Moral Contradictions

I'm back (and I've moved)

2007-02-28T01:11:00.000-05:00

The time has come - if you so choose, follow me to http://moralcontradictions.org.

Grace and peace,
Nathan

Jesus was a fatty

2006-12-17T21:17:00.000-05:00

This great article, found via Howie Luvzus, is worth five minutes of your time.

Quick Question

2006-12-11T19:19:00.000-05:00

As the end of the semester is so close yet so far away, I recently heard a story that troubled me. No this is not for a final nor is this something recent or currently happening as this occurred 10 years ago.

I'm curious as to how you, as a youth minister, would respond if one of your students confided in you that they smoked pot for the first time. This student is fairly active - not as committed as one would like, but at the same time they are there for most activities and Bible studies. The student is facing college and is obviously recognizes that what they did was wrong and is looking for some sort of guidance.

How would you react? What would you tell the student? What is your objective and rationale in its achievement?

I'll post what happened Wednesday afternoon. There is no one right answer but I want to see if there is any consensus or not.

//This is one way to keep this thing going while I'm crazy-busy - have you all do the work while I finish tests!

Update - First of all, thank you Dusty and Mac for your thoughts. I think both situations would work well if done with an obvious dose of love and intention.

What happened: The youth minister's first response was "well, either you tell your parents or I will - which will it be?". The result is that this particular person has not been in church since.

At what point is a youth minister a friend, and at what point are they a parent? Do they need to be a parent? Do parents look for them to act like one because they do not have the time or desire to do so themselves and expect them to be a miracle worker?

Whichever method of handling the situation is chosen, I believe the common foundation is love for the student and respect for them as young adults. Loving and respecting them means that you can counsel to do the right thing, yet recognize that they must make that choice on their own.

Part of the reason I asked this was because I have been struggling with the divisiveness and lack of love within the Christian tradition. The essence of our faith is Christ, and the essence of Christ is love. If we cannot love our own, how can we be an effective representative of Christ to those who do not know that love?

Thanks again for the answers and thoughts. Feel free to blast away at my mini-sermon... :)

Long time no write

2006-11-26T20:10:00.000-05:00

So yeah, I'm a slacker. Actually, I kind of wish I could say that. The full brunt of seminary has reared its head in the last few weeks, along with job changes and new business ventures.

I started this blog in an attempt to work out feelings and emotions caused by confusion and frustration regarding everything from Baptist life to national politics and everything in between. Moral Contradictions has allowed me the opportunity to connect with new people, new ideas, and it has challenged me to put words to those feelings.

Seminary has taken that challenged and exponentially increased it, but now I'm lucky if I have words to turn in for an assignment. On top of that is a new website design firm specifically for smaller churches and non-profits, a new part-time job, new friends to hang out with, old friends to catch up with, and a mortgage to pay and cat to feed. :)

So for now, as has been unofficially done for the past couple weeks, Moral Contradictions will not receive the attention it needs. If you need to contact me, email me at na than -At--- njwhite.com. (take out the spaces and dashes and replace "At" with the email at sign).

I reserve the right to occasionally post when so led, but who knows when that will happen. I'll have six weeks off and a vacation at Disney in a couple weeks, so we'll see.

Single issue convention

2006-11-14T23:05:00.000-05:00

The Associated Baptist Press reports that North Carolina Baptists have passed the strictest rule against homosexuality and "exclude from convention membership any church thought to affirm homosexual behavior."

Oh nice - "thought" to affirm. That sets a nice precedent to substitute truth for accusations.

A Winston-Salem pastor, Nathan Parrish, notes the irony that the convention moved to narrow the definition of cooperating churches while the Convention met under the theme "Cast a wider net".

What really bothered me was ethics professor Dan Heimbach of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, a member of the recommending committee, "said that although there are many sins, homosexuality is the one challenging the church."

So, does this mean that divorce, adultery, and domestic abuse are not challenging the church, or at the very least not important? Dr. Dan Bagby, professor of marriage and family life at Baptist Theological Seminary at Richmond wrote that as a frequent speaker in church, he is aware that:

(a) most Baptist pastors offer no premarital care or counseling to their parishioners; (b) very few Baptist churches require any kind of pre-marital counseling; and (c) most parishioners with whom I am acquainted have no interest in receiving pre-marital counseling (I wrote a book on the subject for pastors).
If we are serious about “protecting marriage” as God intended, why doesn’t someone offer an amendment that would prohibit divorce? That would scare a few more people from taking marriage lightly.
Or, perhaps, offer an amendment that prohibits remarriage? Since both of these are “God’s intention,” why are we not espousing them as state laws to be enforced in Virginia?

I am not saying that homosexuality should not be ignored - rather, I contend that it serves as a smokescreen preventing the church from recognizing true threats to marriage. Another school of thought, to which I agree, argues that a sin is a sin is a sin. Just as Dr. Bagby posits, why shouldn't we start codifying into law decrees against divorce or force all couples into pre-marital counseling?

I don't have any answers to this complex issue, but I'm ready for someone to put forth ideas that don't wreak of hypocrisy and blame passing.

Due Criticism

2006-11-13T21:45:00.000-05:00

I often criticize those from the right about misrepresenting Christianity, but Brian Kaylor over at For God's Sake Shutup! points out an outrage from the left: the Church of England calling for killing severely disabled babies at birth.

No.

No.

No.

*sigh*

No.

Real Family Values

2006-11-13T10:42:00.000-05:00

Ethics Daily has an article about a Baptist in North Carolina who ran an improbable campaign against the incumbent Republican. Larry Kissell of Biscoe, NC, was not offered any national Democratic money, yet the race is still undecided.

I admire his definition of family values, especially after 12 years of Republicans only relegating their family values to election time.

"Our families deserve more than empty moral posturing from an incumbent that votes to reduce efforts to collect child support for struggling families, makes it more difficult to obtain student loans and goes out of his way to vote for torture," he said. "The hard working families of the 8th District and our nation deserve a commitment to education, economic opportunity, civil rights, personal freedoms and the safe, clean environment that we all want for our families.

"We've had enough of the nonsense from the incumbent aristocracy in D.C. that has proven they'd rather wedge us apart than bring us together. It's time for an honest debate on real family values."

Yes, family values such as protecting unborn babies is critical, but the definition of pro-life does not stop there. The goal of simply protecting life is unfulfilled when these children do not have health insurance, grow up in abusive homes, do not have access to adequate public schools, and are not educated about how to become productive members of society.

If the government is charged with protecting life, then it should be allowed to protect those who are born. We need more candidates like Kissell in both parties who live in the real world.

Wolves 1, Sheeps 0

2006-11-04T22:51:00.000-05:00

"Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves." Matthew 10:16.

I didn't think the wolves would be fellow Christians.

Via Raw Story and Time, David Kuo has some excellent thoughts which bear honest consideration:

"At the end of the day, this comes down to bringing Jesus into politics," he says. "Right now, it's not Ted Haggard on trial. It's Jesus. This is about the God he represents. When you make yourself a public figure and you fall, you bring the perception of your God with you."
"Jim Dobson's response was particularly telling," Kuo says of leading evangelical James Dobson. "He basically blamed the controversy on gays and Democrats. When evangelical leaders can't see beyond Tuesday on any question, what on earth is happening?"

What's happening is the perversion of the gospel by those who become consumed with themselves, their quest for power, their cultural values, and seem to believe that their interpretation of the Constitution was left out of their Bible.

Apparently a sin is not a sin if it hurts politically. Kinda sucks to compromise your faith simply because you put God in your own box, right?

Actually, it sucks for me because instead of telling others about the Gospel I have to explain the lies and dispel the deception and hypocrisy spread by these folks. Thank you, Dr. Dobson, for making our job that much harder.

Luckily, God is bigger than all of us, and He will prevail when it's all said and done. Why can't we all be happy just working for God's will instead of trying to dictate it to Him?

Response to letter writer

2006-11-04T21:43:00.000-05:00

I would send this to the Religious Herald, but it won't be printed in time for the election. Read what prompted me to write this response.

Dear Mr. Coburn,

You are most certainly entitled to your opinion, however I must disagree with your narrow definition of biblical standards. Certainly abortion and homosexuality are important issues in which Christians must engage, but I would be slower than you to assign God and His Holy Word to a specific party.

When I read the Bible, some standards that stand out in addition to the two you identified are:

Working against Poverty (Blessed are the meek)
Working for justice (Jeremiah, Micah, Gospels, etc)
Ending corruption of power (early Israelite Kings...)
Preaching against the love of materialism (Gospels)
Working for good stewardship of the Earth (Genesis)

Those are just some that quickly come to mind. Issues that face voters Tuesday of which Christians must engage are:

Rampant governmental corruption
The deficit and its ramifications for our children
Hypocrisy by religious leaders
Thousands of deaths in an unjust and dubious war
The growing gap of the richer getting richer while the poor are, well, in relation, getting poorer
Off-shoring off millions of American jobs overseas
Lack of health insurance and education opportunities for millions of Americans
AIDS and other health issues throughout the world
People in our own country unable to pay for energy bills or food

We Christians have a tremendous opportunity to speak to a wide host of issues and work not only for two moral issues, but for a wide range of issues that include deep moral and ethical questions.

The Bible speaks to much more than abortion and homosexuality. Those two issues may seem the most critical to you, but I daresay they are not that important to those who work two jobs to pay for food or health insurance, or those who pray their kids don't get sick so they won't miss work and risk getting fired, or to those who just moved out of homelessness and cannot afford furniture for their new apartment in the projects.

We are called to have the faith of a child, but even a child can see homeless people on the side of the road needing a representative of God to send a loving word and some help.

Ditto

2006-11-04T19:54:00.000-05:00

I have to agree with Mike...

The American church is apostate - it's sold out to power, consumerism, unchecked capitalism, and ignores injustice. Oh yeah, it's also latched arms with a corrupt government.

I'm a Christian and I'm a an American, and I'm ashamed of not only what's been done, but not done, under those labels.

Wealth Redistribution

2006-11-03T14:40:00.000-05:00

On earlier posts I've been accused of advocating wealth distribution even though I was not, in fact, saying that nor insinuating it. However, Bill Moyers connected a few dots in my head in that he says that wealth redistribution is already occurring. It's just that the wealth is concentrating more at the top as opposed to the bottom, and intentional steps have been enacted to make it so.

Over the past few years I've experienced folks who live in their own reality. They make over six figures, drive whatever car they want, go to whatever school they want, live wherever they want, and vacation where they want. They cannot fathom that others simply do not have those choices and how that affects them. They operate in a world within a world and thus develop a blind spot to those less fortunate than them. Government is not just a nuisance, but a must to survive. Should it be that way? No.

If the GOP is truly concerned with family values, then they should move away from defining them in terms of protecting children from sex education, the "homosexual agenda", and start defining them in assuring adequate education for all.

If the GOP is truly concerned with family values, then they should move away from defining them in terms of protecting marriage by 'stopping the gays' to defining them in protecting them from the effects of no health insurance, higher living costs, lower wages, and a crumbling infrastructure.

What good is our country if abortion, stem-cell research, and homosexuality is stopped and middle class families cannot afford to go to the doctor? Can't afford to visit Grandma in Tennessee because of high gas prices or can't take time off for fearing of being fired and replaced? Can't afford to not have both parents work and have one home after school? (It's well known in my hometown that most of the immoral debauchery decried by parents occurs in the 2-3 hours after school before the parents get home.)

I was ashamed the lack of concern for those without as my wife and I moved up through the middle class to upper-middle class. Having everything I wanted jaded me, I hate to admit, and I don't ever want that to happen again. I can understand how many people who have never gone without what they wanted or needed can simply not see the systematic problems our country is facing today. Our country is breaking, and something must be done, or we will face a day of reckoning. And no, we cannot assume Jesus Christ is coming tomorrow, so yes, we must work on a solution.

Does this sound shrill and alarmist? Probably. However, we as Christians, in good conscience, cannot just wink at the status quo and ignore the injustice all around us. However we address it, individually, through churches, or through government, we should not be afraid to challenge the excesses of runaway capitalism. Remember, we live in a democracy first, where all are created equally.

I could go on and on and on. Thanks to Bruce at Mainstream Baptist, Bill Moyers can write a much more erudite essay expressing my feelings. It's long, but it's a great read. I'm still critically chewing on it, but still, I can readily agree with the gist of it. We must open our eyes to what's going on, and until we do, nothing will be solved about the income distribution that's already happening.

When you're done, take a gander through the book of Jeremiah and see what happens to an unjust society. For those who like the read the Bible in apocalyptic terms, find anything interesting about the fact that the Babylonians are the ones conquering the country? :)

I'm not the only one

2006-11-02T21:44:00.000-05:00

Via Raw Story,

According to the Allen camp's logic, God would be a pedophile, too. After all, we Christians believe God inspired the Bible. And God-the-author chose to include the "sleazy" story about Lot offering to send out his young virgin daughters to be raped by the men of Sodom

The Bible has masturbation scenes, rape, pedophilia and God's favorite man – King David – warming himself with a young virgin in his old age. He's the same man God tells us committed murder after he indulged his peeping Tom fantasies.

Lucky for God-the-author that He's not running against George Allen.

The rest of the opinion column relates a story of another fed up Christian who identified with the Republican party for years, but finally threw in the towel after George Allen's latest shameless and desperate smear.

I'm at the point where I'd vote for a rock instead of George Allen.

A little bit of my perspective

2006-11-01T16:51:00.000-05:00

I was 12 years old in 1994. I remember Bill Clinton being sworn in 2 years earlier. The word Democrat was a bad word in my house as my parents were God-fearing Southern Baptists who voted Republican every time. Or at least I perceived that as so. I remember an excitement building among my parents and my church as the low of a Democrat in the White House started rising to a high with Republicans having a chance at taking the House. The three words that kept being repeated over and over everywhere were "Contract with America".

I don't remember specific conversations or articles or whatever - I was 12 after all. The feeling that stayed with me was the perception that Republicans were orders of magnitude morally higher than Democrats. If they were elected, this country would be so much better than it was.

My best friend's parents were Democrats and I just did not understand how. I mean, they were good people - nice people - so why didn't they vote Republican? Hadn't they heard just how bad the Democrats were? Why weren't they voting for the Republicans?

My most critical and formative years were between 1994 and 2000, between 12 and 18. During those years I took a Civics class in 8th grade when all my friends began their language. I got a 99 in AP US History and a 5 on that test, as well as an A in AP US Government and Comparative Government, taught in the same year and same class period, and got a 5 on both tests. I read the newspaper as much as I could. I was somewhat of a politics junkie.

I was immensely proud that the current Speaker of the House of Delegates in Virginia attended my church. I would brag about it at school, as if anyone cared. I would follow the news out of Richmond as well as DC. Being in the Washington television area, national news was local news, and the shock and appall surrounding Monica-gate absorbed me and my family. Everything around me exuded Christian-right, Republican politics and beliefs. Everything.

Until those three words "Contract with America" started creeping back in my awareness around the time I started college. Republicans gained the White House and a couple years later gained the Senate as well, solidifying control of DC. My childhood experiences told me this was a good thing, especially in the wake of 9/11.

As we've seen in the past few years, with the ill-planning and questionable means used for war in Iraq, lack of response during Katrina, sex scandal cover-ups in Congress, Enron and other companies collapsing, Big Oil taking in the biggest profits ever, gas prices increasing as housing costs go up, ethics committees neutered as corruption abounded, issues that are supposed to be engaged through faith rather than culture or discrimination, on and on and on and on...

...I've had enough.

TWICE Republicans have beat their chests and said 'we are morally righteous and so much better than those Democrats", once in 1994 after 40 years of one-party rule, and once in 2000 following the aftermath of the Lewinsky affair. TWICE I bought into it. TWICE I believed that they really were the party that represented my beliefs and of upstanding moral values.

TWICE now I've been let down. I've had enough.

A post over at Crooks and Liars prompted me to read through the 1994 Contract With America. Read it for yourself and compare it with how Republicans are acting now.

Please do not read this as cynicism - I'm talking about the atmosphere in which I grew up. This is just my perspective, which I believe is as valid as any others' perspective.

Are all Republicans bad? No. Are all Democrats bad? No. Will I ever fully trust a political party to do what it says and "buy into" their platform as morally superior than another? No. I have to try hard to not repeat the same mistakes with Democrats now than I did with Republicans in 1994. I hope they will make changes, and I think they will. Am I getting my hopes up? No. Something tells me I'm destined to be a freaky Independent who votes for the opposite party every 4-8 years.

To conclude, who says history is useless? Let's go back to September 27, 1994, when 367 GOP House candidates signed this Contract on the steps of the US Capitol at the unveiling of their promise to America should they win the House.

They pledged: "If we break this Contract, throw us out".

Do what they told us to do.

A quote

2006-10-26T21:55:00.000-04:00

I came across a quote in one of my classes pulled from the October 16, 2006 edition of Time. Karen Tumulty, in the article "The End of a Revolution" says that:

Every revolution begins with the power of an idea and ends when clinging to power is the only idea left.

I could not help but think of the long view of the history of Baptists in the South. United with the fantastic idea of taking the Gospel to others beyond our borders, the largest incarnation of that group is sacrificing members by narrowing parameters for cooperation to cling to the idea of power.

I'm currently writing here as an excuse not to work on my 20 page paper for Christian Tradition. The point our textbook's author pounds is that Christ must remain at the center of the church. One essence, many forms. My understanding of how to practice my faith varies with other Christians, and that's okay, as long as Christ is the focus.

The day we succumb to temptation and put ourselves in the center is the day we are in trouble.

It's their fault

2006-10-26T14:48:00.000-04:00

Republicans are upset at leaks concerning Justice Department probes into alleged corruption because they could threaten their majority.

As the age-old maxim goes (also a Biblical one), power corrupts. Unchecked power vested in one party, yet again, has resulted in the quagmire of morality that is Washington DC. Only this time it didn't take a impressionable intern.

I don't see what the anger is about concerning the Justice Department's investigations - if nothing was done wrong and there isn't anything to hide, then Republicans shouldn't worry, should they?

(Via Raw Story)

Literal contradictions

2006-10-25T15:58:00.000-04:00

While taking a break from my Christian Tradition paper I am catching up on some of my blog reading. I am literally 1,000 posts behind as more are added everyday. While trying to knock that number down, something connected in my little brain. I may be totally off-base, but bear in mind that I am asking a question and do not have an answer yet.

The majority of Christians believe in transubstiation; in other words, when the bread and the wine are blessed at communion they become the literal body of Christ. Contrary to the triumphant Baptist tradition in which I was raised, this may be a shock to some as many are used to viewing this act in a symbolic manner. Unlike the Roman Catholic tradition, the Orthodox church has not tried to explain this belief - it's a matter of faith and though I disagree, I admire them.

The majority of current Southern Baptists along with Christians of other conservative denominations hold fast to the unbiblical word "inerrant", believing that the Holy Spirit, acting as God, used humans as a vehicle to move the pen on the scroll and write down the Holy Scriptures. In their circles, it's not enough to say the Bible is authoritative, inspired, and something to treasure, live by, and faithfully study. One must speak the word 'inerrant' as much as possible for a ticket of acceptance, else folks like myself are accused of not believing the Bible. Nevermind that word is not found in the Bible or in the Baptist Faith and Message 2000, but whatever floats your boat.

