Christian thoughts

Murdering A Killer

2009-06-01T07:22:00.000-07:00

Today is a very difficult day for me. The Bible tells us that all men are created in the image of God. Because of this we are to hold human life as sacred. So it is with great antipathy that I consider yesterday’s murder of Kansas abortion doctor George Tiller. This was a man that boasted that he had “more experience in late abortion services with fetuses over 24 weeks than anywhere else in the Western Hemisphere, more than 60,000 since 1973.” Keep in mind that there have been premature babies born at this point in gestation and have lived. So the babies that were “unfortunate” enough to be born that early were actually more fortunate than those whose mothers visited George Tiller’s office. The man dealt in infanticide and his entire career had the stench of death about it. It’s what he was about in a brash, unapologetic way. He took pride in the children whose lives he snuffed out with impunity in regards to the law. Even those moral enough to call his practice into question have been vilified, such as former Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline, who lost a re-election bid over his pursuit of criminal charges against Tiller. I abhor everything George Tiller ever stood for and know that he now faces God with a laundry-list of vulgar, egregious sins to account for on his own. That being said…

Scott P. Roeder of Merriam, Kansas is believed to have a violent history and is also believed to have ties to extreme right-wing groups such as the anti-government group (the Freemen) that staged a three-month standoff with the FBI in Jordan, MT in 1995-1996. This man also, in a premeditated way, took the life of a man made in the image of God. Granted that image was marred almost beyond recognition, the image was there all the same. Scott Roeder will also answer to God for his sin, which differs from Tiller’s only in number. While, as a God-fearing Christian man, I can understand why Roeder may have committed this act, I roundly and vehemently condemn what he did.

Many have already begun to come against the Pro-Life and Christian communities, making such incendiary comments as Mike Hendricks’ of the Kansas City Star when he claimed that all who ever referred to Tiller’s clinic as a “murder mill” are accomplices in his slaying. This is the ignorant rhetoric of an ideologue who dogmatically holds to a particular view and vilifies the opposition without understanding the opposition. Yes, there are those types on both sides of this issue (and any issue) but that’s no excuse. Again, as a bible-believing Christian I am opposed to everything George Tiller stood for. But I am also opposed to Scott Roeder’s actions. In the Scriptures we see that all life is sacred. The only institution that is granted by God with the right to retribution for the taking of innocent life is the State. (Interestingly enough, this stand puts me at odds with many pro-life groups who also hold that capital punishment is wrong.) There is no provision for vigilantism in God’s holy word. When the State fails in its duty to protect innocent life through the taking of the killer’s life, that duty does not then fall upon the general public to mete out as they see fit. To take the life of even the most guilty of killers outside the authority of the government is as great a sin against God as that of the killer themselves. Those who favor abortion must take this into account before they start lobbing invectives against Christians and pro-life groups in general.

So, as I said, I consider the death of George Tiller as a tragedy but I am thankful for the innocent lived that are being saved by it. It’s these opposing emotions that pull at me today and I mourn for Tiller’s family and for his soul that stands before God in judgment. I also mourn for the damage done to the reputation of our Lord through people like Roeder. And that is the greater grief.

Sign of the Times

2009-04-02T06:40:00.000-07:00

Wow...it's been a while since I've done this. But after reading this I had to comment. I got the link to this article from the daily Link List e-mailed out by the office of Dr. Albert Mohler:
In a Recession, Abortions Are Not a Bad Choice

I had a few questions to think about after reading this.

If a fetus is not a person then what is it? It has all the DNA of a human being, so it's not a dog, cat, horse or fish. So what is it then? Are we making decisions of "personhood" based upon subjective criteria that haven't been proven one way or the other? (i.e. self-consciousness, ability to feel pain, etc.) If so, then where do we draw the line down the road? If the child had already been born, what then? Would it be fine for them to have the baby killed? Maybe not if it's a year old, but what about a month? Two weeks? Two days? Since we have such limited knowledge, the safe, and ethical, way to go would be to give the "fetus" the benefit of the doubt and let it live. If Bonnie Erbe has a problem with these families being a burden on "the system" she can protest the ever-growing taxes the government is robbing her of to subsidize them.

I've written more on this in another article here.

Extended Hiatus

2007-10-10T11:02:00.000-07:00

Sorry it's been so long since I've posted. I've had a bit of turmoil going on and so I've put the 'ol bloggaroo on hiatus until it all settles down. Feel free to e-mail me if you'd like to (j.viens@yahoo.com).

A Lion in the Zoo

2007-08-08T10:53:00.000-07:00

As I was listening to R.C. Sproul speaking on the wrath of God he made a statement that brought an image to my mind. He was talking about the common loss of belief in the wrath of God and I thougth of a lion in a zoo.
People today have pretty well been innoculated to the idea of God's wrath just as they have been lulled into a sense of security with lions in a zoo. We are able to walk within just a few feet of one of the most dangerous animals on the planet. An animal that would be able to slay and devour even the greatest of men. Yet we have no fear because we know that there is some sort of protective barrier keeping us from being lunch as opposed to being a visitor. The problem with seeing God's wrath in this way is this: there is no real protective barrier. The only real barrier we have is the restraint of God, but we take our comfort in the imaginary barriers we put in place. We imagine that the lion has no claws or teeth, therefore he cannot harm us. We imagine that the lion is as tame as a housecat, therefore he has no will to harm us. Yet it is incredibly dangerous to see God in this way. Jonathan Edwards spoke to this in his sermon Sinners in the Hands of An Angry God:

The bow of God's wrath is bent, and the arrow made ready on the
string, and justice bends the arrow at your heart, and strains the bow,
and it is nothing but the mere pleasure of God, and that of an angry
God, without any promise or obligation at all, that keeps the arrow one
moment from being made drunk with your blood.

Does this sound like a God that doesn't exercise wrath? No thought of the imagination can eliminate this reality. The Scriptures themselves testify to the wrath of God. Just as a single example, Leviticus 10 shows us how Aarons sons, Nadab and Abihu, were consumed with fire from God when they attempted to worship God in a way other than the way He had prescribed. Let's not think that God is a tame little kitty that we can hold on our laps and pet. He is a fierce lion and He will be bringing a feeding frenzy of judgment one day. It would behoove us to remember this and not be so trite and flippant in the way we think of Him. As He stated to Aaron after his two sons were burnt up, "By those who come near Me I will be treated as holy, and before all the people I will be honored."

Where's Mom?

2007-07-20T08:25:00.000-07:00

There was a very disturbing and heartbreaking article on Washingtonpost.com yesterday. In Mom’s in the House, With Kids at Home, Lyndsy Layton tells the stories of several female members of congress who juggle political careers with being mothers of young children (defined in the article as those under 13 years old). The article begins with the following anecdote:

Before the sun rose over their Florida home, Debbie Wasserman Schultz pulled the thermometer from the mouth of her 8-year-old daughter, Rebecca, and checked the mercury: 103 degrees.
Stay home? Or go to work? It's a dilemma familiar to millions of working mothers. But her situation is complex: The job is 1,037 miles away, in Washington.
She got on the plane and flew to a New York fundraiser and then on to Washington for her workweek as a Democratic congresswoman. She knew her husband could handle Rebecca's fever.
Still, the guilt traveled with her. "It feels like someone's ripping my heart out," she said. "No matter how good your spouse is, kids want their mom when they're sick."

With the exception of the fact that the job is a thousand miles away, this same scene could be found in nearly any household across America. Throughout the nation mothers are leaving their children in order to go to work…to the detriment of the little ones they leave behind. Granted some mothers (particularly single moms) obviously must work to support their families; but many of the mothers in today’s workforce form the other half of dual-income households and work merely to attain a higher standard of living.

There are negative issues involved any time a mother works outside the home. One is the odd schedules that the children are typically subjected to. Ms. Layton tells of one congresswoman’s 5-year old daughter: “She attends preschool and a babysitter cares for her during the week….” She continues, stating that, “she often goes to sleep at midnight and eats just one huge meal a day, around 8 p.m.” What’s wrong with this picture? This is not a health lifestyle for a 5-year old child! Admittedly, most children with working moms do not have such extreme hours. Yet they still are awakened earlier than they should be in order to get to day-care on mom’s way to work. They eat at odd hours, according to mom’s schedule and many are too-well acquainted with the fast-food drive-up window. Then, in order to spend more time with mom, they are up later than they should be considering how early they have to get up the next day to start it all over again.

A second detrimental effect on these children is the loneliness. Children crave the love and affection of their mother. Not a babysitter, not a day-care worker and not a nanny. Even fathers cannot replace the kind of time kids need with their mothers. This point is well-made in the beginning of the article where Layton relates, “At Wasserman Schultz's home in Florida, Mondays can be the cruelest day. It's hard to watch her mother walk out the door, Rebecca said. "Sometimes, I regret that," the 8-year-old said quietly.” Nothing can replace a mother in the life of a child.

Lastly, children pick up on their place in their mother’s hierarchy of priorities. Again, there are some mothers that must work, but a child can tell when mom’s working just to “be more connected” with herself, or just so the family can have a bigger house, second (or third) car, or (worst of all) to be “more fulfilled.” All of these ideas are internalized by these young children and the interpretation they come up with is, “’I’m not as important as that new car, bigger house or next piece of legislation.”

Many times women say, “Let the father stay home with the kids, then!” But congresswoman Wasserman-Schultz said it best: "No matter how good your spouse is, kids want their mom when they're sick." And that's not the only time. Too bad, kid...mom's at work.

Dad isn't missing, he's been systematically excluded

2007-07-10T06:01:00.000-07:00

There's a heartbreaking article in the Boston Globe today. In "Two Moms and No Dad -- For Now" Virginia A. Smith writes:

"When 10-year-old John was 3, he told me one morning as I was driving him to
preschool that not having a dad made him feel sad. He has said this on a number
of occasions over the past seven years. We do what we can to fill the gap. He's
very athletic, and we take him to play baseball, soccer, basketball, and ice
hockey, anywhere that men congregate to coach and cheer on their sons.
I have come to love the fathers of his teammates at the testosterone- soaked hockey rink who slap my son's helmet and say, "Way to go, John!" I love his first-grade teacher, who has become his unofficial Big Brother and who takes him to Red Sox and Celtics games, Northeastern hockey games, mini-golfing, and bowling. I love the father of one of my son's friends who takes him camping and teaches him to build rocket launchers. These men are godsends, but sometimes I wish we could have provided my son with a real live father."

This breaks my heart. You have a boy who wants a dad...who desperately needs a dad. But the selfishness of this woman has denied him that. I know this is going to sound harsh, but if women were meant to have babies without men, IVF would not be needed. Asexual reproduction would be possible in humans. Here we're seeing a glimpse of the damage done by the myth that children raised in homes with gay parents turn out o.k. They may seem normal and well-adjusted on the outside but all of the pain of what they're missing is internalized. They likely don't say anything for fear of hurting the parent but the pain is there nonetheless. She laments, "...sometimes I wish we could have provided my son with a real live father." Well, I tell you what, Ms. Smith...if you had thought of that before you decided to go off on your own and have a child in a decidedly unnatural way just to satisfy your own desires then all of this could have been avoided. But now you have to watch your son grow up wondering what it's like to have a "real live father." Congratulations. Good job. I'll pray for you and your son that God will work in your hearts and that this experience will help your son to see the harm done when children are denied a father (or a mother). I pray that God will draw your son to Himself and grant him salvation and that you, too, will be drawn to repent. I pray for your daughters that they don't grow up believing that "gay is o.k." I ask that God would grant them the wisdom to see how wrong any sexual activity outside of heterosexual marriage is wrong and that God would lead them to be pure, chaste, godly women who seek after him and that they would marry and that God would bless them with many children.

My heart aches for this woman and her family. I hurt for this little boy who has no father, as I hurt for any boy in that kind of situation (whether in gay households or single-parent homes). Lord help them.

Love and Marriage

2007-07-06T11:08:00.000-07:00

There's a pretty good article by Christine B. Whelan on OpinionJournal.com about the idea of pre-marital counseling. In her article Ms. Whelan compares the "counseling" concept in the new movie License to Wed with the actual counseling that takes place in churches/synagogues/mosques today. She shows that while Hollywood shows pre-marital counseling as some inane series of tests and tasks a couple must perform to be considered worthy of marriage, genuine pre-marital counseling is designed to help the young couples with communication skills and encourages them to think through ideas such as finances and child-rearing.

The focus of the article is primarily on the church's role in being sure that these young couples have thought through the more serious topics they will face in marriage before they make the commitment; but there is another aspect that I believe is missing in much of the counseling today that must be addressed -- the theology of marriage.

The current divorce rates among "Christian" couples is a shameful blight on the church in America and I believe that the root cause is that people have separated theology from marriage. The Bible is replete with references to marriage and the message is consistent: Marriage is from God, it is holy and it is for life. When this is forgotten and marriage is seen as an invention of man, is less than holy and not a life-long commitment we end up with disposable relationships designed to suit our purposes rather than God's.

I will write more on this on a later post.

Frustration

2007-06-20T07:17:00.000-07:00

Forgive me while I vent a bit, but I feel like I've reached my limit. I am truly surrounded by people who refuse to think. As anyone who's read much of this blog can tell, I like to address topics a little deeper than who I think should be voted off of American Idol. Yet it seems that I'm surrounded by those whose desire (or capacity) for intellectual stimulation is practically non-existent! I long to have people around me who are not afraid to converse about serious topics...even if they don't agree with me (actually, they tend to provoke better discussions because I'm forced to address points of view I may not have previously considered.) And while I'm on a rant, I'm getting fed up with the non-thinking, anti-intellectual dunderheads who deny the basic laws of logic and can't put a decent argument together to save their lives (apologies to Tony Woodlief, if he's reading...I'm not certain if the grammar in that sentence is quite correct.) They have no qualms about claiming all sorts of "gray areas" in the realm of morality. News Flash: There's more black-and-white than you think if you get down to the principle of the subject being addressed. They also show no reticence in denying the principle of non-contradiction. My world is definitely a non-thinking, post-modern, entertainment-driven world and it is a lonely place for someone who loves great ideas and deep thinking. For goodness sake, I have to listen to internet radio programs and on-line speeches to get the stimulation I desire! But where's the interaction?? I can't speak with or question a voice in my ear!

Please, please, please...if you're reading this, send me some encouragement that there are still some thinkers I can interact with. Thinkers who aren't afraid to stand for what they believe is true and are able to defend it well. Don't abandon me to solitary confinement in this hell of shallow post-modernism.

Low View of Marriage

2007-06-11T11:14:00.000-07:00

I've been stewing about this for a couple of months now and am in the middle of writing a much longer piece about this topic, but I've decided to give a short preview here just to get some of the ideas out and let my readers here (both of you) something to chew on. Actually I was listening to R.C. Sproul's broadcast from last week regarding the sexual revolution. He's making some of the same points I'm going to be making in my longer piece; this being primarily that once anything of a moral nature is divorced from God's plan for it, that thing loses its meaning and is made a commodity to be traded in on a mass scale to/with whomever has a desire for it.

In the case of sexuality, when parents have "the talk" with their children they tend to give non-biblical reasons for maintaining chastity until marriage. Rather, the reasons given for abstaining from sexual conduct revolve around fear of pregnancy/disease and/or loss of reputation. Sproul rightly points out that all of these possible consequences of the sexual act have now been aleviated by modern medical science, either through contraceptives (some of which also guard against disease) or through medical treatment. And the idea of a loss of reputation has been turned completely upside down as those who abstain are now the ones being ostracized.

This same idea extends to marriage. Since the concepts of love and marriage have been taken out of their original biblical context they have been redefined in terms of pure emotion and contractual obligations. As I'll elaborate on in my longer article, the church need not be so concerned about preventing a redefinition of marriage -- that has already taken place. The church today needs to be about recovering the definition of marriage by bringing back the biblical views of love and marriage. And this must begin in our own homes with our own children. When you have "the talk" with your kids, make sure what you say is grounded in God's word and not just selfish practical reasons! Make sure they see sex as a gift from God and that God's parameters for the exercise of that gift are set within the context of marriage. When they're ready to talk about marriage, make sure they know that this also is not only a gift from God but a sacred vow that must be taken seriously...not only after the wedding but (just as importantly) before the wedding.

Hillary Spelling Goof

2007-06-01T08:31:00.000-07:00

Maybe she should get Evan O’Dorney (13-year-old national spelling bee winner) on her PR team. I wonder if she can spell “Potato”? (Remember Dan Quayle?)

Protecting Marriage Preserves the Family

2007-05-30T09:49:00.000-07:00

This article was originally published in the Kansas City Star on July 8, 2006.

Recently the U.S. Senate voted on an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would have defined the institution of marriage as being between one man and one woman. Opponents of the federal Marriage Amendment claim that no such amendment to the U.S. Constitution is needed since there are current laws on the books in 45 states prohibiting same-sex marriage. As a matter of fact these measures have passed with an average margin of 71% within their respective states. This is all well and good; and typically states-rights is the best way to decide an issue like this. Yet the truth remains that the proponents of same-sex marriage are not content to let the democratic process run its course in this particular case. At this very time the marriage laws in ten of the 45 states mentioned above are being challenged in federal court. If a federal judge decides that such laws violate the U.S. Constitution then the will of that 71% of citizens in those states will be made null and void. These states will then be forced by the federal government to recognize same-sex unions that have been ratified in other states. In this light it is clear that a federal amendment is required in order to avoid the over-reaching arm of the federal courts.

The typical argument in favor of same-sex marriage is that marriage is a societal institution that is constantly being redefined as society sees fit. To this end laws are passed to give legal sanction to the relationship and to confer certain rights upon it. The flaw in this argument is that it cannot be shown that marriage is nothing more than a social contract. It is completely overlooked that no society has ever sanctioned same-sex marriage. Societies have merely recognized the already-existing institution of marriage and have passed laws regulating it for the benefit of that society. Marriage always has been between man and woman. Sociologist Kingsley David states, "The unique trait of what is commonly called marriage is social recognition and approval...of a couple's engaging in sexual intercourse and bearing and rearing children." (emphasis added) Even Paul Nathanson, who is himself a homosexual, stated the five functions of marriage as: 1) to foster male-female bonding, (2) to foster the birth and rearing of children (emphasis added), (3) to foster man-child relationships, (4) to foster a healthy masculine identity and (5) to foster the transition of adolescents into sexually responsible adults. As can obviously be seen, many of these cannon take place in a same-sex relationship.

With all this having been said, the ideal for marriage is to have one man committed for life to one woman for the purpose of bearing and rearing children in order that the human race may be perpetuated. Only a male-female relationship is naturally conducive to the bearing of children. For the state to issue marriage licenses to anyone outside these bounds is to say that marriage is no big thing at all. Once this happens marriage cannot be denied to any other group on any logical ground and any children that are brought into this "family" are denied either a true father or a true mother. The sanctity of the institution of marriage must be protected as this is the fertile ground wherein the next generation of any society is raised. No man can teach a little girl how to be a woman just as no woman can teach a boy how to be a man. Both a mother and a father living in the home in a committed marriage relationship are needed to provide the type of environment needed to raise healthy children. If our nation wants the coming generations to succeed, the institution of marriage should be supported and strengthened, not redefined.

Humility

2007-05-24T10:28:00.001-07:00

I was just reminded of something very important:

When discussing "hot-button" issues, always be careful to discern where others in the conversation stand on the issue and why. It can be very easy to come across as crass and uncaring and, thereby, deeply offend someone that you should be trying to win over in a spirit of love. I feel like I may have done this with a co-worker and am convicted that I must go back to him in a spirit of humility, admit my wrong-doing and ask for forgiveness. Perhaps I haven't messed things up so badly that he has discounted my views on the matter altogether going forward. I would hate to bring a reproach upon my Lord in this way. Funny. I was just talking to my kids about this at our morning devotion this morning (from 1 Cor. 9). My admonition to them was to "be very careful what you say and do around others so as not to make them think badly of Christians and the God they serve" (paraphrased, of course). I should take my own advise.

And Down the Slippery Slope We Go

2007-05-21T10:58:00.000-07:00

This is a must-read article on Albert Mohler's blog.

