Wednesday, February 25, 2015

The Great Communicator Speaks About The Great Equalizer

“The gun has been called the great equalizer, meaning that a small person with a gun is equal to a large person, but it is a great equalizer in another way, too. It ensures that the people are the equal of their government whenever that government forgets that it is servant and not master of the governed. When the British forgot that they got a revolution. 

And, as a result, we Americans got a Constitution; a Constitution that, as those who wrote it were determined, would keep men free. If we give up part of that Constitution we give up part of our freedom and increase the chance that we will lose it all. I am not ready to take that risk. I believe that the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms must not be infringed if liberty in America is to survive.” —

Tuesday, February 24, 2015

If Your Pastor Is A Woman, You Don't Have A Pastor

It was 1969.  I was fresh out of school and newly married.  That’s when the announcement appeared in the newspaper; the Santa Ana Police Department was recruiting rookie officers.

I had ambitions for police work; I completed what police science and criminology classes were available at my school, as well as some classes in psychology and sociology so I was a little more qualified than most of the other applicants.

I appeared, at the appointed time, in front of the recruiting officers for my interview.  One of the first questions, they asked me was, “What is your height?”  And that was the end of my police career.

You see, the job qualifications required a minimum height of 5’ 9” and I was one-half inch short.  One stinkin’ half inch.  When I answered the question, the recruiting officer asked, “Why would you come down here and waste our time?  You knew what the height requirement is.”

Now it is not my intention to complain about the interview or the stupid qualifications; I simply want to use this story to illustrate a point.  In my lifetime, I have had several occasions to apply for employment and in every case, there have been written qualifications in the job publications.
Those qualifications usually divide into two categories – SHOULD haves and MUST haves.  In other words, there are some qualifications, attributes, skills, characteristics, or experiences that could be beneficial to you and your employer for success in your job.  And then there are others that are absolutely necessary or you will not be considered.

I am not a cop because I did not meet the qualifications.  That’s the way it is in the secular business world.  When the posting says, “Must have, shall have, or will have, that’s exactly what it means.  If you do not possess all the qualifications, you do not get the job.  Period!

So what is my point?   When it comes to calling a pastor, most churches aren’t even as cautious as the secular world and too many of them think they know better than God.

The calling of a pastor to a church is a high calling.  It is special; it is unique because it is a calling from God.  Scripture is clear; It is God who calls his shepherds.  He equips them for service and He assigns them to their respective ministries for the edification of His church.  It is not the prerogative of the sheep to choose the shepherd.  It is their responsibility to recognize the one whom God has sent.

How do we do that?  It’s not easy, but the very first things we ought to look at are the qualifications that God has provided in His Word.   God does not give us a bunch of negotiable qualities to consider; He gives us a short list of absolute, non-negotiable, qualifications.  They are listed in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and in Titus 1:5-9 and in both lists, they are MUST HAVE qualifiers. 

And God doesn’t give us the option to overlook some of them; a pastor MUST be qualified in all. 

If any man ever wonders if God is calling him to pastoral ministry, the first place he should look is in these two passages.  Years ago a friend of mine objected, “Just because I made a mistake when I was younger and divorced my first wife, does that mean that I am not qualified to serve God?” 

“Of course not,” I answered, “It just means that God is not calling you to a pastoral ministry.”

Your pastor may be a very fine man (or woman) but if he does not meet all of the qualifications, you can be sure that God did not call him, equip him, and send him to you.

Monday, February 23, 2015

Final Authority: Is The Bible Really Enough?

We believe that the Bible is the final authority
in all matters of faith, and practice.

That is an interesting statement. In one form or another it appears in thousands of church statements of faith and doctrinal statements. It has been a foundational statement in every church in which I have been a member.

But that statement is a subtle, modern liberal attempt to limit the authority of scripture.  Even though many give tacit approval, the emphasis on Faith and Practice, deliberately omits matters of science, sociology, sexuality, politics, etc.

