I Had No Idea...

The foollowing article by yours truly was published in the Greenwood Commonwealth on Friday

Is God Dead?

It was in 1882 when Friedrich Nietzsche, the German philosopher first made the shocking statement, "Gott ist tot." God is dead. And as a confessing and believing Christian, teacher and leader, I must confess that I agree. Allow me to explain.

God is not dead in any objective sense. He lives and reigns in the heavens. He upholds the Universe by the power of his hand. And in the person of Jesus, He intercedes continually for those of us who believe the Gospel. God is not dead in the way a person is physically dead. This is not what I mean or what Nietzsche meant.

So what did he mean?

Well, simply put, he meant God was now irrelevant and belief in him served no real purpose except as a polite fiction. A philosopher or theologian would say that God serves no “teleological” function (telos, end or purpose). He has no purpose. Nietzsche’s purpose in saying “God is dead” was to point out the absurdity of an absolute moral code without a belief in God. He foresaw the twentieth-century’s global rejection of a transcendent moral order and the resulting bloodshed with clarity.

What do I mean though?

Actually, when I say “God is dead,” I mean something a little different. Again, he is not physically dead. But for so many people in this town and ten thousand more throughout the Bible Belt and beyond, God is believed in and even called a Savior and yet is irrelevant. He plays second fiddle (at best) to wealth, beauty, sex, Sports – our kid’s sports, jobs and every other thing under the sun. Education is only a way to get more money and support your family and never a way to know more of the reality God created. He is patronized with a visit to church on Sunday and Monday he is ignored. We buy and sell and consume and give not a thought of whether any of it will betray to the watching world that God reigns…or even exists. For so many God is dead. And he is dead for those who will cancel life with all its demands and then move heaven and earth to remove a blemish from their face or watch a game. But they will treat the pursuit of “the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” like a hobby.

The good news is that God does have a purpose and it may not be what you think it is. God exists for God. The chief end of God, according to John Piper (and the Bible) is the glorification of God, himself. If God had affections for anything higher than himself he would be an idolater. He alone must be, for all eternity, riveted upon the exaltation of himself. And this should not surprise us. Consider 1 Peter 3:18, “For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God…” In other words, God the Father sent God the Son to die in our place so that we might get God. God did not send Jesus so God would get us. God sent Jesus so that we would be able to glorify God for his mercy (Romans 15:9).

Perhaps, for those whose lives betray a belief in a virtually lifeless God, they have assumed that God was fixated on their value and not his own value. They have exchanged the truth of God for a lie. And so placing themselves at the center of all reality, they think very little about the Sovereign God of the Universe. He might as well be dead.But God, treated as dead beckons, “Come, everyone who thirsts, come to the waters; and he who has no money, come, buy and eat! Come, buy wine and milk without money and without price. Why do you spend money for that which is not bread, and your labor for that which does not satisfy?” he says Come and see “the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ who is the image of God” (Isaiah 55:1,2; 2 Cor. 4:

Desiring God National Conference

Featuring:

Mark Driscoll

Tim Keller

David Wells

John Piper

Man, do I want to be there...

"That's My New Swingset"

As I have been out of town for a couple, I have poseted nothing new. I thought I would start with a Emma Caroline and Knox.

New Article in Greenwood Commonwealth

Beer is Not the Problem

Granted, alcoholism is a problem. Drunk-driving is a problem. Under-age drinking is a problem. Selling beer to minors is a problem. There are a lot of problems surrounding the existence of alcohol. But beer is not the problem.

Now, this is not the opinion of everyone. The nation’s largest Evangelical denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention passed a resolution recently on alcohol which expresses their "total opposition to the . . . consuming of alcoholic beverages." In other words…beer is the problem.

I do not bring this up merely to criticize the SBC. I have a profound respect for the denomination I grew up in. Also, they are joined by the vast majority of evangelicals in their belief that it is wrong for anyone to drink alcohol. Having given this caveat, let me say, I am convinced that institutional prohibition of alcohol and the blaming of alcohol itself are wrong postitions. They are devoid of logic, biblical and otherwise.

So if beer is not the problem…what is? If we can’t blame alcohol for the social ills of alcoholism, drunk-driving, promiscuity and illegal activity, what can we blame?

In a word…ourselves.

John Calvin, the 17th century Genevan Reformer made the memorable point, “Our hearts are ‘idol factories’, and our words and actions are shaped by the pursuit of things our heart craves.” Our hearts, the symbol for our affections, churn out things to satisfy us. Our hearts long to be satisfied and they will be satisfied by something. And so we make idols out of the things our hearts long for: family, sex, cars, houses, and possibly even alcohol. However, we know because of the biblical testimony that all these “possible idols” are good in and of themselves…except for maybe alcohol.

