Merry Christmas!!!!

This year we enjoyed a visit from my parents (Thanksgiving) and Andrea's (Christmas). We are grateful to God for our Christian families.

Global Warming strikes again...

Nationwide Chill
Below average temperatures expected all across the country today; snow spreads to Intermountain West. (Meanwhile Al Gore takes his personal Lear Jet to Caribbean for Christmas vacation)...

Freeport weather:

Currently -2 F
Feels like -13 F

http://www.weather.com/outlook/health/coldandflu/local/61032?lswe=61032&lwsa=Weather36HourColdAndFluCommand&from=searchbox_localwx

What I'm Reading...

1. Numerous Revelation Commentaries by various authors

2. After Darkness Light by various authors

3. The Mischief of Sin by Thomas Watson

4. Singing And Making Music: Issues in Church Music Today by Paul Jones

5. Current TMS Journal on Homosexuality

6. A Passionate Plea for Preaching by various authors

Preaching and application

Application via exhortation is an important aspect of expository preaching. One of the great challenges in preaching is trying to manage your time. I rarely have enough time to say all that I want to say on a given passage. One of the things i try and do from time to time is provide “application handouts” for my congregation. These handouts typically go along with the morning message but sometimes highlight areas that i don’t have time to go into in great depth.

Here is one such example.

The Discerning Church: Ephesus
Revelation 2:1-7
Part 2


There are two levels of biblical discernment needed to maintain a vibrant Christian walk and a healthy Christian church.

One is the ability to discern error or half truth, especially when it is being presented as truth. First level discernment is needed to protect and preserve the purity of the Christian gospel (note Galatians 1, Jude 3, 2 John 7-11, Matthew 7:15-16, Acts 20:27-32, Romans 12:9, 1 Tim 6:20). “Discernment is the process of making careful distinctions in our thinking about truth.” “Discernment is the skill of understanding and applying God’s Word with the purpose of separating truth from error and right from wrong.” Study the example of the church at Ephesus in Revelation 2:2-3, 6.

The following list includes some recommended books that deal with this 1st level area of biblical discernment. Books that defend the gospel against various heresies and cults:

The Kingdom of the Cults by Walter Martin
Spirit Wars by Peter Jones
Is the Mormon My Brother? by James R. White
The Roman Catholic Controversy by James R. White.
The Future of Justification: by John Piper

The second level of biblical discernment is the ability to distinguish between ok, better, and best. In other words, just because something isn’t rank heresy doesn’t mean that it should be accepted hook, line, and sinker. With that said, the Bible forbids hypocritical judging (Matt 7) or judging another person’s thoughts and motives (Prov. 16:2, 1 Cor 4:5). But God does want us to examine everythingcarefully (note 1 Thess. 5:21-22) and to test everything against the Divine standard, God’s Word. Study the example of the Bereans in Acts 17:11.

The following list includes some recommended books that deal with this 2nd level area of biblical discernment.

The Discipline of Spiritual Discernment by Tim Challies
Fool’s Gold? Discerning Truth in an Age of Error by multiple authors
Charismatic Chaos by John MacArthur

Why I Am Not a “Purpose Driven” Pastor by Larry DeBruyn
Jesus Christ: Self Denial or Self Esteem? By David Tyler
Will Medicine Stop the Pain?By Elyse Fitzpatrick & Laura Hendrickson


The following list includes some recommended websitesthat often include discerning articles and blog posts.

http://www.svchapel.org/Resources/index.asp
http://www.aomin.org/
http://www.challies.com/
http://teampyro.blogspot.com/

Newsweek actively promotes "gay marriage"

My favorite Christian blog author has posted another wonderful article (see below)

Turning the Bible on its Head -- Newsweek Goes for Gay Marriage
By Al Mohler at http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=2881

Newsweek magazine, one of the most influential news magazines in America, has decided to come out for same-sex marriage in a big way, and to do so by means of a biblical and theological argument. In its cover story for this week, "The Religious Case for Gay Marriage," Newsweek religion editor Lisa Miller offers a revisionist argument for the acceptance of same-sex marriage. It is fair to say that Newsweek has gone for broke on this question.

Miller begins with a lengthy dismissal of the Bible's relevance to the question of marriage in the first place. "Let's try for a minute to take the religious conservatives at their word and define marriage as the Bible does," Miller suggests. If so, she argues that readers will find a confusion of polygamy, strange marital practices, and worse.

She concludes: "Would any contemporary heterosexual married couple—who likely woke up on their wedding day harboring some optimistic and newfangled ideas about gender equality and romantic love—turn to the Bible as a how-to script?" She answers, "Of course not, yet the religious opponents of gay marriage would have it be so."

