Sam Storms: The Hope of Glory

The Hope of Glory: 100 Daily Meditations on Colossians by author Sam Storms is set to be released by Crossway Books next month.

The Hope of Glory is a wonderful substitute to the trite non-sense common to so many so-called devotional books. It is a devotional book you would do well to read.

Far superior to most standard devotional reading, Storms challenges his readers to think deeply and practice passionately their Christian faith. Storms isn’t into spiritual pop-tarts. He’s into helping Christians live their faith.

For instance, in his chapter entitled: “Salty” Speech and the Salvation of Souls, Storms comments on Colossians 4:5-6:

I’m convinced he [Paul] is talking about evangelistic witness, and for three reasons. First, as noted, evangelism is on his mind in the immediately preceding context (see vv. 2–4). Second, he wants all of us to be fully equipped to “answer each person,” those he calls “outsiders” (undoubtedly a reference to those outside the church, i.e., non-Christians). And third, the word translated “speech” in verse 6 is the same Greek word (logos) used in verse 3 where he asks that God open a door for the “word,” i.e., that he be granted opportunities to preach the “word” of the gospel, the mystery of Christ.

From The Hope of Glory: 100 Daily Meditations on Colossians by Sam Storms, © 2008, pages 329-330. Used by permission of Crossway Books, a division of Good News Publishers, Wheaton, IL 60187, www.crossway.org.

Devotional books normally don’t challenge Christians on their spiritual deficiencies, but then again The Hope of Glory isn’t a normal devotional book. Storms then gives five points about sharing our faith.

First, we are exhorted to conduct ourselves wisely toward outsiders. I think at least two things are in view here. I’m immediately reminded of our Lord’s words in the Sermon on the Mount: “Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you” (Matt. 7:6). Wisdom requires that we be discerning as to when we speak and to whom. Sometimes we need to be bold and forthright, while on other occasions, because of the calloused and hostile posture of our audience, we need to keep our mouths shut.

From The Hope of Glory: 100 Daily Meditations on Colossians by Sam Storms, © 2008, page 330. Used by permission of Crossway Books, a division of Good News Publishers, Wheaton, IL 60187, www.crossway.org.

That comment alone ought to root you to the Holy Spirit. “Discernment”, a concept virtually consigned to evangelical obscurity, is freely advanced by Storms. No “one-size-fits-all” “cookie-cutter” evangelism here. Wise reliance on the Holy Spirit is what is necessary.

Second, we mustn’t lose sight of the urgency of our task. The ESV renders this, “making the best use of the time,” while older translations retain the more literal translation, “redeeming the time” (KJV). Commentators do a good job of highlighting Paul’s emphasis. Peter O’Brien renders it, “snapping up every opportunity that comes.” Murray Harris is even more to the point: “In the open market where the commodity of ‘kairos’ [time] is on sale, Christians are to make a ‘timely’ purchase for themselves. In other words, they are to seize eagerly and use wisely every opportunity afforded them by time to promote the kingdom of God.”

Don’t waste any opportunity that comes your way or squander the chance to walk boldly through an open door into the heart of an unbeliever! Every encounter has the potential to be soul-saving. Don’t let fear or hesitation or lack of preparation steal that moment.

From The Hope of Glory: 100 Daily Meditations on Colossians by Sam Storms, © 2008, pages 330-331. Used by permission of Crossway Books, a division of Good News Publishers, Wheaton, IL 60187, www.crossway.org.

Storms confronts the reader with another word all but lost to evangelicals—“urgency”—and graciously reminds us “Every encounter has the potential to be soul-saving.” No statement could be sweeter, more encouraging and yet more convicting at the same time. Evangelism must recover its sense of urgency.

Third, our witness must always be “gracious” (v. 6), which is to say, as charming as possible without crossing the line into compromise. Be accommodating and kind, says Paul, but not at the expense of truth.

What matters is not simply the content but the manner or spirit in which you speak of Christ to others. We are to be both pointed and pleasant in our witness. Sadly, many embrace one to the exclusion of the other, finding it difficult to embrace both in delicate balance. Either they care for nothing but the truth, regardless of how it is conveyed, or they are so afraid of sounding offensive or pushy that they end up diluting the truth and fail to articulate the realities of sin, death, and hell.

From The Hope of Glory: 100 Daily Meditations on Colossians by Sam Storms, © 2008, page 331. Used by permission of Crossway Books, a division of Good News Publishers, Wheaton, IL 60187, www.crossway.org.

Well, if Fred Phelps would promise to read this chapter, I’d buy him a copy. Sadly, Storms is accurate. These are virtually the only two extremes modern evangelism knows. Of course, to say Phelps cares “for nothing but the truth” would be extremely generous. But the point is that the angry, “you’re going to hell, sinner” type approach seems to be the only alternative to silent apathy.

Fourth, our proclamation of the mystery of Christ must be “seasoned with salt” (v. 6). Let there be a pungency to our preaching, a flavor worthy to savor. There’s no virtue in being dull or insipid or lukewarm in the presentation of the gospel.

My former professor at Dallas Theological Seminary Howard Hendricks was often heard to say: “According to the old adage, you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink. That’s true, but you can feed him salt!” Do you talk of Jesus in a way that makes people’s mouths water? Do your words and manner create the opportunity for a spiritual thirst to emerge?

The psalmist said, “Oh, taste and see that the Lord is good!” (Ps. 34:8a). Do people see and sense the sweetness of the Savior when we speak of him? He is altogether lovely and should not be made known in an unlovely or unappealing manner. Jesus tastes good! Don’t spoil the flavor by sinful additives and sour dispositions.

From The Hope of Glory: 100 Daily Meditations on Colossians by Sam Storms, © 2008, page 331. Used by permission of Crossway Books, a division of Good News Publishers, Wheaton, IL 60187, www.crossway.org.

To borrow from a book title from John Piper, there is too much duty in our evangelism and not enough delight. Christians used to testify because Jesus had changed them; because they were so in love with Him; because they adored and worshipped him. Now, we have to get ourselves worked into a frenzy, overcoming our cowardice but a dutiful delivery of a “gospel presentation” which is all too often stale and dispassionate.

Fifth, and finally, we must be diligent to answer “each person” (v. 6). He doesn’t mean that we should speak the same way to “everyone,” but that we ought to speak appropriately to “each separate person” as he or she has need. We must supply perceptive and discerning answers in accordance with the unique circumstance of each individual. Not everyone hears the gospel the same way. Some encounter Christ with probing intellectual objections, while others are struggling with deeply entrenched sinful habits.

Evangelism should never be monolithic, as if one mode or manner of presentation is suitable for all souls. Yes, each is in need of a savior from sin. Of course, there is but one Savior and his name is Jesus. But each person is also at a different stage of life, facing a unique set of trials and troubles, each with varying degrees of understanding of who Jesus is and what he has accomplished. In sum, be adept to adapt, and pray that the Spirit would awaken all hearts to see and celebrate the mystery of Christ!

From The Hope of Glory: 100 Daily Meditations on Colossians by Sam Storms, © 2008, page 331-332. Used by permission of Crossway Books, a division of Good News Publishers, Wheaton, IL 60187, www.crossway.org.

With such meditations, The Hope of Glory promises to do a gentle, but effective work in stretching the Christian’s devotional life by deepening our resolve to live true to our professions. It’s a book that is truly devotional.

Chalk Up a Win for Free Religious Speech

When Choose Life of Missouri Inc. applied for a specialty license plate in 2006, they were about to experience cold-hearted discrimination from two very powerful feminist state Senators.

Missouri has two ways you can get a specialty license plate through the Department of Revenue. The first is to have a legislator file a bill that gets approved by a majority vote of the entire Legislature. Some 70 specialty license plates have been created through this process, many of them very obscure, including those for the Knights of Columbus, the Grand Chapter of the Missouri Order of the Eastern Star, the Grand Lodge Ancient Arabic Order or Nobles of the Mystic Shrine and such.

The second process is the one Choose Life used and that is by making an application with the Department of Revenue. The application must 1) generally describe the specialty license plate; 2) have a sponsor of at least one current member of the Missouri Legislature; 3) list at least 200 people who intend to buy the plate; 4) include a $5,000 application fee.

The application then goes to the Joint Committee for Transportation Oversight for required unanimous approval. The Joint Committee is composed of seven senators, seven representatives and three ex-officio members (the state auditor, the director of the oversight division of the committee of legislative research and the commissioner of the office of administration).

