Below is a letter to the editor I penned to a local newspaper regarding the U.S. Census.
Dear Editor,
It with much frustration that I share my first-hand training experience of becoming an enumerator for the U.S. Census Bureau here in Dutchess County. The displeasure I possess does not stem from my sympathetic trainer but rather from the insulting way in which the program itself makes me the citizen painfully aware of the arrogance by which the Bureau and the government it represents operate.
I wish I had been notified the first day of training that the oath we all took to “defend the Constitution” would be broken the very same week. Article I Section 2 specifically outlines “representation”as the only reason given for conducting the census. Why must citizens be told in writing that they are required by law to answer every question on the form whether it pertains to representation or not? Yes indeed, before an enumerator records any information pertaining to the form, the citizen is handed a paper claiming it mandatory to comply with all questions. The laws cited as reasons for submission are Titles 13 and 44, both having to do with privacy and irrelevant to the citizen’s level of compliance. I personally requested permission to avoid this situation by asking my superiors at the Bureau if I was allowed to notify citizens of their right to refuse questions not pertaining to enumeration. I was of course refused this request.
Interrogations not having to do with representation include questions pertaining to race and ownership status. I asked my trainer about the reasons for such questions and was given an, “I don’t know, must be something to do with government programs,” response. Last time I checked the only constitutional governmental reason for needing racial information involved counting slaves as 3/5 of a person. Perhaps this is still in effect and I just wasn’t notified?
Another suspicious element within the enumerator training materials is a section on “Household Residential Rules.” According to the rules I am required to count all foreign citizens living in the United States except exchange students. I asked if this meant I had to count illegal aliens, and again, why it was pertinent information given that citizens are the ones represented in congress? My answers were, “Yes,” and, “Must be a government program.”
Coming home after the second day of training I went to the Census Bureau website to find out how they justified their non-compliance with the Constitution. The reason given was insulting. “Enumerated powers?” Really? Section 8 says, “To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers.” A common sense person knows this means we carry out the intent of law, not change the intent itself- which is exactly what the Census Bureau is doing- obtaining as much information as possible for gerrymandering purposes.
Here’s a word of advice to all those first time non-responders out there. Graduate by becoming a second time non-responder. Refuse to answer questions pertaining to anything but representation, and hand the enumerator who shows up at your door a copy of the Constitution if he argues. We could all do well to educate ourselves a little. Only then can an arrogant federal government be exposed for what it truly is.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Harris
jonathan.harris@email.sunydutchess.edu
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Monday, October 26, 2009
How to Be Used by Christ
Becoming a Vessel of Honor
My first sermon,..yikes. lol. Anyway, this is the raw cut (no editing here...obviously haha). Check it out. I hope God can use it further.
My first sermon,..yikes. lol. Anyway, this is the raw cut (no editing here...obviously haha). Check it out. I hope God can use it further.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
The Role of Music in the Church
By: Jonathan HarrisPreface:
My purpose in writing this is to express my convictions on the role of music in the church in no uncertain terms, so that everyone who reads this will be crystal clear on what I believe Scripture to be dictating. I’d like to preface this with a brief background on my experiences thus far with ministerial music, just so people know where I’m coming from, and can bring to my attention anything which may be unfairly bias in my position, and not Scriptural. My goal is to operate within Scriptural bounds, not lessening its constraints (legalism), or widening them (licentiousness).
Introduction:
I grew up in a fairly conservative church. I would hear hymns played on both piano and organ up until I was probably thirteen or so. The Christian music my family listened to was also fairly traditional. I would hear hymns, and modern songs with deep Theological depth and musical intricacy. My parents mainly listened to Steve Green and Michael Card with touches of older Michael W. Smith, Twila Paris, and Southern Gospel Vocal bands. When I was about thirteen, my church started to incorporate worship songs played on a keyboard. At that time, I became involved with both a youth band, and a new praise team my church was starting. Since that time, the praise team has continued to play contemporary songs (i.e. God of Wonders, Shout to the Lord, etc.) as well as some traditional hymns. They now have drums, bass, acoustic and electric guitars, in addition to the original keyboard. The youth band took a different path, and focused its attention on copying modern Christian rockers as much as possible, with the idea that this would somehow attract youth and present the Gospel to them through the lyrics. I never did see any evidence that this idea actually worked, and dropped out of it when I was sixteen or so. In other churches I have witnessed full orchestras, choirs, rock bands, country gospel singers, and many other sub genres. All that to say, I believe I have had exposure to the majority of musical styles prevalent in churches.
In addition to playing music within the confines of the church, I have also witnessed what individuals involved in the Christian music genre accomplish, or lack thereof, in the context of the world. I’ve been to many Christian concerts (Casting Crowns, Steven Curtis Chapman, Chris Tomlin, Ray Boltz, Jars of Clay, Selah, Family Force Five.) and have seen both positive and negative results. I have heard a few songs that are well written, and Theologically very sound and worshipful. They cause the audience to come face to face with the reality of sin, righteousness, and judgment. Most of the results however have seemed to be negative: The Gospel generally isn’t presented (I haven’t heard it once), the music is usually sub-par (from a purely musical standpoint), the Theology is generally off (the concept of “Love” and “God” are usually skewed), and non-Christians are simply left entertained, but not convicted. Due to these issues, I haven’t seen the purpose of going to most “Christian” concerts and financially supporting them. I realize that this probably comes across as pretty harsh, but I felt it necessary to outline my personal bias on this issue before getting into what I believe Theologically. Hopefully my personal bias is the result of Theology, and not the other way around. I would definitely like to be corrected however, if I can be shown from the Word that my positions are not the result of Biblical exegesis.
I. The Purpose of Worship Music
A. Edification of the Body (1 Cor. 14:26, Eph. 4:12). Spiritual gifts are given for the building up of the church (edification, admonishing, and teaching). Music is a vehicle by which these Spiritual Gifts are expressed. The ramifications of this are far-reaching.
1. Music, in the context of the church, is not to be used for the purpose of entertainment or church-growth. Music must not be used as a marketing scheme to keep false converts comfortable, or attract unbelievers.
2. Music must be preformed by those possessing a Spiritual gift (i.e. they must be saved), otherwise the Body is not being served.
3. Musical styles can’t tear down the church.
i. If a certain style appals, i.e. If someone finds a particular style offensive (not distasteful according to personal preference), the weaker brother must be deferred to. (1 Cor. 8:9)
ii. Musical instrumentation must match the lyrics being delivered. For instance, dissonance should not be a musical quality coupled with a song of thanksgiving. The words must fit the tune. Biblical truth is enhanced by appropriate euphony.
B. Communication with God (Psalm 95:2, Psalm 71:23, Psalm 105:2). Music is used to express joy and thankfulness to the Creator. Worship music should be God-centered.
1. If the focus of our music is truly God, any effort on man’s part to “show-off,” or perform for the glory of himself, steals God’s own glory, and is therefore incorrect. (Although, I can’t be 100% dogmatic on whether clapping should be present following a musical performance, I tend to believe that we as Christians should stay on the safe side. Clapping is dangerous because it is culturally taken as a visible display of approval on the part of the performer, and not the object of the performer’s music. “Amens,” are seen as approval of the message.
II. The Characteristics of Music
A. It Must Be Consistent with the Word (John 4:24). This deals with the lyrics in songs.
1. Lyrics must not contain lies. However, the affirmative must also be true.
2. Lyrics must contain truth. If a particular song doesn’t contain lies, but doesn’t contain any Theological truth either (i.e. it’s mindless. Yes I have heard such songs), then the song must be rejected.
B. It Must Incorporate All Available Instruments. (Psalm 150:3-6)
1. This does not mean people must be forced to play their instrument. It means that all those with Spiritual Gifts, willing to serve God with them, should be accommodated.
2. A particular style (i.e. contemporary, hymns, etc.) should not be exalted to the exclusion of others. (i.e. the praise band shouldn’t be disbanded because certain church leaders prefer a single piano. Or the flip side. The choir, ensemble, organ, etc. should not be disbanded because someone prefers a rock band.)
C. It Must be Excellent (Matt. 22:37, Psalm 33:1). Music needs to reflect the best of the deliverer.
D. It Must be of the Spirit (Ephes. 5:18-19) Music must flow from a heart controlled by God.
E. Intelligible (1 Cor. 14:7–10, 19). The musical piece must be understandable to the worshiper.
Friday, May 29, 2009
How Do You Know Who Someone “Really” Is?
Irrespective of geographical location and historical sequencing, people have, and always will remain, people. There are certain qualities which we possess, that transcend culture. The foremost quality is the fact that we are all made in the image of God. Another universal quality, is that every human being is sinful. Both major qualities combine to create interesting characteristics. As human beings, we desire to interact with other humans, understanding where they come from, how their minds work, and how they physically interact. It is a pursuit of meaning as much as it is a pursuit of knowledge. We better understand who we are through our relationship with them. We also tend to want to know how we can be of service, accomplishing inherent purposes placed in us by our Creator. God himself desires a relationship with human beings (even though he thoroughly knows our every instinct and motive). I believe, our pursuit of relationship is a mirror-image of His desire. However, we are not God, and therefore have limited knowledge of other humans. We fear giving of ourselves to unknown persons (especially when it comes to romantic partners, or parental figures) who may turn out to be different than our original impressions. In addition to wanting a relationship due to our being made in the image of God, we possess caution of such relationships because of our realization that every man has the potential to deceive due to his sin nature. We attempt to figure out ways in which to determine someone’s true character. Methods not based in God’s Word however will fail us, leaving us hurt, wronged, and even more cautious than we previously were. My aim is to formulate a mechanism based in God’s word, by which we can wisely apply principles that give us clues as to the true character of a human being. Proverbs 23:6-8 says:Do not eat the bread of a selfish man,
Or desire his delicacies;
For as he thinks within himself, so he is.
He says to you, "Eat and drink!"
But his heart is not with you.
You will vomit up the morsel you have eaten,
And waste your compliments.
Here we have a man who acts hospitable for the wrong reason because his character is selfish. He wants something in return from his friend (correction: victim). This poor soul who is offered the cordial reception does not take into account the host's overall egoistical quality and thus succumbs to the tempting prospect pronounced by his supposed friend. He (the victim) wants to believe, I'm sure, that this kind invitation flows from the best of intentions, but in actuality, it is merely the bait carefully placed in a well-orchestrated trap of self-serving dimensions. The dupe gratefully cherishes the morsels of his "kind-neighbor" only to vomit them up upon the realization that his enjoyable time, precious gifts, and caring companion, were all a temporary ploy to serve the interests of another. Thus, the "hospitable" individual's actions were not consistent with his true motives. It is rightly said that a man can do the right things for the wrong reasons. In
Philippians 1:15-18, Paul noted that many in Rome were preaching the Gospel from wrong motives. However, I do believe that actions, over the long term, do reveal the intentions of the heart. Prov. 16:2-3 bears this out.
