In 2008, the Republican candidate was defeated in a close race. The party was demoralized even before the election. Who has the ability to restore the party? Let's look at some of the potential presidential candidates.
Bob Corker, US Senator, Tennessee
Aside from being a US Senator he was also a former mayor of Chatanooga. Corker was narrowly elected to the senate defeating Harold Ford Jr. He is fairly conservative. He has said he is interested in running. The problem is that he has no name recognition outside of Tennessee. He has a lot of potention but he is still not even a rising star yet. I really don't think Corker is the guy who will rebuild the party.
Joe Scarborough, Former Congressman, Florida
He is a former congressman and now the host of Morning Joe on MSNBC and has his own radio show. Although he is pro-life and conservative on many issues, he has moderated his views so that he won't get fired from a liberal network. He has angered people in the GOP establishment at times. I am intrigued by Scarborough, but not sure I would support him.
Neut Gingrich, Former Speaker of the House, Georgia
He is a jack-of-all-trade, being a politician, professor and history buff. While he was generally liked by conservatives he is divorced and remarried. Many object to his cozy relations with the Clintons. He frequenty visited Hilary when she was in the Senate. He was a guest at the Obama White House. Dick Morris worked both for Gingrich and for Clinton at the same time. He is a bit of a political opportunist. If he were the nominee, I would support him, but it is not my first choice.
Gary Johnson, Former Governor, New Mexico
His views are very similar to Ron Paul. He is a big supporter of legalization fo drugs. He is pro-choice but believes that the abortion issue should be decided by states. I am not ready to support him but would look closely at him were he to run.
Ron Paul, Congressman, Texas
He is a libertarian and has quiter a following with libertarian minded people and independent evengelicals. Pau does not have what it takes to be president. Shoudl he be president? Maybe, but that's not how it works. He does not have the ability to put together a winning coalition.
Mike Huckabee, Former Governor, Arkansas
He was also a Baptist minister. When he ran in 2008, he had the support of many evangelicaqls who felt they did not have a voice with the other candidates. Huckabee was one of the few Republicans who recognized that Bush was unpopular and distanced himself from him. In straw poles, Huckabee had come out on top. It has recently been revealed that the killer in Washington state had been pardoned by Mike Huckabee. This may have killed any chance he has of being president.
Jim Demint, Senator, South Carolina
Hs in the Senate. the leading conservative voices in the Senate. He has been a key opposition leader to many of Obamas p[ropgrams. His views are very saimilar to mine on many issues. I would definietly consider supSOuth DHIM IF HE RUNS>
John Thune, Senator, South Dakota
He shocked everyone when he defeated Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle. Like Demint, he has become a key conservative leader. There are rumours that Thune is the candidate that the Obama administer does not want to run against. The only downside is that he is from a small state. I think he is an impressive candidate.
Sarah Palin, Former Governor, Alaska
When she was picked to be McCain's running mate, no one knew who she was. She quickly won the hearts of many conservatives. Everyone else was very puzzled by her. She was conservative, independent and a little quirky. I really like her at first. I did not like that she decided to speak out on every issue. Many times she spoke out on issues she did not have all the fact on, such as the Miss California incident. I think she should have served out her whole term as governor. I don't think she is ready to be president. I could accept her as a vice-presidential candidate. Michael Savage believes that only a Romney/Palin ticket can beat Obama in 2012.
Mit Romney, Former Governor, Massachusetts
He is a businessman, and was the head of the Utah Olympic Committee. I think Romney may be the best hope for the Republicans in 2012. He is an expert on finances and the economy. Romney won the Michigan primary by running on the economy. Economy is what voters are concerned about. If he can convince voters that he is better for the economy that Obama he has a chance. Conservatives are concerned by the fact he is a Mormon and some believe he is not conservative enough, He was pro-choice and switched to pro-life just before he announced his candidacy. Romney has been around but not annoyingly so. He takes interviews occasionally but does not blitz his presence. I think he has the potential of being the next Ronald Reagan. While I am not totally on the Romney bandwagon, I am close to it.
When Discernment Goes Bad
We live in a time in American Christianity where there are Christian books, music, DVDs, Bible studies, you name it. They are independent, not answering to any church. Many of these are not necessarily doctrinally correct. Using Romans 14 and Matthew 18:1-2, people say we have no right to judge other ministries. A back lash has ensued and ministries committed to discernment have arisen. They seek to expose false doctrine. Many targets for discernment are the word of faith movement, emergent church, seeker sensitive and mega-churches. Several ministries like Jan Merkell's "Understanding the Times" and Todd Freole's "Wretched Radio" seem to major in discernment ministries.
Discernment is designed to call attention to teaching that is not line with orthodox Christianity. The problem is, many times it becomes personal. What appears to be a blatant act of blasphemy may just be a misunderstanding. What began as a well-meaning call to doctrinal purity may turn into character assassinations.
There is a difference between intended heresies and misunderstandings. No Christian has doctrine totally right. We all have our pet issues that, if insulted, we take personay. We must make sure our motives are right. We must correct error in love, not hate. At times Jan Merkell and Todd Freole come off as hateful. Exposing false doctrine should be done out of love for the truth, not to destroy. Too many times, mountains have been made out of molehills.
How do you deal with false doctrine without being hateful? Matthew 18 says that if you are offended with a fellow believer, you go to that person and discuss it with them in private. If he fails to listen to you,. you go back with one or two witnesses. If he still won't listen, then you take it to the church. If he won't listen to the church then he is to be considered an infidel. Because of geographical differences and corporations make it difficult to do this. But that does not give us licence to attack others on a radio program. To many times discernment is an excuse to attack. Some ministries exist with the express purpose of exposing false doctrine. We must not become MacArthyists looking for heretics under every bush.
I write this because I am very disturbed by this trend of discernment to become hateful. We do need to stand for truth, but it must be in a godly way. The Roman orator Cicero said that in time of war the law falls silent. Although Christianity is under attack from all sides, the Bible must not fall silent but influence all we do.
Discernment is designed to call attention to teaching that is not line with orthodox Christianity. The problem is, many times it becomes personal. What appears to be a blatant act of blasphemy may just be a misunderstanding. What began as a well-meaning call to doctrinal purity may turn into character assassinations.
There is a difference between intended heresies and misunderstandings. No Christian has doctrine totally right. We all have our pet issues that, if insulted, we take personay. We must make sure our motives are right. We must correct error in love, not hate. At times Jan Merkell and Todd Freole come off as hateful. Exposing false doctrine should be done out of love for the truth, not to destroy. Too many times, mountains have been made out of molehills.
How do you deal with false doctrine without being hateful? Matthew 18 says that if you are offended with a fellow believer, you go to that person and discuss it with them in private. If he fails to listen to you,. you go back with one or two witnesses. If he still won't listen, then you take it to the church. If he won't listen to the church then he is to be considered an infidel. Because of geographical differences and corporations make it difficult to do this. But that does not give us licence to attack others on a radio program. To many times discernment is an excuse to attack. Some ministries exist with the express purpose of exposing false doctrine. We must not become MacArthyists looking for heretics under every bush.
I write this because I am very disturbed by this trend of discernment to become hateful. We do need to stand for truth, but it must be in a godly way. The Roman orator Cicero said that in time of war the law falls silent. Although Christianity is under attack from all sides, the Bible must not fall silent but influence all we do.
My Writings
There have been questions about whether I actually wrote the post about styles of preaching. One commenter implied that it was really Emily that wrote it and I took the credit. Another person said it was cut and paste and not an original post by me. Let me assure this was to cut and pasted but was my own thoughts. There was some criticism that it could have had more information. Maybe it could have. The purpose of that post was to be a survey of preaching styles not an exposition. The purpose was to expose readers to different styles of preaching.
I am a bad speller, I admit it. I am bad at punctuation and grammar. I have never been diagnosed with any learning disability such as dyslexia, but there is a good chance I may have some sort of learning disability. The teachers at the elementary school I attended wanted me to be tested by the state for learning disabilities. My Dad was a proud man who did not want to accept that his son might have a learning disability and was paranoid of the government. He refused to let me be tested. To combat this problem all of my papers at school and blog posts are typed by Emily. I write out the posts on paper, then dictate it to her. For a while I wrote my own blog posts. My blog is just for fun. I enjoy writing and like to have my thoughts out there. It was originally intended for friends and family. I am glad other people are reading it though, but I do not like that people are reading it to pick my life apart. I do not like these accusations.
I hope what I have said will be taken to heart. I appreciate this opportunity to set the record straight.
I am a bad speller, I admit it. I am bad at punctuation and grammar. I have never been diagnosed with any learning disability such as dyslexia, but there is a good chance I may have some sort of learning disability. The teachers at the elementary school I attended wanted me to be tested by the state for learning disabilities. My Dad was a proud man who did not want to accept that his son might have a learning disability and was paranoid of the government. He refused to let me be tested. To combat this problem all of my papers at school and blog posts are typed by Emily. I write out the posts on paper, then dictate it to her. For a while I wrote my own blog posts. My blog is just for fun. I enjoy writing and like to have my thoughts out there. It was originally intended for friends and family. I am glad other people are reading it though, but I do not like that people are reading it to pick my life apart. I do not like these accusations.
I hope what I have said will be taken to heart. I appreciate this opportunity to set the record straight.
Types of Sermons
There are several types of preaching. Some are more effective than others. We will examine some of these styles.
Expositional
Expository preaching is when you take a book of the Bible and you preach through the book verse by verse. You start at chapter one verse one and go all the way to the end of the book. Proponents of this method say that the Bible is not meant to be preached with random verses but is a complete work. You do not start in the middle of the last book in the Lord of the Ring stories and then jump to chapter one of the first book. While you can take a verse out of context for this method it is harder. Rick Warren does not like this method and says it is only for church people. his is my favorite style of preaching. I think it is very effective. Proponents of this method include: John MacArthur, John Piper and the Calvary Chapel movement.
Exegetical
This is when you preach through two or three verse. It relies heavily on the Greek and Hebrew. it contains a lot of word studies and word definitions. It also includes the cultural analysis of a word used. Unlike expository it is usually stand alone messages, not preaching through a book.
Topical
This is the most popular style of preaching right now. Each message is a stand-alone, one-time event. These messages include a single topic like love. Rick Warren says it is a better method for reaching the unsaved or seekers.
Textual
Textual is when you basically stick to one text. It is usually a standalone message. It's not verse by verse. You might start at verse 6, go back to 3, then jump to 10. It is not as extensive as expository or exegetical and it can be topical.
Narrative
It's not necessarily a preaching style. This method was introduced by New Tribes Mission when witnessing to tribal people. I as been adopted in the US. It has the idea of starting with creation and working your way to Christ. The aim is to hit on the big points. It aims to create a foundation. It is an excellent method for Sunday Schools, Bible studies or midweek service.
Gospel Preaching
All preaching should involve some kind of presentation of the gospel. Some passages are harder than others. The purpose of preaching is to communicate the gospel.
Expositional
Expository preaching is when you take a book of the Bible and you preach through the book verse by verse. You start at chapter one verse one and go all the way to the end of the book. Proponents of this method say that the Bible is not meant to be preached with random verses but is a complete work. You do not start in the middle of the last book in the Lord of the Ring stories and then jump to chapter one of the first book. While you can take a verse out of context for this method it is harder. Rick Warren does not like this method and says it is only for church people. his is my favorite style of preaching. I think it is very effective. Proponents of this method include: John MacArthur, John Piper and the Calvary Chapel movement.
Exegetical
This is when you preach through two or three verse. It relies heavily on the Greek and Hebrew. it contains a lot of word studies and word definitions. It also includes the cultural analysis of a word used. Unlike expository it is usually stand alone messages, not preaching through a book.
Topical
This is the most popular style of preaching right now. Each message is a stand-alone, one-time event. These messages include a single topic like love. Rick Warren says it is a better method for reaching the unsaved or seekers.
Textual
Textual is when you basically stick to one text. It is usually a standalone message. It's not verse by verse. You might start at verse 6, go back to 3, then jump to 10. It is not as extensive as expository or exegetical and it can be topical.
Narrative
It's not necessarily a preaching style. This method was introduced by New Tribes Mission when witnessing to tribal people. I as been adopted in the US. It has the idea of starting with creation and working your way to Christ. The aim is to hit on the big points. It aims to create a foundation. It is an excellent method for Sunday Schools, Bible studies or midweek service.
Gospel Preaching
All preaching should involve some kind of presentation of the gospel. Some passages are harder than others. The purpose of preaching is to communicate the gospel.
YouTube Sensations
YouTube was just named website of the decade. It has changed the way we view media. Some have suggested it will one day replace television. It has also had a profound impact on Christianity. Any time you want you can watch Todd Bentley kick an old lady in the stomach for Jesus or watch Word of faith teacher Robert Tilton preach with fart noises in the background. Seriously there are several Christian teachers who present their messages on YouTube. But YouTube is largely unregulated and anyone can post. This has created a mixed multitude. Let's examine a few of these sensations.
Paul Washer
Paul Washer is a frequent speaker at churches. He is in the reformed tradition and believes in Lordship salvation. He comes off as harsh at times as he rejects easy believism. He rejects conventional wisdom. He hates when people use the verse "I stand at the door and knock" out of context. He once talked about the churches obsession with pop culture which was followed by applause. He responded with "I don't know why you're clapping. I'm talking about you." If you think he is all mean with no compassion he is not. His testimony is full of tears. Before he was saved he lived a life full of sin. When asked why he preaches so forcefully his response is "He saved me." Although he tends to be pretty conservative, he did once speak at a reformed rapper convention.
William Lane Craig
Christan apologist who has debated the Jesus seminar. He is interested in discernment issues. He is opposed to seeker sensitive, word of faith and the emergent church. He has also defended Washer and MacArthur who have been accused of heresy.
Andrew C Bain
He is opposed to Lordship salvation and apparently is opposed to Calvinism. His video's attempt to expose Jonathan Edwards, Spurgeon, MacArthur, Piper Washer and others as heretics. His videos tend to be very mean spirited. Many do not take him seriously.
Stephen Andersen
He is pastor of the fundamentalist, KJV only church, Faithful Word Baptist Church in Tempe, Arizona. He is not connected to Bob Jones or Howles Andersen and is opposed to Bible colleges. He opposes Christian rock, president Obama, contraceptives, Billy Graham, lordship salvation and women in pants. He is known to have bad hermeneutics. He takes verses way out of context. He once used a verse about pissing on the wall to speak of gender rolls. He was recently arrested on trumped up charges. He is aligned with Alex Jones. Many of his views I disagree with but he does say some good things.
