The False Algerian Model of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Lee Harris has written a brilliant TCS column regarding the irrational thinking of Palestinian terrorism and its supporters on the American Left and Europe. Read it all, carefully and slowly.

I've noticed over the years that Leftist supporters of the Palestinian cause seem completely unwilling to face the fact that the vast majority of Palestinians will accept nothing less than the total extermination of Israel. Do they seriously expect the Israelis to compromise with such people?

Expand Your Horizons

Before I started reading blogs, I made a point of reading four sources of political commentary: The National Review, The Weekly Standard, The American Prospect, and The Nation. I stopped reading the last two by about the summer of 2003, because American liberalism took a giant step toward the Left, the commentary that I was reading (especially in The Nation) was utterly detached from reality, and the far Left was becoming too anti-American for me to read without loosing my lunch.

But you lose a lot when you forget that there's another half to America, and I'm not just talking about bridging the Red State - Blue State divide. I mean, that from the Right perspective, there are news stories that you will never even hear of if you don't venture beyond conservative, libertarian, and hawkish blogs (and vice versa). So every now and then I hold my nose and venture into Daily Kos or Atrios and see what people are talking about.

More easily, I make a daily read of Acrentropy, which brings us a piece of inflammatory Republican rhetoric that should get a certain congressman in hot water. It should, at least. I wouldn't have known about this incident I had stuck to reading the blogs of like-minded people.

So, whether you hail from the Left or the Right, as Glenn Reynolds often urges, branch out a little. See what people who disagree with you are thinking. They'll often show you news stories that will blow your mind.

In Defense of Joel Osteen

I've watched Joel Osteen on TV, off and on, for about three years. His preaching style is unique -- a positive, constructive message for his congregation. He's been criticized for preaching a health and wealth gospel and a Norman Vincent Peale-style feel-good message devoid of any emphasis on sin and repentance. A few samples:

The Narrow wrote:

More than 30,000 parishioners attend the Lakewood Church in Houston, the largest in the country, where Osteen Pastors. Not too hard to do when you appeal to people's pocketbooks. Preaching from the pulpit all the reasons you could and should be rich and healthy because you are a follower of Christ. Sure, this is a popular and inviting message to people. Only problem is, this isn't rooted in scripture. Guys like Osteen and Jakes are masters of taking scripture out of context.

Dulcis Ex Asperis wrote:

The problem with Mr. Osteen's teaching is not so much that he doesn't preach the Gospel as he instrumentalizes God. And he isn't the first one. There is a significant stream of Christian tradition that runs up through much of modern-day evangelicalism that does exactly this. Jesus is offered as a cure for all the ills of mankind. Is your marriage in shambles? Well, just give your life to Jesus' and He'll fix everything. Are you wasting away from cancer? Pray harder to Jesus and He'll heal you.

Internet Monk wrote:

What happened? Joel makes a remarkable shift away from his father's style of more traditional Pentecostal/Charismatic preaching. He becomes a positive thinker- Peale and Schuller style. A preacher of "think positive and be blessed" principles. Prosperity preaching, but not with some tangled version of the Gospel at the center like so many on TBN (take Kenneth Copeland as an example.) It's "have a better attitude and be blessed" motivational talks that have no relation to the essentials of the Christian Gospel. You rarely hear any theology or Gospel preaching. God is good and wants to bless you. Period. That's it. Instead, Osteen's messages are about "God's Favor" on marriage, finances and career. Sin is never mentioned. In well over 25 hours of preaching that I listened to this year, Jesus was almost never mentioned, and when he was mentioned, it was in a perfunctory prayer in the last minute. Sin, the Cross, the atonement? Not there.

Now I've been critical of the emasculating, feel-good Christianity so vigorously refuted by John Eldredge, but I think that it is a misdiagnosis of Joel Osteen's preaching. I would argue that Osteen's preaching is incomplete, not incorrect. He doesn't often speak on the moral depravity of man and God's grace of salvation through the atoning work of His son, and these are basic tenets of Christian theology that need to be espoused. It could be credibly argued that he does not root his sermons firmly in the Bible. Points taken.

But despite my visceral loathing of pop psychology, mixed with Christianity or left in its pure state, when I watch Osteen, I see so much good being done. He preaches about a loving God, about personal responsibility, and about the hope for each individual in every situation can find in God. It's a stretch to call him a Health and Wealth preacher. I haven't seen him go that far, and I think that his critics on this front are just projecting their fears of successful, popular Christian leaders. If I'm wrong, show me quotes from Osteen's preaching or writing to support the claim that he is a Health and Wealth Gospel preacher. Anyway, sometimes criticism of Health and Wealth seems to go to the extreme of denying that God works miracles in peoples' lives. That is what Osteen preaches, and before his critics take him on on this issue, they might want to skim through the Gospels again and make sure that their views are Biblically supported.

