Template question

I'd like to make it easier for folks to be "followers." But in going to that feature, I get "You need to convert your blog to Layouts before you can add the followers gadget." When I go to convert to Layouts, I get

By upgrading, you will lose many of the changes you previously made to your template. However, we will save a copy of your current template so that you can access it later.

That's scary. Have any of you done this? I wonder what I'd lose, what I'd gain.

Can I completely go back to the present setup if I hate the new?

"lolcat Bible": When Contextualization Goes Barking Mad

...or, in this case, yowling mad.

WARNING: can't vouch for the ads on the site, and some of the abbreviations are in poor taste. Well, I mean of course, besides the whole thing being in poor taste. Srsly.

Examples

Psalm 23

1 Ceiling Cat iz mai sheprd (which is funni if u knowz teh joek about herdin catz LOL.)
He givz me evrithin I need.
2 He letz me sleeps in teh sunni spot
an haz liek nice waterz r ovar thar.
3 He makez mai soul happi
an maeks sure I go teh riet wai for him. Liek thru teh cat flap insted of out teh opin windo LOL.
4 I iz in teh valli of dogz, fearin no pooch,
bcz Ceiling Cat iz besied me rubbin' mah ears, an it maek me so kumfy.
5 He letz me sit at teh taebl evn when peepl who duzint liek me iz watchn.
He givz me a flea baff an so much gooshy fud it runz out of mai bowl LOL.
6 Niec things an luck wil chase me evrydai
an I wil liv in teh Ceiling Cats houz forevr.

Then there's Proverbs 1:1-10

1 O hai, I r Solomon: David iz mai dad an I rulz Israel.2 Wizdum, I haz it and dissiplin for I iz nevr scrachin de furnichur an I nos fings.3 I is fair an duz gud fings,4 An be liek yoda an' stuffs,5 A d00d shoud get skooled,6 So's they can figgur out hows teh doornobs werk.7 Bein' scared of teh Ceiling Cat iz pretty good start. But yu needs pay attenshun 2 ur teecher too.
8 Lissen to ur pop, and do wut ur momma sez, srsly,
9 Cuz thay will buy u sum cookies.
10 If sum d00d wants to steal cheezburgr, don't halp him.

Aaaaaaaaaaaand I'll just let you look at John 1 for yourselves.

Now for a post-prandial chuckle: Star Wars vs. Star Trek

Engage.

Incredible deals limited time: ChristianAudio

Most of ChristianAudio's books are on sale for download for $9.49 until 11:59pm PT, December 1, 2008. I'm also finding a number that are apparently free, at least today (The Jesus of Myth and History, by N.T. Wright; Is Jesus Christ Truth for the 21st Century?, by John Stott).

Get 'em while you can!

(h-t Challies)

(Note: correction from my previous "today only")

Whew! Great news! Obama may be a lying, hypocritical deceiver!

What? Why are you looking at me like that? Didn't you hear?

First, remember: Obama's voting record (when he could be bothered to vote) was distinctly left. Obama ran as a leftist, murmuring Socialist concepts. On the war, Obama made his name in the Senate as being out-front pro-surrender and pro-defeat. He predicted the Surge would never work but would make things much worse (oopsie), then refused to admit that he was dead-wrong. Obama's alliances were racist, Marxist, radically leftist.

Obama was supported by the most insanely leftist folks in America and abroad, beloved by our enemies who want to see us as weak, timid, cowed, and apologetic. They'd love to see an America on its knees (and not in prayer — at least, not at first), and they saw Obama as the man to make it happen.

Yet now apparently Obama's assembling this respectable (to many), more centrist and moderate team for his administration. (Truth is, it's looking a lot more like Clinton III than "change" to me.)

Conservatives and liberals alike are noting this. Lefty E. J. Dionne (Jr.) noted it. I heard righty Bill Bennett celebrating it just this morning.

Now, of course, they're not saying it the way I am. They're all admiring and praising and marveling, and all that. And don't mistake me: as I said, I'm happy for Obama to make complete fools out of everyone who voted for him, by not delivering on his distinctly evil and/or foolish promises.

But let's not be dopey children about it. I urged Christians to pray for two things: that the Lord would soundly convert Obama and get him discipled, or that he'd be prevented from delivering on his foolish and/or evil promises.

There is no evidence for the former. So keep praying. But if this is a species of the latter...

...I'm thankful!

Just not naïve.

Now we wait to see what he actually does.

Bruce Lee can beat you with....

All the YouTube commenters say this is fake. I (A) don't know how they know that, and (B) don't care too much (i.e. like I'm going to go out and try this?); because (C) it's fun!

If it's true, imagine how the opponents feel. "Dude... we just got smacked by a guy with nun-chuks."

Now, this does broach an interesting subject. Whether or not that vid is real and as-presented, it sure looks as if it is. If it's fake, it's an awesome fake.

That's interesting, isn't it? The Bible's view of truth is a correspondence view; that is, statements in the Bible are true because they correspond to reality. They aren't true because they work, because they make us feel good, because they feel real. Some Biblical propositions don't "work" as we'd wish them to on our timeline; some make us feel really bad; and some call us to believe things that don't feel real in the least.

But we believe them and do them because they correspond to reality. God's word condemned me as a sinner, and I was, when I didn't feel my sin in the least. And God's word declares me as righteous as Jesus Christ Himself, with that alien, imputed righteousness, when I feel nothing but guilt and reproach and regret and shame. I should have believed the first before I did, I must believe the second even (and especially!) when it's hard, because they correspond to reality.

"Seeing is believing," folks have said for decades or longer. But with video editing as skilled and seamless as it is today, isn't that proposition pretty bankrupt? One has to have a grounded conviction that goes beyond even mere sensory experience.

Only Biblically-faithful Christians have that.

American civics liberty test: your chance to whump me

Especially you homeschooling moms.

Test your own American civic literacy.

I got an 84.85%, and only thanks to my own homeschooling of our two older children. My dear wife whumped me. You will too.

(It'll make you all feel better about that whole Bible or bard unpleasantness.)

