The Daily Soap Box

New SITE: Pulpit and Pen

2009-09-16T11:19:00.005-06:00

I know I just changed blog address a few months ago, but finally decided to go "professional." It might be a mess for a while, but the design will come along with the functionality. I have also imported all of the blogs from Faith and Culture and the Daily Soap Box to this location. It is called "Pulpit and Pen" and is at http://www.pulpitandpen.com/ Thanks.

Let it Burn

2009-09-15T22:22:00.003-06:00

What is it I'm fighting for, exactly? Day after day in the blogosphere, cyberspace, and daily interaction I'm continually fighting for the values that I believe make America (or made America) a great nation. Being engaged in the political process, laboring in the Market Place of Ideas, speaking out for great American principles like personal accountability, self-responsibility, work ethic, and limited government, I have been challenged, attacked, and maligned. And that's cool - because I've been called worse by far better people. And sometimes for better reasons.

But as it seems there are way too many fires to put out, in way too many places, and I'm way too ill-equipped to put them out myself, I ask the question, "what is it I'm fighting for, exactly?"

It's blatantly clear that socialism (albeit called by different names) is coming to America. Even the average and ordinary proletariat wants all the bread and circuses it can stomach fed to them from the hands of the federal government.

Our President has surrounded himself with communists, revolutionaries, animal-rights activists, and euthanasia and forced-abortion promoters (and that's just to name but a few of his Czars).

And worse yet, our media, schools, corporations, and a healthy and growing percentage of the American populace is behind him as he seeks to change America from the inside-out.

We stand by as our President bumps fists with Hugo Chavez and let's the former Soviet Union rebuild what Reagan destroyed. We let the Neo-Soviets develop nuclear weapons for Venezuela and sell arms to China and Iran. And our President sits back and watches Iran develop nuclear weapons with no resistance.

It seems pretty hopeless. And so I feel like Patrick Henry, crying out "Give me Liberty or give me death!"

And this is where my theological common sense should kick in. I should probably be looking at this through Biblical lenses.

We know how this is going to end. We know that a collapsed economy (totally collapsed in Fallen Babylon) is coming. We know that Christian persecution will happen - even here. We know that there will be an Exalted Leader who rules from continent to continent. We know that there will be a one-world economic system as well. We know things will fall a part.

And as our nation spirals into increasing wickedness, I ask this question: when does being a patriot (supporting ones nation) conflict with our allegiance to Christ? Perhaps that moment has long passed, and I am on the wrong side of that line.

I think I'll step back from politics (I've said this before, but pray I will follow through). I think I'll shake the dust off my feet. One day Jesus will return, not leaving a brick upon another from all of the fine State Houses and monuments of our nation - from Washington D.C. to Ellis Island. In the end, it will all burn.

Perhaps wisdom would tell us that it is too late, to let it go. Perhaps our nation should get what it very well deserves. Perhaps the role of the prophet is to cheer lead God's plan of justice for a nation, and not to obstruct it.

Ministering Effectively to Senior Citizens

2009-09-14T12:04:00.002-06:00

Alright, I've joked about this but it's starting to get serious. Most churches huddle around after the service and say things like "wow, we had some 'young people' come today!" And "young people" is described as pretty much anybody with school-aged children or below retirement age. I've often chucked that at our church we usually say the opposite - "wow, we had 'old folks' come today!"

But looking around this Sunday morning I saw that in spite of having a very healthy attendance, we didn't have a single retired person of retirement age at church. And even if they all showed up there would be a mere half dozen older folks in a church of 100.

I suppose that most pastors wouldn't worry about a lack of silver-haired seasoned citizens, but this causes for me concern. I haven't any answers, but I do have some questions:

1. Are we ministering effectively to the unique needs of senior citizens presented by their unique life situations and circumstances?

2. Are we encouraging "community" among our senior citizens; I.E. are we promoting active and healthy fellowship with our seniors?

3. Do our senior citizens feel like valuable parts of our faith community?

4. Are we learning from the storehouses of wisdom and life-experiences that our seniors have to offer?

5. If the young age of our pastoral staff effects negatively their ability to minister efficiently to senior, then by what means do we minister to them?

It seems to me that these are things we should be praying about.

Sunday's Message: A Wartime Mentality

2009-09-13T21:01:00.002-06:00

This is Sunday's Message entitled Stewardship II: A Wartime Mentality. Sorry for the poor audio quality on this one. Win some and lose some.

Williston, ND TEA Party

2009-09-13T20:43:00.002-06:00

Judah and Reagan at the Williston TEA Party.

This was the TEA Party in Williston, ND. There were about 1000 in attendance. They were just a big mob full of Nazis and Astro-turf.

2009-09-10T22:14:00.000-06:00

*Maybe the paper will shirk some bias and print this one*

Representative Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) drew outrage from many this week as he yelled out “you lie” to President Obama during his health care reform speech. Although some might question whether or not the protocol for a joint-session of congress should allow for such an outburst (let us remember Democrats often booed Bush – even during a State of the Union address), I have to agree that Obama was, indeed, lying.

The statement that drew Wilson’s comment was Obama asserting that the Health Care Reform bill would not provide for illegal aliens. The leading House bill promoting Health Care Reform (H.R. 3200) contains absolutely no restrictions on private citizens, whether here legally or illegally, and whether temporary or permanent. Furthermore, no House bill contains any measure mandating that people seeking care need to prove citizenship.

Congressional Republicans have advocated multiple resolutions, stating that any health reform should not include care for illegal aliens and others stating that reform should not provide abortions from taxpayer funds. These resolutions have all been defeated by Democrats.

Even though we may not like the timing of Rep. Wilson’s outburst, one can hardly argue with the truth behind it. Obama lies.

Jordan Hall
Chairman, Richland County Republican Party

Written By Some Jerk I Know

2009-09-08T09:41:00.002-06:00

The following is a parody of a true event that occurred recently in Montana. Only the names were changed to protect the guilty. It is intended to provide a little humor to our otherwise dull and difficult lives.

Hunter Reports Getting Assaulted by a Giant Masked Creature,

Dateline, Sidney, Mt. Sept. 5, 2009:

Hunter Jordina Hallman called the Montana Fish and Game warden yesterday morning reporting that a giant, masked creature had just attacked him as he was on his way to his tree stand to hunt whitetail deer. He described the event as harrowing and unnerving. As he was walking in the early morning hours, about an hour before sun up, a giant, furry animal, wearing a mask jumped out of the brush and began hissing at him in a threatening manner. Jordina says he then grabbed a big stick from off the ground and began beating the animal to no avail. The animal knocked him into a ravine about ten feet deep, filled with water. The water destroyed both his cell phone and his brand new used distance locater. He fought off the assailant valiantly and climbed out of the ravine only to discover he had a badly sprained ankle.

He bravely continued on to his tree stand where he climbed up twenty feet before he could finally sit down and rest. He had the opportunity to shoot a few small deer, but decided the perilous beginning to his day necessitated he only settle for a big buck or a good sized doe. When he arrived home to tell his wife Mindy about the incident, she seemed unconcerned.

That evening, while having dinner at a friend’s house, that friend’s wife (whose name will be withheld to protect her innocence), bandaged his swollen ankle and put ice on it. Jordina commented to his wife that she should watch and see how a wife is supposed to take care of her mighty hunter when he returns home injured from the dangerous consequences of a hunt. She laughed hysterically.

Jordina said the assailant left the scene in a red Mustang convertible. Police are currently searching for it. If you have any information leading to the arrest and/or conviction of this villain, please call the Montana Fish and Game office or your local law enforcement center. A $5.00 reward is being offered by the Jordina Hallman estate.

The previous news story was written by some jerk I know.

My Disagreement with John Piper and Al Mohler

2009-09-07T20:57:00.003-06:00

Concerning President Obama's address to school children, I disagree with two of my most personally influential theologians, the great John Piper and ever-relevant Albert Mohler. First, let me state that me disagreeing with Piper and Mohler is like my dog, Molly, disagreeing with her veterinarian (i.e. it's not at all important, considering the source). Nonetheless, I think Piper, Mohler and others in the Reformed circle of friends are misguided in the support of Obama's address to our children and misguided in their chastisement of those of us who consider the speech to be sinister.

Albert Mohler wrote on his blog today "Much of the controversy is reckless, baseless, and plainly irrational. Some have called the speech an effort to indoctrinate our children into socialism. Others have argued that any presidential speech piped into the classroom is illegitimate...At this level, the controversy is a national embarrassment. Conservatives must avoid jumping on every conspiracy theory and labeling every action of the Obama Administration as being socialist or sinister."

Mohler goes on to say "Furthermore, the controversy smacks of disrespect for the president and by extension, the presidency itself. Both fly in the face of Christian responsibility to pray for those in authority."

Piper's blog also opines in a similar fashion. Piper writes "I am stunned at the outcry against the president of the United States speaking to the youth of our nation. This speech, for me, seems to be an answer to a prayer I have been praying for the president repeatedly."

I think that Piper, Mohler, and other like-minded individuals are being naive at best and gullible to the extent of foolishness at worst. Their beliefs concerning Obama's speech to school children are based on what I believe to be false presuppositions. Here is what I see as being inherently dangerous to and unprecedented in our Republic.

1. Obama's speech is not about important education-related issues. And I doubt very much it was going to be in the beginning. Let me remind Piper, Mohler, and others that the copy of Obama's speech released today is most assuredly not what was originally planned, but has been edited, changed, and evolved after the recent national uproar. Even in the speech's latest version, Obama pushes environmentalism on our children (what else is new). Obama also reminds children to wash their hands and talks about not fitting in as a kid. Is this a worthwhile use of class time? Do we need the president to intervene to remind us about hand washing?

2. Obama's speech (and corresponding work sheets) is about Obama. Work sheets planned for school children ask "how does President Obama inspire you" (sounds like a leading question) and "how can you help the President." Let's not pretend that this isn't the same as the slew of public-service announcements made by incumbent politicians around election time - paid for by taxpayer dollars - where the main point of the message is "look how great I am." Parents and religious leaders both need to be on guard against slow and subtle indoctrination, and using class time and school resources to build Obama's legacy is an invalid reason for taking the time to speak to students. As a parent, I don't want my children to be inspired by Obama (success at wickedness should not be idealized or imitated) and I don't want them to help Obama. Like Rush Limbaugh, I readily admit I want him to fail in his personal agenda for America. I do pray for Obama - that he comes to know Christ, repents, and leads by God's design. Unless God does that, I pray "plan B" - please make Obama fail in his intentions for America.

3. The President of the United States is not an exalted leader that should have the power to gain an entire nation of school children for an audience at a whim. For this, I would remind Mohler and Piper of the Constitution of the United States, the 9th and 10th Amendment, and the concept of separation of powers. The presidency does not give one the ability to speak to all school children (or any other group) simply because schools are taxpayer funded. Ask yourself, do you really want the president to make a speech to your kid any time he wants? Is that his right? That is an abuse of the bully pulpit. My Christian responsibility to pray for and respect the president does not mean I should allow the president to usurp authority he does not have. Our "leaders" as spoken of in the Scripture are not the tyrannical dictators of ancient Rome, but are civil servants bound to a Constitutional job description. To require rule of law from our leaders does not mean I am not fulfilling my Christian responsibility to my leaders.

4. One shouldn't be quick to criticize those that raise the "indoctrination flag" at Obama's speech. Perhaps it is not indoctrination and completely harmless (and wasn't intended to be). Let us not forget that indoctrination is a key goal of the National Education Association and educators all across the country. From textbooks to lectures, from grade school to higher education, the liberal and secular humanists are fighting diligently for the hearts and minds of our children. Forgive us if we are on guard for yet another subtle indoctrination of our children.

In consideration of these four warnings, I would suggest to parents that they be concerned when liberals want to address their children - even on seemingly non-controversial matters. Any student of recent history can tell you that these ilk seek to undermine your teaching and create in your children "open-minded" brains that accept any belief or worldview other than that of traditional Christianity.

I would prefer that theologians dig a little deeper into an understanding of our political enemies before applying a Biblical principle to a situation to which it does not apply.

My Tribute to Van Jones

2009-09-06T13:27:00.001-06:00

Mess with Glenn Beck? Bite off more than you could chew? Reap the Whirlwind, homeboy.

For Your Viewing Pleasure

2009-09-05T12:22:00.001-06:00

Would Jesus Be for Health Care Reform?

2009-09-03T11:38:00.005-06:00

Let me state a fact that any reasonable, intellectually-honest person would admit: Liberals hate the devoutly religious. If you are not aware of this then you're living under a rock. There are some bizarre reasons for this, most borderline on supernatural. However, the main reason (as I've been saying for years) is that liberalism is a religion in and of itself.

In the religion of liberalism, the faith itself has several "wings." These wings include atheism, agnosticism, and secular humanism. Undergirding these various denominational faiths within the greater religion of liberalism is post-modern concepts of situational ethics and wishy-washy moralism that can be neither defined nor explained because it changes to fit the desires of each individual moral adherent.

The reason why parishioners in the church of liberalism hate the devoutly religious is because our religion (whether Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, or other devout faiths) is grounded in something that cannot be changed or manipulated by liberals and their propaganda machines. A recent poll brought great criticism to evangelicals this week as almost three out of four said that even if science disproved their faith they would still believe their faith. What a shock! Liberals just can't understand why scientific "fact" (which change from day to day) can't shake a faith that has stood on unchanging ancient texts and truths for thousands of years.

You see, that's what faith does - it keeps its adherents from being blown around like chaff every time some earthling comes up with a new philosophy or concept. This is stomach-churning to liberals, who change their convictions with the wind. So they call us "narrow-minded" when we hold to ancient building-block convictions of civilization like "a marriage is between a man and woman" or "don't go around killing infants" or "self-responsibility."

Religion to liberals is like kryptonite to Superman. They have to keep religion as far away from them as possible to maintain their own supremacy over the human mind. For this reason they are motivated to remove the 10 Commandments from court rooms, prayer from schools, nativity scenes from the public park, and the crucifix from your private work space. This is about the marketplace of ideas and the liberal church's ambition to monopolize it.

The religion of liberalism has its high priests (Al Gore, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton) who are perceived as although being privately flawed are also seen as being publicly infallible. They also have a vast array of dead saints that are used as a rallying cry for their favorite desires (three dead Kennedys come to mind). Their important doctrines are environmentalism, diversity, and taking care of the "little man." Like most faiths, liberalism even has a holy sacrament - abortion, in which children are put on the altar of sacrifice which explains why this sacrament is so vigorously protected by the left.

And so liberals hate Christians (followers of Christ). We can't oppose abortion or else it's a "religious issue." We can't oppose gay marriage because it's a "religious issue." Why is it, then, that liberals who despise us try to quote Jesus at every opportunity when it's politically expedient.

Liberal Democrats all over the nation are invoking the name of Jesus to promote health care reform. Is this not slightly disingenuous? Do they - who try to put Jesus back into the closet at every opportunity - really care whether or not Jesus would want health care reform... because they sure as heck couldn't care what Jesus has to say about infanticide or gay marriage.

Ed Schultz (who you probably haven't heard of because he's on the little-watched network MSNBC) told his viewers yesterday that Jesus would vote for the "public option."

Seriously? This is pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, shove Jesus in the closet Ed Schultz? All in a sudden he's consulting Jesus? Schultz said:

"Now, I have been referring to the health care reform deal as the real moral issue of our time. I believe Jesus would vote yes for a public option, but some Bible thumpers don't see me eye to eye on this one."

A guy that doesn't see abortion as being morally unacceptable has become a morality expert and can define health care reform as being the most important moral issue of our lifetime? And yet Schultz can't discuss Jesus without getting in a whack on true Christians by calling them "Bible thumpers," which in liberal-speak means "they actually read their Bible once in a while. Freaks."

All of this begs the question to liberals, "how do you exactly know Jesus enough to guess his opinions on stuff?"

Do you liberals read Jesus' thoughts, words, and study his behavior and actions as evidenced in the Bible? Do you sit under the teaching of an orthodox Bible teacher that is going to teach you long-accepted, time-tested and approved presuppositions about Jesus?

Or are you just making up your image of a buddy-Christ that you can make and mold according to your lusts and desires? You see, what makes it different when conservatives quote Scripture as opposed to liberals is that we start with the belief that Jesus was A) real, B) God, and C) authoritative. In other words, we don't use Jesus because it's politically expedient, we actually have the political leanings we do because it all starts with Jesus. To conservatives, he's not just an arguing point, but the foundation of our world view.

So would Jesus be for health care reform? Honestly, I think Jesus would have better things to do. He seemed unwilling and disinterested to meddle in earthly politics. Although it should be noted that his cousin John was not at all afraid to challenge political leaders (and was killed for it). That being said about Jesus, I do believe the Bible can guide us to form a correct and Biblical view toward health care reform.

First, why would liberals like Schultz say he would be for reform? There are a couple reasons, including the fact that the liberal interpretation of Jesus is as some philanthropist hippie who wandered around helping poor folks and he would therefore want government intervention in health care. The second reason is that we're told the New Testament church sold their goods and gave their money to the poor.

So what about Jesus? Would he support health care reform as Obama wants to provide it?

I would answer "We cannot understand Jesus by looking at 33 years of his life, of which only 3 years are given us in any detail. He is the Ancient of Days and has always been. To fully understand the character of God the Son, we must look at the entirety of Scripture (which He brought into existence). After all, Jesus-on-Earth was simply an incarnation of God-Eternal, and a wide-array of theology is necessary to understand Jesus so we don't add to the flawed hippie-version of a Jesus that liberals espouse."

The Bible makes it clear that humanity must always be saddled with the yoke of self-reliance and self-responsibility. Second Thessalonians chapter three tells us "For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies. Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread.” In other words, don't reward the lazy.

I should mention that not all who lack health insurance are lazy. A good number are also hardworking, yet foolish, not preparing for an inevitable health issue. Many, however are innocent and may be children or those whose health insurance has been canceled and cannot get more. However, current health care reform doesn't make notice of the large percentage of lazy and unprepared that would benefit from the so-called "public option." Therefore (like all government welfare programs) it would be rewarding the lazy.

Secondly, the Bible tells us that we men should provide for our own families in 1 Timothy 5:8 "But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.” I am tired of hearing parents boo-hoo us with stories about how their children couldn't get some medical problem taken care of. If I was that parent I would have too much shame to go around repeating that. My primary job on Earth isn't to have things, but to A) Glorify God and B) be a steward of what He has given me - primarily my family. The vast majority of these sobbing parents have lots of things they could easily cut out of their life in order to avoid relatively inexpensive insurance for their children. But it's easier to have the government do it, right?

The poor were provided for even in the Old Testament, however, by ordinances that one could not harvest the corners of the fields so that the needy could come at harvest it for themselves. Notice, however, that they had to work for it, not being a complete hand-out. Widows were also provided for in the Old and New Testaments, but they had to be a "widow indeed" meaning they had no family to help them, over 60, and destitute."

Let's be honest here. This isn't at all about Jesus. This isn't about the Bible. Liberals don't care whether Jesus would have wanted health care reform or not. I write this for two reasons:

1. Christians - do not let other faiths or non-Christians define for us who Jesus was or is. Outside of Biblical reference, there is no understanding of Jesus.

2. We should not be quick to say Jesus would be for or against health care reform. It's kind of like asking "could a shark beat up a tiger?" I mean, why would a shark even try to beat up a tiger? And when would he have the opportunity to beat up a tiger? Jesus is concerned with much greater things I believe than to be an advocate either way. He is not so concerned but our Kingdom, but His coming Kingdom. Jesus would say (and did say) "pay your taxes and be a good citizen." To throw around Jesus' name on either side is the exact definition of "taking the Lord thy God's name in vain"... using His name, but not meaning it.

I Have a New Hero

2009-09-02T21:05:00.004-06:00

This guy was in a Wal-Mart in Georgia today when a mother in line with him had a toddler that wouldn't shut up. He repeatedly told the mother that he would shut the kid up if she wouldn't. He was then arrested for slapping the kid twice.

I'm not saying it's right, but come on. Admit it. You've wanted to do it, too.

This was in the CrimeSceneKC.

The Snare of Christian Counseling

2009-09-02T14:20:00.003-06:00

We pastors love being counselors. After all, there are several self-gratifying benefits for being every body's go-to guy for problems. These self-gratifying benefits cloud our judgement and give us misplaced priorities in our pastoral responsibilities and can lead to counterproductive, if not downright harmful experiences. These ministry-distractions can be put into four different categories.

TYPICAL PASTORAL COUNSELING

1. "The Fireman'": This is the feeling or rush of adrenaline when you're called a 10pm to "fix" someones crisis. It may be newly discovered adultery or spousal abuse, possibly an erring teenager or addiction. It could be emotional, chemical, or behavioral issues. Regardless, good ole' "Pastor Hero" is on speed dial whenever crises hits someones family. So who do they call? They call Pastor Hero," that's who.

Many pastors live for that adrenaline rush, when they get to give their wife that "sorry, I have to save the world" look, grab their coat and hat and run out the door like superman on the way to save a bus full of school children. In fact, this kind of pastor-hero probably wouldn't mind wearing a cape and blue tights. Let's face it - pastors live lives that don't center on dangerous. Sure, pastors have exciting lives in terms of the drama they constantly have to put up with, but they're not putting our fires or stringing up bad guys. There's no fireman's pole they can slide down to be off to the rescue. So when the pastor gets a call from someone who says, "come over, we need you," he gets his jollies from running to save the day.

2. "The Shrink": I don't care how much your recent seminary-graduate pastor tells you so, his degree does not make him a real doctor. Even if he insists you call him doctor, you have permission to do so with a snicker. A doctorate degree doesn't make you a doctor any more than a Bachelor's degree makes you a bachelor or a Master's Degree makes you a master at something. Nonetheless, when people treat us like clinical physicians, we get used to it and we like it.

In fact, countless people are injured or killed by themselves each year because they sought pastoral counseling in lieu of clinical counseling. No - I'm not against pastoral counseling (I do a lot of it), but the key to pastoral wisdom is knowing when to refer someone who needs skills that you don't have. To not do so is cruel and dangerous. If you're talking rudely to your spouse and cussing at your kids, I can help you. If you're talking to the door knob and cussing at your imaginary friend, I can't help you.

We pastors seem to think that we can fix everyone's problems and that's just not true. There are certain fields by which we need to refer to Christians in that field.

3. "Bible Man": People have been taught that the Bible contains all the answers they could ever need - which is a "yes" and "no" dilemma. Like Driscoll says, "if the Bible is a road map to life it is a horrible road map," meaning that although the Bible has lots of good information, without the guidance of God-endowed wisdom and the Holy Spirit, the Bible isn't going to tell you what college to go to or what girlfriend to propose to. It doesn't work that way.

So here is what people do: wait until they have a major crisis and then start thumbing through the pages of God's "instruction manual for life." Yeah, uhm....doesn't work that way. And guess what pastors do? Pastors encourage this!

Oh, you're going through a divorce? I have a divorce reference here! Oh, you're teenager is being rebellious? I have a "take your kid out and stone him" reference! Oh, you're masturbating to pornography? I have a verse about lust right here! And such is the snare that pastoral counselors fall into - advice experts and Bible experts that are wisdom-dispensing machines. We want to give them a quick verse, momentarily fix their little problem, tell them to take two Bible verses and call us when they have another problem.

4. "The Sensitive Male": Pastors like being the sensitive male friend that everybody calls to utilize their shoulder as a messy snot rag - which reinforces my assumption that most pastors I know need to take an extra shot of testosterone and watch more ultimate fighting. We like being the "comforter."

Here's how it works: Somebody messes up their life, or their kids' lives, or somebodies life and then they call the pastor to have a good "talking to." Most pastors find this so enjoyable that they won't make an appointment to have this person come into their office, they'll leave their family at home to go attend to someones "emotional crisis." As the crybaby session continues, the pastor leaves the individual feeling much, much better. They're calmed down, at peace, feeling good. Unfortunately, the reason for their predicament is not addressed - but the pastor sure played the role of the gay best friend well and everybody feels like the inside of a warm puppy dog.

TRUE, WORTHWHILE PASTORAL COUNSELING

In each of the four examples of self-gratifying pastoral counseling techniques, there is actually a time and place for all of them. Unfortunately, pastors go too far in being the counselor - and not far enough in being Biblical. Let me explain.

A pastor's job is to pastor. That means that his foremost job is "equipping the saints." In more-defining terms, that means "disciple," i.e....disciple the church. Pastors often throw in other chores like missiology, evangelism, and counseling to supplement their spare time, train others in these disciplines, and to keep their skills sharp. In that, there's nothing wrong.

However, we pastors sometimes go to far in our counseling responsibilities and forget that we must be, first and foremost, beacons that bring people to Jesus. When counseling is done, certain things must be remembered:

Things to Remember to Ensure True Christian Counseling

1. Messing up your life does not create an emergency in my life. O.k. So you are having an "emotional crisis." Does this require the neglect of my wife and children? I'm glad you've called me during my family time to let me know that your wife read your inappropriate text messages - and I will meet with you about that, but it does not create for me the necessity of running to your home to save a marriage which you messed up.

2. I will not give you Biblical advice on handling your problems unless you are a believer. This may come as a shocker, but if you're not a believer/follower of Jesus then you can put down your pocket-sized Bible Promise Book. If you don't know Jesus, then the Bible was not written for you, its promises don't apply to you, and its advice is not only unproductive for you - it might be downright dangerous! Regardless of what your favorite television preacher might tell you, if don't know Jesus then the 7 principles for a happy life and 18 keys to good living and 4 secrets to your best life now don't apply.

This comes off as being very, very cold to those asking for counseling. I've had people ask me "can you give me some techniques for handling my stress better?"

I once replied, "No. Or else you'll go to hell a very relaxed person." Luckily, I had the rapport to say that and no offense was taken. Don't try that at home.

We must remind ourselves that God is not at all concerned about the marriage of two lost people. He is concerned first and foremost with their soul. We must remember the same. Perhaps we pastors have learned enough life-skills over the years to give great pointers on how to keep your 3 year-old from wetting the bed or how to stop being co-dependent with your spouse. Who care if you know Jesus? You might save your marriage or your relationship, and lost your soul.

3. We must primarily be a skilled surgeon of the text, a beacon to Jesus. If people are believers I will counsel them in whatever areas they need help if I'm competent enough in those areas.. If they're not believers I tell them, "it sounds like you have a problem. Your greatest problem, however, is that you don't know Jesus. Until you know Jesus, any help I can give will be temporary at best. Let's talk about that."

We must not forget that God does not hear the prayers of the unbeliever. We have access to Him and have the right to petition ONLY through Jesus. No Jesus, no petition. People have asked me "can you pray that I overcome my fears" and I have responded, "Your fears are of no consequence to God because you do not know Him. He is not hearing you because of your sin. Let us first pray for repentance, for Jesus' blood to be effectual for you, so that God can hear you at all."

Here is the point: Let's remember that we pastors have lots of wisdom to give people, and we should always make counseling an important part of our ministry. However, let us remember that God did not call us to be shrinks or superheros. He called us to point people to Jesus. And even in our counseling ministry, Jesus must be at the core.

