The Daily Soap Box

The Daily Soap Box Now Closed

2009-09-16T11:19:00.004-06:00

Sorry, the Daily Soap Box is now closed. In the mean time, you can still find my daily musings on faith and culture at "Faith and Culture" @ http://www.pastorjordan.blogspot.com/

Let it Burn

2009-09-15T22:22:00.003-06:00

What is it I'm fighting for, exactly? Day after day in the blogosphere, cyberspace, and daily interaction I'm continually fighting for the values that I believe make America (or made America) a great nation. Being engaged in the political process, laboring in the Market Place of Ideas, speaking out for great American principles like personal accountability, self-responsibility, work ethic, and limited government, I have been challenged, attacked, and maligned. And that's cool - because I've been called worse by far better people. And sometimes for better reasons.

But as it seems there are way too many fires to put out, in way too many places, and I'm way too ill-equipped to put them out myself, I ask the question, "what is it I'm fighting for, exactly?"

It's blatantly clear that socialism (albeit called by different names) is coming to America. Even the average and ordinary proletariat wants all the bread and circuses it can stomach fed to them from the hands of the federal government.

Our President has surrounded himself with communists, revolutionaries, animal-rights activists, and euthanasia and forced-abortion promoters (and that's just to name but a few of his Czars).

And worse yet, our media, schools, corporations, and a healthy and growing percentage of the American populace is behind him as he seeks to change America from the inside-out.

We stand by as our President bumps fists with Hugo Chavez and let's the former Soviet Union rebuild what Reagan destroyed. We let the Neo-Soviets develop nuclear weapons for Venezuela and sell arms to China and Iran. And our President sits back and watches Iran develop nuclear weapons with no resistance.

It seems pretty hopeless. And so I feel like Patrick Henry, crying out "Give me Liberty or give me death!"

And this is where my theological common sense should kick in. I should probably be looking at this through Biblical lenses.

We know how this is going to end. We know that a collapsed economy (totally collapsed in Fallen Babylon) is coming. We know that Christian persecution will happen - even here. We know that there will be an Exalted Leader who rules from continent to continent. We know that there will be a one-world economic system as well. We know things will fall a part.

And as our nation spirals into increasing wickedness, I ask this question: when does being a patriot (supporting ones nation) conflict with our allegiance to Christ? Perhaps that moment has long passed, and I am on the wrong side of that line.

I think I'll step back from politics (I've said this before, but pray I will follow through). I think I'll shake the dust off my feet. One day Jesus will return, not leaving a brick upon another from all of the fine State Houses and monuments of our nation - from Washington D.C. to Ellis Island. In the end, it will all burn.

Perhaps wisdom would tell us that it is too late, to let it go. Perhaps our nation should get what it very well deserves. Perhaps the role of the prophet is to cheer lead God's plan of justice for a nation, and not to obstruct it.

Ministering Effectively to Senior Citizens

2009-09-14T12:04:00.002-06:00

Alright, I've joked about this but it's starting to get serious. Most churches huddle around after the service and say things like "wow, we had some 'young people' come today!" And "young people" is described as pretty much anybody with school-aged children or below retirement age. I've often chucked that at our church we usually say the opposite - "wow, we had 'old folks' come today!"

But looking around this Sunday morning I saw that in spite of having a very healthy attendance, we didn't have a single retired person of retirement age at church. And even if they all showed up there would be a mere half dozen older folks in a church of 100.

I suppose that most pastors wouldn't worry about a lack of silver-haired seasoned citizens, but this causes for me concern. I haven't any answers, but I do have some questions:

1. Are we ministering effectively to the unique needs of senior citizens presented by their unique life situations and circumstances?

2. Are we encouraging "community" among our senior citizens; I.E. are we promoting active and healthy fellowship with our seniors?

3. Do our senior citizens feel like valuable parts of our faith community?

4. Are we learning from the storehouses of wisdom and life-experiences that our seniors have to offer?

5. If the young age of our pastoral staff effects negatively their ability to minister efficiently to senior, then by what means do we minister to them?

It seems to me that these are things we should be praying about.

Sunday's Message: A Wartime Mentality

2009-09-13T21:01:00.002-06:00

This is Sunday's Message entitled Stewardship II: A Wartime Mentality. Sorry for the poor audio quality on this one. Win some and lose some.

Williston, ND TEA Party

2009-09-13T20:43:00.002-06:00

Judah and Reagan at the Williston TEA Party.

This was the TEA Party in Williston, ND. There were about 1000 in attendance. They were just a big mob full of Nazis and Astro-turf.

2009-09-10T22:14:00.000-06:00

*Maybe the paper will shirk some bias and print this one*

Representative Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) drew outrage from many this week as he yelled out “you lie” to President Obama during his health care reform speech. Although some might question whether or not the protocol for a joint-session of congress should allow for such an outburst (let us remember Democrats often booed Bush – even during a State of the Union address), I have to agree that Obama was, indeed, lying.

The statement that drew Wilson’s comment was Obama asserting that the Health Care Reform bill would not provide for illegal aliens. The leading House bill promoting Health Care Reform (H.R. 3200) contains absolutely no restrictions on private citizens, whether here legally or illegally, and whether temporary or permanent. Furthermore, no House bill contains any measure mandating that people seeking care need to prove citizenship.

Congressional Republicans have advocated multiple resolutions, stating that any health reform should not include care for illegal aliens and others stating that reform should not provide abortions from taxpayer funds. These resolutions have all been defeated by Democrats.

Even though we may not like the timing of Rep. Wilson’s outburst, one can hardly argue with the truth behind it. Obama lies.

Jordan Hall
Chairman, Richland County Republican Party

Written By Some Jerk I Know

2009-09-08T09:41:00.002-06:00

The following is a parody of a true event that occurred recently in Montana. Only the names were changed to protect the guilty. It is intended to provide a little humor to our otherwise dull and difficult lives.

Hunter Reports Getting Assaulted by a Giant Masked Creature,

Dateline, Sidney, Mt. Sept. 5, 2009:

Hunter Jordina Hallman called the Montana Fish and Game warden yesterday morning reporting that a giant, masked creature had just attacked him as he was on his way to his tree stand to hunt whitetail deer. He described the event as harrowing and unnerving. As he was walking in the early morning hours, about an hour before sun up, a giant, furry animal, wearing a mask jumped out of the brush and began hissing at him in a threatening manner. Jordina says he then grabbed a big stick from off the ground and began beating the animal to no avail. The animal knocked him into a ravine about ten feet deep, filled with water. The water destroyed both his cell phone and his brand new used distance locater. He fought off the assailant valiantly and climbed out of the ravine only to discover he had a badly sprained ankle.

He bravely continued on to his tree stand where he climbed up twenty feet before he could finally sit down and rest. He had the opportunity to shoot a few small deer, but decided the perilous beginning to his day necessitated he only settle for a big buck or a good sized doe. When he arrived home to tell his wife Mindy about the incident, she seemed unconcerned.

That evening, while having dinner at a friend’s house, that friend’s wife (whose name will be withheld to protect her innocence), bandaged his swollen ankle and put ice on it. Jordina commented to his wife that she should watch and see how a wife is supposed to take care of her mighty hunter when he returns home injured from the dangerous consequences of a hunt. She laughed hysterically.

Jordina said the assailant left the scene in a red Mustang convertible. Police are currently searching for it. If you have any information leading to the arrest and/or conviction of this villain, please call the Montana Fish and Game office or your local law enforcement center. A $5.00 reward is being offered by the Jordina Hallman estate.

The previous news story was written by some jerk I know.

My Disagreement with John Piper and Al Mohler

2009-09-07T20:57:00.003-06:00

Concerning President Obama's address to school children, I disagree with two of my most personally influential theologians, the great John Piper and ever-relevant Albert Mohler. First, let me state that me disagreeing with Piper and Mohler is like my dog, Molly, disagreeing with her veterinarian (i.e. it's not at all important, considering the source). Nonetheless, I think Piper, Mohler and others in the Reformed circle of friends are misguided in the support of Obama's address to our children and misguided in their chastisement of those of us who consider the speech to be sinister.

Albert Mohler wrote on his blog today "Much of the controversy is reckless, baseless, and plainly irrational. Some have called the speech an effort to indoctrinate our children into socialism. Others have argued that any presidential speech piped into the classroom is illegitimate...At this level, the controversy is a national embarrassment. Conservatives must avoid jumping on every conspiracy theory and labeling every action of the Obama Administration as being socialist or sinister."

Mohler goes on to say "Furthermore, the controversy smacks of disrespect for the president and by extension, the presidency itself. Both fly in the face of Christian responsibility to pray for those in authority."

