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)

My Big Announcement

A hundred years ago, when I was in my first round of pastoral training, the founder of the institute said something that stuck in my craw.

He said, "If you can do something else other than pastoral ministry, do it."

At the time, I thought it an awfully cynical remark. He seemed to be putting down the ministry, or suggesting that pastors were people who were inept at everything else and just couldn't get a "real job." Either way, I discounted it. I was caught up in a view of pastoral ministry that unconsciously cherished many bright misconceptions about what it involved and promised.

But I remembered what he said, because it bothered me.

And now, some thirty-plus years later, it still bothers me... but now I think I agree. I see it as related to 1 Timothy 3:1 — "The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task." The two Greek words translated "aspires" and "desires" (ὀρέγεται, ἐπιθυμεῖ; oregetai, epithumei) combine to depict someone with a strong drive, almost a compulsion.

So I've come to see that statement differently. I think his point wasn't that pastoral ministry is a lousy job; nor that pastors can't get "real work" (he himself was a full-time High School teacher at one point in his ministry). His point was: if you can stand doing something other than being a pastor, if you're not driven to do pastoral ministry, if it's just another job — then by all means do something else.

Which brings us to your humble servant: me.

For the past decade-plus I've primarily done-something-else. Family circumstances required that I switch gears as 1998 dawned, and I was soon providentially enabled to do some crash-training in IT and get a couple of really nice jobs in the industry.

But my heart has always yearned towards the ministry of the Word. I've just looked for ways of doing it, no matter what else I was doing: filling pulpits every chance I'm given, doing a web site, blogging, email correspondence, men's fellowship at church, conferences. All that has been a great blessing to me. But rather than satisfying my yearning to minister the Word, it has only increased my desire to be devoted to the Word full-time.

I have a great job from almost any angle: great manager, great co-workers, good work-environment, terrific benefits, nice salary, and startlingly good bonuses. I don't take it for granted, I'm grateful to God for it and how it's met our needs — and my heart just isn't in it.

By contrast, the more I fellowship with pastors, the more I've had the opportunity to encourage and help them via blogging and email, the more I'm exposed to the state and need of the church today, and the more I grow in the Lord, the more the compulsion has grown. It isn't so much what I want to do as it is what I need to do in the service of the Lord.

So after long conversations with my dear wife, coupled with hours of praying and thinking and weighing and internally debating and working it through, I've made the Big Decision:

I am seeking full-time ministry of the Word, in earnest. My hat's in the ring.

(Perhaps your reaction will be like my beloved oldest child's, as reported to me by Valerie, which amounted to, "Well, duh.")

All this to say, please pray for me and my family. And if you know of any opportunities, the answer is "Yes, I'm interested."

To be specific:

1. Pray for God to guide our thinking, and to open doors
2. Pray that God will put us together with a group of believers who (A) will be well-served by the gifts God has given me, and (B) can provide what is needed to support and make a home for my family.
3. Let any seeking bodies know of my availability. We are willing to relocate and, while we have preferences, aren't ruling anything out offhand — as long as #2 obtains.

Acts 20:24 — 2 Timothy 4:1-5 — Jeremiah 20:9 — 1 Corinthians 9:16

UPDATE: I have a growing list of posts and post-ideas on tap, but plan to leave this one at the top through the rest of the week. Hope you understand! Thanks to all of you who've been encouraging to me, to you who have sent me suggestions and alerted me to openings, to you who have made my family a matter for prayer in your families and churches. I'll keep you posted.

American readers in particular: as you enjoy your political freedom today...

...never forget: freedom costs. We live free because others died to purchase and protect our freedom.

M'man Frank says it well with pictures.

Reminder: how the LSM will report the election

In the interests of saving everyone time, so you can spend more time reading the Bible and other profitable and related literature: here's the news for the next 5+ months as the LSM (Lamestream Media) will report it:

NO MATTER WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS...

1. The GOP will be depicted as a smoking ruin of hopelessly fractured chaos and misery. Look for words like "rising chorus [with a negative]," "dismay," "trying to," "disheartened," "discouraged," "disappointed," "divided," "defensive," "dwindling," and such.
2. If the GOP candidate scores any direct hits, words such as "blasted," "attacked," and "lashed out" will be employed. Any Democratic response will be reported with an air of injured, but vastly superior, dignity — as if Junior had simply thrown a tantrum, suffered an embarrassing seizure, or launched a baffling, unwarranted, and vicious attack.
   
3. If Obama is the Democratic candidate, it will be hinted that the only possible reason for not supporting him is racism.
4. If Hillary! is the Democratic candidate, it will be hinted that the only possible reason for not supporting her is misogyny.
   
5. Many creative ways will be found to suggest that McCain (of whom, I remind you, I am no great fan) is senile, delusional, and dangerous.
   
6. The Democrats will be painted as united, purposeful, calm, in-control, mature, on-the-offense, brilliant, inevitable, and supported by every leader and expert in (and out of) Christendom.
7. The media, in spite of its boasted resourcefulness, will find itself unable to locate any respected experts to laud any GOP candidate proposals, nor criticize the opposition's specifics nor philosophy; but they will have more experts favoring the opposition than the city dump has rats.
   
8. Polls will be created and slanted to show the GOP headed for a huge waterfall.

If Republicans actually win, their success will be cast in suspicious light, the motives (or intelligence) of voters will be impugned — or it will be hinted that the process itself was suspect. It will be lamented that the country clearly has not yet healed itself of racism or misogyny, depending on which candidate the Dems finally anoint.

There. You heard it here, first. Now you have a "time incentive package."

What will you do with it?

UPDATE: oh yes, one more pair:

1. When the Dem candidate speaks, particularly in criticizing his GOP opponent, the LSM will simply report it, without critical analysis
2. When the GOP candidate speaks, its reporting will be embedded in analysis, criticism, and mind-reading. ("In an attempt to still criticism, McCain said...."; "Hoping to raise the crushed spirits of his disheartened supporters, McCain lashed out at ___, saying...."; "McCain claimed _____. Twenty-seven Nobel Peace Prize winning scientists/economists/hairdressers issued a blistering analysis which stated ____"; etc.)
   

Alford and Piper: quick question

I know I heard (or read) John Piper saying something to the effect that Henry Alford was his favorite, most-used single commentator on the Greek text. But I can't source it. I fear it may have been in a panel session on a conference.

Anyone help me out on that?

[UPDATE: Phil Gons found the quotation, thanks to the suggestion by Pilgrim Mommy. It was after Piper's lecture on John Owen. Piper says:

When I’m stumped with a . . . grammatical or syntactical or logical flow [question] in Paul, I go to Henry Alford. Henry Alford mostly answers—he . . . comes closer more consistently than any other human commentator to asking my kinds of questions. (John Piper, “John Owen: The Chief Design of My Life—Mortification and Universal Holiness,” 1:30:11–1:30:31).

