Destroy:Ideas

Who is bullying whom?

2013-03-26T14:07:00.000-07:00

Object lesson:

Pete goes to school with an almond butter sandwich and Brad takes it from him. This happens every day. The other students know this happens and encourages Brad to take Pete's sandwich. They applaud him and provide moral support. Similarly the teachers and administrative staff support Brad's thievery. They say that Pete doesn't deserve to eat sandwiches like everyone else because the right sandwich is peanut butter. They tell him that he can eat any sandwich he likes as long as it's peanut butter. Pete insists on bringing almond butter sandwiches.

Pete is not a bully. His actions are not equivalent to Brad's nor to those of any other person in the school.

One day a classmate of Pete's named Jessica stands with Pete and calls Brad a bully. She sands with Pete and trying to convince the other students and adults that what Brad is doing is wrong. The sandwich rightfully belongs to Pete, and he's entitled to eat lunch just like everyone else.

Jessica is not a bully. Her actions are not equivalent to Brad's nor to those of any other person in the school.

Jessica finally convinces a group of children of the righteousness of her cause. They all band together to protect Pete. But the school administrators step in and take the sandwich away from Pete anyway. They give it to Brad claiming it's his right to take the sandwich from Pete. These advocate children begin to become more vocal and attempt to stop Brad and the administration from taking Pete's sandwich.

These children in solidarity are not bullies. Their actions are not equivalent to Brad's nor to those of the administration.

Constance is a teacher in the school. She is swayed by the advocate children's cause and she herself becomes a supporter of Pete's right to eat almond butter sandwiches. Over time Constance attempts to sway the rest of the administration to the cause of almond butter sandwiches. Meanwhile several other children begin bringing their own almond butter sandwiches to school. Coalitions form to support the right of children to eat whatever sandwich they would like free from abuse. Some children even bring bologna sandwiches to school.

Constance is not a bully. The children with different sandwiches are not bullies. None of their actions are equivalent to Brad, his supporters nor to those of the prevailing school administration

After many years of these skirmishes, a new school administration takes over which allows all kinds of sandwiches. Brad is no longer allowed to take sandwiches from other students. Brad forms a club which is called "Defense of Traditional Sandwiches."

The new administration is not a bully. Their actions are not equivalent to those opposed to non-peanut butter based sandwiches.

Brad and the Defense of Traditional Sandwiches organization continue their fight to ban almond butter and other forms of sandwiches. They claim that historically sandwiches have always been and will always be recognized as only peanut butter sandwiches, they begin to steal non-peanut butter sandwiches from other students. The school administration expels Brad from the school and bans sandwich theft. Brad and his followers then claim that they are having their rights trampled upon and that they are the victims of bullying.

he pro-sandwich-choice side of this entire object lesson are not bullies nor could they ever be considered bullies. They are actively denying children the right to eat whatever sandwich they prefer and are in no way in the position of denying Brad and his lot any rights at all because they do not have the right to take from others what is theirs.

This shouldn't be difficult. Both sides are not equivalent.

How to stop mass murder

2012-12-18T10:27:00.000-08:00

I admit, I'm not a policy expert. I haven't done the years of research to know the ins and outs of these issues from a policy level. This post is largely a response to a friend who asked what I think should change from a public policy perspective to try and prevent the next gun-involved massacre like the one we just saw in Newtown, CT.

First to address the axiom, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." This is essentially true, but it ignores the fact that people use tools to do everything from trim their toenails to landing rover robots on Mars. And certainly the tools which people use allow people to kill. Guns, in particular the type of guns used too often in these gun massacres, allow people to kill quickly and proficiently before anyone has a chance to react.

Hypothetically, if I were to invent a little box with a button on it that killed anyone I would like within 100 yards of me, you would expect that I wouldn't be able to sell them on Craigslist to anyone I'd like. While the user of the death box is ultimately responsible, as the acting agent, the box itself would be recognizable as the conduit for such deaths which occur. We as a society wouldn't just throw up our hands and say, "Cat's out of the bag; we can't do anything about it now." And we certainly wouldn't make the scurrilous argument that we should get the death box in the hands of everyone to react against those who would use the death box for evil purposes.

On the matter of gun ownership for self defense, we're talking measures used to abate the level of crime. The argument is that if you were to arm more people, they would be able to defend themselves and others from would-be attackers. So for every number of attacks a percentage of them would be defended successfully. No gun advocate I've ever read has said gun ownership would end all crime 100%. But when it comes to common sense gun regulation that would slow the instance of, and abate the severity of, senseless violet attacks on public spaces, these same gun advocates argue that it's pointless because you can't stop all of them all of the time. They argue that because it wouldn't achieve a 100% success rate, it's pointless to regulate weapons of mass destruction.

Really, gun advocates are arguing that saving a percentage of lives that would otherwise have been lost is less important than the ability for them to own and use any gun at their own private discretion. They're saying losing the occasional classroom full of first-grade students is an acceptable price we pay for our liberties. Those liberties are exclusively: unlimited gun ownership.

I for one am sick of sacrificing children on the altar of gun rights. This goes to the heart of what Destroy:Ideas is all about. I cannot put ideology ahead of people.

But what are these rules? How can we prevent the next school massacre?

The relationships people have with guns vary greatly. People in rural areas have different needs than those in cities. Chicago has approximately 500 murders a year, so people there don't think more guns are a solution. But people who live in rural Montana do know that rifles are important tools to protect their property and livestock from predators such as wolves, bears and badgers. Because of this, I do not think a uniform code will work across the nation. However, there definitely has to be a way to safeguard this difference in law so guns aren't purchased in rural counties and delivered into urban centers where they are not used to ward off wolves but to commit violent crime, as the case of Washington D.C. shows.

The first changes have to be with poverty abatement, and health care access. If we can pretend that our violence here is every bit a threat to our society as violence in Iraq, we could do really positive things. Studies have shown poverty is the leading indicator of violent behavior. Similarly, economic inequality and social stratification are causes of violence and other criminal behavior. While crime rates in American have recently been falling to historic lows, they rose sharply as our equalizing institutions were dismantled in the 70s and 80s, and crime peaked in the early 1990s. (The internet played a large role in reducing crime rates as the internet is a democratizing leveler of social classes, where nobody has power over other people, and everyone can express their frustrations in non-violent ways.)

When it comes to health care, the US government already pays more than twice, per capita, what the average industrialized nation does on health care, yet doesn't achieve universal coverage, and the outcomes are lower. Incidentally, we could solve our long-term deficit problem immediately if we achieved truly universal health care. Providing access to health care can and will lead to lower rates of crime, especially violent crime. As there is a link between poverty and crime, there is also a link between health care access and poverty. Specifically, health care costs are the leading cause of bankruptcy, and send families into poverty every day.

