Thursday, April 16, 2009

Blips on the Blogosphere 20- Post-Christian America?

There's been a lot of press and discussion lately about the United States as a "post-Christian" nation.

President Obama's phrase, "we are no longer just a Christian nation", spoken during a keynote address Obama gave in June 2006, later generated much controversy during his presidential campaign. Obama has frequently reiterated this view, including just 10 days ago in prepared remarks made during a diplomatic visit to Turkey. He said, "We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation; we consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values."

Newsweek's cover story this month by editor Jon Meacham is ominously titled The End of Christian America. Meacham notes troubling statistics about the state of American Christianity. According to the article, recent surveys by the American Religious Identification Survey [ARIS] and the Pew Forum's U.S. Religious Landscape Study have found that:
  • the number of Americans who claim no religious affiliation has nearly doubled since 1990, rising from 8 to 15 percent;
  • the percentage of self-identified Christians has fallen 10 percentage points since 1990, from 86 to 76 percent;
  • the percentage of people who say they are unaffiliated with any particular faith has doubled in recent years, to 16 percent; in terms of voting, this group grew from 5 percent in 1988 to 12 percent in 2008;
  • the number of people willing to describe themselves as atheist or agnostic has increased about fourfold from 1990 to 2009, from 1 million to about 3.6 million. (That is about double the number of, say, Episcopalians in the United States.)

Southern Baptist Seminary President and conservative blogger Al Mohler played a prominent role in the Newsweek essay. In a thoughtful analysis of the Newsweek piece, Mr. Mohler complements "the care, respect, and insight that mark the essay", and notes that the article "is elegant in form and serious in tone."

He agrees that Newsweek is right to designate, at least certain sections of America, as "post-Christian". But in his analysis Mohler highlights that the Newsweek story is primarily concerned with Christianity's waning political influence. Mohler notes that while this is hardly a "non-issue",

... my greater concern is not with political influence and what secularization means for the political sphere, but with what secularization means for the souls of men and women who are now considerably more distant from Christianity -- and perhaps even with any contact with Christianity -- than ever before. My main concern is evangelism, not cultural influence.


Mohler agrees in part with Meacham's argument that "what binds America together is not 'a specific faith' but instead 'a commitment to freedom' and, in particular, freedom of conscience. The founding generation did not establish the young republic on any religious creed or theological doctrine." But Mohler points out "there is something missing from this argument, and that is the recognition that
freedom, and freedom of conscience in particular, requires some prior understanding of human dignity and the origins of conscience itself. Though the founders included those who rejected the Christian Gospel and Christianity itself, Christianity had provided the necessary underpinnings for the founders' claims."


Mohler, as usual, hits the nail on the head-- the incredible freedoms and prosperity this nation has enjoyed to date were built upon a Christian foundation, without which they would not have been possible. So when the President says that we are a nation of citizens "bound by ideals and a set of values", his argument is that there is some set of values that transcends any particular religion and which all may somehow come to recognize and embrace. But Obama's argument raises many questions.

Is it really accurate to say that a certain set of values is going to be universally recognizable and agreeable to all? If not, who gets to define which are the set of values acceptable to be promoted in schools and enacted in public policy? Does government have the authority to play the role of deciding which values are the right ones to be promoted? Are values to be decided by majority vote? And shouldn't religious views be allowed to enter the public debate about values? Even if really it could be, why should values discussion and public policy-making be a "religion-free" zone?


Mohler closed his analysis with these fine words:

This much I know -- Jesus Christ is Lord, and His kingdom is forever. Our proper Christian response to this new challenge is not gloom, but concern. And our first concern must be to see that the Gospel is preached as Good News to the perishing -- including all those in post-Christian America.


Now a few of the questions I raised above are touched upon-- albeit briefly-- by writer/pastor Tim Keller, speaking on the MSNBC program "Morning Joe" last week on a special Good Friday edition. Keller sat next to Jon Meacham and participated in the short but interesting discussion on issues raised by Meacham's article. You can watch a video of the discussion below.

Keller agrees with Meacham that there is danger when the Church becomes overly concerned with grasping for political power and worldly influence. "If the Church tries to turn the world into the Church it turns out that the Church becomes more like the world." But Keller points to the rise of a new generation of college-educated evangelicals that is seeing these issues differently and with more clarity and depth than did their parents, who were more of a "blue-collar generation" of evangelicals:

All public policies are based on views of human flourishing that are basically based on faith, they are not scientific, they are not empirical, they're based on faith. And therefore everything that happens in the public sphere is based on a kind of religiousness, a kind of "faith" view of human flourishing, human nature, the ultimate sense of what reality is about. And therefore Christians wouldn't want to say well, we're not going to bring our religion to the public sphere anymore because they actually see everything happening in the public sphere having essentially religious roots. And I think people that have gone to college see that a little better and they have a tendency to see that there's religious background to all the positions instead of looking at just certain hot-button issues, I think evangelicals in the future are going to have a more nuanced and comprehensive, you might say, public philosophy than they have in the past. So I think John's right, that the old approach is dying.


I agree with Mr. Keller's argument-- public policy is not and cannot be forged in some sort of metaphysical vacuum in which questions about meaning-- theological questions- are simply ignored. Inquiries dealing with profound questions such as the existence of God and the ultimate reality of life must be answered, and those who advocate secularism indeed have their own "faith-based" take on such questions but want to mandate that overtly religious and particularly, Christian answers to these questions cannot be entertained in the public sphere, citing so-called separation of church and state. But Keller's comments show the fallacious thinking behind this position. Additionally history proves that Christianity has had a most powerful role and influence, in policy-making discussions, in law-making, and in the adoption of various policies in the United States. Christian principles have been felt in the creation of American universities, hospitals, charities, and of course, in the creation of our unique form of democratic government. The positive outcome of all this Christian influence is well-documented. And if Keller is right, a new generation of smart evangelicals will continue to see the connection between faith and policy-making and insist that Christianity is allowed to continue to make its case in the public square.

HT: Alex Chediak

Sunday, April 12, 2009

Watchblogging Revisited

In a recent post titled Evil as Entertainment, Reformed blogger Tim Challies takes certain watchblogs to task for harping on evil so much that they neglect to point out what is good and true. He feels such blogs may be the equivalent of a "spiritualized form of YouTube", in that they present evil as a form of entertainment. Reading his piece, I found myself convicted that I have indeed sometimes read certain blog articles that way, perhaps finding a bit too much pleasure in the heresies reported. And I agreed with Challies' main point, that believers are to focus on the good and the true, and that we ought to examine our motives if we find ourselves consistently drawn to those who post about nothing but the evils other believers are doing.

But the chief weakness with the article is its non-specificity- Challies doesn't "name names" (probably because he's trying to be gracious and just point out principles to follow), but specific examples would have made it easier to know just what or whom he's critiquing. Also, I'm not entirely sure that Challies is not critiquing a strawman, for I've not personally encountered those watchblogs that only speak of error while never pointing to what is true. Moreover, saying that some watchblogs are posting such things for mere entertainment value is a rather serious charge, and by not being specific as to which blogs he's talking about, Challies' seems to imply that watchblogs by their very nature are guilty of this.

