jerry Vines has gone as far at to declare that apostasy is lurking around the corner. And yesterday, in Baptist Press, Richard Land stated in a "First Person" editorial that the decision to drink alcohol is about choosing either "Wine or Witness." Even whole blogs have even been started to rebut arguments for abstinence by Danny Akin and Paige Paige Patterson. And given the recent response by James Merritt to Ben Cole's editorial in the Dallas Morning News (which was itself a response to Danny Akin's editorial in the same paper -- why again are we using secular media to post responses to one another?) , it seems things are just beginning to get out of control.

I must admit, some of this debate is healthy. Southern Baptists from time to time need to rethink their default positions in light of new academic research, Scriptual analysis, and the possibility of cultural conditioning. But, I believe this debate has taken a turn for the worse and is now being used as a test of fellowship (and possibly even faith). Personally, since the Greensboro convention, I have had my name was removed from consideration by a pastor for a ministry position because he said he was troubled by my take on Resolution #5 and called into question my ability to properly handle God's Word. So you could say that ending this "war of words" has particular implications for young ministers seeking ministry positions, as well as churches who are seeking to find the candidates to fill those positions.

So what I want to do with my few hundred words on this controversy is to issue a call to peace and a "ceasefire" (if you will) of this growing wildfire which Richard Land termed, "The Great Alcohol Debate." Just this past week I have seen attacks by "Baptist" bloggers and some other Christians on penal substitutionary atonement, Complimentarianism, and the traditional view of Hell. These are the issues that Southern Baptists need to debate with academic and spiritual vigor. The alcohol debate is almost 200 years old now, and there seems to be no end in sight. And both denominations who have taken an abstinence view and those who have taken a moderation view have grown and been successful in furthering the Kingdom of God. In the end, it is not this issue that Paul warns us to watch closely, but rather it is our doctrine that he continually calls us to guard with perseverance. We would all do well to remember the words of the apostle to his young apprentice in 1 Timothy 4:16: "Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers" (NIV).

So Southern Baptists, I call you back to doctrine, back to the essential things of faith, back to those thngs that we have been charged with preserving, namely that Great and Glorious Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. I leave you with this passage from Colossians:

Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day-- 17 things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ. 18 Let no one keep defrauding you of your prize by delighting in self-abasement and the worship of the angels, taking his stand on visions he has seen, inflated without cause by his fleshly mind, 19 and not holding fast to the head, from whom the entire body, being supplied and held together by the joints and ligaments, grows with a growth which is from God. 20 If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as, 21 "Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!" 22 (which all refer to things destined to perish with use)-- in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men? 23 These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against
fleshly indulgence.
3:1 Therefore if you have been raised up with Christ, keep seeking the things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. 2 Set your mind on the things above, not on the things that are on earth. 3 For you have died and your life is hidden with Christ in God. 4 When Christ, who is our life, is revealed, then you also will be revealed with Him in glory. 5 Therefore consider the members of your earthly body as dead to immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed, which amounts to idolatry. 6 For it is because of these things that the wrath of God will come upon the sons of disobedience, 7 and in them you also once walked, when you were living in them. 8 But now you also, put them all aside: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and abusive speech from your mouth. 9 Do not lie to one another, since you laid aside the old self with its evil practices, 10 and have put on the new self who is being renewed to a true knowledge according to the image of the One who created him-- 11 a renewal in which there is no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, but Christ is all, and in all. 12 So, as those who have been chosen of God, holy and beloved, put on a heart of compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience; 13 bearing with one another, and forgiving each other, whoever has a complaint against anyone; just as the Lord forgave you, so also should you. 14 Beyond all these things put on love, which is the perfect bond of unity. 15 Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in one body; and be thankful. 16 Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you, with all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with thankfulness in your hearts to God. 17 Whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks through Him to God the Father (2:16-3:17, NASB).

Friday Funnies: Ask A Ninja

2006-07-21T05:11:00.000-04:00

For the Friday Funnies this week I want to highlight the "Ask A Ninja" guys (or should I say guy, since there seems to be only one). Ninjas are apparently hot these days. Doing a Google search you will find over 70 million hits, with sites ranging from "The Official Ninja Webpage" to "Ninjai: The Adventures of the Little Ninja." But if you haven't seen "Ask A Ninja" yet, you have to check it out. Their tag line is, "You Got Questions, Ninja Got Answers." Here is one of their latest videos: a movie review of "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest," which if you haven't seen it, is pretty funny in its own right. So without further adieu, here's Ask A Ninja: Special Delivery 7 "Pirates of the Caribbean". ENJOY!

Additionally, I wanted to link another video that I found quite humorous, but I can't post it because it includes adult themes and a few explitives. So, if you are under 17 or offended by such, don't click on the link. But if you are a Star Wars fan like myself and you can handle some PG-13 Rated profanity, then check it out. It's called, "Chad Vader: Day Shift Manager (Episode 1)" and the short summary given on YouTube is, "Life is hard when you're Darth Vader's less-talented, less-charismatic younger brother and you manage a grocery store." Once again, ENJOY!

Al Mohler on Frank Page on Changing His Mind on Egalitarianism

2006-07-20T01:15:00.000-04:00

Today, Ethics Daily published an article on its website entitled, "SBC President Once Endorsed Women's Ordination" by Bob Allen. Allen discusses Dr. Frank Page's 1980 dissertation for the Ph.D. program at Southwestern Seminary. Page apparently endorses an egalitarian position on women in ministry, concluding that:

Looking at the various viewpoints regarding women in ministry and having dealt with the related biblical passages, this writer agrees with the . . . reasons for the participation of women in ministry, under the leadership of the Holy Spirit . . . This writer, at least in part, agrees . . . that social distinctions are meant to be transcended, not perpetuated, within the body of Christ. They have been unfortunately perpetuated with a vengeance.

Of course, we should expect Bruce Prescott to pipe up in light of this revelation and give us his take on what motivated Frank Page to change his mind on such an issue. And as usual, he concludes it was power - not the Holy Spirit, not Biblical revelation, and certainly not intelligent discernment. While he is at it, he finds time to attack Dr. Albert Mohler, President of Southern Seminary for retreating from theological liberalism, suggesting again that it was purely motivated by power, and not at all by anything remotely related to the Holy Spirit.

Thankfully, Dr. Mohler has decided to weigh in on the article and on his own transformation from egalitarian to complimentarian on his website Conventional Thinking. He writes that his journey

. . . started with a general unrest in my thinking. But then it exploded with a comment made to me in personal conversation with Dr. Carl F. H. Henry in the mid-1980s. Walking across the campus, Dr. Henry simply stopped me in my tracks and asked me how, as one who affirms the inerrancy of the Bible, I could possibly deny the clear teaching of Scripture on this
question. I was hurt, embarrassed - and highly motivated to answer his question.

Mohler goes on to add that after the dust settled, he found "my study of the question led me to a very uncomfortable conclusion - my advocacy of women in the teaching office was wrong, violative of Scripture, inconsistentent with my theological commitments, injurious to the church, unsubstantiated, and just intellectually embarrassing. "

In light of this revelation about Frank Page's change of thinking regarding women as senior pastors Mohler concludes, ". . . I am thankful for Dr. Page's change of mind, and I hope to know more about it in coming months as he shares more of this story with Southern Baptists. There is no shame in embracing the clear teachings of Scripture." To that I say, "AMEN!"

Frank Page Interviewed by Tavis Smiley

2006-07-18T11:07:00.000-04:00

I have been a fan of Tavis Smiley for some time now. I appreciate the fact that Smiley will interview anyone and often gives them a forum to say what they want. He is usually very open to other positions and really has a great personality and flair which makes guests comfortable and leads to honest interaction. So, it was exciting for me, when flipping through the 8 channels we can get on our T.V. to find Tavis Smiley interviewing the newly elected President of the SBC, Dr. Frank Page. I missed the front end of the interview, but caught most of it. Later, I went back and listened to it in its entirety. You can access the program by going to show's archives page for Friday, July 14. There you will find the audio and transcript of the program.
I want to offer a few reactions I had to the interview. First, I think Dr. Page came across as humble, generous, and overall, a really nice guy. Smiley, as usual, treated Page like an old friend, but he did grill the SBC President rather hard at times. I felt that often Smiley phrased questions in such a way that it made it difficult for Dr. Page to really explain his or the SBC's position. At one point he asked about immigration policy and framed it as if the SBC was taking its marching orders from the Republican party. And unfortunately, while Dr. Page did a descent job in that instance of remarking how the Democrats were divided on immigration (as Smiley had suggested about the Republicans), he did nothing to squash such a stereotype. Smiley also took a few cheap shots at the SBC in the midst of the interview, and, on a couple of occasions, making long statements before getting to the gist of his questions. In the end, I think it was one of the worst interviews I have seen Tavis Smiley do, mainly because I believe he gave off a sense of animosity toward Southern Baptists in the way he interviewed Dr. Page.

As for Dr. Page's demeanor, I think overall he did well. As I said above, he came across as humble and even gentle. But Dr. Page never seemed comfortable and to be honest, I wasn't impressed. He let Smiley bully him a bit with questions that Dr. Page should have challenged rather than directly answered. And Dr. Page's answers were often too brief and didn't explain his position adequately enough. Still, I think the President did what needed to be done -- project a sense of gentleness and humility, reflecting the need to minister and avoid too much political interaction.

The interview lasts less than 15 minutes, so take the time to listen and let me know what you think. Did Tavis Smiley come across as condescending toward the SBC? Do you think Dr. Page did well or did he seem uncomfortable and rattled to you at times? What about his answers -- did you agree or disagree with what Dr. Page had to say?

Why Politicians Shouldn't Be Theologians

2006-07-17T08:44:00.000-04:00

Dr. Mark Osterloh, "a Tucson physician and unsuccessful 2002 Democratic gubernatorial candidate," is leading the charge for a bill (likely now to be decided on by Arizona voters in the November elections) which would, in essence, guarantee one lucky voter per election of a $1 million dollar prize just for casting a ballot. Yes, that is right. In order to bolster voter turnout, Osterloh is proposing the adoption of a "voter lottery" whereby one random voter who casts a ballot each election is selected to receive a $1 million dollar prize. It's an incentive that Osterloh says not only makes sense, but is Biblical. From the Arizona Daily Star on May 19th:

"People don't always do what they should do," he said.

Anyway, he said, it's little different from religion, which he also said is based on incentives.

"What does God say? Do what you're supposed to do and I will reward you with eternal life in heaven," Osterloh said. "The only thing that we're saying is do what you're supposed to do and vote and we'll reward you with $1 million."

And from the Daily Star again on June 30th:

Osterloh said the concept of rewards is not so odd. He said it actually comes from the Bible — that if you do the right thing, you get into heaven.

"If incentives are good enough for God, they're good enough for Arizona," he said.

So, there you have it. Good reason why politicians shouldn't be theologians -- because they apparently don't understand the Bible. Osterloh's works-based scenario, besides being unethical, is just a cheap way of garnering support from religious conservatives. Unfortunately, it will probably work, since most Christians don't understand theology either.

Friday Funnies -- The Rap Edition

2006-07-14T22:40:00.000-04:00

Sorry that Friday Funnies is running a bit late today, but I hope that you will find it worth the wait. Anyway, this week's Friday Funnies is all about Rap - the good, the bad, and the ugly, the latter two characterized by what you will find below in the two humorous videos. Let's start with the good though. This week's post was inspired by an interesting article I read about two weeks ago at Between Two Worlds about a Christian rapper named Voice. Justin Taylor followed up a week later with an interview with Voice regarding his newest album and his life as a rapper. Here is one exchange I found quite enlightening:

For this next question I’m thinking about increasingly smaller circles. In the first circle you have all the musicians in the world. Within that circle is a much smaller one that holds all the rappers in the world. Within that is a smaller one yet of guys trying to live a fairly clean, moral lifestyle. Within that you have Christian rappers. And finally, you have perhaps the smallest segment of all—Reformed Christian rappers. But you’re not the only one, are you? Who are some of the other Reformed brothers out there doing hip hop and rap?
Right now the guys I listen to are Christcentric (Christcentric.net) Shai Linne and Timothy Brindle (Lampmode.com). These guys, groups influence me the most and the ones I like to listen to. There are more but I don’t listen to them as much.

Voice was an attendee at the recent Together For the Gospel conference in Louisville and Taylor asks him for his opinion of the rap parody that Lig and John Duncan performed. You can go over and check out his critical analysis of their music career possibilities.

Here are two "Christian rap videos" (if you can call them that) I found on the internet. Both are meant to be humorous, and are in no way representative of the style of the guys mentioned above (you can check out the links and find videos of each if you are interested). The first of the two videos I found over at The No Kool Aid Zone, which is authored by an Evan-Free blogger, and the other is fairly old, so most of you probably have seen it before. So sit back and enjoy a good laugh courtesy of the latest installment of "Friday Funnies."

The Church Report on the Most Influential Churches

2006-07-13T14:41:00.000-04:00

You might remember that some months ago I was lamenting about what folks made The Church Report's annual list of "The 50 Most Influential Christians In America." Justin Taylor of Between Two Worlds addresses the newest list of The Church Report, which is the "50 Most Influential Churches in the U.S. There was very little surprise that the top spot went to Willow Creek Church and the second to Saddleback Community Church. But it was nice to see five Southern Baptist Churches as well as Bethlehem Baptist Church of Minneapolis, College Church of Wheaton, IL, Reedemer Presbyterian Church of New York, Mars Hill Church of Seattle, and Grace Community Church of Sun Valley, CA.

So let me ask you two questions:
1. Which church do you think IS the most influential in the U.S.?
2. Which church do you think SHOULD BE the most influential in the U.S.?

Emerging From Criticism?

2006-07-12T08:18:00.000-04:00

Recently I have been taking a break from blogging in order to enter the world of the blogosphere. This may sound strange, but what I mean by this is that I have been blog-hopping -- commenting here, reading there, assessing so-and-so's arguments, and critically evaluating my own views in light of what I have been reading. Over the past couple of weeks I have been visiting Brent Thomas's site, Colossians 3:16 quite often as he has been commenting about Emergent and the greater Emerging Church movement (ur...conversation). As usual, someone who is a part of the "conversation" stopped by to attempt to set Brent straight and remind him that "when a criticizm [sic] seems to resurface over and over in the same tired fashion, it doesn’t mean that that criticism is somehow more valid." Now, Brent is a smart guy. He holds a Master's from Southern Seminary and Bachelor's from Grand Canyon University, two schools that are anything but lightweights academically. But somehow guys like this just seem to speak as if Evangelicals who criticize Emergent are backwoods rednecks who need a good "edumacation." And that, to me, is terribly irritating, especially given my natural Southern drawl.

But, what I find most irritating is that it seems that Emergent-types folks are always disturbed by criticism. Brian McLaren loathes it. He wrote a whole chapter in A Generous Orthodoxy entitled, "For Mature Audiences Only," in which he shined a light on every potential weakness of his book in what seemed to be an attempt to "head [criticism] off at the pass." And just recently he wrote an article that appears on his website called, "A Friendly Note to My Critics" in which he criticizes the way his critics have criticized him (I shall now refrain from using that word for the rest of this paragraph). He asks his detractors to be fair and consider eight ways of doing so. Even the entire leadership of Emergent has responded to their naysayers in a June 2005 article posted on virtually every Emerging Church website in the free world.

So, why does it irritate me that these guys can't seem to stand being criticized? It's because the very nature of the Emergent movement is a criticism of Christianity in its present forms, most notably, Evangelicalism, from which virutally all the leaders of the Emerging "conversation" originate spiritually. Take, for example, these two paragraphs from the EmergentVillage.Com under the heading, "EXPLORE: THE EMERGENT STORY":

This complex and many-faceted transition calls for innovative Christian leaders from all streams of the Christian faith around the world to collaborate in unprecedented ways. We must imagine and pursue the development of new ways of being followers of Jesus … new ways of doing theology and living biblically, new understandings of mission, new ways of expressing compassion and seeking justice, new kinds of faith communities, new approaches to worship and service, new integrations and conversations and convergences and dreams.
In recent decades, a small number of Christians across the globe have begun taking on this challenge, and now they are beginning to find one another to share insights and encouragement and hope. Growing networks in Africa, Latin America, Asia, Europe, and North America are coming together in person and online for thoughtful conversation, prayer, worship, and action as part of this transforming mission.

To rip out of context the words of the author of Hebrews in 8:13 (but only to borrow the logic behind them), "When He said, 'A new covenant,' He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear." Whoever wrote this clearly points out that there must be something "new" in Christianity. The "old" is just not cutting it apparently in their opinion and thus is "obsolete." And notice that in the second paragraph, the writer says, "a small number of Christians across the globe have begun taking on this challenge" (emphases mine). It seems clear that these guys think they hold the key to the future of Christianity. Even Brian McLaren, the humble pied-piper of Emergent reflects this attitude in his writing. In the introduction to A Generous Orthodoxy he writes,

The real purpose of this book, and much of my writing and preaching, is to try to help us relign our religion and our lives at least a little bit more with Someone. Doing so, I believe, will be good for us and good for our world. Christianity is the biggest and richest religion in the world, and if it goes anemic or compromised, backward or confused, aggressive or passive -- everyone loses. Christian and non-Christian. If its heart is right and its vision clear, everyone wins. In my own feeble and flawed way, I hope I can contribute to the church's health and vision . . . with your help, and of course, God's.

