Florida GOP candidate debate impressions

For the first time in years, probably, I watched CNN last night. The Clinton News Network was broadcasting the GOP candidates' debate from Florida, with all 497 candidates responding to questions submitted from YouTube.

Now, there are two warning-signs right there: CNN, and YouTube. But I haven't watched any of the debates yet, we're getting close to the primaries, and I haven't a clue as to who I do want to vote for. So I watched almost all of it. Here are my impressions.

1. Most surprising: The questions were on balance far better and more substantive than I ever thought they'd be. (Note how qualified that statement is, before jumping all over me. Then jump, if you like.) (UPDATE: oops, I evidently missed the guy with the guitar at the start. Yikes.)
   
2. Nobody really wowed me, of the viable candidates.
3. Gosh Ron Paul just seems nuts. Sorry for how that will upset some, but he does. He's nuttier to watch than to read. Has to be our enemies' favorite GOP candidate, though. And I mean foreign and domestic.
4. Mitt Romney was almost lifelike. Whoever wrote his Laughter Program needs to hit the code again, though. If I wanted to vote for an android, though, he'd be my man. Er, my android. Whatever.
5. Huckabee was better than I expected, but the other candidates (including particularly, to my chagrin, Mitt Romney) scored significant points off of him for his own liberal policies and eagerness to spend others' money.
6. Huckabee fielded the stupid WWJD question in re capital punishment quite well. He gave a substantial answer, but moderator Anderson Cooper didn't like it. He hadn't gotten his "gotcha" moment. So Cooper repeated the question. To which Huckabee said, "Jesus was too smart to run for office." Nicely done.
7. On Anderson Cooper: had virtually no control. Back-and-forths went on, and on... and on... and on....
   
8. I wanted Fred Thompson to impress me, but he really didn't. Great voice, great presence, answers that didn't wow me.
9. Duncan Hunter certainly did wow me. Very straight answers. He was thrown a CNN "gotcha" question on homosexuals in the military. Well, actually, of course, it was on "gays" in the military. But Hunter resolutely said "homosexuals" in his response. And even when the CNN plant retired "gay"/general Kerr was revealed to be in the audience, Hunter was respectful but resolute.
10. On that. Sigh. CNN. You know, I was actually thinking that they were doing a pretty decent job -- and then this YouTube (yeah, I bet) question from retired Brigadier General Keith Kerr about homosexuals in the military. The question dragged on, and was answered. Then -- surprise! -- he was actually in the audience! The only questioner given that distinction. Not only was he there, he was asked if his question was answered, he was handed a microphone, and he was allowed to go on and on and on and on about his pet cause.
11. Funny thing about the general. Picked at random? Don't think so. CNN already featured him and his perversion.
12. But wait, there's more! Turns out General Kerr is on the LGBT Americans For Hillary Steering Committee. Surprise, surprise.
13. UPDATE: The indispensable Michelle Malkin exposes a veritable nursery-full of plants among the questioners.
    
14. Could this heavy, intense spotlight on a relatively minor issue be related to "Out" magazine ranking moderator Anderson Cooper as the number two "most powerful gay" in America?
    
15. So, reason this out. Homosexuals are maybe 1-2% of the general populace, but CNN hammered this side-issue for all it's worth. Let's see, what would balance it off at the next Democrat debate?
16. A whole lot more than 1-2% of Americans are pro-life, and abortion affects millions of Americans every year. Say, I know what would be fair. How about if CNN puts Gianna Jessen in the audience with a question for Hillary! about abortion? And then asks her if Hillary! had answered her question? Yeah, that'd balance it out.
17. Maybe CNN's motto should be — "CNN: hemorrhaging credibility for X years!"
    
18. Rudy Giuliani, for some reason, kept making me think of the doctor in the Twilight Zone episode The Eye of the Beholder.
19. Did I mention how nutty Ron Paul seemed? And, frankly, offensive. America's wrong, America's losing, give the terrorists what they want and they'll leave us alone. I know earnest, serious, good people support him. His supporters are better than he. But I think Paul is the wrong man with the wrong message at the wrong time in the wrong party.
    
