News & Comment - Spring 2007
From right here in Kent's own backyard we learn that:
"Java jolts fellowship at churches"
BY CHRIS MAYHEW | COMMUNITY RECORDER STAFF WRITER
ALEXANDRIA - Local churches have been rolling out coffee carts and uncovering
trays of doughnuts and fruit to keep the hospitality and conversations flowing
in recent years. "Coffee is a stimulant that gets people awake," said
Shane Garrison, associate pastor of Main Street Baptist Church in Alexandria.
"It's a great tool for building conversations and relationships."
This is not all that new, and as we read on we learn that it's not limited
to Baptists:
Serving up coffee, tea, doughnuts and fruit between the 9 a.m. and 11 a.m.
Sunday services has been a fixture for many years at Asbury United Methodist
Church in Highland Heights, said Ruth Purnell, the church's administrative
assistant.
"It's just to have a fellowship with each other," she said.
Mother of God Church in Covington started serving coffee, tea, doughnuts and
sometimes fruit about 30 years ago when a hall was built beneath the church,
said Rev. Ray Hartman, the church's pastor.
It's a way to build a sense of community through hospitality, Hartman said.
"When we don't have it people really miss it," he said.
But of course, for without the drinking of coffee, no one will stay awake
for the sermons - or homilies, if that's what puts you to sleep. But the
best is yet to come, read on . . .
Mentor Baptist Church has taken the idea to the next level. About every
six weeks the church turns the lights down and brews some java for coffeehouse
performances from Christian musicians and artists, said Pastor Shane Garrison.
There's no sermon, and the audience can sit back and listen to the music and
play games like checkers, Garrison said.
It's a way to get young people and others into the church in a setting that is
less intimidating than a traditional service. "It's an opportunity for
local Christian artists to express the talent that the Lord has given them,"
Garrison said. The church's next coffeehouse is 7-9:30 p.m. Friday, April
27. For information visit
www.mentorbaptist.com or call 859-635-7300.
Kent comments:
In a slight adjustment to Acts 4, this "church" continues steadfastly in the sipping of java, no sermon, music, and "games like checkers." Why not? Especially if its less intimidating. Tired of all that old fuddy-duddy stuff like communion, prayers, sermons, and offerings? Give these guys a call - or visit their website. Just remember, it's never too late for your church to catch up!
P.S. - Isn't it a little difficult to play checkers in the dark?
April 6, 2007
Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean released the following
statement commemorating the Easter holiday this Sunday:
“Easter Sunday is a joyful celebration. The holiday represents peace, redemption and renewal, a theme which brings hope to people of all faiths. During this time Christians are called to remember who they are as people of faith, and that even the greatest of evils will not have the last word. It is also a time to reflect upon and be in solidarity with those who are persecuted and suffering among us. We should also use this time to honor those who continue to make incredible sacrifices for us, including our brave men and women in the armed forces serving overseas during this holiday. I would like to wish all those celebrating around the world this Sunday, a joyous Easter.”
| Presidential Message: Easter 2006 |
| "He is not here; for He is risen, as He said." Matthew 28:6 I send greetings to those observing the joyous holiday of Easter. On Easter, Christians around the world join together with family and friends to celebrate the Resurrection of Jesus Christ and the triumph of love over death. This is a season of renewal, a time for giving thanks and praise and for remembering that hope overcomes despair. Christ's extraordinary sacrifice and compassion continue to inspire people around the world. His promise of new life gives hope and confidence to His followers. His service and love for His neighbors offer a profound lesson for all people. During this Easter season, we celebrate God's gifts of freedom and justice. We pray for peace and ask for God's blessings on the brave men and women who wear our Nation's uniform and their families. Laura and I wish you a Happy Easter. GEORGE W. BUSH |
Kent comments:
Some of my friends raised their eyebrows a bit when, in a recent column in the RH I suggested that Christians find little of their values in the Democrat Party. The above is straight from the DNC website. Apparently, the Democrat version of "Easter" has no Jesus, and no resurrection. Compare this to what is found on the Republican National Committee website. (This is from 2006. I did not see a post as of yet from 2007, but it will probably be similar.)
So I say again that, while I am not a big fan of President Bush (mostly because he is not really a conservative, but more of a political pragmatist), it is not too difficult to see why many Christians have some serious problems with the Democrat Party, and so tend to gravitate to the Republican Party.
From:
Christian Standard, "Why
Scholarship Matters in the Church" (4/1/2007)
Robert F. Hull Jr.