Now that Phil found the quotation, I remember agreeing with Piper: Alford asks my kind of questions, too.]

Christian parent forum: raising boys

Breaking news: boys and girls are different! Bible-believing Christians knew it all along, but the world has just recently muzzily woken up to the fact.. though they haven't done much with it.

This is "open-mike" for Biblically-oriented Christian parents of more than one boy.

1. If you have boys and girls, how is raising boys different?
2. How do your boys relate to one another? Partners, competitors, combatants?
3. What are the special challenges of raising boys?
4. How have you met those challenges?
5. Is squabbling rare, occasional, or constant? How do you deal with it?
6. What do you most regret?
7. What do you wish you'd figured out earlier?

Have at it.

Quick word on Prince Caspian

See it.

While I like the first book better than the second, I like the second movie better than the first.

I'm fomenting a fuller review that may replace this post, so no comments or questions yet.

It is a bit more violent, and there's talk. So (to pluck an age) 5-6 may be too young. My 8yob, who isn't a lover of talky movies, loved it.

Perfect? Nah. Quibbles? Yep.

Liked it a lot and see it again? Yep; tonight, if I can.

As surprised as anybody (— except, perhaps, my high school teachers)

You paid attention during 97% of high school!

85-100% You must be an autodidact, because American high schools don't get scores that high! Good show, old chap!

Do you deserve your high school diploma?
Create a Quiz

The truth is, I was an inattentive and notional high-school student until my senior year, when the Lord saved me and everything changed. I've often wished I could go back and pay better attention... starting in about fourth grade!

Atheist ideas have consequences, too

I want to check this out further, but evidently my alma mater Biola University hosted a debate between Princeton's Dr. Pete Singer and Dinesh D'Souza on atheism.

I'm curious about it because my impression is that D'Souza, whatever his other strengths, is not a spokesman for evangelical Christianity. His essay strikes me as being pretty self-congratulatory, which isn't the first time his writing has made that impression on me.

That aside, he makes the absolutely correct connection between Singer's atheism and his monstrous ethics, his advocacy of infanticide, his devaluation of human life that doesn't meet his criteria for usefulness. Singer (reportedly) doesn't want a connection made between his atheism and those positions. But, of course, there is a connection — because ideas have consequences.

This is modern atheism. Its currency is deep denial.

Modern atheism wants to affirm the butt end of the rope heartily, while denying its inexorable and necessary connection to the noose at the other terminus.

Islam: ideas have consequences

This post could have many titles:

Iraq: was it worth it?
Iraq: our soldiers died for this?
Iraq: I told you so

Who is this girl?


She is — or was — seventeen-year-old Rand Abdel-Qater. Now she's a statistic, a sad statistic: another victim of the way the Islamic religion is being practiced across the Middle East.

Her father now boasts of "having stamped on, suffocated and then stabbed his daughter to death," with the help of his sons. He then threw her in a grave, her uncles spat on her body. And I don't really care to pass along any of the subhuman celebrations and rationalizations of these monsters.

Her crime? Immoral sex? You know they're hard on women who sleep around. No, it wasn't that. Rand died a virgin.

It was that she had feelings for a (non-Muslim) British soldier. That was enough to move her father to murder her brutally.

The police (he says) knew of it and questioned him. But he's free now, bragging that the "police congratulated him on what he had done."

And this is in Iraq. The country we liberated.

I agreed with what President Bush did, I think it makes sense on many levels, I think more free countries in the Middle East is a great thing for the world.

But my reservations are the same that I have registered once and again: the American experiment worked to the degree that it did because it was made within a Judeo-Christian framework. We fought for our liberty from oppression, and built a new society with respect to the truths of the Bible. To the degree we've held to that framework, to that degree it has been successful.

But neither of those things is true of Iraq. They did not (primarily) fight for their freedom, and it was not sought and achieved within a Biblical framework. People in general (and women in particular) are not accorded the same value within Islam that they are in Biblically-oriented societies.

The only hope I've had for Iraq has been that liberation would make Christian evangelism possible. I haven't heard of much success in that arena; but I have heard stories of American Christian soldiers having their liberties curtailed as they serve in Iraq.

There is much to pray for, regarding that sad, poor country.

We might start with Rand's mother, who left her husband in horror for his crime. Pray that she not become a "moderate" Muslim, nor an atheist. Pray that someone tells her of the truth of Jesus Christ.

And pray she lives long enough to hear it.

NOTE: rule 4 will be enforced.

Obama news question

Give me your first impression.

When you see this title —

Racism alarms Obama's backers

— what do you think the article is going to be about? Now click.

Surprised? I was. But I shouldn't have been.

All right, that's just wrong

I exist in Sacramento. Just checked the weather forecast, for this delightful second week of April [correction: May, thanks so much to Staci for the correction < /dripping sarcastovoice >]. Spring, right? Ahh, springtime in Sacramento. The Big Tomato. Should be lovely. Right? Trees, rivers, idiots gamboling everywhere....

One hundred degrees! 1-0-0! Fahrenheit!

How's that sound to you? Sounds nasty to me. Sounds like a Bad Sign.

My first thought is, "There should be a law." The reason that's my first thought is because, when the weather heats up, I always think of the stupidest thing I have ever heard a politician say.

That distinction goes, unsurprisingly, to Al Gore.

This goes back to the dark years of The Nameless One's reign of error in the White House. The Nameless One had a Republican congress. And sometime during that period, in the summer, among the many inane, insane, barking-mad ankle-biting idiotic things that poured out of Al Gore's mouth was something like this:

"It's hot out there — sweltering! People are suffering! And the Republican Congress is doing nothing!"

I blinked. Had I heard him right? Surely not. Oh, but I had.

Now, if you ever entertained any doubts about the viselike grip of liberal braindeadness on the American mainstream media, the fact that Gore survived that remark, unremarked, should have ended all doubt. Imagine a Republican suggesting that the Democrats were morally culpable for not outlawing hot weather.

His next public words would have been, "Would you like fries with that?"

So now every time the weather exceeds optimal temperature (77 degrees), in honor of that eminent sage Al Gore and in the spirit of modern America...

...I blame Congress.

Facebook

First, I dissed it.

Now I'm on it.

So, tell me again... what am I supposed to do with it? That feels adult and, you know, point-y?

You need a chuckle

Here it is:

See more — with a festive feel! — over at Pyromaniacs.

If Obama were Republican, or the AP even-handed...

...the story that begins this way:

INDIANAPOLIS (AP) - Barack Obama scolded Democratic rival Hillary Rodham Clinton on Sunday for saying that the United States would "totally obliterate" Iran if it attacks Israel, and likened her to President Bush. Clinton stood by her comment.