That’s where the Choose Life application stopped being a routine matter and turned into a denial of First Amendment rights. Two senators, Joan Bray and Rita Heard Days, both radical, pro-abortion politicians, decided to flex their muscle and squash free speech. They used a new Missouri law that allowed two senators to object and stopped the application dead in its tracks.

Interestingly, Senator Bray had sponsored a bill in 2005 to allow a pro-choice license plate, so she wasn’t objecting that political speech or abortion speech was being inserted into the specialty license program. She was clearly objecting that pro-life speech was being allowed. In her kind of liberal thinking, only her side of the argument should be represented.

The Joint Committee held its hearing on February 21, 2006 to review the applications for specialty license plates. Four applications were approved: Choose Life, Ethan and Friends for Autism, Missouri Cattlemen Foundation, Missouri Caves and Karst Conservatory, Missouri Support our Troops; one was denied.

Hence a one-and-a-half year law suit filed by Choose Life of Missouri Inc which concluded last week when another well known Missouri liberal, Scott O. Wright, Senior Judge for the US District Court of Western Missouri, wrote:

ORDERED that Missouri Statute 21.795(6) is hereby deemed unconstitutional and an injunction shall be entered requiring the defendant to issue the Choose Life specialty license plate.

Judge Wright's decision siding with pro-lifers can only mean this was one of the worst abuses of power Missouri has ever endured. Thankfully, the wrong has been righted.

I, for one, would love to see Missouri’s specialty license plate program abolished. With some 200 to choose from, can anyone say “bumper sticker”? But as long as the state allows one non-profit group to utilize this program, it must allow all. So why not order your specialty license plate and support the pro-life cause?

By the way, Bray and Days often tag team to destroy our heritage. This session, they are hopeful to outlaw Missouri’s death penalty and have jointly filed Senate Bill No. 835.

From Spurgeon's Catechism

How is the Sabbath to be sanctified?

A. The Sabbath is to be sanctified by a holy resting all that day, even from such worldly employments and recreations as are lawful on other days (Lev. 23:3), and spending the whole time in the public and private exercises of God's worship (Ps. 92:1-2; Isa. 58:13-14), except so much as is taken up in the works of necessity and mercy (Matt. 12:11-12).

What’s Your Human Life IQ?

Family Research Council developed this short, three question multiple choice quiz:

Question 1: Since 1973, how many induced abortions have been carried out in the United States?
◦ 20,000,000 to 25,000,000
◦ 30,000,000 to 35,000,000
◦ 45,000,000 to 50,000,000

Question 2: The percentage of Americans who say that abortion should be legal at any time for any reason (current law) is:
◦ 31%
◦ 22%
◦ 16%

Question 3: The percentage of U.S. abortions done for reasons other than "health" or "rape and incest" is:
◦ 54.2%
◦ 73.6%
◦ 93.5%

The answers might surprise many Americans unfamiliar with our great national sin of abortion.
(respectively, the answers are: 45--50,000,000; 16%, 93.5%). You can request from FRC a free source "The Top Ten Myths of Abortion" either in PDF download or a hard copy to read and pass along to others.

And if you want to learn even more, take this test developed by Focus on the Family and Concerned Women for America.

The Church has been pretty powerless to end abortion. We’ve curtailed it, slowed it, depopularized it, but still abortion continues. While we continue our zealous efforts, we must appeal to “the governor among the nations” (Psa. 22:28) for help. Only He can grant America a repentant heart. Only He can heal our national blindness and replace our cold cruelty with love for children. May our God do so with the United States of America.

“Your baptism and your confirmation and your name on the church roll and the big Bible you carry--

these are not the things that are important to God. You can train a chimpanzee to carry a Bible.”

A.W. Tozer, Faith Beyond Reason, 96

ABC's anti-Christian Hypocrisy

The American Family Association reports the following:

ABC fired an actor because of an anti-gay comment, but gave anchorwoman who told an audience 'F---Jesus' what amounted to a one-week vacation.

Last June, when actor Isaiah Washington, star of ABC's show Grey's Anatomy, made an anti-gay slur in reference to openly homosexual T.R. Knight, the network immediately fired Washington.

But when ESPN (owned by ABC) anchorwoman Dana Jacobson publicly said "F--- Notre Dame," "F--- Touchdown Jesus" and finally "F--- Jesus," the network gave her a one week suspension. In essence, ABC gave Jacobson a one week vacation.

ABC has two standards, one for anti-gay comments and one for anti-Christian comments. Those who use anti-gay comments are punished. Those who use anti-Christian comments are supported. If ABC refuses to fire Jacobson, would you be willing to support a one-year boycott of the sponsor of her program?

Take the AFA poll and read background information.

Roe v. Wade

Today marks the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, a 7-2 decision by the United States Supreme Court that would plunge America into its darkest and most evil sin.

Abortion had long been practiced before 1973, but on January 22 the Court gave it sanctuary and enshrined it into the fabric of American jurisprudence as a constitutional right.

Writing for the majority, Justice Harry A. Blackmun opined that the 14th Amendment contains a right to privacy "broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."

Justice Potter Stewart, with a concurring opinion, blasted the Texas statute protecting the developing baby. “…it is difficult to imagine a more complete abridgment of a constitutional freedom than that worked by the inflexible criminal statute now in force in Texas.”

Chief Justice Warren Burger, a rather conservative jurist at the time, surprisingly joined the majority. In his concurring opinion, he wrote what was perhaps the most inaccurate prognostication in the court’s entire history. “I do not read the Court's holdings today as having the sweeping consequences attributed to them by the dissenting Justices; the dissenting views discount the reality that the vast majority of physicians observe the standards of their profession, and act only on the basis of carefully deliberated medical judgments relating to life and health. Plainly, the Court today rejects any claim that the Constitution requires abortions on demand.”

Yet, Roe did have “sweeping consequences” by immediately changing the laws of 46 states. Millions of babies have been brutally killed; thousands of women have been physically and emotionally damaged; most physicians will not perform the heinous abortion procedures; Planned Parenthood and like minded abortionists break the law as well as “the standards of their profession”; and “abortion on demand” is now understood to be a Constitutional right. Burger could not have been more wrong.

Roe did have two dissenting voices. Justice William Rehnquist, who would later become Chief Justice, writing the dissenting opinion was prophetic. “Unless I misapprehend the consequences of this transplanting of the ‘compelling state interest test,’ the Court's opinion will accomplish the seemingly impossible feat of leaving this area of the law more confused than it found it.”

The other dissenter Justice Byron White, was even more scathing. “I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the court's judgment. The court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes."

White accused his colleagues of an “exercise of raw judicial power” and wrote concerning the majority that “its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court.”

White also clearly saw past the ideology of activist judges, realizing the case lacked merit. “It is my view, therefore, that the Texas statute is not constitutionally infirm because it denies abortions to those who seek to serve only their convenience, rather than to protect their life or health.”

And so today, because of America’s new culture that seeks “to serve only their convenience” we mourn the brutal, tortuous deaths of 50 million Americans because of Roe v. Wade.

PS: The other Supreme Court Justices who voted in the majority are William O. Douglas, Thurgood Marshall, William J. Brennan, Lewis F. Powell

PS2: In case you don't think abortion brutally kills developing babies, go here for pictorial evidence of its heinous barbarity (WARNING: EXTREMELY GRAPHIC & DISTURBING PHOTOS)

AND: Byron White’s dissenting opinion is worth reading in its entirety, so I’ve listed it below.

MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST joins, dissenting.*

At the heart of the controversy in these cases are those recurring pregnancies that pose no danger whatsoever to the life or health of the mother but are, nevertheless, unwanted for any one or more of a variety of reasons -- convenience, family planning, economics, dislike of children, the embarrassment of illegitimacy, etc. The common claim before us is that, for any one of such reasons, or for no reason at all, and without asserting or claiming any threat to life or health, any woman is entitled to an abortion at her request if she is able to find a medical advisor willing to undertake the procedure.

The Court, for the most part, sustains this position: during the period prior to the time the fetus becomes viable, the Constitution of the United States values the convenience, whim, or caprice of the putative mother more than the life or potential life of the fetus; the Constitution, therefore, guarantees the right to an abortion as against any state law or policy seeking to protect the fetus from an abortion not prompted by more compelling reasons of the mother.

