From Albert Mohler's blog.
The current question at "On Faith," published by Newsweek and The Washington Post, is this:
As the presidential campaign begins to take shape, do you think it is appropriate and or important for the candidates to express their personal religious views and to use religious rhetoric? Why?
In my answer, I argued that citizens have every right to know the deepest beliefs of those would would serve in high office. From my article:
The U.S. Constitution demands that there be no religious test for public office. That means that the government cannot bar anyone's candidacy on that basis. At the same time, voters use their own calculus when choosing candidates.
In my view, candidates should be as forthright and direct about their personal religious views as about any other question. Those who make too much of these beliefs risk appearing as a candidate for national preacher. Those who make too little of their beliefs risk appearing insincere and evasive. Those who seek to exploit their beliefs will do themselves political harm.
I think John F. Kennedy set an unfortunate example when he told a group of Baptist preachers in Houston in 1960 that his Catholicism would have virtually nothing to do with his presidential decision making. How could that be? I want to know how a political candidate makes decisions, weighs priorities, and gains strength in crisis.
We are not electing a national preacher, rabbi, imam, or priest, but we are electing a human being. As much as possible, I want to know what that human being believes at the deepest levels and how those beliefs form character, perspective, and political decisions.
Read the entire article here -- and be sure to read the comments and articles by other panelists
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Romney accused of bashing Bay State family advocate
Posted On One News Now
The pro-family group Americans for Truth is asking former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney to apologize for disparaging a staunch opponent of the homosexual agenda in his state.Hear This Report
Governor Romney's presidential exploratory committee is attempting to discredit a report compiled by Brian Camenker of Mass Resistance called the "Mitt Romney Deception." The report documents Romney's liberal -- and often "flip-flopping" -- record on issues like abortion and homosexuality. A new posting on Romney's website, under the title "The Real Brian Camenker," cites various media reports that portray the Jewish, pro-family activist as a right-wing extremist.
Americans for Truth president Peter LaBarbera says the Romney camp is attacking "an American hero in the fight against the radical homosexual agenda." Romney, he contends, is using the "liberal media" to "bash" the pro-family activist because he is upset with Camenker.
"
Peter LaBarbera[H]e's upset that Brian has exposed his past pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, and liberal record on other issues," says LaBarbera. "And we think this is very sad that they've resorted to sort of demonizing Brian Camenker."
According to the Americans for Truth leader, Romney used a liberal program, The Daily Show, to "belittle" Camenker. LaBarbera characterizes the program as one that "loves to set up Christians and then make fun of them."
"I think [that] says more about Mitt Romney than it does about Brian Camenker," LaBarbera observes. "Brian Camenker is one of the bravest pro-family activists that's ever lived in the United States. He's fought the normalization of homosexuality to young people; he's exposed gay activism [and] the radical gay agenda in Massachusetts."
LaBarbera says although Romney appears to have "gotten stronger" on the issue of homosexual "marriage," in an interview with Human Events the GOP presidential hopeful seemed to show support for "sexual orientation" non-discrimination laws
The pro-family group Americans for Truth is asking former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney to apologize for disparaging a staunch opponent of the homosexual agenda in his state.Hear This Report
Governor Romney's presidential exploratory committee is attempting to discredit a report compiled by Brian Camenker of Mass Resistance called the "Mitt Romney Deception." The report documents Romney's liberal -- and often "flip-flopping" -- record on issues like abortion and homosexuality. A new posting on Romney's website, under the title "The Real Brian Camenker," cites various media reports that portray the Jewish, pro-family activist as a right-wing extremist.
Americans for Truth president Peter LaBarbera says the Romney camp is attacking "an American hero in the fight against the radical homosexual agenda." Romney, he contends, is using the "liberal media" to "bash" the pro-family activist because he is upset with Camenker.
"
Peter LaBarbera[H]e's upset that Brian has exposed his past pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, and liberal record on other issues," says LaBarbera. "And we think this is very sad that they've resorted to sort of demonizing Brian Camenker."
According to the Americans for Truth leader, Romney used a liberal program, The Daily Show, to "belittle" Camenker. LaBarbera characterizes the program as one that "loves to set up Christians and then make fun of them."
"I think [that] says more about Mitt Romney than it does about Brian Camenker," LaBarbera observes. "Brian Camenker is one of the bravest pro-family activists that's ever lived in the United States. He's fought the normalization of homosexuality to young people; he's exposed gay activism [and] the radical gay agenda in Massachusetts."
LaBarbera says although Romney appears to have "gotten stronger" on the issue of homosexual "marriage," in an interview with Human Events the GOP presidential hopeful seemed to show support for "sexual orientation" non-discrimination laws
Danny Akin podcast to focus on biblical exposition
From Baptist Press
WAKE FOREST, N.C. (BP)--Daniel Akin, president of Southeastern Baptist Theological
Seminary, has launched a podcast of sermons and teaching material rooted in biblical exposition.The podcast can be accessed through Akin’s website, danielakin.com; Southeastern’s website, sebts.edu; or by searching for his name at the iTunes Music Store podcast directory.
Users can subscribe to the podcast so that it can be updated automatically each time a new sermon is added online.“My prayer is that God will use this podcast as a way to reach people all over the world with His Word, as well as teach the value and importance of expository preaching,” said Akin, president since 2003 of Southeastern, located in Wake Forest, N.C.Akin is the author of commentaries on the Epistles of John and the Song of Solomon and of several books, including “Discovering the Biblical Jesus: Evidence From An Empty Tomb” and “God on Sex.”David Nelson, Southeastern’s senior vice president of academic administration, noted that amid thousands of podcasts available and scores of new ones appearing daily, “Dr. Akin is rare in that he is a scholar-teacher whose preaching speaks to the heart and the mind, both instructing and inspiring.”
In addition to Akin’s podcast, Southeastern regularly podcasts its thrice-weekly chapel services during the fall and spring semesters, featuring some of the world’s most renowned preachers and scholars. The chapel podcast can be accessed through the Southeastern website, sebts.edu, or by searching for Southeastern Seminary at the iTunes Music Store podcast directory.
WAKE FOREST, N.C. (BP)--Daniel Akin, president of Southeastern Baptist Theological
Seminary, has launched a podcast of sermons and teaching material rooted in biblical exposition.The podcast can be accessed through Akin’s website, danielakin.com; Southeastern’s website, sebts.edu; or by searching for his name at the iTunes Music Store podcast directory.
Users can subscribe to the podcast so that it can be updated automatically each time a new sermon is added online.“My prayer is that God will use this podcast as a way to reach people all over the world with His Word, as well as teach the value and importance of expository preaching,” said Akin, president since 2003 of Southeastern, located in Wake Forest, N.C.Akin is the author of commentaries on the Epistles of John and the Song of Solomon and of several books, including “Discovering the Biblical Jesus: Evidence From An Empty Tomb” and “God on Sex.”David Nelson, Southeastern’s senior vice president of academic administration, noted that amid thousands of podcasts available and scores of new ones appearing daily, “Dr. Akin is rare in that he is a scholar-teacher whose preaching speaks to the heart and the mind, both instructing and inspiring.”
In addition to Akin’s podcast, Southeastern regularly podcasts its thrice-weekly chapel services during the fall and spring semesters, featuring some of the world’s most renowned preachers and scholars. The chapel podcast can be accessed through the Southeastern website, sebts.edu, or by searching for Southeastern Seminary at the iTunes Music Store podcast directory.
Monday, January 15, 2007
Grudem and Piper on Profanity
Personally, I cannot think of anything more to say than what is stated here:
From Challies.dot
The issue of profanity in the church is one that continually surprises me. To myself and to many other Reformed types, what is most shocking about the profanity discussion is that we need to have it at all! That we should avoid foul speech seems obvious and beyond dispute. And yet here we are. There is little consensus in the church about this particular issue.
One thing that I find is often missing in discussions on profanity is the connection between the heart and the tongue. We need to realize that the tongue is not an isolated instrument in the body. The tongue or the mouth speaks for the heart. Said otherwise, what proceeds from the mouth is a sure indication of what is in the heart. If a mouth pours forth filth, it is a sure indication that there is also a filthy heart. If a tongue spews forth rebellion, there is rebellion in the heart. If the tongue pours out praise, there is godly joy in the heart. We see this most clearly in the books of Proverbs and James. "The tongue of the righteous is choice silver; the heart of the wicked is of little worth" (Proverbs 10:20). Note the parallel between the tongue and the heart. "So also the tongue is a small member, yet it boasts of great things. How great a forest is set ablaze by such a small fire!" (James 3:5). So while the issue of profanity so often centers around words, the issue strikes deeper--as deep as the heart.
As you may know, John Piper recently made public an apology for his use of an inappropriate word at the recent Passion07 Conference. Speaking in a breakout session Piper said that sometimes "God kicks our ass." Needless to say, some people were surprised by this and questioned his decision to use that particular term. I had not heard anything about this situation until Piper addressed it, so I assume that his use of this word was not widely known. I hope that those who questioned him did so in a way that was humble and respectful. I am grateful that (to my knowledge) it was not widely discussed and debated in the blogosphere and beyond.
Piper began his reply by stating "I regret saying it. I am sitting here trying to figure out why I say things like that every now and then. I think it is a mixture of (sinful) audience titillation and (holy) scorn against my own flesh and against the devil, along with the desire to make the battle with Satan and my flesh feel gutsy and real and not middle-class pious. There is a significant difference between saying that God disciplines his children and saying that he 'kicks our ass' (the phrase used at Passion)--the effect of the first can produce a yawn and leave students with no sense of how real I mean it. I think 'He kicks our backside' would have sufficed. And even better might have been some concrete illustrations of the Lord's firm spanks." But while he regrets using the word, he is not entirely sure that it is always necessarily sinful to do so. "If I wanted to take the time, and I felt more defensive than I do, I could probably go to the Bible and find language as offensive as that in the mouth of prophets, and even God when dealing with the grossness of evil. But I doubt that the moment in the breakout session called for something that extreme. Sometimes maybe. I hope the Lord turns it for good." He shows this again in his closing paragraph where he writes "I think if I had it to do over, I would not say it. On the one hand, I don't like fanning the flames of those who think it is hip and cool to swear for Jesus.
That, it seems to me, is immature. On the other hand, I want those hip people to listen to all I say and write, and I hope that the Lord may get a hold of them and draw them out of immaturity and into the fullness of holiness. But it backfires if one becomes unholy to make people holy. I suspect there was too much of the unholy in my heart at that moment."
Please read the complete article here
From Challies.dot
The issue of profanity in the church is one that continually surprises me. To myself and to many other Reformed types, what is most shocking about the profanity discussion is that we need to have it at all! That we should avoid foul speech seems obvious and beyond dispute. And yet here we are. There is little consensus in the church about this particular issue.
One thing that I find is often missing in discussions on profanity is the connection between the heart and the tongue. We need to realize that the tongue is not an isolated instrument in the body. The tongue or the mouth speaks for the heart. Said otherwise, what proceeds from the mouth is a sure indication of what is in the heart. If a mouth pours forth filth, it is a sure indication that there is also a filthy heart. If a tongue spews forth rebellion, there is rebellion in the heart. If the tongue pours out praise, there is godly joy in the heart. We see this most clearly in the books of Proverbs and James. "The tongue of the righteous is choice silver; the heart of the wicked is of little worth" (Proverbs 10:20). Note the parallel between the tongue and the heart. "So also the tongue is a small member, yet it boasts of great things. How great a forest is set ablaze by such a small fire!" (James 3:5). So while the issue of profanity so often centers around words, the issue strikes deeper--as deep as the heart.
As you may know, John Piper recently made public an apology for his use of an inappropriate word at the recent Passion07 Conference. Speaking in a breakout session Piper said that sometimes "God kicks our ass." Needless to say, some people were surprised by this and questioned his decision to use that particular term. I had not heard anything about this situation until Piper addressed it, so I assume that his use of this word was not widely known. I hope that those who questioned him did so in a way that was humble and respectful. I am grateful that (to my knowledge) it was not widely discussed and debated in the blogosphere and beyond.
Piper began his reply by stating "I regret saying it. I am sitting here trying to figure out why I say things like that every now and then. I think it is a mixture of (sinful) audience titillation and (holy) scorn against my own flesh and against the devil, along with the desire to make the battle with Satan and my flesh feel gutsy and real and not middle-class pious. There is a significant difference between saying that God disciplines his children and saying that he 'kicks our ass' (the phrase used at Passion)--the effect of the first can produce a yawn and leave students with no sense of how real I mean it. I think 'He kicks our backside' would have sufficed. And even better might have been some concrete illustrations of the Lord's firm spanks." But while he regrets using the word, he is not entirely sure that it is always necessarily sinful to do so. "If I wanted to take the time, and I felt more defensive than I do, I could probably go to the Bible and find language as offensive as that in the mouth of prophets, and even God when dealing with the grossness of evil. But I doubt that the moment in the breakout session called for something that extreme. Sometimes maybe. I hope the Lord turns it for good." He shows this again in his closing paragraph where he writes "I think if I had it to do over, I would not say it. On the one hand, I don't like fanning the flames of those who think it is hip and cool to swear for Jesus.
That, it seems to me, is immature. On the other hand, I want those hip people to listen to all I say and write, and I hope that the Lord may get a hold of them and draw them out of immaturity and into the fullness of holiness. But it backfires if one becomes unholy to make people holy. I suspect there was too much of the unholy in my heart at that moment."
Please read the complete article here
An Interview with Tom Schreiner on Baptism
From: Between Two Worlds: Justin Taylor's Blog
Here's an interview I conducted with Tom Schreiner about the new book on baptism that he has co-edited.
Tom, first of all, can you tell us a bit about yourself--your family, where you teach, etc.?
I grew up as a Roman Catholic and was saved at the age of 17, mainly through the witness of a girl named Diane who is now my wife! We have 4 children (3 boys and one girl from the ages of 24-15). I have been teaching since 1983 and since 1997 have taught New Testament at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. I am also the preaching pastor at Clifton Baptist Church.
What's the title of your new book, and who are the contributors?
The title is: Believer’s Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ. Shawn Wright and I edited the book and both wrote a chapter. We are thrilled with the other scholars who contributed, including Andreas Köstenberger, Bob Stein, Steve Wellum, Steve McKinion, Jonathan Rainbow, Duane Garrett, Ardel Caneday, and Mark Dever.
How would you define "baptism" biblically?
I think the New Hampshire Confession of 1833 defines baptism beautifully. “We believe that Christian Baptism is the immersion in water of a believer, into the name of the Father, and Son, and Holy Ghost; to show forth, in a solemn and beautiful emblem, our faith in the crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, with its effect in our death to sin and resurrection to a new life.”
Is baptism necessary for salvation?
The mere mechanical act of baptism doesn’t save. Cornelius and his friends received the Spirit before baptism (Acts 10:44-48), showing that they were saved before baptism. Paul makes it clear in 1 Cor. 1:14-17 that baptism must be understood in light of the gospel of grace, not vice-versa. On the other hand, Bob Stein argues convincingly in his chapter that baptism is part of the complex of saving events. {JT note: cf. this SBJT article by Stein.} So, if someone understands that God commands baptism and then refuses to do it, one has to wonder if such a person is saved.
If you don't need to be baptized as a believer in order to be saved, why is it so important? If this is a non-essential doctrine, is it really worth debating and dividing over?
I would refer readers here to my answer above. Baptism is important because it is associated in the NT with the saving events of Christ’s death and resurrection. It is “the” initiation rite into the Christian church, and hence it is not “optional” or “insignificant.” I don’t believe that baptism in and of itself saves, and someone may be a Christian and not undergo baptism because he or she misunderstands what Christ requires. In any case, believer’s baptism is important because it relates to our understanding of the nature of the church. The church is composed of regenerate church members (or at least it should be). Those who baptize infants compromise the purity of the church because they allow into the church those who are unregenerate, for baptism in the NT always follows faith.
Assuming that paedobaptism didn't exist in the NT, when did it first arise historically onto the scene? What caused it?
Scholars differ as to when infant baptism began. Most agree that it probably started sporadically in the 2nd century, and Steve McKinion argues that it was not common until the 4th or 5th centuries. The “why” is hard to answer. It certainly seems to have been at least partly because of pastoral and parental concern about babies dying in infancy. Baptizing them was a means of assuring their salvation in case of their deaths. According to Augustine it was crucial for removing original sin and entrance into heaven. I also encourage everyone to read Jonathan Rainbow’s chapter, for he shows that Zwingli introduced an innovation in the doctrine of baptism. No one before Zwingli claimed that one could be baptized without being a believer. Zwingli diverged from all preceding him by separating baptism from faith and regeneration. More.
Here's an interview I conducted with Tom Schreiner about the new book on baptism that he has co-edited.
Tom, first of all, can you tell us a bit about yourself--your family, where you teach, etc.?
I grew up as a Roman Catholic and was saved at the age of 17, mainly through the witness of a girl named Diane who is now my wife! We have 4 children (3 boys and one girl from the ages of 24-15). I have been teaching since 1983 and since 1997 have taught New Testament at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. I am also the preaching pastor at Clifton Baptist Church.
What's the title of your new book, and who are the contributors?
The title is: Believer’s Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ. Shawn Wright and I edited the book and both wrote a chapter. We are thrilled with the other scholars who contributed, including Andreas Köstenberger, Bob Stein, Steve Wellum, Steve McKinion, Jonathan Rainbow, Duane Garrett, Ardel Caneday, and Mark Dever.
How would you define "baptism" biblically?
I think the New Hampshire Confession of 1833 defines baptism beautifully. “We believe that Christian Baptism is the immersion in water of a believer, into the name of the Father, and Son, and Holy Ghost; to show forth, in a solemn and beautiful emblem, our faith in the crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, with its effect in our death to sin and resurrection to a new life.”
Is baptism necessary for salvation?
The mere mechanical act of baptism doesn’t save. Cornelius and his friends received the Spirit before baptism (Acts 10:44-48), showing that they were saved before baptism. Paul makes it clear in 1 Cor. 1:14-17 that baptism must be understood in light of the gospel of grace, not vice-versa. On the other hand, Bob Stein argues convincingly in his chapter that baptism is part of the complex of saving events. {JT note: cf. this SBJT article by Stein.} So, if someone understands that God commands baptism and then refuses to do it, one has to wonder if such a person is saved.
If you don't need to be baptized as a believer in order to be saved, why is it so important? If this is a non-essential doctrine, is it really worth debating and dividing over?
I would refer readers here to my answer above. Baptism is important because it is associated in the NT with the saving events of Christ’s death and resurrection. It is “the” initiation rite into the Christian church, and hence it is not “optional” or “insignificant.” I don’t believe that baptism in and of itself saves, and someone may be a Christian and not undergo baptism because he or she misunderstands what Christ requires. In any case, believer’s baptism is important because it relates to our understanding of the nature of the church. The church is composed of regenerate church members (or at least it should be). Those who baptize infants compromise the purity of the church because they allow into the church those who are unregenerate, for baptism in the NT always follows faith.
Assuming that paedobaptism didn't exist in the NT, when did it first arise historically onto the scene? What caused it?
Scholars differ as to when infant baptism began. Most agree that it probably started sporadically in the 2nd century, and Steve McKinion argues that it was not common until the 4th or 5th centuries. The “why” is hard to answer. It certainly seems to have been at least partly because of pastoral and parental concern about babies dying in infancy. Baptizing them was a means of assuring their salvation in case of their deaths. According to Augustine it was crucial for removing original sin and entrance into heaven. I also encourage everyone to read Jonathan Rainbow’s chapter, for he shows that Zwingli introduced an innovation in the doctrine of baptism. No one before Zwingli claimed that one could be baptized without being a believer. Zwingli diverged from all preceding him by separating baptism from faith and regeneration. More.
Senate bill attacks free speech
WASHINGTON (BP)--Senate Democrats and a few Republicans have slipped into a lobbying reform bill a section that would drastically impact the mission and function of churches and nonprofit organizations -- such as Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council -- that seek to inform voters on moral issues.
One of the provisions of S. 1 now being considered by the Senate would require churches and other nonprofits, classified as “grassroots lobbying firms,” to report to the House and Senate any time they spend money to communicate to their constituents on public-policy issues that are before Congress. Failure to comply could result in thousands of dollars in fines and even criminal penalties.
“This is one of the most significant violations of free exercise of religion and the freedom of political speech in our nation’s history,” Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, wrote in a column posted on the ACLJ website. “Some have said that this plan is the most comprehensive regulation of political speech that has ever been put forward by Congress.”
Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council wrote in an e-mail to supporters, “This should be called the 'Silence the Citizens Act of 2007.' ... Even pastors who would encourage the members of their congregation to call their senators, their congressmen, about marriage, about life issues, could theoretically fall under the provisions of this measure.”
While pro-family groups say much of the bill is good, they are encouraging constituents to contact their senators and ask them to strike Section 220 -- the section that could impact churches and church-related groups -- from S. 1. Focus on the Family has created a petition on the matter available at focuspetitions.com.
“Protect your right to know,” Focus on the Family's James Dobson said on his radio broadcast Jan. 10. “Protect our right to tell you what we know.”
Dobson said the objective of the legislation’s supporters is clearly to silence the grassroots groups that led millions of Americans to contact their elected officials and affect the outcome of votes on Supreme Court justices, the partial birth abortion ban, broadcast decency fines and the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.
Full Article
One of the provisions of S. 1 now being considered by the Senate would require churches and other nonprofits, classified as “grassroots lobbying firms,” to report to the House and Senate any time they spend money to communicate to their constituents on public-policy issues that are before Congress. Failure to comply could result in thousands of dollars in fines and even criminal penalties.
“This is one of the most significant violations of free exercise of religion and the freedom of political speech in our nation’s history,” Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, wrote in a column posted on the ACLJ website. “Some have said that this plan is the most comprehensive regulation of political speech that has ever been put forward by Congress.”
Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council wrote in an e-mail to supporters, “This should be called the 'Silence the Citizens Act of 2007.' ... Even pastors who would encourage the members of their congregation to call their senators, their congressmen, about marriage, about life issues, could theoretically fall under the provisions of this measure.”
While pro-family groups say much of the bill is good, they are encouraging constituents to contact their senators and ask them to strike Section 220 -- the section that could impact churches and church-related groups -- from S. 1. Focus on the Family has created a petition on the matter available at focuspetitions.com.
“Protect your right to know,” Focus on the Family's James Dobson said on his radio broadcast Jan. 10. “Protect our right to tell you what we know.”
Dobson said the objective of the legislation’s supporters is clearly to silence the grassroots groups that led millions of Americans to contact their elected officials and affect the outcome of votes on Supreme Court justices, the partial birth abortion ban, broadcast decency fines and the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.
Full Article
Dobson says 'no way' to McCain candidacy
By Bob Unruh© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
Dr. James Dobson, of Focus on the Family
A prominent Christian leader whose radio and magazine outreaches are solidly in support of biblically-based marriages – and keeps in touch with millions of constituents daily – says he cannot consider Arizona Sen. John McCain a viable candidate for president.
"Speaking as a private individual, I would not vote for John McCain under any circumstances," said James Dobson, founder of the Colorado Springs-based Focus on the Family as well as the Focus Action cultural action organization set up specifically to provide a platform for informing and rallying constituents.
Dobson, who always is careful to note that he's not speaking for the non-profit ministry, which cannot advocate for or against candidates legally, also doesn't hesitate to state his personal opinions on social or political issues and agendas.
Several times he's talked to Republicans, the traditionally conservative political party, about the need to maintain the values of that large part of the U.S. population, or lose the support of those people.
His most recent comments came during an interview on the Jerry Johnson Live program on KCBI 90.9 FM.
The show host noted that pro-family conservatives already are thinking about the next cycle of leadership in the United States, which will be determined in the 2008 presidential and congressional elections. He also noted that McCain and New York mayor Rudy Guiliani appear to be the leaders.
Then he asked Dobson to listen to a statement from McCain and respond.
"I think, uh … I think that gay marriage should be allowed if there's a ceremony kind of thing, if you wanna call it that … I don't have any problem with that," McCain says.
"Dr. Dobson, would you be comfortable with someone like John McCain as the … conservative or Republican candidate for president?" Johnson asked.
"Well, let me say that I am not in the office. I'm in the little condo so I can speak for myself and not for Focus on the Family," Dobson said in rejecting McCain's leadership.
He noted that legislation he'd just been discussing on the program, regarding an attempt by Democrat leaders in Congress to create obstacles for ministries such as Focus to reach constituents with action messages about pending legislation, is being supported by McCain, too.
"That came from McCain, and the McCain Feingold Bill kept us from telling the truth right before elections … and there are a lot of other things. He's not in favor of traditional marriage, and I pray that we won't get stuck with him," Dobson said.
The provisions of the new congressional proposal, hidden deep inside a plan to reform lobbying rules to eliminate the many recent scandals involving members of Congress, would require pro-family groups to provide documentation of their actions to the government any time they try to spark any "grass-roots" action.
Phone calls, personal visits, e-mails, magazines, broadcasts, phone banks, appearances, travel, fundraising and other items all would be subject to government tabulation, verification and audits, Dobson said during a recent program. "On and on it goes."
"Clearly, the objective here is to hide what goes on from the public and punish and silence those of us who would talk about what our representatives are doing," Dobson said of the plan by Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev. American Family Association Chairman Donald Wildmon, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins and American Values President Gary Bauer joined Dobson in urging listeners to flood Capitol Hill with phone calls demanding those speech limits be removed. >Read the complete article here
Dr. James Dobson, of Focus on the Family
A prominent Christian leader whose radio and magazine outreaches are solidly in support of biblically-based marriages – and keeps in touch with millions of constituents daily – says he cannot consider Arizona Sen. John McCain a viable candidate for president.
"Speaking as a private individual, I would not vote for John McCain under any circumstances," said James Dobson, founder of the Colorado Springs-based Focus on the Family as well as the Focus Action cultural action organization set up specifically to provide a platform for informing and rallying constituents.
Dobson, who always is careful to note that he's not speaking for the non-profit ministry, which cannot advocate for or against candidates legally, also doesn't hesitate to state his personal opinions on social or political issues and agendas.
Several times he's talked to Republicans, the traditionally conservative political party, about the need to maintain the values of that large part of the U.S. population, or lose the support of those people.
His most recent comments came during an interview on the Jerry Johnson Live program on KCBI 90.9 FM.
The show host noted that pro-family conservatives already are thinking about the next cycle of leadership in the United States, which will be determined in the 2008 presidential and congressional elections. He also noted that McCain and New York mayor Rudy Guiliani appear to be the leaders.
Then he asked Dobson to listen to a statement from McCain and respond.
"I think, uh … I think that gay marriage should be allowed if there's a ceremony kind of thing, if you wanna call it that … I don't have any problem with that," McCain says.
"Dr. Dobson, would you be comfortable with someone like John McCain as the … conservative or Republican candidate for president?" Johnson asked.
"Well, let me say that I am not in the office. I'm in the little condo so I can speak for myself and not for Focus on the Family," Dobson said in rejecting McCain's leadership.
He noted that legislation he'd just been discussing on the program, regarding an attempt by Democrat leaders in Congress to create obstacles for ministries such as Focus to reach constituents with action messages about pending legislation, is being supported by McCain, too.
"That came from McCain, and the McCain Feingold Bill kept us from telling the truth right before elections … and there are a lot of other things. He's not in favor of traditional marriage, and I pray that we won't get stuck with him," Dobson said.
The provisions of the new congressional proposal, hidden deep inside a plan to reform lobbying rules to eliminate the many recent scandals involving members of Congress, would require pro-family groups to provide documentation of their actions to the government any time they try to spark any "grass-roots" action.
Phone calls, personal visits, e-mails, magazines, broadcasts, phone banks, appearances, travel, fundraising and other items all would be subject to government tabulation, verification and audits, Dobson said during a recent program. "On and on it goes."
"Clearly, the objective here is to hide what goes on from the public and punish and silence those of us who would talk about what our representatives are doing," Dobson said of the plan by Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev. American Family Association Chairman Donald Wildmon, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins and American Values President Gary Bauer joined Dobson in urging listeners to flood Capitol Hill with phone calls demanding those speech limits be removed. >Read the complete article here
Stand Up for Your Faith, Convert From Islam Urges Christians
Stand Up for Your Faith, Convert From Islam Urges ChristiansKevin MooneyStaff Writer
(CNSNews.com) - Muslims respect certitude and disdain weakness in exchanges with Christians and are more responsive to principled individuals who are unapologetic in defending their world view, according to a Catholic convert from Islam.Addressing a seminar in Alexandria, Va., Iraqi-born Daniel Ali, who converted in 1998, discussed some of the key components of his former religion, such as jihad and Islamic views on God.At a time when Islam is gaining strength worldwide, Ali told fellow Catholics in attendance that the "first line of defense is to know to your faith."Catholics must be willing to speak up when their faith is under assault, Ali said.
When Christians engage Muslims, they must avoid the temptation to equivocate in their beliefs in order to appease or keep the peace."You cannot flush out Jesus for the sake of getting along with Muslims," Ali said. "They do not like wishy-washy people. They are much more respectful of those who stand by their convictions."Ali advised Catholics to carefully weigh arguments about points of convergence between Christianity and Islam -- for instance, the fact the Koran affirms the virgin birth of Jesus and expresses a high regard for Mary."Every sentence that comes from Muslims includes a 'but,'" Ali said. "The beliefs are not the same." >Complete Article
(CNSNews.com) - Muslims respect certitude and disdain weakness in exchanges with Christians and are more responsive to principled individuals who are unapologetic in defending their world view, according to a Catholic convert from Islam.Addressing a seminar in Alexandria, Va., Iraqi-born Daniel Ali, who converted in 1998, discussed some of the key components of his former religion, such as jihad and Islamic views on God.At a time when Islam is gaining strength worldwide, Ali told fellow Catholics in attendance that the "first line of defense is to know to your faith."Catholics must be willing to speak up when their faith is under assault, Ali said.
When Christians engage Muslims, they must avoid the temptation to equivocate in their beliefs in order to appease or keep the peace."You cannot flush out Jesus for the sake of getting along with Muslims," Ali said. "They do not like wishy-washy people. They are much more respectful of those who stand by their convictions."Ali advised Catholics to carefully weigh arguments about points of convergence between Christianity and Islam -- for instance, the fact the Koran affirms the virgin birth of Jesus and expresses a high regard for Mary."Every sentence that comes from Muslims includes a 'but,'" Ali said. "The beliefs are not the same." >Complete Article
Saturday, January 13, 2007
John Piper's Remarkable Sermon on Sexual Failure vs. Faith
From Crosswalk
At the Passion 07 conference in Atlanta last week, John Piper preached a remarkable message with a remarkable title: How to Deal With the Guilt of Sexual Failure for the Glory of Christ and His Global Cause. The title brings together several themes that at first glance seem unrelated -- guilt, sexual sin, the glory of Christ and the global cause of world missions. If someone wants to know how preaching in the 21st century can be both biblical and yet realistic and ultimately hope-giving, then read this sermon.
Piper starts with the assumption that many young people struggle with the guilt of sexual sin (a fact we all recognize), but he goes further and says that that guilt often leads them to give up on serving the Lord and to settle for a life of middle class materialism. The tragedy here is that Satan then wins a double victory -- once when the original sin occurred, and later (and sometimes for a lifetime) when that residual guilt keeps them from doing anything for the Kingdom. Here is a taste of what Piper said:
The great tragedy is not mainly masturbation or fornication or acting like a peeping Tom (or curious Cathy) on the Internet. The tragedy is that Satan uses the guilt of these failures to strip you of every radical dream you ever had, or might have, and in its place give you a happy, safe, secure, American life of superficial pleasures until you die in your lakeside rocking chair, wrinkled and useless, leaving a big fat inheritance to your middle-aged children to confirm them in their worldliness.
He summarizes a vast area of truth in two rather shocking statements: Theology can conquer biology. Justification can conquer fornication. I've never seen it put that way before, but it certainly strikes me as a biblical formulation. Note that he doesn't say "theology will conquer biology," as if victory over sin is automatic. Theology provides the foundation and justification puts in you a position to receive God's life-changing power, but then you must fight and fight hard and keep on fighting, knowing that sometimes you will fail. What then? Either you give in (which is what the advocates of homosexuality support) or you stand and fight in Jesus' name, fighting in the power of the Lord but fighting nonetheless. Piper again:
The distinguishing mark of saving faith is not perfection. The mark of faith is not that I never sin sexually. The mark of faith is that I fight. I fight anything that dims my sight of Jesus as my glorious Savior. I fight anything that diminishes the fullness of the lordship of Jesus in my life. I fight anything that threatens to replace Jesus as the supreme Treasure of my life. Anything that stands between me and receiving Jesus. Faith fights -- not with fists or knives or guns or bombs, but with the truth of Christ. >More
At the Passion 07 conference in Atlanta last week, John Piper preached a remarkable message with a remarkable title: How to Deal With the Guilt of Sexual Failure for the Glory of Christ and His Global Cause. The title brings together several themes that at first glance seem unrelated -- guilt, sexual sin, the glory of Christ and the global cause of world missions. If someone wants to know how preaching in the 21st century can be both biblical and yet realistic and ultimately hope-giving, then read this sermon.
Piper starts with the assumption that many young people struggle with the guilt of sexual sin (a fact we all recognize), but he goes further and says that that guilt often leads them to give up on serving the Lord and to settle for a life of middle class materialism. The tragedy here is that Satan then wins a double victory -- once when the original sin occurred, and later (and sometimes for a lifetime) when that residual guilt keeps them from doing anything for the Kingdom. Here is a taste of what Piper said:
The great tragedy is not mainly masturbation or fornication or acting like a peeping Tom (or curious Cathy) on the Internet. The tragedy is that Satan uses the guilt of these failures to strip you of every radical dream you ever had, or might have, and in its place give you a happy, safe, secure, American life of superficial pleasures until you die in your lakeside rocking chair, wrinkled and useless, leaving a big fat inheritance to your middle-aged children to confirm them in their worldliness.
He summarizes a vast area of truth in two rather shocking statements: Theology can conquer biology. Justification can conquer fornication. I've never seen it put that way before, but it certainly strikes me as a biblical formulation. Note that he doesn't say "theology will conquer biology," as if victory over sin is automatic. Theology provides the foundation and justification puts in you a position to receive God's life-changing power, but then you must fight and fight hard and keep on fighting, knowing that sometimes you will fail. What then? Either you give in (which is what the advocates of homosexuality support) or you stand and fight in Jesus' name, fighting in the power of the Lord but fighting nonetheless. Piper again:
The distinguishing mark of saving faith is not perfection. The mark of faith is not that I never sin sexually. The mark of faith is that I fight. I fight anything that dims my sight of Jesus as my glorious Savior. I fight anything that diminishes the fullness of the lordship of Jesus in my life. I fight anything that threatens to replace Jesus as the supreme Treasure of my life. Anything that stands between me and receiving Jesus. Faith fights -- not with fists or knives or guns or bombs, but with the truth of Christ. >More
Friday, January 12, 2007
How House members voted on the embryonic stem cell bill
WASHINGTON (BP)--The House of Representatives Jan. 10 passed a bill by a margin of 253-174 that would drastically expand federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. President Bush has said he would veto it, and the roll call fell far short of the 290-vote veto-proof majority. Following is a list of how representatives voted:
VOTING FOR THE BILL WERE:
Abercrombie, Ackerman, Allen, Altmire, Andrews, Arcuri, Baca, Baird, Baldwin, Barrow, Barton (TX), Bean, Becerra, Berkley, Berman, Berry, Biggert, Bilbray, Bishop (NY), Blumenauer, Bono, Boren, Boswell, Boucher, Boyd (FL), Boyda (KS) , Brady (PA), Braley (IA), Brown (Corrine), Brown-Waite (Ginny), Butterfield, Calvert, Capito, Capps, Capuano, Cardoza, Carnahan, Carney, Carson, Castle, Castor, Chandler, Clarke, Clay, Cleaver, Clyburn, Coble, Cohen, Conyers, Cooper, Costa, Courtney, Cramer, Crowley, Cuellar, Cummings, Davis (AL), Davis (CA), Davis (IL), Davis (Tom), DeFazio, DeGette, Delahunt, DeLauro, Dent, Dicks, Dingell, Doggett, Doyle, Dreier, Edwards, Ellison, Emanuel, Emerson, Engel, Eshoo, Etheridge, Farr, Fattah, Filner, Fossella, Frank (MA), Frelinghuysen, Gerlach, Giffords, Gillibrand, Gonzalez, Gordon, Granger. Green (Al), Green (Gene), Grijalva, Gutierrez, Hall (NY), Hare, Harman, Hastings (FL), Heller, Herseth, Higgins, Hill, Hinchey, Hinojosa, Hirono, Hodes, Holden, Holt, Honda, Hooley, Hoyer,
Inslee, Israel, Issa, Jackson (IL), Jackson-Lee (TX), Jefferson, Johnson (GA), Johnson, E. B., Jones (OH), Kagen, Kanjorski, Kennedy, Kildee, Kilpatrick, Kind, Kirk, Klein (FL), Kucinich, Lampson, Langevin, Lantos, Larsen (WA), Larson (CT), LaTourette, Lee, Levin, Lewis (CA), Lewis (GA), Loebsack, Lofgren ( Zoe), Lowey, Lynch, Mack, Mahoney (FL), Maloney (NY), Markey, Matheson, Matsui, McCarthy (NY), McCollum (MN), McDermott, McGovern, McKeon, McNerney, McNulty, Meehan, Meek (FL), Meeks (NY), Melancon, Michaud, Millender-McDonald, Miller (NC), Miller, George, Mitchell, Moore (KS), Moore (WI), Moran (VA), Murphy (CT), Murphy (Patrick), Murtha, Nadler, Napolitano, Neal (MA), Obey, Olver, Ortiz,
Full Article
VOTING FOR THE BILL WERE:
Abercrombie, Ackerman, Allen, Altmire, Andrews, Arcuri, Baca, Baird, Baldwin, Barrow, Barton (TX), Bean, Becerra, Berkley, Berman, Berry, Biggert, Bilbray, Bishop (NY), Blumenauer, Bono, Boren, Boswell, Boucher, Boyd (FL), Boyda (KS) , Brady (PA), Braley (IA), Brown (Corrine), Brown-Waite (Ginny), Butterfield, Calvert, Capito, Capps, Capuano, Cardoza, Carnahan, Carney, Carson, Castle, Castor, Chandler, Clarke, Clay, Cleaver, Clyburn, Coble, Cohen, Conyers, Cooper, Costa, Courtney, Cramer, Crowley, Cuellar, Cummings, Davis (AL), Davis (CA), Davis (IL), Davis (Tom), DeFazio, DeGette, Delahunt, DeLauro, Dent, Dicks, Dingell, Doggett, Doyle, Dreier, Edwards, Ellison, Emanuel, Emerson, Engel, Eshoo, Etheridge, Farr, Fattah, Filner, Fossella, Frank (MA), Frelinghuysen, Gerlach, Giffords, Gillibrand, Gonzalez, Gordon, Granger. Green (Al), Green (Gene), Grijalva, Gutierrez, Hall (NY), Hare, Harman, Hastings (FL), Heller, Herseth, Higgins, Hill, Hinchey, Hinojosa, Hirono, Hodes, Holden, Holt, Honda, Hooley, Hoyer,
Inslee, Israel, Issa, Jackson (IL), Jackson-Lee (TX), Jefferson, Johnson (GA), Johnson, E. B., Jones (OH), Kagen, Kanjorski, Kennedy, Kildee, Kilpatrick, Kind, Kirk, Klein (FL), Kucinich, Lampson, Langevin, Lantos, Larsen (WA), Larson (CT), LaTourette, Lee, Levin, Lewis (CA), Lewis (GA), Loebsack, Lofgren ( Zoe), Lowey, Lynch, Mack, Mahoney (FL), Maloney (NY), Markey, Matheson, Matsui, McCarthy (NY), McCollum (MN), McDermott, McGovern, McKeon, McNerney, McNulty, Meehan, Meek (FL), Meeks (NY), Melancon, Michaud, Millender-McDonald, Miller (NC), Miller, George, Mitchell, Moore (KS), Moore (WI), Moran (VA), Murphy (CT), Murphy (Patrick), Murtha, Nadler, Napolitano, Neal (MA), Obey, Olver, Ortiz,
Full Article
When Is Enough - Enough
Parents Group Raises Alarms Over Increasing TV Violence; FCC Calls for Action
WASHINGTON, DC (AgapePress) - A new report from the Parents Television Council (PTC) says the television season that began in the fall of 2005 was one of the most violent ever. The pro-family media watchdog group's report examines violence on prime-time broadcast TV over the last eight years.
The study's findings were announced yesterday in a news conference at the National Press Club in Washington, DC. Tim Winter, president of the PTC, says it found that between 1998 and 2006, violence increased in every television viewing time slot and on virtually every network, "the only exceptions being that UPN and FOX actually aired less violence during the family hour in 2005-2006, compared to 1998."
According to the PTC's study, Winter notes, broadcast TV violence during prime time has increased 75 percent since 1998. And during this last television season, he says, "nearly half of all episodes aired during the study period contained at least one instance of violence."
Also during that 2005-2006 season, the pro-family spokesman points out, the WB network had the highest frequency of violence during the family hour, with an average of nearly four incidents of violence per hour. And ABC's short-lived series Night Stalker proved to be the single most violent program on television during the same season, he notes.
The PTC report also notes that during the 2005-2006 season, every episode of every program airing on NBC during the 10 p.m. time slot contained at least one instance of violence. And CBS also earned a dubious distinction for broadcast violence, Winter observes. >Full Article
WASHINGTON, DC (AgapePress) - A new report from the Parents Television Council (PTC) says the television season that began in the fall of 2005 was one of the most violent ever. The pro-family media watchdog group's report examines violence on prime-time broadcast TV over the last eight years.
The study's findings were announced yesterday in a news conference at the National Press Club in Washington, DC. Tim Winter, president of the PTC, says it found that between 1998 and 2006, violence increased in every television viewing time slot and on virtually every network, "the only exceptions being that UPN and FOX actually aired less violence during the family hour in 2005-2006, compared to 1998."
According to the PTC's study, Winter notes, broadcast TV violence during prime time has increased 75 percent since 1998. And during this last television season, he says, "nearly half of all episodes aired during the study period contained at least one instance of violence."
Also during that 2005-2006 season, the pro-family spokesman points out, the WB network had the highest frequency of violence during the family hour, with an average of nearly four incidents of violence per hour. And ABC's short-lived series Night Stalker proved to be the single most violent program on television during the same season, he notes.
The PTC report also notes that during the 2005-2006 season, every episode of every program airing on NBC during the 10 p.m. time slot contained at least one instance of violence. And CBS also earned a dubious distinction for broadcast violence, Winter observes. >Full Article
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
Former Presidents Carter & Clinton
Former Presidents Carter & Clinton call for 'A New Baptist Covenant’Jan 10, 2007By Erin RoachBaptist Press
ATLANTA (BP)--Former Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton have proposed the establishment of a broadly inclusive alternative Baptist movement to counter what they called a negative image of Baptists and to address poverty, the environment and global conflicts.Carter and Clinton kicked off their plans with a news conference Jan. 9 at the Carter Center in Atlanta, flanked by leaders of moderate Baptist groups including the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, a breakaway group of an unverified number of churches that objected to the election of conservative leaders in the Southern Baptist Convention. Carter and Clinton announced a “Celebration of a New Baptist Covenant,” tentatively set for Jan. 30-Feb. 1, 2008, at the Georgia World Congress Center in Atlanta, which they hope will attract 20,000 Baptists.“This is a historic event for the Baptists in this country and perhaps for Christianity,” Carter said at the news conference.About 80 leaders of 40 moderate Baptist organizations claiming to represent 20 million Baptists in the United States, Canada and Mexico met at the Carter Center for the announcement. Leaders from the Southern Baptist Convention were not invited to attend.“This is an attempt to bring people together and say, ‘What would our Christian witness require of us in the 21st century?’” Clinton said, adding that his goal is to be a “cheerleader” for the group.Bill Underwood, president of Mercer University in Georgia, said at the news conference that the 2008 meeting is meant to draw attention away from “the Baptists who have the microphone,” meaning conservative leaders who frequently appear in the media voicing conservative views.“North America desperately needs a true Baptist witness,” Underwood said. >Full Story
ATLANTA (BP)--Former Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton have proposed the establishment of a broadly inclusive alternative Baptist movement to counter what they called a negative image of Baptists and to address poverty, the environment and global conflicts.Carter and Clinton kicked off their plans with a news conference Jan. 9 at the Carter Center in Atlanta, flanked by leaders of moderate Baptist groups including the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, a breakaway group of an unverified number of churches that objected to the election of conservative leaders in the Southern Baptist Convention. Carter and Clinton announced a “Celebration of a New Baptist Covenant,” tentatively set for Jan. 30-Feb. 1, 2008, at the Georgia World Congress Center in Atlanta, which they hope will attract 20,000 Baptists.“This is a historic event for the Baptists in this country and perhaps for Christianity,” Carter said at the news conference.About 80 leaders of 40 moderate Baptist organizations claiming to represent 20 million Baptists in the United States, Canada and Mexico met at the Carter Center for the announcement. Leaders from the Southern Baptist Convention were not invited to attend.“This is an attempt to bring people together and say, ‘What would our Christian witness require of us in the 21st century?’” Clinton said, adding that his goal is to be a “cheerleader” for the group.Bill Underwood, president of Mercer University in Georgia, said at the news conference that the 2008 meeting is meant to draw attention away from “the Baptists who have the microphone,” meaning conservative leaders who frequently appear in the media voicing conservative views.“North America desperately needs a true Baptist witness,” Underwood said. >Full Story
Bill Clinton and Baptist Unity : From Russell Moore's Blog
A Very Good read. > Dr. Moore's Blog can be found here.
______________________________________
For years former President Jimmy Carter has sought to mobilize moderate and liberal Baptists toward an alternative to Southern Baptist conservatism. It's easy to see why Cooperative Baptist Fellowship (CBF) Baptists would want to be aligned with President Carter. He's a man of integrity who served with dignity in the White House, and he's someone who seems genuinely committed to following Jesus.
It's not news then that President Carter is at the center of yet another attempt at fostering "Baptist unity," a "Celebration of a New Baptist Covenant" for various representatives of the Baptist left. But Bill Clinton? According to Associated Baptist Press, the unity convocation is sponsored by not one but two former United States Presidents, and the other one's from Arkansas.
Do the Baptist liberals really want to go in this direction? Do they really wish to pick up Clinton's language of a "new covenant with the American people," from his 1992 Democratic convention nomination acceptance speech, language that was deemed by many Christians to be insulting and later abandoned by the Clinton-Gore campaign? After all, Baptists already have a "new covenant," one that the prophet Jeremiah tells us will be in place as long as the "fixed order" of the sun, moon, stars, and sea (Jer 31:35-36). Climate change might well be real, but the truth isn't that incovenient...even for former Vice-President Al Gore, also a Baptist.
The unity of which the ABP article speaks is a unity based on social action and ethical engagement. Even apart from questions of personal ethics and about the long-ago debates over alleged high crimes and misdemeanors, what about the official social agenda of the former President? This is, after all, a man who vetoed legislation protecting unborn infants from partial-birth abortion, and then blamed his abortion-rights ideology on what he says he learned from his former pastor at a Little Rock Southern Baptist congregation.
President Clinton is also a man who sees the faith in very different terms from the vast majority of Baptists around the world. Note, for instance, Clinton's testimony in his autobiography, My Life, about a visit to Haiti where he saw a frenzied, spirit-possessed voodoo priestess bite the head off a live chicken before "the spirits left and those who had been possessed fell to the ground." Clinton wrote:
"I describe my brief foray into the world of voodoo because I've always been fascinated by the way different cultures try to make sense of life, nature, and the virtually universal belief that there is a nonphysical spirit force at work in the world that existed before humanity and will be here when we all are long gone. Haitians' understanding of how God is manifest in our lives is very different from that of most Christians, Jews, or Muslims, but their documented experiences certainly prove the old adage that the Lord works in mysterious ways."
Really? A cultic voodoo ritual is the work of the Lord? And this is the kind of religious discernment we seek to bring about Baptist unity?
Come to think of it, President Clinton's involvement might be just what the Baptist left needs.
After all, for years they've been trying to convince Baptist churches that they represent "traditional Baptist" beliefs despite being led by men such as former Mercer University president Kirby Godsey who deny the fundamental tenets of the faith. They've been a lot of things, but never slick. Perhaps they needed all along someone to teach them how to triangulate more skillfully. Is Jesus the only way to the Father? Is an unborn fetus a baby worthy of protection? It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is.
The spirits work in not-so-mysterious ways, you know.
Bill Clinton, My Life (New York: Knopf, 2004), 237.
______________________________________
For years former President Jimmy Carter has sought to mobilize moderate and liberal Baptists toward an alternative to Southern Baptist conservatism. It's easy to see why Cooperative Baptist Fellowship (CBF) Baptists would want to be aligned with President Carter. He's a man of integrity who served with dignity in the White House, and he's someone who seems genuinely committed to following Jesus.
It's not news then that President Carter is at the center of yet another attempt at fostering "Baptist unity," a "Celebration of a New Baptist Covenant" for various representatives of the Baptist left. But Bill Clinton? According to Associated Baptist Press, the unity convocation is sponsored by not one but two former United States Presidents, and the other one's from Arkansas.
Do the Baptist liberals really want to go in this direction? Do they really wish to pick up Clinton's language of a "new covenant with the American people," from his 1992 Democratic convention nomination acceptance speech, language that was deemed by many Christians to be insulting and later abandoned by the Clinton-Gore campaign? After all, Baptists already have a "new covenant," one that the prophet Jeremiah tells us will be in place as long as the "fixed order" of the sun, moon, stars, and sea (Jer 31:35-36). Climate change might well be real, but the truth isn't that incovenient...even for former Vice-President Al Gore, also a Baptist.
The unity of which the ABP article speaks is a unity based on social action and ethical engagement. Even apart from questions of personal ethics and about the long-ago debates over alleged high crimes and misdemeanors, what about the official social agenda of the former President? This is, after all, a man who vetoed legislation protecting unborn infants from partial-birth abortion, and then blamed his abortion-rights ideology on what he says he learned from his former pastor at a Little Rock Southern Baptist congregation.
President Clinton is also a man who sees the faith in very different terms from the vast majority of Baptists around the world. Note, for instance, Clinton's testimony in his autobiography, My Life, about a visit to Haiti where he saw a frenzied, spirit-possessed voodoo priestess bite the head off a live chicken before "the spirits left and those who had been possessed fell to the ground." Clinton wrote:
"I describe my brief foray into the world of voodoo because I've always been fascinated by the way different cultures try to make sense of life, nature, and the virtually universal belief that there is a nonphysical spirit force at work in the world that existed before humanity and will be here when we all are long gone. Haitians' understanding of how God is manifest in our lives is very different from that of most Christians, Jews, or Muslims, but their documented experiences certainly prove the old adage that the Lord works in mysterious ways."
Really? A cultic voodoo ritual is the work of the Lord? And this is the kind of religious discernment we seek to bring about Baptist unity?
Come to think of it, President Clinton's involvement might be just what the Baptist left needs.
After all, for years they've been trying to convince Baptist churches that they represent "traditional Baptist" beliefs despite being led by men such as former Mercer University president Kirby Godsey who deny the fundamental tenets of the faith. They've been a lot of things, but never slick. Perhaps they needed all along someone to teach them how to triangulate more skillfully. Is Jesus the only way to the Father? Is an unborn fetus a baby worthy of protection? It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is.
The spirits work in not-so-mysterious ways, you know.
Bill Clinton, My Life (New York: Knopf, 2004), 237.
Tuesday, January 9, 2007
Use of Koran in oath splits conservatives
From Baptist Press:
WASHINGTON (BP)--When U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison became the first person in Congress ever to take the ceremonial oath of office on the Koran, conservatives divided as to whether it was appropriate. Ellison, a Democrat from Illinois, became the first-ever Muslim elected to Congress in November when the Democrats regained power in both the House and Senate. He took the ceremonial oath Jan. 4 using a Koran once owned by Thomas Jefferson.
Soon after Ellison announced in November he would use a Koran for the ceremony, conservative radio host Dennis Prager wrote a column for Townhall.com criticizing Ellison's choice. Prager, who is Jewish, said Ellison's action "undermines American civilization" and "perfectly exemplifies multiculturalist activism.""Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible," Prager wrote.
"If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress. In your personal life, we will fight for your right to prefer any other book. We will even fight for your right to publish cartoons mocking our Bible. But, Mr. Ellison, America, not you, decides on what book its public servants take their oath."But Eugene Volokh, a professor of law at the University of California Los Angeles and a regular contributor to the conservative National Review Online website, disagreed, arguing that any requirement to take an oath using the Bible would violate the Constitution's provision that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office."
The Supreme Court's most conservative justices, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, would strike down any such requirement, Volokh said."[T]he Constitution thus already expressly authorizes people not to swear at all, but to affirm, without reference to God or to a sacred work," Volokh wrote. "Atheists and agnostics are thus protected, as well as members of certain Christian groups. Why would Muslims and others not be equally protected from having to perform a religious ritual that expressly invokes a religion in which they do not believe? Under the Constitution, all of them 'are incapable of taking an oath on that book,' whether because they are Quakers, atheists, agnostics, or Muslims. Yet all remain entirely free to 'serve in Congress.'"
Ellison, in fact, was not the first member of Congress to take the oath using a book other than the Christian Bible. In 2005 Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D.-Fla., used the Tanakh, the Hebrew Bible, according to The Washington Post.Prager asserted that usage of the Bible by all members of Congress serves to affirm America's common values. "What Ellison and his Muslim and leftist supporters are saying is that it is of no consequence what America holds as its holiest book; all that matters is what any individual holds to be his holiest book," Prager wrote. "...
When all elected officials take their oaths of office with their hands on the very same book, they all affirm that some unifying value system underlies American civilization. If Keith Ellison is allowed to change that, he will be doing more damage to the unity of America and to the value system that has formed this country than the terrorists of 9-11." >From Baptist Press:
WASHINGTON (BP)--When U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison became the first person in Congress ever to take the ceremonial oath of office on the Koran, conservatives divided as to whether it was appropriate. Ellison, a Democrat from Illinois, became the first-ever Muslim elected to Congress in November when the Democrats regained power in both the House and Senate. He took the ceremonial oath Jan. 4 using a Koran once owned by Thomas Jefferson.
Soon after Ellison announced in November he would use a Koran for the ceremony, conservative radio host Dennis Prager wrote a column for Townhall.com criticizing Ellison's choice. Prager, who is Jewish, said Ellison's action "undermines American civilization" and "perfectly exemplifies multiculturalist activism.""Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible," Prager wrote.
"If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress. In your personal life, we will fight for your right to prefer any other book. We will even fight for your right to publish cartoons mocking our Bible. But, Mr. Ellison, America, not you, decides on what book its public servants take their oath."But Eugene Volokh, a professor of law at the University of California Los Angeles and a regular contributor to the conservative National Review Online website, disagreed, arguing that any requirement to take an oath using the Bible would violate the Constitution's provision that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office."
The Supreme Court's most conservative justices, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, would strike down any such requirement, Volokh said."[T]he Constitution thus already expressly authorizes people not to swear at all, but to affirm, without reference to God or to a sacred work," Volokh wrote. "Atheists and agnostics are thus protected, as well as members of certain Christian groups. Why would Muslims and others not be equally protected from having to perform a religious ritual that expressly invokes a religion in which they do not believe? Under the Constitution, all of them 'are incapable of taking an oath on that book,' whether because they are Quakers, atheists, agnostics, or Muslims. Yet all remain entirely free to 'serve in Congress.'"
Ellison, in fact, was not the first member of Congress to take the oath using a book other than the Christian Bible. In 2005 Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D.-Fla., used the Tanakh, the Hebrew Bible, according to The Washington Post.Prager asserted that usage of the Bible by all members of Congress serves to affirm America's common values. "What Ellison and his Muslim and leftist supporters are saying is that it is of no consequence what America holds as its holiest book; all that matters is what any individual holds to be his holiest book," Prager wrote. "...
When all elected officials take their oaths of office with their hands on the very same book, they all affirm that some unifying value system underlies American civilization. If Keith Ellison is allowed to change that, he will be doing more damage to the unity of America and to the value system that has formed this country than the terrorists of 9-11." >From Baptist Press:
Feminist Blogger Says It’s OK to Abandon Your Kid for ‘a Better Life’–if You’re a Woman
In Sony Pictures’ new movie “The Pursuit of Happyness” Will Smith plays Chris Gardner, a homeless, hard-luck single father who raises his five year-old son alone after his wife abandons the boy. The movie is based on a true story and co-stars Smith’s eight year-old son as Gardner’s son Christopher. Feminist blogger Sylvia doesn’t like the movie’s treatment of the boy’s mother. In her blog entry “Happpyness Is Spelled Wrong (and other tales)”, she writes:
“Thandie Newton’s mother character got dogged severely. I think the directors tried to give her as fair of a shake as possible (I suspect that the book’s treatment is much worse). However, when she left Gardner and her son for a better life, I could not find it in my heart to condemn her for the decision. My mind drifted to A Doll’s House and Medea, to cruel invectives waged against women who rejected motherhood under certain conditions…”
Sylvia goes on to blame Chris Gardner for his wife’s actions. Somehow I don’t think Sylvia would be quite so sympathetic to a father who chose to abandon his child. Same old double standard–when a man does something bad, we blame him. When a woman does something bad, we blame him, too.
Christopher, who is now 25, sees the situation a little differently than Sylvia. Appearing recently on the Oprah Winfrey Show, he paid his father the greatest compliment any parent could receive:
“I didn’t know we were homeless. I just remember that we were doing a whole lot of moving. I just know that when I looked up, he was there. I looked around, he was there.”
Chris Gardner spoke of his struggles to create a ‘’normal'’ environment for Christopher, even when the two were spending their nights on the floor of a public bathroom in Oakland, explaining:
“We may not have known where we were going, where we were going to eat, or where we were going to sleep, but we were together every day. There are probably a lot of folks whose children live in million-dollar houses who can’t say that.” >Article
“Thandie Newton’s mother character got dogged severely. I think the directors tried to give her as fair of a shake as possible (I suspect that the book’s treatment is much worse). However, when she left Gardner and her son for a better life, I could not find it in my heart to condemn her for the decision. My mind drifted to A Doll’s House and Medea, to cruel invectives waged against women who rejected motherhood under certain conditions…”
Sylvia goes on to blame Chris Gardner for his wife’s actions. Somehow I don’t think Sylvia would be quite so sympathetic to a father who chose to abandon his child. Same old double standard–when a man does something bad, we blame him. When a woman does something bad, we blame him, too.
