Wonderful Cross by Michael W. Smith

Renewing Your Burden for Souls

From William @ http://reformingbaptist.blogspot.com

Something that is very heavy on my heart right now in ministry is my personal burden for the lost. It is also a huge concern I have for our church. One of the men in my church and I were talking the other day about a plan for church growth. Most of us in Fundamentalism are trying to get all kinds of new people in so we can grow from the outside, in. We talked about what it would take to grow from the inside, out! Loving eachother, getting the church to function like a true body of believers and from that love for eachother reaching out and bringing people in to a loving church family community.

At the same time, my heart is heavy about the lost outside our community right now! It is so easy to put on blinders and only worry about what's going on in our own churches without caring about what's going on in the lost wildreness of the world where people are ruining their lives, destroying their marriages, corrupting themselves and are on a fast track highway to hell.

I called my friend Bro. Dan Garlick from La Espada to just unload my heart about the matter. He agreed with me that easy-believism type of evangelism has hurt the cause of Christ, but guys like me who have rejected that kind of evangelism sometimes swing to the extreme opposite side of the spectrum and hurt our own efforts to reach the lost.

Here are some things that I am going to personally cultivate in my life to keep my heart for souls hot:

1. Look at the lost person as if you were him.

We may be on the saved side now, but we were not always there. At one time, we were blinded by the devil's lies and we wondered aimlessly in sin running from God and His love. You were just one in a trillion people on this planet who was no better than any of them, and because God set his unconditional love on you, you should love them unconditionally also.

2. Look at the effect sin has had on that person.

When I see the little gang banger punks walking around in my neighborhood, it is easy to resent their lifestyle and as a result, resent them personally. That is a totally wrong way of looking at them. They have been damaged by sin; and if they are not converted, they will only take that damage and spread it to their friends, family and children.

3. Anticipate their Conversion

Look at each person as if they might be the next person that God draws to himself through your witness. Anticipate God to His part if you're willing to do yours! Be active about it, search for every opportunity that may arise to share the gospel, or plant a seed in someones heart.

4. Always carry tracts, and literature with you

I can always count on my wife to have these when I don't! Get in the habit of carrying around some gospel tracts, and always be thinking of clever ways to present them to people. The "If you died today would you go to heaven?" line doesn't always work. That is all I have ever been taught, so it is what comes easy. However, there can be other ways of initiating the conversation in the midst of other conversations.

5. Don't be Afraid

What I tend to be most afraid of is offending them and turning them off. Well, the gospel if it is told correctly, is offensive! We have a "product" that nobody wants to "buy"; and that is why the gospel gets watered down and re-packaged so it is attractive. Do not get tempted to play down the wickedness of sin, the reality of hell so you can appeal to their want for heaven. Everyone wants to go to heaven, but no one wants to repent of their sin. Remember, it is the law of the Lord that converts the soul not your smooth talking! Use the law lawfully to expose their sin. Let them see it for themselves and draw their own conclusions. Do not PRESS for a decision if you feel that the person is resisting. Let what you gave them sink in a little and go back a little later for some more, but be careful that it is not your fear that keeps you from pressing for a decision. Very rarely is a person ready to be saved after a 5 minute conversation about salvation; but sometimes that person has already had the seed planted and the watering from elsewhere, and when you come across him, he's ripe and ready!

6. Be Content in Obedience to Christ

I know that we want to see results that are visible and immediate! I do! But, be content in your heart if you know that you have earnestly obeyed God from the heart by your witnessing. Understand that it is God who brings the increase, not you. You are responsible to plant seeds and water them. God will do his part if you obey.

7. Pray for Fruit

Everything we do should be bathed in prayer. We need to be completely dependent on His power to bring forth the fruit. So, get on your face before God and beg Him to produce the fruit since He's the only one that can do it! I'm sure God will give you a heart to lead lost souls to Himself if you want it bad enough to pray for it!

English Puritans on Meditation

Review from tony reinke @ http://spurgeon.wordpress.com

My friend Amy Gant has a published new website devoted to the topic of English Puritan Meditation. The website compliments her excellent MA thesis, “‘Beating a Path to Heaven’: Nathanael Ranew and the Puritan Art of Divine Meditation in the Seventeenth Century.” The thesis focused on Ranew’ book Solitude improved by divine meditation.

From the website:

“To the Puritans, divine meditation involved personal devotion and edification in the sense of thinking godly thoughts - thinking the type of thoughts that Jesus Christ Himself might think. Or, as Richard Baxter put it, “…meditation is but the reading over and repeating God’s reasons to our hearts, and so disputing with ourselves in his arguments and terms.” As scholar Richard Douglas Jordan has said, Baxter also “took a stand against enthusiasm in devotion and saw meditation as involved with reason and the written word. In his Christian Directory, Baxter spoke of the Christian’s delight in God as a ’solid rational’ experience.” These understandings stemmed both from Scriptural examples such as those in the Psalms and from biblically-based doctrines of salvation, sanctification, and more, which provide motivation for many of the Christian disciplines.

It required a great amount of personal self-control to focus one’s mind upon unseen realities such as God and Heaven. The motivation for such intellectual pursuits was based, again, in Puritan doctrine: they were committed to meditation because they understood the Scriptures to teach that it was God’s will for them to practice it. Yet the great emphasis, earnestness and time commitment which they gave to this task is best understood in light of the Puritan sense of urgency in performing all the spiritual disciplines, and in living a godly life in general. Because of their focus on the shortness of life, Puritans tended to abhor unnecessary wasting of the time that God had given them, as servants, to perform their duties on earth. For this reason, mental discipline came to be very important for the Puritans - and meditation was a large part of that process.”

You will find a great deal of biblical and historical information on the art of divine meditation. I would encourage you to take some time... to look around.

Sermon Outline: Living Right 1 Peter 2:11-12

Living Right 1 Peter 2:11-12

Matthew 5:16

1) Godly Inner Discipline 1 Pt 2 :11

Phil. 3:20

Heb. 13:14

Gal. 5:19–21

Rom. 7:14–23

Eph. 2:1–3

1 John 2:15–17

James 1:13-15, 12

2) Godly Outward Deportment 1 Pt 2:12

Isa. 10:3

Jer. 29:10

Luke 1:68

Luke 19:43-44

Who Is Going To Be Your Master?

Question: “Should I give money to people on the street who ask for it?”

by Michael Spencer @ http://www.internetmonk.com

I received some good questions from a reader on the subject of giving to panhandlers. Here are a few thoughts and responses. I may have more to say in the comments.

Matthew 5:38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41 And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.

1. The Biblical teaching on compassion for the poor, justice and generosity are well-established and crucial for a life of following Jesus.

2. The establishment of deacons and of guidelines for who is a “widow” indicates that the early church was aware of the issues that arise when Christians must make judgments regarding benevolence. I Timothy 5:3 and 5:16 indicate some are “truly” widows and others are not.

3. Paul condemns those who refuse to work, yet still seek to eat. The existence of such verses as 2 Thessalonians 3:10 and 3:12 make it clear that the church knew what a freeloader was. Notice Paul’s defense of himself in 2 Thessalonians 3:8 nor did we eat anyone’s bread without paying for it, but with toil and labor we worked night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you. Consider the ethical background of that statement: It is wrong to receive support as charity when support from work is possible.

4. I have experienced aggressive, convincing panhandlers in many situations. I have seen many people standing at interstate exit ramps and elsewhere with signs saying they want work. I am as moved by the needs of truly deserving people as anyone, perhaps more so.

5. For several years I did inner city mission projects and worked closely with ministries in inner cities such as Chicago, Boston and Louisville. I learned a lot, and my responses to those people changed as a result.