The Anti-Paul Movement
YouTube has become the home of a pro-law form of Christianity that merges the Jewish law into New Testament Christianity. They believe that Paul is a false prophet who taught a different gospel than Jesus. They teach that Jesus taught faith plus works. There is not an organized anti-Paul movement, but various people would fall into this camp. To them Pauline epistles are not true scripture. They believe Acts was written by Luke to validate Paul's ministry but do seem to accept the gospel of Luke. They say Paul uses too many personal pronouns and they do not like his disregard to the law.
Conclusion
One must be careful when looking at YouTube. Anyone can post on YouTube. We must be Bereans at all times. We must check what is said with the word of God. Many videos on YouTube can be a blessing but all must be taken with a grain of salt. We must be Bereans with everything we read see and hear.
Paul Washer
Paul Washer is a frequent speaker at churches. He is in the reformed tradition and believes in Lordship salvation. He comes off as harsh at times as he rejects easy believism. He rejects conventional wisdom. He hates when people use the verse "I stand at the door and knock" out of context. He once talked about the churches obsession with pop culture which was followed by applause. He responded with "I don't know why you're clapping. I'm talking about you." If you think he is all mean with no compassion he is not. His testimony is full of tears. Before he was saved he lived a life full of sin. When asked why he preaches so forcefully his response is "He saved me." Although he tends to be pretty conservative, he did once speak at a reformed rapper convention.
William Lane Craig
Christan apologist who has debated the Jesus seminar. He is interested in discernment issues. He is opposed to seeker sensitive, word of faith and the emergent church. He has also defended Washer and MacArthur who have been accused of heresy.
Andrew C Bain
He is opposed to Lordship salvation and apparently is opposed to Calvinism. His video's attempt to expose Jonathan Edwards, Spurgeon, MacArthur, Piper Washer and others as heretics. His videos tend to be very mean spirited. Many do not take him seriously.
Stephen Andersen
He is pastor of the fundamentalist, KJV only church, Faithful Word Baptist Church in Tempe, Arizona. He is not connected to Bob Jones or Howles Andersen and is opposed to Bible colleges. He opposes Christian rock, president Obama, contraceptives, Billy Graham, lordship salvation and women in pants. He is known to have bad hermeneutics. He takes verses way out of context. He once used a verse about pissing on the wall to speak of gender rolls. He was recently arrested on trumped up charges. He is aligned with Alex Jones. Many of his views I disagree with but he does say some good things.
The Anti-Paul Movement
YouTube has become the home of a pro-law form of Christianity that merges the Jewish law into New Testament Christianity. They believe that Paul is a false prophet who taught a different gospel than Jesus. They teach that Jesus taught faith plus works. There is not an organized anti-Paul movement, but various people would fall into this camp. To them Pauline epistles are not true scripture. They believe Acts was written by Luke to validate Paul's ministry but do seem to accept the gospel of Luke. They say Paul uses too many personal pronouns and they do not like his disregard to the law.
Conclusion
One must be careful when looking at YouTube. Anyone can post on YouTube. We must be Bereans at all times. We must check what is said with the word of God. Many videos on YouTube can be a blessing but all must be taken with a grain of salt. We must be Bereans with everything we read see and hear.
Books I've Read Recently
These are reviews of books I have read this past year.
Vintage Jesus by Mark Driskol
Mark Drisko is the teaching pastor at Mars Hill Community Church in Seattle Washington. This books deals with major issues about Jesus. It is part of a series dealing with issues of Christianity. At times this book is very humorous with several references to pop culture. At times it is pretty standard, but at other times it is fascinating. He as a chapter on how Christ fulfilled Old Testament prophecies. That chapter is simply amazing.
My Rating: 4+
Claiming the Center by Jack Rogers
Jack Rogers is a leading voice in the Presbyterian church. He believes in including everyone in Christianity. He believes we need to accept the views of liberal and fundamentalist as equally valid. He says that those who believe in the Deity of Christ and those who don't are valid Christians. This book does offer good insight into how the religious right developed. His information is sound. It is his conclusions that are wrong. This really explains how we got here religiously.
My Rating: 2+
Wake Up America by Tony Campollo
Written in 1991, Campolo discusses how America and the American church has become very materialistic. He believes we must follow Jesus' words and feed, clothe and love the poor. He believes that the words of Christ supersede the writings of Paul. He suggests that Christ's call to protect the poor may even override Romans 13, which deals with relating to governments. I dislike a lot of it, but some of it I found helpful. One of the most astonishing things is that he opposes text criticism.
My Rating: 2
Gospel According to Jesus by John MacArthur
This book sent shock waves through the evangelical world. Too many Christians professed but did not live like it. The church accepted these professions at face value. MacArthur wrote this book hoping to correct this error. This book talks about how true Christians live a consistent life of obedience to Christ. He tells how Jesus said it would be hard to follow him. He details how the Bible teaches this all through scripture. It is a must read.
My Rating: 5
Absolutely Free by Zane Hodge
This is a book attempting to answer The Gospel According to Jesus. In order to balance my reading, I decided to read a counterpoint to MacArthur's view. Hodges has an easy believism view. He says that just because a person doesn't live a Christian life, that does not mean he is not saved. He says we have no right to doubt any one's profession. He says all you have to do is believe. He separates discipleship from salvation. He even questions whether the verse in Corinthians about examining oneself is even for us today. He quotes hymns as evidence.
My Rating: 2
Missions in the Old Testament by Walter Kaesar
Dr. Kaesar suggests that God's goal for humanity has always been, "I shall be their God and they shall be my people." After the fall, God's goal was to restore that relationship. He says that Israel was to be a priest to bring about that restoration to the planet. He says that even though Israel failed to do that, that does not negate what they were supposed to do. At times he went overboard. But most of what he is saying I believe is valid. It really opened my thinking.
My Rating: 4+
Purpose Driven Church by Rick Warren
He gives his strategy for church planting. He tells how churches must seek to fulfill all five purposes of the church, which are": worship, service, fellowship, evangelism, and discipleship. He believes we must fulfill felt needs first. He is opposed to verse-by-verse exposition because he says it is only for church people. He believes in verse with verse exposition, aka topical preaching. It does, however have some good insight.
My Rating: 3+
Common Sense by Glenn Beck
The Fox News host has rewritten Thomas Paine's manifesto. He believes there is a plot by politicians of all political parties to divide us. He believes that these people only care about their own power. This book includes Common Sense by Thomas Paine. He comes off as a universalist. It is an interesting book.
My Rating: 4
Vintage Jesus by Mark Driskol
Mark Drisko is the teaching pastor at Mars Hill Community Church in Seattle Washington. This books deals with major issues about Jesus. It is part of a series dealing with issues of Christianity. At times this book is very humorous with several references to pop culture. At times it is pretty standard, but at other times it is fascinating. He as a chapter on how Christ fulfilled Old Testament prophecies. That chapter is simply amazing.
My Rating: 4+
Claiming the Center by Jack Rogers
Jack Rogers is a leading voice in the Presbyterian church. He believes in including everyone in Christianity. He believes we need to accept the views of liberal and fundamentalist as equally valid. He says that those who believe in the Deity of Christ and those who don't are valid Christians. This book does offer good insight into how the religious right developed. His information is sound. It is his conclusions that are wrong. This really explains how we got here religiously.
My Rating: 2+
Wake Up America by Tony Campollo
Written in 1991, Campolo discusses how America and the American church has become very materialistic. He believes we must follow Jesus' words and feed, clothe and love the poor. He believes that the words of Christ supersede the writings of Paul. He suggests that Christ's call to protect the poor may even override Romans 13, which deals with relating to governments. I dislike a lot of it, but some of it I found helpful. One of the most astonishing things is that he opposes text criticism.
My Rating: 2
Gospel According to Jesus by John MacArthur
This book sent shock waves through the evangelical world. Too many Christians professed but did not live like it. The church accepted these professions at face value. MacArthur wrote this book hoping to correct this error. This book talks about how true Christians live a consistent life of obedience to Christ. He tells how Jesus said it would be hard to follow him. He details how the Bible teaches this all through scripture. It is a must read.
My Rating: 5
Absolutely Free by Zane Hodge
This is a book attempting to answer The Gospel According to Jesus. In order to balance my reading, I decided to read a counterpoint to MacArthur's view. Hodges has an easy believism view. He says that just because a person doesn't live a Christian life, that does not mean he is not saved. He says we have no right to doubt any one's profession. He says all you have to do is believe. He separates discipleship from salvation. He even questions whether the verse in Corinthians about examining oneself is even for us today. He quotes hymns as evidence.
My Rating: 2
Missions in the Old Testament by Walter Kaesar
Dr. Kaesar suggests that God's goal for humanity has always been, "I shall be their God and they shall be my people." After the fall, God's goal was to restore that relationship. He says that Israel was to be a priest to bring about that restoration to the planet. He says that even though Israel failed to do that, that does not negate what they were supposed to do. At times he went overboard. But most of what he is saying I believe is valid. It really opened my thinking.
My Rating: 4+
Purpose Driven Church by Rick Warren
He gives his strategy for church planting. He tells how churches must seek to fulfill all five purposes of the church, which are": worship, service, fellowship, evangelism, and discipleship. He believes we must fulfill felt needs first. He is opposed to verse-by-verse exposition because he says it is only for church people. He believes in verse with verse exposition, aka topical preaching. It does, however have some good insight.
My Rating: 3+
Common Sense by Glenn Beck
The Fox News host has rewritten Thomas Paine's manifesto. He believes there is a plot by politicians of all political parties to divide us. He believes that these people only care about their own power. This book includes Common Sense by Thomas Paine. He comes off as a universalist. It is an interesting book.
My Rating: 4
Leaders of the Christian Faith
In church history there have been many influential leaders in Christianity who have turned the church and the world upside down. I will examine several key leaders and look at their life and influence.
Martin Luther
Luther is a major hero of mine. I find I relate to him in many ways. After a storm he felt compelled to become a priest. He found himself crushed by the weight of his own sin and found no solace in the legalism and tradition of his day. It is said he went to Rome and say a staircase that supposedly led to forgiveness. If you climbed all the steps on your knees and prayed the rosary all the way up you would be saved. As he climbed those steps, he found it all meaningless. It was not until he read Romans 1:17 that his life changed. "For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith as it is written the just shall live by faith." He came to see the practice of indulgences as a gross distortion of Christianity, an exploitation of the people. He was so troubled that he nailed a 95 Thesis to the wall of the Wittenburg church. It was the nail pounding heard round the world. It started the protestant reformation. Luther was hunted and many times almost martyred for his faith. At one point he was summoned to account for charges of heresy. This was his response: "Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the scriptures, by clear reason, for I do not trust either in popes, or councils alone since it is well known they have often erred and contradicted themselves. I am bound by the scriptures I have quoted, and my conscience is captive to the word of God. I cannot and will not retract anything since it is neither save nor right to go against conscience. I cannot do otherwise. Here I stand." Luther struggled with depression. One day his wife wore black. When he asked her why she said that she was in mourning because God was dead. He responded that she should never say that. She said that he should stop living like he is. He wrote the hymn, "A Mighty Fortress is Our God." I relate to Luther because he is so flawed. He was a man who struggled with demons figuratively and literally. He was used by God not because he was so great but he realized that the only answer was faith.
John Wesley
Although I disagree with him on certain points theologically, I am a big fan of him personally. When George Whitfield was asked if he would see Wesley in heaven, he shocked everyone by saying that he would not. He explained that Wesley would be so far ahead of him. Wesley literally saved England from the brink of oblivion. John and Charles Wesley were the youngest in a family of nineteen. As a child, he was the last one saved from a fire. His mother referred to him as her little firebrand. After being trained as a minister in the church of England, he went to America to evangelize the Indians. The only problem was that he was unsaved. He was a failure and went home disillusioned. On the boat ride home, he met up with Moravian missionaries. One of them asked him if he knew that Jesus was his saviour. He replied that he knew Jesus was the Saviour of the world. He was again asked if he knew that Jesus was his saviour. He finally admitted that he didn't. One night he wandered into a club that was discussing Luther's commentary to Romans. It melted his heart and he was born again. Thus he broke with the church of England and decided to bring the word of God directly to the people. He said that he would cause a pow boy to know more about the Bible than a churchmen. He influenced statesmen, such as William Wilberforce, who ended slavery in England, and John Newton, a slave captain turned minister. He left England better than he found it.
Jim Elliot
You would think that after missionaries were killed by the tribes they came to witness to, it would end tribal ministry or slow it down. Just the opposite happened. The wives of those men killed, including Elizabeth Elliot, went to that tribe and they came to Christ. Jim Eliot and the others inspired a new generation of missionaries. Jim Elliot had many quotes that had been a blessing to many. They include "Soon this life will come to pass, only what's done for Christ will last." and "He is no fool who gives up what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose." I think you can flip around his saying as well, "He is definitely a fool who gives up what he cannot afford to lose to gain what he cannot keep."
John MacArthur
The son of a pastor, he became pastor of Grace Community Church in Pasadena, California forty years ago. He is also president of the Master's College and Seminary. He is committed to a verse by verse expository preaching. He is a Calvinist, or as he calls himself, Reformed Theologian. In 1989, he saw a rise in professing Christians who failed to live the life. He wrote the controversial book, The Gospel According to Jesus to respond to this phenomena. The book teaches that true Christians will live a consistent life. If someone walks away and never returns, they are probably not saved. Many turned against him. My Alma Mada cancelled a conference speaking opportunity. MacArthur has been a blessing in my life. I have been enriched through his ministry. I enjoy his books and his MacArthur Bible Commentary.
John Piper
John Piper has been an encouragement to me. His book Desiring God is an all time favorite. Piper's biggest theme is that mankind's purpose in life is to enjoy God. He often quotes the Westminster confessional, which says, "The chief end of man is to glorify God by enjoying him forever." He says that sin is seeking enjoyment from something other that God. Piper's books are sometimes redundant, but I love his overall theme.
