Category Archives: Current Events

Secret Church at the MIX

Secret Church 2013

This evening, our church will be participating in the Secret Church simulcast with David Platt. This is the 13th Secret Church event, and I’ve been blessed to participate in the last seven. It’s always fantastic, and I’m sure tonight will be no different!

At each SC event, Pastor David Platt of the Church at Brook Hills in Birmingham, AL, teaches on a topic for about six hours, with times of musical worship and prayer for the persecuted church around the world interspersed throughout the night. This year’s prayer focus is for the Hui people, an ethnic minority in China that is predominantly Muslim.

Tonight’s topic is “Heaven, Hell, and the End of the World.” While I don’t know exactly how Platt will approach teaching about the End Times, the promo video gives a very encouraging preview:

Based on this video, and on a familiarity with Platt’s teaching style, here are some things I expect to happen tonight:

Mix of Individual and General Eschatology

Whereas most teaching events on the topic of eschatology that I’ve attended have been focused on the timing & manner of Christ’s return, I expect Platt to spend much more time teaching about the eternal fate of individual believers and nonbelievers. With this focus, a study of the doctrine of the future is one of the greatest motivators of evangelism. David Platt never opens his mouth without calling Christians to take the gospel to the lost, always stressing the extreme urgency of this mission. This is as it should be!

Focus on Unity Rather Than Division

There’s a joke that’s been around for quite some time that “the millennium is 1000 years of peace that Christians like to fight about.” Eschatology, sadly, is one of the most divisive doctrines among Christians. People tend to either be very passionate about their beliefs regarding the end of time, or to be ambivalent (which has a tendency to upset the passionate folks!), choosing to focus on other things. If anybody can teach what is sure to be a diverse group of believers in a way that unites believers around the gospel rather than dividing on millennial fault lines, it will be David Platt. Besides, whether you’re “pre-mill”, “a-mill”, or “post-mill”, you have WAY more in common with those of different eschatological persuasions than you have in difference. I expect Platt to highlight these unifying themes.

The Millennium is Now

That said, I doubt he’s going to teach for six hours without “planting a flag” somewhere. While I am sure Platt will endeavor to present other views fairly and accurately, I expect tonight’s teaching to lean slightly toward an amillennial perspective, as this seems to be the bent of his teaching in his books and sermons. This happens to be my own personal view (which has changed somewhat over the last five years after much study and prayer), but for those who hold to different views, don’t worry! I expect him to highlight the best aspects of other perspectives rather than highlighting areas of disagreement. I doubt anyone will walk away anything but encouraged and edified!

Incidentally, most of our church staff and members are Dispensationalists, and we all get along just fine! I’m thankful to serve on a staff that is united around the centrality of the Gospel rather than divided over peripheral doctrines. For a great book that models cooperation between Dispensationalists and Amillennialists, check out Understanding Dispensationlists by Amillennialist Vern Poythress (my review).

Join Us!

The simulcast at Stevens Street is being hosted by The MIX, our college ministry. However, this is NOT just for college students! All church members are invited to attend and study with us. There is no cost to attend, though if you are able to contribute, donations will be appreciated to help offset the cost to the college ministry. Study guides will be available (as long as our supply lasts!) for $5. Let me know if you want one and I’ll put your name on it.

If you’d like to come, join us in the MIX room, Building H at SSBC (this is the building on Short St. across from the youth building). If you’d like to come early, there will be a spaghetti dinner in the Fellowship Hall starting at 5:00, with proceeds benefiting the family of Roger Vinson, one of our church members recently diagnosed with terminal cancer. The cost of the dinner will be $5.

Related Resources

I’ll bring copies of all the books listed below tonight, in case anyone would like to browse or borrow any of them:

Books by David Platt:

Sermons by David Platt:

Recommended reading on personal and general eschatology:

Other:

  • An Evening of Eschatology [Video] — A roundtable discussion on the millennium moderated by John Piper
  • Endtimes Q&A — A helpful series of videos summarizing the four predominant views of eschatology
  • Why I Changed My Mind About the Millennium — Examples of how one baptist pastor and seminary professor (Sam Storms) changed his beliefs from premillennialism to amillennialism, and how another (Tom Schreiner) changed his mind in the opposite direction.

Gun Violence and the Second Amendment

In my last post, I demonstrated through historical documents what I believe to be clear: that the 2nd Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights with the express purpose of giving American citizens the ability to defend themselves against all aggressors, particularly the American military. Today I want to say just a few things about specific gun-related issues that have come to the forefront of public discussion in the last month.

On Banning “Assault Weapons”

Most of the debate lately has been centered on various efforts to introduce legislation restricting the sale, transfer, and manufacture of so-called “assault weapons”, particularly the proposed Assault Weapons Bill from Senator Dianne Feinstein. Naturally, emotions tend to run very high on this issue. I can certainly understand the Senator’s especially passionate abhorrence of gun violence; being a witness to the aftermath of the grisly murders of two colleagues is bound to leave a mark. Still, emotions must not be allowed to cloud judgment on either side of the gun control debate.