...would instead begin this way:

INDIANAPOLIS (AP) - Hoping to shift attention away from his two-decade association with a racist pastor, Barack Obama scolded Democratic rival Hillary Rodham Clinton on Sunday for saying that the United States would "totally obliterate" Iran if it attacks Israel, and likened her to President Bush. Clinton stood by her comment.

And, as a bonus, if Hillary! were conservative, it would end thus:

Clinton refused to respond to the criticism.

(Somewhat similar earlier observation)

Penal, substitutionary atonement... in Proverbs?

The Together for the Gospel conference had many lingering (good!) effects on me. One was a resolution to write even more on the titular topic.

An immediate fruit was the resolution to develop much more fully a part of one of my sermons to the good folks at Calvary Community Church in Tennessee. You can read the results over at Pyromaniacs:

Part One
Part Two

I mention it here for any visitors who come hither, but not necessarily thither.

Thabiti lays down some golden wisdom on Wright's offbase jeremiads

I had the great pleasure of meeting Pastor Thabiti Anyabwile at T4G, and being challenged by his address on the topic of "race."

Now he makes about the best and godliest sense I've read yet about Obama's retired pastor's latest rants. Check it out.

(h-t Justin Taylor)

Another millionaire lottery-winner dies broke and broken: WUWD?

A married couple in Florida wins a $13 million Lotto prize. Sounds happy.

Eighteen years later, everything's broken: their marriage, their family, their finances, his health. And then he dies awaiting trial for tax fraud.

This story is so common, yet none the sadder for it. One hears so often of the miserable lives lottery-type winners lead. One wonders:

1. Are the reports accurate, or “massaged”? (Not that the media would ever knowingly inaccurately report anyth-- oh, wait. They totally would do that.)
   
2. If the reports are accurate, what’s the deal?
3. Is the problem that the personality-type that will look to “quick wins” (rather than hard work and planning), and thus will obsessively play such games, is also the type that will unerringly mismanage the money?
4. Or is it simply that the love of money is the root of all sorts of evil (1 Timothy 6:10), and that the profit-factor for gaining the world and losing one’s soul (Mark 8:36) is unaffected by inflation?
5. Against #4, however, there are rich and godly people (1 Timothy 6:17-18) — though the Bible repeatedly warns that it is difficult (Luke 18:25).
   
6. Perhaps this then falls into the category of Proverbs 20:21 — "An inheritance gained hastily in the beginning will not be blessed in the end"?

You don't have to take the position that any kind of gambling is inherently and always wrong to see that — to say the least! — quick windfalls do not bring happiness. Plus, as one of the commenters on this thread well says:

...those who play consistantly are just simply very bad at math. And winning the lottery doesn’t magically grant them good math skills. Thus, they don’t realize that even the mega-wealthy have to live within their means.

Hard not to recall Jesus' words: "So is the one who lays up treasure for himself and is not rich toward God" (Luke 12:21).

PS — WUWD = What Up Wid Dat? Not trying to be faux-cool; just didn't want the worlds longest post headline.

Hymn lyric search

Isn't there a hymn that includes the words "tossed and torn by many a doubt"? I can't find it in Google by any combination I've tried. Did I mangle something essential... or make it up entirely?

"Mormon Coffee"

Among the many blessings of my dear wife and my trip to Tennessee was meeting Aaron Shafovaloff (SHOF-a-WAL-lof).

Aaron is an embarrassingly bright young man passionately committed to reaching Mormons with the Gospel. He's had an impact on a number web sites, but I think the primary one on this subject is Mormon Coffee (subtitle: "It's forbidden, but it's good!"), which I commend to you.

The more I learn about Mormonism, the more astonished I am that (A) rational people get caught up in in, (B) rational people stay in it, and especially (C) any Christian wants to argue that it is, in any except a sociological sense, "Christian."

(Wait... are we talking about Roman Catholicism, or Mormonism? Oh, right: Mormonism!)

So here was my particular eye-opener from Aaron this time: that many Mormons not only believe that "God the Father," when a man, could very well have sinned (?!!), and not only are they OK with that possibility... but they actually find it encouraging!

Check out his site.

Just because it chuckles me

I'm fiddling with the time of the earlier post so this won't bump the more important Mormon Coffee post.

But still.

Good word on "Assurance," by J. C. Ryle

Though I read it in a Libronix edition, added to my Logos software, you can read it online.

Ryle is one of those writers whose style is always so engaging and conversational, while no less pleading and weighty, that one is sure he must have been a great preacher as well as an able pastor. I think of some who preach the Bible as if addressing laboratory specimens; Ryle speaks from his heart to our hearts.

Interesting marginal note from the CSB

I have no further comment... except to say that the imagination rather reels.

Talking art

If only it weren't in Korean.

(Warning: partial nudity)

(Disclaimer: that's 99.999% a joke)

UPDATE: my dear wife says I should tell everyone it's the Venus de Milo that provides the partial nudity. No doubt she is, as usual, right.

Are any good hymns still being written?

I'd have to say yes. Not many, perhaps; but yes.

The song linked above was sung on Wednesday at the T4G conference. I'm glad to be able to find the lyrics; it was immensely moving at the time to me, but something (on which I may write more, later) distracted me from full enjoyment.

If this is a copyright violation, someone please tell me; but here are the first two verses:

HOW DEEP THE FATHER’S LOVE FOR US,
How vast beyond all measure,
That He should give His only Son
To make a wretch His treasure.
How great the pain of searing loss –
The Father turns His face away,
As wounds which mar the Chosen One
Bring many sons to glory.

Behold the man upon a cross,
My sin upon His shoulders;
Ashamed, I hear my mocking voice
Call out among the scoffers.
It was my sin that held Him there
Until it was accomplished;
His dying breath has brought me life –
I know that it is finished.

You can get an idea of the tune here. Thank God for those who can put the precious truths of the Gospel to music. Al Mohler made the point in his talk that some who are trying to destroy the truth of penal substitutionary atonement lament that, even if it is banished from the pulpits, when Christians assemble, they'll still sing about it.

Revelation, from a dispensational perspective

I was asked if I could point to any sermon series preaching through Revelation from a dispensational perspective. I don't know of one offhand and can't find one in the time I can spare. Can anyone link to a sermon series online?

Thanks.

"Yes, yes, that's right... I'm the guy who blogs with Phil Johnson and Frank Turk"

Just getting in practice.

I don't get modern poetry

Look at this:

You could almost think the word [nous; Greek, usually translated "mind"] synonymous with mind, given our so far narrow history, and the excessive esteem in which we have been led to hold what is, in this case, our rightly designated nervous systems. Little wonder then that some presume the mind itself both part and parcel of the person, the very seat of soul and, lately, crucible for a host of chemical incentives—combinations of which can pretty much answer for most of our habits and for our affections.

