According to the aggregate of recent polls, Romney was already climbing back into the lead in several key states even before Santorum’s dismal debate performance.  What will Wednesday night’s debate do? Probably hand Romney Michigan and Arizona at least!

The former Pennsylvania’s senator’s staff must have been praying for low ratings as they watched their boss repeatedly stick his foot in his mouth.  Santorum defended his vote for No Child Left Behind even though it ran contrary to his values because he was a “team player.”  He also attempted to defend his endorsement of liberal Arlen Spector over conservative Pat Toomey and his vote for earmarks.  Santorum could have cemented his front-runner status but expressing sheer regret for these moderate to liberal missteps but by defending himself he played into the type of politician voters are sick of–the status quo, go-along-to-get along legislator who runs as one person and governs as another.

Because this may be the last debate of the primary season, it remains an open question as to how much damage this will do to Santorum.  Just because he may slip enough to hand the next few primaries to Romney does not mean he is out of the game. The big southern primaries are yet to come and Santorum is leading in many of these states (at least he was before Wednesday night).  If he can reshape the narrative and raise the money, he may still be able to challenge Romney right up to the convention.  If not, this may be the beginning of a Bachmann-Perry-Cain slide into irrelevance.

It seems to be that the anti-Romney forces are as determined as ever.  The debate (and a $10 million infusion of cash from a Las Vegas billionaire) may give Newt Gingrich new life as he performed well on Wednesday night.  Time will tell.

In the end, Wednesday was nothing but bad news for Santorum and good news for Romney who is the only viable candidate not scrambling for money.  Romney is already feeling the wind at his back with a new tax cut plan but it isn’t a done deal yet.  Things have changed dramatically over the last few weeks.

I was under the impression that Romney had all but closed after his big win in Florida.  After all, Gingrich was bleeding and Santorum was penniless.  But Santorum was able to parlay a few caucus wins into a media frenzy (despite the fact that there were no delegates at stake).  The anti-Romney forces rallied and a few large donors kicked in cash and boom–Santorum became a player.  Whether he can stay one is an open question. Santorum may keep his status simply because conservatives may feel as if there is no where else to go.

The lack of passionate support for any candidate has made this the most volatile presidential primary in recent memory.  For political junkies like me, it is about to get even more interesting.  Stay tuned.

1. Alex over at Entreprelife on ethics & Money.  Take a look here.

2. Did you know that Bill Murray and Chevy Chase once got into a fist fight? Cracked has the top 10 most improbable celebrity fistfights here (warning: the language is raw).

3. Bill Simmons has a love/hate relationship with Jeremy Lin and a hate/hate relationship with Tim Tebow (see here).  Is it my evangelical loyalty that makes me want to smack Simmons?

4. Jon over at Stretched has been posting on quality.  Good stuff!

5. The Southern Baptists had debated changing their name.  Larry doesn’t care (here).  Does it matter to you what name is on the church you attend?

6. Are you a fellow preacher? Erik over at The Ordinary Pastor has a few easy but helpful tips.  Check it out here.

7. Like Pastor Dave? Well, his better half is making a play to be a better blogger! Check out Krista’s Beauty for Ashes.

Finally, join ADF in praying for marriage this weekend  (02/26) and please pray for the horrible violence in Syria.

Check back later today for thoughts on the impending Santorum slide, tomorrow for more thoughts on movies and next week for a discussion on Lin, Tebow and Christianity, sermon notes on Romans 9 (pray for me!), reading through the Constitution, a review of Daniel Kirk’s new book on Paul, dealing with “rival” ministries and more.

Until then, grace and peace.

If you walk into a liberal church and have a conversation about controversial topics, like same-sex marriage, you will generally find that they generally fall within the parameters of mainstream progressive thought.  So, my question for progressive Christian leaders is this, “Is it any accident that progressive congregations fall so neatly in line with the culture at large? Even when that culture is so thoroughly un-Christian?”

It seems that an ancient faith with such stringent demands would generally cut against some, if not most, modern western mores.  Now, many progressives will object that fighting for the poor and/or against materialism does cut against the grain but that’s not true.  Most Americans want to help the poor and agree that we are all too materialistic they just disagree on what to do about it.

Progressives may also try to flip the conversation by attacking evangelicalism as a cultural creation of the 1950′s and there is some truth to that.  But most evangelical leaders now recognize that conservative churches failed the poor and African-Americans.  They should have stood against the culture.  They capitulated to it and we see that now.

So, progressive church leader, don’t you think you too have a blind spot or two? Doesn’t it bother you how neatly your theology fits within modern mainstream western thought?

