God and Me

Happy New Year!

2012-01-01T11:59:00.000-06:00

Happy New Year, friends! I'm looking forward to 2012 and whatever God has in store for me, my family, my friends, and even my country. I'm praying and believing that 2012 will be a blessed year for me and my loved ones. That doesn't mean I believe that hard times can't happen but that God will be there for me if they do. The one thing, however, that I'm praying definitely won't happen is any relapse in mine or my mom's health. I do NOT want another bout with cancer for either of us, nor more heart problems for my mom. I'm earnestly praying that the Lord will spare us and all my loved ones that or any other health problems. But with that caveat, I'm ready to plunge into the new year. Welcome, 2012! And thank you, Lord, for letting me see it.

Christmas 2011

2011-12-26T21:57:00.000-06:00

To those believers who celebrate Christmas, I hope you had a wonderful holiday. To those believers who don't celebrate Christmas, I still hope this season was good for you. I wish all believers a blessed New Year and pray that 2012 will see the Church repent of its sins, pray, and reclaim lost territory in the culture and the hearts of men. Amen.

On Being Quiverful

2011-12-13T06:01:00.224-06:00

This post was prompted by the news that Jim-Bob and Michelle Duggar, America's most famous big family parents, were expecting their 20th, yes 20th, child. Sadly, Duggar #20 didn't make it. During a doctor visit to discover the sex of their baby, Jim-Bob and Michelle learned that their little one had died in utero.

When I heard of the Duggars' miscarriage I had mixed feelings. On the one hand, I was sad for Jim-Bob and Michelle who so clearly view every child as a joyful blessing. But I also wondered that maybe this miscarriage was God's way of telling them it was time to stop having children. Not, understand me, God's way of stopping the Duggars' fertility but, rather, God's way of telling them to stop their marathon procreation. In short, telling them it's time to use birth control. And therein lies the problem.

The Duggars are followers of something known as the quiverful movement, which is popular among a small segment of ultraconservative Christians. The stated aim of the movement is not for Christians to have many children, but for Christians to trust God to decide the size of their families. Therefore, the movement is strongly anti-contraception, seeing it not only as anti-child but also as evidence of distrusting God. So, it's highly unlikely that Jim-Bob and Michelle Duggar will interpret their miscarriage as a divine message to stop reproducing.

I'm a Christian. I believe the Bible, and the Bible, especially the Old Testament, encourages fruitfulness and repeatedly describes children as a blessing and a reward. Because of that I think most Bible-believing Christians will and should have more children than unbelievers (and nominal Christians). However, I do NOT believe that means family planning has no place what so ever in the life of Christians. I've read no Biblical commandment to that affect, and I've read no commandment asserting that contraception denies children are a blessing and/or indicates a lack of trust in God.

Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not endorsing the anti-child/anti-family sentiment that prevails in our feminism-dominated culture, and I'm not denying that attitude's destructiveness and incompatibility with Biblical teaching. Christians who believe the Bible won't be anti-child or anti-family, and most of them will have more children than the feminist-controlled majority. However, having more children than the majority doesn't mean Bible-believing Christians must engage in uncontrolled, irresponsible reproduction.

There are legitimate reasons for limiting procreation, at least in certain situations. Financial difficulties, health issues, and pathologies like addiction and abuse are all legitimate reasons for delaying childbearing. Christians who use contraception in such circumstances are showing neither anti-child prejudice nor a lack of trust in God. On the contrary, they are using the common sense God gave them to make responsible decisions in trying situations. Such believers need support and understanding, not condemnation, from their brothers and sisters in Christ.

I believe the quiverful movement means well. I admire its commitment to following the Bible's standards rather than the world's. On that score, I think the movement can teach something to the larger Christian community which is plagued by worldliness. I also believe, however, that the quiverful movement has the potential to do more harm than good. Runaway reproduction can have serious consequences for families, consequences which are NOT God's will. If the quiverful movement can accept that fact then it can be a positive force in the Church. If it can't, the movement will undermine itself by judging Christians who use family planning in tough circumstances. That, not using birth control, is the real sin.

Custom Vs. Worship

2011-08-06T22:49:00.002-05:00

Tomorrow is Valentine's Day* and it made me start thinking about something that I think needs to be clarified for some Christians.

Valentine's Day is, of course, the holiday on which we celebrate love. Believe it or not, there are some Christians who oppose celebrating Valentine's Day because they say it has pagan roots, the same reason these Christians give for not celebrating Christmas and Easter. These Christians oppose birthday celebrations for the same reason. While I understand their reasoning I believe they are quite mistaken to oppose birthday celebrations or holidays like Valentine's Day because of their pagan origins.

It's true that Scripture tells us that God doesn't want His people to worship Him with heathen practices. That's why I agree with those "anti-holiday" believers who have a problem with Christmas and Easter. Those holidays are about actually worshiping God with pagan "holy" days, and that's wrong. Scripture tells believers not to worship the one, true God the way pagans worship their false ones. I understand applying that principle to things like Christmas and Easter, but it's misguided, I feel, to apply it to things like birthday celebrations and "neutral" holidays like Valentine's Day.

Yes, birthday celebrations and holidays like Valentine's Day and New Year's Day are rooted in paganism, but they are not celebrated today as ways ofworshiping God. Rather, these things have come down to us as customs. And that's the key. Worship and custom are two very different things.

Worship is how we relate to God, how we honor and praise Him in certain sacred settings. Custom is how we live our lives. Of course, if we are God's people then we will live our lives differently from unbelievers in many ways, but that doesn't mean avoiding everything in life that has pagan roots. In fact, we can't avoid everything in life that has pagan roots because paganism permeates human civilization.

Take the days of the week, for instance. Five of them are named after pagan deities. In English, four of those deities are Germanic and one is Latin. Tuesday is Tiuw's day, Wednesday is Wotan's day, Thursday is Thor's day, Friday is Freya's day, and Saturday is Saturn's day. The other two days of the week, Sunday and Monday, are named after the sun and moon, which were worshiped as gods by pagans. It's the same with the months of the year. Six--January, February, March, April, May, and June--are named after pagan gods or goddesses. Two more--July and August--are named after Roman emperors worshiped as gods.

So where does this leave believers if we are to avoid all things pagan? Are we not to say the names of the days of the week or the months of the year? Are we guilty of worshiping false gods if we do say those names? What about eating the main meal of the day at noon, a practice that I've heard has pagan roots? Should believers who live where that's the custom eat their main meal in the morning or the evening instead? How far is avoiding all things pagan supposed to go?

I think everyone can see that paganism touches all aspects of life and that avoiding it all together is just impossible. And that shouldn't be believers' goal. Rather, we should be discerning, as befitting followers of Christ, and make rational distinctions between acts of worship and mere custom. We should understand that we can celebrate a birthday, or Valentine's Day, or eat our main meal at 12 pm without accepting whatever pagan religious beliefs undergird those things. We must not use pagan religious practices to worship God. But participating in pagan-derived customs which do not involve worship is perfectly ok. So go ahead and attend that birthday party, send that Valentine's Day card, and eat your dinner at noon. God won't strike you down with lightning bolts if you do. He's saving those for the real sinners.

*I started this post on February 13.

Does God Really Hate "Fags"?

2011-03-06T22:55:00.002-06:00

On Wednesday March 2 the Supreme Court ruled that the Westboro Baptist Church could picket outside the funerals of soldiers killed in action in Iraq or Afghanistan. The father of one such soldier had sued the Church for infliction of mental anguish when Church members picketed his son's funeral.

In case you don't know, the Westboro Baptist Church--and I use the word "church" loosely here--is that group infamous for its website God Hates Fags. The "church" protests outside the funerals of fallen soldiers, hailing their deaths as a sign of God's judgment on America for tolerating homosexuality. The "church", as it website's name suggests, believes that God hates "fags". But is the Westboro Baptist sect right? Does God hate "fags"? In a word, no.

Do not misunderstand. The Bible does condemn homosexual behavior as sin. Any church that says otherwise is, to put it bluntly, lying. But God doesn't hate "fags", or homosexuals, which is the correct, non-pejorative term. There are many things in this world that displease God, and He is angered by continuous, unrepentant indulgence in them. The Lord will punish such willful sin, eventually. This punishment often takes the form of national calamity such as economic collapse or defeat in war. God punishes sin, but that doesn't mean He hates the people who commit the sin. If the sinners repent and turn to His ways, God will forgive even the most wicked of them and save their souls.

The Gospel of John says, famously, that "...God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." That "whosoever" includes gay people; it even includes the hate filled heretics of Westboro Baptist. To be sure, once we have believed in Christ we are obligated to submit our lives to His will, living as He commands and not as we wish. This includes our sexual lives. However difficult it may be for homosexually inclined people, they must live out their sexual lives as God commands. If they sometimes fail and do what God forbids, forgiveness and a second chance are available to them just like everyone else. Nowhere in Scripture is their sin considered so heinous as to put them beyond redemption. Telling people they're beyond salvation when they're not is a far worse sin than finding intimacy with someone of the same sex.

So, to reiterate, the Westboro Baptist cultists are wrong. God does not hate "fags". He doesn't hate any human being. He does hate sin, though, and if the Westboro Baptist fanatics keep on slandering God's name with their outrageous distortion of His character and Word, they will discover that there's a special place in hell just for them. And the "fags" in heaven will laugh.

A New Year Of Mindful Living

2011-01-01T18:44:00.009-06:00

Today is the first day of 2011, and it's the beginning of a new year of mindful living for me.

What's "mindful living"? For me, it simply means being mindful of God. It means being aware of His ways, His commandments, His character, His presence, His people and being aware of how my life reflects on Him and my fellow Christians. In short, "mindful living" means seeking first the kingdom of God, as the Bible puts it. Mind you, I have little practice in seeking God's kingdom first. Growing up, that wasn't even talked about, let alone practiced, in my nominally Christian family. So, I have little idea of what "seeking God's kingdom first" or "mindful living" looks like, but I'm going to try to practice it.

How do I begin to do something that's almost totally foreign to me? Where do I begin? Do I read Scripture every day? Do I go to church, even if I don't feel like I belong? Must I constantly watch what I say and do lest, through unChristlike words or deeds, I dishonor God? I think "mindful living" entails all of the above, and then some. I think it's practicing a whole new way of life that you are led into by God's spirit. For me, I think coming into that life will be gradual. As I've said before, I never had one of those sweeping conversion experiences where habits are changed instantly, so I know I'm not on the fast track to a Godly transformation. A gradual approach may actually be better since it will give me time to process the change, truly learn from my experiences and so make "mindful living" second nature.

Seek first God's kingdom then everything you need will be supplied to you. Meditate on God and His Law when you get up and when you lie down. That's what Scripture says (paraphrased, of course). Being aware of God is the beginning of mindful living. As the new year unfolds, I will try to be aware of God in my daily life, especially remembering to thank Him for His strength and answered prayers. I know I will forget to do that more often than I not. "Mindful living" hasn't been part of my life and old habits will die hard. Still, I'm going to start on this path and will trust that God will be faithful and just to forgive me when I fail. So, I'm on my way to a new way of life. I'm seeking firs the kingdom of God. Mindful living, here I come.

Christmas: Should We or Shouldn't We?

2010-12-25T10:41:00.005-06:00

Should Christians celebrate Christmas? That's a question most Christians would find nonsensical, if they thought about it at all. Of course Christians should celebrate Christmas. What would their faith be without the celebration of it's founder's birth?

From a cultural standpoint, I support Christmas. Christmas is the single, most visible evidence of our Judeo-Christian heritage, and there are people in our increasingly secular nation who hate that heritage. They are waging a "war on Christmas" as part of their efforts to eradicate all knowledge of America's Judeo-Christian roots. It is an act of rank anti-Christian bigotry. For that reason I support the celebration of the "mass of Christ" as a declaration of committment to what it is perceived to be evidence of: our Judeo-Christian heritage. That is my view of Christmas from a cultural perspective, but from a spiritual perspective I'm beginning to feel very differently.

I've known for years that Christmas isn't Biblical but originated in pagan religious festivals celebrating the winter soltice and/or the birth of various pagan gods such as Mithras. I've also known for years that in the Bible God tells His people NOT to worship Him the way the heathens worship their gods. I'm increasingly convinced that that's exactly what we're doing when we use pagan festivals to celebrate Christ's birth. And I'm increasingly uncomfortable with that.

I understand that Christmas is deeply engrained in Christian culture and most Christians see nothing wrong with it. They might think I'm being legalistic in questioning the correctness of celebrating Christmas. Some Christians might remind me that, in his epistle to the Galatians, Paul told believers not to let anyone judge them with respect to days they observe. Others might remind me that Christ freed us from the strictures of the Mosaic Law. I get that, but I also know that the Bible in the New Testament says we are to worship God in spirit and in truth. How can we worship the Lord in truth if we're using the festivals, practices, and traditions of false religions?

I'm not telling anyone to stop celebrating Christmas. I don't condemn the overwhelming majority of Christians who observe the holiday. In fact, I still observe Christmas, though not primarily as a religious holiday. Christmas, for me, has become more about gratitude and reflection rather than about celebrating Christ's birth. It's about giving thanks to God for His blessings and for the strength and comfort He bestowed on me to sustain me during my trials. And it's about reflecting on what I did during the year, honestly confronting my sins, and asking God to help me do better in the new year. That's what Christmas is mostly about for me now.

So, should Christians celebrate Christmas? I think the answer to that question should be left to each believer. I don't think congregations should require all their members to believe one way or the other. The question of Christmas is not, I don't think, a salvation issue. Believers with polar opposite views can be equally saved. Therefore, both sides should treat each other with respect. They should not make the other side's opinion into a character flaw. Both sides should strive to be Christlike in this debate. And that's what Christianity is really all about, isn't it? Becoming Christlike, not getting too concerned about which days your neighbors observe. That's the essence of Christianity.

Merry Christmas.

New Template

2010-12-24T23:51:00.002-06:00

Well, I finally found a new template for God and Me. Finding just the right templates for my blogs has become something of an obsession for me. I want my humble spots on the 'net to be an expression of me and what I'm trying to say, and finding templates, backgrounds, or skins that do that has been a pain. But then I saw this template on the Final Sense website and the header grabbed my attention. The template is called Lake and Mountain and the first thought that came to my mind when I saw it was that it'd be perfect for God and Me.

At first glance a nature template wouldn't seem like the perfect choice for a Christian blog, but it is. How? The header photo shows a glimpse of the beauty and majesty of God's creation, which reveals the beauty and majesty of God Himself. It reminds me of the teaching in Scripture that God is "seen" through nature and that creation testifies to His existence. This template calls attention to God in a less direct way than a template featuring a cross or a church would, but I think it's more effective for that reason. An unbeliever who stumbled across my blog might pass on by if a church jumped out at him from the computer screen. However, a photo showcasing the beauty of nature might be less threatening to him, and he just might decide to check this blog out. And whatddaya know, a new follower!

I really like my new template. It's going to be good for my blog. God revealed in His creation is the perfect visual theme for God and Me. I'm glad I went back to Final Sense, and I hope everyone enjoys my blog's new look. I certainly do, thank God.

I'm A Believer!

2010-11-16T21:07:00.006-06:00

Well, I've finally decided to do it. I've decided to call myself a Christian. What, you say? You weren't already a Christian? Well, yes and no.

As I've written before, I was raised in a nominally Christian home. My family celebrated all the "Christian" holidays and abided by superficially Biblical morals. But neither of my parents modeled real Christian living to my siblings and me, and neither took us to church (our Grandmother did). Despite my religiously deficient upbringing I managed to emerge from childhood believing in the orthodox fundamentals of the Christian faith, and I retain that belief to this day. Yet, for several years I've been reluctant to call myself a Christian. Why? A few reasons.

First, I hesitated to call myself a Christian because I've never had the kind of "conversion experience" that Christians so often talk about. I prayed the sinner's prayer and asked Jesus into my heart when I was 15, and nothing happened. I didn't feel God's presense. My life didn't suddenly change. I wasn't instantly freed from bad habits. In short, I didn't have that "conversion experience" which supposedly proves you're saved. Therefore, I didn't feel right calling myself a Christian when I wasn't sure I actually was one, i.e. saved.

Second, I hesitated to call myself a Christian because I was afraid of giving the faith a bad name. I'm a human being, flawed like any other. I know there are forces out there who love to use any failing of a professed Christian to denounce the faith. I didn't want to openly say I'm a Christian and then get caught doing something unChristlike, thereby making all Christians look bad and dishonoring my Savior. I couldn't see a way out of that predicament so I stopped saying I was a Christian.

Third, I hesitated to call myself a Christian because I don't understand every aspect of the faith. I do understand the fundamentals of orthodoxy that I said I believe in, but Christianity is deeper than that. The fundamentals are the "milk" of the faith, as Paul put it, not the meat. I understand some of the "meat" of the faith, but understanding it all is still beyond me. I didn't want to appear ignorant about my religion if I were ever asked a hard question, so I played it safe by avoiding the "Christian" label.

But then something happened to change my mind: I got breast cancer.

Television preacher John Hagee once said that adversity is God's university, and I can attest that that's true. When I felt that telltale lump in my breast this past March, that was my enrollment into that divine school. And it's been a beneficial and enriching course. Having breast cancer hasn't been easy but going through this valley of disease has brought me to a place with God that I would never have gotten to otherwise.

While fighting cancer I've seen God work miracles for me. Not big, spectacular ones but small, personal ones that spoke to me in the way I needed it most. The most meaningful miracle I've experienced is receiving God's strength to deal with my illness. While I was waiting for the results of my biopsy I was sure I'd freak out if they came back positive, but I didn't and I know that was God. He gave me His strength which kept me calm, positive, and unafraid. That's been a huge blessing for me and I'm very grateful for it.

As I've gotten closer to the Lord during my trials I've learned the worries I outlined above don't matter. God isn't looking for me to be perfect, to have full spiritual knowledge, or to live in a constant state of spiritual ecstasy. Rather, He just wants me to trust Him. As I do that, God will lead me to the people and sources that will help me grow in faith, knowledge, and even "perfection". I don't have to worry that I might embarrass my Savior or appear ignorant of my faith. God is close to me and He will guide me through any akward moments. Because of that, I feel I'm finally "in the fold", so to speak. Jesus is the shepherd and I'm one of His sheep. I'm a Christian. I'm a believer, and I'm blessed.