Along with universal health care, we need emergency mental health services. These don't exist everywhere. Those that do exist trend to be nonprofit organizations, and their outreach isn't wide enough. And their resources are too little. I bet you didn't even know there was a 211 number anyone can dial on their phone to reach a nonprofit organization that can help guide people to these resources.

Studies show the majority of violent criminal offenders have mental illness, or mental developmental problems like fetal alcohol syndrome/affects. One study tested 16 death row inmates and all of them, 100%, had experienced brain trauma. What some would call "evil" is being found to simply be mental disordered/impairments.

These previous issues, I'm glad to say, are pretty noncontroversial. Most gun advocates I know aren't for government-run universal health coverage, but they do understand that providing better access to health services, especially mental health services, is an important step in mass murder abatement.

What about gun control?

To be more specific about the gun regulation steps I alluded to previously, we should look at a few common sense issues related to this idea.

In the previous few decades gun manufacturers have deliberately increased the lethality of guns in order to boost their profits. Their industry faced a problem: guns don't wear out and fewer people are entering the traditional gun markets (hunting and sport shooting). As a result, they have begun marketing to urban dwellers and survivalist fear mongers a fantasy of self defense. They increased round capacity, caliber size, and rate of fire in addition to making the arms smaller and more concealable. They also developed more lethal ammunition rounds, including rounds that splinter upon entry which only means the bullets are harder to remove. (A completely unnecessary feature for anyone who isn't a demented freak.)

Foreign arms manufacturers are also playing a larger role in the US market as other markets have been becoming more highly regulated. Surplus Russian and Chinese military weapons would previously be sold in third world countries, but there's now a huge market for these military-grade weapons in America.

Because of this utter lack of regulation, I propose:

Ammunition needs to be tracked better, and taxed the way we tax cigarettes. We generally recognize tobacco as a public health concern but not gun violence.
Ammunition types need to be regulated to remove unnecessary body mutilation features.
Handguns should have limited capacity. Nine rounds is plenty to scare off an intruder - if that is really the agenda. Larger magazines don't create a larger deterrent. Magazine replacement should require two hands to slow reload times.
High caliber weapons should be of the single action hunting variety only and limited to five rounds.
Shotguns should be limited to two rounds with single action.
Military style weapons (long rifles and carbines with high capacity magazines and semi-automatic function) should be kept in community armories or other licensed gun clubs. This should be sufficient to handle the "well regulated militia" clause of the second amendment. Military style weapons are not suitable for home protection nor for hunting, they're strictly for recreational and militia use.
Gun owners should be licensed - this is different than the checks we have now which are essentially honor based questions which don't have the answers screened - but a full written test and practical test. These licenses should be given grades for the different classes of guns, just like drivers licenses are given for each class of of vehicle. These licenses should be renewed in person every three to five years.
Each gun should also be licensed and registered just like cars.

What about people who don't follow the law?

Yeah, people don't follow the laws at all times, but most people seek to be law abiding, so we could catch a lot of these problems before someone has a mental breakdown, or experiences a transient life event that puts them in enough stress to go off the proverbial deep end.

There is certainly an element of society which lives in an informal economy, or black market. These people don't follow laws. But these people also don't commit mass atrocities like the ones we saw this past week. You also can't really compare the failing drug policies with proposed gun regulations because:

You can't grow guns in your closet
There's a profitable market for drugs
There is no market for mass murder

Over the past 30 years, over 80% of the guns used in mass shootings were obtained legally. This murdered in Newtown, CT borrowed the weapons from his mother. Even if this guy had a history of mental illness and was denied sale of a gun (he would have anyway because he was too young for a handgun), his mother didn't and wasn't. These mass murders are not committed by career criminals, and usually this is their first (and last) offense. We can't exclusively focus on keeping arms out of the hands of "bad guys" when it's not the "bad guys" who are committing these most heinous crimes, but the guy nobody would expect.

Furthermore, we have ~30,000 gun-related deaths in the USA every year. Only about ~10,000 of those are homicides. That leaves ~20,000 gun deaths in our country every year where nobody committed any intentional crime. I didn't go into the relationship between guns and suicide here, but the statistics on that are pretty remarkable.

I'm no expert, but these seem to be common sense solutions. They wouldn't stop every bad event every time, but it could reduce a percentage of them from happening at least. I just can't accept that recreational gun use is more important than the lives of children.

The contempt of men

2012-09-10T13:11:00.000-07:00

The following is a letter I sent off to Esquire after reading the cited article. My wife can attest that the article so upset me that I could literally do nothing until I finished writing and mailing this letter. I admit that in hindsight I forgot to mention a few additional points of contention, namely the sitcom genre which has always leaned on stupid men (Married with Children, Home Improvement, etc.), among other issues. But instead of adding them, I'll just post the whole letter as it was sent:

I have just finished reading the article by Stephen Marche titled “The Contempt of Women.” It was such a poorly devised article that I felt compelled to respond. I don’t know who Stephen Marche is, but from the content of the article it appears he’s completely ignorant of the growing body of academic feminist thought. He also shows that this “contempt for men” is a fabrication, and he’s really just showing a contempt for women.

Mr. Marche’s argument begins and ends with comedy. He argues that the self-deprecating humor of male comedians is a sign of how men have acquiesced to the notion that men are idiots to be viewed with contempt. Maybe Marche has never looked at the historical body of work by comedians the world over. Comedians like Charlie Chaplin who epitomized the bumbling fool. Teams of comedians like Abbott and Costello, Laurel and Hardy, the Marx Bros.; all of the comedy from these men showed idiotic men unaware of their foolishness. All of these men pre-feminist revolution, when women didn’t go to college.

And yet Marche will reference Louis C.K. to bolster his claim - a comedian who doesn’t point out the dark side of humanity to wallow in it, but to seek out the positive in the turd sandwich called life. A comedian who encourages men to step up and be men of distinction.

Marche also fails to realize that most of the successful female comedians over the years have had to lean on the stereotype that women are disgusting, irrational creatures who are also conniving bitches. This is hardly evidence that comedy has a contempt for men. Yet the accompanying sidebar suggests self-hating women in comedy are rare!

When Marche references media targeted at women as an example of contempt, he’s really just pointing out that men are treated in these stories the way women are treated in every other story. There is even a name for this: The Bechdel Test. Does a movie have a scene with one or more named women having back and forth dialogue about anything other than men? It seems like a low bar to reach, yet most major movies fail this test. Most movies only have one female lead. Women have always played a subservient role in media, as nothing more than eye candy, or sexual escapades. And when a couple of new stories come out where women treat men like complex beings from a female perspective, Mr. Marche would have us believe it’s because women have contempt for us.
Even in the pages of Esquire, women are eye candy, or they tell jokes while wearing intimate apparel. They can’t be given the same respect men in these pages receive.

