If Christ be not raised

If there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen.

If Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty.

And we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up—if in fact the dead do not rise.

If the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen.

If Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins!

If in this life only we have hope in Christ (if there exists no resurrection), we are of all men the most pitiable.

All that's from Paul (1 Corinthians 15:12-19). Do you think he felt the resurrection a substantial doctrine? Do you think that he put great weight on the historic occurrence of Jesus' resurrection?

Is it any surprise that the most recent attack upon historic Christianity would target this foundational doctrine? An ancient tablet from the region where the Dead Sea Scrolls were found has been interpreted to say that Jewish tradition already had a three-day resurrection account before Jesus came along. Scholars and theologians have taken that to mean that the Messiah's disciples had heard this tradition and simply applied it to the dead Rabbi.

The tablet and its translation remain controversial (remember the James Ossuary or the Gospel of Judas?). Early translations rendered the troublesome section indecipherable. Out of the mist pops a Jewish scholar who can read it plain as day.

It seems the professor held this theory back in 2002 when he wrote "The Messiah Before Jesus" which then makes his translation even more suspicious.

Where are the voices of refutation? They are out there, but to find them, you have to wade either deep into lengthy articles (see Time Magazine's treatment here), or figure out how to strain through the mass of information that Google regurgitates to find the masked nugget.

For many, the damage is done. As the Proverb states, "The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him" (Proverbs 18:17). Because of articles that give great support to the Jewish professor (here), those who've already rejected God and those in doubt will become further blinded by deception.

Even if the tablet proves to be authentic, such a legend (perhaps a prophecy?) in no way neuters the biblical and extra-biblical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Rest easy. There is no other event from ancient history so well documented and so replete with corroborative evidence as the resurrection of Jesus Christ (Lee Strobel's The Case for Christ provides a concise look at that evidence). Pray that the lost would not be deceived.

But let's say the delusion catches fire and many become convinced the resurrection is a hoax. What would happen if, like global warming, homosexuality, and evolution, the resurrection of Christ became a topic that could not be discussed within our society because "the facts are in and the discussion closed?"

And then what would happen if, in front of our instant-anywhere media , a man were to receive a mortal wound but then in front of the camera's lens came back to life? With Jesus dismissed, this man would become a celebrity. He would become a hero. He would become a god.

Is the stage being set?

QotD: A Constitutional understanding

John Stossel, investigative reporter for ABC's 20/20, did an excellent piece on the Right to Bear Arms (here). A small excerpt from that article highlights a right understanding of our Constitution, and specifically, in this case, the Bill of Rights:

The Bill of Rights did not create rights. It acknowledged them...It shouldn't have been necessary to remind the four Supreme Court dissenters of what Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

The Framers of the Second Amendment did not say, "The people shall have the right to keep and bear arms." They wrote, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

He caps off his article with:

The victims of gun crimes are easy to count. What cannot be counted are the lives saved because would-be victims were armed.

Touche'.

The Bear rears its ugly head

The Czech Republic has agreed to place a US missile defense system on its soil. Similar in nature to a Patriot missile battery, this system would target and knockdown incoming missiles both conventional and nuclear.

Who dislikes this measure? Russia (UPI story here). They seem none too happy that any of its former Socialist Republics would have any type of missile defense. The question is why? It's a defensive system. It has no ulterior offensive capability. It's not created to target cities.

As the Bear continues to tone up and beef up its atrophied muscles and as Vladimir Putin moves from the role of president to prime minister, one can only wonder what's going on with the Russian discomfort.

In fact, it's gone beyond discomfort. “We will be forced to react not with diplomatic, but with military-technical methods,” the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a released statement. That would be like Washington DC incarcerating its citizens for having guns to protect their homes. Wait a minute. Bad example.

Some may compare this to the Cuban Missile Crisis. I hope the differences are obvious. The USSR attempted to place nuclear missiles on Cuban soil. Canned sunshine a stone's throw from Miami beach?? Nuclear missiles, when last I looked, turn cities into glass. Defensive? Not so much.

The US missile defense shield? Conventional weaponry (i.e. no nukes). No fallout. Intended to destroy only incoming threats.

Perhaps the most disconcerting scenario sees the Czechs setting up the defense and the Russians blowing it to bits. Now what? My fear that the US would do nothing. The Bear would bloody the nose of the West, and the strongest western player (America) would do nothing, not because we do not have the military capability (oh, we do!), but because I do not believe that our nation has the belly to stand against a direct challenge from a formidable foe. I fear, like Neville Chamberlain, we would try and make nice, seeking (personal) peace (and affluence) in our time as the ultimate good.

So why the bluster? Why the baring of the incisors? Have the hammer and sickle returned?

What gives in the land of Gog?

Government's purpose

The God-ordained purpose for government is the protection of the citizenry from the lawless both from within and from without. When it creeps beyond that, government begins to make life miserable for the people it is meant to serve.