Martin Luther
Luther is a major hero of mine. I find I relate to him in many ways. After a storm he felt compelled to become a priest. He found himself crushed by the weight of his own sin and found no solace in the legalism and tradition of his day. It is said he went to Rome and say a staircase that supposedly led to forgiveness. If you climbed all the steps on your knees and prayed the rosary all the way up you would be saved. As he climbed those steps, he found it all meaningless. It was not until he read Romans 1:17 that his life changed. "For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith as it is written the just shall live by faith." He came to see the practice of indulgences as a gross distortion of Christianity, an exploitation of the people. He was so troubled that he nailed a 95 Thesis to the wall of the Wittenburg church. It was the nail pounding heard round the world. It started the protestant reformation. Luther was hunted and many times almost martyred for his faith. At one point he was summoned to account for charges of heresy. This was his response: "Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the scriptures, by clear reason, for I do not trust either in popes, or councils alone since it is well known they have often erred and contradicted themselves. I am bound by the scriptures I have quoted, and my conscience is captive to the word of God. I cannot and will not retract anything since it is neither save nor right to go against conscience. I cannot do otherwise. Here I stand." Luther struggled with depression. One day his wife wore black. When he asked her why she said that she was in mourning because God was dead. He responded that she should never say that. She said that he should stop living like he is. He wrote the hymn, "A Mighty Fortress is Our God." I relate to Luther because he is so flawed. He was a man who struggled with demons figuratively and literally. He was used by God not because he was so great but he realized that the only answer was faith.
John Wesley
Although I disagree with him on certain points theologically, I am a big fan of him personally. When George Whitfield was asked if he would see Wesley in heaven, he shocked everyone by saying that he would not. He explained that Wesley would be so far ahead of him. Wesley literally saved England from the brink of oblivion. John and Charles Wesley were the youngest in a family of nineteen. As a child, he was the last one saved from a fire. His mother referred to him as her little firebrand. After being trained as a minister in the church of England, he went to America to evangelize the Indians. The only problem was that he was unsaved. He was a failure and went home disillusioned. On the boat ride home, he met up with Moravian missionaries. One of them asked him if he knew that Jesus was his saviour. He replied that he knew Jesus was the Saviour of the world. He was again asked if he knew that Jesus was his saviour. He finally admitted that he didn't. One night he wandered into a club that was discussing Luther's commentary to Romans. It melted his heart and he was born again. Thus he broke with the church of England and decided to bring the word of God directly to the people. He said that he would cause a pow boy to know more about the Bible than a churchmen. He influenced statesmen, such as William Wilberforce, who ended slavery in England, and John Newton, a slave captain turned minister. He left England better than he found it.
Jim Elliot
You would think that after missionaries were killed by the tribes they came to witness to, it would end tribal ministry or slow it down. Just the opposite happened. The wives of those men killed, including Elizabeth Elliot, went to that tribe and they came to Christ. Jim Eliot and the others inspired a new generation of missionaries. Jim Elliot had many quotes that had been a blessing to many. They include "Soon this life will come to pass, only what's done for Christ will last." and "He is no fool who gives up what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose." I think you can flip around his saying as well, "He is definitely a fool who gives up what he cannot afford to lose to gain what he cannot keep."
John MacArthur
The son of a pastor, he became pastor of Grace Community Church in Pasadena, California forty years ago. He is also president of the Master's College and Seminary. He is committed to a verse by verse expository preaching. He is a Calvinist, or as he calls himself, Reformed Theologian. In 1989, he saw a rise in professing Christians who failed to live the life. He wrote the controversial book, The Gospel According to Jesus to respond to this phenomena. The book teaches that true Christians will live a consistent life. If someone walks away and never returns, they are probably not saved. Many turned against him. My Alma Mada cancelled a conference speaking opportunity. MacArthur has been a blessing in my life. I have been enriched through his ministry. I enjoy his books and his MacArthur Bible Commentary.
John Piper
John Piper has been an encouragement to me. His book Desiring God is an all time favorite. Piper's biggest theme is that mankind's purpose in life is to enjoy God. He often quotes the Westminster confessional, which says, "The chief end of man is to glorify God by enjoying him forever." He says that sin is seeking enjoyment from something other that God. Piper's books are sometimes redundant, but I love his overall theme.
Rating the Star Wars Movies Part I
Star Wars Episode I The Phantom Menace 1999
After more than 25 years since the first Star Wars movie came out, and after years of rumours of more Star Wars movies, the Phantom Menace is released. The was the first in a trilogy dealing with the rise of an empire and how Anakin Skywalker became Darth Vadar. In this movie the intergalactic republic is divided over the invasion of a small planet by a major voting block called the Trade Federation. We meet a young Obi Wan Canobe and the senator who would become the emperor. To many it was a disappointment. Many were critical of Jarjar Binks, who they found annoying. It is certainly not the best of the Star Wars movies, but it is worth watching.
3 out of 5
Star Wars Episode II Attack of the Clones 2002
Set ten years after episode I, Anakin was now a young adult. An investigation into an assassination attempt lead to a complex mystery involving clones. In the same time, a conflict between the republic and the separatists gets heavy. Some criticize it for having way too much romance between Anakin and Ammidalla. I've also heard than many felt it was incomplete. The felt that too much was left int the air. I thought Count Duku was a strong villain. I enjoyed the mysterious aspects of this movie.
4 out of 5
Star Wars Episode III Revenge of the Sith 2005
Usually in an action movie you have a battle between good guys and bad guys. The good guy defies the odds and wins the battle. Even before going to see this movie, you knew that the bad guys were going to win, at least for now. Everyone expected it to be a darker film. I really like that Emperor Palpatine played such a big roll in it. In the first trilogy, there was very little character development of him. This is my favorite of all the Star Wars movies.
5+ out of 5
After more than 25 years since the first Star Wars movie came out, and after years of rumours of more Star Wars movies, the Phantom Menace is released. The was the first in a trilogy dealing with the rise of an empire and how Anakin Skywalker became Darth Vadar. In this movie the intergalactic republic is divided over the invasion of a small planet by a major voting block called the Trade Federation. We meet a young Obi Wan Canobe and the senator who would become the emperor. To many it was a disappointment. Many were critical of Jarjar Binks, who they found annoying. It is certainly not the best of the Star Wars movies, but it is worth watching.
3 out of 5
Star Wars Episode II Attack of the Clones 2002
Set ten years after episode I, Anakin was now a young adult. An investigation into an assassination attempt lead to a complex mystery involving clones. In the same time, a conflict between the republic and the separatists gets heavy. Some criticize it for having way too much romance between Anakin and Ammidalla. I've also heard than many felt it was incomplete. The felt that too much was left int the air. I thought Count Duku was a strong villain. I enjoyed the mysterious aspects of this movie.
4 out of 5
Star Wars Episode III Revenge of the Sith 2005
Usually in an action movie you have a battle between good guys and bad guys. The good guy defies the odds and wins the battle. Even before going to see this movie, you knew that the bad guys were going to win, at least for now. Everyone expected it to be a darker film. I really like that Emperor Palpatine played such a big roll in it. In the first trilogy, there was very little character development of him. This is my favorite of all the Star Wars movies.
5+ out of 5
Rating the Star Trek Movies
Star Trek The Motion Picture 1979
This movie premiered ten years after the show was cancelled. With the success of Star Wars Paramount execs decided that this was the right time for a Star Trek movie. They gave it a big budget. They hired the direct of Sound of Music, Robert Weiss, and composer Jerry Goldsmith. The movie had big special effects. There was a rush to get it to theaters, so there was no edit. The movie had very little action sequence. many times in the movie, the crew were simply gazing at the special effects. It had the making of a good movie but fell short. I liked that the crew were uncertain of Spock's motives and the conflict between Kirk and Decker. I would not call it a terrible movie and do still enjoy watching it.
2+ out of 5
Start Trek II Wrath of Kahn 1982
The second movie had a much lower budget and hired lesser known director and composer. Gene Roddenberry did not produce the film and was only a consultant. Director Nick Myer decided he wanted to bring back a popular villain from the original series. He determined that Kahn was the best known villain. This movie is a fan favorite. It is an epic struggle between Kirk, who is getting older, and questioning his usefulness in the galaxy against Kahn who is bitter and angry. At the same time, a devise to benefit all now hangs in the balance. At first people were stunned at Spock's death, but after the shock wore off, they really enjoyed the film. It is not my6 favorite film, but I really like it.
4+ out of 5
Star Trek III Search for Spock 1983
For some reason, this film gets lost in the shuffle. A lot of people say it is not as good as Star Trek II. I like it slightly better than the Wrath of Kahn. It is a story of one group willing to sacrifice everything to save one life. In this movie the villain, Klingon Commander Krug, played by Christopher Lloyd, is not the central focus, but plays a vital part in the story. The destruction of the Enterprise is a shocker, but Star Trek is best when the producers take risks.
5 out of 5
Star Trek IV The Voyage Home 1986
Not just a fan favorite, this has made a lot of inroads into the non Star Trek audience. It had a much more humorous tone than the other Star Trek movies. The crew go back in time to 1986 to bring back humpback whales. The crew bumble around in a world and culture they know nothing about. A lot of well known Star Trek characters make cameos in this movie. For the first time, we get to meet a Federation president.
5 out of 5
Star Trek V The Final Frontier 1989
It is difficult to make a movie after a successful one. This movie is considered by most fans and critics as a flop. They make fun of the fact that the movie is about a search for God. They also make fun of William Shatner's directing abilities. I do enjoy this movie. It is definitely not my all time favorite movie. I would put it pretty close to the bottom of my list. I did not mind the story about God. I found that part compelling. I did not like that the Enterprise was run down and breaking apart.
3 out of 5
Star Trek VI The Undiscovered Country 1991
Since the late 1940s the US had been at War with the Soviet Union. At times, it was on the brink of all out war. At other times, it had cooed down and seemed like a war in name only. In 1990, the Soviet Union had dissolved and the Cold War ended. On Star Trek, klingons were the all purpose enemy. Every time the Enterprise attempted peaceful contact with a race, the klingons would show up. On Star Trek Next Gen, the Federation and klingons were at peace. How did this happen? Star Trek VI was designed to be based on the changing world. This was an epic story and very compelling. It is my favorite of the Kirk era movies.
5+ out of 5
This movie premiered ten years after the show was cancelled. With the success of Star Wars Paramount execs decided that this was the right time for a Star Trek movie. They gave it a big budget. They hired the direct of Sound of Music, Robert Weiss, and composer Jerry Goldsmith. The movie had big special effects. There was a rush to get it to theaters, so there was no edit. The movie had very little action sequence. many times in the movie, the crew were simply gazing at the special effects. It had the making of a good movie but fell short. I liked that the crew were uncertain of Spock's motives and the conflict between Kirk and Decker. I would not call it a terrible movie and do still enjoy watching it.
2+ out of 5
Start Trek II Wrath of Kahn 1982
The second movie had a much lower budget and hired lesser known director and composer. Gene Roddenberry did not produce the film and was only a consultant. Director Nick Myer decided he wanted to bring back a popular villain from the original series. He determined that Kahn was the best known villain. This movie is a fan favorite. It is an epic struggle between Kirk, who is getting older, and questioning his usefulness in the galaxy against Kahn who is bitter and angry. At the same time, a devise to benefit all now hangs in the balance. At first people were stunned at Spock's death, but after the shock wore off, they really enjoyed the film. It is not my6 favorite film, but I really like it.
4+ out of 5
Star Trek III Search for Spock 1983
For some reason, this film gets lost in the shuffle. A lot of people say it is not as good as Star Trek II. I like it slightly better than the Wrath of Kahn. It is a story of one group willing to sacrifice everything to save one life. In this movie the villain, Klingon Commander Krug, played by Christopher Lloyd, is not the central focus, but plays a vital part in the story. The destruction of the Enterprise is a shocker, but Star Trek is best when the producers take risks.
5 out of 5
Star Trek IV The Voyage Home 1986
Not just a fan favorite, this has made a lot of inroads into the non Star Trek audience. It had a much more humorous tone than the other Star Trek movies. The crew go back in time to 1986 to bring back humpback whales. The crew bumble around in a world and culture they know nothing about. A lot of well known Star Trek characters make cameos in this movie. For the first time, we get to meet a Federation president.
5 out of 5
Star Trek V The Final Frontier 1989
It is difficult to make a movie after a successful one. This movie is considered by most fans and critics as a flop. They make fun of the fact that the movie is about a search for God. They also make fun of William Shatner's directing abilities. I do enjoy this movie. It is definitely not my all time favorite movie. I would put it pretty close to the bottom of my list. I did not mind the story about God. I found that part compelling. I did not like that the Enterprise was run down and breaking apart.
3 out of 5
Star Trek VI The Undiscovered Country 1991
Since the late 1940s the US had been at War with the Soviet Union. At times, it was on the brink of all out war. At other times, it had cooed down and seemed like a war in name only. In 1990, the Soviet Union had dissolved and the Cold War ended. On Star Trek, klingons were the all purpose enemy. Every time the Enterprise attempted peaceful contact with a race, the klingons would show up. On Star Trek Next Gen, the Federation and klingons were at peace. How did this happen? Star Trek VI was designed to be based on the changing world. This was an epic story and very compelling. It is my favorite of the Kirk era movies.
5+ out of 5
Good Music
In a recent post I gave standards of music based on Philippians 4:8. I want to look at a few secular artists that have good things to say. They have some lyrics that I believe worth listening to. You may agree or disagree with me. My purpose is to inspire discussion and more examination of music. I am not an advocate of only Christian music because it is lazy and not everything that calls itself Christian really is. We as Christians are to test everything according to God's word. Let's look at some artists and songs.
U2
I don't agree with all of Bono, the lead singer of U2's theology or his over emphasis on feeding the poor. His songs are awesome. One of the most challenging songs of theirs is "I Still Haven't Found What I'm looking For." It is a challenging song. The last part of the song talks about what Christ did on the cross and then says "but I still haven't found what I'm looking for." It begs the question, why am I not satisfied. What more do I need to find. Another song is beautiful day, which talks about not letting circumstances get in the way of everyday life. The song "The streets have no name" has been turned into a worship song by Chris Tomlin. While they do have some songs that are questionable, most are very good.
Daughtry
The lead singer Chris Daughtry grew up in the churhc. Their music is not expressively Christian, but usually wholesome. An example of this is the song "Home". Many of their songs talk about making things right or making bad decisions or getting over them. I don't have a real problem with Daughtry.
