Tom King...seeking and pursuing...the truth

Why today's Lutheran leaders are more like Jehoshaphat than David

2010-04-14T21:59:00.000-07:00

First off, I want to clearly state that I am just as much asking the question as I am making a statement.

But before you decide, you may want to know a little more about King Jehoshaphat. Most of us know about King David, the "man after God's own heart" who failed in his lust for Bathsheba and counting his men, but for the most part was a living man of God who lived the repentant life. But Jehoshaphat...who's that?

King "J", as I will call him, was one of the Kings of Judah after the split following Solomon. He was the fourth, if I remember correctly. All things considered, he did more 'good' than 'bad'. But there were some key problems that King J was called out on.

1. King J, after enjoying some prosperity and comfort, decided to marry King Ahab's daughter. I probably don't have to remind anyone of King Ahab, but just in case, this guys was one of the most evil kings of Israel. He "hated" Macaiah, God's prophet to him [1 Kings 22:8]. He was the one married to the evil queen Jezebel and persecuted the prophet Elijah, among others. His daughter is who King J married, bringing his family aligned with his [2 Chron. 18:1].

2. He made alliances with foreign countries. King Ahab and Queen Jezebel used their influence for evil and had many foreign countries as allies. For King J to align himself in this way...did the "riches and honor" affect his judgment?

3. Jehoshaphat was walking on thin ice when he told King Ahab to "please inquire for the word of the Lord today" and yet still sided with him in battle in spite of Macaiah's Word from the Lord [2 Chron. 18.4-34]

In all of this, King J managed to end pretty well, but only because he finally heeded the call of the prophet Jehu who came to him and said, "Should you help the wicked and love those who hate the Lord? Therefore the wrath of the Lord is upon you. Nevertheless, good things are found in you, in that you have removed the wooden images from the land, and have prepared your heart to seek God."

You may be asking at this point, what does all this have to do with Lutheran leaders? Great question.

In my experience, I have met my share, which is a small number in my youthful age, of Lutheran leaders, including pastors, who have done as King J in 'helping the wicked and loving those who hate the Lord' and called it "ministry."

I have recently dialogged with a high school acquaintance whose Lutheran pastor not only supports the liberal agenda of the move towards socialism in health care and other issues, but is willing to give up liberty and his church's opportunity to serve others and put the church's task in the hands of the government. And for the record, this has never worked in the past:

Watch the late economist Milton Friedman historically mark the difference between socialism vs. capitalism

So, these men are either ignorant of the past, which is scary enough, or they are so downright lazy and 'comfortable' with their present job status that they willingly side with compromise and evil for the sake of 'treading water' and keeping their current status over and against the work God and His Spirit are calling His people to engage in.

No one wants health care to remain the same. No one wants people to suffer. No one wants job loss. So the answer to these things somehow equates with the legal theft of socialism? How can a Lutheran pastor even come close to that kind of an answer? This not only robs from the current people making hard-earned money, but it further robs future generations from their creative influence in a free market society as their 'will' to succeed perishes with the nanny state mentality of "progressive" places like France. We will not only rob finances, but prosperity, by transforming us into a land which will kill prosperous growth through the death of the will of the people to create and move forward, as the nanny state will accomplish in future generations as they are taught to rely more on government and less on their responsible creativity and action - dependence. Dependence = loss of freedom.

When God's people ask for a king, his clear reply is "you won't want one, but when you finally realize that, you will be stuck with it" [1 Samuel 8, and don't fail to notice the "progressives" of Samuel's day in v.5].

Why is it that today's "Lutheran" leaders are more willing to side with liberals in order to 'evangelize' or 'love' them while they turn their backs on the people who love God and live like it? Why is it that we will make concessions, preach around texts or even skip parts of the bible in order to 'reach' and "connect" [oh, it sounds soooo good] with the greater public all the while watering down the next generation with our words and actions and ignoring those who really want to grow in their faith and move closer to the heart of God, the True God? I'm not saying I know all the politically driven answers to these questions, but I do know that they should exist and be talked about.

I haven't read these books, but they may outline some of the needed questions for a reform of our church that needs to get back to the authority of God and not man and his fallible thinking:

"Myth's, Lies and Half Truths. How misreading the Bible neutralizes Christians and empowers liberals, secularists and atheists"

"God versus Socialism"

The pdf 84 page pre-print version of "God versus Socialism"

An interview with the man who wrote "God versus Socialism"

The bottom line is charitable work has always been done through the people of God out of the overflow of gratitude in their hearts from Christ's work on the cross! The Bible clearly states that the acting government is in the business of physical protection and social orderliness [again, with the main focus on physical protection and and that of private property] and not to focus on social help or care. That is what the love of Christ should do! Isn't it ironic that the same people who decry this nation as being outright Christian and would hate to think of it as a theistic nation have to steal from Christian's beliefs in order to account for a nation that would be moved to help a fellow person in need, which is what socialistic governments propose, but never accomplish, to do.

Why is it that Christians believe that we should partner with the government rather than do the work ourselves! Are we lazy, comfortable, ignorant, ________?

Maybe the other questions that should be asked should include:

Why did Jesus not come for a political revolution, but start a church revolution? This revolution was extremely loving and grace-driven towards others while still being accountable towards each other and their sanctification..."they will know we are Christians by our ...politics...LOVE!

Why is it that the tradition of American, and most western hospitals, is derived from Christian people who stepped in to do something for people in need, as NON-PROFIT entities. Now we want to turn these entities not only into for-profit...which makes them susceptible to people involved to make a buck...but gov't run, which will only further the depravity?

Why is it that Jesus' followers didn't deny the cross and take the easy road, at least the ones who really knew Jesus?

Are we looking a lot like King Jehoshaphat yet? I hope so, because when the prophet came and told King J where he was wrong, he responded by bringing his people "back to the Lord God of their fathers" [2 Chron. 19.4]. He set judges in the land and told them not to judge for man but for the Lord and he told them to "act in the fear of the Lord, faithfully and with a loyal heart" [2 Chron. 19.9] and "behave courageously, and the Lord will be with the good" [2 Chron. 19:11].

I hope we turn and love those who love the Lord and stop enabling and empowering those against him. I hope we turn and stop the landslide into compromise and behave courageously as King J encouraged God's people to do. And I also hope that when destruction is knocking on our door, as it did later in King J's day [2 Chron. 20], we have enough fear of the Lord to turn to Him ALONE for direction and help...yes, even fast. I hope my children and my grandchildren will be Lutheran. But if not, I'd rather they be saved, and the jury is still out where the direction of our synod's leadership in certain parts of our country will go. May God bless our hearts to be strong and courageous, as so many of God's leaders have been, in spite of their shortcomings, in HIStory.

Health Care, yes or no?

2010-03-05T10:29:00.000-08:00

Often a hot button of debate these days, this issue seeps deeply into the hearts, emotions and lives of everyone around us. Freedom without responsibility is only Darwinism, so freedom in health care with the government in control...might look eerily similar. Some would question what to do. Some would propose that there are no real good answers. Some would disagree.

February 2010

Paul Ryan

Member
U.S. House of Representatives

Health Care in a Free Society

PAUL RYAN is in his sixth term as a member of Congress, representing Wisconsin's First Congressional District. He is the ranking member of the House Budget Committee and a senior member of the House Ways and Means Committee. A graduate of Miami University in Ohio, he and his wife Janna have three children and live in Janesville, Wisconsin.

The following is adapted from a speech delivered on January 13, 2010, in Washington, D.C., at an event sponsored by Hillsdale College's Allan P. Kirby, Jr. Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship.

SOMEONE once said that before there was the New Deal, there was the Wisconsin Deal. In my home state, the University of Wisconsin was an early hotbed of progressivism, whose goal was to reorder society along lines other than those of the Constitution. The best known Wisconsin progressive in American politics was Robert LaFollette. “Fighting Bob,” as he was called, was a Republican—as was Theodore Roosevelt, another early progressive. Today we tend to associate progressivism mostly with Democrats, and trace it back to Woodrow Wilson. But it had its roots in both parties.

The social and political programs of the progressives came in on two great waves: the New Deal of the 1930s and the Great Society of the 1960s. Today, President Obama often invokes progressivism and hopes to generate its third great wave of public policy. In thinking about what this would mean, we need look no farther than the health care reform program he is promoting along with the leadership in Congress.

Let me say here at the beginning that even though survey after survey shows that 75 percent or more of Americans are satisfied with the quality of their health care, no one I know in Congress denies that health care reform is needed. Everyone understands that health care in our country has grown needlessly expensive, and that some who want coverage cannot afford it. The ongoing debate over health care, then, is not about whether there should be reform; it is about what the principle of that reform ought to be.

Under the terms of our Constitution, every individual has a right to care for their health, just as they have a right to eat. These rights are integral to our natural right to life—and it is government's chief purpose to secure our natural rights. But the right to care for one's health does not imply that government must provide health care, any more than our right to eat, in order to live, requires government to own the farms and raise the crops.

Government's constitutional obligations in regard to protecting such rights are normally met by establishing the conditions for free markets—markets which historically provide an abundance of goods and services, at an affordable cost, for the largest number. When free markets seem to be failing to meet this goal—and I would argue that the delivery of health care today is an example of where this is the case—government, rather than seeking to supply the need itself, should look to see if its own interventions are the root of the problem, and should make adjustments to unleash competition and choice.

With good reason, the Constitution left the administration of public health—like that of most public goods—decentralized. If there is any doubt that control of health care services should not have been placed in the federal government, we need only look at the history of Medicare and Medicaid—a history in which fraud has proliferated despite all efforts to stop it and failure to control costs has become a national nightmare. In 1966 the cost of Medicare to the taxpayers was about $3 billion. The House Ways and Means Committee estimated that it would cost $12 billion (adjusted for inflation) by 1990. The actual cost in 1990 was nearly nine times that—$107 billion. By 2009 Medicare costs reached $427 billion, with Medicaid boosting that by an additional $255 billion. And this doesn't take into account the Medicaid expansion in last year's “stimulus.”

The health care reform bills that emerged from the House and the Senate late last year would only exacerbate this crisis. The federal takeover of health care that those bills represent would subsume approximately one-sixth of our national economy. Combined with spending at all levels, government would then control about 50 percent of total national production.

The good news is that we have a choice. There are three basic models for health care delivery that are available to us: (1) today's business-government partnership or “crony capitalism” model, in which bureaucratized insurance companies monopolize the field in most states; (2) the progressive model promoted by the Obama administration and congressional leaders, in which federal bureaucrats tell us which services they will allow; and (3) the model consistent with our Constitution, in which health care providers compete in a free and transparent market, and in which individual consumers are in control.

We are urged today—out of compassion—to support the progressive model; but placing control of health care in the hands of government bureaucrats is not compassionate. Bureaucrats don't make decisions about health care according to personal need or preference; they ration resources according to a dollar-driven social calculus. Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, one of the administration's point people on health care, advocates what he calls a “whole life system”—a system in which government makes treatment decisions for individuals using a statistical formula based on average life expectancy and “social usefulness.” In keeping with this, the plans that recently emerged from Congress have a Medicare board of unelected specialists whose job it would be to determine the program's treatment protocols as a method of limiting costs.

President Obama said in December: “If we don't pass [this health care reform legislation]...the federal government will go bankrupt, because Medicare and Medicaid are on a trajectory that are [sic] unsustainable....” On first hearing, this argument appears ludicrous: We must stop the nation from going broke by enacting a program costing $800 billion or more in its first decade alone? On the other hand, if the President means what he says, there is only one way to achieve his stated goal under the new program: through deep and comprehensive government rationing of health care.

The idea that the government should make decisions about how long people should live and who should be denied care is something that Americans find repugnant. As is true of the supply of every service or product, the supply of health care is finite. But it is a mistake to conclude that government should ration it, rather than allowing individuals to order their needs and allocate their resources among competing options. Those who are sick, special needs patients, and seniors are the ones who will be most at risk when the government involves itself in these difficult choices—as government must, once it takes upon itself management of American health care.

The very idea of government-run health care conflicts with the American idea of a free society and the constitutional principles underlying it—the principles of individual rights and free markets. And from a practical perspective it makes no sense, given that our current health care system is the best in the world—even drawing patients from other advanced countries that have suffered by adopting the government-run model.

But if one begins with the idea that health care reform to reduce costs should be guided by the principles of economic and political liberty, what would such reform look like? Four changes to the current system come immediately to mind.

One, we should equalize the tax treatment of people paying for health care by ending the current discrimination against those who don't get health insurance from their jobs—in other words, everyone paying for health care should receive the same tax benefits.

Two, we need high-risk insurance pools in the states so that those with pre-existing conditions can obtain coverage that is not prohibitively expensive, and so that costs in non-high-risk pools are stabilized. To see the value of this, consider a pool of 200 people in which six have pre-existing heart disease or cancer. Rates for everyone will be through the roof. But if the six are placed in a high-risk pool and ensured coverage at an affordable rate, the risk profile of the larger pool is stabilized and coverage for the remaining 194 people is driven down.

Three, we need to unlock existing health care monopolies by letting people purchase health insurance across state lines—just as they do car insurance and other goods and services. This is a simple and obvious way to reduce costs.

Four, we need to establish transparency in terms of costs and quality of health care. In Milwaukee, an MRI can cost between $400 and $4,000, and a bypass surgery between $4,700 and $100,000. Unless the consumer is able to compare prices and quality of services—and unless he has an incentive to base choices on that information, as he does in purchasing other goods and services—there is not really a free market. It would go a long way to solve our health care problems to recreate one.

These four measures would empower consumers and force providers—insurers, doctors, and hospitals—to compete against each other for business. This works in other sectors of our economy, and it will work with health care.

So why can't we agree on them? The answer is that the current health care debate is not really about how we can most effectively bring down costs. It is a debate less about policy than about ideology. It is a debate over whether we should reform health care in a way compatible with our Constitution and our free society, or whether we should abandon our free market economic model for a full-fledged European-style social welfare state. This, I believe, is the true goal of those promoting government-run health care.

If we go down this path, creating entitlement after entitlement and promising benefits that can never be delivered, America will become like the European Union: a welfare state where most people pay few or no taxes while becoming dependent on government benefits; where tax reduction is impossible because more people have a stake in welfare than in producing wealth; where high unemployment is a way of life and the spirit of risk-taking is smothered by webs of regulation.

America today is not as far from this tipping point as we might think. While exact and precise measures cannot be made, there are estimates that in 2004, 20 percent of households in the U.S. were receiving about 75 percent of their income from the federal government, and that another 20 percent were receiving nearly 40 percent of their income from federal programs. All in all, about 60 percent of U.S. households were receiving more government benefits and services, measured in dollars, than they were paying back in taxes. It has also been estimated that President Obama's first budget alone raises this level of “net dependency” to 70 percent.

Looked at in this way, I see health care reform of the kind promoted by the Obama administration and congressional leaders as part of a crusade against the American idea. This is a dramatic charge, but the only alternative is that they are ignorant of the consequences of their proposed programs. The national health care exchange created by their legislation, together with its massive subsidies for middle-income earners, would represent the greatest expansion of the welfare state in our country in a generation—and possibly in history. According to recent analysis, the plan would provide subsidies that average a little less than 20 percent of the income of people earning up to 400 percent of the Federal Poverty Level. In other words, as many as 110 million Americans could claim this new entitlement within a few years of its implementation. In addition to the immediate massive increase in dependency this would bring on, the structure of the subsidies—whereby they fade out as income rises—would impose a marginal tax penalty that would act as a disincentive to work, increasing dependency even more.

And before I conclude, allow me to clear up a misperception about insurance exchanges: it makes absolutely no difference whether we have 50 state exchanges rather than a federal exchange, as long as the federal government is where the subsidies for consumers will be located. In other words, despite what some seem to believe, both the House and the Senate versions of health care reform set up a system in which, if you are eligible and you want a break on your insurance premium, it is the federal government that will provide it while telling you what kind of insurance you have to buy. In this sense, the idea of state exchanges instead of a federal exchange is a distinction without a difference.

* * *

Americans take pride in self-government, which entails providing for their own well-being and the well-being of their families in a free society. In exchange for this, the promoters of government-run health care would make them passive subjects, dependent on handouts and far more concerned about security than liberty. At the heart of the conflict over heath care reform, as I said at the beginning, are two incompatible understandings of America: one is based on the principles of progressivism, and would place more and more aspects of our lives under the administration of unelected “experts” in federal bureaucracies; the other sees America as a society of free individuals under a Constitution that severely limits what the federal government can rightfully do.

We have seen many times over the past 100 years that the American people tend to be resistant to the progressive view of how we should reform our system of government—and I believe we are seeing this again today. Americans retain the Founders' view that a government that seeks to go beyond its high but limited constitutional role of securing equal rights and establishing free markets is not progressive at all in the literal sense of that word—rather it is reactionary. Such a government seeks to privilege some Americans at the expense of others—which is precisely what the American Revolution was fought to prevent.

Americans understand that the problems facing our health care system today, real as they are, can be addressed without nationalizing one-sixth of the American economy and moving us past the tipping point toward a European-style social welfare state. They know that we can solve these problems while at the same time remaining a free society and acting consistently with the principles that have made us the greatest and most prosperous nation on earth. It is our duty now as their representatives to come together and do so.

“Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College.”

Lukewarm church anyone?

2010-01-31T18:02:00.000-08:00

Just revisited this vlog and laughed again. If any of you have experienced a lukewarm church setting, you may enjoy too.

http://www.p4cm.com/p4cm/pastorjustinVlog/benefits_of_going_to_Lukewarm_church

You may have to "scroll up" on the page if you only see comments. God bless.

Saul to Paul?

2010-01-14T08:09:00.000-08:00

In some ways, this seems to help me understand why Paul is so acutely connected to the moving and discernment of the Spirit. The 4 min. testimony points us to the need of the good news of Jesus:http://www.tangle.com/view_video?viewkey=107d88c7e8af27b7a0b0

Hard times

2010-01-08T14:45:00.000-08:00

I have only listened to the first 10 minutes, but I have as feeling that this man is going to have some great things to say in this hour long presentation. I have heard him before and he is not afraid to speak the Word.

Listen if you dare.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shxQcczYuAA

The Reformation of the 16th Century - Answers in Genesis

2009-12-14T12:28:00.001-08:00

The Reformation of the 16th Century - Answers in Genesis

Posted using ShareThis

Something to celebrate? Try His Word, Redemption, Forgiveness and Love

2009-11-24T12:09:00.000-08:00

A good and timely article from a judge that is actually judging rightly [and if you think that statement too judgmental, then "thanks for your judgment!"]:

A Judge’s Judgment

ShareThisPublished November 24th, 2009 in Feedback, Ministry Updates

Here is an email from our friend in Louisiana, the retired judge Darrell White. Judge White is a Creation Museum “lifetime member” and is founder and president of the Retired Judges of America. He helped Dr. Terry Mortenson and Steven Fazekas of our staff last week in Louisiana at a booth that AiG had set up at the annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS).

Here is the report Judge White filed, which we are posting a few days after the ETS meeting. You see, November 24 is the 150th anniversary of the publication of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species:

Many Americans are letting the anniversary go by without giving it a second thought. This month marks the 150th anniversary since the original publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species in 1859. It is the book whose evolutionary theme concerning man’s origin is—at least for the present time—dominant in America’s science classrooms. And, undeniably, at this stage in history, Darwin’s “nothing-created-everything” fairy tale worldview is a source of confusion for many professing Christians.

I was privileged to spend that day with Dr. Terry Mortenson and Steven Fazekas helping staff AiG’s booth at the Evangelical Theological Society’s (ETS) annual meeting in New Orleans. Free copies of Ken Ham’s insightful new book Already Gone were given away to conference participants, and many other helpful creation resources were distributed. Quite a few of those who visited the AiG booth confided with obvious sincerity: “You creation ministry folks really do need to be at these meetings!”

Especially gratifying was the opportunity to observe close-up as Mortenson and Fazekas—both knowledgeable creationists—skillfully answered tough questions regarding science and the authority of Scripture. For example, to one inquisitive seminary student’s question about age-dating methods, Dr. Mortenson used his wristwatch’s chronometer feature to vividly illustrate the three assumptions invariably associated with all such methods used to date fossils:

1. Known initial boundary conditions;2. Isolated system; and3. Constant rate of process (see The Defenders’ Bible by Henry Morris, appendix #5)

Illuminated by fresh insight, this conference participant eagerly sought additional creation resources to deepen her understanding.

Significantly, attendees were distributed a flyer listing twelve “Affirmations and Denials Essential to a Consistent Christian (Biblical) Worldview” and an invitation to sign on. Time will tell how many support this important declaration. It reminded me of the challenge issued years ago by my own Sunday school teacher—himself a judge—to this impressionable youth: “If you were arrested and put on trial for being a Christian, would there be enough evidence to convict you?”

While Origin of Species month is ending, my own prayer is that AiG’s presence within centers of influence such as ETS will grow such that, in the days ahead, we can expect many more believers to find the moral courage to uphold the authority of God’s Word, beginning with the very first verse. Our children and grandchildren are counting on us!
—Judge Darrell White (Retired)

For more about Charles Darwin, be sure to watch our new DVD called The Evolution of Darwin: His Impact. You can find it in our online store.

Sounds like the usual...

2009-11-15T15:03:00.000-08:00

Found this illustration online from a Vision Forum article and it seems to hit too close to home with my experiences in many of our American churches these days. I pray God will open our eyes to the hypocrisy of "only preaching the gospel" without working to mature and submit all things to Him .

NIV 2 Corinthians 10:3 For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. 4 The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. 5 We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.

"I'm not a social reformer...I'm here to preach the gospel"

by Bojidar Marinov, Nov 11, 2009
Suppose you are a member of the Mission Committee of your church, and there are a number of missionaries that you support around the world. There is a missionary who you specifically are very fond of, a bright, committed and active guy in the jungles of the Amazon, working among the indigenous tribes there. He sends back amazing reports about scores of natives converted to Christianity, evangelistic outreach, churches planted and so on. The Mission Committee is happy to support him, and your church is proud to display him as one of the most successful missionaries you’ve ever supported.

One day the Mission Committee authorizes you to make a mission trip to the Amazon and visit the missionary and see his work first hand. You pack up your video camera, your toothbrush, and clothes for a couple of days, and one Saturday afternoon, after a short and uneventful flight, followed by a long a very eventful ride in an old Landrover through a rainforest where the ground has never seen the sunlight break through the canopies of the trees, you are safely accommodated at the comfortable though far from luxurious home of the missionary. He is excited. He has talked to you the whole way from the airport, and now he has retired to prepare his sermon for the next day, giving you the opportunity to relax and even get some sleep.

The church service the next day is amazing. The building is full, scores of people, some from other villages, singing hymns, taking communion, and some of them even reading from the Bible. The tribal chiefs are there too, singing and worshiping with the rest. The mission is an obvious success, and you don’t miss to record it on video.

Then comes Monday morning. The missionary has told you that he needed to travel to the nearest mechanic shop to fix his car, so you are left in the village, and you have the opportunity to sleep late and then spend some time with the local people. You are awakened early in the morning by monotonous singing of several male voices. You look through the window and you see not far away a dozen of men on their knees before something that looks like a Tapir hide on a pole. They sing a few words, then lay prostrate before the pole, then back to their knees and sing a few more words. When you look at the faces of the men, you can recognize some of them from the church service the previous day, and in fact, you can also recognize the village chief who read from the Bible the day before!

You frantically dress up and go to find your translator to ask him about what you just saw. His answer is that the chief and the men are going hunting and they are praying to the spirits to give them good luck—in the form of a nice fat Tapir, of course. Before you can recover from your astonishment, the men end their prayer, get on their feet and go to their huts to get their weapons. One of the men, before he leaves his hut, grabs his wife by her long hair and starts punching her mercilessly in the face, yelling at her in their language. Then he pushes her aside and follows the chief and the other men as they disappear in the jungle. You ask the translator why the man beat his wife. The translator says that she was not supposed to feed her mother anymore because she has reached the “separation” age. “What is a separation age?,” you ask, only to get the horrible response that this is the age at which old people are left in the jungle to die or be eaten by predators to save expenses for the family.

This is now too much for you. While meditating on the events of the morning, you hear terrible squeals. You run there to see what’s happening and you see a group of boys and a small pig. When you get closer, you see they are some of the boys on the church choir of the day before. But then you see the reason for the squeals: The boys are torturing the poor animal! They are using their knives to flay it alive, and you can see it still kicking and screaming in their strong hands. But the picture is not complete until a group of girls joins in and laughs merrily at the desperate squeals of the pig.

You run back to the house, disgusted and shaken, and you are trying to gather your thoughts. The translator, alarmed by the distressed look in your face, has come back with you and he is now trying to understand what the reason for it is. “Didn’t you see what all these people are doing?” you ask. “The prayer to the spirits, the man beating his wife, the old woman about to be sent to die, the cruelty of those young kids?”

The man is confused. “Yes, sir, I see them. But . . . what’s the problem with those things, sir?”

“What’s the problem!? Are you serious? These people were in the church yesterday, and today they act as if they have never heard the Gospel!”

The man is still confused. “But our missionary never told us anything against those practices.”

Now you know whom to talk to.

A couple of hours later the missionary is back, and you meet him, determined to corner him and get the truth out of him. The guy is in a cheerful mood; obviously he had success with repairing his car, so now he sits and listens to you with a content smile on his face. You tell him about what you saw a couple of hours earlier. He doesn’t seem moved.

“Well, Mr. Missionary,” you ask sternly, “what do you have to say about it? I saw a few practices this morning, clearly idolatrous and barbarian, and the translator tells me you never really told these people how abominable these practices were! Now, tell me the truth. What exactly are you doing here as a missionary?”

The missionary doesn’t seem to be concerned at all. In fact, he seems to have expected your questions.

“The truth, Mr. Sponsor, is this: I am a Christian missionary, not a social reformer. I am here to preach the Gospel, to save souls, and to plant churches. When I came to your church and asked for support, I didn’t say I was going to do anything else but those three things. I did not say I was going to try to change their society, their customs, and their political structure. I am not trying to tell them how to build their economic system. I am not here to interfere with their education or welfare programs.

“The things you saw are exactly this. You saw the chief and his men going to work. This is part of their economic system. Praying to the spirit of the Tapir is their way of preparation for work. It gives them the psychological and emotional preparedness for the economic task ahead. I know, it seems weird and backwards, but who am I to try to impose my American way of business and economics on them?

“The man beating his wife was only following an ancient custom. The family is a sociological unit, and there are specific rules in the family that are part of the overall social environment. I personally don’t like it but again, I am not a social reformer, I am a missionary. And yes, it is important that her mother is left to die, because otherwise she would be an economic burden on the family. This is the way their welfare system works: Someone has to sacrifice or be sacrificed so that the rest have enough to eat. Can I interfere there? Based on what authority? I am here to preach Jesus to them and give them the opportunity to save their souls; I am not here to give them solutions to social problems.

“In this society it is not considered cruelty for children to torture animals; on the contrary, it is part of the educational system. All of the productive time of the men is spent providing food by hunting. The children need to learn from an early age to kill an animal, skin it, and cut it into pieces. They need to learn to reject their natural impulse to not inflict pain. It is important economic education, as well as political, because the same skill is necessary when the tribe defends its villages against other tribes. There is no mercy in the political world of the jungle, and I can not allow my American prejudice dictate to them to change their political and social rules.

“In short, Mr. Sponsor, my work is with the sacred, not with the secular. I am not a liberal reformer, and I am not preaching a social gospel. I am preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ for the salvation of men, not their institutions or their societies. That’s why I don’t believe I have the authority to tell the Christians in this village to change their social and political practices. The Gospel is about salvation of souls, not about changing cultures, and that’s what I am doing here.”

I appreciate this illustration because I remember, first hand, a similar experience that is embedded into my mind. A lay minister at a Lutheran Church once encouraged me to "keep the Bible out of it" and "not take creation so serious" because he couldn't accept much of Scripture. He also thought that these things were teachings that would 'keep people from the gospel'. He may be true, but then I guess that is why Jesus was killed, because his teachings weren't accepted by many. Am I more than my Master? Should I expect anything less? Jesus clearly says, many times, that we will be persecuted for our faith in Him and His Word.

In my response, which I never had the opportunity to give to this 'leader' of the church, I used a similar illustration:

The last time we spoke, you used the analogy that science is separate from religion. Besides disagreeing with that statement, where do I stop separating? If I come to church with my wife, and she has 2 black eyes from me beating her, can I just say "That is a separate issue, J___, please just give me the gospel." Why would family life, which could be separated from my faith and God's truth, actually be separated? It wouldn't and shouldn't. I'm not sure it is helpful, at least to some people I have spoken to, to separate other things from God's Word either. I have spoken to many people that think Christians are crazy for believing in evolution. I know many babies that think Christians are crazy for believing in abortion [or would think that if they had the opportunity] or not standing up for their right to life.

You get the point, and yet these were the shackles that were put around those who were supposed to preach the Word of God. It is a shame that we are taking that anti-gospel message into the world, anywhere! If Jesus had preached the most wonderful words, yet killed people or shared in all the sinfulness of the world, would anyone be following Him today? Of course not, but Jesus' actions lined up perfectly with His pure Words. And so our actions and words should rightly reflect ALL of Who Jesus was and is, not just the parts we 'like' about Him or think others will like. God forgive us!!! God strengthen us for a true witness!!! God has blessed us, maybe it's time for us to bless Him in response! Gotta choose America. What Jesus will you be 'happy' with, the Real Jesus who sends His Spirit to "convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment" [John 16.8], or some false Jesus we make up in our own minds? I pray you seek the Jesus from Scripture and accept nothing less, because He wants nothing less of blessing and heaven for you.

http://www.tangle.com/view_video?viewkey=ac7b677e7241a531b617

For a less serious version to get you thinking, and laughing [at least you would be laughing if it wasn't so true]...

http://www.p4cm.com/p4cm/pastorjustinVlog/benefits_of_going_to_Lukewarm_church

Legal Theft

2009-10-19T18:54:00.000-07:00

No current topic is too far from commentary with open minds and concerned hearts. I wish I could say it better than economist and author Dr. Walter Williams from George Mason University, but I cannot. Therefore, I'm going to 'get out of his way' and let him speak. I hope you enjoy his refreshing thoughts on the tyranny right around the corner in America. This is the latest edition of Imprimis, a publication "pursuing truth and defending liberty." Enjoy.

Future Prospects for Economic Liberty

WALTER WILLIAMS is the John M. Olin distinguished professor of economics at George Mason University. He holds a B.A. from California State University at Los Angeles and an M.A. and a Ph.D. in economics from UCLA. He has received numerous fellowships and awards, including a Hoover Institution National Fellowship and the Valley Forge Freedoms Foundation George Washington Medal of Honor. A nationally syndicated columnist, his articles and essays have appeared in publications such as Economic Inquiry, American Economic Review, National Review, Reader's Digest, Policy Review and Newsweek. Dr. Williams has authored six books, including The State Against Blacks (later made into a PBS documentary entitled Good Intentions) and Liberty Versus the Tyranny of Socialism.

The following is adapted from a lecture delivered on August 2, 2009, during a Hillsdale College cruise from Venice to Athens aboard the Crystal Serenity.

One of the justifications for the massive growth of government in the 20th and now the 21st centuries, far beyond the narrow limits envisioned by the founders of our nation, is the need to promote what the government defines as fair and just. But this begs the prior and more fundamental question: What is the legitimate role of government in a free society? To understand how America's Founders answered this question, we have only to look at the rule book they gave us-the Constitution. Most of what they understood as legitimate powers of the federal government are enumerated in Article 1, Section 8. Congress is authorized there to do 21 things, and as much as three-quarters of what Congress taxes us and spends our money for today is nowhere to be found on that list. To cite just a few examples, there is no constitutional authority for Congress to subsidize farms, bail out banks, or manage car companies. In this sense, I think we can safely say that America has departed from the constitutional principle of limited government that made us great and prosperous.

On the other side of the coin from limited government is individual liberty. The Founders understood private property as the bulwark of freedom for all Americans, rich and poor alike. But following a series of successful attacks on private property and free enterprise—beginning in the early 20th century and picking up steam during the New Deal, the Great Society, and then again recently—the government designed by our Founders and outlined in the Constitution has all but disappeared. Thomas Jefferson anticipated this when he said, "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground."

To see the extent to which liberty is yielding and government is gaining ground, one need simply look at what has happened to taxes and spending. A tax, of course, represents a government claim on private property. Every tax confiscates private property that could otherwise be freely spent or freely invested. At the same time, every additional dollar of government spending demands another tax dollar, whether now or in the future. With this in mind, consider that the average American now works from January 1 until May 5 to pay the federal, state, and local taxes required for current government spending levels. Thus the fruits of more than one third of our labor are used in ways decided upon by others. The Founders favored the free market because it maximizes the freedom of all citizens and teaches respect for the rights of others. Expansive government, by contrast, contracts individual freedom and teaches disrespect for the rights of others. Thus clearly we are on what Friedrich Hayek called the road to serfdom, or what I prefer to call the road to tyranny.

As I said, the Constitution restricts the federal government to certain functions. What are they? The most fundamental one is the protection of citizens' lives. Therefore, the first legitimate function of the government is to provide for national defense against foreign enemies and for protection against criminals here at home. These and other legitimate public goods (as we economists call them) obviously require that each citizen pay his share in taxes. But along with people's lives, it is a vital function of the government to protect people's liberty as well—including economic liberty or property rights. So while I am not saying that we should pay no taxes, I am saying that they should be much lower—as they would be, if the government abided by the Constitution and allowed the free market system to flourish.

And it is important to remember what makes the free market work. Is it a desire we all have to do good for others? Do people in New York enjoy fresh steak for dinner at their favorite restaurant because cattle ranchers in Texas love to make New Yorkers happy? Of course not. It is in the interest of Texas ranchers to provide the steak. They benefit themselves and their families by doing so. This is the kind of enlightened self-interest discussed by Adam Smith in his Wealth of Nations, in which he argues that the social good is best served by pursuing private interests. The same principle explains why I take better care of my property than the government would. It explains as well why a large transfer or estate tax weakens the incentive a property owner has to care for his property and pass it along to his children in the best possible condition. It explains, in general, why free enterprise leads to prosperity.

Ironically, the free market system is threatened today not because of its failure, but because of its success. Capitalism has done so well in eliminating the traditional problems of mankind—disease, pestilence, gross hunger, and poverty—that other human problems seem to us unacceptable. So in the name of equalizing income, achieving sex and race balance, guaranteeing housing and medical care, protecting consumers, and conserving energy—just to name a few prominent causes of liberal government these days—individual liberty has become of secondary or tertiary concern.

