HEY!! This site has SHUT DOWN. I've moved to The New and Improved View From the Pew. Head over there for the new stuff.

And he went up on the mountain and called to him those whom he desired, and they came to him. And he appointed twelve (whom he also named apostles) so that they might be with him and he might send them out to preach and have authority to cast out demons. He appointed the twelve: Simon (to whom he gave the name Peter); James the son of Zebedee and John the brother of James (to whom he gave the name Boanerges, that is, Sons of Thunder); Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Cananaean, and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.
(Mark 3:13-19 ESV)

The Calling of the Twelve. That's how it's listed in just about every Bible I own. It's one of the major moments in the history of Christianity -- the men who were to be the closest followers of Christ are chosen and listed for us. It's interesting that they are almost always listed in this exact order -- almost a pecking order, showing how important or famous each disciple was.

Peter, James, and John: The Big Three -- those who were closest to Christ.The travel farther with Christ into Gethsemane than the rest. They are often shown to be fairly influential. Peter, who first confessed AND first denied Christ. James, one of the first called to follow Christ, the leader of the church at Jerusalem. Along with his brother John, the disciple who would have attacked the Samaritans who did not honor Christ. John, who would be called the beloved disciple -- the only one to die of natural causes. Both called Sons of Thunder for their zeal in turning to violence.

Andrew, the first evangelist, who brought (literally) his brother Simon Peter to Christ. He stays in the background through most of the New Testament -- but without him things would have been vastly different. I can picture him listening to Peter preach, nudging a neighbor and whispering "That's my brother -- he knows what he's talking about. I was there, too, when Jesus taught". Philip, also responsible for bringing a friend (Bartholomew) to Christ, the thinker. He was more studied in Scripture than other disciples (see John 1:45). Bartholomew, also called Nathanael, who spent time with God under a fig tree, and encountered Christ. Matthew, a tax collector who nobody would ever expect to be following the Messiah, but who was worthy to write a Gospel. Thomas, the doubter, who went on to greater things for Christ. James the Lesser, possibly Matthew's brother, who was martyred for his faith. Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot -- two disciples of whom little is known outside of legend.

And Judas, the betrayer. Always last, always least in the lists.

Looking at the character of these men, we can see Christ picked men not for their ability, but their attitude. They were willing to be used. They were also very fallible. Only one was present at the crucifixion. One refused to believe the testimony that Christ had risen. All were terrified men, hiding in a borrowed room from the soldiers who were surely looking for them, on the first Ressurection Day. And all who, through the power of the Holy Spirit, were to turn the entire world upside down. We wonder sometimes why these men Christ picked were so petty at times -- as when James and John request to have the seat at Christ's right hand when He established His kingdom. Why use someone such as Peter, who swore to defend Christ to his last breath, but who denied he knew Christ before his master was even dead? Why use Thomas, who refused to believe anything but the testimony of his own eyes? And why pick Judas, when surely Christ in His omniscience knew that he would be the one to betray Him?

Christ uses imperfect vessels, so that the glory does not go to the vessel, but to Him. We are incapable, but He makes us powerful -- powerful in ways that are clearly His ways, not ours. If we learn nothing else from this passage, we can learn that Christ uses us, cracks and flaws intact, so that we can give the honor and glory to Him, and Him alone.

People tend to get hung up on how to study the Bible. Authors have made tons of money writing on the subject. College courses have been taught on it. But it isn't that hard to do.

• Step 1: Pray


• Step 2: Read the Bible


• Step 3: Think about what you've read. Ask questions.


• Step 4: Pray again


• Step 5: Repeat for each passage of Scripture you are studying

Obviously, you will have to do something a little more in-depth if you are teaching an adult Bible study, or if you're researching a sermon topic, or studying for a class. But for the kind of Bible study that 99.44% of Christians do, or want to do, or should be doing, those five simple steps will do it.

Resources? Other than a Bible (duh!), I'd go along with Jollyblogger, and recommend a Bible dictionary, maybe a commentary (somethng in one volume, probably). Check out e-Sword -- it's free, and has a ton of resources available for it.

The important thing about Bible study is to do it. But be careful -- God may work in your life in ways you don't expect. Five years ago, I was an insurance agent -- in two weeks, I start seminary.

Ok, I WAS going to take tonight off -- especially after playing as well as I did. But then, I was innocently surfing around and found this.

Here is a man after my own heart. Let's beat the big air bag at his own game -- documentary film. Hear what he has to say about having his own views distorted, his own facts thrown back at him -- see how much freedom of speech and freedom of the press he wants then!

I really wish I had some cash to send this guy, because I think this film is worthwhile. Instead, I'll tell everyone I know, and some people I don't know, to make sure they watch this movie. This is a movie that needs to be distributed as widely as possible, as soon as possible.

Maybe we can send a copy of the PR sheet for the movie to every theater that shows Farenheit 911 -- see if we can appeal to their sense of equality, tolerance, and all that good stuff. If not, we can always threaten to hol our breath until they show the movie.

Naw -- that didn't work for Mom and Dad, so it probably won't work for theater owners, either. But tell them they need the movie anyway.

Hi! I'm Thanea Kelly, Warren's wife. He told me that he warned you I was coming, so please don't be too disappointed. He'll be back tomorrow with his usual great insight into all things theological.

In his introduction I'm sure he was kind. I'm sure he didn't tell you that I believe shows and books about ghosts are great. He might of mentioned my obsession with college football and basketball. (Go BUCKEYES!!) He probably didn't tell you that my idea of a great day involves sneakers and a battlefield. And I'm sure he didn't tell you that I'm a Trekkie. (Please don't hold any of this against him. I was like this long before he met me.)

Now, about the Trekkie thing... I don't go to StarCon dressed like a Klingon or anything like that. I would attend if I had the chance. Meeting Patrick Stewart would be really cool. But I've watched the original series since I was a kid. My dad watched it in college (at Ohio State) and watched the reruns after the news when I was four or five years old. I did whatever Dad did, so there we go.

By now, you're wondering where I'm going with all of this.

Yesterday, over lunch, Warren had one of those interesting conversation most people would think was strange. See, I'm a history teacher, so I do think differently than most. We were talking about the sermon which touched on the armor of God. We talked about the gladius, the short sword Roman soldiers carried for close combat. Warren mentioned that it had been adapted from the Iberian short sword Romans encountered in Spain. That's when I made the connection.

The Borg in Star Trek: The Next Generation (STTNG) were the Romans. They meet an alien race and "assimilate" them. The Romans offered most conquered people Roman citizenship. They took any technology they could use and adapted it to their own purpose. The Romans rolled over anything in their way. Except for one thing. In STTNG the Borg eventually run into the Federation. Sometimes it appears that the Borg will win, but the Federation stands firm and eventually finds a way to defeat the Borg. That is exactly what happened to the Roman Empire with the introduction of Christianity.

As long as Christians appeared to be a sect of Judaism, they didn't seem to be a problem. After all, the Jews had been relatively docile. Once the Roman authorities began to realize that Christians would be different, they tried to "assimilate" them. As long as they also bowed to Caesar, Rome didn't care who they worshipped. But the Christians wouldn't bow to Caesar. So Caesar tried to destroy them. That didn't work either. In fact, eventually Christianity would assimilate Rome. It became the official religion of the Roman Empire. Some believe that was Rome's final victory, because it became easy to be a Christian.

My question for you is this: Are you being assimilated by this world?

I pray you are not.

DashHouse. A family site that include two blogs. Darryl is a pastor and the chief blogger. His wife Charlene has a blog as well on the site. I especially like the Reading List.

The Revealer. Nothing like a professional journalist to keep the blogosphere up to date! I like this quote from their "About Us" page:

"We begin with three basic premises: 1. Belief matters, whether or not you believe. Politics, pop culture, high art, NASCAR -- everything in this world is infused with concerns about the next. As journalists, as scholars, and as ordinary folks, we cannot afford to ignore the role of religious belief in shaping our lives. 2. The press all too frequently fails to acknowledge religion, categorizing it as either innocuous spirituality or dangerous fanaticism, when more often it's both and inbetween and just plain other. 3. We deserve and need better coverage of religion. Sharper thinking. Deeper history. Thicker description. Basic theology. Real storytelling.

Bene Diction is an outstanding blog. I've checked in there before, but I figure if it's on the 'roll, I'll remember to check it more often. Great information, and well-written.

Vigilance Matters. You have to read this. He and I discussed the whole 'leaving public schools' thing, and I enjoyed the feedback.

News From the Great Beyond. A great blog, and a finalist for King of the Blogs. Humor, personal posts, all mixed together with words of wisdom. This is a good blog.

That's it for now. I'll do this again in a few months or so. If you know of any that I should blogroll, leave me a message!

I'm getting ready to lose a few links, and gain a few. There are a few on the blogroll that I barely read anymore, and I've found a few that I think are worth linking to.

Some blogs have a link policy. My link policy is: 1). If I like it, I'll link to it. I don't always have to agree with it, but I have to want to read it. 2). If you link to me, I'll link to you -- as long as you fit into rule #1.

Once the dust settles, I'll introduce you to the new guys (and gals).

Jut a warning -- my lovely wife will be blogging Monday night in my place. I will be off golfing.

