Greedy Doctors or Forced Philanthropist

I read an article a few weeks ago and have kind of been waiting to see how things played out. This might not be an interesting read for most, but it caught my interest so I'm passing it along with minimal comments of my own. Note that this is not meant to be political, but informative. Online sources: here, here and here.

Medicare uses a formula called the Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) formula to calculate what physicians should be making for specific services (for Medicare patients). There is a supposed "widespread agreement" that the formula is "fatally flawed". As Medicare repeatedly reruns this formula, the results are the same; cut the payments to the physicians. Congress, in the past, has stepped in and prevented these pay-cuts from proceeding. The latest proposed pay-cut was supposed to be a 21.2% pay decrease to physicians and was supposed to take effect April 1^st. On April 19^th, the Senate voted to push out the start date from April 1^st to June 1^st, with plans to potentially extend the current payment plan into October.

"So what? How will this affect me?" you ask.

An online survey conducted by the Surgical Coalition, which represents 240,000 surgeons and anesthesiologists, received feedback from nearly 14,000 physicians. These are doctors from various specialty areas, including: Anesthesiology, Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, Colon and Rectal Surgery, Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, General Surgery, Neurosurgery, OB-GYN, Ophthalmology, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Orthopaedic Surgery, Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Pediatric Surgery, Plastic Surgery, Urology, and Vascular Surgery.

A majority of the respondents claim that they "will be forced to make significant changes in their practices if the cut goes into effect and that timely access to surgical care will be jeopardized if Medicare payments continue to decline." The survey revealed that 96% of those who responded currently participate as Medicare practitioners. If this cut goes into effect, less than one third of them will "be able to remain as Medicare participating physicians."

When asked, "If Medicare reimbursement to physicians is cut by over 21%, what changes to your Medicare participation status do you plan to make?" Respondents answered:

• 37 percent will change their status to nonparticipating
• 31 percent plan on remaining a Medicare participating physician
• 29 percent will opt out of Medicare for two years and privately contract with Medicare patients
• 3 percent will remain a Medicare nonparticipating physician (this is the portion who were currently NOT participating – in other words, they would not change their status to "Participating")

I kind of like numbers, and these numbers are pretty easy to follow. Of the 14,000 who responded, approximately 13,580 currently participate in Medicare. 420 physicians who responded do not participate in Medicare. If the pay-cut goes into effect, 66% of the current participators will opt out or completely drop being a Medicare participator for a minimum of two years. This is an additional 8,960 physicians on top of the 420 physicians who already do not participate in Medicare, for a total of 9,380. This leaves approximately 4,600 physicians out of 14,000 that will participate in Medicare. Of the 31% of physicians who will still be Medicare participants, three-fourths say they will have to make changes in their practices over the next 12 months, such as "stop providing certain services, reduce staff, defer purchase of new medical equipment, and/or reduce time spent with Medicare patients." Keep in mind, this may be your doctor or specialist.

Below are a few quotes from online commenter's as well as respondents from the survey (they will be pasted in verbatim, so typos belong to the responders). Consider that some of these comments may be wild threats made by greedy doctors who only care about the "bottom line" (aka, their pocket-books). If these are greedy doctors using strong-arm tactics to sway the mind of Congress, it may be working. On the other hand, they may be compassionate practitioners in your town who do care about the patient and the well-being of the community, but truly can't afford to continue treating people at their own expense. We may never know which is which.

charles dupin
Mar 29, 2010

Currently my practice has about a 65% overhead. We therefore are making 35% profit in our relatively small practice. A 20% cut in medicare riembursement would reduce our profit to 15% (working for tips). If other carriers follow medicare, we will not be able to sustain our practice.

Barron O'Neal, MD
Mar 29, 2010

I provide many services at "break even" cost. I will discontinue those servises if the cost of providing those services is more than the reimbursement. Giving care away is one thing. Having to pay to give care away is too much. Barron O'Neal, MD

"I will elect not to perform complex surgery/high‐risk surgery unless it

is emergent and I will decrease elective cases."

General Surgeon

"I am in an academic facility. This could have a devastating impact on

the institution as a whole. The system is already financially strapped.

We are working at close to the breaking point in terms of providers

and resources."

Urologist

"I work in rural area and this will force me to close; the recession has

already put me on the edge with a 10% drop in revenue. Then there

will be no one serving this community's poor."

Orthopaedic Surgeon

"I will no longer be able to afford to do charity cases and will quit

doing them. I am the only cataract surgeon in the area who does

these cases."

Cataract Surgeon

"This will result in staff getting let go without much delay, and the

remaining will work harder."

Ophthalmologist

"This cut will result in longer waits as we cut back clinics due to lack of

staff, longer time to next available appointments and many patients

being turned away at the door. In addition this will negatively affect

the pipeline for people going in to surgery."

General Surgeon

"Medicare patients will essentially be standby only if I have no other

patients to see."

Orthopaedic Surgeon

Return of the Stunt Toad

For those of you who visit our family journal, you may remember the video of the toad riding in the remote control truck. For those who missed it, go here. As luck would have it, we became the owners of another toad; and since the first toad had so much fun, we thought this one might like to ride as well. This time, we had safety first on our minds. Ross, with his skilled hands, crafted a crash helmet from a split, hollowed-out buckeye, complete with scarf (bread twistee-tie) waving in the wind behind him. (Disregard the masking tape holding the helmet on...hey, you gotta start somewhere. Note-to-self: use duct tape next time.)