The Devil Made Me Do It

2010-10-10T17:25:00.003-05:00

As we approach Halloween with its emphasis on the demonically supernatural, I was inspired to do a post on a habit among many Christians that's a real pet peeve of mine. What is that habit, you ask? It's Christians' habit of blaming everything bad they do on the devil.

Now I understand that Scripture calls Satan the tempter. He tempted Jesus during His forty day fast in the wilderness, and he tempts us. But blaming the devil for all our sinful deeds is, in my opinion, a cop out. While Satan definitely works to lure us away from God and His way, we are also led away from God and His standards by our own sinful nature.

The Bible says that the unsaved man is naturally full of enmity toward God. When we are saved we do receive a new nature via the Holy Spirit, but the old one isn't erased. It remains, constantly contending with the new nature for dominance in each Christian. Maybe that's why many Christians blame the devil for their sinning: it's easier than waging spiritual warfare with themselves.

A life of perpetual, internal, spiritual struggle isn't what many people today are told to expect when they "accept Christ". Rather, they're told that accepting Christ means instant sainthood epitomized by a "victorious Christian life" of health, wealth, and happiness. Acknowledging, let alone struggling with, their sinful nature just isn't on the menu. So, when things start to go wrong and these Christians find themselves sinning they see it as a Satanic attack on their "victorious life". They don't take responsibility for their own actions, repent, and seek forgiveness from God and man; instead, they enlist prayer warriors to help them repel the devilish assault. In going this route, they deprive themselves of golden opportunities for spiritual growth.

The apostle Paul plainly states that all believers begin their Christian walk as spiritual infants and must grow into mature believers. This maturity develops through spiritual struggle, not just study of God's Word. Blaming the devil for their sins means Christians don't grow as they should. It prevents them from dealing honestly with their weaknesses. Facing their weaknesses teaches Christians humility and helps protect them from pride. Facing their weaknesses teaches Christians patience and empathy for others who struggle and helps protect them from self-righteousness. Facing their weaknesses teaches Christians to rely on God for strength, bringing them closer to Him. Working, with God's help, to overcome their imperfections exercises Christians' spiritual muscles in a way blaming Satan can never do. And spiritually strong believers can resist real Satanic attacks much better than weak ones.

The devil made me do it may be an easy out but it can't create a mature, strong follower of Christ. Those who regularly use this out may appear Godly but lack the power thereof, as Scripture puts it. Therefore, anyone seeking to become a true Christian must put aside blaming Satan and accept responsibility for his sins. He must recognize his complete dependence on Christ for the strength to overcome sin. And he must accept that overcoming sin will be a lifelong struggle, but one that will refine him like fire refines silver. That will make the Christian spotless when he stands before the Lord. That's why the struggle is necessary and worth it, and why "the devil made me do it" must go.

Cute!

2010-03-27T01:01:00.003-05:00

I found this video on www.tangle.com, formerly known as God Tube, and it's so cute I just had to post it. This adorable trio of siblings saying the Lord's Prayer will put a big smile on your face. Enjoy!

A Problem With "Purity"

2010-02-11T16:23:00.004-06:00

We live in a hypersexual age. The anti-Biblical philosophy of sexual liberation is now the reigning authority on how we should live our sexual lives. So long as you practice "safe sex" there should be no restrictions on your sexual behavior. If it feels good, DO IT! That's what our society now devoutly believes. Understandably, Christians who take their faith seriously are appalled by this state of affairs. They are horrified and grieved by the physical, emotional, and spiritual suffering intrinsic to sexual "freedom". Wanting to spare themselves and their children such hardship, and wanting to remain true to God's way, faithful Christians started a "purity" movement to teach and maintain the Bible's sexual ethic in their homes, schools, and churches.

I admire the intentions of the "purity" movement. An uncompromising and unapologetic commitment to God's standards is, sadly, missing from the lives of far too many modern Christians. Believers and unbelievers alike need to hear a spirited defense of the Biblical sexual ethic of chastity before marriage and fidelity within marriage. The "purity" movement is trying to deliver such a defense but I feel it may be spreading an unintentionally negative and unBiblical message to its followers.

The problem stems, I think, from the very idea that "purity" means abstaining from sex until marriage. The implication of this notion is that once you have sex, even in marriage, you are no longer pure. And the implication of THAT is that sex is somehow intrinsically defiling. That is not the Bible's teaching.

God created sex and, like all of His creations, it is good. The Bible doesn't teach that sex is inherently impure. If you doubt that read "The Song of Solomon", the Bible's ode to physical love. If you're open that book will disspell any notions you might have of God being anti-sex. God's not against sex. God is against sex in wrong circumstances.

God has given humankind a set of rules to govern our sexual behavior, just as He has given us rules to govern other aspects of our lives. These sexual rules are meant for our protection and our good. God doesn't want sex to bring us heartache, spread disease, or destroy our families. He meant it to be a joyful experience within the proper circumstance, namely, marriage. Sex outside of God's ordained arrangement IS impure, but the impurity lies in the unlawful situation and in disobedience to God, NOT in the sex act itself. I feel the "purity" movement doesn't do a good job making that distinction. Consequently, some people influenced by the movement might come away with an utterly unBiblical discomfort with sex itself. And that's a shame because the goals of the movement are supremely laudable.

The "purity" movement needs to counter the damaging doctrine of sexual liberation intelligently, in a way that neither saddles people with unscriptural prudishness nor leaves Christians open to gross stereotyping by the sex libbers. The latter would like nothing better than to portray supporters of Biblical sexual morality as menacing advocates of a dangerously backward and repressive ethic. Let's not give them the rope with which to hang us.

Christians and others who are committed to traditional sexual morals have no need to be defensive about what they believe. It is the philosophy of sexual "freedom" that, when put into practice, has caused untold suffering for people of all ages. The purity movement has the joyful, compassionate, life-affirming, love-affirming, alternative. It should make sure the public truly understands that.

Holiday Honesty

2009-11-16T21:57:00.006-06:00

It's that time of year again. The holidays are upon us again, and once again I'm marveling at the self-righteous double standard of many Christians. It begins with Halloween.

Many Christians refuse to celebrate Halloween and it's easy to see why. Halloween is a "holiday" overtly rooted in spiritual darkness. The whole tone of the festival is occultic, with it's "lighthearted" emphasis on ghosts, goblins, witches, etc. The actual origin of Halloween in Celtic paganism is the final straw for anti-Halloween believers. I understand the distate these believers feel; what I've never understood, though, is why the Christians who so sanctimoniously condemn Halloween eagerly celebrate Christmas and Easter, which are just as pagan in origin as Halloween. I've never gotten a real answer from such Christians, but I recently had the pleasure to finally meet a Christian who was honest about the holidays.

His name is E, and I work with him. He's a strong Christian and leads the prayer group at work. Right before Halloween I asked E if he was taking his kids trick or treating. I must admit that I was baiting him; I wanted to see where E stood on not only Halloween but also the larger issue of pagan "Christian" holidays. E answered my question with a question. He asked if I knew the origin of Halloween and I said I did. He then said that I should know why he didn't celebrate Halloween. Because it's pagan, I responded and E said yes. Then I asked him if he celebrated Christmas and Easter, since they're pagan in origin, too. E said he didn't, and I was surprised. That was the first time I'd heard a Christian be consistent on the holiday issue.

I told E I was surprised by his answer because most Christians I knew refused to acknowledge the paganism of Christmas and Easter. E had a response to that. He said that his duty as a Christian was to be true to Scripture, not Church tradition. E said that while he remembered Christ on Christmas and thanked God for sending His Son to earth, he didn't celebrate the holiday itself. As I said, I found that refreshing.

I admire E for his honesty. So many Christians are uninformed, inconsistent, or just plain ignorant on the issues of the holidays and whether they should celebrate them. E has taken a stand and he's letting the Bible, not cultural norms, be his guide. He is being consistent and honest on the holidays and doing it to remain true to God. E is living out holiday honesty, would that every Christian did so.

The Connection

2009-08-02T22:48:00.005-05:00

This blog is about my often troubled and contradictory relationship with God,the Church, and the Christian faith. I was raised in a nominally Christian home and my Christian education was rudimentary. Neither one of my parents modelled Christian living to my siblings and me. My grandmother took me and my sister to church regularly but I never felt I belonged and as soon as I could I stopped attending. Still, I managed to emerge from my largely religious deficient childhood believing in historic, orthodox Christian doctrine.

I believe in God. I believe that the Bible is His inerrant Word. I believe that Jesus Christ is God incarnate. I believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, was crucified, buried, and rose on the third day. I believe that Jesus died for our sins and that He is now the only way to God and salvation. I believe all of that yet I hesitate to call myself a Christian. Something is missing in my spiritual life, and until I find it I feel the label "Christian" is best not applied to me.

What's missing? I can't put it accurately into words but I refer to it as "the connection".

Over the past two decades I've read lots of Christian books and watched lots of Christian television. I've noticed a common theme when the topic of salvation is being addressed. In virtually every case new Christians described having what I call the conversion experience. This experience seemed to cement their commitment to the faith more than a rational understanding of Christian truths. This experience, which was invariably described with great emotion, opened up "the connection" with God. And what is "the connection"?

"The connection" is the feeling that you really do have a relationship with God. "The connection" encourages and helps sustain committment to Christian convictions. It's more than just a cerebral understanding of the reality of God; it's the heartfelt realization that God is there. I've never had that heartfelt realization.

When I was fifteen I asked Jesus to come into my heart as I'd been taught to do in church. I was serious; I really wanted Jesus in my life and in charge of my life. After praying, though, I felt nothing. I thought I must have done something wrong so I asked again and again, nothing. I tried a third time and got the same result. That was 30 years ago and I still don't understand why I didn't experience "the connection". I still ask myself, why did God reject me?

Well meaning Christians who have had that conversion experience and know the reality of God will insist that God didn't reject me when I was a kid. They'll insist that He did answer me, even if I didn't feel it, and I've been His child ever since. They'll say that faith isn't about feeling but about believing that God will do what He says He will do and then acting like you believe it. That's what well meaning Christians will say because they just don't understand what it's like to pursue God and not find Him. They don't understand because they have "the connection". So those well meaning Christians, sadly, are of little use to me.

Why does God choose to connect with some people but not others? And why would He do that if He really wants everyone to be saved? I mean, how is God encouraging people to seek Him and His salvation when He ignores them when they do? Alas, I am at a loss for any rationally and emotionally satisfying answers to such questions. One resource that was helpful to me was the book Disappointment With God by Phillip Yancey. While I believe Yancey fell back on some pat answers toward the end of the book, it was so refreshing to see someone in the Christian community acknowledge that God can be disappointing. My attempt to reach God had left me feeling like a woman quoted in the book who said:

I kept hearing the phrase "personal relationship with Jesus Christ". But I found to my dismay that it is unlike any other personal relationship. I never saw God, or heard him, or felt him, or experienced the most basic ingredients of a relationship. Either there's something wrong with what I was told, or there's something wrong with me.

Boy do I understand how that woman felt! And maybe she's got a point. Maybe what's wrong isn't her, me, and others like us but, rather, what we were told Christianity would do for us. I don't know, but my pursuit of God continues albeit with a lot less intensity than when I was young. I still want God in my life. I still want "the connection". Maybe, if I keep trying and have faith, I'll one day get it.

A Slight Problem With Carrie Prejean

2009-05-12T21:59:00.007-05:00

Well, it's official. Carrie Prejean will keep her crown as Miss California despite the controversy over her support for traditional marriage. I'm glad for that. I support Miss Prejean in her struggle against the intolerance of gay activists; however, I do have a slight problem with Miss California.

I didn't watch the Miss USA pageant but I did see a couple of excerpts following Prejean's controversial statement. One of them was of Miss Prejean strutting across the stage in a bikini, revealing almost as much skin as a Playboy centerfold. That rubbed me the wrong way. Carrie Prejean's opposition to gay marriage was, according to her, rooted in her Christian faith. She has spoken of her reliance on God's strength during this difficult time. What I don't understand is why Miss Prejean understands God's teaching on homosexuality but doesn't seem to understand His teaching on feminine modesty.

I've written about feminine modesty on this blog once before. I complained that too many Christian women who take modesty seriously think it means they have to dress like 19th century frontier women. Carrie Prejean seems to be the opposite exreme, a Christian woman who has no concept of modesty at all. And what's more, nobody seems to have noticed that. It makes me wonder what's going on in the Christian culture.

It's great to have young people stand up for Judeo-Christian principles in public but Christians, young and old, need to stand up for ALL of those principles. The Bible commands modest dress for Godly women. It doesn't give a specific description of modest dress but I'm sure it does NOT mean a barely there swimsuit. I don't think Carrie Prejean's wardrobe faux pas means she's insincere in her faith. I think it means that she hasn't been taught all the specifics of that faith.

For years femininsts have militantly opposed beauty pageants on the grounds that they objectify women. Surprisingly enough, I think Christians can and should oppose most beauty pageants on similar grounds. Public events that require women to strip, even briefly, to near nudity violate Biblical standards. I don't think Godly women shouldn't participate in such things. But Carrie Prejean did participate in such an event and it gave her an opportunity to stand for Biblical truth. So God made a way for something quite wordly to be used for His glory. Still, that bikini prance was a disconnect from Christian values. That's the slight problem I have with Carrie Prejean.

Jesus Defined Marriage

2009-05-03T20:38:00.006-05:00

The issue of gay marriage is quite contentious in our country. This contentiousness was highlighted by the recent controversy involving Miss California Carrie Prejean's support for traditional marriage during the Miss USA pageant. Miss Prejean's commitment to traditional marriage is believed by some to have cost her the Miss USA title. It has also made her the object of rabid scorn. Miss Prejean's courage and grace in the face of vitriolic condemnation is an inspiration but it might leave some people wondering if she's right to base her stand on the Bible. She is.

There are secular arguments against gay marriage but to those who claim any allegiance to the Judeo-Christian sexual ethic, the Bible's definition of marriage is the final authority. The Old Testament is unambiguous in it's condemnation of homosexuality as sin. Gay marriage is definitely NOT in the OT's picture. Many liberal and/or gay Christians, however, say the New Testament is different, more "enlightened". They like to make much of Jesus' alleged silence on the subject of homosexuality. He didn't speak directly against it so, they reason, this is an endorsement of the lifestyle. They are wrong.

Jesus didn't mention homosexuality, that's true, but He really didn't have to. We need to remember that Jesus didn't exist in a vaccuum. He lived in a Jewish culture steeped in the moral teachings of the Mosaic Law. Jesus was a devout Jew who, unlike the apostle Paul, never repudiated the Mosaic Law nor its moral commandments, including the commandment against homosexuality. When Jesus was on earth the Bible consisted only of what Christians now call the Old Testament. That was the Bible Jesus read. That was the Bible Jesus quoted. That was the Bible Jesus believed to be the Word of God. And that was the Bible Jesus used to define marriage. Yes, Jesus defined marriage. It's written in the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 19, verses 3-6. Here are those verses from the New King James Version of God's Word:

The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?" And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female' and said, "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, let not man separate.

There it is folks, Jesus' definition of marriage. In the view of our Saviour, marriage is a heterosexual covenant. When confronted by the Pharisees, Jesus didn't offer some new, "inclusive" concept of matrimony. Instead, He quoted the book of Genesis--showing He regarded it as authoritative--where God instituted marriage by creating mankind male and female. It is for that reason--making humans male and female--that men should leave their parents and be one flesh with their wives. HUSBAND and WIFE, MAN and WOMAN are what God joined together, and that "one flesh" is what man has no authority or right to put asunder. This is a crushing blow to liberal Christianity's love affair with homosexuality, gay rights, and even its attempt to allegorize Genesis' creation account. This should be the end of the debate, but it won't be.

Die hard liberal believers will rush to point out that this definition of marriage came in response to a question about divorce, not homosexuality. Therefore, Matthew 19:3-6, the liberals will say, is irrelevant to the issue of gay marriage or homosexuality in general. They are wrong. Jesus did give the above definition of marriage in response to a divorce question, but that does NOT negate the definition itself. The meaning of marriage applies to all circumstances; it is NOT situational. If the Pharisees had asked Jesus about gay marriage He would've given the SAME answer, because there is only ONE Biblical definition of marriage. There is only one union God ordained: male and female. Jesus said man must not separate what God has joined. The Saviour submitted to God's domestic structure. Who are we to object?

Do You Agree With This Guy?

2009-03-22T10:39:00.003-05:00

I found this video while looking around on God Tube, now tangle.com. The young man, Josh, is expressing his opinion on a subject that has divided the Christian community for decades. I think a lot of believers agree with Josh; I don't. I think that the views that Josh shares in his vid are the very reason why the Christian worldview--and its secular, traditionalist counterpart--has lost the culture. I understand where Josh is coming from when he says that Christians can't and shouldn't take the things of the world to honor God. But everything we could ever use to honor God comes from the "world" in the since that it comes from sinful humans. If we can't use rock music to sing God's praises, can we use ANY music, ANY art, to do so? ALL art, after all, comes from human beings. I believe it is neutral; it will convey whatever spirit is in the people making it. I don't believe that a certain type of spirit is inherent to particular types of art. But that's just my opinion. Give a listen to Josh's view and then decide for yourself.

Real Brothers, Real Sisters

2008-12-22T13:44:00.004-06:00

When Dan Brown's controversial book "The Da Vinci Code" was published many people were outraged over its assertion that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were not only married but had a child. Apparently, that notion bothered people not only because it posits a sexually active Christ but also because it implies that there are descendants of Jesus alive today. While there's little or no Biblical evidence that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene or anyone else, there probably ARE descendants of Jesus alive now, albeit indirect ones. Why do I say this? Because Jesus had brothers and sisters. I know; I just wrote something that a lot of Christians will vehemently disagree with. For them, the idea that Jesus had siblings is as repulsive as the idea that He was married. But if you believe the Bible you can accept no other conclusion but that Jesus was the oldest of at least seven children.