I do find more that is helpful in Phil Johnson's well-written critique of Challies' piece, titled "Turning a Blind Eye to Evil Is Evil, Too". Johnson writes,

"There's quite a lot to applaud in what Tim said, but I don't think he said everything about the subject that needed to be said. As a result, I thought his post was (quite uncharacteristically for Challies, of all people) lacking in balance".

Johnson goes on to make a number of good points, which have the effect of providing balance to the message of Challies' article.

1) Defending the faith is a necessary task for shepherds.
When someone on his blog comments that he thinks Phil "would rather spend his time building up believers and himself in the Word rather than calling people out for damnable heresies that are causing people to drift away from the true faith and send[ing] them to hell", Phil agrees with the assessment, but hastens to add that

"calling people out for damnable heresies that are causing people to drift away from the true faith" is a shepherd's duty, not an option— and it can be quite edifying if done well.


I heartily concur with Mr. Johnson's point here and it's one I've made frequently here on Jordan's View in previous posts (see below):

Christian Watchbloggers- Good or Bad?
Discerning What Is Truth (Part 2)
Discerning What Is Truth (Part 1)
The Age of Tolerance Calls for Bold Proclamation of Truth

But returning to Phil's article:

2) Blogs are an appropriate forum for calling out doctrinal error publicly.
When preaching a sermon, Johnson states his main concern is to "explain the meaning of specific texts of Scripture and exhort people to apply the truth to their lives in obedience to God." However, when writing a blog, Johnson employs both "humor and criticism" to make certain points. The issue of whether this is appropriate is often debated, but certainly Paul and even our Lord both used humor and even sarcasm in ministry.

Of course, godly satire is challenging for sinners like us to pull off. As people who struggle with sin, Christians must check their hearts (motives) while engaged in any kind of ministry. Steve Camp chimes in on the discussion with an excellent, biblically saturated article, Blogging, Watchblogging, and Ministry, which both challenged and convicted me with these helpful questions to ask oneself:
1. How does my post glorify God and exalt Christ? Or am I seeking to only expand my daily readership by addressing controversial issues just for controversy's sake? (1 Cor. 10:31)

2. How does it equip the body of Christ biblically to be better Bereans on any issue they face? (Acts 17:11)

3. How does it convict and challenge me in my own life before I turn its truths on another? IOW, what do I need to learn, model, obey and repent of first before calling others to do the same? (Psalm 119:10-17)

4. How does it bring truth and foster change to the one I am disagreeing with? (Eph. 4:13-16)

5. How does it edify and encourage - not just exhort? (Eph. 4:1-3; 26-32)

6. How does it communicate real biblical resolve? (Roms. 12:1-2)

7. How does it enable others to live more like Jesus as salt and light in their communities, ready to serve their church and world? (Matt. 5-7)

8. Am I filled with the Holy Spirit as I write and unfold God's Word, or am I only giving knee-jerk reactions to what is the hot potato of the moment? (Eph. 5:17-21)

9. And lastly, in what I have just written and confronted caused me to focus more clearly on the person of our Lord Jesus Christ and something He would find pleasure, delight and honor in? (Heb. 12:1-3)


Camp offers gracious critique of Challies' article, and at the same time complements Tim for his writing and blog ministry. Camp writes about Challies, "He is thoughtful, circumspect, kind and generous. He is obviously very well read, reformed, insightful, and we are all the better for his contribution on many issues he addresses in the blogosphere."

I would like to stop at this point and also commend Tim Challies for his consistent promotion of reformed teaching and his steadfast output of helpful, well-written articles. As a fellow blogger I appreciate (and envy, in a good way) Challies' prodigious flow of writing. I know that hard work and discipline is involved in this and is probably a big reason his blog has become a great resource to so many.

So my chief concern with Challies' post is the fact that, because it doesn't also point out the value of the watchblogger's task, some may try to use it to justify writing off completely those who engage in the kind of ministry/critique watchbloggers do. But as Phil Johnson and Steve Camp point out in their articles and even I have also tried to do here on my blog, the defense of sound doctrine, together with rebuke of erroneous teaching, is an absolutely vital aspect of Christian ministry (1 Tim 1:3, 8, Titus 1:9, 2 Peter 3:16-18). And good watchblogs are doing this, not as a replacement for pastoral teaching but in response to the marketplace of ideas. And perhaps this task has become more necessary than ever in an age when false ideologies and aberrant teachings proliferate so readily via the Internet, and so may turn to the INternet for information. As Challies suggests, some watchblogs and ministries need more balance as they perform this vital task, but again I have not encountered the kind of watchblogs Tim is writing about. For example, he says:

But if a pastor of a church in Kalamazoo preaches a sermon in which he says something scandalous, it has no effect on my life and, beyond its draw as entertainment, I can think of few good reasons for me to even know about it. Multiply this by hundreds of new stories a week (or even just tens of stories a week) and I end up with a huge amount of negative information that stays in my head and heart, but which has no bearing on my life.
But those blogs I personally follow which write about bad teachings (or even this blog) are not singling out the errors of obscure pastors, but rather, pointing out false teachings infiltrating the evangelical church at large by persons whose names are well-known. So again it would have been helpful to know precisely what/whom Challies was criticizing.

Again, returning to Phil Johnson's article:

3) The role of the critic is just as necessary as the role of the encourager.

Phil writes:
I think what Tim Challies is saying is that it's unhealthy to fix one's attention on error full time rather than spending most of our time dwelling on things that edify. If that's all he is saying, I say (as heartily as possible) AMEN! (Philippians 4:8). But if someone wants to seize that point in order to suggest that it's always better to be an encourager than a critic, my reply is: That very attitude is largely responsible for getting us into this mess in the first place.
And again:
I understand Challies' central concern. There is a vocal segment of the fundamentalist/evangelical community for whom an obsession with sensational exposés and nattering negativity has proved seriously unhealthy. It has given them a sour attitude, a perpetually angry tone, and a really bad reputation. I don't enjoy reading what they write, either, and I don't hang around their blogs.

But the mentality that dominates the evangelical culture today— and the far greater problem, in my judgment— is exactly the opposite. The overwhelming majority of today's evangelical sophisticates would clearly prefer it if no one ever criticized evangelical Golden Calves. Rampant error doesn't unsettle them in the least. They are quite happy to live with it and even actively make peace with it.

But let someone dare to voice an objection to a troubling doctrine in the latest best-seller making the rounds on campus—even a denial of the Trinity or some other soul-destroying soteriological or Christological novelty—and the very people who profess to hate criticism (and who work so hard to seem agreeable in their dealings with with the unorthodox) will heap the nastiest kinds of vituperation on the soul of the one who has dared to criticize unorthodoxy and thereby threaten the "unity" evangelicals think their timid silence has won them.


Exactly-- the real danger in evangelicalism these days is not the relatively few unbalanced heresy-hunters but rather the many for whom heresy seems to be a non-issue, and who, in the name of a unity that is misguided and unbiblical, ignore the biblical injunction of defending sound doctrine and rebuking false teaching.

[Defending the above rather strong statement would require another post, but those of you who regularly read such blogs as Pyromaniacs know what I'm referring to].

And we so badly need truth to be boldly proclaimed by strong leaders who are also godly men, men who have applied the truth first to themselves, as Steve Camp helpfully reminds us.

