Article by Cameron Spink

Tim Tebow's team the Denver Bronco's may be out of the running for this year's Superbowl but he's still in the news. The Punch reporter Anthony Sharwood expressed his disgust with Tebow's blatant Christianity:

"The fact is, there is something vulgar about wearing your religiousness on your sleeve. It's like rooting in public. It's not right. Get a room. Or more to the point, get a church...."

Well that's a classy comment. Thankfully there is a balance of public opinion.  Janet Albrechtsen writing for The Australian had this to say:

"Just by being a nice, clean-living guy who walks the Christian talk with his missionary and charity work Tebow is one heck of a weapon against secularists who wouldn't dream of ridiculing any religion except Christianity."

There's also a great introduction to Tim Tebow's history over on Lifesitenews that expresses how Tim almost didn't make it into the world and the perils that his mother went to in order that he be born:

"When she conceived, she went to see the local doctor, who told her "it wasn't a baby at all; it was a mass of fetal tissue, and I needed to abort him immediately if I were going to save my life... Said it was a tumor."....

It is also a powerful testimony to what the world loses when a woman aborts her baby. No one - not even most pro-lifers - would have blamed Mrs. Tebow for saving her own life. But she believed her baby would live - in fact, she bet her life on it - and he did live, in a big way....."

If only we all were grateful for our existence. Tim Tebow continues to defy both critics and physicians. His story is a strong testament of God's purposes coming to fruition.

It takes a lot to stand against opposition and against the status quo. Many times it feels like the beach is washing over the rocks, gradually grating the rocks down until there is no resistance. It is at the hardest of times that we must stand on the rock that will never be corroded and dare to be different.

We can take heart from some examples presented to us recently. The other day Tennis legend Margaret Court spoke in defence of marriage. It is irregular for a celebrity to be a conservative. Perhaps because the liberal celebrities are so loud. For instance, George Clooney is a very passionate liberal who is just about to release a movie with a strong liberal lean:

Adobe Flash Player not installed or older than 9.0.115!

He may be the figurehead but there are many others who follow in his footsteps: Matt Damon, Leonardo Dicaprio, Bruce Springsteen, Tom Hanks, Harrison Ford, Ben Affleck, Brad Pitt & Robert De Niro. It is safe to say that in Hollywood liberalism is king. Thankfully, Margaret Court does not live in Hollywood. She resides in WA but still faces opposition for her position against homosexual marriage.

Standing with her is Kevin Rudd's sister Loree who quit the Australian Labor Party today because of the new stance the Party has on homosexual marriage. Loree Rudd said:

"I don't believe gay marriage is good for the community. Homosexuals should be loved and treated right and they should not be discriminated against.

It is a horrible thing for them to be discriminated against and that's why my brother introduced laws so they are not discriminated against. But to make that huge leap from their rights to breaking a commandment of Moses, to say homosexuals' relationships is marriage, is utter nonsense."

Of course the vast majority of the 500+ comments below this article in today's Age (a notoriously left-leaning tabloid) echo some variation of "it's great that the Labor Party now has one less bigot". I hope for her sake that she is not keeping an eye on what people are saying about her because some of it is extremely rude. So I will try and counterbalance this somewhat by saying how impressed I am with Loree Rudd. Not only is she putting her position into the spotlight but she is going further and quitting the Party that she has stood behind for many, many years. It is surprising that it has taken Loree this long to question her Party's policy in light of scripture but her conviction to uphold biblical truth cannot be faulted on this occasion.

Homosexuality is not the only issue to which people have to stand against the flow of society. John Howard, last night, spoke at a book launch for Ian Plimer's new book How to Get Expelled from School. This book aims to correct misinformation about climate change and is very much a hot potato issue. For John Howard to place himself on the side of scepticism puts him very much in the progressive cross-hair. Yet, this is exactly what he has done and it sets him apart.

It is on days like today that my confidence in humanity is restored. Not the confidence that a humanist has but the confidence that I know that God is the ultimate power in this nation. We are His instruments even if we do, at times, struggle to remember our purpose. We must not "conform to the pattern of this world" (Romans 12:2). Instead we must be the "salt of the earth" and a "city on a hill" (Matthew 5:13-14).

