Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Meyers, FV and the Missouri Presbytery
The latest decision concerning the complaint against the exoneration of Jeffrey Meyers is posted at Wes White's blog, here.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
The Thorn: reasons not to attend this play
"Many Denver area churches are following some traditions of the high Middle Ages.
With a plethora of "passion plays" slated for this Easter, these churches are imitating their Roman Catholic counterparts. And this year one play stands out: The Thorn.
This Colorado-based production is described as an "extraordinary passion play-meets-Cirque-du-Soleil event" (Denver United). It was a local play originating at New Life church in Colorado Springs. And it is slated to play in Denver at the Magness Arena on April 22-23.
And I will not be there..."
[continued here]
Monday, April 11, 2011
A Review of Peter Enns’ Bible Curriculum [Wes White]
"...Further concern was raised over the fact that the publisher, Olive Branch Books, is part of Peace Hill Press which is directed by Susan Wise Bauer and Jessie Wise. Susan Wise Bauer is well-known and well-respected within the homeschooling community for her history series, The Story of the World, and book, The Well-Trained Mind. Olive Branch Books has released a statement in which it begs parents to read the curriculum for themselves instead of relying on secondhand accounts.
So, that is what I’ve done. I received my copy of the parents’ guide to Telling God’s Story, and I have now finished reading it. I also read Dr. Enns’ book, Inspiration and Incarnation, to help me understand his views..." [continued here]
Thursday, April 07, 2011
Wednesday, April 06, 2011
Eritrea rejects UN aid
Fox news reported on the reasons why one of Africa's poorest nations is refusing most UN aid.
What does "The Institutional Church" mean? A Response
A fellow Christian blogger, Arthur Sido, has problems with the "institutional church." And he has graciously responded to my inquiry about his definition of the "institutional church" (over at pastor White's blog). This post is my humble attempt to better understand his concerns.
I suspect Arthur is unaware that his article is chockablock with assumptions and stereotypes. At least, it comes across that way to a reader (like me) who is not aware of his background and beliefs. So, I found his "what I believe" and read it. It, too, was chockablock with assumptions and stereotypes--or perhaps a language of description that I find unclear.
Even so, perhaps this dialogue will help express what is implied and draw both parties to more faithfulness to Christ.
First of all, he provides a tentative definition: "The institutional church, at its most fundamental, is the most visible and culturally recognizable manifestation of organized religion that finds its primary definition and purpose in the weekly Sunday morning meeting."
I find the phrase "the most visible and culturally recognizable manifestation" most curious. I take it he is allowing for other "visible and culturally recognizable" manifestations of "organized religion" besides Sunday worship. If so (say daily fellowship), then why can these other visible manifestations not be fundamental to an institutional church?
The definition then climaxes with a questionable assertion: the institutional church's "primary definition and purpose [is] in the weekly Sunday morning meeting."
Now Mr. Sido may define things and words any way he wishes. Of course, communication becomes quite hard if this ability goes unchecked. In this case, the definition simply misses its mark: if he wishes to mark all non-organic church organizations, such as, say, all Reformed churches, as "institutional churches," then he needs another definition.
The Reformed churches do not define the institutional church's primary mission, action or goal as the "Sunday morning meeting." The institutional church is but a part of the whole idea of the church visible.
To take only the Westminster definition of the church visible: "The visible church, which is also catholic or universal under the gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children..." (WCF 25.2).
In fact, the visibility of the church is not confined to Sunday worship: "God is to be worshiped everywhere, in spirit and truth; as, in private families daily, and in secret, each one by himself; so, more solemnly in the public assemblies..." (WCF 21.6)
At the end of the day, I think Mr. Sido has something more specific in mind than the opening definition. He writes:
"Furthermore, the Protestant/Evangelical institutional church is by and large a modification of the Roman Catholic institutional church. The theology is radically different but the practices remain much the same: a formal and rigidly scheduled weekly gathering, mute observance by most of the church during that gathering, a ritualistic observance of the Lord’s Supper, a clerical class that is distinguished from the laity by extra-Biblical educational standards and that derives its financial support from the offerings of that same laity, and finally a focus on performance instead of mutual edification."
Now, since the opening definition does not work to identify Reformed churches, does this more extensive definition work better? It is closer if only because it clearly brings to the fore traditional anabaptistic arguments against certain elements of institutional churches--elements not necessary for any and all institutional churches. One can have an institutional church without financial support or ritualistic observance, for instance.
But then this all turns on how institutional, ritual, etc. are defined. The pejorative use of the words ritualistic, rigidity and formal all hinge on an understanding of what is proper worship. I do not know Mr. Sido's ideas about worship so it is hard to exactly evaluate.
If he believes that the Lord's Supper could involve cool-aid and cheez-its while people eat and wander about in their pajamas, then anything short of that could be labeled ritualistic, rigid and formal!
But there are more clues that some other idea of institutional church is at play here:
"Many of these institutional churches meet each week, go through the religious rituals and pay their bills but accomplish little else...In fact, the best measure of the spiritual state of someone is what happens outside of the church meeting. It is ironic that in the one place that Western culture agrees is “the church” is the same place that you are least likely to see the church functioning as it should."
I strongly suspect that our author is critiquing Christians that "play church." They come to church on Sunday, follow the motions, smile politely and pay their tithe and so feel good about themselves while accomplishing little for God's kingdom during the week. To that I say amen!
If that is his driving concern, then the institutional church is not the problem. The external form is rarely ever the root problem rather it is the internal problem of sin. If Mr. Sido concedes that organic churches can also "go through the motions" then he concedes the whole case and must critique the church organized (institution) upon different grounds.
His opening definition is insufficient to mark all my test-cases, Reformed churches, as institutional churches in the pejorative sense. His paragraph-long descriptive, on the other hand, seems to fit depending on what view of worship he believes. And if his true goal is to denounce superficial Christianity then we may well be closer in thought than either of us realized.
I suspect Arthur is unaware that his article is chockablock with assumptions and stereotypes. At least, it comes across that way to a reader (like me) who is not aware of his background and beliefs. So, I found his "what I believe" and read it. It, too, was chockablock with assumptions and stereotypes--or perhaps a language of description that I find unclear.
Even so, perhaps this dialogue will help express what is implied and draw both parties to more faithfulness to Christ.
First of all, he provides a tentative definition: "The institutional church, at its most fundamental, is the most visible and culturally recognizable manifestation of organized religion that finds its primary definition and purpose in the weekly Sunday morning meeting."
I find the phrase "the most visible and culturally recognizable manifestation" most curious. I take it he is allowing for other "visible and culturally recognizable" manifestations of "organized religion" besides Sunday worship. If so (say daily fellowship), then why can these other visible manifestations not be fundamental to an institutional church?
The definition then climaxes with a questionable assertion: the institutional church's "primary definition and purpose [is] in the weekly Sunday morning meeting."
Now Mr. Sido may define things and words any way he wishes. Of course, communication becomes quite hard if this ability goes unchecked. In this case, the definition simply misses its mark: if he wishes to mark all non-organic church organizations, such as, say, all Reformed churches, as "institutional churches," then he needs another definition.
The Reformed churches do not define the institutional church's primary mission, action or goal as the "Sunday morning meeting." The institutional church is but a part of the whole idea of the church visible.
To take only the Westminster definition of the church visible: "The visible church, which is also catholic or universal under the gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children..." (WCF 25.2).
In fact, the visibility of the church is not confined to Sunday worship: "God is to be worshiped everywhere, in spirit and truth; as, in private families daily, and in secret, each one by himself; so, more solemnly in the public assemblies..." (WCF 21.6)
At the end of the day, I think Mr. Sido has something more specific in mind than the opening definition. He writes:
"Furthermore, the Protestant/Evangelical institutional church is by and large a modification of the Roman Catholic institutional church. The theology is radically different but the practices remain much the same: a formal and rigidly scheduled weekly gathering, mute observance by most of the church during that gathering, a ritualistic observance of the Lord’s Supper, a clerical class that is distinguished from the laity by extra-Biblical educational standards and that derives its financial support from the offerings of that same laity, and finally a focus on performance instead of mutual edification."
Now, since the opening definition does not work to identify Reformed churches, does this more extensive definition work better? It is closer if only because it clearly brings to the fore traditional anabaptistic arguments against certain elements of institutional churches--elements not necessary for any and all institutional churches. One can have an institutional church without financial support or ritualistic observance, for instance.
But then this all turns on how institutional, ritual, etc. are defined. The pejorative use of the words ritualistic, rigidity and formal all hinge on an understanding of what is proper worship. I do not know Mr. Sido's ideas about worship so it is hard to exactly evaluate.
If he believes that the Lord's Supper could involve cool-aid and cheez-its while people eat and wander about in their pajamas, then anything short of that could be labeled ritualistic, rigid and formal!
But there are more clues that some other idea of institutional church is at play here:
"Many of these institutional churches meet each week, go through the religious rituals and pay their bills but accomplish little else...In fact, the best measure of the spiritual state of someone is what happens outside of the church meeting. It is ironic that in the one place that Western culture agrees is “the church” is the same place that you are least likely to see the church functioning as it should."
I strongly suspect that our author is critiquing Christians that "play church." They come to church on Sunday, follow the motions, smile politely and pay their tithe and so feel good about themselves while accomplishing little for God's kingdom during the week. To that I say amen!
If that is his driving concern, then the institutional church is not the problem. The external form is rarely ever the root problem rather it is the internal problem of sin. If Mr. Sido concedes that organic churches can also "go through the motions" then he concedes the whole case and must critique the church organized (institution) upon different grounds.
His opening definition is insufficient to mark all my test-cases, Reformed churches, as institutional churches in the pejorative sense. His paragraph-long descriptive, on the other hand, seems to fit depending on what view of worship he believes. And if his true goal is to denounce superficial Christianity then we may well be closer in thought than either of us realized.
Tuesday, April 05, 2011
US interest, Libya and the Bible
He who passes by and meddles in a quarrel not his own is like one who takes a dog by the ears.Proverbs 26:17
Monday, April 04, 2011
Wednesday, March 09, 2011
NPR dabacle: does this surprise anyone?
The Washington Times reported more on the undercover tapes. This time quoting the co-worker with Mr. Schiller, Betsy Liley.
But seriously folks...whose mind will be changed but such revelation? Perhaps a number of average Americans. But those with influence to cut NPR funding, will they understand the bias here? Not just the science angle but the birther movement (with its own problems) is silenced by NPR.
If it's about the "debate" (like climate change) why not cover it? It would be a very large debate! The why is unknown. But the fact is known.
But seriously folks...whose mind will be changed but such revelation? Perhaps a number of average Americans. But those with influence to cut NPR funding, will they understand the bias here? Not just the science angle but the birther movement (with its own problems) is silenced by NPR.
