Strange Facts and the Age of the Earth (Part 5) Scientific Evidence Against Radiometric Dating

This post is more difficult to write than my last two about radiometric dating. If you read those posts, you remember I said that secular geologists are uniform in their support of radiometric dating. This is true, but though I've said the evidence is very convincing, there are a lot of samples and evidence that we normally don't hear about, that are not factored into the equation of the old-earth samples, that do not agree with them. These are usually not taken seriously by scientists, who dismiss them as anomalous.

1. C-14 dating sometimes yields inaccurate dates. Christian Answers at, http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html, says the following:
"plants discriminate against carbon dioxide containing 14C. That is, they take up less than would be expected and so they test older than they really are...Second, the ratio of 14C/12C in the atmosphere has not been constant—for example, it was higher before the industrial era when the massive burning of fossil fuels released a lot of carbon dioxide that was depleted in 14C. This would make things which died at that time appear older in terms of carbon dating."

The article goes on to say that C-14 dating is cross-referenced with history to obtain correct dates on most carbon dated items. Thus, there is uncertainty in C-14 dating, though it is a helpful dating tool.

2. Dating of radioactive rocks (K-Ar and the like) seem to have less inconsistency than C-14, but still sometimes yield dates that appear to be off the mark. Christian Answers notes one such example:

"Researchers applied posterior reasoning to the dating of Australopithecus ramidus fossils.[10] Most samples of basalt closest to the fossil-bearing strata give dates of about 23 Ma (Mega annum, million years) by the argon-argon method. The authors decided that was “too old,” according to their beliefs about the place of the fossils in the evolutionary grand scheme of things. So they looked at some basalt further removed from the fossils and selected 17 of 26 samples to get an acceptable maximum age of 4.4 Ma. The other nine samples again gave much older dates but the authors decided they must be contaminated and discarded them. That is how radiometric dating works. It is very much driven by the existing long-age world view that pervades academia today."

The conclusion in clear, the fossils bore the brunt of the weight in this dating of an ancient hominid. So, it is true that most dates off the mark are corrected for by scientists who look for evidence that is more in accord with their worldview. How much this happens is up for debate. Geologist John Woodmorappe, an ardent Creationist makes a career of documenting "adjusted evidence" like that in the paragraph above.

While almost all secular geologists form a consensus about the age of earth's rocks and fossils, it is clear that not everyone agrees. Ben Stein has made a good case in his movie "Expelled" that academia does not always form conclusions based on facts but on a prior scheme that forms the facts around a specific conclusion to be reached. That said, it still seems the arguments for radiometric dating have strong validity, though future discoveries and continued research could change things.

Strange Facts and the Age of the Earth (Part 4) Radiometric Dating's Scientific Support For

Let me by honest: radiometric dating is not out of my or your league to understand, but it is out of my league to explain it technically. Let's start by going back to our clock illustration:

1. A digital clock is observed to run dead at 12:30pm, today.
2. An expert does the math on the probable life of the battery.
3. The math indicates the clock has been running for a year.

This is the scientific essence of radiometric dating. The only difference is that the radioactive substances in the rocks of earth are the "batteries" of the clock. These substances tell how long a rock has been changing from one radioactive substance to another radioactive substance. The expert is the scientist who calculates the rock's life based on rate of change over time.

There are several forms of this dating.

1. Carbon 14-Carbon 14 is in the atmosphere. Living organsims ingest it. When they die, they stop ingestion (duh). Then C-14 starts to decay to lesser elements. The amount of C-14 left indicates at least the death point of the organism. This dating method is used widely to date young substances. Older substances are supposed to be devoid of C-14, because of its relatively short half-life. It works back a few thousand years.

2. Potassium-Argon dating is based on Potassium 40 decaying into Argon 40. It is based on exactly the same procedure as Carbon 14 dating, for the most part. It yields very old dates for some of earth's rocks (over 3 billion years).

3. Rubidium-Strontium dating is the same thing above with different elements. It too yields very old dates.

4. Isochron dating is different than the above methods. It is a "mixed bag" sample. A rock is sampled from its various component matter (crystals, and other diverse molecules). An average age is obtained from the samples using mathematics to factor in events that changed the various components of the rock over time to its various pieces. This average is a "checking mechanism" to give a better picture of the age of the whole rock.

As I said, these dating methods, on the whole, seem to be accurate, and the ones that yield old dates seem to point conclusively to an earth more than 4 billion years old. Geologists of the secular persuasion are uniform in their embrace of these methods. It is scientific dogma, and all the more, because in these cases we have actual tests (instead of unsightly conjectures--a hallmark of evolutionary biology schemes of life). I would also add that Creationists point out that some dates conflict, and seem to be in error. Other scientists are unconvinced, however, given the massive number of agreeing evidence samples.

This is all very convincing evidence to me too, even as a Christian who is historical in his interpretation of Scripture. However, I am inconclusive without further research.

Interesting Items in the News

I don't want to make an extensive posting today (I'm tired), but I'll offer some snippets from the news.




1. Pastor Rick Warren is traveling in some strange circles today. He has become bosom buddies with Barak Obama and some of Obama's constituency over the last few years. First, he invited Obama to a civil forum at his church, giving his Christian pulpit to the then radical pro-choice senator in the name of AIDS education and prevention. He supported his decision to do this as a matter of his common support of the AIDS prevention issue with Obama. Since then, Obama and John McCain traveled to Saddleback for a presidential questioning session. Finally, now president-elect Obama invited Warren to give the prayer at his swearing in. Now it seems Warren is mingling with gay activists who support Obama, including singer Melissa Ethridge. This is all very strange to me. I recently read an article the talked about this meeting and one in which Warren met with Muslim leaders, too. Here's a teaser quote:

"Rick Warren has told a Muslim group in California that 'You don't have to see eye to eye to walk hand in hand.' And at the same gathering, Warren also admitted he's a big fan of lesbian activist Melissa Ethridge and has all her albums.

Under fire for opposing gay marriage, the influential evangelical told the Muslim Public Affairs Council's annual convention Saturday that he loves Muslims, people of other religions, Republicans and Democrats, and he also loves "gays and straights."

The 54-year-old pastor and founder of Saddleback Church in Southern California told the crowd of 500 that it's unrealistic to expect everyone to agree on everything all the time.

"You don't have to see eye to eye to walk hand in hand," said Warren.

Sounds different from what the Lord said through Amos doesn't it? "How can two walk together lest they be agreed?"

Anyways, here is the link to the article:

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Church/Default.aspx?id=362164

2. Barak Obama's birth certificate has still, to my knowledge, remained unrevealed. Why does no one care about this? Is it because Obama has been an active member of the United States citizenry for most of his life? Perhaps...the press is still saying very little about this issue. I think it is critical however, because it says something extremely important about how we regard our Constitution. May we change the law at our desire or convenience? Time will tell, and I think this issue may play a big part in that.



3. Toyota is showing losses for the first time ever this year. Wow. The Japanese are known for their work-ethic and frugality, and now they are in trouble in this economic slowdown as well. They are predicting a full year before recovery. To me, this says, "Hold on to your butts, it's gonna be a bumpy ride!" (Yep, that quote is from a Harry Potter movie.

Strange Facts and the Age of the Earth: Radiometric Dating (Part 3)

Radiometric dating has been around for a while now. Everyone has heard of Carbon 14 dating, a form of radiometric dating.

This method of dating earth's age amounts to a clock using atoms. Certain atoms change to other atoms over time. The amount of time to change them is called their half-life. A radioactive rock is obtained, its purity is assessed, and then it is tested to see how many atoms have changed into other atoms. The math is done for the amount of time for this process and an age of the rock is determined.

Many of these tests have been done in which earth rocks are dated to be over 3 billion years old. These tests serve as the main beachhead upon which old-earth geology is built. I can't write a long paper here, and don't want to be over-technical, so I will say straightforwardly that radiometric dating is very convincing evidence for an old earth.

However, it must be said that this method carries some big assumptions.

1. All radioactive rocks started off completely one atom type and changed to another.
2. The process has been undisturbed for eons.
3. The laws of physics have never altered.

These assumptions cannot be proven or dis-proven by science. I frankly don't know if they are true. However, I believe in a supernatural Creator who could play havoc with these assumptions. So God can do anything, and radiometric dating might give false results based on wrong assumptions that exclude God.

The alternative, which many Christian people take, is that the scientific results are correct, and Genesis is saying something different than the literal 24-hour six day theory many Creationist Christians assert. Various theories have been invented to change Genesis's interpretation to fit with old-earth scientific data, which has resulted in the "gap theory," the "day age theory," and other old-earth theories. Some of these theories are older than radiometric dating, but all give a Bible time-line that works well with an old earth.