As for the economic numbers, Yes, women are making the biggest growth in the job market, but that’s to be expected when there were so few of them previously. The only way for men to grow the same way is to push out women from those numbers. And we’re not talking about a finite number, because the job market is growing. A women entering the market isn’t pushing out a man.

It might be easier to just blame women for the failings of men, but it lacks personal responsibility. Men are responsible for their own fates, and women are attempting to have the same basic rights.

I’m just surprised and appalled such a poorly thought out article would even get written by a thinking human being, let alone past the editorial staff of such a powerful media establishment. But I guess my reaction is proof you did your job.

Steven Kippel

Cause and affect of egalitarianism and sexual violence

2012-07-19T14:00:00.002-07:00

The Christian blogosphere has recently exploded with some of the most vicious attacks I've ever seen from anyone, let alone those who are enjoined members of one Body.

It all started when Jared Wilson posted an excerpt from Douglas Wilson's (no relation) book, Fidelity: What it Means to be a One-Woman Man on the Gospel-Driven Church blog.

The original blog posting didn't take the entire book's context into account, and offered only the context that Jared Wilson found how it should be relevant considering some book named 50 Shades of Grey has become a pop culture touchstone. Jared Wilson pointed specifically to how "sexual pathology is a perverted version of good, God-honoring, and body-protecting authority and submission between husbands and wives."

The quotation argues that there is a natural order of submission between men and women, and that egalitarianism has perverted that order, removing the authority from men and the submission from women, so that there is a new pathology which leads to "bondage and submission games" as well as "rape fantasies." Douglas Wilson is arguing that we as a culture have rebelled against "the biblical concepts of true authority and submission" and have thus brought perverted, violent forms of authority and submission into the culture.

Men dream of being rapists, and women find themselves wistfully reading novels in which someone ravishes the "soon to be made willing" heroine. Those who deny they have any need for water at all will soon find themselves lusting after polluted water, but water nonetheless.

A lot of people have rejected this claim outright saying that rape has existing long before egalitarianism was ever a majority opinion. Certainly long before the Enlightenment era. As anyone familiar with these subjects know, rapists aren't trying to have free sex, they're seeking power and control over another person. This has been seen throughout history where rape has been used against defeated armies and cultures as an assertion of power and a humiliation of the defeated. To be fair to Douglas Wilson, he's not speaking about rape itself, but rape fantasies, and other sexual fetishes where power or domination are used. In fact, he's claiming that the rape fantasies are indeed about power and dominion.

But, he's making a strong correlation here that these fantasies are the result of a broken authority system he claims the Bible teaches. He calls it "complementarianism," which is just another word for patriarchy. And he may even have some point here if not for the fact that what he calls this "sexual pathology" has also been around much longer than the Enlightenment and egalitarian thought.

Douglas Wilson may even argue against this point by saying those people throughout history had an individual rebellion against the "biblical concepts of true authority and submission" even if there wasn't a cultural rebellion. However, his counter argument would be placed in peril because he's now finding himself moving the goalposts whenever someone criticizes his point.

Which is exactly what he has been doing as he's come to his own defense during this uproar.

The main offense taken by the Douglas Wilson passage is when Mr. Wilson describes the natural mechanisms of "true authority and submission" during sexual congress. He says his description is "the way the world is" (his emphasis), as if a fixed rule. He compares this reality with physics, saying "we cannot make gravity disappear just because we dislike it."

So we come to the thrust of the objection, that Douglas Wilson blames rape fantasies on egalitarianism. (Emphasis mine.)

When we quarrel with the way the world is, we find that the world has ways of getting back at us. In other words, however we try, the sexual act cannot be made into an egalitarian pleasuring party. A man penetrates, conquers, colonizes, plants. A woman receives, surrenders, accepts. This is of course offensive to all egalitarians, and so our culture has rebelled against the concept of authority and submission in marriage. This means that we have sought to suppress the concepts of authority and submission as they relate to the marriage bed.

Douglas Wilson is clearly blaming egalitarianism for a sexual pathology which leads to rape fantasies. And I want to write about that more in depth, but I first want to talk about what he's describing as the "biblical concepts of true authority and submission." He describes the man as conquering and colonizing his wife, while she surrenders. This is metaphorical, coloring a picture of the sexual act, but as we should be aware, words matter. Douglas Wilson is using martial language to describe a sexual encounter. The same way an invading force conquers and colonizes an indigenous culture, and that culture surrenders and accepts the invading force.

There's nothing so much wrong with word pictures, but words matter, and describing a sexual encounter in terms usually reserved for a violent military action does trigger parallels to violent sexual encounters. It doesn't hearken to mutual submission, nor to a loving, consensual encounter.

In Douglas Wilson's defense, he compares his terminology to the terminology used in Song of Songs. "Her neck is like the tower of David" for conquer (4:4), and "You are a garden locked up" for colonize (4:12). Of course the Tower of David passage is talking about beauty and adornments, not in conquest (a tower doesn't do much conquering). I'm clueless how the garden image has any resemblance to colonization.

Finally, Douglas Wilson uses the most disingenuous response to the egalitarian phrase I've ever seen. Mr. Wilson flippantly said his critics "need to retake their ESL [English as a Second Language] class", but his shoehorn apology really takes the cake.

The emphasis needs to be placed on "egalitarian pleasuring party" -- the kind of party where the sexes of the participants don't matter, because all that matters is that two or more people come to orgasm. I was by implication lauding a complementarian pleasure party. The term of opprobrium there was egalitarian, not pleasure.

Are we supposed to believe that, given the context, Douglas Wilson was trying to make "egalitarian" into a free love thing instead of the widely accepted and understood term to describe equality of value, rights, opportunity, power, wealth and influence? Nobody has used the term, to my knowledge, to ever describe sexual liberation. And what's even more laughable is that Mr. Wilson himself is not using the term in this manner.

This passage from his book is clearly contrasting egalitarianism between equality and authority. That's his entire point in discussing the topic - the rebellion against authority and submission. He says that the rebellion against patriarchy is causing this pathology. That rejecting authority and submission leads to a pathology which fetishizes authority and submission. The egalitarian is the villain, and the answer is honoring authority.

He directly ties egalitarianism with the male authority and female submissive "in marriage." He's not saying that the husband's failure to act authoritatively nor the wife's failure to act submissively leads to adultery or homosexuality, he's saying the failure to honor "true authority and true submission" leads to " sexual 'bondage and submission games,' along with very common rape fantasies."

