Friday, February 27, 2009

So, Why Isn’t Everyone Happy?

OK, I know that several of you have already seen this video (it’s been making the rounds in group emails and on the blogs), but I just couldn’t resist the opportunity to make sure that more of you get the chance to view it. It’s not inspirational in the classic sense, but it sure serves as a great reminder that we need to be THANKFUL, especially in this troubling economic time. Happiness is not an emotional response, but an intentional decision; it’s so easy to see the glass as half empty. We, as Christians, ought to be the first to understand what God has done for us, and like Paul, we ought to be able to find joy not in what we think we need, but in what God has already done for us:

Philippians 4:10-13
…I have learned to be content whatever the circumstances. I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want. I can do everything through him who gives me strength.
The video is hilarious and I’m sure it will have a million viewings by the end of the weekend!
Share/Bookmark

Thursday, February 26, 2009

It’s the Teacher, Not the School!

Susie sent me this interesting article that describes the importance of teachers in the lives of young people. All too often we spend a lot of time and energy trying to find the best school for our kids. It seems that Bill Gates has discovered what several studies are beginning to reveal: student success is dependant on the teacher, not the school…
“If you want your child to get the best education possible, it’s actually more important to get him assigned to a great teacher than to a great school.”
As a home-schooler (or at least the husband of one!) and a house-churcher, I’ve come to understand the power of taking responsibility for your children’s education, both academically and spiritually. How often are we willing to release the responsibility to schools (or to churches) only to later bemoan the fact that our kids have not embraced the values that we hold so dear? It’s time to reclaim the minds, hearts and souls of our own kids…
Share/Bookmark

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Lent

Today is Ash Wednesday, the start of Lent. As a child, being raised Catholic, it meant giving up candy and fish on Fridays. Although I haven't thought much about Lent in recent years, I had a great conversation with my Catholic friend about the significance it plays in her life on my run this morning. As protestant Christians, what role should calendered events play in our lives? How should spiritual disciplines be included in a life that is saved by grace apart from those works? Do we take our freedom in Christ for granted and have we become negligent in relying on the Holy Spirit daily, throughout the year?

Sherwood E. Wirt advises that we lengthen Lent in this article from Christianity Today
...the whole life of the believer is to be lived in the power of the Spirit. Once the Paraclete takes command of our lives, once he personally fills us with the love of God, there is no further need to be troubled about Lent. Or about Pentecost, or Christmas, or Easter, or any other "special day" or "days" on the church calendar. We can attend stated services or not attend; fast or not fast; kneel or not kneel. We are free to do as the Holy Spirit directs, in the light of Scripture.The real challenge facing the believer is not, therefore, "What shall I give up for Lent?" but rather, "How can I be filled with the Spirit?"
The word Lent actually means "to lengthen." I still don't know why we had to eat fish on Fridays.

Share/Bookmark

The Ad You Didn’t See at Last Night’s Address

CNN (and NBC) refused to play a powerful video spot during last night’s presidential address, and this article describes CNN’s reasoning as articulated in this statement:

"CNN doesn't accept advocacy ads that portray personal decisions in a manner that suggests a position in favor of the advocacy message, without having permission of the persons involved. CNN is not accepting this particular advocacy ad because it deals with a highly personal and private matter and does so without the consent of those involved."

As Christians, we need to continue to explore the power of media and I commend the creators of this spot. In just a few seconds, they captured the heart of the argument. I’ll bet the internet buzz surrounding this spot will more than make up for the lost viewership last night…
Share/Bookmark

Tuesday, February 24, 2009

Is ID Going “Mainstream”?

Regardless of how you may feel about the Intelligent Design Movement, it’s interesting to see the way in which ideas about ID are infiltrating the culture. Alfred Russel over at Uncommon Descent has an concise post describing a few observations he’s made on the issue:
"ID often seems to be a perspective that is associated with science, philosophy, academics, and people who deal in ideas for a living. For its supporters it can sometimes feel like a lonely road, and for its opponents it can appear as an irritating, but minority view. But is it possible that ID is breaking out of these confines and becoming an idea that is being echoed elsewhere in the popular culture? By the term “popular culture”, I do not mean the entertainment industry, or opinions propagated via media outlets. I mean the real, serious, fabric of our civilization."
It’s fascinating to see how ideas related to design and evolution are beginning to transcend the usual theological, scientific and philosophical circles…
Share/Bookmark

Thursday, February 19, 2009

William Lane Craig and Christopher Hitchens Debate


Tickets are selling out for the debate between William Lane Craig and Christopher Hitchens. If you live in the Southern California area, you don't want to miss it. Biola also offers tons of other great lectures and events on apologetics.
Share/Bookmark

Human Person Bill Approved in North Dakota


The House of Representatives from North Dakota have approved a bill that declares unborn children as persons beginning at the point of fertilization, or conception. This bill is clear and concise in the description of a human person and will challenge the Supreme's Court's infamous 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling if passed.
Republican Rep. Dan Ruby, who has also sponsored other pro-life bills this legislative session, is the main sponsor of the personhood bill. He says the measure fits in with what the Supreme Court said in Roe, namely that abortion would be illegal if the personhood of the unborn child could be asserted.
"This is the exact language that's required by Roe vs. Wade. It stipulated that before a challenge can be made, we have to identify when life begins, and that's what this does," he said.

