Grandpa Update

Well, the blood transfusion was long (9.5 hours!!!), but well worth it. It was a LONG day, but he's doing fine. He can't sleep right now because he rested all day at the hospital.

His surgery starts tomorrow (Friday 12/1) at 9am Pacific Standard Time. Please pray for him, for the surgeon, for the surgery, for the nurses, and that the tumor will be extractable and done so with no complications.

Also, we got to talk on the way home tonight from the hospital about the gospel. He surely knows he's a sinner (thinking his cancer is God getting him for his sins). Now, is just driving home the kindness of God, his need for a Savior and his need to turn from / repent of his sins and trust in Jesus, not himself or his own good works, for salvation.

That will be the topic of our ride to the hospital in the morning.

Thank you so much for your prayers. There is definite, obvious, visible improvement in his complexion, energy level, appetite and spirits. Thank you so much, and please keep it up--especially tomorrow at 9am PST.

Scripture & Discouragement (Jer 38)

Before I comment, read this short passage of Scripture from Jeremiah 38:1-5:

"Now Shephatiah the son of Mattan, and Gedaliah the son of Pashhur, and Jucal the son of Shelemiah, and Pashhur the son of Malchijah heard the words that Jeremiah was speaking to all the people, saying, Thus says the LORD, 'He who stays in this city will die by the sword and by famine and by pestilence, but he who goes out to the Chaldeans will live and have his own life as booty and stay alive.' Thus says the LORD, 'This city will certainly be given into the hand of the army of the king of Babylon and he will capture it.'" Then the officials said to the king, "Now let this man be put to death, inasmuch as he is discouraging the men of war who are left in this city and all the people, by speaking such words to them; for this man is not seeking the well-being of this people but rather their harm." So King Zedekiah said, "Behold, he is in your hands; for the king can do nothing against you."

What were the words Jeremiah was speaking to them? In case we skimmed and missed it (like I do all the time), "Thus says the LORD" is stated twice in three verses so that we know the source of his words. The source of Jeremiah's words was God (cf. 2 Tim 3:16; 2 Pet 1:19-21).

Now, why did the officials pass the death sentence on Jeremiah? What does it say? They wanted him dead for discouraging people!

So, what is an expected result of speaking God's Word? It's not the winning of friends or the influencing of people. Here, it got Jeremiah public rejection because it discouraged people. No wonder so many churches avoid the Bible.

God's Word still does this to people today because God wounds before He heals.

The irony is that these words of "discouragement" were only for the well-being of the people, something they could not see because they were blinded to it by their feelings of discouragement. What about you?

Grandpa Update

I just spoke with my mom who interpreted the doctor speak from a few days ago for me.

She said the surgeon said the tumor is not inside his stomach, but outside his stomach.

This makes things tenuous because the surgeon said he may not be able to extract the tumor on Friday if its grown into and effecting other organs.

This information is meant to make our prayers more specific, and more fervent.

Pastor Arrested for Murder

Click here for the story.

What in the world is going on?

Happy in God

When Christian heroes write phrases like "this one thing I do," or "I make it my ambition," or "the most important thing I've learned," or "the key to my life," or "the meaning of life is," I sit up and take notice.

Well, in preparing for a lecture I'm about to give on George Mueller I came across this:

“I saw more clearly than ever, that the first great and primary business to which I ought to attend every day was, to have my soul happy in the Lord. The first thing to be concerned about was not, how much I might serve the Lord, how I might glorify the Lord; but how I might get my soul into a happy state, and how my inner man might be nourished” (George Mueller, A Narrative of Some of the Lord's Dealing with George Muller, Written by Himself, Jehovah Magnified. Addresses by George Muller Complete and Unabridged, 1:271).

...and...

“According to my judgment the most important point to be attended to is this: above all things see to it that your souls are happy in the Lord. Other things may press upon you, the Lord's work may even have urgent claims upon your attention, but I deliberately repeat, it is of supreme and paramount importance that you should seek above all things to have your souls truly happy in God Himself! Day by day seek to make this the most important business of your life. This has been my firm and settled condition for the last five and thirty years. For the first four years after my conversion I knew not its vast importance, but now after much experience I specially commend this point to the notice of my younger brethren and sisters in Christ: the secret of all true effectual service is joy in God, having experimental acquaintance and fellowship with God Himself" (Ibid., 2:730-731).

I need this. God, how I need to do this daily. I need to read the Bible with this goal in mind, taking what I read and making myself happy in God by it.

Thank God for encouragements and rebukes from dead friends.

Grandpa Update

My grandpa just got off the phone with his doctor who told him that the blood test he took just came back showing that he's anemic, meaning the iron is low in his blood.

This means he'll be admitted to the hospital tomorrow morning (Thursday) for a blood transfusion, which should take an hour or two.

Please continue to pray for him with this and his surgery on Friday. Thank you.

Rocky VI

Click here and learn, like I just did, that Sylvester Stallone got his inspiration for Rocky Balboa in the person of, are you ready for this, Jesus Christ!

Also, I had no idea Stallone, best known to my generation by his indestructibility and prolific body counts as John Rambo, claimed to be a Christian.

This makes me want to see Rocky VI now too.

However, is the point of mentioning things like Stallone being a Christian and the Nativity Story being blocked from the Chicago fair that it will make Christians want to see it?

As there's been a gradual blurring of the lines between news and advertising (if you want proof, watch CBS' 60 Minutes when Simon & Schuster has a new book [both are owned by Viacom] or LA's KABC 7 News when Disney [ABC's parent company] has a new movie) are these two stories really meant to be subtle forms of marketing?

Tradition vs. Scripture (Jer 35)

In Jeremiah 35 there is the fascinating story of the descendants of Jonadab the Rechabite who did not drink wine or build houses for themselves because "our father, commanded us, saying, 'You shall not drink wine, you or your sons, forever" (35:6).

God tells Jeremiah to bring them to the temple and give them wine (35:2). Now, God knows their oath, but He does this to visually and logically demonstrate the sin of the Jewish people at that time.

Watch how God responds when they refuse to drink wine: "Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, 'Go and say the the men of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, "Will you not receive instruction by listening to My words?" declares the Lord. 'These words of Jonadab the son of Rechab, which he commanded his sons not to drink wine, are observed. So they do not drink wine to this day, for they have obeyed their father's command. But I have spoken to you again and again; yet you have not listened to Me'" (35:13-14).

Visually, God brings this group before His people to demonstrate to them what loyalty looks like. Logically, He argues that if these can obey the one-time-given command of a dead man, why can't all His people obey the commands of the living God given "again and again."

It is called an argument from the lesser to the greater--if they can obey the lesser command from the lesser person they have no excuse for disobeying the greater command from the greater person.

And, when they refuse to drink wine they are saying "No" to a direct command from God (cf. 35:2, 5). They are saying "No" because they've elevated a human tradition above God's word, God's command. In essence, they're saying "My loyalty to my forefather trumps my loyalty to God. God's authority over my life and thought takes a backseat to my human ancestor's authority over me."

They're finding their authority, their safety, their identity, their self-understanding in the words of a mere man, which forces them at the same time against finding their authority, safety, identity and self-understanding in the words of God.

What does God think of that? "Behold, I am bringing on Judah and on all the inhabitants of Jerusalem all the disaster that I have pronounced against them; because I spoke to them but they did not listen, and I have called them but they did not answer" (35:17).

Jesus put it this way when He, God in the flesh, gave God's opinion of elevating traditions above God when He pronounced judgment on the Pharisees by saying, "'This people honors Me with their lips, but their hearts are far from Me. But in vain do they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.' Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men" (Mark 7:6-8).

In other words, it is no small matter to disregard God for the teachings of men. It brings His judgment when you do that.

'Nativity' Booted From Illinois Fair

Officials with the city of Chicago asked organizers of a downtown Christmas festival to reconsider using New Line Cinema's $12,000 sponsorship because its ads for their new film "The Nativity Story" might offend non-Christians.

