The Puritan's Sword: A Commentary on Philosophy and Theology

Money as Debt

2008-05-17T22:56:00.000-07:00

This is a great short video explaining how the banking system really works and where money comes from. Without drastic monetary reform we will continue deeper into debt as a nation and debt ultimately equals slavery...

If the video isn't working right (ever since I switched to the new blogger I have had trouble getting videos to work on my blog) the video can be seen by clicking here.

Excellent Article and a Call to Christian Integrity in Politics

2008-04-08T15:43:00.000-07:00

What follows is a recent article from the News With Views web site. I found the article to be very telling highlighting the lack of a rigorous integrity in the Christian electorate. Baldwin calls the uncritical commitment to candidates with an (R) next to their names what it is...idolatry. For in supporting human rights violators like the Bush administration over the ethics of Scripture, not to mention the Constitution, Christians are elevating "Conservatism" over God's Word. Keep in mind I am not saying vote Democrat...they are just as bad, but what I am saying is for God's sake lets have some principles for a change.

CHRISTIAN IDOLATRY

By Pastor Chuck Baldwin
April 8, 2008
NewsWithViews.com

"Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry." (1 Corinthians 10:14 KJV)

This is a strange verse, is it not? After all, the Apostle Paul is addressing Christians. How can Christians be guilty of idolatry? I thought idolatry was something that only heathens could be guilty of committing. Yet, Paul plainly addressed believers when he said, "my dearly beloved."

Christian idolatry: I submit it is more rampant than anyone wants to admit.
Simply put, idolatry is the sin of giving someone or something a place of preeminence above the Lord God. It is the violation of the First of the Ten Commandments. And, yes, Christians can be just as guilty of this sin as unbelievers.

In these United States, there is perhaps no area where the sin of idolatry is more universally practiced than in the area of government. Call it civil affairs, or politics, or affairs of state. Call it what you will, the result is the same: Christians by the millions have surrendered Christ's authority and principles to humanism and pragmatism.
For one thing, a sizeable number of believers allowed President George W. Bush to redefine their Christian principles almost out of existence. They willingly looked the other way while Bush betrayed his word (not to mention the Constitution) and catapulted conservative principles into outer darkness. To the point, that they can now even support someone as liberal as John McCain and still call him a "conservative."

I will say it straight out: any Christian or conservative who supports John McCain has no principles left worth defending!

Can anyone remember when George W. Bush ran for the White House in 2000, promising the American people that he would pursue a non-interventionist foreign policy? So much for that promise.

George W. Bush has orchestrated the most meddlesome, interventionist, and nation-building foreign policy of any President in modern memory. And Christians became his most vocal supporters. Now, John McCain gets in front of international television and jokes about bombing Iran, and once again, Christians stand up and cheer.
Christians have swallowed the Bush/McCain Kool-Aid as surely as did the followers of Jim Jones. They are drunk with denial and deception.

Bush promised the American people that he would promote less government spending. He then turned around and led the U.S. government to borrow and spend more taxpayer dollars than any President since Lyndon Johnson. And, again, Christians looked the other way.

President Bush promised the American people that he would preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. He promised to respect the Bill of Rights, including the Fourth Amendment.

Since becoming President, however, George W. Bush has ignored the Constitution and trampled the Bill of Rights, especially the Fourth Amendment, with utter abandonment. And what did Christians do? They either looked the other way or, in some cases, even lauded his unconstitutional conduct.

How could Christians sacrifice their principles and convictions so easily? How could they be so willing to surrender their loyalties--both to Christ as the organic Sovereign of this land, and to constitutional government, which is, itself, built on Biblical principles?

Some Christians would say they are supporting President Bush because he is "one of us." Of course, this reasoning betrays logic. If George W. Bush is truly "one of us," he should be held to a higher--not lower--standard. That we would be willing to look the other way because Bush is "one of us" is repulsive to true Christian principles. Plus, it brings Christianity as a whole into disrepute with unbelievers. And this is exactly what has happened. Instead of unbelievers being attracted to Christ and His Word, George W. Bush--and the Christians who follow him--have turned unbelievers away from Christ. Bush and Company have made it harder--not easier--to present Christ to a lost and dying world. And that goes for people in foreign countries as well as people in America.

However, I am convinced that the reason Christians support President Bush is not because he is a professing born-again Christian. I say that because these same people are now also supporting John McCain, a man who has never professed a born-again relationship with Jesus Christ. Oh, he claims to be a "Christian" in a general sense, but what politician doesn't?

McCain is also a man who has consistently betrayed conservative principles throughout his political career. He has even lampooned and denigrated Christian people, calling them "agents of intolerance." Yet, today Christians are supporting John McCain. Why? It is not because of his religious profession. It is not because of a conservative track record. Why are they supporting him, then? Why are they willing to surrender their convictions? There is only one reason: John McCain (like George W. Bush) is a REPUBLICAN.

There it is: countless millions of professing Christians will eagerly abandon their commitment to constitutional government and Biblical principles in order to accommodate a Republican Presidential candidate. In the minds of many Christians, the Republican Party is more important than the U.S. Constitution. It is more important than conservative principles or even Biblical injunctions. In essence, the Republican Party has become an IDOL in the hearts and minds of many professing believers.

So, how can we ask God to bless America when God's children have set up the groves of idolatry in their hearts? How can we expect God to heal our land when Christian pastors, Sunday School teachers, deacons, ushers, and faithful church members place more loyalty and allegiance in a political party than they do in the very Word and principles of God?

As surely as the pagans of the Old Testament worshipped before the gods of Baal and Ashteroth, many Christians worship before the GOP. They are willing to sacrifice their children to the policies and practices of unscrupulous, evil politicians--as long as they have an "R" behind their names. They will turn their back on their pastors, their churches, their friends, and their commitments before they will turn their backs on the Republican Party.

To many Christians, God cannot work in America outside the Republican Party. God cannot bless America, except through the Republican Party. There is no success, no help, no assistance, and no redemption except through the Republican Party. If this is not idolatry, I do not know what is!

If Christians will support John McCain, they will support anyone. Support for John McCain means no principle is sacred; no conviction is secure.

It is one thing for radio and television talking heads to allow themselves to be Republican lackeys for profit. It is quite another thing for pastors and Christians to allow themselves to idolize the GOP for no good reason at all.
Why can Christians not see what their blind loyalty is doing to our country? Why can they not rise, as did Daniel and the Hebrew children, for truth and right?

Do they not realize that God may want to use some other vehicle, some other source, some other instrument than the GOP to bring restoration and revival to America? And if He did, how would Christians today recognize or understand it? Has it not dawned on our brethren that the GOP may have become lost beyond redemption, and that they are being led as blind men--by blind men--into the ditch? And would they know it, if they were?

