AP news just reported that Jerry Falwell passed away at 73. And while I doctrinally and philosophically have disagreed with Falwell on his tactics in confronting an increasingly paganizing post-modern culture with the Gospel, I do believe he loved Christ, preached the Gospel, and that many were saved through his ministry by the Grace of God in the cross of Christ. As the body of Christ, we should mourn the loss of someone I consider to be a brother, who though he had many strong arguments with Calvinists and unbelievers to the point of being unloving and unmerciful (haven’t we all?), he was indeed a soldier of the Lord and is now with Him (based upon his profession of faith). I agreed with most of his assessments about culture and can stand with him on about 90% to 95% of theological issues concerning Christianity, but disagreed strongly with his application of grace to an unbelieving world, seeing him as coming off arrogant, self-righteous, and unkind (this is what unbelievers have told me frequently of Falwell and what I have observed). However, I glorify God that he confessed that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God, and that He is with Him.
Category: Culture Page 18 of 20
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/showtra … ost_1.html
George Lopez, according to this LA Times blog entry, after his show was canceled, is quoted as saying, “TV just became really, really white again.” Let’s turn the tables around and theoretically say that if 24 was canceled and Kiefer Sutherland stated in anger, “TV just became really, really black again,” or “TV just became really, really Mexican again.” Wouldn’t you hear from Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson or the LULAC in about two seconds on MSNBC or CNN about how racist Sutherland is and what a Nazi bigot he is?
Why is it there is no outrage of the same nature as when Imus made his comments and was fired, essentially being silenced? To be consistent with the Imus firing, shouldn’t Lopez be silenced as well in the form of a discrimination lawsuit or something? No, rather what would happen is he would say he was being discriminated against and would sue those attempting to sue him, and probably win! The double-standards in our society seem to be increasing. One guy says something, and gets fired. Another guy can say what he wants without fear of retribution. In fact, he’ll probably somehow make money off of the deal. Racism is alive and well in our society, just in a different form than before. Pay attention here, Lopez’s statement is blatantly racist, and going totally unchecked. That’s the way these things go I guess … just some observations.
“Then they left the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonor for the name.”
Acts 5:41
Here we have such a beautiful picture of suffering and rejoicing in it. The Apostles had been beaten before the council of Israel for speaking the Gospel boldly in the name of Christ. They rejoiced that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonor for the name of Christ. I just let this idea and this worldview sink in for a while today, and it brought me to tears. The reason is because I saw clearly in this passage how suffering is mercy from God (to bring us to repentance that we may turn to Christ for cleansing), and how suffering for the name of Christ specifically is taking up your cross for the sake of Christ and His glory and honor. The Apostles had such a vision of Christ and His glory that they could not help but speak about what they had seen and heard. And even moreso, they praised God they could suffer for His sake!
We are not merely supposed to imitate them. Of course we are to do that. But we cannot of ourselves! We are utterly dependant upon the Holy Spirit to give us the eyes, ears, strength and power to live in this worldview. We cannot conjure up this image of Christ of our own volition and will. We are dependant on the One who makes it evident. The only way we can see God in this worldview is by us seeking Him in the Scriptures and having this vision revealed to us by the Holy Spirit. We are utterly dependent upon God to show us His glory (just as Moses was totally dependent upon God to have His glory revealed to Him on the mountain). And we go to see the glory of Christ in Scripture and in communion with Him personally in prayer where we experience His very presence. This thinking is so backward from our Western culture. I have a hard time shaking it myself and struggle. In fact I cannot shake it myself. And it will take a supernatural revelation of God for all of us to see Christ in this greater light, so much that we rejoice in suffering and see that we are counted worthy to suffer for the glory of God!
Francis J. Beckwith, a prominent leader amongst evangelicals in America, a guy who also co-authored one of my favorite books, Relativism, has apparently converted to Roman Catholicism. I find it strange, namely because he was the president and a member of the Evangelical Theological Society but has since resigned both offices. I guess he would probably agree with the Evangelicals and Catholics Together statement, a document J.I. Packer and Chuck Colson also signed. I am not understanding this … even people of the Reformed tradition (which has been known for strongly upholding the Five Solas of the Reformation against the Catholic Church), seem to be floundering in their convictions and agreeing with documents like the E.C.T. statement. It seems to me relativism is taking its toll, even on a guy who co-authored a fantastic book refuting the philosophical system that is so prevalent in our society.
Beckwith’s Statement
ETS Statement
Beckwith Article on KWTX’s website
James White Article on the E.C.T. Statement
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070509/ap_ … y_sharpton
It’s great to see that in the political discourse leading up to the presidential election, leaders from both political fronts are using God as their pawn to 1-up the other and gain political ground. I don’t understand why believers here call this a Christian nation. It is just as decadent, wickedly depraved, and sinful as any other country in the world (if not moreso), we’re just a lot more cleaned up about it on the outside in our “civilized” society. Sharpton has no interest in the things of Christ (only politics), and Romney’s a Mormon (believing Christ to be one of many gods). They both have lost the Gospel. Sharpton is using God as a means to defend his liberal, racist political agenda, and Romney is doing the same thing, just in a different manner. Praise God our ultimate hope is not in the conservative or liberal agendas, but is in Christ alone and his political Kingdom, the glory of God being enjoyed by His people forever.
