Tribalism vs. The Gospel

While discussing trends that are facing the church in the 21st century, David Wells speaks of "the growing bonding of kin...in the new expressions of tribalism--nationalistic, ethnic, and generational" (22).

To this growing trend--which I think is blatantly evident in the niche churches that market exclusively to subgroups so as to be "specific things to specific people"--the gospel is directly opposed.

In Ephesians 2:11-18, Paul argues that Christ achieved relational peace between Jews and Gentiles on the cross where he said "For [Christ] himself is our peace, who has made the two [Jew & Gentile] one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace" (vv. 14-15).

Churches must be marked by this relational peace. Any racism, classism, ageism, musicism, income-ism, or any other -ism, or any ministry model that glories in and perpetuates our differences has the effect of reintroducing war to a battlefield Christ already brought peace to. It pretends that this very important--though often neglected--work of relational peace that Jesus achieved on the cross never happened.

A people who're truly seeking to have a cross-centered, gospel-focused, Christ-exalting life and ministry cannot let this be.

Three Martyrs in Turkey

I want to thank James White for posting this story, which the BBC gives just the facts about, concerning three Christian Bible publishers who were tortured before being murdered by their Muslim captors.

Dr. White also posted on this article, which is an unedited English translation from the terrorist forces in Iraq.

Please take the time to read these articles, and add the persecuted church in Muslim lands to your prayer list.

Christians Satisfied in Vanity Fair?

Carl Trueman writes this a penetrating article about how evangelicals tend to domesticate our radicals, referring specifically to Jesus, but spending most of his time on C.S. Lewis and John Bunyan--very interesting!

At the end of the article, he explains the sinful reasons why we tend to domesticate our radicals in this very insightful paragraph:

"Given the way in which evangelical culture in America is so deeply embedded in the systems, practices and aspirations of American culture in general–-from its colleges and seminaries to its publishing houses to its relentless vision of `big is best’ to its personality cults of celebrity theologians to its mega-ministries to its amazing ability to transform anyone – even the patrician Anglican C S Lewis and the radical tinker John Bunyan – into friendly evangelical allies, the outlook is not bright. To put it bluntly, we live in Vanity Fair, and we seem to be quite happy there."

People, pastors and churches that don't address this reality will have a very difficult time experiencing sanctification while being so unknowingly and satisfyingly embedded in the sin-driven culture that we tend to love so much.

Witnessing To Mormons (Pt 1)

For my personal studies I decided that among other things I'd devote the first six months of the year to a cult and the last six to a world religion. Mormonism is my cult until July 1st, and I just finished reading the truly excellent Mormonism 101. Click here to read why I think it's sooooo good.

In my first installment of witnessing tactics gleaned from Mormonism 101 I give you this famous quote from Brigham Young:

"Take up the Bible, compare the religion of the Latter-day Saints with it, and see if it will stand the test. The doctrine that we preach is the doctrine of the Bible, it is the doctrine the Lord has revealed for the salvation of the children of God, and when men, who have once obeyed it, deny it, they deny it with their eyes wide open, and knowing that they deny the truth and set at naught the counsels of the Almighty" (Discourses of Brigham Young, 126).

Ask the Mormon if they've followed this command from their prophet. Ask them to demonstrate whether what he says here is actually true. Ask them to demonstrate how what they believe about God, Jesus, sin, the gospel and salvation compare with what the Bible says about these critical topics.

If they avoid this, and punt to their "burning in the bosom" or some other supernatural "experience" for proof that Mormonism is truth, should they even be listened to at the outset?

Are You Being Squeezed???

Have you ever noticed that invisible forces, influences we swim in constantly but rarely ever notice, are constantly shaping how we understand life, God, others, ourselves, what's important, what's not, etc.?

And, have you ever noticed how what we think about the world, what we think it's all about, impacts how we experience that world. Don't know what I mean? Let this illustration from David Wells' Above All Earthly Pow'rs help:

"...a materialistic scientist and an animist who believes that trees have souls comparable to hos own will look at the same trees rather differently. The difference lies not in the trees, but in the interpretive framework in which they are understood" (20).

In the margin of my book I wrote that the difference also lies in who has the correct understanding of the tree, the understanding of the tree that matches what the tree actually is.

Why does all this matter? When a belief matches reality, we use a specific word to describe that particular kind of relationship between belief and reality. That word is "truth."

When we are "conformed to this world" (Rom 12:2), when we let the world system squeeze us into it's mold so that we think and feel and desire and live like that world, we are living in direct opposition to the truth.

This is why it is so important for Christians to attend churches that don't just make them feel good. Feelings don't sanctify. Feeling are a thermometer for our sanctification. Truth sanctifies (John 17:17), and we need churches that take us deeply into God's truth.

I had lunch with a friend of mine this week and we were talking about preaching. I remember reading an article by John MacArthur, I think it's the first article in the first TMS Journal, about the relationship between inerrancy and preaching.

The gist of his argument was that you see what people really believe about the Bible in their preaching. If you believe the inspiration of the Bible is verbal, reaching down to the very words on the page, than you will preach every word on the page. You'll feel like you're sinning if you don't explain every nook and cranny because you're skipping something God wanted said. You don't do that, you must revisit what you think about the Bible because your actions contradict your doctrinal statement.

We need pastors and churches that preach and live according to what their doctrinal statements say about the Bible. We have that, and Christians will have a much harder time "fitting in" with and feeling comfortable around and being energized by the things of this world. Instead, they'll feel at home in the truth because they're being "transformed by the renewing of their minds" (Ron 12:2).

Mike Penner Becomes Christine Daniels

Mike Penner, sports writer for the L.A. Times, announced here that he will leave on vacation and return in a few weeks as Christine Daniels.