I am still studying this issue (radiometric dating) and my conclusions are not complete. I will try to provide, in my next post, a basic pro-con argument set-up for the validity/falsity of radiometric dating according to scientific perspectives.
In a later post, I will try to address the various Scriptural theories devised based on the acceptance or rejection of radiometric results.

God's peace to you,

Greg

Political Afterthoughts: Obama's birth certificate

Many other writers and thinkers are more qualified than I to write on the election we have just experienced. I'll just say that I voted for McCain based on his support of issues that I support (the right of the unborn to life very important among them).

However, if one wants to read a good post on America's decision on Barak Obama as president-elect, I suggest reading Al Mohler's page at:

http://www.almohler.com/blog.php?selectMonth=11&selectYear=2008

Just cut and paste this link into your browser to read his "America Has Chosen a President." It deals with the cold realities people of Christian faith may face under the new administration.

More interesting (and distressing) at this point to me is the fact that Barak Obama's birth certificate has yet to be revealed. So far as I know, this issue is going unnoticed by a lot of people. The certificate of live birth revealed for Obama is widely not considered to constitute a declaration of US citizenship. The president-elect will formally be appointed (so far as I know) by the electoral college in 10 days, and it is not a sure fact that he is even a US citizen!

Joseph Farrah has written a short post about this matter, including a link to his petition for the Obama birth certificate to be revealed. Farrah's article can be read at:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=82648

I encourage you, reader, to sign Farrah's petition demanding that this matter be cleared up. Farrah urges his readers to take this issue seriously: "If the issues surrounding Obama's status as a natural born citizen are simply swept under the rug, then the Constitution simply no longer means what it says. It no longer limits officials from doing anything they feel like doing."

We are living in crazy times in our country. We may be living on the verge of a hard-left swing in American law, compounded by the ominous possibility that our government may now be shown to operate without regard for our charter document, the Constitution. Of course, we've all heard complaints about activist judges who "legislate from the bench," and manipulate the law in doing so, but this pattern is bad news. If our country may be steered off its foundations by the whims of men, without regard for the rule of law, what is next? What will we be asked (forced) to accept by our leaders? Ominous indeed.

Apology: The Lack of New Posts

Hello guys,

Thank you all for reading my blog. I haven't been able to post lately because of I've been busy. I'll try to post more often, now that I have been freed up a bit.

Greg

In Memoriam

Dad

The smell of your clothes, sweat and soil,
The feel of your hands, rough with toil,
The hair of your head, brushy and thin,
Few wrinkles line your sun-tanned skin.

Your teeth, not perfect, form a lovely smile,
And eyes of blue, that hold no whiles,
Average of height, with frame quite strong,
A belly that matches with eating too long.

Feet pale and freckled, in boots all day,
Moustache like a brush, spritzed with grey,
A face by turns: serious…humorous…joyous,
Arms full of strength, your joints weariness.

A hairy chest, with manly structure,
A broad back always strong, ever sure.
Your voice is deep but smooth with care,
Calves springy-stout, muscled thighs upstairs.

No one can see the love in your breast,
But everyone sees it, nonetheless,
Strength and compassion hidden from sight,
Invisible things, apparent as Light.

This is you Dad, on this day you died,
When manly vigor had not left your side,
The only part that failed you today,
Was your heart that broke and you flew away.

But you left me your smile, your eyes mine too,
My hands are not yet rough, but will be soon,
My garments as yours, smell of sweat and dirt,
And someday like yours did, my joints will hurt.

My voice not as deep as your manly tone,
But with it like you, I’m singing of Home,
Whiskers on my lip, not as greyed…coarse,
My hair’s still here, but we might get divorced.

My feet flat like yours, pale in boots too,
To carry me here, my long trip through.
To walk in the path you walked before,
To follow our Lord to distant shores.

You gave me your arms, and hairy chest,
Your muscles hard, to work with zest,
To use your strength for my family’s health,
To give them my all, for Heaven’s wealth…

This is Me, on this day you died,
When manly vigor has not left my side,
The only part that fails me today—
My heart has broke, you’ve flown away.

But with broken heart, I know as I live,
The gifts God gave you, He gave me to give,
To give them again to my son you loved,
That he too might pledge them to God above.

To travel his life, as you journeyed here,
As I followed you, he’ll follow me near,
I’ll show him the man we want him to be—
As he follows our way toward Eternity.

Of deepest prayers, that I pray below,
That he would come to Our Father and know,
How our Abba-Father, has led us with care,
And at our ways End, he’ll meet you There.

Elections: A War With Rhetoric as the Battlefield Smoke

Sadly, most people voting for the president(s) this year will have few issues presented in an easily understandable way to them by the media. I may be raising this issue as a personal problem, but I have a sneaking suspicion this is not the case, and that the cloudy speech of the media makes it hard for people to vote intelligently. For instance, how many average voters understand the Wall Street Bailout? Whom it benefits and whom it doesn't? What its impact will be for the future? And there are a whole host of other issues like it, from Green issues, to oil markets, health care, taxes, and foreign policy, just to name a few. Perhaps if the general public really knew the simplest explanations and implications of these issues, we would be finding things out that would cause us to demand more "change" in the US government than Barak Obama will ever bring!

Aside from the abortion issue, on which the candidates are clear, there are a whole pack of issues people want to understand and hear about from the media. People want to hear where the candidates stand, and they want (I think) to be able to grasp most of the major positions of the candidates. Maybe this is not possible, but I do know one thing--if it is possible, then the media makes it harder. Take for instance the vice-presidential debate. Depending on what media outlet one listens to, Biden or Palin could've "won." At least part of this is because the media engages in shaded questioning to benefit the political party and candidate they support. The following article is worth a read. It is not on Biden or Palin, but is instead on the moderator of the recent veep debate, Gwen Ifill. By reading this article, one discovers that her questions were often not designed to educate voters on the candidate's views, rather, her questions where rhetorical tools carefully designed to make Sarah Palin's answer's look bad.

Read it here: http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/gwen_ifills_vp_debate_bias.html

Another interesting fact:

In college, my sociology prof plugged NPR News as reliable because a poll was taken to measure listener misconceptions about US motives for invading Iraq. He noted that NPR listeners had "fewer" misconceptions than those who listened to other news networks. Thus, he was saying NPR is more factual. The interesting fact is this: Gwen Ifill, the vice-presidential debate moderator works for NPR News.

Gods Wisdom to You,

Greg

"The Least of These"

Having no cable or satellite TV, I don't get to watch broadcasts of events like Rick Warren's "Saddleback Forum," his interview of the prospective presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama. He asked them the same questions and let them talk on a nationally televised interview. However, I did watch quite a bit of this event, courtesy of YouTube.

One thing that stuck out to me was Warren's question to Obama of how Obama's Christian worldview affected his life. Obama said that Christ inspired him to help the helpless, whom he used Jesus' words to describe as, "the least of these." I didn't think about the heinous nature of that statement for a day or two, but it is terrible. Think about this with me for a moment, because it is not at first obvious why Obama erred so in this statement.

"The least of these," is a statement used by Christ to refer to Christians...it is not referring to just anyone. However, in Obama's use of the term, it refers to economically downtrodden people or those in American society who traditionally have not had much. So Obama's use of Christ's principle is a misuse of Christ's words first of all--that is wrong in itself, but let's probe further: Did Christ promote helping the helpless? Yes, He did. He taught us to love our enemies (Matt. 5) and He taught us to give to the poor (Matt. 6), and he taught us not to tempt others to sin (Matt. 18), among many other things...in fact, we could say that Christ's principle given for Christians in their personal conduct with other Christians and unbelievers is an extension of "love your neighbor as yourself" (Matt. 22).

Now, lets compare this to one of Obama's views...his position on abortion. Who is more needy and helpless than an unborn infant? Who needs our support to make it more--a poor person or an unborn child facing the scissors and a vacuum tube? Who is more able to defend their life? Who is "the least of these" in this circumstance? An unborn child has 23 chromosomes. Under normal circumstances, much of the time, these 23 chromosomed-creatures (called human beings) make it out into the world where they will be unequivocally proclaimed to be people. Eventually, they would defend themselves if they could. For Obama to proclaim that he is unable to see if they are persons or not is hogwash. It is apparent that these are indeed "the least of these." Indeed, as I blogged on earlier, Obama attacked legislation that would have provided protection for unwanted pre-term down-syndrome babies that had been born. On this, even the liberals admitted that this is a child, born into the world--deserving protection, and they voted for it in Congress. But Obama didn't. He wouldn't even grant these children--undoubtedly "the least of these," the compassionate political stance that would have helped preserve or at least comfort their suffering little lives.

And so, for Obama, it may be "above his pay-grade" to determine when human life begins...but it is also above his pay-grade to determine what Jesus meant when He said "the least of these."

"Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven." (Matt. 19:14)

An Amazing Christian

This young man (30 years) is Mosab Hassan Yousef. He is the son of a Hamas leader and he has converted to Christianity. His interview can be found at the following link:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,402483,00.html#

...and it is absolutely amazing...I can't even do it justice with a summary, except that this young man has followed the Lord Jesus' words in the following scripture: "If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me." (Matt. 16:24) This young man, in his short life, has studied the truth of Christianity--truth available world-wide now because of the internet and other media, and has renounced Islam and Hamas to follow Christ. He speaks intelligently of the ignorance of Muslims about their own religion, about searching for the truth about Christ, and about the state of the world today--including the State of Israel and the constant conflicts of the Middle East. I don't say this with every link, but please copy the above link or type it into your browser and read this interview--it is God-glorifying!

In this interview Mosab tells of the fact that Muslims and others are simply ignorant about Christianity because they have never been told the truth. I couldn't agree more. In my last 3 years of attending college, I had to defend my orthodox Christian beliefs numerous times against my professors, who would time and again try to lump conservative and fundamental Christianity together with fundamentalist Islam. My professors were very ignorant of my point-of-view, just as Mosab's teachers, friends, and family were ignorant of his. Fundamentalist Islam provides a false interpretation of a religion (Christianity) it does not really understand. Mosab sets the record straight.

Thanks to Jesus for saving this young man and bringing his testimony to the world!

Sudden Evolution and Petrified Trees (Stange Facts and Earth's Age Part 2)

Since I was in grade school, I have been instructed in a picture of life on this planet that started with simple life and moved on to the amazing diversity of life today. I remember watching a school film some years ago that followed this pattern. We were told, "Life started with only a few molecules, shocked into life in a fertile soup of millions of years ago (don't mind the rhetoric), which painstakingly preserved untold positive additions to the DNA blueprint over aeons that ultimately resulted in everything from jellyfish to man. Wow! What a story. Not only that, but some of each step in the "tree of life" have been buried and preserved in rocks corresponding to their age.

Not only this, but many people have seen something like the following geological scheme:



Tables like these list ages of the earth, based on organisms found in each layer of the earth, and draw conclusions about the age of rock layers based on them, as well as using radiometric dating to determine rock ages (the last being the subject of a future post). These have been powerful arguments to my mind, in favor of an old earth.

However, I later found out these tables are far from the whole picture. Often, older life is found on top of younger life (though scientists reject these as exceptions as the result of upheaval of old rocks).

So illustrated (with higher numbers equal to younger life the traditional picture of rock layers and life looks like this:

10
9
8
etc.

....while the newer pictures look like this

10
9
8
etc.

or

10
6
8

or

7
10
6


Not only the disorder, but sometimes, layers are missing completely, and in hardly any place does anything resembling what should be a sequence from 10 down to 1 occur neatly.These days, the old story of orderly deposition of old life to new is not what science is finding.

Also, and against the steady re-telling of the old story, there has emerged a large scientific consensus that life has been an explosive affair--not only involving those first Frankenstein bacteria. The following link leads to an article detailing at least one of these explosions:

http://www.thedesignoflife.net/blog/The-Avalon-explosion-The-dawn-of-life-reveals-another-intricate-puzzle/View/Default.aspx

So Darwin, though worshiped by Stephen J. Gould and Richard Dawkins as the fountain of all knowledge on biological life has undergone some revision. The new scheme shows multiple bursts of complex life appearing in earth's history, and amazingly, disappearing in many cases just as suddenly.

So the timetable of life is fraught with conflict in the scientific community. Now we ask, what does all this have to do with the age of the earth?

Well, a great mystery, in addition to that just mentioned, is the phenomenon of petrified trees. These trees were buried and replaced by minerals over time, but here's the kicker--they where buried standing up! They go through multiple rock layers and multiple ages of rock.



Scientists say they might have been completely buried, the surrounding rock worn away, and then reburied, layer by layer, but this seems to beg the question a bit. Why should that be the case? Could it be, that layers don't equal times in earth's history? And if so...how do we know how old everything is with certainty?

T-Rex flesh? (Strange facts and Earth's Age part 1)

I have long loved dinosaurs (I wanted to be a palientologist growing up), and also have had many questions about how the dinos related to my inherited Christian beliefs derived from the Bible (a possibly young earth, the Flood, etc). As a child, I often heard my father say: "A thousand years is like a day to the LORD" (a la 2 Peter 3:8) and "I don't believe we came from monkeys." All I knew for the longest time (from 5 or so to 21) was that I could come to no conclusion on this matter, having no desire to read the literature related to earth-age debate from theologians and apologists, or the scientific community.

After coming to know Christ...my desire to answer some of those old questions returned. Since then, I have read scientists like Stephen J. Gould, young-earth creationists like Henry Morris, IE theorists like William Dembski, and others in search of more information on what the Bible says about the age of the earth and what science says about its age. I have surveyed the strengths of both sets of arguments (the secular and the biblical) and also their weaknesses. What is strange is that both sides can be convincing enough to make you declare at times: "I can see truth here." However, this post is not about my conclusions on the earth's age, it is simply a demonstration of this conflict of ideas as I have encountered them.



First, there was the trip to Ripley's Aquarium at Myrtle Beach in 2003 (I realize the picture is the one in Gatlinburg, which I went to this year). That year on my honeymoon in June, walking through that fascinating display of fish, I encountered the following info on the Nurse Shark:

"Nurse Sharks carry their young and bare them live. While in the womb, the faster developing of the two babies will eventually devour the other en utero."

Horrifying? Yeah, a tad. What immediately shot through my mind was: "Life is a struggle...evolution is a struggle of selection (fittest surviving)...these sharks are already struggling in the womb...the fittest is surviving! Yikes! That's strong evidence for evolution."

I left the aquarium pondering whether evolution might be true after all from that little sign by the shark tank.

Second, there was the day I read on a science website (National Geographic no less) that palientologists had recovered (get this) intact dino flesh...and not just any dino--T REX! They found soft-tissue remains. You can read the article here:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/03/0324_050324_trexsofttissue.html

The day I read this, the pendulum took a hard swing toward the no-evolution, younger earth perspective. Soft tissue from an animal not thousands, but many millions of years old? Seems a little suspect. In fact, in that article, the scientist states:

"Finding these tissues in dinosaurs changes the way we think about fossilization, because our theories of how fossils are preserved don't allow for this [soft-tissue preservation]," Schweitzer said."

I am no scientist, but it don't take a genius to say it is utterly strange that meat didn't decay after 40 million years...hmmm...what could this mean? Possibly that dinos aren't as old as we thought?

Do you see the power of the examples? Course there are other examples of this play of ideas in my mind, but I won't go there, seeing this blog is getting too long already. My point would be that there is still so much we don't know scientifically, and that what side in this debate we are inclined to can be overturned quickly by a T-Rex burger or a ravenous baby shark...unless we just believe that "day" equals one solar day in Genesis.

Review of "The Myth of a Christian Nation" by Greg Boyd

Recently on vacation, I picked up Greg Boyd's "The Myth of a Christian Nation." This title sparked my interest, because I, as a evangelical Christian, have often struggled with the relationship between church and state in America.

I have become firmly convinced from historical records that the founding fathers approved of the Christian faith in many ways, though many of them where more deistic than theistic. America also started as a Christian nation in the sense that most of her people have claimed some form of Christianity. Additionally, two major Christian revivals deeply influenced national thought for the more than hundred years as America grew from colony to one of the most powerful nations on earth.

The question Boyd asks of all this is "What is the difference between the nationally recognized form of Christianity throughout American history and Jesus' kingdom--the kingdom of God?" Here Boyd drives a stake between widespread national faith and the faith of Christ. He basically says there is no relationship...zero...and bases his claim on the fact that the kingdoms of this world, whether America or any other have advanced by coercive, self-interested power, whereas the kingdom of God in Christ advances by other-interested, sacrificial love. He says:

"Following the example of Christ, and in stark contrast to the modus operandi of the world, we are to do "nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility regard others as better than ourselves." (pp. 31)

This is his key point, and it is forceful. He uses various evidence from American history to make this point stick, from the Indian Wars to slavery, in order to show that America is much different than the kingdom of God and is really just another kingdom of the world.

