FoggyPitt

Boortz in the Pitt

2007-11-06T20:55:00.000-05:00

Recently, libertarian talk show host, Neal Boortz published an article on his website (here). The article is a reprint of a column from a high school newspaper written by a senior, which apparently "sent the principal into a panic ... running around and confiscating uncirculated copies of the column." Boortz interviewed the student on his show and asked him if he would like to write every now and then for Nealz Nuze. Not only was Boortz impressed with the senior's writing skills, I'm sure Boortz, as a libertarian, disagreed with the principal's zeal in suppressing the student's "right" to free speech or freedom of the press.

Well, I'm afraid I can't go along with Boortz on this one. Rather, "Another 'modest proposal'" was more akin to yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater, for which "free speech" doesn't apply. It was totally irresponsible. While it may have been offered as tongue-in-cheek, it certainly wasn't funny. That America's youth think this way, even in jest, is more than a little scary. This kid's thinking should be our "worst nightmare".

In his defense, however, we taught him to think that way, both by our behavior as a culture and through a government education dedicated to evolutionary indoctrination. This ultimately and logically leads to eugenic consequences. Since our generation has garnered governmental decree to decide who lives and who dies in the mother's womb, so our children, backed by that same government, will decide who lives and who dies in the nation's nursing homes. Today we kill our children in the womb because they are inconvenient and expensive to their mother. That general hatred for children specifically and for human life in general means that in our old age we may be euthanized by our "children" because we will be inconvenient and expensive to our society.

Eugenics is "the study of hereditary improvement of the human race by controlled selective breeding," and its founder was Francis Galton, cousin to Charles Darwin. The ideas expressed by Galton were supported by the likes of Margaret Sanger, founder of the modern abortion movement, and by Adolf Hitler and his minions (need I say more). It's sad that Neal Boortz gave this kid his "fifteen minutes of fame".

While I agree with some of Boortz's pragmatic political proposals, he is, nevertheless self-avowedly non-Christian. Therefore, he is part of the problem, not the solution. Ideas have consequences, and ideas apart from Christ ultimately lack eternal profit. Jesus said, "He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters abroad." -Matthew 12:30

Adams Family Legacy

2007-06-02T22:50:00.000-04:00

Thanks to George Grant of King's Meadow for the idea and several of the quotes:

When you read quotes or passages or documents from America's founding era, certain words mean different things to us Moderns (or post Moderns) than they did to our Founding Fathers. One example is "religion". When they used the word "religion", most of the time, if not all, they meant Christianity. When they spoke of freedom of religion, they meant that one Christian denomination or sect was not to have national status or prominence over another, as Anglicanism was in England. In fact, the states were allowed and did indeed have official state religions: Virginia-Anglican, Maryland-Catholic, Pennsylvania-Quaker, etc. Other sects or denominations often had to get permission from the state government to set up shop.

Below are quotes from John Adams, his wife Abigail, his son John Quincy and his cousin Samuel, which, if you agree with the principles espoused, speak to the current and escalating degradation of America today. They also accentuate the utter frustration facing Iraq and other countries around the world trying to make a go of a Constitutional Republic apart from biblical law as contained in God's Word and from biblical principles to be lived out in obedience to Jesus Christ.

"Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand." John Adams

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passion unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams

"The only sure and permanent foundation of virtue is religion. Let this important truth be engraven upon your heart." Abigail Adams"The highest glory of the American Revolution was this; it connected in one indissoluble bond, the principles of the civil government with the principles of Christianity. From the day of the Declaration the American people were bound by the laws of God, which they all, and by the laws of the Gospel, which they nearly all, acknowledged as the rules of their conduct." John Quincy Adams

"Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt....The sum of all is, if we would most truly enjoy this gift of Heaven, let us become a virtuous people." Samuel Adams

"I conceive we cannot better express ourselves than by humbly supplicating the Supreme Ruler of the world....that the confusions that are and have been among the nations may be overruled by promoting and speedily bringing in the holy and happy period when the kingdoms of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ may be everywhere established, and the people willingly bow to the sceptre of Him who is the Prince of Peace." Samuel Adams

What's in a Name...

