They are right, but not alone:

Michael Gerson used the Pope's recent visit to America as an opportunity to comment on what he calls the indispensibility of the Roman Catholic Church. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/17/AR2008041703167.html
He gives two main reasons for this conclusion:

• First: ". . . the [RC] church is the main defender of reason in the modern world. It teaches the possibility that moral truth can be known through reflection and argument. It criticizes what Pope Benedict XVI has called the "dictatorship of relativism" -- a belief "that does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one's own ego and one's own desires." "Being an adult," says Benedict, 'means having a faith which does not follow the waves of today's fashions or the latest novelties.'"
• He also points out that the Roman Catholic Church is a defender of human dignity. Certainly, their record on the sanctity of life for the unborn and the aged bear witness to this.

I am glad that the Roman Catholic Church has helped to point in our world in the direction of sound thinking, and appropriate honoring of the value of life, but Gerson's notion that they are indispensible is not correct.

It is not my intention to debate the differences between Catholic and Evangelical teaching, but simply to point out that they exist and are significant. It will come as no surprise to you for me to tell you that I think I, and those who believe like me--Evangelicals--are right.

While we may lack the visibility of a Papal visit, Evangelicals likewise hold to the truth, we believe in human dignity, and we clearly proclaim the Evangel.

What is essential is not a particular denomination, but the proclamation of the truth of God's word in its fullest and most complete form.

What we have in common:

My friend, Happiness Lodge, is challenging the people of Micronesia (Happiness is Chuukese) to lay aside their ethnic differences and work together to reach the world for Jesus.
There are legitimate divisions in the church. they are legitimate in that those on the right side of the divide cannot just ignore the difference without being unfaithful to God's word. Erwin Lutzer does a good job of covering this concept in his book, Doctrines that Divide. However, we are often divided by that which doesn't matter.
I encourage you to read Happiness's thoughts on his blog, http://pibcstudent.blogspot.com/.
Below is my comment on his challenge:
Happiness,The question you ask--challenge you issue--is one that goes far beyond Micronesia.In more general terms, I see your question this way:Are we willing to regard our "alikeness" in Christ to be more important than the differences--ethnic, cultural, national, economic--that come between us?I sincerely hope that this is taking place in Micronesia. I don't see it happening nearly enough here in the West. The tribalism of postmodernism, and marketing the church to various groups is tending to divide us. On a recent trip, I not only passed many church buildings where various groups meet--Presbyterian, Baptist, Methodists, etc., but also the "Cowboy Church." Churches are marked by, or known for, the kind of music they use, what translation they read, whether folk were suits or jeans, etc.In New-Testament assemblies there were Jews and Gentiles, slaves and masters, well-educated and illiterate. They regarded that which bound them together to be greater than the forces that divided them, and they "turned the world upside down."

BTW:
When you read Happiness's blog you can see that he is the kind of young man who will make a difference for the Lord. He is graduating from Pacific Island Bible College in just a few weeks. PIBC is doing more with less than about any institution that I know. I would love to be the vehicle to provide some more funding to this highly significant ministry, and its hard-working frugal staff. If you would like to join me in helping this ministry turn out more grads like Happiness, write me at covbchm@gmail.com.

Dilbert & Us:

First panel of a recent Dilbert cartoon:
The pointy-haired boss is looking at us; the other four people are facing away, looking in his direction. The p.h.b. has recently instituted a five-minute huddle, every morning at 10:00. It is supposed to encourage, challenge, and motivate the troops. It is obviously something that p.h.b. recently read about in an article. As is usual in the Dilbert-world, the sarcasm, futility, and cynicism are thick.
“Who has some successes to share at our five-minute daily huddle?” He asks.
The silence is deafening in the second panel. Going back to the first is and looking at the other members of the team explains why. The characters personify:
· Hostility—we can be glad she didn’t speak.
· Cluelessness—“What are we trying to succeed at?”
· A devotion to avoiding all productive labor—“I refuse to answer that; it might lead to someone expecting more of me in the future.”
· And in the title character, an above-it-all knowledge (at least that’s what he thinks), reinforced by experience, leading to the conclusion that none of this will amount to anything anyhow, so “Why try?”
In the final panel, the boss tries to salvage his mini-meeting by asking, “Okay, are there any obstacles?” The mostly clueless one answers for the group, “Everything.”
Dilbert is one of the most popular comic strips in history because Scott Adams connects with real life.
Change the scene just a bit. The gray-haired pastor is standing in front of a group of you. Like the flat people in Dilbert-world, you represent a spectrum of emotions and states-of-mind. “Does anyone have anything to share?” G.h.p. asks, which is, basically, the same question p.h.b. asked his group. Often the rest—silence, followed by the general conclusion spelled, D,E,F,E,A,T—could go utterly unchanged.
I fear that the reason is the same, as well. We are doing nothing of significance, and therefore have nothing worth reporting. Five minutes ought to be way too short, but it is really infinitely too long.
In Dilbert-world it’s funny.

