Question Answered: How do you know you are predestined?

Conner asked a question that I thought I would open up for anyone else to answer as well. I don't want it to get lost in the comments section, since the post that he comments on is from a post that I did a couple of years ago. Here is Conner's comment:

My name is Conner and i will be attending west coast baptist college this fall where i will be learning homiletics from Dr. Goetsch. so i guess i am what you call an "IFB." and there are many questions that i would like to ask you. first of all, seeing as you are a calvinist, what makes you think that you are one of the predestined ones that will be going to heaven?

This is a great question. I really like the honestly put forth and the challenge that sometimes catches Calvinists off guard.

Here is my answer in a nutshell. I would ask that anybody else that wants to comment, please do so.

Here is my answer:

Conner.

Good question. And you can ask any question that you would like.

As far as how I know that I am predestined?

I know that I am one of the elect because of the life, death and resurrection of Christ.

Calvin said it very eloquently:

Jesus is the mirror of your election

Although, I believe in duty faith, it is all about Christ, not about me or my works. Although out of my faith, works will come because I love him. But my assurance of election is all based on Christ and what he has done, not based on what I have done.

Because let's be honest. The more and more we look to ourselves the more we see our sin.

This is what happened to Isaiah in Isaiah 6. He saw the Christ and fell to the ground saying, "I am undone."

So, the way I am assured of salvation is because of the work of Christ.

Read More......

Can God Be Trusted?

I received this book from InterVarsity Press and really had no background to the book or it's author. The full title is "Can God Be Trusted?: Faith and the Challenge of Evil." This was one of the few times where I had no idea what theological convictions were of the author as he wrote. After reading the book, I am still left confused for the most part on his theological convictions on quite a few important orthodoxies.

The author, John Stackhouse, breaks the book down in two parts:

Part I: Problems (This is where evil is discussed)

Part II: Responses

I went back and forth with this book as I read it as to whether or not I would recommend it to anyone. Let me hit some of the strong points in the book and then I will hit some of the weak points.

Some of the strong parts of the book is that Stackhouse does a good job in defining and describing faith. One can tell that he has read some Schaeffer (or at least Schaeffer's sources) on this point, because his thoughts on faith remind me much of what I have read from Schaeffer on faith. Stackhouse does a good job of showing that faith is not a leap, but one that is based on at least some, if not quite a bit of, knowledge of the thing or person one puts faith in.

Stackhouse also does a good job of speaking to those whom the book is probably offered, which is the non-Christian. He speaks to them in their terms, gives respect to other religions where respect is due, and also is very open and honest about the struggles within Christendom. Within this, he also asks some very good questions to those who are non-Christians within the understanding of evil. He actually switches the question at one point to say if we think we can ask, "Why is there so much evil?" we have to also ask the question, "Why is there so much good?" I really enjoyed his discussion on that topic. He does open up some further questions for the skeptic, or the searcher, that they (actually all of us) need to ask at some point to come to an understanding of what we believe and why.

Those are the good points.

As a Christian, there was much to be alarmed at. I really don't know what theological convictions John Stackhouse has at this point. His answer to evil was quite troubling. He said that the reason there is evil was pointed to the fact of free will in all men. At one point saying that God "took a risk when creating humans with free will." This is a big stumbling block for me and this book. I am not sure how a sovereign God, who knows all things can take risks. His basic answer to why there is evil, is simply because of free will. He uses, somewhat, Alvin Plantinga's Free Will Defense to answer the question how God could be good, all powerful and still have evil exist. Free will in this book is taken as mere fact, with no Scriptural proof at all. The only time that predestination is mentioned is when speaking of the theologies of Calvin and Luther, as though it was their theology that wasn't found in the Bible. This mention lasts only 2 pages. What Stackhouse overlooks is the fact that predestination is mentioned in the Bible where the idea of moral free will is never mentioned apart from Adam and Eve. He continues this thought with the angels in heaven having free will and that is why they fell, and that while in heaven we will all have free will but will only choose good because of all the good before us. The question comes, "Does this mean we can fall like the angels did because of our free will?" The answer has to be yes in Stackhouse's system. Which is completely false. Quite the conundrum, especially when trying to defend that God is all powerful and evil can exist. I am not saying this makes the answer easy, but at least it is biblical.

The above is the one that really had me perplexed and one that made me question the book as a whole, but then it continued in other areas. Stackhouse would sometimes open up a can of worms without defending them but would just say, "a lot of Christians (or theists) believe..." and then leave it. He did this with the following things:

The doctrine of hell being annihilation

Whether the Old Testament should be taken as literally true. At one point saying he is just being candid and then adding, "Doesn't this all sound unbelievable, like a fairy story for kids rather than a serious explanation of reality for adults?"

The Idea of macroevolution being true

He doesn't defend Original Sin, but says that it has been debated historically

It was hard to hear him open up these topics without really commenting on them. He just would say something about them and move on (besides original sin, which he went on to describe a sort of middle ground), leaving the reader confused of why he would mention it in the first place. What then happens is one wonders what Stackhouse's actual convictions are in these areas.

Beyond those things, the things that had me concerned were his positive affirmations. Those were as follows:

His belief that the Protoevangelium (Genesis 3:15) was not really a pronouncement of the gospel, or meant to be understood spiritually at all, but should be taken as simply a curse on the snake. He says that "later interpreters have seen all of this as having to do with spiritual warfare between Satan and humanity, but the text itself is enigmatic. "

He also states that he believes that although the Gospel writers agree on the whole and overarching understanding of who Christ was, that they sometimes vary and contradict each other in some details. Through this we can see that Stackhouse must not believe in the infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture.

As an added frustration, there are times when Stackhouse seems to defend, or at least acknowledge in part, that Christians, Contemporary Jews and Muslims all worship the same God. This seems to be a case to bring parties into agreement when there are too many lines of separation to do so.

Overall, this book will frustrate many, as it did myself. Just when you think it is getting good, he throws some odd curve ball into the mix that confuses things. I just can't get passed the bad to see the good in recommending this book to people. Although the description of faith and the resurrection are well done, the discussion of God's risk with free will, annihilation, OT kid stories, original sin, macroevolution, the Protoevangelium and the infallibility and inerrancy of God's word puts too much junk into the discussion. I cannot in my right mind recommend this book for reading. There is too much other good reading on the subjects at hand to have to wade through the bad theology in this book to get to the traditional and correct orthodoxy. Not Recommended.
Buy from:

InterVarsity Press

Read More......