Of course, we are all at different points in our walk with God and each of us struggles with particular sins (1 John 1:9, Romans 7:14-25). Owning up to this ongoing battle with the flesh does not (necessarily) disqualify us from service, but we need ongoing accountability and confessing of our sins to one another (Proverbs 7:17, Hebrews 10:25, James 5:16). This of course necessitates humility and submission and relationships with others in the body of Christ (Ephesians 5:22, 1 Peter 5:5-6, Phil 2:1-8).

I am truly grateful for men like Tim Challies, Phil Johnson, Steve Camp and others who are blogging about great reformed truths passionately, consistently and intelligently, and more important, trying to live out these truths by the grace of God in their own lives. I am glad too that, as Scripture says, "iron sharpens iron" and that some key biblical truths were shared by others that helped to balance out the point of the article by Mr. Challies.

Happy Resurrection Sunday and may the truth of Jesus Christ and His resurrection fill us with all joy, power and boldness! Let us live and proclaim His truth.


Wednesday, April 01, 2009

I Was Wrong, Mr. Charismatic!

Those who visit this blog regularly probably have noticed that I have become a staunch advocate of reformed theology here on Jordan's View. The transition was gradual-- I went from being charismatically-inclined to calling myself a reformed charismatic, but for the past year or more I have preferred to think of myself as simply a Christian who believes in reformed doctrine.

This has all suddenly changed.

You see, last night I had a very strange and vivid dream. I was attending a church service already in progress at my old church in New York City, Trinity Baptist, and as I walked in I noticed people of every color and tribe and nationality filling up every seat in the pews. Many were colorfully dressed in the garb of their native cultures. Everyone seemed very happy and there were smiles all around. The atmosphere felt full of kindness and warmth.

Upon noticing me, a kind, elderly usher whispered in my ear that there was a seat available at the front and would I like to be taken there. I nodded my head and he led the way slowly. As I got closer to the front I was amazed to see gold dust falling down like a mist around all around me. Then when I got up to the front I noticed a woman in a pink running outfit drenched in sweat, her baggy clothes soaked. She was lifting her hands and praising God, and her friend told me that when she had come into the service she was 300 pounds, but that God had touched her miraculously and she had lost 150 lbs of water weight in an instant. She smelled rather badly but no one seemed to care.

The preacher up front was getting very excited and kept on shouting "Boom!" and "Bam!". Taking my seat I looked up and noticed that the speaker was a shirtless Todd Bentley! Needless to say I was rather startled since not only was he shirtless but his torso, neck and arms were covered with tattoos. He was pacing back and forth on the platform, preaching a message about "reaching up for your miracle" and saying he could see "in the spirit" countless angels hovering over the audience, just ready to pour out miracles.

The next thing I witnessed shocked me even more-- R.C. Sproul, Al Mohler, John MacArthur, Phil Johnson and other guys I recognized from the reformed camp were all down on the floor, some prostrate and others kneeling. Most were weeping. C. Peter Wagner was coming behind them and seemed to be praying for each one in turn.

Then suddenly Bentley was shouting, "Look, the glory, the glory!" as a golden light seemed to fill the room. I asked a man next to me what was happening (I later learned this was Tommy Tenney), and he explained:

"Well my friend, you are seeing what happens when God comes in his shekinah glory and just takes over -- you see all these reformed guys are repenting that they spoke out against God's gifts for today, miracles are happening left and right, and God is just blowing our minds away!"

Then I asked him if he could prove this from the Bible. He looked at me sternly and replied, "The Bible is still being written man, it's happening right here in front of you. Now open your eyes and see His handwriting!" A dreadful fear came upon me and there was something like thick black smoke suddenly pouring into the sanctuary, but it wasn't smoke from a fire. And suddenly a thunderous voice spoke and said, "Just believe!!"

I was at that point I woke up and found that I was drenched in sweat. I was scared and I asked God what it all meant. I felt as if God spoke to my spirit and said, "My child, you need to stop thinking so much and trust my Spirit. You are being made whole."

So it seemed to me that God was saying to me that I should immediately stop being reformed, quit writing this long-winded series on theology and start praying and fasting for new marching orders. So, as of today, I will cease writing my series on "Arminian vs Reformed theology" and obey this prompting. I apologize to those who have been following the series and perhaps were looking forward to reading the updated version.

It seems I was plain wrong, about everything...











April Fools!!!


Monday, March 30, 2009

Blips on the Blogosphere 19

UPDATE: I'm still working on re-posting the articles from my series on Arminianism vs Reformed theology, but I have decided to edit them as I proceed, so the process of reposting will likely take longer than I'd originally planned.

In the meantime, more "blips from the blogosphere"...

----------------------------------

Seems there's been a lot of interest lately in the existence (or not) of Satan. A number of thinkers weigh in on the question, "Does Satan Exist?", in the "On Faith" section of the Washington Post.

Then on Nightline: Faceoff, the same question was debated by a panel in a show that aired March 26th. Arguing that Satan does not exist were writer and philosopher Deepak Chopra and United Church of Christ minister Bishop Carlton Pearson (he doesn't believe in hell either). Pastor Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill Church and Annie Lobert, founder of the international Christian ministry "Hookers for Jesus," argued that Satan does indeed exist. I've collected all the videos on vodpod and you can watch some of them right here: Jordan's Video. Click the link at the bottom of the widget to view all my collected videos.

---------------------------------

Fans of Tim Keller, author of "The Reason for God" and senior pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church of New York City, will be delighted to have this new resource: a "Tim Keller wiki" which features links to news, books, articles, audios, videos, sermons and will be regularly updated by Tim Keller fans.

---------------------------------

Recently I received by mail a flyer advertising an upcoming debate at Bioloa University between author and atheism defender Christopher Hitchens and the author and Christian apologist William Lane Craig. I learned that although the debate will be on a live webcast, one must purchase the rights to listen in. As much as I'd like to listen to this debate, in which it sounds Hitchens will be overmatched, I'm not willing to shell out money for it. Besides, Mr. Craig has debated many others and many of the debates are available for free online.

A debate between William Lane Craig and Walter Sinnott-Armstrong was later turned into a book titled "God?", which you can preview at this link.

Speaking of debates and apologetics, there is an excellent blog, Apologetics 315, that features links to numerous apologetic resources, including debates in MP3 format.

Wednesday, March 25, 2009

Blips on the Blogosphere 18

I've been hard at work editing the old introductory article to my "Arminian vs Reformed theology" series and getting ready to re-post the series. In the meantime, here's some things I've stumbled across in the blogosphere lately.


Alex Chediak, who live-blogged almost all of the recent Ligonier 2009 National Conference (the reformed ministry headed up by R.C. Sproul), has put together links to all his conference posts here.

AND THIS JUST IN (3-26-09): Videos from the 2009 Ligonier National Conference (The Holiness of God).

And if you're into photos, check out these conference photos on Flickr.

-----------------------------
Pointing out that more top church blogs are by reformed bloggers than any other "theological strain or movement", an article titled "Young, Restless, Reformed Bloggers" asked this question back in January:

Are there so many popular Reformed blogs because of the movement, or has the movement grown, at least in part, because of so many average Reformed Joes and more-than-average Reformed mega-stars getting into New Media and using it more effectively than the other guys?