I'm getting beyond myself, but the point is this: How is transubstiation dismissed as impossible, yet complete divine authorship is readily accepted?

In my mind, transubstiation has a Biblical edge when the statement "this is my body" is literally read, whereas "this book is without error" cannot be found. (Disclaimer: I have not taken Hebrew or Greek yet, so maybe I have a "liberal" translation or don't know enough yet to find it).

Furthermore, I have not taken a theology class yet, so maybe it's easier to believe that the Holy Spirit prefers human vehicles as opposed to those made of starch and alcohol and I am simply an ignorant fool.

Even though us Baptists believe the elements are symbols rather than actual flesh and blood, we still hold the act of communion in high regard - so high we usually only do it once a month so as to not take it for granted. To my knowledge, no one accuses us of not believing in Jesus' sacrifice because we do not believe the literal words of Jesus and agree with those who do.

Thus, if limiting the Holy Spirit's power in symbolizing communion does not take away from the meaning and importance of the act, why do some folks consistently dismiss those who disagree with the method of inspiration of the Bible as not believing the Bible? To me, saying the Bible is authoritative, inspired, and worthy of studying and living out is on the same level as considering communion as a holy sacrament despite disagreeing with the Catholic and Orthodox belief of the Holy Spirit's literal interaction with the ceremony.

Does that question make sense? I am merely trying to read the Bible for what it says and not assume I know what it says (or should say). I know it is impossible to be objective, but it is also impossible to be perfect, yet we are called to strive towards perfection.

Please bear with my ignorance and slight sarcasm, but my brain threw up a "Compare and Contrast" flag and I'm just throwing it out there.

A snapshot of all that has gone wrong in Iraq

2006-10-21T23:01:00.000-04:00

We all know things have gone wrong in Iraq, but with the number of soldier's deaths increasing and God knows how many Iraqis' killed, Bill Maher has some advice for the 'think-tanks' that painted such a rosy picture to convince America that this war was necessary. Take it or leave it, but I had a hard time disputing his rationale.

Via Crooks and Liars:

And finally, new rule in two parts: (A) You can't call yourself a think tank if all your ideas are stupid; and (B) If you're someone from one of these think tanks that dreamed up the Iraq War and who predicted that we'd be greeted as liberators, and that we wouldn't need a lot of troops, and that Iraqi oil would pay for the war, that the WMD's would be found, that the looting wasn't problematic, that the mission was accomplished, that the insurgency was in its last throes, that things would get better after the people voted, after the government was formed, after we got Saddam, after we got his kids, after we got Zarqawi, and that whole bloody mess wouldn't turn into a civil war, you have to stop making predictions.

This is wrong

2006-10-20T21:57:00.000-04:00

I interrupt my vacation to state that this is wrong.

Helping the hungry on base - Many military familes rely on donated goods.

(h/t Waldo Jaquith)

Truth, truths, and a post!

2006-10-18T12:23:00.000-04:00

I really do miss writing here, but one thing I'm learning is that I have to get my reading and writing done at odd times. Today is a great example - I was reading a book for class while waiting for an oil change and saw a couple things that sparked my interest. Now I find myself at home typing over a cat on my lap, trying to get this done before we pack up to go to the beach for fall break.

I have started way too many projects and am trying to tie some of them up while a couple are on hold. I recently went down to part-time at my job, allowing me some more free time, which I hope will be reflected here. I'm starting some sort of hybrid ministry/business that will help churches obtain an easy-to-manage and affordable (and attractive!) website. I firmly believe that this can be a vital tool for ministry and outreach, especially to the 6 out of 10 former youth group members who have fallen away from the church.

So the mission and focus of this web design shin-dig I'm starting up is one thing that's on my mind, so the part of the book that stood out to me goes along with that as well as other ideas and thoughts, if you can call them thoughts, that float around in my head.

The book is Soul Searching, The Religious and Spiritual Lives of American Teenagers by Christian Smith. The author is a sociologist who loves numbers and charts a bit too much, but the following two things struck me and I'm not sure if they're related.

First, there's a chart detailing the percentages of youth ages 13-17 who currently consider themselves non-religious and lists the faith tradition in which they grew up. Three main Christian categories exist: Catholic, Protestant, and "Just Christian". The Just Christian category, in the author's mind, represents youths where church attendance was nominal. 22% of non-religious youths were Catholic, 22% Protestant, and 20% Just Christian.

The Protestant category is broken down by denomination, and Baptists represent 9%, or 41% of identified Protestants. 9% of youth today who consider themselves non-religious were raised Baptist.

This simply could be due to the sheer volume of Baptists in the country, as Luthern is second place at 4% and Methodist and Pentecostal at 2%. Whatever the reason, it is not something to be proud of and needs to be recognized.

Next was a quote by a non-religious 17 year old interviewed for the project and book. He had a pretty good life going, although it was hard for awhile, and was raised as a nominal Catholic. One observation he made during the conversation about his turn-offs from church was "I often see people get stuck into trying to find the truth in religion and they shut out the world around them."

I had two professors and a Bible study leader in the past two days discuss Truth versus many truths, and thus I've been wrestling with this whole Truth deal. In our post-modern age, many folks subscribe to a notion that what works for others may not work for them, and that's fine. Many in the evangelical side cling to Truth and approach evangelism with a "here's what you don't have, I have it, and you need it" mentality. Bible bashers - with the love of Jesus, of course. That tactic does not have much chance succeeding when put against a person who believes in multiple truths. You lose their respect, you come across as arrogant, and any chance of seed-planting is gone.

Now, I'm not saying good-ole evangelism should cease - I believe it still has a place at the table for outreach as many folks are looking for a solid and firm answer. However, there are multiple forms of evangelism, and one way is to engage folks where they are at and then share stories of God's work and help them come to Christ.

I'm hoping this little web thing I'm starting on the side will help reach out to folks who live a big chunk of their lives online. Tactics that worked 50 years ago, 25 years ago, or even 5 years ago need to be re-thought - not for the sake of merely trying something new for the novelty of the thing or to disrespect tradition, but we need to re-evaluate their effectiveness, as well as their theology. Website outreach is one way of evangelism that needs to be fully understood and utilized.

So yeah - Truth, many truths, and how to convey Christ in a post-modern world. Who said this was easy? :)

As Forrest Gump says: that's all I have to say about that.

Unjust allies

2006-10-17T10:33:00.000-04:00

I am continually struck at the blind allegiance many Christians give to political parties. Certainly today we hear more about the Religious Right as their party is currently in control of both Congress and the White House, but Democrats cannot be excluded from this wide-sweeping statement.

Usually this allegiance is given by the promise to fulfill their particular intrepretation of the Bible. All that makes the news seems to be abortion and homosexuality, issues that must be engaged, but often at the expense of the rest of the Bible's teachings. Often times Christians in opposite parties, in a reactionary way, totally ignore the pet issues of Christians in the other party, no matter the Biblical justification.

By sticking with one party, Biblical teachings will be compromised. There is no way around that. Christians who align themselves with Democrats yet are against abortion may sometimes feel unwelcome at party gatherings. Likewise, Christians who identify with the GOP may not speak out, or worse, champion the excesses of the corporate wing of the party.

Today in the church, too often the Old Testament and Prophets are at best ignored and at worst maligned. In Jeremiah, we know that God is not happy with His people, but often times the reason why is not explored, or Jeremiah is merely used as a tool to point to Christ or the an apocalypse. Jeremiah's temple speech commands that:

For if you truly amend your ways and your doings, if you truly act justly one with another, if you do not oppress the alien, the orphan, and the widow, or shed innocent blood in this place, and if you do not go after other gods to your own hurt, then I will dwell with you in this place, in the land that I gave of old to your ancestors for ever and ever.

Amos goes on to proclaim "Seek good and not evil, that you may live; and so the LORD, the God of hosts, will be with you, just as you have said. Hate evil and love good, and establish justice in the gate;..."(5:14-15a).

Of course the prophet Micah reminds us that "He has told you, O mortal, what is good; what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?"(6:8).

We know that God judges and that he abhors sin, but we cannot simply gloss over those teachings of the Old Testament. If we are to believe in the entire Bible, we must wrestle with these commands and not simply dismiss them with some sort of convienent theology.

Likewise, we must have the courage like the prophets and boldly proclaim what God commands us to say and do. Sure the prophets are immortalized in the Holy Bible forever, but they were not especially popular people back in their time. Even when Jerusalem was under siege, Jeremiah was in jail because he was considered a traitor for suggesting that Judah would pay for its sins.

God cannot be confined to one political party. The Bible cannot be the sole property and interpretation of one political party. Why has this happened? My layman's view is that it's too easy - vote at the polls for the politicians that speak your language and God will be pleased. There's no committment, no cross to bear, no narrow path - just show up at the polls once every other November and your duty is done.

I would love for someone to point out in the Bible where it says that following God is easy. The Bible was not dropped from heaven as some sort of rulebook or clear-cut guideline - we have to wrestle with all the teachings and understand what they say. We cannot pick and choose abortion and homosexuality or focus only on poverty and the suffering - if we say we believe in the Bible, we must read it with an open mind to see what it really says, and not what we want it to say. We must read the entire Bible, or else we pervert what God may be actually saying by attempting to think for Him.

We must engage all the issues and not sell out Biblical teachings so that we may curry political favor. I pick mainly on the GOP because they're currently in power, and we've witnessed how power can corrupt (which is another theme in the Old Testament that's routinely ignored, but we'll save that for later). Else, we may ignorantly find ourselves committing the same errors as the ancient Israelites which drew God's wrath.

Is there any surprise?

2006-10-14T12:11:00.000-04:00

I have been saying since I started this blog that evangelical Christians who put their faith in President Bush were simply being used to gain political power. Any objective person who merely glanced at the news in the last six years could see all the talk about how important they were as the "base", yet most of the benefits went to the corporate and military wing of the party. How's that for irony?

I started writing this blog not to attack these Christian conservatives, as I share some of their beliefs. Rather, I wanted to expose my belief that their unquestionable faith (which they're starting to question, finally) in DC was misguided and even idolatrous.

Big Daddy Weave has a great clip from the Keith Olbermann show detailing David Kuo's book called "Tempting Faith", a book that I want to read.

President Bush has let you down - God never will. Remember, there's a difference.

Newt and I agree again

2006-10-05T14:07:00.000-04:00

I saw this quote concerning the sex scandals of late from the esteemed (*cough cough *) Newt Gingrich:

"What we don't have to do is allow our friends on the left to lecture us on morality," Gingrich said at a party fundraiser in Greenville. "There's a certain stench of hypocrisy."

That's a valid point. I mean, if it was so easy to listen to members of your own party preach to the left on morality, only to suffer the indignation of having it thrown back at you, I would be upset. Really, when you stand on the pulpit above everyone else, you get to point out the problems of others while condemning those that recognize the same problems within your party.

So yes, clearly the stench of hypocrisy stems from the left. Clearly.

Seriously, how do authentic Christians, who strive to follow Jesus daily, swallow this bull? Will the real Christian statesman please stand up?

Update: Thank you Steve B for the George Will link. Will says it much better than I can:

Their story, of late, has been that theirs is the lonely burden of defending all that is wholesome. But the problem with claiming to have cornered the market on virtue is that people will get snippy when they spot vice in your ranks.

Will goes on: "His [Mark Foley's] behavior was disgusting, and some Republican reactions seem more calculating than indignant." Someone tried to preach to me that what separated Republicans from Democrats was not that Republicans claimed to hold a higher standard only to abuse the public trust, but rather dealt more swiftly with errant members. We're finding that out to be untrue, and I'm sure a little investigative work would turn up more examples.

I cannot count how many times I have heard ministers, politicians, and everyone else preach that morals are not relative, but absolute. How is comparing one party's morals to the others absolute? We may have messed up, but not as bad as them. Why not say we messed up, period? Only until the sin is fully acknowledged and blame accepted can forgiveness and atonement occur.

The Republican Party has no one to blame but itself. It has turned into the monster it has repeatedly condemned and feared, and only objective analysis and soul searching will allow them to swallow the consequences and attempt to restore its integrity and move on. Else, the shear level of cynicism toward American politics, not to mention Christians, which is my main focus, will burst through the roof, and everyone loses.

Adjusting

2006-10-04T19:59:00.000-04:00

My world has been fundamentally altered forever within the last three months, so I beg forgiveness that I have not been able to write here as much as I want to. Not to delve too personally, but I'm dealing with:

Starting seminary

Changing churches

Re-evaluating my current employment

Finding personal and marriage time

All while this is going on, I've stumbled across some unexpected feelings dealing with the incredible amount of transition we are undergoing. It was unexpected because, well, I didn't expect it, but reflecting on it I should have. I do not know too many people that can handle all that in a smooth manner.

I anticipate working through it with no problem. I thank God for a strong marriage in which I can honestly communicate what's going on without fear of retribution or rejection. I also thank God for being God and being patient with my rambling prayers as well as being a comforter and peace-giver.

Suffice to say that my head will stop spinning and be on straight at some point, and we'll see if I can give more attention to this little project.

I must say that I am unsure if this is coming at an inconvenient or convenient time with all the happenings in the news. Soon I do want to hash out an opinion on the Virginia constitutional amendment being proposed. This whole Mark Foley deal just upsets me as more details come out about the lack of inaction all around. Additionally, the culture of corruption, lying, and half-truths wears on me, so for once I feel grateful for being allowed to stick my head in the sound and deal with personal issues.

Anyways, thanks for faithfully stopping by even though it has been slow. I always say I hope it picks up, but truthfully I cannot say that for sure. God bless.

Those who work yet do not receive

2006-09-30T21:59:00.000-04:00

Between working full-time and going to school full-time, I'm a little behind the times. I read an article a few days ago the Richmond Times-Dispatch which impressed on me again that those who go without health insurance are not just the poor - they are the working poor.

I applaud the commonwealth for its efforts in trying to decrease the rate of uninsured children. Currently 1 in 11 go without health insurance.

I really don't know what the solution, if it feasibly exists, should be. However, I do know some things:

A. Again, this is a moral issue that receives short-shrift because the emotional gut-reaction is not widespread.
B. Healthy children grow up to be healthy adults, and thus can contribute more to society and have a better chance of attending college and obtaining substantial employment. The article mentions the risks of skipping routine check-ups.
C. This is not a class issue: 70 percent of uninsured children come from families where the income level is twice the level of poverty, or $33,200 for a family of three.
D. This is not a race issue: In Virginia, 27 percent are African-American and 17 percent are Hispanic - totalling 44 percent.

"These findings destroy some of the stereotypes that exist," Pollack said.

Families USA said that despite gains in enrolling children with insurance, the rate of uninsured children has increased since 1998. And there are wide disparities from state to state.

In Virginia, 9 percent are uninsured, while in Texas the percentage is more than 20 percent.

The figures suggest that uninsured children will represent a huge cost burden as time goes by. For instance, less than half experienced a well-child visit in the past year. Uninsured children are three times more likely to have unmet mental-health needs and nine times more likely to have other unmet or delayed medical needs.

How do we as Christians address this issue?

Family values...

2006-09-30T09:37:00.000-04:00

"It's vile," said Rep. Mark Foley, R-West Palm Beach. "It's more sad than anything else, to see someone with such potential throw it all down the drain because of a sexual addiction."

No, this wasn't said about himself, after resigning from Congress Friday because of improper emails with a 16 year old boy, this was in relation to President Clinton.

What happened to the Republicans? Have they no shame? Where did this whole 'we'll restore dignity to the White House and DC' go?

With Rep. Bob Ney's conviction regarding corruption and the whole Jack Abramoff scandal, not to mention Tom Delay's resignation, I was told that sort of behavior was impossible, for these were good Christian men.

Shame on those Christians who claim that Jesus would vote Republican, or for those who cast Democrats out of their churches.

How is this a Christian value?

How is justifying torture a Christian value?

How is lying to the country to justify war a Christian value?

How is corruption a Christian value?

How is ignoring American and International law a Christian value?

And for Virginia and the illegal immigration debate, how is racism a Christian value?

I guess this is what happens when you present yourself as holier-than-thou... anytime you set yourself up higher than humans and closer to God, gravity's humbling mechanicism kicks in.

Update: Just saw that Foley was the chairman of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children. Nice.

Not class warfare

2006-09-22T21:28:00.000-04:00

The term "affordable housing" triggers the mind to think "housing for the poor". Not so. The economic trends of the past thirty years have seen cost of living increases substantially suprassing salaries. Of course, I don't have to mention the signficant rise of CEO salaries in relationship to that of employee's wages.

What do you do when firefighters, as mentioned in this article in the Richmond Times-Dispatch, cannot afford to buy a house because the market under $200,000 doesn't exist?

Clarke said his father, who works for the state police department, bought a 2,000-square-foot home in Chesterfield in 1986. At the time, his father was making about $30,000 and the home cost $70,000.

Nearly 20 years later, Clarke makes $36,000 a year and that same house is valued at $250,000.

"The cost of housing is still outpacing salaries," Lafayette said.

Am I the only one who sees this as a moral issue?

The desire and benefits of homeownership may cause couples to work longer hours or farther away for higher wages, sacrificing family time and increasing stress. Gone are the days of single incomes for many folks. Another option is for families is to move farther away from their jobs, such as this firefighter, adding time away from home.

This is not lower class people we're talking about - it's middle class folks, making a decent living, trying to get by, who must work much harder and longer to achieve what their parents were able to.

I understand that many of these factors are systematic and is economic in nature, but the historian in me says "it doesn't have to be this way." Nothing is inevitable. Still, I don't understand enough about economics to explain how this situation arose nor do I know enough to recommend a solution.

I am recommending that we Christians, if we really want to focus on the family, should start focusing on real, everyday issues that families actually do focus on, such as making money to give their children a decent life. With high rates of divorce plus studies that show financial disagreements as a major cause of marriage breakups, this issue needs input and concern from the Christian community if we want to be relevant to the problems society face.

Straight to the heart

2006-09-17T14:04:00.000-04:00

I read this article last night before bed in this past week's Newsweek. I thought about certain quotes I wanted to post here, but after reading through it, I'd recommend you to read the entire thing.

This is the reality - the reality that not only are our men and women dying overseas, but the toll their deployment takes on the families left at home. The military is stretched - we've invaded two countries and now in the end of 2006 neither one can be considered stable.

This article makes me ashamed of the government that led us to war. Justified war is fine and necessary, but why have the justifications changed so often?

Further, why does it seem the leaders that haven't served in the miliary are the war's biggest backers while those who have served are the most critical? With John McCain, the former POW in the Hanoi Hilton, having to stand up to the President on torture instead of assuming everyone knows his story and would agree not to treat our prisoners that way. Secretary Colin Powell, a highly decorated veteran who clearly loves his country, having to stand up to the hot air coming out of DC and defend himself, instead of being listened to.

