Sunday, December 23, 2007

Calvin on Where Knowledge Starts

Just in case anyone wants to wrestle with epistemology over the Christmas break, you might want to start here, to see that good theology does not rest on either classic foundationalism (a view that bases knowledge on human rationalism), nor is it the uncertainty of post-modernism. In fact, good theology has always been considered as hostile to modernism and its rationalism as it is to postmodernism and its lack of certainty (HT: Pyromaniacs)

Saturday, December 22, 2007

Embarrassing, but fun!

I just took this test and here is how I scored







Take the Sci fi sounds quiz I received 56 credits on
The Sci Fi Sounds Quiz

How much of a Sci-Fi geek are you?
Take the Sci-Fi Movie Quizdigital camera ratings

Saturday, December 15, 2007

I Think I Want This Book!


I have always appreciated Jonathan Edwards' contributions to theological thought. His Religious Affections is one of the best books on the nature of revival written. His Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God is an amazing sermon. His brilliant intellect is widely acclaimed by believers and unbelievers alike. Now, I read in the Desiring God blog of a new book containing Edwards' essay on the Divine decree. I'll reproduce one quote below that Piper offered, that should make us all just stop and think a bit.

It is a proper and excellent thing for infinite glory to shine forth; and for the same reason, it is proper that the shining forth of God’s glory should be complete; that is, that all parts of his glory should shine forth, that every beauty should be proportionably effulgent, that the beholder may have a proper notion of God. It is not proper that one glory should be exceedingly manifested, and another not at all; for then the effulgence would not answer the reality. For the same reason it is not proper that one should be manifested exceedingly, and another but very little. It is highly proper that the effulgent glory of God should answer his real excellency; that the splendour should be answerable to the real and essential glory, for the same reason that it is proper and excellent for God to glorify himself at all. Thus it is necessary, that God’s awful majesty, his authority and dreadful greatness, justice, and holiness, should be manifested. But this could not be, unless sin and punishment had been decreed; so that the shining forth of God’s glory would be very imperfect, both because these parts of divine glory would not shine forth as the others do, and also the glory of his goodness, love, and holiness would be faint without them; nay, they could scarcely shine forth at all. If it were not right that God should decree and permit and punish sin, there could be no manifestation of God’s holiness in hatred of sin, or in showing any preference, in his providence, of godliness before it. There would be no manifestation of God’s grace or true goodness, if there was no sin to be pardoned, no misery to be saved from. How much happiness soever he bestowed, his goodness would not be so much prized and admired, and the sense of it not so great, as we have elsewhere shown. We little consider how much the sense of good is heightened by the sense of evil, both moral and natural. And as it is necessary that there should be evil, because the display of the glory of God could not but be imperfect and incomplete without it, so evil is necessary, in order to the highest happiness of the creature, and the completeness of that communication of God, for which he made the world; because the creature’s happiness consists in the knowledge of God, and sense of his love. And if the knowledge of him be imperfect, the happiness of the creature must be proportionably imperfect; and the happiness of the creature would be imperfect upon another account also; for, as we have said, the sense of good is comparatively dull and flat, without the knowledge of evil.

There is more--you can see Piper shares another quote here that is just as good. I want this book!

Monday, December 03, 2007

Holy Land Highlights

I said last week I would mention some of the highlights of my recent trip to Israel. It is difficult to do this, since there were so many remarkable moments. While I've made five previous trips, it has been a number of years since I was last able to go, and much has changed, both politically and in terms of touring. Let me mention just a few of my impressions (left: the family at the lower springs in En Gedi, where David fled from Saul)


1. Archaeological digs have expanded and are more accessible than ever. Wandering through Caesarea, Bethsaida, and the City of David (to name just three) was thrilling, in part to see all that has been done in the last few years. The ever changing and expanding amount of evidence for Israel's biblical history gets more convincing by the day. Just this weekend, the workers at the City of David (the original Jerusalem which is now outside the city walls) announced they believe they have uncovered the city wall of Nehemiah's time. I may have even seen them working on it while we were there. Now I will have to go back just to be sure!


2. These ruins continue to verify the already trustworthy history of Scripture. As I said over and over again, archaeology proves to be the Bible's friend, unless it is twisted in the hands of those who have a bias toward disbelief (i.e., biblical minimalists in archaeology, who seek to ignore and denigrate any attempt to link discoveries with biblical accounts).


3. Traveling in Israel is safe. I don't know how many other ways to say it, but we were always at ease, and could walk about at night without any fear whatsoever.


4. Our guide was a brilliant host. I've used David Beradt before, and he continues to be my top choice as an Israeli guide.


5. The touring experience was delightful. Thanks go to our driver, Udi, and both Inbar Tourism in Israel (thank you, Yair, especially for all of your good choices for us) and Imagine Travel and Rick Ricart here in the U.S. Our hotels, bus, and meals were all top notch.


6. Being on the Sea of Galilee just after a rainstorm is a memorable experience, and while we didn't calm the storm, it was a picturesque moment nonetheless. Even more powerful were the times like this one where we could stop and think about the significance of the events that took place in the vicinity as we traveled through. We were not looking to prove anything to ourselves; rather, we were wanting to let the reality of what we have already believed come home to us in clearer ways. It is one thing to read about a place, but another to read about it while you are there, and see all the geographic connections, the historical significance, and cultural markers in the passage that you might miss otherwise.

7. I continue to agree that the weight of historical evidence points toward the location of the Lord Jesus' death and burial being at The Church of the Holy Sepulchre. It was a burial ground outside the walls of Jerusalem at the time of Christ. It has been venerated at least since the time of Helena's visit to the Holy Land in the early 4th century. BUT, I still hold out hope (a wish perhaps) that it is really the Garden Tomb, where a skull hill is still visible and the rolling stone tomb from the 1st century fits the bill (and the incense free natural state of the site is much more appealing to a low church evangelical like me). Helena was not infallible, and since I think she missed it totally on the identity of Mt. Sinai, she may have missed it here, too!

8. It was awesome to visit Warren's Shaft in the City of David, and to consider the possibility that this was Joab's route to conquering Jerusalem for David, as recorded in 2 Samuel. Hezekiah's Tunnel, and an older Canaanite tunnel were also there. We went through the Canaanite tunnel, having to save Hezekiah's for a time when it is warmer and we can stay longer!

9. Anyone who can spend a week in Israel seeing all we saw and how truth springs from the pages of Scripture as you visit the land must be a truly hard hearted skeptic indeed.

Saturday, December 01, 2007

Israeli says elusive biblical wall found

This article is of great interest to me since I was just at this site last week. And to think that some people don't know that archaeology (as all good science) is the Bible's friend!

Thursday, November 29, 2007

Briton Convicted in Sudan Blasphemy Case

Today's news just doesn't let up with strange stories, like this one.

Another Reason Peace in the Middle East is not on the Horizon

In case we might think another peace conference has made a difference, read Daniel Pipe's column in the Jerusalem Post to see that Israel's negotiating partners all stumble over the thought of accepting Israel as a Jewish state. There are no surprises, but a good dose of reality nonetheless.

Scientists Turn Human Skin Cells Into Stem Cells

This news, reported by various sources, including this article, is a stunningly important development in the whole realm of stem cell research and cloning. It means that embryos are not the only source of stem cell material. The research is so promising that Dr. Ian Wilmut, the famous embryologist who cloned Dolly the sheep and started the whole cloning frenzy, has announced that he has given up using embryonic cells and is following the lead of the researchers from Japan (and other places) who have shown the promise of non-embryonic cells in creating stem cells.

In short, there is another way to gain stem cell material for research into cures for disease and help for the injured, and it is a way that avoids the harvesting of embryos for experimentation.

UPDATE (12/1/07)
This commentary in the Washington Post by Charles Krauthammer reminds us that the President's choice to oppose continued embryonic stem cell research has been scientifically vindicated, as well as having been the morally correct position to take.

Wednesday, November 28, 2007

Just Back from Israel, With Thoughts about Middle East Peace

I just returned from leading a group of 43 of us around Israel on a 10 day trip. It was an amazing time, and for me, it marked a return I have wanted to make since my last trip 8 years ago (this was my sixth trip to the Holy Land). Much has changed--archaeological sites have been expanded, roads are improved, and tourism is rapidly growing again. Much, however, remains the same, from the inspiring sites and vistas to the sense that one is walking through both history and prophecy. I'll post later about the many highlights of the trip.

Because of friendships with Christian brothers and sisters in both Israel and the Palestinian territories, I have great sympathy and concern for the people of this region, and great interest in both the current situation and potential developments in the future. I did not find much to make me encouraged about the near term.

Politics made visiting Palestinian areas problematic. Israeli guides and drivers are not allowed to go there, apparently by order of their government. They speak as if it is unsafe to go there; not for tourists, only the Israelis, according to them. Our time in Bethlehem felt as safe as any place else, although some of our women did not enjoy the more boisterous attentions of the many male street vendors and loiterers around the Church of the Nativity.

Conversations with people with insider knowledge paint a bleak picture of life for the Christian Arab population in Bethlehem, which continues to shrink. It appears that many of them would wish Bethlehem was a part of Israel rather than the territories, but that is not likely with the majority Muslim Arabs in control of the town and the region. Frankly, life for all the Arabs in the West Bank is much worse economically and politically than that of Arab Israelis. The Palestinian government of Mahmoud Abbas in the West Bank is seen as powerless, and many said that the only reason Hamas is not taking over is the Israeli presence in the region, as well as U.S. efforts to prop him up. Gaza is seething with unrest and barbaric treatment of its residents at the hands of the radical Hamas militia. Don't be surprised to see the PLO lose its grip in the West Bank completely if Israel withdraws as they did from Gaza. Israel should learn from both the Gaza result and their previous unilateral withdrawal from Lebanon that pulling out when there is no one to move in (as Egypt was able to do when it returned to the Sinai) is a disastrous strategy.

Israelis long for peace as few of us can imagine. They are discouraged by the caliber of their political leaders. Prime Minister Olmert is surrounded by scandals. The left wing Labor party's main leaders are people whose records of past failure do not comfort, and the rise of Netanyahu on the right is polarizing to many who remember his scandals and (some say) abrasive ways. One person told me they long for someone with character and vision to lead. Many would give more land, and probably part of Jerusalem itself, if they could be sure that it would lead to lasting peace and security. Such assurance is not, however, available, nor is it likely to be in the future.

Joel Rosenberg's post today, entitled After Annapolis: what now for Arab-Israeli peace? is an insightful evaluation of the recent Annapolis meetings and their potential results. Using "insightful" to describe Rosenberg is almost tautological, as his recent fiction about the Middle East over the last few years has been prescient on many levels. His non fiction best seller, Epicenter, is an excellent analysis of prophetic content related to this region's future. Today's post makes the following points:
1. Sacrificing land for peace is not likely a fruitful strategy.
2. Giving up any part of Jerusalem will not be seen as operating from strength but from fear or weakness, and will only embolden the radicals who will not stop until all of Israel is in their grasp.
3. Russia's Vladimir Putin is inserting himself into this situation with his own conference, and Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is calling for a conference as well of those who wish to see Israel destroyed. Since Russia and Iran are moving closer, as Rosenberg has already documented, this only makes the plausibility of prophetic events being on the horizon more clear.

Friday, November 02, 2007

How To Vote

Sometimes I get accused of being too partisan by some of my friends whose political ideology is far from my own. I admit, looking at my voting record may leave people with the thought that I am as committed a Republican as could be. My votes, however, are not simply a matter of party loyalty. Had I been alive in the early 1800s or the late 1800s, it is very possible my votes would have been overwhelmingly Democratic. I have voted for Democrats at times in my life (the gasp you just heard are my conservative friends who cannot believe that such a thing could have happened). Let me share two principles that drive my voting preferences.

I am an American Christian. The noun in that descriptor is "Christian." This is my first loyalty. I will vote for candidates who I believe will most likely promote values and morals through the crafting of policies that are compatible with Christian teaching. Thus, I am not in favor of those whose "law and order" campaigns simply create mandatory sentencing and offer no opportunity for either common sense or consideration of special circumstances to judges and juries. Neither do I favor candidates that promote greater governmental dependency through welfare type programs that discourage people from working at lower paying jobs because the aid they receive would be a better paycheck. The Bible says that those who will not work should not be fed by those who do. Work is part of what humans were created to do. To diminish or discourage work is to diminish humanity. I value human life, therefore I vote for candidates more likely to limit or end abortion, and in protecting innocent life favor capital punishment for those who murder.

Now it is possible that there could be a Christian running for office against a non-Christian, and the Christian's politics may not be, in my view consistent with biblical standards, ethics, morals, or economics. If the non-Christian is closely aligned with those principles, I will vote for the non-Christian, since I am choosing one who will shape society, not who I like or feel closer to.

May I also say, some issues must then trump others. If my choice is between a prolife and a proabortion candidate for the State Legislature (where abortion laws can be effective), and the proabortion candidate happens to belong to a more conservative party and lower my taxes, while the prolifer is the opposite, I would vote, in almost every case for the prolife candidate. My taxes will go up or down (usually up, right?), but sanctity of life is an eternal question.

Finally here, character does count. I want to vote for candidates who have integrity, honesty, and loyalty. Current conditions at every level of politics show me that this is sometimes hard to find or determine. Don't be fooled by rhetoric, or sadly, someone claiming to be a Christian. "You will know them by their fruits" is a good piece of advice in politics as well as the weightier issues of salvation.

I am a political pragmatist. "What works" is not a good measure of morality. However, it is the reality of politics. No politician and no government will ever be perfect. In our system, we will never get 100% of what we want. Some would say, "stick to your absolute position, no matter what." In some cases, that may be possible. However, it may be better to compromise to get half of what you want rather than refuse and get nothing. For example. Some abortion opponents refuse to accept any legislation other than a ban. I would say that if we could pass a law in the U.S. banning all third trimester abortions, but allowing them in the first two trimesters, we should do it. Then, when that is in place, you can work on the second trimester, and then the first--we may not get them all, but wouldn't saving some babies be better than saving none while we stayed true to our belief in a total ban?

Similarly, some have said that they would never vote for a pro-choice candidate (read "Giuliani" this year), but would vote third party in a Presidential election instead. I cannot agree that this would be wise or good. First, no third party candidacy ever has won the Presidency, so you are choosing to lose. Second, a third party candidate winning 10% or more of the vote would give the election to one of the other two candidates, and in this particular season, that would mean a candidate much more likely to choose judges who would uphold abortion rights and strike down any attempts to limit it. So, the people who are protesting would then be accomplishing the very worst thing for their cause. Similarly, if "peace" advocates were to decide that their major party candidate (read "Hillary" this year) was not strong enough on immediate withdrawal from Iraq and all voted for the Green Party candidate, the net effect would be to guarantee a victory for the other side.

Applying these principles does not guarantee we will all vote alike. But it will mean we will all have voted purposely and honorably before God and our fellow citizens.

There is more I could say, but I'll stop there.

"Co-ed Combat and Cultural Cowardice"

This is a great article by John Piper at his Desiring God blog (the article also appears in World Magazine), and says what too few would have the courage to say today. No wonder I like his writing, and preaching, so much!

Thursday, November 01, 2007

Politics...Big and Little

It is a very political time of year, with a few months before the Iowa caucuses nationally, and a few days until our local elections. I've always followed political matters, so of course I have opinions. Here are a few.

Nationally...
I am amazed that so many people seem to be convinced that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee. I mean, this woman has so little charm and so little political charisma, and so little to say of substance that I find it hard to fathom that this is seen as the best hope for America from the Democratic Party. If you listened to (or read transcripts) of the most recent debate, she was terrible--never answering a question and not doing a very good job of hiding that fact. Negatives in the high 40% range mean that she has a nearly Herculean task of persuading people not to dislike her. And I would think nothing would bring out the opposition quite like her name at the top of a ticket. No matter who her running mate might be, she will bring the wrong kind of attention to her campaign. UPDATE: GO HERE FOR A DEVASTATING CLIP PUT TOGETHER BY THE EDWARDS CAMPAIGN OF THE DEBATE

The only other Democrat polling in the same zip code is Barack Obama (yes, I know that Edwards leads or is close in Iowa, but no one seems to think he has a shot nationally). Obama is much more likable, much more intriguing, but it kind of scares me that someone on the national scene for all of two years is making a serious run for the presidency. Of course, some might argue that another Illinoisan (is that the right word) came from relative obscurity, having only held a seat in the House in national government before becoming President, but Senator Obama, you're no Abraham Lincoln. In fact, it is hard to distinguish Obama on paper from any run of the mill left (some say far left) of center Senator. People see him as a "new" kind of politician, but reading his positions one finds much that is not only old, but outdated. The only "new" aspect is the messenger, and I admit he is an appealing spokesman for what are, to me, unpalatable views.

The Republicans have a declared "top four," that I think should be five, or else a different fourth place. Rudy Giuliani is leading nationally, but disturbs many of us with his less than conservative credentials. He's (as I read in an interesting column) pro-choice but anti-abortion, meaning he says he'll select the kind of judges pro-lifers would want, but would not act to make abortion illegal. He's favored gun control and civil unions for homosexuals, and before 9/11, he didn't have much that would have moved him forward. Now he does, thanks to his image as a leader in crisis, added to an impressive resume of cleaning up New York City--once thought ungovernable.