2006-03-01T08:14:00.000-05:00

The Bible is full of names--lots of them. To read through the numerous geneologies is, for most of us, a tedious and seemingly pointless exercise. Yet, God in His perfect wisdom has emphasized names for His glory and our benefit. So why are names so important to Him, and of consequence then to us?

God deemed each aspect of His creation in Genesis 1 as 'good'. At the end of the sixth day, He deemed the whole creation as 'very good'. He created every creature specially, and its name identified its character, God's unique impression. Thus, biblical names are rich in meaning...Abraham (father of nations), Isaac (he laughs), Jacob (deceiver), Ichabod (departed glory). God named Adam, who in turn named all the animals and his wife, Eve (mother of all living). At the burning bush, Moses wanted a name to go with the One who would deliver the children of Israel, because the multitude of Egyptian gods all had names. So, God gave Moses His name--YHWH (I AM). Jesus himself has many names scattered throughout the Old and New Testaments, all of which indicate some aspect of His character. And even in Glory, the overcomers will be given new names (Rev 2:17).

In practical terms then, what does this mean for the saints? Why should we care? In our faithfulness to God and to each other, we need to imitate God and be as jealous for names as He is. How many of us have experienced a greeting that goes something like the following: I say, "Good morning, Bob!" Bob responds, "Hey...!" Now, I have known Bob for years. We've worshipped together in church and studied together at various Bible studies and Sunday school classes. He knows my name, yet he almost never uses it . I don't know about you, but when someone I know continually addresses me as 'Hey', or 'Sir' or 'Bub', it shows a lack of respect and a lack of godliness. It indicates that he doesn't know or care that it makes me feel less like a brother and more like a stranger.

If you don't know someone's name or have forgotten it, humble yourself and ask...he'll appreciate it. "Let nothing be done through selfish ambition or conceit, but in lowliness of mind let each esteem others better than himself. Let each of you look out not only for his own interests, but also for the interests of others." (Phil 2:3-4)

If you do know your brother's name, then use it. It is just as much a show of respect as saying 'please' and 'thank you', courtesies in which we conscientiously instruct our children. Why then do we not teach and model use of names? Businessmen in sales and marketing understand this concept better than we do. We often fail miserably in this area, that which God highly esteems and demonstrates in His Word. So, greet one another with humility, love and respect. Look your brother in the eye, firmly shake his hand, and speak his name.

The Problem with America

2006-01-19T10:53:00.000-05:00

This is a continuation of the prior post. Sounds kind of like a broad subject area, wouldn't you say? Well, not really. You see, most of the 'problems' in our country are really symptoms and consequences, not causes. There is but one primary cause, with several sub-causes...one of which I will consider.

The root of America's problems is, simply, covenantal unfaithfulness in the church by the ministers and, consequently, the laity: "...if My people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land." (II Chron 7:14) We have abandoned God in the public sector, for sure, but worse, we have abandoned our first love in the church.

Pastors, even many of the evangelical ones, don't preach (and some don't believe) that the Scriptures both Old and New are the absolute truth and therefore relevant. Many don't even believe in 'absolute' truth at all. And certainly, most do not preach God's sovereignty over His entire creation (every cubic centimeter), the totality of Jesus' lordship, and our need to repent of sin and eat of the Lord's Supper on a frequent (I would argue for weekly) basis. Pastors (and elders) have allowed our worship to become flippant, syrupy and altogether unbiblical. And not surprising, unfaithful preaching has led to unfaithful shepherding and unfaithful following, as well. That leads to point number two.

