Archive for the ‘Evangelicals’ Category

Juan Williams, a former NPR political analyst was fired for his comments on Fox News that he gets “nervous” when he sees people in “Muslim garb” boarding a plane. The President and CEO of NPR (National Public Radio) stated that Williams was not fired for that particular incident, but for offering his controversial opinions on several occasions, which she deemed a breach of journalistic ethics for an NPR analyst. Schiller intensified the existing controversy over Williams’ dismissal when she added that Williams should have kept his Muslim comments between himself and “his psychiatrist or his publicist—take your pick.”

Ron Schiller, the man in the video who is the Vice-President of one NPR’s department voiced his true beliefs about Christians, Tea Party, Republicans, America, Jews and Islam. The video is part of an undercover operation where Ron Schiller was recorded heavily criticizing Conservative groups such as the Tea Party movement, describing them as “fanatically involved in people’s personal lives and very fundamentally Christian—I wouldn’t even call it Christian…basically, they believe in white, middle America, gun-toting—it’s pretty scary. They’re seriously racist, racist people”. He also stated that NPR “would be better off in the long run without federal funding”, defended the firing of Juan Williams, and criticized “anti-intellectual” elements within the Republican Party.

Should they re-hire Juan Williams back now?

Nothing is neutral, not even news. Everyone has a bias.

Read Full Post »

John Frame’s book, “Evangelical Reunion” has been a hard to find book in physical hard copy at one time.

Then he allowed it to be free online through his website, but it was in Html format. Now he has it in PDF form!


In John M. Frame’s large festschrift, “Speaking the Truth in Love,” Frame describes his own book in this way:

“This book is a cry of the heart, protesting the scandal of the brokenness of the body of Christ through denominationalism.  It analyzes what denominionalism is, how it came to be, and how the Bible evaluates it.  Then the book presents an utterly unrealistic vision of how these divisions might be healed” (Speaking the Truth in Love, 8).

Utterly unrealistic vision of how to resolve it?  Perhaps, I’ve yet to read it.  But does Frame has something to say concerning the problem? The book’s now in PDF.

Read Full Post »

I thought the post by Mennoknight over at his blog was a good standing ovation to the man.

I quote in full:

Just a point of news for anyone who hasn’t seen it.  Tim Challies (the biggest Christian blogger), had an opportunity to interview John MacArthur recently and asked him a series of great questions.  I’d recommend the interview to everyone, and I’d point out the final question in the light of the current engagement of the MB Herald articles promoting theistic evolution.

Here is part 1

Here is part 2

For those of you that don’t know who John MacArthur is, he’s been the pastor of Grace Community Church for 42 years, he’s the president of the Master’s College and the Master’s Seminary, and he’s widely regarded as the foremost bible expositor (preacher) of the 21st century.  He’s written over 200 books, he’s preached through almost the entire New Testament (and all his sermons are available for free online), planted and funded 18 seminaries all over the world (one of the things funded by his book revenue), and he was the editor of the best study bible there is, no contest.  I’ve never met anyone who was familiar with him that didn’t either love him or hate him, but I’ve never met anyone that hated him for biblical reasons.   If you’re unfamiliar with him, I’d recommend reading the book The Gospel According to Jesus; that’s the book that grabbed me and started me down the long road that had me on staff at Grace Community Church and attending the Masters Seminary.

I don’t worship the man and am far more familiar with his faults than many (having attended his church and worked with him for years), but he’s a faithful pastor who preaches the word of God twice a week without compromise, doesn’t get entangled with politics, has a believing family that is connected to a local church, and has remained scandal free for his entire life.  If there’s anyone on earth I’d like to be like when I’m 65, he’s about as close as they come.  I recommend him to all my readers.

Indeed, MacArthur like any preacher is not perfect but one has to give credit where credit is due.


Read Full Post »

Our blog here at Veritas Domain broke all record the first two days of this month with thousands of people dropping by with the Christian’s voter’s guide for the state of California.

While the results are not fully in, I think it is important that Christians meditate on this verse from 1 Timothy 2:1-4:

1First of all, then, I urge that (A)entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men,

2(B)for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity.

3This is good and acceptable in the sight of (C)God our Savior,

4(D)who desires all men to be (E)saved and to (F)come to the knowledge of the truth.

Christians must vote by Godly principles; but after the election is over, it’s not a time to stop getting one’s hand dirty with politics– we must pray for whoever that wins, will be men and women of justice in their office, and allow peace and harmony so that Christians can share the gospel and not have to deal with those who want to hinder the cause of the gospel and “religious practice” and beliefs.

