BEING SET UP

At time I wonder if forces on the loose in our country aren't setting us, the American people, for drastic changes yet to come. Changes resulting in a loss of freedom and the destruction of our way of life.

I don't think I am a conspiracy nut, but some things just seem too obvious to ignore ... and the past demonstrates what I mean. Let me illustrate.

It began in the decades of the '70s and '80s. Television programs, and sitcoms in particular, prepared us for a wider acceptance of generally forbidden sexual issues. If you remember, Lucy and Desi -- a married couple -- slept in twin beds. Sexual contact, even in movies, was more implied that expressed. Viewers began seeing changes in programming following the "sexual revolution" of the Vietnam era. While still a bit questionable, couples began living together prior to marriage and sexual issues became increasingly overt. Then sitcoms came along with 'two dads," "Three's Company" (two women and a male), and living together prior to marriage became acceptable. Popular James Bond movies familiarized us with "Pussy Galore" and "Octopussy." Bond was always portrayed as a sexual stud who could bed any woman he wished. With each perversion portrayed on the screen we, the viers, became increasingly hardened and accepting. Today nearly anything goes on the television and movie screens. Nudity is common place. Programs steamed from Amazon Prime, Netflix, HBO and other providers show all but penetration.

During the same period of the '60s and '70s movies and television presented homosexuality and lesbianism as normal traits. Before the end of the century numerous television shows portrayed at least one "gay" character. For young people homosexuality became acceptable and any questioning or negative response was seen as bigoted and intolerant. Media did its job, it made what was formerly unacceptable acceptable. Today's programming constantly throw formerly objectionable attitudes and lifestyles at us with the intent of showing them as normal and acceptable. With few exceptions, television shows must have at least one homosexual, lesbian, or transsexual character. The media places sexual or gender related issues on the same level as racial or religious matters. Take "FBI: Most Wanted" for example. Among the leading characters on the program there is a black lesbian, a Native American (Indian), a Muslim, and a white man married to a deceased Native American raising  a racially mixed child.

Don't misunderstand me, but I don't see people of color as "people of color." I see them as people! l do not relate to my daughter as a Korean Asian. She is my daughter. Whether red, yellow, black or white; all are precious in God's sight.  At the same time, I do not relate to my friends in the Palm Springs Sunup Rotary as gay. They are my friends. However, I do not accept their gayness as an appropriate lifestyle. I do not have to accept their lifestyle or their morality as normal or acceptable. I can accept them without accepting their beliefs, customs, lifestyle or morality.

Just as concerning are the expressions of control portrayed as normal in the media. Do you ever wonder how police or the FBI, as portrayed in the media, seems to have constant surveillance on the public? Watch an NCIS or FBI program and you have to wonder how they can track criminals speeding away so easily. Cell phone GPS apps ... well, okay, but do governmental agencies have the right to track individuals at will? And now, governmental agencies using drones to monitor "social distancing." Can authorities really approach a home and willy nilly smash in the doors and enter? Did they actually do that at the home of Roger Stone? The government officials were armed, but they they smash down the door?

Are we being prepared by such portrayals for that kind of loss of freedom? I don't know. You tell me.

Media Lies

Why is anyone amazed at media lies? Those who comprise the media have lied to the American people since before the Vietnam War. It was the Vietnam war, however, that gave new impetus to media lies.

Media lies about the conflict in Vietnam seemed to skyrocket during the North Vietnamese Tet Offensive. Before Tet, the North's National Liberation Front and the North Vietnamese Army spent months infiltrating South Vietnam. Beginning on January 31, 1968 Communist North Vietnamese soldiers and infiltrators attacked 100 cities in South Vietnam. The offensive lasted 26 days with Communist casualties in the multiple thousands and U.S. killed numbering 150. The worst fighting centered on Hue resulting in the death of thousands of Communist soldiers and civilians. One photograph shocked the American public. It was a photograph of a captured North Vietnamese infiltrator being brutally shot on the streets of Saigon. The captured Communist's hands were tied behind his back.

The American media showed this picture, which won a Pulitzer prize for photography, with little comment. Never mind that the man, a Viet Cong infiltrator and since out of uniform considered a spy, summarily faced immediate execution which is the fate most captured spies face in wartime.

In addition, the American press highlighted civilian deaths with little concern as to who caused those deaths. It is strange, too, since the press made little note of the massive civilian deaths in the fire bombing of Dresden or the atomic destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II. The press, because of liberal opposition to the war, reported what it wanted to report and put a massive spin on the rest.

Listening to the great Walter Conkite on the evening news, you heard again and again how American forces lost the Tet Offensive, the greatest media lie of the period. The American media, and a minority of Americans, opposed the Vietnam War, but the media bears the responsibility for stirring up opposition to the war.

(One of the best sources to help gain understanding of American military strategy and an evaluation of American forces in Vietnam is Victor Dais Hanson, "Carnage and Culture." In this book Hanson notes through case studies of western battles from the times of Greeks to the present, that American strength on the battlefield is not simply the result of superior armaments and technology. American strength relies on that to be sure, but under girding the technology is America's freedom, entrepreneurial spirit, resilience, and willingness to consider points of view regardless of rank.)

From Vietnam to the present, the media has adopted whatever the left wants. They have twisted the truth repeatedly in their lies to the American people. Over the years from 1968 to the present the lies only got worse. Now, with few exceptions, the media cannot be trusted to give us unbiased "facts only" truth.

I know it is difficult to avoid sprinkling personal bias in the stores reported. When I took a class in reporting at Kansas State University it became obvious to me how any reporting from the majority of students tended to move left. I seriously doubt many recognized their perspective as bias because they had been inundated with such thinking since grade school.

My point: Listen for the spin and do your best to identify the bias. By the way, reporting and opinion pundits on Fox aren't innocent of presenting a biased perspective. Theirs just tends to move more toward the right. Thus, be careful and seek out facts on your own. And...if you are Christian, let Romans 13 help you sort out the role of government and apply it to the political realities of today.

P.C. IN THE CLASSROOM

While serving with First Christian Church in Canton I was asked to teach a summer school course at Malone College (now University). Malone University is a "Christian" school associated with the Evangelical Friends (a version of the Quakers).

MU asked me to teach a course in Multiculturalism so I looked over the syllabus a previous instructor used then developed my own six-week course plan. The previous instructor used James Sire's book, "The Universe Next Door" as a core text. I boned up on the subjects and entered the classroom prepared. I expected Malone's status as a "Christian College" to promote a Christian world-view. Boy, was I wrong. Most of my students were teachers taking summer work to maintain their certification. They were a mix of racial, ethnic, and religious (or non-religious) backgrounds and projected a totally secular worldview. While I tried to avoid cramming a hard-nosed Christian worldview down their throats, I did present the material from a Christian perspective. Well, as you might expect, that was the first and last time I taught for Malone. I was not even permitted to view expected course evaluations. Nothing else was ever said to me about the course and I was simply never contacted again.

This did not come to me entirely unexpected. During my tenure at First Christian Church, the Adult Christian Education Department presented a Creation Seminar. I had hoped the science department at Malone would at least let students know of the seminar. Not one word was given to students despite publicity sent directly to the Malone science department. I did not expect Malone professors to agree with all aspects of the program, I hoped that since Malone professed its Christianity there would be a willingness to at least let students hear a variety of creationist view.

I have not done any research on this issue, but I expect many of our "so-called" Christian Colleges and Universities offer their academic from a Christian perspective. With the exception of a few weak Bible course, there's just not much there to promise a Christian worldview or Christian behavior.

Surely, you're thinking; this is true in these denominational "Christian" Colleges, but not in our Christian Church and Church of Christ Christian Colleges and Universities. As they say in France, au contraire mon frere!!!

When Alexander Campbell established Bethany College, he offered liberal arts but built each course and each department with a strong biblical emphasis. Yes, even science and math were taught with a biblical worldview.

I taught online for the Consortium of Christian Colleges for Online Eduation from 2001-2014. The Consortium ended in 2014. I taught Restoration History and History of Christianity in tandem with Dr. James North. During those years, the schools participating in the consortium maintained a strong biblical emphasis and worldview. Most emphasized preparing ministers and church leaders. I had students from Manhattan Christian College, Ozark Christian College, Cincinnati Christian University, Nebraska Christian College, Boise Bible College, Mid-Atlantic Christian University, Maritime Christian College, Johnson University, and possibly one or two others. One summer I taught both courses with 54 students enrolled. Some of these schools developed their on online programs. That fact contributed to the consortium's demise.

Another school identified with the Restoration Movement asked me to teach sections of World Civilization online. I found that a rewarding and challenging opportunity. However, after a few years teaching for them my relationship with the college came to a rather abrupt end. While I can't prove it, I think I know why.