What it's like to be a pastor

The obamitical music video we were discussing over at Pyro gives birth to some thoughts about pastoral ministry. I want to put it up now, before I "get" a church to serve, so that no one mistakenly infers that I'm sniping at it (or any particular fellowship).

If you're a pastor —

1. You start every day knowing that almost everybody thinks you're doing it all wrong!
2. You start every day knowing that most people don't really understand what your job is, that most people suspect (r outright state) that you're a lazy, hypocritical, self-centered, self-indulgent blowhard.
   
3. You know that, the less actual education and actual experience your critics have regarding pastoral ministry, the more certain and immovable their judgment of the way you do it will be.
4. You know that, unlike any other field of specialty, the less-qualified a critic is, the more respect his opinions will be granted.

Anybody would be justified in thinking that I think these facts should inspire self-pity, bitterness, and resentment. I don't. I think anyone who wants to become a pastor should simply have his eyes open to these realities. He has to be okay with knowing that, in the final analysis, only God can finally assess his ministry. He has to be okay with deferring the whole to God's judgment (as I discussed at some length, starting here.)

If he can't do that, he really, really should find other ways to spend his sojourn here.

So no, I'm not saying these things to elicit pity (or incite self-pity). If it helps people understand their pastors better, empathize better — excellent.

But for the pastor himself? It's just what you have to know. You just have to accept that it's this way, keep your eyes on Christ, stay close to the Cross, and deal.

Unveiling a new noun!

It could be argued that we already have too many words. Thick unabridged dictionaries would reinforce that impression.

Yet there are many things for which I don't think there is a good enough word. For instance, we know what a "slut" is: a sexually loose woman. But what is a male slut?

And what is a good positive term for the person who believes that God's revelatory work for this age met its completion with the close of the Canon, leaving us with an inerrant, binding, and sufficient written revelation?

So I take this occasion to introduce yet another neologism. My biographers will add this to other creations of mine such as HSAT (Having Said All That) and emerg*** (to cover both emergent and emerging).

And so, without further eloquence, I give you —

o ∙ ba ∙ ma [oh-BAH-mə] (noun) An empty thing onto which people project their own ideas, thoughts, fears and/or aspirations. Example: "Boy, that video Mamma Don't let your babies grow up to be pastors was really quite an obama over in the Pyro meta!" [adjective o ∙ ba ∙ mi ∙ ti ∙ cal]

Remember: you were here when it happened!

UPDATE: feel free to offer examples of using "obama" in a sentence.

Spectacular find: Screwtape Letters read by John Cleese, and other C. S. Lewis audiobooks

This site claims to provide copyright-free old radio programs. It provides in particular one...

...Spectacular Find...

...for which I've long searched. To wit:

The Screwtape Letters, read by John Cleese

The same site also features The Problem of Pain and Mere Christianity on audiobook.

(Thanks to my friend Tim, in Minnesota)

One of the very best gifts I ever gave my children

The best gift I ever gave my children would have to be doing what I could to give them a witness to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, with whatever integrity God has graced me with. But next to that?

Best thing I ever did for my children was giving them the mother they have.

I've had reason to think that again and again. I had reason again last night.

Every human in my house except me is in various stages of a cold. My 13yos is almost over it, my dear wife Valerie is cycling, and my 9yos Jonathan has just had a relapse. He'd had it, then he seemed about 95% recovered on Wednesday, but had a setback Thursday and Friday.

My dear Jonathan, in my late mother's words, "Suffers well" — meaning he's pretty dramatic. There are lots of moans and whimpers, and he falls apart easily. Josiah is more stoic; Valerie hates being sick at all; I'm seldom sick (too old and mean), but when I am I vary between Josiah and Jonathan.

So Jonathan was very "puny," as we say, suffering lustily, coughing and being miserable. I cuddled him before bedtime and rubbed on the vaporub. Then my wife and I spent time together, and when we went off towards bed, Jonathan was awake and unhappy.

We both went in and sat with him and comforted him awhile. Then Valerie stayed to snuggle and comfort him, and told me to get off to bed. (I'd been awake around 20 hours.) So I eventually did.

As I drifted off, I thought about Valerie, and thanked God (again) for her. What a dedicated mother Valerie is, and always has been. Every one of our children, she's shown this kind of sacrificial care and devoted love. Always thinking of better ways to homeschool them, good experiences and trips to expose them to, ways to help them and point them in the right direction. She's painstakingly made amazing clothes and costumes for Rachael (now 25) and Matthew (now 21), cared for them when sick, scolded and encouraged and taught and played with and loved them.

Valerie so deserves devotion and appreciation and love and respect and honor from them all.

She surely has mine.

So, I've given my kids my own love and care and toys and time and all. But next to the Gospel, the best thing I ever gave them was a superb, amazing, devoted, never-ceasing-to-astonish mother.

I've done so many things wrong in my life, made so many bad decisions.

That wasn't one of them.

And now, since I'm blessed with readers from all stages of life:

Word to husbands. Need I say more?

But especially, word to would-be husbands. Remember, boys: you aren't merely choosing fun company or sexual release. You're choosing a person created in the image of God, whom you are to serve, lead and cherish; a partner to fill and round you out in your service to God — and a mother for your children.

And finally, word to children. You have a mother anything like that? And you aren't regularly looking for concrete ways to show her honor and love, and to say "Thank you" to her?

Shame! Repent!

Deep Thought #1

Miserably unhappy and immovably arrogant

is a bad, sad combination.

Cf. Proverbs 30:21-23

Hither and thither 11/21/08

Now some variouses I've picked up:

• BREAKING NEWS! OBAMA VOTERS NOT THE BRIGHTEST! MSM TOTALLY FAILED! Yeah, okay, stop yawning and read about it here. I haven't had a chance to see the video yet, but I hear it's pretty amazing. I'd be interested to see a similar study of McCain voters. (More.)
  