It’s also not time to slumber until the next election– Christian must be informed with what’s going on, and speak out against evil, while at the same time respecting those in office and make the issue the issue, rather the person.

Read Full Post »

I think the discussion about 2010 as the “meanest” campaign season distracts us from the real issue

As Christians, personality and ad hominem shouldn’t be what drives us to vote, the principles should be front and centered in our decision

Don’t forget our post on California’s Christian voter’s guide resources here, if you haven’t looked at it already.  Tell others about it.

I like this Youtube clip from Justin Taylor’s blog: It puts things into historical perspective when people say the campaign now is the “meanest” ever

Remember there was a time in American history when politicians who disagreed with each other express their “meaness” by shooting each other at an appointed time, just ask the guy who shot Alexander Hamilton (and then went on to try to jump start a new country afterwards!)

I thought the campaign for the sixteenth president was even more mean than the election of 1800: It contributed to the fuel of an already divided America into the Civil War.  I mean, one candidate even became the president of the succeeding states!

I also think of the election of 1828, with Andrew Jackson charge that John Quincy Adam was a spoiled rich Aristocrat since he was the son of John Adams (incidentally, the only American presidents that were father and son in US History).  One should try reading Jackson’s speech.

Then there was the midterm campaign of 1866, similar to our midterm election right now of 2010.  Those who claim this is the meanest campaign ever should read what Andrew Johnson’s speeches were like throughout the country–they might reveal why Johnson was so hated by the Democrats, would later go on to impeach this guy.  His well known hostile campaign and angry speech costs his party votes.

I could go further, but I think we have to be careful of the talking heads and hosts of the Secular media.  Often times, they don’t know their history, and they don’t know their Constitution.  Short dogmatic soundbytes don’t substitute for truth or principles.

I also want to encourage readers of Veritas Domain who are into apologetics and politics consider the implication of Frame’s perspectivalism here: If Scripture provides the “Norm” in political philosophy, history is an important situational aspect of knowledge of the political realm.  We must situate our political philosophy in light of our understanding of political development.  And that means knowing history.  Which means our opponent can mock that I’m a presuppositionalists, but I’m going to make darn sure that I will shame them with my handle on history as well when it comes down to correcting their false political history/development.

Read Full Post »

On the Iron Sharpening Iron Radio Show, David Wood of Acts 17 Ministries was on discussing about the event the Dearborn Arab Festival where there was open suppression of Christian freedom of speech

The audio MP3 of the Radio Show interview can be heard here: http://mp3.sharpens.org/20090706ISI.mp3

Please pray for those like Nabeel and David Wood and other Christians who are ministering to Muslims

Read Full Post »

Islam, Deception, Sharia and Intolerance….in the USA…

This is wrong.  From what I understand, the Christians who have been wronged by the guards are going to take it to court.

Let others know, share this video.


Read Full Post »

A brother in Christ emailed me this, and I found it helpful in regards to definitions concerning contextualization.

I really hesitate writing anything on “contextualization” because it’s such a buzz-word that is defined in so many different ways.   BUT, I feel frustrated with how patently “contextualization” is written off.  Thus, I propose a new term to distinguish between “good contextualization” and “bad contextualization”.

Good contextualization= confrontational contextualization- it understands the culture enough to speak to how it is wrong Biblically

Bad contextualization= compromising contextualization- it seeks to be as much like the culture in order to get the message across.

Is this distinction helpful to anyone else?

Read Full Post »

OPENING NOTE: I do not condone violence against abortion doctors. I say this and put this in the beginning to avoid tangent hecklers who don’t read clearly and assume things not there.

Frank Schaeffar, the son of the famed Francis Schaeffar, has written a piece attacking once again his father’s legacy and taking a swipe against Conservative Christians in general.

There is something morbid and stale of an aging man who resorts his claim to fame by constantly attacking his own father’s legacy and promoting his autobiographical memoir. Sometime in your life, you got to be your own man, and not be famous for just talking bad about daddy.

This time, he takes the oppourtunity from the murder of Tiller to drum against his father and Christian conservatives over at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/how-i-and-other-pro-life_b_209747.html

The piece is titled, “How I (and other “Pro-life” leaders) Contributed to Dr. Tiller’s Murder”

It is sad that with a title about “How I contributed to Dr. Tiller’s Murder”, even when he say he contributed to Tiller’s murder, he does not miss the oppourtunity to drag his dad’s legacy down into the discussion, with his opening sentence:

My late father and I share the blame (with many others) for the murder of Dr. George Tiller the abortion doctor gunned down on Sunday.

