Wednesday, August 31, 2011

The Drive-In Church: A True Parable of the Church Today

There are so many problems with this type of ministry and Christian living and "worship" that I don't know where to begin, but I'm guessing most of them are so obvious it would only insult your intelligence to mention them.  I understand using technology as a means of reaching the unreached, but how can one call this a church when it is inherently self-centered and absent is any hint or encouragement of community, fellowship, or discipleship?  What about communion, baptism, and giving?  How does that work?

Quit simply, this isn't a church.  Religion maybe.  Spirituality perhaps.  But a church it is not.

The more experiments like this that Christians try in hopes of reaching the lost and to grow the church the more silly we will look, the more irrelevant we will become, the less biblical we will become, and the less gospel minded we will become.  Whenever we try to mirror the culture we fail to be a light to the culture.  Drive-ins are great but have-it-your-way Christianity is not.

Surely we can do better than this!

CNN - Texas pastor opens drive-in church
ABC News - Texas Preacher Drives Home Sermon in Parking Lot  

*  For the record, this "church" in Texas isn't the only "congregation" doing this.  A quick search will reveal that one can find similar organizations throughout the country doing this.

Hump Day Humor: This is Not a Joke - Affirmative Action For the Ugly-Americans

This is not a joke.  The following video is not a parody. But at the same time it is hard to believe that this guy is serious but he is pretty convincing.  Fox News' Megan Kelly gives this guy who argues that ugly people should be given government benefits (similar to the handicap and the disabled) a hard time.  His argument is full of holes, yet he doesn't budge.  His argument is that ugliness is immutable and only beautiful people make it in the world. You've heard of affirmative action for particular people groups (certain races for example), now there is the push for affirmative action for the ugly.  There is hope for me after all!

Again he is serious but this belongs in the humor pile.

For more:
Blogizomai - Hump Day Humor:  Office Pranks  
Blogizomai - Humorous Hump Day:  Church Greeters and Hand Sanitizers  
Blogizomai - Humorous Hump Day: Mark Lowry's Mamma Had Enough
Blogizomai - Humerous Hump Day: Brian Regan Cell Phones 101
Blogizomai - Humorous Hump Day - Harry Carry and the Moon Made of Rips
Blogizomai - Humorous Hump Day: Voltswagen Pinata
Blogizomai - Fuzzy Math & Even Fuzzier Theology: Abbott & Costello Meets Modern Theology
Blogiozmai - They're Only Giving Him Material: Letterman Responds to the Jihadists After Him
Blogizomai - Adam & Eve on Comedy Central: Colbert Takes on Mohler & Traditional Christian Theology
Blogizomai - Everything is Amazing, But Nobody Is Happy: An Important Lesson
Blogiozmai - Repost Friday: Happy RamaHanuKwanzMas!

Tuesday, August 30, 2011

Dungeons & Dragons, and Calvin, O My!: Moore's Exhortation to the New Calvinists

I've been a seminary student at the nation's leading Calvinists college and seminary for over 8 years now.  I am finishing my Th.M at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY and have enjoyed my time there.  Without a doubt, SBTS has shaped my life, ministry, theology, and preaching.  However, like any ground zero of movements like Calvinism where Calvinism identifies the school as much as being Southern Baptist does, I find myself in the midst of debaters who like to debate.

This is the argument and the words of exhortation put forward recently by the Vice-President of SBTS, Dr. Russell Moore. In a recent article he wrote:

Remember those Dungeons and Dragons people back in junior high school? Well, they grew up, got saved, and are now debating Calvinism, on both sides. This realization hit me this past week when I received yet another Facebook “invitation” to a forum debating Calvinism . . .

The Dungeons and Dragons clubs came to mind because those guys, at least in my junior high school, seemed to be obsessed with something that seemed to have no relevance at all to their lives, or to anyone else’s. But D&D became their identity. Because it mattered, they mattered. This was by no means restricted to these folk, and to their video-gaming or skateboarding cousins. It’s the same phenomenon in the people for whom a sports team became a personal obsession. The win or loss of my team is a personal victory, because it is totemic of who I am.

Dungeons and Dragons.  I remember those days and it is a fitting comparison.  As Moore goes on to argue:

I fear that, all too often, our theological debates fall precisely into this category. We fight them so fiercely because there’s so little at stake in the way we view them. The professional Calvinist in his Internet forum sees a reluctance to embrace effectual calling as a personal attack, as a rejection of him. The anonymous-letter writing anti-Calvinist sees in the Calvinist a repudiation of his own background, of the kinds of churches and methods that led him to Christ. Rather than seeking to understand each other, and love one another with a convictional empathy, we claw and bite one another. That’s because, all too often, what we want is to be right, rather than to build up one another in the faith.

That last sentence is particularly important.  Whether one be a Calvinist, an Arminian, or a Yankees fan, too often what matters more to us isn't the Kingdom of God and fidelity to the gospel, but to be right.  It is simply amazing how easily depravity enters the debate about how Sovereign election saves us from our depravity.

Moore concludes:

Again, there’s nothing wrong with debating issues of importance. The Body of Christ needs open-Bible conversations between Calvinists and Arminians, dispensationalists and amillennialists, Baptists and paedo-baptists. But theological debate can’t be a form of entertainment. And it sure can’t be a means of proving myself to be worth listening to. Within the broad parameters of great old Christian orthodoxy, there’s room to differ, and to learn, without hearing a rejection (sometimes only a temporary rejection) of my point as a rejection of me.

A fitting conclusion and a needed argument.  As one who is sympathetic towards Calvinism (I don't care for the label primarily due to the connotations it brings) the rise of the New Calvinists has become its own group that focuses more on itself than on the Kingdom of God.

It is fascinating how two recent, prominent Calvinist theologians have come out in criticism, not of Calvinism, but of Calvinists.  The Young, Restless, and Reformed movement, as John MacArthur has said recently, needs to continue to reform.  The New Calvinists need to always be geared, not to debate for the sake of debate, but to the gospel that they believe (and believe rightly) is the only hope of mankind.

The New Calvinists must be careful in not making the same mistakes of the past.  They must not fall for the trend towards Hyper-Calvinism or cold-hearted Calvinism.  Instead, Calvinists must be focused on the gospel - on grace.  The doctrines of grace are great doctrinal pieces well-worth the debate and belief, but let us primarily be focused on pointing people to Christ first, not to Calvin.

Isn't that what Calvin would have wanted?  Or better yet, isn't that what Christ demands?

