Andy Schlafly is political conservative advocate Phyllis Schlafly’s son. He’s a graduate of Princeton University (major in electrical engineering), and Harvard Law School. Schlafly is founder of the website Conservapedia.com, which boast more than 100 million page views, offers a full-blown conservative viewpoint on politics. Conservapedia.com is sponsoring a new Bible translation called the Conservative Bible Project. The project involves open-source editing, which has been an open source of woe or comic relief, depending on your perspective. The Tennesean.com reports that Gen 1.1 was changed by fans of Stephen Colbert as follows: “In the beginning, Stephen Colbert created the heavens and the earth”! The text was later fixed. Al Gore may have invented the Internet, but Colbert did not create the universe. Elsewhere, someone changed ‘Pharisee’ to ‘liberal’ to show that liberals were responsible for Jesus’ death. Schlafly changed it back to Pharisee but admitted to the Tennesean.com, “The possibility that Pharisees, which is a term that’s not familiar to most of us, could be better translated as liberal is intriguing. But we haven’t gone with that yet.”

Apart from using the best currently available Greek text which tags the long ending of Mark and the story of the woman caught in adultery (Mark 16.9–20 and John 7.53–8.11) as inauthentic, there is very little to commend in this translation. But even in following the critical Nestle-Aland text, the editors often argue that the changes to the text were made with liberal motives.

What is most remarkable about this new translation is not that it lacks almost total credibility (which is true), but that political ideology is so strong that it overrides everything else. New Testament professor Douglas Moo, Wheaton Graduate School, and chairman of the Committee on Bible Translation which oversees the NIV and TNIV, did not mince words about the Conservative Bible Project. “Silly is probably as kind as I could be about it,” Moo told the Tennesean.com. Schlafly responded by saying that the TNIV was motivated by a liberal agenda, especially with regard to gender inclusiveness. This, frankly, is an uninformed argument. Moo wrote the first full-blown exegesis of 1 Tim 2.11–15, published originally in Trinity Journal, taking a conservative position on the role of women in the church. Moo also was for some time a member of the conservative Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. And Zondervan, the publisher of the NIV/TNIV, is one of the more conservative Christian publishers out there.

From all that I can tell, Schlafly is mixing theological ‘liberal’ with political ‘liberal’ in his understanding. His ten rules for a conservative Bible translation show this clearly. But this reveals that he has no clue what a theological liberal is if he’s going to place anyone on the TNIV translation team under the rubric ‘liberal.’

My friend and former intern, Brittany Burnette, pointed out how they translated Mark 2.22: “And no man puts fresh grape juice into old bottles. The fresh juice will burst the bottles, spilling the juice and damaging the bottles. Fresh juice must be put into new bottles.” But without fermentation how could grape juice burst the bottles? The Conservative Bible Project notes that “the Greek word oinos…actually meant ‘fruit of the vine’ and was not fermented.” Although there are some conservative Christians who take this view, it is rather indefensible. See my essay “The Bible and Alcohol” for a discussion.

The agenda of this translation boggles the mind, and gives conservatives (both political and theological) a bad name.

Fear is a powerful motivator and detractor.  Fear can distort our perception of reality and cause us to see situations, circumstances, people in a completely different light.  Fear will cause us to project an undesirable outcome upon those situations and imagine endless detrimental possibilities.

So often in Scripture, we are told not to fear.  Jesus tells His disciples on many occasions not to fear since He is there.  After His earthly departure, He would send a comforter to allay fears.  Paul tells Timothy, that God has not given us a spirit of fear, but love, power and a sound mind.  John writes in his epistle, that there is no fear in love, for perfect love (meaning Christ) casts out fear because fear involves torment.  Yet, the believer can allow fear to seep in and distract from the peace that Christ brings and even justify fear in the face of alarming circumstances that stand counter-opposed to the Christian values we are striving to uphold.

It seems to me, and I could be wrong, there seems to be a vapor of fear circulating among evangelical circles these days.  I believe that several factors are motivating this fear but the chief instigator seems to be the current political administration.  Let’s face it, there are policies and practices being proposed that undercut and undermine a politically conservative platform, the same platform that most evangelicals share due to closest alignment of values based on a Biblical worldview.

Whether it be universal health care, internet policies, taxation of business or a presidential speech made to school children, the actions of the current administration are alarming many.  Not to mention, the administration’s pro-abortion stance.  So much so, I believe that there is a perception of detriment that I wonder is not being amplified because of fear.  Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying there is no cause for concern, especially if you are a politically conservative evangelical.  But I do get the sense that we are allowing that fear to draw unmitigated and slightly irrational conclusions about things that on face value, do not warrant the kind of response that some actions have drawn, such as delivering a motivational speech to school age children.  Al Mohler has written a very insightful piece concerning this (here).

