2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1 reads:

Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers.  For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness?  Or what fellowship has light with darkness?  What accord has Christ with Belial?  Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever?  What agreement has the temple of God with idols?  For we are the temple of the living God; as God said,“I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.  Therefore go out from their midst, and be separate from them, says the Lord, and touch no unclean thing; then I will welcome you, and I will be a father to you, and you shall be sons and daughters to me, says the Lord Almighty.”

Since we have these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit, bringing holiness to completion in the fear of God.

This passage is often referenced in relation to how Christians should approach marriage to an unbeliever.  However, it also referenced by some in relation to how Christians should approach their dealings with unbelievers regardless of the context.  In the minds of some, Christians should never form a partnership of any kind (be “yoked”) with an unbeliever.  If we attempt to apply this understanding of the passage, is it even possible?

When we vote, are we not “partnering” at some level with those we vote for (either the candidate or the party)?  What about when we make a political contribution?  What if we sign a petition protesting a political point (e.g. abortion, gay marriage, etc.)?  Do we need to be sure that the political candidates, parties, and other signatories are all from the same theological belief system as we are?

What about when we take a job?  Does our boss need to be a Christian?  What about all of our co-workers?  If we are athletes, do all of our teammates and coaches have to be Christians to not violate 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1?

I think you get my point.  It is impossible to apply this passage to every relationship / partnership that a Christian has.  It is not intended to be applied this way.

So then, what is the correct application?  The key to understanding this passage correctly lies in verse 7:1.  It is about maintaining holiness.  Christians are to avoid those relationships that have a potential to hinder their walk with God and influence their moral decisions.  Believers can have parnterships with unbelievers in any area where this type of influence does not exist.

I think about this a lot because I think there a lot of people who look at Christianity as living daily to deny yourself some pleasure without going any further. C.S. Lewis addresses this kind of thinking in The Weight of Glory when he says that we are far too easily pleased, settling for the temporal joys of this world instead of striving for the eternal pleasures that we are offered through Jesus Christ. Because we don’t understand the magnitude of pleasure in Jesus, we don’t understand why we need to hate our sin. Timothy Keller, in Counterfeit Gods, does a great job explaining why this matters:

“In fear-based repentance, we don’t learn to hate the sin for itself, and it doesn’t lose it’s attractive power. We learn only to refrain from it for our own sake. But when we rejoice over God’s sacraficial, suffering love for us – seeing what it cost him to save us fom sin – we learn to hate the sin for what it is. We see what the sin cost God. What most assures us of God’s unconditional love (Jesus’s costly death) is what most convicts us of the evil of sin. Fear-based repentance makes us hate ourselves. Joy-based repentance makes us hate the sin.”

Anything that keeps me from achieving the greatest amount of joy (in Christ) — my sin — is not something I want to protect but instead should be hated and left behind.

HT: Of First Importance

You heard that right—Red Letter Christians are the True Cause of world poverty. This is the logical conclusion to the Neo-Marxism of Red Letter Christianity. Neo-Marxism being linked with chronic poverty of Third World Countries and the  Third Way of the Emerging Apostate Pastors—this conclusion is not only logical but obvious. Here is what Saint Brannon Howse, Gruppenführer of the Calvinazi GOIPview Weekend had to say a few years ago about Red Letter Christians and liberals’ roles in causing world poverty:

“Hurricane Katrina has brought to the nation’s attention the plight of the poor in America. While Jesse Jackson and other liberals attempt to blame poverty on racism and the President and other republicans look to throw money at the problem, few are discussing who and what are really to blame for the root cause of poverty in America.

The issue is not racism but anti-Christian bigotry on the part of the ACLU, the NEA, the DNC and Barry Lynn and his group, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. The sad stories of the poor should be laid at the feet of the liberal, anti-God “intellectual elite” known as the secular left.

Decades-long brainwashing by liberal-leaning social engineers has so altered the worldview of the underclass that they have little choice but to live in the mire of their culturally bankrupt caste.”—–Anti-Christian bigotry causes poverty! Separation of Church and State causes poverty! Liberal-leaning social engineers cause poverty!

Astounding isn’t it but wait there’s more Brannon has to add:

Anyone who regards with even a shred of honesty the destruction of unregenerate people in the underclass knows the liberals’ time is up. Their social experiment is as bust as the former Soviet Union’s Communism. The Christian worldview is the hope that is left—and a genuine hope it is. Christians must reach out to the underclass, seek to change hearts, renew minds, and reframe their deformed worldview by showing them the need to embrace Christianity and biblical morality and reject the secular left’s destructive, humanistic, anti-God religious worldview.

We agree that poverty is a sin and in the traditional and Biblical notion that the poor are poor because they are lazy and it is their and Red Letter Christians’ fault that they’re poor.  Red Letter Christians in giving handouts to the poor not only cause their poverty but promote the idea that the sinful lifestyle of slothfulness/laziness is ok in God’s eyes instead of an abomination. Afterall, following Jesus and esteeming His words above the other biblical writers is unbiblical and anti-Christian especially when one holds Jesus’ words about giving to the poor in high regards—for that promotes socialism, communism and a Leftist agenda. What Jesus really meant when He said follow and believe in Him was  to pay lipservice to Him and instead believe in Calvinism and that John Calvin is the Final Prophet, final word and final authority on Christianity and to follow Final President Reagan and the political Gospel of Reaganism. ”The cherished idols idol-ologies beliefs of Brannon Howse and God’s Only Inerrant Party are just that—Calvinazified Reaganism which promotes  The American Jesus, capitalism, every-man-for-himself, exploitation and promotion of the democratic way as well as True Republicans being the only regenerate Saved Elect of God.” This is exactly why we need to send more Todd Friels to Third World countries instead of foolish Red Letter Christians.

