Which Is Worse? Charlatans or Caesar

OK, we can probably all agree that these folk (pictured above) are charlatans and hucksters, and more importantly, heretical in their theology. 

That said, I get very nervous when Caesar takes it upon himself to "investigate" the collective finances of Paula While, Benny Hinn, Joyce Meyer, Kenneth Copeland, Creflo Dollar (what a great name for a prosperity preacher) and Eddie Long.  I don't trust any of these "ministries" as far as I can see them.  But I'm not sure I have any more confidence in the US Senate.  Unless a specific criminal act has been committed (and therefore prosecuted by the IRS), why should the Finance Committee of the US Senate concern itself with what Kenneth Copeland does with the money raised by his ministry?  Shouldn't his board of directors be held accountable by the IRS?

According to a recent article in CT, the US Senate Finance committee chaired by Charles Grassley, has begun an investigation into the finances of these six ministries (Click here: Senate Committee Investigating Six Major Ministries | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction).  Swell . . .

Frankly, Caesar (in this case, our beloved senate) will no doubt find fiscal abuses and think that the solution is to mandate all kinds of additional rules and regulations, further burdening all churches and non-profit enterprises.  If any of these ministries has committed a crime, let the proper authorities bust them and prosecute them to the full extent of the law!  But why should the US Senate be investigating Copeland, Meyer, Dollar, et al?

I say "buyer beware."  If you are gullible enough to believe these "ministers" and send them money, then too bad for you.  If you want to help Copeland put fuel in his newest Gulfstream, that's on you.  But it makes me very nervous that some US Senator thinks he needs to "investigate." 

That can't be good for any of us . . .

The Kingdom on Earth? Now? Obama Thinks So . . .

I don't discuss politics much on this blog, but when a presidential candidate tells us that electing him to office might just bring about the kingdom on earth, it merits a response. 

When politicians say stuff like that, they have now ventured into the realm of eschatology, and bad eschatology at that!  Trying to make the point that the democrats don't have to take a backseat to the Republicans when it comes to matters of faith, Barak Obama decided to turn preacher--a temptation which gets the better of far too many a politician.  According to an article on CNN.com (Click here: CNN.com - CNN Political Ticker Obama: GOP doesn’t own faith and values «)

___________________________________ 

"During the nearly two hour service that featured a rock band and hip-hop dancers, Obama shared the floor with the church's pastor, Ron Carpenter. The senator from Illinois asked the multiracial crowd of nearly 4,000 people to keep him and his family in their prayers, and said he hoped to be `an instrument of God.'

`Sometimes this is a difficult road being in politics,' Obama said. `Sometimes you can become fearful, sometimes you can become vain, sometimes you can seek power just for power's sake instead of because you want to do service to God. I just want all of you to pray that I can be an instrument of God in the same way that Pastor Ron and all of you are instruments of God.'

He finished his brief remarks by saying, `We're going to keep on praising together. I am confident that we can create a Kingdom right here on Earth.'"

________________________________

There's nothing worse than a politician in a pulpit or a preacher confusing the gospel with political activism.  Its just as bad when Republicans do it as when the Democrats do it. 

Christian worship is a divine service of word and sacrament.  God comes to his people to visit us with salvation, to speak to us from his word, to strengthen our faith through the sacraments, to reaffirm his covenant promises.  Christian worship is to be conducted by a minister of the gospel, called for that very purpose.  Such worship is to be supervised by elders who are supposed to make sure the minister is fulfilling his calling.  When these elements are present (the word properly preached and sacraments properly administered), you can be sure that the kingdom of God is present. 

No political pep rally and no amount of political activism will ever "bring about the kingdom" on this earth.  This is a bad example of an over-realized eschatology and an all too secularized understanding of the kingdom.  Didn't Jesus say something about his kingdom being "not of this world?"