So first off, let me say a word about the terminology used in the debate. It’s important to note that the term “assault weapon” didn’t exist before 1989, though the purveyors of Newspeak who created the term have done an excellent job convincing many that the weapons in this category — chosen arbitrarily based on their cosmetic appearance rather than on functionality — are particularly “dangerous”. The truth about “assault weapons” is that there is nothing inherent in them that makes them better suited for “assault” than for any other use (defense, sporting, hunting, etc).

Incidentally, the “AR” in the oft-villified AR-15 does NOT stand for “Assault Rifle”. It is the designation for the gun’s designer,  ArmaLite.inc, which uses the AR prefix on all of their handguns and rifles (not just the scary-looking ones).

Personally, I’d like to see the term “assault weapon” reserved for weapons that have actually been used in assaulting someone. For instance, the revolver used to kill George Moscone and Harvey Milk was an assault weapon. The revolver used by a mother to ward off an intruder in her Georgia home recently was a defensive weapon.

By my definition, I would say that we do need a ban on “assault weapons”. But, of course, we already have that. Using a weapon to perpetrate a crime is already illegal in all 50 states. I am all for stricter enforcement of laws prohibiting rape, murder, burglary (etc.) and harsher punishments for those who commit them. But banning more weapons and adding more gun control laws only takes the means of defense away from law-abiding citizens.

“Nobody Is Trying to Take Guns from Hunters”

One thing the gun control advocates keep throwing out there is the “reassurance” that they have no intention of taking guns away from hunters. They only want to take away the guns that are meant to kill people. You know, like AR-15′s.

So, of course, gun owners are quick to argue that some people do hunt with AR-15′s. True as that may be, why is it that they feel the need to offer that defense in the first place? It only validates the false premise that guns intended for protection from people are not covered by the second amendment.

Of course, no law-abiding citizen wants to use a weapon against a person. The vast majority of guns owned by Americans are never needed in defensive situations (as it should be!). But the fact remains that there are bad people in the world. If there weren’t, there would be no need for anyone to own a weapon — including the police and military.

So what happens when the police and the military are the bad guys?

Please note that I am NOT saying that this is a present reality; but I AM saying that this is precisely the potential reality against which the 2nd Amendment was designed to protect. Lest we think that this could never happen, consider the sobering reality that death by government was the #1 cause of death worldwide in the 20th century, and that the modus operandi of tyrannical governments always includes attempting to disarm the people… including His Majesty King George, whose soldiers marched on Lexington and Concord in 1775. (Think the men who wrote our Constitution and Bill of Rights didn’t know a gun could kill a man as well as a deer?)

With that being the case, what is wrong with saying that you know exactly what purposes a gun can serve, and that its ability to neutralize a threat — including the threat of hostile, well-trained and well-armed agents of one’s own government — is exactly the reason you want it?

How YOU Benefit from Concealed Carry Rights

While the “gun control” and “gun rights” camps engage in a duel of statistics to try to prove their respective cases, the most important statistic relative to gun violence is one that can’t be reported because it can’t be known: the number of crimes that are not committed due to the deterrent factor of CCW rights.

How many homes are not burgled because the residents might be armed? How many women are not raped because they might have guns? How many public gatherings are not the scenes of mass shootings because someone, anyone might have the means to stop it? There’s simply no way to know.

What we do know is that the vast majority of “successful” (in the worst sense of the word) mass shootings in the last several decades have taken place in locations in which guns were banned, meaning that all law-abiding citizens were unarmed. I don’t know… maybe it’s a coincidence.

And this is to say nothing of the countless (and largely unreported) instances each year in which responsible gun owners are able to defend themselves and others from would-be attackers — in most cases without firing a shot (as in this instance right here in TN just a few days ago). Whether they realize it or not, all American citizens benefit from the presence and discipline of millions of responsible gun owners. For the record, I would say that whether I was personally a gun owner or not.

Which, by the way, I won’t say; not online. It seems that most on the “gun rights” side of the issue tend to either proudly identify themselves as gun owners, or are quick to clarify that they feel strongly about the issue though they choose not to own weapons themselves. I am thankful that Americans have the right to decide for themselves whether they want to own or carry a gun, and I respect the decisions of others to follow their own convictions. But honestly, I’d rather just not say. When criminals know you’re unarmed, you become a target. The same is true when they know that you are armed (as seen recently where names and addresses of gun owners were published by a terribly irresponsible newspaper). The security is in the uncertainty.

