Fundamentalism versus Conservative Evangelicalism

As much as I dislike stereotypes, I'm going to engage in stereotypes for the purpose of this post. I've been reading quite a bit lately about Conservative Evangelicalism as compared to Fundamentalism. Much of the debate in the Fundamentalist blogosphere these days has, at its root, a frustration regarding the exodus of many "Young Fundamentalists" from the movement to Conservative Evangelicalism. For "fun" I decided to create this chart that highlights some of the major stances of both these groups. There are several things that aren't on here. For instance, Fundamentalists are generally hard-core Dispensationalists, whereas Conservative Evangelicals will have "soft" dispy's and some Covenant guys. But even with some of these things lacking, I think you'll find a number of key things addressed in this chart of 26 items.

Enjoy and please comment on any mistakes or mischaracterizations I may have made. By the way, I had a difficult time with the code to get this up here in chart form. Any of you computer wizards out there that can help me out, just email me at eli51773(at)hotmail.com.

	A	B	C
1	Specific Belief	Fundamentalism	Conservative Evangelicalism
2	Belief in Inerrancy of Scripture	yes	yes
3	Belief in Divinity of Christ	yes	yes
4	Belief in Virgin Birth	yes	yes
5	Belief in the Substitutionary Blood Atonement	yes	yes
6	Belief in the Bodily Resurrection of Christ	yes	yes
7	Belief in the Imminent Return of Christ	yes	yes
8	Belief in a Triune God	yes	yes
9	Church Polity	Congregational rule and Pastor rule. There are generally deacons that work closely with the pastor	Most generally practice elder rule
10	Baptism	Immersion only	Generally hold to Immersion only, though some other forms might be acceptable in some quarters
11	Lord's Table	"Closed" - only members of the local church, or "Close" - "likeminded" members of other local churches can join	"Open" to all believers
12	Church Discipline	Taught but not practiced	Generally practiced
13	Worship style	Music "prepares the heart for worship. Generally there will be corporate singing without commentary, an offering, a choral number, a "special", and then the preaching. Congregation not really lead in worship.	Heavy focus on corporate worship. Variety of musical styles and other medium to completely engage the congregation in group worship. Heavy focus on worship before, during, and after the preaching.
14	Preaching style	Primarily Topical	Primarily Expositional
15	Evangelism	Consists primarily of church members being encouraged to and engaged in inviting others to church.	Church as a whole tends to be heavily involved in community. Not uncommon to see addictions recovery ministries, troubled teens ministries, various counseling ministries and the like. Focus on "meeting people where they are".
16	Separation from Apostasy	yes	yes
17	Fellowship	Fellowship only with "likeminded" believers, i.e., churches that are more or less "carbon copies".	Willingness and desire to fellowship with all believers.
18	Calvinism versus Arminianism	Mostly 4 point Arminian	Mostly 4 - 5 point Calvinist
19	Bible Versions	Generally will have a radical adherence to the KJV. Some have transitioned to the NKJV.	Multiple versions used.
20	Small Groups	Disdained	Strongly encouraged - primary place for fellowship with other members.
21	Dress Standards	High standards in the Church and encouraged outside the church service as well. The "pants on women" debate is still underway.	Focus on modesty and appropriateness.
22	Drinking	Alcohol consumption is a sin.	Drunkenness is a sin. Alcohol consumptions is OK.
23	Personal Holiness	Primary focus on outward conformity to certain "standards of conduct" (i.e., no drinking, smoking, listening to rock music, dancing, etc)	Primary focus on a personal relationship with a Holy God.
24	Church Activities	Lots of them. Local church tends to be very tight knit as a result.	Not many for just the church. Most activities are geared towards community outreach. Small groups serve as the primary socialization arm for members.
25	Community Involvement	Limited to none.	Heavily involved in community.
26	"Sign" gifts	Strict cessationists	Not dogmatic on cessationism, but do NOT practice speaking in tongues.
27

I am a Calvinist...well, sort of.....

