Steve Kimes, Anawim esq.

If Jesus Was Involved in American Politics...

2012-01-25T13:00:00.000-08:00

My sources tell me that this is a picture of Jesus healing a centurion's ear. But it looks like Jesus got fed up of "turning the other cheek" and decided to give some back.

Certainly that's how most of the American church reacts when they are exposed to anything they find offensive. Like the fact a Democrat is in the White House.

Jesus Heals Today

2012-01-25T12:57:00.000-08:00

If the gospels are true and Jesus arose from the dead, he also said that we could do greater works than he did when he was here. Some of the works are great works of compassion-- feeding and healing millions more than He did through feeding programs, hospitals and through great effort and compassionate wisdom.

But Jesus hasn't stopped working. He can, and does, heal today.

This doesn't mean that to see a doctor is a lack of faith. Jesus is happy to have us help each other and use what knowledge and resources we have to help the needy. But like the woman who saw many doctors and then came to Jesus, we will not be denied by Jesus.

Many who are ill, who have not obtained help by any-- go to Jesus. He can and will heal. He won't heal everyone, it is true. Some of us need to continue in our weakness. But others will be healed.

I had a terrible gallstone at one point, in which I would be in pain for hours, unable to get out of bed. I couldn't pay for a doctor. A group of healers prayed for me, and I was healed, the pain never returned.

A couple years later, I had another terrible pain. I was told by a doctor friend to go immediately to the hospital. They ended up taking out my appendix, which was on the verge of bursting. Then they paid for all the bills because I was poor.

Then I had a severe hormone imbalance, causing diabetes and muscle atrophy and the inability to deal with stress. I have prayed against it. I have sought doctor's help. I have struggled with many symptoms and severe depression because of it. But it didn't go away. Thanks to medication, it is reduced, but until I am healed from it (which may never happen in this life), I still deal with bad days.

Jesus worked in all these circumstances. In the first he healed me, just as he did in days of old. In the second, he used compassionate people to get me to the hospital and heal me and to have mercy on my inability to pay. In the third, I was told, as Paul, "My strength is made perfect through weakness" and I had to live with the consequences. But I receive daily grace to deal with it and to do Jesus' work despite it.

Jesus works in all circumstances, but we must ask and we must rely on Him, no matter what.

Outline of a Christian Existence

2012-01-18T17:35:00.000-08:00

Gordon asked: "What is the ideal Christian life?"

Wow. What a question. Gordon never goes for the little ones, like the meaning of dispensationalism. Anyway, here is my answer:

First of all, we have to know what you mean by a "Christian life". Do you mean a life in a church, do you mean a social Christian or do you mean a follower of Jesus? All of these have different requirements.

Because you are asking me, and not a priest or an average religious religious person, I'm going to give you the follower of Jesus answer.

The "follower" of Jesus is one who acknowledges that Jesus is their King, even if he is King of no one else they know (even if others call themselves Christians). To have someone as a king, means that we give that person the respect of a king (worship), we obey that person when they give us laws or commands, and we rely on that person when we are in need of help. So, in general, the Christian life looks like this: Honoring Jesus, Obeying Jesus and Relying on Jesus.

Honoring is pretty much about giving the proper praise of the king. This can be done individually, in families or in community. It can be done through chanting, singing, praise, prayer or and number of other things. The Christian church has been wonderful about providing a variety of ways of honoring their Lord.

Relying on Jesus means we turn to Him when we are in trouble or in need of wisdom. This means we pray, we seek God, we rely on His provision and are grateful for His provision when it comes. Prayer and thanks.

The longest one is obedience, and this is the one that many Christians disagree about. Well, I guess they disagree about everything, but on the other two, the basics are agreed upon. Some Christians think that obedience doesn't come into it at all. They will tell you that you can ignore what Jesus said. Others will tell you that you need to listen to this teacher or this church authority. However, if Jesus and Jesus alone is our king, it is best to listen to him directly, if you have that opportunity.

So what is obedience to Jesus? Loving, of course. In fact, Jesus said, that if anyone tells you to not love in the name of the law, you have every right to disobey that law and to act out in love instead.

We also need to be pure. This means not doing things that offend God, like sexual immorality or hate speech, or faithlessness.

We also need to be humble. This doesn't mean having a lowly frame of mind, but allowing ourselves to be humiliated by others or by taking on humiliating tasks, especially if they assist other people. It does not mean surrendering your possessions, but making sure you surrender them in a way that shows love for someone else. It doesn't mean punishing yourself, but allowing yourself to be punished if an authority insists upon it.

In the end, obedience is following the principles of Jesus, which is following the same principles Jesus lived out himself.

Experience and Tradition

2011-12-13T16:03:00.000-08:00

I was asked to respond to the following:

Although it can be tough at times, I prefer experiential knowledge. Pioneering. Everytime we copy something it dilutes its originality. In regards to religion as well, yes it's important to pass it on, but the more experiential knowledge you have the more potent you are. To seek things out for yourself instead of repeating what you heard or were told. Look at the value of an original painting, being authentic and genuine has weight. Searching for your own truth in the things that interest you is well worth it. You will not have an empty knowledge but a robust understanding in which can inspire or help others or simply satisfy you inside. For reference please use the book Siddhartha by Herman Hesse and the verse Matthew 16:17.

Here is my response:

Without the knowledge of those who have passed on, then knowledge can never be built. Without the knowledge of the ancients until 1969, no one could have put a man on the moon. It wasn't NASA that put a man on the moon, but all of humanity up until that time. Even so, if we want a deeper relationship with God, we need not depend on our own. Why should repeat the mistakes of Abraham and David? They made the mistakes so that we do not need to. Why should we be stuck with the spirituality of ancient pagans? We have learned so much more.

Finally, you referenced tradition in order to buck tradition-- Siddhartha and Matthew. Make up your mind-- are you about 100 percent experience? Then why reference tradition? Instead, admit that all we are is part tradition and part experience-- our everyday life and our spirituality. The important part is that we are personally choosing how to interpret our experience and the traditions we received. That is what makes it our own.

What's the Problem?

2011-11-28T21:33:00.001-08:00

Obama is not the problem.
Corporations are not the problem.
Government is not the problem.
The Republicans are not the problem.
The Occupy movement isn't the problem.
The Tea Party isn't the problem.
Homosexuals aren't the problem.
Fundamentalists aren't the problem.
Muslims aren't the problem.
Politicians aren't the problem.

Us caring more about ourselves than those in need is the problem.
Us expecting anyone other than ourselves to sacrifice is the problem.
Our greed and materialism, hatred and anger is the problem.

Jesus' love is the solution.

Why I Am Not A Part of Occupy Anything

2011-11-23T16:28:00.001-08:00

When I first heard about Occupy Wall Street, I thought it was pretty cool. It was encouraging public awareness of a great discrepency. The numbers weren't totally right, but 5 percent of all Americans own about 2/3 of all the wealth in the U.S., so the principle was correct. "I am the 99%" is a catchy slogan. And it talked about real people's real lacks and how the system ultimately wasn't working. I am for all that. Creating awareness is great.

But as it went on, I became more uncomfortable with the movement. It wasn't the internationallity of it. That was fine. It wasn't the protest nature of it-- I personally don't like participating in such protests, but I don't have problems of others protesting. And massive protests can do some good.

Ultimately, my discomfort was the fact that it was just a huge blame game. The purpose seemed to say that the 1 percent (which is really five percent) are bad people and "something should be done". That "something" seemed to be blocking city streets and generally making a nuisance of oneself. Again, I don't have a problem with protests or inconveniencing a few in order to benefit many more. But the movement seemed to emphasize the negative, while not really unifying behind a positive action.

In the end, the protesters were excellent at attacking. Of course, there's a lot of people we could blame. The banks, corporations in general, CEOs in particular, the government-- whichever branch you like, consumerism society, political parties, and on and on. Lets face it, our society is broken. The Occupy folks, just like the Tea Partiers before them, makes that clear.

But at least the Tea Partiers had a positive message-- "let's vote in the right people with the right values" seemed to be their main message. That had a positive impact. Perhaps many people don't like who was voted in, and perhaps the values didn't always make practical sense, but the movement did have an impact, an action.

The Occupy folks just seemed like a lot of whiners, really. It seemed to boil down to rich people are bad and the government is bad for supporting the rich people and the cities are bad for trying to stop the Occupy people from possession public parks and streets. In the end, everyone is bad. It's all bad.

But if you want to make change, you don't tell people how bad they are, even if they are bad. Instead, you show how they could do something more positive than they currently are. I would have joined the protests if they would have recommended to the 1% (who is the 5%) that they create more jobs. With health insurance. For the people who really need jobs now. These guys have the wealth to create jobs, they just aren't working on it. Why aren't they? But more than that, why aren't the protesters speaking something positive into the arena?

I am not opposed to the Occupy folks. In my heart of hearts, I agree with them. But I hope that this movement can actively do something positive with their energy. They lived on the street-- can they help the people who are stuck there permanently? They caught the world's attention-- can they use that media outlet to bring positive change? I hope and pray that they will.

"Persecution" in Nigeria

2011-11-09T12:08:00.000-08:00

In the last decade, there have been more than ten thousand deaths related to riots and slayings of a religious nature. Many of these have been Muslims killing Christians, as we have seen in many articles posted in the West. The headlines are clear: "500 Christans killed by Muslims in Nigeria" or today's headline: "Muslim Radicals Kill 150 in Nigeria, Goal Sharia"

What these headlines completely neglect is that Christians are also killing Muslims in Nigeria. This isn't a one-sided attack from one religious group to another. This is what we call war.

To label this as "persecution of Christians" is misguided. Yes, innocents are being killed, as they do in all wars. And this is a crime against all humanity. But innocents of both Muslim and Christian beliefs are being killed by both Muslims and Christians. And it is both the Muslims who are trying to control the law and Christians, in opposition to their religious and political enemies.

This isn't persecution, it is prejudice. It is two sides refusing to listen to each other.

And worst, this is a large population, calling themselves "Christian" yet being very un-Christlike. We need to pray for these Christians. Not that they escape persecution, but that they learn to love their enemies.

Sources:
Schleitheim, "Christians Killing Muslims"
Religious News Summary, Crosswalk, Nov. 9, 2011

What To Do With False Prophets?

2011-11-02T11:56:00.000-07:00

From Religion Today Summaries:

Family Radio Stations, Inc., founder and chairman Harold Camping said he was wrong to predict Christ's return and confessed that, after decades of misleading his followers, he regrets his misdeeds, the Christian Post reports. Camping, 90, who falsely predicted the world would end Sept. 6, 1994, then May 21, 2011, then finally on Oct. 21, 2011, also said he was wrong to say that God had stopped saving people after May 21. Since 1992, Camping has claimed that he had discovered a special numerical system in the Bible that allowed him to calculate the exact dates of biblical events such as the flood, the crucifixion and the day of Jesus' return to earth. When Camping's final doomsday prediction failed to happen, Family Radio removed its teachings regarding both the purported May 21 and Oct. 21 rapture dates. According to a member of Camping's staff, he is no longer able to lead Family Radio or his ministry.

In an analysis of the NT, it spends a lot of time talking about false teachers. What they act like, what their false teachings are and how they approach "ministry". Some main passages include Matthew 7, Matthew 23, II Peter 2 and Revelation 2.

But what the NT doesn't say, with any of the detail we would appreciate, is how to deal with false prophets. The Hebrew Scriptures are clear: stone them or curse them (Deuteronomy and Jeremiah). Clear cut answers to a serious problem.

But in the NT, the issue isn't so clear. If you've got a false prophet, you discern the truth and you don't let them teach, sure. But what else do you do? Do you kick them out of the church? Publicly rebuke them? The NT doesn't say.

In fact, the only thing that is clear is that Jesus will be judging the false prophet Himself (see the letter to Thyratia in Revelation 2 and the end of Matthew 7). And this judgment is extremely harsh. But shouldn't the church get more involved, more than just not letting the person teach?

Not necessarily. And this is because Jesus is just as concerned about the false prophet as He is about the rest of His followers. He doesn't want to lose even a person who taught lies in His name. Jesus has not come to judge the world, but that through Him the world might be saved. This doesn't mean that He doesn't judge... but the church should always be ready to catch a fallen disciple.

We need to be clear about what is true and what is false. But let's always be there to accept the fallen, to forgive them, to love them, even when they hurt the church.

Dawning of the Age of the Heterdox

2011-10-16T13:25:00.000-07:00

A post on the Inter-Faith/denomination Forum on Facebook by John Brandkamp:

An interesting issue that keeps coming up here is the concept of what is "orthodoxy" and who gets to define that. In certain respects I'm quite "orthodox" (within the Evangelical Protestant tradition) and yet in other areas I'm quite off the beaten path. It seems to be a movable feast to say the least. And it seems to be as true in other traditions as well. Are we left with a cacophony of theological noise and nothing else?

My (lengthened) response:

Conveniently, there's a term called "heterodox": those of us who are generally orthodox or at least accepted by the church but have some points of view that disagrees with generally accepted theology. I wonder if this age of the Christian church is the "heterodox" age.

While there is not the multiplications of denominations, as there was in the Reformation era (circa 1530), but there are certainly the multiplications of beliefs. Just within the evangelical movement, one of the more conceptually restrictive movements, there are a variety of political ideas and belief systems. Both Jim Wallis and Pat Robertson can call themselves "evangelical", but they certainly agree on very little.

This is more so in other denominations and religious groups. For the most part, we have all had to learn how to get along with people we strongly disagree with, people who hold radically different beliefs than ourselves. What is "orthodox" is being shrunk to some very basic beliefs, that seem to matter less in our everyday lives.

On the one hand, this is good. We need to learn to rub elbows with, and not judge, those who see life differently. This is why God established marriage as He did. We become one with a person who cannot think "right". Yet we need to learn to live with that person, to care for that person, to support even some of their "wrong" decisions. To have the church at large do this can be constructive.

On the other hand, it could undermine the whole idea of orthodoxy and lead us to a concept of relative truth. We need to determine what is really, basically true, and stick with that. For me, there is one basic truth-- Jesus is Lord. There are some basics that come from that one belief, but there's also a lot that I hold dear that can be disagreed with by good followers of Jesus.

The key to heterodoxy is to have that balance of accepting diversity and defending basic truths.

Prayer Against Temptation

2011-10-12T16:34:00.000-07:00

Lord Jesus, send the clarity of your light into my mind
and expel all darkness from my heart
Fight strongly for me
and drive away the temptations
that rage like wild beasts within me.
Then my conscience will be at peace,
and the praise of your name
will sound within the temple of my soul.
Command the winds and storms of pride to be still
and the sea of covetousness to be at rest.
Subdue the north wind of the devil's temptation
Then there will be a great calm within me.
-Thomas a Kempis

Cotton Patch Version

2011-10-12T16:19:00.000-07:00

Clarence Jordan wrote a version of the New Testament calledThe Cotton Patch Translation. It trulywas a translation, he had studied the Greek and made out the meaning as best ashe could, and then he translated this understanding to apply to the languageand geography of his mid-20^th century Southern United States. What comes out is spiritual and humorous anddeeply compassionate.

