Pastor's Blog
I am told that a blog is rambling thoughts about ever changing subjects. I can do that. But my problem is that sometimes my thoughts connect together into articles. When that happens, I will link to it in the blog and list it in articles. Also, since blogs add up over time, I will list topics on the left. Just click and you can go to whichever one you desire.
Now my blogging career begins.
Michael Peters
Febuary 1, 2012 Elders in a Cell Church
Elders in a cell church are not appointed by the pastor then made elders but are made elders by the Holy Spirit and then reconized as such.
Elders are life givers who make disciples who make disciples.
In a cell church, an elder would be a cell leader who oversees other cell leaders so that the multiplicity of his offspring make his role as an elder self-evident.
If you wish to read more on how this works, you may read my article titled, Elders in the Cell Church
January 23, 2012 Proof of Life
39 years after Roe, we are still divided over abortion. Roe v. Wade was the 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion. Recently President Obama reflected on Roe v Wade and reaffirmed his commitment to protect abortion as a woman’s “fundamental constitutional right.”
Abortion is one of those issues with no middle ground. It is true that a prolife person and a prochoice person can agree that they wish no one had an abortion, but they cannot agree on whether abortion is a “fundamental constitutional right.”
To the prolife person there is no such thing as a fundamental constitutional right to abortion. By fundamental, I do not think the President meant a God given right. I think he meant a right that other laws cannot limit. But when a right conferred by the Court trampels on the God given right to life, the prolife person choses God over the Supreme Court.
The Roe v. Wade decision conferred the right to an abortion based on the assumption that no consensus exists as to when life begins and upon the equal access clause of the fourteenth amendment. Justice Blackmun affirmed that we need not decide when life begins and then asserted that equal access applied to the most private of all decisions.
From an unproven assumption coupled with an inferred right to privacy, we have abortion as a “fundamental constitutional right.” 1992 the Roe decision was reaffirmed by a five judge majority in the Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision. Astonishing, three of the five judges that reaffirmed the right to abortion were appointed by presidents that ran on prolife platforms: O'Connor, Kennedy and Souter.
Personally, I do not know how courts and politicians can affirm such things. But I do know that if they took a hunter‘s safety course it might change their perspective. One of the rules of hunter safety is that you are responsible to know that the life you are about to end is not human.
If Justice Blackmun had been a hunter, he could never have written, “At this time, we not determine the difficult question of when life begins.” He would have known that the responsibility rest upon the person who is about to end the life to prove it is not human. Instead, he put the burden of proof upon those who want to protect the life to prove that the unborn are human.
39 years later, the proof of life grows. Since 1973, DNA has been discovered so that we now know that everything the child biologically is to become he or she already is. Ultra sounds have advanced from blurry shadows to detailed pictures of thumb sucking babies. Surgical procedures upon children in utero treat the unborn as patients. And the law protects the unborn if someone other than the mother wants to harm the child.
Someday, if science could come up with an instrument to measure the presence of a soul in the unborn, we would have the final proof of life. But of course that won't happen and since faith has been removed from our public reasoning, we can't even reason like medieval people.
In the middle ages, Thomas Aquinas reasoned that movement is a proof of life. Based on this principle, English Common law protected the unborn from the time the mother felt movement. It was called quickening. Today, science can measure movement from the first moment of life.
The question then that science must answer is: if it is not human movement what kind of movement is it?
Morally, the burden of proof rest upon those who want to end the life to prove that the life they are ending is not human. Thankfully more and more people are protecting the life of the unborn. In 1984, one out of five pregnancies ended in abortion. Today, one in ten pregnancies end in abortion.
We are moving in the right direction.
What is it that Youcef Nadarkhani and Julie Ward share in common? Both are being persecuted for their faith, one in Iran and the other in the United States. Youcef Nadarkhani is the Iranian pastor who was sentenced to death for his conversion to Christ. Julie Ward is a graduate student who was expelled from Easter Michigan Graduate School counseling program because she did not believe that homosexuality was an unchangeable orientation.
Both of their persecutions began because they refused the indoctrination of each country’s education system. In 2009 Pastor Nadarkhari complained when his son was forced to read the Koran at school. He has been in prison ever since. In 2009 July Ward enrolled in a graduate program and was assigned a potential client who wanted counsel for a homosexual relationship. Ward went to her supervisor suggesting that the client be reassigned since homosexuality violated her beliefs. Instead, Ward was assigned remedial education, which she refused, and then she was expelled from a public university's program for her religious beliefs.
Both governments used the educational system to impose its worldview. Iran’s educational system imposed a Muslim worldview. America’s educational system imposed a secular worldview. People of Christian faith are expected to go along or suffer legal action.
Hopefully, the outcomes will differ.
If I were to prepare for the most negative and pray for the most positive outcomes for these two people, this is what I would do. Negatively, I prepare that Iran will retry Pastor Nadarkhani for treason and Julie Ward will be told to keep her faith to herself and get with the program. Positively, I would pray that Pastor Nadarkhani will be released and Julie Ward will be allowed to follow her faith. .
The potential outcomes of these two cases are very different, clearly the loss of a career versus the loss of life are not equal. I am not advocating “moral equivalency.” These are not the same but they are alike in enough ways to cause one to sit up and take notice.
We’ll see how different we really are from Iran. Are we really that different or is it that we just have a different worldview? This does show the power of worldview and the importance for us to develop a biblical worldview and engage our culture to make room for our faith.
