McCain's to lose, with The Obamessiah to thank

You Heard It Here First:
This election is McCain's to lose.
And he's just the man who could do it.

That sums up both my (very qualified) optimism and my fear.

I find that I'm not liking John McCain any better... but darned if I'm not liking his campaign a whole lot.

Somebody woke up over there, or the right head rolled and the right clear-eyed grownup took over. Regardless, Team McCain's been hitting them out of the park again and again and again.

I said to Valerie last night, "We may possibly live to see the first well-run Republican campaign! In our lifetime!"

So far and only recently McCain's run is contrasting favorably with both Dole's and Bush Sr's, which were grinding nightmares of sleepy, muzzy incompetence from start to finish. The campaign has been sharp, responsive, and note-perfect. They have dominated the Dem's convention week with a series of rapid-response, sharp, incisive ads and developments. When everyone's supposed to be being captivated with The Anointing of The Obamessiah, instead the various moves among McCain's possible VPs has been the focus. It's a beautiful thing.

And they're doing all this in spite of the MSM's drunken-schoolgirl infatuation with the Dems in general, and the Clintons and Obama in particular. Not a small feat.

Seriously: if the campaign keeps their eye on the prize and maintains focus and discipline, I can see that McCain is prepped not only to walk away with this, but to have a much more effective administration. One of Bush's most dismal and stubborn failures has been his refusal to deal with the media, to find ways to get his message out in spite of them. Reagan did this; Bush has not.

McCain's campaign is doing it now. If they kept that up in the WH, it could be sweet to see.

Except for one thing.

McCain.

It's been the campaign that's been doing all this. McCain's been out of the spotlight. I've said in a number of forums that, if they can just keep him hidden somewhere until November, this election should be a cake-walk.

I just fear that, when McCain starts campaigning again and speaking unscriptedly, he will sabotage his own campaign by those twin nightmares he carries with him wherever he goes: his mouth, and the bloated ego that controls it.

I can easily see the campaign landing a deft punch, the media demanding an apology from McCain, and him obediently giving it. I can easily see him picking an impressive running-mate (Governor Palin?), can see that running mate land some telling blows on the opposition, and then McCain sabotaging the whole by apologizing or contradicting or otherwise train-wrecking, to keep his beloved NYT/MSM mistress happy. Easily.

So I have no confidence in McCain. I have no confidence in the MSM. I have no confidence in the much-vaunted, mythical common-sense of the American voter. (If Clinton 1 hadn't already destroyed the last vestige of that childish pipe-dream, Clinton 2 would have.)

So honestly, on the horizontal, I have only two hopes:

McCain's campaign and a possibly good running mate, as I've just explained. And...

Obama and Biden. This is the most liberal, extreme ticket EVER. I think there's an awfully good chance they'll self-destruct. Joe Biden has every bit the insane, self-destructive mouth that John McCain has (see also here and here; OTOH, Biden has the party loyalty McCain lacks).

Nor did The Obamessiah's speech, in the Temple of Obama (an edifice which earned some teasing) help him much.

Charles Krauthammer, for instance, was unimpressed. He delivers this biting summary:

Barack Obama is an immensely talented man whose talents have been largely devoted to crafting, and chronicling, his own life. Not things. Not ideas. Not institutions. But himself.

Of course, the conclusion of Obama's speech was most offensive to me as a Christian:

America, we cannot turn back. Not with so much work to be done. Not with so many children to educate, and so many veterans to care for. Not with an economy to fix and cities to rebuild and farms to save. Not with so many families to protect and so many lives to mend. America, we cannot turn back. We cannot walk alone. At this moment, in this election, we must pledge once more to march into the future. Let us keep that promise - that American promise - and in the words of Scripture hold firmly, without wavering, to the hope that we confess.

Hm, that sounds familiar, doesn't it? Well, it should. Obamessiah says it's "the words of Scripture." Where does that come from?

Obamessiah says it's a Scripture about holding firmly to a hope that, with the help of government as led by him and the Democratic Party, we can make a better life for ourselves here and now. Is that what it says?

Not so much.

The Scripture is from Hebrews 10, and here it is in context:

Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, 20 by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, 21 and since we have a great priest over the house of God, 22 let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. 23 Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful. 24 And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, 25 not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near (Hebrews 10:19-25).

I happen to know that passage pretty well, both because I love it, and because I've preached a sermon on it.