Still, he said that the measure doesn't go as far as banning abortions in the same way a previous bill had or the two ballot measures neighboring South Dakota considered.

“This language is not as aggressive as the direct ban legislation that I’ve proposed in the past,” Ruby said during the debate. “This is very simply defining when life begins, and giving that life some protections under our Constitution — the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
Check out this resource for a summary of Roe vs. Wade and Doe vs. Bolton and see the language that needs to be challenged.
Share/Bookmark

Tuesday, February 17, 2009

What Would Be a Problem for Your Belief System?”

David Whitsell of Mormon Coffee asks,
I often ask people of other faiths, “What would be a problem for your belief system?” It is a question that gets to the heart of the matter quickly. For many people, there is nothing that could assail their faith; for many more, they have not even thought of their faith in that way. I ask this question because many will try to assail my faith when nothing would change their minds’ about their own. This seems a bit disingenuous to me...
The “what would be a problem” question is an epistemological one. It shows how an individual gains and uses the knowledge he/she has. I have found that with all religious groups, and especially Mormons, it is important to nail them down to something. I must confess I am frustrated at the lengths to which I see Mormons go in order to bail out their church. It seems as though nothing - not the Book of Abraham, Adam-God, polygamy, historical problems, doctrinal inconsistencies, etc. would be a problem for Mormons. I have seen the arguments presented to defend Mormonism and if they were applied consistently - no prophet, book, or religion could be demonstrated to be untrue...

Having a faith grounded in truth means that one is open to the possibility that his/her faith is untrue. The object of our faith matters as much as the faith itself. Wanting something to be true does not make it so. A faith without truth is not true faith. What would be a problem for your faith?
For me it would have to be the gospel,
1 Corinthians 15:1-4 Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures
If Jesus did not exist or was not able to die for our sins or did not rise from the dead, then it doesn't matter how much faith we have or how hard we try, we are still prisoners to sin. Paul agrees.

1 Corinthians 15:17-19 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.

Share/Bookmark

Saturday, February 14, 2009

Evidence and Proof (check out this video)

From the pleaseconvinceme website,
Have you ever done your best to reason with someone about the truth of the Christian worldview only to have them reject what you are saying? Have you ever done your best to represent the truth about the reliability of the scriptures, the deity of Jesus or the existence of God, just to have someone tell you that they were completely unconvinced? Maybe you felt like you just weren’t articulate enough. Maybe you felt like you should have made a better case for the truth. Maybe you felt inadequate. Maybe you felt like it was all up to you, and you failed!

...know that before you can ever convince someone with evidence, God will have to do the work of regenerating the heart of who it is that you are talking to. It’s not up to you. That work can only be done by God Himself. And that’s the difference between evidence and proof. We can offer evidence all day long: facts about eyewitness testimony, archeological verification and scientific harmony, but NONE of this will serve as PROOF unless God first changes the heart.

Yes, we are called to provide the evidence...

1 Peter 3:15
Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.


…but only God (through the Holy Spirit) turns this evidence into PROOF. It’s that simple:

John 16:8
When he comes (the Holy Spirit), he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment
Check out this video to see how the same words (evidence) seen from a different perspective can make a world of difference (watch until the end).
Share/Bookmark

Thursday, February 12, 2009

Support for Teaching Evidence Both For and Against Darwinian Evolution


Zogby has released the results of a new poll regarding Darwin's Theory of Evolution. The poll was commissioned by the Discovery Institute and the summary report can be seen here. Here are some of the questions asked.
QUESTION: I am going to read you two statements about Biology teachers teaching Darwin’s theory of evolution. Please tell me which statement comes closest to your own point of view—Statement A or Statement B?

Statement A: Biology teachers should teach only Darwin’s theory of evolution and the scientific evidence that supports it.
Statement B: Biology teachers should teach Darwin’s theory of evolution, but also the scientific evidence against it.
Only 14% of respondents agreed with Statement A, while 78% agreed with Statement B.

QUESTION: "Would you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree that teachers and students should have the academic freedom to discuss both the strengths and weaknesses of evolution as a scientific theory?

