Friday, November 13, 2009
No Vaccine for Sin
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Storms
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Prayer at the Illinois House of Representatives
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Stay-at-Home...No regrets.
Phil
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Guardian Angels: Reality or Resistance?
Throughout the Old and New Testament we read of angels guarding the children of God. In Acts 5:19 several of the disciples were sprung from prison by an angel. Acts 12:1-15 is an account of the apostle Peter being set free from prison by an angel. He then goes to the house of Mary, John Mark's mother. Rhoda ran to tell the Christians praying for Peter that he was at the door. They had some debate and told her she was crazy. When she insisted that Peter was at the door, they responded that "it must be his angel." These Christians felt that this person at the door must be Peter's guardian angel. In other words, they felt Peter had an angel that sounded and perhaps even looked just like him.
In Matthew 18:10, Jesus speaks of little children having guardian angels in heaven that have access to God, ready to receive His orders. Psalm 91:11 suggest that even adults have angels watching over them guarding them in all their ways. Hebrews 1:14 speaks of "ministering spirits" whose purpose is to serve Christians.
On top of the biblical evidence are countless experiences so strong and widespread that it is difficult, if not impossible, to object to the idea of guardian angels. Great men and women of God from every century past spoke of miraculous escapes from threatening dangers which they could not explain in any other way but by the ministry of angels.
Yet, I find myself resistant to the idea of having a guardian angel. I'm not confident we have one particular angel assigned for our personal protection. Like John Calvin, I'm more inclined to believe angels in general are assigned to minister to humans, but not specific angels for specific men and women. Perhaps the assignments of guardian angels are temporary for a specific time and need, and not a permanent assignment for life.
I'm resistant to the idea of having a guardian angel because of their inconsistency. You can't really count on them for a special delivery when you need it the most. It seems that for every miraculous escape or deliverance there are dozens, if not hundreds, of stories when the child did fall and die, or drown, or the family did get hit by a drunk driver. Joni Erickson Tada wondered why God could not have spared one guardian angel to keep her from making that fateful dive that broke her neck.
I understand that in her case you could argue that her injury made her a far more powerful instrument for the glory of God. But that is not the case with most people who break their necks.
If you can't count on your guardian angel aren't you better off not even taking one into consideration? They fall into the same category as a plastic saint on the dash board, or a lucky rabbit's foot. It almost seems like a superstition to have any faith in the protection of guardian angels. Emerson expressed the question of thousands of parents who have lost children:
Was there no star that could be sent,
No watcher in the firmament,
No angel from the countless host
That loiter round the crystal coast,
Could stoop to heal that only child?
So what am I to do? I have the real evidence of the Bible plus the experiences from mature Christ followers on one hand, and my resistance fueled with inconsistencies and doubts on the other. How can I deal with the obligation to believe the biblical evidence and overcome an overwhelming basis of doubt?
First of all, I recognize the limitations of angels. Angels only act according to the will of God, and God has placed limitations on himself in relation to the gift of our free will. He cannot let us be free, and still make us do His will. If He could, His will would always be done. If God has limited Himself, then, of course, His servants (angels) have this same limitation.
Secondly, I can't expect a guardian angel to bail me out when I do stupid stuff. I can't expect protection if I choose to live beyond the boundaries. When I travel I do pray to Jesus to protect us, and ask for the protection of His angels, but I use all the wisdom I have learned over the years to make sure I am driving in a way that does not endanger myself or others.
Thirdly, no where am I told to rely or put my faith in angels; I can't claim to their protection. I need to trust in Jesus Christ, and live in obedience to the wisdom of His Word. I need to make the right decision and do my best to avoid harm. But my prayer should not be to have a life free of tragedy, instead that I would be faithful to God in the midst of tragedy.
To sum it all up, I believe in guardian angels. It is my hope that I may be spared from tragedy that is beyond my control, but I take my responsibility very seriously to protect myself and my family, and I do not expect angels to do what is my job to do.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Jesus Take the Wheel
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
What's Good about Good Friday?
This week we will have a Good Friday service. I wonder, and perhaps you do too – How is it that we call the day Jesus was crucified, good? I mean I find it hard in my own life to imagine a day marked with sadness as a good day.