A few years ago, I had the opportunity to work with a few men to reworke our church's constitution. After considering that statement, we expanded it as follows:

His Word (is the church’s) supreme and only guide in all matters of membership, organization, purpose, faith, doctrine, order, ethics, morality, Christian living, and discipline.

I liked that.  For us, it was a declarative reminder that everything we did in our church should be established in and guided by the Word of God.  Unfortunately that statement on authority was soon relegated to the back of a file drawer somewhere and was soon forgotten. 

The reformers stated it differently – Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone). But is that really enough? Do we need more? Do we need tradition or new revelation or experiences?

I don’t know who Tim Staples is, but I recently came across an article written by him titled, According To Scripture. In it, he denies and attempts to refute sola Scriptura as a biblical teaching. In his opening paragraphs he states:
"If a teaching isn’t explicit in the Bible, then we don’t accept it as doctrine!" That belief, commonly known as sola Scriptura, was a central component of all I believed as a Protestant. This bedrock Protestant teaching claims that Scripture alone is the sole rule of faith and morals for Christians. Diving deeper into its meaning to defend my Protestant faith against Catholicism about twenty years ago, I found that there was no uniform understanding of this teaching among Protestant pastors and no book I could read to get a better understanding of it.

What role does tradition play? How explicit does something have to be in Scripture before it can be called doctrine? Does Scripture tell us what is absolutely essential for us to believe as Christians? How can we determine the canon using sola Scriptura? All these questions and more pointed to the central question: Where is sola Scriptura itself taught in the Bible?

Most Protestants find it in 2 Timothy 3:16-17:
All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
The fact is that this passage (or any other) does not even hint at Scripture being the sole rule of faith. It says that Scripture is inspired and necessary—a rule of faith—but in no way does it teach that Scripture alone is all one needs to determine the truth about faith and morals in the Church. My attempt to defend this bedrock teaching of Protestantism led me to conclude that sola Scriptura is unreasonable, unbiblical, and unworkable.
In his article, he continues to expand and defend that premise in detail if you care to read it.

Well, I am just a simple-minded, dumb, uneducated, theologically challenged Christian but I believe in sola Scriptura. And I don’t have a problem defending that. I will try to be clear and succinct.

I fully agree with Tim Staples that II Tim 3:16-17 is not sufficient to prop up “sola Scriptura.” But the real questions you need to answer are these - Do you believe that God means what He says and says what He means? Can You depend on Him for Truth? Do you believe His Word? If any of the answers are NO, then you are going to be really frustrated and messed up.

All of this settles in my mind on one very simple (or maybe one extremely profound and complicated) concept - Final Authority. God has spoken and His Word is the final authority. You can see that everywhere in Scripture when God speaks in absolute, unarguable, and authoritative terms like, “I Am the Lord,” “Thou shalt not,” and “The Word of the Lord came…”

In the garden, He said to Adam, “Do NOT eat of this tree or you will die. That sounds straight-forward and simple enough but then the serpent comes along and entices Eve into a discussion or dialogue about it. “Did God really say that? That doesn’t make logical sense. Surely He didn’t really mean that you would really die. The fruit looks so good and, after all, God created it; it can’t be that bad.”

Between the serpent and Eve, they reached a reasoned consensus based on their opinions but it wasn’t what God said.

Similarly, when He was tempted in the wilderness, Jesus spoke in the same authoritative manner. He didn’t attempt to argue or reason with Satan; He simply said, “It is written.”

There is a popular phrase that goes like this, “God said it; I believe it, and that settles it.” I would submit to you that, frankly, it doesn’t really matter one bit whether or not I believe it. The fact is, God said it and that settles it. His Word is the final authority and He often doesn’t take the time to explain it or try to convince us about truth. He just declares it.

So how does that play out practically in our lives? Here are a few random thoughts and I am sure, if you really want to, you can think of many more.

