Church and State

On Knowing Magic Languages

2014-04-29T18:56:00.001-05:00

I have been going back and forth on posting this for a variety of reasons, so allow me to start with a comment and then a couple disclaimers.

First, let me remind y’all of my own credentials. I have earned my BA and MA in Biblical Studies, and am half-way through an MA in Biblical Exegesis at Wheaton; along the way I have completed more than thirty credit hours in Biblical languages. I am still no expert, but neither am I the village clown when it comes to the Biblical languages—I only say that to say that I am speaking from experience rather than ignorance.

Second, I do not mean to offend anyone. This may very well not be my place to say anything. However, I felt that it was necessary to share some advice with my compatriots. If I do offend you, I am sincerely sorry.

Third and finally, since I am speaking from my own experience, it is entirely possible that I am reading my own experience onto others. If that is the case, I sincerely apologize and applaud you for succeeding where I failed.

Now, to the core of the issue. I recently started noticing that a bunch of us are enjoying our new found knowledge of the Biblical languages, and show it on Facebook by quoting from the Greek or Hebrew, sometimes with an English translation, sometimes not. From my own experience as a budding academic—and later as a churchman—I think that this can be problematic for a couple reasons.

An honest question that we should all ask ourselves (in other matters as well!): does the post build up our fellow believers? That is, does seeing the Greek/Hebrew letters explain something to our sisters that they would otherwise be unable to understand from reading the English? If yes, then it is probably a fairly complex exegetical problem, in which case, will your three sentence post be able to sufficiently explain to them what they are missing? Or, does posting the foreign text tear down our brothers by reminding them that they are theologically uneducated? Does your post of a text that they cannot read bring them closer to Christ, or can it move them farther away by reminding them that they can’t read the “real” Bible?

Facebook is public so the purpose of posting on Facebook is for others to see. So what is the purpose of posting in a language that the majority of your friends cannot read?

I won’t presume to answer that question for you, but I will answer it for my own case publicly. In years prior, I never would have admitted it, but in retrospect I feel fairly certain that at least one of my motivating purposes in such things was to show my friends and family how much I had learned. The true focus was not on God and what he had done by communicating to us; rather, the focus was on me and what I knew. After all, if it was the message of the text that I was wanting to communicate to my friends, then doing so in a language that they don’t understand would be a pretty odd way of communicating.

So, perhaps the question I should ask myself: who is being built up when I post in a language that only those of us in the secret club can read? Me? Or the church?

I continually have to be reminded that if my function is to be a servant to the church, then my ultimate aim should always be to build up the church. If I harm those in the church in a display of my linguistic prowess, am I serving them? Ultimately, do my words remind them of the fact that God has written in human language so that they can understand Him, or am I reminding them that they have to go through me to find out what God “really” said?

College Church

2013-08-28T09:55:00.002-05:00

This Sunday, I visited College Church, in Wheaton. The facilities themselves are a beautiful red brick in a classic look for a church. As the service started, there were still a dozen people on the steps of the church finishing their conversations (apparently this is a common thing in this congregation).

When I went into the sanctuary an usher whisked me to the front and squeezed me into a pew. The sanctuary is nearly standing room only, so this is one of the few places I have been where the ushers do more than hand out bulletins. However, no more than thirty seconds later, a Wheaton student who had met me the previous day was at my side bringing me to sit with the “Exegetes.” I am not sure whether this is a statement on the quality of students at Wheaton, or if it is a statement on the quality of member at College Church; nonetheless, whichever group it reflects on, it made me feel very welcome and like I was already at home with a group of friends.

The worship service has a high church feel to it, complete with communal reading of Scripture, recited prayers, and employing an organ. The church only sings hymns, which is an interesting choice since a large portion of the congregation is comprised of college students. Another facet of the music that is unusual is that they have no worship leader. The organist will play the opening line to a song, then will hold the last note to signal that it is time to start singing.

Though the church is rather large, they prayed by name for members who were sick or undergoing other serious troubles. The prayer time lasts for several minutes as the minister worked his way through the list.

As a side note, I noticed that there were quite a number of younger people who would make noise at inappropriate times in the service, but that no one in the congregation seemed bothered. I learned that the church had a vibrant disabilities ministry, and they are very welcoming of people who have disabilities, or families who have children with disabilities. In fact, the church has a staffer whose entire area of responsibility is this ministry.

This was Dr. Josh Moody’s first day back in the pulpit, as he had apparently been traveling over the summer. The sermon was very thorough, and focused more on the context of the passage than perhaps any sermon I have heard. It was obvious that the congregation was well educated in biblical studies. For instance, this was one of the few (at best) times I have heard a pastor use Greek in order to minimize its importance (“Now, regardless of how you understand the kat’ oikon, this still means…”) rather than use it to strengthen his point. That is, rather than assuming that his audience was unaware of the Greek text, he was assuming that they were aware of it, and was thus answering a potential exegetical difficulty arising from the text. As another example, his sermon illustration came from seventeenth century puritanism. However, given his personal education (PhD, Cambridge) and the demographics of the church, this highly intellectual approach made perfect sense.

Reflecting its non-denominational roots, there was no altar call, only another song followed by everyone standing and leaving while the organist played a postlude.

While many people would not be impressed with the high church style and intellectual nature of this church, I felt as though I had arrived at home.

A Tale of Two Communities

2013-08-27T11:26:00.001-05:00

Last night, an elderly gentleman fell down outside of my apartment complex. I spent about ten minutes trying to help him up, but he was two to three times my weight and the physics were not in my favor. Every time I would get his weight off the ground, my feet would start sliding towards him, and he was not strong enough to provide any help. So, I explained that I had only been here for one week and did not know anyone at the complex yet, and asked him if he knew anyone I could call to come help. “I have been here for seven years, but no, I don’t know anyone.”

After a moment of shock, I went into my apartment to call a fellow Wheaton student I had met the day before. Within five minutes, this near stranger had dropped everything and was on his way to help me on behalf of a complete stranger.

The whole episode reminded me of why believers are supposed to live in community (both within our Christian community and within our broader community): there are things in life that are too big for one person to handle, whether that is learning to seek Christ better, or finding accountability with a sin you are struggling with, or lifting someone off the ground who is many times your size. We need other people. And most people recognize this need, though many do not know how to fulfill it (for instance, this man undoubtedly recognized the need for a community, except his community was himself).

