TO A FRIEND WHO VOTED FOR HILLARY

   We may have never met.  If so, I hope to meet you and thank you for letting me call you "friend" and thank you for reading this.  You may have read other blogs or posts of mine and if you have you certainly know that you and I must be poles apart philosophically.  So, it says a lot about your fair minded approach to life that you are reading someone with whom you may never agree. 
   You are probably experiencing disappointment so deeply that you feel it must be unprecedented in U.S. history.  That may be true simply because this election has no precedent in our history.  The division in this country has no precedent.  In the last 50 years we have lost a consensus on morality that provided a basis for reconciliation between North and South (after the War) and between Democrats and Republicans after elections.  That consensus is gone.  Christianity, that provided that consensus, is now widely despised.
   But let's get back to addressing your deep hurt and disappointment.  You were probably not even born in 1960 but I believe that was the last time people like me felt the kind of disappointment you now feel.  "But", you say, "were you conservative Evangelicals not bitterly disappointed at the election and reelection of Barak Obama?"  Yes, many of us were, especially at his reelection.  But holding control of the Congress eased our fears somewhat.  You have no such consolation now.
   Why do I compare your feelings now to ours in 1960?  To understand this you must understand how deep were the fears of Roman Catholics holding high office.  For some people this was a non-rational, visceral fear like the No Nothing Party in the 19th century and the Klan in the 1920's.  This was behind the vicious opposition to the Catholic Al Smith, the Democratic candidate in 1928.  But for others in 1960 it was based on an historical survey of countries where the Church of Rome had held control or large influence.  Things did not often go well for liberty and prosperity in countries like that.  This view was held, not just by conservative Evangelicals, but by so-called mainstream Protestants like Norman Vincent Peale of Marble Collegiate Church in New York City.  You may recall that he wrote the best selling The Power Of Positive Thinking in the 1950's.   (An unrelated but interesting footnote to history is that a young Donald Trump attended Peale's church and acquired much of his optimism there.)
    John F. Kennedy was the first Roman Catholic to be elected President and his victory in November 1960 is what drove people like me (18 years old) into deep disappointment like you feel now.  Our unwarranted fears of Roman Catholicism were combined with our naïve belief that the Republican Richard Nixon was "one of us".  He had, after all, spoken at Billy Graham's New York Crusade in 1957.  I am now getting to the place where I hope that can see that your fears now are as unfounded as ours were then.  While Kennedy may have been grossly immoral in private, his acts as President were, in retrospect, far from unfriendly to us who had feared him.
   Once, he instructed one of his assistants to contact a South American government to help Billy Graham get the use of a certain arena for one of his crusades.  Kennedy had several long talks with Billy Graham, the first of which was shorty after the election.  Kennedy urged Congress to cut taxes because, he said, "a rising tide (the economy) lifts all boats".  Most importantly, Kennedy refused to take the advice of some generals and invade Cuba.  We now know that this cool headed restraint prevented a nuclear war.  Nixon may now not, and probably would not, have done the same.  We both know what Nixon turned out to be like once he got into the White House.  And now, 56 years later, we Evangelicals are allies and friends with many Catholics in our deepest concerns for our country.
   So, my friend, even though many things are different now I believe that a good case can be made that you will someday, like me, see that your fears were greatly exaggerated and perhaps even completely unfounded.  Trump will, it appears, appoint people, especially judges, who will move us back toward a Christian base of law and morality.  While this is feared by those who want to do anything sexually ("LGBT") it is ultimately their dignity and worth as individuals (like the pre-born baby) that is lost if the Christian base is lost.  Jefferson, in the Declaration, called this base "the laws of Nature and of Nature's God". 
   If I were you, my dear friend, I would welcome someone who wants to appoint people who will move us in that direction again. 
    May you, and those dear to you, be greatly blessed by God.

ELK HUNTING AND LIVING THIS MOMENT

   Several years ago I was the guest of a friend on an elk hunt in Wyoming.  It was an eight hour ride on horseback through mountains and meadows to get to the base camp.  There were places on that ride, to and from the camp, where you held the reins very lightly and let the horse "do his thing".  A wrong step to the right or left could plunge the horse and you to your deaths. 
   I think of this when I read of people who call themselves "evangelical Christians" taking positions clearly contrary to biblical teaching on such things as same sex relationships and marriage.  They are plunging off a spiritual cliff and risk the loss of their souls and the souls of their followers.  They are plunging off to the left.  Someone like me faces the danger of plunging off to the right.
   The men who crucified Jesus plunged off to the right.  The group known as the Pharisees began as a movement to defend the Law of Moses and all of what we call the Old Testament.  They plunged off the cliff because they closed their eyes to a large body of Scripture about the Messiah being a suffering Servant.  They also closed their eyes to other Scripture, Jesus said, about God desiring mercy more than sacrifice.
   But let's go back for a moment to the people going off the left side.  Their movement, if I can call it that, goes back at least to the 1970's with leaders like Jim Wallis who founded Sojourners, and the popular speaker Tony Compollo.  I would include Ron Sider who wrote the book Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger.  When speaking at churches Wallis would hold up a Bible that had been cut to shreds and accuse his white, middle class Protestant audience of cutting out of the Bible everything about helping the poor.  Compollo said similar things, even claiming that all the poor of the world, regardless of what they believed or did, were automatically the 'brothers of Christ'.  He was confronted by a group of evangelical theologians for this and backed off somewhat.
   These three men, and many others, allowed their sincere compassion to blind them to the truth about the actual causes of poverty since the 1960's.  They embraced badly discredited economic policies of forcible redistribution of wealth.  So, you can see why they were sometimes called Marxists.  Their irrational compassion led them into a form of man-centeredness or humanism.  The poor were made into an idol which, in turn, has led them to support the most anti-God and anti-Christ politicians and political platforms of modern times.  To better understand the errors of men like this I strongly recommend two books:  Toxic Charity and Productive Christians in an Age of Guilt Manipulation.
   This distorted sense of compassion and man-centeredness has also led at least two of these men to support same sex marriage.  They had genuine compassion for people struggling with same sex attractions.  But their remedy for the pains of these people was, in effect, "go ahead and sin; grace will abound".  They are being followed in their plunge off the cliff by some other high profile "evangelicals".  Surveys indicate that around one third of people under 40 who consider themselves to be evangelicals and an alarmingly high number over the age of 40 are jumping off this same cliff.  What was unthinkable just a few years ago is now a growing movement among people who call Jesus Lord.  Will they someday hear from Him the words, "depart from me you who practice lawlessness"?
   But, it is also possible to go over a cliff on the right side.  "Whoever does not love does not know God, for God is love"  (I John 4:8)  Reading this and Jesus' parable about Lazarus and the rich man, gives me a sense of holy fear.  That story in Luke 16 was not given, as we were often told, for the purpose of describing hell.  It was given to tell me that if I say I love God but refuse to help someone hurting within arm's reach of me, then I am a lost soul.  It warns me lest I reject compassion just because some may have a twisted and irrational kind.  It cautions me against all kinds of smugness and arrogance.  Watching those who are plunging off the cliff to the left warns me against following the spirit of this age, whether that wind is blowing toward the left or the right.
   Back to the elk hunt.  To the best of my knowledge no horse and rider ever went off one of those cliffs.  The only accident I know of was when the friend who took me on the hunt was thrown by his horse onto a boulder in the midst of a stream.  We learned a year later that horse had a history of things like that.  By the mercy of God my friend survived.  What do you and I learn from that episode? -- the value of a dependable horse!  And how about this: if Jesus is compared to both a lion and a lamb would it also be fair to say that, like a dependable horse, He, through the Holy Spirit, is carrying us?  I don't know about you but I'm going to let Him navigate the cliff of living in this dangerous moment of history.  I know where He is taking me and I know He will get me there.
  