In the Gospel accounts of Jesus's birth He is described as being Mary's first son, first as in other sons followed. The Gospel of Matthew provides the names of Mary's other sons: James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas (Matthew 13:55). Mary's daughters--Jesus's sisters--are not named but they are mentioned in the plural, so we know there were at least two of them. Later in the first Gospel--Matthew 12:46--Mary and Jesus's brothers are mentioned as wanting to speak with Him while He was preaching to a crowd. Jesus's brothers and sisters are also mentioned in the Gospels of Mark, Luke, and John and in at least two Pauline letters, clearly showing that Christ was not an only child. So, with all this Scriptural evidence attesting to the nature of Christ's family, why do many Christians reject the fact of His siblings? Answer: the unBiblical doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity.

Both the Catholic and Orthodox churches teach that Mary never had sex, but remained virginal all her life. Clearly, if Jesus had brothers and sisters that doctrine crumbles. How, then, do the Catholic and Orthodox churches explain, or explain away, the references to Christ's siblings? The most popular explanation is that the brothers mentioned in verses like that of Matthew 12:46 are spiritual brothers. But this doesn't make sense. First of all Jesus, as mentioned above, is described as Mary's first son. If He was the first, then Mary had at least one more. Secondly, Catholics and the Orthodox never take the word "mother" in Matthew 12:46 and similar verses elsewhere to mean anything but a literal mother. Why, then, should the word "brothers" in those passages be interpreted as spiritual? Here is Matthew 12:46:

While Jesus was still speaking to the crowd his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to talk to him.

Clearly, from the context of the above verse "brothers" is a literal term. The men waiting with Mary to speak to Jesus were her sons, His siblings. Some Catholic and Orthodox Christians accept that the "brothers" in this passage are Jesus's literal, not spiritual, brothers but deny that they were Mary's children. Instead, they claim that the men were the children of Joseph by a previous wife. Unfortunately, the Bible does not support this claim. NOWHERE in Scripture is Joseph described as having any wife but Mary. And Scripture says that Joseph did "know" Mary after she gave birth to Jesus.

The doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary is false and needs to be discarded by anyone seriously committed to Biblical truth. Joseph and Mary were a normal married couple; they had sex with each other and conceived at least six children after Jesus. James, Joseph, Simon, Judas, and the unnamed girls were Jesus's siblings. They were His real brothers and real sisters and, in all probability, their descendants are walking the earth today. Imagine that. Relatives of Jesus alive today. That's way more cool, and way closer to what Scripture actually says, than a specious doctrine of phoney "purity". Mary had sex; she had children. Get over it.

The Trinity Explained...Sort Of

2008-08-02T21:54:00.003-05:00

If you're like me the doctrine of the Trinity has always befuddled you. The idea that God is one Being that exists in three Persons is confusing, to say the least. It also always seemed a little contradictory to me. How can Christians be monotheists yet believe that three separate beings are God? How can three be one? I've finally hit upon a way to explain the Trinity that works; an explanation that's both spiritually and intellectually satisfying, at least to me. I've come to think of the Trinity as a set of divine identical triplets. Before you accuse me of blasphemy or stupidity, hear me out.

My main sticking point with the doctrine and concept of the Trinity has always been that three is more than one. When you have two or more of something you can't call it one, unless you're dealing with identical multiples. The doctrine of the Trinity says that the members of the Godhead--Father, Son, and Holy Ghost--are three beings who are one in essence. And it's that "oneness of essence" that makes them one God. But they're still three Persons, so how could they be one in any way? Answer: they're identical triplets.

Think about it. Identical multiples are called that NOT because they look exactly alike, but because their DNA is 100% the same. Thus, while identical multiples consist of two or more separate people, their genetic essence is the same making them, genetically speaking, one person. This is how you can have two, three, or four separate individuals who, beneath the skin, are actually the same person. This is how you can have the Trinity. This is how Christians can believe that three persons are God while remaining true monotheists. The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are all God because their "genetic essence" is the same. This essence is what defines them, not their existence as separate beings.

This is how I understand the Trinity. An image of God as a set of divine, identical triplets may offend some people. I understand that. But I think it's more offensive to be unable to give a reasonable explanation of a key Christian doctrine. Pratically every church I've ever attended did a terrible job of explaining the Trinity. This contributed significantly to my divine discontents. Realizing that there are instances in the physical world where two or more beings are really one helps me to grasp this fact in the spiritual realm. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost really are one God. They are triplets. Understand?

Isn't It Strange?

2008-07-11T16:24:00.003-05:00

This message was sent to me by a friend. As you read it I'm sure you'll feel that little twinge of guilt just as I did. Read it anyway, and pass it on.

Isn't It Strange?

Isn't it strange how a $20 bill seems like such a large amount when you donate it to church but such a small amount when you go shopping?

Isn't it strange how two hours seem so long when you're at church and so short when you're watching a good movie?

Isn't it strange that you can't find a word to say when you're praying but you have no trouble thinking what to talk about with a friend?

Isn't it strange how difficult and boring it is to read one chapter of the Bible but how easy it is to read 100 pages of a popular novel?

Isn't it strange how everyone wants front row tickets to concerts or games but do whatever is possible to sit in the last row at church?

Isn't it strange how we need to know about an event at church 2-3 weeks in advance so we can include it in our schedule but we can adjust our schedule for other events at the last minute?

Isn't it strange how difficult it is to learn a fact about God and share it with others but how easy it is to learn and repeat gossip?

Isn't it strange how we believe everything that magazines and newspapers say but question the words of the Bible?

Isn't it strange how everyone wants a place in heaven but they don't want to believe, do, or say anything to get there?

Isn't it strange how we forward e-mail jokes right away but hesitate to forward messages about God?

IT'S STRANGE, ISN'T IT?

Now that you've read this message will you forward it to anyone you consider a friend, family, or even a foe? If you chose not to share HIS message you may deprive yourself of being blessed as well as depriving others who may need God in their lives.

Posting this message on my blog is my way of sharing it. I hope you share it, too.

An Irish Blessing

2008-03-20T12:02:00.004-05:00

I know it's a little late for St. Patrick's Day, but I found this Irish, guardian angel blessing while surfing blogs and just had to post it. Enjoy!

An Irish Blessing

A sunbeam to warm you
A moonbeam to charm you
A sheltering angel, so nothing can harm you.

Short, simple, and beautiful!

Grace

2008-03-03T15:56:00.004-06:00

Here is a beautiful poem written by Denna who blogs at Two Little Darlings (she's in my blogroll). I asked her if I could put it on God and Me and she said yes. I love this poem because it affirms the Biblical truth that God supports and strengthens us in the bad times rather than always keeping us out of harm's way as the phony prosperity gospel asserts. So here's "Grace"; I hope you like it as much as I do.

God has not promised skies always blue,
flower-strewn pathways all our lives through;
God has not promised sun without rain,
joy without sorrow, peace without pain.

But God has promised strength for the day,
rest for the labor, light for the way;
Grace for the trails, help from above,
unfailing sympathy, undying love.

Isn't that beautiful?! What a warm, gentle, and lovely way Denna chose to speak Biblical truth to a Christian community too often looking for divine quick fixes to life's problems. I just hope Christians are listening.

Don't Blame The Church First

2008-02-09T10:48:00.008-06:00

A couple of days ago I came across a book titled "unChristian: What a New Generation Really Thinks About Christianity...And Why It Matters". The book was written by David Kinnaman and Gabe Lyons. Actually, I didn't come across the book itself but a review of it on a blog. I was intrigued by the information about the book that was in the review. Basically, this book is an in depth report on what young people--those 30 and under--think of Christianity. And the news isn't good. How should Christians respond to the negative impression so many in the younger generation have toward the faith? Not by blaming it all on the Church, which is what I fear some Christians will do. Let's take a closer look at the problem areas to see what Christians can do about them.

In "unChristian", the young complained that Christians were judgmental, anti-gay, hypocritical, too political, and sheltered. We might first ask where the young got these views. Of course, there are and always will be Christians who behave in unChristlike ways and it's highly likely that young people got their negative views of Christians partly from them. But I suspect that other, more calculating, sources implanted anti-Christian attitudes into the young's hearts and minds.

We all know that the media is dominated by irreligious people who use their position to voice their anti-Christian prejudices. I can remember '70's sitcoms such as The Jeffersons, All in the Family, and One Day at a Time, portraying Bible-believing Christians as narrow-minded, hypocritical, dumb, and/or bigoted. This has continued to this day. It's acceptable to mock and even to hate Christianity in popular culture. The relentless barrage of anti-Christian messages in popular entertainment can't help but leave a negative impression of Christians in people's minds. Christians who are inclined to blame the Church for it's poor image need to remember that and hold Hollywood accountable for it's anti-Christian bigotry.

Christians must get more involved in the media. No one but Christians are going to portray them and their beliefs accurately and sympathetically on film, in books, and on tv. They need to realize that and stop just criticizing Hollywood and start creating art and entertainment that winsomely conveys the Christian worldview. But what about the specific charges the young levelled against Christians? Well, let's take a closer look at those.

Sheltered

This one really surprised me. Just what do the young mean when they accuse Christians of being "sheltered"? Do they mean that Christians don't share a lot of the values of secular culture? Well, that's true. Christians who take their faith seriously are going to differ from their contemporaries by definition. But it's not because they're sheltered. On the contrary, many Christians became Christian because they saw way too much of what the unChristian world offered and found it wanting. In addition, most Christians live in the same neighborhoods, attend the same schools, and work at the same jobs as non-Christians. They're not holed up in monasteries or communes. So what's this business about them being sheltered? I think it reflects a deeply engrained ignorance of and bigotry against Christians on the part of those who make the accusation. The faithful should not be intimidated by it.

Anti-Gay

This is the big one. Of all the things it's wrong to be in our modern society, anti-gay is the "wrongest". Many of the younger generation seem to think that anti-gay sentiments among Christians makes them little better than Nazis. But is that fair? Yes, Bible-believing Christians hold that homosexuality is a sin, but they believe that other sexual practices, such as adultery and prostitution, are also sin. Why are they accused of hate and Naziism for disapproving of the former but not the latter? Where's the reasoning in that? And what about diversity and tolerance, the two most touted values of secular culture? Difference and the tolerance of difference are supposed to be great. So why no tolerance for Christians who think differently from non-Christians about homosexuality? Young people who condemn Christians for opposing homosexuality should be asked these questions. They should be made to defend their accusation. In the process they may learn that they've accepted pro-gay arguments unthinkingly and have judged Christians unfairly.

Judgmental

This common accusation against Christians is repeated by the young people in the book. But what do they mean when they accuse Christians of being "judgmental"? Do they mean that Christians make a distinction between right and wrong and stick to it? If so, is that so bad? And if it is, is that practice limited to Christians? Or do they mean that Christians condemn people unfairly, show no compassion for human weakness, and/or impose their morality on others? Well, we can all agree that unfairness and lack of compassion are wrong and Christians are sometimes guilty of this. But non-Christians are guilty of these things, too. Trying to make these faults peculiar to believers in Christ is itself a form of unfairness, lack of compassion, and judgmentalism.

And as for imposing their morality on others, this is really laughable. Yes, Christians have deeply held values. Yes, they often criticize society for violating those values. And they sometimes work for laws that reflect their morals. But every other group in America does the same thing, especially militant secularists. Secularists control the transmitters of culture: the schools, the media, and Hollywood. They use these outlets to proselytize their worldview, to the young especially. In the schools secularists have instituted sex ed classes that deliberately teach children an anti-Biblical sexual ethic. In their movies they routinely portray Christians as ignorant, bigoted, and dangerous. Ditto for their news media. And to ensure that their indoctrination goes unchallenged secularists have invented speech codes, written laws, and employed social stigmatization to stop "hate", i.e. dissent from their anti-Christian propaganda. So we should ask the young accusers, who's imposing their views on whom? Who's being judgmental?

Hypocritical

This accusation against Christians is as old as the faith itself. Yes, there's hypocrisy among Christians. No, it's not peculiar to them. If you're going to look down on Christians for sometimes being hypocritical then you'll have to look down on every other religious and secular group. Hypocrisy is a human failing, not a Christian one. The young should remember that before they get too sanctimonious in their condemnation of the faithful.

Too Political

This one surprised me as much as the accusation that Christians were sheltered. Apparently, the young believe that Christians don't have the same civic rights and responsibilites as all other citizens. Gee, I wonder where they got that idea! While I do think that Christians sometimes put too much faith in politics to achieve what the Bible says only Christ can, they are totally within their right as Americans to organize politically. It would appear that the young, like many older people, object to Christian political activism because it's usually on the conservative side of the political aisle. If most Christians were voting for Democrats and their liberal policies their political involvement would be praised by most of those who now hold it in contempt. So the charge of "too political" is an expression of sour grapes not principle.

There you have it. The five big negatives the young have against Christians. And the reasons why those negatives aren't all Christians' fault. Of course, Christians should correct their unChristlike behavior where ever and when ever it arises. But they shouldn't capitulate to "blame the Church first" sentiment out of a misguided notion of love, meekness, or forgiveness. Rather, Christians should challenge their accusers to prove their accusations. They should boldly speak out against anti-Christian bigotry in the media, and they shouldn't hesitate to protect their rights through the courts. Christ told His followers to be not just gentle as doves but also wise as serpents. Fighting anti-Christian stereotypes and propaganda should bring out the serpent in them.

Why Not Married Priests?

2008-02-05T23:55:00.000-06:00

I want it known from the beginning that I'm not anti-Catholic. I believe that Catholics are Christians and I DON'T believe that the Pope is out to take over the world with the Illuminati. However, I was raised Protestant and many things about Catholicism do baffle me. One of those things is the prohibition on married priests.

Growing up Prostestant I saw many married pastors; one was even in my extended family. In fact, virtually every pastor I knew anything about or whose church I attended was married. No, they weren't all paragons of marital virtue but being married and having children didn't hinder the performance of their pastoral duties. If anything, being married seemed to make pastors more approachable, more in tune with real life where most people married and had kids.

If you are having problems in the most intimate part of your life, seeking help from someone who's been there can be far more productive than asking advice from someone who has no personal experience of your situation. Yes, Catholic priests can teach people the Bible's commandments on the duties of husbands, wives, parents, and children. But there's a big difference between reading commandments and applying them in real life. No matter how well versed priests may be in Biblical family doctrine the fact is they have no experience living it. I've never understood why the Catholic Church doesn't realize that's a weakness.

But even more important than the question of personal experience is Biblical authority. The Bible is the only authority on Christian doctrine and practice. It is the only book which God has given to reveal His instructions on how Christians should live. No church, clergyman, or denomination has the right to require of Christians anything that God Himself doesn't. And that's what the Catholic Church is doing by requiring priestly celibacy.

I'll say it without equivocation, there is NO Biblical commandment for clerical celibacy. In both the Old and New Testaments priests, elders, deacons, and bishops weren't just married but were presumed to be so. Both Testaments gave instructions on how clerics were to handle their own families. In the New Testament, for instance, having his own children under control was a key factor in determining a man's fitness to be a leader in the Church. Clearly, such a standard would've been unnecessary if priests were required to be single.

Some Catholics I'm sure will argue that Jesus and Paul are the authority for the Church's celibacy doctrine. Jesus and Paul were not married, ergo priests shouldn't be either. The problems with that argument are obvious. First, Jesus and Paul weren't priests, certainly not in the Catholic understanding of the term. Rather, they were itinerant preachers unattached to any ecclesiastical organization. Further, while we know for sure that Paul was single Jesus' marital status isn't so clear cut.

Most people assume that Jesus was single because no wife is ever mentioned for Him. But that's an argument from silence and it's weak. It's like claiming that Jesus was illiterate because no mention is made of Him going to school. The fact is the Bible is silent on 95% of Jesus' life. His birth and His adolescent encounter with the Pharisees in the Temple are mentioned only briefly. His ministry, which began when He was 30, is the part of Jesus' life that the Bible is truly concerned with. Virtually everything else is ignored as irrelevant. So it shouldn't be surprising that Christ's wife, if she existed, didn't make it into Scripture. The absense of a messianic spouse gives no church the right to demand clerical bachelorhood. So I reiterate, the Catholic Church is stepping beyond its authority by forbidding it's priests to marry.

Why not married priests? God is the reason why not. Christians are to "obey God rather than men". When manmade rules and regulations conflict with those of God, God's prevail. The Bible is God's Word. It reveals His commandments, rules, and requirements for living the Christian life. No church, priest or pastor has the right or the authority to go beyond God's commands. Requiring people to follow rules that have no basis in Scripture is a sin. The Catholic Church is sinning when it demands priestly celibacy. Married men can serve God as priests; the Bible says so. It's time the Church put aside tradition and committed itself to God's way. Let the priests marry! The blessings of obedience will be bountiful.

Modern Modesty

2008-01-16T22:30:00.000-06:00

The Bible has teachings on virtually every aspect of human life. Both the Old and New Testaments have many rules and commandments on how the faithful should live. Some of those rules deal with clothing. Biblical clothing rules range from the prohibition on cross dressing to commands for modest dress for women. It's the modest dress rules or, rather, their application that I want to discuss in this post.

I admire those Christians who take the Bible's teachings on modest dress seriously. So many of today's professed Christian women don't. Go to just about any church and you'll see women dressed in ways that are indistinguishable from non-Christian women. You won't see young ladies looking like Britney Spears in most churches but you will see young and old women alike sporting the latest, non-modest styles. This goes against the Bible's teaching that women are to dress modestly with shamefacedness and sobriety, and not dwell on being fashionistas, as we say today.

For Christian women who want to obey God current clothing styles offer few choices. Virtually everthing on the market for women today is designed to show off their sexuality. For truly modest wear Christians are forced to make their own clothes or buy from online Christian stores specializing in modest clothing. But there's a problem there, too. While looking at online modest dress stores I became painfully aware that most of them operate on the principle that modest is synonymous with old-fashioned, dowdy, and just plain ugly.

The devout Christian women and families who run most of these stores are well-intentioned, but they're fixated on 19th century pioneer wear for inspiration for the style of dresses and skirts they sale. I suspect that most pro-modesty Christian women don't really want to wear that stuff. Rather, I suspect they want to dress modestly without looking like they just walked off the set of Little House on the Prairie.