With all due respect, I dissent. I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers [410 U.S. 222] and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion
statutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally disentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible impacts on the mother, on the other hand. As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court.

The Court apparently values the convenience of the pregnant mother more than the continued existence and development of the life or potential life that she carries. Whether or not I might agree with that marshaling of values, I can in no event join the Court's judgment because I find no constitutional warrant for imposing such an order of priorities on the people and legislatures of the States. In a sensitive area such as this, involving as it does issues over which reasonable men may easily and heatedly differ, I cannot accept the Court's exercise of its clear power of choice by interposing a constitutional barrier to state efforts to protect human life and by investing mothers and doctors with the constitutionally protected right to exterminate it. This issue, for the most part, should be left with the people and to the political processes the people have devised to govern their affairs.

It is my view, therefore, that the Texas statute is not constitutionally infirm because it denies abortions to those who seek to serve only their convenience, rather than to protect their life or health. Nor is this plaintiff, who claims no threat to her mental or physical health, entitled to assert the possible rights of those women [410 U.S. 223] whose pregnancy assertedly implicates their health. This, together with United States v. Vuitch, 402 U.S. 62 (1971), dictates reversal of the judgment of the District Court.

Likewise, because Georgia may constitutionally forbid abortions to putative mothers who, like the plaintiff in this case, do not fall within the reach of § 26-1202(a) of its criminal code, I have no occasion, and the District Court had none, to consider the constitutionality of the procedural requirements of the Georgia statute as applied to those pregnancies posing substantial hazards to either life or health. I would reverse the judgment of the District Court in the Georgia case.

Martin Luther King Day

I can still remember stepping out of my back door in Adrian, Missouri, one cool January and seeing a confederate flag hanging from a neighbor’s porch. I hadn’t remembered seeing it before and thought it strange then, this new banner flapping in the breeze. It wasn’t until several hours into my work day that I realized the day was Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, a federal holiday.

Neither Adrian nor my neighbor was especially racist, at least to my recollection. And I never discovered why he displayed his Stars & Bars. I’m of the opinion that perhaps Dr. King should not have a federal holiday in his honor. Not even the great Emancipator, Abraham Lincoln gets his own day. He’s lumped into “Washington’s Birthday” with the common renaming of “President’s Day”. And I certainly realize credible evidence exists regarding Dr. King’s moral character, though much of it is embellished.

However, nothing can detract from certain facts. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a great man and led a great movement.

He is perhaps best known for his “I Have a Dream” speech, but his “Letter From Birmingham Jail” ranks higher in my mind, in terms of great literature.

Racism is ugly. I am thankful that Dr. King did much to assault it.

Trivia Answer

For the answer to yesterday's trivia question, Jefferson noted as his three greatest achievements, the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom as referenced yesterday), the writing of the Declaration of Independence and the founding of the University of Virginia.

See his tombstone here.

Religious Freedom

I may be a bit of a Johnny-come-lately, but yesterday was our country’s Religious Freedom Day. I’m fairly savvy about these things, but frankly I wasn’t aware of such a thing. January 16 is a good day for sipping hot chocolate by the fire (at least for the part of the country I live in). There’s even a website for the day, complete with all kinds of tshirts, coffee mugs and backpacks to help with promotion.

It seems the day was designated in 2003 by Senate Joint Resolution 154 and is a commemoration of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, written in 1779 by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. In 1786, the Virginia General Assembly enacted the statute into the state's law.

Of course, the real story behind Jefferson, Madison, Virginia, the First Amendment and Religious Freedom are Baptist preachers, particularly one named John Leland. Leland left his native Massachusetts in 1775 to help Baptists contend with the established Episcopalian church in Virginia.

As early as 1768, five Baptist preachers (John Waller, Lewis Craig, James Childs, James Reed, and William Marsh) were arrested in Fredericksburg for “preaching contrary to the law.” The Spotsylvania County prosecutor argued to the Virginia magistrates that the defendants “cannot meet a man upon the road, but they must ram a text of Scripture down his throat.” They were offered parole if they would agree to preach no more in the county for one year, and after refusing the offer, the Baptists were held 43 days in jail.

By the time Leland arrived, Baptist civil disobedience was strong and united. Leland thrived and help organize their resistance into political clout. Near the end of his life, he stated: “Next to the salvation of the soul, the civil and religious rights of men have summoned my attention more than the acquisition of wealth or seats of honor.”

Leland was so effective, that he influenced the history of the United States. When the Constitution was presented for ratification, Baptist opposition was fierce. The author of the U.S. Constitution was the Virginia James Madison, who was in New York City. But with Baptist opposition, particularly in John Leland’s home turf of Orange County, Madison’s election as a Virginian delegate to the ratifying Congress was in jeopardy and without the author’s presence, particularly in counteracting the eloquence of Patrick Henry who was opposed to ratification, the Constitution was doomed to failure.

Madison’s father wrote his son: “The sentiments of the people of Orange are much divided the best men in my judgment are for the constitution but several of those who have much weight with the people are opposed, Parson Bledsoe & Leeland with Colo. Z. Burnley. Upon the whole I think it is incumbent on you without delay, to repair to this state, as the loss of the constitution in this state may involve consequences the most alarming to every citizen in America.”

Well, Madison beat it home and had several private discussions with John Leland, who secured Madison’s commitment to present a Bill of Rights protecting religious freedom and eventually threw his support behind Madison’s election.

While religious freedom belongs to everyone, Baptists particularly have reason to celebrate its presence in American history. The English historian, Skeats wrote, “It is the singular and distinguished honor of the Baptists to have repudiated from their earliest history all coercive power over the consciences and actions of men with reference to religion. They were the proto-evangelists of the voluntary principle.”

= = = = = = = = = =

Trivia: Thomas Jefferson requested the Statute for Religious Freedom be one of three of his accomplishments named on his epitaph. What were the other two? (check back tomorrow).

And...click here and here. Which sounds more spiritual? Surprised?

Also, the text of Jefferson’s Statute is below:

VIRGINIA STATUTE FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

[Sec. 1] Whereas Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as it was in his Almighty power to do; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time; that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor, whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporary rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind; that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which in common with his fellow-citizens he has a natural right; that it tends only to corrupt the principles of that religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion, and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them:

[Sec. 2] Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

[Sec. 3] And though we well know that this assembly elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding assemblies, constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act to be irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present, or to narrow its operation, such act shall be an infringement of natural right.

The MBC—Southern Baptists’ Most Liberal State?

According to Baptist Press, messengers to this month’s Florida Baptist Convention “overwhelmingly” passed a by-law change requiring all trustee nominees to "agree to abstain from drinking alcoholic beverages and using any other recreational drugs." It passed “with few dissenting votes.”

Southern Baptists of Texas also changed their bylaws, replacing the word “drunkenness” with “the use of alcohol as a beverage” stipulating that drinking is unacceptable for paid staff members and all elected offices of their convention.

These events underscore the problem of alcohol within the Missouri Baptist Convention. At its annual meeting, a resolution was proposed (the exact one approved at the 2006 Southern Baptist Convention Annual Meeting) and was not even reported out of committee. A motion was made to by-pass the Resolution’s Committee unfortunate recommendation to squash the issue. When messengers finally voted on the Resolution, it barely passed 506-360 (58%/42%).

Florida and Texas can inscribe alcohol abstinence into their governing documents and Missouri can barely pass a resolution. Houston, Jeff City, we have a problem!

Mothers Against Drunk Driving
Students Against Destructive Decisions
US Surgeon General's Plea
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
2006 National Survey on Drug Use and Health
The Marin Institute

Confusingly Crazy: The Religious Right and the ’08 Election

By now, we’ve seen/heard it all.

Pat Robertson has backed Rudy Giuliani.

And to believe I backed Robertson in the ’88 Republican primary. Oh well, I worked for John Danforth’s Senatorial election too. My sins will some day catch up with me. I’ll only say—read this—and you’ll better understand his recent endorsement


Fred Thompson got NRL’s endorsement

And it came after the most convoluted diatribe defending abortion I’ve ever heard from a so-called “pro-lifer.” Dr. Wanda Franz, president of National Right to Life (NRL) said: "Since announcing his candidacy in September, Fred Thompson has run second only to pro-abortion candidate Rudy Giuliani for the Republican nomination in the overwhelming majority of national polls. As pro-lifers throughout the nation begin to unite behind his candidacy, he will be well positioned to win the nomination and the presidency."