In the church today, community is something that is hard to attain, and is often defined as thirty seconds of awkward conversation with the person next to you while the worship band keeps playing. However, Paul dedicates much of his time to explaining how the community should work together (Gal. 6, much of Eph., etc.). In Acts 2, as soon as people came to follow Christ, they immediately entered into true community (sharing meals, in that context). When community truly exists, it is an extremely attractive thing. For instance, though I had not had time to integrate into my broader context, I had fellow believers who I could already lean on, even though I had only spent a whopping one hour with them over lunch.

How is your community? Are you participating in both your secular community and your Christian community? Or are you preferring to live as a community of one?

Wilcrest Baptist Church

2013-01-02T19:15:00.000-06:00

As you have all probably noticed, it has been quite some time since I posted a blog about a church visit. I settled down at First Baptist Dallas, and I am now partnering with Hickory Tree Baptist Church. However, over the past couple weeks I have been visiting my family in Houston over the holidays. This past Sunday, I attended Wilcrest Baptist Church with my brother and his family.

To avoid burying the lead, of all the churches I have written about, this one is “The One.” Obviously this is just a preliminary assessment, but this is the church I would be most interested in going under the hood and seeing what they do to bring in people, to build the people who are there, and to send out people.

The first thing that struck me is the multi-ethnic, multi-cultural dynamic of the church. In fact, the church describes itself as a multi-ethnic congregation that trains missionaries. Back in the late 80’s and early 90s, the church was primarily white and was dwindling as the neighboring communities underwent white-flight. But they called Rodney Woo (Ph.D., Southwestern Seminary) as pastor, and he led the church through a transformation: the church more than doubled in size, and now represents more than 40 nations. (Woo wrote a book on the experience, titled The Color of Church.)

The flavor of the worship was quite varied: the first song had a Jamaican jive, the next had a sort of Zydeco feel, the next had a contemporary praise-and-worship sound. Our pew was the only non-integrated pew in the building since my family alone took up the entire row. There were songs I didn’t know, and there were songs I did. But over-all, it felt different. It is hard to describe that exactly: it didn’t feel like anyone was being pushed into a mold. It seemed like there was a specific attempt at having something for everyone.

While I really appreciated the multi-cultural character of the church, the deal was sealed when their pastor (Jonathan Williams) began to preach. He was preaching over the Great Commission, He asked all the typical, general questions (what are the reasons to participate in missions) at the beginning of his sermon, but when he moved to the text, his sermon was structured according to the participles—love at first sight. This is the first of my blogged-about-church-visits where the sermon was structured around the syntax and structure of the Greek.

No church is perfect (and if it were, it wouldn’t be after I joined!), but this church definitely caught my attention. If you are ever in Houston, I would highly suggest visiting this church.

An Army at Christmas?

2012-12-22T14:12:00.000-06:00

This is a re-post from a couple years back. I really enjoyed this project, and so I revised and expanded it for this Christmas, adding some more details and such. However, the general point of it is the same. Enjoy!

“Angels we have heard on high, sweetly singing o’er the plains…” Christmas songs like this—along with stories, nativity scenes, paintings, and numerous other media—have seemingly permanently engrained a certain approach to the Christmas story on our minds; so much so that we gloss over what is right in front of our eyes, and instead we read into the text what we believe it to say. However, there is much more depth to what is actually happening in the Christmas story than what is seen in the more popular conceptions of the event. I will not be trying to tackle all the various imagery that is in this narrative, but rather I will be focusing on the appearance of the Heavenly Host and related terminology and imagery.

The first thing to notice when looking at the entire section of the narrative is the remarkable similarity between the appearance of the angels to the shepherds and the story of the man throwing a feast in Luke 14:23, where the invited guests made excuses to not come, and eventually the master had his servant compel people in the highways and hedges to come in: the lowest of the low—this is especially intriguing since the master was most likely an extremely rich person: the ultra-rich inviting in the lowest in society. Similarly, those in the katalyma, or guest room, could have witnessed the birth of the greatest king, but instead had decided to shun their own kin—and in response, the master sent his servants (angels) to compel some of the lowest in society (shepherds) to go see the birth of the Messiah.

After the birth of Jesus, a character who is only described as ἄγγελος κυρίου appears in the sky outside Bethlehem. In the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament), this is the phrase used to translate the Hebrew phrase “the Angel of the Lord.” Most English translations translate this phrase as “an angel of the Lord,” to reflect the fact that there is no definite article on either word. However (those who have not studied Greek syntax, bear with me for a moment), Apollonius’ Corollary dictates that in genitive constructs that are anarthrous, the two nouns will share the same semantic force, making “an angel of the Lord,” the least defensible option available. The most likely would be either, “the Angel of the Lord,” or “an angel of a lord.” In the context of the passage, it seems fairly clear that the former is to be preferred (see Dan Wallace, Greek Grammar: Beyond the Basics, 250-252). This then attaches a special significance to this messenger, as the Angel of the Lord was His special messenger who spoke throughout the Old Testament, often with the power of God Himself.

When the angel “appeared” to them, the Greek word that is employed (ἐπέστη) almost always carries a somewhat aggressive connotation, such as coming to rebuke or argue with (Lk 4:39; 10:40), defend true doctrine against heresy (1 Tim 4:2), coming to someone to arrest them (Ac 4:1; 6:12), or outright attacking someone (1 Th 5:3; Acts 17:5). While there are a few more passages that employ the term differently, they are the clear minority for this item. In addition, this connotation could help explain another item that is coming up shortly.

The phrase, “the glory of the Lord,” is an important part of understanding this passage. The Old Testament showed glory as something associated with God’s awe and power. It “combines awe and terror, and it simultaneously invites approach and distance.”[1] The term is used to describe the splendor of a king (such as in Mt. 4:8, 6:29; Rev. 21:24, 26). This makes it clear that these angels are not just apparitions; they are the messengers from the King, announcing a royal birth.

The next thing that deserves mention is that the shepherds were in fear. If the angel in question is the spokesman for some type of Heavenly Choir, as we often picture it, then there would be no reason for the shepherds to fear! I have never in my life had a choir director have to tell me to not be afraid of the choir, nor do I know of anyone who was terrified by a choir. Obviously, something in our picture is missing. However, most people would be terrified by having the king’s direct messenger appear to them, especially if the way in which the messenger was coming didn’t seem like the most friendly of appearances. Anyone would be terrified by that!

