Between Two Worlds

There's a steady stream of folks who continue to perpetuate an urban legend about the abortion rates in the US. (Kept alive, no doubt, by the fact that Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean, John Kerry, and Barack Obama have all cited it.)

The idea is that because of Bill Clinton's policies the abortion rate dropped under his administration, and because of George W. Bush's policies the abortion rate rose under his administration.

If you break it down, there are actually four claims being made here:

1. Abortion rates dropped under Clinton.
2. Abortion rates dropped under Clinton because of Clinton.
3. Abortion rates rose under Bush.
4. Abortion rates rose under Bush because of Bush.

Only premise 1 is correct.

The Alan Guttmacher Institute--founded in honor of the former president of Planned Parenthood, with one of their goals being to protect reproductive choice--did a piece a few years ago on Trends in Abortion in the United States. It included the following chart, which shows that abortion rates have been decreasing over the past 20 years:


So much for premises 3 and 4.

What about premise 2--the claim that the abortion rate dropped due to President Clinton's policies?

It's not true. We must remember that correlation does not equal causation. In addition to Clinton being President, state legislatures during these years were dominated by Republicans who were able to pass modest legislation (like public-funding restrictions and informed-consent laws) that effectively reduced state abortion rates--as shown most recently by Michael New. Dr. New also shows that increased spending on welfare only marginally effects the abortion rate.

Factcheck.org did a post on the Bush part of this urban legend in 2005, called The Biography of a Bad Statistic.

I would encourage anyone who thinks that the abortion rate will continue to drop under President Obama to read my post answering the question, What Is the Freedom of Choice Act?

Here's the book. Matt Perman explains the basic methodology.

Andrew Faris interviews Ken Berding and Jon Lunde, editors of the book, Three Views on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (contributors are Walter Kaiser, Darrell Bock, and Peter Enns).

Related: Andy Naselli reproduces a helpful chart from the book giving a thumbnail sketch as to how the three contributors answer five key questions on this topic.

Touchstone’s James Kushiner:

The irony about the election of our first black president, an irony which I wish did not exist, is that while blacks have risen from the indignities and injustice of slavery in which their bodies were sold and consumed as property, and have endured segregation and second-class citizen status and racial discrimination, and have now one of their own elected to the highest office in the land, this very president-elect, Barack Obama, will increase the death toll among black human beings if he fulfills his promise to enact a Freedom of Choice Act, which will serve as a firewall around Roe v. Wade, the Dred Scott decision of our times. Helping to fund abortions also will likely disproportionately increase the number of black victims consumed by this holocaust. Someone might point out that policies about abortion, too, in this post-racial age of enlightenment, should be colorblind, so anyone who cares about the skin color of its victims is a racist, and that appeals to blacks about not aborting black babies is an appeal to a presumed racism on their part.

Discrimination based on the color of one’s skin is not now the burning issue of our time, however. It’s that we’ve forgotten the value of human skin in the first place. The human skin of the baby in the womb, the human skin of the severely disabled (candidates for “selective” abortion), the human flesh and blood of the elderly, and the bodies of those near death, from whom we cut organs while they are, yes, still, alive—this human flesh is abused and sacrificed on various altars. Resting on the hard-earned laurels of enlightened colorblindness, many have forgotten, or deny, the sanctity of the very flesh about which we say we are so indifferent as to its color.

HT: Denny Burk

John Piper:

We aim to enable and to motivate the student

• to observe his subject matter accurately and thoroughly,
  
• to understand clearly what he has observed,
  
• to evaluate fairly what he has come to understand,
  
• to appropriate wisely in life what he has found valuable, and
  
• to express in speech and writing what he has seen, understood, evaluated, and appropriated in such a way that its accuracy, clarity, fairness, and value can be known and enjoyed by others.

(Bullet points and italics mine.)

Read the whole thing.

Josh Harris explains that Covenant Life Church released a CD last week entitled How Sweet the Sound featuring ten hymns they plan to memorize as a church. Here's their schedule for memorization (the link provides the lyrics as well as background information about each hymn):

November: Amazing Grace
December: Before the Throne
January: Praise to the Lord, the Almighty
February: Be Thou My Vision
March: And Can It Be
April: Crown Him with Many Crowns
May: A Mighty Fortress
June: Be Still My Soul
July: How Firm a Foundation
August: Great is Thy Faithfulness

CT's Jeremy Weber has a helpful overview article on what's going on at Northwestern College in St. Paul.

Spotted on a post by Phil Johnson.

