The Yodeling Rabbit

A Christmas without A Literal Christ: Tim Padgett's Christmas for All

2011-12-28T12:30:00.007-05:00

I recently read an online article about Christmas from Tim Padgett at Time Magazine. He covered the gamut from strained relationships between Christians and Muslims to the strained relationships between Christians and atheists. On his way, he took potshots at Fundamentalists and mentioned the death of Christopher Hitchens (a man with a very ironic name). But the thing in his article which stood out to me was his solution to the strained relationships - Christian doctrinal acquiescence in the face of any opposition, and the adoption of a subjective, emotional, and innocuous faith.

Padgett suggests that Christians should believe doctrines, but also suggests that they should believe not because they are true, but because these doctrines are inherently Christian. He says,

Christians believe that Jesus' nativity was a virgin birth . . . [b]ut if you were to show most Christians incontrovertible scientific proof that . . . miracles didn't occur, they would shrug -- because their faith means more to them than that. Because in the end, what they have faith in is the power of the story.

The problem with this way of thinking is that if it isn't true, if the miracles didn't happen, if God does not exist or has not broken into our world, then the story has no power whatsoever. At that point, the story must become whatever helps us sleep at night. His theory makes the Gospel subjective, and insinuates that it could be, or is, untrue. To him that is alright. But the theory has subtly gutted the Gospel of all power and left us all in sin. His theory also reduces any believer to a pitiable, ignorant, wretch. The Apostle Paul once wrote, "[I]f Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied (1 Cor 15:17-19)."

Padgett also writes, "Most of us don't believe in God because we think it's a ticket to heaven. Rather, our belief in God -- our belief in the living ideal of ourselves . . . instills in us a faith that in the end, light always defeats darkness. . ." It sounds like he is here equating God with either a sense of a divine self or at least some kind of self improvement. This sounds like theology a la Oprah. But again, without a God who has spoken, without a measure of good, what self improvement can there be? All there is left is man-made, agreed-upon standards which shift at a whim. The subjective is a dark, cold place without bounds or stability. This is not Christian theology. This has no place alongside Christian doctrine. This is a Christmas without a literal Christ and a subjective Advent without hope of salvation. I hope we all can see that Padgett's Christmas cannot defeat sin and will not provide answers to the Muslim or the atheist.

Instead, I hope that you are able to celebrate the Advent this year with the peace of the knowledge that the God who created and spoke has broken into our world through the virgin's womb, has lived sinlessly, has died ignominiously (and vicariously), has risen gloriously, and is poised to return to destroy all opposition to his dominion and to claim all who are his. Merry Christmas!

What Christmas Is Really About

2011-12-28T12:11:00.003-05:00

Here is a great video from Grace in Cranberry. This video is an artistic representation of biblical theology covering the overall biblical story from Creation to the New Creation and places the Advent story in its proper context.

The Story of Christmas - An Animation from Grace in Cranberry on Vimeo.

'Lone Wolf' Terrorists are Government's Biggest Fear

2011-08-17T07:37:00.003-04:00

President Obama came out yesterday with a statement that he is less worried about an orchestrated large-scale terrorist attack on the United States than he is about the 'lone wolf' extremist. This is made obvious by the tightened government controls over its own population. The Patriot Act was a bill signed into Law by President Bush in 2001, and has been extended and expanded under Barack Obama. Essentially, this act allows the government to suspect, conduct surveillance upon without a warrant, and arrest people with which the government does not agree under the auspices of preventing 'domestic terrorism.'

The FBI and Homeland Security have been given increased roles in monitoring U.S. citizens. They are able to monitor all phone conversations by computer and flag specific words of interest through voice recognition software for investigation. They review medical records, financial interactions, and other personal information for possible suspicious activity. They have access to permits granted for all buildings, satellite topography, and the GPS built into our phones, computers, and cars.

They also use corporations and financial institutions for information gathering. When I worked at a particular bank chain, I was required by law to send a report to the FBI any time someone transferred a large amount of money. The criteria were: if the amount was $10,000.00 or above; if the amount was unusual given the individual's account history; or if anything about the transaction made us personally suspicious or uncomfortable. (and we were subtly encouraged to profile based on race or economic background). The purpose was clearly spelled out, the FBI collects this information to prevent drug trafficking, terrorist funding, and to prosecute fraud. The FBI needs no warrant to conduct these investigations.

More recently, while working for a "big box" hardware retailer, I was notified that we are now required to take notice of people's purchases and look specifically for items that could be used for creating explosive devices or used as other weapons. We are to report the "incident" to our manager who will review it and if it appears suspicious to them, they will report it to police. The police will in turn hand the investigation over to the government. Thus we have turned our everyday transactions into spying operations.

One may object and say, "If you are not guilty, you have nothing to fear." The problem is, that sentiment does not deal honestly with our current political climate. When "terrorism" is such a charged word and so broadly defined; when those accused of "terrorism" are swept up and held or even tortured without rights or aid; and when our politicians are accusing other political parties of being "terrorists;" we have entered a dangerous time. What happens the next time you head into your local hardware store to buy some nails and steel pipe fittings? You may just be quietly investigated as a terrorist.

Why am I making such a big deal about this? For one reason. The Patriot Act, for as much comfort it may give us from the Bogey Man, stands blatantly against the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights on several points. First, all citizens have the right to Habeas Corpus - the right to a court date or possible release under the Constitution Article 1, Section 9. This right is removed under the Patriot Act. Second, Treason against the United States (and isn't that what domestic terrorism should be defined as?) consists only in levying war or adhering to her enemies - and no one may be convicted except by two witnesses or open admission in court (Constitution Article 3, Section 3). Amendment II of the Bill of Rights states that the right to bear arms (within a well regulated militia) shall not be infringed. This means Sam Smith could own or build a bomb, but it depends on how he uses it, if he uses it, as to whether or not he is guilty of a crime. Amendment IV of the Bill of Rights states, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause. . ." Is a box of nails probable cause? Is a large amount of money probable cause? Amendment V of the Bill of Rights states that no one is to be held to answer for a crime unless indicted. Amendment VI of the Bill of Rights entitles people to a speedy and public trial by jury. (V and VI are saying citizens cannot be held for long periods of time without official charges which would lead to public trial.) Amendment VIII of the Bill of Rights prohibits cruel and unusual punishments of either the accused or the convicted (i.e., no torture).

The Patriot Act contravenes our founding articles of law and freedom and allows our government to move against its own populace by fiat. Don't fear the Bogey Man or lone wolf, yes these situations can occur, but they are very infrequent and result in relatively little loss of life (although I agree that no loss of life is really acceptable). Rather, fear the government that removes rights previously given and then redefines criminal activity in order to retain power and influence.

A Horse of a Different Color: What Makes the Difference between Liberals and Socialists?

2011-08-16T07:17:00.004-04:00

As President Obama has been making his stumping rounds for re-election, he is running into opposition. An Iowa Tea Party member, Ryan Rhodes, accused the president of being a Socialist. What would make Barack Obama a Socialist or just an extreme-left Liberal? Maybe a working definition would help.

In order to define liberalism and socialism best, I think we need to split the two terms along certain lines, under social, religious, and political headings.

Social: How do liberals versus socialists order society? What decisions do they make and what is their reasoning behind it? Liberals tend to desire a free society in which people can make make decisions for their own life apart from government involvement, but who can also count on their government as a source of consistent help. Society, in this utopian vision, bands together in order to use the government for the good of all citizens. The ideal of this system may be closest to a true Democracy. Government programs are used for one end alone, a happy and free society.

Socialists, at least under the Communist system, see freedom a little differently. The people rise up and form a proletariat government, in which the government is given the power to make decisions for the people by the initial will of the people. In Communism, the only form of Socialism the West is really familiar with, the wealthy are unburdened of their wealth and it is in-turn supposed to be redistributed to those who are poor. This is supposed to have a leveling effect on society and make all people equals. Education, money, and talents are all to be equal throughout society.

Religious: The Liberal would tend to remain somehow religious. Historically, they would be Christian or Unitarian. Liberalism would like to see God's gifts and resources used to the optimum societal impact. However it tends toward the Social Gospel - seeing societal and physical care as almost the sole function of the Church. Freedom of religion is still important and the Church is still "useful."

Socialists, however, reject religion in general and Christianity in particular as the "opiate of the masses." The socialist believes that society is all there is and is all that is needed. This is Secular Humanism and is a direct result of the acceptance of Darwinian evolutionary theory. In the case of Communism, religion is either tightly controlled or it is entirely, and often violently, removed from society. This model would tend toward freedom from religion rather than freedom of religion.

