Articles by Jason Lee

Over the weekend, Glenn Beck held a rally on the National Mall at the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. The political left, of course, hated every minute of it. Russell Moore, Dean of the School of Theology and Senior Vice-President for Academic Administration at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, though, was unimpressed for other reasons and posted this very thought-provoking article on the event. It’s so chock full of great quotes that if I tried to sample them, I’d likely end up pasting the entire article, so head over to russellmoore.com and read the entire article yourself. I will, though, at the risk of “ruining” it for you, quote his closer, because it’s a good one:

It’s sad to see so many Christians confusing Mormon politics or American nationalism with the gospel of Jesus Christ. But, don’t get me wrong, I’m not pessimistic. Jesus will build his church, and he will build it on the gospel. He doesn’t need American Christianity to do it. Vibrant, loving, orthodox Christianity will flourish, perhaps among the poor of Haiti or the persecuted of Sudan or the outlawed of China, but it will flourish.

And there will be a new generation, in America and elsewhere, who will be ready for a gospel that is more than just Fox News at prayer.

Feel free to comment below.

A recent conversation I had has gotten me thinking about Jackie Gleason, who died in 1987. Although I was only in my early teens, something he said really struck me as not quite right. As best as I can remember (I can’t find the quote online), he said in one of his last interviews, knowing he was dying of cancer, something to the effect of “I can’t believe in a God who would send me to hell.” Whether or not that was his exact quote, that’s a common sentiment these days, and is just as wrong now as was back then. Read the rest of this entry »

For those of you that love when archeology and Christianity intersect, you’ll love the images found in this CNN piece, Vatican: Oldest known images of apostles Andrew and John found.

Extremely fascinating!

A few days ago on Twitter, I said this: “If you’re living your Christian faith in a way that no one knows you have one, you’re doing it wrong.” I’d like to discuss that in a bit more detail.

In Christian circles, we talk a lot about a “personal faith” in Jesus Christ, or a “personal walk,” etc. While I think those terms are appropriate, I think there’s some confusion about the word “personal.” For many, both in the Church and out of it, “personal” has come to mean “private.” Certainly, there are many outside the church that would be happy if we were treat our faith as private, keeping it to ourselves and “out of their faces.” Inside the church, many Believers are perfectly content to sit on their hands, so to speak, enjoying their faith in silence. Unfortunately for them, that’s not what the Bible tells us.

All through the Gospels, we see clear indications that, while our faith is personal (that is, it’s a faith that each of us must hold, not relying on that of another), it’s meant to public. For example, in Matthew 5, we are told that we are “the light of the world,” that “a city set on a hill can not be hidden,” and to “[l]et your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.” The apostle Peter wrote in I Peter, “But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.”

Most importantly, Jesus’ last words to his disciples before his ascension included what we call The Great Commission. In this short piece of Scripture, we’re told to go, to make, to baptize, to teach. While the nature of you’re involvement is not something someone else can tell you, I think it’s safe to say that if you’re not involved in this great commission in some way, you are, indeed, doing it wrong.

Brian McLaren is “a prominent, controversial voice in the emergent church movement.” Like many in the emergent church movement, though, he has been, at least for me and apparently a few others, difficult to pin down on exactly what he thinks. That has all changed, it seems, with the publication of his book, A New Kind of Christianity. Melinda at Stand to Reason has a nice discussion of the tome, including some counter-arugments at the end. If you’re a fan of McLaren’s, or, like me, wondering what he believes, this should be a very helpful discussion.

As you’ve likely heard by now, a massive earthquake has hit the island of Haiti, killing thousands. While it’s impossible to know for sure, the estimated death toll ranges from 100,000 to 500,000. Half a million people. The size and scope of the devastation is hard to grasp, despite the heart-wrenching pictures and videos filtering out of Haiti. Also making news, though perhaps not quite as widely, is yet another disaster: Pat Robertson. Read the rest of this entry »

Maggie Gallagher, a tireless defender of traditional (or, shall we say, real) marriage, has a post by that title in response to Ben Smith’s assertion that it is. For the impatient, she says it is not for these reasons:

1. Nothing is inevitable.
2. Young people are not as unanimous as most people think.
3. The argument from despair is bait and switch.
4. Progressives are often wrong about the future.
5. Demography could be destiny.
6. Change is inevitable.
7. Newsflash: 18-year-olds can be wrong.
8. New York’s highest court was right.