• Land o' the free, home o' the brave? A private business is sued and coerced into accommodating sexual perversion. Not a happy nor a proud moment in our nation's history. Michelle Malkin adds some observations about this latest incident of "gay" bullying, judicial insanity, and tyranny by lawsuit. (And, to anticipate any catcalls: I'm fairly libertarian on the matter of business. If a business doesn't want to serve wordy middle-aged white guys who like Chicago, that's their affair.)
• I really don't recommend that you read this. I'd be tempted to invite commenter RT to do the honors, since I don't really think I could be sharply acerbic enough. It's a little screed by self-disgraced raised-pinkie elitist Kathleen Parker who, like a dog in a backyard, made her own mark by throwing a fit over unwashed rube Sarah Palin. Now Parker extrudes, in the most self-servingly and mawkishly martyred tones, the opinion that evangelicals are the real problem with the GOP.
• This anti-historical paint-thin idiocy surfaces periodically. Were I, God forbid, a slavishly-respected national "evangelical" leader — and were the issues not so important — I would be sorely tempted to pick a national election and say, "You know what? To all the 'moderates' who feel we're the real problem with the GOP? It's all yours, folks!" And then sit it out, en masse.
• But then I'd have to write a post about what an idiot I was, and how I should repent. Still... it might be worth it. If I thought it'd make a lasting point.
• Blogger's picture function isn't working; I'll try to add some cartoons later.
  
• Next week, Lord willing, I plan to build on this pair and take a look at the cry of, "Hey, Obama's just a Christian brother, don't be so hard on him!"
  

Defining Christians and Republicans (part two)

(concluded from part one)

Why say you is, when you ain't?

Why, then, would anyone want to call himself a "Christian" when he isn't one, when he doesn't embrace the core convictions that define what it means to be a Christian? Many reasons are possible. Here are four:

Wolf-in-sheep's-clothing phenomenon. Particularly in the case of leaders, clergy, or missionaries, if they want to fleece the flock, they won't get in if they appear in their true colors. Sheep One will say, "Dude! Wolf!" — and the sheep will go bleating off. So a cagey leader throws on a few cottony tufts, learns to say "Baa," and stuffs his silverware and A-1 into his pockets.

Social respectability. When a writer from a newspaper interviewed me, as a new pastor in a new town, I mentioned that I had not been raised as a Christian. My dear, late mother was very offended. To her (born 1916), in saying this I implied that I had not had a moral, civilized upbringing. I meant no such thing, of course; I simply meant I had not been raised in the Biblical, Christian faith.

But Mom represented an America in which to be an American was to be a Christian, which is to say a decent, moral, nominally-religious, vaguely "God"-fearing person. "Unchristian" had no doctrinal referent; it simply meant crude, rude, uncharitable, ill-bred.

So I think particularly in the case of politicians, there's enough of a civic memory of this time that it looks better to be a "Christian" than, say, a Hindu or an atheist. It gets you ten points in the Moral-O-Meter, and provides a nice "cover." (But only if you're not a fanatical about it. You can be a Jack Danforth "Christian," a Jimmy Carter "Christian,"a Bill Clinton "Christian,"a Barack Obama "Christian"— certainly not a Sarah Palin Christian.)

Many like to say they're Christians because they don't really understand the Gospel, but do like perceived benefits. Their notion doesn't include truths and implications such as Luke 9:23, Romans 6 and Hebrews 12. But they like their (mangled) understanding of gauzy themes such as forgiveness, acceptance, eternal hope. Their perversion of it is that they can live like Hell and hope for Heaven, and own a "Get Out Of Guilt Or Accountability" card, if they just say they're Christians. (See under Clinton, Bill; or, nauseatingly, the Gutless Grace subset of dispensationalists — who have much to answer for.)

Deeper down, though, lies suppressed God-consciousness. Paul says quite bluntly, that all men naturally "suppress the truth in unrighteousness" (Romans 1:18). They know God, but choose not to honor Him as God (v. 21). So at bottom, they know they should be Christians; they want the comfort that comes from being a Christian. They like (as I said) the notions of being forgiven, of having hope, of thinking that that whole death-thingie has been taken care of, and All That. Plus, there's usually no immediate price to pay, in our culture, for saying you're a Christian. So, just say it, and all these wonderful prizes and parting-gifts are yours to keep.

So... can you say who is a Christian and who isn't?

Yes, and no.

That isn't nearly as wiggly as it sounds at first glance, so hang in with me.

When the GOP calls itself a "big tent," I always think, "But even the biggest tent still has walls." So where are the walls on a political party? I honestly don't know. I know where I think they should be — but in a party that equally has been home to Ronald Reagan and William Weld, Tom Coburn and Arlen Specter, I just don't know where they are.

At root, though, that is in large measure because the political party has no defining document, no transcendent and objective authority. This is not the case in Christianity. We have both: the Bible, and the triune God who inerrantly inspired its authorship. (NOTE: what follows is considered and condensed, not intended for skimming.)

The "yes" part

You'd think a religion called "Christianity" should have something to do with Christ, wouldn't you? And so, in a sane world, it would. Christ said: "But why do you call Me 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do the things which I say?" (Luke 6:46 NKJ). Two critical truths at least are highlighted in this dominical bombshell: (1) confession of Jesus' Lordship is foundational; and (2) such a confession must be followed by acceptance of and obedience to His words.

Confession of His Lordship. Jesus Himself put this confession as foundational to the church. Confession that Jesus is Lord, Christ, God incarnate is the foundation-rock on which the church must be built (Matthew 16:16-19; cf. Romans 10:9; 1 Corinthians 3:11). This is the confession that the Holy Spirit inspires (1 Corinthians 12:3b). It is both goal and result of His death on the Cross, and bodily resurrection (Romans 14:9).

Obviously Jesus is Lord in the sense that He is the absolute authority, both supreme teacher and supreme master. Jesus clearly has this in mind in Luke 6:46. But "Lord" is also a common title for Deity throughout the Old Testament — that is, for God. And indeed the Christian confesses Jesus as both his Lord and his God (John 20:28).

This actually all forms a sort of endless (but constructive) do-loop. Anywhere you start, you get to the rest of it. That is, if Jesus is God, then He is Lord; if He is Lord, then He is God. How? Jesus affirmed that no less than the Father Himself demanded that the Son receive honor equal to the honor paid the Father (John 5:23). If He is Lord, then we are to believe what He says; if we believe what He says, then we must believe that He is God.

