I am one who firmly believes that we are IN WWIII -- and NK has been and IS a part of the so-called "Axis of Evil."
Consider that when NK tested their missles July 4th of this year, representatives of the IRANIAN government were present to observe. Consider that the little dictator of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, has been travelling around the world to ALL the members of the Axis of Evil -- and to many others who are not "decided" in this war -- attempting to persuade them to join the "Anti-American" effort.
The growth of neo-communist movements in recent years -- in Venezuela, Bolivia, Chile, etc, plus their cooperation with "old" communist powers that NEVER actually died (China, Cuba...Russia perhaps?) AND the unequaled power and passion of Islamic Fascism have created a formidable alliance. It's not because they AGREE in their worldviews. It's because they BOTH know their most formidable enemy -- The United States.
After the Neo-Communist/Islamic Fascist alliance has toppled Europe, exterminated the Jews in Israel, and either destroyed America (or at least aided Americas "socialist/progressives" to overthrow the Republic), THEN there will be time to see who ultimately comes out on top -- the Commies or the Islamists..?
Alarmist? Perhaps...But the idea that NK has the bomb and that they are Allied with Iran, means that BOTH COULD BE nuclear powers within 12 hours -- however long it takes to fly a nuke from PyongYang to Tehran.
SOmething to consider....
Sunday, October 22, 2006
Observations, Part 6 - Election Predictions for November 7, 2006
Some weeks ago, I predicted the Democrats would regain the house, gaining 22+ seats, and they had a good shot at gaining 5 or 6 Senate seats -- 6 would give them the Senate Majority. I'm sticking by my predictions (though I desparately hope I'm wrong).
I spent some time studying the latest polls (best place to do that is www.realclearpolitics.com ) in the various races yesterday. From what I've learned, I think the Dems have an absolute LOCK on at least 20 seats. They are within easy range of taking 8-10 more, and another 5-7 House seats are not out of the question. It is unlikely they would win EVERYONE of those seats, but it is LIKELY they will win at least SOME of them.
In the Senate, the Dems have a virtual LOCK on 5 seats. The only real question is the MO seat of Jim Talent. If the Dems get just a SMALL push, his seat will be lost too -- which would give the Dems a 51-49 majority in the Senate. Heaven help us...
WOuld love to hear if anyone in the toss up states (PA, OH, MO, etc.) have insights or particular takes on the races...
And remember, VOTE DEMOCRAT -- LEARN ARABIC!
I spent some time studying the latest polls (best place to do that is www.realclearpolitics.com ) in the various races yesterday. From what I've learned, I think the Dems have an absolute LOCK on at least 20 seats. They are within easy range of taking 8-10 more, and another 5-7 House seats are not out of the question. It is unlikely they would win EVERYONE of those seats, but it is LIKELY they will win at least SOME of them.
In the Senate, the Dems have a virtual LOCK on 5 seats. The only real question is the MO seat of Jim Talent. If the Dems get just a SMALL push, his seat will be lost too -- which would give the Dems a 51-49 majority in the Senate. Heaven help us...
WOuld love to hear if anyone in the toss up states (PA, OH, MO, etc.) have insights or particular takes on the races...
And remember, VOTE DEMOCRAT -- LEARN ARABIC!
Observations, Part 5 - The Necessity and Limitations of Politics
We'll never be able to change our nation's moral decline via politics. That is not the reason for politics, government, etc. The Gospel is the ONLY means by which people can be truly changed from the inside out.
That being said, I believe part of our mandate as believers is to -- as much as is possible -- be engaged in the culture as SALT and LIGHT (Matthew 5:13-16). I think in our nation, that clearly includes our involvement in civic affairs -- voting at the very least! (cf. Romans 13:1-8; I Timothy 2:1-4; Proverbs 29:2) To do less actually invites and encourages evil and persecution -- and it is a SIN.
That being said, I believe part of our mandate as believers is to -- as much as is possible -- be engaged in the culture as SALT and LIGHT (Matthew 5:13-16). I think in our nation, that clearly includes our involvement in civic affairs -- voting at the very least! (cf. Romans 13:1-8; I Timothy 2:1-4; Proverbs 29:2) To do less actually invites and encourages evil and persecution -- and it is a SIN.
Observations, Part 4 - Why I am not a Libertarian
Some have asked why I'm not a Libertarian. These reasons are EXACTLY why I am NOT a Libertarian.
The Constitution - and if you want to believe Lincoln, the Declaration of Independence - BOTH declare the "inalienable rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness." Libertarians AS A PARTY will not affirm a position that gaurantees the basic right to life, even in the face of clear and overwhelming scientific evidence of "life" as we understand it beginning at conception or at least shortly thereafter.
Am I saying the Republicans have delivered on restoring that right to the unborn? Hardly. But they have managed to pass a ban of "Partial Birth Abortion," and they have done reasonably well in placing qualified Constitutionalists ("Originalists") on the Federal Courts. Libertarians WILL NOT do the same.
I am not affiliated with ANY party. BOTH of the major parties are too liberal and interested in power rather than issues. The Libertarians are more interested in promoting libertinism (by-and-large) than in protecting the Constitution and the principles which it emphasizes.
But of all the parties, the Republicans best represent and deliver on the promises they make -- and therefore give a slight hope that progress can be made. That being said, I'd vote for ANY candidate that I thought had "right ideas" and stayed true to the Constitution and the traditions that form the basis of the American Republic.
The Constitution - and if you want to believe Lincoln, the Declaration of Independence - BOTH declare the "inalienable rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness." Libertarians AS A PARTY will not affirm a position that gaurantees the basic right to life, even in the face of clear and overwhelming scientific evidence of "life" as we understand it beginning at conception or at least shortly thereafter.
Am I saying the Republicans have delivered on restoring that right to the unborn? Hardly. But they have managed to pass a ban of "Partial Birth Abortion," and they have done reasonably well in placing qualified Constitutionalists ("Originalists") on the Federal Courts. Libertarians WILL NOT do the same.
I am not affiliated with ANY party. BOTH of the major parties are too liberal and interested in power rather than issues. The Libertarians are more interested in promoting libertinism (by-and-large) than in protecting the Constitution and the principles which it emphasizes.
But of all the parties, the Republicans best represent and deliver on the promises they make -- and therefore give a slight hope that progress can be made. That being said, I'd vote for ANY candidate that I thought had "right ideas" and stayed true to the Constitution and the traditions that form the basis of the American Republic.
Observations, Part 3 - On Life, Marriage and the Constitution
I tend to be a Constitutionalist -- quite libertarian (small "l") in my view of government involvement in economics, but socially, I'm a conservative about most things.
I do not, for instance, believe that the states had a right to permit slavery when the founding documents gauranteed "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Now, a WAR was unnecessary to enforce that, but I digress.
Just the same -- and on the very same principle -- the right to LIFE is a gaurantee. Therefore, an allowance for the practice of abortion as a means of birth control or convenience is unconstitutional -- and also a violation of God's commandments.
One may be correct in this sense -- marriage OUGHT NOT TO BE an issue the government attempts to meddle in. But government -- in the form of the out of control liberal judiciary -- ALREADY HAS.