Marvin Olasky interviews Max McLean about Screwtape (his dramatic adaption of C.S. Lewis' The Screwtape Letters, on extended run in Chicago), about art, and about his calling as a Christian.

Here's the final exchange:

Q: How do you prevent Christian art from becoming saccharin and soaked in sentimentalism?

The reason there is that sort of saccharin aesthetic is because there's a kind of isolation. In New York that kind of saccharin art is challenged. But on the flip side, there's a message in theater today: "There is no God, get over it." The worldview in secular theater is pretty dark. We do need people to produce [good] plays, to put the money behind it, to write those plays, to direct those plays because that's when the culture making happens. I would like to see more people thinking about "How do I create culture?"

Read the whole thing.

Paul Helm had a post a while back that is worth our time to read and ponder. I've repeated before a dictum I learned from John Piper: much of being a good theologian is about learning to make good distinctions. And Helm helps us here.

Consistency, Inconsistency, and Entailment

He first shows that the following three logical relationships between propositions are significantly different:

1. Propositions p and q are consistent.
2. Propositions p and q are inconsistent because they are self-contradictory.
3. Proposition p entails proposition q, such that if p is true, q must necessary be true

Helm admits this is abstract, but insists it is not remote or irrelevant. "By neglecting such simple, basic logical distinctions some are led to some ludicrous ideas about systematic theology." You can go to his post and see him unpack this further.

What Words Imply vs. What the Author Intends by Those Words

The second distinction Helm wants us to see is that, when interpreting theologians and their theology, we must distinguish between what the theologian's words imply, and what he intended by those words. "After all, not being omniscient, a person cannot be held responsible for all the logical consequences of his thoughts."

He illustrates by exploring the somewhat anachronistic question of whether or not John Calvin believed in the covenant of works. I'm less interested here in the answers (Helm suggests some plausible but not definitive ones) than I am in the process of making good distinctions in asking good questions. Here they are:

1. Did Calvin believe in the Covenant of Works?
2. Did Calvin intend to teach the Covenant of Works?
3. Did Calvin deny the Covenant of Works?
4. Is some of what Calvin believed consistent with the Covenant of Works?
5. Is the covenant a dominant motif of Calvin's theology?
6. Does some of what Calvin believed entail the Covenant of Works?

Being Committed to a Belief vs. Committing Oneself to a Belief

The third important distinction Helm insists on is the difference between a theologian being being committed to a doctrine and committing himself to it. To illustrate Helm uses the issue of whether or not Calvin believe in definite atonement:

A person may be committed to a doctrine without committing themselves to it. How so? Because the proposition or propositions that a person believes may have logical consequences that that person does not realise (even though such consequences may, to later students, be as plain as a pikestaff). Why may this be so? Perhaps through a simple failure of logic, simply not noticing that p and q entail r. Or perhaps through simple ignorance, because the logical consequences had not been brought to that person’s attention. One result of controversy is that those in the controversy, and bystanders too, come to have their noses rubbed in some of the logical consequences of the positions being argued over. (Think of the connection Christ drew between ‘God is the living God’ and ‘Abraham, having died, nevertheless lives on’.) Seeing that p entails q might make a person affirm q. Or seeing that p entails q might make him deny p. So the question, did Calvin commit himself to limited atonement, is bound up with another: Is it plausible to believe that, had the fully developed doctrine of definite atonement being available to Calvin, he would have embraced it? Or would he have back-peddled to a vaguer or to a contrary view? In asking and attempting to answer such questions the mists and fogs of anachronism loom. So perhaps we are better not to ask them, or not ask them very often.

Read the whole thing.

Here's the trailer for the documentary being made about their debates:

A midweek sermon series by Sinclair Ferguson:

• A Flawed Friend
• An Ambitious Mother
• A Small Business Man
• An Almost Christian
• A Changed Woman
• A Trapped Politician

Dr. Ferguson's sermons are now available at Sermon Audio.

HT: Nicholas Batzig via James Grant

The guys at Christ the Center recently sat down with Carl Trueman about the history of Trinitarian thought, and John Owen's contribution in particular.

Speaking of Owen, they are also giving away a free 1810 edition of Owen's Pneumatologia and Trueman's recent book on Owen--drawn from those who subscribe to their blog.

Brit Hume, the Washington managing editor at Fox News and one of the best in the business, is retiring from his position. Starting in 2009 he'll become senior political analyst and work 100 days in the year.