Now, wait just a minute. Miller's broadside attack on the biblical teachings on marriage goes to the heart of what will appear as her argument for same-sex marriage. She argues that, in the Old Testament, "examples of what social conservatives call 'the traditional family' are scarcely to be found." This is true, of course, if what you mean by 'traditional family' is the picture of America in the 1950s. The Old Testament notion of the family starts with the idea that the family is the carrier of covenant promises, and this family is defined, from the onset, as a transgenerational extended family of kin and kindred.

But, at the center of this extended family stands the institution of marriage as the most basic human model of covenantal love and commitment. And this notion of marriage, deeply rooted in its procreative purpose, is unambiguously heterosexual.

As for the New Testament, "Ozzie and Harriet are nowhere" to be found. Miller argues that both Jesus and Paul were unmarried (emphatically true) and that Jesus "preached a radical kind of family, a caring community of believers, whose bond in God superseded all blood ties." Jesus clearly did call for a commitment to the Gospel and to discipleship that transcended family commitments. Given the Jewish emphasis on family loyalty and commitment, this did represent a decisive break.

But Miller also claims that "while the Bible and Jesus say many important things about love and family, neither explicitly defines marriage as between one man and one woman." This is just patently untrue. Genesis 2:24-25 certainly reveals marriage to be, by the Creator's intention, a union of one man and one woman. To offer just one example from the teaching of Jesus, Matthew 19:1-8 makes absolutely no sense unless marriage "between one man and one woman" is understood as normative.

As for Paul, he did indeed instruct the Corinthians that the unmarried state was advantageous for the spread of the Gospel. His concern in 1 Corinthians 7 is not to elevate singleness as a lifestyle, but to encourage as many as are able to give themselves totally to an unencumbered Gospel ministry. But, in Corinth and throughout the New Testament church, the vast majority of Christians were married. Paul will himself assume this when he writes the "household codes" included in other New Testament letters.

The real issue is not marriage, Miller suggests, but opposition to homosexuality. Surprisingly, Miller argues that this prejudice against same-sex relations is really about opposition to sex between men. She cites the Anchor Bible Dictionary as stating that "nowhere in the Bible do its authors refer to sex between women." She would have done better to look to the Bible itself, where in Romans 1:26-27 Paul writes: "For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error."

Again, this passage makes absolutely no sense unless it refers very straightforwardly to same-sex relations among both men and women -- with the women mentioned first.
Miller dismisses the Levitical condemnations of homosexuality as useless because "our modern understanding of the world has surpassed its prescriptions." But she saves her most creative dismissal for the Apostle Paul. Paul, she concedes, "was tough on homosexuality." Nevertheless, she takes encouragement from the fact that "progressive scholars" have found a way to re-interpret the Pauline passages to refer only to homosexual violence and promiscuity.

In this light she cites author Neil Elliott and his book, The Arrogance of Nations. Elliott, like other "progressive scholars," suggests that the modern notion of sexual orientation is simply missing from the biblical worldview, and thus the biblical authors are not really talking about what we know as homosexuality at all. "Paul is not talking about what we call homosexuality at all," as Miller quotes Elliott.

Of course, no honest reader of the biblical text will share this simplistic and backward conclusion. Furthermore, to accept this argument is to assume that the Christian church has misunderstood the Bible from its very birth -- and that we are now dependent upon contemporary "progressive scholars" to tell us what Christians throughout the centuries have missed.

Tellingly, Miller herself seems to lose confidence in this line of argument, explaining that "Paul argued more strenuously against divorce—and at least half of the Christians in America disregard that teaching." In other words, when the argument is failing, change the subject and just declare victory. "Religious objections to gay marriage are rooted not in the Bible at all, then, but in custom and tradition," Miller simply asserts -- apparently asking her readers to forget everything they have just read.

Miller picks her sources carefully. She cites Neil Elliott but never balances his argument with credible arguments from another scholar, such as Robert Gagnon of Pittsburgh Theological Seminary [See his response to Elliott here]. Her scholarly sources are chosen so that they all offer an uncorrected affirmation of her argument. The deck is decisively stacked.

She then moves to the claim that sexual orientation is "exactly the same thing" as skin color when it comes to discrimination. As recent events have suggested, this claim is not seen as credible by many who have suffered discrimination on the basis of skin color.

As always, the bottom line is biblical authority. Lisa Miller does not mince words. "Biblical literalists will disagree," she allows, "but the Bible is a living document, powerful for more than 2,000 years because its truths speak to us even as we change through history." This argument means, of course, that we get to decide which truths are and are not binding on us as "we change through history."

For the complete article click on the link above....

Al Mohler on media exposure and your kids

Here are some suggestions parents might want to consider.
1. Limit the total media exposure experienced by your children. The statistic that the average child and adolescent is immersed in the media for 45 hours a week should be sufficient motivation for parents to hit the brakes and gain control of media exposure. Access to entertainment media should be a privilege earned, not a right assumed by the child.

2. Do not allow children and teenagers to have televisions and Internet-connected computers in the bedroom. There is simply too much danger in unsupervised media exposure, and too much temptation in terms of both quantity and content. No child needs a television in the bedroom, and a computer connected to the Internet is an invitation to disaster.

