Thursday, January 31, 2008

The man who has claimed the title of "True Conservative"

Mitt Romney is jumping all over McCain for not being a genuine conservative, but the facts speak loud and clear. These clips of Romney trying to out-liberal Ted Kennedy show that Romney is nothing but a weathervane. When the wind blows left, he shouts out the liberal party line. When the wind blows right, he is the second coming of Ronald Reagan. He tells us he is the real conservative in the race, but who knows which Mitt Romney will show up after the inauguration, Ronald Reagan Jr. or Ted Kennedy Light?

Monday, January 28, 2008

The passing of a "prophet"

Gordon B. Hinckley, President and "Prophet, seer and revelator" of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints died yesterday at the age of 97. Hinckley was the president of the mormon church when we became mormons and is the only mormon president we have known. A kindly and jovial fellow, Hinckley will likely be remembered as the man who led the explosion in the number of mormon temples. When we first joined the mormon church, the number of temples was very limited especially in the Eastern United States. There were around 45 or so temples, mostly in the West and overseas. Today there are 124 with a dozen more in the works. For mormons that will be his legacy, making the temple more accessible than ever before. Hinckley led a church that in his 13 years at the helm underwent a lot of changes. He was very visible, appearing on Larry King Live a number of times, often being less than honest about mormon beliefs but being the public face of his faith in a way unlike any of his predecessors. During his tenure, the Olympics came to Salt Lake City, mormonism spread outside of the borders of Utah and other western states to become a national religion and underwent increased scrutiny, especially with the Presidential campaign of Mitt Romney. Hinckley will be replaced by Thomas Monson, "called" to be prophet by being the oldest of the mormon apostles. It will be interesting to see what kind of President Monson will make.

There is a knee-jerk reaction when someone dies, especially religious folks, to arbitrarily declare them to be in heaven (case in point the evangelical church leaders falling over themselves declaring Pope John Paul II to be heaven bound). It is inappropriate in most cases to make that sort of sweeping generalization, and especially in this case. It may seem unseemly to speak thus of one who has just died, but it is necessary. If Hinckley died as he lived, he died outside of Christ no differently than a Muslim or an atheist, and his eternal destiny is the same. The Bible is clear on his fate. It doesn't matter how nice he was, or how many kind works he performed or oversaw, or how sincere his faith was. He believed in a false god, and stood unreconciled with the God of the Bible. Because of that he remains in his sins and is condemned. How can I say that about a man who spoke so often and so reverently the name Jesus Christ? Because he, and all mormons, revere a different Jesus and a different gospel. They worship a Christ who is not God, who is a created, perfected being. They add to and subtract from the Gospel and Word of Christ. They denigrate Him by seeking to add their own righteousness and works to His Grace. Simply invoking the name Jesus Christ in conversation is inadequate to be called a Christian. When Christ asked Peter "But who do you say that I am?", He asked the big question and that question has only one answer. Answer that question incorrectly, fail to see and give glory to Christ for who He is and revealed Himself to be, and it matters not how reverently or often you speak the name of Jesus Christ. Gordon B. Hinckley failed that simple test, as so many others have throughout the centuries.

My ongoing concern is not for him, as he has passed from this life to await judgment. My concern is for those who are still alive in mormonism, who believe wholeheartedly in a lie, who believe in a false prophet, who wrote false Scriptures and worships a false god. It is too late for Gordon Hinckley, but it is not too late for those who followed him. I pray that mormons around the world will have the opportunity to examine what their church teaches in the days following Hinckley's death and come to see how they diverge from Christianity.

Sunday, January 27, 2008

A couple of random news items that caught my eye...

Most irrelevant endorsement award 2008

For some reason, this item made the news...

Liz Cheney, Vice President Dick Cheney’s daughter and former co-chair of Fred Thompson’s presidential campaign, has signed on as a senior foreign policy adviser to Mitt Romney’s campaign.

Cheney, a State Department principal deputy assistant secretary who was responsible for Middle East and North Africa initiatives, could help blunt charges by John McCain that Romney is weak on foreign policy issues.

“I am proud to support Governor Romney. Throughout this campaign, he has distinguished himself as a leader who can guide our country with a clear vision for overcoming the threats we face today,” Cheney said in a statement released by the campaign on Sunday.

I consider myself fairly "in-the-know" about politics and I had no idea this person existed. I am sure she is great, the mother of five, works for the state department etc., but why is her endorsement newsworthy? Is Mitt's campaign so desperate that this becomes newsworthy, or they think this makes people more likely to vote for Mitt? I may be wishy washy on positions, but Liz Cheney supports me!

In another news item, a burglar stole a crown belonging to a Greek Orthodox bishop, Bishop Metropolitan Isaiah (cool name by the way!)

ARLINGTON, Texas — A burglar who broke into a Greek Orthodox bishop's car made off with quite a haul, but fencing one of the stolen items could prove difficult.

Among the items stolen from Bishop Metropolitan Isaiah's car was a jeweled crown of gold and silver, which Isaiah estimated to be worth between $6,000 and $10,000.

Isaiah, who is based in Denver and is bishop for the Northwest region of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, said he was dining with others at a restaurant when the break-in occurred. He said the car was parked in a well-lit spot.

"We came out at 10 o'clock, and the window was smashed," he said.

The burglar also made off with a copy of the New Testament, a veil, a cell phone and a black fabric bag. The bag had special meaning to the ex-Marine because it was given to him years ago by the widow of a fellow Marine.

Isaiah offered a reward of at least $1,000 if the crown is returned without damage.

"That was the first gift I received as a bishop 22 years ago," he said. "I feel lost without it."

At a vespers service Saturday night, he was the only priest with no head covering.
"I just hope and pray that those who took it will have a change of heart," he said.

What in the world is a man who claims the title of bishop doing wearing a bejeweled crown worth as much as $10,000? The One who is truly a King, the One who is worthy of a crown never sought such adornment. When men claim to represent Christ and yet adorn themselves with costly jewels and raiment, one has to wonder who their audience is, the Lord or men. I don't care if the thieves return the crown, but I do hope that they read the New Testament they stole and perhaps if it is His will it will change their lives.

Saturday, January 26, 2008

Your best eternity someday

What has happened to the church in America? How did we get here, when we can’t even talk about the cross because we refuse to talk about sin? The White Horse Inn is continuing it's discussion of the state of the church in America "Crossless Christianity 2008", and their show last week focused on the poster boy for the "here and now, health & wealth, psychobabble gospel" peddled in churches today, Joel Osteen. I know I take shots at Osteen on a regular basis, and believe me it is not jealousy because I would not want to be in his shoes explaining his teachings standing before his Lord. I am terrified of answering for my own substantial failings, much less his! The words of James are pretty sobering for any who teach in the church: "Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness." (James 3:1 ESV)

The discussion on the White Horse Inn raises a number of questions. We know that what Osteen teaches is a watered down (at best) message that misses key points of Christian doctrine. What is the focus of the church? Should it be on how to live the Christian life, how to be a better father /mother /husband /wife / neighbor etc.? How to make a generally moral person even more moral? To make the people in the pews feel better about themselves and reach their potential? Perhaps worst of all, to be prosperous and wealthy thanks to a groveling God who is obligated to give you money in this life to earn your worship? As if being saved from hell is an inadequate amount of grace? What is, or what should, be the message received for both Christian and non-Christian alike when in a church? Shouldn't it be that God created man, man fell willingly into a state of sin, that man failed again and again to live up to God's standards by our own efforts so God sent His only begotten Son to live a perfect, sinless life, be unjustly condemned and crucified, only to rise on the third day and in doing so redeeming His elect sheep and that He is coming to gather those who are given to Him by the Father some day? If you aren't hearing that message from the church, where are you going to hear it?

For far too many churches and Christians, all of the attention is on the immediate, not what has God done for me and what will He do in the future. If your focus is on the here and now, your focus is in the wrong place. There is no way that you can read the Bible and get the impression that God promises or even intends to make this earthly existence trouble free. Those days are coming, but not until Christ comes for His people. The life of Christians for 2000 years has been hard, full of persecution and hate, hard times and suffering. Read the letters of Paul, do you think he was living his best life in those days?

One of the best lines was this one: "Osteen’s ministry is so void of doctrine that it is not even worthy of being labeled heresy!" You can't even go line by line and refute what he is teaching because it is so shallow. You are better off interacting with a Veggietales DVD, the doctrine is far deeper!

Another great line summarizes Osteen's ministry, his view of what the Gospel is all about: “Salvation from unhappiness by doing your best” Guess what, your best isn’t good enough! But His is. He didn't die on a cross so you can have a Mercedes, He died as a propitiation for sin for His elect, dying for them while we were still sinners to reconcile us to God and save us from Hell.

If the church is going to recover from the slide into relativism, we need to pray for God to raise up men like Spurgeon, D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones and John Piper, men who will stand in the pulpit and unashamedly declare "Thus sayeth the Lord". It is not always popular, it is not going to give people warm fuzzies and it may not get you invited to the most lucrative conferences to speak, but those called to teach in the church are held to a much higher standard and will in the end be called to account for the message they taught. Let's pray for men to be raised up who care more about answering to their Lord instead of answering to their human critics.

Thursday, January 24, 2008

Creeping Calvinism...

Christianity Today has put out some decent articles on the reawakening of Calvinism among Evangelicals, including Young, Restless and Reformed, a great look at the trend toward Reformed theology among younger Christians. Their latest article is not one of them. Titled TULIP Blooming, the focus is on the growing concern among many old school, Arminian Southern Baptist leaders about the rise of Calvinism in the SBC, especially in our seminaries. The article is too short and very shallow. If you can't do justice to a subject, you ought not bring it up. The opening story is priceless:

The pastor of First Baptist Church in Pauls Valley, Oklahoma, for 27 years, Joe Elam only encountered Calvinism once during his ministry—and it left a bitter taste in his mouth.

Though forbidden to do so, a former youth pastor at his church secretly taught predestination to teens, Elam said, sowing seeds of lingering division among several families.

"It was a wake-up call for us," said Elam, who recently led the Arbuckle Baptist Association to adopt a motion calling on the Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma to rebuke Reformed theology. It sent copies of the motion to all members of the Southern Baptist Convention's executive committee.

"We would like to see Southern Baptists become aware that [their] money is being used to teach Calvinism in our seminaries," Elam said.

I love the tone, secretly teaching predestination as if the unnamed youth pastor were starting some cabal of young Calvinists, meeting in secret in the dark of the night, wearing black robes and chanting in dungeons lit with candles. Talk about overreaction! (I especially like that he was "forbidden" to teach predestination. Imagine forbidding someone in a pastoral role from teaching a Biblical doctrine!)

Timmy Brister responded to this assertion in the article by Southern Baptist President Frank Page:

"The totality of history shows the vast majority of Baptists have not been [Calvinists], so why go back to the founders?" Page said. "I think we need to go back to the Bible."

Clearly that is not accurate. Those who insist that Calvinism is derived strictly from R.C. Sproul books and John Piper sermons, rather than the Bible, are either painfully ignorant or willfully and maliciously misrepresenting Calvinism. I am not sure which possibility is more disturbing in Frank Page's case. Brister makes a great point in this statement:

Of course, with Page’s argument, we are led to believe that what the Founders of the SBC believed and taught was something contrary to the Bible. As a president of the SBC, I find it remarkable that our top figure would state that our convention adhered to doctrines not founded in Scripture. Now it is apparent to all that Dr. Page has had trouble with TULIP, and that is fine if he disagrees or has differences (though I think his arguments are presumptuous and problematic). However, having trouble with TULIP should not thereby constitute trouble with Baptist history.

Precisely! To suggest that Calvinism is not based on Biblical theology (you may disagree with the conclusions, but you can't deny it's basis in Scripture), or denying that the founding fathers of the SBC were largely Reformed (as demonstrated in airtight citation by Founders Ministry) or that it leads to anti-missionary fervor (tell that to the father of modern missions and Calvinist William Carey) is ignorant. The biggest obstacle to honest discussions among Evangelicals about soteriology is the refusal by Arminians to move past empty assertions and strawmen and get down to Scripture. For Page to suggest we get back to the Bible is great advice, but not if you are dealing with presumptions that leave no room for dialogue. I came to Reformed theology not because I was brainwashed by Al Mohler and John MacArthur, but in reading the Word of God. Through the Bible my stubborn insistence on my own autonomy in salvation was shattered by the overwhelming weight of Scripture that God is Sovereign, and I am not.

Tuesday, January 22, 2008

The anniversary of an American holocaust

Today we "celebrate" the 35th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision that created a "right" to have an abortion on demand whole cloth from the Constitution, a decision that only using the most tortured of logic can make sense. According to National Right to Life, the death toll of legalized abortion in America is approaching 50 million. Dwell on that number.


For comparison purposes, it is estimated that approximately 60 million people died in World War II. So in the course of 3 1/2 decades, we have systematically wiped out whole generations of Americans, sacrificed on the bloody altar of choice.

There is no lack of commentary on both sides of the abortion debate. But in the annals of ignorant commentaries, this one from the Cleveland Plain Dealer may take the cake. Titled Sorry, boys, but abortion is a women's issue, the author Connie Schultz attempts to make the case that men have no say in the abortion debate, due to our lack of wombs.

Every spring, a local boys' high school makes me their class project.

A stream of anti-abortion e-mail suddenly fills my inbox, courtesy of male adolescents whose time would be better spent focusing on their own role in preventing pregnancies they will never have to bear.

How do these boys figure that a woman's womb is any of their business? How do men, for that matter?

Since when do we legislate with only one gender in mind? Ms. Schultz essentially advocates disenfranchsing half of the population. Isn't that something that this country formerly did to women? Let's look at how that logic could be applied. Since technically only men serve in military combat roles, perhaps we should exclude women from voting for President? Or female members of congress could no longer serve on armed forces committees or vote on military expenditures. Should only certain ethnicities be allowed a voice on issue of discrimination? She goes on....

Recently, for example, I criticized in a column those who claim to be pro-life but did not care one bit for the plight of immigrants' children. I still loathe that kind of hypocrisy, but some readers who oppose abortion rights, most of them women, asked me not to lump them in with the extremists.

They, too, deplored the treatment of an immigrant mother who was separated for 11 days from her nursing infant. Many also agreed that men have too many opinions about an issue that affects only those with a womb.

As if only leftists and pro-abortinists care about those children fortunate to have escaped being butchered by abortionists. If you make it through the gauntlet of choice, we are your biggest advocates! Try telling that to the volunteers at crisis pregnancy centers who give time, money and love to scared young women, offering them a real choice other than aborting their child. Tell that to the volunteers at church food pantries, who pass out food cheerfully week after week to those in need, many of whom are single mothers. I guess they don't really care about children after all.

Abortion is a horror in and of itself, and a stain on the national honor of America, but demagogues like Ms. Schultz compound the scourge abortion with hypocrisy and misinformation. I pray America repents of the crime we have perpetrated in our nation and that God will forgive us all for the blood on our collective hands, the blood of innocents.
(There was an excellent discussion of this, sober and broken-hearted, on the Albert Mohler Show today...)

Sunday, January 20, 2008

Where do we draw the line on heresy?

What makes one a heretic?

We have been discussing heresy in Sunday school at Indian River Baptist Church and it raised the question in my mind: what makes one a heretic? I mean besides the obvious things, when is it OK to call someone a heretic?

Heresy is a word we toss about, and I especially do, fairly cavalierly. Phil Johnson has a whole section on his webpage of famous heretics throughout the ages. It seems the easy thing to do, when faced with something we disagree with strongly, to throw down the heresy card to end discussion.

Some things are fairly easy to diagnose as heresy. Mormonism is clearly a heresy. The same with the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Both cult groups deny such fundamental doctrines of the Bible that they stand clearly outside the pale of orthodox Christianity. The list of obvious heretics is pretty lengthy and easy to identify. What is far more difficult, and far more dangerous, is when we point the finger of heresy at someone within the church. On the one hand we don’t have the option to ignore or brush over false teaching and false teachers in our midst. Yet we also must be careful to not label genuine brothers and sisters in Christ as heretics without justification.

Just disagreeing with someone on a point of doctrine is not a sign of heresy. I feel baptizing infants is un-Biblical and constitutes an inaccurate way of administering the sacrament of baptism. I would not be a member of a church where infant baptism was performed. Yet some of my closest and dearest friends are paedobaptists. I would feel perfectly justified in telling them, cheerfully and in Christian love, that I think that baptizing their infant is improper, but to call them a heretic? Hardly. I would no sooner call R.C. Sproul a heretic than I would label John MacArthur the same. Both hold very different views on baptism and ecclesiology, but that doesn’t mean that one is right and one is a heretic.

Doing something differently is not a sure sign of heresy. The sign of orthodoxy is not that a church follows the traditions set forth over the last hundred years. Granted, a lot of heretical movements have very obvious oddities in their worship services, and the excessive exuberance can be a warning sign. But many heretical churches have very sober, somber services with a seriousness that would please the most starched shirt Baptist. But seriousness is not a marker of orthodoxy anymore than casual services are a sign of unorthodoxy.

Where does that leave us? What is the magic line that differentiates disagreement over doctrine with heresy. Is N.T. Wright a heretic because of his views on the New Perspective on Paul? Is Joel Osteen because of his refusal to address sin and his embracing the health, wealth and prosperity gospel? Men like Charles Finney are clearly heretics even though they are embraced by many in the church today, but as always popularity or acceptance is not a hallmark of orthodoxy. But where should we draw the line today? As hard as it is for me to admit, I am not sure I know the answer to that one...

Saturday, January 19, 2008

What does South Carolina mean?

Looks like McCain wins South Carolina, with Huckabee in a close (but no cigar) second. If Huckabee was unable to even win over the evangelical population in a heavily Baptist state, and has yet to really draw from non-Evangelicals, what does that mean for his candidacy?

  1. First that the elite in the conservative movement have poisoned people against Huckabee to the point that they parrot back "facts" about him with no real knowledge of what he has or does stand for. A substantial number of conservatives think that Huckabee is not a genuine conservative, falsely but perhaps fatally.

  2. Second that it is time to start looking soberly at what the future holds with Super Duper Tuesday coming up, money no doubt dwindling fast and the really expensive advertising states on the horizon.

  3. Huckabee may no longer be viable for the top spot, but could be a king-maker and a solid VP candidate (which is what I have thought for some time given his kid gloves approach to McCain)

While a McCain-Huckabee ticket may not be ideal, it sure beats having Romney or Rudy on the ticket. Evangelical voters (I think) can get behind McCain because of his generally pro-life stance and his notable service as a veteran. With Huckabee alongside, it becomes a ticket that will draw evangelicals, moderates and independents. It may not shake out that way, but Huckabee could be potentially one of the most influential VP candidates in a long time, delivering the evangelical vote while not scaring off the more secular middle.

I am not giving up on Huckabee yet, but he needs to win Florida REALLY badly or he better start picking out curtains for the Old Executive Office building. He is running in fourth in Florida according to Real Clear Politics, and a fourth place finish means the end for Huckabee's candidacy.

As a side note, Romney apparently spent $4 million in South Carolina and came in fourth behind Fred Thompson who never really started running. He may lead in the delegate count, but outside of states like Michigan where he has name recognition and Western states like Nevada and Wyoming with overwhelming mormon populations, he hasn't fared all that well. According to the Real Clear Politics national poll, despite winning three states outright, Romney is in a distant third nationally behind McCain and Huckabee. Rudy is fourth and his strategy to wait seems to be backfiring, which is just as well because Evangelical voters have a pretty visceral reaction against him.

Viva la mormon solidarity!

No doubt Mitt will crow over his virtually unopposed win in Nevada. What is getting some attention is that the sizable mormon population in Nevada went for Mitt in a huge way.

On the Republican side, Mormons comprised a quarter of those attending Nevada's GOP caucuses, and more than nine in 10 were voting for Romney. Romney is a Mormon, and his religion has been cited as a problem by some Republican voters.

About half of Romney's overall vote in Nevada came from Mormons.

With Huckabee, McCain and Thomson fighting it out in South Carolina, Romney had Nevada to himself with Ron Paul. The real horse race has nothing to do with the state where betting on it is legal. It is all about South Carolina and the upcoming Florida race. But like everything else about Mitt, the Nevada win is all show and no substance.

Ergun Caner, sole arbiter of being a "real" Baptist

Dr. Caner posted a blog entry about Liberty University reinserting the name "Baptist" into the seminary name. I am an on again, off again student in the Distance Learning program of the seminary and I didn't know the name had been dropped...

In an era when denominational identification is anathema, the Liberty Theological Seminary has retrofitted its name to the Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary. The irony is the man who lead the seminary to take Baptist out of the name is also the one who lobbied to reinsert it, the President of the Seminary, Dr. Ergun Mehmet Caner.

But as is normal with Dr. Caner, he can't avoid taking shots at the evil Calvinist hordes pretending to be Baptists!

“However, since 2004, much as changed, both here at Liberty University and in the Southern Baptist Convention. Too many schools have Baptist in their name but not in their doctrine. Some have drifted into liberalism and cultural relativism; still others remain orthodox, but have drifted toward non-Baptist reformed doctrine and cultural isolationism. For us, this was our line in the sand. We want to build bridges to a lost world without burning the bridges of our doctrinal heritage. We are putting Baptist back in our name, and taking back a term that has been misused.“We want to train students from across the evangelical spectrum, in the classic Baptistic stance of our Anabaptist tradition and Sandy Creek revivalistic heritage. These doctrines include:

• The inerrancy of Scripture

General atonement

• Free church polity and pastoral authority

• Missions obsession

• Imminent return of Christ

It just made sense, following the vision of our founder and the new chancellor, to proudly state that we are Baptist with a capital “B.” Since 1525, the word Baptist has meant something and it still does at Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary.”

I guess what "it means" is that anyone who doesn't hold to Arminian general atonement just isn't Baptist enough for Dr. Caner. It should have been clear from the title of the blog post "Liberty Baptist Seminary and “Building Bridges” that Caner was freaked out by the recent Building Bridges Conference and the idea, the horror!, that good, authentic Arminian Baptists would speak civilly and attempt to build bridges with the unwashed hordes of Calvinist pseudo-Baptists! I imagine he wrote each of the Arminian speakers and suspended their status as real Baptists for six months.

I would ask if that means that Dr. Caner doesn't believe that Charles Spurgeon was an authentic Calvinist, but having listened to his lectures in a History of Baptists course I realize that like Michael Pearl and so many others, Dr. Caner refuses to recognize that Spurgeon even was a Calvinist. Dr. Caner's quest has so infected his thinking that he refuses to even consider Reformed Baptists to be "real" baptists.

Thursday, January 17, 2008

A very important Albert Mohler show...

Dr. Mohler addressed, by name, one of the most famous religious personalities in the world on today's Albert Mohler show. The personality? Joel Osteen and Dr. Mohler didn't hide his concern over what comes out of Osteen's mouth. He pretty much called him a heretic and pointed out that he teaches what amounts to "another gospel".

Dr. Mohler made two great points that really strike at the heart of what is wrong with Osteen's "ministry"...

1) Would anybody listening to Joel Osteen messages possible come to a knowledge of his or her need as a sinner for a savior and how to be saved through Jesus Christ?

2) You can’t talk about the Gospel without talking about sin.

Both of those should give pause to anyone who follows Osteen and his featherweight, prosperity gospel message and cause them to delve into His Word and see if what Osteen teaches resembles what God has said. Osteens apparent ignorance of any semblance of Christian teachings and his refusal to stand firm for the Gospel, in season and out of season, reveals his ministry to be a sham.

Osteen's book carries the title: Your best life now. Joel, this is not our best life now, or at least I hope it is not. Our best life is to come. If this is as good as it gets, you are setting your sights too low. If we have nowhere to go but down, where does that lead?

Wednesday, January 16, 2008

This is kind of cool...

The Washington Post has an interactive map showing county by county results for the Michigan primary. Huckabee didn't do as well as I expected in Western Michigan...

Tuesday, January 15, 2008

For shame Michigan...

Congrats to Romney and his supporters for their win yesterday.

What is sad is the way Romney positioned himself and that people ate it up. The whole auto jobs not coming back to Michigan kerfuffle by McCain was dead on. Instead of lamenting the loss of high paying auto industry jobs for low skilled workers, we better as a state start to figure out how to replace those jobs. Otherwise we can wallow in our 7%+ unemployment indefinitely. Those jobs really are gone and aren't coming back. The UAW and weak-kneed auto executives have made sure of that by pricing the auto industry out of competitiveness through ridiculous salaries for relatively low skilled workers, untenable promises of pensions and health care and union rules that make auto plant jobs into entitlements.

Promising to fight to bring those jobs back is shameless pandering. Recognizing that the world has changed and so must Michigan is the honest approach, but apparently honesty is not what people want to hear.

Primary Day in Michigan!

Just got back from the polls, we were voters number 125 and 126 which is a pretty decent turnout for the northwoods of Michigan. Two more votes for Huckabee!

Sunday, January 13, 2008

Why not Ron Paul?

He seems pretty smart, very honest, unafraid to say what he thinks. His supporters are more like disciples, a rabid following who would go to the wall to fight for Ron. He openly supports homeschoolers. He is strongly pro-life.

Quite frankly, while Ron Paul seems like a good guy, and someone we need in Congress, his quest to be President is quixotic.

  1. He is unelectable. He barely registers in state and national polls. He is at 3.7% national among Republicans according to the latest Real Clear Politics average. He may be a swell guy but he is never going to be President. I think I would be a great President but I have about the same chance of winning the election as Representative Paul.
  2. He supports doing away with the Federal Reserve. While the system has it's faults, it also keeps inflation in check and prevents us from having the enormous swings in interest rates of the past. Want to go back to 18% mortgages?
  3. His foreign policy borders on isolationism. Guess what, hiding in America will not make Muslim terrorists hate us less. We didn't force them to attack the World Trade Center, and a head in the sand foreign policy will not make America more secure, but less.
  4. His greatest strength is his biggest weakness. His supporters are rabid to the point of being almost cultish. They tend to be arrogant and condescending to those who have not sipped the Ron Paul Kool-Aid. Maybe they aren't all that way, but the ones I have met in person, around town and on the internet always are. They seem personally offended if you don't support Paul. I recognize that Mike Huckabee has faults, as we all do. But to hear Ron Paul supporters tell it, the man is the greatest American politician to ever live.

For all of those reasons and more, Paul is just not the guy. There are candidates who are a serious part of the debate, but Paul is not one of them and is probably a few primaries away from not getting invited to further televised debates. It was amusing and refreshing while it lasted, but it is time to let go. Paul is not the answer, unless the question is "Name the most unelectable man in the Primaries"

Huckabee on marriage

A great response to a pointed question in a Fox News debate on gender roles in marriage. The question hit at the 2000 Baptist Faith & Message's call for wives to sumbit to their husbands leadership: A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ.

I doubt any other candidate could or would answer that question (or be asked it) in a humble, humorous and Christ-honoring way.

Why again do evangelical leaders not like Mike?

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!

Saturday, January 12, 2008

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...

Thursday, January 10, 2008

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...

Wednesday, January 09, 2008


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 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.

Monday, January 07, 2008


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.

Sunday, January 06, 2008

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.

Saturday, January 05, 2008

I have stored up your word in my heart, that I might not sin against you. (Psalm 119:11 ESV)

What is missing in the church, in our homes, in our hearts today? Cultural relevance? Self-esteem? Material blessings. Nope. It is the Word of God. It's absence is making a mess of homes, families, the church and the world.

Our goal as a couple over the next year is to read together the entire Bible, reading aloud from our new ESV daily Bibles (got a great deal on them from Westminster Seminary's book store). I got about 85% through a one year Bible in '06 before petering out, so I am hopeful that the discipline of reading together will aid in making it all the way through, and then starting again next year. There are plenty of things we need to work on and pray about in our family and marriage, but none is more important than placing His Word in a position of honor and prominence in our home. If we are successful with that, then everything else is doable.