Hate Crime?

Shouldn't yesterdays killings be considered a hate crime act? After all, it was a Muslim shooting non-Muslims. Wouldn't that apply?

Traditional marriage now 31-0 (OneNewsNow.com)

Traditional marriage now 31-0 (OneNewsNow.com)

What do you think this means nationally?

Obama signs 'hate-crimes' bill into law
'It's a very sad day for America and for religious liberties'

---

Posted: October 28, 2009
3:57 pm Eastern

By Chelsea Schilling
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

A "hate crimes" bill opponents claim will be used to crack down on Christian speech, even the reading of the Bible, was signed into law today by President Obama.

The Senate approved the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act by a vote of 68-29 on Oct. 22 after Democrats strategically attached it to a "must-pass" $680 billion defense appropriations plan.

Most Republicans, although normally strong supporters of the U.S. military, opposed the bill because it hands out federal money to states and local governments in pursuit of "preventing" hate crimes. The bill creates federal protections and privileges for homosexuals and other alternative lifestyles but denies those protections to other groups of citizens.

Obama signed the 2010 National Defense Authorization Act at a White House ceremony today. Prior to signing the act into law, Obama spoke briefly of the hate crimes bill.

"After more than a decade, we've passed inclusive hate-crimes legislation to help protect our citizens from violence based on what they look like, who they love, how they pray or who they are," he said. "I promised Judy Shepard when she saw me in the Oval Office that this day would come, and I'm glad that she and her husband, Dennis, could join us for this event. I'm also honored to have the family of the late Sen. Ted Kennedy who fought so hard for this legislation. I just want you all to know how proud we are of the work that Ted did to help make this day possible."

American Family Association President Tim Wildmon warned that the new law "creates a kind of caste system in law enforcement, where the perverse thing is that people who engage in non-normative sexual behavior will have more legal protection than heterosexuals. This kind of inequality before the law is simply un-American."

Wildmon said the legislation creates possible situations where pastors may be arrested if their sermons on sexuality can be linked in even the remotest way to acts of violence.

"It threatens free speech and freedom of religion and is totally unacceptable," he said.

As WND reported, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder admitted a homosexual activist who is attacked following a Christian minister's sermon about homosexuality would be protected by the proposed federal law, but a minister attacked by a homosexual wouldn't be.

The Alliance Defense Fund blasted the "hate-crimes" bill, calling it "another nail in the coffin of the First Amendment."

"All violent crimes are hate crimes, and all crime victims deserve equal justice," ADF Senior Legal Counsel Erik Stanley said in a statement. "This law is a grave threat to the First Amendment because it provides special penalties based on what people think, feel, or believe. ADF will be on the front line to defend those whose free speech or free exercise of religion rights are violated by this unconstitutional law and to ultimately overturn this attack on freedom."

Opponents point to cases in Canada and Sweden, where Christians have faced criminal prosecution for preaching that homosexual behavior is a sin.

"ADF has clearly seen the evidence of where 'hate crimes' legislation leads when it has been tried around the world: It paves the way for the criminalization of speech that is not deemed 'politically correct,'" Stanley explained. "'Hate crimes' laws fly in the face of the underlying purpose of the First Amendment, which was designed specifically to protect unpopular speech."

Stanley said such crimes are already punishable under existing federal, state and local laws.

"Bills of this sort are designed to forward a political agenda and silence critics, not combat actual crime," he said. "The bottom line is that we do not need a law that creates second-class victims in America and that gives the government the opportunity to ignore the First Amendment."

Brad Dacus, president of Pacific Justice Institute, testified before Congress against the hate crimes bill in 2007.

"It is fundamentally unjust for the government to treat some crime victims more favorably than others, just because they are homosexual or transsexual," Dacus said. "This bill is an unnecessary federal intrusion into state law enforcement authority, and it is an unwise step toward silencing religious and moral viewpoints."

He said the adoption of hate crimes legislation has led to widespread suppression of speech deemed politically incorrect. The Pacific Justice Institute noted that in California, hate crimes laws are commonly invoked as a basis for further laws pushing acceptance of homosexuality in public schools and the workplace. The group also warned that use of "hate speech" terminology is also now being employed by minority religious groups in America to encourage suppression of free speech, as a prominent Hindu group called on Congress and major Internet service providers to shut down websites critical of Hinduism, including websites of Christian mission organizations.

The Pacific Justice Institute pledged to come to defend anyone who is prosecuted under the new hate crimes law because of their religious expression.

Liberty Counsel litigation counsel Matt Krause told WND, "It's a very sad day for America and for religious liberties in general."

He said the law will not deter crime or help the law-enforcement system.

"The only thing it will do is silence and scare Christians and religious organizations," Krause said. "It will penalize thoughts and actions, and it will not stop crime. It should be called the 'thought-crimes' bill."

He continued, "We encourage pastors and church leaders to keep doing what they're doing and preach the gospel. If they run into any barriers, they can contact us because we are ready and willing to defend them in any way we need to."

The White House announced it will host a reception this evening to commemorate the enactment of the hate crimes legislation. Obama's remarks will be aired live on the White House website.

5 Ways You're Different From Joel Osteen (and other megachurch pastors)

1. They see themselves more as teachers and directional leaders than as pastors.
2. Their gift is leadership.
3. They have secular work experience.
4. They admit little conflict, high satisfaction.
5. They don't think about quitting.

