Check this out:
http://www.sundog.net/carolofthechins/flash/card.swf
Merry Christmas! (After trying a couple of your own, type in "Jingle Bell Rocks")
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Till death do us part...part 2
I was extremely surprised and honored that John Marcotte responded to my previous blog and had some great comments. On a more serious note, let me address some of what he said in his comment.
We're not talking about religious marriage here -- only civil marriage.
I'm guessing John is saying that his satirical proposition is not trying to attack religious marriage but rather focus on how civil marriages should be viewed.
The fact that my measure is seen by some as ridiculous validates the idea that Prop 8 voters are only willing to sacrifice other people's rights to protect marriage -- not their own.
The statement contains several fallacies. First, John has probably picked up on the fact that many people don't view the fundamental idea behind his proposition as ridiculous. So, to say that "Prop 8 voters are only willing to sacrifice other people's rights..." seems unfair and imprecise. There are lots of people who would want to buy his t-shirt if he wasn't being satirical! I hope he appreciates the irony. Many would LOVE to make divorce more difficult and more rare. Many believe our society is worse off because of our high divorce rates.
Second, John is using the term "right" to refer to a recognition by the government of a union that has never been recognized before. Comparing that “right” to the process of divorce, which legal codes for thousands of years have provided for, seems extremely far-fetched. This is the subject for a different post, but I think Bork and others have done a good job arguing how the historical understanding of “rights” should inform our thinking when employing that term.
In short, allowing divorce does not fundamentally alter how our culture has defined marriage. At the very least, I wish opponents of Prop 8 would acknowledge that.
Does the government make a marriage sacred?
No. (Although I don’t perform a “religious” marriage apart from the assurance that the couple has gone through the necessary requirements that state sets for their union.)
And should the government enforce one religious view of marriage over others?
Several fundamental problems to the question.
First, what would be the “one” religious view? Is John referring to Christianity? There are many religions (and non-religious beliefs) that define marriage as a union between a man and woman.
Second, what does John mean by "religious view"? We all have something that guides us in making value judgments. Perhaps your overriding value is liberty or individual freedom. But there must be some philosophical reason behind advocating that value.
John is making the assumption that those who supported Prop 8 did so for religious means. Again, this is painting those voters with a very broad brush! John is second assuming that our underlying views of what is morally right and wrong should not shape our view of what is best for our country if they stem from religious beliefs. If I called his beliefs “religious” because of his devotion to them, does that invalidate them?
I would suggest that this conception of how laws are made is a radical departure from historic policy theory.
Let's put John’s question another way: should one group's anti-religious bias influence policy decisions? Why not? I have every expectation that a person who views the expression of Judeo-Christian values as harmful in shaping policy will vote against them. I don’t go around saying their beliefs shouldn’t affect how they vote. It’s ludicrous.
It's an interesting debate. I enjoy reading others opinions.
I want to publically thank John for his gracious tone and comments. I had no idea he would be reading the letter I sent out to the church. I view this blog as my living room and am always excited when guests pop in from far-away parts!
This goes back to what I was saying in a previous post regarding the Manhattan Declaration. This isn’t about gay marriage. It’s about the gospel.
Having marriage be defined as a union between one man and one woman doesn’t proclaim the gospel. It’s the right thing to do for numerous reasons, but it’s not a religious statement.
But what gay right advocates rightly recognize is that the underlying force influencing my life is my desire to glorify God. My life has been transformed by placing my faith in Jesus Christ alone for my salvation and I understand why others might find that odd. My goal is not to win an argument on the merits or dangers of gay marriage. My goal is to share the message of Jesus Christ, encouraging everyone—including the church!—to turn from hypocrisy and sin and place their trust in Jesus Christ.
John's Comment 1:
We're not talking about religious marriage here -- only civil marriage.
Daniel's Response 1:
I'm guessing John is saying that his satirical proposition is not trying to attack religious marriage but rather focus on how civil marriages should be viewed.
John's Comment 2:
The fact that my measure is seen by some as ridiculous validates the idea that Prop 8 voters are only willing to sacrifice other people's rights to protect marriage -- not their own.
Daniel's Response 2:
The statement contains several fallacies. First, John has probably picked up on the fact that many people don't view the fundamental idea behind his proposition as ridiculous. So, to say that "Prop 8 voters are only willing to sacrifice other people's rights..." seems unfair and imprecise. There are lots of people who would want to buy his t-shirt if he wasn't being satirical! I hope he appreciates the irony. Many would LOVE to make divorce more difficult and more rare. Many believe our society is worse off because of our high divorce rates.
Second, John is using the term "right" to refer to a recognition by the government of a union that has never been recognized before. Comparing that “right” to the process of divorce, which legal codes for thousands of years have provided for, seems extremely far-fetched. This is the subject for a different post, but I think Bork and others have done a good job arguing how the historical understanding of “rights” should inform our thinking when employing that term.
In short, allowing divorce does not fundamentally alter how our culture has defined marriage. At the very least, I wish opponents of Prop 8 would acknowledge that.
John's Question 1:
Does the government make a marriage sacred?
Daniel's Answer 1:
No. (Although I don’t perform a “religious” marriage apart from the assurance that the couple has gone through the necessary requirements that state sets for their union.)
John's Question 2:
And should the government enforce one religious view of marriage over others?
Daniel's Answer 2:
Several fundamental problems to the question.
First, what would be the “one” religious view? Is John referring to Christianity? There are many religions (and non-religious beliefs) that define marriage as a union between a man and woman.
Second, what does John mean by "religious view"? We all have something that guides us in making value judgments. Perhaps your overriding value is liberty or individual freedom. But there must be some philosophical reason behind advocating that value.
John is making the assumption that those who supported Prop 8 did so for religious means. Again, this is painting those voters with a very broad brush! John is second assuming that our underlying views of what is morally right and wrong should not shape our view of what is best for our country if they stem from religious beliefs. If I called his beliefs “religious” because of his devotion to them, does that invalidate them?
I would suggest that this conception of how laws are made is a radical departure from historic policy theory.
Let's put John’s question another way: should one group's anti-religious bias influence policy decisions? Why not? I have every expectation that a person who views the expression of Judeo-Christian values as harmful in shaping policy will vote against them. I don’t go around saying their beliefs shouldn’t affect how they vote. It’s ludicrous.
John's Comment 3:
It's an interesting debate. I enjoy reading others opinions.
Daniel's Final Response:
I want to publically thank John for his gracious tone and comments. I had no idea he would be reading the letter I sent out to the church. I view this blog as my living room and am always excited when guests pop in from far-away parts!