Latest Books Received

I have received some books in the mail that I will be reading within the next month if all goes well. Some I have ordered for personal reading, some I received from Crossway to review. Currently, I am reading "Can God Be Trusted?" and I have to say I have not been too impressed so far with this reading. Below you will find my list of books (in no particular order) I will be reading. Let me know if you have any thoughts on any of the books or if there are any you would like moved to the top of my list to read, because it interests you.

God Gave Wine: What the Bible Says About Alcohol, Gentry, Kenneth L.

Facing Tyson, Kluck, Ted (Ted's Blog and co-author of Why We're Not Emergent)

The Red Letters: The Sayings and Teachings of Jesus, Beals, Timothy J. (Editor)

Jesus, Keep Me Near the Cross: Experiencing the Passion and Power of Easter, Guthrie, Nancy (Editor)

What Does the Bible Say about That? Larsen, Carolyn

How to Argue like Jesus: Learning Persuasion from History's Greatest Communicator, Carter, Joe & Coleman, John

Read More......

Evangelism for Today: Part I

I have been around the church for my whole life. My dad was a lay pastor for the SBC all around southern Oklahoma until I was 12 years old. Then we moved up to Seattle where my dad, again, was called to be a lay pastor. I have done so many different kinds of evangelism it is close to ridiculous and very overwhelming. I also own an investment firm and have been an investment advisor for the past 10 years. It is easy to see the crossover in marketing my business and marketing Jesus. I know that sounds weird and crass, but it is true. The way some of us evangelize is simply by marketing Christ, hoping our clientele will buy Jesus instead of Mohammad or Gandhi. The saying in my business is that whether you do seminars, direct mailers, cold calling, etc. they are all equally ineffective, so just pick one and put all your might into it.

Sometimes I feel like this with evangelism. We are fighting a fight that seems impossible, and truly is without the Holy Spirit. We see the battle and it looks like we are losing, our evangelism, like marketing, seems to all be equally ineffective. The issue here though, is that evangelism and marketing are not equals. We cannot just look at results and deem one to be better than another. Although I know a lot of people do this within Christendom, this is not a godly way to go about ensuring the faithful proclamation of God's gospel.

Now, do we simply throw out looking at numbers of conversion altogether and ignore it? I would say no. But, my point is that numbers cannot be our end all to what makes a faithful proclamation.

What me must do is be faithful in our contextualization of the Gospel message to those around us. We must balance our culture with how we proclaim. Will this change the message? Not with a faithful proclamation. We have to know that although we might change how we tell the message, the message itself is still the same. We are sinners in need of a Saviour who came, lived among us, died for us and rose for us so that he might bring us to God. How to get this across to some might prove to be a difficult one and one that requires some thought by the one delivering the message. The problem today is less thought is going on and more and more people are just buying into other's marketing techniques without looking at the culture Christ has called them. Just because it works in Florida, doesn't mean that it will work in Seattle, or in Nampula, Mozambique.

How I tell the gospel to one of my 60 year old clients is going to be very different than how I tell the gospel to one of my buddies who hangs out with me watching football and smoking stogies. Notice the way I tell them is different, but not the actual message. The way that I go about telling the message to someone who is homeless and starving will also be quite different. I would say that if you are telling/showing the gospel in the same way to each of these groups, you are being careless with your gospel proclamation.

What I want to explore in the next few posts is in what ways people are currently sharing the Gospel and then give you my conclusion on some ways that are faithful to the word of God in how the message is presented.

I will be upfront. I have been involved in a lot of different ways in sharing. I have gone door to door, I have handed out tracts, gone to and participated in tent revivals, I have done The Way of the Master Method, I have fed the homeless, I have done some missions work and I have also done the "smile and hope they notice I am a Christian" method. I am hoping to get some discussion while we go through these different methods and try to show a good biblical understanding of what it means to be a faithful minister of the Gospel of Christ.

Read More......

Some Reasons Non Christians Laugh at Us

Here is just a list of reasons why people laugh at us as Christians. Not an exhaustive list by any means, but still...

Slice of Laodicea. Do I really need to explain why this site has gone ironically humorous without knowing it?

If you need further explanation, just go to Campi's site, he has joined the march against sanity

I don't think the video needs any explanation (HT: Clay Staggs)

Read More......

Happiness Found on House?

I don't usually write these kinds of posts, at least I don't think I do. But, last night I was watching House (one of my favorite shows) and found some commentary very interesting. Let me set up this episode for you. A famous cancer research doctor gets sick and is admitted to the hospital. The doctors find out that she has actually quit her career to learn how to cook from a very famous chef. The doctors at the hospital are floored because this doctor was only 8 to 10 years away from curing a specific kind of cancer. They couldn't believe it and asked her "why?" She said that the reason was because she realized that she hadn't lived with happiness yet. She quit because she didn't want to die never being happy.

This was an interesting thought as you see the episode unfold and listen to this doctor who started spouting off lines like she was a fortune cookie. You can watch the episode here when available. It is called "Greater Good".

The odd thing that was put forth in the episode is that this doctor was finding happiness in merely switching jobs. Her career is what defined not only her life, but defined whether or not she was happy or not. I know a lot of people like their jobs and such, but I have to say that I have never woken up from sleep and stated, "I can't wait to go to my happy place today!" And I consider my job one that I enjoy as much as anyone could as far as a job goes. But, I don't define my happiness in it.

The first time I heard about functional saviours was in David Wells' book "Above All Earthy Pow'rs." He speaks in the book about all of us having our functional hells and functional saviours. For this woman in this episode of House, her hell became her job and so another job, that she seemingly loved, would become her functional saviour. The question then comes, "What happens when the new job becomes her hell again?"

Many of us have functional hells within our lives. Whether it is a dead end job, family sickness, money problems, weight issues, etc. We think if we could only find a way out of these hells, we would have a better life, a more fulfilled and happy life. The problem is that all these are finite and are not the answer to life's most basic problem stated in Ecclesiastes 3:11. Solomon tells us that God has put eternity into every man's heart. So, what we stupid humans try to do is solve this eternal longing with finite things that pass away. We are happy for a little while when we get the new car, new job, lose weight, get a new cell phone, etc. But, then these things get old and they are no longer exciting. We need something new, something to fulfill this eternity in our heart. I honestly believe this is why the divorce rate is so high. People try to fulfill this longing with a new spouse and want something new, instead of someone that God has given to us to bring us sustaining happiness.

We are always going to be searching for this functional saviour, this happiness in things if we do not turn our lives over to Christ. We will continually be disappointed, continually lose our happiness if we turn to this life for our hope and for our desires to be fulfilled. What one notices is that for our joy to be full, for our life to be filled with the eternal desire we must have something, or better put, Someone who is eternal to fulfill our eternal want. Logic would tell us that if we have an eternal desire it could only be fulfilled with an eternal thing, or in our case, an eternal Person.