One spokesperson said they didn't want to appear to be endorsing one religion over another while another said, "Our guidance was that this very prominently placed advertisement would not only be insensitive to the many people of different faiths who come to enjoy the market for its food and unique gifts, but also it would be contrary to acceptable advertising standards suggested to the many festivals holding events on Daley Plaza."

I am outraged at this, not because I'm surprised by it--which I'm not--but, I'm outraged because of how ridiculous it is. Can't they see that by rejecting New Line's endorsement out of a concern not to offend non-Christians that their actions end up offending Christians instead? By being sensitive to non-Christians they're insensitive to Christians, telling them the reason for their holiday is not welcome here. That's not religious neutrality. That's outright opposition to Christianity.

In other words, they're doing the very thing they're saying they want to avoid. They'd rather offend Christians with their insensitivity than non-Christians. If removing all offense and being sensitive is the goal, than they're failing. The city of Chicago is being insensitive, and they're being offensive, but it seems they have no problem doing so when they're doing it to Christians.

You can read the whole article here or by clicking the title of this post above. I know one thing, I didn't intend on seeing this movie, but I do now.

Grandpa Update

UPDATE: We just got home from the doctor who told us he cannot move the surgery up any sooner. This is very disappointing, but what can you do?

He gave us best and worst case scenarios, which was both reassuring and quite scary.

Please pray that the doctor will be able to extract all the stomach tumor, that's it's not spread or attached to any vital organs, and that it will not spread any further.

Also, the surgery is at 9am this coming Friday, and he'll be in the hospital for at least a week.

Please please please continue to pray that the cancer does not spread, that his spirits stay up, and that God will mercifully work on his heart as well as see him through this.

All of us thank you.

...

My grandpa's condition is deteriorating rapidly.

He's in a lot of pain and his mickey mouse doctors are doing nothing. We are SO angry at them. When they saw he'd lost 25-35 pounds, they should have had the operation immediately. Why this is taking so long we are all baffled by.

Please pray that when we meet with the surgeon at 11am on Saturday that we'll be able to push the operation up. With the pain he's in, it is hard to think that he could last until next Friday, Dec. 1st.

Tomorrow morning will be my last meal for a while so please pray that I'll be focused and committed and fervent in prayer and fasting for his health, his salvation and his operation. Please be praying along those lines as well.

Grandpa Update

Please keep praying. My grandpa is getting increasingly weak and nauseous.

We're hoping they can schedule the surgery sooner than Dec. 1st because of his condition worsening, but so far no luck.

Also, he is taking to watching religious television, which is both bad (because of all the garbage on there) and good because occasionally they gospel is preached.

I've talked with him before about Christ and given him things to read, so please pray that I'll have just the right words to say at just the right time.

...

UPDATE: My grandpa just got off the phone with the doctor who said the cancer had spread to his liver. Please please please keep praying.

...

UPDATE: After doing some research, it seems liver cancer is quite treatable since it is a secondary, not primary, cancer in my grandpa. We'll know more on Saturday when we speak to the surgeon. Thank you for all your prayers and support. Please keep praying, please, please, please.

...

UPDATE: Also, my grandpa is having a lot of trouble sleeping. Please pray that he'll start having restful sleeps. Thanks.

David Brainerd II

There have been so many penetrating quotes in Jonathan Edward's The Life and Diary of David Brainerd, but so far my favorite is "Oh, the closest walk with God is the sweetest heaven that can be enjoyed on earth."

I remember praying, many many many times, "God I desperately want to have the closest relationship with you that is humanly possible while on earth. Please do what You must to make that a reality. Like Paul, I want to know you so badly (Phil 3:10)."

Sadly, I've lost sight of that singular passion as time has gone by, but listening to Brainerd's diary has rekindled that flame, even though that is a very difficult, challenging, convicting prayer to pray because God wants that from us too, so He'll seek to remove all that hinders the closeness of that relationship, which at times can be very painful.

Three parts of the whole audiobook is available for free download here.

You can listen to this particular quote in context at 1 minute and 26 seconds into the mp3 for part two.

Oneness Pentecostals & Salvation

When it comes to how salvation is understood in OP, there is a little truth mixed with a lot of error. For instance, OP's believe in the imputation of Adam’s sin, total depravity, Christ’s substitutionary atonement, salvation by grace through repentance and faith, which leads to heaven for those who do and hell for those who don’t.

However, OP’s reject salvation by grace alone through faith alone, teaching instead that the new birth is achieved by (1) repentance and faith, (2) water baptism and (3) Spirit baptism. In OP, salvation is a three-step process.

Their first great error is with baptismal regeneration. Water baptism must be (1) accompanied by saving faith, (2) done by immersion and (3) performed in Jesus’ name to be efficacious. They use the typical “proof texts” for baptismal regeneration (e.g., Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38, 22:16; 1 Pet 3:20).

Also, they unbendingly insist that water baptism be in a Jesus name formula (= “in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ,” or “in the name of Jesus Christ,” or “in the name of the Lord Jesus,” or “in the name of Jesus,” or “in Jesus’ name”) based on (1) the singular “name” in Matt 28:19, (2) no Trinitarian but many Jesus name formulas in Acts and other places (e.g., Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5; 22:16; Rom 6:3-4; 1 Cor 1:13; Gal 3:27; Col 2:11-12), and (3) “Jesus’ name” being the baptismal formula of the early church (This is where they get the name “Jesus Only,” though they do not like this label [Bowman 23]).

Their second great error in salvation is the third step, namely, that “baptism in the Holy Spirit is essential to salvation and never occurs without the ‘initial evidence’ of speaking in unknown tongues” (Beisner 54).

Their argument that baptism in the Spirit is absolutely necessary for salvation, not an optional, post-conversion experience for the gifted, first, based on texts like John 3:5 & Titus 3:5.

Second, they teach that all five accounts in Acts of receiving the Spirit were to the Jews, then Samaritans, Gentiles, Paul and John the Baptist’s disciples demonstrating that the baptism in the Spirit is for everyone and accompanied by tongues (explicit: Acts 2:1-4; 10:44-48; 19:1-7; implicit: 8:8, 12-19; 9:17).

Finally, when the event that told Peter the Gentiles had received the Spirit was their speaking in tongues, this proves for OP’s that tongue speaking is the initial evidence of a person’s reception of the Spirit (Acts 10:46).

Therefore, if a person has not spoken in tongues, they have not been baptized in the Spirit and if they do not have the Spirit, that person is certainly not saved. If you do not speak in tongues you are “not yet salvation worthy” (Boyd 198).

As an aside, when I've talked with OP's, I've been told I'm not saved because I have not spoken in tongues, and I've heard those who do not "have the Spirit" really question God and weep and complain and feel very forsaken by Him for not blessing them with tongues so that they can be saved.

* For the names of the resources quoted in this post, please refer to the previous posts where they're named.

David Brainerd

If you workout or if you have a job where you can listen to an iPod, please click here and download the three mp3s on the Life of David Brainerd by Jonathan Edwards, which was Edward's most popular work. I've listened to all of part 2 and half of part 1 and I've been so impressed and humbled by what I've heard from his journals.

He puts in writing what I've felt and feel as a Christian who struggles with his own sin and his own desires to be more fully devoted to God than he is. He has an uncanny knack for examining, laying bare and diagnosing his own heart, a trait I wish I had. There is an honesty and transparency that's so refreshing in our 'holier-than-thou,' plastic, fake, 'happy-happy-joy-joy' churches.

You will do your heart a tremendous favor by listening to these mp3s.

Grandpa Update

My grandpa just spoke with the doctor who told him he scheduled his surgery for December 1st.

My first thought was "Why is it taking so long?" but I'm sure there are others who need operations between now and then. It's just, as far as I'm concerned, there is no one else, so I want it done yesterday.