And to top it off, the Administration is eyeing Iran? How are we going to accomplish this?

When you get a chance, read Jonathan Alter's "An Alternate 9/11 History". In a time that called for statesmanship, I think we are lacking.

The real attacks on marriage

2006-09-15T14:30:00.000-04:00

Former Senator John Danforth explains how anti-homosexual marriage amendments, touted as protecting the institution of marriage, are simply red herrings:

"America's divorce rate is now over 50 percent, and marriage is under attack from a number of quarters: finances, promiscuity, alcohol and drugs, the pressures of work, cultural acceptance of divorce, et cetera...But it is incomprehensible that one of these threats is when someone else, whom we have never seen, in a place where we may have never been, has done something we don't like."

Maybe we should look at shore up marriage by taking steps to protect our own, instead of throwing stones and worrying about others.

Despicable torture

2006-09-13T20:03:00.000-04:00

I'm late on this one, but I have to say that I am ashamed of the President's conduct and his witness as an American, let alone Christian, in regards to torture.

Yes, we need to protect Americans. I don't disagree with that. But hasn't the uproar fostered by Abu Ghirab techniques taught him anything (besides the fact to move prisons to secret CIA locations)?

We all want the same end, but they do not justify every single possible means. Yes I want this country and this world to be safe, but if we have our safety yet not integrity, what do we really have?

Smoting, she-bears, and society

2006-09-13T11:46:00.000-04:00

Yesterday a professor began class with two passages of Scripture. In a pseudo-serious voice he charged that to make this a Bible class we had to frame it and open the Good book. He proceeded to read from 2 Kings 2:23-24:

He (Elisha) went up from there to Bethel; and while he was going up on the way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him, saying "Go away, baldhead! Go away baldhead!". When he turned around and saw them, he cursed them in the name of the LORD. Then two she-bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys. (NRSV)

Of course my professor did this in jest and we all had a good laugh, but the passage stuck with me. Another professor noted today how the church is no longer the 'center of town' and has lost the prominence of societial focus.

I grew up not too long ago, and there were no such things as soccer games on Sunday or what have you. Church was made a priority in my life, and when I grew old enough I chose to make it a part of mine. I'm not part of the generation that knew blue-laws and such, but even still, Sunday was special. One took a break - although it seems today in our churches, members have not come back from their break. They still hold Christian values and may vote them or occasionally open the Bible, but the church and its mandate seem forgotten.

The power of God, through His Holy Spirit, is beyond our comprehension. The mysterious wind that carries His strength is not something that can be elected or legislated. Growing up I learned that "one plus God can do anything". Our country has seen several Great Awakenings, all with arose from the power of the Holy Spirit, not that of Washington DC. I can go on about how great God is and how He's worked through our country and world, even when working with us sinful humans.

I agree that there has been hostility from certain corners toward the church in our society, but an objective analysis of why is required. Not to contradict Elisha, but how many times, as Christians and the church, have wished that we could sic large wild animals on someone or an institution and just be done with it? How many times has that tactic been employed, and does that correlate at all with the increased opposition?

The church, through the power of the Holy Spirit, can do great things - and great harm. Off the top of my head the word "Inquisition" comes to mind. When we are attacked or encounter segments in disagreement, we must engage with those elements in our society and culture. Reactionary condemnation cannot be the first and only solution. According to Jesus (we are Christ-ians after all), the two greatest commandments are to love God and love each other. The natural employment of His teaching is that in every action and saying, we do it in love.

I grieve when the church engages issues such as homosexuality, abortion, stem-cells, church-state, immigration, etc, without love. Sure, there is love of the Bible and the unborn, but what about love for those who disagree? By standing for the Bible, are we in fact turning more folks away from God in our witness? I can respect someone that passionately disagrees with me, but will do me the honor, in love, and listen to my perspective. I know it's not always that simple, but I cannot shake how simple Jesus' commands are. Love one another.

When love fails or is ignored, the quickest reaction of many, I suspect (only because at times I've been there), is to simply call fire and brimstone from the heavens and smote our opposition. It worked for Elisha, but something tells me that should not be applied for every situation.

Nothing about our faith is easy. Let me repeat that: nothing about our faith is easy. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a false prophet. In the deepest valleys of life when we are persecuted and abandoned, cheap grace pays out its real value. Loving friends is much easier than loving enemies, yet Jesus simply said "love one another". Are we allowed to be angry, frustrated, and annoyed? Yes! How many families put the "fun" in dysfunctional?

Our faith is a journey - in order to reach point Z , we must travel through A, B, C, D, E...etc. That's why it's often referred to as a "daily walk". The ends do not justify the means, even if someone is attacking our faith or our church. God is big enough to handle it, and we should be too.

In times of persecution and in the face of opposition, don't let she-bears be your witness as God's called servant and follower.

Obligatory 9/11 post

2006-09-11T08:54:00.000-04:00

A few weeks after 9/11 my father drove me by the Pentagon on the way to my flight back to school. I'll never forget cresting the hill on I-395 in Arlington as DC spread before us and noticing the blackened hole immediately. A sharp anger welled up inside of me, but took comfort in that we had the world's sympathy and we were looking toward Afghanistan, and daggumit we were going to get Bin Laden.

Never would I have imagined that five years later our country would be mired in an occupation in Iraq, and all of our infrastructure support and country-building were nowhere near Afghanistan. Bin Laden is still alive, being used as a prop to continue justify war, yet efforts to find him have screeched to a halt.

We all knew that life would change after 9/11, but not like this. We were like sheep looking for a shepherd, only now that the shock has worn away, we're wondering why we're not in a different field.

I'm not sure what saddens me more - the events and tragedy of 9/11, or the tragedy that has been the last five years.

No post-invasion plan, unfinished job in Afghanistan and with Bin-Laden, a war with dozens of justifications, continued violence in Iraq after "Mission Accomplished", and the paltry response and sheer negligence to a freaking hurricane.

Here's to hoping this country can get its act together and honor the heroes of that day five years ago without partisan politics or unneccesary destruction.

Morally grounded issues?

2006-09-07T18:56:00.000-04:00

Since Newt Gingrich started to publicly offer his opinion again, raising suspicion that his ultimate motivation is a four year sleepover at the White House, I've become nervous.

Why?

Besides having a weird first name (couldn't resist), he just doesn't sit well with me. As Speaker, he played hard-ball politics for the benefit of his party and at the expense of the American people. He comes across as an opportunistic politician, especially with his latest moves, that preys on the ignorance and reactionary senses of voters, resulting in political gain, but not much else.

His eleven points for victory this fall for Republicans are interesting, as in completely misguided and out of touch. His first goal is to make English the official language. With a couple thousand dead soldiers, terrorists still actively seeking to attack, and record breaking profits by oil companies at a time when millions of children go without health insurance, I think there are more pressing moral concerns.

What will officializing the predominant language do, anyways? Please explain to me how prejudice does not play a part in this move, as I have a difficult discerning a pure motive. Will it outlaw signs in Spanish? Do we have a sudden problem of immigrants not learning English? Furthermore, doesn't that essentially curb freedom by compelling someone to learn the predominant language? If someone wanted to live the American Dream, wouldn't they naturally seek out ways to learn English on their own?

Further, how is the death tax a "morally grounded" issue? Or property rights and energy dependence? I'm sure moral aspects of these issues exist, but from the view here they make up a minority of the reasons to pursue that agenda. Hunger, illness, and the growing gap between rich and poor all seem to have clearer and more urgent moral components, don't they?

Finally, I believe he is completely off-base about his proposal to fix the failing schools of Detroit. Something tells me that pulling federal funding is simply of punting an issue that only bolsters the Republican agenda while leaving poorer Americans worse off. An explanation of why teachers aren't able to help students graduate faster would be a start. A purely economic view is a cheap and souless perspective that ignores the human element of the issue - a bit of sociology is needed to comprehend what's really happening.

These eleven issues were written in a way to "return to the American values that twice elected Ronald Reagan and returned the House to a Republican majority with the Contract with America." Democrats lost in 1994 because they "had lost touch with the American people."

Mr. Gringich, you've lost touch with the American people. Maybe making English the official language will help Republicans win in November, but how does America benefit as a whole? The list you are proposing is simply a shallow attempt to divert honest and distressing discourse from issues that contain much clearer moral components.

BTSR Orientation part 2

2006-09-06T16:26:00.000-04:00

I'm definitely excited. Thank you all for your comments in the last post. Today was more laid-back and us incoming students had more opportunities to get to know one another.

I was nervous about getting all the classes I wanted, but I did. I have all the books I need and was able to save money because Kristen already had some of them. Tonight is reserved to be a quiet night where I'll clean off my side of the desk, clear a bookshelf, and clean the cat hair off the bookbag (orange fur plus black bookbag is real attractive).

I'm taking:

Exploring Ministerial Identity - Dr. Tracy L. Hartman
Introduction of Biblical Foundations - Dr. F. Scott Spencer
Introduction to Christian Traditions - Dr. Phyllis Rodgerson Pleasants
Models of Youth Ministry - Greg Randall

I'm glad I'm able to take Foundations with Dr. Spencer, and am definitely looking forward to Dr. R-P's class. I know she'll work us hard, but I can't wait to learn the material. I'm not sure what to expect out of Dr. Hartman's class, but I know it's necessary and I am eager to see what's what. Greg's class will be great - he's neat and I know it'll be enjoyable and challenging.

The Student Government Association Moderator made a great point - the school has only been around for 15 years, and the 3-4 years we'll be there makes up a significant portion of that time. A lot of 'bugs' have been worked out and with Dr. Grave's resignation, transition is in the air, coupled with an expectation fulfilling much potential.

I know my life will never be the same, and I'm ready. Classes start tomorrow, so who knows how this blog will be affected.

Orientation...

2006-09-05T21:51:00.000-04:00

Overwhelming. That's an understatement. Lots of information, anxiety over whether I'll get the classes I need, but definitely the excitement of beginning a new adventure.

I'll spare you all the details, but will post the classes I'm taking as they'll most likely influence what I write.

I'm definitely impressed with the faculty, staff, and my colleagues. I'm very glad I'm at BTSR.

Just a bit nervous about that whole class thing...

GOP and terrorism - "a phony issue"

2006-09-04T19:53:00.000-04:00

So... what was that about Republicans trying to pin 9/11 on President Clinton, despite President Bush ignoring warnings received on a month-long vacation that Osama was determined to attack the US?

History's great - forgetting history creates irony.

So why did the GOP block President Clinton's initiatives to try stop terrorism? Fairly, I think we can all agree he was trying - if his solution wasn't good enough, then where was the GOP proposal?

Either way, I think if anyone is to take blame other than the most-vacationed President (who still has 2.5 years left), then the blame needs to be properly placed.

(via raw story)

Woo!!

2006-08-31T15:24:00.000-04:00

Today I received word that I am now fully accepted into the M.Div. program at BTSR. I was originally accepted for non-degree status, thus allowing me time to gather my full application this fall to be submitted before the spring semester. I would still be able to take classes for credit, but because of timing, I didn't want to rush references and the church recommendation. (I originally didn't think I would be able to start seminary until next year until after Kristen started, but praise God I was able to start this year).

As a non-degree student, I wouldn't be able to register until after everyone else did, severely limiting my choices for classes. Upon learning that, the admissions folks were great and gave me a window to get my full application in quickly, and I cannot thank them enough.

I even received a merit scholarship, which is awesome and really helps out.

I'm so excited... orientation is Tuesday. Though the past couple weeks were stressful in trying to get paperwork in, it's all done and I can now be focused on just being a student. Woo!

Biblical questions

2006-08-30T21:31:00.000-04:00

In pre-reformation years, lay Catholics ~~were not allowed to read the Bible for themselves~~ did not have very many opportunities to hold the Catholic Church accountable (thanks Sophrosyne!). The printing press revolutionized the world, and quickly after Martin Luther starting asking his questions, his writings formed the most popular books.

One result of Rome controlling the interpretation of the Bible was the allowance of secret and unbiblical practices to flourish without question. If you questioned the Church, you were questioning God. Stake burnings were a powerful silencing tool.

In Southern Baptist life, why have blogs come under fire from leadership? It's simple - no, it really is. In a convention that prides itself on democracy, blogs have allowed those outside of power an effective tool to pose questions and disseminate opinions amongst the laity.

Proof of this incredible effect can be see by the election of Dr. Frank Page as President in June of this year. Inconsistencies were noted, the "party" line was questioned, and business-as-usual received a violent wake-up call. Bloggers can now quickly coalesce together to shine light in previously dark corners, showing all the world what they find.

Are blogs like the modern printing press? That can definitely be debated, yet the view here acknowledges similar results and reactions. The "dissenters" become emboldened and more organized, while the establishment are afraid and condemn the technology. These are generalizations, as there are those within the institution that blog, and there are bloggers who disagree with the folks who helped elect Dr. Page.

What happens from here within the SBC is unknown, except for what is known: self-appointed watchdogs versus a resisting establishment always creates fireworks. Adding faith and southern culture will make it all the more interesting.

How do moderate Baptist bloggers, such as myself, respond? Personally I act as an interested spectator. I try to refrain from commenting as it's not my struggle.

One thing to remember is that moderate bloggers do not share the same stimuli for starting blogs and organizing online. The SBC bloggers share a common desire for accountability - what do (or can) moderate bloggers unite around?

As tempting as it is to bash "the other side", we cannot identify ourselves by what we are against but what we are for. Watching the SBC bloggers has taught me that we actually share quite a bit in common, but the differences we do have are definitely stark.

Eliminating poverty is one idea that has been proposed. What else? Part of Moral Contradictions' focus is to identify the logical inconsistencies arising when faith intersects politics - there's plenty of room for more on that subject.

Next week I start school and this blog will change. I'm working on a project to help increase moderate Baptists' presence on the web. The Mainstream Baptists group blog has been started and seems to be off to a great start.

What now for you?

Deja vu, Bob Jones style

2006-08-28T22:11:00.000-04:00

Oy... Senator McCain, I am not enjoying watching you sell out your principles for a Presidential run. First dropping campaign-finance... then Liberty, which I barely stomached, and then Bob Jones?

Say it isn't so.

Al Mohler has spoken...

2006-08-28T12:23:00.000-04:00

...so it must be so.

Dr. Mohler, I disagree with how you frame the issue of women ministers as being Biblically clear. I'm glad you seem to have all the answers and are not willing to a discussion of interpretation. It's good to have leaders who know exactly what God is thinking - it just makes our faith that much easier.

However, I have never received a straight explanation about how to deal with slavery in comparison to how women ministers are dealt. The Bible is clear in that it is acceptable, and your denomination used that argument for years to justify slavery in this God-kissed nation - yet it is now culturally unacceptable. How does the clear teaching of slavery jive with the clear teaching against women ministers?

Additionally, I am not clear on what the meaning of this statement:

And the fact is that men bear shame for leaving that vacuum into which many women have stepped. And there is blame among those who now will defend what I believe is biblically defenseless.

Why do they feel shame? Is it because women are willing, heck, maybe even called, to do what men have traditionally done? Do they feel shame for feeling inadequate in comparison to a little ole' woman? I wonder how many folks felt shame when little Miss Lottie Moon upped and left for China. Surely that was a man's job, now wasn't it?

Furthermore, the last quote of the article intrigues me:

The big issue for us all is to humbly come under the full accountability to the word of God. That's no easy task. But we better be very, very careful how we read and how we teach the word of God, so that we're not bringing our prejudices to the word, but are having our minds corrected by the word.

I'm glad to know that you strive to be a humble servant of God - it's such a relief to know that I can access your personal website from Southern Seminary's homepage and from there find all of your writings, commentaries, and even media photos. Our faith needs more humble folks like you along with their well-lit headshot. To God be all the Glory!

With reports of men standing up and walking out of meetings whenever women speak, or preaching professors teaching "women preaching are like dogs trying to stand up - they can do it, just not well" - I'm heartened to know that prejudice or shame isn't a factor at all.

Dr. Mohler, you ever wonder if your observation about very few moderate churches with women pastors could be because of proclamations such as these? It's amazing how many Methodist women ministers were former Baptists.

I see why the moniker Pope Mohler can be applied. It really is much easier now that you've declared your interpretation of the Bible as the only clear option - it's just so hard to figure out what the Holy Spirit says to us individually. I'm sure many Southern Baptists are thankful to have such a humble guard of their theology and interpretation of the Bible.

Heck, praise God for the Holman Christian Standard Bible - if you weren't able to control the interpretation of God's Holy Word, I don't know what would happen! Congregants may fall into heresy, or worse, a Martin Luther may rise up and birth a whole new movement of Separatists! Oh no!

//Sorry if I come across as sarcastic - My wife is currently in the interview process as youth minister at another church, so I really didn't need to read this today. I really don't buy into the whole humble bit, and I've really tried to look for examples of it, but between him and Paige Patterson (only the second link off Southwestern's page), I'm having a difficult time.

"Let's bomb some people"

2006-08-27T23:15:00.000-04:00

I was reading an article about how children of GOP leaders are embarrassing their parents, and came across this quote:

AS the leader of the Republican party in the US Senate and a possible presidential candidate, Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee has a reputation for sober rectitude. The same cannot be said of his son Jonathan, a Vanderbilt University student who recently appeared on the internet wearing six cans of beer strapped to his belt.

Nor has Jonathan’s brother Bryan done much to help his father’s attempts to strike a reasonable note about US involvement in Iraq. “I was born an American by God’s amazing grace,” wrote Bryan Frist in an online profile. “Let’s bomb some people.”

....

Roll Call, the Washington insiders’ newspaper published on Capitol Hill, recently reported that Jonathan Frist’s Facebook entry declared him a member of the “Jonathan Frist appreciation for ‘Waking Up White People’ Group”. It also mentioned a group where there were “No Jews allowed. Just kidding. No seriously”.

So.... these people are the folks courting the Christian vote? You see why I'm uncomfortable whole-heartedly joining that camp?

I'm all for Christians in politics, but I'm talking about true Christianity - not some perverted mix of nationalism, racism, egotism, and jingoism, along with a dose of Bible-thumping.

Count me out.

Racism - not just for politics

2006-08-26T13:00:00.000-04:00

A small Baptist church in Saltillo, MS, voted out a bi-racial 12-year old boy two-weeks after he accepted Christ because of fears he would invite "his people" to church.

Rev. John Stevens, to his credit, resigned after the vote by the small Baptist Missionary Alliance-affiliated church. He estimated over 80 percent of the church was against black membership.

Rev. Stevens recognizes that Christ died for everyone, and that He associated and especially loved those that were cast out.

A church Kristen and I are intimately familiar with denied hiring a youth minister six years ago because his wife was black. How often does this happen, yet doesn't make the news?

With examples of this, Senator George "macaca" Allen, Senator Conrad Burns, and Tramm "blacks can't swim" Hudson, is there any doubt that racism is alive and well? True gains have been made with time and new generations, but just because something is under the surface doesn't mean it's gone.

(Via Crooks and Liars)

D. James Kennedy - wow.

2006-08-25T10:50:00.000-04:00

I've heard this man speak, and I just don't get his draw. He comes across as the type of grandfather that you cannot imagine ever being a kid once - he was just born that way.