Moore to the Point (Russell Moore) - Dungeons and Dragons and Doctrinal Debate 
John MacArthur - Keep Reforming 

For more:
Blogizomai - He Turned the Water Into Wine: MacArthur, Alcohol, & Christian Liberty
Blogizomai - Reformed in Grace But Arminian Everywhere Else: MacArthur on the Future of the YRR Movement
Blogizomai - Was Calvin a Calvinists?: Helm Weighs In
Theology -A Brief History of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
Theology - The Assurance of Things Hoped For: 150 Years of Southern Seminary
Reviews - "Southern Baptist Theological Seminary: 1859-2009"
Reviews - "James P. Boyce:  Select Writings"
SBC - The Conservative Resurgence at SBTS (here is Dr. Mohler's recount of the conservative takeover)
SBC - The Complete Works of Albert Mohler
Blogizomai - Theology Thursday | Calvin on the Redemptive Necessity of the Resurrection
Theology - Calvinist Baptists and the Many (False) Misconceptions
GBC - "Without the Gospel": A Gem From John Calvin
GBC - Calvin on God in Theology and the Christian Life
GBC - Calvin on Providence
GBC - Calvin on Treasures in Heaven
GBC - Calvin on Fasting
GBC - Calvin on Prayer: Why Bother?
Reviews - "Young, Restless, and Reformed"
Reviews - The Theology of the Reformers  
Reviews - The Unquenchable Flame  
Reviews - "On the Necessity of Reforming the Church" by John Calvin
Reviews - John Calvin:  A Heart for Devotion, Doctrine, & Doxology 
Reviews - Christianity's Dangerous Idea 
Reviews - "Five Leading Reformers" 
Blogizomai - "The Reformer": Christianity Today Does Exposé on Albert Mohler
Theology - SBTS: A Conversation With Kevin Ezell
Theology - SBTS Discusses the Bell Hell Book Controversy
Theology - SBTS and McLaren: A Response to SBTS Panel Discussion
Theology - Mohler on the Future of the SBC 

W: The 9/11 Interview

In the much anticipated National Geographic special, former President George W. Bush has given his first extensive interview regarding the events on 9/11.  The special is called George W. Bush:  The 9/11 Interview and can be viewed below.  It is great and I strongly encourage everyone to watch it.

One of the things that reminds me of how long ago 9/11 was is when I talk with students about it and few remember the events.  Most students in high school don't remember 9/11 and so specials like this are critical to the national memory.  What happened on 9/11 changed the world and there is no going back to a pre-9/11 world.

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

HT: The Right Scoop  

For more:
Blogizomai - Remember 9/11:  102 Minutes That Changed America  
Blogizomai -  Graham:  The Unwavering Love of God 
Blogizomai - September 11th Remembered - 2007  
Blogizomai - "Justice Has Been Done": President Obama Announces the Death of Osama bin Laden
Blogizomai - The Beginning of the End:  Obama Announces the End of Operation Iraqi Freedom
Blogizomai - To Build or Not to Build, That is Not the Question:  Where is the Gospel in the Ground Zero Debate?

Monday, August 29, 2011

The Beckham 6 & the Curse of "Large" Families: Secularism & Their Obsession With Death

One of the greatest international soccer players in the world, David Beckham, married to the former Spice Girl, Victoria Beckham (Posh Spice), is in trouble.  His sins do not include his performance on the field or inappropriate behavior off, but the fact that he and his wife have given birth and are raising four children.  Their fourth child, Harper Seven, was born in July 2011 and as the Guardian reports, many are crying foul especially in light of the news that the world population is about to hit 7 billion.  After all, with all of this breeding going on, how will we feed everybody?  Furthermore, what about the damages that large families cause to the planet?

Tracy McVeigh of the Gaurdian writes:

[Caroline Lucas, the Green MP] said: "We need to have a far greater public debate about population, whether it focuses on improving family planning or reducing global inequality – and looking again at how we address the strain on our natural resources. The absence of an open and honest discussion about this issue means most people don't give much thought to the scale of global population growth in recent years. In 1930, just one or two generations ago, the world's population stood at around two billion. Today it is around seven billion, and by 2050 it is projected to rise by a third to 9 billion.

"We live as if we have three planets instead of just one. It is interesting that public figures, environmental groups and NGOs in general have tended to steer away from population to the extent that it's become a taboo issue. The horrific consequences of China's one-child policy and of other draconian efforts to regulate procreation have, for many, rendered discussion of the subject completely unpalatable. Yet as long as an issue remains a taboo subject where no one talks about it, then there's very little chance of finding the solutions we need."

There is a reason why population control remains a taboo subject.  When we hear "population control" we ought to here sterilization, mass abortions, and environmentalism run amok. The article goes on:

"The Beckhams, and others like London mayor Boris Johnson, are very bad role models with their large families. There's no point in people trying to reduce their carbon emissions and then increasing them 100% by having another child," he said. "England is one of the most densely populated countries in the world and the fastest-growing in population terms in Europe. In 15 years we'll have an extra 10 million people here.

Note for a minute the tone in which children are mentioned.  To such environmentalists and secularists, children are an unwanted burden on society.  This is why labels like "unwanted pregnancies" are so popular today.  In an age that worships individual autonomy over personal responsibility, "family planning," via contraception and abortion, become essential particularly to our sexual exploration.

But anytime one raises the question of population control, the issue of China's failed one-child policy is raised and righly so.  China's policy has led to mass abortions, forced sterilizations, and an entire generation dominated by males.  Furthermore, China's workforce is unsustainable.  For every person retiring in China, only four are expected to support them.  If America's ratio was bad and unsustainable, what do we say about China's?  China's failed attempt at stemming their population growth remains an absurd attempt to tweak human nature. In spite of an oppressive, totalitarian government, population control has failed.

But what do those reprimanding the Beckham's have to say regarding that?

Lucas said the Green party was not afraid to raise the subject because it was "fundamental" to wellbeing. "The lesson to be learned from China is surely that efforts to curb population growth in a way that restricts individual liberty are dangerous and come at huge human cost," she said. "Policies that focus on increasing access to birth control for all who want it, reducing poverty and inequality, improving food security and tackling environmental degradation are where we should be focusing our attention . . .

"I don't believe that government incentives or laws to that effect are what we need. As a richer country, we face different challenges when it comes to population than those in the developing world, where high birth rates are linked to dire poverty and inequality. It's an equally important issue for both richer and poorer nations – this is a global debate which affects us all."

There are countless holes in this argument.  The belief that one can limit population growth without government's iron fist is a dreamworld.  If we learn anything from China in addition to the failure of government policies, it is that.  Liberals, feminists, and secularists have been pushing birth control and "family planning" for decades and yet the population continues to grow and "unwanted" and "unplanned" pregnancies are still common.

