The 16th most read post is my interview with Terry Virgo from 2007, which also has a link to my 2008 interview.

In 15th place is a post that marked the closest I have come to being a true journalist on the blog. I had an exclusive story but, I must say I was taken back by the fact that anyone was surprised—still less angry—when I announced what I had been told were the reasons behind a split between Spring Harvest and Word Alive.

This press release was just sent out from Crossway. It is great news and reminds us of the need to pray during these Olympic games.

*****************************

Wheaton, IL— China will provide 10,000 free Chinese-English bilingual Bibles to be distributed in the Olympic Village where the Olympic athletes and media are housed, as reported by the China Daily newspaper. The bilingual Bible text will include the CUV (Chinese Union Version) and the ESV (English Standard Version), appearing in two side-by-side columns per page. The CUV Bible is the most widely distributed Chinese Bible in the world, and the ESV Bible has recently become the fastest growing English language Bible in the world.

In addition to the 10,000 bilingual CUV-ESV Bibles, 30,000 New Testaments and 100,000 bilingual editions of the four Gospels will also be made available at the Olympic Games.

Because cultural and academic leaders in China are seeking to understand the influence of the Bible on the worldview and culture of the West, there is a growing interest in Chinese-English bilingual Bibles in mainland China. “We are especially grateful,” Crossway President Dr. Lane Dennis notes, “that the ESV was selected by Chinese Christian leaders for publication with the Chinese CUV Bible, through our partnership with the British and Foreign Bible Society. Since both the CUV and the ESV are ‘essentially literal’ Bible translations, they are ideally suited for a side-by-side comparison of the two languages. What a wonderful thing it would be if thousands of people would learn English—and Chinese!—by reading the Bible in side-by-side bilingual editions.”

The CUV-ESV (Chinese-English) Bible was printed in May of this year at the new Amity Printing plant in Nanjing, China. A special CUV-ESV commemorative edition was produced and given to guests attending the opening ceremony of the new facility. Since the late 1980s, with the support of the United Bible Societies, Amity has produced 55 million Bibles, 43 million of which have been distributed through Churches in China and another 12 million were produced in English and other languages for Bible publishers and Bible Societies in many countries. The Christian population of China is estimated by some to be about 7 percent, or 90 million, of China’s 1.3 billion people. This represents a one hundred-fold growth in the number of Christians in China since the Communist came to power in 1948, when Protestant Christians in China numbered approximately 900,000. The new Amity Printing plant, covering more than 400,000 square feet, will significantly increase Bible printing capacity to 12 million copies per year, to help meet the rapidly growing need for Bibles.

“It is a great joy for all of us at Crossway Bibles to have a small part in providing God’s Word to the church in China through the publication of the CUV-ESV bilingual Bible,” says Dr. Dennis. “We pray that this is just the beginning—of building partnerships with the church in China for the publication of Bible resources that will help meet the needs of the Chinese people.”

Crossway is a not-for-profit ministry and an international leader in the publication of Christian books, the ESV Bible, and gospel literature. Celebrating its 70th anniversary this year, Crossway (also known as Good News Publishers) has distributed more than 2 billion books, Bibles, and gospel tracts since it was founded in 1938. Crossway will mark its 70th anniversary with the publication of the ESV Study Bible in October 2008.

The Evangelical Alliance released this announcement last week:

"The retiring General Director of the Evangelical Alliance will bring his passion for justice for the poor to two new roles as he joins Tony Blair's Faith Foundation and becomes the first International Director of Micah Challenge . . ."

Mr Edwards, a British immigrant from Jamaica, is an honorary Canon of St Paul’s Cathedral. He was a probation officer for fourteen years, and the senior pastor of Mile End New Testament Church of God for ten years.

The announcement continues . . .

He has been appointed as a member of the International Religious Advisory Council to the Faith Foundation, which will give advice and help to Tony Blair on the Foundation’s work and plans.

Mr Edwards said:

“I am honoured to be part of this Foundation, which aims to demonstrate the power faith has for good in the modern world."

Mr Edwards has been closely involved with Micah Challenge International—a Christian campaign challenging governments around the world to meet the Millennium Development Goals by 2015—since its inception in 2000.

“I am really looking forward to getting stuck in and leading this global coalition into an exciting phase of mobilising and campaigning towards 2015 . . ."

Read the entire story . . .

This is not really a political blog. And I am not a campaigner for any one political party. Nor have I ever even been a member of a party. Nothing in this post should be taken as a personal endorsement of any candidate or even as a suggestion that I have already cast my own vote. As of yet, I don't know that much about Alan Craig myself. I just want to give you this opportunity to hear more about a Christian who is standing for office and clearly not getting as much media coverage as Ken Livingstone and Boris Johnson.

Over the last few days I received, via e-mail, the following two press releases, which I thought I would share with you in their entirety. Before I do, let me say a couple of things myself about the forthcoming London mayoral elections. For my American readers, some useful background for you is that in the UK very rarely will an openly professing Christian stand for any political office as it is considered a handicap by all our main parties.

When thinking about the fact that there is a Christian standing for London mayor and deciding whether to vote for him, it is worth considering two little-known facts. First, if every churchgoer in London were to actually vote and they all used their first preference vote for Alan Craig, then he would easily become mayor. Second, if even just a small percentage of Christians voted for him as the first choice, then put one of the main party candidates second, he would definitely serve on the London Assembly.

The election will be decided by a simple process as I understand it. The top two candidates from the first preference votes will go into a run-off where the second preference votes are added to the first preference ones to decide who will be mayor. Thus, one should always vote for one of the smaller candidates first if you support them, and want both your preferences to be counted as, contrary to popular understanding, a second preference vote for a less popular candidate is wasted.

Here is the text of both press releases, with the newest one first:


Election Broadcast by the Christian Peoples Alliance and Christian Party
On Wednesday 23rd April 2008 television viewers in London will have the chance to see a Christian vision of London for the GLA Elections.

6.25 pm ITV
6.55 pm BBC1
It will also be available on the BBCi-player and broadcast on BBC Radio.

A preview will be published from 11.55 pm Monday 21st April on the Christian Choice website:

http://www.thechristianchoice.org.uk/
A speech by Alan Craig on the importance of marriage made at the Kensington Temple Hustings is now available on YouTube at:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=kxNKeWMiI6c

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *



For Immediate Release: Sunday 20th April 2008

Christian Leaders Announce Backing for Alan Craig's London Election Campaign
Christian leaders are urging London voters to back Alan Craig of the Christian Choice in his campaign for mayor and the London Assembly. The group comes from a range of church backgrounds—Anglican, Roman Catholic, the Black Majority Churches, and the Free Church—and say Alan Craig is the outstanding candidate to run the capital. Councillor Craig also tops the London List of Assembly candidates for the Christian Choice, and needs just 5% to qualify for a seat.

Human rights campaigner and a Deputy Speaker in the House of Lords, Baroness Cox of Queensbury said:

“Among all the candidates running for London Mayor, Alan Craig stands out above the crowd. He has shown leadership in industry and for years he's been devoted to bringing change to the inner-city through serving the community in London's East End.

But it is his Christian qualities which make him distinctive—brave in facing-up to political correctness, standing by ordinary Londoners and confronting issues like the threatened Mega Mosque, which other politicians won't touch. London won't do better than to choose Alan for mayor.”

Mgr John Armitage, Vicar General of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brentwood, praised Alan Craig for his years of service in London's East End:

“He is a committed Christian, a man of integrity who has a passion for the common good. His service of the people in one of the most socially deprived areas in the country has given hope and encouragement to many people. He has a true desire to serve and help to build strong local communities in London.”

Prominent leader in the Evangelical Alliance and founder of Icthus Christian Fellowship, Roger Forster, said:

“A vote for Alan Craig of The Christian Choice can put the name of Christ officially onto the Greater London Authority, which after so many years must be a good thing. I have every confidence concerning the Christian commitment, integrity and intelligence of Alan.”

Dr Sola Fola Alade leads the Trinity Chapel congregation of major black church, RCCG. He wrote:

“Alan is an honourable and compassionate Christian man. I know him to be a visionary leader who is not afraid to stand for justice and truth. He has shown himself to be a selfless leader, one who has now become a voice of the voiceless and a defender of the helpless. Though a Christian, he is one who reaches out to people regardless of class, colour, or creed.”

Rev Lyndon Bowring, Executive Chairman of campaign group CARE, said:

“Alan Craig is an outstanding Christian leader and a man of the people. London and the GLA needs him and I wholeheartedly commend him to you in the forthcoming mayoral and GLA elections.”

Writing in Christianity Magazine, Premier Christian Radio broadcaster and Chief Executive, Peter Kerridge, wrote:

“Personally, I hope Alan Craig gets onto the London Assembly where I believe his influence would make a positive difference.”

Former London mayoral candidate for the Christian Peoples Alliance, Ram Gidoomal CBE, praised Alan Craig's business credentials:

“London deserves better than simply a politician for mayor. That's why Alan Craig is so different—he walks the talk—spending years in sacrificial service in one of London's most deprived communities. But unlike other mayoral candidates, he comes with significant business experience. He understands that to stay ahead, the capital has to stay competitive, have a high quality of life for all its citizens, and be the British engine-room of innovation and investment. He makes a formidable candidate.”

Christian author, speaker, writer, and founder of Pioneer, Gerald Coates, concluded:

“Alan Craig is just what we need and is suitably equipped to be Mayor of London. He was a successful senior businessman, has more recently worked among the deprived and vulnerable, and is a politician with considerable experience and expertise.”

Colin Dye of Kensington Temple and J. John of the Philo Trust are also backing the campaign.

The Christian Choice is the united electoral option of the Christian Peoples Alliance and Christian Party. It is committed to serving all Londoners regardless of race, faith or background.

For more information:
E-mail: press@cpaparty.org.uk
Telephone: 07873 625396
View: http://www.thechristianchoice.org/?page=endorsements

Promoted and published by P Vickers, The Christian Choice, 85 Tarling Road, London E16.

The following video is the one referred to in the first press release above:

PRESS RELEASE

6 March 2008

One of the UK's most senior Christian leaders, the Reverend Joel Edwards, will be leaving his post as General Director of the Evangelical Alliance UK after more than a decade of valued service.

Mr. Edwards completed two five-year terms as General Director for the Alliance last year, but wanted to stay on until he had finished work on a new vision for evangelicalism, outlined in his new book An Agenda for Change.

Due to depart in September, he will spend his final six months as General Director presenting this vision to the church on a tour of the UK and America.

Mr. Edwards announced his resignation to staff at a celebration of his twenty years working for the Evangelical Alliance and its sister organization, the African and Caribbean Evangelical Alliance.

He said:

"These twenty years have been absolutely magnificent and have provided lots of exciting opportunities for me and the Alliance.

But I believe God is saying that now is the right time for me to hand on the baton to someone new, who can lead the next generation of evangelicals to implement our renewed vision for society.

The vision I and the Alliance have worked on together is clear: our future as evangelicals is to be at the heart of spiritual and social transformation for our society."

Mr. Edwards, who was the Alliance's first black General Director, has progressed and deepened the diversity of the Alliance while bringing credibility and attention to evangelicals in the ecumenical and secular spheres. In the UK he strengthened the voice of evangelicals in the media and in Parliament, while on an international level he was fundamental to the formation of Micah Challenge, a movement calling governments to account for justice for the poor.

Katei Kirby, Chief Executive Officer of the African and Caribbean Evangelical Alliance (ACEA) said: "Joel has played a significant part in uniting and engaging the diversity of evangelicals in the UK. He leaves a living legacy of gracious and consistent Christian leadership that is both exemplary and inspiring."

