Praying for Fort Hood

Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan apparently shouted Allahu Akbar!" and started shooting people in Texas yesterday. So what does this have to say about the Muslim community in the United States? I don't think it says much.

Even though this crazy person seems to have believed he was doing Allah's will by killing American soldiers, that doesn't mean we necessarily need to fear American Muslims.

The simple truth is that the vast majority of Muslims in America are not fanatics nor do they even attempt to follow all the teachings of the Qur'an. In fact, that's generally true of almost all Americans who claim to have a religious faith.

When it comes down to it, most of us believe we can pick-n-choose and follow only the parts of our faith that we like and still claim that faith as our own. I mean, how many Americans would claim the title "Christian" and yet over 50% of marriages in the United states end in divorce (something that would never happen between 2 practicing Christians)? How many people would say that they believe in Jesus, and yet are not even in church 50% of weekends and give little or nothing to the ministry of their local church? In fact, the average church goer gives less than 3% to their church, that's not true faith, at least it's not the picture of the faith of Jesus' followers in that we read about in the New Testament.

So, should we fear American Muslims? No, I don't believe we should. Not because Islam is a truly "peaceful" faith (it is not in the majority of the world), but we shouldn't fear American Muslims for the simple fact that Americans of all religious stripes rarely actually follow the tenants of their faith.

Most of what I know about Islam I learned from the Cainer brothers, so I defer to them for the details. But all one has to do is look at countries that are Islam based and you realize that the result of devout adherence to that faith is violence and subjugation.

Though all faiths have crazy people who commit horrible acts in the name of their religion, when you do so as a Christian you're actually going against what the New Testament tells you to do - this is not the case with the Qur'an and Islam.

If a Muslim were to follow their religious writings to the letter and seek to model their life after their faith's founder, they would be more like Major Hasan, but thankfully, the religious apathy that plagues America in Christianity also plagues Islam in the US.

Now all we need to do is get those "Christians" to wake-up and actually follow Jesus.

Matthew 7:13-14 & 20-23 "Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few... Thus you will recognize them by their fruits. Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day... will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'

Jesus is my friend

WOW, this is good stuff...

Let's not ever do traditional music like this... ;-)

Nerd Lock

This is kinda nerdy, sure, but I'm amazed by technology. What a great idea. You don't need keys and it's easier to change than biometric locks...

Wow, Robots!

Just always be sure that John Conner is close at hand...

Eschatological Piece from the SBTC

Written by Melissa Deming | TEXAN Correspondent Posted Thursday, April 09, 2009 While the majority of Southern Baptist faculty members are premillennialists, some professors are re-examining their eschatological positions. In a recent survey conducted by TEXAN staff, some premillennialists indicated they did not hold their positions as adamantly as they used to. And a handful of faculty members in Southern Baptist seminaries believe amillennialism best represents the biblical witness regarding last things. Of the Southern Baptist Convention’s six schools, half—namely, Southern Seminary, Southwestern Seminary and Midwestern Seminary—reported having faculty members who hold this minority view. Although the number holding to amillennialism pales in comparison to those holding to premillennialism, the existence of a minority view could signal an overall trend of decreased dogmatism in Southern Baptist life over eschatology. David Beck, professor of New Testament and Greek and associate dean of biblical studies at Southeastern Seminary, told the TEXAN he holds to a premillennial and pretribulational view of last things, but with less certainty than he used to. “I was raised in a somewhat dispensational context, and taught a pretribulation, premillenial eschatological view as if it was the biblical position,” Beck said. “When I first began my theological education I discovered that the Bible was not that explicit on the timeline of eschatological events. Nothing in my study led me to change my view, but it caused me to realize a biblical argument could be made for other interpretive positions (though I did not find them convincing).” Commenting on the changing views of end times in evangelical life, Southeastern President Daniel Akin said such views are not usually measures of orthodoxy. “I think you will find a continuing commitment by the overwhelming majority to premillennialism, but an unwillingness to draw swords over the tribulation issue,” he said. David Allen, academic dean of Southwestern Seminary’s theology school, said diversity on secondary doctrines such as eschatology can be a “healthy pedagogical tool.” Of the respondents from Southwestern Seminary’s theology school to the TEXAN survey, 20 held to premillennial and posttribulational views, 15 professors held to premillennial and pretribulational views, three held to amillennialism, and two abstained from comment. “For faculty, having a variety of eschatological views creates healthy dialogue and fosters respect for those holding differing views,” Allen said. “For students, exposure to faculty with diverse eschatological positions minimizes the risk that students will accept a particular viewpoint merely or primarily because all faculty support the same position.” For those who participated in the poll at Midwestern, all but one of the nine respondents are premillennialists with two specifying historic premillennialism and another holding to amillennialism. Jerry Johnson, academic dean of Midwestern Seminary and professor of ethics and theology, explained his position by saying, "I am premillennial for emphasis, and pretrib for details. By that I mean the main eschatological emphasis of the Old and New Testament is the return and rule of Christ, and that should be our main emphasis in confession and preaching. The rapture, and especially its timing, is a footnote in the biblical material and not to be our focus. In other words the primary message is about who is coming (Christ) and not who is leaving (the Church)." Amillennialism: a minority view Amillennialism is one such orthodox option of last things. Amillennialists interpret the 1,000-year reign of Christ mentioned in Revelation 20 symbolically. The millennium, then, is not a future event but is being fulfilled in the present age in which Satan is restricted as the gospel goes forth among the nations. Because the present age ends at Christ’s second coming, amillennialists do not understand the nature of the millennium as the period of time between Christ’s first and second comings. As with other orthodox views of the eschaton, amillennialism affirms two resurrections. Within amillennialism opinion varies, but the first resurrection is generally understood to be spiritual, referring to the regeneration of believers. The second resurrection is physical, referring to the resurrection of both believers and unbelievers that will occur at Christ’s return. Like premillennialism, amillennialism has a rich heritage dating back to the early church. But it was Augustine that codified the belief for much of church history. Even into the 20th century, the position was held by a significant portion of Baptist academia. Despite the popularization of the dispensational and premillennial views, amillennialism was the dominant position among “working theologians” for much of Baptist history—a point suggested by Southern Seminary Theology Dean Russell Moore in his chapter on eschatology in the systematic theology “A Theology of the Church,” edited by Southeastern’s Akin. During the modernist controversy, amillennialism became largely associated with liberal theology, a connection that contributes to misconceptions regarding the position today, said Southwestern professor Paul Wolfe. Wolfe, associate professor of New Testament and an amillennialist, teaches a course on Revelation at the Fort Worth seminary. “There is an unfortunate link in the mind of many that amillennialism is a first step toward or an indicator of latent liberalism. This is partly due to the unfounded link of premillennialism and inerrancy,” said Wolfe, pointing out that orthodox believers throughout church history have often advocated this view. “In other words, amillennialism is not tied to a certain view of salvation, the person and work of Christ, etc.” Commenting on the perceived link between the amillennialist position and liberal theology, David Allen pointed out there are numerous conservative amillennialists as well as non-premillennial inerrantists. “It would be inaccurate to say that amillennialism entails (in the philosophical use of that term) liberalism, just as it would be inaccurate to say that inerrancy entails premillennialism,” Allen said. “However, I do think the case can be made that a majority of those who reject inerrancy and who would classify themselves as liberals would also identify themselves as amillennialists. Perhaps this is the reason for the misconceptions.” The case for amillennialism Adding that he is not 100 percent committed to the position, Wolfe believes amillennialism best represents the New Testament picture of believers being presently engaged in an interim kingdom, awaiting the final consummation of God’s kingdom. “Other than Revelation 20, there is no mention of a possible second interim kingdom,” said Wolfe, suggesting that the burden of proof for a literal reign of Christ lies with premillennialists. Moreover, Wolfe believes the amillennial position harmonizes with a traditional Baptist way of life in three ways: First, amillennialism heightens the mandate for evangelism, he said, noting that “there is no second interim kingdom during which repentance is apparently possible.” Second, amillennialism heightens the view of the church as the “highest and clearest manifestation of God’s kingdom short of the consummation.” “The realities associated with a millennial kingdom—for example peace, a radical ethic of godliness and love, creation care—are to be exercised in and through the church here and now. It is the church through which God is revealing his wisdom between now and the judgments,” the professor said, referring to Ephesians 3:10. And third, Wolfe said, amillennialism encourages social engagement. “This would make a radical difference in our churches and individual lives. Our priorities, use of resources and engagement with the world around us would all be transformed from the present situation,” he said. “It was not unusual for the early church to think of the millennial kingdom as a time for the saints to discipline ourselves for life in heaven. Amillennialism says that time is now. What difference should that make in how we live now?” But beyond the practical implications of the amillennialist view, Wolfe said he holds to the position because it remains faithful to the nature of the book of Revelation. “Given the New Testament emphasis apart from Revelation 20, and the fact that Revelation is a message encoded in symbols as John himself makes clear in Revelation 1:1, I find it more appropriate to understand Revelation 20 in a symbolic fashion in keeping with the patterns and emphases throughout the remainder of John's vision,” he said. Radu Gheorghita, associate professor of biblical studies at Midwestern Seminary, holds to amillennialism for a similar reason. “I believe the most attractive aspect of this school of interpretation is that it matches the characteristics of the apocalyptic genre of the book of Revelation, a literature rich in symbolism, imagery and similes, a genre chosen by John to venture into the spiritual territory which Paul himself chose to avoid (2 Corinthians 12),” said Gheorghita, who recently took two years to memorize the entire book of Revelation. As such, attempts to “decode” the book of Revelation raise the professor’s suspicions, he said. Gheorghita believes another attractive tenet of amillennialism is it solves potential theological issues, such as the rapture. “If John provides in Revelation a map of the events associated with the eschaton, he would have surely included all the major events that will usher it, including the rapture of the church,” Gheorghita said. “I read, reread, and reread the book hundreds of times. I did not find the rapture in the Revelation. As I faced this reality, I had too options: either insert the rapture at various potential stages in the book (chapter 4, chapter 11, etc) or, alternatively, I would have to conclude that John’s map of final events does not include it.” In looking solely at the information provided in Revelation, Gheorghita said it seems “more exegetically honest” to conclude there is no rapture mentioned in the book—a conclusion he makes in connection with the book’s explicit warning in 22:18 to neither add nor take away from the prophecy of Revelation. Formerly a premillennialist, Gheorghita said he is still working out his own understanding of the book. “I hope I will not ossify my position too early, but continue to let my interaction with the text and with Revelation scholars continue to shape its outcome.” Although each offers his own reason for holding to his particular millennial commitment, premillennialists and amillennialists agree that absolute certainty about the specifics of the kingdom’s final consummation does not exist. “I finally came to the conclusion that if honest biblical scholars, who shared a commitment to inerrancy, could not agree on the interpretation of the timeline of eschatological events, then perhaps that is not the purpose of the eschatological teachings of Scripture,” said Southeastern’s Beck. “We find these texts difficult and confusing because we are asking them questions that they were not written to reveal. If we let them speak for themselves, their message is not difficult to understand, but very clear. God is sovereign, his judgment against sin is both terrible and inevitable, the righteous will be vindicated, believers are exhorted to persevere and continue in faithfulness,” Beck said. “This leads me to where I no longer focus on the issue of what happens when, but are we living as God’s Word demands us to be, alert, watchful, always seeking to please him, always proclaiming his truth, and ready whenever he chooses to send Jesus back to take us home?”

