Pro-Choicers Are Aborting Themselves to Death

Traditional political wisdom is that the social conservatives should be silenced for fear the fiscal conservatives will lose their voice and, most importantly, lose upcoming elections. Those "pro-lifers" are going to be our downfall, so goes the conventional line. Blue blood establishment types think, I guess, we can't walk and chew gum at the same time. Not only is it possible to be a social conservative and a fiscal conservative in the same breath, but the latest news is that both joined together are a winning combination.

There has been a noticeable shift in the cultural wind, which has the "pro-choice" crowd shaking in their boots. What are the reasons why things may be tipping in favor of the pro-life position?

!. YEARS OF PERSEVERANCE THROUGH SUCCESSFUL ADVERTISING AND EDUCATION. I can recall back in the 1990s how a soft, low-key pro-life advertising campaign on the major networks caught the pro-abortion advocates off guard. People's opinions about the issue began to change slowly over time; for one thing, the pro-lifers were seen as normal people who just valued life wherever it is found, inside the womb as well as outside the womb. The idea that pro-lifers were some extreme fringe element of "in your face, name calling, unloving, judgmental, abortion clinic bombers" proved to be grossly wrong in the eyes of the public. If anything, the pro-choice crowd with their marches and speeches have showed off a very hateful rhetoric.

While there has been some advertising that has been very graphic and edgy in a few instances here and there, for the most part, the pro-lifers have done a better job presenting themselves and their views. After all, when you have a good product "to sell", the product pretty much sells itself; everything from pro-life car tags to "abortion stops a beating heart" bumper stickers to tactful tee shirts has had a cumulative effect of selling the idea that life sure is a better deal than death. Exactly how can one sell the product that aborting a "live fetus" is a good and necessary thing that elevates culture and human dignity? That's a hard sell.

After all, who are the biggest promoters and active participants in adoption, for example? You certainly won't find that in the pro-choice crowd. Who are the ones who have done the most in our society to care for unwed single mothers, or pregnant teenagers, or children born out of wedlock? Facts have borne out the obvious answer--pro-lifers do so much more to back up their talk with loving, sacrificial service than what Planned Parenthood has to offer.

For abortion providers, it is "we will get you in here to take care of that unwanted pregnancy" and then you are on your own after that. What do they really do in terms of post-abortion traumatic disorders, a hidden, but known fact, that plagues the great majority of those women who have had abortions? Their counseling services, if you want to call it that, leave women struggling with a boatload of guilt. Also overlooked, or I should say buried on purpose by the pro-abortion advocates, is the growing scientific evidence that certain cancers in women are much more likely to occur in those who have gone through an abortion.

Even the pro-abortion clinics now have to admit that, from their own records, that the number one reason why women seek an abortion is because it is a convenient form of birth control. All the cries about rape, or incest, or the health of the woman, simply have registered only a very small token number of women who fall in one of those categories.

On college campuses around our country, Justice For All has been making the rounds with tremendous results. It is a visual presentation, with no protest signs or marches or speeches, about the need for justice (a good-sounding name that resonates well in a liberal college atmosphere) for everyone. If we want justice for all types of people, like those in minority status, or those with disabilities, or those with certain diseases, then to be consistent we should seek justice for those who can not speak up for themselves--those who are in the wombs, the most dangerous place to live in our nation today.

Years and years of successful advertising and education are paying off huge dividends, for the majority of Americans now, according to the a recent Rasmussen poll, say that abortion is "morally wrong most of the time."

2. THE FAILURE OF THE EVOLUTIONARY PHILOSOPHY AND ITS INSEPARABLE LINK WITH ABORTION. It goes without saying much that Darwinian macro-evolution has owned our high school biology textbooks; it has owned our college campuses; it has owned all the large media outlets; it has owned for example everything from National Geographic to Newsweek; it has owned Hollywood; it has owned practically all science museums; it has owned all science TV specials; it has owned the entrenched scientific upper establishment. One can not get away from the long reach of the evolutionary propaganda arm.

Yet with all this going for them, it puzzles and it enrages the Darwin devotees that the vast majority of Americans totally reject Darwinian macro-evolution in poll after poll year after year. Added to that is the remarkable gains the Intelligent Design movement has had in all corners of our society, and there is a growing number of evolutionists who are abandoning this cherished theory, which is closer to an hypothesis than even a theory. One can not overstate the domino effect that Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box has had in the scientific community. Antony Flew blew the minds of many, and evolutionists are now on the defensive with no solid evidence to back up their own blind-faith religion. More and more Christian scientists are "coming out of the closet" so to speak and declaring boldly their belief that Darwinian raises more questions than it ever solves, and that all the facts point to an Intelligent Uncaused Eternal Creator Being behind it all.