When public figures retire at the top of their game they often cite wanting to spend more time with their family. And that's the case here. But Hume offers an additional reason--one rarely cited in these situations:

I certainly want to pursue my faith more ardently than I have done. I'm not claiming it's impossible to do when you work in this business. I was kind of a nominal Christian for the longest time. When my son died (by suicide in 1998), I came to Christ in a way that was very meaningful to me. If a person is a Christian and tries to face up to the implications of what you say you believe, it's a pretty big thing. If you do it part time, you're not really living it.

From another interview:

And since my son died, I have been, really, I felt rescued by God and by Christ. I have an intense desire to pursue that more ardently and have it be a bigger part of my life than it has been.

When asked how that will translate, Hume responded, "It’ll translate into Bible study."

Here's a program I didn't know about until recently: AmazonPrime. I'm still on the free one-month trial, but I think I'll stick with it, as it's a great deal.

For $79 a year (about $1.50 a week) you get unlimited free two-day shipping, and you can upgrade to one-day shipping for $3.99. There's no minimum order size.

The nice thing is that a company or church could have one account, which would make the $79 almost negligible. But even for individuals, I still think it's a really good deal.

Tim Funk interviews Billy Graham about life at his Montreat home, his health, the process of aging and preparing to die, Ruth, and regrets he has had.

Andy Crouch, author of Culture Making: Rediscovering our Creative Calling, has pointed to Chick-Fil-A as a great example of changing culture by creating culture.

Philanthropy Magazine recently published John Miller's profile of Chick-Fil-A's founder, S. Truett Cathy. Here's an excerpt:

For six days a week, the restaurant was open 24 hours a day. From the start, however, it closed on Sunday. It was the brothers' way of honoring God. Moreover, they were exhausted from working long hours Monday through Saturday. "If it took seven days a week to make a living with a restaurant, then we needed to be in some other line of work," says Cathy. To this day, Cathy regards this as the best business decision he ever made. Chick-fil-A still abides by it. Although Sunday is a popular day for eating out, none of the company's restaurants are open. "I find no conflict between biblical principles and good business practices," says Cathy. Besides, the policy gives him a chance to scope out the competition. "I generally eat out on Sunday," he admits. "We go to the drive-thru after church. I won't mention where." Some people feel a call to be preachers. Cathy says he feels likewise summoned to his line of work: "I see the restaurant business as a divine calling that fills physical, emotional, and spiritual needs." With his employees, he emphasizes the importance of faith. "I'm a strong believer that the Bible is a roadmap for life," he says. "How to start a restaurant isn't written down in there, but we do have the Golden Rule. At Chick-fil-A, we are motivated by a serving spirit. We can compete with the toughest competition simply because of the kindness of our people." When customers say, "Thank you," team members are encouraged to respond, "My pleasure." Cathy insists that developing these habits makes an enormous difference. "It doesn't cost you any more to be gracious in a service industry, but it sure pays great dividends," he says.

David Mathis explains why you should Read Jack (Miller).

Andrew Lindsey, guest blogging at Challies.com, is liveblogging the John 3:16 Conference, sponsored by Jerry Vines Ministries. Here's a description:

Did Jesus die on the cross for every person? Are believers eternally secure? Can grace be resisted? These and many other questions will be addressed. This conference is not going to be a ‘Let’s bash the Calvinists’ conference. This conference is going to be a biblical and theological assessment of and response to 5-point Calvinism. It will be helpful for lay people as well as preachers.

It caught my attention that one of the speakers at the conference is Steve Lemke, provost of, and professor of philosophy at, New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary.

I recently read Steve Lemke's essay, "What Is a Baptist? Nine Marks that Separate Baptists from Presbyterians," published in The Journal for Baptist Theology and Ministry (vol. 5, no. 2, Fall 2008): 10-38 (available online at the link above).

Lemke is the editor for this journal. I don't think it's peer reviewed, but it is commendable that Lemke included responses in this issue to his essay.

Among the first things I noticed about the article is the sheer number of factually incorrect statements. For example:

• Lemke claims Together for the Gospel 2006 was held at the campus of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (it was actually held at the Galt House, a hotel in Louisville)
• Lemke claims there were many Presbyterian signatories to the T4G document (in fact, there was only one Presbyterian signatory: Ligon Duncan)
• Lemke claims the Westminster Confession of Faith was written in 1664 (it was actually written in 1646)
• Lemke claims that "popular Presbyterian author" R.C. Sproul wrote a 1996 article in World Magazine about children and salvation (it was actually Sproul's son, R.C. Sproul Jr.)
• Lemke claims that Presbyterians believe that paedobaptism removes original sin (that is actually the Roman Catholic view; Lemke also mistakenly implies that Presbyterians believe in baptismal regeneration)
• Lemke claims Bethlehem Baptist Church "enacted an amended policy" about baptism and membership in August 2005 (it was proposed but not enacted).
  
• Lemke claims that Richard Muller teaches at Calvin College (he has never taught at the college; he actually teaches at Calvin Theological Seminary)

Now we all make mistakes, and some of these are more significant than others. But it concerns me that a published journal article would have so many factual errors--things that could easily have been avoided given more care and/or peer review (or use of Google, for that matter!).

Here are a few more things I noted when reading it:

Unconditional Election

On unconditional election, Lemke writes:

Many Calvinists understand "unconditional election" to mean that salvation is provided by God without any involvement or free choice on the part of the sinner, counting any human response (even assent) as a work.

I'd be curious to see Lemke's documentation of these "many Calvinists" who think that "salvation" can come without any human involvement, or that a human response (including "assent") is a work. I know of no Calvinist who believes that. Calvinists believe that God's choice is not conditioned on anything in the sinner—but that his calling produces a human response that is an essential part of the salvation process.

Timothy George on Election

In the course of his argument, Dr. Lemke turns to Timothy George's book, Amazing Grace. Dr. George--whom Dr. Lemke rightly calls a "Calvinist," offers an alternative acronym to the traditional TULIP--called ROSES. Dr. George explains why he prefers certain terms (e.g., Radical Depravity instead of Total Depravity). He is not critiquing the best representatives of those who use the TULIP nomenclature, but rather explains what the TULIP terms could be--and have been--misunderstood to imply.

Some of Lemke's restatements of George's views are quite far off of the mark. For example, here is Lemke's restatement of George on unconditional/sovereign election:

Sovereign Election -- In contrast to the double predestinarianism of unconditional election, God sovereignly elects those whom He foreknows will respond to Him.

But this would make Timothy George a classical Arminian! George, quoting from J. I. Packer, refers to God having "foreseen [us] as fallen." He explains that this is a reference to a technical intra-Calvinist debate on the order of the decrees. But it has nothing to do with foreknowing who will respond to him. Lemke, in restating George's position, fundamentally reverses and misrepresents his position.

Paul's Deadness Metaphor

Lemke does not offer much by way of exegetical critique of the Calvinistic understanding of soteriology. But he does attempt a rebuttal regarding their understanding of Paul's "deadness" metaphor in Ephesians 2:

One can raise two questions about the Calvinist interpretation of Eph. 2:1-3. First, if one takes being "dead in trespasses and sins" literally, i.e., if "dead means dead," then one can neither accept or reject Christ. Dead people cannot accept, but on the other hand, neither can they reject, either! Second, the language of spiritual deadness is not the only description of lostness used in Ephesians 2. This description should be balanced by the "aliens and strangers" metaphor (Eph. 2:11-22). Aliens are alive; they simply do not have the proper relationship as citizens in the Kingdom.

But you don't have to jump ahead 10 verses to see this point—you just need to read Eph 2:1-3 closely! Paul says "you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the prince of the power of the air . . . among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body" (my emphasis).

Calvinists—with the apostle Paul's explicit wording—believe that unredeemed man is very much "alive" to sin (walking, following, living, carrying out, having passions and desires, etc.), but "dead" in terms of being able to respond positively to God. The fact that the unredeemed respond negatively to Christ is hardly a valid argument against the idea that they are dead in terms of a positive response.

Mohler's Theological Triage

Lemke takes a fair bit of space to criticize aspects of Al Mohler's proposed scale of theological priorities. He writes:

[S]ome modern-day Baptists understand believer's baptism to be a secondary or peripheral issue or deny it altogether. Just how important is this issue? Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr. has provided a helpful rubric for considering this issue. In "A Call for Theological Triage and Christian Maturity," Mohler calls for a more careful delineation of first-order, second-order, and third-order theological issues, urging Christians to be more unified around the first-order beliefs. His distinction between first-order doctrines and second-order doctrines is that "believing Christians may disagree on the second-order issues." Mohler clearly appears to be applying the old medieval dictum: "In the essentials, unity; in the non-essentials, diversity; in all things, charity." Of course, all Christians should affirm oneness in Christ, as Jesus called us to practice (John 17:20-23).