Its painfully clear that those politicians who dare to motivate potential voters in a so-called "evangelical" church with the promises that the "kingdom might come" if they are elected to office, have accomplished nothing but demonstrating how little they truly know about the kingdom of God. 

It is also painfully clear that any church which allows them to do this hasn't got a clue about the biblical meaning of the "evangel."  A church which lets a politician into their pulpit during worship is sowing to the flesh, not to the Spirit.

In Adam's Fall, Sinned We All

Baseball fans know who Phil Rizzuto was and how he spent his last 60 + years in baseball.  He won seven world series titles and then was the Yankees' broadcaster for over 40 years.  He died yesterday after a long and illustrious career.

When I saw these two pictures juxtaposed, it struck me how the vigor of youth inevitably gives way to the craggy face of old age and declining health, and then finally to death.  As one wag put it, "nobody gets out of here alive."

Just as Phil Rizzuto was once a seemingly indestructible young shortstop and then a tired old man in a rest home, so too (barring an early death, or Christ's second advent) each one of us will go through the same sad transformation from the vigor of youth to the reality of old-age.   Rizutto's fate is our fate . . .  But it happens so slowly that we don't often observe it--especially in ourselves.  Yet, when we look at what happens over 60 years, wow . . .

The reason for this remarkable transformation?  As the Puritans put it, "in Adam's fall, sinned we all."  Yes, ours is a fallen race.  In the aging face of Phil Rizutto we see what is common to all of Adam's fallen children--the common curse, which is death.  Paul tells us plainly in Romans 5:19, "For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners."  The reason that indestructible young shortstops become sick old men is because of Adam's fall.

That is why our only hope must be in Jesus Christ, "who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification" (Romans 4:25).  If Christ is not raised, we are still in our sins.  But if Christ be raised, then the effects of sin will be forever undone and we will be raised imperishable, truly indestructible!

My Personal "Voting Guide"

Many people (in our congregation and readers of this blog) have asked me about my thoughts on particular candidates in the upcoming presidential elections.  To put it bluntly, I'm not thrilled with any of them (at least not yet).

Rather than speak of individual presidential candidates, I thought I would post some of the criteria I will be using when I make my final choice.  Perhaps, you will find this helpful.  These apply to other state and national elections as well.

Like every other presidential election I can remember, my vote next time will probably be some form of a "lesser of evils" choice.  It has been a long time since I voted for someone with great enthusiasm.   But as Christian citizens, we must do our due diligence and weigh our vote carefully.

Since the focus of this blog is primary theological, I am reluctant to discuss presidential politics.  But this might be of help to some of you.  Again, the following list is largely descriptive, not prescriptive (i.e., this is how I will choose my candidate, not how you should choose yours).

Here, then, are a few of my personal criteria: 

I.  Moral issues:

1.  Is the candidate “pro-abortion” (i.e., supports partial birth abortion and federal funding for all abortions)?  I will not vote for such a candidate. 

2.  Is the candidate “pro-choice” (i.e., personally opposed to abortion, but defends a woman’s privacy over against state intrusion)?  Under very limited circumstances I would vote for such a person (that is, if the person is an otherwise sound candidate, does not advocate federal funding and if they are running against a pro-abortion candidate).

3.  Is the candidate politically pro-life (i.e., a generic conservative)?  Perhaps.

4.  Is the candidate consistently pro-life (i.e, in tax policy, supreme court appointments, etc).  Likely.

5.  Does the candidate favor homosexual marriage?  I will not vote for such a candidate.

6.  Does the candidate favor civil unions?  Under very limited circumstances I would vote for such a person (i.e, only if they were an otherwise sound candidate, and only if they are running against a gay-marriage advocacy candidate). 

7.  Does the candidate support the traditional definition of marriage?  Likely.

8.  Does the candidate express their concern about the poor and suffering through the advocacy of increased federal spending and centralized government programs?  Unlikely.

9.  Does the candidate express their concerns about the poor and suffering through the advocacy of federal/state/community programs involving job training, welfare reform, etc.  Perhaps.

