My wife is eagerly awaiting the new instalment of the Twilight film franchise.  She loves them.  I enjoy them myself, but give me Indiana Jones or a super hero flick over Twilight any day.  But again… I have seen them, and something struck me just the other day, that caused me to do some humorous thinking (not to mention post this little blog).

It came to me as I was preparing our Sunday sermon… You see; I’ve been preaching through the Book of Genesis, and over the last few weeks we’ve gone over chapters 25 – 27 – which just so happen to be dealing with the characters of Jacob and Esau.  And I have come to believe that the author of the Twilight series was heavily influenced by this biblical story.  In-fact, one of the characters in the books and films is named “Jacob.”

Here’s what we’ve got… in the biblical account there are Jacob and Esau.  Esau is described as “hairy.”  He is a manly man, and the strong, out-doors type.  He is a creature of voracious appitites, and driven by his carnal nature. The biblical  Jacob is… I wouldn’t say effeminate, but he is “less manly” than Esau.  He is described as a “man of the tents,” meaning that he was more concerned with the affairs of the estate and what was happening around him.  But he is also one who gets in the way of Esau and ends up stealing what he wants (the birthright).

So what has been done in the Twilight film is that you have two young (or at least they appear that way) men.  One’s name starts with an “E” (Edward not Esau) and the other is named Jacob.  One is older than the other, but then the roles are reversed.  The Twilight Jacob is the hairy one (he’s a werewolf), and he’s got the appetites of the biblical Esau.  Edward is by far “less manly” than Jacob, and he’s a brooding sort who is concerned with what’s going on around him and such, whereas Jacob is the strong, out-doorsy type who lives for the moment.

Again; the roles are reversed as it is the Twilight Jacob who is trying to sneak in and steal the girl from Edward, whereas the biblical Jacob stole the birthright and blessing from Esau.

Now it’s quite possible that I read all of this into the film, and that the author of the books had no intention or even an inkling of doing this… but it is a pretty amazing coincidence.  Regardless, it’s a good formula for a successful novel…

Just think about it.  You take a Biblical story line, modernize it, change a few details like the names of the characters and you all of a sudden have a best seller.

Some examples might include:

The stroy of David is changed to the stroy of a U.S. President.  His name is Daniel.  He begins as a soldier or CIA opperative (ala Jack Ryan), and serves under a twisted, cruel, or incompetent POTUS (the Saul character).  He eventually becomes President after a series of trials, and is a good POTUS, but not without his flaws (an adulterous affair), and he pays heavy consequinces for his sins.

The stroy of Samson could be made into a super-hero film.  Where you have this incredibly powerful main character with un-matched super powers, but also flaws galore.  The part of the Philistines would have to change to some secret society or something along those lines, with plans of world domination, and our hero continually thwarts them, while at the same time, is a self serving ego maniac.  But finally he is betrayed by someone he loved (the Delilah role), but in the end, he sacrifices himself to save the world.

You could do this with any biblical character… you could set Jonah in a war setting (say WWII), where he is a strongly nationalistic soldier for one side, and his beloved country is about to wipe out his hated enemies with a thermo-nuclear device, but for some reason (maybe because of the loss of civilian life) he goes to his hated enemies and warns them…

Daniel could be set in a post-apocalyptic, Mad-Max type setting…

On and on it goes.

Yup, I think I’m on to something here… I had best get to writing.

Initially we heard that a chopper was downed and all 30 men on board were killed.  Then we heard that those 30 men were Navy SEALs.  Immediately buzzers went off in my head.  Then the reports came out that these SEALs were sent in to rescue Army Rangers from the Taliban.

