PCUSA prepares to nuke the fridge...

...again.

UPDATE: Al Mohler comments.

Dispensationalism: defined?

I recommend subscribing to the Theological Word of the Day. Each day you'll be mailed a new term, brief definition, and sometimes some recommended reading.

But the last two have been... uneven. I'll pick on today's definition at this blog, and perhaps the other, later, at Pyromaniacs.

The word? Dispensationalism. Here's their definition in full:

A biblical hermeneutic paradigm common in conservative fundamentalist and Evangelical Christian theology. Originating from the Plymouth Brethren in the nineteenth century and popularized in the Schofield Reference Bible in the twentieth century, dispensationalism has three primary characteristics: 1) the call for a consistent literal or “normal” hermeneutic, 2) the separation of Israel from the church, 3) the separation of human history into several distinct epics, “economies,” or dispensations in which God relates to mankind in a distinct way. With regard to soteriological history (history of salvation), dispensationalism teaches that salvation has always been by faith alone, by grace alone, yet the content of the Gospel has been progressively revealed through biblical history. Dispensationalism has a variety of forms and has gone through some recent developments.

Well. For starters, I think I like referring to it as a "biblical hermeneutic paradigm." This correctly takes the focus off of counting or slicing dispensations (which everyone does), charts (which many do and anyone can), or even the timing of the Rapture (which all positions affirm, but with differing temporal location). It correctly isolates the issue as a hermeneutical issue. That, I like a lot.

However.

"Schofield"? Best-selling study Bible since the start of the last century? How about "Scofield"? Eek.

And then after a good beginning and two good distinctives, it slips on the third: "the separation of human history into several distinct epics, 'economies,' or dispensations in which God relates to mankind in a distinct way."

Um, no.

Every Biblical system distinguishes at least two different economies (hel-lo? Old Testament? New Testament?). Most would also grant that pre-Fall is a different set of expectations, and post-Second-Advent is another. Well, that's four — unless the individual is just so angry at dispensationalists that he'll Gumby up words to keep himself different.

But look: if you feel free to eat ham, go to church on Sunday, and ask God for forgiveness explicitly on the basis of Jesus' blood rather than offering an animal sacrifice .... gotcha!

Probably Ryrie's third distinctive is a better one: seeing the glory of God as the center of history, rather than man's redemption.

Thus far, my quibbles.

Pastoral search engines, services?

Have any of my pastor-readers used Intercristo, or any other searche engines or services, in locating a church to pastor? Any experiences or advice to share, given that I am looking?

I could also plug in my old question for new readers: what is a good denominational home (if any) for a Calvidispiebaptogelical who thinks the Bible teaches leadership by the office of elder?

Airport security: I feel so much safer...

From:

"Stick 'em up! I've got a gun!"

...to...

"Stick 'em up! I'm wearing a T-shirt with a picture of a cartoon-character holding a cartoon gun!"

I've been spared thus far, but both my poor wife and my poor daughter have had absurd experiences at the hands of airport security. I am 100% in favor of the concept, but I think political correctness and attendant nutcasedly skewed priorites have well-nigh vitiated effectiveness.

"Gay" "marriages" start in California

In related news, the California Supreme Court ruled that mauve is a primary color, the square root of 20 is 91208, circles are square, and squash is "yummilicious."

Seriously, if sanity doesn't rule this November, any and every Christian organization in California should brace for concerted, heavy financial impact. Then it will spread to other states.

Have Bible, Will Travel

It appears I may be in the Middlebury, Vermont area on August 17 of this year.

If anyone would care to have yr. obdt. svt. as a guest preacher on that Sunday, drop me a line.

Unexpected feature of Brothers, We Are Not Professionals

Did Piper do this, or did his editors?

Sometimes books will begin chapters with quotations of famous, distinguished figures. They frame the chapter to come.

This Piper book does similarly. It opens each chapter with quotations as well. And, most frequently, the famous figure quoted (by Piper?) is...

John Piper!

So far, I count fourteen opening Piper quotations, thirteen from other sources (including Bible verses).