But I digress. Via Crooks and Liars is a blog that notes how Kennedy's Coral Ridge Ministries changed the description of the documentary with the thesis that the Holocaust wouldn't have happened if Darwin hadn't come along.

The old and new one:

The one-hour program features Ann Coulter, author of Godless; Richard Weikart, author of From Darwin to Hitler; Lee Strobel, author of The Case for a Creator; Jonathan Wells, author of Icons of Evolution; Phillip Johnson, author of Darwin on Trial; Michael Behe, author of Darwin's Black Box; Ian Taylor, author of In the Minds of Men, and Francis Collins, Director of the Human Genome Project.

This 60 minute special featuring Richard Weikart, author of From Darwin to Hitler, Lee Strobel, author of The Case for a Creator; Jonathan Wells, author of Icons of Evolution; Phillip Johnson, author of Darwin on Trial; Michael Behe, author of Darwin's Black Box, and Ian Taylor, author of In the Minds of Men will show why evolution is a bad idea that should be discarded into the dustbin of history.

Advancing your cause by cheapening the Holocaust, using shoddy research, promoting and then hiding Ann Coulter, and tricking scientists who want nothing with your program... Dr. Kennedy, you should be ashamed.

Woo boy

2006-08-24T13:56:00.000-04:00

I apologize for the lack of posts - The past two weeks have been quite busy as I'm trying to finish some projects before school starts after Labor Day. One project will be previewed here in the near future and I think it'll be quite cool.

I also am wrapping up the website for Hillcrest and helping Tabernacle re-write the code for their existing one.

Thus I haven't had time to poke around through too many news agencies or read articles or books that trigger soap-boxes.

Once school starts though, who knows what this will turn into.

Darwin, Hitler, and self-delusion

2006-08-20T21:06:00.000-04:00

Via Raw Story I came across an article about a video from D. James Kennedy's group that essentially blames Hitler on Darwin. I've heard this before, but the historian (and common sense) tells me that there's a bit more to Hitler's evil than that.

The quote that stood out was this:

This show basically is about the social effects of Darwinism, and shows this idea, which is scientifically bankrupt, has probably been responsible for more bloodshed than anything else in the history of humanity.

Hey, Mr. Producer guy - you may wanna read about the Crusades, Inquisition, Salem Witch Trials, and generally all the wars started because of religious differences. You use the word "probably" - the reason you can't be sure of that (other than the fact your theory is just that, a theory) is because the main competitor for most bloodshed in history is religion.

Dear Baptist Press, what world do you live in?

2006-08-18T11:30:00.000-04:00

To the editors and reporters of Baptist Press quoted in the Ethics Daily article titled "CBF Cries Foul Over Baptist Press Reporting", I'd like to ask a question:

When you call CBF's complaint a "straw-man argument" because Greg Tomlin "actively sought input from the CBF", how can you honestly say that? Mr. Tomlin, you called several SBC professors, and fair reporting seems to require you to call several CBF professors, right? Instead, you only called CBF headquarters and trumpted that fact at the beginning of each article for self-validation.

Will Hall, you allege that if CBF has been misunderstood it's because "t has never desired to help Southern Baptists understand its positions." Really? You honestly believe that the CBF hasn't engaged the SBC, even despite these types of shameful and unchristian attacks? Maybe you should read the page "Truth About CBF".

Mr. Tomlin, you question CBF's reporting of membership churches, yet your Convention seems to get a lot of mileage of always claiming to be the largest Protestant denomination with over 16 million members. Why did the Convention reject calls to accurately count members, which by some estimates would cut the total by two-thirds? Doesn't that action undercut your authority to criticize the CBF's method for counting?

Criticism can be good and can be constructive. Through this blog, criticism also involves self-inspection - that whole "eye-plank" thing. Maybe the SBC should focus on its own problems and leave folks that identify with the CBF alone.

I don't say this to be mean, but I need to be fair, since there's a deficit of that virtue in those articles: Does the lack of solid journalism arise from deficient reporting skills, an agenda of distraction from SBC problems, or the inability to simply process logic and fairness?

CBF Response

2006-08-17T16:56:00.001-04:00

Rev. Gil pointed out that the CBF responded to the dishonest and un-Christian attacks launched by Greg Tomlin of Baptist Press, the official news agency of the Southern Baptist Convention.

I won't re-hash my grievances of the shoddy journalism skills, circuitous logic, and simply off-the-wall conclusions, but I was most surprised by the math: There are 1.1 students in seminary for every CBF-related church, while only 1 student for every 4 SBC churches attends seminary.

CBF Response

2006-08-17T16:56:00.000-04:00

The Sabbath, or lack thereof

2006-08-14T11:29:00.000-04:00

Martin E. Marty over at ChristianPost.com wrote a column exploring the church's decline in American Christian schedules.

Kristen and I both grew up in households where our family calendar revolved around the church's calendar. Yes school and soccer practice and other activities were there too, but ultimately church was the most important.

Even now, I look forward to Sundays and Wednesdays. I remember how excited I was on Thursday afternoons when we had children's choir practice. When Christmas and Easter musical presentations were kicking into high gear there were weeks where I was at church six out of seven days.

I defined myself primarily as a Christian and member of Ferry Farm Baptist Church. Yes I also defined myself as an 8th grader, soccer player, and friend, but I was taught and came to appreciate that church was priority numero uno.

From the column:

Such change hits others. A half-century ago, most conservative Protestants fought for blue laws and against store-openings on Sunday, while decrying Christians' almost idolatrous indulgence in sports. Today preachers cut their sermons short so they can beat their members to seats at the afternoon pro football game. In some places these changes have led to decline of church attendance, while in others it has changed the character of allegiance.

...

I thought of T. S. Eliot's obituary to UK church life. These were "decent godless people: Their only monuments the asphalt roads and a thousand lost golf balls." Are Americans joining them?

I pray not - and I pray I can help reverse the tide in whatever way.

Leave us alone and get your facts straight

2006-08-13T12:34:00.000-04:00

Big Daddy Weave beat me to it, but I echo his questions and add some more. Why did Gregory Tomlin of Baptist Press (the official news agency of the Southern Baptist Convention) feel the need to publish not one, but two hack "articles" bashing the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship and its seminaries? On the same day? What's the reasoning?

To me, any time the SBC needs a pick-me-up, the CBF seems to serve as a great whipping boy. I admire CBF spokesman Ben McDade for declining comment. I however, take exception to the lack of journalism skills, attitude, and arrogance exuding through these "articles".

Each "article" has its logical inconsistencies, yet taken together, the intellectual dishonesty is magnified even more.

Tomlin's two "articles" charge that:

The CBF has failed in carving out a “unique niche among the religious bodies in the South”. No proof is given, and the article's logic later debunks this statement.
Amid accusations that SBC schools are no longer “Baptist”, CBF schools are not Baptist because of their various ecumenical relationships.
Students at SBC seminaries receive a broad perspective of views, unlike CBF schools.
Indoctrination is a good thing, only if re-defined by SBC seminary professors.
SBC schools have more students, and thus are inherently better.
The way CBF counts churches is dishonest and thus the stated number of 1,800-2,000 churches is too high.

He bases those charges on the logic that:

Bigger is better, even if it really isn't bigger.
Fair reporting is calling seminary professors at the SBC schools, and then only calling the CBF headquarters for comment, instead of their counterparts at CBF schools.
The SBC is right, and within its narrow parameters and male-dominant professors, allows more perspective than CBF schools with professors of both genders and ecumenical relationships.
Indoctrination is really not indoctrination, thus charges against indoctrinating in SBC schools prove that CBF schools don't teach doctrine.
Criticizing the CBF's counting philosophy is fair game, yet the SBC rejected membership counting integrity in June in regards to the number of baptisms, etc.
Comparing SBC and CBF schools overall, the SBC comes out ahead with five times as many students. Missing is the fact that the SBC has 24 times the amount of churches, yet feels the need to attack the CBF's reporting method, thus increasing that disparity even more.
Further, comparing the ratio of students compared to respective churches, the CBF comes out ahead with over 1 student from every church versus 1 student from every 4 SBC churches. Yet, Mr. Tomlin hopes you don't do the math and accept the shoddy logic given by him and his sources.

I think I found why Tomlin felt led to write his attack "articles". Yes the CBF is small, yes it is not perfect, and yes I wish it was bigger. However, the CBF seems to be sending proportionally more into ministry than the SBC. The CBF and other groups like the Alliance and Mainstream aren't going away. The SBC may have quantity, but the quality part is lacking, as the CBF seems to be just a bit more efficient, if you will.

Mr. Tomlin, as I've found on this blog, launching propaganda missiles at each other is useless and merely hurts the Body of Christ. You could've done much better than that.

Surprises

2006-08-10T20:20:00.000-04:00

I'd like to thank everyone for their encouragement with everything in regards to seminary and whatnot. I just realized that I need to get my bookbag prepped, along with notebooks and pens and whatnot, plus all the books.

Please pray for us as we are in the middle of much transition. I'm starting school, Kristen's leaving one church and starting an internship, and work is kicking into high gear. Just this week Kristen got a phone call with a potentially neat, yet unexpected, ministry opportunity on top of everything else going on.

My personality dictates that everything needs to be planned out so I can be prepared. Since meeting Kristen I've learned that isn't always the case, and to put my trust in the Lord. For the past couple weeks I've had some worries about financial needs, yet this week I received a raise and the new opportunity for Kristen, if she takes it, will definitely take care of us.

Before, I would've been very worried, whereas this time I was able to allow God to grant me a peace that everything's going to be okay. He's had our back in the past, and He'll continue to have it now and in the future.

God's awesome.

It's official

2006-08-09T23:32:00.000-04:00

I received notification in the mail today that my application for non-degree study at the Baptist Theological Seminary at Richmond has been accepted. I also received my first summer assignment, so it just got "real". Woo!

Update: Non-degree means I can take up to 10 classes for credit - the real difference is that I still need to secure a church recommendation and references, and I had a time crunch this semester. I'll be fully admitted for Spring, but it's really semantics at this point as I continue with the paperwork. The biggest hurdle is cleared.

1 in 60,000 Bible Study

2006-08-08T11:01:00.000-04:00

Before Kristen and I went to serve at the church of which we are now leaving, we attended the Tabernacle Baptist Church for a few Sundays. It was hard for me to leave as I felt like we were on the verge of being able to step up and get involved. Throughout the past year we would randomly lament "I wish we could go to Tabernacle" as we struggled in an unhealthly church.

The pastor is Kristen's former youth minister and the church held the line during 'white flight' and remained in its downtown location. It came to the brink of death only to resurrect and rediscover its purpose and mission. We fell in love with the church as the worship is intentional, the people are loving, and the church does not shy from its mission obligations to the community. Sterling described the church as "weird", and it is, only because it is unique. A rich heritage combined with incredible potential in an area many suburban churches wouldn't touch fits where Kristen and I are.

Last night we attended the weekly Young Adults Bible Study for the first time, led by the pastor. Wow. I have not been in the same room of peers who were on fire for Christ in a long time. Many churches seem to struggle with how to reach out to young adults, but Tabernacle is willing to figure out how.

It was refreshing to be challenged, to be renewed, to partake in honest discussion, and to learn. Ironically, Kristen and I unknowingly discussed the topic some on our way there. Sterling led us on a journey to help us question the balance of time spent in our comfort zone with like-minded believers versus spending time among those outside the church. We've been craving for accountability and fellowship among folks our age.

I really don't have words for how much I felt like I was at home. Here I was in this church that I only attended for a few Sundays, yet I feel so attached to it.

God has many surprises though, and we got a call just two hours before we left for Bible study from the church I grew up in. I can't say too much other than we have yet another decision to pray about which may steer us temporarily away from Tabernacle yet again.

After Bible study, we chatted with two other couples and the pastor. One couple that's our age just moved here from Alabama and the husband will start at BTSR this fall. The other couple is just a bit older and the husband started at BTSR last year.

Throughout the course of conversation, Sterling asked everyone in the room how long they had been married. We threw out "a year and a half" and another couple said "Oh yeah? Us to. When did you all get married?". We replied December 18, 2004 and everyone's face lit up. All three couples were married on the same day. I don't think I'll ever forget that.

We asked "What are the chances of that happening?" and I figured out that it's roughly 1 in 60,000. I think. But still, how crazy is that?

Guess you had to be there...

Please pray for us as we continue to transition. Please pray for us as we run closer to an increasingly busy year. Please pray for us as we have some tough decisions to make.

The clear teachings of Scripture

2006-08-04T13:27:00.000-04:00

I fully subscribe to the fact that I am fallible. I also subscribe to the fact that there are teachings in the Bible that are very clear, while others are not so clear.

I'm also a fan of consistency - I have not been to seminary yet (my application is in!), but all in all, one standard applied to a certain issue should be able to be applied to another issue.

When I read the columns by Dr. Frank Page and Dr. Albert Mohler regarding their changes in beliefs regarding women in ministry, something did not sit well with me.

Today, in Ethics Daily, Daniel Burke gave me the words that expressed my reservation:

I do not doubt that Mohler and Page are earnest in their convictions about women in ministry. But I take issue with their attribution of this stance to what Mohler refers to as "the clear teachings of Scripture." I don't know whether Page would use this language, but he has signaled clear support for the language of the Baptist Faith and Message statement that essentially forces this single interpretation (proscribing women in certain ministry roles) upon all cooperating Southern Baptists.

If indeed this is such a clear teaching of Scripture, how is it that two bright, sincere seminary students diligently considering the matter failed to see it? How could one of them have spent long months researching and analyzing and thinking through the issues, then write a dissertation with such a different conclusion from what he now holds to be the truth?

If it wasn't so clear before, why is it now? Furthermore, why not extend grace to others who believe it is unclear, instead of codifying into a creed and using it as a standard of cooperation? Doing so seems to remove Biblical teachings in favor of unconscious cultural discrimination and masculine insecurity.

Equipping the saints

2006-08-03T14:59:00.000-04:00

One of the struggles I've witnessed and engaged with over the last year is figuring out how to raise up laity leadership. There's a dual dynamic at play: 1. the pastor/staff have to want to raise leadership and 2. the laity must want to serve. The staff then helps the laity discern how best to apply their gifts, and together discover God's will for their church and their lives.

If the laity want to serve but the options are limited, they will either force the staff into action or get frustrated and pull out. They can only tread water for so long. If the laity do not want to serve but the staff desires ministry and discipleship growth, the staff will get frustrated and pull out because they do not have adequate help. To some extent, the staff can only accomplish what the congregation is willing to do.

I've witnessed both dynamics this year, and frustration abounds on both sides.

A quote from a comment over at Marty Duren's blog spurred me to write this (though I don't agree with the thrust of the comment, it's still insightful):

Furthermore, our congregations are duped into the notion that their service in the Kingdom is accomplished by vote-casting and maintenance of the organization rather than through ministry.

We shouldn't come to church because of a guilt-trip or because it's 'what we do'. We shouldn't come to sing the familiar hymns simply to fulfill nostaligic needs - we should come to church to serve and worship God, and in turn, be fed with spiritual nourishment and equip us to share the Gospel to a broken and hurting world.

If the staff does not require more than 'pew-warming' as opposed to ministry, and the congregation buys into it, our churches are headed in the wrong direction. Following Christ is not easy, and there's more to it than just showing up on Sunday.

The predictableness of this

2006-08-03T10:44:00.000-04:00

I just wrote a post that touched on this, but Dr. Bruce Prescott over at Mainstream Baptist points out an article in the Jerusalem Post with an interesting quote:

[Israeli] Defense officials told the Post last week that they were receiving indications from the US that America would be interested in seeing Israel attack Syria.

Does this shock me? Yes. Does it surprise me? No.

That's the next step towards us having an all-out war with Iran. Iran will get indignant and want to get directly involved... we'll defend Israel... Iraq gets buried in the news... and voila...

Will it happen? I don't have the willpower to consider it.

Wait - I thought the Middle East was supposed to be stable by now? Oh yeah, and all those folks that were labeled anti-American and pro-terrorist before the Iraq War... didn't they kind of see this coming?

I'm overwhelmed

2006-08-03T10:13:00.000-04:00

Robert Parham over at Ethics Daily correctly notes that the general Baptist blogosphere has been relatively silent regarding the action between Israel and Hezbollah. Near the end of the article he hits upon a point that largely explains why I haven't said too much.

I'm overwhelmed.

I'm overwhelmed by the constant rhetoric of the Bush Administration, I'm overwhelmed by the rhetoric of Israel and those that support them, and I'm overwhelmed by the overall dynamics of the Middle East. I'm also overwhelmed at how the Administration presses on no matter what - even if that means going against the majority of Americans.

I'm also overwhelmed with the fact that this fighting seems to trump that of Iraq or about the developments regarding torture. I'm overwhelmed at how Iraq is now "old news". I'm also overwhelmed by how this got started in the first place. Saddam had one good thing going for us - he and his Sunni government kept Iran at bay and isolated. Now, gun-barrel democracy swept in a Shia majority in Iraq that likes Iran more than us, creating what is being called a "Shia Crescent" arcing through Syria and to Hezbollah. Iran was forced into a corner regarding its nuclear program and decided to play its newfound hand.

Thus, I'm overwhelmed at the predictableness of this, and I'm overwhelmed at how every major crisis the Bush Administration seems to touch (Iraq, Katrina, Lebanon) too many innocent civilians die.

Away from the war, I'm overwhelmed at arguments made against homosexual marriage that state the majority of Americans want it banned and calls for the following of democtratic measures, yet told that even though 70% of Americans support stem cell research, it shouldn't be legal.

I know this doesn't excuse my not writing about these issues, but really, who's listening? The Administration lives in its own theorized world where the term "consistent argument" has no meaning. Maybe I should be ashamed at feeling this beaten down, but I'm sick of our leaders disregarding the majority of Americans.

Mr. President, remember, 51% of Americans voted you in - why don't you listen to those instead of the 10-15% or whatever of "Religious Right" folks that made up your voting bloc?

Anyways, what are some things I have been following?

Torture: Bush, showing what a good Christian man he is, along with an American, decides to follow the Supreme Court rulings regarding prisoner rights. HA. He finds a way around it that works like this: "We know you’re guilty. We can’t tell you why, but there’s a guy, we can’t tell you who, who told us something. We can’t tell you what, but you’re guilty."

Guantanamo Bay Prison: President Bush, responding to international and domestic pressure, decides to close the infamous prison. HA. Halliburton (surprise surprise) built a 200 bed maximum security permanent prison. Interesting that I had to go to a international source for that one.

Perhaps that's the idea - overwhelm us and thus silence us, allowing unchecked control. The overwhelming part has worked, and the Bush Administration hates media that doesn't suck up to it (New York Times)... will they silence us? I pray not.

A growing trend?

2006-08-02T21:27:00.000-04:00

Don Byrd over at the Baptist Joint Committee's Blog from the Capital wonders if the stories emerging about evangelical churches steering away from politics is a media phenomenon or an accurate barometer of backlash against the Religious Right.

He pointed me to an article about three pastors in Ohio who encourage members to pursue politics individually, but discourage using the pulpit as a party platform.

[Rich] Nathan, 50, pastor of the Vineyard since 1987, said, "We think the Gospel has political implications, but it’s not partisan. And we don’t think that either the Republicans or the Democrats have the sole possession of the implications of the Gospel."

...

"We never want to communicate to somebody that comes here that they’ve got to go through two conversions in order to come to Christ," he said. "We don’t want to have somebody believe that first I must be converted politically from wherever I’m coming from politically, in order to then come through that to Christ."

...

Leffel said he isn’t afraid to challenge church members who go too far.

"Sometimes, there’s the smirky kind of language used against the other side. And when I hear that, I feel constrained to say, ‘That doesn’t really have a place here.’

...

All three pastors say they agree with the "pro-life" and "pro-marriage" message of many politically involved churches. But they also see a mandate for other, broader issues that should be dealt with in the public square.

"I think it’s a mistake to have a political perspective that’s reduced to two issues: abortion and homosexuality," Nathan said.

"You know the Bible goes so far beyond those two issues. I think those are two very significant issues, but in terms of number of verses in the Bible or concerns that we find in the Sermon on the Mount, there’re just so many other concerns. And that also needs to shape the way that evangelicals engage politics."

These guys get it - politics are important, but A. the church is not an extension of a political party and B. the Bible speaks to more issues than homosexuality and abortion. In fact, the Bible speaks to issues in which we have to deal with in a direct way, not in abstract. Perhaps that's why so many issues like poverty, justice, etc get pushed to side?

We are to be more than Christians - we are to be followers of Christ. Following Christ means walking through his footsteps, only he wasn't on top of the mountain during his ministry. He was rejected, He lost a friend, He felt distant from God, and He was defamed and libeled.

Believing in Christ is easy - following Him is not.

Words we need to hear

2006-07-29T23:07:00.000-04:00

Via Raw Story comes an article in Sunday's New York Times by Laurie Goodstein called "Disowning Conservative Politics Is Costly for an Evangelical Pastor".

The Rev. Gregory Boyd of St Paul, Minnesota's Woodland Hills Church lost 1,000 of his 5,000 members because he had the audacity to preach that the "church should steer clear of politics, give up moralizing on sexual issues, stop claiming the United States as a “Christian nation” and stop glorifying American military campaigns.".

This is a topic for another post, but I wonder if Christians fixation on others' sins such as abortion and homosexuality is merely a distraction from more personal sins such as adultery, gluttony, and idolatry. That whole eye/plank thing.

“More and more people are saying this has gone too far — the dominance of the evangelical identity by the religious right,” Mr. McLaren said. “You cannot say the word ‘Jesus’ in 2006 without having an awful lot of baggage going along with it. You can’t say the word ‘Christian,’ and you certainly can’t say the word ‘evangelical’ without it now raising connotations and a certain cringe factor in people.

“Because people think, ‘Oh no, what is going to come next is homosexual bashing, or pro-war rhetoric, or complaining about ‘activist judges.’ ”

...

“America wasn’t founded as a theocracy,” he said. “America was founded by people trying to escape theocracies. Never in history have we had a Christian theocracy where it wasn’t bloody and barbaric. That’s why our Constitution wisely put in a separation of church and state.

“I am sorry to tell you,” he continued, “that America is not the light of the world and the hope of the world. The light of the world and the hope of the world is Jesus Christ.”

...

Mary Van Sickle, the family pastor at Woodland Hills, said she lost 20 volunteers who had been the backbone of the church’s Sunday school.

“They said, ‘You’re not doing what the church is supposed to be doing, which is supporting the Republican way,’ ” she said. “It was some of my best volunteers.”

Folks - like it or not, America is not mentioned in the Bible. You can twist and contort Scripture however you want, but if you are serious about reading the Bible in a literal way, the literal text does not include mentions of our country, democracy, capitalism, or the Republican party.

But Nathan, homosexuality, abortion, and terrorism are the biggest threats towards America! Are you saying these aren't important?

No. Those are issues that Christians must engage - however, they must be derived from a full (not selected) Biblical stance, and definitely not from a political party's talking points.

There are many other issues that affect families of which our country needs a full Biblical perspective. Some off the top of my head are minimum wage, poverty, lack of health care, divorce, materialism, and business ethics.

But Nathan, you sound like a Democrat.

Well, I'm not one. I'm also not a Republican. However those issues along with the abortion/homosexuality/war issues need to be balanced. I sound like a Democrat because the Christians that currently dominate the Republican party are ignoring the parts of the Bible that other Christians feel are important. If national discourse swings too far to the left, I'll be accused of sounding like a Republican.

The church is not supposed to be supporting the Republican way. The church was created by God, for God. Period. The GOP does not have all the answers, and is fallible. It is not holy nor is it ordained. The GOP serves itself. The church serves God through worshipping him and educating believers how to follow Him and His word. God is eternal - His church will be around long after America is gone.

I refuse to be a part of a voting bloc like "soccer moms" or "Nascar dads". I will not be taken advantage of for political or corporate gain. We are not called for this type of shallow faith - we are called to be something greater than we are, and that means cultural and natural instincts must be re-examined.

I'm a Christian first, and an American second. Both are important to me, but in order for us to effectively have a voice in our country, we must give equal importance to all of Scripture, and must not let politics compromise our beliefs nor give undue importance to some issues over others.

I don't envy Christian politicians - how do you not compromise the integrity of God's word when the Speaker asks for support of a bill you strongly dislike and in return, promises support for a bill very near and dear to your heart? Politics is about compromise, and I don't want to be in that situation on a daily basis. That's why I don't see myself ever running for office.

I love our country. I love the fact that we can worship freely without retribution, and I will fight for others' right to do that. You cannot force God's love in someone's heart - conversely you turn them away from Him. The greatest religious movements in this country occured via the Holy Spirit through revival meetings. The Great Awakening and the Second Great Awakening did not happen because of any laws passed, but because of faithful believers seeking the face of God.

As Rev. Boyd said, our country was not formed as a theocracy on purpose - the folks that came fled theocracies because they're inherently bloody and full of vengeance. See present day Iran, Afghanistan, or even the Inquisition. Heck, read about Baptists in colonial Virginia and ask them how they feel about state-supported religious coercion. The mixture of politics and our faith cannot be taken lightly.

Remember, when we die, we must account to God - not the President.

Business as usual

2006-07-27T23:07:00.000-04:00

If you walked into the church business meeting last night, you wouldn't realize that the church is in crisis. Observant members know, but are afraid to say anything. As long as the pastor doesn't recognize and direct the church toward solutions, everything's peachy.

What's that saying about a frog in a frying pan?

The bottom is not close - the free fall has just begun, and the landing won't be pretty. Only one person has the ability to work the brakes, but his reality convinces him that this isn't so bad.

Meanwhile, Kristen and I met with the pastor of the church we want to start attending next month. We visited for a few Sundays before this "adventure", and absolutely loved it. The church once boasted the largest Sunday School on the Eastern Seaboard, but nearly closed years after consciously deciding to stay put downtown while 'white flight' took surrounding churches to the suburbs.

We were refreshed to hear a pastor speak of his church with passion and love - he knew what was going on, what would happen in the future, what they desired to see, and who they are. The church has a vision and is actively working toward it. The church was once on the brink of closing, yet has rediscovered it's mission and purpose to its community.

Our senses of justice and mercy will be stimulated as the congregation ranges from the almost-homeless to the fabuously wealthy. A different missions emphasis is presented each month through Sunday services, mission projects, and other venues such as movies or discussions concerning the topic. This month is the horrors going on in Sudan, and the church is helping refugees who have made their way to Richmond.

Much-needed healing will occur through simply just being - by being able to sit next together in the pew, through singing the hymns and studying the Bible without worrying about others' worship experiences. Heck, we'll get to worship. More healing will occur as our involvement, talents, and passions are encouraged and welcomed.

We'll be able to connect with folks our age and in similar stages of life. A young-adult study led by the pastor is held every Monday, and we're going next week. In five Sundays we can attend a worship service together - simply as participants. We'll grow. We'll serve. We'll love and be loved. We'll constantly be reminded we're a part of something bigger than us. We'll understand it's not about us.

It's about Him and Him only. Hallelujah.

Why haven't we stopped torturing prisoners?

2006-07-24T01:23:00.000-04:00

Oh yeah, the Administration is still bent on using it, despite the fact that it's morally reprehensible and is indistinguishable from the tactics our enemies use. Silly ol' me.

But first, I have a question. If human-rights reports of the horrid conditions at Guantanamo Bay cannot be trusted because the prisoners are taught to lie and exaggerate abuse...

...then why do we still insist of torturing prisoners in hopes of extracting information?

If the prison camp is such a humane place, then why didn't the US allow the UN un-restricted access to check for basic humane conditions? Why?

Because we have something to hide - something that would embarrass us - something your everyday American would be ashamed of. I have not heard of a good reason why I should not assume that.

How again does this all fit within a Biblical and Christian world-view? Oh yeah... you have to ignore certain parts of Scripture to justify our disgraceful, reprehensible, and immoral actions.

So much for the whole 'Turn the other cheek/For God so loved the world' bit. Guess interpreting the Bible through Jesus' words is only applicable when vengeful Old Testament verses cannot be cherry-picked to justify our actions.

Do we need to lock these guys up? Yes. Do we need to torture them? No. Do we need to treat them as human beings? Yes. Do they want to kill us? Yes. Am I angry at them for that? Yes. Does it make me sleep better at night knowing that my tax dollars are going to torture people in the name of national security despite Biblical teachings that allude to the fact that we should accord even our vilest enemies basic human rights? Guess.

Does that make me a wingnut liberal who hates our country, uses strawmen, and doesn't believe the Bible?

No.

Back to church day - too late?

2006-07-23T21:05:00.000-04:00

I cannot go into much detail right now, but I'm wondering if Back to Church Day, scheduled for August 27th, may be too late. Every week more news comes which works against the whole point of the whole effort.

Will these folks ever get it? Before it's too late?

Who said faith gave us all the answers? I think faith is trusting that we may never know all the answers, but only God does - we are to pray that we remain humble and in His will so that we can be an effective instrument, no matter what happens.

Consistency... or lack thereof

2006-07-22T11:26:00.000-04:00

Reading some articles, comments, and other writings about the SBC and the folks within it, I wanted to get a few things straight as I walk through my journey of faith and learning:

1. Slavery was culturally accepted in Biblical times and accepted in the Bible, but not accepted now.

2. Drinking alcohol in the Bible was culturally accepted, but not accepted now.

3. The subordination of women in the Bible was culturally accepted, but not accepted now... er, wait...

But Nathan, back then water wasn't fit for drinking, so they had to drink alcohol, and now we have clean water so we are to stay away from it. The cultural context has changed.

Then I submit to you back then women didn't have any rights and thus expected to be subordinate, but now they do have rights and hold positions of equality. The cultural context has changed.

1 Timothy 2:12 is the most oft-cited verse for contemporary "Biblical" subordination. As a lay person, if this verse holds water, then why aren't we following verse 9 and requiring women to not braid their hair or wear expensive clothes? The cultural context has changed.

Does this endanger Biblical authority? No. What then does endanger Biblical authority? Only following the parts of it with which we agree and conveniently ignoring the parts with which we don't. Additionally, calling folks who ask these questions "liberals" or accusing them of not believing the Bible helps no one.

Biblical consistency under the realms of Biblical authority that the average lay person can understand is a worthy goal, and one of which I'm striving towards. We must approach these questions with a Biblical view, and then carefully and consistently apply a cultural context - not the other way around.

If the SBC cannot easily and simply say why they throw out slavery and alcohol to the world and everyday believers, yet cling to the subordination of women, then charges of inconsistency will continue to be levelled as they conduct witchhunts and rumor campaigns against people that hold Biblical views as opposed to cultural views.

Dr. Bugg

2006-07-22T11:12:00.000-04:00

I just noticed that Dr. Bugg is stepping down as Dean of the M. Christopher White Divinity School at Gardner-Webb University.

Right after I discerned my call and realized that seminary was in the future, Kristen and I visited her grandfather in Shelby, NC, just up the road from GWU. Events played out and the next thing I knew we had a nice 10 minute chat. Since he came from BTSR we had a chat about Richmond and all that, but what struck me was just how nice and gentle he is. Him alone just about sold me on the school!

One reason I didn't choose to go there was the coming firestorm in the North Carolina Baptist state convention. I have no desire to witness witch-hunts and the lies and deception that come with overtaking institutions. Kinda distracts our whole purpose now, doesn't it?

Lying and Dr. Page

2006-07-22T10:34:00.000-04:00

Supporters of SBC President Dr. Frank Page are aghast that attacks from within are being launched against the newly elected President.

Should this surprise them? No.

The dirty and underhanded tactics that Benjamin Cole has written about and that are surfacing now are the same type of attacks that made the "Conservative Resurgence" possible.

It was never about theology or inerrancy - many good folks were hurt or had their lives destroyed through these tactics. The amount of carnage done in the name of "truth" smacks of arrogance and indifference to fellow Christian brothers.

Yet "truth" wasn't the reason - it was control. Deception, character attacks, outright lies, slander, and plain ol' dishonesty were the means for their ends of "truth".

Now, it's still all about control. Before these tactics were employed to rid the convention of "liberals", but now they're used to maintain control.

Yes, the folks that left and formed the CBF did contain some liberals, but many of the moderates and even conservatives that left chafed at the notion that their beloved Convention could be flipped on its head. Adrian Rogers was offered with a plan where the fundamentalists could control 3 of the 6 seminaries, but he denied it because that's not what their goal was. They wanted it all, and they got it all.

Can you blame traditional Baptists for leaving? Are you getting a sense of what they had to put up with? Baseless attacks that were simply not true, or blown out of proportion if it served their needs, were used to rally the "troops" under the guise of "saving the Bible".

How many local churches and other lives have been uprooted and displaced because of these non-Christian tactics?

One day the SBC will reap what is has sown - some of the seeds are already breaking ground, and maybe then the folks that accepted illicit means for a doctrinal end will wake up.

That durn liberal media

2006-07-21T12:46:00.000-04:00

Scratch that - the subject line should read that durn liberal CIA.

Seems like all the bad news from Iraq isn't coming just from the media, but the CIA. Apparently if you ignore a situation, or try to distract and prevent others from analyzing it, then maybe it'll just magically disappear.

Not so, in my experience. Although President Bush seems to believe that you don't look at the facts, they really aren't facts.

Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte is preventing a thorough examination by intelligence analysts of the civil war in Iraq, RAW STORY has learned.

A report at Washington Babylon, the blog of Harper's Magazine's Washington Editor Ken Silverstein, indicates that Iraq analysts at the CIA have been pushing to complete a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on the political situation in the country. NIE's are the most authoritative intelligence documents produced by the CIA, and the last NIE on Iraq was rejected by the Bush administration for being too negative.

But since the calls to analyze the Iraq conflict have emerged, Silverstein reports, Negroponte has tamped them down. One of Silverstein's sources explained that Negroponte didn't want President George W. Bush to be confronted with a pessimistic assessment of the war in Iraq.

So - the intelligence Mr. Bush used to send us to war has since proved faulty, at best; he smeared Joseph Wilson for not coming back with the "correct" intelligence, and now he refuses yet again to respond to intelligence.

I'm all for positive thinking - yes I know you cannot get bogged down in the day to day grind as you quickly lose sight of your goal. However - something that was supposed to "liberate" the Iraqis has killed over 50,000 of them. Even the casual observer can look at the newspaper over the course of the last six months and read about the daily bombings there.

President Bush, please, at the very least, acknowledge that things aren't going that well. please listen to what your CIA is saying, as opposed to what you want them to say.

Seminary presidents and websites

2006-07-19T16:49:00.000-04:00

Inspired by a comment by Dr. Bruce Prescott over at Mainstream Baptist, I decided to visit Southern Baptist Seminary's website and look at the gender ratio of the faculty. I couldn't help but notice the link "President Mohler" on the front page.

I then got sidetracked and looked at Southwestern Baptist Seminary's website, and in an even more prominent spot was "President Patterson". Both links contain self-serving links, but no welcome to the website or to their respective seminary.

Mohler's page links to his full bio, personal website, radio show, commentary, writings, sermons and speeches, and even "Media Photos". Media photos?

Patterson's page links to a long bio, then an article from his inauguration, his academic bio, and then an article "SBC Leaders on Patterson". Disappointed that I didn't get to see Dr. Richard Land standing on his back, I realized this is an attempt to compliment onesself via a respected proxy. Nice touch.

Why do I gag at this self-serving patting on the back? Because it's not about us.

Do you understand what I'm saying? It's not about us. It's about Jesus Christ. Don't they get it?

Growing up, I first realized that some Christians just didn't get it when a new church was built on the road we took to church. The pastor was run out of another nearby church for cheating on his wife. He was caught and they got a divorce. He then married his mistress and bought her a new mustang and house just one block away from where I grew up. His actions ripped that church asunder and he took a sizeable chunk with him and started this new church.

In the steeple column, above the front door and just below the steeple, a huge dark window was placed. The church was deeper than wide, and this was the only visible window from the road. Both me and my music minister often wondered what it was, as we both drove by it to church. It took a few months to realize that this was the pastor's study. Once my minister told me, we both looked at each dumbfounded and shook our head. The pastor didn't get it.

Think about that. One thing I've learned through my wife's education is that everything you do in church has a theological background. Everything - from where the pulpit is placed to when and how communion is served, and beyond. This includes where the pastor's study is. What am I supposed to think when I pull up and walk under the pastor's study that sits below the steeple to get inside? Does this mean that he's between me and God?

I also will never forget seeing an old beatup car - and when I say "old" and "beatup", we're talking it's one rock away from a trip to Car Heaven. I saw it three times in Fredericksburg, Va, and the part I won't forget is the message scrawled in spraypaint on the back: "I am humble". Kinda defeats the whole purpose, doesn't it?

Thus I launched a quick survey of how various Baptist seminary websites introduced their President or Dean, and how easy it was to find the Faculty & Staff (F/S) page. Note the word "quick", as if I was a potential seminary student looking for information about the faculty. I'll save the gender disparity for another time.

First, Southern Baptist Convention schools:

Southern - "President Mohler" clickable on homepage, see above for more. Strictly biographical. No welcome letter. Difficult to locate F/S page, and even then it's just email addresses.

Southwestern - "President Patterson" clickable on homepage, see above for more. Strictly biographical. No welcome letter. F/S farther down.

Southeastern - Under Who We Are after clicking Prospective Students, there's a link to President Akin's welcome (although I'm not sure who he's welcoming). F/S harder to find, which was finally found under Quick Links.

Golden Gate - F/S easy to find under Academics. President found under there, plus President's Letter under "Welcome".

Midwestern - Faculty & Staff a small link midway down. Under "About" there is a Welcome from the President and an about the President page.

New Orleans - "From the President" on the homepage, which I expected to be a welcome 'from the president', but is actually about the president. Faculty listing right off the home page with "Faculty".

