Veritas Rex

Peterson joins Seminary Board

I don't know much about this group, but the Indianapolis Star is reporting that former Mayor Bart Peterson has joined the board of the Christian Theological Seminary in Indianapolis.

Peterson will join the board of trustees of the Christian Theological Seminary in Indianapolis on July 1.

The Northside seminary is affiliated with the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) but has faculty and students from 40 denominations. Peterson has been a longtime member of Second Presbyterian Church on the Far Northside. The seminary is a graduate school offering degrees in theology, ministry and counseling, among other things.

In a statement released by the seminary, officials said they hope the mayor's experience establishing charter schools and his promotion of the arts will mesh with the school's goal of helping students understand the relationship between religion and the arts. He will also work closely with the seminary's advancement committee, which is involved in fundraising and promotion.

D'Souza debates Peter Singer

www.tothesource.org has video of Dinesh D'Souza's recent debate with Peter Singer.  Nigel Cameron has a summary:

I have debated life and death with Singer. In this latest debate, Dinesh d’Souza tackled him on his denial of the existence of God. Thousands gathered in a gym at Biola University’s campus outside Los Angeles to watch the show. Singer is not simply a theoretician; he defends infanticide and euthanasia, and regards the “sanctity of life” as a mistake. He is something of an extremist. It might be unfair to call him a fundamentalist utilitarian. But if I were being unfair that is what I would call him. He drives widely-held liberal ethical views harder and further than anyone else in the public arena.

Is there a God? D’Souza opened with the 20th century’s litany of atheist crimes – far worse, he noted, than whatever crimes can be attributed to religion, even including the Inquisition, 9/11 and Islamist violence. Hitler and Stalin and Mao and the rest had demonstrated the bankruptcy of their atheist tenets. Singer countered that the debate was not about the bad things that atheists do, but whether God exists at all. Yet he too focused on evil to make his case – the classic case against God, that asks how a world so beset with pain and suffering could have been made by a God who is good. As an add-on he instanced the way in which the Old Testament presents a God who commits and approves genocide; and the New presents a Jesus who expected his Second Coming to happen any time (and was therefore wrong).

D’Souza laid out his rationale for theism: the universe had a beginning; the “laws of nature” had (as Stephen Hawking has said) to be just-so in order for life to arise and flourish. Singer countered that the universe may have had no beginning; that if God made it then where did he come from?; and that scientists do not all agree with Hawking’s contention.

And the debate flowed on, with questions from the audience – some from Christians wanting to underline D’Souza’s case, some from Singer fans, and yet others from unpredictable directions. What did Singer think of the idea that suffering in animals (a big theme of his in his argument against a good God) can be explained through reincarnation - justice winning out as creatures come back to atone for sins in past lives? Singer laughed this off as an incredible theory, and asked what it would mean for a kangaroo to die of thirst because it had been Hitler in a former life. D’Souza called Singer to account for this easy dismissal, and argued that a major theme of all religions is that of cosmic justice: that fairness will, in the end, win out; that what seems unjust in the here and now will one day be set to rights. As Singer noted, atheists don’t find evil to be a problem that needs to be explained; they do not like it, but it is just there.

Did either side win? If I were grading the debaters, I would give them a draw. They were both spunky without being aggressive, and the tennis match of Q and A was well balanced as arguments were raqueted across the podium. Their theme, the greatest theme in the world, was not resolved by a knockout blow. And the audience was reminded, perhaps, that when Jesus debated the Scribes and the Pharisees, and Paul the philosophers on Mars Hill, however compelling their case for belief, they could not compel its acceptance. Some joined the believers; some did not.

So it should not come as a surprise that many leading men and women of our day – the cultural elites who set the pace in our nation and shape the lives we lead – are not people of faith. As Singer pointed out, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, the two greatest philanthropists in history, are not believers. It is all too easy for Christians to take the view that the unbeliever is not only wrong, but stupid; that the arguments all flow one way; that apologetics, properly done, will sweep all before it. Which is, of course, nonsense – else Jesus and Paul, the Great Debaters of the first century, would have won the world at their first encounter. The unbeliever can make a good case. He can argue back, probe the logic of belief, raise the hard questions like Job did (as D’Souza pointed out), long, long ago.

That’s why we have to debate. We are not afraid of the facts; not perturbed by the skills of those with whom we disagree; not unwilling to trade argument and explanation with the smartest minds and the shrewdest tongues. The assumptions of our once-Christian culture have begun to shift. Time was when it was hard to be an atheist, as the Christian mind was embedded in the culture. Now it is the believer who finds it hard to get a hearing, and harder still to make our case.

But make it we must. We talk too much to ourselves, and too little to the wider world. We have no option but to raise our voices and articulate dissent in a society whose defining terms are now post-Christian. Like the dissidents in Soviet Russia we must not be silent. World and church alike must hear our voice, until like that evil empire the godless structures of the secular mindset begin to crumble as we state, and keep on stating, the truth of Jesus Christ; in season, and out of season.

Test of Faith: Spiritual Mentor v. Ambition

Coverage has abounded on the reckless statements of B. Hussein Obama's pastor Jeremiah Wright.  However, what I have been waiting for is a conversation about how you throw your pastor of 20 years under the bus the way B. Hussein Obama has done.  Dinesh D'Zousa does a great job in his most recent article of addressing this very issue (give it a read).  Shouldn't the pastor-congregant relationship be one of the most imporant relationships in one's life?  I know it is for me. The argument that B. Hussein Obama did not know the radical views of his pastor is not a plausible argument in my mind.  So, the real option for Obama was:

A.  Remain loyal to my pastor and spiritual mentor and face the consequences.

B.  Throw my pastor and spiritual mentor under the bus in the name of political expediency. 

Obama was faced with a lose/lose situation, but he may have chosen the worse option.  What does it say about a person when they sell out those closest to them in order to pursue their ambition?  Nothing good.  Is D'Zousa right?  Is Wright really the consistent one, while Obama hides in the shadows?  You can dedide for yourself.  Here is an expert from the D'Zousa article:

Now Obama would have us believe that, as far as Wright is concerned, he's had just about enough. But why? What has Wright said that has finally caused his disciple to end their relationship? While Wright has been pontificating a lot lately, he has not given us any new bombshells. But he did suggest that, in his beliefs like the one about the U.S. government and AIDS, Obama agrees with him.

Wright noted that of course Obama is now saying something different; that's because Obama is now running for president. So he has to say something different! Translation: what we see with Obama is not what we get. And Wright is in a position to know. He's nursed Obama intellectually and spiritually over the years. It is Obama himself who has given us this man, and assured us of his integrity and reliability.