Since the early centuries of the church, the day was marked with sadness, mourning, fasting, and prayer. Christians were instructed that it was to be a “day of mourning, not a day of festive joy.” Ambrose said it should be a “day of bitterness on which we fast.” Historically, many church buildings were kept dark even by draping black cloth over the windows, and processions of Christians dressed in black would walk the stations of the cross along the Via Dolorosa.
What’s good about Good Friday?
Truly it is a sad day, yet that sadness is truly good. The sorrow of the day is godly sorrow. It is like the sorrow the Corinthians felt after they were disciplined by their beloved teacher, Paul, in the sharp letter we call First Corinthians. Hearing of their conviction of sin and repentance, Paul wrote back, “My joy was greater than ever.” Why? Because such godly sorrow “brings repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regret” (2 Cor. 7:10).
The commemoration of Christ's death on Good Friday reminds us of the human sin that caused this death. It enables us to see that salvation comes only through godly sorrow. The path to true happiness runs through the experiences of sorrow – shed tears turn to joy.
Good Friday also reminds us of God's love—“For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son” (John 3:16). The goodness and grace of God revealed on a cross is certainly worth commemorating – it is good news – check that, it is great news! Perhaps we should start calling the day Great Friday!
In His Grip,
Phil
Friday, March 27, 2009
The Principles of Pragmatism – An Oxymoron
We have heard our new President clearly outline the principles that will guide his decision making and how he plans to govern.
For example, President Obama told the American people that he was ordering higher ethical standards for lobbying. "If you are a lobbyist entering my administration," Obama said, "you will not be able to work on matters you lobbied on, or in the agencies you lobbied during the previous two years." I applauded his principle.
But now that the campaign is over with victory in hand; now that the celebrations have died down, our President is showing his tendency to choose pragmatism over principle.
Case in point, President Obama quickly appointed William Lynn as deputy secretary of defense—despite the fact that, until very recently, he had been a lobbyist for Raytheon, one of the nation's biggest defense contractors, right up until the time he was appointed. What happened to the principle of a two year waiting period?
When the press challenged him on this, Obama said Lynn was uniquely qualified to do the job, so he issued a waiver. How was he uniquely qualified? He knew how the system worked.
Pragmatism trumped principle. Expedience overtook doing what is right. The end justifies the means.
President Obama used the same argument for his choice of Tim Geithner to be our Treasury Secretary. Geithner, as we all know, neglected to pay $35,000 in self-employment taxes for several years. Senator Robert Byrd—a member of Obama's own party—called Geithner's behavior "inexcusable negligence." Words, I'm sure, we would all hear from the IRS if we had failed to pay our taxes.
Again, pragmatism trumped principle.
The message Obama is sending to our kids is: "If you're smart, qualified, and know how to play the game, its okay to be unethical."
Let's be honest – character and principle don't matter in our society. You can be considered a good president and cheat on your wife. You can become head of the government's treasury and cheat on your taxes. You can get appointed to a Senate seat by an ousted governor whose middle name is synonymous with corruption. You can be a president who runs on the mantra of change, but can't stand up to your own party based on you own so-called principles. You can say what want and do something completely different – pragmatism over principle.
I am deeply concerned about the pragmatic path of our President – for pragmatism is a mere form of postmodern, humanistic relativism.
It is important that we continue to pray for the President, that he will uphold the principles that have made this nation strong.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Pro-What?
Kim and I recently rented and watched the movie, Bella. It's a wonderful and inspiring story. If you haven't seen the movie, I warn you this post may spoil the movie's plot.
In the movie, Nina, struggles with the decision to keep her child or not. It's interesting to me that pro-choice people argue that the film is pro-choice, and pro-life people argue that the film sends a pro-life message. She chooses life; therefore, the movie is pro-life. But pro-choice advocates say it was still her choice to keep or abort her child, so they say the movie is pro-choice.
Which is it? I believe the movie is clearly pro-life. Allow me to explain.
There are three options (choices) for a pregnant woman: keep the child; put the child up for adoption; or abort the child. The first two are pro-life decisions. The latter is a pro-abortion decision. Choice sits in the middle; it is the center point of the crossroad. Choice, in and of itself, means nothing. Everyone is pro-choice in that we make choices every day. However, we are not defined simply by the fact that we make choices – we are defined by the choices we make.