If some Christians get all of their Biblical instruction from Osteen, then they are deprived of important information that they need to know. It would certainly be a shame if his congregants lack a Bible study group or never hear a preacher of the fire-and-brimstone variety. But for Christians who are active in a church that makes man's depravity and God's grace clear, what harm can be found in hearing, on a weekly basis from Osteen's pulpit, that God loves us?

On a side note, I've noticed that at my church, it is the elderly who are the biggest fans of Joel Osteen -- which is not what one would expect of a pop Christian author and speaker.

Methodist Blogs Weekly Round-Up

Donald Sensing provides analysis on negotations between the US forces in Iraq and the Baathist terrorists, a miracle story emerging from the tsunami-affected region, on liveblogging his diet, metal inflation in the armed forces, and school kids sending anti-American letters to US troops.

Beth Quick wrote about the movie Hotel Rwanda and ideological rankings in the US Senate.

Marvin of The Ivy Bush blogged about reading Reinhold Neibuhr, news media reaction to the 'Dean Scream', critiques a David Brooks column on government spending, and posits a Christian point of view on Chekov's play The Cherry Orchard.

John Wilks blogged about Christian teens learning about serving the poor, distinguishing between how you talk in seminary classes and how you talk to ordinary Christians, reflections on the second chapter of Epistle to the Romans, and the warming of the Christian heart toward repentence during Lent.

Wes Magruder provides an update on his missionary efforts in Cameroon.

Shayne Raynor's blog is currently down. I'll update later when it's functioning again.

Do you know of another blog that should be included in the Methodist Blogs Weekly Round-Up? Leave a note in the comments and let me know.

Negativity in Blogging

This post by Jeff the Baptist really hit home. My blogging has been very negative of late. It's part and parcel of the medium of blogging, as I said in Jeff's comments. But it's also a sin to dwell upon the ill and not the good, and I've slidden into it. I left a needlessly snarky comment on Beth Quick's blog, for which she appropriately rebuked me. Then I slammed Rick Warren in this post, even though his writing doesn't deserve such brutal criticism.

It's easy to use blogging as a forum for complaining about all of the ills of the world, and to point the finger at everyone else as fools or sinners, and to ignore my own faults. But as a Christian, I'm not supposed to, and I've resolved to improve. Tom McGuire is on the right track here, so although I had planned on fisking Agent Mosely's post on Michael Moore, as well as ALA president-elect's column on blogging, I think that I'm going to look for what is right with the world, instead of what is wrong.

John Mark Reynolds on the TNIV Controversy

I haven't spent much time looking into the TNIV contraversy, but Biblical scholar John Mark Reynolds has. Reynolds writes:

No one has yet shown why we were served well for three hundred years by essentially one translation, but now suddenly we need new ones every few years.

I haven't previously commented on these arguments because I don't speak Greek and Hebrew (yet). I have, however, studied Latin and French in previous years, so I have a general sense for the structure of language and the methods of translation.

My study Bible is the revered New American Standard Bible. Readers of this blog will note that it is the only translation that I use in my Bible studies. That is because various people in the know that I respect have told me that it is the most accurate (i.e. literal) translation on the market. Until I learn to read Greek and Hebrew on the level of a professional Biblical translator, I will continue to rely on the NASB until I can, or the scholarly community disavows the quality of the NASB.

Now I will define 'best'. The best translation is the translation which takes the accepted Greek and Hebrew text and translates it into modern English literally, with study notes to describe idiomatic differences. I want to know, as much as possible, what the actual Scripture of God says not what Eugene Petersen or anyone else thinks that it should mean. I'll do my own interpreting, thank you very much. You stick to the translating, Mr. Biblical Language 'Scholar'.

The real source of this translation mania is a desire to conform the Word of God to the will of man, as opposed to the other way around. Don't like what the Bible says on a particular subject? Hunt and peck for a translation that conveys your meaning. Take verses out of context. Dowdify verses until God is saying what you want Him to say. Result? The Purpose Driven Life -- an immensely popular work of sloppy Biblical pseudoscholarship.

For those of you who can't wait to swing down to Lifeway to pick up the latest Bible off the printing presses, enjoy your shelf full of translations. I'll stick to whatever is the most literal, most scholarly translation available. If that translation doesn't say precisely what I want it to say, too bad. I'm supposed to follow the Word of God, not the other way around.

Bible Study: Jude

I've found that the book of Jude is not easily subdivided for Bible study, but is best digested and discussed all at once. It is, however, a lengthy read, and most of it focuses on heresies of the day that many modern Christians mind find tedious. But that's no excuse! Every part of Scripture is worthy of study and useful for learning about God.