The more I examine the two, the more I think that it is Wright who is being consistent and calling it the way he sees it, and Obama who is hiding the part of himself that once embraced this man and maybe still agrees with many of his beliefs but now finds him a political liability. While Obama continues to portray himself as Mr. Straight Talk, at this point he is a candidate enveloped in shadows

Brain Banishment

When it comes to cultural issues, it's always a little scary to look at Canada and Europe because all-to-often the U.S. follows suit, eventually.  Here is an example of a Christian non-profit group who was ordered by the Canadian government to cease using an employment contract which has staff promise that they will not engage in "homosexual relationships," among other activities contrary to Christian principles.  Moreover, the ruling demands that the organization pay $23,000, plus two years wages and benefits to a woman who signed onto the contract and then entered a homosexual relationship and was subsequently dismissed.  This story is striking in the blatant disregard for justice the "Human Rights Tribunal of Canada" shows in that the employee signed a contract vowing to stick within the moral guidelines of the organization (which she admitted to breaking), the law in question has a religious exemption that should have covered this organization (but didn't) and how this organization's ability to serve vulnerable populations according to it's faith-based mission has been compromised.

As I see different cases like these around the world, there seems to be a set pattern of homosexual activists pushing for "anti-discrimination" ordinances, eventually getting them passed through convincing elected officials that Christian organizations are covered under a religous exemption provision and then eventually attempting to target and gut Christian organizations with these ordinances by forcing them to recognize anti-Christian beliefs.  Indianapolis and several other cities already have similar ordinances.  I wonder how long it will take for homosexual activists in Indy to start attempting to stamp out those Christian organizations who disagree with them.  Politicos talk about Indiana's brain drain all the time.  It's more like brain banishment in places where homosexual activists dictate public policy.  Read the full story and the actual decision.  It's quite stunning.

Bill Maher still has his job

Gary Bauer has an editorial in Human Events this week that is worth discussion.

Compare and contrast:

Example 2: Last year, radio “shock jock” Don Imus made an inappropriate and implicitly racist comment about the Rutgers’ women’s basketball team.

The result: Imus’s three-word remark landed him on the cover of numerous magazines, and he was lambasted by everyone from Al Sharpton to many of the presidential candidates. Imus’s hugely popular radio show was canceled, even after he apologized profusely.   

Example 3: Last week, a few days before Pope Benedict XVI’s visit to America, TV talk show host Bill Maher went on a profanity-laden tirade against the Pope and the Catholic Church. On his HBO Real Time program, Maher claimed that the Pope “used to be a Nazi,” and called the Catholic Church a “child-abusing religious cult” and “the Bear Stearns of organized pedophilia.”

The result: (Cue sound of crickets chirping.)

I am not a Catholic, but as a Christian I consider the Pope my brother in Christ.  So I am inclined to get defensive over statements like this. 

Either way, however, I've long been confused by our country's attitude towards some of these issues.  We are more Christian than not Christian.  Yet we are largely inclined to allow folks like Maher to make statements like this while at the same time destroying people like Imus for his statements.  I consider them both equally offensive.  So why the difference?

It could be the media who report on these things.  They tend to generate most of the frenzy around issues like this and also tend to yawn over anti-Christian bigotry.

It could also be some sort of complacency from Christians who don't fee that the Catholic church is harmed much by what Maher says.  I happen to agree that this is true, but I don't think Imus' view about anything is all that important either.

So I'm going to blame the media.

Expelled: Point/Counter-Point

To The Source has posted an excellent article on Ben Stein's new movie- Expelled.

Part is from the perspective of Dinesh D'Souza, who we regularly feature here.  He argues that Stein's movie makes an important point about the Darwinists main assumption- that Darwin's theory in and of itself dispels the Christian account of Creation.

It is ridiculously implausible to think so. And the absurdity was recognized more than a decade ago by Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the DNA double helix. Yet Crick is a committed atheist. Unwilling to consider the possibility of divine or supernatural creation, Crick suggested that maybe aliens brought life to earth from another planet. And this is precisely the suggestion that Richard Dawkins makes in his response to Ben Stein. Perhaps, he notes, life was delivered to our planet by highly-evolved aliens. Let's call this the "ET" explanation.

Stein brilliantly responds that he had no idea Richard Dawkins believes in intelligent design! And indeed Dawkins does seem to be saying that alien intelligence is responsible for life arriving on earth. What are we to make of this? Basically Dawkins is surrendering on the claim that evolution can account for the origins of life. It can't. The issue now is simply whether a natural intelligence (ET) or a supernatural intelligence (God) created life. Dawkins can't bear the supernatural explanation and so he opts for ET. But doesn't it take as much, or more, faith to believe in extraterrestrial biology majors depositing life on earth than it does to believe in a transcendent creator?

The counterpoint is written by Georgetown Professor John Haught, who is far less positive about the movie.

Expelled might easily have been satisfied with making one more tiresome attempt to convince viewers that ID is a scientifically worthy alternative to evolutionary accounts of our planet’s living diversity. But it goes much further. Its main objective is to arouse sympathy for the handful of scientists whose dissent from “Darwinism” and espousal of ID has led to their being denied tenure and even “expelled”—unjustly as Stein sees it—from well earned academic positions.

Fair-minded people, Expelled argues, should find this eviction outrageous. Who will stand up for freedom, Stein imploringly asks as the film ends. Why should departments of science run by atheists get by with exiling just those whose research is powerful enough to put the human mind back in touch with a “higher power”?

UMC Church at a crossroads

The liberal United Methodist Church (UMC) is holding its annual meeting for 10 days this month (starting on the 23rd) during a tough time in their history.  Having lost 185,000 US members in the last three years, and struggling with conflict over matters of doctrine, the UMC church must do something to reverse the trend.

One News Now Covers:
Mark Tooley of the Institute on Religion and Democracy will be in attendance. He is hopeful delegates will stand firm on scripture. "Obviously, it's damaging when a third of the church seemingly wants to disregard the scriptures and follow the secular world in accepting homosexual practice as on par with Christian marriage," he comments. "But fortunately -- thanks partly to the growing African church -- there is a growing majority for traditional Christian beliefs that I hope will help to bring this debate mostly to an end."

Associated Press reports the agenda in Fort Worth includes efforts to overturn the UMC's ban on "self-avowed, practicing homosexual" clergy. But many delegates from other countries, in particular Africa, are known for heeding to a literal interpretation of the Bible.

First, here is another example of an issue we've discussed previously in regards to demographic trends in the church.  The so-called mainline liberal denominations are quickly dying off here in the US.  Simultaneously, we are seeing their overseas membership grow.  The center of Christianity is slowly moving outside of the US, particularly in these denominations, and may end up being predominantly Hispanic or African in origin. 

Second, for the UMC, they must determine what is causing this trend.  Despite a multi-million dollar marketing campaign designed to appeal to the un-churched, they've managed to lose a significant number of parishioners.  Some may believe that becoming more like the world will attract new and vibrant congregations, but perhaps it has the opposite affect.  Even those who aren't particularly religious recognize a faith that's bankrupt of principle.  Why attend a church that wants to be please man, instead of one that encourages us to reach for something higher?