The key issue is, however, which doctrines are essential and which doctrines are nonessential? The first-order beliefs listed by Mohler include such "essential" and "crucial" doctrines as the Trinity, the full humanity and deity of Christ, justification by faith, and the authority of Scripture. Among the issues Mohler lists as secondary is "the meaning and mode of baptism." While noting that Baptists and Presbyterians "fervently disagree over the most basic understanding of Christian baptism," Mohler asserts that "Baptists and Presbyterians eagerly recognize each other as believing Christians."

The doctrine of salvation must obviously be listed among the "essential" beliefs. However, might not Mohler's proposal be enhanced by adding believer's baptism (or the age of accountability) as a first order belief, since it is so closely tied to a Baptistic understanding of salvation? Clearly, Baptists deny belief in baptismal regeneration – that baptism is required for salvation. Baptism is a symbol of a salvific event that has already taken place. Nonetheless, the point is that for Baptists, persons are not viewed as saved (and thus candidates for baptism) until they have repented of their sins and placed their faith personally and consciously in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord. This is impossible for infants. The question at stake is whether Baptists would recognize Presbyterian infants as saved Christians on the basis of their infant baptism. So while the mode of baptism is indeed an important but secondary issue, do any of Mohler's "essentials" rule out declaring that a Presbyterian infant who has been sprinkled is saved (or, for that matter, that the infant was lost before the age of accountability)? If Mohler's "essentials" were applied literally, could not these guidelines imply that we should not recognize as a Christian a fervent, mature Pentecostal Christian who affirms Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord but has a defective view of the Trinity, while we would "eagerly recognize" a sprinkled Presbyterian infant as a Christian? Most Baptists would not recognize the salvation of those sprinkled as infants, and would be very reluctant to relegate the meaning of baptism as only for believers to be merely a secondary issue, because what is at stake is the doctrine of salvation. Modern day Baptists should not compromise this soteriological issue and count it as merely a peripheral issue. Baptists in prior generations suffered persecution and even martyrdom from Calvinist and Catholic authorities in defense of their beliefs. Clearly, their convictions were that believer's baptism was an essential rather than secondary issue. . . . [I]t it would enhance his proposal to add believer's baptism (or the age of accountability) to his list of first-order doctrinal essentials.

I don't think this response is coherent. He seems to be suggesting the following: (1) Presbyterians believe that an infant is "saved" through baptism. (2) The doctrine of salvation is a first-order doctrine. (3) Therefore if a Baptist does not put "believer baptism" in the essential, first-order doctrine category, than he cannot rule out declaring that a Presbyterian infant is saved through baptism.

The first premise is false—Presbyterians believe that baptism puts the infant into a covenantal relationship with God, but one that does not automatically entail final salvation. And the conclusion clearly doesn't follow: one does not need to declare something to be a first-order essential in order to declare its denial to be wrong.

Lemke also seems to misunderstand what Mohler means by "first-order doctrine." Mohler writes that they "represent the most fundamental truths of the Christian faith, and a denial of these doctrines represents nothing less than an eventual denial of Christianity itself." Does Lemke really want to suggest that denying believer baptism represents nothing less than an eventual denial of Christianity itself?

Upshot

I could go on and on. (For those who want more detail, Timmy Brister has now written 9 blog posts responding to the various errors in Lemke's piece.)

What's the point of posting on this? There are at least two points of application here.

First, we all need to redouble our efforts to practice the Christian virtue of representing others correctly, especially those with whom we strongly disagree. It's wise to invite counsel and criticism from those who don't see eye to eye with us. Again, I commend Lemke for inviting and printing responses to his essay. But inviting critical engagement before publication would have saved him from numerous embarrassements.

Second, given that Lemke is one of the speakers at this conference, and given the level of scholarhip and thinking on display in this article, I don't have high hopes that it will be a meanginful engagement with what Calvinists actually believe. But we shall see.

I've been learning things from Matt Perman about 13 years now. First as a friend in college who was one step ahead of everybody else in learning apologetics and theology--and especially patient with me, who was being tempted toward skepticism. Then as a fellow student at The Bethlehem Institute in Minneapolis. Then as a colleague at Desiring God.

The architect behind the Desiring God webpage, Matt is now senior director of strategy at DG.

Few people have thought more than Matt about how to be productive and efficient, and so I'm glad to see that he's finally started a blog: What's Best Next.

You can read a full summary of his blog, but the quick take it plans to explore "(1) how to best manage our lives and work, and (2) how to best think about the way that the businesses and non-profits that we work for — and communities that we live in — should be led."