I am a Calvinist. I don’t think this is too awfully revelatory to anybody who knows me through the internet or personally. But just in case you didn’t know, I’ll say it again….I am a Calvinist. But not that kind of Calvinist. You know the kind I’m talking about, don’t you? The kind that some men like to preach against…the kind that you often see attacked in some portions of the Christian blogosphere….the kind that hates evangelism and thinks that all babies go to hell….the kind that, in counseling people who aren’t sure whether or not they are saved, will often tell people that they might need to consider the fact that they are not one of the elect……no, I’m not that kind of Calvinist. While I have no doubt that particular strand of Calvinism is alive somewhere (it must be, or why would people always argue against it so vehemently?), I’ve never personally encountered it.

“So”, you might be asking yourself, “if Ellis isn’t the type of Calvinist that fits into every type of strawman that’s ever been erected, then just what type of Calvinist is he?” I’m thrilled you asked and, as luck seems to be on your side, I happen to have this little blog in which I can quickly answer your question!

I am the type of Calvinist who believes in intense evangelizing. I don’t understand why God chooses to use the “foolishness of preaching” as a means of drawing unregenerate man to Him, but He does. I’m humbled at the thought that God actually wants to use me to impact others for eternity. He commands evangelism and my understanding of the doctrines of grace leads me to a desire to take an aggressive stance in regards to reaching the lost for Christ. We must do it.

I am the type of Calvinist who is humbled and awed at God’s grace. I don’t understand why God would ever reconcile a vile man to Himself, but He does. One of the many strawmen arguments I’ve seen regarding Calvinism is that realizing that you are one of the elect inevitably leads to a type of arrogance (“God chose me and not you”). Nothing could be further from the truth. As we catch even a glimpse of the glory, majesty, and holiness of the Almighty, the thought of Him saving lowly worms like us is beyond anything that my vocabulary can express. Even a narrow understanding of God’s grace and mercy is incapable of producing anything but profound humility and unspeakable thankfulness in the hearts of those whom He saves. I have never, even in jest, uttered that idiotic phrase, “ain’t it great to be one of the elect”. That’s a phrase I’ve only heard from those who deplore and misrepresent Calvinism. The response of the poor soul to whom the Lord shows mercy should be nothing less than awe and wonder.

I am the type of Calvinist who believes that “world” means “world” and “whosoever will” means “whosoever will”. This may be difficult for some non-Calvinists to understand, but I can say (without reservation) that any person who wants to be saved WILL be saved. I’m in danger of wading into deeper waters than I want to here, but I’ll say that this speaks to an understanding of what biblical salvation is: a complete turning away from sin and a complete surrender to Christ as Lord.

I am the type of Calvinist who has preached “evangelistic” sermons on several occasions. I not only do this without reservation, I do it with enthusiasm.

I am the type of Calvinist who believes that those who die in infancy go to heaven. John MacArthur lays out a brilliant argument for this point of view (google it). Some say this is inconsistent with Calvinism, but it’s not. While the Bible doesn’t explicitly answer this question, there is ample biblical evidence to support this position.

I am the type of Calvinist who doesn’t tend to “proselytize”. I’ve always heard the argument that Calvinists always try to “recruit” others into their little Calvinist fold, but I don’t know that I’ve seen that. I’ve been in the same church for 4 years now. During that time the fact that I’m a Calvinist has come up in only 2 or 3 conversations. In the last year I discovered, quite by accident, that there are other Calvinists in this church. While we are certainly in the minority here, it’s not prevented us from sweet fellowship with these other wonderful Christians. And to my knowledge, there has not been a single case of some poor unsuspecting non-calvinist getting confronted by a Calvinist seeking to “straighten them out”.

I am the type of Calvinist who is still a dispensationalist. While I would call myself a “soft” dispensationalist, I am a dispy nonetheless. Believe it or not, there’s a lot more of us than you might think! Not all Calvinists are adherents to Covenant Theology. As a matter of fact if you look real hard you will find that there are flavors of Calvinism out there that break all sorts of stereotypes. I’ve spoken to Calvinists who are Charismatics, amillennialists, pre-trib, post-trib, preterist, partial preterist, cessationists, non-cessationists, drinkers, tee-totalers, and, believe it or not, I actually know several Calvinists who are also part of the KJVO camp….now since that thought might actually cause some of you to black out for a second, I’ll try to wrap this up.

