Dean's List - Christian Worldview Commentary from Dr. Paul J. Dean

2006-08-14T09:35:00.000-07:00

All of Dr. Dean's Christian Worldview commentaries can now be viewed at the radio website: Calling for Truth.

Pastor Kevin Boling posts his commentaries there as well.

You may also listen live to the daily call-in broadcast by clicking on the "Listen Live" button. The program airs from 1:00pm to 2:00pm eastern time. You may also listen to past broadcasts as the shows are archived daily. Please click on the link below to access the site.

www.callingfortruth.org

Dr. Dean posts other articles and commentaries at Crosswalk.com.

www.crosswalk.com/news/weblogs/dean/

He also blogs for the International Association of Biblical Counselors.

www.iabcnet.blogspot.com

2006-06-30T18:47:00.000-07:00

Student’s Speech Cut Short: But Not God’s Arm

Some people know what America is all about and some do not. In one sense it should not be surprising. On the other hand, I am truly amazed at those who do not, especially since certain principles were drilled into us as we learned American history in school. We learned that America was the land of the free and that people had a right to believe and say what they wanted. Now there is only confusion.

While a government official cannot say something that would establish religion, neither can that official or any part of the government itself forbid the free exercise of religion or curtail free speech. For example, students in the government school system are still guaranteed freedom of speech even if the teachers who are employed by that school system are not. And yet, students are routinely denied their rights as Americans, even certain rights granted to us by God Himself.

Consider Brittany McComb. Review-Journal reports, “She knew her speech as valedictorian of Foothill High School would be cut short, but [she] was determined to tell her fellow graduates what was on her mind and in her heart. But before she could get to the word in her speech that meant the most to her -- Christ -- her microphone went dead.”

How could school officials be so confused? At least the people in attendance were not as “the decision to cut short McComb's commencement speech…drew jeers from the nearly 400 graduates and their families that went on for several minutes.”

For the record, “in the 750-word unedited version of McComb's speech, she made two references to the lord, nine mentions of God and one mention of Christ. In the version approved by school officials, six of those words were omitted along with two biblical references. Also deleted from her speech was a reference to God's love being so great that he gave his only son to suffer an excruciating death in order to cover everyone's shortcomings and forge a path to heaven.”

Of course, Clark County School District moved quickly to defend their actions with impressive judicial gymnastics. In their words, “graduation ceremonies are school-sponsored events, a stance supported by federal court rulings, and as such may include religious references but not proselytizing…Before she delivered her commencement speech, McComb met with Foothill administrators, who edited her remarks. It's standard district practice to have graduation speeches vetted before they are read publicly. School officials removed from McComb's speech some biblical references and the only reference to Christ.”

When did it become standard practice to squelch free speech in this country? Interpretation is always the key in these situations and the obvious problem is that anyone can interpret any religious reference as proselytizing making such court language not only unhelpful but destructive of the liberty upon which the nation was founded and in direct violation of the letter and intent of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Even McComb herself understands this basic, American tenet. “Even though administrators warned [her] that her speech would get cut short if she deviated from the language approved by the school, she said it all boiled down to her fundamental right to free speech.” How is it that she understands what is at stake here and her supposed teachers and government leaders do not?

Now, consider her action in light of that right to free speech. “That's why, for what she said was the first time in her life, the valedictorian who graduated with a 4.7 GPA rebelled against authority. ‘I went through four years of school at Foothill and they taught me logic and they taught me freedom of speech,’ McComb said. ‘God's the biggest part of my life. Just like other valedictorians thank their parents, I wanted to thank my lord and savior.’”

Well, I can’t help but applaud Miss McComb for her courage and for her commitment to the Lord Jesus Christ. No doubt, issues of authority and submission have been raised and are raised for the Christian in light of Romans 13 and related texts. The reality is that we are to submit to authority for the sake of Christ’s glory and gospel witness among other things. And, if all we were talking about here was a government decision based upon rights granted to us by government, then submission would be the proper course.

However, we are talking about something bigger. It is important to understand that God-given rights fall into a different category as testified to by the witness of Scripture. When Christians are asked to violate Scripture or dishonor the Lord, they must not submit. The Hebrew Midwives who were ordered to kill the babies but saved them alive (Ex. 1:15f), Rahab the harlot who protected the men of God with a lie (Josh. 2:1f), and the apostles who were commanded to but refused to cease from preaching the gospel come immediately to mind (Acts 4:1f). McComb was told not to speak of Christ, but, she could not help but proclaim that which she had seen and heard (Acts 4:20).

What about the aforementioned court rulings? The ACLU, supporting the School District, cited two decisions by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, (the most overturned court in the country), in 2000 and 2003. Not only is the Court’s credibility on these issues non-existent, the Court has clearly ruled against the First Amendment.

Further, “in 2003, the Clark County School Board amended district regulations on religious free speech, prohibiting district officials from organizing a prayer at graduation or selecting speakers for such events in a manner that favors religious speech or a prayer.” A class valedictorian does not fall into that category as he or she earns the right to speak at graduation.

Moreover, “'the remainder of the amendment allows for religious expression during school ceremonies. Where students or other private graduation speakers are selected on the basis of genuinely neutral, evenhanded criteria and retain primary control over the content of their expression, however, that expression is not attributable to the school and, therefore, may not be restricted because of its religious (or anti-religious) content,' it states.” Such is the case here, and thus, not only is the school in violation of the Constitution, but, it is in violation of its own policy.

In addition, “to avoid any mistaken perception that a school endorses student or other private speech that is not in fact attributable to the school, school officials may make appropriate neutral disclaimers to clarify that such speech is not school sponsored." And of course, that is what should have happened here but did not.

Sadly, in the end, suppression of religion and speech will rule the day as fear of government and confusion over long forgotten basics will only increase. The good news is that God is in control and we can trust Him to build His church. We must simply do what He has commanded us.

But, let me offer something to think about. Our Lord told us that we are sheep among wolves and that we would be delivered up to authorities for persecution. Thus, we should be wise as serpents and gentle as doves (Matt. 10:16f). Perhaps we can take a lesson on that from Brittany McComb. While it cost her a great deal to take the stand she did, as it turns out, her message has reached far more people than she ever imagined. I wonder if she was hoping they would turn her microphone off for that very possibility. As I look at the big picture and all the media attention and resultant discussion concerning the event, I’m glad they did.

2006-06-17T10:28:00.000-07:00

Christ, China, and Change - Paul Dean

Christ is the One who changes hearts and in so doing changes the world. We Christians have a living and active God who has a plan and a purpose and we must see Him as sovereign over the affairs of men and ruler of all nations and when we do we will derive great confidence in the gospel message and find a glorious motivation to engage this culture, and indeed all cultures, for Christ.

Consider Marvin Olasky reporting his recent experience in China. “I ran across an extraordinary development in a just-completed trip to this officially atheistic country, where some local officials still persecute religious dissenters: At least 30 CEOs of major Chinese companies have become Christians. They even conduct Bible studies within their companies.”

He proceeds to tell the “fascinating” story of one individual and how he was not only converted, but how his conversion has affected his life. He indicates that his story is repeated in the lives of other CEOs in similar fashion.

For example, one Chinese believer conveyed the notion that prior to his conversion, he considered belief in God for “rural grandmas.” He sought solace in money but depression ensued. He sought peace in a Buddhist temple but found none. Advice from a Taoist sage proved in error and unworkable. His wife became a Christian but he could not even stay awake in worship. Then, he notes, “Only when I was cornered and understood that man's end is dust did I become serious about reading the Bible. Then I realized that my preconceptions were wrong, that belief in God is not unscientific, that by myself, I don't know where I'm from and where I'm going." He was saved and his faith caused him to change his personal and business habits.

“Other Chinese CEOs have their own stories, but a typical pattern is: they have business success; money without meaning only depresses them; their wives become Christians; the executives realize they're not as smart as they thought they were; they ask God for mercy.” These businessmen who embrace Christ make significant changes in their lives. They pay their taxes, treat their employees well, and make costly decisions in a context of wolves. They no longer take or offer bribes and they “no longer have mistresses or win contracts by proffering prostitutes to customers.” They do not embrace a prosperity gospel as they suffer regularly for their commitment to Christ at the hands of the government and in the context of the business world.

God has raised them as examples of what genuine conversion is and as examples of some of His workings in conversion and its aftermath. We do well to understand at least seven dynamics here and follow after that biblical reality for the glory of Christ, our own peace of mind, and the salvation of others.

First, persecution does not stop gospel advance. Rather, it can and so often does promote gospel advance of a different brand than what is common in a completely open country. The gospel can and does advance in an open country, but, that advance is mixed with false conversion and spiritual wild fire. When it truly costs something to follow Christ, most of those who embrace Him do so from a genuine change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit.

Second, the things of this world and the religions of this world will not bring peace and satisfaction to the heart. Christ alone satisfies and until one finds Him, his life will be an endless pursuit of satisfaction that will be forever elusive.

Third, while being careful not to fall into a trap of pragmatism, Christianity does indeed have a practical benefit: it works. Not only does false religion of any kind fail to bring satisfaction, but it does not work. Even one who conceives himself a Christian but has a false notion of what Christianity is or a false version of Christianity will have a religion that does not work most of the time. Biblical Christianity works all of the time for those who know Christ.

Fourth, biblical Christianity makes sense out of the reality in which we find ourselves. Not only is faith in Christ necessary for salvation, but faith in Christ is necessary for making sense out of our world. When one sees that, he comes to the conclusion that Christianity is not anti-intellectual or at odds with genuine science. It is not for grandmas or the ignorant alone. It is for CEOs and the intelligent as well. It is for all who have eyes to see.

Fifth, Christ makes a difference in the way one lives. That difference is seen in every area of one’s life including his business practices. The person who is not truly changed cannot truly claim to be a Christian (1 John).

Sixth, wives can take heart in that the words of Peter are true and his counsel is sure: “Wives, likewise, be submissive to your own husbands, that even if some do not obey the word, they, without a word, may be won by the conduct of their wives (1 Pet. 3:1).” God’s ways are not our ways, but, we can trust Him.

Seventh, coming to Christ may indeed cost you something. But, the payoff is far greater than one can imagine. “By faith Moses, when he became of age, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter, choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin, esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt; for he looked to the reward. By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king; for he endured as seeing Him who is invisible (Heb. 11:24-27).”

Let us learn from Scripture and follow this contemporary example our God has given us in China. Let us constantly change our minds in regard to that which drives and satisfies. Let us know and live in light of the knowledge that it is Christ and nothing else.

2006-06-06T09:24:00.000-07:00

Concern for 47 Million Unchurched “Christians” - Paul Dean

One of the primary realities overheard in the New Testament is a heart-felt concern that those who claim Christ are indeed truly converted not only for their sake but for the sake of the gospel itself. For example, Paul expressed his genuine concern for the believers at Thessalonica with particular reference to their spiritual well-being which was no doubt grounded not only in his love for them but in his love for the gospel of Jesus Christ (1 Thes. 3:1-5).

That concern connects with our contemporary setting in that The Barna Group reports that while America is growing in its spirituality, 76 million adults regularly avoid going to church. “One-third of the adult population (34%) has not attended any type of church service or activity, other than a special event such as a funeral or wedding, during the past six months…Six out of ten unchurched people (62%) consider themselves to be Christian.”

The fact that 62% of unchurched people claim to be Christian is problematic and the problem is compounded by the fact that “in the eyes of these individuals, absence from church life does not indicate a lack of commitment to the Christian faith. Three out of four unchurched adults who consider themselves to be Christian (77%) contend that they are either absolutely or moderately committed to the Christian faith.”

A central question that emerges from such statistics is this: should we be concerned when others claim to be committed Christians but demonstrate little resemblance to committed Christians in the biblical and historical record? No one will argue that there are no problems with the contemporary church. However, should we not argue, in light of Scripture, that a lack of commitment to church life is indeed a lack of commitment to Christ? Should we not be concerned with the spiritual well-being of those who contend otherwise?

An error is being propagated in today’s evangelicalism as some contend that the contemporary church is irrelevant to the present world and for that reason spiritual revolutionaries should leave the church and find enrichment for their lives through non-traditional means and avenues. Coffee shop conversations and days on the lake suffice for Christian discipleship and the means of growth. Preaching is outmoded and individuals need only the leadership of the Spirit apart from the word. This neo-Gnosticism is pervasive and at the same time destructive of genuine faith, biblical spirituality, and what Francis Schaeffer called true truth.

At one point in his ministry, the apostle Paul referred to the Thessalonian believers as his joy and crown of rejoicing. His love for them was heart-felt and he was concerned about the condition of their faith and the effectiveness of the gospel in their midst. Some implications may be gleaned from his example and applied to the contemporary context of professing Christians who are unchurched.

First, genuine concern for professing Christians and the gospel itself is displayed through sacrificial action. Paul had great consternation of heart in that he could not go to the church at Thessalonica to find out what was happening with the saints. But, because of his inner struggle, there came a point in time when he could no longer endure not knowing what had become of their faith in Christ Jesus (1 Thes. 3:1).

His concern was for them as persons and of course the state of their souls. At the same time, the gospel itself was at stake in light of their testimony. If they were to walk away from the faith it would not only mean spiritual disaster for them but it would bring reproach upon the gospel of Christ and indeed the Lord Himself. Thus, Paul sent Timothy to find out what was going on (v. 2). He did not want to part with Timothy, but he felt he had to for the sake of his friends and the gospel. How many of us have such concern in our hearts for professing Christians who may be going astray?

Second, genuine concern for professing Christians and the gospel itself is displayed through ministerial encouragement. Paul explains that he sent Timothy to establish and encourage them concerning their faith (v. 2). As noted, he did not want to part with Timothy, but, the plain message to the Thessalonians was that they were so dear to the apostle and their souls were so important and the gospel itself was so valuable that he was willing to part with Timothy to find out what was happening and to provide ministry to them as well.

Timothy was to go and establish their faith, if indeed it was genuine. The word Paul uses means to set fast or to turn resolutely in a certain direction. The idea is to strengthen. Their faith must be set in concrete, not mud. They must be looking resolutely in one direction, not turning here or there. They must be looking to Christ. Their faith must not be weak but strong in the Lord.

Timothy was also to encourage their faith. He was to put his arm around the Thessalonians, as it were, and minister grace and comfort to their hearts in light of their trials and temptations. We must do the same when we are in doubt concerning our professing but straying friends.

Third, genuine concern for professing Christians and the gospel itself is displayed through biblical instruction. Biblical instruction is grounded in sound doctrine and applied in real life. Paul gave a theological lesson to the believers in Thessalonica (v. 3). While the error Paul was concerned about was slightly different than the error under consideration with the aforementioned survey results, those results indicate that large numbers of professing Christians today need a lesson in theology as well.

“Adults disassociated with a conventional church have a wide range of beliefs: 64% contend that Satan is not a living being but is just a symbol of evil; 62% believe that a good person can earn eternal salvation; 51% believe that Jesus Christ sinned while He lived on earth.” Is it any wonder the church is not important for these people? Should not our hearts break over such error from those who say they are committed to Christ?

“George Barna, who directed the study, also pointed out that a minority of unchurched adults has a biblical view of God. In addition, less than one out of five say that involvement in a community of faith is necessary to become a mature and complete person. Interestingly, nearly one-quarter of the unchurched (23%) say that a person’s faith in God is meant to be developed mainly through involvement in a local church.” The need is great even within the context of professing evangelicalism.

Fourth, genuine concern for professing Christians and the gospel itself is displayed through internal turmoil. That turmoil is connected to our love for others and our love for the gospel. Paul wrote, “For this reason, when I could no longer endure it, I sent to know your faith, lest by some means the tempter had tempted you, and our labor might be in vain.” Paul begins by saying, “for this reason.” Because he knew they were being persecuted and lied to, he had great consternation in his heart and sent to know their faith.

Paul now says he sent to know their faith “lest by some means the tempter had tempted you, and our labor might be in vain.” Satan is the tempter and is no mere symbol of evil in Paul’s mind. He is a very real and very power being. Satan is crafty and seeks whom he may devour (Eph. 6:11; 1 Pet. 5:8). Paul was fearful that somehow Satan had tempted them. The force of the word “tempted” here, by way of context, is that of falling away. He was fearful that Satan might somehow have snatched the seed of the word of God from their hearts and that they in turn might have been in danger of or that they might indeed have fallen away from the faith (Lk. 8:5). The fear we ought to have in our day for revolutionaries is no different.

The interpretation above is sealed with the phrase “and our labor might be in vain.” Paul was concerned that their gospel labor was for nothing, at least in the lives of the Thessalonians. If they had been tempted to the point of falling away, then the labor of Paul and his partners in the gospel would have come to nothing. Oh how we ought to lament the possibility that our labor might be in vain as we see so many disassociating from the church and in particular so many who have no understanding concerning even the most basic truths of who Christ is.

This was Paul’s great fear and ultimately explains why he could endure being away from the Thessalonians no longer and why he was willing to allow Timothy to go to them. The souls of the Thessalonians, the truth of the gospel, and the gospel labor they had expended in Thessalonica were too important. Paul sent to scope out the faith of the Thessalonians to preserve them, the gospel, and his own gospel labor for the glory of God. How can we do less?

Fifth, genuine concern for professing Christians and the gospel itself is displayed through spiritual awareness. We are aware of the reality of Satan’s activity and the possibility of false converts even as Paul was concerned for the same. It must be pointed out here that one cannot lose his salvation (Jn. 3:16; Rom. 8:28f; 1 Pet. 1:5; etc). Those who fall away from the faith were never saved to begin with. Paul’s concern here has to do with human responsibility. We do not preach the gospel without love for God and concern for His glory and without love for man and concern for his good. We do not preach the gospel and then not worry whether or not it is received or whether or not it produces genuine faith. We leave the results to God, but, we do indeed care for souls and the reputation of Christ Himself. Thus, we do all we can to express and live out our concern for those who profess Christ and to demonstrate our concern for the gospel of God. Let us be concerned, and, let us do something about it.

2006-06-03T05:38:00.000-07:00

Religious Freedom in the Military: Almost – Paul Dean

Religious freedom must extend to all and in all or it is not religious freedom at all. The fact that there is debate over the issue of whether or not military chaplains, or anyone else for that matter, can pray according to their own conscience is a sign of the New America in which we find ourselves. The “land of the free” is fast becoming the “land of the free as long as no one is offended.” There are bright spots from time to time, but those bright spots are not without a flicker akin to a flashlight with a dying battery.

According to the Washington Times, “Tucked into a massive defense authorization bill…is a provision [that gives] military chaplains more freedom to pray as they see fit. The language was crafted by…Duncan Hunter, California Republican, and Rep. Walter B. Jones, North Carolina Republican…Mr. Jones and others have long complained that some military chaplains feel restricted in how they can pray and have been encouraged, in some instances, not to pray in Jesus' name. Mr. Hunter said it is ‘folly’ to tell chaplains to ‘start editing prayers.’” The bill passed and established that “in each branch of the military, chaplains ‘would have the prerogative to pray according to the dictates of their own consciences, except as must be limited by military necessity.’ It says that whenever such military necessity is cited, ‘it would be imposed in the least restrictive manner feasible.’”

There is some light here. Chaplains can now pray according to conscience, for the most part. The reasoning of those behind the bill is sound. If a chaplain is required to edit his prayer, not only is his religious freedom destroyed, but prayer itself is destroyed. Prayer is not prayer if it is not to someone in particular. But, even here, the prerogative to pray according to conscience is limited by military necessity. There is the flashlight flicker. The upshot of it all is this: like the flickering flashlight, it really doesn’t work.

A reaffirmation of the principles upon which our nation was founded is in order. Those who know better have engaged in a bit of alteration of those prinicples. In my lifetime, we have gone from a nation that understands that people believe different things and that they have a right to express those beliefs without fear of recrimination to a nation scared to say anything that offends anyone (except for Christians). Thinking Christians are not offended when someone of another faith prays to his god, even in public. They certainly understand the exclusivity of Christ, but, they also understand that those apart from Christ will act according to their nature. Christians will evangelize, but they will not be offended.

Why then should anyone be offended when someone prays in the Name of Christ? Why does the Navy have “a policy that asks chaplains of all faiths to consider the views of their audience before invoking specific religious beliefs?” Of course, the answer is found in Scripture: Christ is offensive to those who are perishing. Further, the rush to embrace political correctness at all cost in this culture is the result of a growing spiritual blindness; a macular degeneration of the nation. Waning is the influence of the biblical worldview in this land that allows for freedom for all. As the influence of Christ wanes, the embrace of liberty wanes.

Then, there is the issue of persecution. With loss of religious liberty, comes loss of general liberty. “Capt. Jonathan Stertzbach, a Christian Army chaplain serving in Iraq…[said] that he and chaplains of other faiths were being pressured to offer only nonsectarian prayers. He was silenced by his supervisors soon after his public statements. [An optional worship service offered by] Navy chaplain Lt. Gordon James Klingenschmitt…reportedly offended some in attendance, and he received a ‘poor fitness’ mark on his permanent record, which he is fighting to have removed. Lt. Klingenschmitt, who also held an 18-day hunger strike in front of the White House over the military prayer issue, got into more trouble recently for appearing at a March 30 event in front of the White House after he'd been forbidden by his superior from making press appearances while in uniform without getting permission. The one exception was if the chaplain is offering a prayer, which Lt. Klingenschmitt says he did. He was given the choice of a formal reprimand or a court-martial, and he has chosen the latter.”

Where is the common sense here if not the commitment to religious liberty? Are not chaplains supposed to pray and offer spiritual guidance according to the dictates of their own consciences? Is that not why we have chaplains of different faiths in the military? It seems that clear thinking has gone A.W.O.L.

The silencing of military officers who speak out for religious freedom, poor fitness marks handed out for offending someone in an optional, not mandatory worship service, a court-martial for taking a stand for said freedom, are not things that would have been believable not too many years ago. And yet, today, it’s S-O-P: Standard Operating Procedure. Let us raise our voice for liberty in this land – before we are silenced as well.

2006-06-03T05:26:00.000-07:00

Represent Christ Responsibly – Paul Dean

Christian leaders, of all people, should be held accountable for the things they say. Those things must be biblical from an evangelical perspective and they must be honest from anyone’s perspective. And yet, exercising caution when it comes to critiquing certain evangelical leaders is generally the wise course of action. However, there are some statements in particular contexts that eventually demand a response. Such is the case with Pat Robertson.

Fox News reports that “Robertson says God told him storms and possibly a tsunami will hit America's coastline this year. [He] has made the predictions at least four times in the past two weeks on his news-and-talk television show ‘The 700 Club’ on the Christian Broadcasting Network, which he founded. Robertson said the revelations about this year's weather came to him during his annual personal prayer retreat in January.”

In his words, "If I heard the Lord right about 2006, the coasts of America will be lashed by storms." He added, "there well may be something as bad as a tsunami in the Pacific Northwest." We can only say that Robertson is either being dishonest or he is deceived.

Consider Robertson’s words: “if I heard the Lord right.” The biblical prophet hears the Lord right because the Lord is very clear when He wants His message to be proclaimed. There is not one biblical example of the true prophet of God not hearing the Lord right. Moreover, if a prophet makes a prediction that does not come true, according to the Old Covenant, he is a false prophet and is to be put to death.

Obviously, the New Covenant makes no such demand concerning execution, but, the principle is the same. Furthermore, the word is clear: “to the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them (Isa. 8:20).” True prophets speak the word of the Lord infallibly and that word squares with Scripture. Of course, most evangelicals maintain that the biblical gift of prophecy passed away when the age of the apostles and prophets passed away.

At the same time, the question must be asked, who couldn’t predict that the coasts of America will be lashed by storms? That’s like predicting that the Northeast will be pelted by snow storms this winter. And what about the equivocation in his prediction? “There well may be something as bad as a tsunami.” And there may not. There may be an earthquake in California in the next sixth months. And of course, there may not.

Robertson is trusted by many Christians at various levels of understanding and maturity. He has been a well-respected Christian leader for many years despite the fact that he holds to much unorthodox theology. For the most part, we have been content to let him be for a number of charitable reasons. However, Robertson is now regularly making statements that receive much media attention to the end that Christ is reproached. Maybe it’s time for some to evaluate what they say before they say it or perhaps they shouldn’t say anything at all. God did not tell me that specifically. But, His word is pretty clear.

2006-05-30T07:32:00.000-07:00

The Religious Right: On Fire or Just Flickering? - Paul Dean

Depending upon who is doing the talking, the religious right is a term used in a variety of ways to describe a number of persons and/or ideas. To most, the religious right is that block of individuals who seemingly take a conservative stance on issues of the day and is generally credited with launching President Bush into his second term in office. The values voter is typically lumped into this group resulting in the appearance of one massive group committed to the same ideals. Some view this group as mainstream, some as religious zealots, and some simply see them as a minor nuisance. They have been referred to as neo-cons and theo-cons and indeed a whole lot more.

One thing is clear, though it has escaped most observers, this group is not monolithic. It contains Christians and non-Christians, civil religionists and civil libertarians, educated and uneducated, social conservatives and social liberals, etc.

Consider the case of Judge Roy Moore. NBC News reports, “Three years ago, Roy Moore was well on his way to becoming the Next Big Thing in American politics...Supporters saw him as a possible candidate for governor, senator -- or even president…Indeed, a poll from January of last year showed Moore leading Alabama's incumbent Republican Gov. Bob Riley, who had been wounded politically from his failed $1.2 billion tax increase of 2003.” But now he trails Riley by nearly fifty points.

Why the sudden shift? “Part of the reason for Moore’s free-fall, Alabama political experts say, is that Riley is on the rebound (due to a growing economy and favorable reviews of his response to Hurricane Katrina). Another reason is that Moore has committed some embarrassing gaffes. He recently suggested that the first case of mad cow disease in the state was a conspiracy to help pass a state animal identification system. But perhaps the biggest reason for his decline is this simple rule in American politics: single-issue candidates rarely win higher office. William Stewart, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Alabama, says voters know where Moore stands on the Ten Commandments and religion. ‘But they want to know what he’s going to do about industrial recruitment … or coping with prison overcrowding,’ Stewart explains. ‘He has not demonstrated that he is very well versed in these issues.’

No doubt Stewart is onto something. In light of such an observation, one cannot help but be struck with the notion that most of the religious right, while being committed to religion and morality, tend to be so more by way of tradition and less by way of conviction. Touting moral values and supporting religious symbols in public soothes the national conscience but is of no value against the indulgence of the flesh (Col. 2:23).

People tend to vote their pocket book whether they are conservative or liberal. Riley’s current success in Alabama on the heels of a growing economy is a case in point. In addition, President Bush was elected more on the notion that he could protect us from terrorists better than John Kerry could than on the idea that we need a President who will uphold religion and morality in this country. No doubt religion and morality are issues and people are religious. But, the personal immorality of the collective American populace belies any so-called commitment to high and lofty ideals.

The reality is that if America is to survive as a Constitutional Republic promoting justice and liberty for all, God is going to have to be acknowledged in the public square. Christians must engage the culture with a full-orbed, biblical worldview grounded in the gospel and its advance and they must be committed to speak to the issues of the day and then vote their conscience as opposed to their security or wallet.

Whether one agrees with Judge Moore is not the issue here. Many conservative Christians do not, including myself in some ways. But, if the issue of public acknowledgment of God is so important, and it is, how can the religious right abandon this candidate simply because he is not up on industrial recruitment? Were it not for the War on Terror and the fear of the American people, we might have President Kerry, and along with him, partial-birth abortion on demand, unbridled embryonic stem-cell research, legalized euthanasia, and homosexual marriage mandated by federal law.

The bottom line is that Christians must learn to think, and think biblically. They then must have a commitment to speak to our culture with all biblical and lawful means. And, they must have a greater commitment to the glory of God in the land than they do to their personal comfort.

After his removal from office, Judge Moore declared, “We fought a good fight, we kept the faith. But the battle is not over. The battle to acknowledge God is about to rage across the country.” Well, we hope so. But, for now, it appears to be but a flicker.

2006-05-23T10:14:00.000-07:00

Megachurch Rejects Elders: A Case Study in Contemporary Baptist Life - Paul Dean

The Bible is clear that a plurality of elders is to lead the church (Acts 14:23; 15:4-6; 22; 16:4; 20:28; 1 Tim. 3:2; 5; 5:17-18; Titus 1:5; Heb. 13:7; 17; 24; 1 Pet. 5:1-2). That does not mean that smaller churches cannot function biblically with one pastor. Indeed they can. But, the Scripture holds out a plurality of godly elders as the ideal. These men are pastors and are charged with shepherding, guarding, teaching, and leading the flock among other things. While much could be said about elders, let us simply affirm that when it comes to the issue of elders, Scripture and not tradition must be our guide.

Further, the point of this piece is to point out certain problems that plague Baptist churches and perhaps all evangelical churches in an effort to shock us out of our sluggishness in regard to the will and ways of God. The primary reason for these problems is a lack of commitment to the Scriptures as our sole authority in more ways than one. Tradition and selfishness too often rule in our churches.

According to Associated Baptist Press, “after a divisive and highly publicized debate about the role of elders in Baptist church governance, members of a large Memphis-area church have defeated a motion to switch from congregational polity to the elder system. The May 7 vote at Germantown Baptist Church was 2,183-1,542 in opposition to the proposal, or nearly 59 percent opposed to elders.”

Let us affirm that the local church is autonomous and can do whatever it determines to be the best course of action for them. No ecclesiastical authority from the outside can force them to do otherwise. Furthermore, one cannot know all of the issues involved in this debate and to even speak to the actions of this particular church is bound to be grounded in an ignorance of those issues and is indeed dangerous. However, because the article here makes this church action public, it can be used as a platform for instruction.

First, while Baptists have historically affirmed elder rule in churches, contemporary Baptists are largely ignorant to this fact, the Scriptural teaching on elders, and the meaning of the term elder rule. Historically, as recent as the 1925 version of the Baptist Faith & Message of the Southern Baptist Convention, elders and deacons were seen as the two Scriptural offices in the local church. Even the current Baptist Faith & Message uses the term pastors, implying a plurality.

In this debate, ABP notes, “If the motion had been approved, Germantown likely would have been the largest Baptist congregation to adopt the Presbyterian-style system.” The problem with that statement lies in the fact that elder rule is not Presbyterian: it is biblical. Additionally, a misunderstanding of the term “rule” creates problems for Baptists. Further, the fact that Presbyterians practice elder rule does not mean that Baptist churches would practice it in the same way. The fact is that they have not done so historically.

Regarding elder rule, Clark Finch, one of the founding members of a group organized to oppose the change at Germantown, indicated that under the new system, “the men would rule instead of lead the church -- something they saw as a dangerous departure from biblical descriptions of elders.” Yet, Pastor Sam Shaw, who had encouraged the elder proposal, and his supporters, “said elders would be godly leaders devoted to shepherding the church in ‘spiritual and administrative matters.’” Well, that’s what biblical eldership is all about. It is about leadership, shepherding, and the spiritual well being of the church.

Second, a lack of trust on the part of the people is a problem in Baptist life. If a church calls a man or men to pastor them, those pastors should be trusted to faithfully lead the flock into truth. So often the members of the church declare themselves to be the resident theologians and forget that in God’s economy, while all Christians have the Holy Spirit and soul competency before the Lord, He has ordained and called godly men to teach them.

Moreover, why shouldn’t church leaders maintain oversight, not only of the flock as the Scripture says, but also of the administrative matters of the church? How cumbersome it is to bring to a vote of the church simple matters that could be handled through common sense and most especially through those who are called of God to lead the church of God in a godly way.

The real issue is that of electing godly leaders and then trusting them until they prove untrustworthy. In Baptist churches today, generally speaking, a major problem plagues them in that people want control and elect themselves to offices to wield that control over God-called leaders to the detriment of the church and the kingdom.

Third, this lack of trust goes hand in hand with a lack of submission. Contemporary Baptist churches hold to the American notion of independence and rugged individualism. The concept of submission to authority, particularly ecclesiastical authority, is absent in most Baptist churches. On the face, combined with a lack of trust, that problem seems to permeate the situation at Germantown. Again, we cannot know with certainty, but consider this fact: Finch “and other opponents created a website to rally members against imposing elder rule on the 9,000-member church.” Church members have no biblical right to do such, especially in that way. Further, imposition is a disingenuous word. The congregation ultimately has a vote.

Typically, in Baptist churches, rather than following biblical admonition when disagreements arise in the church, battle lines are drawn, soldiers are recruited, and war is waged. The sad reality is that many of the soldiers recruited are members who rarely if ever attend. The church roster is pulled out and the phone lines begin to burn because many of those members don’t attend the church enough to even know what’s going on. Oftentimes, members have moved out of town and have no association with the church. Yet, they sometimes come back for the vote.

We don’t know whether that is the case at Germantown. But, think about the creation of a website over this issue. It’s as good as the phone these days. Is there anything more wicked or sad than a campaign against the God-called leaders of the church? These men have not been accused of nor are they guilty of heresy or immorality. Yet, war is waged against them. Again, the idea here is not to point at Germantown, but to highlight the fact that this occurrence is way too common in Baptist churches. It cannot almost be said in general that it is their modus operandi.

Fourth, conflict in Baptist churches often results in a split where a significant number of people leave the church. Furthermore, all too often, a church is split even though no one leaves. This is a grievous dynamic.

Consider the language of Finch, the final vote tally, and the fact that an outside accounting firm had to certify the vote count. “We had a count of maybe 1,500 who we thought would vote against the motion, but I was just in awe that it was 2,183,” This is the language of calculation, rallying the troops, and battle victory. This ought not be.

Further, the final vote was approximately 59% to 41%. Any way you slice it, that’s a split. It may be that better pastoral leadership, more instruction, and more homework needed to be provided on the part of the pastor and his team. They may have been heavy-handed. However, we must quickly point out, no heavy-handedness is indicated here, and while they may have done a better teaching job, those in opposition did not oppose in a biblical manner.