Piper's blog also opines in a similar fashion. Piper writes "I am stunned at the outcry against the president of the United States speaking to the youth of our nation. This speech, for me, seems to be an answer to a prayer I have been praying for the president repeatedly."

I think that Piper, Mohler, and other like-minded individuals are being naive at best and gullible to the extent of foolishness at worst. Their beliefs concerning Obama's speech to school children are based on what I believe to be false presuppositions. Here is what I see as being inherently dangerous to and unprecedented in our Republic.

1. Obama's speech is not about important education-related issues. And I doubt very much it was going to be in the beginning. Let me remind Piper, Mohler, and others that the copy of Obama's speech released today is most assuredly not what was originally planned, but has been edited, changed, and evolved after the recent national uproar. Even in the speech's latest version, Obama pushes environmentalism on our children (what else is new). Obama also reminds children to wash their hands and talks about not fitting in as a kid. Is this a worthwhile use of class time? Do we need the president to intervene to remind us about hand washing?

2. Obama's speech (and corresponding work sheets) is about Obama. Work sheets planned for school children ask "how does President Obama inspire you" (sounds like a leading question) and "how can you help the President." Let's not pretend that this isn't the same as the slew of public-service announcements made by incumbent politicians around election time - paid for by taxpayer dollars - where the main point of the message is "look how great I am." Parents and religious leaders both need to be on guard against slow and subtle indoctrination, and using class time and school resources to build Obama's legacy is an invalid reason for taking the time to speak to students. As a parent, I don't want my children to be inspired by Obama (success at wickedness should not be idealized or imitated) and I don't want them to help Obama. Like Rush Limbaugh, I readily admit I want him to fail in his personal agenda for America. I do pray for Obama - that he comes to know Christ, repents, and leads by God's design. Unless God does that, I pray "plan B" - please make Obama fail in his intentions for America.

3. The President of the United States is not an exalted leader that should have the power to gain an entire nation of school children for an audience at a whim. For this, I would remind Mohler and Piper of the Constitution of the United States, the 9th and 10th Amendment, and the concept of separation of powers. The presidency does not give one the ability to speak to all school children (or any other group) simply because schools are taxpayer funded. Ask yourself, do you really want the president to make a speech to your kid any time he wants? Is that his right? That is an abuse of the bully pulpit. My Christian responsibility to pray for and respect the president does not mean I should allow the president to usurp authority he does not have. Our "leaders" as spoken of in the Scripture are not the tyrannical dictators of ancient Rome, but are civil servants bound to a Constitutional job description. To require rule of law from our leaders does not mean I am not fulfilling my Christian responsibility to my leaders.

4. One shouldn't be quick to criticize those that raise the "indoctrination flag" at Obama's speech. Perhaps it is not indoctrination and completely harmless (and wasn't intended to be). Let us not forget that indoctrination is a key goal of the National Education Association and educators all across the country. From textbooks to lectures, from grade school to higher education, the liberal and secular humanists are fighting diligently for the hearts and minds of our children. Forgive us if we are on guard for yet another subtle indoctrination of our children.

In consideration of these four warnings, I would suggest to parents that they be concerned when liberals want to address their children - even on seemingly non-controversial matters. Any student of recent history can tell you that these ilk seek to undermine your teaching and create in your children "open-minded" brains that accept any belief or worldview other than that of traditional Christianity.

I would prefer that theologians dig a little deeper into an understanding of our political enemies before applying a Biblical principle to a situation to which it does not apply.

My Tribute to Van Jones

2009-09-06T13:27:00.001-06:00

Mess with Glenn Beck? Bite off more than you could chew? Reap the Whirlwind, homeboy.

For Your Viewing Pleasure

2009-09-05T12:22:00.001-06:00

Would Jesus Be for Health Care Reform?

2009-09-03T11:38:00.005-06:00

Let me state a fact that any reasonable, intellectually-honest person would admit: Liberals hate the devoutly religious. If you are not aware of this then you're living under a rock. There are some bizarre reasons for this, most borderline on supernatural. However, the main reason (as I've been saying for years) is that liberalism is a religion in and of itself.

In the religion of liberalism, the faith itself has several "wings." These wings include atheism, agnosticism, and secular humanism. Undergirding these various denominational faiths within the greater religion of liberalism is post-modern concepts of situational ethics and wishy-washy moralism that can be neither defined nor explained because it changes to fit the desires of each individual moral adherent.

The reason why parishioners in the church of liberalism hate the devoutly religious is because our religion (whether Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, or other devout faiths) is grounded in something that cannot be changed or manipulated by liberals and their propaganda machines. A recent poll brought great criticism to evangelicals this week as almost three out of four said that even if science disproved their faith they would still believe their faith. What a shock! Liberals just can't understand why scientific "fact" (which change from day to day) can't shake a faith that has stood on unchanging ancient texts and truths for thousands of years.

You see, that's what faith does - it keeps its adherents from being blown around like chaff every time some earthling comes up with a new philosophy or concept. This is stomach-churning to liberals, who change their convictions with the wind. So they call us "narrow-minded" when we hold to ancient building-block convictions of civilization like "a marriage is between a man and woman" or "don't go around killing infants" or "self-responsibility."

Religion to liberals is like kryptonite to Superman. They have to keep religion as far away from them as possible to maintain their own supremacy over the human mind. For this reason they are motivated to remove the 10 Commandments from court rooms, prayer from schools, nativity scenes from the public park, and the crucifix from your private work space. This is about the marketplace of ideas and the liberal church's ambition to monopolize it.

The religion of liberalism has its high priests (Al Gore, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton) who are perceived as although being privately flawed are also seen as being publicly infallible. They also have a vast array of dead saints that are used as a rallying cry for their favorite desires (three dead Kennedys come to mind). Their important doctrines are environmentalism, diversity, and taking care of the "little man." Like most faiths, liberalism even has a holy sacrament - abortion, in which children are put on the altar of sacrifice which explains why this sacrament is so vigorously protected by the left.

And so liberals hate Christians (followers of Christ). We can't oppose abortion or else it's a "religious issue." We can't oppose gay marriage because it's a "religious issue." Why is it, then, that liberals who despise us try to quote Jesus at every opportunity when it's politically expedient.

Liberal Democrats all over the nation are invoking the name of Jesus to promote health care reform. Is this not slightly disingenuous? Do they - who try to put Jesus back into the closet at every opportunity - really care whether or not Jesus would want health care reform... because they sure as heck couldn't care what Jesus has to say about infanticide or gay marriage.

Ed Schultz (who you probably haven't heard of because he's on the little-watched network MSNBC) told his viewers yesterday that Jesus would vote for the "public option."

Seriously? This is pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, shove Jesus in the closet Ed Schultz? All in a sudden he's consulting Jesus? Schultz said:

"Now, I have been referring to the health care reform deal as the real moral issue of our time. I believe Jesus would vote yes for a public option, but some Bible thumpers don't see me eye to eye on this one."

A guy that doesn't see abortion as being morally unacceptable has become a morality expert and can define health care reform as being the most important moral issue of our lifetime? And yet Schultz can't discuss Jesus without getting in a whack on true Christians by calling them "Bible thumpers," which in liberal-speak means "they actually read their Bible once in a while. Freaks."

All of this begs the question to liberals, "how do you exactly know Jesus enough to guess his opinions on stuff?"

Do you liberals read Jesus' thoughts, words, and study his behavior and actions as evidenced in the Bible? Do you sit under the teaching of an orthodox Bible teacher that is going to teach you long-accepted, time-tested and approved presuppositions about Jesus?

Or are you just making up your image of a buddy-Christ that you can make and mold according to your lusts and desires? You see, what makes it different when conservatives quote Scripture as opposed to liberals is that we start with the belief that Jesus was A) real, B) God, and C) authoritative. In other words, we don't use Jesus because it's politically expedient, we actually have the political leanings we do because it all starts with Jesus. To conservatives, he's not just an arguing point, but the foundation of our world view.

So would Jesus be for health care reform? Honestly, I think Jesus would have better things to do. He seemed unwilling and disinterested to meddle in earthly politics. Although it should be noted that his cousin John was not at all afraid to challenge political leaders (and was killed for it). That being said about Jesus, I do believe the Bible can guide us to form a correct and Biblical view toward health care reform.

First, why would liberals like Schultz say he would be for reform? There are a couple reasons, including the fact that the liberal interpretation of Jesus is as some philanthropist hippie who wandered around helping poor folks and he would therefore want government intervention in health care. The second reason is that we're told the New Testament church sold their goods and gave their money to the poor.

So what about Jesus? Would he support health care reform as Obama wants to provide it?