You can't be pro-choice just for choice's sake; it's WHAT you choose that makes the critical difference. You can't talk about the vague notion of "freedom of choice" until you define what the specific choices are. And for a pregnant woman, the only two choices are: does the child growing inside get to live or die?Pro-abortionists like to disguise their stance by saying they are pro-choice. It sounds so innocent and free to be "in favor of all the choices" as if they are somehow neutral on the issue. But let's be honest – pro-choice is really about abortion. Pro-choice says it's okay to kill the unborn child. That, in my book, is being FOR (pro) abortion, and you can't be both pro-life and pro-abortion, because they are moral opposites.
Bella is rated PG-13 for thematic elements and brief disturbing images. Parents should see the film first to decide if it is appropriate for their child.
Friday, March 6, 2009
Design Demands a Mind
Design… Made… Created…? Why did I use those words? Why didn't I say something like "Hey, I was randomly scribbling on this paper with my eyes closed and look what evolved? Anybody with half a brain would respond with a long "Right" while twirling their finger around their ear.
My point is that when we look at a pattern such as the one printed here, we automatically think of words like order, thought, purpose, design, artistic, architect, and creation. There's nothing about the pattern that suggests randomness. Yet, evolutionist would have us to believe that our physical world, which by the way is FAR MORE COMPLEX than a simple geometric design, all happened by chance – without purpose and without an architect/Creator. What kind of fool do they think I am?
Proverbs 18:2 says, "A fool does not delight in understanding, But only in revealing his own mind." According to Scripture, it is the evolutionist who is the fool. They look past the evidence of intent, purpose, and design in our world, and have us put faith in the theory that this all happened by chance. Refusing to believe in God, the Creator, they refuse to enjoy (delight) in the wonder (understanding) of God's handiwork. Instead, they concoct senseless and Godless ideas in their own finite minds in a attempt to describe the miraculous beginning and workings of the universe.
Now, an Evo may state his case saying my brain evolved into a thinking, creating, grey matter, and thus I can create such a design. "Well, your honor, I present to you exhibit A – a snowflake." I wouldn't think a snowflake is very high in the chain of the so-called evolution process – it's frozen water crystals. I didn't create them, nor has any man, yet snowflakes come in incredible geometric shapes and designs. "Hey, look what God created! And He didn't even need a Spirograph."
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Wind Energy is a Bunch of Hot Air
I am all for renewable energy and a clean earth. But let's not check our brains at the door.
Pres. Obama says he wants to double our renewable energy supply. Okay, I'm fine with that, but that's nothing new. Former Pres. Bush accomplished just that from 2005-2007. Amazingly, we didn't here about that in the press. So really what Pres. Obama wants to do is keep pace with Bush. Good for him.
Now, here's the reality check. According to the US Energy Information Administration, the total solar and wind output for 2008 produced about 1.1% of America's total electricity consumption. Doubling it won't make a dent in our energy supply.
You say, "Well, doubling it can't hurt." You would be right, but that's like saying opening lemonade stands on every corner and giving the money to Fedzilla will bring down the national debt. It's worthy...can't hurt...might make us all feel good..., but it would come close to solving our energy needs.
The truth is that wind and solar energy is an inadequate and unreliable source for our energy needs. The Institute of Energy Research reports that "typical statements about how a wind unit can produce enough electricity to serve a large number of homes are misleading" (www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/facts-on-energy-wind).
What's the solution? Nuclear power - it's mega-efficient, clean (even the waste can be reused), and get this - it costs less per kilowatt than all the others cost (wind, solar, coal, natural gas, and oil).
Note: You may have heard that wind power is more cost effective, but what you're not being told is that it can only match nuclear power efficiency when it is subsidized by the government.
Forget the lemonade...let's have some yellow cake!
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
What’s the world coming to?
- “I’ll tell you one thing, if things keep going the way they are, it’s going to be impossible to buy a week’s groceries for $20.”
- “Did you hear the post office is thinking about charging a dime just to mail a letter?”
- “If they raise the minimum wage to $1, nobody will be able to hire outside help at the store.”
- “When I first started driving, who would have thought gas would someday cost 29 cents a gallon? Guess we’d be better off leaving the car in the garage.”
- “Did you see where some baseball player just signed a contract for $75,000 a year just to play ball? It wouldn’t surprise me if someday they’ll be making more than the President.”
- “I never thought I’d see the day all our kitchen appliances would be electric. They are even making electric typewriters now.”
- “The drive-through restaurant is convenient, but I seriously doubt they will ever catch on.”
- “If they think I’ll pay 50 cents for a haircut, forget it.”