Derek Tidball, Chair of the Alliance council, said: "Joel is a greatly valued friend and ambassador for the Alliance, and has worked tirelessly in the name of Christ during his time as General Director.

We are very thankful for his contribution to the evangelical world and are already exploring ways in which we can continue to work together."

Mike Talbot, Chair of the Alliance board, said: "Joel is an evangelical statesman who has made a significant contribution to the witness of the church in this land. He is respected across the Christian community, and beyond, and loved for his graciousness and his passion for the good news of Christ.

We will be very sad to see him go, but we are excited about the opportunities that will open up for him in the future."

Mr. Edwards plans to continue his active involvement with Micah Challenge International, which he chairs. He also remains passionate about issues of human rights and freedom of conscience, and will continue to champion these through his role as a commissioner for the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

NOTE
Mr. Edwards, a British immigrant from Jamaica, is an honorary Canon of St Paul's Cathedral. He was a probation officer for fourteen years and the senior pastor of Mile End New Testament Church of God for ten years.

Mr. Edwards was offered the post of General Secretary of the African and Caribbean Evangelical Alliance in 1988, becoming UK director for the Evangelical Alliance UK four years later and General Director of the Evangelical Alliance UK in 1997. He received a medal of appreciation for services to Jamaica in 2003, an honorary doctorate from St. Andrews University last year, and is a published author.

More about his book and tour can be found at An Agenda For Change.

Christianity Today has published online a short news item about the UK which I wrote for them. The article, entitled Surprise Appointment, begins as follows:

The appointment of Joel Edwards, general director of the U.K.'s Evangelical Alliance, as a commissioner to the nation's Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has drawn complaints from gay activists.

Formed to enforce legislation guaranteeing age, ethnic, disability, gender, and sexual preference equality, the EHRC brings together the U.K.'s three previous equality commissions. The Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007, which went into effect on January 1, added prohibitions against treating anyone "less favorably than he treats or would treat others" on the grounds of sexual orientation. However, concessions within the act allow religious organizations to define standards of sexual behavior for their members and leaders. . . .

Read more . . .

The UK EA has freely released some legal framework documents that may be of particular interest to you if your church is in Britain and is led by one of its employees and/or decisions are not taken by a vote of the full membership. Legal changes have led to the following announcement:

"The Evangelical Alliance and the Charity Commission have announced the completion of three model governing documents that provide guidance for independent churches. These documents are the culmination of four years of work.

The documents set out the proper checks and balances required to allow paid church leaders to take appropriate leadership responsibilities as church charity trustees, manage any potential conflicts of interest, and offer churches a legal structure to help govern their charity.

The work, initiated in 2003, was primarily designed to strengthen accountability and governance of new independent churches. The model governing documents have been drawn up by the Evangelical Alliance, African and Caribbean Evangelical Alliance, Anthony Collins (solicitors) and Stewardship, in partnership with the Charity Commission . . ."

I should say before I start—there is a reason why I don't usually blog about politics. It's not normally something I feel strongly about. But right now a thought is welling up within me—something I suspect many people are feeling and few are willing to ask:

Is it time for the Labour Party to fire their new leader and our prime minister?

There — I've asked the unthinkable. Although, of course, since I am not a Labour MP, nor even a member or committed supporter of any political party, there is nothing I can do to bring about Brown's downfall, other than perhaps write this post. But if you are a Labour MP reading this post, all I can say to you is perhaps you need to ask yourself, "Is it time to consider putting country before party, and begin to explore the possibility of changing your leader?" All it would take is the confidence to stand up to him. I'm sure many of you must be wondering why none of you had the courage to stand against him in a true leadership election. That surely was Brown's first mistake—not ensuring that there was a true open contest for the leader's chair.

When I wrote a post last month entitled "The Beginning of the End for Brown?" I certainly did not expect to see what we have seen since then. I must stress that I am not a committed Tory supporter, and am not even sure that David Cameron would do a vastly better job. Rather, I am beginning to feel that for the good of the nation, and for the good of Brown's increasingly long and persecuted-looking face, it's time to draw this more swiftly to the conclusion we know is coming. I still remember the look of relief on Major's face when he lost the election to Blair. I genuinely don't think it's going to do Brown much good to hang on, and more importantly than that, I'm starting to have serious doubts about what this is going to do to our nation.

In the short months since Brown took over from our properly elected Prime Minister, Tony Blair, let's look at the catalouge of errors, and in particular the indecision we have seen from Brown.

• We saw the foot-and-mouth crisis handled badly, with premature declarations that we were "free" of the illness, and allowing the lab that leaked the virus to go on working, resulting this past week in an astonishing second leak. A decisive leader would have shut the lab down and ensured that such labs did not work next to farms again.
  
  
• In the Northern Rock fiasco, we saw early dithering about whether to bail the bank out or let it go bust. It seems we, the taxpayer, have now loaned up to perhaps a staggering 30 billion to this bank. I can only assume that much of this has gone on enabling Northern Rock to repay loans made by other banks who should have known better. Surely there may well be other banks at risk. The extension of the ad hoc "savings guarantee" to all bank deposits in the UK suggests this might be the case. In the meantime we still don't know what is going to happen to Northern Rock. A decisive leader would have either let the bank go bust or simply nationalized it. To allow this drain on the public finances, which now exceeds the primary school budget, to continue to grow is inexcusable. We have even been told that the loans might be illegal under EU law! To preside over the first run on a UK bank in 150 years is both shameful and obviously preventable and predictable (e.g. up front offering the savings guarantee but no loan, for example). What is shocking is that so many other crises are ongoing that this latest growth in the bank's national debt barely gets a mention. A decisive leader might have seen this crisis coming and prevented it, or could have acted in a much clearer way from the beginning instead of what is now shameful and dangerous indecision.
  
  
• Brown has presided—the most damaging of all of the above for Brown personally as it happened in his old department—over the biggest data security breach I suspect has ever occurred anywhere in world history. Brown expects us to believe that the system he approved to be put in place allowed a junior official to simply download the names, addresses, phone numbers, and bank accounts of every child in the UK and their parents. If that is so, then he should resign in shame for that alone. It is simply unbelievable. I suspect that it also isn't quite true, as Nick Robinson hints in his sharing of an email trail with us. A decisive leader would have never allowed a careless culture to arise, and would have called in the police to investigate what was surely a breach of the law.
  
  
• Brown has also, by his own admission, presided over a Labour Party which broke the law flagrantly over voter donations. He has not looked too good in refusing to initially call in the police, and in almost trying to blame his deputy in the whole "I know nothing about this man" bit. A decisive leader would have either demanded the head of his deputy before making his announcement or wholeheartedly supported her. Also, what kind of party is so casual about its fund raising?

Surely any one of these things would be enough to bring down the CEO of a company that had failed us all so badly. This is our government. None of these crises are in one sense massive—if we were to face a more serious situation, I would be very concerned indeed. Yet all of them have been made worse, not better, by our Prime Minister and his government. Am I the only one who thinks it is Brown himself who should resign?

UPDATE
One thing I forgot to mention was picked up by the BBC yesterday. The deathly power of humour to a politician. Here's what they said: they first quoted from Vince Cable the following devestating put-down about Brown.

The prime minister had been transformed, he said, from "Stalin into Mr Bean."

The PM's face fell.

Opposition MPs fell about.

Quite a few Labour members struggled not to do the same.

The truly worrying thing, from the Brownite perspective is that, just now, a man who's worked hard to establish strength, sound judgement and deadly seriousness as his defining characteristics seems to be in danger of becoming a figure of fun. . . .

Tony Blair was generally despised or admired.

Margaret Thatcher was often both, at once.

Recoverable?

I cannot remember an exquisitely delivered one-liner hitting home against either of them in quite the same way as we saw this week

Other blogs and main stream media are also strongly criticizing Brown this weekend. This includes the following:

* The Spectator
* The Quiet One
* Matthew Parris of the Times who says the following:

What possessed Gordon Brown to declare, before he had the least reason to know it to be true, that there was one individual alone, Labour's general secretary, who knew about the fake donors just as the media began unearthing all the others, and, as I write, are still unearthing? Didn't that great strategist, that colossus of a political intellect, pause for a moment to wonder whether there might be more to come out?

In what stunted imagination but Mr Brown's could the plan then be hatched to make Harriet Harman the scapegoat for receiving, on Mr Brown's own lieutenant's advice, a sum representing less than 1 per cent of the total monies paid by David Abrahams? To what bully's mind but Mr Brown's could it fail to occur that if he kicked her in the stomach she might defend herself?"

FURTHER UPDATE
Another government data breach has been revealed. This is just unbelievable!

My friend, Tony Miles, reports on the death of Rob Frost. More information is available at Share Jesus International, where reflections from his family are also available. I found this passage striking:

On the last evening of Easter People this year Rob preached, and as he left the platform he was sad that this would be the last Easter People . . . but he believed God said to him, ". . . you will not be here next year Rob." We thank God for this preparation, even though the knowledge has been difficult.

I don't often mention politics on this blog. But today I simply can't resist. This weekend, election fever was rife in the UK. One of the many oddities of our UK political system is that, right now, a man who was never directly elected by the population to be Prime Minister has the power to call an election at a time of his choosing between now and June 2010!

Because we don't have term limits or fixed terms for Parliament, Tony Blair finally stepped aside to let his Finance Minister become Prime Minister. There wasn't even a true election within the Labour party since no one stood against him. Please don't think I am merely revealing an imagined political bias if I tell you that, so far, I am definitely less impressed with Brown's leadership ability than with his financial acumen or policy-making.

After initially claiming there was no need to hold an election, immediately on taking over the premiership just three months ago, he was emboldened by the so-called "honeymoon period bounce," during which his poll ratings climbed. At times I still think he looks a bit like a boy playing with his new toys. Certainly the way he has been teasing people over the last few weeks about a possible election has seemed somewhat smug to me. He knows that he has the power to do so as and when he chooses. Since things were looking good for him, he allowed everybody to think that he was undoubtedly going to call an election. He has even been accused of "spinning" over soldiers in Iraq this past week and using civil servants against the Tories. Now opinion polls have swung the other way. It is now, in the words of Nick Robinson of the BBC, "all tosh." Calling an election is surely a power that ought not to sit in the hands of the elected (or in his case unelected) leader of our nation. This weekend has certainly underlined that for me.

Any pledge by Cameron that if he were Prime Minister he would give up the right to call an election and establish an alternative system would surely gain him some more votes whenever Brown eventually decides to go to the people!

In light of all the speculation that an announcement could be made about an election early next week (to take place, believe it or not, at the beginning of November!!) I decided earlier this weekend that I had better listen to both leaders' speeches.

I listened to David Cameron's first. The leader of Margaret Thatcher's party, Cameron spoke for his political life. Without an autocue. Without detailed notes. He was engaging. Even funny at times. He announced a massive increase in the amount of money that can be inherited free of death duties—sufficient to take the value of most of England's homes out of the equation. Unemployed who refused a "fair job offer" would lose benefits. There would be a married persons tax allowance, and the benefit system would no longer penalize people for being married or in a relationship.

That one speech changed Brown's mind—that and the weekend polls, which placed Cameron in the lead over him! Then, cynicism of cynicism! We see a somewhat humbled Brown saying he wants the election to be about his view of the future, and so it will be in the future—a future of his choosing—and, he claimed it had absolutely nothing to do with the polls!

After listening to Cameron's speech, and before Brown's announcement, I began to listen to Brown's. I didn't get very far into it, but in terms of the style and rhetoric, I certainly didn't enjoy it half as much as Cameron's. Now I feel I don't need to continue to listen.