Is it about hoping that we can solve our problems with government's help? Far from it.

It is about the Christian's unique and eternal hope, purchased at the price of God the Son becoming incarnate, living a perfectly righteous life by the standards of God's law, dying in His people's place as a perfect, once-for-all atonement. It is about Jesus, our High Priest, who anchors our hope. It is about professing that divisive, edgy hope boldly and publicly and unwaveringly. It's premised on the inerrant, binding authority of the written Word of God.

It is counter to the hope held out by Obama. It is counter to the hope his Roman Catholic running-mate might hold, insofar as Biden holds his church's dogmas. It isn't a hope shared by most of Obama's hearers — members of a party that openly despises, scorns, and opposes the worldview in which Hebrews 10 is set, that holds abortion as a "core value", whose candidate has (if unwittingly) leant his name to the creation of a new term expressive of his scorn for helpless innocent human life ("Obamacide").

It's Bill Clinton again, but with less to offer. Remember the breathtaking blasphemy of Clinton's proposal spoke of creating a "New Covenant"? Both Clinton and Obama try to trade off of their claim to Christian faith; so both must be held accountable for their perversions of Scripture.

I just have to hope that those folks who try to be Christian and Obama supporters at the same time at least have the grace to feel sick at stomach over this.

Because, one must wonder: if this doesn't do it, what possibly could?

UPDATE: well, I got a little ahead of the news, didn't I? McCain did officially choose Governor Sarah Palin. See the link above for her impressive story. My initial response is of great relief. He didn't pick one of the pro-deathers and "moderates" whose names have been floating around like unpleasant objects in a sewer (Lieberman, Rice, Powell, Hutchison, Ridge, etc.). He picked an unambiguously, emphatically conservative pro-lifer who's lived what she believes. It's an exciting pick positionally and symbolically, and I think checkmates the symbolism of the Dem ticket. The weakness of course will be her lack of experience.

But the Dems will have a hard time making much of that, won't they?

UPDATE 2: Mark Levin offered some good thoughts on the Palin choice, before it was made official.

UPDATE 3: on Palin's religious affiliation:

Just because I'm seeing a lot of confusion on the issue (some saying she's Roman Catholic, others Episcopalian, still others AOG), here's what I have so far:

From a Time magazine interview, done 8/14/08:

What's your religion?

Christian.

Any particular...?

No. Bible-believing Christian.

What church do you attend?

A non-denominational Bible church. I was baptized Catholic as a newborn and then my family started going to non-denominational churches throughout our life.

This report gives some evidence that she is "evidently" Assemblies of God.

Dude -- that's "Alien"

Alien...-fish.

Senator Ted Kennedy: when bravery is foolhardy

When I heard that Senator Ted Kennedy had a brain tumor, which has since been revealed as malignant, I prayed for his conversion, and urged other Christians to do the same. I pray that God uses this to get Kennedy's attention, convict him of his sins against God, open his eyes to the truth, and lead him to repentant faith in Jesus Christ alone as Savior and Lord.

So comes this headline: BRAVE TED IN FIGHT OF HIS LIFE. The article tells us that the ailing senator "put on a brave face." Earlier I read elsewhere of how "brave" Kennedy is being in the face of this diagnosis.

Then Peter Wehner at National Review speaks of the courage and grit and grace Kennedy showed in his speech at the Democratic convention Monday night.

There are times when bravery is wise, appropriate, manly.

For instance, if you're in a car that goes into a river, it would be brave to do everything you could humanly do and more to save the life of the woman with you.

Or if you're a leader in a party that is taking immoral, evil policies; and if you knew better; and if you knew you'd suffer for using your position to oppose the wrongheaded leadership to oppose those policies and advocate their opposite with all your might — doing so, regardless, would be brave.

To expend your fortune, name, reputation, connections, in defense of the defenseless unborn, though it alienates former allies — that would be brave.

But sometimes bravery is inappropriate, and foolish to the point of insanity.

For instance, in facing a death for which we are in no way prepared.

All of us face death. We share that with Senator Kennedy. What sets him apart is that he's gotten a specific "Bill Due" notice. He knows — as we all should know, but choose to pretend that we do not — that his death is almost certainly imminent.

How should we face the prospect of death? With bravery? Or cringing, abject terror?

It all depends.