Oh, Christian friend, please open your eyes! Take a good, hard look at truth. Remember our history. Put your confidence in God and right, and throw off the fetters of blind loyalty to Republican compromise. Bind our civil magistrates down with the chains of the Constitution. If you do not, they will certainly bind us down with the chains of oppression (which they are already doing).

If we, as Christians, cannot hold our civil leaders accountable to the Constitution, how in the name of common sense can we hold our churches and our children accountable to the Bible? It is no coincidence that we are losing constitutional government and Biblical practice simultaneously. They indeed go hand in hand.

When our Christian forebears fought our War for Independence, they had one motto: No King But Jesus. The day that our brethren reclaim that spirit and tear down the political altars they have erected to the GOP is the day God might begin to bring life and restoration back to America.
"Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry."

Obama Under Fire: How the Media Minipulates the Electoral Process

2008-03-22T12:44:00.000-07:00

Before I get into the subject of the non-stop assault on Barack Obama via his Church affiliation I want to say that I am in no way an Obama supporter. My wife told me of a video comparing the Obama campaign to the Seinfeld episode where they came up with the idea of a show about nothing. This was then fused with the Obama campaign's success, a campaign about nothing, just the vacuous phrase "Change we can believe in!" I of course am a Ron Paul supporter and will be voting third party in November (Libertarian or Constitutionalist). This is all by way of preface.

That said, this election more than any other has woke me up to the sheer power and influence of the news propagandists in our voting process. The fall of Guilliani from frontrunner status followed by the resurrection of McCain seemingly out of the grave of irrelevancy, the predicted Obama win in NH and the defeat at the hands of Clinton allegedly because she cried. Of course there was the constant sidelining of Ron Paul as a non-contender from day one.

In short the media has more control over the electorate than many people give them credit, it is they who announce what the "latest polls show", it is they who decide who the "serious candidates" and "front runners" are, thus deciding who we are to choose between. It truly is lamentable to see how effective this is when almost everyone I talk with throws out the cliches of "Ron Paul?! Go ahead throw your vote away!" or "You gotta choose the lesser of the two evils..."

My point above is to show how influential all of this nonsense really is, if front runners are announced you must abide by the above cliches and vote for one of the "winners". So the media has a massive degree of sway and ability to manipulate the electoral process by raising candidates up and bringing others down. Moving now to the Obama pastor situation that has been incessantly bantered about by the media pundits for over a week now.

The Meat of the Jeremiah Wright Scandal:

I am not of the secularist opinion that a politicians religion doesn't matter, in a lot of ways it should be an indicator of the person's character. However, we also know that politicians feign religiosity to gain acceptance, kind of like holding babies for photo ops only in this case it's baby Jesus.

In regards to Obama's church attendance a recent fervor has erupted due to allegedly racist comments made by Wright from the pulpit. The Neo-Cons have not stopped talking about this on the radio and tv playing clips of "racist" statements, bringing up Wright's friendship with Louis Farrakhan and Obama's relationship with a former member of the Weatherman Underground group. In short, the sharks have smelled blood and there is now a frenzy.

Just what DID pastor Wright say that has Sean Hannity and company so ruffled? Here are some of the more shocking quotes (taken from an AP report):

(Speaking on Sept 11):

"We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye," Wright said. "We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."

Here we see Wright call out our governments own nasty doings and support of terror and how our evils have come home to roost via people hating the U.S. I of course would go further than Wright so my simple question is what's the big deal here? Oh I forgot, we're not supposed to ask WHY the third world hates America we are just supposed to bomb them for hating us...that's the patriotic thing to do after all.

(Probably the most played quote):

"The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people. God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme."

I admit this is strong language, we need to THINK about it and ask questions rather than simply REACTING to it. The question we need to ask is "Why is he talking like this?" Well, he lists some of the reasons, the drug trade which our own government is involved allowing (do your homework and you will see this is true), the racist prison system which can have people (mostly Black) locked up for 3 strikes of non-violent crimes. After all it is mostly impoverished blacks who are on the street pushing the drugs the CIA has brought into the country.

These seem like pretty good reasons to think God's curse would be called for on this country, and he is probably right. I do disagree with calling it down like Wright does, this certainly is out of step with what Christ Himself taught. Christ rebuked His disciples for calling down judgement on sinners. (Luke 9:53-55)

(Another quote):

"Barack knows what it means to be a black man to be living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people. Hillary can never know that. Hillary ain't never been called a nigger."

Well, again isn't that all true? What so far has been racist about anything Wright has said? He is simply saying Hillary doesn't know what it is like to be marginalized because of her race (perhaps gender), Barack does. (The above quotes were from an Associated Press release on Mar 18, you can see the article here)

Now on Rush Limbaugh's web page we see an article titled "Obama's double life exposed: His racist Hatemonger pastor". Now I am not here to defend Jeremiah Wright, I am sure I would actually disagree with him on most of his theological positions, for instance this black Jesus nonsense. Jesus was Jewish, He doesn't need to be black to be acceptable to blacks, if you think that Christ needs to be black or else Christianity is "White mans religion" you're elevating your race above Christ and His Word. Is Wright guilty of that? Probably.

My Assesment of This Boondoggle:

To tie this together what I see in this whole situation is a whole lot of silliness at best and malicious slander intended to minipulate the electorate at worst. It is silly to say that when someone looks at our own government as the cause of hatred of America that person is unpatriotic and hateful. That is just plain stupid, and antithetical to free thought. However, that is what we get in the media.

This is the new investigative journalism at it's best, say good bye to reporters breaking stories like Watergate, say hello to the era of News slathered in big breasted celebrity gossip and political assassination with spurious investigation. In this era candidates are made and destroyed by the media and corporate ties.

Even now "recent polls" say Hillary Clinton is now the front runner due to all of these revelations about Obama's filthy secretive racist Satanic pact making past. After all that's what this is really about, the media folk are the king makers. Until we realize this we will continue to play in their sand box by their rules with all of this "Left" vs. "Right", "Liberal" vs. "Conservative", "Democrat" vs. "Republican" game. This is all a charade of choice, the reality is that we have no choice, they will have decided for us.

A clear example is how the Manchurian John McCain came out of absolutely nowhere to get the nomination, early in the election McCain's candidacy was treated in similar obscureness as that of Ron Paul. This changed after Iowa, and almost overnight McCain (not Huckabee who won Iowa) was anointed "frontrunner".

These are the kingmakers at work, and right now Obama is the latest victim of their onslaught of rubber knives and Nerf bullet scandal charges. We see it time and time again, as with the "Dean scream" (The video can be seen here, ) keep in mind that little "Byeah!" at the end of Dean's speech is what allegedly cost him the nomination and brought Howard Dean's campaign to the dust paving the way for skull and bonesmen John Kerry to be the 2004 Democratic candidate. We need to see through the spin and understand where they are trying to shift our opinions to and ask why?

