Christmas tracts

In short: does anyone know any really good ones — readable, pointed, Christ-centered, from the perspective of the doctrines of grace, affirming God's sovereignty in salvation?

Share, and (this is the part people forget) explain why you like the tract. Anecdotes are especially welcome.

The literally indispensable ministry of the Holy Spirit in Gospel preaching

One of the realities that weighs more heavily on me in pastoral ministry now, more than ever in the past, is the need of the Holy Spirit's lifegiving ministry in, through, and beyond the act of preaching the Gospel.

As usual, Spurgeon says it with evocative power and excellence:

Oh, brothers and sisters, if anybody in this place knows the power which is in Christ to make his ministry of any use, I am sure that I do! I scarcely ever come into this pulpit without bemoaning myself that ever I should be called to a task for which I seem more unfit than any other man that ever was born. Woe is me that I should have to preach a gospel which so overmasters me, and which I feel that I am so unfit to preach! Yet I could not give it up, for it were a far greater woe to me not to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ. 

Unless the Holy Ghost blesses the Word, we who preach the gospel are of all men most miserable, for we have attempted a task that is impossible, we have entered upon a sphere where nothing but the supernatural will ever avail. If the Holy Spirit does not renew the hearts of our hearers, we cannot do it. If the Holy Ghost does not regenerate them, we cannot. If he does not send the truth home into their souls, we might as well speak into the ear of a corpse. All that we have to do is quite beyond our unaided power; we must have our Master with us, or we can do nothing. 

We deeply feel our need of this great truth; we not merely say it, but we are driven every day, by our own deep sense of need, to rejoice that our Lord has declared, “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth,” for we need all power. Every kind of power that there is in heaven and in earth we shall need before we can fully discharge this ministry. Before the nations shall all be brought to hear the gospel of Christ, before testimony to him shall be borne in every land, we shall need the whole omnipotence of God; we shall want every force in heaven and earth ere this is done. Thank God that this power is all laid by ready for our use, the strength that is equal to such a stupendous task as this is already provided. 

[Spurgeon, C. H. (1896). The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit Sermons, Vol. XLII (pp. 235–236), "Our Omnipotent Leader." London: Passmore & Alabaster. Paragraphs added to enhance readability]

Even so, come, Holy Spirit, to bring the word of the Gospel home with power and conviction (1 Thess. 1:5-6).

Church size, influence, and significance

I'll be brief:

Remember that none of the churches in the New Testament had their own building.

Remember that most of the churches envisioned in the New Testament could fit into a house.

And yet...

The churches in the New Testament managed to tilt their world.

What does that tell us?

Mormons - you know, those people who say God maybe sinned?

I have a couple of items on Mormonism slated for tomorrow's HT. But this item's a bit time-sensitive, so it goes up today.

You recall our guest-poster Aaron Shofovaloff? He's doing a conference in Salt Lake City, Utah tomorrow in a conference called Compassionate Boldness. Aaron will speak on the Mormon notion that God the Father sinned (see his page on the subject).

Please add to your family's prayers.

Most vivid "warning shot" ever caught on video?

I have often remarked that everyone gets a certain number of "warning shots," a number determined by God. By that I mean incidents, first-hand or otherwise, that remind us of our extreme, fragile mortality; of the fact that life is not a "given," that our continued existence here on planet earth should never be taken for granted.

Or, as one put it far better: "you are a mist that appears for a little time and then vanishes" (James 4:14b).

There is only one real priority for us: that we know God, on His terms. Without that settled and in good currency, everything else is whistling past the graveyard.

As this lady was vividly reminded:

But did she read the memo? Or is she like most Americans who take waking up for granted, breathing for granted, eating for granted, being able to fire off two neurons in sequence for granted, not recognizing every one of these things as coming from the God in whose hands are their very breath and their ways (Daniel 5:23), and not recognizing every one of these things as a gift of God's kindness, meant to bring them to repentance (Romans 2:4).

How much longer do you have, reader, friend, passer-by? If your answer is anything other than "I have absolutely no idea," it's a dishonest and incorrect answer. Don't care if you're 15, 25, 55, or 95. You have no clue.

One thing you know for certain: you've got a date with the Judge whose rulings are final. You will be judged in His courtroom by His laws and subjected to His sanctions.

Are you prepared? On His terms?

Better be.

Postscript: Fred Butler notes that some wonder if the vid is a hoax. Maybe, maybe not; that would affect my point only if one thought that we don't actually get warning-shots or near misses, and aren't really, at any moment, a literal hiccup away from the reality of Hebrews 9:27.

Postscript 2:  the source I now use, above, claims to be Wendy Cobb herself, and she says it really happened.

Postscript 3: closing the loop with Fred, he found confirmation.

Gospel clarification question

Envision two scenarios:

First scenario

A man calls you. He is 98 years old, in the last stages of cancer. His doctor has told him likely that increasing pain medication will shortly mean a reduction of consciousness, and then he will slip into his final coma. The time left him is measured in days, or even hours.