I would answer "We cannot understand Jesus by looking at 33 years of his life, of which only 3 years are given us in any detail. He is the Ancient of Days and has always been. To fully understand the character of God the Son, we must look at the entirety of Scripture (which He brought into existence). After all, Jesus-on-Earth was simply an incarnation of God-Eternal, and a wide-array of theology is necessary to understand Jesus so we don't add to the flawed hippie-version of a Jesus that liberals espouse."

The Bible makes it clear that humanity must always be saddled with the yoke of self-reliance and self-responsibility. Second Thessalonians chapter three tells us "For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies. Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread.” In other words, don't reward the lazy.

I should mention that not all who lack health insurance are lazy. A good number are also hardworking, yet foolish, not preparing for an inevitable health issue. Many, however are innocent and may be children or those whose health insurance has been canceled and cannot get more. However, current health care reform doesn't make notice of the large percentage of lazy and unprepared that would benefit from the so-called "public option." Therefore (like all government welfare programs) it would be rewarding the lazy.

Secondly, the Bible tells us that we men should provide for our own families in 1 Timothy 5:8 "But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.” I am tired of hearing parents boo-hoo us with stories about how their children couldn't get some medical problem taken care of. If I was that parent I would have too much shame to go around repeating that. My primary job on Earth isn't to have things, but to A) Glorify God and B) be a steward of what He has given me - primarily my family. The vast majority of these sobbing parents have lots of things they could easily cut out of their life in order to avoid relatively inexpensive insurance for their children. But it's easier to have the government do it, right?

The poor were provided for even in the Old Testament, however, by ordinances that one could not harvest the corners of the fields so that the needy could come at harvest it for themselves. Notice, however, that they had to work for it, not being a complete hand-out. Widows were also provided for in the Old and New Testaments, but they had to be a "widow indeed" meaning they had no family to help them, over 60, and destitute."

Let's be honest here. This isn't at all about Jesus. This isn't about the Bible. Liberals don't care whether Jesus would have wanted health care reform or not. I write this for two reasons:

1. Christians - do not let other faiths or non-Christians define for us who Jesus was or is. Outside of Biblical reference, there is no understanding of Jesus.

2. We should not be quick to say Jesus would be for or against health care reform. It's kind of like asking "could a shark beat up a tiger?" I mean, why would a shark even try to beat up a tiger? And when would he have the opportunity to beat up a tiger? Jesus is concerned with much greater things I believe than to be an advocate either way. He is not so concerned but our Kingdom, but His coming Kingdom. Jesus would say (and did say) "pay your taxes and be a good citizen." To throw around Jesus' name on either side is the exact definition of "taking the Lord thy God's name in vain"... using His name, but not meaning it.

I Have a New Hero

2009-09-02T21:05:00.004-06:00

This guy was in a Wal-Mart in Georgia today when a mother in line with him had a toddler that wouldn't shut up. He repeatedly told the mother that he would shut the kid up if she wouldn't. He was then arrested for slapping the kid twice.

I'm not saying it's right, but come on. Admit it. You've wanted to do it, too.

This was in the CrimeSceneKC.

The Snare of Christian Counseling

2009-09-02T14:20:00.003-06:00

We pastors love being counselors. After all, there are several self-gratifying benefits for being every body's go-to guy for problems. These self-gratifying benefits cloud our judgement and give us misplaced priorities in our pastoral responsibilities and can lead to counterproductive, if not downright harmful experiences. These ministry-distractions can be put into four different categories.

TYPICAL PASTORAL COUNSELING

1. "The Fireman'": This is the feeling or rush of adrenaline when you're called a 10pm to "fix" someones crisis. It may be newly discovered adultery or spousal abuse, possibly an erring teenager or addiction. It could be emotional, chemical, or behavioral issues. Regardless, good ole' "Pastor Hero" is on speed dial whenever crises hits someones family. So who do they call? They call Pastor Hero," that's who.

Many pastors live for that adrenaline rush, when they get to give their wife that "sorry, I have to save the world" look, grab their coat and hat and run out the door like superman on the way to save a bus full of school children. In fact, this kind of pastor-hero probably wouldn't mind wearing a cape and blue tights. Let's face it - pastors live lives that don't center on dangerous. Sure, pastors have exciting lives in terms of the drama they constantly have to put up with, but they're not putting our fires or stringing up bad guys. There's no fireman's pole they can slide down to be off to the rescue. So when the pastor gets a call from someone who says, "come over, we need you," he gets his jollies from running to save the day.

2. "The Shrink": I don't care how much your recent seminary-graduate pastor tells you so, his degree does not make him a real doctor. Even if he insists you call him doctor, you have permission to do so with a snicker. A doctorate degree doesn't make you a doctor any more than a Bachelor's degree makes you a bachelor or a Master's Degree makes you a master at something. Nonetheless, when people treat us like clinical physicians, we get used to it and we like it.

In fact, countless people are injured or killed by themselves each year because they sought pastoral counseling in lieu of clinical counseling. No - I'm not against pastoral counseling (I do a lot of it), but the key to pastoral wisdom is knowing when to refer someone who needs skills that you don't have. To not do so is cruel and dangerous. If you're talking rudely to your spouse and cussing at your kids, I can help you. If you're talking to the door knob and cussing at your imaginary friend, I can't help you.

We pastors seem to think that we can fix everyone's problems and that's just not true. There are certain fields by which we need to refer to Christians in that field.

3. "Bible Man": People have been taught that the Bible contains all the answers they could ever need - which is a "yes" and "no" dilemma. Like Driscoll says, "if the Bible is a road map to life it is a horrible road map," meaning that although the Bible has lots of good information, without the guidance of God-endowed wisdom and the Holy Spirit, the Bible isn't going to tell you what college to go to or what girlfriend to propose to. It doesn't work that way.

So here is what people do: wait until they have a major crisis and then start thumbing through the pages of God's "instruction manual for life." Yeah, uhm....doesn't work that way. And guess what pastors do? Pastors encourage this!

Oh, you're going through a divorce? I have a divorce reference here! Oh, you're teenager is being rebellious? I have a "take your kid out and stone him" reference! Oh, you're masturbating to pornography? I have a verse about lust right here! And such is the snare that pastoral counselors fall into - advice experts and Bible experts that are wisdom-dispensing machines. We want to give them a quick verse, momentarily fix their little problem, tell them to take two Bible verses and call us when they have another problem.

4. "The Sensitive Male": Pastors like being the sensitive male friend that everybody calls to utilize their shoulder as a messy snot rag - which reinforces my assumption that most pastors I know need to take an extra shot of testosterone and watch more ultimate fighting. We like being the "comforter."

Here's how it works: Somebody messes up their life, or their kids' lives, or somebodies life and then they call the pastor to have a good "talking to." Most pastors find this so enjoyable that they won't make an appointment to have this person come into their office, they'll leave their family at home to go attend to someones "emotional crisis." As the crybaby session continues, the pastor leaves the individual feeling much, much better. They're calmed down, at peace, feeling good. Unfortunately, the reason for their predicament is not addressed - but the pastor sure played the role of the gay best friend well and everybody feels like the inside of a warm puppy dog.

TRUE, WORTHWHILE PASTORAL COUNSELING

In each of the four examples of self-gratifying pastoral counseling techniques, there is actually a time and place for all of them. Unfortunately, pastors go too far in being the counselor - and not far enough in being Biblical. Let me explain.

A pastor's job is to pastor. That means that his foremost job is "equipping the saints." In more-defining terms, that means "disciple," i.e....disciple the church. Pastors often throw in other chores like missiology, evangelism, and counseling to supplement their spare time, train others in these disciplines, and to keep their skills sharp. In that, there's nothing wrong.

However, we pastors sometimes go to far in our counseling responsibilities and forget that we must be, first and foremost, beacons that bring people to Jesus. When counseling is done, certain things must be remembered:

Things to Remember to Ensure True Christian Counseling

1. Messing up your life does not create an emergency in my life. O.k. So you are having an "emotional crisis." Does this require the neglect of my wife and children? I'm glad you've called me during my family time to let me know that your wife read your inappropriate text messages - and I will meet with you about that, but it does not create for me the necessity of running to your home to save a marriage which you messed up.

2. I will not give you Biblical advice on handling your problems unless you are a believer. This may come as a shocker, but if you're not a believer/follower of Jesus then you can put down your pocket-sized Bible Promise Book. If you don't know Jesus, then the Bible was not written for you, its promises don't apply to you, and its advice is not only unproductive for you - it might be downright dangerous! Regardless of what your favorite television preacher might tell you, if don't know Jesus then the 7 principles for a happy life and 18 keys to good living and 4 secrets to your best life now don't apply.