Franky loves to tout that he has left the conservative moment,

Until I got out of the religious right (in the mid-1980s) and repented of my former hate-filled rhetoric I was both a leader of the so-called pro-life movement and a part of a Republican Party hate machine masquerading as the moral conscience of America.

But sometimes he gives himself too much credit.  He asserts that he was a leader of the Republican Party machine, but what important post or gate-keeping position did he ever hold within the party? Anyone familar with the genesis of the Christian right realizes that around the highest point where Frank was most well known among Evangelicals, the Republican Party has not welcomed the Christian Conservatives into their midst yet, and when Christian Conservatives were beginning to gain grounds into the party during the mid-80s, Frank has admitted above that he was already “out” and repenting from his former ways.  Dr. Cohen, formerly of UCLA political Science Department who have concentrated his expertise on the Christian right, description of the first and second wave of the Christian Right doesn’t even register Frank’s name up.  Even among those who knew of the name Frank Jr. during those years, knew Frank because he was  tied in with his dad, as the son who produce the documentary for his father.  All this to say, he’s not the leader as he like to portray himself to be.  He was being a sexual busybody outside of his filming project, as his Crazy for God book admits.

Frank believes in his own culpability for Tiller’s death,

He compared America and its legalized abortion to Hitler’s Germany and said that whatever tactics would have been morally justified in removing Hitler would be justified in trying to stop abortion. I said the same thing in a book I wrote (A Time For Anger) that right wing evangelicals made into a best seller

But admits that he would have been shocked if people took up his word,

Like many writers of moral/political/religious theories my father and I would have been shocked that someone took us at our word, walked into a Lutheran Church and pulled the trigger on an abortionist.

Fundamentally disturbing in Frank Jr.’s reasoning is the slippery slope logical fallacy that he tends to commit in this piece and others.  For instance, he states:

When evangelicals on the right call President Obama a socialist, a racist, anti-American, an abortionist, not a real American, and, echoing the former Vice President, someone who is weakening America’s defenses and making us less safe, the logical conclusion is violence.

He believes that “the logical conclusion” of the concern of Conservatives on Obama will lead to violence, but logically this argument is invalid.  The logical conclusion is not necessarily violence, but political participation (voting in the re-election, gathering to express your views on his policy, freedom of speech, calling your congressman, writing, etc).  Furthermore, just because  violence might occur by some fringe who chooses not to engage in peaceful lawful process, doesn’t mean that one cannot express their concern of someone being a “socialist”, a “racist”, “abortionists”, weakening America, etc.  If there was a Racist republican president, why not call him out for what he is?  Or a politician who is a socialist (or liberterian)? Or observing that a president’s policy is pro-abortion rather than prolife?

But what about the current rhetoric that Frank Junior now use to demonize the Christian right, throughout his writing?  Does he believe that the “logical conclusion” of his speech will result in violence?

It’s also sad reading this article to see Frank has also embrace the legalization of abortion:

As I say in my book today I believe that abortion should be legal but more regulated than Roe allows.

But ultimately, the most disturbing words by Frank is the conclusion of his essay,

The same hate machine I was part of is still attacking all abortionists as “murderers.” And today once again the “pro-life” leaders are busy ducking their personal responsibility for people acting on their words. The people who stir up the fringe never take responsibility. But I’d like to say on this day after a man was murdered in cold blood for preforming abortions that I — and the people I worked with in the religious right, the Republican Party, the pro-life movement and the Roman Catholic Church, all contributed to this killing by our foolish and incendiary words.

I am very sorry.

He asserts that pro-life leaders are busy ducking away from personal responsibility for people acting on their words, and he doesn’t like how they never take responsibility.  He himself by his own admission stated that his words called for tactics that would justify ending abortion.  If he really does see he was responsible being the “leader” of the prolife movement who was so powerful that in this essay he wrote that he “personally also got people like Jerry Falwell, Ronald Reagan and countless Republican leaders involved in the ‘issue’”, I like to see someone take Frankie Junior to the task in the court and sue Frank Jr for “his responsibility”, using his own words, to reveal how dangerous and sloppy his current rhetoric is.

Read Full Post »

In response to yesterday’s entry of my quick jot concerning the book “Evangelicalism Divided”, a brother in the Lord name Keith responded with something that I think is worth sharing as an entry.  It is so easy for us to just complain, but what are the solutions to the problem within Evangelical circles?  I was edified by Keith’s comment and remembered again how true is the saying that “You can’t be something with nothing”; what is the Solution to such an epidemic among “Evangelicals”?

