Why Governor Palin finally made the right decision

I did not vote for Sarah Palin. Here are three reasons.

First, her running mate is a big spending good ole' boy unwilling to stand up for what's right liberal adulterous neo-con. Determined to not waste my vote by voting against someone I find so distasteful, I sought a candidate who holds (and stands up for) ideas similar to mine, and voted for him. While grateful for Sen. McCain's service and sacrifice for the country, his liberal politics are too much for me to accept.

Second, I don't believe a married woman should be president. If that offends you, too bad. I can make a stronger Biblical case for my view on this matter that you can on yours.

Third, Gov. Palin showed a real lack of discernment when she accepted the invitation to run on the national ticket. She knew her unmarried daughter was pregnant, and should have known what the press would do with that. She should have known what the press would do with her youngest child's health issues. Political correctness only applies to democrats and liberals. Courtesy and common sense apparently apply to no one. Her family is not fair game, but she had to know the press would disregard that, and be viscous. They, in fact, were. In deference to her family, she should have declined Sen. McCain's invitation. Instead, she subjected her oldest daughter to public ridicule and name calling. Last month, her 14 year old daughter was jokingly accused of having a sexual relationship with a baseball player by a late night TV host. A popular web site recently posted a link to a blog naming her as leader of the "Retardation Party". While this is all wrong, it could have been avoided if Gov. Palin would have limited her energy and focus to her family. It was a bad move.

Having said all that, national politics were not her idea… at least not now. She wasn't spending a lot of time on the national stage seeking this appointment. She was invited to join the McCain campaign. And then was ignored, set up in impossible situations with the media, muzzled by her handlers, and ultimately sacrificed as incompetent by McCain's own people. And his silence on the issue amounts to tacit approval by the senator, himself.

This woman has infinitely more integrity than the Republicans who placed her on a pedestal and then set fire to it. The real reasons for her departure are still to be made public. It could be anything… literally. No matter the reason… personal issues, sin, discouragement, frustration… no matter what… she's still better than them. I hope she goes home, raises her family as a godly mom, and thumbs her nose at the lot of them.

The End of an Era

I've been a faithful owner of General Motors vehicles since I was 14 years old. It's in my blood. In June 1973, my grand-dad, an uncle, a cousin and I all purchased new Oldsmobiles from the same dealer. Here is a list of vehicles I have owned (at least those I can remember). 34 of the 38 are GM products.

1961 Olds F-85
1961 Chevy Impala
1962 Buick Skylark
1961 Rambler
1963 Chevy ½ ton Pickup
1964 Olds F-85 sedan
1964 Olds F-85 wagon
1966 Chevy ½ pickup
1966 Olds Cutlass
1967 Buick Skylark
1968 Olds Cutlass 4dr sedan
1968 Olds Cutlass 2dr hardtop
1973 Chevy El Camino
1973 Olds Cutlass coupe
1973 Olds Vista Cruiser
1974 Chevy Vega wagon
1974 Chevy ½ ton pickup
1975 Olds Cutlass coupe
1976 Olds Vista Cruiser
1976 Chevy ¾ ton Custom Deluxe pickup
1976 Chevy Luv truck
1976 Chevy Luv truck #2
1977 Chevy ¾ ton Silverado pickup
1979 Chevy ½ ton pickup
1982 Chevy ½ ton van conversion
1983 Chevy S-10 pickup
1983 Buick Century
1984 Chevy Celebrity wagon
1986 Chevy Cavalier wagon
1986 Ford F-350 motor home
1988 Pontiac Bonneville
1991 Chevy S-10 pickup
1991 Pontiac Bonneville
1992 Pontiac Bonneville
1993 Chevy S-10 pickup
1994 Jeep Cherokee
1998 Jeep Grand Cherokee
1998 Chevy Camaro

This all ended today. Now that the federal government has taken over Chrysler and GM, I will not purchase either again. If you voted for a non-conservative from either political party in the last election, this is your fault.

Thanks for nothing.