Here’s my take on this.  First of all you don’t ever cram your entire special opperations team into one helicopter.  You don’t, for precisely this reason.  If the chopper goes down, you’ve lost your team.  There is no opperational reason to put your entire team into one chopper.  Only an idiot would do this, or someone with evil intentions (more on that in a moment).  Secondly; why send SEALs when an airstrike would work?  There is no need to send any ground forces when an airstrike would work.  So unless the Rangers were being overrun, why send the SEALs?  The Rangers obviously weren’t overrun, because the only report I’ve gotten was that the chopper was downed, not that an entire company of Rangers was over-run.  Apparently the Rangers made it out fine, so no support (especially from Navy SEALs) was necessary.  Thirdly; why send SEALs at all?  Especially the same SEAL team that became national heroes for killing OBL?  Marines, 82nd or 101st Airborne, or more Rangers would’ve been more suited to do the job.  Fourthly – the whoe mess gave the Taliban a victory.  The Arabic websites are claiming such, saying things like “We got the assassins.”  Fifthly; it was the wrong type of aircraft for the type of mission.  The chopper was a CH-47 Chinook, when it should’ve been the modified MH-47.  The MH-47 is a modified version of the Chinook, configured for special opperations, and equipped with countermeasures.  Most folks will tell you that the CH-47 is little more than a thin-skinned, flying coffin.  Sixthly – Army spokesmen have said that the Chinook was piloted by “regular” pilots and not pilots from the 160th SOAR (the 160th SOAR are the pilots who regularly fly spec opps troops.  They are specially trained and the best of the best when it comes to pilots).  Lastly; the whole thing smells like a set up.  It sounds like someone didn’t want SEAL Team 6 talking.  That’s why they put them in a death trap of a chopper, that’s why SOAR piolets weren’t flying the mission, that’s why the Taliban knew they were coming.

Conspiracy theory?  It absolutely sounds like it.  I think that there should be an investigation, that we need to check for leaks in Special Opperations Command, and the CIA (or even higher up), and heads should roll.

If it wasn’t a set up then whoever was in charge of this mission should be removed from duty for being a complete idiot.

Ok… just my thoughts.  Comments?

His and Her Diary (for the same day)

Her Diary:

Tonight, I thought my husband was  acting weird. We had made plans to meet at a nice restaurant for dinner. I was shopping with my friends all day long, so I thought he was upset at the fact that I was a bit late, but he made no comment on it.  Conversation wasn’t flowing, so I suggested that we go somewhere quiet so we could talk. He agreed, but he didn’t say much. I asked him what was wrong; he said, ‘Nothing.’ I asked him if it was my fault that he was upset. He said he wasn’t upset, that it had nothing to do with me, and not to worry about it.  On the way home, I told him that I loved him. He smiled slightly, and kept driving. I can’t explain his behavior; I don’t know why he didn’t say, ‘I love you, too.’

When we got home, I felt as if I had lost him completely, as if he wanted nothing to do with me anymore. He just sat there quietly, and watched TV. He continued to seem distant and absent. Finally, with silence all around us, I decided to go to bed. About 15 minutes later, he came to bed. But I still felt that he was distracted, and his thoughts were somewhere else. He fell asleep –

I cried.

I don’t know what to do. I’m almost sure that his thoughts are with someone else. My life is a disaster.

His Diary:

Boat wouldn’t start; can’t figure out why.

Guest Editorial: How to win the culture war

So when you hear Imam’s pray that Africa would be the first Islamic continent, how deep and wide does such a sentiment ring?  Egypt is a transcontinental country, and a major power in Africa, the Middle East, as well as in the entire Mediterranean region.  However; for the last few decades Egypt was seen by the Islamic world as a “liberal” country at best and as a “secular” country by most.  Before Mubarak stepped down Imam’s lamented that he was too secular, that he was too kind towards Israel and America, and even that he did not force his wife to wear traditional Islamic garb “suitable for women” (Sharia asserts that a Muslim head of state must rule by Islamic law and preserve Islam in its original form or he must be removed from office).  Sharia leaves little wiggle room for most Muslim leaders (though Mahmoud Ahmadinejad seems to fit in quite nicely).  Because of this; Muslim leaders (especially those tied to the international scene), play a dangerous game.  They have to appear Islamic and anti-west, while trying to get along with the rest of the world.

Where we tend to make our mistakes is in thinking that if they are friendly towards us, then they are our friends.  That; and the fact that Sharia Law states that “A Muslim head of state can hold office through seizure of power and through force.”  Where this causes problems with the “civilized west” is that we fail to understand that this tenant of Sharia means that every Muslim leader out there will most likely turn to brutality and tyranny just to hold power and survive.  It’s king of the mountain with guns and tanks.  So… when a “secular” leader is over thrown or protested against in favor of the more pious (ie. Fundamentalist)  Muslim who would be a leader, the choice isn’t one that can be deemed “good” or “bad”, but rather it is one of “bad” or “worse.”  Especially for those of other faiths in the region. 