Read the whole post here for the details.

Over at The Corner, there are a couple of really great posts regarding the twin boondoggles, TARP and The Stimulus. First up is Iain Murray’s post, “Best Summary of TARP I’ve Yet Seen.” Quoting the quote:

After all, the whole premise of the TARP programs was to give extremely large amounts of public money to companies with demonstrated track records of mismanaging money, then assume there was no chance whatsoever the companies’ executives would be more concerned with their own paychecks than with the taxpayer.

The second (and I’m sure there are more), is Stephen Spruiell’s, “Dude, Where’s My Jobs Created or Saved?”

When asked to explain the phenomenon of stimulus-related job creation in non-existent congressional districts, Pound told the New Orleans Times-Picayune, “who knows, man, who really knows.”

With news that the President is considering another stimulus “jobs legislation” pacakge, I’m reminded of a phrase pledges of a certain (now defunct) “social club” in college were required to say after getting paddled with the giant wooden boards they were required to carry, “Thank you, sir! May I have another?”

I recently “retweeted” (if you don’t understand what that is, don’t worry about it right now :) a quote from Tom Coburn in which he said, roughly, “you can’t love through the Federal Government.” In response to that, I was asked what the difference was between giving to a charity, and “giving” (through taxation) to the government. That seems like a fair question, so I’d like to address it a little more fully. Read the rest of this entry »

When I first heard that the President won the Nobel Peace Prize, I was really shocked. My first question, and that of everyone I spoke to this morning, was, “Why?” I was anxious to hear what the professional pundit’s reactions would be. My prediction would be skepticism from the Right, and unbridled glee from the Left. I was only half-right. Other conservatives responded as I did, with confusion and bewilderment.

The reaction from the Left, though, surprised me. While some are all but dancing in the streets, some Leftists — major ones at that — are also confused. Matt Lauer said, “We’re less than a year into the first term of this president and there are no — I’m not trying to be, you know, rude here — no major foreign policy achievements, to date.” He even asked David Gregory, “So, what you’re saying in some ways and, again, not to be rude here or sarcastic, that in some ways he wins this award for not being George W. Bush?” to which Gregory responded, “I think that that is an inescapable conclusion about all of this.” I never thought I’d agree with a post on the The Daily Beast, but I think Peter Beinart got it right:

When it comes down to it, I really don’t care who wins the award. It’s been mostly a farce for years now, with terrorists like Yasser Arafat and warm-mongering junk scientists* like Al Gore winning, I don’t think it’s had any real credibility for a long time. Adam Graham at Race 4 2012 sums it up nicely. What bothers me is how weird it is putting a man who has only talked about peace next to those who labored in slums or languished in prisons. It boggles the mind.

* I say junk science because I don’t buy the sky is falling proclamations of Gore and his ilk. Even if one assumes he’s right, though, how is fighting melting ice caps related to peace? Because people might someday fight over dry land in some sort real life Water World scenario? Absurd.

Douglas Groothuis has written a nice piece for the Christian Research Institue on a topic near and dear to my heart, apologetics.  In his piece, he address the six enemies of apologetic engagement.  It’s a good, quick read, and a nice sanity check for those of who labor (or don’t ;) in this area of The Work.

For the impatient, here’s his list:

1. Indifference
2. Irrationalism
3. Ignorance
4. Cowardice
5. Arrogance and intellectual vanity
6. Superficial techniques or schlock apologetics

Check out the article for the full treatment.

Mike Adams has a great piece on an often controversial topic: what to wear to church: Sunday’s Breast.

One of the more popular religious games to play, for both the sectarian and the secular, is “What kind of politician would Jesus Be?” Would He be a Republican or a Democrat? Sometimes this branches out into more a economic realm with would He be a capitalist or a socialist? This former flavor of the discussion was recently brought op on twitter. Since 140 characters at a time is a tough format in which to have a serious discussion, I thought I’d try to share my thoughts in longer form here. Read the rest of this entry »

I hate to link to a gossip article, but in a recent article in the gossip section of the NY Daily News, Brad Pitt, when asked if he believes in a “higher power” emphatically, says “no.” Here’s the quote from the article:

I’m probably 20 percent atheist and 80 percent agnostic. I don’t think anyone really knows. You’ll either find out or not when you get there, until then there’s no point thinking about it.