THE NOISE WON'T DO IT: WARTIME QUOTES AND YOUR STRUGGLE TODAY

    During what is known as "The Battle of the Bulge" in December 1944 an entire U.S. armored division was retreating from the Germans in the Ardennes forest when a sergeant in a tank destroyer spotted an American digging a foxhole.   That in itself was no easy job with the ground frozen in the coldest winter Europe had seen a century.  The G.I. digging the foxhole was PFC Martin of the 325th Glider Infantry Regiment.  He looked up at the sergeant and said, "Are you looking for a safe place?"  "Yep", answered the tanker.  "Well, buddy," he drawled, "just pull your vehicle behind me.  I'm the 82nd Airborne, and this is as far as the b _ _ _ _ _ _ s are going."
   Normally, only small minded people call others humans names like that.  I say "normally".  The word, of course, means "an illegitimate child" or "a contemptible person".   Followers of Adolph Hitler were quite literally both.
That quote is one of my favorites and hangs framed on a wall here because it has a marvelous application to our day by day struggles.  Sooner or later a child of God will feel as threatened and desperate in spirit as those young men felt 72 years ago before the Nazi onslaught.  That quote represents all the courage and resourcefulness of the young Americans who won the largest war in human history.   Looking at marriages ruined, families destroyed, churches split and militant atheism advancing, the believer looks satan in the face and says, "you were defeated on the cross by the shed blood and the risen life of the Lord Jesus; I am His child; He indwells me; all authority in heaven and on earth is His; and THIS IS AS FAR AS YOU ARE GOING!!!
   The Battle of the Bulge produced another memorable quote.  This one was just one word.  The German plan was to push through to the Port of Antwerp, cutting the Allied forces in half and forcing a cease-fire or a truce.
On the major highway of their advance was the town of Bastogne.  At first the town was defended by the 28th Infantry, who were subsequently relieved by the 101st Airborne under Gen. Anthony McAuliffe.  They were totally surrounded and Patton's Third Army was racing from the south to rescue them.  The German commander sent an ultimatum demanding the surrender of the American forces at Bastogne or they would be utterly destroyed.  Gen. McAuliffe read the ultimatum and directed that a one word reply be sent to the German commander:  "NUTS!!!"   Don't you just love it?  And the Germans did not understand American slang.  "Nuts!  Was ist das?"
   I would not trivialize our struggles with satan and demonic spirits but when pressed hard to quit and give up maybe we should just to him, "Nuts", and keep right on walking with the Lord.  And we have infinitely more resources than Patton's Third Army to rescue us!
   Our next one comes from Viet Nam and it is not an actually quote.  Through the years I have read many articles by the man who was assigned by the U.S. Army to train South Vietnamese forces to defend themselves after the French were defeated in 1954 and withdrew from Viet Nam.  This man wrote about how small of stature the typical Vietnamese soldier was.  So, what did some genius at the Pentagon decide to arm them with?  Big, heavy, bulky U.S. M-1 Garand rifles left over from WW2 and Korea and weighing around 10 pounds fully loaded.   They were heavy even for many U.S. soldiers who were larger and stronger.  If that wasn't bad enough the Vietnamese were convinced that what killed the enemy was, not the bullet coming out of the rifle barrel, but the NOISE of the rifle.  Seriously!  And no amount of explanation could convince them otherwise.
   This is where we got our title for this blog.  There seems to be a widely held belief among American Christians that our "noise" will defeat demonic strongholds and win people to Christ.  Preaching, music, Bible studies, taking stands on moral issues, arguments and reasoning all have their place.  But unless "real bullets" are hitting the enemy we are as self deceived as the Vietnamese soldiers.  Hear the words of Paul to his beloved Thessalonian believers:  "Because our gospel came to you not simply with words ("noise") but also with power, with the Holy Spirit and with deep conviction."  (I Thess. 1:5)   The Lord Jesus used 'real bullets' against satan.  They came right out of the 'ammo depot' of Deuteronomy and Jesus 'fired' them with great accuracy and effectiveness at the Enemy.  God helping me, I will do no less.
  
  

A FEW THINGS YOU PROBABLY WERE NEVER TOLD

   With all the admiration now given to the late Martin Luther King Jr. I wonder how many now know that when he was alive relatively few white Christians admired him.  Looking at old photos of the marches he led you will see mainly liberal Protestant, Roman Catholic or Jewish leaders marching with him.  Christians who wore the label "Fundamentalist" back then despised King for two reasons.  They saw him as a theological liberal and they supported segregation of the races as something that "God ordained".  Believers who preferred the label "Evangelical" generally believed that racist attitudes were ungodly but they were often cool toward King, primarily because they sincerely believed that confronting white racism would get a lot of innocent people hurt or even killed.  Being conservative in theology tended to make them conservative in matters that required confrontation.  The passing of time has put things in better perspective. 
   There were some notable exceptions.  The late Frank Gabelein, a leading Evangelical scholar and educator, was sent by Christianity Today Magazine to report on one of the marches that King led.  At a certain point his conscience moved him to leave the crowd of spectators and join the march. 
   Now, on to something else you may not have known.  Until well into the 1960's what was the moral issue that dominated the thinking of many Christians?  It was - are you ready for this - the sale and consumption of alcoholic drinks!  The 18th Amendment to the Constitution in 1919, prohibiting the manufacture and sale of most alcoholic beverages,  had been considered by millions of Christians to be the ultimate triumph of righteousness in America.  The 21st Amendment that repealed it in 1933 was the most bitter of disappointments.  As a child, 20 years later, in 1953 I personally witnessed the cause of Christ and evangelism hurt badly in the community where I lived by the zealous efforts of Christians to make alcoholic drink illegal.  They lost the vote that November by a 2 -1 margin but bitter feelings remained for many years.
   Back to the subject of human rights for everyone regardless of skin color:  did you know that a century or more ago the proper words were "Colored" or "Negro", as in the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)?  Then, in the 1960's "Black" became the word of preference, as in "Black Pride".  But that didn't last long.  Jesse Jackson and others promoted the term "African-American" and it is still the term of preference.  Many thoughtful people, both Black and White, believe it is unwise to have hyphenated Americans.  I agree with them but I use the term out of respect for the wishes of others.
    Along these same lines, did you know that 90 years ago the ethnic group with the lowest rate of pregnancy outside of marriage was - you guessed it - African-American girls?  The church, either Baptist or Pentecostal, was the center and anchor of life for most Black families.  The grace of God experienced in fellowship with other believers sustained them through the cruelties of slavery and segregation.  Did you also know that the 1915 movie "The Birth of a Nation" glorified the KKK and fueled the myth among Whites that Black men lustfully pursued white women?
   Did you know that the virtual destruction of the Black family in America is a result of Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty in the 1960's?  The government sent the message: "the father is not needed in the Black family (or any family for that matter).  The government will take care of you".
   Did you know that at any moment in the past that you could point to, there were thoughtful and intelligent people saying "morals are so low that at this rate we won't last long"?  Does that mean that our present situation is not as bad as we might think?  Not at all.  It only means that humans have always been capable of the same evil things we see now.  The big difference between now and the past is that once restraints are removed they are rarely, if ever, brought back unless there is a major spiritual revival in a nation.
   Did you know that Bill Clinton's immorality in the White House was not at all the first to happen there?  What was a 'first' was:  1) it was revealed while the President involved was still in office; and 2) his popularity remained high and even rose.  This was a watershed in U.S. history.
   This one you may already know.  The main "health crisis" in America is -- the way people eat.  In a word, the crisis is obesity.  Add to that, diabetes, cancers of various types and all other maladies connected with poor dietary habits.  I offended one or more people some time ago in one of these blogs with the passing comment that just observing crowds of people anywhere will show how widespread and serious this problem is.  I should have said it differently.  I should have said what an opportunity for Christians to set an example in the way they eat and maintain a healthy weight.
   Do you know that this Presidential election has no precedent in U.S. history.  No woman has ever been this close to the Presidency.  Never before has someone with no political experience been this close.  Never before has someone with a record of crude, vulgar and arrogant statements been this close to the Presidency, and not only close but promising, if elected, to promote those things dear to the hearts of millions of Christians! 
   You and I both struggle to grasp how full of danger and how full of hope and promise for the Cause of Christ this moment is.  Charles Dickens said the days of the French Revolution were "the best of times and the worst of times".  He should be alive now.  The spirit of antichrist may be everywhere but people are coming to Christ in numbers almost too large to grasp.  Fifty year ago Chairman Mao promised to eradicate Christianity in China.  Today the Church there is growing as fast or faster than anywhere on earth.  I know that from eternity I shall look back with unbounded gratitude to God that he let me live at this moment; not only let me live but speak and write for his honor and for the good of others. 
   I almost forgot.  A copy of this blog and $1.00 will get you a free coffee at participating McDonalds.
  
