Jonathan Branch

To the Thousands on the Fence

2009-10-15T14:27:00.006-05:00

Richard Dawkins is still at it, currently absent from teaching at Oxford and on a world tour presenting an apologetic for Darwinism. This morning he was on WFAE's Charlotte Talks with Mike Collins promoting his new book The Greatest Show on Earth, an explanation of Darwinian evolution that promotes it as scientific fact and addresses some of its criticisms. During the interview, Collins mentioned that there are creationists who will never change their minds and evolutionists who will never change their minds, and then asked Dawkins who the intended audience of his new book is. After making some baseless and degrading remarks about creationists, Dawkins answered that his book is for the "thousands on the fence." I do not pretend that theses thousands read this blog. It has not been updated in more than a year. I guess I'm keeping it with the hopes that it might one day serve a purpose, about the time I finish school and get back to a relatively normal life. Still, whether one of the thousands happens to read this or if it only lasts to serve as a reminder of what I hope to develop later on, I would like to add some advice to the "thousands on the fence".

I have taken and tutored a logic course, and have had enough philosophy as a philosophy major to know that an argument against a person is not an argument against his or her claims. But before anyone considers listening exclusively to Mr. Dawkins, I would like to point out Mr. Dawkins' reluctance to follow his own prescription of critical thought. During the interview I heard this morning, Dawkins labeled religious rearing of children as a "form of child abuse". He claimed that children should have the opportunity to learn of the marvelous and beautiful fact of the evolutionary process that accounts for our very existence instead of being "brain washed" by "idiots" spreading the myths of "dogmatic scripture". Dawkins further asserts that all evidence points in the direction of the evolutionary account of existence and that there is no serious evidence for creationism. A lot of generalizations were used liberally by Dawkins, and he well illustrated his apparent ignorance of creationist beliefs, leading me to wonder if he has considered the evidence that refutes his claims.

Each November, Southern Evangelical Seminary hosts the National Conference on Christian Apologetics in Charlotte. Last year the conference ended with a debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza on the existence of God, and this year D'Souza will be debating the topic with "new atheist" Christopher Hitchens. Interestingly, debate organizers from SES tried to arrange a debate between William Lane Craig and Richard Dawkins, an invitation to which I am told Dawkins responded by saying he didn't know who Mr. Craig was and that he was not willing to travel to some "hick town" to debate a bunch of "flat-earthers". Yet, Mr. Dawkins apparently has no trouble traveling to said "hick town" to promote his own views without confrontation. So much for critical thought, which entails viewing all sides of an argument. If Dawkins were a religious leader, he would be slandered as a hypocrite. Not a delightful title for an Oxford biologist.

So, to the thousands: I more than admit that this is not by any means a refutation of Darwinism, nor do I intend it to be. It's not even a developed argument against Dawkins' views, but simply an accusation that Dawkins is encouraging the very thing he rails against - non-critical thought. If you are inclined to read Dawkins' book, read it. I would if I had the time. Just don't accept it as the truth until you have considered its refutations. I know, Dawkins claims to have handled evolution's critics in his book, but I highly doubt he has considered anything of much significance. Else he would likely know who Mr. Craig is. William Dembski and Michael Behe have fully developed arguments likely ignored by Dawkins, and within a relatively short period of time there will be full critiques of Dawkins' new book. Like a jury in a court case, consider the best of both arguments. Brain washed is a terrible state, but especially so if one is brain washed with error.

DetermiCalvinism

2008-08-15T09:19:00.002-05:00

The first topic I began studying in philosophy is the debate between what is commonly known as determinism versus free will. For some reason, I have been fascinated with this issue, perhaps because it has so infiltrated Christianity as well. It seems a belief system based on an all-loving God so involved in the redemptive work of His beloved creation would necessarily require a libertarian point of view, but determinism is widespread in Christianity under the guise of Calvinism. Some of my favorite people to listen to label themselves as Calvinists, including Steve Brown and Greg Koukl, and these and many others are more than willing to not only defend their position, but also explain why they are not determinists as I have said Calvinists are. While I admit I have not done extensive study on the topic by way of reading various books and essays, I have listened intently to Greg Koukl’s defense of Calvinism against the labeling of it as determinism, and his explanation of what Calvinism is confirmed my understanding. With his explanation I still take issue, not to claim that Calvinism is clearly false, but rather that it is in deed determinism.

In a recent podcast, Koukl began by explaining that Calvinism is based on the idea that choices are free at two levels. The first of these levels is the obvious, that actions may be considered freely chosen if the individual both chose the action and could have chosen otherwise. For example, as I write this, I am sipping a frozen mocha, though I could have ordered a latte. By an act of my own free will, I not only chose the frozen mocha, but I did so when I could have freely chosen a latte instead (or both!). The other level of choice is the level at which an action is also chosen by the person, but chosen in accord with that person’s nature, even though that person’s nature does not allow him or her to do otherwise. Koukl relates this to the expression “bound and determined” often used in our culture. It is a matter of saying that, though the person chose an action, there was no other choice for the person to make because of the state of his will. The action is still free because the one acting chose, though he chose in accord with his will and was determined to make that choice and not another.

Considering these two different levels of choice, Calvinism further recognizes that humankind is in a fallen state; the will of each person, by nature of the fall, is set against God. The choice of men and women to rebel against God overall, then, though it is a choice, is a choice on the second of the two levels described above. We cannot of our own accord choose to turn toward God because our wills are set against Him. We choose to rebel consistent with our nature. In response, God, by an act of his own grace, chooses to change the wills of those whom He “elects” so that those individuals can make the choice to turn to God in defiance of their fallen natures. The wills of others, however, God does not choose (“elect”) to change, and they remain in their fallen state, having chosen by their natural wills to reject Him. Thus, Koukl demonstrates that Calvinism is not determinism.

While I can think of ways in which this would be possible without being inconsistent with what I believe the Bible teaches about God’s nature and mankind’s choice, I want to stick with the topic of whether Calvinism is or is not determinism. Perhaps I will write about other issues on this matter at a later time. Determinism, according to the determinist philosopher Robert Blatchford, holds that all events or actions are caused by either heredity (nature) or environment (nurture). If the Calvinist maintains that humans are set against God and choose against Him by virtue of their natural wills, as Koukl explains, then humans are caused by their natures to rebel. Contrary to Koukl’s illustration of the expression “bound and determined”, which implies that a person has chosen of his own accord to set his own will in a certain direction, the fallen state of mankind is not chosen by each individual, but is passed on to all of mankind because of the choice of the first man Adam. The fallen state is passed on from generation to generation. Thus, by way of heredity, Calvinism is determinism.

Church and State: Institutions and Individuals

2008-05-13T12:46:00.002-05:00

The principle of separation of church and state has been one of the most passionately debated issues of recent times, finding relevance in a number of other arguments such as those regarding abortion and gay rights. On one side of the argument are strict separationists who claim that the establishment clause found in the First Amendment of the Constitution provides an absolute dichotomy between religion and government, allowing neither to influence the other. From this perspective, government must not only protect freedom of religion, but must also be protected by freedom from religion, thereby ensuring a truly secular state. On the other hand, anti-separationists argue that freedom of religion is not the same as freedom from religion. America’s historical record is truly saturated with appeals to the Almighty and references by the founders of the nation to certain basic religious beliefs. Stuck in between the two is a position of political passivity held by a number of people with religious beliefs who are afraid they will act inappropriately or even unconstitutionally if they let their religious convictions have any bearing on their political voices. These political passivists remain as neutral as possible in public matters, believing their energies would be better vested in a single, spiritual focus, leaving politics to the politicians and others so inclined. While the Constitution and other early American writings contain certain separation language to be sure, the intended and proper separation is for the purpose of protecting the integrity of each institution, simultaneously allowing every individual freedom to choose his or her own religious beliefs and participate accordingly, both privately and publicly.

The disagreements stem from the seeming vagueness of the Constitutional amendment “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The interpretation of this has great implications for how religion affects government and how government affects religion. Government leaders are in a particularly difficult predicament, as they are somewhat responsible for how the Constitution is interpreted, yet have the simultaneous responsibility of representing the constituents who elected them. After all, American government is a republic, that is, a rule by representatives of the people. As the people disagree over the application of what has become known as the establishment clause, elected officials almost inevitably find themselves misrepresenting their constituents to some degree regardless of their own interpretations. As for the voters themselves, the interpretation of separation may influence if, how, and to what extent their political beliefs may be expressed if those beliefs have any indication of being derived from religious considerations. If the non-establishment clause is taken to mean that government must be entirely free from religious concerns, voters who hold religious convictions may be relegated to either dissociating their beliefs from the public square or not participating at all. Of course, religious organizations are in essence limited in their potential effectiveness if their “life-changing” brand of faith is not allowed to influence one’s political views, and such a case could lend itself to oppression of religion, which is also in clear contradiction of Constitutional prescription. At the same time, anti-religious organizations and certain secular establishments want to free public polity from religious influence all together in order to preserve the respected plurality of American government. Accordingly, those who are affiliated with this perspective may maintain a biased concentration on the non-establishment portion of the clause, giving unfair lack of consideration to the free exercise portion. In any case, American citizens want to preserve the proverbial “wall of separation” and cringe every time an event occurs too near in proximity.

Most recently, Reverend Jeremiah Wright caused a great deal of controversy to intensify around a church member of his who happened to be a strong Democratic Presidential candidate. By comparing Barak Obama to Jesus Christ and claiming from his church pulpit that the underprivileged, single-parent raised, African-American Obama faced a disadvantage in the presence of the rich and white Hillary Clinton, many believed Reverend White blatantly leaped the sacred wall between church and state, perhaps all but equating voting for Obama with spiritual salvation. Some years before, the soon-to-be President George W. Bush added fuel to his already controversial candidacy by responding to a public questioner that Jesus Christ was his favorite philosopher. Jesus had changed his life, Bush claimed, giving his rejecters what they saw as justification for their attempted discrediting of him. His faith was going to affect his political philosophy, which was an unquestionable infringement of the separation principle. On the state level, Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue gained some publicity after he called for and followed through with a public prayer at the state capitol building during his state’s significant drought in 2007. In the midst of protestors, Governor Perdue gathered with other Christians and called on God for relief from the persistent lack of rain. Of course, the separation issue goes beyond the political big houses and seems to find a persistent venue within the public school systems. Recently Robert Escamilla of Enloe High School in North Carolina was heavily reprimanded and reassigned to another school after having a formerly persecuted Christian speak to Escamilla’s religion class. The North Carolina chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union felt that Escamilla had joined with his guest speaker to proselytize students into an anti-Islamic sentiment. In spite of the controversy surrounding the nature and facts of the incident, those in positions presiding over the situation agreed that the Constitutional clause had been breached and action was taken accordingly. These and many more circumstances and events continue to amplify the controversy of church and state separation, and the need for a consensus on its meaning and application.

First of all, it should be noted that, however it is interpreted, the restricting portion of the establishment clause unarguably refers to institutions of government and religion, not individuals (Colson 135). Individuals are mentioned secondarily, in that they may exercise their religious beliefs free of government interruption or coercion. The same is true of Thomas Jefferson’s famous letter to the Danbury Baptists organization, which gave rise to the currently referred to “wall of separation.” Since the primary brand of religion in the church and state separation debate is most commonly Christian belief – a point Ed Doerr seems to have overlooked in his argument for freedom from religion as he briefly described early American settlers developing separate Christian communities as Baptists, Anglicans, Catholics, and so forth – it is within reason to consider the responsibilities of the two institutions from that perspective (Doerr). As Gregory Koukl points out, Christianity is also the religious perspective that influenced the founders of America (“America’s”). From this biblical perspective, it is the duty of the church to reflect the general will of God for people, and the duty of government to provide a safe society for its people (Colson 100). This Christian perspective of the church could be applied to all religious institutions with some variance in its articulation, since the most commonly shared belief among religions of all types is the need to share their particular ideals that are relevant to people for the fulfillment of their lives. Conversely, the purpose of American government from the beginning, as stated in the Constitution, is to provide for the general welfare of its citizens. Immediately, we can clearly see that these institutions are purposed toward different goals. The church’s purpose is to proclaim and help make possible the fulfillment of God’s will for each individual; government’s purpose is to provide a relatively safe environment conducive to each individual’s quest for personal fulfillment. In fact, it could even be said that American government was designed in such a way as to allow those who were inclined to lead religious institutions complete freedom to do so as they felt directed by their God. As Koukl notes, all of the restriction language of the establishment clause seems directed toward government (“Political”). Even separationists will agree that the Constitution prevents the two institutions from imposing themselves upon one another; however it is important that we note the wall stops there, restricting the institutions alone. The institutions of church and state must remain focused on their respective purposes, each leaving the other to its own business.

This distinguishing between individuals and institutions helps us to understand the role of individual convictions that must be allowed in matters of legislation and public debate. When the argument is made that separation of church and state prevents religious beliefs from playing any part in public discourse and governmental decisions, the argument defeats itself, as legislation is inherently a moral matter. In fact, without morality, there can be no real legislation (Bauman). It must first be admitted that religious beliefs always lead to moral beliefs, even though moral beliefs are not always spawned by religious beliefs. While morality can sometimes be wrought without a religious foundation, religious foundations always lead to morality. In any case, regardless of whether a particular moral is rooted in religion, morals are always the basis for legislation. This is necessarily true because laws always demonstrate a judgment of value. Murder is illegal because human life is more valuable than the object of one’s envy. Racial discrimination is illegal because all people are intrinsically valuable based on the very fact of their human existence regardless of their race. Conversely, people resist laws only when those laws conflict with their particular values. Feminists will argue for women’s rights because they appreciate the value of equality regardless of gender, but on the other hand, argue against pro-life legislation because they value women’s rights above the rights of an unborn child. Those who argue against the death penalty do so because their moral opinions claim such punishment is immoral. If morality cannot be allowed consideration in public matters, laws cannot be formed and society cannot be structured (Bauman). Government must have moral values, and moral values can always be articulated from religious beliefs. Since America desires safety from criminal chaos, and is a republic representative of the people, the people’s moral convictions, whether religious in conception or not, must be allowed a voice, which is to say religion must be allowed influence in government.

At this point, it should be noted that there often appears a difference between the ways separation should be applied as argued by the separationists and anti-separationists. Much of the time, separationists claim not to seek an abolishment of religion, but a prevention of government supporting religion in any way. Anti-separationists often feel the separationists’ arguments are infringing, or are dangerously close to infringing, upon the guaranteed right to free exercise of religion. While separationists’ arguments may often appear differently targeted in this respect, their arguments may be more discriminatory than noble. A point of recent conflict of this nature can be identified in former Missouri Senator John Ashcroft’s charitable choice and President Bush’s faith-based initiative. The first of the two acts, Ashcroft’s charitable choice, was a provision of the Welfare Reform Act of 1996 which allowed religious organizations to apply for and receive federal funds for treating those with drug addictions and helping those on government welfare find work, all without requiring the organization to develop a separate secular sub-organization. In an extending measure, President Bush’s faith-based initiative further allowed religious groups to participate in programs such as mentoring the children of prisoners, preventing youth delinquency, and offering housing for teenage mothers (Glazer). Upon hearing such proposals, separationists irately proclaimed a breech of the separating wall, claiming tax dollars should not be spent on religious proselytizing efforts (Gey). It must be considered, however, whether this is a legitimate complaint. Even laying aside the fact that allowing religious groups to participate would expand the possibility for relief distribution, is it fair to argue against such a use of funds because it conflicts with the wills of a relatively small number of citizens, when, indeed, the same monetary source is used for a number of other questionable expenditures? What a clear example of the previously made point that legislation is both supported and rejected based on moral values. In this argument, separationists disagree with the use of tax funds for charity only if religious charities are included. How many pro-life citizens disagree with the use of tax money to pay for elective abortions through government-provided medical care? How many pacifists disagree with the use of their tax dollars to support military provisions? How many citizens would rather their tax dollars not pay the salaries of politicians they voted against? Out of sheer consistency, those who argue such a line against inclusion of religious organizations in charitable relief funding must argue the same line in every area in which they disagree with the use of tax money. Surely we could all find at least one disagreeable appropriation of a significant portion of our earned incomes.

Perhaps just as clearly, it further appears that to not include religious organizations in distribution of federal relief funding would be to violate anti-discrimination laws. In a society that frowns so heavily upon any organization that discriminates on the basis of gender, race, or religion, it seems odd that government is required to do just that. Can any strict separationist offer a non-religious reason in opposition to charitable choice or faith-based initiatives? If religious organizations are not allowed such participation because they are religious, they are being discriminated against based on religion. If the concern is that those organizations would be dishonest in their uses of the money, using it to pay for new buildings or uniforms for their softball teams, for example, then government may prohibit their funding for reasons of misappropriation. Otherwise it is religious discrimination and nothing less. The Constitutional amendment states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” This is a matter of refusing to give one brand of religion legal advantage over another or indiscriminate legislative power, which is a far cry from discriminating against religious organizations because they are religious. Furthermore, the Constitutional duty of Congress is to provide for the common good of the people. We should not demand that Congress limit the reaches of this provision by casting aside some organizations based on their religious orientations.