The Last Word (for now…)

My greatest wish in all this is that both sides would tone down the vitriol, and start reasoning together from common ground. Everyone involved in this debate — from Mitch McConnell to Dianne Feinstein, from Sean Hannity to Piers Morgan, from the President of the NRA to the President of the USA — everyone agrees on one goal: reducing gun violence in America. Sure, they disagree vehemently on the strategies for doing so, and on their interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, but the one thing that is sure to not work is maintaining the status quo. And until we can move past the rhetoric of vilification and have an honest, thoughtful, passionate debate with the goal of working together toward something we all want, we’re going nowhere.

Resources

Here are a few other resources you might enjoy:

A well-spoken advocate for responsible gun ownership:

Militia and the Second Amendment

So much has been said recently on the topic of gun control that I am hesitant to wade into the public debate myself. However, on the off chance that I’m not the only one who cares about the original intent of founding documents, I thought I’d share a few points of interest from my own study of the history of the 2nd Amendment, which, for the benefit of those who may not know it, reads as follows:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Militia vs. Standing Armies

During the long and contentious debate which preceded the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, there were few points at which those who favored ratification (the “Federalists”) agreed with those who opposed it (the “Anti-Federalists”). One thing they did agree on was their fear of a standing army. Both factions were adamant that the new government must not establish a permanent, professional military. This, in fact, was one of the “usurpations” of which the King of Britain was accused in our Declaration of Independence:

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

Federalists and Anti-Federalists alike believed that a standing army was dangerous to liberty, as well as a colossal waste of money. The Anti-Federalists believed that Article I, Section 8 of the proposed Constitution granted Congress too much authority over those who would bear arms; they did not want the federal government to have a say in the training (“regulation”) of the militia, or to have the power to “raise and support armies”. The following three quotes are from three of the “Anti-Federalist Papers”, which were all written under pseudonyms:

“Where lies the security of the people? What assurances have they that either their taxes will not be exacted but in the greatest emergencies, and then sparingly, or that standing armies will be raised and supported for the very plausible purpose only of cantoning them upon their frontiers? There is but one answer to these questions. — They have none.” ~ Anti-Federalist, “John DeWitt” No. 3

“It is universally agreed, that a militia and a standing body of troops never yet flourished in the same soil. Tyrants have uniformly depended upon the latter, at the expense of the former. Experience has taught them, that a standing body of regular forces, where ever they can be completely introduced, are always efficacious in enforcing their edicts, however arbitrary.” ~ Anti-Federalist, “John DeWitt” No. 5

“There is no instance of any government being reduced to a confirmed tyranny without military oppression; and the first policy of tyrants has been to annihilate all other means of national activity and defence, and to rely solely upon standing troops.” ~ Anti-Federalist No. 28

The Federalists countered that there would be no point in having a Federal government at all if it was not given the ability to organize armed men for the common defense. They assured the American people that because the Constitution limited Congressional ability to appropriate money for an army to a period of only two years, this army could never be a serious threat to the liberties of the people since there would be little, if any, difference in the level of training in the use of arms between the army and the citizens. Here’s Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 29:

“If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.”

Eventually, of course, a compromise was reached. The Federalists got their Constitution (including the 8th section of the 1st Article), and the Anti-Federalists got their Bill of Rights (including the 2nd Amendment). Four years later, Congress voted to raise a trained standing army (to deal with the “Indian problem”), and we’ve had one ever since.

The Body of the People

When James Madison agreed to write the Bill of Rights, the precise wording of each of the articles was debated at length by Congress. Here is the version approved by the House and sent to the Senate:

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.

You’ll notice that the Senate shortened this by quite a bit before reaching the final version seen at the top of this post. The clause related to religious scruples was dropped out of concern that cowardly men might feign such scruples in order to be excused from service (though provision was eventually made for “conscientious objectors”).

Of particular interest today, though, is the clause “composed of the body of the People”, also struck from the Amendment by the Senate. While there seems to be much confusion today about who ought to be the recipients of the right to bear arms, this was not in question in 1787. The “body of the people” clause was removed for redundancy; it was understood that the militia was composed of the body of the People. (See the United States Code for the “official” definition of militia as the term is used today.)

Reasons to Keep Arms

In a letter from prominent Anti-Federalist Samuel Nasson to his Federalist congressman George Thatcher, Nasson urges adoption of the Amendment, and lists several reasons for which citizens ought to have a Constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms:

“I hope that such may take place as will be for the Best Interest of the whole. A Bill of rights well secured that we the people may know how far we may Proceade in Every Department then their [sic] will be no Dispute Between people and rulers in that may be secured the right to keep and bear arms for Common and Extraordinary Occations such as to secure ourselves against the wild Beast and also to amuse us by fowling and for our Defence against a Common Enemy you know to learn the Use of arms is all that can Save us from a forighn foe that may attempt to subdue us for if we keep up the Use of arms and become well acquainted with them we Shall allway be able to look them in the face that arise up against us for it is impossible to Support a Standing armey large Enough to Guard our Lengthy Sea Coast and now Spare me on the subject of Standing armeys in a time of Peace they allway was first or last the downfall of all free Governments it was by their help Caesar made proud Rome Own a Tyrant and a Traytor for a Master… I think the man that Enters as a Soldier in a time of peace only for a living is only a fit tool to inslave his fellows.”

