Christ Exalted

“It was because the Father had from eternity a design of exceedingly glorifying his Son, that he appointed him to be the person that should thus triumph over the evil in the world.  The work of redemption is the most glorious of all God’s works that are made known to us.  The glory of God most remarkably shines forth in it.  And this is one thing wherein its glory eminently appears, that therein Chrsit appears so gloriously above Satan and all his instruments; above all guilt, all corruption, all affliction, above death, and above all evil.” 

Jonathan Edwards, “Christ Exalted” August 1738

First California – Now New York

First California – Now New York!  For the first time, a US State is planning on recognizing the “marriage” of homosexual couples that take place in another state (thanks NY).  “New York residents could instead flock to California, where gay couples will be able to wed beginning June 17 — unless that state’s Supreme Court decides to stay its own ruling same-sex gay marriage. Upon their return home, in the eyes of the state, their unions would be no different from those of their heterosexual neighbors.

Gay couples could also travel outside the country to marry in Canada or one of the other nations where same-sex marriage is legal.  The move by Paterson’s administration does not legalize same-sex marriage in New York. The state’s highest court, the Court of Appeals, has said it can only be legalized by the Legislature, which failed to pass a proposed measure last year.” (From the AP)

These continual frontal assaults on the sanctity of the family and on marriage will only continue.  While as believers in Christ and standing firm on the Scriptures we recognize that only God has the authority to declare what is acceptable in a marriage union, our culture has walked far enough away from Him that their attempts to redefine marriage is only natural.  As Paul writes in Romans 1:21 “Their thinking became nonsense, and their senseless minds were darkened.  Claiming to be wise, they became fools…”  It is only when hearts are radically changed by the gospel of Christ that this nations eyes can be adjusted to see the truth of God’s word and the loveliness of obedience to His commands.  Until then we should be prepared for more of the same while we labor to hand out the Word of Life.

Selah

graduation

This year’s cycle of high school graduations is a special one for the Lancour family.  For the past 12 years, Kellie has labored (and usually in the strictest sense of that word) to pour into the life of our daughter not only a well-rounded education but also more importantly the example of what a godly wife and mother ought to look like.  To her credit, she has done a great job.  Now from a ‘ perspective, there is something really scary about setting loose on the world a young 17 year old.  To be completely honest, it seems as if the real test is about to take place on whether we have done our jobs right or not.  I realize that many of you have already gone through this with your own children and so I am confident that you are able to sympathize with my own feelings.

 

To a large degree, the parenting process is mostly over and a new aspect of relationship is developing.  I guess I wouldn’t have it any other way.  There is something better about our relationship now than before.  Perhaps it is just more mature.  I’m looking forward to the future years to see how God develops her and how her life grows.

 

I imagine I should make some spiritual application but I think I’ll take a rest from that for right now.  Maybe you can come up with something on your own.  To all the parents of a graduate this year…congratulations.  Despite any failures you have persevered.  And of course, to the graduates themselves…well done.  Your journey is just starting.  And by the way, welcome to the adult world.

Any Landing…

From the AP

It seemed like an almost literal answer to their prayers. When two New Zealand pilots ran out of fuel in a microlight airplane they offered prayers and were able to make an emergency landing in a field — coming to rest right next to a sign reading, “Jesus is Lord.”

Grant Stubbs and Owen Wilson, both from the town of Blenheim on the country’s South Island, were flying up the sloping valley of Pelorus Sound when the engine spluttered, coughed and died.

“My friend and I are both Christians so our immediate reaction in a life-threatening situation was to ask for God’s help,” Stubbs told The Associated Press on Wednesday.

He said he prayed during the ill-fated flight Sunday that the tiny craft would get over the top of a ridge and that they would find a landing site that was not too steep — or in the nearby sea.

Wilson said that the pair would have been in deep trouble if the fuel had run out five minutes earlier.

“If it had to run out, that was the place to be,” he said. “There was an instantaneous answer to prayer as we crossed the ridge and there was an airfield — I didn’t know it existed till then.”

After Wilson glided the powerless craft to a landing on the grassy strip, the pair noticed they were beside a 20-foot-tall sign that read, “Jesus is Lord — The Bible.”

“When we saw that, we started laughing,” Stubbs said.

Nearby residents provided them with gas to fly the home-built plane back to base.

I was always told any landing you walk away from is a good landing…

Freedom

 The Declaration of Arbroath

“For, so long as a 100 of us remain alive,
we never will in any degree be subject
to the dominion of the English,
since it is not for glory, riches or honours we fight,
but for liberty alone which no good man loses but with his life.”

