The Chick-fil-A Count Controversy

A controversy has, unfortunatly, arisen in regards to how many times I have stopped at Chick-fil-A.

Monday evening, I was on my own for dinner, so I went to the Chick-fil-A nearest to my Shepherds' Conference host's home for dinner. After I had eaten my sandwich and waffle fries, as I walked back to my car, I decided that, since it would be several days until I could again enjoy a Chick-fil-A sandwich (and since I was still a little bit hungry...), I decided to pull through the drive through and get another sandwich for the road.

The controversy has arisen because I counted the Monday event as one time at Chick-fil-A, bringing the total count to 5. However, other unnamed persons (coughDavidCaldwellcough) have alledged that the Monday stop should be counted as two,  bringing the total Chick-fil-A stops so far this Shepherds' Conference to 6.

I stand by my count of 5, as I never actually left the Chick-fil-A primises. 

Here's The Thing . . .

... it's never been about "getting" Ergun Caner.

Every time that there's news on the Ergun Caner front, the question always comes up, "Why are you guys still going after Caner? He's done! Put a fork in it and move on."

The thing is - as has been pointed out often, but always seems to fall upon deaf ears. But I'll try again - The thing is that Ergun Caner is not the problem. Ergun Caner is a symptom of the problem.

The problem is the corrupt Good Ol' Boy Network® that continues to prop up frauds like Ergun Caner. Just consider this list of people who have defended, supported, and promoted Ergun Caner since his lies and deceit was exposed back in 2010: Norman Geisler, Paige Patterson, John Ankerberg, Mac Brunson, Johnny Hunt, Bucky Kennedy, and, of course, Ergun's brother, Emir Caner. There are more names than that, of course, but these have been the major players in what James White termed so aptly as "The Great Evangelical Cover-Up."

Here's the thing, the evidence for Ergun Caner's pattern of lies is so overwelming and voluminous that these men knew - had to know, at least since mid-2010 (& Emir knew from the very start!) - what a fraud Ergun Caner is. Yet these men continued to promote Ergun Caner, to place Ergun Caner in front of unsuspecting audiences and church congregations, to encourage unsuspecting parents to commit their children's education to Ergun Caner. This is the issue, and it is a far, far bigger issue than just Ergun Caner. Caner is not the first fraud who has been put forth, only, perhaps, the most promenant to be exposed. If nothing is done, if things are not changed, Caner will not be the last fraud perpetrated upon an unsuspecting church.

Ergun isn't the real issue. Which is why "getting rid" of Ergun was never the goal. Norm, Paige, John, Mac, Johnny, Bucky, Emir, and the corruption they represent; that's the real issue.

And that is the real reason they don't want anybody talking about it now.

Hitched to a Free Market

[Originally posted at The Pulpit & Pen]

Please excuse me for a moment, as I offer a bit of a political, theological, and cultural commentary. I was going to call this "ranting," but a friend told me that pastors don't rant, they proclaim, so these rants proclamations are related, as they all have to do with the same current event at a town just west of me.

If I traveled on Interstate 90 about two hours west, I would come to the resort town of Coeur d'Alene, Idaho - beautifully situated on the northern shore of Lake Coeur d'Alene. Coeur d'Alene is, I believe, French for "resort town." As long as I have lived here, Coeur d'Alene has long been known as a place to go for quasi-Las-Vegas-style quickie weddings.

By now, many people – most people – have probably heard the news story about the Hitching Post wedding chapel in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, and how they've run afoul of a Coeur d'Alene city ordinance regarding not discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. It seems that the Hitching Post wedding chapel specializes in "traditional weddings," and their view of "traditional weddings" does not include the now-legal-in-Idaho practice of same-sex weddings. So the owners of the Hitching Post now face fines and jail time for refusing to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies. The husband-and-wife team that own the Hitching Post profess to be Christians, and both have some sort of ordination as "ministers," and cite their refusal to do such ceremonies as based on religious conviction. But their wedding chapel is not a church; it is a for-profit business. So, the real question here is; should the government be in the business of forcing business owners to conduct their businesses in a way that violates their personal beliefs or religious convictions?

For many people, this question was settled during the civil rights struggle of the 1950s and 1960s. As a result of those times, it became illegal for businesses to refuse service based upon race, color, or national origin. I want to say right now that I do not believe that that was the right way for a nation with ideals of liberty and freedom to handle the issue.

[Author's note: in this section of my rant proclamation, I am using examples drawn from America's history of racial tension. The use of these examples does not mean that I accept as being in any way valid the LGBT activists attempts to equate sexual orientation with skin color. As my friend Voddie Baucham said back in 2012, "Gay Is Not the New Black."]

The government should not be allowed to discriminate based on skin color, hair color, eye color, sex, or any other physical characteristic you would like to name. And regulated monopolies, such as mass transit systems, power companies, water companies, etc., since they operate as quasi-governmental agencies, should not be allowed to discriminate, either. But what about private businesses?

I am a strong proponent in a free market. If some neo-Nazi racist skinhead wants to open a whites-only lunch counter, I say let him. And then we can let the market determine if he stays in business, or not. My hope is that the market would put such a business out of business before too long, but, sadly, I expect that there are enough neo-Nazi racist skinheads around to support a few businesses of that type – but not a lot of businesses of that type. Social and economic pressures will be sufficient to assure that such businesses are few.

That being the case, why did America take a different tactic? Remember that there were laws in place in many places that legalized and institutionalized racial discrimination. Government services, public transportation, public schools – these were all segregated as a matter of law. And, as I have already said, the government should not be allowed to discriminate along such lines. Those laws needed to be changed, and they were. Why, then, were laws put into place to control the practices of private businesses?

The argument is that private businesses do businesses with the public, and therefore the government, as the representative of the public, has the right to tell a private business that they must do business with everyone. I contend the private business owners should be allowed to do business with whomever they choose to do business, and not do business with whomever they choose not to do business with. I say that, knowing full well that I will not agree with every business owner's decision about whom they will and will not do business with. That is what it means to live in a free country.

