Government Fiscal Immorality

Spirit of Titanic Still Alive on Flight 1549

According to The New York Times:

"On board, the pilot, Chesley B. Sullenberger III, 57, unable to get back to La Guardia, had made a command decision to avoid densely populated areas and try for the Hudson, and had warned the 150 passengers to brace for a hard landing. Most had their heads down as the jetliner slammed into the water, nose slightly up, just three minutes after takeoff on what was to be a flight to Charlotte, N.C."

The New York Times continued: “When all were out, the pilot walked up and down the aisle twice to make sure the plane was empty, officials said.”

Jeff Kolodajy, a passenger from Connecticut, stated: “Everyone’s fine. There was a lady with her baby and she was trying to crawl over the seats. And I said, women and children first. She got off.”

Call To Christians to Leave State Schools

Love this book; Love this review (I didn't write it, I just wish I had)

"The church of the first century was a magnet to males. Jesus' strong leadership, blunt honesty, and bold action mesmerized men."

"But today's churches appeal more to women and folks over 50."

Males in church are perceived, right or wrong, as passive, bookish, soft, nice, well-behaved, neutered wimps.

David Murrow has written an absolute must-read book for all churches interested in bringing men back, restoring a proper balance of the masculine and feminine spirits within the local church, creating an environment in which men will lovingly take charge, thrive, grow and be soldiers again in the Lord's army.

I don't consider myself a type-A personality. I'm pretty laid-back, studious and love going to church. I've love fellowshipping with God's people. I'm not a knuckle-dragging Neanderthal that gets distracted after 10 minutes of a sermon. I don't need the constant stimulus of entertainment to hold my interest, but I found myself burning with a `holy anger' reading this book, mostly at myself for how `feminine' I've allowed myself to become over the years. And please, no more `Jesus is my boyfriend' songs !!

Two other men I know have been deeply affected to the positive by this book and are absolutely fired up about restoring the masculine spirit in their lives as well as their local church. One of them told me recently "I'm hanging up my skirt - not going to wear it anymore."

David is not advocating a bombastic, abusive male domination of our churches. Don't panic ladies, but let men be men. We were created to lead and contribute. "Most men will not invest themselves in anything that does not offer a shot at greatness. Boys do not dream of sitting in a cubicle; they dream of slaying the dragon, rescuing the princess, and absconding with the treasure." The church thermostat, to attract men, must be set on Challenge, not Comfort, Ceremony, Control, Conformity or Confrontation.

It's going to take courage to change the way we do church, if we want to reach unchurched men. Some won't for fear of change that will upset the status quo. Others will find that they will have to leave their churches rather than settle for living lives of quiet desperation. "Men need vision, not just relationships, to stay motivated in church."

One of the most stunning but encouraging statistics was that between 1994-2004, men's church attendance was flat, but men's participation in small, spiritual groups doubled. 9 million additional men joined a small group Bible study. Some folks are finding the traditional church model is not cutting it and have opted instead for a more informal but intense, iron sharpening iron, discipleship format.

Biblical references aside, wolves have a noble bearing, look intelligent, focused, and yes, even a bit 'dangerous'. Labrador retrievers, on the other hand, tend to be gentle, passive, friendly and harmless. And then you have the 'foo-foo' dogs that women dress up in pink sweaters and skirts... 'nough said.

I can't recommend this book enough.

____________________

Oh yeah, the name of the book: Why Men Hate Going To Church, by David Murrow [Nelson, 2005]

Discipling A Son

So Far Just Literature

Members of Burma’s battered and disparate opposition are growing disillusioned with the old methods of the pro-democracy movement and are seeking ways to escalate their armed struggle.

“There is a very real debate among us about how to begin a more sustained armed struggle,” an organizer of last September’s failed uprising told the Guardian. “We are ready for that kind of action, if we can get the supplies and training that we need.”

Speaking from exile in Thailand, Soe Aung, the chief spokesman for the National Council of the Union of Burma (NCUB), an umbrella group representing nearly all facets of Burma’s disparate opposition, said he was witnessing a significant shift in the public attitude across Burma.

“After the September uprising and then the terrible cyclone response, the anger is surging. Some are considering violent means … the Burmese people are not that kind of people, there has been a real change.”

Soe Aung spoke openly of how covert Western support, primarily from the US state department-funded National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and its subsidiary the International Republican Institute (IRI), had been fundamental to the success of the uprising.

“The US is certainly doing the most for the opposition. There has been real success in training and forming an underground movement through religious organizations and monastic organizations. These provide the best cover inside Burma. The monks can spread their training very effectively.”

The NED describes itself as a private organization but was created by, and remains accountable to, the US Congress. Set up under the Reagan administration in 1983, it has since played a leading role in influencing civil society and electoral processes in countries around the world unfriendly to US interests.