“And the angel said to them, ‘Fear not, for behold, I bring you good news of great joy…unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord.”[2] This phrase presents all kinds of opportunities for shedding light on Christmas, as well as the theme of the Gospel. Why is this? Because the Greek verb used, εὐγγελίζομαι, is frequently translated in the New Testament as “I preach the gospel.” So, if the gospel is only that Christ died for our sins so we can have eternal life, then how could the gospel be preached at Jesus’ birth, before He had an opportunity to sacrificially die? Again, something is most probably missing in our understanding of the terminology. However, the text provides the answer for us! A savior, who is the Christ, is the message of the gospel being preached by the angel. In the shepherds’ minds, what connotation does the Christ, or Messiah, bring? The connotation was that the Messiah would be the one who would establish The Kingdom— the one without end, and without borders (that would also do away with sin and correct the nation’s standing with God). Israel’s long awaited King was being born that very night! As presented in Luke 2, this is the Gospel! So, what is the connotation of the term, “Lord?” Calling someone Lord was a very simple way to make everyone angry. The Caesars were often called Lord (although this usage became more standard after the time of Jesus’ birth). But in the Septuagint, the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) is translated as Lord. So, when this baby is declared to be Messiah and Lord, He is most probably simultaneously being declared the King of all, as well as having His own divinity confirmed.

“And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God…” This is the central idea in the passage that is probably most often overlooked. Whenever modern Christians read the Christmas story, they most probably envision a large choir in the sky with white robes, halos, and harps, such as we sing about in our Christmas carols. However, the imagery at play here is militaristic, not “angelic” in the common understanding of the word. The Heavenly Host is almost always associated with being the Army of God. The word used here, στρατιᾶς, is frequently translated as “army,” in other passages. In fact, in the Septuagint, στρατιᾶ is used twenty-eight times, and nineteen of those times are referring to earthly armies; the other nine are all attached to “heavenly” and most of them refer to an army, with a few possibly referring to the stars.[3] “This heavenly host is a vast number of angelic beings, mighty and noble, who relate to Yahweh as knights related to feudal kings: in homage, in service and in battle. They are a vast army, loyal to the purposes and desires of God.[4]” A new King had just been declared as such by the chief royal messenger of the High King who was then surrounded by the Military of that King, who are there to insure that there is no question as to the validity of the proclamation of the baby’s Messianic responsibilities.

Furthermore, the fact that it is a multitude of angels that appears further illustrates the fact that this is God announcing a new King. A multitude insures that no one thought a lone angel had gone off the reservation and gotten lost on his way to announce the birth of some other king. A massive heavenly army shows without a shadow of doubt that God was announcing that this baby was the new King.

At the end of the earthly ministry of Jesus, He references to having this army at His disposal: “Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels?” (Matt. 26:53) We see here a “legion” which is another military term. The Heavenly Host is the army that the Messiah has at His disposal if He so chooses to make use of it.

“Saying, glory to God in the highest, and upon Earth peace, among men goodwill.” This phrase is where I see the focus of the arrival of the Heavenly Army. This is the ultimate display of “Peace through strength.” With a background in politics, I am acquainted with the idea of peace through strength: this is usually tossed around when trying to increase defense spending by arguing that by building the most powerful army the world has ever seen, a nation will promote peace since no one would dare attack the nation—and if they did attack, then they could be quickly and efficiently destroyed by overwhelming force. This is the exact same thing at play in Luke 2, only magnified. Angels are many times invisible to the naked eye; they are never recorded as being killed by a human; and, they are devastatingly effective at wiping out an opposing army since a single angel can destroy 185,000 soldiers in a single night (2 Kings 19:35). In short, it is a force that no other army can even hope to be able to stand against. But this army isn’t here just for show; they are here to back up the proclamation of the new King of Israel, showing that He had the most powerful military backing Him because He was the one appointed by God to provide redemption for the nation, and the entire world. When the fiercest fighter declares that a fight is over, it is over—even if he has to throw some more punches to actually finish it. Similarly, when the Heavenly Army, on mission from God, declares that there is a new King, and that peace has arrived, there is peace, even if the Devil, and his actions through the nations, needs to be defeated first.

“Let us go over to Bethlehem and see this thing that has happened, which the Lord has made known to us.” This illustrates the earlier discussion of using “Lord” for the name of God. What I find interesting is that there is no question of whether they were dreaming this, or if someone had spiked their drinks; rather, they all know that this was from God, and they therefore go to see the new King.

“And all who heard it wondered at what the shepherds told them.” Much like folks today, it was hard for whoever was around to believe that the army of God had appeared, and told these shepherds that this baby was the Messiah. I am sure that even if they did believe the shepherds, they were wondering, “Why didn’t He tell kings, or the richest of society, or at least some of the pillars of the community? How come we didn’t see the army?” But God had chosen to go to the outskirts of society, and bring in those who would most probably not be considered worthy of such an honor because those were willing to actually believe the message and obey without delay.

So, what is the point of all this? Simple: there is a new king who is to rule over the entire world, backed by Almighty God and the Heavenly Army. If He is an actual King, and we mean that in a more significant way than simply using the title in our songs and prayers, then that means that the Christian is actually a citizen of a new country—The Kingdom of God. As such, his first and foremost priority is to follow Christ and to be obedient to Christ’s commands. However, the modern Christian often places allegiance to his country, or some other source, above his allegiance to his Messiah. A good example of this misplaced allegiance is the Christmas Truce of 1914. On Christmas Day, the British and German forces stopped killing each other, celebrated the day together, and returned to their war the next day. These were obviously people who at least had a passing knowledge of Christ so that they wanted to celebrate His birth, but the very next day they were killing each other again. Imagine how Christ would have reacted to this! He who said to bless those who curse you, and return good for evil, and yet His own followers kill each other at the command of their government! These were brothers in Christ, citizens in His nation, killing each other for an earthly nation which will pass away (Psalm 2).

Another example of misplaced allegiance is the allegiance to materialism. Christ repeatedly told His followers to sell what they have, and give to the poor. And instead, we have turned His birth into a day of receiving even more things than we already possess. And, yes, many will be more generous at this time of the year and give to the poor, but the commands to clothe the naked and feed the hungry are not things to be taken care of once a year, but should be a life long commitment of the believer.

Keeping Christ in Christmas means nothing if you do not recognize Christmas as the birth of the Christ, the birth of the true king whose Kingdom is the entire world, and respond as such.

[1] Leland Ryken, James C. Wilhoit, Tremper Longman III. Dictionary of Biblical Imagery (Downer’s Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1998), 330.

[2] This and all other Scripture quotations are from the English Standard Version, unless otherwise noted.

[3] Verlyn D. Verbrugge. A Not-So-Silent Night: The Unheard Story of Christmas and Why it Matters (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2009), 69.

