John Piper on the Prosperity Gospel

Not Right Thinking

Today, I picked up my daughter early from school for a Dentist appointment. While we were sitting in the lobby waiting to be taken back, they had Fox News on. One of the stories that they covered was about the new (ok, not that new, but still) fad known as "Sexting," a play on Texting, but instead of just sending messages back and forth, apparently some kids thing it's cool to take nude or nearly nude pictures of themselves and picture message them to boyfriends or girlfriends or whatever, I guess thinking at the time that this is a private thing to do, but of course, more often than not, it gets sent on to lots and lots of people. Some idiots... errr... experts are trying to say that it's just an innocent thing that the kids are doing, like spin the bottle or "doctor" (neither of which are as innocent as people like to remember them). Obviously though, this goes far beyond even those things.

Anyway, back to the news story, they had a young man on there whose 16 year old Girlfriend had sent him a nude photo of herself when he was 17, then after he turned 18 he sent it to a bunch of people (don't know if they broke up, or what happened) and was arrested for proliferating child porn, and has been labeled a sex offender. Now he is trying to get that label removed because it really messes him up for getting a job and things like that. I'm thinking that, yeah, maybe making him a sex offender doesn't quite fit, but clearly something has to be done. The problem that I have with the story is that they were putting it forth as if he was an innocent victim. Fact of the matter is that, he was in no way innocent at all, and he should have been punished.

This sexting thing is a serious matter, it's not just some funny thing that the kids are doing, it's not harmless, and it's not innocent.

Rationed Care

There is a lot of confusion about the current state of the Health Care System in the United States of America, leading many to think that the only solution is the Universal Health Coverage option being pushed by the Obama administration and the Democrats in Congress, among others, but nothing could be farther from the truth.

Are there problems with Health Care in the United States as it stands today? Sure there are, but why? Well, some of it is pretty easy to understand, and once the problems are understood, it's easy to see how those things could be remedied, without turning the whole thing over to the Government.

The first thing that most people can understand without much trouble is quite simple, litigation. That is to say, lawsuits with huge judgments that cause all doctors to need malpractice insurance that costs tons of money and drives up the cost of Health Care for everyone. Judgment limits, or penalties for people filing frivolous lawsuits would make a drastic dent as it is one of the largest areas of waste in the entire Health Care System.

A second problem started with total coverage insurance. That is to say that some people having insurance that is too good has been part of the problem. This can be a little more difficult to understand, so let me explain. As good as it seems to most of us to have great insurance, with no deductible and no, or very low copay, this leads some people, possibly even a great deal of people, to run to the Doctor or ER for every sniffle or hangnail, which further increases the cost of Health Care, again, for everyone.

Then there is the issue of the uninsured, one of the biggest places that the Statists tries to convince us that we need the Government to step in and take over, by telling us that there are 50 million uninsured people in the United States that just simply have no access to Health Care, and, they would have us believe, are just dying in the streets. There are so many lies surrounding this part of the issue that it's almost difficult to see all of it. First of all, the very number is a lie. This number of people comes from the Census data, and includes people that were uninsured for a very small window of time, after losing a job, or some such reason, as well as people who are offered insurance by their employer, or can afford to purchase it on their own, but choose not to, mostly because they are young, healthy people who feel they can better use the money in other areas, and are willing to take the risk. Very few of these people are chronically uninsured. Besides this, around 10 million of the 50 million number are illegal aliens. The second part of this lie is the idea that even those who are unable to get Health Insurance are also barred from receiving medical care, however, current Federal laws require that all people who come to any Emergency Room must be evaluated and receive any required treatment. Are there people who fall through the cracks? Probably, but they are the exception, and not the rule.

The other side is what actually happens when such a plan is put in place. We need only to look to Britain and Canada. It doesn't take much to find British news stories telling all of the horror stories about how terrible this system is. Basically, it amounts to rationed care, that is to say, someone sitting in a cubicle somewhere deciding who receives treatment and who doesn't. The Government never does anything efficiently, so the idea that the State running Health Care is going to reduce cost and increase the amount quantity of care available is an absolutely insane idea. The fact is that they will likely increase cost even more, and limit the quantity of care available, but let's assume a best case scenario where the quantity of care stays equal to what it is right now, they are telling us that there isn't enough now, so there wouldn't be enough then either, meaning that someone will have to decide who gets it, and who doesn't, and if it's all considered free, the demand will increase, which will further limit the supply. The elderly will be hit first, and then likely the children. Those with the most political influence will receive the best care, because Health Care decisions will not be medically based, but rather politically based, just as is everything that a Government does is politically based.

