"Ahead of this week's G8 conference in Scotland, the world's richest nations forgave billions in debt to the world's poorest. Great news, right? Not necessarily. Decades of Western aid have done little to ease suffering in Africa -- indeed the situation is worse than ever. Is it time for the West to rethink its aid strategy?"  Read the full article here.

(HT: Burton)

Burton writes,

There is no charity in compulsion.  Since taxation is compulsory, my government's giving my money to anyone in need, whether here or abroad is not love.  It is not love on my part, nor is it love on the part of the people who advocate such policies, because they do not bear the sacrifice.  To even suggest it is an insult to an a mockery of the true generosity that comes from Christ-changed heart.  Many Christians who approach political matters from the left are enthusiastic about harnessing the state to help the poor.  Can we make people fulfill their obligations to the poor by passing a law?  Think about that in other contexts.  Why not pass a law to make people repent?

 

I think all his posts on Live 8 stuff is great.  Check it out here.

The Evangelical culture usually fights its battles with the surrounding culture by boycotting.  I remember recently Focus on the Family calling Christians and Conservatives to boycott Abercrombie & Fitch because of their 'pornographic' advertisements.

I am more and more inclined to see boycotting as wrong headed.  What I am seeing more and more is buycotting.  Both methods see that the economy drives a good deal of what is in our culture.  If it sells there is more of it.  Boycotting assumes that if we can keep more and more people from buying products, then those products will no longer be part of the culture.  There are many problems with this though, and one of them is that many of the people who were called on to boycott A & F weren't buying their clothes from them.  Thus, the boycott would not do that much good. 

But a buycott can send a positive message.  We will buy things, and we will buy things that are good.  This way of working with economics, I think, is more influential, than simply boycotting.

This, I would argue along with Mr. Nehring, is the way foward with Christians and Hollywood.  Instead of simply boycotting movies we really wouldn't see anyway, let's make a move toward flooding the theaters, when a good movie comes out.

This is the same way Marvin Olasky argues we should deal with Peter Singer and his idolatrous views.  He writes,

" So, the future: The better way is to demand and support only programs that provide an alternative to Singerism -- Princeton has done that through the creation of its James Madison program -- and to debate Singer not only on theoretical grounds, but also on the practical applications of his proposals." (Read the whole piece here).

We can't simply boycott, we must buycott as well.  Speak with your money.  Be bold!

 

David Wells' new book Above All Earthly Powr's, will soon be released from Eerdmans.  This is the fourth and last volume in Wells' series, which began with No Place for Truth.  This promises to be good and helpful just as Wells' other books in the series.

Here is the books description:

In our postmodern world, every view has a place at the table but none has the final say. How, as Christian faith adjusts to a new culture, should the church confess Christ?

Above All Earthly Pow'rs, the fourth and final volume of the set that began in 1993 with No Place for Truth, paints a picture of the West in all its complexity, brilliance, and emptiness. As David Wells masterfully depicts it, the postmodern ethos of the West is relativistic, individualistic, therapeutic, and yet remarkably spiritual. Wells unabashedly locates American postmodernism's roots in the last century's waves of immigration — waves that, for all their diversity, have brought with them numerous new religions and a cultural relativism born out of confusion and a fear of offense. Wells also carefully differentiates between intellectual and popular postmodernism; while few Americans read Foucault or Derrida, nearly everyone is subject to the permeating flood of TV ads.

Wells's book culminates in a critique of contemporary evangelicalism aimed at both unsettling and reinvigorating readers. Churches that market themselves as relevant to consumption-oriented postmoderns are indeed swelling in size. But they are doing so, Wells contends, at the expense of the truth of the gospel, as the trappings they adopt come laden with theological consequences. By placing a premium on marketing, the evangelical church is in danger of selling authentic engagement with culture for worldly success.

Welding extensive cultural analysis with a formidable theological contribution, Above All Earthly Pow'rs will grip pastors, educators, and all serious readers concerned about the fate of evangelical Christianity.

 

http://www.eerdmans.com/shop/product.asp?p_key=0802829023

Mark Steyn writes,

...the Batman thesis: It’s what we do that defines us. 

Read the whole article here, which is a good assessment of the role of government in giving aid.

This assessment fits well with the other posts I have made regarding this issue (HT: Burton).

 

Mindy Belz at www.worldmag.com writes,

What common cause could unite Pink Floyd and Rick Warren?  Read the full article here.

(HT: JT)

About two years ago I started to read Wild at Heart.  I liked the introduction, and I liked what he said about men needing a battle to fight, a beauty to fight for, and an adventure to live.  I resonate with these things.  But I stopped reading the book, because after the introduction, when Eldredge attempted to flesh out his view of masculinity, the more he wrote the less biblical he became, and unfortunately he was not starting with much in the biblical catergory.