Political: As mentioned earlier, Liberals like Democracy; the will of the majority is what should organize and move the political process. If the majority can be swayed, then its new will should be enforced. Therefore, the media is seen as a very useful tool in swaying minds to Liberal ideals. (Historically, the only democratic processes that are built into the United States' political system are voting for political candidates and voting on bills within the Congress. The other checks and balances were put in place to ensure a Republic rather than a Democracy.)

Socialists, again in the Communist system, form a strong centralized government, often led by a dictator or cabinet, which makes decisions about who gets what and where resources will go. In a more pure Socialist system, the government would be a loose faction of representatives sent by the people to determine how to properly use the commune's resources. (Again, the concept of representatives is reflected in the United State's political structure, but does not reflect the ideals of Communism particularly because the U.S. has an executive branch and a bicameral legislature).

So given those criteria, how can we determine where President Obama stands? Is he a Liberal or is he a Socialist? Socially, he is for big government and giving breaks to the poor while seeking to heavily tax the rich. While he has not directly advocated "redistribution" of wealth from the rich to the poor, his policies would take in larger and larger amounts from the wealthy to the government to cover debts incurred by decisions made by his administration, ostensibly for the good of the people. While this wouldn't land him quite into the Communist camp, I believe it lands him solidly within Socialism.

Religiously, Obama has attended a very socially and religiously Liberal Church. He does not regularly attend services as President, and has made comments for evolutionary explanations of existence and against conservative interpretations of the Bible. He also has made comments against Christian beliefs. He keeps his cards relatively close to his chest here, but it is a pretty safe bet he is neither a believing Christian or a friend of the Christian Gospel. His policies also seem to indicate that he is not merely interested in the Social Gospel, but in humanistic social advocacy. Hence his original slogan, with all its quasi-religious undertones, "Change we can believe in."

Politically, President Obama has further centralized an already highly-centralized government, setting up "czars" over several social, financial, and industrial domains. These czars make decisions on what standards and taxes will be put in place and exert control over an entire field. This centralization is exactly what we would see from a socialist or even a Communist taking the executive office.

While he protests the Socialist moniker, I believe by this simple definition we can see that President Obama is, indeed, a Socialist and not a Liberal. Further, I think we would be surprised to find that many, if not most, Conservatives are actually Liberals and most Liberals, if pressed, are actually Socialists.

Credit Ratings, Debt Limits, and Fiscal Responsibility

2011-08-06T01:36:00.003-04:00

The United States' national credit rating has been downgraded by Standard and Poor's (S&P) from AAA to AA Plus. A move that it promised it would not pursue if an agreement was reached by Congress on the debt limit. Both sides acquiesced in order to prevent the rating downgrade. That the S&P reacted so quickly is shocking, but more shocking still is message it sends.

Internationalism is the name of the game. How do we raise the debt ceiling? By agreeing to take on more foreign borrowing and interests. This is what we have been doing unabated for years. Further, we are spending far more than we are bringing in by taxes. How do you think that happens? By operating on foreign lines of credit. As long as we become further indebted to other nations, the more we need them and the happier they are to offer more. Its great to have a seemingly unending supply of money . . . until the money is cut-off and the debts are called-in. So what of raising taxes to cover those debts? How quickly can we crawl out of a $17 Trillion debt? And why should the tax-paying citizenry foot the bill because a batch of bureaucrats said we should fight seemingly endless wars, send foreign aid, sell off U.S. land to foreign interests, and bail out companies that cannot get basic economics right? I believe the amount owed to cover this is a bit above $45 K.

If everyone could pay $45 K this year (beyond what we normally pay to keep the government running and providing its services), we could be out of debt 12 months from now. Yet the average income per person in the U.S. (as of 2006) was somewhat above $26 K. So we easily see that we are talking years, likely many years, to pay off this debt, assuming a realistic tax rate, no more economic downturns, no accrued interest (either to our government or foreign creditors), and no further escalation of the debt.

So who can afford to pay more of this debt than others? The Rich! Raise the tax upon the rich (who can afford to pay more tax after-all) and we will pay this down faster! Yet if we tax the rich more, to decrease the debt, how far do we tax them? We already have a tiered bracketing system for income taxes. Do we just tax them down from insanely wealthy to incredibly wealthy, or all the way to average joe? What incentives do they have to remain wealthy (and how can we assume they will remain earning the large amounts that made them wealthy on a constant timeline)? Why work for what you can't keep? Robin Hood may have pursued noble causes, but try telling that to the land-owners he robbed.

Does the elected government know better what to do with our money than we do? Is it right to take what is earned by one to give it to another who doesn't work? the USSR said yes; where did it lead them? Why are we not gleaning lessons from history? How, also, have GM and Chrysler, and the financial institutions paid back the bailouts and all the fraudulent loans they promised and reneged on?

After witnessing about 150 years worth of bad financial and business decisions within this nation, I am not surprised that our credit rating has been downgraded. The bad decisions have inundated Washington (which is prone to this sort of thing even without encouragement). Spend huge amounts of money you don't have to bailout companies that can't keep themselves solvent because they catered to (created?) a culture that cannot save or responsibly handle income. Sounds reasonable. We have not deserved our stellar credit for a long time. We have played the same con-game that brought down Enron.

The liberal policies of spending what isn't there and giving away what they didn't earn has led to this. The welfare state cannot exist for long because it is an ever-growing black hole. Look at Spain and Greece. There will never be enough to satisfy. And if you find yourself unlucky enough to have worked for wealth, you will run afoul of all the slavering money-hounds (right Germany?). Good luck!

What's the solution? A truly balanced budget in which we do not overextend ourselves or give what was never ours, no matter what they do to our credit rating. Where is the adage: never a borrower but a lender be? Where are the debts America can call in? Where is our repayment for what we have given? All I can say is Chrysler better be making one heck of a car - I expect mine delivered tomorrow, in red please.

C.A.S.T. Pearls - "Robbed Hell"

2011-04-16T11:27:00.003-04:00

This was an extremely humorous, yet astute, critique on Rob Bell's recent video advertisement for his new book, Love Wins.

Robbed Hell - C.A.S.T. Pearls Presents from Canon Wired on Vimeo.

Well done guys!

Rob Bell: A Focus on Man Trumps the Authority of Scripture

2011-03-24T09:39:00.007-04:00

Most of you have probably already read or watched some of the hubbub about Rob Bell's new book, Love Wins. I will admit up front that I haven't read it. I have only read the description of the book, some editor's notes, and the reviews and interviews of many people whom I respect a great deal. The basic gist of the book is that God loves the world and its people so much, and God himself is so loving, that he could not possibly leave people to suffer in hell for eternity. Instead, God will probably give all people the opportunity to hear the Gospel, repent, and believe in Christ after their deaths. In light of God's glory and an illuminated mind, all people would certainly choose Christ and be ushered into heaven. Therefore, God's love wins.

On the surface, this sounds like good news. All people, everywhere, will be saved! God's power over the fallenness of man, death, and hell is completely vindicated. God's love is all powerful. Now we can relax and not worry so much about our eternal destiny. From a pastoral position, what could assuage the pain of losing an unbelieving family member, or convince a congregant struggling with assurance, more than this? This would appear to be the silver bullet gospel.

There's only a few problems with this way of thinking: Scripture, God, Jesus, and the early Church all stand in opposition to this way of thinking. Because we believe that the Canon of Scripture is closed, and because we are not seeing God showing up in dramatic ways or raising-up prophets from among us, we must look to the Bible for truth concerning these matters.

So what does the Bible say about Hell? The Old Testament speaks of "She'ol," "the pit," in which the dead are held (Job 7:9; Psa 18:5-7; 139:8; Prov 30:16). It also talks about this place as a place of darkness (Psa 88:10-12; 143:3) and the land of the Shadow of Death (Psa 23; Isa 9:2). Here the concept is that regardless of one's morality, the soul will live on in a holding place. This is a similar concept to the Greek "Hades," and that word was used in the Greek translation of the Old Testament (LXX) and in the Greek New Testament.

The clarification of the concept of "Hell" largely comes from Jesus' teachings within the New Testament. Jesus reiterates the description of the darkness of the place of the dead and associates it with misery and judgment (Matt 8:12; 22:13; 25:30). Torment awaits the wicked (Mark 9:47-48). The word used for this place of torment is "Gehenna," which actually means the Valley of Hinnom, a valley outside of Jerusalem where trash, excrement and the bodies of criminals or animals were dumped and burned. The concept is that the soul has been given over to disregard and destruction.

