Can We Really Know God?

Note:  This is the second in a series of letters I'm sending to my adult/near adult children, minus (of course) the family business.  Thanks for the comments received on the last post... they really are welcome.  DC

________________________________

September 6, 2010


Dear Kids,

It's Labor Day today, and I can't believe how fast the time is going!  We're back in the swing of Fall activity, with new schools for some of you and new challenges for all.  We are so proud of each one of you, and we're looking forward to what the year brings.   Mom and I are doing well, although it is more of an adjustment than I expected with all of you gone (or very nearly so). 


You're all entering into a new time of study, all at Christian schools with God's Word and truth central to your studies.  I can't tell you how happy that makes Mom and me, and how worthwhile an investment we think it is.  In my last email, I wrote to you about the fact that "God Is," meaning that He's important, and real.  He's our "problem" because He exists, and we all must deal with Him on His own terms.  But what difference does that make, really?  I want to remind you that God Is "Knowable" - we can know who He is - and that knowledge of Him will lead us to trust Him with our lives.

Think about it for a minute:  Can we really "know God"?  I read the CNN Belief Blog occasionally, and saw this exchange in comments under a post by my "favorite" author, Brian McLaren (who's got a graduate degree in uncertainty, it seems).  Someone named "Liutgard" said this:

"I've been flirting with agnosticism for many years- because I think that it is not possible to really 'know', and I found that the more someone insists that they 'know' God and his will, the less likely they are to actually behave like Jesus said they should.

But the past couple of months I've been attending an Episcopal church- it appeals to my sense of ritual and tradition, but also to by desire to see faith really in action. Food banks, homeless shelters, etc- Episcopalians don't run them so as to have an avenue to preach at people, but because it is a way to reach out to the community and obey the teachings of Christ. I still don't 'know', but they are happy to see me when I walk in the door, and I can worship or not as fits my comfort level. Certainly nothing like the Pentecostal churches I grew up in."

In reply, "David H." said:

"As a life-long Episcopalian, welcome! You seem to 'get it' about us. The Episcopal Church isn't about Orthodoxy (right belief or right thought), it's about Orthopraxy (right practice – i.e. how we do our liturgy). Remember, as the old joke goes, 'Wherever two or more Episcopalians are gathered in His name, there will be three or more opinions.'"

Are they right?  I'm finding that it is increasingly counter-cultural to claim that "you know" anything, especially in matters about God.  Even in the church, there seem to be multiple views on almost every important topic.  There are lots of reasons for this (and why it's a problem), and someday when you've got a free day to kill, you can read my copy of No Place For Truth by David Wells - it's a great place to start.   One reason for this reaction - this hostility - that our culture has towards "knowing" has to do with the confusion between opinion and fact.   To be more specific, I'm convinced that when people talk about "knowing" something in the spiritual realm, people hear them saying that they have a really strong opinion - and that rubs people the wrong way in a pluralistic society.  But knowing isn't just simply having an opinion (or even a strong one) on something - it's a confident assurance in belief based on the facts.  In other words, it isn't what I think; it's what I know is actually, really, objectively, true - and not just for me, but for you, too.


Let me ask you to think about this sometime this week:  Do you believe that you can "know" God like that?  No Sunday School answers to this question, guys.  Remember, most people (at least practically) don't.  Many will say that we can't even know if God really exists!  Others may accept God's existence, but they don't believe that we can know God... at least not in any way that is worth risking your life for!  Your Mom and I believe that you can - and you should.


Isn't it presumptuous to claim that our understanding of God is right? Said another way, we believe that while we can't know God fully, we can know Him truly. I'm not saying that we can know God fully or completely.  After all, how can finite people fully comprehend the infinite God?   We can know what He has revealed about Himself to us.  I want to point out that God reveals Himself in two specific ways - and I wanted to mention the first way this week.


God reveals Himself to everyone in Creation.  Theologians call this "general revelation" because its available generally to everyone.  All people can know of God's existence, character and God's moral law through observing creation itself.  After all, "The heavens declare the glory of God" (Psalm 19:1).  God has provided evidence, all around us, of His existence, power and character!  The intricacy of creation, the scope of the universe, the miracle of life, the wonder of relationship, the tiny fingers of a baby - all of creation shouts to anyone who will listen that there is a God.  All of this can not exist by random chance!

Perhaps you saw the press coverage this last week of Stephen Hawking's soon to be released new book The Grand Design.  He argues that modern science eliminates even the need to see God's hand in the design of the universe:

"Many people would like us to use these coincidences as evidence of the work of God. The idea that the universe was designed to accommodate mankind appears in theologies and mythologies dating from thousands of years ago. In Western culture the Old Testament contains the idea of providential design, but the traditional Christian viewpoint was also greatly influenced by Aristotle, who believed "in an intelligent natural world that functions according to some deliberate design."

That is not the answer of modern science. As recent advances in cosmology suggest, the laws of gravity and quantum theory allow universes to appear spontaneously from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going." (emphasis added)

I'm certainly not going to pick a fight with Dr. Hawking - he'd run rings around me intellectually.  But even a Dad can understand that his argument is (at best) silly.  One wonders where he supposes that "the laws of gravity and quantum theory" came from!   Some people think it's arrogant to believe in the existence of God, but what would you say about someone who thinks they know so much that they can rule out God's existence?


In his letter to the Roman church, Paul says very specifically that

"...what can be know about God is plain to [all men] because God has shown it to them.  For His invisible attributes, namely His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made.  So they are without excuse"  (Romans 1:19-20).(emphasis added)

 
And there's more about general revelation that's available to everyone as well.  For example, people's consciences tell them that there is a right and a wrong - even imperfectly.  We all have, at some level, a hunger for justice... to see wrongs righted and evil punished.  All of these things are gifts from God, and a reflection of His character.  They are part of what it means to be made "in the image of God."  So, through external and internal observation and evidence, we can know that there is a God, something of His amazing power and influence in our world and something of His requirements for us.  And these observations are true even though many people don't pay attention to them (we'll talk more about why when we get to the "Man Isn't" email).  For now, remember that we believe that everyone has the opportunity to know God - to know that "God Is" - at least to some degree if they want to do so. 


So that's enough for today.  I'll pass on some more about this in my next email.  Let me ask you this today:  Do you want to go beyond opinions about God, and to really know Him?  I'm sitting in the office at home alone this afternoon - with memories of you all everywhere.  I can almost hear your voices... I can almost still see you here.  That's because I love you, and my eyes are open to see the things that you've done and who you are.  They are everywhere I look.  So, look for God in your world that way this week... you'll see Him everywhere... if you'll just look for it.  And you can know it for sure.


Love always,


Dad

The MOST Important Thing In Life

What Is The Most Important Thing In Life?

