Is it Splits/ville in Red America?

The New York Times seems to think so.

Not that the NY Times has the pulse of evangelical, Middle America. But the article (which probably requires registration) does recognize the growing rift between old school Evangelical leaders and the younger believers who don't walk in lockstep. The Times does go too far, as do many other mainline news sources, in claiming that young evangelicals are granola eating, tree hugging social liberals but there is a sense in which a responsibility to our fellow man is more of a hallmark than in time past. The old guard is far too political, and while I am as anti-abortion as anyone there are times when we get so tunnel visioned on that issue that we exclude all other human suffering. The answer is not more government, but there is a real sense in which the church has lost both the Gospel message of repentance and the commandment to love one another.

Back in the day, evangelical Christians got their news from places like The 700 Club and Focus on the Family. Many still do, but for younger, more internet savvy Christians, blogs and webpages are replacing these mediums (I also attribute to the internet generation the resurgence of Calvinism among young evangelicals. No longer do they hear about Calvinism as some strange bogeyman or that men like Spurgeon were really Finney-ite semi-Pelagians.) We don;t have to, and in fact refuse to, wait to see what Pat Robertson or the late Rev. Falwell or Pat Robertson have to say about issues or candidates. We can discuss amongst ourselves, real-time, right now. Huckabee's nomination has exposed the rift, and the uneasy truce.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. If Rudy is the nominee will the Christian Right stay home, or will they begrudgingly go to the polls to keep Hillary or Obama out of the White House. Will the coalition survive if Huckabee gets nominated and the elite fiscal conservatives and neo-cons refuse to support him? If McCain gets the nomination, does he select Huckabee as his VP to gather in the evangelical vote? If Romney is the nominee....ugh, let's not even think about that...

Only two days until the Michigan primary!

No greater confusion

One of the most misrepresented figures in Christian history is Charles Spurgeon. Everyone wants to claim him for their camp, and often at the expense of truth. The latest, and perhaps one of the most mind-boggling claims that Spurgeon was not a Calvinist comes from the pen of self-described homeschool pioneer Michael Pearl of No Great Joy ministries (Note the bearded guy on the left is Michael Pearl, the bearded guy on the right is Charles Spurgeon). My wife owns their flagship book, , and we get their newsletter on a regular basis. I noticed some time ago that in their "bible study" books is one with this dandy title: The Other Side of Calvinism. Guess what that other side is. That's right: Mike Pearl states, "This is the best book exposing the heresies of Calvinism. If you are a Bible believer concerned about TRUTH, this is a "must-read." . That of course set me off, rabid Calvinist heretic that I am. Calvinism must really be bad, after all he spelled truth in all capital letters! So imagine my, and apparently a few other peoples surprise when Michael Pearl put an article in his magazine that quoted Spurgeon, quite positively in fact. Apparently someone else did, and sent in this question to the Pearls:

I’m writing to ask, “Where is the consistency?” Your newsletter regularly promotes the book, The Other Side of Calvinism. It’s proclaimed to be “...the best book exposing the heresies of Calvinism....” Yet, in your Nov-Dec 2007 newsletter, you have an article featuring Charles Spurgeon, one of the biggest Calvinists of all time. So, where is the consistency? If Calvinism is a heresy, then Spurgeon is a heretic. Yes, or no?

Seems like a simple question. If Calvinism is heresy and Spurgeon is a Calvinist, then ergo Charles Spurgeon is a heretic. But no, Mr. Pearl is about to launch an explanation of why Charles Spurgeon, arch-Calvinist, is indeed not a Calvinist but rather "He teaches the same gospel that is taught by so-called Arminians, like Wesley and Finney." . I am not sure how Spurgeon would react to being lumped in with Wesley and a heretic like Finney, but I am guessing not positively. (If you doubt that Finney was a rank heretic, read this). That claim, made by many Christians especially Baptists (like Ergun Caner) is amusing but patently false. Spurgeon note only held to Calvinist doctrines, but he proudly described himself as one.