Fathers have abandoned their various responsibilities as faithful heads of their households. As an example in Ephesians 6, Paul gives fathers both a negative and a positive command: 'do not provoke' and 'bring them up'. Many children are provoked to wrath because they do not see their fathers living out what they say. A thankful, humble, and repentant lifestyle is not in evidence. Further, children are taught one thing at home (and the same in church presumably) and the total opposite in government schools (ie. creation vs evolution). That is why so many church-going, young people either temporarily park or totally abandon their faith on the side of the road when they go through college. Some recover it, by God's grace...most do not. I have heard many a testimony of a high school or college student start with the phrase, "I grew up in a Christian home, BUT..."

When the ministers in the church do their job according to the Scriptures, and the ministers in the homes (fathers) do likewise, we will see a remarkable reformation in the church and consequential transformation in the culture that our faithful forefathers fought and died for.

The Problem with English

2006-01-05T09:57:00.000-05:00

Unfortunately, the English language has many inadequacies, especially when translating from the original languages of the Bible. For example, one of the most commonly known shortcomings is with the word 'love'. The Greeks had four words for 'love', all of which had a particular meaning that would give a clearer indication of the speaker's or writer's intent. In English, we have to judge from the context, and if that is not possible, we are left in the dark as to the nuances of the intended meaning. Take, for instance, Jesus' words on the shore of Galilee when He restoratively asked Peter, "Do you love me?" In the Greek, Jesus used 'agape' in His first two queries but then changed to 'philos' in His third. This change illumines our understanding of Peter's heart and his reticence to characterize his 'love' as sacrificial and all-encompassing. If we had to rely on English, we would never fully grasp the subtle, yet monumental, difference. And we would not see our own reticence to commit our lives fully to Christ, as reflected in the apostle.

The same type of problem arises in Ephesians 6:4, "And you, fathers, do not provoke your children to wrath, but bring them up in the training and admonition of the Lord." The English word 'training' (NKJ), is wholly inadequate to communicate the import and force of Paul's second command in this passage. (I'll get to the first command in a later post) In other English translations, this word is also translated as 'nurture', 'discipline', 'chastening', and 'instruction'. All of these renderings fall far short of the Greek 'paideia'.

Paul's audience would have understood 'paideia' to be far broader in scope than Sunday worship, youth group meetings, family devotions and educational curriculum. It connoted a complete cultural immersion that certainly included those things, as well as what Deuteronomy 6:7-9 describes as diligent discussion when sitting, walking, lying down, rising up, and which is to be posted on your hand, your forehead, the doorway and the fence gate. In other words, no mixed messages...a singular teaching at every hour of the day regardless of posture or location.

"Further, the point of paideia was to bring that culture about. To find a word of comparable importance to them, we would have to hunt around for a word like 'philosophy.' To find a word of comparable importance in our culture, we would have to point to something like 'democracy.' The word paideia was as central to the thinking of the Greeks as the idea of the proletariat is to a Marxist, or cash to a televangelist. It was not a take-it-or-leave-it word like whatever the original Greek word for shoelaces was" (Douglas Wilson, The Paideia of God, p. 11).

Barbed Wire, Inside or Out?

2005-11-16T10:30:00.000-05:00

Well, they're at it again. The FoggyPitt, tax-funded school board has redrawn the district lines. Surprise, surprise! Except this time, one prominent Christian ghetto has been 'adversely' affected. Rather than their dear little ones attending the ' safe', suburban elementary school in the shadow of Dowdy-Ficklen, the residents have been assigned to the barbed-wire-enclosed school on the other-side-of-town.

From local newspaper coverage, I understand that a number of families have registered or will register their kids at one or more of the local Christian schools. If this is true, this will certainly be a windfall to those schools. But, from a biblical worldview, it begs the question, "Why now?"

The only real difference in the two schools is the location. One is a whitewashed tomb and the other a slightly grimy one...still tombs, nevertheless. The statist worship, the Godless curriculum, the revisionist history, the Darwinist sciences, and the psycho-babbley socialization are the same in both places. What are Christian children doing there in the first place?!?!