Remembering the lost

This Memorial Day, take time out of your schedule, gather your children and remember…

For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity above and beyond the call of duty on 6 June 1944, near Colleville-sur-Mer, France. 1st Lt. Monteith landed with the initial assault waves on the coast of France under heavy enemy fire. Without regard to his own personal safety he continually moved up and down the beach reorganizing men for further assault. He then led the assault over a narrow protective ledge and across the flat, exposed terrain to the comparative safety of a cliff. Retracing his steps across the field to the beach, he moved over to where 2 tanks were buttoned up and blind under violent enemy artillery and machinegun fire. Completely exposed to the intense fire, 1st Lt. Monteith led the tanks on foot through a minefield and into firing positions. Under his direction several enemy positions were destroyed. He then rejoined his company and under his leadership his men captured an advantageous position on the hill. Supervising the defense of his newly won position against repeated vicious counterattacks, he continued to ignore his own personal safety, repeatedly crossing the 200 or 300 yards of open terrain under heavy fire to strengthen links in his defensive chain. When the enemy succeeded in completely surrounding 1st Lt. Monteith and his unit and while leading the fight out of the situation, 1st Lt. Monteith was killed by enemy fire. The courage, gallantry, and intrepid leadership displayed by 1st Lt. Monteith is worthy of emulation.

The Price of Hamburger Going Up Again

“Its creators admit it is the ultimate in decadence: a $175 hamburger.

The Wall Street Burger Shoppe just raised its price from $150 to assure its designation as the costliest burger in the city as determined by Pocket Change, an online newsletter about the most expensive things in New York.

“Wall Street has good days and bad days. We wanted to have the everyday burger (for $4) … and then something special if you really have a good day on Wall Street,” said co-owner Heather Tierney.

The burger, created by chef and co-owner Kevin O’Connell, seeks to justify its price with a Kobe beef patty, lots of black truffles, seared foie gras, aged Gruyere cheese, wild mushrooms and flecks of gold leaf on a brioche bun.

The eatery sells 20 or 25 per month in the fine dining room upstairs versus hundreds of $4 burgers each day at the diner counter downstairs, Tierney said.”  Reuters

From me:

Don’t worry about $4 a gallon gas, worry about McDonald’s getting on the bandwagon

Responding to California

Yesterday, I made the comment that we are living in a post-christian nation.  What I meant is that although we have the vestiges of a Judeo-Christian background, as a nation we have lost that as our moral footings.  While the percentage of people who consider themselves to be spiritually minded continues to grow, the number who affirm that Jesus Christ is the only way to God declines.  A relativistic mindset has gripped the vast majority of the nations worldview and the solid claims of Christ are discounted as narrow-minded and intolerant.  While decisions like the one that was made in California incite us as believers, for the majority of Americans it is a non-issue.  “As long as it doesn’t affect me….”. 

Recognizing that we live in this post-christian civilization should affect how we approach it with the gospel.  It is not strictly cultural change that we seek.  It is heart change on the individual level.  That is why politics will not work.  That is why the right judges in place will not work (after all, most of the California judges were “Republican” appointees).  Only the gospel can change lives.  More and more we need to realize that this is what transformed the world during the first 2 centuries of the church.  The gospel and nothing else.

To this end we do not need programs as much as we need committed believers who will live authentic lives that are radically different than their neighbors.  The gospel, lived out before this world, is attractive enough. 

What do you think?

California Fiasco

From Baptist Press

SAN FRANCISCO (BP)–For years, conservatives have bemoaned the fact that California is a sort of cultural trend-setter — setting trends that eventually spread east and reverberate nationally.

It helped spark the sexual revolution, adopted the nation’s first no-fault divorce law and helped launch the modern-day “gay rights” movement. And while it has broken ground that both conservatives and liberals can applaud –- it, for instance, was the first to overturn bans on interracial marriage -– few conservatives were celebrating May 15 when the California Supreme Court, by a slim 4-3 margin, ordered the state to legalize “gay marriage.”

California’s high court isn’t the first to hand down such a ruling -– Massachusetts’ court owns that distinction –- but its impact has the potential to be far more significant, for at least four reasons: The decision was issued in the nation’s most populous state; the court is one of the most, if not the most, influential high courts in the country; the justices placed sexual “orientation” alongside race, sex and religion in protected class status; and, unlike Massachusetts, California has no residency requirements, meaning that same-sex couples from every state can travel to the Golden State, get a marriage license, and then go back to their home state and sue for recognition.

The ruling won’t take effect for 30 days –- pro-family groups hope the court will stay its ruling until voters can vote on a constitutional marriage amendment in November — but that wasn’t stopping a jubilant San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom and hundreds of homosexuals from celebrating inside city hall.

“As California goes, so goes the rest of the nation,” a smiling Newsom said to loud cheers. “[Gay marriage nationwide is] inevitable. This door’s wide open now. It’s gonna happen, whether you like it or not. This is the future and it’s now [in California].”

Homosexuals elsewhere hope Newsom is right. Catherine Andrews-Looper, pastor of Nashville’s Holy Trinity Community Church, told The Tennessean newspaper, “It’s two states down and 48 more to go.” But she conceded, “And that’s a long way to go.”

California’s decision broke a four-court losing streak by “gay marriage” supporters after losses in the past two years in New York, Washington state, Maryland and New Jersey. A decision in Connecticut is due any day, and Iowa’s Supreme Court is set to hear a “gay marriage” case this year.