Note:  The following is the first in a series of letters I'm sending to my adult/near adult children.  I'm posting these - minus (of course) any really personal stuff - because what I'm seeking to communicate is important enough to stand scrutiny, clarification, and even correction.  So feel free to comment.  It's welcome, and helpful

I offer this with the hope that the discussion will help all of us to see what really matters... and to respond appropriately as a result. - DC

________________________________

July 31, 2010
  
Hi Kids!


We've reached a new stage in life:  The stage where I have to write to you to communicate things we used to just talk about!  We haven't had all four of you in the same state for more than a couple of days for quite some time now.  I can't tell you how much I miss the daily interaction with all of you.  You're all growing up way too fast, and it seems like there's never enough time to talk about what's REALLY important.


And maybe this is a good way to continue our conversations.  After all, this process will spare you from those long pauses in my talking... you know  the ones that you've all complained so much about.  (By the way, that's a genetic trait passed down from generations, and it's coming at you faster than you realize!)

And you aren't children anymore, either.  Mom and I are very proud of each of you.  I also feel strongly enough about what I want to say to allow you to digest it at your own pace.

What's So Important?
Let me start this way:  I've spent a lot of time over the past 12 months thinking about this question:  What Is THE Most Important Thing In Life?  

This should be an easy question for "church kids" to answer, but I want to ask you to think about it with me.  I'll also tell you where I'm headed longer term, so we don't get lost along the way.  In summary, I believe that there are four essential things you need to get clearly settled in your mind.  These four truths will be an anchor for you, and will form the foundation for everything that matters in your life... really!  There are that:

• God is...
• Man is not...
• Jesus did...
• As a result, We must...

We'll unpack each of those statements one at a time (and thankfully, not all in this letter!).  While I've got more to say about this, think first about the average person's reaction to "God."  Most people seem really not to care about the subject in any meaningful way.  Even people who are religious, or who even claim to know and/or love God can spend the vast majority of their time ignoring Him!  But if God is, and ESPECIALLY if God is who He says He is, that doesn't seem to be such a great idea, does it?

What's the Right Answer?

Do you remember the old joke about the Baptist Sunday School teacher who, in a class "warm up" session, asked her 3rd grade class to identify a picture of a small mammal?  No one would answer and, after being put on the spot, one boy said this:

"Well, I know the answer is Jesus, but that thing sure looks like a squirrel!"

That boy "knew the right answer" - but "the answer" really didn't seem to match reality.  And while he misunderstood the question and thought he was supposed to give the "Sunday School" answer, the point remains that those of us who grew up with one way of looking at the world are often thrown for a loop when the real world challenges our assumptions.  And just like that Sunday School boy, you're old enough to realize now that the "Sunday School" answers don't always seem to fit in the real world.

You all understand by now that the "real world" of 21st century America sees EVERYTHING as more important than our "Sunday School" answers.  The pursuit of comfort and entertainment, personal fulfillment and pleasure are the basis for our entire popular social, political and economic system!  "Fun" is what people live for these days.

But our family answer to my question - the "Sunday School" answer - is that GOD IS the MOST important Thing In Life.  But we also know that this is a strange, unrealistic and (worst of all) impractical answer in our culture.

Let me suggest two thoughts about this, and ask you two more questions.  These may seem obvious to you, but they are radically different from the way people think today:

My first thought:  God is. By this I mean that the subject of God Himself is the most important thing in life.  There is no more important thing to think about, no higher subject, no more practical topic than God Himself.

Newsflash:  Most people don't think so!

Today is my parent's 56th wedding anniversary.  Every year that I remember when I was growing up, they went away to Door County, Wisconsin to celebrate their anniversary together.  And every year, Nana and Papa read together the book The Knowledge of The Holy, written by their pastor for years, A. W. Tozer at the Christian and Missionary Alliance Church in Chicago.  In it, Tozer says this:

"What comes into our minds when we think about God is the most important thing about us...".

Tozer was right, and I know this in part because I saw that Nana and Papa showed that they believed God was important in the way they lived their lives!  Your Mom and I hope that we have communicated to you what we believe about God in the same way.

When something is important to you, you think about it.  You talk about it.  You pursue it.  You care about it.  Not just once a week or on holidays, or when life goes wrong and you need help.  If God Is, than God is IMPORTANT.

So here's Question 1:  When people look at you and your life, do they think that you think God is important?

My second thought (and it's closely related to the first):  God IS.  That is to say, not only is the topic of God the most important thing in life, but God Actually Exists.

Newsflash:  Most people don't think so.

Some people don't believe in God in the first place.  They see people like us as curiosities, maybe throw-backs to a by-gone era.  I've had people tell me that "religion is a crutch" for psychologically needy people.  They think "God" is something we manufacture to protect ourselves from the ultimate meaninglessness of life.

Bonus thought:  By the way, when you run into someone accusing you of believing in God "for emotional reasons," consider R.C. Sproul's response.  In his book  Defending Your Faith: An Introduction Into Apologetics, Sproul points out that while of course he has an emotional draw towards believing in God, Atheists may also have an emotional need underlying their denial of God.  After all, if God exists (especially as described in the Bible), than people aren't autonomous after all - and they are to be held to God's standards of conduct, not to what THEY think is right!

Also, while other people aren't willing to deny the existence of God, they misunderstand who He really is.  They may be "deists" in their theology, seeing God as a supreme being who created the universe but who doesn't get involved in human affairs.  Like a clock-maker, he made the world ("wound it up") and now sits on the sidelines watching how things play out.  Others believe in a God that they've made up - maybe like an old, befuddled, rich Grandfather, who helps them out when they need him, but generally stays out of the way.  In any case, these are people who accept the possibility or even the existence of God, but that belief doesn't make any practical difference in their life.


If God does exist, that that is A BIG DEAL.  The existence of an all-powerful, omnipotent being casts more than a little shadow over the fun most people are pursuing!  Tozer also pointed to this:

"All the problems of heaven and earth, though they were to confront us together and at the same time, would be nothing compared with the overwhelming problem of God:  That He is; what He is like; and what we as moral beings must do about him..."

To put it simply, the existence of God is a problem.  Mankind's GREATEST problem... OUR greatest problem.  As Sigmund Freud once said, the worst thing imaginable would be to fall into the hands of "the superior power of fate," and ESPECIALLY if that "fate" is an all-powerful and holy God!


So here's Question 2:  When people look at you and your life, how real do they think that you believe God actually is... and how are you addressing "the problem of God" in your daily life?


That's what I wanted to say to you this time.  I'm hoping that I can prompt you somehow, in the midst of grad school, college or high school - in the midst of friends and fun, school and dreaming about the future - to consider that GOD IS.  And because He is, pursuing Him, knowing Him, loving Him... well, dealing with Him is The Most Important Thing In Life.  And not just because it's "the right answer," but because your are gripped by the reality that most people sadly miss.

