What Do Michael Jackson and Jesus Have In Common?

If I had asked that question a week ago, the answer would have been, "Not much". But now that the so-called "King of Pop" is dead, I see one startling similarity between the two. It isn't so much a connection between Michael or Jesus, but about those who claim to follow and adore them.

For the last decade or more, Michael Jackson has been nothing more than a punchline for the media and the masses. From his marriages to his deformed appearance to his alleged crimes against children, no one has taken Michael Jackson seriously for years. Now, upon his death, it has suddenly become trendy to "mourn the loss of a creative genius". I've seen dozens of news stories interviewing 20 year olds about what influence Jackson had on their lives. With tears filling their eyes and nonsense about him being their "escort through life" spilling out of their mouths I can't help but think, "Where were all of you people last week? Where have all the people clamoring for Michael Jackson's music been for a decade? Where were you when it wasn't popular to light a candle, stand outside a record store, and lament the loss of a man who, through his own depravity, destroyed his own life?"

The reality is that the majority of those who are devastated over Jackson's death do not care at all about the man. It likely is far more self-centered than that. I believe many of them are simply trying to fit in and be a part of something bigger than themselves. Jackson's death has given people an opportunity to come together for something. It is merely a social event that will dissipate within days and slowly fade from most people's minds. But for now, it is the cool thing to do, just like trying to moonwalk was the cool thing to do in 1985.

What does this have to do with Jesus?

There are churches all over the place that market themselves as great social venues, as "making the Bible relevant again", as getting rid of the old boring church that bored people to death when we were kids. We are trying to make church trendy. We are trying to make becoming a disciple of Jesus Christ the cool thing to do.

We have droves of people, particularly students, flocking to stage-side altars at youth camps all across the country right now because we've convinced them that's the coolest thing you can do. After a while, when the lure of camp wears off and the reality of the cost of discipleship sets in, the majority of those converts of cool disappear like "Jesus juice" at a Neverland party.

Jesus had a lot of people following him when it was trendy. He was a great entertainer in their eyes, but then he blew their minds and perceptions apart when he started spouting off stuff like, "If you want to follow me you must eat my flesh and drink my blood. You must willingly submit yourself to death every day. You must be willing to leave everything behind for me." At that point, it wasn't that cool to follow Jesus any more. It wasn't fun anymore. He had taken the whole thing too far for the crowds, and the attrition of trend-seekers began.

At the triumphal entry, people lined the streets to shower Christ with praises of Messianic authority. Those same people filled the courtyard less than a week later shouting for his crucifixion. Was it because they had been convinced by proof from the religious leaders that Jesus was a fraud? No. It was because they were merely following the ebb and flow of what was popular at that moment.

Beware of those who are willing to speak out of the anonymity of the mob but are unwilling to stand alone and proclaim those same beliefs.

Jacko and Jesus don't have a lot in common. Michael's dead while the grave couldn't contain Jesus. The King of Pop wrote songs while the King of Kings writes his name upon the hearts of men so that we may praises to God and that he may sing over us.

Pride Disguised As Humility

I struggle with pride. There. I said it.

I am a prideful man, but it is not the kind of puffed up, "better than everyone else" kind of pride. I fall prey to what seems to be a much more deceptive strain of ego issues. My pride is disguised as humility. This is not your typical humility that presents itself as meek self-awareness. My humility is vicious. It presents itself through self-deprecating remarks and thoughts that undermine any good that is produced in my life.

Over the years people have told me that I needed to value myself more, that I needed to develop a stronger sense of self-esteem. So I tried, but I seemed to swing to the other end of the spectrum into arrogance and self-aggrandizement. It was not until a few weeks ago during my preparation for a weekly discipleship meeting that I realized my humility has perplexed me for so long because it has never been true humility. It is pride with a different face on.

Self-deprecating pride is just as narcissistic as egomania. Instead of saying, "Everything is going right because of me," it says, "Everything is going wrong because of me." The end result is the same: everything depends on me.

I have to remember that while I am a sinner saved by the grace of God and still very much being sanctified through the power of the Holy Spirit, I am not the reason everything goes right or wrong. I must remember that I am simply called to be obedient and trust God for the results.

I believe in the doctrines of grace, and I recently heard a pastor say, "Those who believe in the doctrines of grace ought to learn how to show some." Not bad advice for someone who reserves absolutely no grace for himself.

