By Jon Christian Ryter
March 16, 2011
NewsWithViews.com
If you want to increase the odds of not having a stroke or missing that severe nervous tension headache that increasingly plagues you because of the stress at work, or trying to figure out how to make your paycheck stretch from one payday to the next, drink coffee. Not decaf. High octane, fully caffeinated coffee.
For years the medical community has known the curative affect of caffeine, but because the social progressive do-gooders in our society today have decided that caffeine is bad for you, they have lobbied against caffeine. They also lobbied in favor of vegetable shortening against—ugh—lard; and against butter in favor of the high cholesterol, heart attack-causing margarine. And, of course, favoring vegan diets that exclude red meat when the medical evidence shows that food cooked in good old-fashioned lard is better for you than vegetable shortening. And, fresh churned butter is healthier than margarine. Or that calorie-rich cane sugar or high fructose corn syrup is far better for you than aspartame sweeteners since aspartic acid is a neuexicter (that ultimately cause problems with the human central nervous system). Why would health officials or the Food & Drug Administration [FDA] actively promote synthetic food substances over natural food substances? Two reasons. First, the social progressives live in a "Chicken Little Society" in which the sky is going to fall and if society is not prepared for the day it happens, bad things will happen. So, they allow bad things to happen as they prepare for bad things to happen. Second, and most important, they do it because it is profitable to do it. Very, very profitable. When the princes of industry create new products, they need to upset the market place to quickly gain market share and displace the current industry leader. The best way is to have the government declare the old product leader to be, if not dangerous, then at least not healthy.
For example, in 1901 a German chemist named Wilhelm Normann discovered the process of hydrogenating vegetable fats by chemically creating a solidifying agent that later became known as trans fats (which we know today as something that clogs up our arteries). Normann patented his process in 1903. Chemist Edwin Kayser acquired Normann's patent to make bar soap. Proctor & Gamble hired Kayser, who use Normann's patent to solidify vegetable oil into a solid and, in the process, created Crisco™ Shortening in 1911. Crisco™ was first sold through J.M. Smucker, the jam maker (which was owned by Proctor & Gamble). Using the financial muscle Proctor & Gamble possesses, their lobbyists convinced the growing federal bureaucracy in the 1930s and 1940s that protein-rich animal-based lard was not as healthy as vegetable-based shortening.
When the New Deal Congress enacted the Federal Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act in 1938, Franklin D. Roosevelt's bureaucracy began promoting "safe foods" when in fact they were promoting the products manufactured by political donors and campaign activists not only for Roosevelt but members of the New Deal Congress. As Proctor & Gamble's marketing department added food coloring and "butter flavoring" to Crisco™ and created margarine, the dairy industry, which still had more political clout, had legislation created which required margarine to be sold in its "shortening" state—white. Margarine was sold in a sealed plastic bag. Contained in the bag was a yellow food coloring bubble. The consumer had to break the bubble and squeeze the bag until the food coloring was evenly mixed throughout the packet, and the white, flavored shortening became yellow "vegetable butter." If you are old enough, you remember squeezing the margarine bag.
As the agri-industry lobbied Congress and the FDA, suddenly we were told that butter was not good for us. Margarine was. Not true. Both have the same amount of calories. Butter is slightly higher in saturated fats at 8 grams compared to 5 grams. But, according to a 1994 Harvard Medical Study, eating margarine increases the likelihood of heart disease in women by 53% over eating the same amount of butter. Margarine is very high in trans fatty acids, and triples the risk for coronary heart disease. The trans fats in margarine decrease HDL cholesterol (the good cholesterol) and increases LDL (bad cholesterol).
Beginning in 2005, the US Dept. of Agriculture began to warn consumers of the dangers of trans fats, and the FDA now requires food manufacturers to list trans fat content on their nutrition facts labels. Yet, the American Medical Association persisted in telling people that switching from butter to margarine can greatly reduce blood cholesterol levels when the reality is, while the overall cholesterol count may lower, what actually lowers is the good cholesterol. The bad cholesterol usually remains static, or increases, creating a larger gap between the good and bad cholesterol that increases the risk of heart attack or stroke.
This battle has raged between those who want to control our lives because the princes of industry and barons of business need to control us in order to make their job easier by assuring that the products they manufacture for our consumption will be consumed. Those who pay, play. Oh, by the way, remember this about margarine—it's one molecule away from being plastic.
Anyway, back to coffee. Whew...after that, I need cup. Ah, yes...got that coffee. My own blend of two Columbians and one French roast. Now, where were we? Oh, yes. Coffee. And, of course, the milk or cream that goes in it. (No, I drink it black, but I needed to talk about milk for a minute.) Today we are told we need to drink decaf coffee. It's better for us. We are also told we should drink 1% to 2% milk. It's better for us. Right? No. Ask yourself a question. Pasteurized whole milk is 3.25% milkfat (farm bought whole milk is generally 4.0% to 4.5% milkfat). When you buy 1% to 2% milk, what happens to the milkfat that is extracted? It becomes whipping cream or butter. In other words, it becomes the most expensive milk product "products." An increased demand for butter and heavy cream means reducing the amount of milkfat in the milk we drink. The less milk fat in the glass of milk we drink, the more that glass of milk tastes like milky water. Thus, the need to "sell" the public on the health merits of low fat milk. Otherwise there is no "win-win" for the dairy companies who end up trading a "milk dollar" for a "cream dollar" or a "butter dollar"—or both. You get to keep both dollars if your marketing people and lobbyists convince the consumers that 1% or 2% milk is better for you than whole milk.
So, once again, why is caffeine-free coffee better for us? It isn't. Caffeine is an element that goes into many of the food products and pharmaceutical products we use today. And, you have to get the caffeine from somewhere, or you have to synthesize it in the laboratory. The full octane cola soft drinks you consume contain as much caffeine as a cup of full octane coffee but probably not as much caffeine that is found in a cup of black tea. (Tea actually contains more caffeine than coffee.) Caffeine, a bitter white crystalline alkaloid, was first isolated in coffee in 1820. Caffeine is found not only in coffee beans and tea leaves, but in hola nuts, in guarana berries, yaupon holly and in yerba mate. Even if they don't drink coffee, 90% of all adults consume some form of caffeine daily.