All the ways of a man are clean in his own sight,
But the Lord weighs the motives.
Commit your works to the Lord,
And your plans will be established.
An individual who continually grows in sanctification, not falling into the same old sins, but rooting all of them out with ultimate dedication; someone who continually strives (victoriously) to do everything for the Lord rather than for any man, will render established plans. An important thing to note in this passage is the first line "All the ways of a man are clean in his own sight." This directly answers an aspect of our human question.
“Do you judge someone based on what they do, or what they say?”
The answer is neither, if their motives are misplaced (anything apart from God is misplaced), because man is self deceived according to Prov. 16, and man is cunning with his actions according to Prov. 23.
The apostles themselves were flabbergasted (a highly technical term :)) when it was revealed that Judas of all people was betraying Christ. However, had they examined his motives revealed by the fact that his plans weren't committed to the Lord (i.e. his pilfering of ministerial moneys), and/or had they simply believed what Christ himself said about Judas in front of them (His action of dipping the morsel in his cup), they would have known. Of course, they didn't want to believe that it was Judas (emotions clouded vision), and thus they ignored the indications granted them (a true example of "blind faith").
The same is true today. The Holy Spirit resides in the heart of every believer. We may not have Christ dipping a morsel in the cup of an untrustworthy individual, but we do have an entity living inside us illuminating the Scriptures to reveal true wisdom. We can choose to ignore His illumination, or embrace it. There is also an additional mechanism set up in Scripture. I.E. "in the council of many wisdom is found." Motives have an interesting way of being revealed to folks around us, when we ourselves cannot tell who an individual really is.
Christ Himself gave a basic pattern by which motives can be found in Matthew 15:15-20.
And Peter answered and said to Him, "Explain the parable to us." And He said, "Are you still lacking in understanding also? "Do you not understand that everything that goes into the mouth passes into the stomach, and is eliminated? "But the things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and those defile the man. "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders. "These are the things which defile the man; but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile the man."
It is the combination of what a person say and do over the long term that can clue someone in as to their true intentions. What is said reveals the heart, but one must listen carefully for those things said in moment of indiscretion as well as those stated publicly. It is rightly said that a hypocrite says one thing, but does another. What is said then must be matched to what they do. Actions and reactions reveal what the person believes much better than what they say - since man has a propensity to lie to others (and himself). Jesus tied speech and action together in telling us that motives comes out of the mouth and are revealed in the specific actions listed which include sins of speech and sins of doing.
In short, what a person reveals about themselves does not effectually tell you who that person truly is. It is what's BEHIND what a person reveals that clues you in. Motives are harder to decipher, but with careful examination of actions and speech, coupled with wise council, and the Holy Spirit, a general framework can be laid for figuring such problems out. It's not always an easy formula, but it is a true one.
Monday, May 18, 2009
Manliness for Dummies: How to Grill
This is a new feature to hardtack heaven. I'm deeming it, "Manliness for Dummies." Being a man myself, I find it frustrating when guys I know sport deviant concepts twisting the definition of manliness. My goal in this section, is to touch on various aspects of what being a man is, and what the skills associated with being a man are. One skill for men to have (since they are providers) is grilling. Being in the great outdoors, fire burning, meat sizzling, and females waiting for the prize portion of a tasty meal is as good as it gets (especially if it's something you've shot or caught). If you don't know the basics of grilling, I'll show you! Trust me, your woman-friend is gonna want you to know this.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Using Capitalism to fight Capitalism
First written on Sept. 17, 2008
Yesterday Presidential Candidate Obama raised 9 million dollars1 at a Hollywood fund-raiser. The attendees included the likes of Will Ferrell, Jodie Foster, Leonardo DiCaprio, Jamie Lee Curtis and DreamWorks founders Steven Spielberg, David Geffen, and Jeffrey Katzenberg. It seems that throughout the last 30 years, liberal causes have been funded in large part by Hollywood stars, elitist foundations such as the Ford foundation (which has more money that some countries), and elitist contributors such as George Soros and his moveon.org buddies. Certainly, these contributors have not only backed candidates, but they have also been fighting and winning the culture war. They see an advantage in instilling liberal values, while at the same time funding elections. Conservatives, for the most part, seem like they want to fund elections, while remaining on the sidelines when it comes to fighting the culture war. However, I do believe that conservatives are fighting the culture war; but for the wrong side unfortunately. Let me explain; during the cold war, the "red scare" affected politics and business in our country. Anyone suspected of having communist or Soviet ties suffered boycotts that jeopardized carriers. If someone was found to be a true communist, they may of as well have committed political suicide. This was a time in which conservatives were zealous (probably overzealous) to put their money where their mouth was. While the "red scare" was a time of mild hysteria, it did show that Americans cared about the causes to which their money went. The entertainment industry was not automatically worthy of the citizen’s allegiance. Today this is not the case. Let me demonstrate this by asking a personal question to everyone reading this. When was the last time you went to the theater to see Leonardo DiCaprio? Have you bought a Will Ferrell film lately? How about Steven Spielberg? When was the last time you rented a Jamie Lee Curtis flick. Do you own Barbara Streisand or Ludicris CDs? Now, after you've thought about that for a minute, dwell on this: Where did these pop-culture stars get their money? That's right, it's from you, the consumer. Free market economics is still at work. Part of the $31,000 a ticket price tag that was required to enter the Obama fundraiser, came out of your pockets. This feeling of responsibility that you may have now, is absent from most conservatives; and the lack of it does, in part, contributes to the decline of our society. Think about it. These celebrities are supporting a man who is for partial birth abortion (and infanticide), higher taxes, globalism, socialism, and the list goes on. Would you spend your money towards movies in which the capital expended went to a murderer (if you believe abortion is truly murder)? Of course not! Then how come we’ll spend it in theaters and music stores that fill the pockets of those advocating what we deem to be evil at worst, and inferior at best.
The college I graduated from last spring (Dutchess Community College) is a very liberal school. Last semester I attempted to start a conservative republican student organization with a friend of mine. We were blocked by the student government because we mandated that only conservatives and republicans were allowed to be voting members in it (What a novel idea!). We were told that we had to include everyone in our club (postmodern multiculturalism at work). This means that liberals, communists, Neo-Natzies, KKK members, etc., all had to be included in our group if they had a desire to participate. In addition to having student organizations, D.C.C. also had a foundation meant to bring revenue into the school from various organizations. Imagine my surprise and resentment when I found out that a local republican organization was contributing to the school! The school itself is also heralded by our county executive and many other republican officials. How can this be! It's the same reason that conservatives are giving their money to liberal actors and producers. We never look at where our money is going! D.C.C. proudly trains young minds that Karl Marx’s ideas were accurate2, and that homophobia is the worst problem on earth (except for global warming). However, Republican financiers don't look (or don't pay attention) to these facts. They're looking at DCCs impact in the community, which is economically beneficial. Therefore they give up long term results to gain short term rewards. Conservative movie goers and pop music fans, who listen to liberal actors and artists are doing the same thing. They are sacrificing long term results on the alter of short term pleasure. So next time you wonder why Obama is outspending John McCain and Bob Bare put together, remember the last movie you went to see.
1 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080917/ap_en_ce/obama
2 Prokop, Charlotte. Dutchess Community College: Social Problems Class.1 Sept. 2008. 21 Feb. 2009.
Yesterday Presidential Candidate Obama raised 9 million dollars1 at a Hollywood fund-raiser. The attendees included the likes of Will Ferrell, Jodie Foster, Leonardo DiCaprio, Jamie Lee Curtis and DreamWorks founders Steven Spielberg, David Geffen, and Jeffrey Katzenberg. It seems that throughout the last 30 years, liberal causes have been funded in large part by Hollywood stars, elitist foundations such as the Ford foundation (which has more money that some countries), and elitist contributors such as George Soros and his moveon.org buddies. Certainly, these contributors have not only backed candidates, but they have also been fighting and winning the culture war. They see an advantage in instilling liberal values, while at the same time funding elections. Conservatives, for the most part, seem like they want to fund elections, while remaining on the sidelines when it comes to fighting the culture war. However, I do believe that conservatives are fighting the culture war; but for the wrong side unfortunately. Let me explain; during the cold war, the "red scare" affected politics and business in our country. Anyone suspected of having communist or Soviet ties suffered boycotts that jeopardized carriers. If someone was found to be a true communist, they may of as well have committed political suicide. This was a time in which conservatives were zealous (probably overzealous) to put their money where their mouth was. While the "red scare" was a time of mild hysteria, it did show that Americans cared about the causes to which their money went. The entertainment industry was not automatically worthy of the citizen’s allegiance. Today this is not the case. Let me demonstrate this by asking a personal question to everyone reading this. When was the last time you went to the theater to see Leonardo DiCaprio? Have you bought a Will Ferrell film lately? How about Steven Spielberg? When was the last time you rented a Jamie Lee Curtis flick. Do you own Barbara Streisand or Ludicris CDs? Now, after you've thought about that for a minute, dwell on this: Where did these pop-culture stars get their money? That's right, it's from you, the consumer. Free market economics is still at work. Part of the $31,000 a ticket price tag that was required to enter the Obama fundraiser, came out of your pockets. This feeling of responsibility that you may have now, is absent from most conservatives; and the lack of it does, in part, contributes to the decline of our society. Think about it. These celebrities are supporting a man who is for partial birth abortion (and infanticide), higher taxes, globalism, socialism, and the list goes on. Would you spend your money towards movies in which the capital expended went to a murderer (if you believe abortion is truly murder)? Of course not! Then how come we’ll spend it in theaters and music stores that fill the pockets of those advocating what we deem to be evil at worst, and inferior at best.
The college I graduated from last spring (Dutchess Community College) is a very liberal school. Last semester I attempted to start a conservative republican student organization with a friend of mine. We were blocked by the student government because we mandated that only conservatives and republicans were allowed to be voting members in it (What a novel idea!). We were told that we had to include everyone in our club (postmodern multiculturalism at work). This means that liberals, communists, Neo-Natzies, KKK members, etc., all had to be included in our group if they had a desire to participate. In addition to having student organizations, D.C.C. also had a foundation meant to bring revenue into the school from various organizations. Imagine my surprise and resentment when I found out that a local republican organization was contributing to the school! The school itself is also heralded by our county executive and many other republican officials. How can this be! It's the same reason that conservatives are giving their money to liberal actors and producers. We never look at where our money is going! D.C.C. proudly trains young minds that Karl Marx’s ideas were accurate2, and that homophobia is the worst problem on earth (except for global warming). However, Republican financiers don't look (or don't pay attention) to these facts. They're looking at DCCs impact in the community, which is economically beneficial. Therefore they give up long term results to gain short term rewards. Conservative movie goers and pop music fans, who listen to liberal actors and artists are doing the same thing. They are sacrificing long term results on the alter of short term pleasure. So next time you wonder why Obama is outspending John McCain and Bob Bare put together, remember the last movie you went to see.