His last sentence strikes as a very dangerous stance to take. If he’s right, and there is no God, then he dies, his consciousness ends, and he’s OK. If he’s wrong, though, then he’s going to come face to face with a god of some sort. Or many, for the sake of argument. If this god (or gods) judges on actions, then perhaps he’ll be fine. Maybe this deity doesn’t really care, say, and sends him back in another body, then, again, perhaps he’s OK. But, if we Christians are right, that there is a God, that sin is a real problem, that God will judge and punish sin, that Jesus paid that penalty for us on the cross and that we must place our faith in Him, then Pitt is in real trouble. He won’t be able to point to all the children he and the woman that’s not his wife that he lives adopted. He won’t be able to point to any charity work he’s done. As with everyone else, The Lord will look only at how Pitt stands in relation to Jesus Christ. If there’s no relationship there, then there will be no mercy, and Brad Pitt will be held culpable for his sins.

If all of that’s true, and I’m convinced it is, then the time to worry about is now. Post-modern, wishy-washy thoughts on the existence of God are worthless when you’re standing at the judgment seat, so, Mr. Pitt, with all due respect, now is the perfect time to think about the existence of God.

Frank Turek, of I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist fame, writes in his blog at crossexamined.com that Bob Cornuke, “a Christian Indiana Jones,” claims that the real Ark of the Covenant has been found. I won’t duplicate his post here, so go there and read it for the details. As Turek notes, who knows if this is true, but wouldn’t that be something if it is…

Rush Limbaugh is one of the most polarizing figures in American politics. The Left simply can’t stand him. As soon as his name comes up, so does an inordinate amount of bile. Almost without exception in some circles. It was no surprise then, that Rush’s suggestion to Colin Powell to “go be a Democrat” has caused much consternation, even from some on the right. The GOP, we’re told, must be more inclusive! “Stop pushing out people who disagree with you,” critics tell us. I think that’s horrible advice, and I’m not alone.

Read the rest of this entry »

I submitted this to The Oklahoman, which seems to have passed on it, so here it is
The Oklahoman published my thoughts on The Flaming Lips Flap:

I learned something in the last couple of weeks. I learned that one Oklahoma band likes the Communist party. I also learned that some Oklahomans like bands that like the Communist party, as well as that the State House does not. Most importantly, I learned that when the State House “snubs” a band that likes the Communist party, we have a governor that will swoop in and save them. Sadly, that same governor is sympathetic to those who like to destroy human life in the name of economic growth. Maybe if we wrap those embryos in the Hammer and Sickle our fine governor could be bothered to protect them.

In a recent speech on the floor of the US Senate, Senator Jim DeMint (R, SC) made a great, principle speech on why the GIVE Act (HR 1388). While there are many great, political reasons to oppose this boondoggle, one of the provisions of the bill that bothers me the most is this:

SEC. 1304. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES AND INELIGIBLE ORGANIZATIONS.
Section 125 (42 U.S.C. 12575) is amended to read as follows:
SEC. 125. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES AND INELIGIBLE ORGANIZATIONS.
(a) Prohibited Activities- A participant in an approved national service position under this subtitle may not engage in the following activities:
[SNIP!]
(7) Engaging in religious instruction, conducting worship services, providing instruction as part of a program that includes mandatory religious instruction or worship, constructing or operating facilities devoted to religious instruction or worship, maintaining facilities primarily or inherently devoted to religious instruction or worship, or engaging in any form of religious proselytization.

The way I understand that is this: If, say, your son gets a federally subsidized student loan, he will be compelled to enter a period of public service. However (above and beyond Senator DeMint’s excellent case against government-mandated volunteerism), your son will not be able to choose as his service anything that might spring from his personal faith. Want to help out at your local denomination-sponsored boys’ home? Too bad. If the name of Jesus (or Jehovah, Allah, etc, to be fair) happens to be mentioned by the group you’d like to serve, they are enjoined from receiving any GIVE help. The message, then, is that you can help, but only if you’re humanistic or atheistic in whom you want to help. To force someone to “volunteer” is bad enough¹, but then to deny them their rights of free speech and exercise of religion is beyond the pale.

The government intrusion into private life and the erosion of personal rights continues apace, and the band plays on.