In conclusion, follow Jesus, Red Letter Christians, Democrats, Emergents and Liberals go to hell–follow John Calvin, Charles Spurgeon, John MacArthur, Brannon Howse, the Republican agenda, Ken Silva, Todd Friel, Ray Comfort, Kirk Cameron, all online discernmentalists, God’s Only Inerrant Party and us (OD Mafia) go to heaven.

Hugs can Heal

When our kids were very young we were living far from family and had traveled back to  Minneapolis for a visit.  While shopping at a local mall, with one stroller and three tired children, I turned to talk to our oldest little guy, and found that he was not with us.

In near-panic we searched everywhere, retracing our steps, looking in bathrooms, checking displays where a curious seven-year-old might stop to play.  Nothing.  He was gone, and I couldn’t think what to do next.  Had he been taken by someone?

Just as I was about to report a missing child to security, I noticed a shopping cart coming out of one of the department stores.  Pushing it was our son.

I don’t remember what I said to him but I do recall opening my arms and saying, “Come here.”  Grabbing him in a bear-hug, I literally poured my relief and love into him.  He didn’t have a clue.  He had just gone to find a cart that his brother could ride and seemed surprised that we had been worried.  That moment did something to me, and I can still feel the emotion of the hug.

Among other things, hugs are expressions of affection and some kinds of hugs have healing powers.  I am not talking about the brief, three pats on the back, hi-g’bye style of hug.  I mean the kind of hug that reaches your soul with comfort.  The nonromantic kind that calls you to an embrace that says, “I know.  I understand.  I am with you.  Count on me.  You are a person of great value.”

When Jesus says, “come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest” (Matt. 19:14 ESV), I think of that kind of hug waiting for me.  It is an emotional, powerful, nurturing, invitation to come that is quite different from the way we often use the word.

Come Down, Tigger!

“Come here!” you may say in a commanding way to a child, or to an animal – your dog, for instance.  Implied: “Now!”  It’s all in the tone of voice.  “Come on now,” you say sarcastically.  Or, with the same words you may protest, beg, or plead with someone to join you, agree with you, or stop doing something.

You might use it by way of a promise to attend, as in, “Yes, I will come.”  You might express a hope, “He will come.”  Perhaps a fear, “to come before the judge.”  It might be the order of a superior officer to, “Come, follow me!”  Jesus used this latter as a beckoning call to one who refused him (Mark 10:21).

Clearly, the meaning of the word come bounces all over the place, based upon the context and even the tone of voice.  Its significance is something else again.  When used as an invitation, an imperative, or a persuasive device, it requires the hearer to exercise great caution and discernment before responding.

It was Aristotle who defined the three main forms of rhetoric:  Ethos - appeals based upon the perceived character of the speaker, Logos - appeals to logic or reason, and Pathos - appeals to emotion.  The call to come might fall into each form.  Are all such calls honorable?  Well, what about the indirect call of greed that we discussed in Part 1 of this reflection?

The Bible uses the word in a number of interesting ways, which ask us to consider the character of the speaker, the logic of the call, and the emotion of the situation.  We will look at some Biblical examples in Part 3.

Strength and Honor

Bill

Speaking of the question of the Great Word of God – Come -  do you have a comment or a question?  Please feel free to make a comment entry – just click immediately below this note, on the phrase “Leave a Comment” at the end of the tag lines.

For more on Goheen’s approach to worldview, see:

And the good cause is to tell everyone how good they are! 

I have no objection to them spending their own money to advance their worldview via their sign campaigns:

No God? …No Problem!

Be good for goodness’ sake.

Humanism is the ideas that you can be good without a belief in God.

I just see some inconsistencies.  What is their standard for good?  No lawgiver = no laws. 

And their premise is made of straw.  As Christians we know why they can do “good” — God’s moral laws are written on their heart.  You can do good by their definition even if you suppress the truth about God in unrighteousness.  I know lots of “good” atheists (by their definition, not God’s). 

Telling others how good you are probably isn’t one of those acts that goes in the “good” column.

According to an April 14, 2008 AD Barna study entitled, “New Study Shows Trends in Tithing and Donating”; in 2007 AD evangelicals Christians (one of three subgroups of Christians under consideration) donated a mean of $4,260 to all non-profit entities while atheists and agnostics provided an average of $467.

According to an April 25, 2005 AD Barna study entitled, “Americans Donate Billions to Charity, But Giving to Churches Has Declined”;

“In 2004…Barna’s national study found that the people least likely to donate any money at all were…atheists and agnostics…A quarter or more…failed to give away any money in 2004.”

Keep donating money for billboards and bus ads. We will feed, clothe and house the poor.

I know that some of the money donated by Christians goes to their churches, so one could claim that they benefit.  But the gaps there are huge.  And they get bigger when you compare Bible-believing Christians to others who check the Christian box.

Have you / will you sign the Manhattan Declaration?  If you are not familiar with it, please take the time to read through it.  It is not very long and it is sure to be discussed a great deal in the days ahead.  It will be beneficial to know its contents.

You can find the website for the Manhattan Declaration at www.manhattandeclaration.org .  There, you can download a copy of the declaration, which is seven pages in length.  You can also view a list of well-known signatories.

A brief summary of the declaration is found on the website homepage.  It reads:

Christians, when they have lived up to the highest ideals of their faith, have defended the weak and vulnerable and worked tirelessly to protect and strengthen vital institutions of civil society, beginning with the family.