Renowned New Testament scholar D.A. Carson certainly believes so.  Professor Carson argues in his wonderful new book The Intolerance of Tolerance (Eerdmans 2012) that the modern push for “tolerance” is intellectually bankrupt and morally bankrupt.  It teaches that there is no right or wrong but then insists that to make someone feel wrong is…well…morally wrong.  Thus, it espouses an absolute while claiming there are no absolutes.

Carson rightly points out that not only is the new ”tolerance” movement inconsistent but dangerous.  Those who argue that Christians or Mormons are “pushing their values” on them are in fact pushing their own values but ones that are not really based in anything.  Historically such moral vacuums have often led to the horrors such as Pol Pot’s killing fields or the Nazi concentration camps–both of which were actually products of secular leftist thinking.

With a keen wit and a crisp style, Dr. Carson argues for true tolerance (i.e., I disagree with you but will fight for your right to hold such views and espouse them in the public square) and traces the intellectual arc that has brought us to the present.  He argues for truth and admonishes Christians to enter the public conversation gracefully but forcefully.

John Stott is quoted as saying, “Jesus is either Lord of all or he is not Lord at all.”  Carson contends that the faith passed on from the Apostles makes certain public demands.  If a person who claims to follow Jesus concedes those demands to secularists who want to privatize faith, the person no longer subscribes to Christianity.

Last year, about this time, I received an advance copy of Tim Challies The Next Story (Zondervan 2011) and argued that it was not only a good book but an important and timely work.  The same must be said of The Intolerance of Tolerance.  It is simply must reading for every pastor and committed Christian.  It is an early contender for my favorite book of the year.

If you would like to learn more about the legal cases I cited at the beginning of this review (and Dr. Carson cites a few of them in his work), you can do so at www.telladf.org, which I am proud to say is my employer (I’m a bi-vocational church planter) and the largest Christian legal ministry in the world.

Next week, I will review the new book Jesus Have I Loved, But Paul? by J.R. Daniel Kirk (Baker 2012).  Tomorrow, I will post a question regarding the modern progressive church movement, of which, I was once a member.

Until then, grace and peace.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

On the one hand, the Preamble is unimportant.  It was a late addition drafted almost exclusively by Delegate Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania and was adopted with little debate.  On the other hand, it is vitally important because it was viewed by the delegates (and the state conventions who debated whether to adopt the proposed Constitution) as a summary of the document.  So, it is helpful to break it down line-by-line before jumping in to Article One next week.

“We the People of the United States” is an important phrase not throwaway line.  The Constitutional Convention met in May of 1787 after a slim majority came to a consensus that the Articles of Confederation, which had governed the new country since ratification in 1781, was a flop.  Before the Constitution was adopted, America was a loose federation of states.  The federal government had no power to tax and relied wholly on the charity of the states.  It had very little power to quash uprisings, fight wars, settle disputes among states or citizens thereof, coin money, etc.  Each state was its own kingdom and they frequently bickered with each.  The first line of the preamble asserted that all citizens were citizens of a country with a central government not just a coalition of states.

“in Order to form a more perfect Union” was a shot at the Articles of Confederation.  It may seem strange to describe anything as “more perfect” but the latter was not defined as an absolute.  The great British jurist Sir William Blackstone noted in one of his commentaries that the British Constitution was perfect but always improving.

“establish Justice” took aim at the perceived trampling of individual rights by the states.  The Framers hoped that the establishment of a federal court system would help curtail many abuses as citizens of now had a legal forum to lodge complaints against states.

“insure domestic tranquility” was directed at the various uprisings such as The Whiskey Rebellion of 1789.  The Constitution would establish a national armed force that could be directed by the President to address threats both domestic and foreign, which givs us the next line:  ”provide for the common defence“.

“promote the general Welfare” is a phrase we will deal with lately as it is tossed around by the left to defend all types of legislation but it is clear that the Framers intended it to have a negative connotation.  Sound strange?

When proposals were made that the federal government build roads or canals, Alexander Hamilton, who supported the idea, argued that it would take a consitutional amendment because the Framers used the modifier “general” to mean that the Federal government should not engage in activities that benefited one section of the country or citizenry rather than all.

Finally, the last few lines intended to insure the states that the Constitution was meant to last and was not a provisional document that would be tossed out every decade as many European countries had done.

Next week, we will begin looking at Article One, which addresses the powers of Congress.  Tomorrow, I will post a review of D.A. Carson’s new book The Intolerance of Tolerance (Eerdmans 2012).

Until then, grace and peace.

I travel quite a bit and I can now carry an entire library of tools with me to prepare sermons and lessons while on the road.  The selection of books available for download is impressive.  But the Logos library has grown so extensively that making decisions on a modest budget can be a bit intimidating. The students at the Revolution Free Seminary often ask me what to buy.