This destruction is not a momentary punishment, nor is the soul actually destroyed in the sense that it ceases to exist. Rather, this destruction is an eternal one. Jesus himself says in Mark 9:48, "Their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched." There is also an association between Hell and the Lake of Fire. Revelation indicates that Satan and his demons, as well as the wicked of Hell will be cast into the Lake of Fire (Rev 19:19-21; 20:10). Again, Scripture declares that this will be eternal punishment.

Further, Scripture tells us that those who are saved from this torment are an exclusive group. Revelation 20:15 says, "If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire." This book of life is that by which all people are judged. This book contains the names of those who believe the promises of God and are in Christ (Psa 69:28; Rev 13:8). Scripture makes it clear that those who do not believe in God and his promises, specifically the person and work of his Son, Jesus Christ, will be permanently separated from him and will be eternally tormented.

Why does Scripture portray such an horrific picture? For the reason why, we must look to the overarching theological narrative of Scripture. God created humanity in his image to rule in his stead over creation (Gen 1:26-28). Long after the fall, he selected a specific man and his offspring through which to show his blessing and will to the world (Gen 22:15-18). As the ultimate King (Num 23:21; 1 Sam 10:18-19; 12:12), God has mercy and blessing for those who serve him, and curses and death for those who oppose him (Deut 20). Because of Israel's overall failure in their mission, Jesus, both man and God, came to redeem creation (Col 1:19-23). Yet Jesus did not merely come to die for sinners; he came to be King (Matt 27:11; John 1:46; 18:36-37). He performed the kingly duty of instructing his people in right worship and love for God and sacrificed his life for them (Deut 17:14-20; 1 Kings 8; Heb 9:26-28). When he returns, however, he will not be coming as a meek lamb but as a mighty lion (Rev 5:5). And just as Yahweh commanded the Israelites to do to their enemies in the Pentateuch, Jesus will do to those who oppose him (Rev 19:11-21; ). This is because Jesus is a Hebrew King who will be continuing to live out the purposes of the Law within the world.

We are confronted here with a kingdom understanding. This is what Rob Bell has either never learned or forgotten. He has become so focused on human feelings and on the idolatrous self-worship within his congregation that he has moved away from what Scripture says explicitly. Those who oppose king Jesus, within the world and within the church (Matt 7:13-27; Matt 25; Rev 2:16) will meet Satan's fate in the end.

What is the Gospel message? It must not be that God loved you for who you are and therefore died for you in order to leave you who you are (in your sins) and yet be reconciled. That is a vacuous and completely unbiblical notion. The Gospel message is that God will finally, violently, destroy sin and has given us a way to be reconciled to him (the sacrifice of Jesus Christ and covenant faithfulness through the work of the Holy Spirit in us) in order to escape his coming wrath. Those who cannot see God as wrathful have had a snow-job pulled on them. God's love only wins as people rightly cling to Jesus for salvation and to worship God rightly. Only then can they be saved from God himself.

Rob Bell has, in the past, brought up the fate of Ghandi. "Ghandi's in hell? He is? And someone knows this for sure?" Yes, Rob, we do. Not because he was a particularly "bad" man, but because on his own he could not please God (Isa 64:6; John 15:5-6). He died apart from covenant faith in Jesus Christ and thus he is the enemy of God, so God's wrath is currently being poured out upon him. I say that with absolutely no pleasure at all. This is why Paul could say to King Agrippa, "I pray that [you] may become what I am, except for these chains." This is why evangelism is so important.

Rob Bell also seems to indicate that people will have the ability to choose to believe differently after death, thereby escaping judgment and wrath. Again, this is not evidenced by Scripture. Hebrews 9:27 says, "Man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment." In a parable about those held in She'ol, Jesus talks about a rich man who is suffering for his wickedness (Luke 16:19-31). If Bell's theology is true, why did this man not believe in Christ or at least in the promises of God and be released from torment? Scripture and the teachings of Jesus do not support Bell's view.

There are many "Christian" writers today who advocate that a "god of love" is superior to "a god of wrath." This concept is a false dichotomy. Scripture shows Yahweh to be both. In order to demonstrate God to be only one way or another, much Scripture must be ignored. Our God is ultimately concerned with his own glory and his creation rightly living in relationship with him. He has demonstrated both wrath upon his enemies and grace through covenant love (Heb. "hesed"). This covenant love is not merely the fleeting emotion that we humans experience, but a love that is governed by a covenant structure (e.g., Deuteronomy). Without bounds and without structure, love is fickle and ephemeral. We do not serve a fickle or ephemeral God. He is not a man that he should change his mind (Num 23:19).

Another major problem with Rob Bell's theology is that it would force God to disregard his own glory and wink at sin and suffering, which is exactly what Bell wants to balm. God becomes anemic to stop or punish sin, but his love will, after death, forget human sin and usher everyone, no matter what they've done toward God or each other, into bliss. Where is the Scriptural warrant for that, and how is it satisfying? I wonder how much comfort the Holocaust survivors would have if they thought that Hitler will be enjoying God's blessings forever? Maybe that seems ungracious, but the implications of his theology are broad and dissatisfying. It also does become universalistic. If all people, including Ghandi - a non-Christian, will be saved apart from belief in Christ here on earth or covenant fealty, what's the point of believing anything, or doing anything? Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die [and be ushered into eternal happiness] (Luke 12:16-20). How is that different from Universalism?

Bell's theology, as winsome as it may first appear, is an emotional appeal to a postmodern audience who have never heard of (or rejected) covenants, absolute truth, and the actual personage of the returning King Jesus. Love will certainly win, but not through the gutting of the Gospel in favor of personal feelings. Love will win when sin and its purveyors are finally destroyed and those who have placed trust in the King are finally saved and given eternal relationship with their God. To him be glory and power for ever and ever. Amen!

The Devastation of Divorce

2011-03-15T11:10:00.003-04:00

A good friend of mine recently told me that his wife and he were separated and divorcing. The news has gutted me, in part because of the friendship the four of us have shared, and in part because I supported them in their friendship, courtship, wedding, and marriage. The end of the marriage is like the death of a friend.

What has hurt me even more deeply is that he is no longer a believer. He has taken a stance he considers to be agnostic, but has certain undertones of unbelief in and hostility toward the Gospel. He does not believe he can trust in the claims of Scripture or apply it to his life. He said this shift began years ago, and in retrospect I did see it. I had shared my concerns with him, but only too late. I had not realized how far he had traveled down the road of apostasy.

His wife has traveled the same road, but apart from him. I remember her staunch advocacy for the inerrancy of Scripture. I remember their desire to know all they could about the Bible and apologetics. Those days are long gone.

My friend told me that he did not believe the Bible or biblical instruction was necessary to live a moral life, and that he sees no punishment or reward at the end of life. He feels that to live for such a thing would be to cheapen life's experiences.

The sad irony is that this thinking is exactly what leads to corruption. He abandoned sound biblical faith and his marriage is dissolving because of it. Things may not have been going right before, but without the mooring of Scripture and biblical marriage commands, there was no reason to continue to fight for the marriage.

Each person operates under a philosophy. He or she must find meaning to enrich life. Why do we exist? If the answer to that question is anything other than "to glorify God," the impact of alternative philosophies will be far reaching. The philosophy is the earthquake that begins the tsunamis of life, which, in turn, wipe away the structures built for joy.

My friend and his wife have abandoned the truth, as foolish as it may seem sometimes, for intricate and dazzling lies. And their marriage is ending because of it. While I remain friends with them, inside I grieve for them because they are, after a fashion, dead. Mere ghosts who walk around in the sunshine. So I truly grieve three deaths right now.

My prayers right now are that, in desperation, they may look to Scripture with hope, and that the Holy Spirit would illuminate their eyes. Even now, it is not too late for healing of their souls and their marriage. I pray that the hardness of their hearts and the stiffness of their necks would be softened so they would repent of their sin and turn to their only healer.

I also take many things away with me from this situation. I have spoken with my wife, and grieved with her. We have talked about our own areas of sin and hard-heartedness. We have also committed to spending more time in prayer and Bible-study together. Our vows mean everything because God means everything to us. Without him, marriage is reduced a contract of convenience. We must not live that way.

Please, friends, pray for these friends of mine. Please pray without ceasing, even though you don't know them, because it pleases God for you to do so, and because you would want other believers to do this for you. Pray because we believe in a God who resurrects the dead.

Japan: A Land Devastated yet Full of Opportunity

2011-03-15T10:04:00.002-04:00

The Headlines are everywhere. Japan has been rocked by earthquakes, tsunamis, and explosions at nuclear power plants. There are many thousands missing, and many dead washing up on shore. Japan will never be the same again.