Missional Leadership

Missional Leadership from Ed Stetzer on Vimeo.

Here are Ed's Notes:

Here is the outline that I used in the video and I will be using tomorrow:

Missional Leadership

1) Reconsideration of Leadership

a) From superman to everyone
b) From church to kingdom
c) From me to we
d) From personal power to people empowerment

2) Rejection of Clergification

a) From three tiers to one mission
b) From "called to the ministry" to "called to ministry"
c) From "called to missions" to "sent on mission"
d) From exceptional to ordinary
e) From "priests" to a "priesthood of believers"

3) Renewed focus on mission

a) From "full service" to "simple mission"
b) From "pay, pray, and get out of the way" to "join God on His mission"
c) From decisionism to disciple making
d) From "mission statement" to "Jesus mission"
Luke 4
Luke 19:10

4) Realignment of priorities

a) God is a missionary God
b) I personally join Him on mission - modeling
c) I lead others to join Him on mission - leadership
d) I equip others - multiplication

The Message & The Method

There are definitely different opinions out there on this issue, even among friends, so I wanted to throw it out there.

Our message is the gospel, but how do we communicate it, and does the way in which we communicate our message change the message itself?

Some say "the methods change but the method does not", others say "the method is the message", what do you say?

Let's Burn Some Books!

Nothing gets me in the Halloween mood more than a good old-fashioned book burnin'.

While I find this story funny, I'm also amazed at the same time. There are actually people out there who believe that the KJV is the only Bible that is the actual word of God.

As far as I can tell, there is absolutely no rationality to it: "God continued to inspire and then all at once out of the blue in the 16oos God stopped inspiring..." huh? Why would the Bible produced under the authority of the sexual deviant King James be the final authority and the "really true" word of God? Did God leave Peter, James, John, Paul, and the rest of the NT writers "out of the loop" and did it take 1600 years to "correct" their mistakes?

It just seems silly and, frankly, ignorant to me. Perhaps I'm the one who needs to be educated, but I believe that God inspired the men who wrote the Bible. As such, as close as we can get to the meaning of the original writing of God's word the better the translation we get. The KJV is OBVIOUSLY not as close to the original as modern translations (like the ESV, NASU, or even NIV).

It would be more funny, if it were not so sad.

Best Version of the Bible

So, what's the best version of the Bible?

I hate to say it, but I'm going to, I think it's Neltle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece 27th (or the forthcoming 28th) edition.

I don't want to be "that guy" but the longer that I study the Greek NT the less confident that any English translation truly captures the grammar and meaning of the original New Testament.

What does that say for the everyday reader? (1) Ask a lot of questions (2) learn some Greek.

One of the most dangerous people is a seminary student after 4 semesters of Greek. Simply looking at the words and cross-referencing a lexicon is not enough. Idioms, advanced grammar, phrases used in the OT and other Greek writings outside of the NT are all clues, you have to use it all.

What's the shortcut, how can you easily read and understand the Bible? The bad news, you can't. The good news, English translations are better than ever and they do come really close. Just keep an open mind and look at the text behind the English before you make a major point.

Why not learn Greek? There are a ton of resources out there to learn Greek, and it will take about 5-6 years to really get started, but isn't it worth it to be able to read the Bible?

What about the Old Testament? WOW! In what little translation that I've done, I prefer the NIV English in the OT, but who knows. The more I look, the less confident I am in translations...

Find a pastor that you trust who reads from the original languages and ask questions, that's my best advice for right now...

Ed Stetzer On Worship...

Reverence vs Relevance from LifeWay Productions on Vimeo.

Summary of some of their statements:

Why does it have to be one or the other? It doesn't but usually it is. Relevance is not the goal, the gospel and worship is the goal, relevance is a tool.

What are these terms anyway? The key is to look at the Bible. Clap, shout, dance - the Bible commands us to do in worship. It's essential to define the terms, but God must be revered.

Most people who claim they want "reverence" really want to return to a preferred past. Reverence has to be tied to the worship of God and need not be tied to the past.

Reverence looks different with different cultures, jumping in Africa, bowing in East Asia, etc...

So what is worship? http://www.lifewayworship.com "Seven Words of Worship" God centered response.

Sometimes we pull in either direction, back to the past or into the future in an idealized picture of what it should be, but both are "people centered" and are bad. It should be a "culturally appropriate" response to what God has done/is doing.

There's no such thing as "Christian music" there are no notes in the Bible, there are only Christian lyrics.

We fight over cultural forms rather than Biblical meanings.

In that culture, is the message clear, is this associated with anything else, does it elicit proper emotions, is it memorable, and many more tests... Romans 14 --> more mature (those believers longer) should give deference to the less mature (younger Christians) to build up the body of Christ and consider others more significant than ourselves - Phil. 2:3.

We need to be mature enough to worship in different ways. When we have "blended worship" and the old people sing the hymns and then the young people sing the courses, it is a sign of carnality and a sad compromise of a church on the way from "traditional" to "contemporary".

God does not call worship pastors to lead music, He calls them to lead people to worship.

"Blended" is built on the wrong foundation, "what do you want... what do I want... let's compromise" It's a picture of at least two groups of people who would rather have their preferences served.

We all want to worship the way we grew up, but the true question is what is the most appropriate cultural form to bring a timeless God, who has no preferred style of music, the maximum praise and glory.

There are unhelpful voices in the church that say "the church is only for the Church, just teach them and the people will reach the world." They want to have more knowledge about God and become more "deeper life" congregations that circle the wagons.

Church is not for the unchurched, church is not for the church, church is for God. Unbelievers need to come in and see people encountering God and doing it in a way not wholly different from them so they can understand the gospel and respond in faith. Seeker comprehensible, not seeker sensitive. The churches who are reaching people tend to be contemporary ones.

Don't shy away from themes like "the cross" or "the blood" but take the 15 seconds to explain it to make it seeker-comprehensible!

Should there be multiple styles of services? We should regularly encourage people to go to the other services to worship in Spirit and truth, otherwise we are pandering to religious consumerism and not using it as a missional tool. It's more about motivation.

Should music style be a church growth strategy? It is part of it. A church changing to create an environment in which the gospel can most easily go forth and be understood and best worship God in Spirit and truth in a specific time and place is what a church should be doing.

W.W.L.D. (What Would Lottie DO) - She wore Chinese clothes, ate Chinese food, sang Chinese songs etc. Learn your community and change to be a church in THAT cultural context. God doesn't care about your style, He cares if you are trying to reach the community you are in. God uses the church that says "it's not all about us"

At the end of Revelation we'll be singing with all the nations...

Do Your Homework

I was listening to a "big wig" preaching a message on how we need to reach the whole world with the gospel.

You know what, he was right! We need to preach the gospel to everyone! And we can't stop there, we need to keep preaching it.

I can't tell you the number of times someone has come to Christ and then expressed that it was the first time they heard the gospel. Well, it may have been the first time they understood it, but in America today, it was not the first time it was told to them.

People have their eyes blinded and their ears plugged to receive the good news until it's their time.

2Corinthians 4:4 "...the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ..."

HOWEVER, to make the point that we need to preach the gospel to the whole world, this "big wig" made reference to the Greek words in Matthew 24 (cf. in Mark 13) to say that we needed to preach to all the people-groups on earth.

Is this true? Should we preach to all people-groups? YES!!!!

Does the Greek text use the words he said? NO! Matthew uses different words.

I appreciate his passion for missions and the drive to evangelize the world, I agree with that, just be sure you do your homework. It took me about 15 seconds to find that this was an incorrect quote. We have to be 100% correct on important issues like this.

So, to sum-up... Evangelize the world - be careful with Greek.

Master Puppeteer

Little known fact about me, I have attained the level of "Master Puppeteer."

In Jr. High I served at my church in Carrollton, TX in the children's ministry within the puppet ministry. Almost every week we would have a show that we would do that we rehersed on Wednesday nights. It was a great time in my life.

I advanced through the levels until I attained "Master Puppeteer." Some make fun of me (you know who you are), but I'm proud to have used that talent for the Lord. Even if it's a little silly.

Having established my familiarity with puppets, I wanted to take a look at a specific verse in the Bible, Ephesians 1:11.

Here is a quote from a blog that I was reciently reading "God is in control of everything that happens, including each person's choices."

This quote is from someone who is content to be a puppet of the Lord, but are we puppets? My answer is: NO! The Bible doesn't say that.

Many "theological types" like to create elaborate and far-reaching systmes based on a little Bible and a lot of logical deduction. This kind of theologizing is uncomfortable for someone like me who believes if something is not expressly evident in scripture, it's negotiable.

In Phil. 4:13 we learn that it's not simply that God does everything, but he gives Paul (and us) the strength to do for himself. Heb. 4:16 does not tell us that He causes the events of our life to simply be, it says He gives us Grace to help us when we need it. 1Tim. 1:18 & 6:12 encourage Timothy (and us) to fight hard and wage good warfare as we struggle in this life, this is not a picture of a puppet animated by it's puppet master, this is a picture of subjects following their master.

I'd like to look at Ephesians 1:11 "...according to the purpose of him (God) who works all things according to the counsel of his wil"

Not only is Ephesians here talking primarially about Israel and Gentiles and not focusing on individual salvation, the verse itself says that God works things according to the counsel of His will, it does not say all things are His will. In other words, if there's something to "work" then He doesn't directly cause all things, but He does direct the course of history and events according to His will in general.

To argue against this view, you've gotta step beyond the Bible into logic.

2 Peter 3:9 "The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance."

Obviously this verse expressly states that it is outside God's will for anyone to "perish" (perish simply means "Hell" as an everlasting consiquence). We know from other scriptures, ( Like Matthew 7:21-23 ""Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' And then will I declare to them, I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'") that not everyone get's to enter the kingdom and they will have Hell in stead.

God has chosen to allow things outside of His will to happen, but He will work all things for His purpose, and we do have the comfort that He works everything together for the good of His people (Rom. 8:28).

So, you're not a puppet. Don't throw up your hands, let Him strengthen you and FIGHT THE GOOD FIGHT!

What to read?

One thing that seems to have gone down the tubes in today's culture is the willingness to make a marriage work.

Here are a few very helpful books that you and your spouse can read together that can help you to win the battle!

The #1 book is the Bible. If you don't have a time when you and your husband/wife read the Bible together, make it! It's the best thing you can do. After that, pray and become the wife/husband that God intended you to be (don't worry about making them into the person they're meant to be).

So here are some great books (taken from a great friend's blog: Charles Thornton):

For Women Only and For Men Only by Shaunti and Jeff Feldhahn – These short books based on extensive research, give concise practical steps for improving your marriage.

Men Are From Mars and Women Are From Venus by John Gray – It is hard to believe that this book came out in 1997. While it is not written from a Christian perspective, it is still one of the most helpful books I have ever read. It is a bit long and not for the fainthearted.

His Needs Her Needs by Willard Harley – In an easy to read concise fashion this book helps husbands and wives give each other what they need. The book has been out for 15 years but the information is still right on target showing that the basic needs of men and women don’t change over time.

7 Things He’ll Never Tell You (but you need to know) by Dr. Kevin Leman – Written with a very humorous syle, this book gives wives keen insight into how their husband thinks.

The DNA of Relationships by Dr. Gary Smalley – Reading this book will give you the whys and hows of the marriage relationship. His insights are based on 5 years of research and have shown an amazing 90 percent success rate in resolving conflict.

The Doctrine of Decision Making

In my class on Wednesday nights (7:00P - 8:00P) here at FBC Maryville, IL I've been going through some material that I'm calling "What God Says" and it's basically a systematic look at Biblical Doctrines. In other words, it's what the whole Bible says and looks like it would take 3-4 years to get through it all :-) It's loosely based on a "Christian Doctrines" series that one of my mentors, Dr. William E. Bell Jr., taught at my former church FBC Euless, TX.

Anyway, I'm finishing up the notes for tomorrow night, and I was looking ahead about 4 weeks and I wanted to share with the bloggosphere.

This Wednesday, we're finishing up our two part discussion on what Christian Salvation really is and we'll be talking about the Atonement of the Cross, don't miss it! It's gonna be good!

In about 4 weeks (it's actually 2 lessons), after we talk about what the Christian life is & is not, we'll be looking at a "checklist" for Christian decision making. "Is it OK for a Christian to ________?" would be more than could be listed, but if we give people to tools to make Biblical decisions on their own, then that will last a lifetime.

Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he'll leave you alone ;-)

If I were a "real blogger" then I'd have to split this into 5 different blogs, but I hate doing that, and I know I wouldn't follow-up, so, here are the 5-Points of the Doctrine of Decision Making:

Point #1: Specific Scripture

If God's word specifically prohibits something, you don't even have to pray about it, DON'T DO IT. God is not going to contradict His word, so that's a pretty easy one (theoretically).

Point #2: Your Body is the Temple of the Holy Spirit

In 1Cor. 6:19; 3:16; & Rom. 8:9 we learn of this idea that God's Spirit resides in every believer. The implications of this are profound on the physical and mental level. Don't do or participate in anything that you would not want to join Christ to. The things you physically put in your body, and those things you put in your body by hearing or looking at need to be pure and non-polluting. This could have radical implications for the typical American lifestyle, and I know it's convicting for me.

Point #3: Spiritual Headship

There are several relationships of "headship" that are described in the Bible. Obviously we follow God rather than men, but in general If you should find yourself within one of these relationships you should respect and follow your "head" in applicable situations. Some examples are: WIVES are under the headship of their HUSBANDS (Eph. 5:22-23; Col. 3:18-19; 1Pet. 3:1-7); CHILDREN are under the headship of their PARENTS (Eph. 6:1-3; Col. 3:20-21); CHURCH MEMBERS are under the headship of their PASTORS "Elders" (Acts 20:28; 1Tim. 5:1; 5:19; Heb. 13:7; 13:17; 1Pet. 5:2-5); CITIZENS are under the headship of their GOVERNMENT (Rom. 13:1-7; 1Tim. 2:1-4; Tit. 3:1; 1Pet. 2:13-17); WORKERS "Slaves" are under the authority of their BOSSES "Masters" (Eph. 6:5-9; Col 3:22-4:1; 1Tim. 6:1-2; Tit. 2:9-10; 1Pet. 2:18). Most of us will fall into multiple categories, if you don't, join a church!

Point #4: The Weaker Brother

Is what you are wanting to do going to possibly cause any fellow believer to somehow "stumble" or take a step back in their faith? If there is some "matter of conscience" that you know some people really struggle with, then it's best not to do it (see: Rom. 14:1-15:13; 1Cor. 8-10)

Point #5: The Glory of God

In what you are proposing to do, will God be given the glory. If you are choosing 2 things, choose the one where God will be lifted up. If you can't glorify God in what you're doing, then don't do it (see: 1Cor. 10:31).

I suppose there could be some things that this does not cover, but I'd have to struggle to come up with decisions that I've had to make in my life that would not be answered in this way. I know when someone comes to be with "what does God want me to do about..." I take them through this process.

Now you have the "behind the curtain" answer as to how to make all your decisions in a biblical way! Augustine said it best "Love God (and others) and do what you will!"

I'm happy to help you see what God would have you do, with respect to specific choices you're struggling with.

Faith As A Gift (?)

I'm always trying to keep learning, when the Bible is your topic you can be sure you've never learned it all.

With that in mind, here are my thoughts on Ephesians 2:8-9 in terms of faith being a gift from God. I say specifically in Eph. 2 because I'm not a big fan of imposing systems on the text or reading theological constructs into the scriptures. In other words, when you ask me "what do you think about... (fill in the blank)," I'm going to ask you "which verse(s) are you talking about." In this way, too many people turn their Theology into Philosophy. Truth is not simply a logical syllogism, it's tied to revelation, namely, the Bible. Yes, that's the book for me ;-)

So, with all that in mind, I'm not simply going to tackle the concept "is faith a gift," that's a really broad question and one that theoretically could still be false and not disprovable from scripture at the same time. We should not do Theology by simply coming up with theories and maintaining that they are valid until proven false by scripture, on the contrary, we should only hold to doctrines that are expressly and clearly illuminated in scripture.

This brings me to Ephesians 2:8-9. This is the verse that I've seen most used to show that not only is Grace a gift (and surely it is) but Faith is also. Let us briefly examine this view...

“For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.” Ephesians 2:8-9

When you read these verses in English it seems that the relative pronoun “this,” or most translations say “that” (GK: touto), has “faith” as its antecedent. Well, that’s where people get the idea that faith is a gift. They would translate the verse “…And this faith is not of your own doing; it’s the gift of God…” The only problem with this translation is that in Greek (and in English) it just doesn't say that.

Here we’ve got a demonstrative pronoun with adverbial force used in an explanatory phrase. There’s a neuter singular pronoun (GK: touto) which doesn’t refer to faith (feminine) or to any immediate word which follows (see: “BDF” Blass, Debrunner, Funk). In the middle of this elliptical phrase you must supply the missing element. In other words "this what?". “This” (GK: touto) refers back to “salvation” and not “faith” or “grace.” “And this…” (GK: kai touto) explains that salvation comes from God's grace and it’s not in proportion to our effort, which is exactly what verse 9 says as well.

So, Ephesians 2:8-9 should be translated something like this: “for by grace you have been saved through faith, and this salvation is not your own doing, it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.”

One might say “well, I see what you’re saying with the Grammar there, but faith is included in salvation and so faith is a gift too.” To which I’d say that while faith just might be a gift, this verse in particular does not state such. The gift here is Salvation. We get it by grace through faith. The gift (GK: doron) is Jesus’ sacrifice of Himself on God’s altar on our behalf. If you’re philosophical goal is to show that faith (through which we receive God’s grace and thus this gift of salvation) is a gift given to us, then you will need to go to other verses to show it.

So, while it doesn’t deny it, Ephesians 2:8 also doesn’t state that faith is a gift.

My Mom's Healthcare Story

If you are familiar with the story of Job in the Bible, then you might know the feelings I get when I think of the ordeal that my mother has had to go through.

A few years ago, my mom had an irritation in her mouth below the gum line associated with a tooth or two.

That may seem like a simple and ordinary thing, but if you think that, you don't know my mom. She brushes and flosses every day, a few times a day. She takes better care of her teeth than anyone I know and though her mouth has been around for 60 years, she's not had any cavities because of her level of personal oral care.

Her dentist performed a couple of procedures in which he cut a flap in her gums and cleaned the area out and then put the flap back. Each time it didn't seem to improve anything, so he would do it again.

After a couple of years of this, the dentist decided to have a biopsy taken. Mom has never been a smoker and does not drink any alcohol so he really didn't know what it could be.

When the biopsy came back it was what you don't want to hear, cancer, and this type of mouth cancer is one of the most difficult cancers to treat.

To date she has had at least 10 teeth removed, 2/3 of her lower jaw removed, most of the flesh from the left side of her neck removed and reconstructed with tissue from the chest area, and her jaw reconstructed with bone from her leg.

She had 6-weeks of radiation treatments, 5 times per day. These treatments were 7-times stronger than those for people who have breast cancer, other cancers like breast or colon are much easier to treat, this kind of mouth cancer is that much stronger. In fact, chemotherapy does nothing to this cancer. Due to the severity of the radiation, mom is left with no working saliva glands for the rest of her life, and she had to eat via nothing but a stomach tube through her stomach for over a year.

The radiation has also weakened the flesh to the degree that the doctors were not sure if they could even do reconstruction to give my mother back her lower teeth to be able to simply chew food better.

Well, after 22 surgeries and a lot of healing and being now cancer free, Blue Cross Blue Shield has approved my mothers reconstructive surgery. What a blessing! In fact, BCBS has taken extremely good care of my mother and she has received the best care possible.

For those who think that our health care system is broken, I disagree. I don't think it's perfect, but it does work. Do you have to be pro-active, yes. Do you have to lookout for yourself and your family, yes. If you're looking for a system in which your health care just happens while you remain passive, it's not going to happen, it doesn't exist. However, if you're committed to work "the system" out health care works quite well.

So, please continue to pray for my mom as they begin to finally work through this reconstruction process of rebuilding her mouth and putting back some brand new teeth.

Technology

I'm a pretty "tech friendly" kind of guy. I bank with USAA and have been able to scan in checks to deposit them for a couple of years now. It's pretty convenient and up to $5,000 is available right away.

If that wasn't enough, yesterday I downluaded the updated USAA App on my iPhone. Now I can deposit my checks by taking a picture with my phone! It's so quick and easy, it's totally amazing!

I can check my balances on my checking, savings, credit cards, insurance, and see all my transactions. I can transfer funds between all my accounts and even pay all my bills online all with my iPhone.

The new app will also show estimated loan payments with a loan calculator and find the ATMs closest to my phone using the GPS.

Technology is amazing!

No not one

Today I was talking to someone who was seeking my advice. Something they said hit me "don't get me wrong, I'm a good person... you don't think I'm a bad person do you?"

My answer was "I'm sure you're no worse than everyone else."

I think it offended them, because I'm sure they believe there are people who are worse than them. To put it another way, they think that they are better than some.

The reality is that none of us does good. If we think we do, it's just our prideful flesh or worse the enemy himself.

Romans 3:10 says that "there is none righteous, no not even one!". When confronted with this, we think "well, sure I'm not righteous, but I'm not a bad person."

We fool ourselves I to believing that there are levels of good and bad, and that only comes from comparing ourselves to others. When I compare myself to the guy down the street who yells at his kids or the lady at work who cheats on her taxes, I may look pretty good.

But God only compares us to one person, Himself. Someone is either good or they are not. One can only be righteous or unrighteous, there is no in between. Righteousness is not the sum or general balance of our lives, you are perfect or tainted.

When Paul says "there are none righteous" he's quoting from Psalm 14 & 53 that says "no one does good."

Righteousness is about doing good, and we don't, we can't! Sure, you may do some things that are good in the overall general idea of the word, but when it comes to God and eternity, you can't do good, not compared to God. Look at all the bad you've done. It clouds everything.

All have sinned and fall short of God's glory.

Our righteous can only come from Jesus. Don't even try to compare yourself to someone else, that doesn't matter. You're just as big of a sinner as they are compared to perfection.

In this all or nothing game, one in which we play for keeps and everlasting life is on the table, make the sure bet. The only one who was ever righteous, Jesus, is willing to cash in and pay your debt. He paid your penalty and is willing to have His righteousness counted in your account.

Like any free gift, all you've got to do is accept it. Admit your sin, believe in Jesus alone to save you from yourself and an eternity apart from Him, commit your life to Him today.

You're just not good enough to make it any other way...

Mythbusters

I love the show "Mythbusters". Growing up as a kid, 3 of my favorite shows were McGiver, The A-Team, and Mr. Wizard. If you roll all those shows up into one, you get Mythbusters ;-)

I was so happy to see their show on the 40th anniversary of man walking on the moon, it was moon myths.

I'm amazed at the fact that still a high percentage of people believe that we never actually went to the moon. That just strikes me as strange.

The Mythbusters showed conclusively that the photos with "unparallel shadows" or of an astronaut in the shadow of the moon lander who was brighter than he would have been are actually a function of the topography and make-up of the dust on the moon. No doctoring of pictures and not multiple sources of light.

They also showed that due to the lack of atmosphere and 1/6th gravity the flag that appears to "blow" is actually simply moving under the momentum of being planted in the ground and moved by the astronauts. It moves back an forth much more precisely because it's on the moon, no atmospheric interference, and less gravity, not because of wind. The flag does not move apart from the astronauts touching it.

The Mythbusters also demonstrated that moon dust does leave distinctive footprints in a vacuum. Again, because of our lack of experience in dealing with an environment such as that on the moon, people seem to think the moon landing is fake. However, the very things that conspiracy theorists object to are the proof that we were actually there. See, on earth dirt particles gets worn and smoothed. Thus, dry dirt can't sustain a footprint, moisture is needed. However, unique to zero atmospheric environments is that the dirt is jagged and not worn. The particles can form and maintain a footprint, but only on the moon.

All of this demonstrates that all the conspiracy "evidence" is actually a function of people who are uneducated and who are not willing to accept scientific evidence. The "nail in the coffin" is that the Apollo 15 mission left a retro-reflector on the surface of the moon.

A retro-reflector is what you have on the back of a bicycle that will reflect back to a source of light at any angle. The Mythbusters went to an observatory and pointed a 1-gigawatt laser at the surface of the moon and got nothing back. When they then pointed the laser at the location of the Apollo 15 mission, they got the laser beam back with the predicted degradation after traveling 500,000 miles to the moon and back.

In other words, scientific proof that we were on the moon. Faced with this, anyone who disbelieves one of America's greatest achievements might have some other issues going on. ;-)

I believe we should set our sites one of the Mars moons and then Mars itself. We choose to go to Mars! Never stop exploring!

Homeless & Homeowners

Buying and selling a home can be frustrating, at times it seems like no one is looking out for you! "Buyer beware" is a wise motto.

For us, we were homeless from about 8:30AM on 7/16/2009 when our TX house closed and today at 2:00PM on 7/17/2009.

We are Illinois homeowners now!

The King of Pop and the King of Kings have different addresses

I've heard some people talking about Michael Jackson, in particular about his memorial service. Though most have recognized the emptiness there that always accompanies a lost person's funeral, I have heard a few people allude to Jackson being "in a better place" or something to that effect.

Let me clear up this misunderstanding.

In 1982 Jackson released the much praised "Thriller" album. Soon after, the Watchtower Society (the official organization known as "Jehovah's Witness") denounced this album. As a result, in 1987 Michael Jackson publicly announced that though his parents were Jehovah's Witnesses he was not.

Jackson's brother Jermaine Jackson converted to become a Muslim in 1989 and according to public statements Michael took great interest in Islam at that time. He even considered converting to Islam himself following his acquittal on child abuse charges in 2005.

Later in 2005 Jackson was seen observing rituals from the cult of Jewish Mysticism known as "Kabbalah" that Madona made so popular.

Not only has Michael Jackson demonstrated that he was lost and searching for the truth, he never made a public profession of faith in Jesus Christ.

Acts 4:12 "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved."

Hell is real, and this is a great opportunity to show that no matter how good or nice you are, you still spend eternity separated from God if you do not accept God's gift of His Son. His name is Jesus, and the first commandment still apples: Ex. 20:3 ""You shall have no other gods before me."

So objectively speaking, Michael Jackson is in hell. I'm not happy about it, but it was his choice. I also am a huge fan of his music from the 80s & 90s, but me liking someone's music has nothing to do with their relationship with God.

I pray others will spend less time accumulating idols for themselves, and more time praising the King of Kings.

The Apostle Paul - Single????

I actually don't think the Apostle Paul was a "Single Adult" in the classic understanding of the word.

I do believe that he was celebate at the time of his writings (AD49...) and probably from the time of his conversion (AD34...), but the Bible leads me to believe that he was married.

Though he doesn't directly state his circumstances, inferences from scripture and knowlege of the culture of that time points towards Paul probably being married but something (perhaps his conversion to Christ) causing his wife to leave him.

If this be the case, what a beautiful picture of a life lived for God after an unbeilieving spouse leaves (and we should know believing spouses don't leave fellow believing spouses).

Paul is a model and an example for modern marriage as "love lost." For me, this is great cause to pay even better attention to Paul's insignts on love, marriage, and singleness...

What do you think???

1 Cor 9:3-6 "This is my defense to those who sit in judgment on me. Don't we have the right to food and drink? Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas? Or is it only I and Barnabas who must work for a living?

This text suggests, but does not prove, Paul was married.

2. Rabbis and proto-rabbis got married; so do most males. Paul was a super up-n-comming Rabbi who was even sent out on behalf of, if not a part of, the reigning Jewish council the Sanhedrin. Sanhedrin officials were married (a general requirement). That being the case...

3. Paul never says he was not married.

4. 1 Cor 7:1-9 indicates he was celibate -- at the time of writing.

So, he never says definitively, but he leads me to believe he was married, and she left.

Let me know your thoughts...

Healthcare

Is Healthcare broken in the US? Well, I'd say "yes and no"

If by broken you mean not perfect, then I guess it is, and always will be.

If by broken it's so bad that people just can't get care in the US, then NO, our healthcare system is not broken.

Can we make improvements? Absolutely! The best improvement we can make is to remove the layers of bureaucracy between Doctor and patient and NOT add more.

Many people want the government to take over healthcare so it will be easier, this is just silly. The government makes NOTHING easier. Medicare, Medicaid, the VA system are all examples of government healthcare, and they ARE broken.

Who would want to go to the DMV when you think your having a heart attack? Well, that's what it could be like. When you want to have your cancer treatment approved, would you want to have to fill-out a form from the IRS? No thank you!

Every American Citizen in the US can have a procedure done. There are free clinics and no doctor will turn a patient away for something that they need. Will they then have to be paying for it for the rest of their life, yes they might, but paying 10% of your paycheck for the next 50 years is worth it to get the next 50 years, isn't it?

Is healthcare free? No, and it shouldn't be. The last thing we want to do is lower the standards of Doctors and Nurses. Lowering the cost of healthcare lowers the pay of healthcare professionals which lowers the quality of people serving in our healthcare system. Take into account that it takes about 8 years to get certified as a doctor, and we definitely can't afford to monkey around with this issue even to experiment with it.

If we did give healthcare to all, where would the doctors come from? The current amount of doctors are covering those of us with coverage now. The only way to allow for the same number of doctors to cover more people would be to raise (not lower) their pay. I mean, do you work more hours for the same (or less) money? Neither do they. They have families too. It's their job, and bless them for doing it. Again, the only way to get more doctors would be to lower standards for doctors, and even then, we're at least 8 years out from a new crop.

The argument is made that everyone needs to be covered by some kind of healthcare. Many people state that there are over 46 million people who are not covered.

#1 - yes they are. They can go to any public hospital and they will not be turned away.

#2 - that number isn't correct:

over 6 million of those people are currently on the medicare rolls

over 8 million of those people are currently eligible for medicare

over 9 million of those people are not US citizens

over 10 million of those people make over 300% of "poverty level" and can afford insurance

over 5 million of those people are young and otherwise healthy people

This leaves less than 8 million people who actually are not covered but might need it.

I would be in favor of having a fund to pay from 1/4 to 3/4 of catastrophic coverage for these 8 million people.

So if we average out to paying 1/2 of the bill, we are talking about $1,500 per person per year and that's less than $12 Billion.

$12 Billion to ensure that every American who cannot cover themselves is able to be covered, and we then don't have to monkey around with the healthcare system.

We also need to reduce frivolous lawsuits against doctors. One way to do this is enforce a "loser pays" system. If you sue a doctor and lose, you pay the doctors legal bills. Also, give doctors more freedom to practice medicine as they choose, while providing transparency for the consumer to be able to make an informed choice about who treats them. This will lower the cost to every person via competition and market forces.

I know that we can make healthcare better, but we don't want to take a step towards a Canadian type system. They are actually realizing that their care isn't very good and are making their system more market driven. If you get cancer, you're 16% more likely to DIE if you live in Canada than the US. That's right, I'll take our system every day of the week and twice on Sunday!

On The Old Testament

Well, many people read my former blog on the New Testament (which I'm amazed by) and they asked "hey, what about the Old Testament?" so here you go.

Now, I'm a NT major. I know more about the NT than the OT, but that's not to say I know nothing about the OT. In fact, I believe you can't understand the NT without an OT understanding. I'm currently working towards doing an exhaustive study of how to interpret NT Eschatological texts in light of OT Apocalyptic texts, but that's another story. Buy my book (when I write it) in about 6 years or so. ;-)

The Old Testament is, mostly, a different kind of literature than the NT. It was written primarily in Hebrew, at least as old as we can go back. Actually, there are languages, such as Ugaritic, that pre-dates Hebrew (such as in the time of Abraham) which I believe it's possible that portions of the Bible were written in first. But that's another story too...

The Hebrew culture was much different than ours today. They were an oral culture. There would have been very few written copies of the Bible (what we call the OT today) in the beginning. This culture even held true on through Jesus' day within Jewish circles. Most Hebrews, and all of the well educated, had the entire OT memorized. Yes, memorized, word-for-word. We can't imagine this today, but it was their way of life.

As God spoke to His people, He do so through prophets. They would speak an oral word to the people. This word would then be taken down, maybe something like we do today with court reporting, and the record would be kept. Today, we focus more on the written record, however the ancient Hebrew would rely on the oral tradition passed down via memorization.

So which books "made it" as scripture? Well, as long as (1) they were written by a prophet of God, (2) that prophet's authority was confirmed by an act of God, (3) the prophetic writings told the truth about God in harmony with the other prophets, (4) the prophetic writings were accompanied with the power of God to change people's lives, and (5) the prophetic writings were accepted by the people of God as true, they were in.

Malachi, the last book of the OT to be written, was completed and the canon of scripture was agreed upon by 400BC. The next prophet in redemptive history, according to Malachi, would be the one crying in the wilderness (John the Baptist) so we have over 400 years of silence between the end of the OT and the start of the NT called the intertestimental period (Mal. 4:4-6).

There were some books written during the intertestimental period called the "apocrypha" (which means secret or hidden), but these books do not adhere to the 5 criteria above, and they were written after Malachi but before John the Baptist so they are not valid scripture (though they are interesting books). The Apocrypha is similar to the pseudepigrapha for the NT. pseudepigrapha (books like "The Gospel of Thomas" or "The Gospel of Judas") was written hundreds of years after the NT was finished and are not valid scriptures either. Both Jews and Christians always rejected apocryphal books until the Catholic church changed it's mind in 1546.

Just as the NT, the OT was written by various men inspired by God. They spoke God's word, and the words were taken down. Over 3,800 in the OT it says "Thus says the Lord" showing that it intends to be God's very word.

The New Testament, such as in 2 Timothy 3:16-17, tells us that the OT, what they had at the time as the "Law, Prophets, & Writings" was God's word and profitable for Teaching, Rebuke, Correcting, and Training in Righteousness. The statement is that ALL scripture is God's word, this makes it ALL true. As well, Jesus accepted what we have as the OT as being true. In fact, we have made some archaeological findings to show that what we have as the OT is what Jesus and the Apostles had and trusted in their day. We have always had copies of the OT that were written in Hebrew several hundred years after the time of Christ. In the late 1940's some "new" manuscripts were found close to the Dead Sea that came to be known as the Dead Sea Scrolls. The interesting thing is that the DSS were virtually word for word identical to the copies we had, but the DSS were written before Jesus was born.

The long and the short of it is, we can trust the OT as God's word, because Jesus and the Apostles took it as God's word, and we know just as well as with the NT what the Bible said in Jesus' day.

It all comes down to Jesus. Both OT and NT are verified by Jesus and His followers, we can believe the whole Bible.

Much of the NT relies on it's readers understanding the OT. Actually, these terms "old" and "new" for the two sections of our Bible were not original to the Bible itself. The first recorded time this kind of designation was used was by Melito of Sardis in the late second century (recorded in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 4.26.1). He called them the "Old Covenant" and the "New Covenant", but in his usage it did not mean what we hear today in the modern usage of the terms. We think "new replaces old" but that's not the case. The old simply pre-dates that which came later in the new. As Jesus makes clear, He did not come to abolish the OT (Matt. 5:17).

So, the OT is good, the OT is trustworthy, get to know and love your OT!. :-)

Can We Trust the New Testament?

In a word, Yes.

We've got to think of the Bible in terms of an ancient document, because that's what it is. We believe that it's a book with God as it's divine author who (at least as far as the NT goes) inspired 8 men to write His words.

But here's another questions, even if you are smart enough to believe God's word, can we trust the words we now have in the Bible are God's? That too, is a YES!

Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James, & Jude wrote the New Testament, but in terms of "the rules" of ancient literature can we know that we have today what they wrote way back then? Yes we can.

Let's look at other ancient authors. Homer wrote in 850BC and we have 643 ancient copies so the accuracy of Homer's writings is considered 95%. Herodotus wrote in 450BC and the earliest copy was written in AD900, a 1,300 year gap with only 8 ancient copies. Euripides wrote in 440BC and the earliest copy was written in AD1100, a 1,500 year gap with only 9 ancient copies. Thucydides wrote in 420BC and the earliest copy was written in AD900, a 1,300 year gap with only 8 ancient copies. Plato wrote in 380BC and the earliest copy was written in AD900, a 1,300 year gap with only 7 ancient copies. Aristotle wrote in 350BC and the earliest copy was written in AD1100, a 1,400 year gap with only 5 ancient copies. Caesar wrote in 60BC and the earliest copy was written in AD900, a 950 year gap with only 10 ancient copies. Catullus wrote in 50BC and the earliest copy was written in AD1500, a 1,600 year gap with only 3 ancient copies. Livy wrote in 10BC with only 20 ancient copies in existence. Tacitus wrote in AD100 and the earliest copy was written in AD1100, a 1,000 year gap with only 20 ancient copies. Herodotus, Euripides, Thucydides, Plato, Aristotle, Caesar, Catullus, Livy, and Tacitus all have so few ancient copies available, it's impossible to calculate the percent of their accuracy.

Compare this to the New Testament:

Written from AD49 - AD95 with almost all of it completed by AD70.

The earliest manuscript that comes from the New Testament was written in AD130.

Yes, there's less than a 100 year gap from the time of original writing, and the date of the ancient manuscripts that we have.

How many ancient manuscripts do we have to compare? There are over 14,000 ancient manuscripts.

Textual criticism is science of comparing ancient documents to forensically reconstruct the original writing. As a result of this process, we know that 99.5% of the words we have in the Nestle-Aland 27th edition Greek text is exactly what was originally written. Those 0.5% disagreements are issues of spelling or adding/dropping a word that does not effect the meaning of the text. No major belief or doctrine of the church is build on any of these 0.5% issues.

As well, the early church leaders (mostly between AD95-150) quoted the NT so much we can reconstruct the entire NT with the exception of 11 verses (most from 2 & 3 John).

In other words, it almost goes without saying that the New Testament is the most trustworthy and attested ancient document PERIOD. Not only is no other document close in accuracy and trustworthiness, there no other writing even in the same league.

Isn't that what we'd expect from God's word?

Trust the Bible, trust Christ...

Geita Tanzania Mission Report

Here is a great report from my good friend Mike Tally: Dear friends, I just returned from Tanzania Sunday night. What an awesome experience. Sometimes grueling, but the Lord was in everything we did in a powerful way. 26 of us went from the US which included 13 from my church (10 very solid youth from my church including Michael, my 18 year old son). Here is a brief report: What an incredible experience with the Lord and with those on my team. There are so many of those on this team that I love so deeply. Together we saw the Lord do so many incredible things: a) An estimated 15,409 people heard the gospel. b) 7427 recorded professions of faith in Christ (2924 through US led teams (an average of 112 people per US team member) and 4503 through Tanzanian led teams). c) 60 mission points (42 new churches planted and 18 existing churches were strengthened). d) 72 Tanzanian missionaries and translators were mobilized from other cities. e) Hundreds were given dental care. e) The Lord spoke to us and worked in our lives in a way that will forever change us. There is such an incredible hunger for the gospel. It truly is like stepping into the New Testament. Our lives are impacted. I love joining the Lord in His harvest field. A trip like this takes us way out of our comfort zones. Fund raising is painful. The travel is grueling. Missed flights are absolute torture. The beds are hard. The water for showers is cold (if there is any). There is lots of dust. The commodes usually don't flush. The buses are hot and crowded. There is more dust. There are bugs. The food is very different. The people don't speak the same language. The culture is different. People can be aggravating. There is still more dust. We miss those we love. We are taken out of our comfortable environment. There is so much that we cannot control. And I know it can be incredibly hard for our friends and family who stay here. They make great sacrifices too. Here is the question that is running through my heart and mind, "Is it really all worth it?" Is it really worth it to follow Jesus. His way often takes us where the road is hard and unfamiliar. Out of our zones of comfort. Into our areas of weakness. But the way of Jesus is also the way of abundent life. We find that life through surrender. He meets us when we are most vulnerable. In our weakness He is strong. Jesus said, "If anyone comes after me, he must deny himself daily, take up his cross and follow me. For whosover, finds his life will lose it and whosoever loses his life for my sake will find it." I found life this week because everywhere I went I found Jesus there. We experienced Him as we obeyed His command to "go into all the world and preach the gospel" and to go and make disciples of all peoples". Wherever we we to share the gospel, He was there already. We found Him as we worshiped. I found Him in my weakness because it is in my weakness that I have opportunity to experience His strength. He is working in my life for sure. I am being changed. What a great blessing to be able to share this experience with my son Michael. It was his first time to be a team leader. His team of three Americans (Jimmy age 19 and Shaun age 18) and three translators went to the bush where most had no clue of the gospel. But these young men shared Christ with boldness passion and compassion. 489 people prayed to receive Christ in their group alone. My son now has a big heart for the people of Africa and Jesus worked deeply in his life. We completed four church planting campaigns in Tanzania in May and June. On those four campaigns approximately 31,000 prayed to receive Christ and 193 new churches were planted. I have two more campaigns this year, July 23-31 to Puerto La Cruz Venezuela and September 23-October 2 to Kahama/Ushirombo, Tanzania. The churches in Kahama are ready to plant 62 new churches and those in Ushirombo 36 more. We desperately need missionaries from the US to sign up and go. Please come with us. It truly is worth it. Jesus will impact your life as He impacts the lost through you for eternity. Thanks for praying. Your prayers make a huge difference. In Christ, Mike

Couldn't find the song

For about a month, I've had a song in my head, just the first few words, and I've been trying to find it. I kept singing "Great is the Lord, the Almighty, da da da da daaaa da...." and I just couldn't find it.

I broke out my Baptist Hymnal, yes I have a Baptist Hymnal on my shelf, doesn't everyone? Y'all should. Anyway, I looked through it for a couple of days. How could I not find that song!

So I finally broke down and asked my wife, "what's that song 'Great is the Lord, the Almighty, da da da da daaaa da....'"

And Beth said "PRAISE, to the Lord..." and it all clicked. "THAT'S IT!" So I went back to my handy-dandy hymnal and I found it. To add to the humor, it is Hymn no. 1. I love this song, one of my favorite!

Praise to the Lord, the Almighty
The King of creation
O my soul, praise Him
For He is thy health and salvation
All ye who hear, now to His temple draw near
Praise Him in glad adoration

Praise to the Lord
Who o'er all things so wonderfully reigneth
Shelters thee under His wings
Yea, so gladly sustaineth
Hast thou not seen how thy desires e'er have been
Granted in what He ordaineth

Praise to the Lord
Who doth prosper they work and defend thee
Surely His goodness and mercy here daily attend thee
Ponder anew what the Almighty can do
If with His love He befriend thee

Praise to the Lord, O let all that is in me adore Him
All that hath life and breath
Come now with praises before Him
Let the 'amen' sound from His people again
Gladly for aye we adore Him

Acts 26:1 "...Then Paul stretched out his hand and made his defense"

Fight the power and defend the faith.  Throw up your rockfist and be prepared to give your reasoned response to the way of the world.  Christians need to know what they believe and they need to live it out.

healthcare

"Our healthcare system is broken" I hear this from time to time.  The only problem is, people who are usually critical of our helthcare system are simply comparing the way our system is to their ideal system.  What we need is the best system, not the cheapest.

One factor that people usually don't take into account when looking at healthcare in other countries (none of which, in my opinion, is as good as ours) they have the ability to pay boo-koo bucks on their healthcare because they are our allies.  That means they don't have to spend on their military because we will bail them out.  We should start charging for the use of our military, but that's another story.

Let's look at a parable.  A man hires a handy-man from Handy-Man Ltd. and that man builds a deck.  The cost comes in way over budget, he used inferior materials, and the craftsmanship was way below par.  Some time goes by and the home-owner wants a gazeebo.  He hires another handy-man from Handy-Man Ltd.  The cost comes in way over budget, he used inferior materials, and the craftsmanship was way below par.  Finally, the owner wants a fince so he tries Handy-Man Ltd. one more time.  Again, the cost comes in way over budget, he used inferior materials, and the craftsmanship was way below par.

A couple of years go by and the home-owner desides to build a new home, wouldn't he be stupid to hire anyone from Handy-Man Ltd. to build his home?  But maybe one little project like his deck, gazeebo, or fince were not big enough... surely, for a WHOLE HOUSE the guys would do better work, right?  Yes, that would be stupid and none of us would work that way and we'd think the owner was dumb for thinking that way...

The three handy-men are the V.A., Medicare, & Medicade.  These bastions of efficency and high quality healthcare are the small little healthcare projects that our government runs.  These are disasters and embarrasingly ineffective.  Why on God's green earth would we entrust 100% of our healthcare to the jokers who have proven they can't do it?

Please, US Government, STOP SPENDING OUR MONEY on stuff you're no good at!

Handguns & the 2nd Amendment

So, in our constitution we have a second amendment that says ""...The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" and while we have the words, people do disagree about how these words are to applied in every situation.

I think part of the problem is that these are usually theoretical discussions and don't generally deal in the real world.

The question is usually dealing with gun laws. That is, can we make laws restricting the use and possession of guns that will make law abiding citizens more safe.

That's a great theoretical argument. Could we make restrictive gun laws that would make us safer? Sure, I say yes. Do more restrictive gun laws that we currently have on the books make us more safe? No, I don't think they do.

The most restrictive thing that we can do is 100% ban guns, like the ban on handguns that was put in place in Washington DC. The Supreme court ruled that it was unconstitutional to ban handguns in DC, but there's a catch. Washington DC isn't run by a state but a federal government, enter Chicago IL.

A few years ago, Illinois legislators made a big deal about passing laws that said: if you break the law with a gun, you're going away. Chicago has a ban on handguns, so are we safer here in Illinois and in Chicago in particular? Let's look at the case of Chicago Police Officer Alex Valadez.

Shawn Gaston, one of two men charged with Valadez' murder, was arrested in 2007 for carrying a loaded handgun. He pleaded guilty and Cook County Circuit Judge Bertina Lampkin gave him probation. He violated that probation, but Lampkin let him stay on the street. He violated that probation again, but Lampkin let him stay on the street. He was cited for violating his probation a third time, and Lampkin let him stay on the street. Now he's charged with the murder of Alex Valadez.

I think the theoretical argument of whether or not restrictive gun laws can make us safer is stupid until we get judges who will enforce the laws we already on the books. Add to the mix that every citizen should have the right to defend themselves and their family by any means necessary (including handguns) and I think singling out guns as the problem is pretty stupid.

I think the answer is REALLY STEEP punishment and faithful enforcement of those laws for violent offenders. Use a gun to try and kill someone (not in self defense) and you go to jail, no probation, period. At the same time, we should have (and I say, do have) the right to defend our families. Don't punish those of us who are not violent by taking away our means to defend ourselves.

Look at these interesting words of Jesus in Luke 22:35-38 "³⁵And he said to them, "When I sent you out with no moneybag or knapsack or sandals, did you lack anything?" They said, "Nothing." ³⁶He said to them, "But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. ³⁷For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors.' For what is written about me has its fulfillment." ³⁸And they said, "Look, Lord, here are two swords." And he said to them, "It is enough.""

In other words, Jesus charged His disciples to carry the weapon that would allow them to protect their property. Hey, if it's good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me. I think in today's setting, Jesus wouldn't have us carrying swords, but perhaps a 1911 .45ACP.

Just a thought...

What Do Christians Believe

Here are the basic beliefs that the church has held for thousands of years from the Apostles up until today...

We believe in God the Father, the only One who has all power.  He made heaven and earth.

Rev. 4:11

We believe in Jesus Christ, God's only Son, our Lord.

Heb. 1:1-3; John 1:1-3

Jesus was born of the virgin Mary, who became pregnant through the power of the Holy Spirit.

Luke 1:30-35; John 1:14

Jesus suffered and was nailed to a cross.  He died and was buried.  But three days later, Jesus rose from the dead.

Acts 2:23-24; 1Cor. 15:3-4

He went up into heaven,

Acts 1:9-11

and He is the ruler of everything with God the Father.

Eph. 1:19-23

Jesus will come back from heaven to earth,

John 14:1-3

and will judge all the people who have ever lived.

Rev. 22:12-13

We believe in the Holy Spirit,

John 14:16-17

a holy, worldwide church from all ages,

Rev. 5:9-10

and the unity of all God's people.

Gal. 3:26-29

We believe in teh forgiveness of sins,

Col. 1:13-14; 1John 1:9

the resurrection of the body,

1Cor. 6:14; 15:21-23

and in the life that lasts FOREVER.

John 5:24

Is Jesus your Idol or Lord?

My wife and I (and Reagan) go to an American Idol party most Tuesdays, it's fun.  That show is built on the premise that theses young singers can use "Idol" as a vehicle to get what they want, fame and fortune.

I think this is a good definition of what an idol is: something you use to get what you really want.

Do you remember the movie "Major League?"  I like baseball and it's a funny movie.  Do you remember the character Pedro Cerrano and his idol "Jobu."  This is how Cerrano described his relationship with Jobu : "Bats, they are sick.  I cannot hit curveball.  Straight ball I hit very much.  Curveball, bats are afraid.  I ask jobu to come, take fear from bats.  I offer him cigar, rum.  He will come."

Obviously, this is a joke and a funny part of a comedy.  But, essentially it's true.  His idol (Jobu) is what he uses to get what he wants (hitting a curve ball).  He does not love Jobu.  Jobu didn't do anything praiseworthy.  Jobu is simply a means to an end.

We do the same thing.  Is your idol wealth?  Maybe you sacrifice your family at the altar of your job.  Is your idol power/influence?  Maybe you sacrifice your morals and ethics at the political altar of election campaigns.  Is your idol sex?  Maybe you sacrifice your dignity and go to strip-clubs and pay for Internet porn.  We have our idols in the western world just like in the 3rd world.

Here's the tragedy, many times Jesus is our idol.  Let me ask you this question to determine if Jesus is your idol and not your Lord.  Why are you a Christian?  Is it because you want to follow Jesus and all you need in the world is God, or are you a Christian so that Jesus will make your life better?

Let's look at a quote that Jesus gives us in Matthew 7:13-14 "Enter by the narrow gate.  For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many.  For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few"

What is Jesus saying here?  He means that not many people will really follow him, not many people will really be Christians.  But I thought most people in the west were Christians, aren't they?

When Jesus talks about separating the wheat from the chaff He is talking about the church.  Paul talks about evil people and impostors that grow up from within the church.  The message is clear, not all who are in the church are actually part of the church.

I think many, perhaps even the majority of western Christians have Jesus as an idol rather than their Lord.

Their God is a happy life in stead of having Jesus as their God.

Here's how we know.  When someone loses something they care about (a job, family member, relationship, possessions, etc.) or when they don't get something they want (promotion, money, spouse, etc.) their true God comes out.  Initial reaction aside, if the hardship draws them closer to Jesus, then He's their God.  On the other hand, if the reaction is loss of faith, or anger with God because they are "being good" or they are doing the "right things", or in any way drives them away from Jesus or the church, then Jesus is most likely an idol and not Lord.

Many people use Jesus to get what they want, to be happy.  Well, the goal of our life is not to be happy.  It's not for our family to be safe.  It's not to be healthy.  It's not to get more stuff and feel good with as little hardship as possible.  The goal of life, is Jesus.

Do you go to church to "pay your dues" so that you get on Jesus' good side and He'll make sure you get to keep all the good things in life?  Go to church to become a vital and intricate part of the Body of Christ.  Do you give money through your church so that you won't lose your job or so that Jesus will "bless your finances?"  Give to God through your church to honor God and give Him what's already His anyway.  Give joyfully.

Bottom line, Jesus' goal is not to get you what you think you need, it's to make you more like Him.  God's goal is not your happiness, it's your holiness.

When tragedy strikes and we ask "why did you do this to me God," the answer is always the same.  To make us more like Jesus.  Our questions betrays how much we follow Jesus in order to get what we want, rather than to get what we've already been given, namely Jesus Himself.

In "Major League" Eddie Harris tells Pedtro Cerrano "You know you might think about taking Jesus Christ as your savior instead of fooling around with all this stuff"

Then Pedro responds "Jesus, I like him very much, but he no help with curve ball"

How often do we say "Jesus, I like him very much, but he no help with making me happy"

I believe this is why people "fall away" and leave the Faith, they didn't really follow Jesus to begin with.  If you're seeking Jesus, you can't lose because He's already given Himself for you.  However, if you're using Jesus as your idol to get some other picture of "the good life" that you want, then it's more likely you will be disappointed.

Follow Jesus for Jesus' sake, not for the perks...

Thoughts

I'm very interested in the subject of "faith vs. science" but I've found that in most cases it usually devolves into an argument about how someone who believes in God can't really be a good scientist, or at least someone who is committed to atheism makes for a more objective scientist.  I don't really think that's true.

I did some thinking, and came to the idea that most modern day athiest/scientists (at least those on YouTube) seem to look at themselves as "the best."  Everyone has their own God, for the athiest, it's himself.  The only thing, I think, that might cause an honest athiest any pause is to be confronted of obvious superior intellegence from people of faith.

Well, this will be fun, let's take a look.  Here are 7 non-athiests who made some major contributions to science and scientific thought...

• Sir Issac Newton. Not a traditional "Christian" but deffinately believed in God and even had a love of hermeneutics (the science of interpreting the Bible) as one of his great passions.
  
• Gottfried Leibniz. a Lutheren who deffinately believed in God.
• Louis Pasteur. Had a firm belief in God as the creator of all things that fuled his studies and resulted in saving more lives than probably any other single person in history.
  
• Galileo. Though he had issues with several Popes and the Catholic church, he believed deeply in God and the inability of God's word, the Bible, to err.
  
• Albert Einstein. Though he might not conform to any modern religious group exactly, he deffinately worked within the framework of there being a God.
  
• Sir Jagadish Chandra Bose. He was a Hindu and deffinately not an athiest.
  
• Aristotle. He deffinately believed that the divine had a large role in the formation and working of the kosmos.
  

The world is upside down

Today the price of a stamp went up. This is a funny illustration of a spiritual truth (stay with me...).

When Jesus preached around Galilee much of what He taught seemed counter-intuitive, but I'll get back to that in a second.

Have you ever heard the idiom "the road to he(you-know-what) is paved with good intentions?" Well, I think our good intentions sometimes obscure the truth.

Still with me? Hang in there.

I frequently see the parallels between life and economics. In fact, the root Greek word from which we get economics means how someone manages his house. How can you get more basic in life than getting your house in order.

So here's the connection between economics, intentions, and counter-intuitive actions.

So many people want to save the world and they do have great intentions. These desires are usually expressed in "leftest" type legislation. Though these ideas are intended to do good, they usually have the opposite result.

In other words, results, not intentions, are what we need to judge our actions by.

One of my favorite examples of this idea is minimum wadge. When we hear about people working for $1 per hour we are saddened by that because we think "well, no one can live on $1 per hour." The initial desire is to do good, help people make more money, the result is to cause people to lose their source of income.

Minimum wadge legislation, in most cases, only has the result of making it illegal for business owners to employ people who do not possess skills at the level of the minimum wadge. Rather than allowing people to be paid what their skills are worth, government attempts for force businesses to engage in charity. When you force a business to engage in charity, you inherently force them to be less successful and are (ironically) then less able to engage in true charity. It never works. The intent is good, to make people be nice, but you can't force people to be nice, you can only be fair and promote freedom.

Switching gears (hopefully the transmission wont fall out), Jesus taught that the first will be last and the last will be first. If someone strikes you on the left, turn them your right cheek too. If someone forces you to go one mile, go two. You want to be great? Then serve others as the least of all. Jesus even modeled this idea when He died for us. The Son of God who is the greatest of all, laid down His life for the lowest of all creations, sinners who rejected God.

Even though communities and governments may have the best of intentions, they cannot force good because people think backwards when free to choose whatever they want devoid of results.

One final example of man's inability to understand how the world really works, the United States Postal Service. Revenues have gone down at an alarming rate year over year at the Post Office, and every year they raise prices, makes since doesn't it? This is intention vs results.

If the USPS was a private company and not enough of us were using their services, they would have to improve their service or lower their prices. That's the way the world works, that's results. Is that what they do? No.

So let's see how it works for me. They need more people to mail letters, and how does raising the price do that? I was thinking about mailing a letter when it would cost me $.42 but now that it's $.44 I'll definitely do it! Huh? Does that make since at all? No, it doesn't.

So, if you're making a decision for moral reasons (as in trying to help people get out of poverty), financial reasons (trying to increase demand of your product), or for spiritual reasons (trying to follow Jesus) look at the results, don't just follow your instincts or intentions. Intentions don't count.

The only truth in this life that you can rely on is God's word, everything else is just hype. Don't listen to what people say with their lips, follow the Bible and judge people by their actions.

In politics and life (economics) the proof is in the pudding...