Interestingly, NRL was livid when the McCain-Feingold bill passed Congress in 2002, severely limiting what pro-life groups could do in a presidential election. Anyone remember who the enthusiastic supporting Senator from Tennessee was?

See my previous blog entry on why I think NRL just sold its soul.


Mitt Romney gets the nod from a couple of heavy weights.

"You know I've looked at his work with the Olympics…I think he could make a good president." says conservation leader of Free Congress Foundation, Paul Weyrich. Yeah, Weyrich, I’m convinced. Getting that torch lit and burning for a couple of weeks certainly qualifies one for leader of the free world.

And conservative, fundamentalist Bob Jones also backed the Mormon from Massachusetts. I guess believing in the angel Moroni’s revelation to Joseph Smith isn’t that big of a disqualifer for evangelicals. Isn’t Jones buying into a moralist position?

And to shore up his ‘evangelical’ credentials, Romney intimated that he has the endorsement of Richard Land, President of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention. This prompted a terse press release from Land out of his Nashville office:

“I have defended various candidates from time to time when I’ve felt that they have been unfairly or inaccurately criticized. At other times, I have been asked by the media for my assessment of a particular candidate’s chances or weaknesses and strengths. Neither defense nor assessment should be confused with endorsement. As a matter of policy, I have not endorsed, do not endorse and will not endorse candidates.”


Meanwhile, Mike Huckabee snagged backing from Don Wildmon, president of American Family Association

"I feel that Governor Huckabee understands the needs of our country and has the ability to lead us in meeting those needs," Wildmon said. Also jumping on the Huckabee bandwagon: Jack Graham, pastor of Prestonwood Baptist Church in Dallas Texas and well as Missouri activist and reformer, Pastor Scott Weldon.

Horton Hears It: Why Can’t Fred Thompson?

Dr. Seuss hardly meant to pontificate on America’s current abortion debate when he wrote some very poignant words in his story, Horton Hears A Who. In fact, Seuss wrote the story almost two decades before the Supreme Court’s doltish decision in Roe v. Wade.

Seuss fans will remember that Horton, an elephant from the Jungle of Nool, heard voices from a speck of dust. Horton’s friends ridiculed him and told him to discard the tiny speck, yet Horton replied:

"‘Should I put this speck down…..," Horton thought with alarm.
‘If I do, these small persons may come to great harm.
I can't put it down. And I won't. After all,
a person's a person. No matter how small.'"

In this past Sunday’s interview with Tim Russert on Meet the Press, Republican presidential hopeful Fred Thompson began to opine on his views regarding abortion. You can watch it here.

The Senator was having some great difficulty embracing a fundamental ethic in pro-life thinking, vis-à-vis, “a person’s a person. No matter how small.”

Thompson was able to find great consternation that we may criminalize a young woman and/or her parents with a federal life amendment. In fact, he did such a fine job of keeping attention off of the small, innocent, developing baby one wonders if he was taking his talking points from a Planned Parenthood talking point memo.

In fact, after this interview, pro-life Americans will have great trouble embracing Fred Thompson as a sincere, pro-life politician.

When Russert asked Thompson whether he could run on the Republican Party’s 2004 platform regarding a human life amendment, the former Senator gave a curt and blunt reply: “No.”

Thompson then started with the mantra of how complex a federal life amendment would be, throwing in the necessary platitudes to appease his pro-life constituency, longing for the “pre-Roe v. Wade days”. His desire for those days, however, seems predicated upon an issue of federalism, rather than a life ethic. That is, Thompson wants the states to settle the issue. He seems content to allow some states to give abortion legal protection.

Time warp Fred Thompson to another arena of American history with a change of time and issue and you’ll see clearly what a moral lightweight he is. Can’t you hear him arguing in 1858 that slavery is morally wrong but that it is a matter for the states to decide? I for one am glad Abraham Lincoln took a decidedly different view. Lincoln knew slavery was so morally reprehensible that is must be outlawed. I wish Thompson embraced the moral reprehensibility of abortion.

Frankly, all “complexities” aside, anyone willing to allow abortion in any community in any county in any region of any state in America understands neither the pro-life ethic nor the horrendous brutality of abortion. Fred Thompson is playing both sides.

When Russert began to “call him out” the dancing began. As late as 1994, Fred Thompson didn’t know what every pro-lifer knows, what every seventh grade biology student knows and what every embryologist in the world knows: life begins at conception. And after watching this part of the interview several times and reading the transcript almost as much, I am still uncertain whether Thompson believes now in 2007 that life begins at conception. I know he has a “100 percent pro-life” voting record. But I do not know
a) whether Thompson believes life begins at conception; and if so
b) how he can justify allowing states to destroy innocent human life.

And while we are on the subject of Thompson and human life, Russert also asked some questions about the Terry Schiavo affair. Thompson was infuriatingly stupid saying “it was the same general end-of-life kind of consideration.” Anyone remotely familiar with the Terry Schiavo situation knows that precious woman was nowhere near the end of her life. Thompson’s most revealing moment came when he regretted Congress’s involvement saying: “It gave federal court jurisdiction. Federal court didn’t need jurisdiction, in my opinion.”

Terry Schiavo was sentenced to die by a Florida State Judge. Congress simply gave her the same right that convicted felons sentenced to death have—the right to federal court review. I wonder whether Thompson believes convicted murderers and rapists should also be deprived of this long-standing constitutional right?

Fred Thompson cannot be supported by serious minded, sincerely devoted pro-life persons unless he has a genuine epiphany within the next few months.

The Ban Is On

The American Family Association has reported that America’s favorite cookie conglomerate, Mrs. Fields, is the first corporation to launch an assault against Christmas. According to the alert, Mrs. Fields has decided to intentionally not use the word “Christmas” in its seasonal product line.

And sure enough, my own search of their site yielded nothing except “holiday” products.

Mrs. Fields® Search: "Christmas"

Mrs. Fields Gifts Search Results:

Sorry, no records were found with the search parameters you provided.

Please try a new search now:

Incidentally, what “holy-day” are they promoting?

Go here to participate in AFA’s Christmas campaign. Celebrate Jesus! He’s the child who is the light of the world!

Missouri Baptist Laymen's Association Endorses Candidates for the MBC

• Mike Green, DOM of the Twin Rivers Association, for a second term as President.
• Jay Scribner, long-time pastor of FBC, Branson, now retired, for 1st Vice President.
• Roger Moran, layman and member of FBC, Troy, for 2nd Vice President.
• Jerry Williams, DOM of the Barry Baptist Association, for Recording Secretary.
  
  Some have said endorsements are not necessary; others have contended that the Missouri Baptist Laymen's Association (MBLA) needs to go away.
  
  Yet, this is hardly the time to change courses. MBLA continues to show and prove itself devoted to the Lord, Biblical inerrancy and the Missouri Baptist Convention. This past year has been especially difficult in a couple of significant areas.
  
  The first was the firing of the Executive Director David Clippard. Several issues of significance kept being raised over the past several years. The Executive Board showed itself ineffective in dealing with them. Some members were very gracious, trying to avoid trouble and dissension at all costs; others were being willfully ignorant, adopting the ostrich-with-its-head-in-the sand approach. Yet, in the end, this year's president (MBLA endorsed -- Mike Green) took action to get to the truth of various allegations. Those issues proved so substantial that even faithful Clippard supporters could do nothing other than vote for his removal. No one can say that Green's leadership was a mean-spirited hatchet job. His gracious, yet truth centered leadership demonstrates that the MBLA endorsement last year was helpful to Missouri Baptists. Others, who could have been elected president would have taken a different course and Missouri Baptists could still be ensnared with corrupt leadership.
  
  The second is the uncovering of the influence of the emerging church, particularly with its pro-alcohol behavior. MBLA director Roger Moran has been tireless in exposing the errors of this movement. Immediately after Moran expressed concerns about the emergent/emerging church on the national level, a new political group calling itself "Save Our Convenion" (SOC) was formed. Many of the key leaders of SOC have ties with the emerging church movement. So, an MBLA endorsement means we can be sure those leaders will be vigilant in protecting the MBC from the errors of that movement.
  