Next, the toad is placed into position. You can feel the anticipation vibrating through the toads body. I'm not sure who is more excited at this point, the toad or us guys. Actually, I take that back. I'm pretty sure that we were more excited. The toad was probably a little more fearful (but he hid it well).


And finally, it's time to crack open the throttle and see how many horses this things got under it's hood...er...it actually doesn't have a hood. And it's really not that fast. Which is a good thing...because this could have turned out much worse than it did.


Before you call PETA, please know that no mammals were hurt during this stunt. His helmet actually stayed on until impact, which more than likely saved him from scrambling his brain. And we were pretty much able to stop the truck before it completely ran over him (sort-of).This concludes this episode of Stunt Toad.

And now a message from the star of the show, Stunt Toad himself - "Hey, tadpoles! Play it safe and don't get caught in the first place!"

It's not fair, really...

...that it's my wife's birthday today, and I'm the one who gets blessed by the gift...of her.

I love you Eshell! Happy birthday!

If only...

If only I could teach my children...No, if only I could SHOW my children to:

• Be peacemakers
• Turn the other cheek when struck on the right cheek
• Willingly give up their shirt also when they are sued for their coats
• Willingly carry the burden of one that uses them an extra mile
• Love their enemies
• Bless those that curse them
• Do good to those that hate them
• Pray for them that despitefully use them and persecute them
• Forgive others their trespasses
• Lay up their treasures in heaven
  
• Serve God rather than mammon
• Seek first the kingdom of God

"But that's not the American way".
No, but it is the way of the One we claim to follow.

Matthew 5-6

Turkey Killin'

Ever wonder how an engineer butchers a turkey? Well, I was on vacation most of last week so I thought it would be a good time to butcher the already over-grown turkeys. The biggest problem with butchering birds is plucking. We've used a feather plucker before, but don't personally own one. The one we used in the past belonged to friends who live in the Angola area (which is too far to drive to butcher two turkeys). I thought I'd try a method I'd heard about "through the grapevine". Worked great!

First things first...separate the head from the body. No pictures of the massacre, although we did have quite the time keeping the huge birds from slipping out of the cinch we had them hanging upside down in.

Next...drain the blood.


Next...separate the skin from the neck. Insert a water hose. Pinch off the neck hole and turn on the water hose. NOTE: Make sure the hose is in between the skin and the neck; if you put the hose in the neck cavity, you have a whole new mess on your hands. WARNING: Don't play the video if your at all squirmy. It's not graphic but it does show me man-handling a dead, headless turkey.



The water fills up the turkey (actually separates the skin from the turkey) and, as you see, will burst the skin like an over-filled water balloon. Worked nice. Plus, running cold water over the turkey's freshly murdered flesh helps to cool the meat quicker.

Next...cut off the feet and wings. Ross (our oldest son; 14yo) did a nice job of this.


Move on to removing the skin. We've butchered and skinned chickens before without the water method. Terrible to skin. A feathery mess! The water, although making the bird a little more slippery, keeps the loose feathers more manageable.

Finally, you gut and rinse (Brookelyn [our oldest daughter; 12yo] did a great job). We finished up by wrapping in cellophane and bagging in a clean garbage bag before introducing them to the chickens in the freezer. Actually, we only put one into the freezer. The male we put into the fridge. We knew we were going to eat him over the weekend. And let me tell you, there's nothing like a fresh turkey. And the crazy thing was over 18lbs to-boot! We put him in our big roaster and the lid wouldn't even come close to fitting on. I rolled him onto his side and lid still wouldn't go. We ended up layering the top of the roaster with aluminum foil and setting the lid on top of that. What a meal.

And as for the vacation...didn't seem like a vacation. Had a great time, but Eshell ran me ragged. Two or three trips to Ohio. One to Lagrange. The zoo. Hiking. Read about it at our family journal blog.

A Bagel Victory

My experiment is over. I have proven that a public shaming will motivate even the spiciest of people. The bagel delivery crew showed up last night. And true to her word...a burnt bagel was presented. After we laughed about the burnt bagel I asked "Okay, where are the real ones?" And wouldn't you know it, the sweet girl I wrote about earlier delivered as expected. And I was not in the least disappointed. These were the best bagels I have ever graced my mouth with. And if you know me, you can kind of deduce that I've graced my mouth with many bagels in the past. They were fresh; still warm even. We had to try one as soon as they left. I waited until they left so I wouldn't have to share with them. My mouth is watering right now just thinking about them.
Anyway, I thank you for the delicious bagels, Cassia. And for the world to see your ornery-ness, I present to you the Burnt Bagel.


No, I did not eat it. Only a fourteen year old boy would have eaten this.

Bagels

We have some very dear friends with nine (9) children. They have two young boys, six sweet girls and one, um...one "spicy" one. You see, I have a problem. I love bagels. And wouldn't you know it, it's the spicy one who's famous for making bagels. I've been gently "encouraging" this family to produce the bagels (for me). And guess what...no bagels!! And above that, I'm being threatened that if I do get bagels, they will be burnt. This young lady is famous for her more-than-lightly-browned croutons. Well, my only response is, burnt bagels would be more than what I'm getting now; NO BAGELS!!!

In honor of the new look....