Almost hidden away in the Psalms is the answer:

You will make known to me the path of life;
In Your presence is fullness of joy;
In Your right hand there are pleasures forever.
Psalm 16:11

God is the answer to our eternal want. This is why we find in 1 Peter 3:18 that Christ died for us to bring us to God. He didn't die to give us temporal things, but the Eternal One. Anything short of the Eternal One as our gift of salvation would leave us way short. This theme of our joy being made full is continued into the New Testament when our Bridegroom came. John the Baptist said his joy was full by just hearing the voice of Christ. Peter says that those who haven't seen Christ are still filled with "joy inexpressible and full of glory" because salvation has come to them.

God is our joy. If God is our focus, if He is our goal, if He is our life, if God is our gift, then our joy cannot be stolen. But, the second our eyes go away from God and onto things of this world, our joy can be snatched.

We started with Solomon, now let's end with Solomon. He tells us that God has put eternity into every man's heart and after Solomon tried to fill that hole with everything in this life, this is what his conclusion is:

The conclusion, when all has been heard, is: fear God and keep His commandments, because this applies to every person. For God will bring every act to judgment, everything which is hidden, whether it is good or evil.
Ecclesiastes 12:13-14

The question comes: What are you filling your heart with? Christ or the world?

I know this was just a TV show, but television is usually a great depiction of our current culture. Our current culture is still seeking what the ancients sought: happiness. The sad thing is that they believe that this can be found in this world, when in actuality it can only be found when we have the promise of being in the presence of our God.

Read More......

Christian Mission in the Modern World

It's been a while since I have read John Stott, but this was definitely a book that will make me read more of him. This book is a necessity for anyone that considers themself a missiologist or is wanting a deeper look into what it means for us Christians to be in the world. Stott hammers away in only 190 pages so much depth that any review will leave the subject at hand wanting in a desperate way. It is still hard to believe that this was first written in 1975 as he hits some people today straight between the eyes with his theological and practical conclusions (myself included).

Stott hits on five subjects and really pinpoints them further for great discussion.

The Five Subjects that he hits are:

1. Mission

Stott breaks down the two movements that are most abused, which are evangelism only ministries and social action only ministries. After breaking down why neither of these are correct, he blends the two to show the biblical aspect of how these two need to work together, not separate.

2. Evangelism

Stott lays out what must be considered in evangelism. He shows the priority, the meaning and then unpacks what must be included while presenting the gospel according to Christ and the apostles.

3. Dialogue

In this chapter, Stott again shows the two extremes in dialogue. One where the dialogue is so open that you can't tell that a Christian is in the conversation and the other being where the Christian believes that no dialogue should be had with other religions. Stott shows a balanced view to this and gives great examples how this can work and has worked.

4. Salvation

Stott works to find the biblical answer to what this term means in the Scriptures. He works through what salvation truly is and the areas of difference within this. Some of these would be salvation from political oppression, salvation of sickness and poverty, etc. Then Stott answers the question of salvation theologically and shows why salvation is more than just what we see, but is really the salvation of what we don't see. Namely, salvation from God's wrath in regards to hell.

5. Conversion

In this chapter Stott gives a precedence for conversion to the Christian faith. He fights against the universalists and also those who believe that there is no need to be converted to Christianity because Christ can be found in other religions as well. After this defense, Stott then shows what one is converted to when converted to Christianity.

This book is so well rounded and Stott unpacks the extremes in each case above to even the heretical. He then gives the biblical reasons to balance the extremes or to deny the heretical and comes to conclusions. The arguments are very well thought out and linear so that the reader can follow very easily and understand the concepts and defenses put forth by Stott. I would urge any pastor or missionary to pick up this book. This book is something that would have helped the start of my study on the church's mission before going to deeper studies that I have already looked at. I would hope that people that are in the emergent circles (Rob Bell, Tony Jones, Brian McLaren, etc) and also in the IFB circles would pick up this book to see their errors in the thought of Christian mission. Overall, this "introduction" is a great balanced approach to our mission as Christians as we work, minister, educate and evangelize the world as we know it today. Whether one is abroad or in their own back yard, this book lays a great foundation so that one sees their errors of extremism in any of the above named topics. Highly Recommended.

Buy at:

InterVarsity Press

Westminster Books

Read More......

Faith Based Super Bowl Parties

I got this small article from Christianity Today. Thought I would post it here and see what everyone thinks of these happenings. Do you like them? Do you hate them? Why? What would do different or the same if you had one at your church? Talk amongst yourselves.

Here is the article:

A pastor explains why his church likes to be host for football's biggest event.
Interview by Jeremy Weber posted 1/30/2009 10:03AM

John Newland, the senior pastor at Fall Creek Baptist Church in Indianapolis, received the "cease-and-desist" letter from the NFL that led to many churches canceling Super Bowl outreach events in 2007. The NFL has announced it will allow church viewings.

How did you feel when the NFL reversed its call?

We were gratified because common sense prevailed. The NFL flagged us because our website asked members to donate money for food for the event. They were not prohibiting us from sharing our faith; they were prohibiting us from showing their product in the way we wanted to show it. So we met in homes in smaller groups.

We learned two things. One, God clarified for our country an event that churches all across the country were doing and what the purpose of it was. And two, our church was challenged to be more aware of copyright law.

What are you doing this year?

Our Super Sunday outreach event will have a lot of free food, giveaways, and games, and will have a gospel presentation and personal testimony at halftime. We have scrutinized the NFL's policy change and will make sure we are in full compliance. For example, the NFL has taken away the restriction on the size of the screen, but it has to be in your normal place of worship.

What makes the Super Bowl a better outreach event than, say, the season premiere of Lost?

It crosses so many lines of community and brings us together in a way that has mass appeal. We try to take advantage of things that draw people's attention across socioeconomic, political, and cultural lines — the things that divide us in this country.

Any advice for other churches hosting Super Bowl outreaches?

First, define your purpose. Second, find out what's legal and what's not legal. Free is the key. And be careful with your use of the words Super Bowl. Understand that if you are using somebody else's product, you have to follow their rules. Churches cannot cut corners. We must be above reproach.

Copyright © 2009 Christianity Today

Here is also a video from Perry Noble's church, New Spring Church, on what is going on for their church on Super Bowl Sunday. Note this is only for the 6pm service, not the whole day.


Super Bowl Promo 2009 from NewSpring Media on Vimeo.