Clearly, McLaren think that something is amuck in Christianity and needs to be fixed. Like any good writer, he makes clear the problem and hints at the solution. To be fair (as McLaren asked in his "Friendly Note"), let me post his next paragraph, which balances what he says, but still reveals his belief that Christianity, in its current expression, is flawed and, as such, must be in some way "re-formed":

For some reason my name is often associated with a book I wrote, A New Kind of Christian. That title might suggest a claim to understand and even exemplify a *New! and ***IMPROVED!!! kind of Christianity. In this book I hope to people will understand how a new kind of Christian is also an old kind of Christian, a person who knows and embraces our shared Christian history (the sweet, the spicy, the sour, and the smelly), and who seeks to move forward into the future resourced by the church in all its many current and past forms.

I think what I am most perturbed about when someone like Zach (the "defender of all things Emergent" on Brent Thomas's blog) writes what he did in an attempt to discredit Brent's critique or deflect attention away from glaring problems in some of the Emerging Church's theological positions (or lack thereof), is that I agree with Brian McLaren and the other Emergent guys quite a bit. In fact, I think they are on to something, especially when as it relates to the practical exhibition of the Gospel in the postmodern culture. I think they are right-on to criticism an Evangelicalism that associates itself more with the Republican party than it does with the persecution of the saints in North Korea or when it boasts more about helping to elect a President than in helping provide for the poor. But, I am critical of the movement (read "conversation", for those who are sticklers about this) when it dismisses historical tenets of the faith or at least reduces them to mere non-necessities for fellowship or even salvation. And unfortuntely for those like Zach, who seem to want to dismiss such criticism, there are plenty who are smack-dab in the middle of the "conversation" who at times feel the exact same way as Brent or I do. Guys like Mark Driscoll, Tim Keller, Joe Thorn, Steve McCoy, and Ed Stetzer have all critiqued the Emergent conversation (or at least a participant or two in the conversation) at one time or another because of something theological that they believed was mishandled or irreverently pushed aside.

So maybe I am that dumb backwoods redneck who just doesn't get it, but shouldn't a group of people drawn together, intent on being "A New Kind of Christian" by calling for reform among fellow Christians be mature enough spiritually, Biblically, and philosophically to handle criticism and answer those who question their theological positions and praxis without resorting to tactics of dismissal and avoidance? I think we will know that the Emergent conversation has arrived at maturity when it can indeed deal with such criticism and even begin to critique itself.

Friday Funnies: The Star Wars Edition

2006-07-07T04:35:00.000-04:00

I saw this picture at the Citizen Bezner blog and I knew it had to be my next Friday Funnies.

But, I also wanted to include a picture I took this weekend on my trip to Memphis.

I hope to provide some more commentary on this church and their new statue. For now, here are a couple of articles about it:

Church Unveiling Its Own Version of the Statue of Liberty

Statue Of Liberation Unveiled At Memphis Church

I will say that some have interpreted it as a Church-State statement, but I think something more insidious is going on here. But more on that later. Thanks to Jay at TheMemphisMonkey.com for bringing it to my attention.

Another Installment of "Where's Americans United for Separation of Church and State?"

2006-07-07T02:59:00.000-04:00

I saw this article and it led me to ask, "Where are the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State when you need them?" Apparently no one but so-called "theocrats", "Dominionists", and "Christian Reconstructionists" seem to think that this situation proves to be a violation of the First Amendment and further evidence that there is a growing anti-Christian bias in this country that is going relatively unnoticed by the Mainstream Media (MSM).

Pastor Faced Charges for Evangelism at Mall

In an update though, it seems that the charges against this youth minister have been dropped: PJI Successfully Defends Youth Minister Arrested For Mall Evangelism. Thankfully, we still have some judges in this country who understand the Constitution and the Rule of Law.

Friday Funnies -- President Bush and Elvis

2006-06-30T05:05:00.000-04:00

I am posting this in tribute of President Bush's visit to Graceland today with the Japanese Prime Minister, Junichiro Koizumi, who is a huge fan of the King. He is the first sitting President to visit the home of the late Elvis Presley and will be greeted and led on a tour by Priscilla Presley and Lisa Marie Presley. The Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal is reporting that "Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi received an invitation from the Tupelo Convention and Visitors Bureau to tour Elvis' hometown after his June 30 trip to Memphis with President George Bush." The Bureau is still awaiting a response, though I wouldn't hold my breath. I doubt very seriously that Air Force One could land at the Tupelo Airport, and the three-hour drive might be a bit much.

Graceland is of course in my home town of Memphis, TN, where I will be this weekend for the Fourth of July holiday. The clip is a funny Audi commercial featuring an Elvis impersonator. Enjoy.

And in related news, President Bush's trip to Missouri on Wednesday included a visit with "Andrew Benecke, an 18-year-old whose academic achievements earned him the honor of being named a Presidential Scholar this year." Benecke was unable to attend the ceremony at the White House due to treatments he is receiving for bone cancer. As a token of thanks, the Benecke's gave President Bush a copy of John Piper's devotional book, Life As A Vapor. I hope that he will read it and possibly come to love my favorite author as much as I do (HT: Justin Taylor)

The Problematic Anne Lamott

2006-06-29T04:56:00.000-04:00

Recently, I have become aware of the incredible popularity of Anne Lamott among Evangelical Christians. I heard conflicting reports from different sides regarding either her piety or her need for repentance. And while I do not write this in order to pass judgment on whether or not the woman is truly a follower of Jesus Christ, I do find many of her positions and actions to be quite problematic for one who claims to be a disciple of Christ. But before some of my readers get irritated with me for bringing this up, let me say that what I find most disturbing is not so much her actions and views, but her unwavering belief that she is absolutely in the right in certain areas, though unable to defend her actions from a truly Christian worldview.

Take for instance, an interview with Christianity Today published in the January 2003 edition of the magazine, in which Lamott admits to being pro-abortion and to dating a non-believer, about whom she says, "he loves God. It's just that he doesn't quite commit. He's been sober as long as I have, and we both have a higher power. I call mine Jesus." In the article, the author tells of sending Lamott a later email to ask her the question, "Do you think that people from other faiths who don't believe in Jesus are God's children and will go to heaven?" Her response: "Yes". And she goes on to add, "I think Jesus is divine love manifest on earth, as it comes through the community of Christians." The author says she describes Jesus as the "beautiful Jewish uncle" who says, "Well, I can show you the way." She continues, "Only Jesus has come to me, and I experience God's love in an immediate and personal way through his companionship." And finishes by adding that non-believers in unevangelized countries "feel Divine Love come to them through more local teachings, through other expressions of that love." In summary, she's a classic universalist.

Going back to the point about her being pro-abortion -- she is adamantly so. An article by Albert Mohler entitled, "Anne Lamott and Her Evangelical Audience", expresses her fervor even more clearly as he addresses an op-ed column in the Los Angeles Times in which she recounted a recent panel discussion of which she was a part. She expresses unwavering, unilateral support for abortion on demand, stating, "fetuses are not babies yet; that there was actually a real difference between pro-abortion people, like me, and Klaus Barbie."

What brought me to write this post is the most recent article by Albert Mohler on Anne Lamott, entitled, "Anne Lamott Kills a Man -- And Writes About It." Mohler discusses Lamott's essay in her July 26, 2006 op-ed column in the Los Angeles Times, "At Death's Window," in which she "traces her involvement in the assisted suicide of a close friend." I encourage you to read the article, but I think Mohler sums it up well when he says,

With the ease of an author beginning to write on a clean sheet of paper, Lamott effectively jettisons Christian concern for the preservation of life and dismisses centuries of Christian conviction on the questions of life and death. She describes herself as a Christian, but there is nothing even remotely Christian, in any distinctive sense, to be found in her essay on a matter as serious as ending a man's life.

Anne Lamott's popularity is due much to her willingness to describe herself as wretched, dirty, and in need of God. But what I, and others, find most disturbing about her is that in the areas where she most needs to seek God's counsel, she sides instead with a "culture of death" and the ease of a universalist understanding of salvation, both of which are views that fall very far from the worldview the Bible teaches. Anne Lamott is no doubt a gifted writer, but her positions and actions are areas her Evangelical readers should find problematic and thus, in which they need to be concerned.

**UPDATE**
Dr. Russell Moore, Dean of the School of Theology at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and Executive Director of the Henry Institute has highlighted Mohler's article on his blog, Moore to the Point, and asked a very poignant question, "...why is Anne Lamott not in prison after confessing murder?" After all, unless the event occurred in North Carolina, Utah, Wyoming, or Utah, it is illegal for someone to assist in a suicide in this country. And if I am correct, Oregon only permits physician-assisted suicides, but no others. It is likely though, that the event took place in Calfornia, where she resides. If this is true, then Lamott is guilty of a crime and could face prosecution for her open admission of guilt in the LA Times.

Friday Humor

2006-06-24T02:11:00.000-04:00

Since everyone else seems to have some type of "artsy" blog on Fridays, I thought I would offer something different to the Christian blogosphere. Thus, Friday Humor. This particular video is long, but hysterical.

Are Americans United For Separation of Church and State Hypocrites?

2006-06-21T07:15:00.000-04:00

This week the only thing more deafening that the outcry of the nation's political Right was the silence of groups like Americans United For Separation of Church in State. What caused such an earth-shaking noise in America you might ask? It was the latest attempt by Anti-Free Exercisers to squelch free speech in the public schools by a valedictorian who, though she earned the right to speak, had it taken away from her because she said "God" too much.

Now, before I enter a discussion on the "wall of separation" between Church and State and the Free-Exercise clause of the Constitution, let me offer a disclaimer. I do not support the use of government funds for religious observation, nor do I feel that teachers, administrators, or students in the public schools should force others to exercise any religion against their will. Now, having said that, I do support the right of students, particularly those who are given a forum to speak by virtue of achievement or due process (i.e., through the result of student elections), to say what they wish provided that their comments are relevant to the event at hand and are not vulgar, profane, or spoken with the intention to provoke anger or hate toward an individual or group.

And I especially support the right of a valedictorian to say what she wishes when it most certainly falls within the parameters set by the school board in her particular school district. Such was the case of Brittany McComb, graduating senior class valedictorian of Foothill High School in Henderson, Nevada. On Thursday, June 15th, McComb's microphone was cut off part-way through her valedictorian address by administrators due to its content. This action was met with jeers by the 400+ graduates and hundreds more in attendance. School officials said the "speech amounted to proselytizing and that her commentary could have been perceived as school-sponsored."

What is interesting in this story, however, is that the Clark County School Board essentially disagreed through a 2003 amendment to its district policies. It clearly states:

Where students or other private graduation speakers are selected on the basis of genuinely neutral, evenhanded criteria and retain primary control over the content of their expression, however, that expression is not attributable to the school and, therefore, may not be restricted because of its religious (or anti-religious) content.

And then goes on to add:

To avoid any mistaken perception that a school endorses student or other private speech that is not in fact attributable to the school, school officials may make appropriate neutral disclaimers to clarify that such speech is not school sponsored.

A simple statement of clarification was all that needed to be added in order to bring McComb's speech up to par in accordance with district policy and decisions by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled that graduation speeches could not contain "sectarian, proselytizing religious speech." The most provocative portion of McComb's address still does not compare to the words the 9th Court ruled as being "proselytizing" speech. According to the Las Vegas Review-Journal, her speech included only one occurrence of "Christ" and "a reference to God's love being so great that he gave his only son to suffer an excruciated death in order to cover everyone's shortcomings and forge a path to heaven." Yet at no time does it seem she extended a call to her fellow students to act upon such information, which was certainly the case in Lassonde v. Pleasanton Unified School District (2003) or in Cole v. Oroville Union High School District (2000). In both of those cases, the Plaintiffs clearly stated their intention to call attendees to turn to Christ. Such does not seem to be true of McComb's speech.

So, if this clearly was not an attempt to proselytize, it wasn't a violation of the precedent set by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and it was in accordance with school district policies, why aren't groups like Americans United For Separation of Church and State up-in-arms about such a decision by the school board? After all, on the AU website, the organization clearly states that it is an advocate for free speech and free exercise. In fact, under the heading of "Free Exercise of Religion" in the Issues section of their website, there is a statement that reads, "The government should be permitted to infringe on religious liberty only in extremely rare instances where a clear and compelling government interest is demonstrated." Clearly, this is not one of those rare instances. So why the silence on this issue? Why didn't we hear anything from the Religious Left? Bruce Prescott? TalktoAction.com?

Let me offer my take on why these people don't respond to attacks on free speech and free exercise. It's simple -- they don't care. They care more about the one or two who are inconvenienced in such a speech than the countless number of people who daily are told to "Shut Up" or are shouted down when they express their views in a public forum. If free speech is truly to be "free" then those who claim to advocate for it must be unbiased and exceedingly such. For years now, leftist Baptists have claimed that conservative Baptist groups have turned away from their roots in advocating religious freedom. But when such actions by school districts go unnoticed by these same groups, one has to wonder if they are not merely hypocrites focusing not on freedom, but on political agendas.

Tipping at the SBC

2006-06-15T23:25:00.000-04:00

A few months back, during the holiday season and after hearing a program on The Dave Ramsey Show about tipping etiquette, I wrote a short piece called, "At Christmas, Remember to Tip." I outlined 10 rules for tipping the Pizza Guy (or Girl). One of them was:

If you have any Christian symbols prevalent in your home (or on your car), you should definitely tip well. Non-Christian PGs notice those things and will make reference to it later.

This week I was keeping up with the Southern Baptist Convention Annual Meeting in Greensboro, NC via the internet, but mainly through the many bloggers who were providing up-to-the-minute details or commentary on the events taking place in and around the Convention. One of the blogs that was most helpful to me was Thoughts and Adventures, a website run by Scott Lamb of the Wisdom of the Pages blog and Don Hinkle, editor of The Pathway, the biweekly news publication of the Missouri Baptist Convention. The two men basically provided on-the-spot commentary regarding the events taking place at the convention, as well as writing some related articles on John Piper, Expository Preaching, and tipping. The latter of those caught my eye and raised my blood pressure. Here is what Scott Lamb said:

We ate at a restaurant for lunch today after the rush was over. The waitress was either about to cry or about to punch a wall. She asked if we were with "that convention". We said yes and asked her if she had experienced a good day with "us". She said that in fact she had not. She had worked about 3 shifts in the last 30 hours, and she said that her tips were measley.

He goes on to explain:

What is worse is that she said that everybody was leaving her these little papers with Bible verses on them. You guys have any idea what she is talking about? She even had low-tippers leave her one of those phony dollar-bill tracts. She asked us if we knew what it felt like to pick up what you thought was a great tip, only to find out that it was not real, and that the patron had actually been a cheapskate after she served them well?

This is enough to push my blood pressure back into the hypertension range. And not because I can, in a Clintonian sense, "Feel her pain" in regards to this waitress, who was continually being stiffed while working her fingers to the bone that day, but because it is simply a terrible witness to the grace and love of Jesus Christ. By leaving tracts and not tips, that person is saying to their waiter or waitress "you are not a person, but rather just a notch on my belt of evangelistic pride." And that is unacceptable. These people serve, something which pastors and ministers in the SBC should be doing more of. Regarding attitudetute we should exemplify, Scott Lamb says this:

Brothers, let's not leave the Greensboro churches to pick up the pieces from our bad testimony this week. Here is the attitude we should have - servanthood. Rather than thinking that the hotel employees, waitresses, cashiers, etc. are there to serve us, instead take the true Christian perspective that you have traveled to G'boro to serve them.

Good words, Scott. And he closes by offering an exhortation, a gentle rebuke, and a vision:

Genuinely smile - a lot. Tip big (and don't pull out that mess about being a "good steward" of your church's conference money - that didn't keep you from ordering a $6 cup of super-duper double mocha coffee this morning).
Filled with the Spirit of God, let's show the love of Christ to Greensboro, so that when they think back on us being here they consider it one of the highlights of their summer.

Plan early for next year to be ready with a generous hand and loving smile for all those who serve you. And remember your calling to serve them.

Taking Shots At the SBC While It Meets

2006-06-13T06:42:00.000-04:00

I haven't blogged very much lately and while the SBC meets it's not likely that I will be doing much more than just reading other blogs and commenting about what is happening in Greensboro, NC. This afternoon I got on the internet and immediately did a Google Blog Search on "Southern Baptist Convention" in order to try to find out the latest news from Greensboro. Unfortunately, however, what I found was a slew of blogs criticizing the SBC and taking pot shots at it from many different angles. Here is just a sampling:

Pam Spaulding, speaking about the "Fred Phelps Traveling Road Show", writes, "Fred's loading up the bus with his band of hate-mongering family members of his 'church' and plans to picket the only slightly less wingnutty Southern Baptist Convention meeting, or as he calls it, the 'Idolatrous Southern Baptist Convention.'" But I do have to give her props for displaying the official Westboro Baptist Church press release on her website. It's worth a look.