I shoehorned this Bible study onto two sheets of letter-sized paper. Although I prefer to use one side of one sheet of paper (helps with limited attention spans), it's not always possible. I would suggest that the Bible study leader briefly mention what biographical information exists about Jude and describe the religious contraversies of the day before reading the text.

These are the notes that I use to prompt discussion. Bolding certain phrases helps to direct readers attention and guide the conversation.

Jude’s letter deals primarily with a heresy common in his day and in ours: antinomianism. Antinomians believed that the saving grace of God was so complete, that one could continue sinning without consequence. In fact, sinning glorified God because it made one more dependent on His grace, so His grace was magnified. Antinomians thought that it was the inner, meditational life that mattered to God, not the outward, physical life. Consequently, antinomians were known for their sexual license. They also engaged in what we would call spiritism – séances and the like, where they used rituals to communicate with and to control spirits.

Where do you see antinomian thought in our modern society?

Verse 9 is a reference to the Assumption of Moses, a set of prophesies attributed to Moses, but most likely written by a 1st Century B.C. Pharisee. It was considered authentic in Jude’s day. The Assumption can be pieced together from various early Medieval manuscripts, and survives only in Latin translation. The author wrote to protest the growing secularization of the Pharisees and their increasing focus on politics, rather than faith.

The quote that Jude refers to does not survive among the manuscript fragments, thus his reference is lost in the passage of time. An online copy is at: http://wesley.nnu.edu/noncanon/ot/pseudo/
assumptionofmoses.htm

So, keeping in mind the doctrinal errors of the antinomians and this struggle between Michael and Satan, what is the meaning of verses 8-9?

What is the error of Balaam? (v.11)

Look at v.12-13 – the perfect description of the life without Christ.

Verse 14 is a reference to the Book of Enoch, another well-respected work in Jude’s time, but considered fake at the time of the canonization of the New Testament in the 4th Century. Respected early Christian leaders, such as Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, and St. Augustine quoted this book in their own works before it was excluded from the New Testament canon. The book survives in Greek, Latin, and Ethiopic fragments , the most complete of which were discovered in Ethiopia in 1773.

The Book of Enoch claims to be the work of Enoch of the line of Seth (Gen. 5:18-24) but did not appear before the 1st Century B.C. The themes of the book suggest that it was written by Pharisees. It is a lengthy book, but here is the synopsis: God threatens to destroy the mankind with a second flood, but heeds the prayers of Enoch and spares man from his fate. Enoch has a series of revelations about the coming of the Messiah and the liberation of Israel from foreigners and sin. The Book of Enoch is reflective of the 1st Century Jewish anticipation of the imminent arrival of the Messiah.

An online copy can be found at: http://wesley.nnu.edu/noncanon/ot/pseudo/enoch.htm

Is the teaching of Jude undermined by his use of apocryphal works?

Jude is worried about Christians who accept immoral people in their congregations. Where is the balance between being friendly to non-Christians because we are called to evangelize, and separating ourselves from immoral people in order to protect our own souls?

Critics of Condi

Steven Warshawsky of American Thinker recently wrote against the movement to secure the 2008 Republican presidential nomination for Condoleeza Rice. He laid out a number of problems that a Rice nomination and presidency would present, and I think that they are incorrect.

Warshawsky asserted that Condoleeza Rice lacks the executive experience that American voters will expect and that the weighty duties of the Presidency require. One would hope that the American people value experience in government leadership, but I think that the 2000 election of George W. Bush says otherwise. Bush has served in a constitutionally-weak governorship for six years and before that...well, did nothing. Yet he was elected (albeit with a loss of the popular vote) against a man who had spent eight years in the House of Representatives, seven years in the U.S. Senate, and eight years in the Vice Presidency. If the American people placed such a high value on experience, then Bush would have been crushed in 2000.

Moreover, I think that Warshawsky has overrated the importance of executive experience, or even elective experience, in a successful presidency. What matters more is something elegantly described by John Derbyshire:

It seems to me, in fact, that political stupidity is a special kind of stupidity, not well correlated with other kinds. At the very highest levels of intelligence, the correlation may actually be inverse: the more brilliant you are, the dumber your politics. Albert Einstein seems to have thought well of Stalin; Hitlerism got its first mass following in the highly-selective German universities. And think—without smiling, if you can—of the barmy political programs that issued forth, with such confidence, from Jean-Paul Sartre, Bertrand Russell, Norman Mailer and other members of the mid-20th-century preposterentsia, as exposed in withering detail in Paul Johnson's book Intellectuals.

The political intelligence described by Derbyshire is a combination of common sense plus courage. Bill Clinton (four years as State Attorney General and eight years as Governor) lacked one or another, and so ignored the Islamofascist threat as it grew in the 1990s. John Kerry (two years as Lieutenant Governor and twenty years as US Senator) viewed terrorism as a nuisance and preferred a more pacifistic foreign policy. Both of these men had vast government experience, but both lacked either a basic grasp of international relations or the courage necessary to turn the power of the United States against our enemies. George W. Bush, a political naif who had rarely travelled abroad, instantly grasped what our enemy was capable of of and what must be done to stop it. Condoleeza Rice seems to be on the same page, and that's why she'd make a better president than anyone other than a Liebermanite Democrat.