The truth is that universal Health coverage, provided by a Government equals rationed care, not enough care, and a far worse system than what we have today.

A Soldier's Prayer

A Soldier's Prayer

Look God: I have never spoken to You,
But now I want to say, "How do You do."
You see God, they told me You did not exist;
And, like a fool, I believed all of this.

Last night from a shell hole I saw Your sky;
I figured right then they had told me a lie.
Had I taken the time to see the things You made,
I would know they weren't calling a spade a spade.

I wonder, God, if You would shake my hand;
Somehow, I feel that You will understand.
Strange, I had to come to this hellish place
Before I had time to see Your face.

Well, I guess there isn't much more to say,
But I am sure glad, God, I met You today.
I guess the zero hour will soon be here,
But I am not afraid since I know You are near.

The signal - well, God, I will have to go;
I love you lots, this I want you to know.
Looks like this will be a horrible fight;
Who knows, I may come to your house tonight.

Though I wasn't friendly with you before,
I wonder, God, if you would wait at the door.
Look, I am crying, me shedding tears!
I wish I had known you these many years.

Well, I will have to go now, God.
Goodbye - Strange, since I met you,
I am not afraid to die.

...Author Unknown

How Much Education Must A Pastor Have?

Complaints or Contentment?

Complaints or Contentment?

Gregory Koukl

Does God owe us a perfect world? Your answer to that question will determine your ability to be content in this life. Greg discusses how two different responses to the untimely death of a teenager reveals two contrasting views prevalent the Christian world today...and which of them more closely reflects the biblical perspective.

Some of you might have heard of a tragedy here on the West Coast recently. A teenager snow-boarding in the Angeles Crest Mountains was lost for ten days. When they found Jeff Thornton over a week ago he was alive--shaken and frostbitten, some broken bones, but alive--and apparently in good shape. It was a great victory, front page news. Search parties had tracked him in the snow over difficult terrain and finally found him. They got him to the hospital and all seemed well. A week later, though, Jeff Thornton was dead. Thornton was from a small, religious farm community here in California named Brawley. While the boy was lost, the town prayed, as is often the case when tragedy strikes. By the way, have you noticed that nobody ever raises any questions about separation of church and state in cases like these? Classrooms are filled with prayer when personal tragedy strikes with no hint of impropriety. You'll even see appeals to pray on the evening news. "Please pray," news anchors say, or "Our prayers are with you." This happens with every major catastrophe we've faced as a country. It's interesting that nobody balks at this. In this particular case, the community was alive with prayer. Sure enough, the prayers were answered when the young boy was found. But then there was a turn-around. A week or so later, as a result of complications of gangrene, frostbite, exposure, shock, and broken bones, the young man died. [As an aside, isn't it interesting that when a young person dies like this we use the term "untimely" to describe it? It was an "untimely" death at an "untimely" age. We use the word because we believe the person died before his time. To put it more precisely, he died before his appointed time. Isn't this a tacit admission that their life had purpose, a purpose that was beyond what that individual intended--a grander purpose, a transcendent purpose which was not fulfilled because he was cut down early in life? Responses like this are spontaneous, bearing testimony to something we know deep down inside--there is a God, and He has established a purpose for each individual, a purpose that is not fulfilled when someone is struck down "before his time."] This morning I read the headlines in the LA Times : "Stunned Town Mourns Snow-Boarder's Death." Fifteen hundred people attended the memorial service for Jeff that was held at the high school. The main thing that struck me about this account was the different ways people responded to this tragedy. Some were thankful to God that they had been given ten extra days with Jeff Thornton. Others were angry at God because He gave the boy back just to take him away again. God was either gracious or cruel, depending on who you asked. His mother, choking back the tears, thanked her son's friends for their prayers and thanked the members of the search-and-rescue team that refused to give up the search. Then she told the crowd, "Imagine my joy when my baby was found alive. We shared precious moments, but I didn't know those moments wouldn't last. I want to thank God for giving me back my son, if just for a short time." The pastor, Reverend Scott Peterson, agreed: "Through the grace of God, the prayers of his friends, and the hard work of the search-and-rescue team, Jeff was brought back alive to his mother." Tuesday night at a private service, members of the football team other students reflected on the death of their friend, Jeff Thornton. One 15-year-old coed had a different take on the tragedy. "It's just not fair. Not fair! That God gave him back to us and then took him away again. A lot of kids don't understand it at all." Isn't it interesting, the contrast here? Each response represents two fundamentally different views of God's role in the world. Both had the boy for just a short period of time, returned to them back from the dead, as it were. Jeff's mother thanked God for giving her son back to her for ten more days. The 15-year-old coed said God was unfair to give Jeff back for a short time and then take him home again. These two contrasting responses show us two different expectations about God. Maybe the young lady's response was just a function of grief. I don't know for sure, but I suspect it goes much deeper than that. Could the co-ed's grief have been greater than Jeff's mom's? Something else is going on. This 15-year-old student seemed to have the view that I hear echoed even by what many consider to be mature Christians. When hard times hit they say, "What happened? Why did God allow this?" They are not just expressing emotion or grief. They are genuinely stunned that God would allow evil to touch their lives like this. God hasn't kept His part of the bargain. Each reaction betrays a particular view of God. One view is that God aids us as we maneuver through the contingencies of a fallen world. When He helps us as we navigate through life we thank Him for His grace. We consider anything God might do on our behalf an added benefit to us--a gracious, unmerited favor. Jeff Thornton's mom was like this. Though her son was eventually going to die, the fact that he was able to spend a week with his family-- talking with his mother, sharing his last moments with his friends-- was seen by her as a gift of God, a special work of grace in the midst of tragedy. The second view--the co-ed's--is that God owes us something like a perfect world. We have a divine right to happiness, fulfillment, and prosperity. If we don't get them, God has not fulfilled His end of the bargain. If God lets us have something good for a moment and then takes it away, it's "not fair" because, on this view, we deserved the good thing to begin with. We deserved the best. We deserve heaven on earth, and we've been cheated. A lot of Christians think this way. It's one of the serious flaws of the so-called faith/prosperity movement. They're looking for heaven's rewards and heaven's perfection right here on earth. They're expecting God to protect them, as a divine obligation, from the contingencies of living in a fallen world. When God gives them something wonderful, that's par for the course. When everything is going smoothly, that's the way it ought to be. It's owed them. People like this are not excessively thankful for things, and they complain when they don't get what they want. Two completely different ways of viewing things. I guess you can guess which one I think is biblical. It's the first one. This is why we're not just encouraged but commanded to give thanks in all things. It emphasizes the fact that everything we have, "every good and perfect gift comes down from the Father of lights, in whom there is no variation or shifting shadow." (James 1:17) This is why, in humility, we give thanks for whatever joys we are given in this fallen world. It explains why we give thanks when we get a son back before his ultimate homecoming-- if only for a couple of days-- instead of blaming God for not letting him stay longer.

This is a transcript of a commentary from the radio show "Stand to Reason," with Gregory Koukl. It is made available to you at no charge through the faithful giving of those who support Stand to Reason. Reproduction permitted for non-commercial use only. ©1998 Gregory Koukl

For more information, contact Stand to Reason at 1438 East 33rd St., Signal Hill, CA 90755
(800) 2-REASON (562) 595-7333 www.str.org

Dave Ramsey On Gold

"Gold is the snuggie of the investment world, it's sold on late night cable, and if you buy it, you'll look stupid."
www.daveramsey.com

Preaching

Greg Koukl - Do all religions offer a piece of the truth?

If Angels Can Sin...

Just My Thoughts

I keep seeing commercials touting the great investment potential of Gold. They keep talking about how much more it's worth today than it was in 2000. I have to wonder though, is this real? Is the increase in Gold prices being driven, at least in part, by these very commercials convincing more people to buy more Gold? It seems to me that they could be increasing the demand just by telling everyone how great Gold is, and increased demand, against a fixed supply, drives up the price. I would say that this means that current Gold prices are artificially inflated, causing, what I'm going to call, the Gold bubble (getting this idea from the housing bubble). This is making me thing that, like most bubbles, it will burst at some point leaving a lot of people with piles of Gold that are worth far less than what they paid for it. These are just my thoughts, but it seems to me that if the price is artificially high, it's got to come crashing down at some point, right? I would think so.

John Piper Explains "Arcing"

Every Child A Wanted Child

Every Child A Wanted Child

Gregory Koukl

What makes an unwanted child's life necessarily unhappy? A reaction to the moral persuasion of some pro-choice advocates.