Evil Bender chimed in on this as well in an article entitled, "When bigots attack bigots." He concluded that, "not even the SBs can be disgusting enough to please everyone."

Jbaritone2, a resident of Greensboro, writes, "Speaking of crazy christians the southern baptist convention is in Greensboro as we speek. Every woman hide your jobs and bake something, people of color and different races stay home, and if you happen to be a homosexual for the love of god avoid the convention area! You just might never be seen again!"

Several blogs referenced Dr. Chuck Kelley's statement regarding the opening up of New Orleans to evangelism post-Katrina. In his short address he said that though New Orleans was known for being a "seat of Satan," "Satan got floated out of the flood." Angie obviously took offense to this (as did others) and commented, "Oh please! Can these people just give it a rest already! They talk as if the hurricane was a good thing. [expletive deleted]! People died. People are still trying to get their life back in order. And you are worried about your pathetic little religion."

Anglico at BlueNC offers a few opinions on the SBC as well, opening with, "I love it when the Southern Baptists come to town. Especially when they're in a swivet over who should lead their denomination into its misogynist, delusional future." But the most mind-boggling statement he makes by far is, "I attribute much of the current epidemic in STDs among teens and young adults to the evangelical push for eliminating comprehensive sex education in favor of 'abstinence until marriage' training in public schools. And of course their view of women as nothing but wombs may play into the picture." But, he does note that he is "prayin' for 'em all, especially the men who lead the SBC. Praying that they'll come Greensboro and lose their hateful ways. Come on god [sic], give us a miracle."

And here are a couple of gems from the Baptist blogging world that attack the SBC and Al Mohler:

Bruce Prescott, my favorite former Southern Baptist, points us to Ethics Daily, which he says "has posted additional information about the political turmoil surrounding the Southern Baptist Convention's International Mission Board." Adding so sweetly, "The perpetrators remain the same, the victims change and the Convention's messengers are still bystanders enabling the perpetrators." What a nice guy.

Charles, the anonymous blogger from the Calvinist Flyswatter, helped to pass along information about Dr. Mohler's eye surgery, but decided to ruin his otherwise sincere call to prayer by adding, "Perhaps God will use this time to not only heal him but also awaken him to the many problems at Southern Seminary." Note that the link in his statement was inserted by him and leads to a recent post he wrote entitled, "Is Al Mohler Responsible for the SBC's Drop in Baptisms?" I'll save you the suspense and let you know that he concludes that because Dr. Mohler is a Calvinist, then the answer is a resounding "YES". Can you feel the love?

Now, the reason why I point these things out is to remind us all how the world and even fellow Christians look at us. More is at stake Greensboro than who is elected President of the Convention or whether or not the SBC narrows its parameters for cooperation. People are watching how Southern Baptists interact, what they talk about, and how they address issues. And while I am not naive enough to believe that Southern Baptists could speak in such a way as to not offend anyone (see my previous post "Offending That Which Is Offensive"), I do exhort messenger and speakers this week to heed the words of Derek Webb in his song, "Nobody Loves Me" when describing the Church he says, "And she don't need an apology / For bein' who she is / And she don't need your help makin' enemies." The SBC Annual Meeting is an opportunity to glorify God by meeting together. I pray that it's not an opportunity to "help" the Church make more enemies.

But before I close this post, I did find one critical article from a Baptist that I enjoyed and thought was worth reading and so I offer it here:

David Rainer of Opelika, AL in his article, "Pro-Choicer, Protesters, & Praised Evangelist" laments about three events taking place in Greensboro this week: the unveiling of the Billy Graham statue, the address by Condoleeza Rice, and the protests of Fred Phelps. After quoting John Piper on the importance of teaching doctrine, Rainer writes, "The reason Billy Graham is inclusivistic, Condy Rice is pro-murder, and Phelps is in need of checking into the phunny farm, is because they don't understand doctrine." It's an article worth reading.

The Elizabeth Vargas Situation: A Lesson in Feminist Reasoning

2006-06-02T05:47:00.000-04:00

Right now feminists across America are up in arms. Why, you might ask? I'm wondering myself. Apparently it all began on May 23rd with an announcement by Elizabeth Vargas on ABC's "World News Tonight" that she would be stepping down from her role as anchor of the evening news program on May 29th. She has served in the position of anchor for about five months now, a role that ABC designed for her to share with Bob Woodruff before "injuries suffered when [his] convoy was hit by an improvised explosive device in Iraq" kept him from continuing his co-anchoring duties after only three weeks together. Vargas was replaced by her "Good Morning America" co-host Charles Gibson this past Monday.

Vargas, at the time of her announcement, cited her reason for leaving was to "focus on anchoring '20/20' and the arrival of [her] new child" (Vargas's second child is due this summer). However, buzz quickly began to spread around the Internet and throughout feminist circles that Vargas had been "dumped" by ABC in favor of the elder Gibson. The heads of NOW, The National Council of Women's Organizations, and the Feminist Majority Foundation issued a letter to David Westin, President of ABC News, and Anne Sweeney, President of ABC Network, vocalizing their outrage.

In the letter, they label Vargas's leaving as "a clear demotion" and claim that it "signals a dispiriting return to the days of discrimination against women that" they believed no longer existed. Furthermore, the letter claims that "the demotion is not only a violation of the spirit of the Family and Medical Leave Act, it is what Carol Rivers, a Boston University professor of journalism, described as 'a message to all women taking maternity leave that you missed your shot.'" The letter goes on to lament the recent impending cancellation of the ABC drama "Commander-in-Chief", "in which Geena Davis portrayed America's first woman president." Finally they call for the network to "put Elizabeth Vargas or Diane Sawyer in their rightful place on 'World News Tonight'" and interject that "[Vargas's] talent and ability will enable [the network] to come up with a schedule and work arrangements that will allow [her] to continue as both a dedicated mother and a dedicated journalist."

Now, let's talk about the facts of this situation. Vargas claims that she stepped down for reasons involving her family and pregnancy. Leanne Kleinmann of the Commercial-Appeal (Memphis, TN) states that, "Her doctor has commanded that she cut back her work hours, or risk being placed on bed rest," something no pregnant woman desires, especially one as driven as Vargas has been. Kleinman goes on to suggest that Vargas "can't give the kind of effort to her work that she could before she had children (and she already has a son). And she has a job that, as it's configured now, doesn't have any built-in flexibility." Add to that a report from Slate columnist Dahlia Lithwick that Vargas said she'd "have a hard time thrusting [her] baby at [her] husband or baby nurse and [say], 'I'll see you guys in two weeks, I'm going to a war zone.'"

Now, add to this situation the fact that "Vargas alone has faced falling ratings since" the injury to Woodruff sidelined the co-anchor only three weeks into the new team format on ABC. Baltimore Sun television critic David Zurawik points out that "the success of 69-year-old Bob Schieffer at CBS has changed the way the industry views older newscasters" and concludes, "Most of the viewers lost by World News Tonight appear to have gone over to the CBS Evening News with Bob Schieffer." Zurawik quotes Lee Thornton, "professor of broadcast journalism at the University of Maryland and former CBS White House correspondent" who says, "No one knows if Schieffer's audience will stay with Katie Couric come September, but if you are offering an alternative in the same mold - an experienced, hard news anchor - in hopes of attracting those viewers, who better than Gibson?"

But despite these clear reasons for Vargas's timely departure, many are not satisfied and are crying foul to anyone who will listen. And it's not hard to speculate on the reasons why. First, feminists like those issuing the above letter are already lamenting studies that show women are trending toward a more traditional role in the home and seem to be happier there. Linda Hirshman, in a article published in November of last year on AlterNet.Org, berated woman for choosing to stay home rather than compete in the work world, claiming, "these choices are bad for women individually." Vargas decision is a clear heresy to the feminist doctrine. Possibly anticipating an adverse reaction, Vargas told the Associated Press:

Every woman has the right to make that decision for herself and her family without anybody judging it. My decision might not be the right decision for everyone else. My decision does not mean I'm stepping off the stage forever. It's just what's right for me now. I would hesitate to draw any large conclusions about working women or working mothers.

But despite repeated statements like these by Vargas and ABC, some of those outraged claim that the reasons she and the network give are meant to be a smokescreen for ABC's public relations department. One blogger notes that "If Vargas wants to continue working for ABC she will of course have to say that she is 'voluntarily stepping down' to give birth and care for her newborn." Susan Scanlan, co-signer of the letter to ABC and the chair of the NCWO, in an interview with Media Life Magazine's Diego Vasquez, claims that "the most galling aspect of Ms. Vargas's removal as co-anchor of 'World News Tonight' was how she was compelled to put a positive face on it." Kim Gandy, President of NOW, echoes Scanlan in her bi-weekly column on the NOW website, adding, "The explanation from network brass . . . didn't pass the sniff test."

What I find more amazing about this story is the unwillingness of these feminists to believe the facts and accept Vargas's own words. It seems that no matter what amount of evidence is heaped in their direction, they refuse to see the situation any other way. David Bauder of the Associated Press reports that Vargas "said she felt no pressure to step down," stating, “Maybe I'm obtuse, but I didn't.” Why are these women so unwilling or unable to bear these facts? Has feminism progressed to a level that any rejection of its core principles is simply unacceptable, so much so that these people are willing to believe a lie rather than accept the truth from one of their own role models? This seems to clearly demonstrate the type of reasoning behind Feminism. Instead of embracing the beautiful picture of femininity painted in Proverbs 31:10-31, these people buy into a system that will never be as fulfilling as the complementarian role established for women by God in creation. Feminists do a disservice to women by feeding them the lie of egalitarianism. Now is the time for a new suffrage movement, one that will help women to be restored to the roles they were designed to fill for the glory of God and the joy of their hearts.

ABC, Christianity, Complimentarianism, Culture, Egalitarianism, Evangelicalism, Feminism, Liberalism, Media, News, Vargas

Mohler on McLaren and The Da Vinci Code

2006-05-24T05:41:00.000-04:00

Since we have been discussing Brian McLaren on the blog, I thought it would be good to link Albert Mohler's most recent post on McLaren's words regarding The Da Vinci Code's popularity, which has already been discussed exhaustively in the blogosphere. But, despite that I think Mohler's article is a fresh perspective and one that should be noted. Mohler first points out Brian McLaren's quote in Sojourners magazine in which he says:

We need to ask ourselves why the vision of Jesus hinted at in Dan Brown's book is more interesting, attractive, and intriguing to these people than the standard vision of Jesus they hear about in church. Why would so many people be disappointed to find that Brown's version of Jesus has been largely discredited as fanciful and inaccurate, leaving only the church's conventional version? Is it possible that, even though Brown's fictional version misleads in many ways, it at least serves to open up the possibility that the church's conventional version of Jesus may not do him justice?

And Mohler responds with this:

This is just not a responsible way to deal with a serious theological challenge. Why did the Gnostic cults prefer their conception of Jesus to that of the canonical Gospels? Is this the fault of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? The church's "conventional version of Jesus," where it needs corrrection, can be corrected only by Scripture.

I think Mohler makes an excellent point here, one that bears more consideration given the state of the Church today and the postmodern challenge. You will have to read the article to see the connection between the Left Behind Series and The Da Vinci Code, but it's quite interesting. Here's the link to Mohler's article:

Left Behind by The Da Vinci Code?

Bible, Christianity, DaVinci, Jesus, McLaren, Mohler, Postmodernism

Offending That Which Is Offensive

2006-05-24T01:57:00.000-04:00

When Jesus had finished instructing his twelve disciples, he went on from there to teach and preach in their cities. 2 Now when John heard in prison about the deeds of the Christ, he sent word by his disciples 3 and said to him, "Are you the one who is to come, or shall we look for another?" 4 And Jesus answered them, "Go and tell John what you hear and see: 5 the blind receive their sight and the lame walk, lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the poor have good news preached to them. 6 And blessed is the one who is not offended by me" (Matthew 11:1-6, NASB).

I used to have one of those "Jesus fish" emblems on my truck, but due to an unfortunate accident my truck suffered at the hands of a friend's knee (don't ask -- it's still difficult to talk about), the emblem is no longer there. But, driving around an area like Louisville, you are bound to see your share of them on the back of cars. And they come in all variations -- some small or large, gold or silver, and some with either the words Jesus or ICTHUS (which is the word for "fish" in Greek, and actually is an acronym, the words of which are Greek and mean "Jesus, Christ, God, Son, and Savior) inside them. I even once saw one on the back of a Cadillac Escalade that said "Jabez" inside of the fish. Guess those guys were expanding there territory so much that they pushed Jesus out of the fish.

Unfortunately though, even as people have celebrated this symbol that once aided in the recognition of Christians in the 1st century while helping them to avoid persecution, there are a number of people who find this symbol to be fun to use to mock Christians. Not understanding its significance in the history of Christianity, all sorts of people display a fish on the backs of their cars with the term "Darwin" on it. It's usually fitted with a pair of feet to emphasize that the driver believes in evolution, as opposed to Christianity. Of course, there are other types of fish parodies as well. Some say "N Chips" or "Bite Me" or even "Sushi."

Every time that I see this on the back of someone's car I have a real desire to go up to them and ask them if they know how offensive those parodies of the FISH are. Do they, for instance, know that upwards of tens of thousands of Christians were killed by the Romans when the symbol of the FISH was employed in order to acknowledge fellow brothers in Christ without running the risk of being killed? Or that the numbers are even worse today, with some estimating that throughout the world as many as 170,000 Christians die due to persecution every year? Or that many more are persecuted by being starved, beaten, tortured, and imprisoned, all because of the name of Christ? When I actually consider the numbers and what the symbol of the FISH meant to the early Christians it does anger me to see it used so flippantly by some Christians and mocked by those who are not of the faith.

But then I have to stop and remember the offense that Jesus said He would be to people. I have to remember that, according to Paul, the cross itself is an offense (1 Cor. 1:23; Gal. 5:11). The word for "offense" in those passages is "skandolon," from which we derive the English words, "scandal" and "scandalous." Jesus Christ and the cross are scandalous, He is offensive and what He did was offensive. So should we be surprised to see people react to the man and His message with mockery and disdain? Of course not! In fact, we should rejoice that Jesus words noted above are fulfilled even in our day, as they were in His.

When we approach the problem of postmodernism and its emphasis on moral relativity, we cannot be shocked by what a scandal it is to preach truth. Today, many church leaders and pastors are attempting to meld postmodernism with Christianity -- to "contextualize" it to the postmodern culture. But can it really be done? Can something so offensive like Jesus' words of absolute truth, His work on the cross, and His call for His disciples to lay down their lives for Him really be contextualized into a culture that finds it scandalous to proclaim such things? And what about God? Is He surprised that so many people in this new postmodern context reject His message of Love and sacrifice?

I think the answers to the above questions are "NO." The early believers weren't persecuted because they were giving the Romans an alternate choice of gods. Rather, it was because they proclaimed the absolute superiority of Christ to all other choices. They were bold in teaching that the Roman gods were demons or were merely figments of the Romans' imaginations. And as they did this, the Church grew. Read that sentence again -- THE CHURCH GREW! It grew so much despite the culture's rejection of the Christian worldview that Tertuallian, a third century Christian who came to Christ through examining the courage of those enduring persecution, is said to have written, "The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church."

So next time you see something like what Madonna did on stage this week, placing herself on a giant mirrored cross as she sang one of her songs, or notice one of those FISH emblems with "Darwin" stuck in the middle on a passing car, let it serve as a reminder of the persecution of the early Christians, the persecution that continues today in places like China and North Korea and Iran, and the persecution that will surely be a part of ours or our children's lives one day. Remember that they are merely offending that which is offensive to them. And let it remind you to be bold, even as those who have lost their lives were, with the message of Christ, not compromising it for the sake of a "contextualization" that will never be as effective as "the blood of martyrs."

China, Christianity, Cross, Culture, Jesus, Madonna, Persecution, Postmodernism

Mondays With McLaren: "Introduction" to A Generous Orthodoxy

2006-05-22T18:55:00.000-04:00

McLaren, Brian. A Generous Orthodoxy. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing, 2004. pp. 304.

You may not be a Christian and wondering why anyone would want to be. The religion that inspired the Crusades, launched witch trials, perpetuates religious broadcasting, presents too-often boring and irrelevant church services with schmaltzy music – or else presents manic and overly aggressive church services with a different kind of schmaltzy music – baptizes wars and other questionable political programs, promotes judgmentalism, and ordains preachers with puffy haircuts (and others who are so superficial as to complain about puffy haircuts or whose baldness makes the complaint seem suspiciously tinged with envy) . . . it doesn’t make sense to you why anyone would want “in” on that.

…And so begins Brian McLaren’s controversial book, A Generous Orthodoxy. Provocative as usual, McLaren often sounds more like an opponent of Christianity (or at least some strains of it, particularly those of the Fundamentalist or Evangelical kind) than an adherent of it. Still his description is marginally accurate and likely at least some what reflective of those to whom he says he is writing. But this group is but one among five that he addresses in his introduction and believes might be reading his book. Along with non-Christian seekers, struggling Christians, Christian leaders looking for information on the Emergent movement (uh…I mean, conversation), those “looking for dirt so [they] can write a hostile review,” and new Christians are those who McLaren believes will be most drawn to his book.