This goes back to what I was saying in a previous post regarding the Manhattan Declaration. This isn’t about gay marriage. It’s about the gospel.
Having marriage be defined as a union between one man and one woman doesn’t proclaim the gospel. It’s the right thing to do for numerous reasons, but it’s not a religious statement.
But what gay right advocates rightly recognize is that the underlying force influencing my life is my desire to glorify God. My life has been transformed by placing my faith in Jesus Christ alone for my salvation and I understand why others might find that odd. My goal is not to win an argument on the merits or dangers of gay marriage. My goal is to share the message of Jesus Christ, encouraging everyone—including the church!—to turn from hypocrisy and sin and place their trust in Jesus Christ.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Till death do us part...
This is from the BCC weekly update...
John Marcotte is a very sarcastic man.
Marcotte was an opponent of Proposition 8, the 2008 California ballot proposition that defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman. It passed and Marcotte was none too happy about it. Now he is working on getting an initiative of his own on the ballot in California next year.
His initiative is entitled the 2010 California Marriage Protection Act and it would effectively ban divorce in the state. One of the slogans of the campaign: “You said, ‘Til death do us part.’ You’re not dead yet.”
Here's a picture of a shirt for sale on his website http://rescuemarriage.org/.
Remember, Marcotte is being sarcastic—and cynical. He has no desire to really ban divorce. What he is trying to do is highlight what he perceives as the hypocrisy of those who supported the traditional definition of marriage. As he told the Associate Press, “Since California has decided to protect traditional marriage, I think it would be hypocritical of us not to sacrifice some of our own rights to protect traditional marriage even more.”
Two things struck me when I read about Marcotte’s efforts. First, I think he truly believes that those who supported Proposition 8 are mostly hypocrites. They say they one thing about having a high view of marriage but practice another. He is attempting to caricature the religious right as people who attempt to regulate the morality of others but fail to follow their own moral message. I pray that he is wrong.
Second, I was struck by what this proposition says about our culture. The fact that his proposition is considered so ludicrous is an ominous sign of our times. After all, no one could be serious about wanting to make divorce more difficult to achieve. In our culture, a marriage license carries no more weight than the paper on which it is written.
What should our response be as Christians? First, we must have compassion for those who have experienced the pain of divorce. Many in our church family and community have felt the pain of a marriage ripped apart. We must communicate to all our brothers and sisters in Christ that there is healing and restoration in Him.
Second, we must boldly proclaim the importance of covenant faithfulness in marriage. Let us be careful to affirm the truth of God’s Word in Genesis 2:18-15:
18 Then the LORD God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” 19 So out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. 20 The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him. 21 So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. 22 And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. 23 Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” 24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. 25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.
John Marcotte is a very sarcastic man.
Marcotte was an opponent of Proposition 8, the 2008 California ballot proposition that defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman. It passed and Marcotte was none too happy about it. Now he is working on getting an initiative of his own on the ballot in California next year.
His initiative is entitled the 2010 California Marriage Protection Act and it would effectively ban divorce in the state. One of the slogans of the campaign: “You said, ‘Til death do us part.’ You’re not dead yet.”
Here's a picture of a shirt for sale on his website http://rescuemarriage.org/.
Two things struck me when I read about Marcotte’s efforts. First, I think he truly believes that those who supported Proposition 8 are mostly hypocrites. They say they one thing about having a high view of marriage but practice another. He is attempting to caricature the religious right as people who attempt to regulate the morality of others but fail to follow their own moral message. I pray that he is wrong.
Second, I was struck by what this proposition says about our culture. The fact that his proposition is considered so ludicrous is an ominous sign of our times. After all, no one could be serious about wanting to make divorce more difficult to achieve. In our culture, a marriage license carries no more weight than the paper on which it is written.
What should our response be as Christians? First, we must have compassion for those who have experienced the pain of divorce. Many in our church family and community have felt the pain of a marriage ripped apart. We must communicate to all our brothers and sisters in Christ that there is healing and restoration in Him.
Second, we must boldly proclaim the importance of covenant faithfulness in marriage. Let us be careful to affirm the truth of God’s Word in Genesis 2:18-15:
18 Then the LORD God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” 19 So out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. 20 The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him. 21 So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. 22 And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. 23 Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” 24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. 25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
The Manhattan Declaration
{UPDATE: One signer clarifies his position: Kevin DeYoung's blog, TeamPyro weigh in: Nineteen Questions }.
Dear Bethany Community,
I am passionately, unashamedly, and whole-heartedly pro-life. So, when someone suggested to me recently that I sign a document supporting the pro-life cause, I was prepared to do so.
As I reviewed the document, entitled “The Manhattan Declaration,” I found myself in hearty agreement with its three primary affirmations: the sanctity of human life, the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife, and the rights of conscience and religious liberty.
Not only did I find myself in agreement with its general principles, I found that many evangelical leaders whom I highly esteem had already signed it, including men who have served or are serving as presidents at each of the three seminaries I have attended.
So why did I ultimately decide not to sign it?
The Manhattan Declaration does two things that I believe undermine the gospel. First, it refers to the gospel without ever defining what it is. The reader is left to define it however he or she may choose. Second, and related, it asserts unity in Christ among the signers of the document even though some of the primary signers of the document would reject the basic truth of the gospel that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone apart from our own works.
For example, it states: "It is our duty to proclaim the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in its fullness, both in season and out of season. May God help us not to fail in that duty.” It also uses phrases such as “we Christians,” “we believers,” and “as followers of Jesus Christ” to describe the people signing the document.
But I do not have such unity with all the signers of this document, nor is the basis of unity—the gospel of Jesus Christ—defined. While I will pursue unity with the signers in fighting for the causes enumerated, we do not have unity in Christ simply because we both use the word “Christian.” We believe radically different things concerning how a person comes to faith in Christ.
My personal conviction is that by signing this document, I would be implying that we have unity on the most important issue in the universe—an issue in which we stand on different sides of an immense chasm.
If the document had merely advocated political positions, I would have had no problem signing it. I need not agree with others on theological issues to work toward political ends. But the document made theological assertions. It therefore crosses the line from being a political document—which I could support as a Christian—to making a theological statement about the nature of the gospel that I cannot support.
How important is the gospel?
It is more important than ending abortion. It is more important than preserving a traditional understanding of marriage. Yes, it is even more important than our own lives, brothers and sisters.
No one will ever come to Christ by simply opposing abortion. No legislation defining marriage will transform a child of wrath into a child of God.