[4] Leland Ryken, James C. Wilhoit, Tremper Longman III. Dictionary of Biblical Imagery, 373.

Academia and Ecclesia

2012-12-20T22:53:00.000-06:00

To begin this discussion with full disclosure, I need to state: I am a grad student; I plan on pursuing a Ph.D.; I wish to remain in academics (I did not come to Criswell with a call to pastoral ministry).

Now with that dispatched, there is a rather disturbing trend I have noticed among my peers. Maybe it is a phenomenon that is only related to Criswell College.What is this trend, you ask? It is the fact that a shockingly large number of students seem to desire a career in academics. Students who started working in biblical studies in order to work in the church are seemingly derailed into academics. There are a few reasons that I think this trend has occurred; if you think I missed anything or am wrong on a point, feel free to let me know: I am just attempting to discover the underlying causes of a significant problem.

Respect for Professors

In the seminary/Bible college context, the professors are larger-than-life. In biblical studies, the adage that, “those who cannot do, teach,” is simply not true. The professors understand languages that are out of our grasp, they shake the foundations of our beliefs, and they propose interpretational constructs that have far more coherence with the text than we had ever known. Within the first year or two, the Bible starts to make sense in a way it never did before! Any question or opposing argument is answered with ease. In short, many of the faculty (particularly the really good members) exhibit a type of intelligence that hardly even seems human, which students wish to imitate. They wish to be that knowledgeable and thus feel the need to follow in their chosen career

Lack of Respect for Most Pastors

This is the flip side of the previous point. Many pastors are uneducated, or under-educated, which makes those pastors appear all the worse when compared side-by-side with well-educated professors. Sure, there are some excellent pastors, who students look up to, but it seems like those are the exception to the rule. In addition, many of the sharper professors will make their point in the classroom by making a bit of fun at the expense of those pastors who hold to the opposing point of view. While this seems like some innocent humor at the time, it sends a subtle message: “If you want to be intelligent and capable with the text, be a professor. If you want to be a punch line, be a pastor.”

Ability to Practice a “Pure” Christianity (Ideology, Theology, General Praxis)

This one is big. Much of biblical studies are oriented around the first century and understanding Scripture as a first century Christian would. The problem is that we do not live in the first century, and thus there has to be a certain amount of bridging. However, when bridging nearly two thousand years, there tends to be certain amounts of compromise. For instance, the early church had no buildings and staff, so when Paul speaks of Christians giving, he isn’t speaking of giving for a pastor’s salary or the building fund; rather, Paul is speaking about helping to fund missions or (more commonly) helping out the poor among them. However, today, we have staff, electric bills, building programs, and a host of other costs that leaves a very small amount of money for taking care of the poor. So, if I were to pastor then I would have to either compromise my “pure” belief about how the church should spend money, or I would have to convince my church to spend differently (maybe by cutting my own salary!) But, if I were to teach in a school, I could do ministry, without having to compromise. I could practice a pure Christianity, maybe even pastor a small home church with a couple of my students (this is obviously from a student’s viewpoint, not necessarily corresponding to reality). In the church, I see a compromised Christianity. In the school I see a “pure” Christianity that is unburdened by the realities of the twenty first century church. Why would I want to spend my life attempting to reform, when I can make a living standing outside the system and telling them what they are doing wrong?

Ability to Avoid the Pragmatics of Church Service

This is closely related to the previous point. The modern pastor is not just a “teacher” or a “preacher,” but he is an administrator, a counselor, a leader, and a janitor. The pastor can wear dozens of hats, particularly in a smaller church. Obstinate members raise trouble, deacons will institute power struggles, a widow’s yard needs mowed, and a member’s funeral service needs to be conducted. It is easy to study something, and explain that to others; it is much harder to go put the book down and visit someone in the hospital: especially if they have been a troublemaker in the past! Students realize that pastoring entails all of these things, but it seems like there is an option where you can do ministry without the negative pragmatics by staying in the school.

Conclusion

While there are other reasons students might choose to not pursue pastoring (including potential sin issues), it seems to me that these are enough to show why students would understand teaching to be a much “better” career choice, but they all fail to take into account one critical piece of information: the school is not what it is all about! The school’s mission is to equip pastors. Teachers are needed, but they are only support staff. A successful race car driver needs to have a pit chief to supervise his pit stops. But for that team to win, the driver has to drive: if he stops at the pit, and decides he wants to be a crew chief as well, the race will be forfeited. It is important for all of us in the academy to remember to keep the main point the main point.

Republican Blogger in Exile

2012-11-05T17:07:00.001-06:00

Some of you may be wondering why I have been so silent on this blog in reference to the political race, particularly owing to my once avid involvement in politics, and my role that I adopted in 2008 of "Republican Blogger in Exile." Shouldn't I be itching to be doing my part to return Republicans to power? Not really. Why is this? It is due to two main reasons.

First, in 2008, I was a novice to Biblical studies: I loved politics, but knew nothing more about theology than what I had learned in church. As I learned that Jesus was Lord, and that that term had political ramifications, my entire way of viewing the world changed. In response to this, my political positions started changing: the US was no longer my chief entity that I needed to serve. Thus, in my pursuit of King Jesus, my values shifted away from some Republican positions, I softened on immigration, war (and military spending), watching out for the poor. So, in many ways, I am no longer a Republican in exile because Republicans have been booted from office, but rather I am now a Republican in exile because many Republicans have exiled me from the party: “You don’t think freedom is worth killing over? You liberal. And you don’t think we should deport all of the illegal aliens? Why don’t you just become a Democrat?” It is important to note at this point that I still consider myself a conservative, I just don’t toe the line when it appears that my study of Scripture should lead me elsewhere.

Second, is the nature of the 2012 election. I held my nose and voted for McCain in ’08. But we had to go nominate another moderate? Romney may have truly changed his mind on abortion and other issues that are near to my heart, but the timing was far too politically expedient for me to believe it. Tie that to comments from Romney’s campaign this spring that he was an “etch-a-sketch” candidate, and I simply do not trust him. I do not believe he shares my core political beliefs, and I honestly have no clue what he would actually believe and work on once he was in office. In addition, let’s mention the elephant in the room: Romney is Mormon! Those very same people who once made outlandish claims that Obama was a secret Muslim (even though Obama has claimed to be a believer) are now the ones who are willingly voting for a man who is part of a cult. And in many cases (such as Billy Graham) the political support of a candidate is leading believers to blur the line between orthodoxy and heresy. So, I couldn’t support Romney. Combining not falling in complete lock-step with my party and being extremely unhappy with their nominee leads to a great big “meh” about the election.