Pondering 1 Timothy 3

2007-05-16T10:20:00.000-07:00

"It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do. An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money. He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?), and not a new convert, so that he will not become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil. And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he will not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. " -- 1 Timothy 3:1-7

This passage has been a passage of some interest to me for quite a while. It is one of the classic passages used to determine the qualifications of a pastor/elder/bishop in the Church. It spells out the clear expectations that God has laid out for those who seek to shepherd His people and lead them in their sanctification and direct their worship of God. There are those who interpret these qualifications more strictly and those who are more loose in their view (almost seeing them as suggestions or guidelines...but keep in mind Paul does not say an overseer should be...but rather Paul states that an overseer must be....) Where I run into a problem, personally, is how the qualifications are applied. Are the qualifications to be "back-dated", as it were, to include things done in the unregenerate state of the candidate before salvation? Or is one disqualified if they were a drunkard given to bar-room brawls before they were saved? Is there something within the passage that implies that all the listed qualifications are to be treated equally (like a check-list)? Or is the list weighted where certain qualifications are more important than others (and who decides the weight)? I am planning on studying this particular passage in a little more depth in the very near future and ask for prayer in seeing God's wisdom in this passage and the related passages I will be looking at. I will be posting what I discover at some point in the future.

A Better Atheist Debate

2007-05-15T10:51:00.000-07:00

I've been following the online debate between Christopher Hitchens (Author of "God is Not Great) and Doug Wilson. The third, and most recent, installment clearly shows what I love most about Doug Wilson and his writing style. He makes a similar, though much better argued, point to what I made in my article in the Kansas City Star which I posted here. In summary, it's this: If you don't have a transcendent, objective standard from which to make moral judgments, you can't make any moral judgments about anything! Once that point is clearly understood, the debate is over. Like it says in the book of the Revelation: in the end...God wins.

Nightline Atheist "Debate"

2007-05-10T08:13:00.000-07:00

I just watched the stream of last night's "debate" on Nightline. I cringed. Just a little background is warranted here. ABC News decided to host a debate on the existence of God and the parties involved were to be Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort of Way of the Master ministries and Brian Sapient and "Kelly" (no last name given) of the Rational Response Squad.

The first hole that the Kirk and Ray stepped into was in agreeing to debate on a scientific basis with no appeal to Scripture or faith...purely reason. I'm not saying that arguments from reason can't be made, I'm saying that, based on what I saw, these two were not up to the task at hand. While Ray did a great job in presenting the gospel, that's exactly where he lost credibility. Kirk didn't help much when he used his entire time allotment to give his personal testimony. Again, while I applaud their evangelistic efforts it was rather disingenuous of them to make an evengelistic gospel presentation under the guise of a scientific argument on the existence of God. Later, during the session where the moderator asked questions of both sides in an informal manner, there were statements made by the atheists and when asked by the moderator if they would like to respond, Cameron and Comfort appeared as if they had used all their best stuff and had nothing else to say, even responding to the direct question of "Do you have a response?" with what amounted to an "...uhh....no." They looked totally unprepared and it would appear that the atheists ate their lunch (to a certain extent). This made all Christians look like what Brian and Kelly were trying to make them out to be...brainless robots acting strictly on dogmatic doctrine with no reason to back it up. They should have debated on a philosophical level instead.

But there's always the other side. As far as atheist side went, while they looked much more prepared and serious about the debate (they actually took notes on what Ray and Kirk were saying and could be seen discussing rebuttals) their arguments were not arguments. Most of the presentation time, particularly that by Kelly, was spent in belittling theists and making unsupported claims about theism in particular and Christianity in specific (they were unsupported claims because there is not support for them...e.g.: Jesus never existed). But I have to give them this: they took the upper hand and never gave it up.

For another point of view on debate, check out the Stand to Reason blog.

Fetus=Human=Person

2007-05-07T10:32:00.000-07:00

This article originally appeared in the Kansas City Star on April 29, 2006 during my time as a panelist for Midwest Voices:

The legislature of South Dakota recently passed legislation that would effectively end abortion in that state. The response was just as would be expected. Every year, thousands of people fill the streets of various cities across the nation in rallies, protests and demonstrations regarding this perennial hot-button issue. On the one side it is believed that human life begins at conception and that abortion is the murder of this innocent, unborn person. On the other side of the issue it is claimed that we cannot know when life begins and that, at any rate, the unborn fetus is not a “person” and therefore is not privy to any of the rights of the Constitution. Therein lies the issue. Is the fetus human? If it is human is it a “person”? Is there a difference? According to the National Institutes of Health, approximately 1.3 million induced abortions occur every year. That totals up to about 43 million abortions performed since the procedure was legalized in 1973. If it can be shown that human life and personhood begin at conception and that abortion is the murder of an unborn life, that would amount to a genocide that all other genocides in the history of mankind pale in comparison to. It’s a serious question, so we should give it some thought. By the way, Kansas is one of the national leaders in third-trimester abortions with the clinic of Dr. George Tiller in Wichita being one of the few in the nation that provides such a service.
The first question in regards to the abortion is, “Can we kill it?” Nearly anyone would agree that to kill an innocent human person is wrong. In the Roe v. Wade decision of 1973 the court legalized induced abortion based on the finding that a human embryo is not a “person.” Notice that the court did not say the embryo is not a human. Biological science and basic logic prove that, from conception, the entity in the woman’s womb is human. Not only that, it is a unique human. Just as dogs produce baby dogs and cats produce baby cats, humans produce baby humans. The fertilized ovum contains all of the genetic information that it will contain as a full-grown adult. So the embryo is not a “blob of tissue.” It is a human being. A unique human being with DNA that is distinct from both parents.
Next comes the idea of “personhood.” We’ve established that the embryo is human. But is it a person? How can we tell? What traits mark a “person” as distinct from a “human?” There really aren’t any! An individual is a “person” because they are “human.” Any distinctions that are made are arbitrary and artificial. Moreover, distinctions of this kind were also used to deny the “personhood” of blacks and Jews in order to justify slavery and the holocaust. These oppressed people were considered “sub-human” based on arbitrary distinctions. Human-ness is indistinguishable from personhood. If one is a human being, they are a person. At this point, although I staunchly oppose the activities of Planned Parenthood, I have to applaud them on this point. In an article in Friday’s Star titled “St. Louis appeals court hears abortion arguments”, a Planned Parenthood attorney states that an informed-consent law is flawed because it refers to an embryo as a “human being” while the Roe v. Wade decision states that an embryo is not a “person.” In this statement, even Planned Parenthood is recognizing the equality between the terms “human” and “person.”
With these ideas in mind, we can conclude with what is called a logical syllogism. Certain premises are laid out and a logical conclusion is drawn from the premises. The syllogism I would propose here is: 1) All unborn babies are human beings, 2) all human beings are persons, 3) It is wrong to kill a human person; therefore (4) it is wrong to kill unborn babies. Yet we continue to do so at the rate of over 1 million per year just because we’ve labeled them “non-persons.” We must recognize that man is not the measure of all things. Mankind is responsible to an authority higher than himself. The State is neither the giver or definer of life, nor is it the provider of meaning in life. The Founding Fathers recognized this when they penned the words that all men are “endowed by their Creator” with certain, unalienable rights. These rights were given by a Creator, not the State; the State merely recognized and affirmed those rights. Today we may kill the unborn but how long will it be before the arbitrary line is moved and we are considered the non-persons?. Who will speak for us then if we don’t speak out now? And what judgment will we face for our cheap view of life?

Evangelism Linebacker

2007-05-04T11:28:00.000-07:00

This is hilarious!! It's an evangelistic take on the "Office Linebacker" commercials with Terry Tate.

Anglican Controversy

2007-05-04T09:58:00.000-07:00

I was directed to this article in the L.A. Times. It regards an exchange of correspondence between Katharine Jefferts Schori, Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church in America (hereafter referred to as the "Episcopal Church") and Bishop Peter Akinola, Archbishop of the Anglican Church in Nigeria. Now, while I am a Southern Baptist and have no horse in this race, as it were, I am very interested in seeing how this plays out. While their are definitely areas of Anglican doctrine that I do not agree with, there is a basic foundation of biblical Christian doctrine where we do agree. It is on this basis that I watch this controversy with great care and concern and am encouraged by those who would stand up for the word of God in the midst of great controversy and declare that the Scriptures alone are the final arbiter of how the Church is to believe and behave.

As a bit of background on this issue: the Episcopal Church is under fire in the greater worldwide Anglican Communion for ordaining and installing an openly gay bishop (namely, V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire). During a meeting of bishops in Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania last year, the Anglican Communion gave an ultimatum to Bishop Jefferts Schori stating that the Episcopal Church must cease and decist from pursuing the clear agenda of normalizing homosexuality within the church. In spite of the doctrines and practices being supported by Bishop Jefferts Schori and other upper-level leaders within the Episcopal Church there are several individual congregations within the United States that are opposed to these actions and are seeking a way to maintain a biblical, conservative doctrine while remaining a part of the greater Anglican Communion. With this in mind, Bishop Akinola has planned a trip to the U.S. to install Martyn Minns as Bishop over the Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA). This group would actually be an off-shoot of the Anglican Church in Nigeria and, thereby, under the authority of Bishop Akinola and would be open to any congregations in the U.S. seeking to follow a more biblical and traditional body of doctrine and practice within the Anglican C0mmunion.

Using the links in the article I was able to obtain copies of the letters that were exchanged and it presents a very interesting scene.

In the initial, rather brief, letter, Bishop Jefferts Schori makes an appeal to Bishop Akinola to refrain from coming to the U.S. to install Bishop Minns as head of CANA. She gives three reasons for this:
1. It would be a violation of the customs of the church (regarding limits of episcopal activity and respect of jurisdictional boundaries).
2. The action would damage efforts at reconciliation between the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion.
3. The action would display to the world "division and disunity that are not part of the mind of Christ, which we must strive to display to all."

Now...let that soak in a minute. Bishop Jefferts Schori, the woman who favors promotion of openly gay clergy to the rank of Bishop and thumbs her nose at those who disagree, calling them, in effect, backwards and "behind the times" (note her interview with the Boston Globe, "Where the protesters are, in some parts of Africa or in other parts of the Anglican Communion today, is where this church and this society we live in was 50 years ago, and for us to assume that people can move that distance in a year or in a relatively instantaneous manner is perhaps faithless," she said. "That kind of movement and development has taken us a good deal of pain and energy over 40 or 50 years, and I think we have to make some space so that others can make that journey as well." -- How arrogant! - JV) is now, all of a sudden, interested in the time-honored customs of the church! And the idea of reconciliation? The quote above tells us that he only reconciliation she's interested in is for the world to reconcile their views to hers! And I'll let Bishop Akinola address the last point (as well as the others) as he responded with a well-written letter of his own (with my comments interspersed):

First, Bishop Akinola brings to the fore the fact that Bishop Jefferts Schori's letter was not actually sent to him, but was posted on the Episcopal News Service website! He then recounts the history of the controversy that has led to the current situation. Regarding Bishop Jefferts Schori's objection that Bishop Akinola's actions were a violation of tradition and protocol, Bishop Akinola responds, stating that "our Provinces are divided, and so the usual protocol and permissions are no longer applicable." Essentially, the Bishop states that, since the Episcopal church has turned its back on the Anglican Communion in this matter, there is no longer an ecclesiastical boundary. Bishop Akinola has basically declared that he no longer sees the Episcopal church as part of the Anglican Communion. He then states that he is willing to "renew the pledge" that was made to former Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold that "the Church of Nigeria will be the first to restore communion on the day that your Province abandons its current unbiblical agenda." (emphasis added)

YES! Here is the key! Bishop Akinola has a firm and unchanging foundation for making the judgments he is making. It is the Bible! I was just reading in 1 Corinthians 5 this morning with my family and we were discussing that, if someone who claims to be a Christian is living an immoral life, we are to remove the immoral brother! This is what Bishop Akinola is doing, only on a higher level. He then commences to rip (in the most loving way) Bishop Jefferts Schori's appeal to church custom and turns her argument on its head. I'll let the Bishop speak for himself:

"I also find it curious that you are appealing to the ancient customs of the church when it is your own Province's deliberate rejection of the biblical and historic teaching of the Church that has prompted our current crisis."(emphasis added)

Again I say, YES!! One cannot pick and choose which doctrines of the bible are to be held to! Also, one cannot pledge fealty to a particular body of faith, doctrine and tradition and then decide for themselves which articles they will uphold to their own benefit while discarding the rest.
Bishop Akinola wraps up his letter with the following paragraph. I will quote it in its entirety but it brought to mind 1 Cor 6:1-11 when I read it:
"You mention the call to reconciliation. As you well know this is a call that I wholeheartedly embrace and indeed was a major theme of our time in Tanzania. You will also remember that one of the key elements of our discussion and the resulting Communique was the importance of resolving our current differences without resorting to civil law suits. (cf. 1 Cor. 6 - JV) You agreed to this. Yet it is my understanding that you are still continuing your own punitive legal actions against a number of CANA clergy and congregations. I fail to see how this is consistent with your own claim to be working towards reconciliation."

So, how interested is Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori in reconciling the Episcopal Church with the other bodies within the worldwide Anglican Communion? It would seem that she's not nearly as interested in that as she is in pushing her own agenda upon the rest of the Communion. I personally applaud Bishop Akinola for what he is doing and what he is standing for. While it is a tragedy whenever a schism occurs within a denomination, it must be handled with the word of God as the arbiter between the sides. If there is disagreement the Scriptures must be the deciding factor. While Bishop Jefferts Schori has stated that she does not desire to cause schism within the Anglical Communion, her refusal to adhere to Scripture and its commands has already done the work. Bishop Akinola is now under obligation to step in (since no one else has taken the initiative) and provide for those who seek to follow a more Christ-honoring ecclesiastical body. May God be with Bishop Akinola as he seeks to honor the Lord in this.

Realtivism Collapses Under Its Own Arguments

2007-05-03T11:25:00.000-07:00

This article was originally published Feb. 16, 2006 in the Kansas City Star:

Recently many conservatives have been up in arms over the film Brokeback Mountain, seeing it as an attempt to mainstream homosexuality and make it more socially acceptable. The responses from the other side of the issue have included claims that if the activity involves two consenting individuals and no one is being harmed, then the activity in question cannot be considered “wrong.” This same kind of thinking can be found when it comes to religious ideas, abortion, euthanasia and assisted suicide. It is the kind of thinking that says, “Who are you to judge?” and “That may be true for you, but it isn’t for me.” In taking this sort of moral high-ground the person asking the question is actually stating that the one making the moral assertion has no right to do so.
This moral relativism is rampant in our nation and is a danger to our society. On the surface relativism may seem humble and even a bit noble. After all, isn’t it arrogant to imply that one moral system is superior to another? Yet, the one holding the relativistic position likely has not thoroughly thought this position through, for if the idea of moral relativism is carried out to its logical conclusion then its proponents would be in a very unhappy place. The main idea with moral relativism is that no one person or society can make objective moral judgments that are universally true for all people at all times. The problems with this philosophy are manifold, but two of these downfalls will be discussed here in order to show the inadequacy of this school of thought.
The first problem that the proponents of moral relativism face is the self-refuting nature of the system. To illustrate, let’s say that Joe (a moral absolutist) is discussing homosexuality with Tom (a moral relativist). Joe states that he believes homosexuality is wrong. Tom responds by asking, “Who are you to judge?” In asking this question Tom has actually made a moral judgment of his own by implying that Joe is “wrong” in his claim about homosexuality. Tom has just proven that it really is okay to make moral judgments, he just doesn’t agree with Joe’s moral judgments. By trying to claim that making moral judgments is wrong, the relativist refutes his own argument. The second issue that moral relativists have to deal with is the most dire. If it is true that no one can make absolute moral judgments that are true for all people at all times, then all moral judgments are under suspicion. If it can’t be said that homosexuality is wrong, why can’t the same be said of pedophelia or bestiality by extension? If it can’t be said that abortion or assisted suicide are wrong, then how much longer will it be until the same is said about infanticide and euthanasia of the elderly and disabled? Once one begins down the road of moral relativism where is the stopping point? There is none. If the making of moral judgments is disallowed then the entire system of laws must be thrown out. After all, laws are an imposition of a moral code on a society. This leaves mankind with the realization that moral rules must exist for society to survive.
How do we rescue ourselves from this moral relativism? The key is recognizing that man is not the measure of all things. Mankind is responsible to a higher authority than himself. The State is not the giver of life, nor the provider of rights. The Founding Fathers recognized this when they penned the words that all men are “endowed by their Creator” with certain, unalienable rights. These rights were given by a Creator, not the State; the State merely recognized and affirmed those rights. Until we again recognize this America will continue in its slide of moral decay. Today we may kill the unborn and those who wish to die. We may also allow marriage to be redefined in order to accommodate those living an unnatural lifestyle, but if our society continues to embrace relativism our nation will go the way of all the great nations of the past, to be remembered only in history books.

Personal News

2007-04-18T12:24:00.000-07:00

Sorry my posts haven't been more regular than I thought they would be. I've been a little busy. Biggest news: I've been accepted at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY. I am now in the process of fixing up my house to put it on the market and as soon as it sells, I will be moving my family to Kentucky! I will be getting a Master of Divinity (MDiv) degree with a concentration in Biblical and Theological Studies and then will likely progress to a PhD. From there the plan is to begin teaching at the post-secondary level (College, University, Seminary). I'm really looking forward to this new chapter in my life. I will still try to post as often as I can, given my time constraints.

A Little Catch-up

2007-02-02T10:25:00.000-08:00

Well, it's been quite a while since I had a significant post on here so I'll catch everyone (all 3 of you! ) up to speed on what's been going on with little old me.

God has certainly brough me and my family through a long, hard passage over the last 12 months. It has had high points and low points and we have learned a tremendous amount about ourselves and about our Lord in the midst of it all.

The first step on this road came with a job change last March. I left the title insurance company I'd been with for 7 years and went to manage the men's clothing store I'd been working at part-time. This worked out pretty well in the beginning. There were some tough challenges but the money was good. Then sales started sliding and I couldn't keep my staff on (because they work on commission and there was no traffic in the store.) After several months of declining sales numbers and working several extra shifts covering for those that had quit, I decided to step down from my management position and take a sales position at another location through Christmas.

This is when things started getting tight. But God is faithful. At one point we had received a notice from a medical facility that the $700+ we owed them had to be paid by the day before Thanksgiving or it would be sent to collections. My wife and I prayed that God would provide the money so that we could honor Him by paying this debt. The day before it was due we recieved an unexpected check in the mail for $1200. On another occasion we needed grocery money. We prayed with the kids that God would provide what we needed and we found another unexpected check for $80. We have had generous and thoughtful brothers and sisters in Christ help us in our need on more than one occasion and it has been very humbling to accept the help...but that is how God provides sometimes. We have seen His faithfulness over and over again.

After Christmas sales dropped dramatically and, as I was now the one in a position paying strictly commission, I had to look for other employment. I went back to the title company and they said I could start the next day. (Thank goodness I didn't burn any bridges there!) We're now in a period of transition going from making $150 to $200 a week to making a living again.

Yet, one of the most profound lessons we've learned in all this is how much we've learned to live without. We had been spending so much money on frivolous things that, in hindsight, it seems ridiculous. We have, through this ordeal, learned to be much better stewards of what the Lord has provided us with. It's still going to be a tough task catching back up with creditors (another issue entirely) but we're better able to say, along with Paul, that we've learned to be content with little and to be content with much.

The other big event now is our pending entrance into seminary! We had been waiting for a pre-payment penalty on our mortgage to expire, which it has. So now I've got my application process started for Southern Baptist Seminary in Louisville for this fall. Pending acceptance there, my family and I will be putting our house on the market and moving to Kentucky. Everyone is looking forward and anticipating the move.

Well, that does it for now. It feels good to be writing again. Speaking of writing, I'll have to share some of my experiences in freelancing for the Kansas City Star newspaper this past year. I'll do that in subsequent posts, but for now...
gotta go!

I'm Baaaack!

2007-01-23T12:28:00.000-08:00

Well, after almost a year of hiatus, I'm back. I'll be posting at least once or twice a week now for a while getting everyone caught up on the latest happenings. See you soon!

Responding To My Adoring Fans

2006-02-22T15:08:00.000-08:00

As mentioned before, I am going to address some of the responses I got to my article. I'll begin with this one from Ms. T.:

After having read Mr Jim Viens' Morality in America piece in the Star
for Saturday, February 18, 2006, I have but one question to ask: If the
Star is going to make a practice of condoning bigotry-- as it certainly
has in publishing this glimpse into a man's vile, hateful,
and illogical mind-- can OpEd pieces by neo-Nazis, white supremacists,
Holocaust deniers, or Al Quaeda operatives be far behind?