Imagine what would happen if I wrote a letter to Congress and informed its members that, because I am fully capable of taking care of my own retirement needs, I respectfully request that they stop taking money out of my paycheck for Social Security. Such a letter would be greeted with contempt. But is there any difference between being forced to save for retirement and being forced to save for housing or for my child's education or for any other perceived good? None whatsoever. Yet for government to force us to do such things is to treat us as children rather than as rational citizens in possession of equal and inalienable natural rights.

We do not yet live under a tyranny, of course. Nor is one imminent. But a series of steps, whether small or large, tending toward a certain destination will eventually take us there. The philosopher David Hume observed that liberty is seldom lost all at once, but rather bit by bit. Or as my late colleague Leonard Read used to put it, taking liberty from Americans is like cooking a frog: It can't be done quickly because the frog will feel the heat and escape. But put a frog in cold water and heat it slowly, and by the time the frog grasps the danger, it's too late.

Again, the primary justification for increasing the size and scale of government at the expense of liberty is that government can achieve what it perceives as good. But government has no resources of its own with which to do so. Congressmen and senators don't reach into their own pockets to pay for a government program. They reach into yours and mine. Absent Santa Claus or the tooth fairy, the only way government can give one American a dollar in the name of this or that good thing is by taking it from some other American by force. If a private person did the same thing, no matter how admirable the motive, he would be arrested and tried as a thief. That is why I like to call what Congress does, more often than not, "legal theft." The question we have to ask ourselves is whether there is a moral basis for forcibly taking the rightful property of one person and giving it to another to whom it does not belong. I cannot think of one. Charity is noble and good when it involves reaching into your own pocket. But reaching into someone else's pocket is wrong.

In a free society, we want the great majority, if not all, of our relationships to be voluntary. I like to explain a voluntary exchange as a kind of non-amorous seduction. Both parties to the exchange feel good in an economic sense. Economists call this a positive sum gain. For example, if I offer my local grocer three dollars for a gallon of milk, implicit in the offer is that we will both be winners. The grocer is better off because he values the three dollars more than the milk, and I am better off because I value the milk more than the three dollars. That is a positive sum gain. Involuntary exchange, by contrast, means that one party gains and the other loses. If I use a gun to steal a gallon of milk, I win and the grocer loses. Economists call this a zero sum gain. And we are like that grocer in most of what Congress does these days.

Some will respond that big government is what the majority of voters want, and that in a democracy the majority rules. But America's Founders didn't found a democracy, they founded a republic. The authors of The Federalist Papers, arguing for ratification of the Constitution, showed how pure democracy has led historically to tyranny. Instead, they set up a limited government, with checks and balances, to help ensure that the reason of the people, rather than the selfish passions of a majority, would hold sway. Unaware of the distinction between a democracy and a republic, many today believe that a majority consensus establishes morality. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Another common argument is that we need big government to protect the little guy from corporate giants. But a corporation can't pick a consumer's pocket. The consumer must voluntarily pay money for the corporation's product. It is big government, not corporations, that have the power to take our money by force. I should also point out that private business can force us to pay them by employing government. To see this happening, just look at the automobile industry or at most corporate farmers today. If General Motors or a corporate farm is having trouble, they can ask me for help, and I may or may not choose to help. But if they ask government to help and an IRS agent shows up at my door demanding money, I have no choice but to hand it over. It is big government that the little guy needs protection against, not big business. And the only protection available is in the Constitution and the ballot box.

Speaking of the ballot box, we can blame politicians to some extent for the trampling of our liberty. But the bulk of the blame lies with us voters, because politicians are often doing what we elect them to do. The sad truth is that we elect them for the specific purpose of taking the property of other Americans and giving it to us. Many manufacturers think that the government owes them a protective tariff to keep out foreign goods, resulting in artificially higher prices for consumers. Many farmers think the government owes them a crop subsidy, which raises the price of food. Organized labor thinks government should protect their jobs from non-union competition. And so on. We could even consider many college professors, who love to secure government grants to study poverty and then meet at hotels in Miami during the winter to talk about poor people. All of these—and hundreds of other similar demands on government that I could cite—represent involuntary exchanges and diminish our freedom.

This reminds me of a lunch I had a number of years ago with my friend Jesse Helms, the late Senator from North Carolina. He knew that I was critical of farm subsidies, and he said he agreed with me 100 percent. But he wondered how a Senator from North Carolina could possibly vote against them. If he did so, his fellow North Carolinians would dump him and elect somebody worse in his place. And I remember wondering at the time if it is reasonable to ask a politician to commit political suicide for the sake of principle. The fact is that it's unreasonable of us to expect even principled politicians to vote against things like crop subsidies and stand up for the Constitution. This presents us with a challenge. It's up to us to ensure that it's in our representatives' interest to stand up for constitutional government.

Americans have never done the wrong thing for a long time, but if we're not going to go down the tubes as a great nation, we must get about changing things while we still have the liberty to do so.

“Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College.”

Choices

2009-10-04T19:10:00.000-07:00

Now that you have "seen" the differing worldviews and how they answer the four 'ultimate questions', the only question left is "What is your choice?" How do you make sense of the world around you? Do you think we are a cosmic accident, where dirt is eternal? Is there some reality to everything being supernatural, therefore becoming "one with all things" makes sense in order to attain godhood? Or do you think that there is an Almighty Being Who is in charge, Whom we should listen to and get to know? If so, I would encourage looking at Jesus, Who came as your servant, to not only take away your sinfulness for heaven, but break your chains of bondage to sin to give you life to the fullest.

Understand that life to the fullest on this broken earth [because of sin] will never look perfect, but you can have comfort and joy in how Jesus sees you, as one worthy of dying on the cross to bring you freedom, in spite of your imperfections! That not only accounts for the needed substitution [for sin], but also brings great hope and help. Give it some thought. I know that Jesus has never let me down...I'm usually in charge in that category.

Theism

2009-10-03T18:48:00.000-07:00

Next on our list, and the last worldview that will encompass the remaining faithviews of our day, is theism. Theism is the belief that there is a single god of the universe that brought all things into existence, gives meaning and purpose to our lives, and will ultimately control our destiny.

Of course, when working to get a basic understanding of life on any realm, one must generalize in order to "set the table," so here we go. There are three major religions that fit into this category. Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. As we all know, there are sub-groups to these religions and factions from them, but we will only deal with them broadly.

Judaism believes in the God of the OT from the Bible. In essence, today's Jewish people are still waiting for the savior of the world to be revealed and bring salvation and power back to their people as promised to Abraham, King David, and so on.

Islam believes that Muhammad, their last 'prophet', gave a new and final account of their god, Allah. They believe that this account, supposedly from an angel named Gabriel, is the rule and norm of their life over and against anything else found in any holy book other than the Koran, Sura, etc.

Christians understand the 66 books of the OT and NT to be the holy, inspired, inerrant Word of God and the rule and norm for all things. They further believe that Jesus was the Savior Who was come into the world to save humanity from their sins, and that His Word, these 66 books, are a consistent story of God's salvation plan for all humanity.

In these theistic worldviews, we will also need to answer the four ultimate questions.

1. Origins - Where did all this come from? Theistic believers would say that god created all things and ultimately has a plan for all of his creation.

2. Meaning is derived from god's view of who people are, what their purpose is, and what his plan of salvation is. For the theist, it all depends upon which god is being called upon. By that I mean that Allah is very different from Jesus, and YHWH without Jesus is different as well. So the meaning changes, yet all adhere to their "god's" view of meaning imposed upon them.

3. Morality also comes from the god being followed. Each god for these religions will have a different set of concerns and consequences, although some may seem similar. And although it can be easy to find fault in the imperfect people who follow god, the implications of having an individual and personal relationship with god will finally trump any latent convictions hanging on the fence.

4. Destiny again will differ drastically from one god to the next. The Jewish person must work out his faith, knowing that Abraham's covenant requires a response. The Muslim must work out his faith in the 5 pillars, not always sure if his convictions have been enough to make Allah happy [unless the sixth pillar is followed in its entirety, which "should" secure eternity with Allah. Although this teaching seems to follow the conservative teachings of Mohammad in the Koran and Sura, only approximately 15% of Muslims attest to this pillar]. Jesus saves by grace, and is therefore showing an easy, yet profoundly difficult way to the Father. Although salvation comes by belief that He, Jesus, died for our sins and rose again 3 days later and will come again...soon...the road after this salvation comes is often difficult. Following Jesus takes faith and help and direction from Him since the world and even one's sinful nature is opposed to this task. Nonetheless, salvation is secured freely through belief in Christ's work on the cross for all mankind's sins.

Now that these three major worldviews have been generally put forth, I hope you will be able to begin to see the many varieties through these "glasses" so that you can see where you fit in the world we are currently sharing. Knowing where you fit also allows you to understand where others fit in this continuum so that you can positively engage the world(views) around you.

I hope and pray that you find yourself with Jesus. I hope you will see His views of origins, meaning to life, morality and destiny from His Word as not only the best explanation for the world around us, but also the most intellectually stable and profound. And I especially pray that you would not end there, but continue to work out your faith by engaging others in loving, yet challenging, dialogue on questions that are age old..."What is truth?" [John 18.38] May God bless you as you do.

Transcendentalism

2009-09-21T18:02:00.000-07:00

The next major worldview is virtually the opposite of naturalism. While naturalism says that all things are made of natural means, transcendentalism says that all things are spiritual. We are all part of a "greater force" in nature itself that only inhabits the physical sometimes.

In this worldview, the idea of "shedding these natural clothes" is an important one. The basic religions that all transcendentalist religions are daughter to are Hinduism and Buddhism. We do not seem to have an exact time frame for the birth of Hinduism, but Buddhism, which flowed directly out of Hinduism, was around about 400 years before Christ. Buddha worked to help people's spirit to get out of the cycle of suffering and reincarnation and join everlasting peace and oneness in nirvana [just why did Kurt Cobain blow his head off? Do you think it had anything to do with his worldview?].

In Hinduism, the greater "force" is Brahman. The goal is to reach enlightenment, which includes peace and ridding yourself of you, that is, anything that is inconsistent with brahman, to become part of brahman. Buddhism is very similar, but nirvana is the term for the 'greater force'.

The ultimate questions are answered in different ways in the transcendental worldview.

1. Origins - Where did everything come from? In the transcendental worldview, everything already existed. Maybe it didn't always exist in the natural form we see it today, but the spiritual dimension [brahman/nirvana] has always been there. Generally, the transcendental is not very concerned with the natural bend on life, since they are really just trying to rid of it anyway. Therefore, understanding 'how things first arose' or 'came about' is not nearly as interesting to the general transcendentalist as it might be for the naturalist. They are more focused on where they are going, which has nothing to do with material existence at all.

2. Meaning - Where do transcendentalists' find ultimate meaning in life? This might be the most coersive part of the naturalist mentality. See, in the transcendentalist worldview, human beings are NOT sinful or mean or bad, they are Divine. They are part of god [brahman/nirvana]. The greater purpose then is to shed anything that is inconsistent with the great 'force'/god around them and become a part of it. In some unusual ways, one can see how attractive this idea might be for someone. "You are not intrinsicly evil or sinful, you are god!" That sure could sound much better, whether it is true or not.

3. Morality - How do trancendentalists' decide right and wrong? Since everything is about becoming one with your surroundings, about obtaining peace and unity, about submission to the way of brahman/nirvana, then any moral code would align itself with these goals. If stealing would rob someone of unity with another, stealing would be out of the question. If killing would takes away from a peaceful existence with others, it too would out of the question. The moral codes in transcendental religious belief systems vary, but the main thrust is to pursue unity, oneness, peace and happiness.

4. Destiny - What happens when a transcendentalist dies [according to their religious teaching]? This might be one of the most interesting points of this worldview. Many transcendental religious worldviews have some sort of twist on the teaching of reincarnation. Reincarnation says that when one dies, if they are not yet enlightened to the point of reaching brahman/nirvana, they will come back in another life. Think Brad Pitt in "Seven Years in Tibet". Do you remember why the Buddhist monks stopped digging for the foundation of the new orphanage? They ran into some earthworms. That's right, they decided they couldn't build an orphanage for unwanted children because these earthworms could be "great-grandma" or something. What a trajedy.

There are many ideas of how or why someone will come back as another organism, based on works righteousness and doing better at life, but finally you just keep on coming back until you "finally get it right" and join brahman/nirvana. No wonder Kurt Cobain shot his brains out. Have you ever read the lyrics to his songs? This man was hurting, angry, pissed off and sad. Why wouldn't he kill himself?! If he was enlightened enough, he would go onto nirvana [the name of his band], but if not, he would just be reincarnated anyway and 'get another chance'. The chances would go on infinitely until you reached brahman/nirvana [or in an Americanized twisting, like on the movie "Knowing", you are picked up in the space ship by aliens...Tom Cruize is waiting his turn...they can have him. Scientology is a strange mixing of these ideas from transcendentalism as well as some from naturalism, at least for the question of origins, since they believe that aliens 'seeded' life on earth.].

These ideas have been twisted and changed in more 'westernized' versions. There are many, and they are also made very popular by Hollywood stars, including Wicca, Taro card reading, horoscopes, scientology, kabbalah, and many others. The "living god in the soul" and the power one can obtain by reaching this source is always a draw for many. In fact, many of the main ideas of Star Wars is attributed to transcendentalist thinking. "Become one with the force, Luke" isn't just a line in a movie, but a real worldview that is making its renown known. Yoga and other systems of thought which seek to 'harness the power from within' are all trying to grasp the divine nature in "all of us" [as the trancendentalist would conceive].

Transcendentalists and Naturalists seem to look within for meaning, answers, direction and strength, but maybe the answer is in looking up.

Worldviews

2009-09-17T19:14:00.000-07:00

Did you know that you have one? We all have a way in which we understand, interpret and apply ourselves to the world around us.

First, we must take the information we have acquired about a given situation in front of us, understand it in light of cultural principles, and make sure we interpret it correctly. This might look something like a discussion I recently had with my high schoolers:

What if a sophomore girl, passing one of you freshman guys in the hallway, winked on the way by? What would you think? How would you interpret her actions? What would you do about it?

Most of the guys jumped to the "clear" conclusion that she liked "me", and that they were going to ask her to the next dance or on a date.

That would probably be a correct interpretation based upon the usual thinking and actions of our American culture. However, there is also the possibility that the girl is "just kidding" and "messing around with a freshman". As cold as it may seem to us guys, there are women out there that will do that...I suppose we deserve it most of the time.

We are evaluating life with our perspective all the time! This is our worldview. It's like a map of New York City. When you are standing in that seemingly chaotic environment, it seems like a huge mess. But if you take out a city map, find out where you are and where you want to go, you will begin to see the purpose in the world around you.

The same is true for our worldview. It's like a map that makes sense of the world around us. When we correctly apply what we know, it gets us moving in a helpful direction.

The only problem is this: everyone seemingly has a different worldview. I am currently studying the three major worldviews in our world. Of course, there are many variations to these three, but every worldview seems to be connected in one way or another, to one of these three worldviews. So, if we want to engage in order to make an eternal difference in the lives of others, we need to know something about who 'they' are and what 'they' assume to be true through their perspective and worldview.

While looking at this, we will use four worldview questions to create a table for discussion on this subject. The worldview questions will be termed the "Ultimate Questions." The Ultimate Questions are:

1. Origins - How did everything get here?

2. Meaning - Why are we here?

3. Morality - What is right and wrong, and who decides?

4. Destiny - What happens when we die?

1. Naturalism

Naturalism is the idea that nature, or the physical, is all that exists. There is no supernatural, and no metaphysical. People who assert a naturalist perspective believe that all matter has always existed. Matter, in the physical world, is eternal. Just to compare, I believe that God is eternal, but a naturalist would believe that matter is eternal.

They will generally assert a belief in some evolutionary development over millions or billions of years. The story generally goes like this: About 15.5 billion years ago [it was 14 billion in 2007], all the matter in the universe was pushed together into a dot smaller than a dot on this page. [Yep, that's the theory] It was spinning super-fast, and finally exploded...this is where they get the "big bang" connection. The explosion formed all the planets and most of the stars almost immediately and the universe began expanding rapidly.

About 4.5 billion years ago, the earth was a hot molten planet. It rained on the rocks for millions of years and finally, around 3 billion years ago, in the prebiotic soup, just the right chemicals came together at just the right time to produce life. That 'simple' cell organism found something to eat and someone to 'marry' and over the course of 3 billion years, slowly mutated into every form of life we see today by random chance mutations.

Now I want to be very clear: I don't believe this stuff. There are serious and huge problems with this theory. The problems are not just with Christianity, but with sound intelligent reasoning. However, a majority of people in the Western World [of which America is] believes this in some way or another. So it is very important to understand other perspectives. Paul could only speak to those on Mars Hill in Acts 18 because he understood and could apply not only his worldview, but his hearers perspectives as well. This is how he gained such a platform with them!

But let's go back to the naturalist. There are many variations to this theory, but they all stem from the same "root" teaching. So the answer to the first ultimate question on origins for the naturalist is that everything came from natural means. There was no supernatural involved. Everything that is 'true' for the naturalist is physical, the metaphysical is not true. [Does that mean that any thoughts are not true, since thoughts in and of themselves are not physical? Haven't heard a good reply from a naturalist on that one yet, so please feel free to respond.]

Since the naturalist believes that we are nothing more than a cosmic mistake in all of this, there really is no meaning to life. Although we can come up with meaning on our own [like living for our personal pleasure, wanting more money, living for immediate gratification, etc.], there is no real meaning to life. You live, you die, and that's it.

Again, since life is just an accident, we will not be able to validate a higher standard that isn't also accidental. If my brain is just a random accident, then all the thoughts that come from it are as well. The same will be true for everyone else's ideas and thoughts, therefore, no one can form a code of morality that won't inherently be accidental in nature. Therefore, the naturalist will come up with his own code of ethics that meet his own fancy or needs. He may state that stealing is wrong, but cannot intellectually support that standard in his own worldview. He must either steal the Christian worldview for a minute, or be totally inconsistent with his as he hopes his ethics will stop others from stealing what he has worked so hard to accumulate.

Since the naturalist does not believe in the supernatural or metaphysical, then when he dies, he dies and that's it. There is no afterlife and no judgment.

You can see how these ideas could rapidly move someone down a line of chaos in their beliefs and actions. "I choose what is right and wrong" [sounds like the days of the judges when "everyone did what was right in their own eyes" - Judges 17:6; 21:25], "there is no meaning to life", and "I won't be judged"...that could lead down some very interesting paths indeed, for we know that beliefs lead to values, and people act on what they value in life. Therefore, if I have a naturalist belief, then I will have values based upon my feelings and emotions and wants, and I will act based on those, whether consistent or inconsistent.

Chew on that. Ask God to give you His eyes for other people, to understand them, but also to learn how to love them even when they are unloveable.

ESV Romans 5:8 but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

Look for opportunities to ask an interesting question that will probe into the naturalist's worldview and shatter it a little, since the reasoning will not satisfy. Then always be ready to give a reason for the hope you have in Jesus Christ! For His glory. Bless you as you be salt and light. Next we will visit the transcendental worldview.

Soothing help of laughter

2009-09-15T20:52:00.000-07:00

Here are just a few spots I have found to be helpful during the tough times. Bless you...I think.

http://www.tangle.com/view_video?viewkey=050bbc8d5b1a19742efc

http://www.tangle.com/view_video?viewkey=37c4b3685c84e75f4b78

http://www.tangle.com/view_video?viewkey=6d6a37c89cba223c5f78

"Jumbo diet" anyone?

http://www.tangle.com/view_video?viewkey=2275da59ba352aa5070c

http://www.tangle.com/view_video?viewkey=bf37f05d0a246355b505

Loving...

2009-09-02T18:39:00.000-07:00

God is a being of love. Then why does it seem as though He isn't always loving?

This is what some would suggest, but I wonder if there may be part of an answer here. You see, God's love for us is always the same. He doesn't change:

NIV Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.

We are the fickle ones. But even in my evil nature, we can see a glimmer of how God's love would stay the same, yet His response to us would look differently depending upon the circumstance.

Let's say my 3 yr. old daughter, who is highly experiential, was in the kitchen as we began to cook dinner. As we turned on the stove, being the electric stove it is, it would begin to glow a bright orange color.

She might look at that color and say something like, "Daddy, look at that. Can I touch it?"

Of course, I would say "no" and make sure that my body was in between her and the burner, for her safety.

But let's just say that her interest gets the better of her 3 days later when I'm not around, and she touches the burner. She suffers burns on her hand that leave pain, sadness and tears for hours. Would that change my love for her? Of course not! Would I respond differently because of the situation...of course I would! We would need bacitracin, bandages, maybe even a trip to the hospital. I would then carry out a different supervision or protection strategy so that she could not fall into that problem again. But it wouldn't change my love for her, just my actions for her.

The same would be true for God's response to us. When we turn from Him and sin, when we fail to listen to His advice or direction, does that mean His love for me has changed? Not a bit. But He might respond differently to me for my good.

It is my hope and prayer that you understand how good God is, and how much He loves you in spite of who you are, what you think, and the things you have done. His love for us is never contingent upon our faithfulness [goodness], but His faithfulness often compels us to learn to be good and submit to the leading of His Word and Holy Spirit.

If you haven't tried that sort of life, I want to encourage you to do so. It usually doesn't seem reasonable [especially since our reasoning is usually a "worldly" type by now], but it is certainly the greatest adventure and the most exciting living I have experienced to date. I hope the same for you in these short days called life. May He bless you with an interesting one.

Jesus, God and man?

2009-09-02T18:18:00.000-07:00

I have recently begun working with 9th graders...160 of them. What a great day that is! The insight, the crazy questions, the interesting dialogue. We are just getting going with the Old Testament, but came across an interesting discussion today.

So, Jesus was fully God and fully man, right? Then why was He led around by the Holy Spirit?

ESV Luke 4:1 And Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit in the wilderness

Jesus, as we are told in Philippians 2, had "emptied Himself" of all His power, glory, might, etc. It's like the clothes I am wearing today. They are mine. I could take my shirt off and set it aside. It is still mine, but I am not using it right now. The same is true for Jesus' divine powers. So He waited upon the leading of the Holy Spirit through the direction of the Father. In this way, Jesus did not have any supernatural powers of Himself so that He could, as Hebrews makes clear, bear every bit of suffering known to man.

NIV Hebrews 2:17 For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people.

NIV Hebrews 4:15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are-- yet was without sin.

And He did know suffering...

NIV Isaiah 53:3 He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

I haven't had that many sorrows, but I have had some. I have read of many others who lived sorrow-filled lives, yet still maintained a joy from the Lord. But I have trouble imagining how and why the Almighty, Holy, Perfect Creator of the universe ["uni" = one, "verse" spoken sentence..."And God said, "Let there be..."] would give of His power to suffer, worse than I or anyone else, just to save us. It just doesn't make sense. I guess that is what it was going to take to help us understand how much He loves us.

I hope you know. I hope you have not only 'heard' about Him, but I pray that you will come to "know" Him like never before. He is just, grace-filled, merciful and always loving towards you.

Loving...and waiting for you to respond and not reject.

Helpful tool to discern our culture from God's Truth

2008-12-09T17:25:00.000-08:00

Dr. Robert Gagnon has done it again, only this time points us in only 28 minutes to the Truth in a relative culture on the tough topic of homosexuality. Love all people, hate all sin. Humble yourselves before The Mighty God of the universe, take the log out of your own eye, and allow God to use you to bring healing and restoration to many struggling. Pray for Him to open doors and make a way for the Truth to be known to those in bondage. May God bless you as you seek Him and His Truth.

http://www.vimeo.com/2126309

For more information and articles from Dr. Robert Gagnon:

http://www.robgagnon.net/

http://www.robgagnon.net/ArticlesOnline.htm

The strength of Daniel

2008-10-14T11:22:00.000-07:00

When we hear the name “Daniel,” our minds often drift toward the event of the den of lions and what a spectacular moment of time it was that a great man of faith and “highly esteemed” [Daniel 10:11]. Focusing on that event can lead us into thinking that Daniel was more than a man, almost a super-man, but he wasn’t. He was like you and I, with questions combined with a total reliance on God for his safe-keeping. In one situation after the lion’s den, the God of heaven and earth sent a special messenger, an angel, to comfort and encourage him. Here is what we are told:

NIV Daniel 10:1 In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia, a revelation was given to Daniel (who was called Belteshazzar). Its message was true and it concerned a great war. The understanding of the message came to him in a vision. 2 At that time I, Daniel, mourned for three weeks. 3 I ate no choice food; no meat or wine touched my lips; and I used no lotions at all until the three weeks were over. 4 On the twenty-fourth day of the first month, as I was standing on the bank of the great river, the Tigris, 5 I looked up and there before me was a man dressed in linen, with a belt of the finest gold around his waist. 6 His body was like chrysolite, his face like lightning, his eyes like flaming torches, his arms and legs like the gleam of burnished bronze, and his voice like the sound of a multitude. 7 I, Daniel, was the only one who saw the vision; the men with me did not see it, but such terror overwhelmed them that they fled and hid themselves. 8 So I was left alone, gazing at this great vision; I had no strength left, my face turned deathly pale and I was helpless. 9 Then I heard him speaking, and as I listened to him, I fell into a deep sleep, my face to the ground. 10 A hand touched me and set me trembling on my hands and knees. 11 He said, "Daniel, you who are highly esteemed, consider carefully the words I am about to speak to you, and stand up, for I have now been sent to you." And when he said this to me, I stood up trembling. 12 Then he continued, "Do not be afraid, Daniel. Since the first day that you set your mind to gain understanding and to humble yourself before your God, your words were heard, and I have come in response to them. 13 But the prince of the Persian kingdom resisted me twenty-one days. Then Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, because I was detained there with the king of Persia. 14 Now I have come to explain to you what will happen to your people in the future, for the vision concerns a time yet to come." 15 While he was saying this to me, I bowed with my face toward the ground and was speechless. 16 Then one who looked like a man touched my lips, and I opened my mouth and began to speak. I said to the one standing before me, "I am overcome with anguish because of the vision, my lord, and I am helpless. 17 How can I, your servant, talk with you, my lord? My strength is gone and I can hardly breathe." 18 Again the one who looked like a man touched me and gave me strength. 19 "Do not be afraid, O man highly esteemed," he said. "Peace! Be strong now; be strong." When he spoke to me, I was strengthened and said, "Speak, my lord, since you have given me strength." 20 So he said, "Do you know why I have come to you? Soon I will return to fight against the prince of Persia, and when I go, the prince of Greece will come; 21 but first I will tell you what is written in the Book of Truth. (No one supports me against them except Michael, your prince.
11:1 And in the first year of Darius the Mede, I took my stand to support and protect him.)

NAS Daniel 11:1 "And in the first year of Darius the Mede, I arose to be an encouragement and a protection for him.

So, this special messenger of God was sent to encourage, strengthen, support and even protect Daniel. That didn’t mean that Daniel wouldn’t see tough days ahead, but that he would be strengthened for them! As Lutherans, we call that sharing in Jesus’ sufferings similar to the way Paul states it in his letter, written from prison walls, to the Christians in Phillipi:

NIV Philippians 3:8 What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ 9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ-- the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith. 10 I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, 11 and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead.

So, no matter what comes your way, not matter what challenge or “opportunity” brings itself to you, remember that the strength of God is at your side, His Word and Truth remain found in His promises to His people, to be with us, to strengthen us, to never leave us alone. And may the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus. Keep teaching and helping your children “know Jesus!” pt

Revisionism and our schools

2008-09-02T11:08:00.000-07:00

In recent centuries, revisionists have taken on new tasks, with new agendas, and new victims. In our day, it is clear to see how those who wish to see God take not only a back seat, but many times are shown the exit sign in our culture, and secularists continue working in many places to achieve that goal.

But Luther himself would guard against any education that would set itself up against, around, or especially based upon another worldview than Scripture’s. He said this:

“I am much afraid that schools will prove to be the great gates of hell unless they diligently labor in explaining the Holy Scriptures, engraving them in the hearts of youth. I advise no one to place his child where the scriptures do not reign paramount. Every institution in which men are not increasingly occupied with the Word of God must become corrupt.”[1]

“If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved and to be steady on all the battlefield besides is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that one point.”[2]

Is it possible that we have seen Martin’s fears come to reality in our day? Is education forming our children in the Word? Is education confessing Christ, however boldly it may say it is professing Him?

These are but some of the questions that are raised when we take a step back from our formative education systems and consider not only what brought us here, but where we need to go. If a key role of Christian education is to disciple children, then what should that look like? Is there a program that could bring about that maturity?

We have all had enough of programs. As good as they have been, they are only tools that all-too-quickly wear out either from misuse, tired context with culture [which changes by the minute], or a lack of general use. What works in one place of the globe doesn’t necessarily work in another, or even down the street for that matter.

What if we took a look at the foundational needs of a person’s maturity in faith with their Savior? What if we asked from Scripture, “God, what is your view of us?” What if He told us?

In my short days at seminary, one phrase I remember quite distinctly came from a man with more pastoral experience around the globe than I had even been living. Dr. Louis Brighton, while taking us through a crash course in Ephesians, said this:

“So, you’ve been baptized, you are saved. So, why are you still here? Why hasn’t God taken you home yet? Because He has work to do through you in making an eternal difference in the lives of those around you!”

God creates, builds and sustains His relationship to us in order to have us be His feet, His hands, His mouth on this earth. We are His missionaries to the world. Here His words to us:

NIV 2 Corinthians 5:20 We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God.

NIV 1 Peter 2:9 But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. 10 Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

How does God utilize us to speak to others ‘on His behalf?” Is it not through the Church? Not the church ‘building,’ but His people, the church! They may meet in a building, but they are the church. And how does this church function? God gives gifts to men:

ESV Ephesians 4:8 Therefore it says, "When he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men."

NIV Ephesians 4:11 It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, 12 to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13 until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.

See the Friberg’s dictionary entry for the word the NIV translates “to prepare” in verse 12:

katartismos: a process of adjustment that results in a complete preparedness equipping, perfecting, making adequate (EP 4.12)

If God gave gifts, then maybe it is our task in reproducing disciples [2 Timothy 2.2] to discern the gifts he gave to His Church, teach them, lift them up and empower the saints for their use for works of service. Are we doing that in Christian education, or are we so caught up in the latest phonics model or math table or even smart board exercise that we have forgotten our true role that makes Christian education unique, making disciples? Is there a way to incorporate the latest technology to make disciples?

I pray this book empowers you to understand and discern the gifts God has given to all His Church, including his little people. I pray that through that foundational understanding, you will recognize, teach, uplift and empower your students [and church members] to see their gift and use it as the blessing it is intended to be for the 21st century Church. I pray that you also will further understand the gifts God has given to you. Gifts that come with expectation of fruit in the lives of those you touch. Gifts that build God’s Church and through such, proclaim His good news to those who have not yet received His Word. Gifts that God has given to make an eternal difference in the lives of those around you. May God bless you as you do!

[1] Statement. Robert Flood, The Rebirth of America (Philadelphia: Arthur S. DeMoss Foundation, 1986), p. 127.

[2] Statement. Gary DeMar, 2 (Atlanta, GA: American Vision Press, 1984), Vol. 1, p. 8.

Lutheran Schools and God's Church

2008-08-31T17:19:00.000-07:00

You would think the two would go 'hand in hand.' But I'm not always sure the process is equipped correctly. There is a part of me that knows that Lutheran schools are proclaiming the good news of Jesus Christ and helping families raise sound children for the Kingdom. But another part of me asks questions that make some uncomfortable, mainly because the questions challenge the process, and that can be painful [but rewarding!]. What if God's people worked together without politics driving the show? What if God's grace and truth led the way in all things proclaimed from our pulpits/classrooms? What would happen if a generation was taught not only about God, but His heart in all things? Would they stand up in the face of evil?

It is my hope and prayer that as I [and hopefully a few others] work through thinking about God's work to equip His church [His people] for ministry, that we would be active in making disciples in our work in Lutheran schools in all capacities of the needs of God's Church. I pray these documents help refine our thinking so that the next generations to be raised in Lutheran schools will be saved collaborators discerning their world and knowing what the will of God is, by the power of His Holy Spirit. To God be the glory.

Outline of the work:

Gifts of the Spirit

True community only happens when the individual can ‘rise’ in Christ, and be the individual that God has made you to be! Not above or greater than the one next to you, then we are about preparing ‘God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature.'
-Rev. Brian West

From I Corinthians 12: [gifts not given to each and every person]

1. Message of Wisdom [v.8]
2. Message of Knowledge [v.8]
3. Faith [v.9] mountain moving faith, 1 Cor. 13 [different from saving faith – Peter walks on water, 11 don’t]
4. Gifts of Healing [v.9]
5. Miraculous Powers [v.10]
6. Prophecy [v.10]
7. Distinguishing between spirits [v.10]
8. Speaking in different kinds of tongues [v.10, also ch. 14]
9. Interpretation of tongues
10. Apostles [v.28] [#1 in church]
11. Prophets [v.28] [#2 in church]
12. Teachers [v.28] [#3 in church…then…also…]
13. Workers of Miracles [v.28]
14. Those having gifts of healing [v.28]
15. Those able to help others [v.28]
16. Those with gifts of administration [v.28]
17. Those speaking in different kinds of tongues [v.28]

** “…eagerly desire the greater gifts.” [v.31] Teach the greater gifts?

From Romans 12:

18. Prophesying [v.6] “use it in proportion to his faith” [some should not speak on certain things?] For example, a teacher asked me to deal with the problem of God and evil. “Can you speak to my class, because I struggle with this one, so I am not the one to answer it.”
19. Serving [v.7]
20. Teaching [v.7]
21. Encouraging [v.8]
22. Contributing to the needs of others [v.8] [give generously]
23. Leadership [v.8] [govern diligently]
24. Showing mercy [v.8] [do it cheerfully]

From Ephesians 4:

25. Apostles [v.11]
26. Prophets [v.11]
27. Evangelists [v.11] [“bringer of good news” from euvaggelista,j]
28. Pastors [v.11] [Shepherd, pastor, minister, “one who takes care of the sheep”]
29. Teachers

** “…to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.”
“grace given as Christ sees fit.” Eph. 4.4 - 4.7

From I Peter 4:

30. Use gifts to serve others [v.10]
31. Faithfully administering God’s grace in its various forms [“many colored,” manifold, various kinds, all kinds of] [v.10]
32. “If anyone speaks, he should do it as one speaking the very words of God” [v.11]
33. “If anyone serves, he should do it with the strength God provides” [v.11]

** “…so that in all things God may be praised through Jesus Christ. To him be the glory and the power for ever and ever. Amen.”