The Dirty Evangelical Secret and Evangelical Idolatry

2009-08-30T14:35:00.003-06:00

Concerning a recent discussion via Facebook, I thought I would make a quick treatise into two areas that concern me most among evangelicals (outside of the ridiculous superstition of the so-called "sinner's prayer"), the first being what I call "the dirty evangelical secret" and second is what I call "evangelical idolatry." I'm doing this because I agree with John Piper who says that "writing allows a slow thinker to think more slowly."

First, concerning the dirty evangelical secret, we evangelicals have a self-imposed skeleton in our closet that shouldn't be hid, but be shown for the world to see. I am reminded of visiting Iraq, where the women there hide their hair (which is quite beautiful) believing that to show it would be shameful. Instead, the Bible tells us that a woman's hair is her glory and it is quite alright to show the world a beautiful head of hair. Similarly, we evangelicals hide something as shameful that should be high and lifted up. Let me explain.

Let me begin this point by making a firm observation that I believe is very important. Here is the truth: there is nothing more important than understanding the attributes of God. That is the crux of theology. That is the end of salvation. That is the purpose of the cross - knowing (and thereby glorifying) God. I am perpetually dismayed that even the seemingly most committed Christian treats the growing knowledge of God's attributes as being somehow trivial, as somehow useless information, secondary to having the "fruits of the Spirit" or attaining some level of morality. Correctly understanding the full measure of God is not a secondary pursuit, but a primary. That being said...

We all know the dirty little secret of evangelicalism. Here it is: God hates. God hates. Is this new to you? If it is, you are not reading the Bible (Old Testament or New, as if it mattered from which Testament you find God's character described). God is absolutely capable of wrath, hatred, vengeance and underlying all of these, justice. If holiness is God's foremost attribute, then Justice is the attribute that girds God's holiness. Understanding God's justice is absolutely necessary to understanding God.

Romans chapter nine tells us that God hates who He darn well wants to hate - and for reasons that some of us would consider superficial (he hated Esau before he was born, he raised up Pharaoh just to destroy him, etc...). Likewise, the book from which we get 50% of our theology (Psalms) tells us that God hates "all those that do iniquity." We are told many times that God does - in Old Testament and New Testament- hate.

But modern evangelism models don't proclaim this facet of God's personality, does it? Heaven forbid! This is a characteristic of God that we feel a need to hide, as if we must put God's best foot forward when introducing him to our lost friends. We don't want to be embarrassed by God. We paint a rosy picture about God that is quite incomplete. Why? Because we do not love God. We love the image we have made of God that is not anchored to the Bible, but to our sinful desires.

If there is such a thing as a "saving knowledge of God" (which there is), then why do we hide from the lost word a pivotal, foundational aspect of God's character, which is his hatred?

Answer: We believe that God's love and mercy is a better "selling tool" for God than his hate and justice.

Might I remind you that every great revival in recorded history of the Christian church has been brought not by messages concerning God's mercy, but His justice and wrath (think "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God").

In short, we have made our resounding message in modern evangelism to be "Jesus loves You." That, my friend, may be false advertising. A better message should be "Jesus wants to love you, but right now you're in deep trouble." But that message doesn't look good on a bumper sticker or t-shirt, does it?

If you wonder why the most-often phrased question from our lost friends is "how could God send people to hell that He loves?" you can thank your typical Baptist arm-chair theologian and Reverend LoveJoy pastor who doesn't have the guts to say "God might hate you." The fact is, God does not send people He loves to Hell. God sends His enemies to hell. And if somebody posts a comment along the lines of "God made hell for demons and He doesn't send people to hell, people send theirselves to hell bla bla bla" I'm going to say something scathing about graduating from 1st grade VBS. God made hell for people, for His enemies, and will be glorified when His enemies are sent there.

So where does all of this misconception about love come from?

A) God loves the world. Absolutely true. We're told in John 3:16 that God loves the world. Should you be so hermeneutically challenged and Biblical illiterate that you assume that means God loves everyone? When Jesus was born the Bible tells us that "Caeser Augustus issued a decree that the whole world should be taxed." Did he really? Did he issue a decree that Africa, the Far East, Australia, and South America should be taxed? Of course not. In terms of etymology, the term "world" means "from throughout the whole world" or "much of the world." In the sense that God has called out for Him a people (the elect) from every tribe, nation, and tongue, God loves the world (as a whole). But if God truly hates "all those that doeth iniquity" then a good scholar knows that John 3:16 has to be interpreted in another way.

B. God loves us. Also, we are told that God loved us before we loved Him (and in other passages come similar statements). Who is "us?" To whom was the Bible written? To God's people, that's who. We have been justified through the blood of Christ and God gives us mercy and love.

C. We are told to love and not hate. Some would argue that because the two greatest commands are to love God and love others, therefore God does not hate. I can't chastise this rationality enough. We (humans) must absolutely not hate any human being. I say that assertively. But what an asinine, human-centric, self-centered, arrogant stance is it to say that because we are told not to hate, that God cannot or does not hate. Are we assuming that God is on our level, requiring Himself to be held by the standards He gives for us? Amazingly, some would say that because we are told not to hate people that God does not, or else it would be a double standard - as if God is not worthy of having a double standard! Of course He gets a double standard... He is God!

D. You should really be more loving. There's this stupid belief that if you paint an accurate image of God then you are somehow unloving or dishonoring to God. There is NOTHING more loving than revealing to people the real God as He has been revealed to us, not the false image of God given to people from most pulpits.

So here is my thesis: to intentionally hide a quintessential attribute of God (his ability to hate and proclivity for justice) cannot be veiled in a disguise of peace, joy, or some perverted misunderstanding of the fruits of the Spirit, creating some weird hybrid religion where the trinity is God the Father, the Easter Bunny, and Ned Flanders. You are doing a great disservice to God by hiding His infinite, people-seeking, sin-destroying justice.

The second major cause for concern among evangelicals is what I call "Evangelical Idolatry." It is illustrated in a conversation that goes something like this:

Evangelist: "God loves you."

Sinner: "He does?! What a coincidence, I love me, too!"

Evangelist: "God has great plans for you."

Sinner: "He does?! What a coincidence, I have great plans for me, too!"

Evangelist: "God wants you to have great stuff and a great time for eternity."

Sinner: "He does?! What a coincidence, I want to have all that stuff, too!

Do you see the idolatry? We sell God by painting an image of Him that is incomplete. God might love you. But in truth, God might hate you. You might be on His enemies list (He does have an enemies list). When He said that Jesus will reign over His enemies with a rod of iron, He might have had you in mind.

Instead, we have sold to people an unbiblical and practically heretical bill of goods with one underlying, damning, blasphemous false assumption: "God wants you to be happy."

And therefore, if God wants us to be happy, then he would never ask us to do something we didn't want to do. God would never demand that we take our cross and follow Him. After all, God has a bag of sunshine and puppy dogs that He wants to give us.

The matter is simple: Stop selling people God. Stop worrying about "catching more flies with honey than vinegar" and other stupid cliche ways of saying that whether or not we see converts depends on how we put forth God's best qualities as if we're trying to hook up Jesus in a personal ad.

So how do we mesh God's hatred for those in iniquity (unrepentant sinners) and God's love for believers?

Here's how I say it:

God has His arms stretched out to you. Both arms. In one hand He holds Jesus and His sacrificial death for you on the cross. This hand is called "love." Through Christ, in this hand, He offers His love.

In God's other hand He holds hatred and justice. If you do not choose God's love, you will by default choose the other hand, in which He offers you eternal death and suffering, as well as His contempt.

This presents God' in a more Biblical light than tract-bombing people with pamphlets that say to every reader "God loves you." That may be patently untrue. And worst yet, it will give them a false, incomplete image of God that isn't to be feared or obeyed.

Instead, let us take upon ourselves the yoke of the pastorate, the "great burden." Let us take upon ourselves the highest possible vocation, avocation, and calling - revealing to people our God. And let us give them a realistic picture of the invisible God.

First Day of School

2009-08-28T14:30:00.002-06:00

It was the first day of school Wednesday. Mandy and Reagan (Kindergarten) both started to school together... how blessed! I'm very proud of the Hall ladies. They are salt of the Earth, good women - and Reagan will be no exception!

Funny Video

2009-08-28T10:39:00.002-06:00

Sorry for the usage of some King James language, but from a kid that swims with his shirt on, I just couldn't resist showing this video

My Encounter With Ted Kennedy

2009-08-27T15:40:00.009-06:00

I am admittedly an ornery person. This probably started in grade school, but I will try to avoid boring you with early childhood experiences involving my penchant for orneriness. Most stories are not worth repeating, and a good few are downright shameful.

However, I do have few good stories that will stay with me forever - of which without a certain degree of orneriness, I would not be able to tell to my children and grandchildren.

The first "proud" ornery moment includes a grade book, a lighter, and the Big Piney River (of which I will not speak, except to say that I would probably do it again but choose my accomplices better).

The second involves setting the record for the amount of times a ministry student was kicked out of class for relentlessly arguing with the professor at six times in four years. The previous record was zero.

The third involves a gay barber, a park bench, and some well-placed dead Armadillos. But I'm not sure if there's still an open investigation in that one so I'll leave it at that.

The fourth is when ex-president Bill Clinton spoke at Arkansas State University in 2004. The convocation center was filled with like-minded liberals who hooted and hollered continuously at everything he had to say. Next to me sat the chair of the political science department who was named "Dr. Wang," who was a white guy, oddly enough, and member of the Communist Party. Dr. Wang (the long-haired hippy that he was) gave a standing ovation at every line. If he had a cigar, I'm afraid what he would have offered to do for president Clinton. In the midst of Clinton's speech, he stated that "George Bush was not elected President - he was selected by the Supreme Court." Not being able to take the roaring applause any longer, I stood and screamed "You're a liar! You're a liar!" I'm not saying it was profound, but it was the best I could come up with. The proud moment is that the crowd hushed to hear me - and then Clinton caught my eye and gave me that same mean, determined look as when he looked into the camera and said, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinski." I said my peace. And Clinton didn't have a choice but to listen. And then a secret service agent came up and gave me the "slice your throat gesture" (not exaggerating) and I decided to be quiet for the rest of the speech.

Fifth and finally, I had an encounter with Ted Kennedy in July of 1998.

I was on the Rural Electric Cooperatives youth tour of Washington D.C. for winning a speech contest. We were out near the capitol when my ultra-liberal roommate, Danny Gladden, spotted the so-called "Lion of the Senate" and ran to shake his hand, interrupting a press conference. I tagged along and screamed "ask about Chappaquiddick, ask about Chappaquiddick!" I'm hoping they heard that somewhere on CSPAN. After the press conference, Danny got to shake Kennedy's hand and I went with, asking, "Senator Kennedy, tell us about Chappaquiddick!" He looked me square in the eye as he was getting into the back seat of his car and said, "[expletive] off."

That was a proud moment for the 17 year-old. Ted Kennedy told me to [expletive] off.

News reports the last few days have spoken much about Kennedy being the "Lion of the Senate," the "Great Compromiser" and the "third-longest serving senator in American History." These stories all run an obligatory line something along the lines of "a 1969 car crash that killed his female passenger tarnished his record and haunted him throughout his political career."

Ummm, almost. It wasn't just some car crash in which an innocent person died, like Kennedy was the unfortunate victim in a fatal automobile accident and happened to live. It makes it sounds like those mean Republicans just can't let Kennedy forget that little driving error way back when.

Let me fill you in. On July 18, 1969 Ted Kennedy left a reunion of his brother's former advisers with a young woman named Mary Jo Kopenche. He was drinking heavily at the party. Oddly, Kopenche had left her purse and keys at the reunion party and told no one she was leaving with Kennedy. A local deputy sheriff reported seeing Kennedy and his girl "parked" in his Buick and took off when the deputy pulled up. Kennedy made a wrong turn down a gravel road (an area he knew well). He approached a wooden bridge and drove off of it.

Kennedy's account is that he was able to swim to shore, but Kopenche could not exit the vehicle. The vehicle somehow became air-tight after he left it when it was submerged. He then states that he called her name from shore several times and then walked back to the party. He claims no houses had their lights on, and he didn't want to disturb any sleeping families. Kennedy then returned to the water with two men and they supposedly tried to rescue Kopenche (still not calling authorities for assistance). No one else except those two men were told about the incident.

Fishermen called the authorities at 8:00 am the next morning. When they discovered the car and looked at the evidence, they believed that Kopenche survived two hours in the submerged car, and she died only after using up the oxygen still in the sealed vehicle. Kopenche tore out her fingernails trying to get to the trunk for additional air.

Many questions still exist. There was not an autopsy done on the body, and the coroner states that was due to political pressure. After it was revealed that political pressure was the reason for no autopsy and after discovering blood inconsistent with a drowning death on Kopenche's garments, they filed a petition to exhume the body to conduct an autopsy, but a judge would not allow it. Death before the so-called "drowning" could explain how in the world Kennedy could make it out of a submerged car and it still remained sealed to contain air still present when divers found the car the next morning.

Kennedy received probation for leaving the scene of an accident that caused injury.

Little did he know that a hillbilly kid from Missouri would shout at him years later, "ask about Chappaquiddick!" His response to me, [expletive] off, I think is indicative of his level of remorse.

In Defense of Steven Anderson (Just Kidding)

2009-08-25T19:09:00.008-06:00

You might recall several admonishments I've made of Pastor Steven Anderson of Arizona. You can find those links here, here and here. Anderson is a "KJV-Only, Soul-Winning, Independent, Fundamental" Baptist pastor who actively has sought his fame by putting inflammatory sermons on YouTube. I'm sure that Anderson is giddy today, as he seems to have made some attention that even surpasses that of The Daily Soap Box.

Contessa Brewer of MSNBC used Anderson as an example of right-wing nuts that may be spouting rhetoric against President Obama that they believe to be crossing the line of free speech, inciting anger and what the media believes will eventually become violence against the President. In short, the pastor of a small church plant has become a powerful propaganda-piece for the left-wing media to convince the nation that town hall protesters and the religious right are a bunch of morons. And Anderson seemingly is a good example.

The clip above is from one of Anderson's sermons in which he said that he prays nightly that Obama dies and goes to hell in order for the nation to be saved (which seems odd for an avid "soul winner"). Of course MSNBC and now the Alan Colmes radio show - which has him as a guest tonight- will make him out to be some kind of leader among Baptists or evangelicals, and nothing could be less true. In fact, I'm betting that Anderson is rather shunned even among the KJV-only fundamentalists.

So what is it about Anderson that bothers me so much? Furthermore, how does such an animal become such an animal? How does a regular Baptist kid become a hate-monger and an embarrassment to the Christian cause?

I believe I have come up with an adequate equation for Steven Anderson:

Belief that one loves God + Love of one's religion - Love of God's Word.

Such can explain Anderson. My discernment tells me that Anderson probably loves his image of God. He is probably fiercely loyal to his image of God. He is probably quite sincere in his convictions. Aside from my previous beefs with Anderson, concerning his tirades against Calvinism (ignorant, ignorant tirades), his assertion that Mennonites and Charismatics are not saved, and his theological supremacy of man-made soul-winning as a means to salvation, Anderson's real problem (and the reason he is making a laughing-stock of most evangelicals and fundamentalists) is that of his ignorant and disrespectful disregard of the Bible. He is the very picture of a man that should spend far less time preaching and more time studying.

Certain things the Bible makes very clear about how Christians should involve ourselves civilly.

A. The Bible is very clear that Christians are to respect our leaders and pray for them.

"Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." 1 Timothy 2:14

Rhetoric like that of Anderson will assure that one day soon we will not be able to have a "peaceable life." Such rhetoric will be used as cannon fodder to proclaim that we Christians cannot be trusted. We will be killed like Jesus for being insurrectionists. Unfortunately, it may be because we are actually insurrectionists. This passage tells us that God desires all men to be saved - including President Obama. Because we do not know who is elect and who is not, we must pray that ALL men come to know Jesus. Obama will not come to know Christ because of speeches like Anderson.

B. The Bible is very clear that our nation has the leader God wants us to have.

“For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resist what God has appointed …” Romans 13:8.

There is a reason Obama is our president. I assume it is to punish us. Nonetheless, if such is the case, we need to take our medicine, be admonished well, and learn the lesson God is teaching us.

C. The Bible is very clear that we should not rejoice in the destruction of our enemies.

"Do not gloat when your enemy falls; when he stumbles, do not let your heart rejoice." Proverbs 24:17

When Clinton will soon probably pull another "Lewinsky," John Edwards admits the mistress and love-child rumors are true, when Ted Kennedy finally meets the same fate as the woman in the trunk of his Buick, or even when Saddam Hussein was executed, we must not rejoice. I had to admonish myself after feeling well-pleased when George Tiller was killed. That joy would have been morally acceptable if I had reserved it for the news that his clinic closed after his death, but should have instead mourned the last, wasted chance for a sinner to be saved when he died and not posted "drinks are on me" on my Facebook status.

D. The Bible is very clear that although we can (and should) disagree with our earthly authorities, we still submit to them.

"Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor."

Paul didn't say "like taxes." He said "pay them." We can petition, freely assemble, write freely, and exercise our power by things like voting, picketing, and boycotting. In the mean time, we submit to our authority.

E. The Bible is very clear that although we not get distracted by the temporal.

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. (Ephesians 6:12)

I am the chairman of the local Republican Party. If I thought for a second that it conflicted with my pastoral call or in any way hindered it, I would quit immediately. We should be involved politically. But remember that the salvation of our nation does not lie (as Anderson believes) in who is our president or by what political party is in control. Some trust in horses and some trust in chariots - but we shall trust in the strength of our God. Ensuring a Republican-controlled government does not save a single soul. If a few more souls were saved, I'm betting the Republican party would have a better chance at success.

It's about priorities. And our priorities must be Gospel...not social change.

In the mean time, leave it to MSNBC to hunt down some religious clown to make us all look bad. And leave it to Steven Anderson to provide it for them.

Letter to the Editor

2009-08-24T14:59:00.000-06:00

From time to time, those of us with the courage to write the Sidney Herald concerning important political and social issues with our name attached receive letters of rebuke sent anonymously to our home. I received one such letter this week from a “concerned grandma,” upset at what she called “misconceptions and rhetoric” in a letter recently published by the Herald concerning Max Baucus’ support of Obama’s health plan.

First, the concerned grandmother wrote, “I am correcting your view that Obama’s plan is socialistic, the government will not be paying for the bills, put participating citizens.” Let me make one thing abundantly clear – all taxpayers will be paying for Obama-Care, not just those participating in it (if such were the case, it would be far more expensive to you than privately purchased insurance). In fact, it is an absurd notion that taxes will not be levied to pay for this 1.5 trillion dollar program. All citizens will have pay for this – except the bottom 50% of wage earners which currently pay virtually no taxes.

Secondly, the concerned grandmother wrote, “citizens making less than $250,000 dollars per year will not be taxed.” Is this coming from the same president that said he would raise no taxes and created the single largest tax increase in American history when he taxed cigarettes within his first few months in office? Is this coming from the administration that has stated that currently untaxed health care benefits will have to be taxed to pay for plan? We need to realize that the government cannot give us unicorns and free puppies and pull money out of thin air. Guess where it comes from… the tax-paying citizenry.

Finally, the concerned grandmother wrote that I “probably wouldn’t understand, because I’ve never had to pray that I could feed my family.” Oh, how untrue! I’ve paid for my own private health insurance for myself and my family since working my way through college, making minimum wage in retail. My family hasn’t been provided for medically because I’ve somehow been “lucky” or had a great job that provided benefits. My family has been provided for medically because I didn’t sit around and wait for my government to take care of me, but because I sacrificed things I wanted for things I needed. I sacrificed a certain lifestyle in order to assure that I had insurance. Maybe more people should stop hoping we’ll tax “the rich” to get government-paid health care and instead provide for their own family – even if it involves sacrifice.

Lutherans Promote Homosexual Clergy

2009-08-22T12:12:00.004-06:00

The AP has reported that the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America has lifted a ban on sexually active, monogomous homosexuals from serving as clergy. Whereas previously Evangelical Lutheran Churches could ordain homosexual clergy but they had to be celebate. Now they can ordain practicing homosexuals. And before you think that this is a marginalized, defunct denomination, the ELCA is the largest Lutheran denomination in the country. In fact, Sidney's own Pella Lutheran , Fairview's Zion Lutheran, and Savage's First Lutheran are of the very same ELCA that now will ordain practicing homosexuals as pastors.

Nearly one thousand ELCA delegates decided to change their policy after a whopping 68% voted to include practicing homosexuals as clergy. This shows that it wasn't a decision made in the backroom of some ecclesiastical board, but by the average ELCA church. This is disturbing.

In defense of the change, one female pastor retorted "I have seen these same-gender relationships function in the same way as heterosexual relationships — bringing joy and blessings as well as trials and hardships. The same-gender couples I know live in love and faithfulness and are called to proclaim the word of God as are all of us."

Wow. Where do you start with that? Same-sex relationships bring joy and blessings? I could have sworn that according to the Scripture that homosexuality brings curses and disapproval from God, not blessings. And the assertion that same-gender couples are to proclaim the Word of God... there are so many things wrong with that sentence that I don't know where to start.

Where does the logic come from that homosexuality is alright as long as it is monogomous? It's o.k. to sin because at least they're committed to sinning? How does that make sense? Imagine saying "he may be a drunk, but he's a really committed drunk" or "sure, he makes love to his German Shepherd, but they're really happy together."

Supposedly, many Lutherans in the ELCA are considering leaving the denomination over the change. I can't help but wonder if they are genuine in their consideration. After all, when the denomination first voted to allow non-practicing homosexuals as clergy, was it not a warning sign to flee from your association with evil to begin with? If the line you've drawn in the sand is ordaining monogamous homosexuals, perhaps your line is WAY to far to the left.

Knowing that many Lutheran pastors are facing angry congregations back home, ELCA presiding bishop Mark Hanson said, "For those that did not prevail tonight, are you willing to stay engaged in the conversation? I'm pleading with people to stay in there with us in this conversation."

What is the reason for good, Bible-loving ELCA churches to stay within the ELCA? So that they might somehow purify their denomination or keep it from going even further into Satan's grasp (could it go any further)? How do you reconcile the ELCA's decision with the Bible in any stretch of imagination?

A lesbian ELCA pastor, Katrina Foster said, "We can learn not to define ourselves by negation. By not only saying what we are against, which always seems to be the same — against gay people. We should be against poverty. I wish we were as zealous about that."

Riiiight. If you believe the Bible in terms of homosexuality then all in a sudden you are "against gay people." And this is the leader of a church? Is that mean-ole' God against gays? Yes he is, yes his is. Mean ole' God." And then Foster pulls the same argument my three year-old does when he's called out for his sin - points at something else and says "look at that over there, that's bad, too!" Poverty seems to be the go-to for individuals who blatantly disregard the Bible in reference to their own sin. Forget that Jesus said the poor will always be with us and Paul said that if a man doesn't work he shouldn't eat. The simple fact is that without calling homosexuality what it is (an abomination), it is not an exhibition of love for homosexuals, but as they enter an eternal hell riding on the coat tails of our positive affirmation it will be affirmation that we hated them - thereby holding from them the truth that can bring them salvation. Instead, we hold their hands in joyful fellowship as their souls are transformed into eternal kindling.

I have no inhibitions in calling the ECLA an inherently wicked, apostate denomination. The main issue here is not that the ECLA ordains homosexuals to be their spiritual leaders. The main issue is that the ECLA has proven to have a major disdain, disrespect, and contempt for the Word of God. They blatantly have disregarded a clear tennet of Scripture from Old Testament to New and refuse to call sin, sin. In fact, they have endorsed it. They have chosen those that hate God in their heart to be their shepherd and to be an undershepherd of Christ. That, my friends, is heresy at its best.

But my greatest concern are those that attend an ECLA church, such as Pella Lutheran and others. It's true that just because your denomination is wickedly ignoring the clarity of the Scripture that your individual church may not. But my question to those wondering whether or not they should call an ECLA church home is, "if your line is not drawn at ordaining active homosexuals, exactly where is your line?" When is enough, enough?

The Bible tells us that if we have any sexually immoral around us, "with them do not even eat." Your church, by being a part of the ECLA, is endorsing sin and calling it holy (set apart for ministry). It is, in fact, doing the devil's work in calling "evil, good and good, evil."

Jesus warns us in His letters to the seven churches in Asia that we must not be a part of a wicked church, lest we receive His condemnation. In the same book (Revelation), a messenger cries out to God's people concerning the harlot of Babylon "Come out of her my people, come out of her!"

And so to members of the ECLA churches across America I say to you, "come out of her!" for the good of your own soul. Join yourself with believers that actually care what the Bible teaches and have the guts to stand for His Word - even if it means leaving a beloved denomination.

If your church is wicked enough to twist the Scripture and ignore it in the issue of gay clergy, what else are they misleading you about?

UPDATE: I didn't know this at the time of writing this blog post, but apparently a tornado touched down and ripped the steeple off of the church where the ECLA were meeting just prior to voting to allow actively homosexual clergy. John Piper pointed out that God does sometimes use natural disasters to make a point and has received a lot of heat for his statement. You can read about both the tornado and Piper's comments and www.dennyburke.com

Obama's Commie Henchmen Boycotts Glenn Beck

2009-08-17T12:51:00.003-06:00

Barack Obama's "Green Jobs" czar, and the leader of the attempted boycott against Glenn Beck, is a self-described "black nationalist" and "Communist", who has ties to a former terrorist. Van Jones, founder of "Color of Change", a black militant political activist group, worked as a co-founder and director of the Apollo Alliance, which Glenn Beck recently exposed for its subversive ties with radical left-wing groups. Van Jones worked with Jeff Jones, who was a leading co-founder (along with Bill Ayers) of the terrorist group Weather Undergound , who spent time on the run from law enforcement agencies while his group carried out a series of bombings of U.S. government buildings. Van Jones' group "Color of Change" started a boycott of Beck's advertisers after Beck exposed Apollo Group and Van Jones' militant past.

To support Glenn and his advertisers, go to www.defendglenn.com

Sunday's Message: Biblical Admonishment

2009-08-16T23:15:00.001-06:00

We took a break from the "Odyssey in Ephesus" sermon series for a little admonishment. You can find the audio here.

Demolition Derby

2009-08-15T20:17:00.003-06:00

Tonight was the local demolition derby. It seems to be a pretty big deal to a few in the church and the folks running it asked me to do the opening prayer. Pastor Jim had a car in it and asked me to be in the pitt with him (like I'm a lot of help). Jim did really well in the consolation round until his car just quit getting gas. And if I do say so, he was by far the best showman of the night! It was a lot of fun.

Top 12 Reasons the Pastor Mows the Church Lawn

2009-08-14T15:18:00.005-06:00

Why does the pastor mow the church lawn?

There is no possible way I can answer this without seeming entirely self-serving, so I'll just take one for the team (pastors all over America currently on the church lawn mower). It's 90 degrees, I smell like sweat, grass, and gasoline, and am not in the mood to people-please at the moment.

Top 12 Reasons the Pastor Mows the Church Lawn

1. We pay people to do that, right?

No. We pay people when we don't have people step up and serve. You pay tithes and offerings to do ministry. You know - that little thing that makes a difference in people's lives and has eternal consequences? You might have heard of it.

