Tell him what he’s won, Bob. A new marriage!

In my sermon on Sunday I preached on the topic of Solus Christus (Christ Alone) from Acts 4:12 and its surrounding context.

I was commenting on the real reason for going to church and coming to Christ. I said something to the effect of "Jesus doesn't fix marriages. He fixes people from the inside out and subsequently their marriages are changed."

My point was that we've lost Christ's uniqueness of being a Savior from sin(fulness), but instead have tried to become utilitarian in our approach toward Christ and church.

What can Jesus (and the church) do for me? But they set their aim too long, merely wanting happier marriages and so forth.

Ironically, perhaps, I got a postcard in the mail inviting me to a church in the area. The following are the advertised sermon titles intended to draw me in:

• Helping Your Husband Maximize His Potential
• Giving Your Wife What She Really Wants
• Making Sex Sizzle
• Team Parenting
• Mastering Your Money Together

Am I wrong or are people missing the greatness of Christ and what He alone can do?

Solus Christus: The Erosion Of Christ-Centered Faith

As evangelical faith becomes secularized, its interests have been blurred with those of the culture. The result is a loss of absolute values, permissive individualism, and a substitution of wholeness for holiness, recovery for repentance, intuition for truth, feeling for belief, chance for providence, and immediate gratification for enduring hope. Christ and his cross have moved from the center of our vision.

Thesis Two: Solus Christus

We reaffirm that our salvation is accomplished by the mediatorial work of the historical Christ alone. His sinless life and substitutionary atonement alone are sufficient for our justification and reconciliation to the Father.

We deny that the gospel is preached if Christ's substitutionary work is not declared and faith in Christ and his work is not solicited.
- The Cambridge Declaration

*For further discussion, read Craig Larson's article, Preaching that Promotes Self-Centeredness: How to avoid stirring up the wrong motives.*

His girlfriend gave up her toe!

I'm often used as a theological sounding board.

People have many questions, but over the years I've noticed that some (if not most) of their questions aren't that practical. Most arise out of speculative curiosity, particularly with regard to heaven.

The following are some questions about heaven I've been asked over the years. Seen any of these before? Some answers come easier than others and we can be more certain of some than others.

I share these for your speculative pleasure and welcome any comments/answers you might have.

1. Will we get to see our pets again in heaven?

2. What age will we be in heaven? Will a child still be young mentally?

3. Can our loved ones who have preceded us to heaven see us as we live our lives? Are they really looking down on us? If so, does it make them sad to see us in hard times?

4. Are there different levels of heaven? What will that look like?

5. Will I see my (unborn) baby in heaven?

6. Do we become angels when we die?

7. If somebody's cremated, can God put it all back together again?

8. If I get married twice, who will be my wife in heaven? Will we even have "gender" as we know it?

9. Will we eat & drink in heaven?

10. Will we recognize each other in heaven?

11. When we die, do we go straight to heaven? Are we hanging out somewhere until Christ comes? Is that heaven's lobby or something?

12. Won't I be sad in heaven knowing my loved ones are in hell?

13. What will we do to occupy our time in heaven?

14. Will we be able to see God in heaven? What will He look like? (i.e., will He have a form)

15. Will we see Jesus still in human flesh in heaven?

16. Will we remember our earthly lives and miss our friends and/or still have "childhood scars" or bad memories?

17. Do/Can people really die and go to heaven and then come back on the operating table?

18. Will we be able to sin in heaven? If not, does that mean we'll be robots?

19. If I donate a kidney or a toe (for example), will I get it back in heaven?

20. Will we be omniscient in heaven? (i.e., will we know it all then?)

21. Will we wear clothes in heaven? Or will we see we're naked and yet feel no shame?

First rule of Fight Club, you do not talk about Fight Club. Second rule of Fight Club, you DO NOT talk about Fight Club.

I don't know if you noticed, but hockey season has started up. I took the kids to a game and we were blessed with a fight as the silver lining in a Stars loss.

My oldest daughter asked me, "Why are they fighting" and "Why do they let them fight?"

I tried to explain that it was part of the game. They'll have to serve some penalty time, but it's a good way for the goons to keep the other team honest and to get your own team motivated.

You know ... it's kind of hard to explain why they allow fighting in hockey and in no other sport of its kind. But I did try.