In either regard, to accept the foundational conviction that Jesus is Lord and God necessarily pays off into...

...acceptance of and obedience to His words. As Lord, Jesus expects me to take His yoke upon myself and learn of Him (Matthew 11:28-30), and to do what He tells me (Luke 6:46). It is not a peer-relationship; the Christian life is not a negotiation. So it follows that, if Jesus is my Lord and my God, I will learn to love what He loves and hate what He hates; to cherish what He values, and spurn what He despises. My convictions and values, and my choices and actions, will be progressively brought into conformity to His.

That is why the NT requires, imposes and provides tests. We see the apostles extending "a judgment of Christian charity," which is to say that one's profession of faith is accepted, unless other considerations make that profession impossible to accept. Note: both halves of that statement should receive due weight. The predisposition is to accept a professed brother as such; but equally, disqualifiers do, in fact, disqualify.

Jesus Himself set the stage for this, by depicting many as falsely expecting to be welcomed to Heaven, when instead they'll be banished to Hell (Matthew 7:21-23).

So, similarly, Paul says he doesn't care who preaches a different Gospel, that person is justly damned and doomed (Galatians 1:8-9). No honest reader could doubt that Paul's Gospel had definite and distinct form, shape, edges. He lays it out as crucial and foundational, in 1 Corinthians 15:1-11. Paul paints the Gospel as requiring the affirmation and embrace of certain events and their meanings as assigned by Scripture, including the penal, substitutionary death of Christ, His burial, and His bodily resurrection. In that section as well, Paul stresses the need to cling to this Gospel precisely as given; salvation is to be found nowhere else.

Likewise the apostle John gives a cycle of three tests of eternal life (cf. 1 John 5:13). They include correct doctrine (cf. 4:1-4; 5:1, etc.), obedience to the written Word of God (2:3-6; 5:2-3, etc.), and love for the brothers (3:11-18; 4:7-12, etc.). He goes over these three themes, these three tests, again and again, from different angles.

So it isn't surprising that, in contrast to modern "Anything-goes/Whatever" evanjellybeans, we frequently find the Bible referring to false brothers (2 Corinthians 11:26; Galatians 2:4), false prophets and false teachers (2 Peter 2:1), warning against deceivers (Colossians 2:4, 8, 16-22; Jude 4), and both commanding and commending the exercise of close discernment (1 Thessalonians 5:21-22; Revelation 2:2). Christians say they're Christians; but saying you're a Christian doesn't make you a Christian.

So yes: it is possible to trace out the parameters of Christian profession and practice. And it is possible that someone's words and/or life indicate that he hasn't the right to claim to be a Christian.

The "no" part

Many of these tests are meant for me to use on myself, primarily — not (primarily) on others. I am to test myself (2 Corinthians 13:5), and apply John's threefold tests to see if I have eternal life (1 John 5:13). They are not primarily given that I might go around with a big red C and a big red P, stamping Christian or Phony on anyone I meet.

"Primarily," I say. However, HSAT, I am urged to apply discernment and judgment, as we've seen (cf. Matthew 7:6, etc.). Christian leaders in particular are responsible to identify, deal with, and warn against false teachers and false brothers (cf. Titus 1:10-13; 3:10-11, etc.). The church is to echo this judgment (cf. Matthew 18:17; 1 Corinthians 5:9-13; 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 14-15).

But I can barely know my own sick, deceptive heart (Jeremiah 17:9), let alone another's (1 Corinthians 2:11). So I must be humble and cautious, must stick with what I can see and hear, must not overreach, and must leave the ultimate decision to God.

Plus we must factor in truths such as Romans 7:14-25, where even the apostle Paul himself said that what he did (and failed to do) was not always right. He did what he shouldn't; he didn't do what he should. His life, unlike Jesus', was not seamlessly perfect and "there" (cf. also Philippians 3:12-13). So even the Christianest Christian we'll ever know will have lapses, failings, weaknesses — sins.

So humility and grace are definitely called for.

However, HSAT, I not only can, but must say that certain words and deeds and concepts and beliefs are not Biblical, not Christian, not pleasing to God — when I have the revealed mind of God on those matters. And I can extrapolate, and warn, rebuke, reprove, exhort. And I can (and must) warn that a pattern, a path, if not repented of, will lead to Hell.

Though a Christian may sin, he struggles and fights against his sin (Galatians 5:17). He regularly puts to death the deeds of his body (Romans 8:13). He does not continue in sin (1 John 3:3-4, 8-10). That distinguishes a Christian: he isn't floating downstream towards the waterfall. He fights the current.

And mark this: there is no sentence, word, nor syllable of Scripture meant to give comfort to anyone willfully continuing in unrepented sin.

So: if someone's confession of "Christ" is heterodox and out of step with Scripture; if his value-system bears no mark of the yoke of discipleship in the school of Christ; if his closest associates despise the Lord and His word; and if he stubbornly resists all attempts to point him to Christ, and to the word of God — then we would be faithless towards God, and loveless towards that man or woman, to imagine or hold out any basis to believe him or her to be a Christian.

At the very least, we can and must certainly say something like,

"What you are saying/doing is offensive to God, and condemned by God. I can't see your heart, but I can see what comes out of your heart. Jesus says that the mouth speaks from what fills the heart (Luke 6:45), and our actions come from our hearts (cf. Proverbs 4:23). These are not the actions nor words of a heart that believes and loves God, and that worries me terribly for you. I implore you, repent, bow the knee to Christ as Lord from your heart — or you have no reason to hope that you have any part in Him or His kingdom."

It's what Jesus would do (Mark 1:15; Luke 13:3, 5; Revelation 3:19).

It's what we should do.

Random thoughts: 11/20/08 (Romney, post progress, today's Pyro post, etc.)