Japan is a land that has embraced modern hedonism and still holds closely to Buddhism and native Shinto. The regional warlords of their feudal age, known as Daimyo, were cruel toward Christians, even crucifying some at Nagasaki Harbor in 1597. Japan is still largely non-Christian.

The devastation of Japan is horrifying. But this is also a great opportunity for believers in Jesus Christ. This is a time when hearts and ears are open. We who are believers outside of Japan should give humanitarian aid for assuaging the physical agony of the Japanese people, but even more importantly, we should give Bibles and money to Japanese churches for their use in aid and evangelism efforts. We should also pray that the Gospel would spread and that those who are left would be spared eternal torment. You believers in Japan, I urge you on to do good works and to live out the Gospel that has been entrusted to you. Ephesians 2:4-10 says,

But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions - it is by grace you have been saved. And God raises us up with Christ and seated him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith - and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God - not by works so that no one can boast. For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

Gay Rights: The New Human Rights Struggle

2011-02-02T10:34:00.005-05:00

Maybe you've already noticed this phenomenon, but gay rights is the new civil rights struggle of our day. The reality of this struggle was brought home to me concretely in a recent article. Chick-fil-A, a popular southern chicken sandwich chain has become the most recent recipient of a gay boycott. The reason for the boycott is that one of the restaurants donated sandwiches and brownies to a Christian organization, the Pennsylvania Family Institute, which has been known to oppose gay marriage.

No one is allowed to ride the fence or stay neutral any longer. The issue is being forced. Gay rights advocates have also boycotted Best Buy and Target when those companies sent financial contributions to Minnesota gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer, a conservative candidate who stood opposed to gay marriage. If you support anyone who believes differently than they do, you can expect to feel their ire, both financially and in the media. One commenter on Chick-fil-A's Facebook page even commented that they would "denounce" the chain until they made a public apology and gave an equal donation to the Human Rights Campaign, an organization devoted to gay marriage equality. This would seem, at first, to be a fair and neutral suggestion (and might be if the company were publicly traded), except it flies in the face of everything that (privately owned) Chick-fil-A and its founder stand for, namely, conservative Christian beliefs and values.

There are greater things at risk in this particular civil rights debate than one company's struggle to maintain its beliefs and profits. The first thing is the right to one's beliefs and free speech. Dissent is not being allowed by these boycotters. The second is that Christian morality is under direct attack. These boycotters have not considered, or haven't cared, that the company is acting according to its beliefs and has the right to. They can eat more beef if they want to, but they should not demand that Chick-fil-A support their cause against its own interests. Further, within the gay marriage debate, pro-gay marriage advocates are telling Christians that not only is homosexual sex morally acceptable, but it is an obligation that those morally opposed support its legal and equal status. They must support its protection and continuation under law.

Honestly, no matter on which side you stand, you must see this struggle for what it is - an ideological war between those who believe in the word of God (in which marriage is between one man and one woman, is a picture of Christ and his Church, and homosexuality stands opposed to his will for humanity) and those who believe in a humanistic and evolutionary utopia (in which humans make rules and laws to build an idolatrous infrastructure based on the lowest common denominator, protection from morality and freedom for polysexuality). Equality for the noble tradition of marriage is not the goal. The dissolution of the totality of marriage and all its symbols is the goal. And if you disagree with their agenda, you will be reduced to the level of a malevolent KKK member or the equivalent of a stone-age fool. Those that support their agenda are made into freedom fighters within the media.

Sadly, gay rights advocates have usurped the African American struggle for human equality, an essentially Christian struggle, for their own legacy which is based more closely on socialistic ideals, opposed to Christianity. They would have us believe like the words of Star Trek's Borg, "Resistance is futile . . . you will be assimilated." My suggestion is that, if we would not be assimilated, we would stand our ground not just on the general principle of marriage defined as between one man and one woman, but on its underlying foundation, Scripture. This is the believer's fight and his alone, but it is a fight essential to his being a believer.

True Grit: The Need for Real Men in the Ministry

2011-01-21T22:58:00.019-05:00

There is a problem in American Evangelicalism; and it presents itself in the men who enter the pulpit and the continuation of a broken system. The Evangelical Church (read: Protestant, Bible-believing Christians) has become ineffective; the spiritual equivalent of a fat, lazy, couch-potato in desperate need of a Jillian Michaels butt-kicking. We've been fed plenty of food, but most of it has been nutrient-poor and we haven't spent the time using what we've taken in. We've been modeling, spiritually, the cultural worldview that we see around us, and that modeling begins in the pulpit. We must understand that pastors, like the people they minister to, are only human and are sinners saved by grace. Yet, as Jesus said, "a student is not greater than his teacher."

Whether or not they like it, pastors set the spiritual tone for their congregation. It should be a very humbling thing to be the "leader." Yet many pastors (and there are quite a few notable exceptions) are ill-equipped to lead. Some rule as arbitrary tyrants while others are weak, frightened of their congregations. Many are passionate about the wrong things. How could someone who feels called into the ministry be passionate about the wrong things? It is easy for a man to lose sight of his original vision and be swept a long an alternative path, especially if that path holds things that stroke his ego.

Let me illustrate. There are many young men who start out training for the ministry with good and idealistic goals. "The gospel is sufficient!" they cry. Over time, however, the cares of the world creep in and begin to replace their previous goals. Soon they begin to question, "How do I make a comfortable life for myself?" "How can I be more respected?" "How can I force my congregation to see things my way?" "How can I justify this activity?" We see the results all the time in pastors who would rather go golfing than evangelize; who would rather live in the suburbs than in a rougher area near their church; who use the pulpit as their personal mouthpiece; who fall from ministry due to sin. These are men who have drunk the cool-aide that the world around them has to offer. By their lifestyle and even the subtle nuances of their preaching, they are raising up others to follow their example.

The abject selfishness of these pastors is obvious upon examination of their lives. As Thomas Aquinas said, "What we love tells us what we are." Little time spent in the Word, or spent intensely shepherding their flocks; much time devoted to hobbies and sports, networking and denominational politics, dreaming of bigger and better "stuff." We have whole sections of the Protestant Church that are given over to the pursuit of wealth (see examples here, here, and here). These people are ruled by selfish passions.

Selfishness is not the only problem. Our culture has practically outlawed manhood. Our culture expects a much longer period of "adolescence" than generations past. It is also amazing how quickly this change took place. My father was born in the mid-forties and was required to work on the farm while still a young boy. He lost part of a finger in a work accident at ten years of age. He matured quickly. I was raised in the city and many of his efforts to raise me were thwarted by outside influences -- a culture that didn't require any maturity. I remember his consternation as I made poor decisions or did not actively try to mature. It wasn't until I was in college that I began to see how far off the mark the trajectory of my life was heading. Our culture would keep us boys. It would tell us: "Go ahead and live with your parents until age 40." "Mess around with women and take all that you can, but do not offer anything in return." "Be Homer Simpson." I have personally experienced being passed over for secular promotions and positions because my age (twenties-early thirties) somehow indicated irresponsibility. It is very easy for young men to float along with the tide of cultural expectation rather than fight for good goals and responsibility (Please see Darrin Patrick's video at the end of this article).

The ministry is not immune from this phenomenon. In part because of an acceptance of cultural standards by churches, and thus continuing to place the same pressure on young men seeking the ministry, and also because of the immature young men who are placing expectations on the churches. "No, I don't want accountability." "Don't require anything really hard from me." "Why should I visit the sick or the old? Can't I just preach, or teach, or play music instead?" "How dare you criticize my decisions, don't you realize I have authority?" "Blogging and reading the next big theological idea doesn't constitute ministry?" "We're not growing; it must be the congregation's fault, not mine." We have boys in our pulpits and our churches are languishing.

A third problem is the preparation (or lack thereof) received in seminary. Let me say that I do not regret my time in seminary; it is generally a good and helpful thing. It trains you to think deeply. But it is woefully lacking in actual ministry application and character development. I have spent the last eight years in theological education. I have seen the good, the bad, and the ugly. I have even heard professors say that only those seminary students with the highest grade point averages are fit for the ministry. They implied that they were weeding out those that they did not see as fit academically from the ministry.

Only recently has there been any incling that the modus operandi may change. In a recent article from The Gospel Coalition, several professors and the president of my own alma mater, R. Albert Mohler, made some helpful insights on how seminaries should change in order to better prepare ministers of the Gospel. Several writers echoed that it was not the seminary that set the stage for learning, but the needs of the Church. Also, integrating learning with practical experience is essential. Richard Pratt said,

I'd find ways to reach academic goals more quickly and effectively and then devote most of the curriculum to supervised battle simulation. I'd put students through endless hours of hands-on service to the sick and dying, physically dangerous evangelism, frequent preaching and teaching the Scripture, and days on end of fasting and prayer.

