The bureaucrats of the nanny state of Kalifonia have been busy.   That means tax-increases on everything-- including gas, smokes, and beer.

With gas prices already sky-rocketing, motorists in Los Angeles County might be stuck with an additional ten-cent per gallon tax to "help fight global warming."  Actually, the money will go to pay for highway improvements for which the state can't pry money loose from the federal government.  But if the tax increase is offered as a means to "improve the environment," then (the bureaucrats argue) it might be easier to get it through the legislature.  Click here: Gas Tax to Fight Global Warming? | Southland and California News | KTLA The CW | Where Los Angeles Lives  

As if that wasn't enough, a  fall ballot measure will call for a 300% tax increase on cigarettes, designed to make smoking so expensive, that people stop.  Of course, this won't create a black market, or  put  small  businesses  (which depend upon revenues from cigarette sales) out of business.  The law of unintended consequences never occurs to these guys.   I hate cigarette smoke as much as the next guy,  but just make them illegal, or leave smokers alone.  It is a matter of personal responsibility.   Click here: USATODAY.com - California cigarette tax could skyrocket

Now this one really chaps my hide . . .   State assemblyman Jim Beall has proposed a 1500% increase in the tax on beer!  How dare he!  This would raise the tax on a bottle of beer from 2 cents to 30 cents ,or $1.80 per six-pack.   Click here: Higher state tax on beer? - San Jose Mercury News

Nevada and Montana look better to me every day.  I wish we could throw tea in the harbor, or do something!  I'm all for rendering unto Caesar, but enough is enough!

The "Save the LCMS!" blog posted these photos of the billboards purchased by an LCMS in the St. Louis area.  This is part of the  "Ablaze" outreach now being pushed by the current LCMS president.  (Click here: Save the LCMS!: $25,000 Ablaze Grant for This?!).  

When will these church bureaucrats get it?  Confessional churches (Lutheran or Reformed) are never more irrelevant than when they pull stunts like this.

Since I'm not a Lutheran, let me pick on my former denomination, the CRC (Christian Reformed Church).  When Michael Horton and I began the effort to organize a confessional Reformed Church in Orange County back in 1996 (what is now Christ Reformed), we approached the CRC--the denomination in which I was already ordained.

When we explained what we wanted to do, they looked at us like we had three heads!  The church officials responsible for church planting had already bought into the Rick Warren "Purpose-Drivel" philosophy.  Their mantra at the time was 400,000 [members] by the year 2000 [this was 1996].  These guys tried their best to talk us out of starting a confessional church, built upon the historic Reformed liturgy, redemptive-historical preaching, with weekly communion. They offered us scholarship money to attend Rick Warren's church planter's bootcamp.  I promptly filled out the form and requested funds to go to Princeton to finish up my Ph.D.  They were not amused.  Church bureaucrats have no sense of humor.

To make a long story short, for two years, Christ Reformed was the fastest growing church in the CRC.  Meanwhile, after buying in to the Rick Warren "Purpose-Drivel," the CRC has steadily declined in membership, and has lost its way as a confessional Reformed church.  In fact, membership has fallen well below 300,000.

The moral to the story is that Reformed and Lutheran churches are usually pretty good at being Reformed and Lutheran.  But we don't do "hip" and "with it" very well.  And when they go down that dead-end road, they don't reach the lost, but they lose the saved, and their churches shrink.   And they can't understand why so many of their former members now attend the local mega-church.

My question to the church growth types in the CRC was, "why would people want to go to one of our churches doing a very poor imitation of Calvary Chapel, when the genuine article was 20 minutes away?  They never did attempt to answer, and they took the question itself to be a sign that I wasn't interested in evangelism.

Meanwhile, the LCMS won't support a radio outreach with a proven track record of preaching the gospel and adding to Christ's church ("Issues, Etc.").  But they'll drop $25,000.00 on some stupid billboard campaign that gives every pagan another reason to think that Christianity is an irrelevant religion of stupid slogans and tacky billboards.   But no, the LCMS bureaucrats have bought into this Ablaze nonsense, and they are gonna grow the church, even if they have to kill it in the process!

