"What Calvinism is Not"

See the really great little post over by Jason Robertson at Fide-o.

I've been planning my own post on "What Dispensationalism Is Not." I hope it will be as concise and useful as Jason's.

La Triviata -- or, Lightening up: trivial quatrains about meeeeee

Okay, I guess anything with "quatrain" in the title kind of defeats the meaning of "lightening up"... but from the irreplaceable La Shawn Barber I steal the idea of posting groups of four triviata about myself. Because I know you all come here to learn more about me!!! (Like I "know" that Hillary Clinton would make a great president. In other words, in the sense of "not!")

And I'm so too-serious that I have to disclaimerize that these are light, off-the-top-of-my-head, and not meant to be exhaustive nor exclusive.

Four Jobs I’ve Had in My Life:

• Pastor
• Private investigator
• Cook at Bob's Big Boy in Glendale, California
• Trout-fly maker

Four Movies I Could Watch Over and Over, and Have:

• Lord of the Rings: the Fellowship of the Ring (literally about seventeen times in the theater; and no, I've never done that before nor since)
• Forbidden Planet
• The Quiet Man
• Spider Man II

Four Places I Have Lived [depending on how you define "living"]:

• Glendale, California
• Trona, California
• Fullerton, California
• Sacramento, California

Four TV Shows I Love To Watch:

• 24 (recent addict)
• Babylon 5
• Buffy, the Vampire Slayer (sorry; tell no one)
• Angel (see previous)

Four Places I Have Been On Vacation:

• The Bishop-Mammoth Lakes area, California
• Scotland
• Seattle area, Washington
• Las Vegas, Nevada

Four Websites I Visit Daily [besides this one and Pyromaniacs!]:

• FreeRepublic
• La Shawn Barber
• Whedonesque
• Hugh Hewitt

Four Favorite Foods:

• Steak barbecued over a wood fire, outdoors in the Eastern Sierra
• Seafood (virtually any)
• Crispy fried chicken, lots of yummy batter (Winco is the best store-bought, Col. Sanders' extra-crispy [not the original recipe extra-soggy] is the best best big-chain, and Two Sisters is just about the best I've had, ever, anywhere, period)
• Lamb the way my dear, late mother made it: battered and baked, with garlic cloves under the skin

Four Places I Would Rather Be Right Now:

• Heaven, rejoicing forever in the presence of God, freed from my flesh and the dangers and snares of this God-hating world
• The Bishop-Mammoth Lakes area, California
• Scotland
• New Zealand, maybe?

Four People I Am Tagging With This Meme:

• Discoshaman (maybe it will get him back to blogging?)
• Pecadillo (because his is sure to make my list look serious, too-sober, and stodgy, and is likely to make everyone forget about that whole Buffy/Angel-thing)
• Libbie
• JollyBlogger

:: sigh :: Chad Allen, End of the Spear... one more time

As far as I know, the best place to go to stay up on the developments of this controversy continues to be Sharper Iron.

Jason relays a conversation he had with the powers behind the movie HERE. The upshot is that knowing of Allen's pro-homosexual-agenda would have made no difference as to his being given this platform, and they'd cast him again in a sequel if one were made.

Frankly, I find any pretense of not knowing beforehand very hard to believe. Do these people not know how to use IMDB? Re-read my own first encounter with this situation here. Now, I'm not even in "the business," but when I saw the movie's web site bragging about Allen's involvement in Corpus Christi, a red light immediately started blinking in my brainium. (By the way, that little factoid has now been removed from the web site. Coincidence? I think not!) I went to the indispensable IMDB, and less than two minutes later I knew what these show-biz professionals seem to be trying to say they didn't know, before they offered him the role.

Ideally, we'd all like not to make mistakes. But we do. So Plan B is to admit the truth, deal with it, learn, and regroup. The fool will never do that, the wise man will (Proverbs 10:8-9; 26:12; 28:23). I figure I really don't want to be the last to know and admit the ugly truth about some foul-up I perpetrated. They folks don't seem to mind being in that position so much.