What does this have to do with abortion? The continued demise of the evolutionary model is partnered with the fall of the abortionary model. They are joined at the hip. Evolution is the concrete slab; if abortion is not the ground floor, it is one floor up. Darwinian evolution provides a way to get rid of God; we are answerable to no one, and therefore, we can live our lives any way we want to and do with our bodies what we deem fit. What is it we have heard all our lives from the pro-choice crowd? "It's a woman's body and she can do with it what she pleases. It's a case of women's reproductive rights!"

But if the foundation of evolution is destroyed, then what can the unrighteous do with their cause for abortion? Hitler and Stalin both loved Darwin; you see how well that worked out in promoting the sacredness of human life.

It is an irony that modern science has become a chief enemy of abortionists, which only proves what we should have known all along--that is, abortion is not about science, but about a certain philosophy of life, or anti-life. In a Washington Post editorial, Frances Kissling, former president of Catholics for Choice, advised abortion-rights advocates to shift strategies, because, "we can no longer pretend the fetus is invisible."

How many abortionists are downright fearful of the high-tech imagery we see on ultrasound machines? Just hear the public outcry in states that have proposed and passed laws that say a woman must view the pictures from an ultrasound machine before she proceeds with an abortion. It is hard to understand the justification for such a protest when I thought we were supposed to give in to all the advances of science, the great disprover of religion. Is this a case where with every good rule there must be an exception?

Thanks go to God and to the perseverance of God's people in praying and educating the public about the tragedy of abortion. Political involvement should not be ignored as well. Those who think the church should stay out of public policy debates or the political process at all, even when it comes to clear-cut issues like abortion, have a lot of explaining to do. Nehemiah did the godly thing--he prayed to the Lord, and he posted guard on the Jerusalem wall he was leading to rebuild. He rallied the people to seek the Lord's favor, and he told the people to carry a weapon at their side.

It is not a case of either/or, but both/and. We pray, and we get involved. We worship, and we vote. We read God's Word, and we read up on the latest bills before Congress. And whatever we do, we must always remember that we do it unto the Lord, for His glory. Our task is much bigger than advancing a cause or getting someone elected to office.

If the Truth is contained within the walls of a church building on Sunday morning, then all we have done is to promote a situation ethics or a relativistic philosophy not unlike the world's. The world does not need more world. Darkness needs light and not more darkness.

(to be continued next time; more reasons why the pro-choicers are losing ground, and why the pro-life position is gaining strength)

Til Debt Do Us Part: He Who Goes a-Borrowing Goes a-Sorrowing

After watching the D.C. debt debacle, I thought of a question worth asking ourselves, "Now how many times are the Founding Fathers turning over in their graves?"

Of course the answer would be, "Trillions and trillions of times."

Frugal Benjamin Franklin said, "Think what you do when you run in debt; you give to another power over your liberty."

Thomas Jefferson reflected, "I, however, place economy among the first and most important of republican virtues, and public debt as the greatest dangers to be feared."

From the excellent book The 5000 Year Leap, I quote: "The Founding Fathers belonged to an age when debt was recognized for the ugly spectre that it really is. They considered frugality a virtue, and even when an emergency compelled them to borrow, they believed in borrowing frugally and paying back promptly."

The recent debt deal was no big deal. Our supposed savings over ten years, as if it really is going to happen in the first place, will be wiped out in two days of debt spending. It makes one wonder if the inmates are running the asylum.

Political pressure to fall in line is what many freshmen Congressmen learned the hard way. But that being said, there might be a silver lining behind it all. There has been a recognizable paradigm shift in our nation's capitol. Over one hundred times in the past has the debt ceiling been raised without a whimper coming from the city on the Potomac. But this time we heard an economic revolutionary shot that was heard around the world. The political establishment does not like it one bit, because they see an erosion of their power.

That is what everything is all boils down to anyway--we need to keep huge voting blocs of government dependents happy, so they can return the favor on election day. They are not called "entitlements" for nothing. Harry Hopkins, advisor to President FDR, put it this way: "Tax, tax--spend, spend--elect, elect."

And to make the silver lining more silvery, I heard that the debt deal has put the funding of Obamacare in real jeopardy. I would not mind if it were in double jeopardy, and then final jeopardy. So, in the spirit of Joseph, "what they meant for evil, may just turn out for good."

"A government big enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take everything you have."

That last quote by Thomas Jefferson sums it all up well. One reason why I love to quote T.J. is because he is supposed to be the darling of the liberals; he who is the supposed "non-Christian deist among a group of Bible thumpers" is the most admired among the Founding Fathers by those who cherish Big Government. Most liberals only think of one thing Jefferson ever said, and that is his statement regarding a wall of separation between church and state. (Which by the way was a line in a letter he wrote to some Baptists, whom he reassured that there would be no State Church like there was in Europe; hence, there would be a wall of separation between church and state.)