Furthermore, the emphasis on the developed world is interesting.  We are reprimanding the Beckham's for having four kids while many in the third world are having many more. Grant it, due to poverty, government oppression, societal structures, and rampant disease, most children born in the third world do not live beyond the age of five.  A tragedy to say the least.  But a brief look at the statistics show that the population isn't growing the fastest among more secular States, but in the third world.

But then again, I though evolution cured these sort of problems?  After all, if the central doctrine of evolution is survival of the fittest, then why do we care if people starve?  Why do we want to limit our own population from growing?  Why is mass deaths really a bad thing?  Are those promoting population control really wanting more room at the water hole?  Doesn't chance and our selfish genes take care of such problems naturally?  Why even bring it up?

Furthermore, how will we manage to push for personal autonomy, as the article promotes here, and at the same time trust that humans will be "responsible" enough not to over-breed?  Again, the writer and those being interviewed seem to be living in a dreamworld.  What about those autonomous individuals who want to have large families?  My wife and I want to have at least four kids (two biological and two adopted).  Does that make us a burden on society?  Clearly so to some.  How will those worried about the environment and the world population promote both small families and personal freedom especially in a world as fallen as ours?

Then again, how will autonomous family planning, if such a plan would work internationally, solve the problems that population control raises?  As mentioned, China has some serious problems to solve as a result of its effort to curve its own population growth.  Let's just assume that curving the population of the world would also solve inequality and poverty (it won't), what are we to do with the generations that age which are massive and the generations that follow who are dwindling? 

But then again, as Christians this is a conversation we never have.  We do not see human life as a burden, but as a blessing.  We ought to rejoice in seeing married couples celebrate and welcome life as the Beckham's have done.  I know nothing about how they are raising their children or their personal beliefs, but to reprimand a couple for simply having kids is dangerous.  I find it fascinating that when secularists talks about children, marriage, and family they can't avoid mentioning death.  The fascination that naturalistic secularism has with death is simply astonishing.  Raising the question of population growth allows for extreme environmentalists and big government socialist to promote their causes and those causes always involve totalitarianism and death.  This talk about individual liberty is simply a ruse.

For more:

Reformed in Grace But Arminian Everywhere Else: MacArthur on the Future of the YRR Movement

Some interesting words from John MacArthur in a recent interview on the future of Evangelicalism especially as it relates to young Calvinists (MacArthur's focus right now).  MacArthur is really concerned regarding what the Young, Restless, and Reformed movement believes and promotes regarding Christianity liberty.  Though there is much to embrace here, I feel that perhaps MacArthur is going a little far and sounds a bit legalistic.  I concur with MacArthur that the new and heavy emphasis (even from the pulpit) on drinking alcohol is a problem, but the answer isn't to suggest that the YRR movement denies sanctification.

Let us not forget that Martin Luther was known for his alcohol.  At the same time, it is an oversimplification at best, inaccurate at worse, to suggest that the new emphasis on Reformed theology is reformed only in soteriology and not in other areas.

I know that MacArthur is more concerned with Reformed movements that are equally postmodern, but he is lumping in many young reformed leaders.  He caricatures young leaders as simply accommodating to the culture, but it is difficult to see how that is possible when they are best known as Calvinists.

Nonetheless, MacArthur needs to be heard.  He is a voice of wisdom even though much of what is here is simply inaccurate and misleading.  In the following clips, I have a hard time telling the difference between the New Calvinists and the Emerging Church.

Part 1:

Part 2:

HT: Reformation Baptist Fellowship 

For more:
Blogizomai - He Turned the Water Into Wine: MacArthur, Alcohol, & Christian Liberty
Blogizomai - Alcohol Today, Marijuana Tomorrow: When Money Changes Our Values   
Blogizomai - Theology Thursday | Theology and Ministry: An Interview With John MacArthur  
Blogizomai - Theology Thursday | MacArthur: A Tale of Two Sons
Blogizomai - MacArthur:  How to Confront the Culture
Blogizomai - Theology Thursday | MacArthur and the Gospel
Blogizomai - Weekly Recommendation - "Slave" by John MacArthur
Blogizomai - Weekly Recommendation - John MacArthur Study Bible
Reviews - A Tale of Two Sons
Reviews - The Prodigal God

Sunday, August 28, 2011

Weekly Recommendation - "Basic Christianity" by John Stott

Basic ChristianityAs a pastor I am always looking for easy-to-read and yet easy to understand basic introductions to the Christian faith especially for those who are new to the faith.  I have traditionally used the book Welcome to the Family: What to Expect Now That You're a Christian by John MacArthur and always give a copy of the book to baptismal candidates.  Another great book can now be added to this list:  Basic Christianity (IVP Classics) by the world renown author and theologian John Stott.

Stott needs no introduction, and by this point neither does his book chronicling what it means to be a Christian.  His book is a classic for good reason and I really enjoyed the time I spent reading this wonderful book.  Since much has been written on the book itself, I won't go into much detail here only to recommend it even if you know the Christian faith very well and have spent years studying theology and Scripture.  Even though i have an advanced Masters in Theology and Biblical studies and am continuing my education, I learned a lot from this book and gained some important insights that I hadn't thought about much before.

Stott discusses the cross, the gospel, God, depravity, justification, and sanctification.  In other words he discusses everything one would expect from a very basic book on basic Christianity.  One of the things that I enjoyed and learned from the book was Stott's discussion on how our reconciliation with God affects our relationship with others.  I've always known this, but Stott's gift in writing opens one's eyes in new ways.  Stott shows that unity with the Father as a result of the gospel ought to affect our relationship with others and we ought to see this reconciliation primarily in the church.  The church is the place where the gospel ought to be more obviously seen.  It is in the church were a diverse group of people find themselves unified under the gospel and the power of God brings us together to worship or Father in Spirit and in truth.

This is a classic for good reason and for those wanting to know more about what it means to be a Christian this is a good place to begin.  Stott is a great theologian and Christian leader and writer and this is among his most beloved and well-known books for good reasons.  It is imperative for Christians to return to the basics of our faith regularly because these basics take us back to the cross.