(h/t Michelle Malkin)

¹ The “volunteering” here is, indeed, forced. I can think of no other instance where one gets a loan and is forced to perform some sort of service. I certainly don’t pull weeds for my mortgage company.

This comes from National Review’s Ramesh Ponnuru:

The other day when I turned on the tv, the channel was set, as it often is, to Noggin, the toddler network. There was a cartoon image of our president with an announcer saying something like, “Noggin congratulates President Obama. And now here are some things that he likes.” I flipped the channel before finding out whether abortion and taxes made the list.

Priests for Life have a short, yet pretty compelling video up on their site. Before watching it, though, you should be warned that some may considered it a bit gruesome.

Yesterday, President Obama rescinded President Bush’s ban on federal funding for expanded embryonic stem cell research. Adam Keiper, in a post on The Corner, made some really interesting points regarding the policy shift. One of the most interesting parts of the analysis was this question that Keiper asks of the President:

What counts as a purely “scientific decision”? What issues can we possibly decide on scientific grounds alone — that is, without also inquiring after the kinds of important ethical, political, and economic concerns that President Obama denigrates as mere “ideology”? On what future issues will the president claim that science dictates a policy and trumps all other concerns?

If we’re not going to let ideology play a role in determining what happens in the name of science, why not allow unrestrained animal — or even human — testing? Is vivisection on the table then (no pun intended)? History has clearly shown that restraints must be put in place, or some very cruel, and, yes, evil people will push that laissez faire attitude as far as they can. If Obama envisions a scientific world untethered by any sort of ideology, whence comes morality in some respects, then he’s opening a Pandora’s Box that we will rue for decades.

Stem cells can cure a lot of things, just not the stem cells the President is pushing. Given the success of adult stem cells and the resounding lack of success of embryonic stem cells, the President’s decision is anything but non-ideological. It’s misguided, deluded, and infanticidal.

Peter Jones recently attended the National Pastors’ Conference, sponsored by Zondervan and Intervarsity Press. In a brief report filed at truthXchange, he describes what Michael Horton (whom he mentions in post) so aptly dubs “Christless Christianity¹.” The report is not a good one.

(Hat tip to Brandon Dutcher)

¹ Dr. Horton uses the term “Christless Christianity” to describe that “flavor” of Christianity that likes to talk about being nice to people, etc., but avoids discussion of Christ, who he was, why he came, why we need him, etc. It’s a nice, catchy phrase that embodies the rebirth of the Social Gospel, in which salvation through Christ has been all but completely removed (and in some cases, no longer “all but”) from any teachings and we focus on making people like us. Dr. Horton probably has a better description of his term, but that’s my take on it from what I’ve heard him say. Dr. Horton podcasts regularly at the White Horse Inn if you’d like to hear more.

Here’s a question: Big Oil is bad. Big Peanut is bad, apparently. Big Pharmaceutical is bad. Big Bank is bad. Why then, is Big Government good?

It’s naive to say that by being nice to each other we can avoid issues of sin. — Bishop Martyn Minns of the Anglican Church of North America

Just a quick technical update. Today I set up a twitter account for our blog here. At the very least, when a blog entry is posted, a link will be tweeted. There’s an outside chance we’ll post some manual tweets. To follow us, go here. That is all.

Thanks to Ross Douthat for this link:

The Internet Monk, which, I have to confess, I just heard of today so I don’t know much about him, has a pretty good analysis of the two prayers given at today’s inaugural. My favorite quote is this:

You can’t talk reasonably and genuinely about a God of many understandings. Not with actual believers in Jesus, Yahweh, Allah and Buddah around. You might as well pray to the cat. (It probably would be better to pray to the cat.) But you can talk about the God who created, the God who reigns and the God we know as we know and believe Jesus.

President-elect Barack Obama ignited a firestorm of controversy with some by allowing Rick Warren to voice a prayer during his inauguration. More controversial, I think, though certainly less-covered, is a similar selection of homosexual Episcopal priest Gene Robinson. Matt Barber, director of cultural affairs with Liberty Counsel and associate dean with Liberty University School of Law, discusses this selection in his short but poignant column, “Obama betrays Christian voters.” He makes a really good point, with some really good zingers (“After that comment, I wonder if he heard a rooster crow.”). It’s a short piece, so I’d encourage you to read it, and by all means, pray for our next president, and pray for Gene Robinson.