The book of Proverbs says that the borrower is servant to the lender. We got rid of one kind of slavery in this country; hopefully we can get rid of another kind of slavery, an economic one, this time without 600,000 casualties on battlefields, though.

Romans 13:8 says we are not to owe man anything (not to keep any debt outstanding), but to love one another, for that is the fulfillment of the law. The most loving thing to do is not for you to go deeper in debt at home by providing your family with all sorts of goodies you can't afford; there is not much love in a home where there is so much constant fighting done over money matters, particularly over unpaid bills. Proverbs also talks about the superiority of eating just veggies where love is than having the best cut of beef where there is strife.

On a national scale, the same principle applies. The Big Government crowd think they are doing the most charitable thing by giving hand-outs through a variety of entitlement programs (we have more people on food stamps now than at any time in our nation's history!). In actuality, the reverse is true. Our country is so divided right now and so deep in debt and so embroiled in tension and strife and in such an economic tailspin. How exactly is that a picture of love?

Our family has been blessed from the Lord by being out of debt, There have been times in the past when we had to pay out medical bills over an extended period of time, without any interest involved, but we have learned the joy of being free from financial bondage. Those married couples who worked long and hard to get out of debt know what I am talking about.

Paul in Philippians 4 talks much about contentment, and how we must LEARN to be content. It is a valuable lesson we need to learn as individuals and as a nation. We have two competing principles: Either God is able to supply all your need according to His riches in Christ Jesus, or Government is able to supply all your want according to its continued borrowing and printing of money in D.C.

"My God is bigger than your government."

(Thomas Jefferson didn't say that one, but he could have.)

Now that TRON has won over one, will HARRY POTTER be coming to a church near you?

One of the most frequent criticisms of the church has been that it has demonstrated itself to be so much behind the times. The church needs to get over it, get with it, get on with it.

A sure example of the modern church being so stuck in the past is when a church decorates its lobby with light cycles featured in the movie TRON: LEGACY. If a church wants to have an "At the Movies" sermon series, then can't it please get something much more current? Do you realize that the movie TRON: LEGACY was released at the end of 2010? We are talking over six months ago! How behind the times can we be when we have a movie that has been released on DVD for over three months now? Not even Redbox has it on its current releases list.

It is really embarrassing how much the church is lagging behind again, especially when the world has moved on to other things. How many movie releases have there been since the end of 2010, and all we can come up with is a fantasy world thriller that is so 2010ish?

The ideal solution is this--have a church advertise all over the place that Harry Potter is coming to their church. Talk about being current, talk about being on the cutting edge, and talk about mega box office hit with the finale, DEATHLY HALLOWS 2, and talk about bringing in the teens and the twenties to church. Picture this for example: young people lining up outside a church building in the late hours of a Saturday night waiting for the church doors to open on Sunday morning. The TV cameras would catch the spectacular. Most of these young people would be dressed in the familiar Harry Potter garb, complete with Potter's glasses and wizardry attire.

The church could have giveaways which would entice an even bigger crowd to show up--like a complete DVD series of all the Harry Potter movies, once the finale makes it to DVD. Once inside the church, the young people would be met with people from the church dressed just like themselves and the town of Hogwarts would be recreated in the lobby and on the auditorium stage. Background music from the movie would be playing all the time leading up to the start of the worship service (excuse me, here I am showing myself stuck in the past!), I mean, entertainment hour, experience hour, reconnection hour, or whatever we want to call it.

The preacher, excuse me again, the speaker could come out on stage dressed like Potter himself or maybe Lord Voldemort. We must identify with the world if we are going to reach them. The ideas behind all this are LIMITLESS and quite magical.

For a Scripture-based sermon, there are much more possibilities with a Harry Potter than a TRON. I looked in my big Young's Bible Concordance, and I didn't see one verse anywhere with TRON in it. But the word "potter" is a different story. In Jeremiah 18, God told the prophet to go to the potter's house. There you have the obvious connection. What more does a speaker need?

But then again, maybe that will not work. After all, Jeremiah is a book in the OLD Testament, and OLD does not compute with what is new, current, up-to-date, trendy. So maybe we better scratch the idea from Jeremiah 18. Of course, we can hide the fact from where we are reading, and most people would not know the difference, but it is still too risky. We need to be new and fresh and safe.