Christopher, who is now 25, sees the situation a little differently than Sylvia. Appearing recently on the Oprah Winfrey Show, he paid his father the greatest compliment any parent could receive:
“I didn’t know we were homeless. I just remember that we were doing a whole lot of moving. I just know that when I looked up, he was there. I looked around, he was there.”
Chris Gardner spoke of his struggles to create a ‘’normal'’ environment for Christopher, even when the two were spending their nights on the floor of a public bathroom in Oakland, explaining:
“We may not have known where we were going, where we were going to eat, or where we were going to sleep, but we were together every day. There are probably a lot of folks whose children live in million-dollar houses who can’t say that.” >Article
Monday, January 8, 2007
21 Reasons to Read (Good Christian Books)
From: Unashamed Workman
21 Reasons to Read (Good Christian Books)…
1. You will grow in your knowledge of God, yourself and the world around you
2. You will gain a better understanding of the bible, the book of books
3. You will broaden your English vocabluary, helping you to express similar truths to your congregation in fresh ways
4. You will have an improved imagination and actively engage your mind in a way that probably won’t occur when watching TV
5. You will be able to sit at the feet of some of the great Christian teachers and minds over the centuries (even if you have few ‘living’ teachers to assist you)
6. You will be forced to cease from incessant activity and think
7. You will receive a historical perspective on current problems and spot present day blindspots
8. You will have some of your questions answered and confront other questions you hadn’t even thought of
9. You will be able to practically apply Paul’s command to think upon “wholesome” things
10. You will develop a sense of how arguments are constructed and be able to weigh both strong and weak arguments
11. You will enjoy spiritual input during the week, not just on a Sunday (if not a pastor)
12. You will (if a pastor) be able to enage with other issues beyond this week’s text, thus broadening your perspective.
13. You will be able to mull over a subject. You will be able to put the book down to think, chew over a sentance or re-read a paragraph. You will be able to exploring an issue at length, rather than brush over a topic too quickly
14. You will be better prepared for the task of evangelism, after reading clear presentations of the gospel by great communicators
15. You will be better prepared for the task of discipleship, having a good way to open up discussion about Christian life issues (what are you reading?)
16. You will be made aware of how Christians interpret and apply Scripture differently in various cultural contexts
17. You will develop a sense of how arguments are constructed and be able to weigh both a strong and weak argument
18. You will gain information for your ignorance, inspiration for your weariness, and insight for complex problems
19. You will be better equipped to lead in your church, marriage and family
20. You will be stimulated, as in a good conversation, to new lines of thinking
21. You will be drawn to worship God, especially when the book centres on God not man
>Article Locaton
21 Reasons to Read (Good Christian Books)…
1. You will grow in your knowledge of God, yourself and the world around you
2. You will gain a better understanding of the bible, the book of books
3. You will broaden your English vocabluary, helping you to express similar truths to your congregation in fresh ways
4. You will have an improved imagination and actively engage your mind in a way that probably won’t occur when watching TV
5. You will be able to sit at the feet of some of the great Christian teachers and minds over the centuries (even if you have few ‘living’ teachers to assist you)
6. You will be forced to cease from incessant activity and think
7. You will receive a historical perspective on current problems and spot present day blindspots
8. You will have some of your questions answered and confront other questions you hadn’t even thought of
9. You will be able to practically apply Paul’s command to think upon “wholesome” things
10. You will develop a sense of how arguments are constructed and be able to weigh both strong and weak arguments
11. You will enjoy spiritual input during the week, not just on a Sunday (if not a pastor)
12. You will (if a pastor) be able to enage with other issues beyond this week’s text, thus broadening your perspective.
13. You will be able to mull over a subject. You will be able to put the book down to think, chew over a sentance or re-read a paragraph. You will be able to exploring an issue at length, rather than brush over a topic too quickly
14. You will be better prepared for the task of evangelism, after reading clear presentations of the gospel by great communicators
15. You will be better prepared for the task of discipleship, having a good way to open up discussion about Christian life issues (what are you reading?)
16. You will be made aware of how Christians interpret and apply Scripture differently in various cultural contexts
17. You will develop a sense of how arguments are constructed and be able to weigh both a strong and weak argument
18. You will gain information for your ignorance, inspiration for your weariness, and insight for complex problems
19. You will be better equipped to lead in your church, marriage and family
20. You will be stimulated, as in a good conversation, to new lines of thinking
21. You will be drawn to worship God, especially when the book centres on God not man
>Article Locaton
Should Christian's be "nice"?
From: TheResurgence -
Should Christian's be "nice"?
Much of Christianity, inculcated in diverse and varied opinions about Jesus, has so drifted from gospel Christianity that it barely resembles the 1st century version of the faith. Current discussions of the God-Man Jesus Christ are dominated by a postmodern hermeneutic which gives license for any and all comers to cast their ballot and vote for their favorite Jesus candidate. One prevailing view in this milieu of conjecture is that Jesus was and is a "nice" guy.
Unfortunately this is not a compliment. Nice, pleasant, cheerful, and cautious is not how Christianity broke onto the scene 2000 years ago. Christianity and the current version of Christ in our day causes most to give nothing more than a yawn in response. Of all that the Scripture says about Jesus, one thing he was never described as was "nice." The term "nice" originally meant silly or stupid. Today it means little more than vanilla, bland, and Melba-toast boring. If we as Christians hope to see any change in our cultural climate, we must articulate afresh the historic and biblical teaching of the person and work of Jesus Christ.
The liberal form of the emerging church has all but abandoned the bloody cross and empty tomb because it is too unattractive and repulsive to sensitive postmodern ears. Most are offended that we would dare preach long and hard the reality and necessity of penal-substitutionary atonement. Unkind, unloving, intolerant, and brutish, seem to be the opinion that flows from academia as well as the current lay opinions within the church. A movie like The Passion of Christ is viewed as pornographic in its violence and receives the shrieks of horror from viewers.
I find it ironic that slasher movies like Saw III and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre hit screens without a hitch, but a movie that dares to put to screen the horror and violence of the cross is labeled pornographic. We are such a fickle people. Yet what is needed is not more of the same bland platitudes which speak of a buddy Jesus. Rather, we should offer to this world the reality of a masculine Christ that is not safe or tame, but one who received the only proper response from those who would dare reject Him- hatred and crucifixion.
If we are to preach Christ crucified, we must also preach a Christ that opponents would see as worthy of crucifixion. It is a dangerous thing to speak and teach an unfelt cross. If Christ is to be rejected in our day, let it be for those things He was rejected for in His day, and not because we’re trying to pacify an already hyper-sensitive, politically-correct culture which cries for truth but openly rejects it. Dorothy Sayers puts this well when considering modern versions of Christ and Christianity:
The people who hanged Christ never, to do them justice, accused Him of being a bore; on the contrary, they thought Him too dynamic to be safe. It has been left for later generations to muffle up that shattering personality and surround Him with an atmosphere of tedium. We have very efficiently pared the claws of the Lion of Judah, certified Him "meek and mild," and recommended Him as a fitting household pet for pale curates and pious old ladies.
To those who knew Him, however, He in no way suggested a milk-and-water person; they objected to Him as a dangerous firebrand. True, He was tender to the unfortunate, patient with the honest inquirers, and humble before Heaven; but He insulted respectable clergymen by calling them hypocrites, He referred to King Herod as "that fox"; He went to parties in disreputable company and was looked upon as a "gluttonous man and a wine-bibber, a friend of publicans and sinners"; He assaulted indignant tradesmen and threw them and their belongings out of the Temple; He drove a coach-and-horse through a number of sacrosanct and hoary regulations; He cured disease by any means that came handy, with a shocking casualness in the matter of other people’s pigs and property; He showed no proper deference for wealth or social position.
Are we to spend our days on this earth passively trying to avoid sin rather than attempting great and glorious things for the One who is in the process of redeeming all things for His glory? Let’s not sit passively and live cautious, careful, nice lives. Let’s not speak of Christ as if we’re in a library or sipping tea in a parlor with well dressed grandmothers who desire to speak of pleasant things that go well with their decaffeinated citrus blends. If we play it safe, we may find that we have spent the best years of our life doing absolutely nothing of merit as we wait for our light to turn green so that we can escape this frightening world. Sure, you might be thought of as a "nice" guy, but don’t assume this has anything to do with being conformed into the image of Christ. >Article
Should Christian's be "nice"?
Much of Christianity, inculcated in diverse and varied opinions about Jesus, has so drifted from gospel Christianity that it barely resembles the 1st century version of the faith. Current discussions of the God-Man Jesus Christ are dominated by a postmodern hermeneutic which gives license for any and all comers to cast their ballot and vote for their favorite Jesus candidate. One prevailing view in this milieu of conjecture is that Jesus was and is a "nice" guy.
Unfortunately this is not a compliment. Nice, pleasant, cheerful, and cautious is not how Christianity broke onto the scene 2000 years ago. Christianity and the current version of Christ in our day causes most to give nothing more than a yawn in response. Of all that the Scripture says about Jesus, one thing he was never described as was "nice." The term "nice" originally meant silly or stupid. Today it means little more than vanilla, bland, and Melba-toast boring. If we as Christians hope to see any change in our cultural climate, we must articulate afresh the historic and biblical teaching of the person and work of Jesus Christ.
The liberal form of the emerging church has all but abandoned the bloody cross and empty tomb because it is too unattractive and repulsive to sensitive postmodern ears. Most are offended that we would dare preach long and hard the reality and necessity of penal-substitutionary atonement. Unkind, unloving, intolerant, and brutish, seem to be the opinion that flows from academia as well as the current lay opinions within the church. A movie like The Passion of Christ is viewed as pornographic in its violence and receives the shrieks of horror from viewers.
I find it ironic that slasher movies like Saw III and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre hit screens without a hitch, but a movie that dares to put to screen the horror and violence of the cross is labeled pornographic. We are such a fickle people. Yet what is needed is not more of the same bland platitudes which speak of a buddy Jesus. Rather, we should offer to this world the reality of a masculine Christ that is not safe or tame, but one who received the only proper response from those who would dare reject Him- hatred and crucifixion.
If we are to preach Christ crucified, we must also preach a Christ that opponents would see as worthy of crucifixion. It is a dangerous thing to speak and teach an unfelt cross. If Christ is to be rejected in our day, let it be for those things He was rejected for in His day, and not because we’re trying to pacify an already hyper-sensitive, politically-correct culture which cries for truth but openly rejects it. Dorothy Sayers puts this well when considering modern versions of Christ and Christianity:
The people who hanged Christ never, to do them justice, accused Him of being a bore; on the contrary, they thought Him too dynamic to be safe. It has been left for later generations to muffle up that shattering personality and surround Him with an atmosphere of tedium. We have very efficiently pared the claws of the Lion of Judah, certified Him "meek and mild," and recommended Him as a fitting household pet for pale curates and pious old ladies.
To those who knew Him, however, He in no way suggested a milk-and-water person; they objected to Him as a dangerous firebrand. True, He was tender to the unfortunate, patient with the honest inquirers, and humble before Heaven; but He insulted respectable clergymen by calling them hypocrites, He referred to King Herod as "that fox"; He went to parties in disreputable company and was looked upon as a "gluttonous man and a wine-bibber, a friend of publicans and sinners"; He assaulted indignant tradesmen and threw them and their belongings out of the Temple; He drove a coach-and-horse through a number of sacrosanct and hoary regulations; He cured disease by any means that came handy, with a shocking casualness in the matter of other people’s pigs and property; He showed no proper deference for wealth or social position.
Are we to spend our days on this earth passively trying to avoid sin rather than attempting great and glorious things for the One who is in the process of redeeming all things for His glory? Let’s not sit passively and live cautious, careful, nice lives. Let’s not speak of Christ as if we’re in a library or sipping tea in a parlor with well dressed grandmothers who desire to speak of pleasant things that go well with their decaffeinated citrus blends. If we play it safe, we may find that we have spent the best years of our life doing absolutely nothing of merit as we wait for our light to turn green so that we can escape this frightening world. Sure, you might be thought of as a "nice" guy, but don’t assume this has anything to do with being conformed into the image of Christ. >Article
Sunday, January 7, 2007
Sinclair Ferguson on Reading John Owen
From: Between Two Worlds
Sinclair Ferguson in the introduction to the new Christian Focus edition (highly recommended!) of John Owen's The Glory of Christ:
To read any of his works is to be introduced to a mind that
soared to the heights of Trinitarian theology,penetrated deeply into the heart of the gospel,plumbed the depths of human sinfulness andgrasped the wonders of God's grace.He was a pastoral theologian par excellence.To read his works is inevitably to come to the conclusion that much contemporary Christian literature seems like wood, hay and stubble by comparison with the gold, silver and precious stones with which this master builder worked. . . .A few words of general counsel will help anyone who turns to read Owen for the first time. >Full Article
Sinclair Ferguson in the introduction to the new Christian Focus edition (highly recommended!) of John Owen's The Glory of Christ:
To read any of his works is to be introduced to a mind that
soared to the heights of Trinitarian theology,penetrated deeply into the heart of the gospel,plumbed the depths of human sinfulness andgrasped the wonders of God's grace.He was a pastoral theologian par excellence.To read his works is inevitably to come to the conclusion that much contemporary Christian literature seems like wood, hay and stubble by comparison with the gold, silver and precious stones with which this master builder worked. . . .A few words of general counsel will help anyone who turns to read Owen for the first time. >Full Article
Encouraging news about Dr. Mohler
Encouraging news about Dr. Mohler
Posted: Saturday, January 06, 2007 at 10:24 pm ET
There is very encouraging news about President Mohler. Over the past 24 hours the Lord has been pleased to answer the prayers of His people and Dr. Mohler's health has made a marked improvement.
While Dr. Mohler remains hospitalized in the Intensive Care Unit at Baptist Hospital East in Louisville, the attending physicians are pleased with Dr. Mohler's progress and confident the situation is under control. Dr. Mohler was moved to intensive care on Friday after developing pulmonary emboli in both lungs following abdominal surgery. He has been hospitalized since December 27.
Please continue to pray for Dr. Mohler's total recovery. Once again Dr. Mohler and his family deeply appreciate your prayers and concern.
Posted: Saturday, January 06, 2007 at 10:24 pm ET
There is very encouraging news about President Mohler. Over the past 24 hours the Lord has been pleased to answer the prayers of His people and Dr. Mohler's health has made a marked improvement.
While Dr. Mohler remains hospitalized in the Intensive Care Unit at Baptist Hospital East in Louisville, the attending physicians are pleased with Dr. Mohler's progress and confident the situation is under control. Dr. Mohler was moved to intensive care on Friday after developing pulmonary emboli in both lungs following abdominal surgery. He has been hospitalized since December 27.
Please continue to pray for Dr. Mohler's total recovery. Once again Dr. Mohler and his family deeply appreciate your prayers and concern.
Saturday, January 6, 2007
Workman’s Toolbox - Jan 6th 2007
As a Pastor and one who stands firm on the preaching of the Word of God, this has become one of my favorite blogs.
From: Workman’s Toolbox - Jan 6th 2007
Preaching* Steve Weaver tells us how we can download his sermons. He also continues his intriguing series on how he prepares sermons.* Is it just me, or is Ed Young’s promise to launch a new sermon series by wrestling Hulk Hogan a little over the top? He’s serious.* At the outset of a new year, Thabiti Anyabwile (with a little inspiration from Ligon Duncan) has an inspiring reflection for the new year especially aimed at pastors.* Find here all of John MacArthur’s Grace to You sermons for 2006 - they are free, but you must register first. (HT: PJ Tibayan)* A great quote courtesy of Expository Thoughts on why we should preach the Old Testament.* Ryan Wentzel has some useful advice on how to listen to a sermon.
Theology* I just love this post by Phil Johnston exposing the danger of taking a ‘balanced approach’ to every issue. Amen to cutting the tightrope!* The new Reformation 21 is available with a focus on John Owen. (HT: The Conventicle)* Over at Shepherd’s Scrapbook, Tony Reinke explains Humble Calvinism.* The latest Nine Marks newsletter is now available: this month’s theme is friendship within the context of the church.* Ligon Duncan reflects on preparation for corporate worship over at Together for the Gospel.* Thabiti has two stimulating posts on the relationship between church and culture. (part one, part two) > Read More
From: Workman’s Toolbox - Jan 6th 2007
Preaching* Steve Weaver tells us how we can download his sermons. He also continues his intriguing series on how he prepares sermons.* Is it just me, or is Ed Young’s promise to launch a new sermon series by wrestling Hulk Hogan a little over the top? He’s serious.* At the outset of a new year, Thabiti Anyabwile (with a little inspiration from Ligon Duncan) has an inspiring reflection for the new year especially aimed at pastors.* Find here all of John MacArthur’s Grace to You sermons for 2006 - they are free, but you must register first. (HT: PJ Tibayan)* A great quote courtesy of Expository Thoughts on why we should preach the Old Testament.* Ryan Wentzel has some useful advice on how to listen to a sermon.
Theology* I just love this post by Phil Johnston exposing the danger of taking a ‘balanced approach’ to every issue. Amen to cutting the tightrope!* The new Reformation 21 is available with a focus on John Owen. (HT: The Conventicle)* Over at Shepherd’s Scrapbook, Tony Reinke explains Humble Calvinism.* The latest Nine Marks newsletter is now available: this month’s theme is friendship within the context of the church.* Ligon Duncan reflects on preparation for corporate worship over at Together for the Gospel.* Thabiti has two stimulating posts on the relationship between church and culture. (part one, part two) > Read More
What's next? All we have to do is keep our eyes toward Canada
Article Location:
Canadas Three Parents Case Continues to Raise Objections
Defenders of the traditional family unit in Canada continue to speak out after the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that a five-year-old boy has three legal parents – a father, mother and her lesbian partner.
The Appeals Court, overturning an emphatic lower court ruling, granted the boy’s father, biological mother and the mother’s lesbian partner equal rights and responsibilities under law, in a decision released on Jan 2, reports Canada’s LifeSite News.“This ruling clearly shows the extent to which the homosexual activists will pursue their agenda regardless of the welfare of children,” said Jim Hughes, National President of Campaign Life Coalition (CLC), in a statement released following the ruling.A lower court ruling on the case in 2003 said the Ontario Children’s Law Reform Act could not be interpreted as recognising more than two persons as parents by birth or adoption. In his ruling, Justice David Aston said at the time that allowing more than two parents “might open the floodgates to similar claims from step-parents or members of the child’s extended family”.“
If a child can have three parents,” Aston wrote, “why not four or six or a dozen? What about all the adults in a commune or a religious organisation or sect? Quite apart from social policy implications, the potential to create or exacerbate custody and access litigation should not be ignored.”While the Appeal Court agreed, the Court also found that the existing law did not take into account changes to Canadian society which affected parenting, leaving a sufficiently serious “gap” to require the intervention of the court. The lower court ruling was overturned and all three persons in question were granted parental rights, LifeSite reports.
“The courts must not continue to acquiesce to the homosexual agenda, but rather, must consider the fact that a child deserves a father and a mother in a stable relationship for the child’s nurturing,” said Mary Ellen Douglas, National Organiser of Campaign Life Coalition, in response to the decision.
Canadas Three Parents Case Continues to Raise Objections
Defenders of the traditional family unit in Canada continue to speak out after the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that a five-year-old boy has three legal parents – a father, mother and her lesbian partner.
The Appeals Court, overturning an emphatic lower court ruling, granted the boy’s father, biological mother and the mother’s lesbian partner equal rights and responsibilities under law, in a decision released on Jan 2, reports Canada’s LifeSite News.“This ruling clearly shows the extent to which the homosexual activists will pursue their agenda regardless of the welfare of children,” said Jim Hughes, National President of Campaign Life Coalition (CLC), in a statement released following the ruling.A lower court ruling on the case in 2003 said the Ontario Children’s Law Reform Act could not be interpreted as recognising more than two persons as parents by birth or adoption. In his ruling, Justice David Aston said at the time that allowing more than two parents “might open the floodgates to similar claims from step-parents or members of the child’s extended family”.“
If a child can have three parents,” Aston wrote, “why not four or six or a dozen? What about all the adults in a commune or a religious organisation or sect? Quite apart from social policy implications, the potential to create or exacerbate custody and access litigation should not be ignored.”While the Appeal Court agreed, the Court also found that the existing law did not take into account changes to Canadian society which affected parenting, leaving a sufficiently serious “gap” to require the intervention of the court. The lower court ruling was overturned and all three persons in question were granted parental rights, LifeSite reports.
“The courts must not continue to acquiesce to the homosexual agenda, but rather, must consider the fact that a child deserves a father and a mother in a stable relationship for the child’s nurturing,” said Mary Ellen Douglas, National Organiser of Campaign Life Coalition, in response to the decision.
Friday, January 5, 2007
Update on Dr. Albert Mohler
Posted on Dr. Mohler's Weblog
Dr. Mohler Responding Well to Treatment
Posted: Friday, January 05, 2007 at 9:01 pm ET A good report from Dr. Russell Moore:
I just left from visiting Albert Mohler at the intensive care unit of Baptist East Hosptial here in Louisville. I am glad to report that he is doing much better than he was when I spoke to the radio audience of the program about this at 5:05 PM.
While his situation is still very serious, it seems that the doctors have his treatment well underway and he is recuperating well. Pulmonary emboli represent a serious concern under any circumstances but it seems that RAM is responding excellently to the treatment. We can all be grateful the doctors found this development so quickly.
The President is talking and in good spirits. Despite his incredible pain and having just lived through the scare of his life, he was actually able to discuss a book I brought to him the other day about, of all things, the life of Wendell Willkie.
Dr. Mohler still needs your prayers, as do Mary, Katie, and Christopher, so please don't stop them. But I am happy to say that I think his treatment is going well and I expect that he will be back to his life as normal sooner rather than later.
Dr. Mohler Responding Well to Treatment
Posted: Friday, January 05, 2007 at 9:01 pm ET A good report from Dr. Russell Moore:
I just left from visiting Albert Mohler at the intensive care unit of Baptist East Hosptial here in Louisville. I am glad to report that he is doing much better than he was when I spoke to the radio audience of the program about this at 5:05 PM.
While his situation is still very serious, it seems that the doctors have his treatment well underway and he is recuperating well. Pulmonary emboli represent a serious concern under any circumstances but it seems that RAM is responding excellently to the treatment. We can all be grateful the doctors found this development so quickly.
The President is talking and in good spirits. Despite his incredible pain and having just lived through the scare of his life, he was actually able to discuss a book I brought to him the other day about, of all things, the life of Wendell Willkie.
Dr. Mohler still needs your prayers, as do Mary, Katie, and Christopher, so please don't stop them. But I am happy to say that I think his treatment is going well and I expect that he will be back to his life as normal sooner rather than later.
Please pray for Dr. Mohler
Posted: Friday, January 05, 2007 at 4:12 pm ET
Dr. Mohler's health has sustained a setback. Over the past 36 hours Dr. Mohler has suffered from unrelenting pain. This unusual degree of pain signaled concern for the attending physicians and prompted additional tests this afternoon. In the past hour these tests have revealed that Dr. Mohler is suffering from pulmonary emboli in both lungs. His condition is quite serious and he has been moved to the intensive care unit of Baptist East Hospital in Louisville, KY for immediate treatment.
Please make this a matter of urgent prayer. Thank you once again for your concern and support during these days. 
Thursday, January 4, 2007
Activist: More Revelations About Romney Will Bring Conservative Fallout
(AgapePress) - A pro-family activist predicts that with every new revelation about the liberal record of now-former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, there will be more conservative legislators dropping from his bandwagon.
On the same day he finished his term as governor of Massachusetts, Romney has filed papers creating a presidential exploratory committee. At first glance, says Associated Press, the 59-year-old Mormon might appear to have an advantage with the GOP's conservative religious base -- but many evangelicals do not believe Mormons are Christians.
In addition, some religious conservatives also question the depth of Romney's opposition to homosexual "marriage" and abortion, since he espoused more liberal views in the past. For example, while challenging Senator Ted Kennedy in 1994, Romney -- in a letter to a pro-homosexual Republican group -- promised that he would be a stronger advocate for homosexuals than would Kennedy.
For that reason and others, reports the Christian Broadcasting Network, there are at least four GOP lawmakers from the Michigan State House that are "seriously rethinking" their support for Romney's 2008 presidential bid. Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan, says given Romney is a Michigan native -- and that his father, George Romney, was governor and ran briefly for the GOP presidential nomination in 1968 -- he should have a competitive advantage in the state, unless social conservatives learn about his record.
"[T]his is a politician who for decades insistently promoted Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to choose to terminate her pre-natal child's life," Glenn points out, adding that Governor Romney was once endorsed by Republicans for Choice, a pro-abortion faction within the GOP.
And the questionable endorsements did not stop there, notes the Michigan activist. Romney, he says, has "endorsed every element of the homosexual activists' agenda -- [and] at some point in his career he was endorsed twice by the homosexual Log Cabin Republicans." Glenn also points out that the potential GOP presidential candidate also backed Bill Clinton's "don't ask, don't tell" policy for homosexuals in the military, and supported homosexual troop leaders in the Boy Scouts. > Full Article
On the same day he finished his term as governor of Massachusetts, Romney has filed papers creating a presidential exploratory committee. At first glance, says Associated Press, the 59-year-old Mormon might appear to have an advantage with the GOP's conservative religious base -- but many evangelicals do not believe Mormons are Christians.
In addition, some religious conservatives also question the depth of Romney's opposition to homosexual "marriage" and abortion, since he espoused more liberal views in the past. For example, while challenging Senator Ted Kennedy in 1994, Romney -- in a letter to a pro-homosexual Republican group -- promised that he would be a stronger advocate for homosexuals than would Kennedy.
For that reason and others, reports the Christian Broadcasting Network, there are at least four GOP lawmakers from the Michigan State House that are "seriously rethinking" their support for Romney's 2008 presidential bid. Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan, says given Romney is a Michigan native -- and that his father, George Romney, was governor and ran briefly for the GOP presidential nomination in 1968 -- he should have a competitive advantage in the state, unless social conservatives learn about his record.
"[T]his is a politician who for decades insistently promoted Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to choose to terminate her pre-natal child's life," Glenn points out, adding that Governor Romney was once endorsed by Republicans for Choice, a pro-abortion faction within the GOP.
And the questionable endorsements did not stop there, notes the Michigan activist. Romney, he says, has "endorsed every element of the homosexual activists' agenda -- [and] at some point in his career he was endorsed twice by the homosexual Log Cabin Republicans." Glenn also points out that the potential GOP presidential candidate also backed Bill Clinton's "don't ask, don't tell" policy for homosexuals in the military, and supported homosexual troop leaders in the Boy Scouts. > Full Article
Persecution Ahead for Christians, UK Watchdog Reports
UK based persecution watchdog Release International reports that an estimated 250 million Christians worldwide will face persecution in 2007. New research found that governments in even moderate Muslim countries often fail to safeguard the rights of their Christian minorities, which results in Christians suffering from kidnapping, forced conversion, imprisonment, church destruction, torture, rape and execution.One of the world’s worst abusers of religious freedom is Saudi Arabia, ranked number two on Open Doors World Watch List of country allowing persecution. Saudi Arabia forbids all other religions.
A Muslim found “guilty” of converting to Christianity could face the death sentence for apostasy. And anyone who leads a Muslim to Christ faces jail, expulsion or execution."There’s a conspiracy of silence around Saudi," says Release International’s CEO Andy Dipper, "probably because the West wants their oil and their money. But this is a government that hands out the death sentence for its own citizens who want nothing more than the freedom to choose their own faith.
And while Saudi bans all Christian literature, it spends billions of dollars each year propagating Islam around the world."Dipper says, "A rising number of extremists interpret the call to jihad as a call to violence. They seem to regard it as their religious duty to force Christians and non-Muslims to convert to Islam. Those who refuse must be driven out or killed." >Full Article
A Muslim found “guilty” of converting to Christianity could face the death sentence for apostasy. And anyone who leads a Muslim to Christ faces jail, expulsion or execution."There’s a conspiracy of silence around Saudi," says Release International’s CEO Andy Dipper, "probably because the West wants their oil and their money. But this is a government that hands out the death sentence for its own citizens who want nothing more than the freedom to choose their own faith.
And while Saudi bans all Christian literature, it spends billions of dollars each year propagating Islam around the world."Dipper says, "A rising number of extremists interpret the call to jihad as a call to violence. They seem to regard it as their religious duty to force Christians and non-Muslims to convert to Islam. Those who refuse must be driven out or killed." >Full Article
Dr. Mohler continues to recuperate following surgery
Posted: Thursday, January 04, 2007 at 11:26 am ET From Dr. Molher's Webpost
Dr. Mohler continues to recuperate from abdominal surgery at Baptist East Hospital in Louisville, KY. Daily he is gaining strength and making progress, but he still has a good deal of recovery before him. Please continue to pray for his complete and expedient recovery and for the Lord to grant him abundant grace during this time of convalescence.
Dr. Mohler has expressed deep appreciation for all the gestures of encouragement that have come from so many and looks forward to being back in action at Southern Seminary, at Highview Baptist Church, at www.albertmohler.com and behind the microphone at The Albert Mohler Program. Thanks again for your prayers and support.