What then does the Middle East need?  Barak Obama has shouted the “protestors” praises from the rooftops, but why?  Does he believe that democracy can rise up in a nation that has never experienced it in history?  Can it?  Or maybe we should ask, “Should it?”  Perhaps Obama believes that if the Middle Eastern countries can move towards democracy, then they can also move towards socialism/communism?

Does Egypt, or Libya, or Yemen, or Syria, or (insert your Middle Eastern country of choice here) need democracy?  Do they need Sharia Law?  Or maybe Communism?  Or anarchy?  I think they need something more than a governmental, or financial system.  I think they need Jesus Christ.  You see; within every man there is a corrupt nature that separates man from God.  We are totally depraved.  What that means is that not every human being is as sinful as he or she could be, but that every human being is sinful in every aspect of themselves (mind, souls, thoughts, behaviors, attitudes, etc…) to the point that they are incapable of altering their condition and incapable of saving themselves from the consequences of their condition. 

There is no real peace in democracy, socialism, communism, social reform, civil justice, social justice, oligarchies, etc…  Any form of government may for a season make things appear better and improve standards of living, but a man in and by himself cannot mend himself morally to attain the state of social and moral bliss and moral innocence that he lost through Adam’s transgression in the Garden of Eden.  True freedom and liberty only comes from knowing the One true God through His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ.

Below are a few concerns I have. 

I honestly don’t think we in the west have a good understanding of poverty and wealth.  We as Christians need to be generous, and be giving, but the answer to the worlds pressing needs of hunger, medical care, and poverty isn’t in our giving.   Wealth is created in places where the rule of law is upheld, property rights are secured, where people are encouraged to be entrepreneurs, and where there is sufficient social capital to encourage risk-taking.  Could it be possible that God in His sovereignty moved Christianity westward for the purpose of:  1. Blessing us (as in the promised blessings of the covenant with Abraham and his seed – ie Christians)?  2. Having a logical faith born out of western thought (Greek and Roman logic) as opposed to the mystical faith of the near and far east?  3. Building His Church in a free market system that would allow His people to more readily fulfill the Great Commission and bless others?

Should we in our attempts to alleviate the poverty of our world teach the world the principles of capitalism, liberty, and push for a republican or democratic form of government rather than simply building water wells that can easily be confiscated by warlords who will use such things as means of manipulation and control or am I way off base here?

I honestly think that there is a tendency within man due to our fallen nature to look for a works based salvation through things like missions, giving and Mercy Ministries, etc…

     “Being involved in mercy ministries may help to commend the gospel, which is why Jesus taught, “Let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven” (Matt. 5:16). Displaying God’s compassion and kindness by our actions is a good and appropriate thing for Christians to do. But such actions are not evangelism. They commend the gospel, but they share it with no one. To be evangelism, the gospel must be clearly communicated, whether in written or oral form.  When our eyes fall from God to humanity, social ills replace sin, horizontal problems replace the fundamental vertical problem between us and God, winning elections eclipses winning souls.” (Mark Dever, excerpted from The Gospel and Personal Evangelism.  Emphasis mine)

Could it be possible that:  1. Many think that by simply giving, going on mission trips, going to church, serving in a church setting, giving to the poor, building water wells in Africa, etc… that they are meriting their salvation, or at the very least, favor with God (ie. Mother Teresa complex).  2. Many practice what they call “friendship evangelism” because they are fearful of proclaiming the Gospel?  That in their minds, befriending another is the equivalent of the sharing the Gospel even though the Gospel is never proclaimed?  3. Many within our churches are not even Christians themselves and by calls to these good and necessary works that we are misleading them?

I honestly think that there are many within our churches who don’t understand what the Gospel is, and what the Great Commission is.  So… what is a disciple?  1. A disciple is someone committed to another person and his teaching. Christians are called to be disciples, and we are called to make disciples of Jesus Christ: that is, people who follow Him, who are committed to Him and to His will as revealed in Scripture.  2. How do we make disciples?