Jesus said, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father but by Me.” That sounds pretty final. There is no other way. It really doesn’t matter if you think Him not to be fair or reasonable about that.

The Word of God declares, “There is none righteous; No not one.” and “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” So it really makes no difference if some of us want to believe that, somehow, there may be some exception to “All” by means of some kind of immaculate conception or ages of accountability or untainted innocence or primitive ignorance. All means All.

On homosexuality, I have heard all kinds of arguments from people with different opinions about the same texts. But the Word of God is very clear; it is an abomination and a sin. Our opinions, objections, and arguments are irrelevant.

Is there a second chance after death? God’s Word says, “It is appointed unto man once to die and then the judgment.” That fact doesn’t change simply because we all agree otherwise by consensus, that there must be some kind of holding tank where we can be purged of our sins and prayed into heaven by our relatives.

I really don’t have a problem with God’s Word being the “final authority.” My problem is disobedience and rebeliousness. God is God; I’m not and frankly, He doesn’t care how I feel about truth or whether I agree with Him. The bottom line is, “Thus saith the Lord.” You would be surprised at how simple the answers are when we stop trying to wrap our hearts and our heads around tough theological, psychological, or emotional questions and simply listen to the final, authoritive Word of God.


Saturday, February 21, 2015

Do We Really Have Free Will?

Do you remember the movie, “Free Willy?” It’s a story about a captive Orca that was confined to a tank in a marine park. "Poor Willy" longed for freedom (at least that was the premise of the story line). At night he would cry out to his family in the bay outside the park. Finally Willy’s cries reached the ears of a young boy who felt and empathised with Willy's agony and found a way to free him from his captors.

Now that makes for a nice heart wrenching, touchy-feely, and sentimental story but the real-life star of the film, Keiko, the killer whale, rejected freedom and actually preferred captivity. Keiko died in 2003 but before his death, his caretakers wasted millions of dollars over a ten year period trying to free him. They took him out to sea more than 60 times in hopes that he would rejoin wild killer whale pods in his natural arctic habitat near Iceland. But every time they release him, Keiko came back to the familiarity of captivity.

People are like that too. I think it is ironic that the title of the movie, Free Willy, is so similar to the phrase, free will. We are in bondage and need to be liberated. God’s Word teaches that we are prisoners of sin and we cannot free ourselves; we need a Savior to come along, understand our need, and make a way for us to be free.

That is exactly what Jesus Christ did for us. He has opened the gate wide and put freedom easily within our reach. But, just like Keiko the killer whale, people actually reject the freedom God has offered because, in our sin nature, given a choice we will always choose to remain captive to sin.    Until God changes our nature, we cannot be set free.  And once that happens, then we truly have the free will to reject sin and obey God.

Jesus said to the people, “you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” But they said, “We have never been slaves to anyone. What do you mean, ‘set free’?”Jesus replied, “I assure you that everyone who sins is a slave of sin. But if I set you free, you will indeed be free” (paraphrased from John 8:31-36).
reposted from 11/07

Saturday, February 14, 2015

The Rhinoceros

Rhinoceros, your hide looks all undone,

You do not take my fancy in the least;

You have a horn where other brutes have none;

Rhinoceros, you are an ugly beast.

Hilaire Belloc

Monday, February 2, 2015

I Am The Very Model Of A Biblical Philologist

A biblical- and ancient-Near-Eastern-studies–themed parody of "I Am the Very Model of a Modern Major General" from The Pirates of Penzance. Lyrics, musical arrangement, and vocals by Joshua Tyra, ⓒ 2011. Music by Sir Arthur Sullivan, original lyrics by William S. Gilbert.  Published on Dec 11, 2014

This one is really fun!

Saturday, January 17, 2015

Dr. Martin Luther King - Lying Liberal Lunatic Or Compassionate Christian Conservative? REDUX

A reporter once said, “When you make something a greeting card holiday, people forget the struggle and what you were striving for.” We have this holiday to honor Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. so I decided to do a little research to gain a better understanding of the man and his mission.