July 25, 2011 Men & Religion Forward Movement: Best of Intentions with the Worst of Results
In June 1911 the Men and Religion Forward Movement was launched in New York. The New York Times reported that one of the most remarkable religious movements of all time will be launched next Friday at a banquet in the Hotel Astor. “Never before in the history of the world has religion, in effect been placed on what, in this case, amounts to a business basis.” New York Times, June 4, 1911
The intention of Fred Smith, the founder and leader of the movement, was to restore men to the church. A survey in 1910 revealed that two thirds of church membership was women and women made up ninety percent of those who attended church on Sunday. Fred Smith was a business man who wanted to see men return to church. He believed that if three million men returned to church, it would change the face of Christianity in America.
The motto of the Men and Religion Forward Movement was “Why not bring into our religious life the same helpful means which we employ in business?” The business man was the role model and the goal was to masculinize Christianity to appeal to men and boys. The intent was good and the goal was applaudable but the long term results have set religion back.
The strategy was to hold eight day campaigns in seventy major cities and in one thousand towns. After a year, they met for a congress in Carnegie Hall in New York to report their successes. 1338 delegates from 37 states attended. The organizing committee reported that 1.4 million men attended meetings, and the committee concluded, “The measuring of the minister’s job and his church’s efficiency by the mercantile or professional standard will surely make an impression.”
The Men and Religion Forward Movement did make an impression. After 1912 ministers began wearing business suits instead of clergy collars, because churches began following the business model of pastors serving as CEOs and elders as boards of directors. Evangelism changed as marketing techniques directed outreach. And as time went by churches began the business practices of brainstorming to define their vision and mentoring to make their disciples.
Today, one hundred years after the Men and Religion Forward Movement, the business model has taken root in churches and religion has gone backward in America.
It is easy to see this in others but hard to recognize it in ourselves. A new book titled, Church Awakening decries market driven outreach while the author teaches mentoring as the model for the Great Commission. The author holds up hospitals that mentor interns as an example to follow. What the author doesn’t recognize is that mentoring is for professionals and all his examples are professional. The author says wonderful things about mentoring but mentoring will not wake up the church to the Great Commission.
The church will not wake up to the Great Commission until it embraces disciple making as the imperfect discipling the less perfect to become more perfect like Jesus. As long as the church follows the business practice of mentoring there will only be a handful of aspiring interns being mentored by a professional, but the majority of Christians won’t make disciples who make disciples.
Most of the problems that churches face today are the fruit of one hundred years of following the business model. We must repent because…
- Brainstorming to define our vision cannot capture the heart of those who made it up in their own heads.
- Pastors serving as CEOs and elders serving as a board of directors who oversee the fruit of others cannot lead the church into fruit bearing.
- Market directed outreach that targets like kind cannot send missionaries to the corners of the earth much less connect one saint to a sinner just around the corner.
- Mentoring an intern cannot show the everyday Christian how to make a disciple of his neighbor.
We can either go on doing business as usual or we can receive our vision from God, recognize leaders according to fruit bearing, follow the Spirit in outreach and make disciples who make disciples.
Diagnosing our problem and saying what we need to do is the easy part. Fixing it is hard. We at Christ the King Church are doing the hard work of making disciples who make disciples through celebrations, cells and Sunday school.
I could explain in detail how we are doing this but if you want to know give us a call.
July 20, 2011 Defense of Marriage Act
President Obama just called for repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act. This Act passed during the Clinton administration defines marriage as being between a man and woman. The purpose of this act was to keep one state from forcing its recognition of gay marriage upon other states.
Article IV of the U.S. Constitution requires every state to recognize contracts performed in other states and Congress may by general law prescribe the effects of such acts. Congress by the Defense of Marriage Act prescribed that gay marriages performed in one state do not have to be recognized in other states.
If the Defense of Marriage Act is repealed the law of the state of Iowa, which recognizes gay marriage, will be forced by a federal judge upon Missouri. If you are not for gay marriage, then you need to contact your representatives to vote against the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act.
The Defense of Marriage Act is the only thing between you and gay marriage being forced upon your culture. If you think this will have no effect on you and that we as Christians ought to let people get married as though it is none of our business, let me remind you of Owen and Eunice Johns.
Owen and Eunice Johns can no longer foster or adopt children because England passed laws against showing prejudice based on sexual orientation. As good as that may sound on the surface, the Christian community failed to see the implications of such a law. Not wanting to offend the gay community, the Christian community remained silent as this law was being passed. The result is that Christians, who do not believe that homosexuality is an unchangeable orientation, can no longer foster or adopt children in England.
Google their story and you will see your future if you remain silent.
Personally, I do wish that two people of the same gender getting married was none of my business. The problem is that marriage is a public legal contract that makes it everyone’s business and recognizing gay marriage will enforce changes upon society.
Forcing gay values upon our culture has already begun. California just passed a law requiring the teaching of gay history. If gay marriage becomes legal, gay values will be legally endorsed by society and what implications this has for education and other areas will be enforced by federal judges.
July 1, 2011 Wesley's Cell Church Vision
John Wesley was an English preacher in the eighteen century who founded Methodism. His disciples were called Methodist because they followed a pattern to make disciples through small groups.
The method Wesley developed emerged over a number of years and it did not originate with him. Eventually, Wesley would see the pattern in scripture, but it was a Roman Catholic nobleman named De Renty (1611-1649) who provided the catalyst for Wesley to see the value of small groups.
De Renty started small groups in Paris, Caen, and Dijon, France for the purpose of applying the teachings of Christ. Wesley read De Renty’s life story and was inspired by it to develop small groups in London, which Wesley called classes.