Students for my World Civilization courses came from a variety of backgrounds and ethnic groups. They were located across America. When the subject of slavery in the United States came up in discussion groups, I interacted with the students. I pointed out that slavery, while sometimes vicious and awful, was the result of varying economic systems north and south. The northern manufacturing economy employed "free labor" but often mistreated, misused, and abused workers often creating indebtedness to company stores -- virtual slavery. Laborers on factory floors, sometimes as young as five, had no guarantee of medical treatment in case of injury and were usually fired if unable to work leaving them destitute. At the same time, with the importation of slaves illegal shortly after 1800 the cost of slaves went sky high. Plantation owners -- a plantation was defined in the south as a farm with at least 50 slaves -- often paid more for a healthy slave than a farmer would pay today for  an expensive combine or other piece of equipment. Many slave owners provided at least rudimentary medical treatment and food. Still being a slave meant no freedom of movement and the possibility of separation of families.

Several students undoubtedly reacted negatively to my accurate descriptions. Thus, I was not politically correct. Academic freedom meant little and neither did truth. I fear this is the sort of thing that happens on College campuses--even those associated with "our" movement.

LEADERSHIP SELECTION

Selection of leadership is, despite the attitudes of many, a Christian issue. Romans 13 gives us insight into the purpose of government and Jesus' admonition to "give Caesar what belonged to Caesar and to God what belongs to God" supports the "two sphere" concept of the separation of church and state. I say "two sphere" because, until Christ returns, we Christians who populate the globe are part of a national state as well as God's Kingdom, the church. It is often difficult to understand the pressure this puts on Christians.

We can take Barton Stone's stance and separate from the state. Stone, if I remember correctly, said Christians should not participate in government--not even vote. Alexander Campbell, on the other hand, was enamored with the nature of the American government. (The difference in attitude was probably due to Campbell's immigrant status.)

Christians must recognize that the nature and form of government has consequences. Reformed thinkers would suggest God absolutely controls all events so the action of individual Christians really doesn't matter. Christians with deistic tendencies would say God set everything in motion and left things to run without his involvement. Neither view, in my estimation, is correct. God interacts with his Creation but a determination to permit truly free choices requires our involvement. He can, and sometimes does, providentially act but sometimes he does not. It is our best interest, and that of our culture, to stand for biblical truth in calling for acts in government which match God's intention for human government.

All too many Christians look merely at the moral qualities of proposed leaders without understanding the cultural milieu in which they operate. Many crude and seemingly immoral leaders understand the purpose of government and the needs of our culture far better than a lot of Christians. Let me remind those reading this that you can't expect non-Christians to act like Christians!!!

I have come to believe Trumps election was a counter-attack to the Progressive Left. Trump's support came from the heartland, the rust belt, and the deep south. These are areas of the country the coastal elites--mostly Progressive urban dwellers--believe are populated by "Wall Mart" shoppers, deplorables, and and those who hold on to their God, guns, and Bibles. He is the result of a battle between those who want an authoritarian nanny state and those of us who believe in individual responsibility and liberty. It is a war between those who are sick of the Left's effort to silence contrary views in the name of political correctness and those who would limit the right to say what you think even if it is crass, biased, or bigoted. It was a reaction against those who think America has to be the world's policeman, pay for the poor judgment of others (in foreign aid and poor market policies). It was a strike against the social justice warriors who fail to understand there is no such thing as SOCIAL justice--there is only justice (getting what you deserve) which requires a blindfold on "lady justice" so the wealthy AND the poor are treated the SAME before the law.

Should Christians care about all this? Yes! Read your Bible. I want you to find SOCIAL and JUSTICE in the same context.

I voted for Donald Trump in 2016, despite his crudeness and his tweets (at least he doesn't sit back and take the crap), and I will do so again in 2020.

A Return

Considering a return to my blog after a lengthy absence. Why now? Because Facebook has become a censorship board deciding what posts and graphics I can or cannot see. In a protest against such censorship, I am considering returning to this blog to convey my thinking to readers. If you've been checking here for updates, respond by commenting on this post.

Much to Say About Islam

I started researching the history and teachings of Islam several months ago. For years I taught a segment about Islam's history during lectures on the history of Christianity. You can't really bypass the beginnings and growth of Islam because of its devastating effect on lands once predominantly Christian. My current study began when a Facebook friend suggested I write a few essays on Islam for my monthly column in The Restoration Herald. At the time I thought I would write two or three essays and that would cover it. Little did I know!

In my church history course, I covered Islam and the Christian response in one lecture (http://christianchronicler.com/history1/ popes_and_the_ prophet.html #POPES AND THE PROPHET). Frankly, I thought that lecture covered the subject pretty well. Once again, little did I know!

Since I began my study, I've read 14 books not counting the Qur'an, portions of the Hadith, and numerous monographs, news articles, and essays on all sides of the subject. Thanks to YouTube, I've been able to watch a variety of debates, TV shows such as John Ankerberg Show, and scholarly presentations. Dr. Jay Smith, David Wood, Robert Spencer, and Dr. James White are some of the best when it comes to defending Christianity and exposing the fundamental errors of Islam. My hard drive and Kindle Fire now contains several copies of the Qur'an, Hadith (Sayings) collected by Sahih al-Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, and Sayyid Qutb's writings. Although I've read the Qur'an through once, I have yet to dive into the original source material mentioned in the previous sentence. These are multi-volume works and it will take me a lot of time to dig through all of it. At my age, 74, I may never see the end of it. I'll never get enough of this stuff done to make me an "expert."

What have I found so far? Let me share some of what I've discovered.

1. I've found the standard histories of Muhammad and Islam's beginning do not tell the whole story. Recent studies raise serious questions about Islam's historical context. These studies uncovered serious historical issues regarding Mecca, the Qur'an's formation, and Muhammad's existence.
2. I've discovered the answers to questions I had about the spread of Islam. Muhammad died in AD 632 and within 100 years had conquered Persia, Syria, the eastern Byzantine Empire, all of North Africa, and Spain. It's tentacles reached into India and China soon after and made its way into the Balkans. During Christianity's first 600 years these were Christian lands. How could Islam have supplanted faith in Christ Jesus so quickly? After all, it took 300 years for Rome to grant Christianity legal status! I now know why.
3. I've discovered all the guilt attached to Christians regarding the Crusades is bunk. You know what I mean. Every time someone points to terrorism and violence, someone says, "Well, Christians slaughtered people during the Crusades without reason." President Obama, in a speech delivered in 2015 said, "And lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ." Some of the tragic events which occurred during the Crusades were indeed unfortunate, but much of the popular mythology about the Crusades is unfounded (read: a lie). Christians did not start the fight!
4. I've discovered Islam's leadership has a definite agenda and its not to spread peace and love around the world. Suffice it to say, not all Muslims are terrorists. However, Muslims who understand their faith and live it based on the teachings of the Qur'an as modeled by Muhammad are! It is true many Muslims (nominal) are peace-loving, but statistics show more and more move steadily into the radical camp.
5. I've discovered the fastest way to be labeled a bigot, racist, Islamaphobe, or hater is to raise issues about Islam. I do not hate Muslims, I despise the religion of Islam. I repudiate the religion of Islam just like I do the religion of Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and any cult or false teaching currently propagated. I hate the lies, half-truths, and false teaching pushed on people in the name of some false religion. I love truth because I love Jesus who said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life; NO ONE comes to the Father EXCEPT by me." Others may disagree, but the Bible (the Word of God) still says the only true faith is the one Jesus taught us.

I'll use my blog to help you uncover far more than I've mentioned here. So far, I've submitted 15 articles to The Restoration Herald. I don't have a clue how many more will follow, or what I'll post here. Stay tuned! I'll eventually put it all in a book.

Back Again

It has been months -- maybe years -- since I wrote for this blog. I once had a collection of readers. The writing here stopped because I write a monthly page for The Restoration Herald (www.cra.org). This page pretty well sapped my writing urges, but circumstances change.

There are three areas of interest I intend to focus on:  (1) The American Restoration Movement. (2) Islam and its worldwide spread. (3) A resurgence of Reformed theology. I will also advertise the books I write hoping to create more of a market for them as time goes on.

I look forward to getting started.

War on Oil

Today's headlines suggest Democrats are moving beyond their destruction of the coal industry to attacks on "big oil." Charges intimate major oil companies such as Exxon/Mobil long knew of emissions and greenhouse gasses and their contribution to so-called man made "global warming." According to recent news releases, the attack will be similar to the government's attack on "big tobacco" a few years ago.

Obama's environmental policies devastated the coal industry. Miners in West Virginia and other coal producing states find themselves out of a job. One report states the president's policies cost America more than 128,000 jobs. Ken Ward, writing in The Nation, said environmental issues surrounding coal only cost 1,300 jobs in West Virginia. I suspect, however, Ward's numbers reflect only those jobs lost for those directly employed in mining. Always ready to paint the best picture possible, environmentalists point to cleaner streams and air. Advocates for the coal industry tell us technical advances in mining and burning already account for cleaner air and water nationwide.