He has led a godless life of immorality and selfishness. He is afraid to die. He has heard about you, and he only has one question:

"What must I do to be saved?"

What do you tell him?

Second scenario

A man calls you. He is 18 years old, in perfect health, from a long-lived family. He may well have another 80 years ahead of him.

He has led a godless life of immorality and selfishness. He is afraid to die. He has heard about you, and he only has one question:

"What must I do to be saved?"

What do you tell him?

Applying the cattle prod

If you give either one a fundamentally different answer, then you are preaching a false Gospel to at least one of those people.

The reach of this blog: something to pray about

I have often said that one of the most tantalizing things about ministering on the internet, including blogging, is that one literally never knows who is dropping by. I know I have maybe 800 visitors a day, up or down. Who are they? What are they going through? What is their life-situation? Are they atheists, pantheists, Mormons, Moslems, Roman Catholics, Hindus?

I get enough email feedback that stokes the curiosity and rewards the hope... such as the woman in a difficult marriage who was challenged and helped by the article addressed to wives, the pastor who needed a last-minute sermon aid when caught by surprise, the fellow finding his way back to Christ.

Only eternity will tell. That's the tantalizing element.

I got the tiniest (but sweetest) foretaste at the last Together for the Gospel, when again and again complete strangers stopped me, thanked me for the ministry of the blogs, had a kind or encouraging word... then went their way.

You pastors, who support missions: do you see the missionary potential of a blog. If you found that someone in your congregation regularly bore witness of Christ to people from all the continents except Antarctica would you want to be involved, at least make that ministry an item for prayer? Wellsir, that's this ministry, by the grace of God.

Look at the map of visits from 3/7/2009 - 3/7/2010:

There are dots from left to right, and from up to down.

I can't detail all the specifics; there are too many. But they include: Singapore (1460), Phillippines (1048), Soughh Africa (650), India (640), Indonesia (398), Hong Kong (365), Republic of Korea (337), Israel (150), and other countries such as Romania, Japan, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, Greece, China, Kuwait, Lebanon, and literally dozens of others. Places my feet will almost surely never go, but my fingertips have borne a witness there, praise God.

It is a fruit of a search I've been on for literally decades: the most fruitful way to give what the Lord's given me. I still look for other ways, particularly for a way to be able to do it fulltime. But what I've got, these blogs and the web site give me the opportunity to disseminate. And they in turn have birthed other opportunities such as conferences and guest preaching and books.

Now, this blog is far more eclectic in content than Pyro. I wish I could find the quotation from a commenter who absolutely nailed the designed difference between the two: Pyro is like listening to a pastor preach or teach, BibChr is like hanging around with a pastor, hearing about what interests him and what he thinks about things. Who knows who clicks on a movie review (we get many visits from IMDB's movie reviews), and ends up with a witness to Christ? Or who comes because of a silly article, but reads further, or checks out How Can I Know God? or Pyro?

That map will change shortly. They archive it and start over after a year, so it doesn't turn into a big red smear. But Lord willing, the flow of visits will continue.

Pray for them, and me.

And thank you for being part of the flow.

And now to you I say, don't underestimate the impact of your labors! You will never know who might stumble across your blog, or your comments here; and your words will be just what the Holy Spirit uses to do a good work in their hearts!


Sow well, sow generously, pray, trust the harvest to God.

Mark Driscoll at the Crystal Cathedral

You can read the text of Driscoll's 8/23/09 sermon here. If I get this right, you have to pay Schuller $15 to own the sermon. So, read it.

Given that it was transcribed by such a massive organization, the amount of misspellings and typos are surprising. But what about the content?

I'll be brief. I know that someone who is "out for Driscoll" could carp over this and that. It isn't the sermon I think I'd preach, offered the same pulpit.

But HSAT, honestly — Driscoll preached Christ. It is not bad at all. Driscoll did not go off on himself, waste time making himself look cute and edgy and "bad-boy." He simply preached Christ: preached Him as God, preached His atoning death and resurrection, preached His exclusivity. It was Jesus, from start to finish.

Driscoll even talked about our sin, and our need for forgiveness. I imagine Driscoll will be faulted for his "God needs to" riff, but I think it is pretty clear that he means "we need God to." I'll leave catching people at bad syllables and conjunctions to the Pharisees. It's a standard no mortal could meet.

And Driscoll's message would have been adorned were he a person of greater overall credibility, unburdened by baggage of his own persistent creation. But he preached Christ from that apostate pulpit, and I rejoice in that (Philippians 1:18). Now let's pray all the more that Driscoll's life adorn the Gospel (v. 27), by his dealing with those shaming issues.

Given where he's preaching, I didn't love Driscoll's closing prayer, which includes a petition that his hearers "be as people with joy and purpose and passion and pleasure and enthusiasm and hope and joy that never ends." But once again, in context, this is prayed for people who have (as he prays) embraced the real Jesus in living faith.

It's a good sermon.