This comes off as being very, very cold to those asking for counseling. I've had people ask me "can you give me some techniques for handling my stress better?"

I once replied, "No. Or else you'll go to hell a very relaxed person." Luckily, I had the rapport to say that and no offense was taken. Don't try that at home.

We must remind ourselves that God is not at all concerned about the marriage of two lost people. He is concerned first and foremost with their soul. We must remember the same. Perhaps we pastors have learned enough life-skills over the years to give great pointers on how to keep your 3 year-old from wetting the bed or how to stop being co-dependent with your spouse. Who care if you know Jesus? You might save your marriage or your relationship, and lost your soul.

3. We must primarily be a skilled surgeon of the text, a beacon to Jesus. If people are believers I will counsel them in whatever areas they need help if I'm competent enough in those areas.. If they're not believers I tell them, "it sounds like you have a problem. Your greatest problem, however, is that you don't know Jesus. Until you know Jesus, any help I can give will be temporary at best. Let's talk about that."

We must not forget that God does not hear the prayers of the unbeliever. We have access to Him and have the right to petition ONLY through Jesus. No Jesus, no petition. People have asked me "can you pray that I overcome my fears" and I have responded, "Your fears are of no consequence to God because you do not know Him. He is not hearing you because of your sin. Let us first pray for repentance, for Jesus' blood to be effectual for you, so that God can hear you at all."

Here is the point: Let's remember that we pastors have lots of wisdom to give people, and we should always make counseling an important part of our ministry. However, let us remember that God did not call us to be shrinks or superheros. He called us to point people to Jesus. And even in our counseling ministry, Jesus must be at the core.

The Dirty Evangelical Secret and Evangelical Idolatry

2009-08-30T14:35:00.003-06:00

Concerning a recent discussion via Facebook, I thought I would make a quick treatise into two areas that concern me most among evangelicals (outside of the ridiculous superstition of the so-called "sinner's prayer"), the first being what I call "the dirty evangelical secret" and second is what I call "evangelical idolatry." I'm doing this because I agree with John Piper who says that "writing allows a slow thinker to think more slowly."

First, concerning the dirty evangelical secret, we evangelicals have a self-imposed skeleton in our closet that shouldn't be hid, but be shown for the world to see. I am reminded of visiting Iraq, where the women there hide their hair (which is quite beautiful) believing that to show it would be shameful. Instead, the Bible tells us that a woman's hair is her glory and it is quite alright to show the world a beautiful head of hair. Similarly, we evangelicals hide something as shameful that should be high and lifted up. Let me explain.

Let me begin this point by making a firm observation that I believe is very important. Here is the truth: there is nothing more important than understanding the attributes of God. That is the crux of theology. That is the end of salvation. That is the purpose of the cross - knowing (and thereby glorifying) God. I am perpetually dismayed that even the seemingly most committed Christian treats the growing knowledge of God's attributes as being somehow trivial, as somehow useless information, secondary to having the "fruits of the Spirit" or attaining some level of morality. Correctly understanding the full measure of God is not a secondary pursuit, but a primary. That being said...

We all know the dirty little secret of evangelicalism. Here it is: God hates. God hates. Is this new to you? If it is, you are not reading the Bible (Old Testament or New, as if it mattered from which Testament you find God's character described). God is absolutely capable of wrath, hatred, vengeance and underlying all of these, justice. If holiness is God's foremost attribute, then Justice is the attribute that girds God's holiness. Understanding God's justice is absolutely necessary to understanding God.

Romans chapter nine tells us that God hates who He darn well wants to hate - and for reasons that some of us would consider superficial (he hated Esau before he was born, he raised up Pharaoh just to destroy him, etc...). Likewise, the book from which we get 50% of our theology (Psalms) tells us that God hates "all those that do iniquity." We are told many times that God does - in Old Testament and New Testament- hate.

But modern evangelism models don't proclaim this facet of God's personality, does it? Heaven forbid! This is a characteristic of God that we feel a need to hide, as if we must put God's best foot forward when introducing him to our lost friends. We don't want to be embarrassed by God. We paint a rosy picture about God that is quite incomplete. Why? Because we do not love God. We love the image we have made of God that is not anchored to the Bible, but to our sinful desires.

If there is such a thing as a "saving knowledge of God" (which there is), then why do we hide from the lost word a pivotal, foundational aspect of God's character, which is his hatred?

Answer: We believe that God's love and mercy is a better "selling tool" for God than his hate and justice.

Might I remind you that every great revival in recorded history of the Christian church has been brought not by messages concerning God's mercy, but His justice and wrath (think "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God").

In short, we have made our resounding message in modern evangelism to be "Jesus loves You." That, my friend, may be false advertising. A better message should be "Jesus wants to love you, but right now you're in deep trouble." But that message doesn't look good on a bumper sticker or t-shirt, does it?

If you wonder why the most-often phrased question from our lost friends is "how could God send people to hell that He loves?" you can thank your typical Baptist arm-chair theologian and Reverend LoveJoy pastor who doesn't have the guts to say "God might hate you." The fact is, God does not send people He loves to Hell. God sends His enemies to hell. And if somebody posts a comment along the lines of "God made hell for demons and He doesn't send people to hell, people send theirselves to hell bla bla bla" I'm going to say something scathing about graduating from 1st grade VBS. God made hell for people, for His enemies, and will be glorified when His enemies are sent there.

So where does all of this misconception about love come from?

A) God loves the world. Absolutely true. We're told in John 3:16 that God loves the world. Should you be so hermeneutically challenged and Biblical illiterate that you assume that means God loves everyone? When Jesus was born the Bible tells us that "Caeser Augustus issued a decree that the whole world should be taxed." Did he really? Did he issue a decree that Africa, the Far East, Australia, and South America should be taxed? Of course not. In terms of etymology, the term "world" means "from throughout the whole world" or "much of the world." In the sense that God has called out for Him a people (the elect) from every tribe, nation, and tongue, God loves the world (as a whole). But if God truly hates "all those that doeth iniquity" then a good scholar knows that John 3:16 has to be interpreted in another way.

B. God loves us. Also, we are told that God loved us before we loved Him (and in other passages come similar statements). Who is "us?" To whom was the Bible written? To God's people, that's who. We have been justified through the blood of Christ and God gives us mercy and love.

C. We are told to love and not hate. Some would argue that because the two greatest commands are to love God and love others, therefore God does not hate. I can't chastise this rationality enough. We (humans) must absolutely not hate any human being. I say that assertively. But what an asinine, human-centric, self-centered, arrogant stance is it to say that because we are told not to hate, that God cannot or does not hate. Are we assuming that God is on our level, requiring Himself to be held by the standards He gives for us? Amazingly, some would say that because we are told not to hate people that God does not, or else it would be a double standard - as if God is not worthy of having a double standard! Of course He gets a double standard... He is God!

D. You should really be more loving. There's this stupid belief that if you paint an accurate image of God then you are somehow unloving or dishonoring to God. There is NOTHING more loving than revealing to people the real God as He has been revealed to us, not the false image of God given to people from most pulpits.

So here is my thesis: to intentionally hide a quintessential attribute of God (his ability to hate and proclivity for justice) cannot be veiled in a disguise of peace, joy, or some perverted misunderstanding of the fruits of the Spirit, creating some weird hybrid religion where the trinity is God the Father, the Easter Bunny, and Ned Flanders. You are doing a great disservice to God by hiding His infinite, people-seeking, sin-destroying justice.

The second major cause for concern among evangelicals is what I call "Evangelical Idolatry." It is illustrated in a conversation that goes something like this:

Evangelist: "God loves you."

Sinner: "He does?! What a coincidence, I love me, too!"

Evangelist: "God has great plans for you."

Sinner: "He does?! What a coincidence, I have great plans for me, too!"

Evangelist: "God wants you to have great stuff and a great time for eternity."

Sinner: "He does?! What a coincidence, I want to have all that stuff, too!

Do you see the idolatry? We sell God by painting an image of Him that is incomplete. God might love you. But in truth, God might hate you. You might be on His enemies list (He does have an enemies list). When He said that Jesus will reign over His enemies with a rod of iron, He might have had you in mind.

Instead, we have sold to people an unbiblical and practically heretical bill of goods with one underlying, damning, blasphemous false assumption: "God wants you to be happy."

And therefore, if God wants us to be happy, then he would never ask us to do something we didn't want to do. God would never demand that we take our cross and follow Him. After all, God has a bag of sunshine and puppy dogs that He wants to give us.