Take the chapter I'm about to read:"BROTHERS, BEWARE OF SACRED SUBSTITUTES." It opens with three quotations. They are, in order, by —

1. John Piper
2. Charles Spurgeon
3. John Piper

Just... interesting. I don't really mean to imply anything further. It kind of startled me at first, kind of makes me smile, shrug, shake my head.

Do other writers do that?

It just seems to me a bit like saying, "To quote me: ..."

When Christians hide in church, with God...

...this sort of barking, drooling madness can occur.

A story which could be multiplied by the thousands.

UPDATE: Al Mohler adds some good thoughts (thanks, Candy)

Punditry: nice work, if you can get it

It must be nice, being a pundit (or "pundent," as Hugh Hewitt pronounces it; one day, he'll say "new-kew-lar pun-dent," and my head will explode — but I digress). If you're a professional, paid pundit, you don't have to care what happens to the country. You only have to sound like you care, and you have to appeal to people who actually do.

I find myself thinking this again in light of George Will's recent twitting of John McCain.

Ah, George Will. Can you summarize him in three words? I can: prissy, snippy, effete.

And so McCain rightly expresses outrage at the Supreme Court's latest stupid ruling, but Will finds a way to diss him for it. And that's fine; every regular reader will know that I have no great love for John McCain. In fact, about the only bumper sticker I can imagine displaying during this election would say something like:

McCain
Regrettably Necessary

HSAT, here's Will, making McCain look stupid and all that. And I think, "Sure, whatever; Will doesn't care much whether McCain wins, or whether arguably the most powerful position in the world is held by an unqualified, unprepared, radically-liberal, racist-friendly gasbag. Either way, his job is secure."

I've often thought that. I've been forced to think it of Rush Limbaugh, with whom I usually agreed back when my schedule let me listen to him. Rush talks; he talks, and that's what he does. Talks. Talks to people who really do care, and who are energized and get up and do things — but he doesn't, much. Because talking is what he does, and it's just about all he does. He does it well, but he does it almost exclusively.

And that's punditry. Smash liberalism verbally, and your audience loves you. And if the liberals win, and further destroy America? No matter: your audience will love you all the more, because they'll need you all the more to help them keep their sanity, and to say out loud what none of the MSM outlets nor "leaders" are saying.

So: horrible government, or golden government. To the pundit, either way is fine. Because you have a lot to talk about either way. And talking (or writing) is what you do.

Someone may say, "Isn't it like that for the pastor?" Yes, and no. But that is perhaps a topic for another post.

"The Happening" review, thrice through

Review of
The Happening, written and directed by M. Night Shyamalan

SPOILER-FREE BRIEFLY

Like Shyamalan, but didn't like the movie. Disappointing. Big-time.

SPOILER-FREE, MORE FULLY

I have seen and enjoyed (to varying degrees) every M. Night Shyamalan movie since "Sixth Sense." I even didn't hate "Lady in the Water," which many of his fans admit was a very flawed movie. It was, indeed, flawed — but hey, nobody's perfect. And I'm inclined to like a guy who is hated by so much of Hollywood. Plus, the trailers for "The Happening" made this movie look pretty hot, pretty must-see. So I went opening night, so as not to hear any "spoilers" other than the one I'll mention below.

Sorry to say, the trailers were better, more fast-paced and suspenseful and engaging, than the movie. Just watch them a few times, and call it good.

The movie had moments, and some memorable turns and lines... but oh, heavens, it was so obvious. A happens, and you think, "I bet B will follow." It does. So then when 1 happens, you think more jadedly, "Gee, wonder whether 2 is next." And it is. So by the time alpha pops up, you're groaning, "No no, wait, I know this one, don't tell me — beta!" And sure enough, beta pokes its head through the door and waves at you.

Plus, the leads Mark Wahlberg and Zooey Deschanel are pretty wooden, and pretty weird, respectively. Plus, I groan at the plot-device, the thing that is... da da da dummmmb... The Happening.

So: predictability, not-great acting, and a groaner of a premise. Sound like fun?

It wasn't, much.

I'm really sorry to say that, too. Wanted to like it. And I am not one who goes to movies to pick them apart. I go to enjoy; I suspend my disbelief. So when a movie forces me to this kind of criticism, well, it's not a good sign.