Please don't take this as an endorsement of the Conservative Party (even though I do know one of their candidates, Philippa Stroud), nor as a rejection of Labour. All I am saying is that leadership is about tactics, and about good speeches. The past few weeks has surely seen Brown look beaten by Cameron on both counts. Thanks to our electoral system, he can now lick his wounds, get on with running the country, and decide just how he can respond to the political grenade demonstrated in the following speech, which is available in both video and full text from the Conservative Party website.

My buddy, Mark Moore, has asked us to pray for a friend of his who is a pastor facing persecution in India. See Mark's blog for the full story:

“One of our international pastors in Acts 29, Pastor Sudhakar in India, is facing tremendous persecution, having been drug out of his church on a Sunday morning and beaten by twenty men. He is now standing trial for "converting Hindus to Christianity."

As many of you may already know, Dr. D. James Kennedy, well-known pastor, teacher, and evangelist died September 5th at his home in Florida after having suffered a cardiac arrest last December.

Many Christians world-wide have been influenced by Dr. Kennedy, not the least of whom is Dr. Albert Mohler, who remembered Kennedy in this personal tribute titled "Excellency in All Things, and All Things to God's Glory—The Legacy of Dr. D. James Kennedy," Here is a portion of that tribute:

"My indebtedness to Dr. Kennedy is very personal. I was a young Southern Baptist who as a teenager had serious questions about the big issues of the Christian faith. Dr. Kennedy's ministry at Coral Ridge addressed those big questions. He was unafraid to take on the intellectual challenges of the faith. He was kind to a Baptist teenager, introducing me to Francis Schaeffer and dignifying my questions. He clearly enjoyed talking theology and he was the first person I had ever met who demonstrated this joy. He was kind. I was hooked. In no small way my own calling as a theologian can be traced to Dr. Kennedy's influence. I was inspired by his intellectual engagement and motivated by his vision of excellence for God's glory."

Dr. James Kennedy, the well-known pastor of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, has been unable to preach during 2007 due to poor health and has now formally retired. His daughter made the announcement this morning.

More information can be found at Assist News Service, and the full press release can be read here.

HT: Denny Burk through Justin Taylor.

The much beloved wife of Billy Graham has died. There is lots of coverage on the CT Blog

Justin Taylor says it well when he writes "I join others around the world in thanking God for a life well lived in quiet, unashamed, faithful service to the Lord and his kingdom."

I am glad for the work of this couple who have represented Jesus well to the whole world for decades. I wonder if we will ever see their like again. It is astonishing to think of all that they did, and of the selfless way Ruth supported her husbands ministry to the crowds and world leaders.

Billy and Ruth were constants in a changing world. Ruth's passing reminds us no man goes on forever. With Billy now retired, and John Stott to preach only one more sermon a generation of world-class Christian leaders has passed away.

We should pray for world class leaders to be raised up to take their place. I am sure we can all think of several beginning to rise to significant influence. But, I wonder if we will in fact see just one or two rise to such prominence as say Stott and Graham had - between them embodying Evangelicalism to several generations.

The Associated Press has reported the following:

"The Rev. Jerry Falwell has died, a Liberty University executive said Tuesday. He was 73.

Earlier, the executive said Falwell was hospitalized in "gravely serious" condition after being found unconscious in his office.

Ron Godwin, the executive vice president of Falwell's Liberty University, said Falwell was found unresponsive around 10:45 a.m. and taken to Lynchburg General Hospital. Godwin said he was not sure what caused the collapse, but "he has a history of heart challenges."

Read more . . .

I have often said that one aspect of the American political system that is sensible is term limits for the president. It is no great surprise to anyone that Tony Blair has today announced his intention to resign as prime minister at the end of June.

In so doing, he has achieved a rare thing in British politics — leaving power at a time of his choosing and at a moment which many feel will place him in a good light. In a move that has been carefully choreographed, his announcement comes shortly after the monumental events that occurred in Northern Ireland earlier this week and before a round of international conferences, which Tony Blair will still lead before what appears to be the inevitable takeover by Gordon Brown, who is the current Chancellor/ Finance Minister.

Tony Blair clearly wants to be remembered as the politician who thought the unthinkable in Northern Ireland and brought Ian Paisley and Gerry Adams to the same table for peace.

He was very emotional at times in his speech, and the BBC has made the video of the whole speech available, as well as the transcript. In the video, Blair shows us once again what a master communicator he is, and I found myself quite choked as this announcement reflects the end of a chapter in the life of my country.

Whether you agree or disagree with Blair’s actions, there is no doubt in my mind that he is a master politician, probably the master politician of his generation anywhere in the world today. He has an astonishing self-belief, and closed his statement with a claim that Britain is the greatest nation on earth, something which almost no other Brit I know would dare to say! There is no doubt that such confident leadership is a great need of people, particularly in these days. Blair will be missed, more than some of us realise.

The following quotes from his speech stood out to me:

• “I have been prime minister of this country for just over 10 years. In this job, in the world today, that is long enough, for me, but more especially for the country.”
  
  
  
• “Sometimes the only way you conquer the pull of power is to set it down.”
  
  
  
• “I looked at my own country, a great country — wonderful history, magnificent traditions, proud of its past, but strangely uncertain of its future, uncertain about the future, almost old-fashioned.”
  
  
  
• “So 1997 was a moment for a new beginning, for sweeping away all the detritus of the past.”
  
  
  
• “Expectations were so high, too high - too high in a way for either of us.”
  
  
  
• “There is only one government since 1945 that can say all of the following: 'More jobs, fewer unemployed, better health and education results, lower crime and economic growth in every quarter,' — this one.”
  
  
  
• “Think about the culture of Britain in 2007. I don't just mean our arts that are thriving. I mean our values, the minimum wage, paid holidays as a right, amongst the best maternity pay and leave in Europe, equality for gay people.
  
  Or look at the debates that reverberate round the world today - the global movement to support Africa in its struggle against poverty, climate change, the fight against terrorism.
  
  Britain is not a follower. It is a leader. It gets the essential characteristic of today's world — its interdependence.
  
  This is a country today that for all its faults, for all the myriad of unresolved problems and fresh challenges, is comfortable in the 21st Century, at home in its own skin, able not just to be proud of its past but confident of its future.”
  
  
• “But I ask you to accept one thing. Hand on heart, I did what I thought was right.
  
  I may have been wrong. That is your call. But believe one thing, if nothing else. I did what I thought was right for our country.
  
  I came into office with high hopes for Britain's future. I leave it with even higher hopes for Britain's future.
  
  This is a country that can, today, be excited by the opportunities, not constantly fretful of the dangers.
  
  People often say to me: 'It's a tough job' — not really.
  
  A tough life is the life the young severely disabled children have and their parents, who visited me in Parliament the other week.
  
  Tough is the life my dad had, his whole career cut short at the age of 40 by a stroke. I have been very lucky and very blessed. This country is a blessed nation.
  
  The British are special. The world knows it. In our innermost thoughts, we know it. This is the greatest nation on earth.
  
  It has been an honour to serve it. I give my thanks to you, the British people, for the times I have succeeded, and my apologies to you for the times I have fallen short. Good luck.”

Lig Duncan has been part of a committee that has been considering the teachings of the New Perspectives on Paul (NPP), and especially N. T. Wright, for several months on behalf of the Presbyterian Church in America.

They have now made a number of clear declarations as listed below, and the closing paragraphs of the report suggest to me that they have concluded that to hold these views should become inconsistent with continuing as a minister or preacher in a PCA church. They make a number of requests of the General Assembly which meets later this year which include

"That the General Assembly recommends the declarations in this report as a faithful exposition of the Westminster Standards, and further reminds those ruling and teaching elders whose views are out of accord with our Standards of their obligation to make known to their courts any differences in their views.

That the General Assembly reminds the Sessions and Presbyteries of the PCA that it is their duty “to exercise care over those subject to their authority” and “to condemn erroneous opinions which injure the purity or peace of the Church” (BCO 31-2; 13-9f).

I am not qute clear what happens next if this report is adopted — will we eventually see some kind of exclusionary process for those who hold to these ideas? (HT Justin Taylor)

The Declarations of the PCA Committee
"In light of the controversy surrounding the NPP and FV (Ed = Federal Vision), and after many months of careful study, the committee unanimously makes the following declarations:

1. The view that rejects the bi-covenantal structure of Scripture as represented in the Westminster Standards (i.e., views which do not merely take issue with the terminology, but the essence of the first/second covenant framework) is contrary to those Standards.
   
   
2. The view that an individual is “elect” by virtue of his membership in the visible church; and that this “election” includes justification, adoption, and sanctification; but that this individual could lose his “election” if he forsakes the visible church, is contrary to the Westminster Standards.
   
   
3. The view that Christ does not stand as a representative head whose perfect obedience and satisfaction is imputed to individuals who believe in him is contrary to the Westminster Standards.
   
   
4. The view that strikes the language of “merit” from our theological vocabulary so that the claim is made that Christ’s merits are not imputed to his people is contrary to the Westminster Standards.
   
   
5. The view that “union with Christ” renders imputation redundant because it subsumes all of Christ’s benefits (including justification) under this doctrinal heading is contrary to the Westminster Standards.
   
   
6. The view that water baptism effects a “covenantal union” with Christ through which each baptized person receives the saving benefits of Christ’s mediation, including regeneration, justification, and sanctification, thus creating a parallel soteriological system to the decretal system of the Westminster Standards, is contrary to the Westminster Standards.
   
   
7. The view that one can be “united to Christ” and not receive all the benefits of Christ’s mediation, including perseverance, in that effectual union is contrary to the Westminster Standards.
   
   
8. The view that some can receive saving benefits of Christ’s mediation, such as regeneration and justification, and yet not persevere in those benefits is contrary to the Westminster Standards.
   
   
9. The view that justification is in any way based on our works, or that the so-called “final verdict of justification” is based on anything other than the perfect obedience and satisfaction of Christ received through faith alone, is contrary to the Westminster Standards."

The whole article is well worth a read, but I offer the following excerpts as a taste of the way they strongly criticize N. T. Wright in particular:

• NT Wright’s "...version of Paul’s teaching on election and covenant stands in stark contrast to the confessional formulation of these themes. Both cannot be right as faithful presentations of the Pauline teaching on election and covenant."
  
  
• "We often hear proponents and sympathizers of the NPP and FV who are part of confessional Reformed communities say, that while they go beyond the Westminster Standards in what they affirm, they do not contradict the Westminster Standards. But it is evident that the version of covenant and election taught by the NPP and FV is incompatible with the views of the Westminster Standards. In fact, these two approaches to covenant and election are not complementary ways of looking at the biblical data, but irreconcilably contradictory alternative accounts of the biblical data . . ."
  
  
• "The Committee would suggest that the FV proponents have in effect provided an alternative hermeneutic for interpreting Scripture. They have done so 1) by concentrating their efforts on the “objectivity” of the covenant, 2) by stressing the “covenantal” efficacy of baptism, 3) by focusing on the undifferentiated membership of the visible church, 4) by holding the view that the “elect” are covenant members who may one day fall from their elect status, and 5) by highlighting the need for persevering faithfulness in order to secure final election . . ."
  
  
• "To put it briefly, according to Wright, justification is chiefly the status of covenant membership, the status of belonging as a member of God’s people."
  
  
• "While Wright notes that justification (covenant membership) is a declaration that an individual’s sins are already forgiven, it does not mean that there is a transfer of God’s or Christ’s righteousness to sinners. As he argues, 'The righteousness they have will not be God’s own righteousness…God’s righteousness remains, so to speak, God’s own property. It is the reason for his acting to vindicate his people. It is not the status he bestows upon them in so doing.'"
  