So I kept looking, and behold in Romans 9, this is the NEW Testament, it talks about God being like a potter who has absolute power over everyone of us, represented by clay, and it is His prerogative to make some of us vessels of wrath for destruction and some of us vessels of mercy. That He shows mercy on whom He will have mercy, and He has compassion on whom He desires to have compassion. And none of us can talk back to God about this, because it is His sovereign right to do all the above, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, and. . .

On second thought, we might need to scratch the Romans 9 word connection with young Potter. It might be new, but it definitely is not safe these days.

So, back to the drawing board, and I stumbled upon a verse in Isaiah 29:16. (I know it is the OLD Testament, but we will just not mention the scriptural reference. The Potter fans would not be carrying their Bibles to church anyway.) There we read people who were getting things backward. They were saying that they were the potter and God was the clay.

Now that will go over big time! We control God, God answers to us, we do something, and God must respond, that He is a responder and not an initiator, we push the right buttons and God does His thing, we hold the keys to determine our fate, etc. So we have found our angle from Scripture. Plus, it has the added advantage of fitting right into the world of Harry Potter.

What church out there will be the trendsetter and get us out of the six-month, behind-the-times, rut we are in? Who out there will be the first one to invite Harry Potter to their church?

(After we are through with Harry, the next coming attraction could be HORRIBLE BOSSES. I know it is very racy and rough in parts, but once you cross one line, it is so much easier to cross the next line. And besides, do you know how many people out there work for horrible bosses? Disgruntled employees would be flooding through the church doors.)

One final word. . .I read this summary movie review of TRON: LEGACY. "The result is a cheerful, colorful and solidly PG popcorn piece that won't leave you deep in thought."

Maybe I was too harsh on the use of TRON at first. I get it now. The connection is so obvious, how could I have missed it? It makes perfect sense now. I have seen the light, just like the light in that church's newly decorated lobby.

After all, we certainly don't want the Sunday crowd at church ever to be deep in thought about anything. O foolish me, what was I thinking?

Sarcastically yours,

Chris

A Fomenting Family Fetish

The human heart is a nonstop idol factory, and often times the hardest idols to detect are those things which are good that compete with that which are best or most necessary.

The fifth commandment has to do with the family; the first four though has to do with God and the exclusive worship, honor and obedience which He deserves. Really the fifth commandment is directed not just toward fourth-graders in the honor they should give to their parents, but it is geared toward 40 year-olds in the honor they should give their aging parents. Adults comprised the original audience of Moses' congregation at the base of Mt. Sinai.

Today I fear that in an over-reactionary way, to correct society's views toward the traditional family, that there is a large segment of the Christian community who are unknowingly elevating the family to a place that belongs only to God. I see this danger especially in the patriarchal and family-integrated church movement, a prominent fad that will fade away over time just like Gothard's Institute in Basic Youth Conflicts and Promise Keepers.

There are many points of appreciation (and I want to give credit where credit is due, and that is from a positional paper from a Grace Bible Church, somewhere in the USA) which I have toward those individuals and organizations who have sounded the alarm bell about the devaluation of the family. For one thing, they address the many problems in the modern day church related to youth, where often times children and youth are segregated at every turn from adults, and are babysat and entertained. The traditional youth ministry has proven to be a disaster in so many ways.

Also, they boldly call parents, especially fathers, to take up the call to lead, shepherd, disciple and train their own children in the fear and admonition of the Lord. How many dads, even Christian dads, have gone AWOL from their responsibilities at home? When parents turn over their responsibilities to day care or schools or churches or other organizations to train their children primarily, then repentance is in order.

Our society looks upon children as a curse or a nuisance, inside the womb and outside the womb. Those who champion the family have rightly said that the Scriptures teach that children are a blessing.

So I stand shoulder to shoulder with those who have spoken up rightly so about all the above matters. We are losing our church youth today even after spending so much time and church budget in youth activities, and the numerous Christian spokesmen on this issue have put their finger on what is the problem and what are some practical solutions.

In some quarters, though, I am hearing and seeing hard-fast rules to counteract all the above that do not have the support of Scripture behind them. We are being told that only parents should be teaching their children, that age-segregated instruction such as Sunday School, VBS, church camps, AWANA programs, or whatever is "of the devil" or "from the pit of hell" (the exact words from some within the patriarchal and family-integrated church movement), wives should only be taught by their husbands and not from a ladies' Bible study group, that the family must do practically everything together in a church setting, that the father/husband has almost supreme authority in all matters of instruction.

Yes, the parent(s) should be the primary teacher or instructor of children, but nowhere in Scripture does it say that parents should be the SOLE teacher of their children. Deuteronomy 6:3-9 is a favorite among the patriarchal movement, but nowhere in that passage does it say that ONLY parents should be teaching their children. Priests were given by the Lord to instruct people in the law. Prophets were called out by God to admonish the people to follow the Lord and His covenant. Synagogues were developed during the Exile, and rabbis came on the scene to teach the people God's laws. Paul was trained by rabbi Gamaliel. Even boy Jesus was bar-Mitzvah-ed; he was conversing with the religious authorities in the Temple at the age of twelve.