I agree with Dr. Mohler concerning what the Christian response should be according to Scripture.  For I find the average evangelical response interesting in contrast to Biblical prescription and practices in the early church.  Paul encourages a response to government that I think is most intriguing considering the atheist, plurastic and hedonistic Roman government ruled during that time.  If we think our’s is immoral, it is saintly in comparison.  He writes in Romans 13:1-3,to submit to governing authorities for by doing so you are subjecting to God.  Moreover, he indicates that the authorities are not a cause for fear.  Even then, with what Christians faced the rule was to pray for government and submit to it.  Why?  Because God is the ultimate authority and it is God who is ultimately in control.

I further get the sense that  fear is causing us to want a government response to our concerns because American Christians Evangelicals have developed an expectation that government should align with a Biblical worldview and we should have no participation with one that doesn’t.  I suspect this is why there has been so much evangelical entwinement with the political process in order to control outcomes.  Perhaps it was the foundation of religious freedom that the country was founded on or maybe the fundamentalist movement in the early 20th century that sought to impose a Christian standard on society.  I think fear played a significant factor in these efforts since a “godless” society would inevitably be much more difficult to live in than one displaying the same moralistic values that should so distinguish the proper Christian.

I do find the contrast of political affiliation during the early church in contrast to today interesting.  There were no protests from Christians for the government to align with their values.  Even Paul, a Roman citizen, did not seek to gain political clout for the sake of Christianity.  In fact, it were the Jewish rulers who sought political good will in order to enhance their agenda.

Fear of any type of government misalignment with Christian values should not be a cause for concern for the believer.  It is not that we are not concerned about the current political direction of this country but a non-conformity to this world (Romans 12:2) means we don’t put our trust in the system.  A believer’s trust is in God because He is the one ultimately in control.  A believer  can submit to government because our trust is not in government but in God.  We don’t have to overreact to every move the current administration makes.  We can allow our children to be encouraged to take responsibility for their education by a government official opposed to a Biblical worldview because hopefully at home, we are instructing our children what one is.  I also think we can dispense from comparing our commander in chief to Hitler or Stalin because that does much to instigate fear that stands in opposition to position we should be taking according to Scripture.

If we belong to Christ, we are His and that should comfort us in spite of present and perceptions of pending circumstances.

More than one Christian friend has suggested to me, in all seriousness, that President Obama is the Antichrist. I haven’t taken such suggestions too seriously, but recently a video has shown up on Youtube that seems to claim that Jesus identified Obama as the Antichrist. Some Christians have been startled by this (and the video is wildly popular) and believe that the evidence is compelling. The video is found here.

The anonymous narrator introduces his provocative four-minute video by asking if Jesus identified the name of the Antichrist, then says, “I will report the facts; you can decide” (reminiscent of Greta Van Susteren’s tagline on her show on Fox News). The narrator then notes that in Luke 10.18, Jesus says, “And he said unto them, I beheld Satan falling from the heavens.”

He then begins to link several hypotheses together. First, he claims that Luke 10.18 was written originally in Greek, but that Jesus spoke these words in Aramaic, “which is the most ancient form of Hebrew.” Second, he observes that the Old Testament was written in Hebrew and claims that the Aramaic that Jesus spoke would have been quite similar to the Hebrew that is spoken today and, presumably, similar to the Hebrew of the Old Testament. Third, he then says that Jesus spoke these words in Hebrew, and retranslates the text as follows: “I saw Satan falling as lightning from the heights, or from the heavens.” Fourth, he discusses the Hebrew words for ‘lightning’ and ‘heights.’ He notes that the word for ‘lightning’ is baraq. Fifth, he claims that Isaiah is the source of the Christian understanding of Satan or ‘Lucifer’ (Isa 14.12 in the KJV). Sixth, Isa 14.14 has Satan say, “I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the Most High.” Seventh, the Hebrew word in Isa 14.14 for ‘heights’ is bamaw, and this is surely what ‘heavens’ means in Luke 10.18. Eighth, the Hebrew letter waw is sometimes transliterated as a u or o. Ninth, the waw is used in Hebrew as a conjunction. Tenth, in Hebrew poetry baraq obamah literally is translated “lightning and the heights” or “lightning from the heights.” Eleventh, if Jesus’ words in Luke 10.18 were spoken in Hebrew by a Jewish Rabbi today he would say, “And I saw Satan as baraq ubamah.” He concludes his narration by asking, “Did Jesus reveal the name of the Antichrist? I report; you decide.” There is a disclaimer at the end of the video that simply says the correlation is striking, but not that the narrator is claiming that the President is the Antichrist.

