A Game of Interest

As many of my regular readers are probably aware, I am a lifelong Phoenix Suns fan. Having spent a number of my formative years in the Valley of the Sun, I look forward to each basketball season with hope that the Suns will finally be more than "The Little Team that Could ... And Darn Near Did" (to quote the title of a book about the "Fabulous Rise of the Phoenix Suns" by Joe Gilmartin after the Suns nearly won the NBA championship against the hated Boston Celtics early in the team's history).

It seems like most years the Suns have had pretty good regular seasons, but can't quite get over the hump when it comes to the playoffs. As the Suns are putting together another splendid regular season (the Suns are currently tied with New Orleans for the best record in the West at the All-Star break), many folks around the league have indicated that the still don't think the Suns could get it done in the post-season.

Last week, however, the Suns took a giant gamble. The Phoenix Suns made a trade with the Miami Heat to acquire Shaquille O'Neal in a trade that cost the Suns perennial all-star Shawn Marion.

On Wednesday, Shaq is expected to make his Suns' debut in a game against the long-standing arch-rivals, the Los Angeles Lakers.

As a Suns fan, I am looking forward to this game with interest. I am a little mixed on the trade, but after hearing a number of NBA pundits rip the trade for a few days, I tend to think that it may actually be a good trade - or at worst, it was worth the risk.

Throughout the Suns' history, they have often been pursuing the elusive big man. From losing the coin toss for Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (Lew Alcindor in those days) to the disappointment of William Bedford and the tragedy of Nick Vanos, the Suns have never really had a dominating Big Man. The only center in the "Ring of Honor" is Alvin Adams - who was a great player, but at only 6 foot 9 was clearly not a traditional Big Man. Probably the closest thing to a pretty good Big Man the Suns have ever had was Mark West, who put together a couple of decent seasons in the 1990s.

The arrival of Shaq provides the Suns with possibly the first legitimate Big Man in franchise history. The question, however, is if Shaq can still play. Shaq had a down season last year and is off to an even worse season this year. Many of the pundits think that Shaq is washed up and that the Suns should not have made the trade.

The conventional arguments against the trade are as follows:

1. Shaq does not fit into the Suns' up-tempo style and will slow the team down.

2. It is a bad idea to mess with the chemistry of a team that is on track to be the Number 1 seed in the West.

3. Losing Marion means the Suns give up their best defender on a team not known for defense.

4. It weakens the Suns bench, since Shaq will not be able to play the type of minutes that Marion played and losing Banks out of the rotation and the Suns already have a short bench.


There may some validity to some of these issues, but I think the case is not definite.

Here are my concerns then my arguments FOR the trade:

Concerns:

1. Shaq may really be hurt to the point of being just a shell of the old Shaq. I don't expect him to be anywhere close to what he was in his hey-day, but it would help if he was at least 80% of what he was when he helped Miami win the ring two years ago.

2. The Suns may try to make too many adjustments to fit Shaq's style of play instead of vice-versa.

FOR the trade:

1. Championship experience. Shaq has it - Big Time! He has been to the Championship with all three of his previous teams (Orlando, L.A. Lakers, Miami). In none of those teams did he have the complete surrounding cast that he has in Phoenix.

2. Size matters - especially in the play-offs. If you look at the teams that win NBA Championships, one fairly common element is a very good Big Man. (Yes, I know, the Jordan-era Chicago Bulls never had a very good Big Man - but they are the exception that proves the rule :) ). Going backwards, we have Duncan, Shaq, Duncan, Wallace, Duncan, Shaq, Shaq, Shaq, Duncan until you reach Jordan's Bulls (and in the middle of the Bulls' run you have Olajuwan with the two between the three-peats).

3. Marion was wanting out anyway. Those who view this as mortgaging the future, need to realize that Marion was not going to be part of that future anyway. That is unfortunate. I am a big Shawn Marion fan. He is a great all-around player who does not get the attention he deserves. I wish him well in Miami, but rather than just having him walk away at the end of the year, the Suns got one of the greatest Big Men in NBA history (even if it is an older version).

4. Shaq will not slow down the Suns (unless they let him). Remember that the Showtime lakers had Kareem at center. A fast break starts with a rebound (or, in the Suns case, sometimes a made shot by the opponent). Shaq has always been a pretty good rebounder - especially defensive rebounder - which triggers that fast break.

5. Shaq allows Amare to move back over to his natural position. Amare is a power forward who has been playing Center at an all-star level for a couple of years. Shaq's presence allows Amare to move over and not to be forced to play the other team's big man. Hopefully this will allow Amare to remain as fluid as he is without getting into the foul trouble that he tends to get into guarding the centers.

6. This trade should enable Boris Diaw to have a bigger role - he will probably get some of Marion's minutes. Diaw is a very good player. In the year that Stoudamire was out, Diaw filled in admirably and almost helped the Suns into the championship that year.

7. Shaq is a very good team player. Shaq passes very well for a big man. He also has shown (in Miami) a willingness to play second-fiddle when needed. He has a very good understanding of the game and should be able to adjust his game accordingly.

8. Shaq has shown an ability to "turn it on" when needed. He does not have to have a great regular season. He only needs to have a good play-offs.

9. This team does not need Shaq to carry it. It just needs him to contribute in the right way. I would be wary of trying to build a team around Shaq at this point in his career, but the Suns aren't doing that. They are asking him to be a relief pitcher and help them over the hump. I think he can do that.

10. The time to strike is now. Nash is not getting any younger and the Suns' window of opportunity is closing. The last time the Suns were knocking this close for a long-time was in the pre-Barkley days. (Prior to Barkley's arrival, the Suns had won fifty or more games in four seasons in a row and had advanced to the Conference Finals two of those years.) While I was skeptical regarding the Barkley deal when it happened, hind-sight says it worked out okay :) .

Soooo, I am looking forward to seeing the Suns play the Lakers after church on Wednesday night. I don't think we can necessarily tell a lot about one game and I would not be surprised if it does not take a little bit of time until the kinks get worked out, it will be interesting to see the beginning of a new era.

Just my thoughts,

Frank

More Politics - Sorry

Something to think about:

"This year's election will be unusually consequential. In 2006, Democrats regained control of both houses of Congress. Democrats also now hold a majority of governors' mansions and state legislatures. The Left long has been regnant on America's campuses, in the mainstream news media, in the entertainment industry, and in the unions. A Clinton or Obama victory would put all levers of power into the same hands. What would Democratic Party bosses do with that? How about statehood for Washington, D.C., which would provide two new Democratic votes in the Senate? How about appointing judges who regard the Constitution as clay, and using immigration policy to expand the Left's electoral margins? These and other creative maneuvers could create an anti-conservative majority that would last a generation or
more. Most worrisome of all: Americans today are engaged in a conflict as serious as any we have ever fought... Thinking hard about such questions over the months ahead would be not just alright; it would be commendable---and conservative."

Source: Clifford May

Bob the Builder runs for President

We have been having a number of political primary commercials here in Salisbury. Because Delaware's primary was on Super Tuesday and Maryland's primary is tomorrow, we have gotten a couple of weeks of commercials on the TV and the radio for this area - although I am sure that we have not gotten nearly as many as more "battleground" areas received.

One commercial of which I have seen and heard repeated variations includes the repeated phrase "Yes, we can."

As I kept hearing this statement so many times, I kept having those moments when you think to yourself, "I know I have heard that before."

I figured out what it was! BOB THE BUILDER!! "Can we fix it?" "Yes we can"

So, is that Bob the Builder whose commercials I keep seeing?


Just my "tongue-in-cheek" thoughts,

Frank

Huckabee wins Kansas Caucas

Sorry for all the politics lately, but I find this interesting.

According to the Washington Post, Mike Huckabee has easily won Kansas GOP Caucus over McCain and Paul, et al with a 61% to 24% win over McCain. (Story here)

The Evanglical Outpost had an interesting post entitled, Voter-Based Reality vs. Pundit-Based Reality.

It would still be an incredible long shot, but it could become interesting to watch.

Just my thoughts,

Frank

Romney and Huckabee - Some thoughts on politics

Last night was the big Super Duper Tuesday primaries here in the U.S.A. While Maryland does not vote until next Tuesday, for twenty-one states, last night was their chance to make their voices heard.

For the last couple of weeks, the Romney campaign seems to be implying that Mike Huckabee needs to get out of the race. They complain that Huckabee is splitting the conservative vote and giving the nomination to John McCain.

The fact is, however, that this assessment is double-talk and inaccurate.

1. It is double-talk because Romney and his friends in the establishment of talk radio (Rush, Sean, Laura, etc.) have been stating for weeks that Huckabee is not a true conservative. Thompson complained that Huckabee is a "pro-life Liberal" rather than a true conservative. I find it incredulous that you can repeatedly rip the man as not conservative and then complain that he is splitting the conservatives - this seems to be double-talk. If anything, by the logic that they have employed, Hucakee should be viewed as taking votes from McCain since they claim that both Huckabee and McCain are liberals.

The reality, however, seems to be a lot of conservatives trust Huckabee's conservativism as much or not more than they trust Romney's conservativism. As I stated in this post, back in October - "I doubt the ability of Romney to excite the conservative base." I believe that this statement still holds true - and I don't think it is irrational that it holds true.

In another October post on this question (entitled, Thinking about Elections), I made the following comments which I still think are true regarding Romney.