(Taken from Leadership Journal - Fall 2009 issue)

By His Stripes

Speak Up!

This tuesday the senate will vote on the national defense bill which includes language about hate crimes legislation which will make it illegal to speak against homosexuality, pedophilia, beastiality, transgenderism, etc. It has already passed the ho...use and must not go any further. Capital switchboard is 202-224-3121. Let your voice be heard!!!

(Received from Dale Shaver)

Right...

So a child gets in trouble for bringing a cub scout utensil to school (possible detention for 45 days, etc.), but it's okay for us as a nation to kill babies?!? Looks like we have our priorities a bit backwards...don't you think?!?

MBA of Texas Pre-Association Meeting

I will represent the Mt. Zion Association today at the Pre-Assocation Meeting held at Rocky Springs Baptist Church in Dialville. Pray that we can seek God's will for the associated Great Commission Work in Texas.

Faith Promise Conference

Starting Wednesday night, EBC will hold its 4th annual Faith Promise Conference with Bro. Alvin Dickerson, Missionary to Scotland, as the featured speaker. Please pray for him and the conference. Service times are as follows: Wed-Sat at 7:00 pm. Saturday night will be our International Dinner. Sunday at 9:45 with a commitment service at 10:45 am.

125th Anniversary

Ebenezer Baptist Church will hold special services celebrating its 125th Anniversary this Sunday at 10:45 am. All friends, family members, and former members are invited.

Just Wondering

Which is worse: Being addicted to smoking or being addicted to caffeine?

A Pastor Is...

According to I Timothy, a Pastor is to be the husband of one wife, but according to the latest statistics from Barna, many Protestant denominations must not really use those guidelines for pastoral eligibility requirements. Barna reports that the number of "female pastors" has increased greatly from a decade ago which is a concern to me. I'm not sure how you can get around the "husband of one wife" ordeal (and we're not going to argue divorce issues this time please) unless you just totally disregard that section of Scripture. And no, Paul was not a sexist that wanted to keep women down. He just followed God's plan for men and women. Men have certain responsibilities and women have certain responsibilities. What is so wrong with that? Why do we feel the need to make everyone the same. We're not the same! Men and women are different! Individuals are different! Sometimes, I'm different! Anyway, I wonder what will be the result of such a massive move toward women pastors?

Revive Us Again?

I am enjoying the Revival Services at Cedar Creek MBC in the Palestine/Elkhart area this week. The people are truly thirsty for God's Word and have been wonderful to my family and me. However, it has started me to think about how churches and individuals respond to revival services. (The following has nothing whatsoever to do with Cedar Creek MBC. It just so happens that I started thinking about how people respond to revivals because I'm preaching a revival!)

When is the last time you really were affected by a revival? I mean, affected for months or years, not just days? When is the last time you really experienced a revival? Was it even during revival services? Do we sometimes hold revival services, but then nothing seems to happen? Are we just in a mode of, "We must have a revival every year" just to soothe our conscience? Do we have to have a revival every year? Should we maybe be revived every Sunday? Or should we stay in a state of revival from the Lord?

Fun Friday Video Of The Day

Umm...well, I really don't even know what the point is behind this video, but I thought the technical capabilities of the person (or persons) who developed the video was awesome. So, just sit back, relax, and don't even try to figure it out.

Mt. Sinai

According to the studies, research, and Biblical information from which I am drawing my conclusion, it seems that Mt. Sinai is incorrectly located on most Bible maps (probably including the one in the back of your Bible). The current Mt. Sinai location is not feasible according to the geography, terrain, Biblical description, etc. However, most people are still taught that Mt. Sinai is in the Sinai peninsula. Yet, it is more likely that Mt. Sinai is actually located in the Arabian peninsula (ancient Midian). This would answer several questions and fit with Scripture much tighter than a Sinai peninsula location. Now, to keep this blog short, I will not give any further info, but if you would like to have more facts, just email me. And as always...what do you think?

A Death Prayer?

I do not condone President Obama's ungodly stance on certain issues, yet I read that we are to pray for him. We are to pray for him, but not for the death of him! This video is one of many addressing this issue. While it is on YouTube, it is from the Associated Press (AP) channel. (I have been aware of this pastor for awhile because he has made other very controversial statements in the past.)

Teamwork 101

Best-Selling Bible To Undergo Revision

By ERIC GORSKI, AP Religion Writer Eric Gorski, Ap Religion Writer Tue Sep 1, 5:55 pm ET

The top-selling Bible in North America will undergo its first revision in 25 years, modernizing the language in some sections and promising to reopen a contentious debate about changing gender terms in the sacred text. The New International Version, the Bible of choice for conservative evangelicals, will be revised to reflect changes in English usage and advances in Biblical scholarship, it was announced Tuesday. The revision is scheduled to be completed late next year and published in 2011.

"We want to reach English speakers across the globe with a Bible that is accurate, accessible and that speaks to its readers in a language they can understand," said Keith Danby, global president and CEO of Biblica, a Colorado Springs, Colo.-based Christian ministry that holds the NIV copyright.

But past attempts to remake the NIV for contemporary audiences in different editions have been plagued by controversies about gender language that have pitted theological conservatives against each other.

The changes did not make all men "people" or remove male references to God, but instead involved dropping gender-specific terms when translators judged that the original text didn't intend it. So in some verses, references to "sons of God" became "children of God," for example.