Now, don't get me wrong, I believe racism to be immoral. In fact, I want to make it absolutely clear that I detest racism. Yet, in a free society, racists are free to be racists, and the rest of us are free to say how detestable their racism is, and to attempt to dissuade them of their wrongheaded ideas, attitudes, and actions.

Which brings us back to the question of the Hitching Post in Coeur d'Alene. The Hitching Post is a private business, and their business practices should be governed by the convictions of the owners of the business. What if it was a Jewish wedding chapel, instead of a Christian one? Should they be forced to conduct weddings on Saturdays? What about the Muslim owners of a catering company? Should they be required to serve ham?

Weddings are big business. In a free market, there is no need to penalize or close businesses that do not want to do business with some segment of that market. If there is enough of a demand for businesses that cater to the wedding needs of a homosexual clientele, business people will see the opportunity to make money, and open businesses to address that market.

That was the political rant proclamation, now here is the cultural rant proclamation. Weddings shouldn't be such a big deal. Marriage is a big deal, but weddings should not be. Pride, ego, and Western consumerism have turned weddings into way too big of a deal. The average cost of a wedding in the United States is $25,200. $1600 of that is spent on clothing, another $1500 is spent on flowers. The average bride and groom spend $800 on the invitations alone. Weddings, as I said earlier, are very big business.

But all of this emphasis on weddings has trivialized marriage. The wedding is so important that the marriage itself seems secondary, and a lot more time and effort and planning is spent preparing for the wedding than is spent preparing for the marriage. I have spoken to couples who were eager to spend thousands to get the right caterer and the right photographer for their wedding, but who are unwilling to spend six weeks with me in premarital counseling. (I did not officiate those weddings.)

Weddings should not be such big business, and the realities of marriage should not be trivialized in the pursuit of the fantasy of the fairytale wedding.

Now, the theological rant proclamation: what about this wedding chapel in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho? Well, if weddings should not be big business, then wedding chapels should not be businesses at all. Not if they are trying to be religious institutions, as well. Religion should not be a business. Of course, influenced by the American entrepreneurial spirit, many in modern evangelicalism have turned religion into a business – and many are making very good money at it – but this should not be. And I know that I would not want to be any of those religious hucksters on Judgment Day, when they stand before the throne of God to answer for their actions.

Obviously, there are some theological issues involved with this couple that run this business. Both of them are "ordained ministers." Since the Bible clearly limits the office of pastor to men, the ordination of a woman is unbiblical.

Then there is the fact that these people are not ministers of the gospel at all. The pastoral office involves much much more than simply officiating at weddings. The Hitching Post says that it provides "traditional religious weddings." Religious, perhaps, but not Christian. A minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ would be concerned more about the marriage than the wedding, and more about the souls of the bride and groom, and be much less likely to see officiating at weddings as a mere business opportunity.

If the couple being wed are not active committed participants in a local religious community, be it a Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, or whatever community, then why would they desire a religious service in the first place? Just go to the justice of the peace. And if the couple being wed are active members of a religious community, would they not desire that someone from their religious community officiate at their wedding?

But, saying that I do not believe that wedding chapels are good or Biblical, I still don't think that wedding chapels should be banned. I agree with Russel Moore and Andrew Walker in their recent article on this topic, where they wrote:

"Saying that we don’t agree with these wedding chapels is not to say that we think they should be hounded out of business. Again, these are two separate questions. Our churches don’t ordain women either, as in the case of this co-pastor, but we don’t want the government to outlaw women’s ordination. There is no compelling government interest in running this couple out of business, sacrificing their First Amendment rights to free speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of association. Such government-enforced orthodoxy shouldn't exist in a free country."

Okay, I'm done ranting er... proclaiming... For now.

Um... It Doesn't Mean That...

I saw a tweet that hit one of my hot buttons this morning. It was a tweet that expresses a common Evangelical misunderstanding of a well-known verse of Scripture. It was this tweet:

"For God soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo loved the world..." @tonynolanlive #SpiritualRenewalWeek

— Brewton-Parker Edu (@BrewtonParker) October 14, 2014

The “so” in John 3:16 translates the Greek word οὕτως (houtōs), and it means “in this way,” not “so much.” Consider the excellent way that the Holman Christian Standard Bible translated John 3:16:

For God loved the world in this way: He gave His One and Only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life.

[The HCSB translators got πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων ("everyone who believes") right, too – but that is another discussion for another time.]

But modern emotionalistic Evangelicalism, as in the tweeted example here, likes to teach that “God loved the world so much that He just had to send Jesus to save sinners.” Let's think about that idea for a minute.

God doesn't need anything or anybody. God did not have to save sinners. God did not have to create us in the first place. The fact that God chose to create us, chose to allow sin into the world, and chose to save some of us from the just penalty of our sin, while reflecting God's goodness, mercy, and love, in no way implies that God needed to do anything. God is glorified in creation, He is glorified in His wrath upon unrepentant sinners, and He is glorified in His salvation of repentant sinners through the cross of Jesus Christ – but God is never needy.

God's love, like all of God's attributes, is infinite and perfect, so to try to tag God's love with qualifiers like “so much” is just silly, no matter how many o's you add to “so.”

Coming Soon...

Stay tuned for more details!

Squirrel's Theology in a Nutshell: Knowing God's Will

My Three Easy Steps for Finding & Staying In God's Will:

1. Do what the Bible tells you to do
2. Don't do what the Bible tells you not to do
3. Do what you want to do

Why I Am Still A Southern Baptist

• We commented about the total lack of doctrinal standards applied to the question of what books are sold at LifeWay Christian Resources stores.
• We remarked about the danger of false conversion brought on by a climate of “easy believism” and belief in “decisional regeneration.”
• We discussed inflated membership numbers driven by pride and ego in leadership.
• We talked about how national entities and state conventions ignore the wishes of local churches, and how political expediency instead of Biblical conviction so often drove the decisions made at all levels.

I was one of four Southern Baptists who spoke from the platform at the 2014 Reformation Montana conference, and, despite the fact that slamming the SBC was not the focus of the conference by a long shot, each of us had critical things to say regarding the current state of the Southern Baptist Convention.