Also, Brundige, Payne & Co., Certified Public Accountants, certified the vote tally. What right does a church have to take their conflict to outsiders? Paul is very clear on this in 1 Corinthians 6. And why was this action taken? Again, no doubt it was a lack of trust. If a congregation cannot trust their pastors to be honest, why are they serving as their pastors? And if a congregation cannot trust her leaders or whoever they appoint to count the vote to be honest, that congregation has a bigger problem than the form of church government they choose. And yet, this type of thing is not uncommon.

Finch, referring to the vote, told Associated Baptist Press, “To me, that says that God looks out for his children.” In light of biblical teaching concerning elders, the statements of the pastor concerning elder leadership, and the issues raised heretofore, the ignorance of this statement is only surpassed by its arrogance. To speak for God in this way is dangerous, especially in light of the teaching of Scripture on elders, the obligation of church members to submit to pastoral authority in matters such as this, and the biblical prescription for disagreeing with pastors and handling differences of opinion in the church.

Additionally, “As a result of the vote, the church may face an unknown future with regard to its leadership. Members plan to meet May 9 at nearby Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary to discuss future plans.” This outcome is not uncommon in our churches. We should not be surprised when Scripture is not our sole authority for faith and practice. But, we should be grieved when church members force a public display of a private conflict in this way. It brings reproach on Christ, regardless of who is right.

Fifth, elder rule allows for congregational input. Even here, congregational input seems to have been welcome. “The proposed amendment would have allowed church members to nominate elder candidates, put them through a screening process by an elder interview team and then approve the interviewers' decision. Part of that interview team would have consisted of the church's present deacons and pastors.” This proposal does not appear to be a power grab on the part of the pastor. While we cannot judge motives here, it is indeed tragic when ignorance or rebellion rules in our churches, and it does so often.

Let us not reject the Scriptures or godly pastoral leadership. Let us especially not reject that leadership when congregational input is welcome. Let us be very careful to not place tradition or our own desires ahead of what God may be doing. In rejecting elders for example, we may be rejecting God.

2006-05-18T16:05:00.000-07:00

Top Ten Issues Facing Families - Paul Dean

Threats to families abound in this culture and the Scripture tells us that Satan roams the earth as a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour (1 Pet. 5:8). At times, family leaders and perhaps others within the family know exactly the enemy or threat they face and at other times they obviously do not. One threat may have influence and open the door to other dangers. It behooves Christians to be aware of the variety of snares that lie in wait in a culture bent on godlessness.

Some helpful information may be gleaned from a survey conducted by LifeWay Christian resources according to Baptist Press. A list of the “Top 10 Issues Facing Today’s Family” was compiled. Those issues in order are: 1. Anti-Christian culture; 2. Divorce; 3. Busyness; 4. Absent father figure; 5. Lack of discipline; 6. Financial pressures; 7. Lack of communication; 8. Negative media influences; 9. Balance of work and family; 10. Materialism.Michael Utley noted that some of the survey results were surprising. “For instance, it was expected that substance abuse would rank in the top 10. Instead, unexpected issues such as busyness (No. 3) and lack of communication (No. 7) received a majority of votes.” He further commented, “We were a little surprised to see anti-Christian culture rank as the No. 1 issue, but when we took a look at the rest of the list, we realized that today’s anti-Christian cultural mentality could be considered a contributing factor when it comes to these other issues.” A few implications are in order here.

First, we can rejoice that substance abuse did not make the list. While that is certainly a problem, and while it is difficult to analyze the complete truth or what is really reality from a survey such as this, it is encouraging to note that Christians apparently take that issue seriously and have moved to combat it to a certain degree.

Second, the fact that anti-Christian culture made number one points to the reality of what some of us have been saying for so long. Christ is under attack in this culture and many seem oblivious to that fact. Yet, this survey indicates that there are many who do recognize that threat and see it or even feel it very clearly. A couple of implications can be made from this dynamic as well.

The first implication is that we must understand the full-orbed nature of the Christian mandate. That mandate is two-fold and includes the Great Commission and the Cultural Mandate. Christians must be involved in cultural engagement via the gospel.

The second implication is that we have perhaps absorbed more of this anti-Christian culture than we tend to realize. There is real and present danger when we pitch our tents toward Sodom (Gen. 13:12). While righteous Lot was vexed daily in his soul by the culture around him (2 Pet. 2:7), that culture indeed influenced him and his family (Gen. 19:1-26). The effect was more drastic for some. Let us be warned.

Third, that divorce made second on the list is heartbreaking. Not only does divorce grieve the heart of God (and we recognize there are cases of biblical divorce and there is forgiveness even for unbiblical divorce), but too many families have suffered tremendous losses in far too many ways as a result. May God grant Christians to find their satisfaction in Christ that they might consider others better than themselves that they might have restored marriages both for God’s glory and their joy (Phil. 2:3f).

Fourth, the fact that materialism made the list is a good sign. However, the fact that it ranked tenth is disturbing. It points to the sad truth that most Christians are deceived when it comes to this issue. They have been so influenced by culture they have no idea that the typical American family that names the Name of Christ is no different from the typical American family that does not. Materialism is the American god and the church, like ancient Israel, has played the harlot. Sadly, most of us just don’t realize how far we have strayed from our benevolent Savior, Jesus Christ. When Christians speak more about retirement plans and investment strategies than they do of giving their lives for the sake of the gospel, they have been influenced far too much.Of course, these issues really speak for themselves. May God grant us wisdom to navigate the dark waters of this culture that we might truly live in such a way as to glorify Him. That means that we truly have impact in this culture as salt and light. That means that we must influence the culture more than it influences us. When we get the idea that our goal is not merely to live a significant second half of our lives now that we’re saved and that our goal is to exalt Christ in every area of our lives no matter what it takes, then we will be on the right track.

We’ve got to show our neighbors that we are not chasing the same things they are and that we are not satisfied with or attracted to the same things they are. Soaking up the sun in Florida may be an attractive retirement goal for pagans. But, for the Christian, there must be something else. Christ and His Kingdom advance is that which is attractive to us: and our families.

Are we proclaiming that message to our families? Are we living that message before them? If our children were asked whether we would rather retire to the beach or the mission field, what would they say about us? Again, we are salt and light in this culture. The Lord said as much. “You are the salt of the earth.” But, then He added, “but if the salt loses its flavor, how shall it be seasoned? It is then good for nothing but to be thrown out and trampled underfoot by men.” As salt, let us not lose our flavor in this culture, or in our families.

2006-05-17T15:12:00.000-07:00

Banned in Boston: Deadly Developments - Paul Dean

The politically hot topic of homosexuality creates more problems than most understand or admit. Not only is the sanctity of marriage at issue, but issues of health, social norms, and the family are raised to name a few. One could argue that unabated homosexuality could actually end the propagation of the human race. But then other issues are more immediate. Consider the fact that Catholic Charities of Boston decided to get out of the adoption business, according to Maggie Gallagher, President of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy. “We have encountered a dilemma we cannot resolve…The issue is adoption to same-sex couples.”

Gallagher summarizes: “It was shocking news. Catholic Charities of Boston, one of the nation's oldest adoption agencies, had long specialized in finding good homes for hard to place kids. ‘Catholic Charities was always at the top of the list,’ Paula Wisnewski, director of adoption for the Home for Little Wanderers, told the Boston Globe. ‘It's a shame because it is certainly going to mean that fewer children from foster care are going to find permanent homes.’ Marylou Sudders, president of the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, said simply, ‘This is a tragedy for kids.’”

Now, several issues are raised here. First, there is the issue of Scriptural teaching coming into conflict with accepted political and sociological thought. Massachusetts now allows gay marriage. When a news story broke revealing that Boston Catholic Charities had placed a small number of children with homosexual couples, Sean Cardinal O’malley of the organization said that they would no longer do so. Several members of the board then resigned in protest. Their argument? “Every one of the nation's leading children's welfare groups agrees that a parent's sexual orientation is irrelevant to his or her ability to raise a child. What these bishops are doing is shameful, wrong, and has nothing to do whatsoever with faith.” Of course, what these welfare groups say is in contradistinction to the Scriptures. In this case, the bishops are holding true to their faith. Our perspective would obviously be the same.

Second, there is the issue of the state failing to protect a segment of its population by allowing them to be adopted by homosexuals. The problem here lies in the fact that homosexuality is destructive to health and social development. Further, an adoption agency must be licensed by the state. In obtaining said license, the agency must pledge to submit to state laws barring discrimination. Thus, with gay marriage now legal, children must be placed with same-sex couples by adoption agencies in order to avoid violating discrimination laws. The children who find themselves in such an environment will suffer.

Third, there is the issue of religious liberty. While churches or church related adoption agencies should not be forced to place children in homes that promote a lifestyle contrary to the plain teaching of Scripture, they in fact are. Moreover, in a society built on principles of liberty, no adoption agency should be forced into such. There will always be avenues for homosexuals to adopt. Their liberty is not restricted (though it should be as liberty only applies when no harm is done to others. As we have seen, homosexuality is destructive in more than one way). But, in this case, while the homosexual’s liberty is not restricted, the liberty of the church is. Religious freedom is fast becoming a footnote in the history of a once great nation: a nation that not only championed religious freedom but a nation that was built upon it.

It is important to note that “Cardinal O'Malley asked Governor Mitt Romney for a religious exemption from the ban on orientation discrimination. Governor Romney reluctantly responded that he lacked legal authority to grant one unilaterally, by executive order. So the governor and archbishop turned to the state legislature, requesting a conscience exemption that would allow Catholic Charities to continue to help kids in a manner consistent with Catholic teaching. To date, not a single other Massachusetts political leader appears willing to consider even the narrowest religious exemption.” What a tragedy for all of us.

Fourth, there is the issue of the church’s involvement with the state. To what extent does the church really want to be in bed with the state? Not only is the state evil according to the Scriptures, but involvement with the state inevitably leads to problems for the church. For example, “Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey, the Republican candidate for governor in this fall's election, refused to budge: ‘I believe that any institution that wants to provide services that are regulated by the state has to abide by the laws of the state, and our antidiscrimination laws are some of our most important.’”

There you have it. This Republican, as with most these days, is an agent of the state and is more concerned with protecting the state than religious liberty. Moreover, discrimination has been defined by the state. That definition has broadened beyond the bounds of sense and reason. The protection of homosexuals over liberty and children is a sad development indeed: and that from the party of family values.

Of course, the end result is the church closing down its adoption agency. Gallagher insightfully comments, “This March, then, unexpectedly, a mere two years after the introduction of gay marriage in America, a number of latent concerns about the impact of this innovation on religious freedom ceased to be theoretical. How could Adam and Steve's marriage possibly hurt anyone else? When religious-right leaders prophesy negative consequences from gay marriage, they are often seen as overwrought. The First Amendment, we are told, will protect religious groups from persecution for their views about marriage.” Tragically, it didn’t.

The state is being heavy handed, as the student of Scripture or history would expect. The cultural observer would expect the same as well. In 1 Chron. 12:32, the Scripture refers to the children of Issachar as “men that had understanding of the times, to know what Israel ought to do.” Do we understand the times and what is happening here? These are truly deadly developments: not only for children, but for religious liberty in America. Christians, be warned.

2006-05-17T14:56:00.000-07:00

Tsunami Victims Give to Katrina Victims: A Gospel Lesson - Paul Dean

The gospel is about conversion but does indeed have a social dynamic to it. If we are concerned about the salvation of individuals, then a full-orbed view of salvation and the fact that man is created in the image of God necessitates a concern for the well-being of those individuals on this earth.

That understanding and reality drives Christians to help others in time of need. Of course, to be truly Christian, we help others in their time of need in the Name of Christ. That means we go as His representatives and we proclaim Him as we go. Inasmuch as we minister in the Name of Christ to others, we do so to Him and for His glory. The Lord Jesus Himself affirmed, ““Then the King will say to those on His right hand, ‘Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me (Matt. 25:34-36).’”

And then, there are times when, by His grace, the Lord rewards us in mighty ways in this life, though they may seem to be small to others. Baptist Press reports that the Louisiana Baptist Convention received $854 cash from an unlikely source. ”The cash was an offering from several citizens who live in a community on the island of Sumatra, Indonesia, a region decimated by the Dec. 26, 2004, tsunami that claimed an estimated 300,000 lives worldwide. Twenty men from this area of the world, where the average monthly income is around $100, reached deep in their shallow but generous pockets to send aid to Louisiana, which they heard was hit by Hurricane Katrina.”Further, “during the tsunami disaster, these 20 men experienced first-hand not only the tragedy of the natural disaster but also the help of Southern Baptist disaster relief volunteers from several state conventions…The Indonesian men remembered how these particular Americans helped them, cared compassionately for them and loved them unconditionally. ’This is huge! Why would they even care?’ [a Southern Baptist consultant who received the money first hand exclaimed]. He said the Indonesians told him, ‘It is because we were so moved and touched by the volunteers who helped us and now we are compelled to give.’”

Well, there is the reward of God’s grace to us. We should wonder at the generosity of those so impoverished. And yet, we must pray that it is indeed evidence of God at work through gospel witness and ministering in the Name of Christ.“Even though these men have Muslim origins, much of their perception of Westerners (i.e. Christians) has changed 180 degrees,” the consultant explained. “This event is just one example of the impenetrable walls being broken down by those who help others in the name of the Lord.”

Of course, the door of opportunity to share Christ is opened a bit further now. Paul noted that a great and effective door had been opened to him, but, at the same time, there were many adversaries. There are adversaries and obstacles in the Muslim world when it comes to gospel ministry. Yet, God opens a great and effectual door. As the door is cracked here, may we be faithful to take the gospel to that part of the world. May we pray for the victims in Indonesia and beyond even as we have been praying. May we continue to minister in the Name of Christ. And, may the payoff from God not only be a kind response from emotionally moved Muslims. May His payoff be a crown of rejoicing in the form of souls saved by His grace and for His glory. With Paul, may we be able to say to Indonesians, “For what is our hope, or joy, or crown of rejoicing? Is it not even you in the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ at His coming (1 Thes. 2:19)?”

2006-05-16T10:19:00.000-07:00

Missionary Out on Bail: A Warning for Us - Paul Dean

Persecution of Christians is something we are told to expect. The fact that the Scriptures are clear about that reality does not take away the hurt when someone is suffering for the cause of Christ. At the same time, perhaps a primary issue for American Christians is that we prepare ourselves for that which Christ has promised us. By God's grace, we have avoided persecution for so long. But, that does not mean that we will avoid it forever.

Greenvilleonline.com reports that "The president of a Christian mission group with ties to the Upstate who has been held in a jail in India...has been released on bail, according to a spokeswoman for the U.S. State Department. But the legal issues of Samuel Thomas, who supporters say is a victim of religious persecution, are far from over...He was arrested on March 16...and charged with 'spreading hatred between communities' and publishing offensive material against the sensibilities of people...Hopegivers executive director Michael Glenn and Thomas' wife, Shelley, said the charges against him are false."

The sad truth is that Thomas may face more charges. If so, it will be devastating to his family to be sure. "Mrs. Thomas, a native of Maine and program director for Hopegivers, met her husband at Liberty University. They were married in 1986 and have two sons."

It will also be devastating for the organization he serves. "Hopegivers, with U.S. headquarters in Columbus, Ga., operates orphanages, children's homes, leper colonies, a hospital, nursing homes, Bible institutes and the first Christian university in New Delhi, among other ministries. The organization's bank accounts in Rajasthan and five operating licenses for work in Kota have been frozen...waiting for decisions from the courts on these issues."

It is quite disturbing when someone with so many sanctioned ministries that helps so many people can be jailed for his work. As noted, from the perspective of those who know the situation, the charges are false. Yet, assuming they relate to the gospel, the charge of hate speech is not unlike the charges leveled against first century Christians when they claimed Jesus as Lord and not Caesar.

What is even more disturbing is the fact that Christians in this country are now being accused of hate speech and a move is underway to ban such speech. Of course, free speech is a founding principle of this society and the notion that it could be banned speaks to the issue of just how far we have strayed from our moorings. Even worse is the idea that a message could be deemed hate speech simply because it runs counter to the prevailing mindset of postmodern culture.

The gospel message will always divide. It did so in the context of the first-century church, it has done so historically, it is doing so now all over the world, and it is doing so here in this present hour. Let us prepare our hearts that we might rejoice if the Sovereign Lord counts us worthy to suffer for the Name. And, let us pray for our brother in chains in India.

2006-05-07T21:54:00.000-07:00

Falwell & McCain: Politics Makes Strange Bedfellows - Paul Dean

One of the greatest tragedies in our day is the willingness of evangelical leaders to forsake their calling and enter into the field of politics and call it cultural engagement. There is no doubt that we evangelicals should involve ourselves in cultural engagement and indeed politics. The problem lies in the notion that we can actually change the world through politics. The political arena must always take a back seat to the gospel. It is the gospel alone that can change hearts and those who have a call to the gospel ministry forsake that call when they confuse being salt and light with being political pundits. If we are going to speak to and in the political arena, we must do so with gospel words, not mere political words. Our message is Christ, not the Republican ideal or what passes for Republicanism these days.

According to Agape Press, “Dr. Jerry Falwell is defending his decision to invite Arizona Senator John McCain to speak at Liberty University's spring commencement ceremony….The invitation from Liberty Chancellor Jerry Falwell may come as a surprise to some conservatives, considering McCain's past opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment, his support for embryonic stem-cell research, and his recent cameo appearance on the raunchy, nudity-filled movie Wedding Crashers. But Dr. Falwell said he wanted to invite a ‘dominant Christian leader of the free world.’”

In what sense can McCain be considered a “dominant Christian leader?” Without being uncharitable, might we even question whether or not he is indeed a Christian? No doubt some will accuse us of being judgmental and harsh. However, the reality is that when we simply accept someone’s claim without biblical judgment or fruit examination, we say more about God than we say about the individual in question. We say that God in saving sinners has no real power to change lives. We say that Christ and His blood are weak and ineffective. We say that the Holy Spirit may want to work but in reality His hands are tied. We do not say so much about an individual who supports stem-cell research and appears in nudity-filled movies when we say that he is a Christian leader but we do in fact say much about God. The problem is that we lie about God in so doing.

In one sense, Falwell is one of the good guys. He has preached Christ fearlessly in many contexts. And yet, his pragmatic bent, theological weakness, and trust in political might comes through here. “Some trust in chariots and some trust in horses but we shall trust in the Name of the Lord our God (Ps. 20:7).” Surely, that verse has not escaped Falwell’s notice.

Christians too often forget that ends do not justify means. Moreover, with current Republicans, desired ends are not even achieved. Falwell noted, “There are several very good pro-life, pro-family candidates who are vying for the White House, and I thought I would invite one of them who's an American hero, a military hero, who's a U.S. Senator, and who, very frankly, is at the moment the frontrunner.” In what sense is McCain truly pro-life? His record and statements on abortion are ambiguous at best and compromised in fact. His support of embryonic stem-cell research is enough to put him outside of the pro-life camp. His comments regarding how he would handle his daughter and the question of abortion if she desired such reveal a lack of true commitment to biblical principle. The truth is that Falwell revealed his rationale regarding McCain: “at the moment [he is] the frontrunner.” Further, “That doesn't mean we're endorsing Senator McCain, but it does mean we're taking a very close look.”

Well Jerry, it’s becoming more difficult to view you as an evangelical leader, though perhaps, not so difficult to view you as a Republican leader. The Moral Majority is good as far as it goes, but, it’s not the gospel. Is support of McCain in keeping with the gospel? Or, dare we ask, with his latest movie appearance, does he even represent the type of candidate The Moral Majority would support?

“According to Dr. Falwell, Senator McCain assured him during a telephone conversation earlier this week that if federal courts were to toss out state amendments protecting traditional marriage, he would be ‘a champion and a leader’ for a Federal Marriage Amendment.” That’s great. But, may we ask, where are our champions and leaders for the gospel of Jesus Christ? Shakespeare was apparently right: politics makes strange bedfellows.

2006-05-06T11:39:00.000-07:00

The Da Vinci Hoax – Paul Dean

One thing is clear about The Da Vinci Code: it is nothing more than mere fiction. That assessment comes from biblical scholars, Roman Catholic apologists, and secular historians alike. Consider Sandra Miesel, co-author of The Da Vinci Hoax, and her perspective. She writes, “The sheer falsity and stupidity of The Da Vinci Code would have given me enough incentive to rebut it…As a trained historian, I was outraged to see so many errors between two covers, errors naively taken as absolute fact by vast numbers of readers… Brown drastically misrepresents early Christian belief in Christ’s divinity, the credibility of the New Testament, the nature of Gnosticism, Scriptural and legendary material about Mary Magdalene…He routinely fails the desk encyclopedia test by missing readily accessible facts. Brown isn’t even familiar with passport laws in the European Union. A man who thinks the Merovingians founded Paris and forgets that 14th-century popes lived in France has no business posing as a scholar.” Strong words. Sobering words. Necessary words.

The words are necessary in that millions have already been led astray by a book of fiction posing as fact. No doubt millions more will be captivated and led astray by the movie. Several months ago, it seemed to me that I could not go to any sort of recreational, public gathering and not see someone reading The Da Vinci Code. The heart-breaking thing for me was that many persons whom I know to be nominal Christians were enamored with the book and were asking sobering questions: the kinds of questions true believers grounded in the faith would never ask. The problem here lies in the fact that those individuals are now further from Christ than ever and evangelism will only be made more difficult. God is sovereign in salvation to be sure. Yet, we have a responsibility to plow the ground, plant the seed, water it, and then watch God give the increase. My concern is how tough the ground may now be to plow and in some cases one wonders if it has become too hard. I speak in a human way: nothing is too hard for God, of course.

The Da Vinci Code purports to reveal secrets in the same way the Gnostic gospels make the same claim. These documents are not truly gospels and were penned by heretics long after the apostles died; some of them up to centuries later. Miesel notes that “they describe a ‘spiritual’ Christ who is neither true God nor true man but a filmy illusion who guides us to recognize our own innate ‘divinity.’ Salvation comes from gnosis (knowledge), not grace…What they could get out of actually trying to read this material, I can’t imagine. But Gnosticism makes no demands concerning dogma or morals, just free-floating spirituality at no cost to the self.”

One might expect pagans to search for something more than they have. But, when Christians today in mass numbers engage in the same search, one can only surmise the Spirit of God is moving on. The church is full of dissatisfied individuals looking for Christ plus something else. According to the Scriptures, Christ is sufficient. His word is sufficient. That truth has not landed on some and one can only wonder about their true, spiritual condition. It is not only pagans and nominal Christians who are in danger of chasing secret gnosis. Bible-believing evangelicals are doing the same, as noted, in staggering numbers. Let us be aware, be warned, and be diligent to warn our friends.

Discerning evangelicals won’t appreciate Miesel’s book or perspective on every issue. She has her own contextualized presuppositions. However, where she deals with the falsity of Brown’s claims with particular reference to orthodox theology and well-known church history, we can be thankful. And, we can agree with her completely in her goal. “The lesson we’re hoping to teach with The Da Vinci Hoax is: Don’t get your facts from fiction. And most certainly, don’t base your spiritual life on a badly written novel.” That’s an admonition every Christian should heed, not just the committed postmoderns among us.

2006-04-20T19:36:00.000-07:00

Americans Down on Islam: Rightly So – Paul Dean

Christians have known the truth about certain things for a long time. Consider Islam for example and its violent thrust. Do the Scriptures have an assessment? With reference to Ishmael and his descendents: “He shall be a wild man; His hand shall be against every man, And every man's hand against him. And he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren (Gen. 16:12).” Of course, few receive this word.

Sometimes the truth comes out despite the best efforts of others. Even though leftist pundits in the aftermath of 9/11 attempted to pant Islam as just another religion of peace filled with peace loving adherents, it seems that few are buying it. While there may be moderate Muslims who shun violence or who are more interested in getting in on Western success than they are in being faithful Muslims, and while hatred and racism of any form should be rejected as sin before God, make no mistake, the religion itself is one of world conquest according to the Koran. Since 9/11, that reality has apparently not been lost on the American public.

“Although Americans believe they are better informed about Islam than they were five years ago, a new CBS News poll finds fewer than one in five say their impression of the religion is favorable. Forty-five percent of respondents queried April 6 - 9 said they have an unfavorable view of Islam, a rise from 36 percent in February. And the public’s impression of Islam has diminished even more compared with four years ago. In February 2002 – less than six months after the terrorist attacks of September 11 – the country was evenly divided in its impression of Islam. Americans today are also more likely than not to believe that Islam encourages violence, at least in comparison to other religions around the world.”

There were a lot of words offered in defense of Islam after 9/11. But, we see the pictures from Iraq on the news every night. And, you know what they say: a picture is worth a thousand words.

2006-04-19T21:10:00.000-07:00

Intelligent Design Goes Ivy-League – Paul Dean

Irate individuals who blast Intelligent Design as unintelligent will have to blast their own now. “Cornell University plans to offer a course this summer on intelligent design, using textbooks by leading proponents of the controversial theory of origins.”

Further, if the irate will have to blast their own, so too will Judge John E. Jones who gave a stinging rebuke to a Dover, Pa. school board that required students listen to a statement noting that evolution is a theory and that Intelligent Design “is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view.” He stated that Intelligent Design was mere religion.

We can only pray that he and the rest of the irate will have a change of heart, as it seems the Cornell President has. He was as bad as Jones. However, interestingly, “the announcement comes just half a year after Cornell President Hunter Rawlings III denounced intelligent design as a ‘religious belief masquerading as a secular idea.’”

With this move by Cornell, we can only hope and believe that others will be compelled to at least acknowledge the legitimacy of this alternate theory to evolution. “Proponents of intelligent design say it draws on recent discoveries in physics, biochemistry and related disciplines that indicate some features of the natural world are best explained as the product of an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. Supporters include scientists at numerous universities and science organizations worldwide.”

“Taught by senior lecturer Allen MacNeill of the Ecology and Evolutionary Biology department, Cornell's four-credit seminar course will use books such as ‘Debating Design,’ by William Dembski and Michael Ruse; and ‘Darwin's Black Box,’ by Michael Behe.” Interestingly enough, Dembski is a well-known Southern Baptist seminary professor.

From the foregoing, it seems that academic freedom is alive and well at Cornell. Moreover, “The university's Intelligent Design Evolution Awareness club said that while it's been on the opposite side of MacNeill in many debates, it has appreciated his “commitment to the ideal of the university as a free market-place of ideas.’ ‘We have found him always ready to go out of his way to encourage diversity of thought, and his former students speak highly of his fairness,’ the group said. ‘We look forward to a course where careful examination of the issues and critical thinking is encouraged.’

Maybe the South Carolina School Board could take a queue from Cornell. In their rejection of critical analysis, they have rejected academic freedom and genuine learning at the same time.

Now, let us point out that Intelligent Design is not Biblical Creationism. However, if ID gets a seat at the table, perhaps Evolution will end up starving to death. Regardless, with ID at the table, the notion of a wise Creator/God is not intellectually untenable to the secular elite. In God’s providence, we could eventually be welcomed to the table. For that day we must pray.

2006-04-17T22:44:00.000-07:00

Gay Student Expelled: Uncertain Notes in the Culture War – Paul Dean

The culture war rages on many fronts and too many Christians are unprepared for battle. That unpreparedness may be attributed to a number of causes including nominalism, worldliness, or ignorance in the church. At the same time, part of the cause may be an uncertain note from the battle trumpet of our leaders. “For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle (1 Cor. 14:8)?”

Consider the firestorm of disagreement that broke out when Jason Johnson was expelled from the University of the Cumberlands in Williamsburg, KY for being homosexual. According to the Lexington Herald-Leader, “In a statement released last week, the university's president, Jim Taylor said students are held to a ‘higher standard’ and that ‘students know the rules before they come to this institution.’”

It seems as if Taylor is trumpeting a certain sound. “But a copy of the student handbook provided by the university confirmed the policy was not spelled out in 2003-04, when Johnson chose to attend. The school did not provide a copy of the policy for the 2004-05 school year. The 2005-06 student handbook says: ‘Any student who engages in or promotes sexual behavior not consistent with Christian principles (including sex outside marriage and homosexuality) may be suspended or asked to withdraw.’ School officials said that although the 2003-04 policy did not explicitly mention homosexuality, it did say that students must ‘conduct themselves, on and off the campus, in a manner which is consistent with the objectives of the College and with its standards of conduct.’”

That note sounds uncertain. Sadly, a visit to the schools website proves to be even more uncertain. After spending more than half an hour searching, I could not find the school’s affiliation (SBC), a statement of faith, or a definitive policy regarding faith or conduct of any kind. That fact does not mean the handbook does not address such issues, but, it does sound an uncertain note. In fact, the school is accepting of students of “all backgrounds.” I’m not sure what that statement means. In a word, I am uncertain.

In a day when Christian colleges are severing ties with their founding institutions, it is time for those Christian colleges who wish to take a stand to do so. If a college is unapologetically Christian and seeks to inculcate a Christian worldview in the hearts and minds of its students, then let it say so and do so. Those colleges who wish to do otherwise should quit playing the hypocrite and remove any tip of the hat to its Christian background. An apostate no longer flies the banner of Christ. Why should an apostate college or university? Either way, let them sound a certain note. Maybe Cumberland is attempting to do just that. We shall see.

What about the students at this Christian institution? Are they sounding the trumpet in a certain manner? Student blogs showed mixed reaction to the news while some noted the expulsion is ‘tearing the campus apart…’ Some students are publicly questioning the school's values…Many wore shirts yesterday with ‘God loves my gay friends’ printed on them.” A student commented, “They're being hypocritical, by Christian standards. If we love each other, accept each other for who we are, why are they kicking him out? I almost feel like they're trying to mold us, me, into a person that I wouldn't want to be.”

Those uncertain notes are far from being Christian as other students would no doubt point out if given the opportunity. The implication in saying that “God loves my gay friends” is that homosexuality is acceptable to God. Such is not the case according to Rom. 1:18f or 1 Cor. 6:9f. The notion that we should accept homosexuals for who they are is in keeping with postmodern philosophy but not the Scriptures. The goal of Christian witness is to point others to the transforming power of Christ. If one does not want to be a Christian, then one should not claim to be such.

Yet, in this postmodern and litigious society in which we find ourselves, Johnson is not only considering attending the University of Kentucky or Eastern Kentucky University next fall, he is also considering legal action against the university. In the aftermath of his dismissal, he said that students shouldn't question their faith, but they should question their personal beliefs. “What I would hope is that their faith is renewed because people are standing up for what they believe in. It has strengthened my resolve, my beliefs, my faith, seeing the love and support.”

Well, if personal beliefs are contrary to the Scriptures, if faith is some nebulous concept and not grounded in the objective reality of the person of Christ and the truth of His word, if people are standing up for beliefs contrary to the Scriptures, then something worse is at stake than blowing an uncertain note. The note is actually sadly certain.

2006-04-08T14:37:00.000-07:00

Not Afraid to Die:
The Desire for the Kingdom and the Mandate for Compassion – Paul Dean

Those who take Christ and His Kingdom seriously are willing to do and suffer anything to see Him exalted and that Kingdom advanced. We sit around and think things that may sound strange to typical church-goers. For example, we think it might be better if persecution were to come our way. Then the true church would be revealed and it would be strong and Christ would be glorified. Our personal comforts are irrelevant. We then contemplate whether or not we should pray for persecution. In the end, most of us do not go that far because we are told to pray for those in authority that it might go well with us (1 Tim. 2:2). God can advance His gospel in a free country if He chooses. His people certainly have greater opportunity to spread the gospel in such an environment. They must simply be obedient. But, we must admit, certain thoughts are tempting in light of the downgrade in the church and culture at this present hour.

One can overhear that sentiment, praise God, in the words of Joel Belz in his article entitled, “Not Afraid to Die.” (http://www.worldmag.com/articles/11708). He noted that “the story of Abdul Rahman, the Afghan fellow who was sentenced to death because he had converted to Christianity some 16 years ago, was changing so fast last week that it was hard to tell just which way it was going to go next. Maybe even harder, though, was knowing which way you wanted it to go. I'll admit that seems like a harsh thing to say.”

But let me put it in perspective by asking this: Which would have been better 50 years ago—for the God of all mercy to rescue five missionaries to the Indians of Ecuador, or to let them be murdered by the people to whom they wanted so much to take the gospel? Which would have been better for the missionaries' families? For the Indians of Ecuador? For the evangelical church in North America? For the kingdom of God at large? And what about the tens of thousands of people around the world who became Christians through the ministry of the thousands of missionaries who volunteered for service after the five men were martyred? And their children and the generations who will follow them?”

“It was hard not to think of all those issues when you listened to the courageous words of Abdul Rahman. ‘I am a Christian,’ he said boldly while holding a Bible up for all to see. ‘I am not afraid to die.’ You couldn't help thinking about how Stephen's face was said to have been shining as he was being stoned to death in the book of Acts. And you really didn't want to see Abdul Rahman's radiance dimmed by some cheesy compromise.”

Belz’s words strike a chord in the heart of the committed Christian. How we long for the Kingdom of God to advance! And, we know from Scripture and from history that “the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church (Tertullian).” Our desire for the Kingdom must be such if we are to be truly committed to Christ’s call and gospel. When we pray that God’s Kingdom would come, we had better know what we are praying (Lk. 11:2). But, we had better pray that way nevertheless. Kingdom advance is more important than any endeavor or cause or desire or whatever. “Then the seventh angel sounded: And there were loud voices in heaven, saying, "The kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ, and He shall reign forever and ever (Rev. 11:15)!" Our heart’s cry is to see this dynamic in plain view.

And yet, just as surely as we desire the Kingdom to come, we must have and do have compassion on others. In fact, compassion, in one sense, is the attitude of the Kingdom. Compassion from God drives us forward with the gospel (not to make light of a desire for His glory, but, He is glorified in our compassion).