Also, the founders designed our system of government to keep separate the "church" from the "state." But they did permit one exception. The minister is not only a representative of God in the marriage ceremony, he is also -- in the USA -- an agent of the state. Thus, if the judiciary continues on its current path, they will by courthouse fiat declare that a ministers refusal to marry ANY couple in a church or elsewhere is a violation of anti-discrimination laws.
The implications just BEGIN with being stripped of tax exempt status -- how about arrest of the Pastor for violation of civil rights? Seizure of all church property? Civil Court Lawsuits? Hate crimes charges? That's just for starters.
No, although I do agree that government OUGHT NOT be involved in marriage, they already are, and the ONLY way to protect the institution is by constitutional amendment. Either that, or have the government DEMAND by law that we marry whosoever desires to be married, or face prosecution (or, perhaps persecution).
Regarding marriage, then, the issue has nothing to do with "forcing" anyone NOT to be married. To the contrary, it protects the institution and the majority who believe in it from being FORCED to accept "alternate lifestyles" AS marriage.
I do not, for instance, believe that the states had a right to permit slavery when the founding documents gauranteed "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Now, a WAR was unnecessary to enforce that, but I digress.
Just the same -- and on the very same principle -- the right to LIFE is a gaurantee. Therefore, an allowance for the practice of abortion as a means of birth control or convenience is unconstitutional -- and also a violation of God's commandments.
One may be correct in this sense -- marriage OUGHT NOT TO BE an issue the government attempts to meddle in. But government -- in the form of the out of control liberal judiciary -- ALREADY HAS.
Also, the founders designed our system of government to keep separate the "church" from the "state." But they did permit one exception. The minister is not only a representative of God in the marriage ceremony, he is also -- in the USA -- an agent of the state. Thus, if the judiciary continues on its current path, they will by courthouse fiat declare that a ministers refusal to marry ANY couple in a church or elsewhere is a violation of anti-discrimination laws.
The implications just BEGIN with being stripped of tax exempt status -- how about arrest of the Pastor for violation of civil rights? Seizure of all church property? Civil Court Lawsuits? Hate crimes charges? That's just for starters.
No, although I do agree that government OUGHT NOT be involved in marriage, they already are, and the ONLY way to protect the institution is by constitutional amendment. Either that, or have the government DEMAND by law that we marry whosoever desires to be married, or face prosecution (or, perhaps persecution).
Regarding marriage, then, the issue has nothing to do with "forcing" anyone NOT to be married. To the contrary, it protects the institution and the majority who believe in it from being FORCED to accept "alternate lifestyles" AS marriage.
Observations, Part 2 - My Take on Moderates
Moderates?!? Moderates are fence sitters... Moisten the finger, poke it up in the air, and see which way the winds blowing... passionate about nothing but being "moderate"... There are no great "moderate" leaders in American history...
The "middle of the road" is where you get hit by the CARS. Mind your momma and don't play in the Street! Stay on the RIGHT side of the road, and things will GENERALLY turn out for the best.
:-D
The "middle of the road" is where you get hit by the CARS. Mind your momma and don't play in the Street! Stay on the RIGHT side of the road, and things will GENERALLY turn out for the best.
:-D
Observations on Voting in the 2006 Election - Part 1
I haven't generally voted straight ticket in the last couple of elections (SOME will pass out with SHOCK) -- but this time I've found that I will vote straight Republican.
Even so, I've said consistently, I expect the Democrats to retake Congress. My perdiction: 22+ seats in the House; 5+ seats in the Senate.
NO ONE hopes I'm wrong MORE than ME. I'm not trying to be pessemistic, but when you combine the relentless drumbeat of hatred and left wing attacks from the media and the lack of attention span among most Americans today -- and the fact that Democrats can lie FAR more convincingly than Republicans...AND the pathetic job of the Republican Congress in the last few years....
Just my take.
Even so, I've said consistently, I expect the Democrats to retake Congress. My perdiction: 22+ seats in the House; 5+ seats in the Senate.
NO ONE hopes I'm wrong MORE than ME. I'm not trying to be pessemistic, but when you combine the relentless drumbeat of hatred and left wing attacks from the media and the lack of attention span among most Americans today -- and the fact that Democrats can lie FAR more convincingly than Republicans...AND the pathetic job of the Republican Congress in the last few years....
Just my take.
A Note and Update - 10/22/2006
In recent days, I've been doing more posting on a forum I joined a while back. It is freebaptist.net , a website frequented by members -- and those who have some connections with -- Free Will Baptist denominations. I was an FWB minister for over 17 years, and while my view of ecclesiology ("the church") has changed, my theological convictions have remained quite stedfast.
In the next few weeks, I'm going to try to post some of my comments on that site, as well as some original insights and opinions. This is especially true as we approach what I consider to be a watershed election that may even decide the fate of our nation in very short order. Thanks for checking back, and for understanding how busy I can be. Teaching at two different colleges, a corporate job AND ministry in and beyond my local church is a challenge.
Blessings -- and there's STILL more to come.
J. Dale Weaver, M. Div.
In the next few weeks, I'm going to try to post some of my comments on that site, as well as some original insights and opinions. This is especially true as we approach what I consider to be a watershed election that may even decide the fate of our nation in very short order. Thanks for checking back, and for understanding how busy I can be. Teaching at two different colleges, a corporate job AND ministry in and beyond my local church is a challenge.
Blessings -- and there's STILL more to come.