Death is inevitable, it is unavoidable, it is irreversible, it is final. After death we face the court date we cannot avoid, and stand before the Judge who cannot be Borked, fooled, evaded, impeached, overpowered, nor overruled. From this court there will be no appeal. Its rulings — His rulings — are final, in the fullest and most thunderous sense of that word.

So what if we are going into that trial with blood on our hands? With a legacy of opposing the values that Judge loves, and advocating, practicing, protecting those things He hates? What if we lived a long life in a land with easy access to the Word of that Judge, but we chose, all our lives, to despise, spurn, ignore that Word? What if we sniff at that very goodness of God which was meant to lead us to repentance (Romans 2:4)? What if we squander a long and privileged lifetime of opportunities to repent?

Shall we face that prospect "bravely"?

In that case, "bravery" is the last and most foolhardy response.

The proper response would be heartfelt repentance, self-humbling and self-abasement, faith in Jesus Christ who alone can save us from all our sins. Then, after that, we would employ every remaining moment and resource in reversing damage we'd done in our lives.

Then, and then only, could we face death not only bravely, but with well-grounded hope.

Again I say, pray for Senator Kennedy. Pray not for bravery, but for his first acquaintance with that wisdom of which the fear of the Lord is the necessary foundation.

New England: some of the beauty

First, for Valerie and me both, thanks to everyone for your help and input both on GPSes, and on where to go. As I mentioned, we got a Garmin 670, and really appreciated it. However, we weren't able to work in all the great suggestions for this trip — maybe in the future. Thanks, everyone!

My dear wife and I spent Friday, August 15 to Wednesday, August 20 in New England. To my modest list of states-visited I was able to add Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Hampshire, Vermont and Massachusetts.

As I said, I'd pictured a crowded, overpopulated, burnt-out area. I'm sure there's that; but not where we were. Here's some visual proof; click on each picture to enlarge.

There was Fort Ticonderoga, with the plants growing from its stone walls.


(No pencils, though.)


The fort boasted a formidable fence.


Then there was this goose and goslings at Plimouth Plantation.


I kept seeing some of the most beautiful wildflowers, like this delightful little blue ones.


We also did a bit of the the Cliff Walk in Rhode Island. This gave me a chance to touch the Atlantic from this side. (I'd previously only touched it from the other side, off the island of Iona.)


These rose hips overlooked the Atlantic along the Cliff Walk. I loved the play of colors.


There were more lovely flowers in Old Sturbridge Village.



This ant may also have been a docent; not sure.


It rained as we arrived, so we brought our coats -- causing it to clear up and get sunny!


And last, we'll close out this round with a cool covered bridge. My dear wife had hoped to see one, and...voila!


Later I may feature some pictures from the other aspects of the trip.

The confusion ticket?

Is The Obama clear on which one's which one? Maybe... then again, maybe not.



But surely #2 knows who #1 is?



"Barack America"?

Maybe not so much.

This could be funner than I thought it'd be.

Random New England observations

The whirlwind tour is over, and I'm more or less coming back up to my normal, West Coast speed. Such as that is.

Last Thursday, I worked a full shift, came home, helped pack and regulate, loaded up the car, dropped the boys off at their grandparents', went to the airport and flew all night. Landing in Connecticut, we rented a car, drove all day, showered and changed, and went to my daughter's graduation ceremony at Middlebury, Vermont. We dined there, and went to bed maybe 10-ish (ET), after having been up since 3:30 the previous day. I'd had maybe 45-60 minutes' sleeep.

I don't know how Jack Bauer does it without psychotic episodes. Well, more psychotic episodes.

So then we took off touring a bunch of those postage-stamp little states back there, thanks to my wife's usual brilliant planning. We saw Plimouth Plantation, the Mayflower 2, the USS Constitution, and Old Sturbridge Village. We walked the Freedom Trail.

Then we got up 3:45am on Wednesday and flew home. Then I went back to work yesterday.