Friday, January 23, 2009
Peace in the Middle East - III
A History Lesson, Part III
Why are many Western nations (including the U.S.) supporting Israel?
Some are sympathetic for the orphaned nation (Israel). Their existence and right to live in the land under their own form a government – one cannot deny. Anti-Semitism over the centuries cries out for mercy and justice. Western nations, including the U.S., generally respond to the needs of the oppressed.
The problem lies in identifying the oppressed and the oppressor. Who was there first? Who fired first? Who deserves retribution? How much retribution is warranted? What about the protection of innocent civilians on both sides? To whom should we be more sympathetic?
Guilt plays a part of the equation as well. The Holocaust and the guilt over other periods of mistreatment of the Jewish people (sometimes at the hand of Christians) have sparked a kind of Zionism. We feel somewhat responsible for the difficult plight of the Jews and so take interest in the state of Israel.
Some support the Israelis because they have a strong personal disdain for Muslims. They see Muslims (75% of Palestinians) as the enemy, and have an "any enemy of the Muslims is a friend of mine" attitude.
It's important to note that the most recent fighting in Gaza was provoked by Hamas, the ousted political party/terrorist group whose charter calls for the defeat of Israel. One can barely fault Israel for wanting to defend themselves. In fact, many Western nations support Israel today as part of the global fight against terrorism.
Now, fuel each of those reasons to support Israel (and there are several more) with a dose of biblical prophecy. Christians, particularly those who hold to a Pre-millennium Dispensationalist view of end-times, place great emphasis on the restoration of Israel and the re-establishment of the Temple in Jerusalem.
Does the Bible predict a restored Israel and Temple? Or has the Jews "chosen" status as the people of God ended?
Jesus is the Answer
There are many questions, but really just one answer – Jesus Christ. I know that some, particularly in the political world, would call that naïve, but it's the truth. Only through the power of the cross and Christ can the two be completely reconciled (Ephesians 2:11-22).
Let us pray for peace in the Middle East, but more importantly, let us pray that they (Jews and Gentiles) would come to know Christ as Lord and Savior.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Peace in the Middle East - II
So whose land is it anyway?
The Israelis claim historical rights to the land and a divine mandate given to Abraham to possess it (Genesis 12 & 17). They claim that the Canaanites consisted of various people groups who happen to dwell in the land, but were not really organized occupants. So, the Jews say they possessed the land first. Palestinians claim more recent possession of the land and Palestinian Muslims add a divine mandate of their own saying they have the latest and greatest revelation from God. In their view Mohammed is greater than Moses and Jesus, so their claim trumps Israel’s.
Religiously, the Muslims have no basis to claim they were there first, because Islam wasn't founded until after the Holy Lands had been occupied by both Jews and Christians. Unable to make a religious claim to the land, some Palestinian leaders have attempted to draw an ethnic or racial connection between themselves and the Canaanites. However, it would be difficult, if not impossible; to prove which Arabs are directly connected to the Canaanites.
Nevertheless, the Palestinians make a strong argument on the point of most recent possession. Can another people group return to their ancestral land centuries after losing it and succeed in establishing its rightful claim? How would you feel if descendants of the early settlers of Salem came into town and claimed your property, saying they were here first? Chances are you would fight them (in the courts, of course).
That’s what Israel did in 1948 and in the process displaced 700,000 Palestinians to make room for the new state. And now we see the Palestinians trying to do the same to Israel. The word “displaced” may not be the best word to use because both Jews and Palestinians have been in the land all along – no one really leaves. One is in power – the other lives under “enemy” occupation.
The balance of power boils down to numbers and external support. Currently, the Jews have the numbers. Within Israel's borders, 80 percent (5.64 million) of the population is Jewish, 19 percent (1.39 million) is Muslim and roughly 1 percent is Christian. In Palestine (West Bank and Gaza Strip), largely controlled by Palestinians, the population is 75 percent Muslim and 17 percent Jewish. Israel slightly has the upper hand, but the number of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip is growing rapidly.
It’s obvious that the balance of power in the Middle East is extremely unstable. Woodrow Wilson said, “Friendship is the only cement that will ever hold the world together. There must be, not a balance of power, but a community of power; not organized rivalries, but an organized peace.”