According to Brian Joseph, the man in charge of the group’s Burma project, the NED gave $3million to Burma in 2007. “We would send more, but there is a limit to what you can do in Burma,” said Joseph.

Opposition activists both inside and outside Burma largely describe the improvements in political awareness and spread of information as a result of NED-funded projects, but also attribute them to the introduction of the internet to Burma in 2003.

“We could see in September how the advances were utilized. It wasn’t just the monks but a massive increase of awareness among Burmese of all types. This was thanks largely due to media organs, the Democratic Voice of Burma, satellite TV, and, of course, the internet,” said Soe Aung.

REB

Divine Healing: James 5:14-16

This post concludes a series in which I have basically copied and pasted A. W. Pink's short book, Divine Healing: Is It Scriptural? to the blog.

Now, as then, many Christians have questions about this subject. After all, it is evident from the gospels that healing formed a large part of the ministry of Christ and the apostles. Further, there are in the NT what appear to be promises of an ongoing miraculous ministry of this kind. Yet, we all have been in a situation in which there was not a miraculous answer to prayers for healing. What is wrong, then?

These short chapters, which I have treated as posts, have attempted to answer from a biblical viewpoint what is wrong with the modern "healing" movement and to take an honest look at what Scripture says about this phenomenon. Like most pastors, I have received many inquiries about this over the years.

In this particular installment, I think Mr. Pink's opinion is far too modest. For my part, I think the effectual fervent prayer refers first to Elijah, of course. But then it also refers to the man who has been so affected by his affliction that he cries out to God in genuine repentance and confession of sin. Apart from the confession of sin, I think the oil would be better used for a salad. -- REB

"A number of friends who appreciated our recent articles on this subject have written to us expressing the desire for a few words on James 5:14–16. We respond to their wish with a certain amount of diffidence, for we are not sure in our own mind either as to its interpretation or application. This is a passage which has long been an occasion of controversy and debate, and those who took part therein found—as is often the case—that it was easier to refute the arguments of their opponents than to establish their own position. When we are uncertain about the meaning of Scripture we usually remain silent thereon, but in this instance we will give the leading views which have been expressed, and state how we feel toward them.

"First, Romanists insist that this “anointing with oil” is a standing ordinance in the church and James 5:14, 15 is the principal passage appealed to by them in support of their dogma and practice of “extreme unction.” But here as everywhere the papists go contrary to the Scriptures, for instead of anointing the sick as a healing ordinance, they only administer it to those at the point of death. We have no hesitation in denouncing their perversion as a mere hypocritical pageantry. The “unction” they use must be olive oil mixed with balsam, consecrated by a bishop, who must nine times bow the knee, saying thrice “Ave sanctum oleum” (Hail, holy oil), and thrice “Ave Sanctum chrisma” (Hail, holy chrism), and thrice more, “Ave, sanctum Balsamum” (Hail, holy balsam). The members anointed are the eyes, ears, nose, mouth, and for the extremities, the reins and feet: in women, the navel. The design thereof is, the expulsion of the relics of sin and to equip the soul for its conflicts with the powers of evil in the moment of death. One has but to mention these things to reveal their absurdity.

"Second, the position generally taken by the Reformers and Puritans, was, that this anointing the sick with oil was not designed as a sacrament, they being but two in number: baptism and the Lord’s supper. They pointed out that so far from this being a standing rite, the apostles themselves seldom used oil in the healing of the sick: they wrought cures by a touch (Acts 3:7), by their shadow (Acts 5:15), by handkerchiefs (Acts 19:12), by laying on of hands (Acts 28:8), by word of mouth (Acts 9:34). Nor does it appear that they were permitted to employ this gift indiscriminately, no not even among brethren in Christ dear to them, or why should Paul leave Trophimus at Miletum sick (2 Tim. 4:20) or sorrow so much over the illness of Epaphroditus (Phil. 2:27)? In this too God exercised His sovereignty. But what is more to the point, this supernatural endowment was only of brief duration: “But that grace of healing has disappeared, like all other miraculous powers, which the Lord was pleased to exhibit for a time, that He might render the power of the Gospel, which was then new, the object of admiration forever” (Calvin).

"A list of the “charismata” or supernatural gifts which obtained during the apostolic period is found in 1 Corinthians 12: “to another faith, by the same Spirit; to another the gift of healing, by the same Spirit; to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another discerning of spirits, to another divers kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues” (vv. 9, 10.).They were designed chiefly for the authenticating of Christianity and to confirm it in heathen countries. Their purpose, then, was only a temporary one, and as soon as the canon of Scripture was closed they were withdrawn. As 1 Corinthians 13 plainly intimates “whether there be prophecies (inspired messages from God) they shall fail (to be given any more); whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be (supernatural) knowledge, it shall vanish away” (v. 8). It was the view of Matthew Henry, Thomas Manton, John Owen, and in fact nearly all of the Puritan divines, that James 5:14, 15 refers to the exercise of one of those supernatural gifts which the church enjoyed only in the first century.