-Aggressive panhandlers are almost almost professional beggars. Many times they are active and wanted criminals. In the right place with the right approach, they can make several hundred dollars a day. (A seminary class I was in proved this. Students lived on the streets for 24 hours and begged for money and food. The results were amazing.)
-Local police and ministries are almost always familiar with these people. Asking them to come with you to a “Help” Ministry or to a police officer will quickly reveal what is actually going on.
-Aggressive panhandlers have very similar stories involving traveling, ill relatives, hospitals, gas, car repair, being lost, babies, etc.
-Aggressive panhandlers will almost always turn down the invitation to buy them a meal. They insist on quick cash.
-Ministries that deal with this are very clear: Don’t give money to aggressive panhandlers. Report them. They hurt the real work of mercy ministry in a community.

6. Another group of people asking for help will be alcoholics and drug addicts. Again, they almost always insist on cash, and generally will refuse to be taken to a shelter, ministry or police station. It is important not to allow an alcoholic or addict to use Christian compassion to further their addiction. True compassion is to put them in touch with help.

7. Dave Ramsey tells the story of working with his church’s benevolence ministry. They put three guidelines into place for all people asking for financial or food assistance. 1) Work an hour or two at the church. 2) Meet with a member of the church to make out a budget. 3) Attend one church service. Ramsey says that over 95% of persons asking for financial help did not return when these guidelines were given to them. This is a good indicator of the actual makeup of most benevolence requests.

8) If a person does not believe that prudence and wisdom need to accompany generosity, consider this situation: John and Jenny are at the movies. They come out and a panhandler asks for $20 for gas. Jenny gives it to him and they skip dinner together. The next day, Jenny and John are enrolling in college. A panhandler meets Jenny on the steps of the administration building and asks for $2000 to fly to his mother’s funeral in the Solomon Islands. Jenny has the money in her checkbook. Should she write the check?

If not, why not? If prudence and wisdom should come into play with $2000, then it should also come into play with $20.

9) Money given to aggressive panhandlers is money that can’t be given to the truly poor. Go to any ministry that deals with people who are truly poor. They will tell you that almost none of those poor people would be on the streets begging in America today because of the dangers, the criminal element and so forth. Addiction, mental illness, con artists and criminal intent are on most of America’s streets. The truly poor will be known to local shelters, ministries, schools and social workers. There are many opportunities to give to families and children who truly need the money and would never be begging on the streets with a story such as we commonly hear from panhandlers.

10) Every situation of compassion also has elements of wisdom. My son recently asked me for financial assistance to attend a writer’s workshop. I am not going to automatically give him the money in the name of Christian compassion. I am going to be a good steward and a good manager of what God has given me, and ask questions before giving. This is true at every level of giving. I receive hundreds of appeals every year. Dozens of students and missionaries ask for my support. (Many of them make far more than I do!) I am very, very selective about who I give to, and I ask many questions before giving. I believe this is God-honoring, as much as the generosity itself.

11) Jesus’ words are meant to underline the compassion and freedom of the Christian. Our generosity is an important expression of our discipleship. At times, we need to give with much less than perfect knowledge, and at times we need to obey the Spirit as he gives opportunity. But we are also to know the “streets and highways” where we are, and we are not to volunteer to be robbed as a witness. Aggressive panhandlers like Sundays, and they like Christians. We need to give them a dollar, a coupon and a brochure for the local “Help” office. We need to give to the truly needy a gift that will make a difference in their lives.

12) The parallelism of verse 42 is important as “beg” and “borrow” relate to one another. The one who borrows is making a promise to use wisely or even to repay. It is the neighbor in need, not the panhandler, that Jesus has in mind, I believe. The poor are our neighbors, but the person actively seeking to abuse another’s charity elicits a different response.

13) Apply the parenting test. If your child got $50 from grandma, would you tell them to give it to anyone at school who said they needed it? Or would you want some wisdom, prudence and stewardship to follow their compassion?

14) I know I sound like Scrooge, but I really think stewardship is not just pure generosity. Generosity is an essential component, but it needs to be tempered by prudence, wisdom and good judgement.

"There's Not Much Lord in this Church Service"

By Albert Mohler @ http://www.albertmohler.com

The movement toward gender-neutral language for God has picked up steam in recent years, and liberal churches have been busy rewriting language for worship and theology. Just last year the Presbyterian Church (USA) voted to "receive" a document that called for Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to be replaced or supplemented with triads such as "Sun, Light, and Burning Ray," "Overflowing Font, Living Water, and Flowing River," and Fire that Consumes, Sword that Divides, and Storm that Melts Mountains."

That report even suggested an explicitly female triad -- "Compassionate Mother, Beloved Child, Life-Giving Womb." The report was controversial, but this kind of nonsense has been spreading for some time now. Many feminists simply insist that they cannot or will not worship a God who names Himself exclusively in male terms. Yet, to rename God is to create an idol -- a false god of our own creativity and invention. Put simply -- God gets to name Himself.

Now, a report out of Tucson, Arizona indicates just how far many churches have already gone down the road of reinventing God. As Stephanie Innes reports in the Arizona Daily Star, some churches have banished the word "Lord."

From her article:

At Tucson's largest Episcopal church, St. Philip's in the Hills, the creators of an alternative worship service called Come & See are bucking tradition by rewriting what have become prescribed ways of worship.

For the faithful, that means God isn't referred to as "him," and references to "the Lord" are rare.

"Lord" has become a loaded word conveying hierarchical power over things, "which in what we have recorded in our sacred texts, is not who Jesus understood himself to be," St. Philip's associate rector Susan Anderson-Smith said.

"The way our service reads, the theology is that God is love, period," St. Philip's deacon Thomas Lindell added. "Our service has done everything it can to get rid of power imagery. We do not pray as though we expect the big guy in the sky to come and fix everything."

These statements are nothing short of amazing. It is hard to imagine that they are meant to be taken seriously, but they clearly are. Take, for example, Susan Anderson-Smith's argument that the word Lord "has become a loaded word conveying hierarchical power over things." Has become such a word? The word, translated from both Greek and Hebrew word forms, has always meant hierarchy. Indeed, the word is meaningless without that meaning. Later, she expanded this point even further:

In the strictest Christian sense, "Lord" comes from the Greek word kyrios, which Greek culture in the first century understood in much different ways, Anderson-Smith said. Evidence suggests the word was used in talking about Jesus as the fullest embodied revelation of God, but it had a lot less to do with hierarchy than what the word means now, she said.

Once again, her statements are directly at odds with the truth -- and a truth quite easily demonstrated. There is not only every reason to reject her argument that "Lord" is more hierarchical in meaning today than in the biblical era -- there is good reason to see the truth as the precise opposite of her argument. Indeed, the most powerful display of the essentially hierarchical nature of this divine title is found in the New Testament itself:

Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father [Philippians 2:9-11].

This verse stresses the hierarchical nature of the title. One day, every single knee will bow to Jesus Christ as Lord. It should go without saying that no creature will miss the hierarchical character of that moment.

The problem is deepened when Anderson-Smith proceeds to explain that Jesus was not interested in hierarchy at all. Jesus, she would have us think, was a modern egalitarian. The absurdity of this is breathtaking. Jesus -- the Lord -- called His disciples to follow Him. He did not follow them. He commanded them to obey His words. He did not obey theirs. Jesus castigated those who called Him Lord but did not obey Him [Luke 6:46]. He was not a mere "mentor" and "companion."

Deacon Thomas Lindell's comments add the icing to Rev. Anderson-Smith's cake. He boasts of having removed all the "power imagery" from the church's worship services. That, we might imagine, is rather hard to do. If God is not all-powerful, why worship? Without an acknowledgment of God's power, we are left with little to say. A God who is not powerful cannot help, much less save. What can you then sing? "O God our [well-intended but less-than-sovereign Spirit of helpfulness] in ages past?"

There is more:

St. Philip's isn't the only local church to re-examine its language. Other local religious leaders already are eschewing the use of "Lord" for similar reasons.

