Called by the Grace of God

My Ordination (more pix):
----------
And He said: “who will speak for the Lord?”
So, the Spirit of the Lord moved.
And I said: “Here am I; send me”
-------
1 Timothy 4:14 is still enacted in the Presbyterian churches:

"Do not neglect the gift that is in you, which was given to you by prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the eldership."


--------
Poem of My Spiritual Journey:

Marching through the desert of reality, named sin;
God covered me in His righteousness.
For His Mercy Endures Forever.

Guiding me through the confusion of false paths,
He used calamity for my good.
For His Mercy Endures Forever.

Leading by the light of His countenance,
Jehovah’s Word illumined my soul,
Bringing His Spirit of Reformation
Reviving my parched heart,
He opened my eyes from shadows of truth,
Causing me to walk the old paths.
For His Mercy Endures Forever.

As a vine shaped by the Master’s Hand,
So Jehovah enlarged my soul
To be filled with Honey,
To be molded in Strength;
His Spirit watered my lips with coals of fire,
He sent His Angel over me.
For His Mercy Endures Forever.

Guiding me with His household servants,
He used the hoary head to mentor and many counsels
To direct my paths.
For His Mercy Endures Forever.

Marching through the valley of life,
God sends me into the Land and commands repentance
To bring life to the dead.
For His Mercy Endures Forever.

-------
For Who can be saved unless they hear? And how can they hear unless one speaks? And who can speak unless one be sent? For He says: “Blessed are the feet of those who carry the Good News…”

Ministerius Tobeus: Not Yet Ordained

What am I? What should I be called?

I've passed my 8 written exams--from Theology and History to Greek & Hebrew, working until my brain was squeezed like a melon.
Then I submitted an exegesis paper and my theology paper (my 85 page M. Div thesis!)--surely my brain was as empty as outer space.

But Presbytery was not finished with me yet! I still had the oral floor exam: 1 1/2 hours running the entire gauntlet of theology--including pastoral questions--asked randomly from any member of the body.

So, it is all done. 3.5 years, 115 credits and hundreds of pages later, seminary was finished. God sustained my wife and I through it all.

Before this point I was a licentiate--one allowed to preach as a means to moniter my progress but not a full-blow minister who leads worship, calls worship, presides over the sacraments, and announces the benidiction.

But I am not ordained yet. There has been no laying on of hands of the Presbytery (1 Tim. 4:14), so technically I am not a minister.

Then what am I?

A friend (wanting to show off what little Latin he knew) suggested, that since I am a minster-to-be: ministerus tobeus!

Sounds pretty neat, eh? But then I find there is an official name for this nebulous state of being. I am called an ordinand.

Pretty dull, eh? I'll stick the the former, Presbytery can call me the latter.

But Lord willing this will be moot Friday night!

SDG

Will Earth Day Listen to Moore?

Recently, an astounding article in the Washington Post passed under the perceptive radar of the likes of 60 Minutes and the alphabet soup news-groups:

Patrick Moore, the founder of Greenpeace, the very one who equated nuclear energy with "nuclear holocaust," and defended every green-piece of legislation, has declared that

Nuclear power "just may be the energy source that can save our planet..."

Given the safety of such power plants, their cheap energy and lack of direct impact upon the environment, combined with the pollution of current fuel sources (think coal!), this plethora of data convinced Moore to see the light.

Hallelujah!

[The Week, April 28, 2006, p. 14]

SDG

Earth Day Hides the Facts About Trees & Cows

Ah, Earth Day. I'm sure the Druids are laughing all the way to the bank. When the here and now is all that you have, then "saving the Earth" becomes one's redemption.

Below are some data that will not be heard in the supposed public arena of debate. Scientists make these conclusions, but they appear to be a minority report--does that make them automatically wrong? In times past, the majority of scientists thought the atom was only made of electrons, neutrons and protons! Boy, who would have thought of quarks! It was a good thing that they did not run politics or the media back then!

Read on:

1) As an engineer I've had much training in the basic sciences. I was taught to think logically, to analyze the data, chart it and draw conclusions--to "connect the dots".

As a matter of fact, all Americans who took any science have gone through this process.

That is except for Earth Day enthusiasts. Using NASA data, Junkscience.com has done a favor and "connected the dots" of Artic warming. For us and for the confused Greenies. The data covers from 1880 to 2004 and includes both poles and carbon dioxide readings--what more would we want?

One chart shows a "cooling trend" in the 40s-60s--the time my pastor was going to school. He remembers very fondly that the scientists were warning everyone of a coming ice-age! I would love to get my hands on those papers.

The chart is not exactly symmetrical since the y-axis moves from 2 C to -2.5 C. But everyone can see that the "warming trend" since the 60s is just under +1.5 C whereas in 1937 it hit +1.5 C in the Artic. As a matter of fact the temperature moved to almost -2 C in 1887.

At the end of the day, the question is whether there is enough data to sustain any kind of conclusion. Without records from hundreds of years ago (say 1750) it is hard to have a comparison. This is especially true if one follows the modern million-year theory of the earth or of mankind.

Read on!

2) Are your trees killing you?

The logic of some modern scientist will astound you!


3) How about your cows?

This is serious business, not only is mankind destroying the environment...so are the cows!
(The Week, Aug. 12, 2005, p. 6--this is not a conservative mag!).

"A California air-quality agency is blaming cows for the San Joaquin Valley's terrible smog problem. The flatulence and burping of the valley's 2.5 million cows produce 50 million pounds of organic compunds annually, officials say, far more pollution than is produced by cars. Diary farmers will now be required to install pollution-control technology, and may even have to alter the cows' diets to minimize their production of gas. 'We are talking about about a public health crisis,' said an attorney for a local advocacy group...'It's not funny to joke about cow burps....'"

SDG
[I'm always open to more juicy data--as long as it is from a common-news source and/or verifiable]

Easter, Mel's Passion, & Confused Churches

It is quite bizzare, given that Evangelical are not Roman Catholic, that many churches celebrate Easter. It becomes a special day with special services and special speakers. All this in spite of their disavowed belief in special days, such as the Christian Sabbath!

Of course, to add injury to insult, many of these churches, besides watering their sermons down and shrink the preaching time, play that movie-worth-a-thousand-sermons, The Passion. The eye-gate trumps the foolishness of preaching!

Here are some quotes about the movie, putting my critique of churches into perspective.
The importance of the Word, especially preached is summarized here: The Passion for the Word.

The paper is certainly a minority report these days, but in the past Christians agreed. I pray that preaching will be important again.

SDG

Sleepless In Carson...ND?

(This short rendition of recent events is not to belittle anyone--for there are no hard feelings--but to illustrate the amazing love of God.)

Sleep--that evanescent dream, eluding those nervous souls deeply distreased.

I was such a soul. Missing sleep, never to rest. Or so I believed it so.

Needing rest for my oral floor exam, I anticipated a full night of deep REM. Complete shuteye. Some hibernation. A good visit with the sandman.

But God had others plans.

The first night after a long drive from Denver to Carson, ND, was tiring (nevermind that I did not drive). A graciously hospitable and lovely woman opened her house to many Presbytery delegates and their spouses--including my wife and myself.

After a tasty dinner and relaxing conversations we settled into the guest basement. Tired and nervous about the prospects of the upcoming exam, sleep did not come readily. Adding to this state of mind, the lack of sleeping experience outside my own domicile agitated the problem. As well as some good-old fashion snoring.

I woke up about four times that night.
Even so, the examination did not transpire the next day.
The suspense mounted, expanded and bore a hole through my head.

The upcoming Tuesday night brought a new meaning to insomnia...

Again, after tasty meals, talks with friends and joyful worship with fellow Christians we turned in for the night--after a long drive Monday, little sleep that night and a long Tuesday meeting, surely I would be exhausted, spent, dead tired, kaput. I needed my sleep for the inevitable foor exam that next morning. Without such rest I would surely buckle under. But it was not meant to be.

In my experience--stretching from friendly slumber parties and boy-scout retreats to basic training in the Air Force and dormatory living amongst various and sundry men--I have encountered a plethera of sleeping hazards, not the least of which included that most manly of nocturnal activities: snooring.

Now, naturally many of us have encountered this event and even heard stories of bad snorers. So have I. But even my experience on the flightline with F-16s firing their thrusters for takeoff could not prepare me for this.

While sleeping, some men gnaw at wood, others use saws, still others employ a chain-saw. Someone in that basement loaded dynamite around the log, stuffed more inside it, tied a series of M80s in chain-like fashion from the log into my room....and lite the fuse. One explosion after another rocked my nocturnal abode--both physical and mental.