2. I already have a ministry.

Oh, you already have a "ministry." Maybe it's Sunday School teacher, deacon, usher, greeter, or maybe you even take up the offering. I guess in your house that you and your wife only have one chore a piece, right? She does the laundry, you take out the trash. Since when does one "ministry" absolve you from another?

3. Somebody else will do it.

Yep. The pastor will if nobody else will. Sadly, statistics show that 80% of the work at church is done by 20% of the people. It will probably never change. If you're part of that 20%, stop waiting around for the other 80% to mow the lawn. It's unfair. I know. It's reality.

4. It's just the lawn.

I don't think you understand that the outward appearance of the church building is a reflection on the interior. It means that we are poor stewards of what God has given us when the grass is out of control. In sales I learned that a home in town with an unkempt lawn has occupants inside with bad credit (few exceptions). This same idea reflects upon the church. We can't take care of the lawn. Can we take care of people?

5. I didn't know it was too high.

Yes, you probably did. And if you didn't, pay attention to the church property you have on loan through Christ.

6. I didn't know I could.

Seriously? Like we would be upset if somebody asked to mow the grass, change the light bulb, refresh the toilet-paper dispenser?

7. I'm busy.

Who isn't busy? David said "I won't give to the Lord what costs me nothing." That's the thing about service - you have to sacrifice some things (like two hours of television, a ball game, or other thing you could cut out if you really wanted to) in order to serve. I wonder if you're too busy to do Bible study and home devotions, too. Probably. Try cutting some unnecessary crap out of your life (like the long list of unnecessary junk you use to occupy your kid's time).

8. It's not my spiritual gift.

Mowing isn't a spiritual gift. Nobody says, "man... I feel really, really called to mow the church lawn." Quit waiting for your epiphany. Do you sit around at your house and say "when God leads me to mow my lawn I'll mow my lawn?" It's not all about you.

9. Nobody asked me to.

Nope. Some things - like chipping in when you see something needs to be done - are expected with Christian maturity.

10. Don't we have a pastor for that?

Sure. And he'll mow the lawn if nobody else does. And you'll have a sermon on Sunday that leaves you uninspired and unimpressed. You'll have the sick and housebound unvisited. This week at our church alone we have had 3 hospitalizations, 3 suicide-scares or attempts from those on the periphery of our ministry, Bible club, multiple relationship-crisis interventions, 5 special calls for spiritual counseling, and 4 food pantry needs. So if you rely on your pastor to change light bulbs and mow the lawn, you'll have an awesome property manager and a horrible pastor. And it will be your fault.

11. Isn't that the deacon's job?

No. Visiting sick and elderly. Taking care of widows and orphans. Feeding the hungry. Clothing the naked. Helping the afflicted. Mowing is not in a deacon's job description. They should not be reduced to maintenance men as they are in most churches. However, a deacon should be willing to mow the lawn - just as the pastor should be willing to - but not because of their title, but because they are a part of the greater body of the church.

12. No one has posted a really frustrated "Top Twelve Reasons the Pastor Mows the Church Lawn."

Well, now they have.

Maybe YOU just could not possibly EVER chip-in in that effort. You're home-bound, elderly, or in poor health. Or maybe just nobody asked. But now you know.

In Defense of Election

2009-08-13T15:03:00.002-06:00

So here's a question I got recently via Facebook...

"I have long wrestled with the idea of salvation election. My issue is the scriptures that say that salvation is free to anyone who wishes to seek it, and that all may freely come and be saved, so I think it's not an elect process, but then I think, maybe those that do choose to freely come were those who were elected ... My main question, I guess, would be, if there are a chosen few, are there some who believe they are saved who actually aren't? And the other half of that question: if the saved are pre-selected, why did God place people on the earth whom He knew would not be saved come Judgment Day? That seems cruel and merciless to me, and is something the unbelieving world finds unbelievable."

So, I'll address these one at a time:

1. "I have long wrestled with the idea of salvation election."

Well, you're in good company. The greatest theologians of centuries past - both Calvinists and Arminians and those in between all struggle with the concept of election. I don't think you're ever going to NOT struggle with understanding Biblical soteriology. How could a Holy God ever save a wicked man?

2. "My issue is that the Scriptures say that salvation is free to anyone who wishes to seek it, so I think it's not an elect process...."

Well, yes and no. You're absolutely correct that the Scripture tells us that all are called to salvation - no doubt. For example:

John 3:16..."God so loved the world that...whoever belives in him should not perish, but have eternal life."

Romans 5:18... "Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation: even so by the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life."

Acts 17:20..."And the times of this ignorance God winked at: but now commandeth ALL MEN everywhere to repent."

So, salvation is free to everyone. There is a general call to salvation that Jesus sends to all humanity where he says "if any is weary and heavy laden, come to me and I'll give you rest" or "all who are thirsty, come to me and drink living water."

But what does this prove? You mention the word "seek," in that "anyone who wishes to seek [salvation]. But here is the problem - and we Reformers call it the Doctrine of Total Depravity. It is best summed up by Romans 3:11 - "There is none that seeketh after God." In other words we are so dead in sin that even though eternal life is offered to us, unless the Holy Spirit draws and convicts us, we would NEVER seek Christ on our own. We must be regenerated, or "quickened," i.e. "made alive" by the Holy Spirit. So in essence, to believe in predestination is to believe in free will (for the damned). We initially have free will. And ALL of us would exercise our free will to rebel against God unless he changed us.

In short, the "elect process" as you call it and a free call to salvation are not mutually exclusive. God sends out his call to salvation to all, but unfortunately it falls upon deaf ears, closed eyes, and wicked hearts.

3. "...but then I think maybe those that do choose to come were those who were elected."

Bingo! Absolutely correct. We're not called because we believed, we believe because we were called!

Consider this:

John says in his Gospel, "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out... For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me...And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. No man can come to me, except the Father which has sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father."

Did you get that?! A couple things we can glean here...

A. EVERYONE God sends to the Son will go to the Son. In case you missed it, it says "ALL," - EVERYONE that is sent goes to God.

B. EVERYONE who is sent to Christ by the Father will continue in their salvation.

C. NO ONE who is NOT sent by the Father goes to Christ.

Can I simplify this? Simply put: If you are elected by the Father, you will go to the Son and you will be eternally secure. Likewise, unless you're predestined by the Father you WILL NOT find Christ.

For example, John 15 says "you have not chosen me, but I (GOD) have chosen you."

Two concepts are important to digesting this truth. First is the concept of God's Sovereignty and the second is the concept of God's Glory. And I hate to sound this way, but Reformed Theologians have a niche in those two markets. I don't think you can understand those two concepts without understanding the Doctrine of Election.

GOD'S SOVEREIGNTY: God is sovereign. He has all power and authority and can do whatever he wants whenever he wants. If this truth, it must shape your interpretation of the text. Look at 2 Thessalonians 2:13 "But we are bound to give thanks always to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth." This verse is written dozens and dozens of different ways in epsitles from Peter and Paul. An Arminian (one who doesn't believe in the historical understanding of election) would say "well everyone is predestined! God wants all to be saved (taken out of context)! If everyone is predestined (which would seem like a RETARDED and contradictory definition of the term) but only some end up saved, then God is not sovereign. God is in charge of salvation and through the process of predestination, salvation begins.

GOD'S GLORY: Everything exists to glorify God. God exists to glorify God. God is 100% at all times, always, self-centered. He's God. Who else should he be centered around. And even though Jesus' sacrificial death seems selfless, I will remind you that he did it to "glorify the Father" and saved us to "glorify the Father." He is full of love for us (his people) because it glorifies the Father to call out unto Him a people for His pleasure so they can give Him glory for all eternity. Understanding this is important because some would say "why does God choose some and not others?" The answer is found in 2 Timothy 1:9, " Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began"

We're saved due to His purposes and His plan. The best example of this is the conversion of Saul. Why did God call Saul? Was Saul pursuing God? Was he seeking Christ? No. God called him because he was "a chosen instrument to bring my Word to the Gentiles." God struck him blind and Jesus didn't give him a choice or ask him to make a decision. He told him to get up and do what he was told. That, my friend, is Biblical salvation.

4. If there are a chosen few, are there some who believe they are saved but actually aren't?

Obviously. Both in a Calvinist and Arminian theology there are the lost who think they are saved. And we Baptist have a great deal of blame in this. We convince people that if they say some silly, superstitious prayer and really mean it that they're saved. What poppy-cock! Do you see ANYONE in the Scripture being saved by saying a prayer? Then why to we persist in the superstitious, dangerous practice? The Scripture tells us that it's "not the will of the one who is saved, but by Him who does the saving." It's God's desire and effort that saves us, not ours. We are not called to make Christians!!! We are called to make disciples! God saves. We disciple. But then evangelists couldn't go from church to church bragging about how many people were saved, right?

Also, the common concern is "what if you really really want to be saved but aren't elect? Hey Einstein - why do you think you really, really want to be saved? Can a wicked and dead heart yearn for anything? You've already been regenerated and you don't even know it. Remember, no one can legitimately go to the Son unless the Father sent them. So sleep well.

5. "And the other half of that question: If the saved are pre-selected, why did God place people on Earth who he knew would not be saved come Judgment Day?"

That's a perfect question with a perfect answer! Let's look at Romans 9:

10 And not only so, but also Rebekah conceiving of one, our father Isaac,

11 for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of the One calling,

12 it was said to her, "The greater shall serve the lesser;"

13 even as it has been written, "I loved Jacob, and I hated Esau."

14 ¶ What then shall we say? Is there not unrighteousness with God? Let it not be!

15 For He said to Moses, "I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will pity whomever I will pity."

16 So, then, it is not of the one willing, nor of the one running, but of the One showing mercy, of God.

17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very thing I raised you up, so that I might show forth My power in you, and so that My name might be publicized in all the earth." Exo 9:16

18 So, then, to whom He desires, He shows mercy. And to whom He desires, He hardens.

19 You will then say to me, Why does He yet find fault? For who has resisted His will?

20 Yes, rather, O man, who are you answering against God? Shall the thing formed say to the One forming it, Why did You make me like this? Isa 29:16

21 Or does not the potter have authority over the clay, out of the one lump to make one vessel to honor, and one to dishonor? Jer 18:6

22 But if God, desiring to show forth wrath, and to make His power known, endured in much long-suffering vessels of wrath having been fitted out for destruction,

23 and that He make known the riches of His glory on vessels of mercy which He before prepared for glory,

O.k. Let me make this clear. The Bible says here that God loved Jacob before he was born and he hate Esau before he was born. Is there a better picture of predestination than that?

But what I want to concentrate on is verses 14-33.

Some facts in this passage:

A. When we start saying God is unfair or seems mean because of predestination, God says "I'll have mercy on who I want to have mercy." In other words, "it's none of your business, mortal."

B. The example of Pharaoh is awesome and gives credence to "double predestination." God raised up Pharaoh for the explicit purpose of destroying him. By destroying him, God's power was known throughout the Earth and God was glorified. Not only does God soften the heart of the elect, he hardens the hearts of those who aren't. Then God gives the perfect analogy: A potter may make a clay pot to hold precious things...or he may take the same clay and make a bot for common purposes (a bed pan to crap in and then be destroyed. Should the clay talk back to the potter?

C. It makes clear why God put people on Earth who will not be saved: He will glorify in their destruction, as he did Pharaoh. God is just. That is God's perhaps second most important characteristic after holiness. He is perfectly just. Even in offering mercy through Jesus, He was still just in that His divine punishment was handed down and His justice made complete. All people will glorify God. We will glorify Him by worshipping Him or we will glorify Him by being punished so His justice is perfected. This is what it means in verse 22 when it says (paraphrased) "What if God takes extra special time perfecting something just to destroy it?"

6. "...that seems cruel and merciless to me, something that an unbelieving world finds unbelievable."

And to you I would respond, "hey, are you talking back to the potter, you lump of clay?" The wages of sin is death, right? So God sends many to death. That's not cruel. That's just. Some get mercy, and that's the business of the judge. You must understand God by your interpretation of the Scripture. You must not interpret the Scripture by your understanding of God. Remember that our God is a God that promoted genocide, bombed Sodom, and ordered the death of infants. The question isn't whether God is cruel or not (He's just). The question is, "if God were cruel, would you worship Him anyway because He is God?

Finally, the last statement in your question (an unbelieving world finds it unbelievable) is true. Paul says that the preaching of the cross to those who are perishing is foolishness. Our message seems incredibly foolish. God hides His message in what appears to be foolishness so that only those quickened by the Spirit would receive it. However the good news is this - if they are elect, they will hear it and believe it.

You see, much of the debate from the Arminian side is not Biblical truth, but conjecture. After all, predestination is probably Paul's most favorite topic and one of the most dominant topics in both the Old and New Testaments. To them, the debate is all about logic... I.E., "if election is true, then that makes God cruel!" or "that doesn't sound like MY God" or "if you believe in predestination, why evangelize (the answer: to increase God's Glory to make His name known). And to them I would answer that God is Yahweh. He "is what He is." If you make the image of who you want God to be that isn't gleaned from the Bible, then you are practicing idolatry.

When you finally accept this Biblical doctrine (our Baptist faith is VERY reformed historically) then you can finally understand things like God's sovereignty and God's glory. You can also finally rest assured in your eternal security. You didn't "choose Christ." God chose you, sent the Spirit to convict you with irresistible grace, and called you. You were in His book before the foundations of the world. Your salvation is secure. You see, our job as evangelicals isn't to convert goats. Our job is find God's lost sheep.

Letter to the Editor

2009-08-12T09:52:00.000-06:00

I spent four days last week at the Richland County Fair, getting signatures on a petition to ask Senator Max Baucus to stop promoting Obama’s socialized medicine agenda. I have been politically active for over a decade, and never in my life have I seen the anger, frustration, and vitriol coming from average and ordinary citizens toward their government as I saw last week.

While Democrats have been shouted down and ran out of town hall meeting all across America, Democratic leadership and the Obama Administration continues to claim that such outrage is “fake” and “organized.” First, I’m not sure how being organized is bad (I believe Obama was a community organizer, right?) and these protesters are showing up with copies of the legislation in their hands, citing specific details, and are probably better read on the topic than most of our congressmen. Secondly, I can assure you that this outrage is most certainly not fake. People are angry.

What the Democrats and their willing accomplices in the media keep saying is that the majority of Americans want health care reform and the outrage is therefore not representative of the American people. Do not be fooled! We all want reform. But we want reform to focus on lower costs. We don’t want reform to provide free care to all people, which will no doubt lower the quality of care and endanger everyone, also increasing the tax burden on all citizens making necessities of life even more unaffordable.

I can verify that people in Eastern Montana are infuriated that our Senator is henchman on the socialization of our healthcare. Fed Ex and UPS are doing well and the U.S. Post Office is going bankrupt. And we want these same people to manage our health?

I especially thank the hundreds of Democrats that came over to our booth and signed our petition. Thanks for breaking party lines to do what is right for our country.

Jordan Hall
Chairman, Richland County Republican Party

In Defense of Polygamy

2009-08-10T11:28:00.004-06:00

I knew the title would get your attention.

For some reason, I find myself defending polygamy. It seems to me that I'm bound for a lose-lose situation. A discussion came up at our small-group last night about why God condoned polygamy in the Old Testament but not the New Testament - the answer to which wasn't the source of controversy. It was the premise of the question that sparked discussion and that is "did God, in fact, condone polygamy in the Old Testament?"

The majority opinion is that God did not, in fact, condone polygamy - let alone design it. It is an apologist's argument that if God doesn't like it now that he didn't like it then and that God merely tolerated polygamy as a necessary evil. My stance, however, is that not only did God tolerate polygamy, but it was a part of His design for the ancient world.

First of all, I think it's safe to say that polygamy was assumed in the Old Testament as being allowable and justified. Consider this short list of polygamists in the Bible:

* Abraham
* Asher
* Caleb
* David
* Ezra
* Gideon
* Hosea
* Jacob
* Moses (Surprise! Moses was married to Zipporah (a Midianite) and a Cushite [Ethiopian/African]) - he was a polygamist and in an interracial marriage...scandalous!
* Solomon

But the fact that these leaders had multiple wives does not, in fact, condone polygamy. In fact, Solomon's many wives was the downfall of the entire nation of Israel. David's pursuit after multiple wives led to murder. Jacob's pursuit after multiple wives led to what is later determined to be sin (Levitical law prevents men from marrying sisters). So could polygamy speak more to a cultural setting that God's purpose?

Before we consider some Biblical passage, let me first state that someone against the view that God promoted polygamy would argue that when Levitical law mentioned polygamy it wasn't God condoning it, but recognizing it as being a part of the culture and wanted to make sure that if it (which was sin) was going to be done anyway, was at least done respectfully. In truth, it is difficult to find many passages where God would say bluntly - "Hey, ya'll marry a bunch of different wives!" However, God does design polygamy and even require it in certain places.

For example:

5 If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family. Her husband's brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to her. 6 The first son she bears shall carry on the name of the dead brother so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel. (Deuteronomy 25)

This passage assumes the first brother is married. In fact, this verse is later on clarified when a certain someone "pulls-out" to prevent impregnating his dead brother's wife because he doesn't want to share his inheritance with her children, but only his own.

This has nothing to do with the topic at hand, but a few verses after this in Deuteronomy 25 made me laugh and I share it for your amusement:

11 If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, 12 you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.

Amen to that.

Earlier in Numbers 31, God instructs the Israelite army to destroy the land of Midian, defeat their army, and take all of their virgins and wives. Once again, obvious cultural implications prove that these soldiers would have already been married. And on a side note, this isn't because God thought it cool to take women as slaves/brides, but because with their land destroyed and men killed, the only humanitarian thing to do would be to take the innocent women as wives and provide for them. As a matter of fact, in Deuteronomy 21, God states that if this is done, the man cannot sell her or treat her like a slave.

In Deuteronomy 21 it says:

15 If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love, 16 when he wills his property to his sons, he must not give the rights of the firstborn to the son of the wife he loves in preference to his actual firstborn, the son of the wife he does not love.

These are but a few of the many instances where God seems to condone polygamy. To say that God merely overlooked it is falling short of what the text tells us... in fact, he instituted rules to guide it!

But moving on, what about the premise that polygamy is now sinful in the New Testament era? That assumption is absolutely true. Jesus condemns it, as well as the early church writers. Now let me make a statement based on conjecture.

The Old Testament system (the sacrificial system, justification by the law, etc..) was not a failure. The common preaching is that the law system failed and then God looked down and said, "uh-oh, my bad, I better fix this!" and sent Jesus to fixed a failed system. That's poppy-cock. The law worked perfectly. That's because the purpose of the law wasn't to save, but to be a measuring stick to show humanity that we fall short of the law, thus needing Christ. God didn't fail and His law didn't fail. It was perfect.

However, the system wasn't a failure but it also wasn't ideal. It wasn't the end. Jesus was not plan B, but the plan from the beginning. Because the ideal came to Earth, some of the law was clarified and some of the law was nullified to make room for the ideal system that the law system was leading up to.

Similarly, polygamy was not the ideal either then or now (just as the law was not the ideal). However, it was God's plan for that time period (just like the law was God's plan for that time period). But as the world now has received the ideal from God, the less ideal should diminish (reliance upon the law for salvation and polygamy, just to name a few).

We can be assured from the verses listed above that (A) God condoned, sanctioned, and guided the process of polygamy. That is a fact. We also know that in spite of God's provision for polygamy, (B) polygamy wasn't ideal for the following reasons:

1. Monogamy - not polygamy - seems to be the ideal in a perfect world (the Garden of Eden) as God made one man for one woman and said that the "man should leave his father and mother and cling unto his wife and they shall be one flesh." One flesh - not a woman-man-woman sandwich.

2. Monogamy is mirrored by Christ's love for the church (which is a perfect love) - not polygamy. Jesus is a groom who has one bride that he is waiting patiently for, not shacking up with other hussies while he waits for us to be cleaned up enough for the wedding party to start up. Unlike Abraham, he isn't impatient and looking for a hand-maiden to procreate with. He is a gentleman who has room for only one bride.

3. Polygamy is later outlawed by God.

4. Most polygamous marriages in the Bible have strife. Not all - I should note. Some seem to work. But it shows us that human nature does not change that when you have a man between two women it's bound not to work well. Multiple wives were always fighting for the affection of their husband, fighting over birthrights for their children, or people were dying for it (David), or family fighting over the selection of multiple spouses (Moses), or children being neglected and others spoiled rotten (Joseph).

So here's the real question: Why on earth would God allow, sanction, condone, and guide the process of polygamy!?!

Here are some pragmatic answers:

A. Polygamy best assured in a fallen world, which unlike Eden was prone to disease, thorns, hardship, and war, that the human race would survive a primitive existence. After original sin, humanity found a world where survival was not a given. In their primitive age, not every man could support his family - and not even be guaranteed of reaching maturity. Like in the animal kingdom, those most fit to provide for their offspring's basic needs should be those procreating the most. Sadly, in modern America the ones who can provide the least reproduce the most (drive by your local low-income housing some time or go rent Idiocracy). In the ancient world, this would have led to extinction of the human race. For that reason, God provided polygamy as a means for those with the most means to have as many wives as they could afford in order to have as many children as possible.

B. Polygamy was the best means by which the world could become well populated. It was the goal of God from the beginning for people to be 1) fruitful, 2) multiply, and 3) move throughout the face of the Earth. Many wives mean many children, which mean many people on the face of the Earth. Jesus came at the perfect time because God is Architect of the Ages. He guides the population of the Earth to be on pace with His will. For this reason we need not be concerned with the quick growth of the world's population - God's got it handled. I believe this is also the reason (promoting population growth) that God allowed people to be hundreds of years old prior to the flood and even after the flood allowed women to bear children at older ages. Older age equals more children.

C. Polygamy was the best means by which to promote the health, safety, and needs of women. God has always cared about the needs of women. In our modern mindset we think of Old Testament polygamy as being chauvinistic and man-centric. Alright - seven wives!!! Lucky guy!!! It was anything but that! Polygamy ensured that widows were taken care of and that women would be provided for well. If it was one man to one woman, many women would have starved because they would have to marry a man at the low end of the productivity totem pole and would have starved to death. This is why there are several instances in the Scripture where God was mad that men abused the system of polygamy for selfish purposes rather than putting the needs of women and their children first. A philanthropist in the Old Testament would have been a polygamist. A selfish man would have been monogamist.

So, there you have it. I just defended polygamy... or at least defended a Biblical understanding of polygamy and how it was sanctioned and guided by God for explicit purposes. To make it clear, monogamy is God's perfect system and the ideal state of humanity. It is now the only acceptable mode of marriage allowed by God. But I write this in defense of God's sovereignty (as if He needs my help). I don't believe God was helpless to stop people like Abraham, Moses, and David (a man after God's own heart) from committing this sin (if it were a sin). I believe that God is sovereign and could have prevented polygamy among his people if He so desired. Instead, he set up guidelines for how it should be done well. As survival became easier, polygamy decreased (polygamy was almost dead among the Jewish people by the time of Jesus anyway).

I'm just glad there's not marriage in Heaven. If there were, there would be a lot of awkward moments as spouses reunite to find their lovers in the arms of spouses that had already gone to be with the Lord. And if such were the case, polygamy would have to be allowed in Heaven.

In Defense of a Pastor/Theologian

2009-08-08T23:42:00.003-06:00

I struggle sometimes in my pulpit ministry. I don't mean struggle in the sense of "I can't preach well" or "I can't think of anything to preach." I hope I do well and I hope I do as well as I've been gifted. When I say "I struggle," what I mean is that I struggle in walking the fine line between inspirational and instructional messages. When one gets behind the pulpit, should he aim to inspire, motivate, or instruct and educate?

In my earlier years of ministry I most certainly would have said the former. After all, Bible education and doctrinal instruction should happen in Sunday School. Sermons are supposed to convict and persuade... such is the thinking of many pastors in the modern church.

And then I read the Bible. Dabbling a little bit in theological studies and just plain reading the Bible, I saw that the Holy Spirit is Who convicts of sin and draws sinners to repentance. I saw that is not through human persuasion that souls are quickened, but through the Word of God regeneration is sparked. I also saw through the fruitless ministry of my own and others that if it is human words that bring a "decision," then such a change is rarely if ever legitimate and never long-lasting. So, then, what is the purpose of preaching.

Certainly there is a persuasive element to preaching. But the longer I live the more I see how helpless a pastor is when left to his own ability to persuade or inspire. I also see how powerful the Scripture is in changing lives, quickening souls, and bringing long-lasting repentance. The wise preacher, therefore, understands the shortcomings of his own charisma and personality and instead relies on the Holy Spirit to move through his honest pursuit of conveying the deep truths of God's Word.

I received much advice as a young preacher. Most of which can be put in two categories. First, if you want people to like your sermons then keep your messages short (the average attention span is 25 minutes bla bla bla). Secondly, if you want people to like your sermons then don't get too deep (deeply theological preachers either come off as arrogant, hyper-educated, or over the heads of the average church-goer).

What I've come to realize is that although the first and second pieces of advice may be true, they are built on an unBiblical and incredibly stupid premise: that you want people to like your sermons! What a chain of bondage that we put on our young men! Instead of teaching our young pastors to remove from them their fear-of-man issues (which later turn them into sniveling cowards of a pastor) we teach them to please people. This doesn't mean that preachers shouldn't take constructive criticism - after all, a wise preacher is constantly asking wise counsel what they "thought of the sermon," and with which there is nothing wrong. Some preachers definitely need to do some more asking around.

Common complaints I've heard about preaching (not mine, but others....you rarely hear complaints about your own preaching):

1. That sermon was way too long!
2. He uses a bunch of big words to prove how smart he is!
3. I don't want to hear what so-and-so says about the Bible, I want to hear what the Bible says!
4. I don't want to hear what that word means in Greek, just tell me what it means in English!
5. Quit preaching so deep! The average American has an 8th grade reading level!
6. He's all about doctrine and theology, just preach the Bible!

You've heard these same complaints, and depending upon the preacher they might be valid. But much of the time, they're not. Let me address the Biblical rebuke for each of those six common complaints - and I'm going to use absolutely no tact here, so let me make it clear that I'm not addressing anything going on in Fellowship Church - my people are awesome and I don't hear this stuff, so either they don't say it or they have enough courtesy to not let me hear it!

1. That sermon was way too long!: Grow up. Quit being a baby. You can sit through two hours of American Idol and can't sit through an hour long sermon? You are sucking on a spiritual bottle of milk. This is probably an indication of a lack of maturity. The exception to this is your preacher is blatantly disregarding a pre-approved upon schedule and therefore not being conscientious of your time or the roast that might be burning in your oven. If an hour is set aside for preaching, deal with it. It won't kill you. Don't make me remind you of how long sermons have traditionally been.

2. He uses a bunch of big words to prove how smart he is!: Consider the fact that those words are probably not big to your preacher and he probably knows much bigger. The amount of syllables probably does not cross his mind. Instead, you don't like those big words because it proves how ignorant you are. Instead of complaining about theological terms, take that pent-up energy and burn a few brain-calories learning those terms so you can show them off to prove you're not dumb, either. You want to reduce complicated Biblical doctrines and "mysteries of the faith" to a VBS vocabulary and God expects more of you.