For more:
Blogizomai - Between Two Worlds: Packer's Sermon at Stott's Funeral
Blogizomai - John Stott: April 27, 1921-July 27, 2011
Blogizomai - John Stott on "How I would like to be remembered"
Blogizomai - John Stott: A Short Video Tribute
Reviews - "Basic Christianity
Reviews - "The Incomparable Christ" by John Stott

Saturday, August 27, 2011

Pedophilia Redefined: Academics Begin Their Push

I think this speaks for itself.  One can easily see this as more evidence of the sexual slippery slope.  Redefine sexuality to include homosexuality and other perversions and pedophilia isn't far behind as this story from Fox News shows. We ought to take notice once academics start to play with definitions.

The world is changing before our eyes. Let us not forget that the age of consent is much lower in many European and secular countries than America. Expect our age of consent to drop as well.

For more:
Blogizomai - The Marriage Debate:  A Debate About Rights or Definitions  
Blogizomai - The Missing Gene and Ray Boltz: The Theistic Argument, Did God Make Him This Way?
Blogiozmai - The Missing Gene: The Failed Search For the Gay Gene
Blogiozmai - The Piling Evidence:  Homosexuality Is a Choice  
Blogizomai - Is What is Natural Moral?:  Homosexuality and the Animal Kingdom (Part 1)
Blogizomai - Is What is Natural Moral?  The Great Chasm Between Nature and Morality (Part 2)
Blogizomai - Is What is Natural Moral?:  The Way Forward is Backwards - Cave Men and the Return to Amoral Sexuality (Part 3)
Blogizomai - Is What is Natural Moral?:  Monogamy and What Jealousy Says About Naturalism (Part 4)
Blogizomai - The Slippery Slope: From Victorian Values to Bestiality . . . And Beyond - Part 1
Blogizomai - The Slippery Slope: From Victorian Values to Bestiality . . . And Beyond - Part 2
Blogizomai - The Slippery Slope:  From Victorian Values to Bestiality . . . And Beyond - Part 3
Blogizomai - The Slippery Slope:  From Victorian Values to Bestiality . . . And Beyond - Part 4   
Blogizomai - The Next Step: Is Polyamory the Next Sexual Movement?
Blogizomai - Where Does The Madness End? The Dire Destination Of The Homosexual Agenda - Part 1
Blogizomai - Where Does The Madness End? Where the Homosexual Agenda Leads - Part 2
Blogizomai - D'Souza: The Equal Protection Hoax
Blogizomai - Marriage and the Limits of the Law and Courts:  Why Only the Gospel Regenerates & Changes Behavior 
Blogizomai - What's the Big Deal:  Christianity and Homosexuality   
Blogizomai - Jesus is into Offending People:  Its Time For Christians to Admit the Obvious and Proclaim with Boldness

Around the Web: Links For Your Weekend - August 27, 2011

Its my birthday today . . .

John MacArthur - Settle Down: Don’t lose your passion and energy; take charge of it | MacArthur continues his series on the Yong, Restless, and Reformed movement.  

The “restless” aspect of the Young, Restless, Reformed movement is something of a mixed blessing. Restlessness per se is is of course no great virtue. But the energy, intensity, drive, and passion that underlie the restless tendencies of our young adult years are wonderful assets that hold great potential for good. They can be—and should be—harnessed and put to work for Christ’s kingdom.
As a matter of fact, a lively enthusiasm for spiritual things is one of the best features of the YRR movement, and it is precisely what the church of Christ needs after a few generations of increasing indifference about sound biblical doctrine.

Apathy is malignant. It breeds lukewarmness, which is more despised by our Lord than either complete coldness or fiery fanaticism (Revelation 3:16).

So I’m grateful for the keen interest the YRR movement has shown in gospel-centered doctrine and preaching. I understand the value of the energy and enthusiasm young adults seem to bring to every conference and each conversation I have with them.

My encouragement to them is this: Don’t squander your youthful vigor on mere restlessness. Apply yourself to humble service for the cause of Christ within the context of the church. Remember that “whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all” (Mark 10:43-44).

Christianity Today - The Christian case for capital punishment | This is an interesting argument published by CT on the subject of capital punishment and Christian theology.  The argument is based on the Christian doctrine of the image of God.  I have written on the subject before.  The beginning is particularly interesting.

It is worth asking why Christian nations have historically enforced the death penalty whereas societies that are de-Christianising, such as Britain in the 1960s, tend to abolish it . . .

Yes, the NT does set aside the ritual and ceremonial laws of the Old. But the moral commands of the Old are not set aside by the New. Furthermore, the New affirms the Old's concept that fallen humanity still bears the image of God (see James 3v9).

Whilst the NT does not explicitly quote the Noahic demand for the death penalty, I would argue that its affirmation of the OT idea that men and women are God's image-bearers even in our fallen state means that capital punishment remains a moral requirement on the State. The death penalty is thus for AD as well as for BC.

Parchment and Pen - Shocking News From Jerusalem:  The Bible Has Changed | In light of some recent articles that suggests that the text of Scripture have "evolved" Dr. Dan Wallace offers the contrary.  A helpful article to say the least!

These are the statements from a reputable news source. Prima facie, this looks rather disturbing. In particular, the article doesn’t accent the fact that absolutely none of these textual issues are new to biblical scholars. Ever since the Dead Sea Scrolls were made public decades ago, scholars have recognized the differences between the older Hebrew Jeremiah and the Masoretic text. In fact, the older Hebrew form was already known for hundreds of years because it is found in some old Greek manuscripts of the Septuagint. And the prophecy added after the event? Here’s the statement: “Some verses, including ones containing a prophecy about the seizure and return of Temple implements by Babylonian soldiers, appear to have been added after the events happened.” I’m not sure which text the author is referring to, but Jer 28.6 makes this same prophecy and that’s a passage found in the Septuagint. So if the same prophecy has been duplicated elsewhere in Jeremiah, is it really honest to speak of the prophecy as “added after the events happened”? Yes, those words in that place would be, but not this specific prophecy since Jer 28.6 is found in the earliest forms of the text.

Now what about startling the masses by claiming that the Bible has evolved over the centuries? It is true that there are many Christians who have failed to look at the marginal notes in their Bibles, notes that have been there since the 1611 King James Version and before. And these notes speak about other ancient authorities (i.e., manuscripts) that have variants from the translated text. But that this news should be shocking to people either indicates that they are not careful readers of the Bible or the marginal notes are not worded strongly enough to indicate that in those places scholars are not completely sure what the original text said. To the informed believer—and all believers should fit into this category—this ‘shock and awe’ article is almost a yawn.

Justin Taylor - The Critical Question for Our Generation | I have read this quote from John Piper before but it is worth repeating and reposting.