Mitt Romney would be a much more palatable conservative candidate, if he just didn't belong to a religion that has, in its past or present doctrines, advocated polygamy, stated that black-skinned peoples were cursed in their pre-existent state, that Jesus and Satan are spirit brothers, that God has a wife, and that special underwear gives you spiritual protection. It is hard for me to take seriously his intellectual gravitas because of that--I know some would say exactly the same about a Bible-believing Christian. But at least orthodox Christianity can go back further than Joe Smith in western New York. His relatively recent "conversion" to pro-life and anti-homosexual marriage/civil unions positions may be genuine, but they certainly were convenient.

I was intrigued when Fred Thompson entered the fray, and quite honestly hoped he would prove to be of the mold of Ronald Reagan. There have been a few moments when he seemed close, but generally he has been uninspiring, and while I have little trouble considering voting for him, I do not see him catching fire. Maybe I'll be wrong on that front. I wouldn't mind. If he is close to Reagan on most days, then that would be good enough for me.

My number 4 in the race is not John McCain, whom I admire for his service but do not understand as a politician. He seems to enjoy antagonizing people who would be his normal supporters, and his most noteworthy (or at least nameworthy) achievement, the McCain-Feingold bill, has led to incredibly more complex cheating in the funding of national campaigns. No, my number 4 is hard to peg conservative former governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee. I don't like all his positions, but I like most of them, and hardest for me to discount, I really like him. And not just because he is a Baptist preacher (or at least was). I don't even know if we would agree on church stuff. But he has administrative talent and likeability, and expresses himself well on every issue, even his mistakes. He's not real high in the polls, but he may surprise us all. I'm not endorsing, but I am impressed.

Locally...
Our village and township are electing all sorts of local officials. I'm outside the village, so my personal endorsement of Jim Phipps for re-election as Mayor carries even less weight. What I find interesting is all the signs--per capita more than I've seen in most elections everywhere else I have lived. We'll see next week if signage translated into votes, because some people seem to have gone all out on that front. I'm bothered though, that local politics gets dirty just like national campaigns. People have been defacing or damaging signs. In one contest, I've been told that one camp has started rumors about one opponent's status and another's fitness. If it's true, it wouldn't surprise me, and I've only been in town a few years. Ah well, sinners and saints are to be found in little villages and big cities, and everywhere in between. I know who I'm voting for in the races in which I cast a ballot. I hope everyone who has this opportunity uses it, and does so wisely!

Wednesday, October 31, 2007

The Faith of America's Founders

Dr. Gregg Frazer, a friend and faculty member at The Master's College, is a top rate scholar on American history (and I don't even agree with him on a number of points). He wrote his 440 page dissertation on "The Religious Faith of America's Founders," and he reduced it to a chapel message at The Master's College. I listened to it on my IPod, and found it a great presentation of a controversial position among evangelical Christians. It is available on ITunes under Chapel @TMC. Find the title I just gave, listen, and enjoy. Bottom line--if you think you KNOW that they were or were not Christians, you should listen.

Sunday, October 21, 2007

Outing Dumbledore...


As you may have read here, author J. K. Rowling announced this weekend that Dumbledore, the preeminent wizard in her Harry Potter series, is gay. Now, before we go too far down this path, let me make a few disclaimers...

1. I read every Harry Potter book, out loud--the first few with all three kids and wife and home, the last ones just to my son.

2. I enjoyed them as literature, and am not a part of the thinking that they are "of the Devil" because they use magic and wizardry (spells, potions, etc.), any more than fairy tales that had witches or magic were of the Devil.

3. Ms. Rowling's literary feat is to be commended, and will most likely last for quite some time.


That said, she has fallen under the sway of the majority's view that being "gay" is about who you are, not what you do. She never wrote one word in any of the seven books that gives evidence that Dumbledore engaged in any "gay" behavior, nor did he ever express any romantic words to anyone, male or female. He was in turn noble, kind, sometimes inscrutable, wise, fallible, taciturn, loyal, and methodically slow. He expressed rage, confusion, pain, equanimity, love, and a whole range of other emotions. He was never romantic. Neither were any of the other teachers at Hogwarts (anybody remember Professor McGonagall swooning for anyone?). She may have intended to create him as "gay," but what was written didn't make him gay. In the linked article, she tries to say that Dumbledore's delay in fighting his nemesis was due to the love they had shared as younger wizards. To which I say, this looks like Ms. Rowling's attempt to score more points after finishing her work rather than being true to her original ideas about giving children meaningful literature. She knew that if she had written anything along the lines she is now proclaiming, it would have upset more than a few loyal fans--and I'm not talking just about Christian opposition, since she has already acknowledged that she has turned some of them off and doesn't care.


Ms. Rowling, you are a wonderful author of a marvelous set of books. Leave well enough alone. We don't need authorial suggestion beyond authorial manuscript. We'll stick with what you actually wrote.

Friday, October 12, 2007

Children of the "Unequally Yoked"

I just read this article containing results of an interesting study of children where one parent is a religious believer and the other is not. The results are interesting: no major difference when it comes to self esteem as opposed to peers, but higher likelihood of marijuana use and underage drinking. Hmm... you might want to read the whole story.

Tuesday, October 09, 2007

Piper on Wright and the New Perspective's view of Justification

If you have heard that there is a controversy among evangelicals on justification, good for you. If you haven't; well, there is. Part of it has to do with what gets emphasized in salvation. But another part is definitional, and as John Piper points out in this discussion (and those linked to it), one of the leading spokesman's views on the gospel remove justification as an element of it. Piper's discussion is brief (you can also here the audio if you go here), but gives a wonderful summary of just what is going on.

Thursday, September 27, 2007

More on the Ancient Future Community Conference

OK, since I picked at Scot McKnight's session (part of it, not the whole thing, mind you), I should report that the rest of the conference today was a great time of learning and challenge, without the same feeling I got in the first session. Bill Donahue and Henry Cloud did a good job summarizing some of their principles of group leader and participant training, and in two breakout sessions this afternoon, issues related to spiritual formation and maturity in small group ministry were addressed by Scott Vaudrey and Rex Minor. These sessions were not only well done, but the clear passion and expertise of the presenters gave me much to consider and to take with me. A great day of learning!

Scot McKnight--Recovering Community

I'm attending the Willow Creek Conference on small group ministry, titled the "Ancient Future Community." Scot McKnight, professor at North Park University, gave the opening session entitled "Recovering Community." Author of the best selling "Jesus Creed," he had some really excellent points to make about the need for group life to be focused on the creation of and living in the presence of Jesus among us. As might be expected, he is an excellent communicator, and his opening story of the blue parakeet was the metaphor that was used throughout the message effectively. The story: as a birdwatcher, McKnight once observed what happened when the sparrows in his yard were joined by an escaped blue parakeet. At first, the sparrows didn't recognize it was a bird, and fled whenever it approached. Eventually they began to see that it was a bird, and within an hour or two, wherever the parakeet went, the sparrows followed. His point: we (spiritual leaders of people) need to be those who help sparrows see and accept blue parakeets as fellow birds. I'm not telling it well at all, but the idea of accepting those who don't seem to fit into our spiritual sphere was the thrust.

Best concept: Our ability to accept others ("table fellowship" in Jesus' time) often breaks down along purity lines. The Pharisees attitude was, "We're clean, and if you are clean, then you can eat with us." The driving question was "Are you clean?" Jesus' attitude was, "Come and eat with me no matter what, and the fellowship can cleanse you." Jesus' driving question was "Are you hungry?"

As you can see from my links list, I have read his blog with interest, in large part because so many see him as a representative of the "good" end of emergent thinking. Overall, there was not much about his presentation today that sounded uniquely "emergent." One bone I would pick, though, was his use of a few illustrations that seemed to undermine any sense that convictions on any issues was a good thing. Twice, he expressed what he identified as difficult situations or questions where answers or understanding seem beyond easy response. One was a girl struggling with whether or not to drive her friend to an abortion clinic, after not being able to dissuade her from pursuing abortion. The other was wondering why a pastor would struggle with the someone's lesbian friend who loved Jesus. In both cases, I sat there saying, "these are real and messy questions, but there are clear answers to be given in both cases." It almost seemed as if there was a sense that having answers and ministering within community were not compatible.

Were these examples meant to prove messiness or to suggest that we have no clear answers to give? I don't know, and it may be that my antennae are too sensitive about such things, but since there was no opportunity for me to ask that question, I'm left wondering. But I'm grateful to have heard McKnight in person, and was encouraged to think by what he shared.