Several times during the conference, I had people come up to me and ask variations on the same question. They would say something like, “You've got a lot of harsh things to say about the Southern Baptist.” Then they would ask, “Why are you still a Southern Baptist?”

Good question.

Here is my answer to that question:

On October 31 1517, when Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to the door the Castle Church at Wittenberg, Germany, he had no intention of starting the Protestant Reformation. No, what he was doing was calling for reform. He had identified some… Issues… Inside the Catholic Church that he felt needed to be addressed. And, so, Martin Luther was calling for debate on these issues. You know, stuff like the selling of indulgences and the use of Church funds to build ever more elaborate palaces for the popes and the bishops to live in. He wasn't trying to split the church, he was trying to fix the church.

That, as history shows, didn't work very well. And 3 years later, the Roman Catholic Church threw Martin Luther out. Actually, the Roman Catholic Church wanted to kill Martin Luther, as they had Jan Hus 100 years before (Hus had pointed out many of the same problems that Luther later saw. In fact, Luther was influenced by the writings of Hus.) But Luther was smuggled away and hidden by some of his friends. And that, Martin Luther's excommunication from the Roman Catholic Church, is what really began the Protestant Reformation. Until that happened, Martin Luther was trying to work inside the church to correct the errors of the church, and bring the Roman Catholic Church back into line with what is taught Holy Bible. But the pope in the bishops rejected the calls to reform, and the Protestant Reformation, with its calls to Sola Scriptura (by Scripture alone), Sola Fide (by faith alone), Solus Christus (through Christ alone), Sola Gratia (by grace alone), and Soli Deo Gloria (for the glory of God alone) began to revolutionize Christianity and restore the true Biblical faith.

The Protestant Reformation grew and spread, and Protestant theologians, examining the Scriptures, began to develop doctrines and theological understandings that were further at odds with what the Roman Catholic Church taught than even Luther's 95 Thesis had been. And, so, almost 30 years after the Reformation began, the Roman Catholic Church called a council in the city of Trent in northern Italy to respond to this growing challenge to church authority and church teachings. The Council of Trent met several times from 1545 until 1563, and, in the end, determined that all of the Protestants were damned for rejecting the authority of the Pope and the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. If anyone believed what the Protestant Reformers taught, then, according to Rome, that person was anathema – damned. And, because Roman doctrine considers the Roman Catholic Church itself to be infallible, the pronouncements made by the Council of Trent are still the official position of the Roman Catholic Church today. Rome still says, "If anyone believes what the Reformers taught, let him be anathema." For Rome cannot say otherwise without saying that the Council of Trent was wrong, which would destroy their insistence on the church of Rome's infallibility.

So, why am I still a Southern Baptist? I was raised a Southern Baptist. My parents, my grandparents, all were Southern Baptists. I cannot easily turn my back on such heritage. The Southern Baptist Convention is flawed; it is ill. But I do not believe it is beyond recovery. I'm still a Southern Baptist because there are men, others like me, within the Southern Baptist Convention calling for and working towards reform. And I must stand with them, joining my voice to theirs in calling for reform. If it is possible to pull this convention back from the brink of utter ruin and rank heresy, then we must do all that we are able to see this thing done. The stakes are high, the task is difficult, and the road is long and hard, but we must try.

Why am I still a Southern Baptist? I am still a Southern Baptist because, until the SBC cast me out, and, holding its own "Council of Trent," pronounces me anathema, then a reform-minded southern Baptist I will remain.

“Here I stand; I can do no other. God help me.”

"You Would Be Safer On a SWAT Team!"

Justin Peters, in talking about the lack of discernment applied to deciding what books to stock in a Christian book store, says that there is no more dangerous place for a Christian than most "Christian" book stores. The title of this post sums up his assessment of that threat.

I've been in several discussions these past few days about all the downright heretical books that are for sale at the Southern Baptist Convention's Lifeway Christian Resources bookstores. It is a shame that there are not strict doctrinal standards applied to what they sell -- then again, if they applied strict doctrinal standards, they would have to stop peddling books by Southern Baptist heretics like Beth Moore, Rick Warren, and Don Piper. Lifeway is, in many ways, just an update on the moneylenders and animal merchants in the Temple courtyard, where profits trump actual service to the people of God.

But, sadly, for many evangelicals, Southern Baptist in particular, there persists the idea that, "Well, Lifeway sells it, so it must be okay." This is a dangerous attitude, as just a casual stroll down Lifeway's shelves with some discernment will quickly demonstrate, as this picture of JD Hall and Justin Peters in the Lifeway store in Billings during last week's Reformation Montana 2014 conference shows.

By the way, this is not at all intended as a slam on anyone who works at a Lifeway bookstore. This is a call to the top administration of Lifeway in Nashville to reform and become a doctrinally sound bookstore that Christians can trust.

So, in calling Lifeway to reform, every Monday on some sort of simi-regular basis, I think I'll post Lifeway's top-10 bestsellers list with commentary.

This week's top-10 best sellers from Lifeway's website:

1. I Am a Church Member, by Thom Rainer - Thom is head of Lifeway, I've not read the book and cannot speak to its content.
2. One Nation, by Dr. Ben Carson - Again, a book the contents of which I cannot comment on. I have liked a lot of the stuff Carson has said politically
3. Jesus Calling, by Sarah Young - this book is full of heretical mystic blasphemy. Avoid at all costs
4. Child of Mine, by David and Beverly Lewis - Amish fiction. Enough said.
5. The Daniel Plan, by Rick Warren and some other guys - Reinterpriting a passage of Scripture, wrenched from its context, and turning it into a weight loss scheme? Money grubbing heresy, but with a third less calories than regular heresy (There is also a cookbook and a DVD and whatnot to go with it. I wonder when the Daniel Plan® dinnerware comes out?)
6. Bridge to Heaven, by Francine Rivers - More Harlequin Romance, Christian-style...
7. The Closer, by Mariano Rivera (with Wayne Coffey) - Ghostwritten autobiography of a Christian baseball player. Haven't read it, so can't comment on the doctrinal soundness of the content.
8. Good Call; Reflections on Faith, Family, and Fowl, by Jase Robertson (with Mark Schlabach) - Ghostwritten humor from one of the guys from Duck Dynasty. Can't speak to the content, but I do know the family has some errors regarding baptismal regeneration. But, for all that, judgeing by the TV show, the book is probably funny...
9. You'll Get Through This: Hope and Help for Your Turbulent Times, by Max Lucado - have not read it, but I generally find Lucado's stuff to be not very deep, doctrinally anemic, and not worth my time. Your mileage may vary.
10. Recovering Redemption: A Gospel Saturated Perspective on How to Change, by Matt Chandler and Michael Snetzer - I've not read this book, but I've generally liked what I've heard Chandler preach. This one might be worth reading. Maybe. I don't know, for sure.

