madbald's Xanga

Friday, October 17, 2008

Fri, 17 Oct 2008 02:34:29 GMT

Why Christians Should Not Vote for Obama

Randy Alcorn, a good friend of Donald Miller (an Obama supporter who gave a prayer at the Democratic Convention and the author of the book "Blue Like Jazz"), writes:

A year and a half ago, when I first heard about Barack Obama, I got excited. I really wanted to support him. An evangelical Christian told me Obama was prolife. I didn’t care that Obama was a Democrat. I wanted a pro-life, pro-environment, pro-racial equality president who took seriously our need to care for the poor and defend the needy.
...

That Barack Obama is an African-American was a real plus to me, and not for superficial reasons. I believed it could help further the vision of Martin Luther King in my favorite speech of the modern era, in which he said, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” I get tears in my eyes just hearing that speech in my head.
...

Then the sad day came. I checked out Obama's actual position on abortion and I was demoralized. I found that in every single vote related to the issue he's favored abortion, its legality and even the killing of children who survive abortion.

But Obama is savvy. He wants to attract young voters, including young evangelical Christians who are sort-of-prolife. He knows to say that he favors reducing or limiting abortions. Which is like limiting rather than criminalizing murder and rape and kidnapping and slavery. A candidate could say “I’m personally opposed to rape,” while he has a 100% voting record favoring the legality of rape. And he could say he favors limiting or reducing the number of rapes. But if he actually supports the legality of the hideous crime of rape, discerning people would see through his rhetoric of rape-reduction.

I recommend that you read the whole thing here.

Sunday, September 07, 2008

Sun, 07 Sep 2008 19:54:24 GMT

*If you're following presidential politics, Doug Wilson's thoughts on McCain and Palin will be worth the read.

John Has Slain His Thousands
by Douglas Wilson

I am continuing all this in the spirit of thinking out loud. It should be obvious -- even though I still have not made up my mind finally -- that I really like Sarah Palin and believe that she might be uniquely positioned (in just a couple months) to really do something about Roe. Here are some of the reasons for thinking that to be a possibility.

I am a Calvinist and believe that God draws straight with crooked lines. I also believe that God is a storyteller who loves to use quirky characters. At the same time, His law remains His law, and His order for the home remains His order for the home -- which incidentally is not the same thing as saying that His order for the home remains what every pious fusser and eisegete thinks it is.

So as we make our way through this complicated novel, we need to master two things. The first is what we are supposed to do -- what role are we to fulfill as a character in the story? The second is how to respond to other characters, especially when they are characters. In responding well and positively to others it is not necessary to maintain that you ought to be doing the same thing. On some issues it is -- Ten Commandments stuff, say. With other decisions, wisdom and discernment is required. You might believe that wisdom would bar a course of action, while this other character obviously does not believe the same. But when that happens, one good exercise is to avoid getting drawn into a detailed argument over the gnats' eyebrows, and step back and consider the big picture. Is something larger going on? In this case, I think that is likely.

John McCain is a man I do not trust, period end. Nothing about this has changed my opinions of his character, philosophy of life, and likely courses of action. I believe that he made this move as a calculated move to shore up his conservative base because that is something that he knew he had to do. He didn't want to do it, and would have picked Lieberman if he thought he could get away with it. But he knew the pro-life deal was a deal-breaker within the party ranks. At the same time, thought he, speculate I, "I should be able to shore up my base in a way they can't complain about, and at the same time, poke them in the eye. There's a pleasant thought. Romney's Mormonism would do it, I suppose . . . I know, I'll pick a woman, one who describes herself as a feminist-for-life. That'll frost their shorts. I'll have their support, which I need, but at the same time, I'll remain my very own maverick-man." So he made his choice, and instead of making faces and trying to thaw out their shorts, every evangelical voter in America jumped up on his or her chair and started waving an article of clothing around his or her head, heliocopter style. And John McCain stood there blinking. And then the crowd started chanting, "John has slain his thousands, Sarah her tens of thousands."