Questions for pastors: “Can we work and empower within these giftings?” “How do we recognize who has what gift?” “Is that gift ‘for good’ or is there a temporal possibility?” “How do we teach within the constraints of Scripture, ‘so that the body of Christ may be built up 13 until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.’” “How do we lead and shepherd, yet empower and raise up?” “Does mentoring offer enough ‘oversight’ or is there another ‘apostolic’ way to disciple people who then disciple?” [2 Tim. 2.2] “Are we helping or are we in the way?”

Questions for teachers: “Are we teaching according to these gifts, or simply what the world would lift up as ‘gifts’ for society?” “Can we focus on both?” “Could a focus on the Spirit’s gifts lead us into our ‘gifting’ amidst society?” “How could we determine who has what gift of the Spirit?” “How early could these gifts be determined and/or taught?” [see Isaiah 2:2-5 below] “Are there any gifts we should assume for all children?” “How do we teach to and through these gifts?” “Should a student be aligned with a teacher based upon their reciprocal or complimentary giftedness [when possible, forming a mentoring or teamwork situation]?” “How and where do we gain a way of understanding Scripture and allowing it to lead us in all ways?” “Do we have resources available, easy to access, that can point us in the right direction?”

ESV Isaiah 2:2 It shall come to pass in the latter days that the mountain of the house of the LORD shall be established as the highest of the mountains, and shall be lifted up above the hills; and all the nations shall flow to it, 3 and many peoples shall come, and say: "Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob, that he may teach us his ways and that we may walk in his paths." For out of Zion shall go the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. 4 He shall judge between the nations, and shall decide disputes for many peoples; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore. 5 O house of Jacob, come, let us walk in the light of the LORD.

In the ‘old days,’ Christian thinking brought into existence things like science and other helpful jobs. Western society is based upon good Christian thinking. But today, that thinking has been taken over by a ‘secular’ version, and I want to get back to basing our thinking in Scripture to lead into our daily lives rather than learning things secularly and trying to redeem the concepts later on.

Something to "chew on." God bless.

School board NONsense

2008-07-23T14:23:00.001-07:00

It shouldn't surprise us anymore, but the leaders of our school systems are getting more and more anti-God all the time. Check out this situation in Ohio that runs directly counter to anything in our 1st Amendment rights and freedoms, at least for the Christian religion. [I would guess that if the book were the Koran, a satanic bible, or even the Harry Potter series, this guy would still have his job - sorry God, for wanting you out...please don't leave us!]

http://www.coralridge.org/equip/l2d/learn_2_discern.aspx?id=L2D082923&mediaID=L2D082923

Please consider serving your children and grandchildren by being a part of a school board near you. They need the Christian influence. Be ready to give an answer for the hope that you have, and know that there is no hope anywhere else! Materialists, evolutionists, secular humanists all have no hope in their future because there is no future after death, therefore there can be no hope in any morality or 'good' here and now, so our kids will just 'live it up' unless we have something more hopeful to offer...and we do!!!

A Holy Obligation

2008-07-14T19:21:00.000-07:00

I know quite a few 20-21st century Lutherans, and we may prefer the title to look more like "grace driven living" or something like that, which is altogether accurate, yet what Paul is moving the Christians in Rome toward cannot be underscored enough. By Romans chapter 8, Paul has easily set the stage for not only his own inconsistencies, but everyone's:

ESV Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

ESV Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

ESV Romans 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin. 15 I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate.
[Don't forget the important next thought Paul assumes:
ESV Romans 7:16 Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good.]

Paul wants for his readers, just what Jesus wants for us today, to experience God's grace so richly that it can't but change your life completely and courageously, amidst a culture that at best laughs at the devoted follower, at worst persecutes The Way. The same thing John Newton experienced when he confronted the Risen Lord in Word and through His disciples in John's day. Many of you may know John Newton rightly as the author of Amazing Grace, but you may not know that he was a slave trader prior to preaching and writing hymns. For one who sold people, made in the image of God, to see Jesus and turn his life, he knew what Amazing Grace was all about. So did Paul, who labels himself "the worst of sinners" [1 Timothy 1.15-16], and knew how patient God really must have been. They hit rock-bottom, but in doing so, knew that God's love and ways were not only what He desires for us, but was the life of real freedom, life to the full, that Jesus Christ won for us on the cross!

Paul wants us to grasp that same understanding of grace, which is why he recounts numerous times in his letter to the Roman Christians that they are sinners, they are justified, they are in a battle, and they are on the winning side. That's right, they are the people of God who have had the Spirit of God give life to their mortal bodies [Romans 8.11].

Paul's next move can be quite uncomfortable, even controversial. The ESV puts it this way:

ESV Romans 8:12 So then, brothers, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh.

I personally like the flavor of the NIV as it says:

NIV Romans 8:12 Therefore, brothers, we have an obligation-- but it is not to the sinful nature, to live according to it.

Now, before you quickly bash me with "legalism" and other claims [that no matter how unfounded, still leave marks], let me dive into the Greek a little. Friberg [A Greek version of Webster for English] says that this 'debtor' is someone who owes something [the implication is that it must be paid back, although we know justification is not in contention at the moment]. He goes on to say that this person is obligated to, even must perform 'various obligations and duties.' He cites Paul's earlier usage in Romans 1.14, where the ESV here translates the same word:

ESV Romans 1:14 I am under obligation both to Greeks and to barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish.

Paul then states that we are under obligation to fulfill the fruit of the Spirit? Does this have anything to do with [ESV] Romans 8:2 "For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death." Law of the Spirit of life? What is that? Where is Walther when you need him? I guess Paul knows that in a Romans 7 way [just as David and others said so many times in the Psalms: Ps. 18.22; 19.7-8; 119...basically all of it!] that the law is good when our sinful nature needs it.

Louw-Nida lexicon [dictionary, Greek to English, like Webster 8th edition] gives us 3 possibilities, much like the rest. One, debtor, one who must repay at a later date [again, not justification!]. Two, "one who must" or one who is obligated. These two seem to make sense in light of Paul's wording. I have trouble imagining the third, which is "sinner." It just doesn't fit for Paul to say that "I am a sinner to both Greeks and barbarians, to the wise and the foolish." What exactly would it mean to be a sinner to the foolish? And why would Paul ever plug that into the equation? No, Romans 8.12 must read, "Therefore, brothers, we have an obligation" as Paul used in Rom. 1.14!

Paul says it another way in ESV Romans 6:22 "But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the fruit you get leads to sanctification and its end, eternal life."

What does it mean to become "slaves of God" anyway? Do you think slaves live, eat, behave the way their master wishes? Think about it!

No, Paul is clearly meaning that we are in obligated to live by the "law of the Spirit" or the Spirit of God, because we are "sons of God." Wow, what a proclamation! Paul calls us 'sons of God.' Think about that for a minute.

Don't think too long, let it sit for a while, we will come back to it. Paul is clearly telling us that we have been endowed with rights, given to us through the Son Jesus Christ and His work on the cross. With those rights come responsibilities. Sounds like Jesus' words in Luke 12.48:

"From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked."

Newt Gingrich says it this way: "If you fail in your responsibilities, you fail God." Wow, who of us haven't failed as husbands, wives, parents, businessmen, lawyers, teachers, pastors...ESV Romans 7:24 Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!

Thanks be to God is right! But, why are we still here? We have heard the Word of Truth, we believe in Jesus as our Savior, we have been baptized, what's God waiting for? For that answer, I turn to two people who 'get it' before continueing with Paul.

First up is Abraham Lincoln. When honest Abe gave the Gettysburg Address, he began as most would have thought, to thank and dedicating a field to those who gave thier lives for the cause, but what he ended up doing was turning the table on those who were there listening. Take a look [from the Gettysburg Address]:

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

Lincoln put the consecrating upon the living, to be consecrated for action so that the dead would not have died in vain. That's interesting. Do you know that as of 2001 it was estimated that over 70 million Christians have died for their faith in Jesus Christ! I'm not talking about 70 million people who have died, I'm talking about martyrdom. Take a look for yourself: http://www.gcts.edu/ockenga/globalchristianity/gd/gd16.pdf So, what are we still here for? Passing on the light that was passed onto to us! Every day gives us another opportunity to make an eternal difference in the life of others! That's what all but one of the original faithful apostles died for, that's what Paul died for, the Truth. The same Truth that Jesus himself died for. The same Truth we are now sanctified and obligated to pursue, know and deliver! Why such the fuss? Jesus' prayer in John 17.23:
"...that they [future disciples] may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me."

Our unity in the Word, our unity in our actions not only let others know that Jesus is 'for real,' but they argue that Jesus is the Messiah, loved by the Father, Who also loves us! What an opportunity to make an eternal difference in the lives of others!

This isn't just for preachers or theologians. This difference is made in all facets of life. A great analogy can be made with our second example.

Second up is a new country song [I know, sorry about that, but it's worth it] that can be found at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uq5dKHeIqfI and is sure to get you thinking. Pay attention to the lyrics.

Did you hear the lyrics? Isn't that the heart of a man captured in love for those who cannot care or protect themselves? Dad's heart broke...he wrote so that the girl would know...Do you think God's heart broke for us, His creation, made in His image, Who seeing us in our bondage and despair, even went as far as to send His only Son to live and die a horrible life and death? Then He wrote us this letter of love [Holy Scripture] to tell us all about Himself. Why? Because he "doesn't like war, but He loves us more!!!" This is what He was willing to go through to bring us back to Him. He wants us to breathe the air of freedom, it's what 'His heart demands!' He loves us and wants our children's children to have a better place. Isn't this what Abe was talking about, isn't this the heart of God, isn't this what Paul is speaking over us today?!

Paul wants us to know that we are God's children, protected by His grace. Paul also wants us to know that as "co-heirs" with Christ, as 'sons of God,' He wants us to mature and grow into our sonship. Just as a 2 year old puts his tiny feet into dad's 11 size shoe, Dad knows that he not only must protect the son, but train him up to be like him, so that he can actually fill those shoes rightly one day. So it is with us, God wishes to have us fill the shoes, be like Jesus, so that others may know the truth and so be saved [remember John 17?].

What will that get us? Well, Paul ends in verse 17 by telling us that we will indeed share in Christ's glory if we share in His sufferings. Whoah. It gets us suffering? Not what most want to hear, but isn't that what Jesus, the 11 faithful disciples, and the 70 million other martyrs would say to us today? What is the cost of discipleship, anyway? Could it be persecution? Could it be death? Could it be awkward moments with family, friends and aquaintances? Could it be following in our leader's [Jesus] footsteps, who came in grace and truth [John 1.14], and finding that the world, Satan, and our own sinful flesh doesn't like that too much?

But don't forget what God speaks over you. May you hear Paul reminding you that you are sons and daughters of God, that you are co-heirs with Jesus Christ, and that the apple doesn't fall too far from the tree [you have been grafted into]. Be the moral compass for yourself and our children's children's society. Pray for new King Josiah's to be raised up, coming to a knowledge of the Truth, and changing culture to be in line with the Word.

Lord, form our character. Raise up leaders in our nation, new King Josiahs, that will hear your Word and faithfully lead. Protect our soldiers that fight tyranny and protect women and children across your globe. Help us to be Your presence on this earth, full of grace and truth, love and justice, so that the world may know that You sent Jesus for them too! Praise be to You! Amen.

For the longer version [or the auditory], go to the sermon page of http://www.stpaullakeland.org/ at https://stpaullakeland.ctsmemberconnect.net/sermon-ctrl.do?view=0&grpId=2722 and click on the sermon for 7/13/08 labeled "Grace Driven Living." You will also need to supplement with the 5 minute video [you will notice when I introduce the video] at youtube at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uq5dKHeIqfI

Easter

2008-03-19T06:42:00.000-07:00

Don't know what Easter means yet? Here's a timely video to help you understand the love God has for you!

http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=ee73e63418003b47d7d5

May God bless you to be a blessing.

What is God doing through you?

2008-02-23T22:55:00.001-08:00

Something to think about...

http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=f339b9845fd4286c98ee

What might God do if you choose, by the power of His Spirit, to submit to His Word and will for your life? Read 1 Timothy 1:12-17 for just one of many examples, Paul who became the apostle to all non-Jews! Amen to that!

Forgiveness or Reconciliation

2008-02-23T21:57:00.000-08:00

Some may think these two concepts are one in the same, but Scripture doesn't seem to bear that out. Surely, there are pieces that agree, but to forgive, does not necessarily mean 'to forget' [unless you are the Creator of the universe]. No, forgive doesn't necessarily mean that we continue to be "stepped on," "plowed over," or abused 'for the sake of Christ,' but rather that we allow God to be the Judge and to make restitution for the wrong! We do not take things into our own hands, but allow God to judge those things [2 Cor. 5.10; 1 Peter 4.17; Prov. 24.12; 1 Cor. 3.15; Rom 14.12; Heb. 9.27; 1 Peter 4.5-6; Rom. 2.5, 16]. God will take care of these things, not us.

At the same time, reconciliation is what we are called to in regards to our brothers and sisters in Christ, even for those outside of the church [although the final outcome is unsure for those who do not confess Jesus as Lord]. In 2 Corinthians 5, we are given the 'ministry of reconciliation' which means to be the healer of relationship between each other as well as God and man. What an awesome responsibility. What an amazing need for healing and help, and what an amazing task God has given to fallible humans, although not without the aid and direction of His Holy Spirit [Help us, Lord!].

With regard to this idea and topic, I point you toward a slice of teaching that may help us in this matter, as it was taught and given at a Family Life conference recently.
http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=242865399e596ce97728

May God bless you as you consider how you are being called, individually, by God to not only forgive, but reconcile unsaved people to God for their salvation!

Ambassadors for Christ

2008-02-10T17:01:00.000-08:00

What do you think of when you hear the word "ambassador?" I know what I consider: those people, living in other countries, who "make" or "break" continuity with our country. These are the people who can halt the process leading to war as well as cause it. There is great responsibility riding on their shoulders!

In 2 Corinthians 5, the followers of Christ in Corinth were called "Christ's ambassadors," making the appeal of faith in God to the world as if it were God Himself making it! Wow! God uses us, and even puts us in charge of whether others know and are saved? Let's take a close look.

NIV 2 Corinthians 5:20 We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God.

So, as Christ's ambassadors, we actively participate in the salvation of others and God's plan of salvation. Yet we do not do this on our own accord. The word translated in the English language as "reconciled" is actually 'katallasso' in the Greek. Katallasso is a passive verb. The difference between an active verb and a passive verb can be quite stark. In an active verb, I, tom king, am the "doer" of the action. I throw the ball. The "I" in the last sentence is found in the active state, since it is the "doer" of the action. A passive verb is something that is done to the person. I received a gift. The "I" didn't do anything for the gift, didn't buy it, didn't wrap it, didn't bring it to 'himself', the "I" just received the gift that was given to 'him.' A somewhat helpful illustration can be found in the idea of a memorial given in the name of the deceased. All money given toward the memorial is done in the name of the individual, yet none of it comes from the individual himself. But the money is given for the individual's namesake.

When we are encouraged to "be reconciled" to God, it is God Who is doing the work. The passage tells us to be reconciled to God, and yet the verb is passive! God, by His grace and power through the Holy Spirit is moving in our lives. We are only allowing God to 'have a hold' on our life for a change, rather than turning from His Will and work in our lives [like usual]. This is very similar to my answer for anyone that may compliment me on a good sermon or a good teaching. "If I have said or done anything good, I have finally allowed God's Spirit to reign instead of turning away for change. Praise be to God."

Some people find that response a little odd, but it is true. It is God that saves, God that justifies, God that sanctifies, and we should be very careful not to take any of the glory of God's work in our lives for our own. At the same time, I am aware of the difficulty of understanding this idea, since all of us are intimately connected to our own thoughts and actions in this life. But we must remember that:

NIV Isaiah 48:17 This is what the LORD says-- your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel: "I am the LORD your God, who teaches you what is best for you, who directs you in the way you should go.

KJV Proverbs 16:1 The preparations of the heart in man, and the answer of the tongue, is from the LORD.

NIV Proverbs 16:9 In his heart a man plans his course, but the LORD determines his steps.

NIV Proverbs 16:33 The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD.

NIV Proverbs 19:21 Many are the plans in a man's heart, but it is the LORD's purpose that prevails.

NIV 1 Corinthians 15:1 Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. 3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. 9 For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them-- yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me.

Here, Paul helps us by telling us that we, like the faithful in Corinth, take our stand because of God's loving action to preach the Word to us and change our hearts and minds by the power of His Holy Spirit. Even Paul agrees when he says, in verse 10, that it is by the grace of God that he 'is what he is,' and even his hard work is not of himself, but is because of the grace of God [the Holy Spirit, Who "energizes" and "works" through men] that was with him.

Even so, it is not us, as "God's ambassadors" who bring people to saving faith [although the Holy Spirit works through us when we submit to His will], but it is of God:

NIV 2 Timothy 2:24 And the Lord's servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. 25 Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, 26 and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will.

Here we find our opportunity, that in being "the Lord's servant" we love, teach, and gently instruct those opposing God's Word, SO THAT we may hope that God will take action and "grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth SO THAT [because of God's action] they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will." God doesn't only bring us to saving faith, He continues to bring us to saving faith when we daily repent, and He continues to work in and through people who faithfully [or "in faith"] submit to His will to do His purposes! It's all about God and His saving grace, not us! David says it this way:

NIV Psalm 51:10 Create in me a pure heart, O God, and renew a steadfast spirit within me.

God is creating this clean heart [so that David and others like him can "love His statutes" (Psalm 119:47,48,64,88,119,124,127,167)], and God is renewing, repairing, establishing this spirit within a man. It is not man's decision, but man's submission to God's will and work within him, through faith, all of which are given to man from God, that brings about this heart change and life transformation. We should be careful to 'steal' any of this work from God!

And yet, what an amazing breath of fresh air for the faithful. It is not us who do the work of God among a dark and unsaved people, but it is by the power and grace and love in the work of God's Holy Spirit in and through us, that we are involved in the wonderful work of God reconciling all people to Himself. Yes, we are His ambassadors, which He uses to make His grace known through, and yes, it takes a faith-driven heart [supplied by God too!] in order to step out in faith and speak and act in accordance with this 'call' to others, but it is God Who does this work through us and it is His faithfulness to work in and through us to reconcile all people to Himself. I think He is more than trustworthy and I am just excited to be a part of His mission to make an eternal difference in the lives of those around me. PRAISE BE TO GOD!

Community or Club?

2007-12-16T19:04:00.000-08:00

I don't want anyone to think I am at all anti-establishment or anything, but I do like to 'review' what it is we are doing and make sure that the 'means' are meeting the needs of the 'ends.' To blindly continue to follow is not a good practice for anyone at any time.

So, what is church? What are our churches doing, and why? What is the purpose of our meeting times? What are we hoping to accomplish...and what are we actually accomplishing...and does any of this have anything to do directly or indirectly with the forwarding of the gospel of Jesus Christ and telling the world? Sometimes I'm not so sure what the intentions, or intentionality, of the average Christian church is? Are we just in a club, or are we gathering as a group of people, changed by the message of the gospel, in order to further our discipleship and further extend the good news to all? Sometimes, I admit that I have felt as though I was in a club. A group of people that loved getting together for 'that nostalgic feeling they were so used to having throughout their life.' Interpretation: "I've always gone to church, so that's what I do...not to change my life, but to continue what I have always 'known' in my life...to be comfortable."

I'm very glad that so many people grew up in families that thought it was important to attend church once in a while, but just attending doesn't make anyone a Christian. But I'm not so sure people really understand that. Just where does faith and action collide, anyway? Is there any way to figure that out or evaluate it? Tough questions, and before we go any further, we must remain biblical by reminding that we, humans, cannot judge the heart [although we are called to judge...just only after we "get the plank out of our own eye first!" This, of course, gives us a 'new heart' after seeing our own unworthiness and confessing our sins, to show love and compassion to the person who is also leading a life that needs changing...but this is not what we most often see happening, even in 'Christian' lives]. We can see 'clues' to the heart through the actions of a person, but we cannot determine the motive or the "heart-thought" behind the action. That is known by God alone.

At the same time, Scripture clearly states that we 'will know them by their works,' and the intersection of faith and life happens 24/7, whether we admit to it or not. We are either actively working to point in God's direction or in other directions. It becomes even more 'muddied' when people like atheist Richard Dawkins claim "cultural Christian" status, yet adhere to nothing of the Christian belief system. So, what does make a Christian? Could self-proclaimed atheist Richard Dawkins be 'Christian' because he enjoys the usual "Christian" holiday of Christmas and all its festivities? Or is there something more to being a Christian than just liking or 'doing' the 'right things' [as if participation in a Christmas party accounts for anything upstairs].

And yet, as obscene as that sounds, it is very possible that many come to Sunday worship because 'that's what they've always done' rather than to be changed and uplifted by the grace-filled Word of God. Those people are "club" people, not changed Christians. God's Word says that some will claim to 'know Him,' and those who claim could be pastors as well as parishioners, but in the end, they will not all have a relationship with Jesus, despite however many church services they went to or Christmas parties they attended over the years.

I pray that your athentic worship of God permeats through all of your day, and that the time you are spending, with whatever time you have left, is spent growing and showing your life and love for the Savior who came 2,000 years ago. The Savior who loved enough to suffer and die for our sin. The Savior who wants nothing more than to remember your sins no more. The Savior who is preparing a place for us...a place where there is no more tears, no more pain, no more death and dying, for the old order of things will be passed away...this is the Savior's promise for those who put their trust in Him. This is His dream, and His Kingdom, and, somehow, because of His love to be born a baby and die on a cross, our reality. Thank you, Lord Jesus, and come quickly!

Authority

2007-11-14T22:20:00.000-08:00

The interesting thing about authority, is that the 'good ones' never seek it, but always end up with it. The 'bad ones' who are seeking it, usually ruin it in one way or another [along with the lives of everyone around them] Do you want authority? Why or why not? That isn't an easy one to figure, either. If you want authority, you could either be 'godly' or 'ungodly' depending upon the motivations involved. Wanting authority could easily draw you in to a power struggle with those in politics where you are found.

So, what is right/wrong? Should we seek influence or not? Should that influence turn to authority or not? Why or why not? I find myself jumping back and forth on this one...wanting to be involved in changing the world for my children and their children, then the next day wanting to be 'free' of all this responsibility and just push carts at Walmart [everyone is smiling at Walmart at least]. I guess it comes down to what God wants and how we respond to the circumstances He has provided...in a biblical way. I guess if God wants you to get influence, He can either take care of that or push you to it.

What I find most interesting of all is the serious dichotomy of rationality that exists in [sometimes] very intelligent human beings when it comes to this idea. Of course, as a Bible-believing Christian who puts God's Word in authority as the rule and norm for life and thought, I will fall into the category of "Jesus Freak" at times. At least that produces some sort of consistency [in spite of my sinfulness].

But what really 'gets me' is the authority which comes from an atheist/agnostic. I just don't understand how they can come up with any rational viewpoint on what is authoritative and what isn't. For example, most atheists believe that it is wrong to kill [unless they were trained at Oxford...check out Ravi Zacharias' encounter in debating some of their 'best']. I guess my question is..."Why?" If we are just random chance chemicals that happened to get together at some point along the way, what makes 'not killing' more 'moral' than killing? Actually, to be consistent with the "theology" of evolution, death is a good thing, because it brings life, change and progression [in theory, just not in reality - or empirical evidence]. If our whole existence is brought about by random chance, then so is our brain and it's function. If that is true, then what makes one morality better than another? The only consistent answer is...nothing! I know that Richard Dawkins [Yes, the guy who believes it is "child abuse" to teach children about God and religion] tries to work with this by supposing that at some point and time, this randomness takes on some 'meaning' and 'purpose,' but there is little in support of this theory which runs counter to all evolutionary intuition.

At any rate...what is your authority? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? [Ask 'why' five times, and you usually get to the 'root' of the issue, which can be a helpful tool in evaluating the ideas in question.]

In the end: Fear God and keep His commandments. May He bless you in doing just that.

Global Warming, or futile thinking?

2007-09-07T20:11:00.000-07:00

Global Warming and the Christian Worldview

Tom King - [and you thought I was all done].

“We should care about the world that ‘gave us life.’”[1] “We should leave a better place for our children and their children.” “Our generation is selfishly expending all of nature’s resources, taking them from future generations.” These are the sorts of remarks we hear those, even in the church, saying over and over again. This has been brought to our attention most recently by the media and the “Greenies”[2] led by those in the likes of former Vice President Al Gore.

For sure, as Christians we should be concerned about God’s creation and the future of that creation for our children. For sure, narcissism should be combated in the life of the Christian. But does this mean complete submission to the proclaimed state of affairs that the conservationists claim? Does this mean billions of added tax dollars should be accrued in order to bring the average degree down ½ percent each year? Or should the Christian life affirm present utilitarian concerns while maintaining a biblical view of stewardship in action along with the reality of a fallen world in regards to Romans 8? This submission will argue for the latter position.

To add to the dilemma, it will be difficult to deal with the facts, as most proclaimed “facts” are really interpretations of the facts. These interpretations are always based upon a certain belief system and cannot be fully understood without that context. National Geographic states these ‘facts’ on their recent publication updated on June 14, 2007:

Is It Happening?
Yes. Earth is already showing many signs of worldwide climate change.
• Average temperatures have climbed 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 degree Celsius) around the world since 1880, much of this in recent decades, according to NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
• The rate of warming is increasing. The 20th century's last two decades were the hottest in 400 years and possibly the warmest for several millennia, according to a number of climate studies. And the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports that 11 of the past 12 years are among the dozen warmest since 1850.
• The Arctic is feeling the effects the most. Average temperatures in Alaska, western Canada, and eastern Russia have risen at twice the global average, according to the multinational Arctic Climate Impact Assessment report compiled between 2000 and 2004.
• Arctic ice is rapidly disappearing, and the region may have its first completely ice-free summer by 2040 or earlier. Polar bears and indigenous cultures are already suffering from the sea-ice loss.
• Glaciers and mountain snows are rapidly melting—for example, Montana's Glacier National Park now has only 27 glaciers, versus 150 in 1910. In the Northern Hemisphere, thaws also come a week earlier in spring and freezes begin a week later.
• Coral reefs, which are highly sensitive to small changes in water temperature, suffered the worst bleaching - or die-off in response to stress - ever recorded in 1998, with some areas seeing bleach rates of 70 percent. Experts expect these sorts of events to increase in frequency and intensity in the next 50 years as sea temperatures rise.
• An upsurge in the amount of extreme weather events, such as wildfires, heat waves, and strong tropical storms, is also attributed in part to climate change by some experts.[3]

But what are “the” facts and how do we discern them? This paper is too short to care for all of National Geographic's concerns, but some will be treated. In all of this we must be able discern, as Scripture clearly tells us to “test all things” (I Thess. 5:21). The word dokimazete from dokimazw is often translated as “test” or “prove,” to “examine, interpret or discern.” Paul is even more helpful in 2 Corinthians 10 and Colossians 2 where he points us to bringing all things to Christ.

But what would it mean to bring all things to Christ? Here we turn to Paul’s words in Romans 12 which teach us that we will be able to test[4] and approve what is God’s “good, pleasing and perfect will” after our minds are transformed and renewed. This transformation takes place when the Holy Spirit, through the Word, Christ’s Word, the Word made flesh Word, is understood and applied correctly. May God’s Holy Spirit be with us as we seek to accomplish this.

As Paul commands, let us “hold on to that which is good.” Throughout history, we should note weather conditions that may be relevant to this topic. For example, one historic weather forecast found, coming from Newsweek, is noteworthy.

“There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth.”

The interesting part of this article, which was published on April 25th of 1975, is that the opening sentence read ‘The Cooling World’! It is interesting and important to note that many meteorologists and others believed we were going into another ice age only 3 decades ago. Likewise, National Geographic commented on the topic.

“During the last 20 to 30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade.”[5]

Not only is this the same sort of alarmism as we hear today with global warming, but this change is only three decades ago, which as we will see, contradicts their commentary today. This commentary from the global warming environmentalists would have us believe that our present condition of rising temperature is irreversible and damaging, and this information includes the last 150 years, even the portion three decades ago. Could they have been that wrong? Is there something else to consider? What do we do with this seemingly clash of information?

In 2003, a team of scientists at Harvard University reviewed the global warming argument and a report on their final position said:

“The review, by a Harvard University team… proves that the world had a medieval warm period between the ninth and 14th centuries, with world temperatures significantly higher than today’s.”[6]

This team of Harvard University scientists examined 1,000 years of global temperatures and reviewed more than 240 scientific journals from the past 40 years and concluded that despite man’s influence on our environment, current temperatures are not as warm as during the Middle Ages. Also according to the study, a global medieval warming period lasting from about 800 to 1300 A.D. was followed by a Little Ice Age between the years of 1300 to 1900. The study also states that the earth has been warming slightly since 1900.

“The study is significant because it refutes the notion that current temperatures are the warmest ever and calls into question much of the warming effect caused by the so-caled greenhouse gases from industrial plants and automobiles.”[7]

Of course, there are many other scientists aside of this group that are equally concerned with the possible greenhouse propaganda. Dr. Bob Carter, a geologist with James Cook University, describes himself as a “climate agnostic” with an open mind who is ready to be convinced, but doesn’t see any great reason as of yet. He is also concerned about the recent language used by the climate change alarmists. British Prime Minister Tony Blair said at the releasing of the Stern report that the report had “demolished the last remaining argument for inaction in the face of climate change.” Dr. Carter says that such statements are highly misleading and that global warming remains “hugely contentious.”

Dr. Carter, like a growing number of concerned scientists regarding this alarmism, concludes this propaganda to be nothing more than a money maker. He argues that the Stern report, Stern himself an economist, relates all the information to economic struggles and comes quite shy of strong scientific evidence for upholding the alarmist view. Dr. Richard Lindzen, atmospheric physicist at MIT agrees strongly. Dr. Carter also believes that the political movement is skewed for the upcoming elections. It also is his consideration that giving certain “needed” carbon levies for imported goods would even out the more efficient competition. For example, New Zealand kiwi fruits are transported by ship, yet arrive in Britain at a price that undercuts local supplies. “No wonder a levy is needed” comments Dr. Carter.[8]

NASA’s Michael Griffin, responding to Bush’s recent join to the global warming fight proposed for 2012, said, “I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem [global warming] we must wrestle with.”[9] Included in the long list of scientists that disagree with the alarmism are the many found in the recent documentary “The Great Global Warming Swindle” which aired on British television channel 4 on Thursday, March 8th at 9 p.m.[10]

Many of the arguments concerning the scientific approach of the warming alarmists seem assume that rising carbon dioxide levels is the correct interpretation of a rising temperature globally. But many scientists who object point to the vast research, over many years, that show global warming has more correlation with sun radiation levels emitted to our planet, which fluctuate and even seem to have a cyclical effect. Also, most agree that human emissions of carbon dioxide, even in and after the industrial age, are miniscule in comparison to natural emissions. One strong volcanic burst can put more carbon dioxide in the air than the entire human population of the world was estimated in doing for the whole 20th century.

Another problem with the theory, as suggested by the Harvard team and others, is the evidence which suggests that the rise in carbon dioxide lags behind the temperature rise by 800 years, so it cannot be the cause of it. Many records exist which prove glacier advancement during the years of the “Little Ice Age,” including places like Switzerland in 1595, France in 1600-1610, and the Eastern Alps in the 1670’s and 1680’s, Iceland in 1695-1709, Norway in 1710-1735, in which one glacier is reported to advance at the rate of 100 meters each year. The annual Thames fair had its last hurrah in 1814, at least on the river itself. What does all this have to do with our topic?

“Records used by (modern) climate scientists date from when the Earth was relatively cold, thereby exaggerating the significance of today’s temperature rise.”[11]

Unfortunately, climatologists have not fully considered the reasoning behind finding palm trees frozen in the arctic regions, why camel fossils are found in cold regions, or any other anomaly found today using uniformitarian thinking. But thinking about climate changes in regard to a destructive world-wide flood may bring to light many of these anomalies, although St. Peter warns us:

ESV 2 Peter 3:3 knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires. 4 They will say, "Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation." 5 For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, 6 and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished.

Sadly, the article “Is God Green” recently published in The Lutheran Witness seems to give more credit due to the global warming fanatics than most will be able to discern. It is not clear that the author is a global warming proponent, but the writing does not clearly define where the Christian can and should stand on the issue, only pointing to our God-given role of caring for creation, which is indisputable. Worse case scenario, using the propaganda that “Christianity is largely to blame for environmental problems” could easily lead readers to believe that Dr. White Jr. was correct, since author Matthew Nelson never gets back to this ‘critical event’ in his past to discern it for the reader. Worse, he adds to Dr. White’s implications by saying later in the article:

“While some may deny that there is anything to be concerned about, most of us recognize that our collective pressure on creation has stressed it to varying degrees in various geographic locations. Add to this a volatile mix of science, personal values, and economics, and the issues relating to the environment are sure to explode again and again.”[12]

Even if the reader might get the right idea somehow, it gives the concerned citizen no help in discerning how conscious one should be of everyday decisions that could possibly “effect global warming” or how to be proactive with daily living instructions that are backed by good scientific and Scriptural references. It doesn’t help much.

I am all for fulfilling our Genesis 2 role of caring for the earth. But, as Jesus, I am all the more concerned about people and ministry than keeping this earth in pristine condition, for even Jesus will destroy this earth by fire. Not even mentioning the realities behind carbon emissions and global warming, I believe I could winsomely argue that creating more carbon emissions is actually reflecting God’s thinking in Romans 8 which says:

ESV Romans 8:28 And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.

The fuels that are most attacked for putting carbon dioxide in the atmosphere includes oil, coal and gas. It must also be noted that a Christian view regarding the bulk of formation of these fuels comes from organic tissue, mostly plant, animal and people who died in the flood during the days of Noah. This tissue was destroyed because of God’s pain-filled heart and His reaction to man’s constantly evil inclinations and wickedness. This evil was judged and destroyed, which was consequently formed into the fossil fuels we utilize today.

I would argue that, like God, we utilize these fuels [without great detriment to the world’s climate] in a Romans 8 way by using them to care for people and their needs; a mother who uses a car to get groceries or a gas stove to cook dinner, a father who drives his family to church, a neighbor who uses a gas-powered mower to cut a friend’s lawn, a pastor who drives daily to care for shut-ins or make hospital calls. These are all valid and important uses of once sin-ridden and wicked flesh, at least the human part. But just as God seeks to work all for good, we should utilize the final structure of their flesh [to fossil fuels] in order to care for people today.