The Bible doesn't say that Laura Ingalls sets the standard for modest dress. If past clothing styles should be Christian women's inspiration for modest apparel shouldn't we look to the first century? Surely, the dress of New Testament Christians provides a more appropriate model of modesty than the dress of pioneer women who lived 1800 years later. But it's not necessary to look to the past at all to know what modesty consists of. It's possible to be both modern and modest.

An unlikely example of modern modesty for Chrisitian women is the late Princess Diana. In 1989 the princess visited the United Arab Emirates, a Muslim country. For her trip Diana had modest outfits specially made for her so she wouldn't offend Islamic sensibilities. Brightly colored tunics over loose pants and long sleeved, loose fitting, ankle length dresses paired with stylish accessories allowed Diana to wow the women of the Emirates without subverting their morals. The clothes are a perfect specimen of elegant and thoroughly modern modest dress. They can and should serve as an alternative inspiration for Christian women who want to be obey God without looking frumpy or excessively different from current fashion norms.

If looking like an extra for "Little House on the Prairie" suits you then by all means dress that way. Don't let me wrench you from your conviction. Just understand that that's not the only way to live out God's clothing requirements. There are valid alternative modes of dress that let women honor God while living in the here and now. It IS possible to be both modern and modest. We just need to open our minds a little to see that.

Happy New Year!

2008-01-01T00:40:00.000-06:00

Happy New Year everyone! May 2008 bring many blessings to you!

YOU Are The Saints!

2007-12-25T22:37:00.000-06:00

Perhaps because it's the Christmas season I've been thinking about saints. I've been reading a little about St. Nicholas, the inspiration for Santa Claus, and while he seems to have been a genuinely good man the historical devotion paid to him, and other saints, proved disturbing to me.

This blog is about my "divine discontents" and one of my pet discontents is Christians doing or believing things that are not in the Bible. One such thing is this veneration of saints.

Through out Christian history there have been people who showed exceptional devotion to God and the life He would have us live. There is nothing wrong with holding such people in high esteem and encouraging the faithful to emulate them. But when people celebrate feast days, make pilgrimages to saints' shrines and pray to saints as if they were God something is terribly wrong.

The Bible clearly teaches that there is only ONE true God and that worshipping anything besides Him is idolatry. Yet, for hundreds of years the Catholic and Orthodox churches have promoted the virtual worship of human beings they call "saints". They've taught millions of their unsuspecting members that the veneration of saints is an integral part of the Christian faith. It's not.

Saint worship is left over, "Christianized" polytheism. It was a way for the early institutional church to deal with "converted" pagans who didn't really abandon their desire to worship multiple gods. Giving such people Godly heroes to venerate in place of their pagan deities may have seemed like a positive way to satisfy their polytheist urges but it can backfire on the church. When folks realize that practices and doctrines they've been taught all their lives are not in the Bible it can obliterate the authority of the church and discredit the entire Christian message. So this whole saints issue is serious business.

The church needs to follow the Bible's teachings on saints. According to the Good Book the saints are ALL the believers. Every person who sincerely believes in God and Jesus Christ is a saint. Look at yourselves in the mirror, Christians. YOU are the saints! That's what the Bible says. The only canonization process is believing in Christ and living life His way. Do that and you have instant sainthood. What you don't have is people praying to mortals as if they were gods.

Once Christians understand just what Biblical sainthood is they should strive to be worthy of the label. Being a saint is a lot harder than worshipping one. But once they fully realize who they are I know the believers will step up to the plate.

Baby Got Book (OFFICIAL)

2007-12-07T19:39:00.001-06:00

Another example of not-your-typical-Christian-music Christian music. Enjoy!

Was Jesus Necessary?

2007-12-04T17:55:00.000-06:00

In this season when we celebrate the birth of Christ, to many the Savior of the world, I thought I would write a post on a question I've had for a very long time: was Jesus necessary?

In orthodox Christian teaching, faith in Jesus is the only way to be saved, to be considered right before God. Yet the first part of the Christian Bible seems to contradict that doctrine from begining to end. In the Old Testament, as Christians call it, numerous people from Abel to Noah to Abraham to Moses and many more are called righteous, often by God Himself. They had an intimate relationship with God without "knowing the Lord". In short, they were saved. This has always perplexed me.

If Christian teaching is true, and no one is saved apart from Christ, then everyone who lived before Christ died eternally lost. But if pre-Jesus people could be and were saved, then Jesus was unnecessary. Really, what would be the point of sending Christ if salvation was already obtainable? And the Old Testament clearly reveals that it was.

Some Christians might argue that salvation by faith is the same in the Old and New Testaments and point to the NT Book of Hebrews as proof. In that epistle is the famous Roll Call of Faith where OT heroes and heroines are lauded for their unwavering commitment to God. The problem for Christians is that the people on the Roll Call of Faith had faith in God NOT Jesus, who hadn't come in their time. Yet they were righteous enough without Christ to be praised in the NT. So I ask again: was Jesus necessary?

I once posed this question to a nice pastor. I asked him how was it possible for people to be saved before the coming of Christ. His answer was that Christ's coming, death, and resurrection had already happened in God's mind so, for pre-Jesus people, believing in God was believing in Christ. I'm still disappointed at how lame that answer was. I expected more from a pastor.

So I still have the question: was Jesus necessary? If you take the OT seriously then the answer is no, Jesus wasn't necessary, at least not for salvation. He may have fulfilled other Messianic requirements, but saving souls couldn't have been on the list because righteousness was already obtainable. I realize that's a big monkey wrench in Christian doctrine. People could be righteous before Christ? That changes everything! Yes, it does. But if your heart is to follow the Bible you will happily change to align yourself with it.

On the other hand, I could be wrong. My understanding of Old Testament righteousness may be incomplete. The people of that time may have been lacking something that only Christ could give. In that case, Christ would indeed be necessary. A big part of me really hopes He was.

What is Love - PAX 217

2007-11-30T18:00:00.003-06:00

This is one of my favorite Christian rock songs. I don't like the video that much--it's a fan vid, not the band's--but it'll serve to introduce people to the song.

The lyrics to "What Is Love?" aren't overtly Christian. Some might even consider them unChristian with their expressions of anger and veiled threats of revenge, but that's what I like about the song. It's not the sappy God-will-make-everything-alright-I'm-too-holy-to-get-mad junk all too typical of Christian music. This isn't typical Christian music. Hope you enjoy something refreshingly different.

Benny Hinn:

2007-11-30T17:44:00.001-06:00

When I first saw this video on a forum I post to I nearly died with laughter. All those people looked like they'd been afflicted with the spirit of epilepsy. And Hinn appeared well schooled in the fine art of Las Vegas showmanship. But when you think about it Benny Hinn and his ilk aren't funny at all.

I know God is all-powerful. I know He can heal. But stage shows like the ones Hinn puts on are, in my opinion, an insult to God. They are an act of taking God's name in vain.

I don't see how Hinn sleeps at night. He must not really believe in God, otherwise he'd be in fear for his life. God doesn't play with people preaching and doing falsehoods in His name. And beleive me, what Hinn is doing and preaching is false.

Really, do you think God only heals at circuslike extravaganzas such as Hinn's? Do you believe you have to put on show equal to anything put on in Las Vegas to get the Lord's attention? NO!!!

God hears the prayers of His children, of hurting humanity, much better in the quiet valley of faithful persistence. A stage show isn't necessary.

God isn't a trained seal. He doesn't perform on cue, yet that's exactly what Hinn's shows depend on. Come to the stadium at 7 o'clock tonight and experience the power of God!! I don't think so. And sadly, Hinn's got a lot of company. Even respectable tv preachers sometimes act like they've got God on a string.

Pat Robertson is one of them. His show, The 700 Club, is very informative and grounded, but there's a segment called "the word of knowledge" that's always disturbed me. During this part of the show Pat and his co-host claim to receive knowledge from God about people being healed.

As I said above, I know God can heal, but at the same moment, on the same show, day after day? I mean, does Robertson have a contract with God requiring Him to show up on his show at the same time every day?

I've always felt insulted that Robertson seems to think no one in his audience knows this "word of knowledge" stuff is staged. Yes, it's much more subdued than Hinn's circus acts, but it's just as choreographed.

Why don't people stop doing this stuff? Don't they know they're only hurting the cause of Christ? Of course, if they aren't really believers the cause of Christ is meaningless to them. They just want the money and the adulation. Well, I hope they enjoy it because this is the only reward they'll get. Their souls are going to hit something far worse than the floor.

God and Mammon

2007-11-08T09:40:00.000-06:00

I just heard last night that six televangelists are being investigated for possible financial shenanigans. The evangelists are Kenneth Copeland, Creflo Dollar, Joyce Meyers, Benny Hinn, Eddie L. Long, and a married couple surnamed White (sorry, I can't remember their first names). I have mixed feelings about this.

Our modern society is schizophrenic about wealth. We have a love/hate relationship with money and those who have more of it than we do. Entertainers and sports figures are generally worshipped for their money. They're presumed to have done something to deserve it. Wealthy businessmen and preachers, on the other hand, are held in contempt. They're presumed to have done something unethical to get their riches. This is neither fair nor rational. I hope the above mentioned televangelists weren't targeted for investigation based on this double standard.

But it's not only society that's double minded about wealth, the Church is too and has been from the beginning. Over the centuries there've been ascestics who shunned all material comfort and Popes who lived in the lap of luxury. Mother Teresa lived her life in self-imposed poverty while nondenominational preachers invented the "name it and claim it" doctrine that supposedly ensure their followers material success. And no matter how rich or poor individual Chrisitians were the Church as an institution as always been tremendously wealthy.

So how should Christians feel about wealth? I think it's simplistic to use Jesus' famous saying about a camel, a rich man, and the eye of a needle to build a doctrine about wealth. Many Christians do this, apparently thinking that one verse is the beginning and end on what the Bible says about wealth, but it's not. We tend to forget that Jesus didn't have a New Testament. For Him, the Old Testament was the entire Bible. That means that nothing Jesus taught could contradict what was in the OT. What does that have to with doctrines about wealth? Plenty.

In the OT there were many rich people who served God. Abraham was rich. His nephew Lot was rich. Jacob started out modest but ended a wealthy man. The same was true of King David. Solomon, David's son, was incredibly wealthy. Job was given riches by God not once but twice. What all of this means is that God doesn't have a problem with people being rich. There is no teaching in the OT that wealth is intrinsically bad. Jesus' camel, rich man, and needle saying has to be seen in that light.

Jesus was actually talking about faith, not money, in His saying. He was warning His listeners against putting their trust in money instead of God. He was warning them against idolatry. Rich people are more susceptible to idolizing money for obvious reasons, but the poor can also make a god out of wealth. Poor people can spend their entire lives yearning for money rather than God. They can commit crimes to get money, just like the rich. The idea, popular among liberal Christians, that the poor are inherently saintly is erroneous.

Equally wrong is the popular conservative idea that God wants Christians to prosper. Now I believe that God always wants the best for His children, but the "best" isn't always material abundance. We all like to think that if we were rich we'd be wonderfully generous and retain our faith in the Lord. God knows us better. He withholds wealth from many of us for our own good. God will provide our necessities but there's no guarantee we'll get more than that. That's why Paul taught Christians to be content with what they had.

How Christians should view wealth can be confusing. Part of the confusion can be cleared up by simply following the Bible instead of certain preachers. There were rich people who were faithful to God and there were poor people who were faithful to Him. One group isn't more "in" with God than the other. Yes, the Scriptures treat the poor with more sympathy than the rich. But that's because poverty can make people more vulnerable to abuse and victimization. It's not because poverty makes you holy. The way to be righteous with God is the same for rich and poor alike. There is no salvation by class in the Bible. If we would accept that truth the Church would be much better off.

It's That Time Again

2007-10-29T00:40:00.000-05:00

Well, it's almost upon us. In two days it'll be Halloween and a lot of conservative Christians will be struggling with how to celebrate this holiday or if to celebrate it at all. Halloween raised scarcely a concern in the Church when I was a child. How things have changed! Now many Christians are being taught to have nothing go do with this scarily fun time of the year. Why?

Many Christians are just discovering Halloween's pagan roots. What they thought was just a time of innocent fun is now seen as worshipping false gods and opening the door to the occult. I agree. Halloween IS based on ancient pagan practices and I totally understand Christians who reject this holiday. The problem is that Christians aren't consistent in shunning all pagan-based festivals. The same ones who condemn Halloween enthusiastically embrace Christmas and Easter which are just as pagan in origin. I don't get it.

I've dealt with this issue in a previous post but I'm revisiting it because I haven't gotten a satisfying explanation for the inconsistentcy. Christmas and Easter are pagan, just like Halloween. Christmas is derived from ancient sun worship and Easter is based on the worship of a Middle Eastern fertility goddess. If Christians shouldn't celebrate Halloween they shouldn't celebrate Christmas and Easter, either.

Some Christians might argue that Halloween is different from Easter and Christmas because of the ghoulishness and scariness of it's theme. It could lead people, especially impressionable children, more easily into the occult. Christmas and Easter, on the other hand, have nothing to do with the occult. They come from the "bright" side of paganism: the worship of life and the life-giving force. It is much easier, they might say, to Christianize pagan practices celebrating life and rebirth than those fixated on death.

But the apostle Paul taught that ALL pagan gods were fronts for demons. He made no distinction between the dark deities and the light ones. Moses also didn't make such a distinction when he commanded the Israelites not to worship Yahweh the way the heathens worshipped their idols. In the Bible there's no blurring of the line between true worship and false worship. So there shouldn't be such blurring among Christians, either.

The origins of Christmas, Easter, and Halloween are equally pagan. I don't think they can be Christianized. Just because they've become traditions doesn't make them right before God.
Christians are supposed to revere Jesus, not custom. If custom is something He disapproves of then custom has to go. Many Christians understand this with regard to Halloween. They need to understand it with regard to Christmas and Easter, too.

"Jesus loves you!"

2007-09-29T00:23:00.000-05:00

I believe that most Christians really do mean well. When people they know are having severe problems Christians will "encourage" them with a cheery "Jesus loves you!", totally not understanding how lame and even depressing that sounds. Yes, I believe that Christians' faith can be a barrier to their acknowledging the depth of other people's pain and feeling real empathy.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that Christians don't feel for people; I'm saying that they often don't understand that more than an obligatory "God loves you!" is needed to comfort them. Suffering with those who suffer is a part of the faith that many believers have totally rejected, even if they don't realize it. Instead, the seductive "health, wealth, and happiness" doctrine has convinced too many Christians that life is to be problem free, and they're often emotionally and psycologically unprepared when it's not. Saying "God loves you!" becomes almost a magical spell which, when repeated often enough, is expected to put things right.

This can be galling to a lot of hurting people. Talk of God's love is often NOT what people need to hear when mourning the death of a loved one, facing a cancer diagnosis, or reeling in shock from a spouse's infidelity. In such trying times the love of God is NOT what many folks are feeling. The abandonment of God, the distance of God, the coldness of God, the incomprehensibleness of God are what dogs most people's hearts and minds in the dark times. Christians need to acknowledge and validate such feelings rather than try to soothe them with religious platitudes.

When everything is going wrong in a person's life God does not seem very loving. It's ok to admit that. It's ok to be mad at Him. God, as I once heard on a tv show, can take our anger. Trying to paper over it with pat answers insults the intelligence of people. Face it. A relationship with God doesn't guarantee you'll get loving care and attention from Him at all times. Sometimes you get the cold shoulder, and nobody knows why but God. Staying faithful to the Lord in such times is possible but far from easy. People need wise and patient counsel to stay on the right path, and the way to begin is to stop saying "Jesus loves you!"

P.O.D "Youth Of The Nation"

2007-09-16T19:02:00.001-05:00

I'm going to add music videos to "God and Me" from time to time to spice this blog up a bit. :) Here's the first one, "Youth of the Nation", by P.O.D. I know some really traditional Christians have a BIG problem with Christian rock music but I, for one, love it!

I've always felt that Christians are trying to reach the culture in the entirely wrong way. Secular people, and even many Christians, have NO interest in the overly "religious", and all too often cheesy, stuff Christians put on the market. Christians need to rediscover the art of the parable, where spiritual truths are communicated to people in nonreligious stories. Jesus reached people that way. I think Christian rock groups like P.O.D are simply using a modern version of the parable. Their songs might not have "I love Jesus!" in every line but they teach the truths Jesus taught. And in the end, that's what really matters.

Enjoy the video!

Quotable Quotes: Faith

2007-07-14T01:31:00.000-05:00

"The idea that nothing is true except what we comprehend is silly." Sir Winston Churchill

Magazine Review: SALT Magazine

2007-07-01T15:08:00.000-05:00

A few days ago I was surfing the 'net for "alternative" Christian magazines and I stumbled upon one called SALT. It sounded interesting so I sent for a free sample copy. Last week the June issue of SALT arrived in my mailbox and I've been reading it with delight ever since.

SALT magazine is not your typical glossy consumer Christian magazine like Charisma or Christianity Today (althought there's nothing wrong with those). Rather, SALT is a labor of love published by Christian couple Jim and Cindy McDermott, who have 12--count 'em 12!--children. With all those kids, who are homeschooled, you wonder how the McDermotts find the time to do anything for Jesus and their fellow Christians, but they do. And I, for one, am really glad.

When I read SALT I get the distinct feeling that the writers, the McDermotts and others, really believe what they're saying and strive to practice what they preach. Their writing has a sincerity that I don't see in mainstream Christian mags. The McDermotts truly trust in God and His Word and, on many issues, their publication offers viewpoints that even professed Christians will find decidedly unworldly.

The articles in my issue of SALT vary from celebrating bold preaching to encouraging Christians in self-control, but the bulk of them center on family life. My favorite family article is "Addicted to Adultescence" about the growing trend of young people avoiding adulthood by, among other things, living with Mom and Dad and delaying marriage. This article was so well written and entertaining that I was shocked to discover that the authors, Alex and Brett Harris, are teenagers! I hope they will be writing for future issues of SALT.

I also enjoy the quotes columns. The quotations are very enlightening and come from an interesting variety of sources. The quotes are grouped into the following categories: education quotes, home management quotes, counterculture quotes, and political quotes. These columns alone are worth the price of the subscription. All and all, I think SALT is a gem of a magazine. I'm definitely going to subscribe and I can't wait for my next issue!