And yet the Bible never condemns alcohol. Indeed, Jesus makes water out of wine and uses wine as a metaphor when teaching. Jesus was obviously no teetotaler as he was accused of being a drunk. Paul tells Timothy to drink wine for his stomach. David credits God with wine to gladden the heart of man.

However, there are prohibitions against getting drunk. But that should tell us something. There are no condemnations of sex but there are condemnations of sexual activity outside of marriage, there is also no condemnation of alcohol, only condemnation of the abuse of alcohol. Sex is not the problem and beer is not the problem. The problem is we struggle to love the Giver more than the gifts. Our hearts are truly idol factories.

Consider the words of Martin Luther, “We must not...reject [or] condemn anything because it is abused. This would result in utter confusion. God has commanded us in Deut. 4 not to lift up our eyes to the sun (and the moon and the stars), etc., that we may not worship them, for they are created to serve all nations. But there are many people who worship the sun and the stars. Therefore we propose to rush in and pull the sun and stars from the skies. No, we had better let it be. Again, wine and women bring many a man to misery and make a fool of him (Ecclus. 19:2; 31:30); so we kill all the women and pour out all the wine…Indeed, if we want to drive away our worst enemy, the one who does us the most harm, we shall have to kill ourselves, for we have no greater enemy than our own heart, as the prophet, Jer. 17, says, "The heart of man is crooked…".

“But Matt, you work with teenagers…and they will think it is ok to drink now!” Actually, no. They already do it and if you think drinking beer is their problem, you are tragically naïve.

This can only be good for the country

Bush examining Piper's book, Life as a Vapor

Lots of Love

The Da Vinci Code: New and Improved

Oh man, is this funny...

In Today's Greenwood Commonwealth

Evangelical Compassion and Illegal Immigration
By: Matt Redmond

In an AP article dated May 19 regarding illegal immigration, Richard N. Ostling points out the virtual silence of Evangelical Protestants. His assumption is that among other things Evangelicals are “struggling to balance compassion with respect for law and order.” He moves on to quote the Washington spokesman for the National Association of Evangelicals, who says, “Evangelical leaders are concerned that our voice be a biblical voice that does not send the wrong signal to the growing Latino community.” He then continues to express his opinion about the unbiblical position of turning millions of illegal immigrants into felons. Of course, it is really geography which makes them felons. Near the end of the article Ostling quotes an “evangelical specialist” at the Ethics and Public Policy Center who asks, “How do you seal the borders without seeming to lack compassion?” without waiting for an answer.

Now we have it, don’t we? Perhaps it is a foregone conclusion for Evangelicals; the issue is really one of compassion. I have guessed as much though the only evangelical I have actually discussed it with is my wife.

There may be a number of issues that require little thought for conviction but this issue requires more so than say, murder or the like. The directives are not quite as clear. For there are certainly many persons in this great land who feel strongly that to close the borders by building a wall, deporting the illegals who are here and prosecuting those who have hired them is, well…not very compassionate.

As a thoroughly conservative Evangelical, I would like to argue for the converse.
I would argue that if we grant we compassion to the illegal immigrant we are not being very compassionate to the legal immigrant or those born here. The legal immigrant has much patience and hope done the paperwork and waited. And waited. To simply “forgive” and reward through amnesty those who have cut in line has in effect rendered the line of no value. And it has told those who wait they are patient…suckers.

As Caesar’s appetite grows, it becomes harder for me to gladly part with what is his. But alas we taxpayers are richly rewarded with infrastructure and the security procured by our military. And so are the illegal immigrants! And yet the illegal immigrant has paid no state and federal income tax. This is the same as walking into a store and expecting free merchandise. The storekeeper hands over the goods. Why? Because you are already there. This is preposterous and we have a name for it. “Give me that which I refuse to pay for!”

The inevitable question will involve “where is the grace and mercy you evangelicals talk so much about”? I get squeamish about saying it is irrelevant. But in a way they are. And in true diplomatic fashion, they are relevant. Grace and mercy are not excuses for a breaking of the law. Indeed, they are reasons for submitting to the laws of the land (Romans 13). And forgiveness? Of course, as we walk them to the back of the line…behind those who have waited wanted to enter legally.

If we decide we will show compassion to illegal immigrants by granting them amnesty we must also acknowledge that we will be showing a lack of compassion to law-abiding citizens… naturalized and otherwise.

Sweet Home...

From National Review Online...