May God end abortion in our land and may He give us the grace to work with individuals from all different creeds and religions in the political process. I strive for that and pray you do as well. May God preserve us from the unraveling of traditional marriage in our culture and may He give us the joy of working with those from different faiths toward that end.
But even more importantly, May God give us the ability to boldly proclaim the Good News of His Son Jesus Christ, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved!
By His Grace,
Pastor Daniel
Monday, November 30, 2009
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Bethany Community Update Email
In 3rd grade, I memorized Psalm 100 and can still remember the thrill of being able to say that I had memorized a whole chapter of the Bible!
Whitney went to a Be Moms event recently and was encouraged by Laurie Jenkin’s story of teaching her boys Psalm 100 last year. So, the Bennett family is trying to memorize Psalm 100 and plan on saying it together as a family on Thanksgiving.
Psalm 100 (ESV)
1 Make a joyful noise to the Lord, all the earth!
2 Serve the Lord with gladness! Come into his presence with singing!
3 Know that the Lord, he is God! It is he who made us, and we are his; we are his people, and the sheep of his pasture.
4 Enter his gates with thanksgiving, and his courts with praise! Give thanks to him; bless his name!
5 For the Lord is good; his steadfast love endures forever, and his faithfulness to all generations.
Perhaps you might wish to read this on Thanksgiving as well as you contemplate the glory of the God from whom all good things flow.
I am thankful for this church. Thank you for letting me serve as a pastor at this church with such joy.
Whitney went to a Be Moms event recently and was encouraged by Laurie Jenkin’s story of teaching her boys Psalm 100 last year. So, the Bennett family is trying to memorize Psalm 100 and plan on saying it together as a family on Thanksgiving.
Psalm 100 (ESV)
1 Make a joyful noise to the Lord, all the earth!
2 Serve the Lord with gladness! Come into his presence with singing!
3 Know that the Lord, he is God! It is he who made us, and we are his; we are his people, and the sheep of his pasture.
4 Enter his gates with thanksgiving, and his courts with praise! Give thanks to him; bless his name!
5 For the Lord is good; his steadfast love endures forever, and his faithfulness to all generations.
Perhaps you might wish to read this on Thanksgiving as well as you contemplate the glory of the God from whom all good things flow.
I am thankful for this church. Thank you for letting me serve as a pastor at this church with such joy.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Biblical Literacy
This story from USA Today on biblical literacy was sent to me by my friend Andrew. The basic point of the story is that biblical literacy is important, but schools are afraid to teach the Bible because we crazy Christians will use the book to proseltyze. Here is an excerpt:
Indeed, Newman says that trying to appreciate biblical allusions in literature without an underlying knowledge of Scripture is like trying to appreciate a good joke when someone has to explain the punch line. You might eventually "get" the joke, she says, but by the time you do, "it's not funny anymore."
Interestingly, a 2008 study published in Sociological Quarterly found that regular church attendance positively affected students' grade point averages. And while lead researcher Jennifer Glanville of the University of Iowa attributed much of this effect to the social and psychological benefits of being enmeshed in a wider community of like-minded peers and adults, some of this effect might also be explained by the greater biblical literacy young people typically acquire by attending church.
To stem the decline of biblical literacy, three states — Georgia, Texas and Tennessee — have passed laws in recent years calling for public high schools to offer elective courses that teach the Bible "in an objective and non-devotional manner with no attempt to indoctrinate students" (as Georgia's law puts it).
A few thoughts...
1. It is always astounding to me to realize what an impact the Bible has had upon our culture...and how quickly our culture is changing. A significantly smaller fraction of our cultural output requires Biblical literacy in order to interpret.
2. Yeah, I have to admit if I were a teacher I would do use the Bible to teach about Christianity. Guilty.
3. It is always sad to see how fearful secularists are of proselytizing, or even the acknowledgement of religious belief in the public sphere. The objective is not protection of all beliefs (or lack thereof) but rather the removal of the acceptability of belief.
4. Would a teacher who doesn't believe the Bible to be true be held to the same standard of "objectivity?" Would he be required to NOT communicate his lack of belief? In other words, if a teacher taught about the life of Christ from the Gospels and considered those accounts to be mythical, would we be concerned about her communicating that to her class? If she mentioned that they were fanciful accounts, would we accuse her of proselytizing? I think the whole idea of objectivity is rather absurd.
Indeed, Newman says that trying to appreciate biblical allusions in literature without an underlying knowledge of Scripture is like trying to appreciate a good joke when someone has to explain the punch line. You might eventually "get" the joke, she says, but by the time you do, "it's not funny anymore."
Interestingly, a 2008 study published in Sociological Quarterly found that regular church attendance positively affected students' grade point averages. And while lead researcher Jennifer Glanville of the University of Iowa attributed much of this effect to the social and psychological benefits of being enmeshed in a wider community of like-minded peers and adults, some of this effect might also be explained by the greater biblical literacy young people typically acquire by attending church.
To stem the decline of biblical literacy, three states — Georgia, Texas and Tennessee — have passed laws in recent years calling for public high schools to offer elective courses that teach the Bible "in an objective and non-devotional manner with no attempt to indoctrinate students" (as Georgia's law puts it).
A few thoughts...
1. It is always astounding to me to realize what an impact the Bible has had upon our culture...and how quickly our culture is changing. A significantly smaller fraction of our cultural output requires Biblical literacy in order to interpret.
2. Yeah, I have to admit if I were a teacher I would do use the Bible to teach about Christianity. Guilty.
3. It is always sad to see how fearful secularists are of proselytizing, or even the acknowledgement of religious belief in the public sphere. The objective is not protection of all beliefs (or lack thereof) but rather the removal of the acceptability of belief.
4. Would a teacher who doesn't believe the Bible to be true be held to the same standard of "objectivity?" Would he be required to NOT communicate his lack of belief? In other words, if a teacher taught about the life of Christ from the Gospels and considered those accounts to be mythical, would we be concerned about her communicating that to her class? If she mentioned that they were fanciful accounts, would we accuse her of proselytizing? I think the whole idea of objectivity is rather absurd.
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
I still blog...
...just intermittently. I shall return to the blogosphere soon!
In the meantime, if you haven't seen this, it's pretty good:
Thursday, April 2, 2009
God Ordains the Return of Calvinism...
...and Time chooses to report it.
Time.com is reporting on the big trends of 2009. Surprisingly, the resurgence of Calvinism is on there. They note that the increasingly influence of men like John Piper, uber-cool Mark Driscoll, and my personal friend Al Mohler (he sends me an email every day whether I like it or not) in evangelical Christianity is helping fuel the resurgence.
