Sunday’s sermon was actually pretty good. The primary illustrations were from church history and the Scriptures themselves. The preaching was expository and emotionally applicable. The introduction and conclusion were a wrap around that felt very natural given the subject matter. And, the whole thing was done in a reasonable amount of time. I had a very firm time goal and I found that forcing myself to keep it made my sermon much more lively and sharp.
Though I do not usually commend my own sermons online, I think this one might be worth a listen, especially if you are someone who is struggling - either with life or to maintain your sense of closeness to God in the midst of life, or if you want to hear a sermon that assumes the book of James is more integrated than scholars give it credit for.
Listen here: James 1b: “The Perfect Result”
Comment on this Post »
Posted by blestou on January 31st, 2008 — Illustration, Review, Church Life, Ministry, Doctrine, Daily Life, Online
From First Things:
Even though “Church Day” was voluntary, and those who declined to attend suffered no penalty on or off the field, the ACLU urged the university president to end the practice of Coach Bowden taking his team to church. This practice of legal intimidation, directed at both individuals and organizations who affirm traditional values, we label as SLAPP, for “Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation.” The ACLU ploy is not new; it invokes the requirement of “pluralism” to secure submission to the doctrine of a secular, naked public square. Anything religious, especially if it is associated with the religion with which nine of ten Americans identify, must be denied public salience. The free exercise of religion becomes synonymous with “theocracy,” and its practice declared to be a threat to democracy and the public order.
Read More.
Comment on this Post »
Posted by blestou on January 22nd, 2008 — Review, Ministry, Culture, Politics
A few night’s ago, at a Michigan campaign stop, Mike Huckabee said the following:
“I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that’s what we need to do is amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than trying to change God’s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other and how we treat the family.”
Perhaps I am late to the party, or perhaps the MSM just hasn’t picked it up yet, but several liberal types on the internet seem to be making a big deal about this statement - recognizing in it a plea for a “theocracy.” This seems to be a ridiculous and un-thought-out assertion, betraying an ignorance of mainstream conservative evangelical thought.
It should come as no surprise that religious conservative and conservative voters are upset with gay “marriage” and abortion - or at least the judicial usurpation of these issues. It should further be recognized that one reason (a big reason) for some voter’s opposition to these practices is based on their interpretation of religious writings they receive as authoritative. It was just a matter of time before one of these people became a candidate and spoke the language of these voters.
Part of the democratic process is hearing the voices of the electorate and evaluating their claims. It is not a “theocracy” for conservative religious people to share their views on abortion any more than it is an imposition of theology for liberal religious speakers to preach against war or advocate an increase in welfare entitlements. Would Huckabee’s detractors deny him access to the public square to make his case before the populace? Such seems patently un-American.
You may not agree with Huckabee’s positions on gay “marriage” or abortion, but amending the Constitution with specific policy statements would make them constitutional laws, not religious laws. The candidate is not speaking of the establishment of a particular national church. The candidate is not advocating the alteration of the Constitution to privilege a certain faith. He is advocating public policy decisions to be considered by the American public. His own personal basis for recommending these changes may stem in part from religious motivations, but the policies and process themselves are entirely secular.
An amendment to the Constitution that privileges the dignity of human life would be a statement that a Constitutionally controlled people made the democratic decision to set a standard for how the country should operate. It would not create a theocracy any more than the 13th amendment, widely supported by religious abolitionists, created a theocracy.
The cries of “theocracy” and “theo-con” and etc. are nothing more than political spin attempts to discredit the policy positions with which the critics disagree. Where any fear actually exists, it is the result of paranoia. Of course, the true danger to a Constitutional way of life for our country is not from Huckabee’s statements or those who oppose them for political reasons, but from those who oppose his views specifically because they have some basis in religious thought. Rabid secularists would seek to squelch the protected speech of religious citizens, bar certain candidates of faith from public office, and silence the voice of certain of America’s citizens. This is anti-religious bigotry in its worst form and undermines the most cherished of American guarantees - a voice.
It is not immoral to be a moral person who cares about others and the welfare of our country. It is not un-American to participate in the great debate. It is both to promote falsehood and fear an effort to deny citizens their political and religious rights.
7 Comments »
Posted by blestou on January 18th, 2008 — Culture, News, Politics, Doctrine, Online, Uncategorized
Bush may not be closed-minded idiot after all
Here is another post - adult-derived -pluripotent-stem-cells consideration of the balanced approach President Bush took to the “stem-cell issue.” Written by Jay Lefkowitz, former Bush domestic-policy advisor responsible for primary White House research on the subject, the article offers a behind-the-scenes look at how the principle was reached and the decision was made.
We do not know enough yet to say whether, or to what degree, Bush’s refusal to allow federal funding to create new embryonic stem-cell lines played a role in compelling scientists to find a different approach to the issue. We do know that, in the aftermath of last November’s announcement, several leading scientists have suddenly testified in public to having harbored the very same moral doubts that led Bush to his 2001 decision. James Thomson, the foremost stem-cell researcher in the United States, put it plainly: “If human embryonic stem-cell research does not make you at least a little bit uncomfortable, you have not thought about it enough.”
This was not, to put it mildly, a view openly expressed by the scientific community in the years between Bush’s decision and the discovery of the new method. But remarks like Thomson’s, and the fact that a scientific advance unthinkable in 2001 has rendered one of the ugliest controversies of the decade all but moot, suggest that it is time to revisit Bush’s decision to see what lessons can be drawn from it.
Other articles reviewing Bush’s decision are referenced here. Lefkowitz’s article gives some background information regarding the political status of stem-cell research prior to Bush’s decision that, if had been known and more widely reported, would have altered the knee-jerk-self-righteous opinion of many.
It is en vogue these days to hate President Bush and point out all of his perceived flaws and bad decisions. I do not claim to have a comprehensive grasp of all that he has done, but as more information about more decisions during his tenure come to light it is clear that in many ways for many issues Bush was the right man at the right time for the job.
Comment on this Post »
Posted by blestou on January 11th, 2008 — Science, News, Culture, Politics
This past Sunday was Epiphany. This is not a day widely celebrated by Baptists, but it should be. Of all the traditional Christian liturgical feasts, it is the most concentrated on missions and the need for personal evangelism.
Epiphany celebrates the visit of the Magi to the infant Christ. More to the point, it celebrates the fact that the Christ was manifested to the Gentiles. Even as a baby, Jesus was the Messiah who would die for the sins of the whole world, not just for one race or nation or people. Traditionally, Christians are to meditate on the meaning of Christ’s manifestation to the gentiles and what it means for our responsibility to make him known throughout the earth and to all peoples.
I have just recently begun to explore the celebrations and meditations of Epiphany and shared a few of my insights in last Sunday’s sermon. I’ve actually never heard a preacher preach on the subject of Epiphany. If you have not either, then take a listen to my offering here. The audio is not top-notch, but you don’t mind so much toward the end.
My favorite section is this:
“The mystery is that the gentiles are fellow heirs of the promises of the Messiah! What do we, who live in Camp Verde, Arizona have in common with the the Chinaman who lives on the other side of the world? the African who still dances his traditional dance? the tribal people in the jungles of South America? We are all non-Jews! We are all Gentiles who live in lands that have for ages been covered in darkness. We share the kinship of those who have had no hope. But now the light has come, and as it has come, it has come for everyone - and we say, ‘Hallelujah!’ We may be late to the feast, but, by God, we’ve got a seat at that table.”
To God be the Glory. I hope you enjoy it.
5 Comments »
Posted by blestou on January 8th, 2008 — Church Life, Review, Ministry, Daily Life, Doctrine, Culture, Uncategorized
