Thursday, December 30, 2004
LaShawn Barber asks what events in 2004 changed the blogosphere or people's perceptions of it. Stop by and contribute a comment.
Joe Carter at The Evangelical Outpost has a great post entitled Megaphones Without Oversight that is worth reading. Bottom line: anyone and anything can be humbled by the blogosphere. Of course, that's one of the main points of Hugh Hewitt's new book.
Polipundit has an interesting post on the targeted approach of the Bush campaign in this last election. Apparently someone was paying attention to corporate political campaign contributions.
I've just joined Homespun Bloggers. To find out how to join, go here. Also check out the Homespun Radio feature.
New additions to the blogroll: Lex Rex and Blue Goldfish. Thanks to both for adding me to their blogrolls. If you blogroll me, please e-mail me and let me know and I'll be happy to do the same.
Anyone who wants to know the impact of the Internet can go over to the Amazon.com donation page for Tsunami relief. Amazing. (Hat tip: Michele Malkin) Other organizations that are providing relief to the tsunami victims are the International Mission Board and Worldvision. Both are very trustworthy organizations.
Two very nice tributes to Jerry Orbach who succumbed to prostate cancer yesterday are over at Worship Naked and Portia Rediscovered. Although he was lately known for his roles on Law and Order and as Lumiere in Beauty and the Beast, he had an extensive film and stage career. My first experience seeing him perform was back in the early 80's on Broadway in 42nd Street. He was an immensely talented actor and he will be greatly missed.
Is it just me or does it seem that Viktor Yanukovych and Al Gore are somehow related?
Chuck Colson reminds us that the efforts to remove Christianity from the public square were not just confined to Christmas.
And finally, I respectfully submit the following quote as a new slogan for the Mainstream/Legacy/Old Media:
"Kindly do not attempt to cloud the issue with facts." -- George Banks (portrayed by David Tomlinson) in Mary Poppins.
Wednesday, December 29, 2004
In a post earlier this week, Hugh had challenged reporters in the legacy media to answer the a few questions in order for us to better understand their own biases. Unlike the legacy media, bloggers don't attempt to hide their biases because they don't have to. I agree with Hugh's hypothesis that the legacy media won't dare answer these questions because it will confirm once and for all that they are dominated by liberals. In the interest of full disclosure (with thanks to Mount Virtus for the inspiration) I'm answering his questions below:
For whom did the reporter vote for president in the past five elections?
George W. Bush (2000 and 2004)
Bob Dole (1996)
George H. W. Bush (1988)
I did not vote in 1992 as I moved to another state right before the election and was not registered in time to vote. If I had been able to vote, I would have voted for George H. W. Bush.
Do they attend church regularly and if so, in which denomination?
Do they believe that the late-term abortion procedure known as partial birth abortion should be legal?
Do they believe same sex marriage ought to be legal?
Did they support the invasion of Iraq?
Do they support drilling in ANWR?
1. Blog: Understanding the Information Reformation That's Changing Your World by Hugh Hewitt. If anyone understands how the blogosphere works and the potential it holds, that person is Hugh Hewitt. He has inspired a number of other bloggers to get started (including yours truly). He also understands that the mainstream (or legacy) media can no longer be trusted. The blogosphere is becoming a source of news and information for more people. The potential of the blogosphere has barely been tapped. Hugh Hewitt shows how the blogosphere can be used. For more reviews of the book, see Stolen Thunder, Evangelical Outpost, Stones Cry Out, Byrd Droppings and Instapundit.
2. Our Sacred Honor: "The Stories, Letters, Songs, Poems, Speeches, and Hymns that Gave Birth to Our Nation" by William J. Bennett. Being something of a history buff, this book is of particular interest to me. After reading David Barton's Original Intent: The Courts, The Constitution and Religion earlier this year, I had a much better understanding of just how important the Founding Fathers' faith was to the birth of our country. Whether we want to admit it or not, we are a nation founded by Christians and built on Christian principles. Reading the writings of the Founding Fathers helps us understand that better than anything else.
3. The Chronicles of Narnia by C. S. Lewis. I've been reading these books aloud to my daughters. They enjoyed the first two volumes, The Magician's Nephew and The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe immensely. My hope is that we can read the remaining five books together this year. These are some the best books available to read to your children.