So what do I think I would have preached, sitting here in the safety of my relative anonymity, in a universe where the likelihood of that invitation is far less than the likelihood that Obama will do a 180 and move America back towards its best founding values?

I have a bit of a history with Schuller. Robert Schuller said he learned "possibility thinking" from Norman Vincent Peale, promoter of "positive thinking." Norman Vincent Peale said he learned "positive thinking" from Ernest Holmes. Ernest Holmes founded the non-Christian mind-science cult from which the Lord saved me.

As a Christ-hating non-Christian, I sometimes heard Schuller. He was kind of like us, but mentioned Jesus more than we did. After my conversion, I thought "Now I can get more out of Schuller!" I tuned in... and bleeagh! It was like a mouth full of dead hay. It was awful. This was what I'd just been saved from.

Schuller effectively denies sin, denies the exclusivity of Christ, is at best a functional universalist, and is well out of the pale of Biblical orthodoxy.

So, in preaching Christ's exclusivity, Driscoll did hammer at Schuller's rotten foundation. In preaching Jesus as He is, rather than how He can help you get what you want, he also brought another critical truth to bear.

I think, if I had only one sermon, I'd have preached God's holiness and our sin, and the unsurmountable crisis that poses; and I'd have preached Jesus as God's only way — and our only hope — of dealing with that crisis.

If I had two, I might have done that and what Driscoll did.

Because what Driscoll did preach was good, and nothing's gained by denying it.

UPDATE: the photographer who snapped the top image is Ronald Hodgman.  He has other pictures of the event here.

Of whom the world was not worthy; Islamic dysangelism

Turning from one cult to another, I bring you the tale of a Christian pastor in Nigeria, beheaded for his faith.

Read about it here. Captured by Islamic radicals in Borno State, Pastor George Orjih was threatened and commanded to leave Christ and embrace Islam to save his life.

His response? Did he open a dialogue? Did he express regret for past Christian whatevernesses? Did he say that we are all seeking God, and there are many valid paths? Did he suggest a couple of couches and some candles so they could grope together? Did he, in other words, equivocate to save his life?

No.

Pastor Orjih preached Christ to his captors.

And they beheaded him instantly.

My first thought is, What a wonderful way to go out.

I read that Pastor Orjih was working on his Master's in Theology. I'd say he graduated, with honors.

The direction of Nigeria is of great concern. Sadly, the professedly Christian is wasted on health-and-wealth "gospel" false teaching.

But Pastor Orjih didn't preach that, he preached Christ. And as a result, he is indeed having his best life right now.

Making the Most of Mormon Missionary Visits (Guest post)

by Aaron Shafovaloff

[Our guest writer today is a young man I met when I was guest-preaching in Tennessee in 2008. Aaron Shafovaloff (shah-FAH-vah-loff) lives in Utah, and is a missionary to Mormons. I was impressed by Aaron's sharp-minded love for the Lord and His word, and by his love and concern for Mormons. Aaron was kind enough to accept my invitation to contribute a guest-column on how to take advantage of the opportunity when God delivers a couple of lost people to our doorsteps wanting to talk about eternal matters. Aaron is one of the writers at Mormon Coffee, and at the Mormonism Research Ministry. Check out his article and video titled God Never Sinned — He Never Was a Wretch Like Me. Take it, Aaron]

Some of us get downright annoyed at Mormon missionaries knocking on our door. But when God sends spiritually needy people right to our homes, we ought ought to make the best of it.

Getting turned down and even having doors slammed in your face isn't fun. It's emotionally and physically draining. I know because many Mormons are rude to me on a weekly basis here in Utah on evangelistic outings. No matter how positive and polite I try to be, that I am trying to convert them from their Restoration to our Great Apostasy doesn't go over well. "Get a job." "What are you, an anti-Mormon?" "You should be ashamed of yourself." "What did the Mormons ever do to you?" "How much money do you get paid to do this?" "Don't you have anything better to do?"

All that, but at least I still get to pick up the phone and talk to my mom whenever I want. Mormon missionaries are typically only allowed to send letters/email once a week, and make a phone call twice a year to their family. Once on Christmas, and once on Mother's Day. They eat lots of Ramen noodles, Mac and Cheese, and anything else cheap that a budget-conscious bachelor pad might serve.

Mormons tell us all the time to take our tough and deep questions to the young missionaries, because surely these guys know the answers. But that is hardly the case. These are a bunch of young 19 and 20-year-olds who are playing the part of a Mormon tradition that is designed to help them plant deep roots of Mormon commitment and belief. Many of them are on their mission to participate in an adventure and figure things out for themselves, not yet having the deep belief in Mormonism that they wish they had. The two-year-mission largely functions in Mormonism to solidify that belief. It's a spiritually formative time in their life, and it's our duty to plant seeds of truth in love.