I think the appeal of Calvinism is partly fueled by the rejection of the alternatives (seeker-sensitive church, dead mainline churches, exclusive emergent church, etc.). There simply aren't a lot of options out there for the believer passionate about the glory of God and the authority of His Word. They're out there, but clearly the dominant voice in conservative Evangelicalism is the voice of JC (John Calvin).
I don't like being assigned a label, but I understand that some believers are just so excited by the truths contained in the doctrines of grace, that it is easier to just proclaim they are Calvinists than to enumerate each truth that excites their soul.
The unfortunate thing is labels can be misleading. The meanings one ascribes to the term Calvinism can be quite varied. But I suppose it is easier to say one is a Calvinist that to pull out a doctrinal statement to identify oneself.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
PowerPoint is Evil
Edward Tufte entitled his Sept 2003 article in Wired magazine, "PowerPoint is Evil." Tufte should know. He is professor emeritus of political science, computer science and statistics, and graphic design at Yale. I think pastors would benefit from reading his article. He begins it with this paragraph:
"Imagine a widely used and expensive prescription drug that promised to make us beautiful but didn't. Instead the drug had frequent, serious side effects: It induced stupidity, turned everyone into bores, wasted time, and degraded the quality and credibility of communication. These side effects would rightly lead to a worldwide product recall."
In case you missed it due to his subtletly, he's referring to PowerPoint. His primary contention is that the program elevates form over content. The dependency upon this form of communication is decreasing our ability to communicate effectively. In schools, children are learning not how to research and communicate content but instead learning how to animate graphics in a slideshow. The typical PowerPoint presentation "disrupts, dominates, and trivializes content."
I think Tufte is at least partly right, which is why I struggled with whether or not to personally implement PowerPoint in my preaching ministry. The difficulty was especially profound for me because I personally don't benefit when others use PowerPoint. In high school, PowerPoint wasn't really big yet, but by the time I was finishing seminary, it had saturated the classroom. Whenever I went to a seminary class and had a professor turn on the projector, I inwardly groaned. But others I know find it extremely useful, which indicates diversity of learning styles, I think.
The pastor, in my opinion, must be careful to preserve the unique genre of the sermon. The form must not overshadow the content. Ultimately, I decided to utilize PowerPoint but very sparingly. The slides are not designed to be the vehicle of communication but merely help people track with where I am in the progress of the message. My goal is that it would be very rare that a person would need to look at the PowerPoint at all to get the full impact of the message.
Further Schooling Thoughts
This is a paragraph from a recent George Will column in Newsweek.
"But in 1966, the Coleman Report concluded: 'Schools are remarkably similar in the effect they have on the achievement of their pupils when the socioeconomic background of the students is taken into account.' That was a delicate way of not quite saying that the quality of schools usually reflects the quality of the families from which the students come. One scholar estimated that about 90 percent of the differences among schools in average proficiency can be explained by five factors—number of days absent from school, amount of television watched in the home, number of pages read for homework, quantity and quality of reading matter in the home and, much the most important, the presence of two parents in the home. Government cannot do much to make those variables vary, but Duncan correctly thinks that we actually know how to make schools effective anyway. The keys are time and talent."
I agree that those five factors the unamed scholar in Will's are crucial. It's why I'm convinced that there are a lot of valid choices for parents to make when deciding how to school their children. But parents must be careful not to view any option as "the" thing that will bring about the education of their child. In some sense, every child is ultimately homeschooled. The question is: how well is the quality of their home education?
"But in 1966, the Coleman Report concluded: 'Schools are remarkably similar in the effect they have on the achievement of their pupils when the socioeconomic background of the students is taken into account.' That was a delicate way of not quite saying that the quality of schools usually reflects the quality of the families from which the students come. One scholar estimated that about 90 percent of the differences among schools in average proficiency can be explained by five factors—number of days absent from school, amount of television watched in the home, number of pages read for homework, quantity and quality of reading matter in the home and, much the most important, the presence of two parents in the home. Government cannot do much to make those variables vary, but Duncan correctly thinks that we actually know how to make schools effective anyway. The keys are time and talent."
I agree that those five factors the unamed scholar in Will's are crucial. It's why I'm convinced that there are a lot of valid choices for parents to make when deciding how to school their children. But parents must be careful not to view any option as "the" thing that will bring about the education of their child. In some sense, every child is ultimately homeschooled. The question is: how well is the quality of their home education?
Thursday, March 12, 2009
No One Can Rid Himself of the Preaching Clergyman
"Bore of the Age"...I'm thinking about getting that put on my business cards....
From John Stott's Between Two Worlds...
"In Barchester Towers, Anthony Trollop rants eloquently:
"There is, perhaps, no greater hardship at present inflicted on mankind in civilized and free countries, than the necessity of listening to sermons. No-one but a preaching clergyman has, in these realms, the power of compelling an audience to sit silent, and be tormented…..
"A member of Parliament can be coughed down or counted out. Town councilors can be tabooed. But no-one can rid himself of the preaching clergyman. He is the bore of the age, …the nightmare that disturbs our Sunday’s rest, the incubus that overloads our religion and makes God’s service distasteful" (53-54).
Types of Preaching
I don't know how useful others will find these posts, but I'm continuing a series of posts highlighting some of my thoughts on preaching based upon some of the books I read for my DMin program. In this lengthy post, I'm trying to process some of the different styles of preaching and my thoughts regarding their validity.
Textual Preaching. Textual preaching generally refers to a type of preaching that draws from a single text as its source. Al Fasol considers the nature of textual preaching in Handbook of Contemporary Preaching. He quotes Clarence Roddy who offers the following definition of textual preaching: “A textual sermon is one in which both the topic and divisions of development are derived from and follow the order of the text…the text controls and dominates both topic and development in this type.”[1]
The question I've wrestled with is how this type of preaching is distinguishable from expository preaching. Fasol contends that some distinguish textual preaching on the basis of the length of the text being considered. He considers this distinction “superficial” and concurs with Greidanus who believes that “expository preaching cannot truly be contrasted with textual preaching or preaching on a single verse…. All textual preaching is therefore understood as expository preaching.”[2]
Steven Matthewson agrees on the value of textual preaching, but sees a distinction with expository preaching. Relying upon Broadus’ understanding of textual preaching, he concludes that the main difference lies in the structure of the sermon. “While the [textual] sermon must of course be faithful to Scripture, its structure does not take its cue from the biblical texts(s) on which it is based.”[3]
It seems to me, then, that while the line between expository preaching and textual preaching may at times be thin, it still exists.