In the popular kid's picture book series (at least it was popular when I was a kid) one has to flip through pages containing massive pictures and try and find a candy caned coloured man with a walking stick called Wally (or, for some bizarre reason in America his name is Waldo). The hard part, of course, is that he blends in so well with the rest of the picture that it is hard for the human eye to discern where this mischievous character is hiding. Wally's ability to blend in with the world around him is not something that we should emulate. We are set apart and must remain this way so that others can be set apart. Not so the world becomes like us (as Wally's world does) but so the world can become God's kingdom. Essentially we are accountable to God for when we are a poor example but we are not responsible for the salvations of others.

For many this feels like it is all hard work and no glory. So they remain silent about their faith. After all, who wants to be the next Mel Gibson? Yet engagement is the only option. We cannot remain silent on issues and hope that no attention will be drawn our way. The book of Jonah paints the picture of an unwilling servant. We are not told exactly why he runs away from what God commands him to do. We can speculate on ideas such as:

• Jonah had a comfortable life that he didn't want to leave
• Jonah was physically afraid of the Ninevites
• Jonah was afraid that the Ninevites would laugh at him

Any of these reasons would have great practical application for my article; however, it is dangerous to read between the lines when one is discussing theology. Instead, I shall keep to the text. Jonah is tasked with giving bad news to, what he believes, will be an unwilling audience. Today we will likely face an unwilling audience but we should not approach our task as Jonah did. He was sure that these people were going to reject his message and, even if they didn't, God would destroy them anyway. Thankfully God is more gracious than Jonah and does spare those who turn to Him in humility. It is with humility that we should approach the task of being God's light-bearers. Of proclaiming the need to be reborn through Christ and living up to these declarations. God has a deep love for all the people in this nation and around the world. He has not forsaken us yet.

One final question: why can't Tim Tebow talk about his faith, yet George Clooney can waffle on about his liberalism without rebuke?

Margaret Court Article

Loree Rudd Article

John Howard Article

Article by Cameron Spink

"Will you dance with me daddy?"

This is the question Emily Mitchell asks her father Adam. Her pleading does no good, however, because Adam, a local law-man, cannot bring himself to dance with his daughter in public. Instead he just watches her twirl.

Courageous is a rare movie in many ways. Not only does it buck the normal Hollywood trends of secular messages, it goes much further than a standard "movie with a Christian theme". This movie is blatant in its demonstration that fathers need to take their role as providers, protectors and mentors seriously. Unfortunately, as is the case in real life, this is seldom reality. It is likely that this ideal won't be too hard for viewers to swallow. What is causing contention, however, is where this movie directs fathers to look for guidance.

The Bible is the key source of inspiration for fathers. This is the central theme of Courageous and one I heartily endorse. Sometimes the inspiration is portrayed in an unsteady manner which leaves the viewer affronted. Other times this works in really well with the cinematic situation. Regardless, this is a necessary slogan that we should be proud to stand behind. If one visits the Rotten Tomato website they would see this blurb about the movie:

"While the filmmaking is fairly competent, Courageous is overall worthless to anybody who doesn't subscribe to its dogmatic agenda."

I would recommend that you would avoid letting this put you off. The need for fathers in a child's life is backed by overwhelming research. And the so-called "dogmatic agenda" should be considered in the light of opposing worldviews. Indeed, it is such a line that I may use (or some variation) quite regularly whilst reviewing secular entertainment. Though perhaps I would describe some Hollywood films as having an "unholy agenda".

Yet I cannot fathom how this movie is worthless in the context that the Rotten Tomato description uses it. The worthiness of this message is dependant on the truth of it rather than on whether people do or do not subscribe to its "dogmatic agenda". This, of course, raises too many questions and requirements to fill a one-line blurb, but is worth considering when factoring the many reviews that slam this movie for this supposed short-coming.

The quality of this film also belies its modest production costs (US$2 million). The action is as sharp and climactic as one would expect of a regulation Hollywood blockbuster and the cinematography is spot-on. Eclipsing all these elements is a strong score that has an amazing undercurrent that follows the crushing emotions that befall the courageous characters. The pronounced calibre of this movie, despite its budget, is based, in large part, upon the volunteers who gave generously of their time. It is very encouraging that the movie grossed US $9 million in the first weekend.

