Why Hillary Can't Win!

Dr. John Mark Reynolds is the Associate Professor of Philosophy at Biola University (JP Moreland is also a Professor of Philosophy at this school). He has much to say on many topics and does a very good job of it.

In this link, he lists several reasons why Hillary Clinton cannot possibly win the presidential election of 2008.

WHEW!!!

Let the Bible Speak: Being Deaf

Do you remember those hearing tests you took in school? You would sit in a room with headphones on and listen for that “PING” sound. I remember working about as hard as I could to hear that sound. I concentrated. I focused. I sweat. If anyone was ever going to pass that test on sheer effort alone, it was going to be me. I had visions of going down in school history as the most audibly-gifted student to ever walk those hallowed halls of Hiddenite Elementary. Other students would reverently utter my name as legends grew of my amazing hearing ability. I listened “hard.” But is that even possible? Either you hear or you don’t. And that is the point of this post.

Just as the Bible lists several instances of people suffering from an inability to perceive sights, the Word also lists instances of people with a physical inability to hear. On the other hand, just as the Bible also paints the picture of men blind to the spiritual world, we read of men who are deaf to the spiritual world.

It is this understanding that leads to Jesus repeatedly beginning his sayings with this unusual introduction: “He who has ears, let him hear.” This is nonsense if Jesus is talking about physical hearing. Have you ever met someone who had no ears? It may happen to a very few people and I don’t mean to mock these unfortunate souls. I simply have never seen such a person. The presence of an odd-shaped fold of skin-covered cartilage on the side of your noggin is normal. Therefore, Jesus had to have meant something beyond hearing and decoding the sound waves vibrating out of his voice box.

It is in John’s gospel that this aspect of hearing is truly explained. In John 7, Jesus is in Jerusalem during the Feasts of Booths. In the Temple courts, the Jews had elaborate ceremonies to light gigantic menorahs (over 75 feet tall) with other very dramatic water-pouring ceremonies throughout this holy festival. It is during this festival that Jesus very boldly makes two incredible statements. First we read that “On the last day of the feast, the great day, Jesus stood up and cried out, “If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink’” (John 7:37). Later, Jesus said, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life” (John 8:12).

The Jewish leaders knew exactly what He was saying because they got into a protracted argument with Jesus. Jesus is not always so meek and mild – He pulled no punches. He told them that they would die in their sins (8:21); that they were slaves (8:32) ' that they were liars (8:55); and that their father was the devil (8:44)! WOW!

Jesus then lowers the boom and tells them the very reason why they are so dense and unable to understand His simple words in 8:43-47:

43 Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. . . . 45 But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. 46 . . . If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? 47 Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God.”

AMAZING! Did you get it? If not, Jesus repeats the lesson just two chapters later.

In John 9, Jesus gives a man his physical sight. The Jewish leaders did not like this because Jesus dared to heal on the Sabbath (9:14-16). They threatened this man and his parents with excommunication (9:22). They eventually carried through with their threat (9:34).

Jesus heard of their act and told the Pharisees that they were the blind ones. They disagreed and Jesus began another long discourse – this time on shepherds and sheep. Jesus claimed to be the shepherd (10:11) and said that “the sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out” (10:3). Of course, everyone acknowledges that these “sheep” are true believers – Christians. John tells us in verse six that : “This figure of speech Jesus used with them, but they did not understand what he was saying to them.”

Jesus goes on to explain that it is for these sheep that He came to die, saying, “I know my own and my own know me. . . . . I lay down my life for the sheep” (10:14-15). This is a topic for another time but please let that statement sink in!

Then Jesus says some words that are very pleasing to all us Gentiles: “I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd” (10:16). This must have infuriated these ethno-centric Jewish leaders.

In verse 24, we read that “the Jews gathered around him and said to him, ‘How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.’” This prompted Jesus to basically repeat what He had said in chapter eight.

25 Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name bear witness about me, 26 but you do not believe because you are not part of my flock. 27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.”

Just as before, Jesus told them that the reason they fail to understand Him is because they were not believers (sheep). To hear and understand the things of the Spirit, you must be a believer. That does not seem to make much sense but it comes from the mouth of ouromniscient perfect Savior.

Somehow, in the modern church, we have rejected Jesus’ words and replaced them with our own understanding. In our arrogance, we have “improved” on Jesus’ understanding of our state. If a modern-day preacher would have the same conversation today, several things would change.

First of all, I don’t think we would say such harsh things to the people to whome we are trying to witness. For some reason, calling someone a liar and telling them they are a “child of the devil” doesn’t get you far in a conversation. I guess Jesus can get away with it – he knew their hearts. We don’t.

Second, and more importantly, the modern evangelist would take Jesus’ words in verse 8:47 and 10:26 and change them to this: “The reason you are not of God is because you have not yet understood. The reason you are not a “sheep” is because you do not believe.”

I can not say this strongly enough: That is NOT what Jesus said.

Read it again. The reason some in Jesus' audience did not believe is because they were not of God. The reason some in Jesus' audience did not believe is because they were not sheep. This is hard to understand in our modern way of thinking but you have to be “of God/a sheep” before you can “hear/understand/believe.” Of these sheep, Jesus says “I know them” (10:27). Of everyone else, Jesus says “I never knew you” (Matt 7:23).

What about in the early church? In Acts, Paul and Barnabas preach and “the whole city gathered to hear them” (Acts 13:44). However, we read later that “as many as were appointed to eternal life believed” (13:48). No more, no less. All heard, some believed.

In Acts 28, Paul was in Rome. He preached, some believed, some didn’t. Why? Paul gives the same reason Jesus did by quoting (once again) Isaiah 6:10.

You might say, “What about Romans 10:17?” Good question. That verse says “So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.” But this verse and those around it really says the same thing when you break it down. Just go backwards through it. The Word is preached and people “hear” and believe or they don’t “hear” and don’t believe. Nothing has changed.

PING!