I agree with Matthewson’s understanding, and would still argue that the primary focus of the pastor should be on delivering expository sermons that as closely as possible follow both the content and the structure of the text.
But what expositional pastor has not at one time or another come to the conclusion that the structure of the text will not be the most effective way to communicate to the congregation? Or what expositional pastor has not at times felt the need to spend an additional week on a smaller portion of a larger thought? Considering the nature of textual preaching has made me more open to utilizing this method in my preaching ministry.
Doctrinal Preaching. Timothy George contends that “the recovery of doctrinal preaching is essential to the renewal of the church.”[4] Doctrinal preaching is that form of preaching which helps the congregation understand the subject being covered in the sermon in light of its entire redemptive context. The sermon can be only tangentially related to the primary text but should at least be “biblical.”
I have concluded that the problem is not that doctrinal preaching is a bad way of preaching, it is simply that it is not as strong as expositional preaching. As a rule, a steady diet of expository preaching will address the same concerns that doctrinal sermons will cover, but be more tied to the biblical text and therefore is more likely to be “God’s Word.”
That being said, there are times within an expositional sermon series that a doctrinal sermon may be appropriate. For example, while preaching through Ephesians 1, a pastor may decide to spend a week discussing the doctrine of divine sovereignty.
Narrative Preaching. Narrative preaching “is not a simple matter of using stories and illustrations to make the sermon interesting, instructive, or challenging. The narrative sermon, rather than containing stories, is a story which, from outset to conclusion, binds the entire sermon to a single plot as theme.”[5]
Euguene Lowry’s conception of the narrative form is one in which ambiguity is the driving force. He eschews any method that destroys the tension in a sermon. He claims that “nothing can be more fatal” than the philosophy of “tell them what you’re going to tell them, tell them, and then tell them what you told them.”[6]
The drive for narrative preaching is often fueled by an unbiblical understanding of the purpose of preaching. While I think that narrative proponents are on to something when they encourage pastors to build tension and communicate in “natural” ways, the passion for ambiguity and the call to allow listeners to discover the truth for themselves cuts against the Scriptural understanding of the preaching task.
Craddock laments that in traditional deductive preaching “the conclusion precedes the development, a most unnatural mode of communication, unless, of course, one presupposes passive listeners who accept the right or authority of the speaker to state conclusions that he then applies to their faith and life.”[8] But Scripture presupposes just such a scenario—though it words it less cynically.
I believe that the sermon must be constructed in such a way that propositional truth is going to be communicated clearly. Furthermore, while I cannot categorically say that the narrative sermon is never the best way to accomplish this, I would contend that it is at least rare that it is the best form through which to communicate content. I will discuss this more below.
Topical Preaching. This is perhaps the most widely disputed form of preaching, at least in terms of its definition. It is hard to even begin to establish a definition of this type of preaching. Most of the authors I read attempted to defend topical preaching against those who would consider it unbiblical. Don Sunukjian contends, “Topical preaching that is truly biblical is the communication of a biblical concept, derived from several different passages related to one another through a common subject and through either parallel or progressive assertions about that subject.”[9] Francis Rossow argues that in “the textual sermon, the text determines the choice of the topic; but in the topical sermon, the topic determines the choice of the text.”[10]
How I feel about topical preaching depends upon the definition being used. In Rassow’s definition, I see a form of preaching that is occasionally beneficial. The message is still being guided by the text, the only difference is that the pastor has determined the topic in advance.
Summary. There are elements of expository preaching in each of the above methods, when defined in a certain way. I currently feel a great deal of freedom to preach as the text dictates and the Holy Spirit leads.
For instance, I have decided to take two weeks as we have gone through chapter 4 of Ephesians, and consider more closely the role of the pastor-teacher, I do not feel constrained by the fact that this subject is not be the main idea of the paragraph. I preached a sermon on the paragraph, and now I'm taking two weeks to talk about the role of an elder, yet I still believe I have preached expositionally.
What type of sermon is this? Such a deviation could be considered textual because it is dealing with just one verse and not based upon the structure of the text. It could be called doctrinal because of its focus on ecclesiology. It could be called topical because passages from various other texts are utilized. Such a dilemma shows the difficulty of sermon categorization, and reveals an element common to all preaching that is truly biblical: a desire to be faithful to proclaim God’s Word accurately to God’s people based upon their need. This is what is at the heart of expository preaching.
[1] Al Fasol, “Textual Preaching,” Handbook of Contemporary Preaching, Michael Duduitt, ed., (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992), 77.
[2] Ibid., 82
[3] Steven Matthewson, “What Makes Textual Preaching Unique,” The Art and Craft of Biblical Preaching, Haddon Robinson and Craig Brian Larson, eds., (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 413.
[4] Timothy George, “Doctrinal Preaching,” Handbook of Contemporary Preaching, Michael Duduitt, ed., (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992), 93.
[5] Calvin Miller, “Narrative Preaching,” Handbook of Contemporary Preaching, Michael Duduitt, ed., (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992), 103.
[6] Lowry, 21.
[7] Craddock, 46.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Don Sunukjian, “Topical Preaching Can Be Truly Biblical,” The Art and Craft of Biblical Preaching, Haddon Robinson and Craig Brian Larson, eds., (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 421.
[10] Francis Rossow, “Topical Preaching,” Handbook of Contemporary Preaching, Michael Duduitt, ed., (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992), 85.
Textual Preaching. Textual preaching generally refers to a type of preaching that draws from a single text as its source. Al Fasol considers the nature of textual preaching in Handbook of Contemporary Preaching. He quotes Clarence Roddy who offers the following definition of textual preaching: “A textual sermon is one in which both the topic and divisions of development are derived from and follow the order of the text…the text controls and dominates both topic and development in this type.”[1]
The question I've wrestled with is how this type of preaching is distinguishable from expository preaching. Fasol contends that some distinguish textual preaching on the basis of the length of the text being considered. He considers this distinction “superficial” and concurs with Greidanus who believes that “expository preaching cannot truly be contrasted with textual preaching or preaching on a single verse…. All textual preaching is therefore understood as expository preaching.”[2]
Steven Matthewson agrees on the value of textual preaching, but sees a distinction with expository preaching. Relying upon Broadus’ understanding of textual preaching, he concludes that the main difference lies in the structure of the sermon. “While the [textual] sermon must of course be faithful to Scripture, its structure does not take its cue from the biblical texts(s) on which it is based.”[3]
It seems to me, then, that while the line between expository preaching and textual preaching may at times be thin, it still exists.