Some other criticisms levelled at this movie centre on the supposed "poor acting". In one review Alex Kendrick (the lead and director) was compared to a "beatific, humorless Dan Aykroyd". While they do share similar physical characteristics Alex Kendrick does not display a "beatific, humorless" mindset in his role as Adam Mitchell. In fact, Kendrick shows great poise as the lead and terrific audacity as the director. Whilst his on-screen performance may not measure to the heights of Dan Aykroyd this script does not demand such a mountainous task of him.

Indeed, one of its great strengths is its diversity of characters so one actor is not hogging the screen. Each of the five men that this story centres around approaches family leadership in varied ways displaying how detrimental some parenting styles can be.

I walked into the cinema with some reserve about what I was going to experience. I was worried that the movie would be a mixed cocktail of great substance but limited entertainment value. Boy was I wrong. This movie will keep you interested and in great admiration of how much value can be wrung out of a $2 million budget. And, best of all, it will leave you challenging yourself to want to be the kind of parent (present or future) that God exemplifies.

Adobe Flash Player not installed or older than 9.0.115!

Article by Cameron Spink

Most of us Aussies will not have heard of Tim Tebow. I hadn't, before today. But as is my want, I have done some digging and I present to you the star quarterback of the Denver Broncos. That's right, he's a jock and as much as I loath any sport that is not football (excluding tennis) this twenty-four year old has actually got me interested in the goings-on in the NFL.

Tim Tebow has had an impressive NFL career to date. While he has only played in the professional system for this season and the last he has been wildly successful in his transition to starting quarterback for the Broncos (he wasn't at the start of the season). Tebow is certainly not the best quarterback in the NFL (that honour goes universally to Aaron Rodgers) yet he has an x-factor about him that wins games. When I see him I think of Nic Naitanui and what he might do if he was to realise all his potential. If you want to get an idea of why so many American football fans are excited about Tim Tebow check out his fourth quarter against the New York Jets last week:

Adobe Flash Player not installed or older than 9.0.115!

Despite my interest in his undeniable talent this wouldn't be cause to pen an article about him. Particularly as this is a Christian website. Tebow is known for more than his unbelievable, yet erratic, game style. He is known for being a committed and convicted Christian. So much so that he may put off some people with his approach. Jake Plubber (former Broncos quarterback) stated on interview this week "I think that when he accepts the fact that we know that he loves Jesus Christ, then I think I'll like him a little better. I don't hate him because of that, I just would rather not have to hear that every single time he takes a good snap or makes a good handoff". Or check out this video:

Adobe Flash Player not installed or older than 9.0.115!

Tebow's response is impressive to say the least:

"If you're married, and you have a wife, and you really love your wife, is it good enough to only say to your wife 'I love her' the day you get married? Or should you tell her every single day when you wake up and every opportunity? And that's how I feel about my relationship with Jesus Christ, is that it is the most important thing in my life.

So any time I get an opportunity to tell him that I love him or given an opportunity to shout him out on national TV, I'm gonna take that opportunity. And so I look at it as a relationship that I have with him that I want to give him the honor and glory anytime I have the opportunity. And then right after I give him the honor and glory, I always try to give my teammates the honor and glory.

And that's how it works because Christ comes first in my life, and then my family, and then my teammates. I respect Jake's opinion, and I really appreciate his compliment of calling me a winner. But I feel like anytime I get the opportunity to give the Lord some praise, he is due for it".

In some ways I can really relate to Tim Tebow. I've had supposed "friends" turn off my updates on Facebook because they feel I talk about "religion" too much. So the question is how much is too much? Some Christians would say that when you are turning people away from the gospel then it is time to stop. However, what if you are also bringing people to the gospel as well? The sad fact is that the saving message of the gospel will not be received well by some people. Indeed, there will be many who will be extremely put-off by the message or the message-giver. Yet Tim, or anyone else, should not stop because it might upset some people. No matter how attractive a message is some people are not going to take to it.

However, once one professes to be a Christian then their actions are judged accordingly. There will be people who evaluate the merits of Christianity by the ability of said person to uphold the commandments. If we claim to be Christians, as we should, then we are putting God on display to the community. Paul gives us insight into how we should behave as examples:

Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children. And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.