J. Dale Weaver, M. Div.
Thursday, March 16, 2006
An Example of Theological Arrogance
Before I get into the concept of "Reformed Arminianism" and the early theology of General Baptists, I wanted to give an excellent example of why many Arminians consider many Calvinists to be arrogant. The following statement appeared in the Trinity Journal --A ministry of the "Trinity Foundation," a group of apparently Hyper-Calvinist rhetoriticians:
Are Arminians Christians? Sproul answers, " ‘Yes, barely.’ They are Christians by what we call a felicitous inconsistency" (25). Another theologian thinks that Arminians are saved by "blessed inconsistency." But what is to prevent the equally possible, and perhaps more Biblical, conclusion, that Arminians are lost by cursed inconsistency? Did not the Apostle Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, curse everyone, even an angel, who teaches a false gospel? (See Galatians 1:8, 9.) Arminianism has a false gospel; it is not Christianity; and if a member of an Arminian church makes it to Heaven, he does so despite his church’s teaching, not because of it. There may be some Christians in Arminian churches, just as there may be some Christians in Roman Catholic churches, but they are Christians despite their churches’ teachings. (Emphasis added) "May Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who, seated at the Father’s right hand, gives gifts to men, sanctify us in the truth, bring to the truth those who err, shut the mouths of the calumniators of sound doctrine, and endue the faithful minister of his Word with the spirit of wisdom and discretion, that all their discourses may tend to the glory of God, and the edification of those who hear them. Amen." (The Conclusion of the Articles of Dort) I am always tempted, after reading something like this, to do one of two things: First, I consider firing right back. I think about pronouncing "Anathema Maranatha!" on these imbeciles and being done with it. Hey, if they can condemn me and my particular views to hell, turnabout is fair play, right? After all, there is much about hyper-Calvinism that certainly is at odds with Scripture and presents manifold dangers to the true, Biblical "doctrines of [FREE] grace"... A second reaction is to simply throw up my hands, conclude that any and all of those in the "made-with-hands" church are more interested in their pet doctrines and their petty differences than they are in reaching the lost world and glorifying God in the process. The first reaction is unChristian and uncharitable...I will not return evil for evil. The second reaction is not productive -- no matter how much I long to avoid people of this sort in "the church." The fact is, not all of those who are of the Reformed Calvinist persuasion are of this attitude. There are two types of Reformed Calvinists, my friends and I concluded while in Seminary at Columbia International University: There are the OR's (obnoxiously Reformed) who believe that if you aren't Calvinist JUST LIKE THEM, TULIP and all, then you are on the road to hell, and that's that. Then there are the SR's (sufficiently Reformed) who, though Calvinists, holding to TULIP and so forth, aren't willing to jettison the Biblical concept of unity and diversity in the Body of Christ, and run around quoting the Articles of Dort rather than the Scriptures themselves as a basis of truth. Still and yet, it's always fun to find one of those OR guys and tell him that I'm Reformed too -- a Reformed Arminian. The look on their faces is always priceless. They still tell me I'm a heretic going to hell. I wonder if that same look will be on their faces when we stand together before the Eternal Throne in Heaven? That is, if they are predestined to be there..... J. Dale Weaver, M. Div. |
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
What the Calvinist Baptists Leave Out
In the last couple of weeks I've been studying the early confessions of Baptists. I find it humorous that on most Calvinist websites, they point to the London Confession of 1644 as "the First Confession" of Baptists. Conveniently they ignore the first true Baptist confession put together by Thomas Helwys in 1611. (See www.generalbaptist.net/resources/confessions/helwys.htm ) The reason they claim the 1644 London Confession is that it bolsters their claim that the first Baptists were actually calvinist/Paritular. Not so...
Helwys had led a group of English Baptists back to England and planted a church, and wrote this declaration of faith, clearly identifying the first "Baptists" to see the atonement as general (for all mankind) and to understand that man -- though totally depraved -- retains free will, that when called by the Holy Spirit through prevenient or precedent grace, is enabled to receive or reject God's grace unto salvation.
I hope to post much more on this subject in the coming weeks -- though I am on my way to teach a class at the moment. I look forward to exploring this subject further.
J. Dale Weaver, M. Div.
Helwys had led a group of English Baptists back to England and planted a church, and wrote this declaration of faith, clearly identifying the first "Baptists" to see the atonement as general (for all mankind) and to understand that man -- though totally depraved -- retains free will, that when called by the Holy Spirit through prevenient or precedent grace, is enabled to receive or reject God's grace unto salvation.
I hope to post much more on this subject in the coming weeks -- though I am on my way to teach a class at the moment. I look forward to exploring this subject further.
J. Dale Weaver, M. Div.
Thursday, March 02, 2006
Islamofascism vs. Communism: Our Enemies in Different Wars
Today as I listened to a radio talk show today, the host was comparing the Cold War to the current War on Terror. It struck me as he was talking what the main differences in our enemies were then, and now.
Soviet Communism saw the defeat and destruction of the West as an ideological and political goal. While they would have seen losses -- even large losses -- on their part as necessary, they believed they could achieve their goal, eventually, and rushing it would have demanded too high a price for them to pay. The good news is that their efforts to destroy us failed. We can only hope that Chinese and Latin American Communism fail as well.
Islamofascism on the other hand, does not view the defeat of the West as merely and ideological or political goal -- they see it as a MORAL IMPERATIVE. Simply put, if and when they gain the use of weapons of mass destruction, they will not hesitate to use them to destroy their enemies -- the West. It is a moral imperative, a command of Allah. The price to be paid is not something they worry themselves about. That's Allah's problem -- and ours.
The West had better understand this mentality -- before it's too late to prevent the implementation of their "imperative."
J. Dale Weaver, M. Div.
Soviet Communism saw the defeat and destruction of the West as an ideological and political goal. While they would have seen losses -- even large losses -- on their part as necessary, they believed they could achieve their goal, eventually, and rushing it would have demanded too high a price for them to pay. The good news is that their efforts to destroy us failed. We can only hope that Chinese and Latin American Communism fail as well.
Islamofascism on the other hand, does not view the defeat of the West as merely and ideological or political goal -- they see it as a MORAL IMPERATIVE. Simply put, if and when they gain the use of weapons of mass destruction, they will not hesitate to use them to destroy their enemies -- the West. It is a moral imperative, a command of Allah. The price to be paid is not something they worry themselves about. That's Allah's problem -- and ours.
The West had better understand this mentality -- before it's too late to prevent the implementation of their "imperative."
J. Dale Weaver, M. Div.
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
When I'm Wrong...
...I admit it. I ask Tom Ascol and the folks at the Founders blog, as well as my readers, to forgive my assumption that my post on that blog had been removed. I was wrong.
In fact, I evidently posted it on the wrong thread -- I still haven't figured out how I did that, but I have no doubt I did. As Mr. Ascol pointed out in his kind email to me, we all make mistakes. I am now endeavoring to determine whether or not this error on my part was predestined, or of my own free will... :-D
I do, however, still stand firmly behind Dr. Johnny Hunt, his ministry at FBC-Woodstock, GA, and his potential nomination for SBC President. I look forward to further discussion and debate with my "Calvinist" Baptist friends at www.Founders.org/blog
J. Dale Weaver, M. Div.
In fact, I evidently posted it on the wrong thread -- I still haven't figured out how I did that, but I have no doubt I did. As Mr. Ascol pointed out in his kind email to me, we all make mistakes. I am now endeavoring to determine whether or not this error on my part was predestined, or of my own free will... :-D
I do, however, still stand firmly behind Dr. Johnny Hunt, his ministry at FBC-Woodstock, GA, and his potential nomination for SBC President. I look forward to further discussion and debate with my "Calvinist" Baptist friends at www.Founders.org/blog
J. Dale Weaver, M. Div.
Monday, February 27, 2006
When A Good Man is Trashed...
I deplore denominational politics. Reading my posts, you can quickly see that. I believe that the largest part of modern day "made with hands" churches are at best useless, and all too often many are harmful to the message of Christ.
Today, however, I am compelled to commend a good and Godly man to my readers. I recently learned that Dr. Johnny Hunt, Pastor of First Baptist Church, Woodstock, Georgia, is to be nominated for President of the Southern Baptist Convention.
I've known Dr. Johnny Hunt for over 20 years. The first time I ever met him, I was a Junior at Wingate College (now University) in North Carolina. He was speaking at the NC Baptist State Convention because for two years in a row, his church had lead the state in conversions and baptisms. His zeal and excitement to win souls was infectious and inspiring.
Shortly after this, he became Pastor of First Baptist Church, Woodstock. WHen he arrived, they had 250 in attendance on a good Sunday, and they'd run the last pastor off. Some folks told him he'd never be there for long. He has surpassed 20 years now, and lead his church to a regular Sunday attendance of somewhere around 6,000-7,000. Most of those years FBC-Woodstock has lead their association in conversions and baptisms.