There can be a benefit to children hearing "other voices" in support of their parents' instruction. What if the parents' instruction is off the mark scripturally? Would it not be a blessing if that child hears godly, doctrinally solid instruction from some other source over time? Sunday School or other times of instruction do not have to be a substitute or in competition with the parents' instruction at home, but it can be a nice supplement on a level where the children can learn with their peers. After all, we are talking about only an hour each week. If a parent is really concerned about the detrimental effect an hour's instruction will have on their children on a Sunday morning at a church they like and leaders they trust, then what does that say about the value and worth of their own instruction at home during the week? If one hour can possibly "undo" all they do during the week, then I guess what they are doing during the week must not be that hot.

There can be a sense of hypocrisy within the family-integrated church movement. Are not their children learning from a pastor/elder who is teaching and preaching each week? Unless that pastor is his or her own parent, then that child's instruction is coming from someone other than his or her own dad. Within the home school community, where this family-integrated church movement has really taken off, how many of those home school kids are instructed ONLY by their parents? Dance lessons? Piano lessons? Sports teams? Home school co-ops?

I am a family guy, but I want to be known more as the Lord's guy. It has been rightly said that God made Adam before he made Eve. He could have made Eve before Adam; He could have made Adam and Eve at the exact same time. He also could have made the entire family at the same exact time--Adam, Eve, Cain and Abel. But He did not do any of those things. He made an individual first. Marriage and family are high up on God's list, but it is the individual that must give an account of himself before God. It is the individual who has sinned and come short of the glory of God. It is the individual sinner that is need of salvation. Ezekiel 18 plainly says that the son will not bear the sins of the father and the father will not bear the sins of the son. It is the individual soul that sins that shall die.

The church is not made up of a "family of families", as one family-integrated prominent advocate has stated. Nowhere do we find that definition of the church in the New Testament. I know of some churches who have "Family" in their name to advertise they are a family-integrated church. I guess that would leave a single man like the apostle Paul feel unwelcomed. In a family-integrated church, are singles made to feel like second-class citizens? Are widows disenfranchised? What do you do with a woman is a new Christian and whose husband is an unbeliever? Send her somewhere else? What do you do if you have an unbelieving family with unruly children? It seems that our Lord Jesus had an easier time interacting with people like that than those refined, cultured religious folks in His day. The woman at the well in Samaria certainly might stick out like a sore thumb, maybe an unwanted sore thumb, at a family-integrated church.

Yes, families are important to God. Marriage and family are God's ideas after all. But a good family life is not a guarantee of anything, nor is a bad family life a guarantee of anything, unless we believe in Christian determinism, an oxymoron if there ever was one. Josiah had a rotten father and grandfather, but he was a righteous person and a great King. Yet, in spite of being raised in a good home environment, Josiah's three sons were evil in the Lord's sight. We should do everything we can in a Christian home to provide the best type of learning environment for our children, but in the final analysis, that child will have to answer for himself before his Creator. (Ecclesiastes 12:1)

When a church defines itself in any other way than CHRIST, it limits its ministry to a people who are just like them. Maybe that church should put CLIQUE after its name. Legalism takes many forms, and there is a tendency in this patriarchal movement toward outward conformity to certain unspoken and spoken expectations, so much so that these families actually look alike. Contrary to what some might think, there is not an eleventh commandment that says, "thou shalt not send thou children to public schools", there is not a twelfth commandment that says, "thou shalt not send thou children to any church age-segregated events", and there is not a thirteenth commandment that says, "thou shalt not dress thou girls in anything but long denim skirts or dresses".

One fault behind the Promise Keepers movement was that it tended to berate dads into believing their wives are nearly always right, and we should bow to their wishes. Wives are sinners and can be wrong at times. The patriarchal movement tends on the other hand to elevate man to a status where he has no accountability. What if that man is abusive with his authority at home? Does the family have a right to seek corrective church discipline, or must they take it on the chin, because the father is untouchable and all-powerful?

I sincerely applaud all that those in this movement have done to highlight some needed changes that need to be made in our homes and churches. We must be careful, though, that we don't impose our individual or family preferences as a law over others. We have a great amount of Christian liberty (Romans 14) in areas where there may be a diverse set of convictions.