To pretend he meant anything else makes his snide comment about lacking English language skills seem hypocritical.

In conclusion, this is the end result of complementarian theology. Even though the Bible directly contradicts this notion. "The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife." (1 Corinthians 7:4) But because of this twisted view of God and scriptures, complementarians like Douglas Wilson oppose egalitarianism, especially between men and women. It gets so perverted that the passage Jared Wilson cites from Douglas Wilson's book ends by declaring,

True authority and true submission are therefore an erotic necessity.

Trusting God or shirking responsibility?

2012-05-01T10:54:00.000-07:00

Maybe sometimes when I say I just want to "trust God" and put something "in His hands," I'm really just saying I don't want to take responsibility for something. The feeling of "freedom" in trusting God may just be the freedom from obligation. I'm not so sure that's exactly what God meant when he said to trust Him. The Biblical stories show a God who entrusts men and women with responsibilities and their response is to trust that God had a plan. But now it seems like when we say to trust God it means we remove responsibility from us and place responsibility onto God.

When God Talks Back

2012-04-12T16:18:00.000-07:00

Family values v. Free market economics

2012-04-09T13:10:00.000-07:00

I'm an American, and in America we have a two-party system. One party claims to support "family values" and economic liberties. This party has become incredibly successful in its marketing this idea. They make the claim that "we're the party of family values" and nobody bothers to even question the idea.

But there's a problem in America for this party. Young people in this country care more about their family ties than their occupations. This is a problem for them because their economic model is built on greed, and the new generation cares less about money than the preceding generations. They care about relationships more than materialism.

The economic model of the party of family values believes "hunger is a great motivator." They call children who want to be close to their families "lazy" and would prefer young adults moving out of state to find jobs rather than maintaining their family bonds. Their policies find migration to be a positive economic function to provide competition in the market in order to reduce labor costs, but it also pulls families apart.

I'm not here today to provide a solution, I just don't think one can claim to be the party of family values while promoting economic policies which cause domestic turmoil, prevent young people from getting married and starting families, and pull apart families for the goal of greed.

It's a shame there isn't a third way in America.

A Picture Is Worth a Thousand Denunciations of Denominationalism

2012-03-12T10:24:00.002-07:00

Courtesy Prof. John Stackhouse

Stackhouse lecture on harm-reduction sites

2011-10-26T16:53:00.000-07:00

This is a controversial subject, but it is important. The video is John Stackhouse, Professor of Theology and Culture at Regent College, with Meera Bai discussing harm-reduction sites that provide a safe environment for drug addicts to receive counseling, medical care, rehabilitation, and clean needles.

If you don't have time to watch the video (it's about an hour long), you can read an article on the subject at ChristianWeek.org.

I have come to the opinion that I cannot support ideas or policies that cost lives. Similarly, I cannot oppose ideas or policies that would save lives. There is a grey area where an idea or policy will cost lives and also save lives. That's more nuanced. But if there is something that can be done that saves lives that doesn't cost lives, it seems pretty clear cut that action is appropriate or even necessary.

Watch live streaming video from regentcollege at livestream.com

The end result of Muscular Christianity

2011-10-03T13:27:00.000-07:00

It's just too much. I don't really have words.

I've said it was dangerous theologically to prop up this alpha male masculinity as a model for Christian behavior, saying anything less means you're less godly. Yet it continues, and grows daily.

Stupid, idiotic pastors of questionable character keep using violence to sell their version of the Gospel of Peace, like somehow the message of the cross just wouldn't make it into the minds of young men unless someone was kicked in the balls first. As if the love of God to rescue all of creation from certain doom wasn't good enough, so we have to make somebody bleed first.

And now we have a story from a congregation in Tulsa, Oklahoma who stages boxing matches as part of their ministry. And now Muscular Christianity has taken a life.

Stop it. Just stop it.

Why we are adopting

2011-07-21T09:21:00.000-07:00

I wrote this about a month ago for the local Christian news magazine to be distributed to all of the churches in the area. When I submitted it, I was informed of the serendipitous nature of things as the next issue was going to focus on foster care and adoption, so it fits in quite well. However, I had to shorten it down considerably. It's over 1400 words, and the normal article space is 500 words. The version that will be published should be just under 800 words. To this is the full version.

At the end of the movie Schindler’s List, Oskar Schindler breaks down in tears. “I could have got more out,” he cries, “I could have got more.” A few years ago I had the opportunity to visit the Schindler factory in Krakow, Poland. Schindler had saved the lives of over 1,100 Jews during World War II, yet here he is admonishing himself because he could have done more.

“Why did I keep the car? Ten people right there. Ten people. Ten more people.” He intimates this thought to his friend Itzhak Stern. He takes his lapel pin off and continues, “This pin. Two people. This is gold. Two more people. He would have given me two for it, at least one. One more person. A person, Stern. For this. I could have gotten one more person,” he’s sobbing at this point, “and I didn’t! And I … I didn’t!”

This is one of the most powerful scenes in any movie ever produced. It’s also a stark reminder of the eternal reality we as Christians must face. Do we honestly believe what we say we believe? Is the world facing real eternal peril?

Jesus was very serious about this. He brought it up multiple times. One young man came to him asking what he could do to inherit eternal life, and Jesus responded, “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven.” (Mark 10:21) In the same way, he told his disciples, “Those of you who do not give up everything you have cannot be my disciples.” (Luke 14:33)

And I’m reminded once again of Oskar Schindler lamenting his inaction, “I threw away so much money.” He wasted his money on the temporary pleasures of life when he could have saved lives with the money and resources he had at his disposal.

There are a lot of very strong verses in the Bible about rich people. They aren’t opposed to wealth, but they do warn about what comes with riches. Temptations, idolatry, murder, slander, all forms of evil. I’ve always thought these verses were for other people. I don’t have much money, much less than a lot of people around here. But I live in the

United States of America

, and even though I’m well below the median income level, I’m still in the top 5% of the wealthiest people in the world (according to globalrichlist.com).

I’m not alone in this regard. Earlier this year, Fidelity Investments released the results of a survey that found 46% of millionaires “didn’t feel wealthy in 2009.” In fact, 58% of them claimed they needed $1.75 million to feel wealthy. In survey after survey, the majority of people don’t believe they are rich even when they are millionaires.

And I am still in the richest 5%. Half of the world’s population lives on less than $2.50 per day. At least 80% of humanity lives on less than $10 a day. I can’t even buy lunch for $10.

Needless to say, I cannot ignore these verses, like in 1 Timothy 6, that commands those who are rich to not “put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God.” Or in James 1, which instructs the rich to “take pride in their humiliation.”

But what is the response to all of this? Should I just feel bad about myself for having so much while many are perishing in this world?