For centuries Bible editors and translators disagreed over whether the person
associated as an “apostle” with Andronicus in Romans 16:7 was Junia, a woman, or
Junias, a man. No informed person has any doubt today that it was Junia, a
woman. It wasn’t armchair detective work that established this as a certainty;
it was patient, thorough, and highly sophisticated scholarship (see Eldon Jay
Epp, Junia the First Woman Apostle [Fortress, 2005]).
Kent comments:
Is this just an interesting instance of scholarship OR is it something more. Is it, perhaps, a suggestion that some of "the Twelve" included "Peter, Jane, and John"? We get a hint when, in this same article, the author continues:
When you look out in your congregation and see a woman with a PhD who is department chair at a local university and who teaches and has authority over hundreds of men, how do you explain that Eve’s sin (1 Timothy 2:14) has disqualified her from ever holding a position of public authority in the church? However your congregation may tackle this issue, you will need more than “the Bible tells me so.”
Kent comments some more:
How does one explain the teaching of I Tim. 2 regarding women? I suggest consulting the excellent scholarship of Jack Cottrell on this very point. No one explains this better than he. One more thing: isn't the goal of good, Biblical scholarship to discover what the Bible does indeed "tell" us? And is there not a long history of some who claim to be "scholars" using that as a cover for denying the teaching of scripture?
from Christianity Today
Evel Overcome With Good
Daredevil Knievel's testimony triggers mass baptisms at Crystal Cathedral.
Brad A. Greenberg | posted 4/13/2007 03:03PM
On Palm Sunday, hundreds responded to Robert "Evel" Knievel's testimony by asking to be baptized on the spot at Crystal Cathedral. Speaking alongside the Rev. Robert H. Schuller, Knievel told the congregation in Orange County, California, how he had refused for 68 years to accept Jesus Christ as Lord. He believed in God, but he couldn't walk away from the gold and the gambling and the booze and the women.
Pastor Robert A. Schuller, who took over for his father last year, looked out on the church and noticed most people were sobbing. He couldn't simply continue with the service's script and proceed to the offering.
"I went up front, and I said, 'I believe there is somebody who needs to be baptized here. Maybe up on that balcony or by that door or by that wall. So come forward,'" Schuller told CT. "We started singing 'Amazing Grace,' and I started baptizing people, baptizing them as fast as I could. I had a little candy dish of water. 'What's your name? Okay, I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit'—crying the whole time and going to the next one."
Kent comments:
And Evel came to Rev. Schuller and asked, "What hinders me from being baptized?" So Evel and Schuller went down into the candy dish of water, and Evel was baptized. And Evel went on his way rejoicing - though we are not quite sure why.
from: Associated Press
May 4, 9:58 PM EDT
Activists Want Chimp Declared a 'Person'
By WILLIAM J. KOLE
VIENNA, Austria (AP) -- In some ways, Hiasl is like any other Viennese: He
indulges a weakness for pastry, likes to paint and enjoys chilling out watching
TV. But he doesn't care for coffee, and he isn't actually a person - at least
not yet.
In a case that could set a global legal precedent for granting basic rights to apes, animal rights advocates are seeking to get the 26-year-old male chimpanzee legally declared a "person."
Hiasl's supporters argue he needs that status to become a legal entity that can receive donations and get a guardian to look out for his interests.
"Our main argument is that Hiasl is a person and has basic legal rights," said Eberhart Theuer, a lawyer leading the challenge on behalf of the Association Against Animal Factories, a Vienna animal rights group.
"We mean the right to life, the right to not be tortured, the right to freedom under certain conditions," Theuer said.
"We're not talking about the right to vote here." . . .
"If we can get Hiasl declared a person, he would have the right to own property. Then, if people wanted to donate something to him, he'd have the right to receive it," said Theuer, who has vowed to take the case to the European Court of Human Rights if necessary.
Austria isn't the only country where primate rights are being debated. Spain's parliament is considering a bill that would endorse the Great Ape Project, a Seattle-based international initiative to extend "fundamental moral and legal protections" to apes.
"Chimps share 99.4 percent of their DNA with humans," he said. "OK, they're not homo sapiens. But they're obviously also not things - the only other option the law provides." . . .
"When you see Hiasl, he really comes across as a person," Theuer said.
"He has a real personality. It strikes you immediately: This is an individual. You just have to look him in the eye to see that."
Kent comments:
It has been expected for some time, now that time has arrived. A chimp could become a legal "person." Notice that the advocates say this chimp has the "right to life." How do we know the chimp is a person? That's easy: shared DNA and that "personality" you can see when you look him in the eye. There is the distinct possibility that we will soon live in a world where chimps are "persons" with the right to life, but unborn humans are not. Just when you thought society couldn't get any more stupid!
gay.
