"Freak Dancing" -- When Parents Advocate Misbehavior By Dr Al Mohler

The Wall Street Journal is out with one of the those eye-opening stories that defies common moral sense. It seems that Jason Ceyanes, the 35-year-old superintendent of schools in Argyle, Texas, decided to crack down on sexually-suggestive dancing at the local high school. But, when the superintendent banned "freak dancing," he got into trouble with some of Argyle's parents.
Here is how The Wall Street Journal introduced its account of the controversy:
A new resolve by school officials in this booming Dallas suburb to crack down on sexually suggestive dancing -- and skimpy clothing -- has sparked a rancorous debate over what boundaries should be set for teenagers' self-expression. Argyle joins a long list of other schools around the country that have banned the hip-hop inspired dancing known as "grinding" or "freak dancing."
But in Argyle, a once-sleepy farming community strained by explosive growth from an influx of well-to-do suburbanites, the controversy has gotten vicious. Some parents blame the newly installed school superintendent, Jason Ceyanes, 35, for ruining their children's October homecoming dance by enforcing a strict dress code and making provocative dancing off-limits. Disgusted, a lot of kids left, and the dance ended early.
Mr. Ceyanes says he fears current cleavage-baring dress styles combined with sexually charged dancing could lead to an unsafe environment for students.
"This is not just shaking your booty," he said. "This is pelvis-to-pelvis physical contact in the private areas...and then moving around."
"Freak dancing" is well known throughout the nation, and it involves what can only be described as "sexually charged" physical contact and movement. But many of the kids in Argyle were "disgusted" that freak dancing was banned at the homecoming dance, so they left. That might be fairly easy to understand. After all, adolescents are expected to exhibit adolescent patterns of misbehavior. What makes this story so interesting is that so many parents responded by joining their adolescents in immature response. In fact, their protest of the superintendent's policy is shocking.
As the paper explained, "Many parents support Mr. Ceyanes's actions. But another vocal faction has been harshly critical of the new superintendent, creating a deep rift in the community. These parents defend the children of Argyle as 'good kids,' and say they should be trusted to dance and dress the way they want."
Here is one of the moral hallmarks of our confused age. Parents defy authority and propriety and justify the misbehavior of their own children while calling them "good kids." In this case, they argue that these "good kids" should be allowed "to dance and dress the way they want" -- even if that means sexually suggestive dress and sexually charged dancing.
Mr. Ceyanes held a public meeting for parents and played a video of freak dancing. "I cannot imagine that there is a father in this room who could watch this video and be all right with a young man dancing with his daughter in that fashion," he told the parents.
This is further evidence of a trend long in coming. Fashion styles for adult women now mimic those of adolescent girls. Why? So many moms want to act like teenagers and dress as provocatively as their offspring. Far too many parents want to act like their teenagers' friends and peers, not like parents. Parents, after all, are expected to act like adults, and this is a society that depreciates adulthood and valorizes adolescence.
When a story like this makes the front page of The Wall Street Journal, something significant has shifted on the moral landscape. When parents demand that their "good kids" be allowed to freak dance at school events, the real story shifts from the kids to the parents.
The Wall Street Journal also features this video coverage of the story [go here].

Puritan Quote of the Week From the Pastor's Desk

"The Christian's life should put his minister's sermon in print."
WILLIAM GURNALL

Tune-Out God's Holiness, Then Goes Sin and Grace By David Wells

Quoting David Wells . . .
The loss of the traditional vision of God as holy is now manifested everywhere in the evangelical world. It is the key to understanding why sin and grace have become such empty terms. What depth or meaning, P.T. Forsyth asked, can these terms have except in relation to the holiness of God? Divorced from the holiness of God, sin is merely self-defeating behavior or a breach in etiquette. Divorced from the holiness of God, grace is merely empty rhetoric, pious window dressing for the modern technique by which sinners work out their own salvation. Divorced from the holiness of God, our gospel becomes indistinguishable from any of a host of alternative self-help doctrines. Divorced from the holiness of God, our public morality is reduced to little more than an accumulation of trade-offs between competing private interests. Divorced from the holiness of God, our worship becomes mere entertainment.
The holiness of God is the [foundation of reality]. Sin is defiance of God's holiness, the Cross is the outworking and victory of God's holiness, and faith is the recognition of God's holiness. Knowing that God is holy is therefore the key to knowing life as it truly is, knowing Christ as he truly is, knowing why he came, and knowing how life will end.
From:
No Place for Truth, Whatever Happened to Evangelical Theology?

Dethroning Jesus’ by Bock & Wallace Review by Nathan Williams

There has been much said about Jesus over the past few years in the media. All sorts of new discoveries have come down the pipeline that supposedly will give us the truth about Jesus of Nazareth. From the Gospel of Judas to the tomb of the family of Jesus, each of these discoveries has leveled some attack on the biblical understanding of Jesus.
In their new book, Dethroning Jesus, Darrell Bock and Daniel Wallace help the reader understand the focus of six of these recent attacks. They summarize these attacks as a movement called Jesusanity. “Jesusanity is a coined term for the alternative story about Jesus. Here the center of the story is still Jesus, but Jesus as either a prophet or a teacher of religious wisdom. (p. 4)” In other words, the recent attacks on Jesus seek to take something away from our understanding of Christ. In their own way, they each try to reduce Jesus from the incarnate Son of God who died to save sinners to a good teacher and moral example for mankind to follow. Bock and Wallace deal with six discoveries which if true, would drastically alter our picture of the biblical Christ. The opposite of Jesusanity is Christianity, which understands the true image of Christ to be one of the God-man anointed by God to restore the broken relationship between God and man.
Instead of chapters, Dethroning Jesus consists of 6 claims which have been made recently regarding Christ and the response of Bock and Wallace to each of these claims. They begin with the claim that the original New Testament has been corrupted so badly by copyists that we can’t even know what the original text said. They spend the bulk of this claim evaluating an incredibly popular book, Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman. At one point, Misquoting Jesus reached #1 on the Amazon.com best seller list. In it Ehrman argues that we don’t have anyway of knowing what the original text said because of the state of the copies we possess. This claim assaults the very Word of God and argues that it is unknowable. Bock and Wallace deal with this claim thoroughly by exposing the fallacies in Ehrman’s reasoning and explaining the case for the New Testament as the inerrant Word of God.
They next move on to deal with the claim that the Gospel of Judas belongs alongside the other four gospels and provides proof that early Christianity was a diverse group with multiple systems of doctrine. In this claim they go into the detail of what the Gospel of Judas specifically teaches and contrast it with biblical Christianity.
Third, Dethroning Jesus tackles the claim that the Gospel of Thomas radically alters our understanding of the person of Christ. Again, Bock and Wallace walk us through specific examples from the Gospel of Thomas and prove that this ancient document offers us a different Christ from the one found in Scripture.
Next they discuss the claim that the message of Christ was fundamentally political and social in nature. This claim is specifically dealt with in the writings of Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan. They reinterpret sections of the Gospels to mean that Christ had as His goal the reform of political systems. He wanted justice and it was His passion for correcting social ills and political problems that eventually got Him killed.
The fifth claim dealt with in Dethroning Jesus is the claim that Paul took captive the original movement of Jesus and James and changed it from a Jewish reform effort to a religion that exalted Jesus and included Gentiles. This claim attacks the deity of Christ and the consistency of Scripture. James Tabor is the major proponent of this view and his work is dealt with in this section of the book.
Finally, the last claim discussed is that the tomb of Jesus has been found and thus He could not have risen from the dead. They examine the recent documentary the Discovery channel put together concerning the lost tomb of Jesus.
These six claims have covered a wide variety of topics and a massive amount of academic discussion over the past few years as each one has gained national attention in some fashion or another. Darrell Bock and Dan Wallace have done us a great service by explaining the danger of each claim and then providing ample evidence to refute the arguments of each.
Though it may sound intimidating to some, Dethroning Jesus is written in a flowing, easy to read style. This will prove to be a helpful and important book for understanding the current debate over the person and work of Christ. Bock and Wallace summarize by saying, “Each one of these claims has made an impact in the public square, having been articulated in books that have made the best seller list or in television specials that have attracted millions. These ideas legitimately have aroused the interest of those who have come into contact with them, but often in a one-sided way so that the ‘rest of the story’ was missing. We have endeavored to supply the missing pieces in this book” (p. 217).