But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints. Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving. For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. Therefore do not become partners with them; for at one time you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light (for the fruit of light is found in all that is good and right and true), and try to discern what is pleasing to the Lord.

Ephesians 5:1-10 (ESV)

I won't claim to love NFL. In fact, I can't help chuckling when the NFL commentators say "Great grab" to what would be a very standard AFL mark. Yet I can still learn something by Tim Tebow's example. As a public figure he faces much greater verbal attacks and critiques over everything he does than we will. Yet we should not be afraid to place ourselves as God's ambassadors in this world:

You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden.  Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.

Matthew 5:14-16 (ESV)

Adobe Flash Player not installed or older than 9.0.115!

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/tebow-to-critics-i-wont-back-off-talking-about-christ

For some reason there are millions of viewers taken in by the Glee craze. This television show has been running since May 2009. Like a lot of television shows Glee is a drama with a twist. And that twist is, of course, the characters singing their way through emotional problems. Likely inspired by High School Musical this show has made singing cool again for many of its young viewers.

Despite this joyful exterior there hides a vicious, liberal face. While Glee creators Ryan Murphy, Brad Fulchuk and Ian Brennan don't go out of their way to conceal their agenda it is not challenged as much as it should. Yet, it is time we took a stand against this show, tailored towards teens, because of their newest episode (November 9^th) entitled "The First Time". This episode concentrates on two couples losing their virginity for "the first time". Couple no. 1 is the shows leads Finn and Rachel and couple no. 2 is homosexual Glee member Kurt and his boyfriend Blaine. It is extremely unfortunate that so many shows promote this pro-sexual promiscuity like the sexual behaviour by Finn and Rachel. Yet, this is dwarfed by the depiction of sexuality between Kurt and Blaine.

Perhaps, it is no wonder that this has occurred. Series creator Ryan Murphy is openly homosexual, which would surely influence greatly upon Glee's very liberal standing. He is not the only one. Actor Chris Colfer, who portrays Kurt, also professes to be a homosexual in real life. Jane Lynch, an actress on the show, is a lesbian. Darren Criss, Kurt's boyfriend Blaine, is a keen advocate for the LGBT community as demonstrated by his support of the Trevor Project, an initiative to help homosexuals in crisis affirm their lifestyles. With this sort of detrimental influence it's no wonder that the themes that permeate through-out this show.

The most perturbing element of this whole debacle is that this episode will air at 7:30 on Channel 10. There should be family-friendly television entertainment on at this time. While American television watchdog group Parents Television Council do not go far enough I wish to echo their sentiments:

"Teen sex is now more prevalent on TV than adult sex and 'Glee' is only playing into that trend. Research proves that television is a teen sexual super peer that can, and likely will, influence a teen's decision to become sexually active. Fox knows the show inherently attracts kids; celebrating teen sex constitutes gross recklessness."

Yet this is the mainstream media today. Almost wholly corrupted by liberalism. Says Ryan Murphy about this episode:

"We were talking about it [in the writers' room] like, 'Why shouldn't [Kurt and Blaine] lose their virginity at the same time?' Everybody has seen a straight couple losing their virginity, but has anyone dovetailed the gay and straight stories together and given them equal weight? That seemed like an exciting choice and a new thing."

It is disturbing how skewed our media is. There are next to no shows that display a conservative approach yet a significant amount of influential shows are spawned from "progressiveness" in an attempt to give relationships equal weight. Lea Mitchell, the actress who portrays Rachel, said  "I wouldn't have done [the sex scene] if I didn't feel like they were doing it in the right way". Unfortunately, this scene was missing the key element that could have made it right, marriage. Not that this needs to be seen on free-to-air television either. No doubt Glee is advocating that dating or homosexuality is no different than marriage. Dr. Nancy Irwin, a hypnotherapist, had this to say about the sex scenes:

"Unfortunately, there is still considerable disapproval of gays in our culture, and this episode will probably spark controversy.  Yet, in the end it will be a victory. The envelope is already being pushed...young gays are having sex!  I am confident that 'Glee' will handle this issue in an emotionally and psychologically healthy way, so that this young couple is coming of age in a positive, loving manner."