He meant to shore up his base, but he wound up galvanizing his base in a way that was not entirely wise for a man in his position.

Now, to the life issue. Roe is a legal issue, of course, to the extent that all legal travesties are legal issues. And to overturn it, it is certainly necessary to get judges on the Supreme Court who know how to read the Constitution. But in order to do that, it is necessary to deal with the zeitgeist first. Politicians (with certain rare exceptions) are not risk takers. They have their positions, and will articulate them in public (if that is not too risky), but very rarely will you find a solitary voice way out in front. Since Roe, a dithering Congress, and the bloodied Supreme Court, and the rhetorically pro-life but impotent White House have all represented the consensus of the American people well. Our leaders are not aliens -- they come from us, they represent us, we pick them. They will change on this issue when it becomes dangerous for them politically not to change.

An illustration of this principle in action can be readily seen in the domestic oil drilling issue. "Drill, baby, drill," can now be chanted at conventions, and politicians who oppose it can be rocked back on their heels. Twenty years ago that was impossible, but gas is now four dollars a gallon and lots of people have opinions about that. And politicians who feel the heat always see the light.

Now consider Sarah Palin's position -- both her story and her gifts. Her story demolishes, in a way no syllogism could, the central appeals of the pro-aborts. And they love to play the violin with this question -- remember that Obama was asked the question earlier in this election cycle. This is a staple in our campaigns: "What if your daughter . . ." "What if your wife . . ."

Suppose you were a middle-aged woman with a bright political career ahead of you, perhaps even at the national level. You and your husband are surprised by a pregnancy, and then on top of that you discover that your baby is a Down's child. We live in a culture that has been prepared in countless ways to accept the story that "we had to make a tough choice." And we are then astonished when someone, instead of making the "tough choice," makes a tough choice instead -- in the full confidence that it is the right choice. Sarah Palin is a "no exceptions" pro-lifer and apparently she believes that the law of God includes her.

So the question, somewhat bewildered, retreats. "All right. You and your husband wanted to keep your baby. But suppose your political career, and the goals you had worked so hard to achieve, were all threatened because your seventeen-year-old daughter got pregnant. And this will disrupt her life also -- wouldn't the compassionate thing be to . . . oh, never mind." Think of this as a novel. Think of it as a story. What is being foreshadowed? What is coming?

Some conservatives have seen rightly that Sarah Palin is not exactly devoted 24-7 to the domestic arts. She has been doing other things also, like running a state, and so they wonder if that's entirely okay. In her case, this may or may not represent a setting aside of God's calling for a wife and a mother -- we have been discussing that -- but it is a reasonable question for conservatives to wonder about and ask.

Jonah Goldberg at National Review exulted that Sarah Palin was put on earth for two reasons -- to kill caribou and kick butt. And she's "all out of caribou." Allowing for how much fun such exuberant hyperbole is, social conservatives might still wonder if she presents something of a challenge to their ideals of social order. And she might. She might not. Let's talk about that.

But in the meantime, we must not overlook the fact that she presents an absolutely devastating challenge to the feminist narrative for women, and there are no mights involved. Here is a woman who (for the sake of principle) has refused to sacrifice those things which feminists insist (in principle) must be sacrificed so that women can reach their "full potential." As a result of refusing the central dogma of their feminism, she might well become the first woman president. That'll do something to your little leftist narrative. Feminism has never been about advancing the cause of women. This reveals, as few other things could, that it has been about advancing the cause of commie women.

Granting that Sarah Palin does not look like June Cleaver, she looks a lot less like Hillary or Gloria Steinem. And, despite the differences, I can imagine Sarah and June having a very pleasant lunch together. If she tried to take Hillary or Gloria out shopping (for motorcyles, say) and a spot of lunch afterwards, all I can envision is stoney silences and a lot of glaring . . . and not from Sarah, who would be chatting happily. Sarah Palin ruffles the hair of some conservatives, but they can always comb it again. Doug Phillips will be all right in a couple days. In contrast, when it comes to the vampirism of the feminist left, let's just call her Buffy. They won't be all right in a couple of days.