I'm not sure she understood it all, but I'm glad they allow fighting in hockey. I know some would love to see it done away with, but I'm not one of them.

Incidentally, here is a neat resource: HockeyFights.com (HT Tony)

Here are a few selections for your viewing pleasure:

Grant Marshall of the Stars (in white) is "giving the business" to Kelly Buchberger of the Edmonton Oilers. Get sum!


This next one is a beauty. It's hard to enjoy anything more than the Avalance & Red Wings pounding on each other. But in this one you also get a rare treat, the goalies squaring off. Patrick Roy vs. Chris Osgood. It's all good.

Without God I am nothing. I am the tool by which He works His will.

I'm sharing with you (first) a "Letter to the Editor" type letter I wrote that appears in this week's SBTexan (1/21/2008), "the Newsjournal of the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention."

It is in response to recent coverage of the "Building Bridges: Southern Baptists and Calvinism" conference (audio). However, they also printed a letter expressing sentiment much different than my own in the same issue. I'll share it (second) as well as a few comments in response.

I want to commend the SBTexan on publishing more than one perspective on this issue.

Calvinism coverage helpful

Thanks so much for your recent articles about the conference dealing with the question of Calvinism in the SBC (Dec 24 TEXAN). In an era of divisiveness theological hostility, it’s encouraging to see my beloved SBC lovingly discussion a topic such as Calvinism.

Although Spurgeon labeled it a “nickname” for the Gospel, Calvinism is often caricatured and vehemently attacked. Calvinists are not allowed define Calvinism and attackers often display a lack of openness to some of the more “difficult” passages.

Some will be concerned that the percentage of those embracing Reformed theology has been increasing for decades (particularly among younger pastors), but others (myself included) see this as a natural outgrowth of the diligence done in the past to herald the authority of the Bible, it’s inerrancy and sufficiency.

Add to this the affection for expository preaching and new generations are trying to let the text speak for itself, even passages that don’t readily fit into our way of seeing things (e.g., Gen 50:20; 1 Sam 2:25; Prov 21:1; John 6:44; Acts 13:48; 16:14; Eph 1:3-12; etc.).

Historically, we’ve had both the Reformed and the more Revivalistic within the SBC. I don’t expect that to change, but a conference like this helps us all to honestly approach those with whom we disagree without resorting to vitriolic rhetoric or labels of heresy.

Thanks for helping us better understand each other as both strive to honor Christ through the evangelization of the planet.

Eric “Gunny” Hartman, Pastor
Providence Church, Garland

Calvinism false doctrine

When it comes to false doctrines, what difference does the history of the SBC make? History, associations and friendships have nothing to do with it.

If the doctrine of 'Total Depravity' means that we are just as sinful as Satan can get us to be, I agree with it. If it means we cannot act toward God, it is refuted by Isaiah 45:22, which says, "Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God and there is none else."

The doctrine of unconditional election is refuted by Jesus' attempt to get through to even Judas Iscariot, the one who would betray him, at the Last Supper.

Limited atonement is also refuted by Isaiah 45:22, as well as 2 Peter 3:9.

Stephen refuted the doctrine of irresistible grace when he told the elders, scribes, the high priest and his accusers, "... ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye."

Preservation of the saints is the only doctrine that the Calvinists have gotten right.

Now there is one more question to be answered. "Can two walk together expect they be agreed?" (Amos 3:3). My question is: why do we even want to walk together with proponents of false doctrines.

Joseph Regel, pastor
FBC Laneville

Since I have written previously on the issues of Calvinism & Hyper-Calvinism and the T.U.L.I.P., I defer to those treatments for extensive coverage. I will try to limit my response to Pastor Regel's thoughts.

I appreciate Pastor Regel's attempt to use Scripture as his basis for not liking Calvinism; that isn't always the case. However, I would assert that his selections don't do for him what he might think.

First, Isaiah 45:22 (or any other verse like it) does not refute "Total Depravity." Just because we ought to do something, doesn't mean we are able to do it. That's his assumption, but he neglects the texts that explicitly assert we "cannot act toward God" apart from divine aid (e.g., John 6:44, 65). After the fall, humans lost not the obligation to love God with their entire being and others as themselves, but they lost the desire to do so, thanks to a heart that is desperately wicked (Jer 17:9). They can't because they don't want to, and that is the nature of the freedom/bondage of the will.