The Apostle Paul commands us, “to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share.” (1 Timothy 6:18) It leaves me with one solution: If I am blessed with good things, I am to give to those in need. God has provided me with food, clothing and a home. Anything past this is luxury for much of humanity. Certainly I can look at what I have and make sacrifices to my comfort to even save one more person.

The Apostle John went even further saying, “If anyone has material possessions and sees a brother or sister in need but has no pity on them, how can the love of God be in that person? Dear children, let us not love with words or speech but with actions and in truth.” (1 John 3:17-18) Does this really mean that if I hold onto my possessions when another is in need that God’s love is not in me?

James teaches us that, “Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.” (James 1:27) This seems to be a very straight-forward verse, yet why is it so radical? This word “religion” means “worship,” or “ceremonial observance.” Why doesn’t the Church view caring for orphans and widows as a vital part of our worship?

So this is what my wife and I are doing: Last year we started the process of adopting children. We contacted our local Department of Public and Social Services, had our background checks, attended many hours of training, and now we’re on the list to receive children any day now. This is something just about everyone can do, and unlike the common perception it doesn’t cost a thing.

We took a look at our budget, and we’ve decided the needs of children are more important to us, and to God, than owning two cars, owning a home, frequent restaurant visits, cable television, etc. These things that seem so inconsequential to middle-class

America

were barriers to “pure and faultless” worship. They were (literally) a car we sold to buy beds for the children. I don’t have a gold lapel pin, but I would have been willing to sell that as well if I could have “gotten one more.”

These are meager sacrifices for what seems like nothing compared to what Oskar Schindler managed, but we’re a meager family doing what we can.

Schindler lived just miles from the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camps, a real and present evil. We also visited these camps, and it’s really a life-changing experience. But we live in a world where 22,000 children die each day due to poverty-related issues like hunger, and preventable diseases. These are things we don’t see on a daily basis because they live in South-East Asia, or Sub-Saharan Africa.

But it also happens closer to home, and we ignore it, and even pass laws to keep it out of our neighborhoods - someplace out of sight. Nearly 21% of American children are living in poverty, facing food insecurity, poor health, abuse and neglect. With our income, we cannot afford to adopt a child from overseas, but we can help a few here in the Coachella Valley who are in need. I can’t make excuses anymore.

Jesus expressed how much it takes to enter the Kingdom of Heaven in severe terms - over and over again. At one point he even said that, “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters - yes even their own life - such a person cannot be my disciple.” (Luke 14:26) These are probably the harshest recorded saying of his. Yet I think I now understand somewhat what they mean. We are adopting children instead of having our own biological children. These aren’t children we will ever know, but we’re giving them up in order to “care for orphans in their distress.”

Jesus also taught us, “If you only greet your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” (Matthew 5:46-48) It is (generally) easy to love your own family, and stick with your own kin, but it takes a work of God to love without expectation.

Of course these children will be ours. They will be loved, and they will love us. We aren’t walking away from anyone, but into a new kind of love. God is the author of love, and giver of good gifts. These children are great gifts from God, and we praise him for the wonderful opportunity to care for these little ones. In receiving them we receive God. As Jesus said, “Whoever welcomes one of these little children in my name welcomes me; and whoever welcomes me does not welcome me but the one who sent me.” (Mark 9:37)

You see, it is always pure joy to serve our Lord. What may seem like a sacrifice of time, money or possessions always ends up being worth 100-times that in the economy of the Kingdom of Heaven. (Matthew 19:29)

Putting the Kingdom first

2011-07-19T13:04:00.000-07:00

When anyone addresses the words of Jesus concerning money, there is always the same answer given.

Jesus said:

"Sell your possessions and give to the poor." (Luke 12:33)
"You cannot serve God and Money." (Matthew 6:24)
"Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal." (Matthew 6:19)
"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." (Luke 18:25)

And the answer is, "God wants us to put HIM first!" That is, Jesus only meant we cannot love money more than we love God.

Of course Jesus didn't say, "You can serve two masters, so long as you only work for one of them on the evenings." He said, "You cannot serve two masters."

But what exactly does that mean? How does one tell if they're serving God or money?

Maybe you can see how much time you spend at work earning money and compare it with the time you spend working for the Kingdom of God. Maybe you can compare how much money you spend on yourself with how much you spend on the poor.

They will use this answer to weasel out of what Jesus plainly says, and then still fail to live up to their own definition.

If you have money and you aren't supporting orphans and widows with it, you are serving money, not God. (James 1:27) If you own anything and do not use it to help those in need, you are serving money, not God. (1 John 3:17)

We live in a society that is the wealthiest society to ever exist throughout time. We don't need most of the stuff we have, yet we keep moving the goalposts to include our luxuries under what is acceptable to God. Having two cars is more important than having one, and providing for a family in need. Having a home office is more important than using the dining room table in a smaller home and using the excess to provide housing for the homeless. Having a cappuccino maker is more important than providing water for a village without it.

We pat ourselves on the back thinking we're good because we tithe to the local church (to pay the pastor's salary), even give extra to a few charities, and even help out at the shelter during the holidays, while the poor continue to struggle. The hungry continue to hunger. The thirsty continue to thirst. The homeless remain on the streets.

We tell ourselves we don't love money, but we spend thousands on fertilization treatments when there are thousands of orphans available for adoption.

We wish we could give more, yet we spend excessively on creature comforts and entertainment.

Quenching the Spirit in women

2011-07-08T11:02:00.000-07:00

In 1 Thessalonians 5, Paul writes,

Do not quench the Spirit. Do not treat prophecies with contempt but test them all

Yet the Church has become expert at doing just this. In fact it's codified in many denominations, and held up as an important value for Christian ministry. I am, of course talking about the practice of excluding women from ministry.

In 1 Corinthians 12, Paul lists off a series of spiritual gifts. Each of these are given to those within the Body of Christ. These include both men and women. They include wisdom, knowledge, faith, healing, miracles, prophecy, discerning spirits, tongues, and interpretation of tongues. The rest of the chapter goes on to express how important each member of the body is, and over the next couple of chapters how the gifts should be expressed in worship.

For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.

Yet women are excluded in our congregations today.

Even though Paul admonishes, "the members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary; and those members of the body which we deem less honorable, on these we bestow more abundant honor, and our less presentable members become much more presentable," (emphasis mine) their spiritual gifts are relegated to support their husbands, or to minister to other women and children only.

Taking this last verse in tandem with 1 Peter 3:7, we've really got a crisis in hand.

You husbands in the same way, live with your wives in an understanding way, as with someone weaker, since she is a woman; and show her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life, so that your prayers will not be hindered.

Yet women are excluded in our congregations today.