It is a command to reproduce, to multiply and grow the Church with people who follow Jesus, who are committed to Him and to His will as revealed in Scripture.  We do it by baptizing them

Baptism is the New Testament sign of admission into the church. We read in Acts that new converts were added to the number of believers, and that the church grew.  This should remind us that the making of disciples is the responsibility of the church. It is not primarily that of extra-ecclesiastical teams or evangelistic organizations. Since it is our duty, we need to ask, “What are we doing to realize the goal of adding new converts to this church?” The Lord Jesus has given us our marching orders: are we obeying him?  Secondly, it reminds us that being committed to Jesus means being committed to his visible church. The baptism mentioned here is not “spiritual” (no church can administer that), but the physical ordinance. Membership in the local church is the evidence that you have really become a disciple of Jesus, for he calls us into fellowship not only with himself, but also with sinners like ourselves in a local church

We do it by teaching them to obey all His commands.  This implies a life-long commitment, again, in a setting that allows us to teach them (ie. The Church)

I honestly think that much of what we’ve been reading and studying (these concepts of being missional and generous) isn’t wrong, but it’s a reaction to what is seen as wrong within large, white, wealthy, orthodox (ie. SBC, Presbyterian, and Reformed/semi-reformed) churches.

Do we see this emphasis on the predominantly black and Hispanic churches?  Do we see it in the charismatic/Pentecostal churches?  Do we see it in circles outside of the large, white, wealthy, orthodox churches?

Is this a repackaging of Liberal Theology?

“…the emergent church is the latest version of liberalism. The only difference is that old liberalism accommodated modernity and the new liberalism accommodates postmodernity.” (Mark Driscoll)

Is it the “Moral Majority” but with a different focus (Instead of focusing on elections and politics it focuses on the social ills)?  And if so will the results be similar? (A generation that is relational rather than politically active, but still not sharing the Gospel message and saving souls)

So in conclusion; I have to ask myself – Did Christ come to us primarily as a Savior who delivers us from God’s just wrath, or did He come primarily as a moral example of how we ought to live, how we ought to treat one another, and how we should form communities?  God is not pleased with us based on what we do.  Joining in crusades against social ills, poverty, corporate greed, global warming, racism, etc… does not win the pleasure of God.  He is and can only be pleased with us, when we are found in His Son – Jesus Christ, our Lord.

“Many church leaders trumpet their belief that the gospel is more about ethics than the work of Christ on our behalf. They appeal to bettering the world around us as a task that is opposed to and more pressing than seeing our own rebellion and poverty, which prove our need for reconciliation to God through the life, death and bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. This unbiblical bifurcation of orthopraxy and orthodoxy, and foundational preference for the former, is just plain contrary to the Christian gospel.” (John Hendryx, excerpted from The Emergent Church and the Gospel)

1. Right living doesn’t equal right doctrine.  In reality it is the reverse
2. Ethics are not what separates Christianity from all other world religions, they all offer ethical programs that are similar to ours
3. Thus we must be careful that we are not confusing our good works as the Gospel, and we must be careful that we are not teaching the Church’s members that good works are the Gospel and equal to evangelism. 
4. We must be sure that we are fully explaining to them that these works and acts of generosity and ministry are merely a means of opening doors so that we can evangelize and fulfill the Great Commission

Instead of State’s rights, they mean States’ rights.  But it shouldn’t be States’ it should be State’s; and the word “rights” shouldn’t be “rights” but “Powers.”

Why?

In the founding concept of American liberty, the primary purpose of government is to guarantee the rights of the people, which are derived from God.  To accomplish this primary function of government, the power to govern was divided between a person’s State and The (several) States as a group (AKA the central government).  States’ is the plural possessive.  It references The States as a group and is thus the same as saying Federal Rights.  So it seems that people today have lost part of the basic concept before they even got started. 

But again I would even argue that they’ve misunderstood the difference between “rights” and “powers.”  Remember; rights are given to the people by God, not to their state, not to a group of states, or to a central government.  States do not have rights; they have powers to govern that have been granted by the sovereign people.  That is the concept of American liberty.  Government at every level is supposed to execute only those powers for which the people have granted the authority.  Any debate that begins with the “Rights” of any government at any level, has most likely been lost from the outset.  Even if the effort seems to have initial success, in the end, it only winds up chipping away at our God given rights.

So; it should be easy to identify what State’s Rights (or more accurately, State’s Powers) are not.  States’ Rights are not a slogan to be used to stop Obama-Care, or Obama-Cap and Tax, or any other of the Obama socialist programs coming out of Washington D.C. like a swarm of locusts.  States’ Rights are not a slogan to stop the Bush Patriot Acts or Bush CAFTA and other expensive trade agreements.  By the same token, States’ Righs are not a slogan to stop DFACS from illegal search and seizures, or some idiot telling me that I’ll be fined for the dust from my field blowing into my neighbors field.

States’ Rights are not the answer because once you concede Rights to any government entity you have lost that Right.  Even worse, is that your children and grandchildren will never even know that it is something that you lost and that they were denied. 

Today; the debate should be about how State Powers will be used as a check on Federal Powers to guarantee our God-given Rights.  It should be about how delegated Powers given to the Federal Government will be used to guarantee our God-given Rights in areas that extend beyond the State in which we live.  Otherwise, all the rhetoric, and all the use of today’s improper definition of States’ Rights will only determine how fast we go over the cliff.

Most of us got out and voted because we see that American liberty was rapidly approaching that cliff.  But until government (both State and Federal) began to move in the realm of their delegated authority once more, all we’ve done is slow the speed in which we’re approaching it.

We must demand that all levels of government keep their hands off our God-given Rights unless the people grant them a Power to do so.  If those we’ve elected are not willing to abide by this restriction, we should retire them quickly.

Arguing about which level of government will do a better job abusing our God-given Rights makes for interesting partisan battles, but it’s a formula for failure year after year, election after election, and generation after generation – as we have seen.  After all, those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it

First and foremost; I don’t see the “invitation system” in the Bible.

Some will say, “Oh yes it is, Jesus said, ‘Come unto Me…’” but that’s a gross misinterpretation of those passages.  Jesus wasn’t calling for a one-time physical movement on the part of those He was addressing.  He was calling them to repentance and faith and for a lifestyle of following Him.  Others will argue from Matthew 10:32 which says, “Everyone who acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge before My Father who is in heaven.”  But what was Jesus teaching here?  Was He saying that by a one-time act of confession we become Christians?  Or was He teaching that because ONE IS A CHRISTIAN  he or she will confess Jesus, not only through words but through a lifestyle of faithful obedience?  It’s obviously the second option.

I think when we examine the Bible we find the exact opposite of the “invitation system.”  In-fact, it’s not the preachers who are asking, “Won’t you receive Him today?”  It’s the listeners who are asking questions.  In Acts 2:37 Peter had just finished his Pentecost sermon and he gives no invitation to his listeners, but rather it’s the listeners who have been convicted by the Spirit of the God through the preaching of the Word that ask, “What shall we do?”  And of course Peter says, “Repent and be baptized.”  We find a similar event in Acts chapter 8 where Philip expounds the Word to the Ethiopian Eunuch.  Philip never asks the Eunuch to make a decision for Christ, but rather, we are told that after Philip preached and taught, the Eunuch himself raises the subject of baptism.  Acts 10:44 is another example.  Peter preached to the household of Cornelius.  He gave no invitation or alter call, in-fact Peter wasn’t even finished preaching when the Holy Spirit came upon his listeners and saved them through the preaching of the Word.  In Acts chapter 13 Paul preaches in Antioch and once he’s finished with his sermon, we read of no call for a response on the part of Paul’s listeners, but we do read this: “And as they went out, the people begged that these things might be told them the next Sabbath.  And after the meeting of the synagogue broke up, many Jews and devout converts to Judaism followed Paul and Barnabas, who, as they spoke with them, urged them to continue in the grace of God.”  What we’re seeing here is that through the preaching of the Word, these folks were converted, so that Paul had no need of any kind of invitation.  He merely urged them to “continue in the grace of God.”