To wit:

• Part Two of Defining Christians and Republicans is about half-done, and should go up tomorrow
• Am I the only one who wishes Mitt Romney would forever give up presidential ambitions? We really, really don't need the stage cluttered up by a cultist whose accomplishments all say "spineless liberal appeaser," but who wants everyone to believe in a Road to Iowa conversion.
• Re. the list of excuses in today's Pyro post: it isn't that I don't think that any of them are real, nor that I have no sympathy with any of them. It's that "whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin" (James 4:17). Period. It's that American Christians think of obedience as optional, when it isn't.
• Illustration: I knew and dearly loved an older woman who professed Christian faith later in life. But she said she had agoraphobia. The poor woman had experienced much misery in her life because of it; I can only begin to imagine. So, she she said she couldn't go to church, because of it. Yet I was forced to note: before conversion, she had many times attended meetings of the cult that she'd agreed with. She had heroically (and I mean that) battled her issues to be able to attend children's events, to go to the doctor, to shop. She hadn't just lain down and disappeared. Yet when it came to this unambiguous command of Scripture, she declined to find a way to obey. Let's say, for the sake of argument, we accept that her issues made regular-attendance-like-everyone-else unlikely or even impossible. Even then — she couldn't ever go? Never? She couldn't find a church and talk to the pastor, and try to find ways to be involved within the limit of her abilities? To listen to sermons, give money, be available by phone for prayers, letter-writing, and other things within her considerable capacity? She couldn't request visits by pastor and/or elders, to keep her accountable, encouraged, discipled? She couldn't host meetings in her home?
• See, what never fails to dishearten me — and what I try to battle just as mercilessly in myself, is this: we can show such creativity in excusing ourselves from simple obedience; but we can't muster half the creativity to find ways to obey.
• In fact, I'll just share this with you, since it's just you and me: the reason I'm so fierce on such issues is because I've had to be just that fierce with myself, in kicking myself in the rear to get myself to deal with issues in which I'm inclined to reach for an excuse rather than show submission to Christ's Lordship by obedience. And I do not say that to my credit.
• Anyone else notice that, so far, "change" looks a lot like "Clinton 3 Plus Other Washed-up Losers"? HSAT, I suppose we should be grateful that Wright, Ayers, and Farrakhan don't have Cabinet posts. Yet.
  

People worth patronizing: Prop 8 supporters

The poor souls who are trying to redefine a circle as a square... er, I mean repeated sodomy as "marriage"... are publishing high-dollar supporters of Proposition 8 for boycotting. Towards that end, they're publishing lists of financial supporters.

So, it seems to me, these are perfectly fine lists of businesses to patronize!

Here's one.

What's odd is that I know a local eatery named Leatherby's supported Pro 8 financially, and has been targeted. But I can't find it on any of the lists. (Let me know if you see it.)

Regardless, we plan to go out of our way and enjoy some of their fare.

Michelle Malkin offers some ironic observations about how conservatives deal with loss, versus the make-me-feel-better-about-my-perversion crowd.

Defining Christians and Republicans (part one)

Defining itself isn't a popular activity today. It violates the very soul of postmodernism to find centers and edges, and set boundaries; to say "Here's what A is, and here are the borders at which we move from A to non-A." We don't like being so specific. Hence Emerg***, which defines itself as being anti-definitional.

Often it's sheer intellectual cowardice. I noticed and parodied this in seminary, back in the early 80s. Students sprinkled their questions and statements with the wiggle-phrase in a sense. That was your Get Out Of Specificity card. "So... in a sense, isn't Bultmann affirming inspiration?"

Challenged, a student could always retort, "Yeah, but I said in a sense!"

Use that phrase broadly enough, and it's hard to argue that anything is really wrong. Use it broadly enough, and, in a sense, the Eiffel Tower is in Mammoth Lakes, California — because, after all, isn't it one planet?

So now we come to political parties. The mantra for the GOP for decades has been Big Tent. That's shorthand for, "We don't care what you believe or fight for, as long as you call yourself a Republican." So, you can be pro-infanticide or pro-life, pro-big-government or pro-small-government, pro-tax-hikes or pro-tax-cuts, pro-"gay"-"marriage" or anti-. In other words, you can be Duncan Hunter, or you can be Olympia Snowe. Just be a Republican. It's a Big Tent. RINO still starts with an "R."

Well, arch-conservative that I am, I have to grant that there is a point to this. How do you define "Republican," specifically? By the party platform? In that case, the GOP would be larger than current "third"-parties, but not by much. So GOP voters have to decide which values are core values to them in the interests of which they'll accept less-than-perfect.

For instance, candidate Bush had for him that he was pretty solidly pro-life, and (we were told) could beat Algore. But he had that lame and slanderous "compassionate conservatism," which we suspected (rightly) was a code-phrase for bi-i-i-i-ig government. W did turn out to be a good pro-life president, but lost the White House for the GOP due in part to his overspending.

So we can argue whether W was a "good" Republican... but it'd be hard to define him as not a Republican. Because — what are the borders? What is the objective definition? What is the authority?

These are all legitimate questions... in politics. Arnold Schwarzeneggar can say he's a Republican, and so can John Kyl; Tom McClintock, and John Warner. All you have to do is say you're one, register as one, and you are one. Who can challenge the claim? For good or ill, that's the way it is.

So now here's the problem: people have come to speak of claiming to be a Christian in the same terms. If someone says he's a Christian, well then, he is. Who can challenge his claim? In fact, it's bad to challenge that particular claim.

How does this topic compare to politics? Are there no boundaries to "Christianity"? Is it impossible to define Christian faith, to say "Here, here and here are where you leave Christianity and go into something else"? Is there no authoritative source that defines being a Christian?

Of course there is an authoritative source for defining Christian faith: the Bible. And that book does lay down a number of lines, borders, boundaries. They're both conceptual and practical.

But I want to pause for a moment and just reflect on the resistance you get to the very endeavor. It's thought outrageous to try to "define" what it is to be a Christian. Because next thing you know, you're going to actually have to say that some popular person who claims to be a Christian, isn't really a Christian.

But why is that in principle so unthinkable? If I claim to be a casaba melon, you may feel bad for me for saying it, but you won't feel bad for pointing out that I'm really not. Similarly if I claim to be a brick, a Communist, a quahog, or one of the Beatles. I'm just not. I can say I am, but saying doesn't make it so.