I am the type of Calvinist who believes in Total Inability, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints. While I might certainly have some minor quibbles with other Calvinists over some of the finer points of these 5 tenants, I fully embrace them.

I first began to embrace Calvinism when I actually began to study it. I was one of those guys who thought that John Calvin was nothing more than a pawn of Satan to bring disharmony to the church (I thought the same thing about all modern Bible translations back then, too). As I began to study what Calvinism actually was, and as I began to actually study Scripture, I came to find that the “Calvinism” I’d always thought existed was nothing more than a figment of my (and many others’) imagination. And therein lies the rub. The whole point I’m attempting to make with this blog entry is that, perhaps, it’s best not criticize something you may not actually understand.

The King James Version Debate

The King James Version of the Bible is one of the most beloved translations in the English language. The language contained therein is beautifully poetic. The translation is remarkable in its form as well as in its historical significance.

I recently taught a “history of the biblical canon” series to our adult Sunday School class and I finished the series up with a section on the history of the English Bible up to the King James Version. I intentionally stopped there out of deference to the many folks in this particular assembly who hold to an extreme position regarding the King James translation. I don’t mean that to sound harsh, as I have no ill will to those who hold to the KJV as THE Bible in the English language. I certainly object to the unorthodox and sometimes heretical views that would claim some sort of a process of “secondary inspiration” in regards to the KJV, but I have no issue with folks using the KJV exclusively and attending only churches that do the same.

I personally admire the King James and its place in the history of the English bible; however, (as I’ve noted in more than one instance) it ranks 3^rd or 4^th on my list of preferred English translations available to us today. The ESV and NKJV both surpass the King James in quality, accuracy, and fidelity to the original texts, as well as in readability. But I’m not really writing this article to explore that particular portion of this subject so much as I am wishing to examine some of the history surrounding the King James translation.

The paragraphs below are somewhat of a summary of some of my studies on this subject over the last 5 or 10 years. I’m certain that bits and pieces here and there can be found to be “cut and paste” excerpts from somebody else’s work. As I’m studying something I will often take a note or copy a paragraph for later study. I suppose I should begin to do so with some reference to the original author! All that said, this information is available in any number of places to anyone who wishes to take the time to dig it up for themselves.

The King James Version of the Bible was originally developed to address several pressing concerns of the day….at least pressing as far as the King of England was concerned. First of all, there was an increasing amount of “disharmony” (for lack of a better word) in the Church of England. There were multiple Bible Versions in use in the early 1600’s: Tyndale’s Bible, Coveredale’s Bible, and of course, The Great Bible and the Bishop’s Bible (those two were “authorized” by the Crown). However, the Geneva Bible was, far and away, the most popular one in use. The Puritans had been using it for half a century (and would continue to do so for more than 30 years after the 1611 KJV was introduced) and many of the local “reformation-minded” churches were also using it. This was obviously a problem for both the King of England and for the Church of England given the nature of the marginal notes in the Geneva Bible. The Geneva Bible was the most scholarly translation of both Testaments and the Apocrypha that had been produced in the Anglo-Saxon tongue up to that point in history. The marginal notes, eloquent in their expression of the views of John Calvin and the Reformation, had much to say about the papacy (for instance, one marginal note in Revelation 11:7 reads: "The beast that cometh out of the bottomless pit is the Pope, which hath his power out of hell and cometh thence.") and the Christian response to corrupt Kings (a marginal note for Exodus 1:9 indicated that the Hebrew midwives were correct in disobeying the Egyptian king's orders, and a note for 2 Chronicles 15:16 said that King Asa should have had his mother executed and not merely deposed for the crime of worshipping an idol). These overt doctrinal statements were not exactly popular sentiments as far as the King of England was concerned!