SPOILERY

Okay, you get that I'm going to give away plot-developments in this section, right? Fine.

Oh. My. Lands. The planet is tired of us, and it's trying to kill us, because we're bad! The grass hates us! The bushes, the trees, they want us dead! Old Treebeard and his ents were lightweights; they just hammered orcs. But in this movie, the weeds make all sorts of people jam needles into their necks, and saw their wrists, and lie under lawn-mowers, and feed lions in a really non-Mutual-of-Omaha's-Wild-Kingdomy manner.

"Eco-thriller." Now, that's the one spoilery thing I heard, the only one. It made my heart sink. Someone characterized it as an "eco-thriller" which, to me, is (in these greenomaniacal days) pretty much a contradiction in terms.

How original, eh? An "eco-thriller"! Who would have thought?

Well, everybody, and it's dumb, and it's boring, and unfortunately Shyamalan doesn't bring much of his creative originality to it this time.

In fact, it's almost exactly the same as "Signs," except without people you care that much about, and without cool aliens, and without much humor, and without a happy ending. But it's a massive invasion, told through the eyes of a small group of people, that comes, climaxes, and stops. There y'go.

So this is all told as the planet defending itself against us (what? we're not part of the planet too?), because of course we're bad and all. Heavens, there's so much "green" bombardment that I'm feeling a bit green myself, and not in a tree-huggy way.

So I paid $10 to be lectured on how the planet's going to kill me because I treat it so badly.

And then this morning I read Revelation 16. It's a peek into some pretty horrific events that will take place in the future. These are real eco-disasters. But they're not the planet avenging itself because of Round-up, freon, and SUV's. It's God avenging Himself because of unbelief, rebellion, and sin. Waters turn to blood, fish die, the sun scorches people — and how do people react?

"They did not repent and give him glory" (v. 9b)
"They did not repent of their deeds" (v. 11b)

Now there's a human trait: refusal to face God's truth, and repent. No matter what the miseries, the judgments, the consequences, man will not humble himself, admit the truth about God, and repent.

Does this movie give a peek at how folks will convince themselves that they needn't repent, though? Does it suggest one scenario that fallen man will fabricate, something that will find judgments occasions for deeper rebellion instead of repentance?

Will they just reinterpret these disasters as Mother Gaia's revenge, and will they curse the God of Jesus Christ for the hated dominion mandate (Genesis 1:26-28)?

Could be.

The problem Shyamalan poses is an impersonal, impenetrable, and inexorable. It is not the truth of an infinite-personal God who has spoken, who has revealed Himself, who has condemned rebellion, but who also accomplished redemption in Jesus Christ. Shyamalan has horror and dread, but he has no Gospel, no good news.

Wrong problem => wrong solution.

So the movie leaves one bored and insulted, or alarmed and anxious. It offers no hope.

Only Jesus Christ can offer genuine, eternal, transcendent grounds for hope.

POSTSCRIPT 1: I'm going to allow spoilers in the meta. If you don't want spoilers, don't read the meta.

POSTSCRIPT 2: saw "The Incredible Hulk." Much better movie. Just dumb fun; lots of cartoony action-movie violence, a naughty word or two, but I'd already had more fun in the first three minutes than I did in the whole "Happening.

New feature: "what I'm reading"

Thanks to popular demand... er.... Because of the many requests for... um....

I think one person said once somewhere that I should have a list up, giving the books I'm reading. And actually, I think it was at Pyro. But that sidebar's pretty crowded, so:

You'll see it starting today. I'll try to keep it up to date.

This includes, btw: books I'm reading to my family (LOTR), books I'm reading with my wife (Lewis; Packer and Dever), and books I have salted at various places for various times. Just trying to do what F. F. Bruce told me he did: fill up odd moments. Which, very clearly, I've never done as well as he did!

Über-trivia 1

("1," because I'm sure I'll be back for more, sometime)

Is Mark Dever "Mark Devvvver," or is it "Mark Deeeever"?

Is R. C. Sproul "R. C. Sprole," or "Sprowl," or "Sprool"?

Freaks, media, and Christian compassion

You've doubtless heard of the "world's first pregnant man."