National Day of Prayer observed in Statehouse today at noon

Here is some information put out by Ray Martin and the National Day of Prayer folks on Indiana's observance of the National Day of Prayer.  Please attend if you can.

President Abraham Lincoln proclaimed a National Fast Day in 1863.  In 1952, a joint resolution by Congress declared an annual national day of prayer.  In 1988, the Congress and President Reagan set the first Thursday of every May as national day of prayer.  And now, on Thursday, May 1, 2008, Americans from central Indiana will gather in the North Atrium of the Indiana State House at 200 W. Washington Street, Indianapolis,Indiana, to pray for their nation from noon until one o'clock p.m.   

Those leading in prayer will include Susan Blandford, Roy Blackwood, Woody Burton, Brian Bosma, James Beers, Richard Johnston, Matthew Barnes, Andy Hunt, Richard Amick, Larry Wilson and David Todd.  Additionally, the Herron High School Concert Choir will sing.  Please join with us in praying for our nation.

Barbara Boxer objects to Pope resolution

Barbara Boxer takes on a resolution honoring the Pope- and wins.  I agree with the sentiments of the writer- with Obama's "Christians are bitter" statement and this attack on the Pope, it gets harder for Democrats to claim they aren't anti-religion.

The Wall Street Journal Political Diary is a paid service.  You can subscribe here to read the entire email.

Boxer Versus the Pope

You wouldn't think there would be much to criticize about Pope Benedict XVI's splendid and uplifting visit to Washington. But leave it to Senator Barbara Boxer of California to spoil the celebration and aura of high spirits, nonpartisanship and good will. The trouble started when Senators Sam Brownback of Kansas and Robert Casey of Pennsylvania sponsored a Senate resolution to honor the Pope and his visit to the nation's Capital. The resolution pays tribute to the Pope's message of love and compassion. It also recognizes the "vibrance of religious faith in the United States, a faith nourished by a constitutional commitment to religious liberty."

The resolution also contains language about the "power of hope over despair and love over hate." All very noncontroversial stuff.

Except for one clause that stated: "Pope Benedict XVI has spoken out for the weak and vulnerable, witnessing to the value of each and every human life." This is a statement that perhaps 99 out of 100 Americans would agree with, and even celebrate. But Senator Boxer huffed that this language hinted toward an endorsement of the Catholic Church's opposition to abortion. As one Senator told us in confidence: "There was not a single word or phrase of the resolution mentioning abortion, or life beginning at conception, or of the unborn. What Boxer objected to was the word 'life.'" She demanded that the phrase "the value of each human life" be, well, snuffed -- or else there would be no resolution at all.

Senate Republicans in particular were enraged by the Boxer protest. Many wanted to call her bluff and make her complaint public so Catholics could see first-hand an act that smacked of, at best, bad taste, at worst, bigotry. But with the clock running on the Papal visit and in the spirit of cooperation, Senators Brownback and Casey relented. The resolution passed without the "objectionable" passage about "the value of each human life."

"I wish the Senators had stood up to her," says Father Robert Sirico of the Acton Institute. "What have we come to where the term 'value of life' is not worthy of inclusion in a Senate resolution?"

Ironically, this dust-up happened just a few days after Barack Obama's swipe at religion in Ms. Boxer's backyard of San Francisco. Democrats have tried to reassure Christians in particular that the party isn't hostile to church-goers, but Ms. Boxer's antics this week make one wonder.

How Darwinism turns science into religion

From tothesource

by Dinesh D'Souza

The problem with evolution is not that it is unscientific but that it is routinely taught in textbooks and in the classroom in an atheist way under the banner of Darwinism. Such textbooks frequently go beyond the scientific evidence to make metaphysical claims about how evolution renders the idea of a Creator superfluous. Here are some examples.

Harvard biologist E.O. Wilson writes in his widely-assigned book On Human Nature: "If humankind evolved by Darwinian natural selection, genetic chance and environmental necessity, not God, made the species."

Biologist Stephen Jay Gould writes in his essay in the book Darwin's Legacy: "No intervening spirit watches lovingly over the affairs of nature...whatever we think of God, his existence is not manifest in the products of nature."

Douglas Futuyma asserts in his textbook Evolutionary Biology: "By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous."

Biologist William Provine writes, "Modern science directly implies that there are no inherent moral or ethical laws...We must conclude that when we die, we die, and that is the end of us." Evolution, Provine has also said, is the "greatest engine of atheism."

In his essay on "Darwin's Revolution" in the book Creative Evolution, Francisco Ayala credits Darwin with proving that life is "the result of a natural process...without any need to resort to a Creator."

Some Christians seek to counter this atheism by trying to expose the flaws in the Darwinian account of evolution. This explains the appeal of "creation science" and the "intelligent design" (ID) movement. These critiques, however, have not made any headway in the scientific community and they have also failed whenever they have been tried in the courts.

Most Christians don't care whether the eye evolved by natural selection or whether evolution can account for macroevolution or only microevolution. What they care about is that Darwinism, which is “chance alone” or “by mere accident” evolution, is being used to deny God as the Creator. For those who are concerned about this atheism masquerading as science, there is a better way. Instead of trying to get unscientific ID theories included in the classroom, a better strategy would be to get the unscientific atheist propaganda out.

How can this be achieved?

Consider this: the First Amendment to the Constitution prohibits public schools from teaching or promoting atheism in any way. How do I know this? Well, the religion clauses of the First Amendment protect the "free exercise" of religion and at the same time forbid the "establishment" of religion. Courts have routinely held that the free exercise clause protects not only religious beliefs but also the absence of religious beliefs. If you are fired from your government job because you are an atheist, your First Amendment rights have been violated. In other words, the term "religion" means not only "religion" but also "atheism."

Yet if the free exercise clause defines religion in a way that includes atheism, then the no-establishment clause must define religion in the same way. So the agencies of government are prohibited from "establishing" not only religion but also atheism. This means that just as a public school teacher cannot advocate Christianity or hand out Bibles to his students, so too public school textbooks and science teachers cannot advocate atheism masquerading as science.  If God must be removed from government financed schools, so too must the equally metaphysical “by chance alone”.

I'd like to see Christian legal groups suing school districts for promoting atheism in the biology classroom. No need to produce creationist or ID critiques of Darwinism. All that is necessary is to parade the atheist claims that have made their way into the biology textbooks and biology lectures. The issue isn't the scientific inadequacy of evolution but the way in which it is being used to undermine religious belief and promote unbelief. If the case can be made that atheism is being advocated in any way, then the textbooks would have to be rewritten and classroom presentations changed to remove the offending material. Schools would be on notice that they cannot use scientific facts to draw metaphysical conclusions in favor of atheism.

In this way Darwinism in the public schools would no longer be a threat to religion in general or Christianity in particular.

Barack Obama's Elitism

I know I'm way beyond late on this issue, but it's still more than relevant- and not just because Hillary Clinton needs it to win Pennsylvania (and perhaps the Hoosier state as well).

Here's what The Huffington Post revealed that caused such a stir about Barack Obama.

