I Am Second

Perhaps you have seen billboards that say, “I am second” or have seen people wearing T-shirts that say, “I am second.” This is all part of a campaign designed to help people discover their purpose in life through Jesus Christ. Those who are featured are saying that Christ is first and “I am second.”

The website for the multimedia campaign has received more than a million hits from visitors in nearly 200 countries. Some who have visited the website are from as far away as Burundi or the Fiji Islands.

The website houses numerous videos of the personal stories of the trials and temptations of athletes, actors, musicians, and everyday people. All testify to the wisdom of getting the right priorities (essentially making sure they are second). The videos do not gloss over real problems and struggles. And that may be why these testimonies have been so successful in reaching others.

As you might imagine some of the most popular videos are from celebrities. The most popular is the video with Brian “Head" Welch, the former lead guitarist for the rock band Korn. His story of drugs and deliverance is a powerful testimony you can share with anyone, but especially with kids caught up in drug and the rock music scene.

Other high profile videos include Texas Rangers All-Star Josh Hamilton and American Idol contestant Jason Castro. Former Arkansas Governor and presidential candidate Mike Huckabee also tells his story.

Dallas-based e3 Partners are responsible for the website and other creative outreaches. Those include billboards, TV, radio, and kiosk advertisement. Recently I went to a Texas Rangers game that included one of the three concert series they have used to promote “I am second.”

They are planning on expanding the advertising components into other markets. So if you haven’t seen an “I am second” billboard or commercial, you will see it soon. They are also reaching youth through various social networks like Twitter and Facebook.

I am excited about this outreach, and encourage you to check out the website at www.iamsecond.com. I’m Kerby Anderson, and yes, I am second.

Capitol Visitor Center

Should the Capitol Visitor Center in Washington, D.C. have the correct national motto? If you think that the answer to that should be obvious and without controversy, you would be wrong.

When the new visitor center at the U.S. Capitol opened last December, a number of members of Congress thought it was both incomplete and incorrect. Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) felt the center misrepresented our nation’s history by downplaying the faith of the founding fathers and other prominent figures. At the time, he said that the center’s “most prominent display proclaims faith not in God, but in government.” He was objecting to a quote that said: “We have built no temple but the Capitol. We consult no common oracle but the Constitution.”

Of greater concern was the fact that the center erroneously posted “E Pluribus Unum” as the national motto. That used to be our national motto, but the current one is “In God We Trust.” Members of Congress asked that both the National Motto and the Pledge of Allegiance be engraved in a wall at the Capitol Visitor Center.

If you thought the omission of the motto and pledge were a mere oversight, once again you would be wrong. The center has been in the planning and building stages for years. When it opened in December, it was three years late and $360 million over budget. There was ample time to get it right.

Both the House and Senate passed resolutions approving the engravings of the National Motto and the Pledge of Allegiance. But as I mentioned, even this action was not without controversy. The Freedom From Religion Foundation has filed suit to prevent the engravings. They argue that posting these words would discriminate against agnostics and atheists.

Representative Steve King (R-IA) believes: “This lawsuit is another attempt by liberal activists to rewrite history and deny that America’s Judeo-Christian heritage is an essential foundation stone of our great nation.” First, was the bureaucratic resistance to posting the National Motto and the Pledge of Allegiance. Now there is a lawsuit attempting to prevent the words from appearing at the Capitol Visitor Center.

Welcome to the current battle over America’s history. I’m Kerby Anderson, and that’s my point of view.

CBO Meeting

Lately those pushing health care reform can’t seem to catch a break on their budget numbers. On a number of occasions the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has shot down the predictions in their bills.

First, the CBO determined that the health care reform bill would cost $1.6 trillion over ten years. The sticker shock was nearly fatal.

Second, was the claim by that the health care reform bills before Congress would “bend the curve” on spending. In other words, it would lower health care spending in the out years. The CBO said no. In fact, it said that health care spending would significantly increase.

Third, there was the attempt to fix the Medicare provision for the “sustainable growth rate” that forces the doctors’ reimbursements down if Medicare spending goes up. Proponents argued that this wasn’t an expense but a fix. The CBO disagreed.

What happened next appears to be unprecedented. The president, obviously upset with these numbers, called the CBO Director to the White House. I doubt their chat was very cordial.

Some White House officials argued that this was not unusual. Actually it was unprecedented. Douglas Holtz-Eakin, the CBO Director during George W. Bush’s administration said he never met with Mr. Bush to discuss CBO policies or estimates. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell used a baseball analogy. He said: “that’s like asking the umpires to come up to the owner’s box . . . . I mean, if the CBO is to have credibility, they’re the umpire.”

Calling the economic umpire to the White House is unprecedented, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t room to challenge its assumptions and predictions. In the past conservatives have questioned CBO assumptions about tax cuts and economic development. And Dr. Merrill Matthews warns conservatives and Republicans not to praise the CBO too much because “the CBO will not be our new BFF (Best Friend Forever).”

It’s OK to argue with the umpire, but to call the umpire to the White House smacks of intimidation and manipulation. I’m Kerby Anderson, and that’s my point of view.

Tonsils and Cesareans

The recent debate about health care has brought lots of rhetoric about who is responsible for the skyrocketing costs. The insurance companies have been labeled as villains, and other groups have also been vilified. During his press conference, the president focused on doctors.

He said that if you bring your child in with a sore throat, “the doctor may look at the reimbursement system and say to himself, ‘You know what? I make a lot more money if I take this kid’s tonsils out.’” Do we really have evidence of doctors taking out tonsils unnecessarily? Sure, physicians will remove tonsils in a child but usually if the child developed at least seven “significant” episodes of throat infection in a year.