And so Belz says of Rahman, “Of course, you also didn't want to see him die.” Indeed not. Our prayers were for Him and God was with Him and we give praise to His mighty Name for His deliverance of our brother in chains. With compassion we cried before the throne and the Father of all compassion heard our prayers!

And yet, what of the chains? What if Rahman were martyred? Belz points out in political and practical terms that “it would be, of course, the very last thing the Bush administration needed just now. It would be no help at all to the supposedly moderate government of Afghanistan. It would diminish to the vanishing point whatever credibility any moderate Muslim anywhere might still have left. Might such an event be the point of ignition for a worldwide conflagration of the sort we have all been dreading so much?”

Afghan religious leaders called for Rahman’s death after he was released. “’It's clear that a man who converts has to be killed,’ said Abdul Raoulf, a senior Muslim cleric seen, until recently, as a moderate who had several times actually been jailed by the Taliban. ‘Rejecting Islam is insulting God. We will not allow God to be insulted. . . . They should cut off his head, and pull him into pieces so there's nothing left.’”

Of course, had he been martyred by government execution or torn limb from limb by an angry Muslim mob, it would indeed demonstrate that Islam is not the moderate religion that so many vehemently claim it to be. Neither the Bible (which calls Ishmael and His Islamic descendents “a wild man,” Gen. 16:12), nor the Koran, nor history will bear out a moderate Islam. This note must be sounded. There is the desire for the Kingdom again.

Belz further commented, “It was as if the cleric wanted to demonstrate the absolute futility of all the U.S. effort that has been poured into Afghanistan over the last four years.” “’This is a young democracy,’ countered Condoleezza Rice, U.S. Secretary of State. ‘They do have a constitution, which if they treat carefully, promising things will happen. A constitution is something Afghanistan never had under the Taliban. The constitution they have adopted is clear in its support for a universal declaration of human rights.’”

And yet, the sad truth is that the Afghan Constitution may have a declaration of human rights attached to it, but the Afghan understanding of human rights is far different from the Christian’s understanding or even the American’s understanding of human rights. The Afghan Constitution is grounded in and committed to upholding Sharia (Islamic) law. There is no place for universal human rights as we understand them in that law. We point this out in our desire for the Kingdom.

But Belz has an opinion on this point as well. And, we respect Belz. Let us hear him out. With reference to Rice’s comments and the Afghan Constitution, he asks, “A flat-out contradiction? Probably not. I write this from Dayton, Ohio, where Orville and Wilbur Wright more or less perfected the airplane credited with launching human travel through the air. I say ‘more or less’ because the Wright brothers' first flight was a mere 120 feet in 12 seconds—before it came to an embarrassing end. Afghanistan's first democratically elected government may or may not fly. I cannot join the skeptics who say that the case of Abdul Rahman is proof that the U.S. investment in his country has been in vain. Disappointing, confusing, and even terrifying? Yes. But maybe it is necessary one more time for a man to die for his people. It may be the only way really to dramatize how truly awful is the religion to which they hold so tenaciously.”

And there’s the compassion: not the desire for a man to die, but the desire in such for a people to see how truly awful their religion, and predicament apart from Christ, truly is. May God give us such compassion that we might be part of His Kingdom advance.

2006-04-07T08:15:00.000-07:00

Christians Lack Basic Bible Knowledge: Cause for Alarm – Paul Dean

The decline in Bible knowledge is alarming, not only in terms of worldview thinking and the fact that most people approach nothing near having a Christian worldview, but also in terms of general knowledge of familiar biblical events and the sad reality that the decline in question is among Christians. Further, the decline is worldwide.

According to The Christian Post, “Less than a quarter of Christians in the United Kingdom possess enough knowledge of the Bible to be able to place key events in the order they appear, according to the results of a new survey by the Bible Society released last week. The Christian evangelical organization carried out a survey of regular churchgoers, which revealed that 76 percent of people were unable to put a series of ten popular Bible stories in the order that they appear in the Bible. Events used in the survey included Noah’s Ark, Solomon’s building of the Temple, and Jesus feeding the five thousand, among other similar incidents.”

“The survey was carried out by asking the questions in a quick-fire quiz style, and was designed to assess the common assumption that Christians possess an in-depth knowledge of the Bible.”

Sadly, the common assumption that Christians possess an in-depth knowledge of the Bible is wrong. Of course, one has to wonder who held this assumption. In what sense was it common? With the sharp up-turn in secularism and postmodern thinking, one would have assumed that the Bible was an all but forgotten book.

On reflection, it may be a bit surprising that the majority of Christians have very little knowledge of the Bible. Yet, in the face of cultural trends, one would have to assume that the majority of Christians are nominal (in-name only) or that they really have forsaken their calling. Perhaps it’s both.

Sanctification is connected to the word. Jesus prayed to the Father, “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth (Jn. 17:17).” Moreover, we are to “…Follow sanctification, without which no man shall see the Lord (Heb. 12:14).” In light of those verses, knowledge of God’s Word is pretty important. Sound the alarm.

2006-04-02T12:17:00.000-07:00

Bible Experience Recorded – Paul Dean

The great need of any people or any individual is to hear and receive the word of God. In our culture, many have heard a watered-down form of the gospel so many times it has little effect. Sadly, they are deceived into a false security. Others have never really heard the gospel, though it is difficult to imagine such persons exist in this religion saturated society. These groups, among others, serve to highlight the aforementioned need. Thus, in some sense, we can be grateful for “more than 80 black celebrities reading, singing and composing music for The Bible Experience, a new 70-hour Genesis-through-Revelation dramatic audio performance of the Scriptures.”

USA Today reports that “Blair Underwood stands in a Los Angeles recording studio, his arms outstretched, tears on his cheeks, as he groans Jesus' suffering words, ‘Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.’ Denzel Washington and his wife, Pauletta, coo the love poetry of Solomon's Song of Songs. Urban gospel artist Kirk Franklin gives voice to Paul the apostle.”

Christians must not accept this audio without critical analysis, however. The claim is thus: “It's a serious Bible, but there's wit in the casting: Cuba Gooding Jr. is the voice of Judas, lending new meaning to his Oscar-winning Jerry Maguire catchphrase ‘Show me the money!’ Judge Greg Mathis, who wields a gavel on a syndicated TV courtroom show, reads Solomon. Hip-hopper Heavy D reads Apostle Andrew, and gospel great Shirley Caesar reads Naomi…It's all designed to give life to even the dullest sections.”

The problem lies in that sentiment. The word of God is already “living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart (Heb. 4:12).” The notion that life can be injected artificially into the living word is a false one. Parts of the scriptures may be dull to some persons in some sense. But, depending upon the method, attempting to artificially inject life into the word may produce the opposite of the desired effect in spiritual terms. The attempt may serve to take away the word’s life giving power.

Consider the following: “Our co-producer Lou ‘Buster’ Brown says we're taking God's word and we're gel-capping it: surrounding it with elements that make it more palatable for mass consumption in today's marketplace,” says Kyle Bowser. This notion is frightening. Again, it is the Holy Spirit that makes the word palatable. The bible is not an ordinary book. The word of God must be handled with utmost care in its presentation. Prescribed methods are already given in the word itself: reading, proclaiming, meditating, memorizing, to name a few.

Again, a reading of the word on CD is a wonderful idea. Our hesitation kicks in when we read Bowser’s words: “We're taking artistic license, like Michelangelo on the Sistine Chapel. No one up on that ceiling looks like me. I have to superimpose myself in that imagery. We're expressing what our artistic hearts see and allowing others to see themselves in these characters.” If we only knew what he meant by that, we could feel better about the project, at least in some sense.

However, additional formats are on the way “from ringtones to iPods to animation, so you could put Robert Guillaume intoning the mighty angel of Revelation on your home answering machine or, perhaps, a line from the Lord in Psalm 91: ‘They will call on me, and I will answer them.’” This type of thing serves only to mock or bring down the word at best and adulterate it at worst.

On a positive note, “the producers say all-black casting should be no obstacle to a nationwide audience.” Agreed.

On a note that seems to be positive, God will not be characterized as female but as male. “One female singer who asked to read the role — producers won't release her name — was turned down.” However, the translation used in the project “…is Zondervan's most contemporary translation, Today's New International Version, advertised as ‘gender-accurate’ with only the theologically essential pronouns.” Arizona State University professor Lance Gharavi, associate editor of the Journal of Religion and Theatre, “sees the distinction as part of a society-wide ‘struggle with who has the right to speak for God. It's part of a larger conversation we're having as a culture and our changing understanding of whose voices and what kinds of voices are legitimate.’”

Of course, this puts the entire project on liberal ground in the sense that the word itself is rejected. God has revealed Himself to us as Father. He took humanity upon Himself in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, a male. This so-called struggle with who has the right to speak for God is simply a further blurring of the lines between proper male and female roles fostered by an anti-God, radical, feminist agenda. It is goddess worship come home to roost in the evangelical world and Zondervan has fallen prey to its evil deception.

Unfortunately, we will have to pass this one by.

2006-04-01T03:51:00.000-08:00

Dutchman Builds Modern Noah’s Ark – Paul Dean

We can thank God that people are willing to go to extreme measures to reach people for Christ. Missionaries, for example, are among some of our greatest heroes in our own minds and in reality. Of course, other measures are taken that are less than biblical, but we can still rejoice when the gospel is proclaimed (Phil. 1:18). Sometimes the motive is right and the method seems reasonable. And yet, something nags in the backs of our minds.

BBC News reports that “Dutchman Johan Huibers is building a working replica of Noah's Ark as a testament to his Christian faith. The 47-year-old from Schagen, 45km (30 miles) north of Amsterdam, plans to set sail in September through the interior waters of the Netherlands. Johan's Ark is a fifth of the size of Noah's and will carry farmyard animals. Mr. Huibers, who plans to open the vessel as a religious monument and zoo, hopes the project will renew interest in Christianity in the Netherlands.”

Such a novelty may indeed spark a renewed interest in Christianity in the Netherlands. Of course, it may have an opposite effect as contemporary secularists view such men and action as odd. One must appreciate Huibers’ heart and efforts though. At the same time, why is it that in our contemporary attempts at reaching people for Christ we simply do not do what we are told to do in the Scriptures: preach the word (2 Tim. 4:2)?

“According to Genesis, Noah kept seven pairs of most domesticated animals, and one breeding pair of all other creatures. Noah's wife, three sons and three daughters-in-law lived together on the boat for almost a year while the world was flooded. Mr. Huibers’ vision is more modest - he said he plans to stock his ark with horses, lambs, chickens and rabbits - mostly baby animals to save space. ‘This will speak very much to children, because it will give them something tangible to see that Noah’s Ark really existed.’”

Again, thanksgiving is an appropriate response to Huibers’ efforts as he attempts to make a difference in the lives of others, and in particular here, in the lives of children. But think of the money, time, and effort spent on this project in an attempt to give the children “something tangible to see that Noah’s Ark really existed.” History has demonstrated that proof of bible artifacts has served more to bolster the faith of those already saved than to produce faith in those who do not believe. Further, the Scriptures teach as much. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God (Rom. 10:17).

Too often in contemporary efforts at evangelism, we fall into the same trap into which others have fallen. Consider the rich man in hell who wanted the Lord to send someone to warn his brothers of eternal torment apart from Christ. The Lord’s response was to the point, theologically accurate (of course), and instructive in regard to the issue at hand. The rich man said, “’I beg you therefore, father, that you would send him to my father's house, for I have five brothers, that he may testify to them, lest they also come to this place of torment.’ Abraham said to him, ‘They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.’ And he said, ‘No, father Abraham; but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ But he said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.’”

“Mr. Huibers plans to charge people to tour the boat and said a drink and religious pamphlet will be included in the admission price. At least 100,000 people will need to visit for the project to break-even financially.”

This project is probably a good way to make money. Let us pray that Mr. Huibers has gospel success at the same time. If he does, we can rejoice in that.

2006-04-01T02:30:00.000-08:00

Afghan Convert Arrives in Italy – Paul Dean

Religious freedom is a precious gift Americans enjoy to a degree more than any other people on earth. It is something that has been ingrained into the thinking of successive generations from the days of the Revolution. While the concept is being eroded on many fronts, most Americans still hold such freedom dear. That history and mindset helps to explain why other peoples do not embrace the same commitment and why we are shocked when they reject such. Consider recent events in Afghanistan.

The Washington Post reports that “Abdul Rahman, the Afghan convert to Christianity who faced a possible death sentence in his homeland for rejecting Islam, has arrived in Italy and will be granted political asylum…On Wednesday, Western governments welcomed Rahman's release. German Chancellor Angela Merkel said it was a ‘sensible signal to the international community but also for the situation in Afghanistan.’”

With all due respect to the German Chancellor, this move is no signal at all. The real signal lies in the fact that Rahman was almost executed by the Afghan government. His release is the result of international pressure and not the result of any change of philosophy or policy on the part of Afghanistan. Untold others are still suffering persecution and will continue to do so. Whether one favors the war in Afghanistan or not, one has to wonder if the persecution of Christians and the advancement of Islamic extremism is what our young men and women are dying for every day.

Consider the fact that “…controversy continued to boil in Afghanistan, where Islamic clerics and members of parliament strongly objected to Rahman being freed from prison and allowed to leave the country. Demonstrators in several cities continued to protest foreign interference, and critics accused President Hamid Karzai of giving in to international pressure.”

The remaining question has to be whether or not Karzai will be willing and able to ultimately and consistently resist the pressure of his own country and culture. The fear that this question must be answered in the negative is grounded in the biblical saying that one cannot change the leopard’s spots (Jer. 13:23).

Lest there be doubt as to the warrant for such fears, consider that “…Wednesday, 500 clerics gathered in a mosque in the southern city of Qalat to protest Rahman's release, news services reported from Kabul. Abdulrahman Jan, the top cleric in the Qalat region, said the government should either force Rahman to convert back to Islam or kill him. ‘This is a terrible thing and a major shame for Afghanistan,’ he said. The Afghan parliament also condemned Rahman's liberation as a breach of Islamic law, but did not take a formal vote on the issue. ‘We sent a letter and called the Interior Ministry and demanded they not allow Abdul Rahman to leave the country,’ Yonus Qanooni, the speaker in the lower house and a leading political rival of Karzai, told reporters in Kabul. During debate, several other legislators said Rahman should be executed.” Let us not be duped into misunderstanding the nature of Islam and their goals.

At this point, the so-called democracy in Afghanistan is a different kind than the type with which Americans are familiar. With great insight, the Post noted that “the case has highlighted the contradictions that remain between Afghan society and the Western powers that in 2001 helped topple the Taliban, the extremist Islamic movement that ruled most of the country. Although Afghanistan is now a democracy with an elected president, its constitution enshrines sharia as well as international human rights conventions.”

Of course, several problems emerge here. First, a constitution cannot enshrine sharia law and international human rights conventions at the same time. Those concepts are mutually exclusive. The sad reality is that sharia law will win every time without pressure from a watching world, and, the world cannot watch all the time.

Second, this reality certainly calls into question the heretofore unheard of Bush plan of setting up democracies all over the world. While baffling to us, there are many who do not want democracy. The concept simply flies in the face of their worldview. You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink. It is time that some conservative asked the question, “Is the Bush doctrine feasible?” Moreover, it is time that some Christian asked the question, “Is it biblical?”

Third, without being redundant, the contradictions here, as the Post has aptly pointed out, are between Afghan society and Western powers. We can agree that the Taliban was evil and it is a good thing they are no longer in power. But, what we have failed to realize is the nature of an Afghan society grounded in the Islamic faith. We had better take notice.

2006-03-27T14:15:00.000-08:00

Grant Money Flows to Faith-Based Groups: Boon or Curse? – Paul Dean

Christians have long experienced the unfair nature of this world. At the same time, they can take comfort in that reality by virtue of the fact that Christ promised them that it would be this way. Of course, many Christians take no comfort in such a thought. It is difficult to know whether this dynamic flows from ignorance, self-centeredness, or both. The problem lies in the fact that Christians are too often guilty of being selfish and not thinking at the same time. Of course, this combination can be dangerous.

Consider a report from MSNBC. “For years, conservatives have complained about what they saw as the liberal tilt of federal grant money. Taxpayer funds went to abortion rights groups such as Planned Parenthood to promote birth control, and groups closely aligned with the AFL-CIO got Labor Department grants to run worker-training programs. In the Bush administration, conservatives are discovering that turnabout is fair play: Millions of dollars in taxpayer funds have flowed to groups that support President Bush's agenda on abortion and other social issues.”

Three brief observations are in order here. First, taxpayer funds used to support abortion rights groups is reprehensible, not only because abortion is so reprehensible, but because wealth redistribution is reprehensible. To take money from one group by force, (that is, taking money through taxation from those opposed to abortion), and give it to another group, is no different from a man taking your wallet at gunpoint and giving it to another person of his choice (try not paying your taxes and see if you are not dealt with at gunpoint). While some taxes must be levied for public good, taxation and wealth redistribution of this kind is patently unbiblical (stealing is wrong) and was rejected by our forefathers. They actually fought a war over it.

Second, if taxation and wealth redistribution is wrong for the support of abortion rights groups, then taxation and wealth redistribution is wrong for the support of pro-life groups. We cannot have it both ways.

Third, be assured, where the government’s money goes (your money confiscated by the government through unbiblical taxation), the government’s power goes. When faith-based groups or churches take money from the government, they not only run the risk of being dictated to by the government in some way, they actually give the government tacit approval of such activity. Therefore, let the government keep their money. Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and render unto God that which is God’s, and let the two never meet. Federal grant money may seem like a boon, but in reality, it’s a curse.

2006-03-21T04:40:00.000-08:00

Domino’s Pizza Founder to Build Catholic Town – Paul Dean

Those who see the disintegrating culture in which we live long for a solution to such a tragedy. Of course, Christ and gospel penetration is the only solution. Yet, ideas are legion, and, sometimes novel. Such is the case as Tom Monaghan, the founder of the Domino’s Pizza chain, “has embarked on a $400 million plan to build the first town in America to be run according to strict Catholic principles,” according to Fox News.

“Abortions, pornography and contraceptives will be banned in the new Florida town of Ave Maria, which has begun to take shape on former vegetable farms 90 miles northwest of Miami. The town will be centred around a 100-foot tall oratory and the first Catholic university to be built in America for 40 years. The university’s president, Nicholas J Healy, has said future students should ‘help rebuild the city of God’ in a country suffering from ‘catastrophic cultural collapse.’ Ave Maria’s pharmacies will not be allowed to sell condoms or birth control pills. The town’s cable television network will carry no X-rated channels.”

The common grace of God still permeates our society. Healy is right when he notes that America is suffering from catastrophic cultural collapse. There are those who still hold to moral principles and are willing to take action to foster those principles in society. While common grace is not saving grace, and while morality is not the ultimate goal, this dynamic gives hope to the believer as the gospel of Christ will have appeal to such individuals. The Spirit must work in any case. Yet, some ground is easier to plow than other ground.

At the same time, there are those without the means of Monaghan who hold the same values. They are quite willing to buy into his plan. Consider the following: “The land on the western edge of the Everglades swamp will eventually house up to 30,000 people, with 5,000 students living on the university campus. Florida officials have declared the project a development bonanza for a depressed area, and Gov. Jeb Bush attended a groundbreaking ceremony for the new university earlier this month. The Florida developers managing the project claim more than 7,000 people have already expressed interest in buying homes in the town. Retailers and other businesses are reportedly close to leasing 60 percent of the intended commercial space.”

“Sources close to the project said Monaghan was particularly disturbed by what he regards as the failure of western civilization to resist Islamic fundamentalism. In a speech to students last year, Healy warned that Islam ‘no longer faces a religiously dynamic West.’”

Of course, this comment points beyond a concern for morality to a concern for a particular religion, or, the fear of a coming danger to society as a whole by way of a particular religion. Of course, one need only read the Koran and turn on the news to see that such a fear is well founded. Islamic fundamentalism goes beyond religion with its commitment to destroy all non-adherents beginning with Jews and Christians. Resistance is critical. While Christians must affirm religious freedom for all, we must not affirm religious freedom for terrorism and murderous activity in the guise of religion. In establishing a Catholic town (and that would not be my choice of course), Monaghan has done a courageous but necessary thing in principle in the face of encroaching terrorism.

“Healy described the ‘virtual collapse of Europe’ as ‘one of the most profound and unsettling developments of our new century.’ He added: ‘If you consider the more telling signs, such as its plummeting birth rate, Europe does not even seem to believe in a future . . . children are a sign of hope and the fruit of obedience to God’s command to be fruitful and multiply.’”

Europe is indeed in trouble. The collapse of which Healy speaks is owing to a rejection of religion, an embracing of sexual freedom without responsibility, an eschewing of family and family values, and an encroachment of Islamic fundamentalism. Let us be warned.

Of course, the plan has stirred protests from civil rights activists. Some who are “concerned about the separation of church and state are threatening lawsuits if Ave Maria attempts to enforce Catholic dogma. Monaghan has argued that the owners of the town’s commercial properties will be free to impose conditions in leases — notably the restriction on the sale of contraceptives. But that has been challenged by Howard Simon, executive director of the Florida branch of the American Civil Liberties Union.”

It is no surprise that the ACLU would protest this proposal. At the same time, the word hypocrisy comes to mind. This corrupt organization agitates politically for the rights of all but those committed to religion, and most notably, those committed to Christ.

Let us get some perspective here. Evangelical Christians must affirm what our forefathers affirmed in the Declaration of Independence, namely, that all persons are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We should not want the state telling us what to do or how to live our lives. We should resist the state imposing its will on others. Government should and does exist to protect us from one another. Laws against murder, rape, and theft, to name a few, come to mind, and should be affirmed. Yet, we really do not want the state telling us whether or not we can buy contraceptives. If the state bans such, then our liberty is trampled.

Yet, the issue here goes a bit further. Monaghan purchased the land upon which he is going to build this town. As any developer may place restrictive covenants or deed restrictions upon a planned development or subdivision, so too may Monaghan. He purchased the land and has liberty to develop it with deed restrictions. For the ACLU to cry foul is to cry against liberty. Further, let us not forget that persons do not have to buy into Monaghan’s plan or town. I for one will not because I am not Roman Catholic. But, others have the freedom to do so or not do so. This project is not something that curtails liberty. Rather, it is another aspect of that great experiment our forefathers embarked upon when they founded this nation upon the great principles of liberty and justice for all.

Let us also remember that the separation of church and state does not prohibit religious freedom. On the contrary, it protects such. The First Amendment says that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Congress cannot establish religion in the land nor can it prohit religion and its free exercise. We certainly do not want America as a whole to be Catholic, or Protestant for that matter by law. The imposition of such on an uwilling populace would not only be destructive of liberty, but an affront to Christ in regard to how He wants us to treat others. But, again, while we would not affirm such on a national level by way of imposition, in the case before us, we are talking about private development and voluntary inclusion.

Let us also note that the First Amendment does not prohibit individual states from establishing religion. While Christians should not affirm the rights of individual states to do such for the same reasons we would not affirm such at the national level, some of our forefathers saw it differently and the Constitution is reflective of that fact. As we think about biblical principles and the God-given right to liberty, let us affirm the First Amendment at a national level, let us see to it that liberty/religious freedom is affirmed in the individual states, and let us also affirm an individual’s right to liberty and religious freedom in private ownership of property and development. Let us affirm the individual’s right to choose whether or not he wants to live in a Catholic town. Where is the pro-choice stance of the ACLU on that one?

“Simon said the U.S. Supreme Court had already ruled ‘ownership [of a town] does not always mean absolute dominion.’ ‘If he wants to build a town and encourage like-minded people to come and live there, that’s fine. We get into problems where he tries to exercise governmental authority.’”

Now let’s be realistic here and reject this straw man argument. Monaghan is not claiming absolute dominion. He will not rule in this town. The restrictions he has proposed are plain for all to see, and, quite few. Further, the complaint against Monaghan exercising governmental authority rings hollow when one wants governmental authority to prohibit his civil liberties, and indeed yours.

“Frances Kissling, president of a liberal Catholic group supporting women’s rights to contraception and abortion, said the idea of a Catholic town was ‘very disturbing.’ ‘We have to learn to tolerate the fact that there are other religions — as well as non-believers — and the interplay of cultures helps make each of us more productive members of society. A Catholic-only town goes totally against that.’”

Well Ms. Kissling, it is abortion and the denial of life and liberty for a whole segment of our society that is disturbing. Until you reject that position, your words have no weight in this debate. And yes, we must be tolerant of all religions in this nation and we do indeed welcome the interplay of cultures. But, let us not deny Monaghan’s rights or those who would spend private money to be part of his development. If I may say so gently and humbly, it is you who goes against liberty and tolerance.

2006-03-09T07:34:00.000-08:00

Valley Forge Painting Banned from Classroom - Paul Dean

The water is certainly muddy in today's culture war as it spills over into the classroom. Confusion abounds as to what is or is not allowed by the Constitution when it comes to the issue of religion in the classroom, even religion in its historical context. In light of such confusion, misunderstanding, and misinformation, at more than one level of society including the judiciary, it appears that things are only going to get worse.

According to WorldNetDaily, "A federal judge has ruled against a public school teacher who filed a lawsuit after administrators removed Christian-themed postings from his classroom, including a depiction of George Washington praying at Valley Forge and news clippings about the faith of President Bush and former Attorney General John Ashcroft."

The First Amendment certainly prohibits the establishment of religion. Certain implications derive from that prohibition including the fact that teachers employed by government schools are not allowed to force religion on the students. However, it is well-known and established fact that many of our forefathers were Christians. One fails to see how a painting of Washington praying at Valley Forge constitutes establishment of religion. On the contrary; to ban that particular painting from the classroom distorts the facts of history and robs the students of certain aspects of our cultural heritage. At the same time, news clippings about the faith of current leaders, including President Bush, only serve to present facts as well. As one cannot separate Gandhi from his faith, neither can one separate those who are outspoken about their faith from the same.

"William Lee – a Spanish teacher at Tabb High School in York County, Va. – was represented by the Christian public-interest group Rutherford Institute in U.S. District court, arguing his free-speech rights were violated…But Judge Rebecca Beach Smith wrote in her opinion the case 'is not about what free speech rights Lee has as an individual expressing himself on private property,' according to the Associated Press. 'Rather, this case is a question about what free speech rights Lee has as a public school teacher-employee,' she said."

It is always problematic when an individual comments on legal or judicial opinions when that individual is not credentialed in the field. Such is the case with me. At the same time, in light of the fact that Lee is a government employee, while one must agree with Judge Smith in her assessment as far as it goes, one must also point out that the issue is about more than that which is stated. Free speech aside, the question remains; can posters depicting historical fact be put on display in the classroom if that historical fact happens to be religious in nature? Certain rulings would indicate that the answer is in the affirmative. Common sense would seem to point to the same conclusion. Religion is not being forced or established. But let’s explore the issue a bit further.

"School officials also removed from Lee's classroom a flier promoting the National Day of Prayer. Lee's attorneys argued his bulletin boards were a limited public forum for the private speech of teachers, but Smith insisted they were part of his curriculum and, therefore, not protected by the First Amendment, the AP said.”

We reserve comment on the argument presented. However, it seems that the real issue here has to do with freedom to post fliers. Certainly students are allowed to do such according to the Federal Equal Access Act. If any group is allowed to post fliers, then other groups are allowed to do the same. Teachers are not allowed the same privilege. Yet, may we not ask the question as to whether a teacher posting a flier regarding the National Day of Prayer is an establishment of religion?

“Principal Crispin Zanca contended the school's policy gave discretion to remove a wide variety of postings 'regardless of whatever expression or demonstration of personal interest they may possess,' including offensive materials such as profanity.’” Zanca is right as far as she goes. But, she is in error to place the posters in question in the same category as profane material.”

Be aware, however, that “Zanca allowed Lee to keep postings about the religious practices of Inca and Mayan civilizations, a photo of Boy Scouts praying in memory of 9-11 victims and an article and accompanying photo of a flight technician with ‘Pray for America’ on his helmet.” Here she has demonstrated inconsistency on more than one front. If postings about religious practices of Inca and Mayan civilizations are allowed, then postings concerning our forefathers and their faith should be allowed. Moreover, one struggles to see the difference between the Christian postings she allowed and the Christian postings she banned.

At the end of the day, in one sense, our words here are nothing more than interesting discussion. The sad reality is that Christianity is being attacked on an increasing number of fronts. The sadder reality is that very few Christians know how to defend their actions in such cases. Worse, very few seem to care.

Of course, our mission is not to see to it that Christian postings in the classroom are protected. Our mission is to proclaim Christ. As we are faithful to that calling, the culture in which we find ourselves will be influenced by Christ. And that culture will stand for liberty and justice for all, not just a select few.

2006-03-07T03:28:00.000-08:00

Supreme Court Backs Abortion Protesters – Paul Dean

As the battle for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness continues to rage in this decadent nation, those who would oppose such are seeking creative ways to circumvent constitutional rights guaranteed to the people. The self-absorbed “my body, my choice” crowd (ignoring the fact that babies in the womb are separate bodies and separate human beings), continues to seek new ways to thwart a growing resistance to the atrocity of abortion. In this particular case however, the side of sanity has won a battle.

“The Supreme Court dealt a setback Tuesday to abortion clinics in a two-decade-old legal fight over abortion protests, ruling that federal extortion and racketeering laws cannot be used to ban demonstrations,” reports Toni Locy. “The 8-0 decision ends a case that the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had kept alive despite a 2003 ruling by the high court that lifted a nationwide injunction on anti-abortion groups led by Joseph Scheidler and others.”

“In Tuesday's ruling, Justice Stephen Breyer said Congress did not intend to create ‘a freestanding physical violence offense’ in the federal extortion law known as the Hobbs Act. Instead, Breyer wrote, Congress chose to address violence outside abortion clinics in 1994 by passing the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, which set parameters for such protests.”

“A federal judge issued a nationwide injunction against the abortion protesters after a Chicago jury found in 1998 that demonstrators had engaged in a pattern of racketeering by interfering with clinic operations, menacing doctors, assaulting patients and damaging clinic property. But the Supreme Court voided the injunction in 2003, ruling that the extortion law could not be used against the protesters because they had not illegally ‘obtained property’ from women seeking to enter clinics to receive abortions.”

The First Amendment guarantees the right of the people to peaceably assemble. Our forefathers saw the wisdom of allowing people to protest in a non-violent way those things which are reprehensible (or whatever else for that matter). The people still have a right to be heard in this land and cannot be quelled by the government or any other group.

Now more than ever, every Christian has the obligation to some how, some way take personal responsibility in stopping the scourge of abortion. Public protest of abortion clinics may not be everyone’s method of choice. At the moment, it is not mine. However, the blood of millions of slaughtered children cries out for our advocacy. Moreover, our God calls us to react with horror to such brazen attacks on Him (Gen. 9:6) and those who have no voice in this present battle.

It should go without saying that Christians who engage in such protest must do so in proper, biblical fashion. We are representatives of Christ and dare not bring reproach on His Name through unwarranted violence or other unsanctioned action. As far as lies within us, let us maintain peace with all men (Rom. 12:18).

Christians too must stand for the right of others to publicly protest abortion even if such protest is not our method of action. The maintenance of Christian liberty and freedom to preach the gospel demands such a stance. Our voices one day may be silenced by ban. Then, we will accept God’s sovereign providence in joyful submission. But, let our voices not be silenced by our own apathy.

Recent developments will take the abortion battle to the Supreme Court once again. Let us do our part in affirming the image of God in man, the God-given right to life, and the reality and precious nature of every individual soul God has created whether in the womb or out. Let gospel truth impact this debate in an increasing manner and let God remove this blight from our land.

2006-03-06T03:29:00.001-08:00

War on Christians Conference in D.C. - Paul Dean

The Christian life is characterized as a battle; and that for good reason. We battle the flesh, Satan, and the world against sin. At the same time, the church is constantly being attacked from within and without. In this increasingly secular culture, Christ and His church are under increasing attack. This reality has spurred some Christian leaders to host a conference that will consider the war on Christians.

WorldNetDaily reports “A first-of-its-kind conference on ‘The War on Christians’ will be held in Washington, D.C., this month to examine attacks from the news media, Hollywood, courts and activist groups. Conference convener Vision America says ‘The War On Christians And The Values Voter in 2006’ will be the first ‘to consider the savage and accelerating’ attacks by groups such as the ACLU and Anti-Defamation League.”

“Speakers at the March 27-28 event will include Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan.; Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas; Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas; conservative leader Phyllis Schlafly; radio host Janet Parshall; and former Republican presidential candidates Gary Bauer and Alan Keyes.”

“’During the past Christmas season, the airwaves were abuzz with talk of the war on Christmas,’ said Don Feder, a former syndicated columnist and the spokesman for the event. ‘Yet efforts to purge Christmas from the culture are but one aspect of a coordinated campaign against Bible-believing Christians.’ Feder says that while the mainstream media may not ‘get it,’ a December poll by Fox News showed 59 percent of Americans believed ‘Christianity is under attack’ in the United States.”

“Vision America was founded in 1998 by Rick Scarborough with the aim to ‘inform and mobilize pastors and their congregations to become salt and light, becoming pro-active in restoring Judeo-Christian values in America.’” In response to a local dynamic that drew national attention, “the pastor mobilized his congregation and members began running for public office and volunteering for various political activist organizations. In 1996 he published the Book ‘Enough is Enough; a Call to Christian Involvement.’”

Some comments are warranted here. First, in one sense, this idea is one whose time has come. Christianity is indeed under attack in America. This estimation should come as no surprise for those who stay informed; yet, many remain grossly ignorant of such things. At the same time, for those informed in regard to our nation’s history, we can only watch this attack unfold with increasing shock and awe, and that in a negative sense. It seems that not only are our Christian moorings being eroded from under our feet, but the First Amendment has no real meaning any more and long-held American virtues such as freedom of religion are no longer embraced. Again, on the contrary, Christianity is on the way to ban.