First Congregational United Church of Christ in Midtown even has a different name for The Lord's Prayer. They call it "The Prayer of Our Creator."

"We do still use the word 'Lord' on occasion, but we are suspicious of it," First Congregational pastor Briget Nicholson said. "Inclusive language is important. Our United Church of Christ hymnal does have hymns that will say 'Father' and 'God.' but the next verse will always then say 'Mother' and 'God.' It's gender-balanced."

Pastor Briget Nicholson is "suspicious" of the word "Lord" but will use it sparingly, so long as other terms -- terms not found in the Bible as divine names -- "balance" the use of "Lord."

As one might suspect, other doctrinal changes are afoot in these churches as well. Deacon Lindell explains that his church doesn't stress "the blood and gore of the crucifixion." The St. Philiip's congregation appears to play to the liberal wing of the Episcopal Church USA while Pastor Briget Nicholson is identified on her church's Web site along with her female "spouse."

When you replace the biblical names for God with those of your own choosing, you create a new religion. The evidence for this flows directly from the rejection of the Bible as the authoritative revelation of God's names. If the Bible cannot be trusted to name God correctly, then why accept its verdict on homosexuality? If the biblical names for God can be updated and renovated, then why not do the same with the doctrine of atonement?

Reporter Stephanie Innes, describing the "Come & See" worship service at St. Philip's, noted: "There's not much Lord in this church service." It may well be that more accurate words have never been used in such a report -- or more damning.

________________

We discussed this issue on Tuesday's edition of The Albert Mohler Program [listen here]. Stephanie Innes of the Arizona Daily Star joined us in the last segment of the program.

Death penalty for children

by Vincent @ http://www.worldmagblog.com

Wei Linrong, 34, was seven months pregnant when local officials in the Guangxi Province in southern China dragged her to a hospital, injected her abdomen with chemicals to kill her baby, and lingered to make sure that he died. Her forced abortion was one of at least 60 in the province that took place under the direction of Chinese officials in Baise City during a 24-hour period April 17-18.

One woman rounded up with Wei was nine months pregnant; another resisted as officials shoved her into a private room. WORLD's Priya Abraham reports on the grim enforcement methods behind China's one-child policy.

The Global War Against Baby Girls

By Joe Carter @http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com

If you were asked to name the technologies whose proliferation inadvertently threatens the human race, what would you include? IEDS? Assault rifles? Nuclear warheads?

Add this one to your list: the sonogram machine.

The widespread use of sonogram technology--coupled with liberal abortion laws--has made it possible for women to identify the sex of their child so that those without a Y chromosome can be killed before they're even born. Last year, in a speech before the U.N., demographer Nicholas Eberstadt revealed the details of this frightening trend:

Over the past five years the American public has received regular updates on what we have come to call “the global war on terror”. A no-less significant global war—a war, indeed, against nature, civilization, and in fact humanity itself has also been underway in recent years. This latter war, however, has attracted much less attention and comment, despite its immense consequence. This world-wide struggle might be called” The Global War Against Baby Girls”.

The effects of this war on girls can be seen in the changes in the sex ratios at birth. Eberstadt explains that there is a "slight but constant and almost unvarying excess of baby boys over baby girls born in any population." The number of baby boys born for every hundred baby girls, which is so constant that it can "qualify as a rule of nature", falls along an extremely narrow range along the order of 103, 104, or 105. On rare occasions it even hovers around 106

These sex ratios vary slightly based on ethnicity. For example, in the U.S. in 1984 the rates were: White: 105.4; Black: 103.1; American Indian: 101.4; Chinese: 104.6; and Japanese 102.6. Such variations, however, remain small and fairly stable over time.

But Eberstadt finds that in the last generation the sex ratio at birth in some parts of the world has become "completely unhinged." Consider this graph from provinces in China in 2000:

The red lines indicate where the rates should be based on what is naturally, biologically possible. Yet in a number of Chinese provinces--with populations of tens of millions of people--the reported sex ratio at birth ranges from over 120 boys for every 100 girls to over 130 boys for every 100 girls. Eberstadt notes that this is "a phenomenon utterly without natural precedent in human history."

China is not alone in the war against baby girls. In India the ratios are almost as significant. For example, in 2001, 927 girls were born for every 1,000 boys, significantly below the natural birth rate of about 952 girls for every 1,000 boys. By 2004, the New Delhi-based magazine Outlook was reporting that the sex ratios in the capital had plummeted to 818 girls for every 1,000 boys and that in 2005 they had dropped to 814.

In fact, biologically impossible ratios are found in various countries around the world, including Armenia, Azerbaijan, Cyprus, El Salvador, Egypt, Georgia, Greece, Hong Kong, Libya, Macedonia, Malaysia, Pakistan, Republic of Korea, Taiwan, Tunisia, Yugoslavia, and Venezuela. There are also numerous countries around the world where the "death rates for little girls, on an episodic or on a regular basis, are higher than those for little boys."*

This threat to baby girls, however, is not just an international phenomenon but one that also strikes here in the U.S. Sex ratios at birth for the Chinese-American population, the Japanese-American population, and the Filipino-American population, and for the Asian-American population as a whole are out of kilter, as this graph shows:

Early this year, the British medical journal Lancet estimated the male-female gap at 43 million with 100 million "missing girls" who should have been born but were not. Fifty million would have been Chinese and 43 million would have been Indian. The rest would have been born in Afghanistan, South Korea, Pakistan, and Nepal. (Keep in mind that this figure doesn’t include the "missing girls" in the other seventeen countries with impossible birth ratios.)

What is fueling this crisis? Eberstadt credits the "freakish" ratios to the "fateful collision" between (a) overweening son preference, (b) the use of rapidly spreading prenatal sex determination technology coupled with gender-based abortion, and (c) the low or dramatically declining fertility levels.

Even if we set aside the moral horror of a world that is killing its daughters, this oft-ignored trend of female feticide could pose a greater threat than many of the high-profile concerns that are touted by the media. For instance, the Chinese government says that by the year 2020--only thirteen years from now--the men in that country will outnumber women by 300 million. Imagine hordes of men, numbering in the hundreds of millions, who will never be able to have sexual contact with a woman, never be able to marry, and never leave a descendant to carry on their lineage. Think about the level of anger and frustration that will be generated. Now consider the fact that the number of males fit for military service (ages 18-49) in the U.S. is currently and remains steady at 54 million.

Will we have the sense and the fortitude to act, both domestically and internationally, to avert such a disaster? Or will we let our inviolable right to abort baby girls trump our very survival?

The West constantly frets about the levels of global CO2 emissions. But we should be even more concerned about the imbalance in the level of global testosterone. As we will soon realize, changes in our global climate are a minor threat compared to the havoc that will result from the changes in global demographics.