Here’s a headline from www.drudgereport.com concerning what Sharpton has apparently said about Imus’ racist comments : “SHARPTON VOWS MORE: ‘It is our feeling that this is only the beginning. We must have a broad discussion on what is permitted and not permitted in terms of the airwaves’… Developing…”
http://www.wten.com/Global/story.asp?S=6361438
The same people who pound into everyone else freedom of speech when their view is at stake and who vow legal action when they feel they are being silenced, are the same people who seek to silence those who differ with their opinions. This no exception. One minute, Sharpton speaks about his and everyone else’s right to say whatever they want, no matter what, and then in the next says we need to have a “discussion on what is permitted and not permitted in terms of the airwaves”. This is the philosophical dilemma of the moral relativist. Relativism does not work, it cannot logically be sustained, it must contradict itself. And so it does as in this example. As long as you agree with his relativism, he has no problem with you; but as soon as you turn on him and state otherwise in any manner, you must be silenced. And he enforces this with a political vengeance.
For the relativist viewpoint to truthfully stand on this issue of freedom of speech, then Imus must be allowed to say whatever he wants on his own show without fear of being silenced. That does not make it morally right, but he has an opinion, he expressed it, and now he is being silenced by those offended parties involved. Sharpton and his whole entourage are bursting forth with philosophical worldview contradictions. What will happen in our society if the majority agrees that Christians should never witness or “impose” their worldview on others, excluding those they disagree with, and it becomes law? Where does it stop? It doesn’t.
Every viewpoint logically excludes its opposing view. Everyone has a viewpoint whether they admit it or not. Everyone believes in something and believes it is absolute, even the secularist who claims a belief in nothing: that is a belief. If you exist you have some form of a belief about morality. It is inevitable. The moral relativist states that it is morally wrong to say another viewpoint is wrong. So what is this worldviews’ opposing view? Those who state absolute moral truths exist and that other viewpoints are wrong. So in their worldview, anyone who says another viewpoint is wrong is excluded from any conversation with them. They are doing the very thing they believe is morally wrong! Those they disagree with are silenced. What’s an example? Well, the Today Show. This past week, during the whole Imus debacle, they only had far-left liberal democrats appear as guests who adhere to this relativism wholeheartedly. And as a result, every question asked of the guests by the hosts were designed to intensify and solidify the relativist viewpoint on this issue. They excluded those they disagree with by not inviting them on, thus contradicting their own worldview. This is a form of passive exclusion to make it appear as if they are morally neutral when they are just as militant about their worldview as the most far-right fanatic. They just use the means of political power and control over the media to silence individuals instead of weapons and violence.
The only moral relativist that has a made a comment consistent with her own worldview in place during this whole thing was Rosie O’Donnell. http://newsbusters.org/stories/rosie_de … node/11950 She basically is defending Imus’ right to say whatever he wants on his show under the article of freedom of speech. She even says freedom of speech “is not a freedom if you outlaw certain words or thoughts, because then the thought police come and then before you know it, everyone’s in Guantanamo Bay without representation.” Now while she’s taking a jab at conservatives on the war, she has a point that is consistent with her worldview. Does she not?
Relativists position themselves as morally neutral, yet they are anything but that. They believe things are absolutely right and wrong like those who believe certain “truths” are totally wrong. When are people in our society going to see that relativism is a dead-end worldview? It cannot be successfully sustained as truthful, namely because it is absolutely wrong. I guess I’ll be silenced next for saying anything about it now.
The default response of conservatives seems to be one of ignoring scientific facts simply because global warming appears to be an issue taken on primarily by liberals (and if they don’t fight the liberals at every turn on every issue, they may lose an election in the future, as if that was the end of the world). I think it is highly ignorant of many fellow conservatives to have such a bias that you cast aside scientific data and facts for the sake of political lines. Can we be reasonable together for once? The actual debate in the scientific world over global warming (where it actually matters) has nothing to do with whether or not the Earth itself is warming. The facts are indisputable: the Earth is warming (Read this Senate testimonial from the Director of the National Climatic Data Center, if you want facts; his understanding based on actual numbers is that global warming is caused by both natural occurrences as well as man’s influence). The average global temperature is on an upward trend, and according to computer models, it will continue to increase this century based on many variables input into the equations that calculate these models. No reasonable, scholarly scientist debates whether or not the atmosphere is warming: it is in fact warming, based on mathematical calculations that are indisputable.