As I read this article, my initial response was to feel sorry for a guy who has been constantly afflicted with the "white noise" of really being a woman for over 40 years, and then have people tell him his brain was "wired female" even though they admit transsexualism is "a complicated and widely misunderstood medical condition."

A couple months ago I posted on a story about a 14 year old boy named Tim who became Kim. At that time I wrote:

"What makes a man male? His parts or his nature? In other words, just because his parts changed, does that mean he's no longer male?

If a man lost his "equipment" from cancer, would he no longer be male? What if he lost it, and wore dresses and makeup?

If a woman lost all of her "equipment" in an accident and wore men's clothing and talked with a deep voice, would she cease being female? I don't think so.

What did people do who thought like Tim before sex-change operations? They fought the thoughts in their mind with reality, or gave into them and were miserable.

My point: Just because you think or feel something, doesn't make it true no matter how strong the thought or feeling is. So much for self-control. If I feel it, it must be true?

The reality is Kim is Tim, and just because Tim took hormones to change his body's appearance, and just because he wears women's clothing, doesn't make him Kim. In fact, nothing can make Tim Kim."

I know that will not be persuasive for many of you. In fact, most of the comments I read on the L.A. Times website argued along the lines of "if it makes you happy it must be right and good and true."

Now, there is a lot of courage that goes into this decision. I don't want to minimize that, or the suffering he's gone through. And, I don't want to be like the Christians who posted Romans 1 and a call to repentance in the comments either.

Rather than punting to the sovereignty of God (which is true, and his operation is a prideful spurning of His sovereignty) to explain Mr. Penner's condition, I think more can be said about this.

What he's experiencing is certainly an effect of the Fall. If there was no sin, we would never think of our "software" conflicting with our "hardware."

Homosexuality is certainly a sin, but this article says nothing about his attraction to men. Should we just assume that's going on? I don't know.

Also, the article does not mention a wife or kids, who would trump any considerations of a sex change.

And, regardless of his operation, Mr. Penner is still loved by God and made in His image and in need of the gospel. He has been told the false gospel that his problem is not sin, but a prolonged difficulty with emotions that he can be "saved" from by mean of an operation.

However, I'll leave with these words from Ed Welch's, When People are Big and God is Small, which help me begin to understand what's going on in his mind:

"If you exalt the individual and make emotions the path to truth, then whatever you feel most strongly will be considered both good and necessary for growth. ... That is why the unpardonable sin in today's culture is to either 'deny' or suppress your emotions. Emotions point to needs, and to deny your needs is to deny something God-given and God-like." [But] "just because I feel a 'need'...doesn't mean that this desire is really a 'God-given need,' a 'legitimate need,' or a 'primal need.' Perhaps what I am calling 'need' is really disappointment or grief, or perhaps it is my demandingness and lust" (pgs. 87, 89).

I hope that as these episodes multiply, more and more Christians will write books and articles on gender, transsexuality, and what makes a man a man and not a woman from philosophical, theological and counseling angles.

Free J.P. Moreland Lectures

J.P. Moreland of Talbot's School of Theology just finished a two-part lecture series on naturalism at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary.

Dr. Moreland is a distinguished professor of philosophy and noted author of such books as Scaling the Secular City, Love Your God With All Your Mind, and most recently Kingdom Triangle, which is described here as "a bold call to reclaim powerful kingdom living and influence through recovery of the Christian mind, renovation of Christian spirituality, and restoration of the Holy Spirit’s power."

Aside from all that, he is a warm-hearted man who is a real gift to the body of Christ, and has had a far-reaching effect on a whole generation of Christian apologists.

If you are interested in listening to these lectures, you can subscribe to the SEBTS chapel podcast through iTunes or look for them to download here under April 18th and 19th.

Mormonism 101 by McKeever & Johnson

I just finished Mormonism 101 by Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson (of mrm.org), and now can wholeheartedly recommend it to anyone who is wondering about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

Each chapter of the book "compares the teachings of the Mormon leaders, both past and present, with those of the Bible" (9) with the purpose of showing that in opposition to all claims to the contrary, Mormonism is NOT Christianity by any stretch of the imagination.

When trying to learn about a rival religion, all too often Christians rely on Christian sources that do a poor job of explaining their opponents. As a result, the refutations they offer end up refuting no one but the person who naively relies on that faulty source (for instance, Norman Geisler wrote a book called The Reincarnation Sensation that does a very poor job of explaining and refuting the worldviews surrounding reincarnation).

Thankfully, this error is greatly reduced by authors when they spend a lot of time quoting their opponent's sources, and this is exactly what Mormonism 101 does.

The authors utilize dozens of Mormon sources to explain Mormon doctrine. They give the quotes with references in the end notes and challenge anyone to prove where they misquoted or took the words out of context.

If you want to know what Mormonism teaches on such topics as God, Jesus, the Trinity, human beings, the Fall, the Bible, atonement, grace and works, heaven and hell, communion and baptism, the word of wisdom, the temple, dark-skinned peoples, Joseph Smith and church leadership you can read Mormon leaders in their own words in this book. The only thing better is taking the bibliography and reading the Mormon sources yourself.

In my mind, this fact alone makes this book indispensable. However, I also recommend this book for three other reasons.

First, their explanation of Christian doctrine is clearly orthodox (except when it follow Leon Morris by calling justification an "process" [161, 163] though they do separate it from sanctification and describe it as "instantaneous" [166]; I think this may have just been a poor choice of words), but the value comes when the authors contrast Christian doctrine with Mormon understandings of those same doctrine.

Second, unlike many Mormon sources I've read, this book stays away from the sensational and like Dragnet gives "just the facts." While it makes for a little less interesting reading, bringing up the sensational never gets far in evangelism.

Third, for the observant reader Mormonism 101 is absolutely filled with witnessing tips and helpful tactics. These appear not just at the end of each of the book's 6 sections, but are riddled throughout. I think this is so helpful that I will begin to add these tactics regularly to this blog.