"You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them," Obama said. "And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

I won't dwell on how offensive it is to have my faith reduced to some sort of gut response to displeasure.  However, I do find this another great example of Barack Obama's elitism- which seems to reveal itself in a distaste for our culture.  These statements are a disturbing look into what kind of leader Barack Obama will be.

Here's the evidence thus far:

1. Michelle Obama says that she's never been proud of her country before Obama's candidacy.
2. Obama seeks spiritual leadership from a man who says US is responsible for 9-11.  He also says that God should damn America.
3. Barack Obama doesn't salute the flag or wear a flag pin.
4. Obama thinks that people are religious or pro-gun because they are bitter.
5. Obama thinks that babies are punishment for sex.

Obama may be running on a message of Hope, but that may not be his biggest contribution to our culture.

Expelled: No intelligence allowed.

Ben Stein's got a new movie coming out.  It's about the discrimination scientists receive for making arguments in favor of intelligent design.

Liberals are generous, but only with other people's money

This article, written by George Will, is a gem.  It seems like our liberal friends, constantly accusing us of being uncharitable and uncaring, are in fact engaging in projection.

Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism.

The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.

If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data.

They include these findings:

oAlthough liberal families’ incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

oConservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

oResidents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

oBush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

oIn the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

oPeople who reject the idea that “government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality” give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

And for those new atheists, who ascribe only pain to religious affiliation, we have these facts.

The single biggest predictor of someone’s altruism, Willett says, is religion.

It increasingly correlates with conservative political affiliations because, as Brooks’ book says, “the percentage of self-described Democrats who say they have ‘no religion’ has more than quadrupled since the early 1970s.”

America is largely divided between religious givers and secular nongivers, and the former are disproportionately conservative.

One demonstration that religion is a strong determinant of charitable behavior is that the least charitable cohort is a relatively small one — secular conservatives.

Tony Perkins in Crown Point on Saturday

If any of you live up in the northwest part of the state or feel like making the drive on Saturday, this event should be a good one.  Tony Perkins will be at Living Stones Church in Crown Point.  One of IFI's favorite pastors, Ron Johnson Jr., put this event together.  Pastor Johnson and Living Stones understand the value of thinking like Jesus on matters of public policy.  You will not regret attending this event.  Say "Hi" to IFI President Curt Smith if you go, as he will be participating in the conference as well. 

New leadership for the Evangelical movement?

A recent discussion in Washington DC about the future of the Evangelical movement brought to my attention an interesting organization, The National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference.

From an article about the meeting:
 

Samuel Rodriguez, who heads the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, disagreed with Perkins, predicting the future of the evangelical movement will be "brown, prophetic and centered." He claims that via America's fastest growing demographic, "Latino evangelicals will reconcile the righteousness and justice platform with a bit of salsa and a couple more Taco Bells."

Pastor Rodriguez also argued that the agenda of evangelicals is broadening because in 50 years, the majority of evangelicals in America will be non-white. "That browning of the evangelical movement in America will reconcile ... righteousness, life and marriage issues with healthcare, immigration reform, education, poverty, [and] global warming," he continues. "Not only is it an ethnic transition -- or demographical shift -- but a trans-generational element ... the generations after the baby boomers -- they really repudiate the idea of trying to put in a box in the Christian right category the ethos of a entire belief system."

According to Rodriguez, although they reject the "religious right" label, Latino evangelicals are more committed than are white evangelicals to protecting life and traditional marriage.

I've long held that Hispanics belong on the Conservative side of the political aisle.  Most are very religious, many are Catholics.  After Bush won 40% of their vote in his campaigns, it was clear that they are not going to be the voting block for the liberals like the African American vote is.

Perhaps with McCain at the top of the ticket, Republicans will again win more of this vote in 2008.  And with continued growth from their demographic, it is entirely possible that Mr. Rodriguez's prediction will be true someday- that Hispanics will dominate the Christian right.

Why We Celebrate

On this Good Friday my thoughts rest on the reason for Easter - the death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ.  I came across this email by Gary Bauer today and thought I could do no better in discussing Easter.  Enjoy:

Why We Celebrate

As a child, when I read the Easter story, there was a part of me that wanted a different ending.  If only He had come down from the Cross and destroyed His enemies - that would have demonstrated His power.  That is what I thought then. 

Of course, now I know how wrong that thought was.  Here is how William Barclay, the world-renowned Scottish New Testament interpreter, explains
it:

"If He had refused the cross or, if in the end, He had come down from the cross, it would have meant there was a limit to God’s love, that there was something which that love was not prepared to suffer for men, that there was a line beyond which it would not go.  But, Jesus went the whole way and died on the cross and this means that there is literally no limit to God’s love, that there is nothing in all the universe which that love is not prepared to suffer for men, that there is nothing, not even death on a cross, which it will refuse to bear for men."

Daily we receive news of human baseness and depravity.  News reports remind us of the malice of those who constantly threaten us with terror.  We are witness to the mediocrity of those in the halls of government who shirk their duties to defend the defenseless.  And throughout society we see
corruption of all kinds.   

But over the din of human frailty the voice of God rings clear: “This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live and that you may love the Lord your God, listen to his voice, and hold fast to him. For the Lord is your life.”

How can we choose the Lord?  Is it even possible for our corrupt hearts to choose the Perfect Good?  As Christians we believe that Jesus’ death destroyed the barriers between man and God.  We believe that He died so that we may be brought close enough to Him to choose Him.  Others, however, follow a god who demands that they seek their own death and the deaths of
others so that they may receive salvation.  What a contrast!    

Ultimately, it is not the birth of a man born into this world that we celebrate; rather, it is His death and resurrection as the living Son of God.  If Christ had not risen from the grave and ascended into Heaven, he would have been forgotten as a common criminal whose birthday would have no significance. 

Today, on Good Friday, we think about the Cross and the sacrifice paid for our sins; the amazing love that took our place; and the grace we have been given.  That kind of sacrifice is almost impossible to imagine. 

Thank God for the Cross and the empty tomb!  Carol and I and everyone at Campaign for Working Families send our love to you and yours.  This weekend, may each of you find a remembrance of the peace that surpasses all understanding. 

What we believe about sin

Here is a fascinating survey on what Americans believe is a sin.  No commentary needed here.  VRexer's, feast away!

People who believe there is such a thing as “sin” were asked whether they would personally define each of thirty different behaviors as sinful. 