Which was one of the reasons that Swedish researcher Susanna Larsson of the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm spent 10 years following 34,670 women, ages 49-83 with annual questionaires. In 2008, after finding evidence that women who drank more than one cup of coffee per day had a 22% to 25% less risk of suffering from a stroke, Larrson conducted a similar, short term study, on men, who drank coffee or tea, with similar results.
Larsson's findings join a growing body of research in which coffee and/or caffeine appears to contain a variety of hidden health perks from a reduced risk of prostate and/or colon cancer in men to reduced risks of heart attacks and strokes in both men and women. Coffee, one of the most popular drinks in the world is rich in antioxidants that improve heart health. In addition, studies have also shown that caffeine helps prevent cognitive decline and can boost vision health as well as prevent heart attacks and strokes.
The Swedish study parallels the findings in a 2009 study conducted in the United States. In that study, women who drank four or more cups of coffee daily were found to have a 20% less risk of stroke compared to women who drank one or less cups of coffee per day.
Full article:
http://www.newswithviews.com/Ryter/jon340.htm
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Zondervan to Discontinue Original NIV and replace it with TNIV
Changes Called "Unacceptable" by Conservatives...
Having failed to successfully promote an alleged "gender inclusive" version of the Bible from 2005 to 2009, publishing giant, Zondervan, has elected to try again. This time, however, instead of publishing an edited version of the NIV in addition to the standard 1984 edition, Zondervan has elected to simply kill the original NIV and call what's coming out this month an "update." If some of the problems inherent in the original NIV weren't troubling enough, Zondervan editors and management appear bent on revising it to fit the tastes of the modern world, i.e., inclusion and feminism. As they do, they also appear to be content with alienating at least a portion of their base in the process.
In reality, the "updated" NIV appears to be little more than a rehash of the aforementioned 2005 gender neutral mishap known as Today's New International Version (TNIV). According to a March 14, 2011, article in The Christian Post, statistics compiled by Christian web techies Robert Slowley and John Dryer show that "31 percent of the TNIV is retained in the updated NIV." The Christian Post story also reported that The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, one of the leading critics of the short-lived TNIV, have released a statement saying it could not recommend the new NIV Bible because of "over 3,600 gender-related problems" that were previously described in its critique of the TNIV.
The Christian Post also articulated the ongoing tug-of-war between conservatives and liberals in saying, "In other initial reviews, some evangelicals praised the clarity of the new edition while others were still unconvinced that the gender-related problems of the TNIV were resolved." "Clarity of the new edition"? What? This make my head spin! Who are these "evangelicals" who would praise "clarity" over accuracy? Brian McLaren, Rob Bell, Marcus Borg, Jim Wallis, or the evolution defenders at Bio Logos? Has evangelicalism completely lost its collective mind? Is the only important criteria to be that phrases and words need to sound modern and are well used and popular today? This actually appears to be all about marketing and very little about the integrity of the Word of God. The head of the translation committee, Doulass Moo, defends the new version as "accurate" but admits that the committee did some research to see what words evangelical Christians - who are most likely to buy the new NIV - prefer. I wonder, will the prospective ad campaign read, "Heretics and hacks agree, the 'updated' NIV is bound to use words we can all agree on!" Sounds like an Emergent Church "conversation," where everybody gets a say and no conclusion is ever reached.
It would appear that, having watched the times change - and the standards drop - Zondervan's brass must believe that now, after sufficient conditioning, the Church is finally ready for the next phase in a gender inclusive Bible. After all, the general lack of discernment in our day surely means that the "updated" NIV will be a cash cow for Rupert Murdoch's company. In fact, the reaction to Zondervan's effective promotion of the new inclusive NIV has induced them to print 1.9 million copies of it, up 500,000 from the original projections for the first printing.
I suspect that, having tracked the downward spiral of the Church's apparent attitude towards the Bible over the last decade, far fewer will rise up and oppose the kind of bastardization that was evident with the TNIV edition in 2005. Thanks to the rise of "Seeker Friendly" and "Purpose Driven" movements, the craziness of Todd Bentley, and the popularity of happy-go-lucky, biblically bankrupt baloney that Joel Osteen and others serve up, selling a further corrupted NIV to the unsuspecting should be a snap.
Now, with the rise of the Emergent crowd, the growth of theological liberalism, and the shocking lack of discernment displayed by those buying The Message as an authentic Bible and The Shack as a "Christian" book serve to clearly illustrate the sad situation we find ourselves in today. Plus, the driving force who opposed the TNIV in 2005 - Dr. James Dobson - is now nearly retired. Who will organize the resistance? Who will lead the fight for truth?
Along with the "updated" NIV itself, Zondervan is about to release over 200 books and products utilizing the new NIV with nearly 200 more slated for release next fall. I suggest that pastors, teachers, and authors alike should carefully select just what they'll refer to as "the Word of God" and what they quote as "Scripture." Their reputation and authority will be scrutinized by some in the know if they insist on promoting specious versions of the Bible that do disservice, even damage, to the original texts. It is easy to bring into question the theological integrity of an author or speaker when they carelessly - or with great intent - set out to manipulate a version (or versions) of the Bible to imply what they desire it to say instead of being faithful to the original context. (1)
I know those who have been ardently opposed to the original NIV are surely thinking, "I told you so." Considering these developments, I believe they do have even more reason to shake their heads. As for me, I'm sticking with the time-tested King James Version and the reliable manuscripts from which it was derived. I preach from, write with, and study the KJV but, before you think I'm just pontificating as a "King James Only" advocate, if I have any question about anything I see in any text claiming to be God's Word, I immediately check it out against the original languages - King James Version included. Those who really care about truth might think of downloading a good Greek and Hebrew concordance to help you do likewise. Using one of these tools doesn't take a college degree and isn't over anyone's head. However, it will assist you immeasurably in deciphering the real meat found in the texts. These days I constantly find myself exploring new vistas in the Bible - all because of word searches conducted with the Strong's Concordance on my cell phone, or the one on my lap top, or even with the book version sitting in my office - as archaic as using an actual book might sound to some.
