Our Common Temptation

Dr. Russell Moore of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY recently delivered an outstanding chapel message that needs to be heard. The message I link to in this post is the third in a series of messages dealing with Jesus' wilderness temptation. It deals with Satan's offer to hand over to Jesus all the kingdoms of the world. It is a temptation to possess power in a way that God has not intended.

Here's an excerpt from the transcript:

The temptation is, "I will give you power," and usually the issue is using that power for good. That is always what you will say to yourself, and what will be said to you: if you can build a power base and work it to where you can have the means to do what you want to do then you will be successful.

That is why we have a denomination where we say we have 16 million Southern Baptists. There are not 16 million Southern Baptists. So why do we claim this? Because it gives us a sense of power. But it is not the kind of power that only comes to the powerful.

Satan says, "Lust after this power, quest after this power: I will give you the kingdoms of the earth." Why is Satan willing to give up his power over all the kingdoms of the earth? Because Satan does not fear Christianity. Satan's authority is in the power to accuse. The power to hold humanity captive to the fear of death and judgment.

Satan is not scared by external conformity to moral values. Satan does not mind family values as long as your ultimate goal is a focus on the family. Satan does not mind social justice, as long as you see justice as primarily social. Satan is willing to give up the kingdoms of the world, apart from the shedding of blood on the cross. If Satan can just bypass the cross, then he will have everything that he wants.

Pastor, Satan does not mind if you preach the decrees of God, if you do not preach the Gospel of the cross. Homeschooling mom, Satan does not mind if you thoroughly catechize your children, if you never teach them about a bloody cross.

Satan will give orphan care, environmental protection, or whatever such issue is important to you provided you do not preach and proclaim and live the power of a cross that cancels his power of condemnation.

Read more of Moore HERE.

Seen Jesus?

More on Time Magazine and the "New Calvinism"

Thabiti over at Pure Church has some helpful thoughts about why Time Magazine's recognition of the "New Calvinism" is not necessarily a good thing. Check it out HERE.

Preparing Our Sons for Marriage

In his book What He Must Be (If he wants to marry my daughter) Voddie Baucham speaks to the problem of young men not being prepared for marriage.

Imagine a family who did not prepare their children for college. This would be unthinkable in today’s world. Everyone prepares their child for an academic future. Day-care programs boast about the head start they will give children in their “academic careers.” We buy houses in neighborhoods with “the best schools.” Beyond that, many families place their children in expensive preparatory schools, enduring tremendous financial burdens, incurring debt, and commuting hours each day in an effort to give their children an edge in that all-important race for the apex of academia.

However, little thought is given to preparing our sons to be husbands. Thus, they meander through life without the skills or mind-set necessary to play this most important role until one day, having met “the one,” they pop the question, set a date, and—in the rarest of cases—go to the pastor to learn everything they need to know about being the priest, prophet, provider, and protector of a household in four one-hour sessions. In the words of that great theologian Dr. Phil, “How’s that workin’ for ya?”

As a result, we have families led by men who haven’t the foggiest idea what their role is or how to carry it out. We have wives who were created with a God-given need to be led by godly men, a curse from the days in the garden that puts them at odds with this arrangement, and a cultural mandate to fight against male headship. Top this off with children who long for the security that can only be found in clear roles and boundaries in the home, and the result is a frustrated family mired in dysfunction. Sound familiar?

If we have any desire to change this, we must begin to prepare young men to be husbands and fathers. We must stop preparing them for lives of selfishness, immediate gratification, and perpetual adolescence if we ever expect to turn the tide. The skills required of a husband and father take a lifetime to acquire. Our sons must begin to acquire them sooner rather than later. If we prepare our children to be husbands and wives, and God calls and equips them to be single, we have lost nothing. On the other hand, if we do not prepare our children to be husbands and wives, and they (like the overwhelming majority of people) end up married someday, we have lost a great deal. Prudence would point toward the necessity to prepare our children for marriage, and to do so with all diligence. (pp. 42-44)

Take and Read

The latest edition of the 9 Marks eJournal is now available to read or download. I love 9 Marks Ministries and the eJournal - Excellent resources for pastors and church leaders.

Reducing Abortion or Making Things Worse?