4. The Lord of the Rings Trilogy by J. R. R. Tolkein. This is a set of books I've been meaning to read for a long time. Since Hugh Hewitt and so many other bloggers cited these as great novels they would read more than once I figure it's high time I read them as well.
5. Never Give In: The Extraordinary Character of Winston Churchill by Stephen Mansfield. I thoroughly enjoyed Mansfield's most recent book, The Faith of George W. Bush. I've always been curious about Winston Churchill but never seemed to find the right biography to start with to learn more about him. I believe this might be as good a place as any to start.
I welcome any other suggestions that folks have for great books to read in 2005.
Monday, December 27, 2004
Thursday, December 23, 2004
I'll leave you with this post from Melly Durham's blog (Hat tip: Christian Conservative). The reason we celebrate Christmas is the birth of our Savior, Jesus Christ. My prayer is that we would not forget Him in the midst of the hustle and bustle of the season.
Merry Christmas to all!
Wednesday, December 22, 2004
Those who seek to banish Christmas have the mistaken notion that the foundations can be razed from our nation, with the edifice of laws intact. In truth, without Christmas, there would be no meaning to any individual's life -- nor would there be any meaning to the life of our nation. For the worth of individual lives, proved by Christmas, is the only secure foundation of our country.
But if you'd forsake the fight as too pitched, if you'd discount these days as inordinately overwhelming, consider how turbulent the times were to all those at that first Christmas. Mary was pregnant, near delivery, apart from her closest family members and friends, and traveling to a strange town with a man not the earthly father of her Child. Joseph was soon to become father to the Father of all. Zechariah was struck dumb by his angelic visitor. And the shepherds were so frightened by the angels that they had to be calmed, "Fear not."
For those events were indeed fearsome. The One Who had lived forever, Creator of all things made, entered His creation, and the Maker of the dimensions stepped into time and space on a personal rescue mission to redeem all human life. The Eternal came to die on our behalf and in our stead, to redeem the debt of our sinfulness by paying the bond Himself.
And that singular act of selflessness evokes a Christmas cultural tradition embraced by nearly all -- the giving of gifts. But it is in the nature of a gift to be freely given, and freely received. True gifts are not coerced -- of either giver or recipient. What harm is there in a proffered present that may be freely rejected? This is the question we pose to the foes of Christmas. The only promise that matters is one that's hard to keep. The only commitment that matters is one that's freely given. The Christ Child was the first, best Gift ever -- given so that we might freely accept the offering, thereby gaining the gifts of life, of liberty ... and as we are reminded at this season, of eternal life.
As the saying goes, read the whole thing.
Tuesday, December 21, 2004
First, it may be useful to examine the motives of Rumsfeld's critics. David Limbaugh reports that Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY), wants to begin impeachment hearings. Limbaugh astutely observes:
It just seems to me that because the president won his re-election so recently, Democrats have decided (consciously or not) to transfer their considerable hostility to one of the president's chief surrogates, Mr. Rumsfeld. The persistence and personal viciousness of these attacks against Rumsfeld are striking.
Speaking of the President, consider what he had to say about Rumsfeld in his news conference yesterday:
Q Thank you, Mr. President. Several Republican lawmakers recently have criticized Secretary Rumsfeld. What does he need to do to rebuild their trust?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, when I asked the Secretary to stay on as Secretary of Defense, I was very pleased when he said "yes." And I asked him to stay on because I understand the nature of the job of the Secretary of Defense, and I believe he's doing a really fine job.
The Secretary of Defense is a complex job. It's complex in times of peace, and it's complex even more so in times of war. And the Secretary has managed this Department during two major battles in the war on terror -- Afghanistan and Iraq. And at the same time, he's working to transform our military so it functions better, it's lighter, it's ready to strike on a moment's notice. In other words, that the force structure meets the demands we face in the 21st century.
Not only is he working to transform the nature of the forces, we're working to transform where our forces are based. As you know, we have recently worked with the South Korean government, for example, to replace manpower with equipment, to keep the Peninsula secure and the Far East secure, but at the same time, recognizing we have a different series of threats. And he's done a fine job, and I look forward to continuing to work with him.
And I know the Secretary understands the Hill. He's been around in Washington a long period of time and he will continue to reach out to members of the Hill, explaining the decisions he's made. And I believe that in a new term, members of the Senate and the House will recognize what a good job he's doing.