Thanksgiving: To Whom? For What?

A day of prayer, of self-congratulations, or what? by Charles Henderson

On Thanksgiving Day, the President of the United States will call the people of this country to prayer. It is perhaps ironic that while our Constitution forbids the establishment of religion there are times when it appears perfectly acceptable for the nation's highest elected official to lead the people in prayer. In fact, Thanksgiving is unique among the nation's holidays in placing an act of prayer front and center. To be sure, this message is not always communicated very clearly. It sometimes seems that Thanksgiving is our most self-congratulatory moment.


As families gather around their tables filled with so many good things to eat, is the real purpose of this holiday to catalogue all our success, to list our achievements, to enjoy our good fortune that we happen to live in the richest and most powerful nation on earth? Or is there something deeper calling to us from within this nation's singular call to prayer?


Giving thanks is, of course, an activity that religious people have been engaged in long before European settlers gave thanks to God for having placed into their hands certain lands along the eastern seaboard of this continent. The indigenous peoples who were invited to those Puritan harvest festivals may have been only dimly aware that a God whose name they had never heard was about to turn over their continent to the Europeans. Were the prayers of thanksgiving uttered by those early settlers in some real sense an attempt to give religious sanction to a simple act of theft? Are the prayers of thanksgiving in which we partake this year, simply a way of wrapping a mantle of piety around our way of life, while deeper questions about the source of our successes (or failures) are not addressed? To whom, and for what are we thankful on Thanksgiving Day?


As as Christian, I happen to find wisdom in the words of Jesus. I also believe that a number of things that he said about "thanksgiving" will ring true for those from other religious traditions as well; for his words point to a reality that lies deeper than the traditions of any nation, denomination, tribe or clan. In the midst of a much longer passage about the kingdom of God (Mark 4:26-29) Jesus draws this image: "The kingdom of God is like a man scattering seeds upon the ground. While he sleeps, while he is awake, night and day, the seed is sprouting and growing, he knows not how. The earth produces of itself, first the blade, then the ear, then the full grain in the ear." At first reading this image seems to be a simple description about the great processes of nature. The seed, once planted, is nurtured by rain and sun, it sprouts and grows and matures, gradually ripening into grain. At first reading this image calls to mind beautiful scenes of ripening grain; isn't it wonderful what nature can do!


Yes, it's wonderful, and its also terrifying to reflect upon the impersonal and arbitrary power of nature. Just think Katrina. Or tsunami.


Read as a simple ode to nature, the words of Jesus are not very illuminating. For if the sun and rain bring wheat to harvest in some parts of the world, there are many places where drought or flood, earthquake or fire bring death and destruction.


The impersonal forces and processes of nature do not offer a very firm foundation for thanksgiving, for what nature gives this year, may well be withheld the next. Jesus was not pointing simply to nature, he was directing our attention to something deeper. The kingdom of God, said Jesus, is like a man who scatters seed upon the ground, and then he sleeps and rises again, night and day. As he is carried through the rounds of time, the seed sprouts and grows, he knows not how.


The Meaning of Thanksgiving
Picture a farmer who has planted his field. When he is finished, he feeds the cattle, makes a last minute repair to a fence, and then he turns toward home. It is warm inside his small house, and there is the smell of lamb stew simmering on an open fire. He shares a moment of animated conversation with his family, the lights are turned down, and then he slips under a warm quilt for a safe passage through the night. The next morning he is up at sunrise and off to the village to pick up some supplies. He stops along the way to watch the reflection of the sun dancing in the waters of a mountain brook. Time passes slowly in the countryside, day and night, good time and bad, summer and winter, and all the while the seeds keep growing. The kingdom of God is like that.


Jesus was aware of a reality deeper then the eye can see or the mind comprehend. He was aware that in the midst of all our activity, in the midst of our scheming and planning, in the midst of our frantic efforts and great undertakings, there is still another stream of events moving forward, while we run hither and yon. While we work and while we worry, even while we sleep, God is letting the seeds of the kingdom sprout and grow and mature until the harvest is full.


Ages ago, when the great flood subsided, and the rainbow sign appeared against the skies still darkened by the clouds of that terrible storm, God pronounced a strange word of consolation: "While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease." (Genesis 8:22) In a real sense these words tie together the teachings about thanksgiving from both New and Old Testaments, from both Christians and Jews. And they will be recognized by many people beyond the Judeo-Christian tradition. They affirm that the pattern and rhythm of the natural world are signs which remind us of God's faithfulness to all people.


A while ago my wife and I had reason to set off on a road trip during the middle of a hurricane. We probably shouldn't have ventured out onto the highway at all; but necessity drove us into the storm. The wind blew so ferociously our little car had difficulty holding to the roadway. The driving rain created deep pools of water through which we cautiously moved, wondering whether the ignition would fail. All around us power lines were down. As our gas was running low, we realized we wouldn't be able to refuel at a gas station, because the electric pumps would be off too. Fortunately an attendant at one of those stations let us siphon some gas from his tank, just enough to complete our trip. As the storm blew itself out, the clouds gradually began to break up. Shafts of sunlight penetrated the misty grey of wind and rain, and off in the distance we saw it: a wonderful rainbow arching across the sky; the whole array of color shining against the still ominous storm clouds; all of that color reminding us of God's dependability and power. That night we gave thanks simply for being alive. This is the one fixed star in the constellation of our experience. This is the one thing we all have to be thankful for even when all else fails. The creativity of God, the continuing growth of God's kingdom within us and through us; this is the good news for which we can be thankful even when everything appears to be going wrong.