Dr. Mohler continues to recuperate from abdominal surgery at Baptist East Hospital in Louisville, KY. Daily he is gaining strength and making progress, but he still has a good deal of recovery before him. Please continue to pray for his complete and expedient recovery and for the Lord to grant him abundant grace during this time of convalescence.
Dr. Mohler has expressed deep appreciation for all the gestures of encouragement that have come from so many and looks forward to being back in action at Southern Seminary, at Highview Baptist Church, at www.albertmohler.com and behind the microphone at The Albert Mohler Program. Thanks again for your prayers and support.
Christ-honoring or Culture-chasing? Do We Even Know the Difference?
From Grace and Truth to You
The following is an email I received from Tom Willoughby, a Southern Baptist pastor in Missouri. The events Tom describes below happened at his church Wednesday night. Read his description of the service and ask yourself if his church is a Christ-honoring, evangelical Southern Baptist church, or a Culture-chasing Southern Baptist church which we ought to either censure or withdraw fellowship.I say, without hesitation (and more than a little admiration), that Tom's church is the former!
____________________________________________
I caught my Wednesday Night group off guard. We've been going through the BF&M 2000 for the last few weeks and we just did Salvation last week. So I came in and said that we were going to think a little more about salvation, but specifically missions.I told them that they had just been appointed as missionaries to reach a tribe whose name I made up. I said that they had just been dropped into the valley where their tribe is located (incidentally, I said that the tribe was about 9,000 strong located within a ten mile radius (this happens to be the number of people within a ten mile radius of our church)). I then asked them how, not knowing anything about their tribe, they were going to reach them with the Gospel? I set up a dry-erase board and we began 45 minutes of brain-storming.
They came up with some excellent ideas. Better than I could have imagined. Such as:Pray Make friends observe customs and practices identify their leaders learn what they enjoy observe clothing learn the language work with kids first to gain access to parents dress like them learn their style of music make sure that in giving any type of gift that we do not create needs that they cannot meet themselves learn their spiritual views have patience be kind and loving..... >Full Article
The following is an email I received from Tom Willoughby, a Southern Baptist pastor in Missouri. The events Tom describes below happened at his church Wednesday night. Read his description of the service and ask yourself if his church is a Christ-honoring, evangelical Southern Baptist church, or a Culture-chasing Southern Baptist church which we ought to either censure or withdraw fellowship.I say, without hesitation (and more than a little admiration), that Tom's church is the former!
____________________________________________
I caught my Wednesday Night group off guard. We've been going through the BF&M 2000 for the last few weeks and we just did Salvation last week. So I came in and said that we were going to think a little more about salvation, but specifically missions.I told them that they had just been appointed as missionaries to reach a tribe whose name I made up. I said that they had just been dropped into the valley where their tribe is located (incidentally, I said that the tribe was about 9,000 strong located within a ten mile radius (this happens to be the number of people within a ten mile radius of our church)). I then asked them how, not knowing anything about their tribe, they were going to reach them with the Gospel? I set up a dry-erase board and we began 45 minutes of brain-storming.
They came up with some excellent ideas. Better than I could have imagined. Such as:Pray Make friends observe customs and practices identify their leaders learn what they enjoy observe clothing learn the language work with kids first to gain access to parents dress like them learn their style of music make sure that in giving any type of gift that we do not create needs that they cannot meet themselves learn their spiritual views have patience be kind and loving..... >Full Article
Is Your New Year’s Resolution to lose weight?
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Federal Trade Commission on Thursday fined the marketers of four weight loss pills millions of dollars for making false advertising claims ranging from rapid weight loss to reducing the risk of cancer.
FTC Commissioner Deborah Platt Majoras said the products would remain on store shelves, but that the companies would have to stop making the false claims.
"What we challenge is the marketing of the claims," she said. "The marketers are required to back up the claims with the science and if they can't do that they can't make the claim. But we don't ban the products from the shelves."
The FTC investigated a variety of claims made — including rapid weight loss and reduction in the risk of osteoporosis, Alzheimer's and even cancer, Majoras noted. >Full Story
FTC Commissioner Deborah Platt Majoras said the products would remain on store shelves, but that the companies would have to stop making the false claims.
"What we challenge is the marketing of the claims," she said. "The marketers are required to back up the claims with the science and if they can't do that they can't make the claim. But we don't ban the products from the shelves."
The FTC investigated a variety of claims made — including rapid weight loss and reduction in the risk of osteoporosis, Alzheimer's and even cancer, Majoras noted. >Full Story
Wednesday, January 3, 2007
Shooting kills one at US school
School officials in Tacoma said the gun was fired by a student shortly after 0715 (1515 GMT), before he fled.
There was no indication of the age of the student killed or of any possible motive. Later reports said police had arrested the suspect without a fight.
Classes were cancelled and students were heading home. The Henry Foss High School has about 1,700 students.
'He froze'
Students described scenes of panic as the shots were fired.
"He got shot - bang - and he just fell," eyewitness Malcolm Clark, 15, told the Associated Press.
"He just froze and he fell backwards into the lockers."
"He didn't scream or nothing. He didn't move when he hit the ground," said another 15-year-old, Josh Wilber.
The student was pronounced dead after being transferred to a local hospital.
But local police said they arrested the suspect, who was carrying a weapon, without a struggle at about 0930 (1730 GMT).
Gun control and security in US schools has been a key issue since two students at Columbine High School in Colorado shot and killed 13 people and themselves in April 1999.
There was no indication of the age of the student killed or of any possible motive. Later reports said police had arrested the suspect without a fight.
Classes were cancelled and students were heading home. The Henry Foss High School has about 1,700 students.
'He froze'
Students described scenes of panic as the shots were fired.
"He got shot - bang - and he just fell," eyewitness Malcolm Clark, 15, told the Associated Press.
"He just froze and he fell backwards into the lockers."
"He didn't scream or nothing. He didn't move when he hit the ground," said another 15-year-old, Josh Wilber.
The student was pronounced dead after being transferred to a local hospital.
But local police said they arrested the suspect, who was carrying a weapon, without a struggle at about 0930 (1730 GMT).
Gun control and security in US schools has been a key issue since two students at Columbine High School in Colorado shot and killed 13 people and themselves in April 1999.
The Many Faces of the SBC: A Conference on Baptist Identity
The Baptist Identity Conference, February 15-17, in Jackson, Tennessee.
Speakers include:
Paige Patterson, of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary will speak on “What Contemporary Baptists Can Learn from Anabaptists.”
Timothy George, dean of Beeson Divinity School, will speak on “The Future of Baptist Identity in a Post-Denominational World.”
Tom Rainer, president of LifeWay Christian Resources, will speak on “Evangelism and Church Growth in the Southern Baptist Convention.”
David Dockery, president of Union University, will speak on “The Southern Baptist Convention since 1979.”
Frank Page, president of the Southern Baptist Convention, “The Role of the Cooperative Program in the 21st Century.”
Russell Moore, dean of the School of Theology and senior vice president for academic administration at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, “T.T. Eaton: Drawing on 19th Century Baptist Models.”
Steve Gaines, pastor of Bellevue Baptist Church in Cordova, Tenn., “The Future of the Traditional Church.”
Greg Thornbury, dean of the School of Christian Studies at Union University, “The Angry Young Men of the SBC.”
Ed Stetzer, missiologist and research team director at the North American Mission Board, “Toward a Missional Convention.”
Mike Day, director of missions for the Mid-South Baptist Association in Memphis, Tenn., “The Future of Baptist Associations and State Conventions.”
Speakers include:
Paige Patterson, of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary will speak on “What Contemporary Baptists Can Learn from Anabaptists.”
Timothy George, dean of Beeson Divinity School, will speak on “The Future of Baptist Identity in a Post-Denominational World.”
Tom Rainer, president of LifeWay Christian Resources, will speak on “Evangelism and Church Growth in the Southern Baptist Convention.”
David Dockery, president of Union University, will speak on “The Southern Baptist Convention since 1979.”
Frank Page, president of the Southern Baptist Convention, “The Role of the Cooperative Program in the 21st Century.”
Russell Moore, dean of the School of Theology and senior vice president for academic administration at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, “T.T. Eaton: Drawing on 19th Century Baptist Models.”
Steve Gaines, pastor of Bellevue Baptist Church in Cordova, Tenn., “The Future of the Traditional Church.”
Greg Thornbury, dean of the School of Christian Studies at Union University, “The Angry Young Men of the SBC.”
Ed Stetzer, missiologist and research team director at the North American Mission Board, “Toward a Missional Convention.”
Mike Day, director of missions for the Mid-South Baptist Association in Memphis, Tenn., “The Future of Baptist Associations and State Conventions.”
Mega Youth Conference Kicks Off with 23,000
Passion 07 opened at Atlanta’s Phillips Arena and the Georgia World Congress Centre in downtown Atlanta, 1 January, with over 23,000 in attendance and students representing 49 states, 32 countries and 1,165 campuses.Passion 07 is a gathering for college students from around the nation and world 1 - 4 January 2007, and is the third consecutive conference, following Passion 05 and Passion 06, which were held in Nashville, TN.“
Part of the equation here at Passion 07 is to move to the place in our journey where we are living a life that is pleasing to the Lord,” said Louie Giglio, Passion Conference founder/director. “The Kingdom of God is ever growing and we are here to celebrate that Kingdom. God has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us to the Kingdom of his Son. This story is our story of rescue by Jesus. It’s all about Jesus, the rescuing one. He’s the one we’re celebrating.” More than being led by speakers and artist-worshipers throughout Passion 07, students will have the opportunity to impact lives worldwide through Passion 07’s Do Something Now campaign. >Article
Part of the equation here at Passion 07 is to move to the place in our journey where we are living a life that is pleasing to the Lord,” said Louie Giglio, Passion Conference founder/director. “The Kingdom of God is ever growing and we are here to celebrate that Kingdom. God has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us to the Kingdom of his Son. This story is our story of rescue by Jesus. It’s all about Jesus, the rescuing one. He’s the one we’re celebrating.” More than being led by speakers and artist-worshipers throughout Passion 07, students will have the opportunity to impact lives worldwide through Passion 07’s Do Something Now campaign. >Article
Reformed Eye for the Arminian Guy
From Callies Dot Com
A Letter to The Learning Channel
To Whom It May Concern,
I write today to offer your television network the rights to what I am convinced will soon be the most popular reality show on television. Reality television has offered the discerning viewer much entertainment and so many opportunities to learn. We have learned how to dress, how to cook, how to build motorcycles and hotrods and even how to build beautiful rooms using plywood, staple guns and glue guns. We've seen what it takes to make it as an executive for the world's leading corporations. We've seen the inner-workings of families of dwarfs and families of rock stars and have marveled at the skill of tattoo artists. But there is one area that has received shockingly little attention. I offer exclusive rights to an exciting new program to The Learning Channel.
I offer you Reformed Eye for the Arminian Guy, a new production currently filming pilot episodes in New York City. This exciting new program will offer theological assistance to those men who need it most. In each episode a fabulous team of Reformed men will track down an Arminian guy and offer him the makeover of a lifetime. Each of the five team members is an expert in a different field. Each will assist the subject of the program in a unique way.
Klaus is the library expert. He will examine the person's personal book collection, weeding out any books that are deemed unworthy of a Reformed library. Graham, Yancey, McLaren and Lucado will be replaced by Edwards, Spurgeon, Calvin and Luther. Paperbacks and fancy hardcovers will be replaced by handsome leather-bound volumes, leaving a library that is both beautiful and theologically-correct. The subject will be provided with a library of commentaries, Reformed confessions, and a full collection of the writings of John Calvin.
Jonathan serves on the team as personal stylist. He will ensure that the subject of the show looks Reformed. The subject will be provided with a new wardrobe, complete with several handsome suits and a variety of sweater vests. He will be encouraged to wear a tie or other formal apparel at all times. He will learn the importance of always carrying pocket-sized Bibles and copies of Reformed confessions. And, of course, he will learn of the unsuitability of t-shirts, track pants and idolatrous accessories such as crosses. Tattoo removal will be offered to those who need it.
Marcus is the team's theologian. His task is to help the subject understand the tenets of the Reformed faith. Marcus will offer an intensive, day-long overview of Reformed theology, beginning in the Old Testament, continuing to the New and then passing through the lives of Augustine, Luther, and Calvin. From there the course will survey the teachings of the Puritans, Jonathan Edwards and move to more modern times with Warfield, Hodge, Murray and the leading Reformed teachers of our day. The subject will be trained to refute the common objections to Calvinism and to uphold the principles of TULIP. Read the entire article
A Letter to The Learning Channel
To Whom It May Concern,
I write today to offer your television network the rights to what I am convinced will soon be the most popular reality show on television. Reality television has offered the discerning viewer much entertainment and so many opportunities to learn. We have learned how to dress, how to cook, how to build motorcycles and hotrods and even how to build beautiful rooms using plywood, staple guns and glue guns. We've seen what it takes to make it as an executive for the world's leading corporations. We've seen the inner-workings of families of dwarfs and families of rock stars and have marveled at the skill of tattoo artists. But there is one area that has received shockingly little attention. I offer exclusive rights to an exciting new program to The Learning Channel.
I offer you Reformed Eye for the Arminian Guy, a new production currently filming pilot episodes in New York City. This exciting new program will offer theological assistance to those men who need it most. In each episode a fabulous team of Reformed men will track down an Arminian guy and offer him the makeover of a lifetime. Each of the five team members is an expert in a different field. Each will assist the subject of the program in a unique way.
Klaus is the library expert. He will examine the person's personal book collection, weeding out any books that are deemed unworthy of a Reformed library. Graham, Yancey, McLaren and Lucado will be replaced by Edwards, Spurgeon, Calvin and Luther. Paperbacks and fancy hardcovers will be replaced by handsome leather-bound volumes, leaving a library that is both beautiful and theologically-correct. The subject will be provided with a library of commentaries, Reformed confessions, and a full collection of the writings of John Calvin.
Jonathan serves on the team as personal stylist. He will ensure that the subject of the show looks Reformed. The subject will be provided with a new wardrobe, complete with several handsome suits and a variety of sweater vests. He will be encouraged to wear a tie or other formal apparel at all times. He will learn the importance of always carrying pocket-sized Bibles and copies of Reformed confessions. And, of course, he will learn of the unsuitability of t-shirts, track pants and idolatrous accessories such as crosses. Tattoo removal will be offered to those who need it.
Marcus is the team's theologian. His task is to help the subject understand the tenets of the Reformed faith. Marcus will offer an intensive, day-long overview of Reformed theology, beginning in the Old Testament, continuing to the New and then passing through the lives of Augustine, Luther, and Calvin. From there the course will survey the teachings of the Puritans, Jonathan Edwards and move to more modern times with Warfield, Hodge, Murray and the leading Reformed teachers of our day. The subject will be trained to refute the common objections to Calvinism and to uphold the principles of TULIP. Read the entire article
Tuesday, January 2, 2007
Ever-Loving Truth Conference - January 26-27 Mobile AL.