  
• ". . .according to Wright, the traditional idea of 'imputed righteousness, whereby sinners are accepted and accounted as righteous in God’s sight because of the righteousness of Jesus, is incorrect: “If we use the language of the law court, it makes no sense whatever to say that the judge imputes, imparts, bequeaths, conveys or otherwise transfers his righteousness to either the plaintiff or the defendant. Righteousness is not an object, a substance or gas which can be passed around the courtroom.'"
  
  
• "Thus, the idea of a “gracious transfer” is simply not found in the biblical texts, according to Wright. In dealing with Romans 4:3-5, Wright understands the “book-keeping metaphor” of “counted” (ESV) as referring to the individual’s “status of being a member of the covenant…according to Wright, the language of Romans 4 does not represent “imputation” of “Christ’s/God’s righteousness” to the ungodly."
  
  
• "The question is then raised, when does this justification occur? For Wright, justification is an eschatological judgment that is applied in the present time “as a proper anticipation of the eventual judgment which will be announced, on the basis of the whole life led, in the future.” This "whole life" includes both the membership badge of “faith” as well as faithful responses by the individual to life among God’s people. The place where Wright argues this most forcefully is in his exposition of Romans 2. There, Wright suggests that the justification of God’s people occurs “on the basis of works” (cf. Romans 2:6). When he describes what this “basis” represents, he suggests that it is not so much the accomplishment of particular works, but rather the “seeking for them”: the godly are “defined in terms of that for which they seek and the means by which that quest is pursued.”"

My old friend, Paul Rees, passes on a heart-rending letter from Turkey in a post entitled Gospel Growth: The Protestant Church of Smyrna.

The Langham Partnership sent out the following announcement today:

"John Stott would like his many friends around the world to know that, having reached the age of 86 in April, he has taken the decision finally to retire from public ministry after fulfilling one final speaking engagement at the upcoming Keswick Convention in July.

He will be moving from his flat in central London where he has lived for more than 30 years, to a retirement community for Anglican clergy in the south of England, which will be able to provide more fully for his present and future needs. Dr Stott has made this decision with the strong belief that it is God's provision for him at this stage."

The ministry of this man has spanned many decades and he was truly a leader among leaders. He will be sorely missed. It seems quite timely that this announcement should occur this week when the atonement is once again stirring controversy. A new generation of God's people wrestling with this subject may not have the man himself, but they do still have his book The Cross of Christ. A few days back I shared a quote from that book, which is often used by those who disagree with penal substitutionary atonement to argue that Stott does not believe the version of PSA being defended in modern times. I thought it would be fitting to share another quote that makes plain that, in fact, he most certainly did uphold the glorious doctrine of Jesus' penal substitutionary death.

"How then could God express simultaneously his holiness in judg­ment and his love in pardon? Only by providing a divine substitute for the sinner, so that the substitute would receive the judgment and the sinner the pardon. We sinners still of course have to suffer some of the personal, psychological, and social consequences of our sins, but the penal consequence, the deserved penalty of alienation from God, has been borne by Another in our place, so that we may be spared it. I have not come across a more careful statement of the substitu­tionary nature of the atonement than that made by Charles E. B. Cranfield in his commentary on Romans . . . He writes:

"God, because in his mercy he willed to forgive sinful men, and, being truly merciful, willed to forgive them righteously, that is, without in any way condoning their sin, purposed to direct against his own very self in the person of his Son the full weight of that righteous wrath which they deserved."

—John Stott

Up until now, I have mostly resisted getting drawn into commenting on US politics. I still think I probably won't do too many of these kinds of posts — I've always thought it was none of my business! But tell me, my fair readers, do you want me to talk more about all this?

I thought yesterday’s decision by the Supreme Court upholding the ban on partial birth abortion would throw the upcoming presidential election into sharp relief, and I was right. Here’s what some of the candidates had to say:


DEMOCRAT

• Hillary Clinton — "This decision marks a dramatic departure from four decades of Supreme Court rulings that upheld a woman's right to choose and recognized the importance of women's health. Today's decision blatantly defies the Court's recent decision in 2000 striking down a state partial-birth abortion law because of its failure to provide an exception for the health of the mother. As the Supreme Court recognized in Roe v. Wade in 1973, this issue is complex and highly personal; the rights and lives of women must be taken into account. It is precisely this erosion of our constitutional rights that I warned against when I opposed the nominations of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito."
  
  
• Joe Biden — No comment yet.
  
  
• Chris Dodd — No comment yet.
  
  
• John Edwards — "I could not disagree more strongly with today's Supreme Court decision. The ban upheld by the Court is an ill-considered and sweeping prohibition that does not even take account for serious threats to the health of individual women. This hard right turn is a stark reminder of why Democrats cannot afford to lose the 2008 election. Too much is at stake — starting with, as the Court made all too clear today, a woman's right to choose.”
  
  
• Mike Gravel — No comment yet.
  
  
• Dennis Kucinich — No comment yet.
  
  
• Barak Obama — "I strongly disagree with today’s Supreme Court ruling, which dramatically departs from previous precedents safeguarding the health of pregnant women. As Justice Ginsburg emphasized in her dissenting opinion, this ruling signals an alarming willingness on the part of the conservative majority to disregard its prior rulings respecting a woman’s medical concerns and the very personal decisions between a doctor and patient. I am extremely concerned that this ruling will embolden state legislatures to enact further measures to restrict a woman's right to choose, and that the conservative Supreme Court justices will look for other opportunities to erode Roe v. Wade, which is established federal law and a matter of equal rights for women."

REPUBLICAN

• Sam Brownback — "I'm delighted that the Supreme Court is moving forward to see the expression of life in the Constitution. I hope that some day we’ll see all life respected at all stages and protected in this land and around the world."
  
  
• John Cox — "Against abortion and for life without any exceptions. Life begins at conception."
  
  
• Rudy Giuliani — "The Supreme Court reached the correct conclusion in upholding the congressional ban on partial birth abortion. I agree with it."
  
  
• Duncan Hunter — No comment yet.
  
  
• John McCain — "Today's Supreme Court ruling is a victory for those who cherish the sanctity of life and integrity of the judiciary. The ruling ensures that an unacceptable and unjustifiable practice will not be carried out on our innocent children. It also clearly speaks to the importance of nominating and confirming strict constructionist judges who interpret the law as it is written, and do not usurp the authority of Congress and state legislatures. As we move forward, it is critically important that our party continues to stand on the side of life."
  

• Ron Paul — No comment yet.
  
  
• Mitt Romney — "Today, our nation's highest court reaffirmed the value of life in America by upholding a ban on a practice that offends basic human decency. This decision represents a step forward in protecting the weakest and most innocent among us."
  
  
• Tom Tancredo — "Congressman Tom Tancredo (R- CO) rejoiced over today’s Supreme Court decision, ending partial birth abortions. In these abortions, usually performed late in a pregnancy, the infant’s skull is crushed and extracted from the womb. Today the Supreme Court put an end to this barbaric practice of infanticide, Tancredo said. One can only hope this is the first step towards ending the tragedy of abortions. This ruling, won by a 5-4 margin, is the first major victory for pro-life activists since Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito were appointed to the Supreme Court. Both of them voted in the majority, along with Justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, and Anthony Kennedy. Congressman Tancredo concluded by saying, 'I am pleased the Court has finally begun to address the moral and intellectual travesty of Roe vs. Wade.'"
  
  
• Tommy Thompson — "I commend the United States Supreme Court for upholding the nation’s ban on partial-birth abortions. This decision sends a clear message that the United States values life and has no tolerance for this gruesome, abhorrent way to take a life. There is no place for partial-birth abortions in this country, and I am pleased the court upheld the law passed by Congress."

Note: I originally wrote this article for www.sermoncentral.com where it appeared on February 26, 2007.

__________________________________________________

Technology helps me in both my sermon preparation and in my personal devotional life. By technology, I’m referring specifically to the Internet and Bible software. I love it and have no apology for using it to discover insights from God’s Word and to improve the quality of my preaching.

People have three different reactions when I talk to them about using technology to help us understand God's Word. Some respond enthusiastically. Others—well, their eyes just glaze over. The third group starts talking about plagiarism of sermons and how terrible it is that pastors are no better than children who buy essays online to submit as coursework. Perhaps you have had similar responses when you talk about SermonCentral.com. Maybe you don't even like to talk about it for fear of these responses. I hope that by the time you have finished reading this article you will be able to hold your head high about your use of SermonCentral.com and other forms of technology to help you preach.

What about the fear of abuses of technology, particularly Internet sermon access? I’ll simply put my cards on the table here: I think there is a lot of unnecessary concern about it. I do not think that there are many men of God who are lifting whole sermons from elsewhere and simply re-preaching them. Sure it happens. But for those of us who are conscientiously and diligently putting our hearts into our sermon preparation, it’s not worth wasting our time on those who aren’t. Let’s just preach the Word!

On Judgment Day I would not want to be in the shoes of anyone who made a habit of the loathsome practice of simply passing off other people’s sermons as their own. As preachers, we should never forget the following very serious words of warning:

"Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness" (James 3:1, ESV).

Those words should haunt you as a preacher. They do me as I sit here writing this article having preached just a few hours ago.

Most preachers understand why even a great preacher like Martyn Lloyd-Jones could say of his own preaching,

"I can say quite honestly that I would not cross the road to listen to myself preaching." This wasn't because of any lack of commitment to preaching on his part since he also said, "Preaching has been my life's work … to me the work of preaching is the highest and the greatest and the most glorious calling to which anyone can ever be called."

(Preface to D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Preaching and Preachers, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1971)

The joyful, yet awesome, responsibility of preaching should have an effect on us. Of course, we would not simply copy another person's sermon—how could we dare? But how can we go into the pulpit and deliver our own untested insights to the people God has entrusted to our preaching? It is precisely because of the weight of this responsibility that far from being embarrassed about my reading of other people's material, I consider it imperative to do so. After all, I will stand before God to give account for every word I preach.

There are sometimes double standards in people's minds on this issue of plagiarism. Surely reading sermons from SermonCentral is no different from reading a commentary or theological work, or a book of sermons. Technology doesn't alter at all the basic fact—we are reading the work of others who have studied the Bible before us. The truth is that for thousands of years preachers have studied what other students of the Bible have written. How is reading published sermons so very different from reading a commentary? Do people who feel we should not use any technology in our sermon preparation seriously believe that we should not read anything other than the Bible to help us?

Centuries before anyone thought of making sermons available on the web, Charles Simeon produced his Horae Homileticae, which was essentially a set of sermon outlines which covered the whole of Scripture. Over on Wikipedia, the accusation is made that this publication was an "invitation to plagiarism", which seems crazy to me. All SermonCentral.com enthusiasts should rejoice to hear that the people at Logos Bible Software are publishing an electronic edition of this amazing work.

The truth is, the advice I was given by a wise man when I was just beginning to preach as a teenager is as applicable to the age of the Internet and Bible software as it was when these things hadn't been conceived. My mentor encouraged me to work on a passage myself, trying to understand it as best as I could, and then check my conclusions and expand my understanding by reading others. Such advice has been repeated by every preacher who I respect and have spoken to about this issue. Another of my mentors told me that he didn't think he had ever preached a sermon without first checking what Charles Spurgeon had to say on the relevant passage.

There is no such thing as a copyright on ideas. Plagiarism is not an issue when we begin to extract ideas, reword them, and combine them with other ideas we have found elsewhere or thought of ourselves. Actually, I have learned over the years that if I come up with an interpretation of Scripture that seems new and fresh to me, the majority of the time I will discover, if I read enough commentaries or sermons, an almost identical idea has been expressed before by someone else. It is when I don't find my thoughts reflected previously that I worry, since I suspect that at least half of such truly original ideas are probably heretical! It is technology that allows me to check myself against the collective thought of others, and incorporate some of the ideas of others as appropriate.