In all fairness, there is some question as to the most precise meaning of the establishment clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” Does this mean that Congress will not make a law that will lend itself to establishing a religion, or does it mean that Congress will not make a law that gives any religion what it wants? Based on the religion-friendly perspectives of the participants of the Constitutional Convention and other evidence from various historical records, the former interpretation appears most practical. All of the restricting language is clearly applicable to the separate institutions, and the separation of the institutions is necessary to provide an environment in which each has opportunity to carry out its respective duties. When government tries to control a religious institution, or when religion tries to perform the duties of the state, oppression is incubated and some of the greatest evils against mankind are brought to fruition, as the historical record shows. While disastrous events such as the Inquisitions and Crusades are often remembered as examples of religion being given governmental status, overcompensation in avoiding potential repetition of such atrocities lends itself to a governmental oppression of religion, devastating the personal freedom so foundational to the Declaration of Independence. Religion cannot be eliminated from the public square altogether without unfounded discrimination, and moral-free legislation is purely mythical. Religion always leads to morality, which is the basis of value, and value is the basis of every law. If nothing else, religion, generally speaking, values people and because of that value does much to help the common people, which is the Constitutional goal of the American government. Separation of church and state must be applied to prevent one from encroaching upon the proper operations of the other, allowing both to fulfill their respective responsibilities, and nothing more. Casting religion from the public, political square is impossible and, if it were possible, impractical. Only when we realize this concept will every voice be allowed its proper hearing at the table of debate in a government truly representative of the people, created by the people, for the people.

Works Cited:

Bauman, Michael. “Dispelling False Notions of the First Amendment: The Falsity, Futility, and Folly of Separating Morality from Law.” Christian Research Journal 21.3 (1999). 23 April 2008. .

Colson, Charles. God and Government: An Insider’s View on the Boundaries Between Faith and Politics. Michigan: Zondervan, 2007.

Doerr, Edd. “Church and State: Freedom of Religion, Freedom from Religion.” The Humanist May / June 1993: 31-33. SIRS Researcher. SIRS. Gaston College Libraries, Dallas, NC. 1 April 2008. < http://sks.sirs.com>.

Gey, Steven G. “Charitable Choice: Would Jesus Have Accepted Federal Funding?” Liberty: Magazine of Religious Freedom Jan. / Feb. 2001: 16-21. SIRS Researcher. SIRS. Gaston College Libraries, Dallas, NC. 1 April 2008. <http://sks.sirs.com>.

Glazer, Sarah. “Faith-Based Initiatives: Is U.S. Funding of Religious Groups Constitutional?” CQ Researcher 11.17 (2001): 377-400. CQ Researcher Onlilne. CQ Press. Gaston College Libraries, Dallas, NC. 23 April 2008. <http://library.cqpress.com>.

Koukl, Gregory. “America’s Unchristian Beginnings?” Stand to Reason 2007. 28 March 2008. <http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5097>.

- - -. “Political Passivity – Vice or Christian Virtue?” Townhall.com 30 April 2007. 1 April 2008. <http://www.townhall.com/ columnists/GregoryKoukl/ 2007/04/30/ political_passivity%e2%80%94vice_or_christian_virtue?page=full&comments=true>.

Presented to Alicia McCullough, Argument Based Research, April 28, 2008.

Marriage as Glaser Sees It

2008-05-13T12:36:00.002-05:00

In matters of morality, one of the most hotly debated issues concerns homosexuality in general and same-sex marriage in particular. Recent political action has addressed the question of whether homosexual unions should be given marital status, and, because of its historical stance on the subject, the Christian Church has found itself at the center of the argument even outside of the religious realm. Of course, the Church’s position has not only been attacked from without, but also within, as many homosexuals have battled for their rights to church membership, ministry, and leadership. One such person holding church membership and simultaneously engaged in a homosexual relationship is Chris Glaser, who attempted to defend his approval of same-sex marriage in an essay entitled “Marriage as We See It.” Throughout the essay, Glaser relates his own experiences as a called minister in his Presbyterian church and as a homosexual in a committed relationship, as well as his interpretation of biblical teachings and Western culture to encourage a reinterpretation of marriage that includes recognition of committed same-sex relationships.

Glaser begins his argument by claiming that American culture is adverse to same-sex marriage because it provides a convenient scapegoat for the disintegration of traditional family function, given the circular reasoning for ostracizing members of the gay community. Early on, gay relations were opposed by the claim that they could not be enduring relationships or conducive for raising children. Once experience showed this to be unfounded, the argument became homosexual relations were unacceptable because those involved were unashamed in announcing their lifestyle. Also, the previous argument that gays were “selfish” and “irresponsible” has been disproved by their willingness to serve others, so the antagonists now attack gays because they want to serve. Turning to the realm of religion, Glaser relates his experience being involved in his denomination’s study of homosexuality. During his time of involvement, he realized that, while the group as a whole was willing to discuss whether ordination should be extended to homosexuals, the question of homosexual marriage was taboo. Similarly, a denominational committee some years later prescribed what it considered an acceptable ethic of sexual relations equally applicable to both heterosexual and homosexual unions, a presentation which caused irate reactions because of the very notion that homosexual relations could include any measure of good. To many, the report’s allusion to subjugation of women, marital rape, incest, and adultery within heterosexual relationships was not able to justify redefining marriage to include anything other than what was traditionally acceptable. Glaser further argues that the Bible accepts practices such as extramarital relationships, which are also considered inappropriate in Western culture, and suggests that Jesus is really the one who redefined marriage since he redefined family based on spiritual relations rather than physical. According to Glaser, Jesus’ teachings emphasized faithfulness rather than gender in relationships, and Western culture originally emphasized the economics of marriage rather than the intimacy. Glaser concludes with an emotional appeal by telling of another gay couple who did not ceremonially vow themselves to one another in the presence of their church family. When one of the men was killed in an automobile accident, the other did not receive the extent of support from his church family he might have received had the church been aware of the couple’s commitment. For all of these reasons, Glaser states that gay couples are entitled to the same benefits of marriage as heterosexual couples, and same-sex unions should be recognized and offered marital status.

Prior to reading Glaser’s essay, I was opposed to homosexual relationships, and after reading Glaser’s essay, I am still opposed to homosexual relationships and remain unconvinced that marital status should be granted to same-sex unions. I am willing to consider any argument to the contrary, but Glaser’s essay is ineffective as his supporting evidence is not well reasoned. His claims that homosexuals are being blamed for the dysfunction of traditional families and that reasoning for denouncing gay marriage is circular are beside the point. These may or may not be true observations in some cases, but they do not support the promotion of redefining marriage. Glaser’s appeal to religion is not very substantial, either. He reasons that gay marriage should be a discussable issue because, at least within his denomination, ordination of homosexuals is discussable. However, if he refers to a religious institution, he should consider that institution’s text. The Bible, including New Testament passages such as Romans 1:24-27, indicates quite clearly that God does not approve of homosexual behavior, meaning neither the marriage nor the ordination of someone living a homosexual lifestyle should be acceptable in any case. Glaser is also deficient in offering problems that do occur in marriage as grounds for accepting homosexual marriage. Failures within a marriage do no constitute redefining marriage any more than a sports team’s losing record constitutes redefining that sport.

One of the greatest errors in Glaser’s argument, however, is his misrepresentation of both the biblical and social understandings of marriage. In claiming that the Bible supports extramarital and non-marital practices such as polygamy, “concubinage,” and sexual relations with the wife of one’s deceased brother, Glaser grossly neglects the fact that the Bible nowhere endorses such practices in any way. It should first be noted that there is quite a difference between reporting customs as they are and actually approving of them. Furthermore, a thorough reading of the Bible reveals that God clearly defined his planned design for marriage between one man and one woman committed to each other for life, he warned against deviant practices, and disobedience often resulted in tragedy. In the matter of Jesus’ teachings, for Glaser to claim that Jesus was more concerned with fidelity than gender in relationships is to put words in Jesus’ mouth that he never spoke. Likewise, the idea that Jesus meant for the human concept of family to be entirely replaced by Christian brotherhood is to stretch an easily understood metaphor into a mystical view that denies the sanctity of the physical all together. From a biblical perspective, God instituted the concept of family from the beginning and it is sacred even in its physical sense. I also take issue with Glaser’s claim that Western culture originally viewed marriage from an economical point of view. Just because certain benefits of marriage were recognized, it does not necessarily follow that the intimate purpose of marriage was ignored. Glaser’s concluding point that the man who lost his loved one was not comforted as much as he would have been had his relationship been considered equal to marriage is touching, but unsupportive of his claim. While it is saddening any time a human being experiences loss (and homosexuals are certainly capable of loving one another), “what might have been” is purely speculative and matters of morality must be decided upon fact rather than emotion.

Homosexuality is a difficult topic because love is a difficult, yet wonderful part of human existence that we cannot very well do without. When emotions are considered and evidence of genetic homosexuality is being discussed, the issue becomes especially complicated, and many people do not consider the Bible a valid authority on the matter. Of course, if a religious text is not revered as authoritative in a particular instance, its words will be meaningless to the ones involved in the discussion. In this case, however, Chris Glaser is a member of a Christian church and references the Bible himself. Unfortunately, Glaser’s interpretation of the Bible is incorrect, as he apparently ignores many of the passages that relate specifically to the issue of his interest. His argument as a whole is founded on empty and unsupportive evidence and is unconvincing apart from emotional appeal. I do not dispute in any way the notion that homosexuals are capable of love and commitment to one another to some extent, but I do dispute the strength of the evidence Glaser presents. If he wishes to be convincing in his argument, he is going to have to offer some support that substantiates his claim on a factual and authoritative level.

Submitted to Alicia McCullough, Argument Based Research, March 3, 2008.

Immigration's Silent Victim

2008-05-13T12:30:00.002-05:00

Recently the Charlotte Observer investigated a poultry processing plant based in South Carolina to observe the employee makeup and the risks they were subject to. Throughout the course of the investigation, reporters unsurprisingly noticed that many of the workers were Hispanic. What did appall them, however, was the physical toll the job was taking on the bodies of many of these workers, and how management of the plant appeared to be exploiting the immigration status of the workers, thereby keeping company overhead minimized. One of the personal stories reported by the newspaper told of the difficulties of Karina Zorita, who entered the United States illegally and obtained a job at the plant’s branch in Eastern North Carolina. After about six months at her job, Karina could no longer bear the burning pain in her fingers that resulted from the repetitive motions her job demanded. She had been to see the company nurse, who sent her back to work, and even after she had visited a doctor not employed by her company, Karina’s supervisor denied the lighter duty the doctor prescribed. The pain worsened, causing her to take three weeks off work. When she returned, she was told she was no longer employed; she had missed too much time, regardless of the fact that two of the three weeks she missed were paid. Unemployed, she still is unable to straighten her fingers, cannot grasp even a cup of water, and may lose hand function altogether. She is young, has small children, and hands that “don’t work anymore.” There are many stories similar to Karina’s, and while there are a number of legitimate concerns resulting from seemingly uncontrolled immigration into the United States, an often overlooked and alarming problem is the exposure of the disintegrating state of American employer ethics. Immigration regulation must be reformed, if for no other reason, to help prevent the development of a new subclass of poorly treated human beings.

As in Karina’s case, many Hispanic immigrants send a large portion of their American wages home to their families. Karina was sending $150 dollars per week to her mother, who was caring for Karina’s children. What makes this so astounding is that these workers are employed in low paying jobs, making hourly wages many Americans would never consider. Employers generally pay less money for jobs that require fewer qualifications, jobs that primarily rely on physical labor and a willingness to work. Education often figures heavily into the qualification equation, and because of their education status, many Hispanic immigrants, particularly illegal immigrants, have few employment options outside of those that require physical labor and offer lower pay. They do not often complain about receiving what Americans would consider minimal pay because the pay is still usually greater than it would be in their own countries. Employers are able to take advantage of immigrants’ willingness to work for less money and reduce their own overhead. In fact, due to cultural differences, employers may even feel that they not only save money in payroll, but also get greater production from immigrant labor than they would from Americans who seem to have grown into a culture always demanding more for less. Many employers are more than willing to hire immigrants, even if they are in the United States illegally, in order to keep productivity high and overhead expenses low.

Unfortunately, however, these physical jobs are known to be rather demanding on the body. We may consider, for example, many of the jobs in a poultry plant. In processes of removing bones, shearing, and cutting various poultry parts, employees may make the same repetitive motions some 20,000 times each shift, according to the Charlotte Observer’s report. Recently, Duke University released a study in which 43% of the 300 poultry workers interviewed reported symptoms of musculoskeletal disorders. While these problems may be treated much of the time, they must first be diagnosed. However, the Charlotte Observer reporters found that when employees took their concerns to the attention of their supervisors, they were, in so many words, told to ignore their problems and get back to work. In fact, Doctor Jorge Garcia, who works at a medical practice in South Carolina, told reporters he has seen about 1,000 poultry workers in the past seven years, and is frequently asked by his patients not to tell the plant operators he had been consulted. They are afraid they will lose their jobs. While a response from plant operators should be allowed, it may be perfectly clear why employers at high-risk jobs frown upon employees visiting medical professionals; medical care is expensive. As mentioned above, employers envy demonstrating large positive gaps between production and expenses. Earlier I stated that payroll is the most controllable expense, but perhaps it would be more precise to say employee compensation in general is most controllable. Even if a company has to pay an employee two or three dollars above minimal wage, avoiding medical expenses, especially related to company liability, is a sure way to keep overhead from consuming fiscal profits. This figures in quite easily for employers of illegal immigrants, since employers can refuse medical care by threatening loss of job, or, worse, authority notification and deportation.

If one were to ask a number of American citizens what complications result from illegal immigration, he or she would likely get a varying array of responses, perhaps including lack of jobs for citizens, overcrowded schools, and potential increases in crime. Surely there are news stories and research statistics that qualify these responses, but should we not take notice of what immigration is telling us about ourselves? When someone crosses our boarder and takes up residence illegally, a crime has been committed by that person and he or she should be held accountable. After all, the term “illegal immigration” was so named purposely, and broken laws must be met with consequence in order to retain any meaning. Still, it should not be overlooked that many employers are profiting from this epidemic of crime at the expense of the health of others. Rick Thames, editor of the Charlotte Observer, compared the subclass developing by this situation to that created by slavery in America’s history. While I am not certain that is the best analogy, it does have some legitimate parallels, as people are being taken advantage of in an unacceptable manner. If immigration described the process of some inanimate objects falling from the atmosphere on to American soil, we could very well use immigrants for whatever purpose best suits us. Immigrants are not inanimate objects, though; they are human beings in every way just like American citizens and, while their illegal actions should be met with the appropriate consequences, their human qualities should be met with human consideration. The controversial occurrence of immigration has caused a number of problems and even tragedies in our society, but it has also exposed a problem of long existence within ourselves. That American people could conceivably exploit the poor decisions and disadvantages of other human beings for the sake of the financial bottom line is shameful in every way. Laws may not change the nature of man, but they may minimize the damages done by that nature if they reduce the opportunity. If the United States does not take the necessary steps to control its immigration problem, American citizens may find themselves having gained very temporary success by having passively inflicted very lasting pain.

Submitted to Alicia McCullough, Argument Based Research, February 22, 2008.

The Reliability of the New Testamet Gospels

2008-03-31T12:43:00.005-05:00

Of all of the religious figures who have lived on earth, none has been the subject of controversy as much as Jesus of Nazareth. Throughout the centuries, even back to his own time, people have questioned and argued over who Jesus really was, what he really taught, and how he should be understood. This debate has resurged in the past several decades, especially with the emergence of organizations like the Jesus Seminar and stories like Dan Brown’s The DaVinci Code. Many people find the orthodox understanding of Jesus to be unacceptable, and claim we must distinguish the “Jesus of history” from the “Christ of faith.” In order to overthrow the accepted account of any historical event or figure, one must challenge the historical record. In the case of Jesus, the primary historical record is the collection of the gospels in the New Testament, particularly the first three, Matthew, Mark, and Luke. These three have been targeted by many skeptics who have claimed that the accounts we read in these books developed out of a faith bias on the parts of the authors, and are therefore, unreliable as historical records. However, if all of the evidence is taken into honest consideration, it is apparent that the gospels are reliable historical accounts of Jesus and should be accepted just as orthodox Christianity has held all along.

Recently, I read an article in the November 2007 edition of Decision magazine in which Sean McDowell presented a brief overview of some of the most compelling evidence for the authenticity of the gospels. In the article, McDowell noted that, while most ancient books have fewer than ten extant manuscripts, the New Testament has more than 5,000 partial or whole extant manuscripts in the Greek language alone. In response, some critics claim that there are too many variations among the manuscripts to conclude that we can be certain of obtaining an accurate translation. However, McDowell noted, 80% of the variations are nothing more than spelling errors, and all of the remaining discrepancies are incidental, with absolutely no effect on any foundational Christian teaching. Critics searching for a point of attack on the historical record have apparently embellished the severity of minor variations that are to be expected in dealing with so many hand-copied documents. How many times has a student made a mistake in copying homework questions from a textbook? Academically speaking, a misspelled or misplaced word may be cause for a deduction in grade, but if the central point is not changed by the mistake, a sentence or paragraph will still convey the proper thought. Finding such minor mistakes in such a large volume of different ancient texts should not discredit the reliability of those texts. On the contrary, the fact that there are so many manuscripts that all convey the same basic information should strengthen the consideration for that information’s reliability and accuracy.