Heritage Bible Discussion Group #5

Hey everybody...
To "prime the pump" this week, I've chosen a rather difficult subject. Below, I've copied portions of an essay written by John MacArthur addressing a controversial contemporary issue. I'll summarize it for you, first. It's quite popular to attempt to attract crowds to church by being provocative, sometimes out and out vulgar, in the presentation. Illustrations with double meaning are often used, and the one person mentioned at the end of the essay - Mark Driscoll - sometimes uses inappropriate slang and even profanity as shock value to make a point in his preaching. Perhaps you've seen or heard of billboards advertising sermon topics that are chosen to tempt the curiosity of the flesh. This is all part of the same trend. I've edited out a couple paragraphs from MacArthurs's essay (where he describes what's being said by others), just because I thought it was more than we needed to know. Driscoll's stuff is all over the internet... I'm sure you can find it if you're interested. I'm not.

Anywho... as churches experience the difficulties of reaching out to a communities often not interested, they find it tempting to embrace this new found strategy. It's undeniable that people are attracted to this stuff. So how do we address it? So, here's the question... how do we Biblically assert this kind of preaching and teaching is wrong?

Here's MacArthur's essay...
"Apparently the shortest route to relevance in church ministry right now is for the pastor to talk about sex in garishly explicit terms during the Sunday morning service. If he can shock parishioners with crude words and sophomoric humor, so much the better. The defenders of this trend solemnly inform us that without such a strategy it is well-nigh impossible to connect with today's "culture." (In contemporary evangelicalism that term has become a convenient label for just about everything that is uncultured and uncouth.)

Sermons about sex have suddenly become a bigger fad in the evangelical world than the prayer of Jabez ever was. Everywhere, it seems, churches are featuring special series on the subject. Some of them advertise with suggestive billboards purposely designed to offend their communities' conservative sensibilities.

I would be the last to suggest that preachers should totally avoid the topic of [physical intimacy]. Scripture has quite a lot to say about the subject, starting with God's first words to Adam and Eve ("Be fruitful and multiply"­Genesis 1:22). God's law has numerous commands that govern sexual behavior, and the New Testament repeatedly reaffirms the Old Testament standard of sexual purity. Finally, in the closing chapters of Scripture we are told that sexually immoral people will be cast into the lake of fire (Revelation 21:8). So there's simply no way to preach the whole counsel of God without mentioning it.

But the language Scripture employs when dealing with the physical relationship between husband and wife is always careful­often plain, sometimes poetic, usually delicate, frequently muted by euphemisms, and never fully explicit. There is no hint of sophomoric lewdness in the Bible, even when... an act of adultery is part of the narrative (such as David's sin with Bathsheba), it is never described in way that would gratify a lascivious imagination or arouse lustful thoughts.

The message of Scripture... is simple and consistent throughout: total physical intimacy within marriage is pure and ought to be enjoyed (Hebrews 13:4); but remove the marriage covenant from the equation and all sexual activity (including that which occurs only in the imagination) is nothing but fornication, a serious sin that is especially defiling and shameful­so much so that merely talking about it inappropriately is a disgrace (Ephesians 5:12).

Above all, Scripture never stoops to the lurid level of contemporary sex education. The Bible has no counterpart to the Hindu Kama Sutra (an ancient Sanskrit sex manual supposedly transmitted by Hindu deities.) Nothing in Scripture gives any vivid how-to instructions regarding the physical relationship within marriage.

That includes the Song of Solomon.

In fact, Solomon's love-poem epitomizes the exact opposite approach. It is, of course, a lengthy poem about courtship and marital love. It is filled with euphemisms and word pictures. Its whole point is gently, subtly, and elegantly to express the emotional and physical intimacy of marital love­in language suitable for any audience.

But it has become popular in certain circles to employ extremely graphic descriptions of physical intimacy as a way of expounding on the euphemisms in Solomon's poem. As this trend develops, each new speaker seems to find something more shocking in the metaphors than any of his predecessors ever imagined...

Such pronouncements are usually made amid raucous laughter, but evidently we are expected to take them seriously... That approach is not exegesis; it is exploitation. It is contrary to the literary style of the book itself. It tears the beautiful poetic style off Song of Solomon, strips that portion of Scripture of its dignity, and holds it up to be laughed at and leered at in a carnal way.