There will likely be some positive pieces promoting what Zondervan has done in updating the NIV. However, from what I have seen of this new version myself, I believe there will be many very scholarly reviews which will detail the failings of it, as well. Like many of you, I'll be watching and reading those more studious future analyses when they appear. However, as a lover of God's Word and one of many called to defend it unreservedly, let these few thoughts serve as a warning that, from many quarters and in many ways, the precious Word of God remains a primary object of the devil's ire. Nothing has changed from the very beginning, when the serpent questioned Eve "Hath God said?" In our world today, right has become wrong and so many sources we once thought we could trust have become, as Peter proclaims, "wells without water" (II Peter 2:17). This is surely the case with some denominations, some seminaries, and, yes, some Christian publishers. This is why I suggest that dedicated Christians investigate for themselves and then stand up in the spirit of the Bereans (Acts 17) and reject Zondervan's further clouding of God's truth through the "updated" NIV.
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
- 2 Timothy 2:15
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. Abstain from all appearance of evil.
- 1 Thess 5:21-22
Footnotes:
1. Rick Warren's The Purpose Driven Life illustrates a manipulative and now popular technique that I have deemed "scripture fishing." In his monumental best-seller, Warren trolls across 15 different versions of the Bible in a blatant effort to find passages and specific wording to support his theology. The widespread acceptance of this practice by parishioners and pastors alike signals an alarmingly low regard for the importance of both the content and context of the Bible. For more on this see: Examining the Purpose Driven Philosophy
More information:
http://archive.constantcontact.com/fs018/1102797716062/archive/1104842697260.html
http://www.ericbarger.com/tasstore/info.pgs/pdl.philosophy.info.htm
Having failed to successfully promote an alleged "gender inclusive" version of the Bible from 2005 to 2009, publishing giant, Zondervan, has elected to try again. This time, however, instead of publishing an edited version of the NIV in addition to the standard 1984 edition, Zondervan has elected to simply kill the original NIV and call what's coming out this month an "update." If some of the problems inherent in the original NIV weren't troubling enough, Zondervan editors and management appear bent on revising it to fit the tastes of the modern world, i.e., inclusion and feminism. As they do, they also appear to be content with alienating at least a portion of their base in the process.
In reality, the "updated" NIV appears to be little more than a rehash of the aforementioned 2005 gender neutral mishap known as Today's New International Version (TNIV). According to a March 14, 2011, article in The Christian Post, statistics compiled by Christian web techies Robert Slowley and John Dryer show that "31 percent of the TNIV is retained in the updated NIV." The Christian Post story also reported that The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, one of the leading critics of the short-lived TNIV, have released a statement saying it could not recommend the new NIV Bible because of "over 3,600 gender-related problems" that were previously described in its critique of the TNIV.
The Christian Post also articulated the ongoing tug-of-war between conservatives and liberals in saying, "In other initial reviews, some evangelicals praised the clarity of the new edition while others were still unconvinced that the gender-related problems of the TNIV were resolved." "Clarity of the new edition"? What? This make my head spin! Who are these "evangelicals" who would praise "clarity" over accuracy? Brian McLaren, Rob Bell, Marcus Borg, Jim Wallis, or the evolution defenders at Bio Logos? Has evangelicalism completely lost its collective mind? Is the only important criteria to be that phrases and words need to sound modern and are well used and popular today? This actually appears to be all about marketing and very little about the integrity of the Word of God. The head of the translation committee, Doulass Moo, defends the new version as "accurate" but admits that the committee did some research to see what words evangelical Christians - who are most likely to buy the new NIV - prefer. I wonder, will the prospective ad campaign read, "Heretics and hacks agree, the 'updated' NIV is bound to use words we can all agree on!" Sounds like an Emergent Church "conversation," where everybody gets a say and no conclusion is ever reached.
It would appear that, having watched the times change - and the standards drop - Zondervan's brass must believe that now, after sufficient conditioning, the Church is finally ready for the next phase in a gender inclusive Bible. After all, the general lack of discernment in our day surely means that the "updated" NIV will be a cash cow for Rupert Murdoch's company. In fact, the reaction to Zondervan's effective promotion of the new inclusive NIV has induced them to print 1.9 million copies of it, up 500,000 from the original projections for the first printing.
I suspect that, having tracked the downward spiral of the Church's apparent attitude towards the Bible over the last decade, far fewer will rise up and oppose the kind of bastardization that was evident with the TNIV edition in 2005. Thanks to the rise of "Seeker Friendly" and "Purpose Driven" movements, the craziness of Todd Bentley, and the popularity of happy-go-lucky, biblically bankrupt baloney that Joel Osteen and others serve up, selling a further corrupted NIV to the unsuspecting should be a snap.
Now, with the rise of the Emergent crowd, the growth of theological liberalism, and the shocking lack of discernment displayed by those buying The Message as an authentic Bible and The Shack as a "Christian" book serve to clearly illustrate the sad situation we find ourselves in today. Plus, the driving force who opposed the TNIV in 2005 - Dr. James Dobson - is now nearly retired. Who will organize the resistance? Who will lead the fight for truth?