Supporters say gender-inclusive changes are more accurate and make the Bible more accessible, but critics contend they twist meaning or smack of political correctness.

Acknowledging past missteps, the NIV's overseers are promising that this time, the revision process will be more transparent and that they will actively promote what they describe as a long-held practice of inviting input from scholars and readers.

The NIV was first published in 1978 and more than 300 million NIV Bibles are in print worldwide; its publishers and distributors say the translation accounts for 30 percent of Bibles sold in North America.

The Committee on Bible Translation, an independent group of conservative scholars and translators formed in 1965 to create and revise the NIV, will oversee the new revision.

An effort earlier this decade to create a separate version of the NIV that used more gender-inclusive language in an attempt to reach a younger audience fell flat with groups that felt it crossed the line.

That edition, Today's New International Version, will cease publication once the new-look NIV is released, said Moe Girkins, president of Grand Rapids, Mich.-based Zondervan, its North American publisher.

"Whatever its strengths, the TNIV has become an emblem of division in the evangelical Christian world," Girkins said.

It was the TNIV that ushered in changes from "sons of God" to "children of God," or "brothers" to "brothers and sisters." In Genesis I, God created "human beings" in his own image instead of "man."

Many prominent pastors and scholars endorsed the changes. But critics said masculine terms in the original should not be tampered with. Some warned that changing singular gender references to plural ones alters what the Bible says about God's relationships with individuals.

The Southern Baptist Convention passed a resolution saying the edition "has gone beyond acceptable translation standards."

"We fell short of the trust that has been placed in us," said Danby, of Biblica. "We failed to make a clear case for the revisions."

Danby said that freezing the NIV in its 1984 state was also a mistake, however. He emphasized that in the revision, about 90 percent of the NIV will be unchanged.

Douglas Moo, a professor at Wheaton College and chairman of the Committee on Bible Translation, said the group is committed to "a complete review of every gender related change."

"I am not sure how it's going to come out," Moo said. "We have a genuine, authentic review process ... Everything is on the table."

One of the most vocal critics of gender-inclusive translations, Randy Stinson of the Louisville, Ky.-based Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, said the group supports updating the NIV. He credited organizers for their openness.

"We're still probably going to differ on the way they handle some of the gender language," Stinson said. "But we're open and anxious to see what they come up with and we're really going to be reserving judgment."

Most changes will have nothing to do with gender inclusivity, Moo said. And the TNIV provides a glimpse of likely changes: In the '84 NIV, Mary is "with child," but in the TNIV she is "pregnant." In the NIV version of Psalm 146:9, "The Lord watches over the alien." The TNIV used "foreigner" instead of "alien."

On the Net: Yahoo News! or at www.NIVBible2011.com

125 Years

Ebenezer BC is celebrating 125 years of God's blessings. Ebenezer was organized in September 1884 and has seen hard times and good times. However, through all things, God has blessed and been faithful. Join with us this month as we celebrate this special anniversary and pray for God's blessing upon us. Pray for us, as well, to remain faithful to Him in all things. And happy birthday Ebenezer!

The Government Can by Tim Hawkins

Kosova Missionary

We are excited to have Dave Helmick and family with us for worship services this weekend. Dave is a missionary serving the Lord in Kosova. Continue to pray for him and his family.

Evangelical Lutherans abandon Bible teaching on homosexuality (OneNewsNow.com)

Evangelical Lutherans abandon Bible teaching on homosexuality (OneNewsNow.com)

Shared via AddThis

What Old People Do For Fun

What God Can't Do

Logically speaking, there are some things God can't do. Would you care to name one?

Man carrying assault weapon attends Obama protest

By AMANDA LEE MYERS and TERRY TANG, Associated Press Writers Amanda Lee Myers And Terry Tang, Associated Press Writers Mon Aug 17, 6:22 pm ET

PHOENIX – About a dozen people carrying guns, including one with a military-style rifle, milled among protesters outside the convention center where President Barack Obama was giving a speech Monday — the latest incident in which protesters have openly displayed firearms near the president.

Gun-rights advocates say they're exercising their constitutional right to bear arms and protest, while those who argue for more gun control say it could be a disaster waiting to happen.

Phoenix police said the gun-toters at Monday's event, including the man carrying an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle slung over his shoulder, didn't need permits. No crimes were committed, and no one was arrested.

The man with the rifle declined to be identified but told The Arizona Republic that he was carrying the assault weapon because he could. "In Arizona, I still have some freedoms," he said.

Phoenix police Detective J. Oliver, who monitored the man at the downtown protest, said police also wanted to make sure no one decided to harm him.

"Just by his presence and people seeing the rifle and people knowing the president was in town, it sparked a lot of emotions," Oliver said. "We were keeping peace on both ends."

Last week, during Obama's health care town hall in Portsmouth, N.H., a man carrying a sign reading "It is time to water the tree of liberty" stood outside with a pistol strapped to his leg.

"It's a political statement," he told The Boston Globe. "If you don't use your rights, then you lose your rights."

Police asked the man to move away from school property, but he was not arrested.

Fred Solop, a Northern Arizona University political scientist, said the incidents in New Hampshire and Arizona could signal the beginning of a disturbing trend.

"When you start to bring guns to political rallies, it does layer on another level of concern and significance," Solop said. "It actually becomes quite scary for many people. It creates a chilling effect in the ability of our society to carry on honest communication."