If you're wondering about Mormonism, which I heard this weekend is the second fastest growing religion behind Islam, or if you have a friend or family member who is a Mormon or is considering Mormonism, or if you're just curious you cannot find a better entry-level resource than Mormonism 101.

Death Hits My Family Again

Two months and two days to the day my grandpa died, I was back at another hospice care facility, this time comforting more family as their beloved daughter, sister, mother and grandmother Libby was passing away (I say "family" though we're not blood related our families are multi-generational family friends going back to the 20's and 30's).

I don't remember ever meeting Libby though I'm sure I did. However, we did talk a month and a half ago when she called me out of the blue the day after my grandpa's funeral to talk about and pray for her friend who had died that night.

Right as I walked in all the memories from February came rushing back. And with the memories came the emotions. As I stood in her room praying in a circle with all the family I began to cry as death hit us again.

Not too much in the events surrounding their passing are the same as my grandpa's, except for this: When God wants you dead, you're dead.

Her health was relatively OK until about March 8th. She just got a cold that when coupled with her diabetes led to pneumonia which led to her heart, kidneys, pancreas and lungs just shutting down.

By the time I got there yesterday afternoon, she was barely breathing and totally unresponsive. As to her condition, the doctors were surprised she made it through the night and sadly I just got off the phone with my auntie telling me she had passed away a few minutes ago.

The critical question: Was she a Christian? I don't know. When I found out she was in her last moments I rushed out to Garden Grove yesterday with the hope of talking with her about her afterlife. However, I may have been there to minister to the family more than to her.

I did get a chance to whisper the gospel in her hear and then to beg her to repent of her sins and trust Christ alone for her salvation. I'm convinced that people in that state can hear, but I don't have any scientific proof for that.

From here, the family has a very difficult road ahead. Her kids are in the midst of a Gordian Knot kind of family feud that will be or is currently in the courts.

While I'd ask you to pray for me as I may be doing another funeral this week, this family needs a lot of prayer as the decisions they make from here may totally tear them apart for good.

It seems I will also be consulted about the feud as well as the funeral. What am I going to do? I have no idea! I feel totally unprepared for this, and just pray I won't do anything to tarnish the name of Christ, let alone being a light in the midst of all this.

Towards an Exegetical Theology by Walter Kaiser

Dr. Kaiser’s goal in Toward an Exegetical Theology is to fill in a gaping hole in the academic preparation for ministry “between the study of the biblical text...and the actual delivery of messages to God's people,” by teaching the student “how one moves from analyzing the text over to constructing a sermon that accurately reflects that same analysis and is directly dependent on it” (8).

He seeks to accomplish this though what he calls the syntactical-theological method, which does not replace, but instead adds to the grammatico-historical method, seeing the twin ideas of syntactical (ch. 4, 8) and theological studies (ch. 6) as the bridge across the gap.

After introducing the book by summarizing modern catastrophes in exegetical studies, he shows what exegesis is and is not by surveying the history of exegesis (ch. 1-2).

He defines exegesis as the diligent “practice of and the set of procedures for discovering the author’s intended meaning” (47), with the homiletical goal of proclaiming God's Word “in such a way that it can be heard with all its poignancy and relevancy to the modern situation without dismissing one iota of its original normativeness” (48).

The major section of the book is devoted to explaining his method of interpretation (ch. 3-8), after which he applies the method to three specific biblical genres (ch. 9-11).

He is keenly aware that his very detailed book may have just made the process of going from exegesis to exposition overwhelming, so he concludes with a big picture reminder to preachers of the need for the Spirit’s ministry and power though His Word in their lives and ministries.

Sadly, I have owned this excellent book for well over five years, but only read it when I was assigned to do so in seminary. I say "sadly" because this book is immensely helpful and formative for what is becoming the exegetical method I will follow as I embark on the journey of preparing sermons for the rest of my life (Lord willing).

Virginia Tech Massacre II

First, I am just sick and livid at NBC for airing that psychotic murderer's videos. Even in death, he played them for fools who gave him exactly what he wanted: 15 minutes of fame. I agree with Hugh Hewitt "what is rewarded is repeated." We'll see if he's prophetic.

And in our rush to find out what caused this senseless massacre, I just heard a radio host suggest that maybe it was the chemical in the murderer's parents dry cleaning business that threw his serotonin levels off and made him do this!

So much for personal responsibility for one's actions! How long until we're pushed to feel sympathy for this devil because his crimes against humanity really aren't his fault?

Enough of that. The real reason I opened this post was to tell you about Liviu Librescu.

I know this wonderful man I am singling out is well-known now, but I have to talk about him on the off-chance you don't know about him already. What follows comes from an excellent tribute to the victims on msnbc.com:

"Liviu Librescu, 76, an engineering science and mechanics lecturer. Born in Romania, he survived the Nazi Holocaust and emigrated to Israel in 1978 before moving to Virginia in 1985.

An Israeli citizen, he had taught at Virginia Tech for 20 years and was internationally known for his work in aeronautical engineering.

"His research has enabled better aircraft, superior composite materials, and more robust aerospace structures," said Ishwar Puri, the head of the engineering science and mechanics department.

After surviving the Nazi killings, Librescu escaped from communist Romania and made his way to the United States before he was killed in Monday’s massacre, which coincided with Israel’s Holocaust Remembrance Day.

Librescu's son, Joe, said his father's students sent e-mails detailing how the professor saved their lives by blocking the doorway of his classroom from the approaching gunman before he was fatally shot.

“My father blocked the doorway with his body and asked the students to flee,” Joe Librescu said from his home outside Tel Aviv, Israel. “Students started opening windows and jumping out.”

There are so many more profiles to read here, here and here on msnbc.com. I cried as I read and know I'd cry more if I stayed on the site longer.