Second, while this idea is one whose time has come so that solutions can be sought in regard to the increasing marginalization of Christianity, a look at the panel and agenda causes us to offer an affirmation and two cautions. We affirm religious freedom for all and should work through the political process to maintain such freedom as is guaranteed by our Constitution. However, in the end, for those who may design to proceed further, we must avoid the twin evil’s of co-belligerence and civil religion.

Third, Scarborough and his group demonstrate that Christians can still make a real difference in this world. It only takes a little effort and the blessing of Almighty God. Part of the gospel commission (Matt. 28:18f) and cultural mandate (Gen. 1:28f) given to us by our Lord involves influencing this culture with the gospel in every area for the glory of God.

Fourth, having said the above, we must also remember that political action and/or change is not the ultimate means or goal of the aforementioned commission and mandate. Those dynamics are accomplished ultimately by the gospel itself as it holds sway in our culture through our witness and proclamation of the truth in love.

Let the name of Christ be exalted in this land. And, let His means and ways be exalted at the same time.

2006-02-10T22:59:00.000-08:00

Hamas and the Christian Community – Paul Dean

God has His people strategically placed all over the world. And yet, there are times when the situation becomes very bleak. In the midst of political turmoil in the Middle East, Geoffrey Smith has a reminder for us.

“Hamas – a militant Islamic party – won a landslide victory in the Palestinian elections last week. While Israel and the international community consider what policies to adopt in response, little attention has been given to the likely impact on the Christian community – a small minority in the West Bank and Gaza. Bethlehem has the largest Christian community in the West Bank. Already this has shrunk as families under pressure leave for the greater opportunities and freedoms of America and Europe.”

In light of Smith's reminder that Christians are in harm's way, we must be reminded that Christians do indeed have the option to leave. Our Lord Jesus Christ warned us that persecution would come. While Christians may respond in different ways, He did say this: “When they persecute you in this city, flee to another. For assuredly, I say to you, you will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes (Matt. 10:23).” Sadly, some families will have to be uprooted and start over in another place. Such is the sin sick world in which we live.

And yet, another question comes to the fore. “What effect will the Hamas victory have on those who remain, and on scattered Christians elsewhere in the Palestinian Authority?” No doubt exists that life will be difficult for those who stay in the region. Smith points out that “the draft constitution of a Palestinian State makes clear in article 5 that Islam shall be the official religion in Palestine. Article 7 determines that the principles of Islamic Shari’a shall be a major source of legislation. The weight given to these principles is likely to be very different under a militant and disciplined Islamic party than under the largely secular rule of Fatah.”

Other questions arise in light of this massive shift in power. “How will this impact dress codes, pressure to wear the Islamic veil, pressure on property-holding by Christians, restriction on trading licenses for Christians and pressure on Christian girls to marry Muslims? Already there is talk of compulsion on women to wear the veil, and extra taxes on non-Moslems. Will these social forces increase the rate of emigration so that Bethlehem ceases to have any significant Christian presence?”

Smith goes on to note that among other questions, “underlying all this is a basic question: How does the New Testament instruction of St Paul to obey the ruling authorities apply to Christians under militant Islamic rule? Worldwide, over 50 million Christians live in countries under Muslim majority rule.”

In light of these serious issues, those who remain will indeed have to submit to the ruling authorities: even to militant Islamic rule. When Paul wrote to the church at Rome and told them to submit to the state, he was referring to Nero. At that time until the fourth century, Christians were brutally persecuted by the Roman government.

In the Romans text, we are given reasons to submit to such. We must submit to the state because God Himself ordained the state (1-3), it is for our sanctification (4a), wrath comes if we don’t (4b), and conscience before God demands it (5-7). Paul is sending the message to believers everywhere that we are not here to overthrow the state. The Lord’s kingdom is not of this world (Jn. 18:36). But, perhaps more importantly, Paul is more concerned with our humble submission to God and our powerful witness to the world than he is with our civil liberties. What a witness Christians may have as they humbly submit to such a violent group of people.

Of course, the Scriptures are clear that if the state asks Christians to sin against God in some way, then they must not submit to the state in such a case. We are to obey God rather than man (Acts 5:29).

And yet, this issue becomes all the more serious when one considers the nature of Islam and its goals. “Islam is a strongly territorialist religion. It claims that all areas of the Middle East were under Islamic rule and therefore must return to Islamic control. In Iraq the small Christian minority face difficult times – there were a series of bomb explosions outside churches last week. Iran is 99% Muslim. President Ahmadinejad reportedly instructed his 30 provincial governors that Christianity should be destroyed. Last week he met with Palestinian militants in Syria where the Higher Command of Hamas is based. Will similar anti-Christian policies apply in the Palestinian territory?”

No doubt God will call some Christians to flee in the face of persecution. Those who remain must submit to the state unless asked to sin. And, while there is biblical rationale for self-defense, God will call some to be martyred for the faith. How their blood must be followed by our prayers if we are to see further bloodshed cease and the gospel advanced. Let us not fail in our responsibility as we witness the sacrifice of their faith. Let us pray that the faithful there will be able to say with the apostle Paul: “But I want you to know, brethren, that the things which happened to me have actually turned out for the furtherance of the gospel, so that it has become evident to the whole palace guard, and to all the rest, that my chains are in Christ; and most of the brethren in the Lord, having become confident by my chains, are much more bold to speak the word without fear (Phil. 1:12-14).” May God make it so!

Smith also noted that “local Christian communities and governments need our prayers more than ever to retain a clear moral compass.” It is no trouble for us to remind ourselves one more time in this regard: let us take his advice and pray.

2006-02-10T22:00:00.000-08:00

Study: Churches Lack Internet Skills – Paul Dean

We live in an age of unprecedented opportunity to reach people with the message of the gospel of Christ. The internet truly provides a gateway to the world. While the web should be no substitute for evangelism, missions, or other biblical ministry, use of it can certainly enhance a local church’s outreach or an individual’s outreach for that matter. Yet, comparatively speaking, few churches avail themselves of such opportunity.

“Twenty-five percent of Protestant churches in the United States have virtually no involvement with the World Wide Web, according to a recent study conducted by Ellison Research…Only half of all churches provide staff with e-mail, and just under half maintain a website, Ellison Research found. Relatively few Protestant churches use e-mail prayer chains, have an e-mail church newsletter, or have an online member directory (only four percent).”

”The study found that church website content is usually static rather than interactive. Content usually consists of a map or directions to the church, a calendar of upcoming events, a statement of beliefs, and pages for specific ministry departments. Half of the church websites list staff emails….Less likely to appear are Bible study material or helps, sermon transcripts, upcoming sermon titles or topics, sermons available in streaming audio, a bulletin board, forum, or chat room, sermons in streaming video, testimonies, and a way to donate online (two percent).”

”Churches need to determine whether they want to have an online site or an online ministry. Right now, most only have the former, if they have anything at all.”

Worship is ultimate because God deserves worship. And, it is worship that drives ministry and worship that is the goal of ministry. We minister out of the overflow of worship and our goal is that others might receive ministry and thereby worship God for His grace. Thus, ministry is critical. In this high tech age in which God has placed us, anyone can have a written ministry for Christ and indeed a global impact via the internet. The great Baptist preacher of a bygone era, Charles Spurgeon had his sermons printed weekly and distributed throughout London. His pervasiveness in popularity was due in part to the number of ways he ministered the gospel. It is time for churches to consider their opportunity and follow through with internet ministry that the nations might glorify God for His mercy (Rom. 15:8).

2006-02-10T00:00:00.000-08:00

NBC Offends Again – Paul Dean

I am no prophet, but I did note in my last article on the cancellation of NBC’s “The Book of Daniel” that it wouldn’t be the last time that Christ would be attacked in this manner. However, I certainly did not expect it so soon from NBC. Susan Jones of CNSNews.com reports that “a conservative advocacy group accuses NBC of ‘hitting back’ at the Christian community in an upcoming episode of ‘Will and Grace.’ The April 13 episode will mock the crucifixion of Christ, the American Family Association said.” ”AFA pointed to wire reports saying that Britney Spears will make a guest appearance on the April 13 ‘Will and Grace,’ playing a conservative Christian sidekick to Sean Hayes' homosexual character, Jack. When Jack's fictional TV network, Out TV, is bought by a Christian TV network, Spears hosts a cooking segment called ‘Cruci-fixin's.’”

“’To further denigrate Christianity, NBC chose to air [the episode] the night before Good Friday,’ AFA Founder and Chairman Donald E. Wildmon complained. ‘NBC does not treat Jews, Muslims or other religions with such disrespect. Yet the network demonstrates a deep of hostility toward followers of Christ.’”

We have to agree with Wildmon that NBC is hitting back. Revenge is a huge motivation for those who don’t know Christ, and sadly, all too often for some who do know Christ. It seems our culture is drunk on its intoxicating effect. Of course, in a culture war we expect such from the enemy.

Again, in a culture war we sometimes fight with carnal means, it certainly should not surprise us. When we use carnal weapons, the enemy most certainly will. That is not to say that we should not call NBC to express our concerns. It simply means that we must do so in a gentle way. Doing so may not keep them from revenge, but, it will certainly glorify Christ.

Positively, for the believer, this move highlights the fact that Jesus is Lord. Wildmon is also right to point out that other religions are not given such disrespect. In fact, the world is bowing down to Islamic terrorists even now in the wake of Danish cartoons putting Mohammad in a bad light. No such bowing down to Christians or even a partial retreat will occur. Of course, the Scriptures have told us it would be this way that we might rejoice and be exceedingly glad (Matt. 5:1f). The world (NBC) hates Christ. It cannot get any worse than attacking the cross. It is foolishness to those who are perishing (1 Cor. 1:18f). But we participate in His sufferings, if even in such an easy way as this (2 Cor. 1:5). No one is trying to cut our heads off, yet.

Perhaps one of the saddest dynamics in this whole issue is the fact that Britney Spears at one time claimed to be a Christian. She even walked an aisle and rededicated her life not too long ago. Sadly, walking an aisle never saved anyone. She hates Christ as much as NBC. She simply does not know it (unless she has renounced Him and I am unaware of it as I do not follow Britney Spears).

With the AFA, we certainly urge Christians to “call your local NBC affiliate and ask them not to air the April 13 episode of ‘Will and Grace.’” Of course, from my perspective, though I have never seen the show, and do not have to, that’s another show we ought to pray is cancelled. AFA “also wants concerned Christians to send a letter of complaint to NBC Chairman Bob Wright, and to spread the word about NBC's latest insult in church bulletins and newsletters.” Those actions are appropriate as well.

Let me offer in summary, with applicable twists, the points I made in regard to “Daniel’s” cancellation as they also apply here. First, God answers prayer and we should pray for this shows cancellation, "for the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds (2 Cor. 10:4)."

Second, we must put feet to our prayers and that is what AFA is urging. We join them as noted above.

Third, Christians must voice their concerns and speak out against iniquity. But, rather than fighting back as they are fighting back, let is follow AFA’s advice with speech seasoned with salt that we would not pose ourselves as adversaries of NBC but as missionaries to NBC.

Fourth, let us pray that as decadent as America is, that our fellow citizens will not have the stomach to sit still for a mockery of the crucifixion of Christ. How can they watch “The Passion” and this episode of “Will and Grace” at the same time? Many will and what a tragedy. Let us pray that many will not.

Fifth, let Christians not support shows like “Will and Grace.” Such shows continue to erode the last vestiges of moral conviction in our culture.

Sixth, let us keep fighting the good fight of the gospel of grace in this lost culture. Such engagement is part of that fight.

Seventh, I’m issuing a call to Christians majoring in the performing arts or related fields to consider going to Hollywood, not for your big break, but for the sake of the gospel and good salt and light programming in this culture. By the way, I have not seen a Christian television series that qualifies yet. Maybe God will use you as the first, again, not for your glory, but for His.

2006-01-29T22:16:00.000-08:00

Does Christianity Squash Women? – Paul Dean

We live in a culture where radical feminism has taken hold not only in terms of pagan goddess worship in the pews of America, but more practically in the cultural attitude of disdain expressed toward women who are homemakers. Rebecca Jones has written a biblical response to that attitude with her book entitled: Does Christianity Squash Women? Mary K. Mohler, the wife of Dr. Albert Mohler, writes a thorough review of the book for www.reformation21.org. Read her introduction below.

“It seems that Christian women living in a post-Christian era are often an enigma to society. There is far too little ammunition to combat the increasing mentality that Biblical womanhood is outdated and irrelevant. Rebecca Jones’ provocative book provides readers with an arsenal full of cogent arguments based on Biblical truths. She also enlists the support of a virtual “Who’s Who” among conservative Christian scholars. In just over 200 pages of text, she quotes from more than eighty of the most respected evangelicals of our time as well as from the recent past. Her thesis, not surprisingly, is that Christianity does not squash women: ‘[Women] are, on the contrary, given a place of high honor in the Bible….They play a huge part in the accomplishment of God’s will and in the arrival of the promised seed.’ While the book makes logical arguments that fly in the face of feminism, it also serves to bring encouragement to women who are seeking to uphold Biblical femininity but often feel like they are swimming upstream. This work is written “by a woman, for women and about women.”

The review speaks for itself. For a defense of biblical truth and the reality that Christianity does not squash women, this review and indeed the book are must reads. Women have a high calling in regard to their families and homes and play a critically important role in God’s redemptive plan. They have been accorded honor by God in a myriad of ways. So too should we accord them the same.

2006-01-28T19:26:00.000-08:00

John Piper Diagnosed with Prostate Cancer – Paul Dean

On January 6, Desiring God Ministries published a letter from John Piper concerning his being diagnosed with prostate cancer. We had the privilege of reading the letter on “Calling for Truth” that day and had a wonderful conversation revolving around God’s grace and providence. We talked about suffering and God working all things for the good of those who love him and pointed out how Dr. Piper has been raised up in this regard as a Christian endowed with grace to see things from a biblical and hopeful perspective.

After giving some detail about the cancer and requesting that his beloved congregation pray for him and his family, Dr. Piper made a few pastoral comments. Those comments are printed below in italics.

This news has, of course, been good for me. The most dangerous thing in the world is the sin of self-reliance and the stupor of worldliness. The news of cancer has a wonderfully blasting effect on both. I thank God for that. The times with Christ in these days have been unusually sweet.

For example, is there anything greater to hear and believe in the bottom of your heart than this: “God has not destined us for wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us so that whether we are awake or asleep we might live with him” (1 Thessalonians 5:9-10)?

God has designed this trial for my good and for your good. You can see this in 2 Corinthians 1:9, “Indeed, we felt that we had received the sentence of death. But that was to make us rely not on ourselves but on God who raises the dead.” And in 2 Corinthians 1:4-6, “He comforts us in all our affliction, so that we may be able to comfort those who are in any affliction, with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God . . . If we are afflicted, it is for your comfort and salvation.”

So I am praying: “Lord, for your great glory, 1) don’t let me miss any of the sanctifying blessings that you have for me in this experience; 2) don’t let the people of Bethlehem miss any of the sanctifying blessings that you have for us in this; 3) grant that the surgery be successful in removing cancer and sparing important nerves; 4) grant that this light and momentary trial would work to spread a passion for you supremacy for the joy of all peoples through Jesus Christ; 5) may Noël and all close to me be given great peace—and all of this through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom be glory for ever and ever, Amen.”

I hope God will lead you to pray in a similar way.

With deep confidence that

“Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting. The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.” 1 Corinthians 15:54-57

Pastor John

Indeed we are praying those things Dr. Piper: we are praying for you. And, May God grant all of us such grace, hope, and perspective in difficult times. And may such a witness be used of You O God to speak to hearts concerning the reality that is to be had in Jesus Christ. Thank you Father for your power and grace on display in your servant’s life. Make us all faithful witnesses in all your providences for us. For the sake of Christ and His glory we pray.

2006-01-28T18:59:00.000-08:00

Hamas: We Have No Peace Process – Paul Dean

To say that things are heating up in the Middle East would be an understatement. Of course those conversant with Scripture should not be surprised.

Yet, what has been termed a shocking victory for Hamas in the Palestinian parliamentary elections is indeed a problematic development to say the least. The terrorist organization won in what can only be termed a landslide. FOX reports that “official election results came in Thursday, with Hamas picking up 76 seats in the 132-seat parliament and Fatah winning just 43. The 13 remaining seats went to several smaller parties and independents.

In another development, “Progress will be made on the U.S.-backed ‘road map’ for peace, with or without the cooperation of new ruling party Hamas, Palestinian and Israeli leaders said. ‘I am committed to implementing [the] program on which you elected me a year ago," Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas said in a televised address Thursday night. ‘It is a program based on negotiations and peaceful settlement with Israel.’”

“Abbas, who co-founded the now-minority Fatah Party with the late Yasser Arafat, hinted that future negotiations with Israel would be conducted through the Palestine Liberation Organization, a possible bypass of a Hamas-led government. ‘We are going to reactivate the role of the PLO," said Abbas, who has been PLO chairman since Arafat's death in late 2004. The PLO was founded as the umbrella group of Palestinian organizations several decades ago, but its importance has withered since the establishment of the Palestinian Authority in 1994. Whether Abbas' proposal met Israel's conditions for ongoing negotiation had yet to be sorted out.”

“Israeli Acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said his country would not recognize the Palestinian government so long as it included members of Hamas, a terrorist group responsible for numerous attacks on Israelis. ‘The state of Israel will not negotiate with a Palestinian administration if even part of it is an armed terrorist organization calling for the destruction of the state of Israel,’ he said in a statement.’”

“President Bush on Thursday said he could not foresee the peace process moving forward with Hamas in control of the Palestinian government. ‘I don't see how you can be a partner in peace if you advocate the destruction of a country as part of your platform.’ ‘A political party that articulates the destruction of Israel as part of its platform is a party with which we will not deal.’”

“The United States, which has poured $1.7 billion into the region since 1993 and is the Palestinians' most generous individual donor, can be expected to cut off assistance to a Hamas-run government. Other donor countries have indicated they will follow suit.”

“Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar said his group would be willing to extend a year-old cease-fire with Israel. But, he added, there should be no expectations Hamas would pick up where Fatah leaves off in peace negotiations. ‘We have no peace process,’ he said. ‘We are not going to mislead our people to tell them we are waiting, meeting, for a peace process that is nothing.’”

“Israeli politicians from across the political spectrum said Hamas' victory effectively killed the peace process. ‘Hamas isn't capable of truly abandoning the goal of destroying Israel without disintegrating, because the whole purpose of Hamas is the liquidation of the state of Israel and pursuing it through terror,’ said Benjamin Netanyahu, leader of the opposition Likud Party.”

What does it all mean?

First, the Scriptural teaching of total depravity is on display when people can freely elect a terrorist organization to rule them regardless of their economic or political disadvantages. We should not be surprised that men left to themselves have murderous hearts. Such is on display to one degree or another in nationalistic and self-centered pursuits.

Second, history should teach us a lesson. While we could only wish, in light of these developments, even if only to a small degree in light of who he is, that Abbas was still in power, it’s too late. It’s time for him to exit the stage. To resurrect the PLO is no solution but another diversion down another road of terrorism.

How quickly we forget that Yasser Arafat was a terrorist. How we watched in horror the events unfold in Munich at the 1972 Olympic Games as his organization took hostage and murdered eleven Israeli athletes. And that was only a small fraction of his terrorist activities over the years. And yet, this man was welcomed onto the world stage with open arms and given the Nobel Peace Prize in 1994. But the real man come through again in 2000, as Arafat “walked away from the most generous offer ever made by an Israeli government. In conversations with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, hosted by President Bill Clinton at Camp David, Arafat had been presented with a choice. Barak offered him more than Arafat could have dreamed, pledging to return almost all of the occupied territories and granting the proposed Palestinian state the right to rule over Arab sections of Jerusalem and to operate aircraft in Israeli air space. Arafat coldly rejected the offer, leading President Clinton and American diplomats to believe that they had been betrayed by the PLO leader,” Albert Mohler reported after Arafat’s death in 2004.

What is the lesson? Those connected with terrorists organizations are terrorists, regardless of their name or current political maneuvering position. “Can the Ethiopian change his skin? Or can the leopard change his spots? Neither can a sinner change his ways (Jer. 13:23).”

Third, President Bush is right now. We cannot deal with terrorists. Of course, how wrong he was to think we could. Again, we should think about that reality before we spend one more dime in a futile effort. What the Palestinian people need is a leader committed to peace. They don’t need someone committed to peace when convenient. They need a paradigm shift in their thinking. Until that shift occurs, hope of peace is only illusory. Arafat has already proven that enough will never be enough.

Fourth, we have a fundamental misunderstanding in this country concerning the nature and goal of Islam. They want to eradicate all but themselves from the face of the earth, beginning with Jews and Christians. That is why democratic elections secured the first freely elected terrorist government in history. Let's not fool ourselves anymore.

Fifth, prayer is critical. Hamas is being honest. When they say they have no peace process, we should take them seriously. Let us pray for a failed government and that paradigm shift the people so desperately need. At the same time, Israel will not cower. Let us pray for wisdom on their part. And, let us pray for peace in the Middle East.

Sixth, let us take the gospel to the Middle East. No real peace will be had there until Christ comes. Yet, we can have temporary times of peace as a result of gospel influence. Political solutions are immediately elusive and ultimate illusory. Christ is the answer, for all of us.

2006-01-28T17:30:00.000-08:00

Senator Takes Aim At Evolution – Paul Dean

Yet another wrinkle in the evolution debate has developed. And this is no small wrinkle. It has Copernican size implications. More on that a little later.

“Whether S.C. high school students should be encouraged to question the theory of evolution will be the focus of a meeting of the state's education reform panel,” according to the AP. “The discussion is not about inserting intelligent design into the state's biology curriculum, the lawmaker who started the debate said. ‘The issue is ... whether or not to have critical analysis injected into the curriculum,’ said Sen. Mike Fair, R-Greenville, a member of the Education Oversight Committee.’”

Or course, critical analysis is part of any good education in any endeavor. Those on both side of this issue would no doubt agree. The problem lies in that those who are opposed to Sen. Fair deny with their actions what they espouse with their lips. Fear drives them. Read on.

“Some scientists and educators say critical analysis already is inherently part of the science curriculum. They say this is an effort by ‘anti-evolutionists’ to cast unreasonable doubt on what they call the basis for understanding biology. ‘What they mean is that you're going to single evolution out for criticism," said Jerry Hilbish, a University of South Carolina biology professor. ‘There are no legitimate, scientifically sound criticisms of evolution. The only criticisms they are going to come up with are things that are misrepresentations; they are fabrications. And others are simple outright lies about what the scientific status is.’

Now let’s break those statements down a bit. All scientists acknowledge that there are significant gaps in evolutionary theory. It is the height of arrogance and fear to speak with rhetoric concerning casting unreasonable doubt on the basis for understanding biology. The fact of the matter is that there are scientifically sound criticisms of evolution and those who deny such are being disingenuous.

But, what is the fuss? What are they really up in arms about?

“State-approved science standards dictate what teachers include in their lesson plans. Within each standard are a set of ‘indicators,’ which are sentences that describe abilities students should have at the end of a class…In the biology section, the state says students should be able to explain the basis for evolution: the theory that life-forms have adapted over billions of years. Fair says the wording should be changed to indicate that students will be able to ‘critically analyze’ the theory.”

There you have it. Those committed to a particular worldview and scientific paradigm are afraid of critical analysis, the very foundation upon which science rests. The scientists are afraid of the scientific method as it will force them to come up with new models to explain the gaps in their current model.

“State Education Department spokesman Jim Foster says that's already how students are taught. ‘Science teachers already teach students to critically analyze because that's the foundation of modern science,’ he said. ‘Examine, question, test, analyze: That's what scientists do.’”

Of course, he is right in saying that is what scientists do. Then why the unwillingness to do science?

“Jo Anne Anderson, executive director of the oversight committee, said one limitation of the science standards is that studying the history of science has been largely removed from the curriculum. As a result, she said, students are not exposed to the principle that knowledge changes over time. ‘Our young people need to understand that good science is constantly disproving the status quo,’ she said.”

And there’s the answer. Gene Edward Veith makes a connection between an ancient debate and the current one (World Magazine, “Textbook Case”). There was a time when scientists thought the sun and the planets revolved around the earth. This Ptolemaic scientific paradigm explained what scientists observed. Then Copernicus came along and noted that moons revolved around other planets and posited that the planets that we can observe may actually revolve around the sun. For scientists to embrace such a notion would necessitate a massive paradigm shift on their part. Because they could not explain the gaps in their present theory, new models would have to be constructed. The problem lies in the fact that they were unwilling to change at that time and Copernicus was condemned as a heretic and imprisoned. Of course, the Copernican revolution could not be stopped as truth ultimate prevails.

Scientific historian, Thomas Kuhn, is famous for noting this inability and unwillingness to discard old paradigms for new ones. Those who are willing to push the envelope are termed paradigm pioneers. A paradigm shift occurs when the evidence is so overwhelming that new models must be constructed. And of course that shift results in a scientific revolution.

We are in need of a Copernican revolution when it comes to this debate. It is high time that those who question the status quo are not relegated to the status of scientific heretic and figuratively imprisoned. To outlaw critical analysis, and indeed intelligent design, is nothing short of Ptolemaic ignorance and quite frankly, bad science.

2006-01-28T16:41:00.000-08:00

Billy Graham May Speak in New Orleans – Paul Dean

The prophet Jeremiah said he had a fire burning in his bones: the word of God. The call to preach cannot be laid aside, but must be slowly given up as providence related to illness or other circumstances carries one ever closer to the next life. In this regard, Billy Graham is no exception.

Bruce Nolan reports that “Billy Graham, at 87 still the dominant figure on the American religious landscape, has decided to join his son, Franklin and perhaps even preach in New Orleans at an event in March. The elder Graham told members of his organization he was moved by the suffering of New Orleans and the surrounding region after Hurricane Katrina and wants to come ‘to encourage pastors, churches and the people’ of the area, said A. Larry Ross, a Graham spokesman.”

We can only praise God that He raises up men to preach, and to preach in some of the most trying times of our lives. No doubt the people of New Orleans need a word from God in the aftermath of such devastation. There are many there providing that word, and yet, this event would be special in light of Graham’s ministry, persona, and present condition.

“Debilitated by an array of ailments, most visibly Parkinson's disease, Graham is no longer the robust figure who has held an open Bible aloft in pulpits in 185 countries. He has prostate cancer and hydrocephaly, or water on the brain, and must use a walker because of the effects of a broken pelvis and hip…Graham's last major public engagement was a three-day crusade in New York City in June before 230,000 people. Given his condition, the common wisdom was that last summer's public appearance might well be his last.”

But, compassion is a powerful reality and apparently, this disaster is too important not to be involved if he is able. May God use Him and the local churches involved (Rev. David Crosby of First Baptist Church in New Orleans and Bishop J.D. Wiley of Life Center Cathedral in Algiers) as He sees fit for His glory and for the joy of those in New Orleans. How we pray that many find their rest in Christ.

May we too be mindful of the need around us. May we see God’s hand at work and join Him in the gathering of His people from the nations.

2006-01-28T16:20:00.000-08:00

Kerry Calls for Alito Filibuster – Paul Dean

To espouse a Christian worldview is to say to any concerned with a particular issue, what’s right is right and what’s wrong is wrong. It is one thing to be partisan, it is quite another to be malicious. Consider the charade that continues in regard to the conformation proceedings of Judge Samuel Alito.

“Massachusetts Sens. John Kerry and Edward Kennedy, along with a small number of other Senate Democrats, have threatened a filibuster to block the vote for Judge Samuel Alito's confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court, FOX News has learned.”

The threatened filibuster is grounded in malice, not in the Constitution or in any other legitimate dynamic. In that regard, it is wrong. Further, consider Kerry’s rhetoric.

Kerry asserted, “Judge Alito has consistently made it harder for Americans to have their day in court. He routinely defers to the power of the government, no matter how extreme. And he doesn’t believe women have a right to privacy that’s protected by the Constitution.”

Of course, the privacy of which Kerry speaks is abortion. The Constitution guarantees life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, not the right to murder. Let loopholes and language designed to circumvent the Constitution be done away with. Let hypocrisy be done away with. Let people be told we have a right to be free. But, we do not have a right to kill one another. The very right to life is basic to our freedom, and God-given. Take that away, and we continue to slip into barbarity. Then, no one is safe.

Kerry added, “The president has every right to nominate Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. It’s our right and our responsibility to oppose him vigorously and to fight against this radical upending of the Supreme Court.”

The problem here lies in the fact that the Supreme Court was radically upended by a disastrous and un-Constitutional ruling in 1973 with Roe v. Wade. Judicial activism is the weapon of the left, not the right. There is no responsibility to oppose one who will uphold the Constitution. On the contrary, a jurist with Alito’s record should be confirmed immediately.

But, there is more to this process and debate. Consider the fact that not all key Democrats support a filibuster and why.

“A senior Democratic leadership aide told FOX News on Thursday that Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and a majority of Democrats ‘do not support this action by Kerry and Kennedy. It is not politically advantageous for us.’ ‘Having made a count, I have come to the conclusion that it is highly unlikely that a filibuster would succeed,’ said Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill.”

“But on the Senate floor late Thursday, Kennedy said support is growing for a filibuster, and Durbin, along with Sens. Debbie Stabenow of Michigan and Paul Sarbanes of Maryland would back an attempt. Republicans, however, have already said they'll have the 60 votes needed in the Senate to break a filibuster and end the debate, so such a threat probably won't have an impact.”

Why would Durbin vacillate? Again, the issue is partisan politics. Let it be said here, in light of the fact that a filibuster would fail, and in light of the fact that no legitimate reasons exist to engage in such a dynamic, please quit wasting the time of the American people and all concerned. Get on with the business of governing the country. Too many important things are being left unattended while so many seek the spotlight.

Among two new Democratic supporters, Robert Byrd said, “His obvious intelligence, his obvious sincerity lead me to believe him to be an honorable man, a man who loves his country, loves his Constitution and man who will give of his best.”

Now isn’t that enough? And, isn’t that what’s right?

2006-01-26T07:17:00.000-08:00

NBC’s “Book of Daniel” Cancelled – Paul Dean

“NBC's ‘The Book of Daniel’ may have launched to great controversy and hoopla. But…the show ended with a whimper – pulled unceremoniously from NBC's Friday night schedule, effective immediately, with no more of an announcement than an entry on an NBC blog by creator Jack Kenny.”

“One NBC affiliate after another dropped the show. Advertisers ran from it. And, apparently, despite all the controversy it generated, so did viewers. Nashville's WSMV-TV General Manager Elden Hale, Jr. said: ‘Based on a review of the first three episodes and the clearly voiced concerns from our viewers, we have determined that the program 'The Book of Daniel' is not appropriate for broadcast television in this community.’ After the first three episodes, only Burlington Coat Factory was left as a national sponsor.”

Let’s glean some practical implications from this short but volatile episode in American television history. And, let’s do so from a biblical perspective.

First, God answers prayer. We at our church prayed specifically for the cancellation of this show as I know others did. Our God is gracious to hear and mighty to act. We must resort to prayer far more often than we do, “for the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds (2 Cor. 10:4).”

Second, we must put feet to our prayers. AFA Chairman, Donald Wildmon, noted that “the network had to absorb millions of dollars in losses each time it aired the program…because the show's sponsors bailed out. ‘We want to thank the 678,394 individuals who sent e-mails to NBC and the thousands who called and e-mailed their local affiliates,’ he added.

Third, in light of the above point, some will say the boycott worked. Indeed it did. However, the show was ultimately cancelled because of poor ratings. NBC may have an agenda, but they are not going to promote that agenda without making a profit. And yes, Christians must voice their concerns and speak out against iniquity. But, it is still true that had Christians not called for a public boycott (a public display of muscle and hitting them in the pocketbook as a means of fighting back, i.e. carnal warfare) and simply not watched the show and had then voiced their concerns in a loving way, the result would have been the same in terms of cancellation. The difference and benefit in such an approach versus the boycott approach is that Christians would not pose themselves as adversaries of NBC but as missionaries to NBC.

Fourth, we can praise God that as decadent as America is, they are still not willing to watch a pagan version of a Protestant minister and his God-hating family. It goes against a remnant of what they know to be right and wrong. It does not ring true to what even lost people know to be true about the Bible and most ministers. There is an opportunity for witness as God has not removed common grace from the land completely and as people still, and always will, bear the image of God.

Fifth, we bear some responsibility here for the likes of the “Book of Daniel” being aired in the first place. This event does highlight the fact that Christians are willing to get behind something public and controversial. It is easy to boycott and express outrage. A larger question remains unanswered however. Why do so many other objectionable television shows remain on the air? They do so because too many Christians are watching them and ratings are good. No boycott has been called for because they are not viewed as direct attacks on Christ as was the “Book of Daniel.” But this raises the issue of where hearts really are. If Christians took Christ more seriously and strove to be more like Him every day, we would not need to call for the easy boycotts and we would see far less filth on television.

Sixth, let us realize that this attack on Christ will not be the last. Jack Kenny’s cancellation announcement was brief but informative. "Unfortunately, due to many reasons, 'The Book of Daniel' will no longer be aired on NBC on Friday nights," he wrote to fans. "I just wanted to say 'thank you' to all of you who supported the show. There were many wonderful, talented people who contributed to its success – and I do mean success. Whatever the outcome, I feel that I accomplished what I set out to do.” Well, the only way he could describe a cancelled show as a success that accomplished what he set out to do is to have a goal of stirring up the firestorm he did. He may have other goals or expectations or even motives in such a show, but, the bottom line is that it was his attack on Christ. Again, there will be more. In light of that reality, how will we react? Can we engage in some real spiritual warfare now (prayer, holiness, witness, abstinence without threat but as a way of life) so we won’t have to engage in carnal warfare next time?