Ms. T,
I apologize if I misrepresented myself in such a way that you
would see me in the same way as you do the groups you mentioned in your response
to my article. I assure you that I am not now, nor was I ever, a Nazi -- neo or
otherwise. The Nazis (and those who follow that ideology) are evil people. And
and I say that as an absolute moral statement (something a relativist cannot
do). Nor am I a white-supremacist. I know many other people of various colors
and nationalities that are much better people than I. I also fully acknowledge
the truth, and tragedy, of the holocaust and repudiate the philosophy that gave
birth to it as morally reprehensible (again, a claim that relativists cannot
make because...who are they to judge?) Lastly I am nothing like the Al Qaida
operatives who believe that they have a moral duty to murder infidels (and who
is the relativist to force a contrary view of morality on them?) My Christian
faith teaches me to love my neighbor, even when it means telling them when they
are wrong.
Thank you for reading my article and I hope you will continue to
follow my writings throughout the rest of this year with Midwest Voices.
Jim
Viens

Hilarious!

2006-02-22T15:06:00.000-08:00

Found this over at Pyromaniacs (one of my faves). I was rolling!

Relativism Colapses Under Its Own Arguments

2006-02-21T07:32:00.000-08:00

Well, I've finally been published! My first article ran this past Saturday in the Kansas City Star. The link is here. Out of the first 13 responses forwarded to me by my editor there were 3 positive reponses and 10 negative with a couple of the negative being downright nasty (comparisons with Iranian mullahs, white supremacists, Al Qaida operatives and holocaust deniers). I may take some time to respond to some of these replies in the coming days here on the blog, as well as any comments that are left here on the blog.

2006-01-20T10:19:00.000-08:00

Saw this on Steve Camp's blog. He is quite thorough and there is absolutely nothing of value that I could add to this. Interestingly enough I'm currently beginning a study in 2 Peter and am constantly called to test myself every time I read 1:10. Be sure to think through (or better yet, write answers to) the questions at the end.

CHEAP LIFE

2006-01-13T10:49:00.000-08:00

I witnessed something very disturbing on ABC’s news magazine Nightline on Wednesday night. In light of the nomination hearings for judge Samuel Alito in the Senate, ABC thought it appropriate (considering the strong fear by liberals that Alito will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade) to do a spotlight report on a medical doctor in Arkansas who runs an abortion clinic. His name is Dr. William Harrison. He is 70 years old and has been in the field of obstetrics and gynecology since the early 1960’s. According to Dr. Harrison, he had a “career transforming” experience with a patient who believed she had a tumor in her belly. When the woman was told she was actually pregnant she reportedly told the doctor she had hoped that it was cancer. This was apparently a watershed moment for the doctor and since that time he has specialized almost entirely in the performing of abortions – to the tune of some 10,000 over the course of his career.

This in and of itself was not what disturbed me. What disturbed me (actually it scared me nearly out of my wits) was to hear what this doctor stated – quite plainly – as the ABC correspondent interviewed him on camera. Dr. Harrison boldly stated, “I consider the mother’s life to be much more important than that little blob of tissue….” And when the correspondent challenged him with the data that at 20 days the heart is beating and at 40 days there are recordable brain waves, he replied that he was fine with killing life at this stage and had no moral qualms about it. As a matter of fact, along with the clear acknowledgment that human life begins at conception, he stated that his career has been “very emotionally satisfying,” because he has helped so many young women “regain control of their lives.”

While I appreciate Dr. Harrison’s candor, it truly does frighten me to no end as I see where the logical conclusions of this ideology lie. (And this is the ideology of the rabid pro-abortion activists who froth at the mouth when even the slightest restriction to abortion is suggested.) This man, after recognizing this “blob of tissue” as a human life, has set himself up as the arbitrator of which life is worthy of continuing and under what circumstances it is permissible to take a human life. By what arbitrary standard does he arrive at his conclusions? He comes to these conclusions based on his own personal convictions and logical reasoning, all of which is heavily influenced by his strong emotional response to the perceived crises in the lives of his patients. This is just one of the outcomes of the relativistic attempt to have morality and ethics without reference to a transcendent, objective standard. This ideology breeds a society wherein, as stated in the book of Judges in the Bible, “Everyone [does] what is right in his own eyes.” Once this concept has been embraced, it is difficult to determine where the stopping point is. Where does one draw the line? If a fertilized egg is recognized as a human being, but it’s alright to kill it; then what other human beings is it permissible to terminate? We’ve already seen the push for physician-assisted suicide, and we have not yet forgotten the fiasco with Terri Schiavo in Florida last year. There have even been stories of failed abortions resulting in live delivery where the newborn baby is left to die on a cold metal tray. Last I checked, that was called infanticide.

So how doe we, as a society, close Pandora’s Box? How to we rescue ourselves from this moral relativism? The key is recognizing that man is not the measure of all things. Mankind is responsible to a higher authority than himself. The State is not the giver of life, nor the provider of meaning in life. The Founding Fathers recognized this when they penned the words that all men are “endowed by their Creator” with certain, unalienable rights. These rights were given by a Creator, not the State; the State merely recognized and affirmed those rights. Until we again recognize this America will continue in its slide of moral decay. Today we may kill the unborn and those who wish to die. We may also allow those to die who have no voice to object. But one day we ourselves may be the one whose life has been determined unworthy of continuing. Who will speak for us then if we don’t speak out now? And what judgment will we face for our cheap view of life?

Significance of Christmas

2005-12-20T09:27:00.000-08:00

Christmas is upon us again. Every year we put up the decorations and buy the gifts. We make cookies and pies and special breads and put out the hard candies and candy canes. Christmas songs play over the radio and on CD players. The Salvation Army volunteers ring their bells next to their trademark red kettles, collecting donations for the needy. We hurry through the busy weeks leading up to the 25th of December and barely give a thought to the Child whose birth the holiday was intended to celebrate. And why should we? What was, or is, the significance of the birth of a baby in first century Palestine?
From the beginnings of human history mankind has been in rebellion against the God who created and sustains him. Yet, rather than violating His perfect justice by merely winking at this treachery, God made a plan by which His wrath may be satisfied and His mercy shown to some of His special creatures. In this plan, made within the Trinitarian Godhead, the Father sent the Son to earth by means of the intervention of the Holy Spirit. A young woman in Palestine who had never had relations with a man became pregnant with the most unique child ever conceived. This child had a fully divine nature and yet was fully human as well. Skeptics sometimes opine that many pagan religions have stories of gods coming down and seducing women and that children sometimes resulted from these illicit liaisons. The primary difference is that these children had mixed natures. Only Jesus was fully divine and fully human. Another difference can be found in the fact that these divine-human unions resulted from the unbridled lusts of the pagan gods for the women of earth where this occasion was brought about by the plan of God to bring the way of salvation to mankind.
In order for the plan to be accomplished, Jesus had to have a full human nature and a full divine nature. He had to be fully human in order to fully represent mankind in the sacrifice He was to make. In order to bring comfort to man, he had to suffer the sorrows and pains of being man. He had to be fully divine in order to have the capacity to atone for the rebellion and wickedness of those he came to save from the wrath of God. In order to satisfy the infinite wrath of God, He had to be infinite God.
In the birth of Jesus on that night in Bethlehem the unthinkable occurred. The infinite, transcendent God of the entire universe left His throne in Heaven and condescended to cloak Himself in the limited and weak flesh of man. He did this in order to become the high priest that can relate to man in all his afflictions and to be the perfect sacrifice to satisfy the holy and righteous wrath and judgment of God. This is the miracle of Christmas. Take some time to think about it this week.
God bless you.

Christmas Music-Fest

2005-12-20T09:19:00.000-08:00

Well, we had our annual Christmas Musicfest at our church last Sunday evening. It was a great time of fellowship. Our family sang Angels We Have Heard On High while my daughter Elizabeth accompanied on the piano. It went pretty well with the exception of the antics of the two youngest (Isaiah and Hannah). Kim was holding Isaiah and I had Hannah standing in front of me with my arms around her. In one hand I had the hymnal and in the other I held the microphone. As we bagan to sing, Isaiah started pulling on Faith's barette in her hair. As Kim turned to get him farther away, he reached behind her and started grabbing music off a music stand. She turned him back to the front and he started pulling on Faith's hair again and then began kicking the microphone stand, making a loud "thump" with each strike. While this is going on behind me, Hannah is slowly doing the limbo under my arm. At one point she was on her knees looking up at my watch like a mechanic inspecting a transmission on a car. She then continued on under my arm and out of my grasp, heading for the steps. We finished just in time for me to catch her before she ran off into the crowd. It was hilarious! Our pastor had introduced us as the "Von Viens family singers," but I noted at the conclusion that we would not be seen performing at Carnegie Hall anytime soon.

Latest news and a couple misc. updates

2005-12-12T09:53:00.000-08:00

Well, I got a phone call on Friday (12/2) and found out I've been selected as one of the ten panelists for the Midwest Voices column in the Op/Ed section of the Sunday Kansas City Star for 2006! Woo-Hoo!! I go downtown to sign my first freelance contract and get my photo taken. Now the entire Kansas City metro area gets to experience what my friends, family and co-workers have had to put up with for years...my opinion! I'm really excited and am looking forward to this opportunity (the $75 per article won't hurt either). I figure I'll be doing one about every ten weeks and will see about being able to post them on my blog after they've been published.
Now for the updates...the venison from my buck is very tasty indeed. Very little noticable "gaminess." We've had roast, stew, chili, steaks and venison chunks in gravy over noodles. My wife does an excellent job of cooking it and my kids eat it up.
I ended up only going out one time during the regular rifle season due to schedule issues but still have the extended season in January to fill my doe tag.
I've put my resume in with Brooks Brothers men's clothing to run the new store they're putting in about 15 minutes from my house but I haven't heard back from them yet; but my Regional Manager at Jos. A. Bank has expressed an interest in getting me into management there. We'll see how things go, but I'd really like to be doing something else within the next 6 months. This two-jobs stuff is wearing on me and is cutting into my family time.
Beginning this Sunday I'll be teaching a 6-week course at our church on the prayers of the Gospels and the later New Testament (N.T. minus Paul). I'll try to get some notes posted regarding that as time allows.

Life Issues

2005-12-07T10:43:00.000-08:00

I originally came across all this on the Stand To Reason blog. Peter Singer (bioethicist at Princeton of all places -- former haunt of the likes of Jonathan Edwards) published an article in Foreign Policy titled "The Sanctity of Life" wherein he attempts to dismantle the Pro-Life position.
Read Mr. Singer's article here
and then read a response by Scott Pruett here.

New goings-on / Intolerant Tolerance

2005-11-14T09:55:00.000-08:00

Haven't posted in a while & thought I'd post a couple of my latest ponderings. First, I read the transcript of the NBC Dateline special on the birth of Jesus. Overall I'd say it was pretty fair and even-handed. Most of the "debunking" that was done was over issues such as "Were the wise-men really kings?" Some of the issues were a little more serious, such as John Dominic Crossan's claim that the idea of Jesus being a "king" was merely an "in-your-face" to the Romans (big surprise that he would think that.) But, again, overall it was pretty balanced with conservatives being allowed to provide responses to the liberal views (something that has typically been lacking on these types of network specials). Wish I'd have been able to watch it. Maybe someone will buy me a tape?
On the personal side, the Kansas City Star had a contest to see who would be contributing to their Midwest Voices column over the next year. Midwest Voices is an op-ed column published on Sundays. The requirements were to send in a 500-word sample essay with a short bio and a list of five other topics the writer would like to address. The ten winners will publish five columns each over the next year. I just received an e-mail this morning from the op-ed editor thanking me for my submission and informing me that they will notify the winners sometime in December. My submission was titled Intolerant Tolerance and can be found in its entirety here:

There is increasing mention these days of the need for tolerance. This may
sound noble and virtuous at first glance but it has actually served to
suppress the free exchange of ideas in America today. More and more the
idea of tolerance is being used as a bludgeon to silence those who dissent
from the current mainstream ideology. It used to be that when one spoke of
tolerance it carried with it the idea that those holding differing views
could debate the facts supporting their respective views. There would be
honest discussion of the issues and, if an agreement could not be reached,
the two parties would agree to disagree. That is no longer the case. What
is implied in the modern usage of the term "tolerance" is that individuals
are not allowed to express disagreement with the particular socially
accepted view of the day without incurring the wrath of those with whom they
disagree.
A recent example may be found in the recent issue regarding the Kansas State
Board of Education and the state science standards. The obvious majority
view among scientists is in support of evolution. Yet, rather than having a
healthy debate regarding the difficulties and unresolved issues within the
evolutionary theory, the pro-evolution scientists refused to attend the
forum held to discuss the topic. In the place of honest dialogue there were
attacks classifying those who question Darwin's claims as backward and
uneducated zealots with a religious agenda. Is that what our nation has
come to? In an article by Laurie Goodstein in the New York Times regarding
a similar case in Dover, PA the person highlighted for the pro-evolution
side was shown as being from the well-educated elite ("at a desk flanked by
his university diplomas") while the supporters of intelligent design were
chosen from the ranks of blue-collar commoners (a meter reader and a bus
company office manager). This dichotomy clearly implies that those who do
not support evolution are not as well educated while those who do support
evolution are educated and above the "superstitious" claims of religion when
it comes to scientific matters. Another example can be found in the public
discourse over homosexual rights. The politically correct view is that
homosexuality is genetic in origin and that homosexual couples are no
different from any other loving couple. Again, rather than discuss the many
studies that question genetic links to homosexuality, the name "bigot" is
thrown out. In the place of discussion over the physical and psychological
damage incurred through the practice of the homosexual lifestyle, opponents
are labeled as "homophobes."
As can be seen through these two small examples, there is much to be desired
in the area of honesty on the part of those who espouse the "new tolerance"
in America. Tolerance is a virtue, but only when the term is used in the
classical sense. We can allow others to hold to a view other than our own
without vilifying them. We can tolerate one another's ideas even when we
disagree. But that's obviously not on the agenda for the "intolerant
tolerant." They would rather force their views on others by redefining
tolerance to mean, "you can hold your own views...as long as they don't
conflict with mine."

A Word About Pluralism

2005-10-26T13:20:00.000-07:00

In a recent article on Kansascity.com, it was asked, “How should we regard religions other than our own?” This is actually a very good question. The article goes on to explain the views of Diana Eck of Harvard, who had spoken at Village Presbyterian Church over the weekend. One of the bullet-points summarizes the inclusivist view as being one whose faith is “large enough to include all others.” As an example of how this works out the article posits that the Christian God would save a sincere devotee of another religion on the basis that that person would be a Christian given the opportunity. But is this so? Can Christianity be made to reconcile with other world religions?
In evaluating various religions, one must first look at the truth claims that they make. It may seem exclusivistic or arrogant to say that one religion is right and another is wrong, but this must be done. Logic dictates that if religion “A” states that the earth revolves around the sun and religion “B” states that the sun revolves around the earth they cannot both be correct. One has to be right and the other wrong, and it is on the basis of the verifiable dogmatic truth claims that a religion makes that one can differentiate true religion from false religion.
Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that Christianity is true. With this in mind, there are many propositions made within the teachings of Christianity that contradict the teachings of other world religions. For example Christianity teaches the physical resurrection of the dead at the end of time, yet Hindus believe that we are absorbed into the one-ness that is Brahman. Again, Christianity teaches that Jesus is the unique Son of God, yet Jews adamantly deny this. Lastly, Christianity teaches that Jesus was crucified, died, was buried and rose from the grave. On the other hand, Islam denies that it was Jesus that was crucified, but was merely someone else that God made to look like Jesus. In light of all the directly contradictory teachings among these, the three largest of the world’s religions, can they all be true? Can Jesus be both divine and non-divine? Can he be crucified, yet not crucified? Can man be physically resurrected, yet not physically resurrected? These are all logical absurdities. Obviously one must be true and the others false. But one is still stuck with the question of which one is the true religion.
In the case of Christianity, the core truth claim that is made is that Jesus is divine and that he was crucified, was buried and rose from the grave. This one claim is the greatest, and most fantastic, that is made. If this one claim can be proven, there would be little reason to believe that the Bible would be false in the many lesser claims. This has also been the most attacked doctrine of Christianity, yet none has been able to adequately explain the empty tomb. No explanation other than the actual resurrection of Jesus can explain why his closes followers were willing to die saying that he was raised. No explanation is adequate to show how Christianity grew so quickly in the face of persecution without violence on the part of its followers. No explanation is sufficient to account for the lives that are changed by the teachings of Jesus to this very day.
In answer to the initial question: How should we regard religions other than our own? For Christians it’s a simple answer. If Christianity is true, then all other religions are wrong. And if this is the case then there are very dire consequences in the afterlife for those who follow any other religion. The Bible is very clear about that. The Christian, then, is under a great responsibility to make others aware of what they know to be true and to make them aware that the only way to escape judgment in the afterlife is to call upon Jesus Christ to forgive them and to save them. This is what I, as a Christian, believe and practice; and if I’m wrong don’t let me amble my way ignorantly into the abyss…show me the right way.

Civil Rights vs. the Bible

2005-10-26T11:07:00.000-07:00

I was reflecting this week upon the death of the civil rights pioneer Rosa Parks. As I pondered the stand she took on the bus that day 50 years ago, I asked myself one question. In light of the many exhortations within Scripture for Christians to humble themselves and to consider others as more important than ourselves, should Ms. Parks have given up her seat even though there was an injustice involved? Steve Camp has addressed the idea of "rights" for Christians in several of the posts on his blog. I'm wondering now if the entire idea of the civil rights movement was ever "Biblically Correct"? (A dangerous question for a white man to ask.)

Just a thought.

NOTE: Please do not mistake what I'm saying here. I am in no way stating that what came out of the Civil Rights Movement was wrong. I truly believe that every human being is valued in God's eyes and that no one should be mistreated for any reason, least of all because of skin color or gender. I am merely pondering whether the Civil Rights Movement and the idea of civil disobedience espoused by Dr. King was a biblical movement or if it was in violation of Paul's exhortation to submit to those in authority as they have been put there by God.

Digression

2005-10-24T12:22:00.000-07:00

Sorry, folks, but I must digress from my usual socio-political and theological ramblings...but so what...it's my blog!
Last Thursday I played hookie from work (shhh!!! don't tell my boss!). I had to. It was the perfect day. The temperature had dropped 20 degrees from the previous day and it was overcast and drizzly. A nice thunderstorm had rolled through at about 2am and it was pretty cool and miserable. So I donned my camouflage, grabbed my rifle and hiked 1/2 mile across a cut cornfield at 5:30 a.m. I set up just inside the treeline at the back of the property at the base of a tree about 20 feet from a major trail that ran north-south from the south side of the cornfield to the north side (near a soybean field that was on private property). About 7:00, just as it was starting to get light, I could hear some movement in the brush to the northeast but I couldn't make out any forms. About 8:00 or so I moved and again about 10:45. Finally I settled in at the perfect spot. I was just inside the treeline inside a ring of four large trees. From my 3-foot diameter hiding spot I could see down the treeline to the northeast corner of the cornfield and the woods there. I could also see the trail 20 feet to the east. The wind was about 5-10 mph out of the east-northeast. I was hidden well and the wind was carrying my scent away from the woods.
After I had been in my spot for about 15 minutes I glanced up at the north end of the cornfield (about 80 yards away) and just caught sight of a large doe walking past an opening in the trees. I didn't have a shot but my senses were on high alert. I began glancing back and forth, watching both the opening in the trees straight ahead and the trail just to my right. It was then that I saw it...a smallish 6-point buck stepped into view...25 feet away! Then it hit me. I'm right handed and I would have to turn my body 90 degrees to the right to shoot without spooking my quarry. So I gently scooted my body slightly to the right on my stool. The deer imediately stood up straight and began looking around. I was stone still. As soon as I felt he had let his guard down I scooted a little more. Again he looked around to determine the cause of the sound I had made. He turned and looked me right in the eye. I held perfectly still and he turned back away. I made my final turn. The deer looked up one more time and turned his body. He had been quartering away and was now quartering toward. I raised my rifle and put the crosshairs of my scope just behind his left shoulder. With a loud report, the gun sent the 150-grain CoreLokt bullet slamming into the lungs of the animal. He stumbled forward about 5 steps, fell on his side and breathed his last. My first deer!! And it's a buck!!! Granted it's only a small 6-point buck that's likely no more than 1-1/2 yrs old, but again it's my first deer (just started hunting last year).
I'm picking my meat up from the processor tomorrow. I'll have to remember to let everyone know how those backstrap steaks taste!

Weekend

2005-10-14T14:58:00.000-07:00

Woo Hoo!!! The Weekend is HERE! Granted, I have to work my part-time job tonight but in the morning I'm gonna be sittin' in a cornfield in Linwood, KS looking to shoot Bambi's mom! That's right...I'm goin' Deer Huntin'!! Hope I get something this year. Last year was a bust.