When a new set of missionaries (they usually cycle out to different proximate areas every three months or so) knocks on my door, it's usually because I have requested a new video resource they have advertised (do this!), because I have filled out a card in one of their Visitor's Centers or public events (never pass that up!), or because a neighbor feels like I really need to be converted (hey, they care!). I'm more than delighted to have them over. Know that you can practice warm hospitality without welcoming them as fellow believers. Welcome them in, have them sit down, and bring them somethings to drink (save snacks for a bit later to keep them a bit longer).

Ask them where they are from, about their families, and what their post-mission plans are. They will want to quickly segue to their religious message. They usually ask me, "So how much do you know about the Church?" I am forthright about my knowledge of the Mormon faith. "I have studied it for years, I find it fascinating, but I have some grave concerns." But what I know about the history and larger movement of Mormonism is inconsequential for the moment, because "I would love to hear what you two individually believe."

Allow the missionaries to spend some time delivering their message, but look for points at which you can ask questions about the fundamental nature of God. Because I never know how short or long their visit will be, or if they will ever return, I make it a point to quickly get to the heart of the matter. For me that usually entails asking if they believe God once was a mere man who had to progress unto godhood, and whether they believe this mere man was once perhaps a sinner. The responses are varied, but usually heartbreaking and shocking. (See God Never Sinned)

The most important passage that I know to share with a Mormon is Isaiah 43:10:

"Before me no god was formed,
nor shall there be any after me."

I recommend using this passage even if you only have a few minutes. Ask the missionaries to "share their testimonies", and patiently listen. They have a series of affirmations they will articulate here, usually something like, "I know the Church is true and has the restored priesthood, I know that Jesus is the Messiah, I know that the Book of Mormon is true, and I know the Thomas S. Monson is a modern-day prophet of God."

"Thank you for sharing your testimony. Would you mind if I shared a testimony as well?"

"Sure.''

"The testimony I have to share right now isn't my testimony, it is God's testimony." At this point I try to avoid using terms like "Bible" and "scripture" and "word of God", and instead use the term "testimony of God." Referring to God's written revelations as the testimonies of God is perhaps the clearest and strongest way we evangelicals can communicate the nature of scripture to Mormons.

I open up the testimonies of God and put my finger under the passage to help them simultaneously read with their eyes as they listen with their ears: "God bears witness of himself in Isaiah 43:10, testifying, 'Before me no god was formed [PAUSE], nor shall there be any after me.' If we trust the testimony of man, how much more should we trust the testimony of God himself."

This also works great in the beginning of a longer conversation, as it preempts the feelings-oriented Mormon epistemology that they want to promote. Mormon missionaries are taught to foster a kind of atmosphere and attitude among listeners. The next step for them is to help you identify a set of positive emotions with the Holy Spirit. By preemptively referring to scripture as the "testimony of God", I have made it more difficult for them to appeal to human feelings as the chief, decisive vehicle of God's authoritative revelation.

Other topics that are great to cover are the unique priesthood of Jesus Christ (Hebrews 7), the explosively good news of the justification of the ungodly (Romans 4:4-8), and the importance of putting our feelings and thoughts in a system of checks and balances that realistically takes into account our finiteness and depravity and God's authority and omnipotence (Isaiah 40:8; Acts 17:11; 1 Thessalonians 5:21). A wonderful list of passages put together by James White for witnessing to Mormons is available here.

You will inevitably be asked to read a section of the Book of Mormon and pray about that. On that issue please see an article by Bill McKeever.

A great way to get them to come back is not to hog the conversation, but to let them have their say. Practice using questions as a way of drawing out the topics you would like to address. Our interactions are not an endless emergent "conversation", but neither are they an overwhelmingly aggressive monologue (I have learned this the hard way). Keep a mental note of three or so tough questions that went unanswered, and write them down for them.

"Would you guys please research the answers to these questions, and come back another time to share what you found?" Insist on it with a free dinner. In some areas, Mormon missionaries are not allowed to eat meals at the houses of other Mormons. This is designed to encourage them to eat with non-Mormon households or at a Mormon house with non-Mormon guests. The problem is that many missionaries end up eating a lot of those Ramen noodles. Your kitchens are the solution to this wonderful problem.

At the end, they will ask for someone to close in prayer, usually the head of the household. Use the opportunity to pray to our awesome and eternal God. Thank God before everyone in the living room for the free and immediate gift of justification, forgiveness, and eternal life. Thank him for transforming your heart to love and follow Jesus. Thank Jesus that in him we have all the riches of knowledge and wisdom and understanding, and that without him, we have nothing, and that with him we have everything. And beseech the Spirit to help everyone in the room to pursue the truth of the gospel, lest we suffer that awful punishment that the Bible describes as never-ending.

Get their phone number in case you have to reschedule, and use that number to remind them of the dinner appointment that you're looking forward to. Trust me, this is important. They forget (either literally or sometimes intentionally) to show up and either never come back, or call to apologize, since something came up. Sometimes they are lazy, sometimes they are just busy. Give them the benefit of doubt and stuff them full of more dinner. Serve a dessert twenty minutes after dinner is over so that they feel obliged to stay longer than they would have. Keep inviting them over and over to eat more dinner, discuss more issues, and address more of the outstanding questions. It won't last forever, so make the best use of your time. Ron Rhodes writes,

"Don't move forward in a mad rush to discuss spiritual things, especially if you have the opportunity to work toward developing a personal relationship. When the Lord opens the door for witnessing, however, be ready to walk through it.

"The exception to this rule, of course, is if you know for certain that you will never see that particular Mormon again. Then you will want to cover as much doctrinal ground as possible, biblically refuting the most blatant heresies in Mormon theology and giving a strong personal testimony of what Jesus has done in your life." (Ron Rhodes, Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Mormons [1995], p. 29)

Calling the Brain Trust: help me source an illustration on sovereign grace Gospel

I thought I knew where this came from, and evidently do not. It is a vivid way of depicting the fatal flaw in Arminian evangelism. It goes something like this:

Imagine that you walk into a morgue. Corpses on every slab, right and left. Ah, but you bring them a precious gift! You have the elixir of life in your hand! One sip, and they will live!

So you preach to them, you offer them the drink, you appeal to them, beg them, plead with them. At the climax of your utterly convincing, flawlessly-reasoned address, you set the golden chalice on a table in the center and issue an invitation. All they have to do is reach out, grasp the cup, and swallow its wondrous contents! All who will, may come and drink and live!

But that is exactly the problem. They can't. If they have to make the move that connects them to life, none will live, because they're all dead!

Now, I thought that was from van Til's Defense of the Faith. But I just scanned that, and can't find it. Was it from Murray's Redemption, Accomplished and Applied? I don't have that with me to check.

Can any of you brainiacs give me the book and the page?

Ah, Britain; against the law to say homosexuality is a sin?

My distant (very distant, geographically speaking) pastor friend Gary Benfold alerts us to this chilling interchange:

Gary knows Andy, says he's a humble, genuine Christian man with a very challenging ministry.

It would be interesting to ask President Perversity-Pretense-and-Mutilation Pride what he thinks of this exchange.

Why the Cross?

This is a companion-piece with today's Pyro post

Anselm wrote his famous Cur Deus Homo, "Why Did God Become Man" — or perhaps "Why the God-Man" — grappling with the reason for the incarnation of Christ. Talking with two Mormons yesterday has made me think that a new book might be called for: "Why the God-Man's Cross?"

They two handsome, shiny, fit young men caught me by surprise (and inconveniently) yesterday afternoon, full of friendliness and the Book of Mormon. For well over thirty years, I have taken every ring at the door as a God-given opportunity. As I told my boys later, here God has brought someone to your door wanting to talk about religion. How dare we say "No?"

Now, to my shame, I can't say I'm eager, and I can't say I've never punted. I've done it again and again, and never seen fruit. I've approached it from a half-dozen, a dozen different angles. Listening to Walter Martin and reading testimonies in the seventies, I had the impression: no Christian ever talks to these people, ever tells them the Gospel. They're yearning to hear it. Tell them, and they'll leap at it.

Well, that's half-right. Apparently I was the first to talk to just about every cultist who comes to my door, if their reaction is any indication. Yet they walk away, uninterested, unmoved, just as enslaved as they came. I've had Jehovah's Witnesses in a complete corner, unable to deny the deity of Christ Biblically — yet they do.

The problem clearly is not merely intellectual, nor lack of information.

But that isn't my job. Conversion is God's work; He has entrusted to us the work of bearing testimony, which provides His means (Romans 10:17). Don Whitney points to Romans 1;16, and says that preaching the Gospel is like handing out lightning rods in a thunderstorm: you don't know who the lightning will strike, but you know what it strikes.

So I talked to these young men, and bore witness to Christ and His salvation. And they wanted to talk about their book and their church.

But it struck me yet again. I asked the Evangelism Explosion question ("If you were to die and stand before God, and He asked you why He should let you into His Heaven, what would you say?"). They answer was "Because I repented and believed in Jesus... and lived a good life, was baptized, was taught the truth, treated people well, obeyed His commandments." Which led us to a reading of Romans 4:1-6, and a repetition of and dwelling on verse 6.

So here's my Good Friday question: Why the Cross? Why such an ugly death? Why a death at all?

If I can contribute to my salvation, if I have something I can give; if all I need is some assistance, but I really finish the job — why did God have to become a man and die so horridly?

This is the nightmare dilemma of all cults: Mormonism, Roman Catholicism, Islam, Jehovah's Witnesses. Their works negate the Cross. Any law-works negate the Cross.

Paul tells the Galatians, "If righteousness were through the law" — the God-given law of Moses, therefore any law — "then Christ died for no purpose" (Galatians 2:21).

And then in the next verse, he cries out in exasperation, "O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified" (Galatians 3:1). You see, to his mind, the death of Christ eloquently, finally, and thunderously DAMNED any system of works-righteousness. He could not conceive how they could miss that lesson. If we contribute to our salvation by what we do, then the Cross is an absurd, gratuitous mockery.

The Cross that saves us, damns us. The Cross that damns us, saves us.

The Cross says you are lost and helpless. The Cross says you and I can do nothing — nothing! at any point! — to commend ourselves to God. The Cross says we are lost and helpless, and only the most extreme means can bring us hope and life and forgiveness.

If you have not, I urge you, I plead with you: repent of your good works and your bad. Put your trust and hope in nothing, and no one, other than Jesus Christ, and Him crucified.

(For more, see here.)

Former President Jimmy Carter, may be growing older, but...

...he isn't growing wiser, humbler, more gracious, more Christ-like, or less of a... an.... What's the word I want?

As I've confessed, I voted for Jimmy Carter. You get one really lame, foolish, young, idealistic "freebie" vote. That was mine. He was "born-again," I was fairly newly born-again, and I bought the rhetoric. It wasn't long before I had serious buyer's remorse. I think it was when he accepted the mark of a Hindu worshiper when he visited India that I suspected his profession might not be that rock-solid....

(In my partial defense, the counter-choice [Gerald Ford] was far worse than the dilemma facing conservative voters last November.)

But Carter did one really great thing. He gave us Ronald Reagan, by a landslide.

Anyway, since his resounding and richly-deserved smoking-crater defeat, Carter at first did well, busying himself building houses. Yay, him. If he'd stopped there, that would have been great. If he'd realized and admitted what a horrid President he'd been, and how un-Biblical some of his notions had been, that would have been better still.

But no.

Instead, Carter turned himself into our worst ex-president, who undermines American foreign policy, coddles dictators, and created the party of Clinton and Kerry. Also, he joined forces with The Nameless One and did this. In many interviews, he clearly learned nothing from his decisive defeat at the hands of Ronald Reagan, and blames everyone but himself and his wretchedly wrong-headed ideas.

Michael Medved pretty much shares my view of Carter, and had the opportunity to interview him. It is to his credit that Carter even came on Medved's radio show, knowing what MM thought of him — though he did do it to shill his latest screed.

Medved writes about and transcribes the interview. It is an interesting-enough read in itself. But this stands out to me as a Christian:

MM: ---[The Hamas charter] calls for the murder of individual Jews. It calls for the murder of all Jews so that judgment day can come. It says, "The Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to the realization of Allah's promise, no matter how long that should take. The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said, “The day of judgment will not come about until Muslims kill the Jews (and the passage adds: “When the Jews will hide behind stones and trees, the sones [sic] and trees will say, O Muslim, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.”)

Carter:--If you want to talk about ancient history, Christians believe that in the second coming, Christ can't come back to the Holy Land until all Jews are either dead or become Christian.

Did you get that? Carter equates Hamas with Christians who... well, who (unlike Carter) actually believe in the Bible! He equates murderous cultists who think it virtuous personally to murder individual Jews and all Jews so as to wipe out the nation, with Christians who love the Jew named Jesus, believe in the Torah (including Deuteronomy 18:15-22), and (unlike Carter) actually believe in all of the Bible.

Wait, think more about it. Carter — Mr. Born-again — is talking to an unsaved Jew. Here is his opportunity to be a witness to Christ. And what does he use it for? In his all-consuming passion to redeem his image without repentance, Carter smears Christians, smears the Bible, and fabricates a moral equivalency with longing for Israel to repent and trust its Messiah as the entire Bible says it must and will. In Carter's insane, stubbornly unteachable, Cartercentric universe, wanting the highest good for every individual Jew is the same as wishing mayhem and murder for every individual Jew.

Great day in the morning, what a.... Well. There are words for what he has made himself. God open his eyes, humble him, grant him repentance — and, until then, shut his mouth.

If Melissa Etheridge is to be believed, Rick Warren apparently...

...saw his meeting with her as something other than an opportunity to point her to Jesus.

In case you don't know, Melissa Etheridge is yet another performer who sees herself as heroic for having yielded herself to degrading passions, and as a martyr for not having succeeded in forcing everyone to approve of her perversion... yet.

If she is to be believed, Warren used his encounter with her mainly to try to make her like him, Rick Warren. Warren assured her that he's a fan, he affirms equal rights for gays, he's conflicted, he's sorry for what he said about her perversion... you know, talking about her perversion like it's a perversion or something.

Now, just in case I'm ever considered for such a situation, I don't want the "against" case to be unnecessarily weak. So let me be plain: I do unhesitatingly mention homosexuality and "gay" "marriage" in the same breath as pederasty and bestiality. Ethically, it's a "duh."

Homosexual advocates hate this argument because it's irrefutable: if you redefine "marriage" to include two same-sexers indulging in serial perversion, there is no rational, consistent case to be made against any redefinition of marriage, including incest, polygamy, a man and five women (or men or goats) — or a man and his favorite five-iron.