We could look at Acts 16 where Paul was preaching to Lydia, and in verse 14 the text says, “The Lord opened her heart…” again no alter call, no invitation, no call to make a decision – just God, through the preaching of His Word, causing her to believe.  Later on in the same chapter we see the conversion of the Philippian jailer.  Again it’s not Paul or Silas who asks that he make a decision, it’s the jailer who says, “What must I do to be saved?”  And the answer?  “BELIEVE!” 

Secondly; the invitation system doesn’t mesh with Biblical Theology (specifically with the sovereignty of God in salvation).

The invitation system is based on the assumption that salvation is merely a matter of one’s own personal decision.  If one takes seriously the doctrine of total depravity, then one must reject the invitation as incompatible with the Biblical truth of passages such as Romans 3:10-11; Romans 9:15-17; 1^st Corinthians 2:14; 2^nd Corinthians 4:3-4 and others.  The sinful nature of man will not allow him to “choose” God unless God first does a work of grace and imputes a new nature.  So it doesn’t matter how many verses one sings of “Just As I Am” either God is going to regenerate a person, or He will not.  The point being that faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.  The preaching of the Word is that which is instrumental in conversion, and conversion is subject to the sovereignty of God, not the ability of man to make others feel guilty (See Acts 13:48).

Thirdly; the alter call has produced little in the way of results. 

Even Billy Graham himself has denied that coming forward equals salvation.  He has said, “There’s nothing about the mechanics of coming forward that saves anybody’s soul.  Coming forward is an open acknowledgment and a testimony of an inward experience that you have had with Christ.”  Biblically speaking that “open acknowledgment and testimony of an inward experience that you have had with Christ” was done through baptism.  Baptism was the public profession of ones faith.  Baptism wasn’t what saved a person, but it was a public proclamation of a saved person, who was telling all who witnessed it, that he or she was united to Christ in His death, burial and resurrection.  Billy Graham however, does not pastor a church of his own, he is an evangelist.  His alter calls were to get people to come forward so that they might get connected to a local church and progress in their walk with Christ.  But when the local churches implement the same system what are the results?  Churches full of people who demonstrate no evidence of true conversion.  Church members (people on church rolls but who rarely attend) who demonstrate no evidence of true conversion but will point you to a “decision” they made on a certain date in history.  Paul wrote in 2^nd Corinthians 13:5, “Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith.  Test yourselves.  Or do you not realize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?  Unless indeed you fail to meet the test!”  John wrote his entire first epistle for that purpose.  One of the bases of our assurance, according to Paul and John, is whether or not the process of sanctification is taking place in us.  Thus the evidence of salvation is not that a person came forward during an alter call, but in a changed life.  Yet we have church members who swear up and down that they are heaven bound, while they continue to live like hell.

The Southern Baptist Convention is a great example of this.  We have some 14 – 16 million members on Southern Baptist Church rolls (a number arrived at largely on the basis of alter calls), but we can’t find about 8 million of them.  Of the 7 or 8 million that we do know where they are, only about 3 and a half million attend church on a regular basis.

Now let’s widen the lenses a bit.  If we only have about 3 and ½ million Southern Baptists who attend church on a regular basis then it’s probably a safe bet that we have even less than that who are faithfully sharing the Gospel (i.e. doing the Great Commission).  The GCRTF says that we need to plant more churches and restructure the CP.  They say we need to restructure NAMB, and allow the IMB access to people groups in the US.  One must ask, “are we planting more churches that use the alter call system?”  Is all this restructuring just busy work? 

The fact of the matter is this.  All of the ideas given by the GCRTF won’t amount to didly-squat if the Gospel isn’t preached, and people are led to a false conversion. 

False Christians, more often than not, make false converts.  They can’t proclaim the Gospel because they’ve never heard it, or they’ve wrongly believed in something that they thought was the Gospel but wasn’t.  They press others for a decision, and once that decision is made then all is thought to be well and the cycle perpetuates itself. 

Until Christians actually move out of their comfort zones and begin to proclaim the Good News of Chirst, the Great Commission will remain unfulfilled.  No matter what the SBC does or declares.