*Those countries are: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Mexico, Benin Gabon, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana Gambia, Brunei, Burkina Baso, Burma, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, Columbia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cote d’Ivoir, Cyprus, Dem. Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Equatorial New Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Honduras, Iran, Iraq, Israel (non-Jewish pop), Italy, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mongolia, Mozambique, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, North Korea, Norway, Oman, Peru, Puerto Rico, Reunion, Rwanda, Sabah, Sao Tome, Sarawak, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, Yemen, Uruguay, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

The Gospel

By D.R. Brooker @ http://drbrooker.net

The gospel is:

The gospel is God’s message to man; an expression of His grace to sinners (Acts 20:24).
The gospel is the good news of Jesus Christ, the Son of God (Mark 1:1).
The gospel is the power of God to save sinners (Romans 1:16).
The gospel is the revelation of the righteousness of God (Romans 1:17).
The gospel is the declaration that the sin of believers has been imputed to Christ (Isaiah 53:6).
The gospel is the message that Christ’s righteousness has been imputed to us (Rom. 4:24).
The gospel is a message that men are commanded to believe, and is always accompanied by repentance (Mark 1:15).
The gospel is a message we are commanded to obey (Romans 10:16).
The gospel is specific; it deals with a specific Jesus and a specific message (2 Corinthians 11:4).
The gospel has its counterfeits and carries God’s curse upon those who preach ‘another gospel’ (Galatians 1:9).
The gospel is a gospel of peace; the soul is calmed because there is no longer enmity between God and man (Romans 10:15).
The gospel is a message that is both preached and taught (Acts 14:21).
The gospel is a complete message that must be preached in its fullness (Romans 15:19).
The gospel will bring great ‘woe’ upon those who pervert it (1 Corinthians 9:16).
The gospel saves both Old and New Covenant believers (Galatians 3:8).
The gospel is a message that contains truth, and is true (Ephesians 1:13).
The gospel is something that believers must defend (Philippians 1:17).
The gospel has been entrusted to us by God; therefore, our aim is to please Him and not men (1Thessalonians 2:4).
The gospel must be accompanied by a Spirit-wrought faith for it to be of profit (Hebrews 4:2).
The gospel is a message given to the church to take into all the world (Matthew 24:14).
The gospel is the standard by which all men will be judged (1 Peter 4:17).
The gospel is simple. It commands all men to “repent and believe” (Mark 1:15).

The gospel is not:

The gospel is not a message to ‘believe’, but one that calls us to ‘repent and believe.’
The gospel is not a work to be done, but a command to believe what Christ has done.
The gospel is not a message of God’s love only, but a message of God’s wrath, love, and mercy.
The gospel is not social justice, but the cause of us caring for others.
The gospel is not a political message, but a message that will reform the nations.
The gospel is not that the creation will be restored, but the means by which it will be restored.
The gospel is not an experience; nor is it a feeling.

Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners. Let us not confuse the “saving” with what the “saved” are then called to do. The gospel is the good news that a man can be made right with God through faith alone in both the person and work of Jesus Christ; who He is and what He has done. It tells us of Christ’s work for us; which should not be confused with the Spirit’s work in us. There is only one gospel.

Baptist History

by Caleb Kolstad @ http://expositorythoughts.wordpress.com

While we wait for our other authors to complete their posts on the Atonement I figured I might as well post something over the weekend. I pastor a reformed baptist church near Indianapolis. Here is a brief research paper i recently wrote…

I open this brief essay by concurring with the words of Dr. Thomas Nettles, “It is with difficulty that men strive to define ‘Baptists.’” (By His Grace and for His Glory, p. 13). It is easier to list some of the influential leaders who have been part of the Baptist movement (Smyth, Bunyan, Carey, Gill, Broadus, Spurgeon, Strong, Henry, Nicole, Mohler, Piper) than to define what a “Baptist” is or is not. Any attempted definition must include a discussion of history, church polity, and doctrine. The primary goal of this short work, therefore, is to answer the following questions: When did the Baptist denomination originate? Have Baptists historically supported the concept of a plurality of elders leading and governing the church? For how long have Baptists taught the “Doctrines of Grace,” also called by some, “biblical Calvinism”?

We begin with the origin of the Baptist denomination. Some argue that Baptists reach back to the apostolic era (the Successionist theory and/or Landmarkism). People holding this view typically believe that only Landmark Baptists have followed the New Testament pattern of church life. They would also argue that they have always remained separate from the Catholic Church while tracing their lineage directly back to John the Baptist. This view cannot be substantiated historically (contra J. M. Caroll’s 1930s book, The Trail of Blood).

Others argue that Baptists belong to the Congregational branch of Protestantism from post-Elizabethan England. This theory believes modern Baptists originated with certain English Separatists who left or were simply forced out of the Church of England. This is a plausible explanation with some good historical support (see Joe Flatt’s, What is a Regular Baptist, p. 2). A third view contends that early Baptists were an offshoot of the Anabaptist movement. Proponents of this view reason that contact with Dutch Mennonites in the early seventeenth century led to the Baptist movement. Dr. William Brackney points out that “[d]ocumentation of the Baptist tradition commences when the first ‘baptizing,’ congregations, so-called, began to appear about 1608 [emphasis mine]. Through John Smyth and Thomas Helwys a connection with the heirs of the Radical Reformation can be established” (Baptist Life and Thought: A Source Book, p. 15). It appears that Baptists originated around 1608 or 1609. The first Baptist congregation to organize in America was founded by Roger Williams in Rhode Island in 1638 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptists). A common thread running through this movement is the Baptist commitment to orthodox biblical theology, congregational autonomy, and believer’s baptism by immersion.

Book Review (1 of 2)—Simple Church

by Aaron Carpenter @ http://www.sharperiron.org

^{Editor’s Note: Two men requested to review this particular book for SI. Because this book has been the topic of a fair amount of discussion in Christian circles since its appearance last June, I was glad to have two independent perspectives. This is the first of two reviews of Simple Church. –Jason Button, Book Review Editor}

Simple Church: Returning to God’s Process for Making Disciples by Thom S. Rainer and Eric Geiger (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2006), 257 pp. $19.99/hardcover.

Purchase: B&H, CBD, Amazon

Appendices:

1. Research Design Methodology
2. FAQs

ISBNs: 0805443908 / 978-0805443905

LCCN: BV652.25 R368 2006x

DCN: 254.5

Subject(s): Evangelicalism, Church Growth

Front Cover | Front Flap | Table of Contents | Excerpt | Back Flap | Back Cover

Thom S. Rainer is the President and CEO of Lifeway Christian Resources and a frequent speaker and church consultant. Dr. Rainer has authored or co-authored 16 previous books, including Breakout Churches, The Unchurched Next Door, and Eating the Elephant.

Eric Geiger is the executive pastor of Christ Fellowship (formerly First Baptist Church of Perrine), a large, multicultural church in Miami, Florida.

“Go and make disciples”—Jesus makes it sound so simple! Yet Christian discipleship remains a nebulous ideal in today’s complex church, which often offers such a dazzling array of disparate ministries that leaders are left tired, confused, and frustrated with little to show for it. However, Thom Rainer and Eric Geiger believe that “the Simple Revolution has begun.” In Simple Church, the authors seek to help church leaders return to the simple message and mission of Christ. Rainer and Geiger argue that “growing” and “vibrant” churches have committed themselves to simple ministry and demonstrate four key ideas underlying their discipleship process. Their case is challenging—and daunting at times—but a welcome encouragement to pastors and ministry leaders who wish to fulfill our Lord’s command.

Rainer and Geiger define a simple church as “a congregation designed around a straight-forward and strategic process that moves people through the stages of spiritual growth” (p. 60), and they argue that statistically, growing churches are simple churches. The authors surveyed 500 churches in two phases—one within the SBC and the other among other evangelical groups—and discovered a “highly significant” relationship between churches that experienced five percent growth per year for three years (“growing” churches) and churches that had a simple process for making disciples. They also discovered four key ideas present in all simple churches.

Clarity. Movement. Alignment. Focus. These four words are sine qua non (a prerequisite) for the simple church. In the opening chapters of Simple Church, Rainer and Geiger show these words in action. In chapter two, they compare visits to a simple church and a not-so-simple church. By interviewing respective church leaders and comparing areas such as staffing and calendar planning, they show that these ideas form the fundamental differences between churches. In chapter four, they present “Three Simple Stories”: Immanuel Baptist Church in Glasgow, Kentucky (Tony Cecil); Christ Fellowship in Miami, Florida (Rick Blackwood); and Northpoint Community Church in Alpharetta, Georgia (Andy Stanley). Each church is different, yet each church demonstrates these four ideas as basic tenets of their discipleship process. And once the authors have presented their findings, they turn to the four ideas themselves for the remainder of the book.