A helpful editorial in Christianity Today suggests that the actions of pro-abortion politicians who say they want to "reduce abortion" are actually making things worse.

Recently 15 Democratic Senators reintroduced the Prevention First Act (s. 21), a bill ostensibly "to reduce unintended pregnancy, reduce abortions, and improve access to women's health care."

The problem? The bill actually promotes and funds abortion.

Among the bill's provisions is a requirement that any hospital receiving federal funds (including Catholic hospitals) must provide "emergency contraceptives" without charge to victims of sexual assault. These "contraceptives" are often intended to prevent ovulation or fertilization of an egg, but are also designed to prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus.

Those who believe life begins at conception usually mean at fertilization. But their views don't count, says the Prevention First Act, which requires the hospitals to tell victims explicitly, "emergency contraception does not cause an abortion," even though, by most women's definition, it does.

Meanwhile, the Prevention First Act would dramatically increase funding for groups like Planned Parenthood. The organization already gets $335 million a year from the government. The funds cannot be used to perform abortions, but critics rightly point out that they indirectly subsidize abortions.

Read the entire article HERE.

The New Testament's Use of the Old

There has been controversy for generations surrounding the various ways that the New Testament makes use of the Old. For biblical errantists the solution is clear: the New Testament simply gets it wrong. Paul gets it wrong. The writer of Hebrews gets it wrong. Jesus gets it wrong. Of course this line of reasoning sounds boundlessly arrogant.

Evangelical scholars who uphold the inerrancy of God's Word believe that there is a depth to the ways that the New Testament uses the Old that cannot merely be dismissed as error.

Andy Nasselli recently posted this wonderful observation from New Testament scholar Doug Moo:

We have encountered several places in Romans where Paul does not seem to apply the Old Testament in quite the way the original Old Testament context would seem to validate. This creates a theological problem. How can a New Testament writer use the Old Testament to claim that something is true when the Old Testament does not even teach what he claims it does? Such a procedure wouldbe like our trying to prove a doctrine from a text that we have misunderstood. Understandably, we would convince few people. Answers to this problem, which theologians have discussed for years, are not simple. In fact, each of the texts has to be taken on its own, because they present different kinds of problems. But one part of the solution is to recognize that New Testament writers sometimes use the Old Testament not to prove a point but to borrow its language and ethos. An illustration will make the point.

When I was young, and my sons were even younger, we often played basketball out on the driveway together. Then I, and they, grew. I became weaker and slower; they became bigger, stronger, and faster. Foolishly, I kept trying to compete. One day, I was playing one-on-one with my third son, Lukas. He had grown to about six feet six inches and 240 pounds, and was a very strong, highly skilled basketball player. I warned him, “Watch out, Luke, I’m going to take the ball to the basket on you!” He shot back, “Go ahead, Dad, make my day.” He was “quoting” the lines of the character Dirty Harry from the movie starring Clint Eastwood. Eastwood, portraying a cop, uses these words to dare a criminal to draw his gun on him. Luke did not have a gun; he was not threatening to shoot me. He did not intend to quote the author’s “original intention,” nor did I think that he was doing so. The language was a striking way of making a point: if I was foolish enough to try to take the ball to the basket on Luke, I could very well suffer the violence that Dirty Harry’s bad guy suffered in the movie. The quotation worked because we both knew the movie; it therefore communicated the point very well. So Paul and other New Testament writers often use Old Testament language. They know that their readers will understand it, and the application of the language often helps them to perceive a situation in a new light. Thus, in Romans 10:18, for instance, Paul quotes Psalm 19:4 not because he thinks that this text speaks directly about the preaching of the gospel to Israel; rather, he quotes it because the words would awaken echoes in his
readers’ minds that would lend force to his assertion.

You can find this quote in Dr. Moo's outstanding and accessable Encountering the Book of Romans: A Theological Survey. I highly recommend this resource for individual or small group study. If you are endevouring to study Romans then this is an excellent place to start. Also, if you would like to dig deeper then Dr. Moo's The Epistle to the Romans in the NICNT series is THE standard.

Another very resource that you may want to add to your reference library is the excellent Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament.