Who do you believe? As my father-in-law used o say, "Figures never lie, but liars sure an figure!"

If the president gets his way, the impact of attacks on "big oil" will be far worse than the "war on coal." The nation's economy runs on oil. Oil is used to manufacture a multitude of products. From one 42 gallon barrel of oil, refiners make 19.4 gallons of gasoline. The refining process for gasoline requires less than 21 gallons of crude oil. The rest is used to manufacture other products. Here are a few of the more than 6,000 items made from oil.

Consider the following. If the administration goes after the oil industry in the same way it has other fossil fuel industries, how will it affect the cost of these items? In the drive to transform the nation from a consumer of fossil to renewable sources, the impact on the nation's economy will be drastic.

The only alternative is to return to a nineteenth century lifestyle or pull the national culture to a level much like that in the undeveloped world. Keep your investment in Kentucky horse farms; we may need horseflesh!

Hasn't that been the Obama goal from the "get go"? He wanted to make the United States like the rest of the world. Much of this comes from a Marxist mindset and a determination on Obama's part to eliminate American egotism as an exceptional nation. The underlying excuse has been to counter climate change. It used to be global warming, but now it is climate change.

It is no longer global warming primarily because recent statistics work against any concept of man-made climate impact. Had the dire warnings Al Gore issued in 2000 come true, the Atlantic would now be lapping on the White House lawn, the polar ice cap would be gone, and we'd all have sunburns. (Okay, I know I'm being sarcastic.)

Recent news reveals the Antarctic ice shelf is thicker than ever. The southern hemisphere is experiencing cooling and the temps in the northern hemisphere have leveled off. What is going on? An interesting fact, but one rarely mentioned, is the fact the earth wobbles slightly during its orbit around the sun. Climate change occurred in the past and it is likely due to sun activity and slight shifts in the positioning of the hemispheres due to the wobble. Human activity may contribute slightly to climate change, but the eruption of one volcano contributes more particulates into the atmosphere in a few seconds than all human activity in a year. If carbon dioxide is the culprit, you would expect trees and vegetation to grow at an accelerated rate since plants absorb CO2 and give off O2.

The experts point to the computer models to support their claims, but the fact remains "garbage in, garbage out." You get from the computer only what you program it to provide.

I'm sure my friends tied to research dollars will laugh at me, and I may be wrong in some of my musing, but overall I'd say, "Posh!"

It's a Natural Result

Demonstrations in Chicago marred Trump's effort to spread his message to followers in that city last Friday (March 11, 2016). While I am not a Trump fan, I knew demonstrations by those who are largely leftist would increase Trump's appeal. From my perspective it seems the lines of demarcation appear increasingly sharp and defined.

A few years ago I read somewhere that a society would reach a point of rebellion which the takers approach 50 percent. Those who prepare, work, save, and invest would reach a point where they would ultimately react negatively toward those who sit back and treat life as if others should provide for their every need. Add to such a situation the appearance of growing lawlessness and leaders who shrink from every challenge and you have a volatile potential for a negative reaction.

That's precisely why this election cycle is so heated! Donald Trump is speaking out for Americans who work hard and who are appalled by the cultural drift in the country. It is no wonder! Nearly 46 percent accept food stamps and consider them an entitlement. What was once a "safety net" for families has been misused and corrupted by those who "game the system." The same can be said for welfare recipients. Further, seniors watch the government plunder Social Security funds leaving them with concerns for the future. All too many consider Social Security and Medicare an entitlement similar to socialistic welfare. Seniors worked hard and paid into these programs for years only to have them labeled as "takers."

Frankly, funds paid into Social Security would have earned a much better return if invested in interest bearing bonds, mutual funds, or annuities.

We already know there is a huge percentage of Americans who pay no Income Tax while a decreasing minority pay an ever growing share.

As the majority of the "doers" shrinks and the percentage of the "takers" increase, it is no wonder Trump gets attention. Demonstrations such as those last Friday in Chicago or on the streets of a St. Louis suburb only serve to create the angst of the producers. The constant charge of racism, the marches of the "Black Lives Matter" crowd calling for the murder of police officers does nothing but serve to add to the irritation. The threat of terrorism and the failure of our current president to deal with it effectively only scrapes the wound. The surge of young people supporting a socialist like Bernie Sanders only causes more concern. It seems to me and, I'm sure, many others that the mob will elect anyone who promises to give them stuff.

All of us know there are those who need our help. My son lived on the streets of Riverside County, California, and discovered some of the homeless were there through no fault of their own. Serious financial reverses, mental illness, and illness or injuries resulted in loss of home and family. There are others who made bad choices including problems with alcohol and drug addiction; those who "lived for the moment" and failed to take advantage of educational opportunities open to all Americans, and still others who believed they were too good to take "that job." There are those who have "fallen through the cracks." We all know that! Life choices, however, have consequences.

Compassion is helping those who face consequences in life through no fault of their own or who make the effort and it is just not enough. Compassion is not the result of a government who steals from those who work, invest, and take risks to redistribute what was earned to those who refuse to make the effort.

I know full well there are those who want to work but either can't find a job or personal circumstances prevent them from doing so. Is the best way to help found in simply giving them stuff or helping them take personal responsibility, teaching them a skill, and helping them find employment so they can become a productive member of society? The old saying is still true, "Give a man a fish and he'll have food for a day; teach a man to fish and he'll have food for the rest of his life." If he'll go fishing!

Producing Americans will only be pushed so far. They already feel they are being taken for granted. While their feelings may be incorrect, they are what they are! Trump is using growing frustration with the status quo to garner support. While I am leery of his message, he seems to speak for the growing number of the frustrated who want people to take personal responsibility and stop using the tactics of the intolerant to insist on a tolerance they won't give.

Something Smelts Fishy

According to headlines, California may be choosing to spend $4.5 billion dollars to protect a small fish which may already be extinct. What?

California is not the first to spend gobs of money to protect animal life. After all, the Progressives argue "all life matters." Oops! That's not right. Only "black lives matter" as one early Democratic presidential candidate discovered not long ago! Nonetheless, Federal and State agencies go out of the way to protect crickets, owls, and delta smelt but don't life a finger to protect more than a million human lives a year from the murder called abortion. Something is just plain rotten in California!

Progressives believe human life is no more important than the lives of our furry four-footed friends or slimy scaled fishes. That old theory--evolution--provides the rationale. After all, we're gold, we all evolved from a slimy gob of goo in the primordial oceans. The science of DNA hardly provides support for this ridiculous view but, hey, in stupidity the majority wins. No matter that every year more and more scientists in every field abandon evolution as an untenable theory. No, they're not becoming wholesale Christians. Now they opt for pan spermia--the theory that life originated here from life elsewhere in the university. Probably came on one of those rocks from Mars we hear about. Okay, I liked "Stargate," too. It presented the idea that human life spread throughout the universe traveling through these marvelous gates. Good fiction; horrible science!

I don't care what the unbeliever says, they accept their beliefs on faith. Their faith says God does not exist or is irrelevant. They have less reason for their beliefs than I do for accepting the biblical record as true. (Anyone who doubts that simply doesn't know the amount of verification archaeology provides.)

Let's get something straight! Knowledge is what you know from personal experience. Faith is what you know or believe based on the experiences of others. Opinion is what you believe when there is no testimony or personal experience to support the belief. Therefore, I believe the Bible is true based on the testimony of contemporary archaeologists whose work verifies the historical data found in the Bible. I believe the Bible is true because personal experience and faith persuades me to believe the data found in Scripture. What evidence is there for no God? Well, you just can't prove a negative!

Having said all that, I believe human life stands at the apex of life. I don't care if you choose not to believe, but the testimony is solid: it says God created human life in his image. A little bit of study and thought lets you know God is a Spirit. Human beings, created in God's image, are comprised of body (created from the dust of the earth) and spirit. It is man's spiritual nature that lifts him above the rest of the flora and fauna on the planet.

My dog may love me and express feelings (you should have seen two of my dogs mourn at the death of another). Dolphins may communicate with squeaks and squeals. Orangutans may use simple tools. None of them have invented MRI machines, tractors, internal combustion engines, of wheels for that matter. No member of the animal kingdom built hospitals, established renowned universities, or built championship NFL teams like the Denver Broncos (had to get that in).

It makes little sense to be so concerned for a small fishy fish when it may already have passed from life. Why spend $4.5 million dollars to protect a fish when it could be used to enhance human life. Hmmm all you progressives who gripe about spending money for "senseless" wars or "unnecessary" pipelines! Sparing that stupid fish won't enhance human life one bit. It won't make you progressives one bit smarter, better off, or healthier to do so.