Here are some reasons why I question the ability of Mitt Romney to excite the socially conservative rank and file are as follows.

1. His record and rhetoric as a social conservative is wishy-washy at best. If you take the time to watch the videos at YouTube of Romney's debates in Massachusetts, you will find that repeatedly he trumpets his views as pro-choice. "I will preserve and protect a woman's right to choose." (Here is one of many videos that the left will use against him on this - and that causes the little guys like me to wonder where the guy really stands on this issue). I recognize that he is claiming to be pro-life now, but this debate was in 2002 - we are not talking that long ago and the switch in positions at this venture (especially when he talks in other debates about how long his family has stood on this issue - since his mother ran for Senate) will seem too convenient and politically motivated for the average Joe.

2. He has not galvinized the base already with all the money he has on his side. Romney has spent a whole lot more money than Brownback, Huckabee, etc., but he still has not managed to stir up the excitement. The pundits out there keep talking about how great it is that he has raised a lot of money (although a lot of it seems to be money he has loaned to himself). That is true, but what kind of return is he getting for that money? In the August Iowa straw poll, Huckabee came in second with 18.1% and Brownback came in third with 15.3%.

3. Like it or not, the reality is that the Mormonism of Romney will cause many to be cautious about voting for him. Not just among conservative evangelical voters, but in the general election as well. I understand that "we are voting for a President, not a Pastor" has a nice ring to it, but that line did not work when people wanted to dismiss the character issue in regards to Clinton. The reality is that many Americans vote on how they percieve a guy as much as they do on the person's policies. This is especially true of the folks in the "undecided land" who wait until the last month to make their decisions. For many of these people, the election all comes down to their impression of a person - and for many, that impression of Romney as the great Mormon leader will be the one that holds them back.

In that same article, I wrote:

Imagine if the guys who seem to be trying to get the bandwagon going for Romney would put their efforts behind someone who evangelical Christians could support, rather than a man whose pro-life creditials are shaky at best?

2. Not only is the claim that Huckabee should drop out because he is stealing conservative votes from Romney double-talk since the people making the statements claim Huckabee is not a conservative in the first place, it is also inaccurate because it fails to match up the realities of the records.

* The logic that says that a Huckabee pull out would swing the primaries to Romney are based on a false assumption - namely, that Huckabee supporters would back Romney over McCain. As Michael Medved recently pointed out, a large chunk of Huckabee supporters actually have McCain as their next choice rather than Romney. Why? In part, because they trust McCain on abortion and judges more than they trust Romney on those issues. While McCain is not as strongly pro-life as I would like, he has at least a fairly consistent record of being against abortion for about twenty years in office. Romney, on the other hand, was not only pro-abortion, but bragging about how deeply he was for "choice" just a few years ago while running for governor of Massachusetts.

* The numbers from last night show that, if anything, Romney is hurting Hucakebee more than Huckabee is huring Romney. In the states where Romney got second, the elimination of Huckabee as a choice would not have made much of a difference - even if you gave Romney the vast majority of Huckabee's voters (which, as I said above, would likely not happen).

--- New York McCain - 51, Romney - 28, Huckabee - 11
--- Illinois McCain - 47, Romney - 29, Huckabee - 16
--- New Jersey McCain - 55, Romney - 28, Huckabee - 8
--- Arizona McCain - 48, Romney - 34, Huckabee - 9
--- Connecticut McCain - 52, Romney - 32, Huckabee - 7
--- Delaware McCain - 45, Romney - 33, Huckabee - 15

(The other state in this category is California, which, because of the congressional district apportionment of delegates would take more time than I wish to spend on this to figure out the delegate effect, but the Huckabee factor did not probably hurt Romney any more significantly there than anywhere else - esp. since Huckabee did not really play in California very much.)

If you will notice, even if you gave every single Huckabee vote to Romeny (which seem preposterous to me), the only pick up Romney could have made here would have been the small state of Delaware - and that would require us to suspend disbelief and give Romney 90% of Huckabee's voters.

On the other hand, in a couple of states where Huckabee pulled in second, the absence of Romney could have made a big difference.

--- Missouri McCain - 33, Romney - 29, Huckabee - 32
--- Oklahoma McCain - 37, Romney - 25, Huckabee - 33

Assuming only a 60/40 split of Romney's votes to Huckabee and both of those states swing into the Huckabee column (and Missouri was VERY close and a winner-take-all state of 58 delegates).

(The stats from these races are from Real Clear Politics accessed this morning with over 90% of precints reporting in each state.)




So, what am I saying?

1. Romney and the talking heads should wake up and face the music. Huckabee is not Romeny's problem - Romney is. You can't live your whole life as a "moderate" Republican and then change your mind when it is time to run for President and all the sudden claim to be THE conservative.

2. If the talking heads (and Romney) really want to stop McCain, their best bet is to drop Romney and enthusiastically support Huckabee. (I don't see this happening.)

3. The effect of the repeated hits on McCain from the right may have enough of an effect to hand the Dems the victory in this next election, since some of these idiots have been making comments to the effect that "there is no difference between McCain and Clinton". Get real. McCain has a lifetime conservative voting record of over 80% whereas Clinton and Obama have only a 6% conservative record. Do I agree with McCain on everything - NO WAY!!! But only an idiot would claim that there is no difference between McCain and Clinton.

Anyway, I guess I should stop now.

Just my thoughts,

Frank

Goodsearch Works!

Goodsearch

An update on Goodsearch. Some of you may remember that in March I blogged about Goodsearch - an organization that donates 1 cent ($.01) to your favorite charity for every search you make on the internet using Goodsearch.

Like many of you, I tend to be a little skeptical of things like this, but I decided to try it out first and then I posted about it and encouraged some others to try it out.

I can now report that Goodsearch actually does what it says it will do!! In December, our church received a check from Goodsearch as promised! The check was in the amount of $49.71. You may think this is nothing to write home about (or blog about), but for a small church like us, this will help us to be able to purchase Sunday School materials for about one quarter - for people doing nothing different that what they already do. (If you look at the "Amount Raised" button, you will see that it says we have raised over $70. According to Goodsearch's website, checks are issued every December for the amount raised through September 30th of the year, so we already have over $20 towards next year.)

For those of you unfamiliar with Goodsearch, it is a search engine that gets paid by advertisers and passes on part of that money to charities. A charity has to register with Goodsearch before being able to received donations and must accumulate at least $20.00 in a year in order to receive donations (which are paid on a yearly basis).

The search engine is powered by Yahoo!, so it works fine as a search engine. Goodsearch also has a toolbar feature that can be downloaded (while I use Internet Explorer, the toolbar is also available in Firefox for you Firefox fans) and allows you to search from any internet page and still benefit your charity. (This is how I usually search, whereas my wife tends to search from Goodsearch's home page.)

SO, here is my comments and my plea. If you want to set it up for your church, go for it. I can vouch for it that it actually does pay as it says it will. If your church does not use Goodsearch, would you consider using Goodsearch as your search engine and designating Fellowship Baptist Church of Salisbury (Salisbury, MD) as your charity. (There is a pre-populated link on the right hand column of this blog to make it easy - or you can click here.)

If 10 people searched 10 times a day using Goodsearch, that would be $365 at the end of the year - not a huge amount to a lot of churches, but we could buy a lot of God's Bridge to Eternal Life tracts with that :) .

Just my thoughts,

Frank

Some Blogging Quick Hits

Today I think I am ready to start back into blogging. This last month has been kind of awkward for me. Things have been pretty busy around here and blogging has had to take a significant back seat. In the middle of that, I had some computer issues and was not able to be online for an extended period of time. After fixing that problem, I have only stepped back in to the online world for occassional comments in a few places.

I have still read some blogs (mostly via Bloglines) and have even commented on a couple of posts in other locations, but I have been looking at the questions from Don and thinking that I should wait until I have sat down to answer them all before I start blogging again and, since I have not been able to sit down and think through them as much as I would like, I have not posted anything.

I have decided, however, that I am going to go ahead and post some things anyway and get to Don's questions as I have time and inclination, rather than holding up all posting until I am prepared to answer them all. (BTW, the wife of a former voice teacher of mine who has left Fundamentalism took a shot at the questions the other day and attempted to answer them regarding Fundamentalism and her answers reveal her own lack of understanding of Fundamentalim in the first place - a fact that may have contributed to their leaving Fundamentalism.)

Anyway, a couple of quick hits will have to suffice for Today's Post.

1. Dr. Kevin Bauder has recently begun a series of articles on Fundamentalism and scholarship in Central Baptist Theological Seminary's little newsletter, In the Nick of Time. SI has also posted these articles. I will probably wait until the series is complete before commenting much, but since we had a pretty good discussion regarding Fundamentalism and Scholarship here at A Thinking Man's Thoughts not too long ago, I thought I would mention it. I will say that I most likely will disagree with Dr. Bauder on this topic - since I significantly disagree with his definition of "scholar".

2. Yesterday (January 22) marked the 35th anniversary of a travesty in American jurisprudence - the infamous Roe v. Wade decision from the ????-led U.S. Supreme Court. Approximately 50 million dead babies later and America still allows this murderous blight of abortion to be practiced and championed. May God have mercy on our nation! (I have previously posted on this topic - here.)