The Geneva Bible, in addition to being the most scholarly work available, was also the most “current”. Where the Geneva had been revised as late as 1599, the Tyndale, Coverdale, Great, and Bishop’s Bibles had not been revised or reprinted for more than a generation. The King of England (King James I) desired a new translation. And not merely a new translation…but one without notes.

Back to the reasons for the new translation....most would say that there were three major reasons that James wanted a new translation made. First of all, the Reformation had spawned in the hearts of God’s people a desire to get back to the true meaning of scripture. While James was, by most historical accounts, a very wicked man, he did have a desire as king to find some common ground with his subjects. A translation of the Scriptures that was a more scholarly work than what was currently available would certainly accomplish that.

Secondly, and closely related to this first reason, was a renewed interest in scholarship in general. With the Renaissance Age there was a greater desire for true scholarship than had been around for some time. During the period leading up to James’ reign, there had been some groundbreaking work done to this end. For instance, both Hebrew and Greek had begun to be publicly studied in universities. Hebrew and Greek grammars and lexica were now readily available. Erasmus had published a very important work in his Greek New Testament in the early 1500’s. As a King reigning during a time of great advancements in scholarship, James was somewhat obligated to encourage and even commission more scholarly work.

A third reason, and I mentioned this several paragraphs ago, was the fact that James (somewhat understandably) hated the current bible…the Geneva translation. During a discussion leading up to the decision to formally commence with a new translation, James said, "I profess, I could never yet see a Bible well translated in English; but I think that, of all, that of Geneva is the worst."

The king's opinion notwithstanding, the Geneva Bible was extremely popular. It was much smaller than previous works (even with all the marginal notes), and, with the advent of the printing press coupled with cheap paper, it was relatively affordable. As a result it was the first translation that found its way into most homes. As a matter of fact, for nearly 50 years after the King James Version was first released in 1611, the Geneva Bible continued to be “the Bible of the home”. As I stated previously, the marginal notes of the Geneva Bible reflected the views of the Reformation…including extensive diatribes against corrupt kings. James, by all accounts, was extremely corrupt morally. Therefore, this translation didn’t really appeal to him!

Dr. John Reynolds made the initial formal proposal for a new translation to King James. James liked the idea and got many of the top scholars of the day involved. There were 54 translators involved in the process....these were men who were skilled in the Hebrew and Greek languages. They were dived into six groups – 2 at Cambridge, 2 at Oxford, and 2 at Westminster. Three of these groups worked solely on the Old Testament; two on the New Testament; and one on the Apocrypha. As small sections were completed by each group, they were then carefully reviewed by the other five groups. In this way, it was truly a collaborative effort of the scholars and not the work of a single man or group. An interesting aside is that 80% of Tyndale’s translation, which was done completely by him except for the last portion of the Old Testament, passed on into the 1611 KJV word for word. I find this interesting for several reasons, not the least of which is the fact that William Tyndale is a personal heroe of mine.

Now while it is true that the 54 men on this panel of translators were reputable scholars, their hands were somewhat tied. Aside from there just not being the manuscript evidence available to them in the 1600’s that we have available to us today, the instructions they were given had them truly offering up a scholarly “revision” of the Bishop’s Bible. Nearly 80% of the Bishop’s Bible passed on into the KJV. This was by design as the translating committee was instructed to follow the Bishop’s insofar as it was faithful to the original texts. As a result, the KJV was not actually a literal translation from the Hebrew and Greek. If you were to compare word for word the 1611 KJV to the complete English works that preceded it, you would find that it was somewhat of a “cut and paste” effort throughout.

There was a tremendous amount of resistance to the King James Bible early on. Many of the more preeminent scholars of the day had some strongly worded objections to it. One of the most well-known (and somewhat humorous) of these responses was by Dr. Hugh Boughton – a Puritan scholar – who wrote, “The late Bible...was sent to me to censure: which bred in me a sadness that will grieve me while I breathe, it is ill done. Tell His Majesty that I had rather be rent in pieces with wild horses, than any such translation by my consent should be urged upon poor churches...The new edition crosseth me. I require it to be burnt." So, far from being openly embraced and accepted, the KJV met with a good amount of criticism from some of the more prominent Bible scholars of the day.

Over the years the KJV has gone through many changes and some major revisions. There have been many thousands of changes from the 1611 KJV to the 1769 KJV that we have today. These thousands of changes have been primarily to update spelling, some grammar, punctuation, and chapter headings. The most major of the content changes has obviously been the removal of the Apocrypha in 1638 as well as the subsequent removal of all cross reference notes linking back to passages in the Apocrypha.

With the abundance of manuscript evidence discovered in the 400 years since the work on the KJV first began, there has been a renewed effort to lend more “precision” to the texts. While the KJV is a wonderful translation and, as I’ve already stated, one of my favorites, it does have some weaknesses. For instance, Erasmus’ Textus Receptus serves as the underlying Greek text for the New Testament. While Erasmus was a brilliant scholar, he had very few Greek manuscripts available to him in the early 1500’s when he was producing his text. His Textus Receptus was based on the Byzantine text which represents a revision of the New Testament made in the 4^th century A.D. and later. The Johannine Comma in 1 John 5:7-8 as well as the addition of passages like Mark 16:9-20 are great examples of some of the major errors in the Textus Receptus that passed on to the KJV. While many of my friends will say that they are not KJVO, but "Byzantine text only", the increasing scholarship and advancements in textual criticism are proving that the Byzantine text family is inferior when compared to the discoveries of the last several hundred years.

In addition to a questionable approach to translation and the use of an inferior text family, there are also other issues with the KJV – issues such as some translation errors and the cumbersome nature of using a language that has changed so significantly over the last 4 centuries are a couple that come to mind. However, I want to be clear that these things do not make the KJV a poor translation! It has been stated that there are somewhere in the neighborhood of 200,000 variants when comparing all the extant texts of the New Testament. However, the vast majority of these variants are very minor and affect, in only a very few cases, the meaning of a text. None of the variants have an impact on any major doctrine of Scripture. I’ll quote an article by Mike Vlach in discussing what several scholars have to say about these variants.

"Westcott and Hort: These excellent textual critics believed that only one-sixtieth of the variants in the New Testament rise above the level of “trivialities,” or could be called “substantial variations.” Even before the recent manuscript findings this would amount to a text that is 98.33 percent pure.

"Ezra Abbott: According to his estimates the text is 99.75 percent pure.

"A. T. Robertson: He believed that only a “thousandth part of the entire text” was of any real concern. That would make the New Testament 99.9 percent free from real concern for the textual critic.

"Sir Frederic Kenyon: “The Christian can take the whole Bible in his hand and say without fear or hesitation that he holds in it the true word of God, handed down without essential loss from generation to generation throughout the centuries.'"

All that to say this…while you might often see the terms like “inferior text family”, this is not really cause for alarm! On the contrary, the advances in textual criticism and the increase in manuscript evidence over the years have enabled Bible scholars to offer more pure readings of troubling passages; it has allowed for a more clear understanding of the text; and it has caused us to have a greater appreciation for the lifelong, rigorous, and meticulous work of men like William Tyndale.

Now I want to make one more clarifying statement regarding my use of the term “weaker text families”. It should be noted that even these newer, perhaps less reliable texts display a high level of accuracy. As testament to the fidelity of even the “weaker” text families, consider the testimony of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Discovered in the late 1940’s, the Dead Sea Scrolls offered a glimpse of Old Testament manuscripts that were more than a millennium closer to the original manuscripts than anything else in existence (i.e., the O.T. Massoretic texts – the work of the Massoretes, btw, is an incredible study if you have the time). Many critics of the Bible assumed that this important discovery would ultimately serve to completely undermine the integrity of the Bible as a whole. At last the world would see just how far off the Scriptures were when compared with much older manuscripts. These critics were wrong....the Dead Sea Scrolls offered near word-for-word matchups to the other extant texts in 98% of their contents. Again, there was no major doctrine affected by the few minor inconsistencies.