I nodded along as I read much of his argument on these points, probably for a couple of reasons. First, during college, it is just these negative points of American history that many of my professors used as arguments against evangelicalism. For some reason, they couldn't help but lump Christ together with the national history of people who have not followed all of His teachings (of course their arguments included the Crusades and Europe's bloody, post-Reformation religious wars, as well, among others). The second reason, I nodded along was because of his many quotations of Christ's teachings on how His followers are to regard others. Jesus did tell us to do good to our enemies rather than forcing them to our position or attacking them. Boyd's practical application of these ideas is that we are not called to force America to abide by Judeo-Christian morality, and consequently, certain moral issues should not be so important to evangelicals as they are (gay marriage, war, or patriotism for instance). As all these arguments stirred my mind, I couldn't help but remember watching Gary Cooper in "Sgt. York," a film where "give to Caesar what is Caesar's" includes military service and killing other human beings (which is antithetical to the statement "do good to them that hate you").

However, I did find some difficulty with Boyd's argument.

First, my biggest question was "Are Christians not to work for a society more in accord with God's moral law, particularly in regard to God's commands for human behavior, if it is within our power?" If we where to go to hell, we would see there many people from Sodom and Gomorrah. Is it not possible that some of these would regret that their society's wickedness was not controlled somehow, allowing them a greater chance to repent back then, instead of the sudden destruction that overtook them? Certain persons might say, those folks would not have repented, so they don't care and they hate God even now, but I think the picture of the rich man in hell in the story Jesus told of he and Lazarus speaks otherwise. I believe that being salt is being a witness to God's Law, His justice, and His wrath, as well as showing Calvary-quality love. To Boyd, what society does does not matter to Christians, so pacificism and love are the only witnesses available to Christians. This is a difficult point to take at face value and needs more complexity from Boyd to be convincing.

Second, beyond the control of the standard of society's laws, there is the doctrine of repentance within the Gospel appeal. This is a deeper issue than influencing legislation, and goes to the heart of what the Gospel is. Predictably, Boyd denies any preaching of judgment to unbelievers. Boyd says, "...when we assume the role of moral guardians of the culture, we invariably position ourselves as judges over others. Not only is there no precedent for this in the life of Jesus, but Scripture explicitly and repeatedly forbids us to judge others....Jesus contrasts love and judgment as antithetical activities...Our fundamental job is to love like God loves, not to pretend we know what only God knows." (pp. 132-133). Boyd goes on to say that we are to preach none of this "judgment" to unbelievers and this is why evangelicals are hated. Excuse me? When is calling something God calls sin wrong? When is preaching against such sin wrong? When is seeking to limit such sin in the lives of others wrong? When is it wrong to call on the consciences of people to do what God commands--no matter how close they are to Christianity? None of these things is wrong, yet Boyd denounces them all. He urges that we build relationships and present the love of Christ only. And it is that "only" that completely overlooks Jesus', the New Testament writers, and the Old Testament writers position on the sin of man and the necessity of repentance. Jonah even preached repentance to Ninevah in the Old Testament for crying out loud. Boyd may want to love people as God loves, but God is in the business of calling all people to repentance (Acts 17).

These two problems were the most prominent to me in this book. I have not provided exhaustive answers to them, but only enough to show that the issues are far more complicated than Boyd would have them. A book may arise that will give Christians a correct sense of their social role in regard to America's civil Christian mores--what to do, and what not...but this book is not it. Though there is something to be said for reading this book, for I wrestled with its implications.

Ruth Colyer: A Faithful Woman

Ruth Colyer, my mother-in-law, died July 20th, Sunday morning, 2008. Many of you, my readers, have prayed for her and kept watch over her, here and on my other web pages as to her progress during her illness. We are saddened deeply by losing her, but she has gone on to be with the Lord Jesus to His place He has prepared for her. Thank you all for your prayers, your concern, and your faith in our God who decided to bring her home. I wanted to offer a few words of encouragement in light of her death.

1. Ruth came to saving faith in the Lord Jesus Christ as a young girl. I sat with her several years ago as she told me her testimony. She told of how as she sat in church one day, she was convicted of her sin and the truth that Jesus died to pay for her sin. She told me about trusting Him that day, and how that she had never changed her mind about what He did for her. She said she had been following Him since that time, and her life showed it: her love for Him, His church, and His kingdom. She lived a life in which she blessed others for God, not least of them, myself. I was a wandering soul when I began to date her daughter, but Ruth influenced me, by strong example, to follow the path of discipleship that leads to Christian hope. I will thank her for that always, until the day I again see her face.

2. Ruth fulfilled her calling as a Christian mother. She always urged her daughter and husband to follow the way of God. She did the most important thing as a parent, which is to have a Christian home. As an extension of her natural family, she helped raise many other children as a caretaker, helping them to grow physically, mentally, and spiritually. She was a mother to many children, not just Teya, and will be missed by all of them.

3. Ruth endured trial with faith, even when she was shaken. Cancer was a horror for Ruth, and it took away most of her health in this world before she died. She desired to be healed, but was willing to accept that she might not be healed. I prayed with her not long ago, that God might heal her, but if not, He might have mercy on her as her health declined, and that he might help her to endure the great trial that death is. As I prayed, she quietly whispered "amen" to either path God might lead her on.

Like my great-grandmother, I had a mother-in-law that I would say lived "A beautiful life" for her LORD. She, like all people, struggled from time to time, but she focused, at her end, and on the fact that there will be "no tears in heaven" (her words in her last days). My prayer for all of us, is that we would emulate her good qualities, and prepare for the day when we must all meet Christ, and having prepared fully to meet Him, meet Ruth also.

Life is a struggle. Not only in the broad sense between good and evil, just and unjust, predator and prey, but also in the little things. It is a struggle to do my job right now. It seems things just keep coming up that hinder my plans. I have been nervous, agitated at times, and finally just break into laughter to blow off the steam of how ridiculously complicated life can be. You try to build something (not just buildings-- think your character, your family, your track record of success), and things come along that just blow it all apart, and these blowups can happen frequently.

Now a confession, I have a streak of lazy despair in me. When I struggle, or fail and try to re-route to success in my life, I find that that re-routing is only for a time. Seems like Achebe's title to his piece "Things Fall Apart" fits here, and when things keep falling apart, I want to throw in the towel. I want to be lazy, or fall into some depressed funk. Yet, I know that my life is more important than the mistakes I make along the way, what matters a heap load is what kind of person I become in this process. Do I become that cynical, apathetic soul? Or do I gather my courage and man-up? Do I allow the struggle to shape me into Christ-likeness or do I take the easy way and fall apart too? I know what I got to do, because God doesn't allow us to live in a problematic world for no reason. I know He lets us live in this kind of world because how we respond to it is proof of what He can do when things dismantle before our eyes--that is He is the Rock in this stormy sea. When we cling to Him his grace shines. It's not that we can conquer all our problems, but that through Him I can have faith that ultimately, problems will not make us fall entirely, rather we fall into His arms, and everybody will see what holds us up when nothing else does.

soli deo gloria

Michael Horton on Charles Finney

Michael Horton is a distinguished professor at Westminster Seminary. He wrote a short article I read recently on Charles Finney, American evangelist of the 19th century. I will come back to Finney's effects on American Christianity later, but suffice to say, he has deeply influenced all of Protestantism in America since before and after the Civil War, through his writings and teachings about such topics as Christian conversion and revival.

Horton quotes the following from Charles Grandison Finney (Systematic Theology, pg. 46):

"But for sinners to be forensically pronounced just, is impossible and absurd... As we shall see, there are many conditions, while there is but one ground, of the justification of sinners ... As has already been said, there can be no justification in a legal or forensic sense, but upon the ground of universal, perfect, and uninterrupted obedience to law. This is of course denied by those who hold that gospel justification, or the justification of penitent sinners, is of the nature of a forensic or judicial justification. They hold to the legal maxim that what a man does by another he does by himself, and therefore the law regards Christ’s obedience as ours, on the ground that he obeyed for us."

Let me put this in layman's terms:

The idea that people who break God's law can be legally declared "not-guilty" (by God), is impossible and foolish...I will show you that there are many conditions for a person to be declared righteous by God, but all these are based upon one root condition...As I have already said, law-breakers cannot be said to be "not-guilty" (as by a jury, judge, or God)...there is no such law-breaker freeing verdict given by anyone, rather, the one condition for being declared "not-guilty" is whole-hearted, completely fulfilled, and constant (for all of life) obedience to the moral law of God. This idea, of course, is denied by those who say that Gospel declaration of repenting law-breakers means that God calls such repenting law-breakers "not-guilty," (often called judicial justification). They hold to the legal idea that a person may have another person do something to take his or her legal obligation (his obedience or punishment for example), and therefore that Christ's obedience may be said to be ours, because he obeyed God for us.

This paragraph, which I have tried to paraphrase rightly, reveals that Finney could not abide the idea of one person fulfilling another person's moral obligations to God's law--even if it was Jesus Christ! Never mind that the moral law flows from God's character and that God has shown in both OT and NT scripture that He allows one person to take another person's moral obligations!