Will this rubbish about Obama's pastor cost him the nomination? Perhaps. It is difficult to say, if Howard Dean can be deemed unelectable because of a girlish shriek then any drummed up assault can result in the toppling of those the media wishes to sideline. Any statement on race can be spun as racist, any statement on sex can be spun as sexist, and any statement criticising the war or government intervention overseas can bee spun to be "anti-American" hate speech.

This is the new "free press" in America, it is nothing short of Soviet style propaganda. What is truly lamentable is the fact that most people don't know the difference between propaganda and reporting. There is however still a glimmer of hope and truly free press in America and that is why I thank God for the Internet.

UPDATE:

I recieved in the comment thread a link to a video of one of the controversial messages, this video gives better context to Wright's statements. Not that I think his statements were that bad to begin with but still, it is good to see the broader scope of what he is talking about rather than isolated sentences.

The video can be seen here.

Stellar Ron Paul Interview

2008-02-05T15:59:00.001-08:00

Over on the Gold-Silver web page there is an excellent interview with Ron Paul mostly dealing with economics. In the interview Ron Paul explains a bit of the Federal Reserve system (most people have no clue whatsoever about the FED, this is intentional by the way), defends a gold standard monetary policy as well as consititional liberty. This really is a must see for thinking voters:

The interview can be seen here.

It's Nothing Short of Criminal

2008-02-02T19:37:00.000-08:00

What I am referring to is the manner in which all of the network news outlets have consistently covered Ron Paul in all of the "debates" (More like Q & A sessions than debates). This is how elections are rigged apart from directly throwing away certain votes or adding votes. This is how the phenomena of "frontrunners" are born, the media baptizes the person who fits their allegiance and shuns those who do not.

I can understand that not every goof running for president need be taken seriously, and frankly finances has been a cut off mark. Unfortunately for the elite owned corporate media Ron Paul has such serious supporters he has met the financial cut offs and has stayed in the race. It's his ideas they don't like, the same ones that people who actually are paying attention and not voting based on superficial facades of left and right are in support of.

Ideas like killing the Federal Reserve, the IRS, the CIA, NAFTA, oh and the war we seem to be fighting for no real reason which one was it...the war on drugs, "terror", Iraq...either way Dr. Paul wants it dead. Thus, there are many who frankly want his political career dead. This can be seen in the blatant censorship of Dr. Paul in the debates. A couple of examples:

Firstly, in the Fox News South Carolina debate, Dr. Paul almost wasn't invited by the Neo Cons but after enough outrage of their censoring of Paul in New Hampshire they reluctantly let Paul in. During the debate Dr. Paul was treated very disrespectfully by the moderators, being interrupted laughed at, and one moderator intentionally tried to make Paul look crazy when talking about how the Neo Cons are trying to drum up war with Iran.

What took the cake in this debate was when Dr. Paul was asked (with other moderators laughing) "How electable are you sir?" Ron Paul answered the question so well showing that he really is the only true conservative running that when Fox News aired a non live replay of the debate later this specifice enterchange was edited out of the replay. Fair and Balanced right? No just corporate media covering their tracks of trying to destroy a candidate blowing up in their faces. (The Banned question can be viewed Here thank God for the internet)

Not only did this incident show Faux News’ bias (with the moderators laughing, and the fact that they didn't ask such a disrespectful question to Giuliani who has received less votes than Paul) but also how Ron Paul really is the only real conservative in this race. This election there are only two candidates Ron Paul and everybody else (All CFR members both parties).

The latest incident comes from the CNN debate in CA. In this debate Ron Paul was almost completely ignored, instead CNN baptized McCain and Romney as the "frontrunners" and gave them bulk of the questions and rights to talk. There were a number of times where Anderson Cooper stopped Ron Paul from giving a full answer, in one instance Dr. Paul recieved a full 9 seconds to answer whether he supported Reagan’s choice of Sandra O'Connor to the Supreme court while all the others got about a full minute without interruption. (The Ron Paul Highlights from the CNN debate can be found here) BTW, Ron Paul was the only one who had the gall to say Reagan was wrong in electing such a liberal judge to the court, he blasphemed Reagan.

Frankly, it was disgusting watching the CNN debate. Not only did McCain and Romney stink of more of the same, but when Dr. Paul was thrown a scrap from Cooper it was phrased around what he thought about McCain' position on X. It made me realize just how controlled the mainstream media really is. To put it simply, there are a lot of people with a lot of money and power who happen to own these media outlets and don't want some lose cannon Constitutionalist like Ron Paul getting his ideas out there and waking people up out of their left vs. right mirage. All that stuff is just an illusion to get the people to think they have a choice when really whoever they vote for is a CFR member (council on foreign relations) and in the pocket of the big business'.

This is why the Ron Paul Revolution is truly a revolution. I have never been so inclined to donate my time or money to promote a candidate but Ron Paul has really changed that for me. This election is vital for our freedoms in this country, and I truly believe we are at a crossroads. We can either keep going down the path of more Patriot Acts, erosion of individual rights in the name of "security" or "protecting the environment", more endless and winless wars, more globalization, screw ball economics, Socialialism (soft peddled as "Big Government") in the place of Federalism...and whoever gets in, unless it is Dr. Paul, Democrat of Republican will do just that. Whoever wins will be worse than Bush, you heard it here first folks.

Tyranny: Coming to a State Near You!

2008-01-08T12:32:00.000-08:00

This article on Worldnet Daily about a boy who was seized from his parents home in Colorado by a swat team is one of the latest examples of the totalitarianism that is coming here in the West. I'll let the reader go through the article to get the appalling details, my point is simply this: This is where we are going as far as the power of the State and I attribute it mainly to secularism's dominance in the public square.

How might that be? Well, simply put, the secular humanists aren't fond of children learning ideas that are outside of their worldview, they are dangerous. This family and their parenting philosophy of homeschooling Christians was out of step with the secular states' religion, teaching radically harmful ideas like people are made in the image of God and there are moral absolutes etc. Just like we have seen recently in Germany families that refuse to bow to the secular government education many have had their children taken away.

Granted, the main issue in this instance was not education and as of right now families can opt out of the government education programs, but the issue certainly is related. Outlawing homeschooling is the next logical progression for the secularists as is taking place in Europe.