In a not quite accurately titled article (I would expect the top pro-abortion moment to be Obama’s election ; ), American Life League has an interesting, if not depressing, run down of some the more appalling quotes from pro-abortion advocates in 2008. You can see the whole list here, but I’d like to point one out in particular:

Comedian Doug Stanhope

These are not empty words. I, Doug Stanhope, am offering you, Bristol Palin, the sum of $25,000 so that you can abort your child and move out of that draconian home. I have also set up a PayPal link so that others around the world can help increase this amount to ease the burden of starting out on your own at such an early age.

While it’s a pretty despicable comment, what I find interesting is how he phrased things: “..abort your unborn child…” In making the statement, he seems to be implicitly accepting the pro-life stance that the unborn is indeed a human child, but still offers to pay to kill it. Pretty chilling.

Sarah Palin is taking some heat for doing a press interview in front of some turkeys being bled out on a turkey farm.  It seems some in the media find that offensive.  One quick-witted NRO reader had this to say,

She should tell the media that she apologizes and she’ll do her next interview inside an abortion clinic.

Zing!

Over at Public Discourse: Ethics, Law, and the Common Good, Maggie Gallagher, President of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, and President of the National Organization for Marriage, has an excellent article titled, Marriage Matters: For Kids, for Parents, and for Religious Liberty.  If you are one of the ones wondering what the fuss is all about, this article should give you a very nice introduction to the issue, which goes well beyond “fairness.”  Some highlights:

• Marriage between a man and a woman is rooted in our nature–”in biology, not bigotry”–sex between men and women makes babies, society needs babies, and babies need a father as well as a mother. But the proponents of same-sex marriage want the government to declare in law that there is no difference between same-sex and opposite-sex unions, and anyone who thinks otherwise is promoting bigotry. This will have major ramifications for those who believe in marriage in the traditional sense–especially religious citizens and organizations.
• Equality, especially racial equality, trumps religious liberty in our constitutional scheme. Indeed just a few weeks after declaring that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right (because sexual orientation is a protected class just like race), the California Supreme Court explicitly affirmed that the government has the right and obligation to punish a Christian doctor who refused to perform the insemination procedure on a lesbian couple. Treating two women in a union any differently than a husband and wife is now the same as discriminating on the basis of race under California law–and it is a well-established principle of law that religious beliefs do not give an individual or an institution a right to violate norms of racial equality.
• Everyone acknowledged that a union of a black man to a white woman could be a marriage–which is why these unions had to be banned to maintain a racial classification system in the law. Calling same-sex unions ”marriages,” by contrast, requires the law to redefine the very meaning of the word, and to strip marriage as a public, legal status of its ancient, honorable, and distinctive relationship to responsible procreation.

You should read the whole article to see how this attempt at redefining marriage will affect you, your family and your church.  It won’t be pretty.

Two years after a failed attempt to protect the lives of pre-born babies in South Dakota, pro-life advocates in the state are trying again, this time fixing some of the wording that caused the bill to fail the first time.  As can be expected, pro-abortion advocates are vowing a fight.  Those on both sides of the issue are watching this measure closely, as its passage will likely send the question to the Supreme Court.  If Obama wins, though, the chances that it would be upheld are slim as Obama believes that “Roe was decided correctly.”  Get the full story here, and pray.

Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and Director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University, has the story.

I know I keep beating this Obama-and-abortion drum, but I think this is an extremely important issue to consider as November approaches. Andrew McCarthy, National Review’s legal-affairs editor, has a very sobering look at Obama’s abortion radicalism in an articled titled “Why Obama Really Voted For Infanticide.” Here’s a sampling:

• There wasn’t any question about what was happening. The abortions were going wrong. The babies weren’t cooperating. They wouldn’t die as planned. Or, as Illinois state senator Barack Obama so touchingly put it, there was “movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just coming out limp and dead.”

• No. In Obama’s hardball, hard-Left world, these least become “that fetus, or child — however you want to describe it.”

  Most of us, of course, opt for “child,” particularly when the “it” is born and living and breathing and in need of our help. Particularly when the “it” is clinging not to guns or religion but to life.

• When it got down to brass tacks, Barack Obama argued that protecting abortion doctors from legal liability was more important than protecting living infants from death.