General Goings-on

2005-10-13T13:43:00.000-07:00

I know I haven't posted in a little while. I'm in a bit of a funk lately. Things have been really slow at my primary job the last couple of weeks and I'm getting frustrated. During my down-times (which have been frequent) I find myself wondering if I'm in the right place. I'm becoming less and less satisfied with where I am, but have very little time to do anything about it. Between my regular job, my part-time job, 5 kids and church activities I barely have time to sleep!
I have done this much, though:
1) I sent my resume in to two different companies for a position as a writer of academic research papers. (pay is anywhere from $8/pg to $20/pg)
2) I've been looking into starting a freelance writing career. I've begun taking some of the things I've already written to see what may be viable material.
Hopefully things will get better soon.

Disturbing progression

2005-10-04T08:12:00.000-07:00

Check out this article and then consider that this same woman could have gone to an abortion provider like George Tiller. He advertises on his website that he and his clinic are "specialists in 2nd trimester elective and 2nd/3rd trimester therapeutic abortion care." One of the services he offers is "Late Abortion Care for Fetal Anomaly" and provides pregnancy termination for cases like "anencephaly, Trisomy 13, 18, and 21, polycystic kidney disease, spina bifida, hydrocephalus, Potter's syndrome, lethal dwarfism, holoprosencephaly, anterior and posterior encephalocele, non-immune hydrops, and a variety of other very significant abnormalities."
I don't know if this would fall under "other very significant abnormalities" or not (seems to me it would, but that's probably determined by the "mother") but had this woman gone to Geroge Tiller, or someone like him, this beautiful little girl would never have seen the light of day -- in spite of the fact that the condition was correctible through surgery in the womb!
It sickens me...it really does.

Redemption as shown in the New Testament

2005-09-29T09:48:00.000-07:00

This was a paper I wrote in college. A couple of the sources I used were Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology and Erich Sauer's book Triumph of the Crucified.

"But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, so that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons." So what is meant by ‘the fullness of the time?’ It had been over 400 years since God had spoken to the nation of Israel through the prophets. This does not mean that God was not working out His plans, though. Quite the contrary. He was orchestrating on a grand scale to prepare the way for His Son. The conditions had to be just so and the prophecies needed to be fulfilled.
In the book of Daniel, two images come up that foretell coming kingdoms that would be precursors to the coming of the Messiah. In the vision of the great statue, there was the chest of silver, the belly of bronze and the legs of iron. These signified the Medo-Persian, Greek and Roman empires, respectively. We also see the image of the four beasts in which there was a bear, a four-headed leopard and the ‘dreadful’ beast. Again, these relate to the Medo-Persians, Greeks and Romans. The most significant of these are the Greeks and the Romans. The primary influence of the Greeks was the spread of the Greek language and culture. Wherever Alexander the Great went, he would build amphitheaters, temples and Greek schools. The Roman contribution consisted of the rule of law and the famous Roman roads, some of which are still in existence today.
But what of God’s people? During the successive invasions and occupations by various armies, their religion had become weakened. Two groups arose in opposition to this: the Pharisees and the Sadducees. Both groups were purists. The Pharisees were purists of the Law. So much so that over the centuries they developed an intricate system of sub-laws to make sure that the Law itself would not be violated. The Sadducees, on the other hand, focused primarily on the temple and the service there and rejected the oral law of the Pharisees. In both cases, they were so wrapped up in their own traditions that the traditions themselves became gods to them. It was the tradition that was to be revered, feared and served. Religious decay and moral decay had again entered into the house of Judah and when the conditions were just right, God sent His Son.
The Incarnation
"…for today in the city of David there has been born for you a Savior, who is Christ the Lord." How could this be? The Lord becoming a man? It is still a mystery that the greatest of theologians wrestle with. The incarnation is a great mystery of God, but even as finite beings man can apprehend what it entails. The question that must be asked is this: Why did God clothe Himself with frail human flesh? What was the purpose of sending His Son? To answer this question, one must go back to the Old Testament. God had revealed His Law to the people through Moses at Mt. Sinai. God also knew that the people were not capable of keeping the Law so He set in place a sacrificial system whereby, through the blood of animals, man could cover over his sins and retain fellowship with the Father. There were also priests put in place to act as mediators between God and man and offer the sacrifices that were brought by the people.
The necessity of Christ’s humanity is made apparent in all of these areas and others. While man is not capable of keeping the Law of God because of his sinful nature, Jesus could and did live His life in full obedience to the Law. Therefore, He is able to act as our representative in His obedience just as Adam was our representative in sin. Secondly, as the blood of animals is sorely insufficient to actually take away the sins of man, a man’s blood must be poured out to take away the sins of man. Thus the sinless Christ must be that sacrifice. There remains, then the mediator between God and man. The high priest of the Old Testament may have been a good representative of man before God, but he did it imperfectly. He didn’t know the full suffering of all men, just his own. Here is where Christ enters as our mediator. He represents us perfectly before God. He is a man that has lived in the midst of the human experience. He knows what we have been through and how we feel. He is familiar with the temptations we have faced, yet has defeated them. For this reason, Christ also must remain a man forevermore. Eternally acting as our high priest and mediator after the order of Melchizadek.
In addition to these, Christ’s humanity also offers us this: He is the perfect example of how we are to live our lives to God. He also shows the pattern of our eternal, resurrected bodies as He is the Firstborn from among the dead.
As important as the humanity of Christ is, His deity is of equal importance. Wayne Grudem in his systematic theology sets forth three reasons for the necessity of Christ’s deity. First, a finite creature could not bear the penalty of the combined sins of all the elect for all time, only God could. Second, as Jonah 2:9 states, "…salvation is from the LORD." Due to this, no creature can affect the salvation of man. Third, only God could act as a perfect mediator, not only bringing man back to God, but revealing God to us in a perfect way as Christ revealed in the gospel of John where he said, "He who has seen Me has seen the Father…."
Now that the necessity of both the humanity and the divinity of Christ has been explained, the question yet remains as to how it was accomplished. How could the perfectly holy God join with the corruptible flesh of man? Was Christ a human man with a divine will only? Were the two natures co-mingled in the one person? Was the divine divorced from the human in such a way as to make Christ, in effect, schizophrenic? As finite creatures, we may never fully understand how this union works, but some clues may be found in the pages of Scripture and the creeds of the early Church.
The first step in defining the relationship between the Father and the Son came at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. Prior to this council, a man named Arius had begun teaching that the Father and the Son were not quite the same. He taught that they were of similar essence, but not the same. What was codified at the Council of Nicaea was that the Father and the Son were of the same essence; that there was a union in their substantial nature or actual being. The final definition of the orthodox view we hold to today was given at the Council of Chalcedon in 451. It stated clearly that Jesus was perfectly or completely God and yet also perfectly or completely man. The creed goes on to affirm that the two natures exist in the one person “without confusion, without change, without division, without separation.” This has been termed the ‘hypostatic union.’
The Atonement
"…the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His live a ransom for many." Since the Fall, mankind has been in open rebellion to God. At birth we are guilty of original sin and throughout our lives we display that we are in bondage to a nature that is against God. There is nothing man can do that pleases God. There are several possibilities for man at this point: God could have left man in his sin and poured out His wrath in judgement, He could have decided to provide a way of salvation for all mankind or He could have provided a way to save some. Since the Scriptures tell the story of God’s saving grace, the first option can be eliminated. Likewise, it is clear in God’s word that some are still destined for judgement and wrath. That leaves only the option that God chose to provide a way of salvation for a portion of mankind. But how was this salvation to be worked out?
"For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement." A shadow of God’s plan in salvation can be found in the sacrificial system of the Old Testament. Those who violated the Law were required, through the priest, to bring a blood sacrifice. This blood was to provide a covering for the sins, but was not worthy enough to actually pay the full penalty. Thus, Christ came to be a perfect atoning sacrifice for the sins of those whom God had chosen beforehand to take part in salvation. The entirety of the Atonement is comprised of several facets: first, fallen man was not able to obey the Law; second, man deserved death because of the transgressions of the Law; third, man was an enemy of God and lastly man was in bondage to sin. As was shown in the section on the Incarnation, Christ lived a life in perfect obedience to the Father. He perfectly fulfilled the requirements of the Law. In His death, Christ bore the punishment of our sins on His shoulders. At that point, He suffered the accumulated sufferings of all the elect for all time. He was declared guilty in place of the elect and bore the wrath of the Father for them and His righteousness was credited to the elect. Because of this, "we have peace with God." We have been reconciled. Lastly, He broke the chains of bondage to sin. Among the last recorded words of Christ on the cross was the word "tetelestai", a Greek word meaning "paid in full." The sin-debt that had been accumulated since the Fall in the Garden had been laid upon His shoulders and had been accounted for. Now, through faith in that finished work, mankind could again have fellowship and right standing with the Father in order to enjoy Him forever.
Over the centuries there have been other opinions of what Christ accomplished at Calvary. Rather than addressing the more outlandish ones, a short presentation will be made of some of these other views. First is the ‘ransom’ theory. Simply put, this view states that Satan held mankind captive and that Christ’s blood was shed as payment to Satan to free them. This view was held by some early Church fathers as well as some modern ‘preachers.’ The challenge with this view is that is give too much authority to Satan and overlooks the idea that God’s judgement for sin had to be fulfilled. Another popular view, especially among liberals, is the ‘moral influence’ theory. This theory states that the death of Jesus was a ‘supreme manifestation of love’ and set an unparalleled example for us to follow in our moral lives. This view not only denies the deity of Christ, which liberals are wont to do, it denies the ideas of justice and holiness in God the Father. It takes away the seriousness of man’s sinful condition and bases ‘salvation’ on the emotional state of the individual. The final view that will be examined here is referred to as the ‘governmental’ theory. Some have deemed it fit to consider this view the ‘kick-the-dog’ theory. What this view holds to is that the Father has put in place a perfectly holy order of things. When man violated that order, the anger of God was roused. In order to manifest His great displeasure with the way mankind had trampled over His Law, God poured out his wrath on Jesus. Not because of anything Jesus had done or anything He was being held accountable for, but simply because He was there. In a similar way that a man comes home from a hard day at work, angry with his supervisor, and kicks the family dog to vent his anger. Therefore Christ did not atone for our sins, He merely served as an example of what happens to those who violate the Law of God. None of the alternative views presented here are true to the whole of Scripture. It becomes obvious as one reads the Bible that Christ’s death was meant as a substitutionary atonement for the purpose of paying the penalty for all the past, present and future sins of the elect. Erich Sauer notes this on the idea of substitution:
So deeply was the thought of substitution impressed in advance on the Old Testament that sometimes it uses one and the same word for sin and sin offering (Heb. Chata-ah). In Exod. 34:7 and I Sam. 2:17 this word means sin; in Num. 32:23 and Isa. 5:18, the punishment of sin; and in Lev. 6:18, 23 and Ezek. 40:39 the sin offering. Thus also Christ, Who knew no sin, was "made sin for us," that is, was caused to be the sin offering (II Cor. 5:21).
Application
"For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus." Therein lies the ultimate meaning in the work of Christ. According to Sauer, the Atonement of Christ had a dual effect: that of justification and that of sanctification. Through His death and resurrection the elect are justified and counted as righteous and He died on the cross so that His chosen ones would not have to suffer the wrath of God. Those who place their faith in Christ are at the same time saved from sin and saved to righteousness. They are now a "new creation." The idea that Christians have been "crucified with Christ" has several aspects to it: they are dead to the world around them, they are dead to their old ways (the ‘old man’), they are in a position of victory over Satan and his influence and, lastly, they are heirs to the bountiful blessings of the Kingdom of Heaven.
Yet this all has a great responsibility. Christians have been given the gift of God’s grace and will be held accountable for how it was used or abused. For Christ will return one day as the righteous judge and all who believe will be called before Him to account for how they lived their lives under grace. Sauer points out that frighteningly severe terms are used in connection with the judgment of the Church when Christ returns. The quality of our works will be revealed by fire. Those who have squandered their inheritance will be filled with fear and will shrink away in shame. They will enter heaven, but only in a similar manner to a man saved from a burning home only to find that he has nothing left to his name.It is for this reason that the Christian must work throughout the course of their salvation seeking the will of God through His Spirit. It should inspire great awe and humility to know that, when man was a wicked sinner set against God in rebellion, He would choose some that took park in that rebellion to be saved from the just penalty for their treason. Not only this but the fact that, in order to accomplish this, He poured out His wrath on His perfect Son instead so that the chosen could be counted as righteous before Him. It is because of this great gift that the Christian should walk a life of humble obedience. He has been counted as righteous, so let him walk in righteousness. The apostle Paul puts it so succinctly when he says in Romans, "How shall we who died to sin still live in it?" The Christian must also change their way of thinking to one that is honoring to God. This is only possible because of the work of Christ as there is no way for a man in sin to do this. This renewal of the mind comes from the reading of the Word of God and fellowship with Him through prayer. After all, what burden is this? To be asked to fellowship with the One who saved us from eternal punishment? To search out His written word so as to know His will and do it? These are very small things in light of what He has done to redeem us to Himself. The change the world sees in the life of the believer will only bring glory to God and that is purpose for which man was created. Soli Deo Gloria!

A pitiable death

2005-09-27T11:09:00.000-07:00

I just learned today about the passing of Robert Funk, co-founder of the Jesus Seminar. In spite of the fact that I abhor everything he ever taught about Jesus and the Bible (or anything else having to do with religion in general) I do mourn for the fact that he only now can see the foolishness of his false religion. Now he knows the true significance of the cross and how true the Bible is. May God have mercy on his soul.

Battle over Intelligent Design in PA

2005-09-27T10:02:00.000-07:00

Came across this by Laurie Goodstein in yesterday’s New York Times (I think registration is required) and wanted to comment on a few interesting elements. The article is about the upcoming court case in Dover, PA over whether intelligent design (I.D.) should be presented as an alternative to evolution in the public schools.
The first interesting tidbit I noticed right off was in the opening paragraph where Ms. Goodstein writes, “Sheree Hied…was grateful when her school board here voted last year to require high school biology classes to hear about ‘alternatives’ to evolution….”. Why the quote marks around “alternatives”? This by itself shows bias on the part of Ms. Goodstein (big surprise from the Times). The quotes imply that the “alternatives” are not really “alternatives”, they’re just being called “alternatives” to get in under the radar.
But the most interesting item highlighting the writer’s bias is the description given to the parties involved. First the town itself is described as “a rural, mostly blue-collar community” and the primary party interviewed on behalf of the plaintiffs was Mrs. Hied (mentioned above) who, we are told, is “a meter reader, and her husband, Michael, an office manager for a local bus and transport company”. Contrast this with the citizen spoken to that is in favor of banning the teaching of I.D. This man is described in the following way: “at a desk flanked by his university diplomas, Steven Stough was on the internet…keeping track of every legal maneuver in the case.” This dichotomy is apparently drawn to show that those who support I.D. are ignorant and uneducated while those who oppose it are of much higher intelligence and learning. This is a complete affront to all who hold that evolution does not answer all the questions that arise when the subject of origins is broached. It also shows the elitist attitude held by those in support of evolution.
The key question in this whole debate can be summed up in the question, “Is there such a thing as the supernatural?” To the evolutionist the answer is “No”. And by giving this answer they have shut themselves off to many answers to questions they are asking. It’s like asking the question “What has wings, feathers, webbed feet, lays eggs and quacks?” and then limiting the answers by adding, “…and the answer can’t be ‘a duck’.” In the same way, one cannot ask the question, “How did this great universe of ours, with all the multiplied millions of complex organisms and mechanisms, come into being?” and then saying, “…and it can’t be anything that can’t be explained by the laws of nature.” By starting with this presupposition scientists have actually taken themselves out of the arena of science. The scientific method is described as a process that follows the steps of observation, question, hypothesis, prediction, testing and theory. At one point in the article Witold J. Walczak (legal director of the A.C.L.U.) is quoted as saying that “intelligent design is not science because it does not meet the ground rules of science, is not based on natural explanations, is not testable.” By his own definition evolution does not pass Mr. Walczak’s test. It is not testable. When has anyone ever demonstrated a change from one species to another in a laboratory? Where are the fossils of transitional forms? All of this has been speculated on but never proven. Yet the children in the public schools are told to believe these myths as fact just because academic elites have suppressed any competing claims and changed the definition of science to allow only natural explanations (though they have not proven that the supernatural does not exist – nor can they).
All of this is to be expected of any group of unregenerate persons whose hearts and minds have not been made alive by the living God. Romans 1 tells us that:

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. (Romans 1:18-23 – emphasis added)

And so it goes in the world of “scientific enlightenment.”

Why the Religious Right Won't Win, Pt. 2

2005-09-20T10:49:00.000-07:00

The Long, Hard Fight
In addressing the question of the difficulty of the struggle to “reclaim” America, some topics in the areas of biblical history and theology must be examined. In the historical account found in the book of Genesis it is clearly shown that, as mankind increased in number to populate the earth, he also became increasingly wicked in his thoughts, words and actions. As a result man incurred the wrath of God which culminated in the flood that destroyed all living things. Yet God showed mercy to one man, Noah, (whom He chose from among all other men even though he, too, was sinful) and spared him and his family from the flood waters. It is said of Noah that he walked with God (this being in spite of the fact that he was counted among the sinful men cited just a few paragraphs before). In spite of this it is stated that, after the flood, mankind returned immediately (within that generation) to the wickedness that prevailed before the flood. So in this particular instance we see man rebelling against God, God pronouncing judgment while preserving a small remnant, man turning back to God as a result of the judgment and man returning to rebellion after the judgment has passed. This pattern has been repeated over and over again throughout history. For example we see that even the nation of Israel rebelled against God and turned to pagan idolatry. God warned the nation of His coming judgment for their sin through His prophets but they would not hear. As a result the nation was overrun by the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar and the people taken captive to Babylon. During the time immediately prior to the judgment, a prophet named Elijah believed that he was the only one remaining in Israel who had remained true to God, but God reassured him and told him of ten-thousand others whom He had saved for Himself. Again, a small remnant preserved by God while the rest of His “chosen people” were carried off by foreigners.
In applying this to America we must recognize the simple fact that God operates on an individual level when it comes to righteousness. While God does call nations to righteousness, they are made so through the righteousness of the individuals who comprise the citizenry of those nations. We can see that, although Israel had a Law that was given by God Himself, they still disobeyed and were judged. How can Evangelical leaders expect to make America righteous by the laws of men? The only way for a nation to be made righteous is for the people to be made righteous. This cannot be done by legislation. The root of the problem is the sinful state of mankind. As the prophet Isaiah stated, “there is no one righteous, not even one.” This is the reason the fight by the religious right has been so difficult. An attempt is being made to force people who are opposed to God in their hearts (though they may not say so much with their mouth) to be obedient to the moral truths of God’s word. This has been met with great resistance and will be met with increasing resistance. Those whose hearts have not been changed by God will desire as much license as they can get when it comes to how they lead their lives. They desire total freedom and no accountability. That is the result of sin and that is the insurmountable obstacle of the religious right in their political aspirations.
The responsibility of the Christian, then, is to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the entire nation and pray that God would change the hearts of men and turn them from rebellion to obedience. Paul writes that the gospel is the “power of God for salvation” and again, “faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.” He makes it plain that the means God uses to change a person’s heart from one of rebellion to obedience is the proclamation of the gospel. It is then the duty of every Christian to proclaim that gospel to any who do not already possess it and to pray for their salvation. And what is the gospel? The essentials of the gospel include pointing out a person’s sin and rebellion against God, proclaiming God’s coming judgment on all those who rebel against Him, urging them to turn from their sin and to call upon Jesus Christ to save them from their sin. Whether the person responds to this in a positive, life-changing way is up to the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit and nothing the Christian can do can convince someone to submit to God. Yet this is the work that the Christian is called to. Anything short of this is a betrayal of the mission that Jesus gave when He said, “Go, therefore, and make disciples.” Notice He did not say “go forth and make new laws,” or “go forth and be political activists.”
The Christian Role
All this having been said, Christians should participate in the governmental system as far as it allows. Rather than channeling money and energy into political activism, there should be a concerted effort at evangelism in America. Yet the Christian is also responsible to participate in government in every way allowed by law. Christians can and should vote for those who uphold godly virtue. Christians can and should vote for ballot items in a way that reflects their values. There is no biblical prohibition of Christians even running for public office, yet much care should be taken for there is truth in the phrase “power corrupts.” And if political office is sought or obtained it should be made clear that the office is to be carried out to the glory of God. There is no room for the politician who claims that their personal views will not affect their policy. The Christian worldview cannot be compartmentalized in this way. For the true believer, the Christian faith and the word of God should permeate every aspect of their life and being. So, it is through the gospel converting souls that the religious right may win many in America, but it is unlikely that all of America will be won for Christ (though anything is possible with God). Evangelicals merely need to be faithful to the work to which they have been called: proclaiming the gospel to the lost with a view toward their conversion. Then God will bless their work and maybe even their nation.