Again though, how can I blame this on secular humanism? Well, as Schaeffer argues in "A Christian Manifesto" (the title is a play on the "Humanist Manifesto") that we once had a government that was under the rule of law, meaning that law was king, the state was under the law. God is the law giver. This gives citizens liberty and restricts the government. However, God has been removed from our understanding of law (and thus lex rex) in favor of a secular humanist framework and Christianity no longer is the intellectual and moral framework of the culture in general (aside from whether individuals really were true believers, Christianity still at one time was the consensus). As this has happened the power of the State has become autonomous and has grown tremendously.

That's the nutshell of the argument, and why we are where we are. We are moving more and more into a police state as our individual freedoms continue to be eroded in the name of various "dire causes" like terrorism, the environment, etc. The time will come within my lifetime I believe when Christian families will not be able to educate their children according to their conscience because the State's elites will see that as potentially harmful.

To wrap up, this isn't supposed to be like one of those sandwich board "The End Is Near!" sort of message from the Charles Manson look alike on the street corner. Firstly, we should praise God for the freedoms we still have, secondly we need to in the current freedoms labor to turn the clock back (I wish Christians would get off the Neo-Con bus and wake up to some one like Ron Paul) and lastly we need to be on our knees before our God at whose word nations rise and fall.

Lord's Table

2007-12-15T16:10:00.001-08:00

I have been wrestling a bit with the issue of the Lord's table, as a Presbyterian going to a Lutheran university. It has been good and I am more covinced of Calvin's position as I explore the issue, here's my quiz results:

Eucharistic theology
created with QuizFarm.com

You scored as Calvin

You are John Calvin. You seek to be faithful to Scripture, and to harmonize difficult sayings. You believe that in the Lord's Supper those who have faith are united to Christ, who is present spiritually, yet in a real way.

Calvin

88%

Zwingli

69%

Orthodox

50%

Luther

19%

Catholic

Unitarian

From the Pilgrim's Progress, an Encouragement to faithfulness in Vanity Fair.

2007-11-17T21:22:00.000-08:00

The Following comes from John Bunyan's "Pilgrims Progress" when Faithful and Christian are put in the stocks at Vanity fair. This is before Faithful is put to death:

Then were they remanded to the cage again, until further order should be taken with them. So they put them in, and made their feet fast in the stocks.

Here, therefore, they called again to mind what they had heard from their faithful friend Evangelist, and were the more confirmed in their way and sufferings by what he told them would happen to them. They also now comforted each other, that whose lot it was to suffer, even he should have the best of it; therefore each man secretly wished that he might have that preferment: but committing themselves to the all-wise disposal of Him that ruleth all things, with much content, they abode in the condition in which they were, until they should be otherwise disposed of.

Then a convenient time being appointed, they brought them forth to their trial, in order to their condemnation. When the time was come, they were brought before their enemies and arraigned. The judge's name was Lord Hate-good. Their indictment was one and the same in substance, though somewhat varying in form, the contents whereof were this: --

"That they were enemies to and disturbers of their trade; that they had made commotions and divisions in the town, and had won a party to their own most dangerous opinions, in contempt of the law of their prince."

Now, FAITHFUL, play the man, speak for thy God: Fear not the wicked's malice; nor their rod: Speak boldly, man, the truth is on thy side: Die for it, and to life in triumph ride.

Faithful's answer for himself

Then Faithful began to answer, that he had only set himself against that which hath set itself against Him that is higher than the highest. And, said he, as for disturbance, I make none, being myself a man of peace; the parties that were won to us, were won by beholding our truth and innocence, and they are only turned from the worse to the better. And as to the king you talk of, since he is Beelzebub, the enemy of our Lord, I defy him and all his angels.

Then proclamation was made, that they that had aught to say for their lord the king against the prisoner at the bar, should forthwith appear and give in their evidence. So there came in three witnesses, to wit, Envy, Superstition, and Pickthank. They were then asked if they knew the prisoner at the bar; and what they had to say for their lord the king against him.

Then stood forth Envy, and said to this effect: My Lord, I have known this man a long time, and will attest upon my oath before this honourable bench, that he is --

JUDGE. Hold! Give him his oath. (So they sware him.) Then he said --

ENVY. My Lord, this man, notwithstanding his plausible name, is one of the vilest men in our country. He neither regardeth prince nor people, law nor custom; but doth all that he can to possess all men with certain of his disloyal notions, which he in the general calls principles of faith and holiness. And, in particular, I heard him once myself affirm that Christianity and the customs of our town of Vanity were diametrically opposite, and could not be reconciled. By which saying, my Lord, he doth at once not only condemn all our laudable doings, but us in the doing of them.

JUDGE. Then did the Judge say to him, Hast thou any more to say?

ENVY. My Lord, I could say much more, only I would not be tedious to the court. Yet, if need be, when the other gentlemen have given in their evidence, rather than anything shall be wanting that will despatch him, I will enlarge my testimony against him. So he was bid to stand by. Then they called Superstition, and bid him look upon the prisoner. They also asked, what he could say for their lord the king against him. Then they sware him; so he began.

SUPER. My Lord, I have no great acquaintance with this man, nor do I desire to have further knowledge of him; however, this I know, that he is a very pestilent fellow, from some discourse that, the other day, I had with him in this town; for then, talking with him, I heard him say, that our religion was naught, and such by which a man could by no means please God. Which sayings of his, my Lord, your Lordship very well knows, what necessarily thence will follow, to wit, that we do still worship in vain, are yet in our sins, and finally shall be damned; and this is that which I have to say.

Then was Pickthank sworn, and bid say what he knew, in behalf of their lord the king, against the prisoner at the bar.

Pickthank's testimony Pick.

My Lord, and you gentlemen all, This fellow I have known of a long time, and have heard him speak things that ought not to be spoke; for he hath railed on our noble prince Beelzebub, and hath spoken contemptibly of his honourable friends, whose names are the Lord Old Man, the Lord Carnal Delight, the Lord Luxurious, the Lord Desire of Vain Glory, my old Lord Lechery, Sir Having Greedy, with all the rest of our nobility; and he hath said, moreover, That if all men were of his mind, if possible, there is not one of these noblemen should have any longer a being in this town. Besides, he hath not been afraid to rail on you, my Lord, who are now appointed to be his judge, calling you an ungodly villain, with many other such like vilifying terms, with which he hath bespattered most of the gentry of our town.

When this Pickthank had told his tale, the Judge directed his speech to the prisoner at the bar, saying, Thou runagate, heretic, and traitor, hast thou heard what these honest gentlemen have witnessed against thee?

FAITH. May I speak a few words in my own defence?

JUDGE. Sirrah! sirrah! thou deservest to live no longer, but to be slain immediately upon the place; yet, that all men may see our gentleness towards thee, let us hear what thou, vile runagate, hast to say.