Heck, I can teach a parakeet to say "I'm a Christian." But he won't be one, for all that.

All sorts of things in life have borders, edges, termini. Why not being a Christian?

It is, after all, a voluntary association. Nobody has to be a Christian. And particularly, if you don't yourself subscribe to the distinctives of being a Christian, why would you want to say you were one? Before my conversion, I certainly didn't want to be mistaken for a Jesus Freak. Why would I? I despised what they believed, and was happy to distance myself from them.

Lord willing we'll start there, next time, and then move into some definition.

What th -- am I going to have to ban myself?!!

Ha! (Bible or Bard test)

The Bible or The Bard?



Score: 100% (10 out of 10)

...and, as you know, I'm not a KJVOer.

Your turn!

(NOTE: when you post your scores, please don't say which you missed!)

Cur hic bloggus (Why this blog)

(Apologies to Anselm [Cur Deus Homo?], and thanks to RT for Latin-help)

From time to time, when I tip one of their most-sacred cows, I've had drive-by's snipe that this or that post has nothing to do with "Biblical Christianity." Without exception, I point them to the purpose-statement which has been there from the start; without exception, they do not admit their error.

Which — just pause and relish that for a second with me, Dear Reader. My blog, conceived by me, defined by me, executed by me. Yet (A) drive-bys feel qualified to tell me "You're doing it wrong!"; and (B) when I point out the mission-statement that I myself wrote, they never, ever simply say, "My bad, sorry." Does this give you a clue as to why I don't pour my days and nights into making trolls happy with me (Proverbs 9:7-8a)? But, I digress.

So I thought it might be useful to supplement the sidebar with a Whole Danged Post.

Simple, blunt statement:
the purpose of this blog is
to tell people what I, a Biblical Christian, think about things.

Hence the name.

Now a breakdown, in affirmations and denials:

1. This blog, by stated design, is eclectic. I think I use that word about forty-seven times in the purpose-statement. Maybe the snipers won't look it up? Well, here y'go: eclectic means "selecting or choosing from various sources," "made up of what is selected from different sources." It works like this: the subject-matter of my life is eclectic, but it has a unifying theme. As a Christian, I am ever in the process of taking my major premise ("Jesus is Lord) and working out the implications. Those implications involve everything. (Tip: that's why they call it a worldview.) So I may talk about Bible, church, prayer, politics, culture, movies, food, fishing, music, cats. Everywhere I go, I'm a Christian. I see the world from that perspective. These are my thoughts, as a Biblical Christian, about things. And miracle of miracles, some people (God love 'em!) want to read some of those thoughts.(BTW, specifically, the blog-name also echoes the name of my low-tech web page.)
   
2. Nobody has to read this blog. Well, except my poor, dear wife. (And even she doesn't really have to.) So if you read it, that's pretty much your choice, and you get it for free — at least in the sense of no cost to you.
   This, by the way, always what amazes me about bitter nature of some complaints I/we get here and at Pyro. Folks often voice their disapproval in such demanding, outraged tones. I invariably want to encourage people to request a refund of their admission-price at the door.
   So, the way I see it: no one has to come here, no one pays for it... so no one gets to keep coming back again and again screaming and whinging because my daring to exist in public makes them feel bad. Then don't come.
   
   
3. This blog is primarily about what I think and/or observe. It isn't primarily about what you think. That is what your blog is about... unless your blog is meant to be Open Mike Friday FOREVER. In that case, I'd say, give it that name: Open-Mike Friday FOREVER. Or call it "Bobby," or "Pumpernickel." That's your affair. Like this is mine.
   
4. The metas enable a goal-oriented, moderated discussion where readers can have a constructive conversation. At first, I had no meta. Then I hesitantly opened up for comments. Here's the framework: the Biblical Christianity meta is like a meeting I hold at my house, featuring a brief talk and then a discussion among welcome guests, who come because they want to. I called the meeting for a purpose, and the conversation is meant to further that purpose. So I lead the conversation. It's fairly open, but it's not a group-grope. I'm deathly opposed to disruptors. Permit, if you will, an...
   
5. Illustration. Imagine that there's been an hourlong presentation of the deity of Christ. A case is carefully built from Old and New Testament. All the folks who listened are discussing it, working out the implications, asking questions and discussing challenges.
   Then someone who came in five minutes before the end of the talk pipes up loudly, "Yeah, but Jesus can't be God, because that'd make two gods, he just said he was a teacher, and the Illuminati actually controlled Chalcedon. I wrote a book on that. Here, it costs $15. Who wants my book?"
   So, everyone except Bud Arian came to hear the talk, listened to the talk, and are now discussing the talk. Should they all have to forget moving ahead, building, growing, discussing, so that they can accommodate some arrogant ignoramus who isn't really willing to learn anything, anyway? For some blogs, the answer evidently is "Yes." That's their right. You like that? Go there. For this blog, the answer would be "No." Further...
   
   
6. This is not an argument-clinic. A bit of history may shed light, here. I started using in "The Internets" as a tool to witness and edify and communicate back around 1990, not long after Algore invented it, and when some of you were in diapers. Countless times I've seen Bible-believers' constructive, would-be purposeful conversations derailed by arrogant trolls, heretics, apostates, and/or berserkers. I actually had to shut down one message board because a very troubled, obsessive troll posted one-and-two-letter posts until he had erased everyone else's posts. Well, nothing like that is going to happen here. Specifically...
7. This blog does not exist to provide therapy for folks who don't want help. They keep trying, though, with all the energy of the pathologically obsessed. We've had (and still have) poor souls who can't rest until they silence or wear out everyone who makes them feel bad about their maladjustment. They can't find rest, knowing that dissent still thrives, somewhere, on the internet. In every comment, they display contempt for the blog's mission, and anyone who shares or promotes it.
   So why do they come, and return again and again? A good topic for a doctoral dissertation in abnormal psychology, perhaps; but not our purpose. And so...
   