For another great response to this, Click here: Save the LCMS!: Brilliant!
 

I caught just a bit of the congressional hearing on performance enhancing drugs (PEDs) in baseball.  The whole thing is frightening.

Roger Clemens may or may not have used HGH.  Andy Pettitte admitted to using HGH.  Brian McNamee claimed to have supplied HGH to both.  Who is telling the truth?  There's no way to tell.  It all comes to down to "he said--he said" accusations based upon conversations years ago with no witnesses present.  How do you unravel that?  You really can't.

This is reminiscent of the "rock, scissors, paper" game that kids play.  In my mind, Pettitte's testimony clearly trumps Clemens'--everyone believes Andy.  Clemens  is more believable than McNamee, since the latter admitted to the congressional committee that he had lied to them on a number of occasions.  But Pettitte had to admit that McNamee's claim was correct.  Rock (Pettitte) beats scissors (Clemens).  Scissors (Clemens) beats paper (McNamee).  Paper (McNamee) beats rock (Pettitte).  The whole thing is a sordid mess.

As for the baseball world, anyone caught using a PED becomes a pariah and subject to the dreaded curse of the asterisk.  They are perceived as "cheaters."  Whether Clemems used PEDs or not, the very perception that he did so started a raging debate among the sportswriters and bloggers about Roger's lasting legacy.  Is the greatest pitcher of our time really the greatest pitcher of our time?  If Clemens cheated, well then, he gets his just recompense--he'll be banned from the Hall of Fame (the baseball equivalent of excommunication or being deposed from office). 

To be fair, Clemens is taking McNamee to federal court with a defamation suit, and Clemens has made himself hoarse proclaiming his innocence. 

But the fact is HGH use is not illegal, and it wasn't illegal when Pettitte and Clemens (allegedly) used it.

Enter Congress.   When Roger Clemens raised his hand and testified under oath before that congressional committee, everything changed.  If Clemens lies to Congress, he is apt to be slapped with a perjury charge in which he could do serious time in a federal pen.  The crime, mind you, was not taking HGH.  The crime is lying to Congress.  This is a process crime, plain and simple.  This is what happened to Scooter Libby, and a host of others (whose names escape me) all because Congress uses its power to create a potential crime when no underlying crime was even present.  This is political "gotcha" with horrific consequences to the victim.  Both political parties do it, and it is absolutely shameful when they use these committees to conduct vendettas and create crimes that were not there before the committee called for hearings.

And just why is Congress involved in this matter in the first place?  In the words of North Carolina Rep. Patrick McHenry.  "This isn’t a hearing, it’s a show trial. . . . And it is another reason why people are fed up with Congress. We’re facing huge challenges in housing, government spending, taxes and illegal immigration. Congress would be better served to focus on any of those issues instead of inserting itself into a name-calling, finger-pointing, school-yard brawl.”  Amen!

Roger Clemens may go to jail for lying because Henry Waxman (D), Tom Davis (R), and all the rest of the members of their committee want their pompous-ass mugs on camera.

If the consensus among the baseball world is that Clemens used HGH, he'll suffer the consequences.  His reputation will be forever tarnished and the greatest pitcher of the modern era might not be elected to the Hall of Fame.  The punishment fits the crime.

But to create a situation in which a man who did not commit a crime now does so, is criminal.  If process crimes are not evidence as to why we should do everything in our power to reign these guys in, then I don't know what is.
 

Here's something to think about--party affiliation and political ideology aside.

The two current front runners for the office of President of the United States have never served in any executive office.  If one of these two is elected, this means our President will have no executive experience whatsoever.  The Senate does not create leaders, it creates pompous compromisers--the key to getting anything done in the Senate, but a principle that is inimical to leading the nation.