Why the Religious Right Won't Win

2005-09-19T10:31:00.000-07:00

I'm going out on a limb here and may get some heat, but these are some thoughts I've had recently. Please know that I am not being defeatist or pessimistic here, just following a particular line of thinking. This is only the first installment, so keep following the posts to the end in order to get the full picture.

Why the Religious Right Won’t Win America

There are many in America today that are becoming increasingly concerned by the influence that the “religious right” seems to be finding in the government of the United States. Writers, editors, and producers from various news outlets constantly decry the idea that, in this pluralistic society, one particular set of faith-based values should be officially espoused by our nation. Make no mistake, the religious right are seen as a threat and many, if not a majority, in this country will not stand having their lifestyle attacked in this way. On the other side of this issue are the conservative, evangelical Christians (these are the ones who primarily make up the face of the “religious right” and in most cases the two are considered synonymous). They claim that America is in a steep moral decline akin to that of the great Roman Empire prior to its fall; and that if Americans do not turn back and worship the God of the Bible that the United States will go the way of Rome. In order to prevent this, an attempt is made to curb the moral decline by enacting legislation that favors traditional Judeo-Christian morality and punishes what is seen as immoral under that system of ethics. While this is a lofty goal there are many obstacles, some of which are insurmountable. In spite of its grand efforts and determined spirit, the religious right will never “take back” America.

Re-claiming America?

One of the Evangelical groups that is taking part in this fight uses the slogan, “Reclaiming America for Christ.” While this seems like a great rallying cry for any Bible-believing Christian, there is a questionable premise at its root: that Christ claimed America to begin with. The second question to be explored is this: if Christ wanted America reclaimed, why has it been so difficult? In dealing with the first question one must return to the roots and founding of our nation. The North American continent was originally discovered accidentally. Christopher Columbus was seeking an easier way to reach the islands of the East Indies in order to decrease the time and money needed to ship goods to and from the area and to increase trade capacity. This expedition was, at its root, a commercial endeavor. Once it was determined that Columbus has actually run into an entirely new land that had, as yet, been unexplored by Europeans, many flocked to its shores in search of land and raw materials such as wood and minerals (especially gold, silver and various other valuable commodities). Again, we have commercialism as the driving force behind the activities in the Americas. As time progressed, various groups began to travel to the America and settle. Some of these groups came to America in order to escape religious persecution and to establish communities wherein they could worship as their conscience dictated. Keep in mind, also, that Christianity was the majority, if not exclusive, faith of all of Europe at this time. There were some Jews and a very few from other faiths, but by and large everyone in Europe claimed some form of the Christian religion and the same was true of those who came from Europe to settle America. When the United States broke away from English control this was still true of nearly every person living here at that time. Because of this, the founding documents held within them the assumption that whenever religion was spoken of Christianity was to be understood as what was being referred to.
Now, there is yet another aspect of this to be examined. Just because someone claims to be a part of a particular group, does that make them a genuine member? For instance, a man can claim to be affiliated with the Boy Scouts. He can know the Scout Handbook inside and out, he can own a uniform and be able to recite pledges and such, but if he is not recognized by the head of the Boy Scouts as a legitimate member, then he has made a false claim. The same is true of Christianity. One can go to church every week, be baptized, memorize the Bible and even teach in a Sunday School class or pastor a church; but unless that person has truly experienced conversion in his heart and been claimed by Christ then his profession is in vain. How this works out in the founding of our country is this: just because a large percentage of the population claimed to be Christian does not guarantee (nor can it be determined) that they were genuine Christians. Even if they were genuine believers and did all they did according to what they believed the Bible to say, that did not obligate God to put His blessing on their endeavors, nor did it force Christ to put his stamp of approval on this new nation and call it His.
Some have posited that the situation with the United States is similar to that of the nation of Israel in the Old Testament. The major problem with this is that, in making this interpretation, one fails to recognize that the choosing of Israel by God was an isolated instance used as a picture for what was to come under the New Covenant. Just as God chose Israel as a physical nation, differentiated from all the surrounding nations, as a visible representation of His special chosen people - so He also chose a certain group of people, distinct from all other people on the earth (Christians), to be His true “holy nation.” This was not an instance to be repeated over and over again throughout history. So to say that the United States of America was claimed by Christ or for Christ has no meaning and the idea of re-claiming it for Him, as will be shown later, sets Evangelicals up for failure.

The Sovereignty of God in Suffering

2005-08-31T07:38:00.000-07:00

I've heard that children will usually be the ones to ask the most profound questions of anyone. Last Thursday this was confirmed when, on the way home from a prayer meeting for missions, my seven year-old (Elizabeth) said to me, "Daddy, can I ask you a question?" "Sure!" I replied. She then proceeded to ask about the origin of evil and suffering and God's role in it (in her own 7 year-old words, of course - but this was the core of her question).
Wow. That's a tough one. There are people who have pondered this question for entire academic careers and not come up with an answer. There are also those who have come to conclusions...many conclusions. I let her know as much and also told her that it is a subject I have been thinking about a lot lately and that I would give her the best answer that I have been able to come up with so far.
I explained that, first of all, God is good and God is all-powerful; so, in order for there to be evil and suffering, God has to allow it. So, God must have a good reason to allow evil and suffering even though we may not understand that reason now. We need to realize that God does all things in such a way that He would receive the most glory. God is loving, yes. But God is also just and how would we know this about Him if there were not injustice for Him to make right? God is mercy but we would never know this if there were no offenders to show mercy to. God is patient but we would never know the extent of His patience were it not for Him allowing us such a long leash in our rebellion and disobedience and stubbornness. Therefore, in order for God to be truly glorified in all His attributes and perfections He had to allow certain things, including evil and suffering. Now, because of this, we can know our God more fully and appreciate how wonderful and marvelous He is. I realize this is just a brief answer and is pretty simplistic, but what are you going to say when a 7 year-old asks about the problem of evil?
Dr. Al Mohler has commented on this subject in relation to Hurricane Katrina on his blog. (By the way, I love the hymn he mentions. Read the words carefully.)

Relative life

2005-08-24T10:54:00.000-07:00

Here's a response I sent to the editor at Forbes.com for an article published today:

In the abortion debate the basic issue is whether or not the fetus is to be considered a human person. If the fetus is a person then abortion is immoral, if it is not then abortion is no more an issue than removing a wart. That being said, the pro-abortion camp gives away their true stand in some of the things they say. For example, in this article the claim is made that a fetus younger than "x" weeks of gestation cannot feel pain and, therefore, does not need anesthetic during an abortion procedure. The question that comes to my mind is this: If a fetus is not a human person, why do we care if it feels pain during a medical procedure designed to remove it from existence? The back-side of this question is: If it is a human person, then why is it acceptable to kill it? We all know that even a simple, fertilized zygote has all the genetic structure of a fully-developed human being. And with that genetic structure being unique, it is a unique human person. We also know that like produces like. Fish do not produce rabbits and dogs to not procuce lizards. In the same way, human beings produce human beings. Those who are in favor of abortion either do not understand that what is being destroyed is a human life or (and I'd rather like to think that this second group is very small) they advocate killing of innocent human beings that they deem as unfit to live according to their own subjective standard. I would like to conclude by stating that, since there is a debate as to when "life" begins, why not give the innocent child the benefit of the doubt. If it deserves the dignity of anesthetic during this gruesome procedure, why not allow it the dignity of its first breath from the womb?

ABC throws a curve

2005-08-24T09:30:00.000-07:00

Last night I was blind-sided by something I saw on ABC while channel-surfing for about 5 minutes (that's about the extent of TV I get to see in any given weeknight). It was at the end of the show Boston Legal (a spinoff of The Practice). For those not familiar, the show stars James Spader as a sleazy lawyer in a fairly sleazy law firm in Boston. The characters and plots are pretty much left-wing in their slant. That's why I was so confused. From what I can gather from the 90 seconds or so that I watched, the firm had taken as a client a teacher(?) who was being sued for teaching Intelligent Design alongside evolution in his classroom. For whatever reason, this group of lawyers decided to take his side in the courtroom battle. At the point I began watching, the judge was delivering his decision and it basically went along these lines: Scientists should not be afraid to have other theories taught alongside evolution and intelligent design is not in violation of the anti-establishment clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution. Case dismissed.
My jaw dropped. What in the world does this mean?? Hollywood screenwriters producing a script that champions a cause seen as a plot by the "religious right" to sneak religion into public schools? And a major broadcast network actually airing it?? Regardless of what the thought process was in putting the episode together and airing it, I'm very thankful that God saw fit to work it out in this way. Perhaps the arguments made in the episode (and now I wish I'd seen it to hear how they argued the case) will get some folks who are currently in the "undecided" column on this issue onto the side of intelligent design. Again, I'm dumbfounded by this unexpected turn of events in the media...and confused. I need an aspirin.

Long time no blog

2005-08-23T09:57:00.000-07:00

I know it's been AGES since my last post, and I apologize to both of you that checkup on my rantings fairly regularly (are there really that many?). I've been pretty busy at work and have been using my lunch hours to just get away from the computer and rest my eyes. I've also picked up a part-time job in the evenings (making my family time a little more rare and, therefore, precious). A few family updates: My youngest girl (Hannah) just turned 2 on the 14th and my boy, Isaiah, is 9 months old and crawling now. My wife started school yesterday (remember, we homeschool). Elizabeth is in 3rd grade, Faith is in 1st and Rebecca is in Kindergarten. First day went really well and the favorite subject for now is Science (they're learning about the Creation). As for myself, since I took up the part-time job to help make ends meet I had to drop the Christian Ethics class I was going to take at Midwestern Seminary. I'm kinda bummed about that, but you gotta do what you gotta do when there's a wife and 5 kids looking to you for support! Right now I'm just getting itchy for hunting season to open. Here in the KC area there's a hunting unit that runs down I-70 from here to Topeka that is allowed a special early rifle deer hunting season in October and I'm trying to find some land to hunt when it comes around. Regular season is in December & there's a week-long extended season in January. I may also borrow a friend's .22 to go after some squirrel with Elizabeth in September or October. I finished the 12 week course on 1st Peter at church and out pastor is now beginning to go through the Old Testament. We are up to Genesis 11 now. I'm also starting to do a careful reading and "fly-over" study of Isaiah. I was drawn to this particular prophet as he is the one most often quoted in the New Testament. I look forward to learning some good stuff. That's pretty much it for now. Hope to do a little more posting in the future. Look forward to hearing from those following this (if any). By the way. Saw this on Phil Johnson's Pyromaniac blog (it's at the very bottom of the post) and was rolling. It's hilarious! I love Phil's sense of humor.
Yours in Christ,
Jim

Worldview, Evangelism & Apologetics

2005-06-28T10:05:00.000-07:00

Introduction – Our Calling as Christians
The last words of Jesus to His disciples before He ascended to heaven were the command to make disciples of all the nations.[1] This is typically termed as the Great Commission and it is the calling of all Christians. Every Christian has the privilege and the responsibility of sharing the gospel of Christ. Believers are to make non-believers aware of their sin. The world must also be warned of the desperate position they are in under the wrath of God. Finally they need to know that there is hope in Christ.
Yet the regenerate Christian thinks of things in a way quite different from the unregenerate person. This different way of seeing things results in questions and objections being raised. When this occurs the believer is called to have a reasoned defense for what they believe.[2] In spite of what many unbelievers think, Christianity is not based merely on blind faith. Christianity has many solid evidences that validate the reasonableness of believing in Christ. This is not to say that everything in the Christian faith can be understood; it is merely stating that God has provided evidence so that the sinful, rebellious hearts of men may have no reason not to believe.
What causes this difference in the way the Christian and the non-Christian view the world around them? The core difference is the presence of sin.[3] Man in general views his world in an anthropocentric sort of way. This is to say that everything is viewed in light of how it relates to mankind. Anything that cannot be explained is either claimed to be unreal or is attributed to a deity designed by man that can be manipulated by man. In contrast the Christian views all things in light of the belief that the sovereign God that created all things has revealed Himself to mankind.[4] This is a theocentric way of viewing the world. It sees things in light of how they relate to God and His revelation.

Overview of Worldview
As would seem apparent by the title and theme of this paper there will be many references to worldview. Basically a worldview is an all-encompassing and structured way of looking at life and the world.[5] To put it more simply a worldview is like a windshield in a car. It is what we view the world through and that view can be obscured by what is “on our windshield”, or, in our worldview. If one has inconsistent or bad ideas integrated into their worldview it is like having ice or mud on the windshield of their car.[6] It is difficult to see clearly and may result in great damage to the person viewing the world through that system. A worldview is not merely a vision of life but a vision for life.[7]
A thorough worldview should answer several basic questions regarding such things as the nature and task of mankind, the nature of the world, the basic hurdle to overcome in fulfilling man’s purpose and how that hurdle is overcome.[8] To unregenerate man the answers to these questions are typically sought within man himself. Most non-Christian worldviews hold man at the center and make little allowance for the God found in the Bible. In some worldviews the universe is a closed system that operates by a given set of rules. Some would say that the universe is eternal while some claim that it was created by a divine being but that deity is now shut out of the operation of the universe. Other views state that there is at least one god but that god is impersonal, not caring about the affairs of men, or so personal as to be merely a higher level of humanity and not powerful enough to make a significant difference in the universe as a whole. Any of these views leaves man as the one that is primarily responsible for using his ingenuity to provide for his day-to-day needs and to improve his state of being.
In contrast to this, the Christian worldview holds that an omnipotent and sovereign God created the entire universe for His own purposes and that the universe He created was very good. This God has revealed Himself to mankind in three persons (the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit). The problems that we now experience are a result of mankind rebelling against the God that created him. This rebellion brought sickness, evil and death into the world. The solution to this problem was that God the Father sent God the Son to take on an additional, human, nature in order to live a perfect life in the place of mankind and to suffer the punishment due the sins of mankind. Man cannot fulfill the purpose that God created him for until God has changed his heart from one of rebellion to one of obedience. When God has changed a man’s heart in this way he views the world in a new way. He no longer sees things as centered around man, but on God.
There are differing levels, or layers, of beliefs in a person’s worldview. Some of these beliefs are held to lightly, or with little conviction.[9] Other views, though, are very central to the overall worldview and are foundational in the way the person sees the universe. When these core beliefs are challenged it can cause a great crisis in the person who holds them. This crisis forces one to rethink their belief and they will either find an explanation for the point in question that is consistent with their worldview and continue to hold the worldview or they will be unable to answer the challenge in an acceptable way and find themselves having to change their worldview.

Worldview and Evangelism
The Christian worldview emphasizes that man is subject to a sovereign God and the purpose of man is to love and obey that God. One of the commands that this sovereign God has given to His followers is to make followers of others. The challenge in this is that those who are not followers of God have a mindset that is in rebellion to God and all His purposes.
The key concept in worldview that is helpful in doing evangelism is that unregenerate man thinks in a man-centered way. Because of this man is viewed as essentially good. This is totally opposite the view of man in the Christian worldview which states that man is essentially sinful and in rebellion against God. In evangelism, the first points that need to be made are that man is sinful and that he is accountable to a holy God. These points are typically met with much resistance due to the fact that most non-Christian worldviews either deny the reality of sin (or the person’s personal sinfulness) or they deny the existence of God (or at least of a god that would interfere in the affairs of man). With this in mind it must be pointed out that man is not perfect and that this lack of perfection is what constitutes sin. It is the area of apologetics to point out the evidence for the existence of God. This will be addressed in the next section. Ultimately it is the work of the Holy Spirit which changes the hearts of man in order to see the sinfulness of their heart and to bring about the repentance necessary for salvation.

Worldview and Apologetics
As mentioned above the ideas of man’s sinfulness and his accountability to God typically encounter much resistance when sharing the truths of Christianity with an unsaved world. This is where apologetics comes in. Anyone that is not familiar with Christianity is going to have questions about many of the beliefs within that system. The process of answering these questions and objections is the object of the discipline of apologetics.
Many, if not all, unsaved people believe that Christianity is based upon blind faith. While they may concede that Jesus was a real person they deny the supernatural aspects of His life. In actuality Christianity has solid evidence to support many of the claims it makes. While there is not necessarily evidence for all that Christianity holds there is enough evidence in other areas to indicate its reliability as a system of belief. Besides, if Christianity comes from an infinite God no finite mind will ever be able to understand it fully.
Again the key point is regeneration. A person that has not been touched by God will turn a blind eye to any evidence or argument that supports Christianity. So it is that the point is underscored that “unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”[10] So in the final analysis it is the work of the Holy Spirit that enables a person to see the evidence for what it is and to repent of their sin and believe in Christ for salvation. Yet, at the same time, the Christian is still to have answers for the unbeliever’s objections so that they will be without excuse and all the more condemned on the Day of Judgment.

Summary – Is There Common Ground?
In summary it has been shown that Christians are to share their faith with those in the world around them. This command is obeyed because the Christian worldview holds that there is a sovereign God that created mankind for His glory and that, because of this, man is to obey God. The challenge in actually making disciples of all the nations is that their worldview is diametrically opposed to that of Christianity.
The worldview of man is centered upon man and is in rebellion against God. Therefore many of Christianity’s truth claims are going to be challenged as backward and primitive. Simply put there is no common ground for the Christian to start with. Yet there is still hope in reaching the lost; for, while Christians are commanded to have a reason for their faith, it is not the reasoned argument that wins the soul to Christ. It is only through the work of the Holy Spirit upon the life of the individual that a person is regenerated and granted salvation.

Bibliography
Greer, James. Christian Worldview. class notes.
Nash, Ronald H. Worldviews in Conflict. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992.
New American Standard Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1995.
Thomas, Jim. Coffeehouse Theology. Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 2000.
Walsh, Brian J. and J. Richard Middleton. The Transforming Vision. Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press, 1984.

[1] Matthew 28:19, NASB.
[2] 1 Peter 3:15, NASB.
[3] Ronald H. Nash, Worldviews in Conflict (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992), 40-41.
[4] James Greer, Christian Worldview, class notes.
[5] Nash, 14.
[6] Jim Thomas, Coffeehouse Theology (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 2000), 26.
[7] Brian J. Walsh and J. Richard Middleton, The Transforming Vision (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1984), 31.
[8] Ibid, 34.
[9] Greer.
[10] John 3:3, NASB.

Pathetic "pastor"

2005-06-24T08:09:00.000-07:00

After reading this, I will never buy anything by Joel Osteen (not that I have to this point anyway...but all the same).

New Links!

2005-06-22T10:15:00.000-07:00

Woo-Hoo!! I finally figured out how to add links to my sidebar! Now you can see what blogs I've been surfing fairly regularly. Maybe now Phil Johnson will mention me next time he does his "blogspotting" and I can get a few more hits. (Now I just have to figure out how to get my hit counter to work...)

Legalism and pluralism in the church

2005-06-22T09:39:00.000-07:00

Sorry I haven't posted much lately... been very busy at work. Found this excellent point surfing through some other blogs (see the full article here):

"I find it odd that, in an age marked by an explosion of licentious antinomianism in the Church, most pastors are preoccupied with 'legalism' so-called. Teenagers in the church can be fornicating with one another; wives can be leading their husbands around by the nose; or husbands can be passive and withdrawn from their responsibilities, but is this kind of open rebellion against the law of God attacked by pastors? Hardly. They’re too busy condemning the father whose daughters wear head coverings and Pilgrim dresses. 'Legalism!' he cries, and most of his sermons denounce such 'false piety,' while temple prostitution takes place right under his nose. It seems to me that our priorities are all bent out of shape. The primary problem in the Church today is not an over-zealous, legalistic application of God’s Word to all areas of life. The primary problem is rank, unadulterated antinomianism. It is a denial of the sufficiency of Scripture. It is theological pluralism. It’s the 'I’m okay, you’re okay' theology of syncretism. It’s the ear-tickling, hip, Burger King ('have it your way') Christianity. "

On the Scriptures

2005-06-15T11:15:00.000-07:00

This material is excerpted from a series of lessons I taught at my church last summer and includes information from other sources that I have not referenced here. I will post those references as soon as I track down my main notes. This is by no means a comprehensive treatment of the issues but I believe it to be fairly thorough for its brevity.