I will say once again that I admire the KJV and I am profoundly appreciative of its place in history. I use it often and have never attempted to discourage others from using it. If it is your Bible of choice, I wish to encourage you to continue to use it…..often! Just please don’t attempt to convince me of some form of "secondary inspiration" that requires some ridiculous leaps of logic to buy into. Don’t refer to it as “God’s Word for the English speaking people” either, as those sorts of statements smack, not only of ignorance, but of bibliolatry.

As for me, I will continue to use the KJV as a companion Bible to the other translations that I prefer. I will continue to preach and teach from it primarily, unless I am in a church that uses multiple Bibles from their pulpit. The purpose of this little blog post is not to dissuade those who read the KJV from using it, but rather to show that, even in imperfection, we have in our English translations something that effectively communicates the will of God to us while maintaining true fidelity to the originals. I can say with a grateful heart that I am truly thankful for the men over the years who have labored tirelessly and oft-times risked their lives for the purpose of getting God’s Word into the hands of God’s people in their native tongues.

Today we are reaping, as never before in history, the benefits of those great men of the last 2000 years. There is no shortage of quality translations available to all in their own tongue. I am grateful that, in America, we are able to have a debate as to which of the plethora translations most accurately reflects the underlying texts…what a wonderful debate to be able to have!

Just call me "sir", thank you....

To Whom It May Concern:

Frankly I’m annoyed. It seems like every waitress, convenience store attendant, grocery store cashier, etc., that I come across feels the need to call me “sweety”, “honey”, “hon”, or “sweetheart”…well, except for the guys. I’m unbelievably thankful for that….but I digress.

Now if every one of these people who choose to use these affectionate terms when speaking to me were 70 years old or older perhaps it wouldn’t bother me that much. For that matter, if I was 70 years old or older it probably wouldn’t bother me that much, either. The problem is, however, that most of these people seem to be around my age and many of them appear to be younger! This bothers me more than a little!

Now, all humility aside for a moment, I fully understand the involuntary flirting reaction that many women have when they first meet me. It’s a curse that I’ve come to grips with over the course of my 36 years. These good lucks are indeed a curse at times, but I manage to cope with it. Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not asking for your sympathy here, nor do I expect the average person to understand my plight. After all, it would be rude of me to ask for sympathy simply because I am in the “upper crust”, as it were, when it comes to looks. I mean, that would be like a multi-millionaire moaning to the impoverished about his inability to find new things on which to spend his millions. No, I’m not asking for you to feel sorry for me because of these dashing good lucks, and undeniable charm; I’m just asking for a little understanding. Not just understanding, but. to those of you who work in these professions, I’m asking that you exercise a bit of constraint…..you are service industry PROFESSIONALS, for Pete’s sake – ACT LIKE IT!!!!

There are several alternatives I could think of to calling me some pet name that I prefer only me wife call me by. For instance, after I’ve ordered my low-cal veggie burger with asparagus spears at the local diner, drive-in, or dive, instead of saying, “Will that be all, my wittle honey-bunny?”, you could simply say, “Thank you for your order, kind sir. I can tell by the fact that you went with a diet soda that you take care of yourself. You seem like such a nice man….could I interest you in a complimentary hot fudge sundae to top off this exquisite meal?”

See how easy that is? You got a positive message across to me without resorting to using some pet name straight from a 50’s-era diner; I got a free hot fudge sundae; and you end up with a great tip! To tell you truth, if you just called me “sir” rather than “sugar buns”, it would probably get you a better tip…even without the additional pucker power of the free ice cream.

Now obviously I write some of this in jest……I would never – and I mean never – go to any restaurant and order a veggie burger with asparagus spears. Aside from that, I’m dead serious. STOP TALKING TO ME LIKE ONE OF US IS IN OUR 80’s!!!!!!