For further elaboration of the rationalistic assumption, I refer you to a nice tidbit about the deviations of Arminianism and Hyper-Calvinism based on rational assumption. I also give you the following words of wisdom:

"To suppose that whatever God requireth of us that we have power of ourselves to do, is to make the cross and grace of Jesus Christ of none effect."
-John Owen

Second, with regard to Judas and unconditional election, this is where I'd love for him to elaborate. I don't see Jesus "attempt to get through to Judas Iscariot," but rather Jesus provides us with the harsh reality that Judas is beyond saving--he's destined for destruction, in order to fulfill Scripture (John 17:12).

Besides, Pastor Regel seems here to be arguing against election in general, not merely unconditional election in particular. The Arminian believes in election as well, and would believe that Jesus would already know the destiny of each individual, including Judas. The difference is that the Arminian believes God made that choice before the person was born, but with a view to what the person would do in the future with regard to Christ. In other words, it's conditional on how he/she would respond. The Calvinist believes the same, but that the choice is not conditioned on something in the person or that the person will do. Instead, it's God's prerogative that enables the person to respond to the Gospel, which He does for His elect.

Third, "limited atonement" is generally the highest hurdle with regard to acceptance of the so-called "5 Points," and there are admittedly some passages that don't seem to fit in that regard, at least not at a first glance. That being said, Isaiah 45:22 does not contribute much to this discussion, if anything. In fact, none of the "whosoever will" passages do.

The Bible is true. Whoever believes on the Lord Jesus Christ will be saved. Calvinists wouldn't/shouldn't deny that. The reality is, however, that the only ones who will come are those who have been chosen by the Father, as Christ's sheep. They are the only ones who will know His voice and answer that call (John 10:2-5). That's why He lays down His life for the sheep (John 10:11, 15). That's why Christ died for His bride, the church (Eph 5:25).

The lingo "limited atonement" is not as helpful as it could be, for all except universalists "limit" the atonement in some form or fashion, in what it accomplishes and/or for whom it was accomplished. The Arminian limits the atonement in that Jesus didn't save anyone, but merely made possible the salvation of those who have the opportunity to hear the Gospel and will respond appropriately. In that sense, none could have been saved or some could have, but nothing is certain. One might also make the case that the Arminian also limits the atonement in that Christ did not die for all the sins of everyone, for the sin of unbelief is not atoned for. If a person does not believe, then that person's sins are not forgiven and the person must pay for them in hell. Consequently, those same sins are punished twice, once on the cross by Jesus and again by the person in hell.

The Calvinist limits the atonement in number also, but not in effectiveness. That is, it secured the salvation of the elect, the sheep, the church. In that sense, Jesus accomplished exactly what He set out to do, to redeem those given to Him by the Father.

More could be said on the doctrine of the extent of the atonement, but for the sake of brevity I will defer to J. I. Packer's accessible Introduction to John Owen's Death of Death in the Death of Christ (which also deals with this issue).

With regard to 2 Peter 3:9 I will just say that there are many questions that need to be asked before we assume the meaning. First, who are the "you" being addressed that section? If it's Christians or the elect, then you have no issues. Also, does this text mean that people perish and God can't stop it (cf. Job 42:2; Ps 115:3), if He's not willing that any should? Lastly, what promise (singular) is in view? God has promised salvation only to those who believe, so that is the group being addressed and the group for whom God will be faithful.

Honestly, this passage could get its own post, so I'll leave it at that, but would be happy to dialog further in the comments section or direct you to other resources.

Fourth, this leads us to "irresistible grace," which I think Pastor Regel doesn't quite understand. But, in all fairness to him, the nomenclature doesn't help, which is why I'm not a fan of some of the verbiage and have suggested alternatives.

Irresistible grace does not mean that no one can or will resist the Spirit. What it simply means is that God's elect will come to Christ, in His way and in His timing. This is because he predestined them and will subsequently (effectually) call them and then justify them, etc. (cf. Rom 8:29-30). I might put it simply in the words of Jesus: "All that the Father gives me will come to me" (John 6:37).

Fifth, I'm glad we agree on something (i.e., preservation of the saints). But, I would probably muddy the waters by mentioning that eternal security is not the same thing as the "Perseverence/Preservation of the Saints."