Please take the time to at least scan the photos and personalize this. Put real faces to the vague "32 killed" we see and hear in the news. I think it helps us see the massacre and that piece of human scum in the correct light.

Partial-Birth Abortion Banned!!!

In the midst of all the anger and sadness in our country after the Virginia Tech massacre, we can find much joy in this significant day in the history of the U.S.A.!

Today, in Gonzales v. Carhart, 05-380 (read official decision here), the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that "the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act that Congress passed and President Bush signed into law in 2003 does not violate a woman's constitutional right to an abortion" (Breitbart). In other words, Congress' banning of abortion does not violate previous laws permitting abortion.

However, that means this decision does not outlaw first-trimester abortions, when most abortions take place, nor the usual second-trimester procedure called "dilation and evacuation" (D&E).

For clarity's sake, in D&E "the doctor dilates the cervix and then inserts surgical instruments into the uterus and maneuvers them to grab the fetus and pull it back through the cervix and vagina. The fetus is usually ripped apart as it is removed, and the doctor may take 10 to 15 passes to remove it in its entirety" (Gonzalez v. Cathart). No, that's not outlawed with this ruling.

What was banned is called "partial-birth abortion" or "intact D&E" (don't you just love euphemisms?). I once asked a class of college students "How many of you have heard of partial-birth abortion?" Most nodded or raised their hands. Then I asked "What is it?" Blank stares. No one knew. So I asked them to break the words down, and as they did the lights went on.

Well, what was it that went on in their minds? Why would Congress' 2003 Act say "there was a moral, medical, and ethical consensus that partial-birth abortion is a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited" (Gonzalez v. Cathart)?

Here's what the decision describes as "intact D&E": "The procedure that prompted the federal Act and various state statutes...is a variation of the standard D&E [described above], and is herein referred to as "intact D&E." The main difference between the two procedures is that in intact D&E a doctor extracts the fetus intact or largely intact with only a few passes, pulling out its entire body instead of ripping it apart. In order to allow the head to pass through the cervix, the doctor typically pierces or crushes the skull" (Gonzalez v. Cathart).

Did the lights go on for you? Let the mental images sink in. That was happening in this country until today. I wonder if there was a rush this week to get them in before this ban took effect.

Sadly, the moral confusion on this issue still exists as 4 justices dissented and doctors only get two years in prison for performing an "intact D&E." And, what do the Democratic candidates for president think? Edwards said he couldn't "disagree more strongly" with the Court. Obama said "I strongly disagree," and Hillary said this decision is an "erosion of our constitutional rights." Don't forget to read their comments in light of what "intact D&E" actually is.

In the end, I hope this moral haze lifts soon, and I pray that this day will be remembered as the day the crack started in the armor of legalized abortion in the U.S.

If you want to better understand this procedure from the Christian worldview--and you should--and how to knowledgeably and persuasively argue against it, please read these excellent articles by Greg Koukl from Stand To Reason:

• Partial-Birth Abortion Is Not About Abortion
• Partial-Birth Abortion: Objections and Misunderstandings
• Stepping Over The Line
• Morally Velocitized
• Nothing Hidden in D&X

Read Mormonism 101

Because my grandpa's girlfriend is a Mormon and I want her to be saved, I've taken a short break from my regular reading to reacquaint myself with Mormonism.

In order to do this, I know of no better book than Mormonism 101 by Bill McKeever (founder of the best Mormon evangelism ministry I know of called Mormonism Research Ministry, mrm.org) and Eric Johnson. For more excellent resources than just this book, click here.

The book is easy to read and McKeever and Johnson spend the bulk of their time quoting Mormon sources on every point. This means they do a very good job of not beating up straw men with their arguments.

I've read about 100 pages so far and am reaffirmed in my conviction that despite all the PR to the contrary, Mormonism and Christianity are exact opposites. It has a completely different God, completely different Jesus, completely different Bible and completely different gospel.

With that, I am stunned that Apostle Bruce McConkie writes in Mormon Doctrine: "Mormonism is Christianity; Christianity is Mormonism; they are one and the same" (513).

They use all the same words, but give them radically different and even contradictory meanings. If you say "I know Jon B." but when asked to describe him you tell of him being an R&B singer you've got the wrong guy.

In the same way, Mormons may say "I believe in Jesus" but when asked to describe Jesus they directly oppose the idea that He is God in the flesh, second person of the Trinity whose death on the cross paid the debt for ALL our sins, and that the benefits of His death are received by faith alone.

Call Mormonism what you want, but you cannot honestly call it Christian when it's Christianity's opposite. If you want to know more, get this book and read it.

Praying for Non-Christians

Do you pray for specific unbelievers to be saved?

After reading a short section of Augustine's Confession, I was struck with these words that I hope to incorporate into my prayers for unbelievers (if you like, read it in context here ch. 8, para. 12):

"It was pleasing in Your sight to reform my deformity, and by inward stings You didst disturb me so that I was impatient until You were made clear to my inward sight."

I want God to "disturb" the unbelievers I pray for, along with convicting them of "sin, righteousness and judgment" (John 16:8) and putting gospel-sharing believers around them so that He will be made clear to their inward sight, something I think only happens after salvation (cf. Romans 1:18-23, 8:5-8; 1 Corinthians 2:14; Ephesians 4:17-18).

Virginia Tech Massacre

In the midst of this tragedy, one can miss a very important lesson about the value of human life.

I've seen a bunch of news stories about this and all of them are saying 21 then 24 and now 32 dead. This may be an accurate count of those that died, but it misses a critical distinction.

News stories should read "32 murdered" NOT "33 dead." Only one person was killed today. 32 were murdered.

Lumping the murderer in with his victims is disgusting and I tend to agree with Dennis Prager that even in this small detail we see the totally inability of many to identify and name evil.