For a 12-issue subscription to SALT send $24 to: SALT, 2131 W. Republic Rd. #177, Springfield, MO 65807, or go to the website @ http://www.saltmagazine.com/. I'm sure you'll enjoy SALT as much as I do.

Not in the Bible

2007-05-15T12:17:00.000-05:00

Here's a little list of a few words and sayings that a lot of people, Christians and non-Christians alike, think are in the Bible but aren't. I'll add more as I find them!

rapture
legalism
Money is the root of all evil
Cleanliness is next to Godliness
Personal relationship with Jesus Christ
God helps those who help themselves
End of the world
Second coming of Jesus Christ
The Anti-Christ
Old Testament
New Testament

Interesting, huh? If you think I'm wrong on any of these--and I could be!--let me know and we'll chat about it. God bless!

Thoughts on Forgiveness, Part 2

2007-05-10T10:26:00.000-05:00

I'm back to continue my thoughts on forgiveness. When I signed off Wednesday I had made the point that forgivenss doesn't make everything alright like so many Christians say it does. I believe that with all my heart. Forgiveness has limits and that should be admitted by believers; it doesn't make everything ok.

Yes, forgiveness can liberate people from the grip of toxic emotions and give them a new lease on life, but only if it's part of a larger process. It doesn't do that all by itself. The belief that it does has, I suspect, left a lot of hurting people sitting in pews all across America and the world, people who don't dare admit their true feelings for fear of appearing unChristian and/or getting chastised by their "caring" pastors and Christian friends.

Why do so many Christians believe that forgiveness is a panacea when the Bible no where says it is? I think it may be because of a discomfort with the emotion of anger, a discomfort that is itself unBiblical. A lot of Christians believe that anger is a sin; the Bible does NOT teach that! The Bible tells us to be angry but sin not, making a clear distinction between anger and sin. Jesus got angry at the Pharisees and at the moneychangers in the Temple. If getting angry is a sin, then Jesus was a sinner and, therefore, can't be the Messiah, who is supposed to be sinless. So Christians need to dump this false and harmful doctrine that getting angry is sinful and follow what the Bible actually says.

Another reason I think Christians believe forgiveness is a cure-all is the false "health, wealth, and happiness" doctrine. Simply put, this doctrine states that Jesus came to earth to give us health, wealth and happiness, and if we're not healthy, wealthy, and happy it's because of some secret sin in our lives, usually unforgiveness. Forgiveness is the ticket to God's blessings, to heaven on earth; unforgiveness blocks the divine gravy train. So, many Christians are "forgiving" people just to have access to the Cosmic Genie, also known as God. This is a sad state of affairs indeed.

By turning forgiveness into The Answer To All That Ails Us, Christians can end up being quite cruel to hurting, victimized people, even without meaning to. More than once I've heard tv preachers demean the feelings of wronged people. "You don't have a right to be angry!" "Who are you to judge anybody?!" "If you don't forgive, you're worse than the person who hurt you!" I've heard tv preachers say these, or similar, things without the slightest comprehension of the damage they were doing to a lot of people in their congregations.

The worst thing you can do to someone who's been hurt is to invalidate their feelings. Hurt and anger are natural and thoroughly appropriate reactions to being wronged, and they don't go away just by chanting the spell, "I forgive you". If Christians really want people to offer--and benefit from--truly genuine forgiveness, the first step is to agree with the injured person on both the depth of the injury and the rightness of his "unChristian" reaction to it. In other words, validate his feelings. Stop expecting instant forgiveness, and stop condemning when it's not forthcoming. And PLEASE stop telling people that forgiveness heals!

The idea that forgiveness causes emotional healing is, perhaps, one of the most deeply ingrained doctrines in the Church today. And I think it's one of the most unhealthy doctrines to dump on injured people. As I've said before, anger, hurt, and the desire for revenge are natural human feelings, but no matter how natural they are they can become horribly destructive if not handled properly. Teaching people that simply saying, "I forgive you", will banish these potentially deadly emotions from their hearts and minds is a gross disservice. These feelings need to be worked through, and the process can be long, hard, and messy. The end result, though, is an emotional healthy person who's ready to forgive. That's right; forgiveness can be and, if the truth were told, usually is the RESULT OF healing, NOT the means to healing.

That goes against virtually everything Christians today are taught about forgiveness. But Christians need to start thinking outside the box--not outside the Bible!--on what forgiveness really is and how to achieve it. Christians are commanded to forgive. If they really want to obey their Lord they should look at every possible means to do so and dump whatever doesn't work.

I will be posting on this subject again later. I'm not finished with forgiveness, and forgiveness isn't finished with me.

Thoughts on Forgiveness, Part 1

2007-05-08T10:47:00.000-05:00

Well, here I am. Returning at last to my blog about God and God and me. Sorry for the long delay; I promise I won't be gone so long again!

As some of you may recall, I don't consider myself a Christian but, rather, a Christianist(see the post "Christianism" to learn what a Christianist is). Why am I not a full Christian? I have a lot of problems with some of Christianity's teachings and this post with deal with one of those.

Everyone knows that one of the central teachings of Christianity is forgiveness. I understand why Jesus would teach his followers to forgive, but I have a problem with making forgiveness a commandment. I've often felt that Islam's teaching on forgiveness was more realistic. In Islam, if memory serves, forgiveness is encouraged as the superior response to a wrong but it's not commanded; you can choose to not forgive those who've hurt you and still be right with Allah. Of course, in Christianity you're taught that if you don't forgive others God won't forgive you. I have a problem with that.

I'd like to say right off the bat that I've never been seriously hurt by anyone. Oh, people have made me mad and done things to me that at the time seemed like the crime of the century, but in hindsight I realize that those "crimes" weren't so bad. So I don't have any personal experience with hardcore forgiveness. I admire people who truly forgive those who've hurt them in truly horrifying ways, but I also understand people who don't, and it's always bothered me that God apparently doesn't understand them.

God, who can understand someone committing the most egregious evil, can't-- or won't-- understand the victim's unwillingness to forgive. In God's eyes it's worse to be unforgiving of evil than it is to actual commit evil. At least, that's the God portrayed in Christians' teachings on forgiveness, and I just can't swallow that.

Yes, I know that God loves everyone and that He makes His rain to fall on the wicked and the good alike, but surely God can't be so cold as to not understand the anguish of someone who's been horribly victimized and how that anguish can make forgiveness out of the question, at least initially. Surely God understands that pain, grief, hate, and rage are normal reactions to being wronged, reactions for which no one should be condemned. Yet, when I listen to Christian pastors on tv or radio talk about forgiveness, or read Christian books on the subject, I'm always struck by how judgmental they are toward those who haven't, can't, or just won't, forgive.

I remember watching Joyce Myers--I hope I spelled her last name right--on tv several years ago, strutting across the stage delivering a blistering sermon against unforgivers. Her attitude was so smug and self-righteous I wanted to puke. As she condemned those who hadn't forgiven their victimizers I wondered just how quick she'd be to forgive if she'd been hurt the way some of the people in her audience might have been. Rather than offering victimized people compassion, understanding, and a helping hand to lovingly guide them to forgiveness, she virtually opened the doors of hell and pushed them in!

Another tv preacher, one of my favorites, also said something about forgiveness that completely turned me off. John Hagee, whom I usually agree with, once said that if you don't forgive instantly and completely you're not a true Christian. When I heard him say that I was stunned. As with Joyce Myers I felt, and still feel, that Pastor Hagee's statement was totally devoid of compassion for the victims of evil. Forgive instantly?! And if you don't you're not a true Christian?! If the police came to Pastor Hagee's house and told him his son had been shot by a mugger, I seriously doubt if his first response would be, "Forgive him Father, he didn't know what he was doing." Yet Hagee, in effect, told his flock that that should be their first response.

I don't care how saved people are, giving forgiveness to the bad guy isn't going to be the first thing they do after they're hurt. Oh, they might say the words, but their hearts will be in the hurt, in the rage, in the grief, in the hate. That's only human, and that's ok. But too many Christians are telling people it's not ok. They're telling them to just say the three magic words, "I forgive you" and--presto!--all's right with the world. But that's not true; it's just not true!

Unfortunately, I've run out of time on the library's computer. I will be returning tomorrow or Thursday to finish my thoughts on forgiveness. Sorry for the interruption.

Merry Christmas!

2006-12-21T16:37:00.000-06:00

Merry Christmas everyone and may you have a wonderfully blessed New Year!

Looking Out for Me?

2006-12-01T12:46:00.000-06:00

I'm not sure, but I think that God was looking out for me yesterday.

Yesterday an artic blast brought freezing rain, sleet, and snow to my part of the Lone Star state. I'm deathly afraid of driving on ice, but the day care center where I work was open so I had to go in. The drive to work turned out to be fine, with just some rain on the roads; it was the drive home that I began to dread. The weather forecast called for falling temps, then sleet and snow to start around noon and I just knew that the rain on the streets would freeze into a sheet of ice. I was terrified of having to drive on that when I got off work at 6:30 at night. But then something happened and I don't know whether to credit God or luck.

I went on my lunch break at noon and just as the forecast predicted it started sleeting. Fortunately the sleet wasn't sticking to the ground but that didn't quiet my fear. Then at 1:00 I got a call from my boss saying that one of my two babies had gone home early and the other one would be taken care of by the toddler teacher. I could go home!!!!!!!! I was overjoyed. I immediately let out a "Thank you, Jesus!", but almost as soon as I said it I began to have doubts. Did Jesus really do this for me, or was it just luck?

I certainly don't want to look a divine gift horse in the mouth, but I've had so much disappointment with God that I'm afraid of reading too much into what happened yesterday. I also don't want to read too little into it, either. I know that God knew how terrified I was of having to drive on ice, but did He really intervene to save me from that trauma? I mean, I hadn't prayed for His intervention. I was constantly worrying about the drive home and I know that God knows our minds, so did He choose of His own volition to change a situation that He knew I was scared of? I just don't know.

Some people may think that I should just credit this change of plans to God and be done with it. They may have a point. After all, the universe can't read our minds and I know I certainly didn't cause one of my babies to leave early. I couldn't have predicted, let alone arranged, that if my life depended on it. So maybe it was God and I should just accept His kind gesture and be grateful. I just wish I could know for sure, but if I could know for sure it wouldn't be faith, would it? I'm so confused. If anyone has any suggestions on how I should view what happened to me yesterday I'd love to hear them. I'd really like to know why I should attribute yesterday's change of plans to God rather then blind luck. Come on believers, help me out.

Psalm Reading

2006-11-17T12:42:00.000-06:00

I've decided to start reading the Psalms. As I've said in one of my other posts, I don't have a relationship with God. I asked Jesus into my heart, like Christians say you should do, when I was fifteen and nothing happened. Since then, I've had a hard time feeling anything for God. I believe in God; I believe the Bible is His Word; I believe in most, if not all, of the doctrines of orthodox Christianity, but I've never felt close to God nor have I ever felt that God cared about me.

Over the years I've often wondered if part of my problem with feeling nothing for God is that I don't read the Bible. I read some of the Bible when I was a kid. I read the Torah, the Gospels, and the book of Acts. I still remember a lot of what I read, but I know that my knowledge and understanding of God and the Christian faith are sorely limited. So that's why I've decided to start reading the Psalms. I think I'll read one, maybe two, Psalms a day, depending on how long they are. If memory serves, most of the Psalms are quite short so maybe I'll be able to read even three a day. I think three is about all I can handle without getting burned out.

I hope I can get some real spirtitual understanding from my Psalm reading. One thing that kept me from reading the Bible again was the fear that it wouldn't speak to my heart. I was afraid that when I came across some verse or story extolling God's love, goodness, or power I'd get turned off because I've never experienced any of that in my life. God has always kept His distance from me, even when I was seeking Him. I'm jealous of people who have real faith in God and a real relationship with Him. Maybe reading the Bible, getting to know God through His Word, is the key to that faith and relationship. I guess I'll soon find out. Psalms, here I come!

Bleeding Bride

2006-10-04T11:13:00.000-05:00

I' ve felt for a long time that Christians have done themselves and the culture a great disservice by abandoning the entertainment world. Yes, I know there are Christian rock bands out there but most of them seem content to confine, or allow others to confine, themselves to the Christian "ghetto" and just preach to the choir. I strongly believe that Christians need to form "secular" bands that reveal and support the Christian worldview in a more "natural" way; and I've got a killer name for such aband: Bleeding Bride.

Cool, huh? I got the name from the lyrics to an Alice Cooper song (Alice, btw, is a Christian). As you might know, the name is a reference to the proof of her virginity given by the bride on her wedding night. C'mon, you know what I'm talking about. I'm not goth, but I think Bleeding Bride would be the perfect name for an all girl, Christian goth band. I know there has to be some talented Christian goth girls out there who are longing to rock out for Jesus and bring the light of Biblical morality to the world. Feel free to use this name; it's yours. Now go get your guitars and ROCK!!!!!

Really, Rosie?

2006-09-14T12:18:00.000-05:00

On her debut on The View on Tuesday, Sept. 12, actress, comedienne, and lesbian activist Rosie O'Donnell promptly put her foot in her mouth. During a discussion on terrorism Rosie made the startling claim that "radical Christianity is as threatening as radical Islam". And the audience applauded!

I found out about this on The O'Reilly Factor last night. I was shocked but also glad that Rosie said what she said. Her statement equating "radical" Christianity and Islam clearly reveals the anti-Christian bigotry of today's liberals, their slavish committment to political correctness, and their total lack of understanding of the conflict facing America and the West.

Modern liberals don't like Christians or Christianity. They'll vigorously deny that, but Rosie outed them on national tv. Of course, Rosie's problem with Christians stems from her lesbianism. She doesn't want anyone judging her lifestyle and Bible-believing Chrisitians are outspoken in their condemnation of homosexuality and other sins that are demanding public approval. Gays are even demanding that the Church approve of their sexuality, regardless of what the Bible actually says, and launch hateful accusations of intolerance and "homophobia" at any church that doesn't comply.

Yes, some Christians are harsh in their presentation of Biblical truth on homosexuality, and some Christians really do hate gays. Maybe Rosie had them in mind when she made her shocking statement on The View. But calling homosexuality sin, as the Bible says it is, is NOT hate. Conservative, Bible-believing Christians also believe that adultery is sin, yet no one ever accuses them of hating adulterers. It's only calling homosexuality sinful that's condemned as hate.

Rosie's devotion to normalizing her lesbianism has clouded her judgment on Christianity and America's war against militant Islam. Frighteningly, a lot of people share her warped thinking, as shown by the audience's applause, and a lot of them want to be elected. We can't afford to have such people in charge of America's survival, which is what's really at stake in this monumental conflict. It's up to Christians and Christianists to make sure they never will be.

Sorry, Rosie.

Happy Birthday, America!

2006-07-05T10:53:00.000-05:00

Happy Birthday, America! I hope everyone had a happy, fun-filled 4th!

"Christianism"

2006-05-30T12:12:00.000-05:00

I think I've finally found a name for my worldview.

I used to think of, and call myself, a Christian sympathizer. That's pretty accurate, but it's a phrase and I always wanted to have a single word to describe my beliefs. Then, when I was thinking about a new post for my blog, Planet RA!*, it hit me: Christianism. That's the word for what I and, I suspect, millions of other people, believe.

Christianism is a worldview based on, and sympathetic to, Biblical Christianity. You don't have to be an actual Christian to be a Christianist; in fact, many who call themselves Christians are totally opposed to Christianism, their Christianity being completely subject to the dominant opinions of secular culture.

Christianists, as I define us, are people who base our views on issues like abortion or gay marriage on the Judeo-Christian moral tradition. We've always been around, but now we have a name for ourselves. Many of us aren't identifiable until we actually express our views. And many of us may not even be fully aware of just where our views originate. That's because, as I stated above, many Christianists aren't Christians. Many of us are totally unchurched, but we are NOT anti-church.

We have no problem with prayer in school or "In God We Trust" on our money. We understand that America was founded by Christians, on Biblical principles, and we believe that that should be taught in public schools, regardless of how many non-Christian students may be attending, because it's historical fact. In short, we recognize, respect, and defend the Christian heritage of America (and the West), even if many of us aren't Christians.

Our moral thinking is guided by Judeo-Christian principles, which many of us "learned" through osmosis. We believe it's prefectly ok for citizens and politicians to bring those principles into the public square, to influence public policy, because those opposed to said principles are bringing their atheistic views into the public square. Christianists believe that the real debate isn't whether or not you can legislate morality but, rather, who's morality will be legislated. And we don't believe that just because a moral principle is rooted in a particular religion that it's automatically invalid for those who don't follow that religion.

In short, Christianists are tolerant of Christianity and the Judeo-Christian moral tradition. We believe they are good things and that the concerted effort to eradicate them from our culture will only bring doom. So, from the secular perspective, we stand with the much-maligned Religious Right. Some of us may be a little uncomfortable with that, since we don't all consider ourselves religious; but if given the choice between standing with the Religious Right and the Atheist Left, we will proudly choose the Religious Right, with all its flaws, because we know from history that there's nothing deadlier than atheism in power.

That's what we believe; that's what I believe. Finally there's a name for it!

*Planet RA! is now RA Folk Nation

Teach Your People

2006-05-23T12:43:00.000-05:00

The uproar over the movie "The Da Vinci Code", and the book on which it's based, has revealed what I think is a great weakness in modern American Christianity.

In case you don't know, "The Da Vinci Code" proposes that Jesus Christ was married to, and had a child by, Mary Magdalene, and that the bloodline of said child is the real Holy Grail. This truth was murderously suppressed, the book goes on to suggest, by the Catholic Church for 2000 years. Oh, and Christ didn't die on the cross, either, according to the book.

Apparently, many Christians who've read "The Da Vinci Code" have had their faith damaged, if not destroyed. And these aren't new Christians, but people who've been in the faith for years. That's why there've been calls to boycott the movie, and a rash of books by pastors and other firmly committed Christians trying to debunk the "Code". But how could the faith of people who've been in church many years, maybe even all their lives, be so vulnerable to a book? Because the clergy has abandoned it's responsibility to teach the people; that's the great weakness in modern Christianity.