The most striking thing about McLaren’s categories, looking at them from a perspective of having read the book in its entirety, as well as quite a few reviews of the book, is that the only group he appears to have been correct about appealing to is those “looking for dirt.” In fact, McLaren’s main audience seems to be his most ardent fans, those who are already well-versed in the Emergent conversation and who are fluent in the “post-“ language (as in post-modern, post-Christian, post-Evangelical, post-foundationalism, etc.). Most of the reviews I read came from either these sorts of folks or those who called McLaren everything from a liberal to a pagan in systematically trashing the book. I doubt, given the title and subject matter of the book, that McLaren was able to reach new Christians, struggling Christians, and especially non-Christian seekers.

The book revolves around a key principle that is McLaren’s rather oxymoronic title, "Generous Orthodoxy." Springboarding off of C.K Chesterson’s classic, Orthodoxy, and borrowing the term from Hans Frei (via Stanley Grenz) who says, “My own vision of what might be propitious for our day, split as we are, not so much into denominations as into [liberal/mainline and conservative/evangelical] schools of thought, is that we need a kind of orthodoxy which would have in it an element of liberalism . . . and an element of evangelicalism,” McLaren explains that:

This generous orthodoxy does not mean a simple merging, mixing, conflating, or reconciling of the two schools of thought, though. Rather it disagrees with both regarding the “view of certainty and knowledge which liberals and evangelicals hold in common,” a view Grenz describes as “produced…by modernist assumptions.” Grenz adds that this generous orthodoxy must “take seriously the postmodern problematic” and suggest “the way forward is for evangelicals to take the lead in renewing a theological ‘center’ that can meet the challenges of the postmodern…situation in which the church now finds itself.”

I find this concept rather interesting, but somewhat naïve. McLaren undoubtedly understands the fraction between liberalism and evangelicalism, yet he often chooses to ignore the divide and instead focus on what each can bring to the table -- a noble gesture for sure. But, unfortunately while liberals can learn a great deal from evangelicals, and vice-versa, there remains a theological gap that cannot be filled merely by coming together underneath the name of Jesus Christ, especially given the fact that the two sides cannot agree on what Christ did on earth, let alone what He does in the lives of Christians today. The centrality of the Gospel is the foundation upon which any "generous orthodoxy" must be built, not upon the idea that both strands of Christianity are simultaneously both right and both wrong and that acknowledging this fact and learning from one another alone will bring fellowship and camaraderie under Christ. It is not "generous" to allow one to die in their rejection of the deity or bodily resurrection of Christ, nor is it orthodox to believe such is an appropriate expression of the Christian faith. The Gospel, when tainted by an acceptance of willful sin and a rejection of the Bible as the sole authority for the believer in matters of faith and life, ceases to be the Gospel of Jesus Christ and could just as well be the Gospel of Buddha or the Gospel of Mohammed or even the Gospel of Scientology.

But yet within greater Evangelicalism, this concept can and should be employed for the furtherance of the Gospel. A great example of this is the recent “Together for the Gospel” Conference held here in Louisville a little less than a month ago. The speakers and conference-goers ranged in tradition from Anglican to Presbyterian to Southern Baptist and even to Charismatic, yet they all enjoyed fellowship under the banner of the Gospel message. They did not, however, pretend that they had no differences, even often celebrating them through jokes and jabs aimed at one another’s theological nuances. But after reading McLaren’s book, it seems apparent that this sort of "generous orthodoxy" is not what he has in mind, but rather the kind that has to ignore glaringly different perspectives on salvation, eternal life, Hell, Trinitarian (or non-Trinitarian) theology, sin, and even the events of the life of Christ. Fellowship that exists in such an environment is not true fellowship, but rather simply a denial that true fellowship is necessary for unity.

In examining how this plays out, notice how two vastly different groups handle the idea of a confessional statement. On the one hand, the Emergent conversation, most of whom would be ardent supporters of McLaren and his concept of “Generous Orthodoxy,” has recently had some discussions regarding devising a doctrinal statement. Tony Jones, considering the possibility, issued a statement on the Emergent-Us website from LeRon Shults on why affirming any doctrinal statement “would be unnecessary, inappropriate and disastrous.” Contrast that with a statement issued by those involved in the “Together for the Gospel” Conference spoken of above. It is a list of 18 Articles on which all involved can agree upon. The statement builds upon the solid foundation of the Gospel, yet includes ample freedom for disagreement between traditions and denominations of the Christian faith. Call me crazy, but the term “Generous Orthodoxy” seems be embodied much more by the TG4 folks who are able to honestly examine their differences and celebrate their similarities than by those of the Emergent stripe who feel such an undertaking would be “disastrous,” despite the Early Church's numerous confessional statements (which later came together as creeds). In the end, I think McLaren’s concept is a noble one, but without the right foundation, fails to meet up to its standards of being BOTH generous and orthodox.

Next week, we examine McLaren’s own critiques of his book set forth in “Chapter 0” and discuss why he wrote this chapter and if he is right about the book’s shortcomings.

Bible, Books, Christianity, Emerging Church, Emergent, Evangelicalism, McLaren, Ministry

Homosexuality and The Apostle Paul: A Study on Romans 1:26-27

2006-05-20T08:47:00.000-04:00

As many of you know, recently I have been debating a fellow blogger named Dan Trabue who operates a blog entitled, A Payne-Hollow Visit, on the question, “Does the Bible Teach that Homosexuality Is a Sin?” We have debated in the comments’ sections of two different posts. The discussion on Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 can be found under this post and the beginning of the discussion on Romans 1:18-32 can be found under this post. I have decided for a number of reasons, one being that I believe that it is absolutely essential that we properly exegete the text of this passage, i.e., interpret by drawing out of the text its meaning to its original hearers, to post my exegesis of verses 26-27 as a completely new blog post. So, the following is rather lengthy, detailed, and at times highly technical, but I assure you worth reading if you are interested in the subject. I have tried to weave both Greek translation and narrative criticism together as well as summarize the points as I go in order to help those of you who might occasionally get lost to see how the argument fits together neatly into the box of Paul’s overall argument, which is a presentation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ beginning with this passage highlighting the sin of the idolatrous Gentile culture. Please feel free to ask for clarification by commenting below. And note that in the comments’ section there will be a continuation of the debate between Dan and I, as well as a post on the interpretations of this text by various Church Fathers. So without further adieu, let us begin with verse 26.

Dia touto begins this verse, which translated simply means “For this reason.” This harkens back to the previous verse and indicates that what is about to be said is the result of the idolatrous culture. God has not been worshipped, but rather He has been usurped by the idols of creatures, and even the idol of mankind, itself. This verse is the result of exchanging the truth of God for a lie.

Paradoken – this word is repeated from v.24. God again gives them over to their desires. In v.24, He gave them over “in the lusts of their hearts” to impurity. Morris (NICNT: 1996) notes that this phrasing “shows that those who were handed over were already immersed in sin” (p.110). In v.24, these people already had an inborn desire to sin and were beginning to flirt with impurity. God simply allowed them to do so and they indulged. Likely, the same emphasis is found here in v.26, just as we will see that the same is true of the term for “exchange.”

The next phrase is “to degrading passions” – (eis patha atimias) – literally, “to emotions of dishonor” or “passions of dishonor”. This phrase is parallel to “impurity” in v.24, and while the word for “impurity” was somewhat ambiguous as to whether it dealt with sexuality, this phrase is not. Regarding this Morris says, “Paul’s use of the word ‘passions’ ... makes clear that he refers to illicit sexual passions” (pp.113-114).

“For” (gar) signals that Paul is about to explain in what way these people were given over to “dishonorable passions.” He goes on: “their women exchanged” – the word for “woman” (thaleiai) here is found rarely in Paul. Regarding this, Morris says in a footnote, “Paul’s use of the antonyms thelusi/arsen [female/male] (v.27) rather than, e.g., gune/aner, stresses the element of sexual distinctiveness and throws into relief the perversity of homosexuality by implicitly juxtaposing its confusion of the sexes with the divine ‘male and female he created them.’ For the pair thelus/arsen is consistently associated with the creation narrative (cf. Gen. 1:27; Matt. 19:4; Mark 10:6…).” Schreiner picks up on this and adds that in “selecting the unusual words thelus … and arsen … rather than gune and aner … he drew on the creation account of Genesis, which uses the same words.” The same words, that is, in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the OT that Paul exclusively used in his letters and with which his audience would have undoubtedly been most familiar. Again, this ties together the overriding theme of creation explicit in this passage.

Let’s now examine the word, “exchanged.” Paul uses the same word as he did in vv.23 and 25, again adding to the parallel nature of the passage. He says they exchanged “the natural function for that which is unnatural” – literally “the natural use to the [use] against nature.” This is the crux of the verse, and dare say the entire argument Paul is making regarding what I will later argue is homosexual relationships. The word that is translated “natural” means “belonging to nature, innate, a natural condition.” The word chresin here is translated, “function.” It is used only one time in the NT, and this is it. It is used often though in Greek to denote “sexual intercourse” and is found used this way in works by Lucian, Plutarch, and coincidentally in Plato’s Symposium, which we will get to in just a moment. This seems to again clearly show that this text is dealing with sexual relationships, specifically those of a homosexual nature.

And speaking of nature, the “exchange” (“exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural”) is clearly made from natural sexual intercourse to that which is para physin, or “against nature.” This phrase is incredibly important in this passage. But, first let’s deal with the word physikos, meaning “natural” in this passage. It is used only three times in the NT. Twice it is used in this passage and once in 2 Peter 2:12 where it is used to describe animals. The general definition is “given by, or according to nature” (TDNOT, V.IX, p.271). Now looking at the word, physis, translated “nature” at the end of this verse, is used often by Paul to denote things common to all people. In Romans 2:14 it is translated, “instinctively” and refers to all Gentiles. In 2:27 it again refers to all Gentiles. The same is true of 11:24, 27. In 1 Cor. 11:14 he uses it to refer to a universal principle which is observable in the physical world. In Galatians 2:15, he refers to the fact that all Jews are so by physical ancestry. In Gal. 4:8 he is referring to fact that idols are not “by nature” gods. And Ephesians 2:3 refers to all people’s status as being objects of wrath were it not for the grace of God. So, in every case, Paul uses this term to refer to a universal principle and/or complete group. He is lumping all people or items together into one category. Never does he use it to denote a minority group separate to the majority group. So when one says that this is in reference to the nature of an individual person separate from all women or men, it seems unlikely given Paul’s normal usage. If such a strange reading were legitimate it would be the first time he is using the word in that regard and does not fit with his usage of the word in other parts of the book of Romans, which he likely wrote all in one sitting with one purpose – to lay out the Gospel for the Church at Rome.

Now, let’s deal with the phrase, “against nature” or para physin specifically for a moment. It is used one other time in Romans and no where else in Scripture. In 11:24, Paul says literally, “For if you [Jews] were cut off from what is by nature [kata physin] a wild olive tree, and were grafted contrary to nature [para physin] into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these who are the natural [physikos] branches be grafted into their own olive tree.” The argument goes like this: The Gentiles were grafted into the olive tree of Abraham’s descendants (though they were by ancestry not Jews) by the grace of God through the sacrifice of Christ. This was unnatural or [contrary to the laws of nature] to do so. Still if God is able to do that, then surely He is able to bring those Jews who were by ancestry into their own tree as well. So again, we see this phrase used to express a universal understanding of people (and trees). Again, nothing seems to suggest that Paul is using this phrase to denote the nature of an individual or group of individuals within the larger population.

But, what is most interesting about this phrase is Paul’s use of it in Romans 1:27 when dealing with an issue with obviously sexual overtones. Remember that Paul is speaking to a Gentile audience and that he is a Roman citizen who was educated according to both Jewish law and Greek philosophy (as we seen when he goes to Mars Hill in Acts 17 and his discussion on philosophy in 1 Corinthians, as well as his use of rhetoric throughout his writings).

Knowing this, we find the either phrase “against nature” (para physin) or the effect Paul may be trying to cause with this phrase often in Greek literature. Let’s turn now to Charles Talbert for more on this:

For example, In Plato, Laws 1.2 [626B-C] said same-sex relations were ‘contrary to nature’; Ovid, Metamorphoses 9.758, had a girl involved in same sex love say ‘nature does not will it’; Ps-Lucian, Erotes 19, said female homoeroticism is contrary to nature (Smyth and Helwys Bible Commentary, Romans, 2002, p.66).

We also find evidence from Hellenistic Judaism. Again Talbert says, “Philo, On Abraham XXVI.135, spoke about men, discarding laws of nature, lusting after one another. In Special Laws, 2.XIV.50, he talked about men lusting unnaturally. T. Naphtali 3:4 said: “Do not become like Sodom, which departed from the order of nature” (which lends evidence to the use of “Sodom” throughout Christianity to refer not just to rape, etc., but to general homosexual practice) (Talbert, 66). He goes on:
Ps-Psocylides 190 exhorted the readers not to transgress sexually the limits set by nature. Josephus [a contemporary of Paul], Against Apion 2.25 + 199, said the law ‘owns no other mixture of sexes but that which has appointed…It abhors the mixture of a male with a male.’ Second Enoch 10:4 regards homosexual practice as a sin against nature.
And then we find this phrase used after the writing of Scripture, by the early Church Fathers to speak of homosexual relationships as unnatural, giving weight to the fact that the early Church believed Paul to be using “nature” and “against nature” in this way. Regarding these examples Talbert offers:

This Jewish contention was by the early fathers. Polycarp, Philippians 5.3, for example, said that those given to unnatural vice would not share in the kingdom of God. Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis 2.12.55 and 7.10.59, said women who married women acted contrary to nature [see there is talk about homosexual marriage in the early Church]. For him, the Genesis creation narrative laid the framework for understanding nature as gendered. John Chrysostem’s Fourth Homily on Romans treats both male and female homoeroticism as unnatural.
The evidence here is overwhelmingly in favor of a reading of “contrary to nature” as meaning against the nature of all men, with the term “naturally,” as we will see, referring to heterosexuality and para physin (“contrary to nature”) referring to homosexuality.

Turning back to the verse itself, were v.27 to have been omitted by Paul, we would still know that:
1. Paul was describing what results from a culture that has turned away from God.
2. This results in a sinful activity.
3. This sinful activity involves women and of a sexual nature.
4. A natural, non-sinful sexual activity has been exchanged for this sexually sinful activity
5. This sinful sexual activity is wrong because it goes against the nature of all women.

Now that we’ve covered the wording Paul used in v.26, let’s move on to v.27.

“And in the same way” is a phrase that indicates that the men described in v.27 were involved in the exact same type of activity. With just this phrase we can surmise that all five of the summarizing statements regarding v.26 are true of these men he going to describe in v.27.

Next Paul says, “the men abandoned the natural function of the woman.” The word for “abandoned” is best understood as “forsake” or “give up.” We have already covered the word “natural” as it denotes the normal activity of a general group. And we have also dealt with the word for “function” noting that it is used in regards to sexual activity. The phrase “of the woman” denotes a subjective genitive (the case of possession) and could be translated, “the woman’s natural function” or “the woman’s normal sexual activity.” This emphasizes that the men gave up sexual relationships with women, or said another way, they “forsook the sexual activity that they could have had with women” in favor of something else. Like the women they exchanged this “natural sexual activity” for something that was “unnatural.”

These men, abandoning the natural sexual activity of the woman, “burned in their desire toward one another.” This is actually the first main verb in this sentence. So literally, “as they abandoned, they also had a strong desire.” The word here is translated as “burned” in order to catch the emphasis in the Greek construction of the verse. Also, the verb is normally an active verb, but here its form is in the passive voice. Literally, it says, “[the men] were made to have a strong desire in their desire for one another.” This verse seems to make it clear that the men gave up the sexual activity they could have had with women and instead were inflamed with a desire for each other, which would obviously be other men.

But just in case Paul wasn’t clear, he uses the phrase, “men with men.” The first “men” in this phrase is in the nominative case (the case generally given to the subject of a sentence). This is strange for a word in the middle of a sentence to be in the nominative case, but this denotes that it has a specific function. Here it is what Daniel Wallace (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 1996) calls a “Parenthetic Nominative,” whose “use is primarily explanatory and is frequently an editorial aside” (p.53). Paul wants his readers to understand what he means by “burned for one another.” He means that men had sex with other men. At this point there is no doubt that he is speaking of homosexual relationships.

Paul doesn’t stop there, but continues adding, “men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.” About this sentence James R. White writes,

The mutuality of this desire is emphasized by the phrase “men with men.” The apostle leaves no doubt as to his reference: adult homosexuals. And these are active men: they act upon their desires, accomplishing what Paul identifies as literally “the shameful deed,” or as it is rendered by the NASB and NIV, “indecent acts.” The term comes from an old word that referred to something as “deformed,” and hence flows into the concept of perversion and deviation that is part and parcel of this section of the chapter. There is no possible way of reading this term as referring to anything neutral or simply “unusual” or “out of the norm.” Paul views homosexual activity as shameful or indecent.

And just in case his readers didn’t understand from his argument that these acts were sinful, Paul closes this verse with the words, “and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.” Certainly this act was sinful if indeed those who commit such are given their “due penalty.” Scholars differ on what this due penalty may mean. Many point to 1 Cor. 6:9 where Paul condemns certain sins and claims that those who commit such will not inherit the kingdom of God.