It can be amusing to see how unknowingly dependent on others we sometimes find ourselves. I remember a few years ago preparing a sermon on a subject and then turning to one of Spurgeon's sermons to see what he had written on the passage at hand. I was shocked when I realized that I had come up with a set of headings that were so similar to his and in such a similar order that someone would have thought I had copied them. I never decided whether I should be pleased that I had spontaneously come to the same conclusions as the prince of preachers, or conclude that I had obviously read that sermon at some point in the past and had somehow regurgitated the headings. I am fairly certain that the second conclusion was, in fact, the case.

Both my early mentors and my fear of getting it wrong gave me a desire to check my conclusions before I preached. When I was first learning to prepare sermons, I traveled into London to the Evangelical Library, which was also much loved by one of my other heroes—Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones. I would find the largest table I could and gradually fill it with commentaries and sermon collections open to the relevant passage I was studying. I quickly realized this was not a very efficient way to study since I only needed a few pages at most of the large volumes I was lugging around the library—indeed, often I was only really interested in a sentence or two which encapsulated a thought that I had not yet considered.

It was around that time that I decided I needed to have the Spurgeon volumes at home. When I saw the cost and size of the paper collection, I knew it wasn't possible for me. I found instead an electronic edition at a much cheaper price, and my electronic book collection began.

I mentioned earlier that I had preached a sermon today. Let me tell you a bit about the different forms of technology I used to help me in this talk, and how I use them generally. Firstly, I am an avid believer in the power of this new form of communication known as the Internet. Historians are unequivocal that the Reformation was only possible because of the invention of the printing press. This enabled Luther to communicate with large numbers of people at once through printed tracts. Luther was able to transform Europe theologically, unlike men like the martyr Huss, who had prophesied 100 years previously that the Reformers were coming. Today we are living through a revolution in communication that is at least as significant. Christians need to grab the opportunities this presents. Technology is a gift to be received—and seized!

The Internet has enabled me to connect with many people and benefit from their wisdom. My blog in particular has led me to form good relationships with people I would never have otherwise met. At all stages of the composition of my sermon notes, I made heavy use of e-mail and chat programs to share my ideas and ask for help from a few people—some of whom live on another continent to me. It seems I am in good company as Josh Harris recently blogged that he e-mails his manuscript for comments to C.J. Mahaney and others every Saturday night wherever they may be in the world.

Also, on the Internet I found SermonCentral to be particularly useful in finding cross-references for the theme of my passage. This was more difficult than is sometimes the case since this was one of those biblical subjects which is frequently described using different words. Thus, I decided to search for other sermons with a particular key word in their title. As well as giving me material to read, this helped me to identify some key passages in the Bible I had not considered. I love being able to read the product of the labors of other preachers around the world.

I was also able to discover material from a collection of over 100 handpicked Christian websites and blogs by using a search box I include on my blog's homepage. Utilizing the Google search engine, this simple, but helpful, tool enables me to limit my search to the specific Christian sites I want to study. These include desiringgod.org, spurgeon.org, ccel.org, bible.org, sermoncentral.com, and many others. Within a split-second, everything my favorite Christian sites have to say on a Bible verse or subject appears on my screen.

I also used the ESV.org website to help me quickly copy and paste passages into my notes, as well as to listen to the text. (The same can be done for other Bible versions with the Search-the-Bible feature on SermonCentral.com.) I even downloaded some mp3 sermons on my theme. I wrote a set of long notes, then decided to convert them into a PowerPoint show, and then changed my mind about having slides, so needed to export it back to the word processor for yet another edit. As you can see, the preparation of my notes is heavily technology-dependent. If I had to go back to a pen and paper to produce the notes from which I will preach, it would certainly feel very odd!

But for me, the most helpful source of assistance of all in my sermon preparation is my Bible software. The reason why I like it the most is that it is a direct connect with the Bible itself—the sole infallible source of preaching material. Most software packages will allow you to easily compare different English translations and explore the Bible in its original languages. My favorite is Logos Bible Software, which does all this and much more. It’s great to see the former Microsoft employees who founded Logos now using their talents to strengthen my study of Scripture.

For many years now, if I want to check out the meaning of a Bible passage, do a word study in the original Greek, or, indeed, check out the latest theological thinking on a certain subject—I almost always turn to my Bible software application—which now feels to me like my own full-time personal digital assistant.

I also sometimes call my growing collection of electronic commentaries, lexicons, Bibles, interlinear Bibles, commentaries, reference books, and theological journals my personal “Theological Seminary in a Box.” Logos has served up a feast of resources in a one-stop platform. For me, at least, this software goes some way towards covering up my lack of any theological degrees. For sure, I've needed to learn from others in real life, and have done some theological training courses, but with Logos Bible Software I can instantly benefit from the pooled expertise of thousands of scholars.

The sheer volume of what is available electronically still amazes me. Just as an example, it is possible to obtain the majority of John MacArthur's life works on a single disk! “What will I use as a doorstop now without those piles of books?" you ask. There are, in fact, literally thousands of books and products that can be stored on your hard drive.

Over the years I've found my Bible software to be an invaluable resource in sermon preparation. I simply enter a passage on the home screen, press “go,” and watch as my whole electronic library is searched for information about that Bible reference. I hope you can grasp how having all these resources available electronically saves me countless hours of time. It would simply not be possible to search that many books and journal articles manually each week without an army of research assistants.

Are there any drawbacks to all of this technology? In a way, the very strength of this software is its weakness. A thorough use of technology and the Logos Bible Software in particular—especially if you have an extensive library—will greatly increase your confidence in preparing sermons. This could lead to an increase in pride and to a desire to over-display that knowledge whilst preaching. After spending hours chasing rabbit trails and wrestling with the text, we sometimes want others to see the fruits of our labors. In fact, we have to bury most of it. A good sermon, however, is like an iceberg. The mountain of ice—which represents the message itself—is dwarfed by the vast amount of preparation underpinning it beneath the surface.

I have sometimes spent hours studying a particular issue merely to come across with greater conviction as I preach a single sentence. It reminds me of something a manager at Apple said about preparation for Steve Job’s keynote presentations, "The team and I spent hundreds of hours preparing for a segment that lasted about five minutes."

The good news for those of us with a large electronic library is that the reference materials represent the results of millions of hours of study by some of the sharpest theological minds among current and previous church scholars. I can simply open my software, type a Bible passage into the passage guide, and set my own personal team of thousands of scholars to work. Imagine being able to simultaneously e-mail the authors of 500 years’ worth of theological journal articles, asking if they had ever written on that obscure Bible verse you are struggling with—and getting an answer in seconds!

If we take our preaching seriously, I don't see any alternative resource that can do everything that my Bible software library does – packages from other companies do exist, but none I have found have as many resources available as Logos. I am so grateful for it, along with the sermons that are available online at places like SermonCentral. (These days the two even work together seamlessly as SermonCentral results are incorporated into Logos Bible Software’s passage guide.)

With all this knowledge at our fingertips—how do we prevent the pride referred to in the statement "knowledge puffs up, but love builds up" (1 Corinthians 8:1)? I think that access to all of that knowledge can be turned—if our hearts are right—to stimulate humility. We ought to realize very quickly that wiser scholars than us have much to teach us and still disagree with each other on points we thought were "obvious". This should make us humble. We can even imagine ourselves in a dialogue with the authors of all this material, and who knows, they might even persuade us of a new opinion. We must be more committed to the Bible than we are to the theological system to which we hold. This conviction was a major trait of Charles Simeon, who I mentioned at the beginning of this article.

Another possible drawback of the overuse of technology is this: When preparing to preach, we might feel that our task is complete when we have studied well. Rather, we must also build a bridge from this world to the world of the Bible. Only part of that bridge-building is done by studying the Bible and what others have said concerning it. A good sermon will also have a foot in this world. Thus, we must know something about this world so we can apply the Scriptures.

This is one reason why I like reading and hearing other people's sermons; hopefully, at least some of them will have considered the applications and illustrations that connect with their congregations. Spurgeon was a master at this. We cannot merely copy his work, however, as we live in a very different context to him. We must learn to apply God’s unchanging Word to our changing culture. The importance of fresh, personal illustrations cannot be overemphasized.

But producing a connection is not merely an intellectual task. We need God’s help. I realize that an over-reliance on technology and the resources I utilize can detract and take away from spending time in prayer over the message. We should not presume that God will bless our laziness, nor should we forget to ask Him to bless the messages we have prepared with all that technology.

I do pray in front of my PC as I study and read, but just as at the beginning of my preparation it should be me, my God, and my Bible, at the end of my preparation, I need to switch off the computer, put aside the notes, get away from all distractions, and simply pray. I am ashamed to admit how often I have to remind myself to do this. For it is really only as I connect with God personally—because of or in spite of technology—that I will find He takes my preparation and turns it into an anointed sermon that will impact the lives of my hearers—and that, after all, is why we all preach. There is no better advice ever given to preachers than to follow the advice of the early Apostles who said:

“We will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.”
(Acts 6:4.)

This story retold by Chuck Colson brought a little bit of warmth to my day. In all the horrors of the ongoing war in Iraq — and let's not forget U.S. soldiers are also at times the ones firing on their enemies — a bit of humanity, or rather the image of God, shines through from time to time:

"I have never seen a more dramatic example of worldviews in contrast, nor have I been prouder of an American G.I. On one hand, we have the horrors of a civilization that values death — even the death of its own children — if by killing them they can hurt the infidels. On the other side, we have a story that makes us realize just how deeply embedded within American life is our Judeo-Christian heritage. This heritage teaches that human life is sacred—even the life of an enemy who falls into our hands."

— Chuck Colson, "Thirty Pints of Blood," Townhall.com

The definition of when "life" enters a baby who is in the womb is a challenge for anyone who believes that it is at a different point from conception or at least implantation. The common alternative view is that it is when a baby is "viable". The following story reveals the moving goalposts of this. Of course, if we accept this moving goalpost as a definition, we are bound to eventually find that an artificial womb is created that can sustain life from the moment of conception to birth. It really isn't too difficult to imagine that — after all, all the baby needs is a supply of nutrients and oxygen delivered to its placenta. We have artificial lungs and hearts already, as well as IV feeds. In, say fifty years' time, when such a device has been created, will our secular ethicists start to argue alongside the Christians that a baby developing in the womb is "alive" and deserves protection under law from the very beginning?

"A baby has been born at one day less than 22 weeks gestation, has survived, and is doing well. This birth may have significant ramifications for abortion law because it reduces the time of viability to just over half a normal gestation period. It may impact futile care theory and the occasional attempts to refuse wanted life-sustaining treatment for prematurely born babies. The birth could affect personhood theory, at least for those who refuse to depersonalize born infants, because it could materially alter their moral view of the moral worth of later-stage fetuses. So, welcome to the world, Amillia Sonja Taylor. Your birth might become a significant event for expanding the perception of who qualifies to be in the human family." (Wesley J. Smith, Secondhand Smoke)

If you'd like to read some commentary on the issue, here's the link to NewsBusters that talks about the media's reporting of it.