You know I've been working on our family genealogy.  I've been able (through Papa's sister's work) to trace our family back 13 generations to a man named John Rogers from England.  He was born in 1500, and was notable first because he was responsible for printing the first English Bible translated from the original languages into English!  He was caught up in the Reformation controversy in England, and stood firmly, boldly and publicly for God - even in the midst of hostile religious and political times.


In 1555, he was sentenced to die for what he believed.  The story strikes me because he was my age when this happened!  You can read the whole story in Chapter XVI of  Foxe's Book of Martyrs, but on February 4, 1555, in the Smithfield area of London, England, this actually happened:

"When the time came that he should be brought out of Newgate Prison to Smithfield, the place of his execution, Mr. Woodroofe, one of the sheriffs, first came to John Rogers, and asked him if he would [recant].  Rogers answered, 'That which I have preached I will seal with my blood.'  Then Mr. Woodroofe said, 'Thou art an heretic.'  Rogers replied 'That will be known at the Day of Judgment.'  Mr. Woodroofe added, 'I will never pray for thee.'  Though Rogers responded, 'But I will pray for you.'"

Your Great-Grandfather (11 times removed) John Rogers awaited and met death - burned at the stake - cheerfully!  A little while before his burning, they offered again him a pardon if he would renounce his faith, but he utterly refused it.  The fire was lit and he washed his hands in the flames as though he did not feel them!  He became the first of hundreds to die at the hand of Queen "Bloody" Mary.  And why?  Because he believed that GOD IS.  He knew what was REALLY important... and he died for it.  More importantly, perhaps, he lived for it, too.


This is part of our family legacy... it's in our blood, so to speak.  So I'm praying that you see the reality of what really matters in life, that you feel it - "that the eyes of your heart would be enlighted in order that you may know..."  And this starts with seeing God as important, and real.  After all, "anyone who would please Him must first believe that He is..." (Hebrews 11:6).

Well, more next time.  I love you all very much.  No matter how near or far you are from home, we're thinking about you.  We pray for you daily, and will be excited to see what life has in store for each of you this year.

Love always,


Dad

A New Look...

OK, finally.

I've been on a semi-enforced sabbatical from the old blog for quite a while now... and there have been some changes in the ol' Doulos neighborhood.

You'll note that there's a new blog name here... in light of the ongoing conversation here, we decided to retire the "No Pearls" name... we've also changed the URL of the blog to www.eyesopenwide.net (but for a while, the old links will still work), and a word of explanation is likely in order.

I'd like us to see well.  That's why I'm writing.

At my semi-advanced age, I think a lot about seeing.  I wear reading glasses almost all the time, and am as blind as a bat without my contacts in.  At night, Mrs. Doulos laughs regularly at my repeated tendency to slam my foot into the bed in the dark.  To see well, I need light.

But I have to admit that's not enough.  My Ophthalmologist tells me my prescription is about 20-1 Gazillion... without glasses or contacts, I couldn't see the computer screen here!  To see well, I need correction.

But even that isn't enough.  Last year I preached monthly at Pacific Garden Mission in Chicago... one night, time was short, my preaching segment was abbreviated, and I was "on a mission" - I was animated, engaged, passionate and intent on staying within my allotted time.  I did (barely) and, after the service ended, my pastor (who was visiting that night) came up to me and said this:  "I can't believe you did that!"

I was very pleased with my self, thinking that he was complimenting me for my ability to finish a message on time - maybe even for the value of the content.  I discovered soon enough, though, that I misunderstood (and this ACTUALLY HAPPENED):  Pastor K was impressed that I had continued my message without being terribly distracted by - and I'm not exaggerating - the guy who had THROWN UP in the front row during my message!  I don't know if I'm proud or frightened by this fact, but the truth is... I didn't see it at all.

The lights were on and my contacts were in... but I needed more:  To see well, I needed to focus beyond my agenda.

And that's what I'm hoping to share here.

I've spent quite a bit of time in the book of Ephesians this last year... what a wonderful book!  I've been struck often, though, by Paul's prayer for his readers in Chapter 1, starting in verse 18:

"I pray also that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints, and his incomparably great power for us who believe. That power is like the working of his mighty strength, which he exerted in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms, far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every title that can be given, not only in the present age but also in the one to come. And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way."

That's my prayer here.  That my eyes - and those who read this - would be "enlightened" by God's truth.  We're all in the dark spiritually.  We all are born blind spiritually.  We all are unable to see what's going on around us because we're consumed with our own lives and agendas.

Paul saw those things in the lives of those he cared about in Ephesus.  And his prayer was that they would see.  That they would see what God had done - and who He is... that they would see who they really were - and what was really important.  And it's my prayer too - for me, and for you.

So, we'll start again.  I'll welcome your comments - especially in this next series.  I'll be posting a series of letters to my children about what really matters.  I'm posting it because - well, it really matters, and if I'm wrong, I'm counting on you to weigh in.

I'll explain more in the next post.  But for now, let's get started again!

--------------
 The Eyes Wide Open header is a picture of the caves in Gunung Mulu National Park in Borneo, Malaysia.

Where Have You Been?

Watch for the re-launch of The Pearls over the next week or so; A new layout, a new topic for discussion - but the same old concern for Plain Speaking and Truth.   Details to follow...

Should Christians "Forgive" Everyone?

I don't frequently just re-post someone else's article, but this one really has me thinking... Are we to "forgive everyone" unconditionally? When wronged, are we merely to "forgive and forget"? Is that the Biblical mandate?

The author makes a convincing argument that we are NOT to do that. In part:

"Christians are not called to automatically forgive every offense. Rather, we should offer forgiveness to all. Said another way, we should maintain an attitude of forgiveness. But biblical forgiveness is more than a feeling. It is something that happens between two parties, and it takes place in the fullest sense only when the offending party repents and the relationship is restored..."

It is, I think, very helpful to adopt a Biblical approach to forgiveness... especially these days.  All too often, breaches happen in relationships - from families to churches - and it is very uncommon to find people willing to do the hard work of actually addressing the breach.  How many marriages, families, friendships or church memberships are shattered - with potentially years of wasted time - because the parties involved don't want to address the problem? 

So here"s my question:  In the case of a relational breach, are we Biblical when we ignore the breach and "let time heal all wounds" or should we offer forgiveness freely, but withhold it's delivery until repentence and restoration is achieved?


If you missed the link above, you can find the entire article at http://www.reformation21.org/articles/unpacking-forgiveness.php.

Evangelical Confusion: What Is Justification?

Confusing? Sometimes the direction you get just isn't really helpful...

If you're listening, you've noticed that there is a LOT of confusion in the Evangelical church these days… in a LOT of areas. Many - even pastors - seem confused (at best). Certainly, the lack of practical commitment to sound doctrine lends itself to this confusion, and the Evangelical trend towards viewing doctrine as divisive has lead to increasing distain – at both the lay level and even among leadership - for precision and consistency in theology.