We are Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical Christians who have united at this hour to reaffirm fundamental truths about justice and the common good, and to call upon our fellow citizens, believers and non-believers alike, to join us in defending them. These truths are:

1. the sanctity of human life
2. the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife
3. the rights of conscience and religious liberty.

Inasmuch as these truths are foundational to human dignity and the well-being of society, they are inviolable and non-negotiable. Because they are increasingly under assault from powerful forces in our culture, we are compelled today to speak out forcefully in their defense, and to commit ourselves to honoring them fully no matter what pressures are brought upon us and our institutions to abandon or compromise them. We make this commitment not as partisans of any political group but as followers of Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen Lord, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

After reading the long version of the document, let me know what you think.  Will you / did you sign it?  Why or why not?

Buddhism: A Christian Exploration and Appraisal

by Keith Yandell and Harold Netland

I recently received a copy of  Buddhism: A Christian Exploration and Appraisal.  One of the reasons that I wanted to read it was because I know so little about Buddhism. To be perfectly I don’t know many, in any, Buddhists.  So I am not able to learn about Buddhism from friends.  So I did the next best thing, I found a book on it.  I was not disappointed with this book either.  Yandell and Netland do a superb job of overviewing Buddhism.  I have read several other shorter works on the topic of Buddhism, and this blows them all out of the water!

Yanhdell and Netland help the reader better understand Buddhism by overviewing the history of Buddhism, explaining the development of Buddhism  (including the different branches of Buddhism), detailing the doctrines of Buddhism, and finally comparing the differences between Christianity and Buddhism.

The final section, which compares Christianity and Buddhism, was the most helpful to me for two reasons.  First, I know Christian doctrine so when the authors compared Buddhism to Christianity it gave me some categories that I could use to better understand Buddhism.  Second, the authors provide some very helpful information with respect to evangelism. As the authors put it,

The Buddha or the Christ?  The dharma or the gospel? These are not simply variations on a common theme, or different ways of expressing the same spiritual insight. The choice here is between two radically different perspectives on reality, on the nature of the human predicament, and the way to overcome it.

For anyone looking to learn more about Buddhism, and the differences between buddhism and Christianity this is a very helpful book.  I would highly suggest it.

Black Friday is coming.  It is only a little over two days away (less for those who choose to get in line early enough for the best deals).  If you are wondering, Black Friday is the Friday after Thanksgiving.  It is the official kick-off for the heavy Christmas shopping season.  Why the name “Black Friday”?  Well, it’s the day that stores traditionally have begun to make money for the year.  From Black Friday on, stores are “in the black”, or making a profit.

The day has really become a holiday in and of itself.  I know many who year-after-year go out in the early morning hours in hopes of grabbing a bargain that is too good to be true while others go just to experience the excitement in the air.  I went out for the first time three years ago.  It was the last time for me.  The stores were packed at 7am.  The lines at Best Buy ran the entire perimeter of the store.  No deal was good enough for me to wait that long.

But Black Friday is more than just a special shopping day.  It is a day that seems to truly reflect our attitudes towards the Christmas holiday.  The day that Christians are to remember the birth of their Savior, in reality is nothing more than a material world in blatant self-indulgence.  How did it come to this?  How did our appetite for more become so bad that we now even have a shopping holiday?  How do you spend your Black Fridays?

Here are a few Shaara titles:

• Gone for Soldiers
• The Last Full Measure
• Gods and Generals
• Killer Angels (written by his father, Michael Sharra)
• Rise to Rebellion (currently reading)
• The Glorious Cause
• The Steel Wave
• To the Last Man

Why do I like this writer?  Perhaps it is reflected in his preface to “Rise to Rebellion”:

• “It has become fashionable in our modern, more cynical time to re-examine our history, to throw a supposedly new light on those who are famous for their accomplishments, to instead expose their faults, to topple the statue of the hero, to replace the honor and respect with the sensational and the shameful, as though it were the only meaningful way these characters can be relevant to today’s world.  I most adamantly disagree.  That we know so much about these characters today is a testament to their accomplishments, their extraordinary achievements, and yes, their astounding heroism.  That they can so easily become targets is a testament to their humanity.  They are, after all, so very much like us.  Measuring their behavior with the crystal clarity of hindsight, with 21st century standards and judgments, is a convenient and cynical shortcut to learning history, but it does little to help us understand their character and why they deserve to be not only remembered but revered.”

Writing of the events and characters of history in a way that acknowledges their humanity while exalting their achievements is no small task for any historian.  I search for biographers, historians and historic fiction writers who avoid revisionism and seek to preserve the heroic characters of our past.  The more the heroic narrative is demeaned or disintegrated in our culture, the less we are aware of our desperate need for someone to rise up and save us.  PBill

Max stirred up  a load of you know what over at the Arkansas Times Blog concerning the growing cottage industry for t-shirts and such denouncing the President in the words of Psalm 109. Is this appropriate?

This passage is part of what is called the “imprecatory” Psalms. It calls for retribution against an enemy. For starters, here’s the complete text. After all, if we are going to look at the Bible seriously, there has to be some context. This is the NASV rendering.

For the choir director. A Psalm of David.