If you can wade through the antiquated/poor spelling & punctuation, you’ll notice three primary purposes for keeping arms: protection from wild animals, hunting/amusement, and defense against an enemy. You’ll also notice that the enemy against whom he most desired the ability to protect himself was his own government, should that government prove to be tyrannical.

Again, the Federalists shared this concern:

“If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government…  if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.” ~ Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

Later in the same paper, Hamilton seems unable to imagine a scenario in which the federal government could not be kept in check by an armed populace:

“For a long time to come, it will not be possible to maintain a large army; and as the means of doing this increase, the population and natural strength of the community will proportionably increase. When will the time arrive that the federal government can raise and maintain an army capable of erecting a despotism over the great body of the people of an immense empire, who are in a situation, through the medium of their State governments, to take measures for their own defense, with all the celerity, regularity, and system of independent nations?”

History Matters

Reinventing history to promote an agenda has become commonplace. Those pushing hard for bans on weapons seem to believe in the mantra of repeating a lie until people start to believe it. But no matter how often you hear that the 2nd Amendment only applies to flintlocks, that the right of a citizen to bear arms is reserved merely for hunting, or that average Americans owning weapons capable of protecting against the possibility of government tyranny is absurd, it’s simply not true, as the historical record clearly demonstrates.

I’ll leave you for now to digest all this and form your own conclusions. In my next post, I’ll sound off on some of the specific issues that have come to the forefront in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre.

*EDIT* Click here to go on to the next part of this series.

Sources

Here are some websites that have been helpful in my research for this post, but which were not directly quoted or cited above:

Jesus Shall Reign

During this evening’s worship service, our church spent time praying for Southern Baptist church planters in all 50 states, as well as elected officials from each state and our national leaders. To follow up on this, I wanted to share a passage on which I’ve been reflecting during this week’s final run-up to the big election on Tuesday. From the ESV, here is Psalm 72:1-7:

  1. Give the king your justice, O God,
    and your righteousness to the royal son!
  2. May he judge your people with righteousness,
    and your poor with justice!
  3. Let the mountains bear prosperity for the people,
    and the hills, in righteousness!
  4. May he defend the cause of the poor of the people,
    give deliverance to the children of the needy,
    and crush the oppressor!
  5. May they fear you while the sun endures,
    and as long as the moon, throughout all generations!
  6. May he be like rain that falls on the mown grass,
    like showers that water the earth!
  7. In his days may the righteous flourish,
    and peace abound, till the moon be no more!

While in many ways this passage (and the rest of Psalm 72) is messianic, pointing ultimately to the future eternal reign of Christ, it was also a prayer for an earthly ruler. It’s a good reminder that we should pray for our leaders, but also that our final hope lies in Jesus, not in a political leader (Psalm 146:3).

Regardless who wins the presidential election on Tuesday, I pray that the next four years would be a period in which Americans may be judged with justice. I pray for righteousness and prosperity for all people, and that our nation’s poor would see their needs met and their oppressors crushed. I pray that many will be saved, coming to know and fear the Lord. May God’s people flourish, and may peace abound!

Here is an excellent arrangement by Enfield of an Isaac Watts hymn based on Psalm 72:

It’s a Gift

Yesterday saw the release of the first single from George Dennehy Music, a song called “It’s a Gift”. If you haven’t heard of George Dennehy, you’re in for a treat! A few years back I posted a story about George, who I met about eight years ago at CAMP-of-the-WOODS. At the time, I was leading children’s music at the camp, and George & his brother James were two of my best helpers during their stay. George also gave a pretty impressive cello recital! He had a great talent for music and great enthusiasm for the Lord, and I’m encouraged to see that hasn’t changed.

George recently gained some fame when he posted a YouTube clip in which he covered “Iris” by the GooGoo Dolls. The video made its way to the band, who decided to invite him to join them for some performances.

Here is a video containing lyrics for George’s first single. He recorded all of the vocals and instrumentals, playing guitar and piano. Have I mentioned that George was born without arms? Check it out:

You might be interested to see George on stage with the GooGoo Dolls:

I hope you’ll also check out this video which George recently posted to his YouTube channel, in which his father talks about their incredible adoption story. The family was large when I met them, but God has continued to grow them in the years since. They now have twelve children, including several with various special needs, and representing six different countries. What a testimony!

Take a moment to go check out George on Facebook and Twitter, and then go buy his single.