They're not excluded in the way that women are segregated in mosques, and for a completely different reason, but it's the fact that the spirit is quenched in women by disallowing their use in the greater congregation.

This is true of men too, as I have said before, but it's especially true of women. Our church structures disallow the use of gifts for everyone but the professional Christians. Yet women aren't allowed to be professional Christians. And even congregations that are more open to congregational involvement in worship tend to hold women back from full participation.

Stop it. Just stop it.

Blaming women

2011-06-02T19:19:00.000-07:00

The Church has been struggling over the past few decades with the drop in male attendance at services. There have been many answers to why we have this phenomenon. But it's not unique to the Christian world. The secular world is also seeing a trend of fewer men seeking college degrees, and fewer men in the work force.

Unfortunately, too many people come up with the same answer: women.

Yes. They blame women for the failures of men.

Here are a few statistics:

Women are more likely than men to graduate from high school
Only 44% of undergraduates at community or four-year colleges are men
Female college students have higher grade point averages than men, and are more likely to graduate
Among young adults, 35% of women and 27% of men possessed bachelor degrees in 2009
Women are 60% more likely than men to earn a bachelor's degree by the time they're 23
More women than men are earning advanced degrees; 9% of women and 6% of men
Nearly 6 out of 10 adults holding advanced degrees between the ages of 25 and 29 are women
There are now more women than men in the workforce, with 3/4 of the jobs lost in the Great Recession by men
A third of men aged 22-34 still live at home with their parents; in the ages 18-24, 56% of men and 48% of women still live with their parents

Looking at these statistics, we see that young men are checking out. They're choosing to be slackers while young women are being more disciplined.

Yet the blame falls on women? You have to be kidding me.

I've heard guys say it started with women's suffrage. Yeah, women voting has made men less inclined to make their own lives better.

Or they'll blame the feminist movement of the 1970s, saying women entered the work force and made everything worse for men.

This is completely and demonstrably false.

Woodoodles and Floopdeens

Let's do an object lesson:

There are 100 Woodoodles who work in a mine. They go to work every day and mine 20 kilos of diamonds. One day, the foreman says they need 40 kilos of diamonds, so he's going to bring in 100 Floopdeens, and expand the mine. Over time, as the mine grows, the Floopdeen workers grow as the mine grows to accommodate them. Now there are 100 Floopdeens mining 18 kilos of diamonds, but there are only 80 Woodoodles and they're only mining 14 kilos.

When there are openings for 100 Woodoodles and 100 Floopdeens, why are there only 80 Woodoodles when there were 100? Should the foreman hire a few more Floopdeens to cover the Woodoodle labor that isn't getting done?

It's possible that some Woodoodles are upset that Floopdeens are now working in their mines, but that's irrational behavior, and may even be racist. It's not the Floopdeens' fault the Woodoodles don't want to work any more. It's not their fault they're hated by some of the Woodoodles.

There is clearly a different answer for this problem, because laming women for the failings of men is ridiculous.Women don't keep men from going to college, or earning good grades. And women don't keep men from attending church services.

Belonging and purpose

I've been attending a lot of parenting classes recently as my wife and I are preparing to take foster children with the intention to adopt. In the last class, it was stressed over and over than children act out when they do not feel belonging or significance. These two things are the basic desires of everybody once food, shelter and security are met.

They explained that in the agrarian society, the children worked alongside their parents, so they had significance, and belonging. Now children are to be seen and not heard. They're to go to school where belonging is lacking, and pass tests where significance is lacking. At home, children aren't asked to carry much of the load either.

This is why I think men are failing - especially in the church communities. Our institutions don't provide belonging or significance for men. And this isn't because women are present, it's because they're treated as sheep or machines.

Over the past thirty years, when the churches began noticing the trend of male attendance reduction, we also saw a new type of church structure being formed. These congregations moved away from an elder-centered community, and more into a cult-of-personality around an individual man. It was this one man's vision, and it was this one man's authority that the congregation was asked to submit to. And I know many men who have become sick of this, and have left the typical church community because they weren't given a voice, and when they attempted to exercise their spiritual gifts, they were admonished and sometimes told to leave.

It's not because women took over, or the churches started catering to the needs of women than caused men to leave. It was because the alpha-male model of vertical authority took over, and pushed out the other men.

Bigger, stronger, faster

Recently, I watched a documentary called Bigger Stronger Faster, a discovery of the American infatuation with steroid use and bulging muscles. The host and narrator talked about how the 1980s introduced a new model of masculinity into American culture; a lone wolf with rippling muscles, and kickass attitude. One guest showed how the GI Joe action figure went from a normal-sized guy in the '60s to a muscular guy in the '80s to an inhuman size in the '90s.

Over these years, male culture has praised machismo over brains. Brawn over skills.

Since the 1980s, we’ve been inundated with a new image of man. It was no longer Sean Connery’s multi-skilled gentleman, Cary Grant’s casual elegance, or even John Wayne’s meek toughness. It was Arnold’s biceps, Jean Claude’s speed, Sly Stallone’s will, and Hulk Hogan’s anger.

Men have sloughed off the complete man in favor of the warrior.

Being smart isn’t manly. Being gentle is the price we pay to keep the company of women (but who needs them, right?). Manners are for sissies; ties are for idiots.

And along with this machismo comes homophobia. Having a nice hair cut is gay. Being fit is gay. Wearing nice clothes is gay. Cooking is gay. Reading books is gay. Doing well in school is gay.

It seems like the more we see how gay men are exactly the same as us, the less we want to be like ourselves. So we turn to being fat sloths to get away from the appearance of being gay.

The answer

I'm not really interested in the cultural aspects of masculinity as much as I am the Christian aspects. What can we do to help men in the church?

Look to Christ, of course.

The first chapter of Hebrews says that Jesus Christ is "the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being." (v.3) If we want to be perfect as the Father is perfect (Matthew 5:48), we should model our church communities and our lives after the Son. (1 Peter 2:21)

Church discipline should no longer follow the feudal system of vertical authority. This is not how Christ lead his disciples, nor is it how the Apostles taught the leaders to behave.

If Jesus is the "exact representation" of God, and he came not to be served but to serve (Matthew 20:28; Luke 12:37), than God's example for us is to serve one another. (Luke 22:26-27; Galatians 5:13) This is especially true of the leaders. Too often the leadership demands service to their needs, and they punish those who do not fall in line with their vision. This is contrary to the way Christ exemplified and taught.

Mark 10:42-45

Jesus called them together and said, "You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."

Peter told the leaders the same thing, as Jesus taught him as he washed Peter's feet. (John 13:12-17)

1 Peter 5:2-3

Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, watching over them—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not pursuing dishonest gain, but eager to serve; not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock.