Martin Luther, the great leader of the Protestant Reformation, put it this way: "While I drink my little glass of Wittenberg beer, the gospel runs its course." That certainly is the best advertisement for beer I've ever heard. And a welcome word of comfort to all who are affected by the particular bad news of this day.


"While I drink my little glass of Wittenberg beer, the gospel runs its course." In this Luther was simply saying that the kingdom of God unfolds in our lives despite our worry and all our frantic work, despite our most embarrassing failures and our most wonderful achievements. Whatever happens in the world around us, the seeds of God's kingdom continue to grow.


On occasion Luther could step down from his high pulpit in Wittenberg; he could take respite from all the conflict and activity of reforming the great medieval church, and he could quietly drink his little glass of beer, knowing that God is the ultimate arbiter of our destiny. We are not slaves to the news of this hour, we are rather servants of God who created this world and everything in it.

Christians and all others who share a faith in God's continuing activity in this world are capable of giving thanks, not because our blessings are so many, but rather because of this single, solitary fact: we live and move and have our being under the watchful care of a loving God.

Whatever the stress of our daily lives, the seeds keep growing. Let us therefore share in this holiday of thanks and praise!

Contentment and Thanksgiving

As we celebrate Thanksgiving this year, it is good to be reminded of our need to be content.
If you belong to Christ, like the apostle Paul you can and should learn the secret of a contented life. When Paul wrote “godliness with contentment is great gain” he wasn’t just speaking philosophically (1 Tim. 6:6). He had learned the secret to contentment in every circumstance of life (Phil 4:11-2). While that secret eludes most people, it need not elude any true believer. For those who are willing to learn, here are six steps to a contented life from the life and teaching of Paul.

First, learn to give thanks in all things. Paul had learned to give thanks in every circumstance and he exhorted all believers to do the same. Thankfulness is first of all a matter of obedience (1 Thess. 5:18; Eph. 5:18), but it is also a characteristic of a Spirit-filled believer (Eph. 5:18-20).
Second, learn to rest in God’s providence. If we truly know God, we know that He is unfolding His agenda and purpose in our lives. He has sovereignly determined each part of His plan for us so that we’ll be benefited and He’ll be glorified (cf. Rom. 8:28). We should not be surprised or ungrateful when we experience trials because we know that God sees perfectly the end result (cf. 1 Pet. 4:12-13).
Third, learn to be satisfied with little. Paul had learned to make the choice to be satisfied with little, and he knew it was important for others to learn to make that same choice. In 1 Timothy 6:6 Paul exhorted a young pastor with these words: “Now godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out. And having food and clothing, with these we shall be content.” Paul understood that covetousness and contentment are mutually exclusive.
Fourth, learn to live above life’s circumstances. That’s how Paul lived. In 2 Cor. 12:9-10 he wrote, “Most gladly I will rather boast in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in needs, in persecutions, in distresses, for Christ’s sake. For when I am weak, then I am strong.”
Paul didn’t take pleasure in the pain itself, but in the power of Christ manifested through him in times of infirmity, reproach, persecution, and distress. We also should learn to take pleasure in the power of Christ in times of distress.
Fifth, learn to rely on God’s power and provision. The apostle Paul wrote, “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me”; and Jesus said He will never leave us nor forsake us (Heb. 13:5). Like Paul, we can learn to rely on Christ’s promise. He faithfully infuses every believer with His own strength and sustains them in their time of need until they receive provision from His hand (Eph. 3:16).
Finally, become preoccupied with the well-being of others. Paul summarized this mindset in Philippians 2:3-4, where he wrote: “Let nothing be done through selfish ambition or conceit but in lowliness of mind let each esteem others better than himself. Let each of you look out not only for his own interests, but also for the interests of others.”
A self-centered man is a discontented man. But the soul of the generous man, the man who lives for the interests and benefit of others, will find blessing upon blessing in his life (see Prov. 11:24-5; 19:17; Luke 6:38; 2 Cor. 9:6).

His Steadfast Love Endures Forever

A Psalm for giving thanks.

100:1 Make a joyful noise to the Lord, all the earth!2 Serve the Lord with gladness!Come into his presence with singing!
3 Know that the Lord, he is God!It is he who made us, and we are his; [1]we are his people, and the sheep of his pasture.
4 Enter his gates with thanksgiving,and his courts with praise!Give thanks to him; bless his name!
5 For the Lord is good;his steadfast love endures forever,and his faithfulness to all generations.

Sheep Feeding: How Your Church Should Feed You By Dr Philip Ryken

Quoting Philip Ryken . . .
The disciple's transformation starts with the development of a thoroughly Christian mind. As the Scripture says, "Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind" (Romans 12:2a). Mind renewal is the work of God's Holy Spirit, who accomplishes this transforming work as we read, study, and meditate on God's holy Word. We are living in a mindless age, in which people are unwilling and unable to think reflectively about very much of anything, let alone how to really live. Sociologists call this "the dumbing down of America".
The process of intellectual atrophy is accelerated by the trivializing effect of television, which damages the life of the mind by exalting the image over the word. This is the age of the sound byte and the remote control, which keep us from thinking about anything for more than a few seconds. What we ought to do is take the time to stop and think. That is what people usually do when they lose their way. A motorist looking for a street in a strange neighborhood eases-off the gas pedal and turns down the stereo. But in these post Christian times, we do exactly the opposite. We sense that we have lost our spiritual way, but instead of taking time to think things through, we go faster and faster, cranking the music louder and louder.
Disciples are called to be different. God's method for training us to follow Christ starts with the renewing of our minds. This is not merely an intellectual exercise. Ideas always have consequences. God transforms our minds with the specific intention of changing our whole lives. First, our thoughts influence our affections, for in time we come to feel what we believe. Then we start to say what we think and do what we think. So the important thing is to get our thinking straight. Then we will know what God wants us to feel and what He wants us to say and do it. Ultimately, it is by thinking biblically that we learn how to live biblically. Therefore, a Christian church for post-Christian times provides an effective Christian education program to inform, train, and disciple all members of the congregation.
An effective Christian education program provides information--biblical information for a Christian view of this world. This starts with a biblical view of God, the study of His divine attributes. It continues with a biblical view of humanity in sin and salvation, and with a biblical view of God's plan for human history: creation, fall, grace, and glory. This information needs to be biblical in order to combat the prevailing relativism of our age. God has provided an answer to relativism in His revelation. An effective Christian education program also provides training. It offers practical instruction for how to study the Bible, worship God, live as a spiritual family, share the gospel, support world missions, and serve others with deeds of mercy.
This kind of informing, training, discipline education is necessary at every stage of the Christian life. It is necessary for children. When children are taught how to think and act biblically, they can offer God a whole lifetime of useful service. Christian education is equally necessary for young adults who are making life choices that will chart their future and who want to know God's will. It is necessary for parents hoping to raise their children in a godly way, and also for singles hoping to find their place in the church and in the world. ...
Every church should have some kind of bible school program, not only for children, but for adults. This should include instruction in Bible, theology, church history, and practical Christian living. Children should especially be trained in catechism and bible memory.
From:
City on a Hill: Reclaiming the Biblical Pattern for the Church...

