We surf...so you don't have to - Sep. 15

The Obama School Speech Controversy — What to Think?

"Christians must be the first to pray for this president and to model respect for the presidency..."

Thank you, Scotland Yard

Ever wonder why they check your liquid containers at the airport now?

St. Louis Cardinals fan feels uplifted after fall

A good story about a dad, son and their favorite player.

Quote - Our Most Important Priority

"We have been brought to the point where we both can and must get our life’s priorities straight. From current Christian publications you might think that the most vital issue for any real or would-be Christian in the world today is church union, or social witness, or dialogue with other Christians and other faiths, or refuting this or that -ism, or developing a Christian philosophy and culture, or what have you. But our line of study makes the present day concentration on these things look like a gigantic conspiracy of misdirection. Of course, it is not that; the issues themselves are real and must be dealt with in their place. But it is tragic that, in paying attention to them, so many in our day seem to have been distracted from what was, and is, and always will be, the true priority for every human being. That is, learning to know God in Christ."

J. I. Packer

HT: Scriptorium Daily

Sermon Notes - A Strange Invitation

A Strange Invitation, Mark 8:31 – 9:1
J. Josh Smith, MacArthur Boulevard Baptist Church, attended September 13, 2009

After hearing this invitation you may wonder why anyone would ever agree. This is an invitation to release control, to come and die, to be a slave and a servant. Those who hold tightly to their lives will ultimately lose it.

1. Explanation – Mark 8:31 – 33

This is the foundation of the next verses. Jesus tells us how He is called to live. “Must” is the key word. He must suffer and be persecuted. This is a statement of fact, His purpose. He doesn’t, and we can’t, substitute the word “willing” for “must”.

2. Invitation – Mark 8:34

He is inviting us to come and follow Him and live the life He lives.

Mark specifically notes that He summoned the crowd. In the previous verses, He was talking to the disciples only. This is important it that it shows the invitation is to all, not just the disciples. This gives no one the opportunity to say that this invitation is for the spiritual “green berets”, it is for all who are in the crowd, including believers, unbelievers, and the marginal believers.

Once again, “must” doesn’t mean “willing”. We can’t substitute the two.

Three imperatives for a follower of Christ:

Deny himself – This is radical in what must be denied. He isn’t asking to just deny something but to deny your very self. You must deny your plans, hopes, and ambitions. Must die to that man and live for Christ.

What specifically does this mean? Eight of the eleven times this word is used is in reference to one story. That story is in Matthew 26: 69 – 75 where Peter denies Christ three times. He denied any association or knowledge of Christ whatsoever. Jesus uses the same word to tell us what we must do. We must deny every association and knowledge of the old man. We no longer have the right to determine what to do with our money for example. We go to what Christ says first.

Take up your cross – We use this term all the time but to the crowd it was probably confusing. A brutal death was what came to their mind. The cross was what a criminal, as defined by the Romans, had to carry through town on their back. They knew that whoever carried this cross was going to die. So what did Jesus mean?

He did not mean you must be willing to die. Nor did he mean you should be willing to die if need be. None of this was about willingness. It is easy to say I’m willing to die for Christ. He died to His rights and privileges as the Son of God, and so we should die to our rights. It is an ongoing death as well as an initial moment. The first moment we realize there is nothing we can do to save ourselves is the first of a million deaths. We have to die daily to the sinful man.

Follow me – This is perhaps the strangest of all imperatives. “If anyone wants to follow me he must follow me”, is a sense of the wording. Embrace me as well as my life. People want to follow Jesus but not really follow Him. This isn’t just a philosophy but a life. Don’t say you are going to follow Jesus and then not follow Him. Mortify the old man. You cannot follow Him apart from self denial and self sacrifice. Are you functioning as the king of your own life or is He?

3. Argumentation – Mark 8:35-38

He knows we are scared. This invitation is almost like saying I’m paying for you to visit Hawaii but you have to swim there. We like our life we aren’t willing to just lose it. He gives us two reasons to receive His invitation:

Our refusal to receive it results in the loss of our life – Our very attempt to save our life will cost us our life both here and in eternity in Hell. When you lose it you actually get it. Our soul is more important than our life on earth.

Our refusal to receive it results in loss of reception – He will deny us if we deny Him. He will say, just like Peter, “I don’t even know that man.” This is more than just a verbal denial. Many accept Him with their words but deny Him with their lives. (Titus 1:16) On the flip side, are you living like Him yet afraid to speak for Him? That is also unacceptable in the eyes of Jesus.

4. Exhortation – Mark 8:39-9:1

Jesus says we may not see His glory now but just wait. He is referring to the resurrection. His power comes by death – just like ours does.