I have no idea what she'll have to say. As I mentioned before, she's a bit more politically savvy than I am. On the down side, she watches CNN. On the up side, she argues with them most of the time.

The Mark study will be up on Tuesday.

It is our duty to raise up Christian candidates who can then use their power to influence a return to the Biblical principles upon which our country was founded. A very good beginning to this process is to check out the only explicitly Christian platform of any political party: www.constitutionparty.org and visit Michael Peroutka's website.

This quote from Buddy Hanson appears on Michael Peroutka's website. I started to wonder if the party's platform actually was explicitly Christian. When you read pary materials, it sounds great -- no abortion at all, no gay marriage, strong defense but otherwise small government, reform of every governmental entity including the Department of Education, the House of Representatives, and the US Senate.

And they have attracted a lot of conservative Christians. Christians have grown disillusioned with the Republican Party, and it's catering to Christian ideas and issues only twice every four years. So I'm going to take some time and look at the platform of the Constitution Party, to see if it's really explicitly Christian. You can find their platform right here

• The Sanctity of Life plank is every pro-lifer's dream, Christian or not. No abortion under any circumstances (even rape or incest). No euthanasia, infanticide, or suicide, either (though how do you enforce a law making suicide illegal?). So this plank passes the test, although it's adoption ensures that no candidate who campaigns on it will ever be elected.
  
  
• The AIDS plank is interesting.

  Under no circumstances should the federal government continue to subsidize activities which have the effect of encouraging perverted or promiscuous sexual conduct. Criminal penalties should apply to those whose willful acts of omission or commission place members of the public at risk of contracting AIDS or HIV.

  In other words, homosexual practices involving an HIV individual would be illegal. I can easilly see this turning into a Sodomy law similar to the one that was overturned in Texas.
  
  Jewish law loves this plank. This follows the injunction in the Old Testament against the practice of homosexuality. The New Testament talks about the punishment of God being heaped on those who practice homosexuality, but doesn't say anything about civil government legislating against it. Have to give this one a no, if we're talking about Biblically-based Christianity. If we're just talking about what Christians would like to happen, though, it gets a yes. There's a distinction here.
  
  
• Bringing Government Back Home. This one doesn't mention God or Christians in the plank. The Bible doesn't say anything about the size of civil government, so this one gets a no.
  
  
• Character of public officials. Nothing in the Bible about how to select elected officials, either. This I'm giving a maybe, though, since it stands to reason that Christians should expect their elected officials to behave themselves.
  
  
• The next several planks deal with governmental issues -- size of government, defense, etc. I'm skipping over them, although the Bible says little about these subjects. One thing I'd like to point out, though:

  we should immediately give notice of our withdrawal from the Nixon-Brezhnev Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty
  
  Under no circumstances should we unilaterally surrender our military base rights in Panama.

  The Bible does teach us not to lie, and to be people of our word. As a nation, we have signed these treaties, pledging our national honor to keeping them. Whether we agree with them or not, it is not a Christian characteristic to go back on our word. So we've got a bunch of 'no's here.
  

{continued in the next post}

{continued from previous post}

• Education: The Bible teaches that parents are ultimately responsible for the education of their kids. I support school choice. I don't support ending compulsary education, which is what the platform says. I don't think the Bible has a lot to say on this, either.
  
  
• Electoral College, Election Reform -- not a lot in the Bible about this stuff either. I'd bet a lot of good Christians would disagree with the proposals in the platform.
  
  
• Energy: I agree with them, but I don't see a lot in the Bible about energy policy.
  
  
• Environment: The Bible has a lot to say about the environment. It's God's creation, and we are to use it wisely. Stewardship is important, especially in the case of resources that are not renewable, or are very slow in replenishing themselves. SOme people would say that it is the duty of a Christian government to make sure that the environment is protected. Not the Constitution Party. Hands off is their policy.
  
  
• Executive Orders -- nothing in the Bible about that.
  
  
• Family -- I can give this one a check mark. That makes two planks that are distinctly, explicitly Christian.
  
  
• Federal Aid and Foreign Policy bring some questions to mind. Shouldn't Christians be concerned about the welfare of people in impoverished countries? Shouldn't we be concerned with helping people overthrow tyrany? Shouldn't we be doing for the least of these? Not according to the Constitution Party. No more foreign aid, no entangling alliances, no nothing.
  
  The party's foreign policy would have worked a hundred years ago. Now, America is a dominant nation on the earth, and we are often called on by other countries for help. The Christian thing to do is not to turn our back on these people.
  
  I'd go on, but I think it's clear that, while very conservative, the Constitution Party is not explicitly Christian. They are very strict interpreters of the Constitution (which explains the name...). Pat Buchannan would be right at home with these folks. Many Christians would not be.
  
  The real question is -- should Christians be trying to use the civil government to bring the Kingdom of God into existance? I've talked about that one before.
  

The Wall Street Journal has a great review of the new movie 'Saved!'. My favorite part, though, is the subtitle: 'A Movie Makes Fun of Evangelical Christians. This Took Courage?'

This article tells me that we need to keep a close eye on our Saudi "allies".

We jumped all over China about human rights violations and religious freedom, yet we spend a TON of money every year on Saudi oil, and don't even give things like this a second look. I haven't seen much mention of the story in any major media outlets -- maybe I haven't been paying attention, but I doubt it.

"What's happening to Mr. O'Connor is by no means unusual in Saudi Arabia, where respect for human rights is as rare as shade trees."

Mexico is fixed pretty good for oil, as I recall. AND they're a NAFTA member, so no big ole tarriffs importing from them. And I have a feeling that the Mexican economy could use a boost -- maybe cut down on the illegal immigration. They might apprciate American dollars more than the Saudis. And US oil companies wouldn't have to pay near as much in travel expenses.

And they don't kill Christians for their faith in Mexico. Someone needs to play some hardball with the Saudis.

Is it just me, or is this really stupid. . .

Danish bishop states that he doesn't believe in God. Or heaven. Or eternal life. WAAAY back in 2003. The church does the logical thing and suspended him. He retracts his statement, and is reinstated. Then he says it again, and they suspend him again. Now he's shocked by the decision. He's fighting to keep his job -- and his parishoners are behind him, saying we have to respect differences of opinion.

Ah -- tolerance. Let's keep a bishop who doesn't even believe what he's supposed to be representing, because we have to tolerate different points of view about God, especially in church. He won't resign -- I guess working for a boss you don't believe in has some advantages:

Me: I'm not coming in to work today, boss. I'm going golfing.
Boss: No, I need you to . . .
Me: Great! Thanks! See ya' later!
Boss: Hey! I was talking there!
Me: Huh? Did you hear something? Must have been the wind. See, I don't believe in you anymore. You don't exist.
Boss: Then you're fired.
Me: See, that's the best part. I don't believe in you, so I can't hear you firing me. See you on Monday!

That's even better than working for yourself. I've worked for myself before, but I quit -- worst boss I ever had. Never gave me a day off or anything.

I seriously don't understand why the guy wants to keep working for a cause he has no faith in -- what's the point? The point is this: job security. In Denmark, Lutheran bishops are employed by the government, not the church. Think the government is going to fire a bishop? Doubt it, especially with his parishoners behind him. He's not going anywhere. And he doesn't need to put a lot of thought into his sermons -- or does he think that his non-existant god is actually going to speak through him? It doesn't matter much what he says -- no eternal life on the line for himself OR his parishoners. ANd the parishoners have to love having a bishop who doesn't keep bugging you about what God thinks about things, or what you should do to serve God, or things like that. Win-win situation short term.

Lose-lose situation for eternity. If man wasn't so short-sighted, the people in Denmark would realize this.

{edit} I forgot to link to the article. BBC News has it here. Christianity Today has had a few things about it, if memory serves me correctly.

This will probably be my last Convention-related post, but I wanted to adress a subject that has been getting surprisingly little coverage in the blogosphere -- at least the part of it that I've been reading.

The SBC had proposed a study to determine whether or not it should change it's name to reflect it's international diversity.

Baptist Press has a pretty good summary of the issues, along with quotes from just about everyone who spoke up, either for or against.

It's not a new issue. The Convention has looked at a name change before, and has decided not to do it. The main contention is from churches that are not in the South. There is some concern that evangelistic efforts are hindered because of the name of the denomination.

I tend to agree with the messenger who said, "... when I go and witness, I don't ask if they want to be a Southern Baptist. I ask if they want to know Christ."

The major problem with the discussion was that people thought the proposal was to change the name. It wasn't -- it was to study the possibility of maybe changing the name. The only person to address this issue was a sweet lady from Dayton, Ohio, who called the President to task for not having any idea of the cost of the study. Of course, she was ruled out of order.

I had a major problem with not knowing the cost of the study. A budget should have been available for the messengers to look at. Writing a blank check to a Southern Baptist committee is probably the dumbest thing you can ever do, financially. But I want to address the idea of a name change.

Southern Baptist has nothing to do with location. Most everyone knows that by now. Southern Baptist is a brand name, just as Western Union and Southwestern Airlines are brand names. These latter two organizations are no longer regional, as they were when they were named -- and they haven't changed their names. Nobody thinks you can only send money through Western Union to Texas. Nobody thinks that Southwestern Air only flies west of the Mississippi. And people realize that there are Southern Baptists in every corner of the nation, if not the globe.