If it's about the "debate" (like climate change) why not cover it? It would be a very large debate! The why is unknown. But the fact is known.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
The vanity of God?
My last posting answered questions that Christians may encounter in Denver.
The next few articles will answer more questions Christians might encounter in Colorado--specifically, questions by a reader of a recent article. The questions stem from digging deeper behind the answers given--answers which did properly answer atheist questions. But as with all answers, there are more assumptions that can be unearthed.
Here is the first question:
1. "You say God doesn't need anyone, that he is self-sufficient. But if that's the case, then why does he require glorification? Why does he need people to glorify him? By your description, he only made everything just to glorify himself. Isn't that vanity by any Christian definition?"
[continued here]
The next few articles will answer more questions Christians might encounter in Colorado--specifically, questions by a reader of a recent article. The questions stem from digging deeper behind the answers given--answers which did properly answer atheist questions. But as with all answers, there are more assumptions that can be unearthed.
Here is the first question:
1. "You say God doesn't need anyone, that he is self-sufficient. But if that's the case, then why does he require glorification? Why does he need people to glorify him? By your description, he only made everything just to glorify himself. Isn't that vanity by any Christian definition?"
[continued here]
Saturday, February 05, 2011
Science catches up with biblical nurture
Those ornery Puritans were right after all: self-control is paramount for healthy adulthood.
A recent study strongly indicates what Christians believed and practiced for centuries.
A recent study strongly indicates what Christians believed and practiced for centuries.
Friday, January 14, 2011
Monday, January 10, 2011
Many atheists ignorant of Christianity
"Over the last few years I have encountered more atheists than I can shake a stick at.
Whether they are young atheists at the Auraria campus in downtown Denver or in an interview with a leader in Boulder, they all have one thing in common: ignorance...
...of Christian doctrine and practice."
Whether they are young atheists at the Auraria campus in downtown Denver or in an interview with a leader in Boulder, they all have one thing in common: ignorance...
...of Christian doctrine and practice."
Thursday, January 06, 2011
Revival of Rousseau [repost]
"But when mothers deign to nurse their own children, then morals will reform themselves, natural feeling will revive in every heart, the state will be repopulated"
"It is only in our father's home that we learn to love our own, and a woman whose mother did not educate her herself will not be willing to educate her own children."
"There is no more charming picture than that of family life..."
What do homeschooling and Rousseau have in common?
Much in many ways.
Rousseau endorsed homeschooling as the ideal system of education.
(continued here)
"It is only in our father's home that we learn to love our own, and a woman whose mother did not educate her herself will not be willing to educate her own children."
"There is no more charming picture than that of family life..."
What do homeschooling and Rousseau have in common?
Much in many ways.
Rousseau endorsed homeschooling as the ideal system of education.
(continued here)
Tuesday, January 04, 2011
More government intrusion into our food?
Here is an interesting article on potential expansion of government into our food supply.
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Most popular apologetic articles of 2010
Colorado was a busy state this year. From atheistic billboards denouncing Christmas to pedophiliac books there was plenty to write about and engage the readers of Denver.
However, a few of these issues stood out in highly read or highly commented articles. And thanks to my inquisitive readers, one article had about 2000 hits in one day!
Well, here they are... (continued here).
However, a few of these issues stood out in highly read or highly commented articles. And thanks to my inquisitive readers, one article had about 2000 hits in one day!
Well, here they are... (continued here).
Monday, December 27, 2010
Faith and Redemption...the game!
"Faith and Redemption is a Christian game where players gain followers throughout their epic journey from the Garden of Eden to Judgment Day. As players gain followers, they are granted prayers and miracles that help them overcome the ever-present temptation of sin.
Although Faith and Redemption represents a fallen world, redemption is always possible and forgiveness is never more than a prayer away..."
i feel like i'm in an alternate Christian reality...
Although Faith and Redemption represents a fallen world, redemption is always possible and forgiveness is never more than a prayer away..."i feel like i'm in an alternate Christian reality...
Thursday, December 23, 2010
The battle behind the war on Christmas
"Using the worn-out and misused phrase, "separation of church and state," hundreds of atheists in Denver rejoice in their recent cultural salvo against religion..."
(continued here).
(continued here).
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
The group behind Denver's anti-Christmas billboards
"Who is this mysterious out-of-state group paying for anti-Christmas billboards in Denver?" (continued here.)
Monday, December 20, 2010
Christmas Regeneration-Style [repost]
TV shows can be easy blog fodder. But why?
The simple reason resides in the fact that many shows manifest the cultural icons and beliefs of the populace at large--the religion of society.
This truth especially struck me with the 1970 stop motion TV special, Santa Claus is Comin' to Town. I passed by it surfing. Stopped. And I watched the regeneration sequence--the one when the Winter Warlock's heart melted. After being born-again from the reception of a toy, the Warlock asked Kris Kringle how he could continue being born-again. Or more precisely, he lamented to Kris that his heart was so bad that he did not know how to be good.
"It's easy," Kris replied. Then he (as with all musicals) broke out in spontaneous song:
Put one foot in front of the other
And soon you'll be walkin' 'cross the flo-o-or
Put one foot in front of the other
And soon you'll be walkin' out the door.
...If I want to change the reflection
I see in the mirror each morn
Oh, you do?!
You mean that it's just my election
Just that!
To vote for a chance to be reborn.
I don't think I need to exegete this. This song is about self-regeneration. The American religion. And what is worse, it is--with many--the Evangelical American Religion.
Try telling your Christian co-worker, neighbor or friend that he did not "vote for a chance to be reborn" but that God chose him first (Rom. 9:18). That Biblical rebirth comes from above, from the Spirit who moves as He wishes. Or if you want to be subtler, ask him his opinion about the song.
This song is just one part of the larger piece of Americana. If the churches cannot differentiate themselves from the religion of this song, there is no hope for America. If the church members cannot differentiate themselves from this song, there is little hope for American churches.
But God has promised to work His will through us (Phil. 2:13). And that begins with teaching and living the truth of God's sovereign grace.
Then one day, Lord willing, there will be new songs and new TV specials that reflect Holy Spirit regeneration instead of self-regeneration.
The simple reason resides in the fact that many shows manifest the cultural icons and beliefs of the populace at large--the religion of society.
This truth especially struck me with the 1970 stop motion TV special, Santa Claus is Comin' to Town. I passed by it surfing. Stopped. And I watched the regeneration sequence--the one when the Winter Warlock's heart melted. After being born-again from the reception of a toy, the Warlock asked Kris Kringle how he could continue being born-again. Or more precisely, he lamented to Kris that his heart was so bad that he did not know how to be good.
"It's easy," Kris replied. Then he (as with all musicals) broke out in spontaneous song:
Put one foot in front of the other
And soon you'll be walkin' 'cross the flo-o-or
Put one foot in front of the other
And soon you'll be walkin' out the door.
...If I want to change the reflection
I see in the mirror each morn
Oh, you do?!
You mean that it's just my election
Just that!
To vote for a chance to be reborn.
I don't think I need to exegete this. This song is about self-regeneration. The American religion. And what is worse, it is--with many--the Evangelical American Religion.
Try telling your Christian co-worker, neighbor or friend that he did not "vote for a chance to be reborn" but that God chose him first (Rom. 9:18). That Biblical rebirth comes from above, from the Spirit who moves as He wishes. Or if you want to be subtler, ask him his opinion about the song.
This song is just one part of the larger piece of Americana. If the churches cannot differentiate themselves from the religion of this song, there is no hope for America. If the church members cannot differentiate themselves from this song, there is little hope for American churches.
But God has promised to work His will through us (Phil. 2:13). And that begins with teaching and living the truth of God's sovereign grace.
Then one day, Lord willing, there will be new songs and new TV specials that reflect Holy Spirit regeneration instead of self-regeneration.
Friday, December 17, 2010
New Atheism as a passing fad?
The principal source of my melancholy, however, is my firm conviction that today’s most obstreperous infidels lack the courage, moral intelligence, and thoughtfulness of their forefathers in faithlessness. What I find chiefly offensive about them is not that they are skeptics or atheists; rather, it is that they are not skeptics at all and have purchased their atheism cheaply, with the sort of boorish arrogance that might make a man believe himself a great strategist because his tanks overwhelmed a town of unarmed peasants, or a great lover because he can afford the price of admission to a brothel. So long as one can choose one’s conquests in advance, taking always the paths of least resistance, one can always imagine oneself a Napoleon or a Casanova (and even better: the one without a Waterloo, the other without the clap).
Insightful article, here.
Insightful article, here.
Monday, December 13, 2010
Thursday, December 09, 2010
A Coy Smile
As I turned her stroller onto the sidewalk, I leaned down to catch her attention and asked, “Who made you?”
She shifted her head up at me with a coy smile.
I continued the one-sided conversation, “God.” (continue here)
She shifted her head up at me with a coy smile.
I continued the one-sided conversation, “God.” (continue here)
Tuesday, December 07, 2010
Nobel Peace Prize Scientist Renounces Global Warming
The interpretation of the limited data is changing...
Saturday, December 04, 2010
Friday, December 03, 2010
Friday Funnies: Chutes and… Chutes
New Christian game that won't be sold in Christian stores anytime soon!
Monday, November 29, 2010
Jack Bauer School of Evangelism
You'll never lose another witnessing opportunity again! Check it out.
Saturday, November 27, 2010
Children of Economics
"If we refuse to limit spending on health care--or on Social Security or national defense or education--because such limits will cause distress, suffering, and outrage, then we've decided to keep spending trillions we don't have, endlessly. There's a name for people who won't accept that life is difficult, and that hard choices must be made. We call them children"
William Falk, Editor-in-chief, The Week, Nov. 26, 2010
Thursday, November 25, 2010
The Forgotten National Holiday [repost]
Trapped between a day of druidism and a season of commercialism, Thanksgiving receives less and less worth in our nation. Since we have collective amnesia and willful ignorance, we have slowly forgotten what this holiday is supposed to be about.
Of course, as the church goes so goes the culture. And we have no one else to blame for this collective laziness but ourselves. Churches by the thousands abandoned the faith of our Puritan forefathers for an easier-to-digest civic religion. Many pontificate against that Pagan holy-day, Halloween, but know little to nothing about the Reformation that originated on that day. Others bemoan the commercialization of Christmas, but preach an impotent Christ and an emasculated Gospel. Sin is trivialized, so the Gospel loses its worth. God is humanized, so Christianity becomes voiceless. We preach perfectionism through works-righteousness; we present pep-talks with glittering lights; we talk of relationships and subjectivism, all the while ignorant of the objective truth that God saves sinners, of whom I am the chief.