So, it was a full, whirlwind tour. I'll probably put up some pictures, eventually, somewhere. But for now, here are some Random Observations:

1. The weather wasn't nearly as unpleasant as I'd anticipated. We had some beautiful clouds and a bit of rain. The temperatures got up into the eighties. What made the difference (as anticipated) was the humidity, but it was far from miserable.
2. The most exhausting day was the Freedom Trail walk. On that same day, we walked (it seemed) every square inch of Boston, I climbed that 294-step obelisk at Bunker Hill, we toured two ships, and ended up with a delectable meal at Legal Sea Foods.
3. How to say it delicately? With all that heat and humidity, you end up quaffing gallons and gallons and... er... not processing much. It all gets used up and sweat out.
4. My image of New England was population and houses and pavement from border to border. Boy, was I wrong. There are miles and miles and miles and miles and miles and miles of beautiful, thick forests, on rolling hills, with very trouty-looking, fly-fishable streams and rivers, and lots of rocks and cliffs and outcroppings. Gorgeous. I would love to see it in the Fall.
5. The people we dealt with were all very nice.
6. There seemed to be a higher-than-usual percentage of grim, very masculine-looking women. Often in pairs. I said "Hm" to myself, and prayed for them, a lot.
7. Cracker Barrels are great restaurants. But they're better in the South.
8. Dunkin' Donuts everywhere. Wish we had them here. But the best cup I had was after we landed and got the car, and I'd been up for... hm... (doing math) about 29 hours with about 45-60 minutes' scattered sleep. Had a big, fresh cup, and my, it was wonderful.
9. We did get a Garmin Nuvi 670, and the ladies cristened our navigator "Claire." We were really glad for the purchase, again and again. Cool thing about having a GPS system is you can go off exploring freely, knowing that all you have to do when you're done is flick the GPS back on, and it'll get you where you need to go. However....
10. My least-favorite word for the whole trip came to be "Recalculating."
    

So another trip logged, tremendous credit to my amazing wife's amazing ability to put together the fullest, richest trips.

Excellent, once again, Valerie!

Oh, and I took just <800 pix. I'll put a few more up sometime, p'raps.

Desperation? So soon?

I'm really not one gleefully to announce "They're desperate!" at the drop of a hat; and my un-enthusiasm for McC is well known.

But... goodness The Obama's camp must be desperate. McCain must have really smoked The One. I mean, if their best account is, in effect, "Yeah yeah, the reason our guy did so bad and McCain did so well is... is... is that McCain cheated! Yeah, that's the ticket! He knew the questions in advance! Yeah, that's it."

Anyway, Warren flat-out says that's a lie.

A lie, perhaps. If so, certainly a revealing one.

But then, aren't all lies revealing?

Where I'm At Right Now, 8/16/08-abouts

Woke up as usual 3:30am Thursday morning, worked all day, came home, helped pack and arrange, left home about 8pm, flew all night, landed near Hartford, CT, drove around 4-5 hours to Middlebury, VT, checked in, showered, attended my daughter's graduation ceremony, walked around the 32478503984-acre campus, returned to the B&B, went to bed, slept a little longer than usual (6.5 hours instead of <6).

And I feel great!

So it's been a whirlwind, but all-good. We read all about threatening thunderstorms, and feared a flight would be delay. As you can see, delay would have been disastrous: missing the ceremony. I wasn't able to get Thursday off; my work was generous to let me have Friday (short-staffed). So it was a tight schedule, ad we're grateful to God that we made it at all.

So now my oldest and only daughter has a Master's in French from Middlebury. Great job, Rachael. We're very proud of her and her dogged, hard work. Now we're off to tour the area for a few days. I think we go to Fort Ticonderoga today. Hope they give us a pencil or something.

And Dunkin' Donuts! They actually have them out here. Had my first coffee in too long from a DD, and dude, it was good.

What a beautiful area it is: green, rolling hills; huge rivers, streams. Would love to see Fall colors. We did a too-quick walk-through of the Yankee candle store. Perhaps I'll post some pix later.

And I just caught up on my Bible reading. Man, you miss one day with that For the Love of God schedule, and you've got some serious catching-up to do.

A Muslim, son of Hamas leader — finds Jesus Christ

Praise God for some great news: the conversion of Mosab Hassan Yousef from Islam to Christ. We should pray for this young man's growth in Christ, for the effectiveness of his testimony, and for his physical safety.

Razing Ebenezer, and other hymn-crimes

I stumbled upon and appreciated an article by Gary Parrett in CT about how hymns have sometimes been changed, dumbed-down, or partly pirated.

For instance, aced by "Here I raise mine Ebenezer," in Come Thou Fount, many have changed the lyrics, to accommodate our Biblical illiteracy.

That's a choice we have to confront in such things. Sadly, it probably is true that most church attenders think Ebenezer's last name is Scrooge, and don't know why we're singing about raising him. So we face a choice, don't we?

1. Dumb-down the lyrics; or
2. Smart-up the worshipers

You can guess which my preference is. How hard is it to explain the context before singing the hymn?

UPDATE: Wesley didn't care for anyone "improving" his hymns.

McCain, according to The Professionals

Remember, blogs and talk radio can't be trusted, because bloggers and hosts are so biased. Not like the professionals in the MSM.

Of which, now, an example from Politico.

Perhaps reluctantly, the article is forced to pass along some (color-me-pleasantly-surprised) great John McCain lines about the Obamessiah:

“...even the most stirring speeches are easily forgotten when they're short on content. Taking in my opponent's performances is a little like watching a big summer blockbuster, and an hour in, realizing that all the best scenes were in the trailer you saw last fall. In the way of running mates, Sen. Obama should consider someone with a knack for brevity and directness, to balance the ticket.

“In the meantime, let me take a stab at a plot summary of the Obama campaign: America is finally winning in Iraq, and he wants to forfeit. Government is too big, and he wants to grow it. Taxes are too high, and he wants to raise them. Congress spends too much, and he proposes more. We need more energy, and he's against producing it.”

It may have been painful for the Mike Allen to record such direct-hits. But he did his best to defuse the remarks, reporting it as "mocking the oratorical gifts [—not alleged gifts] of Barack Obama... McCain sneers ...McCain snarks at Obama 10 times ...McCain’s gibe about a less windy running mate is part of a continuing effort [—not successful?] by the Republican’s presidential campaign to turn Obama’s strengths [—not perceived strengths or alleged strengths or much-touted strengths or self-promoted strengths or attempted strengths?] against him."

By contrast, "Obama ...declares [— not pronounces, nor "tries to" anything]....In a bit of onedownmanship [— not attempted, and not "trying to" do anything], Obama says [—not snarks nor sneers nor whines]...."

Ah, isn't it great to have Truth funneled to us, predigested, from the Experts?

Why would Allen color his reporting in this manner, depicting McCain as a peevish, nasty, snarly jerk? Maybe he gives the answer himself: "...Americans usually vote for the more likable presidential candidate." Ah, that's it. He's just telling us which is "more likable." That would be the gifted, youthful declarer. Not the snarky, sneery guy.

Thus endeth another lesson in an ongoing series.

UPDATE: on the other hand (turning from the ever-popular topic of media bias to the ever-popular topic of what a pinhead McCain can be) you see reports like these which, if true, means McCain is every bit as clueless as we fear, has a political death-wish, and has very little chance of defeating The Obama's candidacy. Now, this may well be a planted rumor intended to upset whatever is left of McCain's base. But the fact is, no astute observer can say, "What? Nonsense! McCain would never be so feckless and stupid and treacherous!" Because, well, sadly....

Breaking News! Rowan Williams (A of C) morally and spiritually clueless!

...or, at least he was a few years back, according to The Times Online.

The Times has some letters from eight years ago revealing that Archbishop Williams "described his belief that biblical passages criticising homosexual sex were not aimed at people who were gay by nature."

That report in itself, if accurate, is damning enough. Like all the rest, it reveals that Williams isn't coming from Biblical revelation in his view of the world; he's coming to Scripture with his worldview.

A robust, full-Biblical anthropology would step back and realize that all people are sinners by nature (cf. Romans 1:18-32; Ephesians 2:1ff.; etc.). That a thing comes "naturally" to any given sinner says something about the sinner, but nothing about the thing. Hollywood to the contrary notwithstanding, the test of an act's morality is not what we feel in our heart, but what God feels in His heart, and what God has said with His mouth.

Homosexuality is not sinful because we reason it to be, nor neutral because we reason it to be. It is wicked because God says it to be.

But such thinking is lost on Dr. Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, who says

I concluded that an active sexual relationship between two people of the same sex might therefore reflect the love of God in a way comparable to marriage, if and only if it had about it the same character of absolute covenanted faithfulness.

It does not trouble Dr. Williams that God had concluded the contrary.

As a further sample of the reasoning of the man to whom so many Anglicans look up as their leader,

In his 1989 essay The Body’s Grace, Dr Williams argued that the Church’s acceptance of contraception meant that it acknowledged the validity of nonprocreative sex. This could be taken as a green light for gay sex.

Reasoning from one human viewpoint to another apparently takes the place of Biblical exegesis. By contrast, here's how a disciple of Christ "does ethics":

God nowhere defines the sole purpose of marital relations as the production of children; God everywhere defines homosexual activity as abhorrent.

Reason from that.

I wasn't raised as a Christian. Denominational loyalty über alles has always been lost on me. I became a Christian because I was convinced that Christ was true, and the Bible His word. Church selection has always — always — been primarily a matter of finding (or pastoring) bodies genuinely committed to those propositions.

I simply cannot imagine promoting the interests of a hierarchical organization such as the Anglican church, which prizes organizational unity, that is for all intents and purposes apostate, and is led by apostates.

Interesting perspective on feminine submission

From the often-opaque (to me), sometimes-brilliant Douglas Wilson, Piperically quoting himself on his blog:

"Headship in marriage does not mean that women submit to men; it means one woman submits to one man. Her submission to her husband protects her from having to submit to other men. Prior to marriage, her submission to her father protects her from having to submit to other men. There is no overall biblical requirement that women be submissive to men in general. The biblical pattern is that a wife should respond to the initiative and leadership of her husband, and only to him. She is prepared and trained for this in her submission to her father" (Her Hand in Marriage, pp. 12-13)

What think ye?

Me, I'm pondering. Of course marriage does not mean that a wife submits to no other man in any other context. She may have a boss to obey; if a Christian, she will have an elder or elders in church to submit to. But her husband may have the same responsibility in both similar relationships. Neither of these relations has anything to do with her sex.

But sex does weigh in marriage. The two are equally each other's spouse; but God ordains that the husband, the man, be the head of the family; and that she submit to him.

But that isn't because he is a man; it is because he is her husband. She doesn't submit to his maleness per se, but to his office. That office is exclusive to males, however.

Don't we see this reflected in various verses? For instance, I think of 1 Peter 2:18, where slaves are told to submit even to unjust masters; or 1 Peter 3:1f., where wives are told to submit from the heart even to husbands who are disobeying the Word. In neither case is it the sex of the authority that is the issue, but the office. However, in the case of masters, I know of no Biblical legislation barring them from being women; in the case of husbands, of course, there is.

There, perhaps that's enough to prime the pump.

Wanna love that Spam

I think I've mentioned before that spam seems to come in cycles. You get a bunch of vitamin offers, Viagra offers, Cialis offers, Canadian drug offers. They seem to come in waves.

I love this one (click to enlarge):

So you've got to figure: somewhere, there's some schmoe who's opening up his (or her) email, who reads this title, pauses, and says to himself (or herself):

"Ya know? Yeah... yeah, I do. I wanna be a psychologist!"

And then he (or she!) clicks Reply, and writes the spamco, and says, "Yeah! I wanna be a psychologist!"

And then a new career is born.

So here's what I'm thinking. You've been seeing this psychologist for a year or two, and you realize that everything he is saying, Oprah has already said. Suddenly, the light goes on.

You sit up on the couch, and face your psychologist.

And you ask, "Did you once answer an email with the title, 'Wanna be a psychologist'?"

And he (or she!) pulls the iPod bud out of his (or her!) ear, and says, slowly, "Yeah... why ya wanna know that?"

Frank Turk...

...has more fans on Facebook...

...than I do.

Maybe it's all the gauzy promotion.

Wonderful weekend, icky week

It's been a challenging start; I know none of you is a stranger to the phenom.

Sunday was just a joy, as I was off preaching in a new (to me) church with my dear wife and youngest sons in tow. That was a complete pleasure: meeting brothers and sisters, spending a delightful afternoon with one family.

This church has such a rich history, and such potential for a rich future. They were founded in 1916 by a missionary who landed at that port on the Sacramento River, and preached the gospel. I learned this from talking with a brother who's been a member of that church since 1946! In California terms, that makes it a really historic church. (Readers in Scotland will kindly not laugh and point at my state.)

Everything about the day was a happy blessing.

And here's something at which some of you will laugh: I really enjoyed that they had a stained-glass window. I admit it: I really like stained glass. I can't even remember the last time I preached in a church with stained glass. For that matter, I can't remember the last time I sat in a church with stained glass. It was probably in the early eighties.