Please continue to pray for his salvation (something I'm not 100% sure about), that his spirits will stay up, and that he won't get anxious between now and then.

Killing Preemies

This story, about the Nuffield Council on Bioethics concluding that preemie babies born before 22 weeks should not receive medical treatment, is making it's rounds, now appearing on the front page of msn.com. What is the clifnotes version of their conclusion? "We recommend infanticide." And tragically, the Church of England agrees with them. Listen to one of the committee members:

"Natural instincts are to try to save all babies, even if the baby’s chances of survival are low,” said Professor Margaret Brazier who chaired the committee that produced the report. "However, we don’t think it is always right to put a baby through the stress and pain of invasive treatment if the baby is unlikely to get better and death is inevitable.”

First, it is very dangerous to explain away our natural instincts. Our intuitions are often more right and more reliable than all the lofty philosophical arguments put together because God wrote His law on our hearts (Rom 2:14-15) so that we have an intuitive sense of right and wrong. That doesn't mean that we can't silence it, or that every intuition is from God, but no argument is needed to know the difference between the Holocaust and the cow death thanks to McDonald's. We just know one is evil and other is not.

Next, on non-religious grounds, if I was an evolutionist, survival is the highest good and goal of life, that is, the passing of my genes into the next generation (if I remember correctly, this is the argument of Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene). Therefore, even evolutionists should see this as evil because it deprives the preemie of even a chance at it's highest good: survival.

Third, it seems to me that living is worth "stress and pain," just ask those who endure chemotherapy or dialysis week in and week out in order to live. We cling tightly to things we value most. Contrary to the Islamofacists, life is more valuable than death. That's another moral intuition that tells us the health of 22 week old preemies should be sought after.

Also, one might say that since the baby can't speak we can't know whether they'd want to live or now. But, does it follow that since we don't know what they'd want, we should kill them. Should we assume they'd want to die, even if they knew the "struggle and pain" they'd go through? Whether it's here, or abortion, or euthanasia, it seems we should give the benefit of doubt to life. It seems we should err on the side of life.

Finally, it does not follow that we shouldn't treat severely ill patients, whether 22 week old preemies or not, simply because "death is inevitable." I don't know if this escaped Mrs. Brazier's notice, but death is inevitable for everybody. The logic of her argument leads to no treatment for any illness, which then leads to the shutting down of all hospitals. That's one of the ways you know your argument might be a little off, when it would lead to effects like hers.

One of the criteria by which civilizations are judged is how do they treat their most vulnerable. The West's report card isn't looking too good right now.

Grandpa Update

My grandpa's endoscopy had enough on it that they want to operate immediately, even before doing the biopsy. He goes in tomorrow to find out more details, and make the appointment for surgery.

This is very scary. Please keep praying.

Grandpa Update

Right now my grandpa is on his way to the doctor to have an endoscopy where the doctor will insert a camera down his throat to check out what the lump in his stomach is so that he knows what it is, which will tell him how to treat it.

Please pray that whatever this thing is it can be treated in the easiest possible way, that my grandpa will be strong and confident in the face of all this, and that we his family will encourage him at the very difficult time.

Thank you.

Abortion linked to Illegal Immigration?

Is there a link between our country's need for immigration and abortion? This article says a recent GOP panel on immigration asserts as much.

While no Democrats signed the report, citing this conclusion as ridiculous and embarrassing, Republican representative and committee chairman Ed Emery put it like this: "We hear a lot of arguments today that the reason that we can't get serious about our borders is that we are desperate for all these workers. You don't have to think too long. If you kill 44 million of your potential workers, it's not too surprising we would be desperate for workers."

Actually, the article says the number is more like 47 or 48 million abortions since 1973, or over 1.4 million abortions per year for the past 33 years. Is that really a ridiculous and embarrassing conclusion? It seems like simple math to me: Number needed for the work force minus 44-48 million equals a massive need fill the 44-48 million person gap in the work force.

I think abortion is evil because it takes the life of a human being who did nothing to deserve it's life being taken. He or she did not forfeit their right to life by some action (like murder does), but forfeited it by being inconvenient. Death for murder makes sense, is justifiable, and if you're a Christian it's biblical (cf. Gen 9:6). Death for inconvenience makes no sense and is totally unjustifiable and unbiblical.

Also, my problem with abortion is that it's a euphemism. When said, the word "abortion" conjures up images of protesters and picket signs, or maybe confused and hurting women. However, these images are not of abortion, but they're images of the effects of abortion--angry people, depressed people, etc.

So, what does "abortion" really mean? What is an abortion? What happens in an abortion? What image should come to my mind when I hear the word "abortion"?

Find out by clicking the title of this post above or here, and if you want to watch all parts of the video (which I highly recommend), click here.

It is absolutely critical that you see what an abortion is so that you know what you're agreeing or disagreeing with. Empty slogans like "A woman's right to choose" need to be understood as a woman's right to choose to do what you will see above.

Church Calls for Disabled Babies to be Killed

Click here or the title of the post above to read the full article.

So being disabled deserves death, and the church agrees.

The gaping whole in this article is this: What do they mean by allowing sick babies to die?

If it's what happened in the Terry Schiavo case, then "letting die" is a euphemism, a nice way of saying, "starve to death."

Guess what? If I, a 29 year old male or you reading this post, don't eat I too will starve to death. And, the only difference between a newborn baby & me, whether we're sick or not, is that I can feed myself & they can't.

What in the world does stage of development, or ability have to do with anything? What stage of development I'm at, or what abilities I have say NOTHING about whether or not I should live.

The answer to whether or not something should live is based on the answer to this question, What's this thing that's being allowed to die / starved to death? Is it an amoeba, a cricket, a hampster, a horse, or a human person at a particular stage of development called newborn? The answer to that question should determine the treatment.

Also, what doctor refuses to treat a sick person? Keep me away from all doctors & Christians that would argue for anything other than helping me get well.

Grandpa Update

My grandpa went to the doctor today who told him there's an abnormal mass in his stomach, about the size of a grown man's fist, that needs to be looked at immediately.

So, he will see another doctor tomorrow who will examine the x-rays and reports, and schedule a time to put the scope down his throat to look at it, diagnose what it is, and then, hopefully, remove it with surgery.

Please keep praying for him, not only for his health, but also his that his spirits will remain upbeat. He is visibly lethargic in his speech and actions, and that's scary for me, who has always seen him as quite energetic with all his faculties fully functioning as an 78 year old man.

Thank you, and again, any tips / suggestions for helping him are greatly appreciated, if there's anyone out there reading this.

Evangelism: Nothing New

I'm reading Augustine's Confessions, and in chapter 6 he's talking about the steps he went through to come to saving faith in Jesus Christ. Click the post's title to read the quotes in chapter 5, paragraph 7.

First, he says "those men were not to be listened to who would say to me, 'How do you know that those Scriptures were imparted to mankind by the Spirit of the one and most true God?'" I found it interesting that this is the same issue being brought against Christians some 1600 years after Augustine. Nothing is new under the sun.

Also, for those who won't believe it unless they see it, think about this: "O Lord, little by little, with a gentle and most merciful hand, drawing and calming my heart, You persuaded me that, if I took into account the multitude of things I had never seen, nor been present when they were enacted—such as many of the events of secular history; and the numerous reports of places and cities which I had not seen; or such as my relations with many friends, or physicians, or with these men and those—that unless we should believe, we should do nothing at all in this life. Finally, I was impressed with what an unalterable assurance I believed which two people were my parents, though this was impossible for me to know otherwise than by hearsay."

I remember talking to a guy who told me "Until Jesus walks up to me and tells me Himself who He is, I will not believe in Him. It's just blind faith." I responded, "Are you going to get home tonight?" He said, "Yeah." I said, "How do you know?" He paused, and said, "You got me. I have faith that I'll get home tonight, but I don't know." I said, "Right, and your rejection of Christ is like sitting outside your car saying 'I don't know if I'm going to get home, so I'm not getting in.'"