Turn on just about any "Christian" tv program, or pick up just about any "Christian" book these days, and what you'll get is some spiritualized version of motivational speaking. It's all about how being a Christian will get you out of debt, save your marriage, put you on the fast track to success, and make you thin, to boot. There's practically nothing about the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith and the historical proof for those doctrines. Thus, the average churchgoer today can tell you the "Biblical" principles of prosperity but not a thing about the Council of Nicea. So, when a book comes along claiming that Jesus' divinity was decided by vote at said Council, under pressure from Roman emperor Constantine; that gospels telling the real story of Jesus were suppressed by the church; that Jesus didn't die on the cross; and that the Holy Grail is the sacred bloodline of Jesus' child, today's average Christian is a sitting duck for disillusionment.

It doesn't matter how long you've attended church. If you weren't taught the historical truth of Christianity you have no defence against "The Da Vinci Code" or any other attack on the
faith. And it's the responsibility of the clergy to teach their people. The loss of faith of so many Christians in the wake of Dan Brown's book can be laid directly at the feet of derelict clergymen. Preaching wealth, health, and happiness instead of teaching hard facts in support of the faith, they've shirked a duty as sacred, in God's eyes, as the role of parent. They are supposed to be God's generals, but they've sent His troops into battle with no armor and no weapons. Every soul lost because of "The Da Vinci Code" will be laid at their doorstep. I wonder how many of them take that seriously, or even realize it.

Hopefully, some clergy will see the folly of their ways and repent. Maybe they're repenting already, and showing it by writing those debunking books mentioned above. If the church is going to keep true Christianity intact, this has to happen. May God let it.

The Real Religious Hypocrites

2006-05-17T12:16:00.000-05:00

If there's one thing most people, even unbelievers, know about Jesus it's that He was fiercely opposed to hypocrisy and hypocrites. He condemned the religious leaders of His day for little else. Jesus famously stated that prostitutes and other sinners would get into heaven before the pious Pharisees and Saducees precisely because they admitted their spiritual brokenness and need for a Saviour, something the sanctimonous rabbis wouldn't do.

Many people today embrace Jesus' anti-hypocrisy attitude, often using it just as He did--as a weapon to beat down the self-righteous. But I wonder if we've gone a little astray in our understanding of hypocrisy and our reaction to it.

Most of us think we know a hypocrite when we see one. It's the almost stereotypical figure of the pious churchgoer or preacher who thunders against other people's sins while wallowing up to his ears in his own. Fallen televangelists Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Baker are classic examples of this type of hypocrite. But there's another type of hypocrite that I think is far worse than the "ordinary" kind; a type that's just as numerous but not nearly as exposed and condemned. I call this type of hypocrite a "wolf-in-sheep" hypocrite, or a WISH.

And what, precisely, is a WISH? The name comes from Jesus' reference to false teachers as wolves in sheep's clothing, and that tells us what a wolf-in-sheep hypocrite is: a false teacher. Someone who claims to be a Christian but rejects the fundamental doctrines of the faith, even the Bible itself, and teaches others to do so, too. The best example of a WISH I know of is Bishop John Shelby Spong.

Spong is an Episcopal bishop who rejects so much of Christian teaching that you wonder why he bothers calling himself a Christian. But that's the m.o. of WISHes. They reject their faith yet demand that they still be viewed as believers. Their favorite weapon against those who dare to expose their spiritual treason is to accuse them of narrowmindedness and intolerance. Far more than God, the WISH worships modernity and insists that, to be relevant, the Church must change with the times, no matter how anti-Christian the times become. The spirit of the age, not the Holy Spirit, informs the WISH's religious beliefs.

Of course, the WISH rejects the authority of the Bible. He might vigorously deny that, and point to his use of Scripture in support of some "just" cause. But if you look closely at his use of the Bible, you'll find that the only verses he accepts as authoritative are those that agree with his personal views. All other verses he ignores or reinterprets to fit his own or the world's agenda.

WISHes aren't limited to Christianity. Other religions have them, too. Irshad Manji, author of the interesting book "The Trouble with Islam", is a Muslim WISH. In her book, Ms. Manji lobs criticism after criticism at her faith, finding Islam's teachings on women and homosexuality particularly objectionable. She rejects, of course, the divine inspiration and authority of the Koran yet, for reasons that never come clear, still calls herself a Muslim! Why?!

We can also ask John Shelby Spong and all the other Christian WISHes, why? If you don't believe the Bible, if you just can't accept certain Church doctrines, if you're not even sure there is a God, why do you persist in calling yourselves Christians ( or Muslims, Bhuddists, etc.)? Why don't you just do the only intellectually and spirtitually honest thing and leave the faith? Is it that you see yourselves as enlightened fifth columnists, working to bring progressive change to the faith? Or are you just cynical, playing at Christianity just to get along with your family, or co-workers, or friends?

Whatever the reason wolf-in-sheep hypocrites stay in the church (or mosque, or synagogue, or temple) believers need to be aware of them so they can beware of them. Their leaven is more destructive to Christianity--to any faith--than all the exploits of all the ordinary hypocrites combined. Believers must heed Jesus' advice: "Be wise as serpents and gentle as doves." Know what's going on in your congregations, and don't make this WISH.

The Polygamy Question

2006-05-12T13:12:00.000-05:00

Below is a reprint of a post I originally wrote on my first blog, PoorGrrl Zone, on October 2, 2005. In light of the recent addition of fugitive Mormon polygamist Warren Jeffs to the FBI's 10 Most Wanted List I thought it would be timely to add this post to my "Christian" blog and see what my readers might think of it. Enjoy (and think!).

In the emotional debate over [legalizing] gay marriage traditionalists often base most of their objection to it on the fear that such a move will lead to the legalization of other non-traditional sexual unions, most notably polygamous unions. Of course, traditionalists have a very strong point; if society says yes to gay marriage, how can it say no to any other non-traditional marriage? However, tradtitionalists are on shaky ground placing polygamy under the same immorality umbrella as homosexuality, and the very Bible they use to oppose homosexuality proves it.

Traditionalists are right when they say that the Bible has given Western civilization its definition of marriage. And they are right to defend that definition. What they don't realize, [though], is that their definition of "traditional" marriage isn't as Biblical as they think. To put it bluntly, the Bible does NOT oppose polygamy, and the defenders of Biblical marriage need to know that.

Most people just assume that the Bible condemns polygamy. They base their view of polygamy almost exclusively on media reports of abusive polygamous Mormons and conclude, rightly, that the Bible is against such abuse. But being against abusive polygamous marriage isn't the same thing as being being against polygamy itself. There are abusive monogamous marriages, but opposing...such marriages doesn't mean opposing monogamy. So, traditionalists and others who think the Bible teaches that polygamy is immoral need to stop making media-based assumptions and read what the Bible actually says.

And what does the Bible say?

Even a cursory glance at the Good Book reveals that polygamy was alright with God. Some of the Patriarchs, for instance, had multiple wives. Abraham had a wife, Sarah, and a concubine, Hagar. His grandson, Jacob, had two wives and two concubines. God didn't object to these arrangements. Later, Moses had two wives, the Midianite woman Zipporah, and a Cushite woman. In the Mosaic Law God had ample opportunity to condemn polygamy, but He didn't. He regulated polygamy instead, forbiding men to marry sisters or a woman and her daughter.

Perhaps the best proof that the God of the Bible accepts polygamy is King David. We all know that David killed Goliath, but most people don't know that David was a lusty fellow. He had at least three wives before he became king of Israel and a lot more after he became king, all given to him by God! That's right. God gave David multiple wives. Nathan the prophet reminds David of that when he condemns him for murdering Uriah to take his wife, Bathsheba. So, if polygamy is a sin, as most traditionalists believe, then God committed sin by giving David many wives.

But what about Solomon? Didn't God condemn him for taking many wives? No. God condemned Solomon for taking many foreign wives, women who worshipped idols and led Solomon to worship them, too. It was idolatry, not polygamy, that drove God away from Solomon.

There are other examples of God accepting polygamy. Gideon, whom God used to defeat the Midianites in the time of the Judges, had 70 sons with his wives and concubines. The prophet Samuel, whose mother was Hannah, was born into a polygamous family. All of these men--Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Gideon, Samuel, David, Solomon--were considered righteous by God, even though they practiced polygamy or were born into it. And they weren't the only ones.

So, what are traditionalists to do? Almost their whole argument against [legalizing] gay marriage is that it violates the Biblical standard of marriage that America, and Western civilization, has always followed. But now we know that the Biblical standard of marriage includes polygamy. Traditionalists have some hard thinking to do. They have to admit that, when it comes to marriage, the "traditional values" they stand for are NOT the Bible's values. They then have to ask themselves if they're prepared to do the only honest thing: change their morality to conform to the Bible, or reject the Bible and cling to their tradition. If they really love God and His Word, the choice is obvious.

Book Review: Serenity

2006-04-27T13:26:00.000-05:00

I just finished reading book one in a new Christian manga series titled Serenity. The manga is about a troubled girl named Serenity who becomes the "project" of the kids in the Prayer Club at her new high school. The first book in the manga series is titled "Bad Girl in Town".

I heard of the Serenity manga a while ago. It was featured in the Family Christian Stores (FCS) sales catalog that I subscribe to. In fact, I bought "Bad Girl in Town" on sale at FCS, and I'm glad I bought it on sale. The manga, at least book one, was just ok.

I love anime and watch a lot of it on tv, though I've never read a manga, so I had high expectations for Serenity. The drawing was excellent. It really looked like a top-notch secular manga. Anyone who loves anime and/or manga will love the look of Serenity. The story though, is flat.

I think the main problem with the manga is that it's too self-conscious. The authors are really trying hard to show that Christians can be cool. The Christian kids use the latest slang and dress quite fashionably, but it's just not believable. The book is a Christian version of manga and it reads like it. The authors definitely weren't following C. S. Lewis' advice for Christian authors to keep their Christian worldview latent.

Of course, Christian kids may very well need fiction that's openly geared towards them, and maybe the authors of the Serenity series are just trying to preach to the choir. If they are, they succeeded; but if they're trying to reach a larger audience I think they'll have an uphill battle. As I said in a previous post, most non-Christians aren't going to buy entertainment that's openly Christian. I can't see too many non-Christian parents buying the Serenity series for their kids.

But even if the manga wasn't openly Christian it still has problems. I know I shouldn't judge a whole series based on one book, but the first book is what makes you want to read more and I don't care if I read more of Serenity or not.

The series is written, I assume, for a teen and older pre-teen audience, but reading it as an adult was tiresome. The character development was light. The action was light. The dialogue was light. Everything was light! If I was a teen-ager reading this book I'd be a little insulted by the insinuation that I couldn't handled substantive fiction. After all, it is possible to write intelligent, substantive fiction for kids, if you're talented enough. Or maybe the authors suffer from the "Christian fiction" syndrome in which it's just assumed that Christians want, and can handle, only fluff. Whatever the authors' issues, they'd better come up with some more edgy stuff if they want Serenity to last through her senior year.

Christians and PETA

2006-04-22T10:47:00.000-05:00

Below is a reprint of a post I originally wrote on Sept. 27, 2005 for my first blog, PoorGrrl Zone. Think and enjoy.

Should Christians be involved with PETA? I hadn't thought much about that until I picked up the current issue of HM: The Hard Music Magazine (it's a magazine for the Christian hard music scene, for those not in the know).

HM has a new feature called Causes. In each issue, a cause is reviewed and readers are asked to find something good in it for 60 days, until the next issue comes out. This month's cause is PETA, and a couple of the bands--or band members--featured in the issue are PETA supporters. Stretch Arm Strong and Emery are two of the bands that come to mind. I'm not sure how I feel about this.

I like animals. I'd never intentionally hurt one, and I don't think there's anything wrong with Christians caring about them. However, PETA carries the idea of caring about animals to a level I feel no Bible-believing Christian can accept. PETA believes that animals are equal to humans, that they have the same intrinsic value; you know, the whole "a rat is a pig is a boy" idea. Consequently, PETA people believe that harming or killing animals, for any reason, is as morally wrong as harming or killing people; and on the other side, NOT harming or killing animals is as compassionate as not harming or killing people. The cornerstone of PETA's philosophy is that kindness to animals is the epitome of morality and compassion. Bible-believing Christians simply can't believe this.

First, the Bible, in the very first chapters of its very book, clearly establishes Man's superiority over the animals. Man, and Man alone, is created in God's image. Immediately afterwards, he's given dominion over the animals. The God of the Bible is no animal rights activist. In fact, He's the first animal killer, killing a beast to make--gasp!--fur clothes for Adam and Eve after they were expelled from the Garden of Eden. It only gets worse for the Christian PETA fan.

While vegetarianism seems to have been the original plan for Man's diet, meat is allowed after the Flood. In fact, meat eating was probably going on before the Flood because animal sacrifice was going on before the Flood. Remember the rivalry between Cain and Abel? Cain was jealous because God rejected his vegetable offering but accepted Abel's animal sacrifice. Surely, if pre-Flood people killed animals to sacrifice to God it's logical to assume that they ate them, too. And God didn't have a single problem with it.

Thousands of years later, in the time of Moses, God still hadn't seen the PETA light. In the Mosaic Law, He forbade the Jews to eat certain animals but not all animals, and He required animal sacrifice to cover their sins. Yes, the Bible praises kindness to animals here and there, but it's never the centerpiece of its morality. The Bible is concerned with Man's relationship to God and with Man's humanity, or lack thereof, toward his fellow Man.

But that's the Old Testament, some Christians will argue. Surely the New Testament is more enlightened and loving. Not so. Whatever PETA activists claim Jesus said about eating meat and the like, the Bible shows He didn't mind it at all. In fact, to get the Jesus they want, PETA folks go to extrabiblical sources which have no authority for the orthodox Christian. The Bible is the Christian's only authority for what Jesus did, said, liked, and disliked; and the Bible never records Him saying or doing anything against eating meat, wearing fur, etc. Indeed, in one of His sermons Jesus reminds His audience that if God will take care of the birds, He will also take care of them because they are worth more than the birds. Shocking! Jesus actually said people are worth more than animals?! Yep. Get over it.

Some people might have a hard time with this because they've bought into PETA's claim that you must believe in animal rights to be moral. Finding out that Jesus didn't believe in animal rights might seriously shake their faith in Him. These people need to understand that Jesus's morality--the whole Bible's morality--is above PETA's. Think about it.

PETA asserts that it's morally wrong to kill animals, even if it's done painlessly, because all life is sacred; yet how many PETA activists fought for the life of Terry Schiavo? If all life is sacred, doesn't that "all" include disabled human beings? If it's wrong to painlessly kill animals, shouldn't it also be wrong to painlessly kill disabled people? And what about abortion? Unborn babies are living creatures. Shouldn't they be protected? PETA activists can't use the "they're not human life" argument to justify abortion because they don't think life has to be human to have value. Their lives revolve around protecting nonhuman life. So, if unborn babies really are subhuman that's all the more reason why every PETA activist should be pro-life.

Of course, most PETA activists aren't pro-life. In fact, humans are the only life form whose demise doesn't offend them. So Bible-believing Christians should think hard before subscribing to PETA's moral worldview. It's contradictory, it devalues human life in the name of uplifting animal life, and it doesn't make you a good person. Remember, Adolph Hitler was a vegetarian; Jesus wasn't.

A Married Christ?

2006-04-18T12:45:00.000-05:00

Ask conservative Christians how they feel about marriage and they'll tell you it's a good thing. More than that, it's a sacred thing, invented by God Himself in the Garden of Eden. That's why such Christians are fighting tooth and nail against the legalization of gay marriage. Such a move, they fear, would destroy the very meaning of the God-ordained institution and must be opposed at all costs. Yet, if you ask these same marriage-devoted, conservative Christians if Jesus was or could've possibly been married, they'll react as if marriage was one of the seven deadly sins.

Jesus married?! It's blasphemy to even suggest such a thing! You're not a true Christian! Liberals have taken over the church! There's no way Christ was married!

Why do people who claim to believe that marriage is a good, even sacred, thing react so negatively to any suggestion that Jesus might've been wed? In a word, sex.

Despite the Bible's positive view of sex, most conservative Christians have mixed feelings about it, to say the least. For centuries, the orthodox Christian teaching has been that Jesus was fully God and fully man. To believe otherwise put you in the heresy camp, yet most orthodox Christians today are uncomfortable with a Jesus so human that He could've had--gasp!--sexual feelings. But let's think about this rationally.

In the Bible God never calls sex bad. He restricts sex to men and women in marriage and harshly condemns sex outside of that relationship, but He never calls sex itself evil. All you have to do is read the Song of Solomon to see how approving of sex, in it's right place, God is. So, if God didn't think sex was intrinsically evil, and if Jesus was God incarnate, then it stands to reason that Jesus also didn't object to sex itself. Thus, if Jesus was married there would've been nothing sinful about it.

But the Bible doesn't say Jesus was married, some might argue, so that proves He wasn't. No, it doesn't. All that proves is that the Bible doesn't say Jesus was married. The Good Book also doesn't say that Jesus wasn't married. So if you're going to argue from silence, you have to admit that said silence gives as much "proof" to the other side as it does to your own.

Some Christians might reject a married Christ as a way to fight against neo-Gnostic attacks on the Christian faith like the ones in the bestselling novel The Da Vinci Code. I understand that view, but the best why to fight attacks on the faith is with reason and truth. And the truth is that we just don't know the marital status of Christ. The Bible doesn't tell us, and maybe it doesn't because that information is irrelevant to Christ's mission and our response to it. Think about it: if Jesus was married, and even had children, what difference would that make to His death and resurrection? None at all. Sure, some people may be uncomfortable at the thought that there could be physical descendants of Jesus living today but you know what, there already are descendants of Jesus living today! They are the descendants of His brothers and sisters. So Jesus' bloodline is alive on earth right now, if only indirectly.

All and all, I think any Christian who really believes that marriage is a good and sacred thing shouldn't feel upset at any suggestion or hint that Jesus might've been married. Afer all, if Jesus was married, and if He really was God, then He was simply partaking of the holy sacrament He Himself ordained.