D. A. Carson suggested that there be:

Close integration with an expanding apprenticeship program in our best churches, led by pastors who believe in theological education but who will also train our M.Div. graduates in relationships, spirituality, consistency, hands-on ministry [and] street smarts.

They are on to something here. Seminary, in this vision, would cease to be a comfortable, academic, bubble where ministry would be looked at from a safe distance, but rather a proving ground in which a call to ministry might be confirmed.

Why hasn't this happened yet? Two main reasons. First, the seminary faculties are largely filled with Academicians who, themselves, are uncomfortable working in the trenches. Second, we have a lot of young squeaky wheels with an idolatry of ministry who would not appreciate having anything really hard required of them. If they were challenged with being thrown into the deep end, they might leave. If they left, their dollars would follow them (to which I would say good riddance). The threat of loss of money is something the seminary boards cannot seem to brook.

The good news is, however, some churches and even seminaries are taking note. They recognize the problem and are doing something about it. Many churches are beginning to offer training programs that offer close-to-seminary quality courses and which require hands on ministry experience as well as character building. Some examples are: Hope Community Church, Sojourn, Bethlehem Baptist Church, Mars Hill, among others. Bethlehem Baptist's new college and seminary also have been built with integration between school and church in mind.

I am encouraged that there are things changing within our churches and our schools and I hope the change continues, because the Church cannot afford more apathy and complacency while immature tyrants run churches and souls into the ground. I look forward to the raising up of more men to the pulpit. Men who are unafraid to be different from the surrounding culture; who stand upon the bedrock of Scripture, and not their whims, when they preach. Men who evangelize as though they long to die and men who see their congregations as an end and not a means to an end. Yes, I long for the boys to become men and for our institutions to let them.

Guns . . . and Those Who Use Them

2011-01-17T08:39:00.003-05:00

America was shocked when 18 people were shot at an "On Your Corner" community political event on Saturday, January 8. Six people died that day, including a federal judge and a nine-year-old girl. U.S. Congresswoman, Gabrielle Giffords, who seemed to be the initial target, was critically injured when she was shot in the head. She has survived as of this writing and seems to be recovering incredibly well, but she may never be the same whole person she was. This event was a tragedy of monumental proportions.

From all reports, the gunman, Jared Loughner, was a disturbed and mentally unbalanced individual. He was interested in political intrigues and conspiracy theories and centered on Giffords as a part of a larger problem of government control. The irony of his situation is that while he misguidedly thought his act would help remove government controls, it may have done more to enact what he feared most.

Many on both sides of the political spectrum believe he should never have had the Glock pistol he used to commit this crime in the first place. For the record, I am in full agreement. But this leads to the current, raging, debate. How can we prevent these situations from occurring and what level of gun control is acceptable? Further, will gun control solve the problem? This debate was inevitable. Every time there is a Democratic president, some situation or tragedy becomes fodder for a new push within the Brady Campaign and the media to control guns, which must be seen as "spin" for eliminating guns. It has also become an opportunity for politicians to attack each other over language, campaign symbols, and ideology. Most notably, several politicians and political pundits have specifically "targeted" Sarah Palin because of some crosshair symbols she used in her campaign strategy map (one of which happened to be placed over Gabrielle Gifford as a DFL'er). The crosshair symbols have since been taken down. Now we are told that national "civility," or lack thereof, is the problem. These are all things to examine.

Gun Control

The Brady Campaign to End Gun Violence has said that the situation could have been prevented by having stricter gun rules and lower capacity magazines for pistols. Brady president, Paul Helmke issued the following statements.

"The 30 round clip that the shooter used allowed him to kill more people in Tuscon [six] than were killed in the gunfight at the O.K. Corral [three]. The Brady Campaign whole-heartedly supports the legislation . . . to restrict the sale of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds."

"The Tuscon gunman was tackled when his 30-round magazine emptied and he attempted to insert a new one. If that had happened after 20 fewer bullets had been fired, more lives could have been saved."

These statements are only partially true and are highly charged pieces of rhetoric. In Helmke's first statement, he uses a gun battle (one that is deeply emotionally ingrained in the American consciousness, but one that also is not well-known -- Gun battles flush up images of death and destruction and are highly sensationalized) to emotionally charge the topic. The O.K. Corral did not end in an especially great loss of life (three dead gang members). Even with a ten round clip, a trained shooter should be able to kill TEN people.

Helmke's second statement is not much better. There is no real correlation between the amount of bullets discharged and the amount of people killed. Six people died (a very real tragedy) but that is out of 30 rounds discharged. His logic is far more elementary; fewer bullets being fired means fewer deaths. There is no argument there. But why set the capacity at ten? Why not five? Why not one? Really, Helmke is making a half-measure concession. He wants all guns to disappear, but he wants gun owners to meet him half-way.

We must notice also that in his first statement, Helmke says "restrict" the sale of magazines that hold more than ten rounds. "Restrict" is not "eliminate". Who would have access to the higher-capacity magazines. The answer would be police and military organizations. The implication is that the government and their enforcement bodies know how to help and govern the populace than its own citizens. That reasoning is not democratic at all, but something closer to either Fascism or Communism.

Another writer, who the Brady Campaign supports, Frank Cerabino, used more problematic reasoning to scare South Floridians.

"A 3-year-old Sun Sentinel analysis of concealed weapons permit holders found that among the approximately 410,000 licensed Floridians: 1, 400 pleaded guilty or no contest to felonies, 216 had outstanding warrants, 128 had active domestic violence injunctions and six were registered sex offenders."

Sounds pretty bad doesn't it? In fact he sums up the bleak reality, "I've come to believe that the
allegedly law-abiding citizens among us are as apt to be ticking time bombs as the guys looking to steal your wallet to feed a drug habit." Guilty until proven innocent. But the numbers don't add up to the same scary picture if you think through them. .004 (rounding up) of concealed permit holders became felons. That's not anywhere close to one per cent! Further, the statistics don't differentiate gun related felonies from other felonies like white-collar crime. What is more problematic is that 216 permit holders had outstanding warrants, 128 had domestic injunctions, and six were sex offenders. What that tells me is that there is a problem with the system of background checks and permit issuance.

The problem comes home in a specific sense when we look at Jared Loughner. He was never formally diagnosed as mentally disturbed. There was nothing in any file that the police could look at to deny him the right to purchase a firearm. Also there has been no discussion of whether or not he had a concealed carry permit. This is where his parents and school officials should have stepped in to help him get the help he needed. This is not to say that the situation that occurred was their fault. Jared acted alone and he should be rightly punished alone. I am sure this will be very hard on his family. Enforcing the current laws, rather than creating stricter laws seems to be the answer, but in the case of Jared Loughner, even this probably would not have helped.

The Second Amendment
The Second Amendment seems to be an inconvenient truth for the Brady Campaign and for other Liberals who would love to see all guns removed from the populace. Yet I'm not sure many Conservatives really understand the Second Amendment or its purpose. Usually it is assumed that the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights was written to protect free keeping and use of firearms for recreational use. The wording, however, leads to another conclusion. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This means bearing arms for the sake of a State Militia. Most people I hear supporting the Second Amendment seem to divorce the first half from the second. The same seems to be true in government. In fact, this amendment has been so confused, for so long, that this amendment was hamstrung about over 100 years ago. The Second Amendment requires a well-regulated state militia. These state militias were disbanded and recreated as the National Guard by the Militia Act of 1903.

The Second Amendment is not so much about individual rights as it is about a fourth balance to the democratic system. The other three branches of federal government; the executive (President), the legislative (House and Senate), and the judicial are corruptible, and when all three are corrupted, it is up to the populace to change the system. Thus the Second Amendment is solely about safeguarding the populace's ability to rise up and remove a dysfunctional political establishment by force. Because the federal government controls the regular Army, the states were to control the militias, keeping them equipped enough to overcome the federal army. This is no longer a possibility. Does this mean we should get rid of weapons then? No. It means we should elect members of the House and Senate who will return states' rights to them and establish state-run militias with the firepower to take-on the federal government if cause should arise.

In the current debate surrounding Giffords, most of the rhetoric is completely lacking in understanding. Both sides have misunderstood the Second Amendment which has led to the angry tug-of-war between gun-toters and gun-fearers. Both have missed the point that the federal government has already gained all the power and the states have little to none.

