On Jibsheet, I have posted about the bail out and consequences.  My point in that post is that events in life are to remind us that we need God.  When bad things happen, they remind us that there are consequences to our actions.  This leads to repentance, and a desire to do things God’s way.  When there are no consequences, then we don’t get reminded about God, we don’t repent, and we don’t desire to do things God’s way.  In child rearing, there are not nearly as many parents today who are willing to have their kids suffer the consequences of their action.  Should it surprise us, then, that there are fewer and fewer people (of all ages) that don’t believe in God.  We are slowly removing Him from everyday life by removing consequences from every day life.  This is not good.

I have posted a comment on recent Scripture twisting in the current political race.  You can find it here.

There is an interesting case before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals right now.  You can read about Canyon Road Baptist Church here.  The bottom line is that a Pastor scheduled a movie one Sunday evening, dealing with the fight for one man/one woman marriage in the political area.   The movie came at the issue from a biblical perspective.  After the movie, petitions to support an effort to get the issue on the ballot were in the back of the church.  The church got dinged for not filing as a political committee under Montana law.

The church cited First Amendment religious grounds for not filing as a committee; every issue has religious overtones.  For a Christian, worldview means knowing how God thinks about everything.  The court lost in the Administrative Court, the Federal District Court, and is now before the appeals court.
One could argue that a more legally savvy Pastor could have gotten around the whole thing by moving the petitions outside–announcing that a separate organization was handling them.  But, shoud he have to?  How far a reach is it to imagine that even if there were no petitions, some group might bring an action against the Pastor and Church for political rhetoric on any issue such as marriage, divorce, abortion, or even theft!  Where does it stop?

Lest you think this is far-fetched imagining, Pastors have already been taken to criminal court for “hate speech” in Canada and Scandanavia.  So, when does a Sermon or teaching become a court case?  The answer for me is, I don’t know any longer.  The bigger question is, will this threat or perceived threat silence the church.  No!  That I do know.

Wed. evening we will be discussing two recent blog posts that seem to me to hit right where too many of us Christians live–in and of the world!
The first is here, and is from our own Cindy Reaves.  It reminds me of Paul’s statement in I Cor. 15:32.  “If the dead are not raised, let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die!”  But if they are, how should we live?

The second is here, and deals with the fact that one can’t be a theistic evolutionist.  If death is “natural,” then we don’t need salvation.  Again, how many Christians try and live with one foot in the Bible and one foot in a “natural” view of life?
These questions have a lot to do with what Peter is saying in our Sunday morning text.  So, do a little thinking and come to Game Day Grill Wed. at 6:30.

What a fearsome word.  Hearing the word, apostasy, reminds me of talking with my wife about life insurance.  It makes me uncomfortable.  The Greek root speaks of departing, rebelling, turning, etc.  It ain’t pretty.

Starting this Sunday, we will be looking at the first half of 2 Peter 1.  In this chapter, Peter speaks of an experiential knowledge of God.  Later, in Chapter 2, he says that apostates share in this knowledge.  (Remember the parable of the seed sown on different soils?)

So, on Wednesday night we will discuss apostasy.  We will look at why the Bible says that apostates are folks who never have a saving faith.  Our focus will be in Hebrews 6, 2 Peter 2 and 1 Timothy 4.  Bring your questions.  It really is more important than the other life insurance!

You probably don’t know them by the name, “valedictions.”  In fact, due to email and other brief forms of communication (texting, etc.) you may not use them as frequently as you did in the past.  Valedictions are the “goodbyes” at the end of a letter (sincerely yours) or, at the end of a school year (the valedictory address).

While graduation speakers, usually the highest ranking student in the class, may put more time into their valediction, the words, like endings on a letter, are quickly forgotten; few remember what a validictorian said, or whether you ended your letter with a “sincerely yours” or a “very truly yours.”

Having said that, it may seem strange that I am preaching on the valediction which Paul gave in his letter to the Ephesians.  After all, he has stopped teaching and it is just a “goodbye.”  Well, in the “old days,” it seems that a goodbye was a real valediction.  So, we will actually spend some time looking at how Paul says goodbye.  I think when we are done, you will see that it was much more than a “;sincerely yours.”

I picked this up on Justin Taylor’s blog.  It is a great story!

The California Supreme Court has declared that California’s statutory definition of marriage, refering to a man and a woman is unconstitutional.  You can read the whole 176 pages here.   I am not surprised.  After an analysis of the current Cali Domestic Partnership Act, terms like family, loving relationship, etc., had already been applied to same-sex relationships.  You could hardly be surprised that the Court decided that it was “offensive” not to give the name along with the rights.

No, I was not surprised by that.  What I don’t get is why we don’t see that there is a disparity between the homosexual community and the heterosexual community.  Heterosexuals routinely live together and loathe the idea of getting married.  “It’s just a piece of paper.”  While heteros avoid the marriage bonds like the plague, same-sex couples are desperate for it.  They claim it as a “right.”

So, what I don’t get, is why don’t we heteros see it as a right?  Why wouldn’t we want to have that right?  The Court is right when it observes that calling same-sex couples “married” won’t hurt marriage; we do that quite well, thank you, without their help.

Now it’s time for prophecy.  The court hints that perhaps the state would have the right to rename the whole right of marriage into something else.  Would we care?  Instead of “This is my wife,” it could be, “This is my state approved domestic partner.”  And whose fault will it be?  Well, we will blame it on the gay community.  Surely it can’t be our fault for not appreciating what we haved.

If you know him as that nice kid who plays guitar on Sunday morning, you don’t know all about Cameron.  Today he shot a 76 to lead the WCA Golf team into the State Playoffs.  Awesome.  Yes, he is a Sophomore, and has two years left before he takes Covenant College golf by storm.

It is great to see a nice young man do well.  Leo Durocher, take it back–Nice guys do finish first!  Praise God.

In Genesis 3, God, as part of the curse, puts hostility between the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman; then he promises redemption to the woman.

Today in church we were reviewing the conflict that the movie, Expelled creates.  Anti-God “seed” and those who claim Him as father argue over intelligent design.  Did God create us?  We say He did, they say He didn’t.

I asked why there aren’t more conflicts representative of the seed conflict.  Why don’t we see more “spiritual warfare?”  The conversation concluded, through Jim’s comment,  that we don’t because we have made peace with so many ideas that are contrary to a Christian worldview.

Cindy said that she thinks that most of us lack the training needed to go on the defensive (offensive) and take on those who speak loudly against God.  Yet, Peter says that we are always to be ready to “apologize” for our faith.

My suggestion was that we use our minds to point out the inconsistencies in other worldviews.  For example, I read from Darwin’s The Descent of Man, and showed where he, within five pages of explaining how the survival of the fittest applies to civilized man, and where he says it doesn’t (pp.182-187).  That is an inconsistency we need to talk about.

At the same time, we should expect that the natural man won’t understand our worldview, but at least we will have taken the first step to get him to question his.  That may create conflict, but it is a kind act towards preparing others for the Gospel.

Always, when doing apologetics, use the Railroad Sign” approach; stop, look and listen.  Stop before you barge right in.  Look and listen to see if this is a good time to do this.  Will your making your point humiliate your friend in front of others?  Is he so angry that he won’t hear what you say?  Can you plan a follow up conversation?

Finally, don’t be surprised by conflict.  Spiritual conflict is what Jesus promised us.  It is what He uses to reach others through you–the seed.