1 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080917/ap_en_ce/obama
2 Prokop, Charlotte. Dutchess Community College: Social Problems Class.1 Sept. 2008. 21 Feb. 2009
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Worldliness: Resisting and Defeating
This is a lesson I did for Christian Fellowship on "worldliness." A lot of my information was taken from "Worldliness: Resisting the Seduction of a Fallen World by C. J. Mahaney." Please keep in mind, that this is not 100% complete. I.E. I could have gone on to talk about materialism, our dress, etc., but I wanted, in the space I had, to focus on entertainment choices a little more.
When: Feb. 26th, 2009
Place: Christian Fellowship
Topic: Worldliness
What do you usually think of when you hear the word “worldliness?” For some it brings to mind a stoic puritans bent on keeping church members from engaging in any action which would be considered, “pleasurable.” For others it conjures up images of the evil Hollywood entertainment business and the sins of attending a movie theater, listening to popular music, and drinking alcohol. Most of us don’t view ourselves as worldly people. We have our own scale in which we are at the center, while those who are legalistic sit to our right, and those who are worldly sit to our left. We place ourselves in the, oh-so-comfortable “godly” center. This scale is based upon a listing of standards we have predetermined based on our own perception of the world. For instance, some may see playing cards and watching television as “worldly,” while others may see such actions as perfectly acceptable activities becoming of a “godly” individual. As you can see, we will get a different definition of the terms “worldly” and “godly” based upon a preferred list of rules. Since when did following Christ become a subjective exercise? Let’s bring clarity to this issue be first defining some terms.
Legalism: “Anyone trying to achieve acceptance through obedience.” This is the problem the Pharisees had. They took a legalistic approach to the law of God, trying somehow to gain salvation from God through their good deeds. I believe it’s important to understand that it wasn’t their “obedience” which was wrong, but their notion that they could gain God’s favor through it. In other words, it was their motivation which disqualified them from God’s favor (the very thing they were trying to achieve). Salvation is freely available to anyone humble enough to accept it on Christ’s merit, and not their own. “He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit,” - Titus 3:5 Therefore, the solution to legalism, is not lowering our standard, but rather raising our response to God.
Godliness: “Anyone set apart too, and following after Christ’s example.” Godliness and Holiness are fairly similar ideas. Holiness means “being set apart too.” Godliness signifies the object to which we are to be set apart. We are to be set apart to God. This doesn’t mean following a standard of do’s and don’ts, but rather pursuing and mimicking an example, that example being Christ. “Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus,” - Philip. 2:5
Worldliness: “love for the fallen world-system.” 1 John 2:15 commands us not to, “love the world, nor the things in the world.” The word “world” signifies “the organized system of human civilization that is actively hostile to God.” What philosophies are we talking about when we say “organized system,” and where can these philosophies be found? Atheism, hedonism, evolutionism, materialism, spiritism, etc., are all philosophies that directly contradict God’s Word, and they can be found almost anywhere we go. The university campus, the shopping center, the highway, the television, the radio; there is almost no place in which we can travel without bumping into a system of beliefs which reject the God of the Bible. John says, “do not love these things!” He goes on to describe what these philosophical systems contain. “For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world.” David Jackman states, “The ‘worldly’ characteristics of which this verse speaks are in fact reactions going on inside of us, as we contemplate the environment outside.” Therefore, worldliness is internal not environmental. Worldliness is a heart issue. If I could boil these three categories down to one word, I would use the word “selfish” to describe them. Notice, worldliness is not an R-rated movie, but rather the lust of the eyes, It’s not sexual gratification, but rather the lust of the flesh, and it’s not buying a brand new car, but rather the boastful pride of life. As John Calvin said, “The evil in our desires lies often not in what we want, but in the fact that we want it too much.” The solution to worldliness is not simply tightening our standards, but rather changing our motivations. Godliness and worldliness are not determined on the basis of precept, but principle. That principle, is God’s word. Let’s now examine what God’s word has to say about worldliness.
The first thing to realize, I believe, when studying the topic of “worldliness,” is that no one is above the fray. We are all affected by this world, and to deny this fact, means that we are in the process of being affected without realizing it. Demas was a close friend and traveling companion of Paul the Apostle. He participated in strengthening the fledgling church throughout the Roman Empire. He left all he had, and stood by Paul even when he was cast into prison. However, in 2 Tim. 4:10 we find something remarkable: “for Demas, having loved this present world, has deserted me and gone to Thessalonica; Crescens has gone to Galatia, Titus to Dalmatia.” I don’t believe Demas woke up one morning and said, “I’m going to desert Paul.” I believe this was a slow, gradual shift in his beliefs, until he had totally accepted the “world-system” as a way to live his life. We are no different than Demas. The road to serious rejection starts with little things: watching movies we know we shouldn’t, listening to songs with ungodly lyrics, buying “stuff” to make us feel happy, sleeping in during church, and the list goes on. As James Hunter stated, “The main problem in the church is not persecution from the outside, but worldliness infiltrating the inside. Sexual integrity is even softening.” How do we as believers avoid the pitfall of Demas, and not get sucked into the philosophies of this world? I believe the first step is rooting out the sin in our lives.
The second thing to realize, is that we aren’t the standard, the Bible is. We are corrupt fallen human beings. Even as Christians, though we are being transformed, we are also affected by the “mediasphere” we live in. We must go outside this fallen world, to look for a true standard. This standard resides with God. Let’s take a look at a couple Scriptures to find this standard, paying particular attention to the commands within the text.
Ephes. 5:1-13
Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children; and walk in love, just as Christ also loved you, and gave Himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God as a fragrant aroma.
But do not let immorality or any impurity or greed even be named among you, as is proper among saints; and there must be no filthiness and silly talk, or coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks. For this you know with certainty, that no immoral or impure person or covetous man, who is an idolater, has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. Therefore do not be partakers with them; for you were formerly darkness, but now you are light in the Lord; walk as children of light (for the fruit of the light consists in all goodness and righteousness and truth), trying to learn what is pleasing to the Lord. And do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them; for it is disgraceful even to speak of the things which are done by them in secret. But all things become visible when they are exposed by the light, for everything that becomes visible is light.
Negative commands: Do not let a hint of immorality, impurity, or greed characterize you. No filthiness, silly talk, or coarse jesting. Don’t participate with the wicked. Don’t be deceived by wicked. Do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness.
Positive commands: Imitate God, walk in love, give thanks, walk as children of light (goodness, righteousness, truth), (learn) discern what is pleasing to God, expose unfruitful deeds.
You may be saying after reading this, “Wait these don’t help me! They’re principles, not prohibitions!,” and you’d be right. The goal is to “discern” what is pleasing to God. This isn’t a guessing game, because we have principles to work off of. When confronted with any situation, we need to apply the godly standards spoken of in this passage. Start by asking questions: Is this immoral? Does it tempt me towards greed? Are there dirty double ententes (i.e. course jesting)? Is this beneficial? Can I give thanks for it after participating? Let’s look another passage.
Philip. 4:8-9
“Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, let your mind dwell on these things. The things you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, practice these things; and the God of peace shall be with you.”
This passage provides a complete list of principles to work off of. Notice that this isn’t a restrictive standard, but an affirming one. We aren’t to be looking at situations and asking ourselves, “Does this contradict Philippians?” but rather ask, “Does this affirm Philippians?” There is a big difference. One is reaching for something higher (godliness), the other is merely trying to avoid something however (worldliness). Let’s reach, instead of stoop.
Let me ask you a series of rhetorical questions so you can examine yourselves to see if you’ve been affected by worldliness. Imagine your pastor were to take a blind test in which his task is to identify the genuine follower of Jesus Christ. His choices are an unregenerate individual and you. I’m given two reports detailing conversations , Internet activity, manner of dress, iPod playlists, television habits, hobbies, leisure time, financial transactions, thoughts, passions, and dreams. The question is: Would he be able to tell you apart? Would he discern a difference between you and your unconverted neighbor, coworker, classmate, or friend? Page 20-21
Now let’s get practical. How do we combat the system of this world? Well, let’s start with what we don’t do. We already know that merely outwardly conforming to a higher standard will not work, because the issue is our heart, and not our actions. Another method which will not work is trying to resist worldliness by ourselves; meaning, expending all our energy into negatively avoiding worldly pitfalls, to the exclusion of positively affirming anything. This will cause us to fall into another pitfall: legalism. We are to “be holy as he is holy.” Meaning once again, that we are “set apart” to God, as well as being set apart from this present world. Try to ‘not’ think about the movie you saw last night, or the advertisement you noticed on your way to work. What’s the first thing that pops into your head? Of course it’s going to be the very thing you were trying to avoid thinking about! The solution lies in positively focusing our energy on pursuing God (i.e. dwelling on His sacrifice, thanking Him for blessings, etc.), not negatively avoiding the world. If the solution is focusing our energy towards God, how do we do that in the situations of everyday life? Let’s take a few different situations, in which we are confronted with the philosophy of the world, and apply this principle.
Visual Stimulation
I want to start off with Hollywood, because I think that this is a problematic area for most collegiates and high schoolers. I have felt in my own life a noticeable spiritual downward slide when I am continuously exposed to visual material which does not affirm what’s right. I like to justify my viewing habits by saying, “well there’s nothing ‘that’ bad in it,” or, “I hear this kind of stuff every day, it won’t matter if I hear it again.” It’s not until sometimes weeks later that I realize my viewing habits have caught up with me, as words I wouldn’t normally say make their way to the tip of my tongue, my longing for more visual stimulation has grown, the standard I’ve set for myself has more to do with a television character than it does a Biblical one, inappropriate sexual passions are more noticeable, and suddenly my devotional time shrinks. In short, it becomes an idol. How is this combated? The same way every sin is combated. As Psalm 119 states, “How can a young man keep his way pure? By keeping it according to Thy word.” The Bible has plenty to say on this topic. First of all, every situation, including visual stimulation, must be filtered through Colossians 3:17, which says, “And whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks through Him to God the Father.” If I can’t honestly pray and thank God for it, there’s no reason for me to be viewing it. Another principle comes from, Ephes. 5:16. We are to be, “making the most of (our) time, because the days are evil.” Is what I’m doing really the best thing I could be doing with my time? How about the second greatest commandment, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Does it show love for my neighbor when I pay them to sin for my own enjoyment? We often don’t think about actors on a screen being people, because after all, they’re on a screen. But it is the equivalent of going to see a play. Would you pay for someone to commit sexual indecency, or use foul language, in your presence? Is it a wise use of your finances to be supporting a production company to put out more indecent films? These questions are only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to thinking through an entertainment decision.