3. I don't want to hear what so-and-so says about the Bible, I want to hear what the Bible says!: This complaint is usually the most exaggerated. If a preacher quotes Spurgeon or Luther once or twice a month this complaint comes out of the woodwork. But for the average churchgoer, might I submit to you that your pastor might just be an idiot? Many pastors are certainly treated as such. If that were the case, wouldn't you want to know that he has some theological back-up from a trusted pastor of ages past? And rarely is such the case... most of the time these church fathers aren't quoted as authoritative of themselves, but because they do what your asking - telling us what the Bible says.

4. I don't want to hear what the word means in Greek, tell me what it means in English! I hope you're gay. I hope you're really, really gay. Offended? It means "happy," right? Our English words change meaning in the course of thirty years (or less). In fact, it does not matter in the slightest what a Biblical word means in English. It is absolutely irrelevant because it wasn't' written in English. If God chose to write the Bible in Greek (which He did and for many good reasons - I wish I had time to explain that), then it would behoove all of us to understand it better.

5. Quit preaching so deep! The average American is on an 8th grade level!: Yes, the average American is a buffoon. Statistically, compared to other industrialized nations we should all be on the short bus and wearing helmets. Sue us if we expect more from you. We pastors have expectations for our people and - yes - we may stretch their synapses from time to time to make them grow in Christian maturity. One way to ensure spiritual retardation is to speak to congregations like they're spiritual retards. I'm getting that copyrighted.

6. He's all about doctrine and theology, just preach the Bible!: What do you think doctrine and theology is? Telling whimsical stories and jokes from Readers Digest and funny colloquialisms is not preaching the Bible. Doctrine simply means "teaching" and "theology" means "study of God" or "knowledge of God." We must retain an understanding of what the Bible teaches. That, my friends, is called theology. Show me the preacher that often hears this complaint and I'll show you a preacher that quotes far more from the Bible than the average preacher, thus nullifying the complaint.

Sadly, most pastors I know are not theologians. They are not "surgeons of the text." They might have gone to Bible college or seminary for a few years to have theologians teach them (like I did) and then say "thank goodness that is over" and run off to preach sermons that are an inch deep and mile wide (like I did). All pastors should be theologians. They should eagerly and aggressively seek to not just preach the text, but understand it and know it well.

What I see as a growing trend is what I can best describe as practically a disdain for diligent pastor/theologians. For many, pastors can either fit the "theologian mold " or the "good ole' boy man-of-the-people mold" as if they are mutually exclusive. When did education or theology or doctrine become slurs?

A guy named Sweeney wrote this:

"In the early twenty-first century, when many pastors have abdicated their responsibilities as theologians, and many theologians do their work in a way that is lost on the people of God, we need to recover Edwards' model of Christian ministry. Most of the best theologians in the history of the church were parish pastors. Obviously, however, this is not the case today. Is it any wonder, then, that many struggle to think about their daily lives theologically, and often fail to understand the basics of the faith? I want to be realistic here. A certain amount of specialization is inevitable in complex, market-driven economies. And the specialization of roles within God's kingdom can enhance our Christian ministries. But when our pastors spend the bulk of their time on organizational matters, and professors spend the bulk of their time on intramural academics, no one is left to do the crucial work of shaping God's people with the Word. Perhaps our pastors and professors, Christian activists and thinkers, need to collaborate more regularly in ministry. Perhaps the laity need to give their pastors time to think and write--for their local congregations and the larger kingdom of God."

I can't put it any better. Perhaps the best compliment I've ever received was recently when a former church member who recently left my church due to relocation has tried to find a good church home. Speaking to different pastors, it quickly became evident that they knew more about theology than the pastors to whom they were speaking. In fact, it was frustrating because the pastors couldn't even communicate using the same basic theological terms. They were, effectively, Biblically and theologically ignorant. And I know that saying my church people are better informed and knowledgeable than the average pastor isn't saying much, but to me it means the world.

So if our sermons are a little dry, too informative, too educational, not inspirational enough, remember that what you're hearing is the Word of God which is the power to save, power to convict, and power to change lives. Sorry. All you're getting is rich Bible teaching. Forgive your pastor for leaving out the knock-knock jokes and stories about his childhood dog. Somehow, I would imagine, you'll make do.

Keep it up, Glenn

2009-08-07T18:32:00.002-06:00

This is a town-hall meeting with Rep. Bob Inglis in South Carolina, discussing Health Care Reform. The crowd was on his side until for an inexplicable reason told the crowd to stop listening to Glenn Beck. And when I say inexplicable, I mean inexplicable. It came out of the blue.

Why would a Republican congressman tell people to stop listening to Glenn Beck? I've been listening to Beck since 2001, since his first week on national radio. I knew from the very beginning that he was going to be a big-shot. A recovering alcoholic and newly-converted Mormon, Beck is and always has been hilarious but most importantly right-on politically. He has never shown the slightest bit of "crazy," which is how the media portrays him. And apparently its how some in the House of Representatives would portray him. Why?

A common slur against Beck is that he has been discussing so-called FEMA detention camps. In fact, Beck did discuss the issue in order to refute the Internet rumors. Beck first received hatred from the rest of the media for being the only man on prime time television news to focus on illegal immigration, being called a racist and a hate monger.

The fact is, politicians benefit greatly from the likes of Glenn Beck (who is showing power in media and among the people that rivals that of Limbaugh - I've never really seen anything like it) and other commentators, but when elected then try to distance themselves from these men so that they're not maligned by the same slanderous falsehoods.

Forget this guy. Glenn Beck is one dude that says it how it is. More power to him. Keep it up, Glenn.

Can I Brag on My Community?

2009-08-06T16:53:00.005-06:00

As I'm sitting at the Richland County Republican Party booth, I'm contemplating this little community of Sidney, Montana. It's my second year at the county fair, which gives me a slightly better perspective on this corner of God's Country than I had last year. For last year's commentary on carnies, click here.

Sidney is a little community of about five thousand people. It is a hodgepodge and potpourri of many different kinds of people.

There are family ranchers that are many generations deep in Montana. They own the land and guard it with their lives, caring for every square inch of what God gave them. They benevolently let responsible hunters comb their land and for a few weeks make it their own during hunting season. They grow the food that supplies America. These families make up the back bone of Sidney and much of Eastern Montana.

There are Southern expatriates like myself that are here many different reasons. They hail especially from Texas and Oklahoma, trading oil field for oil field. In fact, whole sections of town host these guys in trailer houses, recreational vehicles, and travel trailers. They live in temporary housing and motels in order to make the Montana hillsides pump black gold. The entire nation owes them a debt of gratitude for their service, working in blazing heat and bitter cold, being laid off with the unrelenting tide of oil prices, and hanging on to their unemployment until they find another rig that can abuse them into a good living. Some in Sidney call them "oil trash," and I never would. There are other Southern fellas like myself just making my way to the frontier in the pioneer spirit, just looking for someplace with deep soil to plant sturdy roots.

There are the businessmen that keep the town going and city commerce alive. They are the insurance salesmen, the bankers, and the folks that own the Farm & Home, gas stations, and even local one-screen movie theater. They own the tire stores, the hotdog place, the ice cream parlor, the drug store. And typically, the smaller business they are the better they treat you. I try to patronize these good businesses as much as possible. I go to the Farm & Home to buy stuff I could buy at WalMart for probably a little less. They give excellent service and don't treat you like an idiot because you don't know what you're talking about. I go to M3 meats to buy the best cuts of meat in town - even though it's more convenient to buy your meat at the local grocer (which might be a chain depending upon which one you go to, and I would rather not step foot in there). Although the Democrat Booth is giving away certificates to M3 and I'll have to do some investigating to figure out if they're in cahoots with the Dems. I'll not eat Democratic beef, and that will be a shame. The point is, these businessmen should be applauded because their economic service is patriotic in nature.

And among the many, many different kinds of people in Sidney are the "weirdos." That is not my term - but another's. And if you are from Sidney, you know what I'm talking about. The folks that walk around town or ride a bike - almost aimlessly, all day long. The ones that are at the fair twelve hours a day, all four days. The ones who you have to wonder where they hid all year and what rock they climbed out of to make it to the fair. And I'm not being mean, but that's what most are thinking. But here's the endearing part; as weird as they are, everybody pretty much seems to look past their weirdness and eccentricities and accept them as a part of the greater community. In fact, some are very endearing and I would also include them in the "important" parts of the community.

The fair is a good place to see all of the hidden undercurrent of productivity that stays hidden most of the year. The booths inside the exhibition hall are a good example of this.

There's the Richland County Right to Life who have a petition of their own and are stomping the petition over at the Republican booth. In fact, I've seen Democrats go over and sign their petition (so I'm glad I'm not manning that booth, lest I literally slap sense into them for being in the wrong party). What's brought me great pleasure is seeing young girls stop at the booth because their little plastic fetus-dolls depicting various stages of pregnancy caught their attention, and watching the older women at the booth explain to them how "babies grow inside their momma's belly, and we want them to be safe."

There's the Action for Eastern Montana, which seeks to hook people up on government welfare programs like housing assistance, head start, and utility bill assistance. But they also help people get employment training and help runaways and the homeless. They see segments of our community that nobody else sees, and they must be unique and special in that they can deal with that daily. I'm sure they're one-of-a-kind people.

Then there's the Tavern Association. They give away turkey dinners at Thanksgiving so they can sleep at night. It takes their mind off the fact that they aid and abet people succumbing to addictions that originated and were perpetuated in their establishment. I imagine if I had people regularly leave my place drunk and occasionally kill someone while driving, I would need to give away a few turkeys for a Karma-boost, too. It would be nice if they would put some Celebrate Recovery brochures on their table. But hey, a fair booth gives you credibility, right?

And these are just a few examples of the folks represented at the Fair. In all, they're a great bunch of folks that at the end of the day just want to do right by their families, put food on the table, and make a little extra dough to go to the rodeo, the demolition derby, or the lake on the weekend. And the majority of them would stop if you had a flat and help you out - even those pesky democrats.

Weaving all of these groups, businesses, and ranchers together is the network of groups that help us behind the scenes. Sidney is blessed with a professional and caring staff at the health department. They are an intelligent, giving, and community-focused bunch that should be appreciated for all they do. The gals at Mental Health work with the community and provide a valuable service. I fully trust and appreciate the city police and county sheriff's office. They serve and protect and do it while being fair and honest. And I've gotten to know a handful of the clergy in this town and they're alright, too, believe it or not. They're a friendly group of guys that I think genuinely do their best with what they've got.

All in all, Sidney is a great place to live. And even the carnies don't mess it up too bad.

Message: Odyssey in Ephesus 1

2009-08-06T13:20:00.001-06:00

This is Sunday's Message from the Odyssey in Ephesus Sermon Series, message 1 and entitled "Salutations."

Democrats Beaten Back at Town Halls

2009-08-05T16:18:00.006-06:00

This clip gives me hope that maybe the limits of the American populace can be pushed too far. There are a hundred other clips of people standing up and screaming, chanting, so very angry at the Democrats in Congress that ignore the Constitution and push a socialist agenda.

All across the United States, citizens have voiced their opinions to naive democrats and their staff who thought that they would meet welcoming constituents who would receive them with accolades for pushing socialized health care upon them.

Instead, Democrats have been met with angry citizens - whom Democrat leadership is calling "mobs." These "mobs" consist of law-abiding, tax-paying senior citizens and others who...gulp...watch the nightly news.

The real disconnect here is not that Democrats are on the fast track to socialism, but tyranny. It seems that due to the charismatic leadership of the "Chosen One," congressmen are falling in line on health care, even though their constituents are angry - probably angrier that most of us have ever seen our citizenry in modern history, at least since Vietnam. But it isn't stopping Democrat leadership from pushing a plan that the vast majority do not want. They're going to give us what they think we need because they think they know our needs better than we do.

My question is how did these Democrat Senators doing the town halls not know how they would be received? Are they that ignorant about the heartland?

My other question is this: Hey Max Baucus, when are you coming to Eastern Montana for your town hall? We're ready.

Church Camp-Out 2009

2009-08-03T21:28:00.002-06:00

About 70 of us in total.
Pastor Mike baptizing Brooke.

Pastor Mike, Brooke, Pastor Jordan, Wyatt.

Baptizing Wyatt.

If They Would Just Be Honest With Us...

2009-08-03T11:32:00.001-06:00

In Defense of a Well-Read Christian

2009-07-29T17:58:00.002-06:00

I have often said that two of the most beautiful words in any language come to us in Latin – Sola Scriptura. Meaning “Scripture Alone,” Sola Scriptura was the unofficial thesis of Martin Luther’s 95 Thesis that is credited with bringing about the Protestant Reformation. The Protestant Reformation, of course, is credited with bringing the world back authentic, historical, New Testament Christianity. This understanding – that the uninspired, fallible words of man can point us back to the inspired, infallible words of God (and a correct understanding thereof) is the reason I believe that the Christian should be well-read in both and ancient and modern non-inspired literature.

Because of the concept of Sola Scriptura, many of my conservative brethren (of which I am a part) have over-corrected the wheel in an attempt to not be led astray by false teachers and false churches that assert dogma over doctrine. They do not want to become like so many, forgetting God’s Word by being led astray by false teachers, and the antidote against that poison is keeping oneself grounded in the Bible.

However, to fully ignore historical Christian writings is a drastic measure when attempting to ensure ones orthodoxy. When we shout the banner of “Sola Scriptura!” it shouldn’t mean “the Scripture alone for all matters,” but “the Scripture alone for sufficiency, efficiency and authority.” To believe the former is missing out on a great wealth of inspiration and instruction that can edify the Christian’s heart and benefit the church. We do not want to become like our Primitive Baptist brothers that see no need for non-Biblical education or seminary, or else we will become marginalized and failed like their fledgling denomination.

There are several reasons why Christians need to become scholars of historic Christian writings and contemporary expositions of Scripture.

Reason #1: Without a working knowledge (if not intimate knowledge) of Christian scholarship going back to Christ, one does not know whether or not the doctrine they have acquired from the Scripture falls within the bounds of historical Christianity. Being within the bounds of historical Christianity is the greatest defense against heresy.

I see it on a weekly basis. If you don’t see it on a weekly basis, check out the blogosphere at it will quickly become evident. Here’s the scenario: A church or rogue preacher decides that “all that fancy book learnin’ is for rich people and heretics with seminary degrees” and so he decides that he doesn’t need to pick up any book or read any church leader or church father to compare his interpretation of the text with historical Christianity. To do this in good conscience, the church or rogue preacher hides behind assertions that “the Holy Spirit is all I need to interpret Scripture!” and “the Bible is all I need!” Those claims sound good, right? Certainly it is the Holy Spirit that helps us understand Scripture, and certainly the Bible is sufficient for salvation. But in this scenario, here is what happens nearly every time. The rogue preacher reads the Scripture and is amazed that no one seems to understand a particular passage like he does. In fact, he’s shocked that he’s the only one smart enough (and perhaps a few of his like-minded contemporaries) to get what the Bible is really trying to say. For two thousand years, the church had it wrong!

For example, I posted a clown-hat on the Daily Soap Box a while back that asserts the only Biblical model of church is one church per city (he wasn’t the first I’ve heard say it, but it always comes from the same kind of guy). After all, Paul wrote to “the church” at Corinth and “the church” at Ephesus and “the church” at Philippi. Now churches have perverted the Christian model, claim these guys, because they’re factional and divisive. Wouldn’t it be great if we all worshipped together? And wouldn’t it all be great if all the churches would realize how smart he was and make him their pastor?

In reality, a study of the Scripture isn’t clear on this part of the nature of the first church. In fact, we know that Ephesus had many churches, as did Corinth, as did Philippi. Paul’s epistles had to travel from one church to another. How do we know this without consulting extra-Biblical historical texts? Also, it would behoove this individual to look at church fathers and their application and interpretation of New Testament ecclesiology. How do you define “city?” How do you define “community,” and who gets to decide what this church believes, lest it become heretical?

Mark says that we can handle snakes and not die because of our faith. Most Bibles still say that, although the older manuscripts don’t include it. So then there’s a hillbilly over in Eastern Kentucky drinking some shine, runs across this verse, and takes a potato sack full of copperheads to his church the next Sunday – and no doubt some homemade Mountain Dew for courage. For the next 100 years, we Baptists are made fun of because of our stupid cousins over in Appalachia who didn’t ‘need no book learnin’ to tell ‘em what God’s word done said.’ Perhaps they should have looked back over our church fathers and said “maybe there’s a reason why the Puritans, who are basically Baptists Exemplar, didn’t handle snakes.”

Or here is a good example. A Baptist seminary back in the fifties thinks up this nifty idea that you can reduce salvation to saying a prayer. From this comes “Four Spiritual Laws” and the sinner’s prayer and lots of shiny tracts with the pictures of a cross reaching across a ravine with hell at the bottom. It is perhaps the greatest heresy of modern Christianity, to reduce the process of salvation into a system that can fit on a tract and be done within two verses of “I Surrender All” at church camp. A scholar would have looked across the annals of church history and seen that such is a foreign concept to the fathers of our faith and it should have sent up a huge red flag.

There is a thin line between Biblical doctrine and heresy. Church history usually sits right on that line. There is a real arrogance in assuming that Christians in millenniums past had it wrong, but now we have it right. Like the famous Galileo that when asked about his achievements said, “I stand on the shoulders of giants,” we should understand that we too stand on the shoulders of blood-splattered Saints of centuries past.

Reason #2: Ignoring the great scholars and theologians of Christendom assumes that one is able to grasp the “mysteries of the faith” within one’s own lifetime and within one’s own intellect – both of which are preposterous assumptions.

I am beginning to get the glory of God. I don’t think one pastor in ten gets it. “Yeah, God is supposed to be glorified, bla bla bla.” We treat the glory of God like we treat the salutation of Paul’s epistles…like it’s a bunch of flowery hoo-hah we should just get through. But because of one man – John Piper – I’m just starting to barely grasp the concept of God’s Glory. Piper was able to achieve a working knowledge of and appreciation and passion for the Glory of God after working through Romans with his church – for eight years. Yes, for eight years. During that time, this essential doctrine was born in his heart and it became the centerpiece of his scholarship. Since then, he has devoted his life to understanding and proclaiming the glory of God.

Let me make some obvious statements. First, I am not as smart as John Piper. I know that’s shocking. I do not pretend that my cognitive abilities are on par with his. Secondly, I have attention deficit disorder and don’t believe I could study one book of the Bible for eight years. Third, I am not as good a man as Piper, so I do not assume that the Holy Spirit will give me an equal understanding of the Bible as that of a smarter, more disciplined man. Would it not be foolish not to use Piper’s works as a means to better understand the Scripture (so long as it does not contradict the Scripture)?

Piper is an old man, and is just now in his prime. It took his entire life to be able to get a handle on God’s glory. I know there’s some bubba with an Associate Degree in Church Recreation reading this and going, “what’s the big deal, I get God’s glory.” Let me assure you, bubba, you don’t get it. Most people aren’t even smart enough to know what they don’t know, sadly. But I am infinitely grateful – INFINITELY – grateful to John Piper for enlightening me to the beautiful pursuit of God’s glory. It’s a gift I’ll enjoy the rest of my life and can never be taken away from me. And as a young man – standing on Piper’s shoulders – I can proclaim this doctrine to people for the rest of my life…what a blessing!

Piper is to God’s glory what Calvin is to God’s sovereignty or Luther is to the Bible’s authority or Edwards is to God’s justice or Bunyan is to Christ’s propitiation. Of course we could glean the same understanding because we’re using the same book (the Bible) as our foundation. That is, we could glean the same understanding on our own if we could live a hundred lifetimes.

Reason #3: Ignoring the great scholars and theologians of Christendom unduly starves believers from God-wrought inspiration.

Have you ever read Pilgrims Progress by John Bunyan? It’s an allegorical tale of salvation. It is in the opinion of many to be in the top ten books of all time. I can’t explain the way it affects someone to read it. Just read it. It’s a good example that although our doctrine comes from the Bible alone, our inspiration comes from the Holy Spirit – and the Holy Spirit works through men! This is why people crowd into churches throughout the world to hear a man stand in front of them and yell. Could they not get what they need from the Bible themselves? Yes. But the Holy Spirit moves through the words of fallible man – spoken, written, yelled, or sang. Furthermore, when the church leaders of old (Spurgeon, for example) write to us their expositions of the Scripture they give us outlooks and understandings that we cannot achieve on our own.

Reason #4: If we are to be able to “make a defense for the faith that is within us” we must be aware of ongoing theological debates and heretical movements. We must be able to speak the language of those the diligently study the Bible (whether for sanctification or malice). We mustn’t allow the heretics to out-knowledge us on the Scripture.

Are you pre-trib, mid-trib, pre-wrath, post-trib, or aumillenialist? Are you Reformed or Arminian? Perhaps you’re a Lapsarian. If you’re a typical Southern Baptist you might just be an Amyraldist. Do you see yourself as a part of the church growth movement, the word-faith movement, the Emerging movement, or neo-Calvinist movement? Is your church style Congregationalist or Presbyterian in nature? Do you prefer sermons that are exegetical or expositorial?

Many would say “I don’t care about all of those titles and names, I just read the Bible!” I would like to live in your world, a world where words, ideas, and names don’t matter. But they do. And they’re mattering more and more all the time. If we are ignorant of current theological banter we will become unable to effectively reach our greatest mission field – the church.

Reason #5: Although the Bible is sufficient for regeneration and the only authoritative literary work, the Bible is not sufficient to understand and fully appreciate the Bible. Fact: many aspects of Biblical understanding can only be gleaned by extra-Biblical texts.

Onesimus ran from Philemon and Paul wrote to beseech Philemon to take Onesimus back without harsh punishment, as a brother-in-Christ rather than a slave. Paul says “he will be useful to you now” (i.e. now that he is a Christian). Onesimus means “useful” in Greek. It is a clever plan-on-words. Would you know that without studying something other than the Bible? Likewise, slavery in America is a horrible black spot on the soul of the American Church. Although Christians led the abolitionist movement, they also led the pro-slavery movement. Churches across America preached this book to condone slavery, as Paul told a runaway slave to go back to his master. From a simple reading of this book, could you blame them?

Alexander the Great had a slave. His name was Aristotle. You might have heard of him before. Aristotle was his slave and his teacher, and taught him the ways of Greek culture. Alexander grew up and had the empire adopt Greek culture. Alexander then exported Greek culture around the world. The Bible is written in Greek because of a slave named Aristotle.

What’s the point? Picking up a history book and reading it would have made it clear that slavery in the days of Paul was quite different than race-based slavery in the days of the Antebellum South. In fact, there was no comparison. The fact is, the Bible is explained by extra-Biblical texts that we may understand the context in which the Bible was written.

Reason #6: Ecclesiology is best studied in light on one’s culture that it may be best contextualized for practical application. One cannot contextualize to the culture through a Bible-only approach to ecclesiology.

We have the Pastoral Epistles to help us govern, organize, and sustain the church. However, the Bible gives the church great liberty in most aspects of its daily life. What kind of service order should a church have? What kind of worship should be done? How should the church proclaim the gospel and by what means?

The church evolves with each change of culture. And there’s nothing sinful in that so long as historic, Biblical Christian doctrine is maintained. Pastors MUST be experts at culture. They must specialize in contextualizing the message. For this, the Bible is not much help as there are hundreds of different contexts in which the Gospel need be preached, and the New Testament was delivered in but a few.

For this purpose we should read diligently, study culture and trends, and look to people that can help us understand the world in which we live (like George Barna). This is why we look to people like Mark Dever to explain how we can best apply Biblical values and New Testament theology into a contemporary context. The fact is, there are people that are smarter than and more knowledgeable than us. And we should learn from them.

Reason #7: All truth is God’s truth. To not recognize nor see the need for extra-Biblical truth is refusing to see God at work in history and in our world.

What goes up must come down. That is not Newton’s truth. That is God’s truth. God is actively at work in creation and history. And through the realms of science, anthropology, archeology, and history we glorify God by seeing his interaction in our lives.

There is a simple rule that must be followed: 1) if it contradicts God’s Word it is not truth and 2) if it is God’s truth it is not limited to his Word. For this reason, whether it is a beautiful sunset, the starry skies, a group of playing children, or fishing out on the lake – there are those moments when God is exclaimed to us at times and in places outside of a leather-bound book. For that reason, we should embrace what edifies – and much of that can be found in your local Christian bookstore.

In conclusion, I’m tired of people that get their theology from Carmen and the Gaithers for making fun of the rest of us for consulting Calvin and Spurgeon. We’re not searching these men for truth, but searching the Bible for truth and then looking to them to see if we’re on target… just like we would consult the “wise counsel” in our own church bodies. Often, those who see no need to read great theologians of Christian history also see no need to learn from men of God in their presence or behind their pulpit. I believe that God put men as shining lights into a dark world to bring the church back from the brink of heresy and point it back to the Scripture. And these men are worthy to be read. Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God (a sermon by Jonathon Edwards) was the single greatest contributing factor to the Great Awakening and the fact that America became a Christian nation. Should we not read Jonathon Edwards? These men aren’t infallible, but neither is the guy behind your pulpit every week. We mustn’t be afraid to learn from those who are far smarter and who had to suffer far greater consequences for their convictions.

And for the guy out there saying, “I’m just as smart as those guys (Piper, Edwards, Bunyon, Spurgeon, Calvin, Luther, etc…)” then… I pity you. You should be on a mountaintop with the world at your feet, bestowing upon us your wealth of your understanding.

Lake Pictures

2009-07-25T22:35:00.003-06:00

We went to Ft. Peck lake with some great friends and had a good time this weekend.

3lbs 14ounce small-mouth...Only fish I caught. No skill involved, I promise.

Judah in the lake.

Reagan and Cyrus in the Lake.

YouTube: Pull the video out of the memory-hole and put it back online.

2009-07-22T10:15:00.003-06:00

Watch this video here. I would put up a YouTube of it, but I can't. YouTube won't let me.

I posted a blog last year about a couple of young ladies who went to Planned Parenthood clinics across the country, posing as 14 and 15 year-olds that had been impregnated by 30-something men and shockingly, but not surprisingly, the clinics all refused to obey mandatory reporting laws and parental consent laws - or at lest drew them maps for how to get to clinics across state lines where they could evade the law.

Planned Parenthood is the most evil, reprehensible of all organizations operating in the United States. They are sick, hell-bound people.

In the latest undercover video from the student-led group Live Action, an Alabama clinic offers to "bend the rules" in reporting statutory rape (pregnant by 31 year-old) and parental notification to get a 14 year-old in for an abortion.

In fact, the so-called "counselor" told the girl "as long as you consented to having sex with him, there's nothing really we can do about that... we can bend the rules a bit."

Just like with the previous 5 undercover videos produced by LiveAction, they posted it on YouTube.

YouTube has blocked the video from viewing, citing "the video has been removed due to terms of use violation."

What is this violation? Paris Hilton's sex tape can be on YouTube, but not this video? Give me a break. YouTube refuses to comment any further on why they are censoring this video.

Planned Parenthood explicitly breaks the law in order to kill just one more baby, and YouTube is their accomplice in covering up the evidence. Despicable.