Washawsky also stated that Rice lacks a base of support from which to launch a campaign. True, Rice lacks a region to call home, but then against, Howard Dean did very well for several months 'based' from tiny Vermont, population 620,000. As for some sort of cohort group, as Warshawsky suggests, I think that 'hawks' would do nicely. I plan on voting for the most hawkish candidate running, and I suspect that many other Americans might do likewise.

Warshawksy rightfully argues that Rice lacks any substantial domestic policy experience. I couldn't care less, since I'm a one-issue voter, but I think that most American voters will likely be interested in tedious issues like Social Security, health care, and education. This area could be a serious liability for Rice, but I don't think that there are any presidential contenders without problems.

Mitt Romney? Just try getting the evangelical base to show up on election day for a Mormon. Bill Owens? He can't even keep his own state legislature. Bill Frist? It would be dumb after eight years of a Republican White House to run a dull, Washington insider (especially if Democrats are smart and run someone like Phil Bredesen). Jeb Bush? Watch Republican loyalists break in droves, appalled at the image of a dynastic presidency.

Seriously, who else is there? Condoleeza Rice might not be the best candidate, but she appears to be better than anyone else currently under speculation.

Hat tip: Instapundit

Methodist Blogs Weekly Round-Up

Here's the week in review of the Methodist blogosphere:

Shane Raynor examined abortion advocacy in UMC seminaries, the Affirming movement within the UMC, a recent NCC statement on environmental policy, and evangelizing to people who go to church, but have never been born again.

Donald Sensing has posts on Hillary Clinton on Iraq, the Battle of Fallujah, Iraqi respect for fallen American soldiers, civil discourse in the Islamic world, the future of democracy in Egypt, and a brawl at a recent Greenpeace protest.

Beth Quick wrote about a controversy regarding lesbians on children's television.

David of Con Xian wrote about why he is a United Methodist.

Marvin of The Ivy Bush wrote about reading Reinhold Niebuhr and the old Blood Libel against the Jews surfacing in a children's Bible study.

Valtterri Mujunen wrote about holiness and spiritual wholeness.

John Wilks wrote about crossing denominational lines at a recent youth conference.

Wes Magruder presents a lengthy prayer request list as he and his family preach the Gospel in far-off Cameroon. Just keep scrolling.

Bible Study: Genesis 4 -- Cain Murders Abel

In this chapter of Genesis, we see ugly consequences of sin. Abel harbors hatred, and, as Jesus predicted (Matthew 5:21-22), it led to full-blown murder. Jesus wisely understood that we must do more than control our outward actions -- we must also control our inward thoughts. Once we permit sinful, ugly thoughts to roam about our heads at will, it is only a matter of time before they lead to sinful, ugly actions. There is no place for sin -- no compromise -- for the Christian soul.

These are the study notes that I include on the printout of the Bible study that I prepared on this chapter. You may wish to consider adding some of them to your own.

(v.2) Ominously, Eve’s second son is named Abel – Haabel – which means transitoriness, or brevity. Abel’s life would indeed by brief.

Why did God reject the offering of Cain, while accepting that of Abel?

In this chapter, we have the first recorded sin committed after the fall and became aware of good and evil. God warns Cain about sin (v.7) and tells him that he must control his urges. Cain ignores God and commits the first recorded premeditated sin – murder. It is also the first death in the family of Adam, and perhaps in human history.

This chapter illustrates the progress of sin in man’s life. Cain has a fairly minor sin – envy. He does not attempt to master it, as God commands, and it leads to murderous rage. Thereafter, Cain is a cursed fugitive. Are their small sins in our lives that can lead to our destruction, and that of our families?

The Lord confronts Adam, Eve, and Cain with their sin by asking questions. What might be some of the reasons for this approach?

The lifestyle of Cain’s family is a picture of humanity – technical progress matched by moral decline. How do you see this trend reflected in our own civilization?

What remains glossed over in this chapter are the reactions of Adam and Eve. One of their sons is dead, and the other is a fugitive from justice. They are an older couple, left alone to begin rebuilding their family. Have you seen people whose children have died reconstruct their lives? How does God support and bless them?

The Anti-Semitism of the Left

The Right end of the blogosphere has written extensively on the presence of anti-Semitism in the Left. Certainly there are moral and ideological failings on the Left, but I think that too often, the Right overstates Leftist anti-Semitism.