This was especially true when Eldredge began talking about God.  This book has maybe a few redeeming sentences but for the most part it should be avoided.  See this article for a similar assessment.

 

Instead of Wild at Heart I highly recommend Future Men. 

 

Order it here.

Thomas writes,

Jesus said he came to bring a sword. A sword divides. The primary objective for the Christian should be to seek and to point others toward Jesus, not to political parties and agendas.

The social ills confronting us have not produced our collective indifference to a moral code. They reflect that indifference. Fixing social ills does not begin in the halls of Congress or Supreme Court, but in individual human hearts.

Government can't go there. God can. But if God's servants prefer government to God, or seek to attach God to political parties and earthly agendas, they are doomed to futility.

From how I see it, I think Thomas has a few things right.  First, Those of the conservative Christian 'movement' ought to make sure their homes are in order, before they go about fixing everyone else.  Second, I think in the quote above Thomas hints at what I think is missing today, that is doing the hard work of persuading people to right behavior instead of seeking to legislate it. 

But I find two things a bit muddled in the article.  First, is his statement "The primary objective for the Christian should be to seek and to point others toward Jesus, not to political parties and agendas."  When the word 'primary' is used I concur.  But I do not want people to think that because of this truth it is not proper for the Christian to persuade another to a specific political party.  Why?  Because I think the one party has more in line with the gospel than another party.  Thus, being a Republican or Democrat does not make one a Christian, but I do think that the gospel moves the Christian to one party over the other.

Second, and this is related to the above critique, is the use of Billy Graham's silence on 'hot button issues' as a model of virtue.  Now that Graham has matured in his faith, he does not take on controversies.  But, if we don't persuade to political parties, and we don't take on hot button issues, then how is it that the gospel is changing things?  That is, where is there room for the prophetic speaking of gospel ministers into the world?  King Jesus calls out into the world through the Church, and he is king of all things, and thus all things falls under authority.  And thus the Church must be speaking into the world about all things, especially hot button issues.  How else will change come about?  We must persuade individual hearts but not at the expense of the prophetic pulpit.

Read the whole article here.  What do you think?

Read Sowell on Budwiser's diversity.

What happens when school choice is abolished or prohibited?

Star Parker writes,

Poor kids wind up being slammed by a double jeopardy. First, they are trapped in failing schools that are insulated from the prime condition that produces improvement _ competition. Second, the failing schools in which they are trapped teach exclusively relativist values that are the opposite of what these kids need for climbing out of chaos and poverty.   Read the remainder here.

I am still confused on how so many Western Evangelical Christians live with so little a concern for the great return of the Lord Jesus.  This reality was a great motivator in the New Testament.  The irony is even more potent when one considers the popularity of the Left Behind Series.  Here is an essay by Gareth Battan stating the same idea (HT: Bluefish).

Carson writes,
"This essay does not respond to postmodernism systematically. That would demand quite a different piece. Still less have I attempted to sketch an alternative Christian epistemology, although astute readers will detect the direction I would take. My point has been simpler. Informed Christians will neither idolize nor demonize either postmodernism or modernism. Both are founded on profoundly idolatrous assumptions. And both make some valuable observations that, when they are properly integrated into a more biblically faithful frame of reference, enable us to reflect fruitfully on the world in which we live."
Read the remainder of the article here.  Consider also Carson's larger treatment of postmodernity The Gagging of God.

Thinking about the Arts?  Here is a good page to get some helpful articles.

Sam Storms of Enjoying God Ministries and author of One Thing has entered into the critique of Emergent things.  This is part 1 of the critique using Carson's book Becoming Conversant with Emergent as a foil for critiquing the Emergent 'movement'.  Storms writes,

"

I can’t count the number of times over the past six months that people have asked me: “When are you going to write about the Emerging Church?” That question is almost always followed by: “Have you read Brian McLaren’s books?”

 

The answer to the second question is Yes. If I’m not mistaken, I’ve read all of McLaren’s books except the one on evangelism (“More Ready Than You Realize” [Zondervan, 2002]). I even used his book “Finding Faith” (Zondervan, 1999) as a required textbook in the course on Christian Thought that I taught at Wheaton College. But I’ve refrained from writing a review of any of them, in large measure due to the developing nature of his thought. In other words, it seems with each new volume another layer of the onion is peeled, revealing something surprising or sad or, on occasion, moderately encouraging. I’ve thus been fearful that no sooner would I write a response than he’d disclose something unexpected and render my comments either obsolete or inaccurate, or both."