I know some of you will have quit reading this a long time ago, but I have to say this: I believe in protecting the planet. I want clean water and air, too. My Bible says God told the primeval pair to "dress and keep" the garden and to have "dominion over the earth;" he didn't tell them to rape and pillage the earth. So we ought to exercise common-sense solutions and practice good conservation and ecological practices. All i want is for our leaders to exercise a little pragmatic common sense instead of spending money they don't have to protect what may not need protecting.

And, oh by the way, if evolution is so true, why haven't you kept its major dictum--survival of the fittest? If that little fish can't survive, then maybe, if you really believe in the survival of the fittest, it shouldn't survive!

On the Subject of History

I sat down in a Rotary Club meeting in North Canton, Ohio and was asked the following question, "Do they teach history in school today?" My friend, a North Canton insurance salesman, implied young people were ignorant of American and world history. I answered him from my own experience. As a college history instructor for 20 years it was my conviction the students in my classes had little or no knowledge of world-shaping events or the personalities who shaped history. My students admitted they had taken Social Studies courses but nothing identifiable as history.

A few minutes later, the superintendent of the North Canton schools joined us at the table. I asked him, "Does the high school require history courses here in North Canton?" (North Canton schools, by the way, had an excellent reputation for academic excellence...and their football team wasn't bad either!) As I recall, his answer went something like this: "Education today is more interested in providing quality education designed to help graduates find jobs. The only history courses we offer are in advanced placement programs." Most of the Rotarians at my table were surprised and maybe even shocked at his answer.

It is no wonder so many Americans believe history is irrelevant! After all, it is only about the activities and lives of a bunch of dead guys. For most students, history is boring. I blame this view on the fact most history teachers in public schools see history as the repetition and memorizing of names, dates, places, and events. There is little linkage of these events to contemporary culture. Historical personalities are often presented as dry lifeless individuals driven by the force of certain events. Furthermore, all too many twist the facts of history to fit preconceived ideas. Presenting the various interpretations of personalities and events is okay as long as students understand the presenter is doing so from a perspective and having the honesty to explain their view.

On the first day of class, one of my history professors at Cincinnati Christian Seminary slammed a book on his desk and said, "I have an axe to grind, and I'm going to grind it!" Translation: "I have an agenda, an interpretation of historical events and I'm going to present it in such a way you'll agree with me." Okay, I thought, I'll hear you out but I'll form my own view thank you very much!

In the current political climate it is more than obvious the American people have no sense of history. That's a shame, too, because the events of the past shape the present and the future. If you don't know where we've been, you'll certainly have no idea where we are or where we are currently headed. As philosopher George Santayana rightly said, "Those who fail to learn the lessons of the past are doomed to repeat them." (That's not an exact quote, but that's the gist of it.)

Santayana was right! I see history much like the wheels on a wagon. The same, or very similar, events reoccur but history moves forward in time. Technologies change but human character does not. I suppose my view is shaped somewhat by my biblical (at least in part) worldview. Specific circumstances change, but the events arise out of the same type stupid selfish and flawed human decisions. It doesn't take a biblical scholar to read the Old Testament book of Judges to see how events reoccur simply because God's people failed to learn from the lessons of the past!

With that in mind, I recently shared a rather lengthy post on Facebook. The original post was from an Austrian survivor of World War II. She experienced Hitler's rise to power in Germany and the assimilation of Austria. From her experience she traced the gradual assumption of Nazi power and the elimination of individual rights. Her presentation of the facts dovetails nicely with the description given by reputable historians. Further insight can be gleaned from the writings of Dietrich Bonhoffer and others who lived in the 1930s and 1940s.

Here in Sun City, I met Marie and Lowell Amos. Lowell was a cartographer during World War II. He did most of his work in North Africa during Patton's campaign against the Desert Fox, General Erwin Rommel. As Lowell studied the photographs taken on an overflight of a desert oasis, he noted the vestige of a tire track. Knowing the Germans had hidden weapons caches in the desert, he surmised one of those caches lay hidden at the oasis. Allied bombers attacked and destroyed the weapons. This raid launched the Battle of El Alamein, one of the decisive battles in North Africa.

Marie had an interesting story all her own. Raised in Poland, she found herself and her family imprisoned by the Nazis during the war. When the Soviet Union took possession of Poland after the war, she found herself in a Stalinist Gulag. She eventually got her freedom, made her way to the West where she met and married Lowell Amos. I remember hearing her tell her story and how angry she became at those who tried to bad mouth her adopted country. She was aghast at every move by American political leaders, protesters, and anyone who pushed the country toward greater government control and anything smacking of socialism.

Her story agreed with the post I shared on Facebook. Those who do not see the parallels to contemporary events and circumstances are either historically ignorant or blind. There is no one so blind but those who cannot see!!!

The Non-Existent Freedom of Speech (for some)

Today I posted a comment in opposition to a Facebook post. The post to which I reacted presented a left leaning view which I find repugnant even when it comes from the pen of a Christian historian. It just goes to show how divergent social and political views are.

Frankly, even though I disagreed with the perspective of the author, I would uphold his right to express his views. I also insist on the right to express my disdain, disagreement, and dislike for the views he expressed.

One response came from a woman who once expressed a belief in God, but has since wandered away. In her response, she said I was unloving, cold-hearted, and ugly because I "didn't understand what the left is trying to accomplish" and was close minded. She blamed me and others who think like I do for "pushing [her]farther from [your] 'god.'" She said my thinking was responsible for her loathing [the Christian] religion. Furthermore, my rhetoric was hateful!

What did I say? Let me post it for you: "The key to understanding this document is to note the source. They key phrase is, 'Challenging the Right, Advancing Social Justice.' Social Justice is in reality no justice. Justice is getting what you deserve, i.e., what you work for and earn. Social Justice, as used by the left, is taking what isn't yours to benefit those who believe they are entitled regardless of personal effort. My Bible still says, "If you don't work, you don't eat."

Disagree with my statement if you wish, but it is my view. I did not mean to imply there was never a sense in which help should be given to the "working poor" or those desperately in need. In fact, quite the opposite. However, if the "working poor" are making the effort to succeed and thrive, then they deserve a hand up. But a hand up is not a hand out. I do all I can to help someone who was in need if he or she were making the effort to help themselves.

The "nitty of the gritty," however, is the fact the response to my post came from a person who does not know me. She does not know where I come from, what I think, how I view my relationship with God and others. She just knows my views do not match hers. Therefore, I have no right to challenge her thinking or express my views. She can call me names, vilify me, call me unloving and uncaring without any understanding of who I am or what I think it total. No, I'm just supposed to "shut up."

And that's the Social Progressive (liberal, radical, leftist) view these days. If you disagree with them just "shut up." If you refuse to be quiet, you will be labeled racist, homophobic, fascist, unloving, unchristian, or ______________(fill in the blank). Those labeling me as such really don't know and don't care how I really think; they just want me to "shut the hell up." Don't get in their way, don't counter their views, don't try to reason, just "shut up." They demand the freedom to say the most vile things, label me with the most insane labels, or, if all else fails, shout me down...but for heaven's sake, they want me to  just "shut up." The same goes for you when you express an opposing view to theirs.

Frankly, I was not all that nice in my response to her--dare I say it--hateful accusatory speech. I simply said, "That's your opinion. I could not care less if you agree with me." To which she responded, "Your god must be so proud."

Well, let me add just one observation. Young lady, her photo indicates some youthfulness, I do not answer to you! Furthermore, you do not answer to me. You will one day stand before the true God of the universe and answer for your statements, your actions, and your disbelief. I am not responsible for your acceptance or rejection of the truth. I am only responsible for my own. I'm sure there will be much for which I'll have to answer. But there is one major difference! My sins are hidden by the blood of Jesus who loves me even when I'm mistaken or drastically in error. I only answer to God, my Savior. Can you say the same?

Since I answer only to God, I intend to speak my piece, to express my views, to say what I think...and if you don't like it...well, "Tish Tish!"

Almost Offended

The Apostle Paul told the believers in Thessalonica, "He that does not work shall not eat."

Here we are in 2016 with a candidate for president who labels himself a democratic socialist. A socialist is a socialist is a socialist. A social is one who wants to remove the means of production from individuals (or corporations which are treated like individuals) and put it all into the hands of the state. A socialist is one who wants individualism subjective to collective thinking. A socialist is one who wants to take the fruit of your labor and give it to those who have not earned it or deserved it.

I am appalled and offended by educational systems and institutions without sufficient interest in teaching history, government, and economics. Oh, you'll find those subjects in the curricula but what they teach is an interpretation of history filtered through the philosophy of evolution, dialectic, and humanism. Today even prominent political candidates can't define the difference between a Democrat and a Socialist.

Taking what God provides through creativity, hard work, and the desire to provide a product or service for others and give it to those who want others to provide for them is theft! Stealing is misappropriating property belonging to another.