American Evangelicalism is increasingly a sub-culture which seems determined to distance itself from its historical roots. The bounds of orthodoxy are being stretched in every direction, churches are setting aside their own historic distinctives, and practical theological training is increasingly ignored or even ridiculed in some Evangelical circles. (I confess to not understanding the reasoning for this; after all, I don’t think any of us want to go to a dentist who didn’t go to dental school! But that’s the subject for another post.)

If what we think about God matters, it’s no wonder there is rampant confusion, even on this fundamental question: What is the Gospel?

How do you answer that question?
I’ve been astonished as I’ve listened to answers from those who claim to represent Jesus. Too often, their response is some variant around the theme of personal transformation – that is, what I have done, am doing now, or what I have experienced. It may sound something like this: “I was [bad/unhappy/unfulfilled/addicted, etc.], but I accepted Jesus and now I’m [getting better, etc.]” Said another way, the answer is “inside” us. It is the Good News about our transformation.*

If anecdotal evidence is at all indicative, the common Evangelical answer is miles away from the way the Bible defines the Gospel… which is the objective declaration of the finished, historical work of Jesus Christ, particularly in His death and resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:1-8). What happens to us (through the work of the Holy Spirit) is the result of the Gospel - not the Gospel itself... and that is an important distinction to remember.

There is a lot of confusion these days in the Evangelical church about this. Even where Biblical doctrine is affirmed in a church's statement of faith, all too often the primary focus of attention in ministry practice is on changing a person's life without addressing what they believe! These churches operate under a false dichotomy (“we’re not interested in doctrine, we’re interested in life” or “we don’t want ‘head-knowledge,’ we want to live the gospel”), as if they had never read Romans 12:1-2! This has lead to a de-emphasis on - and even more importantly, a lack of confidence in, Truth as revealed in Scripture, and an over-emphasis on one's personal experience. This is why sound doctrine is a bad word in many circles, and the focus of ministry is shifting from "mind-renewing" to the pragmatic focus on pietism and personal fulfillment.

Here's my question: Is “the Gospel” at its core the good news about Jesus or good news about us?

I’m not saying, of course, that we are not transformed by the Gospel – we are (2 Corinthians 5:17). But the shift in focus has led to a growing confusion among the rank and file in Evangelicalism between “justification” and “sanctification.”

So, What's the Difference?
The Biblical position is that justification is a legal determination which occurs on the basis of faith the finished work of Jesus Christ alone. In temporal terms it is an event, and distinguished from the process of sanctification. That is what Evangelicals have historically believed as essential.

Other positions deviate from the Biblical view. For example, the Catholic position historically (effectively) has been that “justification” is sanctification. Similarly, while claiming “Evangelical” status, N.T. Wright’s position in his variant of the “New Perspectives on Paul” is essentially the same - that we are justified (finally and definitively) at the end of our life “on the basis of the whole life lived.” Sadly, the view of the average current Evangelical is strikingly similar in practice. Because the Good News we share is about our personal transformation, the primary assurance of our salvation is also our personal transformation. Our assurance is undermined by an honest evaluation of our lives and our own current performance!

No wonder Semi-Palagianism is the default theology of the Evangelical movement** as the common thought seems to be that one can lose the salvation God has given. Some people try to ignore theological labels and, if pressed, seek to draw a distinction between “assurance” and “security” (the former being knowing that you have been converted and the latter that you will persevere). Others seek to try to carve out novel positions, like “God won’t let go of you, but you can somehow 'nullify' God's work on your behalf.” (I'm serious! I've heard both taught... and they are both are just variants of the same old Semi-Palagian thinking).

It is important to be precise in our understanding between our justification and our sanctification because it underscores the source of our confidence. So let’s draw the distinction:

Said simply, the Bible teaches that justification is being legally declared righteous by God. This happens only one time and changes our legal standing before God as a result of faith in the finished work of Jesus on our behalf (Romans 5:17-19). Sanctification is being made experientially righteous by God over time by God. This is a process, continuing through our lives, and it is both the work of God and something we are commanded to pursue (Philippians 2:12-13). They are both part of the Salvation process, but they are different. More precisely:

Justification is the legal determination made by God Himself, which addresses everyone’s “most urgent need” – that is, the need to deal with our condition by birth of being enemies of God and under His Divine wrath. We are born with a sin nature, hostile to – and enemies of - God Himself (Romans 1:18, 3:23, 5:12, etc.). We all stand guilty before Him (Romans 3:23). In other words, we have two distinct, but related problems: First, we are sinners (that is, NOT righteous), and second, we have sinned – that is, we deserve God’s wrath. The first separates us from God and the second demands punishment. And the good news is that God has dealt with this Himself on behalf of those whom He has chosen (Romans 8:29-30) in two very important ways:

First, God addressed our need for punishment by making Jesus to be a propitiation by his blood on our behalf (Romans 3:25). This means that Jesus’ death paid the penalty due to us by God’s righteous wrath for our sin. He paid our price for us and, as a result, we are forgiven… “just as if” we had never sinned. This is why the Biblical view of the work of Jesus on the cross is described as a substitionary atonement. But that by itself does not address the whole problem, because if that were it, we still would be separated from God because of our unrighteous nature and our failure to be perfect in His sight. So...

Second, to address our unrighteousness and imperfection, God imputed Jesus’ perfect righteousness to us (Romans 4). In other words, God credits the righteousness of Jesus to those of us who believe. This faith itself is, of course, itself a gift from God – not of works (Romans 4, Ephesians 2, etc.) This second point is increasingly lost in Evangelical discussion, but it is critical to understand. Wayne Grudem, in his systematic theology, says this:

"It is essential to the heart of the gospel to insist that God declares us to be just or righteous not on the basis of our actual condition of righteousness or holiness, but rather on the basis of Christ's perfect righteousness, which he thinks of as belonging to us. This was the heart of the difference between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism at the Reformation. Protestantism since the time of Martin Luther has insisted that justification does not change us internally and it is not a declaration based in any way on any goodness that we have in ourselves." (Grudem, Systematic Theology 1994, p. 727)

Grudem rightly contrasts this with the Roman Catholic view, which mixes justification with sanctification, defining it (for example, from the Council of Trent) as as "the sanctifying and renewing of the inner man" (Grudem, p. 727, quoting Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p.257).

So, Why Does It Matter?
The difference - and the implications - between the Protestant and Catholic view are massive. It is critically important because a misunderstanding between these two parts of salvation leads to all sorts of confusion around whether or not we can have assurance of our salvation... and what that assurance (if any) really looks like. If you believe that your assurance depends on your personal transformation – as many seem to these days, you will have a very difficult time accepting the Biblical teaching on assurance. On the other hand, if your confidence rests on what Jesus has done, you will find the comfort and encouragement that God has intended for His children (1 John 5:13).