The author of the article, A- Team blogger David Nilsen, is inclined to think that the Reformed community as a whole, from the big ministry names to the not well-known (yet numerous) bloggers, have been drawn to "new media" (such as blogs) and has used such media very effectively in promoting the reformed view. I agree with this assessment. Let's keep up the good work friends.

------------------------------
Mark Dever writes on "What I CAN and CANNOT Live With as a Pastor" (there's also a corresponding MP3). One of those things Dever cannot live with is the practice of infant baptism, which he calls, sin. Wow. Fighting words? But Dever doesn't seem like he wants a fight, and explains his views in a related article, "The Sin of Infant Baptism, written by a sinning Baptist".

------------------------------
The coming evangelical collapse by Michael Spencer

Writing for the Christian Science Monitor (March 10, 2009 edition), Michael Spencer adapted a series from his blog, InternetMonk.com and created the above-titled article. In it he presents his vision of what is on the horizon for evangelicalism, and the picture he paints isn't pretty. I admire Spencer for speaking in this "naysaying" prophetic voice, saying things that aren't very heartening but at the same time, seeming to do so as a challenge to all Christians to prepare for tough times ahead. He says he's not a prophet and that his predictions could be wrong, but I do think much of what he's envisioning are trends one can already see in the present.

A few of his predictions:

    Denominations will shrink, even vanish, while fewer and fewer evangelical churches will survive and thrive.

    Expect evangelicalism to look more like the pragmatic, therapeutic, church-growth oriented megachurches that have defined success. Emphasis will shift from doctrine to relevance, motivation, and personal success – resulting in churches further compromised and weakened in their ability to pass on the faith.

    The emerging church will largely vanish from the evangelical landscape, becoming part of the small segment of progressive mainline Protestants that remain true to the liberal vision.

    Aggressively evangelistic fundamentalist churches will begin to disappear.

    Charismatic-Pentecostal Christianity will become the majority report in evangelicalism. Can this community withstand heresy, relativism, and confusion? To do so, it must make a priority of biblical authority, responsible leadership, and a reemergence of orthodoxy.


While Spencer does see evangelicalism as a "crumbling empire", he remains optimistic. "We can rejoice that in the ruins, new forms of Christian vitality and ministry will be born. I expect to see a vital and growing house church movement. This cannot help but be good for an evangelicalism that has made buildings, numbers, and paid staff its drugs for half a century.

We need new evangelicalism that learns from the past and listens more carefully to what God says about being His people in the midst of a powerful, idolatrous culture."

Personally, I resonate with his statement that "a small band will work hard to rescue the movement from its demise through theological renewal", noting that "this is an attractive, innovative, and tireless community with outstanding media, publishing, and leadership development."

Spencer believes that despite such efforts, the "coming evangelical collapse will not result in a second reformation, though it may result in benefits for many churches and the beginnings of new churches."

Perhaps a reformation on the scale of the great Protestant Reformation is not to be, still it is my hope to be part of that small band that will trumpet reformed doctrine, and preach and practice the gospel in powerful ways, so as to purify the church and make her more effective in producing mature disciples, of whom I hope to be one.

Friday, March 20, 2009

The New Calvinism- Picking Up Where I Left Off

Back in November of 2006, I began writing a series examining Arminianism vs Calvinism (Reformed) theology. At the time, I had already become convinced that the Calvinistic position was the more biblically accurate, but I was still working through all its theological implications, as well as trying to answer from scripture the Arminian objections.

So as I began writing the series, my purpose was multifold. First, I wanted to study through to solid answers and put my conclusions in writing, as I have found that putting thoughts down in words brings about greater clarity and insight. Second, I wanted to present a strong, biblical argument and to answer objections biblically. My foundation for bible study is the conviction that the Bible contains the answers to these all-important questions, it being the true revelation of God to man. Third, I hoped my writings on the topic would be helpful and even educational to others who might also be wrestling with the serious theological questions brought out by the ongoing debate between Arminians and Calvinists.

I had also come to recognize that one’s answers to these profound theological questions, in other words, one’s theology, plays a vital role in determining how one lives out their Christian faith. For myself and my family, I wanted to be convinced I had come to sound, biblical conclusions. And as one wanting to be a guide and a help to others in these matters, I knew I would need to have solid convictions, anchored in a confidence that I had come to accurate conclusions based on correct biblical interpretation. Of course I recognized that sincere and godly people have come to different conclusions on many of the questions raised in this ancient debate, nonetheless I proceeded, based on the conviction that embarking on this type of study would bear good fruit. It would challenge me to my best thinking and digging into the Bible would undoubtedly bring more light to my understanding of these things.

Yet I found the challenge of writing on these matters while answering many objections was very consuming, and about midway through the series, I set it aside. Now, 2 and ½ years have passed since I first began writing and I feel compelled again to complete it. I have read and thought more on reformed theology. I am now attending a church that is solidly reformed in its preaching emphasis. My convictions about the accuracy of the reformed theological perspective has continued to grow.

A recent article in Time magazine has also provided new inspiration, since it lists “The New Calvinism” as one of the 10 Ideas Changing the World Right Now. In fact, the new Calvinism is at #3 on the list, though I’m not sure whether the list is in order of priority. I’m challenged by this that the biblical truths Calvin and others pointed to have fresh relevance in these troubled times.

As the world economy faces monumental challenges, wars continue to rage, and famine and natural disasters plague, religious questions are naturally raised. Does God really exist? What is the nature of God— is He the personal God of the Bible or the impersonal divine force that many religions describe? If He is indeed a personal God who is completely sovereign over all things, then why does He allow such pain and suffering? These are the challenging and profound questions that thinking people have always asked. Perhaps in these tremulous days the answers presented by the great Reformed thinkers are growing attractive to many. But more important, does the reformed picture comport with the Bible, or is it merely a man-made theological system? This being also the 500 year anniversary of Calvin’s birth, I feel it is fitting to take up such questions again, and to re-post my series comparing and contrasting the answers provided by Arminian vs Calvinistic (Reformed) theology. My plan then is to re-post the original articles (with perhaps some editing), then pick up in the series where I had left off. Stay tuned for more.

Thursday, March 19, 2009

2009 Ligonier National Conference: The Holiness of God

The 2009 Ligonier National Conference, The Holiness of God, is taking place today, March 19th through the 21st. This conference draws high-quality reformed preachers/teachers, and the lineup this year is outstanding, as usual. Speakers include Thabiti Anyabwile, Alistair Begg, Donald A. Carson, J. Ligon Duncan III, Sinclair Ferguson, W. Robert Godfrey, Steven J. Lawson, R. Albert Mohler Jr., R.C. Sproul, Jr., Derek W.H. Thomas and of course, the great reformed teacher R. C. Sproul.

For those who can't be there (like myself), the conference organizers have graciously made it possible to watch the live webcast of the mini-conference on Calvin as well as the main sessions. Click here to register, watch and be blessed!

Also, Alex Chediak is live-blogging the event and doing a masterful job of summing up each portion of the conference on the Ligonier blog.

Wednesday, January 14, 2009

Paul Simon On His Lyrics & Songwriting

Coinciding with the release of a book collection of his lyrics to date, "Lyrics 1964-2008", Paul Simon sat down with Katherine Lanpher for a "ONE-ON-ONE" interview about his career, lyrics and songwriting. The interview took place Thursday, November 13th, 2008 at the Barnes and Noble bookstore located in Union Square, New York City, with a live audience present. Since I work in Manhattan, I had hoped to attend, but the timing (during work hours) proved inconvenient. Fortunately, Barnes and Noble (as well as enterprising You-Tubers) have recorded the whole interview on video.