In 1980, a well-known language critic commented: "[The] special-interest use of
'gay' undermines the correct use of a legitimate and needed English word. It now
becomes ambiguous to call a cheerful person or thing gay; to wish someone a gay
journey or holiday, for example, may have totally uncalled-for over- and
undertones and, in conservative circles, may even be considered insulting. The
insulting aspect we can eventually get rid of; the ambiguous, never. What do we
do about it? If we energetically reject 'gay' as a legitimate synonym for
'homosexual,' it may not be too late to bury this linguistic abomination." John
Simon, Paradigms Lost 27 (1980).
Hardly anyone today would dispute, though, that it's too late to contain the
word. "Gay" is now all but universal in referring to homosexuals, both male and
female, and has been embraced by the gay community. Its stronger associations
are with men, so that we have the phrase "gay and lesbian affairs," as if
lesbians weren't gay.
The homosexual sense of "gay" first appeared in the mid-20th century; before
that the word did, however, bear the derogatory sense "leading an immoral life."
That connotation has disappeared. Today, the new sense of "gay" is standard.
There's much to be said for gays' having a more or less neutral term to describe
themselves -- something besides the familiar old dysphemisms.
Kent comments:
Language is a powerful thing, and words do matter. If you don't think so, surely this little entry from a standard, recent English usage manual will convince you. Oh, the horror of having a disparaging expression (dysphemism) for an immoral behavior whose advocates are doing their best to infect our culture with their perverted views.
Students Getting Campuses to Go Green:
Whether it is more organic produce in the dining hall or more dorm floor
recycling, or more audacious attempts to compost all of the left over food,
students have been encouraging schools to go green on a number fronts. Eighteen
months ago, the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher
Education had about 30 members, today they have 300. In most cases, students
are the one's pushing for more sustainable measures, including "green"
buildings, the use of solar and wind energy, and greater conservation on
campus. In some cases the students have even voted increases in student fees to
pay for the measures. Leaders of the environmental movements point out that
today's college students are accustomed to pro-environment efforts, having grown
up with Earth Day in schools, neighborhood recycling programs, and constant
discussion about global warming. The trend is catching on among Christian
schools as well with 40 of the 105 members of the Council for Christian Colleges
and Universities now having adopted some significant "green initiative."
(Chicago Tribune May 14, 2007 sec. 2 p. 1; Christianity Today May 2002 p.
52-53)
Kent comments:
So many things to say about this. Notice how socialism always seems to get tied up with environmentalism. When students voted to increase student fees to pay for some of these stupid "measures" did they ever think that they were simply stealing from those who voted "no"? And has there even been an open debate about some of this idiocy? Of course not. We now have a generation of people who grew up with Earth Day in schools and "constant discussion about global warming." The term "constant" is putting it mildly here, and it has never been a discussion. It has always been more of a propaganda barrage. To top it all off, so-called Christian schools are now getting into this drama of stupidity.
The dozens of demonstrators argued Monday that the Creation Museum's central tenets conflict with scientific evidence that the Earth is several billion years old. Overhead, an airplane pulled a banner with the message: ''Thou Shalt Not Lie.''
Kent comments:
I am not convinced that the earth is only a few thousand years old. But isn't it interesting to watch all the hubbub surrounding this "Creation Museum"? Protestors and an airplane pulling a banner - what makes anything like that necessary? Do the protestors really think the Creation Museum people are lying? While you might think they are mistaken, only the paranoid could believe they are lying. BTW, if you believe the world is the product of time and chance, how can anything ultimately be "wrong" - including lying?
... it seems to me that those who resist creation care sometimes are motivated by a misreading of scripture. I have been in conversations where people suggest that stewardship primarily means mastery of earth to use it as we please or need; or that human beings do not have the power to do real harm to creation; or that God has promised ever since Noah never to allow humans to do serious harm to creation; or that the earth will be destroyed by fire anyway, and soon, so what we do now to the earth isn’t really all that significant.
He goes on to name three other factors that have led to this conservative opposition to protecting our earth: a "profound mishandling of science," an "inordinate loyalty to laissez-faire capitalism," and an "inordinate loyalty to political leaders."
He concludes:
I believe that all of these ideas are erroneous, and that we need to keep working deeply on the theology of creation care to move beyond them.
Gushee is convinced that if the great body of evangelical Christians
get behind creation care, "our nation's culture and politics will change
rapidly," which he thinks "will be one of the best contributions we will
ever make to this country and to the world."
Jim Rice is editor of
Sojourners magazine.