Faithful's defence of himself

FAITH. 1. I say, then, in answer to what Mr. Envy hath spoken, I never said aught but this, That what rule, or laws, or customs, or people, were flat against the Word of God, are diametrically opposite to Christianity. If I have said amiss in this, convince me of my error, and I am ready here before you to make my recantation.

2. As to the second, to wit, Mr. Superstition, and his charge against me, I said only this, That in the worship of God there is required a Divine faith; but there can be no Divine faith without a Divine revelation of the will of God. Therefore, whatever is thrust into the worship of God that is not agreeable to Divine revelation, cannot be done but by a human faith, which faith will not be profitable to eternal life.

3. As to what Mr. Pickthank hath said, I say (avoiding terms, as that I am said to rail, and the like) that the prince of this town, with all the rabblement, his attendants, by this gentleman named, are more fit for a being in hell, than in this town and country: and so, the Lord have mercy upon me!

Then the Judge called to the jury (who all this while stood by, to hear and observe): Gentlemen of the jury, you see this man about whom so great an uproar hath been made in this town. You have also heard what these worthy gentlemen have witnessed against him. Also you have heard his reply and confession. It lieth now in your breasts to hang him or save his life; but yet I think meet to instruct you into our law.

There was an Act made in the days of Pharaoh the Great, servant to our prince, that lest those of a contrary religion should multiply and grow too strong for him, their males should be thrown into the river. [Exo. 1:22] There was also an Act made in the days of Nebuchadnezzar the Great, another of his servants, that whosoever would not fall down and worship his golden image, should be thrown into a fiery furnace. [Dan. 3:6] There was also an Act made in the days of Darius, that whoso, for some time, called upon any god but him, should be cast into the lions' den. [Dan. 6] Now the substance of these laws this rebel has broken, not only in thought, (which is not to be borne), but also in word and deed; which must therefore needs be intolerable.

For that of Pharaoh, his law was made upon a supposition, to prevent mischief, no crime being yet apparent; but here is a crime apparent. For the second and third, you see he disputeth against our religion; and for the treason he hath confessed, he deserveth to die the death.

Then went the jury out, whose names were, Mr. Blind-man, Mr. No-good, Mr. Malice, Mr. Love-lust, Mr. Live-loose, Mr. Heady, Mr. High-mind, Mr. Enmity, Mr. Liar, Mr. Cruelty, Mr. Hate-light, and Mr. Implacable; who every one gave in his private verdict against him among themselves, and afterwards unanimously concluded to bring him in guilty before the Judge. And first, among themselves, Mr. Blind-man, the foreman, said, I see clearly that this man is a heretic. Then said Mr. No-good, Away with such a fellow from the earth. Ay, said Mr. Malice, for I hate the very looks of him. Then said Mr. Love-lust, I could never endure him.

Nor I, said Mr. Live-loose, for he would always be condemning my way. Hang him, hang him, said Mr. Heady. A sorry scrub, said Mr. High-mind. My heart riseth against him, said Mr. Enmity. He is a rogue, said Mr. Liar. Hanging is too good for him, said Mr. Cruelty. Let us despatch him out of the way, said Mr. Hate-light. Then said Mr. Implacable, Might I have all the world given me, I could not be reconciled to him; therefore, let us forthwith bring him in guilty of death. And so they did; therefore he was presently condemned to be had from the place where he was, to the place from whence he came, and there to be put to the most cruel death that could be invented.

They therefore brought him out, to do with him according to their law; and, first, they scourged him, then they buffeted him, then they lanced his flesh with knives; after that, they stoned him with stones, then pricked him with their swords; and, last of all, they burned him to ashes at the stake. Thus came Faithful to his end.

Now I saw that there stood behind the multitude a chariot and a couple of horses, waiting for Faithful, who (so soon as his adversaries had despatched him) was taken up into it, and straightway was carried up through the clouds, with sound of trumpet, the nearest way to the Celestial Gate.

Brave FAITHFUL, bravely done in word and deed; Judge, witnesses, and jury have, instead Of overcoming thee, but shown their rage: When they are dead, thou'lt live from age to age*.

*In the New Heaven and New Earth. {footnote from one edition}

How the Media is Destroying Democracy

2007-11-07T12:21:00.000-08:00

To put it mildly I am rather disgruntled over how the 2008 presidential election is shaping up, or rather falling apart to be more accurate. My annoyance is not the fact that the guy I think would be the best influence in the presidency (Ron Paul) probably won't win. It has to do with that, but the issues are more why this is the case, and how we know who will win at all. In large measure I blame the news media, I honestly think the way elections are covered by nearly all news networks and news outlets is destroying Democracy. I will why explain in this post.

1. The Horse Race Coverage, or "The Polls Show..."

How many times within the past 6 months when one listens to talk radio, reads news, or watches network news have the omniscient "Polls show Guilliani is leading by X points..." or "The latest polls are showing..." talk been used? I have one simple question in regard to this "polls" talk, HOW DOES THAT HELP DEMOCRACY IN ANY WAY?

I can't think of a single positive effect "polls show..." has on voters. Invoking the "polls" seems only to have negative effects by dictating to the public who is the winner before they vote, thus it is really encouraging turning a deaf ear to the "2nd Tier candidates" they don't have a chance so who cares.

This attitude not only is fostered in the public but in the media itself. On Sunday I saw that Tim Russert had a "Open invitation to all the presidential candidates of both parties to come on 'Meet the Press'" I saw that he had Guilliani and Romney coming in the future and wondered whether Ron Paul was coming up as well, or perhaps had already been on. Well unfortunately, The 'Meet The Press' invite isn't as open as one is led to believe. The invite is only for the serious candidates, apparently Paul doesn't qualify as such.

How is such a conclusion reached? Not a serious candidate? The guys out there campaigning every day and is at all the debates what do you mean he's not serious? Well here again comes the "given the polls..." Thus, given the polls the media is justified to intentionally neglect to talk about certain candidates, and thus the public doesn't even know about them.

2. Best Chance to Win

This ties into the previous point about the polls, but one of the major focuses I see in the media is upon which candidate has the "Best chance to win", never mind their policies, ethics, voting record or even competency, "Guilliani can beat Hillary" and that seems to be enough for us to rally around him, so says Sean Hannity. Hannity has been pleading with Christians to overlook the rather blatant moral backwardness of Guilliani and rally behind him or else the Republicans will lose the White House.

Well, I am sorry but as a Christian my political rationale shouldn't be vote for the guy who has the best shot to keep the Libs out of the White house, that is ridiculous. In thinking such way the media encourages us not to vote for a candidate but against the Democrats and their candidate. This hurts democracy.

3. The Focus On Inconsequentials

I can vividly recall a talk radio personality comparing Guilliani's wife to Fred Thompson's as who was hotter and how that effects voting. I have seen similar things on the networks as well. Not only the wives appearance but also the candidates themselves. "Romney just looks like a president" is a phrase I have heard several times.