Audio Stimulation
It’s important to understand firstly, that music is God’s idea (1 Sam. 13:14, 1 Chron. 16:5-7), however like anything else, it can be greatly distorted. Bob Kauflin said, “. . . a wise Christian understands that listening to music without discernment and godly intent reveals a heart willing to flirt with the world.” I can’t even stress how unqualified I feel like I am to write about this subject, because it is probably my weakest area. I have constantly listened to songs which convey bad messages because I like the beat and melody. I find myself singing along to lyrics on Monday, which don’t match what I sang about on Sunday morning. James talked about this by saying, “from the same mouth come both blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not to be this way.” Another thing to consider is those who are listening. Think about the children who follow your example. (Luke 17:1-2, says, “. . . It is inevitable that stumbling blocks should come, but woe to him through whom they come! It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea, than that he should cause one of these little ones to stumble.” Remember who’s within earshot of your music station, morning program, etc. Even though the band isn’t playing right next to you, and the DJ isn’t shouting in your ear, you should realize, it wouldn’t be any different if they were. When you press that “on” button, you are letting the outside come in. It doesn’t have to be worldly but it very well could be. They are in a sense, your companions, for the time you’re “tuning in.” It is wise to remember what Proverbs has to say about companions. “He who walks with wise men will be wise, But the companion of fools will suffer harm.” I know far too many Christians who have, instead of staying as far away from the edge as possible, thought themselves to be “super-spiritual,” and have put themselves in dangerous situations. In short, they have become idolatrous. Bob Kauflin stated, “Music makes a precious gift but a terrible God, by God’s grace may we always know the difference.” Let’s hope we know the difference when it comes to every area of our lives.
When: Feb. 26th, 2009
Place: Christian Fellowship
Topic: Worldliness
What do you usually think of when you hear the word “worldliness?” For some it brings to mind a stoic puritans bent on keeping church members from engaging in any action which would be considered, “pleasurable.” For others it conjures up images of the evil Hollywood entertainment business and the sins of attending a movie theater, listening to popular music, and drinking alcohol. Most of us don’t view ourselves as worldly people. We have our own scale in which we are at the center, while those who are legalistic sit to our right, and those who are worldly sit to our left. We place ourselves in the, oh-so-comfortable “godly” center. This scale is based upon a listing of standards we have predetermined based on our own perception of the world. For instance, some may see playing cards and watching television as “worldly,” while others may see such actions as perfectly acceptable activities becoming of a “godly” individual. As you can see, we will get a different definition of the terms “worldly” and “godly” based upon a preferred list of rules. Since when did following Christ become a subjective exercise? Let’s bring clarity to this issue be first defining some terms.
Legalism: “Anyone trying to achieve acceptance through obedience.” This is the problem the Pharisees had. They took a legalistic approach to the law of God, trying somehow to gain salvation from God through their good deeds. I believe it’s important to understand that it wasn’t their “obedience” which was wrong, but their notion that they could gain God’s favor through it. In other words, it was their motivation which disqualified them from God’s favor (the very thing they were trying to achieve). Salvation is freely available to anyone humble enough to accept it on Christ’s merit, and not their own. “He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit,” - Titus 3:5 Therefore, the solution to legalism, is not lowering our standard, but rather raising our response to God.
Godliness: “Anyone set apart too, and following after Christ’s example.” Godliness and Holiness are fairly similar ideas. Holiness means “being set apart too.” Godliness signifies the object to which we are to be set apart. We are to be set apart to God. This doesn’t mean following a standard of do’s and don’ts, but rather pursuing and mimicking an example, that example being Christ. “Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus,” - Philip. 2:5
Worldliness: “love for the fallen world-system.” 1 John 2:15 commands us not to, “love the world, nor the things in the world.” The word “world” signifies “the organized system of human civilization that is actively hostile to God.” What philosophies are we talking about when we say “organized system,” and where can these philosophies be found? Atheism, hedonism, evolutionism, materialism, spiritism, etc., are all philosophies that directly contradict God’s Word, and they can be found almost anywhere we go. The university campus, the shopping center, the highway, the television, the radio; there is almost no place in which we can travel without bumping into a system of beliefs which reject the God of the Bible. John says, “do not love these things!” He goes on to describe what these philosophical systems contain. “For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world.” David Jackman states, “The ‘worldly’ characteristics of which this verse speaks are in fact reactions going on inside of us, as we contemplate the environment outside.” Therefore, worldliness is internal not environmental. Worldliness is a heart issue. If I could boil these three categories down to one word, I would use the word “selfish” to describe them. Notice, worldliness is not an R-rated movie, but rather the lust of the eyes, It’s not sexual gratification, but rather the lust of the flesh, and it’s not buying a brand new car, but rather the boastful pride of life. As John Calvin said, “The evil in our desires lies often not in what we want, but in the fact that we want it too much.” The solution to worldliness is not simply tightening our standards, but rather changing our motivations. Godliness and worldliness are not determined on the basis of precept, but principle. That principle, is God’s word. Let’s now examine what God’s word has to say about worldliness.
The first thing to realize, I believe, when studying the topic of “worldliness,” is that no one is above the fray. We are all affected by this world, and to deny this fact, means that we are in the process of being affected without realizing it. Demas was a close friend and traveling companion of Paul the Apostle. He participated in strengthening the fledgling church throughout the Roman Empire. He left all he had, and stood by Paul even when he was cast into prison. However, in 2 Tim. 4:10 we find something remarkable: “for Demas, having loved this present world, has deserted me and gone to Thessalonica; Crescens has gone to Galatia, Titus to Dalmatia.” I don’t believe Demas woke up one morning and said, “I’m going to desert Paul.” I believe this was a slow, gradual shift in his beliefs, until he had totally accepted the “world-system” as a way to live his life. We are no different than Demas. The road to serious rejection starts with little things: watching movies we know we shouldn’t, listening to songs with ungodly lyrics, buying “stuff” to make us feel happy, sleeping in during church, and the list goes on. As James Hunter stated, “The main problem in the church is not persecution from the outside, but worldliness infiltrating the inside. Sexual integrity is even softening.” How do we as believers avoid the pitfall of Demas, and not get sucked into the philosophies of this world? I believe the first step is rooting out the sin in our lives.
The second thing to realize, is that we aren’t the standard, the Bible is. We are corrupt fallen human beings. Even as Christians, though we are being transformed, we are also affected by the “mediasphere” we live in. We must go outside this fallen world, to look for a true standard. This standard resides with God. Let’s take a look at a couple Scriptures to find this standard, paying particular attention to the commands within the text.
Ephes. 5:1-13
Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children; and walk in love, just as Christ also loved you, and gave Himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God as a fragrant aroma.
But do not let immorality or any impurity or greed even be named among you, as is proper among saints; and there must be no filthiness and silly talk, or coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks. For this you know with certainty, that no immoral or impure person or covetous man, who is an idolater, has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. Therefore do not be partakers with them; for you were formerly darkness, but now you are light in the Lord; walk as children of light (for the fruit of the light consists in all goodness and righteousness and truth), trying to learn what is pleasing to the Lord. And do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them; for it is disgraceful even to speak of the things which are done by them in secret. But all things become visible when they are exposed by the light, for everything that becomes visible is light.
Negative commands: Do not let a hint of immorality, impurity, or greed characterize you. No filthiness, silly talk, or coarse jesting. Don’t participate with the wicked. Don’t be deceived by wicked. Do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness.
Positive commands: Imitate God, walk in love, give thanks, walk as children of light (goodness, righteousness, truth), (learn) discern what is pleasing to God, expose unfruitful deeds.
You may be saying after reading this, “Wait these don’t help me! They’re principles, not prohibitions!,” and you’d be right. The goal is to “discern” what is pleasing to God. This isn’t a guessing game, because we have principles to work off of. When confronted with any situation, we need to apply the godly standards spoken of in this passage. Start by asking questions: Is this immoral? Does it tempt me towards greed? Are there dirty double ententes (i.e. course jesting)? Is this beneficial? Can I give thanks for it after participating? Let’s look another passage.
Philip. 4:8-9
“Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, let your mind dwell on these things. The things you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, practice these things; and the God of peace shall be with you.”
This passage provides a complete list of principles to work off of. Notice that this isn’t a restrictive standard, but an affirming one. We aren’t to be looking at situations and asking ourselves, “Does this contradict Philippians?” but rather ask, “Does this affirm Philippians?” There is a big difference. One is reaching for something higher (godliness), the other is merely trying to avoid something however (worldliness). Let’s reach, instead of stoop.
Let me ask you a series of rhetorical questions so you can examine yourselves to see if you’ve been affected by worldliness. Imagine your pastor were to take a blind test in which his task is to identify the genuine follower of Jesus Christ. His choices are an unregenerate individual and you. I’m given two reports detailing conversations , Internet activity, manner of dress, iPod playlists, television habits, hobbies, leisure time, financial transactions, thoughts, passions, and dreams. The question is: Would he be able to tell you apart? Would he discern a difference between you and your unconverted neighbor, coworker, classmate, or friend? Page 20-21
Now let’s get practical. How do we combat the system of this world? Well, let’s start with what we don’t do. We already know that merely outwardly conforming to a higher standard will not work, because the issue is our heart, and not our actions. Another method which will not work is trying to resist worldliness by ourselves; meaning, expending all our energy into negatively avoiding worldly pitfalls, to the exclusion of positively affirming anything. This will cause us to fall into another pitfall: legalism. We are to “be holy as he is holy.” Meaning once again, that we are “set apart” to God, as well as being set apart from this present world. Try to ‘not’ think about the movie you saw last night, or the advertisement you noticed on your way to work. What’s the first thing that pops into your head? Of course it’s going to be the very thing you were trying to avoid thinking about! The solution lies in positively focusing our energy on pursuing God (i.e. dwelling on His sacrifice, thanking Him for blessings, etc.), not negatively avoiding the world. If the solution is focusing our energy towards God, how do we do that in the situations of everyday life? Let’s take a few different situations, in which we are confronted with the philosophy of the world, and apply this principle.