Here's the whole problem with the Etheridge-mindset. They want to exclude practicing Christians from public life, while denying that that is what they're doing. They're not opposed to Christianity, they say; they're opposed to homophobia — that undefined word that ends up working out to mean "admitting out loud that homosexuality is always and definitionally immoral."

They just don't get the difference between worshiping God and trying to be God. If you're opting for the latter, then of course they're right. Anything goes, literally anything. Define perversion as morality, sum up 2+2 as 2304985 - whatever. You're God. You get to call it. It's a perk.

But if there is an infinite-personal God, He gets to do the defining. And He defines homosexuality, bestiality, rape, and such things as always and everywhere immoral, no matter how much the perp "feels in his heart of hearts" that it is the right thing to do. Because if there is such a God, then it is He, and not mankind, who is the measure of all things.

So, while I'm waxing prolix, I'll anticipate the snippy snipe certain types would want to throw at me. "What would you have done, in Warren's shoes? Told Etheridge she was going to Hell?"

I'll answer straight up — after one disclaimer.

Disclaimer: As I've often said, I do not equate my big talk from the safety of my keyboard with actual Daring Deeds Done. Talk is talk, action is action, the two are not synonyms. God knows I have failed and buckled and chickened-out far too often to feel proud and boasty about what a wonderful job I would have done if I were in ____'s shoes.

HSAT:

Straight-up answer: What I hope I would have done is seen it as maybe the only time Melissa Etheridge has been in the same room / on the same line as a preacher of the Gospel, ever. What I hope I would have done is told her that she and I are in the same boat. We're sinners, lost and hopeless. Her sin-of-choice is a sexual perversion; but I've played host (even if only mentally) to enough sinful passions and schemes to send me to the deepest Hell forever and ever, justly and righteously. We are different peas from the same pod.

I hope I would have told Etheridge that I believed Jesus, the whole package. That I believed He was who He said He was - God in human flesh, come to save sinners like her and me. That I believed He was right in affirming the Word of God that condemns her darling passions as surely as it condemns mine.

Further, I hope I'd have told Etheridge that I believed Jesus was truthful in saying that He was the way, the truth and the life, and that no one could have a relationship with the Father except through Him. That the only hope and chance for her and me is that Jesus pays for our sins, and secures forgiveness and hope and deliverance for us.

And finally I hope I'd have told her that, believing in Jesus as I do, I take his word as non-negotiable. That if He said homosexuality was fine, I would too. But since He says murder, theft, homosexuality, adultery and such things are sinful, so must I. Because I believe Jesus, and He's Lord. Not me.

And because being a Christian isn't a process of negotiation.

That's what I hope I would have said.

And I think Warren, had he been more concerned about her soul than his popularity, might have said something like that.

If she's reporting the conversation accurately.

Should Palin speak to The Media? Posing the question

Beyond all need to link for proof, for weeks there has been an increasing and alarmed chorus of voices demanding that Governor Sarah Palin, GOP VP nominee, "speak to the media." In tandem, much dismay and alarm has been registered over the fact that she has not sufficiently "spoken to the media," along with concerns that this is all because she just "isn't up to speaking to the media."

Who has raised this alarm?

The media.

Of course, when sheeple hear a loud enough noise sounded often enough — particularly a howl — they start bleating in chorus. Thus, some easily-persuaded souls have begun to echo the alarm, or be moved by it. Others had already been bleating along, driven by hatred for her and what she represents to them. No great surprise there.

But let's just focus on the demand, and the demanders. Should Governor Palin "speak to the media"?

How could anyone say "No" to that? She's a public figure. Of course she should speak to the media, if you ask the question that way. We think of "the media" as the gateway between these public figures and ourselves. We cannot get within earshot of these people, so the media do it for us. They ask our questions. They get us our information. That's what we mean by "the media."

But what if we re-frame the question? What if we ask this:

"Should Sarah Palin repeatedly and regularly subject herself to public and hostile interrogation by an audience composed of Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Barney Frank, Charles Schumer, Barack Obama, Maxine Waters, Alcee Hastings, Charles Rangel, and people to their left in ideology and temperament?"

Well, no; we'd say. I mean, she could if she wanted — but she's hardly obliged to do so.

What of this, then?

"Should Sarah Palin repeatedly and regularly subject herself to public and hostile interrogation by an audience composed of unaccountable professionals devoted singlemindedly to her humiliation, destruction, defeat, and hounding from public life; and to the victory of her opponent, Barack Obama, and the extreme leftist position he represents?"

The question is the same. Both questions are for all practical purposes what one asks today when he demands that Sarah Palin "speak to the media." (BTW, as an example: the VP debate tonight will be moderated by a hard-leftist who stands to gain financially from Obama's victory, but who sniffily dismisses concerns about her objectivity. Somehow, Jim Treacher got a peek at her questions.)

The only difference is that the first assemblage I named are accountable. They were elected. They were given their position by public vote. The second is none of those things: unelected, unappointed, unaccountable, representative only of themselves.