Leftists often make statements that can be interpreted as anti-Semitic. But on the whole, I do not think that Leftism is inherently anti-Semitic, but rather anti-Israel. Now I won’t indulge in the nutty fantasy that it is okay to say “Kill the Jews!” so as long as you mean the Israeli Jews. Instead, I think that the Left hates Israel not because it is Jewish, but for other reasons.

Here is what Israel is guilty of, in the eyes of the Left:

1. It is a largely White nation surrounded by brown people. Worst of all, it fights against those brown peoples, and wins. To the Left, few crimes can be as terrible as white people fighting brown people (am I calling the far Left racist? Yes). This is why America’s wars are often described by the Left as racist, and Israel’s as well.

2. It is a democracy. The Left despises democracy and idolizes its enemies. Israel is an island of freedom and popular governance in a sea of tyranny, and the Left longs for that island to be washed away.

3. Israel has a capitalist economy, more or less. Capitalism and free enterprise are anathema to the Left and must be destroyed for true freedom (read: slavery) to spread.

-----

So Israel’s crime, essentially, is being a Western nation. I think that it could just as easily be a Christian or atheist nation, religiously, or an Slavic or Germanic nation, ethnically, and still be just as hated by the Left.

Why, then, do we see so much anti-Semitic rhetoric spewing out of the far Left? For two reasons:

1. The Left has taken up the cause of the Arab people as a whole, and the Palestinian people in particular, because they seek to destroy Western nations such as Israel and the United States. In taking up this cause, they have simply imported much of the rhetoric of the Arab world, which is inherently anti-Semitic. Essentially, the Left is parroting its Arab allies.

2. Once someone falls into moonbattery, or idiotarianism of any variety, one has necessarily detached oneself from reality, and is therefore more prone to believe the most ridiculous theories, such as secret Jewish conspiracies.

Now by these statements I certainly do not mean to legitimize anti-Israelism. The Arab world seeks to annihilate Israel and murder its inhabitants, and the far Left is complicit in that vision by supporting the Arab ‘Kill the Jews’ policy. Rather, the Left hates Israel because it is Western, not because it is Jewish.

Bible Study: Honor Thy Father and Mother (as an adult)

I've composed and led a Bible study addressing the Fifth Commandment as an adult. It is obvious how we are to obey this commandment as children (albeit childen may disagree), but less so how to do so when we are fully-grown, functional adults. It is useful to examine the Biblically-established relationship that God wishes us to have with our parents when we are grown up and living on our own.

Scriptures for this passage include Exodus 20:12, Deuteronomy 21:18-21, Proverbs 20:11, Proverbs 17:6, Exodus 13:8, Luke 2:48-49, Ephesians 6:1-4, Colossians 3:20-21, and 1 Timothy 5:4.

Study Questions

1. When you were a child, your parents may or may not have taken you to church and instructed you in the faith. What is the spiritual role of the parent of an adult Christian child?

2. Can you fully honor your mother and father if they are not Christians? How do you defer to them and yet assert your faith?

3. Why did God include honoring ones parents as part of the Ten Commandments? Why is it so important?

4. The law in the Deuteronomy passage is pretty strict. Can or should its principles be applied to modern times?

5. There are no conditions or exemptions attached to honoring ones parents. How could one still honor a parent if he was to seek your participation or silence in something immoral or illegal?

6. Notice that the commandment is to honor one’s parents – not necessary obey them. Apply this concept to the aging parent slipping into senility.

7. How did Jesus – the perfect Son of God – honor his imperfect human parents?

Weekly Humor Round-up

Iowa Hawk looks at the 1950s sci-fi classic movie The Blog.

IMAO is now a group blog, featuring the giants of the Alliance of Free Blogs. Frank J. writes about life on board the newly-launched USS Jimmy Carter. Rightwing Duck is now a blog member, which is good. He's funny, but the formatting on his blog gets funky all the time so that it was simply too hard to read. Here, he rounds up the news for the week.

The Onion reminds us about attorney-client privilidge.

Here's an ergonomic keyboard for pirates. Hat tip: Ace.

Bible Study: Genesis 22

Genesis 22 reveals the tale of how the Lord tested the faith and fidelity of Abraham by ordering him to sacrifice his only son, Isaac. It is a haunting tale of a man faithful unto God, even until the end. It is also a hopeful statement than God will not test our faith beyond our ability to endure. The central theme is addressing how to make the right decisions when God tests you.

This Bible study can fit neatly onto one side of a letter-sized sheet of paper. After placing the text at the top, I suggest that you bold certain phrases in order to emphasize importance, and to facilitate class discussion. These are:

1. "God will himself provide the lamb for the burnt offering..." (v.8), a foretelling of God providing his own son as a sacrifice for our sin debt.

2. "...you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me." (v.12), a compelling statement of Abraham's faith in God.