There were at least two problems with this guy. First, he made the distinction between faith and knowledge, and second, he forgot that no one can function without exercising faith. History is impossible without faith. I have faith that places like Antarctica exists, and that the maps are true, even though I've never been there. I have faith that what my friends say about their lives are true, though I wasn't there. I have faith that my burger is beef, and not beef mixed with manure like the movie Fast Food Nation is going to show.

We can't live this life without faith, and we won't live in the next life without faith...in Christ alone, and not myself or any other "savior," to rescue me from God's holy wrath for my sins and usher me into heaven.

Homelessness

I went for a walk tonight. I don't know why. I just had to get out of my house, I guess.

I wasn't even a block from my house when I start to think about my life. Now, don't run away. I'm trying not to be some cliche, pseudo-philosopher sage who talks like he knows everything when he doesn't have a clue about anything. Just hear me out, if there's anybody there.

I grew up in a city that doesn't feel like home anymore. I lived here for 25 years before moving to LA to go to seminary, and man, has this place changed.

Maybe I didn't see it before because I lived here, or maybe I did and it didn't register as odd, but there are a lot of luxury cars, remodeled / overpriced homes, and snobby people. The seminary was in a mid to lower class neighborhood, and I was comfortable there, but I think it's more than socio-economic.

My first job almost 15 years ago was a pizza delivery driver for Al's Pizza so I got to know this community very well, but I recognize next to nothing now. The main street in this side of town, 17th street, has been totally remodeled. Almost all the stores that were here when I left are gone, and all the new ones don't seem to fit here, or they fit and I don't.

I'm trying to have lunch one a week with my best friend from high school, Dave, and he's taking me around to all the new restaurants to reacquaint me with where I grew up. It's so weird (I promise this has a point; I'm getting to it soon).

As I kept walking tonight I decided to walk down Cabrillo St., the street I grew up on from about 2 or 3 until I was 8 when my parents got divorced. Not a safe thing for me to do as the last time I walked down that street I found myself sitting in the parking lot I learned how to ride my bike in crying my eyes out. Why? Because I wanted things to be like they were when I lived there, just like I want Costa Mesa to be like it was before I left in 2002, and why it feels now like this place has changed.

However, I realized as I was on the return leg of my walk, and especially when I sat down to right just now, that the reason it feels like I don't fit in here is because I've never fit in here. I was able to become acclimated to it by being surrounded by it constantly, but coming back here now taught me that this is not home, at least not this rich side of town.

I grew up in Costa Mesa, but went to school in Newport Beach. My friends were kids of CEO's of major corporations, major restaurant chain owners, government lobbyists, car dealership owners, radio & TV talk show hosts, former major league baseball players, not to mention the myriad of cops, doctors, plastic surgeons, lawyers, shrinks, real estaters, etc. BMW's, Mercedes, SUV's with $1000 sound systems were 16th birthday presents. They went to Ivy League and private universities when I went to junior college. My dad's a plummer, and my mom worked in hospital auditing before being diagnosed with lupus when I was 14. That's certainly not my background.

This is not my world. We all played sports together but when my friends starting getting into drinking and drugs, I didn't. I don't know why. I think it's because my dad warned me hard by telling me his story. But, for whatever reason, tt didn't interest me at all. I didn't need that stuff to have fun, or to talk to people. When they started rejecting rock and rap for classic rock, I didn't follow either because I didn't like the music.

But, the biggest differences that began to creep in between my friends and me were not these superficial differences, but the fact that these superficial differences mattered to them. What you drank while at a party, and the kind of music you liked really mattered to them, but I didn't care. I liked what I liked. You like what you like. So what! I like you regardless of what you like. Can't we be friends anyway? Without saying it, my answer was "Of course," but theirs was "No."

I wonder what it was I did, if anything, to push them away from me. What I just wrote above is the only thing Dave or I have been able to think of then and now.

I didn't fit in here then, and I don't fit in here now, and then compound that with being a Christian who is a "stranger and alien" (1 Pet 2:11) in this world and me studying to be a pastor, and this homeless feeling grows ominous.

And, it doesn't go away by becoming a Christian either. The Bible also says of the Christian that we are "no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God's household" (Eph 2:19). Now, there's a lot going on in that verse, but one thing's certain, Christians, though they were strangers and aliens, are now supposed to find a home with other Christians.

Not me though. We're supposed to have a taste of home with other Christians, but no matter what group of Christians I'm with, I don't fit in. I went to a non-pentecostal seminary, but taught at a pentecostal university so I was getting "What are you doing there?" from both sides as both sides looked at me sideway for associating with the other. Result? Didn't fit in much.

Also, kids I discipled at church for 6 years before leaving for LA are now in their early to mid-20's, and now they're starting to shun me because I think and act more like an adult while they're still into kid stuff. I'm not fun anymore.

I wish I could say I figured all this out, or have some keen insight about why homelessness has been a constant problem in my life, but I don't. I'm trying to figure it out, and just making observations. I have no idea what any of it means, or what I'm supposed to do about it.

Please Pray for My Grandpa

I just spoke to my grandpa who told me his doctor called. He had performed a CT scan on Monday and wanted my grandpa to schedule an appointment because it's "abnormal and they need to talk."

He's lost 20-30 lbs. in the last few weeks because he's not hungry, and is now taking to sleeping a lot and forgetting stuff. All 3 of his siblings have died of cancer in the past 15 years (his only brother as early as August) so I know that's in his family.

The doctor wants him to make an immediate appointment with a gastro-endurologist (I think that's what they're called), so they can put a scope into his stomach and see what's going on.

My grandpa's name is Hoover, and I know he's very worried it's cancer. Please pray for God's healing. Pray for a correct diagnosis, correct treatment, and skillful doctors to take care of him correctly, making no mistake that would make him worse.

I'm very worried too. I hate death. Life would be so cool without death. I miss those who've died so much, and I'm so afraid it's starting in him now. I know Paul said "O DEATH, WHERE IS YOUR VICTORY? O DEATH, WHERE IS YOUR STING?" (1 Cor 15:55), but it still hurts...a lot.

Oneness Pentacostals & the Trinity

Oneness Pentecostalism (a.k.a. Jesus Only or the Apostolic Church) is ruthlessly monotheistic. To demonstrate the centrality of this issue for OP’s, one of their own advocates, Wilbur King, writes “Please don’t let Old Satan deceive you any longer with His 3 person 3 god teaching” (“Let Use Make Man in Our Image, After Our Likeness” tract).

In fact, this is such a defining issue that the very name of their movement, “Oneness,” derives its name from their theology of God. In fact, they have no problem calling the Trinity (1) an illogical and pagan idea that the early church fathers opposed, (2) an imposition of the apostate Roman Catholic Church on the purity Christian doctrine, and (3) an entirely unbiblical notion since both “Trinity” and “person” are not biblical words (neither is "oneness" or "pentecostal" though).

In the end, they openly call the Trinity a demonic lie. Only the Oneness understanding of God “upholds biblical Christianity” as they are vehement that the trinity unavoidably devolves into tri-theism (see E. Calvin Beisner, “Jesus Only” Churches, 28-30 and Robert M. Bowman Jr., “Oneness Pentecostalism and the Trinity,” 26 [article found here]).

Their understanding of the Father, Son & Spirit is as follows:

There is only one God. The Father is God. The Son is God. The Spirit is God. Therefore, the Father is the Son is the Spirit. Or, Jesus = the Father = the Spirit.

This is nothing new. Throughout church history it’s gone by the names monarchianism, modalism or sabellianism (see Harold OJ Brown, Heresies).

In other words, God is one person with one nature who is “manifested” in three different ways. God is not three distinct persons, but three aspects, titles or roles for three different manifestations of one person, or three offices filled by one person. This is akin to an actor wearing three different masks to play three different roles on stage, or one man with three different roles he plays in life (e.g. father, husband, employee).

In OP that one person of the godhead is Jesus--as seen in the picture above.

Since Jesus is supposedly the called “Father” in Isa 9:6 and is alluded to being such in John 8:19, 12:45, 14:9 they conclude that Jesus is “the Father manifested in the flesh” (David Bernard, The Oneness of God, 68 [most consider this the book about OP by an advocate of OP]).

Also, Jesus is interpreted by OP as being the Holy Spirit in 2 Cor 3:17 so that the Holy Spirit is really Jesus in spirit-form.

Finally, they argue that the Bible clearly identifies the Father and the Holy Spirit as one and the same interchangeable person (comp. Acts 5:3-4 or 2 Cor 3:16 with 6:19).

Again, it is important to know what the person believes that you're talking to before trying to give them the gospel. In later posts, we'll seek to debunk their arguments, but for now, we're simply explaining what they believe.

Haggard & Last Night's Election

Don't forget why Mike Jones' outed his sexual relationship with Ted Haggard.

Numerous times his stated reason was to influence the two ballot initiatives in Colorado, one that would define marriage as a union between one man and one woman, and another one giving domestic partnership benefits to gay couples.

In the end, Mike Jones' "confession" did not influence either initiative, as the marriage definition passed and the benefits proposition failed. Click here to read the full story.

If you do read the story, you have to love the bias at the end with the heart-wrenching pro-homosexual quote appearing just before ending with the cold anti-gay quote.

One thing, the pro-gay quote is "I just believe we should have the same rights as everyone else. What it's called isn't important to me." The tactic: substitute partnerships for marriage while keeping vague the unspoken idea that everyone assumes, namely, that partnerships is something less than marriage, when in reality they're exactly the same. Giving gays and lesbians the right to marry, or giving them domestic partnerships is essentially the same thing only with two different names.

Now, I don't really care if you want to lobby and picket and fight and seek to persuade the public for either one or both of those things. It's a democracy. We seek to sway public opinion to our points of view to enshrine our points of view into law. That's what we do. Only be honest about it. Don't trick people.

Oneness Pentecostals & Jesus Christ

There is no denying that Oneness Pentecostal writers teach both monotheism and that Jesus is fully and truly God. They do not hesitate to go to all the proof-texts Christians would to prove His deity (e.g., John 1:1, 20:28; Rom 9:5; Titus 2:13; 2 Pet 1:1). At the same time, they also teach that Jesus is God in the flesh so that He is fully and truly man as well.

However, the orthodoxy of the statement “Jesus is God” is determined by how one defines the phrase "Son of God."

They affirm that “Jesus is the Son of God,” but that title refers exclusively to Jesus during His incarnation so that “the humanity of the Lord Jesus is the Son” (italics mine) (Magee, Is Jesus in the Godhead or is the Godhead in Jesus?, 32). Therefore, Jesus being the Son of God is a temporary role with a very distinct beginning and ending.

So, if Jesus is not the eternal Son of God, what was He before His incarnation? Answer: Jesus was the Father not the Son. In fact, during the Incarnation “the Father and Son are two natures in the one person, Jesus Christ” (Bowman, “Oneness Pentecostalism and the Trinity,” 25). In other words, for OP’s “to say Jesus is both the Father and the Son is to say that he is both God and man” (Boyd, Oneness Pentecostals and the Trinity, 32).

When talking to OP's, one of the reasons they deny the Trinity is because it's too hard to understand. Well, rather than doing away with all mystery in their system, they instead transfer the mystery to the Incarnation. Their most respected author readily admits that people “cannot understand the dual nature of Christ and cannot correctly separate his two roles” (Bernard, The Oneness of God, 171).

Therefore, Bible verses that appear to reveal distinctions between persons (e.g., Jesus praying to the Father, loving the Father, doing the Father’s will, both Father and Son sending the Spirit, etc.) are actually the two human and divine natures interacting with each other. His human struggles (e.g., pain, thirst, not knowing information, etc.), two wills (Luke 22:42; John 6:38) and especially His death also demonstrate this—Jesus’ human body (the Son) died on the cross while His spirit (the Father) did not.

Why is this important? When speaking with an OP you must be careful because they will adamantly agree with you that “The Son of God died on the cross,” but again, “Son of God” means Jesus’ human nature not that He is God.

Be careful when doing evangelism to define your terms. Ask, "Do you believe Jesus is the Son of God?" When they say "Yes," then ask "What do you mean by that?" If you don't, you’ll be “two ships passing in the night” during your conversation. You’ll get no where since you've been spinning your wheels in the mud of confusion as you talk past each other. Never assume. Always ask questions.

This is also a very good example of how important it is to know the view of the person you're trying to reach with the gospel. You may even leave thinking "This person's saved" because you didn't know the right questions to ask.

Hope from ADULT Stem-Cells

"Every two minutes someone, somewhere, has a heart attack," according to Britain's Daily Mail.

So, thank God British doctors have pioneered a "very exciting" new procedure for treating and hopefully curing unhealthy heart muscles in heart disease patients by injecting them with stem cells. Click here to read the full story.

Please notice the graphic. Once again, the promise of stem-cell research coming from ADULT stem cells, thus, bypassing any and all ethical issues surrounding killing embryos for their stem cells. If you still think embryonic stem cell research is a promising avenue of study, please click here and get educated.

Sadly, lawmakers in Australia are being driven by emotion and not science as they are close to lifting of the ban on cloning to harvest stem cells from embryos (click here to read the story in this tragic development).

How Would Jesus Vote?

Here are two political ads posing as news articles to sway Christian voters, especially at least, the first one. Click here and here to read both salon.com articles.

My response: As evangelical Christianity has become more and more enculturated with the result that our God, Savior, churches and Bible are now tools of manipulation in the hands of pundits and politicians, it's pathetic, but not surprising that the world sees us more as a voting block than a driven, compassionate, articulate, winsome, sold-out group of Christ's followers who just happen to vote once every two years. Should I expect this will happen though, considering the nature of our political system?

Before Constantine and after the Reformation much of Christianity was known for being counter cultural, but it seems Christians in the West have been conquered by the culture. At least, that's what I see in the first article with the pastor who "runs his church services like a rock show."

Also, it's no wonder they're being manipulated by Rep. Ford. He's using the same tactic on them that the pastor is using on his church. Rep. Ford is saying, "If I like Jesus, they'll like me." The pastor's saying, "If they like me, they'll like Jesus"--both are the classic bait & switch that's everywhere in our culture.

Why are we just another voting block that's either pandered to for votes, or depicted as the enemy of a different voting block to garner their vote when we're opposed? Both sides are using us!!! Agh!!! I just pray that in my own heart and in the life of that church, we'll get off the fence between the culture and Christ, and live a life inflamed with the majesty and glory of God in all things.

By the way, to answer the question above: Jesus wouldn’t vote because what king’s want kings get.

Applying Ted Haggard to Me

I want to publically thank Tim Challies for reminding me that "there is really no difference between you and Haggard or between myself and Haggard. We are all totally depraved with our sin extending to every aspect of our being. There but for the grace of God go I. There but for the grace of God go you. While I would not expect a reporter to approach me if I were to fall into similar sin, I can only imagine the pain of having to sit in front of my children, my wife, and answer questions about whether or not I have had sex with a man or admitting that I purchased illegal drugs. It's horrible. It's terrifying."

While some write, "I'm sick and tired of being associated with a 'Christianity' that does not seem to care one whit about holiness or obedience to God's Word. Let me say this as perfectly clear as I can: I believe that 'Christianity' in America is nearly totally apostate. Why? We have abandoned the vision of the Holiness and Fear of God. We've built a false god that will cater to our flesh and meet our 'felt needs'. Our real need? Repentance. But we don't want to go there. We live in Laodicea. No apologies. Cut and dried. Stuff like this can only happen because contemporary Christianity is rotten to the core."