Seventh, while our primary calling is to take the gospel to this culture and to the nations, Christian cultural influence is indeed part of the cultural mandate given to us in Gen. 1:28. That mandate is connected to the gospel and not divorced from it. This reality necessitates close scrutiny on our part as to how we engage this culture through different mediums and that we take great care in not compromising or watering down the gospel. That said, in light of this event as well as others including The Passion of the Christ and End of the Spear, perhaps Christians could be more involved in Hollywood in a positive way as salt and light through the entertainment industry. With a move of that sort, theological dialogue will have to be had. At the same time, a show about Christians who have moral character and seek to do the right thing or a movie without the extra baggage would certainly be welcome, and quite possibly, influential.

2006-01-24T00:24:00.000-08:00

Pastor Calls for Boycott of Microsoft – Paul Dean

A Redmond pastor is urging a national boycott of companies that support a state gay rights bill. According to the AP, those companies include Microsoft, Hewlett-Packard and others.

“The Rev. Ken Hutcherson, pastor of Antioch Bible Church in Redmond -- also home to Microsoft -- said he would officially be making the call for the boycott Thursday on a national conservative talk radio show, Focus on the Family.” He noted “that the companies have underestimated the power of religious consumers.” He further stated, “We're tired of sitting around thinking that morals can be ignored in our country.”

Rev. Hutcherson, we feel your pain. Indeed it is a grievous state of affairs when morality is all but non-existent in the land. Not only is it difficult to live, but we fight for our children daily. And, our hearts break for those who speed headlong to destruction in more ways than one.

Let us make mention of the fact that Rev. Hutcherson was the subject of another blog we posted on Jan. 7, “Religious Leaders Rally for Gay Rights.” We support Hutcherson in his stand against the bill that would outlaw discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. See our comments as to the details and our position. He represents Christians who are not content to sit idly by while Christ and His gospel are relegated to the sidelines and worse.

However, as we have noted in other contexts, humbly and respectfully, we say here as well, that organized and public boycotts are not the means God has given us to exert influence in the public square. Personal boycotts are fine and should be exercised by discerning Christians on a regular basis. However, our goal is not to strong-arm the likes of Microsoft into behaving the way we would. With a public boycott, we are saying to them, “do what we want or we will hurt you financially.” Hutcherson himself expressed that dynamic with his own words, “companies have underestimated the power of religious consumers.” Again, with love, is that our goal, to exert power as an adversary? No, our method and message is the gospel of Jesus Christ. We plead with people to fly to Him for salvation. We don’t force people to do what we want.

Yes, we are tired of immorality running rampant in the land. What must we do? We must ask God to intervene. Do not underestimate the power of God in answer to prayer. We must further speak the truth in love. Note, we must speak the truth yes, but in love. In short, we must pray and preach. At the same time, we can stand with Rev. Hutcherson against this bill. We can pray for him and offer him our encouragement in that, even if we disagree with a public boycott.

2006-01-23T23:50:00.000-08:00

Public School Offers Bible Class – Paul Dean

One way to get the Bible taught in school is to do what New Braunfels ISD is doing. Maritza Nunez reports, the public school district “voted Monday night to begin offering a new bible class as part of its curriculum. The elective course is called ‘The Bible and its Influence.’”

“’The Bible is a fundamental document,’ says Rosalyn Bratcher with the New Braunfels ISD. ‘It has had a great influence in terms of politics, art, music, literature.’ The district says this course does not violate the First Amendment. ‘What makes it compliant is that we are teaching the Bible as a textbook and a document,’ adds Bratcher.” Northeast ISD already offers elective bible courses at two of its high schools.”

“New Braunfels ISD surveyed their students and about half of the students say they are interested in taking the course. Parents we spoke to about the issue are split on the idea.
‘If you're going to have to pass this class or take this class as part of a grade or any kind of credit towards your high school diploma, I'm totally against it,’ says Christy Oliphant.
Keith says, ‘I think we need to learn more about our creator.’”

Let’s think together. A few observations are warranted here.

First, the Bible has certainly had more influence on the Western world than any other book in history. From that perspective, it is more than worthy of study. However, caution should be urged upon relegating this unique book, the very revelation of God, to that of just another history book. No doubt God can use His word to save even in such a context and usage. But, does that mean that He would approve of such a demotion? We may be in danger of robbing the Bible of its power. Surely pragmatism is in play to a certain degree, not to mention, perhaps, a bit of deception. It is something we should at least think about.

Second, to use the Bible in such a way may not be a violation of the First Amendment. But, we must be honest with ourselves in this pluralistic climate in which God has placed us. This move will open the door for other religious books to be taught in the same way. The fact that they would be offered as electives does little to stem the influence of ungodly philosophy being propagated to impressionable children.

Third, while unthinking Christians don’t want to hear such, the state should not force children to learn the Bible. Of course, this offering is an elective. For that we are thankful. We are thankful because Christians are against coercion, minimally, because it is anti-gospel and we don’t want to be coerced by others. The Bible does say do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Christians are being marginalized in this culture. We must do what we can to stem that tide. But, we must do so with biblical means. At the same time, we must be wise and see the handwriting on the wall. At this present hour, pluralism is winning the day. In light of that trend, we dare not allow the government to force anything upon anyone. In the end, it is we who will lose.

Fourth, Keith is right. We should learn more about our Creator. But, do we really want to learn it from a teacher who may not hold to a Christian worldview? There are Christian Bible teachers I would never allow to teach my children or the children of our church. Why would I allow teachers who make no claim to Christian calling, giftedness, understanding, or commitment to grapple with and perhaps misrepresent eternal truth in the presence of my children?

Fifth, Christians are not against using the Bible to influence people, even in the public square. It is that we must think carefully as to how to use it. Rather than slip it in the back door of the school house, why don’t we spend more time simply engaging in the hard work of evangelism? As more people are influenced for Christ, more structures will be influenced for Christ, including our government and the way we view and do school.

Sixth, we are not against the Bible being taught to public school children. Again, our word here is that we should be careful as to how we go about teaching it. A released-time program is a much better alternative for at least two reasons. In the first place, such a program has trained Bible teachers doing the teaching. In the second place, the Bible is not relegated to the roll of mere history book. It is allowed to be taught as it truly is: the word of God.

To all truly committed, Bible-believing Christians, can we slow down and think about what we are doing? Can we hold our own rhetoric long enough to wrestle with what even we ourselves are saying? Let’s give ourselves a real opportunity to truly teach the Scriptures to our children so that they might truly be a transforming influence in this culture. Let us quietly train them at home for the next fifteen years and then unleash them on this culture with the truth and power of God: for His glory and the world’s joy.

2006-01-23T23:01:00.000-08:00

State May Seek Church’s Help in Education – Paul Dean

“Well, there you go again.” That line was made famous by President Ronald Reagan in a debate with President Jimmy Carter a little over twenty-five years ago. Here, we speak of government intrusion into places where it really does not belong. According to Ron Barnett and Ashley Fletcher, it seems that the state may seek the churches' help as “faith-based kindergartens may be asked to become partners with the state in helping to provide the level of early childhood education a circuit judge ordered in a landmark ruling.”

“Superintendent Inez Tenenbaum said she is considering several options to fulfill Judge Thomas W. Cooper Jr.'s ruling in a lawsuit filed against the state by South Carolina's poorest school districts, including a public-private kindergarten partnership that could cost up to $100 million. At a minimum, the state will have to expand kindergarten for 4-year-olds to serve all children living in poverty, Tenenbaum said. The state has been providing kindergarten for children that age for 21 years and now enrolls 17,655, she said. But South Carolina has more than 56,000 children that age -- 56 percent of whom are eligible for Medicaid, she said. That means more than 13,000 at-risk 4-year-olds aren't in kindergarten, she said.”

“The Department of Education is already talking with faith-based kindergarten programs about the possibility of contracting with them to open up slots for at-risk children, Tenenbaum said. Private kindergartens likely will be needed to meet the judge's mandate because public schools don't have the facilities to expand their 4K programs enough, she said. One version of her proposal calls for sending public schoolteachers to private kindergartens, she said.”

“Lawmakers have suggested raising the cigarette tax to pay for expanding early childhood education, she said. The state also expects to have more than $400 million in new revenue without raising taxes, she said. ‘There are funds available if the General Assembly decides this is how to fund it,’ she said.”

“The ruling also indicates a need to improve educational opportunities through third grade, she said. That could include paying for tutors or expanding year-round school programs in those grades, she said.”

A few observations are in order here. We will be brief.

First, let’s hope that Christians are not ignorant enough to partner with the state when it comes to education. Christian education exists as a counter to government education and the multitude of problems associated with its philosophically long and deadly arm.

Second, while it is not politically correct to speak against education in any way, do we really consider 4-year-olds who are not in kindergarten as being “at risk?” It seems to me they are more at risk when taken from their parents as the primary influence in their lives at such a young age.

Third, with all due respect to wonderfully qualified public school teachers, we still don’t want them in Christian schools. For one thing, many of them are more than likely unqualified to teach in such a setting. The Christian worldview pervades every subject from math, to science, to English, to literature, etc. Further, by nature, public school teachers are agents of the state and must follow certain guidelines. That is not to say that we do not affirm Christian school teachers in the public school setting. On the contrary, we thank God for them. We are happy they are there as agents of the gospel. At the same time, a Christian school is not hampered by any restrictions in terms of worldview. Public school teachers are.

Fourth, raising taxes is always the solution with big government. The redistribution of wealth is morally reprehensible. Even a so-called sin tax (cigarettes, alcohol) is an egregious breach of liberty. Moreover, what happened to the education lottery? That little program was supposed to fix all of our problems.

Fifth, note that the government solution is always related to more education and more money. Christian organizations, and others, are doing a better job with less money and fewer, if any, contrived educational programs. When we will learn that market solutions are better than government solutions?

In the end, the church will just have to say no on this one.

2006-01-23T21:36:00.000-08:00

Darwinists' Claims Suggest Desperation – Paul Dean

Agape Press reports that Ken Ham, “the founder of the creationist group Answers in Genesis (AIG) says a recent announcement by the journal Science claiming evolution was the top scientific breakthrough of 2005 shows how desperate the proponents of the theory of evolution are becoming…the journal's announcement shows that secular humanists are worried about the increasing availability of information that contradicts their ideas about evolution.”

Sad is the reality of the human condition that compels even reputable scientists to resort to misdirection or misinformation when it comes to bolstering their flailing cause. In a postmodern world, truth is not what is real, but rather, truth is what we make it to be. Why should it be any different for those who have staked their lives upon evolutionary theory? If there are those who contradict the evolutionists’ claims, the evolutionists will just have to shout a little louder. After all, in a postmodern world, might makes right.

Ham believes “evolutionists are trying to declare 2005 as a year of breakthroughs for evolution in order to push evolution on an increasingly disabused public with unprecedented access to scientific data supporting creationism. ‘We're getting information out there, and once people get this information, they can see that evolution is totally bankrupt.’”

After all, knowledge is power. When more and more facts come into evidence, and that evidence is made readily available to the average person, those who purvey a lie will have to shout louder, twist the truth, or abandon their position. Consider the following example.

“Editors of Science cited wide ranging research, including a study showing a four percent difference between human and chimpanzee DNA, as major factors contributing to its decision to make its bold proclamation regarding 2005 and scientific discoveries supposedly offering support for Darwin's theory.” Ham noted, “When you look at DNA, it consists of what are called base pairs, and there’s three billion of them in human DNA. Do you realize a four percent difference means 120 million differences? That's an enormous difference. That, in itself, is very, very significant, even if the ‘four percent’ was real. But the four percent, as I've said, is a very arbitrary figure.”

At the same time we must affirm that the same God who created the animals and human beings would use similar things in that creative work. Both animals and humans have hair, skin, limbs, etc. It is obvious that some of their DNA is going to be similar, if not identical.

“Given the opportunity, Ham contends he can debunk nearly all of Darwinists' arguments for evolution in a 40-minute lecture. He says secular humanists are aware of the many challenges posed to their pet theory by creationists -- and he believes they are increasingly alarmed and desperate to fight back, even with empty declarations and false assertions about ‘the year of evolution.’”

Let scientists continue to twist the truth. In the end, truth will indeed win. Let scientists continue to research. Christians should never be afraid of the truth. In the end, when the scientists climb the top of the mountain and look on the other side, they will find biblical theologians waiting on them.

2006-01-22T11:07:00.000-08:00

George Barna’s “Revolution” – Paul Dean

Chris Treat provides a penetrating analysis of George Barna’s new book, Revolution. Treat notes that “Barna’s argument presupposes that truth is primarily found in human experience and not in divine revelation. The core of the book has to do with the 20 million evangelicals that have left the local church and have experienced a ‘24/7’ Christian faith. The first chapter is about two of these revolutionaries playing golf on a Sunday morning for what they call "Church on the Green." Barna claims that these men, like the other revolutionaries, are ‘born again’ and ‘deeply spiritual.’ Despite their passion for Christ, both men found church boring and their lives too busy to be involved in a Christianity that wasn’t stimulating. Therefore, they both disengaged from the local church. Through their disengagement from church, these revolutionaries, (at least one of the two in his example) have found the Christianity they wanted outside the church.”

We can only add that “Church on the Green” is an idolatrous substitute of self-deception and fleshly entertainment for the worship of God with the gathered body of believers. No doubt men can play golf for the glory of God. However, such an activity is no substitute for corporate worship. Far too often the gift (golf) is confused with the giver (Christ). And just what impact does “Church on the Green” have in the community or the world? How is kingdom advance achieved in such a context? The telling motive lies in the fact that these “men found church boring and their lives too busy to be involved in a Christianity that wasn’t stimulating.” In sum, holy worship is boring, they’re too busy for God, and golf is more stimulating than Christ. Didn’t Paul say, “The time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers (2 Tim. 4:3)?” Or golf partners? Please know our goal here is not to be harsh, but rather to bring a firm word in light of the spiritual decline that surrounds us.

According to Treat, “On the basis of the experience of these men and the 20 million like them, Barna makes his claim that this revolution is good for evangelical Christianity.” However, he “never seriously evaluates the revolution’s consistency with biblical principles…He assumes the revolution is good for the Kingdom of God solely based on the idea that their movement away from the local church has worked, so it must be true.”

Of course, personal experience and philosophical pragmatism are the twin pillars upholding much of evangelical thinking today. In this age of freelance Christianity, we dare not question someone’s commitment to Christ. After all, spirituality is what’s most important in today’s religious milieu. Nor may we ever question what works in this climate. If the local church no longer works, despite what the Scriptures say, we are encouraged to cast it off and leave it behind like a cheap suit. It never occurs to anyone the problem may lie in the hearts of those who have no real commitment to Christ. We are certainly open to the fact that much of what goes on in evangelicalism strikes no eternally relevant chord. But, that is the second prong of the same problem. The problem is not with biblical worship, biblical teaching/preaching, or biblical forms. We have seen the enemy and the enemy is us. That’s the problem: our wandering hearts.

In this regard, Treat offers a sobering thought. “Barna never considers the possibility that something that causes an external spirituality may be bad. According to his way of thinking anything that looks spiritual is good. I have a friend who joined a cult. After he joined the cult the seven passions of a revolutionary [as highlighted by Barna in his book] were more evident in his life than before. Should I go join the cult and encourage others to do the same?”

Treat adds this observation concerning Barna. “What is most telling…is his statement in the introduction admitting that his book is not ‘theologically dense.’ How can a book that argues for the abandonment of the local church be theologically weak? The answer is that theology is not important. Barna’s low view of truth and high view of experience allows him to unreservedly disregard two thousand years of Christian formulations about the church and spirituality, because 20 million evangelical Christians have left the local church and experienced ‘more of God.’”

Of course, Barna and others will defend such Cavalier notions and actions because experience is king in their minds. Surely the people of God in general will not buy into such. When one compares two thousand years of painstakingly careful, theological and biblical formulation from some of the greatest thinkers God has ever raised up to 20 million boomers and busters who are more concerned with their portfolios than they are with bible folios (figuratively speaking), surely there is no argument as to who has chosen the right path. However, it seems that we can only pray so.

Barna’s argument moves a bit further according to Treat and “reveals a belief that the Church should be governed by marketplace consumerism…In this case, the consumers are the revolutionaries and the product is a stimulating Christian life. Barna sees the market changing. The consumer’s needs aren’t being met, therefore the church must change its product.”

The sad reality is, in this instance, the product is being discarded. The church is being left behind in favor of coffee shop conversation. The body of Christ and its concomitant fellowship and accountability have become throw-away products. The new product is just that: something very new and something very different.

There is more. “Barna’s market driven view of the church can also be seen in his assumption that change and progress are always good….Barna goes out of his way to show how it was forward thinking and love for change that caused the conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees. Like the revolutionaries, Jesus wanted change. Therefore, following the premise of "forward thinking," if you are against this revolution you must be a Pharisee.”

Of course the error here is that forward thinking and love for change was not what brought Jesus and the Pharisees into conflict. Their conflict was over truth. Sadly, what is missing in the church today on too many fronts, and indeed in Barna’s book, is the truth. How we need a heavy dose of discernment when it comes to sifting through fine sounding arguments. We are warned of such “useless wranglings of men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth.” We are told to withdraw from such as well (1 Tim. 6:1-5).

Another problem for Treat in Barna’s book is that he “never questions the use of consumer capitalistic techniques to ‘grow’ the kingdom…He seems oblivious to…a market place mentality which assumes all needs are valid and should always be met…Barna never questions the legitimacy of the needs of the revolutionaries…[He assumes]…that the customer is always right…that the customer is sovereign and the product is his servant. This idea…turns the Creator/creature distinction on its head. Barna [is] unwittingly communicating that God and his church are useful only when they provide the experience people are looking for. Instead of calling people to bow down to God, Barna is calling them to bow down to self.”

What else would we expect in a culture of self-focus, self-love, self-esteem, etc.? The philosophy of meism so pervasively propagated by popular pastors has come home to roost in their churches. Or should we say now, outside of their churches?

Treat brings the review to a close with a sobering point. “Finally, Barna argues that the universal Church is the only truly biblical expression of the ‘church.’… In fact, God could care less about your relationship to the local church. In his argument Barna leaves out passages in Acts, Timothy, Titus, Revelation and all of the epistles that refer to the local church…If Barna’s weak exegesis can convince evangelical leaders that the Bible is silent about the local church, then evangelicalism has surely reached the pinnacle of Biblical ignorance.”

We appreciate Barna’s research capabilities and the information he provides to the church. However, he is certainly not a theologian. We appreciate Treat’s review of Barna’s book even more. Let’s hope Barna’s exegesis is seen for what it is: non-existent. Let’s hope this revolution is short-lived.

2006-01-18T08:36:00.000-08:00

African-American Preachers and Leaders – Paul Dean

Our topic for Monday and Tuesday of this week on “Calling for Truth” had to do with the Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday, remarks by Jesse Jackson, measuring others by the content of their character as opposed to the color of their skin, and racial harmony from a biblical perspective.

One of our callers asked us to mention a few black leaders that we would recommend in terms of their message and character. While I could point to many, let me name a choice few that I read or listen to on a regular basis that have benefited me greatly.

Preachers/Teachers

1) Rev. Ken Jones

Ken Jones is the pastor of Greater Union Baptist Church in Compton, California. He is also a co-host on the Radio Broadcast, “The White Horse Inn.”

About the church website in their own words: “It ain't fancy, but it is perspicuous. The intent of the site is to let you know a little about us folk, a little about our relationships, and a little about what we believe. But a little goes a long way, and we hope it proves to be of some worth to you.”
Pastor Jones is committed to the doctrines of grace and seeks to implement these truths in his life, teaching, and ministry for the glory of God. When asked what was his primary pleasure as a pastor, Ken replied, "Watching God's people grow in His word."
http://gubc.tripod.com/

http://www.whitehorseinn.org/

Launched in 1990, The White Horse Inn (named after the pub in Cambridge, England, where the Reformation came to the English-speaking world), is a nationally syndicated radio broadcast featuring regular round-table discussions on faith, culture and apologetics. Hosted by Michael Horton, Ken Jones, Kim Riddlebarger, and Rod Rosenbladt, the White Horse Inn aims each week to equip Christians to "know what they believe and why they believe it."

Though the hosts have different denominational and ethnic backgrounds, the White Horse Inn unites itself on the principle slogans of the Protestant Reformation, such as the sufficiency of Scripture, salvation by grace alone through faith alone by Christ alone, and the importance of a God-centered, rather than human-centered outlook. By renewed attention to these classic and central themes on a weekly basis, it is the aim of the White Horse Inn to bring health and vigor to a church that appears to have in some ways lost its sense of missions.

2) Rev. Conrad Mbewe

“Conrad Mbewe is the pastor of Kabwata Baptist Church in Lusaka, Zambia. Mr. Mbewe, often referred to as the Spurgeon of Zambia, isn't sure why listeners compare him to the British "Prince of Preachers." Perhaps it is because Mr. Spurgeon too toiled to the point of collapse…Or perhaps it is because Mr. Mbewe shares Spurgeon's love for writing. Spurgeon edited and wrote for his monthly magazine, The Sword and Trowel; Mr. Mbewe has been writing two columns a week for the last 10 years in the country's Daily Chronicle newspaper. One is a sermon, while the other examines popular social questions and is tailored for the ordinary man, similar to Spurgeon's selection of parables, John Ploughman's Talk.”

I have provided a link to an article about Mr. Mbewe. A google search should more information.

http://www.banneroftruth.org/pages/articles/article_detail.php?458

3) Dr. Tony Evans

Senior Pastor, Oak Cliff Bible FellowshipPresident, The Urban Alternative

“Dr. Evans is founder and serves as Senior Pastor of the over 7,000 member Oak Cliff Bible Fellowship in Dallas, Texas. He is also founder and president of The Urban Alternative, a national organization that seeks to bring about spiritual renewal in urban America through the church. The Urban Alternative radio broadcast, The Alternative with Dr. Tony Evans, can be heard over 500 stations daily throughout the U.S. and in over 40 countries worldwide.”

http://www.tonyevans.org/

Conservative Social Commentators

4) Dr. Thomas Sowell

Rose and Milton Friedman Senior FellowThe Hoover InstitutionStanford University

Thomas Sowell is one of America’s foremost public intellectuals. His work covers almost every subject imaginable— race, economics, Marxism, ethnic groups, and immigration patterns, just to name a few.

http://www.tsowell.com/

5) Dr. Walter Williams

“Dr. Williams has served on the faculty of George Mason University; is the author of over 150 publications which have appeared in scholarly journals; has made scores of radio and television appearances; and writes a nationally syndicated weekly column that is carried by approximately 140 newspapers and several web sites.”

“Dr. Williams has participated in numerous debates, conferences and lectures in the United States and abroad. He has frequently given expert testimony before Congressional committees on public policy issues ranging from labor policy to taxation and spending.”

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/

I sincerely hope you will avail yourself of each of these tremendous resources.

Blessings,

Paul

2006-01-17T13:13:00.000-08:00

Sony Launches Gay Music Label – Paul Dean

The time was coming sooner or later in this morally eroding climate in which we find ourselves. “Sony Music has launched the first major music label dedicated to nurturing lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender artists. The label, Music with a Twist, is a joint venture with Wilderness Media & Entertainment, the company led by Matt Farber, who has founded MTV's new gay and lesbian channel LOGO.

“Only now are media and entertainment brands being created for the gay and lesbian audience following the success of brands for other minorities,” Farber said. He also noted that “the success of brands dedicated to the African American and Hispanic audiences has helped talent in those communities cross over well beyond their core audiences.”

Don’t miss the point. Even though the label will cater to the gay and lesbian audience, the inevitable result will be a cross over to the mainstream. No genre of music has escaped such an evolution. Such is the subtly of the evil one.

Here we have another wake up call for parents. We dare not underestimate the persuasive power of music. The thoughts and mores of each generation are in large measure determined by the music to which they listen. Among other ways, we see this reality manifest in apathy, self-focus, rebellion, an anti-authoritarian spirit, cop hatred and killings, and a sharp rise in teen promiscuity and suicide. What one spends time thinking about is extremely important. That is precisely why Paul admonishes us thusly: “whatever things are true, whatever things are noble, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if there is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy--meditate on these things (Phil. 4:8).”

This move is particularly frightening. As each new generation is conditioned by what’s popular in music (how anyone could like what my father liked or what my son likes is beyond me), make no mistake, even Christian kids, nominal and otherwise, will be listening. Part of the problem lies in the fact that “Music With a Twist's roster will feature gay artists who have mass appeal and hit potential across all musical genres.” It doesn’t really matter if a teenager is into R&B, Grunge, Country, Thrash, or whatever else. All genres will be targeted. Of course, that means that all kids will be targeted.

In keeping with the biblical principle of putting off sin and putting on righteousness through the renewal of the mind (Col. 3:8f; Eph. 4:22f), if one is to defeat sin, he must not simply cease from sinful activity. Rather, he must deal with sin at the heart level and replace that sinful activity with righteous activity. Now would be a good time to develop an interest in music that glorifies God.

“The label also plans to release various compilations geared toward gay and bisexual audiences, featuring hit songs by established artists that have been embraced by gay, bisexual and transgender audiences, as well as tracks from emerging gay artists.” The enemy is very appealing. What better way to appeal to the impressionable than through such an appealing medium.

With reference to the gay label, Farber said, “It’s an idea whose time has come.” Such are the times in which we live. Let’s not forget about this move and fail to engage and protect our children. As an artist from my generation sang, “Time keeps on slipping, slipping, slipping, into the future.” When is the last time you listened to what your kids listen to? Maybe that’s an idea whose time has come.

2006-01-16T14:22:00.000-08:00

Planned Parenthood’s Key Chains – Paul Dean

The purveyors of sexual sin in our culture seem to have no limit when it comes to offending the sensibilities of fellow citizens. The mark of a maturing civil society not only allows freedom, but recognizes that freedom is not something we flaunt to the extent of being offensive. Our freedom stops where the next person’s freedom begins.

Of course, freedom is a biblical concept that has been perverted by the world and turned into a doctrine of no restraint even as the world clamors for the right to kill children. Such is the issue being debated in the Supreme Court confirmation hearings these days.

At the same time, the concept of suspending one’s liberty so as not to offend others is a biblical concept as well. As such, it is largely unknown and unpracticed in our society. Not only do certain individuals and groups delight in their so-called freedom, but it appears that they also delight in propagating their agenda in offensive ways to fellow citizens for the sheer thrill of it all. A case in point is Planned Parenthood.

The US Newswire reports, “’In its never-ending quest to sexualize everything in our culture, Planned Parenthood is selling a line of condom key chains that offends just about everyone in the country,’ said Jim Sedlak, executive director of American Life League's STOPP International. ‘Some are even blasphemous.’”

"Planned Parenthood offends religious people with its key chain that shows a portion of the famous painting from the Sistine Chapel. Michelangelo gave us a beautiful image of Adam stretching out his hand to God, with God's index finger about to touch Adam's index finger. In Planned Parenthood's blasphemous version, God is handing Adam a condom."

"Planned Parenthood goes on to offend parents with its key chain that shows a caricature of a loudly crying baby. Planned Parenthood's slogan accompanying the caricature states, 'Condoms are cheaper than diapers.'"

“In addition, Sedlak said Planned Parenthood offends all patriotic Americans with a series of three key chains. ‘The first is a takeoff of the famous 'Uncle Sam Wants You' poster from World War II -- in Planned Parenthood's version Uncle Sam is replaced with a condom saying 'I Want You.' The second is an American flag picture with the stars in the field of blue replaced with the words, 'Wear with Pride.' The third is a picture of the Statue of Liberty holding a condom instead of a torch.’”

Nothing is sacred with this group. They have gone out of their way to mock God, family, country, and liberty. “Other condom key chains show just how much sex permeates all Planned Parenthood thinking. There's one that says, ‘Earth and condoms, we can't live without them.’” That slogan is a sad commentary on the spiritual condition in which members of this organization find themselves. “Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever (Rom. 1:24-25).” Not only does God pronounce judgment upon these things, He declares that persons engaged in these things are already suffering His judgment. The sad truth is that they are blind to the peril in which they are mired.

Of course, we could write long about other concerns. The notion that condoms are the answer to massive, moral and social evils is almost universally embraced by the politically correct pundits of our age. But nothing could be further from the truth. Condoms do not prevent AIDS, other STD’s, unwanted and teen pregnancies, abortion, and moral decadence. They only serve to increase such as more and more people take the bait. A condom is like a parachute with a gaping hole in the middle. It appears to provide the safety that people so desperately want. The problem lies in the fact that there is no safety in immorality and a rejection of God. With that rejection and eternal consequences also comes temporal consequences built into the very fabric of nature itself. When one jumps out of a plane using a parachute with a hole in it, he will eventually hit the ground at full speed. Neither will a culture reliant on condoms free fall long without an abrupt end.

Moreover, make no mistake. Planned Parenthood wants the hearts and minds of your children. They want a world with no restraint and they are recruiting soldiers for the cause. Those recruits are found in schools and college campuses across the country.

“Sedlak is calling on all Americans to contact their local schools and churches and insist that the promiscuity promoters at Planned Parenthood not be allowed anywhere near children. He is also calling on all government officials to stop taxpayer money from going to this organization that makes a habit of blaspheming God.”

Indeed we have another wake up call for parents and concerned citizens. On the one hand, not only is the state silencing God-talk in the public square and marginalizing Christianity, a prelude to ban, but they are promoting the very thing that will destroy this culture. Moreover, they are doing so with stolen and misappropriated funds. Your hard earned money should never be taken to support your own destruction.

As bad as that situation is, as noted, we bear a responsibility to keep groups like Planned Parenthood away from our children. If we don’t do so, we have only ourselves to blame. Consider yourselves warned.

2006-01-16T09:17:00.000-08:00

Flee Sexual Immorality – Paul Dean

Last week on “Calling for Truth,” one of our listeners asked a question concerning the nature of sexual sin and it being different from other sin in light of Paul’s words in 1 Cor. 6:18. I have commented on that portion of Scripture in another context. For the sake of clarification, I have printed it here. The overall context is included so as to answer the question fully.

In v. 12, Paul commences a particular thought that actually proceeds through v. 20. In reality, he is picking up on a theme he mentioned earlier, namely, that of sexual immorality (5:1f). So many problems existed in the Corinthian church, Paul can hardly deal with one subject without jumping to the next. As he does so, he returns to the earlier subject as he has more to say in regard to their actions as well as the attitudes behind the actions. Thus, while we may observe what appear to be abrupt shifts in unrelated subjects, what we actually see is a man who has so much love for his brethren and so much concern for their sin that he can hardly get one thought out before the next rolls in upon him.

As we recall the context of 5:1f, remember that Paul rebuked the so-called brother for his immorality, and, at the same time, he rebuked the church for their arrogance in not dealing with sin in the camp. As noted earlier, it seems that some felt that the grace of God gave them license to engage in whatever activity they desired, including blatant sin. Paul constantly spoke of the Christian’s liberty and/or freedom in Christ. He said, “. . . why is my freedom judged by another's conscience (1 Cor. 10:29b)?” Again, in referring to the bondage of the law he said, “It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery (Gal. 5:1).” But he admonished, “For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another (Gal. 5:13).”

In the text before us, Paul returns to that theme and deals specifically with an attitude that goes far beyond Christian liberty, that of libertinism. Christian liberty refers to the fact that we are not saved by the law but by grace. It refers to the fact that under grace, we are set free from the penalty of the law. In addition, it refers to the fact that we are free to engage in activities that God does not prohibit as long as we can do so for His glory and as long as we do not cause a brother to stumble with our liberty. For example, some Christians believe it is a sin to eat at a restaurant on Sunday while other Christians feel the liberty to do so. The Scripture has no specific prohibition in this regard. Those who believe it to be sin to eat out on Sunday generally refer to principles of Sabbath observance in a Christian context. Those who appeal to liberty usually do so on the basis of the New Covenant and the Sabbath rest we have in Christ. The point is that the Scriptures do not specifically prohibit Christians from eating out on Sunday. Therefore, in the New Covenant context, we are free to do so as long as we do not cause our Sabbatarian brethren to stumble.

Now, libertinism is quite another matter. Libertinism is the notion that because we are under grace, we can do anything we desire to do. The libertine attempts to justify his sin by appealing to the fact that he is under grace. The libertine sees nothing wrong with fornication or anything else the Scripture clearly refers to as sin. Paul is writing here to combat an attitude of libertinism that had crept into the Corinthian church. Thus, Paul writes in v. 12, “all things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything.” What does he mean?

Some would assert that Paul is actually saying that because Christians are under grace, indeed all things are lawful. That is, the Christian actually has the right to do anything he desires. The only thing that would prohibit a Christian from engaging in sin would be personal, pragmatic concerns. That is, if an act is not deemed profitable, he would not indulge even though that act may be permissible.

Others would say that what Paul means is that all things are lawful in the sense that if a Christian does sin, he does not suffer the penalty of the law. He is under grace and cannot be lost. It is lawful for him to sin in that he will not be punished for that sin.

While this dynamic is true, we do not believe Paul to be saying such here. Moreover, in light of the fact that the New Testament refers to many dynamics as sin, in light of the fact that the New Testament teaches that Christians do not continue in sin (1 John), and in light of the fact that we are told to confess our sin that we might be forgiven and cleansed (1 Jn. 1:9), we do not take Paul to be saying that Christians are free to sin because they are under grace.

Paul’s reference here is no doubt to a slogan the Corinthians had taken for themselves: “all things are lawful for me.” The origin of the slogan is unknown. It may have been a phrase from Paul himself that the Corinthians had twisted for their own purposes. It may have been something they coined themselves. We do not know. The point is that Paul takes their slogan and corrects it. The evidence for this fact is at least two-fold. First, as noted, the New Testament does not teach that all things are lawful for the Christian. Second, the fact that Paul repeats the phrase is an indication that he is quoting the Corinthians. He quotes another slogan in v. 13: “food is for the stomach, and the stomach is for food.” An explanation of that phrase will follow.

For now, Paul combats the slogan “all things are lawful” by saying “but not all things are profitable.” By repeating the phrase, Paul does not give agreement. Rather, he gives correction. The sense of what he is saying may be rendered, “you say that all things are lawful. That is not true. Not all things are profitable. You say that all things are lawful. That is not true. We should not allow ourselves to be mastered by anything.” In other words, Paul gives two reasons why not all things are lawful for the Christian.