I also agree with him that we should grieve and be angry over this evil. It is the right thing to do. In fact, there's something seriously wrong with a person who is not grieving and angry, but just wants to "get over it."

One caller said he can't wait to hear about the murderer's family life and socio-economic status rather than the wickedness of his crimes.

You can see this shift taking place even now as the blame and anger has already moved from the murderer to second-guessing Virginia Tech and their security for not getting an email out fast enough! It sounds like lawyers are getting ready to make money off this already.

What is that!?! Why are things so backwards?

He Who Gives Life by Graham Cole

It's not good because I'm just going to bed, but I'm now very excited. I just discovered that Crossway is finally adding a new book to its' excellent Foundations in Evangelical Theology series on pneumatology (the doctrine of the Holy Spirit) called He Who Gives Life.

To let you know how much I thought about this series, just yesterday I was contemplating sending an email to John Feinberg, the series editor, to ask him how it's coming along.

Well...I just got a little unexcited after reading it's not due out until mid-August. Oh well, my anticipation has time to grow.

The book's author is Graham A. Cole who I don't know anything about. I just did a Google search and discovered he's currently teaching at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, the seminary connected to one of my alma maters.

For my money, the other three books in the series are some of the best single volume treatments of theological method (To Know and Love God), the doctrine of God (No One Like Him) and the doctrine of salvation (The Cross and Salvation).

Lesbian "Comes Out of the Closet" Again

Click here to read a very encouraging and heart-warming testimony about God's grace in the conversion of Charlene E. Cothran.

She was a very prominent gay and lesbian activist as editor-in-chief of “Venus Magazine,” a pro-homosexual publication, who has recently "come out of the closet again" (her words) by embracing Christ and renouncing homosexuality.

This was done in the pages of the very magazine she published and edited with her article entitled "Redeemed! 10 Ways to Get Out of the Gay Life, If You Want Out."

Aside from her stirring testimony, my favorite lines from the article are these: "I intend be just as ‘out’ about my transformation as I was about my lesbian life. I have given every gift I have back to God, including VENUS Magazine. The target audience will remain the same but the mission has been renewed. Our new mission is to encourage, educate and assist those in the life who want change but can’t find a way out."

This is the radical, 180 degree transformation that comes from true conversion, just like we see in the story of Zaccheus in Luke 19. This also encourages me to witness even to the more difficult because it reminds me that absolutely no one is unreachable with the gospel. Praise God!

Imus Fired from TV & Radio Show

Now that they fired Don Imus for calling women on the Rutgers' Women Basketball team "nappy headed hoes," I wonder if CBS is going to fire all the radio executives and give back the millions they make off the racism and sexism that is gangsta rap?

For instance, CBS' urban radio stations aired the 2005 Oscar winning song "It's Hard Out Here for a Pimp" from the movie Hustle & Flow thousands of times. The reason I pick on this song (though I could choose hundreds of others) is that it won an Oscar while calling women "hoes" four times, not to mention all the other expletives about women it has (see it's lyrics here, but be warned).

Imus gets fired for saying a word that black men say repeatedly about white and black women and are then rewarded for it with an Oscar! CBS gives us a dictionary definition for hypocrite.

Let's examine this a little deeper. Why is it OK for black rappers to say the same racist and sexist words and worse, but when a white talk show host says it one time he's fired? Why can the word "ho" be said thousands of times by rappers on the same airwaves with no repercussions that Imus' said it on?

Is it wrong for him because he's white, or because it's deplorable to say those words about anyone? Either it's wrong, racist and sexist for EVERYONE to call women "hoes," regardless of their race or gender, or there must be a significant difference between rappers and Don Imus?

If you say it's OK for the rapers, the question is why? Because they're black or merely "expressing themselves?" If you think that, you're a sexist who believes it's OK for men to demean women as long as they're black or "describing the reality of life in the 'hood."

If you say it's wrong for Imus but not them, you're an anti-white racist, which is what I think is at the core of this episode.

Personally, while his words AND the words of the song are appalling, offensive and should never be spoken of any woman, I think this is happening to Imus because he's a white man talking about black women.

If Imus was a black rapper talking about black women or even white women, this NEVER would've hit the news and if a good enough drumbeat played in the background he may even have received an Oscar for it.

Now, if there are certain rules for one race (in this case, whites) that another race (i.e., blacks) can break without penalty, what's that called? Does it have a name? It does. It's called discrimination on the basis of race.

I agree with Jesse Lee Peterson. The only way men like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton can continue to exist is by making it look like racism is thriving just as much as it was in the 1800's. Therefore, they actively look for white people to ruin, and say nothing when blacks do the same thing--just like they did the 3 Duke lacrosse players who had their charges dropped today. Do you think Sharpton's going to apologize to them anytime soon?

Also, I think the news media and ESPN are complicit in both cases because they stand on the side of being politically-correct rather than true (as an aside, I'll be interested to see if they spin Imus into their tribute to Jackie Robinson this weekend).

This episode is another in a long line of evidence that demonstrates all racists are not created equal. Jackson, Sharpton and a myriad of rappers are some of the most bigotted racists in America. The only difference is, their anti-white racism is socially acceptable.

Bottom Line: Either it's wrong for every single person on the planet to call women "hoes," like the Rutgers' coach said in her press conference, or there's a double standard based on race. It seems to me that our culture lets you can call any race of woman any racist and sexist thing you want as long as you're not white.

Augustine on Pride

In the midst of his wrestling with God in his Confessions, Augustine makes this priceless statement about pride:

"By my swelling pride I was separated from You, and my bloated cheeks blinded my eyes" (VII.11).

Can't you just picture an obese man who's eyes squint under the pressure coming up from his inflated cheeks?

Pride not only separates a person from God, but it blinds him to God, blinds him to the separation and blinds him from the fact that it's precisely his pride that has caused this separation.