"Among the leading arguments advanced in support of this contention are the following. First, the “anointing with oil” clearly appears to look back to Mark 6:13 where we are told of the twelve, they “anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them.” Second, the positive promise of healing, verse 15, seems to be an unconditional and general one, as though no exceptions, no cases of failure, were to be looked for. Third, “healing” was certainly one of the miraculous gifts specified in 1 Corinthians 12. Moreover, it hardly seems likely that the “faith” here mentioned is an ordinary one: though whether it differed in kind or only in degree is not easy to determine. There was the “faith of miracles”—either to work them or the expectation of them on the part of those who were the beneficiaries, as is clear from Matthew 21:24; Mark 11:24; 1 Corinthians 13:2. The “anointing with oil” after the praying over the sick is regarded as a seal or pledge of the certainty of healing or recovery.

"On the other side, we find such a deeply-taught man and so able an expositor as Thomas Goodwin (1600-1680) insisting on the contrary. He pointed out, first, that James 5:14 is quite different from Mark 6:13, for here the anointing with oil is joined with prayer, whereas prayer is not mentioned there, but only the miraculous gift. Second, the ones to be sent for were not specified as men endowed with the gift of healing, but the “elders,” and there is nothing to show that all of them possessed that gift. The “elders” were standing officers who were to continue. Third, the ones to be healed are the “sick” or infirm, but extraordinary healing would have extended further—to the blind, the deaf and dumb, and would have reached to unbelievers instead of being restricted to church members: cf. 1 Corinthians 14:22. Fourth, the means commanded: oil and prayer on all such occasions, whereas the extraordinary gift of healing was not so confined, but was frequently effected without any means at all, by mere word of mouth.

"Third, rather more than a century ago, a certain Edward Irving, founder of the “Catholic Apostolic Church,” propounded the theory that the supernatural gifts which existed in the early Church had been lost through the unbelief and carnality of its members, and that if there was a return to primitive order and purity, they would again be available. Accordingly he appointed “apostles,” and “prophets” and “evangelists.” They claimed to speak in tongues, prophesy, interpret and work miracles. There is little doubt in our mind that this movement was inspired by Satan, and probably a certain amount of abnormal phenomena attended it, though much of it was explainable as issuing from a state of high nervous tension and hysteria. Irving’s theory, with some modifications and some additions has been popularized and promulgated by the more recent so-called “Pentecostal movement,” where a species of unintelligible jabbering and auto-suggestion cum mesmerism is styled “speaking in tongues,” and “faith healing.” Many of their devotees and dupes attempt to carry out James 5:14, 15, but with very meager and unsatisfactory results.

"Fourth, there is the grotesque idea of the Dispensationalists. These is a class of men who pose as being exceptionally enlightened, and under the guise of “rightly dividing the Word of Truth” arbitrarily partition the Scriptures, affirming “this is not for us,” “that does not pertain to this present era of Grace,” “that relates to the Tribulation period,” “this will be fulfilled in the Millennium.” Because the opening verse of James reads, “To the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greetings,” these robbers of God’s children declare this epistle is “entirely Jewish;” as well might they reason that the first epistle of Paul is designed only for Papists because it is addressed “To all that be in Rome” (Rom. 1:1). The epistle of James belongs to all the “beloved brethren,” to all born-again souls (1:16, 18). It is surely striking that the very passage we are here considering (5:14–16) comes right between a reference to Job (a Gentile) who endured patiently his affliction and found the Lord to be “pitiful and of tender mercy” (v. 11) and to Elijah who is described as “a man subject to like passions as we are” yet mighty in prayer (v. 17)—as though the Spirit was anticipating and refuting this mad notion.

"Now where such widely-different interpretations are given of a passage, it usually follows that the true one lies somewhere between two extremes, and such we believe is the case here. We are very loathe to regard our passage as being an obsolete one, that it refers to something which pertained only to the apostolic age and relates not at all to us. When referring to the Papish travesty of this “anointing with oil” Thomas Goodwin said, “The Reformed churches seeing that such a sacrament could not be and this must needs be a perversion of it, did justly reject it, only in rejecting it (as in some other things) they went too far, even denying it to have that use of restoring the sick as a seal of the promise, and an indefinite means to convey that blessing which God in mercy hath appointed it to be.” We are strongly inclined to agree with this eminent Puritan that the churches which grew out of the Reformation went too far when they set aside this passage as containing Divine directions to be followed by Gospel churches throughout this Christian era. Such a sweeping conclusion needs qualifying.