In the case of this election we also have the gender and even race factors constantly coming up. "It is about time for a women president." Or "We still haven't had a black president perhaps Barack is the guy." While all these issues may seem novel they really are cancerous to a healthy democracy. If you are voting for someone because of how hot their wife is, what sex they are, because their last name is Clinton, or because they have brown skin I frankly don't think your vote should count. Perhaps as a 1/3 vote because you still are a citizen and no matter how empty your opinion may be it should be listened to election day.

My point, simply is that the media fosters these superficial evaluations of candidates. I have above mentioned the more positive superficial treatment of candidates, it goes both ways and most of the negatives are just as superficial. For example the Hillary laugh, while obviously fake and aimed at dismissing the question in itself should be rather moot compared to the actual answer she gives when she stops her boisterous outburst.

Again, when the media harps on the inconsequentials the public does as well. It creates superficial voters.

I can go on with other partiular issues but for the sake of brevity I will only highlight the above. The issue particularly nagging is the polls one. Constant horse race coverage on how Guilliani is up 2 points...Clinton is leading...Huckabee is surging...all of this makes politics a sort of sport and the candidates play the game.

Happy Reformation Day!

2007-10-31T20:56:00.001-07:00

This is a pretty good snapshot to remind us of the Reformation and the blessings we have as it's heirs which we often take for granted. At around 4 minutes Dr. Sproul starts trying to sell his study Bible, but if you can look past all of that this is a good video.

Puritan Resolve to Holiness

2007-10-27T20:05:00.000-07:00

"From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence, and the violent take it by force." (Matt 11:2)

This is a remarkable passage about what should be our approach toward a holy life, or striving to enter heaven. I remember hearing some John Piper sermons about a "violent streak in Christianity". By that he did not mean violence against others, but violence against the part of us that would do violence to others. In other words violence and war against indwelling sin. Thomas Watson (my favorite puritan author) writes this:

“This is the first thing in holy violence: resolution of their will; I will have heaven whatever it costs me and this resolution must be in the strength of Christ.” (Thomas Watson, "Heaven Taken By Storm")

Let us strive then to enter the narrow gate.

Clearly the Best Candidate For 2008

2007-10-22T20:23:00.000-07:00

Ron Paul continues to impress me and certainly has my vote for the 2008 election. The only way things will change is if we start getting behind the best person for the job, not the guy who has the "best chance" for winning. There is no way I can consciously vote for any of the "front runners" of any party as a Christian. I do like all the underdog Rep's, but Paul stands out as the man with a plan.

Video clips of the Ron Paul highlights at yesterday's Republican debate are here.

(The Picture is Ron Paul trying to revive the constitution which has flat lined)

The Polemics of Science

2007-10-10T12:30:00.001-07:00

An article has recent;y come out in the NY Times dispelling a myth that has been propagated in the name of science. Which one you may ask? Well don't get too hopeful this is the NY Times after all, it has it's sacred cows. In this article what is being debunked is the common myth that fatty diets cause heart disease and cause shorter lifespans. This is being dispelled by scientists now. (the article can be read here)

The point I want to draw from this is the fact that around 92% of scientists in this field held to the anti-fat philosophy. My main thrust isn't dietary, I really could care less. Rather, what I am getting at is the fact that many people embraced this sort of a view on fat consumption because most scientists said this theory was true.

1)This is a Fallacy Often used

This ties right in to many of the scientific theories floating around today and the alleged near unanimous support for them. It is a logical fallacy to say that "Most X's believe that theory Y is true, therefore we should too." Yet this is the exact line of reasoning that I almost always here from Atheists in defending evolution. Some 90% of scientists believe that evolution is a matter of fact, the other 10% are just religious nuts who shouldn't be scientists anyway because science is inherently Atheistic mind you. If over 90% of scientists say this is true we should as well.

This will tie into the final point of holding theories of science tentatively and not screaming about how "Evolution is Fact Fact FACT!" to quote Michael Ruse. This sort of mantra is used whenever talk of other views is brought up, evolution is taken to be so matter of fact that other views aren't allowed due to the impossibility of any other view. This links to the next point, which is that no matter what theory you are dealing with there are rival theories.

2)All Theories Have Rivals

In the polemics of science and education the ID folks are often just asking school boards to allow their teachers to "Teach the debate". The popular reply to this from the Darwinists has been to firmly state "There is no debate!" Well, that simply isn't true, there always is an in-house debate in science about theories. There is something inherently wrong when in science (where theories are to be held tentatively) you have proponents of a theory deny that there are any counter theories being proposed. There is always rival theories because no theory is perfect, it will have anomolies (or unaccounted for data).

To say that there is no debate is to engage is a slight of hand like Luke Sky Walker saying "These are not the Droids you are looking for..."

This does not mean that every rival theory needs to be taught to school children, but a teacher should be free to do so. That's what science is supposed to be about, the free exchange of ideas/theories to explain phenomena. The reason this isn't allowed anymore is because there are a good number of people who want to make science into a religion that negates God.

3) All Theories Are Tentative

There is never rationally a point in science where Michael Ruse can make the statement he does, especially given his presuppositions. This is because science is based on inductive reasoning. Take for example dropping a pen on the floor, how many times do you have to drop the pen to arrive at certainty that it will fall to the ground rather than float to the ceiling? 10x? 50x? 100x? 1000x? 10,000x? No matter how great the number, you can never have absolute certainty that the pen will fall to the floor rather than float to the ceiling.

Nor can you even really speak in probabilities, you can't put a percented number on your certainty that your pen will fall, that is wholly arbitrary, "I am about 75% sure it will fall rather than float...oh...now I suppose I am 75.00002% certain when I drop it again it will fall."

So how do we get out of this problem? Well the Atheist can't, all he has to go by is autonomous reason, he has no answer to the problem of induction. So for the atheist to do science he has to make an irrational leap (kinda ironic huh? the guys touting themselves as THE rational free thinkers...) For the Christian science is based on God's existence. Based on this presupposition we can expect His creation to behave with a regularity of laws and thus we can proceed to use the inductive method rationally.

4) The False Authority

This is more a problem for the public observer who naturally sees the lab coat fellow as automatically authoritative. This is why in numerous commercials people will be wearing lab coats as they pitch the product to the consumer. The white coat says: "Objective Expert" to the observer. Well objectivity is a farce, but my point is that this is how bad research gets accepted, the "Expert" speaks and the observer accepts.