Visual Stimulation
I want to start off with Hollywood, because I think that this is a problematic area for most collegiates and high schoolers. I have felt in my own life a noticeable spiritual downward slide when I am continuously exposed to visual material which does not affirm what’s right. I like to justify my viewing habits by saying, “well there’s nothing ‘that’ bad in it,” or, “I hear this kind of stuff every day, it won’t matter if I hear it again.” It’s not until sometimes weeks later that I realize my viewing habits have caught up with me, as words I wouldn’t normally say make their way to the tip of my tongue, my longing for more visual stimulation has grown, the standard I’ve set for myself has more to do with a television character than it does a Biblical one, inappropriate sexual passions are more noticeable, and suddenly my devotional time shrinks. In short, it becomes an idol. How is this combated? The same way every sin is combated. As Psalm 119 states, “How can a young man keep his way pure? By keeping it according to Thy word.” The Bible has plenty to say on this topic. First of all, every situation, including visual stimulation, must be filtered through Colossians 3:17, which says, “And whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks through Him to God the Father.” If I can’t honestly pray and thank God for it, there’s no reason for me to be viewing it. Another principle comes from, Ephes. 5:16. We are to be, “making the most of (our) time, because the days are evil.” Is what I’m doing really the best thing I could be doing with my time? How about the second greatest commandment, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Does it show love for my neighbor when I pay them to sin for my own enjoyment? We often don’t think about actors on a screen being people, because after all, they’re on a screen. But it is the equivalent of going to see a play. Would you pay for someone to commit sexual indecency, or use foul language, in your presence? Is it a wise use of your finances to be supporting a production company to put out more indecent films? These questions are only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to thinking through an entertainment decision.
Audio Stimulation
It’s important to understand firstly, that music is God’s idea (1 Sam. 13:14, 1 Chron. 16:5-7), however like anything else, it can be greatly distorted. Bob Kauflin said, “. . . a wise Christian understands that listening to music without discernment and godly intent reveals a heart willing to flirt with the world.” I can’t even stress how unqualified I feel like I am to write about this subject, because it is probably my weakest area. I have constantly listened to songs which convey bad messages because I like the beat and melody. I find myself singing along to lyrics on Monday, which don’t match what I sang about on Sunday morning. James talked about this by saying, “from the same mouth come both blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not to be this way.” Another thing to consider is those who are listening. Think about the children who follow your example. (Luke 17:1-2, says, “. . . It is inevitable that stumbling blocks should come, but woe to him through whom they come! It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea, than that he should cause one of these little ones to stumble.” Remember who’s within earshot of your music station, morning program, etc. Even though the band isn’t playing right next to you, and the DJ isn’t shouting in your ear, you should realize, it wouldn’t be any different if they were. When you press that “on” button, you are letting the outside come in. It doesn’t have to be worldly but it very well could be. They are in a sense, your companions, for the time you’re “tuning in.” It is wise to remember what Proverbs has to say about companions. “He who walks with wise men will be wise, But the companion of fools will suffer harm.” I know far too many Christians who have, instead of staying as far away from the edge as possible, thought themselves to be “super-spiritual,” and have put themselves in dangerous situations. In short, they have become idolatrous. Bob Kauflin stated, “Music makes a precious gift but a terrible God, by God’s grace may we always know the difference.” Let’s hope we know the difference when it comes to every area of our lives.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Bumper Sticker Theology
Ok. To start off with, this may offend some people. I myself, have used some of these catchphrases in the past, and regret it. I don't want people to get the wrong idea, and think that I'm attacking people who use these phrases. Rather, I'd like to think that I'm offering them a challenge. I don't personally think, that the following sayings are Biblical (in the context in which they are said). They're "pop-Christian" sayings which cause more confusion than clarifying anything. If any of these sayings are common in your own vocabulary, please consider the problems with them and what they evoke. I realize that most people use phrases they heard others use, and so forth, but let's not do something just because someone we know does it. Let's do something because it's accurate and right. Here are some catchphrases:
"Ask Jesus into your heart!"
This statement is totally inaccurate. The verses "It is no longer I that live, but Christ living in me" (Gal. 2:20) and "Behold, I stand at the door and knock" (Rev. 3:20) are taken out of context and misappropriated in support of "asking Jesus into your heart." When Paul said Christ lived in him, he meant that he had sacrificed his will to Christ. Rev. 3:20 was written to a group of Christians, so it doesn't refer to salvation but to allowing God to do His will in you. This statement has been turned into a phrase to support a false gospel in some instances (That if you somehow ask Jesus into you're heart at a particular moment you're now saved). There is no "magical" phrase which saves you. Jesus saves you. You must repent and have faith, not "Ask Jesus into your heart."
"Christianity is all about loving the sinner, and hating the sin."
This is another statement which I believe is extremely inaccurate. Is this really what Christianity is about? What did David mean when he said, "Do I not hate those who hate you, O Lord, and abhor those who rise up against you?" in Psalm 139:21. Separating the sin from the sinner is not something God does. He doesn't send the sin to hell does he? Of course not! God sends the sinner there. Can you hate and love something at the same time? Yes you can. They aren't diametrically opposed. You can desire for justice to be carried out on those who disobey without repentance, while at the same time, hoping that they will repent.
"There's a God-shaped hole in your heart that only Jesus can fill."
Plain and simply- NO THERE'S NOT! What Bible verse is this based on? Many popular Christian "evangelists" and authors use this term. To just give one example: Greg Laurie- "We each have a hole in our heart, a spiritual vacuum deep within our soul - a 'God-shaped blank.' Possessions won't fill this hole, nor will success. Relationships alone cannot satisfy this emptiness, and morality, in and of itself, falls miserably short of occupying this space. In fact, even religion cannot fill the void in our heart." Ok, so why is this wrong? Well first of all, using this as a draw card for salvation, is borderline heresy in my opinion. You come to Christ because you're a sinner, He paid your price, and you are repentant. NOT BECAUSE YOU ARE LONELY OR UNSATISFIED WITH YOUR LIFE! Preaching this message creates false converts (See Hell's Best Kept Secret by Ray Comfort). Scripture says, "they are filled with all unrighteousness" (Romans 1:29). "The hearts of the sons of men are full of evil" (Ecclesiastes 9:3), and they have an evil spirit working in them (Ephesians 2:2). False assurance is certainly given, when a void that doesn't exist is supposedly filled.
"Christianity isn't a religion, it's a relationship!"
I understand what people mean when they say this. They are trying to say, "In Christianity, we focus on having a relationship with God, rather than working for salvation." I only wish they would say that, instead of "It's not a religion, it's a relationship!" Christians keep trying to redefine what religion means, so they can be "cool" and not "old fashioned..." cuz we all know "religion" is an old fashion word, and "relationship" is culturally just way cooler. Give me a break. Christianity is a religion. It's true religion. What does the book of James say about this?
"If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man's religion is worthless. This is pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father, to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world." - James 1:26-27
As we can see, James contrasts true and false religion. Christianity is true religion, all other religions are false. Let's not try to redefine things in order to look cool.
"You aren't supposed to be comfortable in your Christianity."
In a sense, no you aren't. From a worldly standpoint we aren't to be sitting at home doing nothing, and not using our spiritual gifts. However, there is a godly peace which accompanies those who do his will.
Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all comprehension, shall guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.
- Philip. 4:6-7
Therefore, I believe there is a comfort in Christianity. The Holy Spirit is even called "the comforter" by Jesus. It's just not a worldly comfort.
"Salvation is a free gift."
While this statement is accurate in a sense, it gives a wrong perception. It has come to mean something that cannot be supported scripturally. Salvation is freely available, yes, but it could cost you everything that you have and are. If salvation is free, why did Christ say, "If anyone desires to follow me, let him deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me" (Luke 9:23)? It looks to me like salvation requires you to crucify your own selfish desires daily and trust God to know what is best for you. I'm not supporting a works-based view of salvation. We are saved by grace through faith, and that not of ourselves. But if our lives don't reflect the change, then have we really received God's grace?
Yes, anyone can have salvation. But most people aren't willing to make the sacrifice required to receive it. Let's not provide one side of the coin (salvation being freely available), without showing the other (a sacrifice being required on the part of the sinner...not to earn it, but rather to affirm ones faith in it). This phrase can be beneficial if used in context, but it seldom is used that way.
"Ask Jesus into your heart!"
This statement is totally inaccurate. The verses "It is no longer I that live, but Christ living in me" (Gal. 2:20) and "Behold, I stand at the door and knock" (Rev. 3:20) are taken out of context and misappropriated in support of "asking Jesus into your heart." When Paul said Christ lived in him, he meant that he had sacrificed his will to Christ. Rev. 3:20 was written to a group of Christians, so it doesn't refer to salvation but to allowing God to do His will in you. This statement has been turned into a phrase to support a false gospel in some instances (That if you somehow ask Jesus into you're heart at a particular moment you're now saved). There is no "magical" phrase which saves you. Jesus saves you. You must repent and have faith, not "Ask Jesus into your heart."
"Christianity is all about loving the sinner, and hating the sin."
This is another statement which I believe is extremely inaccurate. Is this really what Christianity is about? What did David mean when he said, "Do I not hate those who hate you, O Lord, and abhor those who rise up against you?" in Psalm 139:21. Separating the sin from the sinner is not something God does. He doesn't send the sin to hell does he? Of course not! God sends the sinner there. Can you hate and love something at the same time? Yes you can. They aren't diametrically opposed. You can desire for justice to be carried out on those who disobey without repentance, while at the same time, hoping that they will repent.
"There's a God-shaped hole in your heart that only Jesus can fill."
Plain and simply- NO THERE'S NOT! What Bible verse is this based on? Many popular Christian "evangelists" and authors use this term. To just give one example: Greg Laurie- "We each have a hole in our heart, a spiritual vacuum deep within our soul - a 'God-shaped blank.' Possessions won't fill this hole, nor will success. Relationships alone cannot satisfy this emptiness, and morality, in and of itself, falls miserably short of occupying this space. In fact, even religion cannot fill the void in our heart." Ok, so why is this wrong? Well first of all, using this as a draw card for salvation, is borderline heresy in my opinion. You come to Christ because you're a sinner, He paid your price, and you are repentant. NOT BECAUSE YOU ARE LONELY OR UNSATISFIED WITH YOUR LIFE! Preaching this message creates false converts (See Hell's Best Kept Secret by Ray Comfort). Scripture says, "they are filled with all unrighteousness" (Romans 1:29). "The hearts of the sons of men are full of evil" (Ecclesiastes 9:3), and they have an evil spirit working in them (Ephesians 2:2). False assurance is certainly given, when a void that doesn't exist is supposedly filled.