The critical question for our generation—and for every generation—is this:

If you could have heaven, with no sickness, and with all the friends you ever had on earth, and all the food you ever liked, and all the leisure activities you ever enjoyed, and all the natural beauties you ever saw, all the physical pleasures you ever tasted, and no human conflict or any natural disasters, could you be satisfied with heaven, if Christ were not there?

And the question for Christian leaders is: Do we preach and teach and lead in such a way that people are prepared to hear that question and answer with a resounding No?

Cal Thomas (World Magazine) - Yes, Virginia, there is a surplus! | The statistics and fiscal health speaks for itself.  Compare states like Virginia and others to the Federal government and we see why liberalism simply doesn't work politically.  Cal Thomas reports on Virginia's budget surplus created after a major shortfall before the inauguration of their current governor.  McDonnell did it without increasing taxes which is impressive.  The article is very biased.  More than I like, but it does go to show that 8 of the 9 states with a surplus are run by conservatives.  This clearly has implications for 2012 and I wouldn't be surprised if McDonnell's name isn't thrown out for VP next year.

While the federal government continues to drown in a sea of debt, several states are reporting surpluses, thanks to policies Washington would do well to emulate.

Nowhere has the economic turnaround been more immediate than in Virginia. When Gov. Bob McDonnell took office in January 2010, he was faced with a $2.2 billion shortfall bequeathed to him by outgoing Democratic Gov. Tim Kaine (now a U.S. Senate candidate). In less than two years, McDonnell has delivered two budget surpluses without raising taxes or causing harm to the “most vulnerable.” Instead, he has judiciously cut spending.

Last week, the governor’s office announced a surplus of $544.8 million. That is $234.1 million more than McDonnell told the legislature on June 30 he has saved state taxpayers. Call it compound savings.

According to the Pollina Corporate Real Estate Study: “Pollina Corporate Top 10 Pro-Business States for 2011,” “Virginia is the unquestionable brightest star on the American flag when it comes to pro-business. . . . Virginia is truly in a class by itself.” Nine other states made Pollina’s list. Republican governors lead eight of them. Anyone else see a pattern?

8 years of the 9/11 ground zero memorial construction:

HT: The Blaze

Friday, August 26, 2011

Repost | "The Mighty Weakness of John Knox"

The Mighty Weakness of John KnoxOriginally published here.

One of my favorite theologians and Christians in history is the Scottish Reformer John Knox.  Knox changed the world and was used mightily by God to proclaim the gospel and to reform His church.  Knox is without a doubt controversial and since his death has been perceived in very clear negative light by Scotland's dominant secular culture.  And that's a shame.  Knox boldly proclaimed the gospel to everyone, whether farmer or Queen, without shame.

I recently read the book The Mighty Weakness of John Knox by Douglas Bond.  The book is part of the A Long Line of Godly Men Profile series edited by Stephen Lawson.  The series includes similar books including The Expository Genius of John Calvin by Dr. Lawson and The Unwavering Resolve of Jonathan Edwards (Long Line of Godly Men Profile) also by Dr. Lawson.

Bond's take on Knox is a great read.  The first chapter covers briefly the biography of Knox.  It is an excellent source for an overview of Knox's life and ministry.  Though brief, Bond highlights the highlights revealing Knox the man and how he changed history through his ministry and preaching.  Clearly a lot of detail is left out, but Bond offers a great introduction to the new reader.

From there, Bond highlights Knox's legacy.  What made him such a great man and what insights can we gain from his life?  One of my favorite chapters regarded Knox as a man of prayer.  It begins with the quote from Charles H. Spurgeon:  When John Knox went upstairs to plead with God for Scotland, it was the greatest event in Scotland (33).  That about sums it all up.  Bond shows how feeble Knox was and how much he depended on his Lord through prayer.  O that more men and women of God would drop to their knees and trust in their Sovereign Lord. Just like Knox!

I also enjoyed the chapter surveying Knox as a preacher.  This ought to be Knox's greatest letter even though we only have two manuscripts of his sermons.  Just two.  Hard to believe!  When Knox preached, people listened, some got angry, but many were changed.  Knox preached the gospel and God changed Scotland through such bold preaching.  But even here Knox was a rather weak man.  As the quote at the beginning of the chapter from Knox reveals, The person of the speaker is wretched, miserable, and nothing to be regarded, but things that were spoken are the infallible and eternal truth of God.  Our weakness.  God's greatness.  Our infallibility.  God's infallibility.  Knox, as Bond shows, was Christo-centric in his sermons.  He preached Christ and read Christ in every text.  Thus the power of preaching was made known.

Overall, this is a great book.  I love Knox and virtually love anything written about or from him.  Though Knox's memory has fallen on hard times, Bond shows why Knox ought to be appreciated and remembered.  The title says it all, though Knox was a weak man, God made him strong.  Through this faithful servant, God saved Scotland.  The gospel went forth and society was changed.  He really does make foolish the wisdom of the world and He did it through Knox.

Though the biography could have been longer, this book is well worth the read.  Bond is a great reader and writes with a heart that speaks to the reader.  This isn't dry history, biography, theology, or academia.  Bond seeks to apply the lessons of Knox's life to the reader.  If God made Knox mighty though he was weak, He can do the same with us.


I am currently working my way through a Scottish catechism written by John Knox's colleague John Craig (my ancestor).  Here is what I have thus far:

An Introduction of the Life and Works of Scottish Reformation John Craig - Part 1 
A Short Summary of the Whole Catechism - Introduction
A Short Summary of the Whole Catechism - Chapter 1
A Short Summary of the Whole Catechism - Chapter 2
A Short Summary of the Whole Catechism - Chapter  3
A Short Summary of the Whole Catechism - Chapter 4.1
A Short Summary of the Whole Catechism - Chapter 4.2
A Short Summary of the Whole Catechism - Chapter 4.3
A Short Summary of the Whole Catechism - Chapter 5.1
A Short Summary of the Whole Catechism - Chapter 5.2
A Short Summary of the Whole Catechism - Chapter 6.1
A Short Summary of the Whole Catechism - Chapter 6.2  

For more:
Blogizomai - Douglas Bond on the Legacy of John Knox 
Reviews - "John Knox" by Rosalind K. Marshall  
Blogizomai - Was Calvin a Calvinist?  Helm Weighs In 
Blogizomai - He Turned the Water Into Wine: MacArthur, Alcohol, & Christian Liberty
Blogizomai - Theology Thursday | Calvin on the Redemptive Necessity of the Resurrection
Theology - Calvinist Baptists and the Many (False) Misconceptions
GBC - "Without the Gospel": A Gem From John Calvin
GBC - Calvin on God in Theology and the Christian Life
GBC - Calvin on Providence
GBC - Calvin on Treasures in Heaven
GBC - Calvin on Fasting
GBC - Calvin on Prayer: Why Bother?
Reviews - "Young, Restless, and Reformed"
Reviews - The Theology of the Reformers  
Reviews - The Unquenchable Flame  
Reviews - "On the Necessity of Reforming the Church" by John Calvin
Reviews - John Calvin:  A Heart for Devotion, Doctrine, & Doxology 
Reviews - Christianity's Dangerous Idea 
Reviews - "Five Leading Reformers"  

Obama Hurricane Irene Press Conference Live

President Barack Obama will be speaking soon.

HT: The Blaze

I'm reminded of the video of President Bush warning Americans about Hurricane Katrina before it hit the gulf. Let's hope Irene isn't anything comparable to Katrina.

For more:

Blogizomai - The Drawdown Begins:  Obama Announces Drawdown of US Troops From Afghanistan  
Blogizomai - "A Responsibility to Act":  Obama Explains Lybian Action to the Public   
Blogizomai - The Beginning of the End:  Obama Announces the End of Operation Iraqi Freedom
Blogizomai - "Justice Has Been Done":  President Obama Announces the Death of Osama bin Laden
Blogizomai - The State of Our Union 2011
Blogizomai - Prayer and Breakfast:  Obama at the 2011 National Prayer Breakfast 
Blogizomai - President Obama at the 2011 Easter Prayer Breakfast 
Blogizomai - The Contrasts Are Clear:  Obama and Jindal's Proposals  
Blogizomai - To Comfort a Nation:  Obama in Arizona and How the Nation Reacted   

Repost | An Important Read: Premarital Sex and the Promises It Fails to Deliver

Premarital Sex in America: How Young Americans Meet, Mate, and Think about MarryingI receive a bi-weekly gift subscription to World Magazine - by far my favorite magazine on the market.  World is a news-like magazine written from a very clear Christian perspective.  Similar to magazines like TIME and Newsweek, World offer reports, analysis, reviews, editorials, and news on the events of the day, politics, and issues that concern Christians.  One of the leading writers of the magazine is Marvin Olasky wrote an article in May 2011 that is well worth our consideration.

The article, entitled A Man's World:  The Sexual Economics of College Campuses Empower Men at the Expense of Women discusses the findings of the book Premarital Sex in America: How Young Americans Meet, Mate, and Think about Marrying by Mark Regnerus and Jeremy Uecker and how our current hook-up/friends-with-benefits/its-just-sex culture hasn't delivered on the many promises of happiness it made.  Consider the following:

Two sociologists, Mark Regnerus (University of Texas) and Jeremy Uecker (University of North Carolina), crunched the numbers for their 2011 book Premarital Sex in America (Oxford University Press). They found that three-fourths of 18- to 23-year-old women are in dating relationships of some kind—and 94 percent of those are sexually involved.

Love and marriage no longer go together like a horse and carriage, but promiscuity and depression often do, especially among women. Women who have had multiple sex partners have poorer emotional health than women who report having had zero or one, and "women who report the greatest number of partners display the clearest symptoms of depression."

While it's simplistic to say more partners, more pain, a 2005 study found that "sexual behavior patterns came before depression, not after them. Girls with multiple sex partners were about 11 times more likely than virgins to report elevated depression symptoms." A majority of women who engaged in "hooking up"—casual sex—said they felt "disrespected" afterward. (One-fourth of men said they felt that way.)

The statistics are simply astounding.  94% of 18-23 year old women currently dating are having sex is unbelievable - at least to those who have stood on the outside convinced that the world around them hasn't changed.  As a pastor, I can no longer assume that the unmarried couples of our church are not having sex.  I have to instead assume the opposite.  And although this is obvious and common sense for me, I have found that explaining this to parents always gets the response "not my child."  Premarital sex is always a "that's those kids" sort of phenomenon. 

But what is interesting is the connection made between premarital sexual activity and depression.  As the article states that its simplistic to say more partners, more pain there is at least reason to see a connection.  Certainly there is more to depression than one's sexual history, but the statistics and the data simply does not lie. What is most fascinating about all of this is how premarital sex has been packaged for our culture.  Abstinence has been labeled suffocating and impossible.  Instead, casual sex or at least premarital sex frees us from sexual frustration and leaves us satisfied.  After all, we are animals and sexual animals at that.  And thanks to contraceptives and abortion-on-demand, we can now (at least in theory) separate sex from marriage and family.

The article goes on:

Regnerus and Uecker found that men are typically in control of when dating begins, but women are in control of when sex begins—and it often begins earlier than they want. That's because "women are increasingly competing with each other for the affections of increasingly rare high-quality men who are willing to commit. When women compete for men, men win: the price of sex goes down." 

The two authors bulwark this marketplace theory with stats. In 1947, for every 100 female college students, 245 male students were on campus. Today, for every 100 women, only 74 male students are on campus. Today, the likelihood that unmarried women will have had sex during the past month is 60 percent higher on a campus where seven out of 10 students are female than on one where only three out of 10 are female. 

Is the sex-ratio theory only a theory? Regnerus and Uecker found that women on campuses where they make up a higher proportion of the student population "express more negative appraisals of men on campus . . . hold more negative views of their relationships . . . go on fewer dates . . . receive less (in the way of relationship commitment) in exchange for sex." 

In short, good news for women's career opportunities is bad news for their marriage opportunities. A typical young woman, the authors say, is looking for  "love, attention . . . affection, commitment, and feelings of emotional union": When men have less reason to make commitments, women go further to maintain a relationship than they otherwise would, so  "an oversupply of women leads to a sexually permissive culture." 

Regnerus and Uecker go beyond the data to critique the action of pandering college leaders. They note that  "stories commonly used to socialize students about campus sex are skewed, creating a more positive spin on hooking up that is out of step with the reality of many actual student experiences. In a consumer-driven marketplace like the university, adults give students what they think they must want. What results, however, is reinforcement of the message that sex is . . . what counts."

Again, the statistics tell an important story. The packaged message of premarital sex does not deliver on its promises.  A sexualized culture is not a liberating culture for women, but one that holds them captive.  In a culture where men expect sex, women become objects and items for the man's sexual desire.  This is what feminism, secularism, and liberalism has wrought.  Before the man (and the woman for that matter) was forced to wait to have sex giving the woman the power.  The man would ask the woman out giving her the power to say no.  The man then had to court his future spouse, forced to meet the demands of her parents and prove that he is a man worth marrying.  At that point the couple became united through the sexual union.