The matter is simple: Stop selling people God. Stop worrying about "catching more flies with honey than vinegar" and other stupid cliche ways of saying that whether or not we see converts depends on how we put forth God's best qualities as if we're trying to hook up Jesus in a personal ad.

So how do we mesh God's hatred for those in iniquity (unrepentant sinners) and God's love for believers?

Here's how I say it:

God has His arms stretched out to you. Both arms. In one hand He holds Jesus and His sacrificial death for you on the cross. This hand is called "love." Through Christ, in this hand, He offers His love.

In God's other hand He holds hatred and justice. If you do not choose God's love, you will by default choose the other hand, in which He offers you eternal death and suffering, as well as His contempt.

This presents God' in a more Biblical light than tract-bombing people with pamphlets that say to every reader "God loves you." That may be patently untrue. And worst yet, it will give them a false, incomplete image of God that isn't to be feared or obeyed.

Instead, let us take upon ourselves the yoke of the pastorate, the "great burden." Let us take upon ourselves the highest possible vocation, avocation, and calling - revealing to people our God. And let us give them a realistic picture of the invisible God.

First Day of School

2009-08-28T14:30:00.002-06:00

It was the first day of school Wednesday. Mandy and Reagan (Kindergarten) both started to school together... how blessed! I'm very proud of the Hall ladies. They are salt of the Earth, good women - and Reagan will be no exception!

Funny Video

2009-08-28T10:39:00.002-06:00

Sorry for the usage of some King James language, but from a kid that swims with his shirt on, I just couldn't resist showing this video

My Encounter With Ted Kennedy

2009-08-27T15:40:00.009-06:00

I am admittedly an ornery person. This probably started in grade school, but I will try to avoid boring you with early childhood experiences involving my penchant for orneriness. Most stories are not worth repeating, and a good few are downright shameful.

However, I do have few good stories that will stay with me forever - of which without a certain degree of orneriness, I would not be able to tell to my children and grandchildren.

The first "proud" ornery moment includes a grade book, a lighter, and the Big Piney River (of which I will not speak, except to say that I would probably do it again but choose my accomplices better).

The second involves setting the record for the amount of times a ministry student was kicked out of class for relentlessly arguing with the professor at six times in four years. The previous record was zero.

The third involves a gay barber, a park bench, and some well-placed dead Armadillos. But I'm not sure if there's still an open investigation in that one so I'll leave it at that.

The fourth is when ex-president Bill Clinton spoke at Arkansas State University in 2004. The convocation center was filled with like-minded liberals who hooted and hollered continuously at everything he had to say. Next to me sat the chair of the political science department who was named "Dr. Wang," who was a white guy, oddly enough, and member of the Communist Party. Dr. Wang (the long-haired hippy that he was) gave a standing ovation at every line. If he had a cigar, I'm afraid what he would have offered to do for president Clinton. In the midst of Clinton's speech, he stated that "George Bush was not elected President - he was selected by the Supreme Court." Not being able to take the roaring applause any longer, I stood and screamed "You're a liar! You're a liar!" I'm not saying it was profound, but it was the best I could come up with. The proud moment is that the crowd hushed to hear me - and then Clinton caught my eye and gave me that same mean, determined look as when he looked into the camera and said, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinski." I said my peace. And Clinton didn't have a choice but to listen. And then a secret service agent came up and gave me the "slice your throat gesture" (not exaggerating) and I decided to be quiet for the rest of the speech.

Fifth and finally, I had an encounter with Ted Kennedy in July of 1998.

I was on the Rural Electric Cooperatives youth tour of Washington D.C. for winning a speech contest. We were out near the capitol when my ultra-liberal roommate, Danny Gladden, spotted the so-called "Lion of the Senate" and ran to shake his hand, interrupting a press conference. I tagged along and screamed "ask about Chappaquiddick, ask about Chappaquiddick!" I'm hoping they heard that somewhere on CSPAN. After the press conference, Danny got to shake Kennedy's hand and I went with, asking, "Senator Kennedy, tell us about Chappaquiddick!" He looked me square in the eye as he was getting into the back seat of his car and said, "[expletive] off."

That was a proud moment for the 17 year-old. Ted Kennedy told me to [expletive] off.

News reports the last few days have spoken much about Kennedy being the "Lion of the Senate," the "Great Compromiser" and the "third-longest serving senator in American History." These stories all run an obligatory line something along the lines of "a 1969 car crash that killed his female passenger tarnished his record and haunted him throughout his political career."

Ummm, almost. It wasn't just some car crash in which an innocent person died, like Kennedy was the unfortunate victim in a fatal automobile accident and happened to live. It makes it sounds like those mean Republicans just can't let Kennedy forget that little driving error way back when.

Let me fill you in. On July 18, 1969 Ted Kennedy left a reunion of his brother's former advisers with a young woman named Mary Jo Kopenche. He was drinking heavily at the party. Oddly, Kopenche had left her purse and keys at the reunion party and told no one she was leaving with Kennedy. A local deputy sheriff reported seeing Kennedy and his girl "parked" in his Buick and took off when the deputy pulled up. Kennedy made a wrong turn down a gravel road (an area he knew well). He approached a wooden bridge and drove off of it.

Kennedy's account is that he was able to swim to shore, but Kopenche could not exit the vehicle. The vehicle somehow became air-tight after he left it when it was submerged. He then states that he called her name from shore several times and then walked back to the party. He claims no houses had their lights on, and he didn't want to disturb any sleeping families. Kennedy then returned to the water with two men and they supposedly tried to rescue Kopenche (still not calling authorities for assistance). No one else except those two men were told about the incident.

Fishermen called the authorities at 8:00 am the next morning. When they discovered the car and looked at the evidence, they believed that Kopenche survived two hours in the submerged car, and she died only after using up the oxygen still in the sealed vehicle. Kopenche tore out her fingernails trying to get to the trunk for additional air.

Many questions still exist. There was not an autopsy done on the body, and the coroner states that was due to political pressure. After it was revealed that political pressure was the reason for no autopsy and after discovering blood inconsistent with a drowning death on Kopenche's garments, they filed a petition to exhume the body to conduct an autopsy, but a judge would not allow it. Death before the so-called "drowning" could explain how in the world Kennedy could make it out of a submerged car and it still remained sealed to contain air still present when divers found the car the next morning.

Kennedy received probation for leaving the scene of an accident that caused injury.

Little did he know that a hillbilly kid from Missouri would shout at him years later, "ask about Chappaquiddick!" His response to me, [expletive] off, I think is indicative of his level of remorse.

In Defense of Steven Anderson (Just Kidding)

2009-08-25T19:09:00.008-06:00

You might recall several admonishments I've made of Pastor Steven Anderson of Arizona. You can find those links here, here and here. Anderson is a "KJV-Only, Soul-Winning, Independent, Fundamental" Baptist pastor who actively has sought his fame by putting inflammatory sermons on YouTube. I'm sure that Anderson is giddy today, as he seems to have made some attention that even surpasses that of The Daily Soap Box.

Contessa Brewer of MSNBC used Anderson as an example of right-wing nuts that may be spouting rhetoric against President Obama that they believe to be crossing the line of free speech, inciting anger and what the media believes will eventually become violence against the President. In short, the pastor of a small church plant has become a powerful propaganda-piece for the left-wing media to convince the nation that town hall protesters and the religious right are a bunch of morons. And Anderson seemingly is a good example.

The clip above is from one of Anderson's sermons in which he said that he prays nightly that Obama dies and goes to hell in order for the nation to be saved (which seems odd for an avid "soul winner"). Of course MSNBC and now the Alan Colmes radio show - which has him as a guest tonight- will make him out to be some kind of leader among Baptists or evangelicals, and nothing could be less true. In fact, I'm betting that Anderson is rather shunned even among the KJV-only fundamentalists.

So what is it about Anderson that bothers me so much? Furthermore, how does such an animal become such an animal? How does a regular Baptist kid become a hate-monger and an embarrassment to the Christian cause?

I believe I have come up with an adequate equation for Steven Anderson:

Belief that one loves God + Love of one's religion - Love of God's Word.

Such can explain Anderson. My discernment tells me that Anderson probably loves his image of God. He is probably fiercely loyal to his image of God. He is probably quite sincere in his convictions. Aside from my previous beefs with Anderson, concerning his tirades against Calvinism (ignorant, ignorant tirades), his assertion that Mennonites and Charismatics are not saved, and his theological supremacy of man-made soul-winning as a means to salvation, Anderson's real problem (and the reason he is making a laughing-stock of most evangelicals and fundamentalists) is that of his ignorant and disrespectful disregard of the Bible. He is the very picture of a man that should spend far less time preaching and more time studying.

Certain things the Bible makes very clear about how Christians should involve ourselves civilly.