Augustine on Horoscopes II

Augustine has some more helpful observations about the fallacious reasoning behind horoscopes when he writes:

"I then turned my thoughts to those that are born twins, who generally come out of the womb so near the one to the other that the short interval between them—whatever importance they may ascribe to it in the nature of things—cannot be noted by human observation or expressed in those tables which the astrologer uses to examine when he undertakes to pronounce the truth. But such pronouncements cannot be true. For looking into the same horoscopes, he must have foretold the same future for Esau and Jacob, whereas the same future did not turn out for them. He must therefore speak falsely. If he is to speak truly, then he must read contrary predictions into the same horoscopes. But this would mean that it was not by art, but by chance, that he would speak truly."

I loved how he used the very clear biblical example of Jacob and Esau to refute horoscopes. Brilliant!!!

Backtracking to Jesus' Lost Tomb

Click here to read a Jerusalem Post article about how scholars who were interviewed for the documentary are now revising some of the claims they made about the Talpoit tomb being the Lost Tomb of Jesus.

Sin, Death and Joseph (Gen 38, 39)

I made the following observations about sin and death, and sin's consequences while reading Genesis 37-39 today.

Concerning sin and death, the Bible says people die because of their sin:

"Er, Judah's firstborn, was evil in the sight of the Lord, so the Lord took his life" (Gen 38:7).

Onan "was displeasing in the sight of the Lord; so He took his life also" (Gen 38:10).

Now, this is not the only reason people die, but this is one of the reasons. And, this is not just the Old Testament as 1 Corinthians 11:30 and 1 John 5:16 say the same thing: God, the One who "puts to death and gives life" (Deut 32:39), kills people because of their sin.

And, concerning sin, it's consequences and how to fight it, remind yourself of Joseph and Potiphar's wife:

"Now Joseph was handsome in form and appearance. It came about after these events that his master's wife looked with desire at Joseph, and she said, 'Lie with me.' But he refused and said to his master's wife, 'Behold, with me here, my master does not concern himself with anything in the house, and he has put all that he owns in my charge. There is no one greater in this house than I, and he has withheld nothing from me except you, because you are his wife. How then could I do this great evil and sin against God?' As she spoke to Joseph day after day, he did not listen to her to lie beside her or be with her" (Gen 37:6-10).

Joseph fought sin by filling his mind with what sin is (namely, a "great evil"), who its against (horizontally Potiphar, and vertically God), and it's consequences (vv. 8-9, also horizontal and vertical). As a result, he kept himself from being anywhere near where this sin could take place (v. 10). The truths of verses 8-9 motivated him to take the action he did in verse 10.

Also, despite being aware of the horizontal benefits Potiphar showed him, the bottom line for Joseph was he refused to sin because he'd be sinning against God. Sadly, I don't think of that reality until after I've sinned.

My Master's Highlight

Many think the news from The Master's Tournament this past weekend was that the name "Tiger Woods" was not at the top of the leaderboard.

However, I think the biggest news is not only that the winner, Zach Johnson, is a virtual no name, but that he is a Christian, a real one.

Click here to see an interview he gave to The Master's Tournament's official site. I don't expect you to read the whole thing. I didn't. However, search the page for the word "Easter" and I think you'll see his Christian commitment.

Congratulations Zach Johnson! I pray you'll continue to glorify God with the rest of your career.

Thank God for Unknown Faithful Servants

Few people have had more of an impact on me than Ronald E. Wright. He was a professor of theology at Southern California College (now known as Vanguard University) from 1975-99.

I met him by accident. I needed a class my second day of college because the one I was enrolled in closed, and so I ran to my admissions counselor for a new one. He told me Introduction to Theology started five minutes ago so I ran from his office saying "Sign me up."

I had no idea that I was walking into a period of a little over 3 months that would radically transform my life, the ripple effects of which are still breaking on the shores of my life to this very day.

He was an eccentric older man who always wore very colorful shirts, but what drew me to Ron was how I left his classes loving Jesus more than when I walked in. I have never met a teacher that has had this kind of effect on me, and I pray I will emulate him in this respect some day.

Within a week of being in Intro to Theology I had moved from the back row to the front row and had purchased a tape recorder with dozens of 90 minute tapes because I could not believe his words were going into the air and disappearing forever.

By the end of my time at SCC I had taken 8 classes from Ron and sat in on another 3 or 4, never missing a day because each class had to be recorded. I also attended his Sunday school class until he passed away from a heart attack in March 2002.

I count it as a real gift of God's providential grace to me that He would cross my path with Ron Wright. He set the sails of my theological life, especially as it concerns the inerrancy of Scripture, the absolute sovereignty of God and His grace, the surpassing glory of Christ and the full provision and power of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer.

I will write more about Ron later, but for now my only regret is that he wrote very little, keeping him relatively unknown today. He told me he planned on writing after he retired, but he never got the chance. However, it is my prayer that he will remain unknown no longer.

For the past two weeks I have begun digitizing all my class tapes, turning them into mp3s. From here, I hope to start a website that will promote the glory of God by the propagation of His Word through Ron Wright. So far, I've digitized his classes on Romans and Galatians (the best class I've ever taken) and Pneumatology (one of the best).

From here I plan on digitizing his classes on The Sermon on the Mount, The Prison Epistles, The Corinthian Epistles, The Pastoral Epistles and his classes on church history, Bibliology, Theology Proper, Anthropology, Hamartiology, Christology and Soteriology. His three-year exposition of The Book of Revelation on Sunday mornings is also planned.

While many of us gravitate to popular Christian heroes, living and dead, I thank God for His relatively unknown servants like Ron who faithfully teach His Word, train others to do the same and give up-and-comers a hero to emulate.

Billy Packer Uses Gay Slur?

If you watch any college basketball on CBS you know the name Billy Packer. Well, he's in some really hot water thanks to the politically correct nazis who've infiltrated our culture's media and opinion-givers.