Kent comments:
I am not an "evangelical." But I do oppose "creation care." The Bible teaches creation. While these two might seem similar on the surface, they are in fact radically different. One constant theme of the creation care people is their assumption that any change in the environment is bad. God ordered the creation to be subdued by humans for their use to His glory. To be used, the creation must be changed - and God has made it very clear that this is exactly what He had in mind all along. He built into the creation potentialities that can be developed - used - by human beings.
This is not a misreading of scripture. Check out the background of the word for "subdue" in a standard reference like the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. It is not our job to "protect" the earth when by that is meant "do not change the earth." That is the misreading of scripture, and it is going completely unchallenged by most Christians, because far too many Christians are simply stupid.
There is a connection between the correct view of all this and respect for individual ownership. (The term "laissez-faire capitalism" is an attempt to distort this whole matter.) The creation care people usually want to "save the earth" by forcing others to forego using their property as they see fit. They do this even when there is no case beyond a reasonable doubt - which is what should be required - to show that anyone is being harmed by all the impending imagined catastrophes they irrationally fear.
If evangelical Christians - and other idiots - ever implement fully the insane recommendations of the creation care people, be prepared for more suffering in the world at many levels.
AUTHOR INTERVIEW
J.P. Moreland, author of
Kingdom Triangle: Recover the Christian Mind, Renovate the Soul, Restore the
Spirit's Power (foreword by Dallas Willard)
Q: What does it mean to
"restore the Spirit's power" and why is this important?
A: The Kingdom of God and the ministry of Jesus involved expressions of the
Spirit's overt supernatural power in healing, demonic deliverance and
discerning/receiving God's guiding voice through dreams, visions, words of
knowledge, impressions, and so forth. These miraculous inbreakings of the
Kingdom and Spirit's power were meant by Jesus to more regularly characterize
his people and they do throughout the world today except in Western culture.
Clearly, God heals through medicine and therapy, and He speaks most regularly
and authoritatively in and through the Bible. But we are too naturalistic in the
Western church and we have implicitly rejected these miraculous manifestations
because we associate them with weirdness, hysteria and fraud. In Kingdom
Triangle, I chart a course for recovering this supernatural aspect of the
Spirit's ministry and locate the importance on this recovery, not in debates
about spiritual gifts or Charismatic/Pentecostal vs. non-Charismatic/Pentecostal
believers, but in the reality of the Kingdom today and the nature of Jesus'
ongoing ministry through the church.
Kent comments:
I have always admired the work of Moreland in Christian apologetics. While I have not yet read this book, it appears that Moreland is endorsing continuing revelation. What else would "God's guiding voice through dreams, visions, words of knowledge, impressions" be?
There seems to be a trend in the evangelical world and elsewhere to want to leave a little room for continuing revelation. Notice how Moreland here hedges just a bit by adding that God "speaks most regularly and authoritatively in and through the Bible." Wouldn't all of God's speaking be "authoritative"? We can't have it both ways. If God continues to speak, that revelation is just as important as the Bible.
The rejection of continuing revelation does not necessarily have any connection to the Western church being too "naturalistic." It could be a valid conclusion drawn from scripture.
Finally, the completion of revelation does not have any direct connection to God continuing to heal supernaturally or deliver people from demonic influence. The matter of continuing revelation is something all Christian need to think about very carefully. If God has truly revealed something to you, and you can demonstrate that in the same way the Apostles did, you should be adding "The Book of You" to our Bible. Revelation is revelation. And speaking of these matters, see the article below.
March 20, 2007
At the University of Pennsylvania, Dr. Andrew Newberg is looking for an explanation for what most regard as inexplicable.
Newberg is determined to unravel the relationship between faith and science by studying what happens in the brain during the deepest moments of faith. He's recently published a study looking at the brain activity of eight Americans who speak in tongues.
"If we are really going to look at this powerful force in human history of religion and spirituality, I think we really have to take a look at how that affects our brain -- what's changing or turning on and off in our brain," Newberg said.
The Voice of God?
"When they are actually engaged in this whole very intense spiritual practice … their frontal lobes tend to go down in activity. … It is very consistent with the kind of experience they have, because they say that they're not in charge. [They say] it's the voice of God, it's the spirit of God that is moving through them," said Newberg.
"Whatever is coming out of their mouth is not what they are purposefully or willfully trying to do. And that's in fairly stark contrast to the people who are -- like the Buddhist and Franciscan nuns -- in prayer, because they are very intensely focused and in those individuals the frontal lobes actually increase activity."
Kent comments:
So when the tongue-speakers speak, what is coming out of their mouth is not coming from them. They claim it is the "voice of God" but the mere fact that it is not from them does not prove it is from God. There are other possible sources, some too horrible to contemplate.