I believe Americans have a responsibility to vote. I couldn’t vote for Romney. I don’t want Obama to win either (which is why I have been almost completely silent on this blog). So my solution for myself? I wrote in Barry Creamer, PhD. Your vote is up to you: vote your conscience. Vote for who you think God would have you vote. Regardless of who wins, Jesus is still Lord, he still reigns.

James Holmes and Gun Control

2012-07-25T00:38:00.000-05:00

While this post is not going to discuss the ethics of Christians using violence to defend themselves and others, I am going to focus on discussing one point of interest in the debate that is currently swirling about gun control.

First, let me respond to the emotional reaction to Holmes using an "assault weapon". As any gun enthusiast can tell you, "assault weapons" are a made-up category, designed to bring to mind "assault rifles" which are the military grade weapons. The only thing that makes an AR-15 any different from my "harmless" Ruger 10/22 is that it fires slightly larger bullets (which are still significantly smaller than many other rifle bullets), and it looks scarier. Both are semi-automatic, both can fire quickly, both have box magazines, both are deadly, only one is considered an "assault weapon".

Second, as a standard rule, it is never good to act upon emotions. Nearly thirty people a day die from drunk drivers, but there are few mainstream media calls for Prohibition to be brought back. If we do not let those thirty people a day to emotionally impact us, then we should be careful about letting our emotions get carried away by twelve deaths.

Now, most argue that if the laws were different, Holmes would not have been able to acquire the weapons which he used. This may or may not be true. What I am more interested in is this: they (such as this post) claim that even if there had been a CHL holder in the audience, he would have been unable to harm Holmes, since Holmes was wearing body armor. But they don't think about the last part of that phrase. Why not ban the vest? Contrary to popular opinion, CHL holders are not wild-eyed vigilantes, who couldn't hit the broad side of a barn. Rather, they are trained (both by the required course, as well as additional individual training, typically), responsible citizens. Now, would it have been difficult for a CHL to stop Holmes? Certainly. In fact, in a pistol vs. rifle match, it is almost certain that the CHL would be killed. But having someone shoot back would at least have shaken up Holmes, and maybe distracted him long enough for someone else to tackle him. But you know what would really have evened the odds? If Holmes had not been able to purchase a ballistic vest.

People will acquire illegal items. Neither outlawing the gun, nor the ballistic vest, will prevent something like Aurora from happening. But people want to feel like they are doing something to prevent this type of thing from happening again. But if you want to ban something, instead of starting the slippery slope which would eventually disarm those who would protect themselves (and firearms were banned at the theater, even though CO allows CHLs, which just disarmed those who wound up being victims), why not ban the thing which protected Holmes from citizens defending themselves? And why not give the citizens a fair chance of defending themselves?

SIDE NOTE: In April, a massacre in Aurora (same town) was prevented when the gunman was shot by a church-goer, who happened to be an off-duty police officer.

Lakewood Church

2012-03-18T16:50:00.001-05:00

The lights went out and the crowd in the stadium started screaming as a platform was slowly raised into view to reveal the band that was blasting out a jam. Was I at a rock concert? No, rather I was at Lakewood Church, while visiting my family in Houston. Inside of the building, the “sanctuary” was massive. It even had that foggy air that is seen inside of other sports stadiums.

If I were to describe the atmosphere in one word, that word would be: showmanship. From the lights flashing in rhythm with the music as they panned over the crowd, to the lead guitarist looking at his cameraman (he had a cameraman who stayed with him the entire service), flipping his hair and flashing a grin as he ripped off another solo. Ushers made sure and seated people together with no gaps, and only turned the lights on over a section once it was full, so that you could not see the empty sections.

As I mentioned before, when the service started, all the lights were put out and as the invisible band started cranking, the crowd started roaring. Suddenly, several spotlights flipped on to show the band coming into view as their platform rose into view from beneath the floor. The music was loud—loud enough that you could not hear yourself. I had the feeling that I was off-key, so I had to plug my ear just to be able to tell. The music lasted for an hour. Osteen’s wife then prayed for all the families and quoted from Ephesians, saying for men to love their wives, but she changed the part for women, saying that they should respect their husbands (instead of submit).

Osteen’s sermon was much like what one might see on tv. It was full of positive affirmations, and he only quoted one verse (Gal. 6:9) during the entire sermon (and that one verse was only read once). He talked for some time about not becoming weary and not fainting. He urged everyone to take life one step at a time.

After he finished “preaching”, he led everyone in the sinner’s prayer, and said that those who had not previously prayed it were not believers. And then asked for those people to stand; I would guess that about 150 people stood up. Then the band’s platform rose into vision again, they started playing, and the crowds started leaving.

Why I Oppose Ron Paul for the Republican Nomination

2012-02-08T22:49:00.004-06:00

A friend and I were talking about politics, and he stated that almost everyone who he talks with says that they like Ron Paul, but they are not supporting him because he is unelectable. I told him that I sincerely believed that those were cop out answers, and that they were just trying to avoid an argument. Because, while Ron Paul is unelectable, there is a reason Ron Paul is unelectable, and that is because most Republicans have multiple reasons why they would not consider him an acceptable candidate for President.

Unlike many of Paul’s supporters who have jumped on the bandwagon, I am able to think for myself, and so I have no need to post something written by someone else or a video that is little more than propaganda; so without further ado, here are my three primary reasons for refusing to support Ron Paul.

1. He does not support ending abortion on the Federal level

Abortion is one of, if not the most, unjust acts that is legally allowed in America. For the purposes of this discussion, I am going to assume that most of my audience agrees with me on this point. If not, fear not, for I will be writing on this soon.

Because I believe this about abortion, I believe it is not just an option for the American public, but it is actually a duty to use all means possible to end abortion. Ron Paul does not believe this. Though he claims that he opposes abortion, he thinks it should be left to the states to end abortion. The problem is that while there are some conservative states that would ban abortion, there are other states which would allow abortion to continue, all while the government was sleeping on the job.

Paul claims that his position is the “Constitutional” position, but I think that is an unreasonably strict interpretation. The Constitution establishes delivering mail as a function of the government, but Paul doesn’t think that it can take care of murder? Do his supporters honestly think that there is validity to this? That the government can imprison people for making fake money, but not ending murder?