8. This blog is not about re-inventing the wheel for trolls. I probably was actually too patient about that during October, as one or two kept coming in and doing that thing they do with their keyboards — having clearly only skimmed the post on which they ostensibly were commenting, if they even did that much. So, for instance, in the meta of a post containing a number of links detailing what a remarkable, breath-of-fresh-air Godsend Sarah Palin was, they'd recite the MSM/DNC's meme about what an unqualified, idiotic inept she was. I guess they saw the words "Sarah Palin," thought, "Oh, I know about her. She's an idiot. Let's see, where do I say that...?"— and made that comment. Because, you know, there aren't nearly enough outlets offering that viewpoint. Well, besides CBSABCMSNBCCNNPBS and most of The Timeses and Postses. And so once again...
   
9. There are limitless blogs allowing endless arguments; this is not one of them. I'll be specific. If you want to argue forever, try Triablogue. I don't know what those good brothers do for a living, but evidently they have endless time for endless arguments. God bless 'em, I say! And that isn't me. I have a totally-unrelated fulltime job, and squeeze my blogging in when I can. Thank God, my job lets me do that, at present.
   But I don't have time to do lazy people's research for them, to supplement the lacunae of their Government Reeducation Camp years; nor do I have time to do The Endless Waltz with trolls simply to feed their personal issues.
   Or, do you want to mock and shout down your betters, in Biblical understanding? Try Between Two Worlds. Justin Taylor — I say with heartfelt sincerity — provides some of the most jaw-droppingly excellent material on the internet... but he has a very laissez-faire approach to his meta. Why? No clue. That's Justin's business! The result of such an approach can be that many grown-ups stop bothering to comment or engage. That won't happen here, however.
   

Now, you know all that.

And now, I can just link here every time someone objects because my purpose doesn't dovetail with his purpose.

Not that a troll will listen.

Trivial Blogger Questions: Layouts? Haloscan?

Two questions:

First, has anyone "upgraded" to Layouts in Blogger?

If I did it, would I lose all the design and graphics, and the Sitemeter and all that?

Second, who uses other services for comments? Pros, cons, recommendations? What would happen to existing comments?

Trollwatch

Anyone want to set an over/under for the next visitor with a brand-new Google account (perhaps even Profile Not Available), who says he's (or she's, this time?) a Reformed Christian who just happens to echo the day's MSM/DNC talking-points? If there's a profile, what will it be this time?

Isn't evolution wonderful? — 5

Those clever animals, figuring out kajillions of years ago... how to do this:

Listen for the announcer to say, "It's an ingenious defense."

Oopsie!

Who's the Genius?

What a bind: mustn't even ask that question, yet can't evade the truth (Romans 1:19-22).

(See installment 1 for series explanation.)

The Bizarro dinosaur "theory"

From today's Bizarro:



Of course, that inevitably calls to mind the Far Side "theory":

Nicely put: Doug Wilson on 'evangelical' Obama voters

In a mostly-skippable duo Patrol magazine interview of Hitchens and Wilson, the latter is asked to explain his view that 'evangelical' Obama supporters are struck with a kind of judicial blindness. "Sure," he says, then lets loose.

Wilson observes that it once was the case that certain things simply were known to be true among evangelicals, and needed no defense — such as that one doesn't defend abortion, period. This is no longer true, Wilson notes, as indicated by this phenomenon of "evangelical" support for Obama. Specifically, at about 17:40, he says:

"...Once you start not being able to see the big 'E' on the eye-chart anymore,
then I conclude that you can't see.
...You can't see the most obvious things"

Update: in one of his older posts, Wilson adds this:

Now this next distinction is crucial. The fact that secular conservatives can see it and so express their support for things like pro-life legislation or marriage protection laws does not mean that they are capable of helping us out when it comes to the more complex, systemic and corporate issues we must face. The fact that they can read the big E on God's eyechart for mankind does not mean that they can see the lowest line. As Trinitarian Christian we must affirm that our ethical responsibilities are both individual and corporate, which means that however much we might agree with certain Republican talking points in a campaign (on issues like abortion and sodomy), we also must acknowledge that such appeals are inadequate -- they do not fill out our vision for Christendom at all. They are fine as far as they go, but they don't go very far.

In the case of liberals, it is completely different. They celebrate sodomy, and say that a woman has the right to chop her baby up in little pieces. They cannot read the big E and insist that being asked even to try reading it is an insult to their core values. Now, this being the case, I am not even going to ask them to read the lowest line. My reason for this is that they are clearly blind.

Think of basic issues that are biblically easy -- abortion and sodomy heading the list -- as a qualifying round. Those who fail at this point don't get to move on to the semi-finals. Those who do get to move on, who clear that first round, have not thereby demonstrated that they are going to win anything later on. Liberals want to lose their races to men, and then move on to prove their prowess in running against horses.

Election 2008: Theologizing and strategerizing (Part Three)

Conclusion (see part one and part two)

What do we do now?

First, I'd call us all to repentance. It "is time for judgment to begin at the household of God" (1 Peter 4:17). The world doesn't know better. What's our excuse? We'd best get ourselves straight with God. Tough times are coming. We must be prepared for battle.

It'd be an appropriate time to pray a Daniel 9 prayer of repentance. We read of no flaws in Daniel, no sins, no chinks in his character. Yet the prophet heartily said, "I turned my face to the Lord God, seeking him by prayer and pleas for mercy with fasting and sackcloth and ashes" (Daniel 9:3); and "I prayed to the LORD my God and made confession" (v. 4).

And what a confession. Read it all, if you haven't. Here's just a taste:

"...we have sinned and done wrong and acted wickedly and rebelled, turning aside from your commandments and rules. 6 We have not listened to your servants the prophets, who spoke in your name to our kings, our princes, and our fathers, and to all the people of the land. 7 To you, O Lord, belongs righteousness, but to us open shame, as at this day, to the men of Judah, to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to all Israel, those who are near and those who are far away, in all the lands to which you have driven them, because of the treachery that they have committed against you. "

Second, we should disabuse ourselves of an unreasonable reliance on government or legislation.