Some of you may be familiar with the series of TV ads the Arthur B. DeMoss foundation has been running promoting adoption. These are beautifully photographed, positive clips showing children at play, enjoying life and the love they receive from others in their family. The message is clear: "If you're pregnant, keep your child. Give your child a chance." The ads end with this statement: "Life: A Beautiful Choice." [M]any unwanted children lead miserable lives. But whose fault is that? It is not the baby's fault. It's the fault of parents who would rather kill their children than be obliged to love and care for them. The campaign never mentions abortion. It just champions a particular choice, the decision a woman makes to bear the child of an unplanned pregnancy, and it does that very tastefully and powerfully. The ads are nicely done. Some people don't like these commercials, though. A few years ago I did a piece entitled "Calling a Spade a Spade" discussing Planned Parenthood's objection to the DeMoss Foundation's approach as "subtly anti-abortion." Well, I guess if a commercial encourages a mother to let her baby live, and if she can't kill her baby through abortion and let it live at the same time, I guess one might say the advice is subtly anti-abortion. But why should Planned Parenthood object? If it is pro-choice, this means that it promotes adoption as one of the legitimate choices. And if promotion of adoption is "subtly anti-abortion," then Planned Parenthood would be guilty of being anti-abortion by the same reasoning. One can't adopt and abort the same child. It's one or the other. This was evidence to me that Planned Parenthood is not really pro-choice. If it was pro-choice, it wouldn't object to the Arthur B. DeMoss Foundation's commercials promoting the choice of adoption by letting a child live. Because they take offense, this tells me they aren't pro-choice, they're pro-abortion, prompting the title, "Calling a Spade a Spade." Let's be honest and label a pro-abort "pro- abortion ," and not "pro- choice ." Though not all who are pro-abortion bristle at the adoption suggestion, this objection from Planned Parenthood shows me they aren't really concerned about choice. If they were, they would be applauding the Arthur B. DeMoss Foundation for championing this alternative. I heard another spin on the same issue not too long ago in an L.A. Times article. As I recall, a female pastor responded to the DeMoss slogan by saying, "'Life: A beautiful choice'? It's not so beautiful for an unwanted child." This got me thinking, as you can imagine, because her comment has appeal, taking some of the force out of the DeMoss slogan. There's something terribly wrong with her approach, though, and when the error comes into focus, this rejoinder has no appeal whatsoever. In fact, it identifies a shameful condition. Do you see what kind of people we're becoming, ladies and gentlemen? Do you see how these end-of-life decisions, after we keep making the wrong decisions over and over and over, start changing us inside such that we can respond with a statement like this and think it's a sound complaint? Here's the key question to her response: Yes, life might not be beautiful for an unwanted child--I'll grant that--but why isn't it ? Why is the life of an unwanted child ugly? What makes an unwanted child's life miserable? That's the question. The initial answer is, "The unwanted child's life is not beautiful because she's not wanted." But it goes deeper than that, doesn't it? No child's life is miserable simply by the bare fact that she is unwanted. Being unwanted doesn't make her life miserable. In this case, it isn't a what which makes the child's life miserable (being unwanted), but rather a who that makes the child's life miserable (the people, the adults, the parents who don't want the child). You see, people are miserable not because of the conditions of their conception, but rather because of the way others treat them afterwards. Consider this statement: "Well, life may be a beautiful choice, but it's not beautiful for my grandmother. Nobody wants her. We don't want her. We wish she were dead, so her life is miserable." The question is: Why is Grandma's life miserable? It's not because she's unwanted, but because she's being treated unkindly. That's why it's miserable. This is like saying, "I'll tell you why Grandmother is miserable. Nobody wants her and we treat her like we don't want her ." If, however, they treated her with kindness, if they valued her as a human being, if they showed respect for her as a family member who deserved love and care, Grandma wouldn't be miserable even though she was still unwanted . The misery doesn't come from the lack of want, but from the lack of kindness and love. The same is true with this pastor's statement about abortion. This is not an indictment against the condition of unwantedness; this is an indictment against adult human beings who treat children poorly. Her comment is an admission of guilt, tantamount to saying, "If I let this child live, I'm going to treat her so badly and make her life so miserable that she'll wish she were dead. So it's better to kill her now. Let's get her out of the way so she doesn't have to endure the bad treatment I'll give her." Now do you see why I say this is a shameful way of responding? It's an admission that we would rather kill a child than do what's necessary to give that child a meaningful life. Is this the kind of ethic we really want to promote? Is this the kind of moral reasoning we really think is compelling? Do you see what kind of people we're becoming, ladies and gentlemen? Do you see how these end-of-life decisions, after we keep making the wrong decisions over and over and over, start changing us inside such that we can respond with a statement like this and think it's a sound complaint ? "'Life: A beautiful choice?' It's not so beautiful for an unwanted child." This rejoinder has an appeal, but at its core it's despicable. We're arguing that it's better to kill the child, because we have no plans to be virtuous in our behavior towards her. I'm talking about standard virtue, here--ordinary, pedestrian, within-the-call-of-duty care--nothing heroic, the basic love parents are expected to give to their children, whether they want them or not. Yes, many unwanted children lead miserable lives. But whose fault is that? It is not the baby's fault. It's the fault of parents who would rather kill their children than be obliged to love and care for them.