I agree with Matthewson’s understanding, and would still argue that the primary focus of the pastor should be on delivering expository sermons that as closely as possible follow both the content and the structure of the text.
But what expositional pastor has not at one time or another come to the conclusion that the structure of the text will not be the most effective way to communicate to the congregation? Or what expositional pastor has not at times felt the need to spend an additional week on a smaller portion of a larger thought? Considering the nature of textual preaching has made me more open to utilizing this method in my preaching ministry.
Doctrinal Preaching. Timothy George contends that “the recovery of doctrinal preaching is essential to the renewal of the church.”[4] Doctrinal preaching is that form of preaching which helps the congregation understand the subject being covered in the sermon in light of its entire redemptive context. The sermon can be only tangentially related to the primary text but should at least be “biblical.”
I have concluded that the problem is not that doctrinal preaching is a bad way of preaching, it is simply that it is not as strong as expositional preaching. As a rule, a steady diet of expository preaching will address the same concerns that doctrinal sermons will cover, but be more tied to the biblical text and therefore is more likely to be “God’s Word.”
That being said, there are times within an expositional sermon series that a doctrinal sermon may be appropriate. For example, while preaching through Ephesians 1, a pastor may decide to spend a week discussing the doctrine of divine sovereignty.
Narrative Preaching. Narrative preaching “is not a simple matter of using stories and illustrations to make the sermon interesting, instructive, or challenging. The narrative sermon, rather than containing stories, is a story which, from outset to conclusion, binds the entire sermon to a single plot as theme.”[5]
Euguene Lowry’s conception of the narrative form is one in which ambiguity is the driving force. He eschews any method that destroys the tension in a sermon. He claims that “nothing can be more fatal” than the philosophy of “tell them what you’re going to tell them, tell them, and then tell them what you told them.”[6]
The drive for narrative preaching is often fueled by an unbiblical understanding of the purpose of preaching. While I think that narrative proponents are on to something when they encourage pastors to build tension and communicate in “natural” ways, the passion for ambiguity and the call to allow listeners to discover the truth for themselves cuts against the Scriptural understanding of the preaching task.
Craddock laments that in traditional deductive preaching “the conclusion precedes the development, a most unnatural mode of communication, unless, of course, one presupposes passive listeners who accept the right or authority of the speaker to state conclusions that he then applies to their faith and life.”[8] But Scripture presupposes just such a scenario—though it words it less cynically.
I believe that the sermon must be constructed in such a way that propositional truth is going to be communicated clearly. Furthermore, while I cannot categorically say that the narrative sermon is never the best way to accomplish this, I would contend that it is at least rare that it is the best form through which to communicate content. I will discuss this more below.
Topical Preaching. This is perhaps the most widely disputed form of preaching, at least in terms of its definition. It is hard to even begin to establish a definition of this type of preaching. Most of the authors I read attempted to defend topical preaching against those who would consider it unbiblical. Don Sunukjian contends, “Topical preaching that is truly biblical is the communication of a biblical concept, derived from several different passages related to one another through a common subject and through either parallel or progressive assertions about that subject.”[9] Francis Rossow argues that in “the textual sermon, the text determines the choice of the topic; but in the topical sermon, the topic determines the choice of the text.”[10]
How I feel about topical preaching depends upon the definition being used. In Rassow’s definition, I see a form of preaching that is occasionally beneficial. The message is still being guided by the text, the only difference is that the pastor has determined the topic in advance.
Summary. There are elements of expository preaching in each of the above methods, when defined in a certain way. I currently feel a great deal of freedom to preach as the text dictates and the Holy Spirit leads.
For instance, I have decided to take two weeks as we have gone through chapter 4 of Ephesians, and consider more closely the role of the pastor-teacher, I do not feel constrained by the fact that this subject is not be the main idea of the paragraph. I preached a sermon on the paragraph, and now I'm taking two weeks to talk about the role of an elder, yet I still believe I have preached expositionally.
What type of sermon is this? Such a deviation could be considered textual because it is dealing with just one verse and not based upon the structure of the text. It could be called doctrinal because of its focus on ecclesiology. It could be called topical because passages from various other texts are utilized. Such a dilemma shows the difficulty of sermon categorization, and reveals an element common to all preaching that is truly biblical: a desire to be faithful to proclaim God’s Word accurately to God’s people based upon their need. This is what is at the heart of expository preaching.
[1] Al Fasol, “Textual Preaching,” Handbook of Contemporary Preaching, Michael Duduitt, ed., (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992), 77.
[2] Ibid., 82
[3] Steven Matthewson, “What Makes Textual Preaching Unique,” The Art and Craft of Biblical Preaching, Haddon Robinson and Craig Brian Larson, eds., (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 413.
[4] Timothy George, “Doctrinal Preaching,” Handbook of Contemporary Preaching, Michael Duduitt, ed., (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992), 93.
[5] Calvin Miller, “Narrative Preaching,” Handbook of Contemporary Preaching, Michael Duduitt, ed., (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992), 103.
[6] Lowry, 21.
[7] Craddock, 46.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Don Sunukjian, “Topical Preaching Can Be Truly Biblical,” The Art and Craft of Biblical Preaching, Haddon Robinson and Craig Brian Larson, eds., (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 421.
[10] Francis Rossow, “Topical Preaching,” Handbook of Contemporary Preaching, Michael Duduitt, ed., (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992), 85.
Monday, March 9, 2009
Expository Preaching: Meaning and Purpose
I thought I would share a few thoughts regarding expository preaching over the next few days. I am in the process of completing the first phase of my DMin in Expository Preaching at Southern Seminary and have had some time to reflect on some of the material I have been reading over the past year and a half. Here are some scattered thoughts.
What is Expository Preaching
At the beginning of the program, I wrote a paper in which I attempted to define and defend expository preaching. My beginning definition, intentionally broad, was that expository preaching is "bringing out the meaning of Scripture for a congregation."
I surveyed various approaches to expository preaching and considered how each approach offers a different nuance to what could be considered expository preaching. Some authors, such as Martyn Lloyd-Jones, advocate preaching exclusively expository sermons, but are very broad in what they define as expository preaching.[1]
Others, such as Peter Adam offer a more narrow definition of expository preaching but are more open to other forms: “This does not necessarily mean that we engage all the time in expository preaching (that is, preaching our way through a book of the Bible verse by verse or chapter by chapter).”[2]
I concur with Richard Mayhue who suggests the following elements as the essential components of the expository sermon:
1. The message finds its sole source in Scripture.
2. The message is extracted from Scripture through careful exegesis.
3. The message preparation correctly interprets Scripture in its normal sense and its context.
4. The message clearly explains the original God-intended meaning of Scripture.
5. The message applies the Scriptural meaning for today.[3]
To these, I would amend the first characteristic to say that the message finds its sole source in a single, primary text.