I'm not going to put up a picture, and I'm not going to link to any of the breathless, adoring, giddy MSM articles on it. Unless you're locked in an attic (without any media access), you know the story. And, I would hope, you know that this is no such thing. Pregnant, yes; man, no.

And if you're either Christian or some-kind-of-morally-sane, you're repulsed at the media-fed, Oprah-fed adoration of this person, and how the story is being leveraged to feed the aggressive barrage of the homosexual agenda.

That being the case, you might initially find this essay by Ben Shapiro refreshingly different, for which I have Al Sends (—is that his real name?) to thank. Shapiro's opening graph is more sober and factual than most entire articles in the LSM:

The media seems bizarrely obsessed with the story of "Thomas Beatie," aka Tracy Lagondino. Beatie, a woman who legally changed her sex to "male," retained all of her internal female organs at the same time she took testosterone, grew a beard and had breast removal surgery. She then "married" her lesbian partner, Nancy. Nancy proceeded to artificially inseminate her "husband." And so the press has announced that Thomas/Tracy (Thracy, let's call her) is the world's first "pregnant man."

If Thracy is a man, then so is Rosie O'Donnell. Thracy has two X chromosomes, a fully functioning set of female genitalia, and a uterus -- and a voice higher than Alvin the Chipmunk's. She's a plain old lesbian who was weirdly fascinated with the idea of using a Schick Quattro on her face. Though Thracy's decision to artificially inseminate herself is the height of narcissism, it is hardly a medical anomaly.

Shapiro is clearly disgusted both by the media rapture, the not-so-hidden agenda, and the individual who has put herself and her self-disfigured body in the spotlight. His intent clearly is to rip off the gauzy filter and expose the many lies and deceptions.

Here's a taste of how he does it:

Thracy is no more than a glorified bearded lady, an Elephant Man for a new age... a self-promoting sleazebag willing to sell her soul and the soul of her baby for publicity... self-made monstrosity ...self-butchered breasts ...

The tone is angry, outraged, disgusted. You have to grant he's got good reason; it's a repulsive story, and the media's raptures are disgusting.

But I think that, as Christians, we have to resist fleeing from one error to another. This woman is a human being, created in God's image — and she's ruined by sin. She has ruined herself, disfigured herself, in her flight from God and pursuit of her twisted passions.

My first question, then, is: "...and that makes her different from you and me, exactly how?"

By nature and by choice, we're all in exactly the same boat. Check this:

And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— 3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. (Ephesians 2:1-3)

Dead, enslaved, and getting deader. Doing it to ourselves over and over and over. Then rinse, and repeat. That's you, and that's me.

I can only conceive of two differences.

One: if you're outside of Christ, then perhaps this poor woman has taken her perversion, her brokenness, her rebellion against her Creator, and put it out there in a display of public bravado. But yours is more quiet. It is indulged in your thoughts, your beliefs, your attitudes. To see it, other humans would have to monitor your bedroom, your computer account, your checkbook, your heart. God sees it, though; and He sees you the same way He sees this poor woman: lost, condemned, hopeless in yourself. Same book, different cover.

Two: if you're in Christ — well, God help you and me if our response is anything along the lines of "I'm not that bad!" If that's true, then the rest of the truth is that we're probably worse. Because, as Christians, we don't have this woman's "excuse" of being dead and blind. We should know better.

For who makes you so superior? What do you have that you didn’t receive? If, in fact, you did receive it, why do you boast as if you hadn’t received it? (1 Corinthians 4:7-8 CSB)

A Christian should know and acknowledge that the only reason we're not in the same boat as this woman, or a worse boat, is the mysterious, unfathomable, sovereign grace of God. If we cherish even the slightest notion otherwise — God help us, and God help us specifically in what He might allow us to discover in ourselves, to awaken us to the horrifying truth.

The appropriate Christian response to this woman is, of course, not to celebrate her perversion, her self-mutilation, her agenda, or her abuse of this innocent child. Nor is it to treat her as if she were some foul sort of being beneath and other than ourselves. She's a lost soul, acting like a lost soul. The difference is simply that she's put her depravity on more open display than others.