And this is where her gifts come in. Ronald Reagan became a national political player on the strength of one convention speech. The same thing has happened to Sarah Palin, only in a more electrifying way, in my opinion. And in that speech, she demonstrated two things. The first is that she has the ability to have the most awful things said about her, and simply brush them away. She is genial, pleasant, attractive, likeable, smart, and all the rest of it. The more her adversaries froth and bubble like the cauldron in Macbeth, the more her genial good humor, coupled with strength of conviction, make her even more appealing. The Left is desperate and because of their desperation is playing this exactly wrong. But don't tell them -- I like how they are playing it wrong. At the same time, it is all right to tell them because it won't matter -- they are out of control and are beyond listening.

The second thing is that she clearly has the ability to speak over the bobble-heads of the anointed media darlings, and take her business straight to the American people. And this is where the really potent threat to Roe lies. If she speaks on this subject, she does do in a way consistent with the Word of God, and she does so with personal authority. She obviously cannot speak with authority on the subject of how to keep your daughters from becoming pregnant out of wedlock. But she can speak with authority on how difficult circumstances of our own making do not ever justify componding the mess with a murder.

She can say that having made a sinful or foolish choice as a woman is not a foundation for striking at womanhood itself. The establishment feminists have gone one step beyond Lady Macbeth. When she cried out, "Come, you spirits that tend on mortal thoughts! unsex me here," she at least knew what her rebellion was and called it by its right name. In their high impudence, feminists have rebelled against the life-giving nature of woman, and have done so in the name of women. Sarah Palin blows all of that away, and she does not do it by means of a law or a court decision. That, God willing, will follow -- but it cannot come first.

Jim Jordan has pointed out that the task of man was the protect and guard the Garden (Gen. 2:15). The task of woman was to bear, protect and guard the Child (Gen. 3:15). Independent of legislation, we now have someone of the national stage who is capable of addressing American women directly, and inviting them to return to something fundamental. Lady Wisdom says that all who hate her love death (Prov. 8:32-36). Sarah Palin is now in a position to say to the American people that to be a woman of death is to deny being a woman at all, and that repentance means turning around. Before Roe can die in the courts, the Abimelech in the hearts of the people will have to die. And before he can die there, a woman will have to throw a millstone from the top of the tower.

I believe that this may well be what is happening. I may be wrong, but I don't believe so. And if it plays out this way, I will bless the name of the Lord -- the God of Eve, the God of Sarah, Rebekah, and Rachel, the God of Tamar, the God of Deborah and Jael, the God of a nameless woman at the top of a tower, may her descendents be forever blessed, the God of Rahab, the God of Ruth, the God of Bathsheba, and the God of Mary. And I will honor the God who gave us Sarah.

Monday, August 04, 2008

Mon, 04 Aug 2008 03:47:30 GMT

*This is a helpful article that will give some balance to some of you who love Tim Keller and his vision for the city. I greatly respect what he's done via the Redeemer network, but I've noticed that his well-articulated vision for the city has led people to embrace an extremely dogmatic "anti-suburb" mindset. And as some of you know, when people start dogmatizing anything other than the core essential doctrines of the Church, my hair stops growing:)

Redemptive View of Suburbia
by Steve McCoy

There is a growing trend of romanticizing the city. My man-crush, Tim Keller, is a loud and important voice on the strategic need to reach our city-centers. Even more, Keller shows the centrality of the city as the future for God’s people…

I’ve heard Keller elsewhere humorously quip that it’s not a suburb coming down from heaven in Revelation 21, it’s a city. He’s right, of course.

But in consequence I think many who love Keller, including me, tend to over-romanticize the city to the point that we feel we must laugh at suburbia’s ugliness and hyper-consumerism. Commonly the flight to suburbia is seen as fleeing from the city, chasing after the American Dream, a selfish plunge toward more and bigger and better, an escape from the dangers of the city to the suburban facade. There’s some truth there to be sure, but I’m not sure that’s as true as I’ve always assumed.