But this is not what comes out of the general reading of the article found in The Lutheran Witness. In fact, if anything, we read that we should be more ecocentric[13] and not anthropocentric in the civic realm. Although Matthew tritely begins with Christocentric and ends with ‘the neighbor,’ everything in between calls for a better ecocentric mentality, which takes precedent in the argument, all the while assuming that carbon dioxide levels are actually causing the environmental problem, one among many, in global warming as it regards to the “Greenies” arguments. This is his connection to the liberal argument of the “Greenies.” This is not only highly problematic in its suggestion, but misleading, confusing and divisive in its approach to the subject for the average reader who cannot separate these issues and discern fact from interpretation.[14]

He is also absolutely wrong about the badness of the law from the civic realm’s view, but is in a large crowd of Lutherans today who are more antinomian in their approach to live “for the sake of the gospel,” just not their own sake in relation to God.[15] It is quite ironic that “the proper motivation for the work of caring for the creation is a response to the Gospel – a response to the love we were first shown in Christ” when we then must assume by this statement that the first 4,000 years or so never cared for creation since the “love of Christ” had not been revealed yet. So Matthew either must wrongly argue that the work of the Law somehow took place in gospel form in the Old Testament or that no person, even no Israelite, ever followed the command given to Adam in the garden or any other commands to the Old Testament "faithful." Although I know that the Israelites did hope in a Savior, it is unlikely that this unrevealed person would be the object of their “proper motivation” to care for the commands given their forefathers. That might be a contentious argument to hold firmly.

Of course, Americans are always prone to going ‘over the top,’ so a good conversation could be had in what someone drives as opposed to if someone drives. Do we need that V12 Jaguar to drive 50 miles one-way to work everyday? Does the gas-guzzling SUV need to be the transportation of the single woman/man getting around town? Stewardship should always be addressed, but this does not require total abstinence of such resources. Matthew seems to forget that people matter most to God, which is why animals were constantly sacrificed in our place for roughly 4,000 years.[16] Although Matthew states “neighbor” all the time, the underlying principle for his paper suggests that we are not living for our neighbor while the alarmists tell us that the earth, its environment and its inhabitants (mostly concerning is the polar bear[17] among animal species), is crashing. But to assume that we must “save the world” for our neighbor is just not biblical.

I appreciate the post-article post online by Jim Roane, Ph.D., especially as it pertains to Matthew’s struggle to love the neighbor by saving the world, who suggests:

“When I studied meteorology, and worked briefly in the field, I recall at the time that meteorologists were seriously warning against a new Ice Age – which, incidentally, is still a popular theory among some. Now, we have politicians playing the role of scientist and adding more chaos to the confusion. I say, enough already! Let’s stick with the Scripture which says, “While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.” (Genesis 8:22 AMP)[18]

God’s Word is a good place to seek advice on this particular subject. The earth will remain until Christ’s second coming. Consequently, the next time you attend a Gore “Live Earth” concert [for a climate change], keep in mind whose mind is running the show. Is it God’s, or is this interpretation of facts man’s fallible idea? The Words of Christ, like the Genesis text referred to above, as well as the many texts which state that the second coming of Christ will be unannounced for the fire judgment, indicate that this “irreversible warming problem” is not the problem it is cracked up to be, especially in light of the common interpretative disagreement in data and cause of this warming trend.

Do the right thing. Care for your neighbor. This includes recycling and questioning diapers, but above all, caring for your neighbor’s eternal destination and ministering to him at any opportunity provided. Jesus did, and will, as the earth remains:

ESV 2 Peter 3:7 But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.

If that means driving 1800 extra miles one-way to dialogue and comfort a friend in need, it is gas and carbon dioxide well spent. People are first in God’s eyes and ours too. Let Scripture lead the way and provide the context to proper discernment on environmentalism, not a mixing of such and global warming alarmist reasoning.[19]

[1] Absurdity at the highest level would be the assumption that the coming together of chemicals by random chance would bring about any moral highground which could be anything but self-serving from an evolutionary humanistic uniformitarian point of view. Micheal Shermer, who could don for an atheist priest, is working on a book in relation to this topic. It should be an interesting read, but one, nonetheless, riddled with presuppositions and religious assumptions as it exegetes life.
[2] An endearing term used within the environmentalist circle referring to their participation in keeping the earth “green” at all costs.
[3] This list is taken from: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/
1206_041206_global_warming.html - which was updated last on June 14th, 2007.
[4] This is the same Greek word as above.
[5] National Geographic, What’s Happening to Our Climate?, Nov. 1976, pp. 576-615.
[6] The Age, So What’s Happening…?, Melbourne, Australia, April 7, 2003. Research casts doubt on global warming theory.
[7] CNSNews.com, New Harvard Study Heats up ‘Global Warming’ Debate, April 8, 2003, by Marc Morano.
[8] The Australian, Bob Carter: British report the last hurrah of warmaholics, Nov. 3, 2006.
[9] Michael Griffin stated this in a conversation on NPR regarding Bush’s fight for climate change statement set for 2012 after the Kyoto Protocol lapses on March 31, 2007.
[10] This can be viewed here: http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/
great_global_warming_swindle/index.html
[11] The Age, So What’s Happening…?, Melbourne, Australia, April 7, 2003. Research casts doubt on global warming theory.
[12] This comes from the May 2007 Lutheran Witness, Vol. 126.
[13] Ecocentric is defined as “intrinsic value in wildlife and wild land” leading to the making of laws to protect these necessities.
[14] Matthew himself has difficulty separating and discerning these differences.
[15] Of course, Matthew could be meaning that we are not moved to any good work Coram Deo, which would be correct. But postulating the words he used to the average reader will only suggest antinomianism and not a clear understanding of “good works” in the two realms. This is just another example of how the two realms idea is poorly taught and even abused by leading ‘Lutherans’ today.
[16] This of course began with the slaughter of the first animal in the garden in order for God to provide the animal skins to cover Adam and his wife’s sinfulness and guilt.
[17] A strong argument against the concern of ‘losing the polar bear’ is made by some scientists who have revealed that the polar bear is a mutated brown bear. The white hair of the polar bear is a result of a degenerate mutational loss of genetic information for pigment. Therefore, even if all polar bears did cease to exist, it would only be a matter of time and natural selection (from a biblical view) that would bring this mutated species back into existence. Although, our category of species is not the same as God’s category of kind, we would only lose a species, not a kind. Not to be too trite, but we might have a better perspective on this matter if we were more concerned about people than a species that may never go extinct other than the possibility of brown bears going extinct first. This author does not see too many people actively working to save the feather duster mutant budgie (bird). Although not perfectly complimentary, there is some correlation. Read more at http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v24/i1/budgie.asp.
[18] This posting made on July 7, 2007 at 8:36 p.m. replying to an article written by Jim Brown from OneNewsNow.com on the same day.
[19] If God doesn’t think man is the culmination of his creation, then why the focus in Genesis 2, why are we made in His image, why are unblemished animals sacrificed are our behalf for 4,000 years? This does not allow us to abuse or misuse his creation, but the Christian should keep a more intact biblical perspective than Matthew overwhelmingly suggests.

Scars

2007-01-27T04:35:00.000-08:00

NIV Jeremiah 1:4 The word of the LORD came to me, saying, 5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations." 6 "Ah, Sovereign LORD," I said, "I do not know how to speak; I am only a child." 7 But the LORD said to me, "Do not say, 'I am only a child.' You must go to everyone I send you to and say whatever I command you. 8 Do not be afraid of them, for I am with you and will rescue you," declares the LORD. 9 Then the LORD reached out his hand and touched my mouth and said to me, "Now, I have put my words in your mouth. 10 See, today I appoint you over nations and kingdoms to uproot and tear down, to destroy and overthrow, to build and to plant."

Scars. Tear an ACL, have a surgery – end up with a scar. Cut yourself, and you get a scar. The wound heals and you go on with life, but the scar remains.

Scars. Emotional scars – fear from rejection, being hated, attacked, alone. These scars don’t heal so fast and it’s hard to go on with you life.

Jeremiah knew scars. He was a prophet. It’s not a glamorous job. The people didn’t want to hear about God’s punishment of their sin. But Jeremiah was called and appointed to speak the Truth. He was attacked. People hated him. Others rejected him. He often felt all alone. Jeremiah knew scars.

We know about scars too, don’t we? Of course, it would be great to think that everything is as good as it looks in our lives. We walk around, acting as if everything is fine, but in our hearts, we know that things aren’t quite right. We’ve been wounded in our lives. These wounds produce scars, scars that are difficult to overcome at times. Maybe you are wondering why God had to give you such unjust parents, or as parents you may be thinking, ‘What did I do to deserve such rebellious kids?’

Or maybe some of you may have scars from a severed relationship, maybe a family member, a good friend, or even a divorce from your spouse. Can you trust people these days? Maybe you have lost a loved one or almost lost your own life. Maybe you are losing a loved one as the days go by right now. Or maybe you were injured when a loved one said something terrible to us when they were angry, a painful word that has never quite gone away, leaving a scar. Maybe we have scars from old habits, drinking away our problems or retreating from them with drugs. Or maybe we are angry at God for the wrongful ways He has treated us, at least from our vantage point. I mean, you’ve been praying and praying for Him to enter the life of your cousin or Uncle, but they just seem to dangle out there in the world, even falling farther and farther from His existence.

Yes, we all have scars, just like Jeremiah did. Just like Jesus Christ does! But there’s a difference between his scars and ours. As you recall, Jesus came to this earth with the cross in mind. He did not deserve such things. Jesus willingly came, humbling Himself as a man, and he was rejected, attacked, hated, he willingly went to His death on the cross for our sins. It is hard to understand such a scar, as the ones we are shown Jesus to have today, even as He showed his disciple Thomas. Can you imagine what Thomas saw? The last scene of “The Passion of the Christ” depicts the scars that a 10 inch nail would leave in a human body. We see a glimmer of the hole in that last scene as Jesus comes out of the tomb on that Resurrection morning. His hands have holes in them the size of a quarter! What love, what passion, for us!

But this is difficult to comprehend, and I must admit that I have a hard time relating to sacrifice of this nature. I know of a story that can help.

There was an American man in battle. All the training he received had never been enough for the situation he found himself in. The enemy had pushed through the front lines of defense and his tank had been hit. All of the fellow soldiers in his tank were dead, and he was greatly injured. With shrapnel in his head and throughout his body, he climbed his way out of the tank and fell to the ground. He could not run, he could barely drag one leg and walk, but he slowly made his way towards the safety lines of his fellow men in arms. Almost nearing the closest tree line, he encountered an insurgent about 20 yards away who had crossed over into their territory on foot. There was no cover near, and the insurgent had a gun, but the gun misfired. The enemy put the gun back but reached toward his belt and pulled out a grenade. Pulling the pin, he threw the grenade, which landed only a few feet from the American soldier. Because of his wounds, the American soldier neither had the ability to get to the grenade in time to get rid of it, nor the agility to run for cover. He was helpless.

But out of the nearby safety zone came another American soldier, who had already been heading in the direction of the injured man. Immediately, seeing the situation, he sprinted toward them. But he didn’t cover the man…he went straight to the grenade and covered it! This young soldier saw the problem and went right for it, dying almost immediately after the grenade exploded, saving the injured man from certain death.

In a flurry of thoughts, the injured man decided that the best way to honor the courage of this American soldier was to make it to safety. So, with new vigor, he limped and staggered his way towards cover. The journey, although not far away, seemed endless, and much of the time he had to resort to crawling, but somehow, he made it back to the lines of safety.

It was many months before the man was nursed back to health, for his condition remained critical for six months. He had sustained gross amounts of shrapnel in his head and near many vital organs. It was nine months before he walked again. But his situation improved quickly after that point, and by the 1 year anniversary of that day, the recovering soldier found himself, in decorated uniform, at the doorstep of another man’s house. Fighting off the tears that were forming in his eyes, the decorated soldier touched the doorbell. The answer came not from a widow or small children, for the young soldier who had given his life had not yet married. But a gray-haired woman answered the door.

After the soldier explained why he was there, the woman invited him in. And, in front of the boy’s father and mother, tears streaming down his face, he told of the great courage and sacrifice their son had displayed on the battlefield in order to save his life, a life that had been hanging in the balance for 9 months and was still recovering.

You see, Jesus always had the cross before him. He came to earth knowing he was going to jump on our grenade. We are not the young spry soldier sprinting on the battlefield. We are injured, all of us scarred from life. We hold pain from difficult days deep within. But that isn’t all that we have. SOMEONE has a hold of us. With His scarred hands, Jesus touches us, like He touched Jeremiah in his day. Remember the words, “do not be afraid, for I am with you and will rescue you, declares the LORD. The LORD reached out his hand and touched my mouth.” Jesus takes us in his loving arms. We are touched in baptism, we are touched in the hearing of His Word, we are touched when we partake of His body and blood in the Lord’s supper. He touches us when we share the ‘Peace of the Lord’ with each other in our worship. God has touched us, in ways unique but similar to Jeremiah.

So, why was Jeremiah touched by God? Do you remember Jeremiah’s scar? He was afraid. We don’t know exactly what he feared, but he had reason, as Jewish tradition has it, his message eventually got him stoned to death. But notice the life of a man touched by God. Notice the faith of Jeremiah, after cleansed by the touch of God, with His words on his lips, he went out to do the will of God. What did God touch him for? Verse 10 tells us that he was to speak to nations and kingdoms, to uproot, tear down, destroy, overthrow, build and plant. I would need the touch of God to destroy a nation and build it up again.

What have you been touched for? We are not all Jeremiahs. But as God formed you in the womb, as you were knitted together in the secret place, you were formed with a purpose in mind. God has a will for your life He is working in you. As it says in Ephesians 2:10 For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

This was clear from our study last week when we were reminded of the great work God does when He forms our bodies in the womb. We are not some arbitrary process that, by luck and chance, finishes as “us” nine months later. We are God’s creative handiwork, His weaving and knitting us together for a purpose! We are His Creation that He feels so strongly about, He was willing to go to the cross for it! (John 15:13) Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. And that is what you are called: friends of God through Christ Jesus! Before the Father, Jesus says, “This one’s with me.” And we are touched by His grace.

Jeremiah heard and felt God’s touch that day. We hear and feel God’s touch when His Word is proclaimed, we feel it at the font and in communion at the Lord’s table. God has given us His touch for every scar in our lives.

This touch of God is the touch we give when we share the “Peace of the Lord” with each other near the beginning of worship. When we visit someone hospitalized or sick, we bring God’s touch to their lives. When we cloth someone who is naked, as we do through the ‘Friends of Mom” group, we bring God’s touch to their lives. When our evangelism group goes out every month, knocking on doors, praying and taking prayer requests and witnessing the Truth of Jesus' saving grace, we bring God’s touch to a hurting people. I know, I pray with you the prayers that are brought before the Lord because of their journeys over to the neighborhoods.

When we take a child under our wings or adopt, we bring love, healing and hope to this child - we display God’s touch in their lives. When we stand for truth, as was spoken last weekend during ‘Life Sunday,’ we stand for the unborn, we witness to the love God has for all people. We bring God’s touch to those who seemingly cannot be touched in the womb.

YES, God uses His Word, water, and simple bread and wine to touch our lives. YES, God uses us to bring His healing touch to the lives of those in His world, to His Creation. May God continue to touch you, giving you His discernment, strength and love for others. Amen.

Infant baptism, such a hot topic!?

2006-12-22T22:16:00.000-08:00

Not to disappoint, we hit another point of reflection that is found on the "top ten list" on many Christian minds. It is amazing how polarized the people of God can be on any one topic, but all too often this happens, as we have seen in prior topics (such as creation, etc.). What a grand place heaven will be as we enter into all truth, no longer looking through a glass darkly, but having our minds renewed into all truth by our Savior and Lord. Praise be to Him as we look forward to real unity in faith in heaven.

But as for now, we struggle with God's Word and its intended meaning for us. Just to scratch the surface, we must consider things like hermeneutics and genre of Scripture (most would agree that one would understand vocabulary and sentence meaning differently if coming from a narrative than coming from poetry or another genre of literature). The intended meaning of the author in his place in history as well as the inspiration factor are other examples of information that may help us better understand what God wishes to communicate. All this to say, with over 6,000 Christian denominations worldwide, John 17 and the prayer for unity Christ prayed for his followers (us) is put into quite a concerning discussion. Even more so, the reason Christ prayed for our unity was for...

ESV John 17:20 "I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me.

...for our witness to the world! 6,000 arguments, not much of a witness for Christ. And sometimes our "discussions" take on more demonic tone than one of Christian love. As people who now we see...

ESV 1 Corinthians 13:12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.

...darkly, we will probably not agree whole-heartedly, but we could at least disagree in love. What happened to the Scriptures saying...

NIV 1 Peter 3:15 But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, 16 keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.

and

ESV 2 Timothy 2:24 And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, 25 correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, 26 and they may escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.

...to correct in loving ways. Recently, I am again reminded of those who are openly critical...no, hostile...to practices of Christ's church for the entire 2,000 years. I am thinking of the topic of infant baptism specifically, but many more could follow. However, we will take some time to consider the work of many who have gone before for such a topic, including apostles, church fathers, reformers and God's men today. May these compilations, of which the names of the works are included, be a blessing in at least proposing the efficacy and biblical idealogy concerning this ancient practice of God's work through baptism to save ALL people and all nations, including the infant. Come to think of it, in some ways the infant has an advantage over me...he doesn't have years and years of worldly indoctrination in his reasoning that could directly effect and work against God's revealed Word and His power. Maybe that's what Jesus meant when he spoke of faith as a little child? May this bless your efforts to become one in Christ and His Church and His Truth.

From the "Why Baptize Children" (LCMS) pamphlet by John Theodore Mueller, Th. D.:

1. All historical churches baptize infants, only the Baptists and other denominations influenced by them do not.
2. Tertullian, born in North Africa about 150, was opposed to the Baptism of infants, just as he departed from the teachings of the church in many other ways; nevertheless he witnesses to the fact that at his time the Baptism of babies was in universal use.
3. The learned church father Origen, born in the year 185, says that the Baptism of infants was an "apostolic tradition."
4. Augustine, born in 354, wrote learned books against the heretics who disapproved of the Baptism of children.
5. The Lutheran Cyclopedia states: "From the apostolic age to the rise of Anabaptism in the sixteenth century the doctrine of infant Baptism was undisputed." This is correct. The erring Anabaptists could indeed dispute infant Baptism, but they could not break the sacred tradition not put a stop to the Baptism of babies, since that is Scriptural.
6. The apostles baptized entire families: 1 Cor. 1:16; Acts 16:15, 33; Acts 10:48. Households commonly include children. (I don't know of anyone who doesn't count a child for tax purposes!)
7. Baptism takes the place of circumcision. See Colossians 2:11-12. In v. 11 St. Paul speaks of a circumcision made without hands, and then in v. 12 he tells us that what he means is Holy Baptism. In his Epistle to the Colossians, the apostle argues mainly against Jewish defenders of the Old Testament ceremonial laws. Oh, no, he tells his readers, warning them against such false teachers: in the New Testament we have no longer any circumcision, but we have Holy Baptism as the Sacrament instituted by Christ. And with that we are spiritually circumcised. To understand the apostle's argument, we must remember that there is a certain similarity between circumcision and Holy Baptism. Both Sacraments have certain outward signs, and both have the promise of God's grace. Holy Baptism has the promise: "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved" (Mark 16:16). Circumcision had the promise: "This is my covenant [of grace: "I will be their God," v. 8]...Every male among you shall be circumcised" (Gen. 17:10). Here, then, we find the reason why in the days of the apostles not only the believing heads of the families were baptized, but also their households, or families. They wanted to secure for all their loved ones God's covenant of grace in Christ Jesus, mediated to them by Holy Baptism. (Plus, we must remember that circumcision took place on the 8th day...infancy)
8. Babies belong to "all nations" (Matthew 28:19). (I know of no census that doesn't count infants in their studies...similar to "dependants" for tax purposes)
9. All are sinners. Original sin is a doctrine that all church fathers, as well as apostles, taught and readily accepted. NIV Psalm 51:5 Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.
10. Babies CAN believe. See Matthew 18:6; Matt. 21:16 (Jesus is following the OT in Psalm 8:2) ESV Matthew 21:16 and they said to him, "Do you hear what these are saying?" And Jesus said to them, "Yes; have you never read, "' Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babies you have prepared praise'?"
11. If the objection is raised that little children cannot believe because they are not yet conscious of the Christian faith, how about adult believers when they sleep or adult believers when they are in a coma? Sleep does not destroy a believer's faith, not does a coma. Baptized babies can believe even though they cannot recite the Lrod's Prayer or the Apostles' Creed. Let us honestly believe our precious Savior when He says that the little ones can believe.
12. Mark 10:13-16 tells us to bring our little ones to Jesus. (The greek word used here is also understood as "infant" or "young child". Friberg Lexicon, Thayer's Greek Lexicon, etc.)
13. NIV John 3:6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. Why would we keep our children from the blessing God promises through baptism?

Another quick reference from "Martin Luther's Arguments for Infant Baptism" by Paul H. Zietlow (this ran first in Concordia Journal/April 1994):
Table 1
Martin Luther's Biblical Arguments for Infant Baptism

1. All nations argument: Children and infants are included among the "all people" that God wishes to save (Matt. 28:16). Baptism confers many blessings; infants receive these as much as adults (Acts 2:39).
2. Infants can have faith argument: Infants receive the Holy Spirit during Baptism, enabling them to believe the promises of God offered in Baptism. As John the Baptist was born with faith even in the womb (Luke 1:41-45), infants can have faith. This is further proven by the fruits of the Holy Spirit which follow Baptism. In the Baptism service, God's Word does not return void (Is. 55:11). The Holy Spirit is ablt to work faith in the child perhaps easier than in adults.
3. Progressive Sanctification Argument: Infants should be baptized so that God's Spirit can begin to fight against the Old Adam. In Baptism, the Holy Spirit is received (Acts 2:28); God's Spiritual battle for one's soul is initiated (Rom. 6:3-7). Baptism announces, begins, produces, and promotes the new sanctified life in Christ. Without Baptism, God's powerful Spirit does not enter into a child's life, regenerate that life, and begin to bring out the new man. (This one seems to be needing further explanation since we would affirm that it's the Holy Spirit's work for someone to 'receive' Christ and be baptized, and he also works through the Lord's Supper and His Word)
4. Christ's Invitation argument: Christ commanded the church to bring little children to Him, and stated that the kingdom of God belongs to them (Matt. 19:14; Mark 10:14). He invited "little" children to heaven.
5. Original sin argument: Since all descendants of Adam are born guilty of original sin, both infants and adults need Baptism (Psalm 51:5; Eph. 2:30). All people need forgiveness, cleansing, and salvation; these things are conferred in Baptism (Acts 2:38-39; Titus 3:5).
6. Whole Households argument: The disciples baptized whole households (Acts 16:15, 16:33) these households must have included infants and children.
7. Circumcision argument: Abraham's circumcised children were accepted by God at the age of eight days old and were called God's people (Gen. 17:7). Therefore, God certainly accepts baptized infants.

Table 2
Martin Luther's Theological Arguments for Infant Baptism

1. Unconditional Gift argument: Baptism is an act of God. God offers His gifts unconditionally, whether faith is present or not (1 Cor. 10:2). While faith is needed to grasp the promises offered in this way, Baptism is done in obedience to God's command to baptize, and with God's Word conveying rich blessings to the recipient. Even if infants did not have faith, their Baptism would be valid.
2. Vicarious Faith argument: The vicarious faith of those who present infants for Baptism is of great help, for it makes possible the creation of faith in the infant. Both the Word of God and the prayers of the church are powerful enough to create fiath in the infant and to miraculously regenerate, cleanse, and renew the infant (Mark 9:23).
3. Satan's Power argument: God ordained Baptism for infants at a time when they are incapable of superstition and actual sin. Children can be initiated into faith and more easily than adults, who have been deceived by Satan and implanted with doubt. Reason is an enemy of God. Few adults would be sanctified if Baptism was postponed.
4. Veiled Faith argument: If evidence of faith were a condition for Baptism, no human could ever be baptized; only God can see the heart (1 Kings 8:39). Faith can be pretended, and no one can be trusted (Psalm 116:11). To withhold Baptism from infants because evidence of faith is lacking would mean that Baptism should be withheld from everyone.
5. Good Conscience argument: The withholding of Baptism from infants could mean the loss of their salvation. To baptize them mistakenly, if it were an error, would have less serious consequences. God would forgive anyone who baptized infants in ignorance but with good motives.
6. Scriptural Silence argument: Nowhere does the Bible forbid baptizing infants, nor does it command Baptism of adults or specify age in any way. If this were something God found objectionable, He would have prohibited it clearly, for He clearly reveals His will in His Word.

Table 3
Martin Luther's Historical Arguments for Infant Baptism

1. Fruitful Church argument: The presence in the world of millions of fruitful witnesses who were baptized as infants is proof that God approves of infant Baptism and works favorably and powerfully through it. If He opposed infant Baptism, the church would be accursed and unfruitful, for God opposes that which is not of truth. The present strength of the visible church is thus proof that infant Baptism bestows the gift of the Holy Spirit to its recipients (Acts 2:28), and they are then made fruitful by the Spirit's work.
2. Tradition argument: Infant Baptism has been the practice of the church since its inception, according to St. Augustine and other early church fathers. There is no reason to think that infants were not baptized in good faith by the apostles. Only if Scripture opposed a church practice could it be overturned, and this can not be done.
3. Heresy Suppression argument: All church heresies have been confronted very soon after introduction. Paul mentions the heresies of Jannes and Jambres; these were immediately challenged and overruled by church theologians (2 Tim. 3:8-9). The lack of any such challenge to infant Baptism until the 1520's is circumstantial proof that no error existed.
4. Absent Church argument: The church can not exist without Baptism; without it the church would have ceased. If infant Baptism was invalid, then the church did not baptize anyone for more than one thousand years. This would imply that no church existed for over a millennium. Such a notion is clearly false.

Hope and renewal

2006-12-05T05:08:00.000-08:00

Of course, in Jesus Christ, there is never a hopeless situation, for He can redeem anything.

I am happy to report (although terribly late to make a difference in the polls, but never too late to help in the years to come since this stem cell research and cloning does not seem to be going away any time soon) that after meeting with some of the leadership here at seminary, our position on posting the signs (see the article below on Amendment 2 and Resurrecting Auschwitz I) has changed. Praise God for His work in changing hearts and minds for such a crucial opportunity to display the truth of God and love for His Creations: these little people, growing people, who are too little to stand up for their right to life and hope for us big people to stand up for them and preserve their every need. May God continue to grant to us and all Christians the biblical discernment needed for quick decisions and dialogue with our communities and cultures, so that we may witness faithfully and lovingly, yet with strength and power as we fight not flesh, but the powers and principalities of this world (Eph. 6:12) in God's will. May we so study His Word that we may know God's will and respond in faith.

ESV Romans 12:1 I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. 2 Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect. 3 For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned.

Amendment 2 and the resurrection of Auschwitz I

2006-11-27T21:23:00.000-08:00

Something for all Christians and their denominations to consider in light of God's Truth. To be sure, some LCMS churches did voice a much needed Word from God on this issue through seminars and lawn signs, but rare was the witness, especially in the public sphere, as far as this person could discern. Worse yet, seminary avoided a great opportunity to witness to a much needed public through the ownership of South Campus on Clayton Road. Six signs were procured and placed in the front lawn of South Campus on Clayton Road, but taken down at the request of seminary personel. After much deliberation and discussion, it is the position of this author that the decision to remove the signs was un-Lutheran and unfaithful to the witness of God's Word in our context and community. May God forgive us and lead us to more fully embody His Will and Kingdom here on earth.

Resurrecting Auschwitz I: the church’s needed voice is rarely found.

“In Germany, they [the Gestapo] came first for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionists. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up.”[1]

It hardly seems real to consider the horrors of Auschwitz to be alive and well, and that in America! But this is in fact what has happened. The concern of this paper is not as much the seemingly deliberate move of the Missouri people to vote for cloning humans[2] for personal use as much as the lack of voice in the public square by LCMS churches and it’s members to effectively speak on behalf of God concerning this important change in our society.[3]

First, one must understand the scope of the issue. In this most recent voting election, Amendment 2 was incorporated. This seemed to be more about what Amendment 2 ‘didn’t specifically say’ than what it did say. Among the many atrocities it brought to the Missourians, one of its qualities was its deceitful wording. Besides leaving the door open for many future unethical practices, it also sought to gain credence with the American people by redefining the word ‘cloning.’ The amendment reads as if it was “banning cloning” of human beings. However, if one were to read the entire amendment,[4] he would find that the document’s authors redefine cloning to include only cloned embryos that are returned to the mother’s womb for full-term development.

Since this is not the procedure the researchers are looking to do, but rather only need the embryo to develop into a blastocyst,[5] it was a perfect plan. “What ‘plan’ do they have?” you may ask. The amendment allows for any of these possibilities, and probably more:

1. Cloning human beings for the sole purpose of use and destruction.

2. Cloning human beings for research purposes. This could save drug companies up to $500 million and almost 8 ½ years of testing, getting the product on the shelves in virtually no time.

3. The researches have a blank check with which to write and take any tax money necessary for their special interest, unethical research.

4. Research is not the only future possibility. We are less than 10 years away from a full-functioning artificial womb.[6] As long as the embryo is not being placed back in the mother’s womb, it would be ‘legal’ to grow a baby for an undetermined time in this tissue. This could give rise to “organ transplant factories” in which people clone their own DNA and steal the organ(s) needed for their own use.[7]

5. This not only totally under minds the pro-life argument, making legal abortion after day 15, but it also nullifies certain existing abortion laws.

6. The harvesting of eggs from women. This procedure has taken at least 25 lives and caused at least 600 women to have post-surgery complications. It is risky and can also cause one to become sterile.

7. Unborn humans created by In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) could be killed at any stage of development to obtain their stem cells or “late embryonic body parts,” and neither the Legislature not Missouri citizens could do anything about it.

As Robert P. George, Ph.D., and member of the President’s Council on Bioethics has written:
“Based on the literature I have read and the evasive answers given by spokesmen for the biotechnology industry at meetings of the President’s Council on Bioethics, I fear that the long-term goal is indeed to created an industry in harvesting late embryonic and fetal body parts for use in regenerative medicine and organ transplantation.”

All this and not one cure has been found through embryonic stem cell research. Only Adult stem cells are used right now, and scientists have even found ways to tweak the cells into becoming pluripotent.[8] The embryonic stem cell cures are decades away, if that, while the proponents of this amendment expect to gain huge profits from the passing of this legislation.[9]

This is no different, if not worse, than Auschwitz I in Hitler’s day. Dr. Josef Mengele led experiments in Block 10 and other concentration camps. They conducted pseudoscientific research on infants, twins, dwarfs and performed forced sterilizations, castrations and hypothermia experiments on adults. What’s worse about Amendment 2 is that human embryos are even less capable of standing up for themselves and are the weakest of the weak in our culture, totally helpless and dependent upon others for good will and life.

Missouri has decided to turn its back on these “lowly” people. Even worse, many of the pastors in the LCMS are not engaging the discourse.[10] According to my past experience, very few pastors choose to engage in difficult, but practical life issues. We are all too accustomed to strict Law and Gospel preaching and teaching and do not wish to dig into difficult application. It seems as though we are afraid of being incorrect or taking people’s eyes away from justification through Christ.

But there may be very good reasons to attempt such an issue from a biblical worldview Especially concerning are the assumptions some may come to with our lacking dialogue. Those paying attention may come to one of these troubling conclusions:

1. We don't know what God really thinks about the issue.

2. We don't care about what God thinks about the issue.

3. We are scared to tell people what God thinks about the issue.

4. We think God is "ok" with cloning.

None of these answers are acceptable, for they all fall short of our position. However, if our position is not made perfectly clear, how are people to understand God’s view? I have seen cars pulling out of LCMS church parking lots with a “Vote Yes on Amendment 2” bumper stickers. It is perfectly clear that there will always be someone who doesn’t ‘walk the line,’ but clear education and teaching should lead almost all to the biblical conclusion of this horrible practice.

“But doesn’t this get in the way of the Gospel?” “Won’t this take us off-topic into territory that is better left to the medical field?”[11] “If we speak on this issue, what issue won’t take the place of church ministry and practice as we know it?” These are all good questions which must be carefully weighed, but before doing so, we must also give ear to Luther:

“If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved and to be steady on all the battlefield besides is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that one point.”[12]

It could be argued that defending the life of the weak is highly biblically important. When prioritizing teaching and preaching decisions, one must put justification by faith in Jesus Christ first and foremost, but that does not mean that every sermon and bible class must contain this information and this information alone. Pastors must be good stewards of the whole of Scripture, which includes our everyday lives and dealings. We must never distract from major tenets and foundations of the faith, but build on Jesus Christ.[13] Jesus was specifically interested in the well being of people and bringing His Kingdom into a present reality. This social aspect has to include speaking for those who cannot speak for themselves, namely, in this case, the unborn.

Unfortunately, not all agree. Some feel that pastors should stay completely out of anything not directly affiliated with church. Some feel that a voice should come from experts in their field, thereby excluding any other vocation from asserting a biblical view on the given subject. Some feel that pastors should have a say in all things. Who is correct? What should be done, and why?

There is no direct ‘black and white’ answer to questions such as these. However, some guiding priorities should lead us in a generally biblical direction. First of all, Jesus held the value of life extremely high. His Word teaches that human life is exceptionally important; in fact that is why He put on human flesh to save all people, including the weak.[14] Although that seems to rank the highest, we must also concede that this life is second to eternal life, therefore justification by faith in Christ should never be neglected or missed, but the foundation by which all is understood and matured. With this foundational element in place, we can move along as Paul did with the Christians in Corinth, seeking to bring them into spiritual maturity in Christ, finally working in the direction of Paul:

NIV 2 Corinthians 10:3 For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. 4 The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. 5 We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.