[1] D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Preaching and Preachers (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1972), 72.
[2] Peter Adam, Speaking God’s Words (Vancouver: Regent, 2004 [1996]), 128.
[3] Richard L. Mayhue, “Rediscovering Expository Preaching,” Rediscovering Expository Preaching, Richard L. Mayhue, ed. (Dallas: Word, 1992), 12-13.
The Purpose of Preaching
What is Expository Preaching
At the beginning of the program, I wrote a paper in which I attempted to define and defend expository preaching. My beginning definition, intentionally broad, was that expository preaching is "bringing out the meaning of Scripture for a congregation."
I surveyed various approaches to expository preaching and considered how each approach offers a different nuance to what could be considered expository preaching. Some authors, such as Martyn Lloyd-Jones, advocate preaching exclusively expository sermons, but are very broad in what they define as expository preaching.[1]
Others, such as Peter Adam offer a more narrow definition of expository preaching but are more open to other forms: “This does not necessarily mean that we engage all the time in expository preaching (that is, preaching our way through a book of the Bible verse by verse or chapter by chapter).”[2]
I concur with Richard Mayhue who suggests the following elements as the essential components of the expository sermon:
1. The message finds its sole source in Scripture.
2. The message is extracted from Scripture through careful exegesis.
3. The message preparation correctly interprets Scripture in its normal sense and its context.
4. The message clearly explains the original God-intended meaning of Scripture.
5. The message applies the Scriptural meaning for today.[3]
To these, I would amend the first characteristic to say that the message finds its sole source in a single, primary text.
[1] D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Preaching and Preachers (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1972), 72.
[2] Peter Adam, Speaking God’s Words (Vancouver: Regent, 2004 [1996]), 128.
[3] Richard L. Mayhue, “Rediscovering Expository Preaching,” Rediscovering Expository Preaching, Richard L. Mayhue, ed. (Dallas: Word, 1992), 12-13.
The Purpose of Preaching
I am convinced that many pastors have forgotten the purpose of preaching. As astounding as that sounds, I believe it is true.
The final chapter of David Buttrick’s Homiletic is entitled “A Brief Theology of Preaching.” Here Buttrick asks a salient question:
From a social perspective, preaching may be superfluous…. Reasons for preaching can only be found in faith. So, though we may enjoy the sweet freedoms of a superfluous vocation, in faith let us struggle with the question: Why do preachers preach?”[1]
Most of the works I read suffer from failing to answer this question correctly, if at all. It is difficult to overstate the importance of knowing what the purpose of preaching is. The widespread lack of understanding of or attention to the purpose of preaching in the evangelical community is perhaps the most disturbing trend I have observed during my coursework. It was frustrating to read various authors develop and defend methods that clearly did not share the passions of Scripture.
Failure to Consider Purpose. On one end of the Protestant homiletical spectrum are those works that fail to even consider why Scripture tells us we are to preach. Fred Craddock rebels against the idea of the authoritative proclamation of truth. He advocates that the preacher “re-create with the congregation the inductive experience of coming to an understanding of the message of the text.”[2]
Eugene Lowry advocates the narrative form of the sermon based upon our intuitive sense of how to preach: “Transforming our intuitions into articulate form [the narrative] is precisely the purpose of this book.”[3] Their works never even address what God would have the preacher do.
Purpose and Proof-Texting. But even works written by sound bible expositors sometimes betray a lack of proper concern with purpose. A biblical theology of preaching is not one that can be simply defended with a few quick proof texts. Warren Wiersbe in Preaching and Teaching with Imagination develops an entire work around the thesis that preaching should be creative. His text to defend this argument is 2 Samuel 17 where Ahithophel’s counsel is thwarted due to Hushai’s speech.
It is not that Wiersbe is wrong to urge creativity in preaching. His practical suggestions are excellent. The problem lies in the fact that his work is driven by a text that is simply not about creativity. The primary purpose of the text is to show how the sovereign hand of God uses Hushai to protect David. Not to unfairly target Wiersbe, but the absence of passion about God’s purpose for preaching in his work left me hungry for something more. What is needed in homiletical instruction is to develop within the preacher a heart that burns for the things of the Lord.
A passage that seems to creep up frequently in sections of preaching books that are presumably dealing with purpose is 2 Samuel 12 where David is confronted by Nathan through the telling of a story. For example, York and Decker introduce their chapter entitled “The Goal of Preaching” with this story. They conclude their introductory remarks, “Making the emotional connection with David was instrumental in getting David to act on Nathan’s rebuke rather than just to hear it.”[4]
But, once again, this text is not about preaching. And, what is more concerning, nowhere in this chapter on the goal of preaching are any biblical texts that deal with preaching in the church even mentioned, much less explored.
The problem is that there is a lack of a clarion call to the church regarding the true purpose of preaching. This problem is not universal, but it is wide-spread.
Some works may feel that such a question is beyond the scope of their work, but it seems to be so essential to anything else one might say about preaching that it is a question that should at least be addressed at some level.
Preoccupation with Pragmatics. Finding something that “works” is the goal of many homiletical books. Craddock’s call for change is not based on the fact that the church is failing to fulfill God’s design for preaching but rather that “in countless courts of opinion the verdict on preaching has been rendered and the sentence passed.”[5] Graham Johnston assumes our primary task is to “reach the present age without selling out to it.”[6] Even Michael Fabarez contends that the proper evaluation of a successful sermon is “the biblical change it brings about in the lives of our congregants.” [7]
Failure to Apply Purpose. Some of the works I've read recently have a solid evangelical theology of preaching but fail to consider the implications of that theology. Dennis Cahill in The Shape of Preaching provides an overview of the tools available to the homiletician of the contemporary church. He does this while maintaining an appreciation for and a defense of traditional evangelicalism’s understanding of the purpose of the sermon. Unfortunately, he fails to have his theology truly interact with his method. The purpose of the sermon is never really applied to the methods he surveys.