I think there are some aspects of suburbia that compel us to live for values that the city has pushed aside. Let me point out some that come to mind…

1. Cultivating a Garden
We were kicked out of the Garden of Eden because of our sin. The world lacked the order and beauty of the Garden, but man was commissioned by God to have dominion, which should at least mean that we were to create gardens where they didn’t yet exist. That is still part of our job.

Keller points out that the Garden becomes a City, but I’m not sure that’s the fullest picture. In Revelation 22, as Keller explains in the quote above, there’s a river in the center of the city where we also find the tree of life. It appears the Garden blends into the City.

Our modern cities aren’t necessarily models of blending. Just as architecture in the suburbs is often a facade of the man-made treasures we find in our cities, so gardens in our cities are are often a facade of nature found in and around our suburbs. In our cities we find trees growing out of concrete holes! In the suburbs we find nature intertwined with our architecture. Where our cities have failed, our suburbs have picked up a more heavenly picture of the city.

2. Be Fruitful and Multiply
At creation man was commanded to “be fruitful and multiply.” Kids are the way dominion happens in the world. And it’s not only that we should have a kid, but the more the merrier. Children are a blessing from the Lord, and while the world’s values have created the strong desire to limit childbearing, God values multiplication. While the world’s values say that more children means more burden, God’s values say that more children means more blessing. I don’t see any biblical mandate on how many children to have, but I think there is a biblical mandate to see children as gifts and that we should desire those gifts from God.

Our cities make having multiple children nearly impossible. There is less living space intended for larger families, at least not larger families who aren’t very rich. Public schools in urban areas are rarely recognized for their academic quality and private schools are typically very expensive. Cities are not good on families, which is why when city-dwellers start having kids they start moving to the suburbs.

Suburbs are known for having good schools and safe neighborhoods. There’s more affordable housing with more space in the house for larger families as well as yards to play in. For what’s wrong in suburbia, it’s a place well-equipped for people who want to “be fruitful and multiply.”

3. Lonely Places
It’s no secret that Jesus would often go to “lonely” places. He would go to fast and prepare for ministry in the wilderness, to pray, to get away from crowds of people, and so on. Lonely places, wilderness places, were normal and accessible. Before his crucifixion Jesus spent time alone in the Garden of Gethsemane, very near Jerusalem.

Our urban environments don’t make the wilderness sorts of lonely places all that accessible. Some may say that we don’t have to create a world that matches the world of Jesus to enjoy similar experiences. True. But Jesus seemed to make such good use of lonely space that the availability of it would be a blessing. I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that the example of Jesus shows a value to wilderness that is worth retaining.

Even when you find some space in the city, say in a local park, it’s full of people spread out trying to find a 10′ by 10′ swath of grass to eat their sandwich and get some “alone time” before trekking back to work on the gray city streets. In suburbia the story is very different. I can get on a bike from the middle of my suburb and get to the middle of nowhere in about 5 minutes. Even in nearer suburbs open, empty space is often much more accessible.

Conclusion
This isn’t an attempt to say someone should choose to live in the suburbs over the urban centers. Go where God wants you to go and live faithfully. Both have wonderful things and terrible things. Both have redeeming qualities and sinful tendencies. This is simply an attempt to think through the redeeming qualities of the suburbs and show how suburbia can be seen, at least in part, as a helpful corrective to what the city lacks.

Wednesday, July 02, 2008

Wed, 02 Jul 2008 14:13:11 GMT

*My former prof (one of my favorites) wrote a recent meditative article for World Magazine.

He Makes the Wind Blow
Storms and natural disasters proclaim the regularity of God | Vern S. Poythress

As if cyclones and earthquakes are not enough, the hurricane season is around the corner. The strongest hurricanes, in Category 5, have winds above 155 miles per hour. A wind like that produces a pressure of about 4 pounds per square inch, which may not sound like much, but it results in a total force of 3,000 pounds on a human being who stands in its way. That is fierce power.