Finally, there are Calvinistic folks who ask the same question about the Arminians in the SBC, why would we want to keep them around? Why would Calvinists want to "walk together with proponents of false doctrines"?

I guess I'm one of those deluded enough to think that both can co-exist with mutual love and respect, but with an openness and willingness to be corrected when & where necessary, according to the Scriptures.

I don't believe that the Calvinists in the SBC want to eliminate Arminians or non-Calvinists ... okay, at least not all of the Calvinists anyway.

But, I do believe the Calvinists in the SBC want to be treated with respect and not have their view caricatured with straw men and ad hominem arguments.

I'm not campaigning, necessarily, for some Rodney King theology ("Why can't we all just get along?"), as much as I am for Christian communication about theology. By Christian I mean in manner of presentation (i.e., irenic) as well as material used in argumentation (i.e., the Scriptures).

To that end I recommend Roger Nicole's Polemic Theology: How to Deal with Those Who Differ from Us.

As for my theology ... Without God I am nothing. I am the tool by which He works His will.

Men don’t follow titles; they follow courage.

Since football season is over, my thoughts turn to baseball. During the offseason, the Cardinals have been making some deals, some more painful than others.

Jim Edmonds won't be wearing the "birds on the bat" in 2008. The Cardinals Nation mourns the departure of the 4-time All Star and 8-time gold glover. But, he didn't just play awesome defense, he won the Silver Slugger award in 2004, the best batting average at his position.
"Jimmy Baseball" was my favorite player after the Ozzie era. Ozzie had such range at shortstop, just as Jimmy had incredible range in center field.

My favorite of all time is Bob Gibson and I may be overly nostalgic, but Edmonds makes my top 10 and perhaps even my top 5.

He's no lock for the Hall of Fame, but I so enjoyed watching him play, and I'm not alone. In all honestly, however, I would yell at him before every AB knowing they might as well just spot the pitcher an 0-2 count to save everyone the time and aggravation.

Next to only Ken Griffey, Jr., Edmonds had the sweetest left-handed swing in baseball. His dramatic catches and clutch hitting solidified his reputation while with the Angels, but he only added to it as a Cardinal.

In the 2004 NLCS, with the Cardinals down to the disAstros 3 games to 2, Jimmy's "walk off" homer (3:05 of video) in the 12th inning set up a Game 7 in St. Louis against Roger Clemens. That night, at a critical point in the game, Jimmy laid out horizontally, running away from the ball to snag one of the greatest catches I've ever seen (2:50 of video). The Cardinals went to the World Series.

Here's a great tribute video for his 8 years in St. Louis.


It's been said that 70% of the earth is covered by water, and the other 30% is covered by Jim Edmonds, and I believe it.

His courageous play made him a leader on the team, for men don't follow titles; they follow courage. Such a courageous player/leader will be hard to replace.

Thanks for the memories, Jim Edmonds.

Never apologize and never explain -- it's a sign of weakness.

Fred is dropping out of the presidential race.

I'm disappointed, but not surprised. He's not placed well in the primaries, never doing better than the bronze medal.

He had shown such great promise.

"Poll averages showed he went from second place nationally in early September to fifth this week."

I would have liked to have seen him campaign harder, but competition among the candidates for the same group of voters (i.e., evangelicals) likely didn't help him any.

I'm concerned for the GOP as I no longer see a conservative in the bunch, save Ron Paul, but he's finished ever worse than Fred.

Thanks for exploring the possibility, Fred.

What's next for Fred?

"As for Thompson’s future, there has been speculation he could be angling for vice president."

P.S. From Fred himself:

"Today I have withdrawn my candidacy for President of the United States. I hope that my country and my party have benefited from our having made this effort. Jeri and I will always be grateful for the encouragement and friendship of so many wonderful people."

You see ... abortion is a deceptive issue.

Today is Sanctity of Human Life Sunday.