Along with the "updated" NIV itself, Zondervan is about to release over 200 books and products utilizing the new NIV with nearly 200 more slated for release next fall. I suggest that pastors, teachers, and authors alike should carefully select just what they'll refer to as "the Word of God" and what they quote as "Scripture." Their reputation and authority will be scrutinized by some in the know if they insist on promoting specious versions of the Bible that do disservice, even damage, to the original texts. It is easy to bring into question the theological integrity of an author or speaker when they carelessly - or with great intent - set out to manipulate a version (or versions) of the Bible to imply what they desire it to say instead of being faithful to the original context. (1)
I know those who have been ardently opposed to the original NIV are surely thinking, "I told you so." Considering these developments, I believe they do have even more reason to shake their heads. As for me, I'm sticking with the time-tested King James Version and the reliable manuscripts from which it was derived. I preach from, write with, and study the KJV but, before you think I'm just pontificating as a "King James Only" advocate, if I have any question about anything I see in any text claiming to be God's Word, I immediately check it out against the original languages - King James Version included. Those who really care about truth might think of downloading a good Greek and Hebrew concordance to help you do likewise. Using one of these tools doesn't take a college degree and isn't over anyone's head. However, it will assist you immeasurably in deciphering the real meat found in the texts. These days I constantly find myself exploring new vistas in the Bible - all because of word searches conducted with the Strong's Concordance on my cell phone, or the one on my lap top, or even with the book version sitting in my office - as archaic as using an actual book might sound to some.
There will likely be some positive pieces promoting what Zondervan has done in updating the NIV. However, from what I have seen of this new version myself, I believe there will be many very scholarly reviews which will detail the failings of it, as well. Like many of you, I'll be watching and reading those more studious future analyses when they appear. However, as a lover of God's Word and one of many called to defend it unreservedly, let these few thoughts serve as a warning that, from many quarters and in many ways, the precious Word of God remains a primary object of the devil's ire. Nothing has changed from the very beginning, when the serpent questioned Eve "Hath God said?" In our world today, right has become wrong and so many sources we once thought we could trust have become, as Peter proclaims, "wells without water" (II Peter 2:17). This is surely the case with some denominations, some seminaries, and, yes, some Christian publishers. This is why I suggest that dedicated Christians investigate for themselves and then stand up in the spirit of the Bereans (Acts 17) and reject Zondervan's further clouding of God's truth through the "updated" NIV.
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
- 2 Timothy 2:15
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. Abstain from all appearance of evil.
- 1 Thess 5:21-22
Footnotes:
1. Rick Warren's The Purpose Driven Life illustrates a manipulative and now popular technique that I have deemed "scripture fishing." In his monumental best-seller, Warren trolls across 15 different versions of the Bible in a blatant effort to find passages and specific wording to support his theology. The widespread acceptance of this practice by parishioners and pastors alike signals an alarmingly low regard for the importance of both the content and context of the Bible. For more on this see: Examining the Purpose Driven Philosophy
More information:
http://archive.constantcontact.com/fs018/1102797716062/archive/1104842697260.html
http://www.ericbarger.com/tasstore/info.pgs/pdl.philosophy.info.htm
Thursday, March 10, 2011
NEA to UN: More Graphic Sex-Ed Needed
Perhaps you thought public school sex education programs are graphic enough as it is. Not so, according to a statement by the National Education Association's (NEA) Diane Schneider to a U.N. panel last week. According to a report by C-FAM, Schneider told the audience at a panel on combating homophobia and transphobia that detailed and graphic sex acts need to be taught in the classroom and that anyone opposing homosexuality is “stuck in a binary box that religion and family create.”
In other words, schools need to rescue children from “indoctrination” by their parents and religion, and the U.N. should see that they do. Schneider also “claimed that the idea of sex education remains an oxymoron if it is abstinence-based, or if students are still able to opt out,” the article states.
ParentalRights.org disagrees with the notion that schools know better than parents what is best for their children or what their children can handle. We disagree with the idea that schools should undo all the character building and value instilling that parents do at home. And we adamantly oppose the view that the United Nations should take a role in any of it. And we know you do, too.
The NEA can sway the U.N. more easily than they can persuade the American people. They know that if they establish something at the U.N., they can find progressivist judges who will uphold it here as “Customary International Law.” And they must hope to see us ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), thus obligating ourselves to uphold whatever standards in child education the U.N. might dictate.
Full article:
http://parentalrights.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC=%7BEC9944B8-96D9-4581-A9AE-06DD3173C964%7D
In other words, schools need to rescue children from “indoctrination” by their parents and religion, and the U.N. should see that they do. Schneider also “claimed that the idea of sex education remains an oxymoron if it is abstinence-based, or if students are still able to opt out,” the article states.
ParentalRights.org disagrees with the notion that schools know better than parents what is best for their children or what their children can handle. We disagree with the idea that schools should undo all the character building and value instilling that parents do at home. And we adamantly oppose the view that the United Nations should take a role in any of it. And we know you do, too.
The NEA can sway the U.N. more easily than they can persuade the American people. They know that if they establish something at the U.N., they can find progressivist judges who will uphold it here as “Customary International Law.” And they must hope to see us ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), thus obligating ourselves to uphold whatever standards in child education the U.N. might dictate.
Full article:
http://parentalrights.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC=%7BEC9944B8-96D9-4581-A9AE-06DD3173C964%7D
ABC network set to attack Christianity with "Good Christian B-tches" show
ABC network set to attack Christianity with "Good Christian B-tches" show
"For Heaven's sake, don't let God get in the way of a good story!" - GCB author Kim Gatlin
March 7, 2011
The ABC network is currently working on a pilot for a prime-time program called "Good Christian B-tches."
It's a Christian-bashing version of ABC's current "Desperate Housewives." The show centers on a recently divorced mother of two who moves back to the affluent neighborhood where she grew up to find herself in the whirling midst of gossip, Botox and fraud.
Disney-owned ABC has no reservations about creating hate speech against Christians, but you can be sure they would never consider a show called "Good Muslim B-tches" or "Good Jewish B-tches."
With a title like "Good Christian B-tches," you can imagine what kind of show it will be. Even if they change the title, the content will still mock people of faith.
Full article:
http://afa.net/Detail.aspx?id=2147504245
"For Heaven's sake, don't let God get in the way of a good story!" - GCB author Kim Gatlin
March 7, 2011
The ABC network is currently working on a pilot for a prime-time program called "Good Christian B-tches."
It's a Christian-bashing version of ABC's current "Desperate Housewives." The show centers on a recently divorced mother of two who moves back to the affluent neighborhood where she grew up to find herself in the whirling midst of gossip, Botox and fraud.