Besides the consistency among such a large number of manuscripts, the reliable historicity of the New Testament gospels is further strengthened by evidence that the gospels were written so closely in time to the events they report. While some scholars have tried to support the idea that the gospels were written as late as the second century, there is convincing evidence that they were written much earlier. As McDowell observed, the book of Acts, which even skeptical scholars accept as having the same authorship as the gospel of Luke, records the history of the Christian church as it became established after Jesus left earth. Among the more notable events recorded in Acts are the martyrs’ deaths of Stephen and James. However, Acts does not record any information on the deaths of Paul or Peter, which, according to the article I referred to above, took place between 63 and 66 C.E., although the book does record the works of both Paul and Peter in particular detail. Nor does Acts mention the war between the Romans and the Jews in 66 C.E., or the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. As McDowell mentioned, omitting these events from the historic account of the church would be similar to omitting the events of September 11, 2001 from a historic account of the United States. Based on the significance of these events, it is resonable for us to conclude that the book of Acts was written before the mid-60’s C.E. Since even critics of the New Testament accept that Luke was written before Acts, and generally agree that Matthew and Mark were written before Luke, it is apparent that all three of these gospels were written within 30 years of Jesus’ life, well within the lifetimes of eyewitnesses who would have most certainly confronted any embellishments or mistakes.

Furthermore, given the popularity of Jesus and the influence of his life, it is difficult to imagine that accounts of him could have been erroneously fabricated in such a short period of time.
Even if the gospel writers had waited much longer to write their accounts of the words and actions of Jesus, there is other evidence that indicates they did not change the story, an indication which scholars commonly refer to as the “embarrassment factor.” One thing that we all must admit is that, by nature, we want others to notice our good qualities and overlook our bad. In a lot of cases, this causes many of us to tell lies, skew facts, and exaggerate in order to improve or protect our reputations, even at the expense of others. This may be especially true if we feel our work is of great importance. Considering the costs of following Jesus for the early believers – excommunication from society and family, even brutal death in many cases – the work of the gospel writers was certainly of extreme importance, and the leaders of the beginning church would have been greatly admired. In spite of the opportunity for building prominent status for their own selves, however, the gospel writers included a number of incidences that could have proven quite embarrassing for the church. Some of the incidents McDowell pointed out are Jesus calling Peter “Satan”, the disciples’ failure to understand Jesus’ stories, and Jesus scolding the disciples for their lack of faith. At other times, the disciples were unable to perform miracles Jesus had already empowered them to perform, displayed their own selfish ambition by arguing among themselves over who was greater, two of them who were brothers had their mother ask Jesus to give them places of honor in the afterlife, and, perhaps most familiar of all, Peter denied even knowing Jesus during his “moment of truth.” Historians often consider this “embarrassment factor” when judging the validity of a historical record, and by this standard the New Testament gospels fair extremely well, again indicating that the writers sought to portray the truth as it was, not as their pride may have wanted it to be.

While there are many more things to be considered and studied by scholars, these three criteria alone indicate that the New Testament gospels are accurate historical records of Jesus’ life. Still, critics continue to posit skeptical ideas about how the gospels were produced and in what ways the story of Jesus was changed to develop the religious figure we speak of today. In the very face of evidence, these theorizers develop their own compilations of the Bible books to include erroneous documents such as the late-written “Gnostic Gospels” and the purely hypothetical, non-extant “Q Document”, claiming that the orthodox Jesus is not the same Jesus who walked the lands in and around Jerusalem. There are no historical documents that contradict the biblical accounts, yet we are told we must distinguish the “Jesus of history” from the “Christ of faith.” Should we not trust the sources of information we do have, rather than draw conclusions based on sources that are proven inferior or do not even exist? The historicity of the New Testament gospels is strongly supported by all of the evidence we have in existence and should be trusted as such. Otherwise we will be making up our own ideas of Jesus, which will reflect our own subjective thoughts and imaginations, most certain to be void of historical facts.

Presented to Alicia McCullough, Argument Based Research, January 28, 2008

Jesus On His Own Suffering

2007-12-17T00:04:00.000-05:00

A little less than two years ago, I was on a plane and struck up a conversation with the lady sitting next to me. Interestingly, she had taken part in inventing some type of baby product that Angelina Jolie wanted to endorse and was on her way to meet with Angelina's people to work on putting the deal together. I was not so interestingly on my way back home from a conference, but decided I could make the "about me" part of the conversation more interesting by turning the subject to religion. I used some kind of open-ended question to get on topic, probably asking her what religion she belonged to or what kind of church she attended. Catholic, I think, was the answer, but when I pushed a little further, I got the "all roads lead to heaven" answer that is terribly popular.

I've talked with people before who have expressed this belief, and my favorite thing to do at this point is bring Jesus into the picture. After all, of the many roads that lead to God, Jesus is certainly a big (perhaps the biggest) one of them all. Given the amount of suffering he endured, however, there must be some misunderstanding somewhere. If there are multiple ways, or even just one other way to God, doesn't it seem foolish for Jesus to have agreed to such merciless beating? If I were Jesus, I would have to have backed out at that point in the negotiations. Pass that one off to Muhammad or Buddha. Or, better yet, let the ever popular Mr.-Do-Enough-Good-Works assume the suffering role. He's fictional, anyway - wouldn't even feel the pain! So, I asked her, if there are multiple ways to God, why Jesus went through all of the beating and crucifixion. Her answer surprised me a little. She told me the reason for Jesus' suffering was to encourage us and help us through our own suffering. Whatever we have to face in life - cancer or whatever - we could get through it because Jesus endured the cross.

I agree there is some truth in her statement. Isaiah told us long in advance that Jesus' wounds would be for our healing, and even the writer of Hebrews encouraged his readers to remain strong in their stance against sin by remembering their suffering had been far less than that endured by Christ. I guess this interpretation of the Passion could be rationalized if only considered in the context of our own minds. Each major player in world religions could teach us something about a particular aspect of our lives. The problem is, we cannot be content to leave our interpretations of anything to the context of our own minds. We must consider all of what we as human beings have collectively rather than what we as individuals have happened across ourselves. Since we have records of what Jesus said, not only of what he did or was done to him, it makes sense that we should consider what he said regarding his suffering.

While a lot of the New Testament tells us why Jesus suffered, I want to notice particularly how Jesus viewed his suffering, even in advance. In Mark 14:27, Jesus, quoting Old Testament prophesy, tells us exactly what he thought of the Passion. "God will strike the Shepherd..." (NLT). Before the first punch was thrown, before the first stripe was laid, before the first nail was driven, Jesus said he would be stricken by God. This leads me to think of the severity of what Jesus endured. Jesus knew he was to not simply pay for sin, but feel and experience the totality of the punishment God's righteousness demanded. God would drop the hammer on Jesus himself. Jesus viewed his death as nothing less than his being smitten by the hand of God. How, then, should we consider the cross?

This seems much more to me than being an provision of encouragement during difficulties, especially if we consider the nature of God being inclined toward the oppressed and downtrodden. How many times in Scripture do we read of God's heart tuned to the oppressed? Time after time in the Bible God assures us that he hears our cries and is with the hurting. (One of my favorites is the story of Sarah's maid Hagar and Hagar's son Ishmael in Genesis 21). It would seem overly rude and heartless for God to plan such chastisement for Jesus just to say again what he had already said. For God to "strike the Shepherd", he must have had more in mind.

I won't take time now to write all of my musings on what all Jesus must have endured, but I will say it must have been much more than we generally think. After all, Jesus, knowing he would rise again from the dead, still considered his Passion dreadful enough to pray for another way. Given his Deity, the fact that he himself was God, how terrible the suffering must have been for him to desire a deviation from the master plan. In any case, he knew he was doing much more than setting an example of endurance alone. In feeling and experiencing the full weight of judgment sin demanded, "...he was pierced for our rebellion, crushed for our sins." (Isaiah 53:5, NLT)

Analysis of Romans 2:25-29, presented for Introduction to New Testament

2007-12-04T18:47:00.000-05:00

Throughout Christianity’s history, The Apostle Paul has arguably been one of the most highly esteemed founding fathers of the Church. As currently divided in the New Testament, 13 books are generally attributed to him. Of these writings, the letter to the Romans, written about 57CE, has been one of the most important in many circles of Christianity, often used as an authoritative source for explaining foundational Christian doctrines. Christendom has frequently argued within itself concerning the relation between the Mosaic Law of the Old Testament and the “free grace” law of the New Testament, a heated debate to which the letter to the Romans speaks.

An important aspect of this conflict to the early Church was the matter of circumcision. According to the Jewish Scriptures (Genesis 17:10 and following), circumcision was the primary sign of the covenant God made with Abraham, promising Abraham would be the father of God’s own nation. In this covenant agreement was also included that every male of Abraham’s line would be circumcised, and the more formal law given later to the Israelites at the time of their exodus from Egypt even stipulated that any outsider who wished to join the Israeli nation, particularly in observance of the Passover celebration, must be circumcised (Exodus 12:48-49). With the new Christian belief system claiming such deep roots in Judaism, many Jewish believers undoubtedly felt the outsiders (Gentiles) coming in should have been required to fall in line with the law that distinguished Judaism from other religions.

While it is uncertain how many Jewish believers were in the church compared to the number of Gentile converts, the church in Rome was certainly not exempt from the conflict. According to F. F. Bruce, former Rylands Professor of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis at the University of Manchester, England, the Christian belief of the church may have been influenced by Jews who were present to hear Peter’s message on the Day of Pentecost recorded in Acts 2 (Acts 2:10), and a Jewish community had already been established in Rome by the second century BCE (Bruce, p15-16). On the other hand, Bruce notes, Marcion’s own canon, which Marcion compiled in the second century CE, included an introduction to the letter to Romans which claimed the church had been visited by “false apostles” who had convinced the Roman church to submit to “the authority of the law and prophets…” and that Paul’s letter “call[ed] them back to the true faith of the Gospel…” (Bruce, p22). In any case, it is generally believed the church in Rome was indeed in conflict regarding the matter and that Paul’s letter provided an authoritative opinion.

It is also possible, however, that the church may not have been in conflict and that Paul’s letter to the church was written more for an alliance-building purpose. In his commentary on Romans, Bruce speculates that Paul, although a born citizen of Rome, had never been there and longed to visit. Once Paul decided to further his missionary work by going into Spain, he knew his path would take him through Rome (Romans 15:23-24), and may have hoped to establish a base in Rome from which to conduct his venture into Spain (Bruce, p14). In this case, the detail in Paul’s letter may have been to establish his acceptance among the church there. Regardless of Paul’s reasons for writing, however, the Christian Church as a whole certainly would endure heated collisions of opinions in the matter of whether every believer should be required to undergo circumcision – a debate into which the following words of Paul in Romans 2:25-29 weigh heavily:

Circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law; but if you break the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. So, if those who are uncircumcised keep the requirements of the law, will not their uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? Then those who are physically uncircumcised but keep the law will condemn you that have the written code and circumcision but break the law. For a person is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is true circumcision something external and physical. Rather, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart—it is spiritual and not literal. Such a person receives praise not from others but from God. (NRSV).

Though the letter to the Romans was probably not the first letter composed by Paul, it is found first in the New Testament, perhaps because it so formally sets forth a salvation based on faith through the righteousness of Christ. By the time Paul records his position on circumcision, he has already stated his assurance that the “gospel… is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith…” (1:16, NRSV). He then goes on to expound the need for God’s salvation of all people, as the Gentile has been condemned because of his willful ignorance of God’s desire (1:18-23), the moralist has been condemned because his sin is still judged regardless of his accusation of others (2:1-16), and the Jew has been condemned because of his inability keep the law of God (2:17-29) (Ryrie Study Bible, Introduction to Romans). It is in his case for the condemnation of the Jew Paul tackles the issue of circumcision before explaining how the “righteousness of God is revealed” (1:17, NRSV) and applied in the believer’s life.

The words of Paul regarding circumcision in chapter 2, verses 25-29, may be considered more of an example than a main point. In the preceding verses, Paul directs a number of questions toward the Jewish portion of his audience, causing them to look at their lives in relation to the law they are so proud of possessing. After pointed references to theft, adultery, and idolatry, Paul culminates his questioning by asking, “You that boast in the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law?” (2:23, NRSV). Thus, Paul’s following use of the practice of circumcision gets to the heart of what may be the Jews’ objection to their own need for individual salvation along with the Gentiles.

In the first volume of his commentary The Book of Romans, Dr. Robert Picirilli states that Jews were not only proud of having been the recipients of the Mosaic Law, but were also proud of the practice of circumcision, which symbolized their place in the covenant between God and Abraham (Picirilli, p37). In verse 25, Paul concedes that circumcision may be a valuable practice, but only if the law is kept. According to Picirilli, “only if the law is kept”, in the original Greek, means a continual action of keeping – as if every second of every day carried an obligation for the circumcised Jew to continue in an unfailing observance of Torah practice (Picirilli, p37). The New American Standard Bible may convey this idea more evidently by translating “For indeed circumcision is of value if you practice the Law” (emphasis added). Bruce seems to maintain this view, writing “Circumcision… carries with it the obligation to keep all the rest of the law…” (Bruce, p89).

Negatively, however, if it is keeping the law that gives genuine value to circumcision, breaking the law would devalue circumcision, making it as if the circumcision had never taken place. In Paul’s words, “…if you break the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision.” (2:25, NRSV). The Authorized King James Version (KJV) renders this part of the passage “…if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision” (emphasis added). Commenting on this translation, Picirilli notes the negative action is put in the noun form “breaker”, which, according to Picirilli, is Paul’s method of identifying the circumcised Jew as a breaker of the law (Picirilli, p37). Similarly, the New American Standard Bible translates “if you are a transgressor of the Law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision” (emphasis added). Following Paul’s logic, if one is a breaker or transgressor of the law, he may as well be an uncircumcised person altogether. If the Jewish audience were offended by this logic of Paul, Bruce notes Paul’s conclusion is well founded in the Jewish Scriptures. “The days are surely coming, says the Lord, when I will attend to all those who are circumcised only in the foreskin: Egypt, Judah, Edom, the Ammonites, Moab… For all these nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel is uncircumcised in heart.” (Jeremiah 9:25-26, NRSV) (Bruce, p89). If other nations practiced circumcision but were rejected by God because of their persistent disobedience to the law, why should a disobedient Jew be considered differently based on his own circumcision?

If it has been established, then, that the ritual of circumcision is void of meaning apart from submission to the law, it follows that keeping of the whole law is the real necessity. This continual observance of the law is more a point of character – a state of being or continual action of the person – than a one time ritual that happens to a person. Deuteronomy 10:12-16 explains, “So now, O Israel, what does the Lord your God require of you? Only to fear the Lord your God, to walk in all his ways, to love him, to serve the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, and to keep the commandments of the Lord your God and his decrees that I am commanding you today… Circumcise, then, the foreskin of your heart, and do not be stubborn any longer.” (NRSV, emphasis added. Since it is circumcision of the heart, so to speak, that is ultimately required by God, Paul argues those who keep the law, though not circumcised, will be considered as having been circumcised physically, and the right living of the uncircumcised will bring to light the failure of the circumcised (Romans 2:26-27). While the NRSV uses the word “condemn”, reading “those who are physically uncircumcised but keep the law will condemn you…” (verse 27, emphasis added), the NASB and the KJV both render the word “judge”, which seems to indicate more clearly that the testimony of the obedient uncircumcised would be used to show the delinquency of the disobedient circumcised. The stronger word used in the NRSV may be misconstrued to communicate that the actual uncircumcised people themselves would be issuing a negative judgment. In any case, Picirilli calls this “equal opportunity for the uncircumcised.” It is the “logical ‘other side of the coin’ to verse 25”, Picirilli writes, that “if circumcision for a (Jewish) law-breaker is counted as uncircumcision, then uncircumcision for a (Gentile) law-keeper is counted as circumcision.” (Picirilli, p38). In essence, Paul is putting all people on the same plain here. As he would write a little further in chapter 10, verse 12, “…there is no distinction between Jew and Greek…” While the words in chapter 10 are within Paul’s explanation of the solution to mankind’s need for redemption, he is making the same point in chapter 2, that God has no more respect for the disobedient Jew than for any other person.

In verse 28, Paul takes his argument a step further by claiming invalid one other point of Jewish confidence – lineage. By saying “a person is not a Jew who is one outwardly,” Paul implies that a racial Jew may not necessarily be considered a Jew in the sense of God’s intended meaning of the word (Picirilli, p39). If a Jew could not be proud of his circumcision or the law he has broken, surely he could still be proud of being a Jew. After all, his race was a matter of birth – something we now know as genetics – and no one could possibly take that away. However, Paul seems to be reminding his readers that God’s promise to Abraham was that the Jewish nation would be God’s own nation defined by the people’s adoration of and devotion to God, an expectation that seems evident in the first of the Ten Commandments, as well as other messages by the Prophets. Therefore, Paul reasons, a real Jew (God’s person) is one who chooses to belong to God, rather than one who is born into the classification without any choice. No, a true Jew is not such because of race, nor is true circumcision such because of a physical ritual. “Rather,” Paul states in verse 29, “a person is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart – it is spiritual and not literal.” (NRSV). In the NASB rendering of verse 29, Paul is quoted as saying more than circumcision is spiritual rather than physical. By translating “circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter…” (emphasis added), the NASB indicates Paul is teaching that inward circumcision is performed specifically by God. If this is compared with Picirilli and Bruce’s agreeing observations of verse 25, that circumcision requires a continual keeping of the law, it may be concluded that Paul is saying, while the self-righteousness of outward circumcision is necessarily a continual, uninterrupted act, God’s inward circumcision is a one time change, facilitated by the Holy Spirit, making the person permanently righteous regardless of the potential imperfection of law-keeping. Though the King James Version does not make the same inference as the NASB, working with the KJV, famed commentator Matthew Henry draws a concurrent conclusion (Henry, p380). Also commenting on the KJV, however, Picirilli notes this part of the passage implies the difference between keeping the “spirit” (intended meaning) of the directive and the “letter” (literal definition) (Picirilli, p40).