Classes were six to eight disciples gathered to apply the message. Wesley adapted this approach from De Renty and he was not ashamed to encourage others to follow De Renty's example. He wrote to a Roman Catholic friend, “O that you would follow that burning and shining light of your own Church, the Marquis de Renty.”
Wesley also visited a Moravian community in Herrnhut to witness how they did small groups. The Moravians lived in a community at Herrnhut and divided their total number into ninety bands, gender specific small groups, for development as disciples.
After returning from a visit to Herrnhut, Wesley began his first society in London. On October 14, 1738, he wrote back to the Moravians, “Fourteen were added to us since our return, so that we have now eight bands of men, consisting of fifty-six persons; all of whom seek for salvation only in the blood of Christ. As yet we have only two small bands of women; the one of three and the other of five persons.”
From these small beginnings large things were to come. By the time Wesley died, thirty-thousand Methodists gathered in bands/classes and met weekly in societies throughout England.
The societies where congregations of fifty or more believers, who gathered on Sunday evening for worship and preaching. Each society was broken down into classes that applied the message, and Wesley arranged the societies into circuits that he traveled among.
As societies multiplied, Wesley trained other preachers to circulate among them. Wesley trained leaders as they grew in ministry. As a class leader became effective, Wesley trained him to lead a society; and if he showed a gift of preaching, Wesley included him in the circuit.
Maybe you have heard of Methodist circuit riding preachers. In 1746 there were seven circuits in England and by 1791 this had grown to one hundred and fourteen circuits throughout the British Isles.
Wesley changed England through societies and small groups that applied the message. In America the evangelist D. L. Moody said, “The Methodist class-meetings are the best institutions for training converts the world ever saw.”
Wesley used the words societies and classes/bands to describe what he did; whereas we use the words churches and cells but the vision is the same.
If you want to learn more of Wesley’s method read A Model for Making Disciples: John Wesley’s Class Meeting by D. Michael Henderson.
May 10, 2011 Un-Silencing the Women
Recently, I was asked what I thought Paul meant when he wrote that the women are to keep silent in church (1 Corinthians 14:34-36). This conversation sparked a memory in me of an article I read in 1982. I looked it up and did more research on these passages and concluded that Paul is actually trying to un-silence the women.
Before you read the passages again, consider this. Paul was not affirming that women should be silenced but instead, Paul was repeating the position of some men in the church and then challenging it.
Paul repeated what they thought and then challenged it by saying, “What?”
Here are the passages: “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?” (1 Corinthians 14:34-36 King James Version).
Paul was not affirming female silence. He was challenging men who wanted to silence the women by asking them if the word of God came unto the men only? This is consistent with what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 11 about women prophesying. If you want to know the details of this interpretation read my article Un-Silencing the Women.
April 8, 2011 Tithing & Jesus
A recent survey said that only a minority of evangelical leaders say the Bible requires a tithe.
Most evangelicals that don’t tithe claim it is because of higher priorities. And Jesus did rebuke religious leaders for wrong priorities.
Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for tithing without doing justice: “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done.”
I think all evangelical leaders would agree that justice, mercy and faith are the weightier matters of the law and should be our priority. However would we agree with what Jesus said next: "These you ought to have done without leaving the other undone” (Matthew 23:23)?
As evangelicals, who claim to follow the Lord, we cannot embrace the first half of what Jesus said and ignore the second half without being as hypocritical as the Pharisees.
We cannot leave tithing undone while we claim to prioritize what Christ said we ought to have done.
We are to follow all that Jesus said and Jesus endorsed tithing.
And evangelical leaders who don't endorse tithing are not following their Master.
Personally, I recommend that you ask your pastor, cell leader, Sunday school teacher, Bible study leader or whoever you are looking to for leadership if he or she tithes.
If not, I would find a leader who is doing what Christ endorsed.
Summary of the Bible on Tithing
Tithing was initiated through Abraham, practiced by Jacob, prescribed under Moses, endorsed by Jesus, taught by the Apostles and received by the Lord. Tithing predates the Law and postdates the Gospel. Moses did not begin it. Jesus did not annul it. And those who are led of the Spirit do it. To withhold it is to rob God. To give it is to honor Him. And God has promised to pour out a blessing on those who bring it into His storehouse. Tithe.
Genesis 14:20, Genesis 28:22, Leviticus 27:30, Matthew 23:23, Hebrews 7:8, Malachi 3:8, Proverbs 3:9, Romans 8:4, Malachi 3:10
March 14, 2011 Person of the Gospel
The gospel is about a person. It is not a how-to-manual for approaching God. Other religions are how-to-manuals.
The Koran tells its adherents how to practice the five pillars of Islam or else they’ll be sinners. The gospel tells us that Christ died for sinners.
Buddha told his disciples how to follow the eight fold path to Nirvana. The gospel tells us that Jesus left heaven to come to earth as our Savior to take us back to heaven to live with him there forever.
The gospel is about Jesus Christ and what he has done for us.
This is the good news that the angel announced to the shepherds on the hill side: “Then the angel said to them, "Do not be afraid, for behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy which will be to all people. "For there is born to you this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. (Luke 2:10-11).
If you wish to hear an audio message on the Person of the Gospel click audio.
March 3, 2011 Gay Politics and the Intention of Goliath
We must show our compassion towards those who practice homosexuality without dropping our opposition to the gay political agenda, even if, the gay community misunderstands our opposition to their political agenda as opposition to them.
In October 2010, I read an article in the London, Telegraph Newspaper that shocked me. Eunice and Owen Johns were suing for the right to be foster parents. The Johns had been foster parents of twenty children. But now England would not place children in their home. What was their crime? They did not believe that homosexuality was an unchangeable inherited orientation.