Disney-owned ABC has no reservations about creating hate speech against Christians, but you can be sure they would never consider a show called "Good Muslim B-tches" or "Good Jewish B-tches."
With a title like "Good Christian B-tches," you can imagine what kind of show it will be. Even if they change the title, the content will still mock people of faith.
Full article:
http://afa.net/Detail.aspx?id=2147504245
Sunday, March 06, 2011
High Court Finds Christian Parents Unsuitable
High Court Finds Christian Parents Unsuitable
The United Kingdom’s High Court ruled yesterday that Christians with traditional ethical views of sexuality are not suitable to serve as foster or adoptive parents. The judge held that Christian beliefs regarding homosexuality are harmful to children and violate a child’s international human rights. Are these personal beliefs a good reason to deny children a home with a family who cares for them? And if exercising a protected religious liberty violates international child rights in this instance, who is to say what beliefs will be “unsuitable” next?
Those same rights are outlined in the United Nation’s Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), and would be binding on the United States should we ratify that treaty.
Fortunately, we expect a resolution opposing ratification of the CRC to be introduced in the U.S. Senate within the next week or so. Senator DeMint’s office is currently gathering original cosponsors on the resolution (which is equivalent to SR 519 from the last Congress). Once it is introduced and given a bill number, we will email you right away and initiate a call blitz to secure the 34 cosponsors needed to prevent with certainty the ratification of that dangerous treaty.
Still, only the Parental Rights Amendment can end the threat of ratification permanently.
Supreme Court Weighs Parental Rights Today
Today our own Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case touching on parental and child rights, Camreta v. Greene, which deals with whether or not a minor child has the right to be protected from seizure and interrogation by government officials without a warrant, emergency circumstances, or parental consent. To read more on this case, visit us here. We will be watching this case closely and keeping you apprised of any developments
More information:
High Court Finds Christian Beliefs Harmful to Children
Camreta v. Greene
The United Kingdom’s High Court ruled yesterday that Christians with traditional ethical views of sexuality are not suitable to serve as foster or adoptive parents. The judge held that Christian beliefs regarding homosexuality are harmful to children and violate a child’s international human rights. Are these personal beliefs a good reason to deny children a home with a family who cares for them? And if exercising a protected religious liberty violates international child rights in this instance, who is to say what beliefs will be “unsuitable” next?
Those same rights are outlined in the United Nation’s Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), and would be binding on the United States should we ratify that treaty.
Fortunately, we expect a resolution opposing ratification of the CRC to be introduced in the U.S. Senate within the next week or so. Senator DeMint’s office is currently gathering original cosponsors on the resolution (which is equivalent to SR 519 from the last Congress). Once it is introduced and given a bill number, we will email you right away and initiate a call blitz to secure the 34 cosponsors needed to prevent with certainty the ratification of that dangerous treaty.
Still, only the Parental Rights Amendment can end the threat of ratification permanently.
Supreme Court Weighs Parental Rights Today
Today our own Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case touching on parental and child rights, Camreta v. Greene, which deals with whether or not a minor child has the right to be protected from seizure and interrogation by government officials without a warrant, emergency circumstances, or parental consent. To read more on this case, visit us here. We will be watching this case closely and keeping you apprised of any developments
More information:
Saturday, March 05, 2011
Why Churches Should Euthanize Small Groups
By Brian Jones
A few years ago I brought in a nationally recognized pastor to do some consulting for our church. One of the things I remember most about my time with him was a side conversation we had about small groups.
“I haven’t really figured out the small group thing,” I confessed to him.
“Finally,” I said, “I’ve met someone who’s got the guts to euthanize this small group sacred cow.”
I have been leading, participating in, championing, and applauding the efforts of small groups for the last 20 years of my ministry.
But now I’m done. In my opinion, they just don’t work. Let me share why.
A Flawed Starting Point
Church-initiated “small groups” begin from a flawed starting point.
For reasons that still escape me, soon after becoming a Christian at age 18, Deron Brickey, Dave Polonia, Jeff Snyder, and I started hanging out with one another.
Soon that group grew to 10 to 12 friends. We laughed together, prayed together, studied the Bible together, ate together, evangelized together, and served the poor together. Even though we had no leader, no real set meeting time, no agenda, and no plan or focus, it was through these friends that I made incredible strides toward becoming a holistic disciple of Jesus.
And it all happened by accident.
In fact, looking back on my 25 years of following Christ, here’s what I’ve noticed: Every small group I’ve ever been in that helped me grow as a disciple started by what appeared to be an accident.
I wasn’t looking for it. I wasn’t interested in joining a small group in the least. And in many respects, I didn’t even feel a need to grow spiritually.
Most of all, I wasn’t participating in some superficial churchwide small group sign-up initiative the senior pastor dreamed up to jack up small group attendance because he heard church analysts say you should always maintain a certain ratio of worship attendees to small group participants.
It just happened, naturally and spontaneously.
Those experiences couldn’t have been planned, even if I tried. And for the most part, that’s exactly how it’s been happening in the Christian community for, say, I don’t know, the last 1,960 years. That is until we westerners, particularly Americans, started messing it up.
Well-intentioned Christians, armed with the latest insights in organizational theory, let their pragmatic and utilitarian hearts delude them into thinking they could organize, measure, and control the mystical working of the Holy Spirit in community in order to consistently reproduce disciples in other contexts.
Then these people started writing books and hosting seminars. And then church leaders like you and me bought into what they were saying because we didn’t recognize that the same faulty worldview that produced a mechanized approach to Christian community fostered a ready-made market in our hearts to consume their quick-fix solutions.
So we came home, armed with our “101 Sure-Fire Discussion Starter” books and binders full of slick recruitment techniques, and started small group ministries at our churches.
We preached powerful sermons. We cast vision. We contorted Acts 2 into saying what we needed it to say. We blathered on and on about all the “one anothers” in the Bible and about how, if we met one time a week for 1.5 hours and followed a well-conceived discussion regime, we could experience Acts 2 in all of its splendor and glory.
And what happened? You know what happened. They failed. Like big-time.