3. The political scene is getting interesting. If Guiliani can win Florida (with 57 delegates in a winner-take-all format), his strategy may prove to be viewed as brilliant, since California (173 delegates) and New York (110 winner-take-all delegates) will likely go his way if he shows he can win in Florida (I know that polls show McCain currently in the lead in California, but I predict a Guiliani win in Florida would also result in a California win for Guiliani). I am not looking forward to this as the outcome, but it could be interesting to watch. Thompson's hit upon Mike Huckabee in the SC debate may have been a fatal blow. It likely cost Huckabee a SC win (and Huckabee was within three points of McCain), which would have been huge for Huckabee as it would have shown that he could continue to compete and he would have likely drawn more of the social conservatives over to his side (including a number of social conservative who have been left without a candidate now that Thompson is withrawing). Instead, Thomspson's slam on Huckabee will almost guarantee that very few of his former supporters go Huckabee's direction and his second place finish in SC (instead of a win) will likely keep a number of the "I like Mike, but don't think he can win" voters from voting for him - and thus, turn them into self-fulfilling prophets.

Just my quick thoughts,

Frank

I'm Back - and some questions for Fundamentalists

I know things have been a little quiet here. I am looking forward to the new year.

I had a great Christmas with my in-laws in Ohio, but I found their internet service to be somewhere between unreliable and nonexistant.

We did get a good chance to visit with some relatives and it was nice to see Mom Mom, Grandpa, and Great-Grandma, as well as Missy's Aunt Bev and Uncle Bob and Aunt Rosella and to see Mark and Keith and their families.

Josiah and I took advantage of the trip to Ohio to take a day and visit the Pro Football Hall of Fame in Canton, Ohio. It was a good trip and some good father-son time as we drove the 2 1/2 hours from the in-laws and visited the Hall of Fame. I had visited it once before, but my previous visit was with a non-football fan, so it was nice to be able to visit with my son. I will probably post a little more about that visit a little bit later.

I discovered that Fundamentalist uber-blogger Don Johnson has moved migrated over to his own domain (his new blog is called, An Oxgoad, eh? and has made an interesting post in which he asks some questions of Fundamentalists (based on some questions asked of some leaders in Evangelicalism by Touchstone magazine).

I will probably not have time to answer the questions until after the New Year, but I wanted to put these out here for others to think on as well - as Pastor Johnson has done.

How do you define “Fundamentalist” in a way that distinguishes Fundamentalists from other believing Christians? And has this definition changed over the last several years?
Has Fundamentalism matured since the 1950s, and if so in what ways?
Has Fundamentalism lost anything in the process of maturing (if it did)?
Are there any fundamental differences within the Fundamentalist movement today, and do you think they will deepen into permanent divisions, or even have already? How might they be healed?
What does your movement, speaking generally, fail to see that it ought to see?
What would you say to a Fundamentalist tempted to become Catholic or Orthodox?
What has Fundamentalist to offer the wider world that it will find nowhere else?
What else would you like to say?

Take some time and think about how you might answer these questions and then post about it (if you have a blog) and let me know about your post.

Don has already made a post in which he answers the questions - On the State of Fundamentalism .

Super Deacon and occassional blogger Andy Efting over at Unsearchable Riches has also posted his response, entitled, A Fundamentalist Answer the Touchstone Questions

Blogging Comments

Within the last couple of weeks, I read on someone else's blog regarding an adjustment on their policy regarding comments. (I am sorry I don't remember whose blog at this moment.)

I though the comments that were made made some sense, but I did not adjust my policy at that time for a couple of reasons - 1. I realized I no longer had a policy posted (I am pretty sure I had made a policy and posted it on an earlier template, but apparently I never transferred that policy over onto this template) and 2. I have not really had much reason to be that concerned with comments on the blog. I think I have deleted less than five comments in the entire time I have had this blog (thankfully Blogger does a pretty good job of catching most "spam" comments).

However, some recent comments on this blog and some comments on another blog that I administer have led me to re-think some things regarding comments, although this will not be a problem for most comments and commenters.

In the past, I have kind of viewed this space as an open forum and generally let anything stand unless it was extreme. The blogger I mentioned earlier who got me thinking about this, made an analogy that I kind of think fits. Rather than the blog and comments being an "open forum", it is more like this is my house - or at least a gathering that I am hosting.

As such, a couple of clarifications are made:

I have no problem with disagreement with me or others, as long as it is handled in a civil manner. I appreciate the interraction with those who disagree with my positions on things and believe this can be profitable.

I do have a problem with unacceptable speech - vulgarity, slander, crude, etc.

I do have a problem with running down those I love and refering to them with derisive names - and that includes my God.

I do have a problem with those whose agenda seems to be only to argue without a willingness to listen and interract with those who differ.

I am sure there are more things that will come up, but I recenly had the first three things violated both here and at another blog and thought I would think through this and post it.

Also, please do not assume that any comment that is left to stand has automatically passed through these qualifications. It may be that I have missed it (which is entirely likely - especially when it is comment added after a post has died down) or may be that for some other reason I have let it stand (perhaps as a testimony of its own stupidity in some cases).

Just my thoughts,

Frank

A Question for those who record their sermons

I am not having much success getting responses when I ask for ideas from here, but I thought I would try it at least one more time.

This question is regarding the recording of sermons (or other things that you may record).

1. Do you record both a cassette master and a digital master (CD, Mp3, etc.) or do you just make one master?

2. If you only record one master - which type is it?

3. If you record only a digital master - do you (can you) make a cassette copy off of that digital master or are cassettes essentially obsolete?

3b. If you copy from a digital master to a cassette, how do you do that? Is the process complicated?

Thanks in advance for your help.

Just asking for your thoughts,

Frank

Article about Blogging and some Blogging questions

Tim Challies has listed some good suggestions about blogging over at challies.com in an article entitled, "Feedback Files: All About Blogging"

Since Tim is one of the heavy hitters in the world of Christian blogging - I think he is billed as something to the effect of "The World's Foremost Christian Blogger", I thought some of my blogging friends may be interested in his insights - and while I am at it, I thought I would ask a couple of questions about some blogging related issues about which I have been wondering.

1. I have noticed that I often tend to get a little lengthy on my posts (sorry). Unlike Wordpress, Blogger does not have a built in "read more" feature that truncates longer posts. In searching for a way to remedy the problem, I noticed that some people really don't like the "read more" type of things on blogs (although it has never bothered me when I read other people's blogs). Do you have any opinions about this? Does a "read more" link usually result in you not bothering to "read more"?

(Part of the reason I would like to add this feature is so that when someone follows a tag - such as books - they can get a quicker overview of what is there without needing to scroll down through each long book review.)

Anyone care to comment on this feature? (Also, if you know a good and effective way to do this in blogger, I would not mind a link for that, as well.)

2. One of Tim's comments about blogging was regarding consistency? I asked him a version of this question, but I thought I would ask my actual reader(s) as well. If a particular time yielded extra posts, would it be better to post them at that time realizing that the pace is not going to last or would it be better to hold extra posts in que until things are busy and put them out during the weeks when I end up having little to no time to blog (so I don't have one week with 5 posts and then the next week with 1 post)?

3. I have been toying with a few ideas over the last year of trying to figure out a way for the computer to pay for itself. While I am not planning on advertising on A Thinking Man's Thoughts, I have worked on a few ideas of some type of blogs or information sites that I could try to direct some traffic towards and see if I could get any advertising revenue going on those sites. Is there anyone out there who reads my blog who has experience with Google adsense (or similar program) that has any comments about whether it is actually feasible to make this profitable? Not looking to get rich, but if I could write some things in an area that interested me and pay for my internet connection or something, it would be awesome. (One of the sites that I have been toying with would be a history blog with a daily Christian history feature that I am calling What Happened On This Date? - I did a couple of practice posts in May and they can be found at http://whathappenedonthisdate.blogspot.com. )

Anyway, I am just kind of winding down and thought I would throw these things out there.

Just my thoughts - asking for your thoughts,

Frank

Amazon Kindle - This is cool!

I have recently been drooling over the concept of Amazon Kindle.

If you have not heard of or seen this device yet, you should at least stop over at Amazon and check it out.


Amazon describes some of its features as follows:

* Revolutionary electronic-paper display provides a sharp, high-resolution screen that looks and reads like real paper.
* Simple to use: no computer, no cables, no syncing.
* Wireless connectivity enables you to shop the Kindle Store directly from your Kindle—whether you’re in the back of a taxi, at the airport, or in bed.
* Buy a book and it is auto-delivered wirelessly in less than one minute.
* More than 90,000 books available, including more than 95 of 112 current New York Times® Best Sellers.
* Free book samples. Download and read first chapters for free before you decide to buy.
* Top U.S. newspapers including The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and Washington Post; top magazines including TIME, Atlantic Monthly, and Forbes—all auto-delivered wirelessly.
* More than 250 top blogs from the worlds of business, technology, sports, entertainment, and politics, including BoingBoing, Slashdot, TechCrunch, ESPN's Bill Simmons, The Onion, Michelle Malkin, and The Huffington Post—all updated wirelessly throughout the day.
* Lighter and thinner than a typical paperback; weighs only 10.3 ounces.
* Holds over 200 titles.
* Long battery life. Leave wireless on and recharge approximately every other day. Turn wireless off and read for a week or more before recharging. Fully recharges in 2 hours.
* Unlike WiFi, Kindle utilizes the same high-speed data network (EVDO) as advanced cell phones—so you never have to locate a hotspot.
* No monthly wireless bills, service plans, or commitments—we take care of the wireless delivery so you can simply click, buy, and read.
* Includes free wireless access to the planet's most exhaustive and up-to-date encyclopedia—Wikipedia.org.
* Email your Word documents and pictures (.JPG, .GIF, .BMP, .PNG) to Kindle for easy on-the-go viewing.