Read More......

How Do You Define the Term Pastor? Part II

In the first post on this topic I tried to pack in as much as possible to show why the terms elder/shepherd/pastor/overseer/bishop are all synonymous when speaking of the New Testament church. I will also say that I believe in the plurality of elders/pastors in a church as well. I grew up in SBC churches where there was a Pastor/Elder and then the rest were deacons, which I do not believe is the biblical standard set by Paul to Titus (Titus 1:5) and also in regards to seeing the church's council led by James and the other elders (Acts 21:18).

To continue with this post I wanted to draw on the understanding of what deacons do in the church and then answer the question of whether I would attend a specific church that was brought up by Melissa here. To understand what a deacon is supposed to do, it would seem that we need to understand what the elders are to do. We find that in the descriptions that we laid out in the last post, the elders/pastors are to watch over the church, this is why they are also called overseers. They are to be the leaders of the church and Paul says that they are to be able to teach sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict. Explicitly, in 1 Timothy 3:2, they are said to be able to teach. So, we see that elders are to be sound teachers of doctrine and also able to contradict the crazy people who come through the doors trying to parade around like a sheep with their wolf tail sticking out the back of their suit.

So, then, what does a deacon do? The first time that we see what is probably deacons, is found in Acts 6. What was happening is that the apostles and other disciples were so busy that they weren't able to keep up with the demand of growth in the church. So, they said that they needed some people to step up and help. The apostles needed this to happen so that they could perform the duty of an elder, namely, to pray and teach. The first deacons were merely distributors of goods to the congregation. They did this so that the apostles could stay on task of teaching and praying.

The term deacon is a tricky word in the Greek. It seems the closest we can get to the term is someone who is a waiter. What we can then derive from the term is that a deacon is a servant of the church that does the things to make sure that the pastors/elders are focused on the ministry of the word and prayer. What one finds when they look to 1 Timothy is that the only differences found between elders and deacons is that a deacon doesn't have to be able to teach and the deacon can also be a woman. Whereas, elders are only men and must be able to teach. If you would like to read more on this topic from my other posts, click here.

So, deacons have the same moral qualifications that elders have and are chosen by the congregation or elders to aid the church in whatever capacity is needed.

One might now ask, "What is a director?" Some churches have the term "director" in their titles. So, you might have a Music Director, Youth Director or Children's Director. The only time we see the term used in the Bible is in the Old Testament, and most of the time we find it in the Psalms when referring to the choir director. The term is also translated as supervisor, overseer or to lead. My guess is that churches aren't using the term because of it's biblical understanding but more because of traditional usage of the term within the church.

Is the usage of the term a sin? I don't believe so, but I just don't believe it is as accurate as it should be. I believe that if the church were to stay in line with Scripture for the New Testament church, it would be better to turn all the "directors" into deacons or deaconesses. There is really no need to use the term director and when using an ambiguous term it is hard to have restrictions on conduct and moral qualifications. But, when you turn the term director into deacon, now you have qualifications listed in the Bible that pertain to all leaders in the church. Now you have Scripture to go to for qualifications for those positions that are filled with the leaders of the church. If you think about this, this is actually a very good thing. What I have seen in the past is that someone is chosen because they can breathe, to lead a ministry. That can be very dangerous. If one is held to the standard of deacon, it should actually keep the position more pure and keep from making a careless, quick decision.

Tradition is probably the only thing that holds us back from doing this. We are used to deacons being the guys that take out the garbage and clean the gutters. That's not the complexity of the way that deacons were used in the New Testament. The complexity of the deacon in the Bible, are those chosen to do whatever is needed to keep the elders praying and teaching. Think of everything that has someone as a lead in your church that isn't done by an elder. Those in leadership and ministry positions should be held to a high standard.

Now for the last question. Would I attend a church that had a woman pastor? The quick answer is no. The longer answer is that if I felt compelled to attend this church, I would gather with the leadership to ask them about their titles and have them biblically define them. If in the end they were still not convinced that women cannot be pastors or that they still defined pastors and elders differently, I would have to abstain from attending. Does this mean that I don't consider them Christian brothers and sisters? Not at all. But my conviction to Scripture would withhold me from joining them for weekly worship as a community of believers.

As far as the specific church that Melissa asked about, it would seem that I would need them to give me reason why this woman was called a pastor. Is she teaching or preaching adult males? If so, then I wouldn't attend. If not, I would simply challenge them in their definition of terms and show why they are in error with making a distinction between pastors from elders. I would tell them that to get back in line with the Scriptures, they need to simply name her as a deaconess. If this were to happen, I would have no problem attending the church based on that information.

I hope this discussion has helped. If you have any questions or need clarification, please comment or email.

Read More......

John Stott and The Way of the Master

I am currently reading Christian Mission in the Modern World by John Stott and have come across something that makes me wonder what Stott thinks of such forms of evangelism as "The Way of the Master." I used to really like The Way of the Master, but have turned to questions its methods. I wasn't sure why, and I know that most of those who are using it do love Jesus and want to do the will of Him. But, I think Stott nailed it on the head. He wrote this book in 1975 but InterVarsity Press has an updated version, and when I am done this book will get a very positive review as it is needed to be read by both the Emergent streams and IFB streams of what some call "Christianity." To give you some context, Stott is walking the reader through true Christian dialogue with non-Christians and what we should refrain from and what we should also purport. Here is the quote, which is the fourth point that Stott makes about true dialogue:

Fourth, true dialogue is a mark of sensitivity. Christian evangelism falls into disrepute when it degenerates into stereotypes. It is impossible to evangelize by fixed formulae. To force a conversation along predetermined lines in order to reach a predetermined destination is to show oneself grievously lacking in sensitivity both to the actual needs of our friend and to the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Such insensitivity is therefore a failure in both faith and love. Dialogue, however, to quote from Canon Max Warren "is in its very essence an attempt at mutual 'listening,' listening in order to understand. Understanding is its reward" (from unpublished paper entitled "Presence and Proclamation," read at a European Consultation on Mission Studies in April 1968). It is at this point which was picked up in the Lausanne Covenant, which contains two references to dialogue. On the one hand it says firmly that we "reject as derogatory to Christ and the gospel every kind of syncretism and dialogue which implies that Christ speaks equally through all religions and ideologies (para. 3). But on the other it says with equal firmness that "that kind of dialogue whose purpose is to listen sensitively in order to understand" is actually "indispensable to evangelism" (para. 4). The principle was stated centuries ago in the book of Proverbs: "If one gives answer before he hears, it is his folly and shame" (Proverbs 18:13)

John Stott, Christian Mission in the Modern World, pp. 110-111

Read More......