"Christianity isn't a religion, it's a relationship!"
I understand what people mean when they say this. They are trying to say, "In Christianity, we focus on having a relationship with God, rather than working for salvation." I only wish they would say that, instead of "It's not a religion, it's a relationship!" Christians keep trying to redefine what religion means, so they can be "cool" and not "old fashioned..." cuz we all know "religion" is an old fashion word, and "relationship" is culturally just way cooler. Give me a break. Christianity is a religion. It's true religion. What does the book of James say about this?
"If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man's religion is worthless. This is pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father, to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world." - James 1:26-27
As we can see, James contrasts true and false religion. Christianity is true religion, all other religions are false. Let's not try to redefine things in order to look cool.
"You aren't supposed to be comfortable in your Christianity."
In a sense, no you aren't. From a worldly standpoint we aren't to be sitting at home doing nothing, and not using our spiritual gifts. However, there is a godly peace which accompanies those who do his will.
Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all comprehension, shall guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.
- Philip. 4:6-7
Therefore, I believe there is a comfort in Christianity. The Holy Spirit is even called "the comforter" by Jesus. It's just not a worldly comfort.
"Salvation is a free gift."
While this statement is accurate in a sense, it gives a wrong perception. It has come to mean something that cannot be supported scripturally. Salvation is freely available, yes, but it could cost you everything that you have and are. If salvation is free, why did Christ say, "If anyone desires to follow me, let him deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me" (Luke 9:23)? It looks to me like salvation requires you to crucify your own selfish desires daily and trust God to know what is best for you. I'm not supporting a works-based view of salvation. We are saved by grace through faith, and that not of ourselves. But if our lives don't reflect the change, then have we really received God's grace?
Yes, anyone can have salvation. But most people aren't willing to make the sacrifice required to receive it. Let's not provide one side of the coin (salvation being freely available), without showing the other (a sacrifice being required on the part of the sinner...not to earn it, but rather to affirm ones faith in it). This phrase can be beneficial if used in context, but it seldom is used that way.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Expose the Radicals
A new group on Facebook: "http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=37320251279&ref=mf" attempts to expose Liberal/radical professors in our American Colleges. I encourage everyone with a facebook to join.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Oil- Why it's so Expensive
If this sounds dry, basic, and like I'm rambling on, I'm sorry...I'll try to make it interesting. I want to sort of give a short lesson (for lack of a better term) on economics to make this issue make more sense.
Many people refer to the "oil companies" and the "government" as if they are two entities in total agreement and character. I'd like to point out that "oil companies" is plural, and that "government" is made up of tons of disagreeing people. There are many oil companies (Shell, Chevron, Lukoil, Mobile, Exxon, etc.) and many political ideologies in Washington (Liberals, Conservatives, Moderates, Libertarians, Socialists, etc.). Now then, you're probably wondering why I established these two facts. Well simply, it's to tell you this. Both the oil companies, and the government are in constant competition. The oil companies are competing for your money, and the government is competing for your approval (and votes). So therefore there isn't one entity referred to as "oil companies." Rather, there are many different oil companies at war with each other for your money. Why would they be after your money you might ask? Well, plain and simply they want to make a profit. That is the goal of any company. Therefore, in an effort to make a profit, oil companies attempt to attract you, the customer. How do they do this? They run commercials, they post signs, and they most importantly offer you a lower price then their competitors. At the same time, other companies are doing the same thing. This results in the lowest price a company can get away with, while still making a profit, the price you pay. Now lets go back to the government for a minute. . . The government is also looking for a profit too. Therefore they tax the oil companies. This makes it harder for the companies to make a profit, thus they shift the price onto the customer. Therefore the customer has to pay extra in order to achieve the same quantity of a product. The government taxes all the oil companies equally, therefore competition is still alive, and no company is favored over another. Now then, a realization that must be established in the midst of all of this is the fact that we live in a world of limited resources. Oil is no exception. Oil becomes limited when more people use it, because there is more being consumed, and therefore less available. When third world countries become industrialized, they demand oil. A higher demand requires a higher price. (Hypothetical example: China demands oil so much, that it is willing to pay more for it then the U.S. is. The oil companies want a profit, so they go to China and sell their oil. In the meantime the U.S. still needs oil, so the price is jacked up to meet the price of China. When other countries get added to the mix, the price can become a lot higher.) Now then, part of the reason oil is so expensive is transportation (it costs money to get here), the demand for the oil (what other buyers are paying), and the taxes on the oil companies (what the government imposes). If we could drill for oil off the coast of the gulf of Mexico and in Alaska, as well as convert coal to oil, we would drop the price because two factors would be changed. The transportation of the oil would reduce, and the demand for the oil would reduce because more would be available. The only thing that would still keep the price the same way is the government, if they decided to increase taxes. Therefore, once again, mistrust should be against those in Washington who tax, rather then the oil companies who simply are trying to make a profit for whatever price you're willing to pay. As for the global warming issue....Maybe I'll tackle that another time.
Many people refer to the "oil companies" and the "government" as if they are two entities in total agreement and character. I'd like to point out that "oil companies" is plural, and that "government" is made up of tons of disagreeing people. There are many oil companies (Shell, Chevron, Lukoil, Mobile, Exxon, etc.) and many political ideologies in Washington (Liberals, Conservatives, Moderates, Libertarians, Socialists, etc.). Now then, you're probably wondering why I established these two facts. Well simply, it's to tell you this. Both the oil companies, and the government are in constant competition. The oil companies are competing for your money, and the government is competing for your approval (and votes). So therefore there isn't one entity referred to as "oil companies." Rather, there are many different oil companies at war with each other for your money. Why would they be after your money you might ask? Well, plain and simply they want to make a profit. That is the goal of any company. Therefore, in an effort to make a profit, oil companies attempt to attract you, the customer. How do they do this? They run commercials, they post signs, and they most importantly offer you a lower price then their competitors. At the same time, other companies are doing the same thing. This results in the lowest price a company can get away with, while still making a profit, the price you pay. Now lets go back to the government for a minute. . . The government is also looking for a profit too. Therefore they tax the oil companies. This makes it harder for the companies to make a profit, thus they shift the price onto the customer. Therefore the customer has to pay extra in order to achieve the same quantity of a product. The government taxes all the oil companies equally, therefore competition is still alive, and no company is favored over another. Now then, a realization that must be established in the midst of all of this is the fact that we live in a world of limited resources. Oil is no exception. Oil becomes limited when more people use it, because there is more being consumed, and therefore less available. When third world countries become industrialized, they demand oil. A higher demand requires a higher price. (Hypothetical example: China demands oil so much, that it is willing to pay more for it then the U.S. is. The oil companies want a profit, so they go to China and sell their oil. In the meantime the U.S. still needs oil, so the price is jacked up to meet the price of China. When other countries get added to the mix, the price can become a lot higher.) Now then, part of the reason oil is so expensive is transportation (it costs money to get here), the demand for the oil (what other buyers are paying), and the taxes on the oil companies (what the government imposes). If we could drill for oil off the coast of the gulf of Mexico and in Alaska, as well as convert coal to oil, we would drop the price because two factors would be changed. The transportation of the oil would reduce, and the demand for the oil would reduce because more would be available. The only thing that would still keep the price the same way is the government, if they decided to increase taxes. Therefore, once again, mistrust should be against those in Washington who tax, rather then the oil companies who simply are trying to make a profit for whatever price you're willing to pay. As for the global warming issue....Maybe I'll tackle that another time.
Monday, April 21, 2008
Ben Stein Exelled in Expelled
Go to "getexpelled.com" for more info:Ben Stein's "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," is by far the best movie I've seen in quite some time. It's actually a docu-drama on the free speech crises in modern academia; specifically when it comes to sharing one's opinion on the origin of the universe. Ben Stein catches the Darwinists red-handed, and uncovers what none of them want you to know. Filled with entertaining cartoon and old movie clips (to satirize and simply), this documentary is by far the most amusing one I've ever seen. I encourage everyone to see this film, not just for its entertainment value, but also for its accuracy and seriousness subject matter. There is an excellent challenge towards the end of the film that goes out to everyone, whether scientist or not. I won't tell you what it is, because it would spoil the ending for you. Please, GO SEE THIS MOVIE! It's worth the eight bucks to support something positive from Hollywood.
Saturday, April 5, 2008
1 Tim. 2:9-15, The Role of Women
If I could some up this entire section in one sentence, I’d say, “Woman are to be humble.” Paul is responding to the distracting manner in which women would convey themselves. By drawing attention to themselves they were essentially stealing from the Lord. This principle can be applied to men just as it can to women, however in the case of the Ephesians it seems that woman were the main culprits. Paul’s instructions for women to, “adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments,” shouldn’t, I believe, be seen as a legalistic set up of rules. Rather Paul is instructing a principle, and giving specific examples of the violation of that principle. The principle is that women should be clothed “modestly and discreetly.” Modesty refers to the idea of being orderly and decorous. There is an underlying humility that is to motivate the female when she dresses herself. Discreetly refers to having self control over sexual passions. In short, women are not to distract the men by drawing attention to their body during a worship service especially. Women use to braid jewelry into their hair as a sign of wealth and beauty. This is what Paul was referring to when he mentioned braided hair. The gold, pearls, and costly garments are likewise signs that someone is rich. This probably caused a great deal of jealousy inside the church, as rich women allured men with their bodies, and flashed their wealth before those who were poor. Paul contrasts this prideful attitude with the action of “good works.” Women are to humble themselves to the point of being a servant to others, not trying to get others to serve them.
Paul switches gears slightly starting in verse eleven. He’s still talking about the role of women in the church, however he now addresses the problem of women leadership. Of course, in the time that Paul was writing women weren’t held in high esteem by Greek or Jewish culture. The church would have been a place for women to gain freedoms that hadn’t been granted to them in the world. However, some women were taking these freedoms way to far. They were being disruptive in the church services, and even exercising authority over men. Paul’s instructions to the former was to “quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness.” Women were to learn in the context of church. How could they learn if they weren’t quiet? I’m not sure whether it was gossip that was going on during the services, or outbursts of emotional zeal, but whatever it was, it was disrupting their ability to learn and submit to authority. To the latter group (those exercising authority over men) Paul states, “ I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.” I do not believe Paul is prohibiting them from teaching in every single circumstance because in Titus 2:3 he instructs older women to teach younger ones. Likewise, in Acts 18:26 Priscilla and Aquila privately instruct Apollos. However, women are not to teach men in the context of church. This doesn’t mean we can’t have women professors teaching men things that don’t have to do with theology, in a different context. However it does mean that there should be no spiritual authority over men given to a woman. Many try to take Paul’s words in this passage and somehow say that they are “just cultural.” In other words, back in Paul’s day, women shouldn’t have taught men because of the cultural setting, but today things have changed. It almost sounds like an application of evolution to the society. Nevertheless, the text does not allow one to do this. Why? Because Paul’s argument is not based on culture but on something that transcends culture. His argument is based on creation. Paul writes, “For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being quite deceived, fell into transgression.” While Adam is the one responsible for the fall of man ultimately, partially because he wasn’t deceived, but willfully sinned (Rom. 5:12-21); Eve violated her subordinate role as man’s suitable helper. Eve left Adam’s security and assumed his headship onto herself. This left her vulnerable to the deceptions of the devil. In short, Adam was created first, and Adam was given the authority to lead Eve, not the other way around.