¹O God of my praise,
Do not be silent!
²For they have opened the wicked and deceitful mouth against me;
They have spoken against me with a lying tongue.
³They have also surrounded me with words of hatred,
And fought against me without cause.
⁴In return for my love they act as my accusers;
But I am in prayer.
⁵Thus they have repaid me evil for good
And hatred for my love.
⁶Appoint a wicked man over him,
And let an accuser stand at his right hand.
⁷When he is judged, let him come forth guilty,
And let his prayer become sin.
⁸Let his days be few;
Let another take his office.
⁹Let his children be fatherless
And his wife a widow.
¹⁰Let his children wander about and beg;
And let them seek sustenance far from their ruined homes.
¹¹Let the creditor seize all that he has,
And let strangers plunder the product of his labor.
¹²Let there be none to extend lovingkindness to him,
Nor any to be gracious to his fatherless children.
¹³Let his posterity be cut off;
In a following generation let their name be blotted out.
¹⁴Let the iniquity of his fathers be remembered before the LORD,
And do not let the sin of his mother be blotted out.
¹⁵Let them be before the LORD continually,
That He may cut off their memory from the earth;
¹⁶Because he did not remember to show lovingkindness,
But persecuted the afflicted and needy man,
And the despondent in heart, to put them to death.
¹⁷He also loved cursing, so it came to him;
And he did not delight in blessing, so it was far from him.
¹⁸But he clothed himself with cursing as with his garment,
And it entered into his body like water
And like oil into his bones.
¹⁹Let it be to him as a garment with which he covers himself,
And for a belt with which he constantly girds himself.
²⁰Let this be the reward of my accusers from the LORD,
And of those who speak evil against my soul.
²¹But You, O GOD, the Lord, deal kindly with me for Your name’s sake;
Because Your lovingkindness is good, deliver me;
²²For I am afflicted and needy,
And my heart is wounded within me.
²³I am passing like a shadow when it lengthens;
I am shaken off like the locust.
²⁴My knees are weak from asting,
And my flesh has grown lean, without fatness.
²⁵I also have become a reproach to them;
When they see me, they wag their head.
²⁶Help me, O LORD my God;
Save me according to Your lovingkindness.
²⁷And let them know that this is Your hand;
You, LORD, have done it.
²⁸Let them curse, but You bless;
When they arise, they shall be ashamed,
But Your servant shall be glad.
²⁹Let my accusers be clothed with dishonor,
And let them cover themselves with their own shame as with a robe.
³⁰With my mouth I will give thanks abundantly to the LORD;
And in the midst of many I will praise Him.
³¹For He stands at the right hand of the needy,
To save him from those who judge his soul.

The center of conservative criticism of President Obama is v. 8, “Let another take his office.” I am told that some early versions of the King James translation correctly render the language as “take his possessions”

The tone of Ps. 109 is intense and some might think that Christians should not ever utter such a prayer as is attributed here to King David. The ESV Study Bible has some background.

This is an individual lament, geared to a situation in which a faithful Israelite is suffering the attacks of vicious accusers who return evil to him for the good he has done to them (vv. 1–5). It contains an extensive prayer that his accusers (or their chief) would receive what they deserve (vv. 6–20), and finishes with a prayer that appeals to, and rests confidently on, God’s “steadfast love” (vv. 21–31).

If we are to follow the rule of allowing Scripture to interpret itself, there is some assistance available in Acts 1, in which the replacement for Judas the betrayer of Jesus is being discussed. In Acts 1; 20, Peter directly cites Ps. 109; 8 and Ps. 69; 25 as a prediction of Judas; treason.

New Testament Christians should know that the passage in Ps. 109; 8 is a direct prediction of Judas being replaced as an apostle after his death. Let’s consider the larger context of the passage.

⁸Let his days be few;
Let another take his office.
⁹Let his children be fatherless
And his wife a widow.

If one’s days are “few” and his wife is a “widow,” it must logically follow that the object ot the prayers is dead. Can conservative opponents of the President be so biblically illiterate not to understand this?

You may well wonder abut the general tone of the Psalm. Is it appropriate for a Christian to pray to the God of love for revenge on his enemies? We know that the person being prayed about is liar (v. 2-3) and great harm has been caused by the misrepresentation. In fact, as was the case with Judas, the representations resulted in death.

¹⁶Because he did not remember to show lovingkindness,
But persecuted the afflicted and needy man,
And the despondent in heart, to put them to death.

To be perhaps a bit too concise about this entire passage, murder and lying are joined in a single offense related by King David against some of his false accusers and referenced by Peter as a foreshadowing of Judas. One particular false accuser leveled charges against David which may be seen as foreshadowing Christ’s passion.

5 When King David came to v Bahurim, there came out a man of the family of the house of Saul, whose name was w Shimei, the son of Gera, and as he came x he cursed continually. 6 And he threw stones at David and at all the servants of King David, and all the people and all the mighty men were on his right hand and on his left. 7 And Shimei said as he x cursed, “Get out, get out, you man of blood, you worthless man! 8 The Lord y has avenged on you all z the blood of the house of Saul, in whose place you have reigned, and the Lord has given the kingdom into the hand of your son Absalom. See, your evil is on you, for you are a man of blood.” (ESV)

Of course, those familiar with the story know that David was completely blameless of any blood against Saul or his house. Shimei and Judas are both traitors.

So David had good reason to ask God to bring judgment against his enemies. That is quite a bit different from taking matters into one’s own hands. It is not necessarily wrong to seek divine justice in the face of grave wrongdoing.

Is it appropriate for political opponents to pray for the President’s death or an end to his term. Scripture has a few things to say about political leaders.

First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, 2 v for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and w dignified in every way. 3 This is good, and x it is pleasing in the sight of y God our Savior, 4 who desires z all people to be saved and a to come to b the knowledge of the truth. (1 Tim. 2; 1-4 ESV)

Romans 13 at least hints that we ought to respect the President.

Let every person p be subject to the governing authorities. For q there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you r will receive his approval, 4 for s he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, t an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also u for the sake of conscience. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. 7 v Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.

