Part 1
Part 2
What do you all think about the interview?
The Credo House of Theology is well on the way. Get the latest updates here.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
Share this Post[?]
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 »
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
Share this Post[?] Was it God’s will for Barack Obama to become the president?
I tell all. Don’t miss this . . .
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
Share this Post[?] Was it God’s will for Obama to win the election?
Enjoy . . .
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
Share this Post[?] 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 »
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
Share this Post[?] 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 »
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
Share this Post[?] Come on folks. “I walk for the planet earth”?
I wonder if the school would have “I walk for the unborn.” What do you think?
Again, while I have nothing against biblical stewardship of creation, I have much against the presentation of this type of indoctrination and unbalanced agenda.
I feel like saying “I don’t walk, I just drive my four thousand pound Expedition that gets 12 miles to the gallon,” but that would not be expedient to keeping my ever increasing Green audience!
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
Share this Post[?] Warning: an imbalanced and emotionally non-irenic post ahead. Don’t read as it may only cause disappointment among many of my more progressive friends.
The latest Barna survey was published last night. Its intent was to evaluate the Evangelical position concerning the environment. In sum, it argues that Evangelicals are “going green.” You can find it here.
One paragraph in particular caught my attention:
“Most Christians are not satisfied to be mere observers of the green movement. Three-quarters of self-identified Christians (78%) agree they would like to see their fellow Christians take a more active role in caring for God’s creation in a way that is both informed and biblical. Among evangelicals, 90% would like Christians to take a more active role in caring for creation, with 67% agreeing strongly. This sentiment is firmly endorsed by a majority of active churchgoers who are Catholic (52%), mainline Protestant (62%), and non-mainline Protestant (67%).”
I would agree with the basic thrust of this as I too am concerned about the environment. However, I am not going “Green” or even “going Green” in any way. Continue Reading »
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
Share this Post[?] N.B. RMMers, this email is something that my little old gray-haired mother sent to a long-time friend recently. Many of you can relate to the bombardment of factoids on your computer from well-meaning friends and conservative spam-generators. You may not agree with Nayda Wallace about her viewpoints, but I trust that you’ll see some good wisdom here nonetheless. I have found her missive to be a very articulate statement about how conservatives (both politically and religiously) should integrate politics with Christian beliefs. There is a priority scheme here that focuses on kingdom ethics and on Christ Jesus. Mom, thanks for your continued wisdom and sage advice that you have shown now for more than five decades of my life.
Dear _________,
Whereas I usually agree politically with most of what you say, I don’t always agree that we must repeat the message to our liberal loved ones. Here’s why (choose whichever reason you prefer): 1) I have a stronger message for them (especially if they don’t know it already), and that is that Jesus loves them. 2) As Joe Aldrich used to say, “when love is felt, the message is heard.” 3) If # 2 is true the message will not be heard if it is mixed with capitalized Obama factoids (some of which are highly suspect as to being fact). 4) I don’t believe that the conservatives are the good guys and the liberals are the bad guys. However, I do believe that some of the strong points of each party are worth merit and many of each party are not worth merit. And I do agree with more of the conservative basics than the liberal ones. 5) I don’t believe we live in a black and white world except in matters of faith. And even then, I have reduced my matters of faith to just what I believe the Bible teaches absolutely! I like the way Dan explains it and it is thus: “The older I get and the more I study, I find I believe less and less but that which I do believe, I believe more and more.” (Apologies to Dan as I paraphrased from memory.) (In other words, no arguments about “dunking or sprinkling,” which version of the Bible was the one Paul used, and whether I would stake my life on post-trib or pre-trib rapture—either way, I want to be there!) 6) I don’t believe Jesus died for a political party, but for sinners…including Democrats, Republicans, Muslims, and HORRORS, even Nazis! I do believe that conservatives are frequently arrogant about that fact. 7) Hence, although I read what you send, and digest it, and frequently save it on my computer, I seldom send it on because I want my relationship with these loved ones based on my love for them which is only possible because I’m forgiven. Having said all that, I admit to storing little bits of political trivia in my ancient brain to recall at moments of opportunity. Always couched in the greater truth that the body politic is not the end-all, be-all in God’s kingdom. 
And having said all that, I nevertheless really enjoyed the ad the conservative businessman placed in the paper. It took guts and conviction, traits which are frequently in short supply. And so for it’s worth, your passion is admirable. Your consistency is …well…consistent! And even though I commented that I might have enough guts to forward certain items on, I actually knew I wouldn’t. I will, however, store it away as a possible topic of conversation at the rare opportune moment. End of sermon for the day.
Love, Nayda B.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
Share this Post[?] N.B. RMMers, this email is something that my little old gray-haired mother sent to a long-time friend recently. Many of you can relate to the bombardment of factoids on your computer from well-meaning friends and conservative spam-generators. You may not agree with Nayda Wallace about her viewpoints, but I trust that you’ll see some good wisdom here nonetheless. I have found her missive to be a very articulate statement about how conservatives (both politically and religiously) should integrate politics with Christian beliefs. There is a priority scheme here that focuses on kingdom ethics and on Christ Jesus. Mom, thanks for your continued wisdom and sage advice that you have shown now for more than five decades of my life.
Dear _________,
Whereas I usually agree politically with most of what you say, I don’t always agree that we must repeat the message to our liberal loved ones. Here’s why (choose whichever reason you prefer): 1) I have a stronger message for them (especially if they don’t know it already), and that is that Jesus loves them. 2) As Joe Aldrich used to say, “when love is felt, the message is heard.” 3) If # 2 is true the message will not be heard if it is mixed with capitalized Obama factoids (some of which are highly suspect as to being fact). 4) I don’t believe that the conservatives are the good guys and the liberals are the bad guys. However, I do believe that some of the strong points of each party are worth merit and many of each party are not worth merit. And I do agree with more of the conservative basics than the liberal ones. 5) I don’t believe we live in a black and white world except in matters of faith. And even then, I have reduced my matters of faith to just what I believe the Bible teaches absolutely! I like the way Dan explains it and it is thus: “The older I get and the more I study, I find I believe less and less but that which I do believe, I believe more and more.” (Apologies to Dan as I paraphrased from memory.) (In other words, no arguments about “dunking or sprinkling,” which version of the Bible was the one Paul used, and whether I would stake my life on post-trib or pre-trib rapture—either way, I want to be there!) 6) I don’t believe Jesus died for a political party, but for sinners…including Democrats, Republicans, Muslims, and HORRORS, even Nazis! I do believe that conservatives are frequently arrogant about that fact. 7) Hence, although I read what you send, and digest it, and frequently save it on my computer, I seldom send it on because I want my relationship with these loved ones based on my love for them which is only possible because I’m forgiven. Having said all that, I admit to storing little bits of political trivia in my ancient brain to recall at moments of opportunity. Always couched in the greater truth that the body politic is not the end-all, be-all in God’s kingdom. 
And having said all that, I nevertheless really enjoyed the ad the conservative businessman placed in the paper. It took guts and conviction, traits which are frequently in short supply. And so for it’s worth, your passion is admirable. Your consistency is …well…consistent! And even though I commented that I might have enough guts to forward certain items on, I actually knew I wouldn’t. I will, however, store it away as a possible topic of conversation at the rare opportune moment. End of sermon for the day.
Love, Nayda B.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
Share this Post[?] 
We are a 501c3
Eighty percent of our budget comes from your support!
Partner with us in making a lasting impact.