This verse is very controversial, however, because Paul uses the term, arsenokoites, which many say is not a legitimate term for “homosexual” given its limited usage in Greek. In fact, there are no known usages of it before the Hellenistic Jew Philo who was likely born just a few years before Paul, though Paul was probably very aware of his writings. So where did the term come from? Likely it came from Philo, who probably found this term in the Septuagint (LXX) and then used the term to refer to male homosexual sex. And then Paul picked up on this himself, for, as we noted earlier, Paul used the LXX exclusively in his letters. What both Philo and Paul would have found was the two words, arsen (men) and koiten (have sex with) in both Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 in the LXX. But what is striking is that in verse 13 of chapter 20 we find the two words directly next to one another. The verse reads in Greek, hos an koimethe meta arsenos koiten gunaikos. It was very common in Greek, and sometimes now happens in English, to combine two words together to form a new word that carried with it the meaning of the two. As the ancient languages had a limited vocabulary, this practice was the chief way in which words were created and the language was broadened. Often, after the word becomes common, it loses its original meaning and comes to have another one, though still reflective in some way of the two words of which it is constructed.

Another view of the “due penalty in their persons” is that Paul is referring to the fact that once one goes down the path toward homosexuality, he or she will be hooked by it and become fully engaged homosexuals, losing the joy they would have been able to experience in “natural” sexual relations. Whatever the meaning of this particular phrase we can certainly gather the following facts from our study of these verses:

Paul is indicting the Gentile culture for their idolatry.
Paul’s overall argument is based upon the observance of the created order, which the Gentiles were privy to despite their lack of the Law God had given to the Jews. Thus they were without excuse.
He points out that a culture this idolatrous will be given over by God to pursue their depravity.
This depravity is exemplified in at least three ways: They ignored the divine attributes of God despite the witness of the created order, they exchanged the glory of God to worship idols of men and animals despite the witness of the created order, and they exchanged the natural function of heterosexual relationships for homosexual ones despite the obvious witness of the created order.

Specifically, Paul argues in vv.26-27 the following:

Because of the idolatrous culture, God gave the people over to “degrading passions.”
These “passions” inflicted women who exchanged the natural sexual intercourse with men for “that which is contrary to nature”
In the same way, the men forsook the natural sexual intercourse women provided for sexual intercourse with men, leading the reader to understand that in the previous verse Paul was saying that women did the same with other women.

These acts were “contrary to nature,” which cannot be taken as “contrary to their nature” (meaning contrary to their nature as heterosexuals, but not contrary if they were by nature homosexual) for at least eight reasons:

We have no evidence that homosexuality is an inborn trait and thus would be natural to men or women.
We do have evidence that homosexual behavior often comes about because of certain cultural experiences.
To insert such a reading would betray the obvious argument that Paul is building from the created order.
The phrase “contrary to nature” was found in Greek and Jewish literature which Paul would have read and which had a very obvious and consistent rendering as shown above.
Paul’s use of such a phrase would have been familiar to his audience, who would have seen the same argument used in Plato, Ovid, and Lucian. It had a defined meaning and his audience would have known that.
Such a reading would lead to more confusion of his audience since the default position of the early Christians, the Rabbis, and even Hellenistic Jews was that homosexuality of any stripe was a sin.
The verse gives no indication that homosexual behavior of any kind is allowed or acceptable, though Paul would have been familiar with ideas like “male homosexuality, lesbianism, the claims of some to be born as a willing mate of a man, the concept of mutuality, permanency, gay pride, pederasty, ‘homophobia,’ motive, desire, passion, etc” (White, The Same-Sex Controversy) and had he [or the Holy Spirit who inspired the text] so desired, he would have certainly been more clear,
The universal witness of the Early Church, including the Greek and Latin Apologists, the Ante-Nicene, Nicene, and Post-Nicene Church Fathers, and all of Christianity up until the sexual revolution when idolatry once again gloriously reared its ugly head in Western Civilization, suggests that this reading is not in line with Paul’s intentions or those of the Holy Spirit who inspired the text.

So, in conclusion to this rather lengthy post, let me say that it seems unlikely that Paul meant to do anything other than indict the practice of homosexuality as sinful behavior to be rejected by Christians. There is no evidence that can be presented that overrides the testimony of 2000 years of Church History to this passage of Scripture. The burden of proof lies in the hands of those who desire to revise the historical view of the Church and the natural reading of the text. Today, as in the days of Paul, Christians everywhere should reject homosexuality as a legitimate expression of the Christian faith and teach that such a practice is against the natural function and design of human beings, which God our Great Creator gave to us. God’s design from the beginning was for marriage to exist between a man and a woman, producing children and exhibiting the glory of God by being an example of Christ and His Bride, the Church of Jesus Christ. Let me close by offering Paul’s words in Romans 11:33-36:

Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! "For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?” "Or who has given a gift to him that he might be repaid?" For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.

Bible, Christianity, Culture, Evangelicalism, Homosexuality, Liberalism, Ministry, Truth

Mondays With McLaren

2006-05-15T18:15:00.000-04:00

About three weeks ago I finally decided to sit down and read cover-to-cover Brian McLaren's book, A Generous Orthodoxy (Zondervan, 2004). I bought the book shortly after its release in September of 2004 and, while I had often skimmed, scanned, or read whole chapters of the book, until now I had not taken the time to read it straight through. What I discovered is that A Generous Orthodoxy is a dense and provocative little book to say the least and there is much more to it than I have the time or space to discuss in a single post. In the midst of even a single chapter McLaren would surprise, delight, irritate, anger, and challenge me. I know of no other author who can produce such the array of emotions in a reader like myself in only the span of a few short pages. And if I were to inform him of this, likely McLaren would just smile and tell me he was glad to know that his book was performing up to its intended effect. McLaren is truely a complex guy and his books do not betray this fact. For this reason, I have decided to react to the book chapter by chapter or even page by page over the course of several weeks in hopes that we might together glean from McLaren his best and most challenging statements, all the while filtering it through an Evangelical and Biblical Theology, as one might tea or coffee through a strainer. In this way we may be able to produce a beverage that we as Evangelicals will find refreshing and stimulating, one that awakens us to act on behalf of Christ and helps us sustain our calling to be ambassadors of Christ to a world of depravity and darkness.

I will be critical of McLaren. There is no doubt about that. Even fans of the author know that there are glaring problems in his book and with his worldview. McLaren, himself, discusses many of these criticisms early on in A Generous Orthodoxy. In the end, however, maybe McLaren's words can be contextualized into contemporary Evangelical Christianity and there produce "a rich harvest of good deeds." Next week, I will begin with his introduction and hopefully discuss this seemingly oxymoronic phrase he has chosen as the title of his book. And while this discussion might take a while, I hope to eventually move on to his latest book, The Secret Message of Jesus. So readers, with all that said, I present to you "Mondays With McLaren."

Blogging, Books, Christianity, Emerging Church, Evangelicalism, McLaren, Ministry, News

Homosexuality Debate Taking Time

2006-05-13T01:18:00.000-04:00

Some of you have asked me lately what has been going on with my blog and why did I post something a couple of weeks ago which indicated that I would be blogging more only to not follow through with that promise. Well, currently I am engaging a fellow Louisvillian on the issue of homosexuality and whether or not Scripture reveals it to be a sin if it is practiced in a "loving, committed" relationship. Our debate can be found under my post, "American Baptist Association Votes to Split From the ABC Over Homosexuality". My position is that Scripture clearly reveals homosexuality in any form to be sinful, but my opponent, Dan Trabue, author of the blog, A Payne Hollow Visit, contends that Scripture is not clear in this way and that homosexuality is not only something that cannot be characterized as sinful, but also is a legitimate expression of Christianity and glorifies God in the same way that a committed marriage between a man and a woman does. Currently the thread is topping 100 comments, but we have only discussed Leviticus 18:21 and 20:13 and are, as of now, moving on to dealing with Romans 1:24-27. I encourage you, if you are interested in understanding the current conflict regarding homosexuality within the Church, to at least take the time to examine our closing arguments on Leviticus and follow along as we begin to discuss the central passage in the Bible on homosexuality, Romans 1. Please pray that our discussion would be glorifying to God and that the truth of God's Word would be revealed through our conversation. Whether you agree with Dan or with me, I hope that you will be encouraged, as I have been, to open up God's Word and dig deeply. John Piper is fond of saying that he learned from Daniel Fuller while in seminary that "those who rake always find leaves, but those who dig might find gold." May we find gold for the glory of God!

Bible, Christianity, Culture, Evangelicalism, Homosexuality, Ministry

The Ethanol Craze Begins

2006-05-09T16:36:00.000-04:00

This Sunday there were two special news reports on Ethanol from two of the leading television news magazines, Dateline NBC and 60 Minutes. I watched anxiously to see exactly what would be said about this alternative fuel that has the White House buzzing and the oil industry worried. Dateline's story, "A Simple Solution to Pain at the Pump?" revolved around Vinod Khosla, a venture capitalist who immigrated from India in 1976 and was a co-founder of Sun Microsystems. Khosla is an outspoken advocate of Ethanol who has invested millions of dollars into research and production of the corn-based fuel. Khosla, during most of the interview, acted like a love-smitten schoolboy who wants to sell the world on his infatuation. But mostly he's hoping that the U.S. will buy into his newest venture, making Ethanol THE fuel source of the future. Dateline also traveled to Brazil just weeks after they announced that after only a few years of hard work, the country is now able to cease all importation of foreign oil. In fact, Ethanol, made primarily from sugar cane (of which Brazil has more than enough), has taken over as the country's largest fuel commodity.

The 60 Minutes story, "The Ethanol Solution: Could Corn-Based Fuel Help End America's Dependence On Imported Oil?", also focused on Brazil's booming Ethanol frenzy, but also on American ingenuity. Their story featured a small town no one has every heard of (no one except maybe its 300 residents), Steamboat Rock, Iowa. About a year ago things got so desperate in this farming community that a few residents put their heads together and decided to invest in and build an Ethanol production plant. It converted the corn that they were unable to sell into Ethanol, a product that they believe is the future oil of America. The good folks of Steamboat Rock and many other farmers believe that Ethanol might be the answer they have been looking for to stabilize a declining agricultural economy.

Additionally, both reports looked at Flex-Fuel cars, produced mostly by American car companies GM and Ford, which are highly successful in Brazil. Both companies have pledged to up their production of the cars -- which run on gas, ethanol, or a mixture of the two called E-85 -- in the next year. Today these cars make up only 5 million of the approximate 130+ million cars on America's roads. But the American car companies hope that an Ethanol boom might mean that millions more of their cars find their way to the road in the next few years, healing an ailing American automotive market.

So, what does all this mean for America? Well, this could be a perfect storm for the American economy and the country in general. Were America to aggressively pursue this alternative fuel source, many predict that within 15 years America could be energy independent, even as Brazil has in that same amount of time. Though relatively few cars today are Flex-fuel, any car can be retrofitted to use both E-85 and Ethanol. Add to that Khosla startling revelation that with the advancing technology, prairie grass, leftover wood pulp, and orange peels could be potential producers of ethanol, leading him to predict fuel prices could drop as low as $0.70/gallon using these techniques. Fuel prices that low would inevitably open up travel, increase tourism dollars, and fuel an economy already hindered only by oil prices. And without a dependence on foreign oil, OPEC countries would no longer be in a position to make demands of the U.S., and we would no longer worry that we are indirectly supporting terrorist efforts.

What should the Christian take be on this? Well, I think we should be supportive of any effort that provides jobs for low income families, brings economic development back to rural areas and farming communities, and produces less greenhouse gases which will undoubtedly make our air and water quality better. But we must beware of any utopian fantasies and realize that no technological breakthroughs can suppress evil or bring salvation. Ethanol may indeed bring needed relief to America, but without repentance and revival nothing will save the soul of this country.

American Baptist Association Votes to Split From the ABC Over Homosexuality

2006-04-30T04:33:00.000-04:00

The Associated Press is reporting that "Delegates representing congregations of the American Baptist Churches of the Pacific Southwest voted overwhelmingly Saturday to recommend severing ties with the national denomination in a dispute over homosexuality." This move comes as no surprise to those who have kept up with this controversy that has been swelling over the past couple of years. The ABCPSW has written a statement regarding their views on human sexuality and its understanding from a Biblical standpoint and numerous leaders throughout the 1.4 million member convention have expressed their outrage at the Convention's lack of response to congregations in the ABC that have policies in place regarding homosexuals which do not correspond to the Biblical standards of morality.

This blog has never specifically dealt with the issue of homosexuality, but in the coming days I hope to post a response to a recent controversy here in Kentucky over the dismissal of a student at a Baptist college because he was open about his sexuality on his MySpace homepage. The actions of the ABCPSW once again highlight the growing rift between Evangelical Christians and mainstream America over this issue. More and more we are seeing religious leaders, politicians, celebrities, newspaper columnists, and even common Americans throw around words like "bigots," "extremists," and "homophobes" to describe those who are trying hard to hold on to the essence of the Biblical message regarding sin and at the same time minister to those caught in a web of immorality. I applaud those, who like these Baptist churches, take a stand for truth in an age of accommodation. J. Greshem Machen wrote in his famous work, Christianity and Liberalism, "In the sphere of religion, as in other spheres, the things about which men are agreed are apt to be the things that are least worth holding; the really important things are the things about which men will fight."

But let us remember that breaking ties with those we love and cherish is never easy and never done without great grief and prayerful yearning for reconciliation. Jesus, after describing in Matthew 18 how to discipline a brother in sin, gives his followers this exhortation to comfort them in the midst of grieving over their experience: "For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst" (NASB) What comforting words from our Savior when we find ourselves standing for Truth and opposing sin!

baptist issues, Bible, Christianity, Culture, evangelicalism, Liberalism, Ministry, News

Updating the Blog

2006-04-28T17:57:00.000-04:00

I have made a few minor modifications to the sidebar of the blog of which I wanted to make you aware. Gone are a few links, including the entire "Moderate, Liberal, and Emergent Blogs" section. Replacing it are two new sections of links -- "SBC Issues," which is a section of blogs dealing specifically (or at least mostly) with the Southern Baptist Convention (Dr. Mohler's new website mentioned below will be included as soon as the URL becomes available), and "Other Blogs I Read," which incorporates some of the blogs in the aforementioned deleted section, as well as a few new links that will be coming in the future. Additionally, I have added a link to my My Space page for those of you into that sort of thing. Finally, I have added a new Blog group, Band of Bloggers, birthed out of the recent fellowship at the Together for the Gospel Conference (another new link added under "Ministries") that will hopefully be up and running soon.

As for the future of the blog, I had been posting sporadically (as many of you know who have emailed or posted to remind me of my infrequency), but that will soon change. I am going to start posting more, even if it is only an article or a link with a brief commentary. I hope to do more book reviews in the future, as well as some mini-reviews which will offer reaction to certain principles or ideas in other books that I skim or scan, but do not read exhaustively. The first one of these will be up soon on Kevin Phillips' new provocative book, American Theocracy. I was recently able to attend a standing-room-only lecture he gave at Bellarmine University here in Louisville on this book. Overall, look for more from Christ and Culture in the future. And thanks to those regular readers that keep me on my toes every day with your comments and emails.

**Update. Thanks to Art (see comments on this post), I have become aware of the fact that Beacon Churches has reposted a couple of my articles from the past week. I have added a link to their news page (where you will find my articles), as well as to their main ministry page. Art wanted me to point out that they do offer an open forum for discussion that is available to all that register an account on the site.

Blogging, News

Al Mohler to Start Weblog on Southern Baptist Convention

2006-04-26T21:19:00.000-04:00

This afternoon I was blessed to be able to attend the Band of Bloggers meeting at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. It was an event birthed out of the heart and mind of Tim Brister of Provocations and Pantings and hosted by the seminary in conjunction with the Together for the Gospel Conference which is being held here in Louisville over the next three days. The event is expected to draw thousands of Evangelicals to this heavily Southern Baptist city from a range of denominations including members from the Presbyterian Church of America, the Baptist General Convention, and a group of churches under the banner of Sovereign Grace Ministries. Earlier today R.C. Sproul spoke in chapel at Southern Seminary and will be one of three special guest speakers at the conference, along with John Piper and John MacArthur. The conference is being hosted by four leading voices in Evangelicalism: Mark Dever, Ligon Duncan, C.J. Mahaney, and Albert Mohler.

So, this afternoon a group of bloggers got together for a time of fellowship and to hear discussions on blogging by a panel of well known Evangelical keystrokers. Along with Dr. Albert Mohler, others on the panel included Tim Challies of Challies.Com, Justin Taylor of Between Two Worlds, and Dr. Russell Moore of the Henry Institute and a regular contributor to Mere Comments. The discussion centered around issues ranging from "what is blogging?" to "pros and cons of blogging in a postmodern world." After a short dialogue between the panel speakers led by Dr. Mohler, the floor was opened up for questions.