Sincerely,

Ellis “sugar lips”, “honeybun”, “sweetie pie”, “apple dumplin’”, "schmooky bear" Murphree

Racism at the Inauguration

The Reverend Joseph Lowery was the man who gave the Benediction at yesterday’s Inauguration. I haven’t seen his prayer get a lick of play in the various media outlets today, although I’m sure that the right wing talk shows will pick it up later today. His last comments in this prayer were – well – a tad racist in my opinion. I’m more than a little disturbed by this for a couple of reasons….first of all, President Obama’s people would have received an advanced copy of the text of Lowery’s prayer, yet they allowed it, and secondly, if a white minister had something half as divisive as Lowery at one of Bush’s inaugural ceremonies, the media outrage and the public outcry would have been incredible. Here’s the text of the last portion of Lowery’s prayer:

Lord, in the memory of all the saints who from their labors rest, and in the joy of a new beginning, we ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get back, when brown can stick around; when yellow will be mellow; when the red man can get ahead, man; and when white will embrace what is right.

“When white will embrace what is right”? Wow! The fact that the media is not addressing these comments; that the Obama handlers likely knew what was going to be said, and that the President himself hasn’t and won’t issue a statement on this is phenomenal to me. Frankly I view comments like this as the main reason that racism just won’t die in this country. Throughout the last several months we saw John McCain and his campaign bend over backwards to make sure that they didn’t attack Obama on anything that could be construed as being racially motivated…during the primary season, we saw the race card pulled out against (of all people) President Bill Clinton. And now, will all the warm fuzzies that the entire nation is supposed to be feeling about race….with all the high claims being made about the great gains we’ve made, the last thing we hear at President Obama’s Inauguration is comments that allude to how hard it is to be anything but white and how evil the white man is. Awesome.

The incredible part is that moments before the statements above, Lowery says the following:

We thank you for the empowering of thy servant, our 44th president, to inspire our nation to believe that, yes, we can work together to achieve a more perfect union. And while we have sown the seeds of greed -- the wind of greed and corruption, and even as we reap the whirlwind of social and economicdisruption, we seek forgiveness and we come in a spirit of unity and solidarity to commit our support to our president by our willingness to make sacrifices, to respect your creation, to turn to each other and not on each other.

And now, Lord, in the complex arena of human relations, help us to make choices on the side of love, not hate; on the side of inclusion, not exclusion; tolerance, not intolerance.

And as we leave this mountaintop, help us to hold on to the spirit of fellowship and the oneness of our family. Let us take that power back to our homes, our workplaces, our churches, our temples, our mosques, or wherever we seek your will.

“Unity”. “Fellowship”. “Oneness”. “Solidarity”. I interpret this as a prayer that we all come to see things his way….that the successful in society begin taking care of those who aren’t taking care of themselves…that no more racism is to exist – unless of course you happen to be a black preacher or some other oppressed minority….because then it’s not racism, it’s just “speaking the truth”.

As for the rest of Lowery’s prayer, it smacks of the expectations that many in this country have of a subtle socialistic policy coupled with expectations of some perfect utopia. For instance:

For we know that, Lord, you're able and you're willing to work through faithful leadership to restore stability, mend our brokenness, heal our wounds and deliver us from the exploitation of the poor or the leastof these and from favoritism toward the rich, the elite of these.

The emboldened line above isn’t all that surprising as Lowery is simply stating in his prayer what President Obama and Vice President Biden have stated publicly over the last couple of months.

I didn’t intend on critiquing Lowery’s entire prayer, so much as I simply wanted to discuss how he ended it. My take on this is that racism in this country won’t die until those who feel their race has been oppressed stop attempting to demonize everyone else. How can some claim that the black man is still being oppressed when we’ve seen black men and women in nearly every high office in this country? “Political correctness” and “tolerance” (in the connotative sense) have so enveloped our society that nobody even wants to have open dialogue about these sorts of things anymore… I have no doubt that some who read this article will come to the conclusion that I’m racist. The odd part is that not only am I not a racist, I’m simply attempting to point out the obvious and blatant racism of a black preacher.