In the government schools, children are welcome to write about the devil, witches and goblins at Halloween, but not about Jesus at Christmas. (Wait...there is no Christmas anymore, only Winter. Hmmm...kinda like Narnia) They are chastised for acting like animals...but convinced that they are descended from apes! They are punished if they lie, cheat or steal...but the Ten Commandments are considered the establishment of religion! Between-class-sex is discouraged in the bathroom...condom-safe-sex is taught in the classroom! Biblical creation is taught on Sunday morning in church...secular evolution is taught Monday through Friday in class.

"And you, fathers, do not provoke your children to wrath, but bring them up in the training and admonition of the Lord." You should have been out of the government schools a long time ago. Which is worse, the barbed-wire inside or the barbed-wire outside?

Tough Week

2005-10-18T11:00:00.000-04:00

This past week was a difficult one in FoggyPitt. We all experienced a deep and profound loss. Yet, because the Lord is omnipresent in the midst of the grief-producing storms of life, we may ever hope and have our faith strengthened.

A young man went to be with the Lord last Tuesday evening. He was, all at once, husband, father, son, brother, teacher, coach and friend. He will be missed and others will need to step up to the plate and continue the work that he had so ably and lovingly begun.

As I reflect on what I saw and heard at the funeral on Saturday, I must take issue with one statement expressed by the pastor in his eulogy, "...thirty-two year olds are not supposed to have funerals." While this 'view-from-groundlevel' touches our sentimentalist feelings right where they live, it is not biblical. This statement, when held up to Scripture, is really not helpful or comforting, for it impugns God's character. It implies that somehow this happened outside of God's control, or worse, that God could have done something to stop it but didn't...the age-old heresy that "evil happens because God is either wanting in power or in goodness."

Although this young man has died to us, he yet lives to and with his Lord. That's good news. He is in the bosom of Abraham and will dwell in his Father's house forever. While on earth, he and others were well aware of his foibles as a Son of Adam, but as a Son of Christ, he was a forgiven, faithful son in His Father's vineyard. Yet, it was that very same Father, whom he loved and served, that called him Home. "And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment..." (Hebrews 9:27) Though tragic the circumstances and bereft the survivors, this was an appointment that this young man did not want to miss. Each of us has such an appointment, praise God. It is a one-to-one correlation that we, as Christians, should embrace, not avoid. "The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away. Blessed be the name of the Lord." (Job 1:21b) Funerals happen when God wants them to happen. Do we want what God wants...or not?

In saying all this, some will accuse me of being either overtly insensitive or overly inconsequential. To the first I would ask the question, "Is it insensitive to speak the truth in love?" Here in FoggyPitt, "love" equals "nice". If one is not nice, then one doesn't love. Neither Jesus nor Paul were always "nice". So...who among you would say that they weren't loving, or in Jesus' case, not Love itself?

To the second I would ask, "Is God's character suspect?" This is not inconsequential! But you might say, "...but it was just a small statement in a larger context, does it really matter?" Yes, God is profoundly interested in the details. Just read the description of the building of His temple. And, since He is building a habitation for each of His children in His Own House, would we want Him to scrimp on the details?

As American Christians we are neck-deep in modernity, statism, sentimentalism, feminism, pluralism and a host of other anthro-centric "isms". By and large, we don't think, act or eulogize biblically. To do so, we must begin by worshipping rightly. Pastors must preach the whole counsel of God, faithfully and forcefully. We, the congregants, must sing the Psalms, recite the creeds and weekly partake of the Lord's Supper in order to hide the Word of God in our hearts, know what we believe, unite our hearts and minds with one another, and be nourished and strengthened. We, the fathers, must faithfully lead our wives and children in sacrificial living and washing them with the water of the Word.

Bitter Sweet

2005-09-28T10:24:00.000-04:00

Lord willing, it will not be many more weeks that I will reside in FoggyPitt. Thus, my posts would no longer come from personal experience, but rather from hearsay. That being the case, posts will become less frequent, as I must be more selective and very careful. It is certainly safer (and more biblical) to comment on my personal experience, rather than that of my friends and acquaintances. But there may be times that a situation arises that has universal application, with the names, of course, remaining unnamed.