About halfway through the dialogue, Dr. Mohler began speaking about the nature of the content of weblogs and made a startling announcement that many will be glad to hear -- in the next week or so, Dr. Albert Mohler will be starting a new blog specifically dealing with issues in the Southern Baptist Convention. The blog will be called Conventional Thinking. He had little else to add, other than he hoped to target those who are interested in what is happening right now in the SBC.

In light of this and the fact that many (including myself) have been critical of Mohler's "slow to speak" reputation on issues pertaining to the SBC, I would like to throw out a few questions for those of you interested in this sort of thing to ponder and to which you can respond in the comments section.

What sorts of issues going on in the SBC would you like to see Dr. Mohler address?
Do you think Mohler's decision to start a weblog on the SBC is going to be a positive or negative thing for the SBC? For Younger Leaders? For Convention Leaders? For his reputation?
Do you think Dr. Mohler will tow the convention line or will he surprise some of his critics by writing things that tend to go against the Establishment's views?
Knowing that Dr. Mohler's web-writings don't allow for comments, do you think that his weblog on this subject will be of much benefit? And if you think it will, what is the best way for people to interact with Mohler's views?
Finally, do you think his opinion will change anyone's minds in such a way that it could squash any minority views or bring any of them to fruition?

As a blogger and a young observer of the SBC, this fascinates me that Mohler has chosen this time -- only a couple of months away from what promises to be an important meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention, one in which Marty Duren of SBC Outpost (who has been writing for months on the subject of the SBC) has stated, "Greensboro '06 is Houston '79 is the future of the SBC" (emphasis his). What will Mohler's commentary mean for the upcoming convention? Right now we can only guess, but I am sure come June we will know.

Baptist Issues, Blogging, Evangelicalism, News, SBC

LifeWay Advertises New McLaren Book

2006-04-18T19:53:00.000-04:00

Four months after my wife and I moved out of the dump in which we were living, we have been found by all the mail-order catalogs and advertisements that we previously left behind. Just today we received in the mail the new LifeWay Christian Stores' circular for Mother's Day. Of course it is filled with a bunch of junk gift items like embroidered pillows that say "FAITH," "HOPE," and "LOVE," along with all the new Christian CD's and books that they can pack into 40 pages. Around p. 30, I noticed that smashed between Dan Miller's 48 Days to the Work You Love and You Matter More Than You Think by Dr. Leslie Parrott was Brian McLaren's new book, The Secret Message of Jesus: Uncovering the Truth That Could Change Everything. The book description given on Amazon.com says the following:

Brian McLaren, one of TIME magazine's "25 Most Influential Evangelicals in America," is back, this time to lead readers on a journey that will prove to be as unsettling and groundshaking as it is thrilling and life-changing. Unafraid of controversy or the uncomfortable gray areas of life, McLaren's quest is to find the essential message of Jesus' life-even if it overturns our conventional ideas, priorities, and practices."

"Through the years, I have frequently had an uncomfortable feeling:" writes McLaren, "that the portrait of Jesus I found in the New Testament didn't fit with the images of Jesus in the church" Out of that nagging discomfort arose this book, promising to be McLaren's most revolutionary to date. He writes, "I'd like to share my search with you, and invite you to be a part of it. I don't want to spoil the ending, but I'll let you in on this: the farther I go on this search, the more inspired, moved,
challenged, shocked, and motivated I become about the secret message of Jesus."

Now, I must admit that I haven't read the book, but given his previous works such as Generous Orthodoxy and Adventures in Missing the Point (with Tony Campolo), along with the three book series that began with A New Kind of Christian, I would say that it is a bit early for LifeWay to be advertising the book. Selling this book in LifeWay is really not a problem for me and neither is purchasing the book (which I plan to do), but I think LifeWay, being a Southern Baptist entity should be careful about what they advertise and thus should take seriously their role in shaping the hearts and minds of not only Southern Baptists, but millions of other Christians. Advertising the book in their circular with a very favorable description is, to most readers, at least an approval, if not a outright endorsement. The description found next to the book reads:

In a book that will keep you on your toes, Brian D. McLaren searches for the true Jesus of the New Testament, even if this Jesus doesn't match who is portrayed in today's churches. Join McLaren in his search for the secret message of Jesus.

So far I have found McLaren to be the one on the adventure of missing the point of Christianity. If his latest book is like the others, then I think LifeWay has made a grave mistake here in advertising a book that does not accord with the theology of our great denomination, whose history is rooted in the historical-grammatical hermeneutical method, along with the belief in substitutionary atonement -- two things that McLaren seems to reject. I do plan on reading it in upcoming days, so look for my review to be up in a couple of weeks. In the meantime, here is a review by Matt Adair that I think is worth reading.

Book Review: 1776

2006-04-15T18:30:00.000-04:00

McCullough, David G. 1776. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2005. 400pp.

"The year 1776, celebrated as the birth year of the nation and for the signing of the Declaration of Independance, was for those who carried the fight for independance forward a year of all-too-few victories, of sustained suffering, disease, hunger, desertion, cowardice, disillusionment, defeat, terrible discouragement, and fear, as they would never forget, but also of phenomenal courage and bedrock devotion to country, and that, too, they would never forget.
Especially for those who had been with Washington and who knew what a close call it was at the beginning -- how often circumstances, storms, contrary winds, the oddities or strengths of individual character had made the difference -- the outcome seemed little short of a miracle."

Overview of the Book

So closes, does the above quote, McCullough's magnificent book about the battles that raged and the people who pursued independance in that incredibly important year of American birth, 1776. From opening sentence to those final words, McCullough's 8th book does not disappoint the reader when it comes to suspense, intensity, and depth. Though properly named after the year on which it focuses, the book is really about the significant battles that took place in the northern states between the American "rabel" under General George Washington and the stalwart, disciplined army of His Majesty's, King George III's, forces.

McCullough's book begins in the year 1775 -- October 26, 1775, to be exact -- with King George III's speech to the British Parliment concerning the military action which he felt needed to be taken against the American rebels. As he informed Parliment that the Americans intended to seek independance from their rule (though the Congress had not declared such, nor had they yet even taken up such a discussion), a large regiment of British soldiers across the Pond in America were licking their wounds from the Battle of Bunker Hill, a skirmish that though won by the British would prove to be a moral victory for the Americans.

From there, McCullough guides the reader through the world according to George Washington. Drawing on private letters, public correspondance, and written accounts, he wraps the storyline around this dynamic character who must learn military strategy by experiencing devastating mistakes and incredibly sophisticated sucesses while commanding an army that proves its worth at times in retreat, and yet shows cowardice and a lack of integrity in numerous battles. The entire hope of American independance is put on the shoulders of Washington, who readily admitted even from his appointment "that [his] abilities and military experience may not be equal to the extensive and important trust" asking Congress at that time that ". . . lest some unlucky event should happen unfavorable to my reputation, I beg it may be remembered by every gentleman in the room that I this day declare with the utmost sincerity, I do not think myself equal to the command I [am] honored with." Little did he know at this time that during 1776 he would experience many of these unlucky events which would prove very unfavorable to his reputation. Still Congress, and a few of his officers, never wavered in their support of him, eventually causing John Adams's prophecy -- that Washington would eventually become "one of the most important characters in the world" -- to become a reality.

McCullough details battles and skirmishes that take place from the seige at Boston through to the stunning victory at Princeton in the first days of 1777. Throughout it all several things are apparent. One is that Washington, though a neophyte in military strategy, was a quick learner and an able leader. He looked the part at all times, even his very appearance causing many soldiers to take on attitudes of bravery and patriotism. Another obvious point is that the soldiers were terribly unskilled and often broken by sickness and fatigue. They often frustrated Washington, who wrote numerous times of the soldiers' cowardice and lack of discipline. Finally, it was easy to see that the failure of the British to take the Americans seriously resulted in many lost opporunities to end the war in 1776.

Why Christians Should Read This Book

What is most surprising about McCullough's book is that it paints a picture of the American troops that one does not often find in high school and college history books. The soldiers are revealed to have been lazy, undisciplined, and lacking in hygiene and integrity. It is eye-opening to see that few ordinary soldiers acted like the Godly men they are often portrayed as, and yet how often the generals showed themselves to be serious followers of Christ, ultimately leading to the success of the Americans. Were it not for the resolve, faith, and integrity of men like George Washington, Nathanael Greene, and Henry Knox, America might never have realized the dream of independance. Christians should be aware of not only America's righteous history, but also of its unfortunately past that is marred by sin and human depravity.

Another reason why Christians need to read 1776 is that it presents an understanding of war that many in this country have forgotten. War, death, and peril were a part of life for the Americans for many years, this after a similar lifestyle under the British, who participated in the bloody Seven Years War, or as it was know in the colonies, the French and Indian War. Though not celebrated, war was considered a necessary evil, due to the depravity of man and the ever present need to defend one's family. The men that fought in the American Revolution, many of whom were clergymen and dedicated Christians (some even Quakers, who have always been classified as pacifists), did not see war as unChristlike and in opposition to their faith, but rather as a means to end government tyranny and the resultant suffering of men under the heavy hands of a vile dictatorship. One may well come away from the book with a different view of combat.

Problems With the Book

Though McCullough, a Pulitzer-Prize winning author, writes with flair and depth, he seems at times to lose the reader in a sea of facts without adequate background or reference. An example of this is found in the second chapter where McCullough fails to give the reader a real picture of the layout of Boston, despite vividly portraying the Americans couragous midnight move to take Dorchester Heights, securing the city for the rebel troops. One must look at a map of Boston in 1776 (the one provided by McCullough is woefully lacking in detail) to understand the amazingly brilliant and dangerous move on the Heights. Another problem with the book is that McCullough focuses entirely on Washington and the troops under his command. Nothing is mentioned regarding the attitude or situation in the Southern colonies and most disappointing is the lack of details regarding the signing of the Declaration of Independance, which McCullough notes was of great importance to the morale of the soldiers and the will of the officers.

Overall Rating

McCullough's latest book is deep, insightful, well-researched, and easy to get into, and thus deserves an overall rating of 8 rebels out of 10. This book has opened my eyes to many aspects of the American Revolution about which I never before considered. It gives the reader a framework for understanding the miraculous results of the war born out of the desire to be free from the rule of a tyrant king and his loyal subjects in Parliment.

John Piper on BP News

2006-04-07T15:36:00.000-04:00

John Piper's controversial article, "Don't Waste Your Cancer" was picked up by BP News today and posted under their "First-Person" editorial section. I wanted to take this opportunity to commend the editors of BP News for making such a bold move in light of recent controversies over the article itself (which this blog touched on almost two months ago) as well as Dr. Piper, himself, who has been accused by at least one prominent denomination leader of subscribing to the heresy of Hyper-Calvinism. I hope this action by BP News will accomplish at least two things:

1. Raise the bar academically, theologically, and spiritually for future "First-Person" editorials
-and-
2. Bring awareness to the ministry of John Piper, Desiring God, which has been a catalyst for spiritual and theological growth throughout evangelicalism

Dr. Piper is the type of columnist that BP News needs to highlight more often. As a fellow Baptist and conservative Christian, his cooperation should go a long way to uniting us as a denomination with other like-minded Christian organizations.

And speaking of John Piper's article on cancer, another recently diagnosed cancer patient, Dr. David Powlison, Editor of the Journal of Biblical Counseling and a professor at the Christian Counseling and Education Foundation, has recently "added some helpful expansions to John Piper’s 'Don't Waste Your Cancer' article," according to DesiringGod.Org that are worth reading.

Book Review: Game of Shadows

2006-04-05T06:12:00.000-04:00

Fainaru-Wada, Mark and Lance Williams. Game of Shadows: Barry Bonds, BALCO, and the Steroids Scandal that Rocked Professional Sports. New York: Gotham Books, 2006. 352 pp.

"So with few exceptions, the more than three dozen athletes who appeared before the grand jury admitted taking steroids . . . They weren't asked why. Perhaps the answers were too obvious: It was to run faster, jump higher, hit the ball farther, and ultimately, make more money. Some of the confessions were grudging and evasive. Others were extremely forthcoming. It came down to the same thing: Competitive sports, it turned out, was part mirage, a game of shadows" (p.197, emphasis mine).

Overview of the Book

Game of Shadows is a book that is hard to read for a sports enthusiast like myself. It reads more like a seedy novel about local government corruption than an expose on the recent steroids debacle in professional baseball and Olympic track and field. Lies told before the grand jury; greedy, angry track coaches turning state's evidence, and egotistical, success-driven athletes willing to put their lives on the line for the edge that might secure their own immortality are just a few of the storylines you will find in this book by the two San Francisco Chronicle reporters that first broke the story of the grand jury probe into the Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative (BALCO) and its hippie-turned-nutritionist-turned-steroids-dealer-to-the-stars Victor Conte.

The story begins in 1998, barely two months into the baseball season that would serve to resurrect the sport still ailing from almost three decades of labor disputes, culminating in the August 1994 strike that "led to the only cancellation of the World Series since World War I" (p.xi). In that year Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa would awe the fans with their race to Roger Maris's record-breaking 61 homeruns. McGwire would ultimately take the coveted prize, racking up 70 homers to Sosa's 66. But that year would also eventually be clouded by a bottle of pills labeled "Androstenedione" found in McGwire's locker by a curious reporter. This led to speculation regarding legal supplements used by baseball players. But that was only the beginning . . .

In Chapter One Victor Conte is introduced as the genius behind the success of the track and field superstar Marion Jones. Over the course of the next few chapters the authors in dramatic fashion weave a tale of backroom deals, money-laundering, and good old-fashioned sports doping, to arrive at what would prove to be the largest network of steroid trafficking in both baseball and track and field in U.S. history. And behind it all was Victor Conte, with his premier athletes: the future Hall of Famer Barry Bonds, and once crowned "world's fastest woman," Marion Jones.

The authors explain how Conte took his knowledge of nutritional products (which ironically many doctors dismissed as foolhardy) and, when facing bankruptcy, turned it into a multi-million dollar drug trafficking operation. Conte's assent to the throne of sports infamy began with a small nutrition store he and his then-wife Audrey opened in 1983. From there, his intelligence and quick learning aided him in winning many clients beginning with Willy Cahill, a former judo champion, to invest in his ideas about mineral deficiencies in athletes. Capitalizing on this, his small outfit he named the Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative or BALCO for short, attracted many more clients, some of whom would provide him with the connections that would lead him to superstar athletes like Bonds and Marion Jones.

Conte was able to meet men like Patrick Arnold, who was busy developing a substance nicknamed "The Clear" from the all but forgotten Russian-developed steroid norbolethone, and Emeric Delczeg, a 47-year old bodybuilder that supplied Human Growth Hormone (HGH) to professional bodybuilders and NFL players like Bill Romanowski. Through these men he met others like Greg Anderson, Barry Bonds childhood acquaintance who became his personal trainer and supplier of performance-enhancing drugs, and former Soviet track coach Remi Korchemny, who now trained many elite U.S. track stars and had connections to countless others. Eventually Conte used the marketing of his legal product, ZMA (zinc magnesium/monomethionine aspartate) to front his steroid trafficking.

In 2003, Conte's world began to unravel. Jeff Novitzky, a Special Agent with the IRS's Criminal Investigations unit (IRS CI), started to investigate BALCO for money-laundering and drug trafficking. Later that year Trevor Graham, the track and field coach for Tim Montgomery who had previously had a falling out with Conte, decided he would get back at his former steroid supplier and called a reporter in North Carolina with news that he had a syringe with a substance undetectable to drug tests that athletes on the West Coast were using to enhance their performances. On December 3, 2003 agents raided BALCO's storefront offices on the Peninsula near San Francisco and by the end of the next year over a dozen premier athletes would testify before the grand jury as to their involvement with Victor Conte and their use of illegal and banned performance-enhancers.

For his part, Barry Bonds never admitted to using the drugs. He claimed he did not know which products his trainer Greg Anderson was providing him, despite documents and testimony to the contrary. Marion Jones played the same denial game, eventually pulling out of competition in 2004 amid rumors that the new tests for THG (the name given to "The Clear" by the scientists that first examined it for the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency [ADA]), had stunted her ability to compete on the level to which she had previously been accustomed. In the end, the authors leave you with a bad taste in your mouth for competitive sports and wishing that you hadn't taken the red pill and didn't know how deep the rabbit hole would go.

Why Christians Should Read This Book

Toward the end of the book, the authors report on the now infamous hearing that took place before the House Government Reform Committee in which baseball stars Mark McGwire, Rafael Palmeiro, and Sammy Sosa testified about steroid use in baseball. Among those who would testify were baseball commissioner Bud Selig, players' union chief Donald Fehr, and Denise and Ray Garibaldi, parents of Rob Garibaldi, a former junior college baseball standout who took his life on October 1, 2002, likely suffering from depression brought on by extensive steroid use that Rob claimed was necessary if he was to make it to the Big Leagues. Rob explained to his mother when she confronted him earlier in 2002 that he knew that major leaguers were using the same illegal products he had been injecting into his young body for the past five years. The Garibaldi's sat in stunned silence as the athletes at the hearing dodged questions regarding steroid usage.