What concerns me is the lack of backbone to this issue in a public way.[15] We must take the opportunity to address these issues and equip our people to engage the culture where they have influence.[16] We must also not shy away from possible opportunities to relay the truth. It was suggested that the 6 “No Cloning” signs retrieved for the front lawn of South Campus be taken down for fear of a ‘liberal’ taking action against this seminary.[17] Although this kind of suit is possible, the effects of nothing said could be much more devastating for the life of thousands, maybe millions of unborn children.[18] These things must be considered very carefully and weighed according to God’s truth and power, not according to man’s wisdom or concern. May God’s tension of love and action on our behalf lead us to consider and take to heart the whole of His Word, as well as these words of Winston Churchill:

“If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no chance of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”

[1] Martin Niemoller, German Pastor before World War Two.
[2] If indeed the people understood the amendment, then one should apply Luther’s words as found in volume 51, p. 37: “Where there are no Christians, or perverse and false Christians, it would be well for the authorities to allow them, like heathens, to put away their wives, and to take others, in order that they may not, with their discordant lives, have two hells, both here and there. But let them know that by their divorce they cease to be Christians, and become heathens, and are in the state of damnation.” Although the morality of life versus divorce would need engagement.
[3] The reality of this statement comes from past experience and present day discernment in general and does not necessarily reflect every situation and individual LCMS member. President Kieschnick is to be applauded for his memo on October 20th, but seemingly few pastors took the issue head on.
[4] This document is not easily found, and furthermore, the average voter does not look into such propositions well enough to figure this out, so the deception was built on people’s lack of knowledge. Hosea 4:6 comes to mind.
[5] The technical name for a human being at 15 days of life.
[6] Mice have already been grown to full gestation (although deformed), and goats have also survived almost full-term. Human embryos have been successfully planted already in an artificial womb tissue and allowed to grow for 6 days, after which they were ‘aborted’ because the test was not ready for continuation. Dr. Hung-Ching Liu of Cornell University’s announced the latter result in 2002.
[7] Although successful acceptance of the organ is more likely, rejection is not totally taken out of the realm of possibility in this process because the procedure always causes unforeseeable mutations in the genes.
[8] This is the famed reasoned argument for embryonic stem cell research. When cells are found to be pluripotent, this means that they can become anything. Not only can Adult stem cells become pluripotent, but they also do not cause cancer as embryonic stem cells have shown to do.
[9] Unfortunately, this amount of “set up” is necessary to better understand the problem of not speaking out on this issue.
[10] Again, this general statement does not include all pastors and leaders, as my RFE pastor held a comprehensive analysis on the subject and brought the issue up consistently over 3 weeks.
[11] The medical field are the ones positioning this amendment. The “yes” rally election night was held on Washington University’s campus.
[12] Luther, Martin. Statement. Robert Flood, The Rebirth of America (Philadelphia: Arthur DeMoss Found., 1986), p. 127.
[13] As Paul speaks of in 1 Cor. 3.
[14] He came for the sick and those needing a physician, not the well.
[15] By “public” it is meant direct contact by way of encountering others, especially those outside of our community, not through usually unsolicited places like http://www.lcms.org/ and elsewhere.
[16] This very idea was discussed at the recent conference called Called to Engage the Postmodern World.”
[17] It was suggested that this could be politically arguing one candidate over another, however, the law specifically allows pastors to speak out on moral and biblical issues of the day.
[18] This author also understands the tension of being “wise as serpents but innocent as doves,” but prioritizes life needs over possible unlawful suits, especially under the circumstances.

Creation, God and controversy

2006-11-19T19:13:00.000-08:00

Well, not to disappoint, we are taking a brief look at another "hot topic" in our society. Who hasn't heard someone spout, "Creationists are not scientists" and other such language. Again, the debate comes down to interpretation, but this time it isn't interpretation of Scripture (at least on the surface), but of observable facts, at least in the sense of operational science (historical science always includes a presupposed philosophical point of view).

Of course, this does have to do with which authority one considers to be in charge. If God is in charge, then we should take His Word to be the authority in matters, including our view of science and the origins of the world. But if (fallible) man's authority is in charge, we had better be ready to change with the wind, because that is what has happened with man in charge, even since the beginning.

Not everyone wants this 'debate' to be so open, however. As Dr. David Menton shows us in the below article, many, especially those in charge at the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), want to squash any attempt at scholarship in our culture. It is quite interesting that we want to have all the information (as the intelligible scholars we are here in America), yet only wish to disseminate a certain part of it for others. I call that brainwashing. Who's brainwashing you? It is sure to be happening, unless you are filtering information as is seeps in. And what is your filter? If you haven't guessed, the answer should be God's Word. Hey, the author of the Bible (God) who spoke through many prophets and apostles along the way, was the only one there! I would go with that witness any day. Besides being all-powerful, all-knowing and the like, He tells us over and over again that He loves us and wants us to be with Him for eternity. But there are some who do not want people hearing any message that might sound like that. Here is one of the places you should watch in the future. We thank Dr. Menton (professor emeritus from Washington University, Professor of the Year twice) for this insightful tool of discernment for future generations.

A Battle for Men’s Souls
David N. Menton

The 172nd national meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) met in St. Louis on February 16-20, 2006. I had the opportunity to attend this convention on behalf of AIG, and what I heard and saw is of great importance to all who are concerned about Biblical Christianity and the future of public education in America. Christians be warned! – Evolutionists in the name of “science” so-called have challenged us to nothing less than a battle for men’s souls.

“Science” under attack!
The AAAS is the world’s largest general scientific society and their annual meetings comprise well over a hundred different seminars and symposia covering every imaginable field of science and pseudoscience from “Stem Cell Research” to “Astrobiology” (the “study” of life forms around distant stars!). A major theme this year was the growing battle between Creationism and evolutionism in our public schools. In several different symposia with titles like “Anti-Evolutionism in America” and “Science under Attack,” dozens of speakers raised a strident and angry denunciation of Christian “fundamentalists” who they claim seek nothing less than the end of all science!

Lawyers are ensuring that our science classes remain God-free zones
In one session titled “Constitutional Principles and Legal Strategies in the Creation and Evolution Debates” sponsored by the American Bar Association, lawyers crowed over their victories against “intelligent design (ID)” and “Creationism” in recent court battles with school districts in Dover, PA and Cobb County, GA. Apparently the AAAS is counting on lawyers to continue to keep our public schools a God-free zone.

Ray Eve from the University of Texas at Arlington reported on how a belief in Creation and a young earth correlates with many politically “incorrect” views such as opposition to homosexuality. Eve evoked disdainful laughter from the audience when he mentioned such matters as the “fundamentalists” belief in God, angels, the devil, prophecy and the return of Christ. Eve’s biggest concern in future court battles, however, is not the “fundamentalists,” but what he calls “ratchet evolutionists.” These are people who accept evolutionism but reject “strict naturalism.” Presumably, even a belief in evolutionism is not enough for our legal defenders if it is not accompanied by an unquestioning belief in a philosophy of crass materialism.

Diffuse the Creation/evolution controversy by “teaching about religion”
Jay Wexler from Boston University declared that teaching intelligent design is unconstitutional because it’s “religion,” though he conceded that the Supreme Court has yet to define religion. Still, Wexler felt that we could “defuse” the Creation/evolution controversy if our public schools were to “teach about religion.” What he has in mind of course is that all religions would be granted equal coverage and taught as mythology. While Wexler applauded the decision of Federal Judge Jones in the Dover PA case that “intelligent design is breathtaking insanity” and is “not science,” he was leery of judges deciding what is science and what is not, lest it “come back to haunt us.”

Teachers “have no academic freedom”
Steven Gay of Florida State University exhibited anger and sarcasm against ID and Creationism as he spoke on “Field Strategies: What Proponents of Evolution Need to Know.” Gay insisted that we don’t even have to decide what is and is not science when it comes to ID, since “everyone agrees that whatever science is this ain’t it.” Gay warned that one of the strategies the ID proponents are now trying in the courts is to ask that high school teachers be permitted to critically evaluate the evidence for evolution, but he insisted that teachers below the University level “have no academic freedom” to do this, and angrily declared - “You do not have the academic right to be incompetent.”

The lawyers “scare the hell out of the school boards”
Gay said that the decision of Federal Judge Jones against teaching ID in Dover, PA was “great because it scares the hell out of the school boards.” He said that school districts can’t afford to go to court over teaching ID because when they loose they will have to pay for all the legal expenses and quipped that “lawyers make $500 an hour” and “eat at expensive restaurants.”

“Why are you a Baptist?”
Like Wexler, Gay also proposed that teachers should be taught how to “teach about religion” in our public schools in the hope of preventing a conflict between religion and evolutionism. His solution is that we teach how religion itself evolved and ask our students questions such as “Why are you a Baptist?”

Science Under Attack – People are relying on religious explanations and prayer!
The program description for a symposium titled “Science Under Attack” reports with alarm that “Recent data indicates a growth in public support for biblical explanations and a growing reliance on prayer and religious explanation.” Several speakers in this symposium implied that this will have to stop if there is to be any hope for science and, indeed, the future of America.

The leadoff speaker in this symposium was Eugenie Scott, head of the anticreationist organization pretentiously called the “National Center for Science Education (NCSE)” and the darling of evolutionary dogmatists everywhere. Scott lamented that education policy and curriculum is decentralized in over 1700 school districts in the United States and proposed that the science curriculum be centralized. No doubt her NCSE stands ready to set the guidelines for such a national curriculum.

Scott asks, “What other designer other than God could have made all this complexity?”
Scott lashed out against the suggestion of the ID movement to “teach the controversy” regarding evolutionism, insisting that there is no controversy among those entitled to an opinion. She regards all scientific criticism of evolutionary dogma in the classroom to be “religious” because “if you denigrate evolution then God did it” so you are really “sneaking creationism into the curriculum.” Although most evolutionists have in the past argued that evidence against evolution does not imply evidence for Creation, incredibly Scott asked; “What other designer other than God could have made all this complexity?” Those in the ID movement who ingenuously deny that they have God in mind as the designer could learn something from Scott - what other designer after all is there that could have made the heavens and the earth and all its inhabitants? We may be certain it wasn’t the mindless and purposeless process of random evolution that Scott imagines.

Christian fundamentalism is behind the rejection of modern science
Jon Miller of Northwestern University spoke on what he called “The Erosion of Public Acceptance of Modern Science in the United States.” Having convinced himself that the public support for science in America has been waning over the last several years, Miller puzzled over the incongruous fact that for the last 60 years America has been a leader in science and that Americans in fact generously support science and eagerly adopt new technology. He conceded that the reservations that Americans have for “science” are largely confined to evolutionism and embryonic stem cell research. Still, he said, it was shocking that only about 13% of Americans are convinced that evolution is true and lamented that no other country in the world rejects evolutionism to the degree that Americans do. Miller concluded that “fundamentalism” is behind this rejection of “modern science” (i.e. evolutionism). He defined “fundamentalism” as the belief that the Bible is the Word of God and that there is a personal God who hears the prayers of individuals.

We must reach young children with evolutionism
Shirley Malcom, head of AAAS Education and Resources believes that Americans are willing to accept science until it involves a “clash of values” or has “politically unacceptable implications.” Along with others, she proposed that we must reach the young children because early education in science (i.e. evolutionism) is essential for “adult literacy.” Roger Bybee, head of the Biological Science Curriculum Study (BSCS) that over the past 40 years has developed evolution laced biology textbooks, agreed suggesting that “School programs should introduce concepts fundamental to evolution beginning in elementary grades.”

Teachers have done a poor job of teaching evolutionism
Gary Wheeler, head of the National Science Teachers Association and a strong advocate for evolutionism admitted that “every time I support evolution I get hate mail.” Wheeler declared that “teachers lack knowledge of evolution” and that colleges are “doing a dreadful job of teaching science (i.e. evolutionism) to teachers.” Despite the heavy indoctrination in evolutionism that most students get in the course of their education, many conference participants blamed teachers and those involved in teacher training for the failure of Americans to believe in evolutionism. Wheeler says that the two messages he tries to get across to his Creationist critics are: 1) “evolution is necessary for America to remain competitive” in the world, and 2) “it is not fair to teach students about nonscientific ideas.”

Anti-Evolutionism in America – All criticism of evolution is religion!
In yet another anti-creation symposium titled “Anti-Evolutionism in America: What’s Ahead,” the venerated Eugenie Scott once again took the lead to explain the different varieties of anti-evolutionism and how to combat them. She described the two types of Creationism as being Bible based Creationism and Design based Creationism, commonly known as the ID movement. She said that Creation science is actually the richer and more scientific of the two because it makes more “fact claims” than ID. Creation science, for example, has a “historical narrative” while ID has none. Finally, she encouraged evolutionists to “not stop using the peppered moth” as evidence for evolution (despite the fact that it has been shown to be based on fraudulent data). In fact, Scott encouraged her audience to ignore all evidence against evolution because “any time you hear any evidence against evolution assume creationism is behind it.”

Evolution on the Front Line – an outreach to school teachers
A special session titled “Evolution on the Front Line: An Event for St. Louis-Area Teachers” was open to teachers at no cost (as opposed to a $350 fee to attend the rest of the conference). Throughout the conference, teachers had been accused of their dismal failure to teach science (i.e. evolutionism), but in this special session with many teachers in attendance, teachers were warmly praised for their noble efforts.

“Questioning evolution threatens all of science”
The leadoff speaker was the Missouri Democratic Congressman Russ Carnahan who said “the best day of his life was when we passed the (embryonic) stem cell research bill in the house.” He assured the teachers that he was totally opposed to ID and insisted that “questioning evolution threatens all of science.” He urged teachers to show conviction when teaching evolution and assured them that “evolution is compatible with religion.”

“If God is a scientist He is a poor one”
A consistent theme among nearly all the speakers in this session for teachers was that “there is no conflict between evolution and religion.” In an apparent effort to prove this point a noted Jesuit astronomer was invited to address the teachers, but he was less than reassuring. Indeed, no speaker was more controversial and irreverent than the Reverend George Coyne, head of the Vatican Observatory in Rome.

In his address, “Is God a Scientist? A Catholic Look at Evolution,” he declared that “if God is a Scientist, He is a poor one.” He quipped that if God were a scientist, “I would want an eye with 360 degree vision.” He assured his audience that “God is not an engineer or a designer of the universe,” and that indeed if He were, “that would belittle God.” Coyne explained that “the Scriptures were written before science was developed” and that its authors “couldn’t have known the future.” According to Coyne, “God let the Universe participate in its own creation.” In a concluding statement that seemed to embarrass just about everyone except Coyne he said “I’m sorry to be so emphatic about fundamentalism, but the literal interpretation of Scripture is a plague in our midst.”

Take Home Lessons from the AAAS Convention for the Christian
What may the concerned Bible believing Christian conclude from the AAAS conference and how might we respond to its challenges? The first lesson is that we cannot look to the courts to support the teaching of ID or Creation in the public school. Perhaps the most that can be accomplished is to get the protection of the courts for those teachers who elect on their own to critically evaluate the evidence for evolution. But even this will be vehemently contested by evolutionists and their lawyers.

Evolutionists are not winning in the minds of most Americans
While it may well be true that ID is dead as a legal maneuver to force change in the public schools, Creation and ID are not dead in the hearts of most Americans. Even the evolutionists concede that while they are winning in the courts, they are not winning in the minds of most Americans. Because they do not understand why this is so, they will continue to try to correct the problem in the schools by crushing all descent and teaching evolution ever more frequently, stridently and dogmatically. Even some of the secular press covering the AAAS convention commented on the zeal and dogmatism of the evolutionists.

Evolutionists are now taking their battle into the church
Evolutionists understand that most Americans believe in a Creator God, and they also understand that they cannot win the battle for men’s souls as long as the public understands that there is a deep conflict between Biblical Christianity and evolution. The AAAS tries to obscure this fact and intends to take the battle into the church where they hope to convince both clergy and laymen that “evolution is compatible with religion.” But this is a meaningless claim because while evolutionism is compatible with some religions it is certainly not compatible with others. Almost anything could be said to be compatible with some religion.

Throughout the conference there were appeals for “people of faith” to speak to the news media to show the compatibility of evolutionism and “faith.” Some evolutionists are even getting into churches to preach the “gospel” of evolutionism often under the guise of titles like “The Preservation of Biodiversity.”

In 1995 the AAAS established the program of Dialogue on Science, Ethics, and Religion (DSER) to establish communication between scientific and religious communities. In a notice for an upcoming meeting sponsored by DSER called “The Evolution Dialogues,” the questions are asked: Does evolutionary theory deny the existence of god as Creator? Must Christians choose between evolutionary science and their faith? They insist that “the answer all of these questions is a resounding, NO!”

How can the AAAS make these claims when by their own estimates over half of all Americans reject evolution in favor of the Biblical account of Creation? The answer is really quite simple though they are reluctant to put it on the table for all to see. It is OK to believe in a “God” as long as you do not claim that this God actually does anything physical like create natural things by the power of His Word or physically answer the prayers of an individual person. In other words it is OK to believe in a God who doesn’t actually do anything because the physical world (all of reality in their view) is the exclusive domain of science.

A warning to Bible-believing Christians – Do not let the schools “teach about religion”
Christians should be very wary of any efforts on the part of the public schools to “teach about religion.” Some Christians naively think that this sounds like a good idea but evolutionists and the courts will insure that all religions be given equal status and all be considered to be mythology. Evolutionists can hardly wait to teach young students how religion evolved in the mind of primitive man and puzzle over its adaptive value. They know that when the students are confronted with a bewildering array of religious myths many will conclude that none of them is worth their belief or devotion.

Challenge the teachers of evolutionism
Finally, many teachers of evolution at the conference said that the thing that troubles them most are the students and parents that complain about evolution undermining Biblical truths and Christian beliefs. The teachers are also troubled by the scientific challenges and criticism of evolution from both students and parents and that they often do not have the answers to respond. This tells us that we should stay informed about Creation and keep the pressure on the teachers who try to indoctrinate our students on evolutionism.

In conclusion, we would do well to consider the warning of Paul to the Colossians: “Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ. For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power.” Colossians 2:8-10 NKJV

For more important information, click the link here or to the right at www.answersingenesis.org

Homosexuality, where do we begin?

2006-11-19T18:27:00.000-08:00

There is hardly a more controversial topic these days around our culture in America than this issue. Interestingly enough, there is hardly a more definite line found in Scripture. So why all the confusion?

There are many reasons for the confusion, so we will not go through all of them, but most of them fit under this important category: People want to interpret God's Word in their own reason and interest rather than seeking Scripture for interpreting Scripture. Since we really have just one author (God) who has spoken through many authors over the years, Scripture has some color and presentation differences, but the same message from the God who is the "same yesterday, today and tomorrow."

This hopefully causes us to reflect more on the meaning God would have us understand by His Word, which we are told we can understand. We just have to allow God to be in charge (as if the opposite could even be manifest) rather than imposing our thoughts upon God.

I have put some great links to the right regarding this "hot topic" and would encourage anyone to really do their homework regarding it. We must also remember that as Christians, ambassadors for God, that we are not only to speak the truth, but do so with gentleness and respect. Like any fallen creation of God, people are worthy of our respect, love and care. Ultimately, we want to help people and point them to their Savior, Jesus Christ, who has everything under His feet. We pray to have "good feet" and healing hands and lips on issues such as these where Satan has held many captive.

Although this issue is too much for one, or even a few posts, here is a great summary of the subject by Dr. Robert Gagnon, who is an authority on this topic who also upholds the authority of the Bible. Enjoy his perspective and those of the others who are equipping us for every good work on the links to the right.

http://robgagnon.net/homoAPReporter.htm

[On May 26, 2006, an AP reporter asked me some questions in connection with a story about “how divisions over Scriptural authority and homosexuality grew so wide within mainline denominations, why it's so difficult (maybe impossible) to reconcile differing views, and whether schism is inevitable.” The timing of the questions had to do with the then upcoming national assemblies of the Episcopal Church and the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). The reporter asked me the following specific questions:

· Did the debate over homosexuality trigger divisions over Scriptural authority among mainline Protestants or did those differences already exist when discussion about ordaining gays started?

· Why is it that Protestants with different understandings about Scripture seemed to peacefully co-exist at one time, but appear unable to do so now?

· Why has this debate gone on for so long?

· Is there any way to reconcile differing views over homosexuality and interpreting Scripture?

I provided a response. For whatever reason, no part of my response appears to have made it to the light of day. So after a half year more, I have decided to make my response public.]

Debate over homosexual practice among mainline Protestants has both fueled and ignited longstanding divisions over scriptural authority. Divisions over scriptural authority antedate the debate over homosexual practice. But debate over homosexual practice has provided a decisive concrete test-case for deciding whether Scripture or self-interpreted experience will function as the highest authority in matters of faith and practice. Not since the period of the Reformation has there been a frontal assault on an ethical standard so deeply embedded in the whole witness of Scripture.

Mainline denominations are being besieged by an inversion of levels of interpretive authority. Historically the church has given Scripture the highest position in deciding issues involving faith and practice, followed by philosophic reason, scientific reason, and experience (no experience is self-interpreting). Proponents of homosexual unions are threatening to overturn that order so that experience is placed at the top, followed inversely by scientific reason (though science does not support affirmation of homosexual unions), philosophic reason, and, last, Scripture.

The Bible’s stance for a two-sex prerequisite for marriage and against homosexual unions is pervasive, absolute (without exception), strong (a first-order sexual offense), and countercultural.

It begins already with the story of the creation of “male and female” as complementary sexual counterparts in Genesis 1-2. Woman is presented as coming from the “side” (a better translation than “rib”) of a human/man, a beautiful picture of man and woman as each other’s sexual “other half.”

In the Bible the broad context for the issue of homosexual practice is that every narrative, law, exhortation, proverb, and poetry that has anything to do with human sexuality presupposes a male-female requirement for sexual relations.

Leviticus 20:10-16 regards male-male intercourse as a first-order offense, along with the adultery, bestiality, and the worst forms of incest. That moral, and not merely ritual, impurity is in view is evident from the fact that the impurity is not “contagious,” is not expunged merely by ritual bathing, is limited to intentional acts, and is associated with the term “abomination” in Lev 18:22 and 20:13.

The Sodom story in Gen 19 (and the related story of the Levite at Gibeah) is not limited in its indictment of homosexual practice to coercive forms any more than a story about a rape of one’s father is limited in its indictment of incest to coercive forms (as in the story of Ham’s act against his father Noah in Genesis 9).

A series of texts in the books from Deuteronomy to 2 Kings that speak in a derogatory manner against the qedeshim, male cultic figures who serve as the receptive partners in intercourse with other men, primarily have in view their homoerotic activity.

As for the New Testament, Jesus in Mark 10 predicated his own distinctive view of marital monogamy and indissolubility—the limitation of sexual unions to two and only two persons—on the ‘twoness’ of the sexes, or sexual dimorphism, ordained by God at creation in Genesis 1-2.

Paul in Romans 1:24-27 described homosexual practice as an indecent dishonoring of God’s creation of us as “male and female” and a classic instance of the suppression of the truth about our sexual selves visible in material creation. In 1 Corinthians 6:9 Paul lists “men who lie with a male” alongside men who regularly and unrepentantly engage in incest, adultery, and sex with prostitutes as among those who “shall not inherit the kingdom of God.”

In short, there is no getting around the fact that Scripture consistently treats unrepentant homosexual activity as one of the most serious sexual offenses to God’s will.

Some claim that Scripture only condemns exploitative or coercive homosexual unions (men who have sex with boys, slaves, or male prostitutes) but there is no credible evidence supporting this view.

The best scholars among those who support homosexual unions recognize that the scriptural prohibitions against homosexual practice are framed absolutely. In Romans 1:26-27 Paul indicts both female and male homosexual practice and female homosexual practice in the ancient world is not known for coercion. Moreover, he refers in 1:27 to men “inflamed in their yearning for one another,” which certainly doesn’t sound like a coercive relationship. The fact that in Paul’s major indictments of homosexual practice here and in 1 Cor 6:9 there are clear allusions to the creation texts indicates that Paul would have opposed all sexual unions that did not involve a male and female. The same is true of Paul’s nature argument in Rom 1:26-27, which alludes to the embodied complementarity of men and women as a clue to God’s intent for sexual relationships.

In addition, the conception of caring homosexual unions was well known in the ancient world. Had Christians wanted to distinguish between caring and non-caring homosexual unions, they could easily have done so. That they didn’t is further evidence that they were indicting all homosexual unions. In fact, some Greek and Roman moralists already condemned all homosexual acts, even those that were entered “willingly” and were characterized by “tenderness” (see, for example, the speech of Daphnaeus in Plutarch’s Dialogue on Love).

Early Jewish interpretation of the Levitical prohibitions makes clear that “the law recognizes only sexual intercourse that is according to nature, that which is with a woman . . . abhors the intercourse of males with males” (Josephus) and is inclusive of sex between men and men, not just men with boys (so the rabbis in the Babylonian Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin 54a).

Some claim that modern knowledge of homosexual orientation makes obsolete Scripture’s indictment of homosexual relations. Yet there is no reason for drawing this conclusion. There were a number of theories in the Greco-Roman world positing at least a partial congenital basis for some homosexual attraction and some of those holding such theories still rejected the homosexual behavior arising from such impulses. Paul viewed sin as an innate impulse running through the members of the human body, passed on by an ancestor, and never entirely within human control. Since all behavior is at some level biologically caused, the moral acceptability of a behavior cannot be deduced from biological causation. Again, some of the top scholars among those supportive of homosexual unions recognize that knowledge of a homosexual “orientation” would not have changed Scripture’s indictment of homosexual unions.

As regards the use of analogical reasoning, some appeal to changing Scripture’s stance on slavery as an analogy for changing its stance on homosexual practice. This is a bad analogy. There is no scriptural mandate to enslave others; indeed, many texts in Scripture are critical of the institution of slavery. But Scripture does have a very clear mandate for a male-female prerequisite for sexual unions, from creation on. From the standpoint of countercultural witness there is no comparison: While Scripture moves in the direction of critiquing the culturally accepted institution of slavery, it also moves in the direction not of greater tolerance toward homosexual unions but of greater rejection as compared to what prevailed in the surrounding cultures.

Nor can homosexual impulses be likened to ethnicity or gender, conditions that are totally heritable, absolutely immutable, primarily non-behavioral, and intrinsically benign.

Can there be long-term reconciliation within the mainline denominations—an agree-to-disagree approach—over issues such as the ordination of persons engaged in serial, unrepentant homosexual practice and the blessing of homosexual unions? My opinion is: Only if the standards of the church against homosexual activity by officers of the church remain enforceable.

The homosexuality debate is ultimately a debate about ethics in general: whether innate, biological urges or Jesus will be lord and master of our lives. Because so much is at stake, I do not think that there is a compromise position that will avert major church divisions. It is like asking whether the mainline churches can agree to disagree on man-mother incest or polyamorous practices or adultery.

Persons supporting homosexual unions won’t give up on the issue because they wrongly regard it as a “social justice” issue. They will not be content with a local option, much less with demoting a national requirement to a nonessential standard. Any accommodation made by a mainline denomination to ordaining persons in homosexual unions will serve as a transitional stage to an inevitable foisting of homosexual endorsement on the denomination as a whole.

Abraham Lincoln in 1858 declared—borrowing from Jesus’ rebuttal of charges that he cast out demons by Beelzebul (Mark 3:20-27)—that “a house divided against itself cannot stand” and that, in time, the United States “will become all one thing [i.e., all slave states], or all the other [all free states].” This is similar to the current decision faced by each mainline denomination on the homosexuality issue: They will operate either under the motto that innate biological urges are Lord, and we their slaves, or under the motto that Jesus is Lord even of such urges.

What does God think about Amendment 2?

2006-10-27T07:52:00.000-07:00

The controversial Amendment 2 on the Nov. 7th ballot is very deceptive. You don't have to be a rocket-scientist to figure that out, since we have two sides saying the exact opposite thing. So, what are the facts?

1. There are NO lifesaving cures coming from embryonic stem cells, while 70+ lifesaving cures are being utilized now from Adult stem cells (at no cost to mother or pre-born child). Adult stem cells can now become pluripotent, which means they can become any type of cell, the SAME outcome as embryonic stem cells.

2. At great risk, many women will have their eggs harvested for money, which is a risky procedure. Researchers will probably prey on the underpriveleged of our society to gain this research because they will offer big bucks to go through this risky procedure (25 women have died from it as far as we know).

3. The legislation is very deceptive in stating that no cloning will be happening. Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer IS cloning. It is the very same procedure used to create Dolly, which most Americans have determined to be unethical with humans.

4. Why aren't we worried about the effects of our taxes? This amendment also gives a blank check to researchers through our tax dollars! This will cost us big time in the future, all in the name of science through these special interest groups!

5. It seems there is something else going on here. Is this some new approach to undermine the pro-life position? Maybe they believe that if they can get killing legal at the early stages of the embryo (blastocyst stage), then there's no logical reason to stop it at any time, even at partial birth!

Here are some good quotes from people who know what is going on"

The proposed amendment would protect a process called Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT) in the Missouri state constitution. SCNT is the scientific term for cloning embryos. In the case of SCNT, it results in a living human being at the embryonic stage.

Richard A. Chole, MD, PhD
Washington University School of Medicine

As much as proponents may deny it, this initiative would create a constitutional right to human cloning in Missouri. Human cloning does not belong in our constitution. In other words, the initiative would create a right to clone and kill human embryos, and it would require all of us to pay for it.

Robert F. Onder, M.D., J. D.
Washington University School of Medicine

Whether they want the citizens of Missouri to know it or not, this initiative is a deceptive attempt to enshrine human cloning in the Missouri state constitution. I hope voters will join me in voting against the amendment. This is the wrong path for our great state.

Representative Jim Lembke
District 85 (St. Louis)

Only three European countries allow therapeutic cloning of embryos for medical purposes - Britian, Belgium and Sweden. In Europe, Italy is now a Guardian of Embryo Rights.

Sophie Arie
Christian Science Monitor; June 14, 2005.

A hopeful society has institutions of science and medicine that do not cut ethical corners, and that recognize the matchless value of every life. Tonight I ask you to pass legislation to prohibit the most egregious abuses of medical research: human cloning in all its forms, creating or implanting embryos for experiments, creating human-animal hybrids, and buying, selling, or patenting human embryos. Human life is a gift from our Creator -- and that gift should never be discarded, devalued or put up for sale.

President George W. Bush
President of the United States, 2006 State of the Union Address

I pray God opens the eyes of Missourians to this deceptive and life killing amendment. Be a part of helping others see. Check out the link to the right (under "Other Links for Truth" or "Family Answers") or go to this site:
http://www.nocloning.org/default.html

Parenting thoughts

2006-10-27T07:04:00.000-07:00

In going through some parenting ideas with other Christians, we have come up with a rough draft of a "Parent's Creed." Of course, this doesn't hold much water to the Apostle's or Nicene or anything, but it may provide some quick reminders on what we can do on a daily basis to be the loving parental guide our Heavenly Father calls us to be. May God bless you as you fulfill the most important vocation one could be given: ushering the children God has loaned you (for a time) to the foot of the cross to be saved by our Savior, who has fulfilled it for us.

NIV Ephesians 2:8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith-- and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-- 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

A Parent’s Creed
I am a parent, commissioned by God to be a leader in my family.

Considering love and control, I will recognize defiance and act quickly upon it,
But gently and lovingly teach a child about irresponsibility,

I will seek never to abuse anger, which seems to only break apart my relationships (Prov. 15:1),
But quickly, lovingly and gently (when appropriate) lead my children in a prayer of repentance and forgiveness found in Christ,

Corporal punishment will be utilized effectively in regards to the child’s actions,
but I will make sure my children know how much I love them through physical and verbal means (holding them and praying with them),

I will seek to bring my children to a repentant heart while also seeking to empower my children, with the help of the Holy Spirit, to master sin and its desires (Gen. 4: 1-7),

All this I will do with the help and power of the Holy Spirit, to lead and guide the children entrusted to me to the cross and resurrection of our Lord in baptism and the Word. May God grant me this ability for His glory and the salvation of my children.

Christian Worldview...or not? And who decides?

2006-10-06T22:36:00.000-07:00

“Polls consistently show that a large percentage of Americans claim to believe in God or to be born again – yet the effect of the Christian principles is decreasing in public life. Why? Because most evangelicals have little training in how to frame Christian Worldview principles in a language applicable in the public square. Though Christianity is thriving in modern culture, it is at the expense of being ever more firmly relegated to the private sphere.” This dichotomy, which in layman’s terms is commonly stated as “acting one way on Sunday morning and another the rest of the week,” is a concerning factor in our society. In some ways, it seems all too closely related to the walk of the Pharisees in the days of Jesus. What this short paper seeks to explore is the possible reasons for this dichotomy based upon the past and present leadership of the church and the reception of their words by those following.

There are many possible causes to this thinking, but let us begin with history. Historically, we have seen moves in Christian thought that may have helped perpetuate this condition. But we cannot just begin with Christians, because the Roman thinking of Jesus’ day was consumed with Platonic thinking. Plato basically proposed the path to true knowledge is to free ourselves from ourselves, mainly our spiritual selves from our material selves, so that reason can gain insight into the reality of Forms. The problem with this rationale is that evil is lined up with God’s creation, and creation was divided into two parts: the spiritual (good) and the material (bad). This seemed to heavily play into the monastic life of the middle ages when the really committed Christian was the one who rejected ordinary work and family life to live in prayer and contemplation. Unfortunately, many of the church fathers seem to subscribe to this train of thought in part. Although Origen, Jerome and Augustine take a strong stand on the goodness of creation, they also seemed to absorb some part of platonic thinking towards the material world.

As far as this author can tell, Augustine, who once was a Platonist prior to his conversion, retained the thought of a double creation. This meant that he believed God first made the Platonic intelligible Forms, and afterward made the material world in the imitation of the Forms. This dualism undercuts Scripture and finally leads one into a dichotomy where the immaterial world (Forms) would function separate from the material world (bad). This thinking seems to continue through the middle ages causing havoc among the theologians, including the likes of Anselm.

But in the thirteenth century, the rediscovery of Aristotle’s works proved to be a challenge because it seemed to present a comprehensive system of thought that moved into many disciplines. Because of the comprehensive nature of the argument, Christians seemed to give into and even teach Aristotle’s view that the world was eternal and that the world was created. G. K. Chesterton summed it up this way: “There are two truths; the truth of the supernatural world, and the truth of the natural world, which contradicts the supernatural world. While we are being naturalists, we can suppose that Christianity is all nonsense; but then, when we remember that we are Christians, we must admit that Christianity is true even if it is nonsense.”

Aquinas rose for the battle, but in his view of “Christianizing Aristotle,” he kept the dichotomy in an altered format. He ended up keeping Aristotle’s view of nature (which did not need God, but was capable of reaching full potential on its own) as a lower truth with God’s grace (supernatural addition) as the higher truth. But this did not help in the long run because the “nature” was self-sufficient and “grace” was merely an add-on. They were separate entities. This seemingly carried until the Reformation.