Scientists can't stop hurricanes, but they can explain them. Huge wind spirals arise in a complex process starting with differences in air pressure produced by the sun's heat and evaporation in tropical waters.

The Bible says, "He [God] makes His wind blow" (Psalm 147:18). The wind—including hurricane wind—is His. It belongs to Him. And He makes it blow. Do you believe that?

Many people believe that some kind of God exists. But to them He seems remote. For practical purposes science, they think, has replaced God. The wind blows because of differences in air pressure. The nightly weather report explains it. And what the nightly weather report doesn't explain, the expert scientists could explain and explain in massive detail until your eyes glazed over.

So was it just a primitive mentality when the Bible said that God made the wind blow? No. The scientists still deal with the same God, the God who rules the wind. What the scientists investigate is the regularity and faithfulness of the way in which God makes His wind blow. He is so faithful and so consistent that you can write mathematical equations to describe it. And of course the mathematical equations come from man's mind being in tune with God's mind, and having the privilege of thinking God's thoughts after Him.

Modern man would like to forget God most of the time, and maybe bring Him in only for convenience, when he feels a sudden need for some sweet religious comforts. But the real God is not comfortable. He is the infinitely powerful and sovereign ruler, governing His wind in all its detail. That is why the scientists' equations work.

This God brings us the spring winds and rains and May flowers. But He also brings hurricanes that exhibit the power of His word: "The voice of the Lord breaks the cedars; . . . The voice of the Lord flashes forth flames of fire" (Psalm 29:5, 7).

The Holy Spirit, the Spirit of God, empowers God's word, and so the Holy Spirit is behind the power of the wind that blows at the command of God (Ezekiel 37:9, 14).

We need to wake up to God's presence as He rules the wind, and stand in awe of His wisdom and power. Scientific explanations should remind us of the faithfulness of God's rule, rather than serving as a substitute for acknowledging Him who is the origin of the very possibility of science.

"By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and by the breath of His mouth all their host" (Psalm 33:6). "In the beginning was the Word" (John 1:1).

—Vern S. Poythress is Professor of New Testament Interpretation at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, where he has taught for 30 years

Monday, May 26, 2008

Mon, 26 May 2008 13:32:00 GMT

My Deepest Thanks to Those Who Have Served This Country in Uniform

Friday, May 23, 2008

Fri, 23 May 2008 01:47:23 GMT

Why Are Calvinists So Negative?
John Piper

I love the doctrines of grace with all my heart, and I think they are pride-shattering, humbling, and love-producing doctrines. But I think there is an attractiveness about them to some people, in large matter, because of their intellectual rigor. They are powerfully coherent doctrines, and certain kinds of minds are drawn to that. And those kinds of minds tend to be argumentative.

So the intellectual appeal of the system of Calvinism draws a certain kind of intellectual person, and that type of person doesn't tend to be the most warm, fuzzy, and tender. Therefore this type of person has a greater danger of being hostile, gruff, abrupt, insensitive or intellectualistic.

I'll just confess that. It's a sad and terrible thing that that's the case. Some of this type aren't even Christians, I think. You can embrace a system of theology and not even be born again.

Another reason for Calvinists could be seen as negative is that when a person comes to see the doctrines of grace in the Bible, he is often amazed that he missed it, and he can sometimes become angry. He can become angry that he grew up in a church or home where they never talked about what is really there in Romans 8, 1 Corinthians 2, and Ephesians 2. They never talked about it—they skipped it—and he is angry that he was misled for so long.

That's sad. It's there; it's real; the church did let him down, and there are thousands of churches that ignore the truth and don't teach it. And he has to deal with that.

Another reason Calvinists might be perceived as negative is that they are trying to convince others about the doctrines.