Since real Jewish classification and circumcision are intended by God to be more internal than external, more a matter of character than appearance, Paul concludes that the internally circumcised Jew, regardless of outer circumcision or racial heritage, is the person who is not only accepted by God, but receives praise from God (verse 29). By distinctively claiming God’s “praise” of those who follow the law from the inside out, Bruce notes that Paul is again alluding to Jewish heritage. The Hebrew word for the verb “praise” is associated in its original language with the name Judah, the name of the ancestor of the Jewish people from which the word “Jew” was derived (Bruce, p89-90). It seems that Paul is, for one last emphatic time, using Jewish heritage to be sure his readers understand clearly that neither God’s judgment nor his approval is racially based, but is solely based on state of heart. God takes seriously those who take him seriously in all of the matter, not only in the matters of single event such as race or physical circumcision.

Summarily, Romans 2:25-29 is Paul’s attempt to direct the attention of his Jewish audience away from their own claims to righteousness and back toward what were perhaps conveniently forgotten revelations of God’s focused desire – the desire that his people’s national identification stem from the inward matters of cognition and volition, rather than from outer matters of race and circumcision. Paul wants his readers to recognize the equal importance of all of the law of God rather than only the easier-to-keep outer parts, ultimately (as his letter goes on) to lead them to realization of their own depravity and need for redemption, as keeping of the entire law is practically impossible. The important thing, Paul argues, is not what is done to a person, but what is done by a person – not what rituals a person performs, but what instruction one obeys. In fact, one might conclude, outward, ritualistic obedience without inward obedience is worse than inward, heart-felt obedience void of an outward appearance of obedience because the former is not only empty but deceptive, representing on the package something that is not contained within. False advertising it may be likened to – a deception even modern western laws view unfavorably. In what some may consider commentary, others translation of Scripture, Eugene Peterson’s The Message paraphrase of the Bible renders Paul’s arguments in the following:

Circumcision, the surgical ritual that marks you as a Jew, is great if you live in accord with God's law. But if you don't, it's worse than not being circumcised. The reverse is also true: The uncircumcised who keep God's ways are as good as the circumcised—in fact, better. Better to keep God's law uncircumcised than break it circumcised. Don't you see: It's not the cut of a knife that makes a Jew. You become a Jew by who you are. It's the mark of God on your heart, not of a knife on your skin, that makes a Jew. And recognition comes from God, not legalistic critics.

While some differences may be found among the New Revised Standard Version, the New American Standard Bible, and the King James Version, those differences appear more by way of emphasis and, perhaps, allusion to further doctrine. None of the differences seem to alter in any way what specifically Paul wished to do with his comments on circumcision, which was to divert his Jewish readers’ attention away from their own “righteousness”, which Paul demonstrated as terribly delinquent of true righteousness, and direct their attention toward the apparent necessity for a redemption of their own disobedience, which must come from some source other than their selves. As Paul would continue in his letter to logically make evident permanent salvation through faith in Jesus (chapter 10 and following), it was necessary that his readers realized and admitted their own depravity and not fall into the grace-defying attitude of rejecting the message due to their own empty righteousness of race and ritualistic circumcision. This overall point appears quite similar to Jesus’ words to his Pharisee critics who complained over his association with “tax collectors and sinners.” Apparently alluding to the self-righteous pride of that religious group, Jesus said, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick” (Matthew 9:12, NRSV). As is obvious from numerous confrontations between the Pharisees and Jesus, Jesus was not approving of the Pharisees’ self-perceived perfection, but was reminding them only those who admit an illness will seek and receive the help of a doctor. Thus, because of the importance of the message Paul was preaching, he sought to decimate every argument that would lend itself to a rejection of the message due to a reliance on inadequate human means of redemption. Matthew Henry summarized nicely, “…he is no more a Christian now, than he was really a Jew of old, who is only one outwardly… but he is the real Christian, who is inwardly a true believer, with an obedient faith.” Romans 2:25-29 is, therefore, only a small portion of a systematic argument to reveal the impossibility of human salvation apart from a substitutive grace that would meet all of the imperishable requirement of a perfect God on behalf of hopelessly deprived mankind.

WORKS CITED / BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bruce, F. F. Romans, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. 2nd. Ed., Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1985.

Henry, Matthew. Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible, New York: Fleming H. Revell Company.

Picirilli, Robert. The Book of Romans, volume 1, Tennessee: Randall House Publications, 1973.

Ryrie, Charles Caldwell. “Outline of Romans”, Ryrie Study Bible, Illinois: Moody Bible Institute, 1994.

(Report Submitted November 13, 2007)

2007-09-11T23:13:00.000-05:00

It's a little after midnight, Shannon and Jayden are asleep, and I don't have any seriously pressing homework due tomorrow. I guess that means I have some free time on my hands, since I'm a good 45 minutes away from my typical bed time. I've got so much I want to get out, but don't know where to start. Even if I did know where to start, I wouldn't have time to get very far. Still, I do have a little free time and want to post something.

I have five classes this semester, including American Government, Intro to Ethics, and New Testament Survey. Just as I managed to do with history last semester, I underestimated the extent of thought-provoking information that would be covered in American Government, so, once again, I find my brain seemingly overloaded. It's funny that, no matter what the class, previously held ideas of mine are questioned constantly. Now, this is not always a negative thing. In a number of ways I find where I may be imposing my own reason over the words of Jesus, putting words in His mouth that He really didn't say. On the other hand, however, I am realizing very clearly that the war between wrong and right is thicker and heavier than we tend to consider. By the way, Biblical Christianity is more on the defensive side of the ball than we like to think, too.

Now, I understand that by going to a secular school I freely put myself in the middle of it, and had I continued my education under more conservative instruction my mind would be more at ease. I didn't think that was the way God wanted me to go, though, and still don't. Even though I am facing challenges and criticisms quicker than I can turn my head, I am certain God is working in all of it to get me where He wants me to be. In the mean time, He has helped me understand the value of faith.

The analogy of the armor of God in Ephesians is very popular among Christians. There has been an innumerable amount of discussion and preaching on the matter, and we have been given a lot of different perspectives on application. Lately, though, the shield of faith has been of particular interest to me.

It's simple, really, so I won't try to drag it out. As I mentioned before, nearly every day I find myself in the middle of the ongoing attack against Biblical Christianity. I've learned a lot by way of defense of my belief, and in plenty of cases the absurdity of the ungodly claims are too simply clear. There are other cases, though, where the answers aren't so clear, and the arguments against Christianity seem to have some validity.

So what do we do in those cases? The shield of faith. Satan's attacks against the truth of God have been called "fiery darts." I like to imagine an antagonist realizing arrows are dangerous, but lighting them on fire causes a rush of destruction before the attacked can even think about what to do. Satan likes these kinds of arrows: "blow them away before they can even realize it." Now I like to consider the words, "take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one." (Ephesians 6:16 NIV). Extinguish the fire, eliminate the "shock and awe" of the attack, give yourself some time - time to think, read, study, consider, seek the perspectives of others, weigh the evidence, and, most of all, PRAY. After all, why would you storm out on Someone with whom you've had a relationship at the heated accusation of some unrelated third party? And don't let the third party accuse you of ignoring reason to side with faith. That's what the attacker wants you to do! He wants you to trust his "reasoning" before taking time to consider the whole of the issue.

As I've stated before, I believe there is an acceptable answer to every criticism of true faith in Christ. Sometimes it takes faith - the shield of faith - to make possible the search.

2007-07-25T19:42:00.000-05:00

Wow! More than two months since my last post. My lack of posting ceartainly hasn't been due to "blogger's block." I think it has to do more with "schedule block." Or, maybe it's sleep deprivation. I guess I'll eventually get used to the five hours of sleep per night routine. I'm really not joking at all when I tell people I go to school in the morning, work in the evening, and, if I have any spare time, I sleep. I've taken more 30 minute naps in the past six weeks than the past six years or more. Anyway...

As I had mentioned before, I have a World Civilization class this semester. It's a concentrated course crammed into five weeks of two-hour classes four days a week beginning at 8:00am. I find history interesting, but it's never been my favorite subject, so I knew going in it would have its mundane frustrations. What I did not expect, however, was the challenges that would so strongly antagonize my faith. I thought that battle would be fought in philosophy. I was definitely caught by surprise.

My course is being taught by a historical relativist - something I didn't know existed. As it turns out, he believes history is written by the winners and is always subject to interpretation. It cannot be certainly known, only interpreted under the bias of the teachers. The what and when may be reliable, but the teacher also has to impose the how and why, which leaves plenty room for error. And err he does. Especially when history intersects with Christianity.

Since the first day of class, I've been keeping a running log of things he asserts as factual that undermine Christianity. (I think I'm up to 16 or so, some of them with multiple parts). The comments that really get me are the ones in which he tried to assert that Judaism has its roots in ancient Egyptian religions. First he told us that the Egyptians believed in a male god and female god who procreated baby god, which was the origin of the belief of the Trinity like Christians believe. Then he told us the pharaohs claimed to be the sons of god, a concept Christians later borrowed to apply to Jesus. After that, it was a mythical story of two male gods and a female god who were all brother and sister. One of the male gods (Seth) became jealous of his brother Osiris because of his closeness to their sister Isis, so he killed his brother. This is supposedly the "first version" of Cain and Abel. The sad thing is, people in my class were amazed to find this out! Please! Can no one see how far apart all of these are from the Bible? To repeat the words I did tell my teacher in the middle of class, the similarities are the "size of a knat, and the differences are the size of a camel!" A really big, hairy, 50 hump camel!

Of course, the real kicker is his adamant assertion that the Hebrews stole their monotheism idea from the Egyptians. The funny thing is, since there aren't any known Egyptian records of the Hebrews, my teacher relied on the Bible to assure us of their presence there. Then he used the Biblical story of the golden calf to "prove" to us the Hebrews were polytheists first. The problem is, he refused to rely on another key part of the Bible - the part that indicates the forefathers of the Hebrews, namely Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, were monotheists themselves. They may have been influenced first by the surrounding polytheistic cultures earlier on (Abraham, anyway), but certainly before the Hebrews were an established nation God had revealed Himself as "The God..." or "The Lord..," and the New Testament book of Hebrews tells us specifically that Abraham believed and was made right with God because of his belief!

During a break, I brought this to my teacher's attention, and we got into a conversation with another teacher, who happens to be my philosophy professor and a Christian. Well, my history teacher talked his way around my point, then walked his way out of the conversation and back to his subjective classroom. I was left with my philosophy teacher, who finally understood my point that if we rely on the Bible for one bit of historical information, we should at least be willing to consider everything the Bible says in relation to the topic at hand. I finished by telling her, "that's all I want - a fair shake, " to which she replied, "I don't think you're going to get that out of [him]."

I have to brag on God, though. I did a lot of praying around those few days, praying directly against those "vain imaginations" that raise themselves "against the knowledge of God." I have to say that since then, try as my teacher may to show the Bible as just another version of every other religion's story, all I keep seeing is God's presence. In fact, a lot of what I see is different accounts of the same events such as the Exodus and the Flood, what appears to be our loving Father trying desperately to reveal Himself to any who seek Him sincerely, and evidence that we are all made in the image of God. I guess John's words really are true. The Light has shined in the darkness, and the darkess cannont apprehend it!

2007-05-21T18:49:00.000-05:00

Finally! I almost thought this day would never get here! The past eight weeks have been emotionally and spiritually volatile to say the least. Now, after what seemed would be a near eternity, school has started and I feel like the journey has officially begun. Not everything has worked out as I had hoped - at least, not yet, anyway. Our house still hasn't sold, and I was only able to enroll in two classes for the summer. Still, it's a relief to finally get started.

Philosophy 215: Philosophical Issues is where I began today. A month from now I'll dive into World Civilizations, but mostly I'm looking forward to ten weeks of learning about and debating some of the issues that have not yet become sciences. Of course, I'm certain we'll spend a good portion of time on God and religion, especially since every current issue covered in the textbook can be answered from the Bible. Unfortunately, though, the Bible will not serve as an answering authority for the class. Apparently, the goal of philosophy, I found out by reading ahead in the text book a month ago when I bought my copy, is "intellectual independence", a.k.a., "enlightenment." If philosophy is to be practiced appropriately and effectively, it must be approached completely apart from any predisposition to beliefs, faiths, or values. If we believe something, we are to arrive at our conclusion because of logic alone.

This is where, as a Christian, things may get a little tricky. See, I believe the Bible is God's complete and perfect word to us, at least in its original form, and that even our modern translations have been completed in trustworthy integrity. What this means is that I believe what it tells me about God, about us, and how we relate. So, when I read David's declaration in Psalm 119, which includes, "I've even become smarter than my teachers since I've pondered and absorbed your counsel. I've become wiser than the wise old sages simply by doing what you tell me." (The Message), I have to believe that is God's nature and He will be the same source of wisdom for anyone who seeks Him just as much as I have to believe the words of John 3:16.

This does not mean that it is pointless to learn the art of philosophizing, though. I believe one of the great hindrances and ultimate flaws of biblical Christianity is the old "just believe the Bible" type of answer. Don't get me wrong. The Bible is to be trusted - or, better, the God of the Bible is to be trusted - before anything else. When it comes to sharing and defending our faith, though, "just trust the Bible" doesn't work in the twenty-first century mind. If we as Christians are going to stop and prevent the turning away trend we continue to see, especially among young people, we have got to be reasonable in our arguments for God. We are all given different gifts and callings to use within the body of Christ, but we all need to be able to legitimately defend our faith to some extent. We have got to stop running away from issues and questions that arise and start speaking to the needs and questions and misconceptions of our culture, which means we have to have some general knowledge of how the Bible speaks to us today. I am confident there are sufficient responses to every question posed of Christianity, even though the scientific method cannot reproduce the phenomenon of salvation.

While this may sound a little uncomfortable, and maybe even foreign to some of us, it is the same message most of us have grown up with Sunday after Sunday - the message of giving our lives to God. This is not about reducing God to some debatable subject. This is about fulfilling the mission of Jesus that has been passed on to us - the ministry of reconciliation (1 Corinthians 15). This is about giving the "reason" for our hope to anyone who ask. This is about truly and wholly bowing down to God as His servants. "Start with God—the first step in learning is bowing down to God; only fools thumb their noses at such wisdom and learning." (Proverbs 1:7, The Message).

That's all I have for now. It's not exactly where I intended to go when I started a few minutes ago, and the ending is a little abrupt, but it feels good to get it out. I have several issues I want to write about and class hasn't even gotten going good yet. Maybe this will be the end of my "blogger's block" anyway.

2007-04-16T19:37:00.000-05:00

Saturday was a fairly interesting day in my newly resumed world of retail. I had an easy shift and went in quite relaxed planning to sell some shoes, clean up and go home. Walking into my work area, I saw a friend of mine looking at some cleats, and thought to go over and talk with him for a while. Headed that way, though, I got recruited to do my job for a particularly hurried, talkative, but nice enough guy looking to buy some shoes that fit just right but didn't take too long to find. I'm not sure how the conversation progressed, but somehow he asked what I was planning to study in school. (He also guessed I was just finishing high school, which made me feel a little better about myself than an almost 28 year old just starting college again should). When I told him I would be studying philosophy and Christian apologetics, I stepped out of my routine day at work and into a short but serious one-sided conversation fueled by my customer's pluralistic view of religion. Turns out he obtained his master's degree in humanistic psychology, which he assumed would make me uncomfortable.

Like I stated, he was in somewhat of a hurry, so he quickly got to the point by telling me that he had been skiing with a guy to whom he mentioned something like, "Wouldn't it be great if God would step out on the top of that mountain and just tell everyone, whether Christian or Jew or Muslim, or whatever that they all worship the same God?" His skiing buddy apparently didn't like the comment, and I, as peaceably as I could, agreed that I had a problem with such philosophy myself. He responded by asking, "Jesus was God manifested in the flesh, right?" I agreed, and then was told that was the same for every other religious leader. At that point, I told him that it falls back on that word he used - "manifested." While I initially agreed with his statement on its face, that word leaves some room for clarification. Jesus was not merely God made known to us, which could limit Him to the same place of esteem held by Mohamed or any other assumed prophet of God. No, Jesus was God, very God Himself. One of the most important statements confirmed (not concocted) by, I believe, the Council of Nicaea is that Jesus was and is very God of God. As C. S. Lewis so eloquently pointed out, Jesus made claims that, if not true, would drop him to the level of a lunatic at best, if not a blatant liar - neither of which would qualify Him as simply a good teacher. At that, my customer found some shoes and the conversation was abruptly concluded.