Two years previous the English government had passed civil rights legislation that forbad discrimination based on sexual orientation. Since then Catholic Charities have shut down, because the government demanded that they place children in the homes of homosexual parents, and Christians, who do not accept homosexuality, are forbidden from being foster parents.
I asked my minister friend, Wes, what were the Christians doing when the government passed this law? He said that evangelicals didn’t speak out against it because they did not want to alienate homosexuals.
Unfortunately the gay political agenda does not offer the same tolerance to Christians. Ben Summerskill, the chief executive of Stonewall, a gay rights activist group, said: “Too often in fostering cases nowadays it’s forgotten that it is the interests of a child, and not the prejudices of a parent, that matter.”
When Christian beliefs are characterized as “prejudices,” the gay political agenda becomes evident. The gay political agenda is not tolerance. It is dominance. This was the agenda of Goliath.
Goliath’s intention was to enslave Israel. His challenge was to send out a champion and “If he is able to fight with me and kill me, then we will be your servants. But if I prevail against him and kill him, then you shall be our servants and serve us" (1 Samuel 17:9).
The gay political agenda will make Christians subservient. Some will undoubtedly think that by saying this I am alienating homosexuals who need the gospel. I agree that homosexuals need the gospel just as I do. But that doesn’t mean that I have to become culturally subservient so as to not offend those who need the same gospel that I need.
.
As an evangelical Christian, I will do all I can to show the love of Christ to individuals. I have driven across three states to speak with a young man who was struggling with his sexual identity. I have served communion to a man dying of AIDS. And I have prayed with a homosexual prostitute for God’s grace to transform his life. But I will also oppose the gay political agenda that subverts my Christian beliefs.
Of course I’ll be accused of being homophobic. But it’s not homophobic if it’s rational. And it is not rejection to say that grace can transform someone. It transforms me. And all three men that I mentioned in the previous paragraph were transformed by the grace of God.
We Christians have a message of individual transformation that should be shared with everyone. And we have to withstand the gay political agenda that seeks to make the message of transformation subservient.
February 21, 2011 Dying to Self
In Spring of 1972 I left St. Louis to go to a church in Springfield, MO. According to me, all the churches in St. Louis were not substantative enough. Often on Sunday morning the church service consisted of an open microrphone with anyone coming up to share. There were many wondeful testimonies shared but I wanted something more.
So, I went to Springfield along with my friend Steve to hear a pastor that we were told taught the deep things of God. No sooner had the service started than someone made the announcement that the pastor was not there and that an open mic was available for anyone who wanted to share what God puts on their hearts.
I did not receive that announcement with enthusiam and begrudingly listened to several who spoke. Then at the end of the service, a lady got up and said, "I am not comfortable speaking but I must say this and I know it is for someone here." She opened her Bible and read, ""A scoffer seeks wisdom but does no find it" (Proverbs 14:6).
It was for me. On the way out, I stopped by a literature table and picked up a little tract titled, "Dying to Self." It has been in my Bible ever since. I have not yet lived up to it, but I can share on this open microphone that Jesus gave me something substantive that day.
If you want a copy here it is Dying to Self.
February 14, 2011 Egyptian Media Drama
We saw a media drama unfold this past week in Egypt.
It is possible that we witnessed the beginnings of a democratic movement that collapses Islamic dictatorships just as democracy collapsed communism. Or, it is possible that we saw the beginning of a massive movement of radical Islam that establishes a Muslim state based upon Sharia law and antiwestern violence. What we saw all depended on which channel we watched.
This is why I called it a media drama rather than a democratic movement.
We won’t know what happened until the fruit of it becomes evident. If it is a true democratic movement, it will embrace the first freedom of democracy—religious freedom.
Freedom is God’s gift and real democracies protect it against tyranny.
Our prayers and our government must promote real democracy or else Turkey will become the model for Islamic democracies. Turkey tolerates Christians but won't allow seminaries to train ministers while Islam has total religious freedom.
This is not a model for real democracies so don't be fooled by references to Turkey. America's mission given to her by God is to spread the flame of the sacred fire of liberty.
January 31, 2011 Blood Stain Adds Value
I realized this week that the modern person does not think of blood as adding value to something. If you google blood and cleansing, numerous websites will come up about cleaning blood out of your clothes. The reason is obvious. A blood stain lessens the value of clothing.
Blood stains lessen value, unless the blood is of higher value than what it stains.
In the Smithsonian hangs a dress because it is stained by blood. This dress was worn by Laura Keene. She was an actress who starred in the play Our American Cousins. On the night of April 14, 1865, she wore that dress at Ford’s Theatre. She heard a shot ring out and looked up to see John Wilkes Booth jump down to the stage and run off. Realizing that President Lincoln had been shot, she ran to help. Finding Mrs. Lincoln in shock, Laura Keene cradled the head of Abraham Lincoln in her lap and his blood stained her dress.
His blood stain added value to her dress.
In a much greater way the blood of Christ that stains our souls adds value to us. Peter referred to the blood of Christ as precious and Paul described the blood of Christ as the purchase price that Jesus paid for us (1 Peter 1:18 & Acts 20:28).
We are of such high value to God that His Son shed his blood for our forgiveness, and when we confess our sins, the blood Christ cleanses us from all unrighteousness, thereby adding value to us before God.
If you desire to learn more about this go to Cleansing through Blood that Stains.
January 18, 2011 Better Under Saddam?