Non-SBC schools:

BTSR - F/S on home page, with bios and pics. President not found until you look at his bio in F/S. No Welcome letter.

McAfee - "Faculty" on homepage, and the Dean has a welcome letter.

M. Christopher White - Welcome from the Dean, "Faculty" with bio links.

Campbell - Greetings from the dean, "Faculty" under Academics

Truett - Under Academics, Words from the Dean and Faculty link.

Logsdon - Future Students --> Greetings from the Dean, F/S under About Logsdon

Wake Forest - "Meet the Faculty" - Dean listed there, much like BTSR. Dean's message under History.

North American - nothing on front page, found after clicking Academics, then "Our Faculty", President listed first. No welcome letter.

Central - About Central --> President's message. Links from that page to Dr. Marshall's work.

The unofficial results: Three out of six SBC schools replaced a welcome letter with a "our President is great and awesome!". The other three had welcome letters, although Dr. Akin's at Southeastern doesn't seem to target prospective studeints.

Three out of nine non-SBC schools did not have a welcome letter, nor highlighted the dean or president in any special way, choosing to list them among the faculty. Central's president had 'self-serving' links off her page, but unlike Southern, Southwestern, and New Orleans, it is framed in a "message/letter" format. The rest had welcome letters, and more information about the president or dean could be learned from their faculty listing.

You have every right to disagree with me, but for at least Dr. Mohler and Dr. Patterson, the President's office seems merely as a feather in the cap - a "yay for me, yay for the school for having me" deal. New Orleans president's page reads the same way.

I was just recently a prospective student, and with that view in mind, the differences are stark. A welcome letter says "thank you for taking a look at the school, we hope and pray you like it, we'd love to work with you in your calling" etc. What good does media photos do for a prospective student? I'm not interested in the accolades of the president - that won't draw me to a school. Maybe I'm different and there are folks who go to a particular school because of the president. I'm more interested in what the school has to offer and the overall purpose and strength of the seminary. The very least these presidents could do is offer a welcome to prospective students and give a word of support for their institution. Do they exist for the school, or does the school exist for them? I'm not sure after seeing those sites.

Again, you may not agree with my characterizations, but as someone who just recently scoured websites in preparation to go to seminary, something struck me as odd about those three particular schools.

Arrogance. Self-promoting. President X on the front page. Pastor's office below the steeple and above the front door. Everything you do makes a theological statement.

We are here to humbly give glory to God - seminaries exist to train up Godly men and women to lead others to Him through churches and other ministries. We are not here to promote one another, or check off a box on the resume, or boast about how many countries they've visited or their hobbies. We're not here to distract others away from God or His will. We are here to serve God.

Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will exalt you. - James 4:10

He leads the humble in what is right, and teaches the humble his way. - Psalms 25:9

I struggle daily with this trying to act in a humble way, and that's part of why I rail against those who are entrusted with Christian leadership yet put themselves ahead of their calling. It's not about us - it's about Him.

Eat your cake

2006-07-19T11:35:00.000-04:00

Let me get this straight - for marriage, the argument that the majority of Americans want gay marriage banned is used to rail against "judicial activism" and other efforts to block that ban...

...yet, over 70% of Americans support stem-cell research, but the President used his first ever veto to block it?

How convienent. Claim the majority's will for an issue that they agree with you on, but ignore the majority on another issue - on something that saves lives.

Mr. Bush, thanks for taking the high and democratic road...er, wait. Apparently the American people know what they're talking about in regards to gay marriage, but need a lecture about stem cells.

You can't have it both ways.

Play it straight

2006-07-19T09:25:00.000-04:00

One of the lessons I'll learn in Dr. Cecil Sherman's "Life of a Pastor" class next spring is to play it straight. A pastor should love his people, be honest, and admit mistakes. Congregations will forgive mistakes, but they won't forgive lies and deception.

Obviously a pastor is different from President, but they're both leaders. The last two Administrations have had difficulty playing it straight - if Bill Clinton had simply admitted what he did was wrong, the country would've moved on. Yes, it would've been messy, but his dishonesty only dragged the country deeper into the mud.

President Bush's 37-some-odd reasons why we had to invade Iraq along with 1984-ish programs that dive into the unconstitutional realm are less than forth-coming, not to mention several other instances where a little more truth could've gone a long way and not jeopardized the President's efforts.

Under the leadership of folks like David Addington and Alberto Gonzales, the Administration is playing the end game, yet morality, conscience, and the Constitution seem to get in the way.

In regards to detainee rights, or lack thereof, according to last week's Newseek article titled "The Gitmo Fallout", the White House wanted to "'find the legal equivalent of outer space' - a "'lawless' universe". The executive branch was looking "to create a system where detainees would have no legal rights and U.S. courts would have no power to intervene."

I don't know about you, but when I sat down and read that article, as a patriotic American who happens to appreciate the separation of powers our forefathers worked so hard to establish, I just about spit out my Mountain Dew.

The beauty of our Constitution is that everyone is supposed to follow it - only then can it work. If our leader says "I had to ignore it in order to defend it", what good is it?

Look - do what you have to do to protect us yet can't reveal what you're doing, but do it in a legal way. Is that so hard to ask? The FISA court was created for this purpose, and if that didn't work, petition Congress for a new law. Heck, you convinced everybody to go to war in Iraq, you can probably get a new law passed pretty easily.

I guffawed, and then cringed, when I watched the exchange between Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Alberto Gonzales over at Crooks and Liars. Feinstein caught Gonzales in a bind, because this President claims nearly absolute war powers, allowing him, in his mind, extra-Constitutional powers. Only, Gonzales is forced to admit that the Authorization for Military Force does not carry the full Constitutional weight of a declaration of war.

How convenient - President Bush declares our country is at war and that affords him nearly unlimited war powers, yet technically Congress hasn't declared war, so he is not bound by provisions in laws as FISA that specifically say 'when war is declared'. How clever - and how unethical.

I'm not comfortable with any Administration intentially seeking 'legal outer-space' to pursue its goals unchecked and without oversight by anyone. Does that make me a liberal?

Flip the coin. President Gore or President Kerry's head would be skewered on a stick for extra-legal maneuverings such as this.

Oh, right. President Bush talks to God, so we automatically give him a pass.

No.

Play it straight - you can't have it both ways. Defend the Constitution, defend us, but don't compromise our governmental system and then claim to defend it.

Ralph Reed loses

2006-07-18T22:27:00.000-04:00

Things don't look good for Mr. Reed's chances in winning the Republican nomination to run for Lt. Governor in Georgia.

With 65% of precincts reporting, Reed trails Casey Cagle by about 26,000 votes, or about 11 points. At 9:55pm, he conceded with: "Tonight my candidacy for lieutenant governor comes to an end,".

What was once considered a shoo-in and possibly golden ticket to a 202 area code at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. has turned into a double-digit loss.

Mixing politics and religion is very, very tricky, and is only for those of high, ethical standards. I think ethics won today.

Changing hearts

2006-07-18T22:12:00.000-04:00

Part of the reason I blog here is to help myself clarify my opinions and boil them down to something I can remember should I need to pull them up quick. In other words, I'm learning about myself.

Inspired by comments over at Michael the Leveller's blog, I discovered a powerful yet concise way to convey my thoughts on the power of the church and government.

Government has the power to restrain evil, but only the church can change hearts. God gave us the Holy Spirit and Church to change hearts, as that naturally restrains evil. Thus, as Christians, if the same amount of money and effort that is poured into political campaigns were diverted to local missions and evangelism, perhaps we would be able to realize the full and awesome power of the Holy Spirit and Church to affect society. Changing hearts invokes willing spirits, while coercion is the government's tool for restraining evil.

Okay, I'm not sure if that made sense, but it seemed profound at the time. God didn't give us the government - let's start using what He did give us.

Holding Christians accountable

2006-07-17T15:20:00.000-04:00

We need more Christians to run for office. I whole-heartedly agree with that. I also know and understand that all Christians are sinners.

I have problems with Christians running for office who compromise their beliefs and our common faith for political gain. Just as I cringe when a non-Christian politician quotes Bible verses to play to those of faith for political gain, I cringe when Christian politicians engage in shady backroom maneuverings for political gain.

The GOP primary in Georgia is tomorrow, and Ralph Reed will find out if he will be the Republican candidate for Lt. Governor. Questions have dogged him about his dealings with Jack Abramoff and the millions he gained.

The facts are damning, and have been widely reported. In fairness, the following questions must be asked:

- In 1999, why did Ralph Reed first work against gambling legislation in Alabama (which benefited the Mississippi Choctaw tribe's casinos) only to work for legalizing internet gambling on eLottery, Inc.'s case in 2000 (which James Dobson and the Moral Majority opposed), and then back to killing gambling legislation in 2001 which benefitted the Louisiana Coushetta tribe's casino?

- Why did Abramoff turn to Ralph Reed to "bring out the wackos" to help kill the anti-gambling bills?

- Why was Ralph Reed paid through shell organizations, when in the eLottery, Inc. case, Reed's "teammate" the Rev. Louis Sheldon was paid directly?

- Why did Ralph Reed knowingly get paid from organizations he knew did not exist, directed money to those organizations, and why was he so loathe to receive money directly from casino and lottery operators?

- Why has Ralph Reed only provided a token defense, which has done nothing to dismiss these questions or any other ones that I have missed?

The Rev. Billy Graham famously will not close a door when only he and someone from the opposite gender are in the same room. Why? So no one can legitimately accuse him of impropriety and thus jeopardize his ministry and witness.

Is it scandalous of me to ask that Christian politicians act in such a manner? Does this make me stark-raving mad to ask that we as Christians hold each other accountable? Is that just too much?

I believe we need more Christian politicians, yet they must be of the upmost character as the temptations inherent in those positions can imperil our common faith. The higher the standard one claims, the more scrutiny they invite, and the farther they have to fall.

I refuse to be a "wacko" that does the bidding of a politician simply because he claims to be a Christian, yet does not live as one. I have a fundamental and constitutional right to hold politicians accountable, and a further right to hold those that claim to be Christian to the most important standard, the Bible.

We'd all be better off if folks stopped claiming Christian culture and started living out their Christian faith, especially those aspiring to lead our country.

Sources:

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001147.php
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/15/AR2005101501539_pf.html
http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/print.cfm?story=99450&ran=189579
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Email_shows_Norquist_asked_Abramoff_for_0622.html
http://tpmmuckraker.com/reed.php
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060220/blumenthal
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.keillor06jul06,0,7565688.story
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/15/AR2006011500915.html
http://www.mediatransparency.com/story.php?storyID=74

Previous posts:
Walking in the light
This guy's still running?
Concise summary of Reed's misdeeds
Ralph Reed lied
Who's your general?
Ralph Reed and Jack Abramoff
Righteously cast out?
Fundie Watch: Ralph Reed

Walking in the light

2006-07-16T13:24:00.000-04:00

I grew up learning that as Christians we were to not only be the light, but walk in the light. Our lives were supposed to reflect the love of Jesus.

Sounds pretty simple - hard to live up to? Yes. I'll be the first to admit that it's quite difficult at times. Suppressing carnal instincts, such as expressing choice words for the folks I encounter on I-95, is so tempting, yet we are called to overcome those temptations.

Temptation of money can be difficult too - but still, we need to walk in the light.

Ralph Reed not granting interviews or allowing for even casual encounters with the press smacks of "what is he hiding?". Only everyone knows what's in his dark corner, and are looking for a light to reveal related details.

Honestly - if his boyish good-looks and his Christian Right connections weren't in his favor, the only place in public life he'd occupy would be one of disgrace.

Mr. Reed - for not only Georgia's sake, but for that of all Christians who struggle daily to walk in the light, please step out of the darkness and tell the truth about your dealings with Jack Abramoff, among other dealings. Please honestly tell us that you are not manipulating our common faith for personal gain. To accomplish any of that in the light is simply amazing, and if so, I commend you. Yet, from what little I know about politics, forgive me for being skeptical.

Read a very well-written and researched article about how Reed convinced God to agree with his politics and to where he is today.

Back to Church Day

2006-07-15T12:20:00.000-04:00

The first question Kristen and I asked when we stepped into Hillcrest was "What is going on here?" The answers we found were disturbing, disappointing, and quite frankly, scary. Worship and education are the two primary functions of the Church - proper emphasis must be placed on giving glory to God and perpetuating the faith and discipling believers.

Due to a combination of complicated factors, including lack of visionary leadership, the church is declining in a growing community. Sunday School attendance is down 30-40% in four years while during that same time new schools and churches just down the road have been built and planted. Notwithstanding the church is in a very visible location on the road to the courthouse - non-Baptists and non-Christians alike know where the church is.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from my observations I see church membership (generally) as concentric circles:

Center: The "core" group - these church members rarely miss an activity and will volunteer for activities without prompting. You can count on these folks to keep their word.

First outer-ring: These folks are at church 70-90% of the time. Everyone knows them, they may hold a post or two in the church, and will be happy to help out when asked.

Second outer-ring: These church members are present more often than not, most people know them, but not all, and they may be slightly unreliable. When asked to help, there's a good chance they'll accept, but have to ask to find out.

Third outer-ring: Never really sure when they'll be at church - they still may help out, but not everyone knows them, or knows them well. May show up for Sunday School and worship once every 4-5 weeks

CEO ring - Christmas and Easter only: There faces are recognizable, but very rarely do they show up.
The rest of the residential community surrounds the "circles" of the church, much like it surrounds the physical building.

Ideally, folks on the outer rings and from the community are moving toward the center of the church, or the core. Healthy churches have a "positive flow" and strong ratios between the core and the CEO's. Until a positive flow is achieved, outreach to the community is futile - if a positive flow is rooted in the surrounding community yet rams into the negative flow coming out of the core, conflict ensues.

Laity leaders are agitating because the decline in numbers is palpable, even without the assistance of a spreadsheet. A movement to reach out to the community was begun, yet my suggestion was to shore up the folks that are already connected to the church. In business the same principle stands: satisfy the needs of your current customers before you look for new ones.

If we're not meeting the needs of the current members of the church, how can we guarantee we'll meet the needs of new ones coming in from the community? First things first.

Thus, I suggested a "Back to Church Day" to coincide with the "Back to School" time of year. Parents are making Fall schedules and getting ready to get "back in the grind". The parking lot will be paved by then, providing a visual reminder that stuff is happening at church, as well as the day will be the Sunday after Kristen and I leave. The church, whether most realize it or not, is entering a "now or never" stage - thus this effort needs to happen now.

My idea is that this will be a "renewal of committment" day. Publications and postcards will be sent out detailing service and ministry opportunities for folks to get involved with. I'm hoping a "fair" type thing can be set up after services where representatives from various ministries can have a table with an interest signup sheet, more information, and a visual (sound committee = microphone). Church members can then visually see all of the opportunities in the church and get more information from the folks who are already involved.

Anyways, this is the project I'm sinking my teeth into as we transition out of the church. I pray that church members can find 2-3 hours out of the 168 hour week to serve their God through the opportunities offered at Hillcrest. I pray the pastor will set the tone for this effort by challenging the church to become more than it is, to challenge members to grow and stand up from their comfortable pews, if they come and sit in them at all. Church members must be willing to serve, but also partake in opportunities to be fed. They must take responsibility for properly teaching new members and youth and children what it means to be a Christian and responsible church member.

I pray the "negative flow" of frustration and disappointment can be stopped and reversed - Hillcrest has so much potential, yet it will be up to the leadership to challenge church members to recognize the opportunity and train them to seize God's will for "the little church on the hill".

Vote adultery for President?

2006-07-12T22:32:00.000-04:00

Big Daddy Weave has an excellent post up about how adultery is becoming more accepted. He details how both Rudy Giuliani and John McCain left their wives for different women. McCain left his wife after she raised their children while he was a POW in Vietnam and married a 25 year old woman and used her family's money to launch his career.

BDW asks "After impeaching Bill Clinton - are the Republicans ready to nominate a confessed adulterer???? Will the Evangelical-wing of the GOP support the candidacy of a cheating man???"

Call me old-fashioned, but isn't "thou shalt not commit adultery" a commandment?

With all this hype of saving marriage from homosexuals, maybe efforts should be focused on strengthening traditional marriage. How strong is marriage these days when folks like Rudy Guiliani have been married four times?

Are we focusing on a speck and ignoring the 2x4 in our own eye?

My feelings about gay marriage are mixed - I may never find an opinion that I'm 100% comfortable with - but I am sure that adultery is doing more harm to marriage than it gets credit for and I believe it's time conservatives start recognizing that fact.

Not doing so presents a moral contradiction and merely equates one sin higher than another.

This guy's still running?

2006-07-12T22:26:00.000-04:00

Ralph Reed's troubles just won't go away - in fact, they're continuing to get worse, but how is he still a contender for Lt. Governor of Georgia?

A Texas Native American tribe filed suit Wednesday alleging that ex-lobbyist Jack Abramoff, former Christian Coalition leader Ralph Reed and their associates engaged in fraud and racketeering to shut down the tribe’s casino.

The Senate Indian Affairs Committee has evidence that leads them to believe Reed was in the middle of convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff's scheme to pit Indian tribes against one another through the help of Christians.

Oh yeah, he got paid $5 million.

I'm sorry, but I received $5 million for my work, I'd like to think that I have a pretty good idea of where it came from - especially if I was a leading Christian leader.

He stinks worse than 4 day old fish.

Authoritarianism plus conservatism = kinda scary

2006-07-12T17:13:00.000-04:00

A few days ago I posted a Sinclair Lewis quote, "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." I was lambasted, quite unfairly, for posting that as a warning. I did not state that fascism would come to America, but I do agree that if it does, Lewis nailed the vehicle on which it would arrive.

Last night I came across a clip from Keith Olbermann's Countdown with John Dean. The clip is over 10 minutes long, but compelling.

First, a bit of an introduction. The person Keith is interviewing is not Michael Moore or Al Franken or even Hillary Clinton. John Dean was the former counsel for the Nixon White House - that's right - Nixon. He's a self-described "Goldwater conservative". I saw him on The Daily Show and he joked that in today's spectrum, that probably puts him just left of center.

He wrote a book, "Conservative Without Conscience", in which he explains how little-known studies on how authority figures have effected and are shaping the course of conservatism. The studies were began over fifty years ago to determine how events such as Communism in the Soviet Union and fascism in Italy and Germany took hold. Communism of course, is authoritarianism from the left and fascism is from the right.

Dean's conclusions could very well reveal the forces behind the takeover of the Southern Baptist Convention. An enemy was used to coalesce the group - liberals. Anyone who dared question the leaders were named liberals and thrown out on the street. The ends justified the means - meaning that Christian principles, or consciences, were put aside as individual's careers and lives were sacrificed for the greater group.

Please do not comment until you watch the entire video. You may read a rush transcript and follow along, but you must watch it. Besides, it's compelling to hear how someone from a group starts asking questions about that group and finds answers that are not what they expected - and are open-minded enough to share them.

Shock and awe

2006-07-11T22:43:00.000-04:00

Believe it or not, I'm patriotic - I read all of Tom Clancy's books in high school, love American history (got a degree in it), love visiting the battlefields and historic sites minutes from the house I grew up in, and love visiting DC and checking out the monuments. Additionally, I love serving the Marines and military from our boot store in Quantico, VA, as I look up to them for their daily sacrifice and love of country.

I grew up reading war stories and admired how American soldiers were "different", in a good way. Prisoners of war often expected harsh treatment or instant execution, because that's how their army dealt with their prisoners. (How many of us understand what "Hanoi Hilton" means?). Yet, they were surprised.

Americans clothed and fed the prisoners - they didn't coddle them by any means, but definitely exceeded their expectations. Yes they were trying to kill us, and yes they probably hated us, but they were still human beings and deserved dignity.

I often viewed Christians in the same way - we're "different" from the world. We respond to bad situations in different ways - for instance, instead of dismissing and telling homeless folks to get a job, we're called to treat them with dignity. Growing up I remember the question "when you die, if the saints held a trial, could they convict you of being a Christian?". We were taught that we should be able to show that we were a Christian through our actions and our words - we shouldn't have to say "I'm a Christian". Natural human reactions, or those of the world, were supposed to be replaced by a "What Would Jesus Do?" attitude.

I'm disappointed in those who justify torture. I see the issue in simple terms - if we are at war, and we take prisoners, then they are prisoners of war. To say anything else creates a paradox. I also believe that torture has no place in Christianity. None.

Dr. Richard Land disagrees with me and is quoted in an Associated Baptist Press article about the Supreme Court's invalidating President Bush's denial of rights for prisoners from the war on terror.

"Make no mistake, we are at war with an enemy that loathes with every fiber of its being everything that we stand for as a nation," he said, adding that the court's invalidation of Bush's policy toward the detainees "weakens presidential powers in a time of war and betrays a serious and perhaps fatal misunderstanding of the nature of the threat we face…."

Land said the most troubling issue was the ruling's premise "that terrorists, representing no nation and wearing no uniform, are somehow deserving of being accorded the protections of the Geneva Convention covering prisoners of war, protections which exceed those afforded an American citizen arrested for a crime and incarcerated in the local jail."

Am I the only one to see a paradox in his statement? His words "we are at war" and concluson that prisoners of the "war" are not "prisoners of war" baffles me. Read that sentence out loud. Doesn't that sound a bit silly?

Yes I know that these folks want to kill us - you don't need to remind me of the deep anger I felt when I crested the hill in Arlington, VA on I-395 and saw the blackened hole of the Pentagon three weeks after September 11. You don't have to remind me of knowing that plane hit the Navy section of the Pentagon and that my dad works for the Navy and occasionally goes to meetings at the Pentagon. You don't have to remind me of my frustration of trying to call back east to make sure everyone was okay. I can't imagine the grief and anger of folks who lost loved ones that day.

I'll be the first to admit that I wanted to string them up and have them experience the pain that they caused - yet deep down, I knew that wasn't right. My spiritual convictions were trying to replace my visceral human reaction. I have to repeatedly tell myself that the terrorists deserve dignity. Why?

Believe it or not, even God loves them, and because Jesus taught "love your enemies", I would hope and pray that the Southern Baptist Convention's ethics spokesman would forego his natural humanistic instincts and attempt to follow Christ's teaching. It's hard - oh man is it hard - but what part of our faith is easy?

Furthermore, I buy the argument that the ceasement of torture will actually help the United States.

Jeanne Herrick-Stare, senior fellow for civil liberties and human rights at the Friends Committee on National Legislation, agreed. According to Herrick-Stare, the administration has been treating "individual human beings" at Guantanamo in ways it would not tolerate for Americans. The Friends Committee is one of Washington's largest peace lobbies, and was founded by the pacifist Christian Quaker sect in 1943.

"The administration's cruel and brutal treatment of detainees shows the world an ugly picture of the United States, a picture that reinforces the terrorist recruiting efforts," Herrick-Stare told ABP.

She said that when it comes to Christian ethics, the end of "ridding the world of tyrannical despots and those who would kill and maim innocents" does not always justify the means of circumventing international agreements on the conduct of war.

Justifying the means by the end is a human and wordly mode of operation, yet religious organizations such as the Southern Baptist Convention exude this mentality. Long-cherished teachings and values are thrown in front of the bus and justified as being good for the overall group. Individuals are often sacrificed for the supposed greater good.

Herrick-Stare goes on:

"While the goals the administration says it is pursuing may be considered worthy or even admirable to many…the means that the administration has utilized to achieve those goals will forever sully the good intentions with which the goals have been pursued."
Simply put, by crossing the line into unethical conduct, Herrick-Stare said, the current administration has "shocked the conscience of the world."

To make it clear - I'm not disputing the ends, I'm disappointed and shocked by the means. Justified war is unfortunate, but necessary, but so is following the rules, even if the other side does not.

How can we proud of a country that justifies torture? More importantly, how can we be proud of our faith in Jesus and His teachings when fellow Christians endorse torture?

I am a Christian. I am an American. I interact with Marines and soldiers everyday and pray for them. I love my country. I do not like terrorists. I want our cause to succeed over their cause.

I do not want to stoop to their level and compromise what makes us different, special, and unique. We're called to a higher standard - it's time to stop taking the easy highway and start down the narrow path.

Glimpsing mountains in the valley

2006-07-10T21:38:00.000-04:00

Last month marked the year anniversary of my wife's position as Youth & Children's Minister at Hillcrest. We were excited when we began because we had a place where we could both find our niche and really plug in and serve the Lord. Kristen, obviously, carried out the duties of her job as I helped out with various communication-based ministries (fancy words for sound, newsletters, and the website). We both worked with the after-school program each Wednesday, and pitched in where ever needed.

Yesterday she announced her resignation effective August 20 to the surprise of some, but not to others.

There's a flier outside the church office that says we are not to come to church just to be fed, but we must bring a spoon. In other words, we must be willing to serve, to work, and to sacrifice so as to glorify the Body, and in turn, receive spiritual nourishment. Or so my amateurish theology impacts my faith and works.

I won't go into much detail, but suffice to say, the past year has been very difficult for both of us - emotionally, physically, and most important, spiritually. It's time for both us and the church to move on. In many ways, we have a lot of healing to do.

One thing we noticed from the start was that Hillcrest is a church very much in transition. Once a rural church, suburbia is fast closing in. Unfortunately, due to past malformation and lack of a vision, the church is searching for an identity yet doesn't know how to find one. External growth factors are very positive - internal factors are styming potential for growth through discipleship, fellowship, and outreach. Just recently serious efforts have been initiated to foster spiritual development, and we pray that they will "grow legs" and help Hillcrest realize God's will. Exciting times await the church, yet the process will still be difficult. I know we will be praying for them as well as checking in with folks in the church as time goes on to see where they are.

We leave with mixed feelings, for positive lessons have been learned - about ourselves, our faith, and the universal church. Strangely to me, I've felt a call to go into some sort of ministry and will start seminary in September. (Wow. Me? I still can't wrap my head around that one) I feel like I have been able to make a "mark" in that church, and through serving in a behind-the-scenes way, discovered my passion for serving God's church and His people.

Kristen struggled to reach the youth and the church, as she had to combat a lack of discipleship and understanding of what church is. (I thought everybody knew!?) However, members were sweet Sunday as they are sad to see her go because progress has been made and she has made a mark as well.

While there, she re-discovered her love for urban ministry, and through a required internship with school she is assuming a position with Embrace Richmond, a great organization that ensures at-risk families do not find themselves back in a homeless shelter. In just a short amount of time this ministry is having a significant impact in inner-city Richmond, and I'm excited for her and this opportunity.

God works in very strange ways - one lesson I keep having to re-learn is that we cannot waste time wondering "I wish this would have happened differently" - we must learn from the past and push on forward. I have a hard head and oftentimes God has to work around that and teach me lessons the hard way.

Please pray for us as we make yet another life-change and move on beyond Hillcrest. My boss recently told me he wants to make me partner, which is a huge blessing financially as our budget is facing shrinkage. :)

Kristen's currently in Louisville at Passport with the youth until Saturday. Please pray for her as the youth group works through this transition and that they can learn to love Jesus more this week despite the distraction.

We feel very blessed by God as He has been very faithful to us throughout our marriage. Hopefully when Kristen has more time next month she can stop back by here and contribute a bit more, especially as she begins her new job.

I would like to thank all five of you for making it this far and for stopping by here to read my random musings and rants.

Blessings.

Concise summary of Reed's misdeeds

2006-07-09T15:26:00.000-04:00

Power + money corrupts. Power + money + Christianity corrupts the Body of Christ.

Ralph Reed has a very weak defense against charges of corruption as he runs for Lt. Governor of Georgia.

Via Jesus Politics, Garrison Keillor wrote a concise summary of Reed's dealing with Jack Abramoff.

If a preacher secretly accepts a bucket of money from a saloonkeeper to organize a temperance rally at a rival saloon and maybe send in a gang of church ladies to chop up the bar with their little hatchets, this would strike you and me as sleazy, but others are willing to make allowances, and so Ralph Reed's political career is still alive and breathing in Georgia. He has bathed himself in tomato juice and hopes to smile his way through the storm.

Isn't that a page out of President Clinton's playbook? Ignore scandal and try to use charm and looks to get through?

The difference is Reed has the support of many evangelicals because they view him as a potential Christian statesmen. I would have thought that more people in Georgia could see that the actions and the words of Mr. Reed don't quite match.

The fact that Ralph Reed is using his faith, despite damning evidence, is under-handed, sneaky, and sinister.

I have nothing against Christians running for office - I just want them to actually act like a Christian.

A question

2006-07-08T16:32:00.000-04:00

Inspired by reading comments at another blog, along with visiting the Hanover Tomato Festival, I thought this question was appropriate: How much better off would our country be if more folks stopped claiming Christianty and started practicing Christianity?

Clear and present danger

2006-07-08T12:37:00.000-04:00

The more I learn the history of Christianity, the struggles of the original Protestants, and the struggles of early, particularly Virginia, Baptists, the more I concerned I become in making sure contemporary society understands those struggles.

Vivian Paige alerted me to a Virginian-Pilot columnist, Betsy Wright Rhodes, and her latest column "God in government 'a clear and present danger'".

The article gives a concise history of the early Christian church and a brief summation of the paradigm shifts that propelled our faith to that which we understand today.

We must guard our heritage, for those who control the past control the future. No matter what spectrum we hail from, honest discourse must be fostered so we do not jeopardize lessons learned.

Incredible power

2006-07-07T22:26:00.000-04:00

Via religious right watch comes a Sinclair Lewis quote:

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross."

The gut-pulling emotional power of both nationalism and our faith is great - combining the two must be done carefully, if at all. How easy would it be to forego our humbleness in favor of arrogance derived from being convinced we're right? Where did Jesus display an arrogant attitude? Even under pain of death, with no friends, He still accepted the free will of the people to not accept Him.

Our Constitution allows for debate, and God is big enough to accept our questions. We must not force conformity by handling dissent with accusations that one isn't patriotic or religious enough.

Nazism thrived under those types of conditions - we must maintain the integrity of our Constitution and the protections they provide for all Americans to prevent national discourse from diving down that slippery slope.

Polar opposites

2006-07-06T00:41:00.000-04:00

I'm still undecided on the mixture of patriotism and my faith - yes Judeo-Christian principles played an important role in the founding of our country, although I believe the Enlightenment played a signficant role as well; and yes as a Baptist who understands my roots, I believe the separation of church and state is *gasp!* a good thing.

I'm not sure I'm comfortable with this statue. If it works for those folks, so be it.

The $260,000 price tag does gets to me. (Kind of reminds me how a couple years ago the International Mission Board spent so much money installing a huge globe statue in the lobby among other "renovations" that missionary candidates had to be turned away due to funding shortages.)

However, I can't shake the thought that the opposite would be a statue of Jesus waving an American flag.

Since I know I would be opposed to that (Jesus died for all sinners, He's for all countries, the American flag isn't in the Bible, etc etc etc), I'm thinking that this statue crosses a line.

Again, those folks can do whatever they want - I'm thankful that's over 800 miles away from me.

Baptist Theological Seminary at Richmond

2006-07-06T00:09:00.000-04:00

Earlier this year when I began to sense a call to ministry, whatever that would look like, I fought God like a... well, I was hoping for something witty there, but it's too late. Suffice to say, I resisted, yet was affirmed through diverse sources. Before I knew it I was looking at various seminaries, yet neglected to take a good look at the one in my own backyard.

My tendency is to be a bit of a home-body, but I didn't want that to be the reason why I would pick BTSR. I wanted to ensure that wherever I went I would be equipped with the necessary tools for ministry in a setting which fostered diversity, encouragement, and community.

Today I had a great meeting with Dr. Rodgersons-Pleasants, Professor of Church History at BTSR. Time flew by as we discussed numerous items. In a sense we interviewed each other - me seeking to learn more about the school, her learning about me and affirming how church history should and could fit into my education and calling.

I have been incredibly blessed, yet I feel like I totally do not deserve any of it. I struggle daily with my walk with Christ. I'm my own worst critic - I know intimately of my shortcomings and failings, yet realize that God knows me way more than I know myself. How can God even consider using me?

One of the many lessons I've learned in the past few years is how to accept grace. God has proven that He can and will use anyone He wants to achieve His will, even me. I just pray that I can be the best steward of the gifts and talents entrusted to me and look forward to a 'holy pat on the head'.

So, please excuse me if posting frequency decreases a bit as I work to get my application complete. This blog was started and solely exists as a gift to my wife so her ears don't explode from my rantings and ravings. Truthfully I could care less how many people read my amateur attempts to sort my brain and heart out. Whether three or three thousand people read this thing, MC exists for me.

Would I mind more readers? Yes and no. At times I would like the chance to appeal to larger audiences, but most times my opinions are not fully worked out and I don't want to be pinned down on an issue on which I'm still chewing.

I'm a bit interested to see what direction MC will turn once I start classes September 7th.

Jesus would applaud

2006-07-05T12:23:00.000-04:00

For the humor-impaired, the subject line drips with sarcasm.

Via Crooks and Liars, check out how forcing Christianity down non-Christian's throats affects this 6th grader: "I feel bad when kids in my class call me Jew boy." Oh yeah, and his family felt so threatened for challenging the coercion that they moved.

Jesus never forced anybody to accept His message, much less use the government for His Will, and neither should we. We are given the Holy Spirit and the Church for a reason. Maybe it's about time we start using it?

We all should be watchful for racism masked in Christianista dominionist terms.

Interstates, government, and church

2006-07-04T23:27:00.000-04:00

I hope everyone had a great Independence Day - I definitely did. To be able to celebrate a free country in which we are able to freely worship is something that's too easily taken for granted.

I talked to my dad for awhile tonight, and I have to give him credit for the basis of this post. We both live within a few miles of I-95 - one of the busiest highways in the nation. In fact, I was so jaded growing up that I thought all interstates had three lanes and thus considered two-lane routes to be equivalent to dirt roads.

The speed limit through non-urban stretches in Virginia is 65 mph, yet the average speed routinely tops 75. The state and local counties can spend millions on traffic enforcement, but they will never slow everybody down or even stop a majority of speeders.

Sure they will have an effect, but they won't fix the problem. Drivers have to police themselves.

Such as it is with how our government affects our moral values - we can set restrictions and try to enforce them until we're blue in the face, but ultimately whether or not someone follows those restrictions is up to them. They have to want to obey society's standards. Coercion rarely works in moral circumstances as placing faith in one-size fits all laws ignores the Church's purpose.

The Church must teach and encourage folks to police and discipline themselves. Those folks should be able to find accountability for their actions. As more people look to God-given institutions for moral guidance and assistance, more people in our society will start setting examples and spread Godly values.

I sense that many Christians expect our nation's next "Great Awakening" to derive from the government. We can no longer blithely ignore God's given church and the power of the Holy Spirit to profoundly shape the course of our nation. To do so limits God's power and places trust in man-made institutions.

We can make all the moral laws we want, but until the Church fosters a spirit of obedience and acceptance of Biblical teaching, the government's actions will ultimately be for naught.

A cynical ploy

2006-07-04T11:02:00.000-04:00

House Majority Leader John Boehner describes a plan by Democrats to use minimum wage as a campaign issue a "cynical ploy".

So - considering a way to provide relief and dignity to those at the bottom is a cynical ploy?

I would much rather have a party use the minimum wage freeze as a moral issue to build support than preying on the prejudices of Americans.

With Republican leaders denying a straight vote on the issue, don't you think this issue deserves an up or down vote?

But... maybe I'm just a little cynical.

Unsettling divisions

2006-07-03T23:00:00.000-04:00

I grew up in a Southern Baptist church and started my questioning of the denomination once I learned the history of its beginning. Splitting over slavery, not theology, didn't sit well with me. Furthermore, other denominations that had done the same thing came back together after the Civil War - except the Southern Baptists. Thought it took the Methodists more than a century, they still reunited with their northern brethren.

During a random Google search tonight, I stumbled upon an Associated Baptist Press article from Februrary. The part that stuck out to me was:

The Baptist battles have left an enduring legacy of polarizing divisions between north and south, black and white, liberal and conservative, right and left. What we have tried to articulate is a dynamic center that offers alternatives to the polarization that exists in our culture and our churches.

"Enduring legacy" - in other words, we as Baptists have emotional and theological baggage centering around extra-biblical separation and disunion.

Much, if not all, of the divisions within the Baptist world centers around cultural differences, including those listed in the quote along with urban versus rural, educated versus uneducated, and the have's versus the have not's.

I'm not ashamed to be a part of an organization that seeks to cut through the worldly crap and focus on Biblical principles for winning the lost, perpetuating the faith, and serving God. If we and other Christians disagree on how to go about those things, then so be it, but I have no tolerance for division based on superficial criteria such as skin color, economic status, or political beliefs.

God made all of us - how difficult is it to accept that and try to seek common ground to achieve His will?

Erosion of Baptist principles

2006-07-01T11:20:00.000-04:00

As I sit here uploading VBS pictures to the computer, I noticed Wade Burleson had just posted for the first time in a few days. He noted that former Alabama Governor, Don Siegelman, was indicted for receiving political bribes among other things. Burleson notes he was involved in Christian activities and issued a warning that:

...[I]t is a reminder to us all that people with power, left unchecked and unguarded, become addicted by their power to the point of being anesthetized to their own immoral actions.

Amen. He went on to say:

Our founding fathers of the United States understood the safety in the separation of powers, and even religious denominations and organizations should be aware of handing too much power into the hands of any one person or oligarchy of people. The same principle applies to the local church, and I'm afraid that in the future we may be finding that several congregations will have to deal with pastors who have assumed total authority of a church and have abused the trust. I am still one, unlike many of my friends, who believe congregational authority in major decisions is still best philosophically, and yes, even Scripturally (the priesthood of every believer).

Okay - on that issue we're on the same wavelength. What really bothered me, though, was the last sentence: "I am still one, unlike many of my friends, who believe congregational authority in major decisions is still best philosophically, and yes, even Scripturally (the priesthood of every believer)."