Read the whole article for yourself. It’s quite a chilling and damning expose, I think, of the Senator’s position. If there’s ever an issue over which to be a one issue voter, this is it.

In discussing an article written By Jonathan Martin, “Boston Kathy” made this comment:

The Obama camp is extremist on the issue of abortion. They miss the point that while many are Pro-Choice…no one is Pro-Abortion. That they would try to politicize and victim of rape is disgusting.

The first half is correct: the Obama camp is extremist (and even that word is too kind) on the abortion issue. The second half is wrong, though. There are lots of people who are not pro-choice, but who are, rather, pro-abortion. I discussed this in an earlier post, for example (A New Media Low: Targeting Trig). Perhaps the biggest pro-abortion group (in every sense of the word), is Planned Parenthood, sarcasticly but aptly refered to as Planned Barrenhood. Planned Parenthood, ostensibly “the nation’s leading sexual and reproductive health care advocate and provider,” is really more about Profit than Parenthood, as the former is usually the only thing that comes of the organization. Don’t believe me? Look here, here, here here and here, and that’s just for starters.

Note the dollar figures. In 2007, Planned Parenthood earned over $1 billion in revenues. That’s a “b.” In 2006, they recorded a profit of $112 million, with an astounding $336 million of that coming from tax payer funds.  That’s our money they’re using to turn a profit. Some people, like the authors mentioned above, are pro-abortion in at least some cases because the “should-be” aborted would be a burden.  Others, like Planned Parenthood, are pro-abortion because they’re making a killing.  In every sense of the word.

As a technology junky, Google has long fascinated me.  When they burst on the scene, they had amazing technology and spunk, and that facet continues today.  One of the things that has set them apart corporately is their motto “Do no evil” (see item #6).  Unfortunately for pro-lifers, that philosophy is distorted or ignored to exclude us when it comes to advertising.  While denying the chance to buy targeted advertising to pro-life groups, Google has made a regular practice of selling ads to pro-abortion groups.  Thanks to the yeoman’s effort by the Christian Institute, a cross-denominational pressure group, Google has had to reverse its discriminatory policy and allow the pro-life ads.  You can read more about it here.

As you’ve likely heard by now, John McCain has chosen a running mate, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.  You’ve also likely heard that she has several children, the youngest of which, Trig Palin, has Down’s Syndrome.  Have you heard, though, the new depths to which the main stream media (MSM) have gone to tear down Gov. Palin?  James Taranto has, and he’s not happy:

Fowler uses Palin’s motherhood to disparage her accomplishments, an obvious betrayal of the principle of women’s equality. And although proponents of permissive abortion laws nearly always claim to support not abortion but “a woman’s right to choose,” here we have three of them rebuking Palin for choosing not to abort her baby.

So a woman has the right to choose, as long as she chooses to abort her baby.  Their true colors finally shine.

Embryonic Stem Cell Research has long been one of my hot button issues. Despite all the promises its supporters that the cures are worth the ethical implications, they’ve never been able to produce any credible evidence that this approach is the best way to go. In fact, research has shown that non-embryonic stem cell sources actually deliver on the promise of their child-destroying variant, having delivered over 70+ cures currently in testing, with more being discovered all the time. This dilemma-free source for stem cells works by “reprogramming” somatic, or body, cells (e.g., adult skin cells) to act like embryonic stem cells. As amazing (and effective) as the discovery of the technique was, researchers may have found a way to achieve the same goals without even requiring stem cells at all!

A team at Harvard has succeeded in directly reprogramming one type of adult cell into another, without even the need for the intermediary step of reprogramming to a pseudo-embryonic state and only then differentiating to a new developed cell type. In other words, not only do they not need embryos, they don’t even need stem cells at all; they can just turn one type of cell into another directly. What’s more, they’ve done this inside a living animal (a mouse), and not just in a laboratory dish.

Yuval Levin has more on this amazing discovery.  Could this signal the end of embryo-destroying research and the accompanying, non-sensical cry for government funding?  We can only hope.

Just a quick technical note for the curious: I just noticed this morning that comments were disabled, a mistake I have rectified. The blame for the disabled comments is probably mine, as I’m pretty sure I unchecked one too many boxes during our migration from wordpress.com. Sorry about that.