Lifehouse
Lifehouse is a semi Christian band. Sometimes their music deals with outwardly Christian themes and other times deal with virtues. They are known for making song about fidelity in marriage. The have counseled other secular artists going through difficulty in their marriage. They seem to have a good reputation.
POD
The group's name is short for Payable On Death. They started out as a CSM group but their music has made it to mainstream radio. It has been played on hard rock stations that usually play music that glorifies violence. At work I've been forced to listen to those stations and have been relieved to hear "I Feel So Alive For The Very First Time, I Can't Deny You." This group has been controversial by Christians who question whether they are really one of us.
Kansas
An older group that wrote "Dust In the Wind," The theme of this song was frustration about the futility of life. One of the singers was converted after writing this song. Most of Kansas' music is not offensive.
I hope this will inspire you to give these artists a chance and be critical of all music. While you may disagree with me or know something that I don't know about these artists, I believe Christians should listen to good music Biblically. For some you may believe that means sacred only.That's fine. I believe Christians should engage the culture without being tainted by it.
U2
I don't agree with all of Bono, the lead singer of U2's theology or his over emphasis on feeding the poor. His songs are awesome. One of the most challenging songs of theirs is "I Still Haven't Found What I'm looking For." It is a challenging song. The last part of the song talks about what Christ did on the cross and then says "but I still haven't found what I'm looking for." It begs the question, why am I not satisfied. What more do I need to find. Another song is beautiful day, which talks about not letting circumstances get in the way of everyday life. The song "The streets have no name" has been turned into a worship song by Chris Tomlin. While they do have some songs that are questionable, most are very good.
Daughtry
The lead singer Chris Daughtry grew up in the churhc. Their music is not expressively Christian, but usually wholesome. An example of this is the song "Home". Many of their songs talk about making things right or making bad decisions or getting over them. I don't have a real problem with Daughtry.
Lifehouse
Lifehouse is a semi Christian band. Sometimes their music deals with outwardly Christian themes and other times deal with virtues. They are known for making song about fidelity in marriage. The have counseled other secular artists going through difficulty in their marriage. They seem to have a good reputation.
POD
The group's name is short for Payable On Death. They started out as a CSM group but their music has made it to mainstream radio. It has been played on hard rock stations that usually play music that glorifies violence. At work I've been forced to listen to those stations and have been relieved to hear "I Feel So Alive For The Very First Time, I Can't Deny You." This group has been controversial by Christians who question whether they are really one of us.
Kansas
An older group that wrote "Dust In the Wind," The theme of this song was frustration about the futility of life. One of the singers was converted after writing this song. Most of Kansas' music is not offensive.
I hope this will inspire you to give these artists a chance and be critical of all music. While you may disagree with me or know something that I don't know about these artists, I believe Christians should listen to good music Biblically. For some you may believe that means sacred only.That's fine. I believe Christians should engage the culture without being tainted by it.
What we can learn from liberals
In Christianity like most thing you have a conservative group, a liberal wing, a moderate wing, and all points in between. The conservatives and liberals do not get along. The conservatives wish that the liberals would be more orthodox and believe in the fundamentals of the faith. The liberals wish conservatives would modernize the faith and realize that we need a Christianity more in tune with the culture. I am a conservative who believes that doctrine is important. Is there anything we can learn from liberals? I am going to look at a few topics that are not quite as black and white as some say they are.
War and Peace
Many liberal Christians are pacifist. They interpret "blessed are the peacemakers" to be people who work to stop wars. They believe God hates wars and that all wars can be avoided. Some view war as a heinous sin. Many evangelicals believe that some wars are absolutely necessary. Like WW2, the War on Terror and some Christians even say that the war in Iraq was necessary. Jehovah's witnesses and liberals believe that Christians should not serve in the military. Most early Christians did not serve in the military but some did like Cornelius who was saved while a soldier. Most early Christians were non citizens or saves and were not required or allowed to serve. I believe that some wars are necessary, like the WW2 and the War on Terror. I do believe that the War in Iraq was unnecessary. While peace is a noble goal, it is foolish to pursue it at all costs. This was proven by Nevile Chamberlains' attempt to negotiate with Hitler. We should not go to war over everything. I believe we should be discriminating when deciding if to go to war or not. War should be defensive, not offensive.
Poverty
Liberal Christians believe that the primary missions of the church should be to care for the poor. They site Jesus' words on the sermon on the mount that says "blessed are the poor in spirit." They see the poor as literally poor people. They believe we must feed and clothe the poor all over the world. Some believe that it should be our primary responsibility as Christians. While as a fundamentalist I do not believe that feeding of the poor should be the end all and be all of the faith, but I don't believe that it should be excluded. We are called to feed the poor and will be judged on whether or not we have fed and clothed the poor. Can Christian ministries focus on the poor and not go liberal? Several reformed theologians, such as Tim Keller, D A Carson and John Piper concluded that you can and should feed the poor and can do it without becoming a liberal. It involves keeping the gospel the main thing. Feeding the poor and giving the gospel must have equal weight. The gospel must be preached as well as the people fed.
Environment
As Christians we believe that our planet was created by God. We believe that God was an intricate designer who made a marvelous creation. Even with the effects of sin, the earth is still a marvel. We are called to take care of the planet. We know that the planet will pass away. (1 Peter 3:12) That does not mean we should needlessly use up resources in an irresponsible way. Liberal Christians believe we should abandon the pro life cause and the pro family cause and focus on stopping global warming. I disagree with that. What bothers me is that when president George W. Bush was in office, Christians went along with almost everything he did. We went along with his pro-business and energy policy that included drilling in the United States. Everyone agrees that the ANWR oil reserves are limited and will not give much oil. Some argue that maybe there is more than they thought. I believe that we should take care of our planet. I don't believe in global warming, but I do believe that we should be careful with God's creation. I believe we need a middle ground on the issue of environment.
I do not believe the church should go liberal. I believe we should consider some of what they say. I disagree with the tendency to always do the exact opposite of what liberals teach. Just because the liberals believe we should go extreme and care for the environment, that does not mean that conservatives should pollute and drill, drill, drill. I want us to be responsible. We should carefully consider every issue calmly and not just to group think. We should seek the best course of action with prayer and meditation of scripture.
War and Peace
Many liberal Christians are pacifist. They interpret "blessed are the peacemakers" to be people who work to stop wars. They believe God hates wars and that all wars can be avoided. Some view war as a heinous sin. Many evangelicals believe that some wars are absolutely necessary. Like WW2, the War on Terror and some Christians even say that the war in Iraq was necessary. Jehovah's witnesses and liberals believe that Christians should not serve in the military. Most early Christians did not serve in the military but some did like Cornelius who was saved while a soldier. Most early Christians were non citizens or saves and were not required or allowed to serve. I believe that some wars are necessary, like the WW2 and the War on Terror. I do believe that the War in Iraq was unnecessary. While peace is a noble goal, it is foolish to pursue it at all costs. This was proven by Nevile Chamberlains' attempt to negotiate with Hitler. We should not go to war over everything. I believe we should be discriminating when deciding if to go to war or not. War should be defensive, not offensive.
Poverty
Liberal Christians believe that the primary missions of the church should be to care for the poor. They site Jesus' words on the sermon on the mount that says "blessed are the poor in spirit." They see the poor as literally poor people. They believe we must feed and clothe the poor all over the world. Some believe that it should be our primary responsibility as Christians. While as a fundamentalist I do not believe that feeding of the poor should be the end all and be all of the faith, but I don't believe that it should be excluded. We are called to feed the poor and will be judged on whether or not we have fed and clothed the poor. Can Christian ministries focus on the poor and not go liberal? Several reformed theologians, such as Tim Keller, D A Carson and John Piper concluded that you can and should feed the poor and can do it without becoming a liberal. It involves keeping the gospel the main thing. Feeding the poor and giving the gospel must have equal weight. The gospel must be preached as well as the people fed.
Environment
As Christians we believe that our planet was created by God. We believe that God was an intricate designer who made a marvelous creation. Even with the effects of sin, the earth is still a marvel. We are called to take care of the planet. We know that the planet will pass away. (1 Peter 3:12) That does not mean we should needlessly use up resources in an irresponsible way. Liberal Christians believe we should abandon the pro life cause and the pro family cause and focus on stopping global warming. I disagree with that. What bothers me is that when president George W. Bush was in office, Christians went along with almost everything he did. We went along with his pro-business and energy policy that included drilling in the United States. Everyone agrees that the ANWR oil reserves are limited and will not give much oil. Some argue that maybe there is more than they thought. I believe that we should take care of our planet. I don't believe in global warming, but I do believe that we should be careful with God's creation. I believe we need a middle ground on the issue of environment.
I do not believe the church should go liberal. I believe we should consider some of what they say. I disagree with the tendency to always do the exact opposite of what liberals teach. Just because the liberals believe we should go extreme and care for the environment, that does not mean that conservatives should pollute and drill, drill, drill. I want us to be responsible. We should carefully consider every issue calmly and not just to group think. We should seek the best course of action with prayer and meditation of scripture.
Lorship Salvation
Steven Andersen is the pastor of Faithful Word Baptist Church in Tempe, Arizona. Many of his sermons are available on YouTube. He is a fundamentalist preacher who is opposed to lordship salvation. He says if you lead someone to Christ, and tell him he must leave his live in girlfriend, that is works. I find that funny because most fundamentalist preachers would never allow that kind of behaviour to continue and I agree with that assessment. It is odd that he would make that statement. Is repentance really a work?
Anti Lordship salvation proponents claim that lordship camp believer believe ion works after salvation. Some refer to is as back loading works. This is not true. Lordship salvation believes that a person who is truly converted will live a life consistent with that claim. It is not a work because it just happens. Will a person stumble? Yes. When they fall on the ground, they will not stay on the ground. A new convert may not stop living with his girlfriend right away but in five years if he has still not moved out and they are not married, it is a problem. True Christians are not perfect but are consistent. God did not save us for the fun of it. The Christian life is more than fire insurance. God wants us to find fulfilment in him alone. We are commanded to be holy. (1 Peter 1:6) Romans 6:11 says, "likewise reckon yourself dead to sin and alive unto God. 1 Corinthians 9:27 says "but I keep under my body and bring it unto subjection." A christian lives like it.
I am not advocating we be fruit inspectors. At the same time we should not blindly accept everyone who professes to be a Christian. If someone blatantly defies God's law, lives like the world and claims to be a believer, we are legitimately questioning him.We should not use discernment as a weapon but to edify. Everything we should do should be out of love and truth. If someone dies who did not live like a Christian, but made a profession 15 years ago, it is wrong to preach them into heaven. Those who believe in lordship salvation believe in salvation by faith alone. We believe works prove salvation, not that they make a person saved.
Anti Lordship salvation proponents claim that lordship camp believer believe ion works after salvation. Some refer to is as back loading works. This is not true. Lordship salvation believes that a person who is truly converted will live a life consistent with that claim. It is not a work because it just happens. Will a person stumble? Yes. When they fall on the ground, they will not stay on the ground. A new convert may not stop living with his girlfriend right away but in five years if he has still not moved out and they are not married, it is a problem. True Christians are not perfect but are consistent. God did not save us for the fun of it. The Christian life is more than fire insurance. God wants us to find fulfilment in him alone. We are commanded to be holy. (1 Peter 1:6) Romans 6:11 says, "likewise reckon yourself dead to sin and alive unto God. 1 Corinthians 9:27 says "but I keep under my body and bring it unto subjection." A christian lives like it.
I am not advocating we be fruit inspectors. At the same time we should not blindly accept everyone who professes to be a Christian. If someone blatantly defies God's law, lives like the world and claims to be a believer, we are legitimately questioning him.We should not use discernment as a weapon but to edify. Everything we should do should be out of love and truth. If someone dies who did not live like a Christian, but made a profession 15 years ago, it is wrong to preach them into heaven. Those who believe in lordship salvation believe in salvation by faith alone. We believe works prove salvation, not that they make a person saved.
Abuse in the Church
I want to start out this post with a declaration. I was physically abused as a child. My father was a Sunday school teacher, deacon, chairman of the business meeting, Sunday School superintendent, you name it, he did it. He was even an ordained minister. He also had a problem with using foul language and inappropriate conversation with teenagers. He was not disciplined until he clashed with a lady in the church. Even then, he was not fully kicked out of the church until he threatened a lawsuit. They never went to the authorities. This is not an uncommon problem. In both Catholic and Protestant churches children have been abused physically, sexually and emotionally, and the church has done nothing. This has given fuel to people like Bill Mahr who already have an anti Christian bias. We say, "oh, it's rare," but is it?
The church has a problem. Why does abuse happen in the church? Jesus answered that question when he said, "Not everyone that sayeth unto me, 'Lord" shall enter into the kingdom of heaven. but he that doeth the will of him that sent me." It is difficult to spot pretend believers among true believers. That is not my story. My father was a horrible pretender. The clues were there. People refused to see those clues until he crossed the wrong person. She went after him because he would not do what she wanted. In my case, people for whatever reason, just did not care. Usually people think it can't happen here. They bury their heads in the sand. They just don't want to believe it. Sometimes they say the victim is lying. Other times they say, just suck it up.
One of the things that you often hear is that you need to forgive. That's true; Christians need to forgive. Jesus said to forgive seventy ties seven. We are called to forgive. The church has interpreted that to mean that we should not report the offender to the authorities. The victim needs to forgive and forget. The Bible says we need to obey the law as long as it does not interfere with God's law. The government exists to prosecute evil doers. (Romans 13:1-5)Crime should be reported. The church should not participate in cover ups of abuse crimes. Yes, we should forgive. That does not mean to shove it under the rug. Those who fail to report abuse cases are co-conspirators and criminals. They should go to jail as much as the offender.
The church needs to care. They need to take accusations of abuse seriously. I know that there are fake victims, however, it is not for us to decide. We should report it and let the police sort it out. We need to not help those who help the church hurt us more. Let's not legitimize their hatred. We need to be a force for good. We serve the living God, the only way to salvation. We need to act like it. We need to not be a club that protects its own. We need to change.
I write this hoping that people will get serious about this topic. I've heard so many stories of abuse in the church that have not been dealt with. Churches need to examine past actions. Sins of the past need to be confessed. We need to have clear policies of reporting and investigating allegations. We need to have clear checks and balances within the church. I do not support a McCarthyist witch hunt system. I've seen that, too. do want to truth to come out, because after all, that's what we're about, isn't it.