Let the Bible Speak: Being Blind

I keep reading that we evangelicals interpret the Bible literally. That is true, inasmuch as it is possible. However, I have found that in certain areas of theology some will go to great lengths to interpret the Bible in a less-than-literal fashion. The area most often abused in this fashion is that of soteriology - the study of the doctrine of salvation.

In the next several days, I want to try to reveal some examples of this practice. I will show that in some people’s desire to ensure that their traditional understanding remain true, they override the intended meaning of the text. In each instance, we'll see that the Bible says very clearly and certainly one thing but many will do anything to stop the Bible from meaning what it means.

First, in the next few days, I want to examine some words that the Bible uses to describe fallen man. One of the words the Bible uses is "BLIND." The Bible says that men are blind - what does that mean?

The word blind appears fifty-three times in the New Testament (NASB). Forty-three of those instances deal obviously with physical blindness. The other ten describe blindness of another kind.

• Five times in Matthew 23 Jesus calls the Pharisees blind guides and blind men. Clearly, these men had physical vision.
• Romans 2:19 talks of being a guide to the blind as well as instructor of the foolish.
• I John 2:11 tells us that whoever hates his brother is in the dark and that darkness has blinded his eyes.

From these passages we see that there is such a thing as spiritual blindness (but a very real blindness nonetheless).

Then, in John 12, we read that Jesus has entered Jerusalem. Beginning in verse 20, some Gentiles begin looking for Him. Andrew took them to Christ and Jesus told them that “The light is among you for a little while longer. Walk while you have the light.”

John writes that Jesus then left and the people still did not believe in Him. Why? The inspired writer credits this amazing lack of ability to believe to an Old Testament passage. In this passage, John quotes Isaiah 6:10, writing, “He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, lest they see with their eyes, and understand with their heart, and turn, and I would heal them.”

In John’s infallible interpretation of Isaiah, we read that God has blinded and hardened some. The blinding of the eyes is equated with the hardening of the heart and it is God who is the active agent in this disabling. That is hard to accept but accept it we must unless you prefer to allow traditions to supercede contextual analysis (I’ll discuss this passage in more detail later when dealing with John 6).

Besides these “blindness” passages, there are passages that speak of men having their “eyes opened.” As before, some of the passages deal with the miraculous healing of physical blindness. In other places, we must understand it as another type of blindness. In Luke 24:13, we encounter the famous walk of Jesus with the two disciples on the road to Emmaus. While walking and talking with these men, verse sixteen says “their eyes were kept from recognizing Him.” However, when they sat to eat, verse 31 says that “their eyes were opened and they recognized Him.”

In Acts 26, Luke writes of Paul’s conversion experience with the risen Christ. Jesus gives Paul his marching orders, telling him that He is Paul to the Gentiles “to open their eyes, so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins.”

In all this, we clearly see that there is a physical blindness that keeps men from interpreting visual stimuli so that they can not see the physical world. However, there is also a spiritual blindness that is just as real and keeps men from perceiving the spiritual world.

This spiritual blindness is what Jesus was talking about in John 3, probably the most misunderstood chapter in all the Bible. In John 3:3, Jesus tells Nicodemus “Truly I say unto you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Natural eyes cannot see - perceive, understand, accept - anything about the kingdom of God. The only way to get this “spiritual vision” is to be born again, which is entirely an act of God (I’ll discuss this later as well).

This condition, in which every single human who has ever lived has either been in or currently is in, is described aptly by Isaiah 59. Read carefully this description of natural man’s “seeing ability”:

9 Therefore justice is far from us, and righteousness does not overtake us; we hope for light, and behold, darkness, and for brightness, but we walk in gloom.

10 We grope for the wall like the blind; we grope like those who have no eyes; we stumble at noon as in the twilight, among those in full vigor we are like dead men.

The description is apt. I think the point is fairly well made but let me press the issue. What is the problem with a blind man? Is it the absence of light? Of course not. Have you ever wondered how much light it would take for a blind man to see?

• If you held a candle in front of a blind man, would he see that light? No.
• If you held a small flashlight in front of a blind man, would he see that light? No.
• If you held a large flashlight in front of a blind man, would he see that light? No.
• If you drove your car up to him and turned on your headlights, would he see that light? No.
• If you turned on your high beams, would he see that light? No.
• If you stood him in front of a 747 jet, on a runway, and turned on the landing lights, would he see that light? No.
• If you could put this man in space and point him to the sun with its rays uninhibited by out atmosphere, could he see the light of the sun? No.
  

Not only does the prophet tell us in verse ten that we grope blindly along the wall like a stumbling blind person, we grope along like a person WITH NO EYES AT ALL. The problem with a blind person is not the absence of light but the inability to perceive it. And we are not simply blind – WE DON’T EVEN HAVE EYES! It’s not that our eyes don’t work – we don’t even have eyes to work. That is just how lost and depraved and hopeless fallen man is without the working of the Spirit of God in their lives.

How is it, then, that modern day believers insist that the Bible teaches us that man has within himself the ability to understand the gospel, to come to Christ, to “see the light.” The Bible tells us that no man can do this because of his blindness. Any other understanding is a futile attempt to make Scripture line up with preconceived traditional understandings. It is foolish for modern preaching to tell us to "not resist the light" or "to allow the light to come in" or "to surrender to the light". How does a blind man allow light to penetrate his blindness?

Let’s agree to let the Bible say what it says and mean what it means. The gospel is the only light that can penetrate the darkness of an unbelieving person’s heart. God is Sovereign and God is Light. God causes the light to shine in the darkness and the darkness is powerless to resist the light once God commands it to shine.

So it is with the unregenerate heart. It is God, by His Sovereign Grace and Mercy, who shines the light of the Gospel upon the darkened mind of an unbeliever to bring that person to life - to give him sight to see.

Earlier, John wrote in 5:21 that "just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son also gives life to whom He wishes." To God be the glory both now and throughout eternity for His marvelous light and His beautiful gift of sight! When He gives sight, you truly see for the first time.