Blogging, Books and Excitement

I like to read. I never thought that would come out of my mouth when I was a high schooler trying to score "Cliffs Notes" like a celebrity trying to score cake while in a weight loss compound. I did anything I could to skate by without reading. One time I was caught as I stood up trying to give a "book report" on The Call of the Wild as the teacher asked who a certain name was in the book. As I tried to give a detailed description of the person, she then let me know that the name of the "person" was actually the name of one of the dogs. Oops. Anyways. Since discovering what some call "theology" and "doctrine" and "orthodoxy" over 5 years ago, I haven't been able to stop reading. I just hope that what I read transcribes to orthopraxy, or right living.

I have now found a way to make two of my worlds collide even closer: blogging and books. I have been in contact with a couple of publishers and it looks like I will be receiving books from each of them to read and review on this site, my book review site and also my amazon review profile. I figured it was well worth it being I spend a lot of money on books. You know what they say, "Why pay for something you can get for free?" I won't tell you the context I first heard that in.

It looks like though that I will be partnering with InterVarsity Press and Crossway to review books for them. The hope of course is that you will be so astounded with my amazing reviews that you will then click through to their site and buy the books. Don't let me down. Also, if you go to these sites and see something that you would like me to review, let me know and I will do so. Unless you are trying to play a joke on me and want me to read something on being an excellent wife.

I have already received my first shipment from InterVarsity Press and am excited about the titles that they are allowing me to review. So far I have received the following:

Can God Be Trusted? by John G. Stackhouse, Jr.

Christian Leadership Bible Study by John Stott

Christian Mission in the Modern World by John Stott

Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God by J.I. Packer

The Dawkins Delusion? by Alistair McGrath and Joanna Collicutt McGrath

I look forward to this new partnership and hope it is one that glorifies God in spreading the glory of the Gospel. Yeah, that's right, I got my Piper language down and ready to continue my reading of him.

I also want to thank Bob from Fundamentally Reformed for helping me find these outlets.

Read More......

Pants and Basketball? Modesty Taken to a Whole New Level

I found this story on ESPN.com and had to share it. This is a story on a school that requires it's boys basketball teams to wear long pants in the name of modesty. I found it very interesting that when the reporter asked if there was a verse in Scripture that addresses wearing long pants, this was the principals response:

There is, but I'd have to look it up -- I don't have it handy, but it's definitely in Scripture. And I don't know if you know this, but our girls' basketball team dresses in skirts. [And the school's cheerleading squad wears long skirts.]

Seems like if you were the principal you would be prepared to answer a question like that. But, I am guessing that the real problem is that this prohibition is found in the Bible right next to the laws of riding a unicorn and how to evangelize a leprechaun.

You have to read this post, I just don't get it.

We all know basketball pants have gotten longer and longer in recent years. But you probably have never seen them as long as this.

The team in the long pants is Gate City Christian, a tiny Pentecostal high school in southwestern Virginia. No, the players didn't forget their game shorts, and they aren't wearing their warm-up pants -- the Warriors, as the team is called, always wear long pants, due to the school's religious tenets. (You can see video footage of the Gate City Christian uniforms at the top of this page.)

This isn't the first time religion has influenced athletic attire. Girls at Orthodox Jewish schools sometimes wear skirts, for example (there's even a Connecticut school whose girls' hoops team is called the Skirts; additional info and photos here), and Muslim women often compete in unconventional gear.

But those examples involve female athletes conforming to traditional notions of feminine modesty. It's much more uncommon to see male players following a faith-based dress code. In an effort to learn more, Uni Watch tracked down Gate City Christian's principal, Wayne Elliott, who was happy to talk about the team's unusual uniforms.

Uni Watch

Uni Watch: A basketball team wearing long pants is new to me. What's it all about?

Wayne Elliott: We're a small Christian school, about 52 kids, and it's just a school dress code that we have, based on our Biblical beliefs and standards. It goes back to dressing in modest apparel -- that's the dress code we set, and the kids abide by it here at the school and at all school functions.

UW: And that code would be "no short pants."

WE: Correct.

UW: Please forgive my ignorance on this point, but is there a specific verse of the Bible that addresses this?

WE: There is, but I'd have to look it up -- I don't have it handy, but it's definitely in Scripture. And I don't know if you know this, but our girls' basketball team dresses in skirts. [And the school's cheerleading squad wears long skirts.]

UW: From a layman's standpoint, it seems like maybe you'd want the girls to wear pants as well, so they wouldn't show any skin. But I'm guessing you don't want the girls wearing pants or dressing the same as the boys, right?

WE: Yeah, because the Bible says there should be a separate distinction between a man and a woman in terms of their apparel, so that's what it's all about.

[+] Enlarge
Gate City Christian

Allen Greene Photography

No, that isn't a scrimmage in warm-up pants. Those are the official game uniforms for Gate City Christian and Maryville Christian.

UW: I see your kids also wear T-shirts under their tanktop jerseys. Is that also about modesty?

WE: Yes, that's part of the same thing.

UW: How long have you been doing this?

WE: We started our boys' basketball program in 2002. We now have varsity, JV, girls' basketball, girls' volleyball -- it's really grown.

UW: Wow, that's pretty impressive for a school with only 52 kids! And have your boys always worn the long pants since the team's inception?

WE: Yes sir, they've always worn the long pants. We've had people say that it puts our team at a competitive disadvantage, but we don't see it that way. It's just a way of life for us, it's all we know, so we don't feel it hinders us. We've really got some really good, respectful kids, and they're willing to give up wearing shorts in order to follow the rules.

UW: Are there other schools that have similar dress codes?

WE: Yes. We play in the East Tennessee Christian School Conference, and all four schools in the conference wear the long pants. [The team also plays nonconference opponents -- some Christian, some not.]

UW: So that means you probably have a lot of pants versus pants games.

WE: Yes, that's right. But it's not a conference rule -- it's just that all schools in the conference happen to dress that way.

UW: Did your school start that trend?

WE: No sir, we didn't. I'm 44 years old, and this is something schools around here have been doing as long as I can remember. So it was already established by the time we started our athletics program in 2002.

UW: Do any of the kids ever complain or roll their eyes and ask why they can't wear shorts like the other team?

WE: No, they know our guidelines and are willing to abide by that.

UW: What about when you play an opposing team wearing conventional shorts -- do they ever give your kids the business or make fun of their outfits?

[+] Enlarge
Gate City Christian

Allen Greene Photography

Gate City Christian's long pants don't seem to have impeded this drive to the basket.