Again this is kind of ironic to me because many Atheists criticize Christians as if they just sort of accept everything their pastor says to them as fact, but it seems there is a parallel to this as well. Granted, there are a good deal of people who are passive pew sitters and don't do their homework or critically think about what is being taught. However, I think it is equally true that there are many pew sitters in the naturalist arena who just uncritically accept what their pastor in a lab coat is saying. Perhaps they are doing poor exegesis (or even isogesis) of the text of nature?

(ps. That is Bush in a lab coat...)

Conclusion

My point in all of this is not to debunk evolution, although I do think it is a smoke and mirrors theory. My point is that all the dogmatic scientific pronouncements made, all the things that are labelled "fact" or "Certain" are made/labelled irrationally. Given the nature of science such statements can not be made.

I would of course go a step further as I began to do so in heading 4 and say that without presupposing the Christian worldview you can't prove anything.

Suffice it to say that no matter what the theory in science we should hold to it tentatively no matter how many guys in white coats accept it at any given time, that is the point of this post.

My Faith Is A Private Matter....

2007-10-05T16:10:00.000-07:00

We often hear many cliches and catch phrases when a person is asked rather direct questions about religion in general and religion and politics in particular. Some of the more popular phrases we hear invoked by politicians of all political stripe is "Yes I am a Christian but I don't wear my faith on my sleeve." Or something to the effect that somehow their belief that God is there has no bearing on the decisions these individuals will make while serving in office. Their faith is relegated to a private sector.

Now, my intent in this post is aimed not so much at the integrity of the politicians or individuals who make such utterances but the division that they harbour itself. This division is a private/public, sacred/secular, irrational/rational, values/factual...sort of division. Francis Schaeffer did a wonderful job in displaying this sort of compartmentalized view to life with these sorts of charts:

What we have is a two story view of the world. In the Upper Story we have things like hobbies, religion, ethics, meaning, etc. In the lower we have the objective facts of life like science, one's job, the secular etc.

What this mainly leads to is threefold: 1)An inconsistent thought, 2)A faith without works 3) Irrational leaps (people hiding out, in the private zone to protect their ridiculous beliefs from criticism or unwannted consequences)

1)An inconsistency in thought

This sort of inconsistency comes from contrary beliefs held in both the upper and lower story. One can at least verbally confess belief in Christianity and with the same mouth utter things that are in complete contradiction with the tenants of Christianity. Now I am assuming the person is truly a believer and isn't just using God words to appeal to people. This is because this two-story division is more assumed than consciously thought through.

Nancy Pearcey in her book "Total Truth" gives us a rather alarming example of a woman, or rather a group of women, who were Bible believing Christians, not liberal Christians mind you, who worked at planned parenthood and were part of the process of young women terminating pregnancies. These women really didn't see their Christianity (private upperstory) as in conflict with their job (secular public lower-story). This is because there is an unconscious or assumed division between the two in many people's mind.

No doubt the message these women heard was Jesus died for your sins, He rose again, and through trust in that work we are saved. This is all true, but that is not all there is to the gospel. The gospel truly is both vertical and horizontal. In reacting to the Liberal social gospel many churches abandoned any horizontal emphasis altogether and the Christian message became purely vertical (concerned only with the world to come and our right standing before God). This leads into point number two.

2) Faith Without Works

Going back to what was just said about the Fundamentalists rejection of a social Christianity in the face of a Liberal social gospel, if you are going to err this is the side to err on. At the same time though this is not good enough, we need the entirety of the Christian message. The Christian message or worldview must come to bear on all of our lives because that is precisely what Christ requires of individuals, their entire lives under His Lordship. What this means is that the Christian worldview has something to say about everything and serves as the individual's reference point in everything. If one's Christianity does not effect everything they do it simply isn't a worldview, it may be a private hobby (Like building model ships) but it is not a worldview.

Oddly enough that is precisely how many secularists would have us to view Christianity, it is merely a private hobby just like a man who likes to collect Pokemon cards. We would think him rather odd if he went around telling everybody else (in the public lower story) to collect Pokemon cards. Likewise the secularist finds it equally odd when Christianity enters the public arena giving pronouncements.

What has happened when Christians embrace the upper and lower story division is we end up with a faith in the upstairs and a secular view in the lower. So while the person may indeed go to church and assent to orthodox teaching when it comes acting in the public sphere (lower story) he/she will think just like the secularist. By that I mean in terms of what is pragmatic or some other secular method of deducing the best course of action rather than inquiring for a word from the Lord (Bible) on the matter.

3) Irrational Leaps as Shields

On this last description of the upper/lower story division we have irrational leaps. This is invoked by people of all stripes, things contained within the upper story do not need to be rational. In the Christian arena what is often substituted for a lack of rational is the word "faith". In a more secular sense it is usually phrases akin to "This is my view/belief" emphasising the privativity of the proclamation. In either case a leap into the upper story is made and the point in part is a sort of shield from any criticism.

In other words when such phrases are invoked they are generally used as a sort of shield from any possible critique of the individual's views. So what is being said is this "This is what I think about X but it is in the upper story so you have no right to tell me what I think about X may be wrong." So in short upper story=immunity to many.

Honestly I have read/heard statements from non-Christian individuals who are masters of couching their statements in the upper-story to shield them from criticism. This is quite apparent when politicians speak on matters of ethics and religion. It is also apparent when talking to individuals who hold to patently absurd worldviews (New Agers for example).

Being more particular, take the naturalist. On a lower story assessment of reality man is a machine, we are animals that have been conditioned to survive in a hostile world. Our existence is really aimed at one purpose survival. This is the lower story factual world for the naturalist, a rather bleak meaning to our existence.

However, that is not how the naturalist lives. The naturalist will make a leap (irrational) into the upper-story to find meaning greater than survival and make statements that the lower story (empirical science) can not verify. Sam Harris for example in his critique of Christianity writes:

"It is terrible that we all die and lose everything we love; it is doubly terrible that so many human beings suffer needlessly while alive." (p.57 LTCN)

Given Harris' worldview where does this come from? Why is this such a terrible thing? Harris does not give any rational explanation based on his worldview as to why he thinks this way about human life, he just makes this utterance and expects the reader to agree that these things are rather evident. Given his Atheistic Darwinism suffering is just part of what is, you can't rationally say it is terrible. In doing so Harris is leaping into the upper-story.

This is why Schaeffer talked about "taking the roof off" the unbeliever's worldview. Harris is hiding under this umbrella that is really borrowed or leftovers from Christianity (that human suffering is bad). Part of our job is to show folks that given their worldview they have no rational basis for believing such things, we need to take the roof off and let the implication of their God rejecting worldview rain in, this is a form of law.