Clarifications, one more time (I develop this a lot more here and here, but because of some folks' evident insistence on misunderstanding, I'll try to be briefer and more plain):

1. My issue isn't that a Christian movie hired an imperfect person, or a sinner, or even necessarily that they hired a non-Christian. It is that they gave an illegitimate missionary platform to a known dysangelist for the homosexual agenda, contrary to the wisdom of Proverbs 26:6 and 10. It would have been the same to me had they hired someone who campaigned publicly for normalizing adultery, rape, theft, incest, adult/child sex, or abortion.
2. Chad Allen may be a very nice man, and may be a very competent actor. I pray for his conversion, and would urge every Christian reader to do the same. What he is most, though, is a lost sinner in need of a clear presentation of the Gospel of Christ. This experience seems to have muddled Gospel issues for him, rather than clarifying them. This could easily have been predicted. I predicted it, and I am no rocket scientist, nor do I play one on TV.
3. The gift of this assured platform to this broken man did him a disservice, and put the Christian community in a lose/lose bind. It was just plain stupid.
4. I myself neither advocate nor oppose a boycott of the film. Individual decision. Just make it informedly, and for Biblical reasons.
5. This hiring assured the result that this man and his sin of preference would become the focus -- not Nate Saint nor the other martyrs, nor the Gospel they died to proclaim. No one can seriously argue that this a surprising turn of events. Anyone not living under a very large rock in the middle of a very large desert could have seen it coming.

UPDATE: Okay, this just gets weirder and weirder. In this story, from Agape Press, January 19, 2006, Steve Saint is quoted as saying this:

I thought, 'What happens if I stand before God someday and He says to me, "Steve, I went out of my way to orchestrate an opportunity for Chad Allen to see what it would be like to live as your father did.' And then I could picture Him looking at me and saying, 'Steve, why did you mess with my plan?'"

Saint presents himself as just thinking this through, just speculating and wondering and musing. But now in this story from Christianity Today, 01/26/06, Saint's version seems very different:

...Saint had already decided to keep Allen on board. He said he had been praying about it, and that God clearly revealed the answer in a dream.

In the dream, Saint says he was "being chased by a mob of Christians who were angry with me for having desecrated 'their story.' The answer to their hostility was easy: Just ask Chad to remove himself. But as quickly as this thought came to me, I found myself standing before God. His look was not as compassionate as I had expected. God said, 'Steve, you of all people should know that I love all of my children. With regard to Chad Allen, I went to great lengths to orchestrate an opportunity for him to see what it would be like for him to walk the trail that I marked for him. Why did you mess with my plans for him?'

"I was fully awake by the end of this sleepy mind play.I knew that there would be a price to pay for any position I would take on this issue, regardless of the fact that I had not wanted to be involved.I knew one thing for sure: I would rather face the anger and even hatred of people who feel I have let them down, than to take any chance of having to stand before my Savior and have to answer for messing up his plans for Chad."

So what seems to be presented as Saint's musings in the older article, becomes a trump-card semi-revelation from God in the later article. (The implication is that anyone who has a different view is opposing the purposes of God -- but we have to take Steve Saint's word for it, because God made this revelation only to him.)

In this article, Saint is presented as very conflicted over the casting, and the powers-that-be (incredibly, to me; see above) still present themselves as blinded by Allen's very open homosexuality. And Allen is just a great guy, offering to walk off the production because of his great respect for Saint and his family.

What do I make of it? Honestly, I do not know. I just know it seems really weird, and the pieces aren't fitting together very well for me.

MY Big Announcement...

...is Phil Johnson's Big Announcement.

Yessiree, boys and girls, brothers and sisters, kids of all ages, after happily swinging away here in the minors for over a year, greatness has been thrust upon yr obdt srvt. Phil Johnson has graciously -- and I do stress that adverb -- invited me to team-blog with him. Of course I gave the invitation long, serious, and searching thought. (Boy, that's six seconds of my life I'll never have back!) Then I said yes.

So I can tell from the stream of referrals to this site from the new site, that a lot of good folks are seeing Phil's announcement, reading my name, raising their hands to the heavens and excitedly exclaiming -- "Who?!"

So welcome, I'm looking forward to making new friends, and probably new enemies. (Confessedly more eagerly the former than the latter.)

You can read a bit about my background and foreground here; you can read some of my unbloggy opii here; and I'd invite you to use the right side of the blog to see what I've written. The word "eclectic" may come into your mind, as you see Biblical/political essays, pop culture examinations, infrequent personal notes, exegetical notes, controversional theological reflections, wrestling with personal issues of Christian living, and just some funny stuff.

Not all of that will fit into Phil's design, and that's just great. So for you regular visitors here, here is my plan. I intend to keep this blog up, as I work also with Phil and the team. What won't fit there, will go here. That's the plan. We'll see how that goes.

So I'm glad to meet you, and I pray you come to feel the same. I'm terribly humbled, and terribly grateful to Phil for the opportunity, and plan to do my best to use it for the greater glory of God and good of His people.

Book Review: Help! Mom! There are Liberals Under My Bed!, by Katharine DeBrecht

Help! Mom! There are Liberals Under My Bed!,

by Katharine DeBrecht; illustrations by Jim Hummel.

World Ahead Publishing: 2005; np

As the eye-catching title and funny cover suggests, this is a fully-illustrated children's book -- but with a difference. It could have been subtitled "A Child's Introduction to Conservatism."

In easy prose, the author introduces us to brothers Tommy and Lou, a couple of good kids who "ate most of their vegetables, did their chores, tried not to fight over their toys ...said their prayers at bedtime" -- and decided that they wanted a swing set. Mom, who has a picture of Ronald Reagan on her wall, suggests that they'll appreciate the swing set if they work hard for it, and earn it. From her, the boys hit on the idea of earning the money by opening a lemonade stand, using the fruit-laden tree in their own back yard.

That night, both boys dream a strange, extended dream, "about a very strange place called Liberaland." Their lemon stand is very successful. Not only do they make enough money to head them towards their goal, they elect to set some aside for poor kids with no shoes. Then they're set upon by Mayor Leach, of Liberaland -- a man with an uncanny resemblance to Sen. Ted Kennedy. He knows far better than they how to spend their money, so he takes half of it. However, to the boys befuddlement, he later uses it to buy dustpans.

Nonetheless, the boys are so grateful to God for blessing their efforts, that they put up a picture representing Jesus. This offends a bypasser, Mr. Fussman of the LCLU, who demands that they replace it with a portrait of a big toe -- because "According to our research, a big toe is one of only two things that do not offend anyone." He leaves the boys chagrined, but still intent on working hard.

Then, all dressed in pink, along comes Congresswoman Clunkton, whose real-life inspiration isn't hard to divine. She's passed a law to make sure all children eat properly, because "It takes a village to get kids to eat their vegetables!" She demands that they pass out two pieces of broccoli with every glass of lemonade, and further meddles with their formula.

The story actually continues to progress from there. I read it to all of my family, possibly in a total of a half-hour, including time to show the pictures and stop for laughter. Everyone enjoyed it at one level or another, everyone chuckled or laughed aloud . My boys Jonathan (6) and Josiah (10) loved it, and have looked at it since. It became a good basis for discussing what liberalism is. (How would you explain liberalism to a six-year-old?)

The ideas are very good. It felt as if the humor could have used a bit more polish and honing, the analogies a bit more work. My family observed that the title doesn't actually work into the story at any point, clever though it is. Nonetheless, if the target is younger children, it was a total success with mine; and the back of the book suggests that more are on the way.

NOTE: I received this book as a gift from the publisher through Mind & Media.

A real, live, card-carrying girl -- La Shawn Barber -- on abortion

In some conversational fields, men aren't supposed to voice opinions on abortion. If they do, their opinions don't count -- as if one has to have a uterus in order to figure out whether or not it's right to have a child killed for being inconvenient, for being imperfect, or for having a bad parent.

Regardless, all that having been said, I've always wished more of the anti-abortion-on-demand majority of women would be more vocal. I do grant that it has to carry more emotional conviction for a woman, who might (even if only theoretically) find herself in a difficult pregnancy, to make the case, than it does for a man.

I planned to post a pro-life essay on this, the occasion of the anniversary of the bloody Roe v. Wade decision. But I am delighted to be able to point you instead to a great post by the priceless La Shawn Barber, titled Blogs4Life/March for Life II. Read that, and La Shawn's Townhall essay Marching for life and against the "Negro Project" as well. Then, if you'd like to read a Biblical examination of abortion, feel free to check out mine.

What th -- ? Roman Catholic priest preaches "sola fide" to the Pope??

I blinked, too.

Check out Faith alone, not deeds, required for salvation, papal preacher tells pontiff (h-t James White). You can also visit Cantalamessa's web page; on the initial page, there isn't a word that couldn't fit within a decently broad definition of Christendom.

On the other hand, Cantalamessa wrote a book titled Mary: Mirror of the Church, which a reviewer says sets forth the "orthodox, Catholic understanding of Mary's role in the Church." If Cantalamessa indeed sets forth the orthodox Roman Catholic view, with its obsessive fascination with fairy tales and de facto (if not de jure) divine worship, then of course he wouldn't fit.

Either way, interesting. Did he understand and mean what he reportedly preach? Does he know it strikes at the foundation of the Roman "gospel"? Or is it doubletalk?

Chad Allen, Larry King, "End of the Spear" -- scoring my prognostications

In my earlier essay, I discussed the casting of homosexual activist Chad Allen to play the roles of Christian martyr Nate Saint and his son, Steve, in the film "The End of the Spear." I made some predictions about the consequences growing out of this foolish move on the part of Every Tribe Entertainment.

In the update, I mentioned that Allen would be on Larry King "debating" Al Mohler, and suggested we pray for Al to be lovingly truthful, and not to cave. How did it turn out? And what's my score as a prognosticator, so far?

You can read the whole exchange here, and form your own conclusions. Here are mine.

First: I'm very grateful for Al Mohler's presence. I don't see how he could have done a better job of preaching Christ, under the circumstances. He kept turning the discussion to Christ's Lordship and our species-wide need for Him. He was indeed loving, compassionate, firm, and truthful in his dealing with this issue.

Second: has Larry King ever asked stupider questions? (Example: "Does it disturb you that apparently there's no record of Christ having had a heterosexual relationship?") Probably he has -- but I can't remember when. It hurts my brain just to think about them; you will gape in slack-jawed wonder.

Third: how's my record as a prophet? Well, on this issue, probably better than your average modern-day wanna-be. Here are my predictions, edited, along with what I see as fulfillments.

1. PREDICTION: If we go and support the movie, the pro-homosexual-agenda-driven MSM will report this as our "reluctantly growing" in our acceptance of homosexuality. It will be used to marginalize the concerns we express about this destructive sin, and decaffeinate our call to repentance and regeneration. Particularly (if reported accurately), Steve Saint's gushy acceptance and embrace of Allen will be messaged as acceptance of his homosexuality.
   FULFILLMENT: (Chad Allen) "Steve Saint called me today, and he said, I need you to know that I'm sitting here with Mincayani. We'll be watching you tonight. We love you. We are on your side. And I know that we have those differences, but we are walking through this together. That's where we're going to go."

   MY SCORE: One for one.

2. If we protest and stay away, we'll be shown up as knuckle-dragging haters, and once again Steve Saint's own embrace of Allen will be used against us. Why can't we be more enlightened, like Steve? After all, it's him and his dear dad that Allen is portraying. If it's okay with Steve, and Steve embraced Chad just as he is (as reported), why don't we? Our protests will be used to highlight the film. And here's the really nasty, biting irony: the "martyr" will be seen as Chad Allen... not Nate Saint.

   FULFILLMENT: (Chad Allen) "Of course, you know, it all comes down to that basic fear. You know I'm right now in a position where I'm getting attacked a lot because of who I am as a gay man. I'm coming out in a movie called 'End of the Spirit' [sic] in a story that's very dear to conservative Christians and some of the Christians don't like that idea."
   

   MY SCORE: Two for two.
   

3. If we do not support the movie, a message taken will be, "See? Christians don't even support Christian productions. Better get back to putting out filth."


FULFILLMENT: Still too early to tell; nothing in this interview.

MY SCORE: Two for three.

4. If we do support it, expect to see Chad Allen preaching all over the place. Hint: he won't be preaching the Christ who Nate Saint died proclaiming.

   FULFILLMENT: A caller asks, "Chad, by whose standard do you think that it's right to live the way you have chosen to live?" Allen replies:

   By the standard that I judge all of my actions. These days I judge all of my actions by my relationship with God of my understanding. It is a deep-founded, faith-based belief in God based upon the work that I've done growing up as a Catholic boy and then reaching out to Buddhism philosophy, to Hindu philosophy, to Native American beliefs and finally as I got through my course with addiction and alcoholism and finding a higher power that worked for me.

   You know, I had to sit down with that same God today and say, "Do you want me to go on this show? Do you want me to speak the things that are in my heart? And if not, I'm happy not to go. Do you want me to make this movie?" It's the same God that I go to for every decision.

   That's preaching.

   FINAL SCORE: Three for four.

Greatest irony of the interview: Allen depicts Christians as fearful about supporting his movie, and he puts these words in their mouths: "I am afraid that if I support you and if I allow you to have your freedom that will somehow tell my children that it's okay to be gay."

And then what does he say, in his very next remarks? "...From as early as I can possibly remember I was attracted to men and not to women. That's just the way that it goes. I didn't have somebody like me talking on TV about it. I didn't have gay influences in my family. It just is and I have come to accept that it is goodness and it's part of who I am."

Um, maybe I'm better at Greek and Hebrew than I am in Allen-ese -- but isn't he telling kids that "it's okay to be gay"?

Greatest sadness of the interview: Hear Allen at length:

I have a deep relationship with God and my understanding. It's very powerful, and it's taken its own shape and form. And I am very much at peace in the knowledge that in my heart God created this beautiful expression of my love.

Listen, Larry, we are going to be different, we're going to disagree on the details of this and we probably always will. The point is and I think this is where the reverend was heading and I appreciate it.

You know, I made this movie with a group of conservative Christians who do not agree with my expression of sexuality. But we said to each other, I will walk with you accepting your differences and we can create together. I will give you your space to respect you fully. They don't need to take away from my freedom, I don't need to take away from theirs. And I am so proud to have done that. That's the kind of bridge-building I think we can get to.

Reflect on this for a moment with me. Why is Allen on this show? Because he, an activist homosexual, stars in End of the Spear, a Christian movie about Christian martyr Nate Saint and his son, Steve. That movie gave him this platform. And for what is he using this platform? To preach, repeatedly, that God made him homosexual, that he has his own self-made relationship with God that is beautiful, fulfilling, satisfying -- and has nothing to do with the real Jesus Christ, whom innumerable Christian missionaries have died preaching.

In other words, Allen sees himself as a missionary -- a missionary to Christians, preaching the Badspel of moral relativism, denial, delusion, post-modernism, and another Jesus.

Now, I'll admit that I am no expert on Jim Elliot nor Nate Saint. Did they really knowingly risk, and ultimately sacrifice their lives to tell the Auca's that they could all make their own relationships with God, that whatever felt most natural to them was a gift of God, and that fulfilling whatever passions they have is a beautiful gift of God? Or did they go, and die, to preach Christ, to preach repentance and faith.

So what would genuine Christian missionaries say to the Aucas? What would they say to Chad Allen, and to pagan America today, in the midst of their pursuits? Would they say, "God accepts and approves you just as you are; embrace your passions, they're gifts of God"?

Or would they not rather cry out as did Paul and Barnabas, "Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men, of like nature with you, and we bring you good news, that you should turn from these vain things to a living God, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all that is in them" (Acts 14:15).

Instead of an evangelist, then, we have a dysangelist, a preacher of the Badspel, of bad news. Christian missionaries would preach and tell people how they can know God on God's own terms, how they can be saved from their sins' guilt and power. Chad Allen preaches no hope, except the illusory hope of denial. He can point to no freedom from sin, so he points to redefinition of sin.

Not only did Every Tribe Entertainment do the Christian community no favor in selecting Allen. They did Allen no favor, either.

UPDATE I: more along the line of fulfillment -- and Pat Robertson makes another appearance?! Chad Allen speaks again, from this interview:

I’ve really been heartened by the number of Christians who have said that [homosexuality ] is not a sin and that we should just love and respect each other. Even, Pat Robertson has a link to my Web site—and it’s done in a nice way.

50 most influential Christians in America (or: We are SO messed up!)

What do these people have in common?

• A man who denies the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity
  
• A man who couldn't answer basic Gospel questions posed by Larry King
  
• A man who thinks that Bill Clinton should be an evangelist, and Hillary should be president, and that people do not need to believe in Christ to be in His body.

Give up? They are the first, second, and third most influential Christians in America.

Here are the top ten in order:

1. T. D. Jakes
2. Joel Osteen
3. Billy Graham
4. Rick Warren
5. Bill Hybels
6. Paul Crouch
7. Joyce Meyer
8. President George Bush
9. James Dobson
10. Chuck Colson

Not sure precisely how they determined either the Christianity nor the influence of the men and women named on their list, but The Church Report lists them all out for us. Just as you're perhaps smiling and nodding at names like Joni Eareckson Tada, John Piper, Chuck Swindoll, James Dobson, and Chuck Colson, your brain will begin to itch at names like Robert Schuller, Benny Hinn, Paul Crouches (Sr. and Jr.), and... the Pope. And Sean Hannity. And Dr. Phil.

Dr. Phil?

Hugh Hewitt -- who never seems to be very sure as to why he ever left Rome -- is puzzled about the Pope's place on the list. Not why he is listed, but why he is listed so far down the list.

(I'm soliciting alternate subtitles to this entry. If they're clever, I'll add them as updates.)

UPDATE: Joe Carter has a cool breakdown of the list.

"End of the Spear": homosexual activist plays Christian martyr in movie

Boy, have I been around and around on this. I was deeply moved by Steve Saint's presentation at Desiring God's 2005 conference, Suffering and the Sovereignty of God. I'd never heard of Steve Saint before, though I'd certainly heard of Nate Saint. And in hearing of Steve Saint, I hear of the forthcoming movie "End of the Spear" enthusiastically promoted.

Later, I go to the movie's very slick web site. It certainly looks as if it is going to be an emotionally moving film. I then read about the cast, of whom I'd never heard. Then I notice that the man who plays two lead roles (Nate and Steve Saint) was involved in producing a play called "Corpus Christi." I raise an eyebrow, as my memory starts twitching. Wasn't that a play representing Jesus Christ and His disciples as homosexuals?

So I research further, and find that this actor, Chad Allen, is indeed an activist homosexual. I read some lame rationalizations the production company made about selecting him for this role. And then I start debating whether or not I want to blog about it.

I'm glad I didn't, because Jason Janz at SharperIron has done an excellent essay on the subject, better than what I had going. Lots of documentation, good suggestions on how to proceed, and some good following interaction from Steve Camp and others.

The foolishness of Every Tribe Entertainment has put the Christian community in a bind.

1. If we go and support the movie, the pro-homosexual-agenda-driven MSM will report this as our "reluctantly growing" in our acceptance of homosexuality. It will be used to marginalize the concerns we express about this destructive sin, and decaffeinate our call to repentance and regeneration. Particularly (if reported accurately), Steve Saint's gushy acceptance and embrace of Allen will be messaged as acceptance of his homosexuality.
2. If we protest and stay away, we'll be shown up as knuckle-dragging haters, and once again Steve Saint's own embrace of Allen will be used against us. Why can't we be more enlightened, like Steve? After all, it's him and his dear dad that Allen is portraying. If it's okay with Steve, and Steve embraced Chad just as he is (as reported), why don't we? Our protests will be used to highlight the film. And here's the really nasty, biting irony: the "martyr" will be seen as Chad Allen... not Nate Saint.
3. If we do not support the movie, a message taken will be, "See? Christians don't even support Christian productions. Better get back to putting out filth."
4. If we do support it, expect to see Chad Allen preaching all over the place. Hint: he won't be preaching the Christ who Nate Saint died proclaiming.

Now previous Christian reaction has been characteristically mushy. "What -- do you ask your plumber if he's cheated on his wife? How many actors are living holy lives? Who is without sin?" This kind of shallow thinking is always disheartening. As a matter of fact, if my plumber presented himself as Bud Adulterer, and told me that my use of his services would be leveraged to display Christian embrace of adultery -- then yes, I would take my business elsewhere.

And so here is a Christian (?) company that knowingly and deliberately hires a homosexual to portray a man who literally gave his life to preach Christ to the lost. Not a repentant, born-again homosexual; an unrepentant, practicing, activist, advocate homosexual who sees this movie as an opportunity to lower Christian objections to his sin of preference.

They say he's just the best. Evidently there simply is no practicing Christian actor of any quality these days. Not one! (Now, there's a topic for an essay, all by itself.)

As I say, we're in a bind. Like Colson's embrace of Roman Catholicism, like Mouw's/Eerdmans' embrace of Mormonism, the tens of thousands of Biblically-committed voices may be about to be drowned out once again by one loud mouth.

UPDATE: Jason Janz gives a heads up that Chad Allen will be discussing (what else?) homosexuality on Larry King tonight, with Al Mohler, Janet Parshall, and a homosexual mayor. See whether any or all of my predictions start to come to dreary realization. Pray for Mohler to speak the truth in love, and neither buckle nor cave.

UPDATE II: Tim Challies has a great discussion developing the concern expressed above, that this movie will provide an effective platform for Chad Allen to preach the"badspel" of homosexual libertinism.

UPDATE III: see how my predictions, above, are doing, HERE. Is Allen already using the platform this movie company gave him to spread the bad news that there is no hope for deliverance from homosexual desires -- or the corrollary Badspel of denial (i.e. immorality is moral)? Check it out.

I did not laugh at this! I did not!

...well, not after the first couple of minutes....

Have I mentioned that Pat Robertson doesn't speak for me?

Oh, yeah -- I did.

God's will: the central issue for Biblical Christians

Phil Johnson just put up another wonderful post, Prophecy revisited, in which he returns to the issue of putative modern-day prophecies. This is related to the ongoing controversy between woefully-misnamed continuationalists and inadequately-named cessationists. The ensuing comment thread was quite lively and interesting, with some particularly good posts by centuri0n and others.

What was a bit vexing is that the conversation immediately swerved aside. "But if God isn't still speaking, how do I know which brand of beans is His will for me to buy, or whether to watch Buffy re-runs or Touched By an Angel? How can I find His will for my life, in things not touched on by Scripture?" Oodles of earnest, good-hearted, but traditionalistic thinking was in evidence.

A simple-minded man myself, I'll venture two simple statements. I'll lay them down, then put them together, then move on.

Statement the First: Foundational. Concerning this issue, as concerning all issues, the central question for the Christian is -- "What does the Bible teach?"

Statement the Second: Practical. Concerning the specific issue of God's will for my life, the central question for the Christian is -- "For what does God hold me morally responsible?"

The assumption of many of the good brethren and sistren in the thread is that God has three wills: His sovereign will, His revealed will, and His jus'-sayin' will.

They would agree, I hope and assume, that God's sovereign will is (A) God's sole responsibility to effect, and (B) always carried out (Psalm 115:3; Ephesians 1:11b, etc. ad inf.).

They would further agree, I hope and assume, that God's revealed will is (A) found fully and adequately revealed in the Bible alone (2 Timothy 3:15-17), and (B) is our responsibility to carry out by His grace and enabling (Romans 8:12-13; Philippians 2:12-13, etc. ad inf.)

So what is God's "jus'-sayin' will"? You'll really have to ask them. The term isn't theirs, but it seems to be the aspect of God's will that most concerns them. It's the one that tells us who to marry, which lane to take in the freeway, whether to witness to Abdul or not, and the like.

To find this will requires reading a lot of books, hearing a lot of sermons, attending a lot of seminars -- because there is nothing about it in the Bible. The Bible's statements about God's will fall into category one or two, above; there is nothing about category three being a factor in normal Christian living.

You see, the central question is, "Does God hold me responsible for knowing and doing this will of His? Is it a sin if I do not do it?"

If we apply that question to category one (God's sovereign will), the answer is simple and clear: no. God's sovereign will is, by definition, His to carry out, using whatever means and secondary causes He chooses (cf. Isaiah 10:5ff.)

If we apply that same question to category two (God's revealed will), the answer is again simple and clear: yes. God's revealed will is, by definition, revealed to me to tell me what God expects me to think, be, do, or avoid (cf. Deuteronomy 6:5ff.; 29:29; John 13:17).

But if we try to apply that question to category three (God's jus'-sayin' will), the answer is less clear. Is it a sin if I buy the wrong can of beans, or marry the wrong person ("wrong," not for directly Biblical reasons, but against this elusive third category), or accept the wrong-but-moral job offer, or wear the wrong honestly-purchased cologne?

The adherents are in trouble here. If they say "No, it is not sin," then they can only be saying that it is not sin to go against God's will. But isn't violation of God's will a necessary element in any definition of sin? And if God means me to buy Breyers ice cream, but instead I buy Dreyers ice cream, how can I not be sinning?

But if it is a sin-issue, and God neglected to spell it out clearly in Scripture -- how can Scripture be complete or adequate, or anything near what Paul says it is in 2 Timothy 3:15-17?

On the other hand, if it is not sin, then what is this supposed will of God? "Jus' sayin'"?

The Biblical answer is that there are only two categories to God's will, and I am only responsible for knowing and doing one of those categories. In other areas of life, I am free to act according to wisdom within the lines drawn by God's Word.

I think of unfallen, sinless Adam. We read that "out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them" (Genesis 2:19).

Now, can we easily picture Adam saying, "Oh, no, Lord God -- I would not name these animals in my own will! What would You have me name them?"

Might God not have replied, "You goofball -- I brought them to you to name"?

Check your decisions by the adequate, complete, sufficient Word of God. Pray for clear thinking in applying the principles, values, and guidelines of the Word. Then buy the beans you like, wear the cologne that smells best, praise God for a rich array of choices, and honor Him by the full use of your faculties in making those choices.

Why God calls us "sheep"

Hint: it isn't a compliment.

ISTANBUL: Hundreds of sheep followed their leader off a cliff in eastern Turkey, plunging to their deaths this week while shepherds looked on in dismay. Four hundred sheep fell 15 metres to their deaths in a ravine in Van province near Iran....

In the Bible, anytime you see a sheep, it's usually straying (1 Kings 22:17; Isaiah 53:6) or being slain (Psalm 44:11; John 10:12) in one way or another -- unless, and only unless, it's under the care of a good shepherd.

Sheep are helpless, vulnerable, willful, and stupid. The sentimental notion that God sees us as sheep because we're so sweet and lovable evidently came from someone who'd never worked with the little four-legged lawnmowers.

Thank God we can have a good shepherd (Psalm 23; John 10:11). If we learn to know ourselves at all, we'll stay close, and follow without swerving.