My debatorial work for the evening did not come to an end, however. Later on, I found myself in a heated, though friendly, one-hour conversation with two of my manager friends that covered everything from Hillary Clinton and Ann Coulter to Jesse Jackson and Imus; evolution and creation to the Discovery Channel and eccentric evangelists. The short of it is this conversation also, I later realized, really came down to who one believes Jesus to be. In fact, it seems like this really is the bottom line in every debate of this type.

In Jesus' conversation with Nicodemus in John 3, He states, "I speak only of what I know by experience; I give witness only to what I have seen with my own eyes. There is nothing secondhand here, no hearsay. Yet instead of facing the evidence and accepting it, you procrastinate with questions. If I tell you things that are plain as the hand before your face and you don't believe me, what use is there in telling you of things you can't see, the things of God?" (verses 10-12, The Message). The things Jesus was talking about were things about Himself; things about who He was. Like the religious leaders constantly questioning Him, people today who do not accept Jesus for who He is will not be able to understand the rest of life's questions. Too many times we get into pointless situations trying to explain some moral code or theological belief to people who don't believe there is a God to begin with. Like Nicodemus, we have to start with the evidence in front of us. The closest we have ever physically come to God is Jesus the Christ. Unfortunately, the more distant His existence falls into history, the less people consider who He really was on this earth. I suppose this is why there is such an onslaught of concocted evidence against His lifestyle and resurrection. If He can be reduced to a sexual man who got married, had kids, and died, then the quest for ultimate truth, if it even exist, can take us anywhere and everywhere we want, whether to a Christian church, a Muslim mosque, an orthodox synagogue, an eastern mystic, or a combination of any and all. We can just walk into the world religion cafe and grab whatever catches our eye off the smorgasbord.

We as Christians, then, have to remember to keep our conversations focused on the evidence. This is the job of Christian apologetics, the reasonable logic behind faith in Christ. Unless people realize who Christ is, their religious views are pointless. And it's not enough to say, "Just believe the Bible." Why should someone believe the Bible when it could be just a bunch of stories thrown together by powerful people wanting to hide the truth? Thankfully, we have a supernatural power behind us in this venture of changing people's minds about a historical figure two thousand years in the past. The Holy Spirit really is the true evangelist. Without Him no one would ever come to Christ, including those of us who already have. I pray we will learn the valid arguments our faith rest on, keep our focus where it belongs, and be people controlled by God's Spirit so that He can work through us to open eyes to the truth of life.

2007-04-10T17:57:00.000-05:00

Probably six or seven years ago, not long after the death of Rich Mullins, my mom bought for me a copy of his biography, An Arrow Pointing to Heaven, which, I believe, was written by Brendan Manning. In the book, the author didn't elaborate, but made mention that Rich Mullins had recently converted or was in the process of converting to Catholicism shortly before his death. I was a little surprised at this, and also remembered hearing that Michael Card, who became a Christian during the Jesus Movement, became a part of a monastery almost immediately after turning to faith in Christ. Although my dad always taught me that salvation is based on each individual's decision for Christ rather than his or her church affiliation, I grew up well aware of the cult brand placed on the Catholic Church by most protestants. This post isn't really about Catholicism, but I do want to write down some of my thoughts as I've recently found myself rethinking Protestantism's nearly condemning stance against the liturgical methods that have defined the catholic faith. Before I get grilled like a $2 steak for being inclusive of all religions - which I am not! - let me explain.

I understand perfectly well the problematic beliefs from which Martin Luther revolted, and being as protestant as the next guy, greatly appreciate what he and his fellow Christians accomplished. (If you haven't seen the movie Luther, go to the movie store and rent a copy)! However, I think some of the practices we have written off as pointless acts of religion have been unfairly labeled and should be given more consideration as legitimate elements of faith - sort of. I'm not extremely well versed in my understanding of the historical practices, and probably couldn't name more than a couple. I do, though, know the stigma placed upon them, and think, while many of the practices may be outdated and irrelevant to our generation, we should think more carefully about the purposes behind the practices and be careful not to loose focus of the goal they were designed to lead us to.

I guess what I'm trying to get at is that, just as we protestants have accused Catholicism of being a religion based on actions rather than an ongoing relationship with Jesus, we have made Protestantism the same. The problem with the liturgical practices is that they became the important things themselves rather than the paths to get to the important things. (Again, I'm speaking of the practices themselves, not the deliberate corruption of the practices to get money and sex, etc.). I am afraid protestants have done the same. Liturgical practices were not originally intended to become items on a religions checklist, but rather methods of teaching their practitioners to identify with Christ and helping them follow through. They were designed to help new believers learn to separate themselves from the predominant culture, passionately share in the lives of other followers, and give of themselves on behalf of Christ, just as He gave of Himself for us. Whether we realize it or not, these are goals of protestant practices such as general standards of morality, small groups, Sunday schools, accountability groups, and mission trips. However, while these practices may seem more modern and relevant, they are often just as easily demoted to religious acts rather than methods that identify us with Christ.

Regardless how fresh and new a practice may seem, when it becomes the end itself instead of the means to a greater end, it becomes relatively pointless. Our ultimate call as Christians is not to attend worship, participate in a small group, or occasion a trip to build a house. Our call is to loose ourselves in Christ, and what we do should be done to help us get there, not to make us feel good about what we have accomplished. In other words, Protestantism is no better than Catholicism if its practices become ends rather than means to the end. We are fond of saying that Christianity is not religion but a relationship, but we need to understand that it is only a relationship when we relate ourselves to Christ. If I find myself aware of God's presence and in communion with Him by meditating quietly in a cathedral filled with candles, that is just what I should do. Human practices, though well-intended, are still human, and there will be humans who disagree. Still, if the purpose and motives are acceptable to God, His Spirit will bring results regardless of how ill-conceived the practices may seem to others.

I realize this is perhaps too large a topic for a blog, and may be discussed and debated to great extent, so let me conclude by trying to state my point in one statement. No matter how protestant or emergent or cutting edge or relation-based we claim to be, for our faith to be legitimate and effective, we must be sure that everything we do is motivated by a desire to be identified with Christ and nothing more or less. Let everything we do be done that we may know and experience the life-altering power of his resurrection, seeking not to make Christ a part of our lives, but to make our lives a part of Christ.

2007-03-29T13:46:00.000-05:00

If you put your arms around me, could it change the way I feel?

I guess I let myself believe that the outside might just bleed it's way in.

Maybe stir the sleeping past lying under glass,

Waiting for the kiss that breaks this awful spell.

Pull me out of this lonely cell.

Close my eyes and hold my heart.

Cover me and make me something.

Change this something normal into something beautiful.

What I get from my reflection isn't what I thought I'd see.

Give me reason to believe you'd never keep me incomplete.

Will you untie this loss of mine? It easily defines me.

Do you see it on my face, That all I can think about is how long

I've been waiting to feel you move me?

Close my eyes and hold my heart.

Cover me and make me something.

Change this something normal into something beautiful.

And I'm still fighting for the world to break these chains.

And I still pray when I look in your eyes,

You stare right back down into something beautiful.

Close my eyes and hold my heart.

Cover me and make me something.

Change this something normal into something beautiful.

(Something Beautiful - Jars of Clay)

2007-03-28T12:54:00.000-05:00

Today is my last Wednesday as a youth pastor. I'm excited because I'm getting closer to a new path in life, but also because we're having a cookout with the students tonight, meaning I get to eat a bunch of hot dogs and go toe-to-toe in an over-sized inflatable boxing ring. I'm looking forward to just hanging out with some kids I've gotten close to over the past year and eight months.

If I were to go through trying to name all the students I've had contact with and tell what I've seen in their lives, I wouldn't have time to write it all, no one would want to read it all, and I would probably leave too much out. There is a handful, though, in whose lives I've seen God's hand obviously at work, and I'm humbled to know that I have had at least a small part in it all.

There is one student I think about often. A little more than a year ago, I asked this student to consider taking part in a mission experience, confident God was leading particularly in this way. The problem was, the money wasn't there. I encouraged this student and prayed very specifically that God would provide the way, which He did. While I could point out plenty of negative about this student, that trip seemed to be a turning point and a hunger for God seems to be slowly taking over in her life.

There's another one I've become close to who amazes me with his faith. He prays often, and genuinely trusts God in every situation, even the situations that seem most trivial to us adults who are "too mature" to pray for the little things. It's almost as if this student's life is unimaginably simple. Even though I know for a fact that this student is facing challenges I hope I don't ever have to deal with, he seems so content and peaceful. For some reason, the majority of people I know, myself included, think that life is supposed to be far more complicated than this student lets on. I don't think it's because he is young, either. I think he has just caught on to the concept of faith better than the rest of us.

I could go on and on about students who have come out of their shells; students I've become friends with. One day recently, I was talking to a student who referred to himself as my best friend, saying it in such a way that I don't think even he realized his choice of words. How he meant it is beside the point. The fact is he identified himself in a friendship with me, for which I am grateful. It's amazing that a 13 or 14 year old would actually care whether or not I have any interest in his life.

When I started writing this post a few minutes ago, this is not the place I intended to end. My thoughts were originally headed in a completely different direction, but I'm thankful for the memories I've received over a relatively short period of time. While this place has been a brief stretch of road on the long journey that is the path to God's best for my life, I'm reminded by memories like these of the words in 1 Corinthians 15:58: Throw yourselves into the work of the Master, confident that nothing you do for him is a waste of time or effort. (The Message).

2007-03-18T17:19:00.000-05:00

This morning, I announced to the congregation my resignation from student ministry. I have to admit that for some time I have been a bit preoccupied with dreams of different sorts relating to my near and distant future. I have been somewhat surprised with the feelings of freedom and relief I have experienced as I have progressed through each level of announcing my desires and plans. When I first shared my decisions with Pastor Raymond a couple months ago, I felt hope and excitement, but even more liberated a couple weeks later when we passed the information to the rest of the staff. A couple more weeks went by before it was time to inform the youth ministry leaders, and still more time before announcing to the students first, and finally, the rest of the church. As nervous as I became with each appointment, I have noticed a steady increase in freedom and confidence within myself. Feelings change from day to day, but, even with all the still unanswered questions, I am generally tamed by a peaceful relaxation in knowing I am moving in God's direction. At the same time, I believe this is the biggest challenge I have ever faced in my life.

While I know I am relatively young, I am no stranger to pain. Most recently, both of my living grandparents, with each of whom I was relatively close, passed away within 15 days of one another. I was in my grandfather's room talking to him while he was completely unresponsive just a couple hours before he died - little more than 2 weeks after having stood in the emergency room literally watching my grandmother leave this life. When I was 12 years old, I went to school one morning, greeted by the news that one of my closest friends, Jason Alligood, had taken his own life the night before. I've moved hours away from family and friends of my teenage years, struggled through personal ups and downs within my own family, and even been betrayed thoughtlessly by those I thought were closest to me. I know many others have dealt with these issues and more, and I don't mean to belittle your pain. Maybe time really does alleviate our hurts, or at least the pressure that comes in dealing with them. I guess what I mean to say is that this challenge is of a caliber I have never encountered before.

The one element that makes this decision so difficult for me, is that, to a great extent, it is completely within my control. I have no control over death, or even choices others make. I can't make the sun come through the rain - the emotional winter turn to summer - anymore than anyone else. In this case, though, I have a choice. It is my decision (our decision) to leave another career with promising pay, sell a comfortable house, and do all the other things necessary to go back to school at the age most guys are starting to settle down and spend some money. I feel the "stupid" stares from those who don't understand, and I know I have the power to eliminate them by making a different choice. On the other hand, I can't make that different choice.

I have a problem - I gave my life to God. Romans says the calling of God is irrevocable, so I guess I'm kind of stuck. For me to deny myself of moving in this direction seems impossible to me. I don't really know what it would take to do it even if I wanted to - just like I don't know how I could ever stop loving my wife or start ignoring my son. I'm hesitant to compare myself to anyone great, but I wonder if this is something of what Paul felt when he called himself a "prisoner of Christ." This is a mystery that I dare not claim to be able to tackle yet, but I like it. It's funny how we can come to be so in love with something that takes our very lives from us. Maybe it's because it doesn't really take our lives, but rather, gives them back. We all want to live, but we can't really live unless we know our lives are valuable enough that our deaths would matter. At the beginning of season six of the show 24, Jack Bauer says the thing that kept him alive during two years of torture at the hand of the Chinese consulate is that he didn't want to die for nothing. Neither do I. As has been said before, unless something is worth dying for, it's not worth living for. The good news is, we have a reason to live and die, because He considered us worth dying for first. He lived to die, so we could die to live.

"Oh, the wonderful cross, bids me come and die, and find that I may truly live."

Each of us has a calling that is unique to us. If you haven't already, I hope you will join me in dying to live.

2007-02-23T16:06:00.000-05:00

I made a passing observation this morning while reading through Proverbs, one that I find interesting in light of some of the accusations against Christianity I've read lately. On several occasions, I've heard critics of Christianity claim as one of their arguments that the Bible is pointedly suppressive of women. These critics like to take passages that refer to the God-designed role of women as virtuous helpers and completer of their husbands out of context, (often quoting the already difficult to understand King James language), and twist them to support their preconceived opinions that Christianity is about suppressing and abusing women. Apparently the faith is only acceptable to unrefined, backwoods simpletons who think women are meant to be kept at home, pregnant and barefoot.

While I will admit what I am about to write is not the end-all point to convince everyone this accusation is pathetic, I've never heard or read any critic who considered this observation. What I am referring to is the Proverbs' use of the feminine to personify Wisdom. That's right - the very book that supposedly teaches Christians that women are nothing more than slaves with benefits uses the feminine to bring to life the greatest object of pursuit. Starting as early as chapter 1, we read of Lady Wisdom calling out to all who can hear, begging them to take advantage of the wonderful and purposeful life only she can give. We read that she was the first brought into existence by God, present when He founded the universe. Through her we can understand the meaning of life, and how to make life count. She repeatedly calls out that she is freely available to all who will seek her. What's the catch? Start with God. It all starts with recognizing God, and submitting to the right relationship with Him. Unfortunately, too many are unwilling to accept these terms, and instead, look in all the wrong places for wisdom. As a result, lives are ruined, while Lady Wisdom continues to call out,

"Simpletons! How long will you wallow in ignorance?

Cynics! How long will you feed your cynicism?

Idiots! How long will you refuse to learn?

About face! I can revise your life. Look, I'm ready to pour out my spirit on you;

I'm ready to tell you all I know. As it is, I've called, but you've turned a deaf ear;

I've reached out to you, but you've ignored me."

Proverbs 1:22-24 (The Message).

2007-02-19T14:11:00.000-05:00

Today makes four - four times in less than a week God has put me in a conversation to speak to someone so that He could speak to me. It seems that in each of these four conversations, all with other believers, the central themes have been things God desperately wants me to believe in real-life form. On the surface of these instances, it appears that I was the one doing the encouraging; that I was the one reminding the struggling one of God's truths. I saw their faces brighten, their eyes light up as God's hope made sense to them again. I saw their demeanors changed, their countenance lifted right in front of me. I saw them smile through tears, some that were outward, some that were hidden. I walked away with an attitude of prayer, asking God to help them understand His love, timing, ultimate control and faithfulness. I saw God help them through my voice.

What they didn't see, was God trying to speak to me. I don't know that a single word was spoken through my mouth that wasn't intended by God for my ears and heart. I've often known God to guide me through the Bible. More often than I realize, He has spoken to me through the advice of others. Recently, He brought to mind an instance that occurred some three years before to confirm the answer to my question. I have even had thoughts I assumed to be random proven to be God's answer to my prayer. But now, for the first time I can remember, God has spoken to me by using me to speak to others. How great and personal is God! It is amazing that the creator and keeper of all that is would be so involved in my life!

2007-02-06T15:39:00.000-05:00

I started this post a week ago, but couldn't seem to get it finished. For some reason, my thoughts wouldn't quite come together, so this is what I want to say as "to the point" as I can make it...

I have decided that my definition of trust has been incomplete. Without consulting a dictionary, I would say an accurate definition of trusting someone is believing that person will do right toward you in spite of your downfalls and sins against him or her. In other words, there is an element to trust that we often overlook - the element of vulnerability.

When we speak of trust, we usually refer to trusting someone with a responsibility, such as making good on a promise, telling the truth, getting a job done, or remaining faithful to a relationship. This last one, though, also carries a parallel responsibility on the part of the one who is trusting. For trust to be authentic, the one trusting has to be authentic, which means he must extend the courtesy of honesty about himself to the one he trusts.

Trust is about relying on another person. Complications come, however, when the one trusting is not honest about himself, including his failures. This is what makes real trust so difficult. In our society, we are taught (quite easily, I might add) that acceptance must be earned. Trying to earn acceptance leads to striving to be acceptable, which means we have to have some reason to prove we should be accepted. Unfortunate to this strife, though, is the fact that we are human, meaning we carry histories of bad choices, sins, and regrets, which make us unacceptable on basis of merit. The complications grow when we try to fix our unacceptability. In order to make ourselves more acceptable, we hide the truth about who we are until we believe we have built a good enough track record of behavior to make us acceptable. Hiding who we are makes authentic trust impossible, because the one we are trusting doesn't know the one he is being trusted by.