The two front-runners for the office of President of the United States have run on the theme of "change."  Yet both are consummate Washington insiders blinded by "Beltwayitis."  Despite the rhetoric, Clinton and McCain are clearly the establishment candidates.  Change?  Not from these two. 

The two front-runners for the office of President of the United States have both managed to alienate a significant portion of  the members of their own parties.  McCain is universally reviled by small-government conservatives in his own party (indeed, he's antagonized them repeatedly), while Clinton has played the race card with Obama (the black candidate who, ironically, has eschewed making race an issue).  If elected, either one will have significant problems with their base throughout their entire term of office.

Of course, things could change on Super Tuesday and Romney or Obama might reverse the current dynamics of the race (very unlikely, however).   At this point, I'm convinced that our current primary system is not serving us at all.   I liked the good old days of the smoke-filled party conventions when we got better candidates.   

And with all of this electioneering taking place so far in advance of the general election, will anybody still be interested in November 2008?  Any wonder why I am so cynical about American politics? 

As you may know, I have written several posts on this blog criticizing the use by pastors of sermon subscription series, in which a pastor receives (for a fee, of course) a weekly sermon (or an outline) prepared by others (or taken from other ministers).  You can read my prior rants on this topic here; Click here: Riddleblog - The Latest Post - On Subscription Sermon Series (Part 4)

Yes, I know I have said that I would post on this no more, and I had the best of intentions not to do so.  Then, I received the latest offering from ________ and the temptation to post again was just too much.  I think you'll see why.

Apparently, the subscription company has received some criticism for what they do, so the latest email sets forth their case for the use of such sermons by willing pastors.  I thought it was worth reprinting here, so that you might see what constitutes in their mind  the rationale (sales pitch) for doing such a thing.

The latest email begins with the following question and answer:  "Can we preach sermons borrowed from other pastors with integrity? Yes, if we do it for the right reasons."

There is no justification for using someone else's sermons, period.  A minister's calling is to do the difficult work of preparing to preach God's word to his congregation.  This involves a number of difficult things:  prayer, more prayer, study, translation, writing (and re-writing), more prayer, and preparation for delivery.  This is why ministers must be sufficiently trained and then supported by their churches to do what it is that God has called them to do--preach the fruits of their own labor!

But according to the folks at __________ there are actually "right reasons" for using the work of others.  These reasons include:

(1)   Many weeks pastors have more emergencies than others. We may need to borrow from another pastor the same way a housewife may feel the need to borrow some flour or sugar from her neighbor when an emergency arrives.

(2)   Many pastors are responsible for delivering multiple sermons every week. The study time required to produce such sermons may be hard to find. This is a tremendous load placed on pastors if they are going to be able to provide good fresh materials, so they borrow from another pastor the same way a house wife might take her family to a restaurant rather than feeding her family left-overs that thy have had over and over again.

(3)   Many pastors borrow from other pastors because they recognize if a good Bible-centered sermon is good for one congregation it may also be good for another congregation.

(4)   Many pastors are better at delivering a good sermon than they are preparing a good sermon. That is not difficult to prove. Have you ever gone on the internet and read some of the sermons! Many times you see paragraph after paragraph lacking continuity, having no outline to direct the sermon, and no illustrations to drive the points home to the listeners. When you get through reading those sermons you feel it was a waste of time because you could not get the intended message.

As far as I see it, the stated reasons are not "reasons" at all.  They are excuses.  The ministry is not a 9 to 5 job, it is a calling (sometimes 24/7).  Yes, we have emergencies, but we still must prepare to preach.  If we are asked to teach and preach multiple times, then the elders who supervise our work must give us sufficient time to prepare.  But even if they don't, we still must prepare our own material.  The restaurant example (the fresh food v. left-overs) is ridiculous.  Furthermore, how is preaching someone else's material not a violation of the eighth commandment?  This is plagiarism and the sin of sloth.  If you are not capable of preaching a coherent sermon, then maybe you should seek additional training or seek to evaluate your calling.  And that round of golf is not an "emergency" and God's word is not to be equated with a cup of sugar.