Today I caught up my reading of 'Blog and Mablog'. In one of his posts, Douglas Wilson, comments on a paragraph from the end of Denis Boyles' book, 'Vile France', which Boyles made in passing on the last page: "I was once a college teacher, and as those who teach know, the politics of the English department are more ruthless and cut-throat than the politics of the real world. Once, while trying to help a friend with five kids and a pregnant wife keep his job, I was forced to realize that the guy I was trying to help was working behind my back to get me fired so he could take my job. I didn't know if I should go after the guy or what. So I turned to my own mentor, an old Joycean Jew from the Bronx, and asked him what he thought I should do. He told me to forget it. 'His punishment,' he promised, 'will be his life.' And so it has been, to this very day."

As I ponder that statement, "His punishment will be his life," I am comforted that it applies also to those who have slandered me, my family, and the others with whom I worship. Leaving FoggyPitt is both a bitter and a sweet reality. We will truly miss those who have prayed with and for us and who have stuck "closer than a brother". You know who you are, and we love you all very much.

For those of you who have accused us of heresy, dishonesty, subversion, etc., you know who you are, too. As under-shepherds in the church of Jesus Christ, you should be ashamed and, therefore, confess, repent and make restitution. But, that is not mine to coerce or command. It is to God alone. "It is before his own master that (a man) stands or falls...." As for me, and speaking for my family, I forgive you and leave it all in God's hands.

No Choice...Really

2005-08-26T21:15:00.000-04:00

I have come late (in life) to an understanding of a biblical principle. It is not an option for Christians to educate their children 'Christianly'. It is a covenant responsibility for a covenant people ruled by a covenant God. Whether it is home schooling or a Christian school, children of believers should be educated 24/7, as the vernacular goes, in the truth. And truth is not often present in the government school system. American law and culture, founded on biblical principles, is disintegrating right before our eyes and the government school system is at the heart of it...just as its founders, Horace Mann and others, intended. I can attest to all that in my own education, as well as that of my older children's. Though there is no clear commandment in Scripture, as in the 10 Commandments, the following verses, taken as a whole, make it pretty clear what we as Christians ought to do. (Deut 6:4-9; Psa 1:1-3; Psa 103:17-18; Prov 9:10-11; Prov 22:6; Luke 17:1-2; II Cor 6:14; II Cor 10:5; Eph 6:4; Col 2:8)

As Christians, we need to avoid a 'wooden' approach to the Bible. If there is a commandment 'to do' or 'not to do' then we need to be obedient to the letter. In the absence of a decree, we need to apply biblical principle in a contextual, thoughtful and comprehensive manner. If we always insist on a clear commandment or example in Scripture then women should not take communion, and young children who make a profession of faith should not be baptized until they are adults. We all know that is ludicrous. Neither of those situations warrants adherence. For those, however, who insist on a clear 'commandment' regarding a prohibition for government schooling, then they should be consistent in their application of the Scriptures and forbid their wives from partaking of the Lord's Supper.

Try this thought experiment. Imagine what Samuel or David or Isaiah or Elijah would have said if it was suggested that the Philistines educate Israelite children because their Jewish tribute already paid for it, and the Philistines had all the latest technologies (iron, chariots and computer labs). How about Jesus, Matthew, Timothy, and Paul regarding a Roman education for Jewish children?

Schooling for the Blind

2005-07-19T11:52:00.000-04:00

Well, I have been away for awhile trying to drum up employment. Still no success, but I ran across several good articles from others' blogs that touch a nerve. I have quoted them below my initial comments.