Wednesday, September 26, 2007

Creative Expression

Clicking on the title should take you to a clever Black Light interpretation of Casting Crowns' song, "I am Yours." I enjoyed it for its artistry, uniqueness, and the fact that a youth group from Norway put it all together. That last fact is one of those little reminders of God at work throughout the world.

Tuesday, September 25, 2007

Mark Driscoll @ SEBTS

Click on the title to listen to his message on the Emergent conversation--keeping in mind that he was once considered one of the "founders" of this movement. This is worth a listen.

Monday, September 24, 2007

An emergent perspective on the gospel that is disconcerting...

Pyromaniacs is a site featuring contributions from a number of people associated with Grace Community Church in LA, pastored by John MacArthur. I do not know these men personally, nor am I saying I agree with everything on the site--I haven't even checked out most of it. But Phil Johnson's post on 24 September, and the links within to other posts present a very disturbing picture of one of the Emergent conversation's recognized "leaders," Doug Pagitt.

Some quick background--a few weeks back, MacArthur and Pagitt were on Headline News to discuss the pros and cons of Christians practicing yoga. MacArthur said the exercises aren't bad, but being joined to Hindu concepts makes them suspect, and he questioned the wisdom of Christians seeking that form of exercise. He further pointed to God's Word as a far better "stress reliever." Pagitt's church offers yoga classes, and he sees no problem with it as a means to the wholeness Jesus would promote. I listened to the program and then to Pagitt's belitting of MacArthur afterward. A listener to the original program emailed Pagitt expressing disappointment with Pagitt's lack of clarity on the Gospel, to which Pagitt replied in an email. That email states, in part,

I must say that I see the gospel totally differently than what you conveyed in your e-mail. I was not converted by a verse but always loved and changed (even ongoing) by a fully-participating God who created me in his image. I would strongly encourage you to have a much more full and biblical understanding of the gospel, and not form a faith based on any interpretation of one verse.I'm not sure you'd be interested in this, but I have just finished a book somewhat on this topic. I think it might give you a more full understanding of the gospel than the one perverted by the likes of John MacArthur. I do not say "perverted" lightly, either. I really think what he communicates is so distant from the message of the Bible that it is dangerously harmful to people. If you heard the interview and his comments about a God who is "above us," I certainly hope you would see this.

I don't know the whole story, and I have a few subjects where I differ with the way John MacArthur expresses his views. However, there has never been any doubt in my mind that his presentation of the gospel is solidly in line with the historic understanding of Scripture. Listening and reading Pagitt's statements leave me cold. Such a characterization of MacArthur is exactly the kind of categorical condemnation that many in the Emergent movement excoriate those holding more traditional, orthodox positions for expressing toward them. The "verse" Pagitt is reacting to is Jeremiah 17:9, which the writer of the email to Pagitt said was instrumental in his conversion.

If these statements by one of Emergent's leading lights represent their thinking, the conversation seems to have lost its way. If I'm missing something, I'd like to know.

Thursday, September 20, 2007

A Bad Day for a Gymnast

Some days are just like this.

VOM is a needed jolt in your day

Voice of the Martyrs is a ministry dedicated to keeping Christians living in freedom mindful of the sufferings of our brothers and sisters around the world. The levels of persecution seem to be increasing. By subscribing to VOM's prayer update, you can be jolted from your complacency every few days, and helped to take such trials as not having your latte hot enough put into perspective.

Wednesday, September 19, 2007

Dealing with cancer stinks...but God is glorious.

I have been overwhelmed of late with the devastation that cancer can wreak in the lives of people I know of and people I love. My mother in law is battling 2 kinds of cancer right now. My neighbor and fellow church member has been fighting one of those same cancers for the last 4 years. The son in law of a family at church, a dad in his 30s, has the choice of a radical surgery that by all accounts is a high risk proposition, vs. settling his affairs and preparing to die and leave his wife and littles ones soon (according to the doctor). And of course there are others, more than I could mention in this post.

Now, I'm a pastor, and I believe in healing. I've prayed for it in many cases, even anointing people with oil in the manner described in James 5. I've prayed for each of these people I've mentioned, and the others besides. And there have been a number of occasions where I have seen what I believe to be a divine healing take place. But I know that any healing here is temporary--we still die, unless we are alive when Jesus comes. I also know that God often chooses not to heal even if we ask hard and ask long. That's not because he is evil or unable. We know this so well from Scripture I won't even debate the point.

It is because he allows our fallenness to be felt.

What I mean by that is this: part of what happened when Adam rebelled against God's rule is that the creation was made to rebel against us. The curse twisted the natural realm and brought death into play. If God answered every prayer for healing, or removed every cause for sorrow, we would never know that this was a fallen world and long for something far better.

Now, I know that God also has higher purposes in play that we may not understand. But I am always a little skeptical when someone tries to say, "God gave you cancer so that you..." We just don't know why God has set in motion the events of this life. So, we can trust him, and know his purposes are wise and good, but we don't always understand him or them.

Mankind also is still to exercise our role as keeper of this earth. We still make it yield fruit and exercise dominion over it. That includes research into diseases that we can try to alleviate or eradicate. Our dominion, however, still labors in a cursed world that won't yield easily or predictably to our attempts to regain control.

I can't make sense of the hurts that come most people's way. I can, however, point them to a beautiful God who promises grace in each moment, and a future that can be infinitely better than any present in which we find ourselves. It has been in walking beside those dealing with hardships, like cancer, that I have often been most aware of the God of all comfort.

Tuesday, September 04, 2007

Stop complaining, or stop calling yourself a Christian!!

I didn't create this title, I just borrowed it from the devotional thought expressed here. Disclaimer: I don't know what else this writer teaches or believes, so don't search his site and hold me responsible for it all. But the quote from Scripture and the prayer that follows express what's on my heart, especially after having to preach about having right attitudes toward my brothers and sisters in the Body. Next week, I preach on the words we should and shouldn't be saying to each other, so this fits there, too!

Wednesday, August 29, 2007

A fool and his (or in this case her) money are soon parted...


Helmsley's dog gets $12 million in will - Yahoo! News

Isn't this sad? Leona Helmsley was a billionaire because she married one who died. She spent time in prison for avoiding taxes she could easily afford, saying at one point, "Only little people pay taxes." She lived lavishly but without many friends. When her son died, she cut off contact with his widow. She cut two grandchildren out of her will, left billions in the control of a charitable trust that will fund whatever its directors decide, and gave her dog $12 million. Two grandkids who are supposed to get $5 million each only receive money if they visit their dead father's grave once a year. Oh, and she left $3 million to be used to steam clean her grave annually. This woman's values were seriously flawed. Of course, they are clarified now, but it's too late on every front.

Tuesday, August 28, 2007

Is there a "Just War" for Christians?

Recently I was asked in an email about a Christian serving as a chaplain in the military, and whether a chaplain could be in the military and be against war--not just the current war. The questions in the email went on to ask about the theory of a "just war." Here is what I said...

Dear......
Thanks for writing. First let me provide a link to a letter written to the President and signed by a number of evangelical leaders outlining the just war theory and how they apply to the current situation:

http://www.answers.com/topic/land-letter-1

Second, let me say that to be a military chaplain and do so with integrity cannot, in my view, be accomplished by a pacifist—that is, by one who rejects armed conflict as a legitimate means of national protection. In order to honestly, spiritually counsel servicemen and women when you believe that the undertaking to which they have committed themselves is immoral, you would have to tell them to resign, refuse to obey combat orders, or desert—none of which you could do and be faithful to your own loyalty to the service.