So, Lifeway, what are the chances of clear doctrinal standards being developed and applied? Please?

Southern Baptist "Sinner's Prayer" Resolution - Compare & Contrast

The following is offered without commentary:

This is the text of the resolution that was passed yesterday at the Southern Baptist Convention:

Resolution 3

An Affirmation of a “Sinner's Prayer” as a Biblical Expression of Repentance and Faith

WHEREAS, The Gospel of Jesus Christ offers full forgiveness of sins ans reconciliation with God to anyone who repents of sin and trusts in Christ; and

WHEREAS, This same Gospel commands all persons everywhere to believe this Gospel and receive Christ as Savior and Lord (Mark 1:15; John 1:12; 6:25-52; Acts 17:30); and

WHEREAS, The Scriptures give examples of persons from diverse backgrounds who cried out for mercy and were heard by God (Luke 18:13; Acts 16:29-10); and

WHEREAS, The Scriptures also give numerous examples of persons who verbally affirmed Gospel truths but who did not personally know Jesus in a saving relationship (Luke 22:47-48; John 2:23-25; 1 Corinthians 10:1-5); and

WHEREAS, Empty religion and formalism, of whatever kind, apart from personal relationship with Christ, cannot wash away sin or transform a heart (Matthew 7:21; 15:8; John 3:3); and

WHEREAS, The Bible speaks of salvation as including botha a confession with the mouth that Jesus is Lord and a belief in the heart that God has raised Him from the dead (Matthew 16:16; Romans 10:9-10); now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED, That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in New Orleans, Louisiana, June 19-20, 2012, reaffirm our Gospel conviction that repentance from sin and personal faith in the Lord Jesus Christ are necessary for salvation (Acts 20:20-21); and be it further

RESOLVED, That we affirm that repentance and faith involve a crying out for mercy and a calling on the Lord (Romans 10:13), often identified as a “sinner's prayer,” as a biblical expression of repentance and faith; and be it further

RESOLVED, That a “sinner's prayer” is not an incantation that results in salvation merely by its recitation and should never be manipulatively employed or utilized apart from a clear articulation of the Gospel (Matthew 6:7; 16:7-9); and be it further

RESOLVED, That we promote any and all biblical means of urging sinners to call on the name of the Lord in a prayer of repentance and faith; and be it finally

RESOLVED, That we call on Southern Baptists everywhere to continue to carry out the Great Commission in North America and around the world, so that sinners everywhere, of every tribe, tongue, and language, may cry out, “God be merciful to me a sinner” (Luke 18:13).

This is the text of the resolution originally proposed by Dr. Eric Hankins, Pastor of the First Baptist Church in Oxford, Mississippi, and principle author of the "Anti-Calvinist Manifesto":

A Resolution on the “Sinner’s Prayer” to be presented at the SBC in New Orleans, June 2012

WHEREAS, God desires for every person to be saved and has made salvation available for any person who hears the Gospel (John 3:16; Romans 10:14-17; 1 Timothy 2:3-4; 2 Peter 3:9; 1 John 2:2); and

WHEREAS, A free response to the Holy Spirit’s drawing through the Gospel is both possible and necessary in order for anyone to be born again (John 3:1-16; Acts 16:30-31; Romans 10:11-13; 1 Thessalonians 2:13); and

WHEREAS, Prayer is God’s gracious means through which any person can communicate with Him and is everywhere in Scripture commanded and commended for every matter and every person (2 Chronicles 7:14; Matthew 7:7-11; Mark 11:17; Philippians 4:6); and

WHEREAS, Praying to God to express repentance for sins, to acknowledge Christ as Lord, and to ask for forgiveness and salvation is modeled in the Bible (Acts 2:37-38; Romans 10:9-10); and

WHEREAS, While there is no one uniform wording found in Scripture or in the churches for a “Sinner’s Prayer,” the prayer of repentance and faith, acknowledging salvation through Christ alone and expressing complete surrender to His Lordship, is the biblical means by which any person can turn from sin and self, place his faith in Christ, and find forgiveness and eternal life (Luke 18:9-14, 23:39-43); and

WHEREAS, It is biblically appropriate to help a sinner in calling on the Lord for salvation and to speak of Christ’s response to such a prayer as “entering a sinner’s heart and life” (John 14:23; Acts 2:37-40; 16:29-30; Romans 10:11-17; Ephesians 3:17); and

WHEREAS, A “Sinner’s Prayer” is not an incantation that results in salvation merely by its recitation and should never be manipulatively employed or utilized apart from a clear articulation of the Gospel (Matthew 6:7, 15:7-9; 28:18-20); now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED, That the Southern Baptist Convention, meeting in New Orleans, LA, June 19-20, 2012, commend the use of a “Sinner’s Prayer” as a biblically sound and spiritually significant component of the evangelistic task of the church; and be it further

RESOLVED, That we encourage all Christians to enthusiastically and intentionally proclaim the Gospel to sinners everywhere, being prepared to give them the reason for the hope we have in Christ (I Peter 3:15), and being prepared to lead them to confess faith in Christ (Romans 10:9), including praying to receive Him as Savior and Lord (John 1:12).

Class assignment: Compare and contrast these two documents.

Class dismissed.