If one sees their personal progress in holiness (that is, their sanctification) as an evidence of their legal standing before God (that is, their justification), any sin at all calls their status before God into question. But the Good News is that God has – in the past – historically and finally – justified us. Made us right with Himself… forgiven us and credited us with the righteousness of Jesus Christ himself. And here is my point: The reason that we can have confidence before God is all based on the finished work of Jesus Christ – not on our personal transformation or other "inner"experience. The Good News is an external, objective reality… not an internal, subjective experience.

Of course we are being transformed (or sanctified)… and the God will complete the work He has begun in us (Philippians 1:6). All who have been justified are being sanctified. But the two must not be confused, because all Christians continue to wrestle with sin… it is our experience in this life (Romans 7). We cry out with Paul in the struggle between who we are currently and eschatologically (Romans 7:15-25). As we grow in knowing God and understanding His character and requirements, we see ourselves falling farther and farther short and who we are to be.

The problem, of course, is that Evangelical teaching is all too frequently indistinguishable from Catholic doctrine on this point. Mike Horton touched on the growing confusion about this in the Evangelical movement - and its implications - in the October 21, 2007 edition of the White Horse Inn (“Faith and Assurance”). He said this:

"In his book Revisioning Evangelical Theology, Stanley Grenz argued that Evangelicalism is more a spirituality than a theology, more interested in individual piety than in creeds, confessions, doctrines and liturgies. Experience gives rise to, in fact determines doctrine - rather than the other way around. The main point of the Bible, he says, is how the stories can be used in daily living. He goes on to write this:

“Although some Evangelicals belong to ecclesiological traditions that understand the Church as in some ways a dispenser of grace, generally we see our congregations foremost as a fellowship of believers. We share our journeys, our testimony, of personal transformation. Thus, a fundamental shift in self-consciousness may be underway… a move from a creed-based to a spirituality-based identity that is more like medieval mysticism than protestant orthodoxy.

Consequently, spirituality is inward and ‘quietistic,’ concerned with combating the lower nature and the world in a personal commitment that becomes the ultimate focus of the believer’s affections. Therefore, the origin of faith is not to be attributed to an external gospel but arises from inner experience, because ‘spirituality is generated from within the individual, inner motivation is crucial… more important than ‘grand theological statements.’

The spiritual life is above all the imitation of Christ. In general, we eschew religious ritual, not slavish adherence to rights, but doing what Jesus would do is our concept of true discipleship. Consequently, most Evangelicals neither accept the sacramentalism of many main line churches, nor join the Quakers in completely eliminating the sacraments. We practice baptism and the Lord’s Supper, but understand the significance of these rights in a guarded manner. In any case, these rights are practiced as goads to personal experience, and out of obedience to the Divine command.

So, get on with the task! Get your life in order by practicing the ‘aids to growth’ and see if you don’t mature spiritually. In fact if a believer comes to the point where he or she senses that stagnation has set in, our counsel is to re-double one’s efforts in the task of exercising the disciplines.”

Check up on yourself, the Evangelical counselor admonishes. We go as Evangelicals to the Church, he says, but not in order to receive means of grace, but for fellowship, instruction and encouragement.

All of this emphasis, as you can see, is on what happens inside of us, what we can do by ourselves alone, and what we do – not on what God does for us and gives to us when we assemble as His people.


This is a very different kind of view than you have with the spirituality generated by the doctrine of Justification. Here there is real assurance, genuine assurance. Luther says because you believe in me, God says, and your faith takes hold of Christ whom I have freely given to you as your justifier and Savior, therefore be righteous. Thus, God accepts you or counts you righteous only on account of Christ in whom you believe. Whatever other piece of good news concerning New Birth, Christ’s conquest of sin’s tyranny, the gift of the Spirit, His promise to renew us throughout our life, the resurrection of our body and the freedom from the presence of sin, much less the useful exhortations we may offer ourselves. The announcement that Luther here summarizes is the only thing that can create and sustain the faith that not only justifies but assures and sanctifies as well.


The External Gospel creates assurance. We don’t focus on something inward to create something inward… its something outward that creates inward assurance that we belong to Christ… Christians are the people who make it to the finish line; those who persevere to the end will be saved. We’re not justified by the level of our faith, by the degree of our faith, or by how strong our hold is on Christ, but by how strong his hold is on us. We will endure to the end, because he has saved us. Having been justified, we have peace with God.”” (White Horse Inn Broadcast, October 21, 2007, my emphasis added.)

So what is the Gospel? What is the Good News God has for us? It is an announcement of the finished work of Jesus Christ. It is external to us… because of Jesus’ perfect life, God has declared us righteous. Because of Jesus’ propitiating death, God’s justice is displayed and satisfied, and through His resurrection, we are justified (Romans 4:25).

The Gospel is Good News because it is OUTSIDE of us! So don’t be confused: Your confidence should rest on what has already happened (your justification), not your current status in personal transformation (your sanctification). And that confidence leads us to be encouraged in the process of our ongoing sanctification. After all, this is what John meant when he said Beloved, we are God's children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when He appears we shall be like Him, because we shall see Him as he is. And everyone who thus hopes in him purifies himself as He is pure." (I John 3:2-3).

Think about it this way: The question for our lives is NOT primarily “What Would Jesus Do?” That is consistent with our tendency to put our confidence in ourselves… if we could obey perfectly, we'd be fine - but since we don't, we would always be in trouble. The Good News is the answer to the question “What Has Jesus Done?” Our confidence is not in ourselves and our performance, but in Jesus who said:

“…I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day.” (John 6:38-39)

And that, my friend, is good news!

------------------------

* By the way, the “testimony” is typically moralistic (Jesus is making me a better person), therapeutic (God is helping me become happier, a better husband, beating my addiction, etc.) and deistic (as a practical matter, God requires very little of me… He’s not that involved, but He’s there when I need Him) – Mike Horton describes that so much better than me in his book Christless Christianity... give it a read!

**We’re always thankful for thoughtful exceptions. Please consider – and give a listen – to the ministries of solid teachers like John Piper, John MacArthur, Alistair Begg, James MacDonald – and some locals including Josh Moody, Craig Troxel, David Helm, and (thankfully) others. But be "Berean" in your hearing... (Acts 17:11).

Evangelical Confusion: What Is the Gospel?

I've been thinking about confusion in Evangelical thinking lately, particularly around the core message of the Gospel.  This thought from David Wells seems to capture both the problem with the movement's underlying philosophy - and the results succinctly... It's a sad commentary, and I think his choice of descriptives is both helpful and Biblical.  But what do you think?