Our response, I think, should be a tricky mixture of repulsion, sadness, compassion, prayer, and renewed resolution to reach out to everyone in our sphere with the Gospel of Jesus Christ, who alone can save and redeem poor souls like this — and like ourselves.

Reformed Tourette's?

I think Ron Gleason is a great guy. This review was absolutely hysterical. I need a hand-signal to say how really funny it was. And if I didn't like him, Phil Johnson does, and that would be enough for me.

But then he does this. In the midst of a characteristically good review (this time of Pagan Christianity?), Pastor Gleason feels compelled to say:

Viola gives us an insight into his understanding of Scripture when he writes, “in the New Testament we have the genesis of the church.” Really? He sounds very much like a dispensationalist.

Huh? I had to look twice. Then I got it: Viola says the church begins in the New Testament, dispensationalists say (with Paul) that the church begins in the New Testament; ergo, he "sounds very much like" a dispensationalist.

But I still think it's an odd association, and a bit of a slam. This guy's reportedly saying all sorts of strange things that no dispensationalist would say, and Gleason rightly faults him for them. But Viola seems wobbly in his grasp of the authority of Scripture — whereas writing dispensationalists have virtually unanimously been unwaveringly insistent on the inerrancy and plenary verbal inspiration of Scripture. You can say all the bad things you care to about dispensationalism and -ists, but if you're honest, you'll grant that.

Sometimes it seems as if the resentment bubbling in some Reformed brothers just bursts out uncontrollably every so often, whether really germane or not. Like when I was skimming through Fred Malone's book on baptism, and saw that he took a moment out to slam dispensationalism — whose premises accord very naturally with the credobaptist position.

Perhaps I could try it. Next time I'm discussing some wild-eyed, foam-flecked, ankle-biting, howling, barking, drooling liberal who says that "the Bible seems to say ___, but it really means ____" —

— I'll just save time by saying, "Sounds very much like an amillennialist."

Fair enough?

(And BTW, still love Gleason.)

Riffing on spam, seminary, off-site education, and the future

This is a sort of spin-off from my post today at Pyro about seminary education.

Commenter Charles Whisnant was first up with this, in part:

I am sure you would agree, learning the Bible and learning theology and learning Greek does not necessary make one ready to pastor a church. Just ask me.

Of course I agree, and it sparked some thoughts.

Have you ever noticed how spam seems to come in cycles, or waves? My Yahoo! email has a spam filter that catches most spam (and some legit emails, so I don't let it be automatic). For awhile, I'll get a flood of spam offering helpfully to enhance some physical aspect of my person that the spammers assume is unsatisfactory. Or a wave will offer to get me a "date," or show me pictures. Then there is the flow of "Dear one" letters from wealthy widows in Kenya, or whatever. I love the "Colon cleanse" letters, that offer to help me lose weight by blowing everything right out of my intestines, overnight. Yeah, that should do 'er. What a fun night that would be, eh?

Recently there has been a wave of "Become a psychologist online" and "Become a nurse online" spam. That makes me chuckle. I envision someone in counseling getting some really stupid advice, or looking up from his hospital bed at this person in white looking at a bottle with complete bafflement, and asking, "Er -- where did you get your degree, again?"

And of course what's sadder (and scarier) is the thought that evidently there are dim bulbs out there who will get these emails and exclaim, "Margie! Lookiethere! I can get that doctorate what I always wanted!"

So surely it's only a matter of time before I get "Become a pastor online" spam.

Except you and I know already that you can "buy" any degree you want. And I'm of two minds on that.

First, of course you can't really get pastoral training online, if that's all you get. Read my Pyro post; I won't repeat it all.

But second, I think established seminaries/institutions are properly having to deal with the fact that distance education is a real trend, and a good one — within limitations. the cost of moving, travel, and all that is placing on-campus education out of the reach of good men who just aren't rich. But with today's technology, there is no good reason why a lot of work can't be done offsite, with on-site supplementation.

Seminaries need to be ramping up for this, and figuring out how to get credible proctoring and all to prevent cheating and ensure that the actual work is done.

But that can only check the academic boxes. That is, in itself, valuable. However, there simply is no substitute for in-person apprenticeship.