Third, I believe that a fair reading of the NT will point out a number of key points to help sort this out…
1. Jesus’s command to “turn the other cheek” had to do with personal dealings, not national conflicts. The ethics of the Sermon on the Mount are personal. If governments tried to follow them, they would fail to perform the functions for which God ordained government—namely the protection of societal peace and the punishment of evidoers—see Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-17; see also Prov. 24:21, 31:4-5 (there are many other passages that speak of the duties of human government, including carrying out the death penalty for murder in Genesis 9:6 and as a result of violating the commandment against murder in Exodus 20).
2. Romans 13:1-7 speaks of rulers “bearing the sword.” This refers to government’s legitimate power to punish, up to and including death, those who do evil. It also may infer military power.
3. Never does Jesus or any of the apostles who dealt with Roman soldiers call upon them to give up their career as sinful—in fact the first totally Gentile convert to Jesus was a Roman centurion (see Acts 10 for the story). Neither is there any NT statement repudiating soldiery. It is interesting that Paul even uses being a good soldier as an illustration of our devotion to Christ. He uses lots of illustrations (farmer, runner, boxer, family life) but never one that is morally reprehensible. When John the Baptist counseled soldiers, it was to behave properly, not to quit (see Luke 3)
4. Just war theory is based on this governmental power to protect society and to punish evildoers, and applying it to our dealings with nations.
5. Let me give you an example of how individual Christians fit into this picture. The Bible clearly states that murder is worthy of the death penalty. It is outlined in Genesis 9 and is one of the 10 commandments. Now, some would argue that Jesus teaches forgiveness, so we must forgive. On an individual basis, that is so, but it does not remove the consequences of sin, any more than asking God to forgive you for being promiscuous sexually will automatically remove any physical consequences that might have resulted, from STDs to pregnancy. But let’s assume we have a person in prison who is a serial killer who has raped and murdered children. He is unrepentant, and after conviction has been given the death penalty. You are a prison guard, and are assigned to the execution detail of this prisoner. In fact, you will be the one who actually pulls the switch to start the lethal injection that ends his life. If you do so, are you guilty of murder? The Bible’s answer is a resounding “NO!” First, you are not acting out of personal motives, but as a duly constituted governmental authority ordained by God. Second, the government is acting in obedience to God’s law in passing this judgment. Is this a serious responsibility? Yes. Is it sin? No.
6. Now, apply that principle to dealings between nations. If "Hitler, Jr." emerges in Canada and decides he should own Alaska and invades, should the U.S. protect its citizens, even if that means our military may kill Canada’s invading forces? This certainly fits a biblical definition of governmental authority acting appropriately to protect society. What if "Hitler, Jr.," in Canada, decides all French speakers are to be rounded up and shot? Should our government, which has both the power to intervene and some level of personal concern for innocent life, do anything to prevent the deaths of millions at little U.S. risk (after all it’s Canada we are talking about)? Many would argue that a moral government with means should use them to stop overt evil when such action does not endanger other important governmental responsibilities. This is where application of these principles gets less absolute and clear. The holocaust in Europe during WWII is an example where many nations that claimed "moral standing" refused to act to stop Hitler before he could commit the atrocities he did. U.S. and international refusal to accept Jewish refugees throughout WWII and even after is considered by many the abdication of our moral responsibility.

Well, I haven’t given you an answer, but I hope I have given you some things to think about.

Cal Thomas on Global Warming

My brother sent me this article (link in header) and I would say that I lean toward this view. And I am old enough to remember all the "science" used in the 1970s to prove that we were on our way to a new Ice Age. Follow the link and see if it expresses your concerns.

Can I just say that I LOVE MYRTLE BEACH?

Of course I can say it, because it's my blog. We took a wonderful vacation there this summer, and I'm wishing I was there right about now, watching waves come in and not thinking about a lot of the things that I have to think about. The combination of great beach, wonderful accommodations to be had, golf courses galore, shopping, dining, and entertainment options, and the fact that we can get there in a day have earned it a definite place in our future plans! No, I don't want everyone going there--after all that would make it too crowded. But I can't wait to go back.

Monday, August 27, 2007

Three Sad Stories...

Todd Rhoades' Monday Morning Insight story (linked to header) reports three sad stories from the world of Christian ministry--involving 2 divorces, one report of wife beating, and a disgraced former minister writing support pleas because he can't live on the over $300,000.00 he made in 2006. All in all, it makes for depressing reading--not just because of the stories, but because of the lack of discernment expressed by people who follow some of these high profile "ministries." One of the divorcing couples is doing so amicably so both can pursue their separate ministry agendas. The other divorce involves the wife-beating, with one of the husband's supporters arguing that we can't know the whole truth, only God does (as if that means a man beating up his wife may have grounds to do so).

Sunday, August 05, 2007

Summer Vacation

I've taken a summer hiatus from the blog, and it's not like I've spent an amazing amount of time working on it before the break. But I'm going to be getting back to this a bit more regularly now.

Over the summer...
1. I've visited my daughter in California, and got a chance see her life on her own--a tough experience for a dad, but a good one, too.
2. I've enjoyed a last summer at home with daughter number 2, who heads off to college in Chicago this week. I've been taken aback at just how mature some of her thoughts are (OK, it's not all mature and serious, but she's well on her way).
3. I've been adapting to having a son taller than me, and worse, who is very ready for me to stop treating him like a little kid--most times. I am still adjusting to that.
4. I spoke to families for a week at Camp Patmos, and thoroughly enjoyed the experience of a week on beautiful Lake Erie (growing up in southeast Michigan, Lake Erie was not a place for water recreation, but a polluted soup marked by dead fish--what a change!).
5. we took a family vacation to Myrtle Beach, and loved it. We'll definitely be going back.
6. controversies have swirled around us involving issues big and small at Cedarville University--I've even been alluded to in blogs (only in passing, not a featured role, thankfully).
7. our congregation has continued to bless our family in ways beyond the call of duty, but that leave us feeling loved.
8. I managed to finish the first two chapters of my doctoral project (first draft) and they didn't get rejected. I'm doing some revisions and pressing on.

Much to think about and write about lies ahead, but just wanted to say I'm back and hope your summer has been refreshing!

Monday, May 28, 2007

Anti-Creationists Fear AIG's New Museum

Here you can find summaries from the National Center for Science Education of negative reactions from the scientific establishment toward the Creation Museum being opened today by Ken Ham's "Answers in Genesis" ministry (You can go to the Museum's own site here.

If you read the criticisms, you find them alternating between hysteria and despair. The hysterical part includes claims that those who believe what the museum shows will definitely be lacking in scientific understanding and won't make it through college level science classes. The despair is their acknowledgement that young earth creationists are not limited to the "lunatic fringe" of society--which means a whole lot more people accept creation accounts that diverge from evolution than you would expect when evolution has been taught as the only true science for over 40 years.

Me? I'm planning to visit sometime this summer, and I won't need the museum to convince me that God made the world in six actual, literal days, thousands rather than billions of years ago. But I'll enjoy seeing their representations of it!

Tuesday, May 08, 2007

"The Realignment of America"

This is another fascinating read, by one of the commentators I respect the most in the world of political affairs.

This is right on the mark!

I just read Fred Thompson on National Review Online, and you should, too. Whether or not you think he should run for president, this article should remind people that our world situation in regard to the present conflict in Iraq is not really new.

Twelve Hours in Ministry--Two Lessons in Marriage

Yesterday afternoon, I led a beautiful bride and her handsome groom through the vows and promises that began their life together. It was a simple ceremony but filled with the holy--God's gift of the marriage covenant was being entered into once again by two of his children. The bride and groom were almost emphatic in their recitation of their vows. Their smiles and whispered words at the unity candle were evidence of their joy. They have many hopes and dreams, and while they cannot know all the challenges they will face, they are excited to face them together, and to embark on all that God's plan for them contains. Their lives are full of promise. Congratulations, Kenny and Nikki.

Last night, I led a wife of over 60 years to the hospital bedside of her husband where she struggled to reach his cheek for a final kiss. Unconscious, his occasional twitches were the evidence of the severe brain injury he had suffered that is going to take his life in the next few hours. Barring divine intervention, he will not awake on this earth again. His wife said quietly to us, "What will I do without him?" Partners in a life that knew all the expected joys and sorrows, endured separation during a world war, involved hard work for both, and raised three sons and has seen grand- and great grand children; his impending departure at 89 was still unexpected. But she could still say with a twinkle in her eye, "He was sure a pretty good man to me." Their lives are a promise fulfilled. Well done, Karl and Lois.

Wednesday, May 02, 2007

Some "Ancient Customs" are More Important than Others

I can hardly believe it.

As you may know, the worldwide Anglican communion is seriously divided, with African, Asian, and South American leaders standing for biblical orthodoxy, while the U.S. Episcopal church and its Canadian cousin are the liberal "bad seed," and England's Archbishop of Canterbury is trying to hold everyone together.

Conservative Episcopalians have sought relief from their liberal hierarchy by seeking supervision by bishops of the more conservative branches of Anglicanism. Thus, Archbishop Peter Akinola from Nigeria is coming to America to consecrate the new head of Nigeria's North American branch of its Anglican communion in Virginia.

All of this greatly upsets Archbishop Katharine Schori, presiding bishop of the U.S. Episcopal Church. She complains that such a move violates the "ancient customs" of the church.

Hmmm... let's forget the fact that at 400 years old,the Anglican communion is not all that ancient. It seems like Bishop Schori and the U.S. Episcopal leadership has managed to violate a few other "ancient customs" of Anglicans. Consider the following:
*they reject the exclusivity of salvation through Jesus Christ alone
*there is no longer insistence on belief in heaven, hell, the virgin birth, or the bodily resurrection
*the church allows the ordination of women
*the church allows the ordination of homosexuals
*the church undertook the consecration of a homosexual bishop, who is about to marry his male partner
*the church blesses of same sex unions
*the church does not oppose abortion
*there is no upholding of scriptural authority
*there is no discipline of sinning members, even under the communion's own rules

I guess that some ancient traditions are more important not to offend than others.