First, the Christian cannot engage in any activity that is not profitable for God’s glory, the kingdom’s advance, the individual’s good, or his brother’s welfare. In other words, we must do all that we do for the glory of God. If God cannot be glorified in a particular activity, we must not indulge. Moreover, our goal should be kingdom advance, not personal pleasure in the mundane things of this life. Additionally, many activities actually bring us harm and/or cause our brothers to stumble. Thus, these activities are not profitable and therefore not lawful for the Christian.

Second, Paul makes a play on words here that is more evident in Greek than in English. The issue of being lawful has to do with authority. Thus, Paul’s sense is as follows: “I have authority to do all things, but I will not allow anything to have authority over me.” The Corinthians felt that they had authority to do all things by virtue of grace. Paul’s point is that when the Christian engages in sin, he in reality gives up any authority he might have and becomes subject to the sin and its damaging affects. The authority the sinning individual so adamantly claims actually gives way to slavery. If we engage in sin, it actually has authority over us, that is it becomes our master and we lose our freedom. We lose our freedom to glorify God and find ultimate pleasure in Him (Gen. 4:7; Rom. 6:6). We are given over to more sin and spiral downward into sin (Rom. 1:18f).

Note here for future reference, Paul already has in mind a specific sin in which some of the Corinthians were engaged. The authority issue has particular relevance in this instance. He says in v. 16, “or do you not know that the one who joins himself to a harlot is one body with her? For He says, ‘The two will become one flesh.” In 1 Cor. 7:4 Paul says, “The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.” Surely Paul has this dynamic in mind when referring to those Corinthians who are joining themselves with prostitutes in the name of freedom. In becoming “one flesh,” they give up authority. In their so-called freedom, they had submitted themselves to the authority of prostitutes and thereby given up their freedom.

One further point must be made before we proceed. In certain contexts, (10:19f included), Paul can say without blushing that “all things are lawful.” Like anything else one says, these words must be taken in context. If one is speaking of issues of liberty, that is, eating meat sacrificed to idols, drinking wine with dinner, watching television, listening to secular music, and the like, then all things are lawful. But, even these things are not always profitable. They may be permissible at times while at other times they may not be permissible. When Paul says that all things are lawful, he does not mean that it is lawful to sin, that is, break the law. Indeed that would be a contradiction. For example, a teenaged son may go to his father and ask permission to go out on a Friday night. He may say, “Dad, can I borrow the car Friday? Some of the guys want to get some pizza and go to a movie.” At that point, Dad agrees and the teenager responds by asking another allowance. “We thought we’d go to Joe’s afterward. His parents just bought a pool table. I can still be home by curfew.” To which Dad responds, “sure son, do whatever you want.” Now we know that Dad does not mean to say that he is giving his son permission to get drunk or do drugs or carouse around committing crimes. He may mean that his son has the freedom to do all of the things mentioned, or he may mean his son can do whatever he wishes within bounds that have already been set by him as a father. He may go get ice cream even though he did not mention that to Dad. Or, he may have to call and let Dad know he is going to get ice cream. Only he and Dad know the context out of which Dad is speaking. But, he does know that Dad does not mean he can do “anything” even though Dad said he could do “anything.” He can do “anything” within the context of their family bounds. The same is true for the Christian. We can do “anything” within the bounds of the New Covenant. Let us not go brain dead when it comes to reading the Scriptures by resorting to picayune statements such as “all means all” or “all things means all things.” Of course all means all. But all is always used in context. Suppose you engage someone in conversation and preface your comments by saying, “this may take a while.” Your listener is gracious and says, “take all the time you need.” He surely does not want you babbling on for hours. He means, take all the time you need within the bounds of reason. We speak this way, dare I say, all the time!

In v. 13, Paul continues and expands his argument. “Food is for the stomach, and the stomach is for food; but God will do away with both of them. Yet the body is not for immorality, but for the Lord; and the Lord is for the body.” At first glance, it seems that Paul is shifting subjects again. Is he now talking about food? The answer is “no.” He is still talking about sexual immorality as the grammar and context will make clear. Paul here quotes from the Corinthians again: “food is for the stomach, and the stomach if for food.” This particular phrase is true in light of Paul’s teaching regarding food sacrificed to idols (8:1f; 10:19f) regardless of the origin of this statement (Paul, Greek philosophers, the Corinthians themselves). Food is food and has no spiritual significance whether it has been sacrificed to idols or not. Thus the slogan is appropriate. Food is for the stomach and the stomach is for food. We may freely eat whatever we desire. It is merely food. It goes into the stomach and is eliminated.

Now, Paul’s point in quoting the Corinthians here is obvious. They were taking this true statement and applying it to their sexual appetites. Their logic was, “food is for the stomach and the stomach for food, thus, sex is for the body and the body for sex.” They were making an erroneous logical leap. Paul responds in a three-fold way.

First, he agrees with the statement regarding food, but adds, “but God will do away with both of them.” In other words, food and the stomach have no lasting significance. One day, we will have need of neither.

Second, in contrast, the body is significant. It is such by virtue of the fact that actions done in the body cannot be separated from who we are as spiritual beings. Paul combats the dualistic notion that the flesh is evil and the spirit is good. This thought led some to assert that it did not matter what was done in the body because the spirit was saved and the body would simply die and return to the earth. This dualism is behind docetism, gnosticism, and other Greek philosophical constructs. Paul says to these Greeks turned Christian, “the body is not for immorality, but for the Lord; and the Lord is for the body.” He means that the deeds done in the body are significant because one cannot separate body and spirit in this life and whatever is done in the body is done in the spirit and affects one’s relationship with the Lord. One should not press Paul’s analogy too far. He is simply saying that we serve the Lord with our bodies. The Lord is for the body in the sense that He has redeemed us and lives within us by the Holy Spirit.

Paul offers a third response to their slogan in v. 14. In so doing, he destroys the dualistic notion the Corinthians entertained.

In v. 14, as noted, Paul destroys any notion of dualism by saying, “now God has not only raised the Lord, but will also raise us up through His power.” His point is that while our bodies will return to the grave, one day, they will be raised up. The concept of redemption of the body (Rom. 8:23), that is, resurrection and transformation of the body, is clearly taught in the New Testament. Not only is that which we presently do in the body significant, but the body will be raised up one day. It will not be done away with in the sense that food and the stomach will. Food is marked for destruction while are bodies are marked for resurrection. Thus, one cannot say “sex is for the body and body is for sex” in the same way one can say “food is for the stomach and the stomach is for food.” God has raised up Christ who lives in us and He will raise us up by that very same power. We will serve Christ with our bodes both here and in eternity.

Paul’s point is made clear in vv. 15-20. He is rebuking those Corinthians who were using the concept of grace to justify their sinful activity of joining themselves with prostitutes. He was rebuking their erroneous logical leap from one category to another, that is, from food to sex.

One issue should be addressed here. Some have taught that Paul is hear rebuking the Corinthians for their eating habits. Paul has nothing of the sort in mind for at least three reasons. First, the chiastic structure of v. 13 places the emphasis upon how the Corinthians were using their bodies for immorality. Second, the context places the emphasis upon the form that immorality took, i.e., the use of prostitutes (15-20). Third, Paul does not rebuke them for their eating habits. He simply quotes their slogan and rebukes their erroneous leap in logic from food/stomach to sex/body.

The point is that we must glorify God with our bodies. We must flee immorality. We must not use our liberty as a cloak for sin. We must not give up our freedom in Christ to become enslaved once again to sin.

In v. 15, Paul continues a particular thought proceeding from v. 12. In reality, he is picking up on a theme he mentioned earlier, namely, that of sexual immorality (5:1f). Please see the commentary from last week’s lesson on vv. 12-14 in order to understand the broader and immediate context in regard to the liberty/libertine issue before us now.

The apostle begins by asking the first of four questions to which the Corinthians surely knew the answer. In an effort to express his dismay and shake them into repentance, Paul asks, “do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take away the members of Christ and make them members of a harlot? May it never be!” Several dynamics may be pointed out here. First, Paul affirms that our bodies are members of Christ. In so doing, he again combats the Greek, dualistic notion that our spirits are completely distinct from our bodies. We are holistic beings. It is not our souls alone that are members of Christ. We are members of Christ, body and soul. What we do in the body affects our souls/spirits and vice versa.

Second, in combating dualism, one should understand more fully the issue. Those who followed this philosophical construct fell into one of two camps. In this docetic worldview, some taught that because the flesh is evil and the spirit good, our response should be that of asceticism. That is, we should deny the flesh at all costs. We should even go so far as to torture and mutilate the flesh. Others taught that because the flesh is evil and the spirit good we may freely indulge the flesh. If we sin, it only affects the flesh which will be done away with in the future. Our spirits are not affected. Only our souls will live forever. Recall that Paul answered this line of reason in v. 14 when he pointed out that the soul is not immortal in its separation from the flesh. There will be a resurrection of the body and once again soul and body will be joined together. Again, we are holistic beings. What we do in the body affects our spirits and vice versa.

Third, Paul speaks of the union that we now have with Christ by virtue of His atonement for our sin, by virtue of the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit, by virtue of the fact that we have a new nature, and by virtue of the fact that we have been immersed into Christ in a spiritual sense. We are now in Christ. We are no longer in the sphere of sin. We are no longer in Adam. We are no longer in the flesh. We are in the sphere of Christ. We are in the Spirit. We have been joined to Christ as a bride to a husband or a son to a father.

Fourth, we are members of Christ in that we are his body. Just as an arm or a leg are members of our bodies, so we are members or parts of Christ’s body. This dynamic has significant import when it comes to the issue of immorality. If one joins himself with a prostitute, as a member of the body of Christ, in effect, he joins Christ to a prostitute. If a part of your body is used for sin, it affects the whole of who you are. So too it is with the body of Christ.

Fifth, Paul says that joining with a prostitute is in effect taking away a member of Christ and making him a member of the prostitute. The one who joins with a prostitute denies who he is in reality. By virtue of his action, he denies that Christ has changed his life and that He is now in union with Christ, the most satisfying thing in the universe. By his sinful action, the one who joins with a prostitute says that he is not a member of Christ but that he and the prostitute are one. In essence, Paul is asking, “should a person walk away from his union with Christ that he may be in union with a prostitute?” We know that a believer cannot walk away from the salvation he has in Christ. But, Paul is expressing the serious nature of this sin. If one were to engage in this activity as a lifestyle pattern, he would certainly be considered unsaved. Paul’s point is that a believer who joins himself with a prostitute pictures one who walks away from salvation in Christ (though not possible) and seeks to find satisfaction/salvation in union with a prostitute.

Sixth, Paul expresses his complete astonishment that a Christian would even consider such a notion. A believer who would engage in such activity denies his union with Christ, affirms a dualistic worldview, joins himself with a prostitute, joins the body of Christ with a prostitute, and affirms an unbiblical libertinism. Shall one walk away from Christ and be joined to a prostitute? May it never be! Therefore, don’t picture such. May you never seek a prostitute. What dishonor it brings upon the Lord and His grace in salvation!

In v. 16, Paul expands upon his thought in v. 15. “Or do you not know that the one who joins himself to a harlot is one body with her? For He says, “the two will become one flesh.” He plays upon the idea of union. Previously, he referred to the fact that our bodies are in spiritual union with Christ. Here he implies that joining one’s body to a prostitute brings about something more than a mere physical act. In essence, a person says to the world that he is no longer part of the body of Christ, but, he is part of the body of this prostitute. He is in union with her as opposed to being in union with Christ.

A man who joins himself to a prostitute becomes one body with her, and, one flesh with her. The one flesh union of which Paul speaks is that which makes this dynamic more than a physical act. A oneness is created with such an intimate union. Indeed something spiritual is in view. Exactly what this dynamic involves or implies is unclear. The point is that a one flesh relationship is created which effectively denies union with Christ.

Moreover, as noted last week, in 1 Cor. 7:4 Paul says, “The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.” Surely Paul has this dynamic in mind when referring to those Corinthians who are joining themselves with prostitutes in the name of freedom. In becoming one flesh, they give up authority. In their so-called freedom, they had submitted themselves to the authority of prostitutes and thereby given up their freedom.

In v. 17, Paul simply affirms what he has already implied in regard to the Christian’s union with Christ. “But the one who joins himself to the Lord is one spirit with Him.” The person in union with Christ is in spiritual union with Him. This spiritual union affects every aspect of a person’s life whether it be spiritual, physical, or mental. To say that a person is one in spirit with the Lord means that he is one in heart, mind, soul, desire, purpose, etc. Paul affirms in Eph 4:4-6, “There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.” He goes on to exhort the Ephesians to unity, in light of this dynamic, in order that they might “. . . all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fulness of Christ. As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves, and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming; but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him, who is the head, even Christ, from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by that which every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love (Eph. 4:13-16).”

In v. 18, Paul comes to the command that his argument demands, “flee immorality.” He then goes onto add another rationale for this command. “Every other sin that a man commits is outside the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body.”

Paul’s admonition is to flee fornication. One should not contemplate or negotiate with fornication as it were. The only thing a Christian can properly do in regard to fornication is flee, that is, run from it. He should never be moving toward it. Rather, he should always be moving swiftly in the opposite direction. If one is approached he should do what Joseph did when approached by Potiphar’s wife; flee.

It is important to note that Paul is not merely concerned with those who joined themselves to prostitutes. He is concerned with fornication, that is, sexual sin in general. Everything that has been said in regard to joining with prostitutes may be said in regard to adultery and all forms of sexual immorality.

While all sin is against God and results in spiritual death apart from Christ, Paul’s point is that sin of a sexual nature is particularly grievous because one who engages in such actually sins against his own body. Paul’s point is multi-fold. First, in light of the context, the body is for the Lord, not sexual sin (v. 13). Second, the Lord has redeemed the body (v. 13). Third, a sin against one’s own body is grievous because the body will be raised and live forever (v. 14). Fourth, our bodies are members of Christ (v. 15). Fifth, sin against one’s body cannot be separated from who one is in a spiritual sense (17). Sixth, a Christian’s body is God’s dwelling place (v. 19). Seventh, our bodies are not our own. They belong to Christ (v. 19).

Other implications may be derived. The sin of fornication is committed by the body and against the body. While many sins involve the body, no sin involves and remains relegated to the body like fornication. Moreover, in another context, Paul indicates that sexual sin has detrimental consequences for the body and soul. In Rom. 1:24 Paul wrote, “Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, that their bodies might be dishonored among them.” In v. 27, Paul says that those who committed this gross immorality received in themselves the due penalty of their error. This penalty is clearly seen in sexually transmitted diseases among other dynamics. See Rom. 1:18-32 for the entire context and consequences regarding sexual perversion.

In v. 19, Paul asks another rhetorical question. “Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own?” Note that the context here is different from that of 1 Cor. 3:16-17. In that chapter, Paul referred to the church as a whole as the temple or dwelling place of the Holy Spirit. Here, Paul refers to each individual believer as a temple or dwelling place of the Holy Spirit. One of the wonderful dynamics of salvation in and union with Christ is the fact that the Holy Spirit takes up residence in the believer. God is present with the believer at all times by virtue of the indwelling power and presence of the Holy Spirit. Because the body of the believer is a temple of the Holy Spirit, he is not to join his body with that of a prostitute. The believer’s body is a temple or sanctuary. What consummate blessing to have the Lord of the Universe choose to take up residence in redeemed but guilty sinners. In essence, as with Christ, when the believer joins with a prostitute, he is joining the Holy Spirit with the same. This dynamic is unacceptable.

Moreover, the Holy Spirit is a gift from God. He indwells the believer for spiritual power and guidance. He does so by grace. Paul’s affirmation that the Holy Spirit has been given to the believer from God is an affirmation of God’s sovereignty and grace in salvation. He saved us by His will in accord with His mercy.

Paul affirms that the believer is not his own. Because he is indwelt by God, in reality, he is owned and under the authority of another. He does not have the right to join his now holy body with that which is unholy (we use the term holy in the sense of sanctified, that is, set apart).

In v. 20, Paul gives another reason as to why the believer does not have the right to join with a prostitute or commit fornication. He gives another reason as to why the believer is not his own: “he’s been bought with a price.” Here we have an obvious reference to the atoning work of Christ on the cross. He has purchased the believer off the slave block of sin. He has delivered the believer from sin, Satan, and death. He has delivered the believer from the wrath of God. He did so by paying for his sins and averting the wrath of God in Himself. The price for freedom from sin and judgment was high. It cost the Father His Son. We may not use that freedom to dishonor the holiness of the Lord.

Paul’s conclusion goes without saying, though he clearly says it. “Therefore glorify God in your body.” To glorify God is to honor God. We glorify God as we honor Him with our bodies. Paul here gives a positive exhortation to the believer with a built in motivation. Nothing gives the child of God greater pleasure than bringing glory to God. As the believer glorifies God, he finds real satisfaction. That type of satisfaction can never be had in fornication. After all, “the chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever.”

2006-01-16T09:00:00.000-08:00

Dr. Paisley Honored at Temple Baptist – Paul Dean

Regardless of whether one agrees with every single position a culture warrior holds, one must commend that warrior as a soldier of Christ and as an example to the rest of us. Long before it became vogue to speak of cultural engagement, one man, among others, was engaging his culture for the sake of the gospel, and we owe God a debt of gratitude for him and his ministry.

“Temple Baptist Church welcomed Dr. Ian Paisley, the Northern Irish leader with a reputation for pitting Protestants against the Catholic Church. For 36 years, Dr. Paisley has used his position in Parliament to block Ireland's attempts to withdraw from British rule. Tuesday morning, the Irish minister's message sounded both familiar and foreign. ‘It's a great thing to serve the Lord,’ Paisley told about 1,400 people sitting in the Powell church's pews. ‘It's a thrilling thing to serve the Lord!’”

With that sentiment we can agree, particularly when we speak of gospel advance. At the same time, gospel advance has to do with individual souls and structures being surrendered to the Lordship of Jesus Christ. While many definitions of evangelism have been offered, my own sense of the biblical dynamic is something to this effect: evangelism is spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ with a view toward participating in God’s activity of transforming persons and structures, that they might praise God for His mercy and enjoy Him forever. Paisley strives for such.

Accordingly, “Paisley has perfected his powerful delivery from his seat in Great Britain's Parliament, but he also practices from the pulpit of the Free Presbyterian Church he founded. ‘It's good for those of like, precious faith to come across denominational barriers and stand together in the things they agree on,’ Dr. Paisley explained that Protestant and Baptist views on gospel ministry, missionary work and helping the poor were similar.”

Paisley issues a call here. In terms of cultural engagement, while we cannot create alliances with those who do not embrace the gospel, we must join together with those who do regardless of secondary theological issues. The cause of Christ and His kingship is paramount.

Christians have the responsibility to know what is going on in their world and to take available steps in bettering the world for the glory of God. At the same time, not all meet with the same providence, have the same calling, or have their consciences pricked in the same way. Just as all Christians have the responsibility to engage in evangelism, some have more opportunity than others, some are especially called and gifted for evangelistic ministry, and some are moved with a heart for the nations while others are called to evangelize at their places of business. Of course, all Christians must speak when God gives opportunity and Christians must be intentional in regard to gospel advance. With regard to politics, public policy, and overall cultural engagement, some have more opportunity to involve themselves in public service from a Christian perspective, some are especially gifted and called to gospel advance through engagement in the public square, and some are moved with a heart for social transformation as a result of gospel influence in public life. And yet, in keeping with our evangelism illustration, all Christians must speak or vote when God gives opportunity and Christians must be intentional in regard to gospel influence in the public square.

In so doing, we must keep Scriptural admonition in mind in terms of what we do and in terms of the way we do it. “Paisley preached Jesus Christ's compassion, at the same time calling on church members to ‘re-dedicate themselves’ and to become militant about their beliefs. ‘I'm just a plain jailbird out of jail for the time being," he told the audience. Paisley says he has taken an uncompromising stand on his convictions. He twice went to prison for leading demonstrations that ended in riots.”

Here’s a man who practiced what he preached. For Paisley, faith comes first. What would ensue of all Christians had that same attitude and then did the same and engaged the enemy in a real and gospel way? No doubt, those who take a stand will suffer. At the same time, God will no doubt bless.

Paisley is no stranger to suffering rebuke. “His determination to keep Northern Ireland as part of the U.K. is what has caused the conflict through the years,” Temple Baptist Pastor Dr. Clarence Sexton explained. “He does not compromise.” “Because you take one stand, and you don't change that stand, many people are going to say you're controversial,” James Daniel, missionary to Puerto Rico, said. “God has called me to preach,” Crown College Junior Dan Rolle said. “I'm a preacher, and he's given me a very high example of someone to strive for.”

A very high example indeed.

2006-01-16T08:14:00.000-08:00

Israeli Government Rebuffs Robertson - Paul Dean

James admonition, “My brethren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment (Jas. 3:1),” seems more practically relevant at times than others. Teachers of the word have a great responsibility to weigh their words carefully in all areas, especially in terms of biblical interpretation and application. Christian leaders understand that “we all stumble in many things. If anyone does not stumble in word, he is a perfect man, able also to bridle the whole body.” Yet too often, we do stumble in word. In the case of Pat Robertson, his stumble, in addition to other costs, has apparently cost him a great deal of money.

BBC reports that “Israel is pulling out of a $50 million deal with US TV evangelist Pat Robertson after he said Ariel Sharon's stroke was divine retribution. Tourism Ministry spokesman Ido Hartuv said Israel would not sign a contract with Mr. Robertson to build a biblical theme park by the Sea of Galilee.”

“The centre was expected to cover nearly 35 acres (14 hectares) north-east of the Mount of Beatitudes, where Jesus is believed to have delivered the Sermon on the Mount. It would have had a park, an auditorium, a Holy Land exhibition, outdoor amphitheatres, information centre and a media studio. The Israeli government had tentatively agreed to provide land and infrastructure for the centre in the hope of generating millions of dollars from tourism.”

Well, that’s all we need, a biblical theme park in the Holy Land. The historical significance of the land itself needs a boost in our day of pleasure oriented focus. In the midst of war, missile strikes, and suicide bombers, perhaps a theme park will brighten things up a bit. Of course the confusion between Christian values and American values need not be of concern. The wedding of gospel and entertainment works so well here, surely it will work well in the Middle East. But then again, confusion will no doubt reign in terms of Christ and His message there even as it does here.

This development could very well be a blessing in disguise. Exporting the gospel and exporting American materialistic values are two different things. Tourism is not our business. Of course, Christians are allowed to earn a living, but the gospel message is confused when big-time Christian leaders entangle themselves in these worldly affairs. “No one engaged in warfare entangles himself with the affairs of this life, that he may please him who enlisted him as a soldier (2 Tim. 2:2).” We’re at war; not in business.

“We were due to sign a contract in the near future with Mr. Robertson for the construction of a new Christian heritage centre in the Galilee,” Hartuv told the AFP news agency. But they won’t be signing any contract now. Again, perhaps this development is for the best in that we are commanded to “not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness (2 Cor. 6:14)?” Please know that we are hesitant to be unduly critical or harsh, but we do cry for discernment from the Christian community in light of the culture war and indeed the kingdom war in which we mutually find ourselves.

“But Mr. Hartuv insisted Israel had not rejected outright the idea of building the centre. ‘The contract is still open - just not with Mr. Robertson. If there are other Christian leaders, they are most welcome to sign a contract to bring Christian tourists to the state of Israel.’”

How should we respond to such an invitation? Perhaps Paul can shed some light on the situation for us. “Now I beg you, brethren, through the Lord Jesus Christ, and through the love of the Spirit, that you strive together with me in prayers to God for me, that I may be delivered from those in Judea who do not believe, and that my service for Jerusalem may be acceptable to the saints (Rom. 15:30-31).” Of course, Paul’s concern is gospel advance in light of those who oppose Christ and a unity among Jewish and Gentile believers in light of long held prejudices. His service has nothing to do with theme parks. Perhaps if we would agonizingly wrestle together in prayer a bit more, we would be more focused on taking the gospel to Israel than…whatever. “Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they may be saved (Rom. 10:1).”

We do indeed owe Israel something. But, it’s not American consumerism and a light hearted approach to life. Our purpose toward Israel is far weightier than that. They have fallen in that they, by in large, reject Christ. But they are not beyond hope as a remnant shall be saved. “Now if their fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness (11:12)!” Of course, Paul here does not speak of earthly or worldly riches, but the riches we have in Christ. Israel has rejected Robertson and his theme park. May they not persist in rejecting Christ?

2006-01-10T02:59:00.000-08:00

Israel’s Prime Minister Ill After Stroke – Paul Dean

Israel’s Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is still fighting for his life after a massive stroke, bleeding in his brain, and hours of grueling surgery. “The massive stroke made it unlikely that he would return to power. Vice Premier Ehud Olmert was named acting prime minister and convened the Cabinet for a special session [last week], where Sharon's large chair at the center of the long oval table remained empty. ‘This is a difficult situation that we are not accustomed to,’ Olmert told the somber ministers.”

Indeed it is difficult, not only for the task at hand for the Cabinet, but for the situation in the Middle East. No doubt peace negotiations will erode to a certain degree. Of course, Christians know that there will be no lasting peace until Christ comes.

Even as our prayers go up for Sharon, there is no doubt that this development will provide an opportunity for Christians, among others, to evaluate the man and his mission. No doubt most conservatives will praise him. Some however, will be cautious. Others will remember his nickname is “The Bulldozer” and recall his own perpetrated murderous atrocities. Of course, some make allowances for such in the case of war.

Janet Parshall provides some cautious biographical perspective. “Whatever one thought about his policies for peace in Israel, Ariel Sharon is the last of the giants of Middle East leadership. Both President Bush and Dr. Condoleezza Rice have praised him as a ‘man of enormous courage.’””Mr. Sharon was a military legend, having led an armored division across the Suez Canal in the Yom Kippur War. He was first elected to the Israeli Knesset in 1973 as a member of the Likud party. Prime minister since 2001, he wanted to jump start the peace process and--despite criticism from his own party--moved for a complete withdrawal from Gaza and parts of Judea and Samaria. Last year, he left Likud to form the Kadima party, a blending of both right and left wing politicians. He was Kadima and he ushered in a new era in Israeli politics. What becomes of Kadima will be written in Israel's next chapter.””We, in America, must always remember that Israel is a steadfast American ally, regardless of who the next prime minister may be.”

Parshall is right. At the same time, we cannot support Israel regardless of whatever they do. This situation will no doubt provide us an opportunity to evaluate such regardless of our eschatological position. Even thinking dispensationalists would agree with both of those statements. And, perhaps, some Christians will be moved to evaluate said eschatology. Surface interpretations will not suffice in light of the whole of Scripture. Nevertheless, Israel is a present ally and the U.S. remains such to them.

Of course, Pat Robertson weighed in with his own invective. He suggested that “Sharon’s stroke was divine punishment for ‘dividing God's land.’ ‘God considers this land to be his,’ Robertson said on his TV program ‘The 700 Club.’ ‘You read the Bible and he says ‘This is my land,’ and for any prime minister of Israel who decides he is going to carve it up and give it away, God says, ‘No, this is mine.’ He also said, however, that in the Bible, the prophet Joel ‘makes it very clear that God has enmity against those who ‘divide my land.’ Sharon ‘was dividing God's land and I would say woe unto any prime minister of Israel who takes a similar course to appease the EU (European Union), the United Nations, or the United States of America,’ Robertson said.”

“In discussing what he said was God's insistence that Israel not be divided, Robertson also referred to the 1995 assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, who had sought to achieve peace by giving land to the Palestinians. ‘It was a terrible thing that happened, but nevertheless he was dead,’ he said.”

The problem here is at least four-fold. First, no one knows God’s purpose in allowing Sharon’s stroke at this time. No one is privy to the secret counsel of God. Second, Robertson’s insensitivity is astounding. Third, a deficient understanding of God’s sovereignty, God’s providence, man’s depravity, and biblical eschatology combine to produce such statements. Fourth, the average person cannot distinguish between Robertson and other Christians. Such outrageous statements make us all look bad.

What we can say with certainty is that the Middle East situation is always uncertain, that God is sovereign over all things and working toward a redemptive purpose in the world, that real peace will not be achieved until Christ comes, and that we need to pray for Ariel Sharon, his family, and his country. A heart of compassion and a hope in Christ will drive us to do so.

2006-01-09T12:41:00.000-08:00

A New Year’s Jihad Retreat – Paul Dean

Cedarkirk is a year round camp and conference center owned by the Presbyteries of Tampa Bay and Peace River and connected to the Presbyterian Church in the USA. One would expect bible conferences and Christian retreats of various sorts to be the normal fair at Cedarkirk. And no doubt they are. However, there was an exception recently. While exceptions are certainly allowable, one wonders if this exception should have been.

According to Joe Kaufman of FrontPageMagazine.com…“the Tampa chapter of MAS will be launching a new camp, or as they put it, an ‘ILM & TARBIYAH RETREAT.’” What’s the problem? The problem is that MAS, or the Muslim American Society, has Islamic terrorist connections.

“The majority of Islamic organizations within the United States have, at one time or another, been cited for their connections to terrorism, whether by support of terror groups or through actual terrorist activity carried out by its members. Two of those organizations, the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) and the Muslim American Society (MAS) have been working together putting on joint conferences. As stated in the New York Daily News (January 30, 2004), the organizations ‘have held conferences featuring speakers accused of terror ties and have published material supporting suicide bombings against Israel.’”

“Both ICNA and MAS stress the need for providing forums for Muslim youth. ICNA, in order to address this ‘need,’ has created an apparatus called Young Muslims (YM). Likewise, MAS has established its own Youth Division. Through the two groups, children can learn the tenets of radical Islam by attending winter and summer camps.”

“Prior to 9/11, the camps would be referred to as ‘Jihad Camps,’ but given the greater meaning of the term (holy war), why attract more attention than what’s necessary? Today, though, while the name has changed, the same radical message is taught. In YM Newsletter Issue 3 (2002/2003), Young Muslims extols the virtues of the works of Osama bin Laden’s mentor, Abdullah Azzam. According to YM Newsletter Issue 4 (2003), one of its goals is to assist in outreach ‘designed to call people to Islam, strengthen their belief in it, and organize them to work and to wage jihad in its cause.’”

In the midst of legitimate debate over whether or not we can secretly wire-tap American citizens, here we have Americans, and indeed Christians, giving a platform or at least a venue for terrorists to spread their message. Make no mistake, not only is that message evil in civil/human terms, but it is an anti-Christ message. Christians are infidels in the terrorist’s estimation. Their hatred of America stems from their hatred of the biblical Christ.

While we believe in free speech, we can never condone the propagation of terrorism and/or terrorist ideas/philosophy. Surely, the decision to allow the Jihad Camp this venue has to go down as one of the poorest on record.

A spokesperson for the camp did say that they would never allow a group promoting violence to hold a meeting at Cedarkirk. When allegations of terrorist connections surfaced, the camp sought to determine if said allegations were true. They were told the allegations were not true and decided to proceed. However, they did receive threats and opted to close the camp for a short period of time.

We live in a different world than the one we were born into just a generation ago. Sadly, we can no longer take certain things for granted. Terrorist organizations promoting themselves as peaceful in efforts to deceive no doubt strike fear in hearts even as did the threat of nuclear attack during the Cold War. We won the cold war. We must win this one too. But if we are to do so, we must grow up and wise up.

At the same time, the ultimate war is spiritual. Let not the church aid the enemies of Christ in any way: even those who are deemed peaceful. If the local chapter of Peaceful Buddhists wanted to meet in our facility, we would give them a firm, but respectful, “no.” Maybe Cedarkirk could take some humble counsel: just say no.

2006-01-09T04:05:00.000-08:00

Pope Dismissed from Sexual Abuse Case – Paul Dean

Reuters reports that “a U.S. judge on Thursday dismissed Pope Benedict from a civil lawsuit lodged against him and other Roman Catholic church officials that accused them of covering up sexual abuse of a minor by a seminary student. In a written ruling, U.S. District Judge Lee Rosenthal agreed with a motion filed by the Vatican that Pope Benedict enjoyed ‘head-of-state immunity’ in the case.”

“Three unnamed plaintiffs in the case have said church officials ignored their pleas to investigate Juan Carlos Patino-Arango, who they accused of sexual abuse, and that the clergy helped him leave the country. The church's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, formerly called the Holy Office of the Vatican, headed by Pope Benedict when he was a cardinal, played a central role in the conspiracy to conceal the abuse that occurred in 1995 and 1996, the plaintiffs said. The Church has been hit by numerous lawsuits since the 2002 scandal in the United States when it was discovered that priests accused of molesting children were moved from parish to parish to hide the abuse.”

We have noted in other contexts the positive dynamics of Pope Benedict’s ministry, if only in regard to social issues. At the same time, no man is above the law and in particular, God’s law. We hold to the maxim that a man is innocent until proven guilty. But, what message is sent when a religious leader clings to “head-of-state immunity,” especially when he was head of the very institution accused of concealing abuse?

The Scripture has this to say in regard to church leadership and sin: “Do not receive an accusation against an elder except from two or three witnesses. Those who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may fear (1 Tim. 5:19-20).” Let the facts be established by witnesses to determine whether the evidence points to innocence or guilt. We see no “head-of-state immunity” clause in this text.

No man is sinless and no church is perfect. Yet, biblical standards have been established concerning those in pastoral ministry. If the issues of child molestation, perversion, homosexuality, and cover-up are not allowed to be scrutinized; if a religious leader’s involvement in such, even if only in the cover-up is not allowed to be scrutinized, confidence in said leadership must necessarily be eroded.

“For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God (Jn. 3:20-21).” Again, we presume the innocence of Pope Benedict. But, these words must be taken seriously, for they are God’s words.