Honor Thy Father and Thy Mother?

2006-04-05T12:38:00.000-05:00

I was watching the 700 Club last night and Pat Robertson answered a question from a woman who's mother had abandoned her and her siblings when they were children. The mother was now popping in and out of her children's lives every few years, usually to ask for money. The woman's question was did she have to honor such a mother; Mr. Robertson said yes. I'm not comfortable with that answer.

I know that the Bible commands us to honor our parents. I understand the need for that commandment, but sometimes I think people think that gives parents the right to treat their children any way they chose without consequence. Pat Robertson seems to fall into that category. No, Mr. Robertson has never advocated child abuse, and he has strongly counselled abuse victims not to have any contact with unrepentant parents. Still, he seems to believe that children generally don't have the right to hold their parents accountable for any negative or even destructive thing the parents have done to them. Mr. Robertson's answers always seem to include the mantra, "She/he is the only mother/father you've got", the implication being that any wrong they've done or are still doing needs to be overlooked by the child(ren). I think that's going too far.

The commandment to honor one's parents isn't given in a vacuum. There are many other commandments people are to obey, and no where in His Word does God say that these commandments don't apply between parent and child. Yes, parents are due a certain amout of respect simply by being parents. None of us would be here if our parents hadn't decided to have us and care for us in our youngest years. Yet, parents also owe respect to their children because the children are not just their children but also their fellow human beings. Thus, all the commandments governing how we must treat our fellow man apply to parents as they bring up their children.

For example, the second commandment is to love your neighbor as yourself. In the New Testament Jesus showed that "neighbor" meant any human being, especially one in need. Doesn't "neighbor", then, include one's children? And if parents abuse their children, abandon them, manipulate them, use them for selfish gain, haven't they violated the second commandent? And shouldn't such parents expect a dip in the honor they receive from their children?

Or what about the commandment not to have any gods before God? If we tell children to give their parents blind, unquestioning honor, and the obedience that goes along with it, are we not telling them to treat their parents like little gods? Are we not making them guilty of idolatry?

We are told in the Bible to honor and obey governmental authority, but that commandment isn't absolute, even in the New Testament. Cruel, unjust governments or laws are disobeyed with God's approval several times in the Bible. Why do we think it's any different with cruel, unjust parents? It's not. Children are not obligated to honor or obey abusive, cruel parents. And for the parents who aren't abusive, children do have the right to hold them accountable for the wrong things they may have done in the process of bringing them up. After all, the consequences that destructive or negligent acts can have on a person don't vanish just because the perpetrators of the acts were his parents.

Parents must realize that they are accoutable before God to treat their children as the fellow human beings they are. If they do that, they will reap a bounty of honor in this life and the next. That's how Mr. Robertson should answer the next question he gets about what's due deadbeat parents.

Clean Up the Airwaves?

2006-03-23T12:42:00.000-06:00

This past Sunday I watched Dr. D. James Kennedy's tv show. Dr. Kennedy is one of my favorite tv preachers, but he ended Sunday's show with something I think is a waste of time: he called on Christians to sigh a petition to clean up the airwaves.

At first glance cleaning up the airwaves sounds like a good idea. There's plenty of filth and anti-Christian bigotry on tv; no one with a brain can deny that. But lauching yet another campaign to "clean up the airwaves" will fail, like all such campaigns have failed.

I can remember Christians complaining about the content of movies and tv shows way back in the '70's. Their complaints were exactly like they are today. Too much sex and violence. Christians attacked Hollywood constantly and, sometimes, bitterly. And what was the result? More sex and violence! That's right. All the criticizing and condemning didn't change a thing, except to make it worse. There's more sex, violence, profanity, and way more occultism in today's movies and tv shows than there were 30 years ago. Yet Christians keep complaining and using the same old failed methods to change things. Can you say "insanity"?*

I know Christians mean well. I'm also tired of all the filth, anti-Christian bigotry, and occultism in today's entertainment. I'm tired of the way traditional values and the people who hold them are mocked, ridiculed, and/or demonized by Hollywood, but Christians have got to find another, better way of fighting back. Indeed, Christians need to understand that they need to fight back and not just whine about this huge problem. For centuries Christians owned the arts in Western civilization. The West's greatest music, literature, architecture, and paintings were inspired by the Bible and filled with Christian themes. Today's Christians need to reclaim that heritage and use it against Hollywood's forces of darkness. But they must be smart about it.

Chuck Colson once wrote that Christians should criticize by creating, yet too often today's Christian artists seek only to create the Christian version of some aspect of secular entertainment. So we have Christian rock music, Christian video games, Christian comic books, Christian romance novels, etc. That's ok if you only want to preach to the choir, but the goal of Christian artists should be to reach the whole of society; that's the only way to turn back the tide of liberal paganism and re-establish the Judeo-Christian worldview as the dominant worldview in our culture.

C. S. Lewis, the author of "The Chronicles of Narnia", told Christians how to reach society, and not just the church, throught art. Lewis wrote that the world didn't need more books from Christians about Christianity, but more books from Christians about a variety of subjects in which the Christian worldview was latent. The Narnia books are a prime example of what Lewis was talking about. Christians need to be writing books, making movies, and designing video games in which their Christian ideas reveal themselves naturally through the words and actions of the characters. No character in such books, movies, or video games has to be openly Christian for the Christian worldview to be effectively and positively communicated. And blending the Christian worldview into the background won't turn off non-Christian people. After all, most non-Christians aren't going to buy a book or see a movie that's openly Christian, especially if it's even remotely evangelical in tone.

So if Dr. D. James Kennedy wants to clean up the airwaves he should have his church offer classes in creative writing or film making and stop the petition signing. Criticize, and convert, by creating. Hollywood understands that principle; it's time God's people understood it, too.

*One definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over and expect differents results.

Once Saved, Always Saved?

2006-02-28T12:34:00.000-06:00

One of the things that has always bothered me about Christianity is the doctrine of once saved, always saved. Simply put, this doctrine claims that once you sincerely say the sinners' prayer and accept Jesus into your heart you're permanently saved; nothing you do from then on can unsave you.

On the surface, this idea sounds good; it sure makes God appear loving. He places no demands on our behaviour, all He's looking for is an emotional acknowledgement of His Son's sacrifice. Great! The problem for me is it's just too easy.

But the Gospel is that easy, Christians will say. It's man-made traditions that have complicated it. Ok, fine. But where does behaviour or, dare I say it, works fit in? The problem is this: if we're saved forever once we say the sinners' prayer, why not live any way we want to afterwards?

Modern Christians are constantly condemning the rampant sin in today's society. Yet they seem totally blind to how the "once save, always saved" doctrine undermines their anti-sin struggle. If our salvation can't be lost by anything we do, then there's no reason not to do anything we want once we're saved. Christians will counter that we're saved from sin, not to sin. But if that's true, then doesn't salvation obligate us not to sin? And if that's true, then doesn't willful, unrepentant sin cancel our salvation? And if such sin doesn't cancel our salvation then, I ask again, why not sin boldly after we're saved?

Some Christians might say that after salvation we should behave in certain ways, i.e. not sin, because our behaviour is the outward sign of our salvation to a non-believing world. Unbelievers love to accuse Christians of hypocrisy and challenge them by pointing to all the bad things done in Christ's name. Consequently, Christians must strive to bring honor to Christ's name by living as He did when He was on earth. So, not sinning is about protecting Christ's name, not about protecting our salvation. I can buy that to a certain extent, but it still seems to me that behaviour--works--should play a part in keeping, if not receiving, salvation.

Suppose someone sincerely says the sinners' prayer and accepts Jesus into his heart. For several years after that he lives a Christian life. Then, bad things start happening to him. His business goes bust; his wife leaves him; his child gets cancer. All of this causes him to question God and to start living less and less like a Christian. Finally, he gives up on God completely and commits to living however he wants to, regardless of how sinful it may be. He's still living that way when he dies. Am I to believe that this person will go to heaven just because, years earlier, he gave his life to Christ? The "once saved, always saved" doctrine says he will. My heart says he won't.

Back Home

2006-02-08T12:50:00.000-06:00

Hello everyone! Well, I moved over the week-end. My brother and a friend from church helped me. I've moved in with my Mom so I can get caught up on my bills without having to worry abut another rent payment. My brother and my friend, Henry, helped move my furniture then I moved the "little" stuff myself. That "little" stuff really added up! It took me two and a half days to get it all in storage. Fortunately, it all fit in the storage unit I rented so I didn't have to rent two units. I missed Sunday school this past Sunday because I was moving all that "little" stuff. I told Henry that I probably wouldn't be there and he said he understood (I'm attending Henry's class). I'm planning on going to Sunday school this coming Sunday. I really missed it last Sunday,which is sort of strange considering I haven't been to Sunday school in about six years and didn't feel like I was missing anything, but I now know I was. God apparently wants me to be with real believers because I sure didn't expect to feel like this. I hope I won't be disappointed. I will let you know how it turns out.

Moving

2006-02-02T13:55:00.000-06:00

Hello everyone! Just wanted to let you know that you might not hear from me for a few days or longer. I'm moving and I'm using all of my spare time to pack. I'm not sure where I'm going. I thought I was going to move into an apartment complex near my job, but it only has a year's lease. I don't want to be stuck in a lease for that long plus, I can only get a one bedroom apartment which would mean most of my furniture would have to go into storage. I don't have the money for that kind of storage! Please pray that I find the right new place to live, and that I find it soon! Thanks!

Sunday School

2006-01-29T13:00:00.000-06:00

Today I went to Sunday school and I'm glad I did. I was invited by my friends Tasha and Henry; Henry normally teaches the class I attended but had this Sunday off. Tasha and Henry are friends I first met at Willow Creek Baptist Church but lost contact with when I stopped going to church about five years ago. I bumped into them at the library about six months ago and found out that they still have the same e-mail address so I e-mailed them occasionally and about two weeks ago they invited me to the Sunday school class.

I'm really glad I went to Sunday school today. Everyone there was really nice and I felt a real spirituality in the room. I'm beginning to think that my divine discontent may be due to the fact that I'm not putting myself in a spiritual environment. It was uplifting to be around people who have a relationship with Christ and real faith. I haven't felt such a spiritual charge since I attended a bar mitzvah about seven years. The atmosphere in the synagouge was so reverential and spiritual--despite it being a Reform synagogue--that I seriously considered converting to Judaism. The only thing that stopped me was the doctrine, hammered into me in church, that Jesus was the only way to heaven. I think if I didn't believe that doctrine I'd be Jewish now!

Anyway, today really opened my eyes. I'm going back to Sunday school next week. I need to feed my soul if it's going to be healthy and grow. I'm also hoping to get answers to at least some of my questions. The fact that you can ask questions in Sunday school and have deep discussions about specific issues is why I've always liked it better than church. I've never felt a spiritual charge in church. Oh, I've heard some good sermons, but I always felt like I was being preached at rather than preached to. Needless to say, I didn't stay for the church service today and I won't next Sunday, either. To me, Sunday school is my church service. A lot of folks will disagree with me, but if the purpose of a church service is to teach, uplift, and strengthen people's faith then Sunday school is church because it did all that for me today. I can't wait to get more next week.

When God Doesn't Show Up

2006-01-22T20:57:00.000-06:00

As I've always understood it, the whole point of Christianity is to be saved; that's everything. And the way to be saved, according to all the Christian books I've read and tv shows I've watched, is to ask Jesus into your heart and accept Him as your lord and saviour. But what if you do that and Jesus doesn't show up?

That happened to me when I was a teenager. Back then I had total faith in God and the Bible. If the Bible said it, I believed it. I wanted to be right with God. I had heard at church that all you had to do to be saved was say the sinner's prayer, believe it with all your heart and--presto!--you were "in" with God. So I did that when I was about 15, and nothing happened. I experienced none of the peace, love, joy, or presence of God that was in all the conversion stories I'd heard. I was convinced I'd done something wrong so, a short time later, I asked Jesus into my heart again, and again nothing happened. I felt nothing from God, and no one has ever been able to tell me why. Looking back, I feel that was the beginning of my divine discontent.

Trying to figure out why God ignored me, why He didn't show up, has been very depressing. It's affected my whole spiritual life. My faith has been all but destroyed. How can I have faith when I prayed the most vital prayer you can pray, trusting God totally, and He was a no-show? I don't trust God now; I can't. I'd like to; I've struggled to. I've prayed to God many, many times since that Big Let Down so many years ago and I can count on one hand, with fingers left over, the number of times I believe He answered me. The Bible says that without faith you can't please God, but I know from bitter personal experience that you can't please Him with faith, either.

Please understand. I'm not complaining about God not giving me a car or something trivial like that. I'm talking about my eternal destiny. Over and over again the Bible promises that if you ask God for anything with faith, He'll answer you. I was acting on that promise when I asked Jesus to save me and all I got was cold silence. Some might say that I'm putting too much weight on the conversion experiences of others and that just because a lot of people have an actual spiritual experience when they give their lives to Christ that doesn't mean everyone will. True. But if you feel no differently after saying the sinner's prayer, if you have no experience of any kind, how do you know you're saved? Surely, Christ coming into your heart should make you feel something!

But that's where real faith comes into play, some will say. Faith is not feeling. Faith is believing God's promises whether or not you feel anything or see any evidence for them. I once heard it described as being similar to getting on an elevator. When you get on an elevator, you know that you'll get to the floor you want simply by pushing a button, regardless of how you feel. Your feelings don't make the elevator go up or down, pushing the button does. Likewise, feelings don't get your prayers answered, faith does.

Ok, so faith isn't a feeling. Why then does Christian tv only show the emotional stories of salvation? I mean, did you ever hear someone on the 700 Club or TBN say, "Yes, I prayed the sinner's prayer and I feel just as empty as did I before, but I know I'm saved." NO! The testimonies you hear are always full of emotion, with people crying and going on and on about how Jesus delivered them from this or that sin, or healed them, or brought them prosperity, etc. So excuse me for thinking that asking Jesus into my heart meant He'd actually show up.

Sorry, I didn't mean to get testy, it's just that this really bothers me. If my prayer to be saved was rejected then that means I'm going to hell, according to Christian doctrine. And I don't have the faith to ask God again; His silence has seen to that. So I need some real help to figure this out. I'm willing to listen to what anyone has to say.

A "Good" God

2006-01-15T22:50:00.000-06:00

By now everyone's heard of Pat Robertson's comments about Ariel Sharon and the uproar they caused. For those who don't know, Mr. Robertson quoted the book of Joel where it says God has enmity against those who divide His land, and implied that Mr. Sharon's stroke might've been divine judgment. I actually saw the episode of The 700 Club, Mr. Robertson's tv show, where he made his remarks and I know they were misconstrued, perhaps deliberately so, by the media. What really fascinated me though, was why people reacted so viscerally to what Mr. Robertson said, or what they thought he said. I think I have an answer. People don't want a just God; they want a "good" one.

Most people don't want a God who has standards and holds people accountable for breaking them. This is true even of most self-identified conservative/evangelical Christians. I heard a few of them on Bill O'Reilly's radio show the day after Mr. Robertson made his statement. They expressed outrage and/or embarrassment over the remarks and were keen to distance themselves from them. "My God is a good God" was the general attitude of these Christians, "good" apparently meaning that God doesn't punish people or even have rules the breaking of which could lead to punishment. But if that's the kind of God they worship, they don't worship the God of the Bible.

The God of the Bible is good, but He also has commandments and moral absolutes. Our postmodern culture rejects moral absolutes in favor of moral relativism in which nothing is really wrong. It seems many Christians have absorbed that postmodern spirit but rather than admit it try to "Christianize" it by saying that God is "good", i.e. permissive and non-judgmental. Consequently, He would not have punished Ariel Sharon with a stroke because He doesn't have a standard of right and wrong. It's utterly astounding to me that people can call themselves Christians and read the Bible yet totally miss that the God thereof judges people and nations. What do they think the Flood, or the plagues on Egypt, were all about if not judgment for wickedness?

But, comes the usual protest, I don't want to know, let alone worship, a God who could flood an entire civilization or kill a nation's first born. That's cruel! So, they want a "good" God who lets evil reign unchallenged. Another favorite complaint, usually lodged by atheists, is that God can't exist or be good when there's so much evil in the world. God has to do something about evil before I'll believe in Him, these people say. But when God does do something about evil they call Him cruel! Sadly, confusingly, many Christians are in this camp. These people, believers and unbelievers alike, want to have their divine cake and eat it, too. They want a "good" God who, by their definition, can't judge people or intervene in human affairs to punish evil, yet they demand "doing something about evil" as proof that God exists! Talk about a catch 22.

I think a lot of people who claim to be Christians need to be honest with themselves about what they really believe and then realize they have to make a choice. They can have their "good" God who smiles indulgently at everything they do, or they can have the Biblical God, who doesn't. They can't have both. Lets hope they choose the true one.

Christian Heritage Clubs

2006-01-13T10:43:00.000-06:00

Hi everyone! Again, I apologize for not posting for a while. My dsl was down even though my acount was paid in full and it took a while to get it back up. It's up now, and I mean to keep it that way!

I was thinking about my last post while I was offline. I think I have an idea for Christian kids to really be salt and light in the public schools if their parents insist on keeping them there; it's called Christian heritage clubs (CHC). Actually, I've been thinking about this idea for a while, years in fact. The basic idea is like a Bible club only better, much better.

I don't know about you, but the Bible club in my high school was nothing to write home about. The kids in it were nice and sincere, but unless you were invited to their before-school prayer meeting, you wouldn't have known the Bible club existed. That's not what I envision a Christian heritage club to be. No, CHC's are to be active, vibrant, even controversial participants in public school life.

These clubs are to teach other students, and even the teachers, the truth about the Christian heritage of America and Western civilization. As such, they will necessarily be adversaries to the secular humanist orthodoxy controlling public education. The kids in CHC's will have to be committed Christians, strong in their faith and KNOWING the history thereof. They'll also have to be committed Americans and Westerners and well versed in the pivotal role Christianity played in the development of both. Of course, they won't get that knowledge in public schools nor, sadly, will most of them get it from their parents or churches. They'll have to be knowledge go-getters combing the library and the 'net for the truth themselves. Once they've found the truth they can start their CHC. And then what? Lots of things.

