Here We Go Again

Another health care reform bill has passed the Senate Finance Committee. Once again, it includes taxpayer funds for abortions, contrary to Obama's promise to the nation in September.

According to Baptist Press, the bill...

-- allows tax credits and cost-sharing subsidies for lower-income people to be used to purchase private insurance plans that cover elective abortions. The bill requires the insurance companies to segregate their internal funds and not use federal dollars to pay for the abortions. Critics call it an accounting gimmick.

-- requires that each area of the country provide at least one plan that pays for elective abortions and one plan that does not pay for them.

We need to keep the pressure on congress to strike these provisions. The time to do it is now, not after the final version arrives for a vote.

Needed: A Revival of Stewardship

Southern Baptists recently reduced the size of their international missionary workforce, falling from 5,400 to roughly 5,000 missionaries. There has been much discussion about the cause of this decline and what we must do to fix it. Currently, a task force is working to answer these questions with a focus on how our conventions can be more efficient. However, I think I've got this problem figured out.

Twenty-five years ago, SBC churches gave an average of 10.6% of all receipts to missions through the Cooperative Program. Today, we give a meager 6.08%. Think about that for a moment. If in 2008, Southern Baptists did not receive a single penny more than what was given, but if our churches were as missions-minded and selfless as we were a quarter century ago, the result would be 4.52% more to the Cooperative Program!

Think about it this way: In 2008, Southern Baptist churches received over nine billion dollars($9,013,807,646). If Southern Baptists gave 10.6% to missions in 2008 like we did in 1984, we would have contributed an additional $407 million to missions. This is enough to add almost 10,000 more IMB missionaries!

As a pastor, I know what I would tell a church member who said they could not tithe because they could not afford to live off of 10% of their income. I would say that God can do more with 90% than they can do with 100%. That is also true for churches. Too many churches think that they must sacrifice giving to missions in order to pay for staff salaries and/or programs. This is simply not true. God will always provide for His people as they are faithful with what He has given them.

I pray that our churches will return to previous levels of generosity. I expect that when we do, we will see God bless faithful stewardship.

Isn't It Amazng?

The supreme court will hear arguments today regarding the long standing cross upon the Mojave Desert National Preserve. The ACLU claims that it represents an endorsement of religion to the exclusion of others. Of particular importance is the fact that a Buddhist monument was denied on the same property. This cross has been covered, as this picture demonstrates, for the past few years of litigation.

This cross was erected to honor World War 1 veterans, none of whom, by the way, seemed to mind. It is a cross, not a wheel of dharma, because our nation was not founded upon Buddhist principles, but Judeo-Christian ones. It is a cross, not a bodhi tree, because our constitution was not based upon the eight-fold path, but the ten commandments.

Founding Father Patrick Henry said, "It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ." If the ACLU can demonstrate evidence that our fouding fathers were influenced by Buddhism or any other religion, let them present it in a court of law. But we should pray that our supreme court will not play politics with our nation's history.

It's time to uncover the cross.

What Is Your Integrity Worth?

Something pretty big happened yesterday in the news, but I think it was lost behind the president's pitch to the International Olympic Committee and talks with Iran over its new nuclear facility. A key senate committee voted 13-10 to advance a health reform bill that would provide government funding for abortions. Keep in mind that president Obama promised that health reform would be abortion neutral. He made this promise in a special address to congress that was broadcast live to the nation.

To be exact..."Under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place." See the story HERE.

This means that if this health reform bill comes before the president's desk as is, the president will have two options: 1) Veto his own party's health care bill for which he has worked all this time or 2) Break a promise that he made to America. How much is a man's integrity worth? Let's pray that the president will make the right decision. Our tax dollars should not support the unconstitutional destruction of innocent, human, pre-born life.

Ring of Desperation

I was having lunch at an area grill yesterday and could not help but notice the beautiful engagement ring the waitress wore as she served our table. So I asked her, "When is the big day?"

"What day?" she asked.

"Your wedding day," I replied. "That is an engagement ring, right?"

"Uh...yes, actually it is. But there's no date. I bought it because it makes me feel good."

I thought to myself, how desperate for love and acceptance does someone have to be to buy for themselves and wear an engagement ring? This, of course, turned into an opportunity to talk to her about where real love and acceptance is found...in Jesus Christ.

Where's the Civility?

After Joe Wilson's recent outburst of "You lie" during Obama's health care address, I'm starting to get very concerned about the growing lack of civility in American politics. This is the fourth such incident that greatly disturbs me.