Chuck Colson's column today is a case in point. You'll find it here.

Who speaks for God, II

Meandering through one of my favorite web-sites the other day, I stumbled upon Michael Medved's blog where he touted a new book by former National Review literary editor and now Discovery Institute fellow, David Klinghoffer, titled "How Would God Vote?"

While the title will rankle no feathers, the subtitle will elicit piercing screams that would impress the melting Witch of the West, "Why the Bible Commands You to be a Conservative."

First, I have not read the book but look forward to doing so. The premise has been my contention all along. I assume Klinghoffer has taken the time to scour God's word in context to note how the Bible points to conservative vice liberal governance.

Second, Klinghoffer, like Medved, is a conservative orthodox Jew. While we will certainly disagree on the salvation issue, the orthodox Jew and regenerate Christian have much in common in their living out their conviction. It will be interesting to see if he delves into New Testament writings at all.

Finally, I have heard that there are sections that will either raise eyebrows or furrow the brow for the conservative, sections dealing with immigration and gun control.

I've been asked recently about Christian disagreements and denominations. How can two folks look at the same Word and come to such different conclusions? Most of it comes down to the science and art of biblical interpretation. A century and a half ago a movement began in Germany called Higher Criticism that began to chip away at the veracity, the truth, of Scripture. Much of what came out of that movement has led to the atrophy of such bastions of the Reformation Lutheranism, Methodism, and half of Presbyterianism.

Do Christians remain in these denominations? Without a doubt. But rather than a higher view of Scripture, Higher Criticism, by reducing the inspiration and inerrancy of God's word, is a lower view of Scripture and as such, has left many Christians without the proper tools to take God's word and assess our culture, our government, our churches, or our lives.

Sincerity and passion do not make a belief or conviction true. I can be sincere and passionate while at the same time be sincerely and passionately wrong because what I believe stands opposed to the whole counsel of God's word. When I am wrong, I pray that a brother or sister comes to me, with Bible in hand, and shows me the way of truth through the source of Truth.

I appreciate David Klinghoffer having the courage to write such a book. Now let's see if it's worth its ink.

(Klinghoffer has a blog where he has posted what is printed on the book's jacket. You can find it here).

Scottish Muslims

Photo from Scottish Tayside Police

When I first saw the headline on FoxNews.com, I couldn't help but giggle:

Ad Featuring Popular Police Pup Sparks Anger in Scottish Muslim Communities.

Muslims in Scotland. Hmmmm... I'd always considered England, Scotland, and Ireland hotbeds for confrontation between Protestants and Catholics. With the inundation within Europe from the Middle East, these nations find more and more they must deal with those who don't want to play by the rules of Western civilization.

The article details the offense taken by Muslim immigrants over postcards sent out to let folks know the new phone numbers for the local police. The problem: the pooch in the picture above. Dogs are to Muslims what pigs are to Jews (or Muslims, for that matter), pinstripes are to a Red Sox fan, or cheeseheads to a Viking fan. Horror!

Now wait a minute. Whatever happened to "when in Rome?" I'm not calling for Muslims to breed poodles or chihuahuas (considered torture in any culture), but when you move to a land that serves tripe and haggis, what do you expect?

Here is the problem with tolerance: you lose your cultural identity. Nature abhors a vacuum. You cannot be so tolerant of everything that you stand for nothing. The power that then asserts itself will rule the day as Islam is doing in Europe (ref. America Alone by Mark Steyn). It has gotten so bad that in England, a recently constructed cemetery has all the graves pointing toward Mecca in accordance with Islamic law (link here), and it is not even a Muslim cemetery! The Brits simply feared offending Islamic corpses.

In our history, did Jews boycott Piggly Wiggly? Did Asians push for chopsticks in all restaurants or pudgy Buddhas in all our parks? It's time to stem the tide of accommodation. If you don't like it here, don't come here (a used-t0-be Christian nation). If my puppy postcard offends you, pitch it or amscray! If you're coming to America, learn the language!

If I were to gripe about anything Scottish, it would be dudes wearing skirts and tams with long chops playing bagpipes (unless of course it's Amazing Grace which is phenomenal with the pipes).

232

Happy Birthday, America!

The extraordinary experiment that began 232 years ago continues to this day. No other constitutional form of government has lasted a fraction as long as what was birthed in 1776.

Why have we lasted so long, why have we been so blessed? I would contend that if we started from scratch today to create a form of government to rule our land, that new constitution would not get us to 2050 much less 2076. Our nation was founded upon bedrock by men who understood how critical a firm foundation was.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, we are not a democracy (I commend an early blog post to see quotes on the founders about Republic or Democracy). Note here a quote from our second president, John Adams, and contrast it with what is happening today (italics, etc., mine):

[D]emocracy will soon degenerate into an anarchy; such an anarchy that every man will do what is right in his own eyes and no man's life or property or reputation or liberty will be secure, and every one of these will soon mould itself into a system of subordination of all the moral virtues and intellectual abilities, all the powers of wealth, beauty, wit, and science, to the wanton pleasures, the capricious will, and the execrable [abominable] cruelty of one or a very few.