Anticipating my objections, the good folks at ___________ go on to say,

"We understand that borrowing a sermon from another pastor does not relieve any pastor of the responsibility to meditate over the Scripture text until they understand it and feel the heartbeat of God in the text.

We must meditate prayerfully over the sermon until we can own it. Only when a pastor has spent sufficient time in prayer and meditation can he preach the sermon with clarity.

For example, when a professor goes to class to teach others, if he has not spent sufficient time with the curriculum he cannot teach it to others.

It is when a pastor has spent sufficient time in prayer and study on a sermon that the pastor owns the message and can preach it with integrity and passion because then it is that pastor's message."

How does praying over someone else's work make it your own sermon to preach?  The sellers of these sermons are correct when they state that a pastor must spend sufficient time in prayer and study.  So how does their product fit with that rather important truth?  It doesn't.  Ministers are called to teach and preach the gold that they have mined from God's word.  There's nothing wrong with a minister re-using his own materials (when there are time crunches, etc.).  But even then, the material should be tweaked and developed further.

Finally, the sermon-sellers close with this gem:

"You can use these materials from _________with integrity because you are not stealing from another pastor.  We give you permission to use them as long as you do not use them to make a financial profit. (We only ask when illustrations are used in these materials that you give credit to those we have borrowed them from.)"

How can you preach someone else's stuff "with integrity?"  I quote from commentators and theologians (occasionally), and that's why I always give attribution (you've seen my footnotes in my sermons).  Yes, I understand that it is not stealing (in a legal sense) if you've purchased a product and have been granted its use. 

But God's word is not a product, and a preacher is not being faithful to his calling if he allows anything (including "emergencies") to detract from his study and preparation to preach his own material to his congregation. That's not integrity, it is an excuse for sloth, poor stewardship of time, or the desire to preach someone else's sermon because we think he did a better job with a text than we did. 

Many men are better preachers than I, but I would be denying my calling if I were to get into the pulpit and preach using someone else's work.  Furthermore, if we ever rely upon our own rhetorical skills or cleverness, we need to be slapped upside the head.  God speaks to his people through the weakest of vessels, especially those who know they are weak so they rely solely upon the power of the Holy Spirit, who lives life to dead bones--something no minister can ever do no matter how "good" his material. It is the minister's calling to preach God's word and then get out of the way of God's work and power.  To try and emulate someone else, or to covet better material, is to get in the way. 

And we wonder why we live in an age characterized by a famine of God's word?

Is anyone else as as disgusted as I am at all the presidential campaigns for using the tragic assassination of Benazir Bhutto as a way to  shamelessly tout their own supposed foreign policy credentials?

These guys (and a gal) have spent the last two days knocking each other over to get before a camera or a mic to pontificate about something they obviously know very little about.  Unless you are already in the White House and privy to hard intelligence, you probably don't know squat about what really happened and who did the dastardly deed

The most egregious examples so far are ambulance-chaser turned senator, John Edwards telling the faithful at a political rally that he just got off the phone with President Musharraf in Islamabad.  Can't you just see that conversation from Musharraf's end?  He's in a high-level meeting with his nation exploding all around him and an aide walks in and says, "Mr. President . . .  There's a John Edwards on the phone for you.  He says its important . . ."  Can't you just imagine Musharraf's reaction.  "Who?"

Then there is John McCain.  "I knew Benazir Bhutto.  I've known Musharraf for years.  I've talked with general so and so . . .  I talked with Moses and Abraham."  And then McCain has the nerve to tell American voters what Musharraf should do, as if McCain was a candidate for Pakistani generalissimo.  McCain's an America hero, but recounting the names in his address book on camera to jump-start his campaign is pretty cynical.