Following Him does not just mean embracing an idea or a belief. It is embracing a life. The question is, are you following Jesus, not just did you pray a prayer. It may be the start of a life but it isn’t the prayer that is important. Your perseverance in the life is indication of the prayer.

Something Light - The laugh that can't be stifled

Have you ever experienced this?

“Well, I saw that and wanted to laugh. Not just wanted to – I tell you that laugh was down in my stomach, like bad beef; it meant to come out. Desperately it strove for placid thoughts; which meant, of course, not looking at Mr. Holgen’s hat. Not thinking those words. And yet they called, like a summons, like a hissed invitation, SHOOT ME!, calling to the laugh inside my belly.

You want torture? A giggle crept up the old esophagus; I swallowed it down. My eyeballs watered. The worst of it was I seemed to be the only kid who’d noticed. Either that or everyone else had iron control, a terrible thought. I looked around; glazed faces everywhere. No one else had seen!

Oh, but that moment was a lonesome place. Mr. Holgren talked on; I molared the inside of my cheek; the laugh stayed put but I felt it down there, accruing strength. Goodness, it made me nervous…I swallowed about twelve times. Then Peter Emerson leaned over to my ear. “Bang”, he whispered. I knew defeat. Through mouth plastered hands the laugh ripped forth – hoo-hoo-ha-ha-wha-wha-wha – a ruddy bray that condemned me to the stares of aghast pilgrims and who knew what violent repercussions at the hands of Mr. Holgren. I laughed so hard my sight went dark.”

From Peace Like a River, by Leif Enger

Go Ask Your Daddy - Zoroastrianism?

Hopefully, a semi-regular feature here. Questions from my daughters that require a little bit more explanation and thought.

It’s just a title. There is no implication here that “Mommy” couldn’t answer the questions just as well, in fact, more often than not, better. I just liked the way it sounded and my wife does use that question. It is usually in the context of asking permission rather than asking for knowledge. Hmm, wonder if that means anything?

Who is Zoroaster? My AP World History book says that he was born before Christ and it implied that Christianity really came from Zoroastrianism. Is there any truth to that at all?

Are we sure that these AP classes are what we need to be in? Wow. I didn’t have to think about Zoroaster until after college, and even then there was no connection with Christianity at all. It was just another false religion. So maybe these AP classes are good. At least we can talk about it now before they head off to college on their own.

If anything came from one it would be the other way around. Zoroastrianism undoubtedly borrowed from Christianity. Let me state it plainly: Jesus is not a recycled version of any religion, nor did the writers of the New Testament plagiarize.

The Gospels are accounts of actual historical events and of real, flesh-and-blood human beings. They cite actual historical evidence with precise topographical locations. As one example, read the following and ask yourself if it sounds like Luke was writing a fairy tale that couldn’t be proved or disproved.

“Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught. In the days of Herod, king of Judea…” (Luke 1:1-5)

There have been, and will continue to be, many claims that the story of Jesus was “borrowed” from other sources. These claims include Horus, Mithras, and Zoroaster (also known as Zarathustra), just to name a few. The popular book, "The Da Vinci Code" by Dan Brown, even makes the absurd statement that, “Nothing in Christianity is original.”

There are a couple of things we need to keep in mind as we deal with these types of issues.

First, the “facts” stated generally aren’t factual. Specifically, Zoroaster’s “miraculous” birth, according to some scholars, dates to the ninth century A.D., i.e. 800 years after Christ was born and resurrected. If that were the case, all of the New Testament had been written. Yet other scholars say that Zoroaster lived around 600-500 BC. If that were the case, portions of the Old Testament would have already been written. This disagreement among scholars highlights the fact that we don’t know when Zoroaster lived so this claim is skeptical at best.

Even if we grant that Zoroaster was born before Christ that doesn’t negate the clear Messianic prophecies of resurrection and virgin birth in the Old Testament. Zoroaster could have as easily borrowed from the Old Testament as the claim that the New Testament borrowed from Zoroaster.

Once again, let’s grant his birth. What about Zoroastrianism’s ancient text, the Avesta? The Avesta would show us what Zoroaster actually taught, as opposed to what modern Zoroastrianism says he taught. Stated simply, the Avesta was not complete until possibly as late as a thousand years after his birth, whenever that might be.

“The oldest known manuscript of the Avesta stems from the 1200’s A.D., a fairly long time since its [supposed] composition, and it has been estimated that approximately 75 percent of the original Avesta has been lost. Furthermore, because Avestan is such a difficult language, many sentences in it seem to make no sense…There is no question that the majority of the Avesta, though claiming to stem from Zoroaster, was produced much later.” (Why I Am a Christian: Leading Thinkers Explain Why They Believe, Norman Geisler and Paul Hoffman)

As an aside, how completely ingenious of our God that He would provide his special revelation to us in the original languages of Hebrew and Greek that are clear to understand and still in use today.

“The origins of the Avesta are, for the most part, shrouded in mystery. Any information containing Zoroaster’s revelations is so deeply rooted in late mythology that it cannot constitute compelling evidence that the Avesta is inspired.” (Why I Am a Christian: Leading Thinkers Explain Why They Believe, Norman Geisler and Paul Hoffman)

The basis then for some of our information about Zoroaster is questionable.

Secondly, even if the “facts” were true it still proves nothing. As C.S. Lewis said, “You must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong.” In other words they have to show that Jesus is a fiction before they start explaining how the fiction came to be. They just make the assumption He is not who He says He is, without any historical evidence to back up their claim. They assume what they are trying to prove.

We do not believe in myths, we base our faith on eyewitnesses to history. (2 Peter 1:16) The writers of the New Testament knew that these questions would always be asked and they addressed it many times in the New Testament. They actually heard, saw and touched the Savior, Jesus Christ. (1 John 1:1-3) If Jesus Christ is a myth then they, and we, are truly to be pitied (1 Corinthians 15:19), especially since we see most of the disciples dying for their faith.

The evidence for Zoroaster being a Savior is lacking. The evidence for Jesus is overwhelming and objectively true.

(I encourage you to read the September/October 2009 edition of Solid Ground by Greg Koukl found at http://www.str.org/, from which the structure of this answer is based.)

Book Review - Stray Affections

Stray Affections
Charlene Baumbich
WaterBrook Press (September 15, 2009)

In short: Filled with emotion, this character driven novel will be welcomed by the right audience looking for an inspirational “shoulder to cry on”.

I do not think I am the target audience for this book.

However, I volunteered to review the book and thus I will. I really don’t know what came over me but I have made a commitment – and I will follow through.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying this is a bad book, I’m just saying it obviously isn’t for me. There are some concerns for anyone, which I will note, but for the right audience I can see where this would be an inspirational and uplifting read. I need a little bit more…shall we say…action? No, that isn’t exactly it because I like a lot of books that aren’t driven by their plot. Maybe it is a gender thing, but this novel was just too…”soft”? There were a lot of emotions flying around here. Examining your feelings was an important part of the character development. A lot of those feelings were “hurt feelings”. I felt like I had landed in the middle of a therapy session. Come on ladies, get over it! (Sorry, it just came out.)

Cassandra, a mother of four young boys, is mesmerized by a snowglobe that she finds at a collectors convention. The object, mystically, prompts a novel length exploration of the relationship with her deceased grandfather, a stray dog she cared for as a child and, most importantly, the strained relationship with her mother, Betty.

Cassandra’s small town life adds a little excitement, and complications, to these explorations of her psyche.

“The downside to living in a small town was there was no such thing as anonymity or hidden error.”

A key part of Cassandra’s emotional healing involves her mother’s widowed friend, Burt Burt. Yes, same first name as last name. Burt Burt is a rock in a sea of sensitivity – although he does have his moments too.

“Eventually, he realized that sometimes a person had to come to grips with his own loneliness – to make peace with it – before he could try to pawn it off or fill it up with someone else. In the last year, there’d been a couple of widows who frequented the shop, putting a few moves on him, but he’d not been inclined to reciprocate.”

Near the end of the book my concerns hit their tipping point as one of the main characters explained her growth with God over the past few chapters. She describes a loving God,

“…not just a judgmental God who thundered around waiting to damn a person to eternal hell.”

This clarified the whole novel to me. God is not waiting to damn a person to eternal Hell. An overemphasis on one characteristic of God leads to a mischaracterization of the whole of God, which can lead to a focus on the emotional, and the mystical. I think it can also lead to a focus on signs, dreams, fleeces and “hearing the voice of God”, which are all prominent in this novel. Please don’t misunderstand me again. The God of the Bible is loving. He cares about our relationships. He is also just and Holy however, and characterizing Him as loving without an equal emphasis on his other characteristics actually diminishes the true character of His loving-kindness.

To learn more about the book or pick up a copy visit here.

Rating: Avoid

Book Brief - Shakespeare's Secret

Shakespeare's Secret

Elise Broach

Square Fish (August 21, 2007)

Hero and Beatrice’s father loves everything Shakespeare. The kids at school are not so interested in the fact that Hero’s name was taken from Much Ado About Nothing – and Hero herself is not really that interested either. Moving to a new town doesn’t help her attitude, nor does the fact that Beatrice is more socially adept than she is.