This could bring up the whole subject of church architecture, in which I will someday take 1500 words to say that it isn't essential (meeting in a field can be more church than meeting in the finest building), but it isn't nothing.

Then Monday here at work — eesh! Some Mondays are Monday-er than other Mondays. This was an exceptionally Monday Monday. And this week, at my current employment, I have the job nobody on our team wants: working the email queue. It will shred my brain, and making blogging more difficult.

It's especially nasty, though. Following being able to do what I really delight in, I come to... this!

But then I'm sure you all know it. And I think it'll help me be a better pastor for having experienced it myself (2 Corinthians 1:3-6).

Who loves, or hates, his GPS?

Another way in which I am an atypical guy is that I've never had problems asking directions. What I have problems with is feeling lost. I hate that feeling passionately. So asking someone for directions, to make that feeling go away, is a small thing.

Definitely had that feeling on our trip to the South earlier this year. Trying to find a location in Kentucky, my dear wife and I traveled some narrow, remote roads that had me wishing I'd never seen Deliverance. It was a bad feeling. Nice company, pretty scenery, bad feeling.

So thinking ahead, my wife wants to get a GPS, and she says I should ask you, Faithful Readers, if you have any experiences to relate.

The one that looks best so far is the Garmin nuvi 660 GPS Navigation, which gets really terrific user ratings both at Circuit City and Amazon. Also, it's on sale at huge mark-downs.

So, your thoughts?

You know, some things, you just have to accept

...a sentiment this gent clearly doesn't share.

Evangelicals not buying the Dems' "woojie-woojie-woojie?"

Mostly religion-related polls are depressing, for a Bible-believer. So it's nice to see one that is at least a little encouraging.

Apparently not too many churchgoing evangelicals (which should be, but isn't, a tautology) are buying the Dems' duplicitous outreach attempts. Nor are they buying the a moral hierarchy that puts the could-be/maybe/some-think of "global warming" over the immediate realities of jamming "gay" "marriage" down our throats, and of the torture-killings of inconvenient or imperfect babies.

And that's all a good thing.

Now, some more random thoughts prompted by the article:

1. I really wish pundits would stop saying/writing that McCain "is generally reticent about his own faith." First, nobody is really "reticent about his own faith." How you live and speak is your faith. This idea that someone can have a public life without ever referring to Christ or the Word of God, and then suddenly in some candid moment unveil his intensely private but deeply-held convictions — sorry, but baloney. How you speak and live is what you believe (Luke 6:43-45). So, second, I already know enough about McCain's "faith." It is in no way compelling to me. And finally, third, if McCain — who is the worse of the two relevant candidates running for president today, excepting only Barak Obama — were suddenly to claim that Jesus has been his Lord for decades, and the Bible is determinate for all his thoughts, values, decisions, and actions... I'd be insulted. Not appealed-to.
2. BTW, does anyone know when McCain plans to start campaigning?
3. So far, has there ever been a lamer campaign that McCain's?
4. I've said it before, I'll say it again: given what a complete insult Obama is, this election is John McCain's to lose — and, by jingo, he's the man who could do it!
5. The title's "woojie-woojie-woojie" is a reference to a very old cartoon, where (IIRC) a male frog tries to woo a reluctant female frog with the eloquent come-on, "Woojie-woojie-woojie?" She replies, pointedly, "No woojie-woojie-woojie!" And now, you know that.
   

If ever I were to feel guilty about firm meta moderation...

...and I don't...

...all I need to do is look at Justin Taylor's metas.

And then I feel all better.

Poll of you New England / Canadian-types and cognoscenti

Under orders from my dear wife:

We're heading thitherwards next month, Lord willing, and would like to know:

• What are the must-see's in Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Maine, Ontario, Massachusetts and upper New York.
  
• Specifically: Historical sites, areas of great beauty, museums, factory tours, great architecture, fantastic eateries, etc.
• More specifically: we're looking for stuff, if possible, off the main route. Local favorites; your favorites.

Y'all have always been a terrific resource before (well, except this time; but I'm not bitter).

So thanks in advance!

Homosexual man makes case for "loser pays" laws

Unintentionally, of course.

Perhaps he could make a class-action suit joined by liars, hypocrites, rapists, murderers, false teachers, adulterers, women "pastors," thieves, pro-aborts, and the like.