3. "In your seed, all of the nations of the earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed my voice." (v.18) Catch that? This event was among the most important in human history. Would man have enjoyed the blessings of God if Abraham chickened out?

-----------

The study notes that I use at the bottom of the page are as follows:

Have you ever faced a situation in which being obedient to God meant giving up something precious to you? How did you respond to the challenge?

We might revere Abraham as a great patriarch, but he was also something of an everyman, with his many failings. He struggled with doubts about God all his life. Why had God called him out of prosperity into the barren wilderness? When, if at all, would he have a son with his wife? Doubts about God’s protection of his mission, led him to let foreign kings sleep with his wife, fearing their earthly power more than he trusted in God’s righteous anger. Yet when called upon, Abraham heeded God’s hideous and incomprehensible command. He was obedient, even when asked to give up that which was most important to him. If God did not spare this flawed man from the cross that he must bear, we should not conclude that God will require little of us.

(v.18) In the parallel story, all nations are indeed blessed because Jesus Christ obeyed his Father, and did not shirk from the awful task of paying for the sins of all humanity, though he was utterly blameless.

State of the Union Address Satire

Here's a satirical look at President Bush's recent State of the Union address, written as though it were watched by all former Presidents. A sample:

Grant woke up during Reid's rebuttal. "Who is that little pencil-neck?" he slurred. "Orville Redenbacher?" He appeared to listen intently for a few minutes, then stood up and staggered off, to mistake a decorative plant for a chamber pot.

Teddy lasted a little while longer, but when Reid said, "America is still the land of the open road," he leaped to his feet.

"And Democrats will make you drive it in a goddam hybrid!" This brought a few glasses flung in our direction from the left side of the ballroom, so Teddy rolled up his sleeves and stomped off, to do some big stick work on the Democrats. Reid finished, Nancy Pelosi started talking, and Ronnie's jaw dropped.

Read it all, for it is good.

Hat tip: Imperfect But Forgiven

Bible Study: Zephaniah 3:12-20

Zephaniah 3 contains some of the most beautiful, poetic, and hopeful words in the Bible. My wife and I used verses 14-20 as the Scripture at our wedding, and gave our pastor a rough time coming up with a sermon on them. They speak of the deliverance of God, something I have personally experienced when God swooped into my life to save it from an irrevocable catastrophe.

The language of this text is simply stunning. Every time that I read it, it stops me in my tracks and leaves me shaking in awe at the mind-blowing love that God has for his people.

I wrote this Bible study on one side of a legal-sized sheet of paper, dividing the text into two columns on top, followed by commentary and discussion questions below. The lower portion consists of background on the life and times of Zephaniah, study questions, and then a piece of a sermon by Rev. John Piper:

Background: Zephaniah, a distant relation in the Judean royal family, prophesied during the reign of King Josiah (640-609 B.C.) and was therefore likely a contemporary of Jeremiah, Nahum, and Habakkuk.

Questions:
When has God given you reason to ‘shout in triumph’ and ‘rejoice and exult with all your heart’?

What promises does God assert to his people?

Compare this passage with Luke 15:10. What does God take joy in?

Commentary:
“We must banish from our minds forever any thought that God admits us begrudgingly into his Kingdom, as though Christ found a loophole in the law, did some fancy plea-bargaining and squeaked us by the Judge. No way! God himself, the Judge, put Christ forward as our substitutionary sacrifice, and when we trust him God welcomes us with bells on. He puts a ring on our finger, kills the fatted calf, throws a party, shouts a shout that shakes the ends of creation and leads in the festal dance.
“Someone may ask: Isn't that a bit unseemly and undignified of God to get so excited and shout and carry on this way? But I answer: Remember David's wife, Michal. When David danced with joy before the Lord with all his might, Michal despised this immoderate display of emotion. And the Lord struck her barren for the rest of her life! For he intends to be mightily enjoyed, and one day he will show us how to rejoice with all his might.” – John Piper on Zephaniah 3 (emphasis added)

Privatized Marriage

Reason explores the possibility of privatized marriage.

Like any well-trained Pavlovian libertarian, I start salivating at the mention of the word 'privatize'. But I don't see how we can privatize marriage anymore than we can privatize the courts or the police. As a libertarian, I believe that government has three legitimate purposes: protect against crime, protect against invasion, and enforcing contracts. Free enterprise and free individuals can perform the rest of the functions now occupied by government, and better, too. Marriage, however, is a contract, in the form of vows, enforced by a government. If you commit adultery or abandon your spouse, it is government which will step in and compel you to follow the contract that you have agreed to -- or, more commonly, punish you for breaching that contract by permitting a divorce on terms favorable to the wronged party.

These are functions that a church cannot resolve. If a couple divorces, how can a church divide up the assets or establish custody of minor children from the marriage, except by establishing armed enforcers to carry out the will of a church court? Does anyone want to see that?