Are there physicians who look at the reimbursement system and make a decision about a tonsillectomy? There are probably a few, but this surgery is hardly on the increase. Let’s talk about a surgery that has increased dramatically: Cesarean sections.

The number of C-sections that were performed in 1965 was 4.5 percent of births. Today C-sections are performed in 31 percent of births. Why the increase? Are obstetricians looking at the reimbursement system and making a decision?

C-sections are not on the increase because of doctors, but because of lawyers. The potential threat of a medical malpractice lawsuit has changed standard medical practice. A story in the New York Times on malpractice lawsuits concluded that “doctors have responded by changing the way they deliver babies, often seeing a relatively minor anomaly on a fetal heart monitor as justification for an immediate Caesarean.”

Who can blame the doctors for ordering a C-section? Even though their best medical judgment might be to wait, most doctors are probably going to take the mother into surgery rather than risk a lawsuit. So why not consider tort reform?

According to an article in Investors Business Daily, the president told the American Medical Association that he is “not advocating caps on malpractice awards.” It might be worth noting that one of the key groups that helped elect this president are trial lawyers.

The increase in health care costs is due to lots of factors. But when the president focused on doctors, he ignored members of his own profession that may be more responsible. I’m Kerby Anderson, and that’s my point of view.

Read the Bill

The rush to pass so much legislation in Congress these last few months has brought a cry for legislators to read the bill. Many citizens are starting to realize what many insiders have known for some time. Most members of Congress vote on bills and have no idea what’s in them.

Debate about the health care bill brought new revelations. Representative John Conyers (D-MI) made fun of members of Congress who he said were pretending to read the laws they pass. At the National Press Club he said: “I love these members, they get up and say, ‘Read the bill.” Even if they did, he felt it would unproductive. He said: “What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you’ve read the bill?”

If the bill is that complicated, then you would think that members of Congress would want to go slow and understand all the implications. Some have argued that if the bill is that complicated, that means it is destined to be ineffective.

Members of Congress should read the bill and try to comprehend what will happen if it is passed. While there are many convoluted phrases in this Byzantine legislation, there are nevertheless some basic principles that anyone can understand.

For example, the House bill uses the word “shall” 1,683 times. This assertive word sets forth the government mandates that will force doctors, clinics, hospitals, and others in the health care system to do what the government orders them to do.

The word “penalty” is used 156 times. That is what happens to people who do not do what government mandates them to do. The word “tax” is used 172 times. That is when we pay for these government rules and mandates. The House bill also creates 53 new federal bureaucracies. It also creates or expands 33 entitlement programs.

If members of Congress won’t read the bill, perhaps they should at least count the number of times words like shall, penalty, and tax are used. It sure looks like a massive government intrusion into health care. I’m Kerby Anderson, and that’s my point of view.

Clash of Civilization

Back in 1996, Samuel Huntington wrote The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. He predicted the current conflict between Islam and the West.

In my new book, A Biblical Point of View on Islam, I show how this clash of civilizations has had a profound impact on missions. In the past, countries that were closed to the gospel tended to be communist countries. Even so, there was still a significant amount of Christian growth in countries behind the Iron Curtain and Bamboo Curtain. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, many of these countries are more open to the gospel than ever before. Meanwhile, persecution of Christians remains in China.

But a new phenomenon has emerged. Muslim countries are now the most resistant to the message of Christianity. Mission work is limited or even non-existent in many of these Muslim countries. This, I believe, represents the greatest challenge for missions in the 21st century: reaching the Muslim world for Christ. Already, there are over a billion Muslims in the world, making Islam the second largest religion in the world and one of the fastest growing.

Samuel Huntington also predicted a growing conflict between western universalism and Muslim militancy. In other words, the conflict is between liberal western democracies and Muslim countries. This presents a major challenge for Christians trying to reach Muslims. When they see the West with its immorality and decadence, they reject it and Christianity. After all, they reason, these are Christian countries and this is what they produce. Therefore, we should be quick to point out that Christians will also disagree with much of what some of these countries produce.

Whether we are missionaries overseas or missionaries in our backyard, we need to begin to understand the nature of Islam and bring the message of the gospel to the Muslims we meet. I believe Samuel Huntington is correct in his analysis, and we should begin to understand the changing world around us so that we can be more effective for Christ. I'm Kerby Anderson, and that's my point of view.

Islam: A Religion of Peace?

Is Islam a religion of peace? Many commentators and even politicians have said that. But is it true?

Let's first acknowledge that many Muslims are peace-loving. But is it also true that Islam is a religion of peace? To answer that question, it is important to understand the meaning of the word "jihad."

In my book, A Biblical Point of View on Islam, I devote a section of one of my chapters to this Muslim concept of jihad. The word is actually the noun of the Arabic verb jahidi, which means to "strive hard." Some Muslims understand this striving to be merely intellectual and philosophical. If that is the case, then they do not believe that jihad involves warfare. But the more traditional interpretation of jihad involves a holy war against infidels.


Here are just a few verses from the Qur'an that seem to teach this. Sura 47:4 says, "When you meet the unbelievers in the battlefield, strike off their heads and, when you have laid them low, bind your captives firmly." Sura 9:5 says, "Fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them, and seize them, beleager them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem." Sura 9:123 says, "O ye who believe! Fight the unbelievers who gird your about, and let them find firmness in you; and know that Allah is with those who fear Him."

Bernard Lewis is the professor of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University and a leading authority on Islam. He says that, "The more common interpretation, and that of the overwhelming majority of the classical jurists and commentators, presents jihad as armed struggle for Islam against infidels and apostates."

So it is important to understand how Muslims interprets the word jihad. If they see it as an intellectual struggle, then they are most likely to be peace-loving. If instead they see it as an armed struggle, then they pose a danger. The interpretation of these verses of the sword is key. I'm Kerby Anderson, and that's my point of view.