Leaders, provide significance in the congregation for all participants. Find the gifts of everyone and encourage them to use them. Don't hinder their use. You're purpose is not to guide the "sheep" but to provide a place for them to have belonging and significance. You encourage men to be leaders, yet won't let them lead within their church community because you're the leader. Let them lead. Let other men have visions.

This is the same for women. Women find significance in hearing others, so it's not difficult for women's ministries to grow by providing a place of belonging. But women have other gifts as well, and they need to be allowed to participate fully in the congregation as well. All members need to have belonging and significance, and all of their spiritual giftings need to be encouraged and allowed.

Hate America

2011-05-09T15:40:00.000-07:00

This idea is a continuation of my previous post about this same topic, Undivided devotion to the Lord. Since it is the same argument but a different text of scripture, I will simply just copy that argument verbatim, with just a few modifications. This passage is Luke 14:26

Jesus says,

If anyone comes to me and does not hate his country, fellow-citizens, place of birth—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple.

This is a powerful passage. This pericope isn't about patriotism and politics, but about discipleship. It is one of those passages that the American church has done away with completely, or at least largely marginalized. It's usually explained away by saying it's an order of magnitude. The strongest wording on it comes from David Platt in his book Radical: Taking Back Your Faith from the American Dream. He says it means our devotion to Christ should be so strong, our earthly relationships should look like hate in comparison. Most people just say it means you can't love man more than God, and should it come down to it, you should give up your relationships - for example - if your family were to expel you because of your beliefs.

Family is placed even above patriotism. The duty to your family is before the nation. (There are some ultra-nationalistic people who claim duty to country comes first, but in general, the family comes first.) This is why I even went back to talking about family before I went into patriotism.

If the family is the highest priority for Christians, even above our duty to the nation, how much more does this passage apply when you put it in context of politics? Or employment? Or any lesser thing?

Yet I assume phrasing this passage in this way may be even more scandalous for many.

Christ immediately follows this saying,

Suppose one of you wants to build a tower. Won’t you first sit down and estimate the cost to see if you have enough money to complete it? For if you lay the foundation and are not able to finish it, everyone who sees it will ridicule you, saying, ‘This person began to build and wasn’t able to finish.’

I added emphasis here. It's usually said, "count the cost." Christ is challenging us to really consider what earthly attachments we possess, and how they affect our place in the Kingdom of Heaven. He wants us to let go of our attachments to this world.

We're very much attached to our national politics. Our government. Our money ... Isn't that why we have protests against taxation? We want to hold onto our money. Some are calling for revolution, because they're willing to fight and kill to hold onto the treasures they've built up in this world.

If anyone comes to me and does not hate America, such a person cannot be my disciple. And whoever does not submit to government oppression while you carry out my work cannot be my disciple.

Understanding the evildoer

2011-04-27T14:37:00.000-07:00

Matthew 9:11
When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?”

Purpose driven creation

2011-04-15T11:01:00.000-07:00

In many circles, it seems like the good deeds prepared for us (Ephesians 2:10) are primarily for evangelic purposes. That we love our neighbors in order to win them over to the Kingdom. We care for the needy in order to redeem their souls.

This is contrasted with the actual reason we're called to do this, which is obedience, and actually participating in the Kingdom. It is the very purpose of the Gospel as it is pertains to living our lives as sojourners in this land. In fact, we were created specifically to do these works.

We aren't called to a new way of living as much as we're called back to our very purpose in being. Saved from our selfish sinful nature which has perverted our created purpose to serve one another.

Undivided devotion to the Lord

2011-04-10T16:36:00.000-07:00

I was just reading a bit in 1 Corinthians, and I came to a striking realization. Let me just post what it says here with a minor tweak, but with the same reason.

I would like you to be free from concern. An unpolitical man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs — how he can please the Lord. But a political man is concerned about the affairs of this world — how he can serve his country — and his interests are divided. An unpolitical woman is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a political woman is concerned about the affairs of this world — how she can serve her country. I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.

This is a powerful passage. This pericope isn't about patriotism and politics, but about marriage. It is one of those passages that the American church has done away with completely. They've killed it; expunged it from the Bible. They want nothing to do with it. They value family above all else. It is the most godly thing you can do. Family is an idol.

Yet there are many fellowships in this country that refuse to hire a pastor who isn't married. They look down on anyone who would serve in the church body who doesn't have a family.

Family is placed even above patriotism. The duty to your family is before the nation. (There are some ultra-nationalistic people who claim duty to country comes first, but in general, the family comes first.) This is why I even went back to talking about family before I went into patriotism.

If the family is the highest priority for Christians, even above our duty to the nation, how much more does this passage apply when you put it in context of politics? Or employment? Or any lesser thing?

Yet I assume phrasing this passage in this way may be even more scandalous for many.

Before this passage, Paul instructed,

What I mean, brothers and sisters, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they do not; those who mourn, as if they did not; those who are happy, as if they were not; those who buy something, as if it were not theirs to keep; those who use the things of the world, as if not engrossed in them. For this world in its present form is passing away.

I added emphasis here, for Paul is opening this whole teaching up to anything we have in this world. To let go of our attachments to this world.

We're very much attached to our national politics. Our government. Our money ... Isn't that why we have protests against taxation? We want to hold onto our money. Some are calling for revolution, because they're willing to fight and kill to hold onto the treasures they've built up in this world.

From now on those who have national identity should live as if they do not.

The evolution of Orthodoxy

2011-03-25T10:07:00.000-07:00

It struck me this morning. The definition of what a Christian is has changed significantly over time.

The Apostles Creed is this,

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Maker of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:

Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost,
born of the virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, dead, and buried;

He descended into hell.

The third day He arose again from the dead;

He ascended into heaven,
and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty;
from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Ghost;
the holy catholic church;
the communion of saints;
the forgiveness of sins;
the resurrection of the body;
and the life everlasting.

Amen.

This creed has long been the very basics to claim orthodoxy. If we were ecumenical in this, and made this our basis for communion, we could really claim to believe in "the holy catholic church." As it stands, each of us, and especially institutionalized bodies, add to this creed their own bits. And then they make the claim that these additions are essential to the whole matter, and their understanding is the one true understanding which is "biblical" and authoritative. And in doing so, they're already disposed of the belief in the "holy catholic church."

It may be anything here. I'll just provide a few examples from my own personal experience.