Unlike many of my friends... *sigh*. This issue strikes at the core of the differences between traditional Baptists found in organizations like the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, and those who took over the Southern Baptist Convention. By and large, folks running and within the CBF understand that congregationalism is a fundamental Baptist principle, and from that, the priesthood of every believer.

The question comes "Who determines our theology?". Our theology is not determined by a pope or a denominational leader or even our pastor - but through our own interpretation. That's why we're unique as Baptists - or at least supposed to be.

One of the first goals of the fundamentalists was to use the office of the President to pack seminary trustee boards with like-minded folks. Once a majority was attained, they replaced the school's President and started witchhunts to weed out professors who wouldn't submit to their beliefs.

Who determines our theology? Not a trustee board.

Once the seminaries were firmly in the grasp of the fundamentalists - namely Southern, Southeastern, and Southwestern, the new professors could focus on perpetuating their skewed view of Baptist principles on their students. The students then would graduate and assume pastorates with a loss of respect of the congregation and a belief that they were in charge of the church. By sheer numbers, churches would be expected to steer more conservative than before with these new graduates.

Who determines our theology? Not a pastor.

Think I'm a bit alarmist? Read the yearly review of the Southern Baptist Conservatives of Virginia's Baptist Banner. It reads like a war report. T.C. Pinckney details every state and how conservative efforts are going and sizing the strength of the CBF, as if they were gauging the power of the enemy. North Carolina's report from 2004 in part reads "Conservative Southeastern graduates are being called to pastorates and are having a growing impact."

What is that growing impact? Generating support to remove North Carolina's state convention's unique giving plan is part of the answer. Baptists in NC can choose one of four plans to send their money - one that's all SBC entities, one that's all CBF, and the rest are hybrids. As Baptist churches are supposed to be locally run, this sort of plan makes sense. Let the local church decide where they want its money to go.

Who determines our theology? Not a state convention.

By ignoring congregational authority and the Baptist and Scriptural principles that form its undergirding, fundamentalists are continuing to seek control on anything that currently remains out of their grasp. This includes state conventions (North Carolina will fall soon), agencies (the Women's Missionary Union escaped again this year), and local churches.

What we're seeing is the latter stages of the plan hatched more than 30 years ago by Paul Pressler, Paige Patterson, and the like. Baptists have historically formed organizations as a way to network the local church to provide money for missions, seminary training, and educational materials. The focus has been a "bottom-up" endeavor as the various agencies and boards were called to support the local church. The fundamentalists, in their quest for power from the top-down, were forced to give realign to the SBC in a similar fashion to consolidate their new-found control.

Traditional Baptists balked. The majority of Baptists stayed within the SBC simply because they did not understand what it means to be Baptist. I would venture to say that some do not even care as they wholly agree with the aims of the SBC.

I, for one, do care. I understand the persecution our Baptist forefathers endured, both in Europe and here in America. Virginia Baptists were especially persecuted for their beliefs. I cannot remain idle while I watch fellow Baptists throw out those hard-fought principles in an arrogant quest for power.

Baptists did not come together to compel one another to the same interpretation of doctrine - they came together to pool resources for perpetuating the faith through missions and education. Organizations such as the CBF understand this, and many will continually to malign it until they understand why it must exist.

And that's where I feel called to come in.

//For a quick reading of traditional Baptist principles, visit this page. To read what's important to Southern Baptists, read this page at the Founder's Journal, which self-proclaims itself to be "Committed to historic Baptist principles". Notice what's important and what's left out. More will be written on this in the future.

More on Obama

2006-06-30T11:13:00.000-04:00

I must admit that I did not read the entire speech by Obama, but the buzz around it has compelled me to do so. This quote as editorialized in the Washington Post struck out to me and made me want to read the entire thing.

On the matter of church-state separation, Obama doesn't propose some contrived balancing act but embraces religion's need for independence from government. In a direct challenge to "conservative leaders," he argued that "they need to understand the critical role that the separation of church and state has played in preserving not only our democracy, but the robustness of our religious practice."

"Folks tend to forget," he continued, "that during our founding, it wasn't the atheists or the civil libertarians who were the most effective champions of the First Amendment," but "persecuted minorities" such as Baptists "who didn't want the established churches to impose their views.

That's why I'm so passionate about learning our history as Baptists and how that applies to today's issues. I believe the general term is "Christian ethics", but more in line with the old Christian Life Commission and the current Baptist Center for Ethics as opposed to the Ethics and Religious Liberty Comission of the Southern Baptist Convention.

I can't wait to start seminary - now I just gotta get the money lined up...

Watch this guy

2006-06-28T15:10:00.000-04:00

From this article, it appears that the junior senator from Illinois gets it:

"Not every mention of God in public is a breach to the wall of separation. Context matters," the Illinois Democrat said in remarks prepared for delivery to a conference of Call to Renewal, a faith-based movement to overcome poverty.

"It is doubtful that children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance feel oppressed or brainwashed as a consequence of muttering the phrase `under God,'" he said. "Having voluntary student prayer groups using school property to meet should not be a threat, any more than its use by the High School Republicans should threaten Democrats."

...

Obama said millions of Christians, Muslims and Jews have traveled similar religious paths, and that is why "we cannot abandon the field of religious discourse. ... In other words, if we don't reach out to evangelical Christians and other religious Americans and tell them what we stand for, Jerry Falwells and Pat Robertsons will continue to hold sway."

Obama coupled his advice with a warning. "Nothing is more transparent than inauthentic expressions of faith: the politicians who shows up at a black church around election time and claps — off rhythm — to the gospel choir."

At the same time, he said, "Secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering the public square."

We as Christians would do well to check ourselves to make sure politicians don't take advantage of us for mere political gain. Politicians who only address moral issues a few months before an election are opportunists.

We are a people of faith - not a consumer group or voting bloc.

What does that have to do with anything?

2006-06-27T20:46:00.000-04:00

While staying dry here in the soggy East, I was perusing some blogs and news sites as I'm wont to do and asked myself this same question three different times: "What does that have to do with anything?".

I first asked that question while reading a Talk To Action story about fundamentalists efforts in the United Methodist Church. A suspiciously well-written and controversial resolution was offered at a conference that originated from the Institute on Religion and Democracy. The mission statement of the IRD reveals the following intention:

The Institute on Religion and Democracy is an ecumenical alliance of U.S. Christians working to reform their churches’ social witness, in accord with biblical and historic Christian teachings, thereby contributing to the renewal of democratic society at home and abroad....

...The IRD believes that the Christian tradition has great resources for the building of a just society. Among the basic teachings with profound political implications are these: God alone is sovereign and worthy of worship. All persons are created in the image of God. Endowed with inalienable rights, persons have the responsibility to love their neighbors. A church that faithfully proclaims and demonstrates these teachings will do much to sustain and spread democracy.

Um... I'm a patriotic American, but where exactly in the Bible are we called to spread democracy? I can point you to what we are called to do, but the word democracy isn't even in my Bible. This mission statement's misguided theology is revealing in its cherrypicking of biblical teachings and for subsequent justification for mixing in Enlightenment ideals.

The entire statement is worth reading as it focuses on even more extra-Biblical judgements bordering on national idolatory, which will be examined at a later date.

The sample resolution demands the UMC to pull out of the National Council of Churches for no less than fifteen reasons. The very first is thus:

WHEREAS the NCC regularly takes controversial positions on divisive political issues (such as opposing the war in Iraq, opposing Republican efforts to reform Social Security, and supporting judicial filibusters) while purporting to represent its member denominations;

I'm sorry, but what does the reformation of Social Security have to do with denominational life and our Christian faith? What does that have to do with anything?

The other question was asked while reading a Baptist Press article about the Texas CBF meeting. The below quote is this article's culprit:

Currie also spoke for the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty (formerly Public Affairs), an advocacy group located in Washington, D.C., that consistency has taken positions different from social conservatives. Among other things, the BJC has opposed school vouchers, the posting of Ten Commandments displays on public property, public prayer and certain abstinence programs.

What in the blooming world does opposition to school vouchers have to do with anything, and again, why is it the first reason listed? Growing up in the South and given its history, I have an idea of why that may be, but again, that's a topic to explore another day.

Please let me know if I'm wrong in asking the following question: Does the Bible condemn opposition to school vouchers and other Republican initiatives, including disagreeing with the Iraq war and opposing judicial filibusters?

Am I the only one who's wary of connecting any particular party's ideal to God's holy Church? Am I the only one that understands that God gave us His Church, not a government, to follow His Great Commission? Am I the only one who is completely confused that these folks oppose governmental social programs because it's the Church's responsibility, yet advocate that the government is responsible for legislating morality? And further, am I the only one who understands that Jesus changed the course of history forever, and did it without ever casting a vote?

Watch out for these wolves in sheep's clothing - they take advantage of our faith and pervert biblical teachings to serve their culturally and humanistic biases.

Some quotes...

2006-06-27T13:12:00.000-04:00

Life has been crazy with Vacation Bible School, trying to get my head straight with seminary, and watching soccer. I currently have three books that I'm wading through - slowly, yet surely.

One of them is written by Dr. Israel Galindo, a professor at Baptist Theological Seminary at Richmond, called The Hidden Lives of Congregations. The book is proving to be a must-read for congregational leaders and laity to understand the underlying dynamics that are in play in everyday church life.

So, on that note, chew on this:

The institutional tendency of organizations, however, is to focus primarily on self-preservation and on the comfort and benefit of their own members. And while a congregation is an institutionalized expression of the Church, it is wrong, and against its nature, when self-preservation and comfort become the primary reasons for its existence. When that happens, says pastor and auther C. John Miller, the local congregation ceases to be the incarnate Body of Christ or a fellowship of disciples, and has become more like a retreat center where anxious members come to draw resources to help them cope with their own lives. (Galindo, 41)

I heard a sermon about six weeks ago explaining that an alternate sign for the front of the church should read "assisted living home". That's great and a necessary component, but cannot be the sole reason of why we, as the Church, are here.

600,000 Americans dead

2006-06-24T22:25:00.000-04:00

Does the subject line irk you? It should.

That would be the equivalent of the 50,000 plus Iraqis dead since the invasion. 50,000. Just over 600,000 Americans died during the Civil War, to give you some perspective. Thus, 50,000 out of 26 million is kind of a big deal.

Does 50,000 Iraqi dead irk you? If so, you're probably a minority here in America.

We lost 3,000 people in one day. How do you think Iraq feels with losing the equivalent of 600,000 people in 3 years?

If we're so bent up about fighting the insurgents over there instead of here at home, why didn't we stick around in Afghanistan and finish the job there?

Remember how everyone agreed that we needed to go to Afghanistan? There was no question - that's where the bad guys were, we had to go there.

I think that question is appropriate, given how nearly every excuse...I mean justification, for going to war with Iraq continues to be debunked. The latest comes from the Washington Post:

In late January 2003, as Secretary of State Colin Powell prepared to argue the Bush administration's case against Iraq at the United Nations, veteran CIA officer Tyler Drumheller sat down with a classified draft of Powell's speech to look for errors. He found a whopper: a claim about mobile biological labs built by Iraq for germ warfare.

Drumheller instantly recognized the source, an Iraqi defector suspected of being mentally unstable and a liar. The CIA officer took his pen, he recounted in an interview, and crossed out the whole paragraph.

A few days later, the lines were back in the speech. Powell stood before the U.N. Security Council on Feb. 5 and said: "We have first-hand descriptions of biological weapons factories on wheels and on rails."

The sentence took Drumheller completely by surprise.

"We thought we had taken care of the problem," said the man who was the CIA's European operations chief before retiring last year, "but I turn on the television and there it was, again."

I'm proud, fiercely proud, to be an American, but I'm ashamed of our conduct and lack of stategic anticipation and planning. Let's start acting like the country we are.

Minimum Wage

2006-06-23T12:36:00.000-04:00

I'm ashamed of the Senate's refusal to raise the minimum wage - how can you justify cutting taxes for the wealthy and giving yourself pay raises all while CEO pay is skyrocketing - and not raise the minimum wage? Oh yeah, not to mention gas prices are eating more and more into folks' budgets, including mine.

Via Howie Luvzus comes some truth from Barbara Ehrenreich's blog:

From a Congress that has consistently cut taxes for the wealthy, themselves included, while cutting programs that serve the poor and the middle class, the minimum wage vote is not entirely surprising. What merits special notice in this instance is the unctuous rhetoric that arose from the sties as Republicans rushed to explain that by holding down the minimum wage they were actually helping the poor. If we don’t keep wages down, they said, grease dripping from the corners of their mouths, the Predators might find their prey less tasty, and unemployment will rise!

Never mind that there is no empirical evidence for this prediction. Employment didn’t plunge the last time the minimum wage was increased, in 1997, nor has this happened in any of the states – Massachusetts for example – that have raised their own minimum wages in the last few years. I grant you that there might be trouble if the minimum wage were to rise at the same rate as CEO pay. As the Institute for Policy Studies reported in 2005, “If the minimum wage had risen as fast as CEO pay since 1990, the lowest paid workers in the US would be earning $23.03 an hour today, not $5.15 an hour.”

Nor is it true, incidentally, that the minimum wage is paid mostly to teenagers working to support their Abercrombie and Fitch habits. According to economist Heather Boushey at the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, fewer than one in five minimum wage workers is under the age of 20. In my experience, many of those youthful minimum wage workers are in fact making important contributions, however tiny, to their families’ inadequate incomes.

Recognizing and addressing this issue, to me, is more pressing than useless non-binding resolutions and gay marriage debates.

Call me a crazy liberal, but I have a sneaking suspicion that a single mother working 2 jobs just to put food on the table would benefit more from a small pay raise than knowing that 'dem gays aren't a-marrying.'

I mean, when you have your kids in daycare all day and come home exhausted, only to find yourself charged with helping out with homework, cleaning house, and oh yeah, praying for health insurance, I would think this Congress as failed people in these types of situations.

I've experienced the mentality of paying people minimum wage just because they can. There was no fiscal reason - the attitude was 'they should consider themselves lucky to have a job at all'.

Jesus gave a damn - maybe we should too.

Ralph Reed lied

2006-06-22T17:39:00.000-04:00

...or so the evidence seems to indicate.

Via Raw Story, emails insinuate that Ralph Reed received contributions from Jack Abramoff, despite saying in January that he did not.

So - is lying allowed in the Bible? Maybe I should visit the nearest courthouse and find out.

The temptation of arrogance

2006-06-21T15:03:00.000-04:00

Over at Inspired Thoughts, my sister wrote an excellent post called "How being right can hurt". I encourage you all to read it as she defines the problem I have with arrogance in the church.

One of the biggest lessons I've learned through my faith walk is that the Bible isn't always as clear-cut as we want it to be. Does this weaken the strength of the Bible? No. I believe the Holy Spirit, combined with our free will, to work within us to allow for multiple interpretations depending on our life-walk.

Jillian hits the proverbial nail on the head: Putting one's theology above loving others, not to mention over God Himself, weakens the Body of Christ.

I fear for today's church as arrogance and domination seem to become more accepted in our common theology. Arrogance is not of God - you can come up with your own source of this pervasive yet tolerated malady.

BTSR?

2006-06-20T16:08:00.000-04:00

I stopped by the admissions office at Baptist Theological Seminary at Richmond today to ask a few questions. I also received materials from Union Theological Seminary-Presbyterian School of Christian Education yesterday, which is right across the street from BTSR.

BTSR just has the M.Div, while Union has a dual-degree program w/ a M.Div and M.A. in Christian Education. I really like the MACE, but I'm thinking if I do that, I want to be in a Baptist seminary for the Divinity degree.

My question was 'could I do a dual-degree program between the two seminaries' - M.Div at BTSR, MACE at Union.

I'm already planning to audit a couple of courses this year, but if I plan to go to BTSR I'll take them for credit and maybe add a couple more to give me a headstart for Fall '07. Also, it would be nice to ease on in back to school as I've gotten used to being out.

Yay, fun times.

Usurping the power of the Gospel

2006-06-19T20:43:00.000-04:00

Streak pointed out a paragraph I somehow missed in an post I read earlier from Baptist Blogger. Though I am not as theologically conservative, it is interesting to watch those without power in the Southern Baptist Convention realize something many moderates have understood for years - the SBC is eating it's own.

The post highlights a point that I've wrestled with for a long time. My contention is that there seems to be a mentality of "I'm going to heaven if I vote for the right candidate and warm my pew every Sunday". The ability and power of the Church, which God clearly gave us, has taken a backseat in lieu of Washington, DC.

Why are so many Christians trying to dominate society through man-made government instead of affecting and changing society through Christ's Church? That, to me, isn't biblical.

Baptist Blogger writes:

The Southern Baptist Convention has relegated Christian liberty in Christ to confessional oblivion and those who are willing to engage seriously in a discussion of its meaning and limit are characterized as an ungodly, immoral, unholy, and impure bunch of bootleggers peddling liquid licentiousness. Yet when the stars and stripes are waved, or 'God Bless America' is sung, tears roll down cheeks and hands are lifted high.

We are, it seems, no different that the German Church at the close of the Weimar Republic. Nationalism is our religion. The Gospel is now emptied of its power to set the captives free. This disturbs me more than the resolution itself. In fact, I could have stomached two years of the runner-up much easier than to stand in the convention hall and watch my fellow messengers rise to their feet when the death of Al-Zarquawi is announced. A soul is sent to hell, and we do not grieve. We cheer."

The SBC of yesterday allowed discussion, dissent, and honest yet biblical discourse. The SBC of today does not.

The SBC of yesterday engaged in all aspects of our country's moral issues - the SBC of today does not.

The SBC of yesterday understood that the only reason Baptists got together in the first place was to do missions, yet the SBC of today does not.

The SBC of yesterday understood hat a large doctrinal umbrella through cooperation was an effective tool for reaching the lost, yet the SBC of today does not.

The SBC of today is more culturally based than Baptist based. There's a reason why most Baptist historians are moderate - they study how Baptists got started, why they were persecuted, what they stood for, and look at the Southern Baptist Convention and realize that its abandoned its heritage in favor of political back-stabbing, unbiblical doctrines, power moves, and culturally conservative norms.

The SBC of yesterday was a powerful instrument of which to advance God's Kingdom - now, it risks dividing itself into obscurity, all because a few leaders sought complete control and power.

Moral economics

2006-06-19T14:11:00.000-04:00

In my mind, something more pressing than gay marriage is the ton of debt assumed by many Americans. Ethics Daily has a great article written by Jim Evans regarding the Payday loan industry and how churches can potentially address this issue.

Outside of home mortgages, Americans owe over $2 trillion. I'm no economist, but that's a lot of money.

I believe Evans handles the issue in a fair way, acknowledging that many folks have put themselves on the edge of financial ruin through compulsive spending. Yet, there are folks who, for whatever reason, are just hanging on.

Instead of charging exorbiant fees, we as Christians, if we truly desire to emulate Christ in today's world, should work toward a multi-pronged approach to help combat debt.

Church seminars advertised toward the community may be a good step.