Irony Alert!

How dare the mormon church have an opinion!

I am clearly no fan or supporter of the mormon church, but the apoplexy of the radical homosexual movement towards the mormon church deserves ridicule. How dare they have a stance on California's Proposition 8! From Fox News...

SALT LAKE CITY — Utah's growing tourism industry and the star-studded Sundance Film Festival are being targeted for a boycott by bloggers, gay rights activists and others seeking to punish the Mormon church for its aggressive promotion of California's ban on gay marriage.

It could be a heavy price to pay. Tourism brings in $6 billion a year to Utah, with world-class skiing, a spectacular red rock country and the film festival founded by Robert Redford, among other popular tourist draws.

"At a fundamental level, the Utah Mormons crossed the line on this one," said gay rights activist John Aravosis, an influential blogger in Washington, D.C.

"They just took marriage away from 20,000 couples and made their children bastards," he said. "You don't do that and get away with it."

I hate to state the obvious, but they didn't "take away" anything. There was never a legitimate right in California for homosexuals to hold a ceremony and demand it be recognized as a legal marriage. It was a "right" created out of thin air by the judiciary, a "right" that was rejected by California voters.

"At this point, the Californians are the victims and the Mormons are the persecutors," he said. "We had won this until they swept in ... We need to send a message to Utah that they need to stop trying to inflict their way of life on every other state."

Uh, I hate to point this out, but the vote was held in California, not Utah. Utahans didn't get to vote in the California elections. Since when do people who exercise their democratic right to vote become "victims"? Victims of who? Themselves? I guess it is OK for out of state donations to come in to support gay "marriage" but not advocacy to defend traditional marriage. What is truly frightening is that these people probably don't even realize the extent of their hypocrisy and they will have an enormous, disproportionate voice in the Obama administration and the Democrat controlled congress. And when you start tinkering with marriage laws, you invariably cause a ripple effect that impacts other states. Why should the California judiciary get to make up a right where none exists, and then the same advocates who pushed for it become outraged and riot when the people get to cast their ballot and restore the traditional definition of marriage?

Once again we see the liberal end game, why liberalism leads to socialism which leads totalitarianism. The self-appointed elite few anoint themselves wiser and more progressive than anyone else, and when the majority of people reject their ideology, they resort to legal maneuvering, intimidation, incarceration and violence to inflict their will on others. After all, the unwashed masses can't be trusted to vote for themselves. We will tell them what to think, it is for their own good after all.

Happy Birthday!

Evangelist Billy Graham turns 90 today, and is in pretty poor health by all accounts. Much as I disagree with much of his theology, he has preached the Gospel to millions over his lifetime. He will be sorely missed when he passes. Few people have impacted religion like Billy Graham has.

When Paul Edwards bemoaned the seeming lack of new conservative Christian leaders today on his radio show today, saying that he didn't really see any out there, a caller said that he shouldn't try to see the next generation, but be the next generation. We need to get away from the rock star leader mentality and seek to be faithful wherever God has placed us. That may be in leadership in a church, or on a mission in a far away country or as a parent of little children right here in our community. We certainly need new leaders, but what we need most of all is faithful Christians who will proclaim, live and teach the Gospel.

Does this sound familiar?

When Samuel became old, he made his sons judges over Israel. The name of his firstborn son was Joel, and the name of his second, Abijah; they were judges in Beersheba. Yet his sons did not walk in his ways but turned aside after gain. They took bribes and perverted justice. Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah and said to him, "Behold, you are old and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now appoint for us a king to judge us like all the nations." But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, "Give us a king to judge us." And Samuel prayed to the LORD. And the LORD said to Samuel, "Obey the voice of the people in all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me from being king over them. According to all the deeds that they have done, from the day I brought them up out of Egypt even to this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are also doing to you. Now then, obey their voice; only you shall solemnly warn them and show them the ways of the king who shall reign over them." (1 Samuel 8:1-9)

The people wanted a man to be king over them, a man to rule them rather than God. They wanted someone else to lead them, someone who would appeal to what they thought a ruler should look like and act like and sound like. Not God who would require sacrifice and humility. So who ended up being the king? A man who on the surface really looks like a great candidate to be king, but turns out to be a disaster.