Further, since I am writing to a Christian audience, there is a document which trumps the Constitution. There are things that are more important than a piece of paper, and life is one of those things. The Christian is always to stand for life. Anything less than full-throated support and a willingness to use all means available to end abortion is enough to disqualify a candidate in my eyes.

2. His foreign policy is simplistic

This one is a lesser problem to me as there is some truth to what Paul says. Notice I say some truth. America has created a lot of trouble in the world through sticking its nose where it doesn’t belong. Of course, it can be argued that this was a necessary evil to prevent another world war (which was the intended purpose of Interventionism, which would technically be a success). However, whether Interventionism is right or wrong, that is not actually the question at this point. This is because the trouble has been created, and simply backing away just provides an opportunity for the enemies of the country to exact their revenge. To think that if we just go back home they will leave “us” alone seems simplistic at best.

In addition, isolationism was the predominant American foreign policy until after the close of World War Two. Those last three words should be a pretty good clue as to why it was no longer the predominant foreign policy.

3. He is a “traitor” to the party

When I say this, people say, “Well, that doesn’t matter if you are voting your convictions.” Well, I disagree. Why? Because I am a member of the Republican Party because they most accurately represent my political views—I obviously do not support every position the party holds, but am comfortable enough with their positions to consider myself a Republican. Ron Paul, does not. How do I know this? Because he abandoned the Republican Party in the 80’s. Now, I do not hold grudges when there is a change in how someone thinks, such as being a Democrat, and changing to the Republican Party, but that is not the same as being a member of the party, leaving and opposing the party, then coming back when you need them. In addition, Ron Paul will not rule out a third party candidacy. What does this mean? It means that while Ron Paul may be a true conservative, he is not a true Republican, but is simply using them as a tool to get what he wants. This will not do when choosing someone to become the de facto leader of the party.

While I may be able to overcome one of these reasons, or maybe even two, but if you put all three of these reasons together, Ron Paul becomes an untenable candidate for my support. He is not fully pro-life, he has a simplistic foreign policy, and he is not a Republican but wants the Republican nomination.

In Case You Had Not Noticed...

2011-12-20T20:23:00.000-06:00

The Twenty Five Days of Christmas died. I had written more than half of my posts in advance, but I planned to write the other half as I went. But, finishing my degree at Criswell, and my brother returning home unexpectedly, combined to prevent me from being able to finish. So, next Christmas I will resume this chain of posts, and finish them this time.

Twenty Five Days of Christmas (4)

2011-12-05T21:39:00.000-06:00

This article is actually somewhat of a sell for one of the future articles, because I am going to revisit the theological implications of this event later in the month. So, what was this event? The Christmas Truce in 1914.

Pope Benedict XV had urged for the warring nations to make peace for Christmas, but was refused (officially). However, there were widespread truces across the Western Front--the soldiers battling simply refused to fight each other. About one hundred thousand soldiers participated.

This story is well known, and frequently recounted in Christian circles about the power of Christmas. But, for the believer, this type of behavior should not just be restricted to one day of the year. To hear more, keep visiting, as I will deal with more issues, and get deeper in-depth as we get deeper into the month!

Twenty Five Days of Christmas (3)

2011-12-04T20:50:00.000-06:00

It appears that the Christmas tree was first used at Christmas time in the mid 1400s. By the middle of the 16th century, there were several German churches that displayed Christmas trees, and by the 17th century, they were gaining widespread appeal. By the 19th century, the custom had spread across Europe, even going as far as Russia.

Why is the Christmas tree displayed at Christmas? Well, as with the Christmas lights, there are multiple reasons, none of them conclusive. The first, is that as an evergreen, the tree shows the continuation of life, or as a twist on that one: the tree shows the undying nature of God's love. Another suggestion is that the three corners of the tree represent the three persons of the Trinity. The final suggestion is that it was simply done because of the beauty and freshness of the tree, to cheer a house in the dead of winter.

Twenty Five Days of Christmas

2011-12-03T22:50:00.001-06:00

This is one of my favorite Christmas carols. I think it captures the sense of anticipation among Israel while waiting for a savior. In addition, it is simply a beautiful melody. While you listen, consider what it must have felt like to be in bondage, but looking forward to a Hope.

Twenty Five Days of Christmas (2)

2011-12-02T21:24:00.001-06:00

Christmas Lights

Why do we hang Christmas lights every year? I mean, I always get the warm and fuzzies when staring at a well lit house at Christmas--it is actually one of my favorite things to do during the Christmas season. But why do we do that?

The short answer to that is that we don't know. There are multiple theories: the fir tree was a sign of God; or, the lights were simply to light up gloomy houses; or, the lights were so that St. Nicholas could see his way into the house. But, all of these are just theories.

What we do know is that the tradition started in the 17th century, and was firmly taking grasp within a hundred years. At that time, the Christmas tree would be lit by candles. Around 1890 is when candleholders were first used to attach the candles to the tree (before this, they were melted onto the tree). The first building to be lit entirely by electricity was the Savoy Theatre in London in 1881. The first electrically lit Christmas was owned by Edward Johnson in 1882--he was Vice-President of the Edison Electric Light Company, so the newspapers ignored it, thinking it was a publicity stunt. After President Cleveland sponsored an electrically lit Christmas tree in 1895, Christmas lights started sweeping the nation, and by 1930, the lights had become affordable for most people. Over this time, they had slowly started being used to decorate more areas as the price dropped, leading to what we see today, such as this truck. Merry Christmas!

Twenty Five Days of Christmas

2011-12-01T23:09:00.001-06:00

Merry Christmas! I know, it is not Christmas yet, but it is the First of December, which often signals the start of the Christmas season for many people (those who don’t start it the day after Thanksgiving). I love Christmas, it is my favorite season of year. And because of that, I am starting the Twenty Five Days of Christmas. Each day, I will put up a short blog on a topic that is related to Christmas. I will start with a few modern things, such as, “Why do we put up Christmas lights?” But as Christmas Day draws closer, I will shift into more serious discussion on some of the background of the world that Jesus was born into, and then some of the specific imagery that is used in the Birth Narratives. So, Merry Christmas, and I hope you enjoy the next few weeks.

The Rule of Law and the Role of Faith

2011-07-22T13:55:00.000-05:00

I recently read about an interview in which Herman Cain (candidate for President) said that communities could ban mosques from being constructed. I posted it on my Facebook, expecting everyone to realize that Cain was not a good candidate. However, there was a very vocal minority who agreed with him. As I read the comments on another article on this story (you can read the article and the comments here), I realized that the belief that we should be allowed to prevent mosques from building in our community is actually fairly widely held. I believe that position should be untenable by both Americans at-large, and by Christians.