This story illustrates the fact that steroid use has become rampant among high schoolers who see their idols bulking up in inexplicable ways to the detriment of their futures bodies. Steroids are already common in bodybuilding, but in recent years, amid weak testing and blatant ignorance, they have tricked down into the locker rooms of would-be athletes, many of whom are impressionable Christians pressured to perform by teammates, classmates, administrators, fans, and unfortunately, even parents who dream of elite scholarships and big professional contracts for their children. All Christians need to come back often to the reality that men are depraved, that "the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" (Jeremiah 17:9, KJV) It is important for us as Christians to have a reasoned response to those who destroy their bodies in pursuit of vain glory. This book, above all else, shows evil men engaging in wicked acts to fuel their perverse egos. We should all take inventory of ourselves and those around us who may fall into the same traps.

Problems With the Book

Despite the overwhelming evidence that the authors skillfully adapt into a dramatic narrative, they, in the interest of this approach, often leave the reader confused as to when events transpire and as to the timeline in relation to other occurrences detailed in the book. It would be helpful to the reader for them to include another Appendix in the back with a timeline covering major events in relation to each other. Also, the authors employ a moderate amount of profanity, mostly through quotes made by the major players in the narrative. Still, the Christian reader should be informed that were the book a movie, it would receive an 'R' rating. And finally, despite the fact that the book is well-written and incredibly informative, the authors at times go overboard to provide details that serve more to bog down the narrative than to inform the reader. An example of this is found in Chapter Seven when the authors detail the blossoming relationship between Greg Anderson and Barry Bonds. The authors could have sliced this chapter in half and still given the reader all that he needed to connect the two.

Overall Rating

I would give this book an overall rating of 7 syringes out of 10. The book was informative, well-written, and hard to put down. The authors cover a great deal of material in a short format and from the beginning they suck the reader into a story that is bound to keep us intrigued for years to come, especially now that Major League Baseball has launched a new investigation into steroid use by its players and as Barry Bonds continues to receive criticism from fans.

Resolved: Read More, Watch T.V. Less

2006-04-03T19:46:00.000-04:00

I was involved in a discussion over at The Joseph Kennedy Experiment regarding a new Christian alternative to MySpace. During the discussion Joe Kennedy made the point that the sexually provocative ads, and even profiles, found on MySpace are really no different from what people see on television. He made a good point here and while I agreed that he was right, I pointed out that we should not allow our children, if humanly possible, to be exposed to such things regardless of the outlet. And I further suggested that we, as adult Christians, should limit our exposure as well. But I have to admit that lately I have not been following my own advice. I must make a confession: I watch too much television. I am exposing myself to sexually provocative ads, to profanity-laced television programs, and to a culture that makes normative those things the Bible calls heinous and immoral. Recently, as I was scanning various Christian blogs, I came across one in which the author noted his affinity for the hit television show Grey's Anatomy, but admitted that he felt conflicted as he found himself hoping certain individuals in the show would "get together" forcing one to cheat on his wife and then get a divorce and the other to be complicit in the former's adultery. I must admit as well that I have had similar feelings of conflict watching various television shows in which the protagonist must choose between sins rather than between what is right and wrong.

Because of these thoughts, I have come to the realization that I must turn off the television and begin reading again. Very little knowledge of the world, or of history, or of God is had by watching mindless programs that are set in unreal situations. Real knowledge comes through intential learning and through personal experience. I have enough personal experience right now as I wade through the cesspool that is the public school system, still hoping to find signs of life. What I really need is to broaden my mind though reading. So, I have chosen several books over the next couple of months. Among them are:

While those are not in the particular order in which I plan to read them, I am currently reading Game of Shadows and hope to have a review up in a couple of days. In the interest of discussion let me know what books you think I should add to this list and what books you have been reading lately (and whether or not you would recommend them).

The State of the Public Schools 1

2006-03-15T22:11:00.000-05:00

God-willing in May or possibly sooner I am planning on writing a series of posts on the state of the public school system in America (at least from my vantage point as a Substitute Teacher who has been in at least 30 different schools this year, was educated in the public school system, has previously been an advocate for public schools, and who is still considering a career in public school education). I had considered posting some questions today asking what types of issues you, the reader, are concerned with in regards to the public schools. I believe that I will eventually write on several subjects ranging from morality to ethics to overall education quality in the public school system and was hoping that some of you had some input to offer on what types of things about which you would like to know "the state of" in our schools.

However, after reading another post over at Bruce Prescott's Mainstream Baptist blog railing against homeschoolers and everything Evangelical when it comes to education (and basically anything else), I have decided to offer 5 reasons why, if right now I had children, I would no doubt homeschool them. In order to get some of what I am going to say, you might want to read Bruce's article, as well as the one posted by Ethics Daily by Ed Hogan on Christians pulling their children out of the public schools. So here goes:

I believe that the public schools not only don't prevent segregation, they actually breeds it. This might sound strange to a few, so let me explain. First, in contrast to the cheap, tasteless, and immature shot Prescott takes at Evangelicals when he says, "Public Schools are the frontlines in the culture war that conservative Christians are waging in this country[; t]hey have been since the day that they were integrated," I believe that most, if not all, true Evangelicals are not only unopposed to integration, but want more of it in their lives, as well as in the lives of their children. The problem is, they aren't finding it when they walk through the doors of the school house. What they are getting is a set of cliques that are both racially and socio-economically segregated. Every day I see people shunned from one group only to respond with contempt to others desiring entrance into the group in which they eventually find themselves. I overheard a conversation yesterday between a Caucasian girl and a African-American female in which racial stereotypes were being heaped onto Hispanics. Last week I was accused of "hating black people" because I disciplined an African-American female in class, though just prior to that event I had disciplined a white male. Unfortunately integration hasn't worked well (despite enormous potential and the best of intentions), to all of our detriments. It has just spawned new arenas of opportunity for us to become more divided as a people. And the public schools are not at all helping to educate our children on the diversity of our culture, nor on the appropriate attitudes we should have in dealing with those with whom we are not similar.
The public school system is self-destructing and rapidly becoming a barrier to our children's education. While Prescott charges that Christians are trying to destroy public education, the opposite is true: public education is trying to destroy our children. Every day I walk into schools where the level of discipline is non-existent. Take today, for instance. I saw a new level of disrespect for authority when I actually had a student take a swing at me when my back was turned. And while I, as well as the student, knew that he was not trying to make contact, it was pretty obvious to me that he was not in an environment that discouraged such activity, nor even attempted to address it as disrespectful. I have been in other schools where the students would cuss out their teachers in front of the class, only to have the teacher do nothing or simply walk away, afraid or unwilling to intervene. Even good solid students who care are unable to overcome these types of distractions and learn the material that they so desperately need to be successful in life. Taking children out of environments such as those is not killing the public schools, it is preserving the life of the next generation.
The level of education in the public schools is severely inadequate in comparison to that of children who are homeschooled. Study after study shows that those who are homeschooled academically outperform those who are publicly educated on both standardized tests and in regards to future college achievements. And while Prescott, Hogan, and Blow focus on one or two poorly written textbooks for homeschooling, they completely ignore these numbers, as well as many more. These guys claim to be for education, yet they choose to focus on one misrepresentation in one textbook, all the while their children are statistically falling further and further behind those same homeschoolers they loathe. "Isn't it ironic, don't ya think? Yeah, I really do think."
The public schools do not teach tolerance of views and few teachers care to offer both sides of the issue to their students. Hogan (and ultimately Prescott) suggests that homeschooling textbooks can be used to "[teach] our children to be intolerant of others who disagree with us politically," yet anyone who caught just two minutes of the tape that high school student Sean Allen produced of his geography teacher's madman-like rant on the American government should be much more worried about what is happening with those who are receiving our tax dollars to educate our children. And not to mention the fact that many biology teachers spread out all across this nation are not even allowed to offer any sort of critique on the outdated and sorely unscientific approach to the "origin of the species" currently holding sway over our nation's young minds.
And finally, speaking of taxes, I actually believe that teaching my own children not only helps the public schools out economically by decreasing the burden of already jam-packed classrooms, but it also helps out the economy as a whole both though encouraging greater competition by raising the educational bar and through the positive impact that better educated children have on the nation in general. The idea that Prescott seems to suggest, which is that homeschoolers and private school educators want to use "tax dollars in the form of vouchers to subsidize the education of their children in their intolerance" is ludicrous. Take my tax dollars if you think it will save the dying public school systems, but don't accuse me of wanting to use government money "to indoctrinate [my] children in values that are opposed to the constitution." I don't want tax dollars spent on indoctrination either. So, if you are so for the separation of church and state and religious liberty, why not give tax breaks to those who homeschool and do private education, instead of vouchers and call it even? That way no one can say they subsidize indoctrination, because it's obvious it's not just coming from the Christian side.

My final point is this: the public schools are in a sad shape and instead of guys like Bruce Prescott, Ed Hogan, and Steve Blow telling everyone how much private Christian educators threaten to destroy the public schools, why don't they just admit this fact, along with the admission that private education is producing better educated kids, and start helping to effect change in the schools by trumpeting these facts and pressing public teachers, administrators, and superintendents to raise the level of the classroom by instituting discipline on both the children and their teachers? They are right to say that public schools are being destroyed, they just missed the boat on who is causing the devastation.

March Madness!

2006-03-12T21:00:00.000-05:00

I think Andy Williams got it wrong when he penned the lyrics to "It's the Most Wonderful Time of the Year." He should have written about the NCAA Men's Basketball Tourney. It is truly a magical time where lots of teams, players, coaches, colleges, and fans find out if they have been "nice" enough to play on college basketball's biggest stage -- the Big Dance. From the NCAA Selection Show today until they play "One Shining Moment" I am hooked to the television screen. My name is D.R. and I'm a College Basketballaholic. But thankfully I am not alone. There are many of you out there that share my affliction and, if you are, here's some info for you.

If you want to fill out a bracket and see how you are doing against other fellow Christian Basketballoholics, then you can go to Tim Ellsworth's site and join his ESPN Tournament Challenge group. Or you can just click here. You have to register for an account on ESPN.com, but it is well worth it, just for the fantasy sports games.
A great new feature this year is CBS Sportsline.com's live streaming video of the games you can't get in your area. If you register on their On Demand site soon, you could get a VIP pass, which limits the waiting period to get into their virtual arena. I don't know about you, but for me the most frustrating thing about CBS's coverage of the NCAA Tourney is that you can only watch one game at a time. Now, you can watch at least two.

So, let the Madness begin. Oh, and one last thing:

GO TIGERS GO!

10,000 Served!

2006-03-12T20:37:00.000-05:00

Site meter has just alerted me that I received my 10,000 hit here at Christ and Culture. It was logged at 3:35:36 pm from Nashville, TN using Bellsouth.net. The reader accessed my blog through SBC Outpost by clicking the link posted by cks in the comments' section under the topic heading, "Rogers and Yarnell [Updated]." In light of this honor and the fact that we are in the season of awards shows, I would just like to take a moment to thanks those who made this happen:

Thank you,

To the 10,000 reader for visiting my site and making my dreams come true.
To those who read my blog and who checked it even during those times of inactivity.
To my parents for having me and teaching me the importance of speaking out.
To my wife for putting up with my blog compulsion and for reading my blog on occasions.
To all those who have linked to my blog -- there are too many to name, but you know who you are.
And to all those bloggers from whom I have gained much knowledge and insight.

So, let me say thanks to all of those and anyone else I might have left out.

FOR ALL YOU DO . . . THIS BLOG'S FOR YOU!

From the "Do What I Say, Not What I Do" Department

2006-03-10T18:53:00.000-05:00

Today on FoxNews I saw this story about how former-gang-member-turned-community-servant, Hector Marroquin Sr., 49, founder of an organization called "No Guns" was arrested for illegal possession of a weapon. According to the Associated Press, the firearm was found by the police while searching his house looking for his son, "a reputed gang member nicknamed "Little Weasel," [who] was taken into custody in connection with a home-invasion robbery."

IMB Humor

2006-03-09T23:31:00.000-05:00

A friend sent me this today and I thought it worth posting. Click on the pic to blow it up.

RC Sproul Jr. Defrocked

2006-03-03T16:58:00.000-05:00

In researching my previous commentary on Little Geneva and their disgust with John Piper over his views on interracial marriage, I found several comments on their site about RC Sproul, Jr., a Presbyterian pastor whose church is located in Tennessee, and son of the famous Reformed professor, speaker, and apologist. I saw his name in several places on the site, but in a desire to read as little as possible there for fear I would get really angry, I just glanced and went on my way. However, yesterday Kelly alerted me to the fact that Sproul, Jr. has been in a world of trouble with his denomination, the Reformed Presbyterian Church General Assembly (RPCGA). And after a bit of research he learned that Sproul, Jr. has indeed been defrocked and four of his elders have been desposed of their offices as elders. The official action took place on January 26th, but the news is still continuing to spread.

Now, though the story is over a month old, I have only found two Baptists to report on this, The Sinner at Kudzu Gulley and John Divito of the Reformed Baptist Reader. One reason why this may be is that we Baptists have little experience in defrockment. According to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, defrock means, " to deprive of the right to exercise the functions of office." What that means in terms of Sproul, Jr. is that he is no longer allowed to be a minister in his denomination. That is definitely something that Baptists don't get. There are plenty of stories of ministers doing very ungodly things and just moving on to the next church. Not so with the Presbyterians it seems.

So what did Sproul, Jr. do for this punishment to be placed upon him? Well, according to the "Declaratory Judgment" by the Westminster Presbytery of the Reformed Presbyterian Church General Assembly through the Office of the Moderator, Dr. Kenneth Gary Talbot (which can be accessed here), it was due to "abuse of authority of the office of elders" by engaging in "abusive behavior in dealing with [a] family . . . under [their] authority" and "knowingly and willingly use[ing] the Tax Identification number of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church after leaving that denomination in violation of the Federal Income Tax Code" as well as some other denominational violations.

In reaction to this a number of blogs and websites have popped up, mostly to heap coals upon RC Sproul, Jr's head, as it seems he wasn't very popular in the first place. Probably the most informative is hosted by the Heal Our Land Ministries, which I think a whole blog would have to be dedicated to in order for me to explain it. Suffice to say, the particular part of the site that deal with the Sproul, Jr. controversy is updated by a man named Peter Kershaw, and it provides links to actual documents dealing with the controversy, as well as updates in regards to what is happening with Sproul Jr., his church, Saint Peter Presbyterian Church, and the elders who were desposed. Among the other sites, there are several blogs dedicated exclusively to this, my favorite of them being, Spinderella Sproul: Lessons In Spin With RC Sproul Jr, mainly because of the creative name, but also because there is a large amount of information there, though I will warn you, some of it could be considered gossip.

The situation is long from being over, and from the websites I have seen, a lot of people are hurt and angry over the events surrounding this controversial man and his church. We should remember to pray for all those involved, including Sproul, Jr. and his family (and his father, who has taken heat on some various websites as well), his church, the elders involved, the denomination, and those in the larger community of the Reformed faith who have been affected by this.

Calvinism Debate Imminent

2006-03-01T17:59:00.000-05:00

It appears that while everyone is staying hush-hush right now, Dr. Ergun Caner, Dean of Liberty Theological Seminary on the campus of Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia and Dr. James White of Alpha & Omega Ministries are talking about holding a debate on Calvinism. This is a far cry from what most bloggers assumed would happen, especially after the email discourse between the two seemed to suggest that Dr. Caner was completely unwilling to take Dr. White's challenge. However, Dr. White today on his radio program, "The Dividing Line" hinted that this would be the case. Here is what he said so that you can decide for yourself (approx. 17:50 into it):

I, actually am holding back today on some really big news about a future debate. I'm really holding back because I want to be able to give everything at once, but there could be something coming in the pretty near future like before June-ish I would say that's, uh, going to get a lot of attention. Let's put it that way. So . . . . just thought I'd mention that.

When the caller to whom he was speaking said that he needed to make sure it was in Southern California, Dr. White had this response:

Ah, no, in fact, I am going to give one hint, because people in my chat channel already know what it is, but . . . I'll give one hint it would be in Virginia. That should be enough to tell everybody actually what's possibly going to be happening . . . I'll leave it at that. All you gotta do is think about what's in Virginia and what cities are in Virginia and you can figure it out from there. . . Not everything is completely in place yet, so that's why I'm not saying anything more about that.

So there you have it. It seems apparent that a debate with Ergun Caner is imminently upon us. James White is correct when he says that it is going to get a lot of attention. The Patterson/Mohler breakout session coming up at the SBC Pastor's Conference that was first thought to be a debate fizzled when it was revealed that it would be more of a discussion. But you can bet that this will not fizzle. It will be an old-fashioned theological throwdown. And it is likely to make history. Stay tuned for more.

HT: The Sinner at Kudzu Gully

**UPDATE**

Check out this site for more clues on where the debate may be held and who else might be involved. But, beware, you might have to swallow the blue pill in order to get the info.