If God gives someone the grace to be humbled and see the truth, and the doctrines are sweet to him, and they break his pride—because God chose him owing to nothing in him. He was awakened from the dead, like being found at the bottom of a lake and God, at the cost of his Son's life, brings him up from the bottom, does CPR, brings him miraculously back to life, and he stands on the beach thrilled with the grace of God—wouldn't he want to persuade people about this?

Do Calvinists want to make everybody else Calvinists? Absolutely we do! But it's not about elitism. It's about having been found by Christ and having the glory of God opened to us in the process of salvation. It's about having the majesty of God opened in all of his saving and redeeming works, wanting to give him all the glory and all the credit, and cherishing the sovereignty and preciousness of grace in our lives. Why wouldn't we want to share this with people?

If it is perceived as elitist, that is partly owing to our sinfulness in the way we go about it, and partly owing to people's unwillingness to see what is really there in the Bible.

I just want to confess my own sins in how I have often spoken, and I hope and pray that I don't have the reputation of being mainly negative, but mainly positive.

I look at my books sometimes when I hear that kind of criticism, and I say, "OK when I'm dead and gone, and all that is left is sermons and books, will my reputation be that? Will it be that I have a whole bunch of books and sermons that are mainly negative, harsh, and elitist?"

Time will tell. I hope not.

Friday, April 18, 2008

Fri, 18 Apr 2008 19:35:57 GMT

Check Out "Expelled" This Weekend

Monday, April 14, 2008

Mon, 14 Apr 2008 14:48:20 GMT

"Shout to the Lord" Sung on American Idol

Joshua Harris shares some helpful thoughts on what recently happened on American Idol.

As I've read various comments people seem to fall into two different camps. Some Christians are upset—because they left out Jesus, because non-Christians were singing a song of "praise", because it was all about money, because it's another example of Christianity being "censored." Other Christians are elated—because they put Jesus back in, because a praise song was heard by millions of people, because they see this as incredible evangelistic platform.

I guess I'm not really at home with either group. With all due respect, I don't think that having a song like Shout to the Lord sung (even though I like it) is going to usher in revival. This reminds me of the fervor before the movie The Passion of the Christ was released. People spoke about this movie as if it was the ultimate opportunity for the gospel to advance. I don't think it was. Was I glad that it was released? Sure. But I think that it's too easy for Christians to think that any moment in the media spotlight on TV or in film is a bigger deal than it really is. We should welcome any opportunity for media to help spread the good news about Jesus, but I don't think we should put too much stock in that vehicle. The gospel is going to advance as it always has—steadily as it is clearly proclaimed by believers in their words and modeled by their lives and actions. The gospel advances as local congregations receive and live God's word for their neighbors to see.

Wednesday, April 09, 2008

Wed, 09 Apr 2008 12:32:51 GMT

Sex Education

Donna Freitas, in the Wall Street Journal, writes:

When last semester I taught Wendy Shalit's "A Return to Modesty," in a class at Boston University called "Spirituality & Sexuality in American Youth Culture," I assumed that my mostly left-leaning students would reject her arguments about the terrible effects that the hook-up culture has on young women and the positive effects of traditional religion and morality on young women's well-being. Instead, my students ate up her critique and were fascinated by her descriptions of modesty as a virtue, especially within the context of faith. One student said that she felt empowered to stop tolerating vulgar remarks about sex made by peers in her presence.

The class was equally attracted to some evangelical dating manuals, like "I Kissed Dating Goodbye" by Joshua Harris and "Real Sex" by Lauren Winner, that I asked them to read. They seemed shocked that somewhere in America there are entire communities of people their age who really do "save themselves" until marriage, who engage in old-fashioned dating with flowers and dinner and maybe a kiss goodnight. They reacted as if these authors describe a wonderful fantasy land...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120728447818789307.html?mod=taste_primary_hs

Thursday, March 13, 2008

Thu, 13 Mar 2008 14:37:35 GMT

Check Out Justin Taylor's Informative Site

Recent posts include:

1. Enduring to the End
2. Why Many Europeans Refuse to Reproduce