In that regard, check out ProLife.com and here's some good stuff from John Piper:

15 Pro-Life Truths to Speak

"You will know the truth and the truth will set you free." - Jesus Christ

1. Existing fetal homicide laws make a man guilty of manslaughter if he kills the baby in a mother's womb (except in the case of abortion).
2. Fetal surgery is performed on babies in the womb to save them while another child the same age is being legally destroyed.
3. Babies can sometimes survive on their own at 23 or 24 weeks, but abortion is legal beyond this limit.
4. Living on its own is not the criterion of human personhood, as we know from the use of respirators and dialysis.
5. Size is irrelevant to human personhood, as we know from the difference between a one-week-old and a six-year-old.
6. Developed reasoning powers are not the criterion of personhood, as we know from the capacities of three-month-old babies.
7. Infants in the womb are human beings scientifically by virtue of their genetic make up.
8. Ultrasound has given a stunning window on the womb that shows the unborn at eight weeks sucking his thumb, recoiling from pricking, responding to sound. All the organs are present, the brain is functioning, the heart is pumping, the liver is making blood cells, the kidneys are cleaning fluids, and there is a fingerprint. Virtually all abortions happen later than this date.
9. Justice dictates that when two legitimate rights conflict, the limitation of rights that does the least harm is the most just. Bearing a child for adoption does less harm than killing him.
10. Justice dictates that when either of two people must be inconvenienced or hurt to alleviate their united predicament, the one who bore the greater responsibility for the predicament should bear more of the inconvenience or hurt to alleviate it.
11. Justice dictates that a person may not coerce harm on another person by threatening voluntary harm on themselves.
12. The outcast and the disadvantaged and exploited are to be cared for in a special way, especially those with no voice of their own.
13. What is happening in the womb is the unique person-nurturing work of God, who alone has the right to give and take life.
14. There are countless clinics that offer life and hope to both mother and child (and father and parents), with care of every kind lovingly provided by people who will meet every need they can.
15. Jesus Christ can forgive all sins, and will give all who trusts him the help they need to do everything that life requires.

What is any life without the pursuit of a dream?

The following is an article I wrote that will appear in next week's Murphy Messenger, our local paper.

“Living the Dream”


January 21st was a day off for many. The country honored the man who fueled the "Civil Rights" movement, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

In 1896, Plessy vs. Ferguson had legitimized "separate but equal" as the way society could treat black Americans. There was nothing wrong sending black & white kids to different schools, or having black & white restaurants, or black & white water fountains. Sadly, there was also nothing wrong with black & white churches, as is still the thinking of many. (Incidentally, I have a dream that the ethnic co-mingling of worshippers will one day become the norm.)

In 1954, Brown vs. The Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas overturned the 1896 decision, at least officially. Men like Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. were needed to begin the process of making the decision a reality.

Dr. King had a dream that the nation would rise up and live out the full meaning of its creed, that all men are created equal. He had a dream that people would be judged by the content of their character, instead of by the color of their skin.

His dream is gradually becoming a reality, but we’re not there yet, nor will we bet there without intentional effort. But we’re fortunate in Murphy, to have the opportunity to interact with different types of people, as we strive to live out his dream.

In fact, I would say our diversity is one of the greatest attributes of Murphy, Texas. Most probably moved here because of schools or price per square foot, but one of the things I appreciate most about Murphy is the multitude of ethnic groups represented. What a joy it was for me when my daughter’s best friends in kindergarten were an African American girl and a girl from Vietnam.

In Murphy we have the unique opportunity to enjoy neighbors of various backgrounds and ethnicities. I encourage you to honor the efforts and vision of Dr. King by developing relationships with your neighbors who differ from you, learning from each other in the process.

We are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of dreams.

Today would be the 79th birthday of one Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

On Monday, the nation will celebrate his impact & legacy in forcing the nation to do a little introspection and begin to address some of its lingering sin.

A Baptist minister, Dr. King has been regarded as the chief leader of the Civil Rights movement of the 50s & 60s. In addressing inequality in the country based on skin color, he led through example of non-violence and a willingness to pay the price for his civil disobedience. (cf. last year's post on his letter from the Birmingham Jail)

The zenith of his efforts may be the March for Jobs and Freedom in Washington, D.C., on August 28, 1963. On the steps of the memorial honoring the man who wrote the Emancipation Proclamation, Dr. King delivered the “I Have a Dream Speech.”

It is a speech appreciated by fans of rhetoric, but also a major catalyst for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Nobel Peace Prize in 1964.

I encourage you to (1) ponder that speech (text below) and (2) watch & listen (17:27) to Dr. King sober and stir the heart of the nation to bring forth fruit in keeping with repentance.