Thanksgiving History From fall feast to national holiday

The First Thanksgiving
The first American Thanksgiving was celebrated in 1621, to commemorate the harvest reaped by the Plymouth Colony after a harsh winter. In that year Governor William Bradford proclaimed a day of thanksgiving. The colonists celebrated it as a traditional English harvest feast, to which they invited the local Wampanoag Indians. Days of thanksgiving were celebrated throughout the colonies after fall harvests. All thirteen colonies did not, however, celebrate Thanksgiving at the same time until October 1777. George Washington was the first president to declare the holiday, in 1789.
A New National Holiday
By the mid–1800s, many states observed a Thanksgiving holiday. Meanwhile, the poet and editor Sarah J. Hale had begun lobbying for a national Thanksgiving holiday. During the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln, looking for ways to unite the nation, discussed the subject with Hale. In 1863 he gave his Thanksgiving Proclamation, declaring the last Thursday in November a day of thanksgiving. In 1939, 1940, and 1941 Franklin D. Roosevelt, seeking to lengthen the Christmas shopping season, proclaimed Thanksgiving the third Thursday in November. Controversy followed, and Congress passed a joint resolution in 1941 decreeing that Thanksgiving should fall on the fourth Thursday of November, where it remains.

Never in the Closet . . . The New Face of Homosexuality By Dr Al Mohler

The moral landscape of the culture usually shifts slowly, with barely perceptible changes that accumulate over a long period of years. This is not the case in our own times, for the pace of moral change now defies the imagination.
This is especially true when it comes to the issues related to sexuality in general and homosexuality in particular. The pace of moral change is now accelerated to the point that it is clearly visible and undeniable.
Evidence for this is found in a recent article published in The Boston Globe Magazine. Entitled, "Easy Out," the article makes the case that today's gay teenagers in Massachusetts find leaving the "closet" very easy -- because they never thought themselves to be closeted as homosexual in the first place.
Reporter Alison Lobron introduces her article with the account of Russell Peck, who declared his homosexuality as a high school freshman at camp:
One day Peck heard several female friends giggling over an attractive older boy, and the next thing he knew, he had joined the conversation. "The girls were talking about how cute he was. I said something like 'Yeah, he is so cute,'" Peck remembers. "It just kind of came out, and I was really startled by it." But his friends were neither startled nor uncomfortable. "They didn't miss a beat," says Peck, now 19 and a freshman at New York University. "They totally accepted me."
Emboldened by his friends' casual reaction, Peck, a slim young man with curly brown hair, told his parents that he was gay. He was only 15. Their response was equally positive and accepting. His mother, Nancy Peck, who lives in Concord, says her only concern was making sure that Russell was "safe, happy, and healthy." Her son shared his news with friends at Concord-Carlisle that fall, joined Spectrum - a school-based discussion club about gay and lesbian issues - and continued, he says, to feel "very comfortable" during his remaining three years of high school.
Lobron explains that a massive shift in the culture's understanding of homosexuality has produced what gay advocates have been promoting for years -- the virtual normalization of homosexuality. Friends, teachers, and even parents respond to declarations of homosexual interest, romance, and more with simple acceptance. Russell Peck's mom just wants him "safe, happy, and healthy." This assumes, of course, that homosexuality is perfectly consistent with "safe, happy, and healthy."
And that is precisely the point, of course. The elites have decided that this is what all the rest of us are missing -- that homosexuality is normal (even among teenagers) and our concern should thus be to make sure that gay teenagers are safe, happy, and healthy.
Lobron extends the argument:
In the relative ease of his coming out, Russell Peck represents what one educator calls the "next wave" of gay and lesbian teenagers: adolescents who have grown up with openly gay teachers, television characters, neighbors, politicians, and even parents and who take for granted the acceptance that earlier generations struggled to achieve. After all, this year's high school freshmen were in elementary school when gays began to marry in Massachusetts; for them, gay marriage is more status quo than radical. Most of today's high school students weren't even born in 1989, the year the US Department of Health and Human Services reported that gay and lesbian teens were two to three times more likely to attempt suicide than straight teens, sparking a wave of activism that has made many schools more tolerant places - and taught parents how to support gay children.
As a result of these cultural shifts, gay and lesbian teens are acknowledging same-sex attraction at ever-younger ages and questioning the concept of both "coming out" and "the closet." Increasingly, their challenges look less like the public health crisis of the 1980s and more like the ones their straight peers have always faced: How do you know when a boy likes you (versus just liking you)? How do you ask a girl out? And what do you do when your mom hears about your new boyfriend from one of her friends at the supermarket?
Everyone must be concerned about the problem of teenage suicides, whatever the cause of the teenager's crisis. The reduction in suicides among Massachusetts young people is truly good news. But the logic that the right way to reduce teenage suicides among those struggling with sexual identity is simply to normalize that identity is a moral revolution in itself -- and a revolution with obvious limits. Are any and all sexual orientations and identities to be normalized? Do we even have a concept of normal that means anything?
Lobron makes the significant observation that the legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts has meant that this generation of Massachusetts teenagers simply assumes that homosexual unions are normal. This should come as no surprise, for some leading homosexual activists have long argued that this is indeed the main point behind the push for same-sex marriage.
One of the most troubling aspects of Lobron's article is the fact that children as young as 13 are welcomed to groups like the Boston Alliance for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Youth, where they are assured that their same-sex interests are just normal. Just imagine for a moment what that means as a cultural upheaval in itself.
USA Today also produces evidence of this moral shift in an article by Gary Gates on how these changes might play out as a factor in the 2008 presidential race:
Since 1990, the Census Bureau has tracked the presence of same-sex "unmarried partners," commonly understood to be lesbian and gay couples. From an initial count of about 145,000 same-sex couples in 1990, the 2006 data show that this population has increased fivefold to nearly 780,000 couples. The number of same-sex couples grew more than 21 times faster than the U.S. population did. So either gay recruitment efforts have succeeded, or lots more lesbian and gay couples are "coming out" on government surveys.
As a demographer, I say it's the latter. In a 1992 survey by the University of Chicago, 2.8% of men and 1.4% women identified themselves as lesbian, gay or bisexual. Ten years later, a National Center for Health Statistics study pegged that figure at 4.1% -- almost one-and-a-half times more men and three times more women.
More:
Meanwhile, support for gay people grows. In the late 1980s, Gallup polls found about 30% of Americans thought "homosexual relations between consenting adults" should be legal. A May 2007 poll finds this figure has risen to 59%.
If it's no surprise that Americans are becoming more comfortable living among openly gay men and lesbians, the Census data do pack a wallop that politicians ignore at their peril. Since 1990, the number of self-identified same-sex couples in Mountain, Midwest and Southern states has averaged a sixfold increase. Compare that with the more liberal East and West Coasts, where increases have been less than fourfold.
All this calls for a new awareness among evangelical Christians of how much has changed around us. Our challenge as a people committed to biblical truth has never been greater or clearer. The normalization of homosexuality is just taken as a fact by so many in our society today -- especially among those in younger ages.
Evangelical Christians must meet this challenge with both biblical truth and a keen eye on the cultural shifts around us. Our current challenge is not only to tell the truth about homosexuality, but to recover any notion of a moral norm when it comes to sexuality. That will take more intellectual energy than the evangelical movement has yet devoted to this task

Jesus Skateboarding in His Skivvies

This is a fine and reverent way to depict the Lamb of God, King of Kings and Maker of Heaven and Earth.