The Rule of Law

America is built upon the foundation of the rule of law. This is what we see as separating us from other nations that are ruled by dictators and do not grant basic freedoms to their people. Law is supposed to be just, and interpreted blindly with no prejudice or malice. Our laws and Constitution go beyond mere justice in that they establish freedom for all American citizens, regardless or race, sex or religion (in theory).

The problem comes when one group starts trying to eliminate the freedoms of another group, such as when some Americans want to eliminate another American’s freedom of religion. And if they succeeded, then they would establish the legal precedent that a religion could be discriminated against if enough people decided that they wanted to discriminate. Imagine with me, for a moment, a time when the ACLU has the legal grounds to not just attack a nativity on the courthouse lawn, but is legally allowed to ban churches themselves. That idea seriously concerns me.

This idea of banning mosques, because they are supposedly trying to take over America through the use of Shariah Law, tramples all over the Bill of Rights. The obvious violation that first comes to mind is a violation of the First Amendment, which is the right to practice your religion without any interference from the government (and remember, the law is blind, so what applies to one religion applies to another one, regardless of which one is true).

Further, beyond the freedom of religion, it also violates their right to assembly. Any group can assemble, as long as they remain peaceful. And if they are not peaceful, then they will be punished for their crimes. For instance, criminal organizations are allowed to meet; there is nothing we can do about that, but as soon as they break a law, then they are arrested.

It also violates the Fifth Amendment, which states, “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury…” Now, most would probably argue that that is referring to prison, but having your rights revoked definitely is being held to answer for an infamous crime. Americans are not allowed to pay the penalty for a crime when it cannot be proven they did the crime. Thus, you cannot ban a mosque based on suspicion that they are going to plot a crime.

The irony of this is that those who want to limit the freedoms of Muslims because they are trying to “take over our country”, or “infiltrate and kill us”, or “make us follow their laws and eliminate our freedom” are guilty of the exact same thing. Eliminating the freedom of others that you dislike is exactly what Muslims are accused of wanting to do. And, let us remember, the people who crafted these legal protections were guilty of taking over their country and rebelling against the government, but yet they still paved the way for future generations to have those freedoms. They knew how those could be used against their new government, but they decided that it was a risk worth taking.

The Role of Faith

The previous argument was for all Americans, but this one is solely for Christians. We have been called to suffer and die. We have been called to be the ones being persecuted, not the ones doing the persecution. Christ did not tell us to try and legislate away those who scare us, but rather to take up our cross and follow him. The significance of that statement often escapes us: Christ told us in no unspecific terms that following him would require us carrying out own tool of execution! To follow Jesus means that our own sacrificial death should always be looming in our minds as something that may soon happen. Thus, it does not matter if a group is trying to kill you, your job as a Christian is not to try and eliminate their freedom, nor even to try and defend yourself—rather, your job is to be a faithful witness to the love of God right up to your death.

While well-meaning people say that it is only right to stop the supposed evil, just remember what Christ himself said: “Do not resist the evil doer. But if anyone slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him your other also.”

The Use of Soap

2011-06-24T20:47:00.000-05:00

Soap: it is something almost all of us use every day without a second thought. But the fact is that there are many in the world who cannot even afford soap. So, Derreck Kayongo is running an organization to help provide soap to those in impoverished countries who cannot afford it. How does he propose to do this? By recycling used hotel soaps that would be thrown away. So, instead of taking up room in a landfill, these bars are able to be used to prevent disease among some of the most needy people! I strongly encourage you to take a look at their site (http://www.globalsoap.org/) and see what you can do to help.

Folk Eschatology

2011-06-23T11:50:00.000-05:00

At funerals, and at other times, I often hear people talk about others "Going to Heaven", or something along those lines, as the final state and what the believer is supposed to look forward to. However, the Biblical picture of hope for the believer is not that their disembodied spirit is floating in Heaven, but rather that they will be resurrected to new life upon Christ's return. So, when I saw this post, I was overjoyed! The author did a really good job with it, please go read it!

A Response to the Death of Osama Bin Laden

2011-05-15T19:55:00.003-05:00

I wanted to wait for a little while before writing on the response that Christians should have when dealing with the death of Osama Bin Laden because in the initial frenzy everyone was talking and no one was listening. Most of you have already read some responses, and have seen that everyone has a verse. I think that both sides are pulling passages out of context, so I am going to approach this from a different angle.

When I was a young child, I was frequently called a “tattle-tale” by my siblings. Why? Because, if they had wronged me, I would almost always go to my parents to get them in trouble instead of taking things into my own hands. Why did I do that? It is simple: I learned at a very young age that if I did something to get payback, not only would my siblings get in trouble for what they had done to me, but I also would get the exact same penalty as they did because I had exacted my own “justice”. They were guilty and deserved punishment, but I had to have an impartial person carry out that justice or else I received the same penalty.

There is a difference between justice and revenge. Both appear justified because in both cases the guilty party is guilty (presumably) and is thus worthy of punishment. But we draw a distinction between that punishment being carried out by an impartial observer and that punishment being carried out by the victim. If a man’s wife is murdered, and he finds her murderer and kills him, most people would sympathize with him (so much so that he might even get a lighter sentence), but he would still go to prison for what he had done.

No matter how much we, as Americans, would like to believe otherwise: America is not the sole arbiter of justice. Nor are we the Mighty Right Arm of God carrying out His Justice in the world. In the case of Osama Bin Laden and the attack on September 11, we were the victim! Thus, carrying out retaliation against the person who wronged us is not justice—it is revenge.

Furthermore, the events surrounding OBL’s death are not the picture of justice. He was unarmed, and retreating, but he was shot twice in the head. That is not a self-defense shooting: that is an execution. On top of this, Osama had never been tried in a court, and the motto of the American legal system is “innocent until proven guilty”. Even if someone confesses to a murder, we still do not label them as guilty until a court has decided that.

Did Osama Bin Laden deserve to die? Yes. However, the way in which he died is not a case of justice, but a case of revenge. It is the job of the Christian to call those who are unjust (such as carrying out revenge) to repentance, not to try and baptize their retaliation as true justice.