If you're a Paul Simon fan (personally, he's my favorite songwriter, other than Paul McCartney) I think you'll find the interview fascinating and full of interesting details-- among other things, Paul tells funny stories about his early career, talks about his songwriting process, performs old songs like "The Only Living Boy in New York" and even a new song titled "Love and Hard Times". Great stuff!

You can watch a high quality video of the interview right here:



For videos put togther by fans, I've collected a bunch on this YouTube playlist: Paul Simon at Barnes and Noble in NYC- Nov 13, 2008.



Saturday, January 10, 2009

Unlikely Pals



This is hilarious... that rat really loves that cat!

Friday, January 02, 2009

Bible Reading Plans- Read Through the Bible in 2009

At the beginning of a new year, many set the goal of reading through the Bible in a year. Reading according to a plan can help make this challenging task more manageable and accomplishable. And now, more than ever, there are so many excellent resources and plans available, especially on-line, for reading and study of the Bible.

But if you're like me, you may have often started a reading plan but not completed it. Rather than feel guilty, you may want to try an alternative approach. If reading the Bible according to a yearly plan doesn't appeal to you, check out Noel Piper's or Dan Edelen's articles below.

The important thing, really, is to read the Bible consistently and to get something out of what you read-- to encounter the Lord in your time in the Word, so that your life is changed as you take it to heart and apply it to your life. Find the reading approach that helps you as an individual to best accomplish this.

For those who do want to attempt a yearly plan, much assistance is available. Justin Taylor of Between Two Worlds has written a useful article in which he directs readers to resources for reading through the Bible in a year. He especially likes the ESV Bible reading plans (I do too), and particularly recommends these plans: ESV Study Bible, Daily Reading Bible and the M’Cheyne One-Year Reading Plan.

Here on Jordan's View, I always have on my sidebar numerous Bible Study Resources, including links to Devotionals, Bible Reading Plans, Scholarly Sites and Audio Resources.

But with the New Year now here (wow, 2008 went by in a flash!), I want to highlight the many available resources on the web.

May 2009 be a great Bible reading year for you (and me too)!

Bible Reading Resources

Effective Bible Reading

How to Use a Study Bible by Al Mohler

Tips for Effective Bible Reading

Reading Between the Trees: The Bible from Beginning to End

Profitable Bible Study by R.A. Torrey


Bible Reading Plans


ESV Bible RSS Feeds

Bible Reading Plans from BibleGateway.com

Bible Reading Schedules from Realms of Faith

M'CHEYNE Daily Bible Reading Plan (19th Century Scottish minister, Robert Murray M'Cheyne's popular plan takes readers through the New Testament and Psalms twice a year, and through the rest of the Bible once each year.

How to Study the Bible by Mike Aldridge

Bile Reading Plan through Christianity.com (requires a login; you can track your progress)

OneYearBibleOnline.com

Never in January by Noel Piper (A different approach, for those who don't like regimented plans)

The World's Best Bible Reading Program by Dan Edelen (alternative approach that focuses more on what you get of or your Bible reading than reading through the Bible in a year but not really getting much out of it).

Yearly Bible Read Through (lets you custom-design your own, track-able plan)

Daily Bile Readings from Crosswalk (lots of versions, but not the ESV/includes audio)

Daily Bile Readings from Crosswalk (with tracking/needs registration)

Miscellaneous Bible reading plan links

Bible Reading Plans for the New Year: A Resource Guide for Pastors

Bible Readings sent via email (customizable)

52 Week Bible Reading Plan
(PDF file)

TableTalk (Ligonier Ministries) Bible in a Year (PDF file)

BibleReading.com

Advice on choosing a Bible reading plan

A Chronological Bible Reading Plan

Wednesday, December 31, 2008

And Now for Something Totally Different

UPDATE 12-31-08: I've discovered and I'm listing below still more sites for listening to music on the Internet. Now, some of the sites I've listed below are not new (such as AOL, Live365 or Yahoo Music), but they seem improved.

But many of the newer sites blend listening to music on the web with social networking (i.e., sharing music with others). It seems there's a lot of companies jumping on the bandwagon as they vie for market share and the consumer dollar.

Anyway, all the competition equals more and better choices for you and me (always a good thing).

Also, there's many different types of sites these days, as you can discover in this article, Online Music: 90+ Essential Music and Audio Websites. This well-researched and comprehensive resource lists music sites under the following categories: Internet Radio, Music Discovery Tools, Social Networks, Music Sharing Applications and Widgets, Music Marketplaces, Karaoke, Jamming, Remixing, Mobile Music Services, Music Charts, Artists Databases, Lyric Databases, Audio Conversion Tools and Miscellaneous Music and Audio Tools.

So, what's your favorite site?

Happy listening and have a Happy and Blessed New Year!

AOL Music (Check out especially AOL Sessions and AOL Radio)
Wolfgang's Vault ("Live" music- classic and contemporary concert recordings)
Jango (internet radio and social site)
Spinner (subset of AOL music)
Pandora
Slacker
Shoutcast.com
Yahoo music
MusicMesh
Deezer
Musicovery
Live365.com

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just sending out a quick note to readers of this blog that I am still alive and well and continuing work on the next article in my series on healing that critiques the popular charismatic view. I hope to post it very soon.

In the meantime, here's some tips for those of you who enjoy listening to music on the Internet or while sitting at your computer. There are some great sites out there for this purpose, besides YouTube.

One site I've recently been using is Last.fm, which is well-organized and makes finding music very easy. You can create an account, then add artists or individual tracks to your on-line library/station, or create playlists of songs. You can even share your playlists and/or your station with friends. It's a terrific site and, best of all, it's FREE! UPDATE 12-19-08: Oops, it ain't free! But a subscription isn't too expensive either].. There's also a cool extension for Firefox users- Fire.fm- that gives "direct access to the extensive music library on Last.fm."

Another site with a similar concept is Playlist.com, also known as Project Playlist. Like Lastfm, one creates an account, searches for music by artist or track and then you can create playlists of tracks. A very nice feature is the widget you can create to share your playlist on your website, Facebook, Myspace or blog. My widget playlist can be found right here on Jordan's View-- just scroll down to the bottom of the blog.

Friday, December 19, 2008

Blips on the Blogosphere 17

(image at right from MSNBC News)

Obama and Rick Warren, Together Again
President-elect Obama picked Rick Warren to say the prayer for his invocation as President, a controversial choice that has upset liberals as well as his gay constituents.

La Shawn Barber offers her take on this, in
Obama Picks Socially Conservative Rick Warren for Invocation
.

Al Mohler, as always, offers a perceptive analysis, noting in his article "The High Cost of Being (and Staying) Cool -- Rick Warren in a Whirlwind" that the day has already arrived when any evangelical who publicly states opposition to homosexuality or gay marriage is immediately rejected as "uncool" in the popular marketplace, "no matter how much good work you do nor how much love and compassion you seek to express."