They even have a video up on the site of how this works and it seems, well, cool.

I doubt I would get one right now, however, for a number of reasons.

1. Economical - well, I have a hard time justifying any book expenses right now (that is one reason why I write reviews for SI - they give me the book I am reviewing.)

2. I don't generally buy new technology until it has been out long enough to work out the bugs that invariably show up.

3. This seems geared presently to popular works, though as the product matures and finds a market, that will hopefully adjust.

4. While there are already over 90,000 Kindle titles, the titles I would be most interested in are still in short supply. (A search for the words "Bible Commentary" at the Kindle store only showed 127 entries and many of those were not actually Bible commentaries - and some that were I already own in the old fashioned "dead tree" format. Some of the few "commentaries" they actually did have at this point were F.F. Bruce on The Epistles of John and Thru the Bible by J. Vernon Magee and a number of MacArthur Bible Studies - not his commentaries.) By the way, if you like Mac a lot, they have around 20 of his books available for Kindle already.

In light of our current discussion on Fundamentalism and scholarship, I thought it was fitting that they actually had this title available for Kindle - apparently Marsden is as concerned about the charge that Evangelicals were anti-intellectual as I was about the same charge against Fundamentalism.



Anyway, I am not ready for one yet, but it definitely looks like a cool product and if you decide to get one - please use my link :) - $cha ching$. For any family or friends who may be reading this, this is not a Christmas request - wait until next year to see what kind of new titles become available :)

Just my thoughts,

Frank

Book Review of When You Pray by Philip Graham Ryken

In light of our current discussion that stems from someone else's book review, I remembered that I had never posted my book review of When You Pray over here on A Thinking Man's Thoughts. This version is substantially the same as the one that was published at SharperIron, but there are some things in here that did not make the cut due to space considerations over there.


When You Pray: Making the Lord's Prayer Your Own by Philip Graham Ryken - A Review by Pastor Frank Sansone

When Jesus' disciples recognized their need to pray, they asked Jesus Christ to teach them to pray. The answer that Jesus gave to their request is found for us in Matthew 6 - a prayer commonly called "The Lord's Prayer." In When You Pray: Making the Lord's Prayer Your Own, Dr. Philip Graham Ryken provides a helpful study of that prayer and encourages the reader to not view the Lord's Prayer as something merely to be recited, but something to actually learn from. As Dr. Ryken correctly points out early in the book, "Jesus' teaching about prayer begins with an urgent request: ‘Lord, teach us to pray' (Luke 11:1). Not ‘teach us how to pray,' notice, but ‘teach us to pray.'"(p. 13, emphasis n the original), and it is that desire to teach us to pray that seems to direct Dr. Ryken as he writes this book.

In the introductory chapters, When You Pray starts by discussing "How to Pray Like a Hypocrite" and "How to Pray Like an Orphan." In these chapters, When You Pray deals with verses in Matthew 6 that precede "The Lord's Prayer" and encourages the reader to pray in secret and to avoid the error of praying repetitiously. As Dr. Ryken points out "the prayer babbled more than any other is probably the Lord's Prayer. How ironic!" (P. 36).

After instructing us to avoid the hypocritical and repetitious prayer, chapter three encourages us in "How to Pray Like God's Own Dear Child" with an excellent chapter that deals with the familial aspects of the prayer - that this is a prayer to Our Father, suggesting not only a father- child relationship, but also a reminder that this is not just for us, but rather it is prayed in the plural with our brothers and sisters in Christ.

Following the three chapters of introduction, Dr. Ryken then proceeds to spend the rest of the book breaking down the prayer into ten phrases and discussing each of those phrases in detail. Rather than just dealing with the academic details of these phrases, however, Dr. Ryken does a good job of filling the explanations with practical encouragements to not only understand what the passage is teaching, but to actually do what the passage is teaching.

As the subtitle of the book indicates, Dr. Ryken's goal is not merely to explain the passage, but rather to encourage the reader to "Make the Lord's Prayer Your Own". The writing style bears this out, as it is a very readable book. In fact, it comes across as though this material was originally preached and then edited into book form. The book is also filled with personal comments and pastoral insights rather than a mere third-person academic accounting of the Lord's Prayer. At one point, Dr. Ryken comments, "My goal as a minister is to keep the proclamation of God's Word and the prayers of God's people at the center of church life (see Acts 6:4). The great difficulty, however, is that this requires me to be a man of prayer as much as a preacher (p. 13)."

In addition to being a warm-hearted exposition of this passage, the book also manages to bring in a presentation of the Gospel in a number of places. At first, I thought this was odd, considering the fact that this is a book on prayer, but considering the interest in the Lord's Prayer even among those who do not attend Bible-preaching churches, I found this to be a wise thing.

The book is also set up in such a way as to make is useful as a book for a Home Bible Study or an Adult Sunday School class. It has discussion questions at the end of each chapter and is broken down into thirteen lessons (to fit in nicely with the typical thirteen week Sunday School quarter).

The strong dispensationalists needs to be aware that this book is clearly not written from a dispensational stand point. This does not negate the book's value, but it does effect some of the areas of interpretation that are presented in the book - particularly in Chapter 6, which covers the phrase "Your Kingdom Come."

The book also does something interesting in regards to the text of the prayer. Even though the chapter headings reflect a more modern translation, most of Dr. Ryken's exegesis and quotes actually come from the King James Version's rendering of this prayer - the one many have memorized. When it comes to the doxology, Dr. Ryken tries to walk a little bit of a tight-rope. He follows many modern textual critics in stating "on the basis of this somewhat contradictory evidence, it seems best to conclude that the traditional doxology possibly was not part of the original text of Matthew, but certainly was in use from the early days of the church (pp. 174-175)." However, he still provides some good material on the meaning of the doxology and comments that "it hardly seems right to consider the traditional ending of the Lord's Prayer a mere trifle or a matter of taste, for it is a highly appropriate way for the prayer to end (p. 175)."

I would also encourage the publisher to consider handling the notes in the book differently. The book employs the practice of adding end-notes rather than footnotes. I am the kind of reader who likes to see what the author is going to say when he makes a note. Going to the end of the book to find out is annoying. Since almost all of the end-notes in this book were of the merely bibliographic variety, this merely added to the frustration as you get back to the note and find out that you did not need to look up the note after all. It would seem better to provide in-text citations for those notes that were simply bibliographic in nature and then footnotes for the few notes that actually added information.

Despite the formatting issue (which seems to be becoming an industry-wide problem) and the other issues, this book is definitely a book worth adding to your library. For the serious layman, this book provides a lot of good material to help you not only to better understand this important passage of Scripture, but also to help you if you want to know how to pray better. For the Pastor, this book provides some sound exegesis and is packed with enough pastoral insights to make this a very helpful book for the Pastor who is preparing to preach on the Lord's Prayer.

Just my thougths,

Frank

Some thoughts on scholarship and presenting of arguments

I recently read a review written by a Dr. Paul Henebury of Dr. Rolland McCune's book Promised Unfufilled: The Failed Strategy of Modern Evangelicalism. I have not finished reading the book (I admit to my shame), so my comments here are not intended to be a defense of the book, but rather some thoughts about a couple of comments found in the review that I found to be interesting. (Dr. Henebury's review can be found here. For a more detailed review and a response from Dr. McCune, check out the review by Andy Neselli.)

Anyway, my comments are not really about the book, per se, but about something I read in the review.

In the fifth paragraph, Dr. Henebury comments,

"...the most glaring fact about this chapter is McCune’s reliance upon the very people whom he criticizes in his book! The names of Nash, Marsden, Brown, McGrath, Demarest, Davis, and Schaeffer (who is identified as neo-evangelical later on) are appealed to for the substantiation of the writer’s data and critique. And while a writer may legitimately quote an author with which he disagrees, it should be recognized that no fundamentalist is called upon in this chapter - an indication at least that the charge of anti-intellectualism against American fundamentalism does contain enough adhesive power to call any critic of neo-evangelicalism to a little self-examination once in a while."

Now, as far as I know, I have not met or interracted with Dr. Henebury before, so I hope that those reading this do not view this as an attack on him, instead I am using this statement as simply a representation of many similar statements I have heard and read over the years.

When I read a statement like this, two particular questions come to my mind:

1. What is so glaring about quoting from people within a movement to help make a case against the movement?

It seems to me that this is actually a good strategy, rather than a glaring weakness. Calling a proponent of an idea or position or institution as a testimony against that very same idea or position or institution seems even more condemning that merely quoting from opponents or stating your own case. A proponent who admits to a particular problem or error seems to add some credibility to the idea that this is not just an outside observer who recognizes this, but that even some on the side being criticized even recognize this. It is also harder for other proponents of that same issues or institution to argue against or to just dismiss, whereas if the same thing were said by someone who was from the outside or viewed as an opponent, it could more easily viewed as something from someone who just has an "axe to grind" or "has it out for" the particular idea or institution.

Is this not part of what Paul is doing in Titus 1:12?