His comments is worth posting as an entry itself:

Rather than lament it, what can we do in a positive sense? I think there are three things that must be done, and urgently:

(1) We must teach doctrine. We as church leaders within the Evangelical movement have done a poor job of teaching believers the content of the faith – witness recent polls of how many churchgoers, in otherwise sound churches, don’t believe in the virgin birth, miracles, or that Jesus is the only way to Heaven.

(2) We must hold church members accountable for conduct. Too many churches have become tolerant of lifestyles of open sin – and not merely at the teen and young-adult level, I might add – leaving members free to live in any way they please.

(3) We must “protect the brand name.” This means presenting both to the church and to the world a clear picture of “this is what a Christian is.”

To which I say a hearty AMEN! Sometimes the answer is staring us in the face…staring at us from the PAGES of SCRIPTURE ITSELF!

Read Full Post »

Apparently Barna’s polling reveal that this election this past Tuesday reveal that some Evangelical voters were swayed to vote for Obama because:

born-again Christians voting for Obama say they are backing the Illinois senator because they believe he will do a better job restoring America’s reputation and handling the economy and agree with his stance on the Iraq War.

You can read the news story here: http://www.worthynews.com/news/onenewsnow-com-Election2008-Default-aspx-id-303730/

It seems like the economic factor is the biggest issue this election that determined how people voted for Americans in General. And it seem that gave Obama some inroad with Evangelicals.

I think it is also important for something Christians to remember here is that in our economic ups and down, there are not millions of people dying because of our bad economy in the US, and most people still are getting by with food on stomach and shelter over their head of some sort. I say this as a poor minority, from a poor minority family.  While the economy is important, I still do not think it is equal to or more important than the Abortion issue, because thousands of lives are killed regularly.

This Barna research poll reveals that discipleship of Christian character, life, and worldviews are important and the poll is just revealing the symptom of where people’s priorities are at of those who call themselves evangelical Christians: Their economic prosperity rather than defending the life of innocents who are killed every day under the name of Abortion.

Read Full Post »

I have ran into quite a number of Christians who in various ways, have expressed their ignorance about Obama’s radical abortion stance.

I was suprised some were not familiar with Obama’s extreme stance

Then I wonder if there was a systemic reason for why this is so:

Did you know that “from the launch of his candidacy in January 2007 through the end of the primaries in June 2008, just six out of 1,289 network evening news stories about Obama (0.46%) mentioned his position on abortion; none discussed it in any detail?” (link)

Imagine that: The media every night for 18 months managed to only have six stories in the network evening news concerning Obama on abortion, an issue that have been decisive for a significant poportion of voters in the previous election.

I got this external link over at Triablogue which summarizes Obama’s stance: Click HERE

Read Full Post »


Read Full Post »

Is this another ECT (Evangelicals and Catholics Together)?

Albert Mohler and Patrick Sookhdeo spoke out against such nonsense. Just check out your favorite theologians if they sign it.

HT: Slice of Laodicea

Read Full Post »

One of the qualification for those who teach the Word of God is the ability to refute those who are in Error (Titus 1:9); but how can you refute error if you are ignorant?

Pastor Joel Osteen, can’t even distinguish Mormonism from the Historical Orthodox faith.

From http://www.apologeticsindex.org/646-joel-osteen-mormon-church

WALLACE: And what about Mitt Romney? And I’ve got to ask you the question, because it is a question whether it should be or not in this campaign, is a Mormon a true Christian?

OSTEEN: Well, in my mind they are. Mitt Romney has said that he believes in Christ as his savior, and that’s what I believe, so, you know, I’m not the one to judge the little details of it. So I believe they are.

And so, you know, Mitt Romney seems like a man of character and integrity to me, and I don’t think he would — anything would stop me from voting for him if that’s what I felt like.

WALLACE: So, for instance, when people start talking about Joseph Smith, the founder of the church, and the golden tablets in upstate New York, and God assumes the shape of a man, do you not get hung up in those theological issues?

OSTEEN: I probably don’t get hung up in them because I haven’t really studied them or thought about them. And you know, I just try to let God be the judge of that. I mean, I don’t know.

I certainly can’t say that I agree with everything that I’ve heard about it, but from what I’ve heard from Mitt, when he says that Christ is his savior, to me that’s a common bond.
- Source: FOX News Sunday With Chris Wallace, Dec. 23, 2007

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 591 other followers