In honor of the new look here at Sheep and Goats, an ode to pigs:

"A cat will look down to a man. A dog will look up to a man. But a pig will look you straight in the eye and see his equal."
-Winston Churchill

"Pigs are very beautiful animals...There is no point of view from which a really corpulent pig is not full of sumptuous and satisfying curves."
-G.K. Chesterton

"That'll do, Pig. That'll do."
-Arthur Hoggett from the movie Babe

8 Months

Eight months is a long time to be silent. Does anyone ever visit here any more? Well, the name has changed again. Now it's "Life Lessons From the Egg Basket". We have moved...again. We are now in a small town near Warsaw, Indiana called Mentone. It claims the title "Egg Basket of the Midwest". And right in the middle of town, what do you suppose they have? That's right, a giant egg!! Not giant like ostrich giant. Giant like Godzilla passed through and laid an egg giant. (Is Godzilla a male or female?)
At any rate.We've had quite the adventure(s). I told you that we moved. That's only partially accurate. We've actually moved twice since the last time I posted. No, we are not running from the law (that I know of). We moved Eshell and the children from Michigan to a house in NW Ohio (rental) as I anticipated another job offer. Once the offer came in, I realized that the company I would soon be working for had received grant money from the state of Indiana, with the stipulation that the owner pull employees from Indiana or to Indiana from other places. How delighted I was that we would be moving again!
We were in Michigan for only about two years. It's a beautiful place to live in the summer and fall. Winters...not so much. The company I was working for was growing steadily and was a great place to work. Why did we move you ask? We wanted to get closer to family. A good friend of mine had started a business and he wanted me to work for him; and I wanted to work for him. We didn't seem to fit into the more progressive (liberal) culture of the area (college town...hippies running rampant).
We had a lot of trials in Michigan. Some we fared better than others. We struggled a lot. I struggled a lot. Although we made a lot of friends up there, we just didn't jive. I believe I suffered some spiritual blows, personally. And it's all in the way that I dealt with some of the trials. I tried to work through many issues on my own. I now realize (I always really knew) that I can't always fix things on my own; in my own strength. And I was neglecting my time with the Lord. We went through phases, but I feel that I returned home drained. I now need a refill. Lord, refill me!
He truly met our needs when we lost the baby in Michigan. God strengthened us and He had us in a church full of great people that helped us a ton. We endured drunk, stoned, adulterous neighbors. We even had to hike up and down the hill we lived on because our vehicles didn't always make it up the hill in the winter time. Some things we look back at and laugh. Some things still sting to think about. We'll make a trip back to Michigan in September to see for the first time Isaiah's headstone. It will have been two years. I don't know if I'm ready for that.
And now we're back to looking for a church in our area. No luck so-far. I know God wouldn't bring us back here to keep us in our drought. He has something for us, and I'm excited to see what it is. Almost giddy. So we press on.
We (Eshell and I) have been going through a time of restructuring. We need to make some changes in our lives and in our family. Now it's just trying to keep things balanced and in perspective, while maintaining focus on the LORD. He is teaching us things; bringing us to knew revelations (old revelations for some more spiritual then us). And He is good. And He is faithful. And He will bring us through.
I also brought back baggage from Michigan that I know need to dump. Coffee became a staple while in Michigan. When it snows for nine months straight, you need something to warm you up. Well, now that we're back in the South, I still have the habit (addiction). I've tried to cut back. Two weeks ago, I did pretty good. My boss was out of town (he usually supplies the coffee at work), but last week I was like a junkie looking for a fix. Just when I think I'm doing good (in my own strength), it hits me. And I know what will happen. When I do kick it, they'll introduce bacon flavored coffee. How could a man resist anything bacon-flavored? I'll be hooked again. Pray for me. Pray that Folgers will never introduce bacon-flavored coffee.
I know that some stuff seems petty. But I do struggle with some petty things.
And lastly, I have reluctantly joined the masses and entered into the world of Facebook (against my better judgment). I only have two friends, so get on over there and be my friend!! Just search for my name and look for the guy holding the pig. You can't miss him!!
That's all. But seriously, pray for my family as we work through changes. And more changes to come.

God is Still in Control...

God is still in control, God is still in control, God is still in control, God is still in control, God is still in control, God is still in control, God is still in control, God is still in control…

 

No, these are not the lyrics to the latest praise and worship song. This is me reminding myself that no matter what happens this election day, God is still in control. Does that mean that after this election, it’s all smooth sailing from here on out? Certainly not. I’m a believer that sometimes God gives you what you want, regardless if it’s in your personal best interest. Some kings were put in place as a form of judgment. In fact, look at the conversational exchange when Israel started demanding a king. The LORD to Samuel:

1Sa 8:7  And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them. 8  According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken me, and served other gods, so do they also unto thee. 9 Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them. 10 And Samuel told all the words of the LORD unto the people that asked of him a king. 11 And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots. 12  And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots. 13 And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers. 14 And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants. 15 And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants. 16 And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work. 17 He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants. 18 And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day.

The LORD told Samuel, they will take your sons and daughters and land and crops and animals for themselves. Are you willing to give that? “Give us a king, just like the other lands!” was their reply. Now here we are. Faced with our own election of our own king. And yes, God did appoint the first king of Israel. Does God still appoint our rulers?

Rom 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

Paul goes on to tell us to submit to the higher powers as they have been ordained by God. Do these higher powers always make the right decisions? Certainly not. Saul’s life ended in a tormented, bitter shambles. Look at what many rulers throughout history has done to the church. Even though, God was not dethroned by any of the earthly rulers. He is still on the throne and still in control. Where does that leave us?

1Ti 2:1  I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; 2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.

Voting may be our civil right, but prayer for the powers-that-be is our Christian duty. This does not mean all will be well in the land. That is for God to deal with. And no president elected will turn this nation into a “Christian Nation”. We do what we are commanded to do. God is still in control.