If the pastor is a builder, then clarity describes his blueprints. Rainer and Geiger ask, “Why would we attempt to build spiritual lives without a clear ministry blueprint?” (p. 111). In chapter five, they give five keys to clarity. A church should define its ministry process and determine how its program fits its purpose. A clearly defined ministry can then be clearly illustrated. Simple churches also measure the success of the process, discuss it openly, and aim for all members to understand it thoroughly.

If the Holy Spirit is conforming us to Christ’s image, then discipleship must mean movement. Simple churches plan to move members from one stage of growth to the next. This means strategic, sequential, and intentional programming. It also means providing disciples with a clear next step and new disciples with a new members class.

If Christ desires His church to be “as one,” then a disciple-making church should show solid alignment. Simple churches recruit according to their process. They do not look for the superstar youth pastor or worship leader; they look for leaders who fit well with their philosophy of discipleship. Simple churches also hold their staff accountable to the ministry process. This process is also implemented everywhere, in every area of church ministry from children to seniors, and it thus provides a center around which to unite. Finally, simple churches only adopt new ministries if they fit and advance the process. And this naturally presents the most difficult of the four key ideas.

If one thing—discipleship—is important, then simple churches will focus on that one thing, and that means saying “no” to everything else. Simple churches have learned to eliminate any program not essential to their process, and they limit the adding of new programs. At the same time, they reduce special events. Any special events or special emphases are channeled through existing programs that have been designed around the discipleship process. But if ministry leaders are to survive maintaining their focus, the process must be easily communicated and simple to understand.

With these four ideas, Rainer and Geiger utter a clarion call for churches to embrace simplicity. And this is the great strength of the book: encouraging churches to tailor their ministries to Jesus’ command. So many of our churches try to “do church”: children’s ministry, youth ministry, men’s and women’s ministry, senior’s ministry, music ministry, drama ministry, etc. And the average church member has no idea how a new convert is taught and trained to be a mature learner of Christ. And possibly, the average church member has no idea that a new convert should even undergo such a process. This is how far we have removed our churches from Christ’s simple commission. Simple Church points to our failure and places success within our reach.

One may suspect that the book is flawed in overemphasis. True, it places the focus entirely on discipleship to the neglect of evangelism, but that is only because it focuses on churches that are already evangelistic. Thom Rainer has done much work on the characteristics of evangelistic churches, and this book answers the question: what do we do with them once we’ve got them? And it answers the question well.

Another possible problem may be concerned with the church’s goals. While every Christian should be growing unto his ultimate and final glory, churches may struggle with discipleship at its later stages. In the beginning, we are concerned with movement, but where does it stop? How do we recognize success? What does a disciple look like, and what should he be doing? This can be seen in the treatment of the typical Sunday morning worship service, which is viewed as the “entry point” (pp. 146-147). The service is catered to those who have yet to begin the discipleship process. But this raises the question: how does that service meet the needs of those who have reached relative maturity? Rainer and Geiger do not attempt to answer those questions but rather leave them to the individual churches.

This book creates at least one more problem, and the authors create it intentionally. If a church wishes to become a simple church, it may have to change or abandon even its most fundamental traditions. The authors acknowledge this difficulty and encourage leaders to tread cautiously over sacred ground, but they also affirm that becoming a Christ-following, disciple-making church is worth the risk. Traditional churches will struggle with this the most as they face questions concerning Sunday evening services, church choirs, and parachurch children’s ministries. But it is all part of the radical task of designing an aligned and focused process for moving people to spiritual maturity.

I am the pastor of a church, and this book challenges and frightens me. It challenges me because I can feel the struggle to “keep up with the Joneses,” to try to offer something for everyone like the church down the road. But I know that in the end that methodology will only hinder us from fulfilling Christ’s command to the best of our ability. It frightens me when I think of the areas that have become “sacred cows,” and I know that there will be some struggle to simplify. However, this book stirs my passion when I think of the church and how it is actually possible for us to have a ministry that the apostles and our Lord Himself would both recognize and approve. The commission was simple, so let us have simple churches!

Aaron Carpenter serves as pastor at Central Baptist Church (Dixons Mills, AL). Happily married, he has one son, and a daughter is due in May. He received B.A. and M.Div. degrees from Pensacola Christian College and Pensacola Theological Seminary (both in Pensacola, FL). His favorite pastimes include reading, Formula One racing, and experimental coffee drinking.

Humour: Get in Debt the Easy Way

Five Things to Remember About Skill

By Bob Kauflin @ http://worshipmatters.blogs.com

I'm in the midst of rewriting my book for Crossway. Things didn't go quite as smoothly as I hoped last week. But my good friend, Jeff Purswell, saw I wasn't doing well and offered to pray for me. I realized I've only been thinking of what I have to do and haven't been focused on what God can do. That changes everything. I'm happy to report my attitude is much better this week.

In any case, I don't have much time for blogging. So I thought I'd post an excerpt from an unedited chapter. It may not even make it in the final version of the book, but I thought it might be helpful. It's from the first section on "What Matters."

Just wanting to become more skillful isn’t a sufficient foundation for leadership. We need God’s perspective on developing out gifts. The road to skillful leadership is plagued with detours, potholes, and dead ends. It’s helpful to remember some basic truths about skill. I can think of five.

1. Skill is a gift from God meant for his glory. None of us can claim credit for any ability we possess. As Paul asked the Corinthians, “What do you have that you did not receive? If then you received it, why do you boast as if you did not receive it” (1Cor. 4:7)? I remember having a conversation with a guy in college who was having trouble understanding why God should get any glory for his musical gifts. He reasoned that God wasn’t the one sitting in a practice room for hours on end. He didn’t understand grace, which provides not only our gifts, but the strength, ability, and endurance to develop them. That’s why our skill is meant to direct people’s eyes to God, not us. As my good friend C.J. Mahaney said, “Every gift from God is meant to direct our attention to God and create fresh affection for God.”

2. Skill has to be developed. Michael Jordan was one of the greatest basketball players of all time. For years he was the standard that every other basketball player aspired to. But few of them ever came close. Why? Because the mind-boggling stats that Jordan and other greats achieve is due to practicing harder, longer, and more comprehensively than every other player. They take the time to develop the skill God gave them. They realize that skill isn’t perfection. It can just look that way to us. Likewise, the greatest musicians have put in countless hours listening, practicing riffs and scales, playing with others, and honing their craft. The goal of practice isn’t doing something until you get it right. It’s practicing until you can’t get it wrong.

When I entered Temple University as a piano performance major in the fall of 1972, my goal was to practice enough to be able to play any piece I desired when I finished school. Over the next four years I practiced an average of four hours a day, seven days a week. I had friends who put in more time than that. Sometimes people come up to me and say, “I wish I could play the piano like you do,” My standard reply is, “You can! It just takes a little gifting, and practicing four hours a day for four years.” Skill has to be developed.

3. Possessing skill doesn’t make me better than someone else. I mean this in two ways. First, I can be skilled in an area but someone else can be more skilled. That doesn’t mean I’m not effective in an area. It just means my best might not be as good as someone else’s average. Second, while God values skill, he doesn’t accept us on the basis of it. So even if I can play complex chord progressions, write songs like Matt Redman, or have a four octave vocal range, I still need the atoning work of the Savior to make my offering of worship acceptable (1 Pet. 2:5).

4. Skill should be evaluated by others. Even though I’ve been leading worship for over thirty years now, I still can’t always tell if what I’m doing is helpful or where I need to grow. I thank God for feedback I get during rehearsal and after a meeting. Is that arrangement working? Did I sing that chorus too many times? Was I clear? Did I play too much (to which the answer is almost always yes)? We need the eyes and ears of those around us. It’s both humbling and helpful to hear back from people we trust who will speak the truth to us.