Practically speaking, privatized marriage is a cool idea, but unimplementable. Like any other contract, marriage must be enforced by the state.

Hat tip: Joe Carter.

Jonah Goldberg's new column

Jonah Goldberg is one of the most insightful columnists writing today, and certainly among the funniest. Here's his take on the Eason Jordan scandal.

I read every column that Goldberg writes. You should, too.

Book Review: 'Blog' by Hugh Hewitt

Blog: Understanding the Information Reformation That's Changing Your World is one of the first books written about the blogosphere, which is inherently ironic -- something akin to carving a stone tablet about the printing press. Anyway, I had planned to read Hewitt's book for months and it finally fell into my hands yesterday.

I was disappointed. It could have been turned out much better if Hugh Hewitt hadn't made some critical mistakes:

1. Imbalanced. Hewitt mentions the Left end of the blogosphere, but largely in passing. If a person unfamiliar with the blogosphere read this book, he would get the impression that it was a predominantly conservative operation. With Daily Kos resting at the top of the ecosystem along with many other like-minded lefties such as Atrios and Smirking Chimp, to give short-shrift to the presense of the Left in the blogosphere is greatly misleading.

2. Misdirected. Hewitt is clearly marketing this book toward business executives, suggesting that every company should have a blog and that contract bloggers direct their image in the blogosphere. Pardon? Exactly how are executives in, let's say, Target or Shell Oil going to benefit from reading Glenn Reynolds or Charles Johnson? Blogs are wonderful, but Hewitt is asserting that blogs can do everything -- market your image, fix a flat tire, cook you dinner, etc. Well, maybe not the last two. But Hewitt does not provide a rational argument that blogging should be a major theme of activity for every organization.

Blogs are outstanding communication tools for fields that constantly change and are subject to opinion. I can think of three: politics, sports, and popular technology. Your image matters if you want to be competitive in these fields, but I don't think that anyone actually examines what the blogosphere thinks before heading off to Bed, Bath, and Beyond (unless it suffers a public relations catastrophe.

That being said, I agree that every major politician, such as a Senator or a Governor, should employ an in-house blogger to keep a finger on the pulse of the blogosphere. That would enable that politician to react to changes in events more rapidly than depending on the slow MSM.

3. Imbalanced. I'm mentioning this again because the slant is so striking. Like Hewitt, I mostly read blogs on the Right end of the blogosphere, with occasional trips into the Left. But that doesn't excuse ignoring the Left, or imaging that what is passed around in Kos or Atrios doesn't matter -- and that is clearly what Hewitt is implying.

Grade: C+

Bible Study: Jesus Cleanses the Temple

A rich Bible study can be constructed from an examination of the incident in which Jesus drove the moneylenders and merchants from Temple grounds. This event is mentioned in all four Gospels, at Mark 11: 15-18, Matthew 21:12-13, Luke 19: 45-48, and John 2:13-19. Speaking to these wicked men, Jesus made Scripture references to Isaiah 56:7, Jeremiah 7:11, and Psalm 69:9.

I assembled this Bible study on two letter sized pages using 12-pt. font. Copy and paste the text and then place these study notes and questions on the second page:

Chronology
The precise timing of this event in Jesus’ ministry is difficult to place. The Synoptic Gospels have them taking place during the last week of His life, and Mark has it on Monday. The Gospel of John dates it within the first few months of His ministry. It is possible that there may have been two cleansings, or that John placed it early for the theological purpose of showing that the Messiah would bring the judgment of God.

Notes
Mark 11:16: Some scholars speculate that due to the placement of the Temple grounds within Jerusalem, many merchants used it as a shortcut across the city.

Jesus’ reference to Isaiah refers to a chapter in which God tells foreigners and eunuchs that if they serve Him faithfully and with a loving heart, they will be welcomed into His Kingdom. No Gentile who binds himself to the Lord shall be excluded. This was an especially appropriate choice of scripture, because the money changers were located in the Court of the Gentiles, which was as far as Gentiles could approach the Temple to pray.

Notice the authority with which Jesus acts, and how easily it rests upon him: Jesus preaches what the Pharisees consider heresy from the very Temple steps, and the people crowd about him, hanging on his every word. He improvises a whip and drives out many men, with no noted resistance. Wherever Jesus goes, people know that he speaks the truth and acts with righteousness. As Wesley wrote of the merchants: “Though it does not appear that he struck even them; and much less, any of the men. But a terror from God, it is evident, fell upon them.”

Questions
1. To what extent does commercialism invade Christian churches? When is it appropriate and when is it not?

2. Israelites, when reading scripture out loud, would pause when coming to God’s name and remain silent. It was a word that was rarely spoken, out of reverence for his holiness. Many modern Jews spell God as ‘G-d’, deeming the word itself as idolatrous, or limiting to the infiniteness of the Lord. In what practical ways can you be respectful of God that you are not currently practicing?