Mosab Hassan Yousef is an Arab, and his father is one the most influential leaders in Hamas, yet Mosab Hassan Yousef has become a Believer.  All new Believers need the prayers of their brothers and sisters in Christ as they grow, but this man needs them more than most.  Read more about his remarkable embrace of the Christian faith here.

Just last week, I heard a contrast made between being a “conservative” and a “progressive” (by the way, that’s the new term for liberal). A “conservative” was defined as someone who looks back, who holds on to things of the past, whereas a progressive is someone who looks forward to the future, ready to embrace new ideas, even new truths. Of course, carefully defining the words like this is a thinly veiled attempt in pejorative monikers by those on the left. That being said, there is some truth in the definitions. Read the rest of this entry »

If you follow Christian fiction at all, you’ve likely heard of The Shack, a novel by Oregon salesman William P. Young.  You might even have seen it on the shelf of a local Christian bookstore, as I did just last week.  The novel, which was written by Young to help explain all of the perceived contradictions between the existence of a good God and all the evil in the world, is a run away best seller.

While many view it as simply a work of fiction, since it discusses the very nature of God (specifically, the Trinity), it deserves a very careful and thoughtful analysis.  Is it a wonderful piece of writing, as Eugene Peterson and Michael W. Smith think it is, or is it a the heresy-ridden tome as Albert Mohler claims?  In this fairly short piece, Tim Challies, author of “The Discipline of Spiritual Discernment,” analyzes The Shack to see where the truth lies.

If you’ve read this book or know someone who has, you owe it to yourself to see what the fuss is about, as ideas have consequences, and truth matters.

Over at National Review, Bill Bennett and Seth Leibsohn have published a list of their top ten concerns regarding the potential of an Obama presidency.  The list is pretty interesting, but I found it distressing a bit that life was listed at number 9, and then relatively briefly:

9. Barack Obama is to the left of Hillary Clinton and NARAL on the issue of life. As a state senator in Illinois, Barack Obama voted against the Induced Infant Liability Act, a law that would have protected babies if they survived an attempted abortion and were delivered alive. When a similar bill was proposed in the United States Senate, it passed unanimously and even the National Abortion Rights Action League issued a statement saying they did not oppose the law.

That quibble aside, it’s a good read for anyone thinking of voting for Barack Obama.

Fox News is one of several news outlets carrying an amazing story.  Fox’s story is titled “Stem Cell Treatment Credited for Helping Boy, 2, Regain His Sight.”  It’s a heart warming story about a 2 year old boy who was born with a rare disease that guaranteed to rob him of his sight.  His parents, though, paid $43K to fly to China for a medical procedure using stem cells that they hoped would fix his sight, and that it did.  As a father of two boys, of course, I was thrilled to see such a happy outcome, but the pro-lifer in me wanted to know what kind of stem cells were used, so I started digging.

The first link didn’t say, so clicked the link at the end of the story to read the original article written by the Fox affiliate in Orlando.  This article, too, lacked the all important detail for which I was searching, so I turned to Google News.  A search for the boy’s name (Tre Burgos) turned up four articles, some of which had questionable relevance.  The search did, though, turn up an article that brought an end to my short search.

The New Smyrna Beach Observer had an article on the boys plight,  but with much more detail, including the object of my quest.  Written prior to the Fox News articles above, the NSB Observer reports (emphasis added):

On Feb. 21, of 2008, Elioe [Tre's real name] will travel with his mother and father, to Bieke Biotech Treatment Center in Hangzhou, China and undergo 4-6 umbilical stem cell injections, which consist of 10-15 million cells per injection.

The miracle treatment, then, was not embryonic stem cells, but umbilical, or “adult” stem cells.  Now, you can call me paranoid if you want, but why is that the Fox News story doesn’t mention what kind of stem cell was used?  Could it be that by trumpeting the success of this stem cell treatment (and omitting the type of stem cells involved), someone hopes to sway the popular opinion with regard to any type of stem cell treatments (namely embryonic), thus removing the political and emotional barriers to emryo-destructive research in the future?  Nah, surely not.

On Stand To Reason’s blog, they have an entry up title, “The Irrelevance of Relevance.”  It’s an interesting discussion of the modern church’s appeal to be “relevant” (which I think means that churches want to show they’re hip, wit’ it, cool, etc.) and how those efforts may actually be contributing to the declining church numbers:

A very interesting and sobering thought, especially after just hearing about the possibility of a new service at my church becoming even “edgier” and more like a “TV church” (which is a topic for another day).