WE: Nope, they're really respectful. I can't recall anything like that. There are some schools in our conference that require visiting teams to wear modest apparel too, although we don't do that at our gym, because I feel it wouldn't be fair to be pushing our preferences on people.

UW: So in those instances, a team that normally wears shorts would have to wear long pants when visiting one of these other schools?

WE: Yes, that's right. They'll even have a sign on the door that says, "All visiting teams must wear this apparel," and of course the coaches are told beforehand. To be honest with you, we did that during our first year, and I did have complaints from some people who felt it was a disadvantage to their teams, because they weren't used to wearing the pants like our team was used to it. But that's not why we changed it -- we changed it because I didn't want to force our beliefs on others.

Fair enough. But what's it like for the kids who wear the long pants? As Elliott noted, most of them have always dressed this way when playing sports, but one of the few exceptions is Travis Mullins, a 17-year-old senior who transferred to Gate City Christian in fifth grade. Prior to that, he attended a local public school, where he wore shorts in gym class and intramural athletics. Was it hard to get used to wearing pants when he began attending Gate City Christian?

"A little bit, but it wasn't that big of an adjustment," Mullins said. "I don't think it makes much difference in terms of hindering us or anything like that."

OK, but when Mullins sees a team dressed in conventional basketball uniforms, is there some little part of him that wishes his team could wear shorts, just once?

"In some ways, yes, you do want that, because I guess it would be lighter and not as hot," he said. "But aside from that, it doesn't bother me."

And there you have it. So the next time you see something like this and think to yourself, "Boy, those are pretty long," just remember that everything's relative.

(Special thanks to Cory Wright for his research assistance and to Allen Greene for his photographs and behind-the-scenes help.)

Paul Lukas thinks it would be fair to say that when the ESPN cameras showed up in Gate City last week, the school was ready for its Uni Watch moment. His Uni Watch blog, which is updated daily, is here. Want to learn about his Uni Watch membership program, be added to his mailing list so you'll always know when a new column has been posted or just ask him a question? Contact him here.

Read More......

Mark Driscoll on Nightline

Below is the video clip from Nightline on Mark Driscoll and Mars Hill Church. Overall, I enjoyed the clip. Stacy and I watched it and we, like usual, laughed at some of Driscoll's comments because he is hilarious.

The only thing that bothered me was that they portrayed Mark as seemingly only speaking of two things: Sex and Jesus. I would say that his haters want to paint that picture and paint it in a negative light, but I would say that Driscoll's main topic is simply Jesus. I did like that Nightline gave Driscoll some time to speak on the Jesus of the Bible, instead of the Jesus of the Victorian era. Driscoll states that the truth about Jesus, is the following:

He was a construction worker, who was very controversial, and got murdered

People don't like hearing those parts, or they simply glaze over them for the sake of their own sin.

As far as Driscoll speaking on sex, it is a shame that a pastor gets criticized or ostracized because he speaks so frankly on it. The reason is because other pastors won't speak about it. Pretty sad overall.

You will see when you watch the video the reasons why people love Driscoll and the ministry that God has given him. He is upfront, funny and captivating: all for the glory of Christ. I just wish when a pastor is like this that the media wouldn't say that he is good at "selling the message." That makes me cringe.

Read More......

How Do You Define the Term Pastor?

So, yesterday Melissa asked a question about a church in my area that has a woman as a pastor. Melissa’s question was simply,

How would you define “pastor”? and…Would you then not attend this church because of this female pastor?

As I went to the church’s site, what I found was a conglomerate of positions that needed to be defined. They had elders, pastors and then directors. It seems as though they have the terms confused and very poorly defined within the confines of the local church.

What I will try to do in this series is to simply give the definitions as seen in the Bible and then give the correct definitions of what the roles should be for their church and then answer the question of “Would I attend this church?” This is not meant to be exhaustive, so if you have comments or further discussions please ask away.

You will see right off the bat that I define the terms pastor, elder, shepherd, overseer and bishop in the same breath. They are equivalents and defined in the Bible as such. Let me just give you the quick Greek definitions of each of these:

Elder: This is either an elderly person in regards to age, or one who is a leader in the church. Because Paul tells Titus (Titus 1:5) to “appoint elders” one would seem to think that the latter is the better usage as a whole. The Jewish elder was one who had authority and was usually old. Because Timothy and Titus were elders or shepherds we can see that to be older doesn't necessarily mean in age, but probably more in that of wisdom and knowledge. If we translate that into NT usage, an elder would then be an appointed man to be in authority of the local church, both physically and spiritually.

Pastor: this means to be a herdsman or a shepherd and is only translated as pastor in Ephesians 4:11 .

Shepherd: One who has authority, watches over and entrusted with a flock

Overseer/Bishop: One who has authority over something and is in charge

Now that we have laid out some very quick definitions let’s take a look at how this plays out. In the Scriptures the OT would define those who led God’s people as the elders or shepherds of God’s people. The imagery in the OT refers to God’s people as his sheep and the leaders over them as his shepherds:

For the shepherds have become stupid
And have not sought the Lord;
Therefore they have not prospered,
And all their flock is scattered.
Jeremiah 10:21

You can also take a look at (Nm 27:17; 1 Kgs 22:17; Jer 12:10; 22:22; 23:1, 2)

What we soon find out is that the transition from the rulers of Israel being called the Shepherd to the coming Messiah being called shepherd:

Hear the word of the Lord, O nations,
And declare in the coastlands afar off,
And say, “He who scattered Israel will gather him
And keep him as a shepherd keeps his flock.”
Jeremiah 31:10

Not only will God give us the Messiah as our Chief Shepherd, but he will also give us mere men as shepherds who will watch over our souls:

Then I will give you shepherds after My own heart, who will feed you on knowledge and understanding.
Jeremiah 3:15

As Jesus then comes as the Messiah he takes on this name of the great Shepherd as was promised:

Now the God of peace, who brought up from the dead the great Shepherd of the sheep through the blood of the eternal covenant, even Jesus our Lord,
Hebrews 13:20

So, we can definitely see this picture from the Old Testament to the New Testament, in that, the rulers were a picture of Christ and Israel was a picture of the true flock of God, those in Christ.