I have followed Johnny Hunt's ministry for more years than I've been in the ministry. As a young Southern Baptist College student he inspired me. As a Free Will Baptist Pastor he often encouraged me -- personally, through correspondences and through his dynamic preaching. Now, as an evangelical minister and member of a Southern Baptist Church, he continues to be one of the few men I hold in high esteem for his integrity and consistency as a Christian and a Pastor within the confines of the "institutional church."
The reason I bring this up is that, earlier today, on another blog ( http://www.founders.org/blog/ ), A number of so-called "calvinist baptists" were crucifying Dr. Hunt in anticipation of his nomination to be President of the SBC. As I've said, I hate denominational politics. I didn't like it in the National Association of Free Will Baptists, and because I am not a "thorough-going Southern Baptist" I avoid it at my current place of worship. In this case, I have three reasons for speaking up: (1) I know Johnny Hunt; (2) I tried to post aa response on their blog, but it was removed without explanation -- probably because Calvinists tend not to be able to handle a different view; and (3) I see in his critics the very reasons why I so dislike the particular/calvinistic baptists of history, and of today.
There has been in recent years a resurgence of Calvinist doctrines (they enjoy calling them "the doctrines of grace") within the Southern Baptist Convention. Dr. Albert Mohler, youthful President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky is himself a "founder" and a five-point Calvinist. Incidentally, I respect him very much, though I disagree with him strongly on these points. Therein lies one of the major problems. Arminians -- or those who would consider themselves "general Baptists" with regard to the atonement, usually hold those of other theological persuasions to be worthy of respect, despite some disagreement. Calvinists, on the other hand, hold no one in respect -- and generally dismiss others as heretics -- anyone who does not agree with them. Just read the blog I've linked to above if you have any doubt.
It is a fact that, up to the latter 1800's, Southern Baptists were mostly Calvinist in theological perspective. That changed a great deal beginning with the Second Great Awakening and the rise of modern evangelicalism/fundamentalism. Should the Calvinist heritage of the "founders" ever be restored among Southern Baptists, the Convention will have to go back to the old way of growing their churches -- stealing churches and congregations from General and Free Will Baptists. Historically, there is no valid argument to refute that point.
Dr. Johnny Hunt is a good man, and a great Pastor. He will make a fine leader of the SBC. His vision to evangelize is both Biblical and God-centered. Despite the arrogant and critical statements of the Calvinist wolves in lurking within the SBC, he will make a fine President to the Convention. No, he's not perfect, but he has the right vision, and depends on the right Person with the right Power to bring that vision to pass. Bless you, Dr. Hunt.
And to those who would trash him, you might consider that few men will be as charitable and kind to his critics as will this man.
J. Dale Weaver, M. Div.
Today, however, I am compelled to commend a good and Godly man to my readers. I recently learned that Dr. Johnny Hunt, Pastor of First Baptist Church, Woodstock, Georgia, is to be nominated for President of the Southern Baptist Convention.
I've known Dr. Johnny Hunt for over 20 years. The first time I ever met him, I was a Junior at Wingate College (now University) in North Carolina. He was speaking at the NC Baptist State Convention because for two years in a row, his church had lead the state in conversions and baptisms. His zeal and excitement to win souls was infectious and inspiring.
Shortly after this, he became Pastor of First Baptist Church, Woodstock. WHen he arrived, they had 250 in attendance on a good Sunday, and they'd run the last pastor off. Some folks told him he'd never be there for long. He has surpassed 20 years now, and lead his church to a regular Sunday attendance of somewhere around 6,000-7,000. Most of those years FBC-Woodstock has lead their association in conversions and baptisms.
I have followed Johnny Hunt's ministry for more years than I've been in the ministry. As a young Southern Baptist College student he inspired me. As a Free Will Baptist Pastor he often encouraged me -- personally, through correspondences and through his dynamic preaching. Now, as an evangelical minister and member of a Southern Baptist Church, he continues to be one of the few men I hold in high esteem for his integrity and consistency as a Christian and a Pastor within the confines of the "institutional church."
The reason I bring this up is that, earlier today, on another blog ( http://www.founders.org/blog/ ), A number of so-called "calvinist baptists" were crucifying Dr. Hunt in anticipation of his nomination to be President of the SBC. As I've said, I hate denominational politics. I didn't like it in the National Association of Free Will Baptists, and because I am not a "thorough-going Southern Baptist" I avoid it at my current place of worship. In this case, I have three reasons for speaking up: (1) I know Johnny Hunt; (2) I tried to post aa response on their blog, but it was removed without explanation -- probably because Calvinists tend not to be able to handle a different view; and (3) I see in his critics the very reasons why I so dislike the particular/calvinistic baptists of history, and of today.
There has been in recent years a resurgence of Calvinist doctrines (they enjoy calling them "the doctrines of grace") within the Southern Baptist Convention. Dr. Albert Mohler, youthful President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky is himself a "founder" and a five-point Calvinist. Incidentally, I respect him very much, though I disagree with him strongly on these points. Therein lies one of the major problems. Arminians -- or those who would consider themselves "general Baptists" with regard to the atonement, usually hold those of other theological persuasions to be worthy of respect, despite some disagreement. Calvinists, on the other hand, hold no one in respect -- and generally dismiss others as heretics -- anyone who does not agree with them. Just read the blog I've linked to above if you have any doubt.
It is a fact that, up to the latter 1800's, Southern Baptists were mostly Calvinist in theological perspective. That changed a great deal beginning with the Second Great Awakening and the rise of modern evangelicalism/fundamentalism. Should the Calvinist heritage of the "founders" ever be restored among Southern Baptists, the Convention will have to go back to the old way of growing their churches -- stealing churches and congregations from General and Free Will Baptists. Historically, there is no valid argument to refute that point.
Dr. Johnny Hunt is a good man, and a great Pastor. He will make a fine leader of the SBC. His vision to evangelize is both Biblical and God-centered. Despite the arrogant and critical statements of the Calvinist wolves in lurking within the SBC, he will make a fine President to the Convention. No, he's not perfect, but he has the right vision, and depends on the right Person with the right Power to bring that vision to pass. Bless you, Dr. Hunt.
And to those who would trash him, you might consider that few men will be as charitable and kind to his critics as will this man.
J. Dale Weaver, M. Div.
Sunday, February 26, 2006
Imperfect Understanding
Just time for a thought during these busy days...
Is it possible that there are disciples -- true followers of Jesus Christ -- who have some doctrinal "fallacies" that would get them labelled heretics, but that they are still "saved?"
If this is not true, what of the saints in the early and medieval church? Augustine himself had deeply flawed theological views regarding the structure and authority of the church, the papacy, human sexuality and eschatology. Yet, he is highly regarded as among the greatest theologian in church history.
Today, many hold doctrines outside the "orthodox" understanding of the essentials of faith -- or at least orthodox interpretations of key beliefs. What of them?
I suppose we should ask, how wide is God's grace? Certainly the line is drawn somewhere -- but we don't have the crayon, and it's not our line to draw.