As far as connotations go, how long do you think it will take for the word to get out that the Southern Baptists have changed their name? Within a week, everyone who used to hate the SBC will now know that they need to hate the new name just as much.

A few years ago, the SBC decided to change the names of the Home Missions Board and the Foreign Missions Board to North American Mission Board and International Missions Board, respectively. They did this when I was a brand new Southern Baptist, so I figured that I would have no problems with the new names. Not so -- in fact, I still call them by their old names, and I had to think before typing the new names just now. Changing the name of the organization would do absolutely nothing but cost a LOT of money to change signs, letterhead, websites, legal documents, etc. It's a bad idea, and I'm glad it was defeated.

We've come to believe that walls are not good things. We talk about tearing down walls between people, nations, etc. We talk about people who have built walls around themselves to shut out the world, and it's a bad thing. So this article in Baptist Press goes against the grain for most of us.

I was expecting a reaction to the decision to leave the BWA when I started reading it -- building walls between groups. But the walls that Pastor Steve Gains was taling about are the spiritual equivalent of the walls of Jerusalem that Nehemiah was sent back to build.

The walls of a city in ancient times were important to the survival of the city. They established where the city was, it's boundaries. We don't have many boundaries any more. The few that still exist do so only so that people have something to push -- we are a nation that loves to push boundaries, trying to find out exactly how far they go, and what the consequences are of crossing them.

In the name of tolerance, we are expected to condone every deviant behavior on the planet. But Christians are ridiculed, stereotyped, and marginalized in ways that would bring lawsuits from anyone else. We sit and do nothing. Our boundaries have been demolished.

We need to rebuild some of our walls. We need to establish lines that we will not cross, beliefs that we will not compromise. Maybe, indirectly, the message that Pastor Gaines delivered was about the split with the BWA. Because the Southern Baptists decided that there was a wall that they could not, in good conscience, tear down. The BWA was headed in a direction that the SBC didn't want to go, so they got off the ride. They attempted to change the course, with no success. The wall was not torn down.

There are walls that need to be demolished. Walls separating races, sexes, economic situations -- these are all walls that are not needed. But walls of doctrine, of statements of faith, of fundamentals -- these walls should remain. Too many people are willing to sacrifice these walls in the name of unity. Is there unity when basic principles of Christianity are rejected, or ignored? Perhaps there is unity there, but it is a unity that is not of Christ.

Ok, I know that Holy Observer is satire. That doesn't mean that this article doesn't have an unfortunate ring of truth about it.

I've seen it happen WAY too many times. A tract for a tip. And I know too many people who actually are waitresses and waiters to believe it's not common.

This weekend, when you go out to eat for Father's Day, drop a 20%-er on the table. THEN, if you leave a tract, it might actually get read. And if you don't, maybe you'll make up for all the $1 tips that our brothers and sisters are leaving.

June 13, 1757.

Pope Benedict XIV granted people throughout the world official permission to have the Bible in their own language.

Granted, the early church had Scripture in whatever tongue that was spoken. Syriac, Coptic, and Greek translations have been found dating very early in the history of the church. And vernacular Bibles had been around in "modern" times since before 1525, when such translations became ammunition for the Protestant Reformation.

Such "modern" translations were, however, condemned (sound familiar?). In 1408 the Council of Oxford condemned Wycliffe's efforts at spreading a vernacular English Bible. A hundred years later, William Tyndale had to flee England to make his own English translation.

Vernacular Bibles had the stigma of being associated with the growing Protestant "heresy". By 1528, the Bible could no longer be translated into French. Bible burnings were common events throughout Europe in the early 1500s. In much of the continent, posession of a Bible in your own language was illegal, usually punishable by death at the stake.

By about 1550, the Catholic Church began to turn around, thanks in large part to the Counter-Reformation. Vernacular Bibles were allowed, but only if they carried official Catholic annotations and explanations of the texts. It took until 1713 for the Pope to recognize that the Bible was, in fact, for everyone -- not just priests and scholars.

The Bible is for all of us. It's message can change lives. And it doesn't take a degree in theology to recognize the basic truths of God's Word.

And the award goes to ...........


NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition.

And I smile, because Monty Python has always been one of my guilty pleasures.

Actually, it's probably been up a little while. I've been so wrapped up in my own blogging, and commenting on the ongoing controversy at this years SBC Convention, that I forgot to check my email and most of my blogroll!

He's done it in two parts, but the poor guy got 20 posts his first time hosting!! Head over to Belief Seeking Understanding and read some of these posts!

Maybe next week, I'll actually have something in it! If you're thinking about doing it, but haven't, I have noticed a big jump in hits when I have something in the Carnival -- and more than a couple new subscribers to my feed! I'm not running Jollyblogger numbers yet, but I'm working on it!

I know everyone's happy!

Actually, I just wanted to link to this over at Jollyblogger. He hits on a lot of things that I've mentioned briefly before, and does it better than I do.

I also wanted to admit that I missed the Christian Carnival deadline yet again. This time, though, I'm not sure I had anything that I'd consider good enough to include. I've been slacking off a bit lately.

Finally, I'd ask everyone's prayers for me this evening as I preach at the Wednesday evening service at my church. If you're close to Greenup, KY tonight, stop on by Greenup First Baptist. Service starts at 7pm.

The resolution is being debated right now.

88% of young people raised in the church leave and never come back. Aparantly, that is totally the fault of public schools. Christian parents can aparantly only have anything to do with their kids' education if their kids are in private schools or homeschools. Funny -- my parents were very involved throughout my public education.

The law cannot keep Christian teachers from answering questions about their faith in school. The law cannot keep kids from praying in school. The law should not prevent kids from sharing their faith in the school -- when it does, we need to fight it. The law can only prevent forced participation in religious activities.

Parents are responsible for teaching their children. Parents need to be involved -- wherever their kids go to school. Many parents do not have the background, the time, or the ability to teach their kids themselves, and many more lack the resources to place their kids in private schools. Parents -- teach your kids. Teach them to share Christ in their schools. Teach them their rights as Christians in public schools. Fight for their rights in public schools. Teach them morality at home.

We talk about kids in high school not understanding or believing the fundamentals of the faith. Whose responsibility is that? The church and the parents. If kids don't understand the basics of Christianity, then I want to know what the youth leader is doing. I want to know what the parents are doing.

Disciple your kids. Train them. But if you want to make a difference in the lives of kids, Christian and non, get involved in public education. Make a difference.

If you are lead to homeschool your kids, I support you -- in fact, I am seriously thinking about doing the same. If you have your kids in private school, I commend you. If your kids are in public schools, I pray for you. I pary that you will have the strength to do as God would have you do, and that you will be involved in your child's education. Actually, I pray that reguardless of where you send your kids -- be involved in their education.

(BTW -- to one of the messengers who spoke: acid does not neutralize salt. Salt neutralizes acid.)

{Update}
The ammendment failed. The resolution concerning the secularization of our culture passed, but without the 'pull out of public schools' ammendment.

Nicene Theology, Neo Theo(b)log, and MSNBC have commented on this so far -- I'll link to others as I find them, and edit this post.

I never thought I'd end up an SBC apologist. Even after I joind a Southern Baptist church, I didn't think I'd ever end up defending them. But I do. I'm one of the "resident SBC experts" on the Fundamentalist Forums. And I'm getting ready to jump into the fray again over the SBC vote to leave the Baptist World Alliance.


The BWA has, the SBC alleges, theological differences which make it necessary for the convention to withdraw fellowship. I have talked about separation before -- this is not the second, third, and fourth degree separation practiced by modern fundamentalists. This is Scriptural separation from organizations or individuals who differ on theological basics. Among the differences are:

• Questioning the truthfulness of Scripture


• Not affirming the necessity of a conscious faith in Christ for salvation

Other issues, such as promoting women preachers and the criticism of the SBC's foreign missions board, are minor things for me. The BWA has issued a statement affirming the necessity for Christ alone in salvation, but that is not binding on member groups. Nothing that I was able to find on the BWA web site addressed the concerns about Scripture at all. There is also concern about the membership of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship (CBF) -- an offshoot of the SBC, made up of former SBC members who are upset with the conservative direction that the convention is taking.

After the SBC has fought for decades to eliminate theological liberals and moderates from the convention, it seems silly to me to expect the Southern Baptists to suddenly embrace fellowship with these same people. The vote to leave the BWA is a signal that the fight is over, and that there is no interest in the leadership of the convention to re-fight these battles in another forum. There is considerable ammounts of ill-will between the SBC and the CBF -- should we expect these two groups to work together?

Neo Theo(b)log quotes Alistair McGrath that "One of the purposes of doctrine is to divide." We need to make sure that the doctrine that we divide over is important. Faith in Christ as the sole means of salvation is such a doctrine. The infalibility of Scripture is such a doctrine. I would argue if ordination of women is sufficient for division, although I do not believe that it is biblical. I know that criticism of missions boards isn't grounds for separation -- it's not a doctrinal difference. But if someone was openly deriding the ministry that you were involved in, one of the most distinctive ministries that you offer, would you want to support them financially? Would you want to be associated with them?

Neither would the Southern Baptist Convention.

{edit} Take a look here for the Baptist Press story about the vote. The convention has been discussing it's differences with the BWA for a year, and hasn't been able to resolve things. This isn't a spur of the moment decision, folks. This is a 100 year association that has ended. That doesn't happen overnight.

For a non-American view of the subject, click here.

Because he doesn't have the right to speak for his daughter, Michael Newdow's case to eliminate the phrase 'Under God' from the Pledge of Allegiance has been thrown out by the US Supreme Court.

I wondered about this from the beginning. In fact, I seem to recall that the girl was reportedly not offended by the pledge -- her mother claimed at one point that the girl was, in fact, a Christian. In any case, he does not have custody of his daughter, so he cannot speak for her.

I wonder if this was the best ending to the case. I tend to agree with Rehnquist, O'Connor, and Thomas that the majority opinion dodged the issue. All that has to happen is for a custodial atheist to protest the pledge on behalf of his/her kid, and we're going to go through this all over again.

I also like what O'Connor said about the so-called 'heckler vote'. We won't get anything done if we are always having to worry about the protest of one person. Everything we do is bound to offend someone -- the Constitution doesn't give anyone the freedom from being offended.

If you want a legal opinion of this decision, take a look here. In fact, you might want to keep checking back there if you're interested in the issues the Supreme Court is ruling on.

Go here to view streaming video of the procedings!

I think this is a great resource not ONLY for Southern Baptists who didn't get to go (like me) but for people who don't know how the convention works and are curious.

I plan on going either next year or the year after. I was able to go to the convention in Atlanta, and it was fascinating to me -- that was my first year of being a Southern Baptist. That was when I learned that a lot I had been told before about the convention was wrong. Of course, I learned that some of what I had been told was right, and found things I didn't like that nobody had told me about.

Mark 3:7-12 ESV Jesus withdrew with his disciples to the sea, and a great crowd followed, from Galilee and Judea (8) and Jerusalem and Idumea and from beyond the Jordan and from around Tyre and Sidon. When the great crowd heard all that he was doing, they came to him. (9) And he told his disciples to have a boat ready for him because of the crowd, lest they crush him, (10) for he had healed many, so that all who had diseases pressed around him to touch him. (11) And whenever the unclean spirits saw him, they fell down before him and cried out, "You are the Son of God." (12) And he strictly ordered them not to make him known.

Jesus knows what the Pharisees planned, and He knew that it wasn't His time yet, so He left. As usual, a crowd gathers, anxious to see miracles performed. And once again, He cautions unclean spirits to not make Him known.

As we will see later in the chapter, the thing Jesus thought would happen did. The Pharisees accused Him of being a tool of the devil. I think, though, that that is only one reason He wanted the secrecy at this point.

Jews at the time of Christ were not able to understand His mission. They were waiting for a conquering Messiah, who would overthrow the Romans and free Israel from tyranny. Even the disciples thought He was going to set up His kingdom right then and there -- even after the ressurrection, they were wondering when He was going to establish the Kingdom. They didn't understand the idea of a suffering Messiah.

Christ took the next three years to explain things to them. He tried through parable, through example, through stragiht-out preaching and teaching, to get them to understand the nature of the Kingdom of God.

2000 years later, and we still don't quite understand it. Books are written about it, theologians argue about when, where, and how it will be established. The only thing we can agree on is that it will happen. And the best lesson we can learn from this is that we can't understand it all.

We're never going to totally understand everything about God. We can believe in Him, we can love Him, we can worship Him, we can study His Word and learn as much as we can about Him, but only in Heaven are we actually going to fully understand God.

Based on the answer to ONE QUESTION, the survey decided that I was better suited for a Reformed Baptist church. The question was pretty poorly worded, but that dumped Southern Baptist (my actual denomination) down to fourth.

Maybe someone should tell them about the Founders.

My #1 result for the SelectSmart.com selector, Christian Denomination Selector, is Reformed Baptist

My #4 result for the SelectSmart.com selector, Christian Denomination Selector, is Southern Baptist

// posted by Warren @ 6/15/2004 12:04:00 AM

I read a lot about the KJVO controversy. I've got a ton (almost literally) of books on the history of the English Bible, Bible translation, the history of the canon, etc. I've read David Cloud. I usually end up getting mad before I finish an article, so I was very happy to read Rebecca's thorough fisking of Cloud.

She does an outstanding job of showing Cloud's logical leaps, and his total mischaracterization of Dr. Daniel Wallace's views on inspiration. Get on over there and read it -- you'll learn something.

This coming Wednesday is the next Christian Carnival, and will be hosted at Belief Seeking Understanding. If you have a blog, this will be a great way to get read, and possibly pick up readers in the process or highlight your favorite post from the past week.

To enter is simple. First, you post should be of a Christian nature, but this does not exclude posts that are political (or otherwise) in nature from a Christian point of view. Then, do the following:

email Douglas at

dbass@stthomas.edu

Provide the following:

Title of your Blog
URL of your Blog
Title of your post
URL linking to that post
Description of the post

Cut off date is Tuesday by 12 Midnight EST

Just when I was thinking that the ACLU might have gotten it's act together.

I've posted twice about the ACLU doing something FOR Christians, rather than TOO Christians. I was starting to think that they'd gotten religion or something, but they haven't.

This story has been blogged about quite a bit -- if you've been living in a cave with no Internet access, check this out, or you can find it here. Post 7 or 8 at Free Republic has a picture of the seal. If you look closely, you can see the cross, middle right. That's what the fuss is all about.

Of course, the big picture of a pagan goddess right in the middle of the seal. Maybe we should complain about that. I'm waiting, as are others, for the ACLU to go after the name of the city/county -- after all, angels are religious figures, and many might be offended by the endorsement of a specific religious system over those who do not believe in angels. And what about all the 'San's in California? Are we going to see a wholesale name-change in California?

I don't even see this as the ACLU 'going after' Christians. I kinda agree with Ed Brayton that this is silliness on both sides of the debate. Unfortunately, the city caved in.

We need a new Reagan.

I'd been thinking this as I watched the service tonight. And I got the idea from Ron, when he talked about his dad not wearing his faith on his sleeve. That made me think.

After I got over being irritated that he'd politicize his eulogy, I realized he was right. And I think that's what makes me uncomfortable about Bush. He talks a lot about his faith, and does what he wants to. Reagan didn't say much about his faith, and yet it lead him and influenced what he did.

Bush is accused of this all the time, of course. But people who actually understand evangelical theology know that very little of what he's doing can be tied to his faith. I have no doubt that his faith is strong -- stronger than his father's, perhapse. But rather than giving lip service, he should stop talking and start doing.

I've put off posting on this until today, because I wanted to make sure that everything was finished before I said anything about what happened, or about President Reagan.

I've been kinda numb this week. Reagan was the president who influenced me to be a bit more politically active than I had been before, and take an interest in how things were run. I paid more attention, and learned a lot.

But it was still simply the death of a former president to me. I was sad, and felt bad for the family, but I didn't really mourn his passing until today.

Of the three eulogies in California, Michael's was surely the most moving. For the first time, I was reacting to Ronald Reagan not as a leader, but as a human being. A father. I knew how Ron, Patti, and Michael were feeling, because I had been there. Losing a leader is nothing -- losing a father is one of the hardest things that anyone will ever have to do. I watched just now as Nancy was given the flag, and I remembered when my Mom was given the flag from my Dad's casket, and the emotion I felt. I could actually relate to what they were feeling.

I think that's what was missing all this week. There was pomp and ceremony, a celebration of a great man and his legacy. But there was little emotion. I never thought of the person who was gone -- just the world leader. Today, I thought of the man: the father, the husband, the grandfather. And now I mourn -- for the family.

Pray for the family. The next week will be the hardest -- when everyone else gets to go on with their lives, and you start to realize just how much your own has changed.

Over on the left side (everyone look now!) at the top of the Links section, you'll see a new link to the bookstore. Stop by there, and you'll find a list of my recommendations for reading. Pretty soon, I'll have a "Summer Readin' " list up there -- right now, the only fiction is at the bottom, where you'll find a list of alternate history by Harry Turtledove.

I spent yesterday working on the new layout -- my CSS skills are still rough, so I'm taking my time to make sure I get what I really want. Soon, though -- I promise -- there will be a slightly new look here.

ALSO, starting in July, I will have a special guest blogger each Monday -- the day I head to Southern for class. My lovely wife will be taking over the duty on Monday evenings, so the Bible Study will move to Tuesdays. She might be a bit more political than I am, but I have no idea what she's planning on writing. Maybe a trial run is in order ....

I'm not a Passion basher.

I ended up not getting to see it, but that was mainly because I couldn't find the time and, while I'm sure it's a great movie, it wasn't a real priority for me. I'll get the DVD and watch it at home.

I'm a little disturbed by the ammount of lawsuits surrounding this movie. He's suing because of pirated copies of the movie. He's suing a theater chain to get revenues that they allegedly promised him. He was rumored to have threatened to sue two groups that were protesting the movie.

I understand that Mel had a lot of money on the line. I understand that, in Hollywood, you have to protect your interests. I also had understood that making the movie wasn't about money -- he wanted to get a message out.

The movie pirates were arrested and charged. The movie itself has made a ton of money, and the merchandising promised much more. Another $40 million is at this point irrelevant -- unless you are in this to make money, rather than get your message out.

I don't really blame Mel Gibson, though. He's used to Hollywood -- he isn't used to the whole "Christian arts" thing, where we just want to get our message heard, and maybe make enough money to live on. It just bothers me that something that has changed lives, and has the potential to change many more, is simply another money-making vehicle for Hollywood. Didn't Christ say something like "Freely you have received; freely you should give"?

USA Today ran an article not long ago about the 'Religion Gap' between the Democrats and Republicans. (Unfortunately, the full article in their archives is NOT free, so I can't link to it anymore.) There is a pretty good study of the subject here, and it's free.

To sum up:

According to Voter News Service (VNS) exit polling, in the 1992 congressional election, frequent worship attenders preferred Republican to Democratic candidates for the House of Representatives by 53 to 47 percent. By the 2002 congressional election, this six percent gap had ballooned to 20 percentage points, with frequent attenders voting in favor of Republican House candidates by 60 to 40 percent.

That's a HUGE difference in just ten years, probably because of the reputation of President Clinton. The article goes on to say that voters in 1992 who attended church regularly were more likely to vote for a local Democratic candidate than the Democratic Presidential candidate.

Why is this? Are religious voters more concerned about social issues like abortion than social issues like hunger? Or do religious voters have different answers than the Democratic Party has to offer? I tend to think the latter. Members of the 'religious right' have tended to put more emphasis on issues such as abortion, the death penalty, etc.

I'm surprised that the gap isn't bigger than it is -- after all, if you read the news and the Web, it's the "Religious Right" that is controlling the Bush White House (unless, of course, it's the Reconstructionists). The thing I think is important about the study is that the gap isn't as big as people want to think -- on both sides of the aisle. The "Religious Right" gets a lot more press, but there is a Religious Left that is calmer, quieter, and just as dedicated to getting their candidates in office.

I've changed the title of this series, since I've only been doing it once per week. If I decide to add an extra entry, because of something very important or relevant happening on a particular day, I'll title that Today in Church History. Just so y'all know. ;-)

June 7, 1891. The end of an era. The final sermon from the Prince of Preachers, Charles Haddon Spurgeon.

I could say a lot, but thanks to Phil Jackson's archive, I think I'll let Spurgeon do the talking for himself.

"And David came to the two hundred men, which were so faint that they could not follow David, whom they had made also to abide at the brook Besor: and they went forth to meet David, and to meet the people that were with him: and when David came near to the people, he saluted them. Then answered all the wicked men and men of Belial, of those that went with David, and said, Because they went not with us, we will not give them ought of the spoil that we have recovered, save to every man his wife and his children, that they may lead them away, and depart. Then said David, Ye shall not do so, my brethren, with that which the Lord hath given us, who hath preserved us, and delivered the company that came against us into our hand. For who will hearken unto you in this matter? but as his part is that goeth down to the battle, so shall his part be that tarrieth by the stuff: they shall part alike. And it was so from that day forward, that he made it a statute and an ordinance for Israel unto this day. And when David came to Ziklag, he sent of the spoil unto the elders of Judah, even to his friends, saying, Behold a present for you of the spoil of the enemies of the Lord"—1 Samuel 30:21-26.

THOSE WHO ASSOCIATE themselves with a leader must share his fortunes. Six hundred men had quitted their abodes in Judaea; unable to endure the tyranny of Saul they had linked themselves with David, and made him to be a captain over them. They were, some of them, the best of men, and some of them were the worst: in this, resembling our congregations. Some of them were choice spirits, whom David would have sought, but others were undesirable persons, from whom he might gladly have been free. However, be they who they may, they must rise or fall with their leader and commander. If he had the city Ziklag given to him, they had a house and a home in it; and if Ziklag was burned with fire, their houses did not escape. When David stood amid the smoking ruins, a penniless and a wifeless man they stood in the same condition. This rule holds good with all of us, who have joined ourselves to Christ and his cause; we must be partakers with him. I hope we are prepared to stand to this rule to-day. If there be ridicule and reproach for the gospel of Christ, lot us be willing to be ridiculed and reproached for his sake. Let us gladly share with him in his humiliation, and never dream of shrinking. This involves a great privilege, since they that are with him in his humiliation shall be with him in his glory. If we share his rebuke in the midst of an evil generation we shall also sit upon his throne, and share his glory in the day of his appearing. Brethren, I hope the most of us can say we are in for it, to sink or swim with Jesus. In life or death, where he is, there will we, his servants, be. We joyfully accept both the cross and the crown which go with our Lord Jesus Christ: we are eager to bear our full share of the blame, that we may partake in his joy.

It frequently happens that when a great disaster occurs to a baud of men, a mutiny follows thereupon. However little it may be the leader's fault, the defeated east the blame of the defeat upon him. If the fight is won, "it was a soldiers' battle"; every man at arms claims his share of praise. But if the battle is lost, cashier the commander! It was entirely his fault; if he had been a better general he might have won the day. This is how people talk: fairness is out of the question. So in the great disaster of Ziklag, when the town was burned with fire, and wives and children were carried away captive; then we read that they spoke of stoning David. Why David? Why David more than anybody else, it is hard to see, for he was not there, nor any one of them. They felt so vexed, that it would be a relief to stone somebody, and why not David? Brethren, it sometimes happens, even to the servants of Christ, that when they fall into persecution and loss for Christ's sake, the tempter whispers to them to throw up their profession. "Since you have been a Christian, you have had nothing but trouble. It seems as if the dogs of hell were snapping at your heels more than ever since you took upon you the name of Christ. Therefore, throw it up, and leave the ways of godliness." Vile suggestion! Mutiny against the Lord Jesus? Dare you do so? Some of us cannot do so, for when he asks us, Will ye also go away?" we can only answer, "Lord, to whom should we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life." No other leader is worth following. We must follow the Son of David. Mutiny against him is out of the question.

Through floods or flames, if Jesus lead,
We'll follow where he goes."

When a dog follows a man, we may discover whether the man is his master by seeing what happens when they come to a turn in the road. If the creature keeps close to its master at all turnings, it belongs to him. Every now and then you and I come to turns in the road, and many of us are ready, through grace, to prove our loyalty by following Jesus even when the way is hardest. Though the tears stand in his eyes and in ours; though we weep together till we have no more power to weep, we will cling to him when the many turn aside, and witness that he hath the living Word, and none upon earth beside. God grant us grace to be faithful unto death!

If we thus follow our leader and bear his reproach, the end and issue will be glorious victory. It was a piteous sight to see David leaving two hundred men behind him, and marching with his much diminished forces after an enemy who had gone, he scarce knew where, who might be ton times stronger than his little baud, and might slay those who pursued them. It was a melancholy spectacle for those left behind to see their leader a broken man, worn and weary like themselves, hastening after the cruel Amalekite. How very different was the scene when he came back to the brook Besor more than a conqueror! Do you not hear the song of them that make merry? A host of men in the front are driving vast herds of cattle and flocks of sheep, and singing as they march, "This is David's spoil!" Then you see armed men, with David in the midst of them, all laden with spoil, and you hear them singing yet another song; those that bring up the rear are shouting exultingly, "David recovered all! David recovered all!" They, the worn-out ones that stayed at the brook Besor, hear the mingled. song, and join first in the one shout, and then in the other; singing, "This is David's spoil! David recovered all!"
Yes, we have no doubt about the result of our warfare. He that is faithful to Christ shall be glorified with him. That he will divide the spoil with the strong is never a matter of question. "The pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand."
The old truth by which we stand shall never be blotted out.


Engraved as in eternal brass
The mighty promise shines;
Nor shall the powers of darkness rase
Those everlasting lines."


We are certain as we live that the exiled truth shall celebrate its joyful return. The faith once for all delivered to the saints may be downtrodden for a season; but rejoice not over us, O our adversaries: though we fall we shall rise again! Wherefore we patiently hope, and quietly wait, and calmly believe. We drink of the brook Besor by the way and lift up our heads.

This morning I want to utter God-given words of comfort to those who are faint and weary in the Lord's army. May the divine Comforter make them so!

Because of space limitations, I'm going to simply link to the text of the sermon, which is available here. Go there and read -- this man continues to bless more than a century after his death.

Welcome to the blogroll ... Nicene Theology.

I've read this one off and on for a little while, and I've learned something just about every time. I've especially enjoyed his writing on the whole KJVOnly controversy. And I like his 'Blogback' idea -- I'll be doing a few of these each week, I think.

If you haven't yet, head on over there and check it all out!!

In my ongoing quest to save the definition of "fundamentalist" from both the liberal/moderate factions that seek to demonize it AND the 'modern fundamentalists' who are legalists or even Ebionites (Judaizers) in sheeps clothing, I present the following article:

How Fundamental Were the Early Fundamentalists?

After you read it, you can join the "discussion" (like we ever just discuss anything there!) at the Fightin' Fundamentalist Forum (you'll have to register to fight, but you can read the whole debate to see if you really want to get involved).

I missed the deadline AGAIN, so nothing from me this week (next week, promise!). Head over to ChristWeb anyway and read some of the great stuff out there!

I know a lot of people who won't be happy about what Jollyblogger had to say about the whole Harry Potter controversy. I'm just glad someone is seeing things from a new perspective.

Back of the Envelope has a great article about eternal security and God's transcendance of time. I've had some problems getting there through that link, though, so you may just want to click the link in my blogroll and get there that way.

And I promise I'll have something there next week!!

I used to daydream about being a musician. I even talked my parents into buying me an electrtic guitar for Christmas one year. Now I even have my stage name.

I am Screamin' Bones Smith. And I got da blues. I got dem low down, keyboard typin', gotta do some home improvement blues.


Ohh, yeah!

(Thanks to Rebecca for the link!)

Drove to Southern last night (which is why I didn't update yesterday -- sorry!), ready to get all set up and start Greek.

Except it didn't happen.

Most of the problem was mine -- I didn't get some forms sent at the right time. Some of it was nobody's fault. A little of it was the US Postal Service's fault. But no matter whose fault it was, the fact remains that I didn't get to start school today. I DID get registered for History of the Baptists next month (July 6 to 15), so all I need is to find a place to live while I'm there (though someone is keeping an ear out for me on that front).

Sometimes I think God is testing me, to see how badly I really want to do this. Somethimes I think Satan is ticked that I'm going to school, and is trying to discourage me. And sometimes, I think that life is just wierd, and stuff happens.

All I know for sure is that sometimes, I swear I can hear my Dad up in heaven, laughing that big laugh of his at the predicaments I've gotten myself into this time. Glad I can be of some amusement, Dad ;)

Mark 2:23-3:6 ESV One Sabbath he was going through the grainfields, and as they made their way, his disciples began to pluck heads of grain. (24) And the Pharisees were saying to him, "Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?" (25) And he said to them, "Have you never read what David did, when he was in need and was hungry, he and those who were with him: (26) how he entered the house of God, in the time of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and also gave it to those who were with him?" (27) And he said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. (28) So the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath." (3:1) Again he entered the synagogue, and a man was there with a withered hand. (2) And they watched Jesus,[1] to see whether he would heal him on the Sabbath, so that they might accuse him. (3) And he said to the man with the withered hand, "Come here." (4) And he said to them, "Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save life or to kill?" But they were silent. (5) And he looked around at them with anger, grieved at their hardness of heart, and said to the man, "Stretch out your hand." He stretched it out, and his hand was restored. (6) The Pharisees went out and immediately held counsel with the Herodians against him, how to destroy him.

The Pharisees are so concerned about maintaining their outward holy appearance that they even prohibit picking food to eat on the Sabbath. Their traditions and regulations have perverted something God created to be a benefit to man -- the rules that were heaped onto the Sabbath were oppressive! Jesus again shows that He isn't concerned with outward shows of piety -- He can see into the heart, where it counts.

God created the Sabbath because He wants us to be able to enjoy the Creation He has given us. The rules that were put in place were designed to make sure that we set aside the time to rest and enjoy. God knows our nature, and He knows what workaholics we can be if left to our own designs. By building in a day off, He is showing concern for our well-being.

Their legalism even extended to miracle working and healing. Jesus points out their hypocracy -- "Am I allowed to do something good on the Sabbath?" They know that they've been had -- they cannot even reply as Jesus heals the man's hand. He had made them look foolish, and He was encouraging people to ignore their rules. He had to be stopped.

Notice that Jesus is not encouraging sinful behavior. He's not advocating open rebellion. He simply wants people to get back to the faith that Moses taught -- not the vain traditions that had been piled on top of God's Law.

We like to pile our own standards on top of God's. I'm not sying that having standards is a bad thing -- I'm simply saying that to elevate our own ideas of spirituality to the level of Holy Writ is dangerous if we don't have Biblical justification to do so. I may not like it when people stand to pray; maybe I'm a kneeler. Someone else may prefer to stand, hands lifted high. Someone else might simply sit down and bow, preferring not to draw attention to themselves. Who is right? We all are. Unfortunately, if the situation I've described happened in real life, there would be three new denominations -- the Kneelers, the Sitters, and the Standers. Then the Kneelers might split over whether to go to one knee or two. The Standers might argue over how high to raise your hands, if at all. Sitters might argue about proper posture. All because we've decided that the posture of prayer is something that is vital to spiritual growth, and everyone elseis totally wrong.

We like to condemn people for being fundamentalists, that they're Pharisees. We have to remember that we all have done this at some point or another. We also need to study the Word, so that we know when a standard is God's, and when it's ours alone.

This is going to cause an uproar.

For those who aren't well-informed on Fundamentalist politics (and at times, they are FAR more interesting and intriguing than their secular counterpart), The Sword of the Lord has for years been the semi-official newspaper of Independant Fundamental Baptists. The preaching has been indicative of the preaching style of top pastors of the day, and up-and-comers have more often than not taken sermon ideas from its pages.

Curtis Hudson started the separation from Southern Baptists while he was editor. This was when the Convention was infested by moderates and liberals, and many fundamentalists decided to run away rather than fight (THAT'S a rant for another day). Secondary Separation is the watchword of the movement -- separate from those who are not doctrinally sound, but ALSO separate from those who won't separate. And separate from the ones who won't separate from THOSE guys who don't separate. And so on, and so on.

Conservative Christians have often thought that Dr. Rice wouldn't be pleased by what his newspaper had become. To have it officially recognized by one of his daughters is another thing. To have her actually call out the current editor of the Sword is a shot across the bow of many in the fundamentalist establishment.

Shelton Smith was my pastor when I was a teengager. He baptized me. I was a member of his church for 10 of his 17 years as pastor. I know his son. So I'm kinda close to the issue here. I wondered at first if he'd even respond, but now that it's more widely publicised, he will have to.

I like Dr. Smith. He's been a family friend for years. I have disagreements with him on finer points of theology -- to the extent that he has probably separated from me -- but I know him to be a committed follower of Christ and a man who is dedicated to spreading the Gospel of Christ. I think that he has allowed minors to become majors, and I am sad that he is willing to turn his back on many fellow believers because of these minors. As I've said before, I consider myself an historic fundamentalist. I reject what the label fundamentalist has become, though -- and Dr. Smith has helped to make it what it has become.

I hope that he reads the letter in the spirit in which it was obviously written. Mrs. Martin is concerned about the body of Christ, and the reputation of many believers. She is concerned about the legacy of her father, which she feels is being misused. I hope Dr. Smith prays over this letter. I hope that as he responds, he lets the Holy Spirit guide his words. And I hope that he sees the truth in the letter. That, more than anything else, will change things for the better. I am afraid, however, that there will be a lot more fighting, and a lot more separation, and a lot more people will point and say "Look at those Christians. They can't get along for five minutes."

Maybe it's because I spent 12+ hours in the car the past two days -- with my daughter. My almost-three-year-old who is in love with the Veggie Tales, and Jonah in particular. She watched it twice today, between Gadsden, AL and Lexington, KY, and I had a lot of time to ponder the life and message of this prophet.

I DID go back and review the actual book of Jonah, since I was pretty sure that there wasn't a Jiminy Cricket-type character in the original, and I was fairly certain that Jonah and the crew didn't play 'Go Fish' to see who got tossed overboard. The movie is, however, pretty true to the message of the book, so I felt pretty safe. And I realized something.

We are Jonah.

Jonah was a guy who was given a message. A really important message -- one that a whole people needed to hear. And what was his response?

"I don't like those people".

And he didn't go. In fact, he ran away -- from God, and from the people God sent him to. As fast as he could, and as far as he could. Until God got tired of the games.

We've got a message. Christians have been given a mesage that the world needs to hear -- the message that no matter how messed up we are, no matter what we've done in the past, God loves us enough to sacrifice His Son for us, so that we can be reconciled with Him. So that we can live with Him forever. And what do we do?

I don't like those people.

I sat in a church service on Sunday at the Campus Church at Pensacola Christian College, listening to a speaker who talked about "the queers" down at the beach. Memorial Day weekend is a huge business weekend for businesses in Pensacola, but in the past several years Pensacola has been the target destination for gay and lesbian vacationers. There were thousands of "the queers" on the beach at the very time that the sermon was being preached. If the speaker (who I will not name, though many people who read this blog have probably never heard of the man) had really been concerned about the eternal destination of "the queers", he'd have been down on the beach sharing Christ with them, rather than sitting in a sanctuary using an incredibly vulgar term to describe them, and then consigning them to hell. He "don't like those people".

[I don't like the terminology that he used any more than many of you do, and I apologize for repeating it. I know many gay people, and probably know many more who haven't chosen to tell me about their lifestyle. My response to them is the same as to anyone I know who is a sinner (which is, after all, all of us) -- God loves you, and Jesus died for you, so that you can be freed from sin's slavery. Just trust Him, and repent of your sin. As Christ Himself said, "Go, and sin no more".]

As reprehensible as this account is, each of us do something similar every day. We encounter people, or know of people, who need to be shown Christ's love and compassion. But we "don't like those people", so we walk away. Maybe they stink. Maybe their breath is funny. Maybe they drink, or smoke. Maybe they're (gasp) a Democrat. They still need Jesus.

In Acts 1, Jesus is telling the disciples who they are going to be witnesses to. One of the places they're told to go is "Samaria". To Jews, this was about the worst thing they could have heard. The Samaritans were unclean. The refused to worship at the Temple, building their own houses of worship in their own country. Jewish traders would plan their routes around Samaria, taking days or weeks longer to complete a trip, just to stay away from Samaria. They didn't "like those people". They went anyway -- not in judgement, or anger, or condemnation, but in love, and compassion. They brought the love of Christ to Samaria -- to "those people".