However, remember it's not because Christianity is rotten to the core, but because we are, I am, rotten to the core, and I pray that God will keep me from falling.

Thank you Tim. You can read the totally of his very good post on the Haggard scandal here.

The Best Old Testament Commentaries (Pt 2)

Here's the rest of the OT Commentary list. If you want to know how it was compiled, check the archives for the NT Commentary post which explains it. What did I leave out? What should I put in and where? Let me know what you think.

Job
1. Andersen, Francis I. Job (TOTC)
2. Dhorme, Edouard. A Commentary on the Book of Job
3. Hartley, John E. The Book of Job (NICOT)

Psalms
1. Spurgeon, Charles. The Treasury of David
2. Leupold, Herbert. Exposition of the Psalms
3. Kidner, D. Psalms 1-72 and Psalms 73-150 (TOTC)
HM. Perowne, John. The Book of Psalms
HM. Wilson, Gerald. Psalms 1-72, vol. 1 (NIVAC)

Proverbs
1a. Kidner, Derek. Proverbs (TOTC)
1b. Bridges, Charles. An Exposition of Proverbs.
2. Garrett, Duane. Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs (NAC)

Ecclesiastes
1. Kidner, Derek. A Time to Mourn and a Time to Dance
2a. Leupold, Herbert. Exposition of Ecclesiastes
2b. Eaton, M. Ecclesiastes (TOTC)
3. Hengstenberg, Ernst. Commentary on Ecclesiastes

Song of Solomon / Songs
1. Carr, G. Lloyd. Song of Songs (TOTC).
2a. Gledhill, Thomas. The Message of the Song of Songs (BST).
2b. Ironside, Henry. The Song of Solomon.
2c. Provan, Iain. Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs (NIVAC)

Isaiah
1. Young, Edward. The Book of Isaiah (NICOT)
2. Motyer, J.A. The Prophecy of Isaiah
3a. Oswalt, John. Isaiah 1-39 & Isaiah 40-66 (NICOT) (2 vol.)
3b. Alexander, Joseph. Commentary on the Prophecies of Isaiah

Jeremiah
1. Thompson, J.A. The Book of Jeremiah (NICOT)
2a. Holladay, William L. Jeremiah, 2 vols (Herm)
2b. Jensen, Irving. Jeremiah: The Prophet of Judgment
2c. Laetsch, Theodore. Bible Commentary: Jeremiah
HM. Feinberg, Charles. Jeremiah, A Commentary

Lamentations
1. Hillers, Delbert R. Lamentations (AB)
2. Kaiser, Walter C. A Biblical Approach to Personal Suffering

Ezekiel
1. Feinberg, Charles. The Prophecy of Ezekiel.
2. Zimmerli, Walther. Ezekiel 1 and 2 (Herm).
3a. Duguid, Iain. Ezekiel (NIVAC)
3b. Block, Daniel. Ezekiel 1-24 & Ezekiel 25-48 (NICOT) (2 vol.)

Daniel
1a. Young, Edward. The Prophecy of Daniel: A Commentary
1b. Walvoord, John. Daniel: The Key to Prophetic Revelation
2a. Wood, Leon. A Commentary on Daniel
2b. Montgomery, James. A ... Commentary on ... Daniel (ICC)
3. Goldingay, John. Daniel (WBC)

Hosea
1. Andersen & Freedman. Hosea (AB)
2a. Feinberg, Charles. Hosea: God’s Love for Israel
2b. Garrett, Duane. Hosea and Joel (NAC)
2c. Kidner, Derek. The Message of Hosea (BST)

Joel
1. Allen, Leslie. Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah (NICOT)
2. Finley, Thomas J. Joel, Amos, Obadiah (WEC)
3. Wolff, HW. Joel and Amos (Herm)
HM. Feinberg, Charles. Joel, Amos, and Obadiah
HM. See Hosea 2b.

Amos
1. Andersen & Freedman. Amos (AB)
2. Mays, James. Amos: A Commentary
3. See Joel 2 above

Obadiah
1. Baker, Alexander and Waltke. Obadiah, Jonah, Micah (TOTC)
2. Feinberg, Charles. Obadiah: Doom Upon Edom
3. Wolff, HW. Obadiah and Jonah

Jonah
1. See Obadiah 1 above
2. Feinberg, Charles. Jonah: God’s Love for All Nations
3a. Fairbairn, Patrick. Jonah: His Life, Character, and Mission
3b. Stuart, Doug. Jonah (WBC)

Micah
1a. See Obadiah 1 above
1b. Barker & Bailey. Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah (NAC)
2a. Andersen & Freedman. Micah (AB)
2b. Feinberg, Charles. Micah: Wrath Upon Samaria and Jerusalem

Nahum
1. Maier, Walter. The Book of Nahum
2a. Robertson, O Palmer. Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah (NICOT)
2b. Baker, David. Nahum, Habakkuk and Zephaniah (TOTC)
3a. Patterson, Robert. Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah (WEC)
3b. Feinberg, Charles. Nahum: Judgment on Nineveh

Habakkuk
1. Lloyd-Jones, D. Martyn. From Fear to Faith
2. Feinberg, Charles. Habakkuk: Problems of Faith
3a. See Nahum 3a above
3b. See Nahum 2a above

Zephaniah
1a. Feinberg, Charles. Zephaniah: The Day of the Lord
1b. See Nahum 2a above
1c. See Nahum 3a above

Haggai
1. Verhoef, Pieter. The Books of Haggai & Malachi (NICOT)
2a. Merrill, Eugene. Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi (WEC)
2b. Feinberg, Charles. Haggai: Rebuilding the Temple

Zechariah
1. Feinberg, Charles. Zechariah: God Remembers
2a. Unger, Merrill. Zechariah: Prophet of Messiah’s Glory
2b. Leupold, Herbert. Exposition of Zechariah

Malachi
1. Morgan, G. Campbell. Wherein Have We Robbed God?
2a. See Haggai 1 above
2b. Hill, Andrew. Malachi (AB)
3. Feinberg, Charles. Malachi: Formal Worship

Sin Inside Me

I was hit hard the other night by something Kris Lundgaard wrote in his great little book, The Enemy Within. This is my fourth time through the book, and I don't know why it had such a profound impact this time, but it did.

He writes, "the better you know [indwelling sin], the more you will hate it; and to the length that you abhor it...you will grasp for grace against it" (33-34).

I understood the more I knew sin, the more I'd hate it, but I stopped there. It was a two-step process for me, instead of the three-step process of (1) knowing sin, (2) hating sin, and (3) the depth of my prayer for grace to fight my sin.

If I'm not praying for help against my sin, it's because I don't hate it enough. And, I don't hate it enough because I don't really know it like I should. Or, I don't hate it because I've made peace with my sin, and nobody fights what they're at peace with.

This is about praying against your sin and for grace as a preemptive strike before sin even shows up for battle.

Haggard Gay-Sex Scandal Conclusion

Mike Jones' allegations were true, and Ted Haggard publicly admitted it this morning when his letter was read to New Life Church. You can read his statement here.

His confession and apology was so refreshing to read. Here is a man who admitted to and owned his sin, which is so much different than the politicians and celebrities (has anyone of these home-wrecking celebs publicly apologized, or just live like they ate a sandwich and not ruined lives). I hope someone far more clever than me contrasts his apology with John Kerry's.

Please analyze this statement my Jones: "It made me angry that here's someone preaching about gay marriage and going behind the scenes having gay sex." Many gay people oppose gay marriage! What does the one (gay affair) have to do with the other (gay marriage)? Jones' motivation was PURELY political, and he freely admits it. I bet he gets a book and/or movie deal out of this.

