Gillian Flaccus described Eggebeen’s idea: “He would turn God’s house into a doghouse by offering a 30-minute service complete with individual doggie beds, canine prayers and an offering of dog treats. He hopes it will reinvigorate the church’s connection with the community, provide solace to elderly members and, possibly, attract new worshippers who are as crazy about God as they are about their four-legged friends.”

Answers in Genesis tackles one of my favorite topics, Theodicy, in their Young-earth Creationist response to William Dembski.  Be sure to check out Christian Theodicy in Light of Genesis and Modern Science:

The problem of evil is always a challenge for the Christian witness. Human suffering and moral evil are relatively easy for the apologist to explain, and the Fall of Adam is a key to that explanation. But the thornier question is that of natural evil (disasters like hurricanes, volcanoes, earthquakes) that kill not only people but innocent animals. In particular, if we accept millions of years of animal death, disease, and extinction before Adam was even created, how do we explain that in light of God’s attributes and purposes? William Dembski has published a 54-page response to this question. He explains his reasons for rejecting the young-earth creationist theodicy and several old-earth theodicies and proposes a solution that accommodates the millions of years of natural evil which evolutionary scientists insist occurred before man appeared. This paper will analyze and critique Dembski’s proposal, showing it to be inadequate and inconsistent with Scripture and contending that only the young-earth view gives an adequate and biblically sound answer to the problem of natural evil. It is therefore a powerful apologetic to make the Christian witness effective in our evolutionized world.

Also over at Answers in Genesis there is an interesting article in response to some feedback concerning “Righteous Lies”:

I often wonder if a Nazi soldier asked if someone was there hiding and they told the truth before God, could the Lord have in mind a greater purpose? Could God have used that person to free a great many people who ultimately died in the Holocaust? Or have done something to stop the war earlier? Or cause a great number of Jews and Nazi’s to come to know Christ? It is possible, but we simply cannot know. And one should not dwell too long on “what ifs” anyway.

No doubt, there is great value in the truth (John 8:32). As fallible, sinful human beings, our imperfect thoughts may not be able to comprehend what God has in mind, and we need to strive to trust God when He speaks on this subject, regardless how hard it may be. We need to place our faith fully in Christ and trust in God in all things—and not lean on our own understanding (Proverbs 3:5).

I’m not saying this to be “preachy,” because I really don’t know what I would do in such a situation. However, I would pray that the Lord would grant me the wisdom to know what to say and how to say it—but more preferably—how to avoid being in that situation in the first place.

And as always be sure to check out Free Stuff Fridays over at Tim Challies’ Blog!

Let’s remember to pray for one another this weekend!  Pray for power in our pulpits and that each of us arrives expectantly to glorify, honor and worship our Almighty God through His Son, our Savior, Jesus Christ!

We know that about half of all citizens in the United Kingdom now want intelligent design taught alongside evolution in the British schools. In America, evolutionary scientists are trying to explain why young children seem “hardwired” to see evidence of intelligent design in the world around them. And a quick look around the globe will demonstrate that belief in the worldview of evolution is actually held by a very thin demographic slice of the world’s population.

It’s “Free Stuff Fridays” over at challies.com! Lot’s of great stuff being given away!

This week Ligonier Ministries is offering 50 (count ‘em 50!) prizes. Each of the 50 (!) winners will be given a year-long subscription to Tabletalk Magazine (or a subscription for a friend, neighbor, hairdresser, family member, etc if the winner happens to already be a subscriber).

Maybe there is hope after all for reforming prison inmates! Read how a few inmates save a guard over at CNN

Col. James Previtera, commander of Hillsborough County’s Department of Detention Services, told reporters he believed that the inmates “saved the deputy’s life.”
“The response of the inmates in this case, I think, speaks volumes as to the fact that we treat these men and women … in our facilities with a lot of respect,” Previtera said.

Have a great weekend! Pray for God’s power in His churches around the world as we worship and praise the Almighty!

Now, today, we read over at the 9Marks blog about another well-known atheist, Christopher Hitchens who, basically, commends one whom he has recently debated, Douglas Wilson, on how he presents the argument and handles what we believe is the absolute Truth in the word of God.  Here is an excerpt from the quote used over at 9Marks:

I have discovered that the so-called Christian right is much less monolithic, and very much more polite and hospitable, than I would once have thought, or than most liberals believe.