We must do the same.

Back North after a fun-filled week in Florida. Rained a few days, but they needed the rain, so we didn't mind. Had a great visit with Mom.

I'm hoping that I'll be heading to school this week. Unfortunately, several things are conspiring against me. First, a recommendation from Virginia took over a week to get to Kentucky by US Mail. Then, the folks at the admissions office took a week to let me know they couldn't use my check card to pay my application fee. THEN, (and this is my fault) a few pages were missing from my application when it got there. Finally got everything straightened up, and they said they'd try to get me in for the class, but I'm not holding my breath. I'll still be able to take a class this summer, but it may not be Greek.

sigh

That's the last time I put things off until the last minute. (Boy, THAT sounds familiar.)

This coming Wednesday is the next Christian Carnival, and will be hosted
at ChristWeb. If you have a blog, this will be a great way to get read,
and possibly pick up readers in the process, or highlight your favorite
post from the past week.

To enter is simple. First your post should be of a Christian nature, but
this does not exclude posts that are political (or otherwise) in nature
from a Christian point of view. Then do the following:

email Stephen at

mccaskil@mac-con.com

Provide the following:

Title of your Blog
URL of your Blog
Title of your post
URL linking to that post
Description of the Post

Cut off date is Tuesday by 10 PM EST

A lot has been said recently about President Bush's faith based initiatives. Most has been said by people who don't like the idea, and see it as the religious right trying to take taxpayers money to fund their evangelistic efforts.

Oddly enough, evangelicals don't always see it that way. In fact, the people who seem to be the most in favor of funding faith-based charities are fiscal conservatives, who see it as an opportunity to cut down the size of government and reduce federal spending.

I've talked to people on both sides of the issue; people who are eager to receive more funding for their work, no matter the source, and people who are afraid of what accepting federal money might entail -- if not now, then later.

I find myself increasingly in the latter category. I find myself wondering what strings might be attached to all that government money. Will we be able to evangelize? What about hiring practices -- can we still only hire people who accept our statement of faith? I know some faith-based charities who don't hire anyone who has been divorced -- what will happen to them if they suddenly are required to hire homosexuals? When we have to hire people who reject our beliefs, can we still seriously be called faith based?

I understand that there are a lot of groups who want the money. Many of these groups are more interested in social welfare than spiritual welfare. If that's their mission, then more power to them -- take the money and run. Don't complain in five or six years when Washington is less favorable to Christians and they try to restrict what you're allowed to do, say, etc. I don't worry about what will happen now as much as I do about what will happen then.

If you are truly faith-based, maybe it's time to exercise that faith, and let God supply all your needs, according to His riches and glory in Christ Jesus. Get the government out of the way.

Thanks to The Great Separation for the heads up on this one.

Not sure I'd want to be baptised in the Rappahannock, especially around January or so, but I think it's great that churches are still doing traditional, open-air baptisms. I also think it's a shame that the park can't figure out that they're violating the free exercise clause of the Constitution by kicking them out. And I'm placed in the position of giving the ACLU an 'atta-boy' for actually jumping in to defend the Constitutional rights of Christians. If that happens much more, I may get a rash ...

June 2, 1861

As the United States was just beginning to arm itself for the conflict that became known as the American Civil War, a Russian student in Japan was preparing to leave his homeland to serve as a chaplain to the Russian embassy in Japan.

Ivan Kasatkin, who became known more familiarly as Nikolai, studied Chinese and Japanese for eight years while working in the consulate. His first three converts were baptized in 1868.

Nikolai was committed not only to winning converts, but to building churches. He trained converts to become priests and lay workers in the Orthodox tradition. He established a Japanese synod that met every two years.

In later years, it became clear that Nikolai had planned well. The Russo-Japanese war made Christians very unpopular in Japan. The Bolshevik revolution and the beginning of communist rule in Russia put an end to Orthodox missions from that nation, resulting in no support for the ministries Nikolai had established in Japan. The independence of Japanese churches aided their survival, in small numbers, even to this day.

Nikolai had a long-term vision. It wasn't enough for him to build a huge church, or have a lot of followers. He saw beyond himself. He built churches, and encouraged converts to study and begin their own ministries. He didn't make the ministry all about himself -- he made sure he trained disciples of Christ, so that they could have a part in the work Christ was doing in Japan.

Leaders of the 'mega-churches' of today should take note. A church's glory shouldn't be in it's size, or it's membership. It should glory in how many mission churches it has started. How many pastors and teachers it has trained and sent out. How many missionaries it has sent to the field. What impact is it having for Christ in the long term, not just this year. A truly growing church is a church that reproduces -- it creates new bodies of believers everywhere. That should be our goal -- not increasing the amount of bodies we have in a Sunday morning service.

Just when I swore off these quizzes .... (thanks to Nick at Patriot Paradox)

What Homestarrunner.com character are you? Strong Bad You are a funny little character in a mexican wrestling mask that says "holy crap" a lot. You created Trogdor, the BURNINATOR!!!

Click Here to Take This Quiz Brought to you by YouThink.com quizzes and personality tests.

18 Now John's disciples and the Pharisees were fasting. And people came and said to him, "Why do John's disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not fast?" 19 And Jesus said to them, "Can the wedding guests fast while the bridegroom is with them? As long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast. 20 The days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast in that day. 21 No one sews a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment. If he does, the patch tears away from it, the new from the old, and a worse tear is made. 22 And no one puts new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the wine will burst the skins—and the wine is destroyed, and so are the skins. But new wine is for fresh wineskins."

A little bit about the fasting: Jews in Christ's time were expected to fast twice each week. Old Testament law only established one fast day each year -- the Day of Atonement. Jesus didn't expect his disciples to follow the extra-biblical rules and regulations of the Pharisees. Fasting was commonly associated with mourning -- Jesus made the point that there was no reason to fast, since He was still with his disciples. There would come a time when He wasn't with them, and that would be the appropriate time to fast and mourn.

Jesus then teaches in two parables -- the cloth and the wineskins. The point of both parables is the same -- the Gospel cannot be associated with or tied to the self-righteousness and man-made traditions of the Pharisees. God's grace made any man-made attempts at pleasing God irrelevant, and in fact showed that any such attempts always fell short.

Old wineskins didn't have the elasticity to hold new wine as it fermented. In the same way, the traditions of men often hampered the spread of the Gospel, as Judaizers tried to keep believers bound to the letter of the law. as Christians, we must be careful that, while teaching believers that there is a lifestyle of holiness that we are called to, we do not make holiness a condition of salvation -- as many tend to do. Christ forgives us of our sins, and His righteousness is imputed to us -- it's nothing that we can do ourselves.

Memorial Day hasn't been the same for me for three years. Three years ago, on the last day of exams at the school I was teaching at, at 7:45 in the morning, I was told to call my mother. At the hospital.

My Dad always had high blood pressure, and was on a variety of medications at different times to try and control his arhythmia. On May 25, 2001, he lost the fight, and went home to be with the Lord.

My Dad was a member of the Air National Guard in Washington DC during the late 50s and early 60s, right before he and my Mom got married. For a while in the early 60s, he seriously thought he was going to be called up and deployed in West Germany. After leaving the Guard, he started working at the Defense Mapping Agency. In his career, he designed mapping specifications that made field maps much easier to read -- many of his specs are still in use today by the US armed forces as well as many NATO member nations.

We had never considered that his military service gave him the right to be burried at a National Cemetary until the day he died. We made the phone calls and found that he was entitled to a military burial. We knew that Dad would have loved that, and so we laid him to rest on May 29, 2001 at Barrancas National Cemetary onboard NAS Pensacola.

I get home close to Memorial Day each year. Today, when we went out to the cemetary to put the flowers, I was as impressed as always with the flags on each grave. I noticed this year that more poeple were there than had been previously -- I guess things are making people more mindful of the service that the military provides.

I wish sometimes that I could just celebrate the start of summer on Memorial Day. I'd love to just cook burgers and dogs, swim a little bit, and relax. After all, it's the first official day of that time of year all teachers love -- summer vacation. But I can't do that. My Dad's memory won't let me, and it won't let me forget the thousands and thousands of others who gave their lives in the service of this country -- and those who continue to do so daily in the Middle East.

I'm going to get back onto schedule this week. Mark study on monday night, and TiCH on Wednesday. Assuming this laptop behaves itself, that is ...

I've got a lot to do this week to get ready for school -- please be praying that I can get everything done.

I'm also working on a few things to post here -- one on music, one on Bible translation, and a few others. I'll try to spread them out, so there will be one or two a day for a while.

May 30, 1416.

Today marks the death of a reformer, Jerome of Prague. Hevilly influenced by his friend and mentor, Jan Hus, Jerome brought John Wycliffe's teachings to Bohemia.

Jerome studied at Oxford in England for several years before leaving to spread the Lollard teachings throughout Europe. Eventually, he was arrested and charged with heresy. After imprisonment and abuse, he finally recanted, only to go back on it in public later on. He was finally burned at the stake, convicted of heresy.