  

CREATION AND THE FLOOD: THREE VIEWS

  The three views we will describe are all held by Evangelical Christians.  By Evangelical I mean those who take the claims of Christ seriously; who hold to the orthodox, historic Christian faith; and who believe it is absolutely necessary for every individual to personally believe and commit to the Gospel (Gr. euangellion) that Christ died for our sins, that He was buried, and that He rose bodily from the dead on the third day.  There are at least some people in every branch of Christianity who fit this description,  and because they take seriously the claims of Christ they want to take seriously the truth of God as Creator.   This summary of the three views comes from 60 years of reading and reflection on these matters.   
   Before we go any further we need to clarify a few terms.  Naturalism is the belief that everything that exists can be explained without any reference to the infinite, Personal God.  Naturalism (in a philosophical sense) views the existence of God as irrelevant to questions of origins and ignores or minimizes the fact that modern science was born of the Christian world view.  Without the belief in a rational Creator Who made a creation that can be rationally understood there would be no modern science.   Naturalism, is the term that Christians should be using most of the time when they, instead, use the term evolution.  Conservative Christians have developed a bad habit of using the term evolution always in a bad sense when what they mean is naturalism.  Evolution, in the sense of change over time, is a useful scientific concept and not at all the same as philosophical naturalism.  All naturalists are totally committed to evolutionary explanations alone.  All Christian views of origins believe in at least some change over time (evolution).
   The first of the three views held by some Evangelical Christians is often called theistic evolution (from the Gr. word for God, theos).  But those who hold this view might use terms like evolutionary creation.  The scientific organization they have recently formed is called Biologos, from the New Testament Greek words for life (bios) and word (logos).  They believe: 1)we should look for natural explanations to physical phenomena because the Creator used natural processes to bring about His Creation;  2) always saying "God did it" about things in the physical realm is an error called "the God of the gaps", because,  3) if and when a natural explanation is found, God is make to look unnecessary;  4) the evidence is (in their view) compelling for the common descent of all life (including people) from previous life forms (in particular they point to studies in genetics);  5) there were two creative acts of God --  the initial act,   in which God, in some sense,  programmed atoms to produce the universe and life, and the second direct creative act caused one (or more) highly evolved hominid(s) to be a "living soul in the Image of God";  6) the first eleven chapters of Genesis are more like parables that illustrate truths than they are actual history. 
   Examples of believers who hold (or have held) some form of this view would be, first, the best known Christian writer of the 20th century, C.S. Lewis.  Currently, the best example would be Francis Collins who was in charge of the human genome project in the 1990's.  He was the founder of the Biologos organization and wrote the book  The Language Of God.  Positive comments about this view would include their effort to maintain scientific integrity while recognizing  God as Creator.  Criticisms of the view primarily have to do with denying the historical nature of the early chapters of Genesis, when Christ and the New Testament writers certainly seem to refer to them as historical.  Also, they do not believe in "design" in living things.  They believe that God allowed the evolutionary process to run its course and did not interfere or "tinker" with it.  They are also charged with being inconsistent.  Why admit two creative acts of God and no more?  For these reasons this view, although held by nearly all who are theological liberals, is held by a relatively small percentage of Evangelicals.
   The second view we shall look at is the polar opposite of the view just described.   Advocates of this view use terms like Creationism or Creationist but the more accurate designation would be Young Earth - Flood Geology (abbreviated as YEFG).   Although there were many throughout Christian history who believed that the Creation occurred only about four thousand years before Christ, by the 20th century even the most conservative Christians acknowledged that the evidence was overwhelming for the vast age of the earth and the cosmos.  But in the 1920's a Seventh Day Adventist writer, J.M. Price, revived the idea of a "young earth" and that the geologic strata and fossils were all formed at the time of Noah's flood.  The apparent age of things was not the actual age he argued.  He was a persuasive speaker and writer.
   In 1942 a group of evangelical Christians formed the professional scientific organization called The American Scientific Affiliation.  During the 40's and 50's many of their members reviewed the YEFG theory and concluded that the evidence was overwhelmingly against it.  Nevertheless, John Whitcomb and Henry Morris went ahead with the publication of their book The Genesis Flood in 1961 and that book marked the beginning of the modern YEFG movement.  This writer bought a first edition of The Genesis Flood, read it through many times, and memorized many passages.  He became an early and strong advocate of this view.  The movement has grown dramatically in the last 55 years with groups like the Institute For Creation Research and Answers In Genesis spreading the YEFG message.  The Creation Museum and the replica of Noah's ark are efforts of those in this movement.  
    Although the advocates of YEFG would strongly prefer to state their beliefs in their own way, it is fair to say they would go something like this:  1) all creation took place in 144 hours;  2) By adding up the numbers in Genesis ch. 5 and ch. 10 it is concluded that the entire cosmos (not just the earth) is just over 6000 years old;  3) that no animals died before man sinned;  4) that the earth was created before the sun, moon and stars;  5) that there was no rain on the earth until the flood of Noah's time;  6) that animals came to Noah from all regions and climates of the earth and then returned to those regions and climates;  7) that this global flood happened around 2450 BC (in the middle of Egyptian history that goes back to at least 3000 B.C.);  8) that the flood covered the entire planet including the highest mountains;  9) that all, or nearly all, geologic strata and fossils were formed at that time; 10) "observational science" can tell us little if anything about the remote past since knowledge of the distant past can come only through revelation;  11) radiometric dating methods cannot be trusted.
    Positive comments about this view are largely centered in one fact and that is their very commendable insistence on the historical nature of the early chapters in Genesis.  Surveys indicate that as many as 47% of the U.S. population believe at least some of this view.  So, there is a high probability that you, the reader, hold this view.  If you do, it is the desire of this writer that you will sense the effort to balance being fair and charitable with the necessity to be honest regarding problems.
    To put the criticisms of this view in perspective we need to ask why the following respected Christian authors, Bible scholars, scientists and linguists have not embraced YEFG views:
   John Ankerberg, Gleason Archer, Chuck Colson, William Lane Craig, Norman Geisler, Jack Hayford, Walter Kaiser, John Lennox, Paul Little, Nancy Pearcy, Francis Schaeffer, Lee Strobel, Ken Taylor, R.C. Sproul, and James Dobson, (to name only a few).
    Among the criticisms of the YEFG view, one of the first would be that advocates of YEFG use anecdotal evidence (called "cherry picking" evidence).  Their failure to present fairly and honestly the many and serious objections to their biblical interpretations and scientific claims is another serious concern.   It is charged that they fail to clearly distinguish between their interpretation of Scripture and Scripture itself.   It is also charged that they impugn the motives of Christians who disagree with them by accusing them of compromising Scripture when, in fact, many of those they have accused have been in the forefront of defending the trustworthiness of Scripture.   
   Another serious criticism is that scientifically literate young people are being turned away from the Bible altogether by being told that the Bible teaches a six thousand year old universe.   These problems, and others, combine to keep this view on the fringes of Evangelical Christianity even though many thousands believe it.  The criticisms of YEFG can be summarized in three "D's":   Disingenuous in claiming to take the Bible literally (they do not take literally the biblical statements that the earth does not move and that the sun does move);  Dishonest (or at the very least, less than candid) in their use of anecdotal evidence;  and Divisive in the Body of Christ by the way they speak against those who disagree with them.   It is said by their critics that they hold the old fundamentalist anti-science and anti-intellectual attitude.  It is believed that if they shifted their emphasis away from the age of the cosmos/earth and flood geology toward the Creator's design in Creation, they would greatly advance Christian unity and win more respect and credibility.
    The third view held by some evangelical Christians is sometimes called progressive creation or old earth creation.  This view holds:  1) that when all the language of the creation account and all relevant Scriptures are carefully examined, Scripture can be correlated with the conclusions of modern science, including the age of the earth and the universe;  2) we should learn from the mistake that Christians made several centuries ago when they said a "literal" reading of Scripture meant that the sun went around the earth;  3) what God has "written" in the physical universe should be carefully observed to help us correctly interpret Scripture; 4) the flood of Noah's day apparently involved only the region of the world where humans lived, early in human history [earth and land are the same word in Hebrew];  5) there are sizeable gaps in the genealogies of Genesis 5 & 10;  6) it was the death of humans that came from sin, not the death of animals;  7) the "days" of creation were six eras or epochs of time during which God created all things;  8) the comparison of the "days" of creation to "days" of the week is an analogy and not an equality of hours since the seventh "day" (Heb. "yom") had no "evening and morning" and extends to the present;  9) the phrase "morning and evening" indicates a close to one era of creation, an interval of time, and the beginning of another era;  10) humans were directly and uniquely created by God;  11) God planned from eternity to replace this earth with a new Heavens and Earth after redemption was completed.
    Positive comments about this view are that it has scientific credibility while treating Genesis as actual history.  Most, if not all, of the names listed above, as well as most Evangelical Christians in the sciences, hold to some form of this view.  Criticisms come first from those who hold to evolutionary explanations and dislike this view for advocating direct creative acts of God, which they call a "God-of-the-gaps" fallacy.   YEFG advocates would say that making the list of names in Genesis 5 & 10 cover around 50,000 years (the apparent time humans have been here) is a stretch.  They also call this view "a compromise of biblical truth".    In spite of these criticisms, it is accurate to say that this is the mainstream Evangelical view because it is seen as balancing a high view of Scripture with scientific credibility.
     We might mention in passing that there is a fourth movement or view called Intelligent Design, but it is held by both Christians and non-Christians since it is not specific about Who the Designer is.  Most Christians in that movement would probably agree with old earth creation. 
     This writer can imagine that you, the reader, are feeling a bit overwhelmed by all this and saying something like, "All I know is, God created all things and that there was some kind of flood in Noah's day, but I do not want to argue about the details!"   This writer sympathizes with that feeling because he has spent thousands of hours weighing the merits of these three views and has very gradually modified his own views.  An emphasis on the Creator's design and wisdom in His creation and not on "the age of the earth" seems to be the most fruitful and edifying approach.   In any event, a huge amount of humility is appropriate for anyone regardless of the view they hold.  None of us is infallible in our interpretation of Scripture or our interpretations of scientific data. 
   Like many other issues, evangelical Christians will never agree totally on these matters.  But if we can discuss them calmly and not impugn the motives of those who disagree with us, the Cause of Christ will be the winner. 