For many Christians here in FoggyPitt, it is a perfectly acceptable practice to enlist the government (public) schools to educate their children. Parents use their parental authority (read: autonomy) as their warrant, "It's my decision." Or, worse, "I let my child decide where he wants to go." Or, for those who need additional rationalization, they claim the Scriptures don't say explicitly, "Thall shallt not put your children in the public schools". Or they say that their children need to be "salt and light" in, what they know to be, a tasteless and dark place. Or they argue that attending church on Sunday, sending the kids to youth group, and praying around the dinner table constitutes "bring[ing] up your children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." To be sure, those things are all part of the process, but Jesus makes a total claim on our lives and our time and our activities and, yes, especially our school choices. Six hours of instruction per day in a secular, pluralisitic, humanistic, naturalistic and anti-Christian environment "exasperates" your children, fathers. Believe me, I know from personal experience. It certainly does not fulfill the mandate to "...love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise. You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates."

Now the quotes:
R.C. Sproul, Jr. - 7-1-2005
"This summer as the Baptists gather, some good men are trying again, or at least, they are trying to try. This time the resolution, sponsored by Pastor Voddie Baucham and Mr. Shortt, asks for rather less. It encourages all SBC parents to investigate how much their local school is promoting sodomite lifestyles. (Except, of course, their language is slightly less accurate, and slightly more gracious.) And if they find stuff not to their liking, then they should consider taking their children out.I’m quite confident that both Baucham and Shortt are fine, godly men, who, in this instance, have let their honorable zeal befuddle their goal through their strategy. They want the kids out, which is great. But their current strategy is to show the parents the boogeyman that is no longer in the closet. It is a horrible thing that any school would promote sodomy. But it is the natural result of previous and more grievous error, a school that will not affirm the Lordship of Christ over all things. Why are we worried about men kissing each other, when we ought to be worried that the entire system refuses to kiss the Son?To paraphrase myself, any parent who would remove a child from a school because of sodomite propaganda, but would not remove their child from a school that will not name the name of Christ, worships the god of middle class morality. And that god cannot save. This is what ought to turn our stomachs, 'Jesus doesn’t matter here.'”

R.C. Sproul, Jr. - 7-8-2005
"When God gives us an order, because He is the very God of order, we can rest assured that it does not contradict any other of His orders. Which brings us back to our first two suppositions. Which is more important, raising your children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, or being salt and light? Christian homeschoolers are tempted to choose the former, while Christians who send their children into the government’s schools are tempted to choose the latter. What do you think?I hope you think that neither of these two commands is more important. We are to obey all of God’s law, and we can never justify breaking part b on the grounds that it was necessary to keep part a. Not that I haven’t tried. When I was a teenager I would often drive home at reckless and illegal speeds, so as not to break my curfew. When Christians of different theological persuasions get together, it isn’t uncommon for them to play what I call 'dueling verses.' The Calvinist drops his verse, 'Ephesians 2:1' and the Arminian retaliates with 'John 3:16.' The two start flinging verses at each other, somehow believing that whomever can muster the most verses wins. But of course to get at the truth we have to understand and incorporate all the verses, because God’s truth is one. And so we do the same in our education wars. No homeschooler can justify indifference and inaction toward the lost on the grounds that they are busy raising their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. And no government schooler can justify their children being discipled in a place where the Lord cannot be mentioned on the grounds of 'witnessing.' What we need is to raise our children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, while seeking the lost. As I stated in my book When You Rise Up, 'Do I care about the lost? Of course I do. Do my children care about the lost? Enough that they can pray for them at school, out loud, every day. I am homeschooling precisely so my children will be able to know, recognize and love the enemy, all while not becoming the enemy….The greatest thing our children can do for the lost is to so let their light shine before men that they glorify their Father in heaven.'”

George Grant - 7-11-2005
"Leadership must be prayed for, planned for, and prepared for—it doesn’t just happen. I know, I know, that is hardly earth shattering news. But I had finally come to the realization that in order to bring about reconciliation, restoration, and reformation in our culture we would have to commit ourselves to the multigenerational agenda of covenantal faithfulness—just as it had always been; just as it always would be.The Scriptures speak eloquently of our responsibilities to effectively train up the next generation of leaders. The responsibilities therein rehearsed have been part of the confession of faith of God’s people from the earliest days—indeed they constitute a primary application of the first and great commandment (Deut. 6: 4-5; Matt. 22: 37-38). They constitute a central element in what it means for those who are saved to keep covenant with God: 'And these words which I command you this day shall be upon your heart, and you shall teach them diligently unto your children.'”