You could also argue that Idol has given Alabama an unexpected superiority in the union—Hicks hails from the state, as does Season 2 winner Ruben Studdard and Season 4 runner-up Bo Bice. So this begs the question: Does Alabama have a good GOP presidential candidate to offer? And can he or she carry a tune?

Condi is from the Heart of Dixie!

The Local Paper is Desperate to Fill Space

The following is in today's paper...

Cruel Compassion for Illegals

Of all the discussions surrounding the immigration issue regarding illegals there is one question I have heard no one ask. Of course, the reason for this could be it is not a very important question to ask. Some questions may be very interesting and entertaining to mull and chew on and yet be no more important than questions that are never really asked. So at the risk of sounding preposterous allow me to ask what I suppose is an unasked question.

What makes anyone think that amnesty (or not prosecuting illegals) is compassionate?

You see, there is a lot of talk about our need to be compassionate toward those who have entered our land illegally. And since I desire to be compassionate as most do, I of course admit that those who exhort us to such behavior are to be agreed with. However it is here where I must part ways with most people. I would, in fact, call it patent cruelty to grant amnesty to these who have turned their noses up at the laws of our land.

Now I do realize that this is the direct antithesis of all the theses given. This is true for those who argue for amnesty and those who argue against it. Those who argue for amnesty do so because of their assumption that it is the most compassionate position to take. Those who argue against anything that smells like amnesty assume that compassion is either not part of the equation or is reserved for citizens who are hurt by lax immigration policies. I agree with the first who believes we should show compassion to the illegals but I disagree with the policy of amnesty. I agree with the second who wants to prosecute the illegals and send them packing but I disagree with the notion of compassion not being a necessary factor in our decision making.

In other words, I believe the most compassionate action our country could undertake is to punish those who have broken our laws and send them to the very end of the line.

Parents will understand this instinctively. For if a child is not punished for bad behavior, the very lack of punishment will redound to more poor behavior. Indeed, if the child is rewarded for his bad behavior a parent can only expect more of the same. The correction of a child by a parent is intrinsically a kind thing. Consequently, the worst a parent can do is to not punish their children. A parent does punish lying simply because they lied but also with the hope they will see the inherent wrongness of lying and will not do the same in the future. Punishment proves compassion.

It should be no wonder that punishing criminals in our country is a kindness to them. Punishment and prosecution that follow a blatant disregard for our laws naturally exhibit the very worth of the law or laws which were broken. It is gift to those who have never seen what is good to see clearly what is bad. Only those with no remorse disagree.

To my chagrin, this tack would never be ventured by the politicians of our day. For we have bought into a worldview which assumes the most compassionate thing we can do is let people get away with criminal behavior. This may affect us little, but I can only guess that it will be to the detriment of our country and its youngest inhabitants: legal and illegal.

A Classical Christian School in Greenwood

On Tuesday May 9th my wife and I met with two other couples to begin praying towards the formation of a Classical Christian School. The time was fruitful and full of constructive dreaming and praying. We will continue to meet and pray every 10 days to 2 weeks for a couple more months. From the beginning we have decided this is not to be a venture founded upon or characterized by negative polemics regarding other schooling options. This is simply the kind of schooling we want for our children and for the community for Greenwood. Also we being very up front about this dream of ours. We want no impressions of secrecy. This has been fruitful so far. A few very encouraging things have happened since we prayed that first night.

1. We have been encouraged by others who seek another option for educating their children toward a biblical worldview.

2. We let the elders of our church know of our dream and plans so they would not be blindsided by such information.

3. I told my youth about the dream and got nothing but positive feedback from them. This was very surprising as they all attend the same private school in the area. They thought it sounded "neat" and another option in our community is needed.

Our next meeting is Tuesday the 23rd of May

Evangelical Compassion and Immigration

Having read two articles on the virtual silence of Evangelicals on the immigration issue, I thought I would weigh in. The silence is said to be because of the tension between respect for the laws of the land and the desire to show compassion. However, I would and will argue that the two are not in tension in the immigration debate. In fact the converse is true. The rule of law and compassion are intrinsically harmonious.

As an evangelical whose conservative ideology is driven by his theology I cannot agree with the President (which grieves me) on this issue. My worldview will not allow it.

The following are a few of the reasons why.

1. In the OT Scriptures it was very hard for a person to become a proselyte/citizen of Israel. There is a reason why grown men wince at the mention of circumcision. And the dietary laws were no picnic either. The rule of law dictated the conditions by which a person would be able to claim citizenship in Israel. However, whenever ana alien(immigrant) is discussed in the OT law he or she is expected to keep the Law and the Jews are expected to love them (Lev. 18 and 19).