IF I HAD BEEN BORN BLACK

   If I had been born black at the same time and place where I grew up I would not have been called black, African-American, or any such terms that came into vogue in the late sixties.  The most polite people would have called me Negro.  The less enlightened would have referred to me as that colored boy, and I can point in old school yearbooks to 2 or 3 who would have called me nigger.  I know; I went to high school with them and had to listen to them.
   By recalling the experience of the first family of color to move into our rural community I can say that most people would have treated me respectfully.  The school bus driver would have given the same talk to every one on the bus that she gave to us the day before the children of that family rode the bus for the first time.  I do not recall all her words (I was only about age 10) but she made it clear that if any of us said or did anything to make those children feel unwelcome we would answer to her.  I would have been warmly accepted by many other children but in retrospect I can see that the adults would never accept me being too friendly with white girls.  That could have meant serious trouble; not like the deep south maybe, but serious none the less.
   I would have been accepted in either of the two churches in that town just like I was at school.  Any athletic ability at all would have only enhanced my acceptance.  But, I am sure that I would never have felt totally a part of life in the community.  So, my family would have taken me about 20 miles to the nearest all-black church and to all-black social activities in that city.  I could have gone roller skating in that city only on Monday evenings.  That evening was for colored people only.  All other evenings were for whites only. 
   I could never have gone to school in Georgia as I did at age 17.  If that school had admitted me they would have faced severe reprisals.  The burning of one of their campus buildings in the 1950's was thought to have been a warning from some locals to not even think about it.  Since that year was so spiritually decisive for me I can only speculate what I would have done next.  After graduating from the local public high school I could have gone to Moody Bible Institute just as I did.  They were integrated from nearly their founding in 1886.  But I would have listened to the Dean of Men tell the assembled male students to date only those of your own race.  I would have quickly caught on that dating and marriage is where even the most accepting of white evangelical Christians drew the line in those days, and they drew it with great firmness!  They were, in the words of Romans 12:2, conformed to the culture around them and not yet transformed.  I would have probably read the poll results in the late 1950's that only about 2 % of Americans were accepting of intermarriage.  I look back from today when the percentages are exactly reversed.
    In the election of 1960 I would have been impressed that Kennedy contacted Martin Luther King Jr., who was jailed in Birmingham, Alabama, to support him, while Nixon did not.  So I would have ignored the pleas of evangelicals to not support a Catholic and I would have supported Kennedy.  In the election of 1964 I would have continued my support for the Democratic Party, giving them most, but not all, the credit for the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  But I would like to think that I would have been intellectually honest enough to see that the Republican, Barry Goldwater, was not a racist, that his opposition to the Civil Rights Act was his fear of expansion of federal power, and that he had promoted equal and fair treatment of all people in his Arizona business.  As a Christian I would have felt very good about the fact that the movement led by Martin Luther King Jr. was centered in the churches, built on the truth that all humans are created in the Image of God, and included much prayer.  I would have been very proud of the strength and stability of black family life.  I would have later wept while watching the government's "War on Poverty" have the unintended consequence of decimating black family life, leading to the current high percentage of black babies born to single moms and the horrendous black on black murder rate.
   I would have no doubt supported Hubert Humphrey over Nixon in 1968.  He had been passionate about civil rights as early as 1948.  Following Rowe v. Wade in 1973 I would have been increasingly troubled by those in the civil rights movement who one by one began to deny the humanity of the unborn child.  I can see myself, as a consistent Christian, moving into the company of that 10 to 15 % of black Americans who feel that the Democratic Party has betrayed and repudiated those Christian principles that were the foundation of the civil rights movement.  I would be absolutely incensed today that homosexual behavior is equated with skin color and called the "newest civil rights movement".   I would see this as one of the most monstrous false analogies in all history and another betrayal of all that the movement for racial equality stood for. 
   I would today want to emulate men like Howard Jones, who was the first man of color on Billy Graham's team.  In his lifetime he and his wife Wanda endured countless insults and slights but stood firm and loving for the cause of Christ above all.  Like them I would want to follow the example of Jesus.  "When they hurled their insults at him he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats.  Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly."  (I Peter 2:23)  I would like to think that I would have the empowerment of the Holy Spirit to be very patient with all my white brothers and sisters who just don't understand what it has been like.  I would hope that same power of the Holy Spirit would enable me to convince many other black Americans to rethink their support for some of the politicians to whom they are selling their souls.  I would like to think so.

GOD IS GOING TO DO SOMETHING BIG

   Eyewitnesses told me they were some of the last words my brother ever spoke.  "God is going to do something big on this trip."  Some readers of this blog know that shortly after uttering those words my brother, Donald Eugene Enzor, drowned while trying to rescue two other boys.  I have recalled that time because yesterday I heard similar words.  "God is about to do the greatest works since the Church began."  That is not an exact quote but it comes close.  Since they were spoken on a Christian program that interviews people about miracles, visions and prophecies some would dismiss them without hesitation.  I, however, am bound by I Thessalonians 5:20 & 21:  "Do not treat prophecies with contempt.  Test everything.  Hold on to the good."
   Since that program tries to exalt Christ and the Scriptures I would be wise to give the Holy Spirit time to witness to my spirit about the accuracy of that prediction.  I am inclined to take that prophetic word seriously because it is far superior to the pessimism that Christians are uttering on every hand.  Great advances of the Kingdom of God and growth of the Church are happening in China, Muslim lands, sub Sahara Africa, Central America and South America.  God's people in those lands have cried out to Him and He is pouring water on thirsty ground.  God does not love any less His people in the U.S. who are crying out to Him with right motives. 
   "Right motives" -- that is it!  I doubt that God is impressed with our pleading for changes in America when the hidden motives are for an easier life free of persecution.  It is a matter of record that believers in other lands have prayed for "difficult times" for us here in the U.S.  Those believers see that as the only way the Church in America will be cleansed and purified.   Large segments of the Church here have embrace a "gospel" of comfort and prosperity; pagan standards of music and clothing; and a casual acceptance of just about anything the culture says and does.  The most conservative churches are, in their own way, as badly in need of change.   Mean spirited criticism of other believers and unnecessary church divisions are just the beginning of their problems. 
   I am most thankful at this moment for all the Churches that are exceptions to the examples just given.  From their ranks rise the prayers with pure motives that God most surely hears; the prayers that may very well lead to the unprecedented move of the Spirit of God that some are predicting. 
   In just one church in Seoul, South Korea hundreds - yes hundreds - regularly come out at 6:00 a.m. to . . . PRAY.  The powerful motivation that propels them is what saints of years past called "the burning heart".  The worst thing I could do in a blog like this is to throw ice cold criticisms on American Christians who do not seem to have the "burning heart".  As an 11 year old Boy Scout one of the first things I learned and loved to practice was the art and science of fire starting: making dry wood shavings, standing the twigs around the shavings like a teepee, striking the match, and gradually adding  larger and larger twigs and branches to the fire teepee.  If a fire is nearly out blow gently of the embers. 
   That is what the wise among us will do with our fellow believers.  We will gently and carefully stoke the fires and blow gently on the dying embers.  We will not throw the cold water of denunciation on them nor will we try to use too often the blow torch of sharp exhortation.  "Stir up that inner fire which God gave you . . . for God has not given us a spirit of fear, but a spirit of power and love and a sound mind."  (II Tim. 1:6 ff. from Phillips New Testament In Modern English)
  I think that Paul added the "no fear" words because he, and (more importantly) the Holy Spirit, knew that in our time some would try to "work up" spiritual enthusiasm and thus the rest of us would be afraid of the whole idea.  In many churches the danger of "wild fire" in spiritual things is about as much to be feared as the inhabitants of a cemetery staging a riot!  I should much rather have to "rein in" an overly exuberant brother than to ignite fire in total spiritual coldness.  So, let's see now, where are the kindling and the matches?  Where are the dying embers?  But first, "Breathe on me Breath of God".

NEVER STOP!