Specifically, Sharron Angle's quote was taken way out of context. It was very difficult to find her actual statements online that had not been twisted or used inappropriately by her opposition. She said that it was "a little bit disconcerting and concerning" that sporting goods could not keep ammunition in stock. She then interpreted this phenomenon. "The nation is arming. What are they arming for if it isn't that they are so distrustful of their government? They're afraid they'll have to fight for their liberty in more Second Amendment kinds of ways." She then interpreted her political race against Harry Reid in light of her previous comments. "That's why I look at this [winning the race] as almost an imperative. If we don't win at the ballot box, what will be the next step [implication of conservative uprising]?" Later, in another interview, she qualified some of those statements. She described her view of the Second Amendment largely the same way I did above. Then she said, "I'm hoping that we're not getting to Second Amendment remedies. I hope the vote will be the cure for the Harry Reid problems." Nowhere in any of her statements did she ever suggest that anyone should murder anyone else. Neither did she liken the Second Amendment to political assassination. Lastly, she was saying that she wanted to avoid a popular uprising, expressing worry that it may, indeed, happen. At no point that I have found was she the least irresponsible with her language. The truth appears to be far different from the Liberal media hack-job that has been performed against her.

Civil Debate
Paul Helmke of the Brady Campaign, along with many others, has called for a return to civil discourse. I can't help but find the humor in this call because of its disingenuous character. The Liberals have blamed the Giffords shooting on "heated political rhetoric" coming solely from the Republican and Tea Party camps, have lied about their statements, and are calling them to change. Yet at no point do they admit to similar activities or accept any blame for the current conditions within political debate. Further, Sarah Palin, whom I don't offer overwhelming support, was correct when she said it was irresponsible to "apportion blame" to other sectors of society, rather than to the lawbreaker. She was also correct that there has been no time when there was no political violence. Isn't it curious that her fine speech was ignored and one phrase, "blood libel," was brought to the fore. She was absolutely correct when she said that these media representatives and political pundits were seeking to "muzzle [political] dissent with shrill cries of imagined insults."

Could a more civilized debate process really have saved those people in Tuscon? I doubt it. Loughner never said or showed indication that he was right-wing or that he was particularly against left-leaning politicians. This was not a political assassination in the sense of taking out someone with whom he disagreed. This was a murder to destroy a process and to give himself a sense of power. Civilization does not touch insanity.

So what's the answer? How can we lower the frequency of these events? I believe we can start with self-awareness, vigilance, and care. We must be aware of our own sinful natures and how easy it is to twist another person's words, simply because we disagree with them. We should be very careful not to demonize when we disagree. An example of societal demonization: Before WWI, my great-grandfather was a sought-after professor of German at the University of Minnesota. When the War hit, no one wanted to be associated with the Germans or the German language, so he was out of a job. No one thought that it was especially then that German language skills might be advantageous. Rather, no one wanted to be thought of as a possible traitor. The Minnesotan ethnic German cities, like New Ulm, were very hard hit economically.

We should be vigilant to see problems exhibited by our neighbors. Is someone struggling with mental illness, depression, anti-social behavior? Are they threatening terroristic action over perceived slights? These are red flags to the rest of society.

Lastly, I think we can show love and care to many of these individuals, especially before they lash out against the rest of society. We can befriend the friendless, we can suggest help for the mentally ill, we can assuage anguish caused by societal ignorance and ostracism. We can also call tip lines to report and prevent terroristic plots. In short, we can take responsibility for ourselves and our neighbors. I wonder if things might have been different if someone had done that for Jared. Sadly, it is easier to make government "fix things" and make more laws (which can't be adequately enforced anyway) than to dig in and help each other. But if the hard work is never done, we will only face more of these tragic events.

Glass Harp Music

2011-01-03T14:08:00.005-05:00

Here are a few glorious examples of glass harp music. The glass harp is actually an arrangement of crystal wine glasses filled with liquid to specific points which, when rubbed with a wet finger, produce a musical note. The musician featured here, Robert Tiso, has done several different classical scores. I am including Pyotr Tchaichovsky's Dance of the Sugar Plum Fairies, Johann Pachelbel's Canon in D, and Ludwig von Beethoven's Fur Elise. Enjoy!

Social Network Christmas

2010-12-19T14:51:00.005-05:00

What if Jesus had been born in our time with all its technological achievements? Here is Igniter Media's concept. For some reason, this really hit me hard. Maybe soon we can "tweet" about the Second Coming!

Merry Christmas! May God bless you this Advent season.

Justification: Atonement and Covenant Faithfulness

2010-11-12T01:22:00.004-05:00

This is a preliminary article. I have been reading N.T. Wright's book, Justification: God's Plan and Paul's Vision. I need to wade a little deeper and read several more books, but before I get really gung-ho and start writing papers in the little spare time I have, here are my thoughts.

N.T. Wright: N.T. Wright is angling at something that has gone wrong within Protestant, Evangelical theology; succinctly, that most Evangelical Christians today assume that relationship with God is their own personal relationship based on Christ's bloody atonement on their individual behalf in order to remove their sins which barred communion. This atonement acts as the hinge pin by which sin is removed and Grace is imputed or attributed. N.T. Wright believes that this basic message is a caricature of all that Paul was saying and empties the Pauline Epistles (and if the Gospels are read through a Pauline lens, them too) of Jewish covenant understanding. he believes that the problem started with the theology of Martin Luther.

John Piper: John Piper, along with many scholars, have attempted to take Wright to task. They believe that he is moving Protestants back to the Roman Catholic penitential system and a form of works-righteousness. John Piper (and I have yet to read his book, The Future of Justification, to develop this) has basically argued that Wright's implications would cause Christians to rely on their own work, rather than on the work of Christ, for atonement. John Piper's confessional response is supportive of not only John Calvin, but the Augustinian and Lutheran theological corpus.

Martin Luther: Martin Luther is where Wright believes things went wrong. He presents the idea that Luther supplied medieval law court imagery to the consideration of justification, but adds that Luther was using the Latin Vulgate which translates the LXX and NT Greek on these passages in such a way that would lead to such imagery. He also seems to imply that Luther's anti-semitism was another factor that led him away from translating in a more Jewish way.

My initial view: Wright is right that making salvation all about the atonement is mistaken. It oversimplifies the Christian life and leads to a myopic sin-consciousness. The Gospel is, indeed, more than that Jesus came to die as a propitiatory sacrifice on our behalf. the Gospel is the good news of a covenant relationship extended to Gentiles and renewed for Jews, bringing both groups together as one Jewish family under the headship of the slain and risen Messiah, Jesus. Jesus' atoning death on the cross is essential to that mission, but it is one part.

I think John Piper may have missed the thrust of Wright's thesis; that when Paul is talking about righteousness, he is not talking in law court terminology so much as he is talking about covenant faithfulness. This does not mean that sin and atonement are not in Paul's mind, but they are only one aspect.

Wright is wrong, I think, in locating the problem with Luther. Luther may have developed the theology in a more complete way, but the Catholic Church and Augustine started down that path. I think that in order to get closer to the mind of Paul, we must wipe much of the last two thousand years' theology off the table and look specifically at what was said in Scripture as well as understanding the sources of Paul's day, especially Jewish ones. Rethinking Paul's viewpoint doesn't mean Luther is completely wrong, but it will emphasize different points and allow us to see the importance of covenant fulfillment without Catholic or feudalistic coloring.

I think that the argument over Justification is a good one to be having, and I hope that we will be able to put more energy into understanding Paul at a fundamental level without the worry of destroying Christianity. After all, we are not Lutherans or Reformed, or Protestant or Catholics first, we are Christians. We should seek to know the Good news of right relationship with God well and what it means to be righteous within that relationship.

I will probably blog on this subject again before my "final" conclusions on the matter. Also, this year's Evangelical Theological Society's topic is Justification, so I recommend attending in Atlanta next week or finding ways to get ahold of papers from the sessions. Happy reading.

The Painful Truth: Politics As Usual

2010-11-03T00:04:00.005-04:00

The night is not over yet, but it looks as though the GOP has taken over the majority in the House of Representatives and has a solid half of the Senate. There are already pundits spinning this as a real victory for the right. Yet I am very afraid that little has changed tonight. There is not enough power for the conservatives to undo all the damage that has already been done over the last decade by liberal government spending and partisan politics.

Further, as I have read the comments of the talking-heads as well as the vitriol spewing over the net from both sides, we are absolutely determined to practice politics as usual. I am not seeing gracious victory or quiet defeat. I am not seeing a primary commitment to the welfare of our nation. I am not seeing humility and a brokenness for how we have done politics and business. Instead, I am seeing more division and self-interest rearing its ugly head. What some don't seem to see is that we are tearing this country apart as we sow hatred and disrespect between ideological factions.