In John 9, Jesus gave a man his physical sight. The Jewish leaders heard of it and didn't like it. At the end of this story, we have this beautiful and yet very fearful exchange:

⁵ Jesus heard that they had cast him out, and having found him he said, “Do you believe in the Son of Man?”  ³⁶ He answered, “And who is he, sir, that I may believe in him?” ³⁷ Jesus said to him, “You have seen him, and it is he who is speaking to you.” ³⁸ He said, “Lord, I believe,” and he worshiped him. ³⁹ Jesus said, “For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see may see, and those who see may become blind.” ⁴⁰ Some of the Pharisees near him heard these things, and said to him, “Are we also blind?” ⁴¹ Jesus said to them, “If you were blind, you would have no guilt; but now that you say, ‘We see,’ your guilt remains."

How is your vision?

The Hollywood Preacher

I had gathered the impression that Hollywood had no use for outspoken religious types who like to talk about their religious beliefs and attempt to convert people over to those beliefs. After all, that is "forcing your religion down their throats."

I guess that doesn't count when it is one of their own.

Hollywood superstar Tom Cruise is getting ready to release his newest summer blockbuster movie, "War of the Worlds," on June 29. We've all seen the ads and trailers and it looks like a pretty thrilling way to spend a lazy summer afternoon.

What we have not heard (because of Hollywood's hypocrisy) is Cruise's behind-the-scenes proselytizing for his church. Cruise is a longtime member of the Church of Scientology. According to the sect's official website, we learn that "a maxim in Scientology is that only those things which one finds true for himself are true. In Scientology one learns to think for himself – it is a voyage of self-discovery."

Well, Cruise is helping people to get started on that voyage with a not-so-gentle shove. On the set of his movie (directed by Steven Spielberg), Cruise set up a tent as "a gift" to give people an "assist," which he describes as some sort of magical massage that helps and heals. But the purpose of the tent goes beyond that: actual Scientology literature is available, too, in case “someone walks in looking for a solution.”

In an interview with Spiegel News (a German news source), Cruise spoke about his 20-year membership in the Church of Scientology. I recommend you read it - it is very eye-opening. Here is an excerpt:

SPIEGEL: We visited one of your locations near Los Angeles and were amazed to find a fully staffed tent of the Scientology organization right next to the food tents for the journalists and extras.

Cruise: What were you amazed about?

SPIEGEL: Why do you go so extremely public about your personal convictions?

Cruise: I believe in freedom of speech. I felt honored to have volunteer Scientology ministers on the set. They were helping the crew. When I'm working on a movie, I do anything I can to help the people I'm spending time with. I believe in communication.

SPIEGEL: The tent of a sect at someone's working place still seems somewhat strange to us. Mr. Spielberg, did that tent strike you as unusual?

Spielberg: I saw it as an information tent. No one was compelled to frequent it, but it was available for anybody who had an open mind and was curious about someone else's belief system.

Cruise:The volunteer Scientology ministers were there to help the sick and injured. People on the set appreciated that. I have absolutely nothing against talking about my beliefs. But I do so much more. We live in a world where people are on drugs forever. Where even children get drugged. Where crimes against humanity are so extreme that most people turn away in horror and dismay. Those are the things that I care about. I don't care what someone believes. I don't care what nationality they are. But if someone wants to get off drugs, I can help them. If someone wants to learn how to read, I can help them. If someone doesn't want to be a criminal anymore, I can give them tools that can better their life. You have no idea how many people want to know what Scientology is.

SPIEGEL: Do you see it as your job to recruit new followers for Scientology?

Cruise: I'm a helper. For instance, I myself have helped hundreds of people get off drugs. In Scientology, we have the only successful drug rehabilitation program in the world. It's called Narconon.

SPIEGEL: That's not correct. Yours is never mentioned among the recognized detox programs. Independent experts warn against it because it is rooted in pseudo science.

Cruise: You don't understand what I am saying. It's a statistically proven fact that there is only one successful drug rehabilitation program in the world. Period.

SPIEGEL: With all due respect, we doubt that. Mr. Cruise, you made studio executives, for example from Paramount, tour Scientology's "Celebrity Center" in Hollywood. Are you trying to extend Scientology's influence in Hollywood?

Cruise: I just want to help people. I want everyone to do well.

Wow, you can cut the duplicity with a knife! I wonder what would happen if a Christian movie star (are there any - maybe Gibson?) set up tents to disseminate Christian literature and Bibles on a Hollywood set? Would it be allowed? Do you think the news media make a huge deal over it? Would the ACLU allow blatant religious evangelism in the workplace?

I imagine a Christian would not be allowed to do such a thing by those various groups but when one of their own wants to toot the horn of their own cult, we have to read about it in German online newspapers!

The Amazing Success of Purpose Driven Life

The Purpose Driven Life by Rick Warren is a phenomenon. This book has sold almost 25 million copies and is still picking up steam. That is pretty much unheard of. How can you explain this? Is the popularity to be credited to the books greatness or value? Hardly. Can you simply chalk it up to "a God-thing" and leave it at that? Some will do so and be satisfied with that answer but there's more to it than that.

Tim Challies wrote a very interesting article on the marketing practice that facilitated this incredible pulishing success. I encourage you to read "Pyromarketing and the Purpose Driven Life." What in the world is that? He explains:

Pyromarketing is a term developed by Greg Stielstra who was the marketing guru behind The Purpose Driven Life. It is a type of so-called "viral marketing" as it is based on passing information from one person to the next. This is in opposition to marketing that relies on mass media advertising such as television commercials. Think about it, and you'll realize that in all likelihood you never saw a television commercial for The Purpose Driven Life. In fact, it is entirely possible that you never saw any media marketing for it whatsoever. The book did not receive any significant coverage in the press until very recently, long after it had established itself as a major success.