I am happy to join with you today in what will go down in history
as the greatest demonstration for freedom in the history of our nation.

Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of their captivity. But one hundred years later, the Negro still is not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languishing in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. So we have come here today to dramatize a shameful condition.

In a sense we have come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked "insufficient funds." But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. So we have come to cash this check — a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice. We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quick sands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God's children.

It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment. This sweltering summer of the Negro's legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality. Nineteen sixty-three is not an end, but a beginning. Those who hope that the Negro needed to blow off steam and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation returns to business as usual. There will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges.

But there is something that I must say to my people who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice. In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred.

We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force. The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny and their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom. We cannot walk alone.

As we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall march ahead. We cannot turn back. There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, "When will you be satisfied?" We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality. We can never be satisfied, as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We can never be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote. No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.

I am not unmindful that some of you have come here out of great trials and tribulations. Some of you have come fresh from narrow jail cells. Some of you have come from areas where your quest for freedom left you battered by the storms of persecution and staggered by the winds of police brutality. You have been the veterans of creative suffering. Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive.

Go back to Mississippi, go back to Alabama, go back to South Carolina, go back to Georgia, go back to Louisiana, go back to the slums and ghettos of our northern cities, knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed. Let us not wallow in the valley of despair.

I say to you today, my friends, so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal."

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification; one day right there in Alabama, little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.

I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.

This is our hope. This is the faith that I go back to the South with. With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.

This will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with a new meaning, "My country, 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of the pilgrim's pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring."

And if America is to be a great nation this must become true. So let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire. Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York. Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania!

Let freedom ring from the snowcapped Rockies of Colorado!
Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California!
But not only that; let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia!
Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee!
Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi. From every mountainside, let freedom ring.

And when this happens, When we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"

Look how they massacred my boy!

I have to tell you about the most expensive haircut of my life ...

My son and I had been needing haircuts for a while, so we went to a place where we could use a coupon. I won't tell you the name of the place, but only say it wasn't so "great" after all.

As we were nearing completion, I looked all the way across the "salon" and even without my glasses I could see a distinct horizontal line across Eric Jr.'s head.

For the record, I had not requested a bowl cut for him, but for them to blend from the short to the longer hair on top. Even after having a more advanced helper relieve the stylist, his cranium was still sub-par.

What about my own? I didn't fare much better. When spun around, I put on my glasses and saw some serious lack of blend. I asked if she could try to "erase that line" and she gave it another go.

However, even after that it wasn't right. She tried to tell me that it was because my hair was a bit wet, as though I'd never had a haircut before.

Well, it wasn't the worst haircut I've ever received. That was when I was 15 in the Waterloo train station in London. My dad let me go first, which meant I got the "one-armed" barber.

It wasn't the worst (some buddy cuts at A&M were more heinous), but it was the worst haircut I ever had to pay for.

In fact, for the first time in my life I was REALLY tempted to not pay for a haircut. But, the ladies were nice as can be, so we paid, but I made sure Victoria & her brother both got 2 lollipops out of the deal.

I hoped the bad haircut was obvious only to me and that it wasn't so bad. Besides, it will grow back, right?

When I got home, my wife was not impressed. She said we should go back there and make them fix our heads. I told her that it wasn't so much a question of their being willing, but rather their being able.

She said something to the effect of, "Well, he's 4, so it's not that big of a deal. But you're the pastor of a church, you can't stand in front of people on Sunday looking like that!"

At her vehement behest, we went to a proper barbershop. You know, the kind where it smells like a mixture of Brylcreem & cigars and George Jones always seems to be playing in the background.

They fixed me up as we talked about the Cowboys, completing the most expensive haircut of my life.

From here on out, I'm back on the barbershop plan exclusively. But, if you see Eric Jr., try not to give him a complex as you see how they massacred my boy.

Yeah ... you're a legend in your own mind.

More than once I've come across the assertion that one is not a sinner anymore. The thinking is, "I'm a saint, so I must no longer be a sinner."

I've even been rebuked for saying that I am a sinner saved by grace.

I have had many discussions with folks on this topic and I find it troubling. One such discussion has sparked this post.

- - - - - - - - - -

I appreciate the heart of those who affirm sainthood to the point of denying their identity as sinners. I do. I think much of it comes from a desire to think oneself to be who one is, rather than who one once was. I appreciate that. I really do, but I have to disagree.