The main reason I am writing this is not to say whether we should "receive" or "reject" those who hold suspect tenets of faith. I am merely asking everyone to consider the implications of receiving and rejecting, and then consider "what would Jesus do?"
The trite "He would love them" is true -- but doesn't answer the question entirely. Think about it...I certainly am.
Is it possible that there are disciples -- true followers of Jesus Christ -- who have some doctrinal "fallacies" that would get them labelled heretics, but that they are still "saved?"
If this is not true, what of the saints in the early and medieval church? Augustine himself had deeply flawed theological views regarding the structure and authority of the church, the papacy, human sexuality and eschatology. Yet, he is highly regarded as among the greatest theologian in church history.
Today, many hold doctrines outside the "orthodox" understanding of the essentials of faith -- or at least orthodox interpretations of key beliefs. What of them?
I suppose we should ask, how wide is God's grace? Certainly the line is drawn somewhere -- but we don't have the crayon, and it's not our line to draw.
The main reason I am writing this is not to say whether we should "receive" or "reject" those who hold suspect tenets of faith. I am merely asking everyone to consider the implications of receiving and rejecting, and then consider "what would Jesus do?"
The trite "He would love them" is true -- but doesn't answer the question entirely. Think about it...I certainly am.
Thursday, February 02, 2006
The Virtue of Solitude
Luke 9:10 tells us, "And [Jesus] took [His disciples], and went aside privately, to a desert place belonging to the city called Bethsaida."
How often do we "go aside privately?" I'm not referring to a short devotional time during the day. Quiet times are important, but that's not truly solitude. When was the last time you took a few days -- just by yourself, or maybe with a small group of close friends -- and "went aside" to rest, rejuvenate, replenish yourself spiritually?
How often do we "go aside privately?" I'm not referring to a short devotional time during the day. Quiet times are important, but that's not truly solitude. When was the last time you took a few days -- just by yourself, or maybe with a small group of close friends -- and "went aside" to rest, rejuvenate, replenish yourself spiritually?
Jesus did this often in His earthly ministry. Why is it that so few of His followers do the same -- particularly those "in ministry"? Could it be that we've become so caught up in the world that we don't know the difference between solitude and the status quo? Have the thistles and thorns entangled us to such an extent that we can't find a few days to get away, to pray, the sit silently in God's presence and let Him speak?
No Christian is perfect. I am convinced, however, that if we would do this one simple thing -- cultivate solitude -- we would benefit immensely in our own lives, and in His kingdom work. I think a good goal for most disciples today is to follow the Master's lead, and "go aside privately" for some simple, spiritual rest. The world will be here when we get back.
Monday, January 30, 2006
Tenets of Faith -- Just for the Record
I affirm these essential doctrinal truths and principles of the Christian Faith:
We believe:
1. that both the Old and New Testaments constitute the divinely inspired word of God, inerrant
in the originals.
2. in one God existing eternally in three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
3. that the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, became man without ceasing to be God, in order
that He might reveal God and redeem sinful men.
4. that the Holy Spirit came forth from the Father and the Son to convict the world of sin, of
righteousness and of judgment; and to regenerate, sanctify, comfort and seal those who
believe in Jesus Christ.
5. that man is totally depraved in that of himself he is utterly unable to remedy his lost
condition.
6. that salvation is the gift of God who brought to man by grace and received by personal faith
in the Lord Jesus Christ, whose atoning blood was shed on the cross for the forgiveness of
sins.
7. in the water baptism of believers, symbolizing the believers union in the death and
resurrection of Jesus Christ; in the observance of the Lord's Supper commemorating the
sacrifice of our Savior for all mankind.
8. We believe the life of the believer is to be separated from the world by consistent conduct
before God and man, and is to be in the world as a life-giving light.
9. We believe in the personal and visible and bodily return of the Lord Jesus Christ.
I agree with and uphold these essential truths with the fellowship of which I am a part, and by whom I am ordained into Gospel ministry. SEE: www.ecainternational.org
Should this statement leave any questions unanswered or tenets unclear, I also affirm the statement of faith of the National Association of Evangelicals, which is found at www.nae.net/index.cfm?FUSEACTION=nae.statement_of_faith
My theological philosophy is generally "Reformation Arminian," (as opposed to Calvinist) and I tend to be "baptistic" (as opposed to other denominations) on many issues. Honestly, though, I think many of those "lines" and differences are manufactured by "made-with-hands" human organizations or Satan himself to keep The Church divided.
As some have read in earlier posts, my understanding of the organization of the "church" defies neat, nutshell descriptions.... I affirm "That the true Church is composed of all such persons who through saving faith in Jesus Christ have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit and are united together in the Body of Christ of which He is the Head."
Now at least you know where I'm coming from Theologically :-D
We believe:
1. that both the Old and New Testaments constitute the divinely inspired word of God, inerrant
in the originals.
2. in one God existing eternally in three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
3. that the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, became man without ceasing to be God, in order
that He might reveal God and redeem sinful men.
4. that the Holy Spirit came forth from the Father and the Son to convict the world of sin, of
righteousness and of judgment; and to regenerate, sanctify, comfort and seal those who
believe in Jesus Christ.
5. that man is totally depraved in that of himself he is utterly unable to remedy his lost
condition.
6. that salvation is the gift of God who brought to man by grace and received by personal faith
in the Lord Jesus Christ, whose atoning blood was shed on the cross for the forgiveness of
sins.
7. in the water baptism of believers, symbolizing the believers union in the death and
resurrection of Jesus Christ; in the observance of the Lord's Supper commemorating the
sacrifice of our Savior for all mankind.
8. We believe the life of the believer is to be separated from the world by consistent conduct
before God and man, and is to be in the world as a life-giving light.
9. We believe in the personal and visible and bodily return of the Lord Jesus Christ.
I agree with and uphold these essential truths with the fellowship of which I am a part, and by whom I am ordained into Gospel ministry. SEE: www.ecainternational.org
Should this statement leave any questions unanswered or tenets unclear, I also affirm the statement of faith of the National Association of Evangelicals, which is found at www.nae.net/index.cfm?FUSEACTION=nae.statement_of_faith
My theological philosophy is generally "Reformation Arminian," (as opposed to Calvinist) and I tend to be "baptistic" (as opposed to other denominations) on many issues. Honestly, though, I think many of those "lines" and differences are manufactured by "made-with-hands" human organizations or Satan himself to keep The Church divided.
As some have read in earlier posts, my understanding of the organization of the "church" defies neat, nutshell descriptions.... I affirm "That the true Church is composed of all such persons who through saving faith in Jesus Christ have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit and are united together in the Body of Christ of which He is the Head."
Now at least you know where I'm coming from Theologically :-D
Thursday, January 26, 2006
Gloves Off: On The War Against Islamofascism
I haven't directly commented here on the War Against Terrorism before, but today's events in Israel regarding the Palestinian elections provide a good opportunity.
Seventy percent of Palestinians voted yesterday to elect Hamas -- a radical terrorist group whose written and commonly known goal is the absolute destruction of Israel in particular, Jews in general, and any nation (re: United States) that supports them. Hamas is directly supported by Iran, who immediately made public its praise and support of the new terrorist state, along with other Islamofascist terrorist groups and nations.