This video was followed up by another by the same narrator. You can see it here.

It essentially argues the same point, but changes a couple of points (without warrant). Continue Reading »

We had some friends over the other night. After some small talk, we got into some serious discussions on several issues. One of them was civil disobedience. One of the guests said, “When do you think it’s right for Christians to engage in civil disobedience?” He clarified his question by noting that under the present federal administration, a number of bills are being passed or are on the table that may have very strong implications for believers. For example, one of the health care bills being debated in Congress is known as “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009.” That’s the title that the authors gave to the bill.

It hasn’t passed Congress yet. The reason is not Republican resistance (since the Republicans are such a small minority in the Congress now, they really don’t have the numbers by themselves to stop any legislation), but Blue Dog Democrats who are deeply concerned about how the government will pay for all the legislation being passed.

Some of the issues that have come up regarding this current bill, however, are ethical more than economic. Ironically, it has taken outsiders to point out these issues to Congress because most representatives have not read the bill! Even President Obama admitted last week that he had not read the bill, even though he has been promoting it heavily.

It is also ironic that one of the major reasons for rising health care costs is the built-in cost of litigation, something that generally is viewed favorably by liberals, less favorably by conservatives. (One physician told me several years ago that, even though he had never been sued for malpractice, he had to pay $100,000 in lawsuit protection insurance annually.) So, in one respect, the reason the health care costs are rising so quickly is because of liberal judges. The health care problems thus are somewhat created by liberalism, and now a liberal health care plan is supposed to solve these problems? Isn’t that like having the fox watch the chicken coop? Continue Reading »

Part 1

Part 2

What do you all think about the interview?

Editor’s note: Dan originally posted this essay on Feb 19, but had second thoughts on how he had worded some things.

In the Feb 18 issue of the New York Post, there is a cartoon depicting two policemen standing over a rabid chimp that one of them had just riddled with bullets. As it lay dying in its own pool of blood, the other officer quipped, “They’ll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill.”

The cartoon plays off of the shooting of a chimpanzee in Stamford, Connecticut on Monday, after it had mauled a woman and nearly ripped her face off.

Of course, political cartoons always imbibe in satire and they often use current events as a metaphor to make their point. This one seemed to be no exception.

The first thing I thought of when I saw the cartoon was that this was intended to be a racial slur against the president. Even worse, the fact that the chimp had been killed seemed to suggest assassination. And frankly, I was sickened and horrified at the possibility that these were intended implications. As I read some of the early reactions to the cartoon, I noticed that some saw the same thing I saw while others did not. Some said that the monkey was just a monkey and that there was no symbolism intended, and certainly not a visual slander on the president. But as the news circulated, it seemed that people began to take up polar positions: either the cartoon was intentionally racist and mean-spirited (to say the least) or that “a monkey is just a monkey” and no symbolism should be read into the cartoon. The editor at the NY Post said that the dead ape did not represent the president but simply represented the stimulus package and its defenders in general. Continue Reading »

Was it God’s will for Barack Obama to become the president?

I tell all. Don’t miss this . . .

Was it God’s will for Obama to win the election?

Enjoy . . .

I have learned something over the last few months. You have all heard the saying that the two things you don’t talk about in mixed company are religion and politics. I have found that religion is much easier to talk about than politics. People are much more tolerant about religion because my decisions and beliefs don’t necessarily affect you. At least they don’t affect you to the degree that my political decisions and beliefs effect you. Why? Because politics, here in America, is a democracy, religion is not. When you and I vote we affect each other, creating a necessary submission to our elected leadership.

Whether you voted for him or not, my fellow American citizens, Obama is our new president. The balance of powers has now completely shifted. Agree or not, the people have spoken.

I praise God for this. In fact, I will rejoice at the revealing of his will.

Why?

Because, ultimately, God is in control of who sits in the White House. The plans of the heart belong to man, but the Lord makes things happen (Prov. 16:1). God placed Obama in the presidency according to his sovereign will. That is right. Obama is the man God decided would be our next president. This is exactly what he wanted to happen.

Argue with him if you will. Argue about the history of this country, the supreme court judges, the issues of morality, and the moral superiority of our view on taxes but, in the end, “no wisdom, no understanding, no counsel can avail against the LORD” (Prov. 21:30).

Don’t bother inviting him to your morning party either. He will not come. No RSVP either. In fact, he won’t even send an angelic representative. Continue Reading »

This is saying the same thing I said a few weeks ago about a demotivated work force. Punish the rich and you may not get your beer at all.

Source Unknown (if you wrote it, claim it).

Our Tax System Explained: Bar Stool Economics

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that’s what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. ‘Since you are all such good customers,’ he said, ‘I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.’ Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. Continue Reading »