One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. (Titus 1:12)

2. Why does a lack of writing or a lack of being published equal "anti-intellectualism"?

The charge of anti-intellectualism - or at least of a lack of scholarship - has been leveled against Fundamentalism from many sources. It has gotten so much press, that it has become a "self-evident truth" that does not even seem to need support by the one making the claim - after all, everybody knows that Fundamentalism is anti-intellectual.

One of the "proofs" often thrown up regarding this is the lack of writing by Fundamentalist. In fact, it was a discussion on this topic a couple of years ago that led to my original "The Best and the Brightest" post.

Here's part of the problem with that thinking.

* It assumes that the end of scholarship is the production of a book.

While I think it is great to produce a valuable book on an important topic, the assumption that "published" equals scholarly and that "non-published" equals "non-scholarly" is unsupportable. Many pastors and professors have made the conscious choice that the focus of their lives and ministry - and study - is to be the maturing of saints for the work of the ministry. They do not denigrate the value of books - yea, the ones I know love books, but they do make a deliberate choice to directly pour their lives into people, not pages.


* It fails to recognize the reality of unpublished scholarship.

Every published scholar was, at one point, an unpublished scholar. While it is certainly true that the act of refining material to produce a book may enhance a person's understanding and expertise in a subject, the usual reality is that a person who knows his stuff is a "scholar" even if he has not yet - or ever is - a scholar. Dr. Barrett did not suddenly become a "scholar" by the publishing of his first work - the publishing of the first work merely confirmed to a wider audience the nature of Dr. Barrett's scholarship.

Not only do men not become a "scholar" by publishing, some of the wisest and most scholarly men were unpublished.

The obvious example of this, of course, is Jesus Christ. In speaking regarding the judgment due to those of His generation that rejected Him, he commented that, while the queen of Sheba had come "from the uttermost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon," that He Himself was "greater than Solomon." (see Matthew 12 and Luke 11).

In the secular realm, most people consider Socrates one of the world's greatest philosophers, yet we have nothing written from Socrates.

In more recent days, it was said of Dr. Charles Brokenshire (a former professor at Bob Jones College before it became Bob Jones University) that "on his faculty record (dated 1930), one finds an impressive list of the languages of which he had mastered a reading knowledge or better: French, German, Dutch, Spanish, Italian, Swedish, Norse, Latin, Greek (classical and koine), Hebrew, “Chaldee” (Biblical Aramaic), modern Greek, Yiddish, Arabic, Syriac, Samaritan, Ethiopic, Babylonian, Coptic, Egyptian Hieroglyph, and Esperanto (an artificial “universal language”). By the end of his career he had added Chinese, Japanese, and Russian to this list." Does Dr. Brokenshire's lack of publishing make him less of a scholar?


* It fails to recognize the reality of publishing

While this is beginning to change due to the decreasing cost of some publishing forms, the publishing of a book requires more than just the producing of quality materials. Book publishers are wanting materials that will sell. A scholarly work on "A Study of Greece in the Fourth Century B.C., from the Peloponnesian War to the Reign of Alexander—404 B.C. to 336 B.C" (Brokenshire's Master's Thesis) is not as likely to be put into print as "Five Ways to Grow Your Church" by Mega-church Pastor. The Mega-Church Pastor already has a larger potential audience and is writing on a subject more likely to produce revenue.

* It fails to understand the financial and workload issues at play.

When someone like John MacArthur writes a book, a lot of the work is done by his editor, Phil Johnson (of Pyromaniacs fame). Someone takes what MacArthur has preached and does some of the necessary research leg-work and then they go over the final product and re-write sections, etc. with the main author. Others take writing sabbaticals. That is great, if you have the funds available from your church or institution to hire a guy like Phil Johnson to help with the writing/editing of your material or to pay the Pastor or professor while he is on sabbatical. Most Fundamentalist churches and schools do not have that kind of finances. Not only do they not have the finances to hire someone like Phil Johnson to do a lot of the leg-work, the churches are not generally large enough to have enough Pastors on staff to cover for a Pastor on extended sabbatical. In addition to this, many of the professors at the Fundamentalist schools are teaching a full-load and don't have the kind of extra time needed in order to write a book.


I would love to eventually get to the point where I can actually write a book that others would want to read and I rejoice that we are starting to see more and more books become available that are written by Fundamentalists. I just think that we need to re-think this idea that "scholarship" = "published" and its reciprocal, "unpublished" = "anti-intellectual" (or at least, "unscholarly").

Just my thoughts,

Frank

Christmas Letters - Family and Church

Judging by the number of times people have come to my site lately after searching for things pertaining to "Christmas Letters" in its various forms, I guess it must be getting to be that time of the year again. (I assume that the people who are being directed here are being sent here because of my 2006 family Christmas letter , my 2006 Church Christmas letter, or even my 2005 Family Christmas Letter or my 2005 Church Christmas letter.

What are your views about Christmas letters?

Let me ask a few questions. If you are a regular reader or if you just stopped by
due to a search, I'd appreciate getting to know some people's views on this matter.

1. Do you write Christmas letters yourself?
A. If you do, do you send it in lieu of a Christmas card or with a Christmas card?
B. If you don't, do you think that they are a waste of time?

2. Do you receive many Christmas letters anymore? Is this a dying tradition?

3. Do you read the ones you get?

4. Do you enjoy hearing about what is going on in friends and relatives' lives even if the only time you hear from them is in the annual Christmas letter - or do you view it as an opportunity for people to brag about what is going on and wonder if they would still write if they had a really bad year?



What about those of you who are Pastors?

Do you send out an Christmas letter to your church family or church mailing list? Why or why not?

Would love to hear some thoughts from others on this.

Just me asking for your thoughts,

Frank

A Great Thanksgiving Read

Things are particularly busy right now and I doubt I will have time to do a real Thanksgiving post of my own today, but if you have not yet read Chris Anderson's post entitled, Uncle Michael: A Testimony of Unconditional Praise, I would urge you to do so. It is well worth the read.

On a lighter note, Barbara's excellent blog for Christian ladies has a little bit of humor today with some comments regarding Rednecks and Thanksgiving.

Just other people's thoughts,

Frank

Of Monkeys, Men and Atheists

Many of you have probably heard Dr. Stephen Hawking's famous statement that given enough time, enough monkeys plucking away at typewriters could produce one of Shakespeare's sonnets.

The implication of this statement is that the mutations necessary for macro evolution to occur is simply a matter of time and opportunity.

Dr. Gerald Schroeder has done an excellent job debunking this idea in an article, "When Pigs Fly and Monkeys Type."

In the article, Dr. Schroeder points out that the probability of a monkey hitting a specific key is 1 in 26 (if we posit merely 26 choices, rather than the over 50 keys on most keyboards - my keyboard has 104 keys). The probabality of the monkey hitting the next needed key is also 1 in 26, meaning that the chance of stringing two correct letters together is 1 in 676 (26 x 26). To give you an idea of the enormity of the task of producing the sonnet, I will point out that the probability of a monkey typing something as simple and as short as my name - Frank - is 1 in 11,881,376.

If you continue to figure this out, you will find out that the odds against this are incredible. In an approximately 500 letter sonnet, the number would be more than astronomical. You would have to multiply 26 by itself 500 times. This would come out to a number that would be around 10 to the 700th power (1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000).

To give that some perspective, Dr. Schroeder points out that "the number of basic particles [protons, neutrons, electrons, mesons] in the known universe is 10 to the power 80."

Wow!

I don't know if Dr. Schroeder is a Christian or simply a Theist, but this article is a pretty powerful article.

FWIW, Dr. Schroeder was the man who famous Atheist apologist Antony Flew was supposed to debate the night that Mr. Flew declared that he was no longer an Atheist.

Just someone else's thoughts,

Frank

Anger Management?

Blogger Andy Rupert has some good comments today regarding anger, wrath and stress in a post entitled, Who's The Dope?.

Just his thoughts,

Frank

A Call to Separate from Pastor Chris Anderson

Chris has committed a grevious sin - he is calling into question the legitimacy of one of the famous quotes of Dr. Bob Jones, Sr. In a post entitled, Call it a pet peeve, he is questioning the legitimacy of the quote "There is no difference between the sacred and the secular." How dare he!! I think he should turn in his Fundamentalist card or make a pilgrimage to Greenville as a sign of repentance (maybe stopping by The Wilds to throw a stick in the fire, on the way.)

Surely the questioning of such a statement shows the beginning of a pattern of liberalism and compromise. Surely it is only a matter of time before he is emergent - or even worse, Baptist!

As a member of the Real Fundamentalist Club, I think a resolution is definitely in order. Can I get an witness?


Just my very tongue-in-cheek thoughts,

Frank

BTW, Can we also question "Duties never conflict" while we are at it?

I mean, I think I understand what is attempting to be said, but isn't it true that duties often conflict - that is why we have to have priorities!

A Question about Missions Funding

This post stems from a discussion on another site, but I would like to ask it here since I know that some missionaries and pastors read here that do not spend much time at the other site.

It is my understanding that the dollar has lost a lot of value in a number of places around the world lately and that this is making things especially tight on some missionaries, whose support comes mostly from U.S. churches.

In order to help in this situation, some comments have been made about raising the support for the missionaries to offset this, but the reality is that a number of churches are already struggling financially and cannot just give an across the board 18% raise to their missionaries - or they likely would have already done it.