Parkside Baptist Has a Need

PBC needs new furnaces. We've raised $2000 of the needed $8600 - If you desire to help -- bit.ly/KYtdmM mark as "furnace fund"

— Parkside Montana (@ParksideMontana) June 4, 2012

My uncle used to always say that Montana only has two seasons: "Winter" & "Getting Ready for Winter." Well, he was (mostly) right. Spring is here, and the weather is getting warm. But, in Montana, summer is a short season, and autumn will get here before you know it. And, so, the season is short to raise the funds to replace our small church's heating system.

Parkside Baptist Church's current heating system has surpassed its designed lifespan -- Indeed, we were told that it needed replacement a full year ago. $2,000 towards the replacement cost of $8,600 has already been raised. If you can help, any assistance would be greatly appreciated! Or if you know anybody who can help, please spread the word!

Thank you!

Reformation Montana 2012

Last Thursday and Friday, in Great Falls, Montana, the First Annual Reformation Montana Conference was held. Jordan Hall, Paul Washer, and Phil Johnson were the keynote speakers, and the audio messages from the conference are now available for download.

Sadly, due to some recording equipment issues, the audio quality of the first two messages is very poor. The problems were corrected, and the remainder of the messages, including Phil Johnson's exceptional 3-part exposition of Ephesians 2:1-10, are fine.

Session One - Jordan Hall

Session Two - Paul Washer

Session Three - Phil Johnson

Session Four - Paul Washer

Session Five - Phil Johnson

Session Six - Jordan Hall

Session Seven - Paul Washer

Session Eight - Phil Johnson

Session Nine - Jordan Hall

It was a great conference! It was good to renew old acquaintances, as well as make a few new friends. Next year's conference is already in the planning stages! I'll let you know the "who, where, & when" sometime soon!

Where I'll Be Next Week

100th Anniversary of the Sinking of the R.M.S. Titanic

Tonight marks the 100th anniversary of the sinking of the RMS Titanic on her maiden voyage.

We all know the story: At 11:40 p.m. ship time, she struck an iceberg in the North Atlantic. 2 hours and 40 minutes later, at 2:20 a.m. ship time, she slipped beneath the waves, and now lies over 12,500 feet down in the deep. Of the 2,224 people on board, only 710 survived. Among the dead were some of the richest people in the world.

I admit it… I’m a Titanic buff. The story of the Titanic has always been of interest to me. I first read Walter Lord’s A Night To Remember while in high school. Then, in 1985, when Robert Ballard found the Titanic, I remember watching the National Geographic Special, Secrets of the Titanic, that documented the discovery with rapt fascination.

I was born in 1965, the year that marked the 100th anniversary of the end of the Civil War. To me, the Civil War seems almost like ancient history. Yet, as I rapidly approach 50 years old, 100 years doesn’t seem nearly as long any more, and events of 100 years ago seem much more recent.

As an amateur historian, I could not allow this date to pass without making a few comments – Musings, really – regarding the events of 100 years ago and also the place that the Titanic still has in popular culture and myth.

Safety: The Ship & Her Operation

The Titanic really was the pinnacle of coal-fired steam technology. A lot of people mock the safety features that were incorporated into her design – after all, she did sink – yet she really was the safest thing afloat at the time and she was built to the highest standards of the day. By all accounts, Harland & Wolff, the shipbuilders who designed and built Titanic were not innovators. Titanic was not designed to be cutting edge new technology, but was the culmination of 51 years experience at shipbuilding, most of it building iron and steel steamships for the White Star Line. All of that knowledge and experience went in to building Titanic. She wasn't up to our modern design standards, but neither was she a flawed design. Nor were her materials substandard. Her sister ship, RMS Olympic, the identical design, built by the same workmen with the same iron and steel, served faithfully from 1911 until retired in 1935. (Sadly, she was scrapped in 1937.)

While they had received ice warnings, Titanic’s officers were certain that any ice in her path was insignificant. None had ever seen ice that far south, and, even with the warnings she’d received, considered it highly unlikely that they were in any danger of collision. They had lookouts posted, and that was considered sufficient by all. Captain Smith even delayed his turn westward by almost an hour, taking an even more southerly path, confident that he was skirting the ice that had been reported. Radar, which would have been able to detect the iceberg ahead, would not be invented for another twenty-nine years.

There was a certain complacency to the lack of precaution, but, according to Daniel Butler’s ”Unsinkable”: The Full Story of the RMS Titanic, travel had never been safer than in the 40 years before the Titanic’s sinking.

Mr. Butler wrote:

”If the passengers believed that the Titanic was indeed unsinkable, it wasn’t because they had succumbed to the blandishments of the shipping line’s advertisements or the pronouncements of the experts: in the forty years prior to the Titanic’s maiden voyage, only four lives had been lost on passenger ships on the North Atlantic trade. Imagine how blithely air travel would be regarded by present-day travelers, who usually express little trepidation about the hazards of commercial flying, if the major airlines possessed a similar safety record. Never had any form of transportation been so save and hazard free.”

With such a history of safety, it is no surprise that people recognized the dangers involved in modern sea travel only in hindsight. They were not blithely ignoring the dangers; they were just not cognizant of the dangers at all. To the people who built, crewed, and sailed on these vessels, such an accident was simply unimaginable; therefore they didn’t plan for what they never imagined would happen. The post-Titanic changes in safety regulations were certainly needed, especially the requirement that a passenger ship have enough lifeboat capacity for the total number of people aboard, but to say there was a callous disregard for the lives of the passengers by the owners and crew of the RMS Titanic is just untrue.

The Wreck Site

It is my belief that the looting of the wreck site for artifacts is a problem. The problem is that the wreck is just too recent. 500 years from now, it’d be different, but the last survivor of the Titanic only died 3 years ago. Titanic has passed from memory into history, but it is still recent history. The raising of the cannons from Blackbeard’s ship, Queen Anne's Revenge, which sank in 1718, does not cause near the same visceral reaction that bringing up artifacts from the Titanic invokes. Also, Queen Ann’s Revenge ran aground and was abandoned, she didn’t go down with 1,500 people at the dawn of the age of modern media.