4) Conclusion

The upper/lower story grid is very insightful as far as analyzing the ideas that are constantly swirling about in our culture. It really helps to give an understanding of the "culture wars" (ex: "science" vs. "faith") and how Christians are gagged by secularists and forbidden a hearing. It also helps to shed light on a lot of the self inflicted silence or disconnect many Christians have in bringing the Christian worldview into all of life.

This Should be Interesting...

2007-10-01T07:39:00.000-07:00

This Here...
I recently found out that Ben Stein has a movie coming out in February on the Darwinian captivity of the sciences (as I call it). In other words it is about how you can't question Darwinism without loosing repute and well in many cases your job. It seems to me that it is fairly clear that there is a conscious suppression of anything that would challenge the frankly Atheistic presuppositions in the sciences, and that simply is NOT science. Science is supposed to be about free thought not suppressing ideas and theories because they don't fit one's God rejecting philosophy. It's high time that some of the sacred cows that have been erected by godless secularists and Atheists receive a thorough challenge.

To be fair, I don't have great hopes for this documentary. My main concern is that it isn't a Michael Moore style ambush journalism where they will in freeze frame zoom in on a rather dumb looking face Richard Dawkins has made upon cringing at a difficult question while having some smearing monologue going as the stupid look on Dawkins' face gets bigger. That's the way most documentaries go nowadays, I can't remember the last really well researched one I have seen...The Trouble with Atheism was ok, (Never mind the poor star ratings on Youtube, it is a decent documentary).

At anyrate even though I reject evolution theory (at least macro) and I agree that the sciences are called upon to just matter of fact (a word science has no right to use but Darwinists use it all the time in regards to their theory) assume Darwinism, my concern is simply giving a good representation and not just having a smear campaign. Honestly, that is hard to do in an hour and a half, that is why the slapdash Michael Moore approach is so popular. So I hope it is a good film and opens people's eyes to the role of science.

(***All I know is that Ben is going to get hammered by the evolutionists [not necessarily intellectually but through personal attacks which are already gushing forth] so he better make this movie worth it and count the cost.***)

How to Give a Man Hug

2007-09-01T19:58:00.000-07:00

VideoJug: How To Give A Great Man To Man Hug

You Have Got to Be Kidding Me

2007-08-29T19:25:00.000-07:00

That's what I said when I read one of the recent stories on Ted Haggard. I don't need to go into all of the details of his infidelity and the sin that caused him to be removed from being pastor and president of the NAE. My problem is this:

Colorado Springs, Colo. — The Rev. Ted Haggard, who left the megachurch he founded after admitting to "sexual immorality," has asked supporters for financial assistance while he and his wife pursue their studies.
The former New Life Church pastor plans to seek a master's degree in counseling at the University of Phoenix while his wife studies psychology, he said in an e-mail sent this week to KRDO-TV in Colorado Springs.
The couple and two of their sons planned to move Oct. 1 to the Phoenix Dream Center, a faith-based halfway house in Phoenix, where Haggard and his wife would provide counseling, the e-mail said.

"It looks as though it will take two years for us to have adequate earning power again, so we are looking for people who will help us monthly for two years," the e-mail said. "During that time we will continue as full-time students, and then, when I graduate, we won't need outside support any longer." Haggard left the 10,000-member New Life Church late last year and resigned as head of the National Association of Evangelicals after a former male escort accused Haggard of paying him for sex.

Mike Ware, an overseer for New Life Church, told The Gazette of Colorado Springs on Friday that it was premature of Haggard to release the statement without first consulting the overseers.

A New Life spokesman did not immediately return a phone message left late Friday by The Associated Press.
Haggard received a salary of $115,000 for the 10 months he worked in 2006 and an $85,000 anniversary bonus before the scandal broke, The Gazette reported. Haggard's severance package included a year's salary of $138,000, and he collects royalties on his book titles, the newspaper reported.

El Paso County records show Haggard's home, which has been up for sale, has a market value of $715,051.
(From The Denver Post)

I am honestly immensely grieved by this whole situation. I think this is a prime example of what it means to not take responsibility for your actions. It is due to his own sin that he has been removed from ministry and his obscene 6 figure salary will cease at the end of the year. It just seems like Mr.Haggard got used to living high on the hog and doesn't want the gravy train with biscuit wheels to stop rolling.

This situation bothers me particularly as a full time student with a family to support through work. My advice to Mr. Haggard is to be like most poor students, get a job sir. That would be the Christian thing to do, rather than using your remaining celebrity status to get handouts. I wonder just what he means by "adequate earning power"... he's getting checks through 2007, he can sell his $700k house at a knock down price and move into a modest living arrangement, what is "adequate income"?

Well, I don't want to rant about how bad this fellow is but frankly this whole mentality disgusts me. It disgusts me as a Christian. What I see in this news story is wrong for so many reasons. I hope this fellow truly is repentant for his sin, but as far as I can tell this doesn't look like repentance. It just looks like he is switching from a religious pastoral position (because of his removal) to a secular pastoral position and he wants people to sport him to make the transition nice and smooth.

A Meditation on Faith by C.H. Spurgeon

2007-08-25T14:55:00.000-07:00

"His fruit was sweet to my taste."
- Song of Solomon 2:3

Faith, in the Scripture, is spoken of under the emblem of all the senses. It is sight: "Look unto me and be ye saved." It is hearing: "Hear, and your soul shall live." Faith is smelling: "All thy garments smell of myrrh, and aloes, and cassia"; "thy name is as ointment poured forth." Faith is spiritual touch.

By this faith the woman came behind and touched the hem of Christ’s garment, and by this we handle the things of the good word of life. Faith is equally the spirit’s taste. "How sweet are thy words to my taste! yea, sweeter than honey to my lips." "Except a man eat my flesh," saith Christ, "and drink my blood, there is no life in him."

This "taste" is faith in one of its highest operations. One of the first performances of faith is hearing. We hear the voice of God, not with the outward ear alone, but with the inward ear; we hear it as God’s Word, and we believe it to be so; that is the "hearing" of faith. Then our mind looketh upon the truth as it is presented to us; that is to say, we understand it, we perceive its meaning; that is the "seeing" of faith.

Next we discover its preciousness; we begin to admire it, and find how fragrant it is; that is faith in its "smell." Then we appropriate the mercies which are prepared for us in Christ; that is faith in its "touch." Hence follow the enjoyments, peace, delight, communion; which are faith in its "taste." Any one of these acts of faith is saving.

To hear Christ’s voice as the sure voice of God in the soul will save us; but that which gives true enjoyment is the aspect of faith wherein Christ, by holy taste, is received into us, and made, by inward and spiritual apprehension of his sweetness and preciousness, to be the food of our souls. It is then we sit "under his shadow with great delight," and find his fruit sweet to our taste.

(This is from "Morning in Evening" A wonderful devotional by Spurgeon, Aug 25 morning)