Suffering and the Sovereignty of God

2006-02-24T19:47:00.000-05:00

In the hopes that I will not eventually wear out this topic, I am going to bring up John Piper's theology again. This time I specifically want to talk about the subject that I only briefly referenced in the previous post -- the controversy over at Rhett Smith's blog concerning Piper's article, "Don't Waste Your Cancer." Rhett Smith had originally posted on his blog an article that was critical of Piper's theology and questioned his pastoral counseling skills. He wrote two more posts which can be accessed here and here, in hopes of clarifying what he said in the previous post and bringing the controversy to a close by calling for unity among believers. But today he posted yet another article on Dr. Piper's article that is again critical of his theology. This time, however, he employs the words of Tyler Williams in an article he wrote on Codex Blogspot entitled, "Cancer, John Piper and the Falleness of Creation." In this article, Williams says he "takes issue" with the first two points in Piper's list, "You will waste your cancer if you do not believe it is designed for you by God" and "You will waste your cancer if you believe it is a curse and not a gift" (you will have to go to the DesiringGod.org link to read Piper's explanations about which the following by Williams is discussed). Mr. Williams goes on to say this about those two points:
Now, perhaps I am just coming from a different place theologically than Piper (actually, I know I am), but I find the notions that God "designs" people's cancer and that cancer is a "gift from God" to be offensive. What is more, I find that Piper's proof-texting of Scripture to be troubling. In the book of Job, God does allow "the adversary" (הַשָּׂטָ֖ן, hasatan) to inflict Job, and his so-called friends did see his suffering as from the hands of God and due to his own sin. But, in the same way it is fallaciouss [sic] to see all suffering as the result of sin, so it is not the point of the book of Job to then attribute all suffering to the direct agency of God. Similarly, his series of proof-texts for his second point are perhaps relevant to part of his point that cancer is not a "curse." But saying that cancer is not a "curse" is not the same as saying it is a gift.
Williams goes on to say, "Perhaps I am wrong, or at least biased by my own personal experiences. Whether or not you agree with my perspective (which I would readily admit I have not developed in any detail in this post), one thing we can all agree on is that we should pray."

I think a few things need to be said about Williams' article.

Williams clearly is speaking out of his own existential view of God. He states this explicitly twice in his article. Thus, when he calls Piper's use of Scripture proof-texting, he does so rather ironically, offering very little exegesis of the text, yet seemingly demanding that Piper do so himself, lest he be prooftexting.
He offers no definition of proof-texting. Should we conclude that everyone knows what this means? From the context, it appears that Williams definition is simply, "using the text to defend one's argument." While I admit that I do know what proof-texting is, I don't think that is at all what Piper is doing. Had he done so, he would merely have quoted or referenced the text, not offered a brief, but substantial exegetical note.
Williams seems to suggest that Piper is speaking "off the cuff" here, or rather, that Piper is presenting a view that he desires not to try to defend. However, that anyone familiar with John Piper knows that his intention here was merely to point the reader toward Scriptures he has previously thoroughly exegeted. Williams could have done a little research and found that Dr. Piper has numerous articles on his website about suffering and the sovereignty of God, as well as an entire sermon series on Job, in which he further exegetes this passage to which he refers.
Williams offers no counter position other than his own experience and a Hebrew "lessonette" that does little to truly contradict Piper's "proof-texting." Williams himself admits that he has not explained his own position in any detail and that at best his offering was based on his own personal experiences.

So why do I feel the need to make these particular points about Williams article? It is simply because Rhett Smith makes the absurd comment that while he has seen blogs this week which have articles posted that both agree and disagree with Piper on God's role in cancer (and suffering in general), this is "the best post that [he has] seen on this issue this week." He has got to be kidding -- really! Now, while I agree that Williams ending paragraph is wonderful (he closes by calling for everyone to pray for Dr. Piper and to contribute to various cancer-fighting agencies), I think that Smith's judgment is impaired by his own personal theology, which is what I think is the problem with all those who espouse positions consistent with Open Theism. Though I don't have the time today to discuss open theism, I hope to have an article up on this movement, its implications, and resources you can obtain regarding it either tonight or by Sunday. Suffice to say, I believe open theism is a deadly theology that robs God of His sovereignty in order to give man what he most desires -- libertarian free will (hence, his rebellion at the Fall that continues today), something that Adam gave up at the Fall and we have never possessed because of his act (now, before you get all hyped up, notice the word "libertarian" as opposed to simple "free will" -- here is a brief article that is helpful in delineating between the two). Our wills are now in bondage to sin, only to be freed by the grace of God though the death of Christ.

I fear that Rhett Smith and others like he and Tyler Williams are hijacking classical Christianity in hopes of not being offended by God, and keeping others from being offended by Him as well and all this without laying out much more of a defense than one's own experience and feelings). God has never desired that we defend Him in regards to His own culpability for man's suffering. In Isaiah 53:10 (an undoubtedly Messianic passage), the prophet clearly states, "But the LORD was pleased To crush Him, putting Him to grief; If He would render Himself as a guilt offering, He will see His offspring, He will prolong His days, And the good pleasure of the LORD will prosper in His hand" (NAS). And Luke records these words from the early disciples in Acts 4:25ff: "Why did the Gentiles rage, and the peoples plot in vain? 26 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers were gathered together, against the Lord and against his Anointed'- 27 for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, 28 to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place." Both Isaiah and the early disciples are unconcerned about whether they, Jesus, or others are offended that the Father would have brought about the death of His own Son. They are only worried about one thing -- communicating the truth they find in the Scriptures and revealed to them through the Holy Spirit. Friends, if Christ could endure suffering as a righteous man, by the Hand of God, shouldn't we be able to accept the discipline that comes from that same loving Hand (Hebrews 12:4-14), knowing that it is indeed for our good, as Dr. Piper has pointed out?

John Piper is the Worst Pastor -- EVER!

2006-02-23T04:56:00.000-05:00

John Piper is having a bad week in the blogs (though I doubt he cares much). First, he is called a hyper-Calvinist (as noted below), then some guy named Rhett Smith takes issue with his article, "Don't Waste Your Cancer," (go here for more details on this) and now Brent Thomas of Colossians Six Thirteen fame reports that on a recent search for a quote on God's glory being manifested in creation, he ran across the article, "John Piper Forsakes His People" from www.littlegeneva.com (when I clicked on the link, however, the title atop the window was, "John Piper is a Lying Traitor"). It apparently is written by a guy named Harry Seabrook on behalf of this site, whose tag line is "Reformed Confederate Theocrats: Creating an Old Kind of Christian" with Jeremiah 6:16 as their theme verse. The site advocates a viewpoint called Kinism (here is an article found on the site), which I had never heard of previously. Wikipedia offers a helpful article here, and here is an except to give you the general idea:

Kinists believe that when God dispersed mankind at the Tower of Babel, He segregated each race. They all are apologists for Southern slavery and the ante-bellum South, and consider themselves followers of the Presbyterian minister R. L. Dabney, who was a chaplain in the Confederate army. They are strict Sabbatarians and are paleoconservative, only they reject capitalism in favor of "covenantal agrarian" economics. They are fierce opponents of industrialism and modernity.

Apparently, Piper has drawn their ire because he actually supports interracial marriage *gasp* and says that it is good for God's people and society in general *double gasp*. So, because of that he is a traitor (as if he was ever a friend to these guys).

And to top it all off, he is recovering from surgery he had Valentine's Day to remove prostate cancer. Wow! So, a full week for Dr. Piper, he is attacked by cancer, non-Calvinists, white supremacists, and open theists. What will next week hold? Islamofacists, Liberals, and pro-abortionists, maybe? We should all remember to pray for this man whom God has used to influence thousands of college students and young adults to seek after the glory of God in all things.

John Piper is A Hyper-Calvinist!

2006-02-18T00:01:00.000-05:00

John Piper is a hyper-calvinist -- at least according to Dr. Emir Caner, dean of The College at Southwestern (TCS) on the campus of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and former professor at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. He made this accusation as a part of a series of posts by him and his brother, Dr. Ergun Caner, Dean of the Liberty Theological Seminary on the official blog of the Founder's Ministry, authored by Dr. Tom Ascol. His exact comments were as follows:

Also, is it true Bethlehem Baptist has revised their hymnal to fit the mold of their hyper-Calvinist pastor? I hear they now sing, "Jesus loves some of the children, some of the children in the world..."

Dr. John Piper is the pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church, a growing congregation located in downtown Minneapolis, Minnesota. He is most definitely not a hyper-calvinist. His church excels in missions, fully sponsoring over a hundred missionaries currently on the field. But, just in case one still thinks Dr. Caner may have a point, let me lay out the distinctions of hyper-calvinism in order to see how ridiculous this charge is.

According to Phil Johnson in his "A Primer on Hyper-Calvinism", A hypercalvinist is a person who denies at least one of the following statements:
1. That the gospel call applies to all who hear.
2. That faith is the duty of every sinner.
3. That the gospel makes any "offer" of Christ, salvation, or mercy to the non-elect (or that the offer of divine mercy is free and universal).
4. That there is such a thing as "common grace."
5. That God has any sort of love for the non-elect.

I think you will find that even a cursory study of John Piper's writings and sermons will demonstrate that this term does not in any way describe Dr. Piper. But what this does reveal is the growing dislike for Calvinism among the SBC elites and the willingness they have to discredit those with whom they disagree. This is a sad situation. We should all be praying for the future of the Southern Baptist Convention.

The New IMB Policies: Can Anything Be Done Now?

2006-02-13T20:11:00.000-05:00

Over at "A Baptist Perspective", my friend Jason's blog, another friend of mine (Kelly -- a.k.a., cks) asked an interesting question. Here is what he wrote:

My question to the posters here is simple: What can Baptists who disagree with the IMB's policy actually do about it? What is the nature of the solution in terms of the convention? What on earth can I do Greensboro [sic] (or wherever the convention is being held this year) to mitigate/reverse these changes?

When I spoke to him on the phone, he additionally pointed out that while he has seen many blogs that say something like, "Show up in Greensboro and let your voice be heard," he actually hasn't seen anyone lay out what the procedure would be do change such policies. I assumed that it could be reversed by the majority vote of the messengers to the Convention in June, but I honestly don't know if that is possible. If someone knows the bylaws and can point out what can be done, please share with us.

Additionally, Kelly made another interesting statement that I would like to see some response to as well. It involves his own predicament in relation to his conscience v. that of his church (and/or pastor). I would like to know how such a situation would be or should be handled by your church:

And will Dr. York (my pastor) send me as a messenger when he knows that I disagree with his viewss[sic]?

The New God Squad -- Pat Robertson and Ray Nagin

2006-01-18T05:09:00.000-05:00

Well it appears that the Democrats and Liberals, not to be undone by Pat Robertson, now have their own voice of God in Ray Nagin, mayor of New Orleans. I have felt since Katrina hit that Nagin has done a rather poor job of staying cool, calm, and under control. Here is one more example of that. Nagin, during a Martin Luther King, Jr. celebration made the following comments:

As we think about rebuilding New Orleans, surely God is mad at America. He's sending hurricane after hurricane after hurricane. But surely he's upset at black America also. We're not taking care of ourselves. We're not taking care of our women. And we're not taking care of our children.

So there you have it. Ray Nagin -- a new voice of God for the Democratic party. Now, there is no doubt that this will receive much less attention from the mainstream media and those who so quickly attack guys like Robertson, who sits on the other side of the fence from them politically.

The update on this story is that Nagin has apologized for these comments. According to the Associate Press, Tuesday Nagin stated that he "said some things that were totally inappropriate. ... It shouldn't have happened." So he followed up in correct God Squad protocol -- make a dumb statement about why God did something and then apologize afterward. I think the Dems have a winner. Now he just needs to make a bad bid for President followed by starting a news show about politics and religion from a liberal perspective and their ingenious plan will be complete.

The Church Report "Influential" List Reveals Sad State of Christianity

2006-01-16T20:32:00.000-05:00

I received an email today from The Church Report Magazine, which bills itself as "the online resource for Christian leaders, pastors and parachurch executives," in which the magazine promoted its newest edition highlighting "The 50 Most Influential Christians In America." I was extremely shocked and saddened to see that their No. 1 most influential Christian was Bishop T.D. Jakes, a man who has long been associated with a denial of the Trinity as a core doctrine of Christianity. But as a perused the list further, I was even more disturbed to see that No. 2 was Joel Osteen, a guy who embarrassed himself (as well as all Christians) on national television when he couldn't clearly communicate the Gospel to Larry King. Rounding out the top 10 in order were, Billy Graham; Rick Warren; Bill Hybels; Paul Crouch; Joyce Meyer; President George W. Bush; Dr. James Dobson; and Chuck Colson. To say the least, there are a few disturbing names there. The list goes on to mention several other problematic people including, No.19 Robert Schuller; No.29 Paul Crouch, Jr.; No.30 Benny Hinn; No.31 John Hagee; No.34 Marcus Lamb; No.36 Creflo Dollar; No.37 Paula White; No.38 Rod Parsley; No.44 Pope Benedict XVI; and No. 50 Dr. Phil McGraw. When has Dr. Phil ever expressed that he is a Christian?

And while this list would be sad enough if were compiled by The Church Report itself, the magazine makes it clear that these were names voted on by readers. I find this very disturbing that large numbers of Christians see men like T.D. Jakes and Joel Osteen as the most influential among them in America. The only glimmer of hope I saw in this was No.24, John Piper. Suspiciously missing were men like Dr. John MacArthur, Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr., Louie Giglio, and J.I. Packer. One could even wonder why Tim LaHaye was not on this list. In the end, this scares and saddens me. It scares me because it seems that the average Christian is still concerned less with the deep truths of Scripture and more with appearance and hype, and it saddens me because so few have been exposed to those men and women who do seek God in a deep and significant way, seeking to know God through Scripture and serve Him in Spirit and Truth. Let's pray that God gives influence in our communities to men and women who do just that.

IMB Controversy Heads Toward Boiling Point

2006-01-11T16:40:00.000-05:00

It looks as if the SBC has reached another crossroads this week at the IMB trustee meeting in Richmond, VA. I am not going to rehash the controversy, but you can read all about it over at Marty Duren's blog, SBC Outpost and Wade Burleson's, current IMB trustee, site, Grace and Truth to You. Burleson, a trustee from Oklahoma, has been a voice of dissention among the trustees in regard to the current controversy over IMB employees. In a statement released today, it seems that the other IMB trustees have voted to call the convention in June to kick out Burleson from among them. Below are some sites with vital information on this situation.

Baptist Press -- should release the IMB trustees' statement today
Grace and Truth To You -- Burleson's site where he posts a statement regarding this action.
A Baptist Perspective -- Jason Sampler's commentary on this and a list of contact info for IMB trustees
SBC Outpost -- Marty Duren blogged the IMB trustees meeting
The Road We Travel -- Rick Thompson, IMB trustee, blogged the meeting as well
Missional Baptist Blog -- Steve McCoy's blog with more links

I think Southern Baptists need to keep up with this as the controversy begins and will no doubt expand, as more blogging takes place. I want to read the trustee's statement and some more on the controversy before I make a thorough reaction.

At Christmas, Remember to Tip!

2005-12-20T05:11:00.000-05:00

For quite a while I have been planning on writing about tipping etiquette. For those who do not know, while my wife is finishing nursing school and we are seeking the will of God in regard to a future ministry position (or more schooling), I am doing substitute teaching and working for Domino's Pizza, delivering warm pies to all the little children. So, obviously, tipping is an issue I constantly consider. Never more is this subject more near and dear to my heart than when I either get a great tip or none whatsoever. And while the former happens irregularly, it is sad to say that the latter is a nightly event. I realize that many of your are "tipping-etiquette challenged," so here are some basic rules regarding tipping the pizza guy (or girl -- referred to from now on simply as PG).

If you order a pizza and expect it to be delivered, tipping should be a given. Don't even consider not doing so.
If you wonder why you should tip the PG, then drive to the store, pick up a pizza and see how warm it is when you get home. Additionally, you should check on your mileage and see how much gas you used. And then there's always the "time factor," "the chilling cold weather factor," and the "general inconvenience factor." In the end, PGs deserve a tip for putting up with all the crap that goes along with the job.
If the pizza company has a delivery charge (like Domino's), don't get angry and stiff the PG because of it. Just see #4 below.
If you don't want to tip the PG after considering #2 (or pay the delivery charge), then get off your happy butt and go pick the pizza up yourself.
If you order any pizza, you should tip at least $2.00 (though 15-20% is customary in the restaurant business). But if you have an order over $30.00, you should give more, even if it is below the customary amount.
If you have any Christian symbols prevalent in your home (or on your car), you should definitely tip well. Non-Christian PGs notice those things and will make reference to it later.
If you live in a house that is obviously worth over $200,000, then don't be a cheapo like you live in the hood. Get in your Lexus and come get the pizza yourself.
If you give a cheap tip (under $3), don't act like you just did the PG a favor. It makes you look even more cheap and it is extremely annoying. Remember, we are serving you, not the other way around.
If the PG brings you a free pizza, give him or her a great tip. If the PG has to bring you a missing pizza or a remake (or even some extra sauce that was forgotten), at least give him or her a dollar. After all, gas is still over $2.00/gallon.
And finally, when in doubt, always go with the tried and true principle WWJT -- "What Would Jesus Tip." And unless you can heal my neck and back pain, don't be a Peter (Acts 3:6).

Well, that should help you through the holiday season and well beyond. Some of you who are extremely hard headed should print this out and stick it on your frig underneath the pizza magnet with the coupons attached. Now my customers, go and sin no more!