5. Skill isn’t an end in itself. Skill can easily become our ultimate goal and focus. At that point it often becomes an idol. We spend more and more time rehearsing and get impatient when others make mistakes. We minimize spiritual preparation and devote ourselves entirely to musical issues. We evaluate the failure or success of any meeting solely on right tempos, in tune vocals, and well executed plans. Which are all good things. They’re just not the ultimate values. Years ago I read a pastor comment that “God isn’t looking for something brilliant; he’s looking for something broken.” That’s a biblical perspective to keep in mind as we seek to develop our gifts.

The "L" in TULIP: Limited Atonement/Particular Redemption

From Tim Challies @ http://www.challies.com

This is the long-awaited third part of a series I began quite some time ago, a series which I am writing not primarily to rehash the theology of each of the points or to provide an exhaustive apologetic of Calvinism, but to draw some fresh application and to show what these doctrines mean to me as I ponder them and attempt to live in light of them. I hope to show that these doctrines of grace are more than "mere theology," but can be integral in living out the Christian faith. I am assuming that my readers are, by and large, familiar with the Points of Calvinism. Still, I will provide a brief explanation of the doctrine before drawing application.

The "L" in the TULIP acronym refers to Limited Atonement, though, like many people, I prefer to speak of Particular Redemption (or, with Michael Horton, to speak of "Mission Accomplished"). Just as the "Total" in "Total Depravity" and the "Unconditional" in "Unconditional Election" can cause people to immediately draw wrong conclusions about the theology, so they "Limited" in "Limited Atonement" can make it seem that the work of Christ is somehow limited in a way that is outside of God's control. This is, of course, impossible and just plain wrong. The doctrine of Particular Redemption says something like this:

Christ took only the sins of the elect upon Himself on the cross, providing a full and effectual (fully adequate) atonement for their sins. He did not provide only the potential for atonement, but actually provided the effectual atonement. His death secured everything necessary for salvation and this includes faith, which the Spirit graciously applies to the lives of the elect. Though Christ's sacrifice was sufficient for the entire human race, it is only imputed (or given) to the elect and hence the atonement is not limited in its power, but in its extent. The reason for this limited or particular nature of the atonement is that were Christ to sacrifice and die for someone and then that person did not choose to be saved, it would make Christ's work a failure. Thus, by way of short summary, the scope of Christ's atonement is limited to those who are predestined to salvation and the primary benefits of this work is given only to those who believe.

Here is a way of illustrating the doctrine.

This is a picture of a bridge. To elaborate a little bit, we could say that it is a partial bridge. It doesn't look broken, as if a piece of it fell away, but rather looks like it was built that far and then work simply ceased. It spans about half of what appears to be a pretty sizable river and then just ends (or begins, depending which direction you approach it from). I have no idea where this bridge is, what the circumstances are surrounding it's state or if it has a name (though it would be interesting to know, wouldn't it?).

Consider this river for a moment and let it represent the chasm between God and man - the chasm created by man's fall into sin. On the bank of the river stands a man who represents humans in their fallen state, living on this earth. He gazes across the gap to the far side where he can glimpse God, and glimpse heaven. Now how will he get to heaven? This bridge can serve as an illustration of a doctrine known as "unlimited atonement" or "conditional universalism." This is a doctrine that is the very opposite of Particular Redemption and in effect it states that it was never God's will to save any specific person. Rather, it was God's will to do all He could to save all men, provided they would do the little bit that He could not. In other words, the death of Christ erected this bridge which extends across part of the chasm. Man need only swim out into the current and hoist himself onto the bridge. From there he can walk safely into heaven. And if you look again you will see that this is a wide bridge, able to carry many people. This bridge is wide enough for anyone, but extends only part of the way.

Now consider a second bridge that looks like this:

This bridge is quite a bit different from the last. Notice that rather than extending only halfway, this one extends from one bank to the other. Notice also that it is narrow, much narrower than the other. This bridge represents the doctrine associated with Calvinism that we know as Limited Atonement or Particular Redemption. This bridge spans the entire gap between God and man, though is not so wide as to carry all men, but only some. Where the first bridge was able to carry all men part of the way, this bridge carries some men the entire way.

Hebrews 12:2 tells us that Jesus is the "founder and perfecter of our faith." He not only began but also finished the bridge. With His blood He "ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation," (Revelation 5:9) not merely providing the potential for their redemption, but effectually redeeming them when He cried out "It is finished!"

Limited Atonement: Confidence

When I wrote about the "T" in TULIP I said that the doctrine of Total Depravity stands as the great equalizer and when I wrote about the "U" in TULIP I said that it stands as the great humbler. When I ponder the doctrine of Limited Atonement and think about how it must be more than mere doctrine and how it must impact my life, I am continually drawn to the word "confidence." This is not a confidence in myself, my own ability or even in my own status as a Christian, but a confidence in the Father and in the person and work of Jesus Christ. I like how Michael Horton in his book Putting Amazing Back into Grace describes this doctrine as "Mission Accomplished." The Arminian understanding of this doctrine presents a Savior who did a great work of redemption but who did it for all men, both those who would be redeemed and those who would not. This is really conditional universalism, as Christ died for all men universally, the condition being that people must use their free will to embrace and accept Him. But the Reformed, biblical understanding of this doctrine presents a Savior who did the work of redemption for those whom the Father had chosen. He did not just do a work that had great potential to save, but a work that effectually saved.

Because Jesus Christ died for those who are His, and from the perspective of eternity, died for those who were already His--who had been chosen from before the foundations of the world--He accomplished what He set out to do. This doctrine gives me confidence that God will always and ever do exactly what He says. It gives me confidence that the promises of the Bible are not dependent on my initiative or my response, but are dependent on the very nature of God. What God says will surely come to pass because He provides the power to accomplish what needs to be done. Jesus Christ did not die for all men and then await my response to His work. Rather, He died for me and waited only for the time that the Spirit would begin to stir my heart and would call me to Himself. This gives me such confidence in God for it speaks so strongly of the way He works. It tells me that God acts sovereignty and depends upon no one but Himself. This stirs my heart, for I know that if He left the choice to me, I would reject Him every time. My heart swells with gratitude when I think that He died specifically and knowingly not for the mass of humanity, all of whom would willingly reject Him, but for the ones He had known from all eternity and the ones that He would draw to Himself.

We'll continue this series (hopefully without as big a gap between entries) with the "I" from TULIP.

Johnny Cash June Carter Cash Far Side Banks Of Jordan

AGE OF PROTECTION bill PASSED by pARLIAMENTARY Committee

THE EFC UPDATE - 2007.04.24 Together for influence, impact and identity The Justice Committee of the House of Commons passed Bill C-22 (Age of Protection), as amended, on April 19. If passed into law, Bill C-22 will make it illegal for anyone five years or older than a 14 or 15- year old youth to engage in sexual activity with that teen, unless the two are married. The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada (EFC) made presentations to the Committee and was present at every hearing on this Bill. Bill C-22 now goes to the House for Report Stage and Third Reading.

Is the "Supremacy of God" Dead?

Perhaps the time has come to give greater deference to the fact that Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God.

by Don Hutchinson @ http://www.christianity.ca

When the Charter of Rights and Freedoms became a part of the Canadian constitution on April 17, 1982 it arrived in Canada's modern post-industrial world with a curious recognition in its preamble, "Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:" Some considered this simply to be a tribute to a former, non-secular era. Others, recognition of Canada's religious past.

Perhaps government should let go of concern that it might be perceived as supporting religion and accept the preamble's expression that Canada is not a secular society …

At a recent McGill University conference, The Charter @ 25, Senator Hugh Segal—who was Ontario's associate secretary for federal provincial relations during the constitutional negotiations that resulted in the Charter—noted that the recognition of God was of great significance to Premier William Davis and the people of Ontario. Pierre Elliot Trudeau—then Prime Minister and the visionary who drove pursuit of a constitutional bill of rights—when asked about the provision infamously stated, "I don't think God gives a damn whether he's in the constitution or not." He also noted he wasn't concerned about offending God so much as offending the electorate.