Focus on the Sacred Task. It should come as no surprise to anyone at Southern that Dr. Mohler gets it right. In the introductory chapter to Handbook of Contemporary Preaching, he identifies the true reason we preach: “True preaching begins with this confession: we preach because God has spoken.”[10] This simple statement is surprisingly profound, even within evangelical circles. Mohler’s conclusion to the article should be required reading for some of the people who advocated various methods in our material:
The preacher is a commissioned agent whose task is to speak because God has spoken, because the preacher has been entrusted with the telling of the gospel of the Son who saved, and because God has promised the power of the Spirit as the seal and efficacy of the preacher’s calling.
The ground of preaching is none other than the revelation which God has addressed to us in Scripture. The goal of preaching is no more and no less than faithfulness to this calling. The glory of preaching is that God has promised to use preachers and preaching to accomplish His purpose and bring glory unto Himself.
Therefore, a theology of preaching is essentially doxology. The ultimate purpose of the sermon is to glorify God and to reveal a glimpse of His glory to His creation. This is the sum and substance of the preaching task. That God would choose such a means to express His own glory is beyond our understanding; it is rooted in the mystery of the will and wisdom of God.Yet, God has called out preachers and commanded them to preach.
Preaching is not an act the church is called to defend but a ministry preachers are called to perform. Thus, whatever the season, the imperative stands: Preach the Word![11]
[1] David Buttrick, Homiletic (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress Press, 1987), 449.
[2] Fred Craddock, As One Without Authority (St. Louis: Chalice Books), 99.
[3] Eugene Lowry, The Homiletical Plot: The Sermon as Narrative Art Form (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001), xix.
[4] Hershael York and Bert Decker, Preaching with Bold Assurance (Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 2003), 11.
[5] Craddock, 3.
[6] Graham Johnston, Preaching to a Postmodern World (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2001), 10.
[7] Michael Fabarez, Preaching that Changes Lives (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2002), 9-10.
[8] “Postmodernism Handout,” Expository Preaching 80314.
[9] Dennis M. Cahill, The Shape of Preaching: Theory and Practice in Sermon Design (Grand
Rapids: Baker Books, 2007),93.
[10] R. Albert Mohler, Jr., “A Theology of Preaching ,” Handbook of Contemporary Preaching, Michael Duduitt, ed., (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992), 14.
[11] Ibid., 19-20.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
If you can't make fun of yourself...
I have mixed emotions about homeschooling. Currently, we homeschool and I'm glad we do. But I think some people homeschool for the wrong reasons (e.g., fear). I might have more to post on this later.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Happy Gotcha Day!
This time last year, our children were still awake celebrating their new family. We were all pretty excited.
It has been a wonderful year and I couldn't possibly love my littlest princess any more. She is a true gift from the Lord.
Here's a video we've posted before...we watched it today as a family. Austin cried...he hates the part where we leave Ellie in Guatemala. I do too.
Here's a video we have also posted before, but with a better ending:
It has been a wonderful year and I couldn't possibly love my littlest princess any more. She is a true gift from the Lord.
Here's a video we've posted before...we watched it today as a family. Austin cried...he hates the part where we leave Ellie in Guatemala. I do too.
Here's a video we have also posted before, but with a better ending:
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Saturday, January 24, 2009
I bet they're homeschooled...
We homeschoolers have all the real talents...musical abilities, spelling, great social skills....
Friday, January 23, 2009
Never Mind
Obama signed the executive order today. Here's the story:
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N23463777.htm
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N23463777.htm
Thursday, January 22, 2009
I stand corrected...for now
I am very happy to report that it would appear that Obama has not signed the executive order. It is pending, apparently, but not signed. The AP has a report that Obama declined an invitation to speak at a Pro-Life march, but did issue a statment affirming his desire to protect a woman's right to choose.
I would encourage you to pray for our president. I think he desires to please the religious left...this could be good for us.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h-E7bbzu6w9jmmtS9pb-Iz792rWwD95SGO2O0
I would encourage you to pray for our president. I think he desires to please the religious left...this could be good for us.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h-E7bbzu6w9jmmtS9pb-Iz792rWwD95SGO2O0
That Didn't Take Long...
Today, on the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, Obama signed an executive order that allows our federal tax dollars to be funnelled to abortion clinics overseas.
From Fox News:
"Separately, the administration was set to issue a reversal of a ban on federal funding for non-governmental organizations working outside the U.S. that offer abortions or abortion counseling.
"Obama was to sign the executive order on the 36th anniversary of the landmark Roe v. Wade Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion in all 50 states."
Two things: 1. It is amazing to me how quiet this story is. 2. I wonder how all the Evangelical voters who were just convinced that Obama was one of us feel about this. This doesn't seem like a very effective way to reduce the number of abortions, which was suppossedly one of his aims.
Oh, and today is "blog for choice" day. Pro-Choice bloggers are being urged to blog in support of "reproductive rights." I have to admit, that's pretty good propaganda. But so much of what you say is in how you say it. Those who are "pro-choice" are not just advocates of "reproductive rights." They are also: supporters of "covering up incest and rape"; enablers of the "genocide of minorities"; and advocates of "killing of innocents."
I am very sad today.
Here are a few video that betray the real agenda of those who advocate "reproductive rights":
Supporters of Statuatory Rape:
Supporters of Aborting "Low-Income" Babies:
Allow blatantly racist donations:
From Fox News:
"Separately, the administration was set to issue a reversal of a ban on federal funding for non-governmental organizations working outside the U.S. that offer abortions or abortion counseling.
"Obama was to sign the executive order on the 36th anniversary of the landmark Roe v. Wade Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion in all 50 states."
Two things: 1. It is amazing to me how quiet this story is. 2. I wonder how all the Evangelical voters who were just convinced that Obama was one of us feel about this. This doesn't seem like a very effective way to reduce the number of abortions, which was suppossedly one of his aims.
Oh, and today is "blog for choice" day. Pro-Choice bloggers are being urged to blog in support of "reproductive rights." I have to admit, that's pretty good propaganda. But so much of what you say is in how you say it. Those who are "pro-choice" are not just advocates of "reproductive rights." They are also: supporters of "covering up incest and rape"; enablers of the "genocide of minorities"; and advocates of "killing of innocents."
I am very sad today.
Here are a few video that betray the real agenda of those who advocate "reproductive rights":
Supporters of Statuatory Rape:
Supporters of Aborting "Low-Income" Babies:
Allow blatantly racist donations:
Friday, January 2, 2009
Dad's New Blog Address
For those of you who have been praying for my dad and would like regular updates, he has a new blog address: http://www.txbennett.blogspot.com/. This site should be easier for him to post to and keep updated.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)