3. Make entertainment media a family experience. There is a massive difference in the experience of a child watching programming alone and that same child watching with a parent. Parents should be in unquestioned control of media decisions. Parents should also be eager to discuss what is seen with teenagers and children, helping them to grow in discernment and judgment.

4. Parents have to do the hard work of actually knowing what their children and teenagers are watching, playing, hearing, and experiencing through media exposure. No one said parenting was supposed to be easy.

5. Realize that a revolution has taken place in the lives of children and adolescents. The emergence of social media technologies means that children (and adolescents especially) now expect to be in constant communication with their peers. This is not healthy, sane, or helpful. All of us -- children and teenagers included -- need a break from this immersion. Put a charging dock in the kitchen and confiscate cell phones as the kids come in the door. That will send a message the old fashioned way -- in person.

6. Take a regular look at what your child is posting and what others are posting on his or her social media sites. Look at the instant messaging exchanges and emails. You are the parent, after all, and your child's access to these technologies should come with the open and non-negotiable requirement that parents see it all.

7. Remember that saying "no" is a legitimate option. I do not believe that saying "no" is always the right response. The media bring opportunities for good as well as for evil. Children and teenagers who are never allowed access to media technologies and entertainment will emerge into adulthood with no powers of discernment. But "no" is sometimes the best and only appropriate answer, and parents should always be ready to use it when needed.

Today's generation of children and adolescents is, by all accounts, a generation immersed in media. This new report reminds us that this exposure cannot come without real costs. Let's hope America's parents are paying attention.

Christmas comes early

Grandparents visit Freeport (the snow is here)

Thanksgiving visit from Grandma and Grandpa K

Here are some pictures from Grandma and Grandpa Kolstad's recent visit. We were very grateful to have family in town for the holidays. The other grandparents will be with us during Christmas. We are most thankful for our Christian parents (grandparents)!

Women Pastors

For Dr. Mohler's full article click http://www.albertmohler.com/blog.php

Regularly, The Los Angeles Times makes for interesting reading. In terms of political slant, the paper has moved to the left of The New York Times, and it now occupies a major position among the nation's most influential newspapers. Even as paid circulation has dropped significantly since the 1990s, the editorial slant to the left is a constant.

Interestingly, the paper's editors decided to take on the issue of women in ministry in Sunday's edition. The editorial, "Women and Religion," was introduced with this tag under the headline: "Gains among women in the clergy are under attack in both Catholic and Protestant churches."
Gains under attack? Here is how the editors introduced their essay:

According to the New Testament, women were among the earliest followers of Jesus and played an important role in early Christian communities. Even today, the "man in the pew" is likely to be a woman. But women in many Christian denominations continue to complain that they have been unable to break through what is sometimes called the stained-glass ceiling. Obviously, theology plays a part in this phenomenon, but so does the conviction -- found among believers and nonbelievers alike -- that this is a man's world.

This is fascinating, to say the least. The editors of The Los Angeles Times have been reading the New Testament? They are certainly right in their statement that women have been central to the Christian movement from the very beginning of the Church. But the editors then offer a sympathetic lament to those women who complain of a "stained-glass ceiling." They then concede that "theology plays a part in this phenomenon," but go on to insist that patriarchy and discrimination against women also plays a part.

The editorial then shifts to look at recent developments in the Roman Catholic church, including warnings from the Vatican and the local Cardinal, Los Angeles Archbishop Roger M. Mahoney. In the first case, the threatened excommunication of a priest for participating in the "unauthorized ordination" of a woman is cited as a hardening of the Vatican's position. This hardly seems to be the case. Has the Vatican ever looked lightly at "unauthorized ordinations?" The editors do seem to understand that the Roman Catholic restriction of the priestly office to men is based on tradition and the representational and sacerdotal nature of the priestly office. "It's tempting to think that women face barriers only in the Roman Catholic Church and others that limit the priesthood to men," the editors explain. "But even in churches that do ordain women, equality between the sexes has been elusive."

Indeed, the pulpits of liberal Protestantism are still generally occupied by men. The editors cite a study that indicates that 93.7 percent of "solo pastors" are men. This is all the more shocking given the fact that women students now outnumber men in liberal seminaries. It does seem that the editors have a point here. These churches and denominations claim to have no theological problem with women serving as pastors. But, in reality, few congregations actually make the choice to call a woman as pastor. Why? They alone can tell us.

Finally, the editors turn to more conservative Protestant churches and denominations. As the editors acknowledge, the conviction that the role of pastor and the teaching office is limited to men is rooted in a biblical argument:

In the Roman Catholic Church, tradition is cited as the grounds for not ordaining women. In Protestant churches, resistance to female pastors is likelier to be grounded in biblical passages such as 1 Timothy 2:12: "And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence."