Too Persuasive of a P.S.A.

We're not going to see this Public Service Announcement during the Super Bowl. Evidently, NBC changed their minds and canned it.

Hummmm . . . I wonder why?

See for yourself.





HT: OneNewsNow.com

“Cool Dude” Evangelical Preacher

Mark Driscoll was featured on Nightline a couple days ago. Check it out!

Sermons With An Edge - Evangelical Preacher Mark Driscoll [ABC Nightline]

His church's website: Mars Hill Church

Change Begins Taking Shape

As change begins to occur under the new administration – some in pretty substantial ways, I’m sure it will not be as most sincere and well-intentioned Obama supporters expected, nor wanted. Obama may be good with words; but it is true: actions speak louder than words.

Matt Barber adds in a OneNewsNow column:

Obama said in an August 19, 2008 speech: "Change doesn't come from Washington. Change comes to Washington." Well, radical change in the form of Barack Obama has certainly come to Washington. Not just in terms of the man's skin color – which is historic and most encouraging – but in terms of his exceptionally extreme and demonstrably dangerous liberal policies (not so encouraging).

So it would seem that change does in fact "come from Washington." Change more radical than our nation has ever seen. Change our founders could have never imagined.

People of faith, conservatives, and those of you with traditional values: hold on to your hats – it's going to be a bumpy four years.

Read More:

• Obama rescinds Mexico City Policy link

• What is the Mexico City Policy? link
  

How to Turn a Church Away from the Truth

David Strauss, in his book Life of Jesus (1835), writes:

In his discourses to the church, the (speculative theologian) will indeed adhere to the forms of the popular conception, but on every opportunity he will exhibit their spiritual significance, which to him constitutes their sole truth, and thus prepare...the resolution of those forms into the original ideas in the consciousness of the church also. Thus, to abide by the example already chosen, at the festival of Easter he will he will indeed set out from the sensible fact of the resurrection of Christ, but he will dwell chiefly on the being buried and rising again with Christ, which the Apostle himself has strenuously inculcated. This very course every preacher, even the most orthodox, strictly takes, as often as he draws a moral from the evangelical text on which he preaches: for this is nothing else than the transition from the externally historical to the inward and spiritual. It is true that we must not overlook the distinction that the orthodox preacher builds his moral on the text in such a way that the latter remains as an historical foundation; whereas, with the speculative preacher, the transition from the biblical history or the church doctrine, to the truth which he thence derives has the negative effect of annihilating the former.

Strauss thought the life of Jesus proclaimed in the Bible was a bunch of bunk. A liberal theologian to the bone, he was one of the first who popularized a dichotomy between the "historical Jesus," a first century cynic peasant, and the "Christ of faith," the risen Christ proclaimed from the pulpit (The "Jesus Seminar" is the latest group to take up this debunked way of thinking.). He argued that the former was the actual Jesus that historically lived, while the latter, much like a placebo or a legend, was and is the "spiritual" view that accrued over the centuries, that lives on only in the hearts and emotions of the faithful. Strauss thought that the church would be better served if it forsook the Jesus described in the Bible.

The question for him near the end of his book was "how should a liberal ("speculative" in his terminology) theologian go about bringing that change in his congregation? He can't just go out and boldly proclaim it; he'd be run out of his church. Neither can he just keep his true beliefs tucked away; that would be hypocrisy.

Strauss' solution was an emphasis/de-emphasis method of preaching. If a pastor avoids preaching a certain doctrine, over time, his congregation will stop believing in it. This won't happen overnight, but it will happen. By persistent neglect, "progress" will be achieved.

The example he gives above is the Resurrection. "Don't preach about the historicity of the resurrection," Strauss says. "Just preach that the resurrection is about a 'risen' life in the heart...just tell your congregation that its 'all about faith, man.'" After a generation or two, over the course of one's pastorate, the congregation will go from believing in the historicity of the resurrection, to thinking that its not that important, to thinking that it never happened.

I find this an absolutely genius method of turning a congregation away from biblical truth: just de-emphasize something. Stop preaching about it, and your congregation will stop believing it.

Here's the kicker, though: orthodox evangelical preachers do this all the time. Its not their intention, but, because they like the praises of the people, they avoid unpopular doctrines (some avoid doctrine wholesale) such as hell and evangelism (in the latter case, they often change the definition of evangelism, leaving out the "vocally proclaiming the salvation message" part and emphasizing the "serving the poor" part). If you cornered them and asked them about these controversial doctrines, they'd admit, after a few drinks, that they do, indeed believe in them. They might even be in the church's statement of faith.

You wouldn't know that by what is proclaimed from the pulpit, though. There's hardly ever a mention of them.

So, evangelical pastors, do you want your church to start believing that its not necessary to share one's faith? Or, even further down the rails, do you want your congregants to think that it's immoral to share one's faith?

Take uncle David's advice: all you have to do is stop preaching about evangelism. Simple as that.

Pastor: Are You Cool?

When commenting on Rick Warren’s selection to deliver the invocation at the inaugural ceremonies, Al Mohler, President of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, notes:

“He now finds himself in a whirlwind, and he will not be the last. Pastor after pastor and church after church will face a similar challenge in short order. No matter how cool you think you are or think that others think you are, the hour is coming when the issue of homosexuality -- taken alone -- will be the defining issue in coolness. If you accept the full normalization of homosexuality, you will be cool. If you do not, you are profoundly uncool, no matter how much good work you do nor how much love and compassion you seek to express.”

Mohler adds:

“Eventually, the issue of homosexuality will require a decision. At that point, those churches will find themselves facing a forced decision. Choose ye this day: Will it be the Bible or coolness?”

“Would [Mohler himself] deliver the invocation at the inauguration of Barack Obama as President of the United States?” This question came up during an interview by The Wall Street Journal. Here’s what Mohler posted on his website in response:

“Well, I have not been asked, but I can imagine that it would be difficult to turn down this invitation. After all, the inaugural ceremony is a national event, not a personal ceremony. Yet, in the end, the context of this inaugural ceremony would not allow me to accept. President-elect Obama has pledged to sign legislation including the Freedom of Choice Act, which would affect a pro-abortion revolution in this nation. He has also pledged to sign executive orders within hours of taking office that will lead directly to a vast increase in the destruction of human life. In particular, he has promised to reverse the Bush administration's policy limiting federal funding of human embryonic stem-cell research. Sources inside the transition office have advised activists to expect a flurry of executive orders in the new administration's first hours and days.

Knowing the intentions of this President-elect, I could not in good conscience offer a formal prayer at his inauguration. Even in the short term, I could not live in good conscience with what will come within hours. I could not accept a public role in the event of his inauguration nor offer there a public prayer, but I will certainly be praying for this new President and for the nation under his leadership.

Wait For True Love

...Have you ever heard that? Chances are, if you are below the age of 35 or so, the answer is "yes." Many times, probably.

At first glance, it sounds good. But that little ditty has caused a lot of heartache.

The overwhelming majority of people at the turn of the 20th century never settled more than 50 miles from their place of birth. They lived in rural areas amidst few people, compared to today's standards.

Yet...by and large, they had a much easier time marrying and staying married than we do today. With migration to the cities and suburbs and the many advances in communication, you'd think that we'd be the ones who would find spouses with greater ease. What gives?

The answer to that question runs deep. However, a great part of the answer lies in the fact that we carry unrealistic expectations. We are looking for a Hollywoodized, airbrushed ideal that doesn't exist. We wait for some gurglin' in the gizzard that will tell us that we've met "the one."

If the sparks don't fly immediately, then it must not be "meant to be."

And so we wait...and wait....and wait for "true love"...all the while wondering why God is holding out on us. Perhaps the problem is not with God, but with our unrealistic and filthy concept of what "love" means.

A piece of unsolicited advice: there is no such thing as "the one." Whoever you marry...well, s/he becomes "the one" when you say "I do."

"Well, maybe I didn't marry 'the one.' Maybe I married the wrong person and my soul mate is still out there."

Nope....sorry Sparky. She became your "soul mate" at the altar. You'd better take your man pill and stop sniveling about your "real soul mate" still out there.