Satan loves sincerity, especially when sincerity stands all alone.
And as we approach the end of spring, this little gem from the leftist "peaceniks" -
'Snuff' the Gun Shop Owner, Priest Says
By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Senior Editor
May 29, 2007
(CNSNews.com) - An Illinois gun-rights group says it plans to complain to the Catholic Church after a Chicago priest at the weekend appeared to call for the murder of a suburban gun shop owner.
During a Rainbow/PUSH Coalition protest at Chuck's Gun Shop & Range on Saturday, the Rev. Michael Pfleger, pastor of St. Sabina's Church, threatened to "snuff" shop owner John Riggio. . . .
Pfleger said of the owner of Chuck's Gun Shop & Range, "He's the owner of Chuck's. John Riggio. R-i-g-g-i-o. We're going to find you and snuff you out … you know you're going to hide like a rat. You're going to hide but like a rat we're going to catch you and pull you out. We are not going to allow you to continue to hide when we're here …"
"We're going to keep coming back, and like Reverend Jackson says, it takes civil disobedience, if it takes whatever it takes … we're going to snuff out John Riggio, we're going to snuff out legislators that are voting … and we are coming for you because we are not going to sit idly. Keep on fighting, people. Keep on fighting, keep on fighting."
St. Sabina describes itself as a "Bible-teaching" African-American Catholic Church.
The day before the anti-gun protest, the church hosted former Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, who was making a rare public appearance. Pfleger was quoted as describing the controversial Muslim activist as "a gift from God to a sick, sick world."
In a message on the church's website, Pfleger says he believes that "we are called by God to build this church in a world filled with division, alienation and racism in order that we may be a witness to the world that it is possible and that the love of God is stronger than the hate of Satan."
But wait, there's more . . .
Gun Advocate Wants Priest's 'Snuff' Comments Investigated
By Nathan Burchfiel
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
May 31, 2007
(CNSNews.com) - A gun rights advocate wants the Justice Department to investigate a Catholic priest who during a weekend anti-gun rally threatened to "snuff out" a Chicago gun store owner. As Cybercast News Service reported earlier, Rev. Michael Pfleger said Saturday in comments aimed at Chuck's Gun Shop owner John Riggio, "we're going to find out and snuff you out."
Pfleger, pastor of St. Sabina's Church in Chicago, told the crowd "we're going to snuff out John Riggio, we're going to snuff out legislators that are voting ... against our gun laws and we're coming for you because we are not going to sit idly."
To "snuff" can mean to sniff, inhale, or extinguish. It is also commonly used as a slang term for "to kill."
Pfleger made the comments during an anti-gun rally sponsored by Jesse Jackson's Rainbow/PUSH Coalition. Pfleger and his church are active in anti-gun and anti-gang efforts in Chicago. . . .
Vince Clark, a spokesman for Pfleger, told Cybercast News Service Wednesday that the pastor wasn't aware of the violent connotation of "snuff" and didn't mean to threaten bodily harm. (Listen to Pfleger's comments) "I've never heard that compared before with the word murder," Clark said. "He [Pfleger] was never aware of that. If that was the case he would never have used that language." . . .
James Accurso, a spokesman for the Chicago Archdiocese, said he was not aware of the rally or Pfleger's participation in it until after it took place Saturday. He told Cybercast News Service that the church had no plans to take disciplinary action against Pfleger.
"If the reports are accurate and he did make a threat - and we're not certain of that - we feel this should be handled by the civil authorities," Accurso said.
Kent comments:
So let's see here. The padre lives in Chicago, but he doesn't know that "snuff you out" usually means "kill you" in street lingo? I wonder exactly what he meant by it? Of course, even if he did mean "kill" he surely didn't mean "kill with a gun." Being anti-gun, he would just have to club the gun shop owner to death!
This is an ad from the e-newsletter from Christianity Today for June 13, 2007:
Kent comments:
So here we have pictured someone's (at the Christianity Today marketing department, I presume) idea of what "women leaders" look like. Or perhaps this is how some marketing director thinks "women leaders" picture themselves.
Gentlemen, take notes here. It appears that glasses must be worn at all times. Presumably this makes them look more leader-like. Notice also the uniform black suits. Black must stand for power or something like that. Finally, note the grim expressions of "leadership" on all the faces. (The woman in the foreground appears ready to kill you at the drop of a hat!)
On further review, except for the glasses this is pretty much how CBS news has dressed up Katie Couric in their failing attempt to turn her into an "authoritative" talking news head.
Interesting, don't you think?