When even the handy lexicon cannot quite place the nous as anything beyond one rustic ancestor of reason, you might be satisfied to trouble the odd term no further—and so would fail to find your way to it, most fruitful faculty untried. Dormant in its roaring cave, the heart’s intellective aptitude grows dim, unless you find a way to wake it.

So, let’s try something, even now. Even as you tend these lines, attend for a moment to your breath as you draw it in: regard the breath’s cool descent, a stream from mouth to throat to the furnace of the heart. Observe that queer, cool confluence of breath and blood, and do your thinking there.

So, you make your way through that, and if you're like me, you say, "Huh? Okay, then... huh?" It just doesn't make much sense, and you wonder why it was written.

But break up the lines (apparently randomly), and voila! somehow it's a modern poem. Not only a poem but, according to Karsten Piper, an example of a poet "writing with the beating muscle and translucent beauty that’s often missing from church libraries and waiting room magazine piles."

Um... okay....

Look, I know that I'll get beaten senseless by those refined higher souls who are able (as I evidently am not) to appreciate all the beauty and translucent muscle of it and all... but before that happens, I'll just say that this is an example (though by no means the worst) of what I mean when I say I don't much like English-language poetry.

I like Hebrew poetry, I like Kipling.

And that's about it.

(BTW, the title's milder than my original thought. I don't want to be beaten that badly by the raised-pinky crowd.)

So, I was thinking...

Maybe this whole poetry-thing
Isn't as hard as it looks.
Since no one is after the
Extraordinarily tight
and disciplined
Structure
of Greek and Hebrew poetry
Or the rhythm and sounds of
(what I think is)
better English poetry

So maybe

All's you have to do
is
Write some random thoughts
in a stream
And hit "Enter"
Every few words
And break up the lines
with some
random
Capitalizations
and good people will read it
with furrowed brows
and mouths slightly open
and
when they get through
they'll say
"Hunh!"
and
"Whoa"
and
"Deep!"
And they'll think that you're all
muscular
and translucent
and you can have a
nice
little
gig!

UPDATE: Ah. See? It's bad of me to see this differently... or to say I do. Bad Dan! Bad! No cookie!

The race is McCain's to lose...

...but, sure as water's wet, he's the man who could do it.

Boy, "Legion" sounds d-u-m-b

From DarkHorizons:

...the thriller casts [Paul] Bettany as the archangel Michael, the only one standing between mankind and an apocalypse, after God loses faith in humanity.

Man's lone hope rests with a group of strangers who must deliver a baby they realize is Christ in his second coming.

I just, I... unngh! Where do you start?

How many times has that stupid theme been done? Dudes, dudes... step away from the bong. It's a Second Coming — it's not a reincarnation.

It isn't Jesus who needs to be born again.

Yikes.

My little friend

This little fellow came and kept me company in my office for awhile. It was odd, having a spider look at me. Until I photographed him, I thought the shiny iridescent spots were eyes — but they sheathed his fangs.


He was a jumping spider.


I let him go. (Happily, he never jumped at me.)

Search "jumping spider" among vids and web sites, and you seem some pretty amazing pictures. Check this slo-mo vid, and this amazing National Geographic vid.

Grrr, but doggone it, those pictures REALLY have me missing my old 35mm camera from the 80's. I bought a bunch of lenses, and could take the most amazing, precise, exact close-ups. Maybe I'll scan and post some, sometime. My digital camera just can't do it, among other things. A few months ago, I was tempted by a really expensive digital SLR (Canon?, not sure), that could take attachment lenses and take quick-exposure shots.

I'm being tempted again. Do have that bonus money....

Okay, this has GOT to be a joke

(Thanks, Carlo)

Steve Brown - 2

(See part one for the setup)

I have now finished the 37 lectures on grace I had downloaded from RTS, and... whew!

To begin with the Summary Statement: Brown says a number of valuable, useful and true things in a winsome, easy-listening manner — but he encrusts it in so much that is irresponsible and/or garbage that I could never recommend him without a list of warnings and qualifications so long it would look like what you get with a new prescription ("Here are the ways this medicine could kill or horribly disfigure you:....").

Let me list some of my thoughts and observations:

1. I want to trade my whiny, nasal voice for Brown's basement-deep, resonant voice.
2. He says a number of thought-provoking and helpful things. Though he doesn't develop it Biblically at any length, he says "God isn't mad at you anymore." Brown says God never disciplines Christians because He's mad at them. Brown says nothing is perfect, nothing is forever, and you aren't home yet. Brown says, When a dog plays checkers, you don't criticize his game; you're just pleased and surprised that he's playing at all. (The point being we wouldn't be so shocked at our failures if we didn't have such a high opinion of ourselves.) Brown says that when pain exceeds payback, real change becomes possible. Brown criticizes phony airs Christians feel they have to put on in front of other Christians, our failure to extend anything like grace and compassion towards one another.
3. He sounds like a fun, easy guy to be around, to hang with: warm, open, encouraging, and accepting. I want to like him, want to affirm his teaching, wish I could. I think of another well-known name who emphatically affirms grace — yet whenever I've listened to him, for decades, I haven't personally received a grain of grace from his presentation.
   
4. The man more stories and illustrations than Methuselah.
   
5. This is a big weakness. In theory, Brown constantly claims that everything he says is Reformed and Biblical and sound and true. In practice, he doesn't seem to feel the need to root much of it in Scripture. The entire course featured only a relatively few allusions-to/citations-of Scripture, and no extensive exegesis or exposition. He keeps saying that his students can look it up, or that he's got a ton of Biblical backup, or that he'd normally give Bible but since they're seminary students he won't (?!). Regardless, he seems to start from the position that he has established his position Biblically, and now he just wants to work out the implications.
6. To his credit, Brown constantly urged his two classes to feel free to challenge him Biblically. To their discredit (in my I-wasn't-there opinion), they never did. Perhaps they started out convinced.
   