“If we mute the biblical gospel by our misunderstanding, or by our practice in the church, we destroy the possibility of spiritual authenticity in the church. In theory, most evangelicals assent to all of this. In practice, many evangelicals – especially those of a marketing and emergent kind – are walking away from the hard edges of these truths in an effort to make the gospel easy to swallow, quick to sell, and generationally appealing. They are very well aware of a deep cultural hunger for spirituality in the West, and they are trolling in these waters. The problem, however, is that this spirituality is highly privatized, highly individualistic, self-centered, and hostile to doctrine because it is always hostile to Christian truth. Evangelicals gain nothing by merely attracting to their churches postmoderns who are yearning for what is spiritual if, in catering to this, the gospel is diluted, made easy, and the edges get rounded off. The degree to which evangelicals are doing this is the degree to which they are invalidating themselves and prostituting the church.” (The Courage To Be Protestant, page 372, emphasis added.)

Ouch.  I see too often churches who "mute the Biblical Gospel by ... misunderstanding" and even open hostility to doctrine.  Have you seen this in your experience?  Is Wells right or wrong in his assessment?  Comments are open!

Genesis Confusion - What Can We Really Know?

Christianity Today published an interview last week with Francis Collins, the former director of the Human Genome Project, who also recently launched the BioLogos Foundation, which "promotes the search for truth in both the natural and spiritual realms seeking harmony between these different perspectives."  Collins gave a personal account of his attempt to harmonize faith and science in his book The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, published in 2006.  Karl Giberson (who became Executive Vice President at the request of Collins  in 2008) conducted the interview. There's certainly a lot one can say regarding this article.  (By the way, if you are interested in a solid, Biblical response to the theory of evolution, I'd highly recommend listening to John MacArthur's talk on Creation, Theology and the End of the Universe from the opening of the 2009 Shepherd's Conference.)  But what stunned me in the interview was the pejorative tone used by Mr. Gilberson - sanctioned apparently by the editors over at CT.   For example, what is one to think of the introduction to this question posed by Mr. Gilberson (on page 4 of the website)?

"One of my theologian friends once said, in great frustration over this issue, "I wish they had never put the Bible in the hands of ordinary people." It seems to me that we need to take more seriously the teaching ministry of the church. We encourage people to read the Bible on their own, but certain misunderstandings are bound to emerge with that approach. Young people are going to read Genesis and think of Adam and Eve as real biological parents of the human race..."

What a shocker, Karl.  Imagine that people might read the Bible and actually believe what it says.  What has happened to CT - and the Evangelical movement that it seems to represent?  Has the idea of creationism really become that unpalatable?  Not surprisingly, Collins reviews favorably Dr. John Walton's The Lost World of Genesis One:  Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate, in which Walton advances his theory that Genesis 1 isn't about creation at all (not withstanding Genesis 1:1), but rather a description of the functional ordering (as opposed to material creation) of the Earth, in a pattern recognizable to the ancient middle-eastern culture. 

I guess I'm just too simple minded.  The point of much of this seems to be to make the Bible obscure... why anyone is seeking to apply scientific law to a miraculous event seems to be a category error to my limited way of thinking.  I remember sitting in a class listening this theory once, and hearing from a good friend and younger Christian afterwards who said this:  "Wow!  He's smart.  I'll never understand the Bible!"

Maybe that's what some are aiming at these days - and one wonders what the Reformers would have thought of the re-institution of the Magisterium... and counter to the Reformation principles we're remembering following a half-millennium since Calvin's birth.  There was a time when we recognized the supremacy of theology over the other sciences; now, folks like Collins seem to assume it's subordination to science!

For those of you who don't accept the historicity of Genesis 1 and 2, here's a question:  Why not?  Have you considered the following?

• If you believe in evolution as the origin of humanity, when did "the fall" happen?  
• Evolution, by the way, requires death - in the process of natural selection.  Where did "death" come from prior to the fall of man (who, under the theory, is the product of evolution)?
• Is it not possible for God to have operated outside of the laws of science in creation - and why do you insist on judging the account of creation by something that may not even be applicable?'
• If you don't believe Genesis 1 and 2, just when do you start believing the text?  What other chapters would you have us not believe?
  

Perhaps most importantly, for people who don't believe in God's miraculous intervention in creation (and, as a result, don't accept Adam's headship and representative status for the human race), how do you explain man's sinful condition? 

So many questions... and here's mine:  Why not just take God at his word, and believe Him?

Why This Blog??

I’ve been asked on some occasions why this blog exists. I assume that the question isn’t referring to a philosophical question (“Cogito Ergo Blog” or “I Think, Therefore I Spam”), but rather what my point is in the eclectic series of periodic posts published here.

I think that’s a fair question… one that I’ve been thinking about for some time.  So, I thought I’d “re-boot” the blog with a modest attempt at articulating an answer.

I am a student of history. Or at least a product of the History Department of a Christian liberal arts college, a frequent reader of history and a person with a life-long interest in the ebb and flow of “what-has-gone-before” us. In addition to history generally, I have grown up with a love of the history of the Church. I love this not merely culturally, but because it is the Bride of Christ – He laid down His life for it, He loves it, He will glorify those in it. I think that anyone who gives up on the Church really misses the heart of our Lord.

But things aren’t going so well for the church in America these days – and especially for the Evangelical church. Watching it, participating in it, praying for it, grieving for it… You’ll note that I focus on this frequently, and this is the heart of the question I’ve gotten: Why focus on what’s wrong – why not just talk about what is right? Why be “negative” anyway?

J. Greshem Mechan was faced with this same question early last century. If you don’t know him, you should… at least read his book Christianity and Liberalism. Here’s his take on the question:

“...men tell us that our preaching should be positive and not negative, that we can preach the truth without attacking error. But if we follow that advice we shall have to close our Bible and desert its teachings. The New Testament is a polemic book almost from beginning to end.  Some years ago I was in a company of teachers of the Bible in the colleges and other educational institutions of America. One of the most eminent theological professors in the country made an address.  In it he admitted that there are unfortunate controversies about doctrine in the Epistles of Paul; but, said he in effect, the real essence of Paul’s teaching is found in the hymn to Christian love in the thirteenth chapter of I Corinthians; and we can avoid controversy today, if we will only devote the chief attention to that inspiring hymn.  In reply, I am bound to say that the example was singularly ill-chosen. That hymn to Christian love is in the midst of a great polemic passage; it would never have been written if Paul had been opposed to controversy with error in the Church. It was because his soul was stirred within him by a wrong use of the spiritual gifts that he was able to write that glorious hymn. So it is always in the Church. Every really great Christian utterance, it may almost be said, is born in controversy. It is when men have felt compelled to take a stand against error that they have risen to the really great heights in the celebration of truth.” [“Christian Scholarship and the Defense of the Faith," in J. Greshem Machen: Selected Shorter Writings (Pages 148-149, emphasis added).