It is difficult to know exactly how to form and uphold the rule of law, blind and neutral for all, while attempting to live for Christ. At some point there is a disconnect between the teachings of Jesus and the teachings of the founders of the United States. Eventually we are forced to choose which we will choose to follow primarily. Such a choice bears definite consequences. I believe that we cannot have an appropriate and viable rule of law without God's greater law and the grace of Jesus Christ. A law separated from the nature of God will necessarily be corrupted. Yet we cannot dictate belief or theology from the office of government.

I don't have the answers for this matter, but I can say this: It is our Christian duty (those of us who hope in Christ) to celebrate Christ and his eventual physical (and current spiritual) rule while putting no confidence in the flesh (or wisdom) of our rulers. I also believe it is our duty to be gracious and humble as conservatives have been elected, remembering that they were elected and can be unelected just as easily. We have won no great victory because we have not yet won-out over sin or human arrogance. Brothers and sisters, Let us remember that we deserve death and hell for our sins and yet we have a very good and faithful God who is not through with us yet. No matter how this election is finalized, let us reflect upon our ultimate ruler, Jesus Christ and give our allegiance to him and his will in our lives. Let us also remember to show kindness and mercy to those who have lost or presently find themselves negatively impacted by today's results. Please pray for our country and for all people involved in politics.

Bethlehem College and Seminary's Inaugural Convocation

2010-10-04T23:16:00.004-04:00

Last night, it was my privilege and delight to attend the Inaugural Convocation of Bethlehem Baptist Church's new program of education, Bethlehem College and Seminary (BCS). This school will offer undergraduate and graduate degrees for those interested in entering the ministry.

It was a treat to see not only people from Bethlehem Baptist Church (BBC) there, but presidents, faculty, and administrators from many different Christian colleges and seminaries. Dr. R. Albert Mohler Jr., from my own Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, gave the inaugural address.

All the pomp and circumstance of the event thrust home the eminence of what is occurring here in Minneapolis. This is not merely a new school, another option among seminaries; this is a rethinking of Christian education. Most seminaries are merely small universities draped with Christian clothing and focused mainly on academic pursuits. The practical - the stuff of ministry itself - is found outside the classroom and is only hinted at by academic pursuits. There is little, if any, theological or ministerial accountability to the churches they serve, especially among evangelical schools. BCS, in its charter, and its avowed goals, is committed to remaining accountable to BBC. The two will be inextricably linked.

What this means is that the entire focus of the BCS program is on ministry, and that ministry is foremost within the context of BBC. Secondarily, the training should be an excellent ground for church planters. Dr. Mohler's words ring true here, "Churches should put seminaries out of business." When churches are faithful in educating their lay people and raising up members to positions of ministry, the seminary will no longer be necessary.

I, for one, am thrilled at the prospect of young men being not only trained rigorously academically, but lovingly built up and tested in actual ministry work throughout the education process. I think our city, our nation, and the world will be far better served for the cause of Christ. May we have more faithful churches that will follow this model.

Why Mideast Peace Deals Are Destined to Fail

2010-09-12T08:03:00.005-04:00

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is in Egypt this week trying to broker another peace deal between Israel and Palestine. Israel had agreed to not build settlements in the West Bank area but the agreed-upon time limitation is quickly approaching. Clinton, President Obama, and the Palestinians would like to see that moratorium on building extended.

One should see this as the same old "land-for-peace" deal that former president Bill Clinton promoted in the 1993 Oslo Accords. The problem with land-for-peace reasoning is two-fold. First, it does not take into account the illogic of a land-for-peace settlement; once land is given away to prevent threatened violence, the new owners of the land will merely threaten violence for more land. The process has no end. Second, the designers of this deal obviously do not know the history of the Middle-east or the nature of those at the negotiation table. It assumes that the Palestinians are reasonable people who only want a piece of Israel to call their own. The reality is that the Muslim nations surrounding Israel have sworn to do everything within their power to destroy Israel. The land-for-peace deal is only one small facet of that overall goal. Why Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu does not see this (or at least why he plays along) is beyond me.

The nation of Israel exists. Whether its formation was right or wrong is beyond the scope of this brief article. Because it exists, though, it has sovereignty over its own land. It has every right to do with its own land as it sees fit. Further, it has every right to defend its land from every form of hostility. PLO leader Yasser Arafat once likened the Palestinians to the Philistines and vowed that as long as the Palestinians existed they, like the Philistines ages ago, would remain a thorn in Israel's side. Prime Minister Netanyahu: for the sake of the sovereignty of your nation, remove the thorn from your side or eventually it will poison you.

We Have Forgotten: War and Islamic Extremism Nine Years Later

2010-08-03T07:54:00.007-04:00

WARNING! Unsettling images are included in this article.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I was reading in recent news that the U.S. is looking for its exit strategy in Afghanistan. Some within our nation believe that our work is done there. They want to see an end to a long, expensive, and negligibly effective war. I can appreciate their frustration. Further, we have been convinced by the media that we are not welcome there by the populace and that we are doing more harm than good.

Yet not everyone wants us to leave. The International task force, led by the U.S. have made changes as we have removed the Taliban. But I would suggest our job isn't done. The Taliban still holds much sway over the people of Afghanistan. They continue to recruit from throughout the Muslim world and they continue to fund terrorism.

Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president, has openly considered a truce with the Taliban once the U.S. troops have left, effectively inviting them to stay within the nation and continue to operate. Obviously Karzai has not cared about their human rights infringements. He is not concerned about their interpretation of Sharia Law. He and our government do not understand the effects upon the world that leaving that country will have.

Muslim extremism carries with it the stench of death and destruction. Conversion at the end of a sword, brutal punishments for minor or perceived infractions, merciless persecution of dissidents, male preferentialism, world terrorism, and hypocrisy can be expected by its adherents. The damage done by its worldview has been and will continue to be catastrophic.

We, who are sheltered in the U.S., are fortunate not to see the effects of the Taliban's extremism on a daily basis. Because of our safety and separation from war, we have forgotten how easily it can bring us to our knees. But if we do not continue to stand and fight for basic values - goodness, freedom, human rights, compassion, etc. Not only will they continue their reign of terror over there, they will target us again and again until we give up the fight entirely. Our response must be as unendingly resolute as their attacks.

Moving

2010-06-21T15:15:00.002-04:00

As stated in my last post, things had been very busy. They have not become any less so since I graduated. We have been packing and are moving back to Minnesota this week. I have no idea how long the Lord will have us there. Currently our plans are to be there in order to be a blessing to our families - there has been a lot of death, injury, and relationship problems lately. Also, I have been putting out resumes there in the north country. We'll see if anything pans out. Jenny and I would really appreciate prayer for this transition and for the next phase. I do plan on blogging again, but I don't know exactly what role it will play in the near future.

Returning to Blogging

2010-05-04T09:28:00.005-04:00

Hey all,

I had been forced, just by the busy-ness of everyday life, to take a bit of a break from blogging. I have been caring for our young daughter, working, and finishing up my M.Div. Now that its over and I am graduating, I'll have some more time.

I hope that you have found this blog and its perspective constructive and helpful. I want to reiterate my commitment to sharing the love and glory of Christ Jesus and the application of his Scripture to life. As events unfold in history, whether on a small or grand scale, we should look to Scripture and the "faith that was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 1:3) for answers on how to live and act.

Thank you to all who have continued to check in and have desired to keep reading. I don't expect that I have much within myself that is worth reading about, but I hope that you will find that it is the application of Scripture that is worth something. That does not come from me at all. Let this blog be a glorification of our triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; and may you all be blessed.

The Insanity of Unbelieving Pastors: Darwinism Does Its Work

2010-03-19T08:25:00.022-04:00

In a recent blog article, Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr. highlighted the serious issue of unbelieving ministers of the Word in American churches. Yes, there are men and women occupying pulpits and other Church positions throughout the land who do not believe the very word of God that they are adjured to present to their congregations. To some of you, this is a shocking and confusing statement. For others, not only does it seem possible, but it seems inevitable. Both reactions are correct.

Mohler's article focuses on a study performed by Tufts University's Daniel C. Dennett, a widely known atheist, macro-evolution curate, and attacker of all things related to God and his revealed Word. This study honestly exposes some unbelieving clergy, in order to portray how reasonable it is that they should not believe. After all, the thinking goes, if these are ministers and they don't believe, why should anyone else. Sadly, most people think this way and will, indeed, be swayed by these charlatans. Dennett suggests that because humanity has evolved past the point of needing the crutch of theism (because of advances in science and medicine), "We have no more need of such primitive beliefs."