I think it's safe to say that the President believes Rumsfeld should stay on as Secretary of Defense.
Which takes me back to the first point I made which is this: what are the motives of Rumsfeld's critics? They certainly aren't giving him credit for successfully managing two military campaigns while simultaneously rebuilding and reshaping our military to be able to effectively respond to the threats of terrorism. His critics aren't interested in a fair, objective critique of the job he has done as the Secretary of Defense (or as Hugh Hewitt suggested on air yesterday, we should change the Department of Defense back to the Department of War - it certainly seems more fittinng). They simply want to be able to portray this President in as negative a light as possible and that means also negatively portraying his surrogates such as Secretary Rumsfeld.
Perhaps it would be more informative to find out what our military personnel and their families think of Secretary Rumsfeld. This e-mail from the father of a Marine Lance Corporal serving in Iraq that was sent to the guys over at Powerline offers some terrific insight. He offered these thoughts in response to the "autopen" controversy:
If [our son] had been killed, we would have been first informed by a visit - in dress blues - from a condolence team typically consisting of two Marines and one Navy Chaplain. We know many families who've received that knock on the door. No letter is required. No words are required. A simple peek thru the view hole in the door and the sight of dress blue blouses, white covers and white gloves tells you all you ever need to know. A letter of condolence from the SecDef is, honestly, not even worth opening. Families are much more interested in hearing from the men who served with their son and from their families. We share the constant knowledge and fear that it could be our door bell being rung. Sec. Rumsfeld doesn't know our son. He's a Lance Corporal. He directs a machine gun team. He is a vital link in the line that protects our way of life. He doesn't fight for his country, he doesn't fight for the SecDef, he doesn't even fight for his mom and dad. He fights for the guys on either side of him and for his team. He fights to secure his objective of the moment, which he may or may not understand or agree with. Sec Rumsfeld doesn't need to take time from his day to sign a form letter of condolence and he certainly doesn't need to take time to figure out what the LCpl was doing when he was killed or what kind of a man he was. His job is to make sure the LCpl didn't die in vain and that only as few LCpl's as possible will have to die to end this war in a successful manner. (emphasis added)
But it's this Marine father's closing paragraph that sums it up the best:
Bottom line, we support Sec Rumsfeld. The people who are making a big deal about this have their heads up their collective a****. They need to have a serious priority check on what people in positions of responsibility should be doing with their time. They should also chat with some military families if they could figure out how to contact them.
We’ve seen the acceleration of attacks on Christmas throughout the nation: the discriminatory banning of Christmas carols, Christmas cards and nativity scenes, the substitution of politically correct terms to replace "Christmas," and the systematic effort to paint Christmas as a symbol of exclusiveness and intolerance.
We’ve read the editorial lambasting of the Christian Right with aggravated fervor: Maureen Dowd likened Christian conservatives to "a vengeful mob -- revved up by rectitude -- running around with torches and hatchets after heathens and pagans and infidels." Nicholas Kristof lampooned Christians who believe in the Rapture. Liberal icon Bill Moyers exhibited pangs of horror at anti-environmentalist Christian fundamentalists who "may believe that environmental destruction is not only to be disregarded but actually welcomed -- even hastened -- as a sign of the coming apocalypse."
I get the sense in reading these types of diatribes that the discomfort among some toward Christians has ripened into full-blown paranoia -- and that something drastic must be done about it.
It’s almost as if they’re thinking the Christian mindset is so dangerous that it must be preemptively silenced, or that Christians want to establish a theocracy so their influence must be preemptively diminished. What else explains their freewheeling demonization of Christians and their concerted effort to suppress their religious liberties, all in the name of tolerance, inclusiveness and freedom?
They obviously miss the irony that they are already engaged in the very behavior that they merely fear Christians might engage in if not stopped. But this is hardly surprising from people who are responsible for promulgating speech codes in the name of free expression. It is the magnitude of their collective projection that is astounding.
Read the whole thing.
Monday, December 20, 2004
Friday, December 17, 2004
Leaders of The Parents Television Council today released a study of prime time programming that they say shows that Hollywood "has virtually no respect for religion."
The study, put out in conjunction with the National Religious Broadcasters, counted 2,344 treatments of religion — such as the mention of prayer or the presence of God — from September 2003 to September 2004 and deemed 24.4% of them negative. Most were neutral, and 22.1% were positive.