See the story here.

Dear Anonymous

To my engaging, anonymous friend... I remain intrigued by your observations, including those of your last, unpublished comment. Thanks for the thoughts and clarifications, and your expressions of concern about CU. You raise excellent and valid points. I have no personal way of responding to your posts to further dialog, and don't necessarily want to have a public discussion when I am somewhat out of the loop on things you may know. I'm also trying to be careful not to disparage or affirm people or institutions without careful thought, especially in "printed" form! So, I'll leave it here for now. I would be glad to email responses, even to an "alias" if discussion is desired.

Thursday, April 26, 2007

Is it "the enemy within," or just "the immature on paper?"

I may be becoming one of those grumpy alums students can't stand...if so, sorry.

OK, full disclosure: I am a former editor (2 and a half years) of the ancestor of the Cedars, C.U.'s student newspaper, back in the late '70s. We were not censored by the University during those days, but expected to censor ourselves. We tried to keep news as news, and offer opinion on an opinion page--we offered lots of opinions, too. We also saw our job to be that of being journalists with a Christian worldview (the concept was popular back then, starting with Dr. Allen Monroe in fall quarter's Foundations of Social Science). Thus, we tried to tell truth, and subject opinion to the "grid" or "lens" of truth. We hated the historic name we were stuck with (does Whispering Cedars sound like hard-hitting journalism to you?)During my years, I am sure that we published our share of rants and less than Pulitzer-quality news stories. The headline "Student Discovers 'Worm Like Object' In Food" still haunts me (I was holding out for "Maggots in the Meat!" but I lost to my co-editor).

That said, I have been increasingly disappointed by what seems to be a lack of biblical foundation in some of the opinion (and yes, some of the "news," too) stories I've seen in the Cedars the past 2 years I've been in town. Weak writing I can expect--people are learning. Points of view that are poorly expressed or weakly supported can fall under the same category. But promoting views that seem to be at odds with a biblical worldview and left unchallenged are bothersome at the very least.

The most recent issue featured an opinion piece in which a student author recounted his dialog with a friend who believes she has been a lesbian all her life ( the article is linked to heading above). She is described without comment as an adult homosexual Christian. Now, aside from the lack of a challenge to that idea, the account continues with this friend's desire to marry and be happy. The writer agrees. Viewpoints pro and con are not really examined, with one of the "weaker" arguments against gay marriage dismissed as silly. The writer's conclusion: America needs to uphold its promise of freedom to be happy for everyone, and we ought not to interfere.

Since this article was paired with another under the heading "Both Sides Matter," I figured that the companion piece would be a counterpoint. I was wrong. Instead, it was a professor's recollection of judging a debate where a gay debater for homosexual marriage identified himself as a friend of Matthew Shepard, the young man brutally murdered a number of years ago in Wyoming. The professor talked about the profound impact this personal contact with this gay man had on her, and caused her to realize the personal nature of this issue. And... that was it. Good thoughts, but no rebuttal. In fact, it could be taken (even if not intended this way) as endorsement. Do both sides of the argument matter? No, apparently only one side does.

Do I know gay people who want to marry? Yes. Are some of them people that I personally care about? Absolutely. Does this have anything to do with the political issues of gay marriage, of constitutional issues, or the relationship between societal norms, legal policy, and morality (i.e., legislating morality is what law is, at some level)? No. Does it address why Christians who uphold biblical authority may oppose gay marriage even while acknowledging Christians' failure to live up to the biblical ideal themselves? No. It doesn't even make an informed case for homosexual marriage. It only aims for feelings about fairness for nice people.

Bottom line--Cedars offered unbalanced opinion coverage supporting gay marriage. No debate, no real facts to consider, just lots of feeling. If this were an isolated case, that would be sad enough. Pair this, though, with the recent "puff" piece on Mel White--it honestly read like an adoring press release. The article offered no examination of the man's past and his agenda, or of the coercive tactics he chooses to seek to embarrass evangelicals in the media. It was left to Dr. Carl Ruby to offer a response, and while the initial story was presented as "news," Dr. Ruby's response was labeled a "viewpoint." In such cases, the paper seems content to be a promotional tool for various and sundry ideas, rather than a journalistic endeavor covering and commenting on the news and events of the campus, the area, and the world.

Without realizing it, I think the Cedars becomes strong evidence of the need for C.U. to establish a journalism program. If C.U. students are to become gatekeepers in society, as is often stated, then they need to know what a newspaper can and should be, and how Christians with developed biblical worldviews can and should report and opine. News coverage needs facts, and opinions need support other than feelings.

My hope is that next year, the Cedars will raise the bar for itself, seeing its mission as being the student newspaper of an institution whose very existence is "for the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ."

Tuesday, April 24, 2007

Not bad for a tombstone...

A few weeks ago I made my second visit to Agra, where I snapped this picture of the Taj Mahal. Most people guess that it is a palace fit for a king. While it is grand, and a king and his queen are there, a palace it isn't.

Actually, the Taj Mahal was a mausoleum, for the favorite wife of Shah Jahan. She made him promise never to remarry, and he didn't. Instead, he spent the next 17 years building this monument in which to lay her body. It is perfectly symmetrical in every detail--except one.

You see, Shah Jahan nearly bankrupted the country building this tribute to his beloved, and when he began construction on the opposite side of the river of an identical "black Taj" that would be his final resting place, his son and crown prince had seen enough. He deposed his father, kept him under house arrest for the rest of his life, and when he died, buried him to the right of his wife's body--making Shah Jahan's resting place the one blot on the otherwise perfect symmetry of the structure and court.

Some consider the Taj Mahal as the greatest tribute to love. But its story is one laced with sorrow and death, the frustration of plans, and family betrayal. Not exactly the fruits of love we want to celebrate.

OK, One Last Word on You Know What

I'm not wanting to beat a dead horse on the Soulforce visit, but I did want to say that it seems like all went as well as C.U. could have hoped, that God answers prayer, that good plans made humbly seeking God's direction were well made and implemented, and that the press seemed to get Cedarville's message just as clearly as they should have. I compare this to the story here and see that Soulforce used Cornerstone's refusal to stage a "media stunt" as the reporter says.

The only question that remains is whether or not there will be fallout from the constituency. Let us pray not.

Thursday, April 19, 2007

Invisibility Cloak Works!

The day is down to its last event, which I cannot attend, but Cedarville has managed to keep the Soulforce visit to C.U.'s desired agenda. I did hear most of a panel discussion in the afternoon, and marveled as C.U.'s presenters and their well reasoned and organized presentations were met with...feelings (whoa oh oh feelings). Every Soulforce member talked about what they felt, how they feel, about every issue. When asked to offer a response to the Scriptures cited by Dr. Chris Miller (go Chris!) about homosexuality, Soulforce's "Christian" spokesman cited a few Scriptures on love and refused to get into a discussion on the cited texts. This was all the more amazing because their sponsor, Mel White, has been in the forefront of offering impressive sounding but ultimately vacuous arguments that seek to gut the words of any normal meaning.

There were quite a few students at the discussion I attended, but more disturbing was the presence of some "out and proud" C.U. alumni. Everyone knows that C.U. has alumni who move away from what the school would believe and hold as true. Nevertheless, it was bizarre hearing one of these alums get up and make the statement that he was there to show you could be a C.U. alum, a Christian, gay, and well-adjusted.

I still don't know if this would have been my choice, but I rejoice to see the immediate results seem positive. I pray that the continuing results will be, as well.

Soulforce's Nearly Invisible Visit

OK, it's near noon, and I've been at C.U. most of the morning, and if I hadn't known where to go for the Q and A session for staff, I don't think I would have known that Soulforce's Equality Ride was present to protest the University's biblical stance concerning homosexuality and gender confusion issues. I've heard of killing with kindness--this kind of looks like smothering with scheduling, and that is a very good thing, in my humble opinion.

The arrival of the group was not met with fanfare, and even their bus is not readily visible on campus. The session I attended was well populated with faculty and staff, and all listened politely as four Soulforce reps shared their perspectives. In answering questions, it became obvious that:
1. They don't have a clue about the true gospel of Jesus. None identified themselves as born again believers.
2. They do believe in diversity and people having their own truths, and as long as yours allow you to affirm me in my beliefs, it's beautiful.
3. They view any rejection as "homophobic." I didn't ask, but should have, is it possible for a person to come to the conclusion that homosexuality is sin and should not be practiced, and also not be homophobic?
4. Any time people on campuses speak kindly to them, apologize for injustices done to them, or give any possible indicator of being willing to talk with them, it is treated as victory, as affirmation, and as support for their encouragement to people to speak out.