The behaviors a majority of all Americans describe as sinful are:

Adultery  81%
Racism  74%
Using “hard” drugs such as cocaine, heroine, meth, LSD, etc.  65%
Not saying anything if a cashier gives you too much change back  63%
Having an abortion  56%
Homosexual activity or sex  52%
Not reporting some income on your tax returns  52%

A number of other behaviors are considered sinful by a significant portion of all Americans, although not a majority.  These are:

Reading or watching pornography  50%
Gossip  47%
Swearing  46%
Sex before marriage  45%
Homosexual thoughts  44%
Sexual thoughts about someone you are not married to  43%
Doing things as a consumer that harm the environment  41%
Smoking marijuana  41%
Getting drunk  41%
Not taking proper care of your body  35%

Then there are behaviors that fewer than one-third of all Americans see as sinful:

Gambling  30%
Telling a “little white lie” to avoid hurting someone’s feelings  29%
Using tobacco  23%
Not attending church or religious worship services on a regular basis  18%
Playing the lottery  18%
Watching an R-rated movie  18%
Being significantly overweight  17%
Not giving 10% of your income to a church or charity  16%
Drinking any alcohol  14%
Working on Sunday/the Sabbath  14%
Spanking your child when he/she misbehaves  7%
Making a lot of money  4%
Dancing  4%

Indiana Gov. Daniels On True Faith

    Friends:

   I strongly encourage you to listen to the remarks of Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels through the audio file link below.  Even if you don't agree with his views on the centrality of faith, it will encourage your heart to hear his heart on how we carry out the Commandment to love our neighbor as we love ourself.

   Please leave a comment if his remarks blessed you.

http://www.in.gov/gov/files/Audio/021908_Leadership_Prayer_Breakfast.mp3

More on post-modern infiltration

Revolution in Jesusland has a great post up (and a link to) about a new book called "Why We're Not Emergent."  The free chapter on the book's website is a great read.

For those of you who don't regularly bask in matters of theological controversy, the Emergent Church is well-defined here.  I've followed their movement closely (well, as close as you could get without being emergent).

I think that Dinesh D-Souza put things best in his book, What's So Great About Christianity?.  He talks about folks who've been acting as the world's evangelists to the church, not the other way around.  He may not have been speaking directly about the Emergent movement, but he's right on.

The theology displayed by Emergents is very similar to what we've discussed in previous posts about post-modern world views impacting the church.  I've grabbed a great section from the book that speaks to this new emergent view- that one cannot know God.  It's a view that ultimately undermines the foundations upon which Christianity stands, but is somehow embraced by the Emergent movement.

The first problem with the emergent view of journey is that it undermines the knowability  of God. Theologians have long held to God’s knowability along with His immensity. That is, Christian theologians of every stripe have understood that we can’t understand everything about God. God’s knowledge of Himself is called archetypal; our knowledge of Him is called ectypal. God knows Himself exhaustively; we see through a glass dimly. God is infinite; our knowledge of Him is finite. All that to say, no Christian that I have ever known or read has ever claimed to have God figured out. And emerging Christians certainly won’t be the first.

But emergent leaders are allowing the immensity of God to swallow up His knowability. In good postmodern fashion, they are questioning whether we can have any real, accurate knowledge about God in the first place. Brian McLaren, in noting his agreement with Tony Campolo, argues that in one sense all theologies are heresies because we can’t truly speak of God using our human formulation. What is needed is “not absolute and arrogant certainty about our theologies, but a proper and humble confidence in God.”

Fair enough. Who wants to be arrogantly certain about anything? But McLaren posits a false antithesis, suggesting that we can know God personally but can’t confidently know things about Him. The former kind of knowing is “personal knowledge.” The latter is “abstract, rational, impersonal certitude.”

I encourage you to check out their book and learn more about the Emergent church.  The theological exercise is worth the investigation.

Putting Christianity on Offense

Thousands of words are being written and published on the internet alone every single day.  Then there’s the Wall Street Journal, Investors Business Daily, the New York Times, the LA Times. If you’re a Hoosier there’s the Indianapolis Star. For me, it’s the Santa Barbara News-Press beckoning to be read each morning.  National Review and dozens of other periodicals.  I suspect that you, like me, have a list of dozens of books on your “to-read” list.  And that list keeps getting longer and longer.

And now a new blogger.

Why read?

Read for perspective.  I promise to keep it short and to keep it fresh and to write about things that others are not writing on.  I’ll leave the political grind to those who are more entrenched (unless I think they are totally missing it) and I am not going to dissect a piece of legislation for you.

What I will do is share with you stories from many of the world-changing institutions I have an opportunity to work with through my role with World Changers, Inc.  You’ll read about men and women who are not seduced by success and instead look beyond the horizon at what could be done.  You'll read about "Kingdom Building Businesses" and a vision to take common things and making them sacred by using them to connect people to things bigger and more lasting than this world.

You’ll read about a strategy we are developing to put Christianity on offense.

In his latest book, What’s So Great About Christianity, Dinesh D’Souza writes, “They [the new wave of modern day atheists] have been flogging the carcass of fundamentalism without having to encounter the horse kick of a vigorous traditional Christianity.”

With the release of What’s So Great About Christianity, Dinesh D’Souza delivered that first horse kick.  Debates between D’Souza and leading atheists such as Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, and others have put Christianity and this New Atheism toe to toe.

Christianity is now on offense.  But What’s So Great About Christianity was just the call to arms.  We’re taking the battle to a new level, and the result will be either that Christians regain the authority to speak to all areas of life or that Christians lose the ability to speak at all.  The stakes are high.
So keep coming back to learn more and visit us at www.worldchangers.us.com.

Send a Bible to Africa

Church leaders have identified a serious need for Bibles in Africa.  Go to www.yourbiblesaves.com to learn where to donate yours- if you have extras.  You can also donate money online via the website.  For $2, you can send a new Bible.

They are 500,000 Bibles towards their goal of 4 million.  I'll be finding ways to send my extras.  Cleaning the office two weeks ago, I noticed that I have five New Testaments in my desk.  Last I looked I had four copies of the Bible as well.

Christian publishing house is spearheading a campaign to send four-million Bibles to Africa. 

Dwight Hall, president of Remnant Publications, met with church leaders in Africa two years ago and was told of the need for Bibles in that nation. Hall then launched a campaign called "Bibles for Africa," with a goal to send four-million Bibles to Africa.

Since launching the campaign, Hall has been able to secure quality King James Bibles printed for $2 each, and he is encouraging Christians in America to donate Bibles they do not use. "Those folks are so open when they receive the Word, it allows them to grow," he points out. "I guess that's why I'm so anxious to see people get these Bibles, because the ... harvest is ripe, and they can't grow without the Word."

Hall says much of the world can use Bibles printed in the English language. "In the majority of the world, the young people take English as their second language," he explains. "So most of [the] young people -- probably up to 30 and 40 years old -- will speak English. Even in Africa there's so many different dialects of languages ... but English seems to be the common language."

According to Hall, one Bible in Africa can impact the lives of at least 20 people.

Obama to country: No, really, I love Jesus!

Here in an interesting excerpt from an article found in the New York Post:

March 3, 2008 -- TOLEDO, Ohio - Barack Obama yesterday lashed out at political enemies who are spreading false rumors that he's a closet Muslim as he proclaimed, "I pray to Jesus every night."

"I am a devout Christian," he told voters in this key state.

"I pray to Jesus every night and try to go to church as much as I can."