Now, however, all of that has changed.  In a culture where sex is as typical as dinner and a movie, the man does not need to work for sex, but can demand it.  After all, if his girlfriend won't give him what he expects he can always find another one especially on a university campus where women outnumber women.  Again, the power is taken from the woman (and her father I might add) and given to the man and he is abusing it.

The question, then, is what to do about it and what can be done?  Olasky offers his own answer, but let us briefly note that the answer is (and always is) the gospel.  The gospel demands that couples aim for marriage because marriage and sexual intimacy is a picture of the gospel.  Furthermore, the gospel is the source of joy, contentment, peace, satisfaction, and love.  Thus, we ought not be surprised that those who understand marriage as a gospel issue consistency have better sex, are more satisfied, enjoy love, and see in sex something more than the exchanging of fluids, but intimacy, love, and union.  Cheap sex will never deliver on the promises its given.  Costly sex, like costly grace, delivers a gift that is well worth the wait.  Until the church wakes from its naivete and begins to articulate the gospel and applying it to issues of marriage and sex, such trends will continue to destroy us.

World Magazine (Marvin Olasky) - A Man's World:  The Sexual Economics of College Campuses Empower Men at the Expense of Women

For more:
Blogizomai - Don't Be Naive, They're Having Sex: A Word to Parents, Students, and Pastors
Blogizomai - Is What is Natural Moral?:  Homosexuality and the Animal Kingdom (Part 1)
Blogizomai - Is What is Natural Moral?  The Great Chasm Between Nature and Morality (Part 2)
Blogizomai - Is What is Natural Moral?:  The Way Forward is Backwards - Cave Men and the Return to Amoral Sexuality (Part 3)
Blogizomai - Is What is Natural Moral?:  Monogamy and What Jealousy Says About Naturalism (Part 4)
Blogizomai - Marriage and the Limits of the Law and Courts:  Why Only the Gospel Regenerates & Changes Behavior
Blogizomai - Pornography for the Mind:  Our Continuing Obsession for What is Not Real  
Blogizomai - Obsess Much?:  Understanding Our Culture's Obsession With Sex 
Blogizomai - The Great Recession or the Recession That Made Us Great?:  Pornography and the Frugality of Lust 
Book Review - "Dirty Little Secret: Uncovering the Truth Behind Porn"
Book Review - "Sex Is Not the Problem (Lust Is): Sexual Purity in a Lust-Saturated World"

Thursday, August 25, 2011

Secular Religion?: Stonestreet on the Implications of "Faith"

Another great one from John Stonestreet over at the Point Blog:

Secular liberals claim to be untainted by religion but don’t buy that, says Howard Kainz of Touchstone. Secularists are committed not just to issues like abortion and same-sex marriage, but to a whole way of seeing the world, one that’s just as religious as Christianity.

Think about it. Like religion, secularism has unquestioned dogmas like naturalistic science, separation of church and state, and the right to abortion. There’s secularist sins like intolerance, homophobia, and questioning abortion. Like Christians, Secularists have Scriptures — Origin of Species and the New York Times, and denominations like Planned Parenthood, NOW and the ACLU; and saints like Margaret Sanger, Darwin, and Alfred Kinsey whose lives and ideas go unexamined. Secularists even have an eschatology — utopia through government or eugenics.

This is an important point to understand.  All of us are theologians including the most ardent atheist and secularist.  We are by nature religious and every worldview is based on theological convictions.  Stonestreet makes this clear here.

The challenge, then, isn't over who is religious and not (and thus who is now above the simplicity of religion), but who has the right understanding of theology and how that applies to society.  Stonestreet's point that secularism as a religion has dangerous ethics, morality, and implications such as abortion, eugenics, global warming alarmism and the rest.  For all the criticism of what Christianity believes (like the sanctity of life, truth as knowable, justification by faith alone, the exclusivity of Christ, etc.), one ought to be more critical of theologies like secularism.  In the name of tolerance, secularism promotes bigotry and shutting out those who disagree with them.  In the name of salvation, they support totalitarianism, sexual liberation, and carbon offsets.  Which one, then, is better?  Freedom through Christ or the unending search through Utopia myths?  You decide.

The Point - Both Sides are Religious

For more:
Blogizomai - We Are All Theologians:  The Root of Everything We Are and Do 
Blogizomai - Repost | Coming Out of the Closet As Christians?: Welcome to the New World
Blogizomai - Punishing Prejudice By Being Prejudice:  The Lesson and Legacy of Hate Crimes 
Blogizomai - Christianity Without Christian Distinctives Based on Christian Doctrine is Not Christianity:  The CLS and Our Fear of Discrimination
Blogizomai - Jesus is into Offending People:  Its Time For Christians to Admit the Obvious and Proclaim with Boldness
Blogizomai - "Friendship With the World is Enmity With God": Rick Warren Tries to Have it Both WaysBlogizomai - The Progresive Dreamworld: Stonestreet on Public Education, LGBT, Bullying, & Human Nature
Blogizomai - Hammering the Materialist Nail: Why Worldview Does Matter
Blogizomai - Bin Laden and the Origin of Justice

The Danger of the New Monism: Fidelity to Science, Infidelity to the Gospel - Part 1

What follows is a series of posts regarding the New Monist movement which combines neuroscience with theology and argues that science has "proven" that we have no soul.  The problem I have with such a suggestion isn't just the challenge it presents with what I think is clearly the dualism revealed in Scripture (that we are made up of both a body and a soul), but what this new monism does with the gospel. How does denying the existence of our soul affect our understanding of the gospel?  That's one of the questions I hope to answer.  This debate is another example of the challenge that science can present for Christian theology.