Romans 3:21-26 does not show God calling a person "not-guilty" on the basis of their moral behavior...no way! This whole section says that a person's "faith" or trust in Christ's death for himself/herself is the way a person is declared "not-guilty." In other words, God gave Christ as a gracious substitute for law-breakers and law-breakers embrace Him as their substitute in order to be declared "not-guilty" of their deeds.

Paul even goes on and says: "Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By one of works? No, the contrary, by a law of faith." (Rom. 3:27 HCSB).

Still with me? Does it sound like Finney was in line with the Bible? That's right! He taught error instead of the truth concerning the most important doctrines...how guilty law-breakers are to be relieved of the guilt of their wrongdoings. This is a very serious error...in fact, it is the most serious error...it is the error of the Pharisees of Jesus day: Trying to get right with God by good behavior!

As I said before, Finney is revered among many evangelicals, Horton says:..."Jerry Falwell calls him "one of my heroes and a hero to many evangelicals, including Billy Graham." I can add to this testimony, as I was listening to Dr. James Dobson one night on the radio and he commended Finney on his radio program by reporting a positive testimony of someone converted under Finney's ministry. If you ever read "Hell's Best Kept Secret" or "The Way of the Master" materials (by Ray Comfort), you will find he deeply respects Finney too.

Despite what I have shared with you here about Finney's understanding of salvation, many evangelicals blindly see him as a great man...and in the human sense, he probably provoked many to better behavior. Yet, tragically, he did not give people what they needed, the Word of God on salvation that would save their souls...he left them hoping to reach heaven by works--utter folly.

Finney is worth investigating also because of his lasting impact on the church. Ever heard of a church altar call? That's Finney's baby. Ever wonder when the sinner's prayer began to be highly popularized in America? Finney again. Ever wonder where modern revivals that focus on getting people to "get right with God" (in behavior) and which focus on people's emotions to get them to respond to God come from? Finney a third time. He didn't invent these things by himself, except the alter call, but all are children of his view of sinners getting right with God by behavior.

I would say finally, that all these things were well intentioned...but woefully off base in their origin. The Gospel itself is a command to repent and have faith in Christ alone for salvation; Finney put the focus on the quality of the individual's repentance, in fact, all the load for salvation is based on the individual's behavior. Therefore, Finney's system leads to both pride (for the morally strong) and despair (for the morally weaker sort), and both pride and despair have wreaked havoc on the preaching of the Gospel in America.

Many called Christians and churches have based salvation on the strength of the moral impulse. In other words, particular conformity to a Christian group's scruples becomes a substitute in salvation for the brokeness, humility, and love toward God that ought to characterize true salvation. It's not that Christ didn't give commands for us to carry out, but many in the American church (because of Finney) have added to them and required near behavioral perfection in the Christian life or adaption to a particular group's commands as the basis of whether a person is Christian or not. No wonder that we have pride in the American church. No wonder that we don't reach out with the true Gospel as we ought. Many of us are confused. Charles Finney has lent us part of our Christian legacy in America, and that legacy is tainted with dangerous error.

Here is the link to Horton's article: http://www.mtio.com/articles/aissar81.htm

A poem inspired by Dylan Thomas

Do Not Go Lonely Into That Coming Night

Do not go lonely into that coming night,
A soul should seek company at close of day;
The way alone is the darkest of ways.

Though worldly wise then know that way is right,
Yet, their homegrown wisdom has no sight, they'll say:
The way alone is the darkest of ways.

Good folks, their deeds in scales bouncing, ever slight
Flawed deeds hold little weight on that day, they'll say:
The way alone is the darkest of ways.

Wild ones, who merry made in sunny day light,
They learn, alas, they wasted life in delay, they'll say:
The way alone is the darkest of ways.

Grave souls, near death, who see with blinded sight
Blind eyes, missed the Blaze, Torch of Days, they'll say:
The way alone is the darkest of ways.

And you, my belov'd, there in dark vale's gate,
Call, bless me now with your broken tears, I pray.
Do not go lonely into the coming night.
The way alone is the darkest of ways.


(This poem was inspired by Dylan Thomas. Thomas was a hard-drinking writer, and his intent was to express his desire that his father not regret death. My view of the world is quite different than Thomas' and consequently, my fears for those who die depart from his, though my poem's form is the same)

Thank God

I want to say thank you to God. He is so good to me--"Thank you Lord." I can't say enough about Him: he chose me in Him (Jesus Christ) before the world was made, he called me from death to life, he made me right with him through the gifts of repentance and faith in Jesus Christ...He gave me my physical being and my soul...He has given me my wonderful family, my friends, my church family. He is caring for our physical needs through the job He has provided, and has protected us from harm. He is walking with us through our trials.

Lord, thank you for being in my life..I love you.

Greg

When I Get Where I'm Goin

Lately, certain songs have touched my heart deeply. This is one of those songs...my heart literally aches with joy and sadness when I hear this song. Christians ought to be happy to be "going somewhere," which happens to be the abode of God--the Son, Jesus Christ, His Father, and of the Holy Ghost, not only that, but there is the hope of seeing those gone on there, and that place is devoid of the many things that make us hurt here. The key (or door to use His words) is our Lord Jesus Christ--no man comes to the Father or that place without the Son. He demands our lives, but promises a greater life in return--life with Him forever.

Update on Ruthie

This is to catch you guys up on my mother-in-law Ruth Colyer. I ask you all to continue to pray for her and for us and those around the family (friends and church family who are helping to care for her). She has finished radiation on her brain. MRI scans showed she has gallstones, and some more cancer growth. She needs your prayers for strength because she will soon embark on another round of chemo treatments for these growths. Pray for her physical comfort, as she is hurting badly from time to time. Also pray for her spiritual and physical strength as she goes through these difficult days, that she might be able to go successfully through treatment. Again, we are still praying for a miracle (Is anything to hard for the Lord?), so continue to pray and don't give up...we never know what can happen when we pray!

Love to all of you brothers and sisters,

Greg

Bye Sarah (part 2)

This is a post to again say an updated goodbye to our beloved Sarah Logsdon. Sarah, you have done so much for us at Community and we love you and thank you sister. May the Lord bless you wherever you go and may he make your time with your family fruitful!

After the World

One of my favorite bands for a while has been Disciple. This band is heavy heavy Christian rock (though some of you might say "no way!"). Anyways, this band puts a few acoustic songs on its records and its latest record, Scars Remain, contains this gem called "After the World". This song touches my heart, because it is about how the Lord is there leading us to Him, no matter what. It breaks my heart every time I hear them sing "...did I create, the rhythm your heart makes" because it does so many things to my mind...I remember Dad and how God created and appointed the day for his heart to cease beating, how that one day my heart will stop beating and I must face my Maker and Savior, and how that all these things give glory to God. Perhaps the song won't matter so much to you, but I commend it nonetheless...

You break the glass, try to hide your face
Recorded lines that just will not erase
And buried in your loss of innocence
You wonder if you'll find it again

Was I there for the worst of all your pain?
And was I there when your blue sky ran away?
Was I there when the rains were flooding you?
I hope you feel those were My tears falling down for you, falling down for you

I'm the One that you've been looking for
I'm the One that you've been waiting for
I've had My eyes on you ever since you were born
I will love you after the rain falls down
I will love you after the sun goes out
I'll have My eyes on you after the world is no more

Did I arrange the light of your first day?
Did I create the rhythm your heart makes?
Could you believe when your candle starts to fade?
I want to be the One that you believe
Could take it all away, take your heart away

Isn't My life a clear sign since I have crossed over this chasm
To fill the space between Me and you?
And I will do it all over again
Just look for Me, just wait for Me

The One you've been looking for
The One you've been waiting for
You won't have to look anymore

What's happening to the church?

Since I have been a Christian, several different views of the church have been mine.

First, when I was young, my view of the church was very limited, being confined to my local congregation, though I was not an active member till later in life. I had no thought as to what was going on in the wider church scene in America, nor did I know anything about other congregations except those stories and other tidbits given by visiting evangelists (in fact, I didn't think of evangelists as pastors--though many of them were!) I did not know or care if the church was growing in America...the things I knew that were most important to me about church were: 1) Jesus is God and Savior and He needs to "save" you if you want to go to heaven 2) That one should go to church 3) That I did not believe some things that science taught (like human evolution) because of my faith in the Bible.

I knew only the basics and continued that way for years. One other aspect in which I understood the God of my church was through conscience--in effect, I was a sinner that needed to be saved and I felt in my conscience when I did evil. I also came to believe that I was not saved after I was 17 or so because of the wickedness in my life.

It is at this point that I give you my second view of the church: something of which I did not want to be part. As I said, my life spiraled into sin and my conscience screamed that I was without the love of God. I had horrible nightmares about being separated from God. In the midst of all this, I refused to go to church because I wanted to get away from it. I figured that my conscience and raising would be dulled if I could ignore the church. I never could completely ignore the church, though.