A large majority of respondents (80%) agree that teachers and students should have academic freedom to discuss both the strengths and weaknesses of evolution as a scientific theory, with more than half (54%) saying they strongly agree. Only 16% disagree.
David Waters at the Washington Post/Newsweek's On Faith ignores the evidence that people (especially those in the 18-24 year-old age bracket, who were unanimous) want to be taught the truth, not just censored propaganda by painting the Discovery Institute as those crazy creationists trying to sneak their way into our classrooms. I see this often when talking to people about same sex marriage, abortion and evolution. They want so badly to get to God, but not in the good way. They want to say that because I'm a Christian, my morals bias me and therefore any reason or evidence I've brought can be thrown out. It is always the other side who are agitated that I am not saying, "well, the Bible says so", and instead I am making a case from reason.

Waters then goes on to consult Richard Dawkins who denies any evidence against evolution.
It is indeed a stupid poll," Dr. Richard Dawkins, the famous evolutionary biologist (and On Faith panelist) told me in an email. "Actually I think I'd say a dishonest poll -- because the QUESTION PRESUMES that there is scientific evidence against evolution. Of course, if we have a theory where there is evidence for and against, it would be ridiculous to teach only the evidence in favour.

"Now, if there really is evidence against evolution, the Discovery Institute should go into the laboratory, or the field, and find it, and publish it in the scientific journals. Instead, they mislead the public, by phrasing a question which presumes that there is evidence against."
If there is no evidence against evolution, then I'm not really sure what Dawkins and others are so worked up about. The fact is that Darwinian evolution is on shaky ground and the only way to protect it is to yell "Creationist" and then run away.

I know that Jim has started to express his thoughts on Intelligent Design with respect to scientific inquiry here and here.

The Discovery Institute responds that this is the problem with this kind of censorship. Dawkins and other's deny that evidence against evolution exists and that Intelligent Design isn't science because their scientists don't do lab work or publish papers in journals.
Share/Bookmark

Tuesday, February 10, 2009

Darwinism is Lame, Dude

Brett Kunkle offers a great, free resource on the essentials of Evolution and Intelligent Design in this article for Junior High and High School students. Check it out here.


Share/Bookmark

Monday, February 09, 2009

The Keys to the Kingdom


Matt 16:18-19 (KJV) And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Are the keys that Peter holds sacred ordinances that Christ gave to Peter conferring authority upon him through the LDS priesthoods?

"This is the true Church, [the LDS church] the only true Church, because in it are the keys of the priesthood. Only in this Church has the Lord lodged the power to seal on earth and to seal in heaven as He did in the time of the Apostle Peter. Those keys were restored to Joseph Smith, who then was authorized to confer them upon the members of the Quorum of the Twelve." Ensign May, 2008
Jessica Sheley says let's go to the source and see.

Once again, I looked at Peter’s understanding of this since he was there and Jesus gave the keys to him. Did Peter ever provide any clue as to his understanding of the priesthood? Actually, yes, he did! Peter does not mention these keys, however, in connection with the NT priesthood (I Peter 2:5, 9). His definition of the NT priesthood is quite different from the LDS teaching on the priesthood. He describes a spiritual priesthood that consists of all believers in Christ (including women - I Peter 3:1). He says this spiritual priesthood offers up spiritual sacrifices and consists of a spiritual house. Peter’s teaching on the NT priesthood does not mesh well with the priesthood of “modern revelation.”

The writer of Hebrews shares Peter’s understanding of the NT priesthood. He says all believers have now been given access into the holiest (God’s presence) by the blood of Jesus (
Heb. 10:19-22). Formerly, this access was reserved only for the high priests once each year, in a physical temple, with the blood of animals; but through the perfect sacrifice of Christ, our Great High Priest, “it is finished” – there is no more sacrifice for sins. There is no longer any need for earthly priests to offer animal sacrifices as in OT times. The writer of Hebrews makes clear that there has been a change in the priesthood (Heb. 7:12, 18-28) and that God has taken away the OT priesthood, that He may establish the NT priesthood (Heb. 10:9-10). This priesthood includes our Great High Priest, Jesus, and all believer-priests who now have access into the holiest place which, in OT times, was restricted to only the high priest once each year. What an awesome privilege!
It's not surprising that Josph Smith get's it wrong, but it may be surprising where he get's the idea from. Sheley continues

the Masonic Dictionary refers to Matt. 16:19 when defining the symbolism of “The Key” in Freemasonry. According to the dictionary, “’The Key’ is one of the most important symbols of Freemasonry…the key has been adopted as the official jewel of the Treasurer of a Lodge, because he has the purse, the source of power, under his command.”