   Working.  That's what the title refers to.  A friend, and once a fellow teacher in the same Christian school, asked me years ago:  "What are your retirement plans?"  He was referring to the very modest amount of money that would be available when retirement time came.  My answer?  "To work 'till I die!"  I was not joking and I was not being pessimistic.  I hate the word "retirement" and I hate the concept.  I am watching things like my diet, weight, exercise, etc. with the deeply held desire to being doing useful and productive ministry and actual, physical work as long as God gives me breath.  If I suddenly had several million dollars those plans would not change one iota.
   There was once a member of the board at the Christian school where I taught for 34 years who liked to show a computer print out that "proved" how well off financially I could have been.  According this insurance company projection, if I had deposited $25 per month in a fund with this company from the day I started teaching until age 65 I would have around $1.5 million.  That projection may have been very accurate, but the stock market collapse of 2008 would have wiped out a significant part of it.  That collapse wiped out much of the modest amount my wife and I did have. 
   Much or all of our financial loss could have been prevented if a certain person who had said, "someone should be watching your investments for you" would have been "watching" them when it was in his power to do so.  But that is a story for another day.  All I can do is forgive him as my Heavenly Father has forgiven me.
   I have worked at two vocations since I was 14 years old.  On the one hand I was a student and then a teacher (as well as teaching/preaching ministry in churches).  On the other hand I began to learn a vocation even before my 15th birthday.  During the first year I was married I worked with a man who was the master of masters in that vocation.   By God's grace I have been able to fulfill the words of Jesus to "Go and make disciples" and the example of the Apostle Paul: "because he was a tentmaker" (Acts 18:3 & II Thess. 3:6-10).  The first ministry/vocation has meant the privilege of impacting lives for eternity.  The second has been God's way of providing for the needs of my family.  I have had the privilege of working on the interior and exterior of many, many fine homes.  This month makes 59 years I have been doing it.
   As stated earlier, I intend to keep working at both callings and vocations as long as God gives me breath. 
   On the matter of pay and retirement for those who serve in vocational Christian work, such as a school or a church:  what will ruin their lives is not the lack of money.  What will ruin them is bitterness toward those whom they believe "owe me more".  I have watched individuals destroy themselves with this kind of resentment and bitterness.  Ironically, in one instance it was a person for whom God had provided very much.   It is a cancer and if someone cannot be content with modest salaries and retirement benefits then they have no business in vocational Christian work.  That is one reason I consider my second vocation so important.  But God has also provided for my family and me in another way. 
   Susan and I were 35 years of age before we owned our first home.  For nine years before that we lived in three different houses where, instead of rent, I took care of and improved the properties and did other work.  When we did buy a home it was very old and very modest.  As God supplied extra funds for us we improved that property nearly every year for 36 years.   With improvements in buildings and extra land we were able to sell it for more than eight times what we originally paid for it.  So God gave us back a substantial part of what had been lost in 2008.  That is one of the meanings of the promise in the Book of Joel:  "I will restore to you the years that the locusts have eaten". 
   For years I had offered to build my parents a house on our land so that they could live beside us and we could care for them in their later years.  As they approached their 86th birthdays they gave me the go ahead to do just that.  With the modest equity from their home and the help of many friends we built a home for them.   Susan and I never intended to live in that house but that is what God worked out for us.  He sent a neighbor to buy the house and land where we had lived for many years and we moved into this newer home two years ago.  There is enough in that story to create another blog.
   Financial experts would look at our salaries through the years, at our assets and our overall financial picture and be pessimistic.  But they don't know our God and his rich provision for his children.  We could not have imagined seven years ago that a church in Ashland would call us to be on their staff in a teaching ministry.  But our greatest true wealth is our family:  three children, their spouses and seven grandchildren who all know and love the Lord.  On Sunday, August 4th 2013, our fiftieth wedding anniversary, I gave the morning message from I Samuel 7:12, "Thus far has the Lord helped us".
   God certainly has no plans to stop helping us and I have no plans to quit working and ministering.  NEVER STOP!


  

UNDERSTAND "OLDER" CHRISTIANS AND "YOUNGER" MUSIC

   "Older believers like hymns and younger ones like contemporary praise and worship songs."  Give me a dollar for every time something like that has been said and I'll finally have enough money to buy my very own Stineway nine foot concert grand piano; a classic theater organ; and a complete symphony orchestra for back up.  But it is an inaccurate statement -- for more than one reason.  It reveals a basic misunderstanding of what a hymn actually is.  I don't know if the Apostle Paul could 'carry a tune in a bucket' or not but he gave us the defining statement on Christian songs.        " . . . as you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God."  (Col 3:16 -- Note that every "3:16" in the New Testament is significant, not just John's!) 
   Please be aware of what those terms mean.  A "psalm" is Scripture (any Scripture, not just the Psalms) set to music.  Examples:  A paraphrase of Psalm 90 like "O God, Our Help in Ages Past", often sung on the first Sunday of the new year;  the very beautiful "As The Deer", a musical setting of Psalm 42:1;  the magnificent "Hallelujah Chorus" from "Messiah";  and many, many others old and new.  The first wave of contemporary praise and worship music in the 70's and 80's produced many excellent Scripture songs.
   A "hymn" is, by definition, a song addressed to God; descriptive of God in His Being and all He does; and calls people to worship and praise Him.  This includes those songs addressed to and about God the Son - the Lord Jesus, and those addressed to the Holy Spirit.   You can immediately see that the word "hymn" is misused if it is used to mean something "older" as opposed to "contemporary".   If a song is addressed to God it is a "hymn" no matter if it was written yesterday or five hundred years ago.  It does not matter if the music for it is some form of rock, jazz, blues, country western, bluegrass, oratorio,  motet, or a simple four part harmony.  If it centers on God Himself it is a hymn even though the music itself may not "fit" the majesty and glory of God.  Instead of saying "the over fifty crowd in our churches prefers hymns we should be saying "they prefer songs with familiar patterns of harmonics and instrumentation".  When an older, familiar song is introduced with something like the sound of brushes on snare drums it can easily be equivalent to poking these folks in the eye.
   Many, if not most, of the songs that are familiar and loved by the "over fifty crowd" are not hymns at all.  They are what Paul called (in the Scripture quoted above) "spiritual songs".   These are often referred to by Christian musicians as "Gospel songs".  Just as a hymn is defined as being addressed to God, a spiritual (or Gospel) song is addressed to people, usually in the form of a testimony.  Look for the pronouns "I", "me", "you" or "we" in these songs of experience and testimony.  At the top of the list is the famous "Amazing Grace" ("that saved a wretch like me")  Another more recent example would be "He Touched Me".   Believers who came of age in the middle years of the twentieth century learned to love "Victory in Jesus" and "He Lives" and scores of similar songs.  Being "old" does not make these songs hymns.  Most Gospel songs differ from hymns in that the Gospel song usually has a chorus that is sung after each verse.  I just went through a song/hymn book published thirty years ago, used in many churches.  It has about six hundred songs of which at least two hundred fifty are spiritual or Gospel songs of testimony, exhorting and encouraging one another.  The rest were either psalms (Scripture set to music) or hymns.  This was a much higher percentage of hymns than a song book published for churches in the 1960's would have had.
   Admittedly, in a few instances it was 'splitting hairs' to decide what to call a particular song.  If it is addressed to God - Father or Son or Holy Spirit - I (and many others) call it a hymn.  This includes all songs that were in the form of prayer to God.  I counted a song as a psalm (in the broad sense) if most of the words were either direct quotes or a paraphrase of Scripture. 
   The Gospel song (what Paul probably meant by 'spiritual songs') came into wide spread use in the late 1800's in the great evangelistic crusades of men like D.L. Moody.   These songs were often alarmingly "contemporary" for their day.  This came at the same time that liberal theology was taking over the "mainline" churches.  Since the Gospel was heard less and less in these churches, other more biblical and evangelical churches embraced the Gospel songs as witnesses to salvation in Christ.  Unfortunately, this often meant less and less use of hymns (like "Holy, Holy, Holy")  What developed was a form of 'Christian humanism' that centered on the believer's individual experience rather than on God Himself.  A reaction against this imbalance set in during the 1970's.  A new wave of 'praise and worship' music, set to contemporary sounds, reached its zenith in the 1990's but continues unabated to this day.  While many of these contemporary songs are profoundly worshipful there is a danger in that few seem to dwell on the Cross, the Blood of the Lamb and repentance from sin, themes that were strong in the older Gospel songs.  It is, however, almost hilarious to realize that most contemporary praise and worship songs are actually hymns while most of the favorite songs of the "over fifty crowd" are often songs other than hymns.
   It is often the sound of the newer songs (with excessive and monotonous use of drums and unfamiliar rhythms)  and not so much the words that has brought about a division in Evangelical Christianity almost as deep as the old liberal theology produced.  I believe the "over fifty crowd" is more than willing to learn contemporary praise and worship songs if they are introduced and employed gradually in sensitive ways.  "I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my mind."  (I Cor. 14:15)
   Wisdom would also tell us that truly blended worship does not simply include the words of songs written years ago but also the familiar harmonics and chord progressions that are integral to those songs.  Taking Scripture (like Psalm 150) seriously means employing a variety of instruments, instruments actually played by live human beings.  Anything less is not truly blended and biblical worship.  For the glory of God, more and more churches are seeing this happen.

