When Rick Warren asked Barack Obama at the Saddleback Civil Forum about abortion and human rights, Obama responded that this issue was “above his pay grade.” That may sound humble, but the fact is, Obama has been clear and consistent during his Senate career and Presidential campaign what he really thinks about abortion.

Princeton Professor Robert P. George observes, “Barack Obama is the most extreme pro-abortion candidate ever to seek the office of President of the United States. He is the most extreme pro-abortion member of the United States Senate. Indeed, he is the most extreme pro-abortion legislator ever to serve in either house of the United States Congress.” (To see the evidence for such a bold claim, you can read the whole article here.)

We can’t afford to be ignorant on this issue when we cast our votes in three weeks. Millions of lives are at stake.

HT: Danny Akin

Here’s a sampling of questions from the new US citizenship test:

1. What does the Constitution do?
2. What do we call the first 10 amendments to the Constitution?
3. Name one branch or part of the government.
4. We elect a U.S. representative for how many years?
5. How many justices are on the Supreme Court?
6. How old do citizens have to be to vote for President?
7. When is the last day you can send in federal income tax forms?
8. There were 13 original states. Name three.
9. Who was president during World War I?
10. Name one U.S. territory.

For answers and the full story, click here.

So, how did you do? I scored 8 out of 10. 6 or more is a passing grade. Whew! I guess I qualify to be a US citizen!

My dad likes to use this expression to describe what a preacher is called to do. But seriously, what is the right length of a sermon? John MacArthur gives his perspective today in an article called “Preaching and the Clock“:

I am convinced that biblical exposition requires at least forty minutes. Less than this just is not sufficient to probe the text deeply. If it takes fifteen to twenty minutes to give the setting, ten to fifteen minutes to draw out the principles, five to ten minutes to cross-reference them, and five to ten minutes for a conclusion, you already have about fifty minutes. Rarely does a man preaching twenty-five to thirty minutes do doctrinal exposition.

Having listened to in-depth expository preaching all my life, and having been trained at The Master’s Seminary in the “MacArthur style” of preaching, 40-45 minutes is pretty standard fare for me. But in our postmodern, biblically-illiterate, visually-driven society, is this asking too much from many people in the pews? If most visitors and members are “tuning out” at 30 minutes, are we accomplishing anything by going on? And if we are willing to adapt and shorten our Bible teaching for little children because of their immaturity and attention span, should we not also consider the need to adapt our preaching for so many adults who also struggle with attention deficit?

Doug Wilson preaches 50 minutes on average, but he brings up an interesting point in his article called “Sermon Length“:

[P]reaching shorter takes a lot of time. If the sermon is to remain edifying and decent, for every ten minutes you take off the sermon you are probably adding a couple hours in the study. And with the busy schedules that many pastors have in counseling, study, and leading Bible studies, this is not really feasible…

…The first consideration should be whether the congregation is growing and flourishing. If they are not, then of course changes are in order. Those changes may require shortening the message (and giving the minister the extra time during the week this would take), and the changes may require lengthening the messages.

There is no hard and fast answer to this question, but it is one we should think and pray through. And no matter how long the sermon is, pastors must always remain faithful to “Preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction” (2 Tim. 4:2).

Last week, responding to my previous post on women holding public office, Michael asked, “do you think gender would play a role in your choice of a candidate, all other qualities being equal? Just curious.”

Wow, that’s a loaded question, and it’s one I’ve been meaning to follow up on. I had to wrestle with a similar issue on a personal level before I was pastoring. When I was in seminary and employed at a secular company, my manager was a woman. I always did my best to treat her with submission and respect, but sometimes wondered if it was unbiblical for a woman to have authority over a man. I knew there wasn’t much I could do about it, so I just did my best to be gracious and a good testimony in that environment. Now, with Sarah Palin on the GOP ticket, this whole issue of female headship has surfaced again.

Wayne Grudem, a board member on the Council on Biblical Manhood & Womanhood, deals with this very issue of women teaching and leading men. First, he quotes from Sarah Sumner, who accuses complementarians of being inconsistent:

“If it’s wrong for a woman to teach a man on the basis of the order of creation, then it has to be wrong for a woman to teach a man piano lessons. If her teaching him per se upsets the order of creation, then her teaching him anything must also be regarded as wrong…If the order of creation is a general principle, then it ought to be applied across the board. Instead, it’s applied inconsistently and selectively.”

This argument by Sumner sounds convincing at first, and would seem to undermine the whole complementarian position. And by the same token, one would assume complementarians are obligated to oppose Sarah Palin’s bid for VP, right? But Grudem reveals a critical weakness in this line of reasoning…

Sumner’s argument is based on a classic mistake in biblical interpretation, a mistake that takes one principle found in the Bible and attempts to maximize it above other things the Bible teaches, with the result that those other things are ultimately denied. The problem is that the principle of male headship is not the only principle in the Bible. There is another principle, and that is the principle of male-female equality in the image of God…

[I]t is not up to us to decide in what ways these major principles in Scripture should be combined and applied in various situations. It is up to God, who has His own purposes and whose wisdom is infinitely greater than ours.

So how do we know which principles to apply? We are simply to obey the Bible in the specific application of these principles. What we find in the Bible is that God has given commands that establish male leadership in the home and in the church, but that other teachings in His Word give considerable freedom in other areas of life. We should not try to require either more or less than Scripture itself requires. (Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth, p. 392-93)

So, to finally answer Michael’s question: All qualities being equal, I see no biblical reason to prefer a man over a woman in public office simply because of gender.

Here on the west coast, many of us woke up seven years ago with the news that our country was under attack. I remember hearing a knock at the door, jumping out of bed, and being told by our neighbors that two jets had just crashed into the World Trade Center towers. We immediately turned on the radio (didn’t have cable TV) to hear the description of the first tower collapsing “like a melting candle.”

Later that morning at work, I stood in shock as I watched the replay again and again of United Flight 175 crashing into the south tower. It’s still sends shivers up my spine: Four hijackings. Thousands killed. All flights cancelled. The dawning of a new war.

Where was God on September 11? Did He fall asleep or “step away from His desk” for a few minutes? Was He surprised by what happened? Did He try to prevent it and fail?

While September 11, 2001 was one of the darker moments in history, it doesn’t disprove the existence of a sovereign God. God was firmly seated upon His throne when those terrorists first heard the concept of jihad as little boys. He watched them as they obtained their visas to enter the United States. He was sovereign as they attended flight school, then boarded their flights, then hijacked the planes, and finally steered them into the trade center and the Pentagon. He sees them even now as a holy God who executes His eternal justice (Rom. 12:19).

At any stage, God could have instantly put a stop to this horrible plot, if He had chosen to do so. “The LORD has established His throne in the heavens, and His sovereignty rules over all” (Ps. 103:19). But for reasons known only to Him, God permitted this evil scheme to be carried out.

The fact is, what happened on September 11 is just another example of what God observed several thousand years ago: “Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” (Gen. 6:5).

The terrorist attack seven years ago was a tragic example of human depravity, but it reveals a condition all of us share. It may have been more severe in degree, but it was identical in kind. You see, all of us sin and fall short of God’s glory (Rom. 3:23). All of us have rebelled against God. Yet thankfully, God lovingly sent His Son Jesus to rescue us from this condition by paying for that sin once and for all upon the cross. This day and every day, that is very good news to remember.