Was the recognition of God's supremacy just about votes? That's not what Segal said. Read it again. In fact, despite Trudeau's flippant remark, his inspiration for the Charter was his Jesuit education's outlook on the world and his exposure to the concepts of Catholic philosophers Emmanuel Mournier and Jacques Maritain. The public hearings that were held in regard to an earlier draft of the Charter resulted in large numbers of Canadians and religious organizations, including The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, requesting recognition that human rights find their source not only in the rule of law but in something—or Someone—more transcendent.

Professor Bruce Ryder of Osgoode Hall Law School stated in a 2005 Supreme Court Law Review article entitled State Neutrality and Freedom of Conscience and Religion, "The preamble represents a kind of secular humility, a recognition that there are other truths, other sources of competing world-views, of normative and authoritative communities that are profound sources of meaning in people's lives that ought to be nurtured as counter-balances to state authority." I suspect the 88 percent of Canadians who claim a religious affiliation (according to the 2000 Law Commission of Canada Research Paper No. 10) would agree—84 percent if you prefer the 2001 Census: analysis report on Religions in Canada prepared by Statistics Canada.

The preamble references a unique balancing that has taken place in Canadian society since our nation's founding. Government cannot endorse or support one religion as against another—witness the constitutional provisions for Catholic and Protestant schools in the British North America Act (renamed the Constitution Act, 1867 with constitutional patriation in 1982). Protestantism and Catholicism were the only recognized forms of religion in the western world of the founding fathers. By 1982, there were many other forms of religion accepted in Canada. Thus, inclusion of this preamble presents a challenge to continue the neutrality of government as between religions and recognize the Canadian constitutional and societally accepted history of government being permitted, enabled and encouraged to support religion in a manner that was equally accessible to all religions—witness again the constitution provisions for Catholic and Protestant schools.

In its understanding of Charter rights and freedoms, government has largely concerned itself with the rule of law, ignoring constitutional reference to the supremacy of God that would ease its concerns about endorsing a positive religious pluralism in our country. Some governments have provided public funding for religious schools. Others have not. Some have sought to restrict access to funding for social service programs to non-religious expression only, while others have recognized the benefit of increased value in funding religious communities that supplement such programs and their funding because of a transcendent source of desire to engage in meeting social needs. Perhaps government should let go of concern that it might be perceived as supporting religion and accept the preamble's expression that Canada is not a secular society—secularism itself being a form of religion or belief system—but a non-sectarian society.

Similarly, in its interpretation of the Charter the Supreme Court of Canada has paid little attention to the preamble, except to reference the significance of the rule of law. In a 2002 lecture at McGill University, Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin of the Supreme Court of Canada stated that in addition to the authority of the rule of law 'there are other sources of authority, other cultural modes of belief, that make strong claims upon the citizen.' McLachlin went on to note that both the rule of law and religion make total claim upon the self. From the perspective of one charged with interpretation of the rule of law, the Chief Justice recognized the law's need to accommodate the other 'similarly comprehensive system of belief' that is religion. On the other hand St. Paul, one charged with the explanation of the supremacy of God, expressed a similar sentiment about faith accommodating government and the rule of law in his letter to the church at Rome (see Romans 13).

In Chamberlain v Surrey School Board, Madame Justice Saunders of the British Columbia Supreme Court echoed 19th Century philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche's declaration that 'God is dead' and British Columbia Court of Appeal Madame Justice Southin's statement in R v Sharpe that the reference to the supremacy of God in the Charter's preamble was 'dead letter' law. Was the concept of the supremacy of God indeed dead? Following appeals, Chamberlain was finally decided by the Supreme Court of Canada in 2002. Mister Justice Gonthier did not let the comment go unaddressed. Gonthier wrote:

I note that the preamble to the Charter itself establishes that ' … Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law.' According to Saunders, J., if one's moral view manifests from a religiously grounded faith, it is not to be heard in the public square, but if it does not, then it is publicly acceptable. The problem with this approach is that everyone has 'belief' or 'faith' in something, be it atheistic, agnostic or religious … Given this, why, then should the religiously informed conscience be placed at public disadvantage or disqualification? … The key is that people will disagree about important issues, and such disagreement, where it does not imperil community living, must be capable of being accommodated at the core of modern pluralism.

Gonthier thereby resurrected the concept of 'the supremacy of God' in Canadian law.

As recently as 1997 the court gave recognition to the strong interpretive weight that should be granted constitutional preambles when it referenced the preamble of the Constitution Act, 1867 in a case concerning remuneration of judges. Perhaps the time has come for greater weight to also be accorded Canada's other, and more contemporary, constitutional preamble found in the Charter.

Jesus said, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's." During His trial, He also told Pilate, "You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above." So then, what authority would Caesar (government and the courts) have except that given from above? What source do rights or the rule of law have without God? Perhaps the time has come to give greater deference to the fact that Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God.

Don Hutchinson is General Legal Counsel for The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada.

Where Was God During the Virginia Tech Shootings?

(Photo: AP / The Virginian-Pilot, Stephen M. Katz)

ByLillian Kwon @ http://www.christianpost.com

Christian Post Reporter

Classes at Virginia Tech were canceled for the week and the campus began to quiet down as many students left for home after the shooting massacre. For those still lingering and in mourning, numerous faith groups have been on ground to lend a shoulder to cry on and answer the prevailing question "Why?"

Virginia Tech graduate student Ashley Renfrow, center, of Chesapeake, Va., holds hands with two other women at the Drillfield at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, Va., Wednesday afternoon, April 18, 2007, during a prayer service held to remember the victims of Monday's shooting rampage on the campus.

"Though it feels like a dark cloud is over the Blacksburg campus, God is present," said Wes Barts, InterVarsity Christian Fellowship staff member at Virginia Tech.

Since Monday morning's two shooting attacks that killed 33 people, including the gunman, Seung-Hui Cho, teams of Christian students and staff have spent the past several days walking around campus comforting people.

Many faced the inevitable question "Where is God?" or "Why did God allow this to happen?"

"They always tag this on God," evangelist Franklin Graham, head of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association (BGEA), told the Christian Broadcasting Network.

The questions also come as NBC News received a 1,800-word statement and 27 QuickTime videos showing Cho talking to the camera discussing his hatred of the wealthy and complaining about Christianity. The mail had been postmarked during the more than two hours between the two shootings at the West Ambler Johnston Hall dormitory and Norris Hall engineering building at 9:01 a.m.

"You had a hundred billion chances and ways to have avoided today," said Cho in one of the videos that aired Wednesday night on NBC. He said he felt he had no other choice.

Meanwhile, the world renowned evangelist says, "God has given us a free choice and there's evil in this world. I tag this on the devil. He's responsible. He's the one who wants to seek and he's the one who wants to destroy," according to CBN.

While God's love is for every person, it doesn't mean bad things are not going to happen to people, Graham explained. What Cho did was not increase the death rate, he said.

"Every one of us is going to die. Every one of us is going to have to stand before God one day." As the Virginia Tech tragedy reminds everyone of the brevity of life, the question is, are we prepared to stand before God, Graham posed.

Another prominent evangelical, Dr. D. James Kennedy of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., answers the question "Where was God while all this was going on?"

"He was hanging on the cross," he states in his book Turn it to Gold.

"The cross is God’s ultimate solution to sorrow and suffering. Thus all of our pain is in His heart. Our God does not hold Himself aloof from our difficulties. He is right here, in the midst of our suffering, enduring more of it than any of us ever has or ever will. And not only that, but He gives us the power to bear our suffering."

Offering further insight into the question, Kennedy said that God uses pain and adversity for good in our lives. Suffering is used by God to make us more compassionate to others, to bring us closer to God, and to shape in His followers the character of Christ, he said.

While some mourning the death of a loved one or a close friend may be questioning God's presence or searching for Him, Christian groups from around the nation and right on the Virginia Tech campus have maintained a "ministry of presence," as the BGEA put it, displaying God's love through their prayers and counseling.