2006-01-07T04:02:00.000-08:00

Religious Leaders Rally for Gay Rights – Paul Dean

The issue of homosexuality, something we barely heard about thirty years ago, is now front and center on every stage. What used to be considered against nature is now mainstream. In fact, it is so mainstream that many, including some Christian leaders, are calling for protection of rights for homosexuals. Understand, we are talking about creating a race of people based on their sexual preference and sexual activity.

“Religious leaders who favor increased protection for gays” challenged the Rev. Ken Hutcherson and his supporters, reports John Iwasaki of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. “About 30 people of various faiths gathered…to support long-stymied legislation that would outlaw discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The group also met ‘to counter the very loud voices by a very few fundamentalist religious leaders’ who oppose the bill, said Robert Jacobs, Northwest regional director of the Anti-Defamation League.”

“Jacobs later said he was referring to Hutcherson -- whose Antioch Bible Church meets at the high school (where they are gathered) -- and Rabbi Daniel Lapin of Mercer Island. He is president of Toward Tradition, a national coalition of Jews and Christians. ‘They speak so often ... as if they represent the word of God,’ Jacobs said. But the Christian, Jewish and Muslim clergy and laypeople at the news conference showed a different religious perspective, he said.”

When it comes to calling homosexuality sin, we do indeed stand upon and represent the word of God. Regardless of postmodern, liberal revisionist interpretations of both the Old and New Testament witness to the perversion of homosexuality, Christians in this culture war must surely draw a line in the sand here. The issue is so critically important, we dare not duck and run from this particular battle. Regardless of the religious perspective of certain Christian, Jewish, or Muslim clergy, civilization hangs in the balance.

Dr. R. Albert Mohler cites both conservative and liberal philosophers who maintain that “while there were men who committed homosexual acts and women who committed homosexual acts, there was no third species of ‘a homosexual’ until Victorian times. Even in the twentieth century, homosexuality still was not well-accepted as an interest group until the late 1990s, when it became a part of popular culture.” As one noted, “A man who committed sodomy may have lost his soul but he did not lose his gender. He did not become a homosexual--a third sex. That was the invention of the nineteenth century imagination.”

Homosexual imagery has become part of the contemporary landscape from television, to theatre, to advertising. Mohler points out, “During the 1990s, the work of photographer Bruce Weber, whose images have been a staple of homosexual pornography for many years, became a major turning point in the mainstreaming of homosexuality and homoeroticism. Weber's work came into great prominence in a series of advertisements he did for clothing designer Calvin Klein. Placed prominently in New York's Times Square, at bus stops and on billboards all over the city, these were the first advertisements to use the male physique in explicitly sexual images for the purpose of commercial gain. Rather than shocking the nation, the controversial pictures actually proved to be commercially productive.” And its only gotten worse.

Of course, the question raised here is this; what will be the end result if this trend continues? Not only is homosexuality sin according to Romans 1, but it is the judgment of God on sexual perversion. A society cannot stand in the wake of God’s judgment. On a practical level, the entire dynamic of gender differences and distinction is called into question. This issue goes to the heart of God’s created order for male and female and their respective roles, and indeed the act of procreation itself. Therefore, it goes to the heart of the propagation of the species and the survival of civilization itself.

But we live in a culture that rejects such notions. The sad truth is, even so-called Christians make the same rejection. “The Rev. Monica Corsaro, ecumenical campus minister at the University of Washington, said it was erroneous to use scripture critical of homosexuality as the basis for withholding support for gay rights. ‘We can't be literalists when it comes to interpreting scripture,’ said Corsaro, who also is co-chairwoman of the Religious Coalition for Equality. ‘It's not the perfect word of God. It's heretical to superimpose 21st-century context and values on first-century context and values.’”

Well, aside from the fact that she got her thought backwards, Corsaro has expressed the heart of rebellion that is at the heart of this matter. Rejecting a literal interpretation of Scripture is to impose any interpretation one desires upon the text. Rejecting the concept that the Scriptures are indeed the perfect word of God is to reject any authority when it comes to resolving this issue. She, like the homosexual, has become a law unto herself.

The continuing erosion of biblical norms in this culture is a call to arms. The Corsaros of this war must be rejected and the likes of Hutcherson and Lapin must be followed. “Hutcherson and Lapin, who did not attend the event, defended the biblical condemnations of homosexual behavior. ‘It's hard to get around what the Bible says about the sin of homosexuality,’ Hutcherson said. ‘We believe in an inerrant word of God. That means there's no mistake. Biblical truth overrides culture and time.’” I couldn’t agree more.

The challenge has been given to us. We must take the truth of the word of God into this culture war and proclaim it without apology and with love to those who so desperately need Christ. Mohler noted, “It may seem awkward to take the argument of Romans 1 into a culture like ours, but the truth is, it was just as awkward for Paul to write it in the first century.” Scripture is clear. Homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God. But, as we proclaim an unadulterated gospel, may God grant us the grace to be able to say to many that which Paul said to certain former homosexuals, “And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God (1 Cor. 6:11).”

2006-01-06T19:42:00.000-08:00

Actively Anti-Christian Clothing – Paul Dean

Anti-Christian sentiment is running rampant these days and the attack on Christ is heating up on all fronts. It’s not enough that young people are confronted with an anti-Christian message in the movies they watch, in the songs they listen to, in the classes they take at school, but now they will be confronted with such on the jeans they wear. We’re not talking about another filth campaign from Abercrombie & Fitch, but about a Swedish jean company with an avowed agenda: “to make young people question Christianity.”

In Stockholm, Sweden, “Cheap Monday jeans are a hot commodity among young Swedes thanks to their trendy tight fit and low price, even if a few buyers are turned off by the logo: a skull with a cross turned upside down on its forehead. Logo designer Bjorn Atldax says he's not just trying for an antiestablishment vibe. ‘It is an active statement against Christianity,’ Atldax told The Associated Press. ‘I'm not a Satanist myself, but I have a great dislike for organized religion.’ The label's makers say it's more of a joke, but Atldax insists his graphic designs have a purpose beyond selling denim: to make young people question Christianity, a ‘force of evil’ that he blames for sparking wars throughout history.”

“In more religious countries, that might raise a furious response, maybe even prompt retailers to drop the brand. Not in Sweden, a secular country that cherishes its free speech and where churchgoing has been declining for decades.”

It would be nice to believe that retailers here will not pick up the brand. But we all know better. It will be up to parents to inform their children and take a stand on this one. Too often parents cower in the face of what their teenagers want. But, with a logo openly shaming the cross of Christ and an avowed anti-Christian agenda, parents will have to develop some backbone.

Of course, biblical Christianity is not a force of evil but the answer to evil. Moreover, it is not biblical Christianity that has sparked wars throughout history. No doubt there have been those who fostered war in the name of Christ. Apart from self-defense, all we can say is that either they were not true Christians or they were misguided Christians. The message of Christ for His church in this mediatorial kingdom is not physical war but spiritual war. Further, His gospel is peace.

At the same time, let us quickly add that there is no correlation between free speech and churchgoing decline as the article implies. The right to free speech is grounded in a Christian worldview. The problem lies in the fact that too many Christians fail to exercise their free speech in terms of gospel witness and/or cultural engagement. A culture declines when Christians keep their mouths shut. It excels when they open their mouths to proclaim Christ and thereby shut the mouths of others who are opposed to Christ by both conversion and cultural pressure.

“Cheap Mondays are flying off the shelves at 400 kronor (about $50) a pair. Makers say about 200,000 pairs have been sold since March 2004 and little attention has been paid to the grinning skull and dark texts such as ‘Over My Dead Body.’ Even the predominant Lutheran Church of Sweden reacts with a shrug. ‘I don't think it's much to be horrified about,’ said Bo Larsson, director of the Church of Sweden's department of Education, Research and Culture.”

Well, it is abundantly clear that the Lutheran Church of Sweden needs a couple of things. First, they need the same advice as American parents: get some backbone! Second, they need the same advice as too many American Christians: get some discernment!

“Out in the parishes, however, some Christians believe that approach is too soft. ‘One cannot just keep quiet about this,’ said the Rev. Karl-Erik Nylund, vicar of St. Mary Magdalene Church in Stockholm…Nylund complained that Swedish companies do not treat Christianity with the same respect in marketing that they afford other religions.
‘No one wants to provoke Jews or Muslims, but it's totally OK to provoke Christians,’ he said.”

There you have it. The clear reality is that it is not people of faith who are being targeted the world over, but Christ and His church. Of course, this fact speaks to the reality that Christ is the true and only way of salvation. While at one level, issues like these serve to spur us to action in terms of gospel stance and advance; at another level they encourage us. Christ Himself said, “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 5:10).”

“Cheap Mondays have started to sell abroad. The jeans are being shipped to Norway, Denmark, Britain, the Netherlands, France and Australia. Andersson said they're working on introducing them in the United States and elsewhere. And he did not expect the ungodly logo to get in the way. ‘Surely, most people understand that we are not evil people,’ he said, laughing. ‘My mom doesn't think so at least.’”

Well Mr. Andersson, it doesn’t really matter what your mom thinks if she differs with Christ. We can only pray that your laughing will turn to mourning by the grace of God. As with many things in our culture, the answer to Cheap Monday is Good Friday. Take heed.

2006-01-06T17:20:00.000-08:00

Catholics Hope to Get in on Religious Radio Boom – Paul Dean

For those who understand the gospel, a new threat to its advance looms on the horizon. We’re not talking about another anti-religious group. On the contrary, this group is very religious, and that’s the problem. The Roman Catholic Church wants to increase its presence on the radio.

“The Roman Catholic Church is the largest denomination in America, but you wouldn't know it from religious radio,” reports Emily Fredrix of the AP. “The format is huge — behind news talk and country it was the third-most numerous format among U.S. radio stations in 2003, according to the radio research firm Arbitron. Yet the number of Catholic stations is only about 120, according to the Catholic Radio Association, and there are about 2,000 religious stations nationwide.”

That’s less than ten percent. For less discerning listeners, conservative, news talk shows already blur the lines between biblical Christianity and cultural Christianity. Those lines are about to become even more blurry. The Catholic Radio Association “is appealing to the faithful to raise $150,000 in the next two months so as many as 200 new stations could apply to the FCC.”

Most evangelicals have no idea concerning the essential differences between Protestantism and Catholicism. While we can affirm that many Catholics are moral people and quite concerned with social issues and have taken a stand when too many Protestants did not, especially regarding the issue of abortion, we cannot say that we share a common view concerning salvation. Many evangelicals will now be confronted with the differences in terms of our understanding of the way of salvation, if they have ears to hear. We have not walked this ground before in the contemporary South. But, indeed our forefathers, the Reformers did. Perhaps we should take that reality to heart and study what they had to say and indeed what they had to do.

“Stephen Gajdosik, president of the Charleston, S.C.-based Catholic radio trade group, thinks people are open to hearing the denomination's message, despite the clergy sex abuse crisis which has battered the church for almost four years. ‘I think it's fair to say you have not seen the faith proclaimed and taught well in recent decades, and this is simply a means for the Holy Spirit through his church to bring the faith out to people,’ he said.”

No doubt exists that Gajdosik is right about the erosion of the Catholic faith at the popular level. The pervasive criticism Pope Benedict received from numerous groups and individuals upon his installment testifies to that development. While radio does indeed present an opportunity to bring the faith to the people, and while we can appreciate that at some level in terms of social issues, we must make two additional remarks very quickly. First, it matters little where Catholics, or anyone else for that matter, stands on social issues if they don’t know Christ. Second, it will not be the Holy Spirit bringing the Catholic faith to the people.

But there may be a true benefit Christians can experience, if they will understand the times and know what to do even as did the men of Issachar. “It's this desire to get back to the fundamentals of the church that makes conservative Catholics want to start their own radio stations, said James Davidson, a professor of sociology at Purdue University who specializes in researching American Catholics. For the past 20 years, he said, there has been a resurgence among people, particularly younger clergy, to return to traditional Catholic values and approaches to faith. Some have been taking to the Internet, he said, so it's no surprise that radio would be next. ‘Catholics who have been disaffected by what they would consider to be the decline of the church in recent years ... or who are struggling with what they consider to be liberal influences in the church will be motivated to counteract that by using media such as radio and television,’ Davidson said.”

What is the benefit? The benefit lies in the example. The Catholic Church has been influenced by liberalism. So too have Protestant churches and thus evangelicalism as a whole. If this dynamic serves as a motivating factor to increase the Catholic presence on radio, how much more should we who understand the gospel be motivated to increase our presence for not only the same reasons, but also to provide a biblical voice for the gospel of Christ? We’ve been served notice.

William Thorn, director of the Institute for Catholic Media at Marquette University, noted, “Today's radio climate, from politics to sports, allows people to connect with their communities, and that's exactly what lay Catholics want to do.” I wonder if the evangelical church is up to this challenge?

Friends, that purpose too is why we are on the radio, to connect with people that they might be saved and sanctified for the glory of God. By God’s grace, we have testimonies of both in the short time “Calling for Truth” has been on the air. Our desire is to propagate the gospel that we might make a difference in the culture war in which God has placed us.

But hear broadcaster John Lillis: “Catholic radio doesn't save people's souls, but it whets people's appetites and plants the seeds for conversion.” Brothers and sisters, the culture war just heated up.

2006-01-05T04:27:00.000-08:00

Texas Church Gives Away House – Paul Dean

AP reports, “In a game show-style giveaway, a church plans to award a $120,000 three-bedroom house to one of its worshippers on New Year's Eve. Since 2003, Abundant Life Christian Center has given away a car, a motorcycle, and furniture.”

Before we go any further, we must say something positive here, if only because objections must be raised momentarily. A church who gives back to its community in such a costly way must be commended for its commitment and heart. The desire here is no doubt to please the Lord and exemplary for the evangelical church as a whole.

Of course, a question that should be raised here is why would a church spend so much money on one person? It may sound good on the surface, but surely good stewardship demands otherwise. Unfortunately, gimmicks of this nature, designed to get people into the church, often reveal just how misguided the contemporary church really is. In terms of local ministry, the goal should ultimately be to meet the needs of those in the community in which God has placed us for the sake of the gospel. No doubt the folk here would agree. The problem lies in the fact that the real underlying goal is not to meet need, but rather to grow a particular church. The goal is to get more people into their church through their New Year’s event: and that is a very different dynamic.

Hear their own words. “It encourages people to come to the service, and it helps keep people off the street with all that revelry going on,” said pastor Walter Hallam.

There is nothing wrong with wanting people to come to a service or wanting to keep people off the street during dangerous times. Yet, would Jesus condone getting people to come to church through a game show-style give away? Would He condone such shallowness? Would He condone the use of greed, something He actually condemns as sin of the worst kind? The love of money is a root of all kinds of evil and even causes many to walk away from the faith (1 Tim. 6:10).

How can we entice someone to the faith with something that causes people to walk away from the faith? As with so many things, our problem is that we so often do not think. We simply do. We fall prey to the entangling traps of pragmatism when we don’t check our actions by the Word of God. Too often we are caught up in the driving mindset of the culture. The materialistic culture influences the church more often than the church influences the culture. But, let’s read more.

“During Saturday's service, 20 names will be selected at random and placed with 100 others chosen from services throughout the year. Twelve finalists symbolizing the 12 apostles will be selected.”

Does this foolishness not belittle the twelve apostles and indeed the first century apostolic ministry which is the foundation of the church? Does this promise of a give away not cause many to stay connected to the church in a superficial way to simply win the prize?

“Each of the finalists will be given a key, which they will try in a door on stage. The person whose key unlocks the door wins the home. Lightning, music, indoor fireworks, and balloon drops will also be part of the festivities. More than 2000 people typically attend the church’s New Year’s Eve service.”

Well, there you have it. “The Price is Right” has come to church. Don’t miss the fact that all of this takes place, according to the article, in a New Year’s Eve worship service. It is difficult to see how anyone can miss the fact that many are coming for the give away and not the worship of God. The focal point of the service becomes the game show-style event rather than the worship of God. The Scriptures are clear that God is the One to be worshipped and that He will not share His glory with another.

Again, the problem lies in the sad fact that when pragmatism is our guiding philosophy, truth takes a back seat and reproach is brought upon Christ rather than honor. Evangelism and worship are confused and the thought process of the people of God is muddied.

“Church member, Richard Murillo, who owns Trinity Builders, charged the church $53,000 to cover the cost of materials to construct the house.” He obviously donated his labor. Well, his labor could be used better on the mission field.

Again, we affirm the certainty that this church is attempting to reach people and be kind. The problem is that when we do things our way, at our whim, rather than rely upon what God has told us to do, we often err and we end up not reaching people at all. We end up bringing God down and catering to the flesh. While this church attempted to be kind, in the spiritual realm, it is often cruel to be kind.

2006-01-03T15:09:00.000-08:00

Judge: Ban on Prayer Stands – Paul Dean

Richard D. Walton reports that “U.S. District Judge David Hamilton rejected arguments by House Speaker Brian Bosma…[denying] a request to amend his ruling banning sectarian prayer in the Indiana House of Representatives…And Hamilton issued a warning: ‘If the speaker or those offering prayers seek to evade the injunction through indirect but well understood expressions of specifically Christian beliefs, the audience, the public, and the court will be able to see what is happening. In that unlikely event, the court will be able to take appropriate measures to enforce’ the injunction.”

Words will not describe the astonishment that ought to rise within each one of us when sectarian prayer is banned from the public square. The issue here has to do with the nature of non-sectarian prayer, for by definition, non-sectarian prayer is not really prayer at all. When praying a broad prayer for a mixed audience, is one really praying? To be asked to pray an ecumenical prayer should offend persons of faith regardless of their particular religion. Those who are not offended do not understand the nature of prayer nor do they hold any real convictions about the god they claim to worship. How much less does a Christian who is content to pray in an ecumenical fashion understand the God of the Bible? He will have no other gods before Him nor will God be treated as if He does not exist.

But our already high level of astonishment ought to increase even more when we read what Judge Hamilton ruled. Earlier this month, he “found that the House practice of offering a prayer at the start of each day's session breached the clause of the U.S. Constitution that bars the government establishment of religion. The House prayers, he ruled, were overwhelmingly Christian in content and amounted to the advancement of one religion over others…The judge ordered that anyone chosen to give the invocation must not advance any one faith. He forbade the person saying the prayer from ‘using Christ's name or title’ or making any other denominational appeal.”

The notion that prayer at the start of each day’s session is a violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution is not only astonishing but laughable. Neither history nor common sense will support Hamilton’s ruling. Just the opposite is in fact true. Frankly, it is unconstitutional to prohibit public prayer. People, Christians, and apparently federal judges are in the lead here, are ignorant of their first amendment rights. It is the first amendment that guarantees our right to pray in public. It is not the other way around. The first amendment does not guarantee us freedom from God-talk in the public square. It actually guarantees us the right to talk about God in the public square. So, let us pray in the name of Christ in the Indiana House of Representatives.

When will the blatant misinterpretation and/or reinterpretation of our Constitution stop? When will judicial activism be seen for what it is: an incipient form of parasitic evil that destroys the cause of liberty and truth?

Let us not overlook the mean-spirited nature of the judge’s warning. A misguided warning is one thing: a vendetta is quite another. Power in the hands of such individuals is a frightening thing. If America ever wakes up to the slow erosion of her liberties and comes to the realization that the state has become an insatiable predator, let the judge himself be warned that impeachment is part of her recent vocabulary. And yet, if America does not wake up, let her be warned that our forefathers had to pledge their lives to secure the blessings of liberty for themselves and their posterity. May it not have to come to such again.

For a feature length article on the same issue with multiple applications, see my Crosswalk.com blog, “Let us Pray…Please!” Click on the link below: http://www.crosswalk.com/news/weblogs/dean/?adate=2/23/2005#1314274

2006-01-03T09:18:00.000-08:00

Christians Accused of Homophobia – Paul Dean

A report from across the pond has a strange twist in it that should alarm individuals everywhere, not just Christians. You be the judge.

BBC reports that “a retired couple were [sic] accused of being homophobic after they sent a letter to their local council objecting to what they saw as its pro-gay stance.” The couple complained at the council’s effort “to promote awareness of gay issues. The devout Christians said the council was ‘pandering’ to minority groups and said they felt discriminated against.”

The pair, Mr. and Mrs. Roberts, “had questioned the council's bid to improve equality, part of which would see gay lifestyle magazines distributed around staff areas. Mr. Roberts had asked if the council would display Christian leaflets, and was told all applications would be considered, but nothing that would offend minority groups would be approved.”

Further, in his letter, Mr. Roberts wrote, “If gay people made the decision not to think gay, they would not act gay. Whatever they are giving their attention to will eventually mould them into its image.”

A couple of issues may be raised here before the twist. First, the couple was accused of being homophobic. In an increasingly secular and postmodern world, those who disagree with the homosexual lifestyle or raise moral questions in connection to homosexuality will automatically be labeled as homophobic. The implication is that such individuals suffer from mental illness. This label is indeed a form of discrimination. It won’t be long before homophobia is classified in psychology’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual.

Second, the promotion of gay awareness combined with the distribution of gay lifestyle magazines could indeed be construed as discrimination. While Christians should glory in liberty for all, the government may not endorse one lifestyle over another. Why would we go down such a road again?

Why indeed? For one thing, Christ said it would be this way.

Christian leaflets will certainly not be distributed around staff areas as they would no doubt be offensive to minority groups. One wonders why it is so difficult to see the offensive nature of distributing gay material. The homosexual lifestyle is considered to be morally reprehensible and therefore repugnant to a large segment of the population. Religious material would be far less objectionable. Yet, it no doubt will remain out of sight while the homosexual agenda is foisted upon us.

Further, there is no doubt that Roberts’ statement concerning the fact that if people did not think gay they would not act gay has raised some ire. Yet, the statement is true in the sense that sinful actions flow from the sinful heart and in the sense that we have the responsibility to turn from our sin. The practicing homosexual need only fly to Christ to be delivered.

Now, here’s the twist. “A Lancashire Police spokesman said: ‘As a matter of routine, a police officer attended an address in Fleetwood to make further inquiries and to establish whether any crime had been or was likely to be committed. As a result of those inquiries, words of suitable advice were given and we will not be taking any further action. Hate crime is a very serious matter and all allegations must be investigated thoroughly.”

There you have it. Disagreement with a position or lifestyle that is deemed politically correct is now to be scrutinized to determine whether or not such disagreement is a crime. While no crime was deemed to have been committed in this case, we are one step closer to the outlawing of ideas. Of course, it is Christian ideas that are primarily on the chopping block. But, this step does not bode well for anyone.

George Orwell may have missed the date by a few years in his prophetic work 1984, yet the “Thought Police” are not some distant piece of fiction anymore. They are coming with force and speed. And when they get here, God help us all.

2006-01-03T05:10:00.000-08:00

Study: Good Relationships Require Selflessness – Paul Dean

“For some newlyweds, every day brings a new understanding of their partners, a chance to learn and grow, nurture each other, pursue goals together. For others, it's World War III if the cap is left off the toothpaste. A new University of Rochester study hopes to explain why new marriage is so blissful for some and such a battle for others,” reports Lauren Stanforth.

“Researchers want to survey 800 newlyweds from the United States and Canada for four years to try to learn what works for them and what doesn't — especially since about 40 percent of all divorces occur in the first five years of marriage, said Ronald D. Rogge, an assistant professor of psychology who is conducting the study. Rogge said he already has a general idea of what he'll find because of a doctoral dissertation he did on the same topic.

“‘It boils down to what you learned in kindergarten: You need to be nice to each other,’ Rogge said. ‘It turns out it's not as important what the topic of the problems are. What's more important is how you handle those problems. Do you negotiate those things with your partner, or do they turn into major battles?’ Rogge said too many married people act like singles, thinking only about what they want and need instead of being considerate of their partners. America has been drifting toward a culture of entitlement, ‘What can you give me? What can you do for me?’ Rogge said. ‘Good relationships, even the best relationships, take work, take selflessness.’”

Often times, the conclusions of psychologists are contrary to the Scriptures. However, in this case, Dr. Rogge is on to something. Regarding relationships, general principles are given to us in the Scriptures that those relationships might be fulfilling and at the same time that they might glorify God.

For example, Dr. Rogge says we need to be nice to each other. He is right on target. The bible says, “Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, just as God in Christ forgave you (Eph. 4:32).” Of course, from a biblical perspective, we may notice a big difference here between mere good advice and advice from the living God that has power. We are to be kind to one another and forgive one another, just as God in Christ forgave us. Our primary motivation is not so that we might have a wonderful marriage but that God has forgiven us and we are now to reflect His power in our lives by forgiving and being kind to others.

Rogge says we must negotiate with one another rather than turn things into major battles. Of course John tells us that “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness (1 Jn. 1:9).” This text not only refers to confessing our sins to God, but to those whom we sin against, including our spouses. Rather than battling, we are to confess and forgive. That’s biblical negotiation in the purest sense. And again, the power of the Spirit is operative in that when we confess our sins to one another, not only does God forgive us, but He cleanses us from all unrighteousness. The word cleanse is the same word translated sanctify in other contexts. As we confess our sins to God and to those whom we sin against, God sanctifies us. That is, we are conformed a little more to the image of Christ when we confess our sins and we are less likely to commit those same sins again. This dynamic is wonderfully transforming to the marriage relationship.

The good doctor goes on to say that too many individuals have a sense of entitlement and think only of themselves. Most married persons act as if they are single and never consider their partners. And, the bible says that we are to “Let nothing be done through selfish ambition or conceit, but in lowliness of mind let each esteem others better than himself. Let each of you look out not only for his own interests, but also for the interests of others. Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus (Phil. 2:3-5).” There you have it. We are to consider our marriage partners as better than ourselves and we are to look out for their interests rather than our own. The power to live in such a way purely and consistently and in a way that pleases God comes by adopting the mind of Christ. Only believers can do such a thing by the Spirit of God in them.

“Rogge hopes the results will help therapists identify earlier which topics to tackle in counseling. He also wants to develop a list of the best questions for religious leaders to ask engaged couples, considering that 90 percent of couples exchange vows in some type of religious ceremony.”

As noted, the doctor is on to something here. Without realizing it, Rogge has in essence become an advocate for biblical counseling. The problems we have do not lie in deep seated psychological neuroses that must be uncovered through specialized psychological analysis. In marriage, our problems have to do with whether we are going to be selfish or selfless. That reality underlies most of our problems.

We commend Rogge for speaking to us in plain and common sense terms. Of course, we must add, the only way for persons to truly be selfless is to know Christ. Because we are sinners by nature, we do not have the power to be what we should be, that is, what God wants us to be, apart from Him. Our Lord Jesus said, “Apart from Me, you can do nothing (Jn. 15:5).”

Can success be guaranteed in marriage? Absolutely! How can such be guaranteed? First, both partners must be born again. Second, practically, they then should “Let no corrupt word proceed out of [their] mouth[s], but what is good for necessary edification, that it may impart grace to [one another]. [They should] not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom [they] were sealed for the day of redemption. [They are to] let all bitterness, wrath, anger, clamor, and evil speaking be put away from [them], with all malice. And [they are to] be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, just as God in Christ forgave [them] (Eph. 4:29-32).”

Beyond that, “Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control (1 Cor. 7:3-5).”

For a fuller treatment of this subject click on www.crosswalk.com/news/weblogs/dean and look for the article with the same title.

2006-01-02T08:47:00.000-08:00

Public School Teaching Kids How to be Muslim – Paul Dean

WorldNetDaily reports that “Parents and children challenging a California school district for its practice of teaching 12-year-old students to "become Muslims" are asking a federal appeals court to reconsider its ruling in front of the entire panel of judges.” Suit has been filed for “various school officials to stop the ‘Islam simulation’ materials and methods used in the Excelsior Elementary School in Byron, Calif. A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit – widely regarded as the nation's most liberal federal appeals court– upheld a San Francisco federal district court's ruling that the Byron Union School District did not violate the U.S. Constitution.”

Here we go again. It seems that the purveyors of justice, truth, and morality just can’t get it right these days. Where no violation of the Constitution exists, out of the woodwork come those who cry otherwise. Where a violation does in fact exist, they assert the opposite. Postmodern philosophy has taken its toll on the thinking process, and indeed the ability to think, of far too many power brokers in this society. While the First Amendment does not prohibit God-talk in the public square, it does indeed prohibit the establishment of religion. At the same time, parental rights are being trampled.

Decide for yourself if parental rights are being violated. “Edward L. White III, trial counsel with the [Thomas More] Law Center, says parents were never told about the Islamic program and didn't know they had the option to remove their children from such an activity.” He went on to say that “one of the parents found out by accident, looking through her son's schoolbag after the program had finished.”

Part of the problem lies in the fact that the state now asserts that our children are wards of the state, if only in a philosophical sense at this point, and that the state has the right to indoctrinate them as they see fit without parental approval. They view the parents as having no rights in these cases. Recent rulings maintain that government schools have the right to teach what they deem as best for our children regardless of how parents feel about the teaching in question.

Let me say here that parents must do three things before we lose our children in a way we never dreamed possible. First, parents must recognize the evil and aggressive nature of the state and its insidious garnering of power unto itself. Second, parents must be informed of not only those rights that are still allowed them by contemporary pundits, but more especially those rights allowed them by the Constitution. Third, parents must understand the Scriptures and apply them to these situations for the sake of their children and the cause of Christ.

Decide for yourself if religion is being established by the government via their school. According to the Law Center, “for three weeks, ‘impressionable 12-year-old students’ were, among other things, placed into Islamic city groups; took Islamic names; wore identification tags that displayed their new Islamic name and the star and crescent moon; handed materials that instructed them to 'Remember Allah always so that you may prosper'; completed the Islamic Five Pillars of Faith, including fasting; and memorized and recited the 'Bismillah' or 'In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate,' which students also wrote on banners hung on the classroom walls. Students also played "jihad games" during the course, which was part of the school's world history and geography program.”

“White insists a line was crossed, placing the students in the "position of being trainees in Islam, which is impermissible in a public school." Trainees. That’s an apt description.

Not only is religion being established and propagated by the government, but do not miss the “jihad games.” Jihad is holy war. Now children are being taught the concepts of Islamic holy war, and that in the aftermath of 9/11. The shocking question is this: could anyone imagine that Islam would be taught so boldly in this nation founded on Christian principles and the non-establishment clause of the Constitution? And yet, the outrageous question is this: could anyone imagine in the aftermath of 9/11 that Islam would be taught so boldly in this nation that has been attacked by Islamic extremists and that at the same time the concept of Jihad would be taught in the midst of Jihad that has been declared against us?

“In December 2003, the San Francisco court determined the school district had not violated the Constitution. In her 22-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton determined Excelsior was not indoctrinating students about Islam when it required them to adopt Muslim names and pray to Allah, but rather was just teaching them about the Muslim religion.”

What would happen if students were to adopt Christian names and pray to the Lord Jesus Christ? Would that practice be seen as mere teaching about Christianity or would it be seen as indoctrination and therefore a violation of the Constitution? It is a sad day when the truth comes out. Not only is Christianity being marginalized in this country (a prelude to ban), but the Constitution really means nothing. It is simply used, when convenient, to bash Christians.

“The Islam simulations at Excelsior are outlined in the state-adopted textbook 'Across the Centuries,’ published by Houghton Mifflin, which prompts students to imagine they are Islamic soldiers and Muslims on a Mecca pilgrimage. The lawsuit also alleges students were encouraged to use such phrases in their speech as ‘Allahu Akbar,’ which is Arabic for ‘God is greatest,’ and were required to fast during lunch period to simulate fasting during the Islamic holy month of Ramadan. Nevertheless, Judge Hamilton ruled the program was devoid of ‘any devotional or religious intent’ and was, therefore, educational, not religious in nature.”

How can imagining you are on a Mecca pilgrimage not be construed as indoctrination? How can the forced recitation of words of worship and the requirement of fasting, a religious ritual in and of itself, not be construed as religious training (and coercion)? Well, all I can say is that Judge Hamilton is devoid of understanding, integrity, or both. She should be impeached immediately.

If trends like this continue, we will not have to worry about retailers prohibiting their employees from saying Merry Christmas. We will all be prohibited from such and taught to pray towards Mecca.

2005-12-31T06:50:00.000-08:00

NBC’s “Book of Daniel” Condemned – Paul Dean

“Conservative Christians are gearing up for a holy war of sorts over NBC's forthcoming show ‘The Book of Daniel’ airing the first week of 2006,” according to Fox News. The show’s star Aidan Quinn - who plays the Rev. Daniel Webster - called the series ‘a pretty down-the-middle, wholesome show.’ ‘I honestly don't think it's going to be nearly as controversial as some people may now be afraid of,’ Quinn told The Associated Press. ‘It just has the courage to deal with some of the real issues that go on in people's lives.’”

Great! We can all rest easy. The show is “down-the-middle” and “wholesome.” Just in case, before we breathe a great sigh of relief, let’s see how Quinn defines “down-the-middle” and “wholesome.” “Webster regularly sees and talks with a very unconventional white-robed, bearded Jesus. The Webster family is rounded out by a 23-year-old homosexual Republican son, a 16-year-old daughter who is a drug dealer, and a 16-year-old adopted son who is having sex with the bishop's daughter. At the office, his lesbian secretary is sleeping with his sister-in-law.”

Well, it seems that postmodern revisionism has found its way into the dictionary. These things are indeed real issues that go in the lives of many people. But, that is why we preach the gospel, that those people might be saved and delivered from such enslaving sin. From a biblical perspective, the entire Webster family needs to be evangelized.

Quinn told the AP, “I'm an Episcopalian Priest who struggles with a little self-medication problem, and I have a 23-year-old son who's gay, and a 16-year-old daughter who's caught dealing pot, and another son who's jumping on every high school girl he sees, and a wife who's very loving but also likes her martinis. I can't tell you how many people have said to me, ‘Hey, that sounds like my family.’” Again, that may sound like some families, but it certainly does not represent the average Christian family, let alone a gospel minister’s family. The sad truth may be that such a family is representative of what one might find in the liberal/apostate wing of the Episcopal Church. However, in bible believing churches, Webster would not be qualified to serve as a minister (1 Tim. 3:1-7).