It appears that the “art” project mentioned yesterday was just a hoax:

The story about Aliza Shvarts’ project, published Thursday in the Yale Daily News, swept across blogs and media outlets — including the Drudge Report, Fox News and The Washington Post — before Yale issued a statement saying it investigated and found it all to be a hoax that was Shvarts’ idea of elaborate “performance art.”

All sides seem to agree, though, that it was in very poor taste.  I’ve never been happier to report that I was wrong. :)

Grace is the keystone of the Christian faith. For reasons we can’t fully understand, God condescended to send his Son to die in our place, paying a price for sin we never could. For many, it seems (myself included, often times), the role of grace is limited to the salvation experience: we get a gift we don’t deserve and that’s that. This misunderstanding is often seen in our response to sin. After committing a “big one,” we are often crippled by guilt, anguish, depression, despair, etc. “How can God use me now?!” the shamed and burdened offender might wail. What we seem to forget in times like these is that we didn’t do anything to earn our salvation, and we can’t do anything to lose it. It is the Lord who saves, and it is Lord who sustains.

Quit wallowing in your failure
And get yourself off your mind
God uses broken vessels
They’re His favorite kind

In perhaps the most shocking display of the depths to which “art” will go, Yale senior art major Aliza Shvarts, with her new multiple-abortion exhibit, hopes to create a “conversation and debate on the relationship between art and the human body:”

Beginning next Tuesday, Shvarts will be displaying her senior art project, a documentation of a nine-month process during which she artificially inseminated herself “as often as possible” while periodically taking abortifacient drugs to induce miscarriages. Her exhibition will feature video recordings of these forced miscarriages as well as preserved collections of the blood from the process.

You can read more about this disgusting display of depravity here.

UPDATE: Steve Wagner of Stand to Reason has a nice round up of the current state of this ghastly affair.

In a recent resolution passed by the Student Government Association of Oklahoma Baptist University, the SGA inserted itself into a volatile conversation, that concerning recent comments made by State Representative Sally Kern concerning homosexuality and Islam. Setting aside the ramifications of said issues with regard to national security and stability — a debate, perhaps, for another entry — as well as the appropriateness of a “legislative” body addressing issues outside its charter, I would like to address some very disturbing assertions by the SGA. Read the rest of this entry »

For many Americans, divorce is the easy way out. If your marriage is hard, just end it and move on. Often missed in the shuffle of pushing the Easy Button is the long term tolls divorce takes on both partners, and especially on any kids that may be involved. While these issues are well known, if not often ignored, a recent study shows an interesting data point: an immense financial burden on the public. A recent report shows that divorce and out-of-wedlock child birth has cost the American taxpayers $112B. That’s with billion with a “B”. Perhaps this will drive lawmakers to take marriage (and Dan Quayle) more seriously. Family deterioration is something they like to give lip service to, but no real action, but massive amounts of money they can no longer spend on pointless bridges and monuments usually gets their attention.

I’m a big fan of apologetics.  I listen to the likes of William Lane Craig, Hank Hanegraaf and Greg Koukl almost daily.  Most people, though, hear “apologetics” and immediately tune out, thinking that it’s the domain of academics and people who like to argue.  The Bible, though, has a different view.  In I Peter 3:15, we are told to “sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence.”  That leaves the serious Bible student, then, needing a place to get started.

Stand to Reason, the apologetics training organization founded by Greg Koukl, just announced the availability of one of their most popular resources, Tactics in Defending the Faith, as bite-sized chunks in 14 weekly emails.  When you sign up, you simply tell them when you want to start receiving the emails, and just sit back and wait.  Getting started in your effort to “contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints” could not be easier, or cheaper.  Sign up today!

Last night, as I drove back from my parents’ house after our Easter celebration, I had a lot of time to think, as any late night drive with two young children is wont to offer. As we drove, we passed by a billboard, and it got me to thinking about a funny story (in an oh-my-goodness sort of way) a couple of friends of ours once told my wife and me. It had to with P.F. Chang’s, their son, and some unexpectedly hot noodles. Read the rest of this entry »