II.  Constitutional Issues

1.  Does the candidate favor limited representative government?  Likely.  This is my primary voting criterion.

2.  Does the candidate defend second amendment rights?  Likely.

3.  Does the candidate understand that the establishment clause of the first amendment does not trump the free exercise clause?  Likely.

4.  Does the candidate defend the principle of avoiding all foreign entanglements (i.e., nation building), but nevertheless is willing to defend America’s citizens and vital interests when necessary?  Likely.

5.  Does the candidate defend private property rights?  Likely. 

III.  Disqualifications–Personal Reasons Why I Will Not Vote for a Particular Candidate:

1.  Does the candidate engage in rhetorical class warfare–“two Americas,” “tax the wealthiest Americans” etc?

2.  Does the candidate play the race card?  (This is different than addressing racial issues--something which is vital)

3.  Does the candidate have a thin resume for office?  Executive office holders (i.e. governors) are generally better suited for high office than is a legislator (i.e. senators).

4.  Does the candidate make unsubstantiated concerns (i.e. global warming) important themes of their campaign?

5.  Does the candidate invoke "Christian America" themes? 

6.  Does the candidate see the judiciary as a means of enacting public policy? 

IV.  Qualifications–Personal Reasons Why I Will Vote for a Candidate

1.  Is the candidate well-qualified for the position?

2.  Does the candidate understand the vocation of “public service”?

3.  Does the candidate possess strong leadership skills?

4.  Does the candidate possess good communication skills?

5.  Does the candidate manifest personal integrity?

6.  Does the candidate understand the great threat posed by militant Islam?
 

A Ten Dollar Tax on Cigars?

OK . . .  Now I'm really mad. 

The democrat controlled congress is seeking a ten dollar tax per cigar to pay for the rising cost of children's health care.  Can you believe it?  Ten dollars per cigar???  That's not per box, but per cigar . . .

Bush says he'll veto the tax increase if it ever gets to his desk--not because he favors cigar smoking, but because of other provisions in the bill which would expand federal health care.

While I am not thrilled with the democrats or the republicans these days, this is what democrats do--raise taxes.  Enough already! 

Click here: Business: Cigarmakers in a panic

Can you just imagine the impact this would have on the Reformed tradition?  We are already cranky enough as it is.  What would we do after those long synod and classis meetings?  This would set back friendships and fraternal relations for generations!  

The Reality of Romanism

Reading Francis Beckwith's interview with David Neff in Christianity Today, reminded me of how idyllic the Roman church can seem in the minds of those who embrace it (Click here: Q&A: Francis Beckwith | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction).

But then this news report appeared today which gives a much different picture of the supposed glories of Romanism (Click here: Pope to canonize first Brazilian saint - Yahoo! News).

All discussion of justification, the authority of Scripture, and reciting the Creed aside, the Pope is heading to Brazil to canonize Antonio de Sant'Anna Galvao, a Franciscan monk who is credited with 5000 miraculous healings.  Over 1 million people are expected to be in attendance. The healings supposedly come as a result of swallowing rice paper pills prepared by the monk over two hundred years ago.  According to the AP news report . . .

"The Vatican has officially certified the medical cases of two Brazilian women as divinely inspired miracles that justify the sainthood of Galvao.  Both of these women spoke of their faith with The Associated Press, claiming that their children would not be alive today were it not for the tiny rice-paper pills that Friar Galvao handed out two centuries ago.

Although the friar died in 1822, the tradition is carried on by Brazilian nuns who toil in the Sao Paulo monastery where Galvao is buried, preparing thousands of the Tic Tac-sized pills distributed free each day to people seeking cures for all manner of ailments. Each one is inscribed with a prayer in Latin: `After birth, the Virgin remained intact.  Mother of God, intercede on our behalf.'