I won't go into great detail, but a short primer on modern Islamic terrorism is appropriate here. The "Palestinians" were little more than desert nomads from a number of Arab nations after WWII. Those nations didn't want them, so they wanted them to remain in the region of Palestine -- a protectorate of Great Britain. When the US and Britain (largely at the behest of Evangelical Christians in these nations) supported the creation of a Jewish state, Israel, the Palestinians became a problem.
Israel became a nation in 1948, and was immediately attacked by half a dozen Islamic states. Within a few weeks, Israel almost doubled their size against superior, better armed forces and with no standing army. When the so-called "Palestinians" fled the Jewish state, they were slaughtered -- NOT by the Jews, but by OTHER Arab states....Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt....They didn't want them!
With the rise of Yassir Arafat (actually born an Egyptian), and his "Palestinian Liberation Organization," modern Islamic terrorism was born. First lead by grand mufti Haj Amin Al Husseini of Jerusalem, the fledgling Palestinian movement to destroy Jews began. Husseini, who was also related to Arafat and his mentor, even supported and fought on the side of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi's during WWII, supporting his "final solution."
From the 1950's and 60's onward for about 30 years, the primary target of terrorism was Israel. The dynamics of the Cold War also figured into Middle East politics, with the United States and the "West" supporting Israel, and the Soviet Union and the "Eastern Bloc" of Communist nations supporting the Arabs.
Then, in 1979, the Iranian Revolution destroyed any American or Western influence over the Islamic states of the Middle East. The US supported Shah of Iran was overthrown and the Ayatollah's became both the religious and political despots of a modern day Persia (Iran). The taking of hostages at our embassy by Iranian revolutionaries was merely a portend of things to come. After 444 days -- and it was no accident that it was on the inauguration day of Ronald Reagan -- the hostages were released. Still, the atmosphere had been created for Islamic extremists to grow and thrive. Their violence planted seeds of certainty that they knew would eventually bear fruit against the weak infidels of the West. Their martyrs became the bricks that built the foundation of the future Islamic kingdom that would destroy the infidels and rule the world.
The United States regarded the increasing attacks at the hands of Islamic terrorists as little more than international relations "mosquito bites." Even when the attacks were major, little time or energy was dedicated to response and recompense. Consider some of the attacks that occurred through the 80's and 90's: The Lebanon Marine Barracks bombing - 1983; The Achille Lauro cruise ship hijacking - 1985; Downing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland - 1988; First World Trade Center Bombing - 1993; Riyadh Saudi Arabia Military Compound Bombing - 1995; Khobar Towers Bombing - 1996; American Embassy Bombings in Tanzania and Kenya -- 1998; Attack on the USS Cole in Yemen -- 2000; And finally, 9/11/2001....The one that got our attention.
The responses to all of these attacks were, at best, anemic, like the Clinton regime's cruise missile attacks on empty camps in Afghanistan and an aspirin factory in the Sudan. Other times they were harmful, like the Reagan Administrations withdrawal of Marines from Lebanon rather than invading in force and hunting down Islamic Jihad, or the usual response of the Clinton regime -- to do absolutely nothing. In any case, the Islamofascist terrorist organizations and the nations that supported them understood the import of these attacks -- they are at war. They had to destroy the Zionists, kill the Jews, create a kingdom for Allah.
On the other hand, the West didn't -- and to a large extent still doesn't -- understand what that means. "War" is something that happened in the distant past, when our grandparents or great grandparents were young. The world can't go through that kind of desperate struggle again, can it?
A simple answer is, 9/11....
Though the West in general and the United States in particular may not recognize it, we are currently engaged in World War III. The enemy now is Islamofascism, just as virulent as Nazism in World War II, and far more widespread. Wherever Muslims are, there are, in their midst, Islamofacist. They share the same goal as the Nazi's -- the destruction of Jews, and world domination. And they are willing to fight for it -- to give anything to attain it. How much are we willing to sacrifice to stop it?
In a war, you don't win by withdrawing from the battle as some spineless, politically correct liberal elites are demanding. You can't peacefully co-exist with fanatics who will never be satisfied with anything less than your total destruction. You have to fight with all your might -- to fight fire with fire.
Yesterday's election demonstrates that very few Muslims in the Middle East (less that 3 in 10 among the Palestinians) have any interest in peace or co-existence. The vast majority are firmly dedicated to the Islamofascist agenda. And when you consider that Iran is perhaps only months from attaining nuclear weapons, and that intelligence indicates many of Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction were secreted out of the country to Syria before the coalition invasion, and Al-Queda continues to attempt to find ways to attack US interests at home and abroad, anyone with an ounce of common sense will conclude that we are, indeed, in World War III. To conclude anything else is utter foolishness and invites absolute destruction not only of our freedoms, but quite possibly our very lives.
It's time to take the gloves off. Democracy among the Palestinians did not produce good results -- but at least it produced honesty. Finally, it is clear that we as a civilization are at war with another civilization -- one that is diametrically opposed to our own worldview both politically and religiously. War is certain, but peace can only be achieved against Islamofascism AFTER victory is won. Then there will be peace -- but what kind of peace will it be? The peace of freedom, or of tyranny?
J. Dale Weaver, M. Div.
Seventy percent of Palestinians voted yesterday to elect Hamas -- a radical terrorist group whose written and commonly known goal is the absolute destruction of Israel in particular, Jews in general, and any nation (re: United States) that supports them. Hamas is directly supported by Iran, who immediately made public its praise and support of the new terrorist state, along with other Islamofascist terrorist groups and nations.
I won't go into great detail, but a short primer on modern Islamic terrorism is appropriate here. The "Palestinians" were little more than desert nomads from a number of Arab nations after WWII. Those nations didn't want them, so they wanted them to remain in the region of Palestine -- a protectorate of Great Britain. When the US and Britain (largely at the behest of Evangelical Christians in these nations) supported the creation of a Jewish state, Israel, the Palestinians became a problem.
Israel became a nation in 1948, and was immediately attacked by half a dozen Islamic states. Within a few weeks, Israel almost doubled their size against superior, better armed forces and with no standing army. When the so-called "Palestinians" fled the Jewish state, they were slaughtered -- NOT by the Jews, but by OTHER Arab states....Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt....They didn't want them!
With the rise of Yassir Arafat (actually born an Egyptian), and his "Palestinian Liberation Organization," modern Islamic terrorism was born. First lead by grand mufti Haj Amin Al Husseini of Jerusalem, the fledgling Palestinian movement to destroy Jews began. Husseini, who was also related to Arafat and his mentor, even supported and fought on the side of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi's during WWII, supporting his "final solution."
From the 1950's and 60's onward for about 30 years, the primary target of terrorism was Israel. The dynamics of the Cold War also figured into Middle East politics, with the United States and the "West" supporting Israel, and the Soviet Union and the "Eastern Bloc" of Communist nations supporting the Arabs.