* During Clinton's presidency, Republicans hissed on several occasions and twenty of them even left early during a State of the Union address.

* In 2005, Democrats took it up a notch and booed during President Bush's State of the Union address.

* A year later, former president Jimmy Carter raised the ante even more by attacking a sitting president at Coretta Scott King's funeral while his backside was literally to President Bush who was seated behind him. (Somehow, this comes across as the most dirty trick of them all.)

Now, Joe Wilson chimes in with "You lie!' and refuses to even apologize in the chamber where his outburst took place.

Generally speaking, if an offense took place publicly, the apology should be public as well. And if you're Rep. Wilson, why not err on the side of graciousness towards those you have offended?

Both parties have muddied themselves in this debate. We desperately need for Christians to enter the political arena and be salt and light were both seem to be in short supply.

Gender Confusion in TNIV

I was asked this past Sunday about the new translation of the NIV, known as the TNIV or "Today's New International Version." The upcoming publication of this translation is problematic because it attempts to alter gender designations in the original text by replacing them with gender neutral translations.

At the heart of the issue is whether or not certain Greek words, which were written as masculine in the original text, should be translated as neutral when the context clearly implies both male and female are in mind.

Let me give an example and then share what I believe is a fundamental problem with the TNIV.
Matthew 5:9 says (NIV):

"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called the sons of God."

Now we all know that by using "sons," Jesus was not saying that only men are blessed by making peace. Common sense tells us that this applies to women as well as men. As a result, the TNIV translates the same verse by saying "they will be called the children of God." One could correctly argue that this better captures the meaning of the verse.

My problem with the above is that God chose, for whatever reason, to inspire the text in Koine Greek, or the common language of the people. As a result, the most literal translation would be "sons." While "children" would be a correct interpretation, the goal of a translation is not to interpret, but to translate. And while I realize that it is not always possible to separate the two, translation, not interpretation, must always be the goal of the committee. Some very respectable scholars were a part of the TNIV, but as bright as they are, the Holy Spirit does not need their help.

Proponents of gender neutral translations argue that gender in the original Hebrew and Greek often has no bearing on the meaning. However, gender did have meaning to the audiences for which these texts were initially written. For example, Hebrews 2:10 says in the NIV that Jesus will bring "many sons to glory." The TNIV says that he brings "many sons and daughters to glory." No manuscripts whatsoever contain the conjunction "and" or the second direct object "daughters." All of this is assumed by the fact that the plural form of "huios" is used. But the noun means "son" and it is significant because in Biblical days, the SON received the inheritance. Of course we know that this verse applies to both men and women. All believers are heirs of salvation through Christ. (Galatians 3:28) But the masculine is important because it has theological connotations that are lost by translating the text as gender neutral.

All of the above could be ignored as troublesome, but irrelevant were it not for one thing: The publisher of the NIV has decided that from now on, the TNIV will be referred to as the NIV. When someone orders a NIV, they will no longer be getting the gender accurate translation they think they are getting. They will be getting the gender inclusive translation instead. This means that when someone asks me what translation I preach from and I say "NIV," the NIV they buy at the local Christian bookstore will not be the same one I am using, even though it has the same name!

For this reason, I will soon be switching to another translation in my preaching ministry. It's too bad, because I have memorized a lot of Scripture in the original NIV. I'll always know those verses and quote those verses in the NIV. This also means that when I preach, I'll have to read verses I would normally just quote if I intend to put them up on the screen. It will also mean that we must change out all of our pulpit Bibles in the Sanctuary, which is also too bad because they are only five years old and were given by a man in memory of his recently deceased wife. But the integrity of the Word of God cannot be compromised.

And while I'm at it, some will, no doubt, use this episode as an excuse as to why we should have never stopped using the King James Version. However, new translations are always needed because, as I indicated above, God chose to give us the Word of God in the common language of the people. I have previously asked my KJV only friends "Why is it that God originally wanted His Word read and heard in common language but now wants it read and heard in a classical language that requires much effort for some to comprehend?" I also ask, "When exactly did this change from common to classical take place?" If you are going to argue for KJV only, you must answer these questions. However, I have yet to hear even a remotely plausible reply. Newer translations are needed, not only because all languages constantly change, but also because many of us live in a part of the country where those who hear us proclaim the Word of God do not have English as their mother tongue.

I will probably be making a switch to the Holman Christian Standard Bible. We'll see.

A great article on the controversy can be found HERE.