It's not that we're not saints, of course. But it's a false dichotomy and dishonest to say we're not sinners.

We're sinners saved by grace through faith. We're saints because we've been declared such, and should act like such.

Yet, we're saints that sin. That's the Reformed (or historic Protestant) understanding of justification.

As Luther penned it, "simul iustus et peccator" - Latin for simultaneously justified and sinner.

In other words, I am a saint and a sinner, pardoned and adopted by God's grace.

We're sinners simply because we sin and that's what the word means. To deny we sin is another problem in and of itself.

Plus, Paul speaks of himself as a sinner, in fact the chief of sinners in 1 Tim 1:15. And he does so in the present tense.

It's not "I was the chief of sinners," but "sinners, of whom I am chief."

Like the elderly Texas lady said of the KJV, "If it's good enough for the Apostle Paul, it's good enough for me."

There is often concern, however, that just as Satan tries to convince the unconverted that they're saints, so he tries to convince the converted that they're "unworthy sinners."

First, I would say, we are unworthy and will always be so, in and of ourselves. Any pleasure God has in us is because of Christ and His righteousness, not ours.

I also have to disagree, at least in my experience,with regard to spiritual warfare as to our identity. For me, the enemy's attack (post-conversion) has been more, "No, that's no big deal. It's not sin. If so, it's only a little one and, hey, you're a forgiven saint anyway, so what's the big deal? Jesus will still love you. Do it. You know you want to."

I have been told:

"Luther’s comment is not found anywhere in scripture and Paul’s statement is just an adjectival phrase of who Jesus came to save (he’s one of the group). Paul also said that he wasn’t fit to be called an apostle which, given the same kind of literalistic interpretation that you use in 1 Tim. 1.15, means that God really missed it.

While the Reformers saw some light on faith, that revelation does not transmogrify them into being foundational apostles or even put them in a class of elevated teachers. They, for instance, failed to understand the ontological significance of verses such as 2 Corinthians 5.21 (”we are God’s righteousness”) or Galatians 6.15 (”what counts is a new creation”) with their Latinized justification template."

Well, I'm just a caveman. I don't really understand transmogrified apostles or Latinized justification templates, but I do know this.

In 1 Cor 15 Paul speaks the truth, he wasn't worthy. He doesn't say he was "unfit," but I'll even go that route. God made him fit.

"For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God." (v.9)

How can that mean anything other than what Paul meant? God called him by grace, since he wasn't worthy. Had he been fit, then it wasn't by grace.

Of course, there's always Romans 7 where Paul speaks in the present tense. Some will dispute the nature of his discourse, but in the context of dealing with sanctification you have the Apostle Paul speaking of himself as struggling with sin.

In 1 Tim 1:15 Paul speaks in the present tense of being a sinner. Sure, that's a literalistic interpretation. Is that a bad thing? Don't his words mean things ... literally?

Luther's comment, of course, wasn't in Scripture, which was obvious since it's Latin. But, of course, "trinity" is not found in Scripture either, but it's a helpful way of understanding things (cf. "hypostatic union," "forensic justification," "substitutionary atonement," etc.).

My question to those who claim to be saints, but deny they are sinners is always this: Are you saying that you don't sin? If so, I have little hope we'll come to any agreement on things of the faith.

But, if you sin, then you're a sinner ... just like the rest of us. We all know that's how language works.

One who runs is a ... runner
One who swims is a ... swimmer.
One who sins is a ... sinner.

In short, I think such folks assume the conclusion. They assume a false dichotomy that we can't be both a saint and a sinner at the same time, which is a very Roman Catholic approach.

They know we're saints, so they assume we can't be sinners. Then they interpreting these texts through such a lens.

The thinking is: "Well, they can't mean that a regenerate person is a sinner, so they must mean something else."

I just don't think these texts are given a fair treatment to allow them to answer the question of our multi-faceted identity.

In a discussion along these lines, one wrote:

"It’s one thing to admit that I sin. It’s another to wallow in that admission and fail to walk in the triumphant life Christ purchased for us on the cross."

Amen. I'm certainly not advocating that. We are to walk as children of light, living as new creations.

