TheoMike

In the case of men, it's been said that what a man is in his 40's is all he'll ever be. Before I was in my 40's I thought this was true, but at 44 I am thinking it's not. Having said that, a lot of men at my age, I think, take stock of their lives and realize the years ahead will probably be less than the years behind and they begin to think of all the things they haven't done but thought they would have/should have done by their age. So men in their late 40's and 50's start doing strange things, perhaps to recapture their youth or do the things they always wanted to. This could be skydiving, or buying new cars, or going on diets, riding horses, cheating on their wives, etc. If that's what you mean by a "mid life crisis," then it does exist. In the case of women, a lot of women in their 40's face the reality that the children are grown or growing, they have graduated or soon will graduate from college and they, like men, take stock of their lives. All of a sudden, the man they stayed married to for the sake of the children is even less attractive than he used to be, and the necessity of staying married is no longer there: children. So women in that predicament also do strange things, like taking vacations without their husband, engaging in activities they never used to have time for, they go back to school, they cheat on their husband or leave him all together. Sometimes they want to have more children at an older age before they are unable to. For the believer, hopefully their self esteem is founded in Jesus Christ, and not in themselves. Unfortunately, I found that the so-called mid-life crisis occurs more often in the church than without. To me, that is a very sad state of affairs.

Technically that's right; it addresses the situation after the conversion of one. We can infer, however, that a believer has NO business marrying an unbeliever, knowingly. A pastor who performs such a marriage is derelict in his duty big time.

If you look at that passage closely, it is speaking of a couple that marries and both were non-Christians at the time. After being married for a time, one gets saved and the other is still lost. That is what it is talking about. We are clearly told that as Christians, we are not to marry or join ourselves to non-Christians. So what advise would you give to a person who married an unbeliever and is now in the marriage? If they got married as unbelievers, then one found the Lord, and now can stay married, living in peace, there's no problem. Paul teaches that possibly the unbelieving spouse can come to know the Lord by the witness of the believing spouse. Plus the unbelieving spouse (and children) will be the recipients of the Lord's blessing by virtue of living in peace with their believing spouse.

I guess my answer to your questions is "yes," you probably are. Look, you can see anything, make any kind of correlations you want to about any sitting President. Observations like yours are useless until they are proven by history. By the way, subprime loans are legal. A subprime loan is a loan given to a person who doesn't qualify for a prime rate loan because of poor credit or insufficient credit history. As a result, they will pay 0.1% to 0.6% higher than the prime rate. That does amount to a lot of money over the span of a 30 year mortgage, but a smart borrower will refinance and get a better rate.

The "young vote" certainly didn't help McGovern in any way. The largest voting block in America is still the white male, and I think it's highly unlikely that white males, in the south particularly, will vote for a black man named Barack Hussein Obama. They may vote for a woman, but I doubt that woman will be Hilary Clinton. But, I have been wrong a time or two before. If either of those two get in, the nation will survive.

Suicide prevention programs?? This paragraph interested me: "Our troops and their families are under unprecedented levels of stress due to the pace and frequency of more than five years of deployments," I wonder how today's troops would have faired had they seen their buddies mowed down at Normandy? I'm sorry, but they're volunteers, not draftees.

I'll agree with Wayne re: personal study of the Word. That's a given, at least in my life. After the Bible would probably come my father, then various pastors I have sat under. Some profs I had at Trinity, of course. But also the writings of Calvin and Luther, G. Campbell Morgan, among others. There's way to many mention without leaving some out.

And how can you tell it's not God breathed scripture? Alot of the church fathers believed it was inspired work. Including Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origen, Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian. They argued with those who didn't. It was at one point part of the christian canon. It wasn't until the 4th century that it was decided that it should be left out. Except by the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. Which is one way we know that it is the same book jude references. The church fathers even argued that jude should be removed from the bible because it referenced the book of enoch. Which is another way we know that jude does reference this book. Where exactly does it contradict the bible? Have you read it? The formation of the canon of Scripture was a process that took many years. The 66 books that constitute the Bible are the ones that have stood the test(s) of time and tradition. God guided the early church fathers as they contemplated which books and letters should be included as God's revelation to man. I have the book of Enoch, and I have read it. It is so far below the quality and character of the genuinely inspired books of the Bible it is obvious why it was eventually left out of the canon. It was not unusual for Biblical writers to reference extra biblical sources in their writings. Paul did, Jesus did, Jude did and a hefty chuck of the Proverbs did not originate with Solomon or biblical writers, but were popular sayings of the day.