Imagine This Church

But imagine this church: It is huge and is still numerically growing. People like it. The music is good. Whole extended families can be found within its membership. The people are welcoming. There are many exciting programs, and people are quickly enlisted into their support. And yet, the church, in trying to look like the world in order to win the world, has done a better job than it may have intended. It does not display the distinctively holy characteristics taught in the New Testament. Imagine such an apparently vigorous church being truly spiritually sick, with no remaining immune system to check and guard against wrong teaching or wrong living. Imagine Christians, knee-deep in recovery groups and sermons on brokenness and grace, being comforted in their sin but never confronted. Imagine those people, made in the image of God, being lost to sin because no one corrects them. Can you imagine such a church? Apart form the size, have I not described many of our American churches?

Mark Dever

Nine Marks of a Healthy Church, Crossway, 2000, p. 172.

Haven’t read this book, but may have to put it on my “to read” list.

Just Another Flawed Book

I read the transcript of an interview a while back that's had me thinking. Then a conversation at work last week really cemented the detriment of the particular mind-set the interview portrayed.
The interview was between Shane Claiborne (interviewer) and Tony Campolo (interviewee). I'm only going to touch on very little of the actual interview which was from 2005 (I believe), but I'll link to it in it's entirety (as I read it) at the end.
The interview is titled "ON EVANGELICALS AND INTERFAITH COOPERATION". The first exchange has Shane asking Tony (an ordained minister in the American Baptist Church and professor emeritus of Sociology at Eastern University in St. Davids, Pennsylvania) to define "evangelical".
Campolo: An evangelical is someone who believes the doctrines of the Apostle's Creed. That outlines exactly what we believe in detail. Secondly, an evangelical has a very high view of scripture though not necessarily inerrancy. And the third thing—we believe that salvation comes by being personally involved with a living resurrected Jesus. So I've defined evangelical in those three terms. There is a doctrinal statement, so that there is some content to what we believe. There is a source of truth, Scripture. And there is a personal relationship with Jesus.
Well, I believe the doctrine of the Apostle's Creed, although I view it is a very compact, condensed definition of what I believe (without detail). It may explain the who/what, but doesn't even come close to explaining the why of Jesus Christ. I also believe deeply in being personally involved with the living resurrected Jesus. What bothers me is his second point. That "evangelicals" hold a very high view of scripture though not necessarily inerrancy. As soon as someone claims inerrancy of the scripture, all arguments are over. Nothing you say, no matter how firmed in scriptural foundation the claim may be, can always be written off as scriptural error. If our salvation comes through an emotional experience and a faulty book, I'll have to pass. I mean, as far as we know, the whole story of the death, burial and resurrection may be a fabrication or embelishment. Who is the special person who gets to pick and choose what is factual and what is not? At times, I like to think that might be the job for me, but when you step back and look at the big picture, how many lives are in the balance when we decide what stays and what goes in scripture.
Two of the guys I work with, one Catholic and one Lutheran, have been told all of their lives that the scriptures are nice stories set in place as examples, but aren't necessarily factual. This is obvious by the lifestyles of these people. The Catholic guy knows the scriptures somewhat (in the typical Catholic way), but the Lutheran not at all. The problem is, whatever I might say to them regarding the scriptures is usually scoffed at. One of them asked a biblical question last week. I usually begin my answer with "if you believe the scriptures as literal...". For some reason, this time I said it it caused the Lutheran guy to say with a smirk "Of course. Is there any other way?" I understand that I only plant the seeds and God brings the harvest. All I can do is keep throwing it and hope that something sticks. Unfortunately, they are pre-programmed to take anything they might hear that might even vaguely sound scriptural skeptically. When I was young and learning the Bible, if I'd been told that I was a sinner and I was going to die and spend an eternity in hell; but Jesus, God in flesh, came to this earth to pay for my sins so that I could live forever - that the Bible said it and it was true; BUT where the Bible says that women shouldn't teach the men or that divorce is unacceptable...these are errors in the scripture. I would have walked away as the Lutheran guy has. I think we tread thin ice when we claim that the scriptures are full of errors and that we as humans can decide which is which.
Who knows, maybe I'm too shallow. Maybe too deep? Too uneducated? All of the above? I know, I've ranted on this before. There's a lot more to the interview than what I've mentioned. A lot more that I'd like to address here if I can make the time. I also have books by these two gentlemen in queue to be read (when I get the time). Maybe that will shed more light on what is true and what is not in the Bible. I'll let you know.

Interview link: here

Disarming Iran With Biscuits and a Hockey Stick

Disclaimer: Although I didn't want to blog politics this election year, circumstances have forced me to reconsider. Besides, this has a spiritual twist.

Setting the stage:

There is a debate brewing on whether or not Sarah Palin, a professing Christian, should be running for Vice President of the United Sates. The debate I’m referring to does not even bring into account whether or not she is qualified as a political candidate; but if she is permitted to, scripturally, as a wife and mother. Maybe “permitted” is a poor choice of words, as Paul said that “All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not” (1Cor. 10:23). Many on the ultra-conservative side are claiming Titus 2:5 (“keepers at home”) as to why she should not be running; saying she has small children at home, one being special needs (downs syndrome I believe), that she needs to tend to.

One of the conservatives who have spoken out about her campaign is Doug Phillips, President of "Vision Forum", a Texas based ministry. He claims that this is a huge black eye for Christians.