Upcoming Sermons

I am grateful to have had two Sundays in a row without pulpit responsibilities. Although I get a bit antsy when I don't preach for over a week, this break could not have come at a better time with our moving into a new home. Thanks to Tom Walsh and his leadership during COSMOS and to Dave Darwin for preaching a wonderful message this morning.

The upcoming sermon plan looks like this:
3/22 - The Gospel Driven Church pt. 7 - "Mission: Getting the Gospel Out"
3/29 - "God Will Provide The Lamb" Abraham and Isaac
4/5 - "God and Man at the Cross" Mark 15
4/12 - Easter Sunday (I will be preaching on the risen Christ)
4/19 - We will begin our series on the Epistle to the Hebrews

Tiller to face charges

It looks like infamous late-term abortionist George Tiller is finally going to have to answser for some of his actions. Having lived in Wichita from 1999-2008 I can testify to the controversy that surrounds Dr. Tiller. He seems to have had a reckless disregard for Kansas' laws regarding late-term abortions. Of course, Tiller is just one example of this recklessness. The abortion industry is notorious for skirting laws and because of political connections there are rarely any prosecutions.

A writer for the Associated Press reports:

WICHITA, Kan. – For abortion opponents, the trial of one of the nation's few late-term abortion providers has been a long time coming, a chance for a little bit of justice after years of seeing their efforts thwarted.

To abortion-rights supporters, Dr. George Tiller's trial set to begin Monday is the culmination of repeated harassment, a witch hunt in which his foes have been willing to do anything and everything to gain a conviction.

Tiller and his Wichita clinic have been regular targets of anti-abortion demonstrations, including the 45-day "Summer of Mercy" event staged by Operation Rescue in 1991. His clinic was damaged by a pipe bomb in 1986, and in 1993 a protester shot him in both arms.

Abortion opponents contend Tiller illegally aborts fetuses that could survive outside the womb. Kansas law allows late-term abortions if two doctors agree that it is necessary to save a women's life or prevent "substantial and irreversible" harm to "a major bodily function," a phrase that's been interpreted to include mental health.

Tiller is charged with 19 misdemeanors alleging he failed to obtain the required second opinion from an independent physician that a late-term abortion is necessary. If convicted, the Wichita physician could face a year in the county jail or a fine of $2,500 for each charge.

Read the entire article HERE.

"The New Calvinism"

TIME Magazine has compiled a list of “10 Ideas Changing the World Right Now”. Check out number three:

1. Jobs Are the New Assets

2. Recycling the Suburbs

3. The New Calvinism

4. Reinstating the Interstate

5. Amortality

6. Africa, Business Destination

7. The Rent-a-Country

8. Biobanks

9. Survival Stores

10. Ecological Intelligence

Facing Death Without God

In his book Dying Without God: Francois Mitterand's Meditations on Living and Dying, journalist Franz-Olivier Giesbert reflects on how athiesm shaped the former French President's view of death.

Al Mohler has written a fine post on the topic.

Giesbert describes Mitterand as "a Nietzschean until his dying day." He described himself as a mystic with the mind of a rationalist. He did not deny that a form of transcendence might exist, but he described the idea that his spirit might survive his death as "embarrassing." He was fond of paraphrasing Celine: "Eternity must be very long, especially toward the end."

Mitterand lived by a moral code that matched his worldview. Giesbert described Mitterand's hands as made to strangle men and to seduce women. At his funeral, his mistress and their daughter sat close to Mitterand's wife and their children. As a Nietzchean, he was committed above all to the acquisition and retention of power.

In the end, he died, as he had lived, without God.

Mitterand's secular view of life and death represented an entire generation of European intellectuals and political figures. Deeply committed to atheism, agnosticism, existentialism, or Marxism, these intellectuals simply left no place for God in their worldview. They died without fear of God and without faith in God.

Death forces the most significant questions of life. To consider death -- particularly one's own death -- is to face the question of God, of the meaning of life, the question of life after death.

Read the entire post HERE.

More on Stem Cells

Concerning stem cell research there is so much that the public either does not know or about which they are ill informed. Much of this lack of knowledge and disinformation is due to the outrageously slanted coverage in the news media. Politicians have also been typically shameful in their bending of the facts.