A good course for a church to follow is this--allow families to make up their own minds if they want to send their children to age-segregated activities at church or not. Provide options for all. The church surely is not a showcase for self-defined saints; rather, it is a hospital for self-denying sinners. The church is not a place for law to abound; it is a place where grace should abound. The church of Jesus Christ is made of up of redeemed individuals. That is the family of God that will live on throughout eternity.

Praising God for His being such a wonderful Father, I am yours in Christ,

Chris

Some Surprising Observations from Attending a "Moderate" Southern Baptist Church

I hardly ever get to attend a church as a visitor. But over Memorial Day weekend, I did just that in Ft. Worth, Texas. While my wife and two of my daughters were two hours west of Ft. Worth, I was alone, and I needed to decide which church to attend. I chose a Southern Baptist church close to where I was staying, and a church I was somewhat familiar with in my seminary days back in the late 1970s.

As I entered the worship center, I flipped through the church program that was handed to me, and I noticed immediately that the church had a different name than what it had back in my seminary days. I had no problem with that, but as I read through the program before worship began, I did see something much bigger than a name change that raised all sorts of red flags. I discovered that I was sitting in a "moderate/liberal" Southern Baptist church. (In case someone thinks I might be jumping to conclusions with my labeling of this church, the pastor in his sermon even brought out that their church was a moderate Southern Baptist church.) Texas has two state Southern Baptist conventions, due to a split several years back between the conservatives and the moderates.

I did give it some thought about quietly making my move out of the church building and finding another place to worship. But I stayed put, because I thought this might be a good learning experience. I am glad I stayed put.

What I witnessed was something that blew my religious socks off. We sang some hymns, some of which were totally new to me, but every one was very deep theologically and biblically. We did a responsive reading from two Psalms, after which the choir sang a beautiful song from one of the Psalms in response.

Later the deacon of the week got behind a microphone on the floor and read to us Romans 13:1-7. The pastor then preached out of Matthew 22:15-22, the last in his sermon series on historic Baptist principles. (Of course, his take on all that constitutes historic Baptist principles would be somewhat different than mine.) While the sermon was entitled "The VBS Flag Incident", it was basically a sermon on Baptists and Religious Liberty.

While I disagreed on some points he made in his sermon, at least he preached verse-by-verse, and as I looked around the congregation, everyone had his or her own Bible opened and was following along as the pastor preached. It was not a three-point, twenty-minute sermonette with jokes interspersed, worn-out illustrations, or a poem at the end. It was a very well developed biblical exposition of the text.

Contrast to what I witnessed that Sunday to what I have seen at some contemporary "conservative" evangelical/Southern Baptist worship services, and the differences are startling. In the modern conservative stream, I have seen many people not even carry a Bible to church. To reduce the number even further, I have seen many of those who have a Bible never make an attempt to open it during the sermon.

One of the saddest commentaries on the state of the church today is the number of people who do not carry God's Word with them to church and/or those who never open their Bibles at all while they are at church. Why go to all the trouble when it is shown on an overhead screen? But the saddest commentary is not all of that. . .there is one that is sadder and more tragic, and that is not giving the people a reason to bring and use their Bibles in the first place.

When sermons are fluffy topical motivational speeches with very little exposition of Scripture, then why bring a Bible, when the man behind the pulpit, or on a bar stool, or on a sofa hardly uses the Bible himself? When we do not give an ample reason for people to bring and use their Bibles at church, then that has to be the sadder commentary on the state of the modern church.

So what I learned on Memorial Day weekend this year is that I attended a non-conservative church in order to hear more Bible than I possibly would have had I attended a flashy, trendy, "conservative" church.

Beam me up, Scotty.

Is Barack Obama the Antichrist? (or if he is not, does he come in as a close runner-up?)

I turned 18 in September 1972, just two months before the first presidential election in which 18 year-olds were allowed to vote. In the early spring of my eleventh grade, months prior to my birthday, my economics teacher talked me into attending the local Democrat precinct meeting at someone's house. That is the last thing I wanted to do and the last place I wanted to be on a school night. But to please my teacher, and to earn some possible brownie points in class, I reluctantly went. That was my first taste of local politics, a far cry from my taste for sports.

The biggest surprise came when they began to nominate delegates from the precinct to attend the Eastern Oklahoma County Democrat district meeting (or whatever it was called). My teacher nominated me to be a delegate. I sat there in shocked silence. What did I do to her to get this type of treatment? If this school night in a stranger's house with a bunch of adults was a barrel of fun, I just couldn't imagine what excitement would be brewing in a Friday evening and all-day Saturday event at a high school auditorium! My brownie points better be piling up in a big way.

After attending that two-day mini-political convention, I decided quickly that it was going to be my alpha and omega as a political delegate.

That election year would eventually have George McGovern as the Democrat nominee, President Richard Nixon as the Republican nominee, and George Wallace as the Independent candidate. I stood in a long line to vote for the first time in November that year. It was a privilege I took seriously.