Since the dawn of modernism, the debate over the relation between the empirical sciences and theology has been in constant friction.  The debate, at least in popular culture, almost always centers on the debate between Darwinian evolution and the Bible’s revelation regarding creation.  For over a century and a half, some Christians have sought to blend the trend of evolution in science and the biblical message while others embrace either evolution in their fidelity to science or young-earth creationism in their fidelity to revealed Scripture.
But the debate between science and Scripture is not limited to the question of origins, but also of the mind.  If biology, astronomy, and other sciences promote a view of origins contrary to Scripture then what about the science of the brain?  In recent decades, advances in neuroscience has mounted an assault on the traditional biblical doctrine of dualism – that we are both a body (material) and a soul/spirit (immaterial).  Many scientists and well-meaning Christians who have embraced the direction of neuroscience are beginning to more loudly proclaim that humans do not consist two parts – the material and the immaterial – but only one (just the material). 
Some materialists use the language of mechanics to describe persons thus making man nothing more than the byproduct of his genes robbing man of any freedom or responsibility.  Such a worldview is clearly contrary to the gospel and Scripture.[1]  Others, however, affirm persons as a holistic self without a soul whose entire self/body is controlled solely by the brain and yet retain some form of free will and responsibility.  This latter view (that we are a holistic body) has a variety of names, but each (though slightly different) are similar in many ways.  One of the more prominent views is promoted by persons like Nancey Murphy is called Nonreductive Physicalism.  It is nonreductive in the sense that the rejection of the soul ought not to be reduced to the belief that we are simply mechanistic beings.  “Physicalism” is preferred to “materialism” due to the implications of such a term.  Materialism is usually associated with atheism driven by extreme Darwinian views.  Nonreductive physicalism is just one of countless other views in which argues that man is not body and spirit, but a material, holistic self.[2]  Since these views are unified in their monism, I have referred to them as a whole as the new monism movement.
The reason all of this is important is not because the new monism movement, based primarily on neuroscience, threatens traditional Christian anthropology, but because such a belief threatens the fundamental doctrine of salvation.  Like most doctrines, to tweak, deny, or redefine one doctrine (like Christology, Theology Proper, harmitology, Bibliology, or in this case anthropology) is to tweak, deny, or redefine the gospel. It is imperative that Christians engage theological issues with this fundamental truth in mind.  If a certain doctrine, particularly a core central doctrine, is misunderstood it will directly affect one’s view of soteriology.  In the case of the new monism, if one rejects the existence of an immaterial soul, then their understanding of salvation will be greatly inhibited and are likely to embrace heretical doctrines.
In this paper, I seek to show that many of those who have embraced monism in this manner have, whether directly or indirectly, abandoned the gospel.  As it will be shown below, though few take the atonement and soteriology seriously (namely Joel B. Green) most undermine the gospel by embracing a here and now message with little said in regards to sin, hell, judgment, propitiation, the atonement, or salvation.  The simple fact is that thus far in the movement, few have considered this issue in great detail, but when they do speak regarding salvation, they always error on the side of heresy.  Furthermore, it will be shown that a more biblical understanding of anthropology is necessary for an accurate understanding of the gospel.

[1]  Consider for example atheist Daniel Dennet who wrote, “One widespread tradition has it that we human beings are responsibility agents captains of our fate, because we really are souls, immaterial and immortal clumps of Godstuff that inhabit and control our material bodies rather like spectral puppeteers.  It is our souls that are the source of all meaning, and the locus of all our suffering, our joy, our glory and shame.  But this idea of immaterial souls, capable of defying the laws of physics, has outlived its credibility thanks to the advance of the natural sciences.  Many people think the implications of this are dreadful: We don’t really have ‘free will’ and nothing really matters.”  Daniel Dennett, Freedom Evolves (New York: Viking, 2003), 1 and quoted in Ed. Joel B. Green and Stuart L. Palmer, In Search of the Soul: Four Views of the Mind-Body Problem (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press), 115.
[2]  For a brief discussion for some of the other views including emergentism and material constitutionism see John W. Cooper, “The Current Body-Soul Debate: A Case for Dualistic Holism,” SBJT 13.2 (2009): 32-34.  See also Green, Palmer, and Corcoran, In Search Of The Soul: Four Views Of The Mind-body Problem for more examples in detail of the different views.

The Danger of the New Monism:  Fidelity to Science, Infidelity to the Gospel - Part 1

Wednesday, August 24, 2011

Hump Day Humor: Office Pranks

One of my favorite shows is The Office and I particularly like its many famous one liners and office pranks.  There are countless and although many have tried, it is hard to compile a list of the best ones.  Below is one persons attempt to highlight just some of the best ones.

*  Some of the content below may involve crude humor and adult behavior.

For more:
Blogizomai - Humorous Hump Day:  Church Greeters and Hand Sanitizers  
Blogizomai - Humorous Hump Day: Mark Lowry's Mamma Had Enough
Blogizomai - Humerous Hump Day: Brian Regan Cell Phones 101
Blogizomai - Humorous Hump Day - Harry Carry and the Moon Made of Rips
Blogizomai - Humorous Hump Day: Voltswagen Pinata
Blogizomai - Fuzzy Math & Even Fuzzier Theology: Abbott & Costello Meets Modern Theology
Blogiozmai - They're Only Giving Him Material: Letterman Responds to the Jihadists After Him
Blogizomai - Adam & Eve on Comedy Central: Colbert Takes on Mohler & Traditional Christian Theology
Blogizomai - Everything is Amazing, But Nobody Is Happy: An Important Lesson
Blogiozmai - Repost Friday: Happy RamaHanuKwanzMas!

There's a Whole Lot of Shaking Going On

I'm sure many people know by now that there was a magnitude 5.9 earthquake on the east coast (a rare event) whose epicenter was in Virginia and the quake was felt in various states including Washington DC.  The fun part about all of this is video cameras and the Internet.  There are now tons of videos, both amateur and professional, that caught the quake live.  Below are two:

As far as I know, no one was seriously hurt.  Let's pray that that remains the case.

But being that the earthquake affected Washington DC, jokes are already being written.  My favorite:  the Obama administration has found the source of the earthquake:  Bush's Fault.

HT: The Blaze

Tuesday, August 23, 2011

They're Only Giving Him Material: Letterman Responds to the Jihadists After Him

I'm not a huge David Letterman fan, but I must say that I found his approach to dealing with some of the jihadist threats made against him rather hilarious.  Clearly the terrorists are watching late night television.  Watch the following:

He then added his infamous Top 10:

10. Someone wants to silence me? Get in line.
9. Nothing says summer fun like a death threat.
8. Why is the staff in such a good mood?
7. Save me, Oprah.
6. Should I wear my Kevlar hairpiece?
5. And here I thought nobody watched the show.
4. How can someone be so angry at a time when Kim Kardashian is so happy?
3. Some people get Emmy nominations; some people get death threats.
2. This seems like (Jay) Leno’s handiwork.
1. Oh my God! They canceled the George Lopez Show.

And from CNN:

HT: The Blaze

For more:
Blogizomai - The Death of Bin Laden:  How Christians Have Responded - Part 1 
Blogizomai - The Death of Bin Laden:  How Christians Have Responded - Part 2 
Blogizomai - The Death of Bin Laden:  How Christians Have Responded - Part 3 
Blogizomai - "Justice Has Been Done":  President Obama Announces tohe Death of Osama bin Laden