To counter this I will leave the closing remarks to Bill Muehlenberg:

"As both homosexual and non-homosexuals have admitted, and as has been thoroughly documented by scientific studies, the homosexual lifestyle is in many respects a very risky, even dangerous, lifestyle. It is associated with numerous illnesses and diseases and at higher levels than among non-homosexuals. Much of this is associated with the promiscuous and high-risk nature of homosexuality."

Bill Muehlenberg, Strained Relations, pg 9

Of course, the truth would never make the final cut of a Glee episode.

Links:

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2011/11/08/straight-gay-couples-lose-virginity-on-glee-episode-spark-controversy/#ixzz1dA3BAToE

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/glee-displays-gay-teen-sex-in-prime-time

http://insidetv.ew.com/2011/11/08/glee-ryan-murphy-the-first-time-exclusive/

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/entertainment/post/2011/11/glee-stars-defend-sex-scenes-in-tonights-episode-/1

Article by Cameron Spink

"What this all goes to show is that nonsense remains nonsense, even when talked by world-famous scientists."

John Lennox

It seems very popular for an "eminent scientist" to bring a book out that claims that they have made God obsolete. It's safe to say that most of the time this seems to be a publicity ploy in an attempt to sell copies. Usually humanistic scientists don't bring anything new to the debate (see Richard Dawkin's The God Delusion). Occasionally, though, a scientist postulates a new reason for God's non-existence. This leads us to Stephen Hawking's newest book The Grand Design which seeks to convince us, the readers, that God is not needed because of "a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing".

Of course, such a challenge can not go unimpeded and two of the most eminent Christian apologists have taken up Hawking's (and co-author Leonard Mlodinow's) challenge. As an initial point The Grand Design claims that philosophy is obsolete:

Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead. It has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly in physics. As a result scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge.

The Grand Design, pg 5

This claim seems similar to Richard Dawkins and one can't help feeling that such an assertion is merely an attempt to discredit those who would vehemently disagree with the findings of the author. William Lane Craig, as a Christian philosopher, provides a measured response:

The most important conclusions drawn in [The Grand Design] are philosophical, not scientific. Why, then, do they pronounce philosophy dead and claim as scientists to be bearing the torch of discovery? Simply because that enables them to cloak their amateurish philosophizing with the mantle of scientific authority and so avoid the hard work of actually arguing for, rather than merely asserting, their philosophical viewpoints.

The Grand Design - Truth Or Fiction? - William Lane Craig

Beyond that, apologist and Oxford Mathematics lecturer, Professor John Lennox, has written a short book entitled God And Stephen Hawking which spends 96 pages describing some mistakes that are made in The Grand Design. Of note Lennox states:

It is seldom that one finds in a single statement two distinct levels of contradiction, but Hawking appears to have constructed such a statement. He says the universe comes from a nothing that turns out to be a something (self-contradiction number one), and then he says the universe creates itself (self-contradiction number two). But that is not all. His notion that a law of nature (gravity) explains the existence of the universe is also self-contradictory, since a law of nature, by definition, surely depends for its own existence on the prior existence of the nature it purports to describe.

God and Stephen Hawking, pg 31 - John Lennox

This book is cheap and short and is well worth the handful of dollars it costs. However, if one did not want to purchase it then check out John Lennox's hour long lecture which goes over his main assertions in the book:

Adobe Flash Player not installed or older than 9.0.115!

It is not just Christian apologists who have disagreed with Hawkings book. Many humanist scientists are unhappy with the way Stephen Hawkings has used the M-theory, from physics, to declare the extinction of God. One such physicist who is not taken by The Grand Design is Roger Penrose who is adamant that the inability to observationally test M-theory is an extreme shortcoming of the theory:

Adobe Flash Player not installed or older than 9.0.115!

I will leave the final word up to Professor David Gross, whose field is particle physics and string theory and he was awarded the 2004 Nobel Prize in Physics (again, he is not a theist):

One thing that is sure to generate sales for a book of this kind is to somehow drag in religion. The book's rather conventional claim that "God is unnecessary" for explaining physics and early universe cosmology has provided a lot of publicity for the book. I'm in favor of naturalism and leaving God out of physics as much as the next person, but if you're the sort who wants to go to battle in the science/religion wars, why you would choose to take up such a dubious weapon as M-theory mystifies me.

Hawking Gives Up - David Gross