The full story can be found here.
Hat tip: LaShawn Barber
Also, Charles Krauthammer (who is Jewish) weighs in with a great column today. An excerpt:
The attempts to de-Christianize Christmas are as absurd as they are relentless. The United States today is the most tolerant and diverse society in history. It celebrates all faiths with an open heart and open-mindedness that, compared to even the most advanced countries in Europe, are unique.
Yet more than 80 percent of Americans are Christian and probably 95 percent of Americans celebrate Christmas. Christmas Day is an official federal holiday, the only day of the entire year when, for example, the Smithsonian museums are closed. Are we to pretend that Christmas is nothing but an orgy of commerce in celebration of ... what? The winter solstice?
I'm struck by the fact that you almost never find Orthodox Jews complaining about a Christmas creche in the public square. That is because their children, steeped in the richness of their own religious tradition, know who they are and are not threatened by Christians celebrating their religion in public. They are enlarged by it.
It is the more deracinated members of religious minorities, brought up largely ignorant of their own traditions, whose religious identity is so tenuous that they feel the need to be constantly on guard against displays of other religions -- and who think the solution to their predicament is to prevent the other guy from displaying his religion, rather than learning a bit about their own.
Read the whole thing.
UPDATE: Michelle Malkin has this story about a state run veteran's home in Vermont that was forced to take down a cross decorated with red, white, and blue lights. I guess this means we're not supposed to honor veterans, either.
Thursday, December 16, 2004
The latest battle is being fought in Pennsylvania where the Dover Area School District is requiring intelligent design to be taught in science class. (Hat Tip: The Rooftop Blog, Spreading Understanding, (here also) and Framptonia).
Unfortunately, this is not the only example of animosity towards God in public schools. A California school district has told a history teacher that he cannot use the Declaration of Independence in his class because it refers to God.
An Ohio school district canceled a performance by a Christian rock band because there were concerns about religious music being played in public school. (Hat tip: David Limbaugh)
In Kirkland, Washington, a performance of Charles Dickens' "A Christmas Carol" that was to be presented on the campus of Lake Washington High School (by a private group, no less) was canceled by the principal of the school because he feared it would raise questions about the place of religion in public schools. (Hat Tip: The Rooftop Blog)
Perhaps the most ridiculous example of all: a school district in Texas banned the colors red and green from a "Winter Break Party" (you can't call it a Christmas party) and insisted that they only bring white plates and napkins. A group of outraged parents filed suit against the school system for "religious hostility". (Hat Tip: Spreading Understanding)
I wonder how many parents after hearing stories such as these will share the sentiments of Sir Winston Churchill:
“This is the sort of bloody nonsense up with which I will not put.”
(Thanks to Joe Carter at The Evangelical Outpost for the quote)
Hugh's column for the Weekly Standard is entitled The Year of the Blog and looks at the blogosphere's dismantling of the lies and distortions published by Newsweek in their December 13 cover story on the birth of Jesus.
The days of the mainstream media being able to control the flow of information are over. The blogosphere is here to stay and will continue to be a source of accountability for all media outlets.
Hugh Hewitt understood this truth long before anyone else and has been a driving force in the growth and influence of the blogosphere. As a matter of fact, his next book will be on the blogosphere.
Hugh not only has his own successful blogs but through his numerous symposiums allow smaller bloggers like your humble correspondent to join in the conversation. He was even kind enough to mention my wife's blog, Mommypundit, in a column earlier this year. Needless to say, her traffic took off after that mention in the column.
On the right is the blogroll of blogs that have been inspired by Hugh. We all owe a debt of gratitude to Hugh. If it were not for his encouragement we wouldn't have started our own blogs.
On behalf of bloggers everywhere, I want to thank Hugh for his inspiration and support. He certainly deserves a fair share of the credit in the success of the blogosphere in holding the mainstream media accountable. His influence will be felt in the blogosphere for years to come.
Wednesday, December 15, 2004
Vox Blogoli VI: What does Newsweek's story on Christmas tell us about MSM?