Cheer up, Liberals!

James Joyner writes about more Democratic self-destruction through arbitrary partisanship and links to Stephen Brainbridge's comments on the Democrats' obsession with opposing Bush, regardless of the issue at hand.

There's a lot of Republican triumphalism going around since Bush won re-election and the GOP picked up seats in the House and Senate in '02 and '04. I'm not impressed. The GOP may be the dominant party for now (and for years to come if Howard Dean has his way), but it has only done so by tilting to the Left. I mean, when Reagan took office in 1980, he pledged to eliminate the Departments of Education and Energy. Reagan held a healthy contempt for government and is known for saying "The government is like a baby's alimentary canal, with a happy appetite at one end and no responsibility at the other." He then proceeded to spend money like water, raising the national debt from $900 billion to $2.7 trillion.

Fast forward to the Bush Administration. The Department of Education? None of the Federal government's business? Not in the eyes of George "Small Government" Bush. Raise its budget to $96 billion. Remember the old joke about liberals' copy of the Bill of Rights missing the Tenth Amendment? Do does Bush's, or at least I never saw anything about prescription drugs in the US Constitution.

My point in all of this is to illustrate that the GOP has only remained competitive by moving into the ideological center. It has not remained conservative at all, except by being more conservative than the Democratic Party in comparison. There's an old line in Libertarian circles that Republicans campaign like Libertarians and govern like Democrats -- meaning that they talk about reduced government and personal freedom/responsibility, but promote big, intrusive government once in office. Well now, Republicans campaign and govern like Democrats. Bush campaigned on raising spending and Federal involvement in education and increasing spending on health care across a range of Federal health care bureaucracies, including doubling the budget for the National Institutes of Health. It's now standard practice for Republicans to brag about how much money they can spend on unconstitutional Federal programs.

So, cheer up, liberals! You're winning! Oh, maybe the Democratic Party isn't winning elections, but the liberal agenda continues to dominate Federal policymaking, and that's what really matters.

Bible Study: Habakkuk 3

I lead two Bible studies at my church and generally write original Bible studies for them. Here is one for the third chapter of the Book of Habakkuk, a seldom-studied minor prophet. My format is typically to place the Biblical text on top, followed by discussion questions and study notes on a single sheet of paper. I have yet to figure out how to upload files onto this blog, so I will simply copy and paste the questions and notes. Just copy the text, paste it onto a single side of legal sized paper, copy and paste these notes, and presto! You have a Bible study -- handy late on a Saturday night when you're leading the Sunday school class. So, to wit:

Background: Habakkuk was a contemporary of Jeremiah and wrote at a time of
increasingly chaotic international politics, as Judah became a battleground for warring major powers. He may have lived to see the destruction of Jerusalem at the hands of the Babylonians.

Theme: Habakkuk does not prophesy, but rather asks God questions. Why does corruption and strife fill Judah? Why doesn’t God do anything about it? And if God
punishes Judah by destroying it with nations more corrupt than itself, is God being fair? To Habakkuk, God’s actions seem increasingly incomprehensible, if not unjust. God responds that although Judah and Babylon will both be destroyed, a faithful Judah shall be resurrected. The key, Habakkuk learns, is to have faith and wait patiently for God’s plan to unfold.

Notes: Habakkuk is mentioned in the apocryphal work Bel and the Dragon, a Jewish satire on idolatry found in some 2nd Century B.C. texts of The Book of Daniel. In it, God instructs Habakkuk to give food to Daniel, who is in the lions’ den. Habakkuk balks at the long journey to Babylon, so an angel picks up Habakkuk by the hair and flies him to Babylon so that the prophet can provide the captive Daniel with stew. The whole amusing tale can be found at:
http://www.hope.edu/academic/religion/bandstra/BIBLE/BEL/BEL1.HTM

Questions:
1. What comfort may we find in Habakkuk’s song in times when God’s plan for victory seems unclear?
2. What does Habakkuk teach us about God’s will and the consequences of sin?
3. Who do you know who had retained joy in the Lord in the midst of terrible suffering?

Too Late?

The ever wise Wretchard reminds us of the foolishness of negotiating with dictators, let alone psychotic ones like Kim Jong Il. North Korea has announced that it has nuclear weapons. Of course, it might be lying. Either way, as Wretchard points out, much blame must fall upon Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter for allowing this horrible development to take place, but significant blame should also fall upon the Bush Administration. After 9/11, it was plainly obvious that the US could not allow rogue states to develop nuclear weapons. Invading Iraq has prevented that nation from continuing their nuclear program, but North Korea should not have been allowed to peacefully continue its atomic activities.

UPDATE: Donald Sensing speculates about Japan going nuclear very quickly in response.