Stemming from that concept, however, came this idea that I would like to hear some thoughts on. I am just thinking out loud here, so don't kill me, but I would definitely like some feedback.

As my regular readers are aware, our church is not in this type of situation yet, but I want to think ahead.

Here is the question:

Assuming all other factors are the same (in other words, giving is not changing), would it be better for a church to commit a set amount to a specific number of missionaries or for a church to commit a smaller amount with a flex amount that could be designated to help out special needs each year?

For instance:

Church A has 100,000 available for missions.

Is it better for Church A to commit $4,000 a year to 25 missionaries

or

Is it better for Church A to commit $4,000 a year to 20 missionaries
and use the extra $20,000 to help support whichever of those 20 missionaries have special needs during a particular year?

I would love to hear some feedback on this.

Just my question,

Frank

Jonathon Edward's Religious Affections now available for FREE

Unlike the disappointment from the recent Reformation Study Bible "dud", the following offer will actually be available to those who are interested in it.

Each month ChristianAudio.com has a free Christian audio book that they make available for free. In the past, they have had some really nice books with this special - including Richard Baxter's Reformed Pastor and The Life and Diary of David Brainerd.

This month, the free offer is for Jonathon Edward's Religious Affections.

Jonathon Edwards is probably the foremost American thinker, theologian and philospher. While his sermon Sinners in the Hand of an Angry God is probably his most well-known work (I remember hearing about it in my public Jr. High School), his book A Treatise on Religious Affections (normally referred to as simply Religious Affections) along with The Life and Diary of David Brainerd (which he compiled and edited) and Freedom of the Will are probably the ones that have had the most lasting influence.

If you have never acquinted yourself with Jonathon Edwards, this audio book would be a great start. (Of course, you will then want to purchase the actual written book so that you can digest it more fully.)

I remember taking a trip up to Princeton around 1997 to see Jonathon Edward's grave site at the historic Princeton cemetary when I still lived in New Jersey. It was net to see.

Here is the link for the Christian Audio promotion: http://www.christianaudio.com/free_download.php (Don't forget to use the code NOV2007 when you check out.)

Here is an address by Pastor John Piper on Edward's life and ministry that I listened to recently and found informative. It is entitled, The Pastor as Theologian and is your time to read or to listen.

Just my thoughts,

Frank

Disappointment on Special Sale of Reformation Study Bible

Many of you surely heard of the "special" sale that Ligonier Ministries was holding on October 31 for their Reformation Study Bible. In honor of Martin Luther's posting of the 95 Theses on October 31, 1517, Ligonier was selling the Reformation Study Bible for $15.17 on October 31. The concept was cute, but the promotion ended up being a "dud."

The advertisement had said "Quantaties not limited" which would imply that they had a pretty decent supply of these Bibles on hand. However, when I tried to order mid-morning, they were already out.

Someone over there needs to re-think the way they promote things. If you don't have the stock on hand - or you are not willing to make good on the offer with rainchecks of some kind that, don't advertise the product. At least when you go to buy a laptop at Wal-Mart on Black Friday, you know that quantities are limited and there is a good chance you will not get one unless you are there the night before.

I have never tried to do business directly with Ligionier before that I can remember (though I do have some materials from R. C. Sproul), but I can tell you that this kind of leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Just my thoughts,

Frank

Good week at the American Council of Christian Churches Convention

This past week, I had the priviledge to attend the 66th Annual Convention of the American Council of Christian Churches held at Hardingville Bible Church in Monroeville, New Jersey. (The church where I formerly served as an assistant.)

For those of you unfamiliar with the ACCC, the ACCC is a multi-denominational fundamentalist organization of churches that seeks to "earnestly contend for the faith" (Jude 3). The speakers for the week included Dr. Bruce McAllister (Director of Ministerial Training at Bob Jones University), Dr. Fred Moritz (Executive Director of Baptist World Mission), Dr. John McKnight (President of the ACCC and Pastor of the Evangelical Methodist Church of Darlington, MD and Rev. David McClelland of the Grace Free Presbyterian Church of Litchfield, NH.

It was great to get together with some strong Fundamentalist brethren and to exhort one another to be "Valient for the Truth" (the theme of the convention). It was also great to get a chance to spend some time with some pastor friends that I do not get to see very often. It was also great to be able to see a number of folks from Hardingville. We have only been gone just under three years, but a number of the children and teens have changed dramatically in that amount of time. WOW!

I hope to write more about this ACCC Convention soon, but time will not permit me to do so currently. I will say that if you can get your hands on David McClelland's address on "Incarnate Truth" it will challenge and stir your hearts. (I assume you could order it from either Hardingville or the ACCC at the links given above.)

Just my thoughts,

Frank

Did Dr. Bob Jones, III violate Biblical principles in endorsing Mitt Romney

As most of you are surely aware and as I mentioned in my recent post, Thinking About Elections, Dr. Bob Jones, III, the chancellor of Bob Jones University, came out last week and endorsed former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney for the Republican nomination for President of the United States.

In doing so, Dr. Bob raised the eyebrows of many and the ire of many others. All one has to do is take a quick look around the blogosphere to find that many have come out and commented on this event.

As I indicated in my post, I am not sure that this endorsement is the wisest move even from a political standpoint. I doubt the legitimacy of Romney's conservatism - especially in light of his campaigns and performance in Massachusetts where he took much more liberal positions. I doubt the ability of Romney to excite the conservative base (in part, because of his flip-flopping), and I think many people (and not just conservative evangelicals) will hold his Mormonism against him politically.

Since that time I have read a number of emails, blog comments and blog posts, and forum discussions in which the claim was made that Dr. Bob Jones III violated Biblical principles in endorsing Mitt Romney. Dr. Chuck Baldwin (a former candidate for Vice President as a nominee of the Constitution Party) has written an article in which he argues that "Bob Jones Dances with the Devil"

So, is it true? Does Dr. Bob Jones' endorsement of Mitt Romney equate to "Dancing with the Devil?" Does this signal an area of disobdience? What does the Bible say about this and what should we think about it?

It will be my attempt to answer that question without going too long. I apologize in advance for the fact that this will almost certainly be longer than a typical blog post and ask your indulgence in hearing this out.

The Relationship of Believers and Government

When we consider the relationship of believers to government, we find that while there is some teaching in this area by direct statements of Scripture, there is a lot of things that God chose to leave unsaid in this area - or to teach by illustration and principle rather than by direct statement.

When we consider the direct statements, some of the following things come immediately to mind.

1. Believers are to "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's." In other words - pay your taxes. (Matthew 22:17-22)

2. Believers are to "obey every ordinance of man." In other words - obey the laws of the land. (1 Peter 2:13)

3. Believers are to "honour the king." In other words - we need to treat those in authority with respect - even if we disagree with them. (1 Peter 2:17)

4. Believers are to offer "supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks" for "kings" and for "all that are in authority." In other words - pray for your government leaders. (1 Timothy 2:1-3)

However, the question that we are faced with in this discussion is not one that fits easily into one of those statements or similar statements. Instead, we are challenged with the question of what is a believers responsibility in regards to the selection of rulers in a secular government. By its very nature, this question is one that leads to difficulty because such a situation did not exist in Bible times.

Israel in Old Testament times was not a secular nation - it was, by its very nature as the chosen people of God, a religious nation with a religious purpose. This truth remained the same whether the country was being governed by religious leaders, judges, or kings. Some have attempted to drag out the qualifications that God gave regarding judges or kings for Israel as qualifications that we insist upon in our candidates for office in the United States. The problem with this is that the United States is a secular government and the situation being discussed today is of such a different nature than what was faced in regards to Israel that the list of O.T. verses that some (such as visionforum) have thrown out regarding the selection of rulers for Israel have to be ripped out of context in order to be made to apply to the situation as we have it in America.

When we come to other nations in the Old Testament - and even in the New Testament - we should remember that even these governments usually had a "religious" element to them. Many of the nations surrounding Israel viewed their ruler as a "god" or at least as a priest or servant of their particular god.

So, barring an exact parallel in the Bible, are there any examples that might educate us as to the nature of the believers relationship to a non-theocratic government ought to be?

I believe there are, but because these thoughts are drawn from historical passages rather than from declarative teachings, we must be careful how strongly we stretch the application of these situations.

I believe an argument can be made for the "support" of a non-believer (even a believer in a false religion) by a believer in a governmental or political situation based on the following:

1. The political roles played by Godly people in ungodly governments in the Old Testament.

While much of the Old Testament records Israel's history, Israel was not always a self-governing nation. There were periods throughout the Old Testament where people of God found themselves under the rule or command of nations that were not only not theologically correct, but were actually antagonistic to God and His people.

One of the examples of this was the situation with Joseph in Egypt. Joseph was a devout believer who God had brought through some extraordinary situations to bring him to a place of being able to preserve Israel by serving as Pharaoh's right hand man in Egypt. God used Joseph greatly and ended up using the wisdom of Joseph to provide food for Israel in Egypt that contributed to the preservation of the line of which the Messiah was to come through. However, as part of his role as vizier in Egypt, Joseph also supported Pharaoh. Genesis 47, for instance, tells us that "Joseph brought the money into Pharaoh's house" (v. 14) and that "Joseph bought all the land of Egypt for Pharaoh" (v. 20). To use the logic being thrown around by some of Dr. Jones' critics in this regard, Joseph was "dancing with the Devil" since his actions as part of the government were designed to benefit a pagan ruler.