Modern Christians, especially Protestants, tend to forget that the Reformation didn't happen overnight when Luther posted his 95 Theses. Reformation ideas had been spreading for over a hundred years -- as soon as people were able to read and study the Bible in their own language.

This was the basis of Wycliffe's teachings. He taught that people should be able to study Scriptures themselves, and be taught in their own language. When the monopoly on Scriptural literacy had been broken, people began to realize that what they had been taught was wrong, and they were outraged. In many cases, their reactions were worse than the offenses against them. It was only the political situation in England that kept Wycliffe from igniting the Reformation a hundred years earlier -- with people like Hus and Jerome helping to spread the word on the continent.

13 He went out again beside the sea, and all the crowd was coming to him, and he was teaching them. 14 And as he passed by, he saw Levi the son of Alphaeus sitting at the tax booth, and he said to him, “Follow me.” And he rose and followed him.
15 And as he reclined at table in his house, many tax collectors and sinners were reclining with Jesus and his disciples, for there were many who followed him. 16 And the scribes of the Pharisees, when they saw that he was eating with sinners and tax collectors, said to his disciples, “Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?” 17 And when Jesus heard it, he said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.”

Jesus takes on a controversial disciple in this passage. Tax collectors were NOT looked on with high regard; in fact, most of them were known to augment their salaries with extra taxes charged to people. And He catches some heat for it.

This happens a lot in the Church today. Hang out with fellow Christians and nobody has a problem. Start hanging around with "those people" and there will be trouble. Whether it's a bus route with underpriviledged kids, or simply people from a lower economic or social class, befriending people who are "below" us can result in a lot of complaints from the people of God.

We forget that none of us are righteous on our own. Our righteousness only comes from Christ -- and His righteousness can be imputed to anyone, even the worst of people in the worst of circumstances. Too often, in our zeal to show how good we are, we cause people who need Christ in their lives to ignore the message of Christ.

Christ reminds us why He came. NOT to call the righteous -- they should know their sins, and know that they need to confess. He has come to call the sinners -- the people who need Him the most. The people who we meet every day. It is our calling to reach out to these people, but we may lose our chance simply because they aren't "our kind" of people.

Head over to Parablemania for the Christian Carnival -- 15 Christian blogs that are outstanding reading!

(oh, and I forgot to mention in my previous post -- 100 posts!! WOO HOO!!!)

We're headed out on a whitewater rafting expedition, so no posts tonight. Possibly tomorrow, then Thursday we head to Florida to see my Mom. I'm taking my laptop with me, but I don't know if I'll have a chance to post regularly. I WILL post some -- although I've left a few big ones for everyone to digest!

So, I'm trying out my new RSS reader, NewsDesk (which is awesome, btw), and one of the blog feeds that comes pre-programmed in the software is Kuro5hin. So I'm reading along, and I come across this article.

Christian Reconstructionism. The Great Evil which Plagues American Politics (tm).

{sigh}

I wouldn't mind these articles if they got the information right. I wouldn't mind it if they didn't try to lump every evangelical Christian into the Reconstructionist camp. Newsflash, folks -- there are very few real Reconstructionists. Unfortunately, the differences are downplayed by everyone and his brother, to try to paint us all with a very broad brush.

I'm not going to rant about the intersection between Christianity and politics -- I've done that already today. What I AM going to do is try to set a little of the record straight.

The problem seems to be where Reconstructionists agree with orthodox Christianity. All Christians believe that God should be the center of every Christian's life (another point I've discussed before). This is the nature of faith. I don't know of many Christians (though I'm sure there are some) who don't believe in the return of Christ for His Church -- the Bible clearly teaches this. The point of contention is when. Most Christians believe that the Bible is the Word of God. This is an ongoing debate between myself, Back of the Envelope, and Parablemania.

The thing that bugs me is when people say things like this:

Much of the modern conservative agenda ties in closely with Reconstructionist beliefs, and are frequently in lock-step with them.

Modern conservatism is based in a belief in small government -- something that is attractive to Reconstructionists. Simply going the same direction that someone else is doesn't imply a close tie with them.

Environmentalism - Obviously if you believe that a divine entity has given the Earth to you for you to use as you will, you will be angered at those who seek to stand in your way.

Actually, having a Diety give you responsibility (which is what the Old Testament concept of dominion entails) over the world demands that you use resources wisely (the basic point of stewardship). This is why many evangelical Christians are paying more attention to environmental issues.

Civil Liberties - Liberty and freedom are not terms that appear very frequently in Reconstructionist writings, since so much of Reconstructionism is in direct opposition to the principles of freedom.

On the contrary, the very basis of evangelical Christianity is the freedom we enjoy in Christ.

I'm not going to do a thorough fisking of the article -- suffice to say that the comments made about Reconstructionism show clearly that it is at odds with evangelical Christianity, and most flavors of fundamentalist Christianity. Any resemblence between actual policy from the Bush administration (or any other administration, for that matter) is more the result of coincidence than any direct influence that Reconstructionists have. Don't worry everyone -- if they try to create a theocracy, evangelical Christians will be on your side, opposing it.

Of course, everything I've said kinda spoils the stereotype of evangelical Christians, so I doubt anyone will pay a bit of attention to it. I'm finding out that nobody in the world really has any tolerance at all. Not that this surprises me or anything.

Tell me what you think of the new color for the side panels. I'm messing around with some combinations right now, and my wife will tell you that I stink at that.

I like the old color better, but I'm having trouble with the link colors -- unless I go with viewed links and active links as the same color. Let me know, and give me suggestions. If you want, you can email me at wkelly42 AT adelphia.net.

Thanks!!

Click this link, and see what I'm going on about. If this were a British sit-com (OR a Monty Python sketch), I'd be a gruff policeman coming up repeating "Right! What's all this, then?"

I read this article in the hopes that someone had gotten a late start on April Fool's Day -- or maybe Internet April Fool's Day is actually May 24, or something like that. But no -- these people seem to be quite serious.

I've made my own opinions on the topic of Christian politics pretty clear before, I think. But I really think that this needs to be addressed.

This is a stupid idea. Stupider than all Christians leaving public education. No, this nation is not perfect -- far from it. Yes, we probably have a different idea about the Constitution than the founding fathers did. And society in general has really gone to the dogs, in spite of having Christians in government. So what we're going to do is -- create a Christian government. All of our own.

First of all, we've already got Christians in government, and it isn't working! What makes you think that a new government, run by Christians for Christians, will be able to do things better? Sure, you won't have abortions, you can put blue laws back in force, etc. So what happens the first time a Presbyterian wants to baptize a baby, and the local Baptist church gets mad because that's "un-Christian"? What about the Catholic church down the street that has organized gambling (bingo) to help fund it's activities? Gambling is a sin, after all -- at least it is in many churches.

Problem is -- whose version of Christian government do we implement? Baptists believe in a separation of Church and State -- no State-run religion for us, see what happened when Constantine did it? -- Government-organized councils deciding church doctrine! None of that for us! Or do you go with the liberal State that is giving to the poor and needy -- free health care, etc. -- Jesus said to do it for the least of these, right? And this is a Christian government, right?

Can't be done -- unless you only let Christians of your particular denomination in. And if you're a Baptist, good luck. Put two Baptists in a room together, you'll have three opinions on everything. We're troublemakers -- that's our job. In the body of Christ, we are the Achilles tendon -- important, but if we get irritated, everything stops.

Let's look at the problems they have with the US:

* Abortion continues against the wishes of many States
* Children may not pray in our schools*
* The Bible is not welcome in schools except under strict FEDERAL guidelines
* The 10 Commandments remain banned from public display
* Sodomy is now legal AND celebrated as “diversity” rather than perversion
* Preaching Christianity will soon be outlawed as “hate speech”¹²
* Gay marriage will be foisted upon us in the very near future

Abortion continues -- there's a solution for this: teach kids about Jesus! Jesus changes lives! Jesus changes hearts!

Children may not pray in schools -- bull! Kids can pray anytime they want to, as long as a teacher isn't leading the prayer. With all the complaints about heathen in public education, do you really want them teaching your kids to pray?? Not me -- I'm teaching my own to pray, and letting her know that nobody can keep her from praying.

Bible not welcome? My wife kept hers on her desk all year long -- at a public school. Did her devotions during her planning period -- at a public school. Get a clue before you spew this garbage. There were kids all year long who read their Bible openly at lunch, and nobody could stop them. It's the law, guys!

Preaching outlawed as hate speech? Doubtful. If they do it, they'll have to put me in jail, just like they did to the apostles. I won't run away from people who need the Gospel. Preaching is illegal in many parts of the world, and there are God-anointed people preaching in underground churches every day to throngs of believers. Run if you want to -- I'll stick around and do God's work.

Gay marriage? See my first point. Tell them about Jesus, and He can change them!

{sigh}.

This stuff gets me fired up. I'm tired of American Christians whining about how terrible things are, and how rough it is to be a Christian. There are people in the world who would give everything they own to have things as "rough" as we do. We haven't had enough persecution, in my not-so-humble opinion. We've got too many Christians who are comfortable, and when their comfort zone is violated, they want to run away.

I'm not running. If they make it illegal to preach, who knows -- I may become a preacher after all. If they ban the Bible, I'll buy a press and start printing them. I'm not going to go off to some Christian Utopia and bury my head in the sand and let the rest of the nation go to Hell in a handbasket.