You can send a message to YouTube or call the company at (650)253-0000.

Sunday's Message:Doctrine Forgotten

2009-07-21T22:45:00.002-06:00

This is Sunday's Message from the "10 Indictments of the Modern Church" sermon series entitled "Doctrine Forgotten" and is the 9th in the series.

Jimmy Carter: I would like to punch him in the face.

2009-07-19T22:28:00.006-06:00

I would like to punch Jimmy Carter in the face. I'm a flawed human being, I know. I know it's wrong. I know it's sinful. I know God doesn't need me getting His back in this. But nonetheless, the carnal side in me would really - REALLY - like to punch Jimmy Carter in the face.

And I don't mean like a haymaker or anything... just a light little slap, maybe with a rubber glove or something. Have you ever had something annoy you endlessly, like a computer or office copier and just wanted to give it a good kick? That's what Carter does to me.

First, this absolutely failed President (by anyone's standards, conservative or liberal) whose domestic failures only seem small next to his foreign policy failures, jets around the world hugging terrorists (I'm not making this up), dissing Israel, and giving foreign policy advice. His passport should have been pulled by Secretary of State Rice during the Bush Administration and his Alzheimer's meds should have been increased by his doctors long ago. His kids should have kept him at home, where he belongs.

But alas, that isn't why I would most recently like to punch Carter in the face, but because he keeps taking jabs at the Southern Baptist Convention, and historic Christianity in general. Carter "officially" severed ties with the SBC in 2000 after the Baptist Faith and Message was amended to reiterate historic (and Biblical) Southern Baptist stances on gay marriage and complementarian ecclesiology. I thought he was long gone as of nine years ago. It turns out that Carter left the SBC - AGAIN - last week. And of course, instead of doing so quietly and respectfully, again takes jabs at the denomination.

It turns out that when Carter left the SBC nine years ago that he really didn't leave it. He stayed at the Maranatha Baptist Church where he's been a member for 60 years. In spite of calling the SBC homophobic and sexist, he has remained a deacon and a Sunday School teacher. Although he hasn't "fully participated" since 2000, he has still remained a deacon and Sunday School teacher! Don't get me started on church discipline and Biblical ecclesiology. My church would not have a deacon that set about to protect abortion! Not only would they not be a church member, but church discipline would vigorously be enacted. God help the church that allows the likes of Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton to remain on the membership rolls...and unfortunately, those are Southern Baptist Churches. If a pastor must truly give account for his congregation, God help the pastor that stands idly by as his congregant perpetuates the shedding of innocent blood. The blood of millions rests on Carter's and Clinton's hands. And I dare to say it rests on the hands of the pastor and churches that didn't exercise Biblical church discipline.

Carter has in recent years been involved heavily in the New Baptist Covenant. The New Baptist Covenant seeks to bind together various Baptist denominations in an effort to focus on "important issues" like animal rights, gay rights, and the environment. All in Jesus' name, of course.

In an essay entitled "Losing my Religion for Equality," Carter states that he had to choose between promoting equality and being a Southern Baptist. He begins his twisted thesis by saying (as he repeats over and over), "I HAVE been a practicing Christian all my life and a deacon and Bible teacher for many years."

I wonder if when Jesus said "Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!" if he wasn't thinking of Jimmy Carter.

Carter goes on to say, "My faith is a source of strength and comfort to me, as religious beliefs are to hundreds of millions of people around the world. So my decision to sever my ties with the Southern Baptist Convention, after six decades, was painful and difficult. It was, however, an unavoidable decision when the convention's leaders, quoting a few carefully selected Bible verses and claiming that Eve was created second to Adam and was responsible for original sin, ordained that women must be "subservient" to their husbands and prohibited from serving as deacons, pastors or chaplains in the military service."

First, let me state the obvious that if Carter where in a Godly church, his faith and received instruction would not give him comfort, but great fear and trembling. Secondly, by "carefully selected Bible verses" does he mean "dozens upon dozens of explicitly-clear Scriptures from multiple authors, in multiple contexts, over thousands of years of Old and New Testament history, without any verses to the contrary?" Third, by "claiming that Eve was created second to Adam and responsible for original sin, ordained that women must be subservient to their husbands" isn't Carter scoffing not at denominational leaders but Apostle Paul....is he scoffing at Apostle-stinking-Paul? If the pastoral epistles are not authoritative, what is?

Now get this...Carter says:

"At its most repugnant, the belief that women must be subjugated to the wishes of men excuses slavery, violence, forced prostitution, genital mutilation and national laws that omit rape as a crime. But it also costs many millions of girls and women control over their own bodies and lives, and continues to deny them fair access to education, health, employment and influence within their own communities. The impact of these religious beliefs touches every aspect of our lives. They help explain why in many countries boys are educated before girls; why girls are told when and whom they must marry; and why many face enormous and unacceptable risks in pregnancy and childbirth because their basic health needs are not met."

The italics are added courtesy of Jordan. Take my word for it - when Carter talks about women losing control of their own body, being denied access to health services, and facing unacceptable risks in pregnancy he is talking about a woman's right (in his eyes) to abortion. Yes. Carter first makes the case the a complimentarian ecclesiology (which means that men and women are equal, but have different roles) leads to rape and forced prostitution, and then that these darn religious beliefs prohibits women from having abortions. Oh, the humanity! How flawed we are as a denomination!

Carter goes on to say, "Religion, and tradition, are powerful and sensitive areas to challenge. But my fellow Elders and I, who come from many faiths and backgrounds, no longer need to worry about winning votes or avoiding controversy - and we are deeply committed to challenging injustice wherever we see it. The Elders are an independent group of eminent global leaders, brought together by former South African president Nelson Mandela, who offer their influence and experience to support peace building, help address major causes of human suffering and promote the shared interests of humanity. We have decided to draw particular attention to the responsibility of religious and traditional leaders in ensuring equality and human rights and have recently published a statement that declares: "The justification of discrimination against women and girls on grounds of religion or tradition, as if it were prescribed by a Higher Authority, is unacceptable."

So let me get this right. Carter leaves the SBC and instead joins himself into a group sacrilegiously-called " elders," comprised by leaders from multiple faiths that can't even name God as "God?"Just checking.

Continuing to call complementarianism "carefully selected Scriptures," I'm wondering if Carter has any understanding of New Testament ecclesiology or church history at all. But considering the lack of authority to which Carter ascribes to Scripture, it doesn't really matter.

How many times do we have to tell Carter to get out already. I think the vast majority of us in the SBC said "good riddance" eight years ago, shocked he was still active in an SBC church that hadn't disfellowshiped from him yet. He's like the roommate you had in college who would get mad and say "I'm leaving!" and slam the door, then come back again and say "I'm really leaving this time!" but never really leave. You just want to say, "go already."

So, Carter... "go already." Don't let the door hit you where the good Lord split you.

Fun at the Lake

2009-07-16T12:32:00.005-06:00

We spent last weekend at Ft. Peck lake with some friends. Ft. Peck dam is the largest dam on the Missouri River and is near Glasgow, MT. It's the largest hydrolic dam in the United States. It creates Ft. Peck lake, which is the fifth-largest man-made lake in the country. It is approximately 134 miles long. It's significantly clearer than Lake Sakakawea in North Dakota, where we were a few weeks ago. This is because it is upstream of the confluence of the Yellowstone River into the Missouri.

Tubing

Judah and Reagan on the boat

Maya, Reagan, and Judah

Before the action

Jon and Judah

Wipe-Out

Sunday's Message: Discipleship

2009-07-14T08:47:00.001-06:00

This is Sunday's Message from the "10 Indictments of the Modern Church" sermon series entitled "Discipleship."

Brorson School

2009-07-13T12:02:00.004-06:00

These are pictures from Mandy's new school. The pictures are fuzzy. Sue me.

This school is supported by oil revune from wells owned on school property, like the well you see from the school's playground.

This is Judah and Reagan at the rather nice playground.

This is the school. It has two classrooms, a kitchen-type area with a table for the kids to eat, and a basement. Don't think that because it only has seven students that it is not quality or technologically saavy. The school has ample revenue and each child has a computer and latest equipment. There are two teachers for the eight children expected to enroll. You can't buy that kind of attention and quality from the most expensive of private schools!

This is a picture of the prairie that surrounds the school. Except for an oil well in one direction and an abandoned little, white church high on a hill top in another direction, there's nothing else except the prairie in view.

It has a little bell-tower that still rings when school is about the begin.

God is Good.

2009-07-10T15:38:00.003-06:00

I have found it difficult in recent days to post any original blogs. I know this disappoints my legions upon legions of avid readers of The Daily Soap Box. For this, I apologize and pray that you will find some grace, some peace, some joy in your life other than eagerly anticipation booting up the ole' computer to read my latest blog.

It's not that there is a lack of interesting material from the nightly news. Things like Palin's resignation, Obama's downward spiraling popularity, Republican sex scandals, or any other current event could easily provoke thought and a regurgitation of a daily blog post during normal times. I've struggled to put together my thoughts, vehement dislike, and disgusting disdain for Rachel Maddow - but seems that I am unable without including my propensity for vulgarity, scathing rebuke, and hostility. So, I write nothing until I can better filter my righteous hatred and come up with something profound or at least civilized to write.

Simply put, I have been rather distracted with the goodness of life. Yes - goodness. There seems to have been no significant spiritual battles to fight in recent weeks, no hills to climb, no demons to beat back, no enemy at the gates. And such is unnerving to a veteran warrior of the faith and battle-scarred pastor like myself. Looking ever vigilantly over the sheep I see no wolves preying near by. And that is rare. It is so rare, in fact, it is unnerving. The elders met and prayed and fasted last week, in anticipation of such a battle - but none presented itself. Shots were not fired. Nonetheless, the quietness on the "Northern Front" -as I call it- makes the hairs stand up on my neck, knowing that it is often most quiet before a storm.... plus, I'm naturally paranoid, which doesn't help much. My years of guarding the sheep out on the lonesome plains have taught me (as have the years spent in the Tornado Alley of eastern Arkansas) that the quietness and hazy light often precedes a storm of abundant wrath - both spiritually and naturally.

Reading Spurgeon this week has perhaps rubbed off, as I had an abnormally rare deep thought I shared with a fellow elder:

"Mike, I don't know about you but I don't like these eerily quiet weeks with no catastrophes, crises, or calamities....perhaps we should take the blessing and just be happy about it. Here's my thought: It is most quiet BEFORE a storm - true? Why are we always worried the storm of problems or satanic static energy is about to hit - instead of the "whirlwind" of God's majestic and powerful, all consuming Holy Spirit...a warm front of God's powerful strength about to collide with the cold front of all that opposes him, when his power is displayed in awesome wrath and consuming greatness? Perhaps it will be a great day Sunday. Perhaps the Holy Wind will blow..."

So in the quiet, let me reflect on God's goodness and grace.

I am truly blessed.

Leaving the rotted spiritual corpse of the Bible belt, I made a journey to the rolling prairie of Eastern Montana. Without much for good reason other than the irresistible pull of the Holy Spirit, my family and myself moved to a frontier town with our denominational sister churches literally hours apart. Not being sure what I have found, I know now that the move was God's divine and sovereign hand moving me graciously to the people he made for me and that he made me for.

I'm doctrinally rigid and have never been able to tolerate what I know to be imperfect, untrue, or misaligned with Scripture - and to my fault (I'm not bragging). I am infinitely bless that God - knowing my weakness and ineptitude - moved me to a church that is so closely aligned with what I view as being Biblical that it is frightful. I pastor an elder-led, reformed-oriented, spirit-filled Baptist Church. How many pastors are so lucky?

My church has exploded with growth, as God moves in our community and lets us be a part. We have grown exponentially, with 60 new members and dozens upon dozens of baptisms. More excitedly, disciples are being grown, elders called, deacons trained as people (God's people) respond to his call. I am surrounded by four solid elders that keep me in line, offer wisdom, lead courageously, and fight ferociously for true Gospel. These men are my confidants and my friends, some like fathers and others like brothers. They are my foxhole companions and greatest supporters. They strengthen me, encourage me, and if I were held hostage and the gates of a fiery hell they would come rescue me.

My deacons are young and inexperienced, but learning. They are men and women of God with servants' hearts. They have an attitude of respect and teachability. They deliver food, visit the poor, visit the imprisoned. Care for the addicted and the afflicted. They take orders without asking why, serve well, and set an example for the flock. They know their place - and it is one of honor and respect, yet service and subordinance. They are one of kind. And our church has a pool of many more qualified men and women from which we will soon select more like them.

My "people" are young, vibrant, healthy families and wise, learnable and teachable older people. Young and old, rich and poor, babes and disciples - they all love Jesus, love their church, love their leadership, and serve well. Most of my people serve in ministry and all of them I love with all of my heart. When I die, I want my tombstone to read no name, no date, but only "This man loved Jesus and loved His people."

My wife will teach this year at a small, country school house in the middle of the prairie. There will be seven students. Concerned greatly about where I would place my daughter during her first year of school, God answered our prayers. It may not be a Christian school - but with my wife and the helm I'll promise you there will be little difference. A high standard of education and excellence will be required, morality expected, tradition honored, and love abounding will fill it's humble building. And my daughter will have the best teacher possible. What a blessing! I'm willing to be one of the farmers sending their kids there will have some very huntable mule deer and antelope!

Speaking of hunting, I am in truly one of the greatest geographical locales in the nation. It may lack some trees, peep frogs, and many fire-flies (and thankfully, cottonmouths and copperheads), it has an abundance of things to hunt and eat. Flowing abundantly with milk and honey, elk and mule deer, white-tail and antelope, turkey and then the fishable species - paddle fish, walleye, and northern pike, God has blessed this land and blessed me to be in it. I had to trade the fire-flies for the Northern Lights, but it is a trade off well deserved. In winter it may be cold outside, but the fire inside is warm. The days here are longer, the air crisper, and the humidity is far less. God has blessed me to be here.

I have a four-wheel drive truck that is finally running right. It is beat up and rusted - just the way I like it. I have two dear friends and fellow elders with nice boats - and they like me and take me with them! A deacon gave me a deer rifle last year, which I will give to my wife and she will take her first deer this November. An elder gave me a bow, and bow season starts in less than two months. My church people own land on the Yellowstone and Missouri rivers, and they graciously let me make it my playground. As I'm writing this I'm preparing to head to Ft. Peck lake for a day of swimming, tubing, boating, and being lazy. God is good and I am blessed.

My home is provided. My pantries have food. My stomach is full. My mind is at rest. My body is healthy. My children are happy. My wife is still gorgeous. I am a blessed, blessed man.

So - here is to King Jesus. Thank you for dying for me. Thank you for giving me life. Thank you for saving my very undeserving soul. Thank you for the times I grow weary, beating back the wolves. Thank you for the hard work throughout the year, the terribly cold winters and thank you for showing me what hard work is, for giving me the honor of burying my people, marrying them, dedicating their babies, and living life with them. Thank you even for the hardship and catastrophes. Thank you...because from time to time - like today - you allow me time to breathe, take a rest, gaze my eyes upon the heavens, glimpse into your throne-room and take a moment to consider the wonderfulness you have set forth for your people.

You, God, are good.

Sunday's Message: Regeneration

2009-07-06T11:11:00.002-06:00

This is Sunday's message from the 10 Indictments of the Modern Church Sermon Series, which was indictment seven: "The Church has replaced Biblical regeneration from God with decisionism by man."

Those Darn Calvinists!

2009-07-03T09:35:00.005-06:00

1. The assumption here is that if you are a "Calvinist" you are therefore "for Calvin." And people like Doug will say that therefore "Calvin is your God" and "you are a cult." And for good measure he also threw the Lutherans and Mennonites under the bus. Might I remind our Arminian friends (yes - that's what you are) that the term Calvinist didn't develop because John Calvin thought up a new Biblical doctrine, but because Calvin was one of a few men God led to spark the Protestant Reformation, finding again true Biblical doctrines that had been lost by man and suppressed by the Roman Catholic Church. In this sense and by this standard, one could call Apostle Paul and St. Augustine both "Calvinists." This is why Calvinists prefer the term "Reformed" so that we need not take the name of a man... but Calvinist-haters (which, like Doug, are people that have a problem with any type of theology in general) will not release us from that nomenclature.

I might add to Doug or any other Calvinist stone-thrower that I might call you an "Arminian" because you hold to the doctrines of Justin Arminius. Or would that be unfair, to assume that because you hold doctrines held by another, more famous theologian that you are therefore "in his cult?"

2. To make divisions such as "Calvinist," "Arminian," or my favorite - 'ignoramus" - then you are somehow divisive or factious. This is probably the complaint towards my Reformed brethren that I hear most..."you Calvinist guys sure are argumentative!"

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't it seem that soteriology would be the ONE topic in all of Scripture in which to argue about? As long as it is done in love, then it is vitally important to pound out true salvation doctrine from Scripture. If you get the Gospel wrong, you've gotten it all wrong. I believe one can trace all false models of theology, ecclesiology, conservative and liberal - to a misguided understanding of salvation. Salvation-by-works (my Pentecostal friends) or salvation-by-prayer (my Baptist friends) all stem from an immature attempt at "getting" salvation. We argue about salvation because it is essential.

3. Incredibly ignorant people, when discussing various schools of theology, will often say "no one is entirely correct." Let me translate this to mean, "I should spend more time studying and less time preaching, because I'm not really sure what correct theology is so I'm just going to say 'nobody's entirely correct.'" Well, what do you believe, then? These people would rather focus on the ABCs of Christian faith such as "God is love" and "Jesus is good" and ignore the vast richness of the writings of Paul - because it takes a little study and diligence to get a grasp on good theology. I've come to understand a long time ago that people hate Calvinists because "they think they have it all figured out," not realizing the average Calvinist has taken tens of thousands of hours toiling over the Bible in an honest pursuit of reconciling grace and free will. The average Arminian (in my opinion) has spent about ten hours thinking up pithy logical arguments about how Calvinism refutes God's character or finding "Scriptural one-liners" - like "it's God's will none perish" - that they can pull out of context so they can avoid entire chapters on the doctrine of election like Romans 9. Bonus: This guy calls theology "vanity." Really? Biblical teaching is "vanity."

I could not possibly begin to understand or grasp neither the sovereignty of God nor the Glory of God without immersing myself in Reformed theology. I had no idea the Scripture was so rich, so wonderful, so life-changing. I could not grasp the meaning of "Amazing Grace" or the wonder of my own salvation, or the goodness of God without it. I praise God daily for giving me just a glimpse into this wonderful, Biblical doctrine.

Second Amendment Shake-Down

2009-07-01T16:37:00.009-06:00

The Associated Press is reporting today that around the nation the ATF and DEA is hunting down gun owners who lawfully purchased firearms from information gathered from the background-check system and from records acquired from gun dealers. Although American citizens were promised that such check systems wouldn't be used to target gun owners and federal law prohibits the creation of a database for gun owners, government agencies are indeed using information gathered from sales to infringe second amendment rights of citizens.

Here's how it goes: Any number of federal agencies who have a pretend jurisdiction in an area visit gun stores to acquire records of what weapons were sold to what people. This is to evade the federal law prohibiting the government from preventing a database. The agency looks for "weapons known to be popular among drug traffickers" or "gang members" and then start knocking doors to find the citizen who legally purchased the firearm. When they find the citizen, the agency asks to see the weapon, why they purchased the weapon, and how they got the money to buy the weapon.

For example, in Texas some agents found in a dealer's records that a citizen in nearby town purchased two handguns in the same day (which is legal in Texas). They then hunted the man down and asked him many questions concerning the purchase and asked to see the handguns (note that it would not have been illegal for the man to have immediately sold them -without record- to another citizen...because this is America, after all). Also, when the Feds do this type of thing, as they did in this instance, they do not utilize a search warrant. Brandishing their government-issue side-arms and badge while in civilian clothing, the agents intimidate the citizen and insinuate that a crime had been committed with his gun. In the instance in Texas, the gun owner turned out to be a pastor who had purchased the pistols for target shooting.

Another instance given by the AP was that a woman had purchased four handguns in the same day (again, legal in Texas). The federal agents tracked down her home and saw that it was a lower-income home in disrepair. Assuming that she must have therefore purchased the guns for trafficking, they went knocking door-to-door to her neighbors to find out where she was, what they thought of her, and why she would have wanted a handgun.

Am I wrong, or is this America? Can this be happening?

This is being done in the name of illegal immigration, gun and drug trafficking. Mexican gangsters are coming to America, after all, to purchase their guns.

Let me get this right. Instead of enforcing immigration law and shutting off the flow of illegals into the U.S., our government would rather ignore immigration law and shut off the flow of guns to U.S. citizens. Unbelievable. How about instead of harassing citizens, put up a wall and strict border security. But the Obama administration is too busy arming the EPA (for the first time) and asking for a volunteer national guard force (which they mandate be unarmed) to watch the border.

What should you do if you are approached by someone claiming to be a federal agent, asking about the whereabouts of your firearm? You could do what many good citizens would do, which would be to say "I have nothing to hide" and answer their questions, consent to their search, and cooperate. I urge you to instead ask for a warrant and if one is not produced then very politely tell them that you are not a criminal - you are a citizen, you take your second and fourth amendment rights very seriously and that your conversation is over. Then the shut the door and be prepared for some harassment. Have you local media on speed-dial to document any further illegal investigation from that agency.

Stand up for your rights, because they're not going to be here much longer.

Clarification

2009-06-28T22:21:00.003-06:00

In my post on Baptist Nonsense, I gave a run-down of some rather childish motions given by messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention - some of which were pointedly critical of Mark Driscoll. In that post, I mentioned a motion made by Brian LeStourgeon of an Arizona church to call Driscoll to "answer his critics." I was critical myself of LeStourgeon's motion, as the description given on SBC.net seemed as though LeStourgeon was a critic of Driscoll himself.

According to LeStourgeon, however, "the motion was a gentle rebuke of those who were ready to hang a millstone around Driscoll's neck." According to the pastor:

"The thrust of it was that if you were going to act out a portion of Matthew 18, you should be ready for the entirety of Matthew 18.Being that their motions were not likely to return to the floor, I offered my motion as a way of saying, 'Not everyone here agrees with this, or with spending time on this, why are we even talking about this?...' What I did not expect is that so many in attendance agreed. As the thousands in the room realized what I was saying, the response was so loud that I couldn't hear myself reading the rest of the motion. Baptist Press has a wrap-up that excerpts a few words from the motion. The result is a case of reporting a fact but misstating the truth."

I hope this clarifies the mischaracterization of LeStourgeon's motion.

Sunday's Message: Spineless Christianity

2009-06-28T22:15:00.003-06:00

This is Sunday's Message from the "10 Indictments of the Modern Church" sermon series, entitled "Spineless Christianity." It is full of anger, hate, and self-righteousness (just kidding - you'll get that if you listen).

Fun at the Lake

2009-06-26T17:12:00.005-06:00

I caught these White Bass near Tobacco Gardens on Lake Sakakawea in North Dakota this morning.

Sakakawea is the third-largest man-made lake in the nation, next to Lake Mead and Lake Powell. The lake is on average 2-3 miles wide and 14 miles wide at its widest point. It was created by daming the Missouri River at Garrison Dam. I found it to be muddier than the lakes back home in the Ozarks, and not nearly as scenic, although it was beautiful in its own right. There were plenty of deer and antelope at the water's edge, pelicans and herons of all kinds, other various types of water fowl, and the morning sunlight bouncing off the bad-land coulies looked like a painting.

Although we were fishing for Walleye, we had no luck as the rain sent us packing after a short time. Also in the lake are large and small mouth bass, northern pike, crappie, and paddlefish.

We're going to have our church-wide camping trip there in late July. It should be really fun. See - this trip was nothing but church-related "research."

Southern Baptist Nonsense

2009-06-25T15:59:00.008-06:00

The annual Southern Baptist Convention was held in Louisville this week. Messengers from churches across the country offered motions for the convention to consider, 31 in total. Thankfully, the only motion approved was one by Albert Mohler (R-Reformed) of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary to create a Great Commission Task Force. I actually thought that's what the International Mission Board was for, but who am I to second-guess Al Mohler?

A look at the other motions filed, however, speak volumes about what the Southern Baptist Convention consists of - mainly, a few wheel-turners of hustling churches but mostly a wide array of senseless, floundering, relics from another time who have all of the right answers to all of the wrong questions and who see success as failure. The typical Southern Baptist Church is a rotting corpse, stinking of fundamentalist mentality and feasting on the success of half a century past. This nonsense comes out in many of the motions proposed by messengers at the annual convention.

Let me give you some examples:

1) that "all SBC entities should monitor" funds spent in "activities related to or cooperative efforts with Mark Driscoll and/or the Acts 29 organization" and entity heads should submit a report of expenditures to appear in the 2010 Book of Reports.

This is from a messenger from Calvary Baptist Church in Republic, Missouri. After all, we had better keep our Cooperative Program dollars away from that down and dirty Mark Driscoll, right? What is this, the Inquisition? This is an attempt at something like Baptist McCarthyism. We wouldn't want to cooperate with the quickest-growing, largest church planting network in the country, would we. Is this what we have to worry about?

2) -- that SBC entities avoid "inviting event speakers" who "are known for publicly exhibiting unregenerate behavior ... such as cursing and sexual vulgarity, immorality, or who publicly state their support for the consumption or production of alcohol," submitted by Ida South, a messenger from First Baptist Church in Mathiston, Miss.

Paul can't go to the First baptist Church of Mathiston, Miss on account of the vulgarity and Jesus couldn't go on account of alcohol consumption. Awesome.

3) -- that Southern Baptists call "on the Pepsi-Cola Company to remain neutral in the cultural war by refraining from promoting the gay/lesbian lifestyle and agenda" through its advertising and that a boycott be undertaken if the company fails to "halt its current direction," submitted by Joe P. Samples, pastor, Salem Baptist Church, Sneads Ferry, N.C.

If pastors and churches would stop reading the American Family Association newsletter and look around they would see that the whole "lesbian and gay thing" is probably here to stick around for a while. Does it make sense boycotting one company in particular when the entire culture endorses it? Come on, now.

4) -- that the SBC president "appoint or work through the appropriate entity" to highlight the 400th anniversary in 2011 of the King James Version of the Bible, submitted by Rick Reeder, a messenger from Southside Baptist Church in Princeton, Ky.

And if we have time left over after celebrating the 400th anniversary of the King James Bible, we can then celebrate the 400th anniversary of thousands of Baptist martyrs killed by King James for not reading his Anglican translation of the Bible. Seriously.

5) -- that author Mark Driscoll's books be removed from LifeWay Christian Bookstores because of his "reputation for abusive and ungodly language and ... promotions of sex toys on his church web site," submitted by Jim Wilson, pastor, First Baptist Church in Seneca, Mo.

The sex-toy thing has been blown way out of proportion (no pun intended). Driscoll talks frankly about (gasp!) marital relations... get the pitchforks! Get the torches!

6) -- that a "special committee be formed" to address claims by "some Bible teachers that the world will come to an end on May 21, 2011," submitted by Ben Brazal, pastor, King of Kings Christian Fellowship in Middletown, N.Y.

In what circles does this guy run?

7) A motion by a pastor from Arizona sought to have Mark Driscoll "address the concerns of his accusers" at the 2010 annual meeting.

I really don't think you want Driscoll defending himself at the 2010 meeting. He's not a school-boy you guys pastoring 35-member churches are going whip and discipline. I think it would be entertaining, however. Does "who do you think you are?" come to mind?

8) A motion by James T. Egan, pastor of First Baptist Church in Post, Texas, was referred to Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary and LifeWay Christian Resources because it asked trustees of those entities to look into matters regarding several of its employees (Danny Akin, Alvin Reid, and Ed Stetzer) because of accusations against them and the "emergent church movement" made by the Missouri Baptist Laymen's Association.

This 47 page "pamphlet" was put out by the MBLA and says "In the name of missions, ministry and evangelism, the SBC is now in danger of embracing a new liberalism -- 'cultural liberalism' that claims to be theologically conservative." It goes on to say "to re-invent the image of evangelical Christianity, the emergent church often compromises Baptist beliefs such as the SBC's traditional opposition to use of beverage alcohol." Once again, "conservative" Baptists would prefer we take a "traditionally Baptist stance against alcohol" in lieu of the Biblical stance against drunkenness. How is that conservative, again? It seems that taking liberty with the Bible and inserting one's own non-Biblical dogma as transcendent over Scripture is liberal. Basically, Akin, Reid and Stetzer's offense has been to be friendly and cooperating with Acts29 and Driscoll.

Listen to me, Southern Baptists.... if you really want 29% of your Reformed Seminary grads and a growing number (and growing quickly) of disgruntled pastors that are tired of putting up with the same old song and dance to walk and take their congregations with them - just keep it up. To be fair, none of these motions were passed and we owe a debt of gratitude to the current leadership in the SBC from keeping these monkeys from running the monkey house. But if they can't continue to do so, expect to see younger pastors simply fade away from the SBC... not that we'll leave it, but that we'll cling to groups like Acts29 and like-minded churches and participate rarely or ever in SBC life.

I think I know what Augustine meant when he said "the church is a whore, but is still my mother..." I love her, and would hate to leave her, but man - she's got to quit this stuff.

Food Pantry Open

2009-06-24T12:18:00.002-06:00

From the Sidney Herald:

Published on Friday, June 19, 2009 3:19 PM MDT

Fellowship Church announced last fall that it was preparing a food pantry that would be ready in late spring 2009. The Fellowship Food Pantry is now ready to be in operation, serving all of Richland County. The Fellowship Food Pantry can help needy families with free, confidential help and provide food for all who need it. There are no limits for how often families can utilize the pantry, and there is no in-depth inquisition for why a family (or singles) need help. The Fellowship Church does not request donations from the community and urges residents to continue contributing to the Richland County Food Bank. This is because the food provided to the pantry is given by members of Fellowship Church as a gift to the community, either bought from local grocery stores or in the case of meat, harvested by church members during deer season or given by local ranchers in the church. For help at any time, day or night, call 433-4004 and food can be either picked up or delivered.

Pictured is Janyce Hockenbary, Deacon of Food Ministry

Southern Baptists should be proud of Mike Huckabee

2009-06-23T20:53:00.005-06:00

Mike Huckabee was one of the most intriguing characters within politics. An incredible underdog, the Governor from Arkansas achieved far more with far less resources than any presidential candidate on the national scene in decades. A devout and proud Christian, Huckabee managed to come in second place in the Republican primary without once compromising his Biblical principles or shying away from his faith. Huckabee can rest well and hang his head high, knowing that he fought the good fight and ran the good race.

Sitting with my wife at the Governor's Gala in Little Rock, we heard Huckabee personally announce his candidacy for the presidency in December of 2007. Looking at my wife and whispering "fat chance," I never thought this charismatic Southern Baptist preacher would lead the anti-McCain movement and finish second. I sadly believe there will never be another fierce evangelical come as close to the nomination of our party again. And that includes, unfortunately, Sarah Palin.

Huckabee, ordained Baptist minister and former president of the Arkansas Baptist State Convention, spoke today at the annual Southern Baptist Convention in Louisville. I've included just a few of his thoughts that were enlightening.

1. "We are creating an entire nation in which people are increasingly turning to a new god -- the god of government -- to do for us what we ought to be doing for ourselves, starting with raising our kids, taking care of our families and protecting and preserving life and the institutions of this great nation."

How true that is. I was practically accosted on the Sidney Herald blog yesterday for advocating a little-known thing called "personal responsibility" when discussing the validity or possibility of socialized medicine. Believing that a family should perhaps (call me crazy) cut back on the toys, cellphones, and cable tv if need be and purchase health insurance instead of begging the government have our neighbors pay for it, I was sarcastically told that I was "a great pastor." Which means, apparently, that a Christian should steal from those who work hard to give to those who don't.

I understand some of the statements left for me on the paper's blog, including one of a single mother who stated she made 10 dollars an hour and couldn't afford insurance. A typical sob story, let me state that I "feel for" single moms. But a few questions should be asked before our hearts start to bleed, including (1) when your car is paid off, do you jump into another payment (2) do you pay for modern "necessities" like cellphone, Internet, and cable? (3) Whose fault is it you make 10 dollars an hour? Were you not allowed to go to college or develop a marketable skill? Are you prevented from developing an entrepreneurial business? Or did bad decisions earlier in life or lack of ambition relegate you to a life working at the local mini-mart? and (4) -this one is going to sting a little... whose fault is it you're a single mom? Were any of these kids born out of wedlock, and if so, should you be surprised you don't have a husband to provide for you, considering you gave it away without a commitment? Were you incapable of keeping a relationship together? Or if you're going for the whole "battered woman" thing, why were you so inept at picking a spouse? If you're a widow, the chances are your children have social security and it's a mute point. Any way I see it, there are probably some bad decisions in there somewhere that your neighbors shouldn't have to pay for.

2. "It is not wise for pastors to believe that all of the power should rest solely in them. The purpose of the pastor is not to retain power but to embolden and empower those to whom he is equipping, so that they will in fact do the work of the ministry.We today need to recognize that real leadership is not about bringing power to ourselves, but it is about bringing power to those that we are to serve."

Amen. A pastor's job is to "equip the Saints." I hope that when I'm dead and gone, or just gone, that there will be a group of strong men to stand up and say "he equipped us and empowered us...let's roll."

3. "The toughest politics I ever faced was not running for president or running for governor or lieutenant governor, it was being a pastor in a Southern Baptist church. Folks, them are some tough politics out there if you've never experienced it. A pastor may believe he is leading a warship into battle, only to discover that the expectation of church members is for him to captain the love boat and make sure everyone is having a good time."

How right Huckabee is. I'm glad to be at Fellowship Church, where we don't play that. It's certainly true that the mission is often derailed because of the comfort level involved in it. But don't get me preaching on consumerism again.

4. "The Bible makes it very clear that the outcome is a good one -- maybe not as we see it here, but in the end, Jesus wins. And I'm willing to say that for those of us who will, standing with Him is never a mistake. Standing for what He stands for will never lead us wrong, and being who He calls us to be will never leave us embarrassed or ashamed."

And that's why we do it. That's why we stand up for the unborn, and traditional marriage, and issues that we must not compromise upon. We're right. Jesus will win. And if we go down - like Huckabee - we go down fighting.

Sunday's Message

2009-06-22T20:46:00.001-06:00

This is Sunday's message from the "10 Indictments of the Modern Church" sermon series, entitled "Religious Consumerism."

Soul Winning: Misguided Soteriology

2009-06-16T15:54:00.007-06:00

Above is a clip from my favorite pastor, an independent, fundamental, KJV-only, soul-winning Baptist. Is there any other kind of Baptist? Just kidding.

... "He who winneth souls is wise." Proverbs 11:30

Did you read that verse? This is the one place in the Scripture that tells us something about so-called "Soul-Winning." And it's just half of the verse. Note that this verse doesn't tell us to win souls necessarily, but that one who does it is wise. I would also note that this word in Hebrew is laquaqh, which basically means "to take a hold of." I'm not sure if either one of those notes are important or relevant, but there you have it.

Fundamentalists are very fond of the term and their idea of "soul-winning." Soul-winning Christians despise what they call "Lordship Salvation" because it, in their eyes, perverts the Gospel by adding repentance to what is necessary for salvation. Salvation, they would argue, is brought out of belief alone. To add baptism, repentance, or following Christ a requirement for salvation (which Calvinists don't do, by the way), they would argue is "methodism" or applying methods to salvation when it is a one step process.

What do they do with places like Acts 2:38 that says "Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." I'm confused. I thought only belief was necessary for salvation, right?

So, when you think that belief alone causing salvation, it would seem like a good idea to run around get people to admit they believe in Jesus. If you can do that successfully, then every person who you can get to repeat some prayer confessing belief (as opposed to sins) then they'll have eternal life and you'll have won a soul.

If this is the case (which it is), then it would only be logical that winning souls is a lot like bowling. It's all about technique. Soul winners argue against Total Depravity, which asserts that humanity is utterly hopeless and will never seek Christ of their own will. If this were the case, then it means that people can accept Christ because they are smart enough to see the merit and good enough to follow through. They need not be brought by the Spirit that "comes and goes as it pleases," but are brought by their own volition. This means, the soul winner would argue, that we simply need to go around, knocking doors, and convincing people to believe in Jesus, say a prayer, and get your get-into-Heaven ticket.

And that's where technique comes in. Knock on a door. Look pleasant. Where a tie, because Jesus would. Don't ask their name, that is just unnecessary information. You're winning souls, not friends after all. Start with asking "if you died today, do you know..." bla bla bla. Then automatically assume that they believe the Bible and assume that for them it is authoritative. And if you're really skilled, you have them read the verses of the Roman Road out loud instead of you reading them. And what it comes down to is how good a job you do in the process. Have your verses highlighted. Counter their arguments. And most importantly, out-wit them. This is going to come down to you convincing them the Bible is right and they are wrong. You're going to have to use logic and reason to convince them they're sinners. If they don't believe the Bible, then talk longer until they do. Then, get them to say a prayer. Afterwards, tell them that God is not a liar and if they ever doubt their salvation then it's the devil trying to mess with them. So you write the date they said that prayer in the Bible so they can be assured they're saved. Finally, let them know that they're saved forever regardless of how much they mess up. The last ingredient in Soul Winning methodology is to pat yourself on the back for saving the guy from hell and then go to church and brag that a soul was won. When they never show up at church, change their lifestyle, or repent of their sin, remind yourself that God works in mysterious ways.

Such is the soteriology of fundamental soul-winners. And what hog-wash it is.

There is no example - none - of someone being "saved" in the Bible by saving a prayer. To reduce salvation to saying a few words in the right order is nothing but a superstition at best and witchcraft at worst. Salvation is begun by God in a process called regeneration. It's none of man, and all of God.

For example, consider the account of Nicodemus:

1Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish ruling council. 2He came to Jesus at night and said, "Rabbi, we know you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him."
3In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again."
4"How can a man be born when he is old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!"
5 Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You must be born again.' 8The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."

Jesus doesn't really answer Nicodemus' question, because he really didn't ask one. Jesus jumped the gun and told Nicodemus that if he wants to see the Kingdom, he must be born again. Notice that Jesus doesn't say "Hey, buddy...do these things, say this prayer, repeat it after me, believe these facts, and then if satan every bothers you about it then tell him to go to hell." Jesus simply says "you must be born again," not "get born again" as if Nicodemus had anything to do with it. Then Jesus clarifies that the Spirit goes around saving whoever He wants for no reason discernible by man. Such is the Reformed - and the Biblical - take on John 3.

You see, "soul-winners" get angry when we talk about repentance, baptism, and discipleship as a part of salvation. They say that we're bringing methodism into soteriology. When in truth, it's the opposite. We don't believe that salvation is a result of anything except God's sovereign will. It's not a result of repentance, baptism, or discipleship and it's sure as heck not a result of a superstitious, extra-Biblical prayer more similar to a pagan conjure of ancestral spirits than a heart-felt communication with God via the Holy Spirit. This is what religion does: it reduces divine nature (salvation, for example) to a method or to a system. "Say this prayer" is not any different than "do this dance" or "join this church." And although repentance and discipleship (baptism is a part of discipleship) do not cause salvation, but are an affect of salvation.

What is quite amazing is that soul-winners harp on the Great Commission as their anthem. The Great Commission in Matthew 28 reads:

19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

Are we told in this great command to go win souls or make Christians? Of course not. It is not we, but the Spirit that convicts the sinner to repentance because of regeneration, and it's the irresistible grace of God the Father made possible by the propitiation of sin through the death of Jesus that makes one saved. We simply preach the Word faithfully (through which regeneration begins in the hearing) so that we can be blessed in being a part of God's redemptive plan for the people He chose before the world began.

What we do is make disciples, first baptizing them and then teaching them. A soul winner would believe in the concept of the "carnal Christian"... that it is possible that someone believes in Christ and is therefore saved, who continues in sin, does not repent, is not baptized, and refuses discipleship. I'm not sure there is a more warrantless theological doctrine than that of carnal Christian theology. As if it were possible (or assumed in the Bible) that one could come in contact with God, be owned by Christ and filled with the Spirit and not be changed! But alas, the soul-winner must believe in carnal Christianity to explain why the vast majority of of the souls they have "won" do not exhibit any signs of transformation.

There is an inherent problem with this. Romans 8:29 says:

29For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.

The reason God saves some is to transform them to the image of Jesus. Because if he predestines you he will then eventually justify and then glorify you. You will be discipled if you are truly saved. Period. The sinner's prayer, therefore, does not result in salvation. The sinner's prayer results from a salvation that was begun by God long before the sinner was even aware.

In fact, no where are we told to win souls in the New Testament, nor to win or bring converts. We are go into the world making disciples...not from those we have saved, but those that God has saved due to His sovereign will.

There is an abject self-righteousness and arrogance in soul winning theology that is almost laughable (if it didn't make such a mockery of grace). To believe that the soul of an individual for whom Christ died somehow hangs in the balance, dependent upon how you or I go about winning Him is audacious. If we are not faithful to tell him, and He is elect, God will send someone else. Jesus died for that person. That person's fate is dependent upon God's grace and Jesus' sacrifice, not my obedience.

On a side note, I used to sell vacuums for a living. I made a living at it, and a darn good one (if you judge a living by the amount of money made). I made a living selling $2500 vacuum cleaners on a three year note at 21% interest to little old ladies who couldn't put $5 dollars down and who had wood floors. I can sell. I convinced people that this vacuum would bring them good health and change their lives. Literally. I once convinced a lady that she would be able to go on a vacation to Bermuda, get a job, and lose weight if only she would buy my contraption. And as long as these people didn't figure out they got taken advantage of or manipulated for three days, the bring-back day was up and they were stuck with making 80 dollar payments for three years. I'm not bragging, that was horrible of me. Horrible. But the point is, I can manipulate anybody to do or believe anything. If it was all about technique, then I should go around my little town and just use my manipulation techniques to convince people to buy into Jesus. But Jesus hasn't bought them. They're so-called salvation is invalid and nonexistent. But they've gotten that date written in their Bible, so by the time they're really introduced to the Bible, they think they're saved because after all, "God's not a liar" they were told.

Then why does a Reformed Baptist like myself evangelize? Why do we go to great lengths to tell people about Jesus? There are two reasons. 1) We must be obedient to proclaim the good news and 2) because the chief end of man is to glorify God, and when we make God known He is glorified. Perhaps it is correctly understanding the reasons for evangelism that Reformed churches are one of the few segments in American Christianity that are growing while "soul-winning" independent fundamentalist churches are shrinking into obscurity.

Sunday's Message: Dating

2009-06-15T09:14:00.004-06:00

This is Sunday's Message in the "10 Indictments of the Modern Church Sermon Series," entitled "a failure of family." Pretty much, it's about the Biblical standard of relationships as a condemnation of modern dating.

My head is going to explode.

2009-06-13T21:40:00.007-06:00

I've put this clown-hat on here before. This is a sermon refuting courting and advocating dating from an "Independent Fundamental Baptist" preacher.

I thought about making a list of where he goes wrong, but I lost track after 1)"show me somewhere in the Bible God tells parents to pick their children's spouses," 2)"only the heathens did that...and even if God's people did it, doesn't mean it's right," then 3)"Mennonites, Quakers, Joshua Harris and Pentecostals aren't saved, 4)"courting comes from the word 'court' which is like a Roman Catholic 'King Arthur's Court' and it's a Catholic thing" and 5) "I'm glad and didn't meet my father-in-law until after I was married.

Ignoring the plethora of COMMANDS from God for His people to help select the spouses of their children, he reads from Numbers 36, stating that "God tells Israelites that they can marry whomever they want..." but failed to mention that it was a SPECIAL command to Zelophedad's daughters BECAUSE THEIR FATHER WAS DEAD!!! And if such was an exception to those young women BECAUSE their dad was dead, wouldn't it refute dude's point? What intellectual (if you can call it that) dishonesty!

Man, I'm glad I'm not a fundamental. What gets me is the absolute mockery of courting coming out of this guy.

P.S...
¨"Build houses and settle down; plant gardens and eat what they produce. Marry and have sons and daughters; find wives for your sons and give your daughters in marriage, so that they too may have sons and daughters. Increase in number there; do not decrease. Jeremiah 29:5-6

This guy makes my head want to explode. It's a good thing there's probably only about 8 people listening to him from the looks of his sanctuary.

Letterman's Wife...

2009-06-12T11:48:00.003-06:00

This is a picture of David Letterman's wife.

Yes, the mother of his illegitimate child - conceived out of wedlock as the mistress of a celebrity...

And David Letterman dares to use the word "slutty" in reference to Sarah Palin? Letterman dares to use Palin's 14 year-old daughter as a sex-reference, attacking the sexual purity of a child?

Have liberals lost their mind? It seems that any attractive conservative woman is a great risk to Democrats and they despise any woman that you can tell, is indeed, a woman from looking at her.

What would happen if I were to call Letterman's wife a.... no. I'm better than that.

Perhaps the most disgusting thing I saw was Juan Williams on Sean Hannity defending Letterman because it was Palin that "brought her family into this by bringing them on stage with her at the Republican Convention. Are you kidding me? Just like Obama's little girls, right? This whole thing disgusts me.

And yet, I don't think it's a good idea to boycott Letterman (who watches him, anyway?). You know what I think his punishment should be?

...thirty minutes in a locked room with Todd Palin. I think that might change his attitude.

Clinic Closed: Celebrate, Jesus, Celebrate

2009-06-09T13:21:00.005-06:00

(From the AP) - The family of slain abortion provider George Tiller said Tuesday that his Wichita clinic will be "permanently closed," effective immediately.

In a statement released by Tiller's attorneys, his family said it is ceasing operation of Women's Health Care Services, Inc. and any involvement by family members in any other similar clinic.

"We are proud of the service and courage shown by our husband and father and know that women's health care needs have been met because of his dedication and service," the family said.

Tiller was shot to death May 31 while serving as an usher at the Lutheran Church in Wichita that he regularly attended. Scott Roeder is being held on charges of first-degree murder and aggravated assault in Tiller's death.

Tiller's family said it will honor his memory through private charitable activities.

Family members said they wanted to assure Tiller's previous patients that the privacy of their medical histories and patient records will remain "as fiercely protected now and in the future" as they were during Tiller's lifetime.

P.S... I hate to rub it in the face of a special someone, but they took exception at me calling Tiller's family wicked in a previous post without "proof" or "evidence." I told you so.

God does work in mysterious ways.

Sunday's Message: 10 Indictments...#3

2009-06-09T12:54:00.001-06:00

This is Sunday's message from Pastor Mike Bartleson from the "10 Indictments of the Modern Church" sermon series, entitled "A Covenant Community." It's a great sermon about what is the church, and focuses on the concept fo covenant community, church discipline, etc...

Sort of "God"

2009-06-09T10:53:00.000-06:00

Sunday's Message: 10 Indictments of the Modern Church II

2009-06-02T20:27:00.001-06:00

This is Sunday's message from the Sermon Series: 10 Indictments of the Modern Church. It's the second message in this series entitled "A Call to Holiness," preached by Pastor Mike Bartelson in my absence.

Vacation Pictures

2009-06-02T18:11:00.002-06:00

Before heading to the conference in Raleigh-Durham and Knoxville, we spent some time at Bass Pro and the Lake...I also so Terminator: Salvation, XMen: Origins, and Star Trek while the kids played with their cousins and watched "Up." Fun times. I miss the hills, trees, and lightning bugs of the Ozarks.

George Tiller is Dead: Boo Hoo

2009-05-31T11:17:00.006-06:00

George Tiller "the baby killer" is dead as of this morning. He was shot outside of his Lutheran church this morning. He was one of the very few abortion doctors providing partial birth abortions - even in spite of it being illegal thanks to the Bush Administration. Loop holes and activist judges have refused to prosecute him accordingly. Tiller's practice is unusual in that after it tears the limbs off of its victims and sucks the brains out their head, collapsing their skull - they then offer funeral services including hand and foot fingerprinting and infant (post-mortem) baptism.

I'm on vacation and don't have time to go into the ethics of killing abortion doctors or not, but this former post might be enlightening. In the mean time, hell has one more soul today. We do not rejoice in the destruction of our enemies, but we use such occasions as a firm reminder of what awaits those that prey upon the innocent. I will not, however, mourn his death any more than I would mourned the death of Yasser Arafat, Saddam Hussein, or any other mass murderer. I will use this as a solemn reminder of the grave influence of sin in our world.

Our prayers go out to Tiller's wicked and condoning family, and also to the man responsible for bringing death to the guilty, albeit misguidedly... who will sadly face great consequences for the death of one guilty man than Tiller received for the death of thousands of innocent victims.

On Vacation

2009-05-30T10:37:00.002-06:00

I will be on vacation the next week and a half. I'll be at Advance '09. I can't wait to hear my "boys" - Mark Driscoll, Matt Chandler, and the legend... John Piper. I'll also be jetting back and forth from Springfield, MO to Knoxville, TN to discuss some support from a local church for our local and regional missions at Fellowship Church.

I'll see you suckers later.

I Knew Penguins Were Gay

2009-05-29T10:31:00.006-06:00

A school district in California has imposed a mandatory "Gay-Day" curriculum for kindergarten students. The curriculum is going to cost about $8000 to implement and is entitled "LGBT" for "lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual." It's being brought in under the guise of the school's official "anti-bullying" curriculum (because our precious little snowflakes should never have to deal with bullies or difficult people).

The school's legal team advised against giving parents the right to opt out of the course for their children. In other words, parents "have to" let their children attend this propaganda program. At this point, I get confused. How is that parents "have to" leave their children in this program? How does that happen? Are security guards going to prevent parents from going and picking up their kids? Or is it that they'll be given a failing grade for missing the course? It's the public school system, after all - it's not like the public school fails or flunks students for not showing up anymore.

A trustee of the school has said "We are not telling anyone what to think. We are letting children know that gay people exist and they deserve to be treated with respect, regardless of whether or not you believe that homosexuality is acceptable."

Is there anyone that seriously believes that such a program is designed to do anything BUT tell our children what to think? Get real. This is classic propaganda.

In first grade, students will read "Who is in a Family?" by Robert Skutch. It explores different types of families. One page states, " … Robin's family is made up of her dad, Clifford, her dad's partner, Henry, and Robin's cat, Sassy."

What the hell? Considering dad's boyfriend as part of the family is one thing, but now we're accepting cats...that's just too far.

Second grade students will read about two homosexual penguins that raise a young chick in the book "And Tango Makes Three." The two male penguins, Roy and Silo, are described as being a little bit different. The book says "They didn't spend much time with the girl penguins, and the girl penguins didn't spend much time with them. "

Going on, the book says "When the male penguins nurture an egg, it soon hatches..."We'll call her Tango," it states, "because it takes two to make a Tango." The book declares, "Tango was the very first penguin in the zoo to have two daddies."

Gay penguins. I always knew penguins were gay. Anyway, I'm wondering why we have the dumbest children in the world (no offense to those of you with dumb children). Maybe it's because they're too busy learning about gay penguins.

When you walk into Sidney high school after lunch, the halls reek of marijuana. It is a depraved, evil place (probably not more than any other high school, don't get offended, you locals!). I'm not sure at what point the school turns from being an nurturing, happy, comforting place into a sex-infused, drunken, orgy consisting of by-and-large (exceptions obviously) little barbarians. It's probably around the point of puberty I'm guessing.

As I send my five year-old daughter into the school system...and on a path towards the environment of debauchery that awaits her, I wonder "when is enough, enough?"

And I'm not talking about what's being taught in my local school. Who knows? I assume it's better than most - even if students know exactly what bar they can find their teacher in after class is over. But the environment itself, even from the earliest of grades, is a negative impact upon the morality and purity of our children. FACT.

So do we keep sending our children into that environment? Do we say that they are "salt and light" and pretend that they're making little Christian converts hand over fist or should we wake up, smell the roses, and realize that their friends ARE NOT being changed due to the Godly influence of our children, but that that our children ARE being influenced by the bad behavior from the snowflakes next to them in class.

And it's not that I'm over-sheltering my kids. I pray for my two children every evening, that they would serve Christ in better ways than me and that God will use them mightily. I pray that my precious little daughter will be a missionary to the nations. And I know very well that the world she will be issued when she is grown will be a dangerous, Christian-hating place. I pray that if she is martyr, that she'll be a darn good one. And one day, I'll kiss her goodbye, sending her to some unknown, God-forsaken place of darkness and hope for the best.

But until then, until she is ready, until she is prepared, until the armor of the Lord is strapped tightly to her, should I send her to the lions already? Should I send her into the darkness before her light has even begun to shine?

Got me.

Be Proud of Being Southern Baptist

2009-05-28T09:37:00.004-06:00

Picture: First openly gay Episcopalian Bishop and his "companion."

It's sad to look around and see what has happened to our brothers and sisters in other denominations around our country and around the world. True followers of Christ - charismatic and liturgical, traditional and contemporary, high church and low church - have found themselves in ecclesiastical organizations that know neither Christ nor care for the Bible... and are ostracized by those very bodies for being authentic in their faith.

I saw a headline from the Associated Press today, entitled "Episcopal Church Ousts 61 Clergy in Dispute on Gays." After reading the article, it quickly became apparent that the 61 clergy ousted from the Episocopal Church were not gays, but those that opposed the ordination of gays. God help us. And definitely, God help them.

If you follow the link to the article, you'll see the slant from which the article is written. It is unclear, and purposefully so, as to whether the clergy were ousted for being gay or for opposing homosexuality. Doing some research on my own, I found that the Episcopal Church is waging a war on all those that do their duty to stand behind the pulpit and preach the truth on homosexuality (and no doubt other issues).

The background: John-David Scholfield (he is referred to in the article as "former Bishop" - and of course he is not a "former" bishop simply because he was kicked out of the Anglican Church as he still bishops or pastors a church) led the diocese of San Joaquin and led his flock out of the American Episcopal Church in 2007 - four years after they ordained their first openly gay bishop. Scholfield then scoured the world for the most Biblical Episcopal organization he could find and aligned his church with the Anglican archdiocese of Argentina.

So, the same Episcopal denomination that ordains open homosexuals then defrocks and kicks out those who actually believe what the Bible says - apparently an offense not to be tolerated in the Epicopal Church. Yesterday, the Episcopal church removed 61 clergy who have followed Scholfield to denounce the denomination's blatant disregard of Scripture.

The new bishop at San Joaquin called the decision "heartbreaking," but then went on to say
"but, the fact is, they chose to abandon their relationship with the Episcopal Church."

True. Unfortunately, the rest of you clown-hats have chosen to abandon your relationship with Christ. And although Scholfield's theology might be askew, he will favor far better on judgement day.

Speaking to a wicked and evil church (and the last "church age" before Christ's return), Jesus says "Therefore be zealous and repent. Behold I stand at the door and knock, if anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come into him and dine with him and he with Me. To him who overcomes I will grant to sit with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne.” (Rev 3:19-21)."

There you have it. Jesus is standing outside his own supposed "church," knocking on the door and going, "guys, can I come in?" I think it's a fitting picture of the church in Western culture. And Jesus reminds them that they must overcome. Overcome what, I would ask? Look at the context... they must overcome not their culture, but their own, wicked, Christ-void church - which is not a means to Christ, but an impediment.

Thank God for some - even in the Episcopal Church - that strive to overcome. We Baptists must pray that our brethren overcome the wickedness of their own denominations and join the Church Universal through a Bible-believing, God-glorifying, Christ-centered local church.

American Dream?

2009-05-26T11:48:00.004-06:00

Obama has nominated Sonia Sotomayor as the Supreme Court Justice to replace David Souter. Sotomayor was born to Puerto Rican parents in New York City and raised in the projects in the Bronx. With her father dying early in her life, she was raised by a single mom. Sotomayor went on to graduate from Princeton and then from Yale Law School. She is considered a centrist by the Bar Association (which doesn't mean anything, considering the far left stance of the Bar Association) and was a nominee of George H.W. Bush onto the U.S. District Court. Notable achievements while in that office was that she effectively ended the Major League Baseball strike in 1995 by not letting the MLB play replacement players and also ruled that the Wall Street Journal was able to publish Vince Foster's suicide note (a sting to Hillary, who probably had him killed). She seems to have been appreciated by both Republicans and Democrats.

But Sotomayor has made some serious blunders. In 2001 she stated "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life." At the same event, she also stated, "Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging." In 2005, she said that "...Court of Appeals is where policy is made. And I know, and I know, I know that this is on tape, and I should never say that. Because we don’t make law. I know. Okay, I know. I know. I'm not promoting it, and I'm not advocating it. I'm, you know. Having said that, the Court of Appeals is where, before the Supreme Court makes the final decision, the law is percolating. Its interpretation, its application."

So, it seems that Sotomayor thinks that Latinas make better law than whites, that her race will obviously make an impact on her judicial rulings, and that it's o.k. to legislate from the bench. Awesome.

I should also note, however, that Sotomayor upheld Bush's "Mexico City Policy," which prevented taxpayer money from paying for abortions in other nations. Therefore, I will be open minded concerning Sotomayor and hope for the best.

What's disturbing is not Sotomayor's previous rulings, or even her judicial philosophy, but the way the media has been playing up her story as "the American Dream." Nearly every television station I've listen to (Fox, CNN, MSBC) are touting Sotomayor's nomination as a confirmation that the American Dream is alive and well. This is because a Latina (double minority) from humble, immigrant origins has been nominated to one of the highest offices in the land.

At face value, nothing is wrong with that. In fact, it's great. When a child of immigrants achieves much in our land, we should be proud. And when minorities achieve the same feats as those who are of a more common demographic, we should be reminded our nation really is Land of the Free and that we don't value diversity - but value hard work, regardless of from whom it comes. Even though I'm not sure it's great that we all knew Obama's appointee would have a 0% chance of being a white male and I don't believe that we should fill offices because of one's skin color, genitalia, or national heritage and that's obviously what he was going for... it's still a great day in America.

BUT, the media is referring to this a "the American Dream come true" not because of the hard work and achievements of Sotomayor, but because she came out of the projects. That's the angle the media is working..."how wonderful it is that a child from the projects can achieve much!"

I know you may think I'm splitting hairs here, but I don't think it's a great idea to associate the American Dream with the projects. Liberals love it when people achieve much because liberal social programs like welfare and public housing support them during their formative years. In reality, these individuals don't achieve because of social programs like welfare and public housing, but in spite of them.

Let's face it, most inhabitants of public housing don't learn work ethic and responsibility from their parents, and it would be better they be raised in a camper down by the river by parents that are independent of the system than in the ghetto being raised by parents that live on government cheese.

The American Dream isn't rising out of the projects, but being raised by hard working parents that couldn't give you everything, but worked darn hard to provide. It's about rising from the farm or other blue-collar settings where the sacrifice of one's parents (not the welfare of one's neighbors) provided them opportunities and the means to achieve them.

What this association with the projects or welfare with the American Dream does is promote the greatness of entitlement programs and not the individual that achieves. Think of the countless black Americans who have done much through hard work and ambition, but the left uses as examples of the success of Affirmative Action rather than gumption or ambiton of the individual.

If the American Dream starts by the generosity of the federal government, then God help us all.

Sunday's Message: A Missing Cornerstone

2009-05-26T10:05:00.005-06:00

This is Sunday's Message. It is message 1 in the sermon series "Ten Indictments of the Modern Church" and entitled "A Missing Cornerstone." The core text is Ephesians 2. Enjoy. Or whatever.

Sunday's Message: The Discipleship Process of Fellowship Church

2009-05-18T10:07:00.002-06:00

This is Sunday's Message on Discipleship and the Discipleship Process of Fellowship Church. You can find it here. Don't be alarmed if the tag on the link provided is "The Great Commission," as Matthew 28 was our starting text.

Rise Up, You Sissies...

2009-05-15T11:38:00.003-06:00

Now is the time to rise up. Two polls came out today that sparked my interest. The first is a Fox News Poll that indicates 54 percent of voters think the Obama administration is proposing too much of an increase in government spending, while 6 percent say not enough. It also says that 85% of Republicans and 61% of independents believe there is way too much spending in the Federal Budget.

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell recently made news by saying that Americans "want more government in their life." Cheney made the statement saying that "Powell left the Republican Party a long time ago" and the talking-heads went crazy, famously asking the question in the New York Times "why isn't there enough room in [the Republican Party} for one of our most successful generals?" Cheney just said what I said a long time ago - if you're not a Conservative, get out of our party (take note John McCain, Colin Powell, Rudy Giuliani, Olympia Snowe... pull an Arlen Spector and get the heck out). Americans disagree with Powell's sentiment that we want more government. Most -- 71 percent according to the Fox News poll -- say they want less government in their life.

How can we Republicans be so beaten up when 71% of Americans want less government. It's simple: We don't articulate our principles out of fear... we sacrifice our soul for the purpose of political gain - ironically a gain that never comes. People want one thing in their leaders - principle. And I hate to say it, but at least Barack Obama and his Democratic-led congress is incredibly true to their principles of socialism, bigger government, and a radically liberal social agenda.

Another poll, this one by Gallop, indicates that for the first time since 1995, more Americans consider themselves pro-life than pro-choice, with 51% of Americans calling themselves "pro-life" on the issue of abortion and 42% "pro-choice." The new results, obtained from Gallup's annual Values and Beliefs survey, represent a significant shift from a year ago, when 50% were pro-choice and 44% pro-life.

What's happening here?

People are just beginning to see the frightening reality of liberal social agenda coming to fruition. Like socialism and Marxism, it's all great in theory. It's scary as hell in reality.

Our Republican politicians had better grow some testicles and be able to offer the American people our time-tested, tried and true principles of fierce independence, self-reliance, personal accountability, unrestrained economic liberty, and personal freedom or else instead of looking to the party of alternative ideology, they'll simply look to someone in the Democratic party who can do socialism better than Obama and make it work (it's futile, but they don't know that).

We must become the party of "I told you so" and stick close to our principles, rise up, challenge the powers that be, an offer a patriotic alternative.

Reagan the Hunter

2009-05-14T13:35:00.002-06:00

Reagan and I went hunting a few days ago. Up to date, I've been unsuccessful in killing any turkeys. I've seen some. Many have come in on my calls. I've beaded in on two, not taking the shot because I've been unsure I could have killed it from that distance. But, I've had lots of fun.

I took Reagan out in the evening, by a field where I've often seen them. As you can see, she got all geared up. Reagan, however, is the prissiest little girl ever - much more fond of barbies and all things pink than pickup trucks and He-Man.

She did alright out in the woods. I mean, she wimpered the entire time..."It's too cold. That's a bug! There's a spider! The wind is blowing too fast! That looks like a snake! The ground is too wet! I'm not going to sit on the ground, it's dirty!"

After getting back to the truck, I asked "did you have a fun time, Reagan."

She looked at me sheepishly and said (with her eyes on her feet) "yes."

"Are you lying, Reagan?" I asked her.

"Well," she told me, "I don't like hunting...but I love being with daddy."

Republican Committee Chooses Officers

2009-05-14T13:23:00.002-06:00

Elections were held May 7 at the Sidney library basement at a 7:00 meeting. Results are as follows;

Chairman- Jordan Hall
Vice chairman- June Backhaus
Finance chair- Gary Gilligan
Secretary/Treasurer- Scott Staffanson
State committeeman- Duane Mitchell
State committeewoman- Paula Steinbeisser
Congressional committeewoman- Kristin Larson

I urge all well-meaning American in Richland County to fully particpate in the Republican Party. We hope to begin anew, with a refreshed vision and eager ambition for the next four years.

Sunday's Message: Glory of God IV (The Self-Centeredness of God)

2009-05-14T10:21:00.002-06:00

This Sunday's message, the 4th and the last in a sermon series on the Glory of God and is entitled "The Self-Centeredness of God." It's found here.

Give 'em hell, Dick.

2009-05-14T09:22:00.006-06:00

As vice president, Dick Cheney famously spent much of the past eight years in undisclosed locations and offering private advice to President George W. Bush. He is a man more maligned and personally assaulted than almost any other in recent history. His "Darth Vader" persona has been created for us by the fringe media because of his loyal allegiance to his president and because he has done what most Vice Presidents have done - serve the President quietly, faithfully, and without need for recognition. There are few men with more natural gravitas, more spine, and more guts of steel than Dick Cheney. I've always admired the man for swatting away his multitudes of powerful critics like a giant swats away pesky gnats. In short: You can't bring a good man down.

I'll have to admit, I'm very surprised that Cheney hasn't crawled into obscurity after the inauguration. I'm surprised he isn't just fishing somewhere, giving the middle finger to the nation that never appreciated him saving their undeserving, childish behinds. Nope. That's not Cheney. The man has guts and he's giving Obama hell right now. At least somebody is.

Today Cheney is the most visible -- and controversial -- critic of President Obama's national security policies and, to the alarm of many people in the Republican Party, the most forceful and uncompromising defender of the Bush administration's record. When Obama released memos of Bush rationalizing so-called "torture" I believe he fully expected the former Bush administration to bend over and take it. Not Cheney. He promptly found the podiums and proclaimed "release the info on the American lives saved because of it..." and Obama immediately stopped releasing more memos. At least somebody has the stones to stand up to this novice.

But the very Republican "leadership" that got us into our current political quagmire are freaking out that Cheney is becoming the new spokesman for the party. And they're afraid that Gingrich is becoming the new spokesman for the party. Basically, our current Republican "leadership" is afraid when any conservative does anything conservative that might make our conservative party out to look like we're full of conservatives. God forbid, right? Our lifeless, limp-wristed, sissy Republican leaders like Michael Steel are doing everything they can to prevent real conservatives like Limbaugh, Gingrich, and Cheney from having a voice. There's a reason they have a voice, geniuses. It's because the clowns currently in charge aren't using theirs. They're rolling over to be kicked like the stupid beagle next door that never knows that when it's being beaten it's because it's not liked or welcome.

And do you think I'm happy about Limbaugh, Gingrich and Cheney being the de facto heads of the GOP? They're all publicity and public opinion nightmares. But who else is standing up? WE WILL NOT WIN FUTURE ELECTIONS BECAUSE WE'RE THE PARTY OF "GETTING ALONG." If we truly believe in our principles (I do), we must be seen as the guardians and tireless defenders of America's greatness during a time of upheaval and darkness - not as a party then went along to get along. We mustn't worry about how we're seen now. We must stick close to our principles and worry about how we'll be seen when history judges Obama's socialist policies as an abject failure. Will we be able to say "I told you so" or will we also be guilty of aiding and abetting America's demise?

Conservatives win elections by being conservatives. Liberals when elections by acting like conservatives. For Pete's sake, let's be conservative. Let's stand on principles. Let's have an honest debate between capitalism and socialism, liberty and nanny-state. We'll win on principles. That is, if we can remember what they were.

Montana Weather

2009-05-14T09:15:00.003-06:00

Just when I thought Winter was over, it reared it's ugly head yesterday - on May 13th - to show us that in Montana it can come back whenever it darn well pleases. The 45 mile-per-winds did in my Turkey hunting for the day and the snowfall made for a cold afternoon. I'm ready for Spring...and summer...and hope the snow doesn't come again. In the mean time, I have only 3 more days of Turkey hunting (I'm super frustrated, don't get me started) and I'll be glad it's over and I can focus on fishing.

Funeral Message

2009-05-13T09:51:00.005-06:00

Several people have asked me if they could have a transcript of yesterday's funeral message. Here it is:

We have come here to pay tribute: We have come to honor a life well lived, a life that has touched many and served even more, high tribute to have served Jesus Christ. A family man. A good man. Most importantly…God’s man.

To pay tribute to our friend, Woody, we will do what Woody would want us to do – which is to stick close to the Word of God, one thing of which he was very, very fond. I know this not only because he was a member of my church, or because he was my friend, or because He lived out the pages of God’s book, but because of the advice given to his children a few days before his death. Lying in quite literally his death bed, knowing that his time on this Earth would be over very soon, Woody gave words of instruction to his children, which Nicole dutifully dictated in a notebook for him - because he was too weak to write. Glancing at the notebook for just a moment on the long car ride back from Rochester, I noticed very large on each page – larger than the rest of the font, this message: #1. Read the Bible #2. Know what it says. #3. Do it.

Well, in honor of Woody this morning, we will #1 read the Bible, #2 Know what it says and #3 it is up to all of us today, to do it.

And so this is the passage we will look at:

1"Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me. 2In my Father's house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you. 3And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. 4You know the way to the place where I am going."
Jesus the Way to the Father 5Thomas said to him, "Lord, we don't know where you are going, so how can we know the way?" 6Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him."

Think of the majesties that God has created on this Earth to show people His glory… and think of the majesties of this Earth to which Woody was infinitely familiar. The Big Sky of the rolling Montana prairie, bringing rain to the thirsty Earth, sun to grow his crops, sunsets that paint the sky, and the Northern Lights which make the stars dance. Or how about the sea of wheat and rolling hills of grain, planted by Woody and then harvested, as a good steward of God’s Earth. How beautiful creation has been made by the Creator! But all of that, the Earth, the oceans and seas, the cattle and other beasts that roam the Earth – all created by the mere flexing of God’s divine vocal cords, by his mere speech it all came into existence.

Only one piece of Creation did God find worthy enough to touch, create, and sculpt with His own hands. As He made man, formed him out of clay from the ground with the touch of an artist and breathed his own breath into man’s hardened lungs which instantly became flesh and took in air, it should be clear to all creation that when God does something especially wonderful He takes the time to do it with His own hands.

And now, Jesus told His disciples as He was leaving “Let not your heart be troubled. I’m going to prepare a place for you, and I’m going to see to it that you a way to get there.

Nicole, Shawn, Eric, Jade, Conner, Bridger, Cassidy and other family members belonging to Woody and everyone present…I declare this in the name, the power, and the authority of Jesus Christ…Let not your heart be troubled. God has prepared a place for Woody. And He has prepared a place for us. And we need not be sad because He has provided a way to get there.

And how wonderful it must be, that instead of simply speaking out eternal resting place, the city of God, Heaven eternal into existence it is being skillfully crafted by a carpenter, and by a King – King Jesus. What miracles it must hold. What glories it must proclaim. And what envy we can rightly hold in our hearts that Woody is there. And he is awaiting our arrival.

And so, today, we will not be discussing the meaning of life – although to for me, and my people, and Woody and the family that he led – the meaning of life is pretty simple…it is know God and to make Him known. Woody knew that and believed it. But we are not focusing on the meaning of life today, but the meaning of death. What is the meaning of death?

Jesus said, "I am the Resurrection and I am the Life. Those who believe in me, even though they die, yet shall they live, and whoever lives and believes in me shall never die. I am the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. I died, and behold I am alive forever more, and I hold the keys of hell and death. Because I live, you shall also live."

he Bible says many wonderful things about the death of a Christian. But the trouble is that we don’t believe these things. We think of death as an end to all things good. We think of death as a time of separation. We think of it as a hideous monster come to cut off all our joys.But the death of a Christian is a wonderful thing. Suppose you were in a prison camp where you were persecuted and beaten every day, where you had nothing to eat but a dry crust of stale bread every day and you had to sleep on the cold, damp ground every night. Then suppose some army friends came in and rescued you and took you to a place of rest and good food and happiness. Wouldn’t you consider these rescuers as good friends?Well, we ought to look upon death in that way. We live in a cruel world, a world of many hardships, injustices, trials, tears, sorrow, and separations. Now when death comes to take us into the presence of the Lord, where we shall have perfect health and perfect rest, wouldn’t you say that death is, after all, a good friend?

We look upon death as an enemy, but really death takes us to a better place.Psalm 116:15 says,
"Precious in the sight of God is the death of His saints." When a Christian dies it is a matter of concern to the Lord. He knows about every breath that we draw, every pain that we endure, every groan that we utter. It all means something to Him. Now our text says, not that death is precious in our sight, but in God’s sight. The Psalmist is talking about death from God’s standpoint. We can’t understand the why’s and how’s of death. But we do have this wonderful promise from God.

The Bible says, (Ps 127:2) "God giveth His beloved sleep." Now sleep is a wonderful thing. We can’t do without it. Every living thing must have some time for sleep. It brings us sweet rest and gives new strength for the new day. Yes, physical sleep is a wonderful thing, but it can never compare with the sleep God gives to His beloved. What a different sleep that is indeed. We go to sleep tonight and when we wake up tomorrow we have the same problems and worries and aches and pains that were ours when we went to bed. But when we go to sleep in Jesus, we soon wake up on a new shore and find that it is heaven. We breathe a new air and find that it is celestial air. We feel the touch of anew hand on ours and find that it is God’s hand.

I want to share with you four things that death means to a Christian.

1. It means a change of environment. Everything down here has been contaminated by sin. All around us we find dishonesty, drugs, lies, and lust. And we also find all the by-products of sin, namely sickness, sorrow, pain, poverty, and death. But when God’s people die, they go to a place where these things can never touch them. There is for them a complete change of environment. They go from sin to sinlessness, from earth’s discords to heaven’s harmonies, from all that is bad to all that is good, from all that hurts to all that brings happiness.

2. It means a change of nature. Here we are burdened with an old sinful nature, which causes us continual grief. Up there the old sinful, fleshly nature will be gone forever.

3. It means a reunion with our loved ones. You have sat by the bedside and watched your loved one die. You have looked into their faces for the last time and wept many bitter tears, but they are not gone from you forever if they have accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and savior.

Woody loved his dad. And today, he’ll be buried by him. Woody once told me that his dad got the harvest in right before he died, even though he was ill. That was a thing of pride for Woody, and rightly so. And as his family still on Earth harvests the wheat this year they can also be proud, like father like son, Woody got the fields planted before he went home to be with God.
I have seen on TV many times the arrival of cruise ships in the harbor of some exotic island. There are hundreds of people on the shore waving and yelling. A band is playing, flags waving, and flowers and greetings for all the new arrivers. That scene will be nothing like the scene in heaven when we are reunited with our loved ones who have died in the Lord.

4. Finally, it means that we will see Jesus. If it were not for him, there would be no heaven. But, praise God, we shall see him and we shall know him and we shall fall at his feet and thank him for saving us and bringing us safely home.

And for Woody there is no doubt, that he is safely home. Woody accepted Jesus Christ as His personal Lord and Savior and then He lived it out. It is true that you know a tree by its fruits, as Jesus declared. In other words, if you don’t behave like a believer, you’re probably not one. The fruit of Woody’s labor and love of the Lord is plentiful, bountiful, and has touched us all. And now let us consider once again the text, of John 14, where Jesus says “I’m going to prepare a place for you, and I’ve already prepared a way to get there.”

What is the way to get there? Let me explain this in a way Woody would have wanted. Woody was a plain-spoken man. He walked tall. He gave a firm handshake. If he said it, you could count on it. I couldn’t help but chuckle when one piece of advice given to his son in his final days was this: Keep your hair short, keep your hat straight, and keep your pants up. He told it like it was. And so I will use this opportunity – in Woody’s honor, to tell you how it is…that you can see Him and see Christ on the day of your death.

The Scripture is very clear. Romans 3:23 tells us that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. This means that we have all failed. We are all flawed. God is perfect. We are not. We are unable to imitate his holiness. If you believe you haven’t sinned and are inherently sinful then you are either a lunatic or a liar. Romans 6:23 then delivers to us some bad news: The wages of sin is death. This means that we earn an eternal death and eternal separation from God. Here’s why; Heaven is for God’s people, His adopted children, those who follow Christ and go to Heaven through Him, because there’s no other way there. Heaven is not for all people. Sorry to burst your bubble. Heaven is for God’s people. And we deserve anything but Heaven. But the rest of that verse gives us good news. It tells us…the gift of God is eternal life, through Jesus Christ our Lord. God offers to us Heaven, if we accept salvation through Christ. You see, Jesus took our punishment of death. He did it on a cross. He took the punishment for our sins. But because He was the perfect sacrifice, He conquered eternal death and substituted God’s wrath on him for mercy and grace for us. The Scripture then tells us that if we believe in Him we will not perish, but have eternal life.

So now you know. Now, you have no excuse. Jesus prepared the way. He is the way. And you don’t get there without Him.

One thing that many people didn’t know about Woody is that He was a poet. He wrote many poems, one of which is on the back of the bulletins you were handed as you came in today. And so I’m going to read you a poem in a moment from King David, one which I’m pretty sure Woody would like. But first, let me tell you that the first time I really met Woody more than a casual handshake was when he had my family over to ride some horses and sit around the campfire. I remember Woody standing up and looking out across the fields of cattle, smiling with his chest out and hands on his hips. It reminded me of a man proud of His accomplishments. I said “Woody, it’s like you have your own little Kingdom here.” His response “in a way…I do. I’m a blessed, blessed man.

Today, Woody is in a place with many names: Heaven, Beulah land, the Great Beyond, the New Jerusalem, his heavenly inheritance. And I can picture him with his back straight, chest puffed out, hands on his hips, with a divine wind in his face and looking out over a field of cattle, smiling.
The Psalms say these couple of sentences and it reminds me of Woody.

9 I have no need of a bull from your stall or of goats from your pens,
10 for every animal of the forest is mine, and the cattle on a thousand hills.
11 I know every bird in the mountains, and the creatures of the field are mine.
15 and call upon me in the day of trouble; I will deliver you, and you will honor me."

And so He is with His God. He is a joint heir with Jesus Christ. And that means that he is joint owner of the cattle on a thousand hills. And he’s there in a new Kingdom – but much better than the old…and he can still truly say “I’m blessed.”

Unregenerate Blindness and the Nation of Israel

2009-05-11T09:49:00.004-06:00

Pope Benedict XVI was running around Israel with his funny hat, giant gold staff, and a gaggle of fawning nuns in his pope-mobile and while there, called for the establishment of an independent Palestinian state. And in case you didn't know it, let me remind you that his High and Exalted Pope-ishness spent time in the Hitler Youth as a young man. But that doesn't have anything to do with calling for a Palestinian state, does it?

On the way to the Mayo Clinic last week (the second trip) I had the displeasure of eating with a British guy and a guy from Seattle. Oh, and there was one other super-old guy that I'm pretty sure was dead and propped up by the guy from Seattle. Any way, I was abstaining from any form of conversation until it got so incredible liberal that it was unbearable. Trying to withstand my urges to butt into another's conversation about geo-politics just gave me a migraine and the only release from the pressure built up in that little throbbing vein on my forehead was to give into my inner desire to lay a old-fashioned verbal smackdown, old-school and Jordan-style on my dinner companions.

Not being able to take it any more, I burst onto the scene with my first comment "are you freaking kidding me?"

Both fellows just looked at me. The comment to which I was responding was how wonderful it is that President Obama has made nice with Hugo Chavez, Castro, and will probably be buds with Abidinejhad any time now. I lectured them for some time on the incredible naivety of Obama's administration, steeped deep in a fairy-tale Utopian world where giving home-boy handshakes can overcome differences of opinion on things like liberty, economic freedom, and fascist ideology.

I'm ordinarily not so rough - and in fact, it's been the better part of two years since I've unleashed the fury of my tongue so relentlessly on a few minds too ill-equipped to spar in a fair verbal challenge. But it was fun. And it was therapeutic. I don't remember all that was said, but I know at one point the British guy was talking about "America's image throughout the world" and how we needed "nations to like [us] again" and I told him exactly these words: "Why don't you just keep your English accent to yourself and speak when your nation is relevant again. Or better yet, give Americans your political opinion when you no longer pay homage to a queen. And I'm not talking about Elton John. I agree with Don Rumsfeld who said 'there are two parts of Europe; parts we've defeated and parts we've saved.' In either case, I don't much care what a peasant has to say to free men."

At which point he told me I was being "uncivilized." "If paying homage to a queen is civilized," I told him, "then I take that as a compliment."

But alas, this is not the point of today's post. This conversation led eventually to a discussion of Israel and Palestine. Not surprisingly, these individuals blamed Israel for the conflict and believed that it was Israel that would have to make concessions for the good the world. The Palestinians, in their opinion, were simply oppressed people, unjustly treated, and were simply fighting back. At which point I ask again "are you freaking kidding me?"

After this part of the conversation with these two unregenerates, I thought about something I have often thought about. I believe that when it comes to the Jewish people, there is a supernatural, demonically-inspired hatred that creates in people blind eyes, dull mind, and hard heart similar to that which is present in unregenerate man concerning his sin and need for grace.

In other words, I think that the disdain for Israel world-wide is a supernatural thing.

How on Earth could anyone - ANYONE - blame the Israelis in this conflict. And I'm not saying they're totally absolved from guilt. But I am saying that whatever guilt they may have comes from impulsive, in-the-moment reaction to well-thought-out, planned, contrived malice on the part of the so-called Palestinians. Let me give a brief down-low.

* Anti-American sermons and those calling for the eradication of the Jewish people are often run on state-run television. The Palestinian Authority named the city square in Jenin in honor of a suicide bomber that killed 4 Americans.

* Hamas enlisted terrorists to fight Americans in Iraq. Prior to the invasion, now-dead (and in hell) leader Yasser Arafat sent Hussein his "warmest regards in solidarity."

* Since September 2000, Palestinians have killed 921 Israeli civilians and wounded 5000 more.