Similar cases could be made from others, such as the godly Daniel in the wicked courts of Babylon and the leader Nehemiah as the cupbearer of Artaxerxes. In each case, you do not find the Bible speaking evil against these men because they assisted pagan, idolatrous men in the realm of politics and government.

2. The implication of the statements in support of government.

In an earlier section of this post, I gave a few of the clear statements of Scripture regarding the relationship of the believer to secular government. We must remember that this statements by Christ and Paul and Peter were not made in a vacuum. They were made in the midst of being ruled by oppressive and wicked governmental rulers.

If Christ can say that we should give our taxes to Caesar (even though Caesar was a wicked man) and if Paul can say we should pray for and give thanks for those in authority (even though those in authority were often seeking his own harm) and if Peter can say that we are to honor the king (even though the king leaves much to be desired in regards to honor), then surely you or I can say that it is not wrong to give support to a person to whom we may not agree in every area - or even with whom we disagree to a large degree.

3. The responsibilities and realities of the American system of government.

Unlike Paul, Peter, Daniel, and the rest, those of us who are citizens of the United States of America are in a country where we are given the opportunity to participate in the process of selecting and electing our own leaders. I believe this gives us a responsibility to be "wise as serpents and harmless as doves" (Matthew 10:16). I believe that part of this responsibility includes supporting politically the individuals who we would like to see elected as President (or other office).

The realities of our system indicate a few things.

* The first reality of our system is that there is no perfect candidate. There never has been and there never will be. Every person for whom we vote or publicly endorse is going to have flaws. The reality of this truth needs to hit home to those who are making this criticism. No matter who your candidate is, they have problems. The choice regarding candidates are not simply "yes/no" but are instead choices of degrees.


For instance, one of the big concerns in this particular endorsement is the religion of Governor Romney. In case someone who reads this has been hiding under a rock, Governor Romney is a Mormon - a member of the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints." Is Romney's Mormonism a false religion? Absolutely. Among other things, Mormonism teaches that Jesus and Satan were brothers and that man can become gods. (In fact, Dr. Bob Jones made it abundantly clear that he is not in favor of Governor Romney's Mormonism. In fact, the Greenville News article that announces the endorsement quotes Dr. Jones as stating, "As a Christian I am completely opposed to the doctrines of Mormonism" and "I'd be very concerned if he tried to make it appear in any of his statements that Mormonism is a Christian denomination of some sort. It isn't. There's a theological gulf that can't be bridged." Some of the left-leaning blogs out there have even made it a point that to complain that Dr. Jones had to show his "intolerance" by speaking negatively of Governor Romney's Mormonism in the same interview in which he endorsed him for President.) However, if politics and government is about supporting someone's religious belief, then I think that we must admit that there are some serious problems for conservative Christians - especially for Fundamentalist Christians. I don't believe that there is anyone running that I could, in clear conscience and in obedience to Biblical principals, have preach in my church - and I don't think there has been in my lifetime. Is Romney's Mormonism worse than the false teaching that President Bush sometimes spouts (such as in his recent comments that "I believe that all the world, whether they be Muslim, Christian, or any other religion, prays to the same God") or worse than the false Roman Catholicism of Clarence Thomas or the theologically liberal Episcopalian George H. W. Bush? In each of these cases, the religion of these men has significant errors and is far from what the Bible teaches. If we take the position that Governor Romney's religion automatically disqualifies him, are we, by default, saying that these other serious religious errors are somehow less egregious?

* The second reality of our system is that all of us support these flawed candidates if we vote at all. Not only do we understand that no candidate is perfect, but we all also find ourselves in some degree supporting a flawed candidate. Even if we never speak up and endorse someone publically, the very fact that we cast a vote for them indicates that there is at least some sense in which we have supported that candidate. The question, again, then becomes a question of degrees. Do I support this person who I vote for by campaigning for him, contributing to him, or merely voting for him? If I say that it is wrong to support the candidate by endorsing him, how do I justify my vote for a flawed candidate when it comes to election day?

* The third reality of our system is that Presidential politics is essentially a "winner takes all" contest. There is no run-off among the top vote getters. There is no ability to form a coalition after the fact of the candidates who received the second, third and fourth highest vote totals in order to overthrow the election of the candidate with the highest electoral vote total. The 1992 and 1996 election should be recent enough reminders regarding the fact splitting the vote of your opposition is as effective in winning and election as actually getting the majority of people to support you. This is, in part, the logic behind what Dr. Jones was trying to do politically. If those who hold to socially conservative values in areas such as abortion and homosexual marriage split their loyalty among a bung of different candidates in the primary, it will assure a choice between two "pro-choice" candidates in the general election. I agree with this argument, I am just not sure that Governor Romney is the one I would have encouraged the social conservatives to support.

* The fourth reality of our system is that sometimes the wisest move is to prevent something more evil from happening. Proverbs warns us that we have a responsibility to deliver those that are drawn unto death. Many believers and politician could rightfully argue that the election of Senator Hillary Clinton to the office of President would spell a significant setback in the chance of getting the heinous Roe v. Wade decision overturned. Electing a pro-life President could have the opposite effect, as there are already four of the needed five votes to overturn R v. W already sitting on the Supreme Court. Perhaps taking Proverbs 24:11-12 seriously would include trying to do what you can to make sure that someone who is pro-life gets elected.

Proverbs 24:11-12 If thou forbear to deliver them that are drawn unto death, and those that are ready to be slain; If thou sayest, Behold, we knew it not; doth not he that pondereth the heart consider it? and he that keepeth thy soul, doth not he know it? and shall not he render to every man according to his works?

So, am I following Dr. Bob Jones, III's endorsement of Governor Mitt Romney for President? Not at this time. But, is that endorsement by Dr. Jones the hypocritical comprise of Biblical principles that some have claimed? No.

Just my thoughts,

Frank

Washington Post picks up Clinton-Chinatown Story

I noticed in my Sitemeter this afternoon that I briefly had been linked by The Washington Post regarding the Clinton-Chinatown story that I mentioned in my recent post entitled, "There's Something Rotten in the State of ... The Clinton Campaign Contributions".

While the linkage (however brief) was flattering, the good news in this is that at least some of the bigger media are beginning to pick up this story. The Washington Post has an editorial in today's print edition entitled, Dishwashers for Clinton. The subtitle for the editorial is "Once again, a zeal for campaign cash trumps common sense."

I am surprised that Hugh Hewitt has not written something more substantial about this. So far, all I can find at his blog is a little blurb entitled: Fueling the Clinton Machine: Chinatown. Having just finished reading Blog by Hugh Hewitt, I would have expected that he would be doing more to try to move this story along.

Here's hoping someone with the time, money and ability begins to take a real serious look at this issue.

Just my thoughts,

Frank

The Preacher's Daughter

The preacher's 5-year-old daughter noticed that her father always paused and bowed his head, for a moment, before starting his sermon.

One day, she asked him why.

"Well, honey," he began, proud that his daughter was so observant of his messages, "I'm asking the Lord to help me preach a good sermon."

"How come He doesn't do it?" she asked.



-- Sorry, I couldn't resist.

I have a much more substantial post in the process, but looking for time to actually finish writing it. (I have finished the first page, but the nature of the topic that it will be a fuller treatment than that.)

Just my thoughts,

Frank

P.S. No, this IS NOT a personal story!

There's Something Rotten in the state of .. The Clinton Campaign Contributions

I want to get back out of the political sphere here soon, but I found this information and the relative quietness of it in the MSM to be quite interesting.

It appears that somebody (or somebodies) is channeling money to Hillary Clinton's campaign through dishwashers, waiters and other workers at Chinese restuarants in New York's Chinatown district. The L.A. Times Reports on "An Unlikely Treasure-Trove of Donors for Clinton" and comments that:

The candidate's unparalleled fundraising success relies largely on the least-affluent residents of New York's Chinatown -- some of whom can't be tracked down.

While The L.A. Times does not come out and say it, this sure smells like something fishy is going on. How do dishwashers and other similar workers find the kind of funds to give $2,000 to a political campaign - in an area where the median family income was $21,000 according to the 2000 Census? My guess is that someone - or more than one someone - is feeding them the money for the contributions

The Times comments that:

At least one reported donor denies making a contribution. Another admitted to lacking the legal-resident status required for giving campaign money.

Why is this not getting more play in the MSM? Especially in light of the ongoing Clinton-China issues from previous days? I cannot help but imagine that similar questionable contributions to a conservative would have received much greater play in the MSM.

Just my thoughts,

Frank

True Love

I ran across this story recently:

In an effort to crack down on shoplifting at their store, a store recently declared that it would prosecute fully anyone who got caught shoplifting from their store.

Soon, an elderly woman who had been married for 40 years was discovered to be shoplifting. Not wanting to go against their newly stated policy, the store decided to go after this elderly woman and to make sure she went to trial and jail for her crimes.

The day of the trial came and the elderly lady went before the judge. The judge look at the elderly lady and felt compassion on her, but knew he must do his job. He asked her,"What did you steal?"

She replied: "A can of peaches".

The judge asked her why she had stolen them and she replied that she was hungry.

The judge then asked her how many peaches were in the can.

She replied, "6".

The judge then said, "I will give you 6 days in jail."

As the judge began to formally render his sentencing, the woman's husband of 40 years stood up and asked the judge if he could say something.