A couple of verses will help us with this understanding of how overseers and elders are also referred to as shepherds or pastors. One must also know that the only time that the term “pastor” is used is found in Ephesians 4:11 and all other times the term is found to be synonymous with the term “shepherd”. Because a shepherd and elder have the exact same function, which is to be the one that is in authority over the church and oversee it we can see that all elders are pastors, and all pastors are elders. There is no difference. They both are to teach, they both are to lead the congregation, they are both to shepherd the flock of God. To separate the two would seem to confuse the terms and how it was used in the OT imagery for the NT. Further, they are used synonymously in the NT:

Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.
Acts 20:28

The term “overseer” in this verse is given the same definition of an elder or bishop of a church. They are to watch over the church, they are to shepherd the flock of God that has been entrusted to them. You can also see the same usage of terms when you read the qualifications and interchangeability of each in Titus 1:5-9. The point being though is that they have been entrusted with the flock of God and should point to the greatest Shepherd and his leadership as found in 1 Peter 2:25

For you were continually straying like sheep, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Guardian of your souls.
1 Peter 2:25

This puts shepherd/pastor, guardian/overseer and elder in the same breath, making them synonymous. So, there is really no difference between an overseer, elder, shepherd or pastor.

We do the same thing to show that Christ is God.

…by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ:
2 Peter 1:1

We use this verse to show that the person who is both God and Saviour is Jesus Christ. So, when we see that shepherd and overseer are used in the same fashion, we can see that
they are just different words to complete the picture of the one that is leading the church of Christ.

Another example. If one were to describe myself, they could say that I am a father, son, husband, brother and friend. These all give more insight to who I am as a person on this earth, but I remain the same person. With the Scriptures, it gives different names to describe the same person so one can know more clearly what this person of the church is called to do.

I don’t see any reason to separate the office of overseer, elder, pastor or shepherd. This is a very short argument, so it is really to open up the study of the positions, not convince those in opposition.

If you want to see why I do not believe a woman should be in any of these positions, you can read the following post on that topic. Tomorrow we’ll continue with this and we will define what a deacon is and also try and answer what a church means by “director” when they use it for the term “Youth Director” or “Mission’s Director” and such. Then, in the end I will answer the question, “Would I attend a church who had a woman pastor on staff?”

Read More......

What a Stupid Comment by Our President...

George Bush was always good for some laughs when he made weird comments. And the only reason that I wanted McCain to win is so that we could have some real fun with Palin's absurd comments and winks into the camera. But, Obama said something that seems to take the cake on this one. I mean this has to go down as one of the worst comments I have heard in a while. Here it is from the New York Times:

President Barack Obama reaffirmed his commitment to protecting abortion rights on Wednesday, the 36th anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade, and said that it “stands for a broader principle: that government should not intrude on our most private family matters.”

So, my comment would be:

Please don't put any parents who rape and beat their children in prison either, for isn't murder worse than these? If you want to keep these family matters private, how can we use that same logic with those who decide that raping and beating their children are "private family matters?"

Just a question I have been pondering.

Read More......

:::UPDATED:::Who Would You NOT Worship With?

So, here is a question for you...when is enough, enough? I wonder how much someone can differ from us in theological convictions before we would decide not to worship with them. Some people are a little more liberal in their thoughts on this than I would. But some comments made by people, would make it seem that they wouldn't worship at churches over minor issues. Maybe the first one to be considered is simply, what must one believe to be saved? One must repent from sin and turn to Christ and trust in Him alone for salvation, but this would leave many heretics and cult leaders throwing parties with grape juice thinking that they were fine and needed no correction. But, what are the minimum points that one must believe to be saved?

Here is what I would personally put forth:

1. The Trinity: One must believe in the full understanding that our God is One, existing in three Persons: God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit
2. The full humanity/divinity of Jesus Christ: notice the term full...I believe this would entail the virgin birth. Go away Arians and Jehovah Witnesses
3. Salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone: The Pope needs to repent...

This explains quickly what one must believe to be saved, but what would cause me to be divided with another brother or sister so that I wouldn't attend a church that had the same convictions as myself? Notice I said the church, not a singular person. I am sure that there are some in my church that might believe some things below, but what I am speaking of is me actually attending a church who had the following convictions:

1. The Arminian Church or Semi Arminian Church. It would be very hard to worship in a church who doubts the sovereignty of God in salvation. Are they brothers or sisters? Yes. Would I join them outside the church in serving our community? Yes. But, would I be comfortable in their church? About as much as a KKK member spelling "intelligence."

2. The Crazy Charismatic. Notice I didn't say the "controlled Charismatic." But I couldn't worship along side someone who kept whipping out their prayer cloth while speaking in a language I couldn't understand. It would be very hard to listen to someone give forth prophecies each week on some vague promise of God that my dog could speak of. Wait, I don't have a dog.

3. Hyper Calvinist Tendencies. It would be hard for me to go where God was said to have no desire for the salvation of all men. It would be hard to hear the gospel have so many restrictions on it. It would be difficult to stand by and hear someone say that God doesn't love all men. As far as full blown hyper churches? I have a desire for all of them to repent in their ways...I wonder how they will take the words desire and all there? I will leave it up to them. I am sure in the end the sentence will be unintelligible.

4. The Practical Hyper Calvinist Churches. These are the churches who say that God loves all, desires for the salvation of all and preaches that we should all go out and speak the gospel to all, but in the end just comes each week to gather like a social club listening to the "speaker" of the week. I can't stand the churches who say it and never do it. Most of these churches put way too much emphasis on the Sunday gatherings and forget the other six days of the week. What they should really do is get a neon "open" sign, so we'll know when they are doing God's mission and when they aren't.

5. Those with women elders or preachers. The reason? Because they obviously haven't read the Bible. If you want to know more of my reasons on this check out these posts.

6. Any church that loves Israel more than Jesus. I know that some of you would put on this list, any dispensational church, but there are some very well balanced dispensational churches. But, when you have the Jewish flag up in your church and your potlucks must be Kosher, you might want to get some counseling. In reality, there are way too many churches that seem to care too much for Israel and not enough for Christ. They preach on the end times every week and preach it like Christ forgot to come.

7. Check my Posts on the 10 Steps to Become a Legalist. Click here for those posts. If the church fits any of these categories, I would definitely not attend there. Again, remember that I don't mind convictions, but when those become preaching points against sin, instead of convictions, that goes across the line. So you IFB crazies, sorry but you will never see me walking through your doors, unless you are having a garage sale to get rid of some of your old suits. Then, I could wear one while I mock you. Which would just be fun.

I could go on and on for quite some time, but these are some of my biggies. I will say that some aren't listed because I don't feel that the preachers who preach there are Christians. These would include, the health and wealth preachers, the Catholic leaders and the church of Christ. But, enough of what I would put up, what are some of yours and which one of the above am I being too crazy against?

Read More......

Obama Video: Any Thoughts?

Any thoughts on the video put out by a Catholic group?