There was a man of Benjamin whose name was Kish, the son of Abiel, son of Zeror, son of Becorath, son of Aphiah, a Benjaminite, a man of wealth. And he had a son whose name was Saul, a handsome young man. There was not a man among the people of Israel more handsome than he. From his shoulders upward he was taller than any of the people. (1 Samuel 9:1-2)

He was comely, tall and handsome. He stood out in the crowd. People probably naturally liked him. But he was sent to these people not as a blessing, but a reproach to those who sought to throw off the lordship of God for a human leader. Saul turns out to be not so great a king. Just ask David! He became paranoid, crazed, he worshipped God in unauthorized ways and eventually he and his sons died, Saul by suicide.

It is reported that a large percentage of so-called evangelicals rejected their King and voted for a man who suited them better. Could it be that the man elected over us has been sovereignly placed over us as a reproach instead of a blessing?

Very exciting news!

The complete collection of John MacArthur's sermon audio is now available, free of charge, on the Grace To You website. You can check them out here.

Dr. MacArthur is a blessing to the church and his preaching, while not flashy by today's standards, is rock-solid, verse by verse, chapter by chapter exposition.

For shame

Something is going to happen this year that has never happened in my lifetime. For the first time since 1967, the University of Michigan football team will end the season with a losing record. In 1967, Bump Elliot was the coach. Now we have the shady Rich Rodriguez running the show and after one season, not many people are impressed.

I am glad Bo is not around to see this.

Welcome to Obamanation

As expected, Barack Obama has been elected President of the United States. The first black President, indeed the first non-white male president in our nations history. He is also one of the most far left men politically to hold the Presidency. As incompetent as the McCain campaign was, and as complicit in the victory as the mainstream media was, Senator Obama ran a great campaign. Always focused, always seizing the initiative, driving the conversation, staying on message. It was a nearly perfectly run campaign, kudos to Senator Obama and his staff (plus keeping Joe Biden from saying anything stupid!)

The good news? It looks like the GOP will maintain enough seats in the Senate to be able to block and force negotiations on the far left agenda that is coming to America. That may help to blunt some of the "change" Obama is going to inflict on America and damper some of his enthusiasm for nominating far left judges.

More "good news"? As big as Obama's win was, it pales in comparison to Reagan's wins and the map shows that this country is still highly divided. The country is not unified around Obama like it was unified around Reagan.

More good news, this will give conservatives some time to think over what went wrong. In a nutshell, conservatives complained about liberalism for decades and then when the people voted them to in change things, they started acted like big government liberals

Conservatives are back in the political wilderness where we haven't been since the late 70's, but out of that era came Ronald Reagan and a new, resurgent unapologetic conservatism. We have had a GOP president for 20 of the last 28 years. Let's hope that Obama is a one term reminder of why liberalism doesn't work. It will be interesting to see how conservatism reacts, and whether we set aside our minor differences to start working on retaking the Congress and removing Obama from office in four years. That work starts right now.

Unlike liberals, who at their heart hate America and what she stands for, conservatives love this country. We will not threaten to move to Canada like petulant children pouting over a loss. We got what we deserved, and now it is time to start working to win the trust of the American people back and remind them that socialism doesn't work. It didn't work in the Soviet Union, it doesn't work in Cuba, China or North Korea and it will not work here.

What we are seeing tonight

Not to take anything away from Obama, who ran a very disciplined campaign and should be commended, but the message tonight in many ways is one of a failure by conservatives to...

a) present a coherent case for conservatism

b) show why conservatives in government govern differently from liberals

The next few days and even months will be a time of introspection, and what comes from that will determine whether Obama '08 is an aberration or a sign of a long-term change.

An encouraging blog

Like most parents, I often despair for the current generation of young people. Especially those growing up in the church, who often seem to be little different from the rest of the world. That is why blogs like A Quill and Inkwell are encouraging. Written by a young woman from a homeschooling family we know from Northern Michigan, the author has a wonderfully refreshing view on being a young woman in a world that sees them as commodities to be used, consumers to be sold. I commend it to anyone, but especially those who have daughters (and sons!) who are ages ten and up and are facing a world where living for God is something to be mocked. I will encourage my daughters to read and perhaps interact, for edification and encouragement.

Go Vote? Stay Home!

We often hear of a civic duty to vote, get out and vote is the mantra. But really, if you haven’t bothered to really figure out why you are voting for the person you are pulling the lever for, I have a counter-culture statement: STAY HOME!

If you are voting for McCain because you can’t stand the thought of a black man being President, stay home!

If you are voting for McCain because James Dobson says so, stay home!

If you are voting for McCain because he was a POW, stay home!

If you are voting for Barack Obama because he is black, stay home!

If you are voting for Obama because your union says so, stay home!

If you are voting for Obama because he has promised hope and change, stay home!

If you are voting for Ralph Nader or, heaven forbid, Cynthia McKinney for any reason, please, please, please stay home!

Voting is indeed a civic duty, but being an informed voter is part of the equation. If you can’t bother to read up on the candidates and the issues, you are doing yourself a disservice.

Good news for my daughters, not so good for my sons

Study: Attractive Dads Make Ugly Sons, Beautiful Daughters

Beautiful women like Jennifer Lopez and Angelina Jolie can thank their fathers for their good looks, according to a study from the University of St. Andrews in England.

The study found that while attractive dads pass on their good looks to daughters, the sons aren’t quite so lucky, the Daily Telegraph reported.

Professors David Perrett and Elisabeth Cornwell, of University of St. Andrews, said a mother’s beauty makes no difference to her adult sons.

For the study, which is published in the journal Animal Behavior, Perrett and Cornwell studied students’ family photo albums and collected more than 100 photos of females and 100 photos of males and their parents over the years.

The photos were judged separately for attractiveness and femininity or masculinity.

Perrett said it has previously been suggested that a woman could increase her reproductive success by choosing a "sexy" mate, but his study contradicts that theory.

"We checked to see if male and female facial traits are inherited,” he said. “For the male line, we find that facial masculinity conforms to the rule 'like father, like son.’ Masculine dads have masculine sons. But we did not find any evidence that facial attractiveness is passed from father to son.”

A call for a new Reformation in the church

Kabuki

Main Entry: Ka·bu·ki
Pronunciation: \kə-ˈbü-kē, ˈkä-bü-(ˌ)kē\
Function: noun
Etymology: Japanese
Date: 1899

: traditional Japanese popular drama performed with highly stylized singing and dancing

It would seem sadly fitting that 491 years after that day in Wittenberg, Germany we find the church in such dire straits. A lot of what passes for “Christianity” today is gross heresy because the Gospel is watered down to make it less offensive to sinners, and as such it becomes “another gospel” and as such is declared anathema by Paul in his letter to the Galatians. But much of what is declared to be appropriate in “Bible believing”, orthodox churches is little more than a carefully choreographed and stylized dance, with actors who know their roles and carry them out as expected, saying the right thing, looking the right way. Even the churches that are admired as being paragons of "Reformation" thinking are seemingly content to carry on the dance, comfortable that what they are doing is the right thing: Sunday worship=Sunday school+1 hour of singing and preaching+maybe a Sunday evening sermon for an hour.

So what should the church look like? The model now is to dutifully show up on Sunday morning, an hour early for Sunday school if you are especially devout. You sit in your pew, stand up when told to stand up, sit down when told to sit down, drop your check or cash (or pass it on) when the offering plate comes, listen to the announcements, sing a couple of songs when the choir isn’t performing, listening to a sermon for 20-45 minutes and then heading out after the closing prayer. It is highly regulated, the same every week and does very little to foster a “love one another” atmosphere. I have often said in response to the “just love Jesus” crowd, how can you love Him if you don’t have any idea who He is? In the same vein, how can we love one another if we don’t know one another? Church is designed now for us to receive, we listen in Sunday school, we listen to the choir, we listen to the prayer, we listen to the sermon. It is very comfortable and very easy to be anonymous. It is also pretty easy to not get to know anyone, especially as the church gets bigger.

Men like Michael Horton, who is someone who I admire and appreciate for his knowledge and ability to communicate, still buy into the notion that the church is fine in its present form, we just need to modify what is being taught. According to Horton and company on the White Horse Inn, what makes a church a “True Church” is the Word rightly preached and the sacraments rightly administered. Umm, what about Christians? If you have a guy faithfully preaching and passing the wine and bread to a room full of unbelievers, is that a church? Isn’t the church the assembling of the body of Christ under the Word? The focus is not on a faithful preacher, is it? As long as we stay in the church sandbox, we just need the right order of worship, the right exegesis, the right observance of the sacraments. I am a big advocate of deeper study, of expository, verse by verse, chapter by chapter Bible preaching that links one Sunday sermon to the next. But is that all that we need?

As I was watching Luther with my friend James last night, it struck me that when you look at Luther and read his 95 Theses, what Luther was trying to do was reform the church within the framework the church had created. Given the circumstances that is understandable. But we haven't gone much beyond that in the intervening 491 years. We are still content to tinker around in the sandbox, moving the shovel over here and the pail over there.

The need for a fresh reformation is not limited to the egregious false gospel preached in emergent churches or in far left liberal “mainline” Protestantism. It is also found in many of the most “conservative” churches, churches that pride themselves on fidelity to Word and creed and confession, who wear the mantle of “Reformed” like a superhero cape.

This need for reformation goes beyond how we preach, or what music we sing, or the programs we run. It is not about tweaking around the edges, tinkering with the basic model. It goes to how we view the church and how, or if, we get beyond the model of the vast majority of churches. Semper reformanda should not be about returning to the 1950's. Or even the 1600's. Our source should always be the Word of God. Being "Reformed" is not a declaration that we subscribe to this Reformed confession or that creed, but that we seek God's will in the church, in our teaching and preaching, in our prayers, in our worship, in our lives.

So who am I to make such a grandiose, sweeping declaration? What of all the more learned men in the church, shouldn’t they get to decide how the church is run? I should maybe just be quiet and go about my business. Maybe not. I am hardly a modern day Martin Luther, or even a modern day Ulrich Zwingli! I haven’t exactly done a really good job of leading in the church in the past so what business do I have in declaring a need for an overhaul of how we “do church” in America especially but throughout Christendom? I am nobody I guess, but I am one of His sheep and thanks to men like Martin Luther and William Tyndale I can read His Word and because of that and because I love His church, I am concerned. That concern drives me to speak out, not out of anger or out of arrogance but out of fear. Fear that we are worshipping a jealous, holy God in a way that suits us instead of glorifying Him.

I do not have an end-result in mind, a preordained conclusion. I am not calling for the wholesale abandonment of the church, the "steeple house" in favor of so-called "house churches". But I am similarly not content to just muddle through like we are, tinkering around in the sandbox unafraid or unconcerned with why we do what we do because that is just how we have always done it. But I want to think out loud on this public forum, to express what my thoughts are and to encourage constructive conversation and even rebuke if needed. I want to examine every aspect of the church as it exists today, not just in this external or that, but in everything we do, including some of the most cherished traditions we hold.

This is very important to express up front. My intent is not to slander any of the multitude of godly men who lead our churches today, or the people who attend and serve, or the men raised up by God in the past upon whose shoulders we stand. This thought process is NOT an indictment of any church I have, am or will attend or any individual who I have been taught by, sat under the preaching of, or even anyone who has sat under my teaching or preaching. But the human heart, whether mine or Calvin’s or John MacArthur’s, tends to wander like the sheep we are. We need constant reflection in the mirror of Scripture to see if what we are doing is worship authorized by God or if it is strange fire. That is my intent, and that is my only intent. I invite you to think and pray and study along with me, and see where it leads.

More adventures in public education

How can our poor kids miss out on stuff like this?

School Clams Up on 'Gay' Pledge Cards Given to Kindergartners

A California school system refuses to say what action, if any, it will take after it received complaints about a kindergarten teacher who encouraged her students to sign "pledge cards" in support of gays.

During a celebration of National Ally Week, Tara Miller, a teacher at the Faith Ringgold School of Arts and Science in Hayward, Calif., passed out cards produced by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network to her class of kindergartners.

The cards asked signers to be "an ally" and to pledge to "not use anti-LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) language or slurs; intervene, when I feel I can, in situations where others are using anti-LGBT language or harassing other students and actively support safer schools efforts."

The school has acknowledged that the exercise was not appropriate for kindergartners.

Parent Adela Voelker, who declined to be interviewed in depth for this report, said she was furious when she found her child's signature on one of the cards. She said she contacted a non-profit legal defense organization specializing in parents' rights.

It is not about education, it is about indoctrination. It is about separating the child from the parent, so they can be filled with a more "enlightened", "open-minded" worldview and reject the closed minded views of parents. Public education, at it's core, is not about teaching children to think, it is about developing children who think a certain way. If parents won't teach them to think properly, the education establishment will do all it can to get their ideological hooks into kids earlier, deeper and keep those hooks in later. That is what is behind the universal preschool, universal college movement.