The sad part about this is that the Modern Church today has placed this view of our Lord not only on tee shirts. But also into the minds and hearts of our culture.

The Characteristics of Holiness

This is from the classic work by J.C. Ryle, Holiness It’s Nature, Hindrances, Difficulties & Roots. You can purchase your copy at Monergism Books.
From Monergism Books,
John Charles Ryle’s best-known works have been reissued and widely read over many years. The fine qualities of his writings have ensured that his books are still popular and useful. This present volume has become a classic work and is known and loved by many throughout the world.
In days when evangelical preachers are accused of being either superficial or dull, we have here a great example from one who was neither of these things. As Bishop Ryle explains and applies his texts with his customary simplicity and directness, the reader will find his conscience pricked and his soul examined. Ryle’s Holiness has become essential reading on this most important subject and the first chapter on ‘sin’ has rarely been bettered.
Ryle was appointed as the first Bishop of Liverpool in 1880 and was the leader of the Evangelical Party in the Church of England for more than half a century. He is highly regarded for his plain and lively writings on practical and spiritual themes, and their usefulness and impact have been consistently recognized and remain as wise and relevant today as when he first wrote them.

Holiness is the habit of being of one mind with God.
A holy man will endeavor to shun every known sin, and to keep every known commandment.
A holy man will strive to be like our Lord Jesus Christ.
A holy man will follow after meekness, longsuffering, gentleness, patience, kind tempers and government of his tongue.
A holy man will follow after temperance and self-denial.
A holy man will follow after charity and brotherly kindness.
A holy man will follow after a spirit of mercy and benevolence.
A holy man will follow after purity of heart.
A holy man will follow after the fear of God.
A holy man will follow after humility.
A holy man will follow after faithfulness in all the duties and relations in life.
A holy man will follow after spiritual-mindedness.

The debate over "the war on Christmas" spreads to Thanksgiving. By Andrew Santella

Anyone who has ever had to listen to foodies argue over which wine pairs best with turkey knows that Thanksgiving can inspire vehement—and tiresome—disagreement. But of all the questions connected with our celebration of Thanksgiving, none provokes as much heat as the debate over religion's place at the table.
A few years ago, some Christians began to sound the alarm about a "war on Christmas," alleging that schools, courts, and local governments were transforming a sacred holiday into a secularized winter festival. Now, much as the 24-hour Christmas music on the radio seems to start earlier each year, a few believers are voicing their worry about the secularization of our society in November instead of December. Concerned about the eroding religious dimension of Thanksgiving, they urge a return to a more sacred holiday. If the war-on-Christmas crowd asks us to put Christ back into Christmas, these Thanksgiving religionists urge us to celebrate Thanksgiving with the emphasis on thanking God. But complaints about a secularized Thanksgiving are even less convincing than the outcry over Christmas.
As holidays go, Thanksgiving has long suffered from an especially acute spiritual identity crisis. Even the most casually religious Americans say grace or otherwise offer thanks before Thanksgiving dinner—even if the thanking is done between pie-eating binges. On the other hand, it's not as common for us to attend a worship service on Thanksgiving as it is on more obviously religious days like Christmas and Easter. So, just how religious of a holiday should we consider Thanksgiving? Some seem to want to answer that question by telling us exactly how and whom to thank.
placeAd2('arts/slate','midarticleflex',true)

In Christianity Today's Leadership Journal, Eric Reed decried a "thankless society" that has forgotten the holiday's putative religious significance. R. Albert Mohler Jr. of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary called the secular vision of Thanksgiving "empty and false" on the Washington Post religion blog, On Faith. And conservative Web site WorldNetDaily offers up Thanksgiving-themed magnetic bumper stickers that counsel, "Remember to thank HIM"—perhaps an admonition to those who would merely thank their lucky stars.
For these spiritual defenders of Thanksgiving, it's not so much Christmas-style commercialization that threatens their holiday—although pre-Christmas big-box sales and football on Fox might strike some as unholy distractions. Instead, much of their concern centers on the way the traditional stories of the first Thanksgiving most of us learned in grade school have been disputed, if not abandoned. For religious thanks-givers, it is the attempt to revise the historical record that is helping to strip the holiday of its proper spiritual meaning.
In a 2004 Wall Street Journal essay titled "A Very Christian Holiday," Yale professor David Gelernter credited "Christian fundamentalists" with creating a holiday that "would inspire and soothe this nation if only we would let it." He wrote, "The First Thanksgiving is one of those heartwarming stories that every child used to know, and some up-to-date teachers take special delight in suppressing." The old first Thanksgiving story suggested that God had smiled on the pious pilgrims of the Plymouth Colony and, by extension, on the whole American project. Today, school lessons are just as likely to stress the harm done to natives by colonization. (Right-wing bloggers have reacted strongly to a Seattle public-school resource that suggests that Thanksgiving can be a time of mourning for native students.)
It's not just the PC-ification of the holiday that's frustrating traditionalists. Historians have spent the last few decades chipping away at traditional Thanksgiving stories. Many accounts now say the 1621 event that we call the first Thanksgiving was not a religious event and, therefore, not a formal day of thanksgiving as the Plymouth colonists would have understood it—a European practice of observing days of thanksgiving with solemn religious services in the morning and afternoon. Instead, the 1621 event was closer to a harvest festival, with its feasting, games, and celebratory gunfire—it was the shooting that likely brought the colonist's native Wampanoag neighbors over to investigate and join in the fun. (The Wampanoag had their own thanksgiving traditions that also involved communal feasting.) While it's certainly plausible to imagine the colonists offering prayers of thanks on that day, they did not use the word thanksgiving in association with the 1621 celebration, according to the Web site of Plimoth Plantation, the historical museum devoted to life at the Plymouth Colony. (You'll also get an argument about whether the so-called "first Thanksgiving," was even a first in what would become the United States. Challenges to the priority of Plymouth have come from Virginia and New Mexico, where some say colonists declared days of thanksgiving before the Massachusetts colonists even made it to Plymouth.)
The first religious day of thanksgiving at Plymouth may actually have been in 1623—and not in autumn, but in late summer—when the colonists offered up their thanks to God after a six-week drought. Occasional days of thanksgiving were declared throughout the colonial era and into the years of the early republic. But it wasn't until Abraham Lincoln called for late-November Thanksgivings in 1863 and 1864—and used explicitly religious language to do so—that the day became an annual, permanent fixture.
But religiously minded supporters of Thanksgiving say that in discarding the traditional first Thanksgiving stories, we risk losing a critically meaningful part of the holiday. "Pilgrims, once champions of religious freedom, are being sacrificed as bigots on the altar of political correctness," Reed wrote. "So who's calling us all to give thanks now?"
It's true that revisionists, in their insistence on toppling myths, can come across like whiney nitpickers. And myths do have their own cultural value. But the problem is that holidays turn into a tug of war between cold, hard history and comforting popular folklore, between fact and faith. Shouldn't our holidays be able to accommodate both?
Do we really have to choose between the extremes of calling Thanksgiving a religious holiday or a civic celebration, a day more like Easter or more like the Fourth of July? Or can't we assume that the holiday has evolved as some more subtle mix of the secular and the spiritual, one that each of us can adjust according to our own values? It doesn't seem unreasonable to assume some religious dimension to Thanksgiving, if only because expressing gratitude for the good things in life is in some sense an inherently spiritual act. But prescribing to others the right way to observe the day is surely one aspect of the traditional Thanksgiving best left behind.
Even if Thanksgiving is a religious holiday, it must rank as the most accessible of all. Unlike on other holidays, as Reed points out, there are no potentially mystifying doctrines (like resurrection or virgin birth) to wrestle with, and the environmental themes (the Wampanoag practiced something like sustainable agriculture) are certainly in step with the times. Ministers say the day can be popular with people who want to test the religious waters. They head for churches and soup kitchens on Thanksgiving, attracted by the spirit of ecumenism and the emphasis on sharing and good works. If you had to identify Thanksgiving with any particular religious tradition, it might be part of what sociologist Robert Bellah called the American civil religion, combining elements of American history and myth with a general belief in Providence.
Even adamant nonbelievers such as philosopher Daniel C. Dennett say they have no problem with Thanksgiving, stipulating that thanks are directed to "goodness," not God. True, that runs afoul of those who insist on "thanking HIM." But for the perennially disputatious Thanksgiving table, that can be considered close enough.
Now if we could just settle on the right wine to serve.