Discovering the perpetrator--who resided on the other side of the basement--that old stalwart against snoring--the nose strip--was immediately employed.

It blew away like a feather atop an exploding geyser.

I used benadryl in anticipation--it's groggy embrace was cut through with a hot-knife.
I used ear-plungs--they were papier-mache protecting against the onslaught winds of a hurricane!

God was surely testing my patience. My wife could not stop laughing.
Sleep eluded me as surely as moral perfection slips from the hands of a sinner.

I needed prayer. So I prayed. And prayed some more.

That Wednesday morning it was time for the oral exam. Clamping my jaws shut against the increasing pressures of two-nights worth of yawns yearning to explode, I answered questions. And more questions. Correct answers drawn from the well of spiritual training and experience surfaced in my mind. The Spirit of God sustained me.

My prayers were answered.

I lost physical sleep those days in Carson.
Yet I was spiritually awake.

SDG

American Grace(land)?

Graceland became an official national landmark!

That's right: Elvis is on par with Washington and Lincoln.

If this isn't an indication of American idiocy, then what is?
There are no political and religious leaders to be found, so we exalt entertainers.

Go figure.

Who is the Greatest Man of the 20th Century?

That question has been answered by many: Billy Graham. He has been called the best, most influential figure of the 20th century. His influence includes millions of people and many presidents. Recognition of his name is even great among unbelievers.

But what of his doctrine and beliefs?

It is unquestionable that he preached the death of Christ, the love of God and the demands for a changed life. Yet that is merely a formal similarity with those in disagreement with the man’s doctrine and methods.

The belief of the man on other less public issues recently came to my attention. While browsing the bargain books at a local bookstore, I stumbled upon Kaski’s book: Quotable Billy Graham, [Testament Books, 2002].

What I found was disheartening:
_________________________________________
"Asked about the eternal destiny of Pagans who never heard the Gospel, Graham admitted that there were “other ways” of saying “ ‘Yes’ to God.”
[McCall’s, Jan. 1978]."
_____________________________________

Asked a similar question about the fate of Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc., (latter in his life) he cautions: “I think that’s in the hands of God. I can’t make that judgment.”
[Good Morning America, April 30, 1997]

As for the polygamy practices of Muslims, Graham notes that the OT patriarchs observed this, concluding on the modern practice: “there must be reasons for that [polygamy], and I think that some of them are valid reasons.”
[Fox News Sunday, Jan. 2, 2000]

When queried about how to demolish racism, the solution espoused by him distilled to the basics of his message over the years: “ ‘I’m going to preach on the love of God and how we are to love each other.’ That is the key to solving the race problem in the world”
[Calgary Sun, Oct. 15, 1999]

His own confession about doctrinal importance is stunningly answered:
“World travel and getting to know clergy of all denominations has helped mold me into an ecumenical being. We’re separated by theology, and, in some instances, culture and race, but all of that means nothing to me anymore.”
[US News & World Report, Dec. 19, 1988]

The sincerity and energy of the man are not in question. Nor is the proper question of the greatness of his influence. What are in question are his methods and doctrines—do they match up with the Word of God?

That is the question.
And the answer is discouraging.

SDG

Family of Fuzzy Lobsters

Scientist recently discovered a new creature off of Easter Island.
The info (translated from the French) is at the end of the linked page.


What makes this facinating--besides its looks--is that the creature is so unique the scientist created a new family and genus!

Creation will always amaze and baffle science because creation reflects the wonders of God's infinite wisdom and creativity.

SDG

Simpsons Beat the Constitution

Statistically it appears that Americans know more about the Simpsons than their own rights.
According to a Freedom Museum poll of 1000 adults, only twenty percent of Americans can name more than one freedom listed by the Constitution (freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly and petition for redress of grievances). More could name three of the American Idol judges than three of their political freedoms.

In fact, 22 percent could name all five Simpson family members. And only one--one in 1000 polled--could name all five freedoms.

It would be easy to lament the education level of Americans, or bemoan America's lack of political acuteness. However, these statistics (as with most statistics) cannot be naively reduced to preconcieved notions--it could be that this poll shows the power of capitalistic repitition.

TV, movies, commercial and internet naturally do not emphasize the latest political theory or modern fads in sociology. They shove the newest soap, greatest song and loudest car ads into our collective faces, as fast as they can and as much as they can. But, then, that is the nature of the beast. Carpet-bombing advertisements about the Constitution would make no money.

This poll is sad, but what is more depressing is the fact that most Americans would have it so. They like their entertainment and avoid difficult ideas. Slogans and sound-bytes are easy to digest; debating the nature and application of our freedoms is not so easy.

Biblically this is best remedied by faithful churches that challenge Christians to think, and to think biblically.

SDG

Hoax or the Real Thing?

In a previous post, I referenced an mp3 file I discovered off another blog. It turned out to be a radio ad for a church in the motif of a "monster-truck ad" for sunday worship.

It was truly horrid.

A friend challenged the authenticity of the mp3--perhaps someone's idea of a joke.
(Yet, given the state of the American church, such an ad is not inconceivable.)

So, I emailed the church last week. I still have not heard an answer.

Meanwhile, I tried to google the question. I did discover a church, with a big red door, that fit the ad description to a tee:

St. Andrews Episcopal Church in Birmingham, Alabama


But I was not satisfied.

I googled the ad and came up with another blog posting the issue. In fact, the blogger claims that her sister lives in the same town, attends another Episcopal church there and enjoyed the ad.

That blogger linked to an Episcopalian blogger commenting on the usefulness of such an ad.

While reading that posting, a quote was referenced:

"Second, well, I'm appalled. Phrases like "see sin crushed beneath monster loaves of bread" or whatever that phrase was, and "giant vats of wine" just strikes me as over the top in some way that I can't quite put my finger on. I do, however, have a fairly negative gut reaction to it. I'm not so sure that caricaturing the Holy Mysteries is the best way to get people to take them more seriously. In fact, it may do just the opposite by simply strengthening the idea that going to church is not so different from going to a monster truck rally..."

This is quite amazing: typically Christians (at least laymen) who deny any conservative approach to evangelism still have scruples about approaches not forbidden in their general approach. Thus, although this ad in general is a good example of "contextualization" (or so the bloggers contend), it still hits the wrong nerve for some.

But why? If pragmatism is the driving force for churches to evangelize the world, then one man's scrupples are another man's opportunities.

On the other hand, if evangelism is strongly regulated by the Bible and not the fancies of men, then an objective standard exists to determine right from wrong. And that is a comforting thought in the midst of a world drowned in subjectivity.

We should avoid hoaxes masquerading the mission of the Church as an institution bringing fun into the life of those that hate God; rather we should desire the real thing in presenting the truth of Christ's Law which condemns the world and lovingly proclaim His Gospel which truely "crushes" sin.

SDG

Embarrassing Christianity

A few months back I was amazed to discover professing Christians cursing in worship.

Well, this is a close second: ecclesiastical barf.

(Hey, I just calls it like I sees it!).

Thanks to the Riddleblog for pointing this out.

Stop Planting Trees!!

That is the logic of the modern science.

SDG

What's Worth Reading

Recently a friend called me to chat. In the midst of the conversation, he asked about the various books I read--then, knowing me so well, he changed his question:

"What do you read for recreation?--for fiction?"

Yes, it's true: I don't always read theology, philosophy and other such mundane materials.
I read, and recommend, Sci-Fi/Fantasy--especially fantasy.

I greatly enjoy Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series. He is the Tolkien of this century. And I'm only on volume 11!

Saberhagen's stories about death-loving machines--Berzerkers--destroying every life-form in the universe are the quintessential short-story plot-twists I learned to love in junior high literature class.

Robert Asprin's fantasy spoof series, Another Fine Myth and the like, is quiet entertaining, giving me a laugh even after fifteen years.

There are other worthy books (for another blog!) and there are other genres (maybe my wife can list a few later), but these are worthwhile--if you like that genre.

Enjoy!

SDG

Best Posts of 2005

Mr. Snitch finished his list.

Here are some of my favorites (or at least interesting...):

A possible poem by micheal moore.

Media lies.

Interesting social theories.

Social breakdown by drivers.

Thoughts on how to model the socio-political spectrum.

Enjoy!

SDG

Politics & Religion 1: Doctrine Matters

What are the conditions in which one may write bold affirmations about political figures?

My last posting was percieved as harsh by some. It was not the tone (I don't believe) of the posting that was offensive, rather is was the content: that president Bush desires a form of political salvation.

Now, unfortunately one cannot write every argument defending such a proposition in any given paper, let alone in a blog. Blogs are supposed to be pithy and, hopefully, profound (at times).

In answer to the question: one writes bold affirmations when the truth needs to be told.

As for defending my assertion, it is best to know from whence I come socio-politically and above all philosophically and theologically. Let it be known that I am not a modern Republican in principle and especially not a neocon. I am more closer to a traditional Conservative or, perhaps, a Christian Libertarian of the J. G. Machen type or the Progressive Calvinists of yesteryear.

Theologically I am a conservative Calvinist Presbyterian. Philosophically I am a Van Tillian.

Why is this relevant? It means that I am not "heresy hunting". I am merely expressing my analysis of the political scene in accordance with the above reference points. Furthermore, my assertions arose from several facts and quotes. One simple fact is the president's lauding of the Iraqi constitution because it was Democratic--regardless of its explicit socialistic nature. The remainder of the post will focus on the theological issues and the next will cover more explicit quotes and facts.

I voted third-party because Bush was not conservative enough: too much governmental expansion, too much debt, health care, etc. Many already know the rest.

In the case of my previous posting, the analysis was based upon the premise that salvation is the fundamental issue with man (and was stated as such). Another premise is that culture is religion externalized: it expresses, although not in a one-to-one manner, basic religious beliefs.

I also believe that every area of life (sometimes called sphere sovereignty--personal, familial, ecclesiastical and political) is rooted in the Word of God. Obviously, this would entail critiquing those "ministers" of the state (Roms. 13) with that Word. This necessarily means that salvation is not merely individualistic (you and me) but also familial, ecclesiastical, political, etc. All of creation, especially the human moral relationships in said spheres (and more besides), will be transformed at the Eschaton. In the here and now, they are being transformed, especially through the sanctification of the Christian individual and the Body of Christ. Thus, Christ will save the "world"--that entire system of inter-related moral relationships among men.

So, when president Bush states:

"In many Middle Eastern countries, poverty is deep and it is spreading, women lack rights and are denied schooling. Whole societies remain stagnant while the world moves ahead.
These are not the failures of a culture or a religion. These are the failures of political and economic doctrines. " (2003 speech).

--I naturally must reply. Granted this statement was spoken in 2003, but it was never retracted. Recently he stated, "Yet liberty is the future of every nation in the Middle East, because liberty is the right and hope of all humanity." (sciencedaily). More quotes could be multiplied (and will be in the next posting).

This statement alone (read the entire speech if you are unsure) proves the statement of my last posting: that the government is the savior. These problems listed (and presumably more) are from sin: the fall of Adam brought about the total ruin of all creation and all relations, social institutions, governments, etc (Rom. 5; 8; etc.). (That is why Paul applies the Law of God to those in child-parent, slave-master, and citizen-ruler relations.)

If salvation in Christ includes his sanctification of politics, then only Christ has the answer to solve that problem area: and it is not government. It is religion. Or the sanctification of culture. Specifically, Christianity is needed to leaven such cultures. In this case, the problem of poverty, etc. is related to the culture and the fatalistic ends-justifies-means religion known as Islam. Poverty does not simply arise because of wrong "political and economic" doctrines but, fundamentally, because of theological doctrine.

Granted, in God's common grace, societies can impliment certain policies that may temporarily aliviate the problems (for instance European socialism is "working" enough--for now--but that does not justify its existence). But that is not the issue: the issue is "what says the Lord".

My intent is not to besmirk president Bush, but whether he realizes it or not, his is not a Christian conservatism worth emulating. President Washington's farewell address (to name but one religious-political speech of that era) did not withdraw religous convictions from the limelight; he was not "talking politics", but integrated his religion and his politics. He knew that doctrine matters.

"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." (2 Tim. 3:16).

And that means politics.

Bush: Salvation by Politics

Watching the presidential was not high on my to-do list last night.

Why? Because, even as the political pundits on PBS recognize, this yearly speech does not boost the presidents image as much as it prevents it from sliding down. Besides, in this case, the president is regurgitating typical neo-con politics.

My wife braved the event. Twice she rushed into my room exclaiming: "yougottahearthis!"

1) The president claimed that the true Islam faith is "noble".
2) The president extolled the virtues of Democracy as the path for a terror-free world (and its up to America to save the world, of course).

(This was too much excitement for my wife, so she changed channels.)

From a Christian perspective, when one realizes that man's basic need is redemption, it follows that unregenerate man will seek everything but God to bring salvation.

In this case it is politics. Otherwise known as the government.
Specifically, president Bush argued that the true way to eradicate terrorism was through revolutionizing the political process with Democracy.

There was no mention of culture. There was no reference to religion. Obviously, this silence follows when politics is the reference point of modern Humanism.

Besides the philosophical and theological arguments against such an approach, the simple fact that the Palestinian Democracy voted overwhelmingly for a hard-core terrorist organization flies in the face of such American utopias.

Democracy only manifested the wickedness of evil hearts.

Salvation is not through the change in environment, whether cultural, political or ecological; it is only through regeneration of man's heart by the power of Christ's Spirit.

SDG

Orange is the Color of...

Well, oranges.
But more to the point: it represents Bronco power in Denver and Reformational power in Holland.

In the former case, it is claimed that since the sunset is orange (at least out in the Rockies) God must be in favor of the Broncos.
In the latter case, it represents the liberator, William of Orange, who helped create Protestant Holland in the 1500s.

In the former case, orange is the color of the helmet-god whose oblong. leather scepter dominates the fall ESPN schedule, commanding obedience from its followers with weekly religious fervor.
In the latter case, orange is a symbol of religious freedom and Protestant belief, commanding respect and life-and-blood-giving commitment.

Such religious commitment--in both cases--expresses the heart-felt conviction of those in each following. If this simple concept is accepted, then it is readily apparant where the heart of many hundreds of thousands (millions?) of fanatical, fundamentalist football fans resides: not in the God of Christianity but in the god of sports.

The proof is in the orange pudding:
People spend money on what is important (real or imagined); many spend money on sports (lots and lots...do I have to tell you the price of a hot dog at a game?), therefore that is important for them.
People spend time on what is important: many spend time on sports (lots and lots...you get the idea), therefore it is important to them.

However, hobbies and entertainment are Biblically acceptable. So, money and time are not the most perfect indicators (but fairly reliable!). It is when conflict ensues--between God's law and man's desire--that the true colors bloom forth.

Thus, when God says tithe to me, fans will tithe to football.
Thus, when God says take time for me, fans will take time for
baseball.
Thus, when God says prioritize your life around me, fans will prioritize around their other god.

People will offer themselves to Saturday sports-saturation such that they are exhausted on God's Sabbath. Others will show their true colors by completely missing public worship and spending money on the local game. Still others will sacrifice family worship, bible studies, and catechism for their kids, but they will not miss that oh-so-important Monday Night Game, Saturday practice or Sunday kick-off.

Yesterday, the Broncos lost. Good.
I like a good football game. But not on the Lord's Day. It is not Football Day, but God's Day. It has been so since the beginning of this creation (Heb. 4:1ff.).

Yesterday, the Bronco fans bled orange for their god by dishonoring God's Rest.
Yesterday, true Protestant fans bled orange for their God by honoring that Rest.

Orange is the color of...dedicated Protestants and their spilt blood in years past.

Orange is the color of...your religious fervor.

Orange is the color of...offerings, sacrifices and a life dedicated to our Covenant God.

SDG

A Short Review 7: Wisdom for Christians

Wisdom for Christian Living, Matthew Henry

This condensed work of the ever-popular Matthew Henry is comprised of twelve topics for devotion culled from his works. The booklet includes relevant issues including faith, prayer, Bible study, devotion and commitment, intimacy with God, worship, relationships, the fruits of the Spirit, Christian duty, spiritual warfare, the Great Commission, and the expectant return of Christ. Each of these topics includes several sub-topics that flush out the various implications of the verse under examination. It is easy to read yet full of godly wisdom. Each devotion is centered on a verse and covers a single page.

Although this work is “lightly edited,” is still retains the flavor of Henry. His style is fluid, enjoyable and practical. He always has the layman in mind and consistently centers on Christ and the Gospel. Matthew’s godliness and vast knowledge of the Word jumps out on every page, bringing wisdom from the old paths.

It is always good to have faithful and encouraging devotional. It can easily be used for personal or family worship. This particular work may be small but it is useful for those desiring a Reformed devotional to reinforce the practical and doctrinal truths of the Bible.

Mr. Snitch is a Bold Man

Mr. Snitch (no, really that's the blog name!) is doing cyberspace a favor.
A big favor.

His latest posting explains his idealistic long-term goal with the best-of-blogs contest (sorry, it's over now). He's trying to find the best blogs based upon content, originality and the like instead of the traditional "how many hits did it get" approach (as though that means the posting was good).

He also would like to keep this up and organize easy access such that one could look up past postings from yesteryear that are still worth reading.

Bold idea. Bold man.

But, then, that's how things get done.
Sometimes.

Keep up the good work, Mr. Snitch.

Rose Bowl, Texans & Geeks

I'm a recovering Geek.
I've got a B.S. in Electrical Engineering (E.E.).
I read about: computers, math, philosophy and religion.
I use computers and play computer games.

In spite of this, I even watch sports.
I watched that most excellent Rose Bowl game last night. Very nice. I especially liked last minute plays like the one Young pulled off.

Just like Elway.

I was not always like this. The change began in the military. The dayroom, that is. All the single guys lived in a dorm with a tv room at the end of the hall.

Naturally, on Saturdays the room was taken over by sports fanatics. Since all my friends were there and there was nowhere to go in the panhandle of Florida (no, really!), I learned to watch--and enjoy--a good football game.

However, on the flip-side as a Coloradoan I have a natural (?) antipathy to anything Texan (nothing personal :-). But, since I was not always a faithful follower of football, I tended to support the underdog.

And that was Texas.

Besides, Coloradoans dislike Californians much more than Texans :-)

I'm still a Geek (hence, the blog!), but I like to think I'm breaking down sterotypes with my enjoyment of football (and hockey).

Well, enjoy your day while I get back to my computer homework, philosophy books and Quake IV.

The Gutsy Scotsman

John Knox will be forever associated with courage.

After the Scottish parliment outlawed the mass (in Mary's absence), the Queen of Scots tried to assert her authority by violating this law. She would travel around the countryside with some priests,administering the mass. She would then continue her travels but then leave a priest behind, enacting the mass without her, tempting the public to join in.

This did not bode well.

In response, Knox rebuffed Mary, Queen of Scots [c. 1560]:

“ye are bound to keep laws unto your subjects; ye crave of them service; they crave of you protection and defense against wicked doers; now, madam, if ye shall deny your duty unto them, think ye to receive full obedience of them? I fear, madam, ye shall not!”
[Professor Godfrey's history class]

Such an attitude clearly predates the supposed "father" of American democracy, John Locke!
Oh, that the Spirit would protect us from tyrants.

SDG

Bah-Humbug!

Dickens did not like Calvinism.

He was a Unitarian bent on spreading his superficial morality. This was reflected in many of his works, including A Christmas Carol.

I had heard (from other Calvinists) that this story (and perhaps others) were caricaturing Puritans. Of course, being the skeptic that I am, I held this assertion in abeyance--until I googled this question a few days ago.

G. K. Chesterson clearly ties Dickens' two works--Copperfield and Little Dorrit--to Calvinism. Elsewhere, at Literary Encyclopedia, the article states: "A Christmas Carol, however, takes up a decisively anti-Puritan stance."

Hmm..Scrooge the hard-nosed Calvinist?

Well, perhaps A Christmas Carol should be boycotted by all decent Reformed folk! At least it might get the word "Calvinist" out into the public discussion of American life.

Nah, that's too much work. I'd rather read a good book or an enjoyable movie...mmm...what dvd is this?

"A Christmas Carol" ??

Bah-humbug!

Billy Idol Gets It, Why Not Bush?

Billy Idol Gets It, Why Doesn’t President Bush?
By Rock

This year’s Pageant of Peace celebrated in Washington D.C. was marked by an amazing speech by President George W. Bush just prior to lighting the national Christmas tree. It was amazing because he managed to talk about Christmas without ever referring to Jesus Christ. The President said, “Each year, we gather here to celebrate the season of hope and joy -- and to remember the story of one humble life that lifted the sights of humanity.” He then went on to thank Santa Claus for coming to the pageant. This obscure comment left one wondering if he was speaking of Christ or Santa Claus. Many will say that at least he still uses the term “Christmas” rather than “holiday season”. This is of little consequence or gravity. It is true that this is the season of hope and joy, but only because Jesus makes it so for his elect. As Christ’s own, we can take great pleasure in celebrating His birth. However, for those outside of God’s election, for those without the proper wedding garments, for those who refuse the invitation to repent and be baptized, it can only be a time of fearful anticipation of judgment. Furthermore, the “one humble life” did not merely “lift the sights of humanity”, it saved men from the wrath of a holy, pure, just, and perfect God.

The President then went on to say,

"Christmas is a time to rejoice, and to give thanks for the blessings of the season and for the blessings that surround us every day of the year. We also remember that we have a responsibility to help those in need. America is a compassionate and generous land. And acts of kindness toward others fulfill the spirit of the season.[italics mine]"

Do “acts of kindness toward others” really fulfill the “spirit of the season”? Is that why Christ came to the earth, so that we would be “kind” toward others? Isn’t the spirit of the season that Jesus Christ lived the perfect life that we could not and was crucified on our behalf? The Bible says, “For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.”(1 Cor. 1:18) Don’t get me wrong, I am not against acts of kindness. I am against them being characterized as the “spirit” of the Christmas season.

President Bush made the following comments and quoted one of the great humanists of our day,

"As we approach Christmas in this time of war, we pray for freedom, and justice, and peace on Earth. In his Christmas Eve address to the nation in 1941, Franklin Roosevelt said that "Against enemies who preach the principles of hate and practice them, we set our faith in human love, and in God's care for us and all men everywhere." We ask for God to watch over our men and women in uniform who are serving overseas. Their families miss them -- hold a seat open for them -- and pray for their safe return. America's military men and women stand for freedom -- and they serve the cause of peace. Many of them are serving in distant lands tonight, but they are close to our hearts.[italics mine]"

In light of the great thing which God has done for us in sending His Son to die for the sins of the elect, how is it possible for President Bush to quote such a foolish statement as the one made by F. D. R. at a Christmas celebration? Any faith placed in human love is truly a misplaced faith. Divine love is the only sure footing for our faith. People change, humans are, well, human. They are incapable of steadfast, unfailing love. Even the elect are weak and realistic enough to admit it. And does God really care for “all men everywhere”? Apart from the common grace received by the unregenerate, what care exists? Did not Jesus Himself say, “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.”(John 3:18) The Bible also says, “. . . For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me . . .”(Ex. 20:5) And again, “For God gives wisdom and knowledge and joy to a man who is good in His sight; but to the sinner He gives the work of gathering and collecting, that he may give to him who is good before God. This also is vanity and grasping for the wind.”(Eccl. 2:26) So we see that God’s care is not universal and His grace does not extend to everyone.

I was watching all of this on the Fox News Channel as the story broke in on the regularly scheduled program. After the President, First Lady, and some children from a Katrina Hurricane charity turned on the lights of the Christmas tree, I sat dumbfounded and shocked. Still trying to digest what I had witnessed, with all its goody two shoes implications, the lyrics of a Billy Idol song came to mind. In 1982 Billy Idol wrote a song called “White Wedding” which became very popular. It always amazes me how clearly the unregenerate prophets of this age can identify the condition of the world around them. Listen to some of the words...

Sometimes Its Fun to Vote

Well, at least voting for your favorite blog posts.

In the sidebar I'll be adding a link for a top 100 postings contest.

Of course, like all votes and serveys ony certain types of individuals participate. I know some (if not most of my readers) only read occasionally and surf the 'net for single item issues.

But if you have nothing better to do...vote on!

"To H*** with 'Holidays'..."

"To H*** with 'Holidays' Put CHRIST back in Christmas"

Need I say more?

A church in Florida started a Boycott of stores using the word 'holiday' (petition here) . Of course, it made the ten o'clock news not because of the boycott itself (there are plenty of those to go around), nor for the desire to have Christ back in "Christmas" (that's an old theme) but because of the banner itself: it expresses an anger and rage that, I think, many in the Pagan world find interesting.

Now, I grant that debate over words can indicate a larger issue: in this case the "culture war". But what exactly is the "culture war"? Many see it as the de-Christianization of America.

Rather it should be seen as the death-throws of American Christianity. Since culture merely expresses religion and that the laws of the land reflect the commitment of the populace, it should be abundantly clear that significant Christian influence has passed away. (think: abortion, political correctness, watergate, Desperate Housewives, etc.).

The irony in all this is the fact that as the churches have been a waging a frontal attack upon the the Pagan culture, their rear-guard has been left open. Theological abberations of all sorts fourish with her bosom.

Perusing that Florida church website reveals several (obvious) such doctrinal errors & oddities:

--Pastors Randy & Paula White
--"Without Walls International Church strongly believes that God has the power to restore individuals to their fullest potential."
--"...he [pastor White] prayed in unknown tongues, taking dominion over the strip clubs and other establishments associated with the 'adult entertainment' and pornography strongholds in the city. "

Doctrine and practice are appalling in many churches: doctrinal ignorance is lauded as wisdom; immature action is praised as "innovative". Churches close on christmas, curse in worship and charge admission for counseling.

Even unbelievers question the lack of focus from American church--they see us as defending petty issues. (see: "Its the most wonderful time of the year").

Doctrine and practice must be wed. The real "culture war" is within the American churches themselves.

May our sovereign Lord protect us from ourselves.

A Short Review 6: The Bible Tells Us So

A Short Book Review 5
The Bible Tells Us So,
R. B. Kuiper

This readable book is a short presentation and defense of the major truths of the Christian faith. It is an irenic work, with illuminating illustrations, and an excellent conclusion underlining the antithesis between regenerate and unregenerate, Christianity and Liberalism.

Writing against the liberalism and modernism of his day, Kuiper explains who God is, the salvation he wrought and the uniqueness of Christianity. The liberals of his day cried, “No creed, but Christ!” all the while watering down the work of the Savior. In contrast, he correctly maintains that Christianity is both doctrine and life; when defining saving faith he recognizes the danger of accepting Christ as a person without the Biblical propositions of who and what He is and the danger of accepting the propositions of Christ without the Biblical Person (p.97). The two must be wed.
It is imperative that the Church today fight the temptation to follow the siren call of old-school liberalism—

many today, as I have heard with my own ears, utter the same trite comment: “No creed, but Christ!”

Meanwhile, we wonder why high percentages of Evangelicals are becoming Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses. Proposition (doctrine) and Person (life) cannot be divorced.

This is only one of the many problems and issues covered in this book. Nevertheless, for a simple review of the basics or for encouragement in the faith, The Bible Tells Us So is recommended for old and young alike.

SDG

Verbal Vomit or Golden Apples?

After, providentially, finding a blog through Christianity Today, I nearly dropped my computer. The posting outlined an amazing event at a church in Denver--Scum of the Earth. The pastor was in a bit of a quandary: you see, the church celebrated Christmas through a service that included poetry readings. And the woman they asked to compose a poem included the f-word—not once or twice, but multiple times. At the end of the day, after much consulting, it was decided to let her read a modified version for the Christmas Eve service—including “only four expletives” and those as quotes from another character in the poem.

How thoughtful.

Naturally, there were strong reactions from the audience.

Such verbal vomit reflects more than a desire of a pastor to “connect” with a sub-culture. It displays a basic misapprehension of what the third commandment entails. Although clearly sinful, it is a barometer of the level of rebellion found in churches today. A wandering mass of vagabonds seeking any means to stretch the limits of credulity, some in the wasteland of American Christianity (whether in the mainline churches or not) have no sense of shame.

At first blush readers may condemn my language as harsh. Please bear with me: I acknowledge that churches have a zeal for evangelism—but more often than not, it is not according to knowledge.

I have not the time to elucidate the breadth and depth of this commandment; nor explain the differences between false swearing, oath taking and cursing; nor expound how using God’s handiworks—creation—in a flippant and coarse manner demeans God Himself; nor explicate the psychology of how sinful men verbally vomit on others as a form of emotional expiation for their anger, guilt, self-righteousness and the like.

Language is neither private (God is everywhere) nor unlimited and infinitely pliable (only God is unlimited). Thus, individuals or even a group of individuals do not have the right to do anything with language. In other words, language, although conventional, still expresses cultural values—and since all cultures are rooted in religion, that language expresses one’s religion. And all religions have standards of right and wrong, which, again are reflected in language. So, when a sub-culture wishes to express its rebellion against the larger cultural mores it turns toward those things that are taboo, obscene or shocking. Shame is the first thing to go.

Besides the obvious fact that we should offend people with the Gospel (Christ preached more about sin and hell than grace) and not our speech, it is patently clear that Christians should avoid coarse, filthy speech (Col. 4:6, Eph. 4:29). “Filth” in the Greek means “foul speaking, low and obscene speech” [Thayer]—the Greek background points not to blasphemy per se (language against God) but coarse or crass words.

Followers of Christ do not need to act out their old ways to bring shock to their audience. Imagine: instead of reading a poem about sinful acts, one acted it out instead—that by voyeuristic proxy the reader of the play gestured as well as cursed?

One cannot have speech be a free-for-all without denying absolute truth. If this were so, what words would express rebellion, dissatisfaction or dishonor? One could say anything with moral impunity.

Although most of this posting is related directly to abuse of language, the third commandment involves false doctrine as well as false speech. So, even though many Christians would be offended at verbally transforming the marriage bed into a crass cursing, they should be more offended at doctrinally filthy mouths. Besides the obvious pragmatism of the situation, with its disregard for the third commandment and apparent therapeutic usage of filthy words, the last installment on the blog made a passing remark that was shocking in its simplicity and amazing in the fact that no one commented on it:

“Most non-Christians I know do not hate God; they think that God and the church hate them because they are considered vile. We want to reverse that deception…” ---Mike Sares

Really!? Romans one through three clearly declares that man is self-deceived, loving sin and hating God: to love the world is to hate God (John 15:18ff.). Thus says the Lord:

The world cannot hate you, but it hates Me because I testify of it that its works are evil. –John 7:7

Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. –Romans 8:7

And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting;
being filled with all unrighteousness…backbiters, haters of God—Romans 1

Since this false doctrinal stance is maintained, false speech is allowed. It is that simple. The sub-culture under question is not assumed to be in rebellion against God through its language; thus, it is acceptable to use such language to communicate to them. Since they "do not hate God" then the language they use does not express hate; therefore such language is proper to use.

It is too bad the entire situation is setup as an either/or fallacy in which that church is supposedly taking a stand for people perceived as “vile”—I do not perceive them that way and my church welcomes them. The real fact is that many of them do not want our churches because we make them uncomfortable (or should!) with the Law and the Gospel.

James reminds us that our tongue is a powerful member: we must choose—through His power—between breathing sweet truth or vomiting lies. Between ingesting golden apples or digesting garbage.

A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in settings of silver. Proverbs
25:11

SDG

It Was Worth It

What would you think if 500 hundred people waited at 4 in the morning for church to open up?
Your fist thought would be that this was not real; your second thought would be that the church must be handing out 100 dollar bills!

Either way, you are acknowledging a basic psychological fact:

people sacrifice for their gods.

In this case, Black Friday represents a "holy" day for millions of Americans offering their "tithes" to the god of prosperity. They are willing to inconvienence themselves to get up before the worms are awake; they are willing to expend precious family, house and work time to wait in line for fleeting material goods. Adding in the traffic headackes, complaining children and customers as well as one's sanity, Americans expend much more mental, physcial, and temporal energy for a once-a-year event than they do figuring out what issues to vote upon!

But they all believe it was worth it.

When this "tithing" (as well as the "tithing" throughout the year on TVs, cars, videos, cable, internet, computers and games) is added up it quickly dwarfs the church tithing of America. When the time, energy and commitment are thrown into the equation, church recedes into the background. Apparantly, the things of this world are worth such efforts. The things of God are not.

Sacrifices to one's god is easily discovered through such an analysis: what are you willing to do to please your god?

Get up early for prayer time, sunday school and church?
Set up the books and chairs sunday morning?
Take time to attend weekly bible study?
Tithe to God's Church?
Pray, read and study the Bible daily?

We are willing to spend time, energy and money on the things that are worth it.
Clearly, God's church and people are worth our time.
It is worth it for me.

Is it worth it for you?

SDG

Thanks For Giving Us Life, Lord

Thank You, Lord.

Praising, lauding and glorifying You for all that You have bestowed upon my family is the least I can do. Even this, Oh Lord, is but a faint shadow of the honor due You.

As such, even after serving You, it is only what is required of us, Your unworthy servants.

Thank you for:

America:
Freedom of Association
Freedom of Arms
Freedom of Speech
Freedom of Worship
Freedom of Selling
Freedom of Buying

Body of Christ:
Reformed Churches
Orthodox Presbyterian Church
Providence Church
Deacons
Elders
Ministers

Thank You for,
Friends,
Health,
Prosperity.

Thank You for: security, technology and plenty; for breath and life.
Thank you for Your Son and the Spirit who breathes life into us.

For all this my family worships you; for all this we do not deserve. It is not of our own making, doing or goodness that brought this upon us. It is only Your undeserving grace, mercy and kindness.

In all this prosperity--of freedom, worship, and life--we plead one thing of Thee:

"Give me neither poverty nor riches -- Feed me with the food allotted to
me; Lest I be full and deny You, And say, 'Who is the LORD?' Or lest I be
poor and steal, And profane the name of my God." Prov. 30:8-9.

SDG

Ugly...finally dies

A while ago, I blogged this dog:

"Devil Dog. A mutated, malformed, monstrosity of a mutt. A baleful, chthonic, gruesome freak straight from the Grand Guignol itself. A nightmarish, grisly animal shooting its foul imagery straight into my terrified senses, while assualting the unarmed mind with ferocious malignancy: is it real?"

Well, it was real and it finally died.
At age 14.
Good riddance.

Now I can sleep without nightmares.

Reinventing Church...Business

Recently, upon entering my abode, I noticed a white-bag attached to my front door. I gingerly handled it, opened it and found a cleverly designed box spring open in my hand.

This was no ordinary advertisement.
Of the six sides on the cube, four had religious jokes about Moses, Noah and the magi.
The other two sides advertised for a young, energetic twenty-something church that will bring no demands upon her members.

It was an ad for a church inviting people to its "grand opening."
I kid you not.

The church is meeting in a commercial center where another "gen-x" church used to meet. I suspect its the same church with a makeover.

The advertising did its job: I knew exactly what they stood for; and I wanted nothing to do with it.

I'm not interested in a church that tries to attract members through jokes.

Are they going to humor people to heaven?

I'm not impressed with their tag line either: "We think church should be something to look forward to, where children and adults can have fun."

Why not go to a circus--you get more "fun" for your money.

Of course, some might complain that I'm being too harsh, too heartless, and too...humorless?
However, one's view of sin and the gospel will reflect itself in the church--even in its advertisement.

Does man avoid God because of "stuffy" church?--then advertise a "casual" dress code.
Does man avoid God because of "slow" music?--then advertise "loud" music.
Does man avoid God because of "irrelevent" sermons?--then advertise "relevant" messages.

However, if man's fundamental problem is his rebellious alienation from God (Rom. 1:18ff.), then the Gospel (and the church upon which it is built) will reflect that condition. A church will not even try to "advertise" itself but will stand boldly upon the Law and Gospel of the Word of Christ. Law to convict of sin; Gospel to cover sin. The church should be a comfort for believers and a challenge to unbelievers.

Church should not be in the business of reinventing the Gospel (or Church) but standing firm in the antithesis between the World and the Church. There are no "grand openings." If Christ is our model, he was a poor businessman, preaching conviction of sin and the realities of hell.

The only "advertisement' a church needs is its faithful adherence to the entire Word of God.
And the only "reinventing" a church needs is a spirit-wrought reformation.

SDG

The Lost Art of Sleeping In

“Ruff!! Ruff!”
“What the…,” exclaimed a weary-eyed sleeper. Fumbling like a drunken bum, he finally found the clock. His brain stared at the devise until it registered the true state of affairs: “It’s 6:00 in the morning!” With a heavy sigh, he turns toward the enticing pillow…

Rummmble! Rooaar!! The screaming, shattering chainsaw chases a terrified man. Running with all his might, he evades the chainsaw, only to see it crashing through another door…and wakes him up to the familiar sound of a lawn mower. This time it’s 7 AM.

Screeching, screaming and shouting, the local street urchins abort his attempted Saturday morning sleep-in at 7:30.

What is the point of sleeping in? No one else does. I seem to remember my parents sleeping in on at least one weekend day. They would warn my sister and me to be quite lest we feel a wrath that would pale the likes of Khan.

However, in the last few years, if we stay up late on a Friday night (which I thought most people our age did, with or without children), it only makes sense that we would try to sleep in a little on Saturday. And I don’t mean until 10:30 either.

Why the change? Could it be that more people are trying to busy themselves these days? Or that they carry the weekday rush into the weekend? The six-year old has to attend pee-wee league, the backyard has to have a new deck and so many things must be accomplished by noon on Saturday. Naturally, both Saturday and Sunday are “get-things-done” days because the rest of the week is filled with extended hours (from bosses and companies who live for money), meetings, veterinarian appointments, sporting events, and what-nots.

Rest is lost. Community is gone. And the church and Sabbath are no longer central to the family units.

In America there is no Sabbath rest. The Gospel is meaningless, so the Sabbath day is meaningless (Heb. 4:1ff) and the church is pushed into the periphery. We live in one of the most unchurched cities in America. And we see that every Sunday morning when by 8:30 we are ready to drive to church, while the neighbors ready their lawnmowers, hedge-clippers and motorbikes.

Perhaps Americans are becoming more busy and less rested as they attempt to drown-out the call of the Gospel. Or perhaps I’m simply asking too much to be able to sleep in just a little.

Nah…

SDG

Democracy problems & other odds & ends

Desiring to bring to the conservative Christians the glaring problems with the Iraqi constitution, I did not focus on my own beliefs. Unfortunately (or fortunately) the internet is wide open for any all readers; thus, there are questions and concerns about what has been (mostly) unsaid in this series.

Being an interactive blog I expected, well, interaction—I was hoping some comments from those concerned about America supporting an Islamic Socialistic state! (But, perhaps, too many people have been accustomed to socialism to even recognize it anymore). Instead, I got various and sundry comments about “neocons” and “Christian fundamentalist”. So, I’ll try to summarize some clarifying comments:

1. This first point acknowledges the comment that the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land (article 6) . I do acknowledge that my fourth article/posting is short and vague. Thus, I’ve modified it slightly.

2. “so you're against democracy are you?”
I am against Democracy when defined as direct democracy, majoritarianism , or economic egalitarianism (positions the founders tried to avoid). I believe in a federal republic, sometimes called a representative democracy.

3. " 'the people are the cornerstone to modern society' " - yes, so they should be. the system is known as democracy, the system you seem to oppose."
Besides what is noted above (and not merely believed by a fringe group!) about democracy, the cornerstone of any society should be law—that is what protects the minority from the majority. Thus, the majority cannot enact murder, for instance, against the minority.

4. " 'only God and His Law are our authority and legitimacy' " - so why isn't America a theocracy (maybe that's what you want)"
Maybe—depending on how one defines “theocracy”. The American law-system is based upon certain philosophical doctrines; over the course of our history, there has been a struggle over what those doctrines should be. Currently, we have a non-reflective worldview used in America, Evolutionary Materialism, with relativism as a corollary. Of course, Materialists use logic—which has no physical existence--but that’s another matter.
I would have no problem with the original American set-up in which Protestantism was the recognized “cultural glue”, such that some of the States limited governmental offices to Protestants only. Thus, our nation basically--in its law and cultural expectations-- followed the Ten Commandments. This, however, did not mean any one church ruled the nation, or that people were killed for being Muslim, but it entailed a general belief and practice that most citizens had in common (a worldview). More precisely I would like a return to the older Christian America as consistent with such a worldview (hence, no slaves, etc., but that is another post).

5. "Then again, the Iranians are allowed to vote as well.” Exactly, that is one of the major problems of Democracies. Another Hitler could be voted in. However, if a Republic is based upon a common worldview (that is one against Nazism or Communism), reinforced through the societal institutions, then this would be much less likely. But a free-for-all Democracy is unpredictable and dangerous in the long run.

6. “It seems there's another US christian fundamentalist / neocon who needs to learn more about his own country's history and constitution.” Nope, sorry—too many assumptions: I am not a neocon:I did not vote for Bush; I am against the Iraqi war; I am against international "interventionism". However, if one wishes to continue this friendly dialogue, perhaps his or her philosophical assumption (worldview) should be placed on the table for all to see—making blanket allegations from the cover of cyberspace is too convenient.

As for “fundamentalist”—I am not sure what that is supposed to mean. Some use it as an ad hominem associating Christians with Islamic terrorists; some use it (again as an ad hominem) more narrowly for "unthinking" Christians (which do exists); others use it for Christians who believe in the inerrancy and infallibility of the Scriptures (that's me!). Within conservative Christian circles (in the US anyway) it may mean those who "don't drink, smoke or dance" (i.e. legalists) or those who are dogmatic thinkers. It used to mean simply those who believed in the miracles of the Bible and its inspiration (Torrey's The Fundamentals). It is more proper to call me Reformed Presbyterian (ala Westminster Confession (1646)--OPC)

I guess with that many definitions of "fundamentalist" under my belt, that should preclude me from being "unthinking". Then, again, many non-Christians don't even know this much about Christianity.

I hope I have clarified myself enough. Remember, I am trying to write to a Christian audience--but I'm willing to dialogue with others.

SDG

From Cradle To Grave--Iraqi Constitution Pt. 6/6

Womb to Tomb. Welfare State. Whatever you name it, it is the same thing: State supremacy over the lives of humans.

Thus far, I suspect--and I pray I’m wrong--that many readers have not sustained such a long series. They may believe this is the work of a quack. So, as the last in a series I shall quote copiously and explicitly from the Constitution of Iraq: you decide if this is a government worth defending with American blood:

Article 22: “Work is a right for all Iraqis so as to guarantee them a decent living.”

What more needs to be said? Communism anyone?

Article 25: “The State guarantees the reform of the Iraqi economy in accordance with modern economic principles to insure the full investment of its resources, diversification of its sources and the encouragement and the development of the
private sector.”

Of course, once the Triune God is out of the picture, then economics becomes the plaything of the powerful-and who is more powerful than the government?

Article 23: 1st — Private property is protected and the owner has the right to use it, exploit it and benefit from it within the boundaries of the law.
Article (27): 1st — Public property is sacrosanct, and its
protection is the duty of every citizen.

Remember that game of compare and contrast as a child? It’s a very useful tool: the owner has a right to private property “within the boundaries of the law”; however, “public property is sacrosanct”—that is “regarded as sacred and inviolable.” This language is not used for private property. Note also how protection of-not private property-but public property is the “duty of every citizen”. Da, tvoritsch—yes, comrade: for the State is inviolable and the citizen is expendable.

Article 29: “A. The family is the foundation of society; the State preserves its entity and its religious, moral and patriotic values.”
“B. The State guarantees the protection of motherhood, childhood and old age and shall care for children and youth and provides them with the appropriate conditions to further their talents and abilities.”

How magnanimous of the State to preserve the very entity that should sustain it! Rather, when the government is in the business of taking care of the family, it is no longer recognizing its proper place under God nor its dependence upon the Family. Who takes care of children? The parents. Who takes care of the Family? The Parent-State. Thus, the Family becomes the child of the State.

Article 30: “First: The state guarantee [sic] to the individual and the family--especially children and women--social and health security and the basic requirements for leading a free and dignified life. The state also ensures the above a suitable income and appropriate housing.”

This is quite a blank check; a very expensive check that will most likely (if carried out consistently and faithfully) raise oil prices from Iraq (Article 109: "Oil and gas is the property of all the Iraqi people," i.e. the State). What exactly does “basic requirements for…life” entail? Whatever the legislature determines it! What is “suitable” income and housing? Whatever the State tells the masses. Desiring freedom from “terrorism”, Iraq has bought slavery, willingly and whole-heartedly.

Article 33: “First: Every individual has the right to live in a safe
environment.”
Article (15): "Every individual has the right to life and security and freedom” except "in accordance to the law and based on a ruling by the appropriate judicial body."

So, through careful progression it becomes apparent that nullifying the Triune God of Christianity as the final and ultimate environment of man, the State fills in the vacuum: the State becomes the environment of man, nurturing him, protecting him. For the small price of freedom and individuality, man exchanges liberty for slavery.

Finally, if you are not nauseous yet:

Article (45): Restricting or limiting any of the freedoms and liberties stated in this constitution may only happen by, or according to, law and as long as this restriction or limitation does not undermine the essence of the right or freedom.

Thus, public property is "sacrosanct"--invioable and beyond the authority of others (article 27)--yet all the liberties and freedoms of the people of Iraq are not sacrosanct: they are strictly limited by law. In a little well known country of the world, life, liberty and private property (in theory!) are, under God, sacrosanct--that is why 1776 exploded upon the world! It was the birth of a Republic, not a Democracy.

Iraq has absolutely no Christian history or culture. Its god is the impersonal god of raw causality: Allah. Thus, it does not take individualism seriously (personalism) and makes all the spheres of life (family, church, business, etc.) mechanistic. Having no concept of the Trinity, the many (individuals) becomes absorbed into the one (State). Personhood is subjected to the impersonal laws of the Koran—melding itself naturally to totalitarian rule (either a kingly, oligarchy or democratic (mob) rule). The mechanism of the State is secondary to the results: total protection at the cost of total control.

As Rushdoony aptly points out in The Politics of Guilt and Pity, since all the unregenerate are guilty before God, they try to assuage that guilt: thus, eventually, the State becomes the savior (if anarchy is to be avoided). The State, in place of God, will plan the economy and the society, working all things for the good of them that love it.

May America wake-up from its theological slumbering; may the Conservative Christians (in the truest sense of the words) repent of their political laziness. Pragmatism meets the Welfare State halfway; thus, in principle (since the State has not lost any ground) Pragmatic realpolitik of the Christian Right has succumbed to tyranny. They just don’t realize it yet. They offer only part of the womb or pieces of the tomb to the State, hoping to fend off the ever-hungry alligator. They voted for the very "Republican" (Party) America that has perpetuated this monstrosity of a constitution.

Only time will tell if they learn their lesson.
I, for one, will not put my trust in them or their princes, but in the name of the Lord my God.

The Right To Bare Your Arms--Iraqi Constitution Pt. 5

Unlike our American Constitution, the Iraqi constitution, hailed as a "progress towards peace," has no right to bear arms--although they may bare their arms by wearing short-sleeve shirts. They have no explicit right to own a gun or create militias:

"Article 9: (b) Forming military militias outside the framework of the armed forces is banned. "

So, if, as was gleefully reported by "Mike" the Army sharpshooter on the Laura Ingrahm show today, the only point of creating an Iraqi "democracy" is to "give freedom of choice"--even if it means they "vote for a monarchy"--then the right to bear arms is no longer relevant.

We are right back to making Democracy a god.

The Protestant belief of old--from the Reformers to the Puritans--founded our nation on the natural and Biblical right of self-defense--even if that meant self-defense from our own government. Such a doctrine is absent in Iraq.

That is scary. They could collapse back into a tyranny without any means to protect themselves.

But what is more scary is their lack of a Gospel culture: they have no theological or ideological underpinning to stand-up against tyrants.

Let's face it, they're voting in Socialism--if not outright Communism--so they are already under a form of tyranny.

Pray for them--and pray for us.

Federalism Redefined ?--Iraqi Constitution Pt.4

1. Traditional Definition:
“Federalism is a system of government in which power is constitutionally divided between a central authority and constituent political units (like states or provinces). The two levels of government are interdependent, and share sovereignty.”—Wikipedia

2. Iraqi Definition:
“Article 13: 1st - This constitution shall be considered as the supreme and highest law in Iraq. It shall be binding throughout the whole country without exceptions.
2nd - No law that contradicts this constitution shall be passed; any passage in the regional constitutions and any other legal passages that contradict this constitution shall be considered null.”

Remember: our Constitution was written to limit the federal government, not the state governments. That's why the States have their own constitutions! Compare the Tenth Amendment.

Given the lack of Iraqi legal history, the supremacy of Islam imbedded in the document and the hasty drafting of this constitution, it is not certain how this article will be used.

Is Democracy Our God?--Iraqi Constitution Pt. 3

Vox Populi—the voice of the people.
Democracy—the vote of the people.
Egalitarianism—the equality of the people.
Equal opportunity—the potential of the people.

I see a pattern: the people are the cornerstone to modern politics.
God is out of the picture.

That is why the president (and other neo-cons) stress their desire to “spread democracy” around the world—kinda like spreading a gospel.

Rushdoony’s excellent book, This Independent Republic, summarizes this modern political approach:

“science is methodology [not meaning]. Hence, again, the establishment of democracy is seen as the cure-all for all cultures, since methodology will remake man. Democracy is thus applied to Asiatic, African, and Latin American states without any regard for their historical and cultural conditions, because it is assumed that the form or method is the creator of valid objectives…” (128)

More precisely, America wishes to mold the world—via neocon and liberal politick—into a “safer” place for all. This is a violation of Biblical sphere sovereignty:

“Interventionism is a pretension to deity, a claim to powers of mediation and to divine government, and hence is inadmissible [to a Christian worldview]”

(p.138)

And it is not the Biblical Gospel.
Why? Because the Biblical Gospel is not compatible with depraved people. The Biblical Gospel is not of this world (political) but from above (God). They first need regeneration before they can even begin to vote on principle.

But this will not stop our nation from promoting such falsehoods as:

“The law is sovereign. The people are the source of authorities and its legitimacy…” (Article 5 of the Iraqi Constitution).

Or:

Article 16: “Equal opportunities are guaranteed for all Iraqis. The state guarantees the taking of the necessary measures to achieve such equal opportunities.”

No, dear reader, the law (whatever that may be defined as) is not sovereign—only God is sovereign!
No, fellow Americans, the people are not the arbiters of authority or legitimacy—only God and His Law are our authority and legitimacy.

That is why the Apostles said: “we ought to obey God rather than man”!
Voting is proper, in its place. But they never determine good and evil. Laws, in submission to God’s Law, are proper. But they never trump God.

In the multicultural context of Iraq, and specifically its Islamic roots, it is hard to determine what exactly its constitution means. In contrast, the American constitution has a clearly defined past that helps interpret its meaning. America (theoretically) is a Republic and not a (direct) Democracy.

So, any given statement (such as the Iraqis have “liberties”) can be just as binding as the Old Soviet constitution—which, incidentally, “secured” the rights of religion and the press.
No really—click here .

The Iraqi charter limits many of these freedoms “according to law” but never defines that law.

Well, that does not seem to matter to our leaders since Iraq will have a “democracy”—an opportunity to vote. That’s what matters.

Democracy is the savior of the world; the people must vote!

Then again, the Old Soviets were allowed to vote as well…
Until next time, comrade…

Supporting Islamic Socialism--Iraqi Constitution Pt. 2

There are a plethora of problems with this constitution. Not the least of which is its explicit foundation upon Islam.
As a conservative Christian—Reformed to boot—I highly object to sending American forces to die for a constitution I would never live under.

But I digress.

Because there are so many problems and questionable items in the Iraqi charter, let me outline the major theological and political errors in the Iraqi constitution:

1. Islamic supremacy.
2. The people are sovereign (Vox Populi)
3. Federalism Redefined.
4. Right to bear arms—without guns.
5. From Cradle to Grave.

When articles 22, 25, 28-40 are read then the claim of socialism will be established. When the Preamble, articles 2, 10 and 12 are read then the claim of Islam will be established. Put them together and Islamic Socialism is born.
Case in point:

"Article (2): 1st - Islam is the official religion of the state and is a basic source of legislation:

(a) No law can be passed that contradicts the
undisputed rules of Islam.
(b) No law can be passed that contradicts the
principles of democracy.
(c) No law can be passed that contradicts the
rights and basic freedoms outlined in this constitution."

It is not at all clear how these three statements can stand with each over. Logically, if Islam is the "basic source" of that society then b) and c) are subordinate.

The bigger question is: can we support this?
Can conservative Christians separate their religious beliefs from their political? Of course not! That is why we fight vehemently against pro-death candidates.

But is this as far as we are willing to go? Do we think it is morally acceptable for our leaders to support—with American money and blood—an Islamic regime?

The American Constitutional Republic (not a “democracy”) is not easily planted elsewhere in the world because of our unique Christian history that formed it--our country was based upon covenantal principles which sustained our freedoms (read Mathis’ Genesis of American Freedoms—comment for a copy). But “democracy” is easy to plant.

Is it radical to ask our national leaders not to support an Islamic Socialistic state!?

Perhaps, as in the past, many will rationalize the president’s decision. That’s too bad. As conservative Christians we are to stand upon principle not pragmatism. And I can find no Biblical principle that defends the shedding of American blood to build an Islamic Socialistic State.
_______________________________
[FYI: You can thank my friend who handed me an article about the Iraqi constitution; wishing to verify the info, I began my quest for the elusive Iraqi constitution.]

Socialism As "Progress Toward Peace"--Iraqi Constitution Pt. 1

American conservatives do not believe that work is a guaranteed right, or that health care should be administered and supported by the State. Nor do they believe that the State exists to guarantee equal opportunity, hand out free education or support the basic societal institutions such as the family. They do not endorse Socialism in any of its forms.

Or do they?

The Iraqi constitution (which, interestingly, is not easy to find anywhere on the 'net, let alone talked about in any major news source) is not a document in the spirit of '76. It is more like the red ghost of 1917.

So, when president Bush hails this new step of adopting the constitution, he's really endorsing what this blog title shouts: "Socialistic Constitution As 'Progress Toward Peace'"--a partial quote of Bush himself.

Yes, this sounds wild. But, if you've ever read my posts, I try to avoid shocking statements for the sake of excitment. I'm dead serious. Read the constitution here (BBC).

Or here (voanews).

Here (american chronicle).

Even at USA Today.

All of them from the AP wire service. (Dated August 24 to October 12)

Here's a sneak peek: Article 34 states:

"free education is a right for all Iraqis in all its stages"
--even private education.

That's just a taste of what is to come.

Patience, I'll summarize the salient points.
Stay tuned, comrade.

Connecting the Arctic Dots

As an engineer I've had much training in the basic sciences. I was taught to think logically, to analyze the data, chart it and draw conlusions--to "connect the dots".
As a matter of fact, all Americans who took any science have gone through this process.

That is except for the New York Times.

Using NASA data, Junkscience.com has done a favor and "connected the dots" of artic warming.

For us and for the New York Times.
Read on!

SDG

Learning From the Past

President Bush endorsed Miers, stating that he knew her heart and trusted that she would be an excellent judge. Besides the obvious fact that Bush has erred in trusting someone (witness his endorsement of Mr. Brown at FEMA), or the more obvious truth that Senators need a track record upon which to evaluate nominees, the recent history of electing people who are professing Christians is not encouraging. There is one notable instance of such a case back in the late 80s:

"Wanting to avoid a repeat of that failure [of Bork], President Reagan then nominated Anthony Kennedy, who had no track record as a constructionist but was described as a devout Christian family man. Today, Justice Kennedy cites international law as a basis for his opinions and is a consistent dissenter in "family-friendly" cases."

Read on...

Doubting Dobson?

In the middle of last week, Dobson expressed concerns on the new nomination, Miers. He has some doubts.
After digging into some interviews, I have some doubts about Dobson. He states:

"You know what? I do," Dobson said, affirming her response. "I don't believe that homosexuals should be denied a job."

I don't agree with this. And the Constitution does not agree with this. The doctrine of freedom of association coupled with private rights implies that an owner of a company can hire anyone he choses. If he only wants to hire Christians and not homosexuals, so be it.

The Christian does not live in a mechanistic universe in which all he has to do is hire workers who can do the job. Rather, he lives in a moral universe in which he is accountable to God. And in such a universe, hiring men in such a state of depravity is risky at best.

Dobson has helped many Christians over the years. That cannot be denied. However, believing that homosexuals have a right to any job is not a help to the Christian cause.

Doubting Dobson in this instance is a good thing.

SDG

A Short Review 5: The Art of Prophesying

A Short Book Review 5 William Perkins' The Art of Prophesying

Whether you want a book that will raise eyebrows with your Reformed friends or that will entice non-Reformed acquaintances, this is it. Prophesying has a uniquely Puritan meaning: preaching. As in our time, William Perkins’ day was a time when faithful preaching was rare and great emotional orators were prevalent. In response, he rekindled the “plainness of speech” style that characterized the Puritans.

This simply written little book is evenly divided into two parts: preaching and calling. Perkins defines and defends preaching before setting the ground rules for interpreting Scripture (an extremely useful, non-technical and readable section with an abundance of verses). Perkins dedicates the rest of the book to the calling, function and significance of the true Gospel minister. Ministers are men of God: they rebuke, exhort, and teach in the name of the Lord with a God-given authority. “Yet you must not rage…against it, nor must you hate the minister, nor resort to personal criticism of him. Instead, submit your self to the gospel…if you respond otherwise you will…wrong the minister…and, unfortunately, you will harm yourself even more” (119). There is also blessing: “Do you have a godly pastor? Confer with him. Go to him for comfort and counsel; profit from his company, sit under his ministry frequently; count him worthy of ‘double honor’…Never imagine that it is a…commonplace blessing to have ‘one of a thousand’. Thank God for giving this mercy to you, which he has denied to so many others” (100).

Even if you will never enter the ministry, the first part of the book is worth the price and the latter half should imbibe you with a renewed sense of the greatness of the Gospel Ministry.

Liar, Liar Pants on Fire

Just this night, I was watching channel 4 here in Colorado. The news report interviewed the local butcher-shop--the misnamed Planned Parenthood--which complained that the new judicial nominee, Miers, was against abortion while president of the ABA association in Texas.

Yet earlier the newsreport from cnsnews.com noted that Miers "proposed a referendum that would have allowed the American Bar Association's (ABA) rank and file members to decide whether the organization should take a position on abortion rights." (See also Foxnews)

So, who's telling the truth? It is not necessarily true that since Miers' pushed for such a proposal that she was against abortion--it could be that she believes that such important issues should not bypass the members.

But the interview with channel four stated otherwise. This means either:
1) The abortion representative lied;
2) Channel four lied by virtue of editing the interview;
3) CNS News is lying.

Whether this is lying intentionally or through sloppy research is another question.

But it is sure that many Americans will miss this "discrepancy".
Too bad that liars don't have spontaneous combustion in their clothing.
It would make it easier to spot them.

SDG