Special kudos to Dr. Carl Ruby, whose questions/statements, especially the one raising the question about how love looks between people with strongly held opposing views exposed the weakness in their whole approach. This is not just a "conversation" in their minds where we can agree to disagree. If we keep people from freely expressing in a Christian context, "I am gay," then we are in the wrong, according to their take. And I am NOT saying that just because Carl takes issue with a few of my earlier opinions or examples.

The day isn't over yet, but I am encouraged, and very impressed with how the visit has been handled so far.

Wednesday, April 18, 2007

Stories and Thoughts Emerging in the Light of the Virginia Tech shootings

The murder of 32 students at Virginia Tech is not only a horrific story, but one that prompts a lot of peripheral discussions--some of which are meaningful, some of which are frustrating.

The meaningful category is enhanced by stories of heroism, such as the one concerning the professor who was a Holocaust survivor and who blocked the door against the gunman so that his student's could escape. He lost his life in that act of courage.

Another news story moves to the frustrating--where people try to take this incident and make a case for gun control. Now, I am not a gun owner, but I do believe that the guns here were not the problem. And I also wonder if responsible people who had passed both firearms proficiency tests and appropriate background checks possessed guns on campus, whether some of those who died might be alive.

Nor do I believe that the shooter was necessarily "sick." "Sick" means "ill," which means suffering from a disease. We are not responsible for getting sick. Our culture tries to say that a person who does what most consider "unthinkable" must be ill.

I would offer another option. He may simply be evil. He may have given himself over to patterns of thinking and acting that were totally self-centered, self-focused, and self-aggrandizing. He certainly viewed others' lives as unworthy of protection. He saw no reason to restrain his own desires, impulses, and actions. In short, he represents some of our sinful culture's values carried to extremes. Self-focused living is the sine qua non of today's society, as "what I feel" becomes final arbiter, and advertisers, politicians, and even religious professionals seek to serve the all knowing "I". The killer here was disturbed--I do not debate that. But his "disturbance" may not have found its source in a disease beyond his control, but in the existence of evil in the world and in each human being, and in his choice to indulge that evil.

Of course, my understanding of the Bible leads me to assert that all people are born with this evil at work in their lives--humanity does not start out "good" and then get corrupted. We begin life as what the Bible calls "sinners." I also acknowledge that the only real solution to humanity's sinfulness is the deliverance offered through Jesus Christ's free gift of salvation through his death and resurrection.

So, how is it that not everyone winds up a mass killer, or as some other heinous individual? The Bible speaks of common grace--God's working in his creation to bless it and restrain certain effects of sin for the good of all. Thus, while all are sinners, sinners still can experience God's common grace through law, societal restraints, conscience, etc. But sinners can also make choices to reject all such graces as well as their Source. This would be my brief explanation of why I see such people not as "sick" and needing therapy, but as evil and deserving of the judgment that is entrusted to human authority, up to and including the death penalty.

One more thing. I believe that such evildoers, if they live after their actions, are still not beyond the redeeming grace of God and the free gift of salvation. Since men such as Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer both made what were deemed by those around them to be sincere professions of faith prior to their deaths, this issue has been raised more than once as an objection to God's grace (or to our understanding of it). God's salvation does not negate or set aside human judgments or consequences. But it does mean that all sinners who repent can be forgiven. Rather than object, we should take heart, for that means we and anyone we know is not beyond God's grace.

Thursday, April 12, 2007

God Sightings in India



I returned last week from India (and am feeling fine, thank you) and an incredible time with Christian brothers in Maharashtra state. The work of Grace Bible College was amazing to see, and I was blessed and humbled to be their graduation speaker. The potential they represent was brought home to me when I saw a church plant less than a year old with over 75 present. These young people plan to enter God's service as evangelists, church planters, children's workers, and social workers. And such workers are trained for $30 a month. Interested in helping? Contact me!



While there, I also got to see a children's home being built that will serve up to 100 kids in need of care. The cost? $25 a month. Again, contact me if you would like to help.

What is so amazing to me is the progress in ministry I observed since my last trip there in October of 2005. The growth and multiplication of church plants is genuinely startling for someone whose main ministry is here is the USA. Equally amazing is what can be accomplished by people with so few of the resources we take for granted compared to what we do with what we have. I can't help but be humbled, and wonder what needs to happen to reawaken our faith to the possibility that God may want us to change, to repent, to believe that there are many around us who need to be confronted with the power of the Gospel.

Soulforce's Rocky Road; Cedarville's Lonely Stand

A quick check of Soulforce's website (I won't link to it)shows that the majority of schools visited thus far have refused them access, some even having them arrested. Bob Jones University, Central Bible College, Southern Baptist Seminary, Mississippi College, Baylor, Cornerstone, College of the Cumberlands, Patrick Henry College, and Covenant College all said no or refused Soulforce desired access to the point where there were arrests. Those who have opened their doors (such as Dordt and Montreat) have been theologically to the left (as far as I can tell) of Cedarville U. on other issues, so their openness on this issue isn't as surprising. Covenant College's rejection voiced concerns similar to those I've voiced in earlier posts. It seems that Cedarville is going to stand nearly if not completely alone among the more conservative, biblical schools in giving Soulforce any platform on campus.

And making things more complex, this has already made the media, and I get the impression they will be there recording the event as well next week when the bus arrives. So, Cedarville may well be wrongly portrayed as welcoming not just Soulforce, but "dialog" about whether homosexuality is acceptable.

Finally, some community folk not associated with the college but active in our church have just heard about this and are appalled that the University is giving them a platform. The nuanced arguments that C.U. has made (and as I have said make many good points) are lost on people who have had to help others struggling with homosexual desires, or mourned with families whose children have adopted a homosexual lifestyle, or who see this as false teachers and promoters of sin being given a chance to influence 18 year olds, who are certainly impressionable (as some of their over the top responses to many other subjects they hear about on campus or in media would demonstrate). They wonder how a God honoring institution can say, "We are convinced of our position and see all the dangers of sin, but are inviting spokesmen and advocates for sin to come and present themselves as victims of prejudice and oppression at the hands of Bible believers."

I know that C.U. is doing a lot to prepare the students, and I know that they plan to do all they can to communicate to Soulforce that their position on homosexuality is not negotiable. But will they be able to control the media reports to make sure that this gets out there, and that they are seen as rejecting Soulforce's arguments even as they welcome them to campus? This is not looking encouraging.

Thursday, March 22, 2007

Two Soulforce Updates

First, my friend who forwarded the earlier Sojourners article let me know that APU's "Common Day of Learning" is a big all campus event, and their invitation to Soulforce to participate is a much higher presence than C.U. is planning. That is important to note.


Second, the following is the text of an email to those of us on C.U.'s staff and faculty (I'm adjunct faculty) about the Soulforce visit. It is a good explanation of their perspective in answer to questions raised.

Questions and Answers for March 21:



Q: Why did Cedarville University invite Soulforce to campus?
A: We want to assure you that Cedarville University did not invite Soulforce to come. We informed Soulforce that our position is based on biblical convictions and is not open for change or negotiation. We strongly encouraged them not to come if changing our position was their objective. Despite our request, we were informed by Soulforce that they had included Cedarville on their itinerary. The ride will include stops at 39 other universities as well. Even though it was not our decision for them to come, we intend to use their scheduled protest as an opportunity to present the biblical approach to homosexuality in a clear and loving way.



Q: Why doesn't Cedarville University just ban them from coming?
A: There are four main reasons why Cedarville University prayerfully and carefully chose not to ban Soulforce from campus:

· First, their protest gives us an opportunity to reinforce the importance of being able to present a biblical approach to homosexuality issues. Our prayer is that our students and our entire University family will become better equipped to respond to this critical social issue in truth and love.

· Second, the presence of the protestors will be an opportunity for us to share the gospel in a truthful and loving way.

· Third, logistically it would be virtually impossible to prevent them from coming. Our campus is not a "closed" campus in the sense that we have no walls around us and no gate to shut. If we were to ban Soulforce, they could easily walk onto campus unknown to us in small groups. We prefer to have the opportunity to know where they are at all times and to better manage their interactions.

· Fourth, banning them from campus would allow them to gain additional media attention. We do not want to help them create a media frenzy. We want to make the most of the situation for Christ's glory.



If you'd like to ask a general question about the protest, please e-mail us at discussionpoint@cedarville.edu. We may respond to your question privately or, if several of you have the same question, we may answer it in our weekly e-mail (with your name omitted).