According to information from a former Mason[1], “Freemasonry claims to be the repository for the Keys necessary to enter into that Grand Lodge Above, where God dwells. To be admitted, you must join the Brotherhood, learn the secrets of Freemasonry (the secret handshakes, secret tokens, and secret words), and become more and more virtuous.” - Wait a second! Freemasonry holds the keys? I thought it was Mormonism.
Ok, so not surprising as well. Despite Mormons continual dismissal of any connection between Mormonism and Masonry, this is just another evidence that much of what LDS believe to be sacred is in fact just plagerized from Masonry by Joseph Smith. Check out the original post here for more resources.
Share/Bookmark

Friday, February 06, 2009

It Looks A Lot Like Murder on This Side of the Womb

Our cultural confusion about when life begins is clearly demonstrated by this recent tragedy in Florida. The same woman who entered an abortion clinic to terminate the life of her baby, is now filing a suit against the abortionist because the clinic allowed the baby to be born prior to killing it. The same woman who was so ready to kill her child on the inside of the womb, is now outraged that the doctor would kill it on the outside of the womb. Her attorney is quoted as saying that it is an outrage that the abortion clinic treated the child like trash ("The baby was just treated as a piece of garbage") but this was not a concern to the woman when she first entered the clinic. EVERY abortion treats the child like trash; this young lady just had the chance to see this for herself.

We seem to be comfortable killing babies we can’t see, but horrified if they are killed before our eyes. In fact, this was exactly the case with the young woman here who was so ready to kill her 23 week old child. Her entire opinion about the value of life and the value of the baby changed once the child was born and she was able to see the baby for what it was (and is): "She came face to face with a human being… and that changed everything." We are wired by God to be visual beings. It’s important for us to remind the culture that abortions kill real babies; we need to show them the human lives they are destroying.

Share/Bookmark

Thursday, February 05, 2009

The Dominoes are Falling

The Boston Herald reports,

The Jamaica Plain lesbians whose passionate love led to the groundbreaking legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts have called it quits and filed for divorce, the Herald has learned.

But one-time international gay icons Hillary and Julie Goodridge, who share custody of their 12-year-old daughter, Annie, are less eager to be poster partners for gay divorce... The Goodridges’ landmark lawsuit famously persuaded the state Supreme Judicial Court in 2003 to make Massachusetts the first state to recognize same-sex marriage. Last week, they became one of 168 couples to file for divorce in Suffolk County in January.
Let me say that first and foremost, I find no joy in this news. I have good reasons for being against the redefining of traditional marriage and elevating homosexual relationships to the same level as traditional heterosexual marriages. I grieve that we live in a culture where marriage is thought of as temporary due to the introduction of no fault divorces and despite the promises that the couple makes to each other in their marriage ceremony. This news is tragic, especially because a child is involved (a child that was denied a relationship with her biological father and now will be raised by two single moms).

Hillary and Julie Goodridge were wed in May 2004 after nearly two decades together. Although they recently filed for divorce, they have been separated since 2006. So they are together for 20 years, get married and then separate two years later? How can something so hard fought for be tossed aside so quickly? The answer is because marriage doesn't mean as much as the acceptance that comes with it and the "rights" that will have to be protected once it is is endorsed by the government. This includes the denial of true rights like freedom of speech and freedom of religion for any that oppose.

In a related article, Same-Sex Couples in Familiar Circumstances,

“Same-sex couples break up for the same reason that heterosexual couples break up,” said Cambridge attorney Joyce Kauffman, who has handled between 15 and 20 same sex divorces since 2005.

They break up because they fall out of love. They break up because they aren’t able to resolve their disputes. They break up because maybe they got married for the wrong reason in the first place,” Kauffman said yesterday. “There is no difference.”
They break up because they fall out of love? This is the problem with the argument that we should let homosexuals marry because they "are in love". Marriage is not ultimately about love. Marriage is about committing to stay together during the times that love is not there. This is why the state gives benefits to married couples, to encourage couples to stay together not for love but for children.

Kauffman said same-sex divorces are more complicated, mostly because the federal government doesn’t recognize such marriages as legal. “Same-sex marriage is not the same as heterosexual marriage and divorce because of the impact of federal tax laws, primarily,” she said.’

In heterosexual divorces, property and other income transfers between husbands and wives are tax-free, but between same-sex partners, they are taxed as gifts or other vehicles.
So now we have to worry about making same sex divorces fair as well? As opponents of same sex marriage we are criticised for using a slippery slope argument, but in fact we have seen this all before in places that have endorsed same sex marriage. Once the first domino falls, the rest are not far behind.
Share/Bookmark

The Difference Between Men and Women

Check out this great post from Steven Crowder over at Breitbart’s Big Hollywood. Our culture has done it’s best to erase the distinction between men and women, and Steve does a wonderful job illustrating the problem. Even as an atheist I recognized that there are biological differences between men and women and it always seemed silly to me to argue otherwise. The profession of Law Enforcement only seems to highlight these biological differences. Men and women differ in their physical abilities, their approach to stress and confrontation, and their ability to negotiate resolutions, and these differing abilities are largely driven by their biological nature. This is not a criticism; it is simply an observation. We are clearly gifted (and limited) in different ways. Now think about it; can biological realties truly be redefined based on a cultural opinion? If the society wants it badly enough, for example, will men someday be able to give birth to children? Of course not.