"The Palin selection is the single most dangerous event in the conscience of the Christian community in the last 10 years at least," said Doug Phillips, president of Vision Forum, a Texas-based ministry. "The unabashed, unquestioning support of Sarah Palin and all she represents marks a fundamental departure from our historic position of family priorities -- of moms being at home with young children, of moms being helpers to their husbands, the priority of being keepers of the home."

Neither supporter nor opposer can deny the fact that she has certainly boosted the McCain campaign. And other Christians don't seem to mind. In fact, they claim that Deborah, Esther and Sarah (Abraham's wife) all had special callings from God.

Barbara Barrick, (a) women's ministry coordinator, said she looks to Deborah, a prophetess and judge, as a biblical example of a female leader. Ennis cited Abraham's wife, Sarah, and Queen Esther as other women called by God for special missions.

Looking at both sides of the issue:

Although, I think many conservative Christians were going to drag their feet to the voting booths this year, John McCain was more than likely going to get the majority of their votes. Why? Just because. Most Christians have a weird image of Jesus Christ being a Republican. But I do think that those that are less conservative were split; with many abandoning the pachyderm party and jumping on the pack animal party (see how I did that, with the pach and pack?).

For Doug Phillips to say that selecting Sarah Palin as John McCain's running mate is the "single most dangerous event in the conscience of the Christian community in the last 10 years" is awfully bold. We as Christians have allowed a lot into the Church in the last ten years that, in my opinion, has done far worse damage to the home and to the image of Christ than Sarah Palin running for VP. Yes, he is completely accurate that in Titus, Paul does exhort older women to teach the younger women to be "keepers at home" (KJV) or "workers at home" (ASV) or even "managers of their households" (ISV). Why was this not brought up while she was a governor? Perhaps because she's the governor of...Alaska. Most had never heard of her before. But, Doug, why the offense with her being a Christian and working as VP of the USA. Most churches in America are made up of dual income families. And a role-reversal of the once-typical "male = breader winner" to "female = bring home the bacon" is becoming common-place...in the church. But it doesn't make it right. Because it's widely accepted is not a stamp of approval from God. In fact, many times it's the opposite. If we can take the Bible literally to mean that women should be "keepers" at home, or as the Greek says "a guard" or "stayer at home", than this is what the Holy Spirit meant when He inspired Paul to write it. This also means it applies to the female bank tellers, store clerks, factory workers, engineers, teachers, etc...also.

Should we withhold our vote from the big R because she is now on the ticket? Ooohh, who's to say?

As for Barbara Barrick, a few details many of the more liberal persuasion like to overlook. Sarah (or a female in general) was pretty much the only option to be used to usher in God's people; being Abraham's wife and all. And don't play like Abraham had nothing to do with it. We know how Isaac was conceived! And don't forget how Abraham got into the situation to conceive Ishmael. HIS NAGGING WIFE! Yes God used Sarah, and she was blessed for it. But Abraham wasn't going to do it on his own. And Deborah was not God's first choice if you remember correctly. Only when the man would not heed God's call was she able to step up. And don't try to tell me that their are no conservative Christian men in the United States political arena to run with John McCain! This has clearly been an attention-getting scheme from the beginning. The Repubs saw how well received a female was across the aisle (Hillary) and thought this would be a great way to "glean" some of those votes. Plus, she is what the conservatives want in a president. She is what John McCain is not. She's not wishy-washy on abortion. She appears to be relatively fiscally responsible. She's personable. She's young. None of which is John McCain.

So, personally, I believe that Doug is right in saying that Sarah Palin needs to be home taxiing her children to hockey practice and baking biscuits. But to say this, it applies to every other mother who claims Christ as LORD. No, it's not apples-to-apples comparison. I'm sure the duties of VP will keep her from her family more than being a teacher or bank teller would. But it's a direct conflict to the call of "keeper at home" none-the-less. And I don't think the "Deborah" argument gets a pass either. Sure God uses women. Look at Susanna Wesley, home schooling stay-at-home mother of John and Charles Wesley.

I do think that Doug Phillips did sum it up well when he said "It's more important for us to truthfully represent the priorities of Scripture than it is for us to win an election." Maybe he sees it as a ploy of the GOP as well. Or maybe he's plotting to deny her the White House in hopes of driving her back to the kitchen where she can make her famous biscuits and moose-gravy. Not likely.

Online Source: here

Velvet Elvis for President

This catchy title comes from two books that I recently finished. The first I finished about a month ago. It is "Velvet Elvis" by Rob Bell. Rob appears to be an interesting character. He seems to be very knowledgeable in Jewish history and rabbinical law. This intrigued me. Just a couple things I have with Rob is that he feels the Bible was written to a different people group, the Hebrew people. He makes it seem as if you can't completely understand what God has for you (through the Bible) unless you have a full grasp of Hebrew lifestyle, history and culture. I may be reading this into the book, but it certainly struck me. I believe that God also had US in mind also when the authors penned the text. I also believe that the text has been preserved for us and that it's just as meaningful to us as it was to the original recipients.
Rob seems like a very likable person, and if we didn't talk Theology, we'd probably get along great. He may be a bit philosophical and quirky for me. Some quotes from the book that I liked:

• "The thought of the word church and the word marketing in the same sentence makes me sick." (pg99)

• "Christian is a great noun and a poor adjective." (pg84)

• "It is one thing to be forgiven; it is another thing to become more and more and more and more the person God made you to be." (pg108)

• "It is one thing to be saved. To believe in Jesus. It is another thing to be healed. It is possible to be saved and miserable. It is possible to be saved and not be a healthy, whole, life-giving person. It is possible for the cross to have done something for a person but not in them. What happened to me is that I realized I believed in Jesus and thought of myself as "saved" and "redeemed" and "reborn", yet massive areas of my life were unaffected. I learned that salvation is for ALL of me. I learned that Jesus wants to heal my soul - now." (pg110)