And meanwhile, while our people were constrained by their obligation to the church and their sense of loyalty to us as leaders, their hearts searched for real community and an opportunity to grow as disciples.
What would happen if we euthanized all of our small groups, taught the value of discipleship and community, and then simply let the Holy Spirit do his work?
Achilles’ Heel
When I attended my very first church growth conference in 1992, a nationally known small group “expert” stood up and said, “The way we say it at our church is, ‘If you can read, you can lead.’ If a Christian can read the questions in our study guide, he can lead a small group at our church.”
That’s easy, I thought. Too easy, in fact. And ridiculous.
“If you can read, you can lead” is a great slogan for people who organize a rugby team from your church, or your knitting circle, or the Saturday morning llama-riding group. But not for someone recognized by the community of faith as a mentor of new disciples.
The Achilles’ heel of the modern-day small group movement is simple: Small groups don’t create disciples; disciples create disciples. And modern-day small groups are led, for the most part, by people who have attended the church, had a conversion experience, led a reasonably moral life, and can read the study-guide questions, but are not disciples themselves.
American churches have lowered the bar of small group leadership to an absurd level. In fact, it’s so ridiculous most churches would be better off not even having small groups than to offer them with leaders who aren’t disciples.
The common argument against small groups is flawed. The problem with small groups isn’t that they pool the group’s collective ignorance; it’s that they pool the group’s collective disobedience. And it’s not the small group leader’s fault.
It’s the fault of the people who installed the leader and convinced him he could lead their group to a place where they themselves have not gone.
Jesus in Your Group?
Would Jesus join a small group in your church?
Think about that for a moment. Forget about your goals. Forget about your motivations for offering them. Forget about all the supposed benefits of participating in one. Do you honestly think Jesus would join, lead, or start a small group within the existing structure of your small group’s ministry at your church?
Of course not. Not a chance. Not in a million years.
Why?
Because while your people are stuck in the “hairball” of your church’s ministry (to steal Gordon MacKenzie’s great line), Jesus would be out rubbing shoulders with people in your community, helping them find their way back to God, and teaching them to obey his teachings.
Jesus would actually be doing what small groups say they want/should/need to be doing, but they can’t, because they’re too busy being a “small group” inside the confines of your small group’s ministry infrastructure.
It’s like a jogging class where the instructor, instead of taking his class jogging and commenting on technique while class members actually are jogging, stuffs everyone into a classroom and lectures to them three days a week and then gives them a final exam.
Disciples are created “out there.” Small groups, if not by their definition, definitely by their practice, all occur “in here.”
With few exceptions, modern-day small groups are great at producing:
• Christians who sit in circles and talk to one another inside a building
• people who read and comment on the Bible
• people who rant about how they long to “get out there” and do something that matters
• people who awkwardly end their time by praying for “prayer requests”
• people who go home unchallenged and unchanged.
You would think there’s a Small Groups Revised Version of the New Testament somewhere. And I quote: “Then Jesus came to them and said, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore stay where you are and make Christians of the people you already know, baptizing them in the name of American consumer Christianity, and teaching them to sit in rooms with one another, read the Bible, and pray for one another. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age’” (Matthew 28:18-20, SGRV).
If the Small Groups Revised Version of Matthew 28:18-20 were the stated purpose, then most American small groups would be nailing it.
In my humble opinion, the Americanized small group is a remnant of an impotent religious institution that can’t transition effectively into a post-Christian, postmodern world.
Thank God small groups worked in some instances, and in some contexts!
But for every story of success about a small group creating an authentic disciple, my hunch is there are three times as many failures (and that just takes into account the 10 to 30 percent of church attendees who actually participate in them).
If we had time to waste, this wouldn’t be an urgent problem.
But we don’t.
Brian Jones is founding pastor of Christ’s Church of the Valley in Royersford, Pennsylvania. He’s the author of Second Guessing God and Getting Rid of the Gorilla: Confessions on the Struggle to Forgive. See www.brianjones.com.
A few years ago I brought in a nationally recognized pastor to do some consulting for our church. One of the things I remember most about my time with him was a side conversation we had about small groups.
“I haven’t really figured out the small group thing,” I confessed to him.
“Well, Brian, that’s because they don’t work. Small groups are things that trick us into believing we’re serious about making disciples. The problem is 90 percent of small groups never produce one single disciple. Ever. They help Christians make shallow friendships, for sure. They’re great at helping Christians feel a tenuous connection to their local church, and they do a bang-up job of teaching Christians how to act like other Christians in the Evangelical Christian subculture. But when it comes to creating the kind of holistic disciples Jesus envisioned, the jury’s decision came back a long time ago—small groups just aren’t working.”
“Finally,” I said, “I’ve met someone who’s got the guts to euthanize this small group sacred cow.”
I have been leading, participating in, championing, and applauding the efforts of small groups for the last 20 years of my ministry.
But now I’m done. In my opinion, they just don’t work. Let me share why.
A Flawed Starting Point
Church-initiated “small groups” begin from a flawed starting point.
For reasons that still escape me, soon after becoming a Christian at age 18, Deron Brickey, Dave Polonia, Jeff Snyder, and I started hanging out with one another.
Soon that group grew to 10 to 12 friends. We laughed together, prayed together, studied the Bible together, ate together, evangelized together, and served the poor together. Even though we had no leader, no real set meeting time, no agenda, and no plan or focus, it was through these friends that I made incredible strides toward becoming a holistic disciple of Jesus.
And it all happened by accident.
In fact, looking back on my 25 years of following Christ, here’s what I’ve noticed: Every small group I’ve ever been in that helped me grow as a disciple started by what appeared to be an accident.
I wasn’t looking for it. I wasn’t interested in joining a small group in the least. And in many respects, I didn’t even feel a need to grow spiritually.
Most of all, I wasn’t participating in some superficial churchwide small group sign-up initiative the senior pastor dreamed up to jack up small group attendance because he heard church analysts say you should always maintain a certain ratio of worship attendees to small group participants.
It just happened, naturally and spontaneously.