  Far from being over, the battle over inerrancy is just now entering into a stage of application. It's one thing to say you believe the Bible; its another to live out the Bible's commands. I'm thankful for the service of the MBLA in endorsing candidates. These are wonderful men who will serve us well.
  
  Let's give them our vote and our whole-hearted support!

They Did It

The Senate has approved the radical Reid/Kennedy amendment known as "hate crimes" legislation. President Bush has pledged to veto the legislation. Let's pray he does.

Hey Cloning Coaltion, Welcome to the Grassroots!

At the risk of turning my blog into commentary on Missouri’s cloning battle, I feel the need to highlight at least one recent event.

Here’s the latest propaganda from the Stowers Institute’s mouthpiece. Well, ok, I can’t link to it because it’s not yet posted as of this writing (I’ll get back to that in a moment). But for now, you can read it below:

For Immediate Release: September 5, 2007
Contact: Connie Farrow (314) 808-1158

3 strikes, you're out? Refiling of Amendment to Change Constitution to Criminalize Stem Cell Cures Shows Trouble with Anti-Cures Cause

“They’ve gotten the science wrong. They’ve gotten the law wrong. Why should we trust them to get cures right?”

Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures responded today as opponents of stem cell cures refiled their measure yet again, the third time in less than two weeks. Said Donn Rubin, chairman of Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures, “In their zeal to repeal access to stem cell research and criminalize doctors who pursue desperately needed cures, opponents of stem cell research have trampled both basic science and basic law.

First their deceptive and far-reaching initiative would have excluded Missourians with common chromosomal abnormalities like Downs, Klinefelter and Turner syndromes from their definition of “human.” Then their “improved” initiative would have made their supporters’ e-mail addresses part of the public record, opening them up to spammers and scammers. They simply can’t get their act together. We shouldn’t trust anything they put on the ballot.”Added Rubin, "Whether it’s little errors or big ones, this initiatives supporters can’t get anything right. But no matter how many times they rewrite and refile their initiative, their intent is the same: to repeal the stem cell measure passed by voters 10 months ago.”

Thanks to Missouri’s passage of the Stem Cell Amendment last year, our constitution now guarantees equal access to stem cell research, treatment and cures allowed under federal law and available to other Americans. It also makes any attempt to clone a human being a felony crime, punishable by up to 15 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. The proposed initiative’s plan to redefine stem cell research as “cloning” is really a disguised attempt to repeal the stem cell guarantees established by voters.Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures promotes cures for diseases such as Parkinson’s and diabetes in Missouri. It is a grassroots coalition which includes more than 100 leading patient and medical organizations and more than 60,000 Missouri citizens.

### Paid for by Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures, Lindsay Holwick, Treasurer

Well, Mr. Rubin, Ms. Farrow and Daddy-Warbucks-Stowers, welcome to Missouri’s pro-life grassroots movement. We do have trouble with starts, but we’re pretty great on finishes. Of course you know that, having spent $30 million on an advertising campaign to convince (deceive) Missourians that Amendment 2 was a good thing, only to almost lose the ballot measure.

Sure enough, we sometimes look foolish and are pretty unprofessional in a lot of ways. We’re folks who do our business around our children’s crayons and cookie crumbs. Our desks are usually our kitchen tables where we eat our meals and teach our values. Our suits are often sweats and a t-shirt. We can barely fund our grocery budgets.

We’re pro-life Missourians. We don’t produce 2,100 words of gobbledygook for a constitutional amendment. We’re direct, honest and to the point. That's why we've only used around 200 words. We can’t afford a cadre of national lawyers to ruminate over every nuance of every word of every sentence. We'll even listen to our opponents.

But in the end, we get things right. It may take some doing, but we get things right. And we’ll get this right. We’re not afraid of failing and we’re not afraid of losing.

In fact, in over 30 years of pro-life activism, we’ve lost more times than we’ve won. That’s why we’ll keep filing corrections with the Secretary of State. And that’s why we'll keep filing amendments, even if we lose this election. We’ll be back again and again and again. So keep up your provocative rhetoric. Your sarcasm and taunts highlighting our mistakes is predictable.

But for us pro-life Missourians, we’ll stay focused on the issue, if you don’t mind. Amendment 2 gave our state an entirely new and inaccurate definition of cloning. We’re telling our neighbors and our friends and our community acquaintances the truth. Cloning is now legal in Missouri. You really should see their faces when they hear that.

===

PS. Why wasn't your press release from yesterday posted on your website today, nearly 24 hours later? I like posting links. I'd think a $30 million organization would be a bit more professional...talk about not getting things right!

Cleaning the Blogfile

As a follow up to my entry yesterday about Missouri’s media bias on the matter of cloning, I remembered a recent article from Dr. Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, who comments on media bias on the national level. Read it here.

And for those who missed Dr. James Dobson’s commentary on how the brutality of abortion gets overlooked, especially in the recent coverage of Michael Vicks alleged dog abuse, go here and click on the audio button.

Can Missouri’s Press say C-L-O-N-I-N-G?

Missouri’s leading newspapers had some trouble reporting fairly the press conference held yesterday by Cures Without Cloning.

The Springfield News Leader headlined a story by Associated Press writer David Lieb: “Proposal seeks to ban type of cell research.” The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, also using Lieb’s piece bannered the article with “Cell transfer procedure is targeted.” And the Joplin Globe, also parroting the AP article used “New proposal seeks to ban certain embryonic stem-cell research.” Jason Rosenbaum of the Columbia Tribune (or more accurately, his editors) came pretty close to fairness with the headline “Stem cell research opponents launch cloning ban effort.” This effort is about cloning, though the Trib forget to qualify that it is "embryonic" stem cell research opponents want to ban.

But the fairness award on the issue of headlines, goes to Kit Wagar and the Kansas City Star. The article was titled “Cloning opponents seek initiative toward 2008 Missouri ballot.” Just when I thought Missouri reporters didn’t know the word “cloning” existed or that “cloning” is at the heart of the petition filed with the Secretary of State, a liberal newspaper restores my confidence in fairness.

If you remember anything at all in the next 14 months, remember this. This movement is about cloning.

David Lieb didn’t mention anything about the cloning process this petition seeks to ban calling it only “a particular research method.” Wagar and Rosenbaum both give details of this “particular research method” though they omit some significant information like the fact that nearly every objective scientist and credible scientific organization describes somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) as a cloning process.

For instance, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) far from a radical right-wing organization of “anti-abortion” zealots has a glossary page defining terms including somatic cell nuclear transfer. The NIH definition reads:

Somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT)—A technique that combines an enucleated egg (nucleus removed) and the nucleus of a somatic cell to make an embryo. SCNT is the scientific term for cloning. SCNT can be used for therapeutic or reproductive purposes, but the initial stage that combines an enucleated egg and a somatic cell nucleus is the same. See also therapeutic cloning and reproductive cloning.

So, despite all the smoke and mirrors with which the good folks over at Stowers, Inc. want to mesmerize Missourians, and despite the complicit participation of Missouri’s media establishment in skewing the issue, it’s pretty simple. SCNT is cloning. Missouri, do you want cloning?

Another issue that disappointed me in reading the press coverage was the tipping of the hat to the Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures (MCLC). I understand the need for a response from “the opposition” that adds balance to the story being reported. But the AP story gave only one quote to Cures Without Cloning chairwoman Dr. Lori Buffa. It was 45 words long. The AP also gave Donn Rubins, chief propagandist of Missouri’s pro-cloning movement a quote. His was 39 words in length, just 6 words fewer than the head of the organization that hosted the press conference.

Kit Wagar was the worst offender on this issue. The first direct quote from Buffa (23 words) was offset by quoting 3 opponents: party-crasher Dan Rice, who just happened to be “on his way” to the library, got 42 words of print media; while the Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures got both its spokeswoman Connie Farrow (34 words) and its chairman Donn Rubins (29 words) quoted. Wagar did give another Buffa quote (27 words) toward the end of the report, bringing the total word count of direct quotations to 50-103. So much for holding a press conference!

The quackiest quote from all the print coverage had to come from Jason Rosenbaum’s piece quoting Connie Farrow, spokeswoman for MCLC, who said: “There’s never been a human life created that didn’t come from a womb.” Wesley Smith blogged on this quote saying “if given on a test, [it] would have caused her to flunk high school biology” and goes on to remind us many humans were created in a lab dish through in vitro fertilization, a truth the propagandists want to forget.