Sandra Grossi de Almeida, 37, is one such believer. She had a uterine malformation that should have made it impossible for her to carry a child for more than four months. But in 1999, after taking the pills, she gave birth to Enzo, now 7. `I have faith," Grossi said, pointing to her son. I believe in God, and the proof is right here.'

Nearly 10 years before that, Daniela Cristina da Silva, then 4 years old, entered a coma and suffered a heart attack after liver and kidney complications from hepatitis A.  `The doctors told me to pray because only a miracle could save her,' Daniela's mother Jacyra said recently. `My sister sneaked into the intensive care unit and forced my daughter to swallow Friar Galvao's pills.'"

So, if you "return home" to Rome, you get the whole ball of wax, including the beatification of saints who give out Tic-Tac size rice-paper pills which supposedly heal.  And Pope Benedict XVI will be there to bless it all. 

By the way, confessional Protestants affirm the historical evangelical doctrine of justification by grace alone, through faith alone, on account of Christ alone, and the full authority of Scripture.  And yes, we even recite the Creed every Lord's Day and we use a biblical-text based liturgy which is quite similar to that described by Justin Martyr in the second century.

Too bad Dr. Beckwith didn't consider a confessional Protestant church before embracing Romanism.  Now he's stuck with Antonio de Sant'Anna Galvao and his rice-paper healing pills.

Everybody a Theologian . . .

It has been said that the internet is the great equalizer.  Anyone with a blog or webpage can be a self-appointed "expert" and publish to the world at will.  That's not always a bad thing.

But those with real degrees, real theological training, and who have written real books (subject to peer review and hard-nose editors), look no different on your computer screen than someone who, as Dirty Harry once put it, "is a legend in their own mind." 

While there are frauds in every discipline, now news comes that a Wikipedia "expert" on religion and theology is not a theologian with a Ph.D. (as claimed), but a twenty-something who lives in Kentucky and who has no advanced degrees and may have attended a community college for a semester or two.  In fact, his "reference" for his articles on Romanism on the Wiki was Catholicism for Dummies.

According to an article on the Telegraph.UK (Click here: News | Telegraph) . . .

"Wikipedia, the online encyclopaedia, has been plunged into controversy after one of its most prolific contributors and editors, a professor of religion with advanced degrees in theology and canon law, was exposed as a 24-year-old community college drop-out. The editor, who called himself Essjay, was recruited by staff at Wikipedia to work on the site’s arbitration committee, a team of expert administrators charged with vetting content on the online `free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit'. But no-one apparently vetted the credentials of Essjay, who claimed to be a tenured professor of religion at a private university and contributed to an estimated 20,000 Wikipedia entries. In fact Essjay was actually Ryan Jordan, a 24-year-old from Kentucky with no advanced degrees who used texts such as Catholicism for Dummies to help him correct articles on the penitential rite or transubstantiation. He was unmasked after the New Yorker magazine ran a long feature on Wikipedia last summer that referred to Essjay’s contributions to the site and how he would spend up to 14 hours a day editing, `correcting errors and removing obscenities'. The piece described him as a `professor of religion with a PhD in theology and a degree in canon law' and noted he was serving his `second term as chair of the mediation committee' which rules on disputes over information posted on the site.  But last week Essjay was forced to resign after a noted critic of the online encyclopaedia contacted the New Yorker and told the magazine his biographical information was fake. `He holds no advanced degrees,' the New Yorker stated in an editor’s note. `He has never taught.' The magazine added: `At the time of publication, neither we nor Wikipedia knew Essjay’s real name.' Essjay had told them he hid his identity because `he feared personal retribution from those he had ruled against online', the New Yorker said."

_____________________________ 

It goes to show that just because someone has a blog or a website, and passes themselves off as an "expert," it doesn't mean squat!  You may be dealing with someone who has no education or knowledge, who is using second-rate sources or hearsay, and who may even be plagiarizing others (who may also be knuckleheads). 