(You can send any hate mail to jerusalemandrome@gmail.com)

Baseball and Christian Unity

2011-04-29T13:22:00.002-05:00

One of my main loves in life is baseball, specifically the Houston Astros. One of our star sluggers for over 10 years was Lance Berkman who played his entire career with Houston until he had a bad season last year and was traded away. So, this season, after Houston snubbed him again, he signed with their archrival: the St. Louis Cardinals. He has something to prove this year and has had one of the best season of his career—so far—being among the top 3 players in all offensive categories. This past week, he made his first return to Houston and had an incredible few games. As I was watching the video from his best game where he hit two homeruns, I realized something: the crowd was screaming for him! Now, baseball fans are usually pretty classy folks and will often applaud an opposing team for making a good play. But this was different. They were standing and cheering and screaming as if he were still an Astro, but he was the “enemy”! As I thought about this, it occurred to me: his entire career spent as an Astro made up for the fact that he was now wearing the opposing uniform—in their minds, it did not matter what uniform he was wearing, he was still an Astro!

I could not help but immediately contrast this with the church. So often we approach issues in the church as trying to “win”. Who will serve on the church committee, was the preacher really correct today, and what color should the new carpet be? I have seen people leave churches because the pastor accidentally said something that offended them, or they didn’t get their way with something. We are all Christians and should have unity together like the world has never seen! Ephesians 2:11-21 is all about this! The church is to overcome every difference in the world, and serve as one for the advancement of the Gospel. Last night, twenty thousand fans cheered and screamed as Berkman defeated their team, with absolutely no prompting or leadership from anyone, but we often cannot get two hundred members of a church to overcome their desire to win in order to support Christ. I would encourage you to pray and think about how you can participate in the unity of Christ and overcome your differences with fellow brothers and sisters in Christ.

Unity on Greenville

2011-04-18T14:48:00.001-05:00

This Sunday, I went to Unity on Greenville—a Unitarian “church”. Unlike all the other denominations, which all had a “churchy” feel to them, there was no such thing at Unity, even though it was held in a church building.

The church service consisted of lots of recitations and readings from things that were not Scripture. They had positive affirmations, such as, “I am strong, powerful, and confident.” The lesson was about becoming more spiritual through showing love. And, the “pastor” commented that it was wrong to worship Jesus, since the “divine spark is within all of us.” Before prayer, the leader started the first couple steps of hypnosis, and actually mentioned that they needed to alter their state of consciousness, so they dimmed the lights, and started a few breathing exercises before they started praying.

The service was full of interesting phrases that orthodox Christians would find discomfort with. For instance, during their greeting they said the Hindu word, namaste (the god in me blesses and honors the god in you), which they used to mean, “The Christ in me blesses and honors the Christ in you.” The phrase, “The Christ in you,” was used throughout—in fact, the bulletin says, “Unity sees the good in all people and blesses the Christ—the Spirit of God—in everyone.” There was a recitation that stated, “There is only on Presence and one Power active as the universe and as my life, God the Good.” The prayers were offered to Mother-Father god (lack of capitalization mine).

The atmosphere was very New-Age feeling. Very inclusive. There were multiple gay couples in the sanctuary; some were discreet, some were more, shall we say, flamboyant? One person looked like she was an old hippie which fit with the general New Age/hippie feel.

The visit was very informative, but Unity is definitely not the place for me. In fact, I don’t think I would even give them the right to be called a church.

Gratefulness and the Lack Thereof

2011-04-08T23:56:00.000-05:00

I have been living without air-conditioning. In Texas. With heat in the 90's. Falling asleep sweating and waking up sweating, for almost a month now. But today my apartment finally fixed our air conditioner and got it blowing, which has proven to feel incredible! Nothing builds gratefulness like going without.

However, I got a true picture from my own example on how ungrateful people are, in general. When the air conditioning flipped on, I did not even realize it. I did not even realize that I had stopped sweating. When my roommate came home, he commented on how good it felt, and I went outside to find the notice posted on the bulletin board. Once I came back in, THEN I noticed the difference.

Similarly, how many people go through their lives complaining about how bad things are and never notice how God is slowly working in their life to improve things? Why do we never see the positives in our life that others see? When was the last time we thanked God for what we do have?

Take some time to consider what God has done for you. Be thankful.

The Adjustment Bureau

2011-03-28T11:44:00.001-05:00

Last week I saw The Adjustment Bureau with Matt Damon (Potential spoiler alert!!). It was an interesting look at free will versus predestination/fate. The main character is a politician who just lost a race and due to a girl kissing him that motivates his concession speech he is now the frontrunner for the Senate race. Shortly after, he discovers the Adjustment Bureau, and they explain that the whole world has a plan, and that if people stray off plan, then it is their job to get those people back ON plan. A telling exchange: Damon—“But I have free will!” Adjustment Bureau Operative: “You have the appearance of free will.” Damon learns that he is not allowed that girl from the campaign, and sets out to beat the system.

There were a lot of similarities to Christianity in the movie. The Adjustment Bureau was headed up by a single person, The Chairman, and all the operatives did his bidding. They even noted that they were called, “many different things in different cultures”. There was a worldwide plan.

Then came the jabs at Christianity. As it turns out, the plan was not perfect, and had in fact had a different version which is why they had trouble with the woman. The operatives started doubting whether it was just or not. They ruined some people’s lives just so that those people would promote other people who had been decided that they would succeed. And in relation to Damon’s character, The Chairman changed his mind and allowed Damon free will since he had risked everything by defying the system.

While it was not completely clear, the ending idea seemed to be that free will was a gift that needed to be earned. And, that we know what is best for our own lives—no one else should be allowed to make our life decisions for us.

(I am sorry if I did not do the movie, or the response, justice. I am working from memory, and am not terribly good at analyzing movies to start with.)

Islam Special

2011-03-26T11:27:00.000-05:00

As I was checking the headlines at CNN this morning, I saw two articles on Islam that caught my eye, and I thought I would share with you.

The first one is about Muslims running for office in various races. Apparently this is the first organized drive in Illinois. It is always interesting to see various groups become politically active.

The second one is far more troubling. As part of a series on Islam, they are talking to a Christian, Mathew Miller, who converted to Islam. From what it seems, his family was very active in the church as he grew up. After his first prayer in a Muslim congregation, he said, “When I put my head on the ground with them, it felt like I could say anything to God, and what I was asking for at the time was guidance. I wanted to know whether what I was doing was the right thing to do.” Now, this is the question of our churches: if someone can go to those who do not have the truth, but yet they can convince him it is the truth, then why in the world are the guardians of The Truth squandering it?! I have seen this more commonly among people who switch denominations: they start asking questions, and the first people to answer them get the conversion (oftentimes, anyhow). Obviously our churches need to be better about explaining the Truth of the Gospel.