So we find ourselves in a brave new world, in which (some of) our ministers are closet or even open atheists. This is not a situation that is going to be mended quickly, and it will certainly grow worse before it gets better, if it ever does. This may seem pessimistic, but the reality is (and history bears out) that people follow after the thinking of the surrounding culture. Our culture is predominantly Darwinistic. How did we get here? What led to such an awful condition?

First, let it be said that there has always been disbelief. There have always been those in our midst who could not come to accept God's Word as true. The difference is, those people did not have a convincing alternative explanation for creation, evil, etc., and they did not have public opinion on their side. During the "Enlightenment," there began to be philosophers who did much damage to Christian theology and the Christian Faith (David Hume, John Locke, Voltaire, Immanuel Kant, Friedrich Schleiermacher, and Friedrich Nietzsche to name a few), but they merely paved the way for the philosophies of one man, Charles Darwin.

Darwin's 1859 treatise, On the Origin of Species, presented a seemingly viable alternative to theistic creation with force. Couched in the best science of the day, the theory of natural selection, and the possibility of a reality without any god whatsoever, swept like a flood throughout the world. And there is a reason that this theory is so popular.

As stated earlier, there has always been disbelief in God. From the first couple in history, Adam and Eve who disbelieved the promises of God in favor of the lies of the Serpent, to the Israelites who, shortly after seeing God's deliverance at the Red Sea, disbelieved his promises and made themselves an idol.

Maybe a more appropriate correlation to our own day is the history of Israel presented in the books of Kings and Chronicles (split in the English Bible into 1,2 Kings and 1,2 Chronicles). As the nation of Israel was split in two under Solomon's son, Rehoboam, Jeroboam, one of Solomon's servants, is given the northern ten tribes. Immediately he sets up calf-idols at Bethel in order to prevent the northern Israelites from supporting southern Judah by going to the Temple to worship Yahweh.

Relatively quickly, thereafter, Israel and Judah were enslaved by idol-worship. Idol worship is not merely substituting one god for another. It is really an attempt at worshiping the self. By disbelieving the promises of God, the people trusted in themselves and in natural forces to give them what they desired (fertile land and wombs, prosperity, enjoyment). Ironically, these were specifically the things promised by God, to be enjoyed on his terms. But the people found God's terms unacceptable.

It is interesting to see how ubiquitous the problem really became within these nations. In 1 Kings 19:18, God tells Elijah the prophet who believed himself to be the only faithful one left, that he has reserved for himself seven thousand throughout Israel (Israel and Judah?) who have not bowed in idol-worship. Seven thousand! Packed together, that is the size of a small village. One village out of two nations. Idolatry was everywhere. And it was not only the people in general but also their leaders, the very ones who were pledged to protect and direct them. The kings, the judges, the priests, and even prophets (1 Kings 22:24) were all drawn away.

In the narrative of Josiah's "conversion," we are told that not only were there pagan priests, but that they mixed freely with the priests of Yahweh. "Although the priests of the high places (mixed, pagan and illicit Yahweh worship) did not serve at the altar of the Lord in Jerusalem, they ate unleavened bread with their fellow priests." (2 Kings 23:9) There were unbelieving priests among them, too.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aside: Doesn't 2 Kings 23:9 seem appropriate not only when considering unbelieving ministers in our midst, but also the recent hardships of so many denominations when deciding what fellowship can be had with associations that promote evil and call it good.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Israel and Judah were utterly consumed with idolatry, and were finally judged for the evil they committed. They were taken away by foreign kings to live as ostracized and enslaved people. They were given a physical taste of what they already were spiritually.

In our own day, we are told that idolatry (thought of as merely bowing down to images of gods thought to control natural events) is silliness, yet our own culture bows its collective knee to the natural forces themselves! Whether people assign a personality to the earth (Gaia) or merely talk about "blind natural forces," makes no difference. The result is the same; rejection of God and his self-revelation in favor of empty philosophies and slavery to our own desires. Again, that is what idolatry has always been about. We want to be like the Most High. We worship ourselves and seek after our own desires, rejecting God's Law and grace over our lives.

Paul David Tripp says it well in his book, Instruments in the Redeemer's Hands, "The problem is not that God is not here or that he is inactive; the problem is that we don't see him."*1 We don't see him physically and we are so deceived by sin and our own desires that we don't see him spiritually. Even if we can conceive that God exists, without the direction of his self-revelation we can't see him as we ought. In Christ, we see God reveal himself in the flesh so that we would see him and see him rightly. Tripp continues, "The revelation of God in his awesome glory is the only thing that exposes the utter emptiness of all the other glories we crave."*2

Evolution is crack-cocaine for the idolatrous brain; the true opiate of the masses. People like Daniel Dennett make it sound so reasonable, but God has shown us the effects of idolatry, and has assured us that Jesus is coming back. Jesus will return, but not as a meek and gentle lamb. Revelation paints the picture of the Lion of Judah who will destroy all opposed to his reign. He is the victorious King and will accept no rival. The idolatry of evolution is really not reasonable at all when seen in this light, but actually as irrational as any other idolatry ever could be.

I agree whole-heartedly with Dr. Mohler - these ministers are sworn to be ministers of the Gospel. If they will not serve Yahweh with true and loving hearts, they are not only deceiving their flocks and doing them a disservice, they are mis-leading them. Like the Pharisees Jesus depicted, these ministers are blind guides who will lead others to hell. To leave them in place is as insane as leaving wolves to watch the sheep! They must be removed from their pulpits because they have given up the truth of God for their own philosophical creation. How many thousands of "Christians" who have not bowed their knee to the idols of wealth, evolution, and their own desires do you think are left in our nation?
------------------------------
*1 Tripp, Paul David, Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2002. 98.
*2 Ibid., 99.

Thoughts on History

2010-03-15T13:02:00.006-04:00

I was watching a short clip of John McCollough, long time host of PBS series, American Experience, in which he comments on his biographical book turned HBO miniseries, John Adams. He says some interesting things about history that I wanted to interact with.

First he says that "history is human." In part, he's right. We measure and record events as we experience them, and we usually do so from a very human perspective. "What happened to us?" History becomes important because, in the end, we hope that, by noticing trends in history, we will be able to control the future. I would add that the study of history helps us to better know who we are now. What philosophies have we accepted, what wars have we fought, what successes have we had? These are the events that shape our passions, our drives, and our reactions.

Yet there is an even deeper aspect to history, and it is a theological one. We should see history as fundamentally God-related. God created, and all things came into being and experienced events and time from that point until now. God revealed created man in his image and revealed himself to his image. God has revealed himself and instructed man, thus creating events. Wars, peace, ideas, and human interaction are all sourced in him and his unfolding will for mankind. Only when we see human action in relation to God's Word and Self-revelation, can we appropriately view and judge historical events.

Mr. McCullough later says, "I feel strongly that we need to know our history better than we do. That it is especially important that young people come to . . . history with more of a sense of what happened and why." I agree vehemently with the former statement. We must know our history better than we do. This is true for society at large, but it is especially true for Christians. It is true because we must know the God who revealed himself to man and how his self-revelation has led to our salvation. Beyond that, we should know history so we can apply it to our current context. Many Christians are heavily enculturated; that is, they live for and enjoy worldly pursuits and activities with little understanding of or concern about repercussions. God's revealed Word, and actions throughout history, should teach us how to live in order to please him.

But I would disagree with Mr. McCullough that we should come to history with a sense of what happened and why. That is the result, not the prelude, of learning history.

History is essential to the thinking person, and the study of it should illuminate human sin and separation from God in the past, but also illuminate our own sin and separation, which should, in turn, cause us to quickly repent and pursue God as his image-bearers.

E-Trade Commercial Offends Lindsay Lohan

2010-03-10T09:55:00.014-05:00

You may have already heard that Lindsay Lohan is suing E-Trade for its recent commercial. She believes that she is owed $100 Million because of illegal use of her "image", because the baby referred to in the commercial represents her and her recent trouble with alcohol and drugs. Further, Ms. Lohan believes that she has the same first-name brand recognition as Oprah and Madonna. It will be interesting to see where this goes.

Silly Signs #5: George Bush Billboard

2010-02-09T18:39:00.004-05:00

A friend of mine took a picture of a billboard located on Hwy 35 between Wyoming and Stacy, MN. I thought the billboard was funny and that I would post it here first, but I guess others found it shocking or humorous and it is making the rounds on the blogosphere. Here, as anywhere else, you snooze, you lose!

By the way, George, yes, we do!