The third way I looked at the church was as a necessary evil. My wife, whom I love asked me to go with her to church as a precondition when we began dating. I grudgingly agreed, and for the first time in many a year entered the corridors of my childhood church weekly. At first, I was not accustomed to the church as I had been...in fact, I was less worried about the church itself and more worried about Teya.

Then it happened...I was called by God to repent...my forth view of the church was born...I saw the church as my brothers and sisters and a body of which I was definitey a part and to which I definitely belonged. I loved the church (and still do). Upon entering this dynamic part of my Christian life, I began to recognize the efforts of churches across America, the state of the church in America, and other broader concerns. I had come a long way from the particular, traditional, and simple, to the world-wide, the dynamic, and the more complex in my view of the church.

How do I view the church now? Stay tuned...

Construction Work and the Bible

One of the favorite bits of wisdom that my late father used to share with me when I was young was that, regarding school, "its just like a house...first you pour a good foundation...that's what grade school is like Greg...that's why it is necessary to try to do well now!," he would say. Dad was a construction worker most of his life. Master plumber to be exact (and a darn good one to :) He was using Jesus technique of teaching truth by common analogy--taking his life and what I knew of it, and giving me encouragement on the purpose of early education through a picture of a house being built.

Having grown up, I have lost Dad's immediate presence for now but tonight I am thinking about his lesson in the context of what the Bible says about construction work. Actually, there is more than you might think...which is also interesting to me, since I am a plumber and construction worker too.

One of the first incidences of construction work in the Bible the building of the Ark by Noah (Gen. 6-9). A construction project was the assignment for Noah, the object of God's command to obedience for him. He had to build a boat to survive the Flood! Interesting that construction work is given a positive spin here in the Bible! This is a story of salvation. Just a few chapters earlier, we find another story about construction: "Cain...he built a city, he called the name of the city after his son, Enoch." (Gen. 4:17). This story shows construction work in a negative light, as the civilization of Cain's family would be completely destroyed, despite their technical competence, because they ignored the Lord God. So one way in which construction work is used in the Bible is its use as a picture of faith or unbelief. Depends on what one is building...it is no wonder that Jesus used two men building houses to picture a life of faith in Him and a life without such faith (Matt. 7).

Another way construction work is addressed in the Bible is regarding its use in sanctification (making God's people like Him through the course of life--not the same as "salvation" in the sense of forgiveness of sin). Exodus 35-40 give a detailed record of the contributions for, the builders of, and the blueprint of God's place of worship given to Moses for the Hebrew people. The purpose of the tabernacle, God's place of worship, was that the people might have a divinely appointed means of expressing their love for Him and service to Him. Many commentators have noted that the tabernacle of Moses was a picture of Christ: after all, Jesus transferred the meaning (in a sense), to Himself, when he said "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." (John 2:19), and this means that Christ, like the temple, is the appointed way, truth, and life, through which we relate to God, and through which we grow in Him. Paul puts it this way: "no one can lay any other foundation, than that which is already laid, which is Jesus Christ.." (I Cor. 3:11).

So there's at least two pictures: I'll give a third and rest. This picture is the way the Bible pictures the church of Jesus...it is a construction project...and Jesus is the project manager, the contractor, the mechanic, and the laborer that builds us into a body of people that love each other in their common salvation in Christ. Paul says "You are...God's building" (I Cor. 3:9), and also says in Ephesians: "...you are fellow citizens with saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit." (Eph. 2: 20-22). What about that? The body of Christ's members have been saved individually by building on Him--they continue individually in their spiritual walk by building on the foundation of Christ in sanctification (growth in holiness), and they are built together, by the Lord, through His appointed means, into a holy temple in which they are living stones that cry out "Hosanna...blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!" (Matt. 21:9), and in whom, through the Spirit, Christ dwells, builds, and fashions!

Well, that is all for now. Construction work is given a prominent place in the metaphorical usage of the Bible to demonstrate spiritual truth. Thank God for using my lowly occupation (or if you must, the broader category my occupation is part of) in order to teach eternal truth. Thanks even more to my Father for giving me a sure foundation on which I can stand and have been standing at least since age 21. Like the words of the hymn:

"How firm a foundation, ye saints of the Lord, is held for your faith in His excellent Word; what more can He say, than to you He hath said, to you who to Jesus for refuge have fled."

God bless

Greg

Childhood Conversion

Basically, here is a one sentence summation of my intent in the poll I offered ealier in the year on salvation experience: Is there really any way to tell if childhood conversion is for real, if it is followed by a long season of departure from the faith? Furthermore, is it possible to verify childhood conversion considering most of the people who believed they where saved at a young age totally ignore Christ and spurn Him at some point for a while (much longer than Peter's short defection)?

I wouldn't make an issue out of this if everybody saved young didn't experience this kind of departure from LORD! I mean, it is near uniform in many cases...declared saved at 8-12 years old in SBC church by "coming forward to confess Christ" then later, the person becomes in many ways what is opposed to Christ. What gives?

Here is my initial impression: a lot of childhood conversions are bogus. Later in your life, many, many of the people who are supposedly converted as children do business with God that becomes the basis of their Christian life. Most do not (as, for example, James Dobson), remain faithful from their young age.

This is all I've got for now, but promise to continue this topic in a little while.

Blessings,

Greg

Ruth Post Surgery

Thanks again for those of you who pray for my mother-in-law, Ruth Colyer. She has come successfully through her surgery. She is recovering at the hospital. Please continue to pray that God would continue to be with her, heal her body, comfort her pain, and be strengthening her in every way in Christ.

In Christ,

Greg

Another word on Ruth

OK, a quick word for my prayers on my mother-in-law Ruth. Her cancer continues to give her trouble. She has a spot on the occipital (back part) of her brain to be removed Tues. around 7am. Pray for her healing. Pray for her recovery (Dr.'s are optimistic). Pray the doctors would be instruments in God's hands to heal her. Pray that He would go beyond what they can do and do a miracle. Most of all, remember to pray for strengthening of her faith in Jesus and trust of Him--because she is going through a trial. In the end, that we trust Him is more important than any temporary healing or temporary comfort in this world. Remember:

This world is not my home, I'm just passing through.
My treasures are laid up somewhere beyond the blue.
The angels beckon me from Heaven's open door
And I can't feel at home in this world anymore.

Chorus
O Lord you know I have no friend like you
If Heaven's not my home, then Lord what will I do?
The angels beckon me from Heaven's open door
And I can't feel at home in this world anymore.

God bless you all!

Bye to Sarah Logston

Sarah Logsdon is leaving Community Baptist Church! We love you Sarah and hate to see you go. We also want to say, God be with you. Come back and visit when you can.

Arrested Hearing

My goodness! I was so stupid as a teenager listening to music! I absolutely listened to music for the sound and not the message. For instance, I would listen to "Highway to Hell," knowing good and well Jesus didn't like it. When I was listening to GnR's "You Could Be Mine," (remember Terminator 2 fans?), a song with little spiritual worth (or none), the above song by Arrested Development was on the radio. I liked this single "Tennessee," quite a bit, but not nearly as much as my stupid rock-n-roll. Now, after like 13 years, I see this video, and its all about God's guidance of the singers life!? Ironic what you can't hear when you're not listening for it, huh?

The Living Dead

Recently watched "I am Legend," with Will Smith. Talk about intense. The movie didn't have much music, so when something scary happened, it just knocked the socks right off of you. The main antagonists of this film were zombie/undead type characters (though I'm not going to let the movie out of the bag completely).

There's got to be something to this pattern of zombie/derranged-undead type creature movies that have been so common in the theaters in the last 50 or so years. There was "28 Days Later," and "Dawn of the Dead," and "Shawn of the Dead," and "Dawn of the Dead 2," and then came "28 Weeks Later," and on and on it goes. That crazy Romero guy that invented the zombie genre with "Night of the Living Dead" must be pretty proud.

So why do the living dead both fascinate and scare us at the same time? Could it be because we embody something of them, even though our flesh is vibrant and not falling off at the moment? Could it be that in these movies, we some faint reflection of ourselves as human beings that though alive must cope with the reality that one day, we will die, and it won't be pretty?

I can't say, but I know one thing--without God interrupting our world with the Gospel--all we can look forward to is the torture of an unknowing approach to death and the cold grip of its chilling effects, with no hope of life--no hope of personality--a descent into non-existence that confuses, frightens, and frustrates people everywhere. That is the natural state of our minds in regard to our mortality...unless there is another answer. Ephesians says of the lost (those without saving knowledge of the God of the Bible through Christ): "you...who were dead in trespasses and sins." (2:1). So! There it is! We are dead normally! Furthermore, when the Bible refers to hell, it speaks of unending death--the "second death" (Rev. 21:8), where "Their worm does not die, And the fire is not quenched" (Mark 9:47).