Sadly, this desire to be acceptable has kept friends of mine from trusting in Christ. From more than one person, I have heard something like, "I want to be a real Christian when I become one," or, "When I know I can get it right, I'll start being a Christian. I don't want to be fake." The problem is, none of us will ever build up enough good to undo our bad. In fact, our problem isn't the number of sins we commit in the first place. Our problem is our sinful nature. This is why we are all basically the same. whether the Apostle Paul, Saddam Hussein, Martin Luther King, the terrorists of 9-11, Mother Teresa, or you and me, we all have a natural inclination to do things our own way instead of God's way, and we all are deserving of the death that sinfulness cost. The only way out is for someone who is worthy of being acceptable to take away our unacceptableness. That is exactly what Jesus did, and He only ask that we trust Him. We cannot trust Him, though, if we are hiding who we are, hoping to make ourselves worthy of His acceptance of us.

This also parallels our relation to one another. While my failures don't need to be reported in the daily news, if I put on a false front to hold me over while I become acceptable, authentic trust cannot exist. Why can't people trust the church? Why can't Christians trust each other? Why can't a husband trust a wife or a wife a husband? Why can't we really trust God? Maybe it isn't a matter of "can't" but a matter of "won't." Or, more accurately, instead of "won't" it is a matter of "want." We want to be the hero. We want to be good enough. While for the want of being good enough, we miss out on the greatest gift - the gift of fellowship with God and with others.

2007-01-14T18:18:00.000-05:00

As part of the required reading for a course I am taking, I am working my way through Courageous Faith by Dr. Ed Hindson. Because of the amount of other reading I have to do, I have only covered through the first chapter, which is a chapter on Abraham. Through reading the book and re-reading the account in the Bible, I learned something I do not remember having ever heard before.

The story is probably quite familiar to just about everyone who has spent much time in church. The basics are that God spoke to Abraham, and told him to pack up, leave his hometown (which was a bigger request than it would be today), and head to a country that God would show him. God also promised Abraham (Abram at the time) that he would father a son, and through that son, the whole world would be blessed. The familiar problem, though, was that Abram was an old guy, and his wife was not too young either. So, at the suggestion of his wife, he made it happen by having a child with his wife's maid.

The next time we can tell God spoke to Abram - 13 years later! - He tells him the same thing, that he would father a son and be the "father of many nations." The interesting part to me is Abraham's response - not the laughing part, but the part where he said to God, "May Ishmael live under your special blessing!" This is where I think a lot of us, myself included, have chosen to hang our belief in God. Abraham was fine with what God wanted to do, he just thought that God would do it in a way Abraham was already comfortable with.

I question myself when I ask, how many times, or in what ways, do we ask God to bless what we already have instead of surrendering to His plan? We believe God can do anything, yet we so easily try to contain Him in the box of our lives as they are, instead of letting Him work in the limitless space of His own purposeful creativity. It is as if we say, "Sure, I surrender my life as long as You are OK with what I already have. Here is my life, just the way I like it. Bless it like it is. Make it You're will." We consistently struggle to cram God's plan into the shape of our lives, when the request all along is for us to loose our lives into God's plan. We want to make Him our number one priority, when He does not want to be a priority, He wants to be our lives. Being a follower of Christ is not about making Him a part of us, but about us becomming a part of Him.

So God's response to Abraham was the same as it is to us. "No." God says, "Thanks but no thanks on doing it your way. I will bless your life, I will keep my promise, but only when you say 'OK' to my direction." God does not want our suggestions, and why should He? He is God. He is the One with the plan. He is the One who does not mess up. He does not want our choice of "sacrifice." He wants our obedience.

2006-12-27T15:43:00.000-05:00

Ever thought you knew something, and then had an experience that made you realize you understood the concept but hadn't made it a part of your life yet? That seems to happen to me a lot. (Didn't I write something like this before? It feels really familiar). Anyway, this whole concept of how prayer is supposed to work seems to keep forcing itself into my conscious mind. Since Greg Frizzel came to our church last February, my prayer life has been in a constant state of volatile change, frustration, and growth.

I have written and taught students that prayer is not about our wish-list, but about getting God's will done in our lives. I believe things like the elements listed in Greg Frizzel's book and am certain that worship, repentance, petition, intercession, and reflection are all vitally important. However, I've also found that, if we are not careful, even these principles can easily be reduced to nothing more than a perceived "magic formula" we think will please God enough to give us what we ask for. I am certainly "not there yet," but I think that there is still something more that I have ignored at times.

I am fond of saying that prayer is not about our wish-list, but could it be that we, thinking we have matured, have only traded our "selfish wish-list" for a more spiritual one? I've come to realize that the most important part of prayer is knowing God. Before we ever ask anything of Him, no matter how spiritual it may seem, what God wants is us. Sometimes I get stuck in a prayer rut and I feel like it's difficult and routine and has no effect. Part of this is my need to be more persistent and patient in prayer, but sometimes I feel disconnected from God because I have approached Him in checklist fashion, trying desperately to cover all the bases of worship, repentance, petition, and on and on and on. I guess it's kind of like Jesus at Lazarus' house. Martha was trying to cover all the bases, for a good, spiritual reason, while Mary was, for a moment, oblivious to every other good thing, focused only on the Master. Jesus' response was that she had chosen the perfect thing, and it would not be denied her.

But what if I spend all my time worshiping God and don't get to my request? I have a responsibility to pray for the things God has included in my life. What if I don't mention them all?

What if I don't? What kind of God do I serve? Is He going to penalize me because I spent so much time connecting with Him? Is He going to deny blessing in my life that He has planned out because I seek to know Him? Point is, God wants us first. He only requires that we loose ourselves to Him. Only when He has us can He bless what we do. Only when we are His does what we do really even matter. He wants us, not our checklist, regardless of how spiritual it may sound.

Like I said, I'm "not there yet." This blog has become a sounding board for some of my thoughts. Like someone else said, God has already spoken, the rest is commentary. I'm just adding to the conversation.

2006-12-15T14:53:00.000-05:00

I think one of the coolest things our student ministry does is sponsor a child through Compassion International. I don't know if any of you already know this, but every week, in both the middle school and high school rooms we take a collection that goes completely toward our sponsorship of Leonela Veras Dominguez. It only cost about $30 a month to provide everything she needs, and we also have opportunity to send additional gifts throughout the year.

Leonela is a beautiful little girl who lives in the Dominican Republic. She'll turn 8 years old next week on December 20, does quite well in school, and regularly participates in various church related activities. Recently, she participated in a mime with her church group, and she likes attending a Chispa club because, in her words, they teach her the Word of God and a Bible verse every week.

I've been familiar with Compassion International for some time, and Shannon and I have talked of sponsoring a child before, though we've not yet followed through. Having the students sponsor Leonela is something Jeremy started a couple years ago, and I'm glad we are still doing it today. The more I interact with her through letters and photos, the more she means to me, and I want students to get in on it, too. Earlier this week I talked with a friend of mine about trying to come up with a way to get students interacting with Leonela more directly. When you think of it, pray for Leonela and for our students; especially that some will fall deeply in love with her, and, in turn, be used by God in missions to unreached people.

2006-12-08T16:28:00.000-05:00

Earlier this year, Pastor Raymond hipped me to a book that I also recommend to everyone who claims to be Christian - The Barbarian Way by Erwin McManus. It's not a very long book, but it is life changing in the way it paints application of the Christian faith. The basic point of the book is that typical "Christianity" is very much a toned-down version of what is really intended by God. American Christianity has become a safe religion that isn't exactly changing the status quo. So much for the "turning the world upside down" mentioned in Acts.

I've been doing some other reading lately, and agree that the reason Christianity is so powerless in America is because its followers have taken out the passion that is its foundation. We believe "for God so loved the world," but we don't really live out the definition of that love. The love of God is a love of passion; a love "to die for." Passionate love is the type of love that is always willing to suffer as a result of itself. To us, passion typically means sensuality, and love rarely goes past our own levels of comfort. God's love, on the other hand, was driven by passion; He was more than ready to suffer on our behalf.

We were all created to be passionate individuals. The desire in us to be a part of something meaningful enough to die for was given to us by God, and is a characteristic of His, as well. Unfortunately, instead of viewing passion and God's love as being the same thing, we have separated the two. When passion is separated from God's love, it is misdirected, leading to sins of covetousness, lust, and idolatry. Blatant disrespect and rebellion are misdirected passion, as is greediness and promiscuity. The driving desire behind these sins, though, is the God-given need to pour our lives into something bigger than ourselves at any cost.

Sadly, the church (generally speaking) hasn't been able to do much to help re-focus passion properly, because we have also separated passion from God's love. When this happens, passion becomes misdirected, and God's love becomes nothing more than religious sentiment. When God's love is not worth suffering, it becomes another choice on the smorgasbord of religions. Barna says that by the time this generation runs society, no more than 4% will believe in the Bible. Why should they? If something isn't worth dying for, it's not worth living for, either.

I'm not saying I have all the answers, and I am certainly not the picture of perfect passion. I have a long way to go, and I'm not even sure where the road is taking me. What I do know is that I believe when a person truly trust in Christ, God's Spirit moves in and gives him a new nature. Something that big has got to make a difference, and if as many people who claim to be Christians truly have God's Spirit inside of them, there shouldn't even be a status quo.

2006-11-27T17:16:00.000-05:00

i was reading through the links on an email newletter i get weekly, and came across a copy of what is believed to be the last interview given by CS Lewis. The interview was done by Sherwood Wirt in 1963, and the conversation mostly centered around Christian writing. it's no secret that CS Lewis was one of the greatest thinkers of modern history, and i was especially amazed at the critical thought his answers contained.

the one statement of his that caught my attention the most was the answer he gave when asked "How can we foster the encounter of people with Jesus Christ?" Mr. Lewis responded by saying, "You can't lay down any pattern for God. There are many different ways of bringing people into his Kingdom, even some ways that I specially dislike! I have therefore learned to be cautious in my judgment... There is a character in one of my children's stories named Aslan who says, ‘I never tell anyone any story except his own.' I cannot speak for the way God deals with others; I only know how he deals with me personally. Of course, we are to pray for spiritual awakening, and in various ways we can do something toward it. But we must remember that neither Paul nor Apollos gives the increase."

of course, Mr. Lewis did not mean that there are many different religions that lead to God, but rather, different people come to Christ through different circumstances or events. kind of like the "different fish bite different bait" idea. if you are familiar with the character Aslan, you know that he represents Christ in the Narnia stories. i love that statement of Aslan, "I never tell anyone any story except his own." God does not deal with us all in the same way, because he knows we are not all the same people. i am glad for this, because i may have never responed to the gospel had the Holy Spirit tried to convict me of my need the same way He convicted you. our experiences and perceptions are different.

there is an organization i am particularly fond of, that does a ministry i cannot do. in fact, i think very few people could reach the unsaved the way this group does; it is made up of ministers who are called by God to do a very specific work. unfortunately, they continually get blasted by other Christians who disagree with their method. this group isn't breaking any law of God, but they are not sheltering themselves in a church building with a sign that says "ya'll come" either. these ministers are in the middle of a battlefield, where the fight has literally destroyed the lives of other pastors and teachers, and through much prayer and close accountability, they are effectively reaching the unreachable with the life-changing gospel of Christ.

how great is our God! i am overwhelmed by the thought that the God of the universe, who created and sustains all things by the simple word of His power, is close enough to deal with me by telling me my own story and writing Himself into every detail of my life. God, please continue to work in our lives on an individual level, changing who we are by your power inside of us. please help us to not quench your Spirit, but to allow you to guide us in meeting people where they are instead of where we think they should be.

2006-11-16T12:00:00.000-05:00

lost dog...

last weekend, i took jayden out to the back yard to play. later on, shannon stepped out onto the back deck and sat for a while, then went back in. she left the gate to the deck open, thinking jayden and i would go in that way, which we usually do. this time, though, we went in another way, not realizing the gate to the deck was still open. sometime that evening, our dog (really shannon's dog - i'm not much of a pet person) went through the gate to the deck, and back down the other side, which is not fenced in, and apparently got lost. we were gone all day sunday and didn't notice what had happened until sunday evening.

being elections were just held the week before, there were still a bunch of campaign signs all over the place. so shannon grabbed some "vote for ______" signs (i didn't vote for him so i won't mention his name) and turned them into "lost dog, golden retriever, if found please call _____" signs, and put them back in strategic locations. the next day, she made some more and put them out, too. it took some time and effort, but shannon didn't mind. her dog was missing and she was going to do what she could to find him.

what about me? it's a pretty well known fact that i'm not into pets. you might imagine i stayed busy with football scores and everybody loves raymond reruns, but you would be mistaken. this was actually important to me, too, and i did some things to help out. not because of my natural love for animals, but because of my love for shannon. see, finding the dog was a big deal for shannon, and that's what made it matter to me. i didn't complain when she talked about it, or when she made the signs. i cooked dinner one night so she could work on the signs. (ok, it was hamburger helper, but i made it). i kept jayden while she put the signs out. i drove her through the neighborhood looking for the dog. and i listened to her when she told me about the tips she got from someone who called to say she saw our dog with a kid who lived in down the road. then, when she found the dog - i didn't even complain when she kept him in the house for a couple of hours.

people who don't know Christ matter to me because they matter to Him. we all have different passions and gifts, but at the same time, we all have the same God with the same heart to find His lost creations. since it's important to Him, let's make sure it's important to us.

God, help us to worry less about ourselves, and more about the things that are important to you. and help us to prove we care about your interests by the way we live these lives you've given us.

2006-11-07T15:12:00.000-05:00

my last post ended up being about prayer and how it is not about us giving God our wish list, but rather getting God's will done in our lives. over the past several days, God has continued to emphasize the importance of prayer to me. i've seen bits of the news reports - enough to know what's been going on. just yesterday, in my favorite restaurant, a couple of guys sitting next to me carried on their conversation about the big topic of the weekend. i wanted to get into the conversation, but was speechless. what can you say? critics love to jump on the bandwagon, and this time around, the wagon has a lot of riders and an endless supply of seats.

i know people who are skeptical of big churches. they're on the wagon. others are skeptical of any contemporary way of doing church. they're on the wagon. others are skeptical of Christianity. they're on the wagon. meanwhile, the rest of us are speechless. If Ted Haggard can fall, what makes us safe? And it's not just about Ted Haggard. there are two other guys that i know personally who have fallen in similar ways recently. they weren't in big churches. they weren't on tv, but they were just as much a part of the fight between good and evil. if they can fall, what keeps me safe? Galatians 6:1 warns us that we should be careful when another Christian falls, understanding that we could fall just the same.

i hope that none of us blow this off as some thing that doesn't affect us. it affects all of us who take the message of Christ seriously. our ultimate mission in life is to share the gospel, while we are in the process of everything else we are called to do. anytime we are around non-believers, our responsibility is to look for opportunity to share the gospel. just a few days ago, a friend of mine who i love and pray for and am encouraged by, mentioned a situation she was in but doesn't like. she said that she was wondering if her reason for being there was to be a witness. i told her "of course it is." there may be other things God wants us to do, but as we are doing them, we are to be making disciples of Christ, which starts with sharing the gospel. without the gospel, there is no hope for anyone. sadly, though, the more Christians stumble, the more our message appears to be a joke. regardless of whether we liked Ted Haggard, or his church, or his denomination, the gospel that he represents is the same gospel we are commanded to share. this affects us all.

it can also be a little scary. again, what keeps us from falling? i used to spend a lot of time being afraid i would fall. i still know it's possible - that is, if i think i can't. proverbs tells us that pride precedes the fall. we are all sinful by nature and have the capacity to commit any sin we find enticing. but now, instead of being scared in an unhealthy way, i find encouragement. Jude 24-25 says: To him who is able to keep you from falling and to present you before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy - to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord
are we willing to pray with the sole desire of being conformed to the image of God?

2006-10-26T09:53:00.000-05:00

I've been doing most of my Bible reading in The Message lately, and recently i ran across this passage from Romans 9: It's the Israelites...If there were any way I could be cursed by the Messiah so they could be blessed by him, I'd do it in a minute. I'd call that a strong desire to see some people turn to Christ. in fact, that's reflective of the same love Christ has for all of us. through his crucifixion, he became "a curse" for us so that we could be rid of our sin and connected to God. the Bible tells us in Philippians 2 that we should have the same self-sacrificing attitude that Christ had.

while that's a heavy thing to take in all at once, it's really just about being obedient to God. enter prayer. over the past year, i've been learning more about what prayer really is. it is about getting God's will done on this earth. that's something we all say we want, but whether we really want it or not is evidenced in the way we live day to day. i think it has been almost two years since pastor raymond did a sunday morning series on finding God's will for your life. i don't remember his exact words (which i probably wouldn't have space for here anyway), but his point was this: why should God show us the big stuff he wants for us if we're not obedient in what we already know he wants. i heard another preacher say it this way: "brush your teeth." we need to make sure we are doing what we know to do, and in that submission, through prayer, God will continue to give us the direction we need.

the common misconception of prayer, though, is that it is just the way we tell God what we want from Him. we never verbalize this as our definition of prayer, but is it the way we pray? prayer is meant to be intimacy with God. it's us having conversation with Him - He talks, we respond, we talk He responds - and then shaping our lives by His direction, instead of handing Him a wish list and trying to do good hoping He'll be happy enough to give us what we want.

anyway, i dont' know how i ended up on prayer... i was really impressed by seeing paul's attitude toward the israelites. i hope that i am able to live with attitudes so similar to the the attitude of Chrsit.