From a Christian perspective, it seems possible that God COULD have created a uni-sexual human being that had the ability to reproduce without a member of the opposite sex. In this kind of world, each and every one of us would (on our own) be in the complete image of God. But that is not what God did. Instead, he created men AND women, and told us that TOGETHER we represent the image of our Creator. Each of us brings something unique and valuable and necessary to the union, and together we best represent His image. We are different and we are important to each other. As our culture seeks to eliminate the differences, each sex loses something critical to our society and to the God who made us.
Share/Bookmark

Wednesday, February 04, 2009

Who is Columbo?

How do we get others to see the errors in their thinking without beating them over the head with our ideas, especially in a culture that seems to say that everything is acceptable except for objective truth? How do we approach sensitive topics or topics that we think are important but don't know as much about as we'd like to?

The answer is by asking good questions. A good question will bring to light mistakes in some one's thinking. Good questions allow us to genuinely be interested in what another person believes and why they believe it. And good questions allow you to not stick your foot in your mouth when we know that something being said isn't right, but haven't had the time to research it yet. We use questions all the time when talking to everyone from atheists to LDS and conversations go smoother, have more impact and reveal more useful information than just talking at someone about what you believe. We often call the type of questions we ask "Columbo Questions". And now everyone under 30 says, "WHO IS COLUMBO?" Here's a clip.

At first glance, Columbo doesn’t impress. His wardrobe needs a definite upgrade and eloquence isn’t his strong suit. He comes across bumbling, inept, and completely harmless. The crooks are sure he’s too dumb to figure things out. They don’t realize he is dumb like a fox. He just keeps asking questions and building a case—until he nails them!
Scott Klusendorf of the Life Training Institute (LTI) continues in his review of Greg Koukl's new book, Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions.
The goal is clarity, not domination. So the next time you’re in a tight spot, ask a good Columbo question. Here are the three that are most useful:

1. What do you mean by that? This is a clarification inquiry that tells you what your opponent thinks so you don’t misrepresent his view. At the same time, it forces him to think more clearly about his own statements. Your tone should be mild and inquisitive. Consider the following objections and note the Columbo response that’s in parenthesis:

“The Bible’s been changed many times.” (Oh? How so?)

“Pro-lifers force their views on others.” (In what ways?)

“Science and faith exclude each other.” (What do you mean by science and what do you mean by faith?)

2. How did you come to that conclusion? This is the most important Columbo question and it can be asked a number of different ways. Why do you believe that? How do you know that? What are your reasons for thinking you’re right? In each case, you’re reversing the burden of proof and putting it back on the person making the claim—where it belongs:

“The Bible is full of fairy tales.” (Why would you believe a thing like that?)

“Thousands of women died from illegal abortions.” (How do you know that?)

“No one can say which beliefs are right or wrong.” (Then why should we believe you?)

“No single religion or person can see the whole truth. Each sees only a part.” (How could you possibly know that each sees only a part unless you can see the whole, something you just claimed was impossible?)

3. “Have you considered…? then finish the sentence in a way relevant to the issue at hand. Here you are offering an alternative view that gently dismantles your opponent’s case or, at the very least, exposes a serious flaw in his reasoning. It’s critically important that your tone remain gracious. Otherwise, your opponent will become defensive.

“Everything is just an illusion.” (Have you considered that if that’s true, we could never know it?”)

“Fetuses have no right to life because they are not self-aware.” (Have you considered that newborns aren’t self-aware either?)

“You shouldn’t judge people!” (Have you considered that you just did?”)
I know that Greg doesn't mind that we are giving away this resource as that is the type of guy he is and you will see that the book is packed with tons more resources that will allow us to be better communicators and ambassadors for Christ.
Share/Bookmark

The Rebelution

Not too long ago, our house church was talking about how important it is to be a rebel in this generation. Well Susie found a great link to a set of homeschooled teenagers (yes, we love homeschoolers!) who founded a site that seems to be similarly inclined. The site is called REBELUTION and it seems to capture the essence of what we were trying to talk about. The need to Rebel against the culture in a way that transforms it and the importance of being SUCCESSFUL rebels (i.e. REVOLUTIONARIES). The site is rather professional, but how easy would it be for all of us to begin to make our presence known on the Internet? (Just thinking out loud here)...


Share/Bookmark

Tuesday, February 03, 2009

Artistic Conservatives


Doug TenNapel is the graphic novelist (translation to all non comic book geeks, graphic novel = basically a comic book that is bound like a book that is produced as a completed work rather than an ongoing series) that created CREATURE TECH, TOMMYSAURUS REX and MONSTER ZOO as well as the creator of the video game EARTHWORM JIM and the animated series CATSCRATCH. If that weren't enough, Doug has joined other artists/film makers and even comedian conservatives (that's right artistic conservatives) over at Big Hollywood. They say that they are sick of having to hide their conservative views in industries hostile to conservatives and especially Christianity.
The exec informed me that religious imagery didn’t sell to American audiences, that it was intolerant and it definitely didn’t export. This was before ‘The Passion of the Christ’ so I can forgive his ignorance of the world’s most popular religion, but it was the word intolerant that struck me. How was the inclusion of religion not tolerant while the removal of it was?
Jim has spoken recently on what he believes conservatism is all about here and here. Doug has a great if not sometimes brash voice. If you are interested in conservatism and culture, check out some of Doug's posts.
Share/Bookmark

Monday, February 02, 2009

Penn on Evangelism

Penn Jillette of the comedy and majic duo, Penn and Teller says in this YouTube video,
How much do you have to hate somebody to not proselytize? How much do you have to hate somebody to believe that everlasting life is possible and not tell them that?
Penn is an atheist. He doesn't believe that God exists, but understands that as Christians, if we believe that what the Bible says regarding the afterlife is true (as true as the reality of a bus headed for someone who is unaware) and we don't act on that truth by sharing it with those around us, then we really don't love those around us.


I saw this video a while back and it has been a powerful perspective for me to be bold, speaking the truth in love (Eph 4:15). So, do we not evangelise to those around us because we don't love them or because we don't believe that it is true?

HT:Frank Turek
Share/Bookmark

The Virtue of Tolerance

Our friends at STR have posted on the bargaining power that tolerance contains.
The tolerance bargain trades on the new notion of tolerance: Make no judgments. That's not the classic notion of tolerance, which actually makes rational judgments about beliefs, that there is a disagreement a prerequisite to tolerance because it's putting up with our differences graciously, not ignoring that there are any. The classic notion of tolerance says, "I think you're wrong, but I respect you as a person." The new notion of tolerance accepts all views as equal, none are right or wrong, just different...
The tolerance bargain that seems to pervade our public square is to avoid making judgments: Don't judge me and I won't judge you. In order to avoid being told I'm wrong, I'm not supposed to tell others they're wrong. Of course, the essence of this bargain is to self-protection, avoidance of having to feel wrong or guilty or even make an argument for my opinion. The core value of this new notion of tolerance isn't respect for others, it's regard for self.
What was once a great virtue, to tolerate someone, to treat them with respect as a person despite their poor ideas, has become a coward's shameful agreement to not expose anyone else for fear of being exposed yourself. The problem is that this new notion of tolerance is still touted as this great virtue. What's worse is that it's seeping into the church and being praised from within the context of Christianity. How are we to remove the speck from a brother's eye (Matt 7:3-5) and pray for each others' sins (James 5:16) if we are putting on blinders?

Jim spoke recently on the issue of tolerance in the PCM podcast #81 and wrote about it here as well.
Share/Bookmark

Sunday, February 01, 2009

If I Was Rick Warren’s Editor

Last month we all watched (or heard about) the prayer of Pastor Rick Warren at the inauguration of our new President, Barack Obama. There was much controversy about Rick’s appearance at the inauguration, particularly given his stance against same sex marriage here in California. In the end, I thought that Rick did a great job. Like most of us who are courageous about our faith, I would have loved to have been given the opportunity to lead this prayer. Can you imagine the pressure of having to write that prayer, given the expectations and mounting publicity of Rick’ appearance?

As I listened to Rick pray at the inauguration, I was proud of him. I know that Rick can be a controversial figure, even within Christian circles; I’ve read all the criticism of Rick over the years. But let me be clear about this: God used Rick and Saddleback Church to rescue ME from my rebellion back in 1996. I have seen many good brothers and sisters come to faith at Saddleback. Many, like myself, have gone on to attend seminary and pastor churches. Many of us have also grown in a variety of theological directions and eventually left Saddleback. But I, for one, have never taken what God has done through Rick Warren for granted. I just need to say that up front.

So with this great respect for Rick and Saddleback in mind, I thought it might be interesting to take a closer look at what Rick had to say and then arrogantly imagine what it might have been like to act as his editor. Would you or I have said anything differently? If so, why? Let’s take a look at what Rick prayed, comment on it, and then offer a couple of modifications. Here we go.

Rick’s prayer is in bold, my commentary follows in italics, any modifications I might offer are then in green italics.

Rick begins:

“Let us pray. Almighty God, our Father, everything we see and everything we can’t see exists because of you alone. It all comes from you. It all belongs to you. It all exists for your glory. History is your story.”

What a great start. Honestly, in our world of political correctness and a growing hostility toward theism, I thought this was an important first step. Much of the press that covered this event was either agnostic or openly hostile to Christian truth claims, but let’s face it, if Obama was going to ask a Christian Pastor to PRAY at the inauguration, this statement about theism should NOT be unexpected. As someone who deals regularly with atheists who email me about articles on the website, I was happy to see Rick actually make an opening position statement that was this clear and succinct.

Rick continues:

“The Scripture tells us, “Hear O Israel, the Lord is our God. The Lord is One.” And you are the compassionate and merciful one. And you are loving to everyone you have made.”

This is one of two areas in Rick’s prayer where I would make the largest changes. It’s interesting that Rick would connect Israel to the prayer, don’t you think? It’s also very courageous. At a time when Israel is engaged in controversial military battles of their own, I can certainly respect that Rick may want to remind us that we, as Christians, are connected to Israel at our very foundation. I’m just not sure I would have used this occasion to make this point. But to be honest, it’s the second part of this section that gives me the most concern. We are living in a pluralistic, relativistic culture that has a hard time distinguishing between right and wrong. A culture like this would love to believe that God is happy with all of us, regardless of who we are or how we live. And while it is true that God does love “everyone” He has made, I am always hesitant to throw out that platitude without a little more definition. Sure, he loved the sinners, drunkards and prostitutes He had dinner with in the scriptures, but He also called them to a new life of transformation. Jesus did not become like those He loved. Instead He called those He loved to become like Him. So if I was Rick’s editor, I might have suggested this modification:


“The Scripture tells us that you are loving to everyone you have made but that you love us too much to leave us as we are. Help us to understand your desire for our lives. You are our hope for, and our source of, personal and national transformation.”

Back to Rick:

“Now, today, we rejoice not only in America’s peaceful transfer of power for the 44th time; we celebrate a hingepoint of history with the inauguration of our first African American president of the United States. We are so grateful to live in this land, a land of unequaled possibility, where the son of an African immigrant can rise to the highest level of our leadership. And we know today that Dr. King and a great cloud of witnesses are shouting in heaven.”

No problems here, I was delighted to acknowledge the importance of this event, although it did seem in some way like Rick was restating the obvious. But then again, how could he go without a statement such as this? It was also appropriate to refer to Dr. King on this historic day.

Rick again:

“Give to our new President, Barack Obama, the wisdom to lead us with humility, the courage to lead us with integrity, the compassion to lead us with generosity. Bless and protect him, his family, Vice President Biden, the cabinet, and every one of our freely elected leaders.”

This is the other section of the prayer that I might modify if given the chance. Look, Obama says that he is a Christian; he told us that he attended a Christian church and that his experience there was foundational. I think it is wholly appropriate to simply acknowledge his proclamation and ask God for Barack to be a Christian brother of integrity. In addition to this, I am always just a little bit leery of general blessings. Do we ask God to bless those who do wrong, for example? No, we usually ask God to correct them or bring them to the light. God blesses those who love Him and have committed their lives to Him. Others may succeed in this life, but would we attribute the success of those who hate God to the intentional blessing of that same God? So without knowing if the people we are talking about even know or love God at all, I am usually hesitant to ask for God’s “blessing” on them. I might have worded this section a little differently in an effort to ask God to help Obama be a true man of integrity, and to help others to recognize the source of his strength:

“Our new President, Barack Obama, has publicly proclaimed his faith in Your Son. Give him the wisdom to search Your Word for the answers he seeks, the courage to lead in a way that is consistent with his faith and Your character, and the compassion to be patient with those who reject Your guidance and truth. Bless and protect him and his family, as he seeks to live a life that is consistent with his public proclamation. Help our other elected officials to recognize the truth and wisdom of Your Word.”

Rick continues:

“Help us, O God, to remember that we are Americans, united not by race, or religion, or blood, but to our commitment to freedom and justice for all. When we focus on ourselves, when we fight each other, when we forget You, forgive us. When we presume that our greatness and our prosperity is ours alone, forgive us. When we fail to treat our fellow human beings and all the earth with the respect that they deserve, forgive us. And as we face these difficult days ahead, may we have a new birth of clarity in our aims, responsibility in our actions, humility in our approaches, and civility in our attitudes, even when we differ.”

