Custom Vs. Worship

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.

A Problem With "Purity"

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.

A Slight Problem With Carrie Prejean

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.

Do You Agree With This Guy?

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.

Don't Blame The Church First

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.

Bleeding Bride

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?

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.

"Christianism"

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

Book Review: Serenity

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

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.

Clean Up the Airwaves?

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.

Christian Heritage Clubs

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

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.