We must also give some thought to the fact that Webster regularly has visions of and face-to-face conversations with “a very unconventional…Jesus.” In this pervasively postmodern culture, neo-gnosticism is alive and well. It seems that every program on television with a religious theme is given to the ancient philosophy dressed up in modern garb.

The notion that we have direct, physical contact with the divine is behind this thinking. Never mind that the Scriptures indicate that this type of thing is not normative today. We experience God’s presence through the Holy Spirit and He speaks to us by His word, the bible. Casual conversation via visions, appearances (theophanies) or direct revelations is simply not how it works today. The quest for an actual physical experience with the divine as opposed to a mediated experience through the word of God is behind such thought even in Christian circles.

What makes this part of the program so unnerving is more than the fact that it is an unbiblical portrayal of how God communicates to us and that is that many Christians themselves would actually approve of this brand of mysticism as patently biblical. It is difficult to get the world to portray things in a biblical manner when much of the Christian world embraces such nonsense.

One more comment in regard to “a very unconventional Jesus.” Do we expect anything different from an unconventional Jesus on a secular program? Of course, we must translate “unconventional.” In plain terms we would say heretical. However the Lord Jesus is portrayed, if He is not portrayed as revealed to us in the Scriptures, then we have another Jesus which is no Jesus at all. What we have is sheer idolatry.

NBC and the mainstream media call it "edgy," "challenging" and "courageous." While they mean those words in a positive way, we must point out that they are right, but in a negative way. The program is edgy and challenging because it redefines biblical Christianity. It is courageous in a warped sort of way in that it boldly blasphemes the God of the bible, mocks His revealed truth, and effectively smacks Christians in the face.

“The series is written by Jack Kenny, a practicing homosexual who describes himself as being ‘in Catholic recovery,’ and is interested in Buddhist teachings about reincarnation and isn't sure exactly how he defines God and/or Jesus. ‘I don't necessarily know that all the myth surrounding him (Jesus) is true,’ he said.” There you have it folks. But, don’t forget, the program is “down-the-middle” and “wholesome.” Well, it is if you are a homosexual Buddhist who believes the bible is myth.

“NBC considers The Book of Daniel a positive portrayal of Christ and Christians.” What does that say about NBC? Programs like this reduce the Scriptures to nothing more than human documents that can be reinterpreted any way we like. They reduce Christianity to someone’s notion of what Christianity is and not what the bible says it is. They reduce Christian experience to nothing but worldly experience. And, they reduce the power of the gospel to powerlessness as those who claim to be Christian evidence no spiritual power or change in their lives.

Let us turn briefly to The American Family Association (AFA). The organization has called for a boycott of the series. There is no doubt that Christians should not tune in to this program on a regular basis. I for one will not. It is indeed part of the larger assault on Christ from this culture. At the same time, we still stand away from calling for block boycotts. It is so easy to use our carnal muscle. But, we are told that “the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds (2 Cor. 10:4).”

AFA is right in saying the program “is an example of that network's anti-Christian bigotry.” I for one am happy “that the network has received more than 400,000 e-mails complaining about the show.” But, let us leave it at personal refusal to watch the show, personal complaint to NBC, warnings from the AFA (and even this blog and the like), gospel preaching, and prayer. Let us not bully NBC simply because they bully us. While calling for a boycott of this show may be slightly different than calling for a boycott of a retail outlet to force them to conform their behavior to that which we want, a practice we should regard as patently unbiblical, though the personal decision to shop elsewhere is always appropriate, it still smacks of strong-arm tactics to get what we want from NBC.

Beloved, NBC is pagan. They are going to act like pagans. If the ratings are good, the show will continue. If the ratings are bad, the show will not. Let Christians make personal decisions and pray they make the right decisions and pray the show will not be successful. But coming against NBC with a public boycott puts the battle on the wrong field and makes them adversaries for us to defeat rather than helpless sinners for us to win to Christ. Even Fox News said we were gearing up for a holy war. We are being compared to Jihad. Oh, how that breaks my heart. Brethren, this ought not be. Donald Wildmon of the AFA is right when he says that “Christian-bashing is in style at NBC.” But, let not NBC-bashing be in style in the Christian community.

2005-12-30T15:19:00.000-08:00

Evangelism Through Wrestling - Paul Dean

“Some say the United States is in the middle of another spiritual awakening. Christians are being converted through all sorts of nontraditional means — Christian rock, video games, movies and even car racing — but pro wrestling?” So comes this report on a new approach to evangelism from Jake Tapper and Clayton Sandell of ABC News. A few problems with this development may be pointed out.

First, there is the problem of biblical and historical ignorance. I don’t know who says the US is in the midst of another spiritual awakening. Anyone who has ever read Scripture or the historical accounts of the awakenings would never come to such a conclusion. While God has and does bring small revivals here and there, a cursory reading of Jonathan Edwards alone would dispel false notions of what revival is, let alone the notion that there is widespread awakening in America.

Second, there is the problem of unbiblical evangelistic means. Of course, the assertion is made that we are experiencing spiritual awakening because persons are being converted through a number of nontraditional means. Two questions arise from such an assertion. Firstly, are they really being converted? Secondly, if they are being converted, are they being converted through those mediums or the gospel that comes through those mediums? The point may seem a bit technical, but it goes to the heart of the matter. Is someone’s immediate public decision the evidence of conversion, and, can people be converted through means other than the gospel or at least be open to the gospel if attracted by the right means? The Scriptures say no to both questions.

That is not to say that persons are not converted at such events. It is to say that God saves people in a number of different places because He is gracious. But, He does the saving. And, He has given us simple gospel witness as the means. As we go throughout our lives, we are to speak of Christ.

Third, there is the problem of false conversions. One may ask what the problem is with things like wrestling events to reach people for Christ. The primary problem is that most people who make decisions at such events are not truly born of the Spirit. Support for that statement lies in the fact that very few are ever baptized and/or remain part of any local church. Statistically, very few lives are changed at such events. These things seem to sooth our guilty consciences for not sharing with people every day and prop up our egos when we tell others what we have done for the Lord. As far as the decisions go, most at such events are making a decision based upon the hype, emotion, and adrenal flow of the moment.

We must add that false conversions occurred in the First Great Awakening. The difference between then and now is that most Christians understood that there were false conversions and they understood not to count conversions until fruit was evidenced.

Fourth, there is the problem of pragmatism. Glorifying God in evangelism is not a pragmatic enterprise. It is not a mere enterprise of telling people the gospel no matter how we get them to listen. What about a bikini contest to share the gospel? Such a notion is not far fetched in a pragmatic philosophy. The rationale might be that some have no problem with bathing suits; we all know Christians who enter in beauty contests. One might go on to say that a bikini contest is no problem for pagans, and after all, we get to tell them about Christ. That’s the goal isn’t it?

The problem with that line of thinking has far too many problems to dissect here. Surely very few would support such a thing. But then one will argue that a wrestling match and a bikini contest are two different things. Yes but, the problem is that once you are on the slippery slope of pragmatism, it is inevitable that you will slide further down the hill.

Don’t’ say it can’t happen. I wrote an article about a Christian church trying to reach young people for Christ by producing a calendar featuring twelve photos depicting erotic scenes from the Bible. Among others, those scenes include a bare-breasted Delilah cutting Samson's hair and a nude Eve offering the forbidden fruit (www.crosswalk.com/news/weblogs/dean - “Truth or Trash, The Fool’s Calendar, Erotica from Church”).

Biblical evangelism is not simply sharing the message any way we can. It is sharing God’s message, God’s way, for God’s glory. The last two elements of that statement are the elements largely missing from many evangelistic endeavors today.

Fifth, there is the problem of little discernment. “Every weekend, Canton, Ga., middle school teacher Rob Fields becomes Rob Adonis’ — leader of Ultimate Christian Wrestling, a league based in Georgia.” We won’t quibble too much over someone taking the name of a pagan god to convert people to the true and living God. Should we?

Sixth, there is the problem of call. “Two Christian wrestling leagues operate across the South, visiting churches, colleges and other arenas throughout the country. ‘This is what God's called us to do,’ Fields said.” Most people are reluctant to question someone’s call. The truth is that a call is very subjective thing.

According to Scripture, God calls us to salvation by the operation of His Spirit. That call is evidenced by a changed life. In a general sense, God gifts all of His saints to engage in ministry wherever He leads. One may be gifted and called into evangelism for example. God leads all of His saints to their particular vocations. This dynamic is simply the providence of God in the lives of His people. Then there is the call to ministry. Of course, if one believes he is called to ministry, the church must examine that individual for giftedness, effectiveness, qualification, etc. If the church does not see evidence of a call, then that individual is more than likely not called of God to that ministry. There are exceptions as giftedness and ministry effectiveness may develop over time. But, generally speaking, the church must be able to confirm one’s claim biblically.

In this particular case, to say that one is called to a wrestling, evangelism ministry of this nature may not be supported by Scripture. No support is to be had in that ministries or gimmicks of this kind are never mentioned in Scripture. Moreover, as noted above, the upshot of this type of thing is a plethora of false conversions and the other problems pointed out herein.

Seventh, there is the problem of discipleship. “Fields says the idea for the group came in a dream after he spent four years on the ‘sinful’ secular pro-wrestling circuit. ‘Certain towns there were more drugs, and certain towns there were more women backstage, and certain towns the alcohol just flowed like water,’ he said. On his birthday in 2003, Fields awoke in a pool of sweat after realizing his higher calling.”

The Scripture says that a man must be tested. We should praise God for this man’s conversion. At the same time, I cannot recount the number of times I’ve had to put the breaks on new converts who want to engage in evangelism that would not glorify God. As a pastor, I directed them to biblical means through love, patience, instruction, and example.

We do not question Fields’ heart here. While the implication may be wrong from the story, the story does imply that either he was converted in the midst of his secular wrestling days and formed the Christian group, or he was a Christian on the sinful pro-wrestling circuit. Either way, while we appreciate his heart now, we cannot allow him to be our theological leader in determining whether this ministry is God-honoring or not.

Eighth, there is the problem of bringing God down. “Ultimate Christian Wrestling's story lines and characters represent morality tales. ‘Beautiful’ Bruce Biggins has been portrayed as the league's Judas, selling out Adonis' character. After roughly two hours of fairly typical if low-rent wrestling — headlocks, ‘street fights,’ cheap shots and the like — comes that little something extra. This past weekend's main event came right out of the Book of Revelations [sic], with a depiction of God and Jesus judging the main characters harshly on Judgment Day. Only one got to heaven.”

All of this seems to remove the glory of the Holy One and reduce Him and His message to “Smackdown.” Do we not value Christ more than that?

And then there’s the page right out of “Heaven’s Gates and Hell’s Flames.” The report says, “Even ‘God's Property’ Billy Jack — a crowd favorite, a good guy who does good deeds — was dragged to hell for not being a ‘true’ Christian. ‘I don't want to go to hell!’ screamed Billy Jack as wrestlers portraying demons carried him off.” Well, who doesn’t want to make a decision after seeing that? Especially if you are thirteen? "I used to not believe in God or his miracles, but now I have lots of reasons to believe in his miracles," said Christy Fowler, an emotional 13-year-old. But what of a change of heart wrought by the Spirit?

Ninth, there is the problem of manipulation. “When it was over, the ‘passion pile drivers,’ followed by a sermon by Fields, inspired two dozen fans to become born again.” Well, there you have it. They were “inspired” to be born again by the “passion pile drivers.” Friends, only the Spirit can cause someone to be born again. What we have here is people being pressured to make a decision by the “passion pile drivers,” whatever they are. One Billy Sunday was enough. Of course, these characters sound worse.

Tenth, there is the problem of violence. “Fields says almost 900 others have been converted, though he admits the violence may not be for everyone and hears his share of criticism.” Well, what about the violence? Are we to believe the Prince of Peace would condone violence, even in an entertainment context, to advance His gospel? The whole concept of men beating each other for sport is repugnant to God. Wrestling promotes such themes as hatred, anger, revenge, pride, beating others into unconsciousness to the roar of an adoring crowd. No dear friends. Such does not please the Lord.

Eleventh, there is the problem of fleshly appeal. “’We just tell them, this is not something that everybody is going to enjoy,’ Fields said. ‘What we're trying to appeal to is that wrestling crowd, and we're trying to get the wrestling crowd that typically doesn't go to church, doesn't really abide by any faith or have any beliefs in Christianity.’” There is the admission without realization. Let me put it this way. “We are trying to appeal to the wrestling crowd, that is, their flesh, by giving them what they enjoy in their lost condition.” Here’s my question: why not just give them the gospel?

Twelfth, there is the problem of not knowing Jesus well enough because one hasn’t spent enough time with Him through His word. The reporters asked the question, “And what would Jesus think? ‘I think he would enjoy the show,’ said Fields. ‘He would say, ‘Well done.’” Well, maybe Jesus enjoyed the games when human beings were fed to lions. Okay, maybe not. Maybe He enjoyed the Roman Gladiators beating men to a pulp. Okay, maybe not. Maybe He enjoys “Smackdown.” Okay, maybe not. Maybe He enjoys Rob Adonis. Okay, maybe not.

2005-12-28T07:27:00.000-08:00

Jews for Jesus Sue Google - Paul Dean

Reuters reports that “Christian evangelical group Jews for Jesus is suing Google Inc., saying a Web log hosted through the Internet search leader's Blogspot service infringes its trademark. The suit…seeks to force Google to give Jews for Jesus control of the site as well as unspecified monetary damages.”

Some say the Internet is a blessing and others say it’s a curse. No doubt the world wide web is what we make of it but new problems are created with which all of us will have to wrestle if we are to not only live in a civil society but in a civil cyber-space.

The concept of idea ownership is already complicated. Add to that quagmire individuals all over the world who create their blogs and call them whatever they want. Are things of this nature able to be regulated? Who is responsible: the individual who creates the blog or the company who enables the individual to do so? In this case, Jews for Jesus went after the one with the deep pockets.

Of course, Susan Perlman, associate executive director with Jews for Jesus has a point: "We have a right to our own name and Google has allowed the use of our name on Blogspot without our permission…Our reputation is at stake." Most would agree that a sense of fare play would allow them the exclusivity of their name, particularly when the blog in question airs critical views of Jews for Jesus.

Of course, in some sense, this particular case may be much ado about nothing. The site had only three posts, the last of which was May 9, until this article came out. We most assuredly live in a litigious society when a Christian group sues Google over an obscure blog with three posts that may never have seen the light of day again had it not been for the group’s protestations. Christians do need to be wise as snakes and gentle as doves in a crooked and perverse generation filled with wolves (Matt. 10:16).

"One of the wonderful things about the Internet is that there is freedom of expression, but there should be a protection…so that organizations like ours can represent ourselves," Perlman said. She is right, but, the question emerges, should we shoot the goose that laid the golden egg, at least in this case? “Google's Blogspot and Blogger services allow people to set up Web logs…for free.” Many Christian bloggers would be silenced if they had to pay for the privilege. In the same vein we might ask why Google is being sued for control of the site as well as monetary damages.

Perhaps of greater concern from a Christian worldview is the notion of suing for monetary damages simply because someone said something ugly about you or your organization. Are we not supposed to rejoice at such? Of course, that does not mean we cannot legally protect ourselves in the context in which God has placed us; but, monetary damages?

A civil cyberspace, ideal ownership, the responsible party, rights, regulation, litigation, wisdom, money, freedom, Christian worldview: yes we have a situation through which it will be difficult to navigate. Let’s watch this one closely.

2005-12-28T07:23:00.000-08:00

Using Andy Griffith Show to Teach Bible – Paul Dean

Here we go again. Mike Widler of The Times-News of Burlington reports on a class called "The Way Back to Mayberry" held Wednesday nights at a church in Burlington.

“On a recent Wednesday, class members started talking about the different women Andy went out with on the show. One woman mentioned she preferred Miss Ellie, an early romantic interest, to Helen Crump, Andy's later steady date.” Another class member “mentioned a woman she knows who went out with Don Knotts when both were young people in West Virginia. ‘We asked her if she kissed him,’ she said, ‘and she wouldn't answer.’ That's the kind of interest in the show that makes the class feasible, but it's not the focus of ‘The Way Back to Mayberry.’ Class members watch an episode each week and discuss how it illustrates Biblical teaching.

Well, a lot of television shows or topics would make a variety of classes feasible. Desperate Housewives comes to mind as one of the most popular shows on television today (a show I have never seen). Of course, Andy Griffith is a different type of show no doubt. But the principle remains. Do we have any biblical warrant to use a television show as the basis for our Bible teaching?

No doubt the initial response would be to point out that the show is simply an illustration. As noted, “Class members watch an episode each week and discuss how it illustrates Biblical teaching.” A few problems may be mentioned here.

First, the class consists of watching an episode each week. How much time is left for so-called teaching? The bulk of the class is spent watching television. In our self-focused, entertainment oriented culture this type of thing makes sense. It is a placebo that will indeed inoculate us from the truth. We are warned repeatedly in the Scriptures not to be deceived as believers because our own hearts are still wicked and deceitful and unknowable apart from the Scriptures (Jer. 17:9; Heb. 4:12). People are deceived into thinking they are studying the word when in reality they are avoiding such study.

Second, a television show is the wrong starting point. The very dynamic of watching an episode of Andy Griffith makes the show the starting point for authority rather than the Scriptures. To sprinkle a few Scriptures verses in at the end only proves the point. Scripture serves to illustrate the show rather than the other way around.

Third, an illustration is just that: an illustration. An illustration provides light on an otherwise difficult to understand concept. We may explain truth, argue truth, apply truth, and illustrate truth to drive the point home. But here again, the show is not used as illustration but as the basis for the lesson.

Fourth, the living nature of the word of God is called into question. Consider this statement from the teacher: "It just brings Scripture to life, and Scripture brings the show to life.” The Scripture is already living and active according to Heb. 4:12. What does it say about one’s focus when a television show is necessary to or helpful in bringing Scripture to life? Further, why do I care if the show is brought to life? What does that mean anyway?

Fifth, while I personally enjoy watching the Andy Griffith show, one must admit that the show itself is full of unbiblical and ungodly themes and teaching. How often does Andy lie to make things work out right and as a result we actually view him as doing good? How often do we laugh at Otis without thinking of the consequences of his sin? How often is church portrayed on the show as benign or even silly? How often is religion portrayed as nothing more than a social aspect of our lives?

Consider the illustration in this news report itself. “In the episode, mean-spirited Ben Weaver insists that Andy arrest Sam Muggins on Christmas Eve for moonshining. Ben owns the local department store and says he doesn't want to lose profits from the sale of spirits. Andy arrests Sam, but later brings in Sam's wife and two children, telling Ben with a mixture of humor and sarcasm they were accessories to Sam's crime. Andy, Barney Fife and others then hold their Christmas Eve festivities at the jail so Sam's family can have a celebration. Ben, who is lonely, sees how much fun everyone is having and schemes to get arrested as well. He finally succeeds and brings everyone an expensive present from his store.” We all remember that episode and are moved to think how mean Ben really is. We pull for Sam in that show. But, what about the law? What about moonshining? These things make for good comedy but bad teaching.

One could point those things out in the lesson. Yet, what do we find in the class under consideration? The teacher “shared Scripture verses that relate to the episode. Talking about how Andy and his friends changed their Christmas plans to make the best of the situation, and how Ben changed his behavior, he referred to a passage in Philippians. ‘Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others.’” No corrective was offered here and the emotional push of the show remains. It would have been better to demonstrate why even the Andy Griffith show falls short of God’s standard for our lives. But such is the problem when a teacher’s whims at application or a television show becomes our source of authority and the not the Scriptures themselves.

Sixth, what is really at issue here is a denial of the sufficiency of Scripture, the authority of Scripture, and the power of the gospel. This trend is gaining speed in the church on many fronts. While the Scripture says we have everything we need for life and godliness (2 Pet. 1:3), we feel we must add to it somehow. The Scripture says that if one does not teach it as authoritative there is no light in that teacher (Isa. 8:20). Even though the Scripture says the gospel itself is the power of God unto salvation (Rom. 1:16), we do not trust it to have that power anymore. May we realize our condition and return before it is too late.

Seventh, too many people in the church today don’t want the pure truth of the word. It has to be taken with a spoon full of sugar it seems. One can hear in this trend the echo of a distant question: “Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this, said, "This is a hard saying; who can understand it (Jn. 6:60)?" Of course, the inevitable response was “From that time many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more (Jn. 6:66).” No one is calling into question the salvation of those in this report using the Andy Griffith show. However, if we continue to use such as our authority, I fear the response of those who sit under such will be similar.

Let the bible itself speak to this issue. “For we are to God the fragrance of Christ among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing. To the one we are the aroma of death leading to death, and to the other the aroma of life leading to life. And who is sufficient for these things? For we are not, as so many, peddling the word of God; but as of sincerity, but as from God, we speak in the sight of God in Christ (2 Cor. 2:15-17).” I have one question: would Paul teach from The Andy Griffith Show as above?

2005-12-28T07:21:00.000-08:00

Most Believe They Are Going to Heaven – Paul Dean

Dalia Sussman of ABC News reports that “Vast majorities of Americans believe in heaven and think they're headed there. But elbow room won't be a problem: About eight in 10 believers envision heaven as a place where people exist only spiritually, not physically. Eighty-nine percent in this ABC News poll believe in heaven, which is consistent with data going back 30 years. Among believers, 85 percent think they'll personally go there.”

While it is a surprise that most Americans still believe in heaven in light of the ripping apart of our cultural fabric as a result of modernity, it is no surprise that most Americans think they are going to heaven. We are among the most arrogant people on earth. Postmodernism may have had some effect here but the figures are still staggering. Of course, most religious people think they are going to heaven whether they express it or not or whether or not they have some doubts.

A great disparity exists between religiosity or religious belief and allowing that belief to affect one’s life. In light of these statistics, one wonders how all these can think they are going to heaven. Surely it’s the notion that they are not that bad. After all, they are not murderers or rapists. Of course, they are biblically ignorant to say the least. Not only is the way of salvation misunderstood, but so too is the concept of heaven itself and the types of bodies we will have once there.

A more orthodox view is expressed by those who think heaven is limited to Christians: among all who believe in heaven, that figure is one in four. “More than a third of Protestants feel that way, and this view peaks at 55 percent among Protestants who describe themselves as very religious.” Of course, the question must be raised about understanding of or commitment to the Scriptures in light of 65% of Protestants believing that non-Christians will be in heaven. We’ve got a lot of work to do in our own house before we can engage this culture.

“As noted, people without a religion are the least likely to believe in heaven (51 percent do, 46 percent don't), followed by people who describe themselves as not religious (72 percent of them do believe, 26 percent don't). Non-religious people who do believe in heaven are slightly less likely than others to think they'll personally go there, but it's a still high 77 percent.” Surely these numbers point not only to the influence of postmodern thought, that is, the idea that all truth claims are equally valid; to the pride that resides in the human heart; but also to universalist ideas based upon a grandfatherly god or to inconsistent ideas based upon a generation of people who don’t think at all. We are a people who are content to live with glaring contradictions in our minds. As we have said before, this culture must be engaged with truth.

Significantly, “There's a difference between the sexes: Eighty percent of women think they're going to heaven, compared with 69 percent of men. That's both because men are slightly less apt to believe in heaven in the first place, and among those who do believe, slightly less apt to think they're headed there.” Well, this dynamic offers little surprise.

Men typically don’t care about to many things and the one’s who do care generally understand that they don’t do well at those same things. On the other hand, women seem to care about the little things as well as the big things and they are generally meticulous about their endeavors. They often put us to shame.

Of course, while a bit of facetiousness is in play here, the truth is not far off in light of the fall. Men are content to leave it to the women and the women are happy to take over. Yet, the men are responsible. If this culture is to see real Christian influence and not mere religious statistics, the men, Christian men, real men, will have to step up to the plate and lead this culture to Christ.

2005-12-28T07:18:00.000-08:00

Santorum Backs Away from Intelligent Design – Paul Dean

According to the Associated Press, “Sen. Rick Santorum says he intends to withdraw his affiliation with the Christian-rights law center that defended a school district's policy mandating the teaching of ‘intelligent design.’ Santorum, the Senate's No. 3 Republican who is facing a tough re-election challenge next year, earlier praised the Dover Area School District for ‘attempting to teach the controversy of evolution.’”

“But the day after a federal judge ruled the district's policy on intelligent design unconstitutional, Santorum told The Philadelphia Inquirer he was troubled by testimony indicating religion motivated some board members to adopt the policy. Santorum was on the advisory board of the Michigan-based Thomas More Law Center, which defended the district's policy. The law center describes its mission as defending the religious freedom of Christians. ‘I thought the Thomas More Law Center made a huge mistake in taking this case and in pushing this case to the extent they did,’ Santorum said Wednesday. He said he would end his affiliation with the center.”

We must admit Santorum’s statements seem disingenuous in light of the fact that he served on the advisory board of the Thomas More Law Center. He certainly knows where they stand. Moreover, why did he not resign before the ruling if he disagreed with the Center’s push?

We must also point out that while ID is being propagated by the scientific community, persons with religious convictions have supported the movement and this reality should be expected. Can anyone claim surprise that members of a local school board may have been motivated by religion in this debate? Does such motivation negate the validity of ID? Are we to leave our religion at the door when considering such matters, as if we or anyone else could?

At the same time, we should be careful not to say that Santorum is backtracking on intelligent design as his democratic challenger has. Santorum made a distinction between mandating the teaching of intelligent design vs. teaching the controversy surrounding evolution. However, most see little difference and one wonders if Santorum is being Clintonesque in either his semantics or the careful wording that enables him to hedge his bets depending upon the outcome of such cases.

“Santorum said in a 2002 Washington Times op-ed article that intelligent design ‘is a legitimate scientific theory that should be taught in science classes.’ That sounds like he’s contradicting himself. “But he said he meant that teachers should have freedom to mention intelligent design as part of the evolution debate — not be required to do so — and said his position hasn't changed.” One wonders where he would stand if the case were indeed about the option being given to individual teachers and the judge had ruled against that.

We don’t really know where Santorum stands. Of course, that’s the problem with politicians regardless of their party. In the corrupted system in which we find ourselves today, truth is a commodity that is not easy to come by. But once again, as the title of our program indicates, we’re calling for truth.

2005-12-28T07:03:00.000-08:00

Judge Bars Intelligent Design from Science Class – Paul Dean

“In one of the biggest courtroom clashes between faith and evolution since the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial, a federal judge barred a Pennsylvania public school district Tuesday from teaching ‘intelligent design’ in biology class, saying the concept is creationism in disguise,” reported Martha Raffaele of the Associated Press.

In Harrisburg, PA, “U.S. District Judge John E. Jones delivered a stinging attack on the Dover Area School Board, saying its first-in-the-nation decision in October 2004 to insert intelligent design into the science curriculum violated the constitutional separation of church and state.”

“In his ruling, Jones said that while intelligent design, or ID, arguments ‘may be true, a proposition on which the court takes no position, ID is not science.’ Among other things, the judge said intelligent design ‘violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation’; it relies on ‘flawed and illogical’ arguments; and its attacks on evolution ‘have been refuted by the scientific community.’”

All I can say is that it is a sad day when a federal judge is uninformed in regard to something as important as intelligent design. While many Creationists support the ID movement for a number of reasons, a vast difference exists between ID and Creationism. ID has been set forth by scientists who see major gaps in evolutionary theory and posit that a designer, of some sort, stands behind the creation of the ordered universe in which we find ourselves. Some of those individuals do indeed posit that the Designer is God, but others pose a number of other explanations including aliens or time-travelers.

Moreover, we must categorically state once and for all that such a theory does not violate the constitutional separation of church and state. Again, the first amendment states two things very clearly: that the state may not establish religion, that is, impose one particular religion on anyone, and that the state may not prohibit the free exercise of religion. To put ID alongside evolution violates neither of those clauses. ID is as much science as is evolution and evolution is as much religion as is ID. Both are set forth as theories.

The fact of the matter is that ID stands on better scientific ground than does evolution in that it takes into account the created realm and poses an explanation that makes sense. Evolution has no explanation for the massive holes in the theory. Further, while ID falls short of true science in that it cannot prove or disprove a designer by way of observation, the evidence is certainly overwhelming. Evolution falls short in the same way in that one may not prove or disprove how the universe commenced. At the same time, it fails as true science in a greater way in that macro-evolution has never been observed in any context nor does any real evidence for such exist.

“Jones decried the ‘breathtaking inanity’ of the Dover policy and accused several board members of lying to conceal their true motive, which he said was to promote religion.” Of course one must resort to name-calling and the questioning of motive when one has no real argument from a scientific or constitutional perspective. Not only is this type of thing disconcerting when it comes from a federal judge, but far worse is the misapplication of the Constitution by that same federal judge. Moreover, one wonders how one’s perceived view of a religious position could cause such ire, and that from a church-going republican.

“During the trial, the board argued that it was trying to improve science education by exposing students to alternatives to Charles Darwin's theory of evolution and natural selection.” Most scientists would agree with such a statement and motive. To fail to take into account all possibilities is not good science. Fear is driving ID out of the classroom, not scientific inquiry. It is a sad day when ideas are squelched in the name of education when all the while liberty is trampled upon, knowledge is suppressed, bigotry is fostered, and the thought police garner more control over an unsuspecting populace. This isn’t our father’s America.

The ruling becomes all the more problematic in that ID was not really being taught. “The policy [simply] required students to hear a statement about intelligent design before ninth-grade lessons on evolution. The statement said Darwin's theory is ‘not a fact’ and has inexplicable ‘gaps.’ It referred students to an intelligent-design textbook, ‘Of Pandas and People.’” Whether one agrees with ID or not, the statement in question is true. Since when do we outlaw true statements from school?

“Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor, Mich., which represented the school district and describes its mission as defending the religious freedom of Christians, said the ruling appeared to be ‘an ad hominem attack on scientists who happen to believe in God.’” It seems that good scientists will be marginalized if they express their religious convictions (or even their unorthodox convictions). These developments should frighten us all.

Jones said, "The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.” May we remind the judge that it was a group opposed to ID who brought legal action? Moreover, may we ask the judge what better use of monetary and personal resources could there be than inquiry into one of life’s ultimate questions: where do we come from?

See my two-part article on Intelligent Design for more information on the subject. Go to www.crosswalk.com/news/weblogs/dean and click on archives. The articles are at the bottom of the last page.

2005-12-28T06:59:00.000-08:00

Christian Colleges Rebound – Paul Dean

G. Jeffrey MacDonald in USA TODAY reports that “Rachel Friesen was on track to graduate debt-free from the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs when she made a leap in 2004 that would instead land her about $40,000 in debt on commencement day. In her junior year, she transferred to Azusa Pacific University, an evangelical Christian college near Los Angeles. Her reason: Christian community. ‘At a large university, it's easy to go through your college experience knowing a lot of people but not having deep, meaningful relationships,’ Friesen says. But now she's at ease among like-minded believers, who gather, for instance, in school-organized discipleship groups for prayer, Bible study and talk about ‘whatever's going on in life.’”

The word commitment comes to mind when someone makes a $40,000 decision to experience that upon which our Lord placed a premium. The weakness of the American church is no doubt due in part to a lack of genuine koinonia among the brethren. At the same time, a Christian witness is certainly needed on secular campuses across the country. While some may find a sense of Christian community in Christian colleges, perhaps others could work hard to develop that same community wherever they find themselves. It is that community that is used of the Lord to strengthen us for the task of kingdom advance, especially on our college campuses.

“In seeking out religious higher education, Friesen has plenty of company. Enrollment has increased 70.6% since 1990, from 135,000 to 230,000, at the 102 evangelical schools belonging to the Council of Christian Colleges and Universities (CCCU). Over the same period, enrollments at all public and private colleges increased by 12.8% and 28% respectively.”

This trend not only points to a need for Christian community, but surely points to the decadence that is rampant on secular college campuses. No doubt most Christians are leaving that atmosphere in the midst of what we should consider still formative years. Sadly, the American college experience has become nothing less than an experiment in throwing budding young adults into a situation that most are ill-prepared to handle in terms of moral restraint. When Lot pitched his tent toward Sodom, the result was predictable. So too it is on college campuses.

Further, “students who practice a faith often want to study where their beliefs are respected, and that can be hard to find on secular campuses, says Naomi Schaefer Riley, author of God on the Quad: How Religious Colleges and the Missionary Generation Are Changing America (St. Martin's Press, 2005).” No doubt many young Christians feel either marginalized by professors and peers or ill-equipped to counter attacks on the Christian faith. This reality highlights the need to train our young people to think and speak from a Christian worldview that they might be effective in defending the faith.

“Richard Chewning, a retired Baylor University ethicist, noted: "The worst form of destruction for a younger person's worldview is to take it into an environment where it is laughed at and ridiculed. An 18-year-old is like a hot-house tomato. If you stick them in a humanistically oriented university ... they're going to get scorched rather than watered." Brethren, this ought not be!

“Critics of the way religious groups are treated on campus cite instances such as a University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire policy banning resident assistants from holding Bible studies in their dorms.” Many Christians are denied their freedom of religion and will no longer tolerate such. Of course, we must work very hard at engaging the culture in such a way that God-talk is not eliminated from the public square or college campuses. Once that trend occurs, it is only a matter of time before Christian colleges are banned. As our young people experience the dangers of religious suppression, our prayer should be that they are motivated to equip themselves to defend the faith in the power of the Spirit.

As Christians abandon those colleges that appear to be hostile to them, those colleges could indeed begin to take notice. That too should be our prayer. We should never use strong-arm tactics to get our way, but, we can certainly pray for religious freedom for all.

Carlton Mitchell said of his Christian college, "Here's a school where…if you're a Christian, you almost automatically feel at home." It is a sad day when there are places in America where we no longer feel at home. Of course, we should not be surprised, for our home is in heaven.