I had to smile at Kit Wagar’s description of Cures Without Cloning as “a fledgling political group.” It reminded me of a dialogue from the 1993 version of the movie Gettysburg between Union Calvary officers Col. William Gamble (played by Buck Taylor) and Gen. John Buford (played by western icon Sam Elliott). The dialogue goes as follows: (spanish speaking readers may want to access the movie clip here).

Buford: That's infantry, all right.
Gamble: At least a whole brigade.
Buford: Any sign of cavalry?
Gamble: Not a lick, sir.
Buford: That's strange. Infantry moving alone in enemy country, blind.
Gamble: Very strange, sir. What do you make of that?
Buford: He's headed this way.
Gamble: Sir?
Buford: Lee's turned. That's the main body.
Gamble: You think so? I thought they were going to Harrisburg. Buford: He was. That's too many troops to be a raiding party. There's power behind it.

Cures Without Cloning “a fledgling political group”? I think not. There’s power behind it.

No doubt the petition will be slowed by the Secretary of State and others of the political establishment. It was be mischaracterized by Missouri’s media, who are continuously dishonest about cloning. It will be assaulted by the progranda machine of Stowers Inc. But there’s power behind it. In poll after poll, Missourians are opposed to cloning. Soon, the measure will be on the 2008 ballot for Missourians to decide. Do we want legalized cloning?

A True Ban On Cloning

Today, officials of “Cures Without Cloning” a state-wide coalition of grassroots citizens and organizations have filed a petition with the Secretary of State to amend the Missouri constitution to prohibit the practice of human cloning. The chairman is Dr. Lori Buffa, a pediatrician from St. Peters, MO. She held a press conference that can be heard here.

Many Missourians are aware that Amendment 2, which passed last November by a slim majority (51%-49%), made cloning legal in Missouri. The amendment was a convoluted and tortuous 2,000+ word document. Now, Missourians have an opportunity to clearly weigh in. Do we want cloning enshrined and protected in our constitution?

Say what?

Following this Sunday’s dedication of Virginia Tech’s “April 16 Memorial” school officials have also planned a September 6 concert with music rapper NAS. The concert ironically, according to this press release, is intended “to help the university community move forward in the aftermath of the April tragedy at Virginia Tech.” You may remember that 23 year old English major Cho Seung-Hui, went on a rampage April 16 that killed 32 people and wounded 26 others.

The problem is that NAS, as do most rappers, sings violent and profane lyrics. So in an effort to move beyond violence and murder, Virginia Tech officials book someone to sing on, well, violence and murder?!?

According to the Washington Post,

Alicia Farrell, whose brother, Jarrett Lane, was one of the students killed by gunman Seung Hui Cho, said she believes there is a time and place for such music -- but not at a concert meant to commemorate the victims and comfort the survivors of the worst shooting in U.S. history. Cho, a senior from Fairfax County, killed 32 students and faculty members and himself.

"My issue is not with Nas or his lyrics in any other place, but this is an opportunity for healing in the community," Farrell, 26, said from her home in Richmond. "It's the most inappropriate thing I could imagine hearing at such an event.”

The university’s press release even described NAS as “hip hop’s conscience.” You click this link to decide…is this hip-hop’s conscience?

[Warning: I said RAP…if you’re culturally illiterate that means cursing, foul, profane language]

The SBC and Women Pastors

I came across a news item today regarding the historic First Baptist Church of Decatur, Georgia calling Julie Pennington-Russell as its senior pastor. FBC Decatur, while leaning towards the liberal Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, still has ties with the Southern Baptist Convention.

The article from OneNewsNow.com was headlined “Former SBC president reacts to Georgia church that called female as senior pastor”. Interestingly, that was none other than Paige Patterson. With a couple of clicks on the internet, I found this information and this controversy was a couple of months old. First Baptist voted June 17 and Dr. Al Mohler had blogged about this on June 5. It leaves me with a couple of impressions.

I fear the SBC has gotten a bit too acclimated to some perverse practices of theology. A woman serving as an overseer of Christ’s church is strictly forbidden in Scripture. 1 Timothy 3:1ff couldn’t be more clear that Christ vests the spiritual authority and care of His church in men.

This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?); not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil. Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

We should be coming out of our seats, ready to give firm, loving discipline to a church that so clearly errs in obeying the Bible. Yet, this action seems to have gotten barely a yawn from our denomination. I believe if one of our churches just hired a homosexual pastor as some apostate denominations are doing, we’d have a virtual riot on our hands. Yet, this repugnant rebellion against the Sacred Record receives almost universal silence. Why?

First, we’ve become accustomed to receiving money from liberal, CBF churches. The reasoning would go something like this. Even though First Baptist, Decatur has a past history with the Southern Baptist Convention, and even though they contributes money to the Southern Baptist Convention’s Cooperative Program and thereby qualify to be defined as “a Southern Baptist church” they aren’t really Southern Baptist. The bulk of their money goes to the CBF, and I suppose they don’t send messengers to the annual meeting. So, let’s all keep the status quo—no harm, no foul.

But I contend there is harm. Even Paige Patterson, normally pit-bullian in his adherence to pristine theology, was summarized (perhaps erroneously) with a passive viewpoint. The article said Patterson “believes [FBC, Decatur] will eventually leave the denomination.” So, we’ll allow this errant church to continue to call itself Southern Baptist? We’ll wait for them to “eventually leave”? I’m all for showing them to the door.

Second, and much more concerning, we’ve become accustomed to women in spiritual leadership positions. While most Southern Baptists embrace 1 Timothy 3, many are weakening their application. We’ve made an unbiblical distinction between senior pastor and associate pastor. We’ve interpreted “bishop” or “overseer” to mean “senior pastor” only. Many churches will allow women to oversee the spiritual ministries of the congregation in worship (music ministers) or in leading teenagers or children (youth and/or children’s ministers). I think also, we’re tired of resisting evil and settle for far less than we should. After all, we’re not hiring homosexuals like the Episcopalians. That would be really bad! A woman pastor here and there, we can survive…so goes the conventional thinking (and there not really Southern Baptists anyway). As long as there are no gay men in our pulpits, we’re safe.

But we’re not safe. We have a holy God to face and His perfect Word to embrace. And this CBF-supporting, SBC-affiliated, Bible disobeying church represents a clear and present danger to our denomination.
.

Missouri’s Stem Cell Debate: Truce or Unconditional Surrender?

Former Missouri Senator John Danforth co-chaired the pro-cloning group Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures last year. They were the front organization of Jim and Virginia Stowers who bankrolled over 80% of the $30 million propaganda machine. Mr. Danforth wrote a rather surprising op-ed piece that appeared in Tuesday’s St. Louis Post Dispatch in which he called for a truce in Missouri’s trench wars. You can read it here.

Here is my response, sent today to the Post-Dispatch.


Mr. Danforth’s call for a truce should be rejected by Missouri’s pro-family leaders for several reasons.

First, while I appreciate the tenor of his op-ed piece and his seeming understanding of our position, he does not truly comprehend the pro-life ethic. His proposal requires pro-life Missourians to allow what we believe to be immoral research to proceed. We are to comfort ourselves in that we wouldn’t be paying for it. Yet, our objection is not that we are paying for immoral research. We object that our state legally protects immoral research. Who pays for the destruction of embryonic human life is quite secondary to our anguish that embryonic human life is being destroyed. The “truce” sounds more like bribery. If we turn away and be silent, we won’t have to pay for it. But this we cannot do. Wherever human life is threatened, debased or destroyed, pro-life Missourians will accept no truce.

Second, protecting life is a legitimate government interest. Mr. Danforth’s “truce” is built upon a precept that whether or not embryonic life is human is a matter of religion. It is not. This is a scientific question and science has resoundly and unequivocally thundered that somatic cell nuclear transfer creates a living, human embryo. The cloned embryo must have some category. If it is not human, what is it? Animal? Plant? Mineral? And if the embryonic life is not human, why did the Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures, which Mr. Danforth co-chaired last year, write into the language of Amendment 2 an explicit prohibition of implantation into a woman’s uterus? Could it be they knew this embryo would continue more advanced human development? This matter is not just for religious persons as Mr. Danforth contends. This issue is for all Missourians who care about protecting the dignity of all humans, even at their tiniest, microscopic stage of development.