Mark Driscoll has boldly led the parade down this carnal path. He is by far the best-known and most prolific popular proponent of handling the Song of Solomon that way. He has said repeatedly that this is his favorite passage of Scripture, and he has come back to it again and again in recent years, culminating in a highly publicized series released on video via the Internet last year.

I keep encountering young pastors who are now following that same example, and I'm rather surprised that the trend has been so well received in the church with practically no significant critics raising any serious objections."

OK... remember your assignment. How do we confront this kind of Biblical misuse, Biblically?

Looking forward to YOUR COMMENTS!!

Heritage Bible Discussion Group #4

Read this story on the current situation of the church and comment.

Should the church alter the message AND should worship services be designed to attract the lost or equip the believer?

Heritage Bible Discussion Group #3

Let's create a list of things we KNOW are God's will for the Christian. Be sure to include a Scripture reference with your reply.

Priorities

In a recent note to a pastor friend, I reminded him of my prayer that the families in his church would make church a priority during the springtime season. It can be very challenging for them to juggle church and all the other temptations... sports, camping, yard work, etc. I promised to pray that church stays at the top of their lists.

He sent me this reply, which I thought was interesting... especially the last part.

"You are right on, and this is the challenge. It has already been noticed as people have sports, vacations and other things that seem to lead them to miss Bible Study and church, and think nothing of it. Things they just signed up for, knowing that there were other 'church events', then tell me about how complicated their life is. I need to love them, and not exasperate them, but it is hard to keep that balance. On the other side, with the teens, I cannot beat them away - praise God!"

In his church, it's the adults who have commitment problems, not the young people. Boy, does that say something! Unfortunately, it's that way in a lot of churches.

Heritage Bible Discussion Group - Topic #2

This week's topic came as a suggestion from one of you... so here we go...

Let's talk about the Biblical view of anger.

Many people emphasize the love of Christ (and that's fine), but it's only one part of Who He Is. There were several recorded occasions where Jesus was angry.

For your thought...

1 - What were the circumstances when Jesus showed anger?

2- Can this be repeated today? What I mean by that is, are there circumstances where believers can be justifiably angered, today? If so what are they? Support your answers with Scripture.

A New Thing

We've started a new thing... the Heritage Bible Discussion Group. Each week, I get a new thread started by offering a Bible passage and/or a subject. Each participant replies back to me, and I pass it on to the group, functioning as a moderator. If you're interested, email me and we'll put you on the list. Here is this weeks introduction:

Read 1 Sam 26:1-12

David knew he was to eventually be the king...

Saul was presently king, and had mistreated David on several occasions, even trying to kill him...

David had at least 2 chances to kill Saul, and assume what was his...

Yet, he didn't, choosing to let God accomplish things in his own timing 1 Sam 26:10

What does this say about...

revenge?

waiting on God?

God's plan for your life?

In the March Madness Spirit

Final Words To Remember

"Now I am taking my leave of this people I would apply myself to such among them as I leave in a Christless, graceless condition; and would call on such seriously to consider of that solemn day when they and I must meet before the Judge of the world."

"… I leave you in the gall of bitterness and the bond of iniquity, having the wrath on God abiding on you and remaining under condemnation to everlasting misery and destruction. Seeing I must leave you, it would have been a comfortable and happy circumstance of our parting if I'd left you in Christ, safe and blessed in that sure refuge and glorious rest of the saints. But it is otherwise. I leave you far off, aliens and strangers, wretched subjects and captives of sin and Satan, and prisoners of vindictive justice, without Christ, and without God in the world."

"However, let me now at our parting exhort and beseech you not to wholly forget the warnings you have had while under my ministry. When you and I shall meet at the day of judgment, then you will remember them: the sight of me, your former minister, on that occasion, will soon revive them in your memory…"

Jonathan Edwards, excerpts from his farewell sermon
Northhampton, June 22, 1750


Wow. I'll bet he was never asked to come back for church anniversary celebrations.