What I'd like to see:

Over the past couple of months I have been writing an article a week in our church bulletin about my vision, hopes, plans, etc. for the Covington Bible Church. It has been my privilege to pastor CBC for almost 35 years. Some of what I have written is local-only in orientation, but I figure most of it would be applicable in other venues. You can read all the articles together here, http://home.ntelos.net/~covingtonbib/vision.htm. I would appreciate any comments.

I am also reading the book UnChristian. It is one of the Barna Survey books. As such it has some shortcomings. If a thirty-two year old has been a Christian for twenty years are his observations about what he remembers about what being an outsider was like really worthy much. In spite of the above anomaly, I hope. : ) I have found the book very interesting. So far it seems to dwell within the area of tension that is required if we are to be salt and light. We have to be in contact, but also maintain our distinction. I'll let you know more when I finish.

A Tough, but entirely right stance on cohabiting couples:

A friend of mine, a good guy who loves the Lord, and is a fine pastor, recently told me that in relation to couples living together who present themselves for marriage, that he "wimps out." What he means is that he doesn't tell the couple that if he is going to be involved--as in doing the wedding ceremony--that the couple needs to stop cohabitating, and live chastely until the wedding.
I don't say this to be critical of my friend. It is a tough issue.
A colleague of mine has a young relative involved in a relationship, in other words he is living with his girlfriend. Both he and the young lady make a weak profession of knowing the Lord, but show no willingness to obey the Lord in the matter of sexual chastity. Their pastor, or perhaps more accurately, one of the couple's parent's pastor, figures that by working with them he continues to have a thread of contact and influence. He is quite right in his conclusion that this couple will get married--at least that is their clear and absolute intention right now, and they have made known that one of them won't move out. So, he reasons, this way he has an opportunity for ministry.
I remember several years ago working with some missionaries. We were trying to figure out an appropriate response to news about a couple from the people group we were trying to reach. Was it a good thing that Bobby had moved in with Sue? Both claimed Christ as Savior. Did that mean they were married now? Or was it fornication? The customs related to family life in that culture weren't familiar to us yet. Since then the Christians in that people group have been making clearer distinctions between those who are married and those who aren't. My culture is going the other way.
What should I expect from people of my culture? Is there a point of decline when we get to the place where that developing culture was--where nothing is clear?
What should my response be?
At present my response is that a "Christian marriage" involves more than a preacher saying some "holy" words. "If you want God's blessing you need to go God's way. One of you needs to move out." On some occasions I conclude that an immediate marriage--Virginia has no waiting period--is appropriate.
Chuck Colson has a commentary on the matter. I plan to get the book he mentions.
http://www.informz.net/pfm/archives/archive_573944.html
I'd appreciate the thoughts of others.

It's not just somebody in the news:

I don't know about you, but sometimes when I read about the big court cases, etc. I fail to realize that these are real people--somebody's mom, dad, child, neighbor.
I had read about Lisa's situation in a news magazine, then I found out that some folk who are members of the church I pastor are her close friends. In fact she and her daughter Isabella recently visited with us here at Covington Bible Church.

In a nutshell, here is her story. I'm sure there are details that are left out, but this is the gist. Lisa and her lesbian lover entered into a civil union in the state of Vermont. Lisa was impregnated by artificial insemination, resulting in the birth of Isabella. At some point there was a seperation. Lisa and Isabella live in Virginia, which does not recognize civil unions of this sort. Lisa came to know Christ as Savior and has rejected her former lifestyle. As a single mom, she is seeking to raise Isabella in a Christian home.
There is a duel between court systems. In VA Lisa has custody of her daughter. In Vermont there has been another decree. In the past, maybe still, if Lisa entered Vermont she could be arrested for failure to obey the decree of the court there. Lisa is fighting for the right raise Isabella in a Christian home. Her former partner has no real claim--other than a civil union which never should have taken place--on Isabella. She is not her mother, and obviously is not her dad. Yet Vermont courts have awarded some form of custody to Lisa's former partner.
Below is a prayer request I received from Lisa:

