The Gannon/Guckert "scandal": a golden opportunity

I hope President Bush is reading his Bible these days. If so, here's praying that he attends closely to Proverbs 21:22 --

A wise man scales the city of the mighty
and brings down the stronghold in which they trust.

Since Democratic leadership joins call for Gannon inquiry, and various other liberal sources keep expressing outrage that an uncredentialed and politically-motivated individual could actually break into the hallowed ranks of the White House presstitute corpse [double sic on myself], I think the Bush administration should pull a deft Judo move.

They should propose performing the exact same investigation on all WH reporters. Send out a questionnaire that reflects the matters that find them in such breathless anxiety when it comes to Jeff Gannon/James Guckert. To wit:

1. Ask if any reporter is a homosexual.
2. Ask if any has ever exchanged sex for anything.
3. Ask them to list all web sites with which they have ever had any involvement.
4. Review all of their questions and articles for any bias, agenda, or tendentiousness.
5. Ask for a list of all political associations, involvements, activities, financial giving.
6. Once step five is completed, the same investigation must be performed on the organizations that employ them.
7. Report the results.

The mainstream media assure us endlessly that they alone are so professional as to be wholly without bias, and concerned only with the truth.

So surely they would fully support such an effort. Right?

Ri-i-i-i-i-i-ight.

UPDATE: I see gratefully that Jeff Gannon noted the thoughts offered here, as did Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media. Kincaid correctly observes that sending out my proposed questionnaire would not be the equivalent of what was done to Gannon. In that case, the reporters would have the opportunity of volunteering the requested information. In Gannon's, his trashcans were pillaged (so to speak), and his family reportedly was harrassed, in a targeted search for scandalous material.

UPDATE II: Cliff Kincaid has another fine essay putting the accusations against Gannon into perspective.

"Gay" child, evil father.... yawn

The media only know two family situations featuring homosexual children.

The first: a homosexual child is portrayed as a warm, vulnerable human being, whose parents wisely and lovingly approve of his choice to embrace his homosexual passions. These are good parents. There are (in the media's eyes) a lot of these.

The second: a homosexual child is portrayed as a warm, vulnerable human being, whose parents hatefully, narrow-mindedly, ignorantly and irrationally reject his choice to embrace his homosexual passions. These are evil parents. There are (in the media's eyes) not many of these.

There is no third category.

For the most recent example, see the Washington Post's Marc Fisher regaling us all with the little morality story, When Sexuality Undercuts A Family's Ties. It it we learn what was previously suspected: that Alan Keyes has a lesbian daughter. He does not approve of her embrace of her homosexual passions. Therefore, he is a type-two parent -- according to this column.

Now, my own admiration for Alan Keyes has charted a downward course over the years. The first Keyes address I heard was an electrifying, marvelous, passionate speech on abortion. It literally had me want to stand and applaud. (As I was driving, I had to suppress the impulse.) After that, however, I found him to be insufferably full of himself, repeatedly sabotaging his own more-brilliant points by his arrogant attitude and behavior.

Further, Keyes is a Roman Catholic. So I can have no assurance as to what he told his daughter, beyond (by her own admission) that homosexuality is evil, and that she should pray for God's help to leave it. Thus far, I'd certainly agree -- and he's done better by her than parents who enable such a destructive choice by their embrace of it.

I hope someone, somewhere along the way, preaches Jesus Christ to this girl. I hope that someone tells her that, indeed, she shares with all the rest of us that she was born a slave to sinful passions, and under the just condemnation of God (Romans 3:10-18; 5:12). I hope that someone will tell her that no ritual, no effort, no sect, no discipline, no program, no external pronouncement of any kind can help her in the least bit to be free from her sins, and from their inevitable consequence. I hope that someone tells her that her only hope is not in a sect nor its rituals, but in the person of Jesus Christ, in whom alone we can be forgiven and freed from both our sins and our sin (Acts 4:12; 13:38). And I hope that someone tells her that, in Jesus, she can be freed from her the death-grip of immoral homosexual passions as well (1 Corinthians 6:9-11).

Whether anyone has ever told her these things, I can have no certainty nor confidence. I pray someone does, if no one has. And I pray she will listen, will respond in repentant faith in Jesus, and will know the wonder of God's great salvation in Christ alone, through faith alone, by grace alone.

UPDATE (2/16) — as I look again at the title, I reflect -- aren't fathers always evil, though? Either they do evil things, in which case they're, well, evil; or they let their wives do evil things, in which case they're passive and evil; or they don't let their wives/children do wonderful things, in which case they're oppressive and (you guessed it) evil.... Maybe they can only be good by letting their wives/children do good things, or supporting them when they do. No, wait; when they do that, they're disengaged.

And evil.

UPDATE II — there is an essay at FreeRepublic that gives some other thoughts and considerations on this. What is particularly striking about it is that Maya herself, or someone claiming to be her, entered a post in the thread. This gave me an opportunity to try to be used of God in answering my own prayer; I sent a private response to her, with just what I wished above that someone would tell her. If it was she, now I can know that someone has tried. Pray that God will give her the ears to hear, and do His work of grace in her life.

TNIV: ill-begotten

After promising not to, the perpetrators of the New International Version have inflicted another paratranslation on the unsuspecting masses.

For some back-history, the best source is probably WORLD magazine. They did an early article on the feminist-izing of the NIV titled Femme fatale. Other follow-ups included The battle for the Bible, and Bailing Out of the Stealth Bible, among others. Now, the powers behind the Today's New International Version (TNIV) have gone back on agreements made earlier, as documented by WORLD in Beyond stealth.

Additionally, WORLD has started a blog on the TNIV, titled Stealth Bible: TNIV.

At its best, the NIV was disappointing. Now, we have to add "treacherous" and "fad-driven" to the approriate critical adjectives.

Not a happy birthday for a "new" "translation."

You know, what kills me about this is the Why?! issue. I picture a group of guys sitting around, brainstorming. Suddenly, one jolts up straight in his chair. "I know! I have it!" he cries.

The others pull their pens out of their mouths and look up.

"There aren't nearly enough watered-down, cultural-agenda-driven Bible paraphrases on the market! Let's do one!"

The room erupts in cheers.

Yeah, but the truth is, somehow the NIV became a respected name among evangelicals. And so this is trading on that respected name, using it to sneak in an anti-Biblical agenda. That strikes me as particularly foul.

Sadly, it's what we get for being such an unreflecting, undemanding, lazy, Biblically-illiterate consumer populace.

UPDATE: you can read the TNIV explanation for why they went back on their word here.

Also, helpful (critical) links can be found here.

UPDATE II: Vern Poythress has a very fine article on TNIV's Altered Meanings.

UPDATE III: I'll tell you right up-front, it's depressing reading. The TNIV shills have put up a page of endorsements. Bespeckling that page, you'll see a lot of The Usual Suspects. There are "sinner-sensitive" church leaders like Bill Hybels, there's Christian-missionaries-to-Mormons backstabber Richard Mouw (of Fuller, natch), and the like. And although the phrase "female Christian pastor" is a contradiction in terms, there are quite a few wanna-be's cited as well. But John Stott? John Armstrong? Tremper Longman III? Sigh.

"Pastor" Joel Osteen?

Michael Spencer, "The Internet Monk," has posted an alarm concerning Joel Osteen, pastor of a church of something like 30,000 people, titled Outing Joel Osteen: A Challenge to the Evangelical Blogosphere. In it, he spells out his concerns about Osteen, gives a number of substantiating links, and asks that Christian bloggers join him in raising the alarm.

I'll approach it by asking, What is a pastor? And What is a pastor to do?

The Greek word translated "pastor" means shepherd. The well-known Psalm 23, in painting Yahweh as our Shepherd, shows the shepherd at work. He makes sure his sheep are led, fed, and protected. This is what the Christian pastor is to do as well: he is to lead, feed, and protect his sheep.

First he must be the sort of person who can lead. This is why Paul is at pains to set out the requirements for the character and training of a pastor in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:7-9. His character must literally be exemplary. However, in most of these traits, he is nothing other than what a Christian man should be -- with one exception: he must be able to teach (1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:9). He must be soaked in the Word of God (2 Timothy 3:15-17). This is because he is called to teach, teach, teach the Word of God with power and patience and persistence, regardless of the inclement weather of his culture (2 Timothy 4:1-4).

In fact, in a striking passage, Paul shows us that God values his ability to labor hard in teaching the Word above everything else (1 Timothy 5:17). He must hold out this Word -- the whole Word, with its thundering judgments, non-negotiable commands, and wondrous promises alike -- if he is to be free of the blood of his hearers (Acts 20:26, 27; cf. Ezekiel 3:17-21).

And what does any of that have to do with Joel Osteen? As far as I can tell, not much.

If I am reading the sources right, his qualification and training for being a pastor was that his dad was one, and he worked with the media ministry. That, seemingly, is it. No Hebrew, no Greek, no nothing.

Now, look: I in no way believe seminary is a requirement for being a pastor. But training is. And if one is trained, the fruit will show in one's preaching and writing and conversation.

Osteen has written; in fact, he wrote a best-seller. Listen to what he says about it in this Faithful Reader interview:

FR: Do you need to have a personal relationship with Christ or even be a Christian to benefit from what you write?

JO: I think that these principles will work in anybody's life. I think Bible principles are principles for life. I was reading today about one of the wealthiest men in the world. Every week he gives away homes and cars and surgery for the poor in his country of Saudi Arabia, and he continues his business and continues to be one of the wealthiest men in the world. I thought about it and that's just right out of the principles of the Bible. When you give, God is going to give back to you. I think that having a positive attitude and expecting good things is just what the Bible says. The answers I think will work for anybody.

FR: You put the prayer to accept Christ, or the "salvation prayer," on the very last page of your book. What went into this decision to put it at the very end?

JO: I feel my calling in life is to encourage people to help them live their lives better, to just be who God made them to be. Most of my ministry is not necessarily Evangelistic. Mine is to help people to live, but I do believe the Great Commission is to go into all the world and to teach and make disciples. I believe I'm helping to make disciples, to train people how to live.I could have put the salvation prayer on the first page: that would have been great too. It's just that in my weekly broadcast I always give the message, and then at the end I take the 30 seconds and I say that prayer. I guess it's just a habit thing.

Thirty seconds at the end... "a habit thing." An endnote.

Contrast this with the apostle Paul, who said that, if Christ had not risen from the dead, his life made no sense whatever, and he (with all Christians) was the most pitiable of all (1 Corinthians 15:19). Paul, who said that for him to live was Christ (Philippians 1:21). Paul, who abominated the very thought that he could boast in anything but the cross of Christ, by which the world had been crucified to him, and he to the world (Galatians 6:14).

Yet Osteen says his book is great help from God, whether a person is saved or not. Salvation is optional. Christ is optional.

And apparently it is, as this page shows a self-admitted "secular person" and a Buddhist both saying how great they think Osteen is. To them as they are. Outside of Christ, under the wrath of God -- but feeling happy and optimistic, because "Pastor" Osteen tells them to be.

It is a shame that a person who offers, apparently, no Evangel, can be a rising leader in so-called Evangelicalism.

Check out the links, see for yourself, form your own judgments on the basis of facts and of Scripture. For my part, I think again and again of Paul's sobering counsel to Timothy:

I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: 2 preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. 3 For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, 4 and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. (2 Timothy 4:1-4)