Graham's ministry sent 20 chaplains from the Rapid Response Team to the shooting site beginning Monday to talk with students still shocked by the nation's worst shooting rampage in U.S. history. As of Wednesday morning, the BGEA team prayed with over 250 students, six of whom made decisions for Christ.

Campus groups like InterVarsity and Chi Alpha Ministries are more focused on being available to hurting students and praying and ministering to them when opportunity arises.

Graham chooses to take a bold approach, directing students to "Almighty God."

"There's nothing I can say to ease somebody's heart," Graham told CBN. "But God can. God supernaturally can reach right into the heart [and] the soul of a human being to provide His comfort."

"The Bible makes it very clear that God loves us. He cares for us," he added. "I want students to know that God loves them and God has not abandoned them and that He's there for them right now if they'll just reach out by faith."

Still, in a time of mourning, sometimes the chaplains give nothing more than silent support and pray when requested.

The school's Baptist student center, the United Methodists' Wesley Foundation Center next to campus, and local area churches - including St. Francis Anglican Church - have opened their doors since the day of the shooting to welcome mourners and offer prayers throughout the day.

Campus Crusade for Christ urged for a concerted gathering across the country on Thursday to call on God. "It would be an incredible testimony and blessing to the Virginia Tech community to know there has been such an outpouring of love demonstrated by prayer," the national office stated.

If God Wills Disease Why Should We Try to Eradicate It?

By John Piper @ www.desiringGod.org.

This question arises from the biblical teaching that all things are ultimately under God's control. "My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose" (Isaiah 46:10). "Whatever the Lord pleases, he does, in heaven and on earth, in the seas and all deeps" (Psalm 135:6). "He does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, 'What have you done?'" (Daniel 4:35). "[He] works all things according to the counsel of his will" (Ephesians 1:11).

This means that God governs all calamity and all disease. Satan is real and has a hand in it, but he is not ultimate and can do nothing but what God permits (Job 1:12-2:10). And God does not permit things willy-nilly. He permits things for a reason. There is infinite wisdom in all he does and all he permits. So what he permits is part of his plan just as much as what he does more directly.

Therefore this raises the question: If God wills disease why should we try to eradicate it? This is a crucial question for me because I have heard Christians say recently that believing in the sovereignty of God hinders Christians from working hard to eradicate diseases like malaria and tuberculosis and cancer and AIDS. They think the logic goes like this: If God sovereignly wills all things, including malaria, then we would be striving against God to invest millions of dollars to find a way to wipe it out.

That is not the logic the Bible teaches. And it is not what Calvinists have historically believed. In fact, lovers of God's sovereignty have been among the most aggressive scientists who have helped subdue creation and bring it under the dominion of man for his good-just like Psalm 8:6 says, "You have given him [He] dominion over the works of your hands; you have put all things under his feet."

The logic of the Bible says: Act according to God's "will of command," not according to his "will of decree." God's "will of decree" is whatever comes to pass. "If the Lord wills, we will live and do this or that" (James 4:15). God's "will of decree" ordained that his Son be betrayed (Luke 22:22), ridiculed (Isaiah 53:3), mocked (Luke 18:32), flogged (Matthew 20:19), forsaken (Matthew 26:31), pierced (John 19:37), and killed (Mark 9:31). But the Bible teaches us plainly that we should not betray, ridicule, mock, flog, forsake, pierce, or kill innocent people. That is God's "will of command." We do not look at the death of Jesus, clearly willed by God, and conclude that killing Jesus is good and that we should join the mockers.

In the same way, we do not look at the devastation of malaria or AIDS and conclude that we should join the ranks of the indifferent. No. "Love your neighbor" is God's will of command (Matthew 22:39). "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is God's will of command (Matthew 7:12). "If your enemy is hungry, feed him" is God's will of command (Romans 12:20). The disasters that God ordains are not aimed at paralyzing his people with indifference, but mobilizing them with compassion.

When Paul taught that the creation was subjected to futility (Romans 8:20), he also taught that this subjection was "in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God" (v. 21). There is no reason that Christians should not embrace this futility-lifting calling now. God will complete it in the age to come. But it is a good thing to conquer as much disease and suffering now in the name of Christ as we can.

In fact, I would wave the banner right now and call some of you to enter vocations of research that may be the means of undoing some of the great diseases of the world. This is not fighting against God. God is as much in charge of the research as he is of the disease. You can be an instrument in his hand. This may be the time appointed for the triumph that he wills to bring over the disease that he ordained. Don't try to read the mind of God from his mysterious decrees of calamity. Do what he says. And what he says is: "Do good to everyone" (Galatians 6:10).

This question arises from the biblical teaching that all things are ultimately under God's control. "My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose" (Isaiah 46:10). "Whatever the Lord pleases, he does, in heaven and on earth, in the seas and all deeps" (Psalm 135:6). "He does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, 'What have you done?'" (Daniel 4:35). "[He] works all things according to the counsel of his will" (Ephesians 1:11).

This means that God governs all calamity and all disease. Satan is real and has a hand in it, but he is not ultimate and can do nothing but what God permits (Job 1:12-2:10). And God does not permit things willy-nilly. He permits things for a reason. There is infinite wisdom in all he does and all he permits. So what he permits is part of his plan just as much as what he does more directly.

Therefore this raises the question: If God wills disease why should we try to eradicate it? This is a crucial question for me because I have heard Christians say recently that believing in the sovereignty of God hinders Christians from working hard to eradicate diseases like malaria and tuberculosis and cancer and AIDS. They think the logic goes like this: If God sovereignly wills all things, including malaria, then we would be striving against God to invest millions of dollars to find a way to wipe it out.

That is not the logic the Bible teaches. And it is not what Calvinists have historically believed. In fact, lovers of God's sovereignty have been among the most aggressive scientists who have helped subdue creation and bring it under the dominion of man for his good-just like Psalm 8:6 says, "You have given him [He] dominion over the works of your hands; you have put all things under his feet."

The logic of the Bible says: Act according to God's "will of command," not according to his "will of decree." God's "will of decree" is whatever comes to pass. "If the Lord wills, we will live and do this or that" (James 4:15). God's "will of decree" ordained that his Son be betrayed (Luke 22:22), ridiculed (Isaiah 53:3), mocked (Luke 18:32), flogged (Matthew 20:19), forsaken (Matthew 26:31), pierced (John 19:37), and killed (Mark 9:31). But the Bible teaches us plainly that we should not betray, ridicule, mock, flog, forsake, pierce, or kill innocent people. That is God's "will of command." We do not look at the death of Jesus, clearly willed by God, and conclude that killing Jesus is good and that we should join the mockers.

In the same way, we do not look at the devastation of malaria or AIDS and conclude that we should join the ranks of the indifferent. No. "Love your neighbor" is God's will of command (Matthew 22:39). "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is God's will of command (Matthew 7:12). "If your enemy is hungry, feed him" is God's will of command (Romans 12:20). The disasters that God ordains are not aimed at paralyzing his people with indifference, but mobilizing them with compassion.

When Paul taught that the creation was subjected to futility (Romans 8:20), he also taught that this subjection was "in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God" (v. 21). There is no reason that Christians should not embrace this futility-lifting calling now. God will complete it in the age to come. But it is a good thing to conquer as much disease and suffering now in the name of Christ as we can.

In fact, I would wave the banner right now and call some of you to enter vocations of research that may be the means of undoing some of the great diseases of the world. This is not fighting against God. God is as much in charge of the research as he is of the disease. You can be an instrument in his hand. This may be the time appointed for the triumph that he wills to bring over the disease that he ordained. Don't try to read the mind of God from his mysterious decrees of calamity. Do what he says. And what he says is: "Do good to everyone" (Galatians 6:10).