Understanding the depths of sin (as displayed, for example, in the sacrificial system) is the beginning of thanksgiving. For to truly appreciate the blessings of our covenant God one must know they are blessings! Of our own hands we have not wrought this bountiful land known as America. From the wealth of money to the wealth of plenty, this material prosperity originated in God alone. Just as our salvation from first to last consists of God’s sovereign initiative and power, so, too, the material blessings (let alone the spiritual!) flow from that Fount of Life.
Deut. 8:11 warns the church of old and the church of today, both families and individuals, not to forget God and His ways, lest we think we have the power to gain wealth! “…for it is He who gives you power to get wealth…” (v. 18). This verse alone condemns all those half-truths and false Gospels which reject the Providence of God and extol the power of the will of man. When you realize that you are but dust in the wind, then you will be truly grateful and appreciative of all that God has given you. When you realize the despicableness and wretchedness of violating God’s Law and insisting upon your own way, then you will be truly grateful and appreciative of the All that God gave, His only Son.
====================
Dear reader, write out a list of all the material blessings you have in life. Write out the spiritual blessings you have. Which do you think of most? Which do you attribute to yourself?
Be thankful. You could have been born a Pagan in the middle of India or a Communist in the midst of China. Worst of all, you could have been born reprobate and cast into the Lake of Fire forever and ever.
What do you have that was not first given you? That is the question.
====================
“And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to which also you were called in one body; and be thankful.” Col. 3:15
Of course, as the church goes so goes the culture. And we have no one else to blame for this collective laziness but ourselves. Churches by the thousands abandoned the faith of our Puritan forefathers for an easier-to-digest civic religion. Many pontificate against that Pagan holy-day, Halloween, but know little to nothing about the Reformation that originated on that day. Others bemoan the commercialization of Christmas, but preach an impotent Christ and an emasculated Gospel. Sin is trivialized, so the Gospel loses its worth. God is humanized, so Christianity becomes voiceless. We preach perfectionism through works-righteousness; we present pep-talks with glittering lights; we talk of relationships and subjectivism, all the while ignorant of the objective truth that God saves sinners, of whom I am the chief.
Understanding the depths of sin (as displayed, for example, in the sacrificial system) is the beginning of thanksgiving. For to truly appreciate the blessings of our covenant God one must know they are blessings! Of our own hands we have not wrought this bountiful land known as America. From the wealth of money to the wealth of plenty, this material prosperity originated in God alone. Just as our salvation from first to last consists of God’s sovereign initiative and power, so, too, the material blessings (let alone the spiritual!) flow from that Fount of Life.
Deut. 8:11 warns the church of old and the church of today, both families and individuals, not to forget God and His ways, lest we think we have the power to gain wealth! “…for it is He who gives you power to get wealth…” (v. 18). This verse alone condemns all those half-truths and false Gospels which reject the Providence of God and extol the power of the will of man. When you realize that you are but dust in the wind, then you will be truly grateful and appreciative of all that God has given you. When you realize the despicableness and wretchedness of violating God’s Law and insisting upon your own way, then you will be truly grateful and appreciative of the All that God gave, His only Son.
====================
Dear reader, write out a list of all the material blessings you have in life. Write out the spiritual blessings you have. Which do you think of most? Which do you attribute to yourself?
Be thankful. You could have been born a Pagan in the middle of India or a Communist in the midst of China. Worst of all, you could have been born reprobate and cast into the Lake of Fire forever and ever.
What do you have that was not first given you? That is the question.
====================
“And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to which also you were called in one body; and be thankful.” Col. 3:15
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Obama, the Tea Party, and Magic Thinking
"During election season, we sometimes give ourselves permission to regress...we frequently suspend what we know about politics--most crucially, how difficult change is--and choose to believe that this time, by pulling a lever or touching a screen, the choice we make will have a magical effect...
"Politicians have always recognized and exploited such fantasies. This is, among many things, what the Obama movement of 2008 and the Tea Party movement of 2010 have in common: Their candidates ran grass-roots campaigns that made participants feel like they were empowered to enact those dreams, whether they were about electing a superhero or destroying one."
Jennifer Senior, The Week, Nov. 26, 2010.
[I am grateful to God for the bulk of the Tea Party nonetheless]
"Politicians have always recognized and exploited such fantasies. This is, among many things, what the Obama movement of 2008 and the Tea Party movement of 2010 have in common: Their candidates ran grass-roots campaigns that made participants feel like they were empowered to enact those dreams, whether they were about electing a superhero or destroying one."
Jennifer Senior, The Week, Nov. 26, 2010.
[I am grateful to God for the bulk of the Tea Party nonetheless]
Testing BlogJet
I have installed an interesting application - BlogJet. It's a cool Windows client for my blog tool (as well as for other tools). Get your copy here: http://blogjet.com
"Computers are incredibly fast, accurate and stupid; humans are incredibly slow, inaccurate and brilliant; together they are powerful beyond imagination." -- Albert Einstein
Saturday, November 20, 2010
The Social Liberal Gene
"Now, scientists have isolated a gene that appears to be associated with having a liberal worldview."The Week, Nov. 19, 2010
More here.
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Confused Coloradoan defends pedophilia
Tuesday, November 09, 2010
Sunday, November 07, 2010
Friday, November 05, 2010
Friday Funnies: Today in Church History (not entirely documented)
A modern remake of Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God...for your enjoyment.
Thursday, November 04, 2010
Tuesday, November 02, 2010
Replay: Peter Leithart Nails It
The debate about Federal Vision is a debate about theology, not a debate primarily about persons, movements, or labels.When it comes to what the theological issues are, I think Peter Leithart has absolutely nailed it in his book The Baptized Body, which you can read online here. While he nails the issue, he comes down totally on the wrong side, and I also do think that he has wrongly caricatured the other side at points....[continued here].
Monday, November 01, 2010
Hyperinflation?
This is one group's opinion. Others think deflation may hit first. Either way, get out of debt and be a boy scout about your essentials: be prepared.
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Reformation Day parties in Colorado
Reading through the Denver papers and websites, one notices a plethora of Halloween parties.
But no Reformation Day celebrations can be found.
If some locals wish to find more reasons to embrace Christianity, feel free to attend of these three Reformation events. They will welcome you and answer any questions you have.
1. "An Evening with T. David Gordon," Friday, 7pm, (Coram Deo Reformation Church)
2. Colorado Springs Reformation Day Conference, map here. Friday, 6-8pm, Sat. 1:30-8pm.
3. Reformation Day Party, Friday, 6:30-9pm, bring the kids, (Westminster Reformed Presbyterian, here).
I will be speaking at the Springs Conference, Saturday afternoon.
Enjoy!
But no Reformation Day celebrations can be found.
If some locals wish to find more reasons to embrace Christianity, feel free to attend of these three Reformation events. They will welcome you and answer any questions you have.
1. "An Evening with T. David Gordon," Friday, 7pm, (Coram Deo Reformation Church)
2. Colorado Springs Reformation Day Conference, map here. Friday, 6-8pm, Sat. 1:30-8pm.
3. Reformation Day Party, Friday, 6:30-9pm, bring the kids, (Westminster Reformed Presbyterian, here).
I will be speaking at the Springs Conference, Saturday afternoon.
Enjoy!
Monday, October 25, 2010
Manipulation of Gold Markets
Back in the early 2000s several groups caught some of the financial institutions attempting to set gold prices.
These institutions included Barrick Gold and J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.
Don't think they won't try again.
These institutions included Barrick Gold and J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.
Don't think they won't try again.
Friday, October 22, 2010
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Colorado Blue Book Alternative
Full text and non-technical explanation of the upcoming Amendments, here.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
She Called Me "Dadda"
Supposedly, a young child's first words are "dadda" or "momma"--or so I've heard.
That certainly has not been the case for my sixteen-month old daughter.
The first word she learned to understand consistently--and appropriately--was "no". She's not allowed to crawl here, she can't touch that and she must wait for dinner.
Quickly following "no"' was "please". In this case, she learned the word as sign-language--as well as "milk" and "all done". She was taught "lets pray" as well, clasping her little fingers together before meal time.
Here first verbal word was "baby". She sees a Gerber baby on the bottle and say "baby". She sees a child and says "baby". There is also "dog" (or "oof, oof") and there is the ever present 'hi'.
Surely after such an extensive vocabulary the words 'mom' or 'dad' should quickly follow.
Not so.
She soon learned "water" ("wa"). And like most toddlers she enjoys a good walk ("wok").
She then picked up "puffs" and "clock" and "hat". But no "dadda".
A few weeks ago she identified the container of baby oil as "o-oi-l". And just the other day she finally put a word to the helium-filled, string-tied rubber toys she is fond of as "ba".
In fact, she even knows the name of a favorite doll, Sally as "Sal"--endearment for a doll but no "dadda"!
How did this vocabulary list grow these many months? Through the hard and diligent work of "dadda" and "momma"! We'd point at an object and state the name. And we did that as consistently as possible.
Repetition is the mother of learning after all. Yet still no "dadda".
Until today. She walked (or rather stumbled) around the room as usual but suddenly pointed at me and said "Dadda"! In shock, I stared at her while my wife pointed at me and asked, "Whose that"?
Renee raised her arm with certainty, pointed at me and opened her mouth: "Dadda".
I stared in wonder. And I smiled. She called me "Dadda".
That certainly has not been the case for my sixteen-month old daughter.
The first word she learned to understand consistently--and appropriately--was "no". She's not allowed to crawl here, she can't touch that and she must wait for dinner.
Quickly following "no"' was "please". In this case, she learned the word as sign-language--as well as "milk" and "all done". She was taught "lets pray" as well, clasping her little fingers together before meal time.
Here first verbal word was "baby". She sees a Gerber baby on the bottle and say "baby". She sees a child and says "baby". There is also "dog" (or "oof, oof") and there is the ever present 'hi'.
Surely after such an extensive vocabulary the words 'mom' or 'dad' should quickly follow.
Not so.
She soon learned "water" ("wa"). And like most toddlers she enjoys a good walk ("wok").
She then picked up "puffs" and "clock" and "hat". But no "dadda".
A few weeks ago she identified the container of baby oil as "o-oi-l". And just the other day she finally put a word to the helium-filled, string-tied rubber toys she is fond of as "ba".
In fact, she even knows the name of a favorite doll, Sally as "Sal"--endearment for a doll but no "dadda"!
How did this vocabulary list grow these many months? Through the hard and diligent work of "dadda" and "momma"! We'd point at an object and state the name. And we did that as consistently as possible.
Repetition is the mother of learning after all. Yet still no "dadda".
Until today. She walked (or rather stumbled) around the room as usual but suddenly pointed at me and said "Dadda"! In shock, I stared at her while my wife pointed at me and asked, "Whose that"?
Renee raised her arm with certainty, pointed at me and opened her mouth: "Dadda".
I stared in wonder. And I smiled. She called me "Dadda".
Friday, October 08, 2010
Hacking Internet Voting
"Within 36 hours of the system going live, our team had found and exploited a vulnerability that gave us almost total control of the server software, including the ability to change votes and reveal voters’ secret ballots. In this post, I’ll describe what we did, how we did it, and what it means for Internet voting."
(continued here)
(continued here)
Thursday, October 07, 2010
Tuesday, October 05, 2010
Monday, October 04, 2010
Clear the Colorado Bench
Colorado has one of the most liberal supreme courts in America.
And three of the members are up for election.
Find out more here.
And three of the members are up for election.
Find out more here.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
New Religion Test for Americans
The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life has a new study.
How much do you know about the various and sundry religions that are multiplying in America? Are you prepared to dialogue in a multi-religious society?c
Find out, here.
How much do you know about the various and sundry religions that are multiplying in America? Are you prepared to dialogue in a multi-religious society?c
Find out, here.
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Pulpit Freedom Sunday
Sunday, September 26th is Pulpit Freedom Sunday.
As an effort from the American Defense League to challenge the unconstitutional "Johnson amendment" of 1954 they are calling on pastors to preach overtly political sermons this coming Sunday.
continued here...
As an effort from the American Defense League to challenge the unconstitutional "Johnson amendment" of 1954 they are calling on pastors to preach overtly political sermons this coming Sunday.
continued here...
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Friday, September 17, 2010
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Reformation Day Conference, Colorado Springs
Get your calendars out: the 3rd Annual Colorado Springs Reformation Day Conference is coming your way!
Dr. Richard Gamble will be the main speaker, covering the life of John Calvin. It promises to be not only informative but applicable--he was my early church history teacher, so I have some experience.
Besides, I'll be a break-out speaker after the lunch session, explaining the history of Christian education.
October 29, 30th...more info here.
Dr. Richard Gamble will be the main speaker, covering the life of John Calvin. It promises to be not only informative but applicable--he was my early church history teacher, so I have some experience.
Besides, I'll be a break-out speaker after the lunch session, explaining the history of Christian education.
October 29, 30th...more info here.
Monday, September 13, 2010
Boulder fire shows the nature of man
The Denver news sources talk of the "wrath of mother nature".
Others talk of the foolishness of man.
What this unexpected fire shows is the vanity of man (Ecclesiastes 1:2). (...continued here)
Others talk of the foolishness of man.
What this unexpected fire shows is the vanity of man (Ecclesiastes 1:2). (...continued here)
Friday, September 10, 2010
Thursday, September 09, 2010
Obama Care to tax gold
It not only taxes gold it tracks it. For every concerned citizen read about it here.
Monday, September 06, 2010
Labor Day and Christianity
Colorado was one of the first states to enact Labor Day.
And Labor Day was a celebration of the achievements of the hard work of Americans.
For the Christian labor is cursed. This does not mean that labor is wrong, but that work as such is infested with sin like a garden easily succumbs to weeds. (...continued here).
And Labor Day was a celebration of the achievements of the hard work of Americans.
For the Christian labor is cursed. This does not mean that labor is wrong, but that work as such is infested with sin like a garden easily succumbs to weeds. (...continued here).
Friday, September 03, 2010
Thursday, September 02, 2010
What You Don't Know About Iraq's Constitution
This week marks the end of the "Iraqi war" as the president moves America into an "advisory" role.
However, the Iraqi constitution has not changed. It behooves Americans to once again face the reality of what we did in Iraq. And that reality will dovetail quite well with the ideological underpinnings of the current political majority and even the previous administration.
If you are emotionally about this issue, please do not read this series of articles. If you seek the truth and are willing to accept the implications of these facts, then read on. Or you can read article six for a hard-hitting summary.
You have been warned:
1) Socialism as "Progress Towards Peace"
2) Supporting Islamic Socialism
3) Is Democracy Our God?
4) Federalism Redefined?
5) The Right To Bare Your Arms
6) From Cradle To Grave
(originally published in 2005)
However, the Iraqi constitution has not changed. It behooves Americans to once again face the reality of what we did in Iraq. And that reality will dovetail quite well with the ideological underpinnings of the current political majority and even the previous administration.
If you are emotionally about this issue, please do not read this series of articles. If you seek the truth and are willing to accept the implications of these facts, then read on. Or you can read article six for a hard-hitting summary.
You have been warned:
1) Socialism as "Progress Towards Peace"
2) Supporting Islamic Socialism
3) Is Democracy Our God?
4) Federalism Redefined?
5) The Right To Bare Your Arms
6) From Cradle To Grave
(originally published in 2005)
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Lessons from Katrina: Five Years Later (3 of 3)
Man is Evil: Lessons from Katrina
Homosexuals throw a street party while thousands suffer.Corrupt politicians ignored the levy problems for decades. Now they promise to help those whom they destroyed.
Looting occurred almost instantly.
Rescuers were being attacked and harassed.
There are one million and one examples of the wickedness of man. The refuges are angry, bitter and irate. As they lash out at the local, state and federal governments, they rage not against man but against God. God is in control. And the government is not God. No matter how prepared they could have been God’s will would have been accomplished.
Seeing the awesome might of Almighty God brush the Gulf Coast away as a sun eradicates a moth, they acknowledge Him not but flee to man for refuge. Such an event is to show God’s wrath and man’s sinfulness. It has done both. But the church also has a job to proclaim these truths. Instead, as the American churches are wont, they send monetary help without Gospel help. They shy from uttering dark pronouncements lest they appear “negative”. They shirk their prophetic responsibility being uncomfortable with the prophets of old:"The heart is deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked; Who can know it?” (Jer. 17:9).
According to the buoyant proclamations of the likes of Sean Hannity (a Roman Catholic), these devastations were to bring the “best out of the American people.” But if one examines a little closer with the eyeglasses of the Bible, one rather finds the manifestations of evil: men and women shaking their fists at God while helping their fellows rebuild their engines of destruction against the Kingdom of God.
If the churches in America would be true to their calling, then as servants of God they must, “in humility [correct] those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth, and that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will (2 Tim. 2:24ff.).
They will not feel sorrow over their rebellion if they believe there is nothing wrong.
They will not cling to Christ if they believe themselves good.
There are one million and one reasons why men should repent.
The obvious and easiest reason is the first one: man is evil.
Friday, August 27, 2010
Lessons from Katrina: Five Years Later (2 of 3)
The Government Is God?--Lessons From Katrina
Sometimes how people react to problems shows who or what their God is. When trouble comes, where do people go for help? Help not only for psychological and spiritual issues but also physical help.
So, where did thousands turn when Katrina hit? Did they take their saving and fly out of the city? Did they hitch a ride with friends and family? Did they stock up on food and water to sustain themselves for days?
The answer is obvious: when trouble came, many people turned to the government for help. They turned to governmental monies as their savior.
But the help did not come in time. That is why they are angry and frustrated: their god did not come through for them.
From another angle one can find out who or what god is followed by the amount of responsibility given. In God’s Word, He has separated the authorities of life into three main spheres: family, church and state. Whenever one institution usurps or expands its authority, it is claiming autonomy instead of submission to God. It’s just like Adam who desired to follow his own ways instead of God’s Law.
It is interesting to note that an ABC news report with Dan Harris (reporting, 9-6-05) stated that the city had a plan, but implemented it too late (it specified offering free transportation out of the area, but people were sent to the Dome instead); at the state level the governor is supposed to specifically ask for help from the Feds—but she did not. And of course, FEMA had its problems. The mayor blames, the State and Feds; the governor blames the Feds and the Feds will gladly take more responsibility from these institutions! The president did take responsibility; the mayor and the governor have not. And of course many people took little to no responsibility about their welfare.
(As of this date, more fraud in FEMA has been discovered as well: "through February 2006, FEMA made about $1 billion in improper and potentially fraudulent payments." Well, every god has his tithe...)
Now, billions will be poured into an area where insurance companies do not cover floods and hurricanes (why would they—they’d go broke!) and people will become more dependent upon the government.
In America, for many people the Government is god. So, the next time a large-scale devastation occurs, the Feds will sure to be there, comforting their flock.And taking more responsibility.
The churches must be faithful & warn people about this danger. Let's pray that many will learn, repent and turn to Chricst. The Lord He is God and not the government.
Lessons from Katrina: Five Years Later (1 of 3)
Blame it on God: Lessons from Katrina
In the five year anniversary of Katrina, the great gurus and thinkers of America rattle off many and sundry lessons learned from that terrible time. Movies and documentaries (I use the word loosly) are being shown as well. blaming the government, the infrastructure or that long-standing incipient evil in the hearts of everyone else but the accuser: racism. I suppose, knowing Americans, that some church somewhere is also preaching on this topic. I republisih this three part-series in the hope that others will find the real reason for this disaster.
----------------------
Thousands are presumed dead in the Gulf Coast area.
Hundreds of thousands are stranded in New Orleans.
Millions, if not billions, of damage wrought in one storm.
And people are asking, “Where is God?”
Anger bubbles from deep within the souls of thousands of angry people: “What kind of God allows this!” They are blaming God for the disaster.
And they should. He did it. He controls all things in creation.
But why?
Some talk show hosts try to calm people down by reversing the question: “Why has God blessed America all these years?” Or they wish not to speculate at all, glibly replying, “We need to help one another and bring the best out of the American people.”
However, Christians know that all things work for their good and for God’s glory (Rom. 8:32; Rom. 11:36). Furthermore, we know that since there are no longer prophets today, we must be careful in our evaluations.
But this is not all: Christ informs us of at least one reason why bad things happen:“Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them, do you think that they were worse sinners than all other men who dwelt in Jerusalem? "I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish." (Luke 13:4, 5). When such disaster strikes—contrary to some misguided caller to the Medved show—its not because New Orleans was more wicked than San Francisco; one reason for disasters is to bring a wake up call to mankind: the world is full of sin and sinners; we no longer live in paradise.
Americans like to think that God is far away and irrelevant in life. Any prosperity gained is credited to ourselves; any advancements in life is honored to lady luck. Yet when things go bad and calamity knocks on our door—suddenly, it’s God’s fault.
In reality, as Jesus points out, everyone sins—all rebel and hate God, seeking their own desires and following their own lusts (Roms. 1:24ff.). The tower did not fall on some because they were more sinful—it fell because they were sinful. Period.
This is a wake up call. Americans better repent or they will perish.
And they’ll have no one to blame but themselves.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Denver school ignores human nature
Bruce Randolph School in Denver now offers birth control. The school based clinic (serving grades six to twelve) will offer basic contraceptives including "emergency contraceptives"--many of which may be aborticides...(continue here).
Friday, August 20, 2010
Google and "Net Neutrality"
Wired magazine has a summary of the past and present reversals of Google and wirless internet access that can severely impact you. Read it here.
Another organization gives a summary of the issue here:
"As many others have noted, the exclusion of wireless from all but the transparency requirements is a dreadful idea. Neutrality should be the rule for all services, and a distinction between wired and wireless not only defies reason, it also abandons the portion of the Internet that is currently most lacking in openness and neutrality. Users are increasingly demanding the ability to do many, if not all, of the same things in a wireless environment as they do in a wired one. Regardless of what regulation may look like or whether there is any regulation at all, there shouldn’t be a distinction between the neutrality available on wired services and that available on wireless services."
Lastly, a more objective summary of this proposal here:
"So that's the plan -- it's actually more or less the status quo in many ways, if you think about it. But the thing about the status quo is that it's not enshrined as formal policy -- adopting this plan would officially mean that wireless networks aren't subject to net neutrality, and that the FCC would have very little power to change that over time. That's a huge compromise, and it's obviously not one the FCC's taking quietly: in a statement today, an agency commissioner said that the proposal had "many problems," and that it was time to "reassert FCC authority over broadband telecommunications, to guarantee an open Internet now and forever." Sounds to us like the real fight's just about to get started -- and keep in mind, we haven't heard anything substantive from other major players like Comcast, AT&T, Sprint, or T-Mobile yet. Buckle up -- it's gonna get nerdy."
Summary of "net neutrality" here.
Another organization gives a summary of the issue here:
"As many others have noted, the exclusion of wireless from all but the transparency requirements is a dreadful idea. Neutrality should be the rule for all services, and a distinction between wired and wireless not only defies reason, it also abandons the portion of the Internet that is currently most lacking in openness and neutrality. Users are increasingly demanding the ability to do many, if not all, of the same things in a wireless environment as they do in a wired one. Regardless of what regulation may look like or whether there is any regulation at all, there shouldn’t be a distinction between the neutrality available on wired services and that available on wireless services."
Lastly, a more objective summary of this proposal here:
"So that's the plan -- it's actually more or less the status quo in many ways, if you think about it. But the thing about the status quo is that it's not enshrined as formal policy -- adopting this plan would officially mean that wireless networks aren't subject to net neutrality, and that the FCC would have very little power to change that over time. That's a huge compromise, and it's obviously not one the FCC's taking quietly: in a statement today, an agency commissioner said that the proposal had "many problems," and that it was time to "reassert FCC authority over broadband telecommunications, to guarantee an open Internet now and forever." Sounds to us like the real fight's just about to get started -- and keep in mind, we haven't heard anything substantive from other major players like Comcast, AT&T, Sprint, or T-Mobile yet. Buckle up -- it's gonna get nerdy."
Summary of "net neutrality" here.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Clark Pinnock--An Influential Force in Evangelicalism
If you don't know Clark Pinnock--that's OK. Most people do not.
And yet, he was an influential character in Evangelicalism. But was he a force for good?
Read this and you decide.
And yet, he was an influential character in Evangelicalism. But was he a force for good?
Read this and you decide.
Sunday, August 15, 2010
Friday, August 13, 2010
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Johannes Weslianus: Brakel's Advice on Evangelism
Johannes Weslianus: Brakel's Advice on Evangelism:
"1. 'If you are not capable of speaking to certain individuals, and about such matters, speak to others. Begin with beggars and children, ..."
"1. 'If you are not capable of speaking to certain individuals, and about such matters, speak to others. Begin with beggars and children, ..."
Saturday, August 07, 2010
In Defense of Life in Colorado
Colorado Amendment 62 is coming this fall. It is an attempt to properly define personhood to include the life of the unborn. The amendment is...
Keep Reading »
Keep Reading »
Friday, July 30, 2010
Monday, July 26, 2010
Reformed School Curriculums
Dear friends,
It is hard for Reformed Christians to find an entire school curriculum that offers faithful books in line with the Reformation. Here are the two companies that offer Reformed curriculum for schooling at home or elsewhere, from kindergarten to twelfth grade. They would even be useful to supplement any current schooling methods.
1. Christian Liberty Academy and Press
Although these are two different websites, they are operated by the same organization. This organization began with a Reformed church in the late 60s (and still associated with that church I believe). The first, the Academy, using the CLASS system, includes a full-curriculum (with alternative textbooks if desired) that is semi-flexible. The family registers with the group and they grade the tests. And includes a parent/teacher planner with scheduled testing and mile markers.
The Press is not registration oriented. You grade your own tests. And it includes the same materials (such as Louis Berkhof's Manual of Christian Doctrine--a high school systematic theology). It too includes the full curriculum and planner or you can buy individual books and custom make your approach.
2. Covenant Home also provides an auditing service if you so desire. It can operate as an "umbrella school" to issue diplomas as well. And it offers a flexible approach to different child learning levels. Grade ten includes Calvin's Institutes. Individual books or an entire curriculum per grade level are available. A day-by-day planner also exists. Covenant Home's distinctive approaches are here. It includes a diagonistic testing program to help tailor the curriculum.
You can request a catalog from either company. Prices vary from 150$ a grade/curriculum to 670$
Naturally, I have not read every book offered. Nor am I familiar with all of them. I do not know if the history and bible books include pictures of Christ. And, ironically, I did notice that there is no systematic catechizing in the lower grades. The Westminster Confession of Faith is not covered at all. Even so, these offers are a great start or finish for your family.
It will take some time to look into these, but I think it worth the effort.
yours in Christ,
PS. Feel free to pass this on to others.
It is hard for Reformed Christians to find an entire school curriculum that offers faithful books in line with the Reformation. Here are the two companies that offer Reformed curriculum for schooling at home or elsewhere, from kindergarten to twelfth grade. They would even be useful to supplement any current schooling methods.
1. Christian Liberty Academy and Press
Although these are two different websites, they are operated by the same organization. This organization began with a Reformed church in the late 60s (and still associated with that church I believe). The first, the Academy, using the CLASS system, includes a full-curriculum (with alternative textbooks if desired) that is semi-flexible. The family registers with the group and they grade the tests. And includes a parent/teacher planner with scheduled testing and mile markers.
The Press is not registration oriented. You grade your own tests. And it includes the same materials (such as Louis Berkhof's Manual of Christian Doctrine--a high school systematic theology). It too includes the full curriculum and planner or you can buy individual books and custom make your approach.
2. Covenant Home also provides an auditing service if you so desire. It can operate as an "umbrella school" to issue diplomas as well. And it offers a flexible approach to different child learning levels. Grade ten includes Calvin's Institutes. Individual books or an entire curriculum per grade level are available. A day-by-day planner also exists. Covenant Home's distinctive approaches are here. It includes a diagonistic testing program to help tailor the curriculum.
You can request a catalog from either company. Prices vary from 150$ a grade/curriculum to 670$
Naturally, I have not read every book offered. Nor am I familiar with all of them. I do not know if the history and bible books include pictures of Christ. And, ironically, I did notice that there is no systematic catechizing in the lower grades. The Westminster Confession of Faith is not covered at all. Even so, these offers are a great start or finish for your family.
It will take some time to look into these, but I think it worth the effort.
yours in Christ,
PS. Feel free to pass this on to others.
Friday, July 23, 2010
Monday, July 19, 2010
Predicting the Future
“…a comprehensive and centralized system of national education, separated from religion…will prove the most appalling enginery for the propagation of anti-Christian and atheistic unbelief…which this sin-rent world has ever seen.”
A. A. Hodge, Princeton Professor, 1887
How was professor Hodge able to foresee such wretched consequences of godless, centralized education? Hodge’s ability to see one-hundred years into the future was based upon a solid Christian tradition arising from the Protestant Reformation. That tradition rooted itself into the soil of Scripture Alone.
Is there a question about who should educate children? The Bible has an answer for that.
Is there a question about what a child should learn? The Bible has an answer for that.
We need not feed at the trough of humanistic thinking to deal with the important questions of today. Rather, we should seek out the Words of Life, the Bible.
The hard part is understanding how to properly digest this heavenly Food. Professor Hodge was able to absorb the truth of it so well that he foresaw the doom of America. Again, how?
The fact of the Bible alone as the source of truth and practice also came with the tools of interpretation and application needed to dig into the Truth. The Puritans refined these tools (which are in the Bible itself) into eight simple rules; one of which states: “where a duty is commanded, the contrary sin is forbidden; and, where a sin is forbidden, the contrary duty is commanded.” Ephesians 4:28 offers a clear picture of this truth: “Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labor, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needs.”
When God states that murder is forbidden, it also means that preserving life is commanded. If we are not to lie, we are to tell the truth instead. And when He commands that God should be the center of our lives and children should be instructed in the fear of the Lord, He forbids education “separated from religion.”
If we wish to see one-hundred years into the future, Christians need to return to their spiritual roots in the Bible. And they need to learn how to once again feed upon the Word for the expansion of the Kingdom, just like professor Hodge.
A. A. Hodge, Princeton Professor, 1887
How was professor Hodge able to foresee such wretched consequences of godless, centralized education? Hodge’s ability to see one-hundred years into the future was based upon a solid Christian tradition arising from the Protestant Reformation. That tradition rooted itself into the soil of Scripture Alone.
Is there a question about who should educate children? The Bible has an answer for that.
Is there a question about what a child should learn? The Bible has an answer for that.
We need not feed at the trough of humanistic thinking to deal with the important questions of today. Rather, we should seek out the Words of Life, the Bible.
The hard part is understanding how to properly digest this heavenly Food. Professor Hodge was able to absorb the truth of it so well that he foresaw the doom of America. Again, how?
The fact of the Bible alone as the source of truth and practice also came with the tools of interpretation and application needed to dig into the Truth. The Puritans refined these tools (which are in the Bible itself) into eight simple rules; one of which states: “where a duty is commanded, the contrary sin is forbidden; and, where a sin is forbidden, the contrary duty is commanded.” Ephesians 4:28 offers a clear picture of this truth: “Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labor, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needs.”
When God states that murder is forbidden, it also means that preserving life is commanded. If we are not to lie, we are to tell the truth instead. And when He commands that God should be the center of our lives and children should be instructed in the fear of the Lord, He forbids education “separated from religion.”
If we wish to see one-hundred years into the future, Christians need to return to their spiritual roots in the Bible. And they need to learn how to once again feed upon the Word for the expansion of the Kingdom, just like professor Hodge.
Friday, July 16, 2010
Jay Adams and the Second Generation of Counselors
Here is part of a series of postings by Adams about criticisms and confusion sent his way.
Monday, July 12, 2010
A Talk About Female Leadership
As the Denver Christian Apologist writer at Examiner (here), I receive many comments. One article brought out a reader with the following civil exchange (this is slightly abbreviated):
[Responding to my comments about female pastors in another article]:
L- Galatians 3:28-29 "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."
[I replied that I would write an article on that set of verses, but it was not accepted...]:
L - What about Deborah? Judges 4:4-5 Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was leading Israel at that time. She held court under the Palm of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim, and the Israelites came to her to have their disputes decided.
L - I'll also throw in Junia: Romans 16:7 Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow Jews who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was. And Phoebe: Romans 16:1 I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church in Cenchreae. And I'll add that Miriam, Moses' sister, was obviously a leader.
Denver Christian Apologist - Lori: In a proper exchange of ideas, it behooves both parties to acknowledge the facts. Please ask yourself (don't need to write it here) if I properly explained Galatians 3:28? As for my part, I never dealt (nor could w/ short articles) other passages or the broader issues involved. 1.Deborah was a prophetess--if there are prophetesses today then they can be leaders (but prophets and apostles ended when the Bible was finished). 2. Deborah actually chided Barak for letting a woman get the victory in battle: "So she said, "I will surely go with you; nevertheless there will be no glory for you in the journey you are taking, for the LORD will sell Sisera into the hand of a woman."
Denver Christian Apologist - Lori: to continue: 3. Phil. 2:25 calls Epaphroditus a "messenger" (NKJV) wh/ in the greek is 'apostle' b/c apostle means 'messenger/one sent'. 4. Clearly there were only 12 Apostles at the beginning (Acts 1 records the election of another to replace Judas) and at the end (Revelation has the 12 Apostle names in Jerusalem). So, Epaphr. could not be another apostle in that specialized sense of the word. 5. Therefore, rom. 16:7 is not another Apostle (w/ capital A). 6. "Among" the apostles may mean with them not one of them. 7. Deacon means 'servant', so more than the word is needed to determine if the text means an office or simply a 'helper' (like all of us should be). thanks for asking.
Lori - 1. Why does God make an exception (according to you) for prophetesses if He doesn't allow women as leaders? And where does it say in the Bible that prophets and apostles are finished? 2. My reading is that Deborah was chiding his lack of faith. 3, 4, 5, and 6. I didn't read the text about Junia to mean she was 1 of the 12. Paul refers to himself as a apostle. I believe she was an apostle in the same sense...
Lori - To continue: I base some of my argument on what I have seen, felt and experienced through the powerful ministry and leadership of women in the church. “Of course, you also used emotionally loaded words "suppression" and "oppression", but these are not reasons either.” I used suppression and oppression based on women having the Spirit quenched by being denied the full use of their spiritual gifts. I remember hearing Beth Moore saying something like, “I teach women and those men who are humble enough to listen.” What a wonderful world it would be if more men were humble enough to listen to her. That’s how I feel.
Denver Christian Apologist - Lori: You stated: "If you don’t see my questions as relevant to your argument concerning Galatians, that’s how you see it. I see differently." That is part of the difficulty: what is considered a proper rationale. The other verses you pointed to were not relevant to Galatians. Books are written with their own context and my primary argument was within the book and chapter itself. None of your other passages bear *directly* on that text. Thus, Galatians cannot be used for your argument. And so I moved on to the other texts and explained them as well. This could go on ad infinitum unless you are willing to struggle with a single text and defend your position from that text (other texts are helpful but an argument must be based upon texts not general impressions).
Lori- To continue: I base some of my argument on what I have seen, felt and experienced through the powerful ministry and leadership of women in the church. “Of course, you also used emotionally loaded words "suppression" and "oppression", but these are not reasons either.” I used suppression and oppression based on women having the Spirit quenched by being denied the full use of their spiritual gifts. I remember hearing Beth Moore saying something like, “I teach women and those men who are humble enough to listen.” What a wonderful world it would be if more men were humble enough to listen to her. That’s how I feel.
Denver Christian Apologist - And yet Beth Moore is not humble enough to listen to me? Using language this way is not a defense of any position but poisons the well of the discussion with the insinuation that the opposing party is not 'humble'--that certainly has not been proven. Remember: the first thing offered as an argument was Galatians. I offered a cogent explanation that has not been answered beyond quoting other verses.
Lori - You seem determined that I reply to your posts in a manner you think appropriate, not in the manner I would naturally respond. I’m not sure why that is. It makes for an awkward conversation. Regardless, I don’t see the point of continuing as we aren’t going to agree. I don’t like straining at gnats and swallowing camels. Gives me indigestion.
Denver Christian Apologist - Dear Lori: I am hopeful that God does use this conversation for His glory so I do not think it needless. I think upon reflection you will see that I spent some time answering you point for point (not always) but did not receive like response. So, I could contend that you are forcing me to dialogue the way you want...but I won't do that. For your sake and the readers, I will take some of those point-by-point answers and flush them out for clarity in the next article. Either way, I hope you will continue to read and find more common ground in my other articles.
thanks
[Responding to my comments about female pastors in another article]:
L- Galatians 3:28-29 "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."
[I replied that I would write an article on that set of verses, but it was not accepted...]:
L - What about Deborah? Judges 4:4-5 Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was leading Israel at that time. She held court under the Palm of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim, and the Israelites came to her to have their disputes decided.
L - I'll also throw in Junia: Romans 16:7 Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow Jews who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was. And Phoebe: Romans 16:1 I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church in Cenchreae. And I'll add that Miriam, Moses' sister, was obviously a leader.
Denver Christian Apologist - Lori: In a proper exchange of ideas, it behooves both parties to acknowledge the facts. Please ask yourself (don't need to write it here) if I properly explained Galatians 3:28? As for my part, I never dealt (nor could w/ short articles) other passages or the broader issues involved. 1.Deborah was a prophetess--if there are prophetesses today then they can be leaders (but prophets and apostles ended when the Bible was finished). 2. Deborah actually chided Barak for letting a woman get the victory in battle: "So she said, "I will surely go with you; nevertheless there will be no glory for you in the journey you are taking, for the LORD will sell Sisera into the hand of a woman."
Denver Christian Apologist - Lori: to continue: 3. Phil. 2:25 calls Epaphroditus a "messenger" (NKJV) wh/ in the greek is 'apostle' b/c apostle means 'messenger/one sent'. 4. Clearly there were only 12 Apostles at the beginning (Acts 1 records the election of another to replace Judas) and at the end (Revelation has the 12 Apostle names in Jerusalem). So, Epaphr. could not be another apostle in that specialized sense of the word. 5. Therefore, rom. 16:7 is not another Apostle (w/ capital A). 6. "Among" the apostles may mean with them not one of them. 7. Deacon means 'servant', so more than the word is needed to determine if the text means an office or simply a 'helper' (like all of us should be). thanks for asking.
Lori - 1. Why does God make an exception (according to you) for prophetesses if He doesn't allow women as leaders? And where does it say in the Bible that prophets and apostles are finished? 2. My reading is that Deborah was chiding his lack of faith. 3, 4, 5, and 6. I didn't read the text about Junia to mean she was 1 of the 12. Paul refers to himself as a apostle. I believe she was an apostle in the same sense...
Lori - To continue: I base some of my argument on what I have seen, felt and experienced through the powerful ministry and leadership of women in the church. “Of course, you also used emotionally loaded words "suppression" and "oppression", but these are not reasons either.” I used suppression and oppression based on women having the Spirit quenched by being denied the full use of their spiritual gifts. I remember hearing Beth Moore saying something like, “I teach women and those men who are humble enough to listen.” What a wonderful world it would be if more men were humble enough to listen to her. That’s how I feel.
Denver Christian Apologist - Lori: You stated: "If you don’t see my questions as relevant to your argument concerning Galatians, that’s how you see it. I see differently." That is part of the difficulty: what is considered a proper rationale. The other verses you pointed to were not relevant to Galatians. Books are written with their own context and my primary argument was within the book and chapter itself. None of your other passages bear *directly* on that text. Thus, Galatians cannot be used for your argument. And so I moved on to the other texts and explained them as well. This could go on ad infinitum unless you are willing to struggle with a single text and defend your position from that text (other texts are helpful but an argument must be based upon texts not general impressions).
Lori- To continue: I base some of my argument on what I have seen, felt and experienced through the powerful ministry and leadership of women in the church. “Of course, you also used emotionally loaded words "suppression" and "oppression", but these are not reasons either.” I used suppression and oppression based on women having the Spirit quenched by being denied the full use of their spiritual gifts. I remember hearing Beth Moore saying something like, “I teach women and those men who are humble enough to listen.” What a wonderful world it would be if more men were humble enough to listen to her. That’s how I feel.
Denver Christian Apologist - And yet Beth Moore is not humble enough to listen to me? Using language this way is not a defense of any position but poisons the well of the discussion with the insinuation that the opposing party is not 'humble'--that certainly has not been proven. Remember: the first thing offered as an argument was Galatians. I offered a cogent explanation that has not been answered beyond quoting other verses.
Lori - You seem determined that I reply to your posts in a manner you think appropriate, not in the manner I would naturally respond. I’m not sure why that is. It makes for an awkward conversation. Regardless, I don’t see the point of continuing as we aren’t going to agree. I don’t like straining at gnats and swallowing camels. Gives me indigestion.
Denver Christian Apologist - Dear Lori: I am hopeful that God does use this conversation for His glory so I do not think it needless. I think upon reflection you will see that I spent some time answering you point for point (not always) but did not receive like response. So, I could contend that you are forcing me to dialogue the way you want...but I won't do that. For your sake and the readers, I will take some of those point-by-point answers and flush them out for clarity in the next article. Either way, I hope you will continue to read and find more common ground in my other articles.
thanks
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Faith and Liberty 2010 Conference in Denver
This should be informative to say the least:
Two former Presidential candidates will sound off on the current economic and political climate at the Faith and Liberty 2010 Conference in Denver, Colorado on July 24, 2010. Former UN Ambassador Alan Keyes and Pastor Chuck Baldwin are keynote speakers for the Faith and Liberty 2010 Conference. Website here.
Monday, July 05, 2010
A Christian Fourth of July
As I sat listening to the fireworks, I wondered what modern Coloradans would think about the original celebration, about the original Christian society that birthed Independence Day.
What would many think about a Congress calling citizens to repent: [continued here]
What would many think about a Congress calling citizens to repent: [continued here]
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Christianity and the Centennial State
The Fourth is a celebration of our national birth. It reminds us of 1776 and the great events that transpired. It should also remind Coloradans of...
Keep reading>>>
Keep reading>>>
Sunday, June 27, 2010
A Connection between Atheism and Communism
There are numerous atheistic websites wishing to distance themselves from historic communism. This is accomplished by denying that atheism had any meaningful connection to 20th century international communism. As one writer put it, these regimes "did not wage war in the name of atheism."
Naturally, depending on how one argues, wagging war "in the name of atheism" takes on different meanings. If by that statement, the reader is to understand that the declarations of external war or internal "purges" did not includes an official atheist stamp of approval, then the assertion is certainly true.
However, if by this assertion one is to understand that atheism was not part and parcel of the entire communist scheme, then the assertion is dead wrong. In fact, dialectical materialism was so identified with communism and in turn atheism was so identified with dialectical materialism, that to promote communism was to promote atheism, specifically dialectical materialistic atheism.
Marxist Attitudes to Religion
To demonstrate this fact consider the 1918 USSR Congress. To clarify and cement its October Revolution of the year before it declared:
"The Communist Party of the Soviet Union is guided by the conviction that only conscious and deliberate planning of all the social and economic activities of the masses will cause religious prejudices to die out. The Party strives for the complete dissolution of the ties between the exploiting classes and the organizations of religious propaganda, facilitates the real emancipation of the working masses from religious prejudices and organizes the widest possible scientific educational and anti-religious propaganda." (1918)
Lenin was the author of this sentiment:
"The philosophical basis of Marxism, as Marx and Engels repeatedly declared, is dialectical materialism, which has fully taken over the historical traditions of eighteenth-century materialism in France and of Feuerbach (first half of the nineteenth century) in Germany—a materialism which is absolutely atheistic and positively hostile to all religion." The Attitude of the Workers’ Party to Religion, 1909
In fact, his attitude toward religion was the same as Marx: "Religion is opium for the people. Religion is a sort of spiritual booze, in which the slaves of capital drown their human image, their demand for a life more or less worthy of man."
And ideological hostility to religion is but the basics:
"We must combat religion—that is the ABC of all materialism, and consequently of Marxism." Lenin, The Attitude of the Workers’ Party to Religion
And yet, the historical written record shows that their documents did not incorporate much overt hostile language against Christianity. Why?
How to deal with Religion
The remainder of the 1918 USSR Congress stated the reason:
"At the same time it is necessary carefully to avoid giving offence to the religious sentiments of believers, which only leads to the strengthening of religious fanaticism."
This careful avoidance of "giving offence to the religious sentiments" is but Leninism put into practice. Communism had an internal disagreement on how best to eliminate religion. One party wanted to publicly declare themselves as atheists bent on purging the native Christians; the other party desired the same end but plotted a more circuitous route.
After explaining that the formation of his political party was "precisely for such a struggle against every religious bamboozling of the workers," Lenin explained this circuitous route:
"If that is so, why do we not declare in our Programme that we are atheists? Why do we not forbid Christians and other believers in God to join our Party?...the yoke of religion that weighs upon mankind is merely a product and reflection of the economic yoke within society...that is why we do not and should not prohibit proletarians who still retain vestiges of their old prejudices from associating themselves with our Party. We shall always preach the scientific world-outlook, and it is essential for us to combat the inconsistency of various 'Christians'."
The basis of the religious problem is the "economic yoke within society". And one way to combat religion is to "preach the scientific world-outlook". Why not directly attack it? Lenin further explains:
"But that does not mean in the least that the religious question ought to be advanced to first place, where it does not belong at all; nor does it mean that we should allow the forces of the really revolutionary economic and political struggle to be split up on account of third-rate opinions or senseless ideas..." Socialism & Religion, 1905
In other words, the atheistic dialectical materialists wishes to re-direct any internal disagreement by avoiding "third-rate opinions" and focusing on the "economic and political struggle" instead. Let the religious join the party and focus on socio-political priorities and eventually their religious priorities will fade away.
Or, as Engles stated more eloquently:
"Engels called their vociferous proclamation of war on religion a piece of stupidity, and stated that such a declaration of war was the best way to revive interest in religion and to prevent it from really dying out." Lenin, 1909
Specifically,
"Engels insisted that the workers’ party should have the ability to work patiently at the task of organising and educating the proletariat, which would lead to the dying out of religion, and not throw itself into the gamble of a political war on religion...“Religion is a private matter”: this celebrated point in the Erfurt Programme (1891) summed up these political tactics of Social-Democracy." Ibid
So, the more indirect route of Marx, Engels and Lenin is to undermine the society that upholds the religion:
"No educational book can eradicate religion from the minds of masses who are crushed by capitalist hard labour, and who are at the mercy of the blind destructive forces of capitalism, until those masses themselves learn to fight this root of religion, fight the rule of capital in all its forms, in a united, organised, planned and conscious way." Ibid
The plan was to lure inquisitive religious people into the thinking of the communists. Of course, that was easy since the entire social milieu was essentially owned and operated by the State. Repress freedom of the press, spy on worship services, control the major means of production and promote State-loyal workers and the pressure on Christianity multiplies one hundred fold beyond what atheists even feel today in America.
Over the decades in the USSR there was a general attempt to stamp out religion by withholding educational and job positions, control or closing of religious locales, imprisoning dissenting clergy, and atheistic requirements for Party membership (here).
A Goal of Communism
Naturally, someone may think this is only the Russian version of communism. History proves otherwise:
"In the final analysis, this is also true of the imperialist and capitalist systems, which are bound to be replaced in the end by the socialist system. The same applies to ideology, idealism will be replaced by materialism and theism by atheism. Here we are speaking of the strategic objective." Mao, 1957
There is a consistency of logic among these leaders. If dialectical materialism is true, then traditional Christianity is false. And if the success of a society rests upon truth (materialism), then such truth must be propagated. The question is how? At times the promulgation of atheistic communism was by massive purges and exiling those in disagreement (near 100 million dead, here). At other times through national revolutions. And when in secure power, the socialistic overlords magnanimously allowed "freedom of religion" all the while covertly intent on undermining Christianity.
None of this means that American atheists are guilty by association. By God's grace today's new atheists inherit a more democratic approach to religious debate, rooted in the Christian roots of American freedom.
[This is a Denver Christian Apologist Examiner article, here]
Naturally, depending on how one argues, wagging war "in the name of atheism" takes on different meanings. If by that statement, the reader is to understand that the declarations of external war or internal "purges" did not includes an official atheist stamp of approval, then the assertion is certainly true.
However, if by this assertion one is to understand that atheism was not part and parcel of the entire communist scheme, then the assertion is dead wrong. In fact, dialectical materialism was so identified with communism and in turn atheism was so identified with dialectical materialism, that to promote communism was to promote atheism, specifically dialectical materialistic atheism.
Marxist Attitudes to Religion
To demonstrate this fact consider the 1918 USSR Congress. To clarify and cement its October Revolution of the year before it declared:
"The Communist Party of the Soviet Union is guided by the conviction that only conscious and deliberate planning of all the social and economic activities of the masses will cause religious prejudices to die out. The Party strives for the complete dissolution of the ties between the exploiting classes and the organizations of religious propaganda, facilitates the real emancipation of the working masses from religious prejudices and organizes the widest possible scientific educational and anti-religious propaganda." (1918)
Lenin was the author of this sentiment:
"The philosophical basis of Marxism, as Marx and Engels repeatedly declared, is dialectical materialism, which has fully taken over the historical traditions of eighteenth-century materialism in France and of Feuerbach (first half of the nineteenth century) in Germany—a materialism which is absolutely atheistic and positively hostile to all religion." The Attitude of the Workers’ Party to Religion, 1909
In fact, his attitude toward religion was the same as Marx: "Religion is opium for the people. Religion is a sort of spiritual booze, in which the slaves of capital drown their human image, their demand for a life more or less worthy of man."
And ideological hostility to religion is but the basics:
"We must combat religion—that is the ABC of all materialism, and consequently of Marxism." Lenin, The Attitude of the Workers’ Party to Religion
And yet, the historical written record shows that their documents did not incorporate much overt hostile language against Christianity. Why?
How to deal with Religion
The remainder of the 1918 USSR Congress stated the reason:
"At the same time it is necessary carefully to avoid giving offence to the religious sentiments of believers, which only leads to the strengthening of religious fanaticism."
This careful avoidance of "giving offence to the religious sentiments" is but Leninism put into practice. Communism had an internal disagreement on how best to eliminate religion. One party wanted to publicly declare themselves as atheists bent on purging the native Christians; the other party desired the same end but plotted a more circuitous route.
After explaining that the formation of his political party was "precisely for such a struggle against every religious bamboozling of the workers," Lenin explained this circuitous route:
"If that is so, why do we not declare in our Programme that we are atheists? Why do we not forbid Christians and other believers in God to join our Party?...the yoke of religion that weighs upon mankind is merely a product and reflection of the economic yoke within society...that is why we do not and should not prohibit proletarians who still retain vestiges of their old prejudices from associating themselves with our Party. We shall always preach the scientific world-outlook, and it is essential for us to combat the inconsistency of various 'Christians'."
The basis of the religious problem is the "economic yoke within society". And one way to combat religion is to "preach the scientific world-outlook". Why not directly attack it? Lenin further explains:
"But that does not mean in the least that the religious question ought to be advanced to first place, where it does not belong at all; nor does it mean that we should allow the forces of the really revolutionary economic and political struggle to be split up on account of third-rate opinions or senseless ideas..." Socialism & Religion, 1905
In other words, the atheistic dialectical materialists wishes to re-direct any internal disagreement by avoiding "third-rate opinions" and focusing on the "economic and political struggle" instead. Let the religious join the party and focus on socio-political priorities and eventually their religious priorities will fade away.
Or, as Engles stated more eloquently:
"Engels called their vociferous proclamation of war on religion a piece of stupidity, and stated that such a declaration of war was the best way to revive interest in religion and to prevent it from really dying out." Lenin, 1909
Specifically,
"Engels insisted that the workers’ party should have the ability to work patiently at the task of organising and educating the proletariat, which would lead to the dying out of religion, and not throw itself into the gamble of a political war on religion...“Religion is a private matter”: this celebrated point in the Erfurt Programme (1891) summed up these political tactics of Social-Democracy." Ibid
So, the more indirect route of Marx, Engels and Lenin is to undermine the society that upholds the religion:
"No educational book can eradicate religion from the minds of masses who are crushed by capitalist hard labour, and who are at the mercy of the blind destructive forces of capitalism, until those masses themselves learn to fight this root of religion, fight the rule of capital in all its forms, in a united, organised, planned and conscious way." Ibid
The plan was to lure inquisitive religious people into the thinking of the communists. Of course, that was easy since the entire social milieu was essentially owned and operated by the State. Repress freedom of the press, spy on worship services, control the major means of production and promote State-loyal workers and the pressure on Christianity multiplies one hundred fold beyond what atheists even feel today in America.
Over the decades in the USSR there was a general attempt to stamp out religion by withholding educational and job positions, control or closing of religious locales, imprisoning dissenting clergy, and atheistic requirements for Party membership (here).
A Goal of Communism
Naturally, someone may think this is only the Russian version of communism. History proves otherwise:
"In the final analysis, this is also true of the imperialist and capitalist systems, which are bound to be replaced in the end by the socialist system. The same applies to ideology, idealism will be replaced by materialism and theism by atheism. Here we are speaking of the strategic objective." Mao, 1957
There is a consistency of logic among these leaders. If dialectical materialism is true, then traditional Christianity is false. And if the success of a society rests upon truth (materialism), then such truth must be propagated. The question is how? At times the promulgation of atheistic communism was by massive purges and exiling those in disagreement (near 100 million dead, here). At other times through national revolutions. And when in secure power, the socialistic overlords magnanimously allowed "freedom of religion" all the while covertly intent on undermining Christianity.
None of this means that American atheists are guilty by association. By God's grace today's new atheists inherit a more democratic approach to religious debate, rooted in the Christian roots of American freedom.
[This is a Denver Christian Apologist Examiner article, here]
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Friday, June 25, 2010
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
New Ray Study of Homeschooler Demographics
An informative review of last years great homeschooling study by NHERI's Dr. Ray:
"This is the latest of a long line of nearly identical studies Ray has been performing for decades now at fairly even intervals. In two previous posts I reviewed this large body of work, which you can read here and here. This new study tries very hard to overcome one of the most persistent deficiencies of his previous work (and the 1999 Rudner study)–the near exclusive reliance on HSLDA’s advertisement to recruit subjects, leading to unrepresentative samples. This time around Ray tried to recruit families from outside of the HSLDA orbit. Did he succeed?" Continued here.
"This is the latest of a long line of nearly identical studies Ray has been performing for decades now at fairly even intervals. In two previous posts I reviewed this large body of work, which you can read here and here. This new study tries very hard to overcome one of the most persistent deficiencies of his previous work (and the 1999 Rudner study)–the near exclusive reliance on HSLDA’s advertisement to recruit subjects, leading to unrepresentative samples. This time around Ray tried to recruit families from outside of the HSLDA orbit. Did he succeed?" Continued here.
Monday, June 21, 2010
New Thoughts on an old Washington Debate
Professor Lillback has brought the old assumptions of George Washington's religiosity into new light. His research of over a decade culminates in his book, George Washington's Sacred Fire.
Here is a short article (at the History News Network) to whet your appetite.
Here is a short article (at the History News Network) to whet your appetite.
Friday, June 18, 2010
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Ligonier 2010 Conference Webcast
Watch the Live Webcast of Ligonier Ministries' 2010 National Conference
Thousands of people will gather in Orlando this week for worship, fellowship, encouragement, study, and prayer, as we study some of the toughest questions Christians face. Joining Dr. R.C. Sproul will be respected pastors, theologians, and leaders Alistair Begg, Michael Horton, Steven Lawson, John MacArthur, Albert Mohler, Burk Parsons, R.C. Sproul Jr. and Derek Thomas, all of whom will equip us to answer questions that all Christians and non-Christians find perplexing.
Watch It Live on Thursday, June 17
This year, we have partnered with Christianity.com to provide the webcast. We will be live streaming the conference for free (over 22,000 have watched in previous years), and will again have a Spanish language simulcast online as well.
This year, we have partnered with Christianity.com to provide the webcast. We will be live streaming the conference for free (over 22,000 have watched in previous years), and will again have a Spanish language simulcast online as well.
Monday, June 14, 2010
Did Christ Identify the Antichrist?
Someone forwarded me a youtube presentation. His concern was to find the truth of the matter presented in that youtube clip. Here is the truth:
1. God used Greek (and some Aramaic) for the text of the New Testament. This should be sufficient for Christians. We do not need to "reverse engineer" the Greek back into the Hebrew to find hidden meanings.
2. Of course, the Old Testament is important for understanding the New Testament. And there are obvious texts in the NT that take a Hebrew word (such as YHWH--God's covenant name in Hebrew) and use the closest Greek equivalent (Kurios, Lord).
3. The pronunciation system used for ancient Hebrew today is not monolithic. There are differences. These differences arise form different theories of where Hebrew originated and what other languages influenced it.
4. Thus, we do not actually know how ancient Hebrew was pronounced. If someone would dig up a dead Jew from that time period and get him to talk, then scholarly differences would disappear.
5. 'baraq' (lightning, either physical or metaphorical; sometimes 'glittering'). Naturally, the assumption is that if two words have the same sound in two different languages, their meaning must be the same! (In Russian the imperative, "go" can sound similar to "idiot" in English...need I say more?)
6. Bama: In 80 of 100 uses in the OT, the word refers to places of worship (Theological Wordbook of the OT).
7. What this means is that there are other more common words used for 'height' other than bama.
8. The conjunctive 'waw' (or 'vav') is not a preposition. There is a preposition "from" and it is not 'waw'. So why use the conjunctive?
9. Isaiah 14:12-19 is not the "Christian understanding" of Satan (Lucifer). It is the dispensational understanding. It is not the classical understanding of this set of verses.
10. "I saw Satan as Barack Obama" is not what a Jew would say in Hebrew. One little word is missing: "falling". That is a verb. And it is not a conjunctive.
11. Thus, to use this fanciful approach, the NKJV would read, "I saw Satan fall like Barack Obama". This is a comparison not an identification. The word 'like' is used (in Greek) and no mention of antichrist exists.
12. Christ, according to this outrageous approach to holy Scriptures, is telling his Jewish audience to compare the fall of Satan with a then-unknown person. Certainly, Christ is not helping their understanding.
12. Assuming that the author's understanding of Ezekiel 14 is correct, would not Christ see Barack fall like Satan instead of Satan falling like Barack?
13. So, to continue with this reductio ad absurdum, the Hebrew equivalent to "fall" is 'napal.' The Greek word order puts "fall" at the end of the sentence. So, "I saw Satan like (as) Barack Obama (in) Napal." (Napal (or nopol) is a city in the Philippines). Or maybe there is another "Obama" with a last name of "Napal"?
14. Or maybe this guy just missed the boat because "Barack" could come from the Hebrew word "to bless". In which case, Satan is like the "blessed" Obama. Maybe there is a limit to the creative author's mind after all!
15. But I think the author did his audience a favor in the concluding small text explaining that no one really knows what Hebrew or Aramaic words Jesus used.
Instead, he thinks, "No harm, no foul"--a none-to-terribly Christian approach to the Ninth Commandment. Innuendos and insinuations are just as prohibited to Christians as to the average politician.
He ought to retract such nonsense before he further drags the good name of Christians into the mire. Unless, of course, he wishes to debate someone with actual biblical credentials?
1. God used Greek (and some Aramaic) for the text of the New Testament. This should be sufficient for Christians. We do not need to "reverse engineer" the Greek back into the Hebrew to find hidden meanings.
2. Of course, the Old Testament is important for understanding the New Testament. And there are obvious texts in the NT that take a Hebrew word (such as YHWH--God's covenant name in Hebrew) and use the closest Greek equivalent (Kurios, Lord).
3. The pronunciation system used for ancient Hebrew today is not monolithic. There are differences. These differences arise form different theories of where Hebrew originated and what other languages influenced it.
4. Thus, we do not actually know how ancient Hebrew was pronounced. If someone would dig up a dead Jew from that time period and get him to talk, then scholarly differences would disappear.
5. 'baraq' (lightning, either physical or metaphorical; sometimes 'glittering'). Naturally, the assumption is that if two words have the same sound in two different languages, their meaning must be the same! (In Russian the imperative, "go" can sound similar to "idiot" in English...need I say more?)
6. Bama: In 80 of 100 uses in the OT, the word refers to places of worship (Theological Wordbook of the OT).
7. What this means is that there are other more common words used for 'height' other than bama.
8. The conjunctive 'waw' (or 'vav') is not a preposition. There is a preposition "from" and it is not 'waw'. So why use the conjunctive?
9. Isaiah 14:12-19 is not the "Christian understanding" of Satan (Lucifer). It is the dispensational understanding. It is not the classical understanding of this set of verses.
10. "I saw Satan as Barack Obama" is not what a Jew would say in Hebrew. One little word is missing: "falling". That is a verb. And it is not a conjunctive.
11. Thus, to use this fanciful approach, the NKJV would read, "I saw Satan fall like Barack Obama". This is a comparison not an identification. The word 'like' is used (in Greek) and no mention of antichrist exists.
12. Christ, according to this outrageous approach to holy Scriptures, is telling his Jewish audience to compare the fall of Satan with a then-unknown person. Certainly, Christ is not helping their understanding.
12. Assuming that the author's understanding of Ezekiel 14 is correct, would not Christ see Barack fall like Satan instead of Satan falling like Barack?
13. So, to continue with this reductio ad absurdum, the Hebrew equivalent to "fall" is 'napal.' The Greek word order puts "fall" at the end of the sentence. So, "I saw Satan like (as) Barack Obama (in) Napal." (Napal (or nopol) is a city in the Philippines). Or maybe there is another "Obama" with a last name of "Napal"?
14. Or maybe this guy just missed the boat because "Barack" could come from the Hebrew word "to bless". In which case, Satan is like the "blessed" Obama. Maybe there is a limit to the creative author's mind after all!
15. But I think the author did his audience a favor in the concluding small text explaining that no one really knows what Hebrew or Aramaic words Jesus used.
Instead, he thinks, "No harm, no foul"--a none-to-terribly Christian approach to the Ninth Commandment. Innuendos and insinuations are just as prohibited to Christians as to the average politician.
He ought to retract such nonsense before he further drags the good name of Christians into the mire. Unless, of course, he wishes to debate someone with actual biblical credentials?
Friday, June 11, 2010
Thursday, June 10, 2010
CATO's review of Robin Hood
What is it with modern American liberals and taxes? Apparently they don’t just see taxes as a necessary evil, they actually like ‘em; they think, as Gail Collins puts it in the New York Times, that in a better world “little kids would dream of growing up to be really big taxpayers.” But you really see liberals’ taxophilia coming out when you read the reviews of the new movie Robin Hood, starring Russell Crowe. If liberals don’t love taxes, they sure do hate tax protesters.
(continued here)
(continued here)
Friday, June 04, 2010
Thursday, June 03, 2010
Ted Haggard's new church
Haggard's new announcement is probably not a surprise to anyone.He's starting a new church--a new church outside of Colorado Springs.But this time it's with a twist: a liberal evangelical church.
[continued here]
[continued here]
Wednesday, June 02, 2010
Opportunistic Politicians
Rahm Emanuel, Barack Obama's chief of staff, let slip the strategy behind the health care power grab when he declared that you should
The Wall Street Journal, A Forty Year Wish List, Jan. 2009, here.
never let a serious crisis go to waste...It's an opportunity to do things that you think you could not do before.
The Wall Street Journal, A Forty Year Wish List, Jan. 2009, here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)