The article is typical of the shoddy journalism that we have come to expect from the MSM. If the point of the article was to examine all sides of the theological debate surrounding the birth of Christ then author Jon Meacham might have taken the time to interview theologians who are on the conservative end of the spectrum who could provide evidence to support the Biblical account of the virgin birth. But when there is an agenda to push, why let something as inconvenient as facts get in the way? This is the standard operating procedure of the MSM.
Unlike the article's author, I am willing to admit that I'm not equipped to engage in the theological debate over the virgin birth and will defer to Mark D. Roberts and Albert Mohler's excellent rebuttals of the article.
However, I will highlight one particular quote from the Newsweek article that was the clue into the mindset behind this type of article:
"To non-Christian Jews and pagans, the first Christians were superstitious and backward, a group of marginal people on the fringes of empire preaching an outlandish message."
What the MSM doesn't understand, they try to marginalize. Rather than defend their position in a fair debate, they do everything they can to discredit their opponent.
Monday, December 13, 2004
Saturday, December 11, 2004
Friday, December 10, 2004
I've been on the lookout for good blogs to make a habit of reading on a regular basis. Most everything I try to read daily is in my blogroll. Mommypundit is my wife's blog and Sistersophist is my sister-in-law's blog. The rest are blogs that either I've found or folks that have linked to me. I tried surfing BlogExplosion (also a way to shamelessly increase blog traffic) but haven't really found much that has been interesting. Plus, the quality of content is inconsistent (you have limited control over whether objectionable material will be displayed). I think I've pretty much convinced myself it's not worth spending any more time surfing the member blogs.
The best referrals I've seen are from folks that I'm already reading. Tod Bolsinger has linked to a very interesting blog called Welcome to Witting Shire. This looks like it's going to be a blog worth reading on a regular basis. They are also a homeschooling family!
LaShawn Barber weighed in with her list of her favorite blogs. Her endorsement of Scrappleface convinced me that I needed to start reading it regularly (I can always use a good laugh).
Another great discovery in the past couple of weeks is that Tony Snow from Fox News has his own blog. His radio show is also being streamed online daily. Check out his latest post entitled Enter the Theophobes.
I also had a tip this week from Considerettes (brother-in-law of The Rooftop Blog) to check out the Homespun Blogs. I haven't had a chance to weigh in on their weekly symposium but I'll keep reading and may consider joining them at some point. Incidentally, this post provides even more evidence (as if there needed to be more) that government schools are being run by theophobes.
Thanks to The Rooftop Blog for mentioning the John Stott post in his weekly wrap-up.
Sidesspot took issue with my allegiance to the Chicago Cubs in my previous post. Hopefully he will be willing to overlook that lapse in judgement. All I can say in my defense is I was young and foolish when I became a fan. It was also 1989, the last time they won a division championship, when I began to follow them. I was working nights and so the only baseball I would get to see was the Cubs. It wasn't until I started doing my homework that I realized what miserable failures they had been over the course of the team history. But by that point it was too late to turn back. By the way, The Cub Reporter has an excellent analysis of their outfield situation for 2005. I don't expect Sammy Sosa to be traded, either.
Quote of the week from Thomas Boswell of the Washington Post on the steroid issue in baseball:
Baseball never addresses any problem until the sport is cornered by a screaming mob and can't find a way to escape doing the obvious.
Read the whole column here (free registration required). It's time that Major League Baseball dealt with this issue.
I hadn't weighed in on the whole Target-Salvation Army controversy, but when I saw this article I knew that I was right not to shop at Target. Actually, I did go into Target the other night but I didn't buy anything. It didn't appear to be very busy compared to last year. Hopefully that means that they are losing business and will come to their senses. Meanwhile, I've probably put more money in the red bucket this year than at any other time. I know exactly which stores in town allow Salvation Army volunteers to ring the bell at their front door. I've been going to those stores more frequently. Anyone see a lesson here for Target?
I wonder if Fred Barnes would be in favor of a playoff in college football? Isn't it about time? (Hat tip: Matt Crash!)
Finally, my best "new" musical find: Nickel Creek. Okay, I know they've been around for a while but they are new to me. That counts, doesn't it?
Wednesday, December 08, 2004
Check out The Cub Reporter for more off-season moves by the Cubs.
Now if Jim Hendry can settle the Sammy Sosa situation the Cubs should be set for 2005.
Only 117 days left until Opening Day.