And there is this …

Remind them x to be submissive to rulers and authorities, y to be obedient, to be ready for every good work, 2 z to speak evil of no one, a to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and b to show perfect courtesy toward all people (Titus 3; 1-3).

But Christians must not submit to immoral laws and are certainly allowed to use their civil rights to appeal to government. We are commanded to pray for civil rulers and we must speak out against bad public policy. But, just maybe, it is a bit over the top to call for President Obama’s death, as is suggested in Ps. 109.

This has been rather brief and does not begin to do justice to the larger subject, but I think you get my drift.

What a thrill to attend First Church of God in Spanish Lake today and see all the positive changes that have taken place since Mike concluded his tenure there as interim pastor when Scott Downs became pastor 1 year ago this Sunday! Inspiring, worshipful music and testimonies, great sermon, our second Thanksgiving meal in two days. — AWESOME!

Another interview by Richard Dawkins noted from an article by Jill Carattini:

“In an interview with Skeptic magazine, Richard Dawkins was asked if his view of the world was not similar to that of Shakespeare’s Macbeth: namely, that life is but “a tale told by an idiot, filled with sound and fury, signifying nothing.”(1)

“Yes,” Dawkins replied, “at a sort of cosmic level, it is. But what I want to guard against is people therefore getting nihilistic in their personal lives.  I don’t see any reason for that at all.  You can have a very happy and fulfilled personal life even if you think that the universe at large is a tale told by an idiot.”(2)

His words attempt to remove the sting his philosophy imparts.  And yet, it stings regardless—both with callousness and confusion.  If I am but a poor player fretting my hour upon the stage of a tale told by an idiot, what is a “fulfilling” personal life?  There is no basis in the naturalist’s philosophy for intrinsic dignity, human worth, or human rights.  There is no basis for moral accountability, right or wrong, good or evil.  There is no basis for the layers of my love for my husband, the cry of my heart for justice, or the recognition on my conscience that I am often missing the mark.”   -“Slice of Infinity” by Jill Carattini

(1) Skeptic, vol. 3, no. 4, 1995, pp. 80-85.
(2) Ibid.

I don’t have anything against Richard Dawkins personally but his public ridicule of Christians demands common sense response – thank you Jill.  PBill

Todd Friel, Wiley Drake and Brannon Howse lead the rally. GOIPers and fellow discernnmentalists hear the battle call. We who hold Jesus—- the King James Bible AV1611—the Absolute Truth in our hands have a duty to pray against ungodly rulers and our enemies—because this is what Jesus wants:

The Bible is Jesus/God—this is the Absolute Truth, which God’s True Elect know with Absolute Certainty—so therefore when Jesus (the King James Bible AV1611) says in Psalm 1o9:8-15:

8 Let his days be few; and let another take his office.
9 Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow.
10 Let his children be continually vagabonds, and beg: let them seek their bread also out of their desolate places.
11 Let the extortioner catch all that he hath; and let the strangers spoil his labour.
12 Let there be none to extend mercy unto him: neither let there be any to favour his fatherless children.
13 Let his posterity be cut off; and in the generation following let their name be blotted out.
14 Let the iniquity of his fathers be remembered with the LORD; and let not the sin of his mother be blotted out.
15 Let them be before the LORD continually, that he may cut off the memory of them from the earth.

We know with Absolute Certainty that these verses refer to Obama and are God Jesus’ Absolute Will and  Decree for him from the foundation of the world. Afterall the mark of a True Christian is to quote-mine,  prooftext, pick and choose  or cheery pick random verses from the bible as a means of sound bite Theology. believe God when He speaks in His Word— the King James Bible AV1611 and obey Him and His Word— the King James Bible AV1611.

This then is our Imprecatory Prayer against Obama that God Himself commands all True Believers to pray. Now had one of our own leaders been elected President then everyone must obey Romans 13—but since we have an anti-Christ in the White House then we must pray Imprecatory Prayers until we install Robo-Reagan Ron Luce as Supreme Theocratic Dictator of the World for life—a True tyrant Patriot in the likeness of John Calvin our Final Prophet.

Atheist Richard Dawkins offers a description of God in 23 adjectives: “jealous and proud of it, a petty, unjust, unforgiving control freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynist, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal…, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” Dawkins doesn’t just disbelieve in God; he detests Him. Dawkins has bought the hermeneutic of suspicion.

In 1976, faith was “a blind trust that goes against the evidence”. Then in 1989, faith is “a mental illness”. Now, in recent years, faith according to the new breed of atheists, is “one of the world’s great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate” (Alister McGrath). Dawkins even suggested that faith in God is morally reprehensible. The hermeneutic of suspicion.

John Shelby Spong tells about Michael Goulder, who unlike Richard Dawkins, describes himself as a “non-aggressive atheist.” He asserts that God has no real work to do. It’s not so much “Is God good?” The question for Gould is “What good is He?” This God no longer fights wars and defeats enemies. This God no longer chooses a special people and works through them. This God no longer sends storms, heals the sick, spares the dying, or even judges the sinner. This God no longer rewards goodness and punishes evil. God is an unemployed deity. Goulder asserts that the church has entered exile. God now rings with a hollow emptiness. The power once ascribed to this God is now explained in countless other ways. God is irrelevant.

It’s the Nietzschean “God is dead” line all over again. Americans are really fulfilling the prophecy of a syphilitic and eventually insane German, but a brilliant philosopher. Friedrich Nietzsche wrote over 100 years ago, “God will be dead in the 20th Century.” He was a very bright man. He didn’t argue that there wasn’t a God in the Heavens. One could look at the stars and galaxies all in perfect harmony and know there was a God. What Nietzsche argued was that people would live as if God does not exist – and that’s precisely what we are doing; that they would kill God – and that’s what happened in the 20th Century and what is happening in the 21st.