Going Nuclear

2005-06-19T11:15:00.000-04:00

I've had a number of discussions with a friend over the past few months. It is our observation that people so easily go 'nuclear' over ordinary matters and common disagreements in everyday life. Road rage is a good example...a driver doesn't accelerate fast enough from a red light or accidentally changes lanes too close to the driver just behind and beside him. The 'offended' person goes ballistic at the provocation and looks immediately to some form of 'justifiable' retribution.

Unfortunately, this behavior is not limited to the pagan population in America. I have witnessed some of the worst, most dysfunctional and 'nuclear' behavior by those in whom I placed a great deal of trust. Betrayal by a spouse (or child) is, I know from personal experience, the hardest to bear. Betrayal by one who is your shepherd, your pastor or your elder follows as a close second. Disagreements in life are inevitable. But we has Christians have a different standard when confronted with those disagreements. We are commanded to handle them in a 'higher' manner. And namecalling is not one of them. Rather than, "...go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses...", I have witnessed a 'nuclear' attack. They drop the 'H' bomb. Heretic!

Can't we, as reasonable, God-fearing men with our Bibles opened, just disagree on those issues over which we are at liberty to disagree without one of the parties going ballistic? Without using the 'H' word?

Matthew 23 contains some of those 'red-hot scorching words' noted in my previous post for leaders who speak one way and live another...who hold others to a standard that they themselves are unwilling (perhaps unable) to meet. "...Woe to you lawyers also! For you load people with burdens hard to bear, and you yourselves do not touch the burdens with one of your fingers."

The Power of Paradox

2005-06-12T10:20:00.000-04:00

I love this quote from James S. Stewart, considered by some to be among the finest preachers of the twentieth century. Born in 1896 and died in 1990, he taught New Testament Language, Literature and Theology at the University of Edinburgh (New College). He also served as Chaplain to the Queen in Scotland and as Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. He authored a number of books, including Heralds of God, The Strong Name, and A Man in Christ. I have heard Ravi Zacharias use this quote in several of his sermons.

In his book The Strong Name, Stewart speaks of Christ with words that touch upon some of the many paradoxes of Jesus himself, and thus, the paradoxes of the Christian life. They are, at once, both powerful and personal: "He was the meekest and lowliest of all the sons of men, yet he spoke of coming on the clouds of heaven with the glory of God. He was so austere that evil spirits and demons cried out in terror at his coming yet He was so genial and winsome and approachable that the children loved to play with Him and the little ones nestled in His arms. No one was half so kind or compassionate to sinners yet no one ever spoke such red-hot scorching words about sin… His whole life was love. Yet on one occasion he demanded of the Pharisees how they ever expected to escape the damnation of hell… He saved others but at the last, Himself He did not save. There is nothing in history like the union of contrasts which confront us in the Gospels. The mystery of Jesus is the mystery of divine personality."

Thou shalt not?

2005-06-10T11:30:00.000-04:00

A friend of mine described a snippet of a conversation with a church-going, professing- Christian neighbor. The neighbor actually chided my friend for being so naive as to believe that the 10 Commandments were meant to be obeyed all the time.

You mean they're not? You mean we get a pass some of the time? We can pick and choose appropriate times to be obedient? We can decide which are the suggestions and which are the commandments? Wow! What a deal!

Just exactly what does, "Thou shalt..." and "Thou shalt not...", mean? Jesus said it perfectly and clearly, "If you love me, you will keep my commandments....If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. Whoever does not love me does not keep my words. And the word that you hear is not mine but the Father's who sent me." -John 14:15, 23-24

Doesn't seem to leave much wiggle room--does it?