I will agree with most of his admirers that he was a man of passion, dreams, and faith. But I have concluded that he was either a liar and a phony OR he was not the true militant champion that the lunatic left imagines. If he were still alive today, I doubt that he would find comfort or cronyism among the ungodly left in the Democrat party.  And it is almost certain that he would NOT be chumming with the likes of the phony reverend, Al Sharpton, and I seriously doubt that he would have been intimidating voters with the Black Panthers, standing on the hood of a car yelling "burn it down," or marching in a mob calling for dead cops "now." 

Why do I think that? It is because of his own words. Here are some of his challenges and instructions for the black youths of his day and they are timeless, noteworthy principles that are consistent with Christian philosophy and conservative ideology and they deserve universal attention:

  • Character is more important than skin color. Common humanity, rather than race, should be the basis for relationships.
  • Reason without morality is dangerous. Intelligence plus character is the goal of true education.
  • Do your life's work as if God called you to it. And, no matter how small the job, do it with a sense of responsibility. If it falls your lot to sweep streets, sweep them like Michelangelo painted pictures, like Shakespeare wrote poetry, like Beethoven composed music.
  • Love is creative and redemptive and is absolutely necessary for the survival of our civilization. Love builds up and unites; hate tears down and destroys. Redemptive goodwill for one's enemies is the solution to race problems.
  • Bigots are everywhere. Some individuals must have the courage and moral strength to remain in their communities, no matter how bad they are, and seek to lift them to new levels of creative living.
  • Maintain your moral standards. A person who will stop dating you because you refuse to engage in a sexual act is a person who is not genuinely interested in you, and would make an undesirable mate.
  • It is wrong to be unjust, dishonest or hateful. We have moved from the theory of “survival of the fittest” to a theory of “survival of the slickest.” Everybody is busy obeying the 11th commandment -- "Do not get caught."
  • Humanism is another attempt to make God irrelevant. Without God, efforts turn to ashes and sunrises into darkest night. Christianity affirms a real, loving Father who works through history for the salvation of His children. Man cannot save himself, for man is not the measure of all things and humanity is not God.
  • Our capacity to deal with shattered dreams is ultimately determined by our faith in God. Genuine faith sees that, beyond time is God and beyond life is eternity. However dismal the present circumstances, we are not alone, for God dwells with us. Through Jesus Christ, God has taken the sting from death by freeing us from its dominion. Our earthly life is a prelude to a glorious new awakening, and death is an open door that leads us into life eternal.
Can anyone really imagine those kinds of words or challenges emanating today from the mouths of any of the racist, self-appointed spokesholes for the American black culture such as Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, rev. Wright, or ever Barack Obama? I think Dr. King would probably be much more comfortable in the company of great Americans like Justice Clarence Thomas, Dr. Walter Williams, Tim Scott, Ben Carson,, Rep. J. C. Watts Jr., and Major Allen West.

After realizing great victories in his work for civil rights, Dr. King anticipated that there were still difficult days ahead. “I would like to live a long life but I'm not concerned with that. I am not worried about anything. I fear no man. I just want to do God's will.”

Columnist Clarence Page once noted that, although King was a man of peace, almost anywhere in America where his name is now memorialized, some kind of violence or racial hatred is associated with it. He lamented, “How sadly we have protected Dr. King’s legacy. Our keeping of his name has fallen far short of his dream.”

Friday, January 16, 2015

I Don't Need A Thousand Tongues; I Don't Praise God Enough With The One I Have

Charles Wesley wrote O For A Thousand Tongues To Sing in 1739 to commemorate the first anniversary of his conversion to Christ.

The title comes from the seventh verse (which has been moved to the first verse in modern hymn books).  It is believed that the inspiration for this verse came from his friend, Peter Bohler, who once said to him, “Had I a thousand tongues, I would praise Him with them all.”