TURNING OFF THE DARK

   "Bob, I know what the Bible says.  I just don't believe it."  The conversation took place sixty years ago in a small town in north central Ohio.  The quotation was uttered by the pastor of the Methodist church.  He said it to my pastor.  I mention it because the United Methodist denomination stands at its final crossroads.  A vocal minority is pushing for complete acceptance of the "gay-lesbian-bi-trans sexual" agenda.  This is the final campaign in this country and throughout Western countries to totally suppress Christianity and drive it "into the closet".  At the United Methodist conference this summer the issue will be confronted.  Evangelicals may win the day or the conference may "kick the can down the road" and appoint a committee to study it. 
   Even if biblical/evangelical Methodists (who are many) win this one, the denomination as a whole has been on the road to ruin for at least a century.  Knowing that in the 1950's they ordained men who "knew the Bible but did not believe it" I have been surprised that they have not been completely lost to the Cause of Christ long before this.  From the 1960's to the 1980's they lost over two million members.  Another fatal trend is that many of their churches, like other dead or dying denominations, are no longer led by men.  Much of the credit for biblical/evangelical leadership in at least some Methodist churches goes to Asbury College and Seminary in Wilmore, Kentucky.  Without these two schools Methodism would probably be as far gone as the Presbyterian Church U.S.A. 
   The United Methodist Church is supposed to represent the spiritual legacy of such giants of the faith as John and Charles Wesley, Francis Asbury and Peter Cartwright.  That spiritual legacy is far, far larger than most Evangelicals realize and for the last century and a half it has been carried on mostly by other groups and not by the United Methodist denomination.  Those groups who have truly carried on the Wesley legacy and spirit of revival include Wesleyan churches, Nazarene, Salvation Army, Evangelical Methodists, and the Christian and Missionary Alliance among others.  To appreciate this legacy I urge the reader to obtain the book Nothing To Do But To Save Souls by Robert Coleman.  It is only a little over 100 pages but its content is priceless.
   Until 1968 the Methodist denomination in the U.S. was called the Methodist Episcopal Church.  This was because the Wesley brothers never intended to leave the Anglican (Episcopal) Church of England.  In 1968 the Evangelical United Brethren, a smaller denomination in the Wesleyan tradition, merged with the Methodist Episcopal Church to form the United Methodist Church.  (One pastor somewhat jokingly told me that some in the United Brethren considered it a "hostile takeover".) 
   Most of what I have said so far is prelude to these final remarks.  The darkness in this land is very deep right now; so deep it leaves many in despondency.  The "mainline" denominations, including many Methodist leaders, with their acceptance of the modern humanist world view, have much to answer for in bringing on this darkness.  In the 1950's these "mainline" churches (Methodist, Presbyterian, United Church of Christ, Congregational, Episcopal, Lutheran) were literally packed with people Sunday after Sunday.  But most of them were giving people neither the Life nor the Light that comes from taking Scripture and the claims of Christ seriously.  Thus they have collectively lost millions of members and closed hundreds of churches.  On the other hand there are many churches that consider themselves to be biblical/evangelical who also hold responsibility for much of our present darkness.  They have been plagued with sectarian and competitive attitudes; Bible study without the Holy Spirit; mean spirited and anti science attacks on materialistic world views; shameful television personalities; and we could easily name more.  There is enough blame to go around for both liberals and conservatives.
   What I have written up to this point represents, however briefly, a lifetime of reading and thinking on these subjects.  I have now reached the point where I am compelled by the Spirit to devote much less time to probing the causes and the depth of this present darkness.  Two hundred and fifty years ago John and Charles Wesley fearlessly and at great personal cost proclaimed Him Who is the Light of the World into the midst of an England that was every bit as dark as our present moment.  The Light blazed through that darkness producing the Evangelical Revival that resonates to this day.  I hope that a future generation will say of me that the same Spirit Who came upon the Wesley brothers also filled me in this dark moment.  I am, therefore, fully expecting a breaking forth of Light in the following days that will burn through and soften the hardest of hearts and bring Life like we have not yet seen in our lifetime.  I am expecting that which is no less than "beyond all that I can ask or imagine".
   "For God, Who said, 'Let light shine out of darkness,' made His light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ."

THE DYING LITTLE GIRL AND THE DYING ATHEIST

   Part of that title may not be completely true.  Sasha Taunton is a teenager and doing well I found out.  However, since she has been HIV positive since birth you can see why I called her a dying little girl.  Most HIV positive people do not have a long life expectancy.  The other half of the title was true five years ago.  Christopher Hitchens, a world famous atheist, died in December 2011 after spending hours talking with Sasha.  He is, of course, no longer dying.  But we are a little ahead of the story.
   Let us travel in time to around 330 B.C. and watch the armies of Alexander (The Great) conquer the middle east and much of the Mediterranean world.  You may recall that this resulted in Greek culture and language being imposed on all the conquered countries.  This would prepare the way for the spread of the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.  The common language of that entire part of the world in the first century A.D. was the Koine (the 'e' is a long 'a') Greek.  The books that make up our New Testament were written in this language and one of the three inscriptions on the Cross of Christ was in this language.  For the purposes of this true story we are interested in two important words that come to us from that language: atheist and apologetic(s).
   The first of those words is formed from the word for God (theos) combined with the Greek letter alpha (a) which indicates "no".  The second word (apologetic) is derived from "apologia" which means to "defend".  It did not originally mean "I'm sorry".  Christians use the word to mean "defending the truth".  An "apologist" is a Christian speaker who shows the reasonableness of believing in a Personal, Infinite God and in the claims of Christ, especially His resurrection from the dead.  We will need both of those words to tell this story.  Now, back to Sasha and Christopher.
   Larry Taunton is founder of Fixed Point Foundation, a Christian apologetic ministry which, among other things, sponsors debates between well-known atheists and Christian speakers.  Larry and his wife (whose name I wish I knew but could not find) found Sasha while on a missions trip to Russia in 2008.  Sasha, as we previously mentioned, was born HIV positive.  She was abandoned at birth and passed through three orphanages.  She prayed for God to send her a family.  He heard her cry.  When the Tauntons found her she was in an orphanage that had for a "bathroom" a hole in the ground -- with no paper!  Since adopting Sasha the Tauntons have founded Sasha's Hope to send help to orphans like her around the world.
   When Larry invited the famed atheist Christopher Hitchens to debate a Christian apologist on the Fixed Point Foundation television broadcast it resulted in Hitchens becoming friends with the Tauntons, especially Sasha, and spending much time with them.  This was Hitchens first real contact with Evangelical Christians and he found them to be refreshingly different from the merely nominal "Christianity" he had grown up with in England.  In his recent book, The Faith of Christopher Hitchens: The Restless Soul of the World's Most Notorious Atheist, Larry Taunton tells in detail how he discussed with Christopher the possibility of becoming a Christian.  If you know anything about Hitchens' blasphemous hatred of anything to do with God and Christianity you see how radical it was for him to even discuss conversion.  Larry is emphatic that, to the best of his knowledge, Hitchens never did cross over to Christ.  Hitchens was dying of esophageal cancer.
   He once actually asked Larry, "Why do you think I do not convert?"  Larry answered, "You've created a global reputation as an atheist.  Your fortune, your reputation is based on it.  I can't imagine how hard it would be to admit you were wrong.  You created a prison for yourself."
   Sasha's impact on Hitchens was huge.  He was visibly moved by the love and faith of this little girl.  Brilliant apologists could refute him in debates but Sasha won his heart.  We can only hope that he crossed over to Christ before dying and escaped his own prison.  Larry said, "At the end of the day, the most powerful apologetic is love". 
   I am confident that you will remember this the next time you are tempted to argue someone to Christ.  Instead, be another Sasha.
  
     

STATEMENTS YOU ARE NOT LIKELY TO HEAR

"I now believe that God resists the proud and gives grace to the humble."  (Donald Trump)


"My statement about 'New York values' was utterly thoughtless.  It could cost me the Presidency."  (Ted Cruz)


"It's about time I admitted my arrogance and dishonesty and trust the American people to forgive me."  (Hillary Clinton)


"Abraham Lincoln was right when he condemned people who want to get their bread from the sweat of other people's faces."  (Bernie Sanders)


"The text for my message today is 'Unless you repent you will all likewise perish' ."  (Joel Osteen)


"Our greatest problem as African-Americans is not white people.  It is having babies outside of marriage.   Three fourths of black children are growing up without fathers to guide, discipline and love them.  That is our problem."  (Al Sharpton)


"I have accepted an invitation to speak at the world congress of Pentecostal-Charismatic Christians.  I have spent forty years telling these brothers in Christ what they are doing wrong.  Now I want to encourage them and tell them what they are doing right."  (John MacArthur)


"I have repented of the sin of turning the sacred event of being filled with the Holy Spirit into television entertainment and a means of making myself rich."  (Benny Hinn)


"God may never heal you.  Instead He may say to you 'My grace is sufficient for you'."  (Richard Roberts son of Oral Roberts)


"I should have read more of John Wesley and less of John Calvin."  (R.C. Sproul)


"My policies have been nothing less than sin against the Most High God.  Pray that He will forgive me."  (Barak Obama)


"I am going to be more honest about the enormity of evidence against my belief in 'young-earth-flood-geology' and be much more charitable toward Christians who disagree with me."  (Ken Hamm)


"It is time to admit that Christians like William Lane Craig have shown the fallacies in my atheistic beliefs.  I may be an agnostic but atheism is clearly untenable."  (Richard Dawkins)


"I am going to quit writing blogs."  (R.D. Enzor)

ONLY SEVENTY-SEVEN PAGES

"Fear the Lord . . . seek the Lord . . . whoever of you loves life and desires to see many good days . . . turn from evil and do good . . . ."  Ps. 34:9-14


". . . all who hate me love death."  Prov. 8:36


     Only 77 pages separate those two Scriptures but they are the widest possible distance apart.  To be true to context the Proverbs passage is a personification of wisdom but, since all true wisdom is from the Living God Himself, the passage ultimately speaks of Him.  Lately I have thought almost daily that this Proverbs passage, more than any other, describes where America has come in the last half century.  One of the best phrases from the writings of the late Francis Schaeffer was "the death wish of modern humanism".   We are beholding the love of death, and hatred of God, to a degree unknown in the history of the United States.