The bible is inerrant and infallible
Biologic evolution is incompatible with faith
Marxist economic theory is contrary to Scripture
American Conservative political ideology is godly (I've literally heard someone say, "I'm not a Democrat, I'm a Christian.")
Women must not have authority over a man in any way
"Big bang" cosmology is demonic
The Trinity is hierarchal
God must not be addressed with a feminine name or virtues
You must receive the gift of tongues
Baptism is fully submerged, and never of a child

I'm sure all of us can add in things to this list. My point is that every tradition includes their own demands to be included in orthodoxy, essentially cutting the holy catholic church into bits.

I know a lot of people who don't really "go to church" anymore. They're not withdrawing from the church, they're being pushed away. They don't fit into the pastor's agenda, their beliefs are toxic, or they voted for the wrong person. Maybe they watch movies with the wrong MPAA rating, or listen to the wrong kinds of music. Maybe they want real fellowship instead of kowtowing to the agenda of the church expansion plan.

They're making it harder to enter the Kingdom of God. By including so many litmus tests, we're preventing people from fellowshipping with us, adding schism into the body in place of unity.

The irony is, Jesus made it hard to enter the Kingdom of God, telling those who would enter it to "count the cost." Yet his litmus test was to love God and love others, in a sacrificial way. We're turned this around completely, and we make it hard because others aren't sacrificing enough for us.

Their hearts are far from me

2011-03-21T14:03:00.000-07:00

It is not enough that we worship the Lord with a fervent heart, and a steadfast loyalty. The prophets reign down woes on those who worship the Lord with all of the proper religious fixings, yet remain callous to the social inequality and suffering of the poor outside their doors.

James writes these words to us today, when the world is smaller than ever, and our doorstep reaches all the way around the world,

Religion deemed pure by our heavenly Father is this: When we care for the orphan, the widow and oppressed. When we do not conform to the powers of this world.

A question of Universalim

2011-03-10T08:48:00.000-08:00

The internets are abuzz with criticism of Rob Bell's new book, Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived. They are accusing Rob Bell of Universalism. Is this true? I don't know, I've only read two reviews of his actual book (not the teaser video) and one said he was and one said he wasn't. Regardless of what I think, everyone has to struggle with these questions.

Our modern view of hell has been shaped by writings of fiction or allegory outside of theological purview, like Dante's Divine Comedy. The Reform movement lead to a binary belief in "one saved always saved" and the opposite, "once damned, always damned." Yet the Bible itself isn't a systematic theology book, no matter how strongly people suggest it's "clearly" detailed. There appear to be different views on both heaven and hell in the Bible. To hold such a narrow view of both is to discount other passages in the scriptures.

This isn't surprising, because every dispensation of the Church on earth holds up some passages and ignores others.

So I simply have a series of questions for those who hold that Heaven is where faithful Christians go when they die, and Hell is where unbelievers will suffer for eternity once they die.

What do you make of 1 Peter 3:19-20?

After being made alive, he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits — to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built.

What about the Nicene and Apostle's Creeds, still the benchmark for orthodox faith?

He descended into hell.

If hell is eternal, when Christ ministered to the souls imprisoned there, wouldn't all souls past present and future have been there?

If Christ indeed ministered to only the spirits from the past, why would he be excluded from doing the same for those of the future? After the advent of Christ on earth the rules changed, so after the resurrection everyone is held account differently?

What about the traditional view, held long before Christ's coming, that Sheol was a place all souls went in waiting for judgement? Christ himself uses this view in the Parable of Lazarus. (Luke 16:19-31) The Apocalypse of Zephaniah (which predates Christ) describes Sheol this way.

The Book of Enoch (approx same date range as the Apocalypse of Zephaniah) describes Sheol has having four sections: one where the faithful saints blissfully await Judgment Day, one where the moderately good await their reward, one where the wicked are punished and await their Judgment at the resurrection, and the last where the wicked who do not even warrant resurrection are tormented. Wouldn't an ancient Hebrew text have been influenced by the views of Sheol of the ancient Jewish faith?

These are things to ponder.

The violence of religion

2011-03-03T16:12:00.000-08:00

Over the past decade, the Christian church in America has been so distracted attacking Islam, it has failed to provide a witness to this extremely large segment of global society. There is outright hate for these people.

This is a video of some Americans seething hate at their neighbors:

How is that a loving witness to the gospel of peace? How is that being an ambassador for Christ?

With that said, consider what the Christian response would be when a venerated leader of a powerful Islamic community writes to his followers,

Anyone who can be proved to be a seditious person is an outlaw before Allah and the country; and whoever is the first to put him to death does right and well. For if a man is in open rebellion, everyone is both his judge and the executioner; just as when a fire starts, the first man who can put it out is the best man to do the job.

I can imagine the criticism he would face, and rightly so. This isn't a proclamation for the law to suppress criticism, or imprison offenders. This is vigilantism.

Recently in Pakistan, one of the nation's Christian leaders was assassinated. This is a real problem we face in this world. So what should our face be, as representatives for the Sovereign Lord?

Humility.

The quote above is actually from Martin Luther. I just changed a few words from the English translation, though they would be similar words if it was in the original German. The English translation is,

Anyone who can be proved to be a seditious person is an outlaw before God and the emperor; and whoever is the first to put him to death does right and well. For if a man is in open rebellion, everyone is both his judge and the executioner; just as when a fire starts, the first man who can put it out is the best man to do the job.

The Christian world is looking at violent Islam and being appalled at the violence, and condemning the whole religion and its adherents (whether they're practicing or not), completely forgetting our own religion's violent past. Christian extremists even exist today. It seems like we've completely forgotten the Christian terrorism in the 80s and 90s. Or even recently the assassination of Dr. George Tiller recently. Or even this year we had Christian extremists planting bombs in Washington state. The list is very, very long.

Jarrod McKenna said sometimes Christians "treat grace as a dogma and not a practice." I think that's a very stunning phrase.

We need grace, long-suffering, humility, and compassion.

The different views of salvation

2011-03-01T11:30:00.000-08:00

It's West vs. East. Not really. It's more like Protestant (substitutionary atonement) vs. Eastern Orthodox (Cristus victor). Roman Catholic is kind of in the middle of these two.

Timely scene from On The Waterfront

2011-02-24T20:50:00.000-08:00

This is a great speech from Father Barry in On The Waterfront.

...You want to know what's wrong with our waterfront? It's the love of a lousy buck. It's making the love of the lousy buck -- the cushy job -- more important than the love of man! It's forgettin' that every fellow down here is your brother in Christ! But remember, Christ is always with you -- Christ is in the shape-up. He's in the hatch. He's in the union hall. He's kneeling right here beside Dugan. And He's saying with all of you, if you do it to the least of mine, you do it to me! ...

The Hangman

2011-02-23T10:34:00.000-08:00

This is a pretty powerful animation.

It is based on the poem by Maurice Ogden, which was influenced by the famous poem by Pastor Martin Niemöller.
‎

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.