Mohler says that he would not have accepted an invitation to give the prayer invocation at Obama's inauguration ceremony (though he notes he wasn't invited), given Obama's pledge to sign the Freedom of Choice Act as President and also to reverse Bush administration policies regarding embryonic stem cell research.

Mohler writes,

Knowing the intentions of this President-elect, I could not in good conscience offer a formal prayer at his inauguration. Even in the short term, I could not live in good conscience with what will come within hours. I could not accept a public role in the event of his inauguration nor offer there a public prayer, but I will certainly be praying for this new President and for the nation under his leadership.


Christless Christianity
The Washington Post ViewPoint section recently interviewed Michael Horton about his new book, "Christless Christianity: The Alternative Gospel of the American Church". Though I haven't yet read the volume, I did read an excerpt (Chapter 1) and also a review by Tim Challies. Horton has provided what appears to be an timely, incisive and insightful critique of the state of Christianity in America, sounding a call to reformation of evangelicalism according to the biblical gospel.

Horton has also done a fine job promoting the book. There's a website-- Christless Christianity-- that provides excerpts and related resources, including this article that appears in Modern Reformation journal, the magazine for which Horton is the Editor:

Christless Christianity: Getting in Christ's Way by Michael S. Horton

Grunge Christianity?
Though the article featured in Pulpit Magazine is already two years old, "Grunge Christianity? Counterculture’s Death-Spiral and the Vulgarization of the Gospel" by John MacArthur still seems like a timely and relevant topic-- how to engage our culture without compromise. In the article MacArthur challenges the idea that Christians must adopt culturally hip, but often crass and superficial attitudes/language to communicate effectively to postmoderns. He points to Paul, as an example for us today:

We could learn from the example of Paul, who engaged the philosophers on Mars Hill. But far from embracing their culture, he was repulsed by it. Acts 17:16 says, “while Paul waited for [Silas and Timothy] at Athens, his spirit was provoked within him when he saw that the city was given over to idols.”

When Paul spoke to that culture, he didn’t adopt Greek scatology to show off how hip he could be. He simply declared the truth of God’s Word to them in plain language. And not all of his pagan listeners were happy with that (v. 18). That’s to be expected. Jesus said, “If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you” (John 15:18-19).


In other, less controversial news, I've continued to tweak and add new resources to my Netvibes site, ReformingChristianity.com. Check out the new look.

Tuesday, November 25, 2008

Going to Carolina (and Back)

Dear Friends and Followers of Jordan's View:

I attended a couple of conferences these past weeks, and I am currently in Clayton, North Carolina, visiting with my wife's family. We plan to hit the road today as we head back to New York, hopefully feeling well enough to get together for Thanksgiving with my family.

Both conferences were really helpful and have challenged me to get serious in my walk. They both featured excellent teaching and well-prepared messages. The first was my church's annual retreat, which was held at Harvey Cedars Bible Conference in Harvey Cedars, NJ the weekend of November 9th. I had the privilege of being on the song leading and worship team for this conference. The energetic speaker, Dennis Newell, exhibited passion and dead earnestness yet, at the same time, very pointed humor, as he gave a hard-hitting 5-part series of messages on discipleship. You can listen to these messages and also view some photos from the retreat, via this link.

The second conference I attended (last Friday-Saturday) was titled "The Truth War- Contending Earnestly for the Faith". It was the 2nd annual Fall Pastor's Conference, of Reformation Truth Ministries (a ministry branch of Springs of Life Church in Durham, NC). The conference was held within the Springs of Life church, which is a little more than an hour's drive from where my wife and I were staying in Clayton (however, I attended the conference solo).

It was a great treat to hear in person two reformed teachers I have been following for some time, have learned from and admire greatly. "Pyromaniac" Phil Johnson, one of my favorite bloggers, gave several messages about defending the faith handed down to us by the apostles in the context of today's postmodern society. James White, the sharp reformed apologist and debater of Alpha and Omega Ministries, was fresh from a debate the night before with an Islamic apologist. He spoke on the challenges of Islam, as well as the reliability of the New Testament documents, an issue which he emphasizes is already a central object of attack in "truth war".

I wasn't familiar with the third speaker, pastor Andy Davis of First Baptist Church in Durham, but found his messages equally impressive in quality and gravity. It was reported, by pastor and master of ceremonies Stan Geyer, that Mr. Davis has memorized the entire New Testament; Andy's command of Scripture was clearly evident during his presentations. Mr. Davis also generously provided a free, small volume on Scripture memorization technique afterward. All the talks, as well as a question and answer session, were recorded, and will be available for purchase as a set.

I had the chance to introduce myself to Phil Johnson and his wife, but unfortunately, didn't avail myself of the opportunity to introduce myself to the other speakers, James White and Andy Davis, being that I was engaged in getting to know other attendees. Those participating included many pastors and elders, as well as some, like myself, who are in training for further leadership. I also briefly spoke with the event's worship leader, Geof Kimber, who intrigued me, especially because he combines in his edifying ministry some of the same talents I hope to also combine in future ministry (musician/songwriter, author, teacher). I intend on staying in touch with him, as well as some of the other men I met there.

Our hosts, David and Linette Price, were very hospitable and accommodating, even as we brought our little terrorist cat Pooky along. David is also a wonderful cook! Our six month old kitten Pooky (also known more formally as Priscilla) set out to dominate the other cats in the Price home from the moment we stepped in, and was successful with her intimidating tactics of growls and hissing. Faith and I joked that our "only child" was really embarrassing her parents by her rude behavior in front of company. I had momentary fantasies of leaving her out here in NC, but she's too darn cute and anyway, they've already got 5 cats to contend with.

Ellen and Emily are sure growing up fast and are sharp as nails (I found this out especially when they strategically whooped me when we played a game of "Life"). We also saw briefly Nicole, (my wife Faith's half-sister), Nicole's two year old, Blaise and significant other, Sanden. Nice folks all. Unfortunately we'll miss Carol Jean, my wife's aunt, who is visiting here for Thanksgiving but doesn't arrive till tomorrow.

Friday, November 07, 2008

Reactions from the Christian Blogosphere to Obama Election

[UPDATE 11-9-08: La Shawn Barber also has a great take on the Obama win. I agree with her assessment. In my opinion there's a "black and white" conclusion to the matter of whether Obama was/is the right choice for President-- he's not. But, we've got him anyway. Read Barack Obama’s Post-Racial Delusion.]

After Obama won Tuesday I had intended to post an immediate blog response titled, "The Morning After: A Bitter Pill to Swallow." But now that a couple of days have passed, I'll forgo writing a response with that clever but perhaps too reactive title. I think I need to reflect more before I say anything else about Obama's election.

In the meantime I have been reading various Christian responses to the election from around the blogosphere. I think there have been some helpful, edifying and sometimes eloquent thoughts expressed.

One of the most powerful words comes from an African-American believer Eric Redmond, who chose to vote according to Christian principles, despite having reservations about John McCain and feeling the temptation as an African-American to join with many others in his community to support Obama. In casting his vote Redmond chose to be, as he says, "Christocentric" rather than "Afrocentric".