     By the grace of God I, my wife Susan and our family are living the Psalm 34 passage.  We are loving life and seeing good days in the midst of a culture that is loving death and seeing worse and worse days.  To love life has meant for me to experience the life that is truly life in Christ and as a gigantic bonus to have had a life also full of rich sensory experiences.  From childhood I was privileged to hear the Word of God from many anointed messengers; to hear both great sacred music and the great classics; to be surrounded by loving and God-fearing people; of having now a place of service and fellowship in a loving church; and . . . I could go on and on.  All that would have been more than anyone could ask but a merciful Heavenly Father poured on top of all that the rich sensory experiences of the woods and fields; of hunting trips; of fall beauty and winter's white splendor; of the joy of maple sugar making in many springs; of the delightful foods from the kitchens of my mother, grandmothers, mother-in-law, and wife; the pleasures of owning rare and classic firearms; of loading ammunition and target shooting; and . . . once again I could go on indefinitely.


     In contrast to all this is the spectacle of millions of Americans hating the life that is truly life and, somehow, loving death.  Consider the love of death in the physical realm.  Since at least the late sixties popular culture has, like the ancient Roman Empire, had an increasing obsession with death as a  perverse form of entertainment.  This is true in both music and cinema.  Loving death is a mark of the dietary habits of millions.  They have all the science that tells them what a life extending diet consists of but they choose a diet of death.  Thus, obesity is at epidemic proportions as are diabetes, cancer and coronary problems.  (We are not speaking here of people with hereditary conditions totally beyond their control.)   Many continue to text and drive and kill themselves and their neighbors.  Many prefer sitting and riding over walking and exercising.  These are areas where many professed believers in Christ are also loving death.  This love of physical death tends to enlarge itself and spread in surprising ways.  With fewer and fewer trying to maintain their health, and more and more of them believing that "health care should be paid for by taxing 'the rich' ", how will the collapse of the health care system be avoided?


     Consider also the rampant dishonoring of the human body.  From pornography to immodesty; from disfigurement to non-Christian funeral and burial practices; from slovenly dress to bizarre fashions; all of these speak of the death of the dignity of people who no longer believe they are created in the Image of God.  You will often hear the phrase "quality of life" but that is a misleading phrase that covers a multitude of lies; notably the lie that all pain is bad and should be avoided at all costs.


     Now go beyond the purely physical to other realms of life and witness the love of death.  Behold in disbelief the forms of death that are now loved: there is no final, absolute standard of judging what is right or wrong; right and wrong are determined by majority vote;  all forms of sexual pleasures are alright "between consenting adults"; marriage can be defined in "any way we choose"; the "fetus" is not a human being; if someone "feels like" they are the opposite sex then they really are the opposite sex and the rest of us should be forced by law to recognize it; the government can borrow and spend trillions without the most dire consequences; all religions are equal; and (this one takes the prize) this generation is more moral than past generations.  Did you notice how the love of death is the love of the totally irrational?


    This love of the irrational has not remained within college class rooms.  The death flowing from these ideas is very real.  There is the death of marriages; the death of family life; the death of safety in schools, homes and streets; the death of childhood and innocence; the death of decency and wholesomeness; the death of respect and civil language; the death of political and economic stability;  the death of commitment to one's spouse, children, church, and to God Himself.


     We will hear more and more the question "can Christians work and pray enough to save this country?"  A good question indeed but it is not the basic question.  "Can we work and pray enough to see millions turn from death to the Lord Jesus who is THE LIFE?"  The issue before us is essentially the same as when a young Billy Graham held his first large evangelistic crusade in 1949 in Los Angeles.  America still had a Christian consensus and most of the forms of death that I have outlined here were nonexistent.  But there were still millions of Americans who desperately needed to be made right with God through the finished work of Christ.  They also needed the moral certainty of knowing that God had not been silent.  They needed the Word.  People are the same and the need is the same.  Escape from death in ALL its forms is a consequence of turning to Christ and living under His Lordship.  We will never have the fruit until we have the root.


    


    


    


    
  
    

THIS DESERVES BETTER

     You may never have used or even read the King James Version of the Bible.  Or, you may have grown up in one of the independent Baptist churches that uses only the KJV.  You may, like me, have used it early in life but then moved on to a new translation.  It is called "The Authorized Version of 1611" but the KJV we grew up with is actually the third one and dates from the mid 1700's.  I once had a reprint of the original 1611 and the spelling was so different that it was barely readable.  It was THE Bible of English speaking people for at least 350 years.  It slowly fell out of use for two reasons:  1) archaic words (out of date words like 'kine' for cattle); and 2) discovery of much older and therefore more accurate manuscripts of the Hebrew Old Testament and Greek New Testament.
     However, we should not minimize the fact that we have suffered a great loss in no longer having a common Bible.  But that is the price we have paid for better understand and accuracy.  I sympathize with those who miss the KJV.  I still quote from it frequently because I memorized seven entire books of the Bible from it and many other passages before my 18th birthday.  I do not sympathize with those who claim that the late manuscripts, from which the KJV was translated, were more accurate.  Some "KJV only" people, when you examine their beliefs closely, do not actually believe in the inspiration of Scripture.  They believe in the inspiration of the KJV.  There is a difference and it is extremely sad.
     Some of you have come to this blog because you saw a photo I posted on Facebook and you are wondering what it has to do with the KJV of the Bible.  That group of men, photographed in the spring of 1967, had just completed over ten years of work producing, what I strongly believe to be, the most useful edition of the KJV ever printed.  It was called The New Scofield Reference Bible.  It is out of print now and there is something called the Scofield III in its place.  I have never examined Scofield III so I cannot comment on it.
     Before I go further I must recognize that some readers of my blogs may be from church backgrounds where they have heard only negative things about the original Scofield Reference Bible of 1909/1917.  I have defended that edition of the KJV (in general, not in all its details) in an earlier blog and I am not returning to that issue.  I believe I can show that whatever church background someone may have been from in 1967 (or now) the New Scofield had (and still has) much to offer.
     Now, who are the men in that photo, the men who revised the original Scofield Reference Bible and who produced what I believe to be the best form in which the KJV ever appeared?  Back row left was (I believe) a representative of Oxford University Press, the publishers.  Second from left was Frank E. Gaebelein who, like others in this group, was among the cream of biblical scholarship in the mid 20th century.  He went on to be editor in chief of the monumental 12 volume Expositors Bible Commentary which I consider to be the very best.  Third from left was Clarence Mason from Philadelphia College of Bible.  He was a good man but I had an unpleasant experience with him when I was a senior at Toccoa Falls Academy and I would rather relate that to you in person if you are interested.
     Fourth from left was John Walvoord the president of Dallas Theological Seminary.  Next man was (I believe) Allan Mac Rae of Faith Theological Seminary.  And on the far right of the back row was William Culbertson, president of Moody Bible Institute.  I listened to him in many chapel services.  Front row left was Wilbur M. Smith of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and another of the cream of biblical scholarship of the mid 20th century.  Second from left was (I believe) E. Schuyler English, the chairman of the group.  Third from left was Charles Feinberg of Talbot Theological Seminary.  Finally, on the far right of the front row was Alva J. Mc Clain the first dean of Ashland (Ohio) Seminary in 1930 and the founder of Grace Seminary (and later college) in 1937. 
    You may be thinking at this point that I am urging appreciation for the Bible this group produced because of the footnotes they placed throughout the Bible.  That is not at all my main reason.  Those footnotes are very much an improvement over the original Scofield footnotes and are probably the most thoughtful presentation of what is called the Premillenial, Dispensational view of Scripture.  They are also especially good on the first chapter of Genesis in pointing out the several meanings of the word "day" and cautioning against using Genesis to calculate the age of the earth.  Their footnotes, however, lean further toward Calvinism and toward cessationism regarding some gifts of the Holy Spirit than I would.
     Even though I believe the footnotes are generally quite helpful I most appreciate this Bible for how the text of the KJV was made more understandable but still preserved.  If you read the New Scofield Reference Bible of 1967 (and I would buy one on Ebay if I were you) you will see now and then a word in brackets.  That means that the committee has 1) updated an archaic (out of date) word; or 2) corrected a badly translated word.  The brackets indicate the word the committee substituted and the original KJV word is given in the margin.  Because of this, people who wanted to keep the KJV should have flocked to the NSRB instead of going to something that came along later called "The New King James Version".   It is not the KJV at all and the title is misleading.
     Just as I urge an appreciation for the original KJV and how it served the English speaking people for many years, so I have here urged an appreciation for the most helpful edition of the KJV.  The New Scofield Reference Bible of 1967 does indeed deserve better.
    