7. All of the alarms I have begun to sound and will develop in a moment are borne out in this comment thread. In that thread, one Christian brother attempts to bring the Bible to bear on some of what Brown says and does. He doesn't do it in the nicest way, but he does it faithfully. By and large, the host of respondents do not even attempt to engage the Bible. They respond in Brownisms. This is a huge red light. Much as Brown denies that he wants to make disciples of himself, that is exactly what he is doing. He is making them depend on his thoughts, his ideas, his cute sayings, his insights, his experiences, his stories. That is a necessary and unavoidable consequence of giving endless podium-time to stories, illustrations, and cute sayings instead of exposition of the text of Scripture and then development of a system from that text. People come away knowing Brown, not Scripture, and therefore — I fear — not necessarily knowing God.
8. He says some things that are absolutely, barkingly, wildly irresponsible; and if his students take any of them seriously, they will ruin their ministries and other people. For instance:
   

   (A) Brown says that, when one is preparing a sermon, and he thinks of saying something but his conscience or judgment tells him he shouldn't — he should anyway! Because that's probably God talking to him. So, in the Brown universe, verses like Proverbs 10:19; 12:18; 15:28; 17:27; 21:23; and 29:20 are not as important as expressing oneself in a personal pursuit of "grace."
   (B) Brown also tells Christians they should disagree with their pastor once a month, period, just because it's healthy for their assertiveness.
   (C) Brown speaks of a Christian leader who fell morally, badly, and says in effect that he's glad he did, because it was good for him. Too bad about the guy's family and church, I guess.
   (D) Brown urges all of them to cuss, just to do it. I don't recall an exposition of Ephesians 4:29.
   (E) Brown keeps talking about dialogues he has with God, and quoting (usually without qualification) things God supposedly says to him, Steve Brown, that are not in Scripture. But it's okay, remember, because he says believes in the Reformed position on the inerrancy and sufficiency of the Bible, and he isn't a charismatic, and maybe he's hearing God wrong. (Those are his "covers.")

9. Brown says weird things about repentance. I listened twice, and still can't quite explain it. He denies the Biblical teaching that it means a change of mind which necessarily issues in adorning fruitful actions... though those elements come back into his teaching at other points. Just another weird aspect of his teaching. [UPDATE: I listened again. Brown says that he used to teach something like that forgiveness was apologizing for spilling the milk, repentance was cleaning it up. He now regards that as a terrible error and false teaching, for which he apologized everywhere he had preached it. Repentance is not change, he insists emphatically. It is understanding who God is and what He did and who I am (?!!). So it's a New Agey realization; it isn't a decisive change of mind that issues in a change of behavior, because we can't change (Matthew 3:8; Acts 26:20; Romans 12:1-2 and etc. to the contrary notwithstanding).]
   
10. Don't really love the plethora pop-psychology and faddish phrases, like giving this and that person (including God) "permission" to do or be something.
    
11. Brown says people should burn Dave Hunt's book that criticizes Richard Foster (because he's a hero of Brown's); and he told a whole audience to burn John MacArthur's The Gospel According to Jesus — when he hadn't even read it! So Hunt's bad, MacArthur's bad, yet....
    
12. Again and again Brown trots out his creds: I am a Christian, I am orthodox, I am Reformed, I am a five-pointer, I am conservative, I believe in literal 6-day creation, and on and on. But then he says...
    
    

    (A) that if this unsaved Jewish rabbi he personally likes doesn't go to Heaven, he (Brown) doesn't want to go, either (which means that the rabbi's presence is more important to him than Jesus' presence, though I'm sure Brown doesn't intend that meaning); and...
    (B) Brown says that there are no "super-Christians," except maybe (Mary-worshiping proponent of a Gospel-perverting sect) "Mother" Theresa, and (longtime doctrinal compromiser) Billy Graham — so, in other words, these two may well be above every other living Christian, including John Piper, John MacArthur, Al Mohler, and everyone else; and
    (C) Brown frequently speaks of how much insight he's gotten from this or that Roman Catholic or otherwise heretical writer, on various aspects of Christian living; and
    (D) Brown enthuses about what a great and real relationship with God unbelieving, apostate Jews have; and
    (E) Brown mentions how he wears a New Age bracelet for some physical ailment, quipping that he "tried Jesus" and it didn't work, so he is trying this ("and I thought I heard the angels laugh"); and...
    (F) frequently says in passing how well this and that apostate heretic "understands grace." And...
    (G) Brown says that (unrepentant antinomian murderess) Annie Lamott is a wonderful Christian person who he thinks is so great and loves to feature on his radio show.
    (H) Brown says that Harry Emerson Fosdick was a Christian, and probably would be "on our side" (or some equivalent) if he were alive today

13. From all that, my impression is that Brown can't think the Biblical Gospel is very important, in spite of what he says about the Biblical positions he formally holds.
14. And that would mean Brown's not very Reformed — since if being Reformed means anything historically, it must mean seeing the Gospel as a decisive, divisive, watershed issue.

I left the course disappointed. I was hoping to gain personal help and encouragement from Brown's emphasis on grace. While I did gain some helpful points here and there (see point #2, above), they were so buried under endless stories and bizarre beep-beeps-from-outer-space, and generally so devoid of Biblical exposition, that in the final analysis they didn't really help me much, and left me very concerned about Brown's disciples.

The course did leave me with some themes I plan to develop in some Pyro posts, however. I'll state one right here, for anyone influential who "happens" by:

You can insist that you believe in the inerrancy and sufficiency of Scripture, and that your positions are Biblical, until your blue head caves in — but if you don't specifically and continually ground every major point and application in the Word, you're just preaching yourself. People will walk away quoting you, not the Word. That means they're leaning on you, trusting you, depending on you and your insights. You've become their priest, their Pope, their magisterium.

You're making disciples of yourself, not of Christ.

You think about that. Amen.

Classic Bloom County

Cracks me up. (Click for larger picture.)

A question that may set off some yellow and red lights

Building off yesterday's little poser/chuckler....

Is it possible that our (or a previous) generation could legitimately see a pattern or truth in Scripture that earlier generations never put together, even though they were looking at exactly the same data as we?

Good exercise for exegetes

Actually makes a very important point for Bible readers — though, I'm sure, quite unintentionally.

Demon dog

Don't have time for either breadth or depth, just this.

Our church held an Easter Sunrise Service in a park near the church building. Everything went nicely, except....

When the pastor started preaching, this nearby dog started periodically screamyelpbarkhowling. It wasn't exactly a bark, a yelp, a howl; it was the most distracting it could be.

And it kept it up through the whole sermon. Soon as he stopped, it stopped.

Didn't do it through the singing, the reading, the very brief announcements. Just the sermon.

Demon dog.

What if worship was like an NBA game?

Gosh, the Disney people are thick...

...if this report is true.

But then, that's not exactly "breaking news," is it?

UPDATE from DarkHorizons:

According to an official Disney spokesperson, any rumor of the potential early demise of the 'Narnia' franchise is "entirely false".

(Thanks to Marksbury-Shaun for the heads-up)

Steve Brown - 1

PREFACE: this isn't either an "expose" or an analysis of Steve Brown. It's (a) my impressions based on just a few lectures in a 37-lecture series, and (b) my invitation to anyone who does know more about him to tell what he or she knows.

Do any of you know anything firsthand about Steve Brown?

I know he's a little Presbyterian (PCA) pastor who's an author, pastor, seminary prof, and radio host. I know I wish I had his voice. Years ago I heard Key Life a few times. I know I saw a bit or two of a cable-type TV show he did in which he had friendly arguments with the execrable Tony Campolo. And that's about it.