ON THE HOLY SCRIPTURES

The doctrines regarding the nature and origin of the Scriptures are very controversial these days. What is the importance of it? Many would say that the Bible of today is merely a moral guide for how we should live our lives and that its precepts are not hard and fast rules for us to live by today. Others claim that in its pages are written the very words of God. So who is right and why does it matter? It is critical for Christians to know not only the truth of the inspiration of the Scriptures but the importance this doctrine has in the life of every believer. An examination will be made of the view of the early Church as well as the philosophical ideology that began to undermine this original view. To start with, let us take a look at why we even need Scripture.

The Need for Scripture
Prior to the Fall man had complete, unhindered access to God. The Lord spoke to Adam face to face and the creature had perfect fellowship with his Creator. But with the sin of Adam came a change in that relationship. Adam was cast from the Garden and no longer had direct access to God. The glory of God was concealed from mankind (otherwise man, being in a state of sin, would have been consumed [Exodus 33:20]) and therefore God had to make a way to reveal Himself and His will to His special creatures. This revealing, or “revelation”, takes two forms: general revelation and special revelation.
General revelation (sometimes called “natural” revelation) is that evidence given by God through what He has created as well as through the conscience of men. Psalm 19 states:
The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork. Day unto day utters speech, And night unto night reveals knowledge. There is no speech nor language Where their voice is not heard. Their line has gone out through all the earth, And their words to the end of the world.
(Psalm 19:1-4; NKJV)

What this passage states is that every person on the face of the earth is given, through the wonders of the creation, clear evidence of the existence of God. Yet this type of revelation is not sufficient to inform man of God’s will nor to give a saving knowledge of God to those who heed it. It is possible to see God in the created order and not be saved. This is demonstrated in the book of Romans:
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
(Romans 1:18-23, NKJV)

So, it is seen here that general revelation is not sufficient to save, it is only sufficient to condemn. For this reason God gave a special revelation of Himself that clearly demonstrates His will for mankind as well as the way of salvation. This special revelation is found in the pages of Scripture. One children’s catechism asks, “Where do we learn to love and obey God?” and the answer is, “In the Bible alone.”
The importance of the doctrine has been evidenced throughout the history of the Church in that nearly every book on systematic theology has this doctrine either first or second in the order of doctrines addressed (second only to the doctrine of God). The reason for this is that all other doctrines rest on this one. There must be a high view of the Bible in order to have an objective basis for any other teaching. God has condescended to reveal Himself to mankind in the pages of Scripture and so any teaching regarding God must begin there. There are many other books men have written since the beginning of time but only the Bible has the very words of God given to man so that he would know how to be saved from judgment. In the same way that a person would not use a Kansas roadmap to find out how to get from St. Louis to Chicago, one cannot use any book but the Bible to find the way of the Lord.

The Origin of the Modern Bible
A common argument against the Bible is that it is merely a book written by imperfect men and that the Bible did not even reach its present form until the A.D. 400’s. On the surface this may seem like a valid argument. But one must look at the process of putting the Bible together in order to truly evaluate this argument. A brief mention will be made here of the rules used to determine if a writing was to be considered the inspired word of God.
In the early Church, what we call the Old Testament was immediately accepted as Holy Scripture simply due to the fact that it had been recognized as such by the Jews for centuries. It was written from the time of Moses up to about 400BC. This was the same Scripture used by Christ when He preached during His earthly ministry and He did not refute it’s validity as the word of God (and would have been in a unique position to do so, Himself being God!) As the apostles began preaching and teaching, they and their immediate companions wrote gospels and letters to be shared among the churches of the ancient world. There were probably hundreds of such letters circulating, so how did the Church determine what was inspired? The basic rules for canonicity were:
1) The writing had to bear apostolic authority. That is, it had to be written by or under the guidance of an apostle who had witnessed the risen Christ;

2) The writing had to conform to the “rule of faith.” That is to say it could not contradict what had already been recognized as Scripture; and

3) The writing had to be accepted as inspired by the Church at-large.

These were the basic guidelines that the various Church Fathers and Councils used in order to determine if a particular writing was to be authoritative in the lives of Christians. All this having been said, when Church leaders gathered in Carthage in 397A.D. it was not to decide what would be in the canon of Scripture, but to codify what had already been generally accepted as Scripture for centuries.
The next issue that tends to come up is in the arena of transmission. Of course the exact original documents of the New Testament have long ago rotted away and are no longer in existence. Because of this, the current translations in use today have been developed using copies of copies of copies. So how can it be determined that these copies are accurate representations of the originals? This question can actually be answered very simply. During Old Testament times the Scriptures were kept in the tabernacle or the temple near the Ark of the Covenant. When these copies began to wear out, a new copy would be made. Since this was ages before the printing press these copies had to be made by hand and there was a special class of men whose job it was to copy the Scriptures and they were the Scribes. Scribes took their job very seriously because they recognized that they were dealing with the very word of God. It would be a very grave matter to misrepresent Yahweh by adulterating His word with error so the Scribes made every effort to avoid this. When a copy of a particular book (scroll) was completed the scribes would count the number of letters in the copy and compare it with the number of letters known to be in the book being copied. If the number did not match, the copy would be destroyed and the scribe would have to begin anew. Then the letter in the exact center of the copy would be located by counting. If the center letter of the copy did not match the center letter of the original, again the copy would be destroyed. Measures such as these show the great care taken by the scribes in copying the Old Testament manuscripts in order to faithfully preserve God’s word for future generations. And example of the accuracy of this is seen is the sect of the Massoretes. This was a scribal group who copied Scriptures up to the 900’s. When the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in the 1930’s there was found a complete copy of the book of Isaiah dating to the 100’s BC. When this was compared to the Massoretic copy of Isaiah it was found to be an exact representation even after 1000 years of copying by hand. Needless to say, there can be no real argument that the Old Testament is today what it was at least in the time of Christ.
But what about the New Testament? A different route was taken in copying the gospels and the letters found in the New Testament, yet accuracy was maintained. Before looking at the New Testament manuscripts, writings of various secular authors will be considered. For instance, Julius Caesar’s work The Gallic Wars is undisputed even by liberal scholars as far as its historical accuracy goes, yet there are only ten surviving copies with a 1000 year lapse between the original writing and the oldest available copy. Homer’s Illiad is much better by comparison with 643 copies and only 500 years between the original and the oldest available copy. Yet the New Testament has over 24,000 copies (over 5,000 in Greek alone) and less than 100 years between the actual events and the oldest existing fragment! Through the science of statistical analysis it has been determined that the Bible we have today is a 99.5% accurate representation of the actual original documents.
Now on to the question of what the early Church believed regarding what we have today as our Bible. In the “first generation” of Christianity the apostles merely taught what had been handed to them by Christ. The second generation, who had learned from the apostles themselves, included Polycarp of Smyrna, Ignatius of Antioch and Clement of Rome. It could be said that these men merely passed on what they learned from their mentors, the apostles. It was not until around A.D. 200 that the question arose as to the authenticity and/or inspiration of the apostles’ writings. The Mauratorian canon (A canon being a collection of writings considered to be authoritative. The Bible we have today is our modern canon.) consisted of all the books we have in our current Bible with the exceptions of: 1 John, 1&2 Peter, Hebrews & James (note none of Paul’s writings were in doubt). The Church father Irenaeus made mention of all but Jude, 2 Peter, James, Philemon, 2&3 John & Revelation. The Syriac Canon dating from the 3rd century named all but John’s Revelation. Athanasius of Alexandria called the current 27-book New Testament canon the “only source of salvation and of the authentic teaching of the religion of the Gospel.” and Jerome (who wrote the Latin Vulgate) referenced the current listing of books in his writings. Lastly the current listing of 27 book of the New Testament was confirmed to be Holy Scripture at the Synods of Carthage in A.D. 397 and 418. Please note that the canon was confirmed, not decided. The distinct difference, as recognized by those at the Synods, is that the canon is determined by God and discovered by man; the canon is not determined by man.

Development Over Time of Doctrines Regarding Scripture
Over time the Church got away from the idea that the Scriptures were the final authority in the matters of man. The Roman Catholic church taught that the Scriptures do not represent the full revelation of God and that there are other traditions that were passed down from the apostles and that these teachings were also authoritative in the lives of Christians. As stated in the Baltimore Catechism, the church “does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored….” (C 82). They also held that the canon was an infallible collection of infallible books produced by the Church. The position of the reformers of the 1500’s was diametrically opposed to this position. They stated that the canon was a fallible collection of infallible books discovered by the Church. The reformers also held that the preservation of God’s word was insured by God Himself and not by the Church and that Christians needed only the witness of the Holy Spirit in order to understand the Scriptures and not the authorities of the Church. John Calvin stated in his Institutes of the Christian Religion:
“Let it therefore be held as fixed, that those that are inwardly taught by the Holy Spirit acquiesce implicitly in Scripture, carrying its own evidence along with it, deigns not to submit to proofs and arguments, but owes the full conviction with which we ought to receive it to the testimony of the Spirit. Enlightened by Him, we no longer believe, either on our own judgment or that of others, that the Scriptures are from God; but, in a way superior to human judgment, feel perfectly assured as much so as if we beheld the divine image visibly impressed on it that it came to us, by the instrumentality of men, from the very mouth of God.”

One of the more current assaults on the Scriptures began in the Enlightenment of the 17th Century. Philosophers like Descartes and Hobbs began teaching that the only things that can be known are known through sense perception. Immanuel Kant expanded this idea from the fields of science and philosophy into the religious arena by dividing the physical, or knowable, realm from the spiritual, or unknowable, realm. He believed that in order to have any knowledge of the spiritual, one must make a “leap of faith” because the spiritual realm, being unseen, could provide no real evidence for the truth claims made. This trend culminated in the teachings of David Strauss, who outright denied the existence of the supernatural and, thus, the possibility that God may have intervened in this world either through verbal revelation through the Scriptures, miracles or the Incarnation and resurrection of Christ.
The theological beliefs that sprang from this period became very man-centered, or anthropocentric, as opposed to being God-centered, or theocentric. Doctrine and theology became very much about how man can benefit from God rather than what man’s responsibilities are before God. The doctrine of original sin was either significantly weakened or eliminated altogether. Man was viewed as essentially good on his own rather than being tainted with sin in every part of his being. Because of this, the traditional (and biblical) views regarding redemption were replaced with the idea that man didn’t really need to be “saved” from anything and that Jesus was just an example and a great teacher who died either as an example of self-sacrificial love or as a political revolutionary. In either case, the critics say, Jesus was not divine and He was not raised from the dead (some even say His body was thrown in a shallow grave to be dug up and eaten by wild dogs.)

The Orthodox Christian View of the Bible
So what do Christians believe about the Bible? How do we know the Scriptures were inspired by God? It has already been shown that the historical position of the Church has been that the Scriptures are the word of God. In this treatment of the topic an examination will be made of the belief in the verbal, plenary inspiration of Scripture. First, what is meant by inspiration is that God, through the agency of the Holy Spirit, acted upon the authors of the books of the Bible in such a way so as to insure His message was accurately conveyed and recorded for future generations. This can be shown in passages such as 2 Timothy 3:16-17: “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.” (in this passage the word translated as “inspiration of God” actually means “God-breathed.”) and also in 2 Peter 1:20-21: “…knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.”
A belief in verbal inspiration means that one holds that the very words of Scripture were given by God (though not through a dictation-type of process). Evidence of this is seen in the gospel of Matthew where Christ states that “…assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.” (Matthew 5:18) In this passage, Jesus is specifically referring to the Old Testament; but, in regards to the New Testament, Christ also promised the coming Holy Spirit in verses such as:
Luke 12:12 – “For the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say.”

John 14:6 – “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.”

John 16:13 – “However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come.”

Plenary inspiration simply means that the Bible is inspired in all of its parts. The Old Testament is constantly confirmed by Christ in His teachings and none of it is called into question. Again we have the references above regarding Christ’s promise to the Apostles regarding what they would go on to write and there are also passages where the writers of the New Testament refer to one-another’s works (as well as their own) as Scripture such as:
I Thessalonians 4:8 – “Therefore he who rejects this does not reject man, but God, who has also given us His Holy Spirit.”

I Corinthians 2:13 – “These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.”

II Peter 3:15-16 – “and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.” (emphasis added)

So the verbal, plenary inspiration of Scripture can be seen clearly from those passages cited. Much better arguments have been made elsewhere by much better authors but the argument presented here should be more than sufficient to indicate that this doctrine is quite biblical in its foundation and, hopefully, it can also be seen that verbal, plenary inspiration is what the Bible teaches about itself.

Summary
As was stated in the opening, the doctrines regarding the nature and origin of the Scriptures are very controversial. But when evaluating the various views one must answer certain questions: 1) Has God revealed any kind of knowledge to man? (2) How? (3) What is the nature of that revelation?
The orthodox position can confidently state that God has revealed Himself to man in the pages of the Scriptures and that those Scriptures are the infallible word of God Himself and are inspired equally in all parts down to the very words used. One must then ask if any of the opposing views can give such a confident answer. If only parts of the Bible are inspired, how are we to know which parts? If the Bible is not inspired at all, how are we to know God properly? The answer is, there is no way to know God in any satisfying way apart from a belief in the inspired, inerrant word of God given to us in the pages of Scripture.

On the Problem of Evil

2005-06-15T11:13:00.000-07:00

This was a brief item I put together for a co-worker who had expressed doubt in the existence of God based on the "problem of evil."

The Basic Issue
It seems that every night on the news there are reports of war, famine, rape and murder. What is the purpose? Why do such things happen? If God exists, why does He allow such evil and suffering? The problem of evil has plagued mankind from the beginning of time. Many of the great thinkers of the world have put forth their own ideas on why there is pain and suffering and a few of these ideas will be examined here. While this is not intended to be an exhaustive study on the issue it is a presentation of my understanding of it. It is my hope that some may find it useful in their attempts to find an answer to the question of “why?”
A Discussion of Evil

The problem of evil is possibly one of the most difficult issues that any philosopher or theologian can address. The basic anti-theistic argument in the problem of evil goes something like this:
1. If God were all-powerful He would be able to prevent evil.
2. If God were all-good He would want to prevent evil.
3. If God were all-powerful and all-good there would be no evil.
4. There is evil in the world.
5. There is no all-good, all-powerful God.

This particular formulation would seem to present a formidable challenge to the theist but it is not impossible to overcome. As a matter of fact the theists (Christian theists in particular) would appear to have the best response to this particular issue. Some of the non-biblical views will be presented and then the biblical view will be expressed.
Some of the Eastern religions (as well as some Western cults) believe that evil is just an illusion; that there is no such thing as evil. As absurd as this may sound to many reasonable people, this is actually the core belief of the moral relativist. The moral relativist says that there is no objective morality and that morality is just a matter of taste or preference. By saying this, the relativist is actually giving up their right to make any judgment on what is good or evil because they have marginalized the meanings of these two terms. The idea that evil is just an illusion is also a slap in the face to anyone who has actually experienced what would be termed “evil.” One would be hard pressed to explain to a survivor of the Holocaust that their experience was all in their head. And try telling a grieving parent that their child wasn’t really killed by that stray bullet from the gangster’s gun. Those words would be devoid of any comfort or hope for those experiencing such pain. Therefore, in light of practical experience and what we know to be true, this view would have to be rejected outright.
Another possible explanation for the existence of evil is that, as mentioned above, God is not powerful enough to overcome it. So, you may ask, what is wrong with this? The problem with this view is manifold. First, the Bible teaches that God is all-powerful and sovereign. This means that He is in absolute control of all things. Second, if God cannot overcome evil then mankind has absolutely no assurance that evil will not triumph one day. Lastly, if God is not able to overcome evil then He is no god at all and is certainly not worthy of our honor or worship.
A third possibility is that this is the best possible world that God could have created. The line of reasoning used here states that in order for mercy to be shown, there has to be suffering. In order for there to be good, it logically follows that there must be evil. The problem with this is that it puts God beneath and subservient to certain “laws” of logic. This does not recognize that God is the source of logic and His ways may transcend our human reason (just as it states in the Bible ‘for My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways’ – Isaiah 55:8, NIV).

A Biblical Answer
There are many other “solutions” that have been offered up for the problem of evil both in theistic and anti-theistic circles, but most fall short in some way or other. So, you may ask, if these views are all flawed in some way, what better answer is there? In order to get a good answer, one needs only to turn to God’s word. In the Bible we see that God is absolutely all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good and sovereign. But where does this leave us in regards to the existence of evil in the world? The explanation comes in the transcendence of God. The fact that God is infinite in all His attributes and perfections means that mankind will never fully understand Him or His ways. As God spoke through the prophet Isaiah: “as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts.” (Isaiah 55:9, NKJV) We know that mankind is finite and limited. This being the case, mankind can never fully comprehend an infinite, eternal God. If man could fully understand God, he would be a god.
So what does all this have to do with explaining the problem of evil? Specifically this: just because God chooses to allow certain things to go on in the universe He created does not mean that it is purposeless. Being the sovereign creator of all that is, God does not owe us any explanation at all for what He does; and even if He did offer an explanation it does not mean that we would even be able to comprehend it. But He has condescended to provide somewhat of an answer in His word. We see one explanation in the story of Joseph.
Joseph had ten brothers who didn’t care too much for their spoiled sibling. Their father had shown great favoritism toward Joseph and this created resentment in his other sons. When an opportunity arose, Joseph’s brothers threw him in an empty well only to draw him out later to sell to slave traders headed for Egypt. They soaked his coat in animal’s blood and told their father that his favorite son had been eaten by wild beasts. Joseph was then sold as a household slave to a prominent Egyptian official where he gained favor for the good work he did. When the official’s wife wanted Joseph to lie with her and Joseph refused, she accused him of rape. After being left in prison for several years, he interpreted a troubling dream that Pharaoh had. The dream predicted seven years of abundant crops followed by seven years of great famine. Because of his interpretation and his plan to save back food for the lean years Joseph was placed as second to Pharaoh in the land of Egypt. After a time, Joseph’s brothers came to buy food from the Egyptians for their starving family. Now Joseph finally had his answer for all of the hardships he had suffered. As he so aptly said to his brothers, “as for you, you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, in order to bring it about as it is this day, to save many people alive.” Did God have to go through such a roundabout way of saving the Joseph’s family from famine? Maybe not; but would his brothers have ever learned the dangers of jealousy and impulsive actions? Would Joseph have learned the humility he learned as a slave or the patience of being in prison for so long?
So we see that God is sovereign in all that happens and has reasons for allowing what He allows. He may not always give us those reasons and we may not always understand those reasons. But we know that God does all things in order to display His glory and to encourage growth in His people. His plans and actions are always to that end and He has a plan for the overall good of those whom He loves (Romans 8:28). Sometimes His plan may involve allowing evil to exist in order to display His glory in the most clear way (Romans 9:17). Just because we, as finite beings, cannot comprehend God’s reasons for allowing certain things to come to pass does not mean that He does not exist or that He is less than who the Bible makes Him out to be. We are simply called to trust that what happens will result in the ultimate good of those who love God and for His glory.