A. The Bible is very clear that Christians are to respect our leaders and pray for them.

"Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." 1 Timothy 2:14

Rhetoric like that of Anderson will assure that one day soon we will not be able to have a "peaceable life." Such rhetoric will be used as cannon fodder to proclaim that we Christians cannot be trusted. We will be killed like Jesus for being insurrectionists. Unfortunately, it may be because we are actually insurrectionists. This passage tells us that God desires all men to be saved - including President Obama. Because we do not know who is elect and who is not, we must pray that ALL men come to know Jesus. Obama will not come to know Christ because of speeches like Anderson.

B. The Bible is very clear that our nation has the leader God wants us to have.

“For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resist what God has appointed …” Romans 13:8.

There is a reason Obama is our president. I assume it is to punish us. Nonetheless, if such is the case, we need to take our medicine, be admonished well, and learn the lesson God is teaching us.

C. The Bible is very clear that we should not rejoice in the destruction of our enemies.

"Do not gloat when your enemy falls; when he stumbles, do not let your heart rejoice." Proverbs 24:17

When Clinton will soon probably pull another "Lewinsky," John Edwards admits the mistress and love-child rumors are true, when Ted Kennedy finally meets the same fate as the woman in the trunk of his Buick, or even when Saddam Hussein was executed, we must not rejoice. I had to admonish myself after feeling well-pleased when George Tiller was killed. That joy would have been morally acceptable if I had reserved it for the news that his clinic closed after his death, but should have instead mourned the last, wasted chance for a sinner to be saved when he died and not posted "drinks are on me" on my Facebook status.

D. The Bible is very clear that although we can (and should) disagree with our earthly authorities, we still submit to them.

"Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor."

Paul didn't say "like taxes." He said "pay them." We can petition, freely assemble, write freely, and exercise our power by things like voting, picketing, and boycotting. In the mean time, we submit to our authority.

E. The Bible is very clear that although we not get distracted by the temporal.

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. (Ephesians 6:12)

I am the chairman of the local Republican Party. If I thought for a second that it conflicted with my pastoral call or in any way hindered it, I would quit immediately. We should be involved politically. But remember that the salvation of our nation does not lie (as Anderson believes) in who is our president or by what political party is in control. Some trust in horses and some trust in chariots - but we shall trust in the strength of our God. Ensuring a Republican-controlled government does not save a single soul. If a few more souls were saved, I'm betting the Republican party would have a better chance at success.

It's about priorities. And our priorities must be Gospel...not social change.

In the mean time, leave it to MSNBC to hunt down some religious clown to make us all look bad. And leave it to Steven Anderson to provide it for them.

Letter to the Editor

2009-08-24T14:59:00.000-06:00

From time to time, those of us with the courage to write the Sidney Herald concerning important political and social issues with our name attached receive letters of rebuke sent anonymously to our home. I received one such letter this week from a “concerned grandma,” upset at what she called “misconceptions and rhetoric” in a letter recently published by the Herald concerning Max Baucus’ support of Obama’s health plan.

First, the concerned grandmother wrote, “I am correcting your view that Obama’s plan is socialistic, the government will not be paying for the bills, put participating citizens.” Let me make one thing abundantly clear – all taxpayers will be paying for Obama-Care, not just those participating in it (if such were the case, it would be far more expensive to you than privately purchased insurance). In fact, it is an absurd notion that taxes will not be levied to pay for this 1.5 trillion dollar program. All citizens will have pay for this – except the bottom 50% of wage earners which currently pay virtually no taxes.

Secondly, the concerned grandmother wrote, “citizens making less than $250,000 dollars per year will not be taxed.” Is this coming from the same president that said he would raise no taxes and created the single largest tax increase in American history when he taxed cigarettes within his first few months in office? Is this coming from the administration that has stated that currently untaxed health care benefits will have to be taxed to pay for plan? We need to realize that the government cannot give us unicorns and free puppies and pull money out of thin air. Guess where it comes from… the tax-paying citizenry.

Finally, the concerned grandmother wrote that I “probably wouldn’t understand, because I’ve never had to pray that I could feed my family.” Oh, how untrue! I’ve paid for my own private health insurance for myself and my family since working my way through college, making minimum wage in retail. My family hasn’t been provided for medically because I’ve somehow been “lucky” or had a great job that provided benefits. My family has been provided for medically because I didn’t sit around and wait for my government to take care of me, but because I sacrificed things I wanted for things I needed. I sacrificed a certain lifestyle in order to assure that I had insurance. Maybe more people should stop hoping we’ll tax “the rich” to get government-paid health care and instead provide for their own family – even if it involves sacrifice.

Lutherans Promote Homosexual Clergy

2009-08-22T12:12:00.004-06:00

The AP has reported that the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America has lifted a ban on sexually active, monogomous homosexuals from serving as clergy. Whereas previously Evangelical Lutheran Churches could ordain homosexual clergy but they had to be celebate. Now they can ordain practicing homosexuals. And before you think that this is a marginalized, defunct denomination, the ELCA is the largest Lutheran denomination in the country. In fact, Sidney's own Pella Lutheran , Fairview's Zion Lutheran, and Savage's First Lutheran are of the very same ELCA that now will ordain practicing homosexuals as pastors.

Nearly one thousand ELCA delegates decided to change their policy after a whopping 68% voted to include practicing homosexuals as clergy. This shows that it wasn't a decision made in the backroom of some ecclesiastical board, but by the average ELCA church. This is disturbing.

In defense of the change, one female pastor retorted "I have seen these same-gender relationships function in the same way as heterosexual relationships — bringing joy and blessings as well as trials and hardships. The same-gender couples I know live in love and faithfulness and are called to proclaim the word of God as are all of us."

Wow. Where do you start with that? Same-sex relationships bring joy and blessings? I could have sworn that according to the Scripture that homosexuality brings curses and disapproval from God, not blessings. And the assertion that same-gender couples are to proclaim the Word of God... there are so many things wrong with that sentence that I don't know where to start.

Where does the logic come from that homosexuality is alright as long as it is monogomous? It's o.k. to sin because at least they're committed to sinning? How does that make sense? Imagine saying "he may be a drunk, but he's a really committed drunk" or "sure, he makes love to his German Shepherd, but they're really happy together."

Supposedly, many Lutherans in the ELCA are considering leaving the denomination over the change. I can't help but wonder if they are genuine in their consideration. After all, when the denomination first voted to allow non-practicing homosexuals as clergy, was it not a warning sign to flee from your association with evil to begin with? If the line you've drawn in the sand is ordaining monogamous homosexuals, perhaps your line is WAY to far to the left.

Knowing that many Lutheran pastors are facing angry congregations back home, ELCA presiding bishop Mark Hanson said, "For those that did not prevail tonight, are you willing to stay engaged in the conversation? I'm pleading with people to stay in there with us in this conversation."

What is the reason for good, Bible-loving ELCA churches to stay within the ELCA? So that they might somehow purify their denomination or keep it from going even further into Satan's grasp (could it go any further)? How do you reconcile the ELCA's decision with the Bible in any stretch of imagination?

A lesbian ELCA pastor, Katrina Foster said, "We can learn not to define ourselves by negation. By not only saying what we are against, which always seems to be the same — against gay people. We should be against poverty. I wish we were as zealous about that."

Riiiight. If you believe the Bible in terms of homosexuality then all in a sudden you are "against gay people." And this is the leader of a church? Is that mean-ole' God against gays? Yes he is, yes his is. Mean ole' God." And then Foster pulls the same argument my three year-old does when he's called out for his sin - points at something else and says "look at that over there, that's bad, too!" Poverty seems to be the go-to for individuals who blatantly disregard the Bible in reference to their own sin. Forget that Jesus said the poor will always be with us and Paul said that if a man doesn't work he shouldn't eat. The simple fact is that without calling homosexuality what it is (an abomination), it is not an exhibition of love for homosexuals, but as they enter an eternal hell riding on the coat tails of our positive affirmation it will be affirmation that we hated them - thereby holding from them the truth that can bring them salvation. Instead, we hold their hands in joyful fellowship as their souls are transformed into eternal kindling.

I have no inhibitions in calling the ECLA an inherently wicked, apostate denomination. The main issue here is not that the ECLA ordains homosexuals to be their spiritual leaders. The main issue is that the ECLA has proven to have a major disdain, disrespect, and contempt for the Word of God. They blatantly have disregarded a clear tennet of Scripture from Old Testament to New and refuse to call sin, sin. In fact, they have endorsed it. They have chosen those that hate God in their heart to be their shepherd and to be an undershepherd of Christ. That, my friends, is heresy at its best.