He writes:
I made two very difficult choices: First, I chose to vote rather than stay home. Second, I voted for lives of the unborn rather than for approval from the vast majority of my own ethnic community. The latter choice took the risk of being reproached for the name of Christ, for I only voted for life because of the fear of my Lord


Read the rest, Eric Redmond: "Living Soli Deo Gloria Under Obama"

Below, some other articles I think are challenging and raise good questions about how Christian evangelicals ought to proceed with an Obama administration soon to be in place. Notice different opinions about strategy being expressed; for example, between Scott Klusendorf and Phil Johnson.

Thoughts on the Day After an Historic Election by James White

America Has Chosen a President by Al Mohler

A Familiar Can of Worms-Why not both/and? A short diatribe in thirteen fourteen points
by Phil Johnson


President-Elect Obama by Kim Riddlebarger

Here is the King Whom You Have Asked For

Yes We Can...not really by Steve Camp

Stayin Alive: Pro-Life Advocacy in the Obama Era. An Interview with Scott Klusendorf

Monday, November 03, 2008

Countdown to Election 2008- Vote McCain

There is a "statistical dead-heat among born again Christians, with 45 per cent planning to vote for McCain and 43 per cent, for Obama" according to a Barna survey released last Wednesday.

This is truly shocking when one considers Obama's radically pro-abortion views and his liberal stance on so many issues. Obama's fervor to protect a woman's choice or right to abortion extends to voting against measures that would protect babies born alive after a failed abortion. If elected, he also plans on using the White House as a "bully pulpit" on behalf of homosexual causes.

As David Wheaton exclaims in his Final and Fervent Appeal to Christians, "have Christians lost their minds?!"

Apparently many evangelical Christians have bought into the idea that they ought not to be "single-issue" voters (translate: they should not stand firm on abortion). Instead, the spirit of being a true Christian means practicing a kinder, gentler form of Christianity. But what many overlook is that "kinder" and "gentler" are euphemisms for "tolerant", which in turn, means, one may not take a principled stand on biblical truth, because that means we're no longer being "loving". Well, in that case Jesus Christ Himself must have been a big hater, since He stood upon the truth of the Word of God and denounced those who were not teaching in line with the truth of Scripture with such phrases as "whitewashed tombs" and "You are of your father the devil!"

Christian "values voters" have proven themselves to be a formidable force in previous elections. Now, as much as ever, those who believe in America's Judeo-Christian heritage and who understand that it is the principles deriving from this heritage that made America the most free and prosperous nation the world has ever known, must vote wisely. And though McCain is not a perfect candidate, he is an infinitely better choice for those who believe in Judeo-Christian values than Barack Obama.

Do we value our freedoms, including liberty to worship and speak freely as Christians? On national security, is our greater need to be liked in the court of world opinion, or to be respected as a power that will repel our enemies from daring to attack us? There's a good reason our Islamic enemies want Obama to win-- they regard him as Muslim!

For the sake of the unborn, and for the sake of the Christian values we hold dear, read the resources below and recognize that Obama is not one to trust or place our hopes in. We trust in God alone, but a vote for McCain is wise because his positions on the sanctity of life and on marriage are in line with traditional Christian values, while Obama's positions on these issues are not.

Please, read these resources below if you're not yet convinced!

The Closing Argument By John Perazzo

The Choice (McCain) by the Editors of National Review Online


Sorry, But Obama Scares Me by Jonah Goldberg

Will Americans Really Vote to Fundamentally Transform America? by Dennis Prager

The Christian Case Against Barack Obama by Frank Pastore

Videos
The Christian Case Against Barack Obama, Part 1
The Christian Case Against Barack Obama, Part 2
The Christian Case Against Barack Obama, Part 3

Top Ten Reasons To Vote For John McCain by Daniel Jordan
Foolish Evangelicals by Daniel Jordan

Saturday, November 01, 2008

Don't Be Fooled by Obama

Update 11-2-08: More articles on election 2008:

Tuesday’s Choice More freedom and prosperity, or less?
By Deroy Murdock


Ego and Mouth by Thomas Sowell

Born Gay or a Gay Basher? No Excuse by Frank Turek

It's just days away from the election. And its outcome is far from certain, despite the impression one might get from media with its constant references to Obama's lead in the polls. Interestingly, although Obama has hugely outspent McCain on television advertising, as much as 20-1 in some states, the latest poll results show the race has tightened. For example, as of Friday, October 31, 2008, the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll had Barack Obama with 51% of the vote and John McCain with 47%. An average of national polls also on Friday showed Obama with 48.8% and McCain with 41.6% of the vote.

Those who read this blog regularly know that it deals primarily with theological and cultural commentary, rather than politics. Nevertheless in these past few weeks I have felt compelled to bring attention to the presidential race, because I believe the stakes are high for America and for liberty.

Obama is clearly articulate and intelligent, but his views are far more liberal than that of most Americans. His vision of "change" is to turn America into a socialistic system like many in Europe. Abortion "rights" and gay "rights" will be high on his presidential agenda. He has pledged that his first act as President would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act (to protect abortion rights), and that he will use the "bully pulpit" of the White House to promote homosexual causes.

For months Obama and his campaign have been treated with kid gloves by the media, which (except for Fox News) is clearly biased towards an Obama-Biden presidential win. Victor Davis Hanson of NRO brilliantly exposes this liberal media bias in "The End of Journalism".

As the above article shows, Obama flat-out lied to America when he reneged on his pledge to accept public financing for his presidential campaign if the Republican candidate also would do so. But the press left him alone for this, or applauded his act of political shrewdness.

Obama also attended a church for twenty years that was preaching "liberation theology" and the evils of white supremacy, and until recently, named the pastor of that church, Jeremiah Wright, as his spiritual mentor. But when it became no longer politically expedient to maintain his connection with Wright, Obama unceremoniously dumped him.

Similarly, Obama makes light of his relationship with unrepentant former terrorist Bill Ayers. However as the above article points out, up until 2005 Obama "was in communication with Bill Ayers by e-mail and phone, despite Ayers reprehensible braggadocio in 2001 that he remained an unrepentant terrorist." In 1997, Obama even wrote a positive review of an Ayer's book, "A Kind and Just Parent: Children of Juvenile Court," and the blurb of the review appears on the book's jacket.

We must be grateful then that the web allows many to research for themselves Obama's record, and to see documentation of his prevarication, political maneuvering and ever-evolving stand on various issues.

It is hard to fathom that so many Americans, just seven years after 9/11, are willing to entrust the Presidency to a man of such little executive experience, questionable associations and liberal an agenda as Mr. Obama. It seems that for many, a vote for Obama is an expression of deep dissatisfaction and frustration with the Bush administration. With so many listing the economy as their predominant concern, it seems there is not much of a stomach to continue the expensive war in Iraq. Yet such a view is shortsighted, as Charles Krauthammer reminds us in his endorsement of McCain:

The case for McCain is straightforward. The financial crisis has made us forget, or just blindly deny, how dangerous the world out there is. We have a generations-long struggle with Islamic jihadism. An apocalyptic soon-to-be-nuclear Iran. A nuclear-armed Pakistan in danger of fragmentation. A rising Russia pushing the limits of revanchism. Plus the sure-to-come Falklands-like surprise popping out of nowhere.

Who do you want answering that phone at 3 a.m.? A man who's been cramming on these issues for the past year, who's never had to make an executive decision affecting so much as a city, let alone the world? A foreign policy novice instinctively inclined to the flabbiest, most vaporous multilateralism (e.g., the Berlin Wall came down because of "a world that stands as one"), and who refers to the most deliberate act of war since Pearl Harbor as "the tragedy of 9/11," a term more appropriate for a bus accident?

Or do you want a man who is the most prepared, most knowledgeable, most serious foreign policy thinker in the United States Senate? A man who not only has the best instincts but has the honor and the courage to, yes, put country first, as when he carried the lonely fight for the surge that turned Iraq from catastrophic defeat into achievable strategic victory?

There's just no comparison. Obama's own running mate warned this week that Obama's youth and inexperience will invite a crisis -- indeed a crisis "generated" precisely to test him. Can you be serious about national security and vote on Nov. 4 to invite that test?


So again I point you to more election 2008 resources below, to help you to make a wise decision come November 4th.


Joe the Vet Endorses McCain in YouTube's Most Popular Election Video


Don't Let the Polls Affect Your Vote
By Karl Rove


Top Ten Reasons Not to Vote for Obama
By Daniel Jordan


Sensibility: The Christian Pastor in the Age of Obama-mania and Why Evangelicals Love Him
by Bob Bixby


Can you be pro-life and vote for Obama?


The Tyranny of the Minority- How the Forced Recognition of Same-Sex “Marriage” Undermines a Free Society
By S. T. Karnick


Taxing Times- The economy is not a zero-sum game where someone gains what others lose
By Thomas Sowell


The True Meaning of 'Historic Vote'
By Daniel Henninger


Life of the New Party- A redistributionist success story
By Stanley Kurtz


Obama and the Politics of Crowds- The masses greeting the candidate on the trail are a sign of great unease
By Fouad Ajami


Why 'born-again' Christians are backing Obama
By Jim Brown


Obama's Leftism- The Democratic nominee is nowhere near as moderate as he sounds
By Joshua Muravchik


McCain for President, Part I
McCain for President, Part II
By Charles Krauthammer

The Silencing of Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright
By Paul Kengor


Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Don't Rock the Vote?

One keeps hearing/seeing all the ads by celebrities (especially from RocktheVote.com) advising people, particularly youth, to get out and vote. But in "A Duty Not To Vote?", John Stossel raises a politically incorrect position when he says, "when people don't know anything, maybe it's their civic duty not to vote." Stossel isn't against voting, he just doesn't think that uninformed voters who haven't educated themselves on why they are voting for whomever they choose to vote for should necessarily be encouraged. I agree.

A more on-target message to young voters would be "Get informed, then vote!" Any idiot can pull the lever in a ballot box; it demonstrates no great, admirable civic virtue merely to cast a vote, not knowing whom or what you are supporting by your vote.

Don't get me wrong, I do hope many young people will vote, but only after they have informed themselves about the issues and the positions of the candidates they will vote for. Along these lines, a resource for young voters that is an alternative to RocktheVote.com is RedeemTheVote.com, a group which aims to "register people of faith regardless of party affiliation, or personal political beliefs, but as a matter of Christian principle, that people of faith must be engaged in the political debate and vote as a matter of moral imperative... It also "reach[es] out to both parties to find the best in both, and find solutions to the debate, not trump or destroy one person or party."

Also, please see my previous three posts, for many links to resources on Election 2008.

Resources for Christian Voters- Election 2008

More Resources for Election 2008: The Issues

A Critical Election 2008 Issue: Supreme Court Justices

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

More Resources for Election 2008: The Issues

Updated 10-28-08 with new articles from Randy Alcorn and John Piper (see links below).

My friends (as some like to say),

There are very important issues that will be strongly impacted by the outcome of the Presidential election just a week away. The two candidates before us in this election-- John McCain and Barack Obama-- offer starkly different ideas and solutions in response to critical issues facing our country and the world. Both refer to themselves as Christians. But from the perspective of issues of traditional importance to Christians, I think that McCain is clearly a better choice.

Some issues on which the differences are clearly seen include:
  • The issue of whether or abortion will continue to viewed as a "fundamental right" and therefore, one that must be protected from abrogation;
  • The issue of whether marriage will be redefined as gender-neutral and as a "right"for same-sex couples.
These are two fundamental issues that Christians rightly see as vital to a Christian worldview. Abortion deals with the value we place on human life-- whether we recognize God alone as the Creator of life, or whether human beings are merely cells and life is whatever humans define it as. Gay-marriage touches on how much respect we hold for God's design of mankind as man and woman--whether or not we accept His institution of marriage as the fundamental relationship upon which human societies must be built.

Other important issues:
Iraq/Afghanistan Wars and the War on Terror
I do have some unresolved questions about the US wars in Iran/Afghanistan. However I also believe that we need a President who understands that our nation is under continuous, serious threat by the existence of terrorists, especially Islamic terrorists, who are harbored and abetted by certain nations. Many who hate America and want to see America destroyed do so on the basis of their religious ideology. These sworn enemies of America will not be won over by diplomacy, but must be kept in check by understanding that America's leadership will not be intimidated by threats and will respond with overwhelming, powerful force if attacked. It is very telling that the Islamic world wants Obama to be our next President.

Freedom of Speech
The issue of whether those who advocate Christianity in the marketplace of ideas, whether in the pulpit or in the media, will be able to continue to do so openly and freely, or whether their ideas can be labeled "hate speech" and thus silenced.

Education and Parental rights
The issue of whether it is parents or the government that has ultimate responsibility over the education and welfare of children.

  • Judicial Activism (Selection of Supreme Court Justices)
  • Cloning
  • Energy and Environmental Stewardship
  • The Poor and the Persecuted globally
  • The Right to Bear Arms

It may not necessarily be immediately clear what the proper Christian response is on all of the above issues. But because of the pervasive and continuous inundation with the secularist views of media and culture, thinking on these issues is clouded and confused. I point you to the following resources then, as an aid to educating oneself about these issues from a Christian moral perspective and making an informed choice for President.

Voter Guides and Other Election Resources/Information:

Christian Coalition of Washington

Wallbuilders Voter Guide

Election Resources and Information



Abortion

I'm not Voting for a Man, I'm Voting for Generations of Children and their Right to Live by Randy Alcorn

One-Issue Politics, One-Issue Marriage, and the Humane Society by John Piper

Obama's Abortion Extremism by Robert George

Obama and Infanticide by Robert George

Pro-Life Politicians Have Made a Difference, Pro-Life Laws Work by Michael J. New

American Voters and the Abortion Issue by David Barton

The Abortion Question and the Future by Albert Mohler

Senator Barack Obama and The Born Alive Infant Protection Act

The End of the Nation? Russia Chooses Death Over Life by Albert Mohler

Rights Talk Right to Death -- Euthanasia and "Religious Primitivism" by Albert Mohler


Gay Marriage

What's Really at Stake in the Gay Marriage Debate? Part One by Albert Mohler

What's Really at Stake in the Gay Marriage Debate? Part Two by Albert Mohler

What's Really at Stake in the Gay Marriage Debate? Part Three by Albert Mohler

What's Really at Stake in the Gay Marriage Debate? Part Four by Albert Mohler


Defense and Miscellaneous Issues

The Islamic World Looks at Obama by Robert Spencer

Muslim world's view of Obama

Obama's Pentagon

Where McCain, Obama stand on the issues by Calvin Woodward