A CHC could publish a newsletter detailing America's Godly heritage. The newsletter could tie in with a holiday or a topic in class. For instance, a November newsletter could disspell the myth that the Pilgrims gave thanks to the Indians, and not God, on the first Thanksgiving. Or if a history class was studying the Crusades, a CHC newsletter could give a pro-Christian perspective on those conflicts. Getting such an unpc, unmulticultural newsletter approved for distribution on public school grounds might be hard, but the resulting publicity could be good for the club.

Other things CHC's could do are: print t-shirts promoting the club; hold debates with members of opposing clubs, like a gay rights club; invite Christian/conservative speakers to the school; hold special events on days that are important in the history of America and/or the West, but which go unnoticed by the schools ( for instance, have a Charles Martel Day on Oct. 10, the day the Frankish king defeated invading Muslims in the Battle of Tours in 732 AD); hold a pro-Christian/pro-family short story contest, then publish the winning story in the newsletter; always wear red, white, and blue on 9/11. These ideas are just the tip of the proverbial iceberg.
CHC'ers should get wildly creative in what they do. The possibilites are endless!

I hope this post will inspire the creation of CHC's all over America and even the world. If Christian parents really want and expect their kids to be salt and light in the public schools, then they should get them started on CHC's right away. I think that'll be a great way to take the bushel off of the lamp and get the salt out of the shaker.

Sunshine Christians

2006-01-01T02:09:00.000-06:00

First, Happy New Year to everyone! I hope 2006 will be better for, and bring much needed blessings to, all of us.

Second, I apologize for not posting in such a long time. My dsl was down due to lack of money and I just got it back up Friday. I'm happy to be posting regularly again and ask for your prayers that I'll have the money to pay the dsl bill next month!

I was thinking about a lot of things while I couldn't post. Since it was Christmas time the "War on Christmas" controversy took center stage in my thoughts. I listened to talk radio and heard all the horror stories about retailers not saying merry Christmas, the usual suspects criticizing Nativity scenes, and public schools banning the colors red and green because they were too Christmasy. Of all these stories, the ones about public schools interested me the most because they aggravated a problem I've had for a long time with Christians about their attitude toward public education.

I don't disagree with Christians' criticism of the public schools. They really do seem to have become seminaries of secular humanism, and not just at Christmas time. The problem I have is with Christians' unwillingness to really do anything about the situation. They love to complain about the spiritual, moral, and academic decay of public education yet the vast majority of Christian parents send their kids to--you guessed it!--public schools. I don't get it. If public schools are as toxic as many Christians say they are, why do so many of those same believers not take their kids out?

A few years ago, a couple of men whose names I can't remember introduced a resolution at the Southern Baptists' Convention calling on Christians to remove their children from public schools. If memory serves, they actually said that it was Christian parents' duty to do so. The resolution was defeated. One of the reasons given for the defeat was that abandoning the public schools would be too "radical", and make Christians look like the intolerant fanatics humanists already believe them to be. It was felt that Christians shouldn't play into the stereotype. Another reason for the defeat was the idea that Christians had to be salt and light in school. I found both of these reasons to be cop outs.

Christians are supposed to follow Christ, not the world. Pandering to the prejudices of Christ haters is not "living the Christian life". While Christians shouldn't be different from the world just for difference's sake, they should willingly depart from worldy ways as much as following Christ dictates. Certainly this should be so when it comes to the spiritual and moral well-being of their children. But that doesn't appear to be the case. Apparently, many of the faithful are sunshine Christians, loving their salvation but totally unwilling to sacrifice for it. That explains the pandering and the "salt and light" theory of public school attendance. Rather than admit that they aren't willing to make the lifestyle changes they'd have to make to take their kids out of public schools, many Christian parents say their kids are being salt and light in those schools. What little morality still exists in state schools, they argue, would vanish if their kids left. Oh how holy that sounds! Never mind that such rhetoric allows these people to claim the label Christian while living lives indistinguishable from the unbelieving world.

Now do you see my problem with a lot of Christians? Much of the controversies over things like Christmas could be avoided simply by Christian parents taking their Biblical authority seriously and giving their children a Godly education. That means not sending them to public schools if they are as bad as Christians have made them out to be for the better part of a generation. To those who don't want to make the necessary sacrifices, I say you can't put you child in the lions' den then complain when he gets eaten. To the salt and light crowd, I say a mass, or merely sizeable, exodus from public schools would probably get them scrambling to genuinely reform themselves, making them better, and more religion friendly, for the kids who stay. Thus, leaving public schools could be the best way to make them taste the salt and see the light.

But it's the churches, not an unchurched blogger, who should be telling Christians this. Instead, most churches seem committed to keeping their congregations comfortable in their shallowness. No "hard" sermons about sacrifice or being different from their neighbors when Christ demands it. Just a lot of fluff about how God wants them happy, healthy, and wealthy. Never mind that their children's commitment to a Christian worldview is being systematically destroyed by an institution that most Christians trust more than God. And they wonder why they're losing the culture war!

Christians need to put up or shut up. They should take their kids out of public schools or stop accusing those schools of spiritual rape. Their integrity is on the line. Sunshine Christianity won't do. It's either the real deal or no deal. The choice is theirs; I hope they make the right one.

Another Little Miracle

2005-12-17T15:06:00.000-06:00

Hi everyone! I know it's been a long time since my last post. My dsl is down at home due to lack of money, so I haven't been able to do anything on my computer except play games. I'm writing this post from my second home, the public library. Hopefully, my next post will be from my own computer.

As I said, my dsl is down because I haven't been able to make a payment for this month. However, I did get a little financial miracle today. I found $20!!!! It was just lying there in the parking lot at Albertson's. I noticed it as I pulled in. I thought it was probably only a dollar, but I got of the car to get it anyway and when I picked it up it was a twenty!!!! It was dirty, so it probably had been blowing around for some time. I immediately thanked Jesus for sending me the $20. I've been praying for some financial help and it came in a way I definitely didn't expect. Of course, I still need a lot more money, but that $20 made me feel like God cares enough about me to hear my prayers. I'm taking this as a good sign and I'm going to use this as a starting point to try to trust God more. I hope I won't let God down.

Merry Christmas everyone!

PoorGrrl

P.S.
My new boss had a killer Christmas party at her house last night. I may be getting some Christmas spirit after all!

Merry...Winter Solstice?

2005-12-10T23:17:00.000-06:00

Well, Christmas is practically here, and I don't have any Christmas spirit. I don't mean to sound like a Scrooge, but Christmas is almost just another day to me, and not just because this will be the first Christmas without Daddy. I haven't had any Christmas spirit for years, and I think I know why. I don't feel any connection with the religious aspect of the holiday. Yes, I know that Christmas is supposed to be the celebration of Christ's birth, but that never had much significance for me.

When I was a child, Christmas was anticipated because of the presents. Santa Claus, not Christ, was the "reason for the season". My family was nominally Christian and we sang all the religious carols, but Jesus never figured prominently in our celebration of the holiday. A nativity scene was never part of our Christmas decorations. If Christmas fell on a Sunday, we didn't go to church. I'm not saying that the holiday was meaningless for my family, or that the meaning was only materialistic. I'm just saying that the religious importance of Christmas wasn't emphasized.
For my family, Christmas was for the kids and when the kids grew up, Christmas "grew down".

Now that I'm grown I have a hard time taking Christmas seriously as a religious holiday. I strongly oppose the efforts by secularists to erase Christmas from our culture, whether in the name of "diversity", separation of church and state, or what have you. But I oppose them because they're trying to commit historical genocide by wiping Christians out of America's history as thoroughly as racists wiped out Blacks. I don't oppose them because I'm personally committed to Christianity.

Would this time of year be easier for me if I was a committed Christian? No, because then I'd have to deal with the consistency problem. In fact, I'm dealing with it even without being a Christian. And just what is the consistency problem? It's the problem of why an originally pagan holiday like Halloween is rejected by many conservative Christians, but equally pagan-in-origin Christmas isn't. That's right, Christmas is pagan! It was a celebration during the winter solstice meant to ensure the return of the sun. Every Christmas tradition, from the carolling, to the gift-giving, to the very date itself, was practiced by pagans in the worship of their false gods. If a Viking, a Druid, or an ancient Roman were to come back from the dead during Christmas, he would instantly recognize the holiday. Yet tv preachers like Pat Robertson happily immerse themselves in Christmas while sanctimoniously disapproving of Halloween.

This inconsistency really, really bothers me! I expect more from people who claim to take God and His Word seriously. If God said His people are not to be "unequally yoked" with darkness, are not to learn the way of the heathen, are not to worship Him the way the goyim worship their idols, didn't He mean it? Isn't syncretism, the mixing of false with true religion, supposed to be anathema to Christians? But Christmas is different, some will say. Halloween is about occultism and Satanism; Christmas is about the birth of Christ. No it's not. Christmas is about the rebirth of the sun, period. It is totally, 100% pagan. Just like Halloween. So if Christians reject one, they have to reject the other; accept one, accept the other. If the Roman Saturnalia, the Viking yule log, and the Druid evergreen tree can be Christianized, then so can the carving of faces into pumpkins.

It's time Christians took a long, hard look at themselves to see just how much they're really following Christ. Jesus told the Pharisees that they had made God's Word null and void by their tradition. Are His followers doing the same thing today? I fear they are. And that's why I don't have any Christmas spirit.

Merry Winter Solstice.

$57.86!!!!!!!!!

2005-12-09T20:46:00.000-06:00

I got it! I really got it! My first check from my new job! It's only $57.86, but it's the most beautiful $57.86 I've ever seen! Now I can buy some food, gas, and a few other things and not have to fear going without for a few days. This won't put a dent in the bills that I owe, but it's a start. It's a teeny, tiny miracle. Sometimes, God is good.

A Prayer Request

2005-12-09T10:58:00.000-06:00

I have a prayer request. Don't worry, it doesn't involve asking for money, at least not directly.
You see, I crochet and I've had several crocheted bears and baby afghans in my friend's antique and craft store for about three months. I started making the bears and afghans to earn some extra money, but I've only sold one bear and no blankets. Money is very tight for me right now and I need all I can get. I've prayed ever since I put my items out that they would sell, but God doesn't seem interested in answering me. So I'm asking any committed believers who stop by my blog to please pray for my items to sell. I'm not trying to take away sales from other people who also have things in the store, I'm just trying to make an honest living. I hope God will hear and answer your prayers for me because I desperately need it! Thank you and God bless!

A Teeny, Tiny Miracle?

2005-12-09T09:31:00.000-06:00

Good morning, friends! I hope your day is going well. Mine is, at least so far, and I think God just might've had something to do with it. Come along and see if you agree.

I got up this morning and got ready for work. As I was letting my car warm up I started praying. I've just started a new job, which I'm grateful for, but since I didn't have a full-time job for three months and a part-time job for one, I'm flat broke. I'm literally down to my last two or three dollars. So I was asking God for a financial miracle. In my mind I was thinking something big and dramatic, like hundreds of dollars coming seemingly out of nowhere. Childish I know, but hundreds of dollars are what I desperately need to even begin to catch up on my bills. At the very least, I was hoping far a little something so I could buy some food, gas, and a Christmas present for my great-niece, Madison.

Well, I get to work and discovered that I was supposed to be there at 1pm, not 8am! I didn't get upset though, which was a miracle in itself because I don't deal with change very well. Instead, I was happy for the chance to come home and spend the morning drinking cocoa and blogging. But before I left work, I asked the toddler teacher what she wanted me to do with the babies since I was going to be in her room this afternoon. She showed me her schedule, then I remembered to ask what the pay schedule was because I hadn't had a chance to ask the director. Here's where the miracle comes in: we get paid every week! Every Friday is pay day!

Now that might not seem like a miracle to you, but it sure does to me. This means that I'll be paid today for the two days I worked last week. I'll have money for food and gas now instead of having to wait another week which would mean I'd go hungry. Plus, with pay day being every week I can start to build up some income sooner and have money for Madison's present. I asked for a financial miracle and I think I got one! Now I have to make sure I don't sabotage myself with doubt.

Doubt is a big problem for me because so many times I thought my prayers were answered but they weren't. I can count on one hand the times I know for certain that God answered my prayers. God has been so arbitrary in my life, answering a few relatively minor requests then letting really big needs go unfulfilled. That makes trusting Him very hard. But maybe that's the meaning of faith, believing not just in God but in His goodness even when He doesn't show it. That's a daunting task. You can be a giant of faith, like C. S. Lewis, and still sink into an abyss of despair over God's enigmatic (in) actions. If that can happen to the giants, what's to become of faith midgets like me? I guess we just have to cling to our teeny, tiny miracles. They may be the only ones we get.

Daddy

2005-12-06T16:15:00.000-06:00

There are many reasons why I have a love/hate relationship with God. Of these, the most potent, and painful, is unanswered prayer. I'm not talking about simply not getting what I asked for from God. I'm talking about being misled to believe that I was getting what I asked for, but wasn't.

I know using the word "misled", in reference to God, will shock and/or offend many people. God wouldn't/couldn't mislead anyone, devout Christians/Jews/Muslims will say. God is Truth; it's simply not in His nature to deceive. Surprisingly, I agree. I believe with all my heart that God is Truth, and that He can't lie. But I can't reconcile that belief with what happened with my father.

My father, my Daddy, died of cancer this past February. He fought the disease for an heroic 11 months before it finally consumed him. It's not Daddy's death that I have a problem with. I know that human beings aren't promised eternal life in our physical bodies. I know that God does sometimes heal people of terminal illnesses, or raise them from the dead, at least in Biblical days; but all those so healed or raised eventually got sick again or died again. Thus, physical healing, even by God, is only a temporary solution to the problems of sickness and death.

My problem is that I prayed fervently for Daddy not to have cancer in the first place, and was led to believe that that prayer was being answered, only to have the devasting truth discovered when it was already too late.

What happened was this. Daddy started inexplicably vomiting and having stomach pain in the summer of 2003. He didn't like to go to the doctor, so he just put up with it. The symptoms got worse. Daddy got to the point were he was afraid to eat because he'd figured out that was what triggered the vomiting and/or stomach pain. Still, he declined to see a doctor. Finally, in October 2003, he couldn't take it any longer. On a Tuesday night, Daddy had my Mom and her brother take him to the emergency room. I came home from work to find the house dark and empty, and immediately feared the worse. During this whole time, I suspected cancer because the symptoms were so severe, but was praying that I was wrong. When I got to the hospital, I thought my prayers had been answered. Daddy was diagnosed with diverticulitis, a colon disease that makes it painful to eat cartain foods. He had all the symptoms. He was given a prescription and allowed to go home.

I left the hospital praising God. Diverticulitis! No Cancer! God had heard me! I didn't know how wrong I was.

Despite the medicine, Daddy kept getting worse. In fact, he stopped taking the medicine after a while because it made his stomach hurt just like food did. I kept praying. Daddy got a different medication to control the nausea, but it didn't work either. He got thinner and thinner. He either couldn't hold his food down, or he just wouldn't eat to begin with. He went back to the hospital and had I don't know how many different kinds of x-rays. Finally, one showed a tumor in his colon and the doctor said that's what was causing the problems. I got down on my knees and prayed like Daddy's life depended on it. I begged God to let the tumor be benign, and it was! Again, I thought my prayers were answered. Again, I was dead wrong.

Daddy got worse and worse. He got so thin, he looked like an Auschwitz survivor. Thursday, February 19, was it. I'd had it. I told Daddy he was going to the hospital. Mom called the
family, and we took him. About a week later, doctors found a blockage in Daddy's colon that all those other x-rays had somehow missed. It was removed, and proved cancerous. In fact, Daddy had cancer scattered, like grains of rice, all over his abdomen. I was devastated. For months, Daddy had been getting no cancer diagnoses from doctors, diagnoses I'd taken to be answers to my prayers. I'd praised God for answers He'd never given! But He let me think He'd had. I don't know about you, but "deceit" is the only word I know to describe what happened.

If God had said no from the beginning, it would've been different. Yes, I would've been hurt but, as I said above, I understand that people don't have immortality in our physical bodies. Eventually, I would've accepted God's no as Him allowing the inevitable to occur. But why the deception? That's what I don't understand. Why did God allow things to happen that He knew I'd take as answers to my prayers, only to have the truth crush me later? And it's not just my feelings that were damaged. Daddy lost valuable time to those false diagnoses. He could've had six more months of chemotherapy if the cancer had been found in October of 2003. God allowing me to think that He was answering my prayers may have cost my Daddy his life.

I know that's hard for devout folks to hear. But I suspect that even among the most devout believers are people who're struggling with bitter experiences like mine. They are struggling to reconcile what the Bible says about God with reality. And, frankly, the two don't fit. I think that's the unspoken dread in most religious people; that the irreconcilible differences between God and reality will explode in their faces in ways that can't be papered over with neat platitudes. There're certainly no platitudes that can explain what happened with my Daddy. God allowed things to happen that made me think He was answering my prayers when He wasn't. If a fellow human being treated me like that, I'd call him a con man. Why should I feel any different about God? Tell me. I really want to know.

Welcome to God and Me!

2005-12-05T21:44:00.000-06:00

Hello friends! Welcome to "God and Me". To those of you who know me from my first blog, PoorGrrl Zone (PGZ), glad you decided to stop by! For you newbies, hope you like what I have to offer.

"God and Me" is going to be the place where I'll try to sort out my somewhat confused relationship with God and religion. As friends of PGZ know, I'm an unchurched believer. That is, I believe in God but don't attend church or identify myself formally with any organized religion. But if I have to call myself anything, it would be a strong Christian sympathizer. I am, as I like to say, unchurched but not anti-church.

I believe the Bible is the word of God. I believe in the doctrines of orthodox Christianity; but I'm not totally comfortable with all of the implications, as I see them, of those doctrines. Hence, "God and Me". With this blog, I'll explore my confusions, dissatisfactions, and disappointments with faith, especially Christianity. Maybe, if I'm lucky, people who're much more mature than I am in (the) faith will read my blog and provide me with some answers or, at least, a new way of looking at things. So, once again, welcome to "God and Me". Hope you enjoy the journey.