So...who is Greg Stielstra? Here's some info from Challies: Greg Stielstra is the head of the marketing team working within Zondervan, which published the book. He is obviously very good at what he does. He's quoted as saying that if he promoted a book about quilting "to one-tenth of one percent of left-handed quilters," he could land the title on the non-fiction bestseller list and prime it for even bigger success. Challies says that he assumes this quote is true because he posted a comment on that blog linked above and did not deny it. Here are words from his bio:

"I've been fortunate to have worked with the biggest names in publishing Philip Yancey, Lee Strobel, Jim Cymbala, Drs. Henry Cloud & John Townsend, Joni Eareckson Tada, Billy Graham, Dan Qualye, Oliver North, Dave Dravecky, Rick Warren, Kurt Warner, Mike Singletary, Dr. C. Everett Koop, Rosa Parks, Dr. Ben Carson, and others. My work for these authors has won many accolades for marketing excellence, and my track record includes 88 best sellers, 20 #1 bestsellers, and eight books that have sold more than a million copies. Five of these books made The New York Times bestsellers list, including a title that reached #1 and remained on the list for over two years."

Dan Edelen has responded to this by starting a five-part series on "The Christian and the Business World."

Thoughts from my second trip to Star Wars III

My oldest girl discovered she was the only girl in the southeastern United States who had not seen Star Wars so I had to go back and see it again. I was dreading it because I didn't think it was GREAT the first time (enjoyable, but not worthy of twin viewings). I made up my mind to watch it more critically instead of simple escapism like the first time. I saw things I didn't notice before and heard things that struck me funny. Some thoughts:

I counted eight appendages removed from their limbs in this movie:

• Two hands from Count Dooku
• Two hands from General Grievous, although that still left him with two, so I guess the ratio would still be one hand. Did you know Grievous' starship at the beginning of the film is called "The Invisible Hand." It too cracks in two. Oooo, that wily Lucas.
  
• One hand from Mace Windu by Palpatine right before the Emperor throws him out the windu, er, window
• Two legs from Anakin Skywalker along with his lone remaining hand. This didn't deter the hate filled Vader, who goes on to crawl up the hill.
  

To Anakin, I suppose, the loss of all four limbs is "only a flesh wound." I could imagine the following conversation (with apologies to Monty Python):

[Obi Wan chops Vader's lone remaining arm off]

Kenobi: Now stand aside, worthy adversary.
Vader: 'Tis but a scratch.
Kenobi: A scratch? Your arm's off!
Vader: No, it isn't.
Kenobi: Well, what's that then?
Vader: I've had worse.
Kenobi: You liar!
Vader: Come on you pansy!

[Kenobi chops Vader's leg off]
Vader: Right, I'll do you for that!
Kenobi: You'll what?
Vader: Come 'ere!
Kenobi: What are you going to do, bleed on me?
Vader: I'm invincible!
Kenobi: You're a loony.
Vader: The Dark Side always triumphs! Have at you! Come on then.

[whop - Kenobi chops the Vader's other leg off]

Vader: All right; we'll call it a draw.
Kenobi: I loved you. I'll never help you. Here, let me pick up your light saber so I can give it to your son twenty years from now.
Vader: Oh, oh, I see, running away then. You yellow coward! Come back here and take what's coming to you. I'll bite your legs off!

I don't know what happened to George Lucas to caused this unfortunate obsession with limb removal. I don't think I want to know.

In one scene, Palpatine and Anakin are sitting in some kind of galactic opera house watching pink ribbons move through giant bubbles (which all makes OUR art look good by comparison). The following is a short snippet of their conversation:

ANAKIN: The Jedi use their power for good.
PALPATINE: Good is a point of view, Anakin. And the Jedi point of view is not the only valid one.

That sounds positively post-modern, doesn't it? "Good is a point of view" to the relativist of today. The only problem is that NO ONE is strictly relative. Have you ever had someone ever tells you that you can't tell them what is right and what is wrong; that only they decide what is right for themselves? Well, the next time they do that, you do this: punch them in the mouth and take their money from their wallet. I'll bet they get mad. If they do, tell them they have no right to tell you that what you just did was wrong. See how relative they are then.

Good is not a point of view. Good is following God's absolute laws and living in such a way that His goodness if reflected in our lives. Evil is disobeying God and living in such a way that He is dishonored by our lives.

And that brings us to a final thought: Anakin (now Darth Vader sans costume) and Obi-Wan are about to throw down on some volcano planet. They circle around each other like pro wrestlers while having a very calm conversation. At one point, they say this:

OBI-WAN: Anakin, my allegiance is to the Republic ... to democracy.
ANAKIN: If you're not with me, you're my enemy.
OBI-WAN: Only a Sith Lord deals in absolutes. I will do what I must.

So, according to Obi-Wan's own statement, HE IS A SITH LORD. The statement he just made "Only a Sith Lord deals in absolutes" is itself an absolute statement. Therefore, he must be a Sith Lord.

Again, this is the same mistake post-moderns make when they say "There is no absolute truth." But, that is a self-refuting statement. They just made an absolute statement. If there is no absolute truth, that statement cannot be true, therefore there is absolute truth. If there is absolute truth, then that statement must be false. Either way - they lose by way of their inconsistent logic.

How can they not see this?

The Emergent Church

If you read anything about the modern church, you have probably already heard of "The Emergent Church." What is it? I'll let its leaders explain themselves:

the emergence of the postmodern era (1960 onward) is only now beginning to impact the world and the church in a profound way. most folk know about luther, calvin and the reformation. some have likened what is taking place in the church today to a "second reformation."

because the church is organic (the living body of christ), it needs evolution or re-formation to stay healthy and vibrant.

You'll notice that they are so cool and hip and oh so modern that they don't need to capitalize any letters. I'm somewhat surprised they limit themselves to the restrictions of punctuation. Leaders in this movement are Tony Jones, Doug Pagitt, Spencer Burke, Brian McLaren, Dan Kimball, Andrew Jones, and Chris Seay among many others. A favorite gathering place for these men and their followers is a website called "The Ooze."