Minnesota Court Ruling Makes Medical Decisions For 13-year-old

I would encourage everyone to read the following story about Daniel Hauser, a 13-year-old who has refused chemotherapy, and a judge's attempts to override his wishes.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ap_on_he_me/us_med_forced_chemo

I want to know what you think about this story. Does the judge have the right to make such a decision? Do the peculiar religious views of the family make this decision more legitimate? Can a 13-year-old make an informed decision about any course of medical treatment? What precedent do you see this setting for future cases dealing with parental and/or religious rights?

Doctrine of Election Part 2 - The Biggest Hurdle

Before I begin describing what I believe is the biggest hurdle to men and women, Christian or not, understanding, accepting, and rejoicing over the truth of election let me first offer a rudimentary explanation of the doctrine itself.

Election is the biblical doctrine that God, in his infinite and perfect foreknowledge, sovereignly chose or selected every single individual whom he would save. This divine selection was made based upon God's sovereign will and not upon his knowledge of a person's future receptivity to the gospel. This election took place before the foundations of the world, i.e. in eternity past.

I am aware that may not be the most exhaustive or perfectly-phrased explanation, but it will suffice for the purpose of this blog.

On the surface, many people see immense problems with this doctrine. Those objections will be the topic of an upcoming blog. Today, however, I want to talk about a truth that is essential to understanding the reality of election -- man's total depravity or total inability.

In order for the doctrine of election to be understood, one must also understand that it is impossible for man, in his natural state, to choose, turn to, or please God in anyway (Romans 8:7-9). Sinful, unregenerate, rebellious man is morally and spiritually bankrupt. His heart is hopelessly sick and deceitfully wicked (Jeremiah 17:9). While waging an all out war with God in his spirit, sinful man is completely unable to lay down his arms, plead for mercy and grace, and choose to follow in obedience to Jesus Christ. It is not possible.

Why is this the biggest hurdle for people to overcome? Why is this the cornerstone?

Part of the war with God is a prideful heart that at the very least believes there is something inherently good in man and at the very most believes that man is some kind of god. From a human perspective, those polarities sound quite far apart. However, they are quite comfortable bed-fellows in God's eyes. Any claim to self-contained righteousness is only the harbinger of entertaining the thought of personal divinity -- the same kind that brought about Herod's painful demise (Acts 12:22-24).

The pride of self-contained righteousness is a lie that men do not easily surrender. Some think that admitting the truth of man's total depravity will somehow lessen the value of mankind. In reality it opens up for us the glorious reality that the ladder of goodness we've designed for ourselves is the fast lane on the superhighway to eternal death and torment.

To continue to believe in the lie is to ignore the hideously deformed and ever-decaying elephant in the room. Ignoring man's natural state of moral and spiritual helplessness does not change that reality. Calling man basically good is similar to calling a pile of dung a pot of gold and exotic treasures. Call it what you want, but it does not change the nature of the thing.

It is only through God's sovereign choice to save some (only He knows how many) that man can escape his natural state of death by being called out of our spiritual graves to walk in the newness of life that is found only in the good gift of faith in Jesus Christ given to him through the grace of God and wrought in our hearts by the working of the Holy Spirit.

The Doctrine of Election - Part 1

Our Sunday school class started an expositional study of 1 Peter this week. I was really excited to begin this particular book because of Peter's masterful, yet concise summation of the doctrines of election and sanctification in the first 2 verses.

"Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to God's elect, strangers in the world, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood: Grace and peace be yours in abundance." (NASB)

I hate to presume upon the doctrinal foundations of my fellow class members, but I am willing to bet that very few, if any, of them have ever spent anytime studying the truth of election. I use the word "truth" here because regardless of what you believe about what election means, it is a truth of Scripture that is clearly taught by multiple authors and by Christ himself.

I found myself struggling through the lesson on Sunday morning. Somehow I never thought it would be difficult to teach through this particular doctrine. It isn't difficult because the doctrine is weak or frail. It is difficult because I am weak and feeble.

I plan on writing more about election later, but I want to know what you think about it. What is your view of election? What do you believe Scripture teaches? What difficulties have you had with this truth?

Parental Rights Amendment Introduced!

This is long but worth the read.

The introduction of the Parental Rights Amendment in the U.S. Congress (H.J. Res. 42) was announced at a press conference yesterday afternoon. Below is the body of parentalrights.org president Michael Farris's powerful speech from that event. If your Congressman or Senator is not already onboard, we urge you to copy and paste that message into an email or letter to send to them, along with your own personal message. (Check the sponsors list; find contact info.) This message clearly articulates the need for the Amendment; it is imperative that we get it into the hands of all of America's lawmakers.