Sheep Feeding: 'That Church Did Not Feed Me' By Jim B. Of Old Truth

How often do you hear that from people who left a particular church? There are at least two ways of explaining what's going on when that happens. It could be that the teaching at their church was so watered-down that it really was impossible for someone who has been a Christian for more than six months to get anything out of it. Hence, they have outgrown their church. We often see the comments of former megachurch attendees who say "there's only so many sermons on careers, relationships, and money management that I can benefit from". But if you ask the pastors of such churches about these complaints, in an irritated way they will almost always cast the blame on the sheep instead, implying that they are lazy and refuse to feed themselves. So who's right, and what responsibility does a church have to feed it's flock with solid spiritual food?
It's not out of the question. There really are some lazy Christians out there who do not study their bibles enough. In a sermon on Romans 6, Martyn Lloyd-Jones warned against an attitude that is all too common today:
Martyn Lloyd-Jones Talks About 'Unfed' Christians
There are Christians who say, 'I am saved, and all is right with me; I am not interested in anything else. I am not a theologian, I do not want to read great books on theology'. But no Christian has a right to remain a babe in that way, he has no right to not exercise his senses. 'But I am a practical man', you say, 'I am a great worker'. But you have no right to divide yourself up in that way. It should be the ambition of every Christian to 'grow in grace and in the knowledge of the Lord'. You should study your bible, read the best books you can, get knowledge that is as deep and profound as possible, and 'exercise your senses' (Hebrews 5:14 KJV). Because according to the inspired authors, if you do not, you cannot receive the whole truth. If you remain a babe, and do not grow and develop, you will have to continue to be spoon-fed with milk, and you will never know anything about the strong meat of the Word of God, and of the doctrine of Salvation. Apply your minds therefore, struggle with the truth, insist upon getting an understanding of truth. If you have a willing heart, and a true desire, you can be certain that the Spirit will always come to your aid. You will grow not only in grace, but 'in the knowledge of the Lord'.