Wayne Grudem has published an article which is strongly in support of Bush and the Republicans. What is interesting to me as a Brit is that I could never imagine a leading Christian in the UK endorsing a politician this robustly. And yet you are the ones who separate church and state - not us. I can't make up my mind who got it right, but perhaps a nation where church leaders are allowed to publicly speak about their political views is more mature than one where church bishops still sit in the House of Lords, but Christians in the public eye are, in some unwritten rule they all obey, not allowed to express an opionion. Wayne Grudem has an opinion and this is a quote to whet your appetite:

. . . overall I am so very very thankful for an outstanding, I think excellent, President. He has done right. And he is changing world history in a right direction, a direction that will give more freedom for everyone to determine their own governments and their own religion, and (of significance to me as a Christian), more freedom for the proclamation of the gospel around the world, so that people would have a fair chance to hear and consider (but never ever be compelled to accept) that good news of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

What about the Iraq war? It is just that - a war, and wars are not won quickly or easily. We were attacked in an act of war on 9/11, and we had been attacked by similar terrorists many times before that. Finally we are fighting back, against an invisible, very skillful, very evil enemy.

When people complain, 'It’s not going well,' I just think, 'What you are saying is that we haven’t won yet.' But that is because there are still evil people in the world who want to destroy Iraq and eventually destroy Israel and destroy us, and in some countries their governments are not stopping them yet. So this is a huge task, but we have no choice but to go forward. There will only be one side left at the end of this war, and I want it to be us, not the Muslim terrorists.'

It seems to me that what we need as a country is to unite behind the President in this war, not attack every move he makes (isn’t this what a country usually does in war?). For every U.S. soldier who dies there are many times more terrorists who are caught or killed (which I think in light of Rom. 13:4 is the right thing for civil government to do), and the terrorist movements simply cannot and will not continue a losing battle forever. Criticism of the war sounds to me like people are saying, 'There are still some evil people in the world, therefore Bush is a bad President.' That is misguided reasoning, because there will always be evil people in the world, and the God-given solution, according to Rom. 13:1-7, is to prevent them from harming others through the use of superior force by our military and police. That is what President Bush is doing, and I don’t know if anyone else in the world could do any better. (Many nations are not even trying, just sitting back and letting us do the dirty work while they criticize!)

So I think President Bush has done a very good job as President, in an amazingly difficult time.I think if we did not have such a hostile press the President's approval rating might be well above 60%, if people were just aware of all the good this President has done...

So I continue to ask God if he will still hear the prayers of so many millions of his people, who are still seeking after many years to change the Supreme Court so that abortion could be prohibited by law in our country, so that marriage could be protected and the homosexual agenda would be stopped, so that Muslim terrorist attacks against Christians and against the basic human freedom of people to govern themselves could be defeated rather than encouraged around the world, so that true reform and true parental choice could come to our failed public school systems that are robbing millions of poor children of a chance to be productive citizens for their whole lives, so that wise policies concerning the use of the world’s resources could be implemented, so that the tax cuts could be made permanent and even expanded, to further strengthen the economy, and so that the judiciary could be sufficiently reformed that the will of the people, rather than the opinion of judges, would be the determining factor in the laws of our nation. All this and more is at stake, and much of it will become simply impossible if the Democrats take control of either the Senate or the House.

UPDATE
Some of Wayne Grudem's writings are available online. In a sermon preached just before the 2004 election at Covenant Life Church - home to C. J. Mahaney and Joshua Harris, Grudem argues why he feels Christians should speak to political issues. Interestingly, in the sermon he does not mention specific politicians or political parties - perhaps reflecting the difference between speaking as a private citizen or as a preacher of God's Word. Here is a quote to whet your appetite to read this transcript:

The simple fact is, if Christians do not speak out about what the Bible says about issues of right and wrong, there aren’t many other good sources for finding out any transcendent source of ethics, any source outside ourselves. If Christians do not speak about ethical issues, it will be difficult for people ever to know what God considers morally right and morally wrong. Without a clear Christian voice, the nation will be morally adrift, as much of it already is today.

So I think it is right for us to speak up – to say, “This is what the Bible says,” and, “This is how I understand the teachings of the Bible” – and then people can listen, and agree or disagree, but at least we have given a clear witness.

The all new Blogger for word should revolutionise my blogging experience.  No more excuse for those typos.  No more posts lost at the last second during the publishing process.  No more weird formatting errors.  This has got to be a massive advance for everyone who uses the Blogger software! Pop over and download it now!

I have just implemented Y!Q which allows you to find more information about subjects I post on right from the post. It should be possible to implement it in whatever blog system that you use so that the "context" it searches is always your blog post title!

Its all part of the value added service!

Terri has died in a way quite bizarre to me as a UK observer. How can it be that both the governor of the state and the president can express a desire for a different outcome and yet this woman was starved to death. How can the US parliment and courts disagree so publically? Why did the supreme court not get involved? How can a woman be starved to death without due process or evaluation by independent doctors being properly considered. At times, despite my education courtesy of TV's The West Wing, I remain incredulous at the complicated structures in place in the USA.

I have to ask, is there something wrong with a system that seems to allow one judge to condemn this woman to death? Can anyone explain to me how it is possible that the government could do nothing about this?

I have just received a new DVD to review which looks very interesting. It is a documentary on Ronald Reagan's life. I will watch it sometime in the next few days and let you know what I think, but this mans life was certainly an interesting one. It would have been great to be a fly on the wall in his West Wing.

This guy who says I Ask The Big Questions asks: "'If you had to choose, would you rather eat poo-flavored-chocolate or chocolate-flavored-poo?' " some people have too much time on their hands. I am off to watch west wing.

Emerging church is going to have to wait- dont worry Dan, I will be back!. I have 2 newly arrived books that I want to read now and a brand new Pen Scanning device to get the quotes into the blog! One of these books is Blog and the other is Nancy's. Sadly Rick isnt getting a look in either the last few days....But I am glad to say that my daily McCheyne bible reading plan is going to plan- not missed a single day so far this year- wonder how long that will last?

So many books to read, so little time. Not to mention my nice new collection of West Wing DVDs and a sermon to prepare for next week (ages away yet!)

But before we leave Dan lets allow him to speak for himself from the third introduction and keep a mental note of these names.....

I have been stretched and influenced in my rethinking of church and ministry through many dialogues and friendships with explorers and thinkers such as Brian McLaren, Doug Pagitt, Brad Cecil, Sally Morgenthaler, Tony Jones, Brad Smith, Spencer Burke, Dieter Zander, Denny Henderson, Mark Oestreicher and Tic Long from Youth Specialties, Paul Allen, Daniel Hill, Long with the many other emerging Leaders and churches with whom I had the privilege of engaging in conversation..... In particular, Leadership Leadership Network (www.Leadnet.org) and Emergent (www.emergentvillage.com) have really used by God to help rebirth my viewpoint of church and ministry we look to where God is moving and shaping the emerging church. It is to be part of the Emergent-YS board and a thrill to wonder where God will take this new movement next.

The BBC is cynically dealing out a stock email which reads as follows to anyone who complains-

�Jerry Springer The Opera� was written as a theatrical entertainment show and as a fun, opera-musical-comedy piece based on the talk show phenomenon. It is not to be taken literally. Those who watch it will see that it is obviously a larger than life parody of the confessional TV genre and the culture presented to us in these real-life programmes (which themselves go out on daytime television).

It is not the intention of the BBC to offend any of our audience in any way or to offend any religious beliefs. I can assure you that your objections and concerns regarding this forthcoming broadcast have been made available to the production team concerned, in addition to the BBC TWO Channel Controller and relevant senior management throughout the BBC.

Thank you again for contacting the BBC with the strength of your views.

If I write a complaint the least they can do is answer my points. Even if you disagree with the issue, the BBC should have the decency of replying to our points.

Lets bombard them with the following email

I heard from www.adrian.warnock.info that you are replying to complaints about the Jerry Springer Opera with a standard e-mail. Consider yourself Blog swarmed.

Please read the individualised complaints and DO NOT air this blasphemy

Please do this even if you are not in the UK. The BBC has a global reach with news etc and would not like to offend Americans.

The British Blasphemy Corporation have replied to my personal email as follows-

BBC INFORMATION

We are pleased to confirm receipt of your e-mail to BBC Information.

All comments, complaints and appreciations are read and recorded in full on a daily log within one working day of receipt. This log is circulated widely within the BBC to programme-makers and senior management. Your feedback is extremely important to us, as it helps to form decisions about future programme making and editorial policy. Thank you for taking the trouble to share your views with us.

If your e-mail concerns an enquiry or requires a further response, we aim to respond within a few days.

Thank you for your interest in the BBC.

Regards

BBC Information Team

Sending an email or calling is not hard and together maybe we CAN make a difference.

Back in August my blogging friend JOLLYBLOGGER quotes Total Truth as follows

This heightened activism has yielded good results in many areas of public life, yet the impact remains far less than most had hoped. Why? Because evangelicals often put all their eggs in one basket: They leaped into political activism as the quickest, surest way to make a difference in the public arena - failing to realize that politics tend to reflect a culture, not the other way around......

Today, battle-weary political warriors have grown more realistic about the limits of that strategy. We have learned that 'politics is downstream from culture, not the other way around,' says Bill Wichterman, policy advisor to senate majority leader Bill Frist. 'Real change has to start with the culture, all we can do on Capitol Hill is try to find ways government can nurture healthy cultural trends.......

On a similar note a member of Congress once told me, 'I got involved in politics after the 1973 abortion decision because I thought that was the fastest route to moral reform. Well, we've won some legislative victories, but we've lost the culture (italics hers).' The most effective work, he had come to realize, is done by ordinary Christians fulfilling God's calling to reform culture within their local spheres of influence - their families, churches, schools, neighborhoods, workplaces, professional organizations, and civic institutions."

Like most British people there are definitely two sides to my perception of Americans. Firstly, I have to confess to a certain degree of admiration, almost envy. Everything about the US is so much bigger and more extreme than the UK. You are the world super power we Brits conquered other nations to be without having colonies. But on the other side I sometimes feel I don't understand you, and that can lead to almost frustration.

When we don't understand, it can lead to both confusion and at times a sense of attraction. I confess to feeling both having just watched a particularly impactful edition of the West Wing. In the story Bartlett winds up appointing an extreme right wing judge and an extreme left wing judge to the supreme court. The shows with a wistful moment which seems to welcome the partisanship of these two and the toleration of both as being really very American. As a member of what I believe is the worlds oldest continuous democracy I ought to be proud of that. After all I do believe in the sentiment that says "I disagree with what you say but would die for your right to say it".

Real life mirrors that moment when the most vicious American election ever seemed to me to end in a most bizarre attempt at reconcilliation. But is it somewhat false for Kerry and Bush to attempt to be nice to each other now after all the mud-slinging of the campaign? Are Americans really united in their pride of their ability to create a phony civil war every few years and then unite once more? Is it right that my American cousins should attempt to be both so united and divided at the same time? Americans even have a system which registers voters according to whether they were democrat or republican. How is it that the most partisan nation is also the most patriotic?

Why is it that the fault lines run the way they do? White or black, old or young, gun owner or city dweller, north and south, educated and not, and most of all church goer or not seems to predict voting patterns far more than they ever would over here.

Jollyblogger is one of the few Christian blogs I have wanted to read over the last few weeks as to a brit the ringing endorsement of one candidate almost as "Gods annointed" seems wrong. There are probably almost as many Labour Christians as Conservative in the UK- possibly as we do not have any party that would agree with us on some of the moral issues of concern to most evangelicals.

Should Christianity be identified with republicanism? My instinct says no under, and yet if Bush is able to appoint his own supreme court justices and reverse Roe v Wade, then of course if he does it will be largely because the Christians voted for him. What if 1million UK Christians decided to vote with their conscience if we had someone we could vote for? I dont think my personal opposition to the current abortion free-for-all would be any surprise to most of my readers. I recently responded very brisquely to a pro-choicer who had said "but what about the suffering of the mother" when we discussed the implications of abortion to the most vulnerable human beings in our society (the unborn) "Look, say I drive home on a fast road and a young child runs into the road. I try to brake but realise I cant stop. I realise if I hit the child I will kill her. If I swerve to miss the child I will hit the tree, and due to my airbags and seatbelt am likely to be injured but probably survive. Do I swerve or do I hit the child?" But I am not sure that in America I would feel comfortable campaigning for the republicans, certainly not if I was a preacher.