The Titanic is a gravesite, but she’s also a scientific, historic, and archaeological site. Surveying the sight, taking photographs, and collecting scientific samples are certainly acceptable, but large-scale looting of the site for artifacts for collectors is not. I understand that a large collection of artifacts brought up from the wreck are being auctioned off on Sunday. I hope they end up in museums.

Cameron’s Film

Beautiful sets, impeccable costumes, peerless cinematography, stunning special effects… and an insipid story. What’s the matter, Mr. Cameron? Not enough drama in the real events? You thought the story could be improved upon by adding cheap romance with a plot more shallow than those contained within the pages of most old Harlequin Romances?

The setting makes the story more than it is. Still, it's a beautiful production, and it gives you a pretty darned good look at the ship.

Some Final Thoughts

In many ways, the 20th Century didn’t begin on January 1, 1901, but on April 15, 2012. The sinking of the Titanic marked the end of an era of unbridled optimism. It was followed, in quick succession, by World War I, the Great Depression, and World War II. There was a certain innocence in the late 19th and early 20th centuries that was forever shattered when the Titanic hit that iceberg. It wasn’t a perfect time, but it was one of those almost mythical “Golden Times” when life seemed especially good and hopeful. But, like other times which we tend to romanticize and idolize from the distance – the High Middle Ages, the Old West, etc. – the reality was, no doubt, not nearly as idyllic as we imagine.

Another reason why the Titanic story is so compelling is the senselessness of it. The ship wasn’t sunk in some grand battle for a cause deemed worthy of such sacrifice. These were just people traveling from one place to another, totally unaware of the great risk that they were taking. We all, individually and collectively, still take such risks today. How often do you think about what might happen every time you walk across the street or drive to the corner store?

Tracking the Events of Today

If you wish to note the exact times of the events that took place 100 years ago, you need to know a bit about ship time. Ship time is based on the ship’s exact position east to west, and not on what “time zone” the ship may be in. Therefore, when the Titanic struck the iceberg, it was 11:40 p.m. ship time, which would make it 11:07 p.m. on April 14 in New York and 3:07 a.m. on April 15 in London. She sank 2 hours and 40 minutes later, at 2:20 a.m. ship time, or 1:47 a.m. in New York and 5:47 in London. For the more technically minded, Titanic’s ship time was GMT/UTC -3:27.

As I said at the beginning, this has been just some random musings, things I've been thinking about as we mark the anniversary of this tragic but historic occasion.

Eternal Father, strong to save, Whose arm hath bound the restless wave, Who bidd'st the mighty ocean deep Its own appointed limits keep; Oh, hear us when we cry to Thee, For those in peril on the sea!

What Really Is The Preachers' Job?

At the Shepherds' Conference that just concluded last week, Al Mohler gave a fantastic explanation from Scripture of what the job of the preacher really is. In my opinion, it is very much worth your time to watch.

Marketing Can't Overcome Truth

The King James Only movement used to be a much bigger deal than it has been lately. Well, it seems that at least one King James Only proponent is ready to try to recapture some lost market share with a series of slick videos.

The website for this effort, What's the Big Deal about the KJV?, says that there will be 8 to 10 videos in the series. Episodes 2 and 3 are, we are told, due out sometime in June.

But episode 1 is out now: Let's watch...

Well, there is is; glossy, well produced, full of good-natured sincerity... and enough error that it's hard to even know where to begin!

Luckily, as textual criticism is not at all my area of expertise, I don't have to know where to begin. James White, who is very well versed on the history of the text of the New Testament knows exactly where to begin, and has produced a 5-part, information-packed, video response to What's the Big Deal about the KJV? episode 1.

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

Part 4:

Part 5:

For more information about this topic, I highly recommend Dr. White's book The King James Only Controversy, now it it's second edition. If you are more of an audio-visual learner, Dr. White gave a lecture on the reliability of the New Testament text about a year ago. It is 1 1/2 hours long, but it is just jam-packed full of interesting and useful information!

Qualification Number 1: Character

Just this past Sunday, the popular pastor of a large church in a nearby town resigned in shame. He stepped down after it was discovered that he had plagiarized sermons – A lot of sermons. It is reported that he preached sermons taken from the websites of other churches and ministers word for word and joke for joke. Even, I have been told, to the point of copying facial expressions and gestures from videos.

There is no doubt that he did these things. The evidence is overwhelming, as recordings of his sermons have been compared to the recordings and transcripts of the sermons that he copied. Faced with this evidence and asked to resign, he did so. He admitted what he had done, apologized to the church, and resigned.

The wake of his resignation, and the reasons for it, left a wash of disillusionment and a swath of sad, hurt, angry, and resentful people. Some are angry with him, others are angry with those who requested his resignation. A church now lies crippled, damaged, rudderless, and without any course or direction. I pray for this church’s future and for those who now struggle to lead it. I fear that they have rough seas ahead of them.

Then I read statements like this, left on the pastor’s Facebook page after the service in which he resigned, “I disagree completely with the proceedings today. You are a man of integrity, worthy of our trust.” – I read that, and all I can think is that its author either doesn’t know the facts, doesn’t want to know the facts, or has a definition of “integrity” that is at odds with every dictionary I’ve ever used to reference that word.

This article could be about this specific situation. It is not. This situation is painful enough as it is. I talked to the pastor in question the day before he resigned, and he admitted to me what he had done. I have no doubt that he is a man humbled, broken, and in pain. He doesn’t need me “piling on” – and I won’t.

I could be writing about the growing problem of pastors plagiarizing sermons. I am not. No doubt, the internet makes it both easier to copy other’s work, and easier to catch those who resort to such copying. This problem with plagiarism will likely only get worse, as time goes on. But others have written on this subject, and I don’t know that I have anything to add.

No, what I want to write about is the care with which church leaders are to be chosen in the first place.

When you look at the qualifications that God laid out for the leadership of the church, listed for us in the third chapter of 1 Timothy and in the first chapter of Titus, it is readily apparent that ability and giftedness are not the focus. Only one skill or ability is listed, the pastor must be “able to teach.” That’s it. He has to be able to teach.