Nietzsche had a hermeneutic of suspicion (Tim Keller). He suggested that religion was not just a product of wish-fulfillment (Freud); it was not just a way to control the masses (Marx); it was the suggestion that God doesn’t matter anymore. Nietzsche attacked our motives for being religious. We create religion so that we can feel good about ourselves, so that we have a system of payment for the bad things we do. And there is substantially no life difference between atheists and theists.

Rebecca Manly Pippert shares her story (Hope Has Its Reasons). A conversation with a Harvard professor went something like this: “Even though I am an atheist, I genuinely admire people like you who take faith seriously. There is no question that the human race needs help. But honestly Becky, isn’t life the same whether we believe in God or not? Don’t all of us long to be loved and understood?… Life is difficult for all of us. I don’t think cancer cells ask before entering a body, ‘Excuse me, are you a praying person?’ And don’t all of us, believers as well as skeptics, raise our children the best we can? And some make it and some don’t, leaving us with broken hearts and dashed hopes whether we believe in God or not?… And don’t believers fail morally? I grant that many of you do better in certain areas than we do. But I have met my share of religious people who were racists, gluttons, self-righteous, and full of pride, all the while mouthing religious platitudes… What possible difference does God make?”

That Harvard professor’s critique of religion is right on. Believers aren’t exempt from pain. They experience illness, sexist bosses, unemployment, violence, and marital problems just like everyone else. Christians fail morally. We are deeply flawed people.

What difference does religion make? The answer is “No difference.” It is easy to be just religious versions of the same people we’ve always been.

The atheists have it right. Religion is a power play to control others. It is the opiate of the masses. It’s a pain-killer. It’s a crutch for the weak. It’s a way to justify our behavior and allows us to feel good about ourselves. This is the way religion was perceived and what we learn is that Jesus Himself was anti-religious too and had some of the same issues that Frued, Marx, and Nietzche had with organized religion. That’s why he blasted the religious establishment guys, the Pharisees, like He did and kicked over tables and “violated their rules” like He did.

But what happened was that the ideas of these anti-religious establishment philosophers transferred over to God. Now people seem to see God one of two ways. “God does not exist, so life is meaningless.” Or, “God does exist, and here are the rules – keep them.” Jesus offers a corrective to all this and basically asserts that “I have fulfilled any requirement necessary to procure the salvation of mankind. All religion is inadequate and insufficient. And if you want to know what God is like and how He feels about humanity, then look at my life.”

Christianity goes beyond Judaism. It’s not just repackaging of the same system. Judaism (religion) could not contain it and it answers the deeper questions of life. Christianity blasts the lie that we’re OK or that we’re in charge. It shatters our religion. We can’t hide behind religion anymore. We want God without the hassle of looking at the mess we’ve become. Christianity forces you to look at the mess you’ve become.

What Nietzsche failed to consider is that in Christianity, God himself became the payment. In no other religion, do you have god or the gods becoming a payment for human evil. Stott says it best: “For the essence of sin is man substituting himself for God, while the essence of salvation is God substituting himself for man.” The tragedy is that when people turn away from God and turn to religion or man-made theories, they begin to see themselves as the center of the universe and they miss grace. We hate not being god, just like Dawkins.

I deeply believe that the crisis we face today is not a crisis of the economy or the stock market or health care, the real crisis in American life today is a crisis of values. What can we believe in anymore? There is only one answer. God became flesh. He became a person in the person of Jesus Christ. He’s come over from the other side of the hedge to let us know that there is a true and living God, and that an unseen world parallel to this one exists and there is a great battle raging for the minds and allegiance of creation.

Religion has been replaced by Relationship.

Exegesis is foundational to understand scripture’s application to our lives. The problem is that many in the church want to hear the application without doing the work of the exegete. In many cases this has also been translated into the way many preachers preach. In order to keep congregants happy, they are given large amounts of life application with little if any scriptural content. This puts both the preacher and the congregant in a dangerous position, because now neither the preacher nor the churchgoer is tethered to the text. Two major problems can arise in the life of the church member because of this. First, even if the application of scripture is correct, when it is challenged by those who disagree, the church member is left defenseless when it comes to defending this truth biblically. And second, if the application is not truly derived from scripture, then the church member has been sold some kind self-help scheme as if were a “biblical principle.” And when this self help scheme eventually lets them down, not only will they be disappointed in the church, but they may even start to believe scripture is no longer trustworthy. This is indeed a destructive trend.

-Doug Eaton-

“Integrity is not a 90 percent thing, not a 95 percent thing; either you have it or you don’t.” – Peter Scotese

Sort of like you are either pregnant or your not.

Integrity is the foundation of character. Character is the light of one’s personality.

Integrity has has been washed away and diluted in a sea of apathy and pragmatism.  It no longer matters how one got to where he/she is at just that they got there.  The ends justify the means even if the ends has no real value.   Society today bases integrity from a subjective, Survivor-type mentality.  People will do eveything they can to build a facade of integrity.  However, when circumstances of life come calling to test one’s true character many readily embrace a pragmatic mind-set that contradicts their facade.  A mind-set that will do anything to get ahead or to keep one from experiencing challenging consequences of a decsion based on integrity.