I hope everyone who reads Ted's statement realizes that rebelling against a position you hold to be true (i.e., homosexuality is a sin) doesn't mean (1) he really supports the position (as his statement clearly shows), or (2) the position is false. His actions say nothing about the morality of homosexuality or same-sex marriage. They are morally wrong regardless of Ted Haggard, or anyone else. If same-sex marriage should be legal because Ted Haggard was having a gay affair, should it be illegal if he wasn't? When did Ted Haggard's private life dictate public policy? Am I missing something here?

In his statement, the part that impressed me most was this: "Please forgive my accuser. He is revealing the deception and sensuality that was in my life. Those sins, and others, need to be dealt with harshly. So, forgive him and, actually, thank God for him. I am trusting that his actions will make me, my wife and family, and ultimately all of you, stronger. He didn’t violate you; I did." Amazing! That anyone would say that, I think, shows the work of God on their heart.

However, I am most impressed with Gayle Haggard's, Ted's wife's, statement. It is clearly heart-felt and Christ-centered. You can tell she has a real relationship with God. Please read it here. What an impressive woman!!!

It's obvious from his statement that he was living a secret life of sin that consumed him. Unlike Mike Jones who flaunts his "lifestyle," Haggard was clearly conflicted and deeply hated the "repulsive and dark" things he's been "warring against" it all his adult life. There is a lot that needs to be fixed in his heart, so he still needs our prayers, as does his family and New Life Church.

The best line to end this series of posts on is the last line of Mrs. Haggard's statement: Ted "is now the visible and public evidence that every man (woman and child) needs a Savior."

Haggard Gay-Sex Scandal Update

The overseer board of New Life Church has concluded that Ted Haggard is guilty of "sexually immoral conduct," and have removed him as pastor, a move Mr. Haggard and his wife agreed with. Read their statement for yourself here.

I am confused as Haggard flatly denied having any kind of sexual relationship with Jones, but agreed to being removed for "sexually immoral conduct." What's the truth here? Will we ever know? Do we deserve to know?

Tragically, all the news agencies I've read (Breitbart, Rocky Mountain News, CBS 4 Denver) leave out the fact that they will "explore the depth of Pastor Haggard’s offense so that a plan of healing and restoration can begin" (I skimmed these sites, so I may have missed it).

Notice, the world ends with "he's been removed," but the Christians should pray for these things for some time. Though this will be out of the public eye after tomorrow (when a statement by Haggard will be read to the church), we need to be praying for him for some time.

Also, remember it's only by the grace of God that this story isn't about me or about you; "let him who thinks he stands take heed that he does not fall." (1 Cor 10:12).

Finally, though the cause of Christ in our culture has taken a severe hit remember that Christianity is not ultimately judged by its followers, but by its Founder.

Two Kinds of People-Watching

I overhead a student say recently "Disneyland is the best for people-watching," and it reminded me of my once favorite pastimes.

I used to love people-watching. Growing up in Southern California, there is no end to the people-watching possibilities. One of the best places to people-watch was the beach. I spent most of my summer on the beach, and the one thing we locals resented most was "inlanders." They'd flock to our home, following the "Beach Cities" signs on the 57, and infest them with their pasty white farmer tans and cut-off jeans (with belts) for boardshorts.

But, the best place to people-watch was and still is Disneyland. I agree with my student. I've been there so many times that Disneyland got boring, so I'd just sit there and watch people with friends, especially dazed foreign tourists and overweight people with skimpy clothes. This was the fun within the fun at "the happiest place on earth."

However, when you're people-watching, what're you doing?

I remember chuckling at the German tourists dressed in the most unfashonable clothing. I remember pointing and laughing at the Japanese tourists who would take pictures of EVERYTHING.

No matter where I went it was "Hey, look at...," or "Check out the...," or "Did you see...." I laughed a lot, and had a good time, that is, until I realized what I was really doing: I was looking for things to laugh at or make fun of.

Each time I was people-watching, I was really people-mocking. I'd set myself over them as their weight judge, or their fashion police, or their activities director and then mocked them for not being cool...like me.

I realized I liked watching people because smacking them down like that penguin above helped me prove how great I was, which by the way is not a lack of self-esteem, but too much self-esteem, or better, too much pride.

Now, I don't think all people-watching is bad, but I wasn't admiring God's creativity if the myriad of people and faces and bodies. Nor was I people-watching like Jesus did who "seeing the people, He felt compassion for them because they were distressed and dispirited like sheep without a shepherd" (Matt 9:36). I want to be that kind of people-watcher.

Haggard Gay-Sex Scandal Update

Now, Ted Haggard is admitting to buying the meth, but never taking it (because he was tempted), and receiving a massage from Mike Jones, but not having gay-sex. See the article here.

This is a downward spiral that's not looking good for Haggard. Continue to pray for him, his family, the overseers, the church, and the NAE.

Also, I just heard Mike Jones interviewed on KFI 640's John & Ken Show. I'll link their show downloads here, so that you can hear it for yourself (you'll have to sign up for a free KFI Press Pass to listen to it once it's posted). He reiterated his accusations, and said he has evidence (phone records and identifying body marks on Haggard) that what he's accusing is true. Also, he reaffirmed that Haggard's hypocrisy is proof against traditional marriage and for same-sex marriage and/or domestic partnership.

Can someone please explain that logic? A hypocrite is someone, NOT who says one thing but does another, but who says something is wrong but does it and affirms that it's right. In other words, a person can have gay-sex, think it's wrong and think gay marriage is wrong. If the accusations are true, all it proves is that Haggard's a sinner, not that same-sex marriage is morally right and should be promoted by the government.

Haggard Gay-Sex Scandal Update

Mike Jones, the gay male prostitute accusing the Rev. Ted Haggard of a 3 year affair in order to sway voters against a ban on same-sex marriage (see story below), has failed a lie detector test. Click here to read an article about it.

However, lie detectors are known for false positives, and the stress he's caused himself over all this, according to the test administrator, may have skewed the results.

Haggard Gay-Sex Scandal

According to multiple news sources, Rev. Ted Haggard the president of the National Association of Evangelicals, senior pastor of New Life Church in Colorado Springs and one of Time Magazine's Top 25 Most Influential Evangelicals has "resigned Thursday after being accused of paying for sex with a man in monthly trysts over the past three years."

Read articles here, here, with the most in depth article I've seen so far here.

Haggard said the escort, who made the accusation today on Denver talk radio, was lying.

I pray it's not true--a family and church destroyed is never good. So, for those of you out there that are happy about this (I've read a couple blogs like this), you should be ashamed of yourself. However, if it is true, I pray that he'll confess and repent of his sins, and I pray for healing, wisdom and forgiveness for him, his family (he has wife and 5 kids), the church and the organizations he's involved with.

I have three things to say about this:

First, Mike Jones, the man making the allegations of gay sex and drug use, does seem fishy. According to the CBS article, he came forward because of the political fight in Colorado over same-sex marriage, saying "I just want people to step back and take a look and say, 'Look, we're all sinners, we all have faults, but if two people want to get married, just let them, and let them have a happy life'" (though this has nothing to do with Haggard's guilt or innocence, what a bad argument for same-sex marriage). In other words, it's fishy because the "coming out" with this was politically motivated.

Second, Ted Haggard stepping down from New Life & the NAE and seeking spiritual counsel doesn't look good either, but I'm not sure what the logistics are for investigating the matter, although New Life Church explained some of it here.

Third, though as far as the truth of the allegation goes this means nothing, but in an online poll many more people believe Mike Jones (65% to 35%), which means Mr. Haggard's image, for now, is severely tarnished.

***UPDATE: I just read in the FoxNews.com article that "The acting senior pastor at New Life, Ross Parsley, told KKTV-TV of Colorado Springs that Haggard admitted that some of the accusations were true, but Parsley did not elaborate. A telephone number for Parsley could not be found late Thursday." Agh!