Due to technical difficulties, I could not upload the video from Youtube, but if you haven't seen this video already, you will. You can guarantee it. Don't be surprised if this hits the national news tomorrow (Thursday, April 5th). Jimmy Kimmel on this video is priding himself that only he has found this. Please watch it here before reading on.

I heard about this and got outraged after seeing ESPNews host Bill Pidto introduce the story by saying Packer used "a homosexual slur." I got so offended when I saw that just now that I wrote an email to ESPN. In only 500 words I said something along the lines of:

I just saw Bill Pidto on ESPNews say Billy Packer used a "homosexual slur." He did NOTHING of the sort.

This is 1st grade English. The gay slur is a noun. Packer's word was a VERB. Same spelling, different word!

Words ONLY have meaning in context. The context was Mr. Rose always saying something and never following through, not homosexuality.

After almost 20 years, I'm convinced ESPN creates the news just as much as they report it. You've ruined people doing this (e.g., Drew Bledsoe, Rex Grossman) and you're doing it again. Stop it!

Sadly, I think the news media, shows like Jimmy Kimmel's and ESPN will work tirelessly to ruin Billy Packer by twisting him into a hater of homosexuals by taking his word out of context to make him so. I'm convinced they will "sacrifice" another decent, hardworking victim for their cause.

So much for the freedom to speak words that just sound like words we don't have the freedom to speak. Ugh!!!

As an aside, I listened to a sermon yesterday that asked the question "When was the last time you got mad over something that would make God mad, something kingdom related?" Does this qualify?

I tend to think it does because God is a God of truth and justice and if Packer gets fired for this, it is anything but just because it would be for false allegations.

My Favorite Podcasts

A number of you have asked what podcasts I subscribe to. Sadly, I subscribe to dozens, but only actually listen to a few. The others are treated as resources on topics that get stored in my podcast library for use when the topic comes up (like, stem-cell research, euthanasia, Mormonism, parenting, etc.).

I tried to find the "Subscribe to this Podcast" page so that if you click on the podcast's name that's where you'd go. Some of the best podcasts I've found are the following:

• Apologetics.com -- This in an apologetics radio show that airs in Los Angeles on KKLA 99.5 FM on Saturday nights from 12-2am. It's #6 in my podcasting Top 5 list.
  
• Capitol Hill Baptist Church -- This is the preaching ministry of Dr. Mark Dever of Washington D.C.
• Christ Fellowship Baptist Church -- Excellent Preaching !!! To subscribe, scroll down to the bottom of Dr. Steve Lawson's sermon download page. I download every sermon every week.
  
• Desiring God Sunday Sermon Audio & Video -- Excellent Preaching !!! I think we will look back with thankfulness and tell our grandkids about the ministry of John Piper. It also makes my Top 5.
  
• Dallas Theological Seminary -- Many of the chapels are well worth listening to.
• Focal Point -- This is the ministry of Mike Fabarez, the fine preacher at Aliso Viejo's Compass Bible Church. The podcast subscription is on the right and it takes a while to sign up, but it's well worth it.
• Grace To You -- Like, Dr. Piper you'll tell your kids and grandkids about John MacArthur. The podcast subscription is on the right and it takes a while to sign up, but it's well worth it.
• Issues, Etc. -- This is a conservative Lutheran call-in talk show that always has top notch theological and cultural analysis of current trends in the world and in evangelicalism. This is in my Top 5.
• The Master's Seminary Chapel -- I attended most of the chapels from 2002-2006 and most of the preaching is excellent, especially Dr. MacArthur, Prof. Alex Montoya, Dr. Jack Hughes and many, many, many more. Also, they've uploaded the Faculty Lecture Series' on topics like the Emergent church, the New Perspective on Paul, Open Theism, The Rapture, etc.
  
• Ravi Zacharias -- Ravi is an excellent communicator who blends apologetics and evangelism in a wonderfully passionate and engaging way. This link is to both of his podcasts. This is also in my Top 5.
  
• Stand To Reason -- This is podcast of from the radio ministry of Greg Koukl who hosts a Christian call-in Q & A show that originates in Orange County and airs Sundays from 3-5pm on 740 KBRT. Definitely another in my Top 5, probably my #1.
• The Al Mohler Radio Show -- Another in my Top 5 for listening . The link has the podcasts for his radio show and his Sunday School class on the right hand side of the page.
• Southern Baptist Theological Seminary -- Al Mohler, the school's President, speaks regularly, but in the last year so has John MacArthur, C.J. Mahaney, John Piper, Mark Dever, Bruce Ware, and countless other well-loved teachers.
• The White Horse Inn -- This is a half hour round table discussion of current cultural and theological topic by really smart reformed guys, Michael Horton being one of them. The podcast subscription is on the right and it takes a while to sign up, but it's well worth it if you do.
  

While many I subscribe to didn't make the list (like the podcasts for Covenant Life Church, Mars Hill Church, Alister Begg's Truth for Life, The Narrow Mind, The Dennis Prager Show to name a few others), I'm always looking for a good podcast, as you can see. Please, please, please post any that you'd highly recommend to check out in the comments. Thank you in advance.

Clear Your Schedule & Listen

UPDATE: I've now listed to all four of Dr. Tripp's message, and will do so again and again. They are so good at diagnosing the difficulties we face in sanctification, in growing in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ and becoming more like him and how to find victory in our battles. Please listen to them.

While passing out flyers today for my dad's business I've been walking from house to house listening to the message below by Dr. Paul Tripp (author of Instruments in the Redeemer's Hands) from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary's 2007 Theology Driven Ministry Conference.

I told my friend just now that listening to them has been like having someone cut open my chest to allow the light of God's Word to shine on my heart and I've been getting filleted.