Were we better off under Saddam? By we, I mean we Christians, not we Americans. Since we “liberated” Iraq, a half million Christians have been driven out of Iraq. And now articles refer to the genocide of Christians in the Mideast.
I was made personally aware of persecution in Iraq when I heard about a pastor from Baghdad, who was raising funds because his church has lost so many members that they can no longer afford the building payment. The church has subsequently shut down.
Is this what we sent Americans to die for?
Don’t misunderstand me. I do not think that the American military ought to force Christianity on Iraq. I do believe, however, that liberty is an entrustment from God and that religious liberty ought to be a minimal requirement for American intervention.
If Christians are not going to be protected in nations we “liberate” then we are sending Americans to fight for something less than the sacred fire of liberty.
It may make foreign policy sense to establish a Muslim democracy in Iraq, but this was not the mission that President George Washington spoke about in his first inaugural address.
President Washington spoke about the "sacred fire of liberty" and that includes religious liberty. To be clear, religious liberty must include the freedom to preach or else Christians cannot fulfill the Great Commission given to us by our Lord.
Religious freedom is not simply being tolerated if we remain silent in Muslim countries.
Of course, someone will say that Muslim countries will never give liberty to convert Muslims. That is their choice. Muslim countries can choose to not give equal protection to all religions. Our choice, however, should be to require it for our support.
Therefore, I will no longer support military missions that form governments that violate our first amendment. I know that my opinion doesn’t mean much to our government. However, if pastors everywhere said the same thing then maybe our government will hear.
Our men and women in uniform deserve better. Their lives are sacred and should not be put in harms way for anything less than the sacred fire of liberty.
January 10. 2011 Doubting to Faith
If what we believe does not correspond to the truth then doubting it is the first step towards faith. Recently I read Tim Keller’s book The Reason for God, and he wrote, “All doubts, however skeptical and cynical they may seem, are really alternate beliefs.”
This thought struck me as I read Acts 17. If you are not familiar, Acts 17 begins with Paul in Thessalonica and ends with him in Athens. He was driven out of Thessalonica by closed minded religious fanatics and he was mocked in Athens by open minded idealists.
The problem with the closed minded religious fanatic and the open minded idealist is that neither doubt what they believe.
It is easy to see this regarding the closed minded religious fanatic. It is more difficult to see this regarding the open minded idealist.
Allan Bloom in his book The Closing of the American Mind explained how this works though. He taught at the University of Chicago for years and noticed that his students came to him believing in openness. He wrote that this was the result of their primary education:
“Openness…is the virtue, the only virtue, which all primary education for more than fifty yeas has dedicated itself to inculcating. Openness—and the relativism that makes it the only plausible stance in the face of various claims to truth and various ways of life and kinds of human beings—is the great insight of our time.” [25-26, for extended quote click Bloom]
As a result his students came to him believing in an openness that closed them to the possibility of truth. He explained that according to his students “the point is not to correct the mistakes and really be right; rather it is not to think you are right at all.”
Openness closes us to the truth by saying no one can be right. This open minded closeness expresses doubt though the belief that says, “I don’t believe there can be one true religion.” The result is I will believe a little bit in everyone one of them.
When it comes to religion the open minded idealist believes too much. He believes Buddha, Muhammad and Christ. By believing in everything, he believes in nothing. It would like saying, "I believe the earth is flat and I also believe the earth is round."
The closed minded religious fanatic and the open minded idealist cannot make the journey to truth unless they first doubt what they believe. In Acts 17, we see that they were both so convinced that they were right that one persecuted Paul and the other mocked him.
A third group however was also mentioned in Acts 17 that were willing to doubt what they had believed and search the scriptures to see whether what Paul said of Christ was true. They were from the town of Berea, which appropriately was right in between the closed minded fanatics in Thessalonica and the open minded idealists in Athens. The Bereans were described as “fair minded.”
The Bible says of the Bereans, “These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so. Therefore many of them believed” (Acts 17:10-11).
Fair minded people examine the scriptures to see what the Bible says of Christ. If you are starting to doubt what you believe and want to examine what the Bible says of Christ start this journey by reading the Gospel of John.
If you desire to hear an audio message on this topic click Doubting that Leads to Faith.
December 31, 2010 Terrorist or Muslim Problem?
A few weeks back Bill O’Reilly created quite a stir on the View when he said we have a Muslim problem and not just a terrorist problem. Whoopi Goldberg walked off the set in protest. Afterwards, Whoopi explained that she walked off because she was about to lose control of what she was going to say to Bill.
Whoopi Goldberg felt strongly that Bill O’Reilly’s comments stereotyped all Muslims and stereotyping people is prejudice.
Stereotypes take one trait of a small portion of a whole group and blindly apply it to everyone in the group. And Whoopi is right that only a very small portion of Muslims are terrorists.
O’Reilly’s response was that he knew that not all Muslims were terrorists but that if all moderate Muslims opposed terrorists, we would not have a terrorist problem. O’Reilly reasoned that since there are thousands of moderate Muslims for every single Muslim terrorist, and if the moderate Muslims turned in terrorists to the authorities, we would not have a terrorist problem.
O’Reilly’s math makes sense if we apply it according to the six degrees of separation. The six degrees of separation refers to the idea that everyone is on average approximately six steps away from any other person on earth. In other words, a chain of "a friend of a friend" statements can be made, on average, to connect any two people in six steps or fewer.
This means that for every terrorist in training there is a moderate Muslim friend or family member who knows the terrorist. Now if that moderate Muslim tells another moderate Muslim, who tells another moderate Muslim, up to six connections, it will get back to Bill O’Reilly, who will tell the authorities.