Tuesday, December 07, 2004
Saturday, December 04, 2004
Friday, December 03, 2004
Thomas Boswell, arguably one of the best sportswriters in the business, wrote this column today (free registration required) sharing his own personal encounter with Giambi at the beginning of spring training this past season. He sums up the problem that Major League Baseball has on its hands:
Steroid use is the biggest blight on the game. And the guiltiest party in the charade is the players' union. In March, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) called union president Don Fehr before his Commerce Committee and staged a 2 1/2-hour public flogging. Expert witnesses and leaders from other sports were called to expose the union's sophistic arguments in blocking the kind of thorough drug-testing that most other major sports already have.
Fehr went away properly chastened on the one area in which his union has disgraced itself. "I understand your words," Fehr said to McCain, "and I understand the mood of the rest of this hearing."
Still, in the face of powerful agents and star players who want to keep their fake muscles at all costs, even the best intentioned people need fresh ammunition to keep up the fight against steroids. Now, everybody has a belt full of fresh bullets.
"I've been saying for many months that I instituted a very tough program in the minor leagues on steroids in 2001. We need that program at the major league level," Commissioner Bud Selig yesterday said after speaking in Washington about the return of baseball to the nation's capital. "This is just another manifestation of why we need that right away. My only reaction is we're going to leave no stone unturned until we have that policy in place by spring training 2005."
There is no need to turn over stones. This issue is obvious. Every player, agent and union executive should realize it. Baseball is in the midst of a glorious renaissance on the field. But if this popularity is bought at the price of the honor of the sport and the health of its players, then it is not worth a fraction of the grim price that is being paid.
Beyond the personal risks that steroid use presents to the players, continued use of such drugs brings into question the integrity of the game itself. Consider these results from a recent ESPN poll regarding Barry Bonds testimony on steroid use:
Do you believe Bonds when he says he did not know the clear substance and cream he received from Anderson were steroids?
84.7% -- No
15.3% -- Yes
Total votes: 71,160
In fact, even while Giambi was the focus of stories early in the week, Bonds was the underlying subject. As these numbers indicate, the bulk of SportsNation presumed Bonds had used steroids long before Giambi's testimony was leaked.
Giambi admits to receiving steroids from Greg , weight trainer for Bonds. Does this change your opinion about Bonds' possible steroid use?
82.3% -- I always thought Bonds used steroids
10.5% -- I didn't believe Bonds used, and I still don't
7.2% -- I didn't believe Bonds used, but I do now
What does this say about the integrity of baseball when one of its best players is suspected of using steroids?
It's time that the players union woke up and accepted the fact that drug testing is necessary. It would be better for players to be in support of the policy instead of against it. Otherwise, if fans start to believe the games are not being played on the level because players are using performance-enhancing drugs then they may decide that it's not worth spending money going to the games.
What values or standards are going to dominate our national culture? Most countries are increasingly pluralistic. It means that many things are competing for the soul of America. It's partly an evangelistic question but it's also a social and cultural question. Do Christians have a social as well as evangelistic responsibility in the community?
Look at Matthew 5:13-16:
13 You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled by men. 14 You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. 15 Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. 16 In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.
Salt was used as an antiseptic and a preservative in Jesus' day. Jesus meant at least four things by these models:
1. Christians are radically different from non-Christians.
Jesus contrasted Christians to the rest of the world. We are to be the light for a dark world and the salt for a decaying world. We are called to be radically different from the rest of the world.
2. Christians are to penetrate non-Christian society.
Though be morally distinct we shouldn't segregate ourselves from society. Jesus commands us to let our light shine into the world. The salt can't do any good unless it is rubbed or soaked into the meat. The application of this is what Christians decide to do for a career. Ministry is a generic word and does not merely refer to the pastorate. Through whatever career we choose we can be a minister for Christ. There is a wide variety of ministry.
3. Christians can change non-Christian society.
When you switch on a light a room is no longer dark. When you rub salt into meat bacterial decay stops. If society becomes corrupt society is not to blame because that's what happens when fallen men are left to themselves. We have to ask, "Where is the church?" We also must accept the role Christ has given us to be salt and light. Society cannot be perfected but it can be improved.How does social change take pkace and how can Christians make an impact? One way is prayer. Prayer is an effective weapon in asking for help for our national leaders. The second weapon is evangelism. We have to be socially active Christians and that's not possible without evangelism. The third weapon is example. Humans are very imitative. A good example can have an enormous effect on society. The fourth is argument. Legislation can reduce evil in our social structure. We have to get into the public debate and argue the goodness of God's law. The fifth weapon is action. We need to be willing to take action.