Is this a good thing? A dangerous thing? A fad that will soon disappear. A second reformation that will change the church forever? I know what the men above think - they made this amazing statement:

the emergence of the postmodern era (1960 onward) is only now beginning to impact the world and the church in a profound way. most folk know about luther, calvin and the reformation. some have likened what is taking place in the church today to a "second reformation."

A second reformation? These men consider their "movement" the equivalent of reclaiming the apostolic truth from the corruption of Pelagian Rome? If so. does that means current evangelicalism is "Rome" in their eyes - an abandonment from the true gospel?

Yes, it is true that times change. But does the church change with the culture? No, Jesus told us that we are to be preservers of the culture, not change right along with it. I simply am at a loss to understand why anyone would think it a good idea to let a lost unregenerate nation determine how the church operates in its God-given mission to reach that lost regenerate nation. The church is not a market-driven organization that exists to make its "customers" happy. It is a spirit-led organism that exists to bring glory to its head - the Lord Jesus Christ.

D.A. Carson, research professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois. He has been at Trinity since 1978, has written a wonderfully irenic critique of this movement. You can find it here: Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3.

G.K. Chesterton saidit well: "The Church always seems to be behind the times, when it is really beyond the times; it is waiting till the last fad shall have seen its last summer. It keeps the key of a permanent virtue." That key is the Gospel, the message of the forgiveness of sins purchased at the Cross, with the blood of Jesus.

More Reflections from DC

While standing in line at the National Archives, waiting to get a glimpse of the Declaration of Independence, Consititution and Bill of Rights, I was impressed by the beauty and magnitude of the buildings around me. I was amazed at the intricate artwork of the columns and did a little internet research when I returned home. The National Archives Building has 72 Corinthian columns that are each 53 feet high, 5 feet 8 inches in diameter, and weigh 95 tons each. The capitals (that ornate top part of the column) was carved from a single piece of limestone. The two bronze doors that lead into the building each weigh 6 1/2 tons and measure 38 feet 7 inches high, almost 10 feet wide, and 11 inches thick.

Anyway, I remember standing in that line and having this thought: I'm glad our most important documents are housed in such a beautiful, impressive, awe-inspiring building. What a shame it would have been to view those papers if housed in some metal or standard frame building.

That then led me to think about the buildings we build in order to meet to worship the Lord.

I do find it interesting that when the Lord gave instruction to Israel to build His tabernacle, I read that the Israelites used (they gave more, but used only...) 2,210.74 pounds of gold, 7,044.71 pounds of silver and 5,352.45 pounds of copper. At today's market rates ($426.90 per ounce for gold, $7.25 per ounce for silver, and $1.59 per pound for copper), the dollars amount spent are:

• $15,100.238.50 in gold
• $817,186.36 in silver
• $8,510.40 in copper

The total cost (just in these three precious and base metals alone) is $15,925,935.26. That is almost $16 million in metals. Naturally, the analogy doesn't follow completely but it goes to show that the Israelites did not scrimp and get by with cheaper materials and lesser plans.

Some may argue that it is a waste of money to build nice worship centers and sanctuaries. I say a cheap building reflects a deficient view of our High and Holy God. God deserves the very best we can offer. Naturally, I am not speaking of ostentatious displays of gaudinessI am not speaking of overly lavish gold-plated drinking fountains.
I am speaking of impressive simplicity that lifts the worshippers heart to soar in admiration and devotion. I am speaking of beautiful ornamentation that draws the worshippers out of the secular world we inhabit and into the throneroom of heaven itself.

Yes, you can do that in a meadow or an ocean shore or house. But when the corporate body gathers to meet in order to worship their God, why should the houses we leave be better than the house we enter.

Why do they care?

An article appeared on MSNBC.COM a few days ago titled "Did a Blood Clot Kill Jesus?" The opening paragraph says:

Jesus may have died from a blood clot that reached his lungs, an Israeli physician said Wednesday, challenging the popular conception that he died of asphyxiation and blood loss during his crucifixion.

Dr. Benjamin Brenner, a researcher at the Rambam Medical Center in the Israeli port city of Haifa, said he was publicizing his theory to raise awareness about pulmonary embolism, a potentially fatal disorder often associated with long-distance air travel.

A medical doctor reacted to this news by saying, "Usually one has to be immobile longer than 3 to 6 hours before this condition occurs. And where did the male half of the DNA originate? It has to be both sets of DNA to make this condition occur not just the mother's."

A question I have is this: Why is a Jewish doctor and professor so concerned about this obscure carpenter's death? I guess they are admitting that there was a Jesus and that he was crucified outside Jerusalem sometime in the early first century.

But why do they care about this revolutionary trouble-maker, this blasphemer, this false teacher, this insurrectionist that was killed with common thieves?

Instead of arguing about details of the death, they should consider the real issue: JESUS ROSE FROM THE DEAD.

Jesus rose from the dead into a body that was physical enough to be touched but beyond-physical enough to enter a locked room and appear/disappear on a dusty road. He appeared before His best friends, before his brother, before a bunch of women, before 500 "strangers."

Let others get caught up in the physical details. I take comfort in the words of Jesus: "blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed" (John 20:29 ESV).

Star Wars III.5 - Revenge of the Sprys

Just a little fun with Photoshop!

Should it bother me that AJ has a better beard than I'll ever have?

Porn Star at Bush/Republican Dinner

According to World Net Daily, a porn star who unsuccessfully ran for California governor will be among the guests who will dine with President Bush at an upcoming fund-raiser. The National Republican Congressional Committee is hosting a dinner June 14, and among those in attendance will be the "actress" Mary Carey, and her boss, Mark Kulkis of "Kick *** Pictures."

"I'm hoping to run as lieutenant governor of California next year," Carey said. "Since Arnold [Schwarzenegger] is a Republican, I thought this dinner would be a great networking opportunity for me."