This is a transcript of a commentary from the radio show "Stand to Reason," with Gregory Koukl. It is made available to you at no charge through the faithful giving of those who support Stand to Reason. Reproduction permitted for non-commercial use only. ©1996 Gregory Koukl

For more information, contact Stand to Reason at 1438 East 33rd St., Signal Hill, CA 90755
(800) 2-REASON (562) 595-7333 www.str.org

I Really Feel Safe Now

Earlier this week in one of the over hyped press conferences concerning the over hyped swine flu bug... err... outbreak... err... epidemic... err... pandemic... err... hide the women and children! But don't panic! Anyway. I thought I would talk for just a moment about something that I saw on the news.

They were having a press conference with the new Secretary of Homeland Security, you know, the failed Governor of Arizona? Anyway, she was talking about all that the Federal Government is doing to help to get us through this potential pandemic, because, you know, we didn't know to wash our hands and steer clear of sick people until she spoke up... again, back to the point. She was talking about the distribution of some of the drugs that the Federal Government stockpiled under Bush, just in case this really becomes a major outbreak. Actually, I don't have a problem with that, it's probably smart. Anyway, in talking about the anti viral medications she said that these drugs helped to lessen the symptoms to make people feel better. Um... No. That's what some medicines do, like NyQuil and other such over the counter drugs, but most people can run down to the drug store and get that themselves, and there's not much chance of there being shortage of such things. The drugs that she was talking about are fairly new drugs that attack the viruses themselves and help your body to kill them, making you not sick anymore.

Honestly, we are supposed to trust in these people who can't even get the most basic facts right? Do you feel safe now?

That's The Argument?

The other night at President Barack Obama's most inane press conference to date he was asked a question about Abortion. I was utterly floored by the outright silliness of his answer. Now, as usual, he spoke for several minutes, running out the clock to avoid the possibility that someone might actually ask him a serious question, not that Abortion is not a serious issue, but everyone knows how radically pro-abortion Obama is, so you can't really say asking his position constitutes a serious question. Anyway, the point is, you have to learn to ignore the clutter words and cut to the relevant section of any quote when listening to Obama. So here it is, he said that Pro-Choice is the correct position on the issue of Abortion because, are you ready for this? Because the women don't take the choice lightly!

Seriously, that was his argument in defense of Abortion. Utterly stunning isn't it? So, let's take a look at it, since it is, after all, the defense of a position offered by the President of the United States.

If you've read much of my blog, and if not you always have the option of looking back at the archives, you will see that I have addressed the Abortion issue multiple times, and explained why it is murder, why it is taking the life of an innocent human being, and posted several excellent explanations of the horror of Abortion from the wonderful people from Stand To Reason (linked in the sidebar), but Obama simply dismissed all of that, saying that it's OK because the women don't take the choice lightly, so, therefore, we must conclude from what he said, that there is nothing wrong with it for that reason alone.

Of course, you simply can't apply that kind of "logic" to a single issue, if it's good enough for Abortion, it's good enough for pretty much everything, right? So, what happens if we apply this concept across the board. What you come up with is a system whereby any action is justified as long as the decision to undertake that action is well considered, and of course, not taken lightly, and the action itself cannot be questioned, and is not subject to judgements of right or wrong or ciminality, or anything else. Under a system like this crime could only be punished if the perpetrator took the choice to commit the crime lightly.

Therefore:
Carjacking, OK as long as the criminal doesn't take the choice to carjack lightly.
Murder, OK, as long as the murderer doesn't take the choice to murder lightly.
Armed Robbery, OK, as long as the robber doesn't take the choice to rob lightly.
Rape, OK, as long as the rapist doesn't take the choice to rape lightly.
Genocide, OK, as long as the genocidal maniac doesn't take the choice to exterminate millions of people lightly.
War, OK, as long as the warmonger doesn't take the choice to wage an unjust war lightly.
Adultery, OK, as long as the cheater doesn't take the choice to cheat lightly.
Assault, OK, as long as the attacker doesn't take the choice to attack lightly.

I could go on and on, but I think the point is made.

In short, no matter what a person chooses to do is fine, as long as it is well considered, or not taken lightly. So said our President. Now, regardless if you like Obama or not, or if you are Pro-Life or Pro-Abortion, everyone has to see that this was about the silliest thing that could have been said, and nobody challenged him on it, now isn't that sad?