I've been listening to courses from Reformed Theological Seminary. They put whole courses online for free through iTunes. Well, one of them is a course of like thirty-seven lectures on grace (!) by Steve Brown. I've listened to about three of them.

So far, they're winsome, a bit thought-provoking, and really irritating. I've wanted to slap him several times; he says things I think are just flat-out irresponsible. Because he's PCA and teaching at RTS, and because he disagrees with Tony Campolo, I'm giving him a conditional and temporary benefit-of-a-doubt until I feel like I've gotten his point.

Which I don't yet. It's been heavy on stories and anecdotes, and next to nothing on Scripture. So far he's setting off my warning-light of hyperconceptualizing. In other words, he's sounding like a guy who's latched on to a true and Biblical concept (grace), detached it from the Bible, loaded it with his own ideas and concepts and implications, and made a career of it.

He keeps talking about people who do and do not understand or get "grace." He says "grace," but so far the concept that makes the best sense of his uses is "license." But he insists that isn't what he's talking about. He also keeps insisting that he isn't antinomian, but he sure sounds like he is.
And he keeps talking blithely about things God says to him, and God laughing, and a bunch of dribble — and he's not talking about the Bible. Which, as you know...yikes. Fingernails on the chalkboard.

In fact, so far, the course has been very heavy on stories and anecdotes and wit, and very light on Bible.

So, HSAT (Having Said All That) — do any of you have firsthand knowledge of Steve Brown? Have you heard the course through, read his books, listened regularly to Key Life? What do you think, if so?

By the bye, you'll notice that the post is titled "Steve Brown - 1." You'd be right in taking that to signal my intention to revisit after I've heard more or (if I stick it out) all of the lectures, and either deny, confirm, or further stir these impressions.

Update: Part Two.

If The Obama were a conservative (—glad not to be on the Obamawagon)

...right now, the lamestream media would be fastening on this statement that The Obama just made to Fox's Major Garrett:

“None of these statements were ones I had heard myself personally in the pews,” Obama told FOX News. “Once I saw them I had to be very clear about the fact that these are not statements that I am comfortable with. I reject them completely they are not ones that reflect my values or my ideals.”

(He made further similar claims here.)

And here's what they'd do:

1. They would get a date of every despicable, racist, inane, insane, inciteful thing that The Obama's pastor Jeremiah Wright Jr. had ever preached.
2. They would find out exactly where The Obama was on each and every one of those dates.
3. They would report the relationship of those dates; and
4. If he happened to be in church on any of those dates, they would demand that he explain his comments and stand.
5. And they'd never let rest the fact that The Obama somehow managed to remain silent about all this pain and discomfort he now professes to have had, until the story broke.
   

If they do this, I'll commend them...though I confess I'd wonder how many muddy Clinton fingerprints there would be on it.

Here are some more specifics and reflections on the issue of The Obama and his pastor:

From Ed Morrissey
From the Wall Street Journal
From NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez

Does Obama's association with this pastor, and his recent feeble attempts to distance himself (after twenty years' association) matter? Previously, The Obama had spoken in consistently admiring and affectionate terms of this man. He has been a member of that church for twenty years. He'd baptized the Obamas' kids, married the Obamas... do you think that a man gripped by such virulent, racist hatred never would have shared a bit of it with someone he views as in a position to do something about it?

Victor Davis Hanson points out that there isn't much distance between lunatic pastor Wright's positions and Mrs. Obama's breathtaking statement that she had no reason to be proud of America until her husband's presidential candidacy. And with his characteristic panache, Mark Steyn drives the point home still further.

And do you think verses such as these wouldn't apply to The Obama?

Proverbs 13:20 Whoever walks with the wise becomes wise, but the companion of fools will suffer harm.
Proverbs 14:7 Leave the presence of a fool, for there you do not meet words of knowledge.
1 Corinthians 15:33 Do not be deceived: "Bad company ruins good morals."

Believe me, I'm not looking forward to trying to make a case for John McCain. I'll be candid as ever, but... I doubt it will be fun, and I doubt John and his mouth will make it easy for me.

But I'm gladder still I don't have to try to be a Christian Obamapologist.

UPDATE: continuing the digging, The Obama's church has issued a statement about (and the current pastor has made references to) this controversy. Is it a statement of humbled repentance? Not at all: just another blast of defiant self-pity, and a circling of the wagons. It also includes the sort of reasoning I parody in teaching ethics to my kids: "Officer, you must put this bank robbery into context. On the way to the bank, I drove the speed limit, paid the correct amount at the toll booth, and came to a full stop at every red light and stop sign. I kept all those laws. Why focus on this one little boo-boo?"

UPDATE II: the Ace of Spades gives the church's statement a pretty good going-over.

"Deathly Hallows" to be split into two movies

Preface 1: I know some of my readers hate it when I talk about Harry Potter, either (A) at all, or (B) without damning it and everyone who reads it to, if not Hell, at least Heck.

But — oh well! Sorry. It's my blog. Can't please everyone, shouldn't really try. And it does say, right there, "Eclectic."

Preface 2: this post should be without significant spoilers. The article to which I link is not, however. And the comments may not be. Commenters, please mark spoilery comments with SPOILERS AHEAD.

Having said all that:

It's being reported that the seventh and final Harry Potter book (Deathly Hallows) will be filmed as two movies. Now, that's the Lost Angeles Times, so you might want to verify with a credible news agency.

I'm glad of the decision. I wish book 5 (Order of the Phoenix) had been done as two movies, or one 3.5 hour movie. I'm afraid for what they'll do to books 6 and 7. In my comments on movie 5, I agreed with Janet Batchler's on-target observation that it was like a really terrific trailer for the book. The fact that they have cut the Gaunts out of HBP worries me, as does the way cast and crew keep saying how funny the sixth movie is. Yikes, I never would have called the book funny. That worries me.

But here's been one of my biggest worries about the adaptation of the seventh book, Deathly Hallows: Molly Weasley.

Molly is one of my favorite Tier 2 characters. So is Minerva McGonagall. Hermione and Hagrid are probably my favorite Tier 1 characters. Both of the H's have done... okay, in the movies. But both M's have really gotten short shrift, which is a real shame.

Molly's big scene in book 7 is one of my favorites in the entire series: very moving. If you've read it, you'll know exactly what I mean. I think that, if they do it right, we'll see staid, jaded, above-it-all audiences on their feet cheering, laughing with delight, wiping tears.

But given how the screenwriters have shoved Molly 0ff to the side thus far, I've feared they'd just gloss over it or (worse) cut it out entirely. With two movies, I hope not.

Your thoughts?

(PS — if your thoughts are, "I haven't read them, and I think they're dumb"... I think that's been said. Spare us comments like that.)

California homeschooling updates

Time magazine reports that Jack O'Connell, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, stated reassuring that "Parents still have the right to home school in our state." (Here are his remarks at greater length.)

Michael Farris comments on his remarks, and lays out some of HSLDA's plans.

The Los Angeles Times reports further... though you might want to verify the information from a credible news agency before you take it to the bank.

UPDATE: read Al Mohler's comments.

Trivial iPod question

This will reveal either a flaw in iTunes, or myBrain.

Whenever I plug my iPod into my computer to charge and/or load new sermons or lectures, iTunes kicks up — and I lose my place. That is, it forces me off of whatever I was listening to, and to the root menu. So I have to write down where I was first, then do whatever I was going to do, then, when I'm done, go back and find my place again. Which is a bother and a waste of time.

But when I plug it in to my Belkin thingie to listen in my car, it keeps its place.

Is there some way to set it that it doesn't hose out my place and go to the root, when I plug it into my pc?

NO ONE is going to thank me for this

From the relatively sublime to the... the.... Oh. My. Gosh.

Well... at least there's a decent Wilhelm.

But on the other hand, Bea Arthur. Not only that, but Bea Arthur singing. < Click here >

And everything else — by which I do mean everything else.

(Please assign ultimate blame to... well, to Hollywood. But assign proximate blame to Craig.)

For (some of) your iPods

I try to redeem the time as best as I can. So if I'm shopping, waiting for my car, driving for more than ten minutes, waiting in a doctor's office, or what-have-you, I'll listen to sermons or lectures on my iPod.

I also like to read during waiting-times when possible, but I'm easily distracted. I am the sort who does not multi-task. Sometimes I can multi-thread, but seldom multi-task. (That's hardcore geekspeak; if you don't get it, it's really OK.)

The problem with so many of these places is they're full of distracting noise. They feel they must put in a television and have the dratted thing set on some mind-destroying daytime show, or play music like Barbara Streisand, Neil Diamond, or worse... if there is worse.

Not only am I unable to read with that kind of noise, but my happy is all gone, and I can hear the shrieks of thousands of brain cells as they die in agony.

So I also load instrumental music on my iPod. I can read, if certain sorts of instrumental music are being my "gray noise." Now, it can't be a soundtrack to a movie I know well (any Lord of the Rings movie, Star Wars, etc.), because then I'll visualize the scene.

So here are two I use to that end, for any of you who care. They are both largely high-energy, guitar-driven jazz/rock fusion style. There are mellower tracks and diverse styles as well. Both are helmed by Chicago's current lead guitarist, Keith Howland, a very talented young man. On the first, Chicago's current drummer (Tris Imboden) sets the beat. On the second, Howland is joined by lightning-fingered Chris Pinnick, who was one of the guitarists touring with Chicago after the death of the great Terry Kath. They are:

The Howland/Imboden Project

Howland, Laug, Morrison & Pinnick

The link takes you to CD Baby, a company which seems to specialize in more obscure titles. When I bought the CD's, the communications I got from CD Baby were absolutely hysterical, very clever. It made me want to buy more just for the fun of it. If you do, get back to me on how it is now.

21 accents

Fun listen, don't you think?

Sometime I'd enjoy studying British accents — first hand, of course. Because there isn't a British accent, but a variety of accents. I noticed similarly as my wife and I traveled through Scotland: there isn't a Scottish accent, but an array of variations, ranging from the very mild, British-sounding accent of our first hostess, to the more ba'-o'-th'-throa'y accent with which other Scots delighted us.

As I prepare to preach in Tennessee, I've been thinking of accents and cultures. Listening to a Southern professor teaching theology, I realized that Californian is an accent, though not much of a one. My wife and I have always said that we're Californians, we don't have accents, we just say words the way they're written. But that's not quite right.

For instance, take final "w's." We Californians pronounce raw as if it were spelled rah. A Southerner, though, will hit that w for all it's worth: raW. Ditto thaw (thah / thaW). In fact, Southerners love "w's" so much, they'll even say them if they're not there: where we say door as if it were dore, the Southerner sees and says that invisible "w" — hence, doe-wer.

Accents: we've all got 'em.

They even play a minorly pivotal role in a couple of Bible stories (Judges 12:6; Matthew 26:73).

(It's my blog, and I can make up adjectives if I want to. It's my blogial right.)

What I'd do with the MSM press, and why they'd hate me

So McCain allowed himself to be forced to repudiate the anti-Catholic remarks of John Hagee, who had endorsed him. (This is McCain's usual way of "thanking" anyone who tries to help him, if that person is disliked by the MSM.)

About Hagee I have no opinion worth voicing in public. About Roman Catholicism I do, and often have, and will again in the future.

But this is really about neither.

Were I a Presidential candidate, I think I simply wouldn't allow myself to be manipulated into doing one thing or another about a Hagee. When the MSM asked their stupid "gotcha" questions, I'd just reject the questions and replace them with germane, relevant, worthwhile questions.

First, I'd say something like, "I'm not really running as theologian-in-chief."

Then when they'd pester me — as they surely would — I'd say

So what are you asking? Do I advocate jailing men who peacefully speak out against a religious viewpoint? I do not. Do I advocate jailing Roman Catholics who peacefully respond to their critics? I do not. Do I oppose extending full protection of Constitutional rights to either? I do not. Do I support the First Amendment? I do. Will I accept the votes of law-abiding, peaceful Americans who exercise their Constitutional rights in ways I do and do not approve? I will.

And I simply would not allow the MSM to control the conversation.

And the MSM would hate me.

But I'd be able to look in the mirror every morning and say, "Look! It's still me!"

In California, parents only have the right to kill their children...

...not educate them.

To be more specific: if you're a woman, and if your child is unborn (or, according to Senator Obama, if he has survived an abortion), the state is uninterested as to whether or not you contract for his killing.

BUT, once the child is born, he belongs to the state.

What stands out in what I've read so far of this is that the judge does not particularly express concern about whether or not the children are learning to read, to write, nor other whether they are mastering other academic skills. No, it's all about social engineering, controlling and forming the beliefs and values of the child.

The 2nd Appellate Court in Los Angeles agreed with the trial court decision that had found, "keeping the children at home deprived them of situations where they could interact with people outside the family".

"There are people who could provide help if something is amiss in the children's lives, and they could develop emotionally in a broader world than the parents' 'cloistered' setting," the ruling said.

He speaks as someone writing twenty-five years ago and utterly ignorant of homeschooling. Or longer ago than that, and in another country.

The words echo the ideas of officials from Germany, where homeschooling has been outlawed since 1938 under a law adopted when Adolf Hitler decided he wanted the state, and no one else, to control the minds of the nation's youth.