Third, the “truce” indicates vulnerability. It is akin to the Nazis offering the Allies a truce just before D-Day. Where was Mr. Danforth’s conciliatory “truce” last year? Amendment 2 was just barely approved by Missourians, even after Mr. Danforth’s coalition spent the largest amount of money in Missouri campaign history. Missouri’s pro-life organizations, with their modest budgets, simply needed more time. Since Amendment 2 has been approved, more Missourians now understand the dangers of human cloning and are poised to change the error of our ways. We continue to better understand that the hope for the cures of the diseases afflicting our family members and friends lies in adult stem cell research, not embryonic stem cell research. Missourians are now ready to stop cloning before it starts.

Mr. Danforth’s tone is a welcomed change from last year. But on this issue of research that destroys human embryos, no truce will ever be accepted.

Lives of the Signers

America’s birth month is rapidly passing from the scene and I have not adequately addressed issues I had intended to address at the beginning of this month. Primarily, I thought I would highlight some books from my library that have been helpful in formulating my understanding of patriotism, the Christian heritage of our Founding Era, and exposing me to some incredible people and epics of a bygone age.

Chief among the “must-read” books relating to our War for Independence is a book now called Lives of the Signers. It was originally written by B.J. Lossing in 1848 and titled “Biographical Sketches of the Signers of the Declaration of American Independence: The Declaration Historically Considered; And a Sketch of the Leading Events Connected with the Adoption of the Articles of Confederation, and of the Federal Constitution.” Those of you accustomed to reading older books are well acquainted with such verbose titles. Title truncating is one of the few points of modern book marketing of which I am grateful.

This book gives a brief introduction of the men who “for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence” mutually pledged “to each other [their] Lives, [their] Fortunes and [their] sacred Honor.”

Many Americans have a vague recollection of some of them. Benjamin Franklin from Pennsylvania would be the most prominent of the signers in the collective memory of Americans; John Adams of Massachusetts—future 2nd President and perhaps the greatest champion of the document; his cousin, Samuel Adams—organizer of Boston’s Sons of Liberty and often called the Father of the American Revolution because of his zeal. Thomas Jefferson, who actually wrote the document, would be almost universally recognized. John Hancock’s large signature has become an American catchphrase. As he signed with gigantic letters, he reportedly said, “There! His Majesty can now read my name without his spectacles!”

But few Americans have ever heard the names of Caesar Rodney, Charles Carroll, Carter Braxton, Arthur Middleton or any of the other signers, some of whom would pay dearly and suffer greatly before the War ended.

Lives of the Signers is a wonderful book to help Americans have “profound veneration for the men who were the prominent actors on that remarkable scene in the drama of the world’s history.” It gives only brief snapshots of the lives of these men, leaving us wanting to know more. But its brief exposure makes a great primer for someone wanting a cursory exposure to the history of American Independence.

Consider the life of signer Thomas Lynch, Jr, of South Carolina. He was a 30 year old young man afflicted by a serious disease. His physicians advised him to return to Europe, so about the time John Paul Jones was telling the British commander of the Serapis “I have not yet begun to fight!” (September, 1779), Lynch was sailing toward the West Indies with his precious wife. However, the ship, like so many of the day, became lost at sea. Lossing tells us, “Like a brilliant meteor, he beamed with splendor for a short period, and suddenly vanished forever.”

Signer Richard Stockton of New Jersey declined his election as Chief Justice of the State so he could more actively aid in the Revolutionary cause. When his family was in peril of capture, he returned home where he was betrayed by a Tory loyalist. He was beaten and deprived of adequate food and shelter by the British. “The hardships he endured shattered his constitution, and when he found himself almost a beggar, through the vandalism of the British in destroying his estate, and by the depreciation of the continental paper currency, he was seized with a despondency from which he never recovered.”

Concerning New Jersey signer John Hart, Lossing writes: “The signers of the Declaration everywhere were marked for vengeance, and when the enemy made their conquering descent upon New Jersey, Mr. Hart’s estate was among the first to feel the effects of the desolating inroad. The blight fell, not only upon his fortune, but upon his person, and he didn’t love to se the sunlight of Peace and Independence gladden the face of his country. He died in the year 1780 (the gloomiest period of the War of Independence), full of years and deserved honors.”

Lives of the Signers removes the mystique and romance from the signing of the Declaration of Independence. There was much more pain than pageantry from that event. And suffering would follow the celebration. American freedom did not come through oratory; it was achieved because people sacrificed their “lives…fortunes…and sacred honor.”

The book reminds us that great movements require great men; men who were willing to pay a price for their convictions in order for those convictions to be cherished and prevail. And that message is as relevant today as it was when they signed the Declaration of Independence in 1776.

Blogging is harder than you think. I prefer posts with well reasoned statements, seasoned with research. I haven’t posted in a very long time, partly because I’m biting my tongue on certain issues and partly because I just haven’t booked the time. But lest I lose the faithful readers I have accrued over the past year and a half, I feel compelled to offer some bit of sagacious verbage.

Two things stir in my heart today.

First, the Hindu prayer opening today’s Senate session by some chap from Nevada was given. Seems like Harry Reid is behind this and he [Reid] made a couple of goofy statements about the situation. The prayee was talking to some force inside the earth. Dumb me. I thought that’s where lava was located. This has had one of those heavy effects on me. I believe America abandoned God a long time ago, but this event was a sad reminder. It's kind of like when someone you dearly love dies and their birthday rolls around. You know they're gone, but that day is a grim reminder of the pain.

Anyway, three folks tried to interrupt the praying Hindu by praying out loud. Supposedly, they were Christians and I have mixed feelings about what they did. On one hand, it seems to reflect poorly on our faith; but on the other, it shows Christians aren’t spineless cowards who sit idly by while our country is shoved further from God.

And speaking of spineless, there are a couple of things to say about this week’s MBC Executive Board meeting. But since I’m still boiling and since those points require more time for blogging, they shall remain (for the moment) unstated.

Independence Now, Independence Forever!

"[This day] will be the most memorable epic in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival. It ought to be commemorated as the Day of Deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty…with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations from one end of this continent to the other from this time forward forever more."

--John Adams to Abigail Adams on July 4, 1776

With fireworks tents popping up all over your local county, it is clear Americans understand the pomp of July 4. After 231 years, we still revel in the celebration of our independence. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, we imported $206.3 million in fireworks from China last year. John Adams didn’t say anything about hotdogs and potato salad, and most church belfries are rusted over or non-existent, but we’re following the advice of America’s great patriot with one glaring exception.

What was it he said? “…solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty”? We can’t even make sure the United States Senate is devoted to giving Him thanks (can you say “Ommmmmmmmm”?).

But Adams is right. July 4 marks a national holy day that is a commemoration of our Day of Deliverance. Victory over Great Britain was a gift from God. American Christians need not take our cues from our secular culture. Long before we ever ice down the watermelon or heat up the grill, let us bow our knees and thank Providence for His munificent dealings and kind disposition towards the United States of America. We have never been more undeserving of His continued blessings than we are now. May our voices not be silent on July 4. Let us praise God, the Author of Liberty.

Jewell's Perfidy Is Complete

Exactly when William Jewell College began to distance itself from Biblical faithfulness would be impossible to pinpoint. But as a graduate of this former Missouri Baptist institution, I experienced her embrace of neo-orthodoxy in countless ways.

Let me give, out of the starting gate, the obligatory nod to my alma mater. Jewell is an incredible institution and I am mostly grateful for my experiences there, both through formal education and informal relationships and interactions. I won’t tick down the good things I could say about William Jewell college, not because they aren’t in my soul, but because I don’t have much time for this post.

William Jewell gave me more than a very excellent liberal-liberal arts education. Chief and foremost, at Jewell I met my incredible friend Scott Weldon, who remains a consistent and encouraging colleague. He and his wife Cheryl (also a Jewell alum) minister faithful and selflessly in Missouri for our Lord’s glory.

There is no doubt the school abounds with brilliance, excellence and so many other characteristics that make for a great institution. But at the most recent board meeting, trustees completed their perfidious path from Biblical truth with the adoption of a new mission statement:

“William Jewell College promises students an outstanding liberal arts education that cultivates leadership, service, and spiritual growth within a community inspired by Christian ideals and committed to open, rigorous intellectual pursuits.”