The last verse in this section is perhaps the most difficult verse in the whole Bible to interpret. Paul writes, “But women shall be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.” We know this can’t refer to salvation because of all the other passages that make it clear we are saved through grace. So what could this mean? Since it says, “shall be preserved,” we know that it’s a future tense. It’s not referring to Eve. I believe the best explanation for the verse is this: Women were the initial instrument that caused the human race to fall into sin. Therefore, by raising up a godly generation they can be freed from the mark of having set humanity on this wrong course. Women, unlike men, have a unique ability to shape children. There is more of an emotional connection, as well as a sacrifice in time that goes into raising kids.
Monday, March 3, 2008
A Theological Look at Theistic Evolution
I must admit, ever since I was young, I have always been trained with the belief that God created the earth in six literal days, without a gap, and certainly without biological Macro evolution playing any part in the process. Every time I went to a museum that referenced any fossil as being over a “million years in age” my parents would kindly explain why that wasn’t true, and how that contradicted Scripture. I thought that every Christian believed the earth was less than ten thousand years old, and couldn’t fathom why anyone who believed the Bible would also hold to Darwinism. I even remember one time when I was about 11, crying for over an hour when I found out that one of my close relatives believed in evolution. My initial response was, “If my relative believes in evolution than they can’t be saved, and if they aren’t saved, then they aren’t going to heaven!” That thought frightened me a great deal, and although I’m reasonably convinced that this particular relative of mine is in fact saved, I still struggle with the idea that a soundly saved Christian can believe in Evolution. Before I continue, I must also let you know that my education regarding origins hasn’t been a complete fundamentalist-Christian indoctrination program. My parent’s made sure to give me both sides of the debate while I was home-schooled, and since those times I have had many experiences in College with Darwinian thought. Creation apologetics has become a bit of a hobby for me. I find the scientific arguments for it fascinating, the theological arguments water proof, and the philosophical arguments (my personal favorite) extremely potent. In this short Theological look, I don’t want to address anything scientific, or anything philosophical; in fact, I don’t even want to address the incompatibility of Macro evolutionism and Genesis. All I endeavor to do is answer that old question that used to trouble me so much. Is believing Macro-evolution a heresy?
In discussing the topic of Macro Evolution, It must be clearly understood that there are two distinct types of Theistic-Evolutionists. The first group I will call the “Ignorant Theistic Evolutionists”. This is a group of many shades and colors, because there are many different degrees of ignorance. It should be noted that the word “ignorant” is not meant to be a cut in any way, shape, or form. Ignorance simply means “without knowledge”. I myself am ignorant in so many topics it’s not even funny. Ignorance does not have to disqualify someone from becoming saved. When I got saved at 6 years old, I had no clue what a virgin was, but I didn’t deny the fact that Mary was a virgin. Someone can be saved and not completely understand every detail about the fundamental doctrines. Therefore, in my opinion, it is entirely possible for people that hold to this belief to be born-again.
The most ignorant of the Theistic Evolutionists are the ones that simply haven’t put the time into studying both Genesis and Darwinism. They haven’t addressed the issue, and therefore it really isn’t even an issue for them. Others in the Theistic Evolution camp have put more time into studying the issues. They may know Darwinism like the back of their hand, and they may even know a lot about Genesis, but they haven’t thought through the ramifications of reconciling the two. It’s only a matter of time before these educated individuals become aware of the contradictions that come about when the biblical account is put in conflict with Darwin.
The second major group I’d like to address in the realm of Theistic Evolutionism is the “Rebellious Theistic Evolutionists”. This group, in my opinion, is full of unregenerate people who aren’t saved. They have studied both issues, they see the contradictions within the two world-views, and they have rejected the biblical account. I don’t think I need to extensively point out the importance of Genesis or the vital doctrines within the Creation account since most Christians at least generally understand them. I will quickly summarize them so it can be clearly understood where it is I’m coming from, just so no one gets the wrong idea.
Our most important characters in the Bible believed in a literal Genesis. Jesus, Moses, Paul etc. commonly talk about Genesis as if it is literal truth. Also many important doctrines come directly from our Creation account. The total depravity of man, the trinity, the Adamic dispensation, the first reference to Christ (“the seed of the woman”), the role of woman, the role of man, and insights into the nature of God just to name a few. The most important and fundamental doctrine within Genesis is the doctrine of original sin. In Romans it says that “Death came by sin”. Now let’s put this in perspective. If death came by sin, and Theistic evolutionists believe that there was Millions of years of death before Adam (the first man) sinned then we have a heresy. Death is not what brought man into the world. Man is what brought death into the world according to Scripture. Sin is what “brought forth death”. If sin really didn’t bring forth death then it would be logical to assume that God was the one who brought forth death. A God who would bring forth death is a different God then the God of Scripture. It is imperative to have the right Jesus in order to be saved. “Rebellious Theistic Evolutionists” have really knowingly accepted a heresy.
A sub-group that can fall into either category is the “Allegorical Theistic Evolutionists”. I believe there are people from this group in both the “Ignorant,” and “Rebellious” camps of Theistic Evolutionism. I commonly will run into, or here, about people who say, “Genesis was just an allegory. It wasn’t meant to be taken literally!” Some people haven’t studied English enough to differentiate between genres of literature and have thus been duped by supposed experts. Unfortunately, I have to believe that others just use this phrase simply to be accepted in certain “Christian” circles.
There are many ways in which to combat this attack on Genesis. You could use scientific and philosophical arguments, but I fear that a belief in Darwinism is more of a theological error than anything else. Here’s the way I’d approach someone who insists that Genesis is allegorical. I’d Talk to him/her about how to interpret scripture using hermeneutical principles such as, “Authorial Intent”, “Scripture interprets scripture”, and “Contextual Insight”. If the author(s) of Genesis intended something other than literal interpretation, then what kind of interpretation did they intend? Both Jesus and Moses refer to Genesis as literal truth. The context of Genesis in its entirety is written as a literal account. Why would we assume that only the creation account is allegorical? What does each element of the creation account refer to if it’s symbolic? I never have gotten a straight answer to that question. In short, “What reason within the text is there to conclude that Genesis is an allegory?” We don’t assume that Jesus was in the tomb for three million years do we? We conclude that “a day” means “a day” in that scenario. Show the evolutionist that the order of creation doesn’t match Darwin’s order in the process of evolution. Ask him/her why God can’t do things the way He said he did them. These are only a few of many questions to ask someone who says, “Genesis is an allegory”.
If someone responds and says that Genesis isn’t literal because “a thousand years equals a day in the sight of the Lord,” then gently point out that it’s “thousands”, not millions of years. Also point out that the context of Psalm 90:4 is allegorical. ALLEGORICAL!! You mean to say that it’s an allegory and not literal? Yes, that’s precisely what I mean. Verse 2 says that the “mountains were born”. Were mountains really born? I don’t think so. If you read the whole chapter, it’s obvious that it’s an allegory. It says in verse 4 that “a thousand years in Your sight Are like yesterday when it passes by, Or as a watch in the night.” Notice the word “like”. It doesn’t say “is”, it says “like”. The context of the Genesis account and Psalm 90 are also talking about two totally different things. But what if someone uses 2nd Pet. 3:8-9?; where it says, “But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.” First point out that the context is judgment, not creation. Secondly, point out that it says, “a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.” If a thousand years are like a day, I guess it cancels out the thought that a day is like a thousand years doesn’t it? You see, it makes no sense. It’s cherry-picking scripture to make it conform with pseudo science. It’s a pretext, not a context. The point of both passages is that God’s realm is outside of ours. What may seem long to us isn’t long to him. God wouldn’t write something from a perspective that excludes us from understanding. The Bible was made for man to comprehend and obey.
In conclusion, Theistic Evolution is a heresy when taken to its logical outcome: i.e. having death before sin. Also, it is possible to believe in evolution and still be saved if one believes out of ignorance. In all honesty, I personally know many people that are Theistic evolutionists, and I can still have godly Christian fellowship with them, because I understand that they haven’t totally considered all the consequences of Darwinist thought. If you are a Theistic Evolutionist reading this, please keep in mind that your salvation rests upon the finished work of Jesus Christ, not your belief about creation, however it is essential that you have the right Jesus. The question you must ask yourself is, “Do you?”
Sunday, March 2, 2008
Libertarians and Marijuana
Alright, so I've done a few long school projects on Marijuana, the medical effects of it, and the legalization aspect of it. When I was 16 I thought that it should be legalized. Let's be honest, on the outside, the argument for legalizing marijuana is very attractive. It will be taxed thus adding to the governments revenue (When libertarians use this argument they really don't think too hard. On one side of their mouth they say, "Less taxes!" and on the other side they say, "Tax Marijuana!"), and it will eliminate the black market. Will it really eliminate the black market though? Or will it just make black market mainstream? Every convenient store that sells Marijuana will now be part of the former "black market." In reality, the black market hasn't been eliminated, it has just been redefined and expanded. Anyway, I digress. The main argument that libertarians (and liberals) use in their argument for the legalization of marijuana is this: "Alcohol and cigarettes are legal, why not marijuana?" The simple question to ask someone who says this is: "Alcohol and cigarettes do enough damage, why would you want to add another one to the list?" Some folks from the medical marijuana crowd say that they "need" marijuana for their cancer treatment. First of all, marijuana is already available in a pill form, and second of all, there are tons of better medications out there that are more effective. Why settle for something mediocre (and expose others to it's smoke) when you don't have to? The last argument that libertarians like to use is surprisingly one that I agree with (partially). They say that the federal government doesn't have the right to regulate marijuana. This is true (even for cocaine, meth, etc.), unless it is being shipped across state lines. Most libertarians however go further and say that it shouldn't be regulated period. This is where i have to disagree. States do have the authority and the right to regulate anything to protect their populace. I wrote this really short, but hopefully informative paper on marijuana last semester. Hopefully you'll find it interesting and enlightening.Marijuana, or “grass” as it’s sometimes referred to, comes from the green or brown hemp plant Cannabis. The flowers, leaves, stems, and seeds of this plant are all used to create the highly addictive street drug. Of the hundreds of names used for this drug, some of the most common include, “aunt mary, boom, chronic, dope ganja, gangster, hash, herb, kif, mary jane, pot, reefer, sinsemilla, skunk, and weed.”1 Palmately compound leaves, with Serrated leaflets, make this annual dioecious herb, a pretty-looking plant.2
Marijuana continues to be the most used drug in the United States with 69 million citizens over twelve having tried it. Though Cannabis is “indigenous to central Asia and surrounding regions”2, It is the second most common drug (after alcohol) found in the blood stream of injured Americans.3 Despite Prohibition, Marijuana is the fourth largest cash crop in the Unites States. “Alabama, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Kentucky, Maine, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia” all have marijuana as their number one cash crop.4
“Marijuana and other cannabis products are usually smoked. . .most often in loosely rolled cigarettes known as "joints." Some users will slice open and hollow out cigars, replacing the tobacco with marijuana, to make what are called ‘blunts.’”12 Marijuana can also be added to any baked product. Cookies, Brownies, and tea are some of the more common substances mixed with the drug. I recently heard on the news that a police officer’s wife “spiked” his spaghetti with Cannabis.