As an Alumni of the University of Mobile and Pastor of Manor Baptist Church, located here in Mobile, AL. I would like to invite you to attend The Voddie Baucham Ministries’ Ever-loving Truth Conference to be held at Dauphin Way Baptist Church, January 26-27.
Voddie Baucham
Voddie Baucham
Waiting for the Rose Parade, crowds hear Gospel’s call
PASADENA, Calif. (BP)--Sitting along Colorado Boulevard about 12 hours before the start of the 2006 Rose Parade, Laurence Rocha had nothing better to do than hear the Gospel and watch a mime group perform to songs depicting the death and resurrection of Christ.“I’m just sitting and watching football on my little TV,” said Rocha, who had heard an announcement over a hand-held megaphone to see the performance in front of a Pasadena pizza shop a few yards away from where he had set up for the night. “There is no other entertainment.”
That is exactly what Martin Davis, in his 11th year heading up the annual outreach, wants to hear.Davis, two mime teams and more than 50 other volunteers joined together to spread the Gospel to a captive audience Dec. 31.Amid the pink and green silly string being sprayed and marshmallows being thrown into the streets, thousands of people heard that Jesus loves them and that He died for them.As a result five people prayed to follow Christ and many others heard the Good News for the first time.“God’s doing things we don’t see,” Davis said.Last year, one of the mime teams from San Diego was contacted in April by a man who had just given his heart to God. >Complete Article (BP)
That is exactly what Martin Davis, in his 11th year heading up the annual outreach, wants to hear.Davis, two mime teams and more than 50 other volunteers joined together to spread the Gospel to a captive audience Dec. 31.Amid the pink and green silly string being sprayed and marshmallows being thrown into the streets, thousands of people heard that Jesus loves them and that He died for them.As a result five people prayed to follow Christ and many others heard the Good News for the first time.“God’s doing things we don’t see,” Davis said.Last year, one of the mime teams from San Diego was contacted in April by a man who had just given his heart to God. >Complete Article (BP)
The Supremacy of Christ and Love in a Postmodern World
Neither modernism nor postmodernism is easy to define. Even experts in intellectual history disagree on their definitions.
The majority view, however, is that the fundamental issue in the move from modernism to postmodernism is epistemology—i.e., how we know things or think we know things. Modernism is often pictured as pursuing truth, absolutism, linear thinking, rationalism, certainty, the cerebral as opposed to the affective which, in turn, breeds arrogance, inflexibility, a lust to be right, the desire to control. Postmodernism, by contrast, recognizes, how much of what we “know” is shaped by the culture in which we live, is controlled by emotions and aesthetics and heritage, and can only be intelligently held as part of a common tradition, without overbearing claims to being true or right.
Modernism tries to find unquestioned foundations on which to build the edifice of knowledge and then proceeds with methodological rigor; postmodernism denies that such foundations exist (it is “antifoundations”) and insists that we come to “know” things in many ways, not a few of them lacking in rigor. Modernism is hard-edged and, in the domain of religion, focuses on truth versus error, right belief, confessionalism; postmodernism is gentle and, in the domain of religion, focuses upon relationship, loves, shared tradition, integrity in discussion. >Article
The majority view, however, is that the fundamental issue in the move from modernism to postmodernism is epistemology—i.e., how we know things or think we know things. Modernism is often pictured as pursuing truth, absolutism, linear thinking, rationalism, certainty, the cerebral as opposed to the affective which, in turn, breeds arrogance, inflexibility, a lust to be right, the desire to control. Postmodernism, by contrast, recognizes, how much of what we “know” is shaped by the culture in which we live, is controlled by emotions and aesthetics and heritage, and can only be intelligently held as part of a common tradition, without overbearing claims to being true or right.
Modernism tries to find unquestioned foundations on which to build the edifice of knowledge and then proceeds with methodological rigor; postmodernism denies that such foundations exist (it is “antifoundations”) and insists that we come to “know” things in many ways, not a few of them lacking in rigor. Modernism is hard-edged and, in the domain of religion, focuses on truth versus error, right belief, confessionalism; postmodernism is gentle and, in the domain of religion, focuses upon relationship, loves, shared tradition, integrity in discussion. >Article
Is the SBC a Two-Party System?
If you read SBC blogs for too long, it is easy to get the impression that the convention is a two-party system. Many blogs, regardless of their respective perspectives, tend to assume an “us versus them” mentality. On my own blog, while I try to avoid a combative approach to the issues, I often designate the main players in SBC life as either “status quo” or “dissenters,” implying we have a two-party stystem. Marty Duren has done the same thing with this provocative post about “tories” versus “reformers.” But the more I think about the lay of the land, the more I am convinced this is too simplistic an approach.
There are several problems with a two-party approach to convention controversies. First, there are many Southern Baptists who do not fall neatly into either category, including a number of well-known SBC leaders. Let me use myself as an example (not as a well-known leader, but as someone who is not part of either perceived party). On Marty’s blog post referenced above, there is an exchange between Marty and SWBTS professor Malcolm Yarnell. Now I have talked to both of these men before, both in person and via email. On the one hand, I am in substantial agreement with Dr. Yarnell in matters of ecclesiology, over against Marty. On the other hand, I think that the SBC is in need of some significant reform, which would put me closer to Marty than probably Dr. Yarnell (though Marty and I disagree some about the specifics). So where does that leave me? Where does it leave (I believe) most younger Southern Baptists?
Second, descriptive terms are necessarily limited. “Tories,” while clever, carries a very negative connotation and is inherently political. “Reformers,” meanwhile, has the air of progress to it. The problem is that I doubt most “tories” are in it for the politics, while many “reformers” disagree among themselves as to what is in need of reforming. And these terms are entirely subjective: if Jeremy Green had been writing the post instead of Marty, the terms might be “good guys” instead of “tories” and “bad people” instead of “reformers.” >Complete Articles
There are several problems with a two-party approach to convention controversies. First, there are many Southern Baptists who do not fall neatly into either category, including a number of well-known SBC leaders. Let me use myself as an example (not as a well-known leader, but as someone who is not part of either perceived party). On Marty’s blog post referenced above, there is an exchange between Marty and SWBTS professor Malcolm Yarnell. Now I have talked to both of these men before, both in person and via email. On the one hand, I am in substantial agreement with Dr. Yarnell in matters of ecclesiology, over against Marty. On the other hand, I think that the SBC is in need of some significant reform, which would put me closer to Marty than probably Dr. Yarnell (though Marty and I disagree some about the specifics). So where does that leave me? Where does it leave (I believe) most younger Southern Baptists?
Second, descriptive terms are necessarily limited. “Tories,” while clever, carries a very negative connotation and is inherently political. “Reformers,” meanwhile, has the air of progress to it. The problem is that I doubt most “tories” are in it for the politics, while many “reformers” disagree among themselves as to what is in need of reforming. And these terms are entirely subjective: if Jeremy Green had been writing the post instead of Marty, the terms might be “good guys” instead of “tories” and “bad people” instead of “reformers.” >Complete Articles
Faith of our Father Spotlight: 4 Sons Say Happy Birthday to Danny Akin
Today is Danny Akin's 50th Birthday. Many people around the SBC know Danny Akin and his ministry. They know him as President of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary.They know him as a teacher and theologian. They know him as a faithful expositor of God's Word. They know him as someone with a warm heart for the nations and evangelism. But there are only 4 men who have the privilege of knowing Danny Akin as father, and those are his sons: Nathan, Jonathan, Paul, and Timothy. On his 50th birthday, his sons would like to honor him by telling how he has impacted their lives. The "Faith of our Father" spotlight for January will be on the life and ministry of Danny Akin, beginning with the reflections of his 4 sons.
I am shocked that my Father has lived a half-century. There is no man I admire more than my father. It has been a wonderful privilege to grow up under the instruction and leadership of Danny Akin. Having known so many people who came out of broken homes, I count my many blessings for the guidance and love shown by my father. My father has also provided spiritual direction. He has throughout our lives stressed the importance of being totally devoted to our Lord and Savior. I am immensely grateful for my father introducing me to my Lord.
I remember one time riding with my dad in the car and asking him what sort of job would please Jesus Christ, and my dad told me there were many, but that the key was to be willing to do anything that the Lord requests of us. My Dad made the statement "I'd sweep the streets for Jesus." This statement has stuck with me for many years, and I think that it correctly encapsulates in a phrase what I have learned above all else from my father. I love him as a preacher, I love him as a teacher, I love him as a father, but above all I am proud to say that My Dad is a man of God, a man committed and submitted to our Lord Jesus Christ. As I move past a quarter-century of living I pray that I will emulate my father as he emulates Christ. I hope that if I am ever blessed with a son that I will be able to raise him to be a man like his grandfather. Happy Birthday dad. I love you. Nathan Akin >Complete Article
Darwinian Meltdown Over Intelligent Design
By J. Richard Pearcey
Feb. 21, 2006 -- High profile atheists and evolutionists Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins “are absolute disasters in the fight against intelligent design.” So says equally high profile skeptic Michael Ruse, philosophy professor at Florida State University, in a letter published February 20 at Uncommon Descent, the weblog of William Dembski, one of the leaders of the intelligent design movement.
“We are losing this battle,” Ruse flatly asserts in the letter to Dennett, a professor of philosophy at Tufts University.
Why does Ruse say that Dennett and Dawkins, an Oxford professor, are doing more harm than good “in the fight against intelligent design”? Because, in his view, they are atheist reactionaries: “What we need is not knee-jerk atheism,” says Ruse, “but serious grappling with the issues.”
“Neither of you are willing to study Christianity seriously and to engage with the ideas,” Ruse charges.
For example, referring to Dawkins, Ruse writes: “It is just plain silly and grotesquely immoral to claim that Christianity is simply a force for evil, as Richard claims.” The reference is to “The Root of All Evil?”, a two-part television series in which Dawkins appears, which aired last month (January 2006) on the Channel 4 network in the UK. In the second episode, “The Virus of Faith,” Dawkins says teaching children about religion is a form of child abuse: “It’s time to question the abuse of childhood innocence with superstitious ideas of hellfire and damnation.”
Dennett is author of Freedom Evolves and Darwin’s Dangerous Idea. His latest book is titled Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon. Dawkins’ books include The Selfish Gene and The Blind Watchmaker. Article
Feb. 21, 2006 -- High profile atheists and evolutionists Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins “are absolute disasters in the fight against intelligent design.” So says equally high profile skeptic Michael Ruse, philosophy professor at Florida State University, in a letter published February 20 at Uncommon Descent, the weblog of William Dembski, one of the leaders of the intelligent design movement.
“We are losing this battle,” Ruse flatly asserts in the letter to Dennett, a professor of philosophy at Tufts University.
Why does Ruse say that Dennett and Dawkins, an Oxford professor, are doing more harm than good “in the fight against intelligent design”? Because, in his view, they are atheist reactionaries: “What we need is not knee-jerk atheism,” says Ruse, “but serious grappling with the issues.”
“Neither of you are willing to study Christianity seriously and to engage with the ideas,” Ruse charges.
For example, referring to Dawkins, Ruse writes: “It is just plain silly and grotesquely immoral to claim that Christianity is simply a force for evil, as Richard claims.” The reference is to “The Root of All Evil?”, a two-part television series in which Dawkins appears, which aired last month (January 2006) on the Channel 4 network in the UK. In the second episode, “The Virus of Faith,” Dawkins says teaching children about religion is a form of child abuse: “It’s time to question the abuse of childhood innocence with superstitious ideas of hellfire and damnation.”
Dennett is author of Freedom Evolves and Darwin’s Dangerous Idea. His latest book is titled Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon. Dawkins’ books include The Selfish Gene and The Blind Watchmaker. Article
Anti-Christian’ Law Introduced in India, Fears of Persecution Rise
From Christian Today
An “anti-Christian” law has recently been legalised in Himachal Pradesh, a mountainous state in the north of India. Missionaries, church leaders and devoted Christians now fear imminent persecution under the law. Lawmakers in Himachal Pradesh had introduced the law, which bans “forced” religious conversions. Under the legislation, any person or persons found to “force” or “induce” someone to change his or her religion could be liable for punishment.
Following the implementation of the legislation, there are now concerns over the loose interpretation that could be applied to the law, and particularly that missionaries and Christians in the state, who were preaching the gospel, will now be targeted for persecution, BosNewLife has reported.A major advocacy group in India, the Global Council of Indian Christians (GCIC), said that it was worried that the law could be used “to appease radical Hindus at the expense of the Christian community”, according to the BosNewsLife.Evangelical Christians had debated that "forced conversions" are against the teachings of the Bible, as each individual is given the freedom to accept or reject Jesus Christ.
The population of Himachal Pradesh is about six million people, with over 90 per cent of them bring Hindu, according to the 2001 India Census.
An “anti-Christian” law has recently been legalised in Himachal Pradesh, a mountainous state in the north of India. Missionaries, church leaders and devoted Christians now fear imminent persecution under the law. Lawmakers in Himachal Pradesh had introduced the law, which bans “forced” religious conversions. Under the legislation, any person or persons found to “force” or “induce” someone to change his or her religion could be liable for punishment.
Following the implementation of the legislation, there are now concerns over the loose interpretation that could be applied to the law, and particularly that missionaries and Christians in the state, who were preaching the gospel, will now be targeted for persecution, BosNewLife has reported.A major advocacy group in India, the Global Council of Indian Christians (GCIC), said that it was worried that the law could be used “to appease radical Hindus at the expense of the Christian community”, according to the BosNewsLife.Evangelical Christians had debated that "forced conversions" are against the teachings of the Bible, as each individual is given the freedom to accept or reject Jesus Christ.
The population of Himachal Pradesh is about six million people, with over 90 per cent of them bring Hindu, according to the 2001 India Census.
Monday, January 1, 2007
Read Wade Burleson's 2007 Predictions
Grace and Truth to You
Wade Burleson
Predictions for a New Year
I am neither a prophet, nor the son of one, but I thought I might like to give a few New Year’s Day predictions. I looked back at what I wrote last year at this time and find the posts to be as relevant today as they were then. It will be interesting to look back a year from now and see how close I was to hitting the mark on the predictions. After my predictions, I am sharing with you an email sent to me by a fellow Southern Baptist that I believe many of you will enjoy. >Full Article
Wade Burleson
Predictions for a New Year
I am neither a prophet, nor the son of one, but I thought I might like to give a few New Year’s Day predictions. I looked back at what I wrote last year at this time and find the posts to be as relevant today as they were then. It will be interesting to look back a year from now and see how close I was to hitting the mark on the predictions. After my predictions, I am sharing with you an email sent to me by a fellow Southern Baptist that I believe many of you will enjoy. >Full Article
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