Many that year thought McGovern was probably the Antichrist or close to it. After Watergate became full-blown, there may have been many who once thought McGovern was the Antichrist changed their minds to Nixon's being the most likely candidate for the biblical position.

While in college, several of us drove over to Hot Springs, Arkansas, to hear some Georgia peanut farmer speak. I shook hands with the former Georgia governor who would eventually become the next President of the United States.

I held out great hopes for the unashamedly "born-again Christian" who now occupied the White House, but my hopes faded over time. I still remember such things as those long gas lines and our hostages in Iran. Jimmy Carter was a good, decent man, I thought back then, but I became to believe he was just too incompetent for the job. He may have meant well in all that he did, but he was just in over his head. I have done household plumbing before, and I know what it is like to be in over my head, figuratively and almost literally.

David was a righteous man, but he was also very skilled in what he did. (Psalm 78:72) Character and competency together residing in a leader is a powerful force for good in any society.

Presidents have come and gone, and our own evaluations and opinions may vary on how each one did. The awful truth is that we probably have had more mediocre or bad Presidents than we have had great ones. This only shows the genius of our founding fathers, who did not want a monarchical executive. Our country, so blessed by God in the wisdom imparted to our nation's founders, is very resilient because not all power rests in one man.

Two of our most unheralded past Presidents whom I would put in the "great" category are Grover Cleveland, a Democrat, and Calvin (good first name!) Coolidge, a Republican. When Cal Coolidge left the presidency in March 1929, he said, "Perhaps one of the most important accomplishments of my administration has been minding my own business." If government would mind its own business, and quit trying to mind everyone else's, it certainly would be a marked improvement, in my books.

Certain past Presidents have gained the inevitable distinction of being nominated as the Antichrist. That would be a special category of a "bad" President.

Without giving away everything in a future article, I can with 100% certainty say that Barack Obama is NOT the Antichrist. Some would be quick to add, though, that he deserves to come in as a close second.

I realize the Bible says that we are to pray for all those in authority, and if first century Christians can pray for Nero, then we can pray for President Obama. I also realize that God raises up leaders as He sees fit, as He did toward Pharaoh and Cyrus, and as Nebuchadnezzar learned the hard way after seven years of insanity. I also know that the Bible teaches that the king's heart is in the hands of the King, and He can turn it whatever direction He chooses.

The other thing we learn in Scriptures from the history of Israel and Judah is that God often gives the leaders they deserve. The more appropriate question to ask then is not if Barack Obama is the dreaded contrived "Antichrist" or not, but is Barack Obama God's judgment upon our country? Are we getting what we deserve?

That may sound like a harsh statement, and I do not delve into politics in these articles and I certainly refrain from doing so when I teach God's Word on Sundays, but it is hard to ignore the obvious these days. Charles Spurgeon in his sermons frequently referred to relevant current events in his day.

I have read much on Barack Obama's upbringing (no, I am not talking about his birth certificate!), and that alone scared me. While I disagree with about everyone of Obama's liberal policies, and while I think he has proven to be much more incompetent or inexperienced than any previous President in my lifetime, those two factors alone by themselves do not raise my concerns to the level that it exists today.

While I have disagreed with all past Presidents over certain issues, I figured that for the most part they thought that what they were doing was what was best for their country. Some may have come from different worldviews or held different presuppositions than I did, but still I tried to give the benefit of the doubt to all of them in that they were doing what they thought would help our nation improve or get better.

But. . .

I do not know if I have that same sentiment toward the current occupant of the White House. This is the first time I have ever felt this way toward the President of the United States, and it is not a feeling I relish or enjoy having. It is hard for me to imagine that we would ever have a President that would purposefully do things to harm our country. What we are witnessing today has to be more than just incompetence at work. It has to be something else. No one can just be this arrogantly wrong or misinformed.

I hope I am proven wrong, but if it is true that the current policies of this administration are aimed at bringing our country down at home and abroad, then we are on uncharted waters as a nation. Incompetence is one thing, but intentional design is something far worse.

Like every parent, I want my children to have things better than I did. I want to leave them a country flourishing in liberty. I want them to grow up with opportunities to use their God-given abilities in a free society. I want them to be grateful they are Americans. I want them to bask in the rich heritage of our country.

My concern is that we have a President who does not share in these same desires and goals, and who is determined to undo everything our country has stood for. Whatever his motivations, my prayer for this President is that he will be a one-term President. 2012 can't come soon enough for me. After all, that passage in 1 Timothy 2 says we are to pray for those in authority so that we can lead a quiet and peaceable life.