The modern pragmatist megachurch leaders would agree with that, insofar as he is putting the responsibility on the church goer to feed themselves in that paragraph. Just take a look at some of these quotes found on Granger's Tim Stevens' blog:
Today's Popular Pastors Talking About 'Unfed' Christians
Steven Furtick says: "Churches are filled with those who have known Christ for decades, and still need a bib, a high chair, and want Daddy to do 'open wide, here comes the airplane' tricks with the fork before shoving it into their mouths. I try to serve up the Word, hot and fresh every single Sunday. But if you refuse to apply it, study your Bible and pray some during the week, join a small group and dig deeper with others...if you refuse to bring it back to your mouth, I can't help you. Get your own fork, and learn to feed yourself. Stop burying your hand in the dish and spitting out every thing that doesn't give you a spiritual sugar high. Eat some vegetables. Serve. Pray. Practically apply the Bible to your life."
Perry Noble says: "I've heard it...you have too...'Christians' saying, 'I just want to be fed!' It blows my mind! This would be equal to you and I going to an all you can eat restaurant and crying because no one would bring us any food. Food is all around in this environment...but if the person is lazy and self centered, wanting to be waited on hand and foot, then they could possibly starve to death when food is merely a few feet away. Today as Christians we have WAY more information than we could ever apply. However, I think many people use 'going deep' as an excuse as to not actually apply any of the knowledge they claim to be soaking up. I believe it breaks the heart of God when arrogant people claim intellectual superiority out of pride and stupidity rather than just seeking Jesus and trying to honor Him on a daily basis. In reading through the Scriptures I have found that Jesus' strongest words of rebuke were for the 'deep,' the professional religious people of the day. If 'deep' is being a part of the group that knows tons about the Bible but missed Jesus–then I don't want to be affiliated with them. Give me Jesus Christ, crucified, risen and who will one day return...not another Bible study on the weight of the Ark of the Covenant."
Ben Arment says: "I've always felt troubled by phrases such as 'I need to be fed' or 'I need meat' when referring to spiritual growth. And not just because they're usually meant to be critical of a pastor's content... but I could never see this thinking in Scripture. Paul uses 'feed' and 'meat' in terms of where he expects Christians to be in their maturity, but it's never used by people to demand something."
It's a common message, and we've seen how this new breed of church leaders have a propensity to parrot one another. There's no doubt that it's even true in many cases that Christians can be a lazy bunch, but are the words of these leaders really comparable to what Martyn Lloyd-Jones was talking about? Or is it true that Lloyd-Jones was saying something that relates as much to these kinds of leaders as it does to anyone else.
First of all, I'll go on record as saying that the average member of Lloyd-Jones' mid-twentieth century church in England was probably more biblically literate than, not only the average church goer who sits under the trendy pastors listed above, but also the pastors themselves! That's an amazing statement isn't it? It's saying something about Lloyd-Jones' church (which was also large at around 2,000 people), but more-so it is saying something about the weak leadership of today's pastors of pragmatism.
Secondly, is it possible that these pastors actually breed a lazy Christian attitude in others with the things they say and do? Those of us who have seen it won't soon forget Steven Furtick's video tirade in which he railed against Christians who want to be fed. His answer was - quit being a lazy complainer and actually DO SOMETHING, like evangelize. He seems to prefer that his flock could be described as the woman in Luke 10:40 of which it says "But Martha was distracted with much serving" (ESV). Perry Noble, who often talks favorably about his lack of seminary training, I suspect is speaking in code when he says: you don't need "another bible study on the weight of the Ark of the Covenant". The message he's sending is, don't get too deep into the bible because there are more important things for you to be doing. He parrots Rick Warren almost word for word when he says above "Today as Christians we have WAY more information than we could ever apply".
Really? Is there a certain amount of bible knowledge that we should have, and then we should stop studying until our good works get caught up? And also, doesn't this imply that the only valuable bible knowledge that exists is that which can be "practiced"? So a study of the Trinity is definitely out of the question then, because it can't somehow be "applied" to our everyday living apparently. They don't seem to understand that the bible is more than about how to serve God - it's also how we know God, as JI Packer's classic reminds us. Should our quest to know God EVER be slowed or stopped? No!
Many of those sentiments are foreign to anything Lloyd-Jones ever said. You would have never heard him (or so many of the preachers before his time) disparage learning, doctrine, or bible study. Instead you would have heard them saying "do both things". There would have been no setting up bogus competitions between works and knowledge, deeds and creeds, like Steven Furtick does in his video, and like so many of today's pastors do. Worst of all is Perry Noble's notion that the Pharisees were bad guys because of their deep knowledge. In reality, the Pharisees were not faulted for knowledge or deep bible study, but for making up man made regulations and burdening their fellow man with things that were extra-biblical. After reading so many anti-knowledge posts by Perry over the years, I sometimes wonder if his lack of formal biblical training has made him insecure, and this is the way he reacts to 'critics' who understand the bible better than he does.
In his quote above, Ben Arment seems to suggest that scripture always leaves "getting fed" up to individual Christians on their own, and that it should not be expected of their leaders. But this ignores Acts 2 and other places in which we read of Christians regularly gathered together to hear the Apostles teaching. And what is it that the Apostles taught? Was it pragmatic grow-your church by preaching "here's how God can help you have a smooth-sailing life" sermons that have a handful of bible verses thrown in for good measure? Not at all.
Once again, I can't stress enough how much I agree that true Christians should be feeding themselves, and that we are all to blame for not doing this more diligently. What I disagree with however, is the idea that today's churches can wash their hands of the responsibility of feeding the sheep. Steven Furtick says he "serves up the Word every Sunday"; no doubt the other pastors mentioned above believe that they are doing their part to educate their followers as well. But is that true? Are they really doing what they could and should? A more interesting question is, CAN THEY even feed their flock? In other words, do such pastors even have enough bible knowledge, and are their churches so geared towards unbelievers that they have no choice but to keep up a steady diet of milk and not meat.
In part two I'll provide some suggestions for churches who really want to feed their flocks. I think when you see this list, you'll recognize right away how far off today's pragmatic churches are from truly fulfilling their responsibility in this regard. With the Holy Spirit's help, when you feed your flock in the way that I'm going to suggest, superior bible knowledge will result in superior good works (including individual evangelism). As I've mentioned in other blog posts, that's the way Paul sets up his epistles; the first part is generally doctrine, and the last part is generally action, with the idea being: Creeds breeds deeds. Orthodoxy builds orthopraxy. If that's not happening, then true orthodoxy has not been realized. In which case, you actually want MORE bible study and teaching, and not less. More tomorrow.

As New Fads Emerge By Phil Johnson

According to the cover article in November’s Christianity Today [2004], the next big fad is already on the horizon. It’s the “Emergent Church” movement—seeker-sensitivity gone to seed. It’s Saddleback for postmodernists—Willow Creek to the tenth power, for the pierced and tatooed generation. The most influential people in the Emergent Church movement are people who have consciously and deliberately abandoned the authority of Scripture.
Like all good postmodernists, Emergent Christians hate clarity and precision. They despise authority, and they detest certainty. They say they don’t want answers; they want mystery. They don’t want to be preached to; they want a conversation. They don’t want to have to judge whether something is orthodox or heretical, true or false; they want to create their own spiritual reality, and they want to be affirmed while they do it. Unfortunately, the evangelical movement has plenty of people who are willing to affirm all of those things.
At last year’s Emergent convention in San Diego, one of the speakers, Doug Pagitt, pastor of an Emergent Church known as Solomon’s Porch in Minneapolis, told Emergent church leaders he is convinced preaching is no longer a viable methodology for worship or evangelism in a postmodern world. “Preaching is broken,” he said.
Postmodern people don’t trust authority figures. They don’t want to hear someone stand up and expound the Word of God. It’s unhealthy, he says. It’s abusive. “Why do I get to speak for 30 minutes and you don’t?” he asked.
He went on: “A sermon is often a violent act. . . . It’s a violence toward the will of the people who have to sit there and take it.”
Let me say this: That epitomizes the direction all these fads are moving. The fad-driven church cannot be a church governed by the Word of God. If you get your direction by seeing which way the winds of change are blowing and following the prevailing trend, you are being disobedient to the clear command of Ephesians 4:14, which instructs us not to do that.
The way the wind is blowing these days is not good. The doctrine of justification by faith is under attack on several fronts. In England at the moment, there’s a huge controversy brewing because one of the most popular and well-known young British evangelical media figures—a man named Steve Chalke, published a book last year titled The Lost Message of Jesus. In it, he attacks the doctrine of original sin. He denounces the principle of penal substitution, suggesting that the doctrine of substitutionary atonement as evangelicals have historically understood and proclaimed it amounts to “cosmic child abuse.” He insists that God would never punish His Son for other people’s offenses. On page 182 of the book, he asks, “How have we come to believe that at the cross this God of love suddenly decides to vent His anger and wrath [against sin] on His own Son?” How have we come to believe that? I’ll tell you how I came to believe that: because the Bible says so (Isaiah 53:10): “It pleased the LORD to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief. [He made] His soul an offering for sin.”
The problem is, in the contemporary, fad-driven evangelical culture, almost no one is left who is both equipped and willing to answer a view like that. Someone decided several years ago that the word propitiation is too technical and not user-friendly enough for contemporary Christians, so preachers stopped explaining the principle of propitiation. Now that this idea is under attack, we have a generation of leaders who don’t remember what it meant or why it’s important to defend. And the overwhelming majority of British evangelicals have rushed to Steve Chalke’s defense, claiming his critics are just overweening negativists who are behind the times and out of touch with this postmodern era. The leadership of the evangelical alliance in England are busy wringing their hands about the “tone” of the debate and the “unity” of their movement—and frankly if things follow the historical pattern, ultimately very little will be done to stem the tide of heresy this book has already unleashed. (And you can be sure that the same ideas will be making the rounds of the evangelical movement in America soon. There are frankly already lots of people in American evangelicalism who are eager to challenge the doctrine of substitutionary atonement. This has been one of the main items on the Open Theists’ agenda for several years.)
Something seriously needs to change in order to rescue the idea of historic evangelicalism from the contemporary evangelical movement. And here’s what needs to change: A generation of preachers needs to rise up and be committed to preaching the Word, in season and out of season, and be willing to ignore the waves of silly fads that come and go and leave the church’s head spinning.
Scripture is better than any fad. Preaching the Word of God is more effective than any new methodology contemporary church experts have ever invented. I don’t care who thinks preaching is “broken.” If we would get back to the clear proclamation and exposition of God’s Word, everything that’s broken about contemporary preaching would be fixed.