I recommend saving for one of their packages, which you can look at here, and build upon it.  I have the Platinum package but you can also choose individual titles.  One way or the other, as a long time Logos user and pastor working on 15 years in the field, I recommend slowly building toward the following dream e-library.  So, I will be posting a series over the next few weeks with specific recommendations.

First of all, I cannot encourage you enough to teach and preach expositionally through books of the Bible verse-by-verse.  As such, after you choose a book to work through, you need to read that particular book again and again and again; preferably in one sitting.  I try to read through a book at least seven times in seven different translations before I feel comfortable preaching or teaching through it.

But you frankly may not need to buy English translations as so many are free online and there are few places where you can’t snag free wi-fi.  However, if feel differently, I would recommend purchasing the following: The New American Standard (the translation that most resembles my own translations of the Greek and Hebrew), the English Standard Version (required for all Calvinists!), the Holman Christian Standard (required for all Baptists), the NET Bible (although I’m not crazy about its translation of Romans), the NIV (required of all evangelicals) and the New Living Translation (the easiest one for most to read and understand).  All of these translations are available via Logos.  Right now they are on sale for $10 a piece.

Be sure to read critically.  As you read, write down any questions you have of the text, note repeated words or phrases and begin to construct a rough outline of the book.  If nothing else, you need to ask when the book was written? To whom it was written? And, why was it written?

After you have a good idea of the general outline of the book you will need to start translating each section from the original Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek.  But before we jump to language tools, I recommend double checking your outline and notes against a good introduction.  The two best on the market are Introduction to the Old Testament (Zondervan $34.99) by the late Raymond Dillard and Tremper Longman and Introduction to the New Testament (Zondervan $31.99) by D.A. Carson and Douglas Moo.  However, I would also recommend Old Testament Survey (Eerdmans $50.00) by Lasor, Hubbard and Bush as well as the Baker Encounter Series (Baker Books $99.95), which feature surveys of the Old Testament, New Testament and Romans by Doug Moo.

You should check your initial conclusions about themes, outline, etc. with top scholars because, in the words of the great preacher Fred Craddock, “these matters are too important to be left to just your opinion.”  Tune in next time as we turn to tools to translate the original text.

Also, tune in later today as I will be uploading the first in a series of posts on reading through the Constitution.  See you then.

At first glance, it may seem that metal and classical music have nothing in common.  I used to wonder why I loved both but a few years ago I ran across a Daily Mail story about a study focusing on personality types and their musical preferences.  It found that self-assured, creative introverts are prone to love metal and classical music depending on their age.  It also found that creative, aggressive extroverts like punk while laid back, creative extroverts like jazz or reggae.  Uncreative self-assured workers like country (shocker) and introverts and extroverts without a good deal of self-esteem like alt. indie (in other words, my alt rocking critics are losers!).

By the way, the most uncreative love easy listening and dance music (shocker!).

I guess I shouldn’t have been so surprised.  Most great metal musicians are classically trained.  Both metal and classical music rely on skill and relish theater and a sense of bigger than life power.

I wonder what you do with people who love John Tesh or Yanni?  Probably all sickos who should be imprisoned against their will.

18 Yet what we suffer now is nothing compared to the glory he will reveal to us later.

Paul doesn’t command suffering…he assumes it.  He assumes we will suffer if we are faithful and that the power to suffer comes from the future glory that God will reveal later.

This is important, because, as Tim Keller says, “if we are not producing the same results as Jesus did then we are not preaching the same message he did.”  Are churches filled with people willing to suffer? If not, perhaps the problem is the preaching.

19 For all creation is waiting eagerly for that future day when God will reveal who his children really are.

There is an omnipresent sense that all of us have that we are waiting for something…Paul says is it is the return of Christ and the revelation of God’s children.

20 Against its will, all creation was subjected to God’s curse. But with eager hope, 21 the creation looks forward to the day when it will join God’s children in glorious freedom from death and decay. 22 For we know that all creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.

Paul is speaking of all creation. Have you seen the movie, “The Grey”?  ‘Nuff said.

23 And we believers also groan, even though we have the Holy Spirit within us as a foretaste of future glory, for we long for our bodies to be released from sin and suffering. We, too, wait with eager hope for the day when God will give us our full rights as his adopted children, including the new bodies he has promised us. 24 We were given this hope when we were saved. (If we already have something, we don’t need to hope for it. 25 But if we look forward to something we don’t yet have, we must wait patiently and confidently.)

Again, what creation truly awaits…is us…unveiled as children of God and brought to the party with new, perfect bodies.  Why? Because that’s what it was designed for! For us but without sin!