Huckabee didn't even know martial law in Pakistan had been suspended.  Hillary tells us she knew Bhutto well, but only because Hillary had contact with her as first-lady, not in any meaningful political/policy sense.  Now Hillary wants an "international investigation."  Like the UN is competent to investigate this . . . 

Yes, I know American voters benefit by seeing their presidential candidates react under pressure and respond to world events.  But so far I'm not impressed with any of them.

The only candidate who has made any sense to me on this is Ron Paul.  "Why should we be telling the Pakistanis what to do?  Pakistan is a sovereign nation."  And Ron Paul is not exactly what you'd call "presidential" nor is he remotely electable.

And we wonder why less than 50% of Americans vote?  The cynicism shown by the lot of them is disgusting to me.  And just why is it that we are going through this eleven months before the election?

OK, I thought I was done with this topic--I've written three previous posts on this.  But then I received another email from our friends at ________ advertising their subscription sermon series.  Just when I think they've hit bottom, well, they prove me wrong.  Now they are selling "award winning" sermons preached at some of the largest churches in America.  Is that a fact?

Rather than tackle the question of plagiarism and sloth (I've already covered that ground), this time I will focus upon the sermon topics they are pitching.  Pretty bad . . .

The latest email begins with the prompt "this Sunday will be a time when pastors will be preparing people's hearts for THANKSGIVING."  Oh, is that so?  As a minister of word and sacrament, my job is to preach Christ crucified, not get people ready to celebrate a national holiday--although, at Christ Reformed we do hold a worship service on Thanksgiving in which we devote the bulk of our time to actually giving thanks.

Next comes the sales pitch.  "If you would like to subscribe today we would like to send you the thanksgiving sermon, `WHERE ARE THE NINE' free."  In light of the earlier sermon we discussed (Click here: Riddleblog - The Latest Post - On Subscription Sermon Series (Part 1), I'll bet this one is a doozy!

Here's the "set" of sermons they are selling.  It includes the following titles:

(1) Two Great Women  (Mother's Day)
(2) Bogus Resolutions  (New Years)
(3) How God's Plans Interfere With Our Plans (Christmas)
(4) Where Do We Find Comfort?  (Friend's Day)
(5) The Proofs of The Resurrection (Easter)
(6) The Excitement of Easter  (Easter)
(7) Funeral Service #1
(8) Funeral Service #2
(9) Grandparent's Day
(10) Heaven  (Funeral)
(11) Mother's Day 2001
(12) Excellent Role Models  (Youth or Father's Day)
(13) Kodak Moments In The Life Of Christ  (Christmas)
(14) What We Should Be Thankful For  (Thanksgiving)
(15) Where Are The Nine?  (Thanksgiving)
(16) What We Can Learn From The Past  (New Years)

Since I've never preached a sermon on Grandparent's Day--sorry, but I don't follow the Hallmark calendar--I have no idea what this would entail.  I am curious, "will the Mother's Day sermon from 2001 work in 2008?"  I'll bet the sermon on comfort (Friend's Day) has nothing to do with guilt-grace-gratitude, and while evidence for the resurrection sounds good, I'm not sure "excitement" is a term I'd use for Easter.  Kodak Moments for Christmas?  Role models for Father's Day? 

As an expository preacher who works from a biblical text, I'm not a fan of topical sermons--especially when they are based on the Hallmark calendar.

Here's the final pitch: "All sixteen of these sermons are award winning sermons that have been preached in many of the largest churches in the United States." 

I'm a bit of a cynic.  So, my question is, "who determines whether a sermon receives an award?"  Furthermore, given the claim that these sermons are supposedly used in many of the largest churches in America, this begs the question as to whether the pastors of these churches are using this subscription sermon series and passing someone else's material off as their own.  But could it be that this particular subscription series is based upon sermons taken from these large churches and then sold as part of their package deal?

Either way, this is real trouble.  Preachers are preaching sermons they did not write, and these topical sermons (if they are like our previous example) fall far short of  the public placarding of Christ, called for by the apostle Paul (Galatians 3:1).