Wilson isn’t one of those evasive Christians who mumble apologetically about how some of the Bible stories are really just “metaphors.” He is willing to maintain very staunchly that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ and that his sacrifice redeems our state of sin, which in turn is the outcome of our rebellion against God. He doesn’t waffle when asked why God allows so much evil and suffering—of course he “allows” it since it is the inescapable state of rebellious sinners. I much prefer this sincerity to the vague and Python-esque witterings of the interfaith and ecumenical groups who barely respect their own traditions and who look upon faith as just another word for community organizing.

As believers, this should give us a good reason for some thought and reflection upon how our lives are lived and how we represent the Faith.  It’s so easy to get riled up by the likes of Christopher Hitchens and some of the inflammatory things he writes and represents.  It’s very natural for us to get all up-in-arms about books like like that of Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion.  What we need to recognize, though, is that how we represent the truth can be just as important as the truth we represent.  After all, how can we proclaim a truth that we claim as transformational, when, in fact, we sometimes bluster and blow like the staunchest atheist?  If the truth matters, and I believe it does, then shouldn’t the transformational truth-claims about God be quite evident in the way our lives are lived out and how we treat others — even devout atheists?  One needs only to take a quick glance at the words of two of today’s most well-known atheists to prove the old adage, “People don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care.”

“It is because we are committed to Evangelism that we must speak in antithesis at times. If we do not make clear by word and practice our position for truth and against false doctrine, we are building a wall between the next generation and the gospel. The unity of evangelicals should be on the basis of truth, not evangelism itself. If this is not so, “success” in evangelism can result in weakening Christianity. Any consideration of methods is secondary to this central principle.”  –Francis Schaeffer

The problem, as I see it, is what passes for Evangelism these days.

Recently, there has been an ongoing clamor within the Southern Baptist Convention as Reformed Theology has made a resurgence, and SBC Evangelists decry that Reformed folks are not interested in evangelism and therefore the need for SBC evangelists is declining.   This erroneous idea is perpetuated by articles such as the interview we find inSBC Today with Dr. Bill Wagner, former IMB missionary and recently-announced candidate for the SBC Presidency during this June’s Convention meeting.  In the interview, there is yet another SBC leader who grossly misstates reformed theology and displays very elementary errors concerning the understanding of the Reformed position.  In the audio interview, Dr. Wagner mentions the following:

….I have spoken to a lot of our missionaries overseas and its a very strange thing because our missionaries have said that we are beginning to get more and more people out on the field who are Calvinistic in their theology, and it is strange, but those that are Calvinistic are not nearly as desirous of winning people to Christ as they are about talking about theology. So I am little bit fearful, that if Calvinism begins to have too much influence, that we might go the way of some of the other Protestant denominations have gone and that is to deemphasize our missions. Now, I know of a lot of tremendous missionaries who are Calvinists. But I say, by and large, Calvinists have a tendency to be less missional in their approach.

I couldn’t help but wonder, since, according to Wagner, Calvinists are “less missional,” then why are “more and more people who are Calvinistic in their theology” entering the mission field? That, in and of itself, would indicate the opposite of what Dr. Wagner states. But more importantly, I think a clarification needs to be made. If by “less missional” Dr. Wagner means “less willing to lead someone through some magical, parroted prayer to be saved” then I would have to agree. You see, the difference between most of those in the reformed camp and the majority of Southern Baptist evangelists, is that, though we both have a desire to see people saved, we may have different approaches to accomplishing this goal. One seems to rely on elements of coercion based upon an immediate response from the one with whom they are counseling and the other is willing to answer the difficult questions potential converts may have and is careful not to lead someone into a false profession based simply on a man-centered idea of salvation and an emotional high that often accompanies such meetings.  How many times have you seen public manipulation at the front of the auditorium?  Be honest!  We need to be careful when handling the word of God and we need to be just as careful in handling a potential convert.  If the Gospel is worth sharing, and I, even being Reformed, believe it is, it is worth sharing accurately and absent of coercion, scare tactics and emotional pleas.  While emotion may indeed be a part of one’s conversion, it should not be a “decision” one makes based on the aforementioned emotions or scare tactics used by many of today’s evangelists (God’s Three Deadlines, anyone???   This is not a numbers game.  It is not a popularity contest.  It is the most important occurence in one’s life:  the regeneration, (which precedes faith) justification and redemption of a lost sinner into the glorious gain and life of the cross.  It cannot be manufactured and it cannot and should not be manipulated.  The Gospel, after all, is not man-made or man-initiated but God-ordained and initiated by God Himself via the Holy Spirit through the preaching of the Word.  It doesn’t get any plainer or simpler than that.

Master, they say that when I seem
To be in speech with you,
Since you make no replies, it’s all a dream
—One talker aping two.