But my greatest concern are those that attend an ECLA church, such as Pella Lutheran and others. It's true that just because your denomination is wickedly ignoring the clarity of the Scripture that your individual church may not. But my question to those wondering whether or not they should call an ECLA church home is, "if your line is not drawn at ordaining active homosexuals, exactly where is your line?" When is enough, enough?

The Bible tells us that if we have any sexually immoral around us, "with them do not even eat." Your church, by being a part of the ECLA, is endorsing sin and calling it holy (set apart for ministry). It is, in fact, doing the devil's work in calling "evil, good and good, evil."

Jesus warns us in His letters to the seven churches in Asia that we must not be a part of a wicked church, lest we receive His condemnation. In the same book (Revelation), a messenger cries out to God's people concerning the harlot of Babylon "Come out of her my people, come out of her!"

And so to members of the ECLA churches across America I say to you, "come out of her!" for the good of your own soul. Join yourself with believers that actually care what the Bible teaches and have the guts to stand for His Word - even if it means leaving a beloved denomination.

If your church is wicked enough to twist the Scripture and ignore it in the issue of gay clergy, what else are they misleading you about?

UPDATE: I didn't know this at the time of writing this blog post, but apparently a tornado touched down and ripped the steeple off of the church where the ECLA were meeting just prior to voting to allow actively homosexual clergy. John Piper pointed out that God does sometimes use natural disasters to make a point and has received a lot of heat for his statement. You can read about both the tornado and Piper's comments and www.dennyburke.com

Obama's Commie Henchmen Boycotts Glenn Beck

2009-08-17T12:51:00.003-06:00

Barack Obama's "Green Jobs" czar, and the leader of the attempted boycott against Glenn Beck, is a self-described "black nationalist" and "Communist", who has ties to a former terrorist. Van Jones, founder of "Color of Change", a black militant political activist group, worked as a co-founder and director of the Apollo Alliance, which Glenn Beck recently exposed for its subversive ties with radical left-wing groups. Van Jones worked with Jeff Jones, who was a leading co-founder (along with Bill Ayers) of the terrorist group Weather Undergound , who spent time on the run from law enforcement agencies while his group carried out a series of bombings of U.S. government buildings. Van Jones' group "Color of Change" started a boycott of Beck's advertisers after Beck exposed Apollo Group and Van Jones' militant past.

To support Glenn and his advertisers, go to www.defendglenn.com

Sunday's Message: Biblical Admonishment

2009-08-16T23:15:00.001-06:00

We took a break from the "Odyssey in Ephesus" sermon series for a little admonishment. You can find the audio here.

Demolition Derby

2009-08-15T20:17:00.003-06:00

Tonight was the local demolition derby. It seems to be a pretty big deal to a few in the church and the folks running it asked me to do the opening prayer. Pastor Jim had a car in it and asked me to be in the pitt with him (like I'm a lot of help). Jim did really well in the consolation round until his car just quit getting gas. And if I do say so, he was by far the best showman of the night! It was a lot of fun.

Top 12 Reasons the Pastor Mows the Church Lawn

2009-08-14T15:18:00.005-06:00

Why does the pastor mow the church lawn?

There is no possible way I can answer this without seeming entirely self-serving, so I'll just take one for the team (pastors all over America currently on the church lawn mower). It's 90 degrees, I smell like sweat, grass, and gasoline, and am not in the mood to people-please at the moment.

Top 12 Reasons the Pastor Mows the Church Lawn

1. We pay people to do that, right?

No. We pay people when we don't have people step up and serve. You pay tithes and offerings to do ministry. You know - that little thing that makes a difference in people's lives and has eternal consequences? You might have heard of it.

2. I already have a ministry.

Oh, you already have a "ministry." Maybe it's Sunday School teacher, deacon, usher, greeter, or maybe you even take up the offering. I guess in your house that you and your wife only have one chore a piece, right? She does the laundry, you take out the trash. Since when does one "ministry" absolve you from another?

3. Somebody else will do it.

Yep. The pastor will if nobody else will. Sadly, statistics show that 80% of the work at church is done by 20% of the people. It will probably never change. If you're part of that 20%, stop waiting around for the other 80% to mow the lawn. It's unfair. I know. It's reality.

4. It's just the lawn.

I don't think you understand that the outward appearance of the church building is a reflection on the interior. It means that we are poor stewards of what God has given us when the grass is out of control. In sales I learned that a home in town with an unkempt lawn has occupants inside with bad credit (few exceptions). This same idea reflects upon the church. We can't take care of the lawn. Can we take care of people?

5. I didn't know it was too high.

Yes, you probably did. And if you didn't, pay attention to the church property you have on loan through Christ.

6. I didn't know I could.

Seriously? Like we would be upset if somebody asked to mow the grass, change the light bulb, refresh the toilet-paper dispenser?

7. I'm busy.

Who isn't busy? David said "I won't give to the Lord what costs me nothing." That's the thing about service - you have to sacrifice some things (like two hours of television, a ball game, or other thing you could cut out if you really wanted to) in order to serve. I wonder if you're too busy to do Bible study and home devotions, too. Probably. Try cutting some unnecessary crap out of your life (like the long list of unnecessary junk you use to occupy your kid's time).

8. It's not my spiritual gift.

Mowing isn't a spiritual gift. Nobody says, "man... I feel really, really called to mow the church lawn." Quit waiting for your epiphany. Do you sit around at your house and say "when God leads me to mow my lawn I'll mow my lawn?" It's not all about you.

9. Nobody asked me to.

Nope. Some things - like chipping in when you see something needs to be done - are expected with Christian maturity.

10. Don't we have a pastor for that?

Sure. And he'll mow the lawn if nobody else does. And you'll have a sermon on Sunday that leaves you uninspired and unimpressed. You'll have the sick and housebound unvisited. This week at our church alone we have had 3 hospitalizations, 3 suicide-scares or attempts from those on the periphery of our ministry, Bible club, multiple relationship-crisis interventions, 5 special calls for spiritual counseling, and 4 food pantry needs. So if you rely on your pastor to change light bulbs and mow the lawn, you'll have an awesome property manager and a horrible pastor. And it will be your fault.

11. Isn't that the deacon's job?

No. Visiting sick and elderly. Taking care of widows and orphans. Feeding the hungry. Clothing the naked. Helping the afflicted. Mowing is not in a deacon's job description. They should not be reduced to maintenance men as they are in most churches. However, a deacon should be willing to mow the lawn - just as the pastor should be willing to - but not because of their title, but because they are a part of the greater body of the church.

12. No one has posted a really frustrated "Top Twelve Reasons the Pastor Mows the Church Lawn."

Well, now they have.

Maybe YOU just could not possibly EVER chip-in in that effort. You're home-bound, elderly, or in poor health. Or maybe just nobody asked. But now you know.

In Defense of Election

2009-08-13T15:03:00.002-06:00

So here's a question I got recently via Facebook...

"I have long wrestled with the idea of salvation election. My issue is the scriptures that say that salvation is free to anyone who wishes to seek it, and that all may freely come and be saved, so I think it's not an elect process, but then I think, maybe those that do choose to freely come were those who were elected ... My main question, I guess, would be, if there are a chosen few, are there some who believe they are saved who actually aren't? And the other half of that question: if the saved are pre-selected, why did God place people on the earth whom He knew would not be saved come Judgment Day? That seems cruel and merciless to me, and is something the unbelieving world finds unbelievable."

So, I'll address these one at a time:

1. "I have long wrestled with the idea of salvation election."

Well, you're in good company. The greatest theologians of centuries past - both Calvinists and Arminians and those in between all struggle with the concept of election. I don't think you're ever going to NOT struggle with understanding Biblical soteriology. How could a Holy God ever save a wicked man?

2. "My issue is that the Scriptures say that salvation is free to anyone who wishes to seek it, so I think it's not an elect process...."

Well, yes and no. You're absolutely correct that the Scripture tells us that all are called to salvation - no doubt. For example:

John 3:16..."God so loved the world that...whoever belives in him should not perish, but have eternal life."

Romans 5:18... "Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation: even so by the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life."

Acts 17:20..."And the times of this ignorance God winked at: but now commandeth ALL MEN everywhere to repent."

So, salvation is free to everyone. There is a general call to salvation that Jesus sends to all humanity where he says "if any is weary and heavy laden, come to me and I'll give you rest" or "all who are thirsty, come to me and drink living water."