All of the rest of the qualifications for church leadership are character issues. As Paul writes, “For an overseer, as God's steward, must be above reproach.” (Titus 1:7a) Paul then, inspired by the Holy Spirit, explains what being “above reproach” means; “He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.” (Titus 1:7b-9)

But one thing about all of the qualifications that Paul lists as being requirements for positions of leadership within the church is clear; they take time to manifest themselves. In other words, a man has to be observed over a lengthy period of time to see if he really possesses these qualities.

The plagiarizing pastor I referenced above was, like most pastors, hired from outside of the community. There was some sort of search committee that advertised for, collected, and looked over resumes and applications. Then there were a series of interviews, reference checks, visits, etc. Finally, a job offer was made and accepted, a family moved, and then and only then did the church start getting to know their new pastor.

That is not at all the New Testament pattern. In the early church, according to the directives contained in the epistles, the leaders were raised up from within the church, where they were known before they became leaders. If a man had issues with womanizing, or alcoholism, or dishonesty, or any other moral or ethical failing, it was likely already known, and the man would never be considered for a pastoral role in the first place.

Following the directives contained in the Word of God helps to protect the church from ignorantly elevating to leadership men who are really morally unqualified. Men who might look good on paper, but whom the church truly does not know well enough to really evaluate.

Even when these safeguards are followed, moral failures will take place. But not following these safeguards greatly increases the odds of such failures.

Church: guard your pulpit.

Pastor: guard your integrity.

Pearl Harbor + 70

Today is the 70th anniversary of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, which drew the United States into World War II.

On the one hand, 70 years seems like a very long time. 70 years is a lifetime, "The days of our years are threescore years and ten," wrote Moses (Psalm 90:10.) The generation that fought World War II is dwindling; the youngest still living are in their late 80s, and, all too soon, they will be no more. There were some 84,000 American servicemen on Oahu when Japan attacked, but, today, the Pearl Harbor Survivors Association only lists 2,700 members still living, and only 120 are expected to attend today's memorial service in Hawaii. 2011 saw the passing of the last World War I veterans, and there was only 20 years between World War I and World War II.

But, on an historical scale, 70 years is a very brief time. World War II is still very recent history that had a great deal to do with shaping the modern world in which we live. Ripples from those events still push driftwood up onto the shore of today. A knowledge and understanding of the events of 70 years ago are important in understanding modern times.

We also need to keep in mind a providential view of history. History is not a chronology of meaningless, however intricately interconnected, events. History has a purpose and an end that has been determined and decreed by the God who created the world and all that is in it. God decreed the wars of the 20th Century, as well as the wars of today, for His purposes and for His glory. Certainly, we are usually unable to understand what His purposes always are, but we know that He has a purpose. Nothing that occurs, however monumental or minor it may seem to us, occurs outside of God's will. His hand guides history.

Sometime today, I plan on watching Tora! Tora! Tora!, in my opinion, the best film about the attack on Pearl Harbor ever made.

Remember Pearl Harbor.

A The Squirrel Can Cook Classic

By popular demand, here's my slow-cooker turkey breast recipe • republished from last year. We just had one of these a few weeks ago!

Have a very Happy Thanksgiving!

It is 6 days until Thanksgiving, and thoughts turn to turkey dinner. But turkeys are HUGE, and, unless you’re cooking for a big family or a bunch of guests, a whole turkey, even a small one, really is just too much. For smaller gatherings, consider a boneless turkey breast. Today, we’re going to cook a boneless turkey breast in the slow-cooker. (Technically, it is a “turkey breast roast” because the de-boned turkey breast has been rolled into a roast shape and bound with a string net.)


Our ingredients are:

Turkey breast roast – thawed
¾ cup chicken broth
2 tablespoons olive oil
Squirrel’s Low-sodium Cajun Spice

Remove the turkey breast from its package (but leave the string net on), rinse it under cold water, and pat it dry with paper towels. Coat with olive oil and then rub a generous amount of Squirrel’s Low-sodium Cajun Spice all over – top, bottom, and sides.


Place something in the bottom of your slow cooker to hold the turkey about ½ inch off of the bottom. (I’ve got a nice little wire rack that works well. An upside-down saucer would work, too.) Fill the bottom of the slow cooker to just below the level of your rack. (The chicken broth adds flavorful humidity to the slow cooker, and keeps the turkey nice and moist. Nobody likes dry turkey!)


Place the turkey in the slow-cooker, skin side up. Cook on high for 1 hour, then cook on low for 6 hours. After 6 hours, check internal temperature with a meat thermometer. Your turkey breast is done when the center reaches 170+ degrees.



Remove from slow cooker, place on a rack above a drip-pan, tent with a sheet of aluminum foil, and allow the turkey breast to rest for 15 minutes.


Slice and serve! Serves 6 (or four with some sandwiches later) (or two with lots of sandwiches for later!) Enjoy!

The Squirrel shall not live by bread NUTS alone!

ReSquirreled: Does The Bible Teach Socialism?

[In light of some discussions I had recently about the "Occupy Wall Street" crowd, I thought I'd reprint this from April 2010. -Squirrel]

During the recent health care debate, I had a long conversation on Facebook with my cousin Tom. In the course of the exchange, he wrote in support of the new legislation, “Contrary to your claim that we are a pagan nation, I believe our basic approach to taking care of others in time of need is of a Christian manner.” So, does the Bible teach Socialism?

First, let’s define Socialism. One good definition is, “Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.” ("Socialism." The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. 25 Apr. 2010.) Another definition is, “A theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.” ("Socialism." Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc. 25 Apr. 2010.) What it boils down to is public vs. private ownership and/or control of property.

Let’s look at what the Bible says about the ownership of property. Starting with the Ten Commandments, we see that people have a right to their own property.

The Eighth Commandment states, “"You shall not steal.”(Exodus 20:15) Stealing is defined as, “To take (the property of another) without right or permission.” ("stealing." The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. 25 Apr. 2010.) So, we’re seeing that there is property that one person has rights to that another person or persons does not. It’s not looking good so far for the socialists.