The ruling also means a little-noticed study published last December in the University of California-Davis’ Law Review will get more attention. As reported by Adam Liptak in The New York Times, the study showed the California Supreme Court to be the nation’s most influential high court. The study examined 65 years of cases and “counted up the number of times the decisions of state high courts were followed in other states.”

Although state high courts are not bound by rulings in other state high courts, justices nonetheless read decisions from other states and often cite them. California’s court “won by a landslide” in the study, Liptak said.

“In the 65 years ending in 2005, more than 24,000 state high court cases have been followed at least once. California leads with 1,260 decisions,” he wrote. “Washington is next, with 942, and Colorado is third, with 848.”

Of course, the impact of the decision will be limited if it is overturned by voters in November. A pro-family organization, ProtectMarriage.com, turned in more than 1.1 million signatures in April, far more than the 690,000 needed. Assuming state and county officials say enough signatures are valid, voters this fall will decide whether to reverse the court’s ruling. It promises to be the most expensive and heated “gay marriage” battle yet in the short time the nation has debated the issue.

The California court’s ruling overturned Proposition 22, a state law banning “gay marriage” that was approved in 2000 by 61 percent of voters.

“It’s going to take a monumental effort,” Chris Clark, pastor of East Clairemont Southern Baptist Church in San Diego and a ProtectMarriage.com volunteer, told BP. “There’s going to need to be a level of cooperation that exceeds even the level of cooperation that we experienced in getting the signatures. People are going to have to put down whatever theological and cultural differences they have and we’re going to have to work together to get this passed. Hopefully people are going to see the critical nature of this.”

The ruling also could impact the presidential election, as it did on Election Day in 2004, when 11 states passed constitutional marriage amendments — with Ohio’s amendment perhaps lifting President Bush to a victory there. In addition to California, Florida will have an amendment on the ballot this fall, and other states, including Arizona, could follow. The ruling also will result in a greater focus on the role of the federal judiciary.

Although Republican John McCain does not support a federal marriage amendment, in 2006 he did support a proposed constitutional marriage amendment in his home state of Arizona, and even taped a television ad for it. Following the California decision, his campaign released a statement implying he backs the amendment effort in that state.

“John McCain supports the right of the people of California to recognize marriage as a unique institution sanctioning the union between a man and a woman, just as he did in his home state of Arizona,” it read. “John McCain doesn’t believe judges should be making these decisions.”

The two Democrats, though, walked a much finer line, partly because homosexuals make up part of their base.

“Barack Obama has always believed that same-sex couples should enjoy equal rights under the law, and he will continue to fight for civil unions as President,” a statement from the Obama campaign said. “He respects the decision of the California Supreme Court, and continues to believe that states should make their own decisions when it comes to the issue of marriage.”

Hillary Clinton’s campaign released a statement saying she “believes that gay and lesbian couples in committed relationships should have the same rights and responsibilities as all Americans and believes that civil unions are the best way to achieve this goal. As president, Hillary Clinton will work to ensure same-sex couples have access to these rights and responsibilities at the federal level. She has said and continues to believe that the issue of marriage should be left to the states.”

But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat whose district rests in San Francisco, embraced the ruling. Her statement and position could be used by Republicans running in conservative districts this fall. Pelosi called it “a significant milestone for which all Californians can take pride.”

“I welcome the California Supreme Court’s historic decision,” Pelosi’s statement said. “I have long fought against discrimination and believe that the State Constitution provides for equal treatment for all of California’s citizens and families, which today’s decision recognizes. I commend the plaintiffs from San Francisco for their courage and commitment. I encourage California citizens to respect the Court’s decision, and I continue to strongly oppose any ballot measure that would write discrimination into the State Constitution.”

From me

So this is what it looks like to live in a post-christian nation.  Today, we have more in common with believers who lived in 100 AD than we used to think. 

Doctrinal Differences

How far is too far when it comes to cooperation?  At what point do you say that I (or we in the case of the church) can no longer participate in a project because we have differing theological perspectives?  For instance, is it too much to have an ecumenical service with various Christian denominations if there is also a Muslim Iman or a Jewish Rabbi?  I would think so.  Our differences are so great that it is impossible to find common ground within a service with differing faiths. 

What about within Christianity?  At what point does our differences in theology separate us from cooperating together in a community service?  What doctrinal differences are there that are worth dying on the hilltop over?  Al Mohler has divided theological stances into three distinct categories:  first-tier, second-tier and third-tier.  The first tier doctrines are those that we must have agreement on.  These would be core beliefs that if someone were unwilling to affirm would signify to us that they would be outside the orthodox Christian faith.  Second tier doctrines would be those that do not make one heretical if they believe differently, but would reasons for not regularly worshipping together (and result in different denominational flavors).  The third tier doctrines are those that should not keep us from fellowship in any way, shape or form.  They are those beliefs that are disputable and arguable amongst fellow believers even within the local church body.

Here is something to chew on for the weekend.  What doctrines would you assign to each category?  Why?  At which category would you say that the fellowship between believers of different denominations should be required?

Selah!