I really like the fact that Presidential candidates, even really liberal ones, still feel as if they must convince the American people of the sincerity of their Christian faith.  We may have slid a long way from John Adams' famous quote:

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

However, it seems that people still understand that the principles of Christianity are important to both the private and public lives of their leaders.  Otherwise, Obama wouldn't be making such a big deal about it. 

Hat tip:  Drudge Report

Atheism: The Same Old Thing

Vanity of vanities.   What is being said by our contemporary atheists has already been said 400 years ago.  There is nothing new under the sun.

By Dr. Benjamin Wiker (used by permission)

If you think the current wash of atheism is springing up from some deep well of originality, think again. It’s all been done before, and done a lot better (or perhaps we should say, it’s all been done before, and done a lot worse).

Let’s transport ourselves back to the latter part of the 1600s, and visit the Netherlands. At the close of that century, the celebrated skeptic Pierre Bayle (himself, often accused of being an atheist!), wrote an article on Benedict Spinoza in his famous Historical and Critical Dictionary. Spinoza, the “atheist…from Amsterdam,” had written a “pernicious and detestable book” containing all the “seeds of atheism,” seeds derived from the rotten fruit of his “monstrous” philosophical system.

Spinoza’s book (the Tractatus theologico-politicus) introduced readers to a new method of approaching Scripture, one that inaugurated the “modern” approach to biblical scholarship. Spinoza’s monstrous philosophy was pantheism, a system that collapsed God into nature, so that nature itself became the highest object of our devotion.

Lesson one. The contemporary debunking of Scripture we find in non-believers from scripture scholar Bart Ehrman to professional atheist Richard Dawkins is old hat. It is not very surprising that a method of approaching Scripture largely designed by an alleged atheist four centuries ago would yield conclusions cheerfully compatible with atheism now. Furthermore, the current rash of nature worship displacing God worship can be traced back to the same cause, Spinoza.

There are many who regard Spinoza as sincerely religious precisely because of his high-flown religious reveries (forgetting that, since he was a pantheist, his devotions were directed at a deified nature). One way to help us judge would be to glimpse the circle of Spinoza’s friends. Here we find men (much like our present day clique of Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens) dedicated to Radical Enlightenment.

To look at just one example from Spinoza’s circle, Johannes and Adriaen Koerbagh. Adriaen got into trouble with the Dutch authorities for living, unmarried, with a woman and fathering a child out of wedlock and Johannes for spreading atheism (denying the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, the inspired unity of the Bible, miracles, the resurrection, the afterlife, and, significantly in regard to Spinoza’s influence, asserting the identity of God and nature).

In 1668 the brothers Koerbagh published A Garden of All Kinds of Loveliness without Sorrow, which amounted to a dictionary that denied the basic tenets of Christianity, and charged that Christian doctrines were merely political obfuscations used to control the masses.

The Radical Enlightenment became a kind of underground movement, bent on converting Europe to an entirely new way of thinking, one that was directly opposed to Christianity. One of the most famous publications that issued from this growing group was The Treatise of the Three Imposters, which first appeared in 1719. The treatise was a handy collection of anti-Christian tirades (much like Christopher Hitchens’ current The Portable Atheist: Essential Readings for the Nonbeliever).

Who were the three imposters? Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed. Witness the downright nastiness, that would (perhaps) even make Richard Dawkins blush.

“Jesus Christ…gave currency to the opinion [that he was divine when] he thought it suited his designs. Considering how much Moses had made himself famous, although he had commanded but a people of ignoramuses, he [Jesus] undertook to build on this foundation [of Moses], & got himself followed by some imbeciles whom he persuaded that the Holy Spirit was his Father; & his Mother a Virgin: these good people, accustomed to indulge themselves in dreams & fancies, adopted his notions & believed all that he wanted,…As the number of fools is infinite, Jesus Christ found Subjects everywhere;…”

For the authors of The Treatise of the Three Imposters, all religion was a travesty perpetrated by imposters upon the ignorant masses. It is time to throw off the chains of superstition, and embrace reason!

Sound familiar? The Treatise circulated all over Europe, and became a kind of atheist underground bestseller, spreading unbelief to the like-minded. Just like Dawkins’ The God Delusion, Harris’ The End of Faith, Hitchens, God is Not Great, and Dennett’s Breaking the Spell.

There is very little difference between the ideas and aims of the underground Radical Enlightenment of the 17th and 18th century, and the ideas and aims of our contemporary Four Horsemen of Atheism. There is a simple reason for this. It’s just the same old thing. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Christians who don't believe in absolute truth

One of the most alarming/depressing things I've read in recent times was this paragraph from this interview with Christian pollster George Barna.  Note:  Your understanding of this post will benefit from reading the entire interview.  However, for those who don't read it, basically Barna is talking about the results of an extensive poll of born again Christians.

There is a wide spectrum of beliefs within the born again constituency. There are segments on both sides of the arguments related to immigration reform, responses to poverty, the Iraq war, and so forth. Much of this relates to the worldview of factions within the born again community. Some, especially younger born agains, tend to have a postmodern view of the world, which leads them to conclude that there are no absolute moral truths, that relationships and dialogue are of the ultimate importance, and that tolerance of diverse opinions and lifestyles is appropriate. (emphasis mine)

Now, I am not particularly concerned about Christians, like Jim Wallis and other progressive Christians, who disagree with me about the Iraq War or on global warming.  We need to have Christians in all areas of public policy and their positions on these issues don't threaten their personal relationship with Christ.

Barna, however, is talking about people who are "born again" (defined below), yet claim that there are no absolute moral truths.

The Barna Group is the only survey research organization I know of that does not rely upon self-report to be classified as “born again” or “evangelical.” We classify people as “born again” based on their answers to two questions about what they believe, rather than the label they choose for themselves. The questions are whether they have made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ that is still important in their life today, and if so, we ask what they think will happen to them after they die. We offer seven possibilities to choose from, one of which is that they believe they will go to Heaven because they have confessed their sins and have accepted Jesus Christ as their savior.

I struggle to see how this works for these people.  Jesus wasn't exactly a moral relativist.  In John 14:6 he says "I am the way, and the truth, and the life.  No one comes to the father except through me."  That's not morally neutral.  The ten commandments are not morally neutral either- there aren't caveats and exceptions.

How does one claim a relationship with Jesus Christ but simultaneously claim that there are no absolute moral truths?  It just doesn't make sense.

I've been a long time church-attender.  I've met Christians of all denominations, shapes and sizes.  Unfortunately, many of my brothers in Christ are easily impacted by the world around us.  They have bought into the subtle deceptions of our post-modern world view.  They are:

(1)  Christians that don't have any idea what they are talking about.  These Christians are intellectually bankrupt.  Read Mark Noll's book, The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, to learn more.  They call themselves born again, but they've never sat down to think about what that means other than trying to be "good people."  These folks have never developed a coherent Biblical world view, so it is usually determined by those that they surround themselves with.