Wolfgang Drautz, consul general for the Federal Republic of Germany, has said "school" teaches not only knowledge but also social conduct, encourages dialogue among people of different beliefs and cultures, and helps students to become responsible citizens."

Ah, life in The People's Republic of California.

More:

Judge orders homeschoolers into government education
Court's homeschool ban creating 'panic'
Al Mohler weighs in
A guy who says don't worry
Text of the decision

Update:
Governor Schwarzenegger weighs in — for parents

Not the man of her dreams...

...but....

Read Kim Shay's tribute to her ancient husband Neil on the occasion of his birthday. Here's a taste:

I will say right off that Buggy [her husband] is NOT the man of my dreams. Now, that may sound overly harsh, but it's true. And it's a good thing that he's not, because the man of my dreams is a big wimp, probably. The man of my dreams when I was girl would understand everything I said, agree with everything I said, tell me everything I wanted to hear and sacrifice everything just for little 'ole me. I'm glad I did not end up with that guy. Instead, God gave me the man of His dream for me, and that's a whole lot better.

I love posts where sane Christians admire and love on their sane Christian mates, right out there in front of God and everybody.

Absolute truth: one of my favorite post-titles EVER happened to have been written nearly two years ago, by the aformentioned Neil: My best wife now!

Back to Kim's remark, I offer this sage apothegm:

Women who marry what they want, find it is not what they really need
Women who marry what they need, find it is in fact what they really want

...though either realization may take some time.

Blast from the Christian Rock past: Sweet Comfort Band

The recent death of Christian rocker Larry Norman sent me to YouTube, looking for Christian rock (and other) artists I remember from my yoot.

One such group was The Sweet Comfort Band. Check out the musicianship (not the theology) in this clip — the song starts at about two minutes:

It does remind me of the story you've all heard, of the preacher who had a word with someone who was going to sing in the church service.

"I'll make you a deal," the preacher said. "I won't try to sing, and you don't try to preach."

Back in the '70's Christian rock was particularly new, and I think partly out of feeling apologetic for being rockers, many bands made an effort to preach and evangelize in-between songs. I don't mean to say that condescendingly. You kids won't know this, but Christian rock was a big thing, and it was rather suspect.

When I was first saved, my first regular pastor suggested that I shouldn't listen to rock anymore. So I didn't; threw out all my Chicago (snif!), stopped humming and whistling. Then I heard Bill Gothard go on about how melody appealed to the spirit, harmony to the soul — and rhythm to the flesh!

Next thing I remember is hearing the Second Chapter of Acts, when I was in (as I recall) a Logos bookstore in Westwood, SoCal. I literally gasped. The song was "The Devil's Lost Again" (from their With Footnotes album) — and, by jingo, it was rock and roll! I couldn't believe my ears.

Then later I attended a few concerts at the original Calvary Chapel, in Anaheim. They were still meeting in a tent. The concerts were wonderful. They had some amazing bands, including one called Aslan, another called Parable, and another called The Sweet Comfort Band.

Dude, those guys could rock. Well, check out the video. You'll see.

More reminiscences (or at least clips) to come, DV.

It's a miracle! Psychadelic drugs parted the Red Sea!

Another lame pick-and-chooser makes it up about the Bible.

So transparent:

As far Moses on Mount Sinai is concerned, it was either a supernatural cosmic event, which I don't believe, or a legend, which I don't believe either, or finally, and this is very probable, an event that joined Moses and the people of Israel under the effect of narcotics

So it isn't a legend, but he, 3400 years later, has figured it out.

At least this time when we say, "Dude, sounds like you're on drugs," he'll have to answer, "Well yes, actually, I am."

There y'go.

"Mr. Obama — step away from the Bible"

Samuel Johnson is quoted as saying:

"Sir, a woman's preaching is like a dog's walking on his hind legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all."

Much the same could be said about a Democratic politician using the Scripture in any way.

Case in point, Barack Obama.

Obama is trying hard to become the Presidential nominee of a party which has publicly scorned, and virulently opposes, every distinctively Biblical-Christian presence in public life. If Democratic leadership had its way, there would be no distinctively Christian presence in the public square.

So anyone who's trying to claim to be any kind of Christian AND in touch with the Dem party of today has a tall order.

Here's how B. Hussein Obama tried to do it:

"I don't think it [a same-sex union] should be called marriage, but I think that it is a legal right that they should have that is recognized by the state.... If people find that controversial then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans."

I... what?! Read the article's attempt to make any kind of sense out of Obama's burblings.

Perhaps "obscure" is a synonym for "uncongenial" or "inconvenient" in Obamaspeak.

Then Obama further delivered himself of this:

"I think that the bottom line is that in the end, I think women, in consultation with their pastors, and their doctors, and their family, are in a better position to make these decisions than some bureaucrat in Washington. That's my view," Obama said about abortion. "Again, I respect people who may disagree, but I certainly don't think it makes me less Christian. Okay."

Let's tweak that just a little, with my changes in bold red and bracketed.

"I think that the bottom line is that in the end, I think women, in consultation with their pastors, and their doctors, and their family, are in a better position to make these decisions than some bureaucrat in Washington. That's my view," Obama said about [killing two-year-olds who have become inconvenient or imperfect]. "Again, I respect people who may disagree, but I certainly don't think it makes me less Christian. Okay."

One more time:

"I think that the bottom line is that in the end, I think [men], in consultation with their pastors, and their doctors, and their family, are in a better position to make these decisions than some bureaucrat in Washington. That's my view," Obama said about [men beating the very life out of women who irritate them]. "Again, I respect people who may disagree, but I certainly don't think it makes me less Christian. Okay."

One wonders what would make him "less Christian," if being more pro-abort than Hillary Clinton doesn't do the job — if, in other words, being in favor of the "right" to butcher our most innocent and most helpless doesn't reflect on where Jesus Christ is, in his moral and intellectual universe.

Yikes. Well, let's let Mr. Obama say what it means to him to be a Christian:

I am a Christian. I am a devout Christian. I have been a member of the same church for 20 years. Pray to Jesus every night, and try to go to church as much as I can when they are not working me.

Okay, ah... well, on that, two Biblical quotations. The first is from the Bible that this "Jesus" who Mr. Obama mentions affirmed as the inerrant Word of God:

If one turns away his ear from hearing the law [the torah, the Word of God],
even his prayer is an abomination
(Proverbs 29:8)

The next is from that same Jesus, Himself:

"Why do you call me Lord, Lord, and not do what I tell you?" (Luke 6:46)

A claim is just a claim, until it's tested.

Again, read the article, which is well-documented.

Wait a minute -- who's that on cowbell?!

My favorite band, Chicago, doing "Scrapbook" on a TV show from September 19, 1976.

Video quality's not the best. But you see the original group, including the matchless late, great Terry Kath wailing on guitar.

But... who's that on cowbell?