Do not misunderstand me. I believe in helping those who cannot help themselves or, who through no fault of their own, are unable to provide for themselves. Such generosity, however, should not be forced or coerced whether by taxation or confiscation. Christians understand they pay taxes, and it is right to do so. Christians also dig deep into their pockets to build hospitals, schools, shelters, provide food, medicine, and helping hands to those truly in need.

I am offended by college football players who want to form unions to extract more money from the schools providing them with scholarships, books, and fees for an education worth multiple thousands of dollars. I would have paid to play football on a good team. As it was, I got $25 a semester to play for Norfolk (NE) Junior College.

I am offended by ignorant young people who think wealthy people do not pay their fair share of taxes. The reality is that the so-called 1 percent pay 90 percent of the taxes in this country. Granted, there may be too many loopholes but you solve the loophole problem with an appropriate tax code not confiscation. A person earning $1 million a year could pay anywhere from $600,000 to $900,000 in taxes.

I am offended by people who do not learn from the lessons of history. Too many today consider the past as irrelevant. In reality, the past defines the present and projects the future. For those who advocate socialism, history reveals the socialistic system has never worked. It works only until the socialists run out of other people's money. The Soviet Union's fall and institution of market capitalism was no accident. The fact China abandoned its brand of socialism for a market economy, albeit highly subsidized, is a reality.

I am offended by people who refuse to take responsibility for themselves, take charge of their lives, and make something of themselves.

I am offended by people who see everything through theoretical eyes and no sense of reality and how things really work. They parrot the old liberal mantra which says "if you know what is right, you will do right."

I return to where I started. Get up, take charge, work hard, and contribute..."he that will not work shall not eat."

On Socialism

There are quite a few in the country who support Bernie Sanders for president. They like his Socialism and the promises of lots of free stuff. During his quest for the Democrat nomination, Bernie promised everything but the kitchen sink. I think he'd promise that, too, if he could find anyone to let him in the kitchen.

I let myself get sucked into a Facebook debate with one of the eastern Socialists who sounded more like a Marxist than a democratic socialist. Of course I know Marx's position was deeply socialist. My opponent continually referred to the capitalist system as a system designed to steal from those who financially underwrite labor.

The fact is socialism has been tried and found wanting. America saw several socialistic or communal experiments and none of them worked. Robert Owen, an English factory owner, purchased property in Indiana to set up one of the several socialist experiments. Owen believed his experiment would succeed so fantastically New Harmony, Indiana would outstrip Cincinnati in growth. New Harmony fell apart in short order and Cincinnati grew into the Queen City of the West.

Every attempt at socialism, wherever enacted, met similar fates. Socialism as an idealistic system is theoretically fantastic. But, was Lady Thatcher remarked, "Socialism is great until you run out of someone else's money."

Socialism cannot work because it cannot overcome fallen human nature. Human beings are by nature selfish. For socialism to work humanity's selfish nature.

If I remember correctly, it was Nikita Kruschev who said the Soviet Union intended to create a human nature as different as an astronaut is from a caveman. We all know how that worked out!

There are only two possible ways to transform human nature from selfish to selfless.

(1) Coercion. Socialism may be forced. Government has to set up a system to enforce the acceptance of socialism.  Perhaps, in some cases, parrties may persuade a nation to accept its policies but the temptation to meet selfish demands soon spends the nation into bankruptcy.This sort of thing can be seen in Europe. Even Scandinavian countries, which are touted as the best examples of socialism's success, find themselves nearly bankrupt. When these nations fall the only recourse is force or change.

(2) Conversion. The only other option is conversion and the only the gospel can truly change a human heart. The Judeo-Christian ethic promotes compassion, empathy, and stepping up to meet needs. That the United States is the most generous nation in the world is no accident. The Christian ethic and value system predominated in the United States for generations. A majority of Americans evidenced biblical Christianity until the mid-20th century. When the gospel is understood and believed the heart is transformed by a teaching pushing the believer to adopt a system of living which rejects conformity to the world's (predominately selfish) values and encourages the believer to live a life in which sharing is a higher value than accumulating, where love for others is a higher value than love for self.

To close this essay, I want to point out that socialism and Marxism are Christian heresies. Like our current crop of liberals and social progrsssives, Marx and other socialists saw human beings as basically good people who sometimes do bad things. In reality, human beings are corrupt yet sometimes do good things. The different worldview makes all the difference.

Observations on Paul's Letter to the Romans

For the past few weeks I've taken my Sunday school class through the early chapters of Romans. The Apostle Peter was absolutely correct when he penned, "There are some things in them [Paul's letters] that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures" (2 Peter 3:16b). Nowhere is Paul harder to understand than in Romans 9-11.

As I dug through Romans 9-11 it became clear  how easily it was for John Calvin to get confused. Calvinists use these chapters to "prove" their view of God's sovereignty. Calvinists believe these chapters reveal God's predestination and reprobation for the whole human race. Read through Calvin's eyes, the passage speaks of election to salvation and election to reprobation and God's right to do either or both. Verses such as Romans 9:18 are said to emphasize the point, "So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills." 

In all of this, the Calvinist forgets the context of the Roman letter. Paul is writing to Christians in Rome. These aren't just Christians, however. There are Gentiles who became Christian and Jews who became Christians in the same city and perhaps the same congregation. The letter was written at some point around AD 55-57. The full impact of the statements resulting from the Jerusalem Council in AD 50 may or may not be felt in Rome. Be that as it may, the Jewish Christians of the first century had a difficult time understanding how Gentiles could become Christians without keeping the Law of Moses.

The early chapters of Romans addresses the issue. Chapters 1-8 point out all humanity stands guilty before God as "lawbreakers." Whether the law derived from conscience (natural law discerned from general revelation) or the written Law (discerned from special revelation) made no difference. No one lived up to the "light" they had. It was impossible to be saved by law, for breaking one point meant breaking it all. So Paul could say, "All have sinned and are coming short of the glory of God...." (Romans 3:23). He could also write, "For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight" (Romans 3:20). Paul goes on to explain how justification comes through faith because of the sacrifice of Jesus which allowed God to be both "just and justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus" (Romans 3:26).

Paul then defines and illustrates the faith that justifies in Romans 4, describes how Jesus' sacrifice settled the consequences of Adam's sin in Romans 5, and emphasizes such forgiveness apart from law is not license in Romans 6. Chapters 7 and 8 describe the assurance believers can have because of God's grace. The intent of these chapters is to emphasize for his readers that both Jews and Gentiles are justified by grace through faith (see also Ephesians 2:8, 9). Every human being stands equally guilty before the cross of Christ and every human being--Jew and Gentile alike--can be justified through faith.

Paul uses Romans 9-11 to respond to anticipated Jewish objections that God was not fair in his treatment of the Jews. Paul says they are wrong, for God can do what he wishes. Paul's Jewish Christian objectors failed to recognize the result of Paul's argument in Romans 1-8. They assumed, because of their ages long relationship as God's chosen people, they were automatically saved. Many Christians today make the same error. It is all too often assumed the Jewish people stood, and stand, in a special relationship with God and he is beholden to them.

Paul counters by saying God chose them and gave them wonderful covenant promises...but those promises did not necessarily include salvation. The call of Abraham, found in Genesis 12, says nothing of salvation. The passage says, "And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed" (Genesis 12:2,3). Those two verses do not contain even one salvation promise! God promises Abraham his descendants will become a great nation (Israel). God promises Abraham his name will become great. God promises to bless him and he did: Abraham became wealthy and prosperous. God blessed those who favored Abraham and overcame those who dishonored Abraham. All of those promises came true. A reading of the Old Testament reveals how God blessed, watched over, and protected Israel...even when they were disobedient.

God called Abraham and his descendants for a special purpose. It was in Abraham all the families of the earth shall be blessed. Every scholar who believes the Bible understands the Messianic nature of this promise. God called Abraham and his descendants into existence as a great nation in order to bring God's Messiah into the world. Abraham and his descendants were elected for service not salvation.

Paul spends all of Romans 9 pointing out to his Jewish Christian objectors how God dealt fairly with the nation of Israel throughout history. God kept all of his promises. But...and it is a major shift in emphasis, Paul says, "For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel (Romans 9:6b). There are two Israels--a physical Israel and a spiritual Israel. The physical Israel relates to the nation of Israel--the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. All God's promises to them were unconditional, dependent solely on their natural descent, and their purpose for existence--bringing the Messiah.

God does not have to save them just because he used them to accomplish his purposes. God can use whomever he chooses to accomplish whatever he wants. Witness Pharaoh (Romans 9:17).  God can use descendants of Abraham, he can use heathens, he can even use women (Rahab for example). He is not required to save them just because he used them for his ends.