The crowd in the courtroom all stopped what they were doing to listen intently to what this man was going to say.

The judge asked, "What is it that you want to say?"

The husband then replied "She also stole a can of peas."

Just someone else's thoughts.

Frank

Thinking about elections

As the presidential primaries rapidly approach, the discussion regarding the candidates for President of the United States is starting to really take off.

Just today, the Greenville News is reporting that Dr. Bob Jones, III has endorsed Mitt Romney for the Republican presidential primary in South Carolina (story here). Earlier this week, Hugh Hewitt psted a memo from Mark DeMoss who made also tried to make the case for Romney (story here).

I know that I am a nobody, but I wonder if we are jumping the gun and I also wander if we are backing the wrong guy.

The comment from Dr. Bob that was immediately under the headline in The Greenville News was "This is all about beating Hillary." Mark DeMoss's post indicates that one of his three requirements was that the person must be "someone who can actually win the nomination."

Here is where I think we are coming close to making the same mistake the Democrats made in 2004. If you step into your time machine a minute, you will recall that up until Iowa, Governor Dean was the one with all of the excitement and momentum among the radical leftist base. However, the establishment Dems feared that Dean would be unelectable to the majority of Americans and were pushing for John Kerry instead. The argument was essentially - "This is all about beating George Bush" and the thought was that the base was so infumed in their hatred for Bush that the base was covered so they needed to find someone who could appeal to the uncommitted without bringing too much offense. John Kerry got pushed because he was viewed as the "safe condidate" and those pushing Kerry won the day with their argument.

Unfortunately for the Dems (but fortunately for thinking Americans), this stategy failed. I think that part of the reason this strategy failed was that a winning candidate needs to be someone that the people feel that they can support - and that they are willing to work for and to tell their friends about, etc. I actually think that Dean may have been able to do a better job against Bush because he was clear on his opposition to the War, he was clear on the other issues. Bush's team managed to successfully go after the fact that Kerry was just playing politics with so many issues and "flip flopping."

It looks to me that this same type of thing is what is happening at this time in the Republican primaries. The social conservatives are trying to find a way to beat Guiliani, who has staked out some pretty liberal social views on abortion, gay marriate, etc. In order to do so, the thinking seems to be that they need to all become unified around one of the socially conservative candidates so that this turns into a two man race - Guiliani vs. Romney -with the idea that if all the social conservatives eggs are in one basket, the basket will be heavy enough to tip the scale.

The problem with this is that I do not believe that Romney has the ability to rally the rank and file social conservatives - especially the socially conservative evangelical voters - to his side.

Here are some reasons why I question the ability of Mitt Romney to excite the socially conservative rank and file are as follows.

1. His record and rhetoric as a social conservative is wishy-washy at best. If you take the time to watch the videos at YouTube of Romney's debates in Massachusetts, you will find that repeatedly he trumpets his views as pro-choice. "I will preserve and protect a woman's right to choose." (Here is one of many videos that the left will use against him on this - and that causes the little guys like me to wonder where the guy really stands on this issue). I recognize that he is claiming to be pro-life now, but this debate was in 2002 - we are not talking that long ago and the switch in positions at this venture (especially when he talks in other debates about how long his family has stood on this issue - since his mother ran for Senate) will seem too convenient and politically motivated for the average Joe.

2. He has not galvinized the base already with all the money he has on his side. Romney has spent a whole lot more money than Brownback, Huckabee, etc., but he still has not managed to stir up the excitement. The pundits out there keep talking about how great it is that he has raised a lot of money (although a lot of it seems to be money he has loaned to himself). That is true, but what kind of return is he getting for that money? In the August Iowa straw poll, Huckabee came in second with 18.1% and Brownback came in third with 15.3%.

3. Like it or not, the reality is that the Mormonism of Romney will cause many to be cautious about voting for him. Not just among conservative evangelical voters, but in the general election as well. I understand that "we are voting for a President, not a Pastor" has a nice ring to it, but that line did not work when people wanted to dismiss the character issue in regards to Clinton. The reality is that many Americans vote on how they percieve a guy as much as they do on the person's policies. This is especially true of the folks in the "undecided land" who wait until the last month to make their decisions. For many of these people, the election all comes down to their impression of a person - and for many, that impression of Romney as the great Mormon leader will be the one that holds them back.

Imagine if the guys who seem to be trying to get the bandwagon going for Romney would put their efforts behind someone who evangelical Christians could support, rather than a man whose pro-life creditials are shaky at best?

Just my thoughts,

Frank

My Book Review of When You Pray has been published at SI

I mentioned awhile ago that I was in the process of writing a book review of Philip Graham Ryken's book, When You Pray: Making the Lord's Prayer Your Own.

I just wanted to alert my readers to the fact that it has now been posted at SharperIron - article is here. Since SI provides the book for the purpose of review, it is released there first. I will post it here at A Thinking Man's Thoughts and at The FFBC Blog shortly. I know some of my readers do not post on SI, so if you want to make a comment, feel free to do so in the comments of this post - or wait about a week and the whole review will be posted here.

Just my thoughts,

Frank

A Question regarding UNO

After the very profitable discussion on Missions Funding, I am going to ask for much more trivial help in this post.

Does anyone know how many cards there are of each number and color in UNO?

The official site says there are 108 cards and that there are 19 cards of 0-9 of each color.

Unfortunately 0-9 gives me 10 number cards and that means that there must be only one of something in 0-9 for their to only be 19 number cards per color per deck.

If anyone has a full deck out there (or knows this info in some other way), could you check and let me know?

Looking for your thoughts (and help),

Frank

There's Something Rotten in the State of ... New Jersey - Part 2

As I mentioned in my last post, there were two recent situations in New Jersey that could have national implications and ought to be of concern to believers.

The last one - which dealt with the attempt to coerce a Methodist Camp Association to allow homosexual civil unions in their chapel/pavillion - I entitled, "There's Something Rotten in the State of ... New Jersey, part 1".

This article is the "Part 2" to the first article and relates to a different moral issue.

The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that doctors "have no duty to tell a woman seeking an abortion that the procedure would kill a human being." (NJ.Com article is located : here)

The New Jersey Supreme Court is not famous for reasoned and rational decisions and leans heavily Democrat. (Although they have a mostly new set of justices now, they still are 5-2 appointed by Democrats and the 2 appointed by Republicans were appointed by liberal Republican Christine Whitman.)

Notice the following quote:

Acuna said she asked the doctor "if it was the baby in there?" She claimed he told her: "Don't be stupid, it's just some blood."

The doctor testified that he did not recall Acuna asking such a question but would have told her that a "seven-week pregnancy is not a living human being."

If this was the early 1970s, I could understand a doctor not being sure that a seven-week pregnancy is a living human being. But with the advances in technology that allow us to look into the womb and all the things we now know about the process of pregnancy and the development of children in the womb, to make such a claim should cause this guy to lose his license.

If he wanted to make the case that this life was not worth saving or something along those lines, I would still disagree, but at least he could still claim some intellectual honesty. Instead, he is hiding his head in the sand to support the prevailing liberal agenda of the day.

Ridiculous.

One day, I hope that we will look back at the genocide of the pro-abortion agenda the way that many of us view the 3/5ths compromise in the Constitution - how could such otherwise wise men have been so stupid?

Just my thoughts,

Frank

(For a related article on this subject from my archives, see this post.)

There's Something Rotten in the State of ... New Jersey - Part 1

Two recent news stories regarding New Jersey should serve as a warning about what things are like when the corrupt Democratic machine gets complete control of something - especially in regards to issues that are important to believers.

Corruption in New Jersey politics is nothing new - see former Senator Bob Torricelli (D) or former Governor James McGreevey (D) as two recent prominent New Jersey Democrats that resigned amid accusations of corruption. Having lived in New Jersey for 10 years, not much would surprise me with regards to New Jersey politics.

Recently, however, there were two issues that showed up in New Jersey that ought to cause the rest of us to take notice. Since they are different issues, I will address each one with a separate post.

The first issue is regarding homosexual activism and the believer's rights to stand up for the truth from the Bible.

In the continued efforts of the homosexual activitists to silence and intimidate any voices that do not agree with their desire to have their sin viewed as acceptable and moral, a recent attack was made upon the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Associaton for their refusal to allow civil unions in an oceanside Pavillion/Chapel that the Methodist Camp Association owns.

You can read the article in the New Jersey Ledger here.

If you notice in the article, there are a series of cases pending on the groups refusal - on religious grounds - to allow the civil unions on the site. The cost of this stand (in the terms of uthe nexpected tax bill) could reach $378,000. The cost for the other cases pending (including a civil rights descrimination case) could end up being even greater - depending on decisions in the cases.

If you do not think that believers need to stand up and take a position against this promotion of this radical agenda now, imagine the implications down the road for Christian schools, churches, and camp grounds. All that the homosexual activitists need to do is ask for permission to be married on your grounds and if you refuse to allow it, you could be in for some serious trouble.

I am not sure what those of us outside of New Jersey can or should do in this matter, but one thing is certain. We ought to be preparing our ministries for the day when this same attack is made in our individual locations. I am hesitant to name some ministries that I can think of that may soon be facing the same type of attacks (I don't want my including their names in this post to be something that the left uses to find new targets.)

Just my thoughts,

Frank

Maggie Gallagher has a more detailed discussion on this over at Yahoo! News.