Here are a couple examples:

“So then, with what shall I compare the people of this day,and what are they like? I know, they arelike children playing in the streets, and shouting to each other, ‘We put onsome jazz, but you wouldn’t dance ; so we put on funeral music, but you wouldn’tgo into mourning.’ For John the Baptizeroffered you a harsh, rugged life and you say, ‘This guy is nuts.’ I, the son of man, offer you laughter and joyand you say, ‘Look at that man, a gadfly and a jitterbug, a friend of Yankeesand a nigger-lover.’ So if intelligence can be judged by all that it produces, well—! “

“The officers did a lot of other remarkable and wonderfulthings among the people. They weremeeting together at Grant Park, and while nobody was brave enough to join them,folks did speak mighty highly of them. But increasingly quite a group of both men and woman put their faith inthe Lord and were enrolled. Besides, thesick were carried into the streets and put on cots and stretchers so that even Rock’sshadow might fall on them as he passed. Also, crowds from towns all around Atlanta flocked in, bringing thosesick in body and mind and they were all healed

“But the mayor and the city council, who were members of theConservative Party, blew their top. They arrested the apostles and put them inthe city jail. But that night an angelof the Lord opened the jailhouse doors, led them outside and said, ‘Go, standon the courthouse steps and explain to the people all the matters concerningthis kind of life.’ They listenedcarefully and at the crack of day they went to the courthouse steps and startedteaching. Now the mayor and hisassistants called a meeting of the Council and all the prominent white citizensand sent to fetch the apostles. But whenthe fuzzes got to the clink, they didn’t find the apostles in it. They went back and reported: ‘We found thejailhouse locked according to regulations and the guards were on duty, but whenwe opened up and went inside we didn’t find a soul.’ When the police chief and the Council heardthis, they tried to figure out what the hell had happened. About that time somebody came bursting in andshouted, ‘Hey, those joes you put in the jug are standing on the courthousesteps preaching to the people.’ Then thechief and his fuzzes went out and got them without using brutality, becausethey were scared the crowd might throw bottles at them. They led them in and stood them before theCouncil. The mayor tore into them andsaid, ‘We warned you in no uncertain terms not to spread the ideas of thatfellow. And now look, you’ve agitatedall of Atlanta with your ideas and are trying to pin that guy’s lynching on us!’

“Rock and the other officers replied, ‘It’s our duty to obeyGod rather than humans. Our ancestors’God raised Jesus whom you mobbed and strung up on a tree. God promoted him to be his number on Leaderand Deliverer, to bring to white folks a change of heart and a way out of theirsins. And all ofus are evidence of this statement, as indeed the Holy Spiritwhich God give to those who are controlled by him.’

“At this the city fathers blew a gasket and wanted to killthem on the spot. But a Baptist by thename of Gamaliel, a Sunday school teacher with a good reputation in thecommunity, got up in the Council and ordered the apostles to be put outside fora little while. Then he said, ‘My fellowcitizens, be extremely careful in your actions against these men… I’d adviseyou to keep your hands off of them and let them be. If this plan or program of theirs is a purelyhuman scheme it will blow itself out. But if it’s God’s thing, you can’t put a stopto it without declaring yourself at war against God.’ That made sense to them, so they called inthe apostles, beat them up, warned them not to talk about Jesus anymore, andturned them loose. The apostles thenleft the Council meeting, happy that they were counted worthy to be disgracedfor the Name. Every day, both on thecourthouse steps and from door to door, they never quit teaching and preachingthat Jesus is Lord. “

High on God

2011-09-29T08:37:00.000-07:00

A quote I read on the Alethia forum found here: (I don't know who it is by, sorry)

Ever since I first became a believer, I have had a constant addiction to the presence of God. I do not know of any other way to live the Christian life, apart from a loving compulsion to continuously be near this God of gladness. One of the primary things the Lord showed us years ago was that intoxication on Him is the very essence of “first love.” God is not interested in your dispassionate praise or disinterested service. He is going for the depths of your heart strings. The thing that intoxicates you to the core is the very thing you worship. There is a deep, inner craving that draws us outside ourselves and into the realms of divine ecstasy. This is our inheritance as children and lovers of God. The only kind of love that will lay down its life is a love that has transcended life itself.

Heaven should be the prevailing norm. Ecstatic trances may seem strange or unusual to the natural mind, but they are the ordinary effect of Heaven’s joy poured out on the average believer. Wherever the church has failed to set the standard in this regard, the enemy is ready to offer a cheap counterfeit.

Everyone is created for love’s delirium, and this is why drug addiction is such a major draw not only for our youth, but in every sector of society today. Mind-altering drugs, like many occultist religious practices, do induce trance-like states. But these are illegal means of channeling spiritual activity, and they open adherents up to demonic influence. Pharmaceutical means to altered states of consciousness are direct counterfeits to the ordinary state of bliss humankind should experience in Christ. Adam was created to walk in bliss with God in Eden. Humanity was not created for depression, toil and the curse of a fallen world. People unknowingly pursue drugs and alcohol to recapture this lost sense of the presence of God that man remembers from the garden. As we know, these addictions only provide a fleeting, momentary sensation that is followed by devastation to health and homes, ending in broken families, poverty, suicide and destruction for future generations.

Even the temporary pleasure offered by drugs is shallow and utterly incomparable to the surpassing ecstasies of the Living God! Only believers have access to the purest stash of open Heaven delights. Though they do not realize it, drug addicts are trying to find this pleasure for which they were created. But most believers are also clueless to the infinite kilos of ecstasy available in their own bellies!

My response is below:

I have never felt that "spiritual high" and I don't really want it. I'm not refusing it, I'm just not seeking it, as it is not a need of mine.

The human experience is varied, and what different people want or need to be "complete" is different. Some need a "high" to feel joy or think that joy is defined by a "high". But I think that the "joy in the presence of the Lord" is the same as taking joy in any other person. It is a pleasure to be with them and you seek their company because they make you feel good. This isn't a "high", but a practical joy. If I can be content with my life, that is sufficient, given the promise of suffering that Jesus said we would have. Highs and lows just make me dizzy. Rather, I seek peace and contentment with whatever comes my way, in the presence of God or in the shame of incrimination. And so I was made for a life of service and creating peace within drama. That's just how I roll.

I think a "high" is a good part of life and I have no qualms with it. To display such a high in the Lord shows the world that we can party in a different way and experience the highs and lows of life. Some must have that experience. But it is necessary that not everyone pursue such experiences. We need people to build, to administrate, to think sensibly, to maintain a vision for years (even decades), all of which are difficult to do while seeking the next "God-fix".

This is why God gave us different gifts and experiencing the "high" of God is simply a gift. It is one I don't need. If God decides otherwise, that's fine. But I remember the experience of Mother Teresa, who experiences the presence of God fully when she was young. But once she began her life work in Calcutta she never felt it again (until now, I am certain). She needed to be focusing on others, administrating and building, instead of seeking her high.

There is a season for everything. And the great thing is that this life is just one season. We have plenty of time to experience that which we haven't in eternity.

You can read more:http://aletheia.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=mystical&thread=3483&page=1#ixzz1ZM7XFETA

Note To Fanatics (like me)

2011-09-15T16:32:00.000-07:00

I don't think I would have cared for the twenty seven year old myself.

I'm visiting family in Pennsylvania and I remember some of the things I said and did my first visit here and I decided I was a jerk. Oh, I was a jerk for all the "right" reasons. Heck, I had almost all the same values I have now. But I had no experience in actually being a radical Christian.

Red letter Christians have just as much possibility to be a jerk as other people, especially in the fanatical variety. Whenever one is a fanatic of any type (whether Christian or atheist, liberal or conservative, for peace or for war) the greatest danger is the refusal to allow others to live as they are going to live. Fanatics just can't see why anyone would have a different point of view. "If you hold to these presuppositions, then you must come to this conclusion." And so you expect that if anyone else belongs to your general group (Christian or Republican or peacemonger or skeptic or whatever) then everyone in that group should be the same type of ideology you are because that is simply logical.

We need to realize, fanatics are the way we are because we hold to a rare or unique point of view. Others won't hold to our point of view. We have the right to hold our point of view, but we cannot insist that others must convert to our logic. There are plenty of people who come to different conclusions and just because we hold one point of view, it doesn't mean anyone else must. We all are given the freedom of choice, and we must accept others' freedom to make different choices. Maybe right, maybe wrong, but we are all responsible to ourselves and our gods to follow consistently our own ideology.

Also, just because we have followed a certain line of logic, it doesn't mean that it is better than other people's point of view. I can show that a Christian shouldn't support war. But if I insist on this point of view for all Christians, I am missing the fact that there are a lot of different kinds of Christians and, in the whole realm of Christendom, I am in the minority in my presuppositions as to what makes the best kind of Christianity. Thus, others can be perfectly good Christians and hold to a different point of view.

I didn't see this when I was twenty seven. I hope that I'm more accepting to different points of view, or at least more ready to allow God do the judging and not me.

Ian's Syllogism

2011-09-12T19:27:00.000-07:00

Nothing is greater than infinity.

Infinity is greater than one.

Therefore, 0 > 1.

Are Christians Anti-American?

2011-09-07T17:16:00.000-07:00

An internet friend of mine wrote an essay about how religious people-- he mentions Muslims, but also pulls in Christians-- are opposed to American values, specifically the values of liberalism (not "leftist" values, but values of American freedom). You can read his full essay here My response is below:

In principle, I would agree with you, Froham. The pure forms of all religions would strongly stand against American values, if, by that, one means capitalism and liberalism. I find it disappointing when Christian pedagogues say that the laws of the United States are based on the ten commandments. That either shows a lack of knowledge of the ten commandments or a complete ignorance of the constitution. Contradiction #1: "You shall have no other gods but me." "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". One restricts religion, the other opens it up. Laws against idolatry, taking the "Lord's name in vain", breaking the Sabbath-- just can't be done on a national level. And, according to the constitution, shouldn't be established on any level (although historically, we know that such laws existed).

Jesus, Moses, Muhammad, Buddha were all opposed to capitalistic and liberal principles. Moses imposed an extremely high socialistic tax system-- 33% just for the priesthood and the poor. Governments took a tax out on top of that, and there was an additional "gleaning" tax for the poor. Buddha's psychological principles call for the denial of desire, which denies capitalism completely. Muhammad clearly opposed worship of any god beside Allah. And Jesus called for the surrender of all unnecessary wealth to the poor. All these are in opposition to American values.

However, to say that the religions of Christianity, Judaism, Islam and Buddhism are opposed to American values is to overstep. What I have found in this thread again and again is an ignorance of how world religions work, as if they are each one singular thing, with a unified set of doctrines and similarly unified set of morals and values. Wow, are they not.

The majority of religious Americans are completely in agreement with American values, whichever world religion they adhere to. The fact is, the constitution and capitalism have been much more successful in evangelism and conversion than the strict adherents of any religion. The majority of religious adherents hold to the principles of a generally free market and liberal values more than they hold to the values of their holy books. And the reason American values have been so successful in promoting their ideals to those who should be opposed to them is many: American values promise freedom and define the term to be pleasing to the ears; American values convince the religious that they can live in compatibility with religious values, even to the degree of the religious reinterpreting their holy books so that they sound more like Rand than ancient religion.

One time I had a thousand dollars stolen from me. The policeman caught the thief, but I refused to press charges because Jesus says to "love your enemies." (He was charged and convicted on other thefts). The officer said, "I hope not many people believe like you." I responded, "Well, I try to teach it, but don't worry, no one listens to me."

We all tend to adapt. American culture is pervasive in certain nations. The pervasive culture will always win out amidst subcultures that really want to fit in. Mennonites have wanted to remain separate for centuries, and did so. But since WWII, they got tired of the separation and decided to assimilate, for the most part, except for just a couple values. Thus, I find myself fighting a business-oriented board that runs my denomination. Sigh. Sometimes it makes me want to be Amish.

So Tired...

2011-08-18T23:05:00.000-07:00

I am tired of Christians slamming homosexuals, Muslims, or people of a different political party. Jesus is not about prejudice or blind, irrational anger. Be slow to anger, quick to listen. And if you must have prejudice in your heart, at least have the decency to be quiet about it so you don't drag Jesus' name down to your level.

Biblical Principles of Conflict

2011-07-13T12:38:00.000-07:00

Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy. Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God. (Matthew 5:7,9)

Salt is good; but if the salt becomes unsalty, with what will you make it salty again? Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with one another. (Mark 9:50)

Accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions....Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls.... Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather determine this-- not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother's way of faith. (Romans 14:1, 4, 13)

Everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; for the anger of man does not achieve the righteousness of God. (James 1:19-20)

If you bite and devour one another, take care that you are not consumed by one another. But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh. For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please. Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are:... enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. (Galatians 5:15-23)

What is the source of quarrels and conflicts among you? Is not the source your pleasures that wage war in your members? You lust and do not have; so you commit murder. You are envious and cannot obtain; so you fight and quarrel. You do not have because you do not ask. You ask and do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, so that you may spend it on your pleasures. You adulteresses, do you not know that friendship with the world is hostility toward God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God. Or do you think that the Scripture speaks to no purpose: "He jealously desires the Spirit which He has made to dwell in us"? But He gives a greater grace. Therefore it says, "GOD IS OPPOSED TO THE PROUD, BUT GIVES GRACE TO THE HUMBLE." Submit therefore to God. (James 4:1-7)

Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep. Be of the same mind toward one another; do not be haughty in mind, but associate with the lowly. Do not be wise in your own estimation. Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. Respect what is right in the sight of all men. If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men. (Romans 12:14-18)

You have heard that it was said, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. (Matthew 5:43-45)

If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. And if he sins against you seven times a day, and returns to you seven times, saying, 'I repent,' forgive him." (Luke 17:3-4)

Let all that you do be done in love. (1Corinthians 16:14)

How To Disagree

2011-07-13T09:55:00.000-07:00

I often find myself in disagreements. Maybe it's because I'm a disagreeable person, I'm not sure. But over many years I have found that there are basic principles that are helpful in conversations in which we disagree, whether face to face or on the internet. While I don't always follow all of these principles, I think that our discussions would go better if I, and all the rest of us, could follow these basic guidelines when disagreeing.