Then, in 1979, the Iranian Revolution destroyed any American or Western influence over the Islamic states of the Middle East. The US supported Shah of Iran was overthrown and the Ayatollah's became both the religious and political despots of a modern day Persia (Iran). The taking of hostages at our embassy by Iranian revolutionaries was merely a portend of things to come. After 444 days -- and it was no accident that it was on the inauguration day of Ronald Reagan -- the hostages were released. Still, the atmosphere had been created for Islamic extremists to grow and thrive. Their violence planted seeds of certainty that they knew would eventually bear fruit against the weak infidels of the West. Their martyrs became the bricks that built the foundation of the future Islamic kingdom that would destroy the infidels and rule the world.
The United States regarded the increasing attacks at the hands of Islamic terrorists as little more than international relations "mosquito bites." Even when the attacks were major, little time or energy was dedicated to response and recompense. Consider some of the attacks that occurred through the 80's and 90's: The Lebanon Marine Barracks bombing - 1983; The Achille Lauro cruise ship hijacking - 1985; Downing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland - 1988; First World Trade Center Bombing - 1993; Riyadh Saudi Arabia Military Compound Bombing - 1995; Khobar Towers Bombing - 1996; American Embassy Bombings in Tanzania and Kenya -- 1998; Attack on the USS Cole in Yemen -- 2000; And finally, 9/11/2001....The one that got our attention.
The responses to all of these attacks were, at best, anemic, like the Clinton regime's cruise missile attacks on empty camps in Afghanistan and an aspirin factory in the Sudan. Other times they were harmful, like the Reagan Administrations withdrawal of Marines from Lebanon rather than invading in force and hunting down Islamic Jihad, or the usual response of the Clinton regime -- to do absolutely nothing. In any case, the Islamofascist terrorist organizations and the nations that supported them understood the import of these attacks -- they are at war. They had to destroy the Zionists, kill the Jews, create a kingdom for Allah.
On the other hand, the West didn't -- and to a large extent still doesn't -- understand what that means. "War" is something that happened in the distant past, when our grandparents or great grandparents were young. The world can't go through that kind of desperate struggle again, can it?
A simple answer is, 9/11....
Though the West in general and the United States in particular may not recognize it, we are currently engaged in World War III. The enemy now is Islamofascism, just as virulent as Nazism in World War II, and far more widespread. Wherever Muslims are, there are, in their midst, Islamofacist. They share the same goal as the Nazi's -- the destruction of Jews, and world domination. And they are willing to fight for it -- to give anything to attain it. How much are we willing to sacrifice to stop it?
In a war, you don't win by withdrawing from the battle as some spineless, politically correct liberal elites are demanding. You can't peacefully co-exist with fanatics who will never be satisfied with anything less than your total destruction. You have to fight with all your might -- to fight fire with fire.
Yesterday's election demonstrates that very few Muslims in the Middle East (less that 3 in 10 among the Palestinians) have any interest in peace or co-existence. The vast majority are firmly dedicated to the Islamofascist agenda. And when you consider that Iran is perhaps only months from attaining nuclear weapons, and that intelligence indicates many of Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction were secreted out of the country to Syria before the coalition invasion, and Al-Queda continues to attempt to find ways to attack US interests at home and abroad, anyone with an ounce of common sense will conclude that we are, indeed, in World War III. To conclude anything else is utter foolishness and invites absolute destruction not only of our freedoms, but quite possibly our very lives.
It's time to take the gloves off. Democracy among the Palestinians did not produce good results -- but at least it produced honesty. Finally, it is clear that we as a civilization are at war with another civilization -- one that is diametrically opposed to our own worldview both politically and religiously. War is certain, but peace can only be achieved against Islamofascism AFTER victory is won. Then there will be peace -- but what kind of peace will it be? The peace of freedom, or of tyranny?
J. Dale Weaver, M. Div.
Monday, January 23, 2006
The Spirit of Treason
I don't have to write a long blog on the issue of treason among some here in the United States during a time of war. People like Ted Kennedy, Dick Durbin, Patrick Leahy, John Murtha, Howard Dean, Al Gore and other Democrats in elective office make that case for me perfectly.
During a time of war, to advocate "withdrawal" from the field of battle against an enemy who is bent on our destruction is not merely surrender, it is suicide. To deny the President his constitutional duty and responsibility to gather intelligence about the enemy is aiding and abetting our enemies. Declaring that the President has "betrayed" this country while at the same time advocating betrayal by badmouthing our troops and accusing them of the same war crimes that our enemies boldly commit is beyond the pail. To accuse our soldiers and intelligence officers in time of war of "torture" without any evidence -- but with certain knowledge that our enemies do torture and worse -- is inconceivable to loyal, patriotic Americans... But not to these traitors.
No, these fools are not motivated by patriotism or some noble concern for the preservation of liberty and the constitution. They are motivated only by their lust for their own power. Their "crimes" may not meet muster to be charged for treason by the letter of the law, but they are certainly in the spirit of treason. And these people should be treated as the Benedict Arnolds they are.
During a time of war, to advocate "withdrawal" from the field of battle against an enemy who is bent on our destruction is not merely surrender, it is suicide. To deny the President his constitutional duty and responsibility to gather intelligence about the enemy is aiding and abetting our enemies. Declaring that the President has "betrayed" this country while at the same time advocating betrayal by badmouthing our troops and accusing them of the same war crimes that our enemies boldly commit is beyond the pail. To accuse our soldiers and intelligence officers in time of war of "torture" without any evidence -- but with certain knowledge that our enemies do torture and worse -- is inconceivable to loyal, patriotic Americans... But not to these traitors.
No, these fools are not motivated by patriotism or some noble concern for the preservation of liberty and the constitution. They are motivated only by their lust for their own power. Their "crimes" may not meet muster to be charged for treason by the letter of the law, but they are certainly in the spirit of treason. And these people should be treated as the Benedict Arnolds they are.
Monday, January 09, 2006
Controversy: NBC's "The Book of Daniel"
I've not done a great deal of "social commentary" here, but that's about to change. Last week, NBC premiered a new TV show, "The Book of Daniel."
No, it doesn't deal with the great Hebrew prophet by that name. No, the show doesn't seek to answer questions regarding Bible prophecy. It is a "drama/comedy" that deals with the life of an Episcopal priest and his dysfunctional family, and his personal "talks" with "Jesus."
Most Christian's opposed the airing of this series because of the way it portrayed Christians. Okay, I can see why that's an objection. Every member of this priests TV family are dysfunctional. Not just dysfunctional -- screwed up! Now, I've known screwed up families before. The reality is, Christian families can be -- and sometimes ARE -- dysfunctional. In some cases, they ARE really screwed up. In my experience, however, all families have problems, but few unchurched families are as insane as NBC's family, much less Christian families. What really bothers me about this aspect of "The Book of Daniel" is the not so subtle insinuation that this family is as it is because they are "Christians." Do they say that? no, not directly. But that idea is implicitly set forth. Still and yet, is that why I think this series is problematic? No...
The biggest difficulty I have with the series is the way it portrays Jesus. Don't get me wrong -- the fact that Jesus (in the series) has a biting wit and can be sarcastic isn't bad. In fact, I LOVE that! I often tell people (tongue-in-cheek, of course) that my two spiritual gifts are sarcasm and facetiousness. Clearly in the Gospels Jesus IS sarcastic at times -- contrary to what many good evangelicals might say.