26 And the Holy Spirit helps us in our weakness. For example, we don’t know what God wants us to pray for. But the Holy Spirit prays for us with groanings that cannot be expressed in words. 27 And the Father who knows all hearts knows what the Spirit is saying, for the Spirit pleads for us believers in harmony with God’s own will.

Now note the Spirit prays for US! How are we to suffer like Christ to save others? Part of it is to remind ourselves that both Jesus and the Spirit pray for us even when we don’t know how to pray.

Okay, what are we to do with this information?

This past week, I read the Tony Award winning play, Red about the life of the late painter Mark Rothko.  Rothko was a brilliant artist and contemporary of Jackson Pollock.  Like Pollock, Rothko suffered but not just for his art, he also suffered for the success of his art.  He was obsessed with his own relevance.  He was constantly plagued by the anxiety of remaining at the top and at the cutting edge.  When the artistic movement led by Andy Warhol and Roy Lichtenstein threatened Rothko’s position, he committed suicide.

On the one hand, anyone who attempts to do anything of consequence suffers; the difference is whether it is worth it.

Romanian pastor Richard Wurmbrand spent 14 years in a communist prison for preaching the gospel. Although his captors smashed four of his vertebrae and either cut or burned 18 holes in his body, they could not defeat him. He testified, “Alone in my cell, cold, hungry, and in rags, I danced for joy every night.” During this time he turned to a fellow prisoner, a man he had led to the Lord before they were arrested, and asked, “Have you any resentment against me that I brought you to Christ?” His response: “I have no words to express my thankfulness that you brought me to the wonderful Savior. I would never have it another way.”

John Trapp wrote, “In our sufferings for Christ there is joy, not so when we suffer for our sins.”

Wurmbrand truly suffered but he did so with peace.  Rothko suffered without any inner calm.  The difference lay in what they suffered for–the latter suffered for himself the former for God and the promise of an inheritance of total access to God day and night.

This is how life works–suffer for yourself and live in anxiety and die in misery.  Or, like our Lord, suffer out of faithfulness for God and know peace and joy now and heaven later.

Which will you choose?

Ryan argued for the following team:  Magic Johnson at the point, Jordan at shooting guard, Larry Bird at the wing, Tim Duncan at power forward and Bill Russell at center.  Simmons generally agreed but countered that Kobe may deserve a seat at the table because of his drive to win.  I agree with Simmons even though I think Bryant is morally detestable.  Also, I would replace with Russell with Wilt Chamberlin who I think was the most physically formidable center who ever played and could still hit free throws.  One could make an argument for Kareem Abdul-Jabbar but I was never impressed with his defensive game.

The more interesting question is who would you pick to fill out a full 12 person roster?  In addition, to Magic, Jordan, Bird, Duncan and Chamberlin, I would add Oscar Robertson, Jerry West, Kobe, Elgin Baylor, Moses Malone, Bill Russell and Jabbar.

The only hole I see is that Robertson would have to play back-up point guard.  Robertson did often play point guard but he was a ball hog who more comfortable at the shooting guard position.  Before you argue that Kobe is a ball hog as well, note that he is not quite the selfish player he was and that Jordan constantly demanded the rock before he matured and decided he needed a team to win.

So, did I miss anything? Who would you put on your team?

BTW, Simmons’ NBA book is a must read.  Check it out here.

If you are looking for something to watch this weekend let me offer a few suggestions.

First, if you are a sci-fi fan but have never seen Firefly, shame on you.  The entire series, which, unfortunately, only ran for a year is available via Netflix instant.  It is easily one of the best sci-fi shows ever made.

Not a sci-fi fan? Try the BBC series Sherlock, which is a contemporary reboot of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.  I was skeptical but was pleasantly surprised.  If you are a Holmes fan or simply love mysteries, check this out on Netflix instant as well.

Neither interest you? If you’re a movie snob like me who actually looks forward to the annual Academy Awards, check out the following Best Picture Oscar winners available from Netflix Instant: The English Patient (a bit slow), The Last Emperor (even slower), Kramer v. Kramer, One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest,  Patton, Midnight Cowboy, Oliver  or All About Eve. 

If you are still feeling the need for a little high culture, you can watch the first season of the hit PBS series Downton Abbey.  I’m only a few episodes in and haven’t quite been snagged yet but who knows.

If you are a fellow sports fan, check out Ken Burns’ Baseball or the great boxing documentary When We Were Kings.

Looking for good music? Eric Clapton’s Crossroads Festival is also available via Netflix Instant.  Clapton performing with Sonny Landrith is amazing!

Not a Netflix subscriber? I guess you can dig out your VHS tapes and Limp Bizkit CDs and pretend it’s still the nineties.

Check back next week for a pre-Oscar preview of the year’s best movies and the ones available via DVD and Blu-ray.

Until then, grace and peace.