(to be continued)
Friday, January 9, 2009
Journey through Ephesians
My new sermon series comes from Paul's letter to the church in Ephesus (Ephesians). It is a rich letter that addresses the journey we make to God (connect), the journey we make with God (grow), the journey we make for God (serve), and what it means to enjoy the journey (celebrate).
To have it track along with our church's mission statement – Helping others find their way back to God by connecting with Christ, growing in Christ, serving Christ, and celebrating Christ – it was necessary to skip around a bit, instead of covering it straight through from beginning to end.
I'm looking forward to the series as it contains challenging topics and it will force me to prepare expository messages.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Peace in the Middle East - I
A History Lesson, Part I
I had a few people ask me about the current fighting in Gaza. They had good questions – the answers of which I'm not sure I have, but perhaps a little history lesson will help sort through the mess.
Some say the struggle is about religion? Religion plays a part, but not all Arabs are Muslims and many Jews no longer practice Judaism as a religion, nor are they even looking for the Messiah – they are secular Jews. It's difficult to say it's about religion.
Is it racial? Yes, indeed. There is a lot of racial and tribal tension in that region.
Is it about land – a relatively small piece of real estate bordered by Egypt, Syria, Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea? Palestinians and Jews both claim the land as theirs. Israel claims they were there first. The Palestinians say it's a matter of who has controlled the land most recently and for the longest time. History can be cited to support and defeat both claims.
Whether it's religious, racial, about land, oil, or any combination of those, the Middle Eastern conflict between Arabs and Jews will be a tough nut to crack. If I were to pick one of the three, I would say the current conflict in the Middle East is about land, which has been contested for thousands of years.
Each side points to different time periods to stake their claim, but they ignore all other times. Both sides agree the land's history begins with early civilizations thousands of years ago. The first known inhabitants were the Canaanites, a collection of Semitic people who developed complex societies administered through city-states. The Canaanites, according to biblical and historical records, worshipped fertility gods and used sex and mystical wizardry in their religious rites. The Old Testament condemns those practices as "detestable to the Lord."
The Bible says the children of Israel, acting on the promise of God, took possession of the land from the Canaanites. For the next 500 years, Israel flourished and expanded under the leadership first of judges and later kings such as Saul, David and Solomon. David made Jerusalem Israel's capital around 1000 B.C., and Solomon built the first temple there around 960 B.C.
By 720 B.C., however, Israel had been crushed by the Assyrians, and 10 of the 12 tribes of Israel were lost in the ensuing dispersion. The remnant of Jewish people held on to parts of the land for several more centuries, suffering under the rule of Babylonians, Greeks, Hasmoneans and Romans. Israel held together in some form through the time of Christ until 70 A.D., when Roman troops destroyed Jerusalem and scattered the Jewish people far and wide in what is known as the Diaspora. For the next 900 years, control of the Holy Land went back and forth between various occupying forces, including the Byzantines, the Arabs, the Christian Crusaders, the Mamluks and the Ottoman Empire.
Muslims were the third major religious entity to lay claim to the land, arriving as a distinct faith group in the seventh century A.D. Their founding prophet, Mohammad, was born in A.D. 570 and wrote the Koran in A.D. 610. By 691, Muslims had built the Dome of the Rock on the site of the destroyed Jewish temple. This is the third-most-holy site in Islam because according to Islamic tradition it is the site from which Mohammed ascended into heaven.
Jews and Muslims claim a common heritage through the patriarch Abraham, with Jews tracing their lineage and faith through Abraham's son, Isaac, and Muslims tracing theirs through Abraham's son, Ishmael. Jewish Scripture records Ishmael as the child of Abraham and his wife's servant, Hagar. Islam, however, considers Hagar Abraham's second wife.
Jews and Muslims co-existed in the land, although Muslims had the upper hand through most of the latter half of the first millennium after Christ. They coexisted largely because of outside domination and because the Jewish people had not yet begun returning to the land in large numbers.
Four hundred years of rule by the Ottoman Empire ended in 1917 with a British conquest, and the British prime minister pledging support for a "Jewish national home in Palestine." That never fully materialized, however, until after World War II and the Holocaust. European and American sentiment for a Jewish state led to concrete action. And that, imposed by the United Nations in 1948, set the stage for conflict that has raged between Arabs and Israelis until the present.
With consent from the British, the victors of World War II carved out a new Israeli state, hoping to create a place of refuge for persecuted Jews worldwide. To do this, however, they made hundreds of thousands of Palestinians homeless and not all too happy.