Expect disagreement

No matter how much we may agree with eachother, disagreement will happen. This isnot a bad thing. If we disagree, we candiscuss issues and come up with a better solution. What is problematic is when the disagreement iscompletely unexpected or comes from a position we consider illogical orimmoral. There are times that we will behurt by the fact that someone we otherwise respect we disagree with in animportant issue. However, we must becareful not to let that hurt or anger at a position determine our response.

Listen to understand the other person’sposition

We may want to listen to other’s point ofview in order to find specifics to undermine it. What is more important is that we understandwhat the other person is saying. If webegin the conversation as an attack, then we won’t even know what exactly weare attacking, and many of our counter-arguments will not actually be about theother person’s point of view at all. Wemust be careful to know their position before we even begin a response. This might mean we will need to ask questionsto have them clarify their point of view.

Look for the ideas you can agree with

If someone disagrees with you, this doesn’tmean that there are no areas of agreement in the broader realm of thesubject. Look for the areas of agreement. Those areas of agreement can be mentioned tosoften the blow of the clear disagreement. Also, the areas of agreement can be used later to discuss another way oflooking at the whole problem, a point of view which both parties might agreewith.

Never insult or demean the other person ortheir belief system

Just because they disagree with you, yourlogic or your moral ideas does not make the other person bad, illogical orimmoral, and they should not be treated as such. Do not bring in false conclusions to theirpoint of view—you can be concerned about the implications, but don’t assumethat they will happen. Never useinsulting language. Do not demean theircharacter, nor demean the sources of their belief system. That will only increase anger, notdiscussion. And it certainly will notcreate agreement.

Try to respond with clarity

When you respond to the other person’sposition, be sure to be clear how your points relate to theirs. If you have an opposite viewpoint, make itclear, along with your reasons. Don’t keep repeating your point again andagain. Be sure whatever examples or stories you useare clear and pertinent. Carefully useyour language so it doesn’t make the wrong point. On the internet, use emoticons to expresswhat we might do with tone or facial expression, such as sarcasm or a joke. It might be good to bring the other personalong with you. Speak about mutual goalsand how your position is more likely to achieve those goals.

Give them an opportunity to respond inrespect
Disagreement should be aconversation, not a monologue. So thismeans we should hope and expect responses. If the responses are insulting or hateful, then the conversation isover, because anger is the far most likely response to anger. But we should give an opportunity for the onewe disagree with to respond and for us to come up with a reasonable response tothem.

If the disagreement becomes unproductive,it is time to stop
Any of us, at times, can have ouremotions carry us where we are no longer productive. So if a disagreement becomes uncontrolled orpolarized, it is time to end the discussion. Perhaps the conversation can be taken up another time, but it is notworth hurting each other for the sake of a point. Perhaps one of the parties can see the heatof the argument, back up and cool things down. This can be done with humor, or with a sincere apology. But if cooling down doesn’t work, it might betime to back up and try again another day.

The goal is not agreement or convincing,but love
In a disagreement, if the purposeof both parties is to prove they are right, then there is no convincing eitherside—for this reason debates don’t work because they create deepeningpolarization, so no real solution can be found. But often a disagreement cannot find agreement between the opposingparties. Even if they are looking forsome kind of agreement, it cannot be found. So, rather than create false expectations for those involved, the goalof the disagreement must be love. Wewant to love our opponent by giving them respect. We want to love those listening to us byresponding fairly and clearly. And wewant the goal of our positions to be about love: love of others, love of thepoor, love of nature, love of God—whatever the subject may be. We need to remember that if it is importantenough to have strong disagreement, the purpose must be to benefitsomeone. If there is no benefit, thenperhaps the disagreement isn’t worth having.

The Lies We Tell

2011-06-28T10:39:00.000-07:00

Christianity always does itself a disservice when they tell each other lies about how life "should" be. "You should be joyful" "Believe that you are at peace and you will be" "You should be forgiving" "Just have faith that you are well and you will be well" . Our emotions are God-given and they teach us things about ourselves. God is not there to teach us about how we should be but to help us recognize our weaknesses, sorrows and poverty and to offer real salvation from them.

Let's not invent our salvation in our own minds.

Government v. Private Sector

2011-06-28T09:29:00.000-07:00

There are some things a national government does better than a private source and some that they do worse. Which are which? That is the debate.

My List:
Government does better at:
Basic welfare
Health care
Security issues (necessary violence)
Creating bureaucracy
Making enormous budgets
Spending lots of money

The Private Sector does better at:
Innovation
Cool looking things that don't mean anything
Making the rich richer
Complaining about the government
Spending lots of money

First posted on the Filmspotting Forum, Politics thread

Jesus v. Christianity

2011-06-28T08:19:00.000-07:00

Here's what I see are some differences between Jesus' teaching/example and a good portion of the Christian church. Jesus was a revivalist, in a sense, trying to get monotheists back to a basic core, and Christianity still has the need of Jesus calling them back to the basics:

-Instead of promoting war, we should be promoting peacemaking

-Instead of judging, we should be compassionate to sinners

-Instead of punishing sin, we should be seeking forgiveness

-We should never establish a ritual, law or policy that harms others or limits the needy from meeting their needs

-We should be freely giving to the poor, not making increasing demands of them

-We should never promote any kind of prejudice

-Our churches should be full of the outcast, rejected and hated, especially due to sin and suffering

-Instead of displays of wealth, we should use our wealth for the needy

-Instead of our leaders having grand titles and signs of respect, they should be serving all, including doing dishes and cleaning toilets

Father, I pray that we can all learn to be more like Jesus and less like the world. Let us be full of grace instead of rejection.

First posted on the Facebook group, Inter-Faith/Denomination Discussion.

What Is Salvation?

2011-06-24T00:37:00.000-07:00

So often in Christian circles salvation is seen as deliverance from the wrath of God, from hell. Or it is deliverance from the world, an escape route to heaven.

Jesus said "The kingdom is near." The kingdom IS salvation-- we are not to be saved from something but to something. Salvation is a world that is changed into God's order. Jesus' kingdom is a world that is without oppression, a world without death, a word without fear. It is also a world that ends poverty, that gives justice to everyone and all know and receive all they need from the one God. It is a world that is lead by a community of the poor who know how to practice merciful and compassion to all. It is a world in which we see each other as one family under one Father, God.

We will not see this complete salvation until Jesus returns. But we need to practice. We need to figure out how to accomplish this in our churches, now. Salvation isn't something to wait for, it is something that we create through the Holy Spirit and the word and power of Jesus.

Position on Abortion

2011-06-01T09:03:00.000-07:00

I believe that human life is precious and should be protected. And if there is a conflict between two lives, the best should be done for both lives, not just one.

The question in abortion is is the fetus truly a human life? This question is not specifically answered by the Bible. Thus people must make a philosophic and idealist choice as to whether to treat the fetus as equal or less than her mother.

I have made the philosophic decision that the fetus is an individual human at conception and thus must be protected from that point. That fetus is a human life and to kill it is murder. I will not harm others for the sake of this human, nor should anyone else. However, the fetus is precious, as is the mother.

It has been discovered that most abortions do not occur if the mother is not in poverty. Thus, whether abortion is legal or not, if we reduce poverty and support mothers in their time of need, then there will not be as many abortions. If everyone on all sides would agree to work on reducing poverty and to support pregnant women, then the abortion rate would go down on its own.

War of the Peace-Lovers

2011-05-28T09:25:00.000-07:00

Guest blogger today! This is an essay my daughter Nikki wrote for her Modern World History class. She's 15.

“My religion is better!”
“No, MINE is!”
A fight that happens ALL THE FREAKING TIME!! And I’m getting tired of it! People fight because they WANT to, NOT need to for their religion. It’s silly! I sometime feel like one of the few people who know what peacemaking is! And I’m at my sister’s throat very often. So, I will tell you the reasons of why there should be peace between religions.

First off, the basics of the three most common religions are the same. A lot of the change comes with “do you believe in Jesus, and if so, what is he to you”. Heck! It gets so bad, at least in Christianity, that different TYPES of the same religion fight! Most of us supposedly love peace, are good pacifists, and don’t sin(at least not very much) but their constantly at war, they sin left and right without repenting and are at each other’s… no everyone’s necks. Not very good at what’s supposed to be done.

Next,if and when the world comes to an end, what would we do if there was no gods or higher powers that created us and witches just had overactive imaginations(nothing against my friend)? What if the evolutionary and big bang theories were correct? Would there have been any point to arguing? I know I don’t enjoy getting angry over nothing. I know I personally believe in God, who created everything as is. But others don’t… and I get curious: what would happen if I were wrong? Would all of us, the Christians, die? I hate to think of it that way, but it’s possible. Anyone can be wrong when it comes to religion. Heck, maybe all gods are real… and they will treat their followers well in their own way. Then again I could decide to sound like an atheist and say all religious figures are fake and we’re all idiots, but I won’t because I believe in one. Actually, I think that it’s possible that many exist.

Even if you have completely different religions you can just avoid talking about it. I don’t even ask religion very often. It’s that I just don’t care, a person is who they are; religion doesn’t change that… that and I forget to ask. If you’re like me as far as you know your boyfriend/girlfriend/best friend could be in an opposing religion, and then you’d start “hating” them or ignore them like they don’t exist.

This probably won’t affect anyone but, I’m a Christian and my friend she’s a witch… no, she does NOT make potions with newt’s eye or fly using a broom! She speaks with spirits, which is why it opposes to Christianity. So… I act like I don’t know what her religion is. I act ignorant. It’s not like I want to be ignorant. If she starts speaking to spirits in front of me though… I’m not gonna stick around, I’m at least in the other room, and she won’t come to any church, I don’t think either of mind though, I certainly don’t. We ignore and avoid it. Just like I suggested.

I just feel that too many friendships are at risk because of religious arguments. And we should all shut up about it before more people die. Being caught up in the middle of a battle that I have no intention to fight, that’s what I am. If adults don’t feel the pain they’re causing, and very few children do, how are we supposed to stop the war of the “peace lovers”?

Too Much, Too Soon

2011-05-14T07:56:00.000-07:00

Stacy just found the blogs and writes in:

I wanted to know your thoughts, if you have time, about being fearfully and wonderfully made and having disabilities and/or handicaps. This is something I'm not understanding and have not been able to find an answer I have peace with in my spirit. I've grown up as an army brat when it comes to churches going from conservative to charasmatic to really charasmatic and now attend a great Four Square which is both conservative and has quiet veins of charasmatic running through it which is a perfect fit for me. My issue though is that the school of thought I run into is that something like a handicap or addiction or whatnot is because it's something we allowed into our life, like an open window for the enemy to come in, or our parents sinned and let that spirit /problem in, or generational curses and the like. I've also heard that our handicaps or disability is a gift that is to be used for the glory of God and then others say it can be used by God but that we should always pray to be healed since God wants to heal us.

If we are fearfully and wonderfully made then were do handicaps/disabilities come in? How can one be fearfully and wonderfully made while being say crippled? Or mentally challenged etc. ? I don't see how those flaws fit in with the fearfully and wonderfully made part? I mean noone looks at a crippled person and says "That's great! I want to be that way too!". We all know it's an issue and noone would want that problem. And yet we're told we're fearfully and wonderfully made and God knitted us in our mother's womb. I mean did He knit that crippling/physical or mental problem in too?

My response:

I love my charismatic brothers and sisters, but they have taken their proper emphasis on healing and turned it into an "overrealized eschatology." This means that they take things that are promised to us in the final kingdom of God and expect that we should be living it all now.

In the kingdom, we will all be healed, there will be perfect justice, and we will all be unified. Right now, although there is some unity in the church, there is a lot of division and hatred as well, because we are still working on our maturity in love. Right now, although there is some justice through the church, it is only partially realized because we don't live under the Perfect King. Right now, although there is some healing, not everyone is healed. And some struggle with addictions and sins with no easy out.

We can see this in Scripture. There's the passage you quoted in John 9-- Jesus answered, "It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents; but it was so that the works of God might be displayed in him." (Joh 9:3 NAU) Also we have the evangelist Epaphrophitus who was "sick even to death" but God had mercy on him to spare him and Paul. This means that he was sick, and he could have died. Eventually he was healed, but it wasn't an instant healing, and he could have died from it. Paul had no expectation that his co-worker should have just had more faith to be healed. Rather, it was the will of God that was the main issue. (Phil. 2:25-27).

Some say that we are promised healing in the atonement of Jesus (Isaiah 53:5). But in that passage we are also promised shalom, the peace and justice of God. However shalom is not yet fully realized, and so we cannot take that passage and say that everyone in all cases should be healed right now. Eventually we will be, but for now, we must struggle.

We can see this with Paul in II Corinthians 12. A "messenger of Satan" attacked Paul continuously. We don't know what this is. It could be a sickness or disability. It could be a sin he struggled with continuously. All we know is that it limited Paul's salvation and that it came from Satan. And Paul prayed about it, but it was not taken away. Instead, God told him, "My strength will be made perfect through weakness." God told Paul to accept his weakness-- to accept a messenger of Satan!-- as part of his life, because God's work was being done through it. Even so, our weaknesses: sickness, addiction, disability-- some of these will be healed. Others, however, we will have to live with because God is at work in us.

God makes it clear that our character will only become mature through suffering.

3 And not only this, but we also exult in our tribulations, knowing that tribulation brings about perseverance;
4 and perseverance, proven character; and proven character, hope;
(Rom 5:3-4 NAU)

Consider it all joy, my brethren, when you encounter various trials,
3 knowing that the testing of your faith produces endurance.
4 And let endurance have its perfect result, so that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.
(Jam 1:2-4 NAU)

These "trials" or "tribulations" are actually best translated "tests" and they can take the form of suffering or persecution or personal weakness or temptations. This is how our maturity happens. Only in this way can we find perfect joy.

Hope that helps.

God bless you and keep the faith in love!

In Praise of 400 Years of the KJV

2011-05-04T10:29:00.000-07:00

The King James Bible is a touchstone of English literature. It is not the first English translation of the Bible, nor is it necessarily the best. However, it is the first universally accepted scholarly translation of the Bible, and it is the very rare balance between art and accuracy.

The language of the KJV is so gorgeous that writers such as Herman Melville, John Steinbeck, T.S. Eliot, and many others have been influenced by it. It is THE classic work of English literature.

At the same time, the translation is powerful. The methods of translation are so solid that any Bible who calls itself "standard" uses the same methods of literal translation. The KJV was called "authorized" because it was approved to be read in all the congregations of the Church of England, and later in the Episcopal church. And rightly so. The scholars had to balance the 17th century battle between the formal Anglicans and the Calvinist Puritans. Other translations of the Bible were rebelliously Protestant or Puritan. But the KJV scholars had no axe to grind. Instead, they were interested in simple objectivity and beauty.