    

JOIN ME BY THE FIRE

     Before some of you were born, or at least too young to remember, was the Blizzard of '78.  Two massive fronts came together early on a Thursday morning in January and shut down the entire Midwestern United States for at least two days.  As the wind howled and the standing seam roof on our house sounded like it might let go at any time (but never did) I looked at the warm glow of the fire in our beautiful, white Copper Clad wood burning cook stove.  I was struck by the sobering realization that if the electricity went off, that stove was all that stood between my family and freezing to death.  At that time we had owned it for less than seven years and it was now at the third house we had lived in during that time.  I had acquired it well before the "wood burning fad" of the late 1970's had set in -- another evidence that the Grace of God had led Susan and I in many choices through the years.
     Why did I acquire it?  I had the most wonderful memories of days when I, as a twelve year old, had helped Susan's dad husk corn on his farm on chilly fall days.  Susan's brothers were good friends of mine and I spent a fair amount of time on their farm and hunting with them.  On those corn husking days we could come in for the noon meal (called "dinner" by farm folks) and Susan's mom would have the most wonderful smells of delicious food cooking on a small, white wood burning cook stove in their dining room.  They did not have that stove out of necessity.  They had an electric range in the kitchen.  They just appreciated the truly finer things of life.  And besides, it heated the house in cool weather and saved that expense.  They also had a wood burning cook stove (not as nice in appearance) in a small building just behind their home called the "summer kitchen".  Where, as you guessed, food could be prepared or canned in hot weather and keep the heat out of the house. 
     This was the origin of one of President Harry Truman's sayings:  "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen".  Not only did I have fond memories of the smells of food cooking on those stoves but I often recalled coming in from work or hunting in the evening, pulling up a chair, and putting cold stocking feet on the open oven door.  As the tea kettle softly sang I drifted into dreamland.  That, my friend, is life at its best.  With all those memories still fresh sixteen years later, I mentioned to my mother that I was looking for a nice cook stove.  She, in turn, mentioned it to a friend of hers and that friend said, "My dad still has the stove he bought for mom around 40 years ago".  That was not unusual.  What was unusual was that the stove had been kept in excellent condition.  Many families, when they obtained a gas or electric stove, moved the cook stove to a barn or shed and let it rust.  These folks had moved it to a nice dry room behind their kitchen and there it sat for 22 years until I bought it one spring day in 1971 for $65.  Two of my students from MCS helped me move it. 
     At that time we lived on a farm on Woodville Road southeast of Mansfield.  There was a nice room on one end of a machinery shed with a concrete floor.   Even though Susan was only about two months away from having our first child she helped me clean and fix up that room and make it into a summer kitchen.  She put curtains on the windows, we got a table and chairs, and brought in our 'new' Copper Clad' stove.  My friend Charlie Atkins would come in the evenings and the two of us would sit and talk by the warm glow of that stove.  He told me that his father had said, "Copper Clad stoves are the best".  Next year we moved over onto a farm on Hanley Road and placed the stove on a porch off the kitchen.  Two years later we remodeled the kitchen and moved the Copper Clad into the kitchen.  It warmed us during the record breaking cold of the winter of '76-'77.  In the five years since we had bought the Copper Clad all three of our children were born.  In August of '77 we moved into the first home of our own here in Knox County and the Copper Clad found a place in the dining room.  There was a sound, safe brick chimney to connect the stove with. There it not only warmed us during that terrible blizzard of '78 but continued to warm us and cook hundreds of meals until the turn of this century.  More about that in a moment
     After one year at our own home God enable us to build an addition on the back.  We now needed another stove to go on the opposite end of the house. We built the safest chimney possible with cement block and clay tile liner. A new company had begun in Vermont (Vermont Castings) and the founder Duncan Symns  had designed a stove that was soon to make all other wood burning heating (not cooking) stoves inferior and/or obsolete.  That was the legendary Vermont Castings Defiant, the first all cast iron, air tight, stove ever made in America.  It had the long flame path and all the features to make it twice as efficient (not to mention more attractive) as previous stoves.  We bought one for our new addition and used it until we moved two years ago.  Our new home (next door) has the smaller version called the Vermont Castings Vigilant.  We sometimes miss having a cook stove.  Currently (2022) Vermont Castings has changed hands so many times that anyone looking for a good stove should get one of their older stoves that has been kept in good condition by a pevious owner.
   In the summer of '78, after the big blizzard, my parents wanted a cook stove like ours to go with their new Vermont Castings Defiant.  I knew an older couple in Wayne County who had a beautiful Home Comfort cook stove.  In their day the Home Comfort stoves were even more expensive than Copper Clad and had more 'bells and whistles'.  This lady's husband had just passed away and she sold me the Home Comfort which I bought for my parents.  About 15 years ago they gave it back to me and my daughter and her husband inherited the Copper Clad.  They moved into a new home last year and, with no place for the Copper Clad, they left it with me.  It is stored in a nice, dry place.  My youngest son Clayton has what was once his grandparents' Home Comfort Stove. 
     For the first time in many years of using wood burning stoves our insurance company is charging a 'penalty' of around $160 extra on homeowners insurance for having one.  I understand why.  Many homes have been burned because of improper stove installation or inferior chimneys.  Our chimney is the Chim-Tek, which is by far and away the safest chimney design, materials and construction to be had.  I would not think of having any other type or kind of chimney. With such a safe chimney one must then be sure that there is a safe hearth on which to place the stove and that the stove is far enough away from anything combustible.

   Vermont Castings stoves have thermostatically controlled dampers to keep them from overheating.  There are no 100% guarantees against having a fire in a home but I believe our installation comes the closest.  I have installed and used stoves for 51 years with no incident at all and with perfect comfort and safety. Once, however, on an early spring day I put the Definant stove in the long flame path mode and we went away for awhile. There was an air inversion in the chimney because of the spring weather and much smoke came back in the house. The walls had to be washed but there was no danger otherwise. In "milder" cool weather I now always leave the stove in the "updraft" position with the thermostat set accordingly.

     Additional safety measures involve using only sound, dry hardwoods as fuel and having a magnetic thermostat on the stove.  Do not burn too "cool". Below 300 degrees will tend to cause creosote buildup in the chimney; a great fire risk.  Much over 400 is too hot for safety.  If ashes are removed when hot they must go into a tight metal container and placed outside the house, otherwise one has to wait several days after a fire is out to remove them.  Stoves that burn only on "updraft", or connecting a stove to closely to the chimney, both tend to create chimney fires because the flames are directly entering the chimney.  This is another reason Vermont Castings Stoves are the best and safest.  When the temperature on the stove thermometer goes over 300 we turn it on "side (or long) draft".  Stoves must be watched and observed carefully to use them safely and efficiently. 
     I have sought in this blog to give some practical help.  But, what about the references to fire in the Bible?  The writer of the letter to the Hebrews said our God is a consuming fire.  Just like physical fire that works both ways.  Fire can warm, comfort, nourish and preserve our lives.  When foolishly or wickedly misused it can destroy our property and our lives.  My relationship to the Living God -- The Consuming Fire -- is my life, my comfort, my nourishment, my all in all.  But if someone foolishly rebels against Him, mocks Him, or wages war against Him, that person will, in that word from John 3:16, perish.  The books of Daniel and Revelation speak of a river of fire flowing out from the throne of God and of a sea of glass shot through with fire before the throne of God.
      You, and I, are going to one of two places for eternity.  Both of them are places where there is 'fire'.  The One Who is called 'a consuming fire' has called me to be His own and I will be nourished, sustained, and thrilled in His Presence for ever and ever.  The delightful fires in these stoves of ours all these years are a foretaste of that.  C.S. Lewis said that the person who spends their life without ever sincerely saying, "Thy will be done", will someday hear the Voice that will say, "Very well, your will be done.  You have not wanted my Presence; now you may have your choice and be shut out forever".   Jesus Himself called that destiny "eternal fire".