***ADDITION: Let me get this straight, Mike Jones' argument is "Ted Haggard, an opponent of same-sex marriage, has been having an affair with a man. Therefore, everyone should vote against the ban on same-sex marriage in Colorado next week." I think that's the definition of a non-sequitur--the conclusion does not follow from the premise.

Theology - Accuracy

In reading Augustine's Confessions, chapter III.4 today (click here or the title of the post above for the text), I came across this line:

"Still rejoicing, I blushed that for so many years I had bayed, not against the Catholic faith, but against the fables of fleshly imagination. I had been both impious and rash in this, that I had condemned by pronouncement what I ought to have learned by inquiry."

He's slowly taking steps that will ultimately bring him to trust in Christ for salvation (Book 8), but in this section he's struggling with doubts, and one of the things he realized was not that he rejected what he calls "the Catholic faith," but that he'd rejected "fables of fleshly imagination" about it.

This is an important lesson. Before coming to conclusions about any point of doctrine (or really anything), it is absolutely critical that you are hearing the most accurate and well-argued positions you can find, especially for ideas you're going to disagree with. Make sure you're not condemning "by pronouncement" (from a favorite book, or author, etc.) what you should've learned by your own "inquiry" first.

Hard work to do that? Yes, but when Augustine did this he received an accurate picture of God, which brought him to rejoicing because nothing's more important than having accurate knowledge when making a decision, especially when it's for or against God.

The Christian's Battle with Sin

I read this illustration by John Bunyan today and it nailed me right between the eyes with "That's the perfect illustration for struggling with sin in the Christian life." Here it is. Tell me what you think. If you want to read the full sermon, click here or the title of this post above.

Of the person that truly wants spiritual maturity (which he pictures as coming to Christ) Bunyan writes, you are "like the man that would ride full gallop, whose horse will hardly trot! Now, the desire of his mind is not to be judged of by the slow pace of the dull [horse] he rides on, but by the hitching, and kicking, and spurring, as he sits on his back. Thy flesh is like this dull [horse]; it will not gallop after Christ; it will be backward, though thy soul and heaven lie at stake" (from the sermon Come and Welcome to Jesus Christ).

Oh, I feel like that man all the time! My heart beats to be like Christ yet my life is not. The "horse" of spiritual maturity doesn't seem backward. A lot of times I wonder if it isn't dead.

Evangelism's Wrong Heart

This picture is meant to show the wrong heart when doing evangelism--a heart I've seen all too often, and a heart that I have, to my shame, had, though thankfully not often.

Book Buying Strategy

I heard a guy today say "Nobody reads books anymore." Well I guess I'm counter cultural because most of the time I tend to agree with Erasmus, a quote I first saw on a Border's bookmark, “When I get a little money I buy books; and if any is left I buy food and clothes.” Therefore, I REALLY needed a chart like this one. Enjoy!

NCT & Matthew 5:17

My good friend sent this to me to post. Let us know what you think. It is the Clifnotes version so he's available for further explanation through email if you leave it in the comments.

"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.”

John Wesley once remarked about this infamous passage, “There are few subjects within the whole compass of religion so little understood as this.” Through post-Reformation history, conflicts that have arisen over the interpretation of this passage rival any other in regards to barring ecumenical dialogue. However, with the rise of “Progressive Dispensationalism” (Bock, Blaising, Saucy, etc.) at Dallas Theological Seminary (the hub of Traditional Dispensational thought) and the concessions of discontinuity found in the “New Covenant Theology” (Piper, Grudem, Carson, Moo and others, while not subscribing to a wholly new, systematic way of approaching redemptive history, can be cited to have made such concessions) have brought positive dialogue between these two historically polarized positions.

So what does all of this have to do with Matthew 5:17? Pretty much everything. One’s view of the relationship between Law and Gospel almost absolutely determines where one stands—between reformed and its emphasis on continuity and dispensationalists and its emphasis on discontinuity—on this issue.

With that said, let us now turn to the passage in question. First and foremost, why is Jesus speaking here in the first place? Using mirror hermeneutics, we can safely assume that someone was questioning, whether explicitly or implicitly, that Jesus was, in some sense, abolishing, or quite possibly questioning, the authority of the Law. Therefore, the Lord states that he by no means is abolishing the Law with his teaching, but is, in some way, fulfilling it. There are many views on the meaning of this statement, but the two main ones are from the classical reformed position, which says that Jesus is somehow explaining the true intent of the Law of Moses, or the traditional dispensationalist position, which says that Jesus is teaching a final (at least for this dispensation) break from the Old Covenant.

In their book, New Covenant Theology, Tom Wells and Fred Zaspel lay out a convincing case for middle ground between these two traditional views. First, the context of Matthew’s Gospel must be noted. Most scholars agree that there is a clear contrast between Jesus and Moses in Matthew’s frame of reference. Matthew wants the reader to have Moses in mind in this passage. Pair this with the fact that Jesus is always presented as “greater” than Old Testament figures (12:3-4, 6, 8, 41,42) and it is obvious that Jesus has authority over the Old Covenant.

So how exactly does Jesus “fulfill” the Law with His divine authority? In NCT, Zaspel places forth a hypothesis called eschatological fulfillment. In Zaspel’s own words, “Jesus came to bring about what Moses’ law anticipated. The law pointed forward to him all along; he is its eschatological goal. Only in him does it find its full significance and continuing validity…. In Jesus Moses is fulfilled (emphasis mine).”

Here are some of the strengths of this hypothesis: 1) It preserves the contrast between “destroy” and “fulfill”. 2) It fits very well in the larger Christological context of Matthew (“Jesus is greater than…”). 3) It gives close attention to Matthew’s emphasis on inaugurated eschatology in Jesus’ relation to the Law of Moses. 4) It provides a single explanation for Jesus as “fulfillment” of the law which applies equally to every detail (“jot and tittle) of it. 5) It provides the simplest explanation of Jesus’ handling of Moses’ law in v. 21-48. He did not merely “intensify” the law nor did he extend it (“hate is murder”), add to it (“love your enemy as well as your neighbor”), or replace it (“divorce is adultery”). 6) It preserves the continuity with Moses that is directly implied in the contrasting phrase “not to destroy but to fulfill.” It is no mere replacement theology, yet it also allows for the dramatic shift that is sometimes evident in v. 21-48, and often in Paul, which is required by the “newness” of the age and the precedence of the law of Christ in this era.

Ultimately, this seems to me to preserve the strengths of both the Reformed and Dispensational traditions while removing the weaknesses. After all, Jesus said “unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.” The law of Christ must, therefore, exceed the Law of Moses in some way. Eschatological fulfillment certainly does the job.

Jeremiah 3:3

I was doing my daily Bible reading this morning when I read this verse: "Therefore the showers have been withheld, and there has been on spring rain. Yet you had a harlot's forehead; you refused to be ashamed" (Jer 3:3).

God judged His people for their sins (especially idolatry), and in the original covenant He said one of the ways He'd judge them is by making "your sky like iron and your earth like bronze" (Lev 26:19). By withholding rain, it was a clear sign that their sins had brought them under God's judgment. And, the second half of Jer 3:3 strongly implies this was a sign they understood.

However, in spite of understanding and receiving God's judgment, God says they "refused to be ashamed." Why? Because they "had a harlot's forehead." What a stunning word picture!

The first time a prostitute works, there is guilt (we feel guilty because we are guilty) for the kind of business she's in. She strongly and deeply feels the pangs of conscience, but as time goes by, and she continues working, the judgment her conscience brings to bear upon her gets softer and softer. In the end, the same actions that brought mountains of shame bring no shame at all.

This is the danger every Christian faces when it comes to their sin. When God disciplines us we don't want Him to say of us what He said of them "In vain I have struck your sons; they accepted no chastening" (Jer 2:30). Be ashamed of your sin, accept His discipline. Don't develop the forehead of a harlot.