Disenrolled, Disenchanted and Disagreeable

2005-06-07T09:41:00.000-04:00

I read a letter yesterday from parents who were withdrawing their children from a particular school. Their complaint, and the majority of their two-page letter, centered on the direction of the school and a diatribe directed at certain church leaders who don't even live in this county. In fact, those men don't even live in this state. Apparently those church leaders have offended these folks in some way and think that they somehow hold sway over the school. It's quite sad, actually.

Further, this family has made blanket charges against these men with no explanation and no evidence. Anybody can do that. Whatever happened to "two or three witnesses?" The Bible is clear in Proverbs 18:17, "The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him." These people have become just what they are accusing these other men of being. Is this the way Christians are supposed to behave? Toward one another? As far as I know, these folks have never met, spent any time with or listened directly to the accused. Furthermore, no church court has tried either of these men, much less found them guilty of anything. My guess is that this family has read the internet accounts from their detractors' rantings, entertained the gossip of others equally as ignorant and made their judgment based on that.

Christians! Where is the grace? This has got to stop! We have to do better than this! We are thus commanded, "Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another." - I John 4:11

One Point, Too Few

2005-05-26T01:02:00.000-04:00

I have a friend, who insists he is a one-point Calvinist. I guess that's sort of like umm....being 20% pregnant. As I understand it, he believes that man is born with a sin nature and is not, at his core, basically good. That's a great start, but one cannot stop there...which he does. He believes that man has the ability to choose (read: free will) whether or not to lift himself out of his fallen predicament. Just as Charles Finney said, "You can make for yourself a new heart." Hey, I thought that was God's job! Isn't that what He said in several places? For one, Ezekiel 11:19 is pretty clear,"And I will give them one heart, and a new spirit I will put within them. I will remove the heart of stone from their flesh and give them a heart of flesh,...."

Notice that God uses the first person, singular pronoun, not the first person, plural pronoun. It is not a cooperative effort between God and man. God says, "I will" three times and once more implied.

In addition to the clear biblical teaching on the subject, there is also an undeniable, logical progression through each of the doctrines of grace (popularly known as the Five Points of Calvinism). When I say undeniable, I mean that each logically and necessarily builds upon the preceding points in an orderly, rational outworking. To affirm one point and deny the others, is logically (and spiritually) inconsistent and, I would argue, dishonest. More later....

What's in a Name?

2005-05-23T12:48:00.000-04:00

So, why the name FoggyPitt? Well, this is where I live, a place where the church at-large seems to be murky on just what the Bible indeed says about such things as gospel and law, educating children, worship, obedience, God's sovereignty, covenants and the like. My purpose is to present cogent and compelling biblical evidence to clear away the fog.

If no one else reads this, so be it. By writing it out, I am forcing myself to understand and articulate what the Bible says about the things mentioned above. Then, by God's grace, I will apply that which I espouse. As one theologian put it (I don't remember who), our theology is not what we say, but that which comes out of our fingertips.

Why Bother?

2005-05-21T22:02:00.000-04:00

My purpose in engaging in this blog thing is to explore, from a layman's point of view, the many and varied church and cultural issues in light of a robustly biblical, theologically reformed and unashamed Christian worldview; all seasoned with a dash of common sense. I have as models and therefore acknowledge my gratitutde to Grantian Florilegium, Blog and Mablog, Slice of Laodicea and others.

New Territory

2005-05-14T20:39:00.000-04:00

Well, since everybody else is doing it, I decided I would, too. Not much of an endorsement, I agree. However, that, in and of itself, does not make me a lemming. Though I may be plunging off and into something, I pray this does not result in harm to me or anyone else.

Since compelling, cogent writing has not been my forte, I am not a particularly confident or exuberant pilgrim into such a brave new world. But, I want to try my hand at it and see where it takes me. Kind of reminds me of Mr. Toad's Wild Ride...You don't quite know what is behind the next set of swinging doors, but you feel sure that it is going to be fun.