Here are some more thoughts on the recent decision by President Obama to begin paying for the destruction of human embryos with taxpayer money:

Obama's False Choice
Science Over All?
Winning Smugly
Obama Also Rescinds Executive Order for Alternatives to ESCR
Stem Cells: A Political History

Many of you may find it interesting that the President rescinded an Executive Order to find alternatives to embryonic stem cell research (4th article). There has been scant if any coverage of this in the main stream media.

I love my dog...

...but this is ridiculous!

"The Case for Adult Stem Cell Research"

A fascinating article from 21st Century Science & Technology Magazine by Dr. Wolfgang Lillge exposes where the real promise in stem cell research resides: Adult stem cells.

Dr. Lillge writes:

Embryonic stem cells are taken from a developing embryo at the blastocyst stage, destroying the embryo, a developing human life. Adult stem cells, on the other hand, are found in all tissues of the growing human being and, according to latest reports, also have the potential to transform themselves into practically all other cell types, or revert to being stem cells with greater reproductive capacity. Embryonic stem cells have not yet been used for even one therapy, while adult stem cells have already been successfully used in numerous patients, including for cardiac infarction (death of some of the heart tissue)...

It is remarkable that in the debate–often carried on with little competence–the potential of embryonic stem cells is exaggerated in a one-sided way, while important moral questions and issues of research strategy are passed over in silence. Generally, advocates of research with embryonic stem cells use as their main argument that such research will enable us to cure all of the diseases that are incurable today–cancer, AIDS, Alzheimers, multiple sclerosis, and so forth. Faced with such a prospect, it is supposed to be "acceptable" to "overlook" a few moral problems.

On closer inspection, however, the much extolled vision of the future turns out to be a case of completely empty promises: Given the elementary state of research today, it is by no means yet foreseeable, whether even one of the hoped-for treatments can be realized. Basically, such promised cures are a deliberate deception, for behind the mirage of a coming medical wonderland, promoted by interested parties, completely other research objectives will be pursued that are to be kept out of public discussion as much as possible.

Read the rest of this important article HERE.

Cozying Up to a Brave New World

On March 8 President Obama signed an executive order allowing the use of taxpayer money to be used to destroy human embryos for scientific research. An article addressing this issue appeard today in the Wall Street Journal by Robert George. Dr. George is Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University and is an intellectual champion of the pro-life movement.

Dr. George writes:

"Moderate" Mr. Obama's policy is not. It will promote a whole new industry of embryo creation and destruction, including the creation of human embryos by cloning for research in which they are destroyed. It forces American taxpayers, including those who see the deliberate taking of human life in the embryonic stage as profoundly unjust, to be complicit in this practice.

Mr. Obama made a big point in his speech of claiming to bring integrity back to science policy, and his desire to remove the previous administration's ideological agenda from scientific decision-making. This claim of taking science out of politics is false and misguided on two counts.

First, the Obama policy is itself blatantly political. It is red meat to his Bush-hating base, yet pays no more than lip service to recent scientific breakthroughs that make possible the production of cells that are biologically equivalent to embryonic stem cells without the need to create or kill human embryos. Inexplicably -- apart from political motivations -- Mr. Obama revoked not only the Bush restrictions on embryo destructive research funding, but also the 2007 executive order that encourages the National Institutes of Health to explore non-embryo-destructive sources of stem cells.

Second and more fundamentally, the claim about taking politics out of science is in the deepest sense antidemocratic. The question of whether to destroy human embryos for research purposes is not fundamentally a scientific question; it is a moral and civic question about the proper uses, ambitions and limits of science. It is a question about how we will treat members of the human family at the very dawn of life; about our willingness to seek alternative paths to medical progress that respect human dignity.

Read the entire article HERE.

One of the ironies of stem cell reasearch is that the real breakthroughs have come from stem cells that do not destoy human embryos. Why then the reluctance or outright hostility to pursue these options that present no moral delimmas? It is quite simple. To destroy human embryos serves the political and moral agenda of pro-abortion advocates. If destroying human embryos is good then why not those children that are positioned all along the developmental continuum? Make no mistake about it. Human embryos are human beings. They are imprinted with all the genetic information that they will ever possess as adults. Seniors, forty-year-olds, adolescents, children, toddlers, infants, third-trimester babies, and embryos are all human lives at various stages on the develpmental continuum.