2. In the NT Scriptures such ideas of citizenship were not even on the table. Jesus spoke of the stranger/alien among the Israelites as one born under the Old Covenant. Also, he and the rest of Israel lived and did any ruling at all under the thumb of Rome. They were not a Sovereign nation as the USA is. Of course, they were to show kindness/compassion...they had no other option according to the principles of their faith and the dictates of Rome.

3. It is no act of compassion towards the illegal alien to reward him or her for willingly and unnecessarily breaking the laws of this land. For under our President's plan we not only forgive past sins, we reward the law-breakers for their productivity and ingenuity at breaking the law. Since when is it compassionate or kind to reward people for breaking the law? Every parent and teacher understands the consequences of rewarding bad behavior. It begets bad behavior.

4. It is hard for me to believe that injustice is not being done when we forgive the illegal acts of some and prosecute and punish the same acts by others. But this is what is being done. Those who have committed identity fraud and social security fraud will be not only forgiven they will credited with s.s. benefits based on work they did previous to becoming legal. This betrays a radical disregrad for the rule of law and an affection for political posturing. This is the height of injustice as it not only excuses wrong behavior but calls it right behavior.

5. Also, if laws are passed that in effect show compassion to the illegal immigrant through amnesty, this is no kindness for everyone else. It is an insult to the law-abiding citizen/taxpayer who is expected to submit to the laws of the land and hand over a significant portion of his wages. It is an affront to those who will invariably miss out on job opportunities because they are legal and must be paid at least minimum wage and for that reason are passed over. And it does injury to those who have waited and will continue to wait to enter this country legally.

6. The Republicans of Congress were rightly aghast at how President Clinton and his administration thumbed their noses at the rule of law by lying to a Grand Jury and then caring not a whit for the implications. Is it not the same when our Commander in Chief refuses to enforce the laws already on the books regarding illegal immigrants and those who hire and abet them?

7. "But Matt, where is your sense of love and grace and mercy?" The Bible, which gives meaning to these terms, clearly outlines the role of goevernmental authority in regard to illegal activity. Paul in Romans 13 speaks of the purpose of the "governing authorities" and how they were put there by God for our good. Whose good? Those who have "good conduct." "For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good and you will recieve his approval" (v. 3). You see, the rule of law and its enforcement is a good gift given by God for those who do not resist it. "But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain" (v.4). The most compassionate thing the President and our leaders in Washington can do is not bear the "sword in vain."

To argue for Christian compassion and tolerance and and then put no meat on the bones of such terms is dangerous. We end up wishing for and arguing for the very things we are against. There is no tension between the rule of law and compassion. I would argue that to selectively ignore the rule of law is to show a tragic lack of compassion

An Absolute Tragedy

This is an absolute tragedy. It is one thing to heckle the president of a free nation. But how dare a Chinese Dissident reporter cry out to a Communist dictator? This is a certain mistake for Bush. Why not jsut say to Dictator Hu, "Welcome to the land of Freedom of Speech"? Instead we are treating her as if she is a Chinese dissident...in China. By acting as if this is a big deal, the Bush administration can only embolden those who love to squash the specch of others. This is a tragedy.

Witness, the autobiography of Whittaker Chambers

Why would a youth pastor read Witness?

"I know that he (Chambers' son) and all his generation may soon bear witness of a kind before which every other shrinks in humility; and I want him to have a standard as simple as stepping into the dark and raising his eyes whereby to measure what he is and what he is not against the order of reality. I want him to see for himself upon the scale of the universes that God, the soul, faith, are not simple matters, and that no easy or ingenuous view of them is possible. I want him to remember that God Who is a God of Love is also the God of a world that includes the atom bomb and virus, the minds that contrived and use or those that suffer them; and that the problem of good and evil is not more simple than the immensity of worlds. I want him to understand that evil is not something that can be condescended to, waved aside or smiled away, for it is not merely an uninvited guest but lies collided in foro interno at home with good within ourselves. Evil can only be fought." (797-798)

The quote is meaningful by itself. But oh how much more so if you take the time to read the 796 pages previous.

God of Promise

I recently finished Horton's intro to Covenant Theology entitled, God of Promise. What a refreshing read this was over against so many other books on the subject. Covenant Theology can be more than a little hard to follow sometimes...a fact constantly pointed out by it's detractors. This book, while not an easy read is still helpful for the hopelessly confused. In a phrase, it makes sense. I have an M. Div. and I cannot follow some works on Covenant Theology. This work will not only be eye-opening but thought provoking for adherents and skeptics alike. I wholeheartedly recommend this introduction to Covenant Theology.