Statement of Michael Farris, President of ParentalRights.org--March 31, 2009

On behalf of ParentalRights.org and the rapidly growing number of allied organizations, I want to thank Senator Jim DeMint, Congressman Pete Hoekstra, and my own Congressman Frank Wolf for their leadership on this important issue.

There are two basic reasons that the Constitution has been amended throughout our history. Sometimes the need is to preserve our law and traditions from potential threats and erosion of our rights. The Bill of Rights serves as the chief example of amendments designed to preserve the existing rights of the people.

At other times, it is absolutely necessary to change the existing law. The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments were clearly necessary to end the evils of slavery and establish the principle of equal protection for all Americans.

The Parental Rights Amendment follows the pattern of the Bill of Rights—the goal of this Amendment is to preserve our existing law and traditions against judicial erosion and the ever-growing threat of international law.

Sections 1 and 2 of this Amendment do nothing more than restate the time-honored doctrines of the Supreme Court on parental rights. We are simply changing parental rights from an implied right based on judicial opinions to an express right based upon actual constitutional text.
Section 1 faithfully employs the words and phrasing of the Supreme Court’s decision of Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925), to declare that the liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is a fundamental right.

Section 2 carefully follows the words of the Court in Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972), to declare that parental rights, while very important, have limits. The government may intervene when the interest is of the highest order and not otherwise served. This section is a correct statement of current law. Today, when the government has proper evidence of child abuse or neglect, it may and should prosecute a parent who is responsible for such behavior.
Section 2 ensures that this principle remains intact. Parental rights are fundamental, but they are not absolute.

Section 3 preserves the current principle that only American laws govern the relationship between parents and children in this country. The use of international law is a rapidly growing trend in our judicial system. One federal district judge in New York has on two separate occasions ruled that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child already binds the United States under the doctrine of customary international law. An Ohio court ruled on an obviously flawed premise that this treaty had already been ratified by the Senate, and therefore ordered parents to stop smoking because it harmed the health of their children.

Section 3 makes it clear that the only law which can be used in American courts regarding American families is the law made in America by our legislatures or the people themselves. The use of international law for domestic purposes is utterly contrary to the idea that this nation is a self-governing Republic.

This section is necessary especially in the context of international law. Under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, international legal obligations are of superior rank to national law—even if that law is from the national constitution. However, there is an exception. Article 46 of the VCLT says that when the national constitution makes an exception concerning the power to enter treaties, then the national law still triumphs even in the face of an inconsistent treaty obligation.

Section 3 makes it unconstitutional for this nation to enter into a treaty that gives away our sovereignty on the subject of American parents and American children.
This should be a bi-partisan issue. President Obama recently declared, “In the end, there is no program or policy that can substitute for a mother or father.” Every member of Congress who agrees with the President on this principle should be in favor of this Amendment.

Every member of Congress who believes that Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925), was correctly decided should be in favor of Section 1.

Every member of Congress who believes that Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972), was correctly decided should be in favor of Section 2.

And every member of Congress who believes that only American legislators should make public policy for American families should be in favor of Section 3.

On this last point, a post-election Zogby poll (sponsored by WorldNetDaily) makes it clear that virtually every sector of the American public agrees with this last proposition.When asked if they wanted American judges to use American law alone or to also consider international law in making decisions, by an overwhelming margin, the American public rejected the idea of using international law for these purposes.

The majority of Republican voters reject international law.

So do the majority of Democratic voters.

Those who voted for McCain reject international law.

A majority of those who voted for Obama reject it as well.

Union members reject international law.

NRA members reject international law.

Every region of the nation rejects international law.

Every age group rejects international law.

Every racial group rejects international law.

This is a bipartisan issue in America among voters, and I truly hope and believe that it will become a bipartisan issue on the Hill. The gap between the values of Capitol Hill and the values of the American people has grown too large on too many issues. This is the very best place to show the American public that we all can work together for shared values.Both political parties say they are for family values. And this will demonstrate meaningful support for the family.

This Amendment preserves two essential values: the value that good families, not government, have the right to make decisions for children; and that America, not the UN or any other nation, gets to make our public policy to govern the critical relationship between parents and children.

Dave Ramsey's Town Hall for Hope

Dave Ramsey is partnering with LifeChurch to create a forum for people to hear and understand the reality of the current economic situation, how we got here, and how to live outside of the fiasco.

Click on the add to find out more. This would be a great event for Churches, small groups, or just someone who wants to find some good answers to tough questions. You can click on the banner to find a list of sites that are hosting the free event.