Destroying human embryos for scientific advancement is nothing less than viewing human life in strictly utilitarian terms. There is nothing intrinsically valuable about human life because there is no imago dei. Therefore, why not destroy humans at their most vulnerable state? Why not use their parts to advance the health of the strong?

It is becoming more imaginable that we will live to see a world where the very young, very old, the ill, and developmentally hampered among us will be euthanized to serve the greater good. It will become the patriotic duty of old, weak, and unhealthy citizens to no longer burden what will be a state owned health care system. It will also be seen as the moral duty of those with no real "quality of life" to surrender the constituent parts of their bodies to be used for the health of the strong. And it will all be sold to us by warm, smiling, and "moderate" politicians.

Sad News from Maryville

Justin Taylor reports on a tragedy from Marryville, IL.

This morning a gunman opened fire during the church service of First Baptist Church of Maryville, IL (about 20 minutes from downtown St. Louis), killing the senior pastor, Fred Winter. Rev. Dr. Winters was in the pulpit at the time. He sought to shield the bullets with his Bible, but died from a gunshot wound to his chest. The shooter's gun jammed, and he stabbed himself with a knife. Others were injured in an attempt to restrain him. At this time only one death has been reported.

Dr. Winters had been their Senior Pastor since 1987, the same year that he was married to his wife Cindy Lee. He received a BA from Southwest Baptist University (1986), an MA in Systematic Theology and Church History from Wheaton (1986), an MDiv from Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (1991), and a PhD from The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He was the former president of the Illinois Baptist State Association and an adjunct professor at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.

He is survived by his wife and two children, Alysia Grace and Cassidy Hope.

Please pray for his family, for this family of brothers and sisters in Christ, and for the unnamed gunman.

Dr. Winter was a graduate of two of my alma maters: Southwest Baptist University and Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.

Jesus in the Flesh (2)

“The Word became flesh…” (John 1:14). This was jarring truth for many in the early days of Christianity. In fact, as far as we can tell the first heresy the church had to deal with was Docetism which denied the physical reality of the Lord Jesus. This was a common heresy among the Gnostics who tended to identify physical reality as evil or illusory. And just in case we think that denying Jesus’ fleshly humanity is not serious, consider that John wrote that it was “anti-Christ” to claim that Jesus had not come in the flesh (1 John 4:3; 2 John 7).

The term “Docetism” comes from the Greek word dokeo which means “I seem.” So Docetism maintains that Jesus only seemed to have taken on flesh and blood. It is ironic that the apostle John has been accused of being so interested in the deity of Christ that he downplays His humanity. This, however, is a ridiculous charge. The Jesus of John’s Gospel is a real, historical, touchable, fleshy human. It is John who tells us that as Jesus hung on the cross His side was pierced and from Him flowed blood and water (19:34). Clearly, Jesus was no apparition. He did not merely seem to be a flesh and blood human. Truly, Jesus was the Word made flesh.

Jesus’ physical makeup was that of a human. He sweat when he was hot. He tired when his body was taxed. He had need of food, water, and physical rest. He possessed a central nervous system which sent signals from his brain to his extremities. When battered he knew all the physical pain that any other human would experience. Jesus’ DNA was human. He inherited half of his chromosomes from his mother. What is profoundly unique about Jesus’ humanity however is that half of His DNA was supplied miraculously by the working of the Holy Spirit.

Scottish theologian Donald MacLeod writes:

“Through His mother, too, the Lord’s humanness is given specificity and particularity. He was not ‘humanity’. He was a first-century Jew, rooted in the culture of His people. But it is equally true that through His mother (through the umbilical cord) He was keyed in to the life-stream of the human race and to the whole created order. In the incarnation of God the Son, as we have already seen, the redemptive process has entered not merely the world of the spirit but the world of matter. That link with matter never has been, and never will be, severed. The resurrection body of the Lord is the Omega Point of the material creation: the point at which the skill and wisdom and power and artistry of God find their supreme expression” (A Faith to Live By, 135).