* 77% of "Palestinian homeland" is not in Israel, but in Jordan. Why isn't the world calling on the nation of Jordan to give land to it's brother Muslims?

* There has NEVER been an independent Arab State in the West Bank or anywhere else in the nation of Israel. The land the Palestinians claim to be theirs was illegally occupied for 19 years and won back fair and square in 1967.

* If land is slivered off for the Independent Terrorist State of Palestine, then Israel's narrowest width would be a mere 9 miles - making defense in an attack almost impossible.

How on Earth could all of the world be on the side of the Palestinians in this fight? I believe it is spiritual ignorance and blinding from reality.

If Israel had its way there would be no war. If Palestine had its way there would be no Israel.

Long live Zion.

Almost....

2009-05-02T18:48:00.004-06:00

We made it to the woods about 6:30am and set up to hunt. There was a little haze still in the air, but the sun was shining through and it was a beautiful morning. Although a little windy, which at 35 degrees stung my unprotected ears and fingers, the morning seemed fit for a good hunt and the wind died down when we made it inside the timber. We had arrived at a spot of state-owned land that was open to hunting. Although still not too familiar with the little parcel of land, there was a section of land that was mostly timber, but intersected by two or three no-longer-used vehicle trails with narrow meadows on each side. This made for the perfect combination of wooded timber and cleared fields for turkey (or deer) hunting.

Walking only half a mile or so into the section, we set up our decoys in the middle of a little meadow and the intersection of two trail clearings and started to set up the blind. My hunting companion, however, noticed that the sun would be directly on that location before the hunt was over, so we replaced the decoys and decided to set up in a more covered spot across the meadow.

Graciously giving me the little tripod stool so that I could swivel around to see a turkey from behind and take the first shot, my friend sat on the ground and let out a few calls on his slate call and then followed it up with "gobble gobble" from another call. Almost immediately we heard a hair-raising shock gobble from behind us. Being too afraid to look behind, I let my friend turn his head and then heard a "psss...it's behind us."

It was so quick and surreal I figured it had to be another hunter or something. But I heard him say "don't move, it's 30 yards behind us. Sure enough, a Tom Turkey was puffed out and strutting within gun range.

There was one problem. My back was against a tree. Actually, it was against one tree, which was against another tree, and two feet behind those and smack in the middle was another tree. Behind that was a bush. Why are all the good turkeys always behind you and never in front of you? All I could see was a red and blue head of a good-sized Tom.

This bird spun in circles for about ten or fifteen minutes and was with shooting range and my friend would have had a deadly shot, but didn't take it in anticipation of the gobbler making his way up the trail and within my kill zone. As I was contemplating taking the risk to move and get a shot I heard a "caaa-crash!!!" My stool broke and I was littering the forrest floor. The turkey, miraculously, didn't care. But to no avail, it strutted around, lost interest, and went further back into the woods.

As we were calling this turkey back, others began to gobble all around us. At one point we heard 6 or 7 distinct, different gobblers in all directions. The woods were alive! And all of them, it seemed, were coming in for a better look. And they talked to us. Boy, did they talk to us! But we just couldn't make them come in for a look at our decoys.

Thinking we should move to give the impression that the faux-hens were taking off, we dropped the blind and headed quickly across the meadow and set up in the opposite tree line. Once again, we heard half a dozen different turkeys, all coming closer and closer but not within sight.

Finally, I saw a puffed-out Tom across the trail intersecting with the first. Agonizingly, it showed itself off on the other side of the tree line and slightly out of range for another ten minutes.

This is one of the few times I "almost" got one and didn't get frustrated. It was an awesome morning. I've never done much turkey hunting, but I think I like it better than deer hunting, believe it or not. It's perhaps more teasing and even more frustrating, but it's a whole different ball game when you're being stalked instead of doing the stalking. The key A) is going with somebody that knows what they're doing and B) going where the turkey are. And for having those things, I'm grateful.

I'm going back tomorrow before church. And I'm coming back with a turkey.

Interfaith Seder Service: Out of Your Mind

2009-04-30T16:14:00.004-06:00

I got the associational newsletter today and it was mentioning some "successes" from around the association this Easter. It mentioned that three churches in the association even managed to break 100 in attendance, including Fellowship (it didn't mention that such isn't exactly a rare occurrence for us these days). But one thing in particular caught my attention. A church in the association had done a "Seder Service" and it had gone well. As with many Seder services, a Jewish man was invited into the Baptist Church to help the poor Christian folks understand Passover.

The Passover Seder is a Jewish feast to celebrate the Haggadah - or the story of the exodus of Israel out of Egypt. Seder customs are usually drinking wine and unleavened bread. They also study Scripture and sing special Passover songs. The Seder is a family-centric celebration and children are urged to ask questions to be explained by their parents, the most famous of which is the traditional "The most famous questions which the youngest child asks at the Seder is the Mah Nishtanah - "Why is this night different from all other nights?" or "Why is it that on all other nights during the year we eat either leavened bread or matza, but on this night we eat only matza?" or "Why is it that on all other nights we eat meat either roasted, marinated, or cooked, but on this night it is entirely roasted?" Another custom of the Seder is filling a fifth cup of wine for Elijah, who it is rumored visits each home during Seder to proclaim the coming of a Messiah.

Celebrating Seder is not wrong. In fact, it's perfectly o.k. if you have lots of time on your hands. But it HAS TO be done in light of Jesus. It is absolutely insane to invite a Jewish man or woman into Christ's church and have them "help us" understand the Seder and administer the tradition. I'm concerned about a growing trend in Evangelical Christianity that includes inviting Rabbis and other Jewish teachers into our midst to explain to us the Old Testament. In case you missed the writings of Paul, Peter, John and the oration of Stephen and Jesus, it is us that should be explaining the Old Testament to them. It is A) insulting (what, we don't understand the O.T. because we're gentiles? I'm of the lineage of Abraham, thank you very much). It is also B) impossible for a Jew to explain to us Scriptures that they do not understand. And C) it is dangerously close to dual-Covenant theology that says "it's o.k. if you're Jewish because you're God's chosen people and he's got a special deal worked out with you.

But let's focus on B) it's impossible for a Jew to explain to us Scriptures that they do not understand.

First, Jesus IS the Passover Lamb. For you Fellowshipites out there, remember #1 in the Easter message listening guide: Easter is a Passover Celebration. The parallels between the two events are not coincidence, and neither is the timing of Easter and Passover on God's grand calendar. Not only is it not coincidence, but the Passover celebration is nothing but a PREDICTION and FORESHADOWING of Resurrection Day. 1st John 1:29 tells us that Jesus is THE lamb that takes away our sin. He is a burn offering sacrifice on our behalf.

Secondly, as Passover celebrates the freedom over slavery of God's people out of Egypt, Resurrection Day celebrates the freedom of slavery of God's people out of sin. Our Exodus occurred on the cross of Christ.

Third, the Seder meal / Passover meal is awfully similar to the Lord's Supper, isn't it? The Jews were told to remember the Passover by eating Lamb completely and letting none go to waste, bitter herbs (representing a remember of past sins), unleavened bread (representing sinless existence) and partaking in wine (symbolizing God's blessing and covenant). So how exactly is a Jew supposed to interpret this for me again? Is it not agonizingly clear that the Passover meal represents the Lord's Supper. Jesus' perfect and sinless body was broken and consumed completely by His people, His blood (wine) representing his NEW COVENANT (I.E. NEW TESTAMENT) was consumed, all the while remember our past sin (bitter herbs) and remembering the Savior that died for us (i.e. do this in remembrance of me).

We need not celebrate Seder (I didn't say shouldn't, I said "need not"). This is because we need not celebrate the Old Covenant when we have the new. We need not celebrate the sacrifice of an imperfect lamb when the perfect lamb has been sacrificed since then. We need not celebrate the old covenant which Christ fulfilled, but the new Covenant which Christ gave us. And we sure don't need someone patronizingly explaining to us what only a blind man couldn't see.

And what about these questions asked?

Question: Why is this night different?
Answer: Because this night foreshadows the coming of one called Christ, who is the lamb slain to purchase His people from their sins.

Question: Why is it that on all other nights we eat leavened bread, but on this night we eat unleavened?
Answer: Because it symbolizes King Jesus, whose perfect, sinless body was bruised and sacrificed for our transgressions - and we do it in remembrance of Him.

Question: Why is it that on other nights we eat meat marinated or by some other fashion, but this night we only eat it entirely roasted?
Answer: Because a burn offering is one for sacrifice and had to be fully consumed - and Jesus was the burnt offering for our sins.

I love the Jewish people. I LOVE the Jewish people. I will defend them until I draw my last breath. But they cannot explain to me what they do not know. They cannot illuminate to me what they are too blind to see. To invite a Jew to explain to us the Old Testament - upon which Jesus is printed on every page and not in camouflage but is bursting forth in His brilliance - is not church service, but heresy. It is not church, but is a multicultural exchange and nothing else.

My Evening With a Stripper

2009-04-30T14:25:00.005-06:00

I had dinner and spent several hours with a Minneapolis stripper and a couple of guys from her "hood" on the way back to North Dakota last night on the Amtrak. Amtrak is an interesting place to meet interesting people. They jam you into the dining car and if you're single or alone they do you the honor of cramming you with three people you don't know, which pretty much forces you into coerced conversations about where people are going, what they do for a living, and how the weather is back home. There are two types of people on long-haul Amtrak trips, as I have discovered. First, there is coach, which consists of mainly lower income people (and those who booked their tickets late, tight-wads, and those going just a few stops down the line). Secondly, there are middle income on up to the very wealthy that stay in the sleeper cars or roomettes. Because meals come free with a stay in the sleeper and counting that savings it's only 20 dollars more to get a good night's rest, I stay in the sleeper. What's nice is they let out us high-class, high-falootin' folks (immense sarcasm) to eat dinner with the po' folk.

And all of this makes for some very, very interesting dinners. Ashley is a cute black girl of 23 years of age, with an eight year-old daughter and she's been stripping (exotic dancing) for 5 years. She claims to make $3800 - $4300 dollars a week. She travels all over the country to dance at clubs from Minneapolis to Fargo, Memphis to Tulsa, Baltimore to San Francisco, and everywhere in between.

When Ashley has to leave to go dancing she tells her 8 year-old daughter and other two children that she's "going to go get them a happy meal." But now, she says, they know better. But they act like they think she's really going to so it doesn't hurt her feelings. Her three children stay with three different friends of hers.

Ashley spends $100 dollars a week on nails and an additional $75 on hair. Her cell phone bill is almost $200 dollars. She says that whenever she travels she spends nearly a third of her money on new clothes. Back home she lives with her mom, because she can't afford rent on her own. She's currently fighting all three fathers of her children for child support, none of whom pay up.

I learned alot about the stripping industry. They bring girls from all over the country to dance at their clubs. Ashley didn't say it this way, but it's because their experiences are often so bad they would run away if they weren't half way across the country. When the girls get there, their pay is often 1/5th what they were promised. Although the girls spend fortunes on hair, nails, and make-up, they don't have the glamorous lifestyle one would think; they all live in a dorm together with the other girls backstage somewhere - and have to pay $100 dollars per week to the club for the honor of staying there.

Ashley doesn't claim to be an alcoholic - as she proclaimed on her third Vodka and Cranberry juice. She takes her own preferred brand of Vodka with her to work, as the bars often don't carry her favorite. And she grows her own pot, which is o.k. because it's better than buying it from a drug dealer.

As was my intent, the conversation turned to God amongst the four of us. As they were scarfing chicken wings (or chicken wAngs, as they called them) and various kinds of alcohol and I was eating my complimentary steak, we talked about God. What I learned didn't necessarily surprise me, but it did sicken me.

Ashley and her two homies are active members in their church back home. Ashley works with the children and the other two are in the choir and are ushers. They are some very, very religious people. Their church is small (about 30 people), but very loving they told me. They're not "judgemental" like some churches. And boy, do they praise God! They have the best worship around!

In the middle of listening to them talks about their awesome church on one hand and how they could all use a joint on another, I just decided that my witness would probably be futile. What would I tell them, to go to church? Finally, Ashley asked me a whole-hearted and serious question. Calling me "Brotha Man" (which I think is her term for Reverend or something), she asked "how comes when I pray to Jesus I don't get no answer?"

Good question, I thought. Without missing a beat I chuckled and said "oh, that's because he's not listening."

You could have heard a pin drop. Even the snooping old folks behind us that were getting a kick out of the circus at our table turned their necks to look.

"No, serious, Brotha' man. How comes I don't think he hears me."

"I told you. He may hear you, but he's certainly not listening."

I then went on to explain to her that God does not love all people - for that is a lie. As a whole, God loves the world. Individually, some He hates. He hates all workers of iniquity, yes? I explained to her that God doesn't listen to the prayers of nonbelievers unless it is a prayer of repentance. I explained to her that to continue in sin wouldn't get His blessing, but His wrath. And I scoffed at the idea that He was somehow listening.

And then I waited for her response.

"Well..." she said with tears in her eyes... "I guess that makes sense. Yeah. That makes a lot of sense."

And then she said something I'll never forget. She said "how come they don't tell me that stuff at church?"

What a question. It turns out that her church isn't that loving, is it? They let her continue down her path to a very real hell in hopes that their compassion can save her from a God that is just. I don't mean to say that her church is stereotypical of most African-American churches or most evangelical churches in general. But as long as I live, I can promise you that no one will say that about the church where Christ has placed me. To not tell truth, it to not love.

So I told Ashley that I've never met a black stripper and was pleased to make her acquaintance and she told me she never met a white preacher and was also pleased to make my acquaintance and we both had a good laugh about it. But I hope that she was changed. I hope that a little bit of Biblical truth could begin the process of regeneration.

As I was walking down the isle away from them she cried out "hey brotha' man, please pray for me."

Thinking maybe she had been miraculously changed, she then yelled " 'cause if I don't make some money soon, I'm gonna really need some Jesus."

Win some. Lose some.

Traitor

2009-04-28T11:52:00.004-06:00

So, Arlen Specter will be a Democrat. I think this is something we've all known for a long time. And now the Democrats will own a filibuster-proof Senate. Obama has called Spector to tell him that the DNC is welcoming him with open arms.

This must send a resonating message that on the local and state level, we mustn't tolerate non-Republican "Republicans." We mustn't tolerate wolves in sheeps clothing. Look what happened when we picked the second-to-most liberal Republican Senator (John McCain) as our presidential candidate. The people revolted. The Republican Party REFUSED to support Spector's opponent in the primary. We asked for this.

Spector says that the Republican Party has gone further and further to the right. What in the world is he talking about? Are we the party of Reagan and Gingrich anymore? Republicans SHOULD NOT believe that is Spector's rationale for leaving the Republican Party. This is his attempt to further sabotage our party, as many Meghan McCain's within it will suddenly think it's our policies and principles - not our lack of testicles and spines - that has brought our downturn.

Spector is now the hero of the left. Good riddance to bad rubbish. We can learn from this; moderate Republicans are no Republicans at all.

Terrorists in Montana

2009-04-24T13:49:00.006-06:00

President Obama campaigned on the so-called "human-rights violations" and "diplomatic scar" of Guantanamo Bay. Recently, he's decided that a few detainees perhaps should be left in Guantanamo after all. As the sophmoric novice begins to figure out WHY Bush put detainees in Guantanamo (so that it would be out of the reaching of parasitic American lawyers), he has also had a "oh crap moment" as he's discovered the vast complication of putting these terrorists on domestic soil. As Obama has signed an executive order closing Guantanamo, he has idiotically not created a plan to put its inhabitants anywhere. While many of us who believe his assault on America is intentional think that he would rather have them be released back to the jihad, we can still hope that he is simply closing Guantanamo to appease the world and not surrender to it. And if it's the latter, where are the terrorists going to go?

The City of Hardin, a town of 3,400 people near the Crow Indian Reservation (an Indian town, in other words), built the $27 million, 460-bed jail two years ago and has been looking for tenants ever since. A change in Montana law and short sightedness has created a problem in that the prison is incapable of accepting contracts to allow inmates. Its construction loans are in default.

The city council has voted unanimously to allow Gitmo detainees to be placed in the facility. Rumors around Washington are that Obama is considering it.

NOTE: THIS REDNECK IS HALF PARANOID, WONDERING IF THIS WHOLE THING WASN'T PLANNED BY THE "POWERS THAT BE" IN 2007 - HOW ELSE CAN YOU EXPLAIN SOMEONE MAKING A EMPTY, UNUSED PRISON?

Thankfully, our Montana politicians don't seem to be playing ball. Even Democrat Senator Max Baucus has said "not on my watch." Democrat Jon Tester and Republican congressman Denny Rehberg have also called it a bad idea. Our lovely Democrat Governor, however, is eerily silent.

One Hardin city council representative said "Somebody has to stand up and put (the Guantanamo prisoners) in their backyards. It's our patriotic duty," said Greg Smith, director of the city's Two Rivers Authority."

Excuse me? It's our patriotic duty to house terrorists? I believe it's our patriotic duty to kill terrorists. And I'll be the first to admit - no offense to my friends in Hardin - Hardin is a complete and total crap hole (like most Indian towns). So I'm not really worried about Hardin. I am worried about terrorists being in close proximity to my family.

These detainees should be put on a WWII era aircraft carrier and floated around the world in secret. If not, feel free to release them all in Montana. With their turbin. At a cowboy bar. That should do it.

Match-Up Polls Have Interesting Result

2009-04-24T08:41:00.003-06:00

What in the world are we going to do in 2012? Obama seems unstopable - or at least the media would portray it that way. Even though Rasmussen' Presidential Index indicates he's at his lowest most of +2, his personal likability is at 73% in other polls. When asked about his specific handling of issues (economy, war on terror, foreign policy, etc...) less than half of Americans have confidence to handle those specific issues. So he should be in trouble, right? Wrong. He still has an overall job approval rating 20+ points above approval on his handling of individual issues.

What does this indicate. It indicates that the Messiah complex is, indeed strong. The people don't agree with much that he does - but think somehow he's a good president. This is frightening. There is historical precedent for this, let me remind you. During FDR's tenure, everything continued to get worse and worse as his socialist policies failed. Unemployment never got under 20 percent in his first two terms. The economy was abysmal and getting worse. And yet, people reelected him time after time because he successfully made everyone believe it was somebody else's fault and that his policies would eventually work (and never did). Nonetheless, FDR talked gently to America in his fireside chats and made them better about themselves. Obama has this capacity.

So what's going on in 2012? Some recent polls indicate something that I find interesting. It turns out that in head-to-head match ups the Republican candidate to do the best against Obama is... none other than Mike Huckabee. He trails Obama 49-42, which at this stage of the game is absolutely amazing. Huckabee also has the highest favorability ratings - next to Sarah Palin. Palin's favorability ratings are screaming high, but confidence in her is extremely low and fare poorly against Obama. So what does all of this mean?

It doesn't mean I think Huck is going to run again for President or that he could even win. I long for the day that a Godly man takes office again, but I would settle for a man that just doesn't despise God (as does Obama). What this indicates is that the people are clamoring for a CONSERVATIVE.

We don't need to try what we tried last election, which was to pit a moderate against a liberal. We must be serious about putting our best, conservative foot forward. Sadly, there is still a contigent of the GOP (with the face-palming mascot of Meghan McCain) who think we lost because we were too conservative.

It would be great if Huck would run. But do you know who I hope will run? Newt Gingrich.

Yes, Newt Gingrich. He is a publicist's nightmare. He is one of the most despised men in America, and the media has virtually destroyed him like they have Dan Quale, Dick Cheney, Sarah Palin and many others... and for the same reasons - they know he's dangerous. No one - and I mean NO ONE - has done more to become the de facto head of the Conservative movement in America in the last 4 years than Gingrich. He has been rallying the troops almost alone for several years - and especially since the election of Obama. He's it. He's the dude. He's the guy who along with his "American Solutions" organization has the grass roots organization and admiration of the Conservative base.

Can he win? Anything is possible, but his name alone is a disadvantage. But there is one thing I long for. The last election should have taught us all one thing; if we're going to lose, let's lose well. If we're going to stand, let's stand for principle. If we're going to fall, let's fall for what's right.

Can We Stop Pretending Obama is a Misled Patriot?

2009-04-22T08:22:00.005-06:00

Janet Napalitano, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (and bull-dike Janet Reno look-a-like...remember what I said about conservative chicks being hotter?) recently had this manish and idiotic conversation on CNN this weekend:

KING: A lot of Democrats in Congress want you to investigate [Joe Arpaio]. They think he is over the line. He says he is just enforcing the law and the problem is the federal government.

NAPOLITANO: Well, you know, Sheriff Joe, he is being very political in that statement, because he knows that there aren’t enough law enforcement officers, courtrooms or jail cells in the world to do what he is saying.

What we have to do is target the real evil-doers in this business, the employers who consistently hire illegal labor, the human traffickers who are exploiting human misery. And yes, when we find illegal workers, yes, appropriate action, some of which is criminal, most of that is civil, because crossing the border is not a crime per se. It is civil. But anyway, going after those as well.

A non-citizen crossing the border without permission "is not a crime per se"? Are you kidding me. Is this the person in charge of Homeland Security and she doesn't know crossing the border illegally is a crime? She thinks it's a civil issue? Am I dreaming? Here's the law.

8 USC Sec. 1325
(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts

Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

Congratulations, you idiot, idiot Obama supporters. This is what you get. This broad releases a terror alert similar to what was released by the Missouri Highway Patrol about being able to spot domestic terrorists because they believe in a small, limited government - and she at the same time doesn't know that breaking into the country is a crime. Rednecks = bad, illegal aliens = nuissance. But let's face it. She knows the law. Obama knows the law. They don't care.

Obama is seeking to strategically destroy American sovereignty in every method possible.

Consider the latest controversial appointee to the Pentagon, Rosa Brooks.

She believes al-Qaida was an "obscure group" turned into a massive threat due to U.S. policies. She's referred to former President Bush as "our torturer in chief" and a "psychotic who need(s) treatment" while comparing Bush's arguments for waging a war on terrorism to Adolf Hitler's use of political propaganda. She's worked on behalf of George Soros' philanthropic foundation and is also on the board at Amnesty International. Making her career as a columnist for the Los Angeles Times (the left coast's New York Times counterpart), she says "Years of foolish policies have left us with a choice: We can bail out journalism, using tax dollars and granting licenses in ways that encourage robust and independent reporting and commentary, or we can watch, wringing our hands, as more and more top journalists are laid off." Great. Socialist and America-hater. AWESOME.

Remember when it was divulged that Obama announced his political career in the home of domestic terrorist and America-hater William Ayers? Obama then made the news-circuit and told us all that he's "friends with thousands of people" and you can't judge him by that. We are now seeing through both the friends he's making from a lineup of America's greatest enemies and by the trash he has appointed to government that you can judge a man by his friends.

Christian Chicks are Way Hotter

2009-04-21T09:42:00.003-06:00

So this is the clip that has caused all of the controversy...

This is Miss California answering a question to gay paparazzi and trash journalist, Perez Hilton as to whether or not states should follow Vermont and legalize gay "marriage." Her answer was no.

And so I commend her, but not just because she said "no." I commend her most because she did not hesitate to give the answer. Sure, it was a little "do what you want, but I think it's wrong," but for a beauty contestant, what do you expect. There was no hesitation. She gave the answer. And she knew the there were probably only about two or three straight guys in the whole audience (it's a beauty pageant, after all). This chick is tough.

The other thing that I love here is the look of Perez's (what comes first, the gay name or the gay behavior?) face when she answers it fully. There's a look of defeat and I believe a tinge of shame. Sorry, dude. This chick isn't going to play ball - and yes, some people will give up everything they work for in order to stand on conscience. It's scary, isn't it?

What everybody knows is that this answer most certainly cost her the competition. God will reward her immensely.

And this proves what I've always known; Christian chicks are way hotter. I'm telling you. The same thing goes for conservative ladies. Have you seen the women on Fox News? I'm not trying to be perverted here, I'm just saying that a chaste, conservative, Godly woman's beauty far outshines that of some liberal tramp on her third abortion who's likely to have some STD and be ranting and raving about saving the Earth and driving a Prius. I'm glad I've got a meat-eating conservative lady, because like I said.... Christian chicks are way hotter.

Sunday's Message

2009-04-20T09:22:00.004-06:00

Sunday's Message on the Glory of God is here. Some interesting topics covered is 1) God is totally and completely self-centered 2) God is glorified by those sent to Hell 3)The main point of evangelism is not saving souls.

Sermon Title: God's Glory I

Passage: Romans 16

1. God's Glory is the end result of all ________________.

2. God's Glory is not given : it is revealed.

3. God's Glory is revealed in the Gospel.

4. God's Glory is revealed in evangelism.

5. God's Glory is revealed in the service and sacrifice of his people.

One Down.

2009-04-18T18:00:00.003-06:00

This is my friend Eric with a Turkey he called in and shot this morning. It's a real beast with a 9 inch beard. It shows you what a good caller can bring in.

Happy Easter

2009-04-13T17:21:00.000-06:00

A house full of kids...

Good friends...

Good barbeque...

Drive-Through Church

2009-04-11T15:56:00.000-06:00

Those of you who know me know how much I like this clip.

We're Fighting Back with Brownies?

2009-04-10T09:28:00.005-06:00

I'm the vice-president of the Richland County Right to Life. It's a group consisting of a bunch of old Catholic ladies (bless their heart) and me. If there are more, I don't know them. As is their tradition, we held the annual Good Friday bake sale at the local mini-mall. Being busy getting it all put together and harassing some of my own church women to get some goods baked and taken over, I lost sight of something important. As I was driving to the bake sale this morning and eating a brownie I snatched from my wife's offering, it hit me.

At least 1,500 babies would be slaughtered today. I'm selling some freaking brownies.

Goodness. And I was almost feeling good about our contribution to the cause - almost. And then God swoops in and destroys all those warm, fuzzy feelings. I'm selling some freaking brownies.

And you know what? For those handful of 95 year-old ladies (I'm not exaggerating on the age), baking brownies may be their only weapon. And I think they will be judged well by their God. One sweet lady writes some scathing letters to the editor of the local paper, and which point I usually get on the paper blog and defend her against the low-lifes that write in and challenge her dignity and morality. I think we make a good team, actually. The point is, for some... maybe brownies are enough.

In my heart of heart, I am terrified. I know the atrocity of abortion is the most wicked and evil of all sins. I know that. I feel it deep in my heart. As we were in Billings last week we happened to drive by the Planned Parenthood Clinic. And all I did was pray. That's it! Pray! I wanted to stop and kneel and pray and cry and moan and run and beg them to reconsider their folly and repent of their evil.... but I didn't. I just prayed. And from that I feel a horrible, agonizing guilt.

What else can we do, besides pray and bake brownies, you ask?

I don't know. If this situation fit the criteria for a "just war" (aka St. Augustine), then I'm all for it. Until then, what do we do?

I guess we bake brownies.

But there is a sneaking suspicion that when we are judged by our God, He will call me a lazy, uncaring servant. I'm deathly afraid that He will tell me I have not done enough.

Come quickly, King Jesus. Bring your Iron Scepter and unleash it on the guilty. Make these people your footstool. And let their blood run as deep as the horse's bridle. Bring Justice, and come quickly, King Jesus.