Like most hymnbooks, ours has five verses.  Many Methodist books show seven and a few books contain ten verses.  But the original hymn had 18.  Most of the verses have been omitted because the hymn is just too long for most hymn singing.  A couple verses (12 and 17) were eliminated because of pressure from the political correctness crowd.

The exact order of the verses as originally written is uncertain but the order here is consistent with many sources:  

In the first part of the hymn, Wesley employs two verses (1 and 7) of Praise and Glory to God as parentheses around his personal testimony (2-6) of faith in his Savior.  

Verse eight is a prayer for assistance to proclaim the name of Jesus Christ to the world.  Then in verses 9-11, he expounds on the power of that name.

And then, in verses 12-17, he makes a general appeal to the lost world to turn from sin to Christ.  He closes with words of assurance in this life and the promise of our eternal hope.

1.         Glory to God, and praise and love
                    be ever, ever given,
By saints below and saints above,
        the church in earth and heaven.

2.         On this glad day the glorious Sun
                    of Righteousness arose;
            On my benighted soul He shone
                    and filled it with repose.

3.         Sudden expired the legal strife,
                   ’twas then I ceased to grieve;
            My second, real, living life
                    I then began to live.

4.         Then with my heart I first believed,
                    believed with faith divine,
            Power with the Holy Ghost received
                    to call the Savior mine.

5.         I felt my Lord’s atoning blood
                   close to my soul applied;
            Me, me He loved, the Son of God,
                   for me, for me He died!

6.         I found and owned His promise true,
                   ascertained of my part,
            My pardon passed in heaven, I knew,
                  when written on my heart.

7.        O for a thousand tongues to sing
                   my great Redeemer’s praise,
        The glories of my God and King,
                  the triumphs of his grace!

8.         My gracious Master and my God,
                  assist me to proclaim;
            To spread through all the earth abroad
                  the honors of Thy name.

9.         Jesus! The name that charms our fears,
                  that bids our sorrows cease;
            ‘Tis music in the sinner’s ears,
                  ‘tis life, and health, and peace.

10.       He breaks the power of canceled sin,
                   He sets the prisoner free;
            His blood can make the foulest clean,
                   His blood availed for me.

11.       He speaks, and, listening to his voice,
                  new life the dead receive,
            The mournful, broken hearts rejoice,
                  the humble poor believe.

12.       Hear Him, ye deaf, His praise, ye dumb,
                  your loosened tongues employ;
            Ye blind, behold your Savior come,
                  and leap, ye lame, for joy.

13.       Look unto Him, ye nations, own
                  your God, ye fallen race;
            Look, and be saved through faith alone,
                  be justified by grace.

14.       See all your sins on Jesus laid: 
                 The Lamb of God was slain.
His soul was once an offering made
     for every soul of man.

15.       Harlots and publicans and thieves
                 in holy triumph join!
            Saved, is the sinner that believes,
                 from crimes as great as mine.

16.       Murderers, and all ye hellish crew;
                 ye sons of lust and pride,
            Believe the Savior died for you;
                 for me the Savior died.

17.       Awake from guilty nature’s sleep,
                 and Christ shall give you light.
            Cast all your sins into the deep
                 and wash the Æthiop white.

18.       In Christ, your head, ye then shall know,
                 shall feel your sins forgiven;
            Anticipate your heaven below,
                 and own that love in heaven.

This is a great hymn for doctrine, worship, and edification and, even though we never sing all eighteen verses,  it is worthy of occasional reading through in its entirety.





Thursday, January 15, 2015

Every Jot and Tittle

I was reading in Jeremiah 20 this morning when I noticed this strange language construction:

“The anger of the LORD shall not return, until he have executed, and till he have performed the thoughts of his heart: in the latter days ye shall consider it perfectly.”  Jer. 23:20

Notice the auxiliary verb, HAVE used two times in this verse. 