The Tenth Commandment says, “You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife or his male servant or his female servant or his ox or his donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor.” (Exodus 20:17) Coveting is different from stealing. Coveting is, “To desire wrongfully, inordinately, or without due regard for the rights of others: to covet another's property.” ("covet." Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc. 25 Apr. 2010) The Tenth Commandment says that it is wrong to want something that rightfully belongs to another. This doesn’t help the socialist, either.

But, wait! That’s all Old Testament stuff. Didn’t Jesus talk about the poor? He sure did, let’s look at some of what He said:

In Matthew 5:3, Jesus says, “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” Here He is speaking of the spiritual poor, and not necessarily the materially poor, so we can move on.

In Matthew 6:1-4, Jesus says, “Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven. So when you give to the poor, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may be honored by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. But when you give to the poor, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving will be in secret; and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.” Here He speaks of giving to the poor from pure motives, and not out of a desire to impress others. He does say “when” and not “if,” so there is an assumption that his followers will give to the poor. But any command here is implicit, not explicit.

Mark 14 tells the story of a woman anointing Jesus with expensive perfume shortly before His crucifixion. Mark tells us, “But some were indignantly remarking to one another, ‘Why has this perfume been wasted? For this perfume might have been sold for over three hundred denarii, and the money given to the poor.’” (Mark 14:4-5) John tells us (John 12:4-6) that Judas Iscariot was the one who raised the fuss, and that he did it not from any desire to help the poor, but so that he, as the groups treasurer, could have access to the funds himself.

Jesus’ reaction to this grumbling is very telling. He said, “Let her alone; why do you bother her? She has done a good deed to Me. For you always have the poor with you, and whenever you wish you can do good to them; but you do not always have Me.” (Mark 14:6-7 NASB) Did you catch that? He said, “(W)henever you wish you can do good to (the poor).” When and how a person helps the poor is up to their own wishes. He also indicates that no amount of human effort with ever eliminate poverty. “You will always have the poor with you,” He said.

“But wait!” I hear the Biblically knowledgeable socialist proclaim, “The early church was socialistic! They sold all their possessions and shared everything equally!” Well, that’s true to a degree. Acts 2:44-45 says, “And all those who had believed were together and had all things in common; and they began selling their property and possessions and were sharing them with all, as anyone might have need.” And Acts 4:34-35 says, “For there was not a needy person among them, for all who were owners of land or houses would sell them and bring the proceeds of the sales and lay them at the apostles' feet, and they would be distributed to each as any had need.” The question, however, remains; is this socialism?

Perhaps, if we examine the curious case of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5, we’ll have a clearer understanding.

But a man named Ananias, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property, and kept back some of the price for himself, with his wife's full knowledge, and bringing a portion of it, he laid it at the apostles' feet. But Peter said, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back some of the price of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control? Why is it that you have conceived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God." And as he heard these words, Ananias fell down and breathed his last; and great fear came over all who heard of it. The young men got up and covered him up, and after carrying him out, they buried him.

Now there elapsed an interval of about three hours, and his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. And Peter responded to her, "Tell me whether you sold the land for such and such a price?" And she said, "Yes, that was the price." Then Peter said to her, "Why is it that you have agreed together to put the Spirit of the Lord to the test? Behold, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out as well." And immediately she fell at his feet and breathed her last, and the young men came in and found her dead, and they carried her out and buried her beside her husband.
(Acts 5:1-10)

Ananias and Sapphira sold a piece of land and did not give all the money to the apostles, and so God struck them down? Is that what happened? No! God struck them down for lying about not giving all the money.

Look at what Peter said to Ananias. “While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control?” Ananias didn’t have to sell his property; it was not required of him. And, having sold the property, the money was his to do with as he wished. Peter clearly acknowledges Ananias’ and Sapphira’s right to do with their own property according to their own desires. One of Ananias’ and Sapphira’s sins was greed, sure, but it was coupled with pride to lead them to do what they did. They wanted to be “big shots” in the church. (See Matthew 6:1-4 again)

No, the truth is that the followers in the early church engaged in commerce, buying and selling privately owned property to raise needed funds. The fact that they shared their funds with those in need shows that they were caring and generous people, not that they were socialists.

While the Bible clearly teaches that we are to support our government & pay our taxes (Romans 13:6-7), Scripture also strongly supports the right to private ownership and control of property. Do I think we could (& should) do more to help the poor? Sure I do. But it should be up to the individual who owns the property to decide when, how, and how much they give. Will many people not give as much as they could? Sure. But that is between them and God, as it is God who gave them their wealth in the first place (2 Chronicles 32:29.)

(I highly recommend that everyone read Dr. Walter E. Williams' lectures on Economics For The Citizen. I took a year of economics in high school, and two semesters of economics at the University of Montana, but I've learned more about economics by listening to Walter Williams guest-host for Rush Limbaugh and by reading the materials on his website, then I ever learned in school.)

9/11 • 10 Years Later

“Eventually, September the 11th will be a date on the calendar. It will be like Pearl Harbor Day. For those of us who lived through it, it will be a day we’ll never forget.” – Former President George W. Bush, in an interview with the National Geographic Society, 2011

Time passes. The older I get, the more I realize that time passes, and seems to pass more quickly each year. Today’s events are tomorrow’s memories, and tomorrow’s memories soon become historical events. I was a freshman in high school during the 40th anniversary of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. This year marks 150 years since the start of the American Civil War. Next April will mark the 100th anniversary of the Titanic’s sinking.

And then there is today: The 10th anniversary of the September 11th attacks.

The September 11th attacks are still emotion-laden memory for most of us, but it will not be many years before the events of that day become just another item in a newspaper’s “This Day in History” feature – an important item, to be sure, but, still, just another historical event, like Pearl Harbor or the Titanic.

And yet, near or far, minor or momentous, anniversaries are important. They allow us to reexamine things; things that we think, things that we feel, things that we know. And to reexamine these things in the light of what we have learned since.

I would urge you to spend some time today in quiet reflection on the events from 10 years ago. May I suggest the following video, a panel discussion from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, as a “jumpstart” to your reflections?

911 Panel Discussion from Southern Seminary on Vimeo.