2006-10-20T09:31:00.000-05:00

as a youth pastor, who should not be surprised by anything a person under the age of twenty would say or do, i don't want to admit my shock at a conversation i had yesterday - but i was just a little. i was also saddened.

i pulled into the tire shop to have some work done on my truck, some work i've been putting off for way too long (no surprise there). pulling in, i noticed a guy and two girls who looked to be high school students sitting outside the shop. i knew i was going to be there a while, and i was immediately compelled to talk with them. i went inside to let the people know what i needed done, and had a seat with my book, while i tried to think of how to approach those teenagers. before i had sat there for two minutes, they all came in and sat right next to me. (God was making it a little easier on me). i got into their conversation, found out they had just graduated last year, why they were there, and we joked and laughed some. i turned the conversation "religious" as soon as i could, mainly directing my questions to the guy who was sitting right beside me. to get to the point of what happened, it turns out he goes to church with his mom occassionally (a baptist church in gastonia, i think). he believes in God, heaven, hell, the eternal soul, and everything that goes along with it. but he keeps it out of his mind so it doesn't concern him.

i did a little asking just to keep the conversation going, but without my help, he told me plainly that he knows he's not right with God. he told me that he could very well get hit by a truck (his illustration) and die today. and God would turn him away. he would spend eternity in hell. when i asked him if this bothered him, he said not really because he keeps it out of his mind. he said that right then it was bothering him some because he was thinking about it, and that's why he doesn't think about it. and he said he didn't care. he said that if he lived to be older and have his own family, he would probably change, but if he didn't live to be older and died before he changed, he would just deal with it.

of course, the conversation had much more to it than just that little bit. the girls he was with said some things as well, some of which i could agree with. one of the girls said that no one could judge the guy as being bad; no one knew his walk with God but him. i told her that was true, then turned back to him and asked, "do you have a walk with God?" that drew some nervous laughter, but i hope it made the point.

we didn't get to talk too long before they left, and we never even got into names. i don't know too much about them, and they don't know much of anything about me. but before they left, i turned to him and, in other words, told him that God had brought us into the same place at the same time because He wants him to think about it. he acknowledged the thought, and the conversation continued to come and go for a couple more minutes.

when they left, i was saddened. i was saddened and speachless that someone could accept the knowledge of God and eternity, and work so hard to keep it out of their minds. and i was saddened by the fact that, even if we keep eternity out of our minds, it doesn't chnange it's reality. i pray that he'll think about it. i hope he'll find himself in other encounters and situation where he is forced to think about it. i hope and pray that when the final decision time comes, he'll make the choice to change his mind and trust in Christ.

2006-10-16T09:16:00.000-05:00

i'm back! i didn't really go anywhere, but it's been too long since my last post. feels like forever! i even got a comment while i was gone. hate i missed it.

so what's been going on? plenty. but i'll try to put it all in seperate posts so i don't run out of stuff to blog about. (haha). last night we finished our second week of "facing the giant topics" by doing a discussion on God's identity and love. of course, there is absolutely no way possible to learn all that's included in this in a lifetime, much less an hour on a sunday night. we had fun trying, though. the way we've approached the giant topic thing is basically, we've taken a bunch of Scriptures that deal with the topic of the night, put them on paper for the students to read, and listed questions under each Scripture. then we go through the verses one at a time and discuss the questions listed under each. it's amazing the direction some of the discussion goes in. we don't really end up reading the questions and answering them in a clean, orderly fashion. the questions usually lead to other questions, which then lead to even more questions as the students try to wrap there minds around the meaning and application of each. and as they talk their way through the topics in light of the Bible, the expressions of "aha!" are, to borrow a worn out description, priceless. i love it!

the relationship topic we went at last week was a lot of fun, especially as the students analyzed their own relationships by thinking about what the Bible says about them. we had the verses seperated into sub-points of the topic. in other words, the first several passages dealt with the importance of relationships, the next group was under "think about your relationships," followed by "who should your relationships include?" to finish things off, we looked at Psalm 41:9 Even my best friend, the one I trusted completely, the one who shared my food, has turned against me. It took some coaching, but with this verse we helped them understand that every human relationship has the capacity to fail, which means we should be extra careful to put our most energy into our relationship with Christ - the only One who cannot fail.

last night was about who God is and His love. I hope we didn't keep any parents waiting too long, but even after 7:00 we had three big questions that spun off of the original topic and could have gone on for hours. everyone seemed to be easy going when talking about the ever existence of God, but the pre-existence of Christ and the Trinity made things interesting. we got through it though, and i believe and pray that the students gained a deeper knowledge of who God is, and a strong assurance of His perfect, unchanging love that will help them get through the challenges they face.

while it's all about helping our students understand God in deeper, more relevant ways, i get a little out of it too. these last two sunday nights have been some of the most fun for me. and it's going to get better with small groups starting at the end of the month. before then, though, we have one more giant topic - school and grades. i'd better start doing some studying!

2006-10-03T08:19:00.000-05:00

on sunday we took the students to see the movie Facing the Giants, and let me say the church who put the film together deserves much applause for all the hard work they put in to making the movie a quality movie with such a biblical message of commitment. the truths conveyed in that movie are often put into other movies as well, but usually from a distorted point of view. it is very common to see a movie or tv show that talks about giving your best on a football field, and it's common to hear messages of unity and self confidence as well. however, those messages usually teach unity for the sake of a small goal, like a simple football trophy; and confidence is all about each individual trying to get his own respect, regardless of what it cost anyone else.

in Facing the Giants, though, the message is clear. In fact, i would say that, even though i grew up hearing about honoring God in everything you do, including sports, that principal never made as much sense to me as it did in the movie. The story does an excellent job of demonstrating that faith in God is meant to saturate every part of our lives, not just one or two. the setting is a Christian high school, which indicates that the students and coaches and parents would know what "living for God" means, and even practice that life every day - at least in their own minds. as days go on, however, it becomes very evident that everyone is settling for the motions of the daily Christian checklist rather than obeying God by giving Him the honor in everything.

i don't want to give the movie away for those of you who haven't seen it yet, so i won't go any further. just make sure you have some tissues ready if you're even moderately prone to get emotional during movies. i'll admit the actors won't be mistaken for professionals, but they are Christians in real life who have a message to get out. and that's what makes the movie worth seeing. well, that and the football action. they held nothing back in making some of those hits look very real and very painful. thanks to the church who took on this project; thanks to God for providing them with the resources and abilities; and a special thanks to all of you who voiced your opinions to our local theater, urging them to show the movie.

2006-09-29T13:38:00.000-05:00

a couple of wednesdays ago, i tried something with the belief that i knew how it would turn out, but, to my surprise, i got a somewhat different result than i had anticipated. let me explain.
this sunday, we're taking students to see the new movie "Facing the Giants". (i love football movies, so this was an easy one for me to get on board with). the three sundays after the movie, we are going to play off of the theme and do a discussion on "facing the giant topics". the idea is that we let the students decide what we talk about, and, as we address the issues of their interest, use a discussion type format to get their input on what we tell them from the Bible. so a couple of weeks ago, we distributed half sheets of paper with a home made illustration, and asked the students to list the three topics they are most curious about. of course, like jeremy says, i anticipated the topics to be something like "sex," "the end times," and "sex during the end times." when i filtered through the results later on, sex and end times were listed, but they only accouted for 5 of the 45 or so serious responses. as it turns out, our informal survey says the students are most interested in topics like friends and relationships (including boyfriends and girlfriends), school and grades, and who God is and His love. family and parents, identity and self-worth, choices and peer pressure, and putting God first all were mentioned just as many times as sex was, and some students even asked "what is considered sin" and "what exactly is racism."

the impression i'm left with knowing that the most requested topic has to do with friendships is that, even with everything else going on, students still want to be known. there's still a basic desire for real community. maybe that's the real driving force behind things like MySpace and other virtual communities. maybe behind all the shocking content and unbelievable comments, there's a question of "can i tell you who i am, and will you still love me if you know?" "is it ok to be me?" the point is, God wired us for relationships, and no matter what we look like on the outside or what we do or what we say, we all feel the need to be connected. i pray that our student ministry, and our church as a whole, will be a place of genuine acceptance. i hope that everyone we find contact with will, at some point, find themselves connected to God (the giver of life) and connected to people (the sharers of life).

2006-09-22T08:39:00.000-05:00

several years ago, my brother and i were with some guys from my work, playing basketball in a church gym. during some down time, my brother decides to run and jump up onto a stack of bleachers that had been pushed back - the top that he was trying to jump to being about 4 feet off the ground. (i know what you're thinking, and yes, i really do have an actual brother who tried this. i'm not telling a story about myself and trying to blame the decision on a fictional "friend"). so off he goes - i think because someone else had done it first - running, timing his steps, getting closer, knows what he's doing, everyone's watching. he takes a couple stutter steps to put himself in the right position, takes the last two big steps, jumps off the left foot, stretches toward the top with the right foot, reaching for the top of the bleachers. gravity kicks in and his foot starts decending - oh! just a little short. shin bone is the first thing to touch the bleacher, and shin bone skin is the last thing to come off the beachers. everybody let's out the simultaneous "OHHHHHH!!!!" then my brother responds with "I should have listened to that little man in my head saying 'don't do it, don't do it!'"
know what it's like to know something as fact in your mind, but then you have to experience it to really get it? that seems to be my primary way of learning. i can't tell you how many times, especially over the past year, i've had something in my head, or God has impressed something on my heart, but then it takes an intense, frustrating situation for me to really get it. not that i always enjoy learning that way. i guess it's not comfortable because it means i don't really know what i think i know, which goes back to the pride issue that none of us like to admit to. and maybe that's what it's all about - God carving the pride out our lives so we become more like Him, and more sensitive to His Spririt within us, which is kind of like listening to that litte man in our heads that says "Don't do it..."
the lyrics to the jars of clay song on my last post are such a real expression of the pain that is often involved in the process of God's work on our lives. sometimes it burns us up inside to have to learn something we think we already know, but we need God to fan the flames of that burning in order to melt away our pride. when we are crushed by the "fatal cut" and we want to hide our faces, God will lift us up, which means we learn to stand by His grace instead of our own strength. sometimes we pray for a shelter from the rain, when God wants to use the rain to wash us away.
"You're blessed when you're at the end of your rope. With less of you, there is more of God and His rule." Matthew 5:3 (Message)

2006-09-19T08:58:00.000-05:00

this is one of my favorite songs - I Need You, by Jars of Clay. i think it speaks for itself.

Strangely out of place

There's a light filling this room where none would follow before

Can't deny it burns me up inside

Fan the flames to melt away my pride

Do I want shelter from the rain

Or the rain to wash me away?

I might sound like a fool

But I think I felt you moving closer to me

Face to the ground to hide the fatal cut

Fight the weight, feel you lift me up

You are the shelter from the rain

And the rain to wash me away

Face to the ground to hide the fatal cut

Fight the weight, feel you lift me up

I can't deny it burns me up inside

Fan the flames to melt away my pride

Only have a second to spare

But all the time in the world to know you're there

You are the shelter from the rain

And the rain to wash me away

I need you, I need you, I need you

You're all I'm living for

2006-09-12T09:19:00.000-05:00

it's the year 4001. geographically, the world is the same as it was in 2001. life has not really changed any more than it should have over the past 2,000 years. sure, instead of cars we have machines that beem us where we want to go in about 1/10 the amount of time. and the internet is way outdated. history sources teach students of all the major events that have impacted the world throughout time. September 11, 2001 is among them. students learn the date, see pictures of New York, learn the world leader's names, pass their test, and go on. 9/11, the day that completely changed every american a couple thousand years before, doesn't mean much anymore. 2,000 years later, it's just a fact along with all the others. on vacations, some go to new york, visit memorials, take pictures, and life goes on. the general thought is that 9/11 happened, a lot of people were affected, but now we're beyond it. we've moved past the problems that made the responses relevant. we're 2,000 years down the road. that was part of history, but this is a new day. that changed history, but doesn't affect life anymore.

hardly seems possible, doesn't it? some might even be offended that anyone would think such an imagination. from our view point on life, we would think this day would never come. probably not. i hope not. i hope no one ever is able to put 9/11 out of their minds. i hope we continue to heal, but life has been permanently altered, and for more than enough good reason.

but is this a picture of the church? 2,000 years down the road, the cross of Jesus is worth remembering, but not much else? the event that changed everything - is it just a part of history now? we have pictures that have been drawn from imagination, we have churches where people remember God, we have crosses on jewelry and car windows, but is life un-altered? are we like students who learn the facts, hope to pass the test, and go on?
we have not moved beyond the problem that made a response necessary. more than just a day in history, the cross is relevant today, 2,000 years later. how much do we allow the cross to affect our lives today?
What this means is that those who become Christians become new persons. They are not the same anymore, for the old life is gone. A new life has begun! All this newness of life is from God, who brought us back to himself through what Christ did. And God has given us the task of reconciling people to him. For God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, no longer counting people's sins against them. This is the wonderful message he has given us to tell others.
2 Corinthians 5:17-19 (NLT)

2006-09-08T15:32:00.000-05:00

sorry it's been a while since my last post. what a week!
we did our back to school party on wednesday, and it was great! roger and lynn cooked some of the best hot dogs i've ever had (and yes, the 4th one was just as good as the 1st). thanks a million times over to everyone who made the night fly. i would start naming names, but i'm afraid i'll accidentally miss someone. if you were a part of the thing, please hear my sincere thanks. and thanks to all of you who make up our church for supporting us and allowing us to do these things. because of you we were able to touch 71 students, grades 6-12! and a special congratulations to samantha alexander and andrew kenny - winners of the ipods.

in case you're unaware, we also have another big thing going. we are in the process of converting the room we've been using for sunday school into a new youth room for high school services on wednesday nights. i'm not sure if we'll make it go as soon as we had hoped, but we are really excited about the opportunities this project will open up for us. as you know, there is a big difference between a 6th grader and a high school senior. most high school students don't want to sit through middle school programming, and a lot of middle schoolers are intimidated by a big group of high schoolers. (i'm even intimidated by big high schoolers). by splitting our crowd program, we'll have the opportunity to give adequate attention to each group without sacrificing the other. this also give us room to increase our numbers, which we've desperately needed for some time. after january of this past year, our wednesday night attendance averaged around 45, and we pushed 60 on more than one occasion. that's a lot of people in that one room. with the new venue, we'll have some space to hold us for a while. please keep praying for us as we venture in this direction.

on another note, i've been wondering if there is anything specific you would like our thoughts on. it's fun to have a journal of sorts that people can read, but we would also love to hear from you. what questions do you have for us? feel free at any time, under any topic, to drop a comment just to say "i'm here" or "what about this?" we are all grateful to be your ministers and want very much to discuss things that are important to you. thanks so much for your support of us, and please know we are praying for you.

2006-09-01T15:57:00.000-05:00

about a week or so ago, i posted some thoughts on how we all share the responsibility of helping students become followers of Christ. this is a massive, overwhelming challenge that often leaves all of us feeling like we just don't stand a chance. one responsibility of churches and youth ministries is to come along side of parents, and those who find themselves needing to fill in as parents, and help and encourage them in every way. in wanting to do just that, i've compiled a list of some websites that i hope you will find helpful. while i'm certain these are not the only beneficial sites available, these are the ones i have had a chance to browse through and feel comfortable recommending.

Dare 2 Share

This is one of my favorites. Dare 2 Share is a ministry started by Greg Stier, who's blog can be found through my links section. the biggest benefit for parents is, on the home page, you'll find a link for "soulfuel," which has it's own link labeled "For Parents." From there you'll find biblical principles with discussion starters that will help you initiate conversations with you teenagers.

Battle Cry

I've included this link on a post before, but it's worth including again. The first mission trip i participated in was through Teen Mania Ministries, and Ron Luce's testimony of how and why God called him to do youth ministry in the United States is amazing. the Battle Cry site has great articles that will help make you aware of popular trends and their potential implications.

Home Word

Home Word is a website by Jim Burns, almost an authority on youth ministry. This site offers a newsletter, podcasts, and articles to encourage and help parents.

Lee Strobel

Famous for all of his "Case" books, Lee Strobel has apparently made a case for his own website. He tackles a lot of thoughts that try to disprove Christianity. I personally think that Christian teenagers would fare much better through and after high school if they could counter the philosophies some of their teachers are masking as "wisdom."

Focus on the Family

You've probably been familiar with this site for some time, but a reminder never hurts. This is a big site and easy to get lost on, so i just want to plug a couple of it's features - like Brio magazine for teen girls, Breakaway magazine for guys, and Plugged In - helpful for movie and music reviews.

BSafe

and

Be Safe Online

these websites offer good information to keep you and your students safe online. while there are a lot of different threats out there, i am particularly concerned with pornography. Sexual material is too easy to get into and too hard to get out of to close our eyes and hope it goes away. these sights can help you protect your family, especially your teenagers, from getting into a cleverly set trap that behaves like an addiction.

I'll also include these in my links section below my profile. i hope you find some wisdom, encouragement, and support from these sites. and know that we are praying for you as parents, and will always be eager to help you in any way we can. "throw yourselves into the work of the master, confident that nothing you do for him is a waste of time or effort." 1 corinthians 15:58 (message)

2006-08-28T15:15:00.000-05:00

i feel like i need to apologize for my last post, which i've since deleted. today, a friend of mine brought to my attention that the comments i made could too easily be read as me trying to direct a point at some people i disagreed with. if you read the post and got the same impression, please know that i was not directing it to any particular person or persons, and i did not intend for it to read the way it did. i have a tendency to use wording that makes me sound serious, offensive, and sometimes arrogant when i'm not trying to be. especially when i'm trying to say something in as few words as possible, like in a blog entry. as badly as i want the inside of me to be visible to everyone, there's a shell on the outside of me that causes me to be perceived differently than i really am. my heart is not to offend anyone, and certainly not to be off-putting toward my family in God. instead, i want to see believers unite in a raw, up-side down kind of faith that messes up the status quo of the world we live in by infecting it with the message of Jesus Christ. when i see opinions or traditions that i think could prevent us from doing this, i often speak harshly without meaning to. the funny thing is, there are things i deal with in my own life that are just as incompatible with God's Spirit.
i thank God often for those he's allowed me to work around, both on staff at this church, as well as the student ministry leaders. i have a great amount of support that a lot of people in my position only wish for, and i want all of you to know that i appreciate and value everything you bring to the table. i would never intentionally offend any of you. i want to be faithful and effective in this calling God has placed on my life, and i appreciate your prayers and support, while i pray for and support you. thank you so much for all you do.

2006-08-18T08:06:00.000-05:00

several years ago, i heard another youth pastor say that once you get past the age of 23, you're not cool anymore. then he said something like if you're 24 or 25, you still think you're cool, which is really sad. i laughed like everyone else who heard him say it, but now i'm starting to think he was serious. i thought i was doing ok until about 6 months ago.

it all started while i was getting my hair cut, and the lady doing the cutting said nonchalantly, "oh, you have a little white hair." white mind you. not a lighter shade of brown, not a little graying or even gray, but solid santa claus white. so i told her to pluck it out. and she asked if i wanted her to pluck all of them or just that one. all of them? how many are there? SEVEN. she plucked seven santa clause white hairs out of my head before i even got to my 27th birthday. (jeremy told me this would happen when i took this job).

so i'm keeping an eye on the white hairs, but otherwise i think i'm ok. i decided to let my hair grow longer than usual for a while, and got it cut short again recently. (remember, i just turned 27). so i walk in the office one day, and a student says "you're haircut makes you look younger. you look like you're still in your 20's." thanks a lot! i'll be sure to remember to keep my hair like this for the next TWO YEARS so i'll appear to be close to the age i actually am. what, am i looking like tim allen in the santa clause movie?

couple weeks later, i'm showing off a family picture from 8 months before, in which i'm sporting a soul patch that i thought was sweet. again, out of the mouth of a teenager, "oh, that's a such a good picture! the soul patch ain't exactly working for you though." guess my wife was right. glad i got rid of that thing. now if i can just find a way to redeem myself for the whole year i had it...

so what's next? what else? my clothes. not long after the soul patch comment, we took some of the students to the water park in greensboro. (no, i had no intentions of retaliating against the soul patch kid). knowing we're going to get wet, i did the smart thing - i wore my coolest pair of swimming shorts. i just bought them a year ago, they are a recognized brand (on sale at kohl's for $5), yellow with blue tropical flowers. my wife even picked them out. the first teenager arrives at the church, and the first thing out of her mouth is a very sarcastic "nice shorts." great! then, three days later, another student tells me "the 70's called, they want their sideburns back." i'm not even 30 yet. i would like to thinkd i still have more than half my life ahead of me, but i guess if i want to be considered cool, i'll have to hang out at a retirement home. oh well, my son's just 2 years old - maybe God's preparing me for what's coming. at least my wife still smiles at me. or is she laughing?

2006-08-16T09:35:00.000-05:00

it's not my fault...

george barna says that half of the students regularly involved in a youth ministry have never accepted Christ as their own savior. he also says that 2 out of every 3 teens involved in a student ministry will vacate the christian faith upon high school graduation. his research also indicates that over the next several decades, only about 1% of this generation will be a follower of Christ. (for more alarming statistics, check out anything by Ron Luce).
i share information like this sometimes, and i get some responses that make me so angry my tie would catch on fire - if i ever wore a tie. most often i get the spiritual quitting response - "that's just a sign of the time, can't be much longer till Jesus comes back." i don't mean to sound offensive, but i don't think we should be wanting Jesus to come back if we have this attitude. in Acts 1, the disciples asked Jesus when he would make everything better, to which he replied (verses 7-8, NLT) "The Father sets those dates," he replied, "and they are not for you to know. But when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, you will receive power and will tell people about me everywhere--in Jerusalem, throughout Judea, in Samaria, and to the ends of the earth." in other words, don't worry about when Jesus is coming back. get to work and let's find a way to fix the problem.
sometimes, though, these facts start the blame game. the parents want to blame the church, the church blames the youth ministry, the youth ministry blames mtv, and satan puts another hot dog on the grill and enjoys the show. so who is to blame? who failed and who needs to do what to fix the problem? i think the solution is to realize that we all have to take responsibility for our own actions.
if you're a parent, what does God say about raising your child? and before you answer, are you sure that's what God says or is that just what you've always heard? do some research and ask God to show you.
if you're an adult in the church, what does God want from you? should you be a sunday school teacher? a small group leader? provide financial support? develop relationships with kids in your neighborhood? student ministry isn't for everyone, but those already involved are certainly not the only ones who should be. you should especially be asking these questions if you're not involved in a ministry at all. just sitting in church on a sunday isn't going to fix anyone's problem.
those of us who are in student ministry, are we doing what we know to do? are we seeking God's direction? are we willing to follow his direction at any cost? are we pushing the envelope, constantly looking to make this week's ministry better than last week's? or are we satisfied with what's always been done? (these questions could go on and on).
the point is, the only way to say we really do care is to open ourselves up in front of God, and then do what he tells us to do. we each have our own responsibilities, and nothing is going to get better until we play our own part. i may not do everything the way you think i should, and i have a lot to learn along the way. but i promise you i'm in this thing with the purpose of doing what God tells me to do in order to affect student's lives. will you do your part too?

2006-08-09T08:43:00.000-05:00

i love the sausage, egg, and cheese mcgriddles from mcdonalds. now that i've picked the egg out of my keyboard, let me just say how proud i am of my son! he's only 2, but he's already got cuts, scrapes, bruises, and scars on his legs like a soccer player, can flip over the back of the couch quicker than jack bauer, loves to climb on the coffee table, and laughs hysterically when i trip him while he's running through the house. of course, his mom is proud for other reasons (he uses refrigerator magnet numbers and letters to count to ten, line up his abc's through k, and spell his name. enough of that, back to the good stuff).

shannon's sister baby sits him during the day, and also keeps two girls for another friend of hers. (this is the good part). jayden absolutely loves the girls. i droped him off this morning, and he wouldn't even acknowledge me once we got there. he ran up the stairs, smiled at shannon's sister, ran into the house right into the middle of where the girls were playing, as if to say "you can quit what you're doing now, i'm here. all eyes this way." i was lucky enough to get a wave by-by from him, which is not usual. but it was just a hand in motion, he wasn't paying any attention to me. it was all about the girls.

the funny thing is it reminded me of the beverly hillbillies episode where uncle jed tells jethro they are going to go find him a school to go to. ellie mae says "can i go too?" uncle jed says "no, i think ms jane's got plans to put you in some girls school."
jethro: "can i go too?"
uncle jed: "now jethro, i just said it was a girls school."
jethro: "i know uncle jed, that's why i want to go. i like girls."

oh well, as long as jayden doesn't start wearing a rope belt with his blue jeans...

2006-08-08T15:11:00.000-05:00

am i really shopping for jeans?

greg stier recently shared a story on his blog that got me thinking about some of my own experiences, and what God is trying to get me to learn through them. greg shared that he was in the grocery store with his kids recently, when a woman asked him to help her read some juice labels. thanks to the woman's dog recently being hit by a car, along with greg's son being very talkative, it turned out to be an opportunity for him to minister to this lady who was angry with God, not so much because of her dog, but more so because she had recently lost her son to cancer. (follow the "greg stier" link to the right for the whole story).

some months back, i was in the mall shopping for some jeans. while in one particular store i felt the need to initiate a conversation with the sales clerk in an attempt to share God's message with her. i asked some questions about where she was from, what Christmas was all about to her (it was a week or two before Christmas), that kind of stuff. as it turned out, she had grown up in church, but really didn't understand the whole point of faith in Jesus. i had the opportunity to explain to her that God created us for a reason, and that no one exist by accident. I told her that because of God's perfection, our natural tendency to do things our own way instead of God's way permanently separates us from God and there is no amount of good we can ever do to erase all the bad. i explained to her that because of God's love for us, he was unwilling to leave things the way they were, so he sacrificed his own son to pay the price for everything wrong about us, and that by receiving the gift that Jesus offers, we can be reconnected to God. it took some time and she had some questions, but she was receptive to everything i said. the interesting part is that, although she had grown up in a Christian church, and had Christian parents, she had never heard the gospel in an understandable language. she said, "thank you, no one has ever explained it to me that way before." she told me that any time she ever asked questions, she was told "just believe the Bible."

don't get me wrong, following Christ is all about faith. without faith it is impossible to please God, and we are saved by God's grace because of our faith in what he has done through his son Jesus. but that's a different topic for a different time. the point is, i thought i was shopping for jeans, but God had something else in mind.

i've had similar situations recently. a couple months ago, my wife and i were eating lunch in a restaurant, when a guy recognized me from a job i had about 5 years ago. i politely exchanged a "it's good to see you again," finished eating, and went on to do some shopping. wouldn't you know i ran into the guy again - and this time a conversation developed. turns out, the guy had recently become a Christian, but was somewhat discouraged by some things he had seen other "christians" involved in. our discussion progressed into the topic of God paying such personal attention to our lives, and the amazing part was seeing this guy's eyes almost literally light up as he realized that every day we wake up, we have a purpose for that day, given to us by God. He never intends to waste any day of our lives. he left the store that day with a renewed excitement for following Christ, and i left hearing God say, again, i want you to be ready for anything.

how many times do we miss out on what God wants us to do because we aren't ready? the people we work with, the neighborhood we live in, the stores we shop, the restaurants we frequent, the hobbies we enjoy, the sports teams we are involved with - are these really just coincidences, or did God direct our lives here for a reason? 2 Peter 3 tells us to always be ready to respectfully answer anyone who ask us about our faith, and Jesus tells us to spend our lives proclaiming His message. when we chose to follow Christ, we didn't become employees who clock in, clock out, take weekends off, go on vacation... we became soldiers enlisted for every moment, the rest of our lives. God wants to do the big stuff. He wants us to "turn the world upside down." in Christ, He was reconciling the world to himself, and has given to us the same ministry of reconciliation (2 Corinthians 5). the only question is, are we always ready?

2006-08-04T10:36:00.000-05:00

more on the thought of the july 25 post...

when we registered to do the new york trip with EPIC Adventures back in december, they sent me a book called Conspiracy of Kindness by steve sjogren. since reading the book, i've really been thinking about this servant evangelism thing. i had heard of people passing out bottles of water at a park before, but the concept never really made sense to me. i, like most everyone else, thought evangelism was just the word used to described confronting people, usually strangers, face to face, with the message of the Bible, followed by a choice. don't get me wrong - this is effective and certainly necessary at times. a lot of people have come to Christ through this method, and some Christians are gifted at sharing Christ in this way. but i don't think this is the only way to go about it, nor do i think it's the right way in every circumstance.

the people of new york, for example. there are a lot of ministries in the city that specifically target the homeless and the inner-city population, but not many that go after young professionsals - even though they need Christ just as much as anybody. but those good people are so busy, how practical would it be to try to engage them, one at a time, any time of day, long enough to present them with the gospel and answer all of their questions? the last several times i've carried on a conversation with someone about the gospel, it's taken anywhere from 15 minutes to nearly an hour - and none of them, at that particular moment, decided to turn to Christ. but if we give them something of value, for free, along with an attractive invite to the church, we've not only sown seed, but we've also tilled the ground the seed is falling on. and guess what, anyone can do it! and it's fun, too. hey, if we're all responsible for evengelizing, why not find a method that doesn't leave some of us wishing we could have a root canal without anesthesia instead?

i like the "tilling the ground" analogy. i know Mark 4 doesn't say anything about tilling the ground, it just tells us to sow the seed. but i think the principal is there. even hardened ground, or ground with a lot of weeds (like my front lawn) can be turned into a fruitfull garden if someone puts the proper work into it. maybe people wouldn't be so hardened to Christianity if they thought we really cared. is this effective, though? well, the jouney church started from scratch about 4 years ago, and today they have about 500 members, while their sunday attendance averages around 1,000. of that 1,000 in attendance, about 40% of them (that's 400 for those of you who don't like percentages) say they got into the church because of an intentional act of kindness, ie free gum, water, granola, etc.

my wife and i recently celebrated our 4th anniversary by spending a couple of days at the beach. we were walking on tuesday morning and got free lemonade! some students from buffalo baptist church were on the beach, giving out free lemonade just so they could tell people "God loves you." i'm glad i'm a Christian, but if i weren't... maybe it's worth considering.

2006-08-02T07:58:00.000-05:00

what a week! it's wednesday again, and i'm finally back in the office. did i say 1.8 million in new york city? i meant 8.1 - i think. the first night we were there, one of the staff people at the journey church said 1.8, but another guy said 8 million a couple of times later on. i think the second number is closer. 1 million doesn't seem right.

i didn't think we would ever get back. every time i've flown with the church, we've had some kind of problem. on the mexico trip last summer, we missed flights both ways, and even had to stay over night in dallas, texas. this time, we got to the airport at 6am, to find our flight had been delayed 3 hours. so we had breakfast, coffee, and snacks a couple of times while we waited for a new part for our plane to be flown in and installed. then, on the way back, we boarded the plane on time (a sure sign something wasn't right), then sat on the runway for2-1/2 hours before being taken back to the airport and told our flight had been cancelled. we were supposed to have gotten on another flight at a different gate, but suffice it to say the guy at the desk severly lacks customer courtesy skills. the short of it is we didn't get on that flight either.

so we spent the night in the laguardia airport. the good news is we got free blankets! at about 4am, we got in line to check our bags, and were told we were in the wrong terminal. so we hauled our luggage about 1/2 mile to the other terminal, where, after spending some time in a long line, were told we weren't on the flight. in a final attempt to make a long story short, we finally got on a plane that took us to richmond, virginia, (a flight i honestly don't remember) where we waited for three hours on a plane to bring us back to charlotte. but we made it! and our team did great the whole time. i guess it's a big lesson in keeping a good attitude, even while being treated poorly by airline staff. then again, one of the girls on our team had been praying for patience - so i guess the whole thing is her fault. (this is the sarcasm i'm so naturally inclined to. don't take it seriously).

really, the trip was great, and i would definitely do it all over again. i feal like we actually did something we can bring home with us. now all we have to do is stop the world long enough to put it into practice.

2006-07-25T22:28:00.000-05:00

it's late tuesday night and new york is wide open. one of the girls on staff at the church we're working with said the city is about the size of DFW airport, and has about 1.8 million residents.

we've spent the mornings giving out granola bars on wall street, and the afternoons giving out gum. tomorrow we'll do a water project. the journey church is starting a new message series on sunday, so we're giving out cards with the granola, gum, and water. we've also done some clean up projects

in mark 4, Jesus tells the story of the guy casting the seed, some landing on good ground, some on bad ground, and some in between. i wonder if part of the application of the story is that we should not only scatter as much seed as we can, but that we should also do what we can to make more fertile soil. even hardened soil, with some tilling and such, could eventually produce a good crop. maybe we shoul think more about how we treat others than we do. maybe we can make thee soil more fertile by demonstrating God's love, no strings attached, every chance we get.

2006-07-21T08:26:00.000-05:00

ok, this is my first real post, and i don't know what i'm doing - which seems to be the theme of my life lately.
yesterday my friend willie and i took about 8 or 9 teenagers to the NASCAR Speedpark. of course, i won all our races (just don't ask anybody else, cause they'll tell you i didn't).
what i'm really excited about is going to new york tommorow. 8 of us are going to do a mission trip with EPIC Adventures. i've never been to new york, but i imagine the people are laid back, extremely friendly, and love to drink sweet tea. i'm going to miss my wife and son while i'm gone, but i'll talk to them every day on the phone. if it's like the other trips i've had to make without them the past year, the day i get back will be among my best days ever.

if you want to know what to expect on this blog, look for a variety. the one topic i get into most is christianity. i've been following Christ seriously since i was 16, and it's not just a priority to me - it is who i am. other than that, i can be sarcastic at times, all in good humor, of course. so try not to read much emotion. i'm into sports, too; i like to read, watch movies, and listen to music.
well, that's about all i have for now. my next post will be from new york!

2006-07-19T09:53:00.000-05:00

This is a My First post much more to come.