My wife told me about this thread, so I thought I'd give the preacher's penny's worth of opinion, which is probably all its worth. The short answer is NO, this is not over the top at all. I think your scenario is on par with a lot of the weddings I have done in recent years. The long answer is probably YES, it is over the top. From an economic viewpoint, it makes no sense to spend that kind of money on something like this. Generally, what happens is the happy couple comes to me and the bride informs me she wants just a small, simple wedding. I'm thrilled with this, because the simpler the better for me. However, by the third or fourth session, the "small, simple wedding" has morphed into what we affectionately refer to as "the wedding of the century." It's amazing. I used to think all brides were basically deluded, now I am convinced they just lose their minds the closer they get to "their day." Of course, I am joking here, but what happens between the "small, simple wedding" and "the wedding of the century" is something that no man can hope understand. I've concluded after 25 years of ministry, this is a condition that afflicts most brides, and the only thing the groom and all the other males involved can do is just sit back, be supportive, and show up for the ceremony. Face it, it's HER day, and HER day alone. Onlookers may not get it; we may not understand the subtleties of the high priced flowers she chose or why she picked the most expensive pillow to sit the rings on, or whatever, but these things, I assume, all have some kind of meaning for the bride. So, I say no matter how over the top it may seem, the bride deserves her day in the spotlight. Grace, I agree 100% with you, but there's not a thing you can do about it, nor should you. This is the bride's day. You just have to let her have it. Show up smiling and pray that when the dust settles, these kids find the Lord.

Well said, LossForWords. The dead have nothing to do with the living. Luke 16:19-31 makes this plain. In fact, the rich man was told it was basically impossible for him to cross over into the land of the living, verse 26.

It might be more accurate to say "defunding the war," as opposed to the troops. But, the effect is the same. I mean, you'd have to be living under the proverbial rock NOT to know that both parties routinely use the troops as leverage, but none more expertly than the Democrats.

I know I am showing my age, but I can recall when the Canadian dollar was worth more than the American dollar. Now, as has been noted, after thirty years of being worth substantially less than the greenback, there is parity between the two currencies. I don't know how long it will last, but anybody from Canada who vacations in the US or cross-boarder shops, should buy up the greenback before it goes back up, which it will eventually.

What a great post. Thanks! Nobody is unredeemable.

I am familiar with most of them, and they are all reliable apologists. Lee Strobel's "Case For..." books have set the standard for apologetics in the 21st century. Josh McDowell has been around since the '70's I guess, and I have heard him speak numerous times. Norm Geisler's area of expertise is defending Scripture and I have several of his books in my library; we use one of them as the text for one of the courses I teach. Chuck Colson is, well, he's a good columnist, although I am not a huge fan of him or of John Ankerberg, who is a bit loopy for my taste. Southern Evangelical Seminary seems like a credible school. This is an event I'd be interested in attending, if I had a clone that could stay here and man the ship.

Wow...how did you get that out of my profusion of words? I'm sure you didn't intend your comments to be offensive, but some of them were. Let me try to write slowly and clearly to avoid confusion. First, every congregation I have served has had its own set of challenges and needs. In one sense, they are all the same in that regard. If you take the time to read Paul's teaching on the church in Ephesians, you would see that God gave pastor/teachers to churches for a reason: to be His instruments to meet those challenges and fill those needs. Of course we rely on the on the Holy Spirit's guidance to do that! But at the same time, there is a reason why some men are called to be pastors and others called to be evangelists; namely, they have been endowed with certain gifts, and many times, abilities to get the job done. I could never be an evangelist, for example. I have a good friend who is an evangelist and for him to stay behind the same pulpit for more than a week would just drive him nuts. Different gifts, different people, yet all doing the work of the Lord through the local church. Second, I do NOT work for a church nor am I employed by a church board. I work for the Lord but serve in whatever congregation to which I have been called. I answer to NO man for what I preach. However, I am held accountable to the church leadership for how I perform my various church duties. Being held accountable is very important to me, as it should be to all ministers. Our position is one of trust; I have a lot of freedom to come and go as I please. Nobody wants me to punch a time clock and I don't have to check in with the board every night. Because of that freedom, I make a point to be accountable so everybody knows where I am and how to get a hold of me at any given time of the day. Thirdly, I don't worry one bit about losing a member. One thing about the Gospel, it will either draw a person closer to the Lord or it will push them away. If somebody can't handle the plain Word of God preached in a clear and concise matter, there are 25 other churches within a one square mile radius of my church they can attend. I have never chased after a member who wants to leave. My concern as a pastor is with the people that want to learn and grow. Time is short and I don't have time to waste on somebody who would rather not be in my church. I hope that clears up any misconception about my ministry. And LadyC is quite right. My wife is small in stature but mighty in the Lord. If I ever stray from God's calling in the slightest iota, it would be curtains for me...I'd be singing Nearer My God To Thee!