(2)  Christians who have bought into the post-modern view that we can pick and choose what rules to be subject to.  In other words, I am a Christian so I am accountable to my beliefs about truth-telling.  However, if another person chooses to believe that telling lies is OK, they aren't similarly accountable.   Biblically, though, we must understand that Christians and non-Christians will eventually be held accountable to the same standard, even if we doubt it because some who sin also prosper.

These Christians have made "tolerance" king over truth. 

In order to avoid overstating my case, it should be pointed out that tolerance is Biblical (and largely a Christian development).  For example, Jesus ate with sinners and fellowshipped with those that were "unclean".  But he never pretended that their behavior wasn't wrong.  Despite bestowing the great privilege of dining with the son of God on him, He didn't tell Zacchaeus that his exploitation of the taxpayers was OK (Luke 19).  He saved the adulteress from a stoning, but he acknowledged her sin and told her to "sin no more" (John 8). 

Tolerance is a way to measure our love for other people, not an excuse for moral relativism.

This is the exact reason we chose to name our blog Veritas Rex (Latin for truth is king).  The biggest challenge for our culture (and apparently the church) is to overcome the virus of moral relativism that has taken over- even, apparently, in the church.  It will soon destroy us.

Family Facts: Top ten influences to the quality and sustainability of marriage

The Heritage Foundation has a new website (at least it's news to me) called Family Facts.  This website is a great resource for all sorts of findings related to marriage, family, children's issues, religion and faith.

Worth checking out are their top ten lists.  This month's list, answering the question, "What Influences the Quality and Stability of Marriage?" is particularly good.  You can find it on the front page.

Also, check out the video they produced on the topic.

D'Souza: Love and Chemicals

By Dinesh D'Souza

On Valentine's Day it seems appropriate to ask, "What is this thing called love?"  To the materialist, it is nothing but the interaction of chemicals.

Physicist Victor Stenger in God: The Failed Hypothesis rejects the idea that humans have souls. “If we do indeed possess an immaterial soul, then we should expect to find some evidence for it.”  Along the same lines, philosopher Daniel Dennett writes, “Nerve cells are very complicated mechanical systems.  You take enough of those, and you put them together, and you get a soul.”  Cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker adds, “Every aspect of our mental lives depends entirely on physiological events in the tissues of the brain.”  And what happens to free will?  “It seems free to you,” biologist Francis Crick explains, “but it’s the result of things you are not aware of.”

The issue here is the effort on the part of atheists—some with impressive scientific credentials—to extend the materialistic understanding of nature to human beings.  Yes, we humans are material objects but are we no more than that?  Certainly we experience ourselves very differently from the way we experience the outside world.   All other things we experience indirectly, from the outside, through the apparatus of our senses; but ourselves we experience directly, from the inside, without the involvement of our senses.

Only about ourselves do we have this kind of “inside information.”  And when we examine ourselves we discover things about our nature that we don’t find in inanimate objects.  Based on our privileged and unique access, we know that the external or objective account of reality, however accurate it may be in describing raindrops and tree trunks, is not the fully story when it comes to describing ourselves.

For instance, we have consciousness and that is something that doesn’t show up under a microscope.  We experience love, one of our deepest human experiences, and this seems absurd to explain simply in terms of atoms and molecules interacting with each other.  We also are “selves,” which means that we experience our lives as unified wholes.  The molecules that make up my bodily frame change over the years, and yet I remain the same “me” all along.  We are intentional and purposeful beings, and our actions are much better understood in these terms than in terms of the laws of physics.  Finally we have free choice and free will, and neither of those are possible if we are simply material objects subject to the invariable laws of nature.

On Valentine’s Day I will take my wife out to dinner and gaze into her eyes.  Sixteen years later, those eyes have the same magic that they did when I first proposed.  I suppose that this can be understood in a purely scientific way, as a mechanistic response to some deep evolutionary drive.  But this response must remain deeply alien to the way in which the thing called love is actually experienced by all those who are in love.  The scientific outlook on love makes nonsense of every novel and poem ever written on the subject.  This is not to say that the scientific account is wrong, only that it’s very narrow and incomplete.  It would be like understanding the Civil War purely in the terms of the physical movements of the platoons with no comprehension of the moral and human factors that propelled the conflict.

The materialist fallacy, Schopenhauer wrote, is that mistake of “the subject that forgets to take account of itself.”  Schopenhauer was an atheist, but he recognized that the materialist understanding of reality is a very shallow one.  I’m not sure if today’s leading atheists like Dennett and Pinker have someone to care for, but if they did they would surely know, and would not need me to remind them this Valentine’s Day, that love is much more than chemicals.

Founding Fathers II

I love this topic, so I had to post once more on the Christian faith of the Founding Fathers.  As I predicted, the secular progressives do not agree with my estimation that most of the Founding Fathers were dedicated Christians.  Of course, this position is important to them because if the Founding Fathers were Christians, and they allowed their faith to help guide many of their public policy decisions, then it is harder to attack me when I do the same.  :)

Question:  If many of the Founding Fathers were not Christians, then why would they waste their time with leadership roles in establishing and guiding numerous religious societies or through serving in active ministry?  Here are but a few examples:

JOHN QUINCY ADAMS: Vice-President of the American Bible Society; member of the Massachusetts Bible Society.

ABRAHAM BALDWIN (SIGNER OF THE CONSTITUTION): Chaplain in the American Revolution for two years.

JOEL BARLOW (DIPLOMAT UNDER WASHINGTON AND ADAMS): Chaplain in the American Revolution for three years.

JOSEPH BLOOMFIELD (GOVERNOR OF NEW JERSEY): Member of the New Jersey Bible Society.

ELIAS BOUDINOT (PRESIDENT OF THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS): Founder and first President of the American Bible Society; President of the New Jersey Bible Society;85 member of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions; member of the Massachusetts Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge.

JAMES BOWDOIN (GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS): Member of the Society for Propagating the Gospel Among the Indians and Others.

JOHN BROOKS (GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS; REVOLUTIONARY GENERAL): President of Middlesex County Bible Society.

JAMES BROWN (U. S. SENATOR; DIPLOMAT): Original Officer of the American Bible Society.

JAMES BURRILL, JR. (CHIEF-JUSTICE OF RHODE ISLAND SUPREME COURT; U. S. SENATOR): President of the Providence Auxiliary Bible Society.

DEWITT CLINTON (GOVERNOR OF NEW YORK; U. S. SENATOR; INTRODUCED THE TWELFTH AMENDMENT): Manager and Vice-President of the American Bible Society.

FRANCIS DANA (MEMBER OF CONTINENTAL CONGRESS; CHIEFJUSTICE OF MASSACHUSETTS SUPREME COURT; U. S. MINISTER TO RUSSIA): Member of the Society for Propagating the Gospel Among the Indians and Others.

JOHN DAVENPORT (REVOLUTIONARY OFFICER; U. S. CONGRESS): Member of the Missionary Society of Connecticut.