The rule for using has vs. have depends on the personal pronoun that precedes it.  For pronouns in the first person (I and we) and some in the second person  (you, and they), use have.  If the pronoun is in the third person singular (he, she, or it), use has.

So why is that a big deal?  Well I dunno.  I’m not an expert on grammar and I know absolutely NOTHING about the Hebrew language or how this might read in the original text.  But it seems to me that the translators must have been smarter and more careful than me (or is it I?) and they probably took great pains to translate it accurately.  
It has been noted that there are many, many references, in every book of the Bible, to the tri-unity of God.  Could this be one of them?  Think about it.  The reference is to God.  The pronoun is singular (He).  God is one god.  However, the auxiliary verb used (have) indicates a plural subject (a tri-unity), the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Since God is one god in three persons, it seems that the language is accurate; He (The One and only God) shall not return until He (the Father, Son, and Spirit) HAVE executed and performed the thoughts of His heart.”  

Tuesday, January 6, 2015

Missing Body Parts

I left my crew on the job one morning to go out of town on errands. When I returned, two of my employees were working but I noticed that my young apprentice, Eric, was missing. That’s when I learned that he had cut off his finger in my cement mixer and he was in the emergency room.

I rushed to find him still waiting for treatment after nearly three hours. Finally, the doctor unwrapped the stub and then asked me if I had the severed finger. I told him it was probably embedded in the cement somewhere and the chances of recovery was unlikely. He urged me to go back to the job site to try to locate it.

Back at the job, the men told me that Eric had been cleaning the mixer when the accident occurred. I looked inside and saw that most of the cement had been washed down and was still in the bowl. By then it had started to harden and was pretty stiff. I cranked it up to break the set and loosen the material so I could sift through it. Then I found a piece of metal screen, laid it over an empty bucket and began to pour out the material through the sieve.

Suddenly the stucco stained finger plopped onto the screen. It was a weird injury; the bone was not severed.  The finger was circumcised at the first joint so Eric's injured finger had an exposed bone sticking out the end.  I picked up the hollow finger tip, hosed it off and placed it in a used Carl’s Jr. soft-drink cup with some ice and headed back to the emergency room. About an hour later, the doctor announced to Rick’s mother and me that he had successfully reattached the finger.  It would be alright but he doubted that the finger would have a nail. Today Eric’s finger, although slightly disfigured, is in tact (with a finger nail), and fully functional.

We all just assumed that, once severed, the finger was unsalvageable and that Eric would have to adjust to his new handicap and get along without it. It never occurred to us to locate the finger until the physician told us to find it and bring it back.

The apostle Paul refers to the Church as the “body of Christ” where every member is a unique and special part of the whole. "Now all of you together are Christ’s body, and each one of you is a separate and necessary part of it.” ( 1 Cor.12: 27 NLT).
Sometimes, one of our “parts gets wounded or cut off and we act as though it is irrecoverable and that we will just have to get along without it. But every member is important to the Great Physician and has a vital function in the body. When one of our members is wounded or disconnected, we should go out to recover him, heal him, and restore him to his right place and purpose in the BODY.

Are You Chasing Goats Or Tending Sheep?

(This article was first posted on my blogsite on 10/31/07. With a few changes, I am reposting it here because of its relevance.)

According to Rick Warren, "Relationships are the glue that holds a church together. Friendships are the key to retaining members."

That's a cute bumper sticker sentiment but is it true? I guess the answer to that question really depends on whether your church's purpose is to raise goats or sheep.

Over a century ago in Europe, Charles Spurgeon wrote an article titled, "Are We Feeding Sheep Or Amusing Goats?" It is well worth reading. It is an amazingly parallel description of the church growth movement in contemporary American churches.

Is your pastor a shepherd or a goatherd? I found this definition of a GOATHERD in Wikipedia. It provides some very interesting and insightful correlations to the contemporary ideological deviations from fundamental orthodox worship in the Christian church.

A goatherd or a goatherder is a person who herds goats for a living. Similar to a shepherd who tends sheep for a living, the drover here herds goats. Goatherds are popular in countries where goat populations are natively high; for instance, in Africa and South Asia. Herding a goat is much more difficult than herding sheep as, unlike sheep, goats do not have a herd mentality and each goat will tend to stray farther in search of better foliage and grass. It is for this reason that, in these areas, goats are costlier than sheep.

From that definition, I offer the following observations and my comments:

  • Shepherds “tend” sheep; goatherds “herd” goats. The biblical pastoral work of a shepherd is to lead, guide, guard, feed, and protect the sheep. The more arduous task of goatherds is to relentlessly chase after the goats, round them up, herd them, drive them, and contain them.

  • Herding goats is much more difficult than herding sheep…goats do not have a herd mentality. Regarding sheep, Jesus said, ”My sheep hear my voice and they follow me.” I think the fact that a flock of sheep tends to stay together is noteworthy (If all the sheep follow The Shepherd, then all the sheep will naturally be together). Shepherds are charged with tending the flock (a flock is a singular entity, a cohesive group, a herd). So shepherding is relatively easy in comparison to herding animals that have no herd mentality.

  • Goats tend to wander and stray farther in search of better (or different) foliage and grass. They are continually seeking more; more fun, more stimulation, more programs, more variety, more adventure, new relationships, new truth, new revelation, strange fire, more, MORE and MORE garbage to sate their insatiable appetites for anything and everything that is new or different.

  • Goats are costlier than sheep. Churches that get caught up in the activity of amusing goats will require more money to fund more programs and hire more staff to keep them amused and satisfied with new gimmicks. Someone said, “What you win them with is what you win them to.”
Here are a couple other interesting notes from a different source about the grazing habits of goats:
  • Goats do not feed very long in one place but tend to pick a bite here and a bite there moving from place to place. You can probably see where I’m headed with this. Sheep tend to stay near the shepherd who has already prepared a grazing place that is safe for them.  Because pastors (shepherds) lead the flock, sheep will feed on the Word; goats will run from morsel to morsel, from proof text to proof text, and often from church to church.

  • Goats are used much more effectively than sheep for weed control. The reason is that they move into an area and strip it of everything they see and then move on. Also, they will, indiscriminately, eat almost anything including trash. Enough Said.
Having noted these distinctions between shepherds and goatherds, It seems to me that some churches should more correctly refer to their pastors as “Goatherders” unless or until they cease amusing goats and start tending to their sheep. When that happens, they might discover what Rick Warren has missed; that the Word of God and the Spirit of God are the glue that holds The Church together.

Monday, January 5, 2015

Charles Spurgeon On Sarcastic Humor

"I must confess that I would rather hear people laugh than I would see them asleep in the house of God; and I would rather get the truth into them through the medium of ridicule than I would have it neglected, or leave the people to perish through lack of reception of the message.

I do believe in my heart, that there may be as much holiness in a laugh as in a cry; and that, sometimes, to laugh is the better thing of the two, for I may weep, and be murmuring, and repining, and thinking all sorts of bitter thoughts against God; while, at another time, I may laugh the laugh of sarcasm against sin, and so evince a holy earnestness in the defense of the truth.

I do not know why ridicule is to be given up to Satan as a weapon to be used against us, and not to be employed by us as a weapon against him. I will venture to affirm that the Reformation owed almost as much to the sense of the ridiculous in human nature as to anything else, and that those humorous squibs and caricatures, that were issued by the friends of Luther, did more to open the eyes of Germany to the abominations of the priesthood than the more solid and ponderous arguments against Romanism.

I know no reason why we should not, on suitable occasions, try the same style of reasoning."It is a dangerous weapon," it will be said, "and many men will cut their fingers with it." Well, that is their own lookout; but I do not know why we should be so particular about their cutting their fingers if they can, at the same time, cut the throat of sin, and do serious damage to the great adversary of souls."