1. Your Walk with God is a Community Project (Tripp)
2. Progressive Sanctification and the Anti-Social Nature of Sin (Tripp)
3. The Pastor's Role in Sanctification (Ferguson)
4. Colossians 3:1-17 (Ferguson)
5. Sanctification in the Middle of the Messiness of Relationships (Tripp)
6. Looking in the Mirror: James 1 (Ferguson)
7. Playing in the Box: Romans 7 (Tripp)

If you click on the message's name you can listen instantly, and if you press Control and click your mouse on the link (or Right click if you have a PC), you should be able to start downloading it (if it doesn't, let me know). If that doesn't work, click here to subscribe to the podcast, or click here and scroll down to March 26th and you'll see the conference audio.

I've listened to the first two of Dr. Tripp's four messages so far, and I've also included the messages from Dr. Sinclair Ferguson to have the full conference. The last two were given in the same venue at the same time, but for a reason I don't know they weren't part of the conference.

I hope you're as challenged and rebuked and encouraged and grateful for the Savior as a result of these as I have been.

The Pastor's Public Prayer

As you can see on the right, one of the books I'm currently reading is Charles Spurgeon's Lectures to My Students. While I've loved the book so far, I must admit at the outset that when I saw the chapter entitled "Our Public Prayer" I was not excited in the least to read it.

However, like King David I stand rebuked and corrected. This was a great chapter. In fact, it was so good I thought I'd share some of his almost 150 year old insights with you.

He begins by asserting what I think would be a controversial subject in our day, the fact that listening to a sermon is an act of worship:

"if the observation be meant to imply that the hearing of sermons is not worshipping God, it is founded on a gross mistake, for rightly to listen to the gospel is one of the noblest parts of the adoration of the Most High. ... True preaching is an acceptable adoration of God by the manifestation of his gracious attributes: the testimony of his gospel, which pre-eminently glorifies him, and the obedient hearing of revealed truth, are an acceptable form of worship to the Most High, and perhaps one of the most spiritual in which the human mind can be engaged" (59-60).

I'm sure many in our day would disagree with him because, sadly, the last thing they hear is true preaching so they can't possibly imagine that what they hear can equate with worship.

His purpose in giving this lecture to his pastor's college students was to caution them "against spoiling your services by your prayers" (60). So, to accomplish this goal Spurgeon gives 17 instructions for public prayer. I'm just going to deal here with some of the highlights, which will make this--I hope--applicable to pastors and non-pastors alike.

In #2, he tells his students why public prayers can become so empty:

"The secret is that we are not so really devout at heart as we should be. Habitual communion with God must be maintained, or our public prayers will be vapid or formal. If there be no melting of the glacier high up in the ravines of the mountain there will be no descending rivulets to cheer the plain" (61).

In #3, he argues for a "heavenly frame of mind" in prayer saying:

"In supplication we are peculiarly before the throne of the Infinite, and as the courier in the king's palace puts on another mien [= a facial expression] and another manner than that which he exhibits to his fellow courtiers, so should it be with us. ... we must put our shoes from off our feet, for the place whereon we stand is holy ground" (61, 62).

My favorite part of the chapter, favorite because the same thing rubs me the wrong way, is caution #6, the avoiding at all costs of "an unhallowed and sickening superabundance of endearing words," by which he means:

"When 'Dear Lord,' and 'Blessed Lord,' and 'Sweet Lord,' come over and over again as vain repetitions, they are among the worst of blots. ... The strongest objection exists to the constant repetition of the word 'Lord' ... The words, 'Oh Lord! Oh Lord! Oh Lord!' grieve us when we hear them so perpetually repeated. ... God's name is not a stop-gap to make up for our want of words. Take care to use most reverently the name of the infinite Jehovah" (63).

I'd never thought of this before, but what he says in #9 is quite intriguing. I'm not sure I agree with what he says here, but his argumentation above leads to the conclusion that:

"...it is my solemn conviction that the prayer is one of the most weighty, useful, and honourable parts of the service and that it ought to be even more considered than the sermon. ... Let the sermon be slurred sooner than the approach to heaven" (65).

Throughout the chapter, I marked out important quotes and what I called "Keys to Prayer," which are:

1. "Remember the people in your prayers, but do not mould your supplications to win their esteem; look up, look up with both eyes" (62).
2. "Better far, however, for us to amend our own blunders than find fault with others" (66).
3. "You cannot pray too long in private. ... The more you are on your knees alone the better" (68).
4. The pastor is to pray the congregation "into a good frame of mind" and not "out of it again" by droning on and on and on (68).
5. "It is necessary in prayer to draw near unto God, but it is not required of you to prolong your speech till everyone is longing to hear the word 'Amen'" (69).
6. "I feel, my brethren, that we ought to prepare ourselves by private prayer for public praying" (77).
7. To help your prayers, memorize "the Psalms and parts of Scripture containing promises, supplications, praises, and confessions," and he'd add make sure to memorize them correctly (69-74), "such as may be helpful in the act of prayer" (77).

I conclude with what I thought applicable to my own heart and life. As I read these I asked myself "Does this describe you? Do you want it to? Do you not want it to? What are doing now to make sure it describes you in the future if not now?":

1. "Praying in the Holy Ghost is not universal among us, neither do all pray with the understanding as well as with the heart" (60). -- What about me?
   
2. Concerning Jesus' prayers, "they so impressed his disciples that they said, 'Lord, teach us to pray'" (61). -- What about mine?
   
3. "Habitual communion with God must be maintained, or our public prayers will be vapid or formal" (61). -- Are my prayers vapid or formal?
   
4. "...beware of becoming rhetorical to please the listeners" (62). -- Do I do this?
   
5. "'No man in his time spoke with such evidence and power of the Spirit'" (67). -- Do I want this said of me? What am I doing so that God would be pleased to have this be said of me?