SAMUEL DEXTER (SECRETARY OF WAR UNDER ADAMS; U. S. CONGRESSMAN; U. S. SENATOR): Society for Propagating the Gospel Among the Indians and Others.

JONAS GALUSHA (GOVERNOR OF VERMONT): Original Officer of the American Bible Society.

WILLIAM GASTON (CHIEF-JUSTICE OF NORTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT; U. S. REPRESENTATIVE): Original Officer of the American Bible Society.

CHARLES GOLDSBOROUGH (GOVERNOR OF MARYLAND; U. S. REPRESENTATIVE): Vice-President of the American Bible Society.

WILLIAM GRAY (LT. GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS; U. S. SENATOR): Original Officer of the American Bible Society.

FELIX GRUNDY (U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL; U. S. SENATOR; U. S. CONGRESSMAN): Original Officer of the American Bible Society.

ALEXANDER HAMILTON (SIGNER OF THE CONSTITUTION): Proposed formation of the Christian Constitutional Society to spread Christian government to other nations.

JOHN HAMILTON (MAJOR-GENERAL IN THE REVOLUTION; U. S. CONGRESS): Member of the New Jersey Bible Society.

JOHN JAY (ORIGINAL CHIEF-JUSTICE OF THE U. S. SUPREME COURT): President of the American Bible Society; member of American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions.

WILLIAM JONES (GOVERNOR OF RHODE ISLAND): Original Officer of the American Bible Society.

FRANCIS SCOTT KEY (ATTORNEY; AUTHOR OF “THE STAR-SPANGLED BANNER”): Manager and Vice-President of the American Sunday School Union.

RUFUS KING (SIGNER OF THE CONSTITUTION): Selected as manager of the American Bible Society.

ANDREW KIRKPATRICK (CHIEF-JUSTICE OF NEW JERSEY SUPREME COURT): Vice-President of the New Jersey Bible Society; Vice-President of the American Bible Society.

MARQUIS DE LAFAYETTE (REVOLUTIONARY GENERAL): Member of the American Sunday School Union.

JOHN LANGDON (SIGNER OF THE CONSTITUTION): Vice-President of the American Bible Society.

BENJAMIN LINCOLN (REVOLUTIONARY GENERAL; LT. GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS): Member of the Society for the Propagating of the Gospel among the Indians and Others.

JOHN LOWELL (REVOLUTIONARY OFFICER; MEMBER OF THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS): Member of the Society for the Propagating of the Gospel among the Indians and Others.

GEORGE MADISON (GOVERNOR OF KENTUCKY): Original Officer of the American Bible Society.

JOHN MARSHALL (CHIEF-JUSTICE OF THE U. S. SUPREME COURT; SECRETARY OF STATE; REVOLUTIONARY GENERAL): Vice-President of the American Bible Society; officer in the American Sunday School Union.

JAMES MCHENRY (SIGNER OF THE CONSTITUTION): President of the Baltimore Bible Society.

DAVID LAWRENCE MORRIL (GOVERNOR OF NEW HAMPSHIRE; U. S. SENATOR): Vice-President of the American Bible Society; Manager in the American Sunday School Union.

JOSEPH NOURSE (REVOLUTIONARY OFFICER; U. S. TREASURY): Original Officer of the American Bible Society.

ROBERT TREAT PAINE (SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION): Military Chaplain.

ALBION PARRIS (GOVERNOR OF MAINE): Manager of the American Sunday School Union.

WILLIAM PHILLIPS (LT. GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS FOR 11 TERMS): President of the Society for Propagating the Gospel Among the Indians; President of the Massachusetts Bible Society; member of the American Board of Foreign Missions; Vice-President of the American Bible Society; President of the American Society for Educating Pious Youth for the Gospel Ministry.

CHARLES COTESWORTH PINCKNEY (SIGNER OF THE CONSTITUTION): President of the Charleston Bible Society; Vice-President of the American Bible Society.

THOMAS POSEY (REVOLUTIONARY OFFICER; GOVERNOR OF INDIANA; U. S. SENATOR): Original Officer of the American Bible Society.

RUFUS PUTNAM (REVOLUTIONARY GENERAL; FEDERAL JUDGE): President of the Ohio Bible Society.

BENJAMIN RUSH (SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION): Founder and manager of the Philadelphia Bible Society.

ISAAC SHELBY (REVOLUTIONARY OFFICER; GOVERNOR OF KENTUCKY): Original Officer of the American Bible Society.

JOHN COTTON SMITH (GOVERNOR OF CONNECTICUT; U. S. CONGRESSMAN): President of the Litchfield County Foreign Missionary Society; first President of the Connecticut Bible Society; President of the American Bible Society; President of the American Board of Foreign Missions.

CALEB STRONG (CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION; U. S. SENATOR; GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS): Vice-President of the American Bible Society.

JAMES SULLIVAN (GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS; U. S. CONGRESSMAN): Member of the Society for Propagating the Gospel Among the Indians and Others.

INCREASE SUMNER (GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS): Member of the Society for Propagating the Gospel Among the Indians and Others.

WILLIAM TILGHMAN (FEDERAL JUDGE; CHIEF-JUSTICE OF PENNSYLVANIA SUPREME COURT): Original Officer of the American Bible Society.

SMITH THOMPSON (U. S. SUPREME COURT; SECRETARY OF NAVY): Vice-President of the American Bible Society.

DANIEL TOMPKINS (GOVERNOR OF NEW YORK; VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE U. S.): Vice-President of the American Bible Society.

JOHN TREADWELL (GOVERNOR OF CONNECTICUT; MEMBER OF CONTINENTAL CONGRESS): Member of the Missionary Society of Connecticut.

ROBERT TROUP (FEDERAL JUDGE; SECRETARY OF WAR): Vice-President of the American Bible Society.

PETER VROOM (GOVERNOR OF NEW JERSEY; U. S. CONGRESSMAN): Vice-President of the American Bible Society; member of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions.

BUSHROD WASHINGTON (U. S. SUPREME COURT JUSTICE): Vice-President of the American Bible Society; Vice-President of the American Sunday School Union.

WILLIAM WIRT (U. S. ATTORNEY-GENERAL UNDER TWO PRESIDENTS): Manager of the American Sunday School Union; Vice-President of the American Bible Society.

THOMAS WORTHINGTON (GOVERNOR OF OHIO; U. S. SENATOR): Original Officer of the American Bible Society.

Taken from: 

Barton, David: Original Intent : The Courts, the Constitution & Religion. 1st ed. Aledo, TX : WallBuilder Press, 1996, S. 139

Woman at the Well

This video was recommended to me by Erin Tobias, an invaluable employee of IFI.  She is clearly much more hip than I am.  The video is a spoken word piece on the woman at the well, found in John 4.  Take a minute to listen to this impactful performance.

FYI - This is about Jesus, not Barack Obama. :)  See here.

Are You Really Defending Polygamy...Really?

In previous