Can Someone Explain This to Me????

I simply cannot believe that I live in a country where Al "Stuart Smalley" Franken was nearly elected to the US Senate.  This is beyond my comprehension.

When you look at Franken's resume, you'll find "comedian" and "comedy writer for SNL."  How does creating characters for SNL and then playing Stuart Smalley prepare you for the US Senate??? 

Wait . . .  I just answered my own question!  My attitude toward the US Senate was pretty bad to start with--a bunch of pompous do-nothings.  Franken would certainly be a great addition to the collection of pompous do-nothings!

California elected the Terminator.  That was bad enough.  But you folks in Minnesota have now given us Jesse Ventura and Al Franken.  Stop that!!!!

President-Elect Obama

I didn't vote for him. But he is our new president. Given the angst so many Christians feel about an Obama presidency, it may be a good idea to take a step back and consider the following . . .

First, this is not the end of the world. It is not even the end of the Republic. Yes, the city of man has lurched hard-left. That happens once in a while. And then over time it drifts back to the center, and then lurches right again. This is what the city of man does. The reality is that the city of man is not any more amenable to Christianity when the lurch is toward the right than it is when it is lurching left. That is the nature of the city of man.

I am old enough to remember a fair bit of this lurching: Kennedy (center-left), Johnson (left), Nixon (right-center), Ford (center-right) Carter (left), Reagan (right), Bush 41 (center-right), Clinton (center-left), Bush 43 (right-center), and now Obama (left? left-center?).  Life goes on folks.

Second, since we are simultaneously citizens of two kingdoms (the kingdom of God and the city of man) I certainly hope we find it within ourselves to sincerely wish our new president well, and fervently pray for God's blessing upon him and his new administration (1 Timothy 2:1-4). Our nation is facing a severe economic crisis. We are deeply divided along political and racial lines. There is great resentment about the war in Iraq, and great uncertainty about what to do about Iran and Israel. Our new president faces a daunting task in leading a divided nation in a very uncertain time. He truly needs our prayers. The American presidency is one huge job.

Third, if Obama isn't up to the job, then all of us will suffer. If he is everything that his most ardent supporters claim that he is, he still faces a task which can overwhelm the even greatest of men.  So, let us hope and pray that Obama will capably fulfill his office and lead our nation forward through this tough time. There is too much at stake here for the partisans among us to cynically wish that Obama will fail so that Republicans can get the White House back in 2012. Now is the time for partisan politics to go on hiatus. We don't yet know what Obama will do. But we do owe President-Elect Obama the benefit of the doubt for the time being.

Far and away, the worst president of my life-time was Jimmy Carter. He wasn't an ideological leftist or a socialist (although he governed as one). Carter was a nice man (and a professing Christian) who was an inept president. But his ineptitude hurt all Americans--remember gas lines, hostages left in Iran for 444 days, and stagflation? So, I hope Obama is all that is advertised, because I don't want to suffer through that stuff again. It was a horrible time for many Americans.

Fourth, now that we have our first African-American president, let us also hope and pray for real and lasting racial reconciliation. May the Obama presidency heal the wounds that so many African-Americans deeply feel and which white Americans can't truly understand. That said, while there will always be racism in the city of man, I hope African-Americans realize that it was white Americans who elected the first black president. That is huge. Just twenty years ago, such a thing was unthinkable. This is a real chance to heal old wounds, right old wrongs, and then move on. Let us pray this happens!

Fifth, there is every possibility that Obama will seek to implement a far-left, socialist agenda. But there is also the possibility that Obama will be a centrist, and that he will govern from the left-center like Bill Clinton did. Remember, it is far easier to run for president and make all kinds of outlandish promises to your various constituencies, than it is to actually govern. The struggle to keep power will pull Obama back to the center, even if his instincts are to go hard-left. This what happens once you live inside the beltway and you grow to like that address @ 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

Should Obama actually succeed in pushing forward the socialist, pro-abortion agenda which so many fear, many of the anti-Bush and union voters who elected him will turn on him, and his "rock-star" popularity will quickly evaporate. The mid-term elections will likely see that huge Democrat majority bounced right out of Congress.  Weakness in a national crisis, or a prolonged recession and/or a deepening economic crisis will also really hurt Obama--along with the rest of us. It won't be long before we find out whether or not that suit was empty, or if Obama has the mettle for the job.