He said he's never heard of someone bringing an assault weapon near a presidential event. "The larger the gun, the more menacing the situation," he said.

Phoenix was Obama's last stop on a four-day tour of western states, including Montana and Colorado.

Authorities in Montana said they received no reports of anyone carrying firearms during Obama's health care town hall near Bozeman on Friday. About 1,000 people both for and against Obama converged at a protest area near the Gallatin Field Airport hangar where the event took place. One person accused of disorderly conduct was detained and released, according to the Gallatin Airport Authority.

Heather Benjamin of Denver's Mesa County sheriff's department, the lead agency during Obama's visit there, said no one was arrested.

Arizona is an "open-carry" state, which means anyone legally allowed to have a firearm can carry it in public as long as it's visible. Only someone carrying a concealed weapon is required to have a permit.

Paul Helmke, president of the Washington, D.C.-based Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said people should not be allowed to bring guns to events where Obama is.

"To me, this is craziness," he said. "When you bring a loaded gun, particularly a loaded assault rifle, to any political event, but particularly to one where the president is appearing, you're just making the situation dangerous for everyone."

He said people who bring guns to presidential events are distracting the Secret Service and law enforcement from protecting the president. "The more guns we see at more events like this, there's more potential for something tragic happening," he said.

Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan said armed demonstrators in open-carry states such as Arizona and New Hampshire have little impact on security plans for the president.

"In both cases, the subject was not entering our site or otherwise attempting to," Donovan said. "They were in a designated public viewing area. The main thing to know is that they would not have been allowed inside with a weapon."

Representatives of the National Rifle Association did not return calls for comment.

Yahoo News

Whew!

Well, it has been one of those stretches where there is not enough time to accomplish everything. But God has been good, and all those "things" that had to be finished were finished. Another blessing is that we have Satellite Internet (WildBlue) at the church now. So, instead of fighting over who is going to be on the internet, we have a network and can share the bandwidth...well, I guess I'll share with Kyle!

A New School Year

I will be going to TBI's orientation today and then have a faculty luncheon/meeting followed by more faculty meetings. Tomorrow starts school with a Visitors Day with Bro. Mike Roberts, Marshall, TX as the guest speaker. Classes officially begin Thursday. I'm excited about another year of teaching Logic, Greek, Bible Geography, and Bible Related History. This will make my sixth year of teaching at the seminary. I'm part of the old crowd now...I guess. Either way, I really enjoy teaching there and hope I can keep teaching for many more years.

Some Interesting Thoughts

Thought 1:
Have you ever wondered how Abraham recognized the Lord when he appeared to him in the oak grove in chapter 18 of Genesis? (Remember, Abraham was sitting in the shade of his tent and noticed 3 men standing nearby.) Well, I noticed something this morning that may or may not be new to you, but I thought it was interesting.

Before Genesis 17, it seems that the Lord had only appeared to Abraham one time while He had spoke to Abraham several times. He appeared to Abraham in Genesis 12:7 while Abraham was still young (probably later 80s). However, approximately 10 years pass before the Lord appears to Abraham again (at least from what we have recorded in the Bible). In Genesis 17:1 it states that the Lord appeared to Abraham and made the Abrahamic Covenant with him. (This is also the time where God changed Abram to Abraham and Sarai to Sarah.) Now here comes the interesting part. In Genesis 17:21 the Lord tells Abraham that Isaac would be born to him "about this time next year." Now remember, the Lord has appeared to Abraham when He says these words "about this time next year." Now in chapter 18, you see Abraham sitting at the entrance of his tent in the shade and sees 3 men. Why would he run and fall on his knees before these men? How did he know that it was the Lord? (Now don't get all theological on me...okay?) Well, if you look at Genesis 18:10, you will see where one of the visitors says, "I will return to you about this time next year, and your wife, Sarah, will have a son." Then if you look at Genesis 18:14, you will see where the Lord says, "I will return about this time next year and Sarah will have a son."

Okay, now if you put this all together, the time frame between chapter 17 and chapter 18 is short. In fact, it may only be a matter of days between the two chapters. We often think of a great span of time between these two events, but that can't be. In chapter 17, the Lord tells Abraham that would Isaac would be born "about this time next year," and then in chapter 18, the Lord tells Abraham, "I will return about this time next year, and Sarah will have a son." So, the two chapters are very close in time. Thus it would have only been days between the two appearances of the Lord to Abraham and would explain how he could recognize the Lord so quickly.

Now on the theological side, I'm sure once the Lord appeared to you, you would never forget it. But it is interesting to see how chapters 17 and 18 are so close together in time.


Thought 2:
In the following verses we see an interesting lesson from the life of Lot.

Genesis 19:17-21 (right before the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah) -
Vs. 17 - When they were safely out of the city, one of the angels ordered, "Run for your lives! And don't look back or stop anywhere in the valley! Escape to the mountains, or you will be swept away!"
Vs. 18 - "Oh no, my lord!" Lot begged.
Vs. 19 - "You have been so gracious to me and saved my life, and you have shown such great kindness. But I cannot go to the mountains. Disaster would catch up to me there, and I would soon die."
Vs. 20 - "See, there is a small village nearby. Please let me go there instead; don't you see how small it is? Then my life will be saved."
Vs. 21 - "All right," the angel said, "I will grant your request. I will not destroy the little village (Zoar)"

Now, it is interesting that Lot was told to escape to the mountains, but he had a better plan. He knew things would work out better for him if he was just able to go live in Zoar. But what really happened?