"The knotty point to be settled is, how far and at which points is this qualification to be made? Personally we believe the general principle and promise of the passage holds good for all generations—seasons of great spiritual declension and deadness only excepted. In normal times it is the privilege of the saint—when seriously ill, or suffering great pain, and not on every light occasion—to send for the “elders” (pastors, ministers) of the local Gospel church to which he belongs, for they who preach God’s Word to him should surely be the fittest to spread his case before Him: cf. Job 42:8. They are to pray over him, commending him to the mercy of God and seeking recovery for him if that be according to the Divine will: whether or not the “anointing with oil” should accompany the praying is a detail on which we are not prepared to dogmatize; but where the sick one desires it, his request should be complied with. The kind of oil is not specified, though most likely olive oil was used in the first century.

"It should be pointed out that those promises of God which relate to temporal and eternal mercies are quite different from those pertaining to spiritual and eternal things, the former being general and indefinite and not unconditional and absolute as are many of the latter, and therefore as God reserves to Himself the freedom to make them good when, as, and to whom He pleases, we must ask in full submission to His sovereign pleasure. To illustrate: if I am starting out on a journey I ask God to preserve me from all harm and danger if that be His holy will (Rom. 1:10), but I make no such proviso when I request Him to deliver me from those who assault my soul (2 Tim. 4:18). Thus “the prayer of faith” here is not a definite expectation that God will heal, but a peaceful assurance that He will do that which is most for His glory and the sick one good. That the promise of James 5:15 is an indefinite and not an absolute one is clear from this consideration: if it were not so, he could continually claim the promise and so never die— the “and IF he have committed sins” further confirms the indefiniteness of what is here in view.

"Some are likely to object against what has been pointed out in the last paragraph and say, But faith must have a foundation to rest upon, and it has none other than the Word of God: if then there be here no definite promise to lay hold of and plead before God, the “prayer of faith” is impossible, for there is no assurance the sick one will be healed. That may sound very plausible and pious, yet it is wrong. There is a faith of reliance and submission as well as a faith of expectation. There is no higher, no stronger, no grander faith than one which has such confidence in the wisdom and goodness of God as leads me to present my case to Him and say “Do as seemeth Thee good.” It is always a help when we can plead a promise, but God is greater than all His promises and where some specific need or emergency be not covered by some express promise, faith may count upon the mercy and power of God Himself— this is what Abraham did: Hebrews 11:19!

"Personally we greatly fear that there are very few “elders” now left on earth whom it would be any good to send for in an emergency: only those living close to God and blessed with strong faith would be of any use. This is a day of “small things,” nevertheless the Lord remains unchanged and ready to show Himself strong on behalf of those who walk uprightly. Though there be no spiritual elders available, yet God is accessible; seek unto Him, and if He grants you the “prayer of faith” then healing is certain either by natural means or by supernatural intervention. “The Lord is undoubtedly present with His people to assist them in all ages, and when necessary He heals their diseases as much as He did in ancient times; but He does not display those miraculous powers or dispense miracles by the hands of apostles, because that gift was only of temporary duration” (Calvin)

“Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed” (v. 16). Here the scope of our passage is widened: in verse 13 the afflicted or tried one is to pray for himself, in verse 14 the ministers are to pray for the one seriously sick, now fellow-Christians are to pray for each other. But first they are bidden to confess their faults one to another, which does not mean revealing the secrets of their hearts or acquainting their brethren with that which is suited only for the ear of God: but cases where they have tempted or injured one another or consented to the same evil act—tattling, for example. A mutual acknowledgement of those faults which cause coldness and estrangement, exciting one another to repentance for the same, promotes the spirit of prayer and fellowship, The “healing” here is also wider, referring primarily to that of the soul (Ps. 41:4) and breaches (Heb. 12:13), being the term used in 1 Peter 2:24, yet also includes removal of physical chastisements.

Observations in Conclusion

"A few brief observations on our passage in conclusion.

"1. Personal prayer (v. 13) is enjoined before ministerial (v. 14) and social (v. 16): individual responsibility cannot be shelved.

"2. God is not indifferent to the sickness of His people (v. 14), but cares for their bodies as well as their souls.

"3. Are not ministers too free in visiting the sick and praying over them, instead of waiting until they are sent for (v. 14)?

"4. If none but “elders” (ministers) were to anoint with oil, surely they alone are eligible to administer baptism and the Lord’s supper!

"5. All sickness is not occasioned by sin or the “if” of verse 15 would be meaningless.

"6. Yet God does sometimes visit with physical chastisements as the “if” denotes.

"7. The mutual confession of verse 16 refutes the Papish error of “auricular confession,” for the priest does not confess his sins to those revealing to him the secrets of their souls!"