I rarely use the KJV myself because the language is antiquated, and sometimes misunderstood. Some of the difficult passages are famously misused, such as "Abstain from every appearance of evil." This has been used to restrict people from seeming evil, which Jesus himself could not avoid. The original translation meant, "stay away from doing evil", not seeming like doing evil as our modern understanding of "appearance" means.

Although the KJV's usefulness is limited compared to its original use, it is still a powerful and effective two edged sword. We still read its version of the Lord's Prayer, the classic text of Psalm 23 and the beautiful version of I Corinthians 13. Their translations of the Psalms have never been matched in power and language (it is rumored that Shakespeare helped with the translation of Psalms).

We should take time to read the KJV again, or at least portions of it, to remind us of this most influential English text.

My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?
O my God, I cry in the daytime, but thou hearest not; and in the night season, and am not silent.
But thou art holy, O thou that inhabitest the praises of Israel.
Our fathers trusted in thee: they trusted, and thou didst deliver them.
They cried unto thee, and were delivered: they trusted in thee, and were not confounded.
But I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people.
All they that see me laugh me to scorn: they shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying,
He trusted on the LORD that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him.
But thou art he that took me out of the womb: thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother's breasts.
I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother's belly.
Be not far from me; for trouble is near; for there is none to help.
(Psa 22:1-11 KJV)

What Is Evil?

2011-04-22T09:02:00.001-07:00

Evil, biblically, means one who does harm to people. An “evil” spirit is not one that is in opposition to God, except to do harm to humans.

Why does evil exist? First, because God placed humans in charge over the earth. God gave a sliver of his sovereignty to humanity, and humanity chose to use that sovereignty for selfish, destructive motives.

However, most evil is simply ignorance– not thinking about what harm we cause others–, judgment–punishing others for harms we think they have done– or systemic– participating in a system which benefits some by harming others. Satan, as an evil force, is the head of a system of judgment.

We do evil to God by separating ourselves from Him by disobeying His will or by doing actions of hatred toward Him. We cannot truly harm God, but we can harm our relationship with Him and we can harm those who are made in His image. If we harm our relationship with God, that leads us to more evil, for all good things come from God.

Living in Oregon

2011-04-21T13:42:00.000-07:00

Some one liners by Jeff Foxworthy. If I have a comment, it's in parentheses.

If someone in a Home Depot store offers you assistance and they don't work there, you live in Oregon.

If you've worn shorts, sandals and a parka at the same time, you live in Oregon.

If you've had a lengthy telephone conversation with someone who dialed the wrong number, you live in Oregon.

If you measure distance in hours, you live in Oregon.

If you have switched from 'heat' to 'A/C' and back again in the same day, you live in Oregon.
(Even more so if you need to do this in the same hour...)

If you feel guilty throwing aluminum cans or paper in the trash, you live in Oregon.

If you know more than 10 ways to order coffee, you live in Oregon. (Or Washington)

If you stand on a deserted corner in the rain waiting for the "Walk" signal, you live in Oregon.
(If you walk out against the signal and against traffic, you live in Portland)

If you consider that if it has no snow or has not recently erupted, it is not a real mountain, you live in Oregon.

If you can taste the difference between Starbucks, Seattle's Best, and Dutch Bros, you live in Oregon.

If you know the difference between Chinook, Coho and Sockeye salmon, you live in Oregon.

If you know how to pronounce Sequim, Puyallup, Clatskanie, Issaquah, Oregon, Umpqua, Yakima and Willamette, you live in Oregon.
(If you know how to pronounce Glisan with a long "e", Couch with a "oo", then you live in Portland)

If you consider swimming an indoor sport, you live in Oregon.
(Especially Styxx, who's room floods out a lot)

If you know that Boring is a city and not just a feeling, you live in Oregon.
(Jokes about Boring are just that)

If you can tell the difference between Japanese, Chinese and Thai food, you live in Oregon.

If you think people who use umbrellas are either wimps or tourists, you live in Oregon.
(Or they are just foolish. TriMet reports umbrella losses in the thousands annually)

If you actually understand these jokes you live or have lived in Oregon

Some More Funnies About Blogging

2011-04-13T11:21:00.000-07:00

So that the pics don't take over my sidebar. (I should really use tinypic)

How You Should Blog (Even If I Don't)

2011-04-13T11:01:00.000-07:00

I just read "5 Commandments for Blogging" and I really disagreed with most of it. So I'm giving my own, according to what I like to read. I may not follow all of these rules, but I'd like to. That counts, doesn't it?

1. Don't write for the masses
If you are only writing because you want to see a higher count or because you want to get known, just don't bother. Be yourself and write about what is important to you, even if it's not important to anyone else. Don't change your public persona to be popular. This doesn't mean don't think about your audience. It means keep a balance between who you really are and what people want to hear.

2. Be passionate
Go ahead and post your most extreme ideas. It is passion that really makes an interesting article. This is not the same as emotional or insulting or troll-ish. Passion is what stirs your soul, not what others react in you. Write on what you love, not on what you hate.

3. Quote
Most bloggers don't quote other works or they keep quotations brief. But if you read something amazing, especially if it is little-known or out of print or simply unpublished, please take the time to share it with the rest of us. Just remember to say where you got it from, who wrote the quote and keep the length under copyright limits. Ask permission if possible.

4. Use pics
Text is dull by itself. Use a pic that reflects the mood and subject of the post. It's an eye catcher and makes us more likely to read what you have to say.

5. Not too long
I have a blog that is only a sentence or two each post. And another that is only pics. And I have writings that are more than a thousand words long. Frankly, I know for a fact that no one will read the thousand word posts. They are just too long. This is the internet, not a novel. No one is going to take an hour to read a blog post. It's just a fact of life. However, if you have an idea that takes a long time to explain, you can do it in multiple posts.

6. Not too personal
If we are writing about what happened with our neighbor the other day without any relevance to anyone else, why put it on the internet? A blog, like Facebook, is a public journal, not a private one. I don't want to know about your sex life, the things you hate about your spouse, or the tiny details that make up your life. That doesn't mean I don't want personal info. Tell me what movies you really like or really hate; tell me briefly about your top ten pet peeves-- that's fine, especially if it's funny. But let's not get into exclusively private territory.

7. Be entertaining
We can't be entertaining all the time. Not every post will be earth-shattering. But something in each post should be dramatic or funny or informative or thought-provoking. Not necessarily the whole post, but something. The title is a good place to start.

The Great Sellaway

2011-03-30T15:02:00.000-07:00

Can you talk about the verse that says its easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter heaven? Why is it so hard to let go of "things" ? Mark and I have been discussing that lately as our circumstances change. We aren't snobs and know that people come first, so why is it hard to lose material things? They won't last. I always wondered that, and why when Jesus told the man to sell his things, he couldn't. When we KNOW these things are not lasting, why is it still difficult? Is it because we once had them and now won't? -Mark and Leeanne

Okay, this is going to take a minute.

In the passage Jesus is talking about "selling your possessions and giving to the poor." His is a subject he spoke pretty frequently about. He told it to the rich young ruler and to Zaccheus in Luke 19. He also talked about it to all of his disciples in Luke 12:33 and Luke 14:33. He referred to it in his parables of the pearl of great price and the parable of the treasure in the field. And he applied it in his story of the rich man and Lazarus as well as his teaching about wealth in Matthew 6 and Luke 12. So this is a big deal to Jesus.

And it's really hard for us Americans to do. Not just because we are attached to our possessions, but that we have so many of them and it's a constant process of getting rid of them, because we always get more. Not more money, mind you, just stuff. So it's a lot of hard work.

But what you are referring to is the emotional attachment we have to our stuff. Because we get stuff and it becomes a part of us, a part of our essence. As Jesus says, "Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." Or, wherever you store your stuff, your core is right in the midst of it.

So why get rid of our stuff? First off all, because those who are poor need it more than we do. John the Baptist got at the basics when he said, "If you have two coats and someone you know doesn't have any, give one to him." It's basic fair distribution. If our stuff is more needed by our brother, then we should pass it on.

Secondly, we get rid of our stuff because it causes us to be more attached to this world instead of God. The more stuff we have, the more effort and love we put into our stuff, and the less time and love we have for God or for the poor around us.

Third, we get rid of our stuff, because it builds up our stuff in heaven. Jesus says that whatever we give to the poor, God puts that stuff in our savings account in heaven, for our retirement. Thus, the more we give away to the needy, the greater the interest accumulates in our bank account in the Kingdom. Thus, we don't want to think of the poor as greedy-- rather, they are the bankers who keep our possessions (or the wealth from our possessions) secure for us for when we really need it-- after this life is over.

Finally, how do we give?
In scripture there are three ways to get rid of our possessions.

a. We sell our possessions and then take the proceeds to the poor. That could be to a charity or directly to the poor. It doesn't matter what they do with it, it is the act of giving out of love that gains our benefit.

b. We drop our possessions like a hot potato. The disciples, noting that they didn't give their possessions to the poor, wondered if just leaving their nets and boats on the shoreline was acceptable. Jesus told them it was fine as long as they were doing it for God's kingdom. Getting rid of everything to do kingdom work is just as much a benefit as giving to the poor. Thus, having a garage sale and the proceeds go to ministry or leaving everything on the side of the road so you could be a missionary is great in Jesus' eyes.

c. We are freely open to use our possessions with those who are in need. This is the Philemon principle. He was a friend of Paul's who used his house to have the church meet in it and whenever anyone came to town he opened up his house for them to stay with him, as long as they needed it. Even so, if we have a car, but use it to transport the poor, have a house but use it to house the needy or have music that we share (in a legal manner) with those who don't, then it is all good, all building up toward our heavenly account.

The hardest thing about that last kind of giving is that if we loan something out or allow people to have use of our possessions, they may not be as careful with our possessions as we are. Thus, we may get back something that is unusable. This is why this last kind of giving is just as much surrendering as the other kind of giving. Because when people use your stuff, pretty soon that stuff can't be used anymore.

So how can we make it easier to get rid of our stuff? Well, I don't know that we can. Giving away our stuff is a lot like going on a diet. We can recognize our fat, but it's hard to make the commitment. But after the fat is gone, we feel relieved. But there isn't much relief until it's gone. Until then, it's just hard work.

I would recommend that we all commit all of our stuff to the Lord. Not in the spiritual sense, "Oh, it's all yours, Lord" but in a real sense of, "Jesus, this stuff right here I'm getting rid of for you. Jesus, this stuff right here isn't mine, but I'm going to allow others to use it whenever they need to. Jesus, I'm making this available to You for it to benefit others." In this way, the Lord will help you in your commitment to Him. His Spirit will flow down upon you, and fill you with the love for Him and for others and the love of possessions will just fade away.

A Parable of the Kingdom

2011-03-17T16:23:00.000-07:00

Once there was a king who had three sons. He was determining who should rule after him, so he gave them each a portion of his vast kingdom, and told them to rule well. As good sons, they came to him and said, "Father, you are the great king, all wise and just. Please tell us how to rule as you have done."

The Emperor looked at each of them from his throne and said, "Write down what I say and you will know all that is necessary to rule: Sovereignty. Justice. Mercy. Sacrifice. Love. Peace. Understand these words and you will rule well." The three sons were a bit mystified, but all were confident that, given time, they would be able to understand the meaning of the Great King, and rule well.

After a year, the King called his sons back and asked them how they ruled.

The first son said this: "After some time of considering your words and spending time with your subjects, I realized that they were faithless and stupid. Then I understood your words. I am the sovereign and I must rule strongly. I must deliver justice to the people, punishing them for their sins. However, I must remind them that you, O King, are merciful and do not want them all to die. However, they must learn to sacrifice their wills to Yours, and thus learn to Love each other by loving the Law of the land. Only then there will be Peace."

The King replied, "And I understand that you punished all, for all were unworthy in your sight. This is not my rule of mercy. You are dismissed."

The second son said, "I, too, considered your words, my King, and applied them to my rule. I realized that I am not the sovereign, but You are, O King. I am only here to dispense your justice and mercy to the people. Thus, I sought to apply your law precisely, punishing the wicked and rewarding the obedient. I taught them to sacrifice their possessions to me, so that I might re-distribute them in love. And then we achieved the peace of having all needs met."

The King replied to the second son, "Because you took all land and all possessions from my people, you made them all poor, grudgingly giving back to them. This is not my rule of justice. You are dismissed."

Finally came the primary servant of the third son, and he said, "I regret to tell you, my Lord, that your son is dead. This is what occurred: He also, considered your words and he realized that he himself was given sovereignty over your people, which was a noble task, of which few are worthy. He saw the poor of your land being oppressed and the wealthy squandering their power on their own indulgence and distractions. But rather than punish them, your son remembered your word, "sacrifice" and realized that he must sacrifice himself for all the people. So he took all the power and wealth you gave him, traveled around the country and taught all the people how to share possessions, how to see with compassion and how to love each other with one's own heart. In this way, he created peace among all who listened to him.

"I wish that were the end of the story. His brother, the first son, came to his land and stirred up the wealthy, claiming that the third son was not obeying your will. They lied about him and persecuted him gladly, for he was telling them the only way to follow your will was to sacrifice their possessions and power. Because he threatened all power, the other king spurred the powerful to kill your third, innocent son."

The King bowed his head and tears came to his eyes. "Yes, I have heard all of these tidings. My son," and he turned to the first son, "You are cast from my presence. I never want to see you again. You were never interested in my will, only in punishment." Then the King turned to the servant, "Little one, because you have loved my son, my son who followed my heart of compassion, then I proclaim you to be King over all of my lands."

The servant declared, "But my Lord, I am not worthy!"

The King chuckled, "Of course you are not. But anyone who has my heart at least deserves the chance to become worthy. Worth isn't in correct interpretation, nor in delivering justice. Worth is found in seeing others' needs and doing all you can to meet them."

This parable is not about Christianity, per se. Nor is it about the atonement and how it works. Rather, it is about how one interprets the Bible. The Bible is confusing and difficult. There are a number of things that don't make sense. The one who understands the Bible correctly is the one who has the heart of the Father, following the example of His Son.

Are You An American?

2011-03-16T20:55:00.000-07:00

With the homeland security rules, you have to have a lot of IDs to get your ID. You need a social security card, a birth certificate, a proof of citizenship (if necessary), a marriage certificate (if you changed your name). Oh, and don't bother bringing in your old ID because that doesn't count. Oh, and 40 dollars.

We know a lot of people who don't have any kind of ID because it got lost, burned, stolen, whatever. So the road to obtaining this ID is long and hard.

We've decided to make it easier on everyone. Look, homeland security is doing their best, we know, but they just want to prove that if a person was born in America, then they are a citizen. We think they just need to show a little more imagination.

So we created this simple test to prove if one is a real American or not. If you answer the questions right, then we give you your ID.