Those experiences couldn’t have been planned, even if I tried. And for the most part, that’s exactly how it’s been happening in the Christian community for, say, I don’t know, the last 1,960 years. That is until we westerners, particularly Americans, started messing it up.
Well-intentioned Christians, armed with the latest insights in organizational theory, let their pragmatic and utilitarian hearts delude them into thinking they could organize, measure, and control the mystical working of the Holy Spirit in community in order to consistently reproduce disciples in other contexts.
Then these people started writing books and hosting seminars. And then church leaders like you and me bought into what they were saying because we didn’t recognize that the same faulty worldview that produced a mechanized approach to Christian community fostered a ready-made market in our hearts to consume their quick-fix solutions.
So we came home, armed with our “101 Sure-Fire Discussion Starter” books and binders full of slick recruitment techniques, and started small group ministries at our churches.
We preached powerful sermons. We cast vision. We contorted Acts 2 into saying what we needed it to say. We blathered on and on about all the “one anothers” in the Bible and about how, if we met one time a week for 1.5 hours and followed a well-conceived discussion regime, we could experience Acts 2 in all of its splendor and glory.
And what happened? You know what happened. They failed. Like big-time.
And meanwhile, while our people were constrained by their obligation to the church and their sense of loyalty to us as leaders, their hearts searched for real community and an opportunity to grow as disciples.
What would happen if we euthanized all of our small groups, taught the value of discipleship and community, and then simply let the Holy Spirit do his work?
Achilles’ Heel
When I attended my very first church growth conference in 1992, a nationally known small group “expert” stood up and said, “The way we say it at our church is, ‘If you can read, you can lead.’ If a Christian can read the questions in our study guide, he can lead a small group at our church.”
That’s easy, I thought. Too easy, in fact. And ridiculous.
“If you can read, you can lead” is a great slogan for people who organize a rugby team from your church, or your knitting circle, or the Saturday morning llama-riding group. But not for someone recognized by the community of faith as a mentor of new disciples.
The Achilles’ heel of the modern-day small group movement is simple: Small groups don’t create disciples; disciples create disciples. And modern-day small groups are led, for the most part, by people who have attended the church, had a conversion experience, led a reasonably moral life, and can read the study-guide questions, but are not disciples themselves.
American churches have lowered the bar of small group leadership to an absurd level. In fact, it’s so ridiculous most churches would be better off not even having small groups than to offer them with leaders who aren’t disciples.
The common argument against small groups is flawed. The problem with small groups isn’t that they pool the group’s collective ignorance; it’s that they pool the group’s collective disobedience. And it’s not the small group leader’s fault.
It’s the fault of the people who installed the leader and convinced him he could lead their group to a place where they themselves have not gone.
Jesus in Your Group?
Would Jesus join a small group in your church?
Think about that for a moment. Forget about your goals. Forget about your motivations for offering them. Forget about all the supposed benefits of participating in one. Do you honestly think Jesus would join, lead, or start a small group within the existing structure of your small group’s ministry at your church?
Of course not. Not a chance. Not in a million years.
Why?
Because while your people are stuck in the “hairball” of your church’s ministry (to steal Gordon MacKenzie’s great line), Jesus would be out rubbing shoulders with people in your community, helping them find their way back to God, and teaching them to obey his teachings.
Jesus would actually be doing what small groups say they want/should/need to be doing, but they can’t, because they’re too busy being a “small group” inside the confines of your small group’s ministry infrastructure.
It’s like a jogging class where the instructor, instead of taking his class jogging and commenting on technique while class members actually are jogging, stuffs everyone into a classroom and lectures to them three days a week and then gives them a final exam.
Disciples are created “out there.” Small groups, if not by their definition, definitely by their practice, all occur “in here.”
With few exceptions, modern-day small groups are great at producing:
• Christians who sit in circles and talk to one another inside a building
• people who read and comment on the Bible
• people who rant about how they long to “get out there” and do something that matters
• people who awkwardly end their time by praying for “prayer requests”
• people who go home unchallenged and unchanged.
You would think there’s a Small Groups Revised Version of the New Testament somewhere. And I quote: “Then Jesus came to them and said, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore stay where you are and make Christians of the people you already know, baptizing them in the name of American consumer Christianity, and teaching them to sit in rooms with one another, read the Bible, and pray for one another. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age’” (Matthew 28:18-20, SGRV).
If the Small Groups Revised Version of Matthew 28:18-20 were the stated purpose, then most American small groups would be nailing it.
In my humble opinion, the Americanized small group is a remnant of an impotent religious institution that can’t transition effectively into a post-Christian, postmodern world.
Thank God small groups worked in some instances, and in some contexts!
But for every story of success about a small group creating an authentic disciple, my hunch is there are three times as many failures (and that just takes into account the 10 to 30 percent of church attendees who actually participate in them).
If we had time to waste, this wouldn’t be an urgent problem.
But we don’t.
Brian Jones is founding pastor of Christ’s Church of the Valley in Royersford, Pennsylvania. He’s the author of Second Guessing God and Getting Rid of the Gorilla: Confessions on the Struggle to Forgive. See www.brianjones.com.
Friday, March 04, 2011
Wishy Washy Warren
Lest we forget just how wishy washy Rick Warren is, here's a reminder
Seems Rick Warren was not against California’s Proposition 8 and homosexual marriage after all. Quoted below is the exact words Rick Warren made on “Larry King Live”. Also in the same article that I quote and link to at the bottom of this post is Joseph Farah’s appropriate view of this wishy-washy pastor.
Why is Rick Warren always in the news? If he was actually preaching the gospel of Christ he would not get on the worldly media. He is CFR member for a reason and he has a Global Peace Plan because it conforms with the CFR globalist socialistic agenda. Rick Warren is yoked together with some very powerful globalists unbelievers and their own purpose driven lives wants global governance. What Rich Warren says to the world implies religious pluralism and a form of universalism that includes aspects of religious dominionism. He is not presenting the gospel of Christ to the world.