Oh well…..that’s all I’ll say on this subject. It makes me uncomfortable and, at the same time, angry.

Anxiety, stress, and .... "tomorrow"...

The economic woes that the U.S. are experiencing right now is certainly not a big secret. Every domestic newspaper and news channel are covering all the gritty little details and putting forth a steady stream of “doom and gloom”. Words like “depression” are worked into most conversations about the economy with relative ease. Indeed, unemployment is on the rise and, quite frankly, people are a little scared. For most Americans, the global war on terror that has captivated our attention for the bulk of the last seven years is no longer doing so. While we acknowledge its existence, it is generally viewed as a far-away thing....the economy, however, is right here – in our face – threatening to overtake us. It seems like a more ominous force and a more menacing enemy simply because of proximity. This enemy – potential joblessness, homelessness, bankruptcy, lack of job security – is right here, right now….and it’s scary.

I’ve been in the manufacturing world for most of my adult life. Part of life in American manufacturing is that you live in a cycle. So the potential for unemployment is always breathing down your neck, it seems. Those of us who have made careers out of manufacturing have been around massive layoffs, plant closings, consolidations, mergers, and sell-offs. But even with that experience, it’s never fun when you are faced with the reality of…..bad times.

As I’ve watched the news and conversed with friends I’ve made over the years who are in various positions within different manufacturing companies around the country, I’ve seen a lot of speculation, fear, and just pure uneasiness and anxiety. These are frightening times, my friends, and the reality is that they are likely to get worse before they get better. So what are we to do, as Christians? How should we react? What should our conversation with our unrepentant friends be during these times?

My thoughts keep going back to the 6th chapter of Matthew’s Gospel beginning in verse 25 and continuing through verse 34 (ESV):

"Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink, nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? And which of you by being anxious can add a single hour to his span of life? And why are you anxious about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin, yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is alive and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? Therefore do not be anxious, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?' For the Gentiles seek after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all. But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.

"Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble.”

Sometimes we Christians are very good at mindlessly and mechanically quoting this passage when times get tough. But while we can quote these verses, I wonder how much time we’ve spent meditating on the truths contained within them? The 34^th verse is one of the greatest comments in Scripture regarding the human inclination to borrow trouble! Essentially, Christ says, “Stop worrying about what’s not even happened yet! There’s enough to deal with here and now to be worrying about what tomorrow may or may not bring!” The truth is that God makes a stark promise to us in this small passage…..”Seek me FIRST, and I’ll take care of you”. Friends, this isn’t a promise of comfort, wealth, nice clothing, and shelter….it’s a promise of being sustained by the One who knows what we need…the One who knows us better than we know ourselves….the One who has demonstrated love to us in a way that we will never fully grasp this side of Eternity.

It’s so easy to worry about creature comforts, isn’t it? During the worst of times that I’ve experienced in my lifetime, I’ve always had it pretty good. While I’ve gone without food before, I’ve never gone hungry. While I’ve been without a home before, I’ve never been without shelter. While I’ve been without money before, I’ve never had my basic needs unmet. I praise His name that I haven’t yet had to deal with truly impossibly hard times during my marriage (three-and-a-half month joblessness, notwithstanding). I don’t know what the future holds, but I do know Who holds the future. As trite and cute as that might sound, there is a confidence and peace in that knowledge that surpasses my vocabulary!

So Christian, don’t worry! I’m certainly not advocating that we blindly live in the moment and just plow headlong into every day like nothing bad will ever happen to us, but let’s not be….. “stressed out” about things. Remember, the One who cares for the birds and flowers will certainly take care of His own!

Straight No Chaser - 12 Days of Christmas

Do you like to laugh? Do you like Christmas music? How about acapella Christmas music? Well if you've answered yes to all three of those, have I got a treat for you! Well, even if you answered no to one or more of the questions, I can still guarantee that you will enjoy this video from Straight No Chaser! If you've seen this before, go ahead and click on the link anyway....they add a new twist to "Dreidel"..... Enjoy!