Evidently, the new mission statement had the unanimous support of both the faculty and the Student Senate, both giving their endorsements through resolutions passed during the spring semester. WJC’s mission statement was last reworked in 1997. The former statement read:

“The mission of William Jewell College is to provide students a liberal arts education of superior quality; to serve communities beyond the campus educationally, culturally, and socially; and to be an institution loyal to the ideals of Christ, demonstrating a Christian philosophy for the whole of life, and expressing the Missouri Baptist Heritage which is the foundation of the college.”

Most Missouri Baptists know the story behind the rift between William Jewell College and the Missouri Baptist Convention. Jewell was the state convention’s first educational institution. But conservatives have long been uncomfortable with the college’s progressively liberal and unbiblical viewpoints and teachings.

Jewell exasperated the tensions in February, 2003, when Administration officials allowed the vile play “The Vagina Monologues” to be performed on campus (by the way, the VMs made their way back to Jewell this past March, according to this press release). After this fiasco, Jewell was riddled with a series of issues uncovering a pro-homosexual agenda on the Liberty campus which culminated in an attempt to add “sexual orientation” to the Student Bill of Rights. Tim Perkins, a former teenage church member of mine, was Student Senate President at the time. Tim is a remarkable and doctrinally sound Christian who vetoed the attempt to enshrine immorality in Jewell’s Student Bill of Rights.

In a December 13, 2002 letter to WJC President David Salle regarding the Student Senate amendment, I wrote:

“This amendment is also a disingenuous and misdirected attempt to relate properly to homosexuals. While in a politically correct cultural climate, adding “sexual orientation” to an anti-discrimination paragraph may seem proper, but the true Christian ethic would be to lovingly relate the truth to homosexual persons. The average heterosexual male in America dies at 75. The average homosexual male in America dies at 41. Something about their behavior is terribly wrong. It is wrong Scripturally, morally and scientifically. Rather than accommodating their wrong choices of sexual expression, William Jewell would serve homosexuals better by setting a standard of appropriate and Biblical sexuality.”

Well, by the end of the October 2003 annual meeting of the Missouri Baptist Convention, William Jewell College had been defunded. It took them just shy of 4 years to erase “the Missouri Baptist Heritage” pulling themselves further from “the foundation of the college.”

But the real sadness, and the point of this post is not to decry Jewell’s distance from the Missouri Baptist Convention, though it is somewhat related. The real sadness is that William Jewell College now openly acknowledges what Biblically astute graduates have known for several decades. Jewell is no longer “an institution loyal to the ideals of Christ.” Rather, Jewell is now simply “inspired by Christian ideals.” That is a huge shift, evidenced further by their change from “demonstrating a Christian philosophy for the whole of life” to being “committed to open, rigorous intellectual pursuits.”

I guess without $1 million a year from Missouri Baptists, WJC trustees have decided they no longer needed a smoke screen in their mission statement. Jewell’s perfidy is complete.

Just One Thought on the SBC Annual Meeting

Messenger registration for this year’s Southern Baptist Convention was dismal. Some 8,500 messengers registered, which was probably the lowest since the conservative resurgence began. I have an insight that might help us understand why.

The annual meeting has become a collage of preaching, music, information and business; with progressively less attention being given to business, which is after all, why “messengers” are there in the first place. “Attenders” can listen to the preaching and music, hear the reports, and watch the videos. They just can’t participate in the business of the convention.

In fact, only 55 minutes were allocated for “previously scheduled business” along with an equal amount of time (55 minutes) for disposition of resolutions. That alone should wake someone up. Resolutions are suppose to be “non-binding” and only express the mind of a particular gathered convention. Yet, convention leaders are scheduling as equal time for “business” and for “resolutions”. Excluding nominations and voting for officers and asking questions of entity heads, only 1 hour and 50 was scheduled for business during the approximately 16 hour meeting.

And no wonder. With all the “automatic referrals” and the “long-standing practice” messengers do virtually no business. The Wednesday evening agenda had “business” scheduled for 7:00-7:15 which wasn’t even used because there was no “business” to discuss. In fact, (someone help me with this since my memory is woefully short), wasn’t the Rick Garner BFM motion the ONLY motion that originated from the floor? And it in no way changed anything.

With the lock down of tight egalitarian control, we commoners can do very little to impact the direction of the SBC. So why bother trying? And if the convention isn’t about doing the business of the SBC but more about information and inspiration, most Southern Baptists will find cheaper and more alluring alternatives and will stop attending (as obviously they already are). We can attend preaching conferences of our choice, whether the preference is Founders or Emergent. And getting info about the institutions and agencies is usually a couple or key-clicks away. And CDs of the latest recording artist are a lot cheaper to purchase than plane tickets to the host city.

Many of the ruling intelligentsia may welcome the silence (or squashing) of the plebes. But it will come at a long-term price. This growing disconnect will translate into lower CP contributions over time. American colonists grew weary of shipping their taxes overseas and eventually embraced a “no taxation without representation” philosophy. It won’t be long before the SBC experiences the same.

I wish “the establishment” wouldn’t fear us so much. We’re not all of the Ben Cole type radicals, (though I’m not sure just how radical Ben really is). Last year, I presented two motions that would have allowed greater messenger participation (allowing a simple majority to override the Resolutions Committee or Committee on Order of Business rather than the current 2/3 majority). It is the only hope folks like Tom Ascol has for his resolution on church membership to be considered. The Resolutions Committee should allow it to be considered on the floor. For two years, they have refused to report it out. In my mind, this actually serves to benefit Tom’s position. It probably would have been voted down last year or even this year and the matter would have been put to rest (at least, to some degree); however, the committee’s refusal to allow a messenger from a cooperating church to have a moment of deliberative persuasion further alienates many from attending. And I can guarantee that 1/3 of the gathered messengers will always uphold a committee ruling anytime night or day—thwarting the will of the majority who have collectively paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to affect SBC life.

Anyway, convention leaders had better relax control and allow greater messenger participation or boost their exhibit hall budgets to give out more than just pens and mints; otherwise, they’ll soon be meeting in a church fellowship hall.


PS: The mints were stale and the pens were lousy. Thankfully, Olan Mills is still snapping free pictures...now that's worth the trip!

It's Better to Intervene

While I got on to a Missouri Baptist soapbox just a little bit last week in reacting to England’s Prime Minister’s comments from Sierra Leone, Tony Blair was quite the statesman with this insightful zinger:

"However ferocious the challenges are in this part of Africa, it's better to intervene and try to make a difference than stay out and try to cope with the consequences at a later time.”

The great enemy of change is apathy. Whether moral, political or spiritual—doing nothing is a great temptation to people who see things that need to be different. As God’s people, we are to engage our culture. Proverbs 3:27-28 says: “Do not withhold good from those to whom it is due, when it is in the power of your hand to do so. Do not say to your neighbor, ‘Go, and come back, and tomorrow I will give it,’ when you have it with you.” Doing good and doing it immediately is a strong teaching of the Bible. It’s inherent in Jesus’ cultural mandate when He says “You are the salt of the earth…you are the light of world.”

The temptation is to sit things out. We've all got busy lives. But do we have noble engagments? If all my life is about working, mowing grass and making sure my kid is at baseball practice on time, am I not missing something essential.

Unbelief, homosexual marriage, cloning, biblical illiteracy, abortion, gambling, selfish ambition are just a bit on the issues facing us.
There are always ‘ferocious’ challenges. The sluggard of Proverbs 26 says he cannot go outside because “there is a lion in the street!” Many Christians have embraced this sluggardly spirit and don’t engage our world because they see the problems as “lion-sized”. I suppose that’s why the Alabama clergymen who wrote that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s attack on racism in their state was both “unwise and untimely.”

This is why I have great frustration with our convention (both national and state). On both levels, and Missouri in particular, we are engaging in a battle that is largely unnecessary. Something that should be a family squabble is becoming an all out war. We have lost sight of our common enemy. Our adversary continues to blind the hearts of unbelievers, taking them into eternal hell. He still deceives and entices both our policies and pleasures which too often reflect an antagonism towards godliness.

In a manner of speaking, this is not 1860, this is 1775. In 1860, America survived the carnage of the Civil War because we had no external enemy. But had those regional conflicts been primary during the mid-1770s (and they were present) we would never have defeated Great Britain and attained our independence.

Southern Baptists need to rediscover our enemy. He is not crushed and is far from defeated.