The rebellion of the '60's has become the leadership of our statehouses in 2008. Will we continue to turn from the rule of law to the rule of whim or will we resist this tide of personal irresponsibility? As we cede our personal responsibility to an obese government, so, too, we cede our liberty and property.

We have succeeded because that bedrock is the only firm foundation that exists, the Bible. Understand, this was not pure pragmatism. The Founding Fathers had a breadth and depth of study that far surpasses that of those in leadership today and could have selected any other form if they felt it would bring about success. Not only did they understand that a government founded upon godly principles would be the very best, but they knew that it could only flourish if lived by a people who had first submitted themselves to God.

As we the people move further from God, the more we chafe under the Constitution that brought about our freedoms.

I offer this link on Independence Day to stir your soul.

Happy birthday to you! Praise God and savor the day.

(David Barton, the author of the article, is the founder of Wall Builders, an organization which searches the original documents and writings of our nation's first leaders to discern their intent in regarding the issues of our nation. He also has arguably the largest personal collection of writings of our Founders. On the left side of the Wall Builder's page, you'll find a link titled Issues/Articles. It is a GREAT resource for understanding the historic and biblical roots behind what's happening in our nation.)

Know your audience

Know your audience. It is rule number one in public speaking. The astrophysicist can lay completely different lingo on his brothers down at the astrolab than he can on the parents of his son's Little League team.

Knowing your audience is one thing. Altering your message to satisfy your audience is something completely different. Such would be something we would expect of a comedian, not a doctor. This is wholly unacceptable to pastors and Christians responsible for handling the word of God rightly.

A friend dropped this Time Magazine article in my lap. The gist: many Christians have come to believe that avenues exist to heaven apart from Christ. The Pew Foundation which does a great deal of polling to determine our nation's religious temperature came to that conclusion. 57% of Evangelical Christian respondents were willing to concede that their might be other paths to heaven.

Time's closing paragraph dumps the load right in the lap of pastors:

The (Pew Foundation) survey's biggest challenge is to the theologians and pastors who will have to reconcile their flocks' acceptance of a new, polyglot heaven with the strict admission criteria to the gated community that preceded it.

If pastors are reconciling the survey, they care too much about audience opinion. They become no better than clowns or motivational speakers when the Audience they need to impress will be neither motivated or amused.

(This, too, is why I believe it is imperative for Christians to reason through the issues with other Christians from the perspective of God's word. In a world that rejects any moral authority, it is the only authority to which we can appeal, especially with others who identify themselves as Christians. If they will not hear the appeal of God's word, that is a grievous thing, but we have done what God has asked of us.)

E'08: Dear John

I haven't jotted about the Republican nominee (I think "presumptive" is the adjective of the media's choice here lately). Frankly, there's been nothing about him that has stirred the soul or rankled the feathers.

John McCain, where for art thou?

Do I comment on retired general Wesley Clark, who vied for the Democratic nomination four years ago, calling to question McCain's military service? I'll see your four-stars and raise you seven years in the Hanoi Hilton.
What's McCain been doing for the last three weeks?

Where's he been going? With whom has he chatted? Hello?

This bodes ill for the Republican. He doesn't seem to be worth covering. Media bias notwithstanding, you'd think he would misspell potato or something to at least get a camera turned his direction. iPodders are going to vote for whom they see, and we're not seeing Senator McCain.

Maybe this is the lull before the media storm.

Has anybody seen John?

Photo by Janeene Touchton

Oops! Did he say that?!?

On Father's Day, Barack Obama gave a commendable (and articulate as always) speech on the gargantuan need for men to stand up in the black community and be husbands and dads.

Within the heart of the speech he said:

"We need fathers to realize that responsibility does not end at conception."

When I first heard the speech commented upon, this nugget escaped every commentator. Okay, almost every commentator. Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council picked up on the contradiction (again) between what the man says and what the man does. Mr. Perkins queried:

"I would like to ask Senator Obama: if my responsibility as a father began at conception, isn't that when the lives of my children began?"

That would be like John McCain speaking about the blessed unions going on in San Francisco starting this last week. Perkins further pointed the spotlight at Senator Obama's very abortion-friendly voting record:

"He is the co-sponsor of the Federal Freedom of Choice Act, a sweeping piece of legislation that will legalize partial-birth abortion and overturn virtually all federal and state limitations on abortion," he says. "Senator Obama understands that a father's responsibility does not end at conception, but does he understand that it begins there as well?"

I guess he should sleep on his speeches before hitting "send" with his mouth.