Genesis 19:30 (after the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah) -
Vs. 30 - Afterward Lot left Zoar because he was afraid of the people there, and he went to live in a cave in the mountains with his two daughters.

Wow. What a surprise. Lot ended up realizing that God's plan was the best one after all. If only Lot had followed God's plan from the very beginning!!! But how often are we like Lot? How often do we tell God that we have a better plan only to later end up exactly where we should have been all along? Maybe we should just listen to God from the "get-go" and do exactly as He says. It might save us some trouble and embarrassment too!

Circumcision vs. Tithing?

I may have caught myself in a logical "hole." I have used the argument that tithing was instituted before the Law was given to the Israelites, thus tithing is still in effect today. However, if that is the case, then would not circumcision still be a requirement because it was instituted before the Law was given as well. Yes, tithing was freely done by Abraham towards Melchizidek (a representative of God) while the circumcision was specifically commanded by God to Abraham. But does that change the dilemma? Also, in the New Testament, we see where circumcision was not to be put "around the necks" of the Gentiles. So which is it? Do we use the Old Testament to prove tithing, or do we look for New Testament passages?

And by the way, at this point, I'm still a pro-tither. But maybe I need to rethink some of my arguments.

New Witnessing Tool?

Apparently believing that religious competition in the Middle East is not exciting enough already, the television station Kanal T in Istanbul, Turkey, is preparing a reality game show for September release in which 10 certified atheists try to resist conversion by a priest, a rabbi, a Muslim imam and a Buddhist monk. The exact rules have not been disclosed, but the "winning" convert will receive an expense-paid trip to the holy land of the most persuasive religion (the Vatican, Jerusalem, Mecca or Tibet). According to a July Reuters report, Turkey's Islamic Religious Affairs Directorate, not surprisingly, had vowed never to co-operate. [Reuters, 7-3-09]

Taken from News of the Weird.

Humble Beginnings

To Watch Or Not To Watch (Rated G)

As Christians, at what point should we separate ourselves from the world by not watching/supporting movies? Do we watch G-rated movies but not R-rated movies? Do we support companies that only produce family friendly films or do we take it one movie at a time? Should we watch any movies at the theater (or maybe even home) since much of the entertainment world is wicked? Is there a line we should not cross, or do we really care?

This week's top 5 movies:
1. G-Force
2. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
3. The Ugly Truth
4. Orphan
5. Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs

A Sign

True Or False

Is truth "truth" because of the one stating it, or is truth "truth" because it is true?

If we say truth is "truth" because it is true, then can we say that a book completely full of truth but published by a group with whom we may or may not agree should be shunned? I'm not necessarily condoning any publishing group or book - I'm just wondering how we should handle such a situation.

The Great Church Music Divide

This article by Bro. Ray McAlister, president of Emmaus Baptist College, Brandon, FL appeared in the March 2006 issue of the Baptist Anchor.

Nothing has divided Christians today more than Bible versions and church music. So, for whatever it is worth, I thought I would give my opinion on church music.

Let me be careful to point out that I am talking about music used in a church service, in corporate worship. Singing and music in church to me is different than singing and music outside of church. I enjoy some music that there is absolutely nothing wrong with, but it would be completely out of place in church. One of my favorite songs and melodies is "Unchained Melody." To me it is enchantingly beautiful but it has no place in a worship service.

Every church has a personality of its own. What makes up a church personality? Among many other things, socio-economic level, general educational level, general age level, preaching style, church mission, friendliness, concern, and of course, music style. That is the reason a person might enjoy attending one church and not enjoy attending another, although both may be sound Baptist churches. Different is not necessarily wrong it is just different. One church might enjoy preachers who "stomp and snort" and another church might enjoy preachers who are "calm and quiet." That does not make one right and the other wrong. It is a matter of personal preference.

There are many, many styles of music sung in our churches today. There are anthems, sacred classical and the old standard hymns. There is a little different style of songs found in such hymnals as "Favorite Songs and Hymns" and "Heavenly Highways Hymns." In my first pastorate in Arkansas, the churches in that area looked forward to getting the latest "Stamps-Baxter" song books and enjoyed singing from them. Then there is Southern Gospel, Country Gospel and Bluegrass.

I once heard a pastor say, "I hate Southern Gospel music!" He did not mean he hated the words sung in Southern Gospel music, what he did not like is the vehicle used to deliver the words.

Then there is a whole spectrum of music that has been labeled "contemporary." There are what have been called 24/7 songs -- you sing seven words twenty-four times. Then there are choruses, like we have sung for years. Some songs are old hymns sung to a different style of music, some are Scriptures set to music and some are new songs. I enjoy some contemporary music and some I do not enjoy. Whether I enjoy it or not does not make it right or wrong. What makes something wrong is not my preference, but God's Word.

There are two scriptures in the New Testament that deal specifically with church music.

"Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord" (Ephesians 5:19).

"Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord" (Colossians 3:16).

Both verses have some things in common. First, they both mention the same kind of songs -- psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. A psalm (which includes the whole book of Psalms) is a religious song sung to the accompaniment of musical instruments. A hymn is a song of praise or glorification. And, a spiritual song is just what it says, a song that is spiritual in nature. All three are very closely related and it is difficult to separate them into their own categories.

The second thing these verses have in common are the words, "in your hearts." Any song sung in a worship service of a church, either congregational, choir or special, should come from the heart. According to these Scriptures, every song should be one the singer feels deeply about. From my own personal experience, most congregational songs are simply mouthing words and do not come from the heart.

The third thing they have in common are the words, "to the Lord." Church music should not be sung to impress people with the singer's talent. It should be sung as if the person were standing in the bodily presence of the Lord, looking Him in the face and singing the song only for Him. That is worship and anything less is simply making a noise. If these three scriptural principles were observed in our church music it would transform our services!

Colossians 3:16 says we are to teach and admonish each other with songs. If that is true, then the words of a song are important, must be true and must be understood. The words of a song can be used of the Holy Spirit to reveal truth, to correct and to encourage.

Church music must teach truth. A song I heard once said, "If working and praying have any reward, if anyone makes it, Lord, surely I will." That is blasphemous! Closer to home, how about, "On that bright and cloudless morning when the dead in Christ shall rise." If Jesus is coming in a cloud, as the Scriptures teach, then it will not be a cloudless morning. How about, "There's a brand new angel in the choir and I want to hear her sing." There is no such thing as a "new" angel and people do not become angels when they go to heaven. Or, "I've got to make it to heaven somehow." You don't get to heaven "somehow." I do not feel it is any better to sing error than it is to preach it.

The music must not overpower the words. It is not about the music, it is about the message. Paul said, "Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue" (1 Corinthians 14:19). If I can't understand the words I cannot be taught or admonished as Colossians 3:16 teaches.

I often wondered why some music had to be played so loud and I finally found the answer. Marilyn vos Savant, who is purported to have the world's highest IQ (228), writes a column in the Sunday news magazine, Parade. That question was asked her in the March 5, 2006 issue and her answer was, "They're trying to generate excitement, and a high level of decibels accomplishes that goal. Subjected to such intense sound, listeners' bodies produce adrenaline, noradrenaline and more. These substances make the heart pound and give an impression of increased muscle strength. Not surprisingly, some people become psychologically addicted to this hormone rush, which is implicated in thrill-seeking behavior. What a way to get -- and keep --fans." That is not the kind of excitement that needs to be generated in church.

Church music must be culturally appropriate. To make a point, let me tell an incident that Missionary Joe Morell in Lithuania related to me. It went something like this: A good Southern Gospel quartet went from the United States and sang some Cathedrals Quartet songs for a Lithuanian church. The performance would have brought the house down in many American churches. However, the Lithuanians were unresponsive. After it was over some of the Lithuanian men took Brother Morell aside and expressed the feeling that the music was the most carnal they had ever heard. What was the difference? Culture!

There are cultural differences between countries and there are cultural differences all across America. The music that is enjoyed in a small rural church in the South probably will not be enjoyed by a large suburban church in the North. Why? Because they live in different cultures. Which is right and which is wrong? Well, the one is right that enjoys the kind of music I enjoy!

As much as I hate to admit it, there are even cultural differences in different age groups. A younger colleague of mine came into my office one day almost in tears. He said, "You must come hear this song. It really touched my heart." So, I went to his office and he played the song for me. The best I remember the song was about the crucifixion. I am sorry but it did not move me. What brought him to tears left me flat. Why? Because the difference in our ages put us in two different cultures that enjoy two different styles of Christian music.

I have heard some say that a church cannot grow if it does not use a certain style of music. The facts prove otherwise. There are growing churches across America that use almost every kind of church music. However, we must face the fact that a church is not likely to attract people who do not enjoy the personality of the church.

One of the great mistakes many a new pastor has made was to try to suddenly change the personality of a church, in music and other ways. What usually happens is that the church is torn up in the process. If the personality of a church needs to be changed, it must be done with a lot of teaching, love and patience.

My conclusion is, if a song meets the Scriptural criteria, that is:

1. it is a psalm, hymn or spiritual song,

2. it is sung from the heart,

3. it is sung to the Lord,

4. it is true,

5. the words can be clearly understood,

then it is a good song, regardless of the style of music in which it is delivered. That does not mean I will enjoy it, that it will speak to my heart or that I would want to belong to a church that only used that style of music. Let’s be careful not to equate our own personal preferences with Scripture.

How To Give The Cat A Pill

1. Pick cat up and cradle it in the crook of your left arm as if holding a baby. Position right forefinger and thumb on either side of cat's mouth and gently apply pressure to cheeks while holding pill in right hand. As cat opens mouth pop pill into mouth. Allow cat to close mouth and swallow.
2. Retrieve pill from floor and cat from behind sofa. Cradle cat in left arm and repeat process.
3. Retrieve cat from bedroom, and throw soggy pill away.
4. Take new pill from foil wrap, cradle cat in left arm holding rear paws tightly with left hand. Force jaws open and push pill to back of mouth with right forefinger. Hold mouth shut for a count of ten.
5. Retrieve pill from goldfish bowl and cat from top of wardrobe. Call spouse from garden.
6. Kneel on floor with cat wedged firmly between knees, hold front and rear paws. Ignore low growls emitted by cat. Get spouse to hold head firmly with one hand while forcing wooden ruler into mouth. Drop pill down ruler and rub cat's throat vigorously.
7. Retrieve cat from curtain rail, get another pill from foil wrap. Make note to buy new ruler and repair curtains. Carefully sweep shattered figurines and vases from hearth and set to one side for gluing later.
8. Wrap cat in large towel and get spouse to lie on cat with head just visible from below armpit. Put pill in end of drinking straw, force mouth open with pencil and blow down drinking straw.
9. Check label or call vet to make sure pill not harmful to humans, drink glass of water to take taste away. Apply bandages to spouse's forearm and remove blood from carpet with cold water and soap.
10. Retrieve cat from neighbor's shed. Get another pill. Place cat in cupboard and close door onto neck to leave head showing. Force mouth open with dessert spoon. Flick pill down throat with elastic band.
11. Fetch screwdriver from garage and put cupboard door back on hinges. Apply cold compress to cheek and check records for date of last tetanus shot. Throw Tee-shirt away and fetch new one from bedroom.
12. Ring fire brigade to retrieve cat from tree across the road. Apologize to neighbor who crashed into fence while swerving to avoid cat. Take last pill from foil-wrap.
13. Tie cat's front paws to rear paws with garden twine and bind tightly to leg of dining table, find heavy duty pruning gloves from shed. Push pill into mouth followed by large piece of fillet steak. Hold head vertically and pour 2 pints of water down throat to wash pill down.
14. Get spouse to drive you to the emergency room, sit quietly while doctor stitches fingers and forearm and removes pill remnants from right eye. Call furniture shop on way home to order new table.
15. Arrange for SPCA to collect cat and ring local pet shop to see if they have a dog.

How to give the dog a pill

1. Wrap it in bacon.
2. Throw it in the air.

-- copied; original source unknown

Do-Over!

(Open to all - would especially like other preacher's comments) If there is one thing you could change in your life/ministry, what would it be? This change could be in the past or present, but please tell me what (if it's not too personal) and why.

CrossTrainers

That is the theme of The Journey at Pine Springs this week. Galatians 2:20 is our theme verse with a goal of seeing young adults allow Christ to live through them. Continue to pray for all the workers, teachers, staff, sponsors, and campers. May God bless this week of camp!

Just A Thought...

My dad sent me the following in an email. Just one of those questions that you kind of think about...You know what I mean?

We can read about the resurrected body of a saved person (buried natural, raised spiritual---sown in dishonor, raised in glory, etc) but is there anywhere in the Bible that talks of the body of the resurrected unsaved person? I cannot prove but I suspect it is buried natural and raised natural, sown in dishonor and raised in dishonor. This may be the only way that they can feel the torments of hell. Can't prove any of the last part, but just a thought.

Husband Of One Wife

This article, written by President Ray McAllister, Emmaus Baptist College, Brandon, FL, appeared in the January 2005 issue of the Baptist Anchor.

In one week three people asked my opinion on a pastor being divorced and remarried. In my forty-seven years of ministry I don't remember doing an in-depth study on the subject, I just had my opinion. 



The Scripture verses alluded to in such questions are 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6, which deal with pastors, and 1 Timothy 3:12, which deals with deacons. These are found in the qualifications that Paul laid down to Timothy and Titus concerning pastors and deacons.



Let's lay some foundation. The terms "elder," "bishop" and "pastor" are all speaking of the same office, which today we call "pastor." In the New Testament "elder" is the actual name of the office, "bishop," meaning "superintendent" and "pastor," meaning "shepherd," are descriptive titles of the office. The qualifications found in 1 Timothy and Titus are for elders (pastors) and deacons. Any other office or position does not fall under these qualifications. May I also point out that not all preachers are pastors. 
The first word in the list of these qualifications for pastors is "blameless." In my opinion all the qualifications that follow are describing how a man is to be blameless. 



To begin my study I looked at the Greek construction of "husband of one wife" found in all three verses and found them to be very similar. The same words are used. The Greek word used for husband is andra.
Since that did not give me a conclusive answer to the meaning of "husband of one wife" I checked a dozen or so commentaries to see what others have thought about these passages. I found that through the years preachers have held (and still do) to four basic positions. They are:



1. A pastor must be a married man. 


2. A pastor could be married only once, regardless.


3. A pastor could not be divorced and remarried.


4. A pastor could not be married to two women at the same time.



 Since the commentators did not agree on the meaning, the Scriptures mentioned might mean any of the above.
 


Now it is time to do some serious study and see if we can arrive at some conclusion. Whatever conclusion we arrive at, I know we will still not all agree.



First, the term "husband of one wife" could mean that a pastor must be a married man. Although I was not able to confirm it from over half a dozen commentaries or dictionaries, I have always heard that members of the Sanhedrin had to be married men. Also, "The Jews teach, a priest should be neither unmarried nor childless, lest he be unmerciful [Bengel]. So in the synagogue, 'no one shall offer up prayer in public, unless he be married' [in Colob, ch. 65; Vitringa, Synagogue and Temple]." ¹ If the members of the Sanhedrin had to be married, and priests had to be married and you couldn't publically pray in a synagogue without being married, it would not seem unreasonable that a qualification for being a pastor would be to be married.



Second, the passages in question might also mean that a pastor could only be married once, regardless of the circumstances. "The most strict interpretation and the one common among the earliest commentators (second and third centuries) . . . extends the prohibition to any second marriage, even by widowers. Their argument is that in the first century second marriages were generally viewed as evidence of self-indulgence. . . . According to this strict view Paul considered a widower's second marriage, though by no means improper, to be evidence of a lack of the kind of self-control required of an overseer, in much the same way that a similar lack disqualified a widow from eligibility for the list of widows." ² 1 Timothy 5:9 seems to support this position since Paul said "having been the wife of one man" was a qualification for a widow to be put on the list to receive help from the church.