The church has a problem. Why does abuse happen in the church? Jesus answered that question when he said, "Not everyone that sayeth unto me, 'Lord" shall enter into the kingdom of heaven. but he that doeth the will of him that sent me." It is difficult to spot pretend believers among true believers. That is not my story. My father was a horrible pretender. The clues were there. People refused to see those clues until he crossed the wrong person. She went after him because he would not do what she wanted. In my case, people for whatever reason, just did not care. Usually people think it can't happen here. They bury their heads in the sand. They just don't want to believe it. Sometimes they say the victim is lying. Other times they say, just suck it up.
One of the things that you often hear is that you need to forgive. That's true; Christians need to forgive. Jesus said to forgive seventy ties seven. We are called to forgive. The church has interpreted that to mean that we should not report the offender to the authorities. The victim needs to forgive and forget. The Bible says we need to obey the law as long as it does not interfere with God's law. The government exists to prosecute evil doers. (Romans 13:1-5)Crime should be reported. The church should not participate in cover ups of abuse crimes. Yes, we should forgive. That does not mean to shove it under the rug. Those who fail to report abuse cases are co-conspirators and criminals. They should go to jail as much as the offender.
The church needs to care. They need to take accusations of abuse seriously. I know that there are fake victims, however, it is not for us to decide. We should report it and let the police sort it out. We need to not help those who help the church hurt us more. Let's not legitimize their hatred. We need to be a force for good. We serve the living God, the only way to salvation. We need to act like it. We need to not be a club that protects its own. We need to change.
I write this hoping that people will get serious about this topic. I've heard so many stories of abuse in the church that have not been dealt with. Churches need to examine past actions. Sins of the past need to be confessed. We need to have clear policies of reporting and investigating allegations. We need to have clear checks and balances within the church. I do not support a McCarthyist witch hunt system. I've seen that, too. do want to truth to come out, because after all, that's what we're about, isn't it.
Sugar and Philosophy
Recently our family's diet has changed. We researched food and how it was made. We have discovered how bad sugar is. Not that thought it was good, but we realize just how bad it is. We made the decisions as a family to stop eating foods with sugar. This has been a difficult transition for me. Far more for me than for my wife. I am not really a sweet tooth, but do like candy chips and cupcakes on occasion. The hardest was giving up soda. According to one of the health experts online, a love of sugar is often your parasite's need to have sugar. I'm not sure I fully buy this. I began to think if my love of sweet things is just a chemical reaction, is it really limited to food.
Everyone has hobbies. They have interests, things they enjoy. But do they really enjoy those things, or is it just a chemical reaction? C.S. Lewis had a club or intellectuals that included J.R.R Tolkien and others. Their cub believed that a person was not defined by their interests. Our interests are so much a part of how we live. They are the things that we enjoy doing. Are they us? If we are a product of the things we are used, things that chemicals respond to who are we really? The atomist believed that events were determined by particles that make up the galaxy. Some believe these atoms were fixed, while others believed they swerved and that swerving caused free will. Could it be that people are different only because they are wired differently.
Do chemical reactions determine how we do things or do we influence the chemical reactions by our choices. Are we slaves to these choices or are the choices our slaves. Who controls who? This reminds me of the nineties song, "Walking in Memphis." The last line of the chorus says, "Do I really feel the way I do?" You could ask, do I feel at all? Is it just chemicals. I believe we are created by God with an intellect. Though we have these chemical reactions, we have choices. I believe we determine what we do. I also believe that God is in control of everything. Anything we do is ultimately controlled by God. God puts limits on our actions. Anything we do is allowed by God, even though he knows another way many be better. Yes, I do really feel the way I do.
Everyone has hobbies. They have interests, things they enjoy. But do they really enjoy those things, or is it just a chemical reaction? C.S. Lewis had a club or intellectuals that included J.R.R Tolkien and others. Their cub believed that a person was not defined by their interests. Our interests are so much a part of how we live. They are the things that we enjoy doing. Are they us? If we are a product of the things we are used, things that chemicals respond to who are we really? The atomist believed that events were determined by particles that make up the galaxy. Some believe these atoms were fixed, while others believed they swerved and that swerving caused free will. Could it be that people are different only because they are wired differently.
Do chemical reactions determine how we do things or do we influence the chemical reactions by our choices. Are we slaves to these choices or are the choices our slaves. Who controls who? This reminds me of the nineties song, "Walking in Memphis." The last line of the chorus says, "Do I really feel the way I do?" You could ask, do I feel at all? Is it just chemicals. I believe we are created by God with an intellect. Though we have these chemical reactions, we have choices. I believe we determine what we do. I also believe that God is in control of everything. Anything we do is ultimately controlled by God. God puts limits on our actions. Anything we do is allowed by God, even though he knows another way many be better. Yes, I do really feel the way I do.
Rating The Bible Versions
I want to briefly look at several Bible versions that are out there. We will analyze their accuracy and motivations for their creation. This will not be an excessive list, but will look at some of the more popular versions.
King James Versions
There had been English versions before the KJV but they were not readily accessible. The Geneva Bible, for example, was bolted to a church, and could not be removed. King James objected to the fact that people would write notes on the margins, These notes were usually critical of his administration. King James commissioned a group of scholars to put together a new translation. These men had very diverse backgrounds. Some of them were men of questionable morals. But there were also learned men who loved the Bible. While King James had a questionable character himself, he had almost noting to do with the translation. The King James Bible we have is not the 1611, but the third rewrite. The king James Bible is the standard Bible for many years. It is very poetic and easy to memorize. Some object to the archaic words it uses. It used the majority text and did not have access to some of the later finds, like the Dead Sea scrolls or the NA27. For that reason, many believe it is inferior. KJV proponents would say that the newer texts are inferior. The KJV believe that the majority text is better than the oldest. Those who believe in the KJB believe that God has preserved his word. Some of the proponents of the newer translations believe that man must judge the worth of a text. They sometimes listen to non Christian scholars or non orthodox scholars who may dismiss miracles, for instance. I believe KJV is the best English text.
New King James
The New King James uses the same text information as the King James. It take out most of the thees and thous. It does not quite have the same poetic nature of the KJV. It can be bland at times. It has never really taken off. The Evangelicals view it as being boring, kind of like New Coke. The KJV only believe that it is unnecessary. The believe you can't improve on perfection. Several of the translator were known for being anti-Semitic. Some of their words were quoted by Nazis to justify their persecution of the Jews.
New International Version
The most popular version of the evangelical world, the NIV does not translate word for word, but uses dynamic equivalence. SOme versions are totally different from the NASB and KJV. The NIV i printed exclusively by Zondervan. The word of God should not be controlled by one business. The fact that it is called the New International Version implies globalism. This could very well be the global bible used by the false prophet of the apostate system of the tribulation. The Today's NIV has just been scrapped. That version used inclusive language. A new edition of the NIV is forth coming.
The New American Standard Version
The NASB came out a few years before the NIV. It ever really took off. It is too liberal for the conservatives and too conservative for the liberals. It is referred by conservative evangelicals but is seen as sub-par. Many have abandoned it for the English Standard Version. An Update, called the NASB Update, came out in the late 1990's. It was very close to being dynamic equivalent but still considered word for word.
Revised Standard Version
The RSV is the standard version used in liturgical and liberal churches. It is known for it's inclusive language. The textual information it uses is very good. I do not recommend it for new believers but more seasoned believers can read between the lines and find it valuable. A New Revised Standard Version has been translated. Some things have been improved in this version and others have turned for the worst.
English Standard Version
The translators, many of whom were from the reformed tradition, wanted to improve the NASB and establish a conservative text friendly to the reformed viewpoint. The ESV is a conservative rewrite of the RSV. It has become very popular with more conservative evangelicals. It is recommended by Mark Driskoll, John Piper, J. I Packer and Joni Erickson Tada.
The New Living
The Living Bible was written by a conservative and was not meant to be a version but a paraphrase. There were several objectionable sections. Because the standards fro translations was dumbed down, it was able to be classified as a version. The New Living translation has been made into a full fledged version. It is marketed to a more conservative audience.
Contemporary English Version
This is a paraphrase. It is very dumbed down. In 1 Timothy, it does not separate bishop and deacons. It refers as bishops as church officers and deacons as church officials. It is very over simplified. I would not recommend it be used for devotions.
The Message
The Message was written by Eugene Petersen. The Message does have beautiful language. Petersen puts his own thoughts into the work. If you compare it to other versions, you may pause and say, "Wait a minute." It was not meant to be a full fledged version but many use it as such.
I would recommend the KJV, NASB or ESV. I still prefer the King James, but the ESV is very good. I have preached from the NIV and somewhat recommend it. I would view the Message as a paraphrase and not an actual Bible. For more information, read How To Choose A Bible Version by Robert L. Thomas.
King James Versions
There had been English versions before the KJV but they were not readily accessible. The Geneva Bible, for example, was bolted to a church, and could not be removed. King James objected to the fact that people would write notes on the margins, These notes were usually critical of his administration. King James commissioned a group of scholars to put together a new translation. These men had very diverse backgrounds. Some of them were men of questionable morals. But there were also learned men who loved the Bible. While King James had a questionable character himself, he had almost noting to do with the translation. The King James Bible we have is not the 1611, but the third rewrite. The king James Bible is the standard Bible for many years. It is very poetic and easy to memorize. Some object to the archaic words it uses. It used the majority text and did not have access to some of the later finds, like the Dead Sea scrolls or the NA27. For that reason, many believe it is inferior. KJV proponents would say that the newer texts are inferior. The KJV believe that the majority text is better than the oldest. Those who believe in the KJB believe that God has preserved his word. Some of the proponents of the newer translations believe that man must judge the worth of a text. They sometimes listen to non Christian scholars or non orthodox scholars who may dismiss miracles, for instance. I believe KJV is the best English text.
New King James
The New King James uses the same text information as the King James. It take out most of the thees and thous. It does not quite have the same poetic nature of the KJV. It can be bland at times. It has never really taken off. The Evangelicals view it as being boring, kind of like New Coke. The KJV only believe that it is unnecessary. The believe you can't improve on perfection. Several of the translator were known for being anti-Semitic. Some of their words were quoted by Nazis to justify their persecution of the Jews.
New International Version
The most popular version of the evangelical world, the NIV does not translate word for word, but uses dynamic equivalence. SOme versions are totally different from the NASB and KJV. The NIV i printed exclusively by Zondervan. The word of God should not be controlled by one business. The fact that it is called the New International Version implies globalism. This could very well be the global bible used by the false prophet of the apostate system of the tribulation. The Today's NIV has just been scrapped. That version used inclusive language. A new edition of the NIV is forth coming.
The New American Standard Version
The NASB came out a few years before the NIV. It ever really took off. It is too liberal for the conservatives and too conservative for the liberals. It is referred by conservative evangelicals but is seen as sub-par. Many have abandoned it for the English Standard Version. An Update, called the NASB Update, came out in the late 1990's. It was very close to being dynamic equivalent but still considered word for word.
Revised Standard Version
The RSV is the standard version used in liturgical and liberal churches. It is known for it's inclusive language. The textual information it uses is very good. I do not recommend it for new believers but more seasoned believers can read between the lines and find it valuable. A New Revised Standard Version has been translated. Some things have been improved in this version and others have turned for the worst.
English Standard Version
The translators, many of whom were from the reformed tradition, wanted to improve the NASB and establish a conservative text friendly to the reformed viewpoint. The ESV is a conservative rewrite of the RSV. It has become very popular with more conservative evangelicals. It is recommended by Mark Driskoll, John Piper, J. I Packer and Joni Erickson Tada.
The New Living
The Living Bible was written by a conservative and was not meant to be a version but a paraphrase. There were several objectionable sections. Because the standards fro translations was dumbed down, it was able to be classified as a version. The New Living translation has been made into a full fledged version. It is marketed to a more conservative audience.
Contemporary English Version
This is a paraphrase. It is very dumbed down. In 1 Timothy, it does not separate bishop and deacons. It refers as bishops as church officers and deacons as church officials. It is very over simplified. I would not recommend it be used for devotions.
The Message
The Message was written by Eugene Petersen. The Message does have beautiful language. Petersen puts his own thoughts into the work. If you compare it to other versions, you may pause and say, "Wait a minute." It was not meant to be a full fledged version but many use it as such.
I would recommend the KJV, NASB or ESV. I still prefer the King James, but the ESV is very good. I have preached from the NIV and somewhat recommend it. I would view the Message as a paraphrase and not an actual Bible. For more information, read How To Choose A Bible Version by Robert L. Thomas.
What Standards of Music Should Christians Use
Music is a very touchy subject for Christians. Should Christians only listen to Christian music? If you say yes, then you're faced with another question. Should that music only be hymns, or can Christians listen to Christian rock? If you believe that you can listen to some secular music, what should be the standards for music? If we believe that there are standards for music, what should those standards be? As Christians our source of authority must always be the Bible. I suggest Philippians 4:8 for a start. Many have called it the litmus test for Christians.
Whatsoever things are true.
The Bible teaches that whatsoever a many thinks in his hear, so is he. The world is constantly trying to reshape our thoughts. They want us to think like they do. We must not be conformed to the world but transformed, Romans 12:1/ When we listen to music, we need to ask this question. Is our mind being manipulated to thinking contrary to the word of God? Is this song dragging our mind into the lives of the world. For example, is our mind being retaught that it is okay to be rebellious? If the answer is yes, then we should not listen to this song.
Whatsoever things are honest (noble)
Dr. MacArthur points out that noble means worthy or respect in the Greek. Christians should listen to music that is worthy of our listenorship. You want to listen to things that you would not be embarrassed if your mother or a church lady walked in. We want to listen to things we would not be ashamed if others knew we were listening to it.
Whatsoever things are just
Dr MacArthur points out that this is thinking that is in line with God's holiness. Songs that go against God's standard of holiness should be discarded. Even if a song does not advocate criminal activity, if it violates God's standards it should not be listened to.
Whatsoever things are pure
Our society is pushing the envelope as much as it can. Music that has sexually explicit lyrics should be avoided. Attention must also be paid to the artists' lives themselves. Is their life a blatant attack on God's word. If an artist is know for their impurities, even if their lyrics are not bad, one should think long and hard before listening to them.
Whatsoever things are lovely
Dr MacArthur says that we should dwell on things that draw us to kindness and righteousness. Music should not inspire us to bad behaviour.