But the reformers were quick to banish the monastic life and state that all of life held vocational value in the sight of God, crushing the dichotomy of scholasticism. The current dualism caused many to stress among the laity, as Melanchthon stated: “This error greatly tormented devout consciences, which grieved that they were held in an imperfect state of life, as in marriage or in the office of magistrate…. They admired the monks and such like, and falsely imagined that the observances of such men were acceptable to God.” So, although the reformers seemed to do away with the dualism, one can still see scholasticism continued today. “Keep God in the Bible, but out of the classroom,” or “science is totally separate from religion.” These types of statements make it clear that we still haven’t shaken the dichotomy of Aristotle and Plato from our thinking and theology. Even the distinctly Lutheran approach to the two kingdoms, when not taught carefully, could be seen as possibly aiding the separation of faith and world, splitting the sacred and secular even further.

Pearcey explains the failure to retain the reformers renewed thoughts in this way: “The problem was that they [the reformers] failed to craft a philosophical vocabulary to express their new theological insights. Thus they did not give their followers any tools to defend those insights against philosophical attack – or to create an alternative to the dualistic philosophy of scholasticism. As a result, the successors of Luther and Calvin went right back to teaching scholasticism in the Protestant universities, using Aristotle’s logic and metaphysics as the basis of their systems – and thus dualistic thinking continued to affect all the Christian traditions.”

The sacred/secular split in thinking shows up in everyday life all the time. It is seen in the classroom, the mentoring times between parent and child, politics, sports, and the everyday value judgments of our materialistic-minded Americans. It is the reason a pastor will speak, walk, teach, and even dress differently on Sunday than on other days of the week. Of course, one cannot help but notice such a thing, so the laity is quick to follow. But even with good leadership driving the church there is not a promise of those who claim membership to follow the lead.

While on vicarage, this process occurred before my eyes as I happened upon one of the elders of the church within his weekly job. As he related with his “9 to 5” “Monday through Friday” crowd, it was painfully obvious to me that his demeanor was almost as night is to day in regards to his likeness on Sunday. The body language changed as did the vocabulary, but most prominent were the topics engaged. I only remember thinking that my mother would wash out my mouth with soap in order to clean up the gutter talk I had heard on that day. It was enough to give pause to the situation and question the direction that was leading the leadership. This, of course, is not an isolated incident. I often marvel at some seminarians who, while aspiring to the office of the ministry, somehow neglect to remain within the simple guidelines of Paul’s writings. Not to say that we will be sinless, but filthy language, drunkenness, erratic, quarrelsome or poor managers of their families are all traits that I have perceived while attending. Of course, we would never see that side during Sunday morning, but somehow this unsanctified approach to living is acceptable when we aren’t in vestments.

Speaking of vestments, of which I have only grown in appreciation for after learning of their original meaning in worship, can it really be said that this “uniform” is to take the personality out of the man and focus on the office? Is it really possible to separate the man from the office? Understanding that we are not from the Pentecostal sects claiming to be free of sin, one still must consider all that Paul and the apostles say on things like not giving offense to others or the law of Christ. To sin in front of the comforting crowd of “mature” believers is one thing, although not to be tolerated, but toting drunkenness before the humanistic atheistically trained students of Washington University only perpetuates their idealism of rightness over religiously intolerant views such as Christianity. At best it touts are philosophies and worldviews as equals. At worst, we are seen as merely another set of hypocrites caught in the dialogue and wandering in the world, ultimately proving their theory of us correct, and sealing their justified positions.

I wondered what the robes of the pastor conveyed to some today, so I asked my beloved wife. She gave two possibilities in her answer: One, that it was some custom from ‘a long time ago’ that has just ‘stuck,’ or two, that the pastor was showing that he was holier than the rest. By enlarge, this may be the perception of most in the pews, which at the very least would cloud their vision of what is happening. At worst, it may totally distract, even turning them into mockers during worship. This can lead to a very informal, even irreverent approach of worship towards a holy and righteous God, although I do not believe that pastors in ties and suit coats equivocate this idea. However, where worship is irreverent in nature, other than the fake worship described by Jesus in Mark 7, it can generally be pointed in the direction of some informal approaches of today.

Another realm which contributes to this factor would include the school systems by which we train the next generation. Not even to mention the public institutions of our day, even the Lutheran schools separate faith from the regular course load, unless, of course, we have some disciplining measures to take care of. Then the “thus saith the Lord” becomes quite handy. But when it comes to course load, how often do we see our own synodical teachers conveying their concepts within the Lutheran framework and hermeneutic of life? As a trained and experienced teacher in our synodical schools, I was amazed at how a Lutheran could support ideas such as evolution (science), abortion (sociology), all roads leading to heaven (sociology/history), and still consider themselves Lutheran. The answer becomes clearer when we hear phrases like “the Bible isn’t a science/history/anthropology/etc. textbook.” While this is true, one must also assert that when the Bible speaks on these issues, it does so correctly.

This is why it is an utter failure to teach children that God is the Creator of all things, and in the next class teach that we are the great-great-great grandchildren of earthworms. It doesn’t take long for some students to put two and two together and realize that one of the accounts of life is inconsistent with the other. I have had a few talks with high school age students on this topic, but my vicarage experience is most telling. While visiting a shut-in family (Grandmother, Mother and Granddaughter), the Grandmother divulged some sensitive information during dialogue, post-communion. She told me that her Granddaughter was an atheist. Although she did not know why her Granddaughter held that position, she was concerned. I was still there when the child came home from high school, so being my extrovert self after introductions, I said, “So, I hear you are an atheist.” To my great concern, she looked my collar-wearing face right in the eyes and said, “Yes, I am.” This bold and unapologetic confession led me to ask her of hthe reasoning behind her ideas, to which she quickly said, “Dinosaurs and science class.” This poor girl, like a sheep without a shepherd, was taken by the doctrine of today which ultimately led to her lack of faith in Christ. I would venture a guess that she never heard the interpretation of those “facts” from anyone within the church. What a shame that many think there is no way to understand such things from a Christian point of view. And the list goes on into so many fields of research: sociology, anthropology, astronomy, geology, chemistry, physics, philosophy, psychiatry, and other disciplines.

No, somehow, this faith must invade every part of our lives, directing and interpreting our every thought of the world around us. Until this happens, we may continue to be those which the agnostics, atheists, and others laugh at when it comes to a serious look at what a disciple of Jesus really looks like. This only perpetuates the concern drawn from John 17: 20-21: “I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me.” So that the world may believe; the dichotomy shown by the greater Christian church today, which seems to be everywhere around us, that is a separation of our faith from our everyday lives, becomes our biggest enemy, aside of Satan, to the evangelism of those around us. May God’s Spirit sanctify us through and through, that we may not sin publicly, but show the mercy and truth of Christ in all that we do and say.

The First Command?

2006-08-11T19:58:00.000-07:00

I'm not exactly sure where the thinking set in within our Western materialistic 'melting pot' American culture, but it seems today that the average American family has 2.6 (1998) people in it.

2.6 people? I assume that means a Dad, a Mom, and .6 children. What is .6 children, exactly? Well, of course, you statisticians and math majors out there would be quick to remind me that these figures would easily break down and reveal the details of family life that contain whole people in families, most of which have 1 child. (To see the 'recent de-evolution' of the American family...it can't be evolution since that is supposed to mean "bigger, better, stronger, faster", etc.,...go to this link.

My question is this: just where did we come up with the figure of 1 child (or none as 40% must think) as the "perfect number" for the family? Sounds kind of Communistic to me. Don't get me wrong, I want parents to be responsible and I want kids to be taken care of, and I know that many people struggle to have children of their own (don't worry, God has a plan, and you are involved in it!), but maybe there are more creative ways than we care to think about when we come to this topic?

I remember hearing a couple of people comment on this topic in the last few years which has stuck in my mind. They said something like, "If people kept on having children like the "Bible times" we would have enough room or food!" Room? Has anyone recently looked at a map? Have you ever driven across Wyoming, or Iowa, or Texas? The space is endless, we have more ROOM than we even know what to do with! And food? I am all about feeding the hungry, but most food to third world countries seems to be bound by political chains rather than the people lacking the available nourishment. As technology continues to find more ways to increase plant production, America has to worry more about how much food it wastes rather than "Is there enough?" According to a study by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, we waste 96 billion pounds of food in America each year. That turns out to be:

263,013,699 pounds of food wasted each day...
10,958,904 pounds wasted each hour...
182,648 pounds wasted each minute...
3,044 pounds of food wasted in America each second!

I'm not sure those two "commonly used" arguments have much weight. So why the .6? Please, understand that I know some would love children. I also know what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7 and elswhere, where he states that some people are going to be single and will not have children, and that is God's plan for them. But I'm not talking about the minority here, I am talking about the majority of those on God's green earth.

And speaking of "Biblical times", how many people were around during the 1,600 years or so after Creation before the world-wide flood in the days of Noah? (Gen. 6-8; 2 Peter 3:5-6) It has been roughly estimated anywhere from the ultra-conservative 235 million to 6.5 billion or more. For a concise article on this,see this.. For another interesting article on this, longer and possibly not as reliable,see this.

I wonder what Adam's ancestors would have thought had he had only .6 children? (ok, let's round up to 1, which doesn't even get us anywhere since you need 2 to make another...see the problem...and yes, brother married sister, the "do not marry" rule did not occur until the days of Leviticus when our DNA became more and more infiltrated with bad mutations after over 2,000 years of 'copying'...copy your VHS 2,000 times over and throwing out the original each time and see how long it takes to get 'snow' in the picture!) Do you know how long it would take to "fill the earth" as God had commanded with no grandchildren?! This was His first command to the man made in His Image. He said:

ESV Genesis 1:28 And God blessed them. And God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth." (again, math majors, knowing that the parents will eventually die, doesn't that put the family "2 in the hole", which means that having 2 kids is 'replacement', 3 kids 'addition', while 4 or more is to 'multiply'? Just a thought.)

But do you know what's really interesting, other than those being the first words of God to the first man and woman He created (in mature form, of course), is what God said to His creations just before the people He made in His image:

ESV Genesis 1:21 So God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth."

Most of us know what happened on day (24 hour periods of time) 5...He created the water animals and the birds, according to their kinds (see an Answers In Genesis' article for a good working definition of "kinds" like this or this or a semi-technical article on a fairly new brand of research called baraminology here. Then He blessed them saying be fruitful, multiply, fill. Do you know that these creatures usually do not have .6 offspring. Think about it, how many offspring do birds usually have? One egg?

We had a Chickadee couple in the tin roof of the back door overhang at our vicarage house. They found a really interesting spot to mate, free from many predators. The only problem was the entrance/exit. It was very tough for the kids. See, Mom and Dad would fly straight North from a perched spot into a hole in the siding covering the bottom of the overhang. For a small baby bird, this was not only tough, it was really tough. We found that the parents did not only like their spot, they were adamate that de-evolution was NOT taking place in their 'kind'...see, of the first 2 "litters", I picked up 2-3 dead babies. But that didn't stop them. They had more by the time we were on our way out of that house. That's just one summer! It seems that these birds only need a matter of about 7 weeks to disperse, only 5 weeks from the time the eggs are laid. The nests generally range from 5-10 eggs at one time. That could produce up to 30 birds in one season (and we could probably suggest that a more southern place would allow for more time).

I know, the whale typically only has one or, at most, two at a time. But they also bear 'after their kind' every year once reaching maturity. I don't think we should necessarily be 'chickadees' at 10 at a time or anything, I am just wondering where .6 came from? Why, after many wonderful years of marriage, do many people decide that 1 is all its gonna be? Again, I know some people have trouble having children, and their time may not be now. God can do all things, and he may have a plan of adoption for some people as well. Remember, we are in the business of Redeeming, just like our Savior.

But I'm not talking about those exceptions. I'm speaking about the majority who can and do (or do not) have children. Why .6?

Once, when the world's population was depleated to 8 (Noah and his family), God gave a similar command:

ESV Genesis 9:1 And God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.

The earth is NOT full! (See links above) Besides, God also promises more:

ESV Psalm 127:3 Behold, children are a heritage from the LORD, the fruit of the womb a reward. 4 Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are the children of one's youth. 5 Blessed is the man who fills his quiver with them! He shall not be put to shame when he speaks with his enemies in the gate. (for all you NIV lovers out there, the BDB [Hebrew Dictionary] says Psalm 127:3 referrs to both sexes=children, just for discussion purposes)

Like arrows in the hand of a warrior...blessed is the man who fills his quiver with them! Hey, I not only believe this, I'm a part of it! My oldest son, Thomas, who is not very old, has been very quick to come to the aid of Mommy and Daddy after the birth of these new babies. He has done so many things, from keeping Josiah 'in the fold', to reminding Daddy that 'we need to get back to the hospital to help Mommy and the babies', to holding them, telling them he loves them, and even helping to push their cart down the hall. He covers them with blankets and comforts them with good words. He speaks of helping us take care of them and feed them, and he even made Daddy put the baby car seats in the van before we went to the hospital, three days before we needed them!

I'm not saying that we haven't prompted him on some of these things, but helping him understand and see what it means to be a big brother and love his younger brothers and sister is part of our job as well.

'Blessed is the man whose quiver is full' continues to ring in my mind and heart. I must also notice that this particular psalm does not seem to only indicate biological children. It does seem to speak towards the womb of the biological parents, but it doesn't rule out children that come from non-biological wombs. A child from another womb, needing a Mother and Father, can be just as much a blessing as the biological children, and equally just as blessed.

So, don't be bashful. Take care of business on ALL areas of life, especially the ones backed up by promises from the Creator and Sustainer of ALL THINGS...and don't forget, North Dakota, Wyoming, etc., are very UNpopulated. If you want to know for sure, check out this and check out the 1990 Population Density in the United States for a "night-time" satellite map of America. The white specs are the glows of "life" (not counting the Amish, of course...they're sleeping with no lights on in their communities, so we can rule them out of this mapping). Let me just say: there's a lot of black out there to FILL. I know how evangelism could get better: enlist and train more soldiers!

May God bless you as you have and teach your children about their Father, Creator, Redeemer and Sustainer.

ESV Deuteronomy 6:5 You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. 6 And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. 7 You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise.

God's workers

2006-08-02T11:04:00.000-07:00

I have recently lost a couple of good friends here at seminary. Both have felt guilty for leaving, in one respect or another. I don't know if their personal guilt is something they should feel or not, but I can be sure of this: If people are feeling guilty for not participating in God's work by leaving seminary, we have done a very poor job of helping them see what God's work really is, because it is not limited to seminary training, the pastoral office, or out-of-the-country missionary work.

I have appreciated the outlook of Nancy Pearcey, who put it this way:

From Total Truth by Nancy Pearcey

(p. 34-35) "Thinking Christianly" means understanding that Christianity gives the truth about the whole of reality, a perspective for interpreting every subject matter. Genesis tells us that God spoke the entire universe into being with His Word - what John 1:1 call the Logos. The Greek word means not only Word but also reason or rationality, and the ancient Stoics used it to mean the rational structure of the universe. Thus, the underlying structure of the entire universe reflects the mind of the Creator. There is no fact/value dichotomy in the scriptural account. Nothing has an autonomous or independent identity, separate from the will of the Creator. As a result, all creation must be interpreted in light of its relationship to God. In any subject area we study, we are discovering the laws or creation ordinances by which God structured the world.

As Scripture puts it, the universe speaks of God - "the heavens declare the glory of God" (Ps. 19:1) - because His character is reflected in the things He has made. This is sometimes referred to as "general" revelation because it speaks to everyone at all times, in contrast to the "special" revealtion given in the Bible. As Jonathan Edwards explained, God communicates not only "by his voice to us in the Scriptures" but also in creation and in historical events. Indeed, "the whole creation of God preaches." Yet it is possible for Christians to be deaf and blind to the message of general revelation, and part of leaning to have the mind of Christ involves praying for the spiritual sensitivity to "hear" the preaching of creation.

The great historian of religion Martin Marty once said every religion serves two functions: First, it is a message of personal salvation, telling us how to get right with God; and second, it is a lens for interpreting the world. Historically, evangelicals have been good at the first function - at "saving souls." But they have not been nearly as good at helping people to interpret the world around them - at providing a set of interrelated concepts that function as a lens to give a biblical view of areas like science, politics, economics, or bioethics. As Marty puts it, evangelicals have typically "accented personal piety and individual salvation, leaving men to their own devices to interpret the world around them."

In fact, many no longer think it’s even the function of Christianity to provide an interpretation of the world. Marty calls this the Modern Schism (in a book by that title), and he says we are living in the first time in history where Christianity has been boxed into the private sphere and has largely stopped speaking to the public sphere.

"This internalization or privatization of religion is one of the most momentous changes that has ever taken place in Christendom," writes another historian, Sidney Mead. As a result, our lives are often fractured and fragmented, with our faith firmly locked into the private realm of church and family, where it rarely has a chance to inform our life and work in the public realm. The aura of worship dissipates after Sunday, and we unconsciously absorb secular attitudes the rest of the week. We inhabit two separate "worlds," navigating a sharp divide between our religious life and ordinary life.

BIBLE SCHOOL DROP-OUTS

At the same time, most believers find this highly frustrating. We really want to integrate our faith into every aspect of life, including our profession. We want to be whole people - people of integrity (the word comes from the Latin word for "whole"). Not long ago, I met a recent convert who was agonizing over how to apply his newfound faith to his work as an art teacher. "I want my whole life to reflect my relationship with God," he told me. "I don’t want my faith to be in one compartment and my art in another."

We would all agree with Dorothy Sayers, who said that if religion does not speak to our work lives, then it has nothing to say about what we do with the vast majority of our time - and no wonder people say religion is irrelevant! "How can anyone remain interested in a religion which seems to have no concern with nine-tenths of his life?"

In the secular/sacred dualism, ordinary work is actually denigrated, while church work is elevated as more valuable. In his book Roaring Lambs, Bob Briner describes his student days at a Christian college, where the unspoken assumption was that the only way to really serve God was in full-time Christian work. Already knowing that he wanted a career in sports management, Briner writes, "I felt I was a sort of second-class campus citizen. My classmates who were preparing for the pulpit ministry or missionary service were the ones who were treated as if they would be doing the real work of the church. The rest of us were the supporting cast."

The underlying message was that people in ordinary professions might contribute their prayers and financial support, but that was about it. "Almost nothing in my church or collegiate experiences presented possibilities for a dynamic, involved Christian life outside the professional ministry," Briner concludes. "You heard about being salt and light, but no one told you how to do it." Lip service was paid to the idea of dedicating your work to God, but all it seemed to mean was, Do your best, and don’t commit any obvious sins.

The same secular/sacred dualism nearly snuffed out the creative talents of the founders of the whimsically funny Veggie Tales videos. Phil Vischer says he always knew he wanted to make movies, but "the implicit message I received growing up was that full-time ministry was the only valid Christian service. Young Christians were to aspire to be either ministers or missionaries." So he dutifully packed his bags and went off to Bible college to study for the ministry.

Yet the more he saw the powerful influence movies have on kids, the more he thought it was important to produce high-quality films. Finally he made up his mind: "I figured God could use a filmmaker or two, regardless of what anyone else said." Dropping out of Bible college he and his friend Mike Nawrocki started a video company. As their former classmates turned into pastors and youth ministers, they turned into the voices of Bob the Tomato and Larry the Cucumber. The videos have become immensely popular, with their biblical messages and quirky humor. Yet if these two Bible school drop-outs had not broken free from the secular/sacred mentality and decided that Christians have a valid calling in the field of filmmaking, their talents may well have been lost to the church. Every member of the Body of Christ has been gifted for the benefit of the whole, and when those gifts are suppressed, we all lose out.

The pervasiveness of the secular/sacred split is less surprising when we realize that many pastors and teachers have absorbed it themselves. A school superintendent once told me that most educators define "a Christian teacher" strictly in terms of personal behavior: things like setting a good example and showing concern for students. Almost none define it in terms of conveying a biblical worldview on the subjects they teach, whether literature, science, social studies, or the arts. In other words, they are concerned about being a Christian in their work, but they don’t think in terms of having a biblical framework on their work.

(p. 65-66) How do we break free from the dichotomies that limit God’s power in our lives? How can love and service to God become living sparks that light up our whole lives? By discovering a worldview perspective that unifies both secular and sacred, public and private, within a single framework. By understanding that all honest work and creative enterprise can be a valid calling from the Lord. And by realizing there are biblical principles that apply to every field of work. These insights will fill us with new purpose, and we will begin to experience the joy that comes from relating to God in and through every dimension of our lives.

We are all part of God's plan and part of his work on this world. Sure, being a pastor can be a great way to be a part of that, but so can any other job which fulfills a needed part of the community. Hear what Luther says on the subject:

"Your work is a very sacred matter. God delights in it, and through it He wants to bestow His blessing on you. This praise of work should be inscribed on all tools, on the forehead and the face that sweat from toiling. For the world does not consider labor a blessing. Therefore it flees and hates it....But the pious, who fear the Lord, labor with a ready and cheerful heart; for they know God's command and will. Thus a pious farmer sees this verse written on his wagon and plow, a cobbler sees it on his leather and awl, and laborer sees it on wood and iron: "Happy shalt thou be, and it shall be well with thee." The world inverts the thought and says: Miserable shalt thou be, and it shall not be well with thee; for these things must forever be endured and borne. But happy are those who lead a life of leisure and without labor have the wherewithal to live. ("What Luther Says", p. 1493)

Luther says also that our work is "his mask" in the world, where God chooses to hide himself and do everything. It is not as if God needs us, but for some reason, he chooses to use us to do much work. Think of Gideon, who took the field with the Midianites. Could God have defeated them without the Israelites? Of course, and yet He chose to have Gideon and his army involved in order to work through them and with them.

Luther also says: To put it briefly, God wants people to work. If you did not farm or work, you would have to lie behind the stove a long time in order to have anything given to you. It is true, of course, that God could support you without work, could let fried and boiled foods, corn, and wine grow on the table for you. But He will not do this. He wants you to work and to use your reason in this matter.

This also applies to preaching and to all other things. He gives us wool, letting it grow for us on the sheep. But the wool is not immediately converted into cloth. We must work it up to make cloth of it. When the cloth is there, it does not promptly become a coat. First the tailor must make it. And so on; in everything God acts in such a way that He will provide, but we should work." ("What Luther Says", p. 1495)

That is exactly what the priesthood of all believers is: God working in and through us in all things (1 Peter 2:5, 9-10; Exodus 19:6; Rev. 1:6; 5:10).

So, in everything, what we do and why is an important question to ask, which is why we should take everything to His Word in our daily work, whether it is as husband, wife, father, friend, pastor, secretary or garbageman, for all of these things are God's hand when done correctly. As 2 Cor. makes clear...

NIV 2 Corinthians 10:3 For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. 4 The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. 5 We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ. (emphasis added)

...we take everything to Christ and His Word (Scripture), redeeming everything to His glory and praise. This is our task. Total Truth will help you see that, as will a good leader in the faith. Praise God for his work in and through our lives, and may God bless us as we seek to be His ambassadors in ALL areas of our lives.

So, what are you here for? With about 6,000 years of history in the bank, why are you here now? With billions upon billions of people before you, why do you exist at this moment? What has God been training you for in the last year, five years, even your whole life? What will he train you for in the future? As we prepare to live godly lives in our whole life, may God bless our hearts, minds and hands to be HIS when He brings eternally significant opportunities to our feet.

Delays

2006-07-28T13:01:00.000-07:00

From one delay in O'hare to another a week later. It seems that delays are always around the corner. Or, at least, in my postmodern, gotta-have-it-now, immediate satisfaction, "drive thru" world I have become accustomed living in tells me.

I am working on a few posts that will speak to our current-day worldview, and how history shows we got there. Breaking it down is taking some time, so thanks for your patience...but don't wait for a great burger, hit the drive thru!

Creation emphasis

2006-07-03T10:13:00.000-07:00

I just recently returned from "Creation College 2" near Cincinnati, OH. What a great conference. We were given awesome insight into a biblical view of scientific observations. These insights are truly helpful in our evolutionary humanistic uniformitarian driven society.

If we could only take the view that is being proposed for Genesis 1-11 at this conference and apply this hermeneutic to the entire Scritpures, giving Scripture its authority when it speaks in its many different genres (noting, of course, that the genre will shape the way we understand God's message). What a blessing to hear many different denominations affirm Luther's view of Genesis 1-11, which, of course, I would argue to be the apostolic view. This reminds me of that all-too-short walk to Emmaus, when Jesus, beginning with Moses and the Prophets, explained (interpreted) to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself. What a walk that would be. I'm sure my heart would be burning for more too!

In getting back to the conference, which was all about the authority of Scripture concerning Genesis 1-11, it was a joy that all were affirming the creation account and various scientific explanations in light of that account, but truly a shame that some did not take the same approach to Scripture in other aspects of doctrine. Maybe this is a beginning point for reading The Word the way it was intended, but probably not. I can't help but be a little optimistic though, but I know that narrow is the road, and our personal bias gets in the way all too often.

For some highlights, the Creation Museum (which you can see updates at http://www.answersingenesis.org/museum/) was spectacular. Although much work still needs to continue for an April 30th, 2007 opening, it will be an amazing museum. As I was walking through it, I couldn't help but be overjoyed with three specific findings.

The first one concerns a room in the museum which is a must see in the walk (literally, since the museum is a journey and not just a compilation of unconnected "old stuff"). This room is specifically dedicated to Martin Luther (the ONLY church father to appear in this museum journey!). It will include the nailing of the 95 Thesis as well as a replica of the Gutenburg Press machine. The idea one cannot help but come away with is that Martin Luther was the "main man" in getting the authority of Scripture back where it should be (how sad that in many cases today even so-called "Lutherans" fail in properly dealing with the Scriptures).

As we continued our walk, we came to an area that had the library so far collected for the staff. Of the small number (about 3 large library shelves large), most of which included texts and books concerning specifically science, was the whole of Luther's Works. My excitement grew, until I realized that I, myself, didn't even own that collection of books. So, in good Lutheran format, guilt took over (but I do plan to have the whole of his works on the computer when we get the money, and maybe in book form since being at the museum...is that works righteousness?).

The last thing for my eyes was the office space, including Dr. Ken Ham's office. What I noticed in the Board Room was also a great surprise. On a formidable wall of the room you could see 5 labeled pictures. These pictures presented the vision and main ideas of Answers In Genesis. One of the pictures was Martin Luther posting the 95 Thesis with the bold lettering of "The Authority of Scripture" above. I can't help but be encouraged by the way this group is trying to handle Genesis 1-11 in the way we do, and doing such an amazing job at that.

The Creation Museum will be a great journey into the history of man, as the Bible presents it. Ken uses the 7 C's presentation angle which includes: Creation, Corruption (the Fall of man), Catastrophe (Noah's flood), Confusion (The Tower of Babel), Christ, Cross, and Consummation. All presentations will focus on God's Word and people will be taken through the journey of the history of the world from a biblical worldview. What a great idea, and they are doing an excellent job. They have a state-of-the-art projector for the Astronomy room which gives a tour of outer space and a great testimony is shared in the process as well as handling some of the most popular fallacies put forth by evolutionists, like the starlight problem, which is no problem at all from a biblical worldview. This museum will be an amazing testimony to the world. I am already planning our family's trip in the future.

In the future planning, AiG is planning to build a full scale ark...that's right, full scale on the property! That will be awesome. We have some terribly inaccurate pictures of the ark in our society - including the picture found on the cover of the most recent summer '06 magazine from "Higher Things," which ironically begins the article saying: "How distorted are our views of Noah and the great flood!." I say, "How ironic that we are calling the kettle black, when we artistically design or use an ark that doesn't even come close to the proportions that the Bible speaks of concerning it." It would be great to have a real picture of this massive vessel as Answers In Genesis wishes to construct; something like 450 by 75 by 45, three levels, etc., and full scale too!

In no AiG speaker on staff was there any push of doctrine outside of Genesis 1-11 in regards to science. I was greatly encouraged by their work, professional attitude, and excitement for holding to Scripture alone as the ultimate authority. If we can only get others to build off of this base for the rest of God's Holy Words! Maybe this is just the beginning. Most of the attendees were not Lutheran, but very receptive to the instruction, especially Dr. David Menton (who is Lutheran). His last talk entitled "God's Girders" was absolutely awe-inspiring. He even had almost everyone in the room saying "Amen" or shaking their heads 'yes' when he went into detail as to man not coming to God on his own. He told us that Adam was a hider, not a seeker. God is the seeker...do we think we are better than Adam? The absolute answer from the gallery was "No." We are only worse physically, spiritually, mentally, etc. And if Adam didn't confess and seek God, we certainly aren't going to either. It is God's work, he's the seeker! I had never thought of defending God's work in us concerning decision theology from Genesis 3! But it is certainly there, and hundreds of people heard it and agreed with it. Praise God for his work both to justify us and sanctify us. We are not worthy. But that's always been the point: he makes us worthy.

Dr. Menton (Anatomy) was outstanding, Dr. Lisle (Astronomy) was excellent, and the other speakers were very sound in doctrine as well. I was only disappointed in the devotional leader and "pastoral elective" leader, who is not an AiG speaker. He did not show the same professional attitude towards the program and content. All things completed, I feel very equipped for the future storms concerning this much battled ground called science. As Luther has said:

"If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved and to be steady on all the battlefield besides is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that one point."

Amen. May God continue to lead us and equip us to engage the battle so that none will be lost, but many found.

Broken Pieces, broken people

2006-06-26T17:10:00.000-07:00

It's very interesting to see what God can do. He's quite the masterpiece worker. We were looking at 1 Corinthians 4 which tells us of God's treasure in Jars of Clay (that's us!). We learned that these jars, very similar to clay pots today, were very cheap and dispensable. If one broke, it was no big deal. They were also very brittle, and if not handled with care they would do just that.

Yes, we often treat each other with little care and concern in our words and actions. We "toss" words and actions around as if we were all made of steel and could reject the punishment. But the truth is that those words and actions usually make an impression...no, worse...they usually break us.

But that's not the end of the story either...we are not only the ones being broken by others...by the world, satan and sinful flesh...but we are also part of the destruction. We break people too. It's a wonder how Christ can even call us his own.

But he does just that. He picks us up, when the world would look at our brokenness and quickly send us off on the next dump truck headed out to the nearest landfill. He pulls us into his family, and makes us his own. Then he places us in just the right place to be a part of his work (this is when we unveiled the new mosaic of Christ's nail-pierced hands reaching down), and by God's grace and power, we become a part of his healing work in our brokenness.

What a beautiful story of unconditional love and redemption to fulfill our lives with the Spirit's work in and through us. It is in our brokenness that all will understand that this is His work in us and not anything we can do apart from Him. Praise God for such wonderful grace and purpose in life!

NIV 2 Corinthians 4:7 "But we have this treasure in jars of clay to show that this all-surpassing power is from God and not from us."

The Last of Brown's ridiculous historical fallacies to be treated

2006-06-18T12:30:00.000-07:00

Fiction

Brown writes that Richard Wagner’s opera Parsifal “was a tribute to Mary Magdalene and the bloodline of Jesus Christ, told through the story of a young knight on a quest for truth” (390).

Fact

The young knight in the opera is indeed on a quest for the Holy Grail – the traditional Grail! Not the redefined one portrayed in this novel.

Fiction

Brown claims that the Priory of Sion attached female sexual symbolism to the medieval cathedrals to represent goddess worship, an idea that would have enraged the original architects. According to Brown, the “cathedral’s long hollow nave” is “a secret tribute to a woman’s womb…complete with receding labial ridges and a nice little cinquefoil clitoris above the doorway” (326).

Fact

Neither the Priory nor the Templars had anything to do with the medieval cathedral architecture. The great churches of Europe not only predated them by centuries, but they generally have 3 doors at the main entrances…not one, plus further doors in the side transepts…the woman’s body parallel becomes hard to fathom. Also, their “long hollow nave” was structured from the public basilicas of the ancient Greco-Roman world.

Fiction

Brown writes, “the New Testament is based on fabrications” (341); “the greatest story ever told is, in fact, the greatest story ever sold” (267); and “the Church has two thousand years of experience pressuring those who threaten to unveil its lies” (407). The anti-Christian bias of the author is obvious and blatant. That doesn’t mean that Christendom has been perfect over the years…medieval anti-Semitism, the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Galileo affair, and other persecutions…as well as the evils perpetrated today by the few members of the clergy who inflict on children the horrors of pedophilia. But keeping “Jesus’ marriage to Mary Magdalene” under wraps – the main theme of Brown’s book – is NOT one of the church’s offenses.

Other fabrications and outright lies (Brown’s in bold) and their explanation

“Noah was himself an albino” (166). Absolutely no evidence…and the “albino monk” of Opus Dei seems to have no problem whatever with his eyesight, as would be the case with true albinism.

“The early Jewish tradition involved ritualistic sex. In the Temple, no less. Early Jews believed that the Holy of Holies in Solomon’s Temple housed not only God but also His powerful female equal, Shekinah” (309). Nothing was, or is, as basic to Hebrews as their foundational belief in ONE God (not two or more)…the Jews did not even have a term for “goddess.” The term “Shekinah” in Hebrew refers to the glory of God present in his indwelling, not some divine consort.

The Jewish tetragrammation YHWH – the sacred name of God – in fact derived from Jehovah, an androgynous physical union between the masculine Jah and the pre-Hebraic name for Eve, Havah” (309). False! YHWH, the original name for God, reflects the Hebrew verb “to be.” But since tradition forbade verbal pronunciation of the name, rabbis in the sixteenth century pronounced the consonants from UHWH together with the vowels from the word Adonai (“Lord”) resulting in the word “Jehovah.” This later, synthesized name not only did not predate YHWH, it has absolutely nothing to do with an androgynous union.

“As a tribute to the magic of Venus, the Greeks used her eight-year cycle to organize their Olympic Games” (36). Here Brown shows himself to be an equal-opportunity exploiter in his crusade against the truth, muddling Greek history as well as Jewish and Christian. In reality, the games were dedicated to Zeus. A day-long festival in his honor interrupted the games midway through, which is why they were terminated in the Christian era until their revival in 1896 on a strictly secular basis. They also occurred every four years rather than eight, as Brown implies. As for the five linked rings of the Olympic flag in the modern games, these had nothing to do with the “Ishtar pentagram,” since new rings were supposed to be added with each new set of games. The organizers, however, stopped at five – a nice number to fill Olympic logos, reflecting the five major, inhabited continents.

“The Bible…has evolved through countless translations, additions, and revisions. History has never had a definitive version of the book” (231). To say that the Bible has “evolved” implies a progression of constant change, as in the term evolution. This is totally misleading. The only “changes” to the Bible that have taken place across the centuries have been an ever-more-faithful rendering and translation of the original Hebrew of the Old Testament and the Greek of the New Testament, without any additions to the text. (see Hank Hanegraaff’s section for more details)

“More than eighty gospels were considered for the New Testament, and yet only a relative few were chosen for inclusion” (231). Brown’s statement implies that there was a general submission of gospels to some sort of early church panel that reduced the field to the familiar four. This was not at all the case. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were foundation documents in what later came to be called the New Testament. Eusebius, the first church historian, tells how they were the core of the canon from the start, and how their authority was determined on the basis of usage in such early Christian centers as Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome. He also clearly identifies some of the later spurious writings, including the Gnostic gospels, that the church rejected as soon as they surfaced. Today they are known as “New Testament apocrypha.” Brown must have had this group in mind with his “eighty,” which is an exaggerated figure in any case.

(This article and most others have been taken from Dr. Paul Maier's book "The Da Vinci Code: fact or fiction?") You can purchase this book at the following sites:

http://www.equip.org/store/details.asp?SKU=B775

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1414302797/103-7751817-1819867?v=glance&n=283155

Dan Brown's view of Renaissance art

2006-06-15T18:37:00.000-07:00

Fiction

Brown claims that it was Leonardo da Vinci himself who, in painting The Last Supper, surfaced the great secret for all who had eyes to see. “The Last Supper practically shouts at the viewer that Jesus and Magdalene were a pair” (244).

Fact

Admittedly, the apostle John, at Jesus’ right hand, does have a feminine look to him in DaVinci’s masterpiece, but that was the master’s habit in painting younger men, as witness his portrayals also of John the Baptist and others. Moreover, the great artist could not possibly have had Mary Magdalene in mind or there would have been fourteen figures in his painting, rather than Jesus and the Twelve. If the figure to Jesus’ right is Mary Magdalene, where’s the missing John?

Fiction

Leonardo’s Mona Lisa (“La Gioconda”) is an androgynous self-portrait with a “secret smile” that derives from her name, which is supposedly an anagram of two Egyptian fertility deities Amon and Isis (121).

Fact

This painting is an actual portrait of a real personality, Madonna Lisa, the wife of Francesco del Giocondo.

Dan Brown's view of sexuality

2006-06-07T19:47:00.000-07:00

Fiction

In Brown’s view of life, he determines that there should be, in place of God or beside him, a consort goddess worthy of equal or even superior worship. Radical feminists love this idea and too quickly are urging a reappraisal of Sophia, the supreme goddess of second-century Gnosticism (as defined by Merriam-Webster: the thought and practice especially of various cults of late pre-Christian and early Christian centuries distinguished by the conviction that matter is evil and that emancipation comes through gnosis/knowledge[1]).

Fact

Here we find no lofty idealism to support the female side of divinity, but rather a lusty advocacy of free sexual indulgence as part of a worship unrestrained by Judeo-Christian principles.

Fiction

According to Brown, the church “demonized sex,” whereas those favoring the sacred feminine regard it as a quasi-sacrament. As witness to this, Brown depicts a lurid ritual he painted directly out of the film Eyes Wide Shut. The scene shows a circle of costumed men and women devotees offering up a weird chant in a nocturnal, candlelit cellar as they surround a copulating couple in the center. The ultimate message to the reader is this: it may look bad, but it’s really okay because this is hieros gamos, a “holy marriage” rite associated with the sacred feminine. The endless references in this book to Aphrodite or Venus – for whom Brown finds impossible symbolism everywhere from planetary movements to Walt Disney productions to reinforce his theme.

Fact

Far from “demonizing sex,” Christianity regards sexuality as one of God’s greatest gifts – albeit a gift that should be used responsibly. In this scary era of venereal disease, HIV, herpes, and other sexually transmitted diseases (STD), this view is hardly outdated. The libertinism suggested in The DaVinci Code would only exacerbate the dangers brought about by the Sexual Revolution. Nor has any mainstream religious system ever placed women on a higher plane than Christianity. The target for Brown’s feminist crusade should instead have been those current major religions that have not yet experienced the blessings of women’s liberation.

(These notes have been taken from Dr. Paul Maier's "The DaVinci Code: fact or fiction?")

[1]Merriam-Webster, I. 1996, c1993. Merriam-Webster's collegiate dictionary. Includes index. (10th ed.). Merriam-Webster: Springfield, Mass., U.S.A.

The Knights Templar

2006-06-02T07:57:00.000-07:00

Fiction

In Brown’s rewrite of history, the Templars were supposedly suppressed by Pope Clement V because they were blackmailing him with the secret of the Holy Grail (which has been anything from the cup Jesus used at the Last Supper to the Shroud of Turin). Borrowing from Holy Blood, Holy Grail, Brown divides the term Sangreal (Medieval French for Holy Grail) into Sang (blood) and Real (royal). That royal blood, in Brown’s story, is the bloodline stemming from Jesus and Mary Magdalene through the Merovingian dynasty. Mary herself was the actual Holy Grail, “the chalice that bore the royal bloodline of Jesus Christ” (249). The Templars knew that this formidable secret, if revealed, could undermine both papacy and church, so they used their knowledge for political gain. Rather than submit to blackmail, Pope Clement V devised his “ingeniously planned sting operation” (159), arrested all the Templars, and burned them as heretics.

Fact

The fact was that King Philip IV (“the Fair”) of France who, desperate for the Templars’ wealth, forced the pope to suppress their order, whereupon the French king – not the pope – arrested them and burned some, including Grand Master Jacques de Molay, at the stake in 1314. So, now with the Templars gone, who would guard the secret? The Priory of Sion…of course we know enough about that society already.

Was Jesus Married?

2006-05-30T17:54:00.000-07:00

Fiction

Brown claims that Jesus wed Mary Magdalene. He writes: “The early Church needed to convince the world that the mortal prophet Jesus was a divine being. Therefore, any gospels that described earthly aspects of Jesus’ life had to be omitted from the Bible. Unfortunately for the early editors, one particularly troubling earthly theme kept recurring in the gospels. Mary Magdalene…More specifically, her marriage to Jesus Christ…It’s a matter of historical record” (244).

Fact

Jesus never wed anyone. The idea that he did is totally absent from Scripture and the early church traditions. No spark of evidence of this possibility exists anywhere…even in the bizarre, second-century apocryphal gospels…there is no evidence or even reference that Jesus ever got married. Brown theorizes that Jesus was expected to get married and must have according to rabbinical traditions. But this is a logical error to claim that Jesus could not have remained single because of a general expectation of marriage. Exceptions for bachelorhood were granted by the rabbis, and there were whole sub-groups in Judaism that practiced celibacy, such as a branch of the Essenes or the Egyptian Therapeutae familiar from Philo. Nor did many of the great prophets, such as Jeremiah, or the wilderness prophet Banus – under whom Josephus studied – or John the Baptist, have wives. Jesus was regularly linked with such as a desert prophet early in his ministry.

Fiction

There are many variations, including Brown’s, on the theme of Jesus’ marriage to Mary Magdalene, and their child (Sarah) or children. In Holy Blood, Holy Grail – the source of many of Brown’s theories in The DaVinci Code – Mary, pregnant with Jesus’ child, fled to France, where she gave birth to a girl named Sarah, who became an ancestress of the Merovingian dynasty in France. Do these allegations come from early, original sources?

Fact

No. This version of Jesus’ family life first surfaced in the ninth century AD!

Fiction

Brown continues with further bizarre claims writing: “Jesus was the first original feminist. He intended for the future of His Church to be in the hands of Mary Magdalene…She was of the House of Benjamin…of Royal descent” (248).

Fact

There is no record whatever of Mary’s Jewish tribal affiliation, nor of a member in the tribe of Benjamin thereby having royal blood. And there is nothing to suggest that Jesus commissioned Mary instead of the apostles as the original church leader.

Fiction

The cornerstone of Brown’s evidence for Jesus’ marriage to Mary Magdalene comes from the apocryphal Gospel of Philip. In one passage Jesus supposedly kisses Mary as his “companion,” which Brown translates as “spouse or wife in Aramaic”: “And the companion of the Saviour is Mary Magdalene. Christ loved her more than all the disciples and used to kiss her often on her mouth. The rest of the disciples were offended by it and expressed disapproval. They said to him, “Why do you love her more than all of us?” (246)

Fact

1. If Jesus had a wife, it would have been unthinkable for his disciples to speak out against her, no matter how strong their disapproval.

2. The Gospel of Philip was not written in Aramaic, as Brown claims, but in Greek!

3. The Gospel of Philip is very late among the apocryphal gospels, dating to the third century, at least two centuries removed from Jesus’ time. Scholars dismiss the work as having no genuine historical recollections that are not drawn from the canonical Gospels. The early church rejected this document.

4. It is apocryphal also in the literal understanding of that term today: “not genuine, spurious, counterfeit.”

Fiction

Brown also refers to another document in support of his married-Jesus hypothesis, the Gospel of Mary Magdalene. Brown’s character Teabing exaggerates, “I shan’t bore you with the countless references to Jesus and Magdalene’s union” (247).

Fact

First, neither of these documents specify that Jesus was married. Both references are late, and even they do not explicitly report any “union” of Jesus and Mary!

Fiction

Why is there no evidence of Jesus’ marriage in all of church history? Dan Brown, echoing other revisionist authors before him, claims that the church suppressed this evidence in a great conspiracy of silence. This, of course, raises the antennae of conspiracy-lovers everywhere, the sorts who thrive on UFO sightings and alien invasions from outer space and who fear the Tri-Lateral Commission. “Everyone loves a conspiracy,” writes Brown, knowingly, and clearly, many do. For this reason he can get away with the outrageous lie that Jesus’ marriage is a “matter of historical record” (244).

Fact

REALITY: No history, No record! While we do not have one wisp of historical evidence that Jesus ever married, we do have powerful evidence that he did not. Even the most radical revisionists agree with sober biblical scholars that the writings of St. Paul constitute our earliest – and therefore most credible – records of Christianity. In 1 Corinthians 9:5, Paul defended his right to have a wife – a prerogative he never implemented: “Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a wife, as the other apostles, and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas [Peter]?” Now if Jesus himself had ever married, Paul would surely have cited that as the greatest precedent of all, after which it would have been unnecessary even to mention such subordinate examples as Peter and the other apostles. Without question, 1 Corinthians 9:5 is the graveyard of the married-Jesus fiction.

But what if there were some real piece of evidence for Jesus’ marriage? One can hardly resist speculating as to whether Jesus’ mission to the world would have been compromised had he, in fact, wed. Certainly, entering into marriage, as ordained by God, is not sinful, so might not Christ have done so? The DaVinci heroine, for example, claims she would “have no problem” with a married Jesus, and many reader might agree. But one of the principal purposes of marriage is to have children, and an enormous – even cosmic – problem would have arisen if Jesus and the Magdalene had produced offspring. Theologians would have argued for centuries as to whether such children did or did not participate in Jesus’ divinity. And what of their children and grandchildren in turn? It would have caused no less than theological bedlam. But no such documents or arguments exist! That Christ remained celibate was very wise indeed!

Fiction

According to Brown, the church suppressed this secret, yet the secret would not die! To guard and convey that secret and to retrieve the Sangreal documents that corroborated it from under the Jerusalem Temple, the Priory of Sion supposedly created the oldest of the church’s military-religious orders: the Knights Templar.

Fact

This group did exist during the Crusades to protect pilgrims on their way to and from the Holy Land, the Knights were indeed founded in 1118 and should have become obsolete when the last Crusader fortress at Acre fell in 1291. But by then they had amassed considerable wealth and had metamorphosed into a medieval banking institution cum travel agency.

Roman Emperor Constantine

2006-05-28T02:57:00.000-07:00

Fiction

Constantine is next on the list in Brown’s revisionism. Paul Maier calls Brown’s work on Constantine “the most concerted falsification of a historical personality that I have ever encountered in either fiction or nonfiction.”[1] The first Christian Roman Emperor is depicted as thus in Brown’s work: “The Priory believes that Constantine and his male successors successfully converted the world from matriarchal paganism to patriarchal Christianity by waging a campaign of propaganda that demonized the sacred feminine, obliterating the goddess from modern religion forever” (page 124). Brown claims that Constantine eliminated goddess worship in the Roman Empire, collated the Bible, used Christianity for political gain, moved Christian worship from Saturday to Sunday, and decided that Jesus should be made into a deity in order to suit his own purposes.

FACT

The first Christian emperor did many things for church and society in the early fourth century, but not one of these claims is among them. According to Brown’s character Leigh Teabing, Constantine “commissioned and financed a new Bible, which omitted those gospels that spoke of Christ’s human traits and embellished those gospels that made him godlike” (234). This is totally false. Most of the canon was well known and in use nearly two centuries before Constantine, a time when the early church had already dismissed the many apocryphal gospels that arose later in the second century. The rejected gospels, far from containing the real truth about Jesus, were all distortions derived from the first-century canonical Gospels and laced with fanciful aberrations.

For Brown, Constantine “was a lifelong pagan who was baptized on his deathbed, too weak to protest” (232). FALSE. While Constantine was a flawed individual, historians agree that he certainly abjured paganism, became a genuine Christian convert, repaid the church for its terrible losses during the persecutions, favored the clergy, built many churches throughout his empire, convened the first ecumenical council at Nicea – underwriting the expenses of clergy to attend it – and desired baptism near death. As for the last, he was only following the custom at the time (innocent though mistaken) of delaying baptism until the end of life because it wiped your solate clean of preceding sins.

Did Constantine shift worship from Sat. to Sun. “to coincide with the pagan’s veneration day of the Sun” (232-233)? No. The earliest Christians started worshiping on the first day of the week, Sunday, which they called “the Lord’s Day,” to honor the day on which Christ rose from the dead. This is obvious both from the New Testament (Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2; Revelation 1:10), as well as in the writings of the earliest church fathers like Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, the Didache, and even the pagan author Pliny the Younger.

The Council of Nicea (in Brown’s revisionism) deified Jesus. Before that, “Jesus was viewed by His followers as a mortal prophet…a great and powerful man, but a man nonetherless,” not the Son of God (233). Wrong! Jesus’ deity was attested by many New Testament passages, as well as by the earliest Christians and all the church fathers, even if there was some disagreement as to the precise nature of that deity. The Council of Nicea did not debate over whether Jesus was divine or only mortal, but whether he was coeternal with the Father. Still, Brown says it was by “a relatively close vote” that the Council of Nicea endorsed Jesus’ deity (233). In fact, the vote was 300 to 2…and the 2 dissenters were followers of Arius, the heretic (see sheet from Who’s Who in Christian History regarding Arius).

[1] The Da Vinci Code: fact or fiction?, p. 13.

The Priory of Sion

2006-05-26T06:27:00.000-07:00

DaVinci Code: Fiction and Fact

(following Paul Maier’s explanations in "The DaVinci Code: Fact or Fiction")

“Why is The Passion excoriated and The DaVinci Code extolled? Why are Gibson’s motives denounced and Brown’s dignified? Why is Christ’s passion referred to as a “repulsive, masochistic fantasy” and his supposed marriage to Mary Magdalene touted as a researched material fact? The answer may surprise you. It is not just that in our increasingly secularist culture it has become politically correct to cast aspersions on Christ and the church he founded. It is because of a great reversal of values. Fiction – such as the notion that Christianity was concocted to subjugate women – is being cleverly peddled as fact, while fact – such as the deity of Christ – is being capriciously passed off as fiction.”[1]

(There is nothing new under the sun...see Isaiah 5:13, 20)

So, let’s take a look at the fiction and facts of this story: The DaVinci Code (as understood from historian Dr. Paul Maier's book: "The Da Vinci Code: fact or fiction?")

Fiction #1

The Priory of Sion: supposedly a secret European society founded in Jerusalem in 1099 by a crusading French king named Godefroi de Bouillon. It’s purpose, according to Brown, was to preserve a great secret that had been handed down from generation to generation of Godefroi’s ancestors since the time of Christ. Hidden documents buried beneath the ruins of the Temple in Jerusalem allegedly corroborated this secret. What was the secret? Jesus’ marriage to Mary Magdalene, which resulted in a daughter named Sarah. Jesus’ bloodline supposedly continued through the Merovingian dynasty of French kings and survives even today. They exist to keep a watchful eye over the descendants of Jesus and Mary and wait for the perfect moment to reveal the secret to the world.

FACT

The “Priory of Sion” was actually registered in France in 1956 (google “Priory of Sion” and see site for “Priory of Sion Hoax” for more in depth info). The “Priory’s” first objective is to position itself in the mind of an unknowing public as the supreme Western esoteric organization. It dreams of utilizing that constituency in a synarchy-like fashion to promote its hybrid agenda of right-wing politics and turn-of-the-century esoteric teachings. It does not represent the real teachings of any positive esoteric order. It is materialistic, obsessed with attaining influence, and has fabricated documents without regard for any ethical considerations. It’s program is to manipulate people through lies in order to promote itself. The Priory’s role in this novel is supposedly “proven” by a cache of documents that were discovered in the Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris. These documents really do exist, but they were planted there by a person named Peirre Plantard. In fact, one of Plantard’s henchmen admitted to assisting him in the fabrication of these materials, including the genealogical tables and lists of the Priory’s grand masters – all trumpeted as truth in The DaVinci Code. Plantard’s hoax was actually exposed in a series of French books and a BBC documentary in 1996, but this news – fortunately for Dan Brown – is reaching our shores only at glacial speed. Plantard turned out to be an anti-Semite with a criminal record for fraud, while the real Priory of Sion is a little splinter social group founded half a century ago. The most important strand in the central plot of The DaVinci Code, then, is a total hoax. So much for the “Fact” Brown claims on his first page!

[1] Hanegraaff and Maier, The DaVinci Code: Fact or Fiction?, viii.

Some "recent past" revisionism examples

2006-05-22T07:44:00.000-07:00

In American culture, a double standard is surely at the top of the “food chain.” As Dr. Paul Maier states: “You dare not attack any of the religious systems of the world…except for Christianity.”

So, we have the “Jesus Game” (As described by Dr. Paul Maier)

· “Begin with a general sketch of Jesus on the basis of the Gospels, but then distort it as much as you please…The prize is maximum coverage in the nation’s print and broadcast media. Any frowns from the faithful will be ignored amid the skyrocketing sales of your product.”

Is this the first time this has been done? Absolutely NOT!

· England’s Hugh Schonfield unveiled a portrait of Jesus in 1966 that he defined as a false “Savior” who schemed the whole Golgotha scenario.

· Nikos Kazantzakis’ book The Last Temptation of Christ, later made into a movie, cast Jesus as an object of St. Paul’s scorn.

· Also in the tumultuous ‘60’s, we might even have expected to see “Jesus, the Radical Revolutionary,” courtesy of the S. G. F. Brandon books.

· Of course, we must also remember authors like John M. Allegro, another British scholar who once worked on the Dead Sea Scrolls but ruined his reputation by favoring us with the image of “Jesus the Mushroom Cultist” in 1970. In his The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross, Allegro seriously argued that Jesus was invented by myth-makers who got high on the hallucinogenic qualities of the red-topped, white-flecked fly agaric mushroom and wrote the Gospels to communicate their cultic secrets!

· Not to be outdone, Moron Smith presented “Christ the Master Magician” in his 1973 book The Secret Gospel, explaining away Jesus’ miracles as sleight-of-hand.

· In claims similar to those in the Qur’an, Australian Donovan Joyce’s The Jesus Scroll unveiled “Jesus the Senescent Savior” who survived Golgotha and lived on to the ripe old age of eighty.

· “Jesus the Happy Husband” staged his debut in several books, the most influential of which was Baigent, Lincoln, and Leight’s Holy Blood, Holy Grail in the 1980’s. These authors spun the impossible saga that is the heart of the storyline of The Da Vinci Code – that Jesus married Mary Magdalene and that their offspring persisted in the Merovingian dynasty of medieval France.

· After Jesus as “The Clownish Christ” in Godspell and “The Rock Redeemer” in Jesus Christ Superstar (both forgivable) came the 90’s and the irrepressible John Dominic Crossan, oracle of the Jesus Seminar, who gifted us with “Jesus the Rustic Redeemer” (or, perhaps, “Seinfeld – the Savior,” depending on which chapter you follow in his The Historical Jesus – The Life of a Jewish Mediterranean Peasant).

And, this is not all of them…but as the ‘plot thickens’ as to who Jesus really was (and is), we must have a way of finding the truth, for not all of these “authors” have the right idea. There must be a “standard” by which we are able to tell. For this, we turn to the standard that the witnesses accounted for, The Holy Bible. These are the writings of the first century witnesses that account for the true life, work, and claims of the real Jesus. Of course, this isn’t often who we see portrayed.

Whenever one of the networks attempts a serious documentary on Jesus, it usually tips scholarly representation heavily in the direction of radical, revisionist critics rather than serious, centrist biblical scholars, as witness Peter Jennings’ ABC special “In Search of Jesus,” which aired in June 2002, or Dateline NBC in February, 2004.

And now, crowning this retinue of revisionism, comes The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown. For one, this seems to be just a copy of Holy Blood, Holy Grail (1980). Dan is also capitalizing on what is already a vulnerable target: the Church. Current scandals with Roman Catholicism due to the pedophilia cases and other clergy and church leaders making horrific decisions in our society, allows Dan Brown to capitalize on the disingenuous regards most have for the church. Add to that the rise of radical feminism and the women’s movement (as seen on the cover of Newsweek (Dec. 8, 2003).

So, why is this so dangerous? Because of biblical illiteracy rates rising in our culture (consider less than 8% of the Millennial generation is in church on any given Sunday), many readers/moviegoers assume that all of the supplementary contextual and background detail involving Christianity is true WHEN IT IS NOT! A few factual references are heavily interlaced with fiction or outright falsehood. To represent such details as fact is positively dishonest.

For example, on the first page in the book (after the table of contents and such) we read a heading of “FACT” under which Dan Brown writes statements that form the basis of the entire novel. Furthermore, Brown has publicly clarified that he believes that the conspiracy theory he presents in The Da Vinci Code is actually true (Good Morning America, ABC: Nov. 3, 2003 and Primetime Live, ABC: Nov. 3, 2003).

Please remember our Lord’s regards for us in these last days…that many false prophets will be among us, and that the spirit of the anti-christ(s) will work against us. How do we determine these things? We test the spirits (1 John 4). See Colossians 2:8; 2 Corinthians 10:4-5; Acts 17:11; 1 Thessalonians 5:21; and Eph. 5:6; but put on the armor of God…Eph. 6:10-20! We overcome this demonic teaching by taking all things to THE WORD MADE FLESH – JESUS, who gave us His Word as a ruler and measure for these things.

How should we understand this?

2006-05-22T07:41:00.000-07:00

This notion that Dan Brown puts forth is nothing new. In fact, it is something we have seen more and more in the recent past. However, unfortunately this does not mean the book turned film is any less concerning. With the growing population biblically illiterate (which doesn't mean they cannot read, but that they have no real knowledge of God's Word), and the younger generations being found less and less in the churches in our country as well as others, we must concern ourselves with the combination of these vital concerns.

As we will see in some short exerpts from Dr. Paul Maier's "The Da Vinci Code: fact or fiction?", this new deception is nothing new at all.

As Paul Maier likes to elude to these sensationalisms: The “Jesus Game”…sensationalizing efforts by Hollywood’s best have these things in common:

1. The flight from hard evidence – solid historical, literary, and archaeological source material – to the flimsies of sensationalistic reconstruction.

2. The substitution of opinion for fact and hypothesis for history, leading to the most arbitrary conclusions possible.

3. Twisting the language of a historical source out of context to make it mean what the author wants it to mean in accord with his caricature.

4. Exchanging objectivity for bias, admitting only sources that favor the author’s hypothesis and dismissing the rest.

5. What might be called “smorgasbord research”: ignoring the succulent dishes of evidence spread out by the past but pouncing on a caviar wisp of data, then reporting that the entire dinner consisted of delicious fish eggs.

6. Façade “scholarship”: peppering the findings with references, book titles, or notes that may look authoritative, bur substantiate nothing at all.

7. In the case of fiction, exaggerating at will, removing data out of context, and masking outright falsehoods under the claim that the literary vehicle is fiction.

(These points taken from The DaVinci Code: Fact and Fiction, p. 37-38, Hanegraaff and Maier)

Also, consider these quotes from Hanegraaff and Maier’s book:

“But Brown uses this “fact” (which in reality is completely untrue) to cast aspersions on Jesus Christ, the historicity of the Gospels, and the uniqueness of Christianity.”

“As we will see, much of what Brown trumpets as truth is based on a fabrication concocted by an anti-Semite with a criminal record.”

“Let me be clear: no one should feel that his faith has been undermined by the fantasies and lies presented under the guise of truth in this novel.”

As we seek to further discern our way through this book and real history in coming posts, let it be known that Satan's most effective deception will include anything that separates us from real faith in Christ Jesus, our Savior. He knows his fate, it's only a matter of time...God's time...he's already lost the battle...his only way of attacking the God of the universe is by pulling us to hell with him in any way he can deceptively concoct. Let us run with perseverence the race marked out for us, that we may be blessed to be a blessing in leading people to his kingdom, the opportunities of His future delight.

Da Vinci Code Concern...

2006-05-17T12:35:00.000-07:00

With permission granted to me, I will submit a short document by Dr. Paul Maier and his concerns with this film. Dr. Paul Maier is a professor of ancient history at Western Michigan University. He graduated from Harvard and Concordia Seminary before receiving his PhD "summa cum laude" at the University of Basel - the first American ever to do so. He is also a best-selling author of both fiction and non-fiction, including "A Skeleton in God's Closet." You can also find more interviews with other professionals, including Dr. Maier, at our other location:

http://www.davincidecoding.blogspot.com

Here is Dr. Maier.

THE DA VINCI DISTORTION

An Outline by Paul L. Maier

Society has a deplorable double standard: “It’s not politically correct to criticize anyone else’s religion – unless it’s Christianity!” The media are playing “The Jesus Game” as a result, offering us caricatures instead of Christ, and none are worse than Dan Brown’s in The Da Vinci Code.

A. A Literary Critique: The novel is engaging, a page-turner with rapid-fire action, but it’s hardly “pure genius,” as claimed on the book flap: the characters are thin, too many plot puzzles finally get tedious, errors stud its pages, and the ending is a huge let-down. Why, then, did it explode in sales? Controversy!

B. Attacks on Christ and Christianity: Halfway through the novel, its pages are littered with distortions, errors, exaggerations, misinformation, and outright falsehoods. Brown’s method is to offer an attractive pill coated with 20% truth to suggest credibility, but disguising the 80% of falsehood inside.. A few examples:

The Priory of Sion, the main premise of the novel, is a total hoax.

“Almost everything our fathers taught us about Christ is false.”

“The New Testament is fake testimony.”

Constantine, the first Christian emperor, was really a lifelong pagan..

Early Christians thought Jesus was merely a man, but the Council of Nicaea
turned him into a God, though “only by a close vote.” (314 to 2!!)

Out of 80 gospels, the fourth-century church selected four, and not
necessarily the best. (In fact, only about 20 false “gospels” existed.)

The Gnostic gospels were more favorable to women than the canonicals.

The Gnostic gospels preserve a truer version of who Jesus was.

Jesus married Mary Magdalene, and they had a daughter named Sarah.

Jesus appointed Mary Magdalene to lead the church.

Mary Magdalene was the Holy Grail.

Leonardo painted Mary Magdalene, not John, to Jesus’ right in "The
Last Supper." (So where, then, is the missing John?)

False Freudian explanations for Medieval cathedrals.

God had a divine consort named Shekinah, and ritual sex took place in the Jerusalem temple!

YHWH, the ineffable name for God, derived from Jehovah (!!)

The Bible evolved through various recopyings. (Just the opposite, in fact.)

The Vatican tried to suppress the Gnostic gospels and the Dead Sea Scrolls.

And many more! Each of the above falsehoods is so easily refuted – the Gnostic gospels in particular, which are late, derivative, and packed with absurdities.

C. “Chill out: it’s FICTION, isn’t it?” This common objection breaks down, for two reasons:

1) Brown claims that his material 'is basically factual,' as witness the first page of his novel, as well as his repeated claims in media appearances: “Were I to rewrite the novel as history, I wouldn’t change a word.”

2) All novels have two action dimensions: the 'foreground,' in which fictional players act out their roles, and a 'background' or setting, which, for credibility, is always non-fiction. Obviously, novelists can do whatever they wish with the foreground, but they offer an authentic background. Brown has fictionalized the foreground – nothing amiss there – 'but he has also falsified the background,' and many readers don’t know this. (“Hitler wins,” if Brown wrote a WW. II novel.)

D. The Negative Results: When fiction becomes “fact,” truth suffers. Readers get a totally false view of the historical past, disinformation. “If it’s in print, it must be true,” people wrongly assume: 1/3 of Canadian readers assumed that "The Da Vinci Code" was totally factual! Seekers, who might have accepted Christianity, are now dismissing it. Even some Christians, who ought to know better, are not well enough grounded in their faith (or even in history), and therefore that faith is shaken. After reading the book, some have totally lost their faith, and some have even died in despair as a result.

E. Who is Responsible? Not merely Dan Brown and radical sensationalist authors like him who distort the truth (James Frey, "A Million Little Pieces"), but the publishing industry itself, which seems to have sold its soul to the corporate bottom line and no longer seems to care about the truth.

F. The Positive Results: Paradoxically, the Da Vinci phenomenon can be a good opportunity for Christian witness, since people are now talking again about Jesus, the Bible, and the church as never before.

For further information, please see Hank Hanegraaff and Paul L. Maier’s book, "The Da Vinci Code – Fact or Fiction?" (Tyndale House, 2004), or amazon.com

Gearing up for DaVinci Code

2006-05-12T13:32:00.000-07:00

With the movie coming out this week (May 19th), it will be helpful for us to understand what is going on in this depiction of (rewritten) history. We begin the upcoming of this next week with a few thoughts to get your mind in gear, and will follow up with the FACTS concerning history regarding these matters in the coming week.

Also, in case you have nothing to do Monday (15th), at 7 pm there is a webstream debate with Dr. Darrell Bock, Christian, who wrote "Breaking the DaVinci Code: Answers to the Questions Everybody's Asking". He will be debating an Orthodox Jew and a Messianic Jew concerning the DaVinci Code's message. It should be a good resource, and he is a reputable scholar on these details, as LCMS Dr. Paul Maier has lifted him up. Here is the information and the webcast site:

http://www.davincidebateny.com/

Here is some more food for thought to get you "rollin" on this issue:

DaVinci Code: Fact or Fiction?
The “Jesus Game”…sensationalizing efforts by Hollywood’s best have these things in common:
The flight from hard evidence – solid historical, literary, and archaeological source material – to the flimsies of sensationalistic reconstruction.

The substitution of opinion for fact and hypothesis for history, leading to the most arbitrary conclusions possible.

Twisting the language of a historical source out of context to make it mean what the author wants it to mean in accord with his caricature.

Exchanging objectivity for bias, admitting only sources that favor the author’s hypothesis and dismissing the rest.

What might be called “smorgasbord research”: ignoring the succulent dishes of evidence spread out by the past but pouncing on a caviar wisp of data, then reporting that the entire dinner consisted of delicious fish eggs.

Façade “scholarship”: peppering the findings with references, book titles, or notes that may look authoritative, bur substantiate nothing at all.

In the case of fiction, exaggerating at will, removing data out of context, and masking outright falsehoods under the claim that the literary vehicle is fiction. (These points taken from The DaVinci Code: Fact and Fiction, p. 37-38, Hanegraaff and Maier)

Also, consider these quotes from Hanegraaff and Maier’s book:

“But Brown uses this “fact” (which in reality is completely untrue) to cast aspersions on Jesus Christ, the historicity of the Gospels, and the uniqueness of Christianity.”

“As we will see, much of what Brown trumpets as truth is based on a fabrication concocted by an anti-Semite with a criminal record.”

“Let me be clear: no one should feel that his faith has been undermined by the fantasies and lies presented under the guise of truth in this novel.”

More to come on this issue, which is getting ready to blast us: are you ready?

NIV 1 Peter 3:15 But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect

Opportunities and burdens

2006-04-25T06:44:00.000-07:00

What's your outlook on life? I know how mine can get all too frequently. As I look around, wishing I had the life that was being displayed before me on the T.V. while I am watching a baseball game. Or maybe if I just had this thing or that, my life would be the way I 'envisioned' it. Or ______________________. (you fill in the blank)

What is our outlook on life? Is God the creator and sustainer of all things? Is he also the giver of all good things? If so, are we content with what he has chosen to give us (monetarily, giftedness, etc.)? If not, on what basis do we stand to confront our displeasure to the Creator of the universe?

I know that I can begin to feel as though life is burdensome to me. But when I take a moment to step back and see things as God sees them (I'll get to this later), I begin to see "life's little occurences" as opportunities instead of burdens. Think about it. That troubled student, who daily seems to push the lines in class, irritating you and the others (I used to be a jr. high and high school teacher), what is he looking for? Why is he "pushing"? Or that child that just won't "walk the line" at home, or even in public! Why won't he listen...can he even listen!? What is going on here? What opportunity is God placing before you? This student, this child, they are not just looking for attention, but love. We all know that love comes in many forms, for it is certainly not loving for me to let my 2 year old touch a hot stove out of curiousity. Love does not just affirm everything, but disciplines also.

Maybe you can relate:

A mother or father, tired, effected by the rigors of the day, struggling to energize for the day ahead, hears, at 1:30 a.m., tormented cries from the next room. What is the reaction? Is this a burden "we should not have to bear", or an opportunity, to once more, show our unconditional love to a hurting and confused soul?

A teenaged young man, struggling to find his place in life, is assisted home by the police early in the morning. Do the parents throw their hands up and "wash" their lives of him, or do they discipline, continue to strategize and show unconditional love to a confused and hurting soul?

A man, frustrated by the employees that just won't "see the light" on certain terms. Do we fire and cut loose, or continue to meet, understanding each other's position, and work out a strategic plan for wholeness to everyone in the company?

The "experienced" woman, after many years taking its toll on her body, looks around at all that she CANNOT do any longer. Does she despise life and all that it offers, or creatively seek out what God is now placing before her, the tasks she can complete and the wisdom she may pass on?

God, fortunately, sees opportunities in us. Why else would the all-powerful, all-knowing Creator of the universe have created so much pain for himself!? Think about it, from the beginning, God has given us everything, only to have us turn our back on him, not just once, but time after time after time again. And not only that, but then as we live, we continually wonder "why" and don't trust his ways. We forget the opportunity to learn, experience and grow, instead focusing on our wish to stay right where we are, in comfort and style!