Rather than an honest "Yes, Charles Spurgeon is a Calvinist heretic", we get some bobbing and weaving, and avoiding truth with sweeping generalizations. I certainly am not going to defend Charles Spurgeon's Calvinism here. His writings speak for themselves, and I suspect that if Mr. Pearl has read Spurgeon at all, it has been pretty selectively. After all, Spurgeon is the guy who wrote a lengthy discourse titled A defense of Calvinism. It is certain, while there are different flavors of Calvinism for sure, that Spurgeon would be welcome in any Reformed church in America's pulpit (nor would Paul be turned away, despite Mr. Pearl's assertion to the contrary).

This whole affair should come as no surprise. Mr. Pearl holds to some tell-tale erroneous beliefs, as evidenced by their apparent King James Onlyism...

SCRIPTURE: We believe the sixty-six books of the King James Version, nothing added or deleted, constitute the whole of Scripture "given by inspiration of God" to English speaking people (2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:20-21).

Let that settle in a second. Most Christian confession hold to the literal nature of the 66 books of the Bible as inerrant, but when they throw a particular translation in, that should set off warning bells. In his somewhat paranoid rant against those who are out to get him, he describes Jacob Arminius as "too Calvinstic" for his tastes.

Arminius was just a backslidden Calvinist who tried to modify Calvinism. He is too Calvinistic for me. So my detractors will have to find someone far more to the right if they want to identify me with some historical position.

Huh? You might never hear that again, Arminius was too Calvinistic for me.

Some of what the Pearl's put out on parenting, Biblical roles in marriage and homeschooling is useful, but as I have often told my wife, when someone has such an egregious lack discernment about vital doctrines of the Church, I view everything they say with some suspicion.

What really concerns me is that the No Greater Joy materials and newsletter make it to a huge number of homeschool homes, and that those Christian parents who homeschool (and likely never hear an accurate depiction of the doctrines of grace in their church), will assume that Michael Pearl is accurate because he is "one of us". I stand side by side with Mr. Pearl where it comes to matters of homeschooling and some aspects of Christian parenting, but when it comes to soteriology, Michael Pearl sides with far too many men in the church who have held to aberrant views of salvation.

He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." (Matthew 16: 15-16 ESV)

That really is the big question. Who do you say I am? The very Son of God, eternal and omnipotent? Very God of God? Or something, anything, else? Any other answer negates the nature of Christ and who He revealed Himself to be.

"But I believe in God?!" As if that is enough. That is the pat response, a generic beliefs in God of some sort as long as that belief doesn't require any precision or any submission on our part. We all want God but we want Him on our terms. We want to cover our bases, just in case.

People today believe all sorts of things about Jesus. He was a prophet, He was a great man, He was even some sort of divine being. People during Christ's earthly ministry believed lots of stuff about Jesus, and they were for the most part all wrong about who He was:

Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" And they said, "Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." (Matthew 16: 13-14)

They were no doubt sincere about their beliefs, but they were sincerely wrong. Being wrong about God is not like picking the wrong Presidential candidate or rooting for the wrong sports team or even clipping the red wire instead of the blue on a time bomb. Only this question and the corresponding answer has eternal consequences. Mess this up and your fate is sealed for all eternity. God sent His Son, He left His Word to testify to us of our sin, our helplessness, our need for a Savior and that Savior in the person of Jesus Christ. That is enough. It should be enough, but all to often it is not. It can't be that way, what about my works? My righteousness? But it not only is that way, it must be that way. Praise God that I am not dependent on myself to be saved, for then I would truly have no hope.

Peter wasn't the brightest bulb on the tree, not the sharpest tool in the shed a lot of the time. He was full of enthusiasm and often missing temperance and common sense. In that way he was a lot like many of us, full of fervor but often directing it the wrong way. But give him credit, he got that question, THE question, exactly right.

And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven (Matthew 17:17 ESV)

Further signs of schism

As a denomination, the Episcopal Church has been a mess for a long time. Really it long ago ceased to be an active branch in the Church of Christ by abandoning the Gospel and the core doctrines of Christianity. There are still plenty of churches and individuals who show fidelity to the Gospel, but they do so in spite of, not because of, their membership in the Episcopal church. (note: I understand that one's standing in the church universal is not determined by denominational membership)

Now there are reports that the Episcopal Church has suspended one of their Bishops, preventing him from giving sermons or officiating any religious ceremonies. Finally, some church discipline in the Episcopal Church right!

Wrong. The Bishop in question, Bishop John-David Schofield, is guilty of high crimes including calling his denomination back to Biblical Christianity, and calling on his diocese to withdraw from the Episcopal Church due to it's flaunting of Biblical truths and embrace of all manner of heresy and perversion:

"demonstrated that Bishop Schofield has abandoned the communion of this Church by an open renunciation of the Doctrine, Discipline or Worship of this Church."

The Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori, the "Presiding Bishop" of the Episcopal Church at least should get some credit for showing some spine, even though she stands on the wrong side of Biblical Christianity on this issues, as is true with so many others.

Bishop Schofield doesn't seemed cowed by "Bishop" Schori's threats and discipline:

The bishop gave no signs of changing direction in a statement issued late Friday by the diocese.

"It is the primary duty of bishops to guard the faith and Bishop Schofield has been continually discriminated against for having done so," the statement read. "How is it that over 60 million Anglicans worldwide can be wrong and a few hundred thousand in the American Church can claim to be right?"

Good for him. At least he seems to have read the Bible and recognize what the role of a Bishop is (along with the qualifications for that office, qualifications that "Bishop" Schori fails to meet in several areas)

It is ironic that the Episcopal Church under Schori embraces homosexuality and all manner of deviant theology with a smile, but frowns upon and censers those who dare speak a word of Biblical reproach and a call for repentance.

Mitt vs. McCain

We are only three days out from the January 15th Michigan primary, and things are getting testy between McCain and Romney.

Romney attacked McCain for being defeatist about the jobs lost in auto factories. I found his comments pretty refreshing and realistic, two attribues that Romney's comments rarely have.

McCain, who wasn't in Michigan on Friday, unveiled a radio ad that attempts to capitalize on his reputation as a maverick on Capitol Hill and as someone who isn't afraid to tell hard truths. Still, he was caught in a war of words with Romney, who has latched onto McCain's statements that some lost automotive jobs will never return to Michigan.

At his sparsely attended event, Romney suggested McCain's attitude is defeatist.

"I'm committed to helping industry and manufacturers. It's unacceptable to me to see any jobs go away," he said.

For a "business man", Romney seems awfully naive about how to run businesses. The auto industry as it existed 30 years ago is untenable today. Huge bloated bureaucracies, overpaid and overstaffed union factories with insane pensions and health insurance promises are not the hallmark of a successful business model. The UAW and Big Three management have brought us to this point, where foreign manufacturers have become more innovative and more efficient. Instead of clinging to an old model of business where hundreds of thousands of high paid factory jobs drove Michigan's economy, we need to figure out what Michigan is going to do for the future. Michigan has a bunch of universities, maybe we should try to keep the grads in Michigan in high tech jobs? Trying to cling to that nostalgic view of Michigan's economy has gotten us where we are, in a so-called one state recession. The unions have brought us where we are, and we are not going to be successful in the future by holding on to that failed model and trying to return to it. Is it harsh to the ears to hear that some of those jobs, many perhaps, have left the state and never come back? Yep, but it is also true. Romney is an empty suit, who parrots back what he has been taught to say in particular situations. That is why so many conservatives leaders like him, he will do what he is told. Quite frankly that is not what I want. The GOP and America can do better.

No one seems to be giving Huckabee much of a shot in Michigan, but if you have ever been to Grand Rapids (a city of over a million), it is heavily evangelical and there are churches seemingly every 50 feet. I think Huckabee will do very well in Western and Northern Michigan. We shall see what Tuesday brings...

More from Tim Challies on public versus home schooling

I came across this post kind of after the fact (originally posted 12/17/07), so the commenting has died down. But Tim has in the past been a pretty vocal opponent of Christian parents homeschooling their kids. When I ran across this, I felt it deserved a look and a response. Tim posted the blog in response to the upcoming book by Dr. Albert Mohler, Culture Shift (which is already in my cart on Amazon!). In the book, which Tim has read and I have not yet, Dr. Mohler uses his essay Needed: An Exit Strategy to argue for Christians to leave the secular public school system behind and explore homeschooling/Christian schools for their children. Tim doesn't seem to agree.

There is something about conservative Christians who choose to send their kids to public schools that makes them especially sensitive. I am hoping that there is not a sense that they are looked down upon or ostracized by homeschool parents, although I suspect that is true in some cases. Every discussion becomes a heated battle as if their fitness as parents is being questioned.

Tim makes this statement:

If the time comes that we feel it would be right to take our children out of the public education system, I will be left with two great and related concerns I would need to reconcile.

Just when will that time be? How much more hostile must public schools be towards Christianity to trigger that time of removal? Short of burning Bibles and requiring all children to swear allegiance to the state on a copy of God is not great: How religion poisons everything, I can't see how much more hostile the public school system can be to children who's parents seek to raise their children in the fear and knowledge of the Lord. From advocacy of sexual promiscuity and homosexuality to dogmatic insistence on Darwinism as the only acceptable explanation of the world, the schools have turned into an overtly hostile climate to Christian children.

Schools are increasingly no longer merely ambivalent about faith, but openly hostile towards it. Everything that is taught is taught from a secular viewpoint. Religious expression is rapidly being stamped out, even in silly ways like refusing to call Christmas by it's name, instead making up drivel like winter break or the generic "holiday season". We all know what is being celebrated on December 25th, but we are forbidden to speak it's name.

Tim's concern is that by removing our children from public schools, we lose our voice in the school system and create a self-fulfilling prophecy. In a sense he is right. If we remove our children we are in a sense abandoning the remaining children to secularism. But if we don't, we throw our children to the secular wolves and hope they survive. For every great school system which advocates of sending Christian kids to public schools seems to live in, there are dozens of other schools that are broken beyond repair. Even in the best schools, God is not spoken of, He is not revered, He is nothing more than a cultural fairy tale. Is that how we wish our God to be portrayed to our children 40 hours a week?

As I have mentioned before, the Christian parent who sends their child to public schools for their education runs a very real risk of unintentionally creating a divide between faith and learning. Faith becomes something we just do, especially on Sundays. Learning is completely separated from faith, and the two become mutually incompatible or outright hostile. I barely trust the government to deliver the mail, much less be responsible for watching, protecting and educating my children for the better part of 40 hours a week, plus homework.

We send kids to school because that is where they go to learn. But what they learn stands in stark contrast to what they are raised to believe. So that begs the question: which is correct? If we believe that what kids are taught to believe is so important, why then do we permit a government agency to mandate that we send our kids to their schools, to learn what they choose, and in turn learn to reject what they hear in Sunday school, camp, Vacation Bible school and (hopefully) from the pulpit? Our children get a mixed message, and when it comes to God there is but one message that is acceptable, and that is not the message they get when they are interred in public schools. We can't have it both ways, so every parent must look honestly at what they are doing for their children's education and ask if it honors God or exalts man. I think we all know what the answer is.

Romney pushing the panic button?

Looks like the coiffed one is really scared that he is going to lose Michigan. According to the Detroit Free Press, he is pulling ads in other states to focus on Michigan where he is losing ground to McCain and Huckabee....

A relaxed Romney, the Bloomfield Hills native and former Massachusetts governor, made several stops Wednesday in Grand Rapids, following his disappointing second-place finish in New Hampshire. His campaign announced it was adding emphasis to the Michigan campaign, pulling television ads in South Carolina and Florida to beef up Michigan. He also added an appearance Monday before the Detroit Economic Club.

That doesn't sound good for Romney, and he is waaaay behind in the polls in South Carolina and Florida. If he fails to do better than second in Michigan, and distant thirds in Florida and South Carolina the question becomes how much more of his own money does he pour into a losing cause?

New Huckabee TV ad



A new ad is running in Michigan. Not sure I care for the shots at Romney for coming from a wealthy family, but it should play well in Michigan. Romney is going to be in serious trouble if he loses in Michigan and the latest polls show him trailing McCain badly, with McCain at 29%, Romnet at 20% and Huckabee at 18%. If Huckabee passes Romney and he ends up with a bronze (to use his annoying olympic analogy), Romney is in serious trouble.

Only five days until the Michigan primary!

Another sign of a great season and a great future....

Not only did the Cleveland Browns exceed all expectations and finish 10-6, just missing the playoffs, but rookie left tackle Joe Thomas was named to the 2008 NFL Pro Bowl. The left tackle, typically guarding the right handed quarterback's blind side, is the most important position on the offensive line and finding a good left tackle is tough. Finding a great one is tougher and the Browns hit a home run with Thomas. They did pass over Rookie of the Year Adrian Peterson, but the O-line was a more pressing need and Peterson has had some injury issues. Overall number one pick JaMarcus Russel did a whole bunch of nothing in his rookie season (373 yards passing, 2 TDs, 4 INTs, paltry 55.9 QB rating) and number two pick Calvin Johnson, the latest Lions wideout selection had 756 yards receiving and 4 TDs, not a bad season but hardly a great one. With a franchise left tackle, a supreme specimen at tight end in Kellen Winslow, a budding superstar at wideout in Braylon Edwards, and two good quarterbacks the Browns seemed poised to threaten for the AFC North in 2008. If they can pick up some defensive players in free agency and the draft, they will become the team to beat next year in the North. Of course that is a pretty big if...

GO BROWNS!

Disappointing...

One of my favorite writers for National Review online is Jay Nordlinger. Unfailingly clever, staunchly anti-communist, a music critic and free Cuba advocate, his columns are always entertaining, educational and thought provoking. But his recent column takes a shot at Huckabee that is both a cheap shot and an ignorant one

One more word about politics, while I’m fulminating: In early days, when Huckabee was a fringe candidate, he was kind of entertaining and endearing — a charming goober, adorning the campaign. Now that he is a major candidate, he is positively unnerving — with his incredibly naïve views about foreign policy. Views not so different from Barack Obama’s.

And we’re in the middle of a war, both the shooting kind and the “cold” kind (if you consider the war against Islamofascism another long, twilight struggle, as I do).

If the two major-party nominees are Obama and Huckabee: What differences will they stress? Their skin color?

That was ugly and inaccurate on a number of levels. Obama is a fanatic about being pro-abortion, as evidenced by this Townhall.com editorial by Terence Jeffrey that I linked to from the NRO website! Now you may not like some stuff about Huckabee but he is the most consistent pro-life candidate out there. Jay, do you really think that the only difference between Huckabee and Obama is their skin color? Huckabee is a solid Second Amendment supporter, an advocate of radical changes to the tax code, of school choice and home schooling. Other than failing to march the party line on President Bush's Iraq policy, where is the similarity between Obama and Huckabee? That is like suggesting that Romney and Ted Kennedy are one and the same because they both were elected to political positions in Mass. Truly a disappointing comment from a man who normally is sober minded and clear thinking, but in this case has been drinking the National Review anti-Huckabee Kool-Aid.

WWJD or WHJD?

What would Jesus do or what has Jesus done? You really can’t understand what Jesus would do unless you read His Word, and His Word is all about what He has done.

Unfortunately few people seem interested in hearing about what was accomplished on the cross and why. God may be used, but He is not worshipped. Church is about making moral people better. Relevance trumps orthodoxy. The precious combination of worshipping God in spirit and in truth has tilted to the spirit side so heavily that truth has become almost irrelevant. The Christian life supersedes becoming a Christian. Programs have replaced Gospel evangelism (i.e. not "walking an aisle" but recognizing the sin in your life and throwing yourself on the mercy of God through the sacrifice of His Son). Assuming that the audience, that he person you are speaking or preaching to is already a Christian, is a dangerous thing but that is what happens too often by those who seek fellowship and political gain over the saving of souls.

What Jesus would do in a given situation is an important question, but it pales in comparison to proclaiming what Jesus has done. His work, finished, complete and perfect on the cross and demonstrated in the empty tomb is the pinnacle, the focus of Christianity. Christ did not come to make good people better, He came to redeem His people, to gather His sheep, and His people are a motley group of depraved sinners, dead in their trespasses and naturally enemies of God. His work is a work of reconciliation, not morality. The Gospel is not an instruction manual to address specific situations, although it does do that. The Gospel is a stark contrast between the holiness of God and the sin of man, that through one man, all men fell and that by one Man, Christ Jesus, those who believe may be reconciled and saved.

The boys on The White Horse Inn have started a new theme for 2008, the theme of a Christ-less Christianity. It is a theme with an almost endless supply of examples, examples of churches that reject the Gospel, dumb down the Word or more likely kill their witness through indifference. The bold yet humble proclamation of the Gospel has become an object of disdain, it is bad form and rude to tell people that they are sinners. Far easier to rail against abortion, gay marriage, Harry Potter or any other of a myriad of superficial issues. But to look a man or woman in the eye, and tell them that they are a sinner bound inexorably for hell unless they place their faith in Christ is uncomfortable for all involved, especially when you recognize that as a Christian you are not inherently worthy of heaven but are saved from eternal hell by, and only by, the sovereign election and grace of Jesus Christ. Telling sweet Mabel, the 90 year old church stalwart and prayer warrior, that she is saved from hell in spite of her own righteousness rather than because of her righteousness is a hard thing to do. But it is necessary to be honest about the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

What is most disturbing is that not many churches openly and intentionally set Christ aside. I would daresay that most churches think they are being faithful followers of Christ, but somehow have managed to not proclaim the Word. They call themselves conservative, Bible believing, evangelical, all the buzz words. But being ultra-conservative does not mean one is proclaiming the Gospel.

If you are not a Christian, the end of time or the end of your life, one or the other, will come some day and you will stand before a holy God and all of your sins exposed. There will be no cross-examination, no legal trickery, no procedural claims. Your life will stand as a testimony, and your condemnation will be sure and will be just. Eternity will await, and that eternity will be spent in hell.

If you are a Christian, never forget. NEVER forget that Jesus Christ died on a cross for you. His hands and feet were nailed to a cross, His side was pierced by a spear, He was raised up on that hill and mocked by sinners for not saving Himself.

Huh, more people carrying guns legally equals lower gun violence?

From the Detroit Free Press:

Michigan sees fewer gun deaths — with more permits

Six years after new rules made it much easier to get a license to carry concealed weapons, the number of Michiganders legally packing heat has increased more than six-fold.

But dire predictions about increased violence and bloodshed have largely gone unfulfilled, according to law enforcement officials and, to the extent they can be measured, crime statistics.

The incidence of violent crime in Michigan in the six years since the law went into effect has been, on average, below the rate of the previous six years. The overall incidence of death from firearms, including suicide and accidents, also has declined.

Isn't that the opposite of what we are always warned? The breathless warnings that concealed carry permits will lead to blood running in the streets? Wild west style shootouts in the streets over every little slight or insult? The reality is that allowing law abiding citizens to legally be trained, registered and carry firearms (which are still legal in this country) does not in any way increase gun violence.

This is the illogical argument of gun control advocates boils down to this: making something illegal does not discourage criminals! They are already committing crimes. That is why we call them criminals! Someone inclined to commit a crime is not going to be dissuaded from using a gun by making it illegal. Someone inclined to steal a car is not discouraged because stealing cars is illegal. They are discouraged by harsh penalties for breaking the law. The focus should be on punishing those who commit crimes, not those who follow the legal process for owning and carrying a legal firearm.

In a related note, Mike Huckabee has the exact right attitude about gun rights in America. It is not about hunting or self-defense in the home. From his position paper on the 2nd Amendment:

They knew that a government facing an armed populace was less likely to take away our rights, while a disarmed population wouldn't have much hope. As Ronald Reagan reminded us, "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction." Without our Second Amendment rights, all of our other rights aren't inalienable, they're just "on loan" from the government.

Other candidates say gun control doesn't affect hunting. Now I'm a very avid hunter, but the Second Amendment isn't really about hunting. It's about tyranny and self-defense. The Founding Fathers weren't worried about our being able to bag a duck or a deer, they were worried about our keeping our fundamental freedoms.

Quite right! Every right we have as citizens is dependent on the 2nd Amendment, on the ability of an armed populace to keep the government in check. It is only the 2nd Amendment that keeps our other freedoms secure.