Sorry, no post this week.

I will be back next week with a new column. Thanks for reading.

Why I Support Israel?

Over the last 65 years, the Evangelical community has, for the most part, supported the nation of Israel. I support Israel as well. However, I support Israel for a much different reason than the majority of Christians.

From the 1940's through the 1970's, the Scolfield Bible was king. You may be wondering, "What does this have to do with Israel?" This is complicated, but I will try to make it palatable. The Scolfield Bible has notes in it. These notes are written from a theological perspective called Dispensationalism. Dispensationalism promotes prophetic thought in interpretation. We get the concept of a premillenial rapture from Dispensationalism.

Dispensationalism has become the theology of choice among Evangelicals. The "Left Behind" series proves this point. The Scolfield Bible did its job. Mr. Scolfield would be delighted to know that the majority of Evangelicals have adopted his system of thought.

The nation of Israel is very important to dispensationalists. Dispensationalists teach that Israel and the church are both part of God's plan for redemption. The Church and Israel run parallel with each other, and then at the end of time, God will combine the two. The concept of God's chosen people in a chosen land is a major theological theme in Dispensational thought. Thus, most Evangelicals blindly support Israel because they see the nation of Israel as a part of end time prophesy.

I do not believe most of what I just wrote. I believe that the church is God's chosen people. The Church is the Spiritual Israel, and that is what really matters. I do not see Israel and the Church separated. I see the church as a grafted branch into the Kingdom of God. However, I do believe that God will use the nation of Israel in the end times, but I don't put as much emphasis on this as many Dispensational thinkers.

So, Why do I support Israel? Simple, they are democracy in the middle of a bunch of fascist Ideologues. I support Israel because it is fighting terrorists. I support Israel because those same terrorists want to kill me and destroy the Christian faith.

I truly believe the enemy must be killed. Hezbollah, and the like, cannot be negotiated with. They want to kill us. The head of Hezbollah said he welcomes World War III. I believe we should give him what he wants. If we do not defeat this enemy completely, their form of terrorism will go on forever.

Here is my suggestion. I would like to encourage Israel to make Southern Lebanon and Syria parking lots for American and British tanks. By doing this, we have a good safe area to destroy Iran in the future.

I am certain my suggestion will fall on deaf ears. Thus, I am certain we will continue to handcuff our soldiers, and we will all have to deal with terrorists for a long long time.

This is why I support Israel.

The Assault on Baptism

When I first heard about it, I blew it off. I thought it was just a few fringe churches, and that it would not amount to anything. However, over the last few years I have noticed a growing movement that has disturbed me greatly. There is an assault on Believer's Baptism, and it is coming from all sides.

As a Baptist, I am shocked that it is happening. I mean, come-on, we are called Baptists. We got our name because our founders believed that immersion after one confesses their faith in Christ is true Baptism. Thus, we would not allow a person to be a member of a church that hasn't been properly Baptized. I am sad to say, this isn't the case anymore.

Believer's Baptism is being attacked on three different sides. One of those sides should not surprise anyone. However, the other two are disturbing, and we need to make certain that our associations take action if their teachings creep in.

The first group that is falling away from Believer's Baptism is the theological liberals. I saw this in college and in seminary. It did not bother me, because I never thought much of these churches to begin with. The reason the left has moved away from Believers' Baptism is due to the fact they don't want to tell anyone they are wrong.

When I was in college, a Pastor from a country seat church came to teach a theology class. He was a liberal, and after sitting through his class, I would be surprised if he really believed in anything. He told our class about a problem he was having in his church. He was trying to get his church to accept members from a Methodist church. They were baptized as infants, and did not see the need to be immersed. The Pastor agreed, and he did all that he could to convince his church to accept them. He was successful, and in my opinion he now pastors a non-Baptist church.

The second group of people that are falling away are from the church growth movement. I truly like most of these people. They have the right heart. However, they take methods more seriously than they take truth. The church growth movement is into growing churches. Thus, if it gets butts in the pews, it is OK with them. Many in the Church growth movement stay completely away from doctrine and covenants. They believe doctrine scares people. Thus, many of their sermons are light, fluffy, and easy on the ears.

The church growth movement struggles with believer's baptism because it might cause someone not to come to their church. Remember, Church growth is all that matters. Thus, if believer's baptism gets in the way of church growth; it then must be done away with.

The final group that has begun falling away is from the reformed movement. Calvinists, for the most part, embrace covenantal theology. Covanentalism teaches that Baptism is equivalent to Jewish circumcision. Thus, infant Baptism makes since to those who fall within reformed theology.

Some Baptists, who our Calvinists, spend a lot of time reading and studying the reformers. When all your heroes teach Pedobaptism, you begin questioning your views. Calvinists must be careful not to fall into one sided thought.

I am a believer in the autonomy of the local church. If a church decides to not Baptize by immersion, that is up to them. However, they need not call themselves Baptist. I find it a shame that we can no longer trust other Baptist churches to hold to the historical doctrines of our faith. I can no longer accept a member from another Baptist church unless I investigate their Baptism. This is sad, but a necessity if we are going to hold to Baptist orthodoxy.

I know that I am way out in front of most on this issue. I have not read anything written about this issue in Baptist circles. However, if we don't jump on this quickly it will become a problem. We must deal with this now, or it will cause us terrible problems in the future.

Definitions

Words mean things. I have always known this to be true. However, today I find myself wondering what many words mean. I have come to the conclusion that how a word is defined matters a lot. As a matter of fact, I have come to the conclusion that who controls the language will always win the argument.

I first learned this fact in college. I am a conservative. My right-way leanings are evident in every area of thought. From religion to economics, I think to the right. My freshman year, I was discussing a social issue with a group of students. As always, my thinking was to the right. I found out that this groups thinking was to the left. One of the students looked at me and said boldly, "You are intolerant!" That was the first time anyone said that to me. I now hear it all the time.

To be intolerant simply means not to tolerate. It means you will not let another view point survive. It is an ugly word. It is a word that brings thoughts of ignorance. It is also a word that is misused by the left all the time. The left has switched the definition of tolerant with the definition of acceptance. Thus, anyone who does not accept their beliefs is intolerant. If I was told I was unaccepting, I would accept that. However, to tell me I am intolerant, when I am unaccepting, is intolerable.

After a political debate in college, I was told by one young lady the greatest line I have ever heard. She said, "You are so closed-minded, I don't ever want to speak with you again." I believe her argument speaks for itself. Someone obviously has changed the definition of closed-minded. I didn't get the memo.

This problem has taken place in the realm of Christianity as well. In the early 20th century, the term fundamentalist meant you believed in the fundamentals of faith. That term now is relegated to only those on the extreme right. Mainstream fundamentalists prefer the term Evangelical. However, in recent years the term Evangelical has been muddled. Men like Clark Pinnock desire to call themselves Evangelical while denying many historical truths of the faith. Thus, now we have the term Conservative Evangelical. The truth is, if you are a Conservative Evangelical it means you are a Fundamentalist, but you don't want people to think you are mean.

The greatest word that needs defining is Christian. A Christian is clearly defined in the Bible. However, most people call themselves a Christian, and they really aren't. I know, I know, that statement makes me "intolerant". I guess, I just can't help myself.

I have now decided that every time I hear a word defined incorrectly for political gain, I am going to proudly stand up and declare that I am an Asian-American. When they tell me I am not, I am going to call them intolerant. I will then start to cry, and say they are closed-minded and hateful. As I walk away, I will tell them they have no right to tell me what I am or what I am not. I will then mumble something under my breath about Nazis and Fundamentalists.

Or, maybe I should just buy them a dictionary.