There is, however, another Israel--a spiritual Israel. God can save them by whatever means he chooses. While Israel of the flesh received unconditional promises , spiritual Israel receives promises based on one condition. That one condition is faith! Every human being--Jew and Gentile--is "born [of God] not of blood (racial descent) nor the will of the flesh nor of the will of man..." (John 1:13). Abraham was saved because he believed and trusted God (Romans 4:20). He trusted God even when he offered Isaac as a sacrifice because he trusted God, "He considered that God was able even to raise him (Isaac) from the dead" Hebrews 11:19). Abraham's experiences with God led him to inviolable trust.

God chose the nation of Israel for service and he did so without conditions. The unconditional nature of God's election to service is seen in Israel's history. Their "up and down, in and out" relationship with God and God's faithfulness in spite of their disobedience, idolatry, and sinfulness reveals God's patience. Spiritual Israel, which consists of both Jews and Gentiles who put their trust in the blood of Jesus, is entered upon the condition of faith. Faith is not some miraculous gift, it is the belief that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God who died, was buried, and rose again in payment for the penalty of death I deserved because of sin. In Romans 10 Paul tells his readers how  all can receive the gift of salvation by faith. Any Jew or Gentile can become part of spiritual Israel by believing the Gospel and Paul writes, "For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. For the Scripture says, 'Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.' For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek...." (Romans 10:10-13).

Paul then emphasizes the unbelievers will not believe unless someone present the good news to them. In Romans 10:14-17 he details the necessity of preaching and concludes with, "Faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ" (Romans 10:17).

Romans 9-11 when properly understood has a profound message for the Calvinist as well as the Premillennial and the Dispensationalist. God's unconditional election was an election for service, not salvation. When Mary delivered Jesus on that Christmas night, the Jewish mission ended. God still loved them but he already fulfilled every one of his promises: every one! Only spiritual Israel continued and it included both Jews and Gentiles who acknowledged Jesus as the Messiah and trusted in his blood. Today there are only saved people and lost people. Jews have only one hope and it is found only in the Messiah. They were not replaced, their role ended with the birth of Jesus.

Have We Asked For It?

Evangelicals continue to charge us with teaching "baptismal regeneration." I was accused of teaching this false doctrine while serving at Christ's Church of the Valley in Peoria, Arizona. Peter Strubhar, who was "second in command" at the time, called me to the worship center where he let me know in Christ's Church of the Valley did not teach baptismal regeneration.

I sat patiently listening to the charge. When he completed his remarks I said, "I don't believe in or teach the doctrine of water salvation or a works righteousness salvation." He countered with what his daughter, who was attending one of my CCV classes, told him about what I taught. Frankly, his daughter either reported what I taught inaccurately or she did not understand what I taught!

There are those in the Restoration Movement who believe there is some magical power in the water of baptism which washes away sin. All too many preachers and teachers are careless or do not understand the historic teaching within the movement. Still others are simply sloppy about the terminology used to communicate the place of immersion as it relates to salvation.

Let's be honest! A man is justified by faith apart from works. The works Paul speaks of in Romans and elsewhere are the works of the Law or works which, in and of themselves, have some merit which earns justification. According to Paul and James works demonstrate the nature, quality, and depth of one's faith. So James can say, "I will show you my faith by my works" (James 2:18). Paul says one's relationship with God, once established, results in works "God prepared for us to do" (Ephesians 2:10).

Christian baptism is not a work! It is, to be sure, a result of faith because it is commanded but it is nonetheless not a work. Baptism carries in it no merit to earn anything from God. Baptism is the response of one's conscience to God's design for establishing a relationship. Baptism does carry with it remarkable promises. It is the time, for example, when the believer is promised remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38). It is the time when one "puts on Christ" (Galatians 3:27). It is the time when sins are washed away (Acts 22:16). According to Jesus, when baptism results in baptism salvation is assured (Mark 16:15, 16).  Christian baptism is the time when God fulfills his promises to the individual who places his/her confidence in the shed blood of Christ. It is the blood of Christ which is applied by faith which saves. Faith carries with it the promise of salvation; baptism is the formal time when God fulfills his promise!

What then about confession and repentance? Those, too, are natural responses to God derived from faith in Christ!

Altogether too many preachers and teachers in the movement do not understand the truth of salvation by faith. It is, dare I say it, salvation by faith alone! Properly understood, however, genuine faith leads to resulting action--work or response! Work and response does not save; one responds because one has faith!

I predict the movement will continue to lose churches and preachers to evangelicalism as long as these important truths are misunderstood, mistaught, or misapplied.

The Threat of the New Calvinism

Austin Fischer's book, Young, Restless, No Longer Reformed, introduced me to the "new Calvinism." Fischer recounts his early acceptance of Calvinism and traces his growing understanding of the movement's false teaching. For him it got to the point where he could no longer accept the concept of a loving God who created billions of human beings only to condemn them to hell in order to add to his glory.

New Calvinism first gained notice through Collin Hansen's article in Christianity Today concerning a resurgence of Reformed doctrine in evangelical circles. New Calvinism, for the most part, emphasizes John Calvin's five major points of doctrine which the Synod of Dordt created to counter Jacob Arminius's teaching. Most theologians and historians express these doctrines in the famous TULIP acrostic:

T - Total Hereditary Depravity (THD)

U - Unconditional Election to Salvation

L - Limited Atonement (Christ died only for the elect)

I - Irresistible Grace (The elect cannot resist the "effectual" call to salvation")

P - Perseverance or Preservation of the Saints

Several well-known authors currently contribute to revitalized Reformation theology. Dr. John Piper leads the way as Calvinism's chief spokesman. Written in a contemporary popular style his book, Desiring God, has influenced thousands of new readers. Presbyterian preacher Dr. Tim Keller adds another dimension to the new Calvinism. Keller quietly adds to Calvinism a Marxist bent in an effort to make Christianity's Reformed version socially relevant. Rounding out popular authors is Mark Driscoll, pastor of Seattle's Mars Hill Church. R.C. Sproul, Paul Heim along with Thomas Schreiner and Bruce Ware present the new Calvinism from a more academic perspective. A number of well done videos on You Tube present the thinking of these men as they wrestle with the meaning and implications of their positions.

The new Calvinism impacts a number of current evangelical denominations including the Southern Baptists. Schreiner and Ware are popular professors at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Reformed doctrine divides Southern Baptist Churches to the point the issue rose to the floor at SBC conventions. Other denominations experience similar results as these teachings begin to infiltrate evangelical churches. Although the evidence is anecdotal, I've read that Reformed teaching is even making its way into churches traditionally Wesleyan or Arminian. Younger Baptist associate ministers often find themselves at odds with their churches as their Calvinism challenges the older senior ministers or the church's traditional doctrinal positions. 

On occasion the new Calvinism creeps into a church in the guise of a "missional" philosophy of ministry. New Calvinist writers, particularly Keller and Driscoll, contrast the "missional" approach to an older supposedly "isolationist" or "attractional" approach. Less observant, historically illiterate, and younger ministers do not recognize the social gospel aspects of the "missional" approach. The "missional" approach to ministry calls for greater interaction with the world, a call for social justice, and the use of contemporary forms to communicate their brand of the gospel. While some of this is valuable and good, the relationship of the "missional" approach to Marxism is missed.

Many students of the Restoration Movement have long been concerned with the encroachment of evangelicalism. I trace some of this in my book, A History of the American Restoration Movement. John Greenlee, the minister of West Side Christian Church in Wichita, Kansas, drew attention to a growing acceptance of evangelicalism's salvation before baptism doctrine in the early 1980s. David Filbeck wrote a Christian Standard article on a coming controversy over baptism in 1981. The typical evangelical denial of baptism for the remission of sins became increasingly popular as increasingly Christian Churches and Churches of Christ became more evangelical. Some leaders praised it as the fulfillment of the concept of "sinking into union with the church at large" found in the Last Will and Testament of the Springfield Presbytery.

Evangelicalism is one concern to be sure, but I never dreamed Calvinism would become acceptable in the Restoration Movement. Granted, many well meaning Christians used Calvinistic language as a result of reading popular Christian books, listening to radio and television evangelists, or absorbing it from the popular media but they generally rejected predestination, election, the "effectual" call, and eternal security.

It is, however, a short step from evangelicalism to Calvinism. I discovered, to my surprise, how the new Reformed thinking insinuated itself into more conservative churches and schools in the Restoration Movement. Dr. David Lawrence, a semi-retired professor at David Lipscomb University, all but bragged that he and the leaders of a non-instrumental congregation in the Nashville area adopted Reformed theology. While their doctrinal position created tension within the non-instrumental churches in the area, the Reformed Church of Christ was not disfellowshiped. Lawrence, an advocate of Reformed thinking, continues teaching at Lipscomb. I have to add, however, that the tensions came to a head when the Reformed church got a new preacher and rejected Reformed thinking. A number of members left or were asked to leave the church. The Lawrence family currently attends a Presbyterian Church in the Nashville area. 