Jollyblogger expresses the dilemna well and once again I find we have been mulling over similar subjects! He says "Somehow we've got to extricate ourselves from the current public perception that evangelicals are simply an arm of the Republican party." I might have left it there as a Brit, but he displays the dilemna of the American Christian by saying "At the same time, we have to bring the gospel to bear on political issues. How we do both I'm not sure - it's a tension we just have to keep working through."

Bizzarrely, as my boredom with the US election continues to grow, my interest in the US show "The West Wing" has also increased. Tell me someone who knows about these things, does the West Wing in any way reflect the reallity of the US political system?

OK its time to say it: I am bored of the US presidential election now. It just seems to go on and on- not like our brief and 'civilised' campaigns at all!

I know depending on which side of the fence I am on I should be worried that one of the guys will destroy the planet by not cutting down on the pollution that the USA spews out on the world , or that the other guy will destroy the world by being soft on terrorism.

I know it should bother me that one of them will probably appoint pro-abortion judges whilst the other one might leave America's poor to sufer inadequate healthcare.

But, at the end of the day it is none of my business, and as a member of "the rest of the world" I will simply have to put up with whichever leader of the free world you American's choose for us.

So, why not hurry up and choose already? Does it have to take this long? From the begining of the hustings for party nominations there has been a gradual deterioration in some of my favorite American blogs. We are now at the point where I barely want to read any of them for fear of coming accross yet another political post!

Somebody, please find something other than politics to blog on, and put a link here in this comments section so I can go look at it without wading through "Bush is great" or "Vote Kerry" posts!

World Magazine Blog reports a showdown on prime time TV which seems to have been about who Jesus would vote for in an election. I think with all the energy that has gone into answering the question What Would Jesus Vote?, we run the risk of forgetting a really crucial point.

Jesus has already voted. He knows, in fact he DETERMINED who the next president of the USA will be. Part of a belief in a sovereign God is that he is really in charge of everything. Thus, if Kerry gets in, it will not be as some from the Christian Right would no doubt feel "because Satan won this one"!

Romans 13:1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.

So you see, Jesus has already in the past 'voted' for an anti-abortion candidate, and at times for a pro-abortion candidate. Is he confused? Is he a floating voter? Has he defected more times than any other voter?

Even in election year, it is to my mind vital that a Christian should have a degree of restraint about partisanship. You see, it is up to God to raise up and remove our leaders. That candidate you are bad-mouthing might be God's choice to run your country. You better mind that you don't resist him wrongly.

Now of course, such a teaching has been misapplied and abused. It is entirely right for us to do our part in removing an ungodly leader, believing we are part of God's work in doing so. But, we must do so with a note of caution, and a recognition that God may actually want the leader to remain in office or to be appointed.

Why should God be happy with even an evil man being in charge? Because then his glory is revealed in judgement and in his ability to restrain such an evil man and turn even him around for good. (Ro 8:28) Because actually God is in charge even of the rulers of man (Ps 2)

Often the nations used to punish Israel for their rejection of God in biblical times were less godly than Israel was. God always takes the long view and is willing to allow what seems like illogical choices of leader.

Soemtimes a leader is put in place as punishment for his own nation. As always God is a God both of judgement and mercy. At this time I pray that his choice of your next leader will reflect more of the latter for the USA and for all the nations of the world who will also be affected by that choice.

A few days back I asked How Partisan should a pastor be%3F. Some of the comments there have been quite insightful.

I showed my ignorance by asking what Bush had done for foetuses. I guess from this side of the pond I am used to a prime minister who can do more or less what he wants. So, the idea of a president not being able to significantly alter abortion legislation if he was genuinely against it is somehow surprising to me.

I am educating myself on this by watching West Wing and reading my comments. The following was especially enlightening.

No, abortion laws (and laws that lend financial and medical support to unborn children) have changed in at least four areas under the Bush administration. (1) We now have a ban on partial birth abortions - the kind where they deliver the baby feet first, then suck the brain out before the head is born, (2) Bush limited stem cell research so that it would exclude research on aborted babies and embryos, (3) he put into affect laws that make the murder of a pregnant woman a more serious crime because it involves 2 lives, and laws that provide medical care to aborted children who are accidentally born alive (state and federal courts are attempting to overturn all of these changes). In Congress, all of the above abortion votes have been very close, with nearly 100% of the Republicans voting to limit abortion and nearly 100% of the Democrats voting for no restrictions on abortion, up to and including the moment of birth, and have passed only because Republicans currently hold a slim majority. Kerry has vowed he will overturn the partial birth ban and the stem cell research restrictions when he becomes president.

I should say that when it comes to people who actually get an abortion, it is probably equally split between the parties (and, I fear, between Christians and nonchristians), but the biggest difference to me is that key Kerry supporters tend to be proud of abortion (and wear buttons or tshirts saying as much), plus Planned Parenthood's endorsement of Kerry speaks volumes. So I would say while Bush has accomplished quite a bit, it may be just temporary, and is sure to be overturned under a new president. So on the abortion issue, I come down squarely in favor of the current president. Has he done anything that will permanently affect abortion? No, because no Supreme Court justices have resigned during his term, and Democrats in Congress, as well as Kerry, have made it clear that in the future only pro-abortion justices will be considered.

So that should answer your question about Bush and abortions.

Regarding the items you raised, I know trade is a big item in the UK because I see the term "free trade" whenever I am on UK websites or listening to some UK rock band anxious to give their opinion on a country they know nothing about) and most of us simple folk don't understand what it means, except that, in some circumstances, it may or may not involve coffee. Regarding trade, it is position of both candidates, I believe, is to protect the US economy (which may result in harming other countries), and to that extent most unions support Kerry. Kerry accuses Bush of sending millions of jobs overseas.

We also rarely hear anything about the "international court" (hopefully you can explain this to me, as well).

Scientists disagree over whether global warming exists and to what extent, or whether that situation is improving, but most environmentalists are opposed to Bush.

Regarding justice, American law is based on Engli....

Unfortunately the post was truncated! About abortions, I concede the point. About 'free trade' there are always fights and I guess some UK people take a different view- for example many dont want to be forced to import US Genetically Modified produce. On the international court- this referred to a war crimes court the USA wont sign up to- something about not wanting their soldiers to be judged there. On global warming, almost every Eurpopean believes that this is a real issue- although during hot summers I wonder if it might be a good thing......

Anwyay, it is quite understandable to me why many Christians would want to vote Bush. I am just pleading for room to be made for democrats to be Christian too (even if you feel they are misguided!). Mind you I am not over there and perhaps the distinctions between the parties are a lot stronger than over here.

According to Worldview Weekend.com I am a "Strong Biblical Worldview Thinker." I scored 145/170 points, or 85%. I have some concerns about this tho....

Firstly, just how strong a biblical worldview can I have when I lied in order to even be allowed to take the test? I told them I lived in Peuto Ricco. My understanding from West Wing is that this is a colony of the US, so since the US used to be a colony of ours...... OK, I admit it, thats no excuse I LIED!!! Still parablemania asked us, is it is ever biblically acceptable to lie.?

Anyway leaving aside my lying tendancies, the very notion of a group of Christians telling us what the 'correct' answers are is rather annoying. I would love to see a test like this but which is more aimed at helping those who are not Christians understand their worldview and how it differs from the Christian. Mind you I wonder if there is a test online for Christians to help them identify if they are Calvinist or Arminian, Cessationist or pentecostal, or whatever...?

Some of the questions in any case didnt to my mind have a right or wrong answer- here's where I disagreed significantly with their answers. Firstly, "As long as government is serving the purpose for which God created it, government is approved by God." Well nope actually. God raises governments that he does not approve to serve his purposes sometimes. I guess the Babylonians would be a case in point. More evil than the Jews, they were given prominence to enact the judgement of God. Doesnt mean that God approved of them tho.....

"Physically and mentally healthy adults that do not work should not be protected from suffering the consequences of their actions." If that said WILL not work, I would agree, but when there is no work governments must protect those who do not work!

"All forms of government-sponsored Socialism stifle economic growth and prosperity to one degree or another." Since when is that a biblical absolute? Show me that statement is true from the bible! (Note especially 'all forms')

"The most biblically based tax system would be one based on a flat tax system where everyone pays the same percentage of their income in taxes." The bible tells us to simply give to Ceaser what he asks of us. I don't believe that it speaks to this issue at all.

"The federal government should not fund school-based health clinics which would include safe-sex counseling." Mmm... given that we live in a society where many do not follow our norms, might it not be reasonable for some Christians to believe this was a good idea? Particularly if taught in a Red Amber Green type system- ie to grade the risks and teach abstinence as the safest option, but inform of the grades of risk in other behaviours. Why is this question considered so important- at the very least those with a biblical worldview could argue both sides on this one.

A Christian college professor and the Evangelical Outpost have criticised these tests as they felt they scored too lowely on them- some useful stuff on both sites.

Thanks to Flyover nation for this link, who's a new member of the Blogdom of God and has a most impressive site.

Managing the Blogdom of God which continues to grow becomes a headache after a while!

What I am wondering is if anyone out there would either know of a technical solution that would already do the following, or has the savvy to create one.

I would love a computer to be able to do this-
1. Read the Blogdom of God Blogroll as served by the Truth Laid Bear and obtain a list of URLs on a regular basis
2. Visit these URLs and autodiscover their RSS feeds
3. Aggregate those feeds automatically into a webpage (truncating any that are set for full posts in the feed)
4. Provide a shortened list of blogs in a blogroll feed for those who want to have less than the full list on their blogs (say the top 30?)

In this age of modern technology that should definitely be possible. Any takers anyone?

BBC NEWS reports the success of a one woman campaign to use the courts to force the police to open an investigation into the late abortion of an unborn child with a cleft lip and palate. This is potentially a major step in the UK, and shows that it is possible to make a difference.

The Observer reports: "An abortion is to be shown on British television for the first time. A Channel 4 programme will also use previously banned images of aborted foetuses in one of the most controversial television programmes broadcast in Britain. "

Anywone who says 'I like your website, Adrian, it's one of the best.' in a comment, deserves to have that comment repeated in its entirety here for all to see! And what is more, Allison has hit the nail on the head in responding BOTH to what I have been saying about Iraq/Spain AND the church. There definitely IS a link in my mind and she has picked it up well (clearly at least one other person thinks in as wacky a way as me!)

I think what I was driving at is that the terrorist, the lone 'killer' and the unchurched all have one thing in common- a sense of unconnectedness. Granted some terrorists may be well connected to a community, but I cannot believe that they will see themselves as part of the community they attack.

Alison is so right that carrot and stick are needed though, and none of my comments previously about reaching out to include others who are different to us should mean that we dont fight terrorism in other ways.

I guess I just see two fronts, some hardline opponents will never be won over- those we have to fight to protect ourselves. There are, however a massive pool of people (possibly the majority) who no longer feel part of a church, a neighbourhood, a community. Out of this pool a tiny minority may become our active enemies- but it is not too late for them. We need to somehow reach out to these people even when they are totally different to us. Somehow a multicultural society must be born. Even a simple smile exchanged on a bus can make all the difference to some.

Arguably the very best place for such a community is the church, which is on earth to represent Gods multicoloured wisdom. Anyway without further ado on to Allison's post

I think it's been pretty obvious when dealing with Iraq that the carrot doesn't work. Especially since every bit of carrot that was dangled went directly into the pockets of the dictators, and the sick, hungry Iraqis didn't see any of it. I'm not saying I'm in favor of the stick, but sometimes it's the only thing that works.