So, when it comes to the blogosphere and cyper-space, it is caveat emptor!  Many with blogs, it seems, are suddenly "experts."  Granted, some of the best blogs out there are run by laymen and women with no formal theological training.  That's fine.  My point is not to be an educational snob.

But always learn to check out both personal credentials and sources when reading blogs.  Quoting what someone else said on a blog (who may not have a clue themselves) is not a very effective means of contributing something of value.  Self-appointed experts may be doing nothing more than spreading gossip and falsehood--like the person who said that "Calvin never believed in justification sola fide" (and who shall forever go nameless to spare them the shame they deserve).  Of course, they'd read it on someone else's blog and admitted to never having read Calvin themselves. 

If something is not properly sourced and documented, then don't believe it until you check it out!  You might be "learning" from someone who was "quoting" someone else who was "misquoting" Reformed Theology for Dummies.

Did Anybody Else Watch This?

It is the custom in our home that on Christmas morning I get up early, build a rip-roaring fire, make the coffee, and get ready for the family Christmas (which I celebrate with my wife and two sons).

While I was enjoying the fire and waiting for the sleepy-heads to get up (we were all zonked from our Christmas Eve service and a late night at my mother-in-laws', and my sons just finished up their finals, so they were pretty fried), I made the mistake of turning on the TV.  I had heard about recent terrorist threats, so I wanted to check the news.  I turned on Fox news only to see Rick Warren at Saddleback.

Did anyone else see this?  It was absolutely awful.  Apparently, I've misunderstood the meaning of Christmas.  I thought it had something to do with the Incarnation and with Jesus coming to save me from my sins.  No, Jesus came to give me purpose and to give Rick Warren slogans.  Warren did not preach from a text.  He repeatedly turned gospel into law.  He spoke in clichés and referred to his "peace" plan over and over.  It was the worst bunch of self-promotion in a pulpit I have ever seen.  Don't even start me on the "worship service," or whatever that abomination was . . . 

And no, my objections are not that of the typical cranky Reformed guy looking down his nose on evangelicals.  There was no "evangel" at all.  Even the liberal Episcopalians doing "Lessons and Carols" (which I watched before I went to bed on Christmas Eve) came closer to the gospel and the true meaning of Christmas than did Warren, the "Bible-believing" evangelical pastor.  It was awful . . . 

I hope Fox news sticks with the news and doesn't ever do this again.  I reluctantly turned on CNN and then gave thanks that terrorists did not attack.

After I turned off the TV in disgust, we enjoyed our family Christmas!  No thanks to Rick Warren and Fox news.

Lutheran Advent Calendar

I'll bet some of you are thinking, "I knew it."  (h.t. Rod Rosenbladt)

I'm thinking, "that's not a bad idea!"  All I need is some cardboard and a sharpie and I can really spruce up my little fridge in my study.

Sorry, but you Southern Baptists are out of luck . . .

A Fatwa I Can Understand!

According an article on Cellular News (Click here: A Fatwa Against Ringtones), an iman in a Saudi mosque issued a fatwa after a cellphone played someone's ringtone during a prayer service.  Now that's a fatwa I can understand! 

_________________________

An imam at a Mosque in Saudi Arabia issued a fatwa against mobile phones after one rang during prayers on Saturday. A report in the local newspaper, Al-Watan said that the imam had begun the Taraweeh prayer (Taraweeh is an Arabic phrase referring to extra prayers given by Sunnis at night in the Islamic month of Ramadan) when the sound of Arabic pop music began playing from the audience.

The imam turned to the crowd in the Mosque and issued his own fatwa. The fatwa states that the next time somebody allows their phone to go off in the congregation, the imam could throw the guilty person out of the mosque.

After a degree of shouting at the congregation, the imam regained his composure, turned around, and continued with the Taraweeh.

A fatwa, is a legal pronouncement in Islam made by a mufti, a scholar capable of issuing judgments on Sharia (Islamic law).

________________________ 

Next time a cell rings during a sermon or the Lord's Supper, I know what I am going to do!