Joel Osteen’s Christianity without a Cross By Denny Burk

The sad thing about Joel Osteen is that he has all the marks of a sincere person. I just finished watching the profile of his ministry on “60 Minutes,” and there is not one thing about him that looks phony. He is one of the most likeable, loveable fellows that you’ll ever see. I really think he believes everything he is saying.
That is why what he does is so awful. The prosperity gospel that Osteen preaches will damn the very people he intends to help (if they believe it), and he appears completely unaware of the darkness into which he plunges his followers. Osteen’s lack of awareness of his own blindness was prophesied in the scriptures: “Evil men and impostors will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived” (2 Timothy 3:13). If anyone has ever been deluded by his own error, it’s Joel Osteen.
Nevertheless, Osteen pastors a church that has about 42,000 people attending every week. On top of that, his television broadcast reaches an estimated 7 million people on a weekly basis. Yet by his own admission, his message focuses on the “positive,” and not on sin, redemption, and the cross of Jesus Christ. In other words, his message doesn’t focus on the Gospel. I would have to say that there is hardly anything distinctively Christian about anything that he says. And if fact, the prosperity “gospel” is decidedly anti-Christian (1 Timothy 6:10).
As I was watching the “60 Minutes” interview, I was aghast that Osteen openly admits that he preaches this way. He doesn’t even blush when he says it.
Inteviewer: “[In your new book, you write that] to become a better you, you must be positive towards yourself, develop better relationships, embrace the place where you are. Not one mention of God in that. Not one mention of Jesus Christ in that.”
Osteen: “That’s just my message. There is scripture in there that backs it all up. But I feel like, Byron, I’m called to help people…how do we walk out the Christian life? How do we live it? And these are principles that can help you. I mean, there’s a lot better people qualified to say, ‘Here’s a book that going to explain the scriptures to you.’ I don’t think that’s my gifting.”
Osteen has no idea that the Bible teaches that pastors must be able to do precisely what Osteen says he’s not gifted to do—teach the scriptures (1 Timothy 3:2). Moreover, pastors have to know the word so well that they are able to refute false teachers and their teachings: “He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it” (Titus 1:9). Not only does Osteen not have the pastoral gift of teaching, he is himself a false teacher.
I am writing this blog because I think Osteen is dangerous. The prosperity “gospel” that he preaches makes the Almighty into a cosmic slot machine; just believe hard enough and you’ll hit paydirt and have your “best life now.” Yet the Christian gospel explicitly teaches that if a person tries to have their best life now, they will forfeit eternity: “Whoever wishes to save his life shall lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake shall find it. For what will a man be profited, if he gains the whole world, and forfeits his soul?” (Matthew 16:25-26).
Listen to Joel Osteen at your own risk. He is peddling death. And he is affable enough to make you feel like it’s life. But do not be deceived. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The Gay & Lesbian Bible?

What do you do if you are unrepentantly engaging in the sin of homosexuality but you want to be Christian? Simple, write your own Bible that carefully removes any mention that homosexuality is a sin.
Here is what the website for the NEW Gay & Lesbian Bible says:

"The New Testament in the original Greek does not speak against Gay, Lesbian, Bi or Transgender people. Yes, many Christians believe it does, but then again many people believe there were three wise men who visited Jesus as a baby and gave him three gifts....
"The Gay and Lesbian Study Bible, translated from the Greek by Dr Ann Nyland, is a timely contribution to the spiritual needs of gay and lesbian followers of Christ. Dr Nyland's close examination of the source materials shows beyond doubt that there is no textual basis in the Bible for the exclusion of same sex relations. The Gay and Lesbian Study Bible will give heart to many who feel that sexual orientation is irrelevant to spiritual communion..."
Click Here to visit the website for the Gay & Lesbian Bible

It's About Money! It Should Be About Jesus!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fs0OvGKr8cM&eurl=http://www.alittleleaven.com/2007/11/index.html

Faith House" The Broad Road to Destruction

They say a picture is worth a thousand words. This logo says much much more than anything we could say. This is the logo for Faith House in Manhattan. This is an Emergent organization whose supporters include Brian McLaren and Tony Campolo. Here is what their mission statement says"
"OUR MISSION: We want to start a new kind of community in which we can discover The Other (individuals or groups other than those we belong to), deepen our personal and corporate journeys, and together participate in repairing the world. In this endeavor we will honor and learn from teachings, practices, and suffering of people from religions, philosophies, and worldviews, different from our own. Instead of isolating ourselves into like-minded groups or melting together into a single-minded organization, we will learn to live together with our differences and in a way that contributes to the wellbeing, peace, joy, and justice in the world. In this endeavor we will always be a courageous, hospitable and learning community."

We as Christians are called to proclaim and defend the ONE and ONLY way of salvation through Jesus Christ alone. The Emergent Church for years has been deconstructing and attacking these exclusive truths and have instead embraced relativism, openness and syncretism. This is a great example of the bad fruit being produced by the Emergent tree.

Why Does God Permit False Prophets? By AW Pink

Quoting AW Pink . . .
This is a very solemn question, and we must restrict ourselves to what the Scriptures say by way of reply.
"You shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams. For the Lord your God is testing you, to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul". (Deuteronomy 13:3).From those words it is clear that God allows teachers of error for the same reason as He does persecutors of His people: to test their love, to try their fidelity, to show that their loyalty to him is such that they will not give ear unto His enemies. Error has always been more popular than the Truth, for it lets down the bars and fosters fleshly indulgence, but for that very reason it is obnoxious to the godly.
The one who by grace can say "I have chosen the way of Truth" will be able to add "I have stuck unto Thy testimonies" (Psalm 119:30, 31), none being able to move him therefrom.
"For there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized." (1 Corinthians 11:19).
Error serves as a flail, separating the chaff from the wheat. Let some plausible and popular preacher come forward with an old error decked out in new clothes and empty professors will at once flock to his standard; but not so with those who are established in the Faith. Thus, by means of the false prophets, God makes it appear who are the ones who hold the Truth in sincerity: they are faithful to Him despite all temptations to turn away unto a "broader-minded" way. The genuine gold endures every test to which it is subjected. Thus too are the unregenerate "converts" revealed: the counterfeit gold will not withstand the fire. Those who are attracted by a novelty do not endure but are soon carried away by some newer innovation.
From:
Sermon on the Mount - (Ages Software)