Caner irony

Ergun Caner is irritated that young Southern Baptists feel themselves entitled to leadership without having done anything to earn it. Here is the core of his reported complaint:

"I think by and large, we have an entire generation of guys my age and younger, who inherited churches that run 2,000 [in membership] but have never grown a church that runs 2,000," Caner warns.

That gives them a sense of entitlement, asserts Caner. He says to go around "crowing" about something one did not have anything to do with, and saying "see what I've done," is ridiculous.

Interesting. Crowing about something you had nothing to do with is "ridiculous." Well, amen.

I wonder whether Ergun Caner voiced that complaint to his brother Emir Caner who, in the context of slandering Calvinists, once signed a comment "Elected because I selected." (Further comments on that, here.)

Yep, nasty thing, that — crowing about something you had nothing to do with, and saying "See what I've done."

Once again one hears the immortal words of Buck Murdock: "Irony can be pretty ironic sometimes."

Indeed.

Good and bracing thoughts about corporate worship, from Ben Witherington

Disclaimer: I haven't read Witherington's books; quotations from them indicate to me that he has some notions with which I'd heartily and emphatically disagree.

HSAT: Justin Taylor links to a first and second post by scholar Ben Witherington, offering a withering (pun intended) interaction with Barna and Viola's Pagan Christianity.

You don't have to have read PC or any of Witherington's books to find this pair of essays profitable. Witherington offers some very solid, Biblical, historical, theological interaction with an idea that's been festering for a few decades. This is the idea that what's really wrong with the church is that we have structure in our services, meet in buildings, and have services led by men. Things would be so much more wonderful if we had none of those things. Constantine ruined everything. All those bad things entered after several centuries.

Witherington points out that the idea is itself nonsense: those unstructured meetings still meet in particular places at particular times with particular ends in mind, and have particular individuals exercizing some sort of oversight. But he also shows the bad, un-Biblical thinking that lies at the bottom, and the crazy (I'd say Dathanic) abuse of the truth of the priesthood of all believers.

(Anyone over 40, I'd say, looks at the current Emerg*** [and other] mish-mash and thinking, "Uh, yeah, this is so new we already tried it and rejected it in the 60's and 70's.")

Witherington offers more, but you'll find here a bracing and healthy counter to this latest man-centered fad. It's well worth wading through, and not minding the typo's.

PCUSA prepares to nuke the fridge...

...again.

UPDATE: Al Mohler comments.

Dispensationalism: defined?

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

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

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

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

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

However.

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

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

Um, no.

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

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

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

Thus far, my quibbles.

Pastoral search engines, services?

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

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

Airport security: I feel so much safer...

From:

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

...to...

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

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

"Gay" "marriages" start in California

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

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

Have Bible, Will Travel

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

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

Unexpected feature of Brothers, We Are Not Professionals

Did Piper do this, or did his editors?

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

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

John Piper!

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

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

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

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

Do other writers do that?

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

When Christians hide in church, with God...

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

A story which could be multiplied by the thousands.

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

Punditry: nice work, if you can get it

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

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

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

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

McCain
Regrettably Necessary

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

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

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

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

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

"The Happening" review, thrice through

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

SPOILER-FREE BRIEFLY

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

SPOILER-FREE, MORE FULLY

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

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

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

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

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

It wasn't, much.

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

SPOILERY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Could be.

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

Wrong problem => wrong solution.

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

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

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

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

New feature: "what I'm reading"

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

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

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

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

Über-trivia 1

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

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

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

Freaks, media, and Christian compassion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's a taste of how he does it:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I can only conceive of two differences.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reformed Tourette's?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fair enough?

(And BTW, still love Gleason.)

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

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

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

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

Of course I agree, and it sparked some thoughts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HSAT, I close with this:

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

(Criswell; Plan 9 from Outer Space)

But, I digress.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not so uplifting, eh?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Viewed as a cautionary tale — bingo.

June 8, a day of shame — for Mormons

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

Read this excellent piece by m'man Aaron Shafovaloff.

Drive your coworkers nuts...

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

(Backstory)

Hillary! and The Obama: I get it

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

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


I get it now.

Prediction about the "Obama bombshell"

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

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

Well, maybe, maybe not.

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

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

Well, in this case:

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

You heard it first, here.

NEXT-DAY UPDATE SUMMARY: fizzzzzzzzzzgrunk.