But God sees opportunities! He searches us out and works (overtime) to redeem his lost creation, only to work some more when we turn from him again. He continually sees us as opportunities of his future delight, even in the midst of our painful struggle against him. What a testament to the unconditional love he has for his creation.

And this is how God works in all things, to redeem them and bring them to himself, scarred by life and all. He is working to redeem all people (and he will - see Rev. 7:9 - I think heaven will be quite eclectic, yet weave with perfection) in their various cultural differences and all (minus any moral contradictions), music, all genres, movies, sports...if you can think of it and people are involved in it, God is working to redeem it, as long as its premise does not directly contradict His Truth, the Word. (for more on redeeming, see Rom. 3:24; 1 Cor. 1:30; Eph. 1:7,14; Col. 1:14; Heb. 9:12; Job 19:25; Exo. 21:30; Num. 18:15; the story of Ruth and Boaz; Psa. 44:26, 49:15, 119:134, 130:8; Luke 24:21; Gal. 4:5; Titus 2:14)

Oh, if we could only have eyes like our Heavenly Father, who sees opportunities to redeem and love people enough, taking time and building effort to bring them into his kingdom, the opportunities of his future delight. Or, simply put, as Boz (my children's new DVD friend) would say, "When life gives you a lemon...make lemonade!"

God bless your mind and heart, feet, hands and mouth, as you also see and act toward opportunities of God's future delight.

The importance of Right Teaching

2006-04-24T19:58:00.000-07:00

Of course, all of us are teachers, at one time or another. Whether it is the profession at large, or the peer group at the lunch table, there is teaching and learning going on. Which way are you pointing?

Martin Luther had much to say about this role:

"Schoolmasters have learned to speak in school with their pupils; they know how the passages of Holy Scripture are properly to be handled and explained. I wish that no one would be elected preacher unless he had first been a schoolmaster. Now the young fellows want to become preachers instantly and flee schoolwork. But after a man has taught for about ten years, he may quit with a good conscience; for the work is too great and is little thought of. However, a schoolmaster is as important to a city as a preacher. We can dispense with burgomasters, princes, and noblemen; you cannot dispense with schools, for they must rule the world.

If I were not a preacher, I do not know of any position on earth that I would rather have than that of schoolmaster. But one must not look at how the world rewards and regards it but at how God will consider and praise it on that Day."

"I would briefly say that a diligent and pious schoolteacher or master or whoever the person is who faithfully trains and teaches boys can never be sufficiently rewarded and repaid with any money, as even the heathen Aristotle says (This Greek philosopher said: "Those who educate children well are more to be honored than those who produce them. For the latter give them only life; the former give them the art of living well."). Yet this work is shamefully despised among us as if it were nothing whatever. Still we want to be Christians. If I myself could or should be obliged to leave the office of the ministry and other duties, I would rather have the office of schoolmaster or teacher of boys than any other office. For I know that next to the ministry this work is the most useful, the greatest, and the best. In fact, I do not know which of the two is better; for it is hard to tame old dogs and to make old rascals pious. Yet this is the task at which the preacher must labor and often labor in vain. But one can bend and train young trees more easily even though some of them break in the process. My friend, let it be considered one of the greatest virtues on earth faithfully to train the children of other people. Very few people - in fact, practically none - do this for their own children."

"No calling pleases me as well as that of schoolmaster; nor would I more gladly accept any other calling." (Luther arrives at this thought by reflecting on the precious Old Testament texts which the Great Teacher must have explained to His disciples on the way to Emmaus)

"It takes persons of exceptional ability to teach and train children aright."

"What work is greater and more splendid than imparting real and true instruction? If, then, you are a teacher or the head of a school, what are you to do? You are faithfully to instruct, teach, discipline, and admonish the youth entrusted to you. You should do so expecting that some will do their duty and others will not. For he who wants to do good must expect that it is done in vain and that his good deed is poorly used, because the number of those who spurn good advice is always greater than the number of those who follow it. And we should be satisfied when the good we do has not been entirely lost. It is enough if one of the ten lepers returns to acknowledge the benefit (Luke 17:17). So it is enough if one of ten pupils takes correction and studies diligently; for thus the benefit is not altogether lost. And in imitation of the example which God gives us we are enjoined to do good to both the grateful and the ungrateful (Matt. 5:45)."

Others knew if this powerful influence also.

Adolf Hitler said: "Let me control the textbooks, and I will control the state."

Vladimir Lenin said: "Give me your four year olds, and in a generation I will build a socialist state."

These men used this powerful influence for destruction.

Even Martin Luther saw this possibility when he said:

"I am much afraid that the schools will prove to be the great gates to Hell unless they diligently labor in explaining the Scriptures, engraving them in the hearts of youth. I advise no one to place his child where the scriptures do not reign paramount. Every institution in which men are not increasingly occupied with the Word of God, must become corrupt."

May God raise up right minded teachers, which will form and fashion the next generations to come. Lord, help us.

The "Last" Ones

2006-04-24T08:28:00.000-07:00

It's interesting how our minds work, isn't it? We can find a justification for almost anything we do (or don't do). There's always a good reason! In almost anything we might be involved in, there is ample reason and conjecture as to why we should or shouldn't do something.

Especially in the areas of religion, there is much thinking on this subject. Certainly, we have been told (as Jesus told his disciples) to be:

Matthew 10:16 "Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves."

A definite element of highly trained reasoning is embedded in this verse(maybe that of a biblical worldview). Of course, he also praised those who showed "child-like" faith in their actions towards him and for him. Jesus himself encouraged us to have this type of faith when it came to our necessities in Matt. 6:30 ff. The (gentile) centurion of Matthew 8 had such faith (which, shortly after, his own disciples showed they did not have) as did the paralytic and the woman suffering from a hemorrhage of Matthew 9, and many others (see Matthew 15:28; Mark 10:52, 11:22ff; Luke 17:5ff, 17:19; John 14:12, 20:30).

So, what is child-like faith? God certainly does not tell us to "check our brains at the door" upon entering worship. But at the same time, everything seems to funnel right to Him, so that any worldly thought may be put in check through faith in what He has said (the Bible). For example, it may not seem to make any sense to begin conversation with an athiest or skeptic. "Surely, they have heard it all before" might be our thinking. Although this statement is inherently problematic, it also goes against what the Lord may be wishing to produce through our lives, real and active faith in another life! If we believe that God can do all things, as His Word states, why would we shy away from an opportunity to share the Good News?

Fear. The same fear that kept the disciples locked in a room for fear of the Jews that first Easter evening (John 20:19). We have the same fear of unacceptance or rejection, even persecution. But Jesus comes to his disciples and says, "Peace be with you!" And so, he says the same to us.
ESV Philippians 4:7 And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus. Even when we don't fully know how its going to work out, we trust and step out in faith (like Peter, who, for a while at least, was walking on water).

This has all come to the forefront for me recently (the last year or so) when I have been praying for my children. As I pray for them to be and become active Jesus freaks in a culture blurred with complacent Christians, it has come to mind that this request may bring, from a worldly point of view, problems and suffering into their lives. The fact is that people are great at turning from God until they need something (I know). Certainly, God can do all things, and we are preparing our children, as best as we know how, to turn to Him in all things and all situations, before they "feel" they need him. In fact, to entrust that need for Him from the beginning. But, our human nature gets in the way, and I must realize that suffering may be the refining agent that draws them closer to Him (as a physical weakness did for myself).

Which brings me to the point.

I've been considering some others in the recent year. Some that don't always fit the usual pattern of thinking. Those who are sometimes marginalized in societies, like Hitler's...and ours! (Think about it...why do we really want the capability to detect birth defects so early? Very few can be reversed in the womb!) Our culture looks at these, and calls them the "last ones." But I'm not so sure they are the last. After much reflective thought, I tend to go along with Matthew West's view on these as he puts so well in his song entitled "The Last Ones".

The Last Ones
Listed under Matthew West & History
Words by Matthew West
Music by Matthew West & Jason Houser
Word Music, LLC / Westies Music Publishing, admin. by Word Music, LLC / Songs of Extreme / Cedar Sides, admin. by Cedar Music Publishing [ASCAP]
Matthew West (lead & background vocals, acoustic guitar); Kenny Greenberg (acoustic & electric guitar); Tim Lauer (piano)

My friend Taylor, she’s an angel. Ten years old and beautiful. She’s a living, breathing miracle. And she proves it everyday. ‘Cause the odds were stacked against her. From the day that she arrived here. And the doctors told her mom and dad. She’d always be that way.
And I confess when I first met her. I was thinking life’s not fair. But then she wrapped her arms around my neck. And it all became so clear.

God bless the last ones.

One day Taylor sent me a picture. From her Special Olympics race. And I could tell just by the looks of it. She was coming in last place. But she crossed that finish line. With a smile upon her face. As if to say

God bless the last ones.

Maybe the last ones are the lucky ones. The ones who got this whole thing figured out. ‘Cause when they go looking for something beautiful. They start looking from the inside out.

On our way into the restaurant. We passed a homeless man. He was half drunk and half asleep. With a paper cup in his hand. And I confess when I first saw him. I was thinking life’s not fair. But then Taylor reached out. And wrapped her arms around his neck. And it all became so clear.

God bless the last ones.

I wish we could all be the lucky ones. The ones who’ve got this whole thing figured out. Maybe the next time. We go looking for beautiful. We’ll try looking from the inside out.

God bless the last ones.

Maybe there is something they understand better than we do, for our minds get in the way. Martin Luther once said this: "Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has: it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but - more frequently than not - struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God." This is not to say that we shouldn't think and reason, but it is to say that we shouldn't allow this reason to trump God's Word of Truth!

But I look at some who are mentally impaired, and I see a love for life in their eyes which, I believe, comes from a trust of those around them, a trust of their situation, a trust of God, perhaps. Maybe they aren't "bogged down" by all the worries and cares of life (that cannot be changed by even a minute of our worrying, much less the days spent), but enjoy what comes their way, including the work they are given! We complain day after day of "all that we have to do", while they, with a smile on their face, repeatedly serve burger after burger at McDonalds, or retrieve cart after cart at the nearest grocery store...all with a smile and satisfaction of a job well done.

I realize that one can always find an example that doesn't fit, but I just wonder if, in general, this isn't something we bring on ourselves. As the "last ones" live the life they have been given to the fullest, we, who have many more gifts, squander them and waste countless hours abusing them while we think about "the other things we would rather be doing," rather than being thankful for what we have been given and what we can do.

What if we really did see the garbage man as important as he is in keeping our communities, not only clean, but safe and free of deadly diseases. Scripture says:

ESV 1 Corinthians 12:22 On the contrary, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, 23 and on those parts of the body that we think less honorable we bestow the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty, 24 which our more presentable parts do not require. But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it, 25 that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. 26 If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together. 27 Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it.

What would society look like if this were to happen. Would there be that great "rat race" all over the business world? Ya know, the funny thing is that I can actually picture times when I've seen the "last ones" living this out. When a special olympic runner stopped running a race he was going to win (that's right, first place!) to help up the leader who had fallen over a hurdle and twisted his ankle. He could not finish...alone. But he didn't have to, the "last one" gave up his gold medal to help him finish the race.

So, as anti-normal as this may sound...maybe a little (or even a lot) of suffering is good for our lives. Maybe we would be better off with less...

maybe we should more acutely think what life would be like without a God who loves unconditionally (see O.T. and Rom. 15:4), even when we are ungrateful for the gifts that he has given...or even when we don't recognize him as being there...or even when we don't want him there.

So...

May God help you see the vision he has for your life, the good works you have been created for (Eph. 5:10), as simple or as large as each one of them, at any given moment, may be.

Passion Week

2006-04-12T11:08:00.000-07:00

Passion. An interesting word. This being passion week in the church, I thought it would be interesting to look at the definitions given. Interestingly enough, here is what I found in Merriam-Webster's dictionary (10th Edition):

pas•sion \ˈpa-shən\ noun

[Middle English, from Old French, from Late Latin passion-, passio suffering, being acted upon, from Latin pati to suffer — more at patient]

(13th century)

1 often capitalized
a : the sufferings of Christ between the night of the Last Supper and his death
b : an oratorio based on a gospel narrative of the Passion

2 obsolete : suffering

3 : the state or capacity of being acted on by external agents or forces

4 a (1) : emotion [his ruling passion is greed]
(2) plural : the emotions as distinguished from reason
b : intense, driving, or overmastering feeling or conviction
c : an outbreak of anger

5 a : ardent affection : love
b : a strong liking or desire for or devotion to some activity, object, or concept
c : sexual desire
d : an object of desire or deep interest

— pas•sion•less \-ləs\ adjective

synonymy passion, fervor, ardor, enthusiasm, zeal mean intense emotion compelling action. passion applies to an emotion that is deeply stirring or ungovernable [was a slave to his passions]. fervor implies a warm and steady emotion [read the poem aloud with great fervor]. ardor suggests warm and excited feeling likely to be fitful or short-lived [the ardor of their honeymoon soon faded]. enthusiasm applies to lively or eager interest in or admiration for a proposal, cause, or activity [never showed much enthusiasm for sports]. zeal implies energetic and unflagging pursuit of an aim or devotion to a cause [preaches with the zeal of the converted].
Merriam-Webster, I. 1996, c1993. Merriam-Webster's collegiate dictionary. Includes index. (10th ed.). Merriam-Webster: Springfield, Mass., U.S.A.

Our culture has 'all but lost' the original meaning of passion in "suffering". As you can see, this dictionary (true to other historical dictionaries) has placed Jesus suffering and death as the first definition of the word. However, this is the opposite of how our culture (and many recent dictionaries) place the order of definitions. Many put our desire as the more important meaning, as you probably readily defined it that way for yourself the at the heading of this article. What is written below may help "bring you back" to the original meaning.

May God, the One who loved us so much that He gave His only Son to die on the cross for our sinfulness, bless you this Passion Week.

The Agony Of Love
Medical Aspects of The Crucifixion:
The Agony of Love
by Dr. Mark Eastman

On the evening before His crucifixion Jesus was gathered with His disciples in the upper room, sharing with them some of the most intimate truths of His entire ministry. As He discussed the love of the Father and His love for His disciples he declared:

Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. John 15:13
Though they did not realize it at the time, the disciples were only hours from the practical realization of this truth. One of the subtle evidences of the supernatural origin of the Biblical text is that astonishing events are often described in extremely brief narratives.

This is perhaps best illustrated in the matter-of-fact way in which the crucifixion of Jesus Christ-the most pivotal event in the history of the universe-is described in the Gospel accounts.
After Jesus was examined and declared to be without fault by the Roman Procurator Pontius Pilate, he delivered Him to be judged by the assembled crowd. When the opportunity arose to decide the destiny of Jesus, the crowd and the Jewish leadership cried out saying, "Crucify Him, crucify Him."

The horrifying events of the next six hours were preceded by the simple words:
Then delivered he Him therefore unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus, and led him away. John 19:16

"Great Drops of Blood"

The physical suffering of Jesus began in the Garden of Gethsemane on the evening before His crucifixion. While the disciples slept, the Gospel of Luke records that the LORD "being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground."

The notion that someone could actually sweat blood seems contrived. However, there is a rare but recognized condition called hematohydrosis, in which capillary blood vessels that feed the sweat glands rupture, causing them to express blood. This usually occurs under conditions of extreme physical or emotional stress. Jesus wasn't sweating blood because he was afraid of the physical pain of the cross. Indeed, the book of Hebrews tells us that Jesus looked forward to the cross:

Looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. Hebrews 12:2

The Trials

After Jesus' arrest they led Him away to the High Priest Caiaphas, where the Scribes and elders were assembled. During this inquisition we are told that "some began to spit on Him, and to blindfold Him, and to beat Him, and to say to Him, 'Prophesy!' And the officers struck Him with the palms of their hands."

Beatings about the face received by a blindfolded individual cause even worse trauma because the victim cannot "roll with the punches." In the hours that followed Jesus received two additional beatings at the hands of Roman soldiers. Severe disfigurement of the face would certainly have resulted from the brutal treatment. It is likely that the eyelids were swollen shut as a result of such beatings. This was done in fulfillment of Isaiah 52:13-14:

Behold, my servant shall deal prudently, he shall be exalted and extolled, and be very high. As many were astonished at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men.

The Scourging

After His trial before Pontius Pilate, Jesus was scourged (flogged) by the Roman guards. This process typically involved a whip with numerous leather thongs, 18-24 inches long, with bits of metal, bone or glass embedded in the leather. At times they would use an iron rod to beat the prisoner. According to Jewish custom, a prisoner was usually flogged 39 times (Forty minus one was a sign of Jewish mercy!)

Scourging was an extreme form of punishment. The skin on the victim's back was usually shredded, thus exposing the underlying muscle and skeletal structures. Severe blood loss and dehydration were the rule. Many victims died from such scourging.

After the scourging of Jesus, the Roman soldiers beat Him a second time with their hands and with a reed. Then they put on him a "crown of thorns."

Jesus had not drunk since the night before, so the combination of the beatings, the crown of thorns, and the scourging would have set into motion an irreversible process of severe dehydration and cardiorespiratory failure. All of this was done so that the prophecy of Isaiah would be fulfilled:

I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair: I hid not my face from shame and spitting. Isaiah 50:6

And:

But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. Isaiah 53:5

Crucifixion

Crucifixion was invented by the Persians between 300-400 b.c. It was "perfected" by the Romans in the first century b.c. It is arguably the most painful death ever invented by man and is where we get our term "excruciating." It was reserved primarily for the most vicious of criminals.

The most common device used for crucifixion was a wooden cross, which consisted of an upright pole permanently fixed in the ground with a removable crossbar, usually weighing between 75-100 lbs. Victims of crucifixion were typically stripped naked and their clothing divided by the Roman guards. In Jesus' case this was done in fulfillment of Psalm 22:18:

"They divide My garments among them, and for My clothing they cast lots."

As a gesture of "Roman kindness" the prisoner was offered a mixture of vinegar (gall) and wine as a mild anesthetic. This anesthetic was refused by Jesus. Consequently, He bore it all! The Apostle Peter stated of Jesus:

Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed. 1 Peter 2:24

The victim was then placed on his back, arms stretched out and nailed to the cross bar. The nails, which were generally about 7-9 inches long, were placed between the bones of the forearm (the radius and ulna) and the small bones of the hands (the carpal bones). (To see Figure 1, go to http://www.jaspella.com/ministry/articles/agony_of_love1.jpg)

The placement of the nail at this point had several effects. First it ensured that the victim would indeed hang there until dead. Secondly, a nail placed at this point would sever the largest nerve in the hand called the median nerve.

The severing of this nerve is a medical catastrophe. In addition to severe burning pain the destruction of this nerve causes permanent paralysis of the hand. Furthermore, by nailing the victim at this point in the wrist, there would be minimal bleeding and there would be no bones broken! Thus scriptures were fulfilled:

I can count all my bones: they look and stare upon me. Psalm 22:17

He keepeth all his bones: not one of them is broken. Psalm 34:20

The positioning of the feet is probably the most critical part of the mechanics of crucifixion. First the knees were flexed about 45 degrees and the feet were flexed (bent downward) an additional 45 degrees until they were parallel the vertical pole. An iron nail about 7-9 inches long was driven through the feet between the 2nd and 3rd metatarsal bones. In this position the nail would sever the dorsal pedal artery of the foot, but the resultant bleeding would be insufficient to cause death.

The Catastrophic Result

The resulting position on the cross sets up a horrific sequence of events which results in a slow, painful death. Having been pinned to the cross, the victim now has an impossible position to maintain. (To see Figure 2, go to http://www.jaspella.com/ministry/articles/agony_of_love2.jpg)

With the knees flexed at about 45 degrees, the victim must bear his weight with the muscles of the thigh. However, this is an almost impossible task-try to stand with your knees flexed at 45 degrees for 5 minutes. As the strength of the legs gives out, the weight of the body must now be borne by the arms and shoulders. The result is that within a few minutes of being placed on the cross, the shoulders will become dislocated. Minutes later the elbows and wrists become dislocated. The result of these dislocations is that the arms are as much as 6-9 inches longer than normal.

With the arms dislocated, considerable body weight is transferred to the chest, causing the rib cage to be elevated in a state of perpetual inhalation. Consequently, in order to exhale the victim must push down on his feet to allow the rib muscles to relax. The problem is that the victim cannot push very long because the legs are extremely fatigued. As time goes on, the victim is less and less able to bear weight on the legs, causing further dislocation of the arms and further raising of the chest wall, making breathing more and more difficult.

The result of this process is a series of catastrophic physiological effects. Because the victim cannot maintain adequate ventilation of the lungs, the blood oxygen level begins to diminish and the blood carbon dioxide (CO2) level begins to rise. This rising CO2 level stimulates the heart to beat faster in order to increase the delivery of oxygen and the removal of CO2.

However, due to the pinning of the victim and the limitations of oxygen delivery, the victim cannot deliver more oxygen and the rising heart rate only increases oxygen demand. So this process sets up a vicious cycle of increasing oxygen demand-which cannot be met-followed by an ever increasing heart rate. After several hours the heart begins to fail, the lungs collapse and fill up with fluid, which further decreases oxygen delivery to the tissues. The blood loss and hyperventilation combines to cause severe dehydration. That's why Jesus said, "I thirst."

Over a period of several hours the combination of collapsing lungs, a failing heart, dehydration, and the inability to get adequate oxygen supplies to the tissues cause the eventual death of the victim. The victim, in effect, cannot breath properly and slowly suffocates to death. In cases of severe cardiac stress, such as crucifixion, a victim's heart can even burst. This process is called "Cardiac Rupture." Therefore it could be said that Jesus died of a "broken heart!"

To slow the process of death the executioners put a small wooden seat on the cross, which would allow the victim the privilege of bearing his weight on his buttocks. The effect of this was that it could take up to nine days to die on a cross.

When the Romans wanted to expedite death they would simply break the legs of the victim, causing him to suffocate in a matter of minutes. At three o'clock in the afternoon Jesus said, "Tetelastai," meaning "it is finished." Then He gave up the ghost. When the soldiers came to Jesus to break His legs, He was already dead. Not a bone of Him was broken!

How Should We Then Live?

I realize that it is difficult to read of the details of Jesus' physical sufferings. And yet, when we realize that He looked forward, on our behalf, to the cross, we are overwhelmed with His practical demonstration of love and, hopefully, a personal realization of our unworthiness. How should we then live? I believe that the Apostle Paul said it best:

Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Philippians 2:5-11

Not everyone is weakening

2006-04-03T08:44:00.000-07:00

It certainly seems that everyone is undercutting the authority of Scripture these days. As I have previously stated before, the three pastors I visited around here were willing to quickly abandon a true, real reading of Genesis 1-11 for the "current thinking of the day" (with the exception of the person I spoke with at the Evangelical Free church, however, he quickly stated that I would "find almost anything in his walls" and considered most to be adiophora).

I guess you hear about pastors like that, but you don't expect to actually run into them. I expect them to be smarter, more equipped, and faithful to Scripture's intent and message, but it isn't always the case.

I have also heard of a recent poll done for LCMS pastors in which was found that only 80% of pastors serving believe in the inerrancy and inspiration of Scripture! This is unbelievable to me! Of course, it seems that the pastors 40 and older are over 95% sure, but those 40 and under are only 60% or so sure! We sure have our work cut out for us. I am only 30, and if I can't even count on "my brothers" in my denomination to hold to the truths of Scripture, who can I count on!?

I guess we see a glimmer of hope in places all over. Here is an example of a pastor named Dr. John MacArthur. Here is the video that proves his stance for truth http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0403macarthur.asp . I don't know about everything he speaks on, but I'm glad to see him standing on the Scriptural view of Genesis!

I guess, we take our cue from the churches found in Revelation, especially Ephesus (who hated the wrong teachings of the Nicoliatans, who worked out a compromise with the pagan teachings of the day) and Christ's words to the church in Pergamum (who were holding to the wrong teachings of Balaam and also the Nicoliatans). No, we should also head the words of Christ to the church in Laodicea, who tells us to be true and overcome the lukewarm attitude and teachings surrounding them.

We, too, have more responsibility today, to take everything to the cross of Christ as we discern it:

NIV 2 Corinthians 10:4 The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. 5 We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.

NIV 1 Peter 3:15 But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, 16 keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.

NIV 2 Corinthians 4:2 Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.

And we try to hold our ministry at the level of Paul himself, who was a faithful and true witness:

ESV 2 Corinthians 6:1 Working together with him, then, we appeal to you not to receive the grace of God in vain. 2 For he says, "In a favorable time I listened to you, and in a day of salvation I have helped you." Behold, now is the favorable time; behold, now is the day of salvation. 3 We put no obstacle in anyone's way, so that no fault may be found with our ministry, 4 but as servants of God we commend ourselves in every way: by great endurance, in afflictions, hardships, calamities, 5 beatings, imprisonments, riots, labors, sleepless nights, hunger; 6 by purity, knowledge, patience, kindness, the Holy Spirit, genuine love; 7 by truthful speech, and the power of God; with the weapons of righteousness for the right hand and for the left; 8 through honor and dishonor, through slander and praise. We are treated as impostors, and yet are true; 9 as unknown, and yet well known; as dying, and behold, we live; as punished, and yet not killed; 10 as sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; as poor, yet making many rich; as having nothing, yet possessing everything. 11 We have spoken freely to you, Corinthians; our heart is wide open.

Love and Truth

2006-03-28T12:44:00.000-08:00

The two are inseparable, if you follow Christ. For:

NIV John 1:14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Grace, kindness, mercy...are these not all expressions of love? If Jesus came full of grace and truth, what should his people (the church) really look like?

In God's Word, these terms are inseparable. We get a feel for Jesus' emphasis on them all over Scripture, and we will see some of those. But I want to "hone in" on this concept as Jesus' stated his concerns for existing churches in Revelation.

In His first letter to the church of Ephesus, he encouraged them to love, as they had once before. But first, he praises the church in not bending the knee to falsehood:

NIV Revelation 2:2 I know your deeds, your hard work and your perseverance. I know that you cannot tolerate wicked men, that you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them false.

Evidently, there were people claiming to be 'apostles' and teach the truth, but they were part of the false teachers that would show themselves in the last days. Just two verses later, he states his concern:

NIV Revelation 2:4 Yet I hold this against you: You have forsaken your first love.

Love and Truth go together. As if this wasn't enough, the next two letters bear out the same understanding. The third letter, to the church in Pergamum, was a call to get back to Truth:

NIV Revelation 2:12 To the angel of the church in Pergamum write: These are the words of him who has the sharp, double-edged sword. 13 I know where you live-- where Satan has his throne. Yet you remain true to my name. You did not renounce your faith in me, even in the days of Antipas, my faithful witness, who was put to death in your city-- where Satan lives. 14 Nevertheless, I have a few things against you: You have people there who hold to the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to entice the Israelites to sin by eating food sacrificed to idols and by committing sexual immorality. 15 Likewise you also have those who hold to the teaching of the Nicolaitans. 16 Repent therefore! Otherwise, I will soon come to you and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.

The teachings of Balaam go back to the Old Testament (Numbers 22-24), when a prophet named Balaam was called upon by a pagan king named Balak, to curse the Israelites. Although Balak wanted the Israelites cursed, we are told that every time he opened his mouth against the Israelites, only blessings came out. This outraged the king. Moved by greed:

ESV 2 Peter 2:15 Forsaking the right way, they have gone astray. They have followed the way of Balaam, the son of Beor, who loved gain from wrongdoing, 16 but was rebuked for his own transgression; a speechless donkey spoke with human voice and restrained the prophet's madness.

NIV Jude 1:11 Woe to them! They have taken the way of Cain; they have rushed for profit into Balaam's error; they have been destroyed in Korah's rebellion.

Balaam wanted the reward Balak was offering him, and then devised another scheme for the downfall of Israel. He suggested to Balak that Moabite girls should seduce the Israelite men, by inviting them to take part in their idolatrous and immoral feasts. He knew rightly, that this would provoke the righteous God of Israel to anger, which is what Rev. 2:14 tells us.

And what letter do we find in the middle? The letter to Smyrna. This letter deals with the suffering of a Christian. See, right at the top of priorities of a Christian, is Love and Truth (this is what was made manifest in Jesus' life). And what will that bring here on earth? Suffering! Just look at the life of Christ? Was it without heartache and suffering? Absolutely not. On the contrary, we can expect many to be against us, as Jesus said:

NIV Matthew 10:22 All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved.

Thank you, Lord, for standing firm for us. May we, by the power of Your Spirit, stand firm in Your Truth in Love.

Here are a few more verses of Scripture pertaining to the idea of love (grace) and truth:

NIV John 1:17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

NIV Colossians 1:6 that has come to you. All over the world this gospel is bearing fruit and growing, just as it has been doing among you since the day you heard it and understood God's grace in all its truth.

NIV 2 John 1:3 Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and from Jesus Christ, the Father's Son, will be with us in truth and love.

NIV Psalm 26:3 for your love is ever before me, and I walk continually in your truth.

NIV 1 Corinthians 13:6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.

NIV Ephesians 4:15 Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ.

NIV 2 Thessalonians 2:9 The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders, 10 and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. (negative example)

NIV 1 Peter 1:22 Now that you have purified yourselves by obeying the truth so that you have sincere love for your brothers, love one another deeply, from the heart.

NIV 1 John 3:18 Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth.

AND HERE IS OUR HUMBLE GOAL IN ALL THINGS:

ESV 2 Timothy 2:24 And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, 25 correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, 26 and they may escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.

Wow...what a job. [But this calls to mind that demonic possession is not just a writhing, foaming at the mouth, head-spinning occurence, but also includes demonic teaching. (that contains lies...whom Satan is the father of...John 8:44)]

So, what does God's church (people) look like? We should love where God loves, give grace when God gives grace, and remain in His Truth completely in the process. Not sure where that is? Seek Him, and you will find. Search His Word and ask His Spirit to direct you. God bless you as you gracefully walk in faithfullness according to His True Word.

Alone

2006-03-27T14:24:00.000-08:00

I have newfound respect for those who faithfully minister to God's people while single. While my wife and children have been "soaking up the rays" in Florida, I have been trying to stay busy here in Beaver Falls, PA. And that should be easy, since there is much to do.

I have been busy, and more things to do reach my mind almost daily. But, only four days away from my family has caused me to more fully realize what God knew to be true already 6,000 years ago.

Genesis 2:18 Then the LORD God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him."

Yep...right again. I do not have the gift of staying single, as Paul describes it in 1 Corinthians 7:8. I gladly will be like Peter and the brother's of Jesus who traveled with wives.

1 Corinthians 9:5 Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas?

(By the way, this is a perfect verse to battle the 'DaVinci Code' fiction, as Paul certainly would have pointed to Christ as the ultimate example of traveling with a wife, had Jesus ever wed, which, of course, he hadn't)

It is a very different life, being single and "pulled in all directions". I must admit, I love spending time with my wife and children. There is much love that I receive from them each day. I am sure that God's minister who is single sees his people as 'family'. However, he may have little time for his own endeavors as he seeks to be "all things to all people" (1 Cor. 9:20-22). Yes, it's the law of Christ (Gal. 6:2; 1 Cor. 9:21) that we strive for, but all people need love. May God bless those who minister faithfully while living alone. May Christ be their comfort, their help, their joy, their partner, their strength, their shoulder...their friend.

And may those who have "helpers", know and appreciate the God-given gift that they are to us always. Praise God for his goodness.

Righteous Anger?

2006-03-21T17:29:00.000-08:00

What is "righteous anger?" Can such a thing even exist with us?

We just talked about Jesus anger (which must have been righteous, since he was without sin) regarding the moneychangers in the Temple. He was throwing tables and making a sound point because of the zeal He had for His Father's house.

I'm not exactly sure if I (as a sinful person) can understand what righteous anger really is, but if I could, a few days ago was it. You see, I went in to the public school to ask a simple question because of a real spiritual problem...and what did I get? Not help, not answers...but the run-around. Of course, the last person to be concerned for was the only one who needed all our help...the proclaimed atheist 8th grader (that's the first year of high school up here)! Do you think people were concerned about who this person was and how she could be eternally persuaded to change her mind? NO! Just defensive rebuttals as to why "this institution isn't responsible for that" or "I think you'll find that we are very open around here" or "certainly she didn't learn that here?" "Are you saying that she learned that here?!"

I'm not exactly sure where she learned it...that's WHY I'm here (I said as kindly as I could). The whole point was missed. I know no one wants the ACLU around, and certainly no one wants to feel as though they are contributing to someone's eternal existence in hell.

I guess I see a little more closely today to what Jesus saw back then. People who were more worried about making a buck than doing the right thing. That's what the moneychangers were really guilty of...cheating the people in their 'need' for sacrifices (especially those who were traveling from distant places). And that's what I saw a few days ago, too. Someone that is too worried about his job and not worried enough about the real important things in life: the eternal ramifications that the teaching in his building is having on his students.

I will say that the man did offer to have a meeting with the head of the science department, but he required my pastor to be there...and he is just too busy to add something new. But that isn't required anyway. As a concerned parent in this area, he is required to answer my questions...but "we" have "dropped it" (my pastor is very busy).

I continue to pray for the children, who are like sheep without a shepherd (as Jesus put it when he had compassion on them (Matt. 9:36; 14:14; 15:32; 20:34; Mark 1:41; 6:34; 8:2; he has compassion on us like the Father in Luke 15:20). I pray that doors will be open so that they will be able to hear and understand the Truth.

As the teacher once said in Ecclesiastes 1:18 "For with much wisdom comes much sorrow; the more knowledge, the more grief."

Today's Lion's den

2006-03-15T10:10:00.000-08:00

I have engaged in meetings with the principals and teachers of the public schools in our area concerning the student who stated she was an atheist (because of evolution teaching and teaching regarding dinosaurs). My inquiry was met with a little defensiveness at the high school, but I think the gentleman understands my concerns and my wishes to further investigate. Hopefully, I will be granted permission to speak with the science teachers and inquire about how evolution is taught in the schools (whether dogmatically as fact or as theory). This will help me understand what this girl is relying upon when she proclaims that God doesn't exist and how I can help her. Pray for the many teens who are in this position (many of whom have little or no help from their parents or spiritual leaders regarding this teaching).

I have also found that many of the "pastors" in this area (as I have spoken with) are not conclusive regarding Genesis 1-11. In fact, many state that it doesn't matter what you believe...whether literal or figurative...as long as Christ and his resurrection are upheld. The problem is that when these kids realize that certain Scripture is "undercut", where do you stop? You cannot stop. This undercutting of the authority of Scripture is very important and I am finding that many clergy do not share in God's Truth regarding His Holy, innerant, inspired Word. Too bad, but allowing great opportunity for us to proclaim God's Truth to many people.