Everything Rick Warren says is a compromise with the world instead of presenting the gospel of salvation to the world. I find this to be true ranging across the spectrum from Rick Warren’s purpose driven seeker friendly gospel lite movement to his many media opportunities that never clearly presents the gospel of Christ.
If a Christian pastor cannot stand up for clear teachings of their faith he certainly should not be standing in your church pulpit! The only reason I think Rich Warren is standing at Saddleback Church is that the church membership has been made in his image. By the way, while I am at it, here is an example of how Rick Warren grows his Church. (no longer active link for some reason)
It is amazing to me that a “Evangelical” Christian leader would actually apologize to homosexual leaders because some of them might think he took the biblical stand against homosexual perversion and marriage perversion.
Also read this article that quotes what Rick Warren actually said to his church on Proposition 8. Apparently Rick Warren was even spinning the truth to Larry King about what he actually said.
Need another opinion? Here is Dr. Norman L. Geisler’s postion on Rick Warren and the Gay Marriage issue.
I think America’s spiritual condition is reflected in the choice of leaders that Amercians put into power and that is doubly true in its churches.
America’s wishy-washy pastors
(Rick Warren on Larry King Live)
“You know, Larry, there was a story within a story that never got told,” he said. “In the first place, I am not an anti-gay or anti-gay marriage activist. I never have been, never will be. During the whole Proposition 8 thing, I never once went to a meeting, never once issued a statement, never – never once even gave an endorsement in the two years Prop 8 was going. The week before the – the vote, somebody in my church said, Pastor Rick, what – what do you think about this? And I sent a note to my own members that said, I actually believe that marriage is – really should be defined, that that definition should be – say between a man and a woman.
“And then all of a sudden out of it, they made me, you know, something that I really wasn’t,” Warren continued. “And I actually – there were a number of things that were put out. I wrote to all my gay friends – the leaders that I knew – and actually apologized to them. That never got out. There were some things said that – you know, everybody should have 10 percent grace when they say public statements. And I was asked a question that made it sound like I equated gay marriage with pedophilia or incest, which I absolutely do not believe. And I actually announced that. All of the criticism came from people that didn’t know me. Not a single criticism came from any gay leader who knows me and knows that for years, we’ve been working together on AIDS issues and all these other things.”
(Joseph Farah)
What are we to make of such mealy-mouthed, wishy-washy, namby-pamby hokum?
It’s a great illustration of America’s most prominent church leader equivocating and backtracking and saying almost nothing coherent so that he will offend no one.
Full articles:
http://www.thepropheticyears.com/wordpress/rick-warren-apogizes-to-homosexual-leaders-because-some-thought-he-was-against-homosexual-marriage.html
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=94254
Seems Rick Warren was not against California’s Proposition 8 and homosexual marriage after all. Quoted below is the exact words Rick Warren made on “Larry King Live”. Also in the same article that I quote and link to at the bottom of this post is Joseph Farah’s appropriate view of this wishy-washy pastor.
Why is Rick Warren always in the news? If he was actually preaching the gospel of Christ he would not get on the worldly media. He is CFR member for a reason and he has a Global Peace Plan because it conforms with the CFR globalist socialistic agenda. Rick Warren is yoked together with some very powerful globalists unbelievers and their own purpose driven lives wants global governance. What Rich Warren says to the world implies religious pluralism and a form of universalism that includes aspects of religious dominionism. He is not presenting the gospel of Christ to the world.
Everything Rick Warren says is a compromise with the world instead of presenting the gospel of salvation to the world. I find this to be true ranging across the spectrum from Rick Warren’s purpose driven seeker friendly gospel lite movement to his many media opportunities that never clearly presents the gospel of Christ.
If a Christian pastor cannot stand up for clear teachings of their faith he certainly should not be standing in your church pulpit! The only reason I think Rich Warren is standing at Saddleback Church is that the church membership has been made in his image. By the way, while I am at it, here is an example of how Rick Warren grows his Church. (no longer active link for some reason)
It is amazing to me that a “Evangelical” Christian leader would actually apologize to homosexual leaders because some of them might think he took the biblical stand against homosexual perversion and marriage perversion.
Also read this article that quotes what Rick Warren actually said to his church on Proposition 8. Apparently Rick Warren was even spinning the truth to Larry King about what he actually said.
Need another opinion? Here is Dr. Norman L. Geisler’s postion on Rick Warren and the Gay Marriage issue.
I think America’s spiritual condition is reflected in the choice of leaders that Amercians put into power and that is doubly true in its churches.
America’s wishy-washy pastors
(Rick Warren on Larry King Live)
“You know, Larry, there was a story within a story that never got told,” he said. “In the first place, I am not an anti-gay or anti-gay marriage activist. I never have been, never will be. During the whole Proposition 8 thing, I never once went to a meeting, never once issued a statement, never – never once even gave an endorsement in the two years Prop 8 was going. The week before the – the vote, somebody in my church said, Pastor Rick, what – what do you think about this? And I sent a note to my own members that said, I actually believe that marriage is – really should be defined, that that definition should be – say between a man and a woman.
“And then all of a sudden out of it, they made me, you know, something that I really wasn’t,” Warren continued. “And I actually – there were a number of things that were put out. I wrote to all my gay friends – the leaders that I knew – and actually apologized to them. That never got out. There were some things said that – you know, everybody should have 10 percent grace when they say public statements. And I was asked a question that made it sound like I equated gay marriage with pedophilia or incest, which I absolutely do not believe. And I actually announced that. All of the criticism came from people that didn’t know me. Not a single criticism came from any gay leader who knows me and knows that for years, we’ve been working together on AIDS issues and all these other things.”
(Joseph Farah)
What are we to make of such mealy-mouthed, wishy-washy, namby-pamby hokum?
It’s a great illustration of America’s most prominent church leader equivocating and backtracking and saying almost nothing coherent so that he will offend no one.
Full articles:
http://www.thepropheticyears.com/wordpress/rick-warren-apogizes-to-homosexual-leaders-because-some-thought-he-was-against-homosexual-marriage.html
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=94254
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)