Please feel free to forward this email to those who you feel will pray for the upcoming hearings.
Dear Family and Friends in Christ,
March 12, 2008
Please remember Dave Corey in your prayers as he travels to Vermont to represent me tomorrow in my upcoming Vermont Supreme Court hearing. We have only 5 minutes to "argue" our side of the case. Our side is simply put as "what is happening in Vermont should not be happening". In other words, the civil union should be null and void due to their state law which reads something like the following:
if a home state does not recognize a civil union then the civil union is null and void in the state of Vermont.
When I entered into a civil union I was living in the state of Virginia. Therefore, the civil union should be null and void. As we know, however, this is not the stance that the Vermont Supreme Court or the Rutland Family Court (Judge Cohen) has taken.
Please pray for God's will as David argues this valid point. In addition, please pray for a miracle as the "non-denigrating statement" (this is what it is actually called in the court documents) in on the table as well. In August 2007, Judge Cohen in Vermont mandated that I was not allowed to speak of homosexuality as a sin, nor am I allowed to teach Isabella, my daughter, that anything is wrong with homosexuality in God's eyes. Even if Isabella asks questions about the homosexual lifestyle I am not allowed to answer them with a Biblical answer because the opposition states that it denigrates Janet and other homosexuals. This non-denigrating statement basically prohibits me from sharing with my own daughter how God saved me from my sinful past of homosexuality. This non-denigrating statement, if not overturned, will allow the gays and lesbians to further their agenda in regard to passing the hate crime bill which in turn will prohibit even Pastors from speaking about God's will in regard to the sin of homosexuality.
Please continue to pray for the upcoming Virginia Supreme Court which is scheduled sometime during the week of April 14, 2008. As soon as I know an exact date I will let you know. Please pray particularly for Virginia Supreme Court Chief Justice Hassell. He is a God fearing man and he needs our prayers!
Thank you for your prayers.
Joyfully Serving Christ,
Lisa MillerMatthew 18:19-20

Guys, Don't blow it! Some thoughts on Eliot Spitzer:

I begin this post by quoting from another STTA (See last post for more info.)

Just a couple of weeks ago we looked at the sad tale of David and Bathsheba in our Wednesday night Bible-study/Prayer time. Then in the last couple of days I saw the equally sorry account of Governor Eliot Spitzer’s corrupt dalliances with high-priced prostitutes. There are many parallels:

• Both were powerful men who thought they could get away with their sin.
• The governor and the king make clear that it is not, “Just my business.” The people who can be hurt are many.
• Over both accounts there is the obvious question, “Why?” As we—at least we guys—seek to honestly answer that question, we find the answers disturbing. There are too many ways that these guys are like us.

Perhaps above it all, there is the reminder that when we find ourselves, looking down from the roof, or on the computer screen, at a woman we shouldn’t be looking at in that way [Proverbs 15:20], that is the time to quit. In fact it is five minutes past time.
It’s STTA.

Years ago I had the privilege of speaking at my friend's, Dave King's, funeral. An older, wiser colleague, who was also Dave's friend cringed when he figured out where I was heading. But as I look back over two decades, I can't improve on David's--my friend, not the king--wisdom. One time when David and I were talking about preachers who had blown it morally, Dave said. "You know, when a guy starts unzipping his fly he has to know he's doing something wrong." I said, "Amen" when my friend shared that thought. At his funeral I quoted him to honor him for his commitment to purity, and his desire to hold the rest of us to the same standard. I remember it now. It has helped me over the years.

The utterly lame excuses that guys offer about something sneaking up on them, or their getting involved before they knew it, etc. Are lies. Before they ever get to the point of doing something that can be technically defined as adultery or fornication, they have chosen to ignore many flashing red lights on the dashboard of their conscience.

We are too easy on ourselves. Jesus said, cut off your hand, gouge out your eye. We seem unwilling to endure a hangnail's worth of suffering. "It is too hard." we say, and give in. It could be that is when it really gets hard. Just ask Eliot Spitzer.

Billy Graham never traveled alone. He always had staff check out hotel rooms before he entered. Extreme? Yes. But he is an old man with a spotless record on this matter. It is one thing for a politician to get in bed with the wrong woman--tragic, but not unexpected--but when one of us who is supposed to be a man of God shows himself to be very much a man-of-the-flesh, all of us have to pay the price.

I would appreciate your thoughts.