But here’s the real question of the debate that not every scientist agrees on: is global warming being caused by man or is it a natural occurrence beyond the realm of our control (that is beyond the realm of being able to do anything about it), or is it both? The debate is not about IF the Earth is warming, but whether or not man is causing the warming through the emission of green-house gases (CO, CO2 and CH4). And I for one, along with many other scientists, including officials at the National Weather Service (what I would deem to be a very reliable source), do not believe man is causing the warming trend as many suppose. Some of them dispute that, however there are many who do not. Is it a mere coincidence all the planets in our solar system are increasing in temperature at around the same pace as the Earth (article)? Hmm, could it be the sun has increased its energy output at a greater rate than anytime in the past 1000 years, thus causing warmer temperatures here as well as on venus, mars, jupiter and all the other planets? Could that be causing a majority of the warming? Seems reasonable to me. And if that’s the case, what in the world are we going to do about it by passing Senate bills that make global warming a national security issue?
Don’t get me wrong, I have no problem with reducing pollution through progressive infrastructure changes (world-wide, not just in the U.S.), but that will take some time to migrate everyone off of the current systems we have in place (you cannot do this overnight, or even in a few years). I don’t like breathing in toxic fumes everyday, nor does my asthmatic wife. So please, if we can reduce pollution, by all means, do it. My issue with the global warming craze though is the rashness of it all. In the twinkling of an eye, major companies, government officials, and others in our society are going green at every turn (what that even means as to how “going green” creates effective changes in the atmosphere, how there is a direct correlation to global warming, I have no idea). This just sounds like a marketing ploy to me to get you to buy their products, or vote for them, which is highly deceitful in my opinion.
Global warming is happening, but man may only be contributing to a very small percentage of the actual change in the global temperature. Should we stop polluting? Sure. But how are we going to create effective change at the industrial level, the place it matters the most for the global atmosphere? But even then, total green house gases (CO, CO2 and CH4) account for only 2% of the total of atmospheric gases. And of that, man is contributing a very small amount (something like 2% from what I’ve heard). So instead of being so rash and going from one extreme to another, maybe we should allocate most of our time, money and resources to preventing some of the catastrophes that may result from the indisputable rising temperatures instead of limiting any and everything within our infrastructure that makes our society run. “Going green” in every sector of the economy does not seem very effective. This is the natural tendency of man, to swing from one extreme to another. Again, hear me out in case you missed my position (because that seems to happen to almost every conservative I speak with about this): the Earth IS warming, but man IS PROBABLY NOT causing a majority of it.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story … 20,00.html
I cannot imagine what I would do if I had no hope of a future resurrection in Christ while reading this article. It could be these are simply nay-sayers, but regardless, even the scriptures themselves speak of a bleak outlook for humanity (that is apart from Christ who will renew all creation in the end). Even if we were to die from the world going into mass chaos, large mobs forming, and undemocratic, marxist-style forces emerging to govern us, our hope does not lie here and what we can obtain or hold on to. This is a very bleak report from the Ministry of Defence in Britain about the future state of the world.
However, if I read this without the proper Biblical lens through which we see the final end to which God purposed all creation, namely His glory, I would be full of fear. But despite whatever man says will happen, and even if it were worse than what is predicted in this report, the hope for all who call on Christ for salvation is that we will be made perfect in order to be with Him and enjoy Him forever. One thing we can count on in this life, as it says in the Scriptures: things will go from bad to worse in the last days. I’m personally convinced we have been in the last days since Christ ascended to heaven, and to not focus too much on eschatology, but rather focus on our future hope, the glory of God in the face of Christ that we will enjoy and be satisfied by forever. Because of His death, resurrection, power, and work in us and for us who believe, we are more than conquerors! This is our hope and reading reports like this simply make me want to flee to Christ and trust Him all the more, because it shows me how nothing can be trusted in this place for eternal hope. So in reading this, remember Christ and the hope you have in Him the whole time. Apart from Him and His joy made perfect in us through the sustaining of our faith in Christ, a bleak future remains here and forever for all humanity under His wrath and displeasure. May we flee to Christ for refuge no matter what the cost down the road!
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id … 20cameras/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6524495.stm
This is freaky, particularly the parts about the cameras telling you when you are engaging in anti-social behavior. How exactly do you define “anti-social behavior”? So I assume eventually evangelism of any kind will be considered anti-social behavior (I mean it already is in many quarters)? Where does this stop though? Well, according to the track-record of mankind, it won’t stop there; it will continue on until something awful happens and only war will stop it. England is becoming a surveillance society on a scale never-before seen except in books like 1984, where you are told from a person you cannot see what you should and should not do. And as cultural trends go in Europe, so will they be here eventually. We are already beginning to see more and more cameras at traffic lights in our society, but even more than that, we are seeing them in the public square where we are constantly being watched. Man, do we need to be careful …
http://www.nbc5i.com/slideshow/entertai … s&tn=b
It is really no surprise that Hollywood is increasingly becoming more and more corrupt and pushing as many boundaries as possible when you read this list of celebrities who openly and firmly deny the existence of God. What else would you do but pursue the depths of depravity if you didn’t have a relationship with the greatest treasure in all the universe, Jesus Christ? The One through whom the universe came to be? Thank you Lord for having mercy on my soul and inclining my heart toward you when I wanted nothing to do with you, and would have gone to the same lengths many in our culture do. Lord, it is You alone and your grace in the cross that has made me to differ, I am no better than any, I am a sinner saved by sheer grace. All credit to you Lord … I praise You.