Another wrote:

"The Word shows us that a sinner has the nature of the devil in him (John 8.44) and that he is also “energized” by the devil as Rotherham puts it (Eph. 2.2). The Word also shows us that one who is born-again has the very nature of God Almighty in him (see John 1.2, 4; 10.10)."

I've not heard of Rotherham, but even if he "saw some light on faith, that does not transmogrify [him] into being [a] foundational apostle or even put [him] in a class of elevated teachers."

(Just having some fun with it.)

I agree that there's been a significant, nay huge, change in those born again. I agree we were children of wrath and of the devil, etc. What I'm arguing, however, is that those things don't mean we're not "sinners saved by grace" in addition to all those other things.

Another wrote:

"In that light, I am a saint. Not because of anything I did, but because of what Jesus Christ did for me! Yes, I sin - but I learn from it, ask forgiveness and continue on being “made” by the One I follow!"

Amen. We sin, because we're sinners and/or thereby making us sinners, but we're also saints.

I'm certainly not arguing that we're not saints.

Another wrote:

"Call it “The New-Birth Birthright.” Yes, we will struggle with the old nature at times, but we’re all new creations in Christ. Our address has been changed from hell to heaven. Should we go back to hell and reminisce about the old days? No. We must claim the birthright He purchased for us by living obediently with Him as our Head. That’s the position we’re in now, the position of the saint. (BTW, Watchman Lee lays this out brilliantly in his exposition of Ephesians, Sit, Walk, Stand.)"

(I think it's Watchman Nee being referring to. His name seems to have been combined with Witness Lee.)

But, who said anything about going back to hell to reminisce about the old days? I'm talking about the here and now. As you note, we will struggle with the old nature at times ... and sin. That's our reality, isn't it? Saints that sin?

Do you sin? If you're not a sinner, then doesn't the answer have to be no?

In these discussions folks will often labor to convince me that we're saints, that which I'm not denying nor arguing against. I'm fully persuaded the redeemed are saints in Christ Jesus. So, if you're trying to persuade me of that, it's already a given.

What must be proven is that one cannot be both at the same time, not merely because we declare it to be so, but by Scripture or logic or something. Or what must be proven is that we are not sinners in any sense after conversion.

Those are the thoughts I'm challenging, not that we're saints, children of God, priests, new creatures, etc.

I don't want to come across as antagonistic, but this is an important issue that we not think more highly of ourselves than we ought, sinners saved by grace.

If I could only have one food for the rest of my life? That's easy. Pez, cherry-flavored Pez. No question about it.

Like countless other naive Americans, I'm hoping to lose some weight in 2008.

My solution to that end is the Atkins diet, one with which I've seen some progress in the past. It works for me because I can have a monotonous diet whereby I don't need a lot of variety.

It works for me because my temptations on that diet are limited. For example, I'm a big fan of ice cream, chips, Cherry Coke, pizza, Pancho's ... hmm. That's more than I thought and I'm actually starting to get a little hungry.

Yeah, it's probably the lack of variety that separates the wheat & the chaff on that diet. Could you eliminate the variety?

So, if you could only have one food for the rest of your life what would it be?

For me, the playoffs would entail:

1. Pizza
2. Ice Cream
3. Bacon
4. Chips

I have ...

• Chips losing on the road to Pizza
• Bacon loses a close one in overtime to Ice Cream

In the culinary Superbowl, I have Ice Cream beating Pizza, thanks to a neutral site.

I'm not interested in your food pyramid, but your food playoffs.

Leave the gun. Take the cannoli.

I saw this yesterday and gave a chuckle ...

"Dallas police, officials discourage random gunfire"

That seems well, a bit understated to me. The headline doesn't quite tell the whole story:

"Dallas Police Chief David Kunkle and two top City Council officers made a New Year's Eve plea this morning that people not celebrate tonight by randomly firing guns around the city."

I didn't know people still did that. You'd see this in old western movies, celebrating with random gunfire in the air.

My grandpa used to do this as well. New Year's Eve when the clock got to midnight he shot a few rounds into the air off the front porch.

I remember as a kid asking him where the bullets went. He said something to the effect of "I don't know" and the conversation was over.

But I have wondered about that ever since. Do they disappear into the atmosphere? Do they travel to the moon? Do they eventually come back to earth in Canada?

Or do they travel back down and hit people, houses, dogs, cars, etc.?

Any ideas?