Read More......

If You're Racist, You're an Idiot

I was reading Dr. Mike Kear's blog titled "Yesterday and Today" and was surprised to see how many deletions he had to make based on racist remarks. It really saddens me. It also looks like from Dr. Kear's remarks that some of them might have even considered themselves Christians. Which is like saying Ozzy Osbourne and the Jonas Brothers have the same sound.

With a new President in the office, and if you didn't notice or didn't get the memo, he is black, the talk of race and its history is in high demand. We know that the KKK is polishing their guns, brushing their tooth and filling up the air on the tires of their home to make it to Washington D.C. for a road trip. We know these guys are whack jobs and we also know that the leaders of the Mormon church can't believe that the mark of Cain is in the Whitehouse. But what really has me irked is the person who is still a racist who doesn't own a confederate flag or sing worship songs to Satan's cousin in Joseph Smith. These people need to wake up and realize some very important things about Christianity.

1. Jesus wasn't white. I know this is crazy. I know that you are used to seeing Jesus, like Mark Driscoll says, with rosie cheeks, feathered hair, in a dress while prancing around like a bad Nickelodeon after school special. But this was a fragment of the imagination of the Victorian era. The men of the Victorian era were pansies and so was their Jesus. Jesus was a carpenter and looked more like Osama bin Laden than he does a white hippie. So, if you're a racist in any way, put Jesus on your hit list.

2. Jesus destroyed the race card. Jesus didn't start including people of color into His fold, but he came and started to include WHITES into the fold. Crazy. If it wasn't for Jesus, whites would for the most part, still be outside of the fold. So, if you are historically accurate and white, you might want to rethink who you include and exclude from Christianity, because before Christ, you were out, not in.

3. Jesus destroyed any distinctions. Jesus loved all men of every tribe, nation and tongue. He also loved every woman as well. This is what is great about the salvation of Christ. All are welcome.

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Galatians 3:28

a renewal in which there is no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, but Christ is all, and in all.
Colossians 3:11

even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction;
Romans 3:22

If Jesus makes no distinctions within Christianity, and you do. You are not of Christ. We are to love all, we are to pray for all and we are to be like Christ and make no distinction in race or gender. I would love to hear why anyone believes they can hate a race or gender and still love Jesus. If you hate any color, or us with no color, you do not have the love of Christ within you and you are a complete idiot. In case you can't read, ask your wife/cousin to read it for you.

Read More......

Jon Stewart, George Bush and Barack Obama

I saw this over at Riverwood Church's blog posted by Clay Staggs, thought it was hilarious on so many fronts. Enjoy

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Changefest '09 - Obama's Inaugural Speech

Barack Obama Interview
John McCain Interview

Sarah Palin Video
Funny Election Video

Read More......

A Christian Response to the Freedom of Choice Act

It looks as though the Freedom of Choice Act is gaining ground now that our new President has taken office. I guess it should be no surprise and this was one of the reasons I didn't vote for him (I actually didn't vote at all, read this post on why I didn't). Here are some specifics, that I believe to be accurate, but if I am wrong please let me know:

If FOCA passes, pro-abortion principles will be codified into federal law. It would sweep away common sense regulations states have imposed, such as parental notification when minors seek abortions, waiting periods and counseling, or restrictions on state funding for abortions. It would also win the 'battle in the courts' by winning in the legislative venue.
American Issues Project (I don't agree with the whole article, because I think protesting with signs and marches is a little odd)

But, now that it is coming, what should the Christian do in response to this? Does this mean that I must pray for the demise of our President? Does this mean that I should not pay taxes? Below are some quick things I believe we should be doing as Christians.

We must still rely on our God that he is in control. We don't know why God would allow such a thing to be passed, but we do know that God works out all things for good for those who trust in Him. At this time we don't know how this could be, and we might never know. But if the FOCA passes, it does not negate the fact that God is in control of all things. Sometimes he allows evil to be done to work out his final will and his final purposes.

We must pray for our President. This does not mean that we pray that this passes, but we must pray that Obama comes to faith in Jesus Christ. We must pray for those Christians that come in direct contact with President Obama, like Pastor Rick Warren. We must pray that God would give our President knowledge and insight on what is right as our leader. We must pray that he would see the error in this legislation and change his mind. We must also pray that if this does go through that God's glory would be seen through this. Can God's glory be shown through evil? Yes, of course it can, sometimes we just can't see it right away.

We must still pay our taxes. This really stinks to be honest. I don't like the idea of my tax money to be paying for abortions, even though it has been for quite awhile since my taxes support Planned Parenthood. But, my taxes are also sent off to give Iraq by the millions every month too. My taxes help pay for overspending by our government, wars that I don't agree with and many other things that make me cringe. Not only this but Christ and Paul both said to pay taxes even while the governments they were involved with were highly scandalous. We know that the Holy Spirit inspired all of Scripture. Christ and Paul spoke of paying our taxes and afterwards, Christ was crucified and Nero burnt Christians at the stake to light up his gardens, all with tax money paid in part by Christians themselves. Think of this. Christ paid, in part, for his own crucifixion with the money that was found in the mouth of the fish. No doubt, we still have to pay our taxes. No doubt God's plan also came to fruition because of it.

Be careful how you speak to others about this. We need to be careful how we talk to others about this bill and about abortion in general. Do I believe that all abortion is sin? Yes, I do. Do I believe that it is murder? Yes, I do. But, the fact still remains that when I am speaking to others, I do not know their walk of life or what their past entails. I would hope that we would all be careful with how we speak to people who have had abortions in the past. Was it wrong? Yes. But, should we be gentle on how we broach the subject with them and show them their error? Yes. Too many times I have seen or found people to be very upfront with their thoughts on this that although their words are truth, the way that they go about it makes it sound like they should have a pitch fork and torch so that they can burn their enemies. This is why I am not a big proponent of picketing with signs and screaming. I just don't know how this helps. I believe how we can help is to speak to the individuals who are going through these decisions and tough times, but that would take some personal time from watching TV and finding all the verses in the Bible that shows you're right and they are wrong.

In the end, do I disagree with the FOCA? Yes. It really gives me a sick feeling of what it entails. Does this give me the right to pray for my President's demise or failure? I do not believe so. Does this make me long for the days of Christ's coming? Yes. Does this make me want to live more for Christ now, and proclaim his mercies and goodness to others? Yes.

I pray that we, as Christians, can be the salt of the earth and cities on the hill through this. I also pray that we wouldn't' be cities on the hill with high walls around us where we attack all those who come to our gates.

Soli Deo Gloria.

Read More......