I can appreciate the humble nature of this short list of shortcomings (no pun intended). All of us are guilty of these attitudes and behaviors at times and the list is certainly non-partisan. But there is one more shortcoming that I think I might have added to the list. As I have watched Obama over the course of the last year, I’ve seen him struggle over and over again with the idea of objective truth. He appears to be a consummate relativist and he is not alone; he is merely reflecting the nature of the entire culture which repeatedly makes the mistake of equivocating all truth. This is often seen as a virtue in our world; people now think it is arrogant when someone claims to have the very best answer to a problem that faces us. And Obama certainly seems to struggle with this idea as well. So I would add another shortcoming that requires God’s forgiveness:

“Help us, O God, to remember that we are Americans, united not by race, or religion, or blood, but by our commitment to freedom and justice for all. When we focus on ourselves and our individual opinions about what is true or false, right or wrong; when we fight with each other and forget to look to you for the answers, forgive us. When we presume that our greatness and our prosperity is something we achieved without you, forgive us. When we fail to love people, even when we differ with the ideas they hold, or when we fail to consider the truth of their ideas in an effort to seem loving, forgive us. And as we face these difficult days ahead, may we have a new birth of clarity in our aims, responsibility in our actions, humility in our approaches, and civility in our attitudes, even when we differ.”

Rick again:

“Help us to share, to serve and to seek the common good of all. May all people of goodwill today join together to work for a more just, a more healthy and a more prosperous nation and a peaceful planet. And may we never forget that one day all nations and all people will stand accountable before you.”

This part of the prayer that has caused me to think deeply about the expression, “the common good”. What should we, as a nation (and what should we as Christians, in particular) recognize as the most important issues of our day? Rick has formed a noble list here and it certainly seems to be consistent with some of the concerns that have been expressed by the Emergent Church. We need to address justice, sickness, poverty and war. This is the mantra we hear from many young Christians, and these concerns have superseded the concerns of Christians a generation ago. The salvation of individuals is now secondary to “common” interests in these four areas. The concern over future destiny is less important than our concern for present reality. I realize that there is a false dichotomy here; one extreme does not need to be neglected for the other. So, I might have said something like this:

“Help us to love one another to share the truth, even when it’s not popular. Help us to create a just world, to address poverty and sickness wherever we can, and to understand the awesome responsibility of our unique role as a nation in our world today. Help us to live beyond the moment and never forget that one day all of us will have to stand as individuals before you.”

Rick concludes:

“We now commit our new president and his wife, Michelle and his daughters, Malia and Sasha, into your loving care. I humbly ask this in the name of the one who changed my life, Yeshua, Isa, Jesus [Spanish pronunciation], Jesus, who taught us to pray:

‘Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.’”

I personally thought this part of Rick’s prayer was solid. After it was over, a Christian brother told me that he though Rick was acknowledging the equality of all faith systems by mentioning Jesus’ name in the many ways that he did. But Rick was clear that it was Jesus alone who changed his life (and he merely described his Savior as he is recognized in many other faith traditions – this does not mean that Rick accepts what these faith systems SAY about Jesus). Now it’s true that Rick could have made a statement about the fact that Jesus was the Savior or the Only Way or any number of other proclamations about our need for a Savior. But Rick is a very smart guy and understands the value of personal narrative in our culture. Rick has a personal story with regard to Jesus, and this comment about Jesus’ ability to change his life may certainly provoke some to find out HOW Jesus can transform theirs.

Now don’t get me wrong; for those of you reformed believers (and I am one as well) who are worried that the Gospel has become a source of personal transformation rather than an offer of imputed righteousness, I know that this kind of brief comment fuels the debate and advances the moralistic, therapeutic view of Christianity that threatens to undermine the truth altogether. Christianity is not just one of many ways to change your life; I get that. But it’s hard for me to deny that Jesus HAS changed my life, even if that’s not why I trust Him as Savior. I’m inclined to extend some grace to Rick here.

All and all, I thought Rick’s prayer was well written and directed. And closing with the Lord’s Prayer was a stroke of genius. Rick tapped into the collective soul of our nation. We are a people who are beginning to lose our way; we have a memory of who we once were and of what we once believed. As I watched the news coverage of the event, I saw the camera pan the crowd and witnessed thousands of people mouthing and repeating the Lord’s Prayer with Rick. Many of these people remember the words but have lost the connection to the God who gave them to us. The prayer is a fading shadow from our culture, a distant memory that seems familiar but has lost its meaning. Yet millions can still recite it far easier than they could ever recite the first 100 words of the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence or the National Anthem (all of which supposedly unite us as a people). By asking us to recite that prayer as a nation, Rick was somehow calling us back to a set of truths that we’ve forgotten; calling us to come home.

All of us may have an opinion about the prayer that Rick recited at the inauguration, and yes, I am happy to weigh in, even though I have the utmost respect and love for the man who helped me to know Jesus (love you Rick!). But let’s remember this inauguration and the fact that so much media attention surrounded the appearance of a Christian Pastor on the world stage of a historic day. Let’s rejoice, for now, in the fact that a prayer was allowed at all. Years from now, we might not even be able to discuss such a thing, as our culture continues to run from its spiritual roots and traditions.

Let me know what you think...
Share/Bookmark