So perhaps what a savvy seminary would do is partner with local-church pastors. They would contract with such pastors to do a certain range of on-the-job training, perhaps even channeling some of the tuition to that pastor. Get periodic progress reports. Make that part of the overall curriculum.

HSAT, I close with this:

Greetings, my friend. We are all interested in the future, for that is where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives. And remember my friend, future events such as these will affect you in the future. You are interested in the unknown... the mysterious. The unexplainable. That is why you are here. And now, for the first time, we are bringing to you, the full story of what happened on that fateful day. We are bringing you all the evidence, based only on the secret testimony, of the miserable souls, who survived this terrifying ordeal. The incidents, the places. My friend, we cannot keep this a secret any longer. Let us punish the guilty. Let us reward the innocent. My friend, can your heart stand the shocking facts of grave robbers from outer space?

(Criswell; Plan 9 from Outer Space)

But, I digress.

"Into the Wild" reflections: glorifying selfishness and death?

I just saw the depressing movie "Into the Wild" (2007), scribed and directed by Sean Penn. Yikes. These thoughts will be spoilery... but not too. Unless you think a film on the last days of Lincoln would be spoiled by a reviewer who mentions the assassination.

The film is based on a book about the last, lamentable days of Chris McCandless, a young man who ran away after college and ended up dying in the Alaskan wilderness. I have not read the book; Roger Ebert has, and clearly loved both it and the movie. He says the latter is faithful to the former.

I think the movie is meant to be a bit hagiographical. We're supposed to see young McCandless as idealistic, wounded, naive, bright as a star, but ill-starred. I think this is confirmed beyond doubt by one climactic and significant change Penn makes.

In the movie, the last scene shows McCandless staring rapturously up into the sky, smiling, and dying. You hear his heartbeat grow rapid, then cease.

And then you see a sign that movie-McCandless left on the bus in which he spent his final days and hours. The sign reads, "I have had a happy life and thank the Lord. Goodbye and may God bless all!" Uplifting, eh?

Except that's from a journal note, and I don't know its date. The actual note he left on the bus read, "S.O.S. I need your help. I am injured, near death, and too weak to hike out of here. I am all alone, this is no joke. In the name of God, please remain to save me. I am out collecting berries close by and shall return this evening. Thank you, Chris McCandless. August?"

Not so uplifting, eh?

The movie depicts McCandless as wounded by his parents' sometimes-violent quarreling, their materialism, their expectations. So in reaction the boy lies to them, deceives them, liquidates his assets, and lives out the vision others write about: heading ultimately towards Alaska to be a pure man, free of possessions and entanglements, one with nature. On the way he meets various hippies and transients, and there is some nudity. One refreshingly different note is that he actually refuses a sexual come-on from an attractive young girl. Don't see many in movies turning down sex. Ever.

I love survival-type films and stories. My favorite Louis L'Amour novel is Lonesome Gods, which features a man's trek across the desert. Science-fiction or real life, I always love struggles for survival — from a distance. That's what attracted me to this movie.

What I found instead was a terminally and destructively selfish, self-absorbed, self-impressed young fool who reaped pretty bitter harvest from the seeds he sowed. I am sorry, but unsurprised, that some regard him as a heroic. He is anything but.

Sadly, no one is shown as having clearly told young McCandless the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Young Chris was left to follow his heart. That's Hollywood's Gospel: follow your heart — but it's really a dyspel. The heart isn't our beacon in a dark world. The heart is deceitful and desperately sick (Jeremiah 17:9). Anyone who actually trusts his heart is not a wise visionary, but a fool (Proverbs 28:26). We need deliverance from our hearts, but enslavement to them (Romans 7:24).

McCandless followed his heart "into the wild," and it killed him.

Viewed as a visionary revelation, the movie is a failure.

Viewed as a cautionary tale — bingo.

June 8, a day of shame — for Mormons

I wonder how many freed souls count this as "the day I realized my cult was full of baloney"?

Read this excellent piece by m'man Aaron Shafovaloff.

Drive your coworkers nuts...

...by upping the volume and clicking on this.

(Backstory)

Hillary! and The Obama: I get it

If Hillary! had won, it would not have been just because she was a woman.
But if you didn't vote for her, it's because she's a woman.