Our world is overhung by the shadow of death. We live in a world of walking dead...

Unless we know the Gospel and the Hope it gives in the Son Jesus Christ--
Ephesians goes on and says that death is not the end if we come to know God: "...even when we were dead in trespasses, (He) made us alive together with Christ" (2:5).

Actually, we do live in "The Land of the Dead," but today you can trust Christ who can make you alive. You "who sat in the region and shadow of death," (Matt. 4:16) may be made alive in Him today--He is the living One amongst the zombie hoards.

I'm terrible at blogging!

I never write anything.

Reflections on My Last Poll

Just so you guys don't think that I've forgotten to talk about the poll on salvation experiences, I wanted to say a quick word. The poll was almost uniform in the number of people who said that they had had a salvation-type experience as a child that they did not consider to be their true saving entrance into a relationship with Jesus Christ. One person replied that they had always kept following Jesus since they had been saved. I was surprised that I did not have a reader that was saved at a young age and that fell away for a season and then returned, through repentance, to Christ. Frankly, I expected more than one of these responses.

My main question that I want to ask on this subject next time is this: How can a young professing Christian tell the difference between the discipline of God on their life for unfaithfulness and regular pangs of conscience and guilt they feel for violating a norm of their childhood?

Now in one sense, the only answer to any wayward person is "repent...now!" In this way, Baptists and Methodists have more in common than one might think at first, regarding their view of how to deal with unfaithful professing Christians. However, when we get back to my main question, something else important arises:

Can we know the difference between the troubled conscience of a religious lost person and the conviction of sin and discipline that attends the disobedience of the faithful?

I'll give you a chance to sound off. I'll post next time on my studies of this topic.

Update on Ruthie

My mother-in-law received some bad news this weekend from a CAT scan, but the bad news was tempered by a little good news. The bad news is as follows:

1. She has a blood clot on her renal (kidney) blood vessel (dangerous to the heart/lungs).
2. This clot is probably caused by an as-yet unidentified growth near her kidney, which is also causing her back pain.
3. She has a tumor growing again on her cervix (I think this is right, but I'm not totally sure).
4. She has cancerous nodules (small tumors) on her lungs, and fluid on her lungs.

The good news was the following:

1. Ruth is already been placed on blood thinners to lessen the danger from the clot.
2. Doctors may put a filter in her vessel to lessen the danger from clot rupture.
3. She can now receive specific treatments for these as-yet unidentified tumors (the doctor was upbeat about her condition because the immediate danger (the clots) is now being treated). Ruth will undergo chemotherapy soon for the cancer. As yet, I do not know the status for future surgeries (beyond the filter).

Continue to pray. Cancer is a spiritual battle as well as a physical one. Thank you all for all your prayers thus far.

Christ be with you all.

Greg

Snow Is Like...

"To those who send him,
a trustworthy messenger
is like the coolness of snow
on a harvest day;
he refreshes the life of his masters."

Prov. 25:13

(Keep in mind that harvest is in the warm season in Israel. Snow would've felt good then, huh? So faithfulness in doing one's task is like a refreshing coolness on a hot day to those for whom one does it. Nice to know that under Christ, this applies to our carrying the Gospel message for God too.)

Plagiarism: Does It Apply to Preachers?

I have heard various opinions from various folks on whether it was right or not for a preacher to borrow material from another preacher. Some people said, "No, I can't believe a preacher would need to listen to anybody but God in writing a sermon!" Other folks said, "Awww...its truth man, and it don't change. Therefore nobody is really stealing anything right?" And so the opinions went...

It is interesting that a preacher must interpret the text of the Bible in a way that bears the fruit of listener understanding, but at the same his words are supposed to be exactly those he has been told or read from the Bible (under the divine reminder of the Holy Spirit).

Interestingly, I have been listening to some material about the Puritans, and the speaker (JI Packer) put forward the statement that back in the days before the rise of modern methods of scholarship, nobody gave a hoot about plagiarism. To prove his point, he recited the following poem that used to be popular in later Victorian England.

There was once a preacher named Spurgie
Who hated the English liturgy
But his sermons are fine, I use them as mine,
And so do the rest of the clergy.



God bless!

Update on Ruthie

Dear readers,

My mother-in-law has underwent five weeks of radiation therapy, plus two extremely intense, compacted chemotherapy treatments. She is especially tired this week, because of the chemo, and will now rest until March at her house. She has had tests this week to see if the treatments are helping with results pending sometime next week. A preliminary encouraging sign of answered prayers is that her heart murmur (caused by the tumor in her heart) has lessened to the point of inaudibility. This means the tumor is probably shrinking--praise the Lord! Continue your diligent prayers for Ruthie as she rests that God would continue to bless and heal her. Our God can do anything and we continue to pray for our Father's miraculous intervention in this case.

God bless

New Name

Being that I don't keep up this blog at anything resembling a daily rate, I will be changing the name of the blog. I do promise, however, to henceforth post at least twice a week. Lately, I have had the flu, and have been enjoying my rest immensely, this is at least one reason for my tardiness in posting. God bless you all.

Throwing Evangelists a Bone

This quick post is an effort to balance what I said earlier in my post "Evangelists Feel the Heat." I must say that I thank God for revivalism and its evangelists in a few ways.

First, the passionate, powerful preaching of the Gospel, so long as the major biblical elements are included, is both necessary for the salvation of sinners and a wonderful grace of God.

Second, though revivalism has produced some unwanted side-effects, it has also been used by God to bring about the salvation of many souls.

Thirdly, many evangelists inflate their numbers and the quality of the responses at their meetings, but many do not. Those evangelists with integrity are to be commended as fruitful and Christlike members of the Lord's church.

Fourthly, evangelists focus on some of the most basic (and important) of Christian doctrines in their preaching. Not all Calvinists are like John Piper--passionate for the lost and the church. In fact, many a Calvinist church has not borne fruit, but nuts. This is a sad state of affairs, but many people who are attracted to Calvinism in our modern day do develop an un-biblical balance in their presentation of the Gospel, focusing more on the deep doctrines of the Bible (God's sovereignty/providence; God's decrees in the order of salvation; Covenant theology) than on the basic Gospel message that is continually found in the Scripture in the person and work of the Son of God, Jesus Christ, including God's holiness, man's sinfulness, the wrath of God against sinners, Christ's sacrifice for sin, the commands to mankind to repent and believe, and the importance of simple obedience and faith in practical, everyday living for average folks. Many Calvinist churches need to reclaim a sense of urgency for the lost in their basic presentation of the Gospel.

So, as with almost all things under the sun, there is good and bad in revivalism and the evangelists that support and practice it. We ought to thank God for the good and use our influence to address the bad with a Christlike mind and intention to change it.

New Poll: Salvation Experience

Much confusion exists in evangelical Christian circles about the salvation of children. Basically, a great percentage of childhood converts do not flower into full disciples (followers) of Jesus Christ and his Word. Some of these later become legitimate followers of Jesus Christ. I'd like to pick my readers brains a bit on this topic with a new poll (on the lower right). The purpose of this poll is to set up a future blog discussion on the difference between consciousness of sin and true conviction of sin in a believer's life.

"Pastor Be Honest"

Calvinism is a hot-button issue today, what with its promotion by John Piper and others in an America that often doesn't want to hear about this topic. A recent poll showed that 30% of graduates from a certain SBC seminary (Southern?) are Calvinist in theology.



Of course, many an evangelical Christian has unknowingly fallen in love with JI Packer's "Knowing God" over the years, and he is a staunch Calvinist (and a wonderful theologian).



So there is a conflict. Many churches do not want a Calvinist pastor, but many Calvinist pastors are going out into the ministry. My poll that has been up for a month is a question on how forthcoming a pastor candidate ought to be with a church about his personal views on these deep theological issues. This poll only got nine votes, but it was something like 8 to 1 in favor of total pastoral honesty on the Calvinism/Arminianism issue. The people who are reading my blog have spoken: "Pastor--be honest about your theological convictions with those to whom you minister ."

Evangelists Feel the Heat

These are turbulent times for SBC evangelists. The progress of modern culture has created a climate in which evangelism tactics from Great Awakening #2 are being questioned (the purpose of revival meetings, public invitations with heavy emotional/decisional emphasis, the use of evangelists for revivals, etc.) by many SBC pastors. At least two reasons for this are 2nd Great Awakening revivalism's lack of doctrinal depth and accuracy and inability to create a culture of intimate Christian fellowship in a today's society. More educated than previous generations and more disconnected from traditional community moorings than ever, younger folks hanker after doctrinal substance and true fellowship in the church. The Calvinist resurgence and the rise of the Seeker Sensitive movement parallel these needs.