Calvin Coolidge hit the nail on the head.

After saying all that, though, I must repeat what I read this week as I was studying for my sermon series through Ezekiel: "If there is any lesson to be learned from this sorry history (of Israel) it is this: Trust God, not national power. American Christians are too often overly concerned with saving America. Perhaps God does not intend to save America. But God will save His people. He always has, and He always will."

That is a bigger nail.

Yours in Christ,

Chris

WARNING: In Case of Rapture, This Blog Spot will be Unmanned

I write these articles on the fly most of the time, but this time it is really, really on the fly. . .as in I will be flying away in several hours. At least that is what Harold Camping has informed us. The world is coming to an end on May 21, and I don't have that much time left before I must don my rapture robe woven out of silk from Jerusalem.

I overheard some comments today while I was out there working in the secular world (now why was I working in the first place, when I should be eating and drinking because the day after tomorrow I will fly?). These employees were joking about the atheists who have formed a business to take care of the pets of all departed Christians come May 21. That is the American entrepreneur spirit at work--making money at the expense of end time silliness. Many Christians have been doing that for years (just walk through your local Christian bookstore), so why can't atheists join in the parade and reap the same financial bonanza?

My first car was a 1963 two-door white Chevy Impala. I had on it a bumper sticker that read, Warning: In Case of Rapture, This Car will be Unmanned. It was the "in" bumper sticker among Christians at that time in the late 60s and early 70s. I soon discovered that "rapture" was secret (no pun intended) code language known only to the inner circle of dispensationalist Christians. The world by and large had no idea what that bumper sticker was saying. But it made us all Christians feel good, I guess. Or maybe just plain superior to all those worldly folks.

Of course, rapture is not found in any biblical concordance. That in of itself is not necessarily a bad thing, because the word Trinity is not found in the Bible either. The word "rapture" comes from the Latin word "rapio", and it means to be caught up. It is not the word that bothers me so much, but how the word has been co-opted by a cult-like following among a huge portion of evangelical Christianity, which has done nothing but make Christians look and sound stupid in the eyes of the world.

For the first eighteen centuries of Christianity, the idea that Christians would be secretly raptured out of this world to be followed by a seven-year tribulation time and then the Second (or would it be Third?) Coming of Christ was totally foreign to the thinking of all Christians. The trio of Edward Irving, J.N. Darby and Margaret McDonald in their English cult group changed all that. Pretty soon, Darby exported this sensationalism to America, and a divorced lawyer who had spent time in jail, a C.I. Scofield, picked up on this novel theory, and as Paul Harvey was fond of saying, now you know the rest of the story.

Harold Camping may be an extreme example, but he is an eschatological blood brother, whether certain people want to admit it or not, to all the other end time prophecy "experts" who have drunk liberally from the well of dispensationalism. Harold is bold enough to pick a date; others only flirt with dates. (Of course, if Harold lived back in the Old Testament times, when the penalty for being a false prophet was death by stoning, Harold would have been a goner a long time ago.)

What is the difference really between Harold and all those preachers who were so eager to preach after the devastating earthquake in Japan that we were witnessing a sure sign that we are living in the last days, or how the turmoil in Egypt was a sure sign that the rapture is very, very near?

While growing up as a young person, I heard this remark made many times over: "There have been more earthquakes in the 20th century than all the earthquakes in the previous centuries combined. This just proves we are living in the last days just like Jesus said in Matthew 24:7." Well, guess what? No one ever called anybody on the carpet about that statistic; we just took it at face value (and we love to say we are Berean Christians like in Acts 17:11?), because it sounded so good coming from the pulpit or when we read it in print.

The truth is in earlier centuries they did not have the modern know-how in seismology to measure earthquakes. The statement was and is blatantly false, but don't let that minor detail stop many preachers and authors from using it over and over again still today. The apparent rise in earthquakes over the last several decades is due to nothing more than the use of technological advanced seismographs. How many were killed in the Japan earthquake? Compare that to the one in China in 1850, where an estimated 400,000 died, or how about the one in Calcutta in 1737 where 300,000 died, or how about Egypt in 1138 where 230,000 died, or to top them all, again in China in 1556 where there were over 800,000 casaulties?

So Harold is camping on the fact that May 21 is when it will all end. I can only hope and pray that all this inexlpicable fascination with a cultish modern invader called dispensationalism will come to an end someday.

I told my wife I was going to take her to Hawaii on our 33rd wedding anniversary come May 27. You could not imagine how happy I made her feel. But alas, I also told her I found out that the world will come to an end six days before then, so I had to scrap all my original plans.

Another fallout of dispensationalism--it does not promote harmony in the home. Thanks, Harold.

Looking for the blessed hope,

Chris