They are half right, but not as they
Imagine; rather, I
Seek in myself the things I meant to say,
And lo! The wells are dry.

Then, seeing me empty, you forsake
The Listener’s role, and through
My dead lips breathe and into utterance wake
The thoughts I never knew.

And thus you neither need reply
Nor can; thus, while we seem
Two talking, thou are One forever, and I
No dreamer, but thy dream.

Prayer is one of those things that still perplex me when I really stop and think. I know it is vitally important, but I also know that God knows my very thoughts before I even utter them, so I am constantly mulling over how God works in and through prayer, and whether my prayer really moves the heart of God, or is God moving me through this “medium” of prayer? As I revisit Lewis’ Poem above, I’m reminded of another quote from John Bunyan, “When you pray, rather let your heart be without words than your words without heart.” What are your thoughts on prayer?

Warren predicts that fundamentalism, of all varieties, will be “one of the big enemies of the 21st century.”
“Muslim fundamentalism, Christian fundamentalism, Jewish fundamentalism, secular fundamentalism – they’re all motivated by fear. Fear of each other.”

I suppose Rick Warren reads a lot of Wikipedia. It is the first part of Wikipedia’s definition of “fundamentalism” to which Warren appears to be appealing. Dr. R. Albert Mohler states the following on his Blog

Equating Christian fundamentalism with Muslim fundamentalism is both wrong and dishonest. This falls right into the hands of those who argue for a phenomenological definition of “religion” that includes “fundamentalism” as a general reference to any person or movement that refuses to accept the basic worldview of modernity. Adding the therapeutic category of “fear” just adds to the confusion. The motivation of fundamentalist Christianity is fear of Muslims and Jews?

As if there isn’t enough confusion and misunderstanding about Christianity and faith in the world, now Warren is lumping in Muslim fundamentalists with those Christians who hold to the fundamentals of the Christian Faith. If you notice the Wikipedia definition and description of Christian Fundamentals references a work describing the fundamentals as “The Virgin Birth, the bodily Resurrection, sinless life of Christ” and things of this nature, in other words, the things that make Christianity distinct and true and, well, Christianity. I’m not sure what Warren is trying to accomplish by making such murky statements, but, as Mohler states, “This approach [certainly] doesn’t help.”

But Democrats often portrayed him as too eager to side with the police, the president and corporations in disputed matters. They chafed at his refusal to wholeheartedly embrace or flatly disavow several contentious memos and speeches he wrote in the 1980s as a Reagan administration lawyer. Saying he would keep “an open mind” tells people nothing, said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), because no nominee would be foolish enough to say his mind is closed.

Well, thank you Mr. Schumer. What an astute observation. If you know this going in, then one wonders why you even ask the question. Do you think it would make Mr. Schumer happy if Alito said he was in support of abortion and would never overturn Roe vs. Wade regardless of the merits of the case? Is that really the answer he is seeking? It seems to me that a good judge, the kind we should be seeking to be on our Supreme Court, would answer just as Alito has answered. This will all be forgotten soon after Alito, perhaps one of the more competent judges that will be confirmed in recent memory (along with Roberts) is at work with the other Supreme Court Justices and the Looney Left stops their ridiculous fabrications in an attempt to keep him from being confirmed. I’m for you, Mr. Alito, and may God use you as you make those all-important decisions in your new role as Supreme Court Justice. I believe you will make a wonderful Supreme Court Justice.

Friday, November 11, 2005 JERUSALEM (AP) — Archaeologists digging at the purported biblical home of Goliath have unearthed a shard of pottery bearing an inscription of the Philistine’s name, a find they claimed lends historical credence to the Bible’s tale of David’s battle with the giant.

While the discovery is not definitive evidence of Goliath’s existence, it does support the Bible’s depiction of life at the time the battle was supposed to have occurred, said Dr. Aren Maeir, a professor at Bar-Ilan University and director of the excavation.

“What this means is that at the time there were people there named Goliath,” he said. “It shows us that David and Goliath’s story reflects the cultural reality of the time.” In the story, David slew Goliath with a slingshot.

Some scholars assert the story of David slaying the giant Goliath is a myth written down hundreds of years later. Maeir said finding the scraps lends historical credence to the biblical story.

The shard dates back to around 950 B.C., within 70 years of when biblical chronology asserts David squared off against Goliath, making it the oldest Philistine inscription ever found, the archaeologists said.

Scientists made the discovery at Tel es-Safi, a dig site in southern Israel thought to be to be the location of the Philistine city of Gath.