The terrorist is never more than six moderate Muslims from the authorities.
Occasionally, a moderate Muslim will turn in a terrorist to the authorities and when this becomes the ordinary, we will no longer have a terrorist Muslim problem. We will have a moderate Muslim solution.
For a related blog read Ground Zero Mosque.
November 30, 2010 Pleasure as Proof of God
In the evolution section of Barnes & Nobel book store, I came across a book titled, How Pleasure Works: The New Science of Why We Like What We Like. This title intrigued me because evolution cannot offer an explanation for pleasure. So I wanted to see how the author struggled with this contradiction.
The reason why evolution cannnot explain pleasure is because survival of the fittest says that natural selection only passes on traits that provide a functional advantage. This means that the theory of evolution offers no explanation for the existence of pleasures that provide no functional advantage.
Why we as human beings find aesthetic beauty in a blue sky, the human form, or symmetrical objects, the theory of evolution cannot explain. Sigmund Freud acknowledged this. He wrote in Civilization and Its Discontents, “Beauty has no obvious use; nor is there any clear cultural necessity for it. Yet civilization could not do without it. The science of aesthetics investigates the conditions under which things are felt as beautiful, but it has been unable to give any explanation of the nature and origin of beauty.” [33]
I find Freud’s acknowledgement baffling. Freud, as an evolutionary atheist, spent his life studying human sexual attraction, which concerns esthetic beauty. Yet, Freud himself said evolution offered no explanation for esthetic beauty.
The author of How Pleasure Works confirmed Freud’s assessment that evolution offers no explanation for pleasure. “Many significant human pleasures are universal,” Paul Bloom wrote in How Pleasure Works, “But they are not biological adaptations.”[8]
If human pleasures are not biological adaptations, where did we get our aptitude for pleasure? The answer is God. God created us with the aptitude to take pleasure in His creation.
This is why God, in the beginning, placed man in paradise. God placed man in paradise because paradise corresponded to the design of man. Man was created with the aptitude to enjoy pleasure and paradise was made to bring pleasure to him.
God did this because He is a loving Father. And this is the same reason why we can taste a peach or gaze upon a blue sky, even though, neither behavior provides a functional advantage to the species. These behaviors do, however, provide us with enjoyment of God’s creation.
God created us with these capacities because He wants us to enjoy life. Paul wrote, “God richly gives us all things to enjoy” (1 Timothy 6:17).
Our enjoyment is the reason God richly gives us all things. So, the next time you are enjoying a meal that is providing more calories than you need for survival of the fittest and you are experiencing an explosion of taste that provides no functional advantage, thank God that He created you with the aptitude for pleasure.
Pleasure is a wonderful gift and a proof of a loving heavenly Father that wants you to enjoy life with Him.
Bon Appetit
November 15, 2010 God Particle
Sunday November 7, 2010 scientists, in Europe, recreated a big bang event in the Hadron Collidor. The reactor smashes particles to create temperatures so hot that neutrons and protons melt to reveal what holds them together. At least, this is what scientist hope to learn. They are searching for the particle that holds matter together. This subatomic particle is called the Higgs boson. Scientists have never seen it but believe it exists because something holds matter together.
Whether the Higgs boson exist or not, time will tell. Regardless, the Bible says, “All things have been created by Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together” (Colossians 1:16-17 NAS).
Scientists are looking for a god particle and if they find it they will probably also find that something else holds it together. This doesn’t mean that scientists shouldn’t explore the universe. God gave mankind dominion over creation and we should explore its mysteries.
Mysteries should be explored but mysteries should also humble us. No matter how much we learn, it shows us more we don’t know. And what we don’t know is not chaos but harmony. Somehow the mysteries of creation produce harmony in the universe.
Whether it is the world of subatomic matter or the world of deep space, scientists encounter mysteries that reveal harmony. Scientist Alan Sandage, who studied the universe for forty-five years through the Mount Wilson observatory and discovered the rate of its expansion, said “The deeper you dig, the more complicated the thing becomes. There are layer upon layer of intricate gears of a watch; and you keep uncovering layer upon layer, and finding more and more connections. It simply became less and less clear that all this could have occurred without an ordering principle; and that ordering principle I guess I called God in order to give a name to the mystery.”
The universe’s mystery of harmony led him to belief in God. Likewise, as scientists discover subatomic particles, the mystery of matter’s harmony should lead us to faith in God.
Whether God uses a Higgs boson subatomic particle or something else, God holds all things together.
October 14, 2010 Chaplains Driven into Closet
The repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” will drive chaplains into the closet.
I wonder what our military chaplaincy will look like seventeen years after the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” For seventeen years “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” has allowed our military chaplains to support our soldiers and only address homosexuality when asked
But its repeal will change all that. Somehow, a politically correct test will be given to future chaplains before they are accepted into the military? To some this may sound alarmist. So let me ask you: do you think that those who filed lawsuits to overturn “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” will monitor future chaplains? I think they will and Bible believing chaplains will be weeded out.
It has just gotten more difficult, possibly impossible, for a chaplain to serve openly if his conscience is bound to the word of God. Martin Luther embodied biblical morality when he said, “Here I stand…it is not safe for a Christian to speak against his conscience.” A Christian’s conscience is bound to the word of God.
Those who think PC tolerance is more virtuous than the Bible don’t understand this and are forcing their intolerance of biblical morality upon chaplains.
PC intolerance has invaded the conscience of chaplains, and the future military will have to live with the unintended consequences. Chaplains will have to choose between God’s word and political correctness. I would only want a chaplain who chose God’s word, but the military will only want chaplains that choose political correctness.