If I had to pick one passage to sum up the book itself, it would probably be: "To keep reforming...theology; the belief about God, Jesus, the Bible, salvation, the future. We must keep reforming the way the Christian faith is defined, lived and explained." (pg12)
I only buy into this in as much as the church has strayed from Christ's original purpose. If we reform just to reform, I believe we continue to distance her from her Groom. If we reform just to bring more people in through the doors, then we, once again, have bypassed her purpose. I do agree that the church is in great need of re-form. To find her original form.
The book was a fun read. I personally don't think the Bible is as hard to understand than he makes it out to be; but I also realize that we will never fully comprehend the great depth of the scripture. The Holy Spirit is a sufficient teacher to open our hearts to passages. There's nothing wrong with wrestling with the scripture, but when a teacher like Rob airs out his doubts about passages, he doesn't understand the damage and disservice he does to the scripture. Rob has a huge following. Many would take anything he says without comparing it to the light of the scripture. That's the dangerous part. On the other hand, many would not even read a word Rob Bell writes because of something they may have heard about him. I'm somewhere in the middle. I found a lot of his thoughts in his book that I disagreed with. I also found some parts in his book that really challenged me. I could not be an attendee at his church, but I may read more of his work. To sum it up, I'll quote another passage from his book about his book; "Test it. Probe it. Do that to this book. Don't swallow it uncritically. Think about it. Wrestle with it. Just because I'm a Christian and I'm trying to articulate a Christian world-view doesn't mean I've got it nailed." (pg 87) Anyone who reads, watches or listens to Bell or any other preacher/teacher of the gospel needs to keep this in mind.

The second book I just finished last night is "Jesus for President: Politics for Ordinary Radicals" co-authored by Shane Claiborne and Chris Haw. Another interesting read. This is a book I had no intentions of reading, but I saw it displayed on the "New Books" shelf at the library. The title actually drew me in. Shane and crew definitely fit the radical label. Not entirely in a bad way. He wrote a lot of things in the book that challenged me also. The most that I got out of the book is "how are we living out the gospel"? Honestly. We hear about taking care of the sick, the poor, the imprisoned. But what are we doing about it? Now there's much more to the book than what I just stated. Much of it that, once again, I thought he took much liberty in his construing of scriptures. But the challenging parts are truly that, challenging. In an over-indulging society, we have really neglected many of the commands and examples of Christ to go to and meet the needs of the needy. Even if it means getting dirty or going without a meal. I'm guilty! But it's not enough for me to just admit my guilt, how will I change? I can't say right now. I don't know right now.
A few quotes I enjoyed from the book:

• "Laws enforced by the sword control behavior but cannot change hearts, no matter how sharp the sword is. The redemption of the cross does what laws and bullets and bombs can never do - bring transformation of evildoers and enemies." quote from Greg Boyd, Myth of a Christian Nation
• "Another practice is to avoid the language of hype. "Engaging culture" is a big goal for Christians these days. And the best way to do this, so the logic goes, is with the style of the culture at large. We'll need some websites to change the world, and so we'll need some catchy titles, phrases, and images to create "a movement." And of course any good movement has T-shirts, hip words, bumper stickers and slogans (oh yes, and wrist bands).

I don't believe Shane is doing what he's doing to try to start a cool new movement. I think Shane is living out the gospel as Shane understands the gospel. I certainly can't fault him for that. I don't know if I would go to the extremes that Shane goes to, such as the protests and such. I think we need to avoid governmental and state conflict. Shane seems to enjoy it. And some of his antics are certainly humorous. He strikes me as very anti-establishment. He also seems to draw much from the Catholic Church. I'm not sure what his background is. This book will not tell you how to vote this election year, though.
The book goes through the history of God's people. From Adam and Eve through the Hebrew people and God's deliverance from Egypt to His people demanding a king. He tries to establish an understanding of the start of mans establishment. And how we put our faith in trust in these establishments. He speaks a lot to this. About where we put our faith in trust.
I enjoyed the book. I may also read more of his work.
With both books, I don't think I would ever give them to a knew convert or to someone who wants to know more about the gospel. I think that these books need to be read, once again, in the light of the scripture. I think that these books may confuse and/or frustrate someone not well grounded in their faith. They were both interesting, quick reads. Both were challenging at times. I don't know if I got enough out of them to hold a Bible study based on them. I feel I would do more skipping and correcting than actually teaching. Just remember to read and listen to all things in comparison to scripture. If it doesn't measure up, then don't let it "re-form" your theology and doctrine. Take what's good and pass on the rest.
I may post more on my thoughts of these books as time passes and things come to mind. God bless.

Sin...Seriously?