Do not trust in nobles,
in man, who cannot save.
...5 Happy is the one whose help is the God of Jacob,
whose hope is in the LORD his God,
6 the Maker of heaven and earth,
the sea and everything in them....
9...He frustrates the ways of the wicked.
10 The LORD reigns forever;
Zion, your God reigns for all generations.
Hallelujah!
(From Psalm 146 CSB; read the whole psalm)

Third, prepare for the worst and hope (and work) for the best.

Judah had an amazing Godsend of a king in Josiah. We read of him, "Before him there was no king like him who turned to the LORD with all his mind and with all his heart and with all his strength according to all the law of Moses, and no one like him arose after him" (2 Kings 23:25).

But note the very next words: "In spite of all that, the LORD did not turn from the fierceness of His great wrath and anger, which burned against Judah because of all the provocations Manasseh had provoked Him with" (v. 26).

Judah had passed the Point of No Return as to Yahweh's judgment. Too much light rejected, too many opportunities refused, too many warnings spurned (cf. Proverbs 1:22-33).

Can anyone say, with any credibility, that America is not in that exact same situation? Let's be absolutely honest: God has every justification for reducing out nation to a smoking crater, right now, without a syllable of further warning. He may well use President Obama towards that end.

We should prepare for the worst.

At the same time, we should hope and strive. Consider Joel 2:12-14 —

Even now-- this is the LORD's declaration-- turn to Me with all your heart, with fasting, weeping, and mourning. 13 Tear your hearts, not just your clothes, and return to the LORD your God. For He is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger, rich in faithful love, and He relents from sending disaster. 14 Who knows? He may turn and relent and leave a blessing behind Him, so you can offer grain and wine to the LORD your God.

"Who knows?", the prophet asks. You don't; I don't. Amos speaks similarly, after some thundering threats and warnings:

Hate evil, and love good, and establish justice in the gate; it may be that the LORD, the God of hosts, will be gracious to the remnant of Joseph (Amos 6:15)

America's turning away has brought it to a sad, bad place. But: "Even now," "Who knows?", and "It may be." The import is clear: we should repent, pray, strive, and hope.

Fourth, have an intelligent grasp of how Romans 13:1-7 applies to the American situation.

Paul teaches that God instituted all authority, and so we are to submit ourselves to the authorities over us. Since God instituted authority, to resist it is to resist God.

Now, before we "welcome our new insect overlords" in an uncritical application of this passage, let's remember a few things.

This is America, not Israel. It is a constitutional republic, not a monarchy (nor a straight democracy). When he takes office, Obama will be in charge of just one of the three branches of our government. He will be neither Messiah nor King.

What is the authority, in our system of government? It is the document that begins:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The authority is the Constitution, and it was the people who ordained and established it. The Constitution divides power among three branches; it does not invest it in a potentate. The state is not Obama; he is neither Rex, nor Lex, nor the court. He is to execute laws made by another branch. It is an office with a good deal of power; but that power does not include being my sovereign nor my lord.

Further, the men who formed this nation thought it important to guarantee certain rights to me and to all Americans.

And what was the first right they saw fit to guarantee?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I'm not Obama's serf, I'm not his subject, I'm not his slave. I have no king but Jesus, nor any Messiah but He. I'm an American citizen, and our ruling document guarantees and assures me the right to express my thoughts — including my dissent — openly and freely. Men fought and died to win me that right, and they still die to preserve it. I'm not giving it up just to be thought a nice, deep, compliant, pliable little evanjellybean creampuff.

This is my right. It not only is not a violation of Romans 13:1-7 but, you could plausibly argue, it is required by Romans 13:1-7.

How "required"? Because, in our system of government, I am part of the governing authority. I would see a failure to voice my views, and exert such influence as I have, as poor citizenship.

In fact — and truly, it embarrasses me to have to say this, but — Chuck Norris makes better contextual sense than some Christianoid flutterings I've seen. I know, I know: Chuck Norris. No, I'm serious.

So, put briefly, resisting what I see as unwise and/or evil designs from one representative of one branch of government not only is not rebelling against the governing authority, but it expresses respect for the established governing authority. Of which I am part.

So fifth, we should resist every foolish or evil thing Obama means to do, by every peaceful, lawful means at our disposal.

Instant Brockman response would be, "Why 'resist'? Shouldn't we welcome our new messianic overlord, and try to help him succeed in doing good things?"

My twofold response is (A) duh, I don't think I need to say everything, do I?; and (B) I don't know any distinctive thing that I believe Obama proposes to do that I don't see as foolish or evil. I mean, for instance, he hasn't proposed completely trashing all laws whatever; so I do support him on that thing he hasn't proposed to do. But radicalizing abortion access? Evil. Heading towards nationalized healthcare? Foolish.

And now finally I put sixth the thing your average evanjellybean (as well as good bro's) would put first: we should pray. Oh yes, pray. How should we pray?

• We should pray for national repentance and genuine revival
• We should pray that men in the pulpit would be bolder than ever and more fierce and fearless and passionate and Spirit-led than ever, in proclaiming the Word of God above all (cf. Daniel 11:32; 2 Thessalonians 3:1).
• We should pray that God convict Barack Obama of his sin, convince him of Christ's Lordship and of his need for Him, open his eyes to the Gospel, and bring him to repentant, saving faith.
• If that happens, we should pray that Barack Obama should be seriously and quickly discipled in the Word of God, that he would instantly begin putting off his corrupt and evil worldview, and replacing it with convictions that reflect the mind of God.
• Until then, we should pray for his safety, as he gives every sign of being a man who cannot afford to die. Also until then:
• We should pray that God frustrate all his evil plans and defeat every foolish, rapacious, harmful thing he means to visit on our nation (cf. 2 Samuel 15:31; Psalm 3:7; 9:16; 10:15; Proverbs 21:1; etc.);
• We should pray that God protect the innocent from Obama's designs further to expose them to heartless murder (Psalm 10:14b)
• We should pray that God raise up good, godly, responsible, wise, winsome leaders (cf. 1 Samuel 13:14).
  

That's for starters.

So, in short, you could say I won't be going Kent Brockman on you.

Surprised?

Now comments are open, but do note: all rules (especially rule 1) are in effect.