Community Christian Church in Apache Junction, Arizona, announced its intended shift to a Reformed theology in the latter quarter of 2014. In January 2015, Community Christian Church became Reformation Bible Church. All ties with the Restoration Movement were broken and the church is lost to New Testament Christianity. 

While these two incidents seem isolated, I predict more congregations and leaders will adopt Reformation thinking in the future. As Reformed thinking becomes more widespread in the Christian Churches and Churches of Christ division and tension will arise and create more tension than the typical controversy over evangelical soteriology. 

Do not make the mistake of confusing New Calvinism with evangelicalism. The New Calvinist's do not identify with  the "old evangelicals." The fact is, new Calvinism is not just evangelicalism on steroids. New Calvinists see themselves as quite distinct and far superior to old Reformation thinking. 

It is advisable for preachers, teachers, and leaders in the Christian Churches and Churches of Christ to familiarize themselves with Calvinistic false doctrine. Visit Dr. Jack Cottrell's blog and check out his 13 articles on grace. Locate and read Why I Am Not a Calvinist by Dr. Jerry Walls. Check out Young, Restless, No Longer Reformed by Austin Fischer. Make sure you know where you stand because the old adage is still true, "If you won't stand for something, you'll fall for anything!"

A Few Random Thoughts

Since the mid-1970s colleges and churches in the Restoration Movement (Christian Churches/Churches of Christ) have focused on leadership training. In my opinion, all the training on leadership skills diverted the focus from sound biblical teaching and we are paying the price. More importance is placed on leadership pragmatics that biblical principles. While there is much of value to be learned from the "scientific" study of church growth dynamics and effective leadership, sound biblical positions must never be short-circuited or devalued.

Brotherhood publications, once aimed at the growing Christian, are now, with few exceptions, focused on pragmatics. Church after church drop their subscriptions to The Christian Standard because no one reads it any more...and its not because of the Web version either. When only one article in each issue, at best, discusses a biblical issue why should the average Christian have much interest? The publication appeals to the professional clergy and few others. Whatever happened to the concept of the priesthood of all believers?

The truth is: We reap what we sow. Churches and preachers are abandoning the Restoration Plea by the truckload. Churches deny their heritage to adopt Calvinism and/or Reformation theology. Countless others espouse the Evangelical version of Calvinism (Calvinism watered down) to fit the American scene.) Others merely preach topical messages which supposedly "meet needs" but communicate spiritual pablum. I know it is nice for nice people to be nice, but I don't need a steady diet. Where is the solid expository preaching that really helps people grow in the faith?

I go to a men's Bible study hosted in one of "our" mega churches. I enjoy the fellowship and the time with Christian men. That's great! But what is the study, you ask? A video study from an Evangelical church on men's work. The study uses scripture as "proof texts" and they are often taken out of context and forced to apply in such a way as to help men become more godly in the work place. That's all well and good, but what are the biblical truths which undergird such teaching? What are the foundational principles?

Sadly, some of this is the result of failure to relate Scripture to life. I know that! But topics built on Scripture taken out of context and molded to fit conclusions aren't the answer.

I guess I'm just getting old. Oh, well!

Almost I Am Persuaded...

For the past month or so I have studied Scripture, viewed YouTube debates, and read several books on the subject of Reformed Theology. (By the way, when I use the term "Reformed Theology," I mean Calvinism in spite of the fact there were other theologians who left their mark on the Reformation. None were so impacting as John Calvin...and none so wrong headed as he.)

The upshot has been largely frustration. Those who opt for Reformed Theology read the Bible differently using different definitions and proceed from a different worldview than the rest of us. In the weeks since I have involved myself in this I have become convinced no one can read the Bible as you would read any other book and come to the conclusions Reformed thinkers propose. To adopt Reformed thinking, the Bible student must first be introduced to at least some Calvinistic interpretive principles and definitions. Since nearly every writer of popular Christian books and every American denomination demonstrates the impact of Calvinism, it is not hard to understand how Christians get introduced to Reformed Theology. Evangelical Christianity is "shot through" with Calvinism and one gets it at every turn.

Read the Bible and take it for what is says. Leave the study Bible notes, the commentaries, the small group studies, and all the other "helps" alone and just read the text. Let God's word speak to you in plain language. God is intelligent enough to "say what he means" and to say it in terms the average--even the uneducated (not illiterate)--person can understand. You need a theological degree to understand Calvinistic double-speak. And...I might add, if you don't understand things the way a Reformed Christian does it is because "you are not regenerated" and are still so depraved you can't possibly understand.

Let me give you some concrete examples of how Reformed Theologians use words and terms.

For the average reader the term "regeneration" is what God does when you become a Christian. As Paul puts it, "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation" (2 Corinthians 5:17, ESV). Regeneration is part of the process of becoming a Christian. Again Paul said, "He saved us (past tense), not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit" (Titus 3:5). Calvinists propose that humanity is so thoroughly depraved that regeneration must come first so that God will give faith enabling understanding. Seen in a diagram, it looks like this:

The Reformed Theologian also redefines terms such as all, whosoever, whoever, world, and every man. The average person reading those words understands them as inclusive. For example, when the average person reads 2 Peter 3:9 it is understood God wishes all (persons) to come to repentance." Peter says God does not wish any to perish... Don't argue with me, I didn't write what Peter wrote but he was borne along by the Spirit when he wrote that! Calvinists, however, understand Peter to say, "[God] is patient toward you, not wishing that any [of the elect] should perish, but that all [of the elect/the chosen/the predestined] should perish, but that all [the elect] should reach repentance." (Now I'm confused! Why, if they are already among the elect, do the elect need to reach repentance?) Well, someone is confused!!! The Calvinist argues that terms like these must be understood in terms of exception or distinction. Did Peter (God) mean to convey the idea that he wanted all (without exception) to be saved or only all (as distinguished by the elect) to be saved? The average reader who does not possess a theological degree would ask, "What kind of question is that?"

Then there is the matter of the definition of freedom. When I read the Bible and come across the statement, "Choose you this day whom you will serve...," I understand it to mean those who heard it had a real choice between God or Baal (Joshua 24:15). The Hebrews could actually make a free will choice between A (God) or non-A (Baal). The Calvinist says, "Oh, no, you are only free to choose what you want to do...you must choose according to your nature." The Reformed view is called "compatible freedom." It means you are only free to choose what your nature requires you to choose. (There are so many holes in this, even in this Old Testament event, that it looks like Swiss Cheese.) Now here's the rub! According to the Calvinist, God so orders circumstances that you choose only what your fallen nature, which God has decreed for you. In all reality, the Calvinist believes God ordains that you choose to sin. In other words, unless you are among the elect God tells you not to sin, then creates circumstances where you can only sin, and then holds you responsible for sinning! Is that freedom? Hardly.

According to Reformed Theology, God is totally sovereign and predetermines everything--even your failure, your pain, your sin, your disease--that happens. To the Calvinist God does it all! Thomas H. McCall explains the Calvinist view of sovereignty thus:

1. God is sovereign over any event (E) if and only if God determines that E occurs.
2. God is sovereign over any agent (A) if and only if God determines all of A's actions.

Who is A? What is A? You are!

When I first started participating in The New Eclectic society and these discussions there was a young woman who was part of the discussion. Her posts revealed a young woman struggling with serious moral and spiritual problems. It soon became obvious she felt unloved and rejected by not only the page's participants, but by God himself. All my Calvinist friends could do was tell  her they "loved her" and encourage her continued participation. They could not tell her "God loved her" because they believe God "hates" the natural man/woman. No, I mean it! Calvinism communicates the belief that God hates the non-elect. (Oh, Calvinists define "love" differently, too. I digress.) She soon dropped out of the discussion and any witness to her of God's love and care had no possibility to permeate her shell.

I understand her feeling! Reformed thinking portrays a god who is a petty tyrant concerned only with his glorification. Long before the universe began, Calvinism's god determined/ordained Adam's sin and condemned the entire universe. Calvin's god devised a plan to rescue a few to demonstrate his love while condemning billions to hell and eternal punishment. Those whom he chose to rescue were chosen arbitrarily and without condition. The Calvinist's god could have rescued every human being but he refused to do so in order to "enhance his own glory."

Praise God! The God of the Bible is a Holy God. God's love and God's justice both derive from his holy nature. He demonstrated his love toward us in his Son who died to pay the penalty for our/my sin and rose again to demonstrate his power. In Christ's one act he both demonstrated God's love and satisfied God's just nature. In so doing it is clear "he first loved us." He offers the benefits of Christ's sacrifice to all (really, all) humanity and Christ's atonement avails potentially for every person. The Calvinist wants to speculate about how much of Jesus' blood would be wasted if he did not die only for the predefined/predetermined/predestined elect. Such speculation is silly and is a grasping at straws because it is clear Christ's shed blood is effective only for those who believe.