Seventeen years from now, your new born son or daughter will be old enough to enlist with your permission. Do you want your child volunteering to risk his life for a country that will not provide support for his faith? And how many young men and women will volunteer for military service if their Bible believing churches do not support the military?
The vital connection between military morale and Bible believing churches, chaplains, and families is being severed by the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” This may become the most severe case of unintended consequences in our nation’s history.
go to topics
October 13, 2010 "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" brings Judge out of Closet
A federal judge just outlawed, “Don’t Ask,Don’t Tell.”
What authority a federal judge has to outlaw a policy established by Congress in 1993 is questionable. The fourteenth amendment makes “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” unconstitutional, we are told.
One would think that Congress should have known this eighteen years ago. But apparently, it took that long for a judge, who is supposedly not influenced by cultural considerations, to figure out that it was illegal.
It took a lot of courage for this judge to come out of the closet of supposed objectivity to impose her values on others. For too long, judges have been forced to live a double life—pretending to be objective to gain lifelong appointments rather than reveal their true feelings.
It is time for judges to come out. They might as well because no one believes that judges are objective anymore, except those who find it a useful tool when a judge agrees with their opinion.
So, why can’t we just destroy the myth of judicial objectivity.
Justice is not blind in America.
Judges reflect what they see, and based on changing cultural values they make rulings that overturn decade old policies. Those who wrote the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy could never have imagined that they were violating the ever growing fourteenth amendment.
I am not against the fourteenth amendment. And if it is going to grow, I wish it would grow large enough to declare unconstitutional the lifetime appointment of federal judges.
If judges are going to reflect culture, they might as well be directly elected by the people. Wouldn’t it be better if the Supreme Court were elected like the Senate—one third of the judges every two years.
This way the courts over time would reflect the real values of the people rather than the extremes of the political parties. And before the public voted for them, judges could be honest about their views. They would not have to hide in the closet of evasive answers during confirmation hearings.
Maybe this judge coming out of the closet could inspire others to call for the direct election of federal judges. This is the only process I know of that could make honest judges of them.
September 7, 2010 Burning the Koran
General Patraeus warned that burning the Koran would endanger American lives. The Dove World Outreach Center has scheduled a Koran burning on September 11th. According to the church this is a symbolic gesture that says that the Koran teaches hate. In anticipation of this Muslims are already protesting. One Muslim said, “We know this is not just the decision of a church. It is the decision of the president and the entire United States."
Personally, I think the church is wrong. This is not an act of love. It is an act of provocation. And it will add fuel to the fire that says that religion is the cause of wars. In addition to endangering American lives, this act will hinder the progress of the gospel within the United States. For the sake of the gospel, this minister should stop.
However, there is also a side to General Patraeus’s comments that concerns me. His statement validates the misperception that this one church represents the United States. When an army general addresses what a church is about to do, he implies that he has authority towards that church.
In the Muslim world, church and state are inseparable. They cannot imagine a mosque doing something contrary to the government. For an American general to address a church confirms the misperception that the American government controls the church.
For the sake of freedom, I would rather general Patraeus say that we separate church from state, so that, in America each individual is free to worship as he chooses. This is our hope for them and the reason why we fight for their freedom. Isn’t it? Of course, someone would have to explain to them that the price for religious freedom includes tolerating those who abuse it.
After explaining this to those in Afghanistan, Mr. Patraeus, as a private citizen, ought to land a helicopter on the front lawn of that church, have a private meeting with the pastor, show him some pictures of real combat and ask him to cease and desist.
As a private citizen, Mr. Patraeus has every right to say what he wants to the pastor. As our General, we know he spoke out of concern for our troops. God bless him.
September 4, 2010 Creator Gravity
Stephen Hawking’s recent assertion that there was no need for God to create the universe must have relieved God of a lot of responsibility. Imagine doing all the work of creating the universe and then spending your time maintaining it only to be told that your work was unnecessary. You have been replaced by gravity.
Hawking said that gravity would spontaneously generate a universe. But scientists also tell us that they don’t know what gravity is. When I was in school, gravity was the pull of the mass of an object. Now, gravity is a warp in the fabric of space. The fabric of space, which is dark matter (a phrase saint Augustine used in the fourth century to describe Genesis 1:2 and what scientists now use to describe what was formerly called empty space) cannot be measured.
Therefore, if I understand Hawking clearly, what he is saying is that something incomprehensible and immeasurable created the universe. Sounds like a god to me. Has gravity been elevated to an idol? Now that is a job promotion. But who made gravity? No matter how far back scientists claim to move the equation, you cannot get back to the beginning except by going to Genesis 1:1 “In the beginning God.”
note: I have attached an article titled Pride as Proof of God that you may find interesting if you think scientifically.
September 1, 2010 Faith and Freedom
Whenever a nation separates freedom from faith it moves towards tyranny. The first step towards tyranny begins when we view human rights as bestowed by government instead of inalienable natural rights.
Inalienable rights are natural rights given by God. In his inaugural address John Kennedy stated this eloquently. He said, "The rights of man are not bestowed by the generosity of the state but by the hand of God."
This differs from the newest Supreme Count justice Elena Kagan. When she was asked about God given rights. She said, "To be honest with you, I don't have a view of what are natural rights independent of the Constitution."
The Constitution was built on the Declaration of Independence, but according to Justice Kagan, our rights are now what she and eight others say they are according to the Constitution.
Instead of God given rights we now have bestowed rights. If we continue down this trail, the fourteenth amendment will replace the Declaration of Independence.