Ask yourself: when has a mainstream media reporter asked your question? When has he actually fulfilled that role of representing us? They do represent some of us — those on the left-to-far-left. But the rest? Hardly. Research has shown that, not only do they not represent us, they don't even know us. They don't even socialize with pro-lifers, with Biblically-faithful Christians. They don't know what we're thinking to ask what we're wondering.

A conservative (I forget which) remarked truthfully in the '70s, "It used to be that 'the loyal opposition' meant the opposing political party. Now it means the media."

If Palin's goal is to please the media — well, forget it. She'd have to renounce Christ, cheat on her husband, trash her own values, and retroactively abort Trig. (Then they'd call her a hypocrite anyway... unless maybe she took a lesbian lover.)

If her goal is to speak to America, then frankly I don't see her as obliged to ignore the wisdom of Proverbs 23:9. She should keep doing as she's doing, minus the time-wasting with the likes of Katie Couric. The press, as I predicted, isn't interested in reporting on her and the McCain campaign. We'd see a lot more even-handedness, were that true. (Robert Knight supplies a number of additional particulars.)

And BTW, I go both ways in this. The media doesn't represent my interests in its coverage of either campaign. They don't ask my questions, they don't pursue my concerns. They are actively campaigning for Obama, and that's all they're about.

Glenn Reynolds relays this email from "a reader in a major newsroom":

"Off the record, every suspicion you have about MSM being in the tank for O is true. We have a team of 4 people going thru dumpsters in Alaska and 4 in arizona [sic]. Not a single one looking into Acorn, Ayers or Freddiemae. Editor refuses to publish anything that would jeopardize election for O, and betting you dollars to donuts same is true at NYT, others. People cheer when CNN or NBC run another Palin-mocking but raising any reasonable inquiry into obama [sic] is derided or flat out ignored. The fix is in, and its [sic] working."

A Christian takeaway

This has been an exercise in examining the question. Do not respond to questions without examining their premises. Do that, and moments later you'll be at the bottom of the pit, with the spikes, with all the camouflaging branches scattered about you, wondering how you got there (cf. Proverbs 26:4).

For instance, a non-Christian says, "What proof is there for the existence of God?" We launch into teleological, cosmological, and other proofs... and wonder why we get nowhere.

Perhaps we'd do better if we responded with a question of our own: "What 'proof' would you expect?"

Or a non-Christian says, "So if a guy loves his wife, tells the truth, and gives to charity, but he doesn't become a born-again Christian, God's going to send him to Hell?" Usually Christians will accept the premise and work hard to make it okay for God to do as the questioner alleges.

It might be better to ask in response, "So what would merit Hell? How do you determine that?"

Douglas Wilson: I may be becoming a fan

Though people I like and respect tend to like and respect Douglas Wilson, I have not particularly done either.

Almost like forcing myself to try to read Jonathan Edwards because of his reputation, I've kept Wilson's blog on my list of favorites — but I've seldom read one through. I just don't get him. The one time he linked to one of my own posts, I didn't even get what his point was.

I've generally assumed that this was my problem.

Well, maybe it was, and maybe I'm coming 'round. Because (thanks, I think, to Frank) I made myself read his debate (at "Christianity" "Today," of all places) with Christopher Hitchens. Goodness, but it's simply deft and brilliant. (Go HERE to start; it has links to the other three parts.)

Hitchens, who is a very articulate and intelligent burbling fool, is an atheist who (like virtually all atheists) insists on groundlessly labeling things and people "evil" and "good." He asserted his position recently in a book. He prides himself, it seems, on being offensive in his attacks on people who are well-regarded by others, and/or recently deceased.

As you will see, Wilson simply shreds Hitchens' position. He leaves Hitchens with nothing except his very emotional and baseless assertions, which Hitchens keeps repeating as if repetition = proof. Wilson does this so well and so skillfully that, like a razor-blade's cut, I'm not even sure that Hitchens even now suspects the real depth and extent of the damage Wilson has done. But Wilson has laid Hitchen's position waste, and left only smoking ruins.

The challenge for Wilson and all presuppositionists. I'm told that Wilson is a presuppositionist. So far, he is true to that mold: they are without peer in demolishing their opponents' cases. Where I've never seen them strong is in establishing their own position. Van Til was always very critical of evidentialists because the latter do not leave unbelievers "without excuse." Yet I never read van Til himself making a positive case that had this effect. His "Why I Believe In God" was, I thought, very disappointing.

Similarly, in Bahnsen's debate with atheist Gordon Stein (get it and a lot more HERE), I thought the same pattern played out — or I misheard. I thought by the end of the debate, there was a blackened crater where Stein's assertions used to be. But Bahnsen did not establish his position.

So will Wilson do what he has shown that Hitchens cannot do? Or will he do as most presuppositionists seem to do: pulverize the opposing position, maybe make some Gospel assertions, but not provide what they demand from the other?

(As a reformed presuppositionist, I've tried to do what I challenge presupp's to do HERE. I've invited presupposionist interaction with that essay again and again, but never received any.)