Carey lost to Schwarzenegger in the 2003 California recall election. Her campaign photo has her draped in an American flag while seemingly nude beneath. Her platform included: taxing breast enhancements, making [dancing at strip clubs] tax deductible, recruiting porn stars as "ambassadors of good will," and putting Web cams up in every room of the governor's mansion.

Just last weekend, Carey, whose real name is Mary Ellen Cook (named after the Walton character), was among five people arrested at a new strip club in a suburb of Tacoma, Wash for simulating live sexual acts.

Carey professes to be a born-again Christian. She says she went to a Lutheran church with her grandmother until she was twelve. "I read the Bible and pray every night," Carey told WorldNetDaily in an exclusive interview. She always wanted to be an "actress" in the pornography business and does not consider what she does on screen as overtly sinful. "I probably have less sex with those guys than any college girl [typically has]. It doesn't make me less moral," she said. "I'm sure a lot of Christians have had sex before marriage. God reads my heart. I'm a good person. ... I think I have more morals than the politicians in office. I don't rob, steal, hurt, or lie – a lot of politicians do that."

When asked about Bible verses condemning adultery, she responded, "Bill Clinton committed adultery. [Doing] adult movies is acting, portraying a role. It's not Mary Ellen Cook, the real me." She maintains pornographic movies don't harm anyone, and are beneficial in a way, providing safe harobrs for the "lonely" public.

She may be right that sin is sin in the eyes of God - all sin is repugnant to our Holy God, right down to our waxing/waning love for Him, our ill will towards others and other "acceptable" sins that we engage in every single day.

The difference is that this lady's sin is VERY public (even more so now). It is not as if your sins or mine were caught on tape and sold to the masses in video stores and the internet. If so, sin that has become public must be dealt with publicly (confession, consequences). To gloss over her "career choice" is to condone it as acceptable practice. To invite her to a presidential dinner is an overt act of acceptance and gives legitimacy to the entire pornography business while eliminating the national scorn that it deserves at the highest level.

"I'm honored to be invited to this event," said Kulkis, who heads Kick *** Pictures. "Republicans bill themselves as the pro-business party. Well, you won't find a group of people more pro-business than pornographer. We contributed over $10 billion to the national economy last year."Kulkis is currently an honorary chairman on the NRCC's Business Advisory Council, a roundtable of millionaire business entrepreneurs who advocate a robust "pro-business agenda."

WHAT IS GOING ON HERE???

I know Bush is a very popular man. It has become almost anathema to speak against his decisions in the church. Hear me now - He is not infallible. He proclaims that he is a believer but he is making a grave mistake here. Of course, Bush is our commander-in-chief, not our theologian-in-chief so he can not be held to any higher standard on matters of faith and practice than we are. But he should also be rebuked just like any of us would be if we invited the same lady to a public function in our name! Where is Bush's church in all this?

Paul wrote to the licentious Corinthians who had little problems with bringing sex into their faith. He wrote this in the sixth chapter of his second letter:

14 For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?
15 What harmony is there between Christ and Belial ? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever?
16 What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: "I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people."
17 "Therefore come out from them and be separate, says the Lord. Touch no unclean thing, and I will receive you."

This could come back to hurt Bush among his evangelical voters. This comes off in this way: he courts the "religious right" for our votes and big business for their money. Of course, the liberals probably won't say anything because to do so would necessitate a stance against pornography and "free speech." They won't go down that road - for that would only help us out.

Paul also wrote to the Ephesians and told them in chapter four:

17 So I tell you this, and insist on it in the Lord, that you must no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their thinking.
18 They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts.
19 Having lost all sensitivity, they have given themselves over to sensuality so as to indulge in every kind of impurity, with a continual lust for more.
20 You, however, did not come to know Christ that way.

A few verses later (5:1ff), Paul gives advice that our President would do well to consider:

1 Be imitators of God, therefore, as dearly loved children
2 and live a life of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.
3 But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God's holy people.
4 Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving.
5 For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person--such a man is an idolater--has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God's wrath comes on those who are disobedient.
7 Therefore do not be partners with them.
8 For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Live as children of light
9 (for the fruit of the light consists in all goodness, righteousness and truth)
10 and find out what pleases the Lord.
11 Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.
12 For it is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret.
13 But everything exposed by the light becomes visible,
14 for it is light that makes everything visible. This is why it is said: "Wake up, O sleeper, rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you."
15 Be very careful, then, how you live--not as unwise but as wise,
16 making the most of every opportunity, because the days are evil.
17 Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the Lord's will is.

It has become very popular to say "God Bless America" in this age.

I think the question that must be asked is this: "Can God bless America without compromising His holiness?"

The Ten Most Dangerous Books

Human Events, a conservative news magazine, asked a panel of fifteen conservative scholars and public policy leaders to compile a list of the ten most harmful books of the 19th and 20th centuries. The article states that "each panelist nominated a number of titles and then voted on a ballot including all books nominated."

A title received a score of 10 points for being listed No. 1 by one of the panelists, 9 points for being listed No. 2, and so on. With fifteen panelists, the highest possible score would be a "150" for a unanimous vote for #1.

Here is the list:

1) The Communist Manifesto - by Karl Marx and Freidrich Engles, published 1848, 74 points. The Manifesto envisions history as a class struggle between oppressed workers and oppressive owners, calling for a workers’ revolution so property, family and nation-states can be abolished and a proletarian Utopia established.

2) Mein Kampf - by Adoplh Hitler (1025-26), 41 pts. Hitler explained his racist, anti-Semitic vision for Germany, laying out a Nazi program pointing directly to World War II and the Holocaust. He envisioned the mass murder of Jews, and a war against France to precede a war against Russia to carve out “lebensraum” (“living room”) for Germans in Eastern Europe. The book was originally ignored. But not after Hitler rose to power. According to the Simon Wiesenthal Center, there were 10 million copies in circulation by 1945.