If it were not so, I would almost be persuaded to cast Christianity aside and say with the atheists, "An all-powerful "God" who causes men to sin and then condemns them for doing so is a monster."

Creation, Man, and God's Image

“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1). So begins the Bible’s description of the creation events.

Science and mathematics tell us the universe is not eternal. If it were, the laws of thermodynamics tell us all the universe’s energy would be long depleted. Even unbelieving scholars insist the universe began to exist. And if it began to exist, there must be a cause, a “cause” sufficient to explain the existence of all there is.  Christians and other theists believe God—a personal, loving, all powerful, all knowing, omnipresent being—is the only sufficient cause.

When you survey the universe in which we live, you can only stand in awe of the creativity and majesty of the Creator. It is not just the myriad of galaxies and star systems which create the sense of awe, the earth itself creates a sense of wonder and amazement.

Moses’ account of God’s creative activity pushes you to come to grips with all he made. The sun, moon, stars, and seven—or is it eight—other planets in our rather insignificant solar system draw our attention to God’s interstellar handiwork. The majestic mountains, dry deserts, and fertile plains remind us our God appreciates aesthetics. Consider the flora and the fauna on the planet—huge creatures, feral cats, devoted canines, and all manner of cattle, insects, sea life, and the smallest bacteria. God created all of it from the depths of his creative mind. And man, male and female he created them—the apex of his creative activity.

Consider, too, the fact he established the universal natural laws—gravity, inertia; even the laws of logic—and put them into place. While he maintained his power to rule over nature, he set the universe in motion governed, for the most part, according to the laws he established. Could he intervene? Of course, he is the Creator and the created is never superior to the Creator.

Think of all the universes he may have considered and could have made. A universe he created did not necessarily have to operate on the physics he established for this one. Writers of science fiction have long written about life forms based not on carbon but some other element. We see their fictional imaginations displayed in Star Trek, Star Wars, and, if you’re my age, the Man from Planet X. Frank Herbert created a completely different world in Dune and all its sequels. None of these imaginings, however, could come close to imagining the variety of possible universes inhabiting the mind of God.

But he chose to Create this universe and within this universe is the Milky Way Galaxy a hidden in that vast space (to us) is a “bright blue dot”—the planet earth.

The psalmist asked, “What is man that you are mindful of him…” (Psalm 8:4). David, the author of the psalm, continues, “You have made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor. You have given him dominion over the works of your hands and you have put all things under his feet” (Psalm 8:5, 6, ESV). Obviously written after Adam’s sin, this passage reveals God still values much in the being he created. He did not wrest dominion from Adam and he still stands just a tad below the angelic beings. In other words, human beings during David’s reign still possessed something of the “image of God” (Genesis 1:27).

We all know the story! God placed Adam with Eve in a beautiful garden. They had meaningful work—they were to “dress and keep the garden” (Genesis 2:15). It was a lush and beautiful place in which to live. God expressed to Adam only one caveat or warning, “You may surely eat of every tree in the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you must not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die” (Genesis 2:16, 17, ESV).

Why the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? Didn’t God know Adam would not obey? Wouldn’t it be better had God left that tree from the garden? Why that tree?

Those who opt for Open Theology hold God may have considered the possibility of Adam’s sin but could not know he would sin. Open theologians believe God can know only that which can be known. He may have goals for the future; goals which he can inexorably bring to pass, but he cannot know precisely how the future will unfold. This is not the place for a discussion of the philosophy of time or what omniscience means. I’m only telling you how the proponents of Open Theology see it. Open theologians believe God is giving Adam true freedom to choose, and Adam made a poor choice!

Arminians among us believe God knew beforehand Adam would choose badly but permitted him the right of truly free choice. For Arminians, Adam’s disobedience was no surprise to God because his foreknowledge informed him of Adam’s choice. Because God valued Adam’s freedom more than he valued keeping him safe, he permitted Adam to make his choice.

Reformed theologians take the view that God not only foreknew Adam’s choice, permitted Adam’s choice, but he actually ordained Adam’s choice. According to the Calvinist, God predetermined Adam’s fall long before creating Adam from the dust of the ground. The Westminster Confession of Faith, the official statement of faith/creed of most Bible- believing Calvinists, says:

God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeable ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established. (Westminster Confession of Faith, 3.1)

Reformed thinkers try to get around this statement, but it is hardly clear in itself. If God ordains whatever comes to pass, then Adam sinned because God predetermined he would sin. (See my previous post.) The answer is compatibilism, which says each individual is free to do what they sincerely want to do, but God arranges things so that they want to do what they do. Did you follow that?

Let’s look at one other concern before I quit. The Bible says God created humans “in his image.” What does that mean? It obviously does not mean mankind has omnipotence, omniscience, or omnipresence. Adam did have sovereignty for God gave him “dominion over the earth.”

What does it mean to be in “the image of God?” At the very least, it means human beings are spirit beings. Humans don’t just “have a spirit,” they “are a spirit.” Humanity’s spiritual nature is not such because each person possesses a “bit of God entrapped in a case of flesh.” That’s Platonism! Not only is man spirit but he is able to communicate in words in the same way God communicates in words. In addition, and most importantly, being in the “image of God” means that human beings are capable of relationships. God, as he exists, is always in relationship. God, the Father, relates to God, the Son, and to God, the Holy Spirit. (I’m not even going to try to explain the Trinity. The nature of the Trinity is way above my pay grade. I believe it because the Bible teaches it.)

When I speak of God’s image in terms of relationship it is insufficient only to speak of relationships with other humans. Being in the image of God means having a “built in capacity for God relationship.” The “image of God” in man makes possible a relationship with God and conveys innate knowledge about God. Human beings have the capacity (form) for a relationship with God (content). The image of God in Adam was complete: he had full form and content prior to Adam’s disobedience in the garden.

What happened when Adam sinned? The Bible says, “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned…” (Romans 5:12). Genesis three describes the result. The relationship between God and Adam fractured and God’s judgment came upon all things. Adam’s relationship and the relationships of all things became different. Adam’s disobedience affected the entire universe. Adam’s relationship with the natural world changed. Adam’s relationship with Eve changed. Adam’s relationship with God changed.

Death (separation) came upon Adam and upon all things. Death is separation! When Adam sinned, he died spiritually—he was separated from God. At the end of his life, he died physically—his spirit separated from his body.

In all ways, Adam’s sin “marred/defaced/damaged” God’s image. Adam did not lose the capacity for relationship with God (form) but he did lose the relationship (content). The potential for relationship remained but as long as Adam remained alienated from God restoration of the relationship remained in place. To illustrate the extent of damage to the relationship, God sent Adam and Eve from the garden.

There was one other effect of Adam’s sin. The “damage to the image of God” created a weakness—or tendency—which passed down to all humanity. The Apostle Paul expressed it this way, “For while we were weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly” (Romans 5:6). Adam’s sin left humanity weak and sickly and prone to sin. It left humanity depraved in a sense, but this is not total hereditary depravity. Humans are depraved creatures because they sin—because they sin—not because they are sinners. The Bible says, “For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God” (Romans 6:27).

What does all this have to do with anything? Salvation is the full restoration of the image of God in man. This salvation is called a “new birth” and the individual “becomes a new creation.” Being “dead in trespasses and sins” does not mean the individual’s spirit is inert or without the potential to respond. It means the “spirit is separated from God” – they are not in relationship. [This truth is illustrated in Jesus’ parables of the lost boy, the lost sheep, and the lost coin. The prodigal, the sheep, and the coin are lost precisely because they were not where they were supposed to be—they were “out of relationship.”]

Reformed theologians argue that the minds of those in sin “ The statement comes from Ephesians 4:18, “They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart.” In this passage in Ephesians Paul contrasts those who reject Christ with those who enjoy the new life in Christ. I will grant the fact those outside of Christ are in darkness, ignorance, and are lost. I insist, however, they are lost because they choose to be lost not because God so arranged their lives they want to be lost.

What is it that brings light into dark places? I remember being in the depths of Missouri’s Marvel Cave when the guides turned out the lights. The result was total darkness—darkness so thick you could feel it. One small match lit in the darkness expelled the overwhelming blackness. So it is with the Gospel and the Holy Spirit working through the Word of God. The truth of the Gospel can penetrate the blackest heart and Christ can draw them if they would only listen. Can you see Jesus looking over Jerusalem and hear his words: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!” (Luke 13:34, 35, ESV)

Contrary to the Augustinians or the Calvinists who read my blog, God offers the opportunity to freely (real freedom, libertarian freedom) to make a choice. He takes no pleasure in anyone who rejects him. It is not that he can’t save them in spite of themselves; he won’t save them.