I’m not comparing myself to Machen, mind you. But I share his understanding of the authority of the Bible, and the clarity of its message.  But is it possible today:

• Even with all of the talk about “humility” in our theology, that there is much that God has revealed clearly - and that the Evangelical church obscures it by alternative views on every possible theological issue? 
• That the Bible really is God’s word to us and that He intends for us to know it - and that the Evangelical church dilutes it through a variety of means (from Archeology to bad hermeneutics) which undermine the practical authority of Scripture? 
• That somewhere, deep in our sinful hearts, we rejoice in the confusion some find in Scripture because it gives us an excuse to “wriggle off of the hook” of the conviction we’d experience from a clear presentation of Scripture?

The sad fact is that when reading the Bible, you are repeatedly confronted with the disparity between what we are supposed to experience in a corporate body and actual experience.   You'll also see our clear responsibility to stand up against the doctrinal error constantly confronting us from all sides within the Church.  But to recognize the disparity and stand against error is a sure-fire way to be vilified and marginalized in the average Evangelical congregation.

I'm no longer surprised by teaching which seems to “darken counsel by words without knowledge” (Job 38:2), which is so prominent in pulpits and Sunday School classrooms (that's in the rare cases where adult Christian education even exists anymore).  I am surprised though that so few Christians seem to want to stand against it!

Loving Truth requires me - no, all of us - to recognize that it is wrong to obscure the truth of God's Word by make disputable that which God makes clear in the Bible.   The results can be seen in tolerating broken relationships, abusive and disfunctional authority structures – and most clearly in lack of sound, Biblical doctrine taught. 

To acknowledge the existence of this type of error in many Evangelical churches is one thing - which seems undisputable to me.  It is heart-breaking when you see it in your own community of faith.  It cries out for someone to stand up and point it out.

It's interesting to me that I usually don’t get much push-back on the existence of the problem…  In fact, the people I’ve found myself in debate with seem comfortable to agree that things aren't what they should be, but they assume that things always have been this way, and that they will always continue.  The argument I most usually get is that even though these problems exist, we shouldn’t focus on them because to do so is "negative."

So what does the Bible intend for us to do with calls to “contend for the faith once for all delivered” (Jude 3)?    How ought we rightly emulate the Berean attitude towards teaching (Acts 17:11)?  The answers - however uncomfortable - seems clear to me.  

Those are the question I’m wrestling with in this blog… and the reason I write.  And in light of the usual reaction received, I've been slower to post lately as I have been asking this:  When "contending for the Truth," what should our heart attitude be? I love John Piper’s words in this regard, in setting the stage for the great battles for truth in the lives of Athanasius, John Owen and - coincidentally - J. Gresham Machen:

“Some controversy is crucial for the sake of life-giving truth. Running from it is a sign of cowardice. But enjoying it is usually a sign of pride. Some necessary tasks are sad, and even victory is not without tears—unless there is pride. The reason enjoying controversy is a sign of pride is that humility loves truth-based unity more than truth-based victory. Humility loves Christ-exalting exultation more than Christ-defending confrontation—even more than Christ-defending vindication. Humility delights to worship Christ in spirit and truth. If it must fight for worship-sustaining truth, it will, but that is not because the fight is pleasant. It’s not even because victory is pleasant. It’s because knowing and loving and proclaiming Christ for who he really is and what he really did is pleasant.” (John Piper, Introduction in Contending for Our All, page 17.)

So why do I blog? Because the Truth of Jesus is far better, far more desirable, far more profitable than the error… even today.  I long to see the day – even in my lifetime – when the error is confronted appropriately and dismissed, Christian unity is based on a common Truth rather than merely a shared program and where real love is embraced and displayed – even (or maybe especially) in how we pursue the Truth.

I may fail in the process of contending well, but I'll go with A. W. Tozer when he says that "what comes into our minds when we think about God is the most important thing about us."  A.W. Tozer, Chapter 1 of Knowledge of the Holy, page 9.)   And that's my heart behind these musings.  Perhaps you'll help in dialogue, leading to a more Biblical understanding of God and His Truth.

Why I Don't "Tweet"

Ok, I must be getting old. I love technology - I am usually the first to buy it, try it or at least read about it.

But not this. I think it's evil... no matter what the kids say about it.

It's twitter. And here are my top 10 reasons why I think it may foreshadow the end of modern civilization - even though I may try it out!

Top 10 Reasons I Don't Twitter

10. The people who need to know "what I am doing" already know

9. I have never seen a "tweet" that was important enough to merit the time I spent reading it... do I need to know what you had for lunch, your workout schedule, your random thoughts while watching "24" or your semi-profound insights?

8. People's tweets aren't as interesting, funny and/or profound as they imagine

7. Unlike blogs - which can admittedly be trivial - Twitter's character limit guarantees triviality. Besides, you can blog about ideas, present argument and reason, etc. In tweets, you are limited to mere information or assertion

6. As "a way to stay in touch with family and friends," its a lame substitute for a phone call or (gasp) a conversation

5. Particularly pathetic is the false sense of community - and even intimacy - perpetuated... (should I be getting regular messages from Oprah?)

4. Tweets are forever. No edits. No erasing.

3. What people tweet generally tells more about them than they think.

2. Twitter is a stalker's dream... accessible to anyone who can google your name and the word "twitter"

and the main point...


1. Narcissism is spelled "T-W-I-T-T-E-R"

Comments?

What is Happening to the Pulpit?

I found this article - about the loss of the pulpit in church - very interesting. Although the "worship wars" seemed to have ended in Evangelical-dom (with the methodology and ministry philosophy of the Marketers having clearly won the hearts and minds of most non-denominational evangelical churches)... I think it’s especially important to note the symbolism of the pulpit – even for those who’s preaching is biblical, we risk undermining our message (or at least confusing it) by how – as well as what – we do.
What do you think?

Dystonia...

Very rarely would I post something this personal, but...

My older sister has suffered for years from a condition called dystonia. I love her very much - and I've been troubled for literally my entire life at the lack of information and, more importantly, attention and understanding about this disease.

I saw this story today on CNN, and my heart aches for the Staab family - and for my own, too. I'm grateful for the attention they are willing to bring to this... and I'd ask for you to consider helping them - and to pray with me that God might provide direction to the doctors and healing to people with this condition - the Staab children, and my sister too.



For more information about the Staabs and their efforts, please visit their foundation website, Tyler's Hope.

A View of America From Russia...

I never thought I'd link to an article on Pravda, but this article from Russia is - I'm afraid - more true than not. Especially where highlighted (my emphasis). But you decide... discussion, anyone?

American capitalism gone with a whimper

It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American decent into Marxism is happening with breath taking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people.

True, the situation has been well prepared on and off for the past century, especially the past twenty years. The initial testing grounds was conducted upon our Holy Russia and a bloody test it was. But we Russians would not just roll over and give up our freedoms and our souls, no matter how much money Wall Street poured into the fists of the Marxists.

Those lessons were taken and used to properly prepare the American populace for the surrender of their freedoms and souls, to the whims of their elites and betters.