3) Quotations from Chairman Mao - by Mao Zedong (1966), 38 pts. Ootherwise known as The Little Red Book, as a tool in the “Cultural Revolution” he launched to push the Chinese Communist Party and Chinese society back in his ideological direction. Aided by compulsory distribution in China, billions were printed. Western leftists were enamored with its Marxist anti-Americanism. “It is the task of the people of the whole world to put an end to the aggression and oppression perpetrated by imperialism, and chiefly by U.S. imperialism,” wrote Mao.

4) The Kinsey Report - by Alfred Kinsey (1948), 37 pts. Kinsey, a zoologist at Indiana U., wrote to give a scientific gloss to the normalization of promiscuity and deviancy. Much of his research has been debunked because of his skewed population (prison inmates).

5) Democracy and Education - by John Dewey (1916), 36 pts. Dewey was a “progressive” philosopher and leading advocate for secular humanism in American life. He signed the Humanist Manifesto and rejected traditional religion and moral absolutes. In this book, he disparaged schooling that focused on traditional character development and endowing children with hard knowledge, and encouraged the teaching of thinking “skills” instead. His views had great influence on the direction of American education--particularly in public schools--and helped nurture the Clinton generation.

6) Das Kapital - by Karl Mark (1867-1894), 36 pts. Marx forces the round peg of capitalism into the square hole of Marx’s materialistic theory of history, portraying capitalism as an ugly phase in the development of human society in which capitalists inevitably and amorally exploit labor by paying the cheapest possible wages to earn the greatest possible profits. Marx theorized that the inevitable eventual outcome would be global proletarian revolution. He could not have predicted 21st Century America: a free, affluent society based on capitalism and representative government that people the world over envy and seek to emulate.

7) The Feminine Mystique - by Betty Friedan (1963), 30 pts. This author disparaged traditional stay-at-home motherhood as life in “a comfortable concentration camp”--a role that degraded women and denied them true fulfillment in life. She later became founding president of the National Organization for Women.

8) The Course of Positive Philosophy by Auguste Comte (1830-42), 28 pts. Comte turned his back on his political and cultural heritage, announcing as a teenager, “I have naturally ceased to believe in God.” Later, in these six volumes, he coined the term “sociology.” He did so while theorizing that the human mind had developed beyond “theology” (a belief that there is a God who governs the universe), through “metaphysics” (in this case defined as the French revolutionaries’ reliance on abstract assertions of “rights” without a God), to “positivism,” in which man alone, through scientific observation, could determine the way things ought to be.

9) Beyond Good and Evil - by Freidrich Nietzsche (1886), 28 pts. Nietzsche’s profession that “God is dead” appeared in his 1882 book, The Gay Science, but under-girded the basic theme of this book which was published four years later. Here Nietzsche argued that men are driven by an amoral “Will to Power,” and that superior men will sweep aside religiously inspired moral rules, which he deemed as artificial as any other moral rules, to craft whatever rules would help them dominate the world around them. “Life itself is essentially appropriation, injury, overpowering of the strange and weaker, suppression, severity, imposition of one’s own forms, incorporation and, at the least and mildest, exploitation,” he wrote. The Nazis loved Nietzsche.

10) General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money - by John Maynard Keynes (1936), 23 pts. Keynes was a liberal Cambridge economics professor who wrote this book in the midst of the Great Depression. The book is a recipe for ever-expanding government. When the business cycle threatens a contraction of industry, and thus of jobs, he argued, the government should run up deficits, borrowing and spending money to spur economic activity. FDR adopted the idea as U.S. policy, and the U.S. government now has a $2.6-trillion annual budget and an $8-trillion dollar debt.

A few comments:

I have heard of all these people but not read anything. I doubt any of us have read any of these, except for excerpts for a possible college class. That is probably a good thing.

The book that finished #18 on the list with only 17 points would have shot to the top of my list: Charles Darwin's "Origin of the Species." It would be hard to argue against the idea that no other person in history has done so much to change the worldviews of humanity. Before Darwin, most people had a worldview that stemmed from some sort of Judeo-Christian background. Darwin changed all that as he set out to prove that man was not created in the image of a Creator, as men had long believed, but was merely the product of chance. And not only that, but man is merely a species in process, and will surely become something better as evolution continues.

It is not difficult to argue that Darwinism contributed to many of the other titles on the list, and that without his "observations" in science and the advancement of his principles by his disciples, the others may never have gained a voice. Thus his book is important (and dangerous) not only by its own merits but because of who and what it later inspired.

When will parents learn?

What would you think of a society that encouraged their teenaged children to spend the night with the opposite sex? That sounds like a headline in modern America. Would you believe that practice was rampant in the 1700s in New England? Right in the heart of the land of the Puritans? Perhaps they weren't as puritanical as we think.

I'm almost finished with George Marsden's biography of Jonathan Edwards titled "Jonathan Edwards: A Life." (Methinks Marsden could've put a little more thought into the title).

Anyway, on page 130, Marsden is writing of the cultural temperature of Edwards' day and says this regarding Edwards' lengthy catalog of vices:

The fault lay first of all with parents. Family government and education, the keystone of the old Puritan social system, had fallen badly in decline. Parents, [Edwards] observed, were reacting against what they felt were too strict upbringings. The most notorious result was the "amazing" (parenthesis in original) impurities tolerated among the youth in recent years. Not only was lasciviousness encouraged by nightwalking and similar frivolities, but New England parents allowed practices that are "looked upon as shameful and disgraceful at Canada, New York and England." Everyone knew that he referred to the New England practice of "bundling" in which parents allowed young people to spend the night in bed together partly clothed. "I believe there is not a country in the Christian world," Edwards warned, "however debauched and vicious, where parents indulge their children in such liberties in company-keeping as they do in this country - that is, amongst those who pretend to keep the credit of their children. Such things are as commonly winked at by parents here, trusting in their children that they won't give way to temptation, would in almost any country ruin a person's reputation and be looked upon as sufficient evidence of a prostitute."