Don't forget to visit the Speaking Truth site at www.cedarville.edu/speakingtruth/campus for more information about campus preparations. And keep praying!

Saturday, March 17, 2007

Dan Knudsen Needs our Prayers

Check in on Dan

Dan Knudsen is a student at Cedarville University who suffered a serious neck injury while on a missions trip during spring break. He currently has no sensation below his ears and is breathing with assistance--although he is also very alert and aware of what is going on. He and his brother have attended my church, but what really has impressed me is the number of students I know who speak so highly of his character to me. I want to encourage people to be praying for Dan's recovery, specifically that God might restore sensation and movement, and that he would begin to be able to breathe on his own before surgery this coming Tuesday.

Thursday, March 15, 2007

Soulforce and Sojourners

Mutual Grace, Sojourners Magazine/September/October 2006

A friend sent a copy of this article to me after my earlier posting on this controversy. If you read the article, it presents those schools accepting Soulforce visits in a very positive light, and the quotes from administrators of those schools sound very encouraged by the results of Soulforce's visits. While I agree that the visits could prompt Christians to think deeply about this issue, and perhaps develop much better approaches to reaching out to those trapped in homosexual sin, I didn't read statements also affirming that this has solidified the commitments of the institutions interviewed to a biblical view that rejects both homosexual practices and the acceptance of homosexual desires as normal.

I still trust that the cautious engagement policy adopted by C.U. will work out for the best, but I wonder how much of C.U.'s larger constituency would react if you substituted C.U. for A.P.U. in this Sojourners' article.

Joint Chiefs Chairman Goes Where Few Will Go Anymore

FOXNews.com - Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Calls Homosexuality 'Immoral' - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum

Gen. Pace has taken a lot of heat for this, but I am appreciative of his courage.

UPDATE: He has now said he regrets not focusing on military policy more than his personal views, but he has not renounced them--thankfully.

Monday, March 05, 2007

On Duty or AWOL?

(DISCLAIMER: This is a subject I am passionate about. While it may read like a rant, it is meant as a motivator. Sarcasm alert—look out!)

The global mission of the church is the most exciting endeavor in which a believer or a congregation can possibly engage. The more we are actively involved in missions, the more our lives reflect the life and heart of Jesus. The less involved, the more self-centered and empty our spiritual lives become. This is truly something to live for, and something to die for.

If what I wrote is true, then why are most evangelical churches, if not most Christians, disconnected from this mission, or only remotely interested? There are many answers, but only two that don’t reflect badly on us.

Perhaps we do not get involved because we believe that mission activity is the responsibility of a select few. God deploys the spiritual equivalent of the Marines, the Army Rangers, or Navy SEALs—a special volunteer force that storms, on behalf of the cause of Christ, the unreached corners of the world. Meanwhile, back home, the civilian Christian population works hard to make better Christian music, create a new Christian diet program, or find new ways to cope with our preschoolers, our dating teenagers, our adult children moving home again, our midlife crisis, or to make our wardrobe reflect the color palette of our spiritual temperament. The spiritual military does its part while, thankfully, we carry on with normal life.

We show little concern because it seems, well, boring. We hear talk about missions at church and see a picture labeled Missionary of the Week but we don’t know those people, don’t know what they do, and sometimes when they do visit the church and present their work, we have no idea what they are talking about. Besides, we only hear about them once in a blue moon, so how are we supposed to connect with them?

We may think we are very connected, but only on our terms. We go on missions trips so we can see new places, do new things. We want to appreciate what “real” missionaries face, so we ask others to help pay for it. For some it’s a chance to stand up for Jesus, but in a place where nobody knows us, making it easy to come back home to our “silent saint” routine. No life change results: no change in priorities, witness, spending, or prayer. We do not intend to figure out how or if God wants us to live away from home, but it sure makes us appreciate home even more. Sure, we have friends who are missionaries; we really love them and want to make sure they are taken care of because they deserve it. Yet, while we appreciate them, we do not share their God-directed calling; we just want them to know we care.

Perhaps missions isn’t our interest because we’re skeptical. It doesn’t seem to yield the results we expect from our investments. People labor for years, but little, if anything seems to happen. Missionaries write about slow progress, and we wonder why they spend their lives doing something that doesn’t seem to be working. Perhaps they are lazy.

For some, the cost of missions just seems too high. After all, our children might contract some disease or even die. We won’t share in normal family times. Our kids will rarely see their grandparents. They will face educational and cultural challenges. The food may be disgusting. Shouldn’t missions begin at home?

Before giving two legitimate reasons why a believer is disconnected from our global mission, let me remind us of some basic Bible facts.

1. The Bible tells us that all believers are engaged in a spiritual warfare, yet called to glorify God and manifest godliness through the spread of the Gospel. All Christians battle spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places, and thus must take up the armor of God (Ephesians 6:11-18). If you think you aren’t in the battle, then you are already a casualty.

2. The Great Commission texts lay the responsibility for reaching all nations upon all believers, not just a select few. Christ spoke the words recorded in Matthew 28:19-20, not to the eleven disciples, but to a large group of followers. His charge in Acts 1:8 was shared with the eleven, but the directive was put into motion when hundreds of believers were scattered while the apostles stayed in Jerusalem (Acts 8:1). Local churches sent out missionaries from among their own number (Barnabas and Saul from Antioch, Epaphroditus from Philippi, Epaphras from Colossae, Timothy from Derbe).

3. Jesus said believers can know “I am with you always” (Matthew 28:20) when they make disciples of all the nations. The presence of Jesus, the experience of the filling of the Spirit, and demonstrations of spiritual power are all most visible in the Scriptures where believers are proclaiming the gospel (Acts 2:4, 14, 4:31, 7:56, 9:17-20, 13:52, 18:9; 1 Cor. 2:4).

4. Self-proclaimed servants of Jesus who fail to do their Master’s will call into question their relationship to Him (Matt. 25:26-30; Luke 12:45-47). Jesus himself asks at the judgment why some would call him “Lord” and not do what he says.

The first legitimate reason we disconnect from missions? Ignorance. We just do not know that much about it. The second? Accepted disqualification. Our “ordinary” giftedness just does not seem to fit global Christianity.

To such people I say, “Take a look and see what God is doing…”

Want to see the power of the Gospel manifested through Spirit-filled preaching, even miraculous occurrences, and evangelistic dreams given to unbelievers? Care to witness new Christians possessing abilities similar to the miraculous gifts of the New Testament, and those who show a readiness to die for the faith? Look no further than the Muslim areas of the 10-40 window, China, India, and animistic cultures around the world. Visible harvests are occurring in many places that will shake the complacency out of us. Iraqi brothers speak of seeing Christianity sweep their nation. Indian believers are recording faster growth in their churches than at any time in history. China? Well, imagine 100 million believers—Chinese believers taking the Gospel wherever they can. Now, all of this is accompanied by hard work, persecution, and spiritual opposition, making the battle even more real.

To those who wonder if God has a place for non-preachers, look no further than Paul’s missionary companions. Many never preached, but, nevertheless, helped in the venture. More than that, a quick survey of current missionary tactics shows people of various “careers” using their training as an entrance into hard to reach places. Agronomists, hydrologists, community health workers, literacy workers, theologians willing to teach in foreign seminaries, English teachers, relief workers, and economic development experts (heard of micro-loans to the poor?) are just some who now take their place alongside the traditional missionary church planters. Some go where “church planters” are prohibited.

If you question its value, remember—this is a task where the results are measured by eternity. The “well done” passages speak to this, as does the promise of the crowns of rejoicing and life. We are called to be faithful witnesses, and to resist sin and persecution to the point of shedding our blood (Heb. 12:4; Rev. 2:10). The history of the church is filled with those who did so and did not count it too much. The fact that we don’t think it could come to that says more about us than we should like.

If you wonder if you are “called,” you are. The question is not one of calling to serve this cause, but simply one of deployment—where in the effort do you belong? Are you willing to use your gifts wherever God wants you? Talk with your spiritual leaders and consider together your fit in the global mission of the church.

For those who think the only role to fill is that of a front-line missionary, know that every army has its front lines and its support troops. God will place you where you most fit. Kathy and I thought we would be overseas. Instead, God kept us in pastoral work, and has allowed us to work with about a dozen others who came through our ministries and took up frontline roles. We partner with national missionaries overseas who often reach areas we cannot touch, for a fraction of what it costs to send a Western missionary. We occasionally go and help those on the front lines, and continue to support financially and in prayer some who are there representing us.

Remember, those in the army are IN THE ARMY. There are no “civilian Christians” on earth. So, if you are living like one, you may simply be AWOL!