It was a man, not a mere disembodied spirit who bore our sins and drank the cup of God’s wrath upon the cross. Roman spikes were driven through real wrists and feet. The Christian faith is not an abstract idea. It is not defined by mystical experience. The Christian faith is rooted in historical fact and biological reality. The Word became flesh.

The Freedom of Choice Act rears its ugly head

St. Louis Today.com has posted an article that demonstrates one very troubling consequence (among many) that will follow if the Freedom of Choice Act becomes law.

A proposed bill promising major changes in the U.S. abortion landscape has Roman Catholic bishops threatening to close Catholic hospitals if the Democratic Congress and White House make it law.

The Freedom of Choice Act failed to get out of subcommittee in 2004, but its sponsor is poised to refile it now that former Senate co-sponsor Barack Obama occupies the Oval Office.

A spokesman for Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., said the legislation "is among the congressman's priorities. We expect to reintroduce it sooner rather than later."

FOCA, as the bill is known, would make federal law out of the abortion protections established in 1973 by the U.S. Supreme Court's Roe vs. Wade ruling.

The legislation has some Roman Catholic bishops threatening to shutter the country's 624 Catholic hospitals — including 11 in the Archdiocese of St. Louis — rather than comply.

The so-called Freedom of Choice Act is a truly reprehensible piece of legislation. It's sponsors display a lack of moral clarity that is breathtaking. The church must speak up on this issue. Christians of all political stripes ought to be scandalized by our nation's continued slaughter of unborn children. The Freedom of Choice Act will serve only to increase this heinous evil.

It would indeed be a tragedy if Catholic hospitals were forced to close rather than be required to participate in abortions. As someone who has made many pastoral visits in numerous Catholic hospitals over the last 20 years I can tell you that they do outstanding work. I am also deeply thankful for their unwavering commitment to oppose abortion.

Read the entire article HERE.
* Incidentally, I do not approve of the sign on the OKC man's car.

What happens to the Fall?

I am curious about something because I have seen this dealt with in a variety of ways. I am wondering what those Christians who do not accept the historicity of Eden, Adam and Eve, etc. do with the fall. Let me assure you this is not rhetorical nor am I trying to play "gotcha". I am genuinely interested given the prominent role that the fall's reality plays not only in the Old Testament but the New. Romans for instance depends heavily on the fall as a reality for its anthropology and soteriology. If the fall was not a real event then how does that effect our understanding of man's lostness and Christ's atonement? Help me out.

What I do not want is a discussion on the age of the earth and whether or not the creation account presents a strict chronology or a theological/literary construct. That is, in my opinion an in house debate among inerrantists. If you want to make it a test of orthodoxy then we'll have to part company.

"Love, Sex, & Mammon"

In this month's issue of Touchstone there is an excellent editorial by Russel Moore of Southern Seminary.

Dr. Moore writes:

It is no accident, after all, that our Ancient Foe first appears in Holy Scripture as a snake—imagery that follows the devil all through the canon to the closing vision of the Revelation to St. John. As philosopher Leon Kass puts it, “For the serpent is a mobile digestive tract that swallows its prey whole; in this sense the serpent stands for pure appetite.” Indeed he does—and the whole of Scripture and of Christian tradition warns the Church against the way of the appetites, the way of consuming oneself to death.

We are commanded away from the path of Esau, who sells his inheritance for a pile of red stew (Heb. 12:16–17). We’re directed away from the god of the belly (Phil. 3:19). From the Tree in the garden to the wilderness beyond the Jordan to the present hour, the people of God are tempted to turn their digestive or reproductive tracts away from the mystery of Christ and toward the self as god...

Too many of our churches, too many of us, have made peace with the sexual revolution and the familial chaos left in its wake precisely because we made peace, long before, with the love of money. We wish to live with the same standard of living as the culture around us (there is no sin in that), but we are willing to get there by any means necessary.

Why does the seemingly godly church member in one of our congregations or parishes drive his pregnant teenage daughter to the nearest city under cover of darkness to obtain an abortion? Because, no matter how much he “votes his values,” when crisis hits, he wants his daughter to have a “normal” life. He is “pro-life,” with, as one feminist leader put it, three exceptions: rape, incest, and my situation.

Read the entire article HERE.