If The Obama wins, it will not be just because he's a (half-)black man.
But if you don't vote for him, it's because he's a (half-)black man.


I get it now.

Prediction about the "Obama bombshell"

Don't want to bump Tuesday's post prematurely, but I do want to get this on-record. So I'm writing about 1pm PST Tuesday, setting this to post a minute past midnight Wednesday.

You've heard all over the place that Wednesday is supposed to bring a "devastating bombshell" to be dropped on The Obama.

Well, maybe, maybe not.

But I remind you that, again and again, The Obama has out-Clintoned the Clintons. Now, do you remember how, during the Dark Years, every time some mildly negative bit of news was about to come out, the Clinton camp would grossly exaggerate it before release? That way the LSM lapdogs would grab it, run with it, report that it would be horrible, awful, apocalyptic, devastating...

...and then when it actually came out, everyone shrugged and said "Oh. That? That's all?" Massive anticlimax, engineered by the Clinton media-masseuse geniuses.

Well, in this case:

1. If it's Republicans who have this devastating bombshell, and it's truly devastating, they're burbling, drooling idiots for not sitting on it until after The Obama is formally anointed
2. If it's Hillary!'s folks who have it, I think they'd have released it earlier
3. If it's The Obama's folks who have it, it could be a classic Clinton head-fake. In that case, brace for the grand fizzle.
   

You heard it first, here.

NEXT-DAY UPDATE SUMMARY: fizzzzzzzzzzgrunk.

Imagine that conversion to Christ were against the law

No need to imagine. It is already the case in Iran, as elsewhere. Craig points to an article detailing the arrest and questioning of twelve in Iran, accused of converting to Christ. Which jogs a number of thoughts.

First, a sincere and heartfelt disclaimer, to which I'll return at the end: nothing of what I am about to say should be read as self-righteous, lofty scolding. I am in no position to dole out arrogant lectures to anyone who I deem insufficiently willing to suffer for Christ. I know how repugnant it is for armchair theorists to sneer at what they imagine is the poor performance of folks who (unlike them) are actually in the field, trying and attempting and sacrificing and suffering.

Having said that, I do know a bit about history and the Bible, and both have me wondering: is the Gospel spreading so slowly, particularly in Muslim-oppressed lands or in China, because Christians are unwilling to suffer as martyrs? because they hide their worship, their testimony, their baptisms? Is not the blood of the martyrs still the seed of the church?

As soon as I write that, and in spite of my disclaimer, I feel shame. Who am I to fault? What have I suffered? How many times have I drawn back for fear of a mere sneer, or mere job loss? What finger can I point that doesn't bring shame and condemnation on my own head?

Have I in any way led my family to have eternal values? Can my young sons even conceive of suffering for Jesus, and gladly so? Or can I conceive of them choosing to risk and suffer for eternal values and goals? Or are not my goals for them — and the value-structure I've (however unintentionally) bred in them — strictly this-worldly, middle-class, materialistic, and safe? With a little Jesus sprinkled on top for after you die? In my loving effort to make sure they have nice things, to give them security, to afford every advantage, and by my own consequent playing it safe, have I unwittingly led their love in the wrong direction?

Well, yikes. That little bit of tepid would-be reproach rather backfired, didn't it?

Oh, ouch! What dulls our hunger for God

I'm not the first to quote this, but:

The greatest enemy of hunger for God is not poison but apple pie. It is not the banquet of the wicked that dulls our appetite for heaven, but endless nibbling at the table of the world. It is not the X-rated video, but the prime-time dribble of triviality we drink in every night. For all the ill that Satan can do, when God describes what keeps us from the banquet table of his love, it is a piece of land, a yoke of oxen, and a wife (Luke 14:18–20). The greatest adversary of love to God is not his enemies but his gifts. And the most deadly appetites are not for the poison of evil, but for the simple pleasures of earth. For when these replace an appetite for God himself, the idolatry is scarcely recognizable, and almost incurable.

(John Piper, A Hunger for God [Wheaton: Crossway, 1997], 14; from D. A. Carson, For the Love of God : A Daily Companion for Discovering the Riches of God's Word. Volume 1 [Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 1998], May 28 entry)