“We all make mistakes.”, “I am not perfect”, or Christian sin to.” – These are all true statements, but they are not statement to be used for sentimental purposes of easing one’s conscience about mistakes, inperfections, or sins.  These cliche’s are used to justify a lowered standard.  Another conscience easing trick is to tell one self and other -” I want to go in such and such a direction”, but continue heading in a different direction.  More important is the direction one is heading.  Mistakes and sins only have redeeming worth if one is heading in the right direction.  Mistakes will be made and sins committed.  the battle lies in which direction one is heading.  When one is heading South when he/she should be heading North and continues on such a course after being advised the direction is wrong will only end in failure in the end.

The deceiving aspect of direction is the wrong direction can feel like the right direction. Heading in  the wrong direction can be  easier than heading in the right direction.    Many times success seems evident while heading in wrong direction.   When one becomes secure and content to head in the wrong direction it is hard to turn them back, especially when the right direction probably will be more challenging with great obstacles and less comfort.  Ultimately, the journey is not about what we are to the world or about what stuff we accumulate, but about who we become in the process and how we impact others in what they become.

With the loss of integrity comes the loss of true excellence because without integrity pragmagtism takes over and the primary goal is to feel good about oneself and just get along without a true sense of standard.  It is human to think and then portray ourselves as something more than we truly are.  It is  men and women of integrity who step outside themselves to see who they truly are in order to realize what excellence is and how to successfully get there.

These men and women know it is not about them – their careers, their comfort, or their reputation.  They believe it is about doing what is right no matter the cost.  They live it and just don’t talk it.  None of their time is spent waxing and buffing how they want people to perceive them.  If any of their time is wasted it is in finding apathetic and cowardly standards.

The following link below is to PBS Frontline -The Warning

It is about a women of integrity – Brooksley Born  She stood up against the establishment of Alan Greenspan and his cronies and lost her job.  What she predicted has come true.  Alan Greenspan in the end admits his economic theory of 30 plus years was flaud.  This is a man who everyone worshipped.  American leaders blindly followed his leadership.  His decisions and thinking has led American down a destructive path.  Greenspan’s theories were wrong because he lacked integrity. 

Brooksley Born had integrity and courage .  She stood her ground not for her benefit but for the benefit of the American people.  She is a true patriot, a true person to follow after. 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/?utm_campaign=homepage&utm_medium=bigimage&utm_source=bigimage

Many complementarians ground their belief in male headship in the authority-submission structure of the Trinity.  As Paul writes, “the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God” (1 Cor. 11:3).  A growing number of egalitarians (e.g., Kevin Giles, Scot McKnight) accuse these complementarians of pushing some novel view which borders on Arianism.  They suggest that if the Son is eternally subordinate to the Father in any way—even if it is only in role or function—then the Son must be inferior to the Father—in an important way less than God, which cashes out as Arianism.  Even Millard Erickson, in his newly released Who’s Tampering with the Trinity?, alleges that these complementarians have started down the wrong road which may end badly.

I have never understood this claim.  If the Son is subordinate to the Father during his time on earth (which everyone admits), then why in principle could he not be eternally subordinate?  Why can’t the Son-Father relationship which we see in time be a reflection of the Son-Father relationship in eternity?  Doesn’t Paul say that in the eternal future that “the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all”? (1 Cor. 15:28).  If subordination exists in eternity future, then why not in eternity past?  Besides, Arius taught that the Son was a creature, less than God in his being, and no complementarian is saying that.

With that as background, last week my Barth class came upon his argument for the eternal subordination of the Son to the Father.  Understand that Barth has issues of his own when it comes to the Trinity—he is reasonably accused of modalism and he clearly denies the logos asarkos—but the presence of an eternal subordination in his writings at least proves that this view was not invented by evangelicals desperate to ground their belief in male headship.

Here is Barth’s argument:

1. Jesus is subordinate to the Father in the economic Trinity (the revealed Trinity).

2. There is no difference between the economic and immanent Trinity (the hidden, transcendent Trinity).  Barth says this because any distinction between the immanent and economic Trinity would separate God himself from his revelation and open the door to the possibility of natural theology, which Barth hates more than anything.  If God differs from his revelation, then we might be tempted to do an end around his revelation and attempt to know God in some other, natural way.

3.  So Barth reads the Son’s subordination to the Father in the economic Trinity straight into the immanent Trinity.  Barth says that we should not be surprised to learn that the Son is eternally subordinate to the Father, because God is humble.  A humble Son does not fight about rights but gladly submits to his Father’s will.

Here is what Barth says (Church Dogmatics IV/1, p. 200-2):

“Is it a fact that in relation to Jesus Christ we can speak of an obedience of the one true God Himself in His proper being?  …We have…to affirm and understand as essential to the being of God the offensive fact that there is in God Himself an above and a below, a prius and a posterius, a superiority and a subordination.  And our present concern is with what is apparently the most offensive fact of all, that there is a below, a posterius, a subordination, that it belongs to the inner life of God that there should take place within it obedience.”

“…It cannot be explained away either as an event in some higher or supreme creaturely sphere or as a mere appearance of God.  Therefore we have to state firmly that, far from preventing this possibility, His divine unity consists in the fact that in Himself He is both One who is obeyed and Another who obeys.”

“…The second idea we have to abandon is that—even supposing we have corrected that unsatisfactory conception of unity—there is necessarily something unworthy of God and incompatible with His being as God in supposing that there is in God a first and a second, an above and a below, since this includes a gradation, a degradation and an inferiority in God, which if conceded excludes the homoousia of the different modes of divine being.  That all sounds very illuminating.  But is it not an all too human—and therefore not a genuinely human—way of thinking?  For what is the measure by which it measures and judges?  Has there really to be something mean in God for Him to be the second, below?  Does subordination in God necessarily involve an inferiority, and therefore a deprivation, a lack?  Why not rather a particular being in the glory of the one equal Godhead, in whose inner order there is also, in fact, this dimension, the direction downwards, which has its own dignity?  Why should not our way of finding a lesser dignity and significance in what takes the second and subordinate place (the wife to her husband) need to be corrected in the light of the homoousia of the modes of divine being?”