1. Can you speak English?
Correct answer: No. Americans don't speak English. They speak American.

2. Are all foreigners idiots?
Correct answer: Yes. Anyone who does not live in the United States lives in an idiotic way. Therefore, they are idiots.

3. Would you feel comfortable living in Canada?
Correct answer: Of course not. Canada is foreign. Therefore they are idiots. Also, they have socialized medicine.

4. Do you know where Belize is?
Correct answer: What is a Belize? No one knows where Belize is. Even those who live there probably wouldn't be able to point it out on the map.

5. Are you fluent in any language apart from English?
Correct answer: Of course not. We've already established that Americans can't even speak English.

6. Do you feel cheated if your meal doesn't fill the plate?
Correct answer: There are meals without a super size option?

7. Do you have a car?
Correct answer: How can anyone live without a car?

8. What is your favorite childhood memory?
Correct answer: I remember when gas was less than two dollars a gallon...

9. What is your opinion about France?
Correct answer: (unmentionable)

Final: Please fill in this map (correct answers provided)

I'd Like To See A Picture of This...

2011-03-15T08:30:00.001-07:00

From Crosswalk Daily News Summary-

Egypt's Military Begins Rebuilding Burned Church

Egypt's government acknowledged the complaints of Coptic Christians last week as the military began reconstruction of a burned church south of Cairo. Hundreds of Christians protested the torching, leading to clashes between Muslims and Copts that killed 13 Christians. "The engineering department of the Egyptian Armed Forces has started to rebuild the church in Atfeeh today at the same exact location," Army spokesman Maj. Mohamed Askar said, according to CNN. "The Armed Forces will bear all expenses."

Culture of Murder

2011-03-04T16:42:00.000-08:00

A report from Consistent Life:

An Unusual Connection between Abortion and the Death Penalty

The case of the 70-year-old abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell (covered last week) has a new twist: prosecutors are consideringthe death penalty because charges involve multiple murders – and because seven of the eight murders are for children under age 12 (that is, he induced birth first and killed the born baby). Concerning the two decades when repeated reports of shocking clinic conditions went ignored, Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett said, "This doesn't even rise to the level of government run amok. It was government not running at all.” The death penalty is a very poor substitute for government having done its job, even what was allowed after Roe v. Wade, by intervening much earlier. Many women could have been spared an excruciating fate. Gosnell himself may have avoided the spiral down that violence normally entails, had there not been social approval and apathy.

[Thanks to Edward Chow and Rob Arner for sending in information on this case.]

So we give someone permission to murder, find out he was doing it wrong, and to punish him, we answer it with murder? Is there something wrong with this?

In Reflection on the Lord's Prayer and the Beatitudes

2011-03-02T16:18:00.000-08:00

"Daily bread"

Jesus spoke to simple people.

Jesus understood the theological niceties and the tendency of spiritualization of the educated. Perhaps that's why he didn't speak to the educated, except in debate. If we like a word, or like a teacher, we try to fit what was said into a context we can accept, an idea we can receive.

People with refrigerators and cupboards full of food want to try to apply "Give us this day our daily bread." Frankly, we don't need daily bread. We've already got bread for today, tomorrow and the next. And we aren't satisfied with bread. So we have cheese and milk and beef and turkey and donuts and hot dogs and Slim Fast bars and Nutella. So when we read about daily bread, we think it means the Word of God, or Jesus who is the Word of God, or some other kind of symbolic, spiritual bread that we actually need because 'daily bread' is an unnecessary prayer for us.

But the people Jesus spoke to-- and the majority of the world today-- would understand that when Jesus spoke of bread, he meant... well, bread. Or maybe rice. Perhaps corn. But certainly not Peanut M&Ms. Certainly not a refrigerator full of food. Certainly not Jesus. And not the word of God, either. Because the majority of the people (who ever lived) don't know if they will have enough basic food to eat that day. Some dig through trash, some rely on farms, but most go hungry. So when Jesus spoke to simple people, he spoke about bread because that's something they understood. They asked, "Heaven is great, but what will I give my children to eat today?" And Jesus answered, "Ask and you will receive. Ask your Father for what is good and He will not give you a stone."

When Jesus said, "Blessed are you who are poor," he didn't mean the people who were humble. That doesn't mean Jesus downplayed humility-- oh, no, that is essential. But Jesus also glorified the poor. Not poverty. Poverty is horrible. But the poor can be glorious and faithful and just desperate enough to seek God for what no one else would grant them. So "the poor" are... poor people.

Yes, in Matthew it says, "the poor in spirit." And it is associated with "the meek", "the mourning", those desperate for justice and those who are persecuted. These are people who, whether lacking in funds or not, are oppressed and suffering at the hands of those more powerful than they. The poor. Not those who humble themselves, but are humiliated at the hands of another.

The simple person learns that the Bible is more complicated than what the simple words seem to say, and so theologians and preachers and the educated and the wise unlearn what seems so simple to understand. So straightforward.

And so we lose the point because we are too educated, to sophisticated to understand it. Are eyes are so wide open that we see nothing. And we lose the truth that is staring us right in the face.

Every Christian Healed?

2011-03-02T12:24:00.000-08:00

Josh posted this on Alethia. Read more here.

Isaiah 53:5

But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was on him,
and by his wounds we are healed.

I have encountered those who believe, on the basis of this verse and some others, that "physical healing was provided for in the atonement" and therefore it is now never God's will that any of his children be sick.

Thoughts?

My response:

If we are to use that passage as some use it-- as a promise that we would never be sick, or if sick immediately healed-- then we could also claim "peace" that way, as it is the parallel to the "healing" line. Thus, we should claim "shalom"-- justice and inner peace and all needs met and release from prison for all who are under Jesus' blood.

Can you see people using the verse for shalom as some use it for healing?

"It only looks like you are in prison, but the fact is, you are free! Act on that freedom, there are no guards, no walls, if you would only have faith!"

"It may seem that you are hungry and homeless, but in reality, by faith, you live in a mansion and have a feast in front of you, whatever food you want! Just claim it by faith and eat it!"

The fact is, Jesus died for our sins so that we could ask God for healing and justice and all of our needs met. But we still live in a world filled with sickness and disease and disaster and hunger and pain. We still live through sickness and suffering, without fear, knowing that Jesus is changing the world, person by person until He is ready to return and meet all of our needs.

In the meantime, He chooses to heal some of us, and feed some of us miraculously, and to house some of us and to provide inner peace to some of us. And some of us have to struggle, so that His character might show through our suffering.

There Are No Atheists in Pity Parties

2011-03-01T09:10:00.000-08:00

From Crosswalk Religion News of the Day:

Anger at God Common, Even among Atheists

New research shows that self-described atheists and agnostics are more likely to be angry at God - or the hypothetical deity they reject - than believers. CNN reports that new studies from Julie Exline, Case Western Reserve University psychologist, and her colleagues. Religious people are also more likely to see a plan or good intentions behind unfortunate events, rather than a mean-spirited attack. "When people trust that God cares about them and has positive intentions toward them, even if they can't understand what those intentions or meanings are, it tends to help to resolve anger," she said. Exline and her colleagues hope to further study people's reactions to God, suffering and anger.

Mark Twain denied the existence of God, due to the death of his beloved daughter. Then he penned scathing words against God. Not against the church, mind you-- he'd been writing against the hypocrisy of the church for decades before. But against God.

Much of the anger against God is simply the opposite of the attitude of gratefulness that other people have. It is human nature to either blame or thank someone above us for circumstances that are beyond our control. But what do we do if we think there is no one actually determining these actions? Because we have to do something with our feelings, we blame or thank God, whether we intellectually believe in Him or not.

For most people, a belief in God is emotional, even if one is an atheist.

This is not a proof for God, but it is interesting to speculate. It is also interesting because thanking God for some good circumstances is right because He established the earth to be good and because He continues to allow growth and goodness to spread. However, since God established humanity to rule the world, some good (such as the harnessing of electricity) can be given to humanity, but almost all of the evil can be put at humanity's doorstep. Either humanity causes evil or humanity allows for evil to continue to exist when they could do something about it. Most of the time, humanity is apathetic toward evil, when they have been given rule by God to accomplish justice, mercy and goodness.

So if you really want to blame someone for the evil, look in the mirror.

What Does "Anawim" Mean? The Long Answer

2011-02-23T12:22:00.000-08:00

I have often said that the Hebrew word "anawim" means "the poor who seek the Lord for deliverance". As a good example of this, one can look at Psalm 37, where verse 11 states, "the anawim shall inherit the land", from which Jesus received his statement, "the meek shall inherit the earth.". The longer answer is below, from Raymond Brown's tome, The Birth of the Messiah:

"The word Anawim represents a plural from the Hebrew anaw which, along with its cognate ani is a word for 'poor, humble, afflicted.'

"Although this title ["Anawim"] meaning the 'Poor Ones' may have originally designated the physically poor (and frequently still included them), it came to refer more widely to those who could not trust in their own strength but had to rely in utter confidence upon God: the lowly, the poor, the sick, the downtrodden, the widows and the orphans. The opposite of the Anawim were not simply the rich, but the proud and self-sufficient who showed no need of God or His help.

"There is considerable scholarly debate about the pre-exilic origins of the Anawim, and about the extent to which they constituted a class or community and not merely an attitude of mind. But a good case can be made for the contention that in post-exilic times the Anawim regarded themselves as the ultimate narrowing down of the remnant of Israel. The concept that God was not going to save His whole people but only a remnant was redefined many times. When the Northern Kingdom (Israel) was destroyed in 722, the Southern Kingdom (Judah) regarded itself as that remnant. When part of the Southern Kingdom was taken into captivity to Babylon (598 and 587), with part of the people left behind in Palestine, both exiles and Palestinians tended to regard themselves as the remnant.

"Eventually, under the catalyst of defeat and persecution, the remnant was redefined, not in historical or tribal terms, but in terms of piety and way of life. The parallelism in Psalm 149:4 equates the people of God with the Anawim: "The Lord takes pleasure in His people; He adorns the Poor Ones with victory." (see also Isaiah 49:13; 66:2). Very often, woven together with this piety of dependence on God was a "Temple piety". The mixture is explained by the fact that the appeal for God's deliverance of His Anawim was made in the psalms, and thus in a cultic setting. The "Poor Ones" showed their trust in God by being faithful to the times of prayer and sacrifice...

"The existence of a Jewish Christian Anawim is not purely hypothetical. In Acts 2:43-47; 4:32-37 Luke describes with nostalgia... the Jewish Christian community at Jerusalem. These people sold their possessions and gave their wealth for distribution to the needy; thus they certainly qualify to be deemed "Poor Ones". Their poverty was leavened by piety, including "Temple piety" for they devoted themselves to prayer and attendance at the Temple...

"In his discussion of the Epistle of James, Dibelius has shown the presence of a dominant Anawim mentality in a strongly Jewish writing composed in Greek quite late in the century. He argues that the traditional attitude of the Poor Ones, seen in Jerusalem Christianity early in the century, continued in the non-Pauline churches of Diaspora Judaism later in the century."

-Raymond Brown, The Birth of the Messiah, pp. 350-351, 354-355.

Why Do The Nations So Furiously Rage?

2011-02-16T17:16:00.000-08:00

Leeanne T asked me what I do when people are so hard-hearted as to not allow us to love as God has called us to love. What to do when they put up blocks to meet people's needs. My response:

It is really stressful to care for people. I think thats why so few people do it, really. The cost of caring is just too high for most people.

This is what I do when our effort has failed and people still suffer:

Cry out to God for His mercy.

Trust that God is still working, even behind the scenes.

Surrendering our own effort, recognizing that we aren't the one who saves but God is.

Love with what we have, but when we realize we have run out, to hand our loved ones over to God.

Cry, sometimes, even though you know it doesn't help in the long run.

Break the law, if the law tells you not to love.

Rant on the internet. Yeah, I do that a lot.

Surrender

2011-02-16T15:26:00.000-08:00

"Lord, you know what is best for me.

Give me what you will
and when you will
and as much as you will.

Do with me as you think best
and as it pleases you
and brings you the most honor.

Place me where you will
and use me according to your wisdom.

I am in your hand
as your servant
ready to do all that you command.

I want to live,
not for myself
but for you."

-from The Imitation of Christ by Thomas a Kempis

The Illusionist 2010

2011-02-08T23:59:00.000-08:00

Mercy and I went out to see this tonight. You all probably know this, but it is based on an unfilmed script by Tati, the director of Mon Oncle and Play Time. I haven't seen any films by Tati, but I can see the influence of early film here. First of all, for all intents and purposes, it is a silent. And although it is about an older man caring for a younger as if she were his daughter, so without a romantic element, the main relationship has the flavor of Chaplain's Modern Times or City Lights.

I could see this being a classic silent film, and frankly, I think that animation is the perfect medium for this style of cinema. It is very reminiscent of the first half hour of Wall-E, and we can see Pixar using this same style of cinema, to even greater effect. But The Illusionist, instead of pressing for the quick plot or the quick laugh, is slower and yet still very entertaining, and thus it is utterly charming. This is a quiet film, and at first you wonder what it is about, then you wonder if it has a point, but it seduced me by the end. And it won me over with the ending. How wonderful and sad and touching. Passages of life and all that.

Nothing deep here, just a fine story well told. 4/5

Our Prayer in Church Today

2011-01-30T22:23:00.000-08:00

Let us see what is beautiful in You
Let us dwell on Your mercy
Let us be overwhelmed by Your compassion
Let us bask in Your purity
Let us be vanquished by Your grace
Then let us, without reservation,
Allow those qualities so enflame our hearts
That we cannot help but express them ourselves

Yeah, I wrote this one. Worship was on the theme of God's beauty.

A Book I Wrote For Ian While Homeschooling Him, Years Ago

2011-01-30T11:51:00.000-08:00

A Deeply Philosophical Self-Referential Book, Although It Is Not Very Long And It Is Questionable, In Fact, That Perhaps The Title Might Be Longer Than The Book Itself, Which Is As Well A Self-Referential Title, And Probably Contains Too Many Commas.

Chapter 1
This is the beginning of the book.

Chapter 2
This is the middle of the book.

Chapter 3
This is the end of the book.

The End.

P.S. Please send your lauds and applause to the author.
P.P.S. I apologize for my poor writing. My computer broke last week.
P.P.P.S. I wonder if I should mention in the title that the post scripts also exceed the length of the book itself. Send me your thoughts.

(Lies! All lies! They’re trying to keep me from telling the tru—)

What Obama Is Not

2011-01-24T00:32:00.001-08:00

The Secret Teaching About God

2011-01-23T14:05:00.000-08:00

"Yahweh, Yahweh God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and truth; who keeps lovingkindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin; yet He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished."