Charles Spurgeon

D.A.I.S.Y. The 5 Points of Arminianism For Dummies

Here they are;

Five Points of Arminianism for Dummies

in an easy to remember DAISY (the, "He loves me, He loves me not.") Acronym.

My thanks to Eddie Eddings at CALVINISTIC CARTOONS for the great-looking artwork.

Friday, January 2, 2015

Why Conservatives Cannot Win Arguments With Liberals

The old adage says, “Don’t raise your voice, strengthen your argument.”

That’s good advice for thinking people. That’s good for people who are interested in an honest exchange of ideas for the purpose of understanding and reaching reasoned conclusions. That kind of thinking works in a classic debate format where it is presumed that each side can intelligently make, rebut, and support substantive arguments.

But that doesn’t work with liberals. Liberals don't think - they feel.  In a true battle of wits, liberals can never win and they know it. That’s why liberals will always change the rules of debate.

Conservatives are clueless about this. If you want to win arguments with liberals, you have to learn to play dirty. You have to learn their techniques. You have to know how to beat them at their own game. And, even then, you will be disadvantaged. Conservatives have guiding principles; liberals do not. Conservatives believe in fairness; liberals believe in winning. Conservatives actually believe that truth is absolute. Liberals believe that truth is something to be fabricated or manipulated to achieve their objectives.

Here are the Liberal’s Rules of Engagement for Modern Debate as I have observed them.

1. Initiate the Debate. It has been said that he who frames the debate controls the outcome. Think about it. Where does most debate originate? Conservatives are usually too busy working and making positive contributions to society to be bothered trying to start some new crisis. Liberals, on the other hand, must always have some cause to rally around. Consequently they invent crises and conservatives are left to react.

2. Forget About Substance. Make every proposition emotional. If you can work up a few tears people will think you are sensitive and sympathetic; they will think you really care even though you don’t. It doesn’t matter what it is, if you engage the emotions of masses of people, you are well on the road to victory. That is why God invented children. Children are objects for liberals to exploit for their emotional purposes. Whales and homeless people are useful too.

3.  Control the language.  Co-opt phrases and change the definitions of words.  If the issue is queer marriage, change it to "marriage equality" so that people will think you are championing the cause of equality in opposition to those intolerant conservatives.  And don't refer to them as anti-gay; call them homophobic and bigoted.  As pertains to the subject of abortion, change the subject to women's health, women's rights, or pro-choice.  After all, in the arena of ideas, no one wants to be thought of as being against a woman's personal freedom to make choices regarding her own body. 

4. Never, NEVER Answer Questions.  If you answer questions, your ignorance and stupidity will be exposed.  Change the subject. This is called deflection. For example, if the subject is illegal immigration, accuse conservatives of racial discrimination.  If at all possible, do not try to argue on substance.  It was Ann Coulter who said, “Words are always bad for liberals.  Words allow people to understand what liberals are saying.”

5. Never Allow Opposing Arguments. You must not provide any opportunity for your opponent to articulate his point. Since you are right and they are wrong, it doesn’t matter what they have to say; it is irrelevant. The concept of polite dialogue is “old school.” You must develop the skills of over-talking, out-shouting, and filibustering. Do not give your opponent an opportunity to complete a sentence.  Conflicting points of view will only confuse the mindless masses and so they must be stifled.

6. Agree To Disagree. This is the final appeal when everything else fails. This is the smokescreen to use when you know you are losing the argument. This is the nuclear bomb of emotionalism and deflection. Even though your arguments are godless, stupid, emotional, convoluted, and lacking in substance, objectivity, truth, or validation, if you appeal to your opponent to “agree to disagree,” you will appear to be taking the high moral ground. Of course you know you will never agree to disagree with those stupid conservatives. But by employing this phony pretense, some of the dummies listening will think you are trying to get along and compromise for the greater good. Even though you are a loser, you will appear to be more tolerant and reasonable than your hard-nosed, unbending, dogmatic, narrow-minded opponent.