The third and most commonly held view today is that a pastor could not be a man who had been married, divorced and remarried. The thought is, if a man is divorced and remarried he has "two living wives" and is not the husband of one wife." The divorced and remarried man does not have two wives. As L.D. Foreman used to say in class, "If a divorced and remarried man has two living wives, he should be arrested for bigamy." In John chapter four, Jesus said to the woman at the well, "Go, call thy husband, and come hither." The woman answered, "I have no husband," to which Jesus replied, "Thou hast well said, I have no husband: For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly." Jesus did not say, "You have five husbands" but "You have had five husbands." He did not say she had five living husbands, He said she did not have any husbands. He said she spoke the truth when she said she was not married even though she had been married five times.



The Law of Moses stated in Deuteronomy 24:1-4 that if a man divorced a woman she was free to remarry. However, if her second husband divorced her or died, she was forbidden to again become the wife of her first husband. If she had "two living husbands" she should have been able to return to her first husband since he was still her husband. The plain teaching is, she was no longer married to her first husband when she was divorced and remarried. 



While we are here, let's put to rest the phrase, "living in adultery," as it applies to a divorced and remarried person. "Living in adultery" is not a biblical phrase. Jesus taught that if a man divorces his wife and marries another, he commits adultery. If his divorced wife marries she and her new husband commit adultery (Matthew 5:32, 19:5). Adultery is not something you "live in," it is something you "commit." When a divorced person commits himself to a new mate in marriage and seals it with the sexual act (even though it may be adultery) the bonds with the first mate seem to be dissolved and there seems to be no relationship whatever with the first marriage. 



If our scriptures in question teach that "husband of one wife" applies to a divorced and remarried man, it is not because he has "two living wives." It would have to be because of the influence his divorce would have on his testimony. 



The fourth position is that "husband of one wife" teaches against polygamy or bigamy. Whatever position you take on these verses you must conclude it teaches against polygamy and bigamy. You cannot be the husband of one wife and have two wives. However, this does not seem to be the primary meaning since the Gentiles in the first century did not practice polygamy. 



Now, for what it is worth, I will now give you my sincere opinion. (It is not the position of Florida Baptist College, it is my opinion.) I think I will reject all of the four above positions and agree with Kenneth S. Wuest when he says, "The words, when used of the marriage relation come to mean, 'a man of one woman.' The nouns are without the definite article, which construction emphasizes character or nature. The entire context is one in which the character of the bishop is being discussed. Thus, one can translate, 'a one-wife sort of a husband,' or 'a one-woman sort of a man.' . . . Since character is emphasized by the Greek construction, the bishop should be a man who loves only one woman as his wife. It should be his nature to thus isolate and centralize his love." ³


I feel that this qualification has to do with the character of the man more than whether he must be married, be married only once or has been divorced. A pastor must be a man whose affections are centered exclusively on his wife. If he has a "wandering eye," he is not the sort of person who needs to be in the pastorate. I once knew a pastor who was married only once but flirted with all the nice looking ladies. I don't think he met this qualification. My opinion is, this qualification is all about character.



Let me leave you with a few jewels I ran across. Wuest also said, "In some matters 'the common sense of most' is a safer guide than the irresponsible conjectures of a conscientious student." I think it was Ravi Zacharias I heard say, "The more words it takes to defend your position the more likely you are of being wrong." James A. Harris said, "The difference between a conviction and an opinion is that you can discuss your convictions without getting mad."


____________ ________



1Jamieson, R., Fausset, A. R., Fausset, A. R., Brown, D., & Brown, D. 1997. A commentary, critical and explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments. On spine: Critical and explanatory commentary. Logos Research Systems, Inc.: Oak Harbor, Wash.
2Walvoord, J. F., Zuck, R. B., & Dallas Theological Seminary. 1983-c1985. The Bible knowledge commentary : An exposition of the scriptures. Victor Books: Wheaton, Ill.
3Wuest, K. S. 1997, c1984. Wuest's word studies from the Greek New Testament : For the English reader . Eerdmans: Grand Rapids


The following appeared in the March 2005 issue:

I have known for a long time that people do not hear what I say, they hear what they think I say.

However, I was not aware that people read what they think I wrote. After my January article on "The Husband of One Wife," it has come back to me that I wrote things I did not know I had written.

For example, I have heard that I wrote that a pastor could have all the wives he wanted as long as he has them one at a time. I did not say that because I do not believe that.

As a little background, I concluded in the article that I believed that the teaching in Timothy and Titus had to do with the character of the man and not with the fact that he may have been married twice. In other words, he is not a womanizer. He is interested in his wife and only in his wife. For example, some of our past U.S. presidents were married only once but they were not "one woman men." They would not qualify for the office of pastor or deacon even though they had been married only once.

In my opinion, if a pastor or deacon divorces his wife in order to marry another woman, his character is such that he does not qualify for the office and his ordination should be rescinded. It is not a matter of "one wife at a time," it is a matter of his wife being the only woman in his life. I remember one of my instructors, Leo Causey, saying something like, "If you are married to the witch of Endor, you made a commitment to stay with her all of your life."