Regarding the type of demonstration you see in Spain, I don't think you see much of it in the United States at this point, although it may come to that. We have our share of demonstrations, but instead of being unifying, they are usually "against" something and often include a number of people from other countries. One example, the violent demonstrations in the cities where the World Trade Organization meetings are held. Another example, the 1-1/2 million people who are expected from other countries to demonstrate at the Republican Convention this summer. Or the pro-abortion groups that demonstrate in Washington DC on a regular basis. For a totally different reason, you see demonstrations in the cities of both the winners and the losers after the Superbowl or the World Series, often resulting in outrageous vandalism, injury and death.

After 9/11, Americans reacted by hoisting the American flag (for which we were roundly critized by our neighbors across the sea), attending church on the day of mourning, memorial services, and greater attendance at Independence day and Memorial day parades.

After the invasion (or rescue) of Iraq, anti-war demonstrations and counter-demonstrations were held in almost every major city in the country. I attended one out of curiousity and talked to a lot of the demonstrators. Most of the anti-war group were self-proclaimed anarchists who wanted to move to Europe where there "are no laws" (an interesting thought), but the rest seemed to be upset over other issues, like the economy (one woman was demonstrating against the war, but she was really just upset that her 401K had lost $50,000).

Having said all that in defense of America, you will have a hard time finding American Christians who are willing to inconvenience themselves for each other. There is no feeling of being unison -- no mandate to take care of each other or support each other. Every now and then there is a cause or a bandwagon that people get on, and it's in the news for awhile, but the average Christian in America really doesn't care if their neighbor has enough to eat or stays warm at night. This is a complete turn-around from the way it was 10 to 20 years ago, and it might be traceable to the advent of the "mega-church." Now the average church is looking for people from the upper-middle to upper class to fill up their empty pews and are competing with each other to see who can bring in the most superstars to perform on Sunday morning. To see the "must read" movies or see the "must read" books or go to the "must attend" conferenc or ingest the "God-ordained" vitamin supplement you have to have big dollars.

The other thing that happened during the last ten years to disconnect us from each other was the 8-year presidency of Bill Clinton who, doing what he does best, divided the country radically along political lines, creating a new standard for divisiveness and hatred. He reveled in making enemies where there used to be friends and breeding intolerance where we used to be able to co-exist. Because he called himself a Christian, he set a standard that didn't stay in secular America but carried over into the church.

We are living in such a disconnected, fragmented country, that I don't know if it can be saved. We just don't care about each other any more. On those rare occasions (like 911) when we are able to muster some unity and connectedness, we are mocked by other nations.

I realize this I am writing not only in response to this post, but to several of your recent posts about the church, but there does seem to be some connection, at least in my mind. At any rate, what you said struck a nerve with me today, and I had to get this off my chest.

After abortion: "The Top Ten After Abortion stories of 2003."

Another prolife step: "Wisconsin now has a Born Alive Infants Protection Act that offers babies who survive an attempted abortion the same legal rights as other children. Signed into law last week, the Act gained support after articles described incidents such as one involving a 23-week infant born alive after an abortion and placed in a specimen dish to be taken to the lab, where she died three hours later."

This kind of development is wonderful. The thought of a baby being left to slowly die apalls me.

As an abortion test case goes to Europe "A woman whose pregnancy was wrongly terminated wants the European Court to accept a foetus' right to life. " Pro abortion groups are getting worried!

Barna Research Online reports less than four per cent of Americans have a biblical worldview which was defined: "as believing that absolute moral truths exist; that such truth is defined by the Bible; and firm belief in six specific religious views. Those views were that Jesus Christ lived a sinless life; God is the all-powerful and all-knowing Creator of the universe and He stills rules it today; salvation is a gift from God and cannot be earned; Satan is real; a Christian has a responsibility to share their faith in Christ with other people; and the Bible is accurate in all of its teachings."

Appologies for the protracted quotes but having been discouraged by percentages, a rare encouragement follows. It seems despite previous suggestions to the contrary having a biblical worldview alters your behaviour...

'People's views on morally acceptable behavior are deeply impacted by their worldview. Upon comparing the perspectives of those who have a biblical worldview with those who do not, the former group were 31 times less likely to accept cohabitation (2% versus 62%, respectively); 18 times less likely to endorse drunkenness (2% versus 36%); 15 times less likely to condone gay sex (2% versus 31%); 12 times less likely to accept profanity 3% versus 37%); and 11 times less likely to describe adultery as morally acceptable (4% versus 44%). In addition, less than one-half of one percent of those with a biblical worldview said voluntary exposure to pornography was morally acceptable (compared to 39% of other adults), and a similarly miniscule proportion endorsed abortion (compared to 46% of adults who lack a biblical worldview).

Among the more intriguing lifestyle differences were the lesser propensity for those with a biblical worldview to gamble (they were eight times less likely to buy lottery tickets and 17 times less likely to place bets); to get drunk (three times less likely); and to view pornography (two times less common). They were also twice as likely to have discussed spiritual matters with other people in the past month and twice as likely to have fasted for religious reasons during the preceding month. While one out of every eight adults who lack a biblical worldview had sexual relations with someone other than their spouse during the prior month, less than one out of every 100 individuals who have such a worldview had done so.'

I have just come accross The UK LifeLeaguethey report "Over 6 million British babies have been killed by abortion since 1967, nearly 700 a day at present. Modern technology, imaging techniques and research have shown beyond doubt that the unborn child is very much a human being. Don't be fooled by the de-humanizing language used by abortion clinics, 'family planning' clinics and pro-choice groups. When it comes to life we believe in calling a spade a spade. Abortion is not 'choice' it is the legal murder of children. "

They also have a sobering gallery of abortion images, which I challenge ANYONE to view and remain in favour of this barbaric practice.

Abortion laws in the UK may fall foul of the European constitution.

Professor Jack Scarisbrick, national director of the charity Life, said he was confident they could win.
'If you have a law which says special needs children can be killed, you are clearly practising eugenics,' he told BBC News Online. 'It is weeding out substandard human beings.' "

Of course UK laws are not fully applied as it is- the law states that abortion is allowed only where the life or health of mother or child are threatened. Doctors today claim this applies to all abortions, thereby allowing social abortion on demand- surely not intented by the law makers.

Abortions are funded on the NHS, both for eugenics but also as a form of family planning. This cannot be right even to the most ardent pro-abortionsist.

itv.com/f1 - James Allen: "He stood for several minutes in the corridor behind the podium in floods of tears. Unable to speak, utterly exhausted and empty. "

After driving a cautious clumsy race, Formula Ones champion of chamions Micheal Schumacher was drained and empty. Why should he continue now? What more could he possibly prove? The only thing that could possibly drive him now is loyalty to the team which he calls his family.

What can possibly drive a champion like him to keep going knowing that one day (and it must surely be soon) he will be deposed and another- Raikonnen, Alonso, Trulli, Montoya, whoever... will reign supreme.

But how to decide when to call it a day- a hard one to call I guess.

Amazing that even today an albumn can be recorded in a bedroom and sell a million copies!

Daniel Bedingfield Unofficial - The Unofficial Resource For Fans Of Daniel Bedingfield!: "PC: And it all started with a song that started out of a bedroom
DB: That's right! Yeah I still do all my stuff from my bedroom. Still do all the production and stuff. Actually the whole album was done pretty much in my bedroom with one computer and a mic.
PC: Yeah I guess technology has advanced that much that you don't have to book out Abbey Road for 6 months anymore.
DB: That's right. I mean usually you have to take it into Abbey Road afterwards to kind of tweak it and make it sound like a record."

Forgive me if I engage in a little conspiracy theorising. Its just that the latest security 'glitch' in a Microsoft product seems to me like it just might be one co-incidence too far. In a BBC report today entitled The hidden dangers of documents it is explained that every electronic word document not only contains a record of every revision of the document (which may well be embarrassing) but also fragments of data from other files you were working on at the same time are embedded. This would be a dream for anyone wanting to carry out espionage whether industrial or state-sponsored, as all kinds of valuable data unbeknown to their authors is embedded into files freely available on the internet !

Why is it that every major security glitch and newly discovered weakness seems to affect a Microsoft product? Are we expected to believe that all such glitches are accidental or is there something more sinister going on?

Remember I am a psychiatrist so I am sure I am not being totally paranoid here. Mind you any view no matter how strange will find some support on the internet so here goes-

ZDNET reports that people in the Chinese government believe Microsoft is spying for the US govt and could disable Chinese computers with a press of the button. I am also not the first person to ask is microsoft spying on you? with the Media player , the windows update program and records of online activity in the crosswires of the conspiracy theorists.

This all reminds me of a patient I once saw who it was incredibly difficult to establish whether he was paranoid and deluded or not as he could find ample evidence on the net to support his pet theories!

Mind you I personally have nothing to hide and with the growing terrorist threat I rather hope that someone is spying on us all electronically, don't you?

This is more deaths than any of the world wars. What started as a get out for extreme cases is now abortion on demand. Despite the risks to women's health from abortion most abortions are now done on the basis that ANY pregnancy is more risky for the woman's health than continued pregnancy. This appears simply to be untrue, and is certainly not what the UK law had in mind. For more information on the Ethics of abortion visit
the CMF pages or if you are considering an abortion or have had one, the CARE for Life pages are there to help not preach at you.

The fact that Tony Blair was interrupted by Campbell during an interview with the reminded 'we don't do God' is surely shocking.

An editorial in the London Daily Telegraph on Monday 5th May 2003 wryly comments:

One could write a book about everything that this little intervention has to tell us about Mr Blair and his style of government, and about Britain in 2003......

Further evidence of Number 10's anxiety to avoid religious rhetoric during the Iraq war emerged yesterday in an article in The Times by Sir Peter Stothard, the newspaper's former editor.

While having make-up applied for his screen appearance on the eve of hostilities in Iraq, the Prime Minister reportedly told his staff: "I want to end with, 'God bless you'."

At this point, according to The Times article, there was "a noisy team revolt in which every player appears to be complaining at once". Staff said that this was "not a good idea", to which an irritated Mr Blair - raising his voice - responded: "Oh no?"

One unidentified member of the Blair team reportedly replied: "You are talking to lots of people who don't want chaplains pushing stuff down their throats."

When the Prime Minister responded by saying: "You are the most ungodly lot I have ever . . .", his speechwriter Peter Hyman, who is Jewish, replied tartly: "Ungodly? Count me out."

Others intervened in what was becoming an impromptu theological debate: "That's not the same God." Mr Blair remained defiant. "It is the same God," he said.

In the end, however, the religious phrase was not used and the message ended with a simple "Thank you". According to The Times article, Mr Blair also said that he was ready to "meet his Maker" and account for his decision to go to war in Iraq.



Telegraph | Opinion | A question of faith How very strange that Mr Campbell is happy to tell the world about his own past struggles against alcoholism and mental breakdown, but shudders to hear his employer mentioning his religion. Mr Blair should trust more in the Almighty, and less in Alastair Campbell.

This is the same Blair who spoke of his generation as having a Spiritual need, and who once told the nation that conservatism was inconsistent with Christianity.

This is indeed a sad indictment on our nation!

There are some wild ideas about a 'Smart' hospital to improve care. Hey if I was still in the NHS I would be happy if I even had access to an email system or the ability to look at electronic journals online! Amazingly enough most hospital doctors dont even have access to PC's on their desks. Amazing to think that something as high risk as reading someones dodgy handwriting is still relied on for medicating out sickest patients in hospital! Trust me you wouldnt want to be reading my handwriting rather than my blog!