“My dad always says, some people will treat you badly and you can’t help that. But how you handle it, and how it makes you feel, that’s up to you.”

Hero soon befriends her elderly next door neighbor and, surprisingly, Danny, a popular boy at school two years older than her. Danny and Hero soon become involved in an old mystery involving a diamond and the new house of Hero’s family. With apparent connections between Anne Boleyn, Shakespeare’s plays and Queen Elizabeth I the reader gets a little history lesson without even noticing.

This novel strikes a good balance between history, coming-of-age and mystery that will appeal to all. The only minor objection regards Hero and her parents. Hero is not completely honest with her parents about some of her actions but does eventually learn her lesson and reconcile her behavior with her parents.

“Being popular is hard?”

“Yes, it’s hard. Everybody’s watching you all the time, and you don’t feel like yourself anymore…I couldn’t raise my hand. [to answer a question she knew about Shakespeare]…I’m not the smart one who knows Shakespeare. Or if I am, I can’t be friends with Kelly…You would hate it. You….have to change too much about yourself.

Rating: Borrow

We surf...so you don't have to - Sep. 8

How Do You Treat the Deli Guy?

Adorn the Gospel.

Public versus private

Iftar but not the National Day of Prayer?

Oblivious to Grandeur

Do you stop to listen?

Quote - Knowledge of the Bible

“Learn to know what you mean when you talk of believing the doctrines of Christianity. Be able to give a reason of your hope. Be able to say what you think true, and what you think false in religion. And never, never forget that the only foundation of soundness of faith, is a thorough textual knowledge of the Bible.”

J.C. Ryle

Sermon Notes - Dragnet: The Final Episode

Dragnet: The Final Episode, Matthew 13:47-51
Dr. Robert Jeffress, First Baptist Dallas, attended September 6, 2009

If we refuse to talk of Hell to unbelievers then we are neither faithful nor loving. We are like a fireman who stands by watching a house burn down with people inside.

At first glance, this parable seems to duplicate the truth found in the parable about the wheat and tares. It is similar but He does leave out details here. He was repeating the truth for emphasis. Repetition is the key to learning. It is as if He is saying I’m giving you a final warning – the time is coming.

1. The separation of unbelievers (Matthew 13:47-49)

God’s judgment is certain – In our present age there is no separation of believers and unbelievers so it is often hard to see this coming. We go about our daily lives thinking everything will continue as they are and never thinking of the judgment to come. Like ants under the boot of a child, oblivious to their impending doom.

God’s judgment is impartial – The farmer and the fisherman had an objective standard they used to separate the wheat and tares and the good fish and the bad fish. Our “plumb line” is the law, fulfilled in Jesus. All humans are measured against His perfect standard. Therefore, none of us measure up and we need a Savior to cover us in righteousness. We are ignorant of God’s holiness when we deny Hell or a God who judges. The question we should be asking ourselves is, “How could God ever allow sinners like us into Heaven?”

God’s judgment is final – Irretrievable and irreversible.

2. The suffering of unbelievers (Matthew 13:50) – The theory of annihilationism, unbelievers just cease to exist, is popular today, even in Christian circles, i.e. surely a loving God would not let unbelievers suffer eternally. At first glance this verse might seem to promote that view, were it not for “the final disturbing phrase Jesus utters.”

Hell is a place of eternal torment (Luke 16:19-31) – Is this passage literal? Hard to say definitively as we know that Hell is also a place of darkness so how can they two co-exist? We should take no comfort however if He is talking symbolically as He is saying it is worse than a literal fire.

Hell is a place of eternal regrets – We carry our memories of this life into the next. In verses 24 and 25 of Luke 16 Abraham says “remember”, so we can. This has got to be one of the most horrific aspects of Hell.

Hell is a place of eternal remorse – Verses 27 and 28 of Luke 16 show that he feels guilt. He wants them to be warned. How much attention do we, as parents, give to spiritual matters of our children? We focus on lot on academics, athletics and social aspects. How much worse will eternity be knowing that our children, the ones we love the most, are suffering in Hell with us knowing we helped bring them there?

3. The application (Matthew 13:51) – To hear and understand means doing and applying. It doesn’t just mean a cognitive understanding.

To unbelievers – Know there is a day coming.

To believers – This is a motivation for ministry and mission. The purpose of the church is to warn people and point them to the only way of escape. Strengthening relationships, strengthening our understanding of the Word or providing answers are all secondary to the real mission of the church.

“Some talk about it as an unreasonable thing to fright persons to Heaven, but I think it is a reasonable thing to endeavor to fright persons away from Hell. They stand upon its brink, and are just ready to fall into it, and are senseless of their danger. Is it not a reasonable thing to fright a person out of a house on fire?” Jonathan Edwards