But what does this prove? You mention the word "seek," in that "anyone who wishes to seek [salvation]. But here is the problem - and we Reformers call it the Doctrine of Total Depravity. It is best summed up by Romans 3:11 - "There is none that seeketh after God." In other words we are so dead in sin that even though eternal life is offered to us, unless the Holy Spirit draws and convicts us, we would NEVER seek Christ on our own. We must be regenerated, or "quickened," i.e. "made alive" by the Holy Spirit. So in essence, to believe in predestination is to believe in free will (for the damned). We initially have free will. And ALL of us would exercise our free will to rebel against God unless he changed us.

In short, the "elect process" as you call it and a free call to salvation are not mutually exclusive. God sends out his call to salvation to all, but unfortunately it falls upon deaf ears, closed eyes, and wicked hearts.

3. "...but then I think maybe those that do choose to come were those who were elected."

Bingo! Absolutely correct. We're not called because we believed, we believe because we were called!

Consider this:

John says in his Gospel, "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out... For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me...And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. No man can come to me, except the Father which has sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father."

Did you get that?! A couple things we can glean here...

A. EVERYONE God sends to the Son will go to the Son. In case you missed it, it says "ALL," - EVERYONE that is sent goes to God.

B. EVERYONE who is sent to Christ by the Father will continue in their salvation.

C. NO ONE who is NOT sent by the Father goes to Christ.

Can I simplify this? Simply put: If you are elected by the Father, you will go to the Son and you will be eternally secure. Likewise, unless you're predestined by the Father you WILL NOT find Christ.

For example, John 15 says "you have not chosen me, but I (GOD) have chosen you."

Two concepts are important to digesting this truth. First is the concept of God's Sovereignty and the second is the concept of God's Glory. And I hate to sound this way, but Reformed Theologians have a niche in those two markets. I don't think you can understand those two concepts without understanding the Doctrine of Election.

GOD'S SOVEREIGNTY: God is sovereign. He has all power and authority and can do whatever he wants whenever he wants. If this truth, it must shape your interpretation of the text. Look at 2 Thessalonians 2:13 "But we are bound to give thanks always to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth." This verse is written dozens and dozens of different ways in epsitles from Peter and Paul. An Arminian (one who doesn't believe in the historical understanding of election) would say "well everyone is predestined! God wants all to be saved (taken out of context)! If everyone is predestined (which would seem like a RETARDED and contradictory definition of the term) but only some end up saved, then God is not sovereign. God is in charge of salvation and through the process of predestination, salvation begins.

GOD'S GLORY: Everything exists to glorify God. God exists to glorify God. God is 100% at all times, always, self-centered. He's God. Who else should he be centered around. And even though Jesus' sacrificial death seems selfless, I will remind you that he did it to "glorify the Father" and saved us to "glorify the Father." He is full of love for us (his people) because it glorifies the Father to call out unto Him a people for His pleasure so they can give Him glory for all eternity. Understanding this is important because some would say "why does God choose some and not others?" The answer is found in 2 Timothy 1:9, " Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began"

We're saved due to His purposes and His plan. The best example of this is the conversion of Saul. Why did God call Saul? Was Saul pursuing God? Was he seeking Christ? No. God called him because he was "a chosen instrument to bring my Word to the Gentiles." God struck him blind and Jesus didn't give him a choice or ask him to make a decision. He told him to get up and do what he was told. That, my friend, is Biblical salvation.

4. If there are a chosen few, are there some who believe they are saved but actually aren't?

Obviously. Both in a Calvinist and Arminian theology there are the lost who think they are saved. And we Baptist have a great deal of blame in this. We convince people that if they say some silly, superstitious prayer and really mean it that they're saved. What poppy-cock! Do you see ANYONE in the Scripture being saved by saying a prayer? Then why to we persist in the superstitious, dangerous practice? The Scripture tells us that it's "not the will of the one who is saved, but by Him who does the saving." It's God's desire and effort that saves us, not ours. We are not called to make Christians!!! We are called to make disciples! God saves. We disciple. But then evangelists couldn't go from church to church bragging about how many people were saved, right?

Also, the common concern is "what if you really really want to be saved but aren't elect? Hey Einstein - why do you think you really, really want to be saved? Can a wicked and dead heart yearn for anything? You've already been regenerated and you don't even know it. Remember, no one can legitimately go to the Son unless the Father sent them. So sleep well.

5. "And the other half of that question: If the saved are pre-selected, why did God place people on Earth who he knew would not be saved come Judgment Day?"

That's a perfect question with a perfect answer! Let's look at Romans 9:

10 And not only so, but also Rebekah conceiving of one, our father Isaac,

11 for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of the One calling,

12 it was said to her, "The greater shall serve the lesser;"

13 even as it has been written, "I loved Jacob, and I hated Esau."

14 ¶ What then shall we say? Is there not unrighteousness with God? Let it not be!

15 For He said to Moses, "I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will pity whomever I will pity."

16 So, then, it is not of the one willing, nor of the one running, but of the One showing mercy, of God.

17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very thing I raised you up, so that I might show forth My power in you, and so that My name might be publicized in all the earth." Exo 9:16

18 So, then, to whom He desires, He shows mercy. And to whom He desires, He hardens.

19 You will then say to me, Why does He yet find fault? For who has resisted His will?

20 Yes, rather, O man, who are you answering against God? Shall the thing formed say to the One forming it, Why did You make me like this? Isa 29:16

21 Or does not the potter have authority over the clay, out of the one lump to make one vessel to honor, and one to dishonor? Jer 18:6

22 But if God, desiring to show forth wrath, and to make His power known, endured in much long-suffering vessels of wrath having been fitted out for destruction,

23 and that He make known the riches of His glory on vessels of mercy which He before prepared for glory,

O.k. Let me make this clear. The Bible says here that God loved Jacob before he was born and he hate Esau before he was born. Is there a better picture of predestination than that?

But what I want to concentrate on is verses 14-33.

Some facts in this passage:

A. When we start saying God is unfair or seems mean because of predestination, God says "I'll have mercy on who I want to have mercy." In other words, "it's none of your business, mortal."

B. The example of Pharaoh is awesome and gives credence to "double predestination." God raised up Pharaoh for the explicit purpose of destroying him. By destroying him, God's power was known throughout the Earth and God was glorified. Not only does God soften the heart of the elect, he hardens the hearts of those who aren't. Then God gives the perfect analogy: A potter may make a clay pot to hold precious things...or he may take the same clay and make a bot for common purposes (a bed pan to crap in and then be destroyed. Should the clay talk back to the potter?

C. It makes clear why God put people on Earth who will not be saved: He will glorify in their destruction, as he did Pharaoh. God is just. That is God's perhaps second most important characteristic after holiness. He is perfectly just. Even in offering mercy through Jesus, He was still just in that His divine punishment was handed down and His justice made complete. All people will glorify God. We will glorify Him by worshipping Him or we will glorify Him by being punished so His justice is perfected. This is what it means in verse 22 when it says (paraphrased) "What if God takes extra special time perfecting something just to destroy it?"

6. "...that seems cruel and merciless to me, something that an unbelieving world finds unbelievable."

And to you I would respond, "hey, are you talking back to the potter, you lump of clay?" The wages of sin is death, right? So God sends many to death. That's not cruel. That's just. Some get mercy, and that's the business of the judge. You must understand God by your interpretation of the Scripture. You must not interpret the Scripture by your understanding of God. Remember that our God is a God that promoted genocide, bombed Sodom, and ordered the death of infants. The question isn't whether God is cruel or not (He's just). The question is, "if God were cruel, would you worship Him anyway because He is God?

Finally, the last statement in your question (an unbelieving world finds it unbelievable) is true. Paul says that the preaching of the cross to those who are perishing is foolishness. Our message seems incredibly foolish. God hides His message in what appears to be foolishness so that only those quickened by the Spirit would receive it. However the good news is this - if they are elect, they will hear it and believe it.

You see, much of the debate from the Arminian side is not Biblical truth, but conjecture. After all, predestination is probably Paul's most favorite topic and one of the most dominant topics in both the Old and New Testaments. To them, the debate is all about logic... I.E., "if election is true, then that makes God cruel!" or "that doesn't sound like MY God" or "if you believe in predestination, why evangelize (the answer: to increase God's Glory to make His name known). And to them I would answer that God is Yahweh. He "is what He is." If you make the image of who you want God to be that isn't gleaned from the Bible, then you are practicing idolatry.

When you finally accept this Biblical doctrine (our Baptist faith is VERY reformed historically) then you can finally understand things like God's sovereignty and God's glory. You can also finally rest assured in your eternal security. You didn't "choose Christ." God chose you, sent the Spirit to convict you with irresistible grace, and called you. You were in His book before the foundations of the world. Your salvation is secure. You see, our job as evangelicals isn't to convert goats. Our job is find God's lost sheep.