“As we look at Jesus Christ we cannot avoid the astounding conclusion of a divine obedience.  Therefore we have to draw the no less astounding deduction that in equal Godhead the one God is, in fact, the One and also Another, that He is indeed a First and a Second, One who rules and commands in majesty and One who obeys in humility.  The one God is both the one and the other.”

The USDA has released a report showing that 49 million Americans are short on food.  17 million of these are children.  That is an increase from 11% of Americans in 2007 to nearly 15% in 2008.

It is great that the government wants to set up programs to help these people.  However, I wonder what responsibility the church bears in this area.  How many churches have ministries to help those in their own community who lack the basic necessities for life?  If my experience is the norm, there are not many.

The Church has the ability to assist the world with their greatest need – their sin, which separates them from God.  However, if we are unwilling to help with basic physical needs, why would non-Christians turn to us at any time?

Has the Church become so specialized that it only deals with the “spiritual” and not the physical?  It seems that ministering to the whole person – both the spiritual and the physical – is the biblical way.  I am not sure we are doing that very well.

What are your thoughts?

Apples by Sydni

The Kruger house has a lot of creative juice flowing around these days.  Check out Sydni’s blog and Corey’s blog or my own Kruger Art Gallery.  I am always glad to hear of their conviction that a philosophy of life based upon Christ guides their creative expression  in the arts.  The art community needs minds and hearts guided by His Spirit, gifted with creativity and craftsmanship, willing to follow His lead.

Click here for an excellent short essay on the Christian role and responsibility within the arts community from www.summit.org

How do I know God exists? from A Passion for Life on Vimeo.

nuff said

Post from www.pleaseconvinceme.blogspot.com/2009/11/dawkins-on-jesus.html

Dawkins on Jesus

Recently Richard Dawkins was interviewed on the Hugh Hewitt show and near the end of the interview, Hewitt asks…

HH: On the person of Jesus Christ, did He exist?

RD: I suspect He probably did. I suspect there are lots of itinerant preachers, and one of them was probably called Yehoshua, or various other versions of Jesus’ name, but I don’t think that a miracle worker existed.

HH: How do you rate the evidence for Christ’s existence, manuscript evidence, eyewitness evidence, things like that?

RD: As I said, it wouldn’t be at all surprising if a man called Jesus or Yehoshua existed. I would say the evidence that He worked miracles, He rose from the dead, He was born of a virgin, is zero…

Read the rest at:  www.pleaseconvinceme.blogspot.com/2009/11/dawkins-on-jesus.html

It is interesting that Dawkins dismisses the accounts because they were “written decades after the events that happened, and they were written by people with an axe to grind, written by disciples.” We would agree that the accounts were written decades later if he means two or three (20-30 years) which is not enough time for legend to creep in and there would still be people living that would have objected had the written accounts been different than what actually occurred. Also, if being a disciple discounts their testimony, then so would any modern testimony of someone who changes their mind about something because it happened in front of their eyes. I wonder what Dawkins thinks the “axe to grind” is for the disciples. Would it be worth being persecuted, tortured and dying for if made up?

Hey, I wrote a forward to a book!  My friend and regular commenter Richard Graves (aka DJ Black Adam) wrote Unbelieving Believers.    Please consider purchasing it here or get it free with a $25 donation to his ministry here.  You can also check out his ministry on Blog Talk Radio. 

Here’s the forward:

I met Richard through the world of blogging and we’ve become good friends.  We agree on a lot and disagree on some things as well, but the discussions are always as polite as they are passionate.  One thing I really admire about Richard is that he doesn’t just reflexively spout the positions of a political party.  He thinks through each issue carefully and forms his own assessment. 

When it comes to the essentials of Christianity and the important topics Richard addresses here we are very well aligned.  His book is a strong and clear reminder of the essentials of the faith. 

Many churches and Christians are running on the fumes of Christianity.  By that I mean that we may do things out of habit and aren’t relying on the real power of God.  We say we believe but our words and actions betray us, or at least shine a light on our lack of confidence.  We’ve become too worldly.

Just as Jesus warned, there are many false teachers – wolves in sheep’s clothing – whose intent is to lead us astray and destroy us.  Sometimes the attacks are more obvious than others. 

Sometimes the subtle attacks are the most dangerous.  As Richard notes, so many people go through life saying, “I believe in God / the Holy Spirit / Jesus / the Bible, BUT . . .”  They let false ideas keep them from living a more vibrant Christian life and transforming the world through the power of the Gospel.

A key to successful living is constantly replacing lies with the truth, and Richard’s book is a great place to start.   Become aware of the lies you’ve let yourself believe and replace those with the eternal truths of God’s word.

Richard isn’t afraid to speak those truths boldly – but what would you expect from an ex-Marine?  When so many who claim the name of Christ either contradict or water down God’s word I am thrilled to be on the side of brothers in Christ like Richard who aren’t ashamed of the Gospel and share it with a balance of grace and truth.

As you read Unbelieving Believers I pray that you will remember many great truths of the faith and recharge your own passion to live in light of eternity.  You don’t want to look back on this life and wish you had participated more in expanding the kingdom.  You want to look back and know you gave it all you could and that you were a “believing believer!”