How seriously should we take sin? Sin in our lives? Sin in the Church? What did Jesus say about sin in our lives? If we have an offending body part, what should we do with it?
Matthew 5:
29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
Many people, especially today, say this is completely figurative. Many people, especially today, are too accepting of sin. I'm not promoting self-mutilation or dismemberment. I'm am proposing that you stop sinning by any means necessary. Jesus commanded that you get rid of the sinning member. To cast out/off that which leads to sin. To separate from it.
There was a man in the Corinthian church that refused to stop sinning. What was Paul's advice to the leaders of this church?
1 Corinthians 5:
1 It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife.
2 And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you.
3 For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed,
4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,
5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
6 Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?
7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened.
Why would he take such a drastic measure? In verse 7, Paul said that this one man in the church was contaminating the whole body. Paul was willing to send this man to his grave early (destroy the flesh) so that he might retain his salvation, and so the church could clean itself up. One more passage.
Deuteronomy 21:
18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.
God tells Moses that this is how to deal with an unruly child. Why so drastic? To keep sin out of the camp. Just as a little bit of leaven effects the whole lump of dough, so sin effects the whole family, church...etc. When we look the other way with sin in our own lives or in our church, for one we are not dealing with it the way Jesus Christ commanded. And two, we are allowing sin to spread and fester within the body, when really the infection needs cut out and cast aside. But asking someone to leave the church if they continue in their sin just doesn't sound Christian, does it? Well, if you don't like that idea, try Paul's. Turn him over to Satan for the destruction of his flesh. We need to flush sin from our churches, and we need to start in our own lives...by any means necessary.

Quote

A quote from King James VI, the king who commissioned the translation of the Bible into the English language in 1604 (completed in 1611):

"Holiness [is] the first and most requisite quality of a Christian (as proceeding from true fear and knowledge of God)."

Probably won’t hear this from too many American pulpits today.

 

Odds and Ends

Odds:
A quote from the interim pastor at our church. He couldn't remember where he heard it from. Very true nonetheless.
"When we inoculate the world with a weak gospel, they become immune to the true gospel."
Then, when asked what he attributed the lack of dedication and sincerity in the church to, his response was:"The lack of sin being preached. People don't realize how lost they are. They think that they're good people. Why would good people have a need for a savior?" Great thoughts. It kind of surprised me to hear him say this, though. I kind of thought he was a bit too soft on sin from the pulpit.
Ends:
I had a discussion with one of the leaders in our church a couple weeks ago. He mentioned that one of the congregates asked him about the potential new ministers wife working outside of the home. The leader mentioned his opinion on Titus chapter 2. He feels that it's greatly misused. He feels that we need to focus more on the "keepers" part and not so much on the "home". Here's the passage in question:
Titus 2:
2:3 The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things;
2:4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,
2:5 To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.
How can we separate the "keepers" from the "home"? Strong's Greek dictionary says that "keepers at home" is: oy-koo-ros'
From G3624 and οὖρος ouros (a guard; be “ware”); a stayer at home, that is, domestically inclined (a “good housekeeper”): - keeper at home.
A guard...I would think you should be AT home to guard your home. A stayer at home...pretty self explanatory. Domestically inclined? Domestic comes from the Latin domesticus <>domus (house, home). I'm not buying into it. One other thing to note is that this leaders wife also works outside of the home. Maybe he's a little defensive. If a husband and wife agree that the woman works outside of the home, than the woman should work outside of the home. I don't think it's best for the family, but that's just my opinion. But don't distort the scripture to make it agree with your lifestyle.

The Great Falling Away?

2 Thessalonians

2:1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,

2:2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.

2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

Paul wrote the epistle of 2 Thessalonians in response to questions developed from his first letter to them. They obviously had concerns regarding Christ's second coming.

I believe that this should be understood prophetically. I believe that someone (anti-christ) will rise up and position himself in a literal place of worship. How many have set themselves up "as God" in the temple of their own hearts? Watch this YouTube video of Oprah's latest book club. I understand that some may say this is a hit-piece against her, but allow her own words to incriminate her.

Oprah

Notice at approximately 1:00 minute into the video, Oprah states that there are "many paths to what you call god; that her path might be something else. And when she gets there, she might call it the light." She goes on to say that "loving, kindness, generosity brings her...if it brings her to the same point it brings you, it doesn't matter if she called it "god" along the way or not."

She also states that "There couldn't possibly be just one way..." An audience member asks "What about Jesus?" Oprah blasts back "What about Jesus?!" From the audience member "There is one way and only one way and that's through Jesus." Then Oprah exhorts again " There couldn't possibly be just one way!" And to sum it all up...from the audience member "Because YOU say there isn't one way".

At about 3:00 minutes into the video, she tries to reconcile her hybrid of christianity to spiritualism. She flounders. When she was in her late 20's, she got hung up about God being a jealous God. This sent her on her journey to enlightenment. It's also stated that "God is a feeling experience and not a believing experience". Very interesting. How many followers does she have? How many people take what Oprah says without a doubt or consideration?

Maybe Oprah should stick to giving away cars and helping girls in Africa get an education rather than being a spiritual guide. Just a suggestion.

Here's another video of a prominent individual in our culture. George W. Bush claims that the muslim Allah and the Christian God are the same thing. And that muslims will join those of us in heaven that are saved by God.He will not say, however, that Osama bin Laden's Allah is our God. A couple of quotes from GWB:

"Well, first of all, I believe in an almighty God, and I believe that all the world, whether they be Muslim, Christian, or any other religion, prays to the same God. That's what I believe. I believe that Islam is a great religion that preaches peace." (Online Source)

"I have spoken clearly about my belief that -- I pray to the same God as a Muslim prays; that the freedom agenda is really aimed at liberating people, and that the hope is, is that there will be an active, real Palestinian state, so people can realize their dreams." (Online Source)

"And the best way to achieve better understanding in the world is for folks just to get together, and get to understand that we share the same God, and we share the same aspirations for children and for our futures." (Online Source)

So do all roads lead to God-Light-Allah, or just the ones that our leaders (Oprah and GWB) pick. Just curious.

Matthew 24:24 - For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

Whiter than Snow on Easter Sunday

What made Jesus different than the Old Testament prophets?