(Exodus 34:6-7 NAS)

Do Unto Others

2011-01-23T13:27:00.000-08:00

Anawim

2011-01-19T17:01:00.000-08:00

Cool.

What happens when we take up the cross?

2011-01-19T11:13:00.000-08:00

"If we take up the cross, will we but suffer pain?
Nay, if we bear the cross, be sure that we will die!
The meaning of the cross is that we may be slain;
The cross experienced the self will crucify."
-Witness Lee

Discipline of Community

2011-01-18T08:47:00.000-08:00

Someone asked in a private message, "I have heard that to be a part of intentional community it requires reading and prayer to prepare for it. What do you think?"

There are different kinds of intentional communities, and they have different kinds of focuses. Merton would focus on prayer, because that's what his community was about. But different communities, like different people, have different gifts. You can get a community of service-minded folks or a community of evangelists or a community of Bible students... all of these are positive (see the book Streams of Living Water by Richard Foster for a description of the church as various kinds of gifted communities).

It seems to me that the one principle that everyone living in community needs to have is commitment to love the other people in the community. If you don't have that, you won't soon have a community. This doesn't mean that they need to know how to love before they get involved-- if they are in tune to the Spirit and to the other members of the community they will learn how to do that. But if a person is only half committed to the community, they will find that they are not actually in the community and never have been. If a person never spends time with the people in the community then that person will never be truly a part of the community. If a person spends time, but only to change the community, not to change themselves, they will be angry because the community never "listened" to them.

Every member of a community must be ready to listen to the community as a whole. They must be ready to change for the sake of the other. They must be ready to be flexible to allow themselves to be bent for the community. They must be ready to serve the community. They must pray for the members of the community. In this way, the community will grow in love and in Spirit and be a powerful voice in the world.

But choosing the right community is essential too. If we choose a community that is too focused on each other or on prayer, then it is a navel-gazing community, and it never grows in love as an entity. Also, if a community is only focused on the outward, on service or work, then it loses its spiritual core. The best community is a community of balance between God and their neighbor. In this way, we can be a community that both loves God, loves each other and loves one's neighbor, neglecting not a single one of God's commandments.

No Convincing Evidence

2011-01-17T22:17:00.000-08:00

I'm answering the question, "Is there any evidence that can prove Christianity?" on the Alethia forum:

I don't think that we can "prove" our worldview to others, even as they cannot to us. Most apologetics are only assuring to those who already believe, comforting them that what they believe isn't foolish, but based on reasonable evidence.

However, I don't think "reason", of whatever flavor, convinces anyone of anything that goes against their firmly-held beliefs.

This doesn't mean that a person can't be converted. However, the "evidence" that convinces them would be personal, not intellectual. There are only two things that convinces a person of the truth of Jesus:

a. A life that is sincerely and lovingly lived in Jesus, in close relation with those who do not believe. Over time, they may see that belief in Jesus is the most reasonable way to live, not because of proofs, but because of a sincere and compassionate heart that makes other people's lives better.

b. A personal experience with the Lord. Jesus and the Father are persons, not intellectual property. If I wanted to convince you of the existence of my friend Bill, I wouldn't argue about it, I'd just have you shake his hand. Often the best evidence is the Lord just "shaking the hand" of the unbeliever. Thus, my most common prayer for those who don't believe in the Lord is that the Lord would reveal Himself to them.

I think there is a good place for apologetics, but I don't find it as useful as I did in my early Christian years.

Reflections

2011-01-10T10:42:00.000-08:00

Given to me by an Anawim member:

Watch the reflections
Beside the lake
Open your mind and an
Exploration your life will take:
Explore... look back
How often did you fall to the floor?
You kept your faith, taking
An inner strength, but said
You couldn't take anymore
Letting yourself go, the tears escaped
Your silent eyes, my dear, it
Was then, that he knelt by your side
His arms invisible, but they held you
Together, holding you tightly, as
The emotions stormed wild
Life beats us down as we grow
Old and retire, but God still loves
His scarred little child... forever.

The Friend

2011-01-05T15:49:00.000-08:00

Jesus is your friend. He is not your enemy, for He wishes only for you to live and thrive and that for eternity.

Jesus' time is different than ours. Often we want Him to solve our problems immediately, or to make them never happen, but Jesus knows, even though we do not, that the road to joy often comes through suffering and anguish. He doesn't want us to wallow in this suffering, but to pass through it to joy. Joy is the goal, suffering is the means.

Jesus, like most of the spirit world, doesn't move in our time. Every moment in anguish is like an eternity to us and Jesus moves on a seeming geologic scale. But Jesus has a timetable. The end of suffering will come. We just need to wait for it.

Jesus often lets us know when He is working in us, for He wants the Father to get all the glory. However, when He acts, it is when we least expect it, when we think everything is at its end. Then, suddenly, Jesus is there, giving us what we need, although often at the last possible moment.

Jesus' plan isn't as laid out or organized as we might think. He has to work with us, and we often change our minds every few minutes. So Jesus works with us in order to cause our souls to live and thrive so that we might be our own and we might help others to be thriving on their own as well.

Jesus offers a lot and his promises are huge: eternal life, a just kingdom, a community of love, all our needs met, a relationship with the Father, our sin wiped away, healing and hope and joy and peace in our hearts. We look at these promises and sometimes we think that Jesus won't... can't keep them all. What we need to realize is that Jesus is no liar, nor is He a monster-- rather he sees our life now and our live after our death as a continuum. To live for eternal life is true faith, and it is this faith He strives to encourage in us.

Jesus isn't a flatterer. Rather, he shows us who we really are. Sometimes we cringe at the pain we ignorantly caused others. Sometimes he attempts to convince us that we aren't as wicked as we thought we were-- that there is actually some good in us. One by one, He takes the blocks away that separate us from the life we should live, the life of love for others. The reason it seems to hopeless is because there are so many blocks. But He faithfully takes them away, slowly and steadily.

Even though we might proclaim Jesus as Lord, we often struggle like a puppy twisting as her master gently attempts to get her out of the twine she is entangled in. We often don't know He is working to free us. And we don't know how complicated it is. In struggling to get out of his grip, we often make the mess worse. But he just sighs and keeps working, for we are in His grip.

His work isn't external, but in our hearts, working with His Spirit to free our hearts from within our hearts. This is why we often don't know He's working.

This is true for me, and true for everyone who submits to Jesus as Lord. Not necessarily every Christian, but everyone who bows to Jesus in their heart-- whether they bow in church or not.

I pray that you would fully realize and rest in Jesus' blessing. For the one whom the Son sets free is free indeed.

The Enemy

2011-01-05T15:30:00.000-08:00

By Clay, a member of Anawim

Satan is your enemy. He's not your friend as he wished only pain and sorrow to bring about your end.

He has no timetable for the way he works as he leads you down the road you follow to his domain of misery in which he wants you to wallow.

He moves as fast as the erosion of a rock or the ripening of an apple for Satan needs no clock.

He never announces his arrival with any fanfare, but comes upon you when you think no one cares while you sit in hopeless despair.

He stealthily slithers in on silent feet to construct his web of wicked horrors and deceit for it in your soul he seeks as his coveted prize with your defeat.

He speaks to you of his wonderful rewards-- oh so sweet and grand-- as he takes your young and trusting hand to lead you to his supposedly promised land; there he injects his hatred into your heart to keep you in his endless dark.

With his silver tongue he showers you with his golden words of praise, while on his cold merciless bed he made you lay as he performed his sick and evil feats. Your spirit he slays.

And now finally in his ruthless icy heartless hard grasp, at last he steals your innocent part.

The more you struggle to become free, the more he laughs at you in his hysterical glee for what he has done to thee.

This is where he loves to reign: in your heart, filling you with his misery and pain.

I know this to be true as God has shown me, in my heart, what has happened to you.

And now by God's command I take my stand beside you, where I will stay and pray until the day Satan sets you free by God's command -Uncle.

Saving v. Risky Spending

2011-01-04T23:14:00.000-08:00

Something I fell upon: a fable by Reb Zalman Schantar-Shalomi in the book, The Jew In The Lotus.

A man who believed in reincarnation went to a Swiss bank with a ton of cash. He told the bank to hold the money until another person with a certain password came, then the account could be managed by that individual.

Thirty years later a different man came to the bank and gave them the password, demanding that they give him all the money. When the bank owners questioned his judgment, he said, "I told you to save it then. But now it is time to use it.?"

Religious tradition is formed so that our communities might have continuity. The best people to invest that tradition are conservatives. But the best people to spend that investment are those who will take a risk.

It is time to spend our investment on risky love.

GUESs What?

2010-12-29T19:07:00.000-08:00

The Gresham Underground Emergency Shelter has been pretty busy, and the winter's already started! Since Thanksgiving, we've opened up 10 nights-- that means 10 nights below freezing when the city shelters didn't open. We could really use some help-- is there anyone who would be willing to help volunteer other nights this winter? We've been using our volunteers up and it would be great if we could share the load. Lives have been saved! Help us do this more.

On to other Anawim news:

-This January East County Anawim is going to participate in Multnomah County's street count. This is the first year that the street count will actively pursue counting those in East County. If you would like to help fill out surveys in the week of January 26th, let us know!

-This year has been Anawim's best year in providing for the needs of our folks. Everyone who needed a sleeping bag, tarp, tent, gloves and socks-- their needs have been met! It's all because of churches like Mountian View, Abundant Life Church, East County Church of Christ, and many more! Thanks to everyone who gave donations this year!

Six Trends in the Modern Church

2010-12-15T10:06:00.000-08:00

The Barna Group has established six "megathemes" of the church in 2010. You can read their full article here:

Six Megathemes

I'll list out the themes and give my own commentary on them.

1. The Christian Church is becoming less theologically literate
I have certainly noticed that the church at large is generally Biblically illiterate, even those who claim to be scholars are so specialized that they can't seem to remember any passage except the one they are working on. How can we even claim to be a social group when we don't know what that grouping is based on? Part of this has to do with our preachers and teachers being more interested in reflecting on the newspaper or Christianity Today rather than God's word. The Bible is used more of a jumping off point or a hammer to drive their own points in. We need to read and teach God's word holistically.

2. Christians are becoming more ingrown and less outreach-oriented.
The examples the Barna Group give is people not inviting people to church as much or speaking to neighbors about Jesus. I think they may be mistaken about this trend. Rather, I have seen Christians using a different kind of evangelism that is more effective and less content oriented. It is to have relationships with non-Christians and have one's Christian life be a part of life, rather than an evangelistic tool to force down a non-Christian's throat. If there is a less outreach-orientation, it is simply because the old tools don't work and new ones are coming into place. In Portland, the churches have been working with the homeless more and have been doing service at public schools. This IS outreach, but outreach of a kind that shows the gospel rather than just talks about it.

3. Growing numbers of people are less interested in spiritual principles and more desirous of learning pragmatic solutions for life.
I think this has always been evident in American Christianity. American Christians have always had the American worldview take the front seat over Jesus' principles. It has only been relatively recently that the popularity of people like Shane Claiborne has introduced a practical lifestyle of Jesus' principles. This has drawn a following, but still few follow this radical change of life.

4. Among Christians, interest in participating in community action is escalating.
This is a positive trend and the Barna Group proves that they can see a negative in every possible trend. Look, guys, this IS evangelism and outreach. This is a powerful change in the church. Perhaps the theology of this isn't as defined, but theology doesn't usually change things anyway. The only spiritual principles we need to do good is to love God and love our neighbor.

5. The postmodern insistence on tolerance is winning over the Christian Church.
What Barna seems to forget is that there is a biblical tolerance which requires for us not to fight. The church has "fought" too hard in many wrong areas. The focus on creationism, the claim that homosexuality is a sin and insistence on a two-gender marriage is all fine within the church. But we MUST be tolerant of the opposite trends outside the church. We cannot impose church values on an unchurched world. Do we want to go back to the days of Sabbath laws or prohibition. Some would, but it would be in error. The church must learn to allow unbelievers to make their own mistakes in the freedom God has given them. When we don't, then we ARE judgmental and hypocritical and we are rightly condemned by the world. We are supposed to be the light of the world, not the wall which separates the world from being worldly.

6. The influence of Christianity on culture and individual lives is largely invisible.
I think that this is not necessarily a bad trend. Pastors, priests and fundamentalists all have a bad reputation in the world right now. We have made ourselves out to be hypocrites to the world and we have caused the world to reject our proud ways. It is time to be humble, to be quiet and allow our influence to be due to the good works we do and not because of the policy decisions we force, or because of the hateful speech we have carelessly used against politicians and social groups. Let us return to humility, not being silent, but allowing our loving actions to speak more than words. Only if we show the love of Christ will people believe in it again.

Let the church take time to find out who they are, what they really believe in and what is the best way to communicate that belief. We have allowed the pendents and the judgmentalists be our speakers for us. Allow the Christ-like to represent the church again.

Got Christmas?

2010-12-11T15:44:00.000-08:00

What is Christmas about?
Christmas is about tradition. The things we were raised doing, we want to keep doing. And Christmas is one of the main times of year to keep old traditions alive that have survived at least thirty years or so. What is your Christmas about? Check the items below that apply to you:

 Giving gifts
 Spending time with family
 Lying to children about Santa Claus
 Spending time under the mistletoe
 Setting up decorations
 Getting drunk
 Hopping from free meal to free meal
 Arguing with friends and family
 Catching Miracle on 34th Street for the twentieth time
 Singing a mix of old hymns and silly songs
 Avoiding family
 Eating meat and stuffing until you throw up
 Spending time in the mall with thousands of others
 Listening to Christmas music until you throw up
 Watching A Charlie Brown Christmas for the fiftieth time
 Receiving gifts
 Returning gifts at the mall with thousands of others

Unfortunately, none of these things get to the heart of Christmas. They are all substitutes of the real focus of the festival. Once you dispense with this list, what is left of your Christmas? Watching re-runs of the Simpsons? Being morose because your Christmas doesn’t match up to your expectations? Or just being depressed in general, for no particular reason?

Christmas seems so important, such a significant part of our year, that it must be about something important. Of course, we all know that Christmas is supposed to be about Jesus. But that’s hard for us to really make practical as a holiday or feast. Or even to get our heads around. Jesus was a cool guy. And he taught some good things—most of which we can’t remember right now (too much egg nog, probably). But why is Christmas about him?

The Christmas Story
Well, part of Christmas is the Christmas story. Just in case you weren’t sure, the story isn’t A Christmas Carol. It’s about Jesus. Does Mary, Joseph, angels, shepherds, wise men ring a bell? Yeah, that’s the Christmas story. Well, what is that story about, anyway? Most of us know about the “peace on earth” part. But how do we get peace on earth?