Recently in my state's convention paper, 'The Western Recorder," there was an article in which a particular group of SBC evangelists that meet in association blamed both the rise of Calvinistic theology and the Seeker Sensitive paradigm in our day as culprits that have led to the decreasing success of revivalistic theology and practice. The problem with their criticism of Calvinism is that some of those involved with this evangelist meeting made inaccurate statements about the Calvinist movement. Some examples:

Hal Poe, professor of faith and culture at Union University in Jackson, TN, said about Calvinist pastor John Piper:

"...John Piper's version of Calvinism is not something John Calvin would espouse, or even that Charles Spurgeon would espouse."

Jerry Drace, evangelist, "told the group he currently is working with some young pastors who are "so leaning in this morphed Calvinism that they almost laugh at evangelism. It's almost to the extent that they believe they don't have to do it. So (Calvinism) gives them an excuse not to do evangelism."
(Western Recorder; January 22, 2008; pp. 2)

The first statement is a smear on John Piper because it paints him as a radical who is far different than Calvin or Spurgeon. I wonder how Poe would explain this major difference between Piper, Calvin, and Spurgeon in terms of soteriology? I don't think he can. Nor can Drace say all Calvinist pastors are unevangelistic. Perhaps he has encountered a few hyper/non-witnessing Calvinist pastors, but he is dead wrong about all Calvinist pastors being against evangelism. His statement is absurd. In fact John Piper says the following about evangelism for the Calvinist pastor:



"4. Make Spurgeon and Whitefield your models rather than Owen or Calvin, because the former were evangelists and won many people to Christ in a way that is nearer to our own day.

5. Be an evangelist and a missions mobilizer so that the criticism that Calvinism dulls a passion for the lost is put to silence."


Piper's writing on this is available at the following link: http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Articles/ByDate/1998/1509_How_to_Teach_and_Preach_Calvinism/

Stupid criticisms aside, one strong positive came from this evangelist's meeting:

These evangelists have begun to examine evangelism as a practice and have concluded that there is a lack of integrity in their own ranks. Of particular importance are evangelist's inflation of numbers of respondents at their events and also evangelist's exaggeration the quality of decisions made by these respondents. These evangelists have begun to realize that many times, they emotionally manipulate people into one-time, shallow, non-discipleship, verbal commitments. This realization is good. Perhaps they will come to the next set of logical conclusions about their method of evangelism: 1) there is something wrong with it, because of the shallowness of so many "conversions," and also that 2) their soul-winning model has played havoc in a rapidly changing world over the last 60 or so years, as SBC pastors have imitated it in the local church, creating an army of dechurched, uncommitted, careless professing Christians who have loads of confidence in a one-time decision, but little biblical basis for their status as disciples (followers of Christ and His word's) in their day-to-day lives!

Trying to Force God's Hand: The Birth of Ichabod

In 1 Samuel 4, we have a scripture that I have never heard a sermon on. I don't intend to write one here, but will offer a few points after I post the text.

1 Samuel 4:1-22 (KJV)
And the word of Samuel came to all Israel. Now Israel went out against the Philistines to battle, and pitched beside Eben-ezer: and the Philistines pitched in Aphek. [2] And the Philistines put themselves in array against Israel: and when they joined battle, Israel was smitten before the Philistines: and they slew of the army in the field about four thousand men.
[3] And when the people were come into the camp, the elders of Israel said, Wherefore hath the Lord smitten us to day before the Philistines? Let us fetch the ark of the covenant of the Lord out of Shiloh unto us, that, when it cometh among us, it may save us out of the hand of our enemies. [4] So the people sent to Shiloh, that they might bring from thence the ark of the covenant of the Lord of hosts, which dwelleth between the cherubims: and the two sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, were there with the ark of the covenant of God. [5] And when the ark of the covenant of the Lord came into the camp, all Israel shouted with a great shout, so that the earth rang again. [6] And when the Philistines heard the noise of the shout, they said, What meaneth the noise of this great shout in the camp of the Hebrews? And they understood that the ark of the Lord was come into the camp. [7] And the Philistines were afraid, for they said, God is come into the camp. And they said, Woe unto us! for there hath not been such a thing heretofore. [8] Woe unto us! who shall deliver us out of the hand of these mighty Gods? these are the Gods that smote the Egyptians with all the plagues in the wilderness. [9] Be strong, and quit yourselves like men, O ye Philistines, that ye be not servants unto the Hebrews, as they have been to you: quit yourselves like men, and fight.
[10] And the Philistines fought, and Israel was smitten, and they fled every man into his tent: and there was a very great slaughter; for there fell of Israel thirty thousand footmen. [11] And the ark of God was taken; and the two sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, were slain.
[12] And there ran a man of Benjamin out of the army, and came to Shiloh the same day with his clothes rent, and with earth upon his head. [13] And when he came, lo, Eli sat upon a seat by the wayside watching: for his heart trembled for the ark of God. And when the man came into the city, and told it, all the city cried out. [14] And when Eli heard the noise of the crying, he said, What meaneth the noise of this tumult? And the man came in hastily, and told Eli. [15] Now Eli was ninety and eight years old; and his eyes were dim, that he could not see. [16] And the man said unto Eli, I am he that came out of the army, and I fled to day out of the army. And he said, What is there done, my son? [17] And the messenger answered and said, Israel is fled before the Philistines, and there hath been also a great slaughter among the people, and thy two sons also, Hophni and Phinehas, are dead, and the ark of God is taken. [18] And it came to pass, when he made mention of the ark of God, that he fell from off the seat backward by the side of the gate, and his neck brake, and he died: for he was an old man, and heavy. And he had judged Israel forty years.
[19] And his daughter in law, Phinehas' wife, was with child, near to be delivered: and when she heard the tidings that the ark of God was taken, and that her father in law and her husband were dead, she bowed herself and travailed; for her pains came upon her. [20] And about the time of her death the women that stood by her said unto her, Fear not; for thou hast born a son. But she answered not, neither did she regard it. [21] And she named the child I-chabod (lit. "the glory is gone"), saying, The glory is departed from Israel: because the ark of God was taken, and because of her father in law and her husband. [22] And she said, The glory is departed from Israel: for the ark of God is taken.


Notice there are four elements to this text:

1. The Israelites assumed that God will help them to victory because of the presence of the ark, for it was God's means of leading the Israelites to victory and fruitfulness in earlier times (Numbers 10:34-36).

2. The Israelites ignored that state of the priesthood and their nation's relationship to the holy God in making this assumption. Their priests were Eli and his sons, and these priests were despising God's offerings and His holiness at the tabernacle (1 Sam. 2:12-17).

3. The Israelites were soundly defeated because they did not examine their relationship with God before they used the ark.

4. Eli's daughter-in-law described the state of the defeated and now ark-less Israel--God's glory was gone from them and their land.

There is a lesson for the Church in this:

1. We must not assume that God will help us win our various spiritual battles because we apply those things he commanded us to use in living a sanctified life: prayer, Bible study, corporate worship, evangelism, giving, and other spiritual disciplines in our Christian lives. These can be tools to help win the victory, but only if we regard God's holiness with faith and repentance when using them.

2. When we ignore God's holiness, we vainly apply His appointed means of fruitfulness in the Christian life ignorantly assuming sanctification and spiritual victory will be forthcoming.

3. The result of such action is a defeated life. Like the Israelites, we are often cast down because of our assumption that God must help us through His appointed means of sanctification.

4. A defeated life is one from which God's glory has departed. A believer without victory in the Christian life does not show forth God's glory. Constant defeat in a believer's attitude and actions does not show Christ overcoming the world in that person's life.

In the end, no victory in the Christian life is possible without proper regard for God's personal holiness. God is no light switch we turn on through our use of His appointed means of sanctification.

Along these same lines, Francis Schaeffer said in his "True Spirituality":

"...it is obvious that there is no mechanical solution to true spirituality or the true Christian life. Anything that has the mark of the mechanical upon it is a mistake. It is not possible to say, "Read so many of the chapters of the Bible every day, and you will have this much sanctification." It is not possible to say, "Pray so long every day, and you will have a certain amount of sanctification." It is not possible to add the two together and to say, "You will have this big piece of sanctification." This is purely mechanical solution, and it denies the whole Christian position. For the fact is that the Christian life, true spirituality, can never have a mechanical solution. The real solution is being cast up into the moment-by-moment communion, personal communion, with God himself, and letting Christ's truth flow through me through the agency of the Holy Spirit." (pp. 78).

It is impossible to force God's hand to bring spiritual victory to us by simply using the means of sanctification He has provided. We must regard His holiness in the use of the means of sanctification.