John chapter 2 tells of Jesus turning plain water into wine.
II Kings chapter 4 tells of Elisha turning a poisonous pot of stew into an edible pot of stew.

Matthew chapter 14 tells of Jesus supernaturally feeding 5000 people.
I Kings chapter 17 tells of Elijah supernaturally providing food for a widow and her son for "many days".

Matthew chapter 9 tells of Jesus raising Jairus' dead daughter to life.
I Kings chapter 17 also tells of Elijah raising the widow's son from the dead.

Matthew chapter 9 also tells of Jesus healing two blind men and a mute.
II Kings chapter 5 tells of Elisha healing Naaman of leprosy.

We woke up this Easter morning to three fresh inches of powdery snow. This area of the country has been trying to grunt the birth of spring for a couple weeks now. Our 30" of snow on the ground has been burned back to about 20", and the snow that was left was hard, crusty and dirty brown. What an object lesson to awaken on Easter morning to a fresh white covering of snow; appearing to once again purify all that is around it. King David said in Psalm 51:7 "Wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow".

So, what made Jesus different than the Old Testament prophets?

Matthew 9:2, Jesus told the man with palsy "Son, be of good cheer: thy sins be forgiven thee". Only the God of heaven would dare make a statement so bold. And only God could make good on this word spoken to the man with palsy. This surely was the God of heaven incarnate. Only He can forgive us our sins. Only He can wash us and make us whiter than snow!
I trust that your Easter was a blessed one, and that your thoughts of His sacrifice will continue throughout the year. God bless!

A Different Crucifixion - Revisited

I wrote this post in March of '05. Since posting's been kind of slow lately, I thought I'd re-post it. If I took the time to re-write this, I maybe would have changed a few things, but here it is in it's original glory. Ironically, I've been reading through Romans lately. Just yesterday I covered chapter 6. Keep in mind that I wrote this after Easter weekend, originally. And please read through the passage to make the connection. God bless!

With this last weekend being Easter weekend, I did quite a bit of thinking about the crucifixion and the resurrection, obviously. My thoughts were on Jesus Christ and what He did for us by saving us from our sins. Not only saving us from the penalty of our sins, but for saving us from having to sin. I know we never have to sin, but we do. My mind was on the crucifixion of another person; myself.

Romans 6

¹ What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? ² God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? ³ Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? ⁴ Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. ⁵ For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: ⁶ Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. ⁷ For he that is dead is freed from sin. ⁸ Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him: ⁹ Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. ¹⁰ For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. ¹¹ Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord. ¹² Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof. ¹³ Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God. ¹⁴ For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

I was never taught this growing up. I was taught that I will fight against sin and struggle with sin my whole life. I was taught that I will sin and, for the most part, there was nothing that I could do about it. The main scripture that I was taught was 1 John 1:9 “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” A free pass to sin, right? And I did. I committed sins with every intention of asking forgiveness for it later. I felt this odd, but it went along with the teaching I'd heard. Had I ever been shown this passage in Romans (v.1), I would have known better (serves me right for not studying on my own).

I don't claim to be a perfect human. I don't claim to be sinless. With the death of Jesus, with me following Him into His death, He frees us from the bondage of sin. If He says we are dead to sin, do you think He expects us to have to conquer sin on our own. When we were resurrected with Him, we were resurrected with His power to combat sin.

When we do sin, we, being a new creature clothed with Jesus, take Jesus into that sin with us. It is not our “old man” sinning. Our old man is crucified and dead (v.6). The old man is not resurrected. If we say that our old man still lives, we say one of two things. We are not saved because we did not crucify the old man; or Jesus Christ's crucifixion was not sufficient and needs to be crucified again. We know this not to be true because of verses 9 and 10.

When we are under law, or our physical self trying to live a sinless life (or our sinful self), we are condemned by the law. We are married to that law. We want to be rid of that law and be under (or marry) grace, but we can't be married to Christ and His grace while we are married to the law. We need to wait until our first marriage partner (law) is dead. When the law is dead (allowing the old man to be crucified) we are then free to be bound to Jesus Christ and His grace. This is Romans 7:1-4.

This isn't difficult to comprehend, but it is contrary to what I have been taught. I find this right in scripture (as you see above). Jesus is not going to give me a commandment not to sin and then just leave me to figure it out on my own. He has taken care of it already. We just need to claim it. Why do we set people up to sin. Why do we expect it. It's because we have given them a free pass to sin by using the 1 John passage. This has been used by those who have tried to justify their own sin by saying we are all going to sin so get used to it; oh, and by the way, you're baptized now so here's your “get-out-of-jail-for-free” card. Yes, we are free to confess our sins to be forgiven, but this is not something we should be abusing, taking for granted or taking advantage of. This should be a rare occasion. Not something that we include in our form prayer every night before bed. This should be a sorrowful occasion. Like King David's confession in Psalm 51. He didn't weep just because he had been caught in a “big” sin. He wept and cried out to the Lord because he had sinned against God. No, this probably was not his first sin, but I'm sure he didn't hold on to the philosophy of 1 John 1:9 as a trump card either. I think we too often do.

These were my thoughts this weekend. We freely sin, hoping God's grace doesn't run out, rather than living holy lives. We want to hold on to the “old man” as a scape-goat. We need to wake up to the realization that Christ has already settled this. I think Satan makes us think it's harder than it really is. He puffs himself up by whispering to us that we have no power over sin. Sin is going to happen so just let it happen. Sin should not just happen. Our sinful self was crucified with Jesus. Let's act that way. Have you been crucified, yet?