More than just pretty-looking and addictive, this plant has become a hot political issue in recent years. Many groups advocate the legalization of marijuana for mainly libertarian reasons. For instance, one prominent website called Marijuana Legalization Organization advocates legalization on the grounds that “People have a basic right to make choices for themselves as long as their actions do not harm others.” They go on to say that, “The government is wasting our time and money by prohibiting marijuana” due to the high cost of prosecuting offenders and not taxing it. Many people are also quick to point out that, “Alcohol prohibition did not work, and there is no logical reason to believe that marijuana prohibition is a better idea.”5 Groups on the other side of the argument are quick to rebuttal such statements by calling marijuana a “Gateway Drug”6, meaning that once it is legalized, other drugs such as cocaine will also follow suit. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration notes that if Marijuana were legalized it would result in a higher amount of people using it. Examples such as Holland and Alaska during the seventies and eighties can be used to prove this point.7 Most anti-marijuana legalization websites though, focus on the effects of the drug. “Illegal drugs are illegal because they are harmful.” ७
The THC in marijuana has been proven to influence the activity of the cannabinoid receptors in the brain. “The short-term effects of marijuana can include problems with memory and learning; distorted perception; difficulty in thinking and problem solving; loss of coordination; and increased heart rate… One study has indicated that an abuser's risk of heart attack more than quadruples in the first hour after smoking marijuana.”.8 Marijuana’s long-term effects have also been seen to negatively effect the lungs and immune system. “A study of 450 individuals found that people who smoke marijuana frequently but do not smoke tobacco have more health problems and miss more days of work than nonsmokers.”९
Another issue that has become a big topic in recent years in the issue of “medical marijuana”. The Providence Journal quoted Joycelyn Elders, M.D stating that, "The evidence is overwhelming that marijuana can relieve certain types of pain, nausea, vomiting and other symptoms caused by such illnesses as multiple sclerosis, cancer and AIDS.” U.S. Senator Bill Frist, M.D. though said, “I believe that marijuana is a dangerous drug and that there are less dangerous medicines offering the same relief from pain and other medical symptoms.”10 The medical community will probably debate this issue for quite awhile. In the meantime, “Marinol, a pill made up of marijuana's most psychoactive ingredient, THC, is available by prescription.”11 Though, not available in a “smoke-able” form, I have been told by one member of the medical community that some doctors encourage chemo-patients to buy it off the streets.
- "General Marijuana Information." Weedfarmer. 12 Dec. 2007 <http://www.weedfarmer.com
/growing_guide/information.php >.#2 - "Cannabis." Wikipedia. 14 Dec. 2007 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki
/Cannabis >. - "Drug Facts/Statistics." Drug-Rehabs. 2005. 12 Dec. 2007 <http://www.drug-rehabs.org/con
.php?cid=360&state= >. - "Marijuana Ranks Fourth Largest Cash Crop in America Despite Prohibition." Norml. 14 Oct. 1998. 12 Dec. 2007 <http://norml.org/index.cfm
?Group_ID=3906 >. - "Why Should Marijuana Be Legal?" Marijuana Legalization Organization. 2007. 14 Dec. 2007 <http://easybib.com/MyBib/step2
.php >. - "Marijuana is Gateway Drug." Marijuanaaddiction. 2001. 14 Dec. 2007 <http://www.marijuanaaddiction
.info/news-left.htm?aid=49 >. - "Speaking Out Against Drug Legalization." Usdoj. May 2003. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration. 14 Dec. 2007 <http://www.usdoj.gov/dea
/demand/speakout/index.html >. - "NIDA InfoFacts: Marijuana." Nida. Apr. 2006. National Institute on Drug Abuse. 14 Dec. 2007 <http://www.nida.nih.gov
/Infofacts/marijuana.html >. - Polen MR, Sidney S, Tekawa IS, et al. Health care use by frequent marijuana smokers who do not smoke tobacco. West J Med 158(6):596–601, 1993.
- "Does Marijuana Have Medical Value?" Medicalmarijuanaprocon. 14 Dec. 2007 <http://www.medicalmarijuanaproc
on.org/bin/procon/procon.cgi >.?database=5-B-Subs-1.db &command=viewone&op=t&id=1&rnd =724.1069476144188 - "Medical Marijuana FAQ." Wamm. 14 Dec. 2007 <http://www.wamm.org/faq.htm>.
- "BASIC FACTS ABOUT DRUGS: MARIJUANA." Acde. America's Council for Drug Education's. 14 Dec. 2007 <http://www.acde.org/common
/Marijana.htm >.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Romans 1:18-32, The Unrighteous Society
Throughout this entire section of Scripture, I can’t help but notice the extremely scary correlations that are observable in our own society. I believe that Romans 1:18-32 isn’t solely referring to individuals, but also to whole communities. Throughout all of time nations have risen and fallen. Some fall because they are defeated by another nation, and others fall because of internal turmoil and moral degradation. This passage perfectly outlines the general order by which a society crumbles from the inside. Ironically, Rome fell only about three centuries after this was written. The roots for the moral bankruptcy that caused Rome to fall had already been laid in Paul’s time. God’s abandonment had started. I similarly observe God’s merciful hand being withdrawn from America in our day. The 1960s verified that God was leaving men to their inner profane impulses, but the groundwork had been laid long before when men gave more credence to the creature then to the Creator (Darwinism).
Verse 18 starts out with a powerful word; “wrath.” In the Gk this word has been translated as anger, indignation, and vengeance. By implication, this word connotates the idea of Divine punishment. God’s punishment is revealed against all the unrighteous people who suppress God’s truth. How is this punishment revealed? It is revealed when God removes His restraining hand and lets sinners follow their depraved lustful passions. Where do these lustful passions start? With the choice to exchange the glory of God for idolatry. This was the main problem in ancient Israel. God punished the nation of Israel when they “played the harlot” with other gods. In the same way (although Israel is His chosen people) other nations and peoples will also be judged when they deny what He has made evident to them. What has he made evident? Creation and Conscience. Every man knows there is a God because he can look out and see the result in creation, and likewise every man has a moral law written on their hearts. This serves to leave them without any excuse. Therefore, the first result of a sinking society is the practice of idiolatry. In America this occurred when Darwinism was first practiced in biology class. We are taught to worship “mother earth” rather than Jesus Christ. The second result of a society that God is abandoning, is sodomy. Women, who usually serve to keep society intact, “exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural.” The rise of feminism and its counterpart lesbianism are clear markers that this process has occurred in our country. In the same way men also practice this horrendous exercise, “receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.” I take the “due penalty” to mean the sexually transmitted diseases that dominate the homosexual community. Those who sexually sin are not only shaking their fist at God, but they are reaping the just reward for their wrongdoing. The third result of a crumbling society is a whole host of sins (unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; gossip, slander, hate for God, insolence, arrogance, boasting, inventing evil, disobedience to parents, lacking understanding, untrustworthiness, un-lovingness, being unmerciful, and giving hearty approval to others who sin). Why do societies crumble and resort to this kind of debauchery? Simply because they do not acknowledge God. This applies to the natives on Bongo-Bongo, as well as to the highest pinnacles in Western society. If God is not recognized, there will be consequences. This passage lays the groundwork for Paul’s justification of God’s judgments being righteous.
Verse 18 starts out with a powerful word; “wrath.” In the Gk this word has been translated as anger, indignation, and vengeance. By implication, this word connotates the idea of Divine punishment. God’s punishment is revealed against all the unrighteous people who suppress God’s truth. How is this punishment revealed? It is revealed when God removes His restraining hand and lets sinners follow their depraved lustful passions. Where do these lustful passions start? With the choice to exchange the glory of God for idolatry. This was the main problem in ancient Israel. God punished the nation of Israel when they “played the harlot” with other gods. In the same way (although Israel is His chosen people) other nations and peoples will also be judged when they deny what He has made evident to them. What has he made evident? Creation and Conscience. Every man knows there is a God because he can look out and see the result in creation, and likewise every man has a moral law written on their hearts. This serves to leave them without any excuse. Therefore, the first result of a sinking society is the practice of idiolatry. In America this occurred when Darwinism was first practiced in biology class. We are taught to worship “mother earth” rather than Jesus Christ. The second result of a society that God is abandoning, is sodomy. Women, who usually serve to keep society intact, “exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural.” The rise of feminism and its counterpart lesbianism are clear markers that this process has occurred in our country. In the same way men also practice this horrendous exercise, “receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.” I take the “due penalty” to mean the sexually transmitted diseases that dominate the homosexual community. Those who sexually sin are not only shaking their fist at God, but they are reaping the just reward for their wrongdoing. The third result of a crumbling society is a whole host of sins (unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; gossip, slander, hate for God, insolence, arrogance, boasting, inventing evil, disobedience to parents, lacking understanding, untrustworthiness, un-lovingness, being unmerciful, and giving hearty approval to others who sin). Why do societies crumble and resort to this kind of debauchery? Simply because they do not acknowledge God. This applies to the natives on Bongo-Bongo, as well as to the highest pinnacles in Western society. If God is not recognized, there will be consequences. This passage lays the groundwork for Paul’s justification of God’s judgments being righteous.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