I don't think John Kennedy would have agreed with this. I am certain that Thomas Jefferson would ask the same question he once asked; "Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that they are the gift of God”?
Liberties bestowed by the Supreme Court, according to their interpretation of the fourteenth amendment, are not secure.
We are leaving the foundation of God given rights and taking the first step towards tyranny by separating freedom from faith.
August 28, 2010 Fake Teen Christians
I just read an article titled, More Teens becoming Fake Christians. The article warns that teens are embracing a watered-down faith that portrays God as a "divine therapist" whose chief goal is to boost people's self-esteem.
Thankfully, I can say that is not true at Christ the King Church. The creed course equips teens with an informed faith and the young adult Sunday school class prepares them with a biblical worldview and critical thinking skills to face an adversarial world.
Congrats to the teens at Christ the King.
August 27, 2010 Ground Zero Mosque
President George Washington’s letter to the Hebrew Congregation contains some good advice for Muslims in charge of the ground zero mosque. In 1790 the Hebrew congregation at Newport asked President Washington if religious freedom extended to them. President Washington responded:
"For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support." George Washington, Letter to Hebrew Congregation at Newport
I think George Washington would give the same advice to Muslims. He would say that the government protects their freedom of religion and advise them that those who live under its protection are to "demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it [USA] on all occasions their effectual support."
This is what he wrote to the Hebrew congregation at Newport because he knew that rights came with responsibilities. In his first inaugural address George Washington said, "There is no truth more thoroughly established than that there exists in the economy and course of nature an indissoluble union between duty and advantage."
Those, who affirm the right of Muslims to build this mosque without calling on them to support their nation, seek to break the indissoluble bond between duty and advantage.
America affords us all great advantage but it also calls on us to fulfill our duty. Muslims, who say they have the right to build this mosque, should ask themselves if this is how they should fulfill their duty to the nation that grants them this freedom.
August 24, 2010 Israel attacking Iran and the Bush Doctrine
In the near future, Israel will face annihilation if Iran gets the bomb. I don’t think Ahmadinejah will nuke Jerusalem. It is a Muslim holy site. Tel Aviv though could be a viable target. Israel now must measure how close it can let Iran get to the bomb before preemptively attacking.
The Bush doctrine states that in an age of weapons of mass destruction a nation can preemptively strike to protect itself. This was a huge departure from the just war doctrine. The just war doctrine was written by Saint Augustine and it has guided western nations since the fourth century. The just war doctrine states that war was a last resort of self defense and retaliation was to be proportionate.
In the just war doctrine, self defense meant that your attacker attacked you first. The Bush doctrine redefined self defense as you preemptively attacking someone who intends to attack you. This makes covert intelligence the basis of attacking another nation.
During the Cuban missile crisis, the Russians denied placing missiles in Cuba. But the photos of the missiles told the truth. More recently, just prior to our invasion of Iraq, Colin Powell showed photos of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to the United Nations. The case was not as clear though. This became evident when we failed to find those weapons. Some say the weapons were moved. Others say they were never there. One thing is for certain. It is difficult to obtain irrefutable evidence that your enemy is about to attack you.
Israel, however, is in a different situation. There is nothing covert about Iran's intention to annihilate Israel. Ahmadinejah has publicly stated his desire to destroy Israel.
Israel must now either hope that Ahmadinejah is lying or take him at his word. I would not want my government basing our self defense upon the hope that the guy with his finger on the bomb was just kidding.
To the western world, whose way of thinking about war has been shaped by Christianity’s just war doctrine, the Muslim way of thinking about war does not make sense. We continue to tell ourselves that they are just kidding and that this is political posturing. We think that mutual concerns for self preservation will cause calmer minds to prevail.
This is a luxury we in America have, at least for a brief time longer. Israel does not enjoy this luxury. In the end, they must act in self defense. This is a moral imperative for all governments and one that the United Nations recognizes.
August 17, 2010 Ann Rice leaving Christianity
I read Ann Rice's Facebook announcement about leaving Christianity. Ann Rice is a well known author of fiction. Since, I don't read fiction and don't understand the appeal, I don't really know who she is except that she is so popular that her leaving Christianity was news worthy, which isn't saying a whole lot now days.
She said he couldn't remain in her church without being implicated by what her church did. This is the same problem that Jesus has with the church, but He doesn't leave. He is not ashamed to call us brethren and sings praises in our midst, the Bible says (Hebrews 2).
I am not aware of her biblical reasons as to why she thought that Christ disagreed with her church. So, I don't know why she felt authorized that leaving was the only thing she could do to represent Christ.
This seems to be a pattern today. The fastest growing section of Christians in America are non-aligned. It might be more appropriate to refer to such Christians as individual denominations. If they viewed themselves as individual denominations, they could provide a statement of faith and purpose for others. If some of them shared beliefs they could form new alignments. But then they would have to address the issues that they left their churches over and might not be able to agreed.
Colleen Campbell has written an interesting editorial on this, you might want to read it Ann Rice Loses by Going Solo.
August 10, 2010 Gay Marriage
My random thoughts have turned towards gay marriage since the court in California overturned proposition 8. I don’t think that the civil rights of people, who find the same sex attractive, should be penalized and neither do I think that gay marriage ought to be legislated, even by a judge. Therefore my random thoughts connected together into this article, Legislating the Private Morality of Same Sex attraction imposes a Public Injustice. My point is that whenever government legislates the private morality of a special interest group it imposes a public injustice.
I did not write this from a Christian morality perspective. As a Christian I believe marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman. As a citizen, I believe same sex marriage violates the consenus morality of Americans and the Preservation of Marriage Act.