Finally, there is a fundamental question here. Why wouldn't we want Obama to succeed? Are partisan politics really more important than the well-being of the nation? This is one of those periods when there are great national changes afoot, and this is truly a time to hope for the best (in terms of God's providence) for our beloved country. But we also need to hold Obama's feet to the fire (in terms of his campaign promises) and not be so naive as to think that the city of man (or President Obama) has any real answers to life's ultimate problems. I doubt very seriously that if John McCain had been elected president the millennium would begin on January 21, 2009.

This is going to be a very tough term of office for any president. So, it is our duty to pray for our new president, and wish him and our nation well. Meanwhile let us go about our callings and vocations as Christian citizens doing what Paul told us to do, "If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all" (Romans 12:18), all the while not forgetting the words of the Psalmist (143), "Put not your trust in princes, in a son of man, in whom there is no salvation. When his breath departs, he returns to the earth; on that very day his plans perish."

Kalifornia--The Nanny State

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!

$25,000 for This?

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!
 

Update on Monday, March 31, 2008 at 10:35AM by Kim Riddlebarger

Here's additional proof that church bureaucrats won't give up their commitment to goofy programs like "Ablaze" no matter how much damage it does to their own church.  Click here: Bring Back Issues Etc.: Pres. Kieschnick responds to WSJ Article.

A number of Lutherans believe the real reason why "Issues, Etc." was pulled has little to do with finances (the public reason), but with Todd Wilken's critique of Joel Osteen, who is greatly admired by Tom Ries, LCMS Foundation president who handles fundraising for Lutheran causes, including "Issues."

Process Crimes -- Another Argument for Limited Federal Government

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.
 

Political Ideology Aside . . .

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? 

On Sermon Subscription Series (Part 5)

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?

Disgusting . . .

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?

On Subscription Sermon Series (Part 4)

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).

On Subscription Sermon Series -- A Follow Up

A while back I posted excerpts from a sample sermon sent to me by a company that sells sermon subscriptions to pastors (Click here: Riddleblog - The Latest Post - On Subscription Sermon Series (Part 1)

This is a follow-up to my prior posts.  Apparently, I'm still on their mailing list, even after asking to be removed.  Here's their latest appeal: 

"TWO QUESTIONS THAT EVERY PASTOR SEEMS TO BE ASKING:

(1) First, how can I find good, sound Bible source materials to help me in my sermon preparation?

(2) Second, how can I find good humor and illustrations for my sermons?"

Funny, I've never once asked these two questions!  Like many other pastors, I try and find "Bible Source" materials through my own study of the biblical text!  That includes studying the passage I am preaching on in the original language, consulting the commentaries and reference tools and then prayerfully and painstakingly crafting my own exposition of the text.  However good or bad it is, and however God decides to use it, it is my work, my sweat, my labor.

The last thing I want in a sermon is "good humor" and/or illustrations.  My job is to preach God's word, not entertain the congregation or tell stories about my family.  The idea of using someone else's materials and then passing it off as my own is repulsive to me.  It is both dishonest and lazy.  I don't see how any minister of the gospel would be comfortable doing this.

The email continues (the blank is the company's name):

"Since Bible preachers are constantly preaching and looking for fresh materials each week these are two questions they need answers to.  __________________ has the answer to both of these questions. Literally thousands of pastors will confirm that _____________________ is providing good, sound sermon materials, good humor and illustrations to use in their sermons. __________________ has been working with thousands of pastors for over thirty years!" 

I know, I'm kicking a dead horse by posting on this again, but if it is really true that "literally thousands of pastors," use this stuff, then they need to be called on it.

Under these circumstances, it is no wonder so many sermons sound so much alike!  Thousands of pastors?  Thirty years?  Hard to believe.  No wonder evangelicalism in America has fallen on such hard times. There simply is no excuse for this and it must stop.