What soever things are of good report
Doe the song have a bad reputation? Does the song inspire hatred? Some music are so against what is good that even the world recognizes it as bad. They may condone the song, but they still know that it is nasty. The world may celebrate a song because it is so bad. Christians should not listen to these songs.
If there be any virtue
Is there is a good reason to listen to this song according to God's word? Will it benefit my spiritual life or will it hamper my spiritual life?
If there be any praise
Can this song be praised by God's people? Can it be praised by worthy people? Now many Christians say, stick to Christian music. I disagree with that statement. Just because it has a Christian music does not guarantee that it's godly. I believe this is lazy. Instead of limiting ourselves to just Christian music, I want to Christians to think critically of all music.
"Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things."
Whatsoever things are true.
The Bible teaches that whatsoever a many thinks in his hear, so is he. The world is constantly trying to reshape our thoughts. They want us to think like they do. We must not be conformed to the world but transformed, Romans 12:1/ When we listen to music, we need to ask this question. Is our mind being manipulated to thinking contrary to the word of God? Is this song dragging our mind into the lives of the world. For example, is our mind being retaught that it is okay to be rebellious? If the answer is yes, then we should not listen to this song.
Whatsoever things are honest (noble)
Dr. MacArthur points out that noble means worthy or respect in the Greek. Christians should listen to music that is worthy of our listenorship. You want to listen to things that you would not be embarrassed if your mother or a church lady walked in. We want to listen to things we would not be ashamed if others knew we were listening to it.
Whatsoever things are just
Dr MacArthur points out that this is thinking that is in line with God's holiness. Songs that go against God's standard of holiness should be discarded. Even if a song does not advocate criminal activity, if it violates God's standards it should not be listened to.
Whatsoever things are pure
Our society is pushing the envelope as much as it can. Music that has sexually explicit lyrics should be avoided. Attention must also be paid to the artists' lives themselves. Is their life a blatant attack on God's word. If an artist is know for their impurities, even if their lyrics are not bad, one should think long and hard before listening to them.
Whatsoever things are lovely
Dr MacArthur says that we should dwell on things that draw us to kindness and righteousness. Music should not inspire us to bad behaviour.
What soever things are of good report
Doe the song have a bad reputation? Does the song inspire hatred? Some music are so against what is good that even the world recognizes it as bad. They may condone the song, but they still know that it is nasty. The world may celebrate a song because it is so bad. Christians should not listen to these songs.
If there be any virtue
Is there is a good reason to listen to this song according to God's word? Will it benefit my spiritual life or will it hamper my spiritual life?
If there be any praise
Can this song be praised by God's people? Can it be praised by worthy people? Now many Christians say, stick to Christian music. I disagree with that statement. Just because it has a Christian music does not guarantee that it's godly. I believe this is lazy. Instead of limiting ourselves to just Christian music, I want to Christians to think critically of all music.
Were the Good Old Days Really That Good
Mankind is obsessed with the good old days. The Beatles sung the song "Yesterday" about how they longed for yesterday. Bob Seiger sang these famous lyrics, "Still like that old time rock'n'roll, that kind of music just soothes the soul, reminiscing about the days of old, still like that old time rock'n'roll." This has even come into the church. The people's Gospel Hour theme song says, "Oh how well I remember in the old fashioned days when some old fashioned people had some old fashioned ways, in those old fashioned meetings how we tarried there, in the old fashioned manner how God answered their prayer." There is an attitude of "If we could only go back." We long for the days in the state of Maine when there was no shopping on Sunday. We commiserate how Psalm 23 is not longer read in schools. We hate that they've banned prayer in schools. We act as if it was so much better in the past. Was the good old days really that good?
Many say that they were. There was no shopping, but did people attend church instead of shopping. Lets say more did attend church. What kind of churches did they attend? Were they bible based or liberal churches? If the gospel was taught, was it believed? Did they attend out of love for Christ, or was it a town duty? When Psalm 23 was read in the school, was it read by a believer? Was it read liturgically or passionately. Were the hearers paying attention. Did it affect them? What were the classes like? Did the classes they attended go against the Bible reading. What was the prayer in school like? Was the person praying saved? Ever since the scopes monkey trial, evolution has been taught. From the 1920s on, what would have been prayed and read in the Bible reading would have been contradicted in the classes. Even if things were good in the past, things don't happen in a vacuum. Much of the reaction of the hippies was the result of insincere behaviours of the previous generation. Many long for the 1800s were it was seen as a more Christian culture. The fact is that the 1800s was marked by an external Christianity. They wanted people to not swear, drink, and smoke pipes. It was not a heart change. They wanted people to be primed and proper. It was interconnected with politics.
If you've read my blog postings before, you will notice that I am skeptical of America's "Christian heritage." I believe we are a church going nation, not a Christian nation. From the very beginning, faith and politics was intermingled. The founding fathers use Christianeze to get support from the common people who are church goers. We have come to see history as we want to see it. We have bought the propaganda that Americans was Christian. We believe God used to be honored. They believe now we have rejected God. We rejected him a long time ago. We pretend that we were right with God. I know there were precious saints in America's past, but they were not as pious as we thought.
We need to stop wanting what never was. Even if life was better in those good old days, it is not good to look back. We need to press on. Philippians 3:13b-14 says "Forgetting what lies behind, I press on towards the goal to the upward call of God in Christ Jesus." We need to stop wishing for the past and work toward being closer to the Lord now.
Many say that they were. There was no shopping, but did people attend church instead of shopping. Lets say more did attend church. What kind of churches did they attend? Were they bible based or liberal churches? If the gospel was taught, was it believed? Did they attend out of love for Christ, or was it a town duty? When Psalm 23 was read in the school, was it read by a believer? Was it read liturgically or passionately. Were the hearers paying attention. Did it affect them? What were the classes like? Did the classes they attended go against the Bible reading. What was the prayer in school like? Was the person praying saved? Ever since the scopes monkey trial, evolution has been taught. From the 1920s on, what would have been prayed and read in the Bible reading would have been contradicted in the classes. Even if things were good in the past, things don't happen in a vacuum. Much of the reaction of the hippies was the result of insincere behaviours of the previous generation. Many long for the 1800s were it was seen as a more Christian culture. The fact is that the 1800s was marked by an external Christianity. They wanted people to not swear, drink, and smoke pipes. It was not a heart change. They wanted people to be primed and proper. It was interconnected with politics.
If you've read my blog postings before, you will notice that I am skeptical of America's "Christian heritage." I believe we are a church going nation, not a Christian nation. From the very beginning, faith and politics was intermingled. The founding fathers use Christianeze to get support from the common people who are church goers. We have come to see history as we want to see it. We have bought the propaganda that Americans was Christian. We believe God used to be honored. They believe now we have rejected God. We rejected him a long time ago. We pretend that we were right with God. I know there were precious saints in America's past, but they were not as pious as we thought.
We need to stop wanting what never was. Even if life was better in those good old days, it is not good to look back. We need to press on. Philippians 3:13b-14 says "Forgetting what lies behind, I press on towards the goal to the upward call of God in Christ Jesus." We need to stop wishing for the past and work toward being closer to the Lord now.
Hilary Clinton: All Dressed Up With Nothing To Do
In the political comedy "Dave," the president suffers a stroke and is in a vegetative state. Those who the president put into positions of power fear losing that power if the vice president took over. They find a look-a-like to pretend to be him. They make sure that the vice president is sent on good will tours of Africa. The vice president is sent away to get him out of the way. This brings us to Hilary Clinton.
Hilary Clinton appeared to be the heir apparent. She seemed to be the democratic nominee in waiting in 2008. Out of nowhere Barack Obama, capitalizing on those who wanted change from the Clinton years as well as the Bush years. Even though she lost the nomination, she still got a lot of votes. It was one of the closest primaries ever. Many thought that he would have to make her his VP. When he bypassed Hilary for VP, many thought he would have to put her in the cabinet.
When Obama won, many thought she'd be Secretary of State. Many thought that Obama would follow the old adage, "Keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer." If she were a US senator, she'd be free to speak her mind and could be a nuisance to the president. As Secretary of State, she would not be free to voice opposition. And if she did, she would be replaced. Why would she take this post? She never wanted to be a US Senator. It was to get more visibility. It would appear she was burying the hatchet with Obama.
Remembering the movie Dave, I predicted that Hilary would be going on a lot of goodwill tours in Africa. I predicted that we would never see her. I could not have predicted how right I was. Hilary has been on several tours all around the world. Special envoys who are usually appointed by the Secretary of State have instead been appointed by the president. Most foreign policy decisions have come from the president. If she did not go on all these visits, she would probably have nothing to do.
There is a danger of this back-firing. In the movie, the look-a-like turned on the power brokers and he reigned in the corruption. Could Hilary challenge Obama for the nomination? Think it can't happen? In Indonesia, the foreign minister ran a against the incumbent and won. Obama's quest for control could be his undoing. I'm not saying she will run. This is a big risk. But her ratings are up. She is more popular than President Obama. She still has a strong support base with democrats and independents. President Obama should think twice about sidelining her too much.
Hilary Clinton appeared to be the heir apparent. She seemed to be the democratic nominee in waiting in 2008. Out of nowhere Barack Obama, capitalizing on those who wanted change from the Clinton years as well as the Bush years. Even though she lost the nomination, she still got a lot of votes. It was one of the closest primaries ever. Many thought that he would have to make her his VP. When he bypassed Hilary for VP, many thought he would have to put her in the cabinet.
When Obama won, many thought she'd be Secretary of State. Many thought that Obama would follow the old adage, "Keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer." If she were a US senator, she'd be free to speak her mind and could be a nuisance to the president. As Secretary of State, she would not be free to voice opposition. And if she did, she would be replaced. Why would she take this post? She never wanted to be a US Senator. It was to get more visibility. It would appear she was burying the hatchet with Obama.
Remembering the movie Dave, I predicted that Hilary would be going on a lot of goodwill tours in Africa. I predicted that we would never see her. I could not have predicted how right I was. Hilary has been on several tours all around the world. Special envoys who are usually appointed by the Secretary of State have instead been appointed by the president. Most foreign policy decisions have come from the president. If she did not go on all these visits, she would probably have nothing to do.
There is a danger of this back-firing. In the movie, the look-a-like turned on the power brokers and he reigned in the corruption. Could Hilary challenge Obama for the nomination? Think it can't happen? In Indonesia, the foreign minister ran a against the incumbent and won. Obama's quest for control could be his undoing. I'm not saying she will run. This is a big risk. But her ratings are up. She is more popular than President Obama. She still has a strong support base with democrats and independents. President Obama should think twice about sidelining her too much.
Rating the Talk Show Host
Rush Limbaugh
The man who started it all. Rush never went to college and failed many things before making it big in talk radio. He became the voice of opposition in the Clinton administration. When George W. Bush took over, he found it difficult to be independent and still be liked by the administration and Republicans. He started off criticizing Bush when he disagreed with him but found it threatened his ratings so he stopped. He believes in a free market. He is pro life, but opposes single issue voters. He believes in the war on terror and is a supporter of the government industrial complex.
Savage Name
Hush Bimbo, or the Golfer
My Rating
He started off amazing, but he allowed the Bush machine to crush him and he became a mouth piece. He did start the talk radio trend, however.
Sean Hannity
He started off as a fill-in for Rush. He became a co-anchor of Hannity and Colmes and got his own syndicated talk show in 2002. He is very supportive of the free market and opposes all regulations on businesses. He opposes any changes to lifestyle to protect the environment. He was way too close to president Bush. He reflected many of Bushes talking points during his administration.
Savage Name
Wall Banger, Pawn Vannity
My Rating
Many times, he is not original, but regurgitates topics from Rush's show.
Michale Savage
He is an independent conservative. He has done it all. On his show, he talks about everything from politics to health, nutrition, science, religion, even spaghetti. He has equally criticized Clinton Bush, and Obama. He believes in God but also believes in evolution. He does value the Bible and reads it on air.
My Rating
He is my favorite of all the talk show hosts.
Laura Ingraham
Former clerk for Clarence Thomas, she was a host on MSNBC. In addition to her radio talk show, she is also a Fox News contributor. Like Hannity, she is very close to the Republican establishment. She has criticized Bush, especially on immigration.
My Rating
Pretty average.
Glenn Beck
Host of a radio show and just started a show on Fox News. He is a Mormon, but does not talk about it much. He was a republican, but has left the party. He was disgusted by the massive spending during the Bush administration. He has been known to cry on the air.He is trying to start an independent movement.
Savage Name
Hemorrhoid with Ears
My Rating
At times, he seems almost plastic. Savage accuses him of trying to be him. I do enjoy him however.
Rusty Humphries
Began as a Savage fill-in, he was once an independent conservative, but has become very close to the Republican party. His views have become very close to Hannity.
My Rating
I liked him much better when he was independent. Now he is way too close to the Republican establishment for my comfort.
Mike Gallagher
Gallagher is in the top ten of talk show hosts. He is kind of a run-of-the-mill talk show host. He is a republican and supports the republican party.
My Rating
Not great, not bad.
Niel Bortz
He is a member of the libertarian party. He will not discuss abortion. Once in a while he will, but when he does, he makes it clear that he supports abortion. He believes men who oppose abortion do so because they can't stand the thought of a woman controlling her own reproduction. He has made several disparaging comments about women over the air. He supports the fair tax as an alternative to the income tax.
My Rating
I usually support him, but don't like his libertarian views.
Mark Levin
The talk show host with a thick New York accent, which may or may not be real. He recently wrote the book Freedom and Tyranny, which Rush has called a modern day conservative manifesto. He is good friends with Sean Hannity. He often engages in bathroom humor. His styles and views are almost identical to Hannity.
My Rating
If you listen to Hannity, you don't really need to listen to Levin.
The man who started it all. Rush never went to college and failed many things before making it big in talk radio. He became the voice of opposition in the Clinton administration. When George W. Bush took over, he found it difficult to be independent and still be liked by the administration and Republicans. He started off criticizing Bush when he disagreed with him but found it threatened his ratings so he stopped. He believes in a free market. He is pro life, but opposes single issue voters. He believes in the war on terror and is a supporter of the government industrial complex.
Savage Name
Hush Bimbo, or the Golfer
My Rating
He started off amazing, but he allowed the Bush machine to crush him and he became a mouth piece. He did start the talk radio trend, however.