First, the population was dumbed down through a politicized and substandard education system based on pop culture, rather then the classics. Americans know more about their favorite TV dramas then the drama in DC that directly affects their lives. They care more for their "right" to choke down a McDonalds burger or a BurgerKing burger than for their constitutional rights. Then they turn around and lecture us about our rights and about our "democracy". Pride blind the foolish.

Then their faith in God was destroyed, until their churches, all tens of thousands of different "branches and denominations" were for the most part little more then Sunday circuses and their televangelists and top protestant mega preachers were more then happy to sell out their souls and flocks to be on the "winning" side of one pseudo Marxist politician or another. Their flocks may complain, but when explained that they would be on the "winning" side, their flocks were ever so quick to reject Christ in hopes for earthly power. Even our Holy Orthodox churches are scandalously liberalized in America.

The final collapse has come with the election of Barack Obama. His speed in the past three months has been truly impressive. His spending and money printing has been a record setting, not just in America's short history but in the world. If this keeps up for more then another year, and there is no sign that it will not, America at best will resemble the Wiemar Republic and at worst Zimbabwe.

These past two weeks have been the most breath taking of all. First came the announcement of a planned redesign of the American Byzantine tax system, by the very thieves who used it to bankroll their thefts, loses and swindles of hundreds of billions of dollars. These make our Russian oligarchs look little more then ordinary street thugs, in comparison. Yes, the Americans have beat our own thieves in the shear volumes. Should we congratulate them?

These men, of course, are not an elected panel but made up of appointees picked from the very financial oligarchs and their henchmen who are now gorging themselves on trillions of American dollars, in one bailout after another. They are also usurping the rights, duties and powers of the American congress (parliament). Again, congress has put up little more then a whimper to their masters.

Then came Barack Obama's command that GM's (General Motor) president step down from leadership of his company. That is correct, dear reader, in the land of "pure" free markets, the American president now has the power, the self given power, to fire CEOs and we can assume other employees of private companies, at will. Come hither, go dither, the centurion commands his minions.

So it should be no surprise, that the American president has followed this up with a "bold" move of declaring that he and another group of unelected, chosen stooges will now redesign the entire automotive industry and will even be the guarantee of automobile policies. I am sure that if given the chance, they would happily try and redesign it for the whole of the world, too. Prime Minister Putin, less then two months ago, warned Obama and UK's Blair, not to follow the path to Marxism, it only leads to disaster. Apparently, even though we suffered 70 years of this Western sponsored horror show, we know nothing, as foolish, drunken Russians, so let our "wise" Anglo-Saxon fools find out the folly of their own pride.

Again, the American public has taken this with barely a whimper...but a "freeman" whimper.

So, should it be any surprise to discover that the Democratically controlled Congress of America is working on passing a new regulation that would give the American Treasury department the power to set "fair" maximum salaries, evaluate performance and control how private companies give out pay raises and bonuses? Senator Barney Franks, a social pervert basking in his homosexuality (of course, amongst the modern, enlightened American societal norm, as well as that of the general West, homosexuality is not only not a looked down upon life choice, but is often praised as a virtue) and his Marxist enlightenment, has led this effort. He stresses that this only affects companies that receive government monies, but it is retroactive and taken to a logical extreme, this would include any company or industry that has ever received a tax break or incentive.

The Russian owners of American companies and industries should look thoughtfully at this and the option of closing their facilities down and fleeing the land of the Red as fast as possible. In other words, divest while there is still value left.

The proud American will go down into his slavery with out a fight, beating his chest and proclaiming to the world, how free he really is. The world will only snicker.

Stanislav Mishin

CBS News on "Safe Families"

Here's a brief look at an organization we value a lot called "Safe Families" - a practical way to show Christ's love in a world full of real need. Malik (one of the boys featured in this story) has been a joy in our home and we've had the privilege of being able to participate with his family - and to share the Gospel with him.



Watch CBS Videos Online

By the way, they can always use another loving home... if you're interested, check out the link above or drop a note to us here at the blog.

Another "Trouble Maker"...

Here's a great thought from Eric Ludy, author of The Bravehearted Gospel: The Truth Is Worth Fighting For, from his podcast for today (broadcast on Moody Radio):

Sadly, I think he's right on target. Nothing seems to rile an evangelical more these days than questioning whether what they are doing is Biblical. But questioning whether something is consistent with God's revealed will is something all true Christians are required to do... first in their own lives, and then also in their experience - especially in their local church.

Just a few things worth repeating from his post:

"There are a few things that are classified as out of bounds these days in modern Christianity and 'pulling an Elijah' is one of them.

It’s obvious that the Church is in the midst of a drought just like back in the days of 1 Kings chapter 18. But we don’t want to hear anything about our version of Christianity being the reason for this drought. We’ve been eating slim spiritual pickins for years in the church. The grand and epic Gospel has been trimmed down to a mere stump of Truth. We’ve treated sin as if it is simply a necessary bedfellow and haven’t allowed our Savior to actually rescue us from all that is destroying our souls."

It is no surprise that I don't like a lot of what I'm seeing these days in my limited sampling of Evangelicalism - and I'm certainly not Elijah. But the truth is, it doesn't seem to matter whether you are correct or incorrect in your assessment when you question these days because you'll be vilified for the act of questioning. Oh, and you certainly won't get a reasoned, Biblical response, because the Evangelical response never seems to move beyond the messenger to the message itself.

I'd like to hear the Evangelical response to Elijah, which would likely sound like these typical thoughts: "It's not his message I object to, it's his tone." "He doesn't sound very humble about his views." "Who is he to say, anyway?" "Why does he focus on such petty issues - they don't really matter because nobody agrees about that doctrine stuff anyway." "Don't respond to him, nothing will be good enough for him anyway."

If someone insults or misrepresents the character of your spouse or parent, you're likely to get angry about that. You might even use a "harsh tone" in response. Why? Because it is an appropriate response. So here's my question: Where is the "appropriate response" to the widely documented, growing Evangelical apostacy these days? All too often, the decline is met with silence. And like the spouse or child who doesn't rise to defend their insulted relative, the observer is left to question the love within the relationship.

Eric concludes by saying this:

"So if a modern day Elijah raises his voice to speak, the Church at large is hotwired to shake their heads and moan under their breath, 'not another one of these trouble-makers.' But, let’s get something straight: The man with the message of 'repent' is not the problem! The weeping prophet that says with a tear-choked voice, 'wake up Church' is not the one creating the trouble! America, can we admit that we’ve grown fat and sloppy spiritually? We are not a finally chiseled athlete ready to fight for Truth, stand for the Gospel, and defend the Sacred Text of Scripture. "

I do think that "we all need a little kick in the rear end from the Old Prophet Elijah. We need to hear a firmer message, a message with guts, a message with the ring of uncomfortable truth once again... so instead of furrowing your brow and muttering, 'trouble-maker!' Say, 'Thank you God that you still care enough about me to speak above the din of modern American Culture.'"