Will parents never learn? In that day, as in this one, too many parents have neglected their duty as parents in order to be a better buddy to their children. They have fallen for the lie that kids know what is best for kids. I don't know if the practice mentioned above is common anywhere anymore, but the scenario itself is repeated enough: kids decide what is right and wrong and acceptable for themselves. So many parents leave it up to the children to decide whether or not to drink, smoke, attend church, engage in sexual activity of some kind and more. Is this wise? Of course not. A parent with even moderate brain activity knows better.

Marsden reveals the outcome of these Puritan parents' shortsighted views:

Bundling, which was supposed to be a way of getting acquainted without sexual intercourse, did not always work as advertised. Pregnancies before marriage were rising dramatically in New England. Even in well-churched Northampton, where premarital pregnancies were rarer than in some parts of the region, the figure had recently risen to one in ten first children born within eight months of marriage. Premarital sex was commonplace. Even when it resulted in pregnancy, so long as the couple married, there was no longer much stigma involved. Alluding to that new attitude, Jonathan perceived another alarming decline. "And there is not that discountenance of such things as there formerly used to be. It is not now such a discredit; 'tis not accounted such a blot and disgrace to a person. Formerly, things were accounted such a wound as a person never could get over as long as he lived. That ben't much minded: now they are so bold and impudent, that they are not ashamed to hold up their heads."

Before we get too sanctimonious, let us think of things done today by teens that are "winked at" by parents - things that were shameful when today's parents were teens.

When will we learn?

Dependent on a PC in DC

The six in my family recently went on a weekend vacation to Washington with Mike and Linda and their two children. The ten of us decided it would be better to rent a van so we could all drive up there in the same vehicle. That decision alone made the weekend a great time as we split the driving responsibility and didn't have to worry about keeping up on the interstate and in the madness that is DC traffic.

To help even more, I took my laptop with my trusty mapping program with built in GPS capabilities. It saved our bacon once or twice. We were able to find upcoming reststops and restaurants while on the way there and back, which was nice with the collection of under-sized bladders in that van.

However, our dependence on the computer came back to bite us on Friday night. We were hungry after spending all afternoon on the Mall. We wanted a nice dinner, preferably steak. I input all the information in the computer and we decided to try out Don Shula's restaurant. Off we went with visions of dining on giant porterhouses in a great football themed restaurant.

However, in our first time driving IN the city (the hotel was in Arlington with a Metro stop just two blocks away), we ran into trouble right away. Mike went the wrong way out of the hotel and had to do a three-point road turn in traffic. Then we missed the very first turn and went entirely in the wrong direction (note the initial blue line away from the green).

We soon came to realize that DC must have passed some signage laws that rival Statesville's. If there was a street sign at all, it was located in several different places and never in the same place from street to street. Even the major highways are not well-marked. To make matters worse, several streets run either on top of one another or very closely parallel. When those two considerations meet - that meant we missed the turn. And we missed many.

We spent a lot of time on M Street. We saw the Watergate Hotel at least four times. We saw all four sides of the Kennedy Center. We saw parts of Georgetown that we did not want to see.

Take a look at the map above (you can click on the map to enlarge it). The GREEN line is the direct route from our hotel to Shula's. The BLUE line is the route we actually took. We were all laughing pretty hard except for the wives - they were fairly put out with out attempt at masculine trailblazing.

Finally, after about sixty minutes of driving all over DC, we pulled up beside Shula's. We then realized all that driving was for naught because even if we could find a parking place among the limos and Lexuses (Lexi?), they wouldn't let us in the fancy restaurant with our sandals and shorts. We later found out that Shula's is one of the five best steakhouses in America.

Have you ever just felt defeated? That was us. We decided to go the Outback route and there was one about 3 miles from our hotel. We winded our way back there but were told it was a ninety minute wait for a table (which means we would've been eating right then if we'd gone there first!). By this time, we were ready to dine on gum and poptarts and call it a night. It looked like our dreams of steak were shot.

But right beside the Outback was a Thai restaurant so we ordered some takeout, took it back to the hotel and ate out of the containers with borrowed plastic forks from a nearby pizza restaurant.

Later, the men redeemed themselves. On the way home, we found a McDonald's off the beaten path for some early morning coffee and then finally got that steak on way home (thanks to the computer and Ruby Tuesday and a side-trip of about 4 miles).

Giving credit where credit is due!

I'm not the biggest fan of my denomination's book-selling arm but I'll give praise where praise is due. I went into the local store (Hickory, NC) two weeks ago with our Middle School youth pastor. On the way there, I told him what I expected - huge endcap displays hawking the recent best-seller from Houston mega-pastor Joel Osteen.

Once there, I managed to find my way out of the jungle of Precious Moments figurines, Left Behind pen sets, Purpose-Driven coffee mugs and Experiencing God toothbrushes only to find the newest bestseller: "Precious Moments with Purpose Driven People who have been Left Behind."

After escaping the land of cheesy art and talking vegetables, I finally found the book section but no Osteen. Surely, it was on the next aisle. Maybe it was in the mega Men's Needs section. Nope, struck out again. I was feeling somewhat surprised, mixed with relief but readying myself for vindication. I surveyed the two columns of theology texts (that's right - two whole columns). Maybe on the Christian Living wall.

Just maybe. Perhaps. Possibly - it's not here!

Determined to get the scoop, I approached the checkout desk. I peered through the pyramid of Test-A-Mints breath fresheners and made eye contact with the clerk. He asked if he could help me and I said, "I looking for Joel Osteen's new book, 'Your Best Life Now.'" (I wasn't lying - I really was looking for it). Very firmly, he replied, "I'm sorry but Lifeway has determined not to carry that book."

My emotions were mixed. I was disappointed I had "lost the bet" but relieved and even proud that someone in Nashville is discerning and courageous enough to recognize serious theological error when they smell it. Bravo, Lifeway!