The irritation I have, is the way "Jesus" so easily dismisses what the Bible clearly said. One instant I recall is when this priest quotes a Bible verse verbatim from the Gospels. "Jesus" then scoffs and shaking his head, says, "where do you people get this stuff?"
That troubles me. He got it from the Bible, from the words of Jesus Himself. To portray "Jesus" as questioning -- or denying -- the very Word upon which faith in Him is based may be funny, but it's dangerous. Funny I get, but that borders on blasphemy.
In short, I don't particularly object to Christians being portrayed as troubled people -- they are -- though not to the over-the-top extremes "The Book of Daniel" indicates. I don't mind a Saviour who is portrayed as having a quick wit and a sarcastic disposition at times -- He was, and IS. What I DO find unacceptable is that this "Jesus" isn't true to His own words, His own virtues and characteristics. Contradicting the Bible in its description of Christ is an attack not only on the Word, but on the One who gave us that Word.
I won't be watching this series. I'll tell NBC and my local affiliate that I won't watch -- and I might just discontinue viewing NBC as a whole. That's my choice. NBC and Hollywood may choose to keep on running this series and other such junk. That's their choice. I don't have to agree or to like it -- not yet anyway. But, in the end, Hollywood will run out of money before I run out of convictions.
No, it doesn't deal with the great Hebrew prophet by that name. No, the show doesn't seek to answer questions regarding Bible prophecy. It is a "drama/comedy" that deals with the life of an Episcopal priest and his dysfunctional family, and his personal "talks" with "Jesus."
Most Christian's opposed the airing of this series because of the way it portrayed Christians. Okay, I can see why that's an objection. Every member of this priests TV family are dysfunctional. Not just dysfunctional -- screwed up! Now, I've known screwed up families before. The reality is, Christian families can be -- and sometimes ARE -- dysfunctional. In some cases, they ARE really screwed up. In my experience, however, all families have problems, but few unchurched families are as insane as NBC's family, much less Christian families. What really bothers me about this aspect of "The Book of Daniel" is the not so subtle insinuation that this family is as it is because they are "Christians." Do they say that? no, not directly. But that idea is implicitly set forth. Still and yet, is that why I think this series is problematic? No...
The biggest difficulty I have with the series is the way it portrays Jesus. Don't get me wrong -- the fact that Jesus (in the series) has a biting wit and can be sarcastic isn't bad. In fact, I LOVE that! I often tell people (tongue-in-cheek, of course) that my two spiritual gifts are sarcasm and facetiousness. Clearly in the Gospels Jesus IS sarcastic at times -- contrary to what many good evangelicals might say.
The irritation I have, is the way "Jesus" so easily dismisses what the Bible clearly said. One instant I recall is when this priest quotes a Bible verse verbatim from the Gospels. "Jesus" then scoffs and shaking his head, says, "where do you people get this stuff?"
That troubles me. He got it from the Bible, from the words of Jesus Himself. To portray "Jesus" as questioning -- or denying -- the very Word upon which faith in Him is based may be funny, but it's dangerous. Funny I get, but that borders on blasphemy.
In short, I don't particularly object to Christians being portrayed as troubled people -- they are -- though not to the over-the-top extremes "The Book of Daniel" indicates. I don't mind a Saviour who is portrayed as having a quick wit and a sarcastic disposition at times -- He was, and IS. What I DO find unacceptable is that this "Jesus" isn't true to His own words, His own virtues and characteristics. Contradicting the Bible in its description of Christ is an attack not only on the Word, but on the One who gave us that Word.
I won't be watching this series. I'll tell NBC and my local affiliate that I won't watch -- and I might just discontinue viewing NBC as a whole. That's my choice. NBC and Hollywood may choose to keep on running this series and other such junk. That's their choice. I don't have to agree or to like it -- not yet anyway. But, in the end, Hollywood will run out of money before I run out of convictions.
Thursday, January 05, 2006
Defining Yourself
If you want to really get a good idea of who you are, of what you're all about, here's a good exercise to engage in..... Plan your own funeral.
Seriously, down to the last detail. Songs or hymns sung; readings of Scripture, literature, poetry; those who will officiate and those who will eulogize; even what you'd like to be said, preached, remembered...
My Dad told me about the funeral of my Great Aunt last week. She was nearly 93, the last sibling of my late paternal grandmother. He told me it was maybe the nicest funeral service he'd ever been to. She clearly gave the service -- and her life -- a lot of thought. She included everything, planned every detail. She even wrote a poem herself for her memorial service! That takes a great deal of reflection and introspection.
How many of us are willing to do that? To sit, and spend time just reflecting on who we are, what we've done, why we're here? To lay out a plan for what people (one would hope) should think of you, and how they will bid you goodbye?
Most of us are repelled by the idea of death -- especially our own. And in all honesty we don't like to contemplate the far too numerous failures and missed opportunities in our past. Looking back and seeing our faults can be as painful and uninspiring as looking to the future at our certain, impending expiration.
Then again, planning our own funeral -- our own formal recognition of departure from this world to the next -- may actually help us not only to face our appointment with death, but it could encourage us to live better in anticipation of it. When I go, I want to have made plans not only about how others will remember me, but to prepare for what awaits me. And part of that preparation is to live purposefully now, in focus and on target.
Life does not merely end in death. Life is an introduction to eternity. We should concern ourselves not only with planning our funeral, or even with how we'll fare and where we'll be in eternity -- but with how we'll be remembered -- with the legacy we leave after we've gone.
Plan your funeral. It might not only give you an idea of how you'll die, but about how you ought to live until then.
Seriously, down to the last detail. Songs or hymns sung; readings of Scripture, literature, poetry; those who will officiate and those who will eulogize; even what you'd like to be said, preached, remembered...
My Dad told me about the funeral of my Great Aunt last week. She was nearly 93, the last sibling of my late paternal grandmother. He told me it was maybe the nicest funeral service he'd ever been to. She clearly gave the service -- and her life -- a lot of thought. She included everything, planned every detail. She even wrote a poem herself for her memorial service! That takes a great deal of reflection and introspection.
How many of us are willing to do that? To sit, and spend time just reflecting on who we are, what we've done, why we're here? To lay out a plan for what people (one would hope) should think of you, and how they will bid you goodbye?
Most of us are repelled by the idea of death -- especially our own. And in all honesty we don't like to contemplate the far too numerous failures and missed opportunities in our past. Looking back and seeing our faults can be as painful and uninspiring as looking to the future at our certain, impending expiration.
Then again, planning our own funeral -- our own formal recognition of departure from this world to the next -- may actually help us not only to face our appointment with death, but it could encourage us to live better in anticipation of it. When I go, I want to have made plans not only about how others will remember me, but to prepare for what awaits me. And part of that preparation is to live purposefully now, in focus and on target.
Life does not merely end in death. Life is an introduction to eternity. We should concern ourselves not only with planning our funeral, or even with how we'll fare and where we'll be in eternity -- but with how we'll be remembered -- with the legacy we leave after we've gone.
Plan your funeral. It might not only give you an idea of how you'll die, but about how you ought to live until then.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)