Sean Hannity
He started off as a fill-in for Rush. He became a co-anchor of Hannity and Colmes and got his own syndicated talk show in 2002. He is very supportive of the free market and opposes all regulations on businesses. He opposes any changes to lifestyle to protect the environment. He was way too close to president Bush. He reflected many of Bushes talking points during his administration.
Savage Name
Wall Banger, Pawn Vannity
My Rating
Many times, he is not original, but regurgitates topics from Rush's show.
Michale Savage
He is an independent conservative. He has done it all. On his show, he talks about everything from politics to health, nutrition, science, religion, even spaghetti. He has equally criticized Clinton Bush, and Obama. He believes in God but also believes in evolution. He does value the Bible and reads it on air.
My Rating
He is my favorite of all the talk show hosts.
Laura Ingraham
Former clerk for Clarence Thomas, she was a host on MSNBC. In addition to her radio talk show, she is also a Fox News contributor. Like Hannity, she is very close to the Republican establishment. She has criticized Bush, especially on immigration.
My Rating
Pretty average.
Glenn Beck
Host of a radio show and just started a show on Fox News. He is a Mormon, but does not talk about it much. He was a republican, but has left the party. He was disgusted by the massive spending during the Bush administration. He has been known to cry on the air.He is trying to start an independent movement.
Savage Name
Hemorrhoid with Ears
My Rating
At times, he seems almost plastic. Savage accuses him of trying to be him. I do enjoy him however.
Rusty Humphries
Began as a Savage fill-in, he was once an independent conservative, but has become very close to the Republican party. His views have become very close to Hannity.
My Rating
I liked him much better when he was independent. Now he is way too close to the Republican establishment for my comfort.
Mike Gallagher
Gallagher is in the top ten of talk show hosts. He is kind of a run-of-the-mill talk show host. He is a republican and supports the republican party.
My Rating
Not great, not bad.
Niel Bortz
He is a member of the libertarian party. He will not discuss abortion. Once in a while he will, but when he does, he makes it clear that he supports abortion. He believes men who oppose abortion do so because they can't stand the thought of a woman controlling her own reproduction. He has made several disparaging comments about women over the air. He supports the fair tax as an alternative to the income tax.
My Rating
I usually support him, but don't like his libertarian views.
Mark Levin
The talk show host with a thick New York accent, which may or may not be real. He recently wrote the book Freedom and Tyranny, which Rush has called a modern day conservative manifesto. He is good friends with Sean Hannity. He often engages in bathroom humor. His styles and views are almost identical to Hannity.
My Rating
If you listen to Hannity, you don't really need to listen to Levin.
Types of Political Parties and Philosophies
Republican Party
The republican party is a center right part. It is an alliance of conservatives (faith, family and constitution), evangelicals (faith voters), fiscal (social moderate), libertarians, neo-conservatives (pro business, pro American imperialism), and moderate to liberal.
A Brief History
They began as an anti-slavery party. From 1861 to 1912, they were the dominant party. They were a pro business party in the 1920s. They were an anti-war party in the 1940's. In the 1960's, they became a conservative party. In the 1980's they became an evangelical conservative party. In the 2000's their big issue was national defense.
Views
Mostly pro gun, pro life, pro family, pro strong defense, pro unfettered freedom for businesses, extreme capitalism, believe in US influence over the world, low taxes.
Democratic Party
Center left (heading towards extreme left), it is an alliance of liberal (government out of the bedroom), progressive (government is the answer to all of life's woes), blue dogs (fiscal conservatives), new democrats (center) and libertarians.
Brief history
This party dates back to Jefferson. The party was started to oppose the federal system. Jackson transformed it into the common man's party. Before the civil war, it was a southern pro slavery party. They were pacifists during the civil war. They were a progressive reform party from the 1800's until Wilson. It was a socialist party under FDR. During the Vietnam war, it morphed into an anti war party. Clinton modernized it as more centrist. Obama appears to be bringing it back to FDR.
Libertarian Party
The libertarian party believes less government is best government. They believe government stifles success. They have a live and let live philosophy. They believe in the Monroe doctrine of not being involved in European affairs. Wars should be authorized by declaration of war, not by use of force declarations by congress. They support legalization of drugs. There is no clear consensus on abortion.
Constitution Party
The third largest party by population, it is a Christian reconstructionist party (they want the ten commandments to rule the land). They believe freedom comes from God. Their views on war are similar to the libertarians.
The Green Party
They are the extreme left wing. They believe that government regulations are the only way to save the planet from global warming. They believe government must regulate consumer products to make sure they're safe. They believe in regulation of work environments as well. They oppose the World Trade Organization and NAFTA.
Philosophy
Conservative
Conservatives believe in following the constitution as the law of the land. They believe in traditional values. They do not believe that separation of church and state means that people of faith cannot participate in the political process. They believe in a strong national defense. They believe that the right to carry weapons guarantees freedom. They believe high taxes stifle prosperity.
Liberal
They believe government should be kept out of the bedroom. They believe anything goes. Morality cannot be legislated, so gays should not be discriminated against.
Progressives
They believe that government is the answer to every problem. They believe governments must right every wrong. Many progressives are anti-war.
Libertarian
They believe that people can do whatever they want unless it hurts someone else. They believe laws should only be passed to keep pother people form being hurt. They believe drugs, homosexuality and prostitution does not hurt others, so they should be decriminalized.
Social Conservative
They believe in faith, family and the constitution. Unlike evangelicals, they tend to be Catholic. Usually, they are united with the evangelicals, but they disagreed over Mike Huckabee.
The republican party is a center right part. It is an alliance of conservatives (faith, family and constitution), evangelicals (faith voters), fiscal (social moderate), libertarians, neo-conservatives (pro business, pro American imperialism), and moderate to liberal.
A Brief History
They began as an anti-slavery party. From 1861 to 1912, they were the dominant party. They were a pro business party in the 1920s. They were an anti-war party in the 1940's. In the 1960's, they became a conservative party. In the 1980's they became an evangelical conservative party. In the 2000's their big issue was national defense.
Views
Mostly pro gun, pro life, pro family, pro strong defense, pro unfettered freedom for businesses, extreme capitalism, believe in US influence over the world, low taxes.
Democratic Party
Center left (heading towards extreme left), it is an alliance of liberal (government out of the bedroom), progressive (government is the answer to all of life's woes), blue dogs (fiscal conservatives), new democrats (center) and libertarians.
Brief history
This party dates back to Jefferson. The party was started to oppose the federal system. Jackson transformed it into the common man's party. Before the civil war, it was a southern pro slavery party. They were pacifists during the civil war. They were a progressive reform party from the 1800's until Wilson. It was a socialist party under FDR. During the Vietnam war, it morphed into an anti war party. Clinton modernized it as more centrist. Obama appears to be bringing it back to FDR.
Libertarian Party
The libertarian party believes less government is best government. They believe government stifles success. They have a live and let live philosophy. They believe in the Monroe doctrine of not being involved in European affairs. Wars should be authorized by declaration of war, not by use of force declarations by congress. They support legalization of drugs. There is no clear consensus on abortion.
Constitution Party
The third largest party by population, it is a Christian reconstructionist party (they want the ten commandments to rule the land). They believe freedom comes from God. Their views on war are similar to the libertarians.
The Green Party
They are the extreme left wing. They believe that government regulations are the only way to save the planet from global warming. They believe government must regulate consumer products to make sure they're safe. They believe in regulation of work environments as well. They oppose the World Trade Organization and NAFTA.
Philosophy
Conservative
Conservatives believe in following the constitution as the law of the land. They believe in traditional values. They do not believe that separation of church and state means that people of faith cannot participate in the political process. They believe in a strong national defense. They believe that the right to carry weapons guarantees freedom. They believe high taxes stifle prosperity.
Liberal
They believe government should be kept out of the bedroom. They believe anything goes. Morality cannot be legislated, so gays should not be discriminated against.
Progressives
They believe that government is the answer to every problem. They believe governments must right every wrong. Many progressives are anti-war.
Libertarian
They believe that people can do whatever they want unless it hurts someone else. They believe laws should only be passed to keep pother people form being hurt. They believe drugs, homosexuality and prostitution does not hurt others, so they should be decriminalized.
Social Conservative
They believe in faith, family and the constitution. Unlike evangelicals, they tend to be Catholic. Usually, they are united with the evangelicals, but they disagreed over Mike Huckabee.
Lightning Round with Dan: My Views on Random Subjects
Sarah Pain
I was excited when John McCain asked her to be his running mate. I really liked her views. I became skeptical of her when she supported Miss California. It made me skeptical, but I did not stop supporting her. When she went after David Letterman, that took the cake. I felt like she made a mountain out of a mole hi. Her resignation as governor was the last straw. I will not support Sarah Palin if she seeks the Republican nomination.
Michael Steele
I think he's a very promising up and comer int he Republican party. I would love to see him run from president some day. I do not think he should have capitulated when Rush challenged him.
Out of State Support for Issues
I believe in states rights. I believe Mainers alone should decide whether or not to have gay marriage. I believe both the pro and anti marriage proponents are out of line and should stay out of it.
John MacArthur
Awesome preacher. I agree with him on many issues, including lordship salvation and election. I don't like his confrontation of people he sees as false prophets. I don't like some of the company he keeps.
Gun Rights
The second amendment is an individual right. Although it mentions a well-regulated militia, the constitution says it is the right of the people to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed.
KJV
I'm a big supporter of the King James version. They believed in the supremacy of God's word. I am not King James only.
Captain Sullenburger
The whole story was overblown. It was a media driven story. I don't consider him a hero.
Star Trek vs. Star Wars
Star Trek is better. It has had much more influence on our culture and technology. It's story lines are better and it has a better fan base.
Environment
I do not support cap and trade. I don't believe in unfettered freedom of businesses. I do not support drilling in the United States. I believe we should pursue alternative technologies.
You Found Me" - The Fray
It is a very raw, in your face kind of song. Some may consider it offensive. I believe many who have experienced loss do feel this way. While many Christians may prefer "I Still Believe" by Jeremy Camp, or "It Is Well With My Soul", I believe that this sincerely shows how some people face loss.
The Star Trek '09 Movie
I loved it. It made me want more. I can't wait for the sequel. I would love to see a series set in the alternate reality.
Classic Rock
At my last job, classic rock played over the music system. The same CD every day. I hated it. But now I'm come to like Kansas, Journey, Queen, Aerosmith and Meatloaf.
Toby Mac
At first I was so sad that DC Talk had gone on an intermission that I did not want to like Toby Mac's solo work. Every time I hear on of his songs, I love almost every one. I do still want DC Talk to be reunited.
Linkin Park
Although they are left wing, and use foul language at times, their musinc is very thought provoking.
Eton John
Yes, he's gay, but he's got realy good music.
Who I want for president
I really would like to see Senator John Thune of South Dakota and Jim Demint of South Carolina, or vise versa.
I was excited when John McCain asked her to be his running mate. I really liked her views. I became skeptical of her when she supported Miss California. It made me skeptical, but I did not stop supporting her. When she went after David Letterman, that took the cake. I felt like she made a mountain out of a mole hi. Her resignation as governor was the last straw. I will not support Sarah Palin if she seeks the Republican nomination.
Michael Steele
I think he's a very promising up and comer int he Republican party. I would love to see him run from president some day. I do not think he should have capitulated when Rush challenged him.
Out of State Support for Issues
I believe in states rights. I believe Mainers alone should decide whether or not to have gay marriage. I believe both the pro and anti marriage proponents are out of line and should stay out of it.
John MacArthur
Awesome preacher. I agree with him on many issues, including lordship salvation and election. I don't like his confrontation of people he sees as false prophets. I don't like some of the company he keeps.
Gun Rights
The second amendment is an individual right. Although it mentions a well-regulated militia, the constitution says it is the right of the people to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed.
KJV
I'm a big supporter of the King James version. They believed in the supremacy of God's word. I am not King James only.
Captain Sullenburger
The whole story was overblown. It was a media driven story. I don't consider him a hero.
Star Trek vs. Star Wars
Star Trek is better. It has had much more influence on our culture and technology. It's story lines are better and it has a better fan base.
Environment
I do not support cap and trade. I don't believe in unfettered freedom of businesses. I do not support drilling in the United States. I believe we should pursue alternative technologies.
You Found Me" - The Fray
It is a very raw, in your face kind of song. Some may consider it offensive. I believe many who have experienced loss do feel this way. While many Christians may prefer "I Still Believe" by Jeremy Camp, or "It Is Well With My Soul", I believe that this sincerely shows how some people face loss.
The Star Trek '09 Movie
I loved it. It made me want more. I can't wait for the sequel. I would love to see a series set in the alternate reality.
Classic Rock
At my last job, classic rock played over the music system. The same CD every day. I hated it. But now I'm come to like Kansas, Journey, Queen, Aerosmith and Meatloaf.
Toby Mac
At first I was so sad that DC Talk had gone on an intermission that I did not want to like Toby Mac's solo work. Every time I hear on of his songs, I love almost every one. I do still want DC Talk to be reunited.
Linkin Park
Although they are left wing, and use foul language at times, their musinc is very thought provoking.
Eton John
Yes, he's gay, but he's got realy good music.
Who I want for president
I really would like to see Senator John Thune of South Dakota and Jim Demint of South Carolina, or vise versa.
Types of Churches
Fundamentalists
The extreme right wing. They believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible. The believe ion the orthodox teachings of the faith. They are very traditional. Many of them use the King James Version of the Bible. And many of them would consider themselves KJV only. They do not like Christian rock, ecumenical ism, and other Bible versions. There are several schools who hold this view including Bob Jones University, Pensacola Christian college, and Hyles Andersen. They are politically conservative but are not very politically active. They vote but do not participate in the political process like the evangelicals do. A majority of fundamentalists are independent Baptists.
Evangelical
They are cent right. They were descendants of fundamentalists. They believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible but are not as traditional. Most evangelicals allow contemporary music and other Bible versions. They sup[port associating with other Bible believing verses but not Catholics. They are politically active and helped elect Reagan and George W. Bush. Evangelicals include Baptists, Southern Baptists, Pentecostals and Nazarenes.
Neo Evangelicals
Neo Evangelicals were heavily influenced by Billy Graham. It is very similar to Evangelicals, except they do associate with Catholics and some consider them kindred. These churches include the same as evangelicals.
Liturgical Churches
These churches have a rigid structure. Most of the service is printed in the bulletin. The service follows the printed order perfectly. These churches have a hierarchical leadership structure. These churches are either dead or liberal. Some have right doctrine but have not fruit. Others hold liberal, political and theological views. These groups include Methodists, Lutheran, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Congregation UCC, American Baptist.
Liberal
Many of these churches are engaged in social gospel promoting social causes like feeding the poor. Many engage in left wing liberation theology and/or social justice. They question key doctrines like the supremacy of Christianity over other religions or the Bible as the only word of God. This includes, Methodist, Episcopalians, and Congregational UCC.
Word of Faith
The Word of Faith is a subsection of the Pentecostals. These people do associate with the evangelical and neo Evangelical. They believe in a prosperity gospel. They believe God wants his people to be prosperous. They believe that kingdom kids name it and claim it. This group includes non-denominational and subsections of Pentecostals.
Emergent Church
The newest group in CHristianity. Many profess to be evangelicals. They believe we need to modernize the faith. They say we need to make it relevant for today. Many want to get away from abortion and gay rights and focus on poverty and the environment. Many affirm the teaching of scriptures but do question the importance of absolute truth. There is also the emerging church that believes in the fundamentals of the faith but at the same time embraces casua dress and modern music. There are four lanes of the emerging church. There is a moderate wing, a reformed Cavinist wing, an evangelical and the emergent or liberal wing.
The extreme right wing. They believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible. The believe ion the orthodox teachings of the faith. They are very traditional. Many of them use the King James Version of the Bible. And many of them would consider themselves KJV only. They do not like Christian rock, ecumenical ism, and other Bible versions. There are several schools who hold this view including Bob Jones University, Pensacola Christian college, and Hyles Andersen. They are politically conservative but are not very politically active. They vote but do not participate in the political process like the evangelicals do. A majority of fundamentalists are independent Baptists.
Evangelical
They are cent right. They were descendants of fundamentalists. They believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible but are not as traditional. Most evangelicals allow contemporary music and other Bible versions. They sup[port associating with other Bible believing verses but not Catholics. They are politically active and helped elect Reagan and George W. Bush. Evangelicals include Baptists, Southern Baptists, Pentecostals and Nazarenes.
Neo Evangelicals
Neo Evangelicals were heavily influenced by Billy Graham. It is very similar to Evangelicals, except they do associate with Catholics and some consider them kindred. These churches include the same as evangelicals.
Liturgical Churches
These churches have a rigid structure. Most of the service is printed in the bulletin. The service follows the printed order perfectly. These churches have a hierarchical leadership structure. These churches are either dead or liberal. Some have right doctrine but have not fruit. Others hold liberal, political and theological views. These groups include Methodists, Lutheran, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Congregation UCC, American Baptist.
Liberal
Many of these churches are engaged in social gospel promoting social causes like feeding the poor. Many engage in left wing liberation theology and/or social justice. They question key doctrines like the supremacy of Christianity over other religions or the Bible as the only word of God. This includes, Methodist, Episcopalians, and Congregational UCC.
Word of Faith
The Word of Faith is a subsection of the Pentecostals. These people do associate with the evangelical and neo Evangelical. They believe in a prosperity gospel. They believe God wants his people to be prosperous. They believe that kingdom kids name it and claim it. This group includes non-denominational and subsections of Pentecostals.
Emergent Church
The newest group in CHristianity. Many profess to be evangelicals. They believe we need to modernize the faith. They say we need to make it relevant for today. Many want to get away from abortion and gay rights and focus on poverty and the environment. Many affirm the teaching of scriptures but do question the importance of absolute truth. There is also the emerging church that believes in the fundamentals of the faith but at the same time embraces casua dress and modern music. There are four lanes of the emerging church. There is a moderate wing, a reformed Cavinist wing, an evangelical and the emergent or liberal wing.
The Top Ten Misapplied Verses
#10 Hebrews 13:5b
"for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee."
It is not that it is misapplied, but the interpretation is incomplete. The passage is mainly dealing with coveting. The reason we don't have to covet is because we already have the greatest possession we could ever have: Christ's presence. The emphasis of this verse is lost by only focusing on the second section.
#9 Romans 8:1
"There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."
Many preachers teach that Christians don't have to fear failing because there is no condemnation. Because we have Christ's righteousness imputed on us, it does not matter that we aren't really righteous. I won't get into disagreements over texts. Even if you accept the NA27 rendering of this verse, it still does not teach a blanket no condemnation. Romans 8:4 says that the righteous requirements of the aw are filled by those who walk in the Spirit. Romans 6:1 commands Christians to reckon themselves dead to sin. While God does give grace to those who messes up, he does not just overlook it as some preachers teach.
#8 Romans 3:23
"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God"
While most teachers get the immediate context right, the miss the point. This verse was not meant to be an island unto itself. It is the glue that holds 3:22 and 3:24 together. Romans 3:22 says "Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference." Why is there no difference? Because a have sinned and come short of God's glory. But because of the finished work of God through Christ we are "Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus." When we just teach 3:23, we miss the context and a blessing.
#7 Proverbs 22:6
"Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it."
Many parents fail to raise their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. Instead of admitting their failure, they claim that this verse is genera truth, not absolute truth. It is not fair to impugn God's word just because of our own failure.
#6 Psalm 118:24
"This is the day which the LORD hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it."
We sing it. We pray it. We should be thankful every day we live, but that is not what this verse is taking about. If you look at the previous and following verses, you see it is about the Lord's return at the end of tribulation, and the beginning of the millennial kingdom. That day has been the day the Lord has been waiting for and all creation has been waiting for. The day Jesus our conquering king will finally set things right.
#5 Psalm 2:8
"Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession."
Missionaries claim this as their life verse. They say that God will save the heathen if they ask for it. But if you look at the context, that interpretation does not work. This chapter deals with nations revolting against God. In the previous verse, God the father says to God the son, "ask of me." The heathen are given for judgement not for salvation.
#4 Matthew 7:1
"Judge not, that ye be not judged."
Any time you comment on homosexuality, Catholicism, false doctrine, those who disagree with you quote this verse. Non Christians love this verse and hit us over the head with it every time. Later on this same chapter deals with how to spot false prophets. This verse is not condemning discernment, it is condemning hypocrisy. Verse three talks about how if you see someone with sawdust in your eye and you have a walking stick in your eye, you need to deal with your own eye before trying to take out the sawdust.
#3 2 Chronicles 7:14
"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."
This is the mantra of the revivalists. This whole verse hinges on the words "my people" Christians believe it applies to them because we're God's people. This verse, however, was addressed specifically to the people of Israel. The verse talks about their land being healed. and is central to the Abrahamic covenant. It has nothing to do with the church.
#2 Matthew 18:19-20
"Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them."
I have heard this verse prayed many times. The Bible does not teach that if we get two or three people together in a "prayer of agreement" God will do whatever we want. This section talks of discipline. It talks of how to deal with sin in the camp. When two or three come to Christ and bind or loose someone from discipline, God will honor it. Even when someone has to be cast out of God's redeemed assembly, God will be with them and bring healing during what is a difficult situation.
#1 Revelation 3:20
"Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me."
Evangelists love to use this verse as an invitation verse. This verse is talking about Jesus standing outside of the apostate church begging to come in. Paul washer has said that he has challenged evangelists who use this verse as an invitation. They will acknowledge that it is out of context, but they say wit works so well as an invitation. The Bible is God's truth and we must not handle it lightly.
God's word is just that. It's God's word. God breathed it out to us. We should not turn it into a bite sized couplet that is not faithful to the original text. We must rightly divide the word of truth. Taking these verses out of context does not do that.
"for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee."
It is not that it is misapplied, but the interpretation is incomplete. The passage is mainly dealing with coveting. The reason we don't have to covet is because we already have the greatest possession we could ever have: Christ's presence. The emphasis of this verse is lost by only focusing on the second section.
#9 Romans 8:1
"There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."
Many preachers teach that Christians don't have to fear failing because there is no condemnation. Because we have Christ's righteousness imputed on us, it does not matter that we aren't really righteous. I won't get into disagreements over texts. Even if you accept the NA27 rendering of this verse, it still does not teach a blanket no condemnation. Romans 8:4 says that the righteous requirements of the aw are filled by those who walk in the Spirit. Romans 6:1 commands Christians to reckon themselves dead to sin. While God does give grace to those who messes up, he does not just overlook it as some preachers teach.
#8 Romans 3:23
"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God"
While most teachers get the immediate context right, the miss the point. This verse was not meant to be an island unto itself. It is the glue that holds 3:22 and 3:24 together. Romans 3:22 says "Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference." Why is there no difference? Because a have sinned and come short of God's glory. But because of the finished work of God through Christ we are "Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus." When we just teach 3:23, we miss the context and a blessing.
#7 Proverbs 22:6
"Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it."
Many parents fail to raise their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. Instead of admitting their failure, they claim that this verse is genera truth, not absolute truth. It is not fair to impugn God's word just because of our own failure.
#6 Psalm 118:24
"This is the day which the LORD hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it."
We sing it. We pray it. We should be thankful every day we live, but that is not what this verse is taking about. If you look at the previous and following verses, you see it is about the Lord's return at the end of tribulation, and the beginning of the millennial kingdom. That day has been the day the Lord has been waiting for and all creation has been waiting for. The day Jesus our conquering king will finally set things right.
#5 Psalm 2:8
"Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession."
Missionaries claim this as their life verse. They say that God will save the heathen if they ask for it. But if you look at the context, that interpretation does not work. This chapter deals with nations revolting against God. In the previous verse, God the father says to God the son, "ask of me." The heathen are given for judgement not for salvation.
#4 Matthew 7:1
"Judge not, that ye be not judged."
Any time you comment on homosexuality, Catholicism, false doctrine, those who disagree with you quote this verse. Non Christians love this verse and hit us over the head with it every time. Later on this same chapter deals with how to spot false prophets. This verse is not condemning discernment, it is condemning hypocrisy. Verse three talks about how if you see someone with sawdust in your eye and you have a walking stick in your eye, you need to deal with your own eye before trying to take out the sawdust.
#3 2 Chronicles 7:14
"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."
This is the mantra of the revivalists. This whole verse hinges on the words "my people" Christians believe it applies to them because we're God's people. This verse, however, was addressed specifically to the people of Israel. The verse talks about their land being healed. and is central to the Abrahamic covenant. It has nothing to do with the church.
#2 Matthew 18:19-20
"Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them."
I have heard this verse prayed many times. The Bible does not teach that if we get two or three people together in a "prayer of agreement" God will do whatever we want. This section talks of discipline. It talks of how to deal with sin in the camp. When two or three come to Christ and bind or loose someone from discipline, God will honor it. Even when someone has to be cast out of God's redeemed assembly, God will be with them and bring healing during what is a difficult situation.
#1 Revelation 3:20
"Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me."
Evangelists love to use this verse as an invitation verse. This verse is talking about Jesus standing outside of the apostate church begging to come in. Paul washer has said that he has challenged evangelists who use this verse as an invitation. They will acknowledge that it is out of context, but they say wit works so well as an invitation. The Bible is God's truth and we must not handle it lightly.
God's word is just that. It's God's word. God breathed it out to us. We should not turn it into a bite sized couplet that is not faithful to the original text. We must rightly divide the word of truth. Taking these verses out of context does not do that.
Rock for the King James
Those who favor the King James version, whether it be King James Versions ("All of versions are perversions.) or King James preferred ("Use the KJV, but do believe it is the only acceptable version.) tend to be old-fashioned. They are against Christian rock and rap, believe women should only wear dresses, advocate extreme separation, and even oppose power point. These churches tend to be made of generational Christians. They are in the same church they grew up in, or the same kind of church. Churches and universities involved in this are involved in group think.
I grew up in an evangelical church where the King James was used but not enforced. It was just what the pastor preached from. We left that church when I was 15 and went to a fundamentalist church. The pastor there was from Bob Jones University and was a major supporter of the King James Bible. He preached against Christian rock. I never bought into it and brought my NASB and listened to Christian rock while we attended. It has only been fairly recently that I have been drawn to the KJV. The King James translators did not engage in text criticism. They believed it was the Word of God. The proponent of the NA27 texts believed the oldest known manuscript was the best manuscript. The problem is that the oldest text omits several passages, including John 8, the story of the woman caught in adultery. Because of this, I adopted a KJV friendly attitude.
I still have difficulty aligning myself with the KJV only side. I love the KJV but cannot adopt a KJV only position because it is untenable. I really enjoy Christian rock. It has encouraged me helped me, even challenged me. I do not feel that giving up Christian rock is the best thing to do. With these two views, what do I do?
I would love to see a pro rock, pro King James movement. Several reform pastors such as Mark Driscoll and Matt Chandler, have created the reformed emerging church that affirms the fundamentals of the faith but allows casual dress and Christian rock. I'd like to see a fundamentalist emerging church that believes in the philosophy of the King James Bible, but allows Christian rock and rap, casual dress, and yes, power point. I'd really like to see those of us who feel this way band together, after all, why should Bob Jones have all the King James lovers?
I grew up in an evangelical church where the King James was used but not enforced. It was just what the pastor preached from. We left that church when I was 15 and went to a fundamentalist church. The pastor there was from Bob Jones University and was a major supporter of the King James Bible. He preached against Christian rock. I never bought into it and brought my NASB and listened to Christian rock while we attended. It has only been fairly recently that I have been drawn to the KJV. The King James translators did not engage in text criticism. They believed it was the Word of God. The proponent of the NA27 texts believed the oldest known manuscript was the best manuscript. The problem is that the oldest text omits several passages, including John 8, the story of the woman caught in adultery. Because of this, I adopted a KJV friendly attitude.
I still have difficulty aligning myself with the KJV only side. I love the KJV but cannot adopt a KJV only position because it is untenable. I really enjoy Christian rock. It has encouraged me helped me, even challenged me. I do not feel that giving up Christian rock is the best thing to do. With these two views, what do I do?
I would love to see a pro rock, pro King James movement. Several reform pastors such as Mark Driscoll and Matt Chandler, have created the reformed emerging church that affirms the fundamentals of the faith but allows casual dress and Christian rock. I'd like to see a fundamentalist emerging church that believes in the philosophy of the King James Bible, but allows Christian rock and rap, casual dress, and yes, power point. I'd really like to see those of us who feel this way band together, after all, why should Bob Jones have all the King James lovers?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