4. Christians must retain their Christian distinctiveness.
Salt is no good if it loses its saltiness. If light loses its brightness it is no good. We must retain our Christian standards, values, and lifestyles without compromise. The differences are listed in the Sermon on the Mount.Christ calls to the narrow road of life as opposed to the wide road of death. We must repent of our compromises and ask Christ to be Lord of all of our life. We also must repent from our pessimism. We don't have any reason to be pessimistic. We need to be salt and light so that people can see Christ in us through our good works.
Thursday, December 02, 2004
Brothers, stop thinking like children. In regard to evil be infants, but in your thinking be adults. (1 Corinthians 14:20)
The mind is important because tthe use of our mind is glorifying to God. He is a rational God, has made us rational and has given us a rational revealing about Himself. We ought to approach Him rationally.
A proper use of the mind enriches our Christian life (in particular our discipleship). We cannot worship God worthily without using our minds. See Psalm 105 - To worship is to glory in God's holy name.
A proper use of the mind strengthens our witness. The apostles reasoned with people over the Scriptures. The Holy Spirit brings people to conversion because of the evidence when He has opened their mind to it.
A Christian mind is the mind of a Christian. It could also be defined as the mind of Christ. A Christian mind has a Christian mindset or a Christian perspective on things. A Christian mind is searching for the will of God.
The Christian mind focuses on two things: the reality of God and the paradox of man made in the image of God. The Christian mind is a godly mind and God is in all his thoughts. There are two implications of this. The first of these is the definition of wisdom. The Christian mind gives meaning to life. The second of these is humbleness. Since God is in the mind then it should be humble. The Christian mind is a godly mind and refuses to honor anything that is not glorifying to God.
The second focus is the paradox of man made in the image of God. The paradox is we have dignity and depravity. We are able in one moment ot be like God and in the rest turn around and be as unlike God as any human can be.
How do we apply the paradox? One of these ways is the self-image. We need to have an accurate self-image. Developing a balanced self-image requires remembering who we are and who created us. Another application is dealing with political ideology. It is unwise to try to support one political system and say it is the absolute right ideology. Christians exist on all parts of the political spectrum.
We want to be a Christian who is integrated. All parts of the body are intergrated into the lordship of Christ. We need a hearing that feels deeply with a mind that thinks clearly. A mind without a heart is nothing.
This is either a low point, or a point of no return. The establishment of "independent committees" to dispatch non-consenting humans is nothing but a death penalty committee for innocents. Once begun, it is impossible--simply impossible--to limit the concept with any bright line. Abortion, of course, has always been limited by the physical act of birth, and once out of the womb, only the most extreme "reproductive rights" advocates have argued that the baby's natural right to live can be compromised by the mother. But now the Netherlands has gone farther--much, much farther. If the "severely retarded" may be killed upon appropriate motion, second, debate, and majority vote, why not the moderately retarded? Why not the mildly retarded? Why not, in fact, anyone the "independent committee" deems as usefully dispatched.
Abortion advocates often wonder why pro-lifers are so vehemently opposed to the cause they hold so dear. Beyond the simple truth that life is a precious gift from God, it is that if we allow the murder of unborn children to be acceptable then where do we draw the line? The Gronigen Protocol is just a glimpse of how far we can slide down this slippery slope.
Update: Check out this post from Sistersophist on women who killed their babies. She asks a very good question: why aren't we outraged at the Gronigen Protocol?
Wednesday, December 01, 2004
Joe Carter over at The Evangelical Outpost has posted a biographical sketch of Dr. Stott in his ongoing series Know Your Evangelicals.
I had the privilege of meeting Dr. Stott in November of 1986 when he came to lecture at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill when I was a student. I had already become familiar with him through books such as Basic Christianity. When I met him I knew I was standing in the presence of a spiritual giant yet someone who was incredibly humble and very personable.
As I dug through my journals today from my college years (yes, I still have them) I ran across the notes I had taken from his lectures.
In the next couple of posts I'll share my notes from those lectures. Rereading them reminded me how powerful they were when I first heard them. They are worth looking at again.