In order to keep up with his thinking (which I would recommend!), you can subscribe by email or subscribe in a reader.

His post today is one that I desparately need, and plan to work through systematically: How to Get Your Email Inbox to Zero Every Day.

It's long--but it will be worth your time (and he's also posted a PDF of it if you want to print it out).

Here's the opening:

It is possible to get your email in-box to zero every day, even if you get 100 emails a day.

And it’s not super complicated — though it does take effort and some discipline. But I don’t think that lack of effort has been the main problem. I think the main problem has been not knowing how to manage email effectively.

A lot of people have simply never been taught some of the basic best practices for keeping email under control. For example, most of us fall into the trap of using our email in-box as a small to-do list from time to time (really bad), and sometimes we even end up using our in-box as a holding tank for major project items (far worse).

The result is that we go through the day with the sense of having a thousand “open loops” continually before us.

The goal of this article is to outline some very simple practices that will enable you to manage your email in a way that is effective, simple, and maintains a sense of relaxed control. You should be able to take this article and use it to get your in box from whatever point it is — even if it’s at 15,000 emails — and get it down to zero.

And it shouldn’t take too long (although if you have 15,000 emails, maybe you should just delete everything more than three weeks old and start over!).

And you’ll be able to keep it there. Or, at least, if you don’t keep it there, it won’t be because you don’t know how.

Overview

In this article, we are going to cover five areas. By going through these five things, we will go through a process that will enable you to get your email inbox to zero and keep it there. The five areas we will cover are:

1. Setting up your email workspace
2. The rules of processing
3. How to handle the four different types of emails
4. Email filing (don’t do it)
5. Staying at zero all day long: how often should you check email?

Read the whole thing!

Tim Challies and his son, Nick, are with others on a trip with Compassion International to the Dominican Republic, and are blogging their way through it.

Sometimes we can be hesitant to give because we don't know if an organization is legit or where it actually goes. This is a great way to learn more about Compassion International.

And a special word about Nick ("Challies Jr."). He's only eight years old! Looking through his blog I'm simply amazed. What a great way to document a short-term missions trip and to seek--even at a very young age--to testify to God's grace and compassion and heart for the poor and needy.

Reading challies.com and challiesjr.com this week would be a great thing to do together as a family.

Just a reminder that all the MP3 sermon downloads on the Grace to You website are free, starting today.

William Duncan at MarriageDebate.com:

Voters in California, Arizona and Florida approved constitutional amendments defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman yesterday. This is great news for marriage.

The California victory is especially important since it reversed the California Supreme Court’s redefinition of marriage in May of this year. The Florida victory is significant because the amendment there needed sixty percent approval to be enacted. The Arizona victory reversed the very narrow defeat of a slightly more complicated marriage amendment in 2006.

The margins of approval were:

Arizona (Prop 102): YES 56% to 44%
California (Prop 8): YES 52% to 48%
Florida (Amdt 2): YES 62% to 38%

Ligon Duncan:

We ought to commit ourselves to pray for our new President, for his wife and family, for his administration, and for the nation. We will do this, not only because of the biblical command to pray for our rulers, but because of the second greatest commandment "Love your neighbor" and what better way to love your neighbor, than to pray for his well-being. Those with the greatest moral and political differences with the President-Elect ought to ask God to engender in them, by His Spirit, genuine neighbor-love for Mr. Obama.

We will also pray for our new President because he (and we) face challenges that are not only daunting but potentially disastrous. We will pray that God will grant him wisdom. He and his family will face new challenges and the pressures of this office. May God protect them, give them joy in their family life, and hold them close together.

We will pray that God will protect this nation even as our new President settles into his role as Commander in Chief, and that God will grant peace as he leads the nation through times of trial and international conflict and tension.

We will pray that God would change President-Elect Obama's mind and heart on issues of crucial moral concern. May God change his heart and open his eyes to see abortion as the murder of the innocent unborn, to see marriage as an institution to be defended, and to see a host of issues in a new light. We must pray this from this day until the day he leaves office. God is sovereign, after all.

Read the whole thing.

Al Mohler's opening: "The election of Sen. Barack Obama as the 44th President of the United States came as a bang, not a whimper. The tremors had been perceptible for days, maybe even weeks. On Tuesday, America experienced nothing less than a political and cultural earthquake."

The closing: "America has chosen a President. President-Elect Barack Obama is that choice, and he faces a breathtaking array of challenges and choices in days ahead. This is the time for Christians to begin praying in earnest for our new President. There is no time to lose."

Read the whole thing.