Read the remainder here.

" None of this is rocket science. Anyone who can understand the concept of supply and demand can understand that putting most of the land in a whole county off-limits to building will cause the price of the remaining land to rise. "  Read the remainder here.

Read this report regarding what pastors have found to be the most influential books for their ministry.  I place this link here only because I recently posted a list of the books I am currently reading.  I find myself to be an odd duck among pastors.  I mean really, is PDL really that great of a book for pastors?  I'm not against the book, but it's not that great.  These are strange times!

Internetmonk writes,

I started to look around. Joyce Meyer's books were everywhere in Barnes and Noble. Two shelves. Two tables. Displays. New books at the front. Even at the check out, looking at me from a display behind the desk. This is weird. Rick Warren has convinced these bookstores that there is money to be made, and General Joyce is cranking out all kinds of titles that look great in B&N. So we've gone from a generic evangelical Baptist to an intimidating female word-faith life coach who flashes the bling-bling at every opportunity, and she's looking at me from every aisle like she wants to hit me.

This is creepy. While Meyer is theologically light years ahead of Joel Osteen, she's also a classic televangelist multi-mazillionaire scamming tons of people while she purports to be using the money responsibly. (Read the articles. Don't bark at me.) And she's taken over Barnes and Noble. I kept looking for her jet in the parking lot.

Now that Rick Warren has revealed the buckets of money to be made, the larger publishing industry will be pushing the Osteens and the Meyers to the top of the pile. Why? They know how to play the game. The titles. The packaging. The rehashed content. The multiple tie-ins to some big event at a stadium. General Joyce has the added bonus of being a cross between Dr. Laura and Lou Gossett, Jr in An Officer And A Gentleman. She's the pastor most Southern Baptists wish they had, even though their version of God won't allow her in the ministry.

With so few pastors helping their people sort through this mess, and with Christian television pumping Joyce Meyer into our homes 24/7, it's no wonder she's a hit with the "practical Bible teaching" crowd. That success will translate into books, and as fast as she can crank them out, title them and smile for the cover photo, they will be at a Wal-Mart near you. If you love God and your kids, you'll buy them all.

Read the whole piece.

I have been doing some thinking and a little writing on James 2:1-13, and it has dawned on me that this section on James has a lot to say in regard to Affirmative Action.  James, because God is no respecter of persons, condemns all forms of preferential treatment based on economic status, race, or sex.  Consider again what he says,

James 2:1-13 My brothers, as believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ, don't show favoritism. ² Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in shabby clothes also comes in. ³ If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, "Here's a good seat for you," but say to the poor man, "You stand there" or "Sit on the floor by my feet," ⁴ have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts? ⁵ Listen, my dear brothers: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him? ⁶ But you have insulted the poor. Is it not the rich who are exploiting you? Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court? ⁷ Are they not the ones who are slandering the noble name of him to whom you belong? ⁸ If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, "Love your neighbor as yourself," you are doing right. ⁹ But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers. ¹⁰ For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. ¹¹ For he who said, "Do not commit adultery," also said, "Do not murder." If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker. ¹² Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, ¹³ because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment!

Here are some thoughts I jotted down for a Word Interact.  I will publish the whole thing next week.  But until then, here is a glimpse of what I am seeing.

God is no respecter of persons.  He judges righteously not showing favoritism.  Elsewhere Paul writes,

            For God does not show favoritism (Romans 2:11).

            …and there is no favoritism with him [God] (Ephesians 6:9).

Anyone who does wrong will be repaid for his wrong, and there is no favoritism (Colossians 3:25).

 

Because God is no respecter of persons, those who call God ‘Father’ are not to be respecters of persons either.  Now, don’t misunderstand me here.  I am not saying that we should not show respect or honor to those whom it is due.  Showing honor or respect is a virtue.  We as Christians are to show honor to our parents (Ephesians 6:1-3).  We are to honor those who are in authority over us (Romans 13:1-7).  But James is not talking about this.  Rather, he is talking about showing preferential treatment to some and not to others.  James specifically uses the rich and the poor as an illustration of preferential treatment.  But the categories could be reversed and expanded.  For example, it is not simply showing preferential treatment to rich, which is wicked, it is showing any preferential treatment to anyone which is wicked.  All preferential treatment is condemned by James.  Why?  Because God does not show preferential treatment to anyone.  God saves from all classes, races, and sexes.  Why does he save from all tribes and tongues?  Because of his mercy; because he chooses to save.

What do you think?

I am in the process of reading Black Rednecks, and it is very good.  It is the latest book by Thomas Sowell.  Here is his own summary of the book.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/printts20050505.shtml