Critique of Blaker, pt. 4

2005-06-06T10:41:00.000-07:00

Once he turns the corner to the twentieth century, Mr. Kagin introduces the modern-day Fundamentalists. He cites the series of pamphlets titled The Fundamentals which stressed the ideas of: the verbal inspiration of the Bible, the virgin birth, substitutionary atonement, the bodily resurrection and the second coming. I would agree that these issues have been correctly identified as fundamentals of Christianity. If any of these particular doctrines are taken away or diminished then the faith that is based on that new understanding is not rightly Christian. In fact, these fundamentals can be traced back to the very beginning of Christianity. The early Christians believed with all their heart that the Bible was the very word of God. They also believed (obviously according to the Gospel accounts) that Jesus of Nazareth was born of a virgin. The letters of Paul (written no later than 66A.D.) abound with the doctrine that Christ’s death was a substitutionary atonement. There were over 500 eye-witnesses of the physically resurrected Christ, and Jesus promised (as shown in the Scriptures) that He would return again to gather His Church and judge the world.
Next, Mr. Kagin quotes Don Lattin where he states that Fundamentalists “believe that the Bible is literally true and without error, stress evangelism, emphasize the approaching ‘end times’ and the second coming of Christ and practice separation from nonbelievers.” I agree with most of what Mr. Lattin is quoted here as saying. It is fair to characterize true Christianity in these terms with the exception of the last phrase. This may stem from a misunderstanding of what it means to be separated from “the world.” What Biblical Christianity teaches is that we are not to participate in and become acclimated to the way of life found in this world. It would be the same as an American traveling in, say, Zambia. He is going to behave as an American even though those around him are behaving as Zambians. So, the Christian is to behave as a citizen of God’s Kingdom rather than as a citizen of this world. Also, if the Christian is to emphasize evangelism, how can this be done if he is separated from nonbelievers? This is a logical impossibility. You cannot win someone to your point of view by avoiding them. Christians are to engage the unbelieving world around them and share their faith in a gentle and respectful way.
Once the historical foundation is laid, Mr. Kagin begins to analyze and critique what he believes to be representative of Christian fundamentalism. He begins by attacking the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture. Right from the start, he reveals his total disdain for the Bible. He contrasts the evolutionistic view of an earth that is billions of years old with the “creation myth” presented in Scripture, totally disregarding the many scientists in every field of study he mentions (physics, geology, astronomy, biology, etc.) that at least question the truth of the evolutionary theory or hold to the biblical account of the origin of all things. He states that “when the facts don’t fit the dogma, the literalists discard the facts.” In actuality, it is the dogmatic evolutionist that, while they may not discard the facts, certainly distort the facts or manufacture “facts” in order to support their increasingly untenable position. Mr. Kagin then makes the mistake of taking a particular verse of Scripture out of context in order to support his point of view. He states that fundamentalists want prayer in schools and other public settings, while Jesus condemns public prayer in the Sermon on the Mount as shown in Matthew 6:6. The problem with the application of this verse to the situation in question is that of context. In Matthew 6:6, Jesus was commanding His followers not to pray “as the hypocrites do.” The idea presented in this passage, as taken in its larger context, is to avoid practicing “religiosity” in order to be noticed by men. Of course the Scriptures are packed with instances where great men of God pray publicly; so Jesus is not contradicting the practice in general, He is condemning the motive.
The first issue that I have in regards to the description given for evangelism is that the author implies that the evangelist is the one that is doing the “saving” where true Christianity teaches that the evangelist only points the individual to the one who actually does the saving, that being Jesus Christ. Next, Mr. Kagin claims that evangelism is based on the idea of an eminent apocalypse. While this may be true in some minority circles within Christendom, true evangelism is predicated on the command given in Scripture by Jesus when he gave what is called the “Great Commission”:
“And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, ‘All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.’” (Matthew 28:18-19, NKJV)

Another motive for evangelism would be the Christian’s concern for the eternal destiny of those with whom they associate. Again, if one were convinced that another person were in impending danger it would be inhuman not to warn them of the danger and show them the way of escape.
It is at this point that Mr. Kagin gets to what I believe to be the source of his disdain for “fundamentalist Christians.” He claims that fundamentalist Christians hold to a kind of authoritarianism that demands “blind obedience” and that they exercise “aggression”, “mean-spiritedness” and “vindictiveness” against any who would oppose them. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Granted, the biblical model of the authority structure for mankind does not mesh well with Mr. Kagin’s secular or humanist ideas of authority structures, it is a solid structure nonetheless. While the structure may seem rigid, any structure of lasting value should be. Who would build a suspension bridge from marshmallows? Secondly, no one on earth is called to “blindly” follow any other person. While man is given authority, that authority is a conditional authority. No one is required to obey a command that is in contradiction to what has been revealed previously. Therefore, when the young Hebrew boys were commanded by the God-ordained ruler of Babylon to bow to a golden statue, they disobeyed upon pain of death, because God had already commanded not to bow down before a graven image. Lastly, Mr. Kagin ignores the fact that, though God gives men the authority on the earth He also holds them responsible for what they do with that authority. There is great responsibility in being a man in a Christian home. He is God’s representative in the home and will be judged for every thought, word and deed that departs from the picture God gives of Himself in the Bible. Every idle word will be called into account. It’s no wonder that Mr. Kagin would like to see women in charge; he likely couldn’t handle the responsibility.
Lastly, the author gets into an “analysis” of eschatological views, completely ignoring the fact that this very issue is a source of contention throughout all Christendom. The only reason that it is even brought up is because of the fact that one of the common characteristic beliefs of the “fundamentalists” is the second-coming of Christ. Again, while Christians do hold to the second coming, there are many different views on the details of the events surrounding the event itself. Once all of the most popular eschatological views have been critiqued, the author goes on to point out that the very idea of the second coming drives Christians to be “socially irresponsible” as they just do for themselves while waiting for Christ to return. It eludes me how Mr. Kagin can, on the one hand, decry the Christian lack of social concern (nevermind all the Christian charities, food kitchens, homeless shelters, orphanages, hospitals, etc.) and on the other hand, criticize them for being involved in the political process. Does Mr. Kagin not consider voting to be a “social responsibility”? I will not delve into all the various issues that Mr. Kagin brings up at the end of his article, but will just leave the previous statement as it is to simmer for a while.
In conclusion I will return to my statement in the opening paragraph. In this article, from the opening quote by Randall Terry to the closing implication that Christian fundamentalists could bring about a crisis “such as what was seen on September 11, 2001,” a massive straw-man has been erected and Edwin Kagin has hung the name-tag of “Christian Fundamentalist” on it. He then takes his own limited observations of what he believes Christianity to be and burns the effigy. Dishonest tactics are used in order to paint Christians in the most negative light possible. History and science are distorted and the logical implications of a totally secular society are not even mentioned. Far from being a fair-minded critique of Christianity, this article represents nothing but a hit-piece against those who do not conform to Mr. Kagin’s vision of what Christianity should be.

Blaker update

2005-06-03T14:50:00.000-07:00

Finished reading chapter 3: an article by feminist Bobbie Kirkhart entitled Little Ones to Him Belong. Very disturbing reading to be sure. I will post the rest of my response to Edwin Kagin's article soon and will begin developing my response to Ms. Kirkhart this week. Keep watching for it!

Examining our election

2005-06-02T10:51:00.000-07:00

Two days in a row, now, I’ve heard on the radio references to the biblical exhortation to “make your calling and election sure.” Today, Alastair Begg tied this with the admonition Christ gives in the Sermon on the Mount to enter through the “narrow gate” and how making your calling and election sure is a process of making sure you have entered through the narrow gate. All this brought to mind the analogy of a road-trip. Just as a driver utilizes a road map or atlas, checking for signs, towns and intersections for reference, in order to make sure they are on the right path to reach their desired destination; so the Christian utilizes the Bible, checking their lives against the clear definitions and pictures of what a true Christian lives like, to make sure they truly have been converted and are on the path to that Celestial City they long to reach.

Weekend Adventure

2005-05-31T10:33:00.000-07:00

Went on a 20 mile backpacking trip this past weekend. Left on Friday, got a late start on the trail, only got about 5-1/2 miles in before having to make camp, tent was almost ripped into by a large animal in the middle of the night, almost stepped on a poisonous snake Saturday, hiked 9 miles with blisters all over my feet and got back home about 12:30 Saturday night...MAN it was GREAT! Hope to figure out how to post pics of it when I get them back. Best time of all was singing hymns around the campfire with my buddy Trent. God's creation is awe-inspiring.

A thought on embryonic stem-cell research

2005-05-25T10:53:00.000-07:00

Another excellent note on the STR blog.

There is a lot of deception going on in the way this debate is being covered in the media. It is made (in most outlets) to sound like conservatives are against stem-cell research. This is not true. There is much stem-cell research being conducted with adult stem-cells as well as stem-cells from the blood collected from the umbilical cords of newborns (cord-blood stem-cells). Both of these areas of research have shown promise, where embryonic stem-cell research has yielded little or no gain. Yet those in favor of embryonic stem-cell research (ESCR) insist on tearing apart these pre-born children in order to cannibalize their stem-cells. Another misconception being foisted by the media is that the President is against stem-cell research. Again false. He has made it perfectly clear that he only opposes embryonic stem-cell research and has pledged that no tax money will be spent in support of it. He has not banned the research...he has only stripped it of federal funding. If those in favor of ESCR want it to continue, they can donate their money...just don't expect my tax dollars to pay for this morally bankrupt work.

I also believe that there is one issue that is not being addressed in this debate (at least not by those who favor ESCR) and that is what happens when the main argument is taken to its logical conclusion. The argument I've seen presented most often is that "the embryos will be destroyed anyway." Under this logic, why not perform experimentation on terminal alzheimers patients? Why not fiddle with the genes of those in a "persistent vegitative state"? Truth be known, there are some on the radical side of the issue that would concur with these conclusions, but the mass of people making this argument refuse to see the connection between the unborn embryos and the terminally ill. They just cannot see that using the logic of "the embryo will be destroyed (will die) anyway" matches perfectly with "the invalid will die anyway."

It brings to mind the Scriptures where it is stated "professing to be wise, they became fools...." (Rom 1:22).

Pluralism unmasked

2005-05-24T13:36:00.000-07:00

Found this on the Stand to Reason weblog. Wonder how many other pluralists would be willing to admit to their exclusivism?

New Testament Worship

2005-05-19T09:19:00.000-07:00

I've been listening to John Piper on the radio and he is talking about the idea of Worship in the New Testament. He talked about the word used in the Old Testament and in Revelation carries the idea of falling down before someone/something. But this idea is strangely absent from the epistles. He explained from Scripture that Jesus changed the nature of worship when He came in the Incarnation. As pointed out in John 4 (the Samaritan woman at the well) Jesus says, "...a time is coming and has now come when true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshippers the Father seeks." (emphasis added)
Piper went on to explain that, with the advent of Christ, worship is no longer a matter of where or by what ritual. It is now a matter of the heart and mind being bowed before Him and His will.
While Piper was going through all this, my mind kept going to the passages in the epistles where Paul states in 1 Cor 3:16 that we as believers are the "temple of God", and in 1 Peter 2:5 where Peter writes that we, "as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood." What an amazing thought. The central focus of Jewish worship until 70AD was the temple in Jerusalem (prior to that, it was the tabernacle). Yet, with the coming of Christ, all of the outward manifestations of worship were done away with. Now, mankind is to worship God through their submissive spirit, following His word as truth, and offering themselves as a "living sacrifice" (Rom. 12:1) to the Almighty and Holy Lord.

Critique of Blaker, pt. 3

2005-05-18T11:50:00.000-07:00

The One Who Rules the Wind and the Waves:
A Response to The Perils of Fundamentalism and the Imperilment of Democracy

In his contribution to the book, Edwin F. Kagin opens with a quote from Randall Terry, founder of Operation Rescue:

I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good…Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a Biblical duty; we are called by God, to conquer this country. We don’t’ want equal time. We don’t want pluralism.

In sharing this quote, Mr. Kagin, an attorney in northern Kentucky and a humanist, erects quite the massive straw-man. It is becoming quite evident that such straw-men are the primary source of fuel for the fire burning in this book.
Mr. Kagin begins by mentioning the growth of fundamentalist groups in various world religions around the globe. He cites polls and articles indicating that about half of the Christians in America claim to be fundamentalists. Yet what does that label mean? What is a fundamentalist? A fundamentalist is one who holds to the fundamentals of their belief system. Fundamentalists keep a tight hold on those things which make their belief system distinctive and without which their system would be something entirely different. For example, would a dog still be a dog if it had retractable claws, meowed and chased mice? Would Buddhism be the same if the adherents to that system denied that Buddha ever existed and that his writings are a sham? In the same way, Christians must hold to certain ideas in order to remain Christian. It’s a matter of definition. I believe that Mr. Kagin’s problem with fundamentalist Christians lies in how Christianity is defined. Personally, I believe Mr. Kagin should leave that definition up to the Christians. According to the Law of Excluded Middle, Christianity is either defined by A or Not A. Either the Fundamentalists are right or they are wrong, there’s no middle ground. Obviously they believe they are right. Again, with the Law of Identity, if Christianity is defined by A, then it is defined by A. If the Fundamentalists are right, then they are right. One cannot argue that the Fundamentalist definition is right for them and that some other definition of Christianity is alright for others. Logic and reason don’t work like that.
Mr. Kagin goes on to define Christian Fundamentalism as “an inflexible, absolutist worldview.” Actually, I have absolutely no problem with that statement. When truth is at stake, one cannot afford to be flexible or wishy-washy about it. If it is true that a child will die by playing on the freeway during rush hour, a parent must be “inflexible and absolutist” about keeping them away from that traffic. So it is with spiritual truth of the sort dealt with in Christianity. If it is true that a person will be punished in hellfire for eternity unless they turn from their godless ways and follow Christ, then it is the duty of the Christian to inform them of this and not to flex on this issue. Anything else would be callous and unloving.
I’m not quite sure why Mr. Kagin went off on his King James Version tangent but I will address it here briefly. The idea that King James was a homosexual had very little to do with the decreased use of the translation he commissioned. Many Christians use more modern translations for many reasons, among which are ease of reading (King James English can be difficult to wade through) and the fact that the more modern translations come from older, more reliable Greek and Hebrew manuscripts that were yet to be discovered at the time of King James.
Also, the way in which Gary Bauer is attacked is of questionable character and smacks of courtroom tactics. The technique is called “poisoning the well.” The passage
in question reads as follows:

"Gary Bauer from northern Kentucky is former president of the Family Research Council (FRC) a Christian fundamentalist “pro family” organization, a former domestic policy advisor to President Ronald Reagan, and a Republican candidate for the 2002 Presidential campaign. It has been widely circulated that Bauer concluded that nothing touched by a homosexual could be good for good Christians:

I feel uncomfortable that good Christians all over America, and indeed the world, are using a document commissioned by a homosexual. Anything that has been commissioned by a homosexual has obviously been tainted in some way.

This originated as parody, but so accurately fits Bauer’s views, that it has been frequently cited by fundamentalists."

Mr. Kagin has now done a masterful job of making his readers believe that the quote given has actually come from the mouth of Gary Bauer. Even though he comes back right afterward and states that the comment “originated as parody” the damage has already been done to Mr. Bauer’s character. It is the same tactic used in the courtroom when an attorney wants the jury to hear his point of view, he states it (or words a question in such a way that his implied view is clear). Although the attorney knows he will get an objection from his opponent, the jury has already heard the statement and the seed the attorney wanted to plant has been sown.
In addressing the interplay between the fundamentalist mindset and the law, it is interesting to note that a man who has studied law for his livelihood has failed to recognize the importance of Christian ideals in the creation of the laws of this land. If Mr. Kagin were to actually study the Bible, he would find the ideas of justice, mercy, fair trial and other sacred areas of our legal system described quite clearly. Fundamentalist Christians do believe that the laws of our land should conform to the Law of God because that is the only way to insure that they are moral and just. If there is not a consistent standard of measure used throughout the construction of an edifice, then the structure will eventually collapse. So it is with the legal system. While he is right in identifying the Christian belief that the Bible is the final authority, Mr. Kagin is incorrect in his assertion that Fundamentalists determine what the word of God is and that sinners are only those who disagree with the Fundamentalists. All mankind, not just Christians, have been given the word of God in the Bible so that they will know the truth for themselves; and sinners are those who have rejected God and His Son Jesus and have decided to live their lives as they see fit.
The Bible is not “invented histories framed in legend and allegory.” It is historical fact framed in the redemptive story of a God who loves His people. Archaeology has confirmed biblical claims time and again. Not once has the Bible been proven wrong in its accounting of history. Mr. Kagin claims that there is no essential difference between Christian fundamentalism and Islamic fundamentalism. If we go back to the definition of fundamentalism given above, then Mr. Kagin is correct. Christianity holds that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant word of God, that Jesus Christ was God and man in one body that was born of a virgin. That this same Jesus was crucified as a sacrifice for the sins of mankind and that he was raised from the dead and will return again. Islam, on the other hand, believes that there is one god, Allah, and his chief prophet was Mohammed and that by abiding by the teachings of the Q’uran and the five pillars of Islam one may someday dwell in Paradise. So, yes, fundamentalist Christianity holds to the foundational doctrines of Christianity in the same way that fundamentalist Muslims hold to the foundational doctrines of Islam. The difference, and it is a major difference, lies in what the foundational doctrines of these two systems teach. In Christianity, followers are exhorted to love one another, care for the needy and to spread the Gospel of salvation in Jesus Christ to all the earth. In Islam, followers are commanded to follow the teachings of Mohammed, including the killing of infidels.
Nowhere in the New Testament do you see a command for Christians to kill non-Christians. Yet in the Q’uran you see commands to kill the infidels (those who do not submit to Islam).
From here, Mr. Kagin launches into an historical progression of fundamentalism in religion from antiquity to the present, focusing on Christianity. Before he begins on the American leg of this historical journey, there is the odd statement that Fundamentalist approaches to social problems sometimes exacerbate them because the Fundamentalists approach the issue in a “backwards, unlawful” or “ineffective” way, such as with teen pregnancy and child abuse. I’m curious what study this came from? Or is it just opinion being thrown out in such a way that the reader is supposed to assume that it’s true? Until he cites a study showing a direct correlation between teen pregnancy rates or child abuse with fundamentalist ideas I’m going to have to doubt Mr. Kagin’s claim here.
The flow of thought picks back up with the history of the Puritans in the colonial days of America. Mr. Kagin tells the story of how the Puritans and Pilgrims came from England to escape religious persecution and to establish a Christian community in the New World. He passes on the saying that “a Puritan is one who is haunted by a lurking suspicion that somehow, someone, somewhere might still be happy.” While this may fit the stereotype of the Puritans, their belief was that the greatest pleasure was found in leading a pure life dedicated to finding pleasure in God and His Law rather than trying to find fulfillment in the fleeting pleasures of this present world. As Mr. Kagin goes on to credit the Puritans for the way in which they helped to shape the character of America in the early days, he states that “ideas are not responsible for the people who support them.” While I do agree with him in principle on this point, I would have to qualify the statement with the complimentary idea that a person’s heart and character can be known by the ideas they support. Judging by the ideas that Mr. Kagin credits the Puritans for supporting (i.e. honesty, integrity, duty, education and family) I would say that even he characterizes them as quite honorable people. As far as the idea of establishing a theocracy in the colonies goes, it has been said that if Christians decided to set up a society based entirely on God’s Law and the principles of Christianity, that would be the most wonderful utopia in the history of the world. Neighbors would love and care for one another, no one would be in need and God would be honored in all that the people undertook to do. Therefore, a government (or at least a system of law) that is based upon the Law of God would be the best option of all the manmade forms of government that have ever existed. As a side note, the Mayflower Compact was only signed by 41 of the 102 passengers because that was the number of men that survived the trans-Atlantic voyage to America. Women and children would not have been given the option of signing the document.
In making the claim that modern fundamentalists are desiring to create a theocracy in America in seeking to make laws that reflect what is commanded by God, Mr. Kagin makes a fundamental error regarding the nature of law (surprising considering he is an attorney.) At its core, any set of laws is a reflection of the morality of those making the laws. For instance, if it is considered immoral to steal another person’s private property then laws are passed making it illegal. Nowadays it is considered immoral by many for tobacco to be smoked in enclosed public places, so ordinances have been passed to make such activity illegal. Once it was generally considered immoral for two men to have sexual relations with each other, so anti-sodomy laws were enacted. Now the morality (or lack thereof) within the American judiciary has been enforced upon those parts of the country having such laws, striking them down as unconstitutional (since when has there been a constitutional right to sodomy?) Therefore we come to the issue of “theocracy.” The only way that Mr. Kagin and his colleagues seem to be defining theocracy is a government that makes laws based on the morality of a given religious system, when in reality a theocracy would be direct rule by God Himself. So the question is no longer “theocracy or not-theocracy”, it now becomes “what moral system best fits the direction we, as a nation, desire to go.” I personally believe that our country would best be served by laws reflecting the moral code within the Judeo-Christian.
At this point Mr. Kagin goes on to show how Article VI, Clause 3 of the Constitution prohibits a religious “litmus test” for candidates for public office. I would certainly agree that this should not be the case, but I am not aware of any attempt being made to require that one be a Christian to run for office. That being said, there is not such constitutional restriction placed upon voters keeping them from denying non-Christians their vote. Would Mr. Kagin have a nation wherein there are new elections held anytime someone feels they were not elected simply because of their religious beliefs? I hardly think so…but I may be mistaken. He then mentions the infamous “wall of separation” that does not exist in the Constitution. The ideas in the First Amendment Non-Establishment Clause are covered in the response to Kimberly Blaker’s opening article and I will not belabor the point any more here. Suffice it to say, it shows total ignorance of the Constitution and its framers to insist on a “wall of separation” in the way Mr. Kagin and his ilk do.
Once he reaches the point where he addresses the progress of fundamentalism in America, I believe Mr. Kagin has his history together, yet he cannot quite seem to get a grasp on the true motivation behind those he names. While he is quite right in naming such greats as George Whitefield and Jonathan Edwards as those who helped to spread a “fundamentalist” view of Christianity in the Colonies, he misrepresents their intended purpose. He cites Edwards’ “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” and labels it as “a bitter, abusive denunciation of those who do not share the preacher’s views and what God’s wrath will do to them….” I can assure Mr. Kagin, and anyone else, that the last thing Jonathan Edwards was trying to accomplish through this sermon was to persuade people to his viewpoint. What Mr. Edwards (and any worthwhile preacher) was trying to do was to let people see God’s viewpoint as shown in Scripture. And while much of the sermon is dark and ominous in nature (yet so very true), at the end Mr. Edwards holds out the hope of escape from the judgment of God through trusting in the sacrifice of Christ. This type of preaching is far from abusive, it is necessary. An excellent parallel can be found in the world of medicine. Imagine a person with a terminal illness. What doctor would be derided as abusive for telling the patient their diagnosis and prognosis? In fact, the doctor would be sued for malpractice if he did not tell the patient what was wrong with him! And so it is with the preacher of the Gospel. He is compelled to tell the world of their sin and the judgment to come to them because of it. But, just as the doctor can hold out the hope of treatment if the patient will submit to it, so the preacher holds out the hope of the gospel of Jesus Christ for those who place their trust in Him.

Class on 1 Peter

2005-05-16T12:54:00.000-07:00

Actually got into the text of 1 Peter in my class yesterday. Man, I love teaching this stuff! I was supposed to go through verses 1 through 12 but I got hung up in verse 2 and never made it past there. There's so much good stuff there..."elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by His blood." How can you not spend an hour in that??

Lies, lies, lies

2005-05-12T10:43:00.000-07:00

The deception continues. I've started on the 2nd chapter of Blaker's book. It's an article written by Edwin Kagin. I'm not sure which is worse; lying by attributing a quote to someone when they didn't say it or taking an actual quote out of context in order to make it sound like the person quoted meant something other than what they did mean. The following excerpt from his article The Gathering Storm is in the context of the claim that fundamentalist Christians no longer favor the King James version of the Bible because some say that King James, who commissioned the translation, was a homosexual. I'm going to be careful to put Mr. Kagin in context here and then analyze what he's done:

Gary Bauer from northern Kentucky is former president of the Family Research Council (FRC) a Christian fundamentalist "pro family" organization, a Republican candidate for the 2002 Presidential campaign. It has been widely circulated that Bauer concluded that nothing touched by a homosexual could be good for good Christians:

"I feel uncomfortable that good Christians all over America, and indeed the world, are using a document commissioned by a homosexual. Anthing that has been commissioned by a homosexual has obviously been tainted in some way."

This originated as parody, but so accurately fits Bauer's views, that it has been frequently cited by fundamentalists.

Now, what Mr. Kagin has done is what is what is called "poisoning the well." He has taken a quote that did not come from the lips of Gary Bauer, puts it in a context where it is implied that he did say it, then recants after the fact by stating that it "originated as parody." Although he did finally state that the fictitious quote was parody, it has already been placed in the reader's mind that Mr. Bauer actually did make that statement. By doing this, Mr. Kagin has conditioned his audience to believe that Mr. Bauer did actually make the statement in question. And they are accusing the Christians of distortion, manipulation and subterfuge?

And so it goes, and so it goes.

critique of Blaker (pt 2)

2005-05-10T11:23:00.000-07:00

True biblical Christianity, to put it in the words of James, is: “to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world.” The goal of every true Christian is to become more like Jesus Christ as described in the New Testament. What objection does Ms. Blaker have to this? Does she object to caring for the sick? Does she object to showing compassion to the hurting? No, what she likely finds most offensive is Jesus’ statement that He is “the way, the truth and the life. No man comes to the Father except by [Him].” If this statement is true (and I believe that it is), then would it not be extremely unloving of the Christian believer to not inform others of this single way of salvation? Ms. Blaker would likely jump in at this point with the argument that some “Christians” attempt to do this through violence, but I challenge her to show one place in the New Testament where violence is condoned in the conversion of the lost. Again, just because someone calling themselves Christian behaves a certain way in the name of Christ does not mean that it is something condoned by Christ or in the Scriptures. That would include the ideas of concubinage (i.e. the Branch Davidians), racism (i.e. the Christian Identity Movement) and murder (i.e. Army of God). Again, by focusing attention on the small, radical elements claiming identification with Christ, Ms. Blaker attempts to paint all who hold to a conservative Christian view in the same light. This is unfair, irresponsible and, as she describes Dr. Dobson, manipulative.
Ms. Blaker continues with her unfounded alarmism as she goes on to say that children in “fundamentalist” homes are “at high risk for physical abuse and incest.” I personally find this statement extremely offensive and am appalled at the author’s total lack of facts to back it up. But that is not part of her agenda. She only seeks to throw the idea out there to create suspicion of Christian parents knowing that those who quote her will be relying only on her authority as the writer of such an article rather than checking her facts. After all, if it’s in print it must be true, right? Again, Christian parents, if they are truly following biblical principles, are the best, most loving and nurturing parents in the world today.
The author’s ignorance of biblical Christianity is only matched by her ignorance of the United States Constitution. She refers to the “Separation Clause” in the first amendment. There is no such clause. The anti-establishment clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution reads as follows:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
There is nothing in this clause, or anywhere else in the Constitution, about a “wall of separation.” This is an assurance that the government will not pass a law making an official State Church, not that religion has no place in informing the views of government officials or the laws they devise. If there were laws against such in intrusion of religious ideas in the government, then that would be a denial of the right of the individuals in government to exercise their faith, thus violating the same clause. Studies have shown that of the to 100 sources of quotes found in the writings of the founding fathers of our nation the Bible is far and away the most-quoted source (four times higher than the 2nd most-quoted source). With this in mind, where does Ms. Blaker believe the founders got their ideas for the governance of this nation? Even the French statesman Alexis DeToquville recognized the United States as a nation founded upon Christian ideas as shown in this passage from his work Democracy in America:

“The greatest part of British America was peopled by men who… brought with them into the New World a form of Christianity which I cannot better describe than by styling it a democratic and republican religion. This contributed powerfully to the establishment of a republic and a democracy in public affairs; and from the beginning, politics and religion contracted an alliance which has never been dissolved. … It may be asserted, then, that in the United States no religious doctrine displays the slightest hostility to democratic and republican institutions.”

The very principles found in the Bible are what our great nation was founded upon, not the godless ideas of secular humanism. Far from placing democracy in peril, as the title of this article implies, Christianity is actually the very source of democracy.

Worldviews in Conflict

2005-05-09T13:43:00.000-07:00

Felt the need to post this excerpt from Dr. Albert Mohler's blog:

"As Christians, we are unavoidably engaged in a great battle of worldviews--a conflict over the most basic issues of truth and meaning. A worldview that starts with the existence and sovereign authority of the self-revealing God of the Bible will be diametrically opposed to worldviews that deny God or engage in what we might call 'defining divinity down.'"

That pretty much sums it up. And it accurately reflects the words of Christ in John 14:6 -- "I am the way, the truth and the life. No man comes to the Father except through me." Sounds pretty exclusivistic to me.

Critique of Blaker

2005-05-06T14:02:00.000-07:00

Here are the introductory paragraphs of my attempt to refute the ideas in Kimberly Blaker's book The Fundamentals of Extremism: The Christian Right in America (New Boston Books, 2003):

The Bible is replete with reminders to Christians that they will face various trials and tribulations as they seek to imitate Christ in their lives and expand the Kingdom of God. It is no less true today than it was in the first century when the words of the New Testament were first being penned by the apostles. Yet it is saddening that the cause of Christ is under such vehement attack by those who despise God and wish nothing more than to see a godless world community brought to pass. And this in a country whose founders expressed such deep devotion and indebtedness to the sovereign God they saw as their guide and their helper. I believe that one of the best ways to discredit a group is to take the unorthodox and fringe elements that claim to be part of that group and paint the picture that these extremists are the legitimate representatives of the group. That is what is attempted in this work.

In The Fundamentals of Extremism, Ms. Blaker seeks to inform her readers of the dangers of a broad group that she identifies with the term “Christian Right.” The book is actually a compilation of articles written by Ms. Blaker and others of secular-humanist/atheistic beliefs. The best way to characterize the work is with the word “misrepresentation.” I’m not sure if Ms. Blaker failed to do any research at all in writing and compiling these articles or if she merely focused her research to those sources that agree with her anti-Christian views. Either way, she and her co-contributors are completely out of touch with the teachings and motives of genuine biblical Christianity. In this paper I will take each article in turn and refute the false claims and straw-man arguments presented by the various authors and, hopefully, present a solid defense of Christianity as it is shown in Scripture.

In the opening article, Kimberly Blaker comes out with both guns blazing…but they’re loaded with blanks. She makes a lot of alarming noise, but there is no substance in the call-to-arms. There are so many issues in this article that it’s hard to know where to begin, so I will begin…at the beginning.

Ms. Blaker opens the article with a quote by Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family ministries:
Those who control what young people are taught, and what they experience – what they see, hear, think and believe – will determine the future course for the nation.

While she does not dispute the veracity of the statement, she merely uses it as a springboard to launch into a rant about how Dr. Dobson uses his great influence to “wield power over the Republican Party” and to “manipulate unsuspecting Americans who otherwise might not agree with his views.” Needless to say, influence does not equal subversion, it’s part of the democratic process. What does Ms. Blaker think that groups like People for the American Way and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State are trying to do? While Dr. Dobson does have a certain amount of influence in what happens in Washington, he by no means controls the actions of Congress. There have been many times that the U.S. legislature has passed bills that were contrary to Dr. Dobson’s wishes as well as defeating bills that he would have liked to have seen passed. It is only after this character-bashing and ad-hominem attack that Ms. Blaker gets to the heart of things. She makes the claim that Dr. Dobson’s quote reveals the desire on the part of the “Christian Right” to exercise mind-control over the children of America in the same way that radical Islamic fundamentalists do. Here is where the gloves (thin as they are) come off.

In the very next paragraph, Ms. Blaker comes with a full-on assault on conservative Christianity. She attempts to draw a parallel between the radical Islamic madrasahs, or religious schools, with the homeschooling movement. In her mind, Christians are attempting to brainwash their children through isolating them from the world in order that they may one day take over the world and impose Christianity on all mankind. It is here that Ms. Blaker first demonstrates her total ignorance of not only the concept of raising children, but also of biblical Christianity and the homeschooling movement. I will address the ideas of the education of children and then make a defense of biblical Christianity opposing Ms. Blaker’s attempt to equate it with fundamentalist Islam.

It doesn’t matter what a person believes, when they have children they almost always try to pass those beliefs on to their children. It is for this reason that these core beliefs are often referred to as values…because it is this base of knowledge that the parent holds as valuable in order to live a fulfilled life. I would assume that Ms. Blaker values independent thought and the discarding of anything that can’t be proven empirically, and judging by her statements in this article I would assume that if she has children, she is passing these values on to her child(ren). In her words, she is brainwashing her children to believe the way she does (or ships them off to the secularized public school system to let the educators indoctrinate the child in this belief system). So just as she claims that homeschooling or conservative Christian private schools indoctrinate children to a fundamentalist Christian worldview, so the public school system is guilty of the same concept of indoctrinating children into a fundamentalist secular-humanist worldview.

Ms. Blaker states, “Christian fundamentalist schooling is known for indoctrinating children through recitation and memorization of Bible verses and prayers, reinforced with hellfire and brimstone lectures.” Yet the very same statement could be made this way: “Secular fundamentalist schooling is known for indoctrinating children through recitation of unproven theories and memorization of assumed information and catch-phrases such as ‘safe-sex’ reinforced by lectures laced with implications that if what is taught is questioned, the student is merely ignorant and unenlightened.” She goes on to state “these children are taught from textbooks that distort scientific and historic facts.” There have been entire volumes written on the errors found in the textbooks of secular schools. Evolution is taught as fact when it is still an unproven theory. Not one transitional form has been found in the fossil record as of yet.

That is the point of Dr. Dobson’s quote. That is also the reason why there is such a struggle in America today. Christians and Secularists are in a high-pitched battle for the minds of the children of our nation. Both sides believe that their way is best and both sides are struggling to pass on their views to the next generation in order to hopefully win this battle.

Ms. Blaker’s ignorance of true, biblical Christianity is profound but not uncommon. There are many in this world who claim to be Christian but carry on in such shameful ways that it drags the name of Christ through the mud. I think of the very groups Ms. Blaker mentions in her article: the white-supremacist Christian Identity Movement, the Branch Davidians and the Army of God. But if I steal your coat, put it on and then rob a bank, you would not expect to be found guilty of a crime that was committed by one dressed in your clothes. Yet many people condemn Christianity based on crimes committed by those who wear the name of Christ.
____________________________________
I will post more on this as I continue to get my thoughts put into my laptop.

It takes a village....

2005-05-02T09:02:00.000-07:00

Check this article.
While I don't agree with the JW take on blood transfusions, who's to say that the next step won't be court-ordered abortions where the parents won't be allowed to intervene based on religious grounds? Here's what the idea of "it takes a village to raise a child" goes: the children no longer belong to the parents, they belong to the state.

Misrepresentation 2

2005-04-29T13:55:00.000-07:00

Found the book. The title is actually The Fundamentals of Extremism: The Christian Right in America. It features articles with titles such as: The Perils of Fundamentalism and the Imperilment of Democracy (so what, exactly, was American democracy based on?) and Eternal Subservience - Created from Man for Man (obviously a feminist rant) by Kimberly Blaker and The Path to Theocracy-the Purgation of the First Amendment by John M. Suarez. Looks like a lot to chew on....

Misrepresentation

2005-04-29T13:16:00.000-07:00

I was browsing in a local bookstore today and found a book that touted itself as an "expose of the 'Christian right.'" It caught my attention so I flipped through a few pages. It consisted of about 6 or 8 articles attacking conservative Christians and comparing them to radical extremist Muslims. The only thing that comes to my mind in perusing this vitriol is that the authors have absolutely NO idea of what biblical Christianity is about. If a person were truly a "radical extremist" Christian, that person would be the most perfect citizen (regardless of the country they live in) and the most loving and tender person one could imagine!
What get's the hackles up on those who find themselves thinking like the authors represented in this book is the exclusivity of Christianity. If biblical (not 'extremist') Christians do not allow them to re-make the God of the Bible after their own fashioning then such Christians are labeled as "intolerant" and "dangerous." And yet they cannot understand what biblical Christianity is about because their foolish minds are darkened and have not been regenerated by the power of the Spirit of God. Still, this type of rhetoric must be addressed, lest the foolish minds that read the ravings of these foolish minds will be convinced of the "danger" of Christianity. I believe that I may yet return to that store and purchase the book. Not that I desire to put money in the pockets of the writers and editor, but in order to study their position more fully so that I may dismantle their straw-man arguments that the name of Christ would be glorified in the face of their godless efforts. More on this later.

New Covenant Theology

2005-04-28T10:34:00.000-07:00

I've been giving some thought to this topic over the last year or so. Many of you reading this blog may not have any clue as to what New Covenant Theology is about. New Covenant Theology (NCT) is an alternative theological system over against Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism. One of the differences with NCT is that, rather than setting your theology from the Old Testament and reading that theology into the New Testament, NCT reads the theology of the New into the Old. Basically, NCT interprets the Old Testament through the lens of Jesus (as shown in the Gospels) and the apostles. The primary work that outlines this theological system is New Covenant Theology by Fred Wells and Frank Zaspel. Another that I have read is Abraham's Four Seeds by Reisinger. I will address this system in more detail in future posts.

Sad state of affairs

2005-04-27T13:52:00.000-07:00

It's really disturbing to me to see a quote like the one I saw on James White's blog and know that there are "evangelicals" and Romanists and cultists all listed as viable options as the source! And to think that the (once) respected Eerdman's Publishing is now putting out cultic apologetic works. Just brings home the point that one must be a true student of God's Word and study it diligently in order to protect oneself from errors that lead away from the narrow path of salvation.

Insightful poem

2005-04-27T08:08:00.000-07:00

Read this in one of my kids' books:

There once was an owl who lived in an oak;
The more he heard, the less he spoke;
The less he spoke, the more he heard.
Why can't we be like that wise, old bird?

Conference

2005-04-25T09:39:00.000-07:00

Well, the conference was very exhausting but very good as well. For anyone not familiar with this type of conference, it is a large gathering of parent-educators who come together for a couple of days of workshops and purchasing curricula for the following school year. We've now gotten all the books purchased or ordered for our three oldest children (Elizabeth will be in 3rd grade, Faith will be in 1st and Rebecca will be in K). The keynote address on Friday was given by Doug Philips of Vision Forum. He spoke on the need to turn the hearts of the fathers toward the family and build a lasting legacy in their children for the glory of God. It was very insightful and moving. I also finished my book! I had worked over a year doing a study of 1st Peter (actually only about 15 hours of work spread over a year) and I printed it and bound it at home. So now I have an actual hard-cover book with my name on it as the author! :)
I start teaching through 1st Peter in my church starting this Sunday (May 1) through July. I'm looking forward to sharing what I've learned.
I finally got the class schedules for this fall from Midwestern Seminary. I will be taking a class on Christian Ethics on Tuesday evenings. I'm so looking forward to getting back in the classroom!
I must be going now. Have to read another chapter from John MacArthur's Twelve Ordinary Men so I can prepare a lesson for our small group from church this Thursday. Until then... God Bless!

Homeschooling

2005-04-21T12:47:00.000-07:00

Woo-Hoo! I get off work in about 2 hours and I'm off tomorrow! 3-DAY WEEKEND! But it's going to be a busy one. The local homeschool curriculum fair is tomorrow and Saturday and my wife and I will be there all day both days going to workshops and choosing textbooks and other materials for our kids. Our oldest, Elizabeth, will be in 3rd grade next year and we're looking at new math and english curricula. We're also adding Latin. Our second, Faith, is going into 1st grade and Rebecca, our 3rd, will be in kindergarten. We're excited about the conference. I usually have quite a hey-day in the vendor area. I love being around so many good books! I only wish I could be like the Reformation theologian Desiderius Erasmus when he stated, "When I get a little money I buy books; and if any is left I buy food and clothes." Alas, I don't think he had a wife and five kids to support....

My story

2005-04-21T10:44:00.000-07:00

Here's a brief synopsis of my Christian life. This is important in order to have a general idea of where I'm coming from in a lot of these posts. I was raised in a nominally Catholic family (i.e.: we were forced to go to Mass every Sunday but my parents lived as they pleased during the week). My mom died of heart disease when I was 13 and by the time I was in high school I had stopped going to church altogether. I lived quite a decadent life trying to satisfy myself with alcohol and women. I married at 19 and it only lasted 2 years before we split up (partially due to my infidelity).
Right after my first wife and I split up, while I was in college, I began to feel an emptiness in my life. I continued to try to fill it with alcohol and women but it wasn't working. I felt lonely and depressed. Then I met a guy (an alumnus that came up for football games) that was different from all my drinking buddies. He was nice and had a sense of peace about him. He was quiet and seemed happy most of the time. I also noticed he kept a Bible in his car and always left for home early enough on Sundays to get to church. That was a strange concept to me.
Over time, I met more people that were "churchgoing" people who read the Bible. I didn't know it at the time but God was pulling me in.
I moved in with my brother and decided I wanted to read the Bible to see what all these other people were seeing in it. I started with the beginning (Genesis) and read straight through. By the time I got through the Gospels, in the spring of 1993, I was going to church regularly with my girlfriend (now wife); and in July of 1993 God changed my heart and I placed my faith in Jesus Christ to save me from the penalty of all my sins.
Since then, I've continued to learn more and more about the faith I've been given and I strive, through God's help, to become more like the one who saved me.

I understand there may be some terms and/or ideas in this story that you, the reader, may not be familiar with but I'm more than happy to discuss and explain these with any individual who asks.

Question

2005-04-21T09:46:00.000-07:00

Do you consider yourself a good person? (Who doesn't?) How good is good enough to go to Heaven? Any takers? Let's talk.

Introduction

2005-04-21T09:41:00.000-07:00

Hello all! I'm new to the blogging world and decided to take on this project as a way to vent some of the pent-up ideas I get in my head during the day. I'm a seminary student in the Kansas City area and am very much into Christian theology, apologetics, outdoor activities and my family (wife, Kim, and 5 kids). I look forward to putting more on here in the future!