The interesting thing is that the Christmas story doesn’t give us a strictly religious answer, like what we’d expect from the Bible. Instead, it gives us a political answer. That’s right, the Christmas story is about politics. It is propaganda about the kind of political system it thinks would be best. (Propaganda isn’t always bad, you know—it depends on whether it’s true and beneficial to everyone or not.) And the politics the Christmas story is recommending is to have the right ruler, the right government, and then you can have peace. That’s really not that different from an election year, really.

So what kind of ruler can give us peace? According to the Christmas story, it’s got to be somebody who knows what it’s like to be poor. At the same time, it’s got to be somebody who has authority. It’s got to be somebody who cares about the needs of the poor. But it’s still somebody who could capture the interest of the wise and wealthy. But most of all, it’s somebody who really upsets the status quo politics that makes everyone’s lives miserable. That’s why Jesus is uniquely qualified to be ruler of the world.

Jesus was born in poverty, and lived among people who had next to nothing. He drew to himself shepherds, who were rejected by “proper” society. Jesus’ mother sang a song about unimportant people ruling over everyone else. Yet Jesus drew magi more than a thousand miles—walking—to himself with rich gifts. At the same time, he had the current rival king so upset at him, that the king killed a village of babies and toddlers to get rid of him. At the same time, Jesus grew to establish laws that would benefit everyone that lived within his kingdom.

On top of all this, he received authority. He had the right to be in charge. God told everyone that Jesus was the one in charge, and that they needed to listen to him. Most people didn’t listen to God, but what else is new? Jesus still had the right to rule.

Choose Jesus as King of the World!
So why didn’t Jesus rule? Why isn’t he in charge of the world right now? Because he wants to give everyone a chance to choose him, first. (What other dictator would do that?) You see Christmas isn’t so much a holiday or gift-giving opportunity as an election. Jesus is presenting himself as a candidate for office. He want you to elect him. His platform is peace on earth and benefits for everyone who chooses him. What kind of benefits? Forgiveness of sins. The possibility of both receiving and giving love. Being content with your circumstances. Having your needs met. A life without suffering. Some pretty unbelievable campaign promises—but Jesus has a track record. Thousands, even millions of people have experienced Jesus’ kind of living. And it works, it really can give one peace.

Get Christmas
So have you really got Christmas? It’s simple—is Jesus your king, your Lord? If you live having Jesus as your ruler, then you can experience what Christmas is really about. So how do we do that?

Read the gospels to find out what Jesus is really like. (You can start with any of them—Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. Just skip the lists of names in Matthew or Luke). If the reading is too tough, then you can ask a pastor what it means to have Jesus as king (That’s what a pastor does, you know—he reads the Bible to explain it to those of us who can’t make heads or tails of it. If you don’t know a pastor you can call the phone number below.). Look at what Jesus is promising if he does rule. Look at what Jesus is demanding to see if you really want him to rule.

If you are ready, then accept Jesus as your Lord. You can pray to him, “Jesus I choose you as my King and Lord.” Or you can go to a church to get baptized (that’s the initiation ritual). Then you’ll really have Christmas. And a whole lot more.

Get Peace.
Get Jesus.

Debt Kills

2010-12-09T13:04:00.000-08:00

Poor countries throughout the world are encouraged to go into debt to the World Bank so that they will be forever servants of the Western banks.

Kids who look to a future of service of the needy must look forward to paying off their educational debts. They must serve the status quo before they serve the poor, and if they have time and wisdom and energy to escape the maze of increasing debt, then with whatever they have left they can serve the needy.

It is a basic requirement of our society to get into debt to banks if they are to buy a house, a car or to take care of a financial emergency, such as getting very sick.

The New Testament has two things to say:
If you loan, don't expect to be repaid. Jesus says in Luke 6, alongside other commands we ignore, that if we loan out money, we are not to expect to be repaid at all, let alone expect interest. This means to me that if any follower of Jesus is employed by a bank, they should get out ASAP, for they are fundamentally an anti-Jesus institution. We shouldn't expect interest, and if we loan out, we shouldn't punish people by taking away their livlihood if they don't pay back. Jesus' command: if you loan money, it's really a gift.

Also, if you seek to be in economic debt for your desires, don't. Paul says, "Owe no one anything, except the debt of love." We aren't to seek debt. This doesn't mean that we can't borrow something and pay it back next month. But we are not to be in permanent debt, it is not to be a lifestyle. And the reason for this is clear-- if we are in financial debt, then it is difficult to pay the love we owe to everyone in need.

What can we do?

Get rid of our credit cards
Pay off whatever debts we have
Christian educators should not put students into debt-- an alternative system for making a fair educational system must be made.
Small, no interest loans must be available for those who are in need.
Debt should be eradicated from godly society

And all believers should encourage the banks to forgive the debt of poor countries.

Crisis of Justice in Pakistan

2010-12-01T11:31:00.000-08:00

From Crosswalk's Religion News Summary:

High Court Says Pakistan Cannot Pardon Christian Woman

Despite previous reports, Pakistan's government has yet to pardon a Christian woman sentenced to death on blasphemy charges. Moreover, Christian Today reports that the country's high court barred any such pardon while the case is pending in the courts. "Since the matter is in the high court, the government cannot now make any move to pardon Bibi," lawyer Allah Bakhsh Leghari told Agence France-Presse. Asia Bibi (also called Asia Noreen) is the first woman to receive the death sentence after being convicted of blasphemy against Islam's prophet Mohammed. Conservative Muslims have threatened anarchy if President Asif Ali Zadari pardons the woman. Human rights group Christian Freedom International warns that Bibi's case could set a precedent. "If Asia is put to death, it could mean a rise in prosecutions of Christians - not just in Pakistan, but also in other nations where Islamic law is enforced," the group warned.

The president already attempted to pardon Asia, and this is the result.

Please pray for Pakistan and for this Christian woman. This will probably lead to a crisis either way.

Please Continue To Pray for Haiti

2010-11-26T07:31:00.000-08:00

From Crosswalk Religion News Summary:

Haiti Cholera Spreading Faster than Predicted

Haiti's cholera epidemic has spread to the capital city of Port-au-Prince and much of the country, surprising officials and infecting thousands. Reuters reports that the disease as killed more than 1,300 people since the first case was recorded in mid-October. U.N. humanitarian coordinator in Haiti Nigel Fisher said that the waterborne disease could cause 200,000 causes within three months, according to the World Health Organization. "It's going to spread," he said. "The medical specialists all say that this cholera epidemic will continue through months and maybe a year at least, that we will see literally hundreds of thousands of cases." Fisher said U.N. and other aid workers needed to "significantly ratchet up" their response, including going through faith groups to distribute chlorine tablets to purify water, and increasing the number of treatment centers.

Are You Having Eels for Your Traditional Thanksgiving Meal?

2010-11-25T12:43:00.000-08:00

This is quoted completely from The Wild Turkey Zone

Read it here.

For most Americans, the Thanksgiving meal consists of a turkey with stuffing, cranberry sauce, potatoes, and pumpkin pie (or sweet potato pie if you hail from the South.). While there are numerous regional and ethnic variations, this basic menu has not changed much in the last two hundred years. Nor is the standard menu much older than that. Our modern holiday fare bears little resemblance to the food eaten at the three-day 1621 harvest celebration at Plymouth Colony, the event now recalled as the “First Thanksgiving.”

The Wampanoag and Plymouth colonists often ate wild turkey, however it was not specifically mentioned in connection with the Winslow version of the 1621 harvest celebration. Edward Winslow said only that four men went hunting and brought back large amounts of “fowl” – more likely from the scenario to be seasonal waterfowl such as ducks and geese. And what about the stuffing? Yes, the Wampanoag and English did occasionally stuff the birds and fish, typically with herbs, onions or oats (English only).

The typical menu of Thanksgiving dinner is actually more than 200 years younger than that 1621 celebration and reflects both the holiday’s New England roots and a Victorian nostalgia for an imaginary time when hearth and home, family and community, were valued over progress and change. But while we have been able to work out which modern dishes were not available in 1621, just what was served is a tougher nut to crack.

What was really served at the First Thanksgiving

There are only two contemporary accounts of the 1621 Thanksgiving: First is Edward Winslow's account, which he wrote in a letter dated December 12, 1621. The complete letter was first published in 1622.

Our corn [i.e. wheat] did prove well, and God be praised, we had a good increase of Indian corn, and our barley indifferent good, but our peas not worth the gathering, for we feared they were too late sown. They came up very well, and blossomed, but the sun parched them in the blossom. Our harvest being gotten in, our governor sent four men on fowling, that so we might after a special manner rejoice together after we had gathered the fruit of our labors. They four in one day killed as much fowl as, with a little help beside, served the company almost a week. At which time, amongst other recreations, we exercised our arms, many of the Indians coming amongst us, and among the rest their greatest king Massasoit, with some ninety men, whom for three days we entertained and feasted, and they went out and killed five deer, which they brought to the plantation and bestowed on our governor, and upon the captain and others. And although it be not always so plentiful as it was at this time with us, yet by the goodness of God, we are so far from want that we often wish you partakers of our plenty.

He also further describes the bounty of the Plymouth Colony in his later writings --

Our bay is full of lobsters all the summer and affordeth variety of other fish; in September we can take a hogshead of eels in a night, with small labor, and can dig them out of their beds all the winter. We have mussels ... at our doors. Oysters we have none near, but we can have them brought by the Indians when we will; all the spring-time the earth sendeth forth naturally very good sallet herbs. Here are grapes, white and red, and very sweet and strong also. Strawberries, gooseberries, raspas, etc. Plums of tree sorts, with black and red, being almost as good as a damson; abundance of roses, white, red, and damask; single, but very sweet indeed… These things I thought good to let you understand, being the truth of things as near as I could experimentally take knowledge of, and that you might on our behalf give God thanks who hath dealt so favorably with us.1

The second description was written about twenty years after the fact by William Bradford in his History Of Plymouth Plantation. Bradford's History was rediscovered in 1854 after having been taken by British looters during the Revolutionary War. Its discovery prompted a greater American interest in the history of the Pilgrims. It is also in this account that the Thanksgiving turkey tradition is founded.

They began now to gather in the small harvest they had, and to fit up their houses and dwellings against winter, being all well recovered in health and strength and had all things in good plenty. For as some were thus employed in affairs abroad, others were exercising in fishing, about cod and bass and other fish, of which they took good store, of which every family had their portion. All the summer there was no want; and now began to come in store of fowl, as winter approached, of which this place did abound when they came first (but afterward decreased by degrees). And besides waterfowl there was great store of wild turkeys, of which they took many, besides venison, etc. Besides they had about a peck of meal a week to a person, or now since harvest, Indian corn to that proportion. Which made many afterwards write so largely of their plenty here to their friends in England, which were not feigned but true reports.

Though not specifically mentioned as a food on the menu, corn was certainly part of the feasts. Remember that the harvest being celebrated was that of the colorful hard flint corn that the English often referred to as Indian corn. This corn was a staple for the Wampanoag and soon became a fixture in the cooking pots of New Plymouth. The English had acquired their first seed corn by helping themselves to a cache of corn from a Native storage pit on one of their initial explorations of Cape Cod. (They later paid the owners for this “borrowed” corn.) It is intriguing to imagine how the English colonists processed and prepared the novel corn for the first time in the fall of 1621. One colonist gave a hint of how his countrymen sought to describe and prepare a new grain in familiar, comforting terms: “Our Indian corn, even the coarsest, maketh as pleasant a meat as rice.”3 In other words, traditional English dishes of porridge and pancakes (and later bread) were adapted to be used with native corn.

In September and October, a variety of both dried and fresh vegetables were available. The produce from the gardens of New Plymouth is likely to have included what were then called “herbs:” parsnips, collards, carrots, parsley, turnips, spinach, cabbages, sage, thyme, marjoram and onions. Dried cultivated beans and dried wild blueberries may have been available as well as native cranberries, pumpkins, grapes and nuts.

While many elements of the modern holiday menu are very different from the foods eaten in 1621, the bounty of the New England autumn was clearly the basis for both. The impulse to share hospitality with others and celebrate and give thanks for abundance transcends the menu. Edward Winslow’s final comment about the harvest of 1621, is a sentiment shared by many Americans on Thanksgiving Day: And although it be not always so plentiful as it was at this time with us, yet by the goodness of God, we are so far from want that we often wish you partakers of our plenty.

Pakistani Christian Pardoned

2010-11-23T12:06:00.000-08:00

From Crosswalk's Religion Today summaries:

Pakistani President Pardons Christian Woman on Death Row

Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari ended a Christian woman's 18-month ordeal yesterday, commuting her death sentence and allowing her to walk free, The Christian Post reports. Asia Noreen (also referred to as Asia Bibi) was the first woman in Pakistan to receive the death sentence under the country's controversial blasphemy laws. The 45-year-old mother appealed her sentence Saturday after drawing international attention. "This is the only acceptable outcome to what has been a travesty of justice from the outset," said Nasir Saeed, coordinator for U.K.-based Center for Legal Aid, Assistance and Settlement (CLAAS). "Asia Bibi should never have been charged with blasphemy, let alone found guilty and sentenced to death." Muslim women in Asia Noreen's village accused her of blasphemy after an argument arose and Noreen defended her faith.

Let's praise God that the prayers of his saints were heard.

Why I Love Movies

2010-11-16T22:15:00.000-08:00

Posted by me on the Filmspotting Forum, where I dwell under the pseudonym, "Oldkid"

Film isn't just one thing. Painting is a visual art. Music is an audible art. Novels are a storytelling art. Film is all of this, or just one, or some combination of them. Film can have a black screen with no sound for thirty seconds and, depending on the context, it can have the deepest meaning or emotional impact. Film is the most complex art form we have, and perhaps only the Wii has the potential of giving us more. But for now, film is it.

Because of this, film has the greatest potential to be different things to different people. Everyone looking at "Starry Night" by Van Gogh sees something a little different. But that is nothing compared to a deeply rich film like Kieslowski's Blue or Coppola's Apocalypse Now. Some claim these to be among the greatest works of art of all time. Some won't appreciate them at all. But one thing is for certain, they speak to each of us differently, and for different reasons. That is what great art does. And the greatest of art sticks with us over time.

Given the complexity of film, it doesn't surprise me that our reactions to it is complex as well. I have my multiple rating system, and yet I find that even that system is inadequate to express my reaction to a film, as I gave Rachel Getting Married all top scores, but had more than twenty films I appreciated above it. What my marathon is helping me understand is that my appreciation for film is complicated enough that I can't dissect it precisely.

So I will have contradictions between my rating and my ranking. And you know why I don't mind that? Because it means that I am a human being-- complex and difficult to put in a box, like every other human being. And film is one of the few mediums that is rich enough to be able to compare to a complete human experience.