20. Next debate should just feature Mitt Romney 2.0 debating Mitt Romney 1.0. He could explain why positions he was still aggressively promoting five years ago are wrong, wrong, wrong.
21. Wasn't it Duncan Hunter who said he believed in a conversion on the road to Damascus, but not so much in conversion on the road to Des Moines?
    
22. In fact, the biggest problem is that there were too many onstage. I liked Hunter's and Tancredo's answers probably best... but sadly they (and of course Paul) should drop out, and probably McCain. Leaving a duller field, but one that would allow more of a focus on the positions of the viable candidates.
23. Did you love Romney stammering out that he believed the Bible? (He didn't add the part about only insofar as it is correctly translated, and the Book of Mormon is the Word of God.)
24. Did Romney lose the South when he slammed the Confederate flag? Or is that not much of an issue anymore?
25. I did very much like Giuliani's and Hunters' answers to the be-hijabbed lady who asked what America could do to make Muslims like us better. Giuliani said redouble our efforts in fighting the terrorist extremists who've hijacked Islam, and Hunter said he'd never be caught apologizing for America.
26. Loved Tancredo's answer to the guy who pled for a commitment to send a mission to Mars. He said in effect, "See? Everyone worries and worries about the national debt, and at the same time folks like this want us to spend more and more. Well, we can't do both. We can't spend on everything. And this is one of those things we don't need to spend more money on."
    
27. Sad bottom-line: the debate did not help me pick a candidate. **No point talking about Hunter, he can't win. **Robert Novak is not always right, but I think he's right about Huckabee: he's a rare combination of social conservative and fiscal liberal. **I wouldn't vote for Ron Paul. **I could vote for anyone else with varying degrees of misgiving — except Giuliani. **I pray I don't have to face the choice of voting for Giuliani. I know the arguments, I really do; but I just don't think I could do it.
    

For you, Libbie

There are lots more funny pix HERE.

Newton: "What think you of Christ? is the test"

Phil put up part of a Spurgeon sermon today, in which CHS quotes a hymn from John Newton. Having never seen that hymn, I searched for and found it here:

John Newton, 1779, from Olney Hymns, vol. 1, hymn 89

1. What think you of Christ? is the test To try both your state and your scheme; You cannot be right in the rest, Unless you think rightly of him. As Jesus appears in your view, As he is beloved or not; So God is disposed to you, And mercy or wrath are your lot. 2. Some take him a creature to be, A man, or an angel at most; Sure these have not feelings like me, Nor know themselves wretched and lost: So guilty, so helpless, am I, I durst not confide in his blood, Nor on his protection rely, Unless I were sure he is God.

3. Some call him a Saviour, in word, But mix their own works with his plan; And hope he his help will afford, When they have done all that they can: If doings prove rather too light (A little, they own, they may fail) They purpose to make up full weight, By casting his name in the scale. 4. Some style him the pearl of great price, And say he's the fountain of joys; Yet feed upon folly and vice, And cleave to the world and its toys: Like Judas, the Saviour they kiss, And, while they salute him, betray; Ah! what will profession like this Avail in his terrible day?

5. If asked what of Jesus I think? Though still my best thoughts are but poor; I say, he's my meat and my drink, My life, and my strength, and my store, My Shepherd, my Husband, my Friend, My Saviour from sin and from thrall; My hope from beginning to end, My Portion, my Lord, and my All.

If I were pastoring a church right now...

...I'd be sorely tempted to start a series on the Gospel according to Luke, and to call it...

...wait for it...

"24"

Bwahhh-hahahaha.

(See? Craig isn't the only one who can do random, window-into-my-brainium posts!)

Third annual reminder: boycott "Turkey Day"

Original call for a boycott.

2006 reminder.

“For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things (Romans 1:21-23)

“Prove a man ungrateful, and you have placed him below the beasts, for even the brutes frequently exhibit the most touching gratitude to their benefactors. The old classic story of Androcles and the lion rises before us; the man healed the lion, and years after, the lion, being let loose upon him, crouched at his feet and acknowledged him as a friend. Only the most despised creatures are used as metaphors of ingratitude; for instance, we speak of the ass which drinks, and then kicks the bucket it has emptied, but we never speak thus of nobler animals. An ungrateful man is thus lower than the animals; inasmuch as he returns evil for good, he is worse than bestial, he is devilish. Ingratitude is essentially infernal. Ingratitude to friends is vile, to parents it is worse, to the Savior it is worst of all“ (Charles H. Spurgeon, “Ingratitude of Man,” preached June 9, 1872, Metropolitan Tabernacle)

Mitt Romney calls the "Wahhhhmbulance" — again

Quoth the would-be leader of the free world:

"The attempts to attack me on the basis of my faith are un-American"

Where to begin? The statement is nonsense on every level. Many over at FreeRepublic, however, are in baffling agreement.

So, to all such, here is my challenge. Substitute the following for "faith," and make sense of Romney's whine. To wit:

• "The attempts to attack me on the basis of my worldview are un-American"
• "The attempts to attack me on the basis of my most fundamental beliefs are un-American"
• "The attempts to attack me on the basis of the way I process evidence and draw conclusions are un-American"
• "The attempts to attack me on the basis of my membership in a cult are un-American"

You see, it all comes down to what we talked about in an earlier post. If Romney wants to say his faith is irrelevant, he should just come out and tell everyone he's a hypocrite, and religion is no more than a meaningless hobby to him.

Otherwise, focusing on his faith is totally fair game. First Amendment certainly guarantees freedom of religion. It also guarantees freedom of speech.

Isn't the First Amendment pretty "American"?

Best Christmas music?

We interrupt our current threads
(Sorry! Orders!!)

I don't think my wife has ever asked me to do a specific post — until now! So that makes it a Big Deal.

Valerie would like to know:

1. What are the best Christmas albums, ever?
2. Why?

(Of course, Handel's Messiah. Duh. But which one, and why?)

Have at it. I've done my part

Starting to worry more

When people used to say that Giuliani might run for President, I'd snark, "Cool. Which party?"

I thought Giuliani was such an incredible (i.e. non-credible) GOP candidate that he didn't have a chance. Now I'm starting to worry.

First, I would have thought he'd have disappeared by now. So I've still been insisting that there was no way he could win the GOP primaries. But I've reconsidered the math, and now I'm worried.

Giuliani is the most liberal candidate by far. He's not the nuttiest; Ron Paul has that distinction. But he is by far the most liberal.

So naturally "moderates" go for him. But I've been hearing a distressing amount of professedly conservative Republicans say they intend to vote for Giuliniani in the primary.

Now, couple that with the fact that we have one, two, three, four, at least five more conservative candidates still in the race.

While people keep getting excited if Huckabee blips, or Romney maintains, or Hunter "surges" a decimal point or two, they need to break out their calculators and face facts.

The conservative vote may end up divided at least five different ways!

Who does that benefit? Giuliani.

And that benefits Hillary!, because you can argue all you want, but you just aren't going to get many values-voters to vote for Giuliani, much less work for him.

That's worrisome.

So... is there something better than TTLB?

I was a reptile or something yesterday; today I'm a microorganism. I doubt I lost 80 links overnight... unless they're all big Jonathan Edwards fans, I guess.

Proverbs (just in case)

I doubt many come here that don't go to Pyro, but just in case:

I put up a post about the Proverbs at Pyro. It includes pictures and links to the talks.

Edwards: progress report (still not really liking him)

So Jonathan Edwards' Religious Affections is temporarily available as a free download. This is of course completely cool. Plus, it is unabridged, and it is read by Simon Vance, who also read The Reformed Pastor.

Vance is a good reader and should be a pretty smart guy, given all the excellent books he's recorded. (An aside: wouldn't that be cool? To be paid to read excellent books, word for word? Where do you sign up?) It's surprising to hear Vance give Edwards' references to an individual psalm as "Psalms XX," and even more to hear him refer to "Revelations X:X." But that's a small thing.

I'm on about the fourth of twelve, and profiting from it — but only because I don't take Edwards too seriously.

To elaborate: Edwards has made a very good (and personally humbling and convicting) case for the importance of Godward affections. That's a plus.

But on the other hand, he just goes on and on and on about how this and that doesn't necessarily mean you're saved. Turns out (I'm gathering) that nothing really means you're saved, so far. Nothing!

Now I'm a person who's always had trouble with assurance. Thirty-four years and counting, by God's grace, and I still struggle from time to time.

In that struggle, Charles Spurgeon is always a great encouragement to me. Spurgeon takes the slightest flicker of faith, and points it to Christ. He's always, always pointing to the grace of God and the love of Christ.

But unless Edwards ends up somewhere gracious pretty soon, all I am getting from him is that everything means nothing. Faith, orthodox faith, fruitful faith, works, feelings, grace shown in life... all absolutely essential, and all meaningless. Might mean you're saved, might not. You must have them, but if you do, it doesn't mean you're saved.

All I am getting from Edwards is dour condemnation, gloom, despair — not the sort that (if I took him too seriously) would drive me to the Cross, but the sort that would drive me towards permanent residence the Slough of Despond.

Let me be clear: Edwards doesn't even point me to repentance and hope. I'm sure his defenders will want to say that this is how Edwards undoes our faith in ourselves or carnal states or means. Perhaps that is his intention; that is the most charitable reading I can put upon it. But if that's his intent, in my case he's failing miserably, so far. The one and only upshot would be, not to despair of myself and my works and my flesh, but to despair — period! Not even to bother to look to Christ nor to God's promise nor grace, for (he somberly intones) others have made great shows of doing the very same thing, and gone off howling to Hell nonetheless.

So why bother?

I intend to listen to all twelve long mp3's before I form a final opinion. I know some of the best people love Edwards. I know he was a towering figure.

But in spite of my best efforts, I am still finding him a distant, frosty, bloodless, glowering specter.

Thank God that the word and promises and invitations and assurances of the Lord Jesus Christ speak more appealingly, graciously, tenderly, and hopefully than does Jonathan Edwards.

Reformation Day 2007: after-action report

As I mentioned before, the Phillips family has always made this a special day. It had been just for us; then for the last two years, we opened our house to our church family to join in.

This year, since we have a "permanent" building, we moved our party there. Thank God, through my wife's sacrificially hard work and some terrific helpers (including the tireless Annette Christensen and her family), it was a terrific time. Here are some of the pictures.

We had a number of educational and fun games. One was a sheet of facts relating to the Reformation. Select adults had the answers and a bag of candy; the kids went around with their question sheets asking those adults ("What is a 'thesis'?"). When they got the answer, they got candy. Both learned!

Also, there was a game depicting Katherina von Bora's escape from the convent in barrels in 1523.



Then there was Luther's library. The kids could throw three bean bags. If they hit one of Luther's books, they lost a point. If they hit a heretical book, they gained one. Points translated to candy. (Say... do I see Your Best Life Now in there?)


Kids could also shoot some nerf arrows in the Thuringian Forest. (Do you know, my wife could not find bows and arrows with suction-cups! She looked everywhere. I think the Democrats outlawed them. Seriously. This is Kalifornia, after all.)


Meanwhile, though they tried, inquisitors could not get believers in God's free grace in Christ to recant.


Later, that scoundrel Johann Tetzel showed up hawking indulgences. He was very animated.

He actually made a few sales — until he was shooed off by Dr. Martin Luther himself.


Dr. Luther told the kids (you see King Josiah just to the left of the good Doctor) about his very different world, about his life, about his 93... no, 94... no, 95 Theses, about his translating the Bible, about the Diet of Worms. But particularly he was emphatic in telling them of his discovery that "the righteousness of God" in Romans 1:17 is speaking of "that righteousness by which through grace and sheer mercy God justifies us through faith."

Everyone seemed to have a wonderful time, and we were glad to be able to share, exalt the grace of God in Christ, and see so many smiles.

A Hillary! thought

We all know there's been a spate of bad press just recently about Hillary! hiding behind being a girl, trying to depict her opponents as big ol' mean men picking on a poor, defenseless damsel.

I have a what-if about that.

Major Premise: The Clintons® are the media-smartest (to say nothing more, though sorely tempted to do so) couple, ever.

Setup:

1. Hillary is bad at being warm, friendly, real and feminine
2. Her attempts to imitate these qualities are falling flat (i.e. the cackle that launched 1000 YouTube vids)
   

WHAT IF The Clintons® are actually engineering this spate of "don't hide behind being a girl" criticism so that Hillary! can drop all attempts at humanity, and be the aggressive harridan she's more comfortable being, for the remainder of the campaign?

(Oh, and for the ChristianityAstray/touchy-feely-type drop-bys: yes, I prayed for Hillary! before posting this. So it's okay.)

Drumming

Okay, so there's what I do... and then there's what this guy does.



(Window to a consummate artist's psyche: given what he does the moment he's done, what do you think really bugged him? I find that one thing comforting. The rest? Oy!)

And then, stepping back in time a bit, there's nothing about this that isn't fun.

And then there's fun of another kind:



Finally, the drummer who inspired me to pick up the sticks in the first place, back in the early '70s, Danny Seraphine (formerly of Chicago, now of California Transit Authority):

Charismaticism, Proverbs, and the Reformation

No, I'm actually not going to try to tie them all together! Just a series of brief notes:

CHARISMATICISM

To tie into Phil's characteristically-excellent post today, it seems to me that there are three positions one can hold with some Biblical consistency, as to revelatory/confirmatory gifts:

1. All the gifts — all of them — are available today just as they were in the days of Jesus. There are apostles writing inerrant Scripture, prophets giving inerrant revelation, healers commanding undeniable healings. The only problem is that nobody has seriously tried to make such a case with any Biblical coherency and credibility for about 2000 years. That in itself which is a refutation of the position, because in those days God thrust those gifts on people who were not looking for them, and not in themselves deserving of them. Hence, there can be no dodge in faulting the church's faith nor spirituality.
   
2. All of the revelatory/attesting gifts succeeded in their purpose and have culminated in and been superceded by the complete Canon of Scripture. This is a case I think can be made cumulatively from Scripture, and it is my own position. Fits church history like a glove.
3. All the gifts are available today just as they were in the days of Jesus (see #1) — it's just that nobody has surely received any revelatory/attesting gift for about 2000 years.
   

I could never hold #1, as a Bible-believing Christian. I have come to hold #2. But if I were forced for some reason to abandon #2, I would fall back on #3: maybe they're available theoretically on a shelf somewhere in Heaven, but God simply has never given them to anyone in 2000 years.

Which seems to me, to say the least, Biblically indefensible.

To make explicit what you probably surmise, I have no respect for the many attempts to Clinton-down the Biblical descriptions of the gifts, so as to afford false respectability to the modern imitations.

PROVERBS

I have a post ready on my weekend in Arizona, bringing six sessions on the book of Proverbs to the good folks of Sovereign Grace Baptist Church in Rio Rico, Arizona. I plan to post it at Pyro early next week, with links to those talks and everything.

REFORMATION

I also plan to put up a post (with pictures!) on how our family's Reformation Day party went.

Now... you know all of that!