Our ratings of movies is funny, really. Do we rate our top 100 life events? How could we even judge such a thing? And, honestly, I see the best of films as being among my favorite life events. Yes, watching Spirited Away is as much a great event of my life as is watching my son be born or travelling to India. No, I won't rate these events, because they can't be measured like that. Nor can I say which event of my life I "enjoyed" the most, as if human experience can be judged on the level of "enjoyment". So, why should we judge film that way?

I really do like rating films. It's a pastime. But my determination of those which I put highest isn't limited to "enjoyment" nor to "greatness", however we might measure that. Rather, it is experience. Which film has become a part of my life more than others? Which film has become a memorable experience that I cherish? I have a hard time cherishing Rachel Getting Married as truly great I think that film is. But I can, and do, cherish the experience of Wendy and Lucy. And Nausicaa. And even Hunger and United 93-- although that may be hard to imagine.

I praise these filmmakers not just for technical ability or for the ability to take the most complex art form and create something truly wondrous with it. I praise them for enriching my life.

Do The Poor Work?

2010-11-08T08:07:00.000-08:00

"If you tax people who work and you pay people who don't... do I need to say the next sentence to you? If you tax rich people and you pay poor people you're going to get lots and lots of poor people."
-Arthur Laffer, quoted on NPR's Intelligence Squared Debate

So, Mr. Laffer, you are characterizing poor people as those who don't work. This is the most "laffable" of social prejudices. That people who are poor don't work, but people who are rich do.

I think we can consider this simply. Let's take your average CEO and your average poor person. The average CEO might work hard for a few years, take "well deserved" vacations of a few weeks a year and, if they get fired for incompetence, has a multi-million dollar severance pay so they can spend a couple years looking for work. The CEO's spouse doesn't need to work at all.

The average working poor family has two wage earners, one of whom probably has two jobs. If they lose one of those jobs-- perhaps she was asleep during working hours because she has only been getting five hours of sleep a night-- then she immediately has to find another job to replace it or else she loses her apartment and then her children.

Now let's look at the average homeless person. This person has been up half the night due to anxiety-- worry about being found out by the police and worry about what he is going to accomplish the next day. He has been pounding the pavement every day looking for work, and all the employers are saying, "Too old, needs to be retrained, there are better candidates for the job." Perhaps he might turn to begging so he could get a motel for the night, and as he stand there, he is greeted with people yelling at him, "Get a job" or "Get a life, you bum!". He is constantly ashamed, constantly worried about what his life is going to be.

I am not saying that all of the wealthy are like that CEO. However, Mr. Laffer, don't ever make the statement that poor people don't work. They work harder than you and pundits like you could possibly know. You can only claim that the rich "work" because you don't know what real work is.

Real work is waking up each morning driven to do something because otherwise your children will go hungry.

Real work is being humiliated before your boss and not talking back because you can't have your family end up on the street.

Real work is having to walk for miles with your children to the closest free meal, only to find out that someone gave you wrong information and the meal was closed that day.

Real work is having to carry a box full of cans and pasta miles home because the bus driver wouldn't allow such a large box on his bus.

Real work is being told by the police to leave their town because they don't want to see "your type" here anymore.

Real work is getting up at five in the morning so you can search through dumpsters for cans before the garbage truck comes, so you can make thirty bucks if it's a good day.

Real work is beautifully playing your violin on the street, only to be ignored by all but a handful of passers-by.

Let's face it, Mr. Laffer, obtaining wealth is part talent, part drive and part luck. Not everyone has the specific talents involved to make large amounts of money-- should those who don't have such talents lack basic human needs like shelter and health? Not everyone who has the talents to obtain wealth decides to use them, deciding to benefit others instead of themselves. Should they be penalized for choosing a profession that supports society? And obtaining wealth is a large part luck. Because even if you have the talent and the drive to make a lot of money, ofttimes you won't because you weren't in the right place or the right time.

I am not talking about the tax debate. I am talking about prejudicial statements against the poor in order to win the tax debate. Show respect to the poor. If the only way to win the debate is by telling lies about the people who most need the truth, then the debate is not worth winning.

Stop HOBOphobia!

2010-11-07T10:10:00.000-08:00

November is Homeless Awareness Month!!

Countless times a day, homeless people are rejected, falsely accused, harassed, ticketed, and even beat up, all for the “crime” of not having a roof over their heads or of being dirty or of carrying all their possessions in a backpack. The homeless are treated as the outcast of society, as those at the bottom of the economic ladder. Yet the homeless are not the cause of the evils of our society. Nor are they necessarily the outcome of our evils. The homeless are people—people who want to live and love and hope and work, just like you do. Let us not continue to punish those who are lowly in our society, but help them.

Battle the cliches of the homeless
The homeless are “us”, not “them”—Many of the homeless are good Christians or children of important citizens. Many of our neighbors and friends have been homeless at one time or another. Homelessness is not an evil, or even necessarily a tragedy—it is a stage of life that many of us have gone through.

The homeless DO work—While most do not have jobs, they do work hard, some harder than people who have “regular jobs”. It is not easy to get up at 6am to get to dumpsters before anyone else and climb in many of them in order to get recycled cans. Other homeless volunteer at free hot meals and shelters.

Not all homeless are alcoholics—In general, about one third of the homeless have alcohol or drug abuse problems. Many more have mental health or social difficulties. Many have had tragedies that have overwhelmed them, such as a loss of a job or the suicide of a spouse or family member.
Not all homeless are criminals or violent—Most homeless abhor the crime and violence done by the few homeless who do because it gets them accused. The homeless have the same percentage of theft and violence as those who are housed.

Teach your children and the community not to hate the homeless.
The majority of violent crimes against the homeless are done by middle class youth who feel that they have the right to violently fulfill the prejudices of their parents and community. If our youth and community learn that the homeless are human—people like us—then such crimes will be reduced, even eliminated.

Meet and listen to homeless people
Find out the times and locations of local free meals and sit at the table with the homeless. Find out their real motivations and hopes and desires. You may find that they do not differ that much from your own. Be patient with a homeless person’s oddness—you seem just as odd to them.

Include the homeless in social events
Invite the homeless to community and church functions. However, because many of them do not believe that they would be welcome, certain assurances must be made:
It is not necessary to be well-dressed for the function.
It may be necessary to provide transportation to and from the event.
An announcement may be necessary to make sure that everyone is accepting of the homeless.

Support benevolence organizations that assist the homeless
Volunteer at a free meal, give to an organization that helps the homeless, give blankets and clothes to a shelter. Call a local church to find out where you can help the homeless. As you give and volunteer be a friend to those you are helping—seeing and meeting them— not a distant, nameless Benefactor.

Provide opportunities for the homeless
Provide what the homeless REALLY need—opportunities to shower, socks, clean clothes, an address, a chance to work for money, a chance to do volunteer work for others. Be a friend to the homeless and help them get the resources they need.

Do you want to know more about homelessness or Anawim, our ministry? Please go to:
www.NoWhereToLayHisHead.org

Greed Is Good?

2010-11-06T08:41:00.001-07:00

The original idea of capitalism by Adam Smith is that the seller would have enough empathy to understand what his customer actually needs and provide it to him. The customer, of course, helps determine the cost by whether he buys it from this seller or the next.

But capitalism is completely different than the way Adam Smith imagined it. Modern capitalism is not so much empathy for the consumer, but a manipulation of the consumer to convince the consumer of "needs" that she never had. Modern capitalism is emotional blackmail, and a blight on civilization.

It is greed that allows a two liter bottle of Pepsi cost less than a loaf of bread. It is greed that makes banks and utilities charge the poor for the fact that they don't have much money. And it is a society of greed that looks down on hardworking people and tells them that they are worthless. And that same society, if those hardworking people lose their job, that tells them that they don't deserve to sleep, or even to use a bathroom. Greed is not good, and has never produced good, except to both the greedy and the lucky.

The "New Perspective" on Paul

2010-11-03T10:56:00.000-07:00

A member of a film forum I'm on asked me my opinion on the theological and historical fad concerning Paul the Apostle, called "the new perspective on Paul".

In sum, the "new perspective" is the realization that Paul was Jewish and that as such he did not stand against all things Jewish, as the church, for many centuries seem to portray him. This perspective was initiated by E.P. Sanders in his book Paul and Palestinian Judaism, and expanded into full theologies by J.D. Dunn and N.T. Wright.

The main insight by Sanders is absolutely correct-- Paul was Jewish and we have every indication that he continued to teach in synagogues throughout his life. In Acts, Paul is said to have obeyed the law completely in every aspect (Acts 21:24). He was a Jew in good standing, and although he caused controversy, he was never excluded from the Temple, and, if church tradition is correct, he was killed as a Roman citizen, in accord with Roman law, not as a Jewish citizen. I also think that it is the church's, especially the Protestants', interpretation of Paul that has caused him such disrepute, not what he actually wrote.

However, for me, I think that the "new perspective" theology is still pretty young and not fully developed. I've read a number of commentaries on Romans, including the one by Wright and a good portion of the one by Dunn, and I have yet to read one that made sense of the arguments in the book. I think that Richard Hays explains the book of Galatians adequately (although his book is almost incomprehensible) and I wish he would do some solid work on Romans in the same light.

Okay, now that I've gotten all technical, these are my conclusions as a reflection on the new perspective on Paul:
1. The early Christian church were more persecuted by the second Temple Jews because they considered the temple unnecessary and the priesthood corrupt and not worth obedience rather than their view on the law.

2. I think that Paul was not speaking of law or moral principle in general when he said it was superseded by faith. I think he was speaking specifically about the law of Moses and how it was superseded by Jesus' principles. Paul was still a strong proponent of moral code as being essential for salvation, as seen in I Corinthians 5-6.

3. That Paul was not one who dismissed Judaism, but was one who attempted to reform Judaism, even as Jesus did, even as Luther tried for the Catholic church. In all of these cases, it was the systems of power that rejected the reforms, thus causing new religions to be formed.

4. That what really got Paul rejected was his insistence of the acceptance of Gentiles by God into a Jesus-reformed Judaism. Although many have accused Paul of prejudice, I think that it was his tolerance that got him rejected. And I think that both Galatians and especially Romans are defenses of Paul's "gospel", which is, namely, the welcoming of Gentiles into God's kingdom.

Sorry for getting all technical and stuff. Perhaps my "great learning has driven" me "mad"

We Need Jesus, We Need Water

2010-10-15T08:49:00.001-07:00

World Water Day Video

Did you know that a billion people in the world today don't have safe water?

That millions of people in China and Bangladesh have natural arsenic in their water?

That one fifth of all children under five in Africa die because they don't have access to clean water?

Pray for those who need clean water, that they might obtain it.

Support organizations that create clean water for those who need it.

Learn more about the need for clean water

Act now to assist those who need water

The Joy of Socks

2010-10-10T14:07:00.001-07:00

Thanks to three generous donations of socks-- all from California!-- I've been handing out more socks than ever.

And the best people to hand out socks to are folks with signs or who are begging for money. First of all, they don't expect it. But really, it's something they actually need.

Here's some of the responses I've gotten:

"Whoa! Socks are like gold!"

"You don't know how much I need these!"

"A pair of dry socks is what I need the most!" -- this last from an obvious alcoholic.

Carry socks in your car and hand them out freely to those in need on the street!

And praise God for David Reece who is starting to do this very kind of distribution to those in need in Orange County!

10-10-10 10:10

2010-10-10T10:13:00.001-07:00

Just because.

Atheists Understand Christianity Better Than Most Christians

2010-09-29T07:52:00.000-07:00

From Crosswalk Religious News Summary:

A new Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life survey shows that if atheists and agnostics know Christian doctrine better than many Christians, according to the Los Angeles Times. For instance, four in 10 Catholics incorrectly described the bread and wine in Holy Communion as only a symbol of the body and blood of Christ, while atheists were more likely to say the elements become actual body and blood. The reason for this surprise finding may be that atheists and agnostics "are people who thought a lot about religion," said Alan Cooperman, associate director for research at the Pew Forum. "They're not indifferent. They care about it." Stephen Prothero, a professor of religion at Boston University, added, "I think in general the survey confirms what I argued in the book, which is that we know almost nothing about our own religions and even less about the religions of other people," he said.

Worldwide Rejection of Burning Qur'ans

2010-09-10T08:23:00.000-07:00

A German congregation founded by the Florida preacher who has sparked global controversy with plans to burn Korans on 9/11 says it has had nothing to do with the preacher since 2008, denouncing him as "violent and fanatical." Religion News Service reports that the Christian Community of Cologne, which the Rev. Terry Jones formed in the 1980s, ousted the pastor over financial irregularities and personality clashes. Meanwhile, Vatican officials added their voice to the growing number of leaders denouncing the plan, calling it "an outrageous and grave gesture against a book considered sacred by a religious community." Similarly, Southern Baptist ethicist Richard Land said the burning of the Koran is "appalling" and does not represent the teachings of Christ.

The overall Christian rejection of the plan to burn Qur'ans on Sept 11 is probably the best thing to happen to Muslim/Christian relations. It is wonderful to see Christians reject the prejudice and anger-inducing threats of Terry Jones.

We need to remember to be tolerant, accept everyone and to allow God to do the judging. Praise God that the church in general is deciding to do that this time. It makes for a nice change.

Everybody Pray for Christopher Hitchens

2010-09-10T08:18:00.000-07:00

Everybody Pray for Hitchens Day-- Sept 20

Christopher Hitchens, who's book "God is Not Great" had throat cancer and it has been suggested by Christians that we should pray for his healing on Sept 20.

Atheist Christopher Hitchens, who suffers from esophageal cancer, says he would be happy if Christians didn't follow through with "Everybody Pray for Hitchens Day" on Sept. 20. In Vanity Fair's October issue, he writes, "I don't mean to be churlish about any kind intentions, but when September 20 comes, please do not trouble deaf heaven with your bootless cries." He added, "Unless, of course, it makes you feel better." Hitchens, author of the New York Times bestseller God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, says he appreciates the sentiment behind people's prayers, but certainly doesn't believe their prayers will have effect. "[W]hat if I pulled through and the pious faction contentedly claimed that their prayers had been answered? That would somehow be irritating," he writes.

Perhaps, however, it would give him a pause if all of his symptoms disappeared on Sept 20 and he was completely healed. If he is actually a reasoned creature, as he proclaims, a clear, personal miracle may be what he needs.

Pray for Christopher Hitchens!

Should our Language of God be Gender-Neutral?

2010-09-09T06:53:00.000-07:00

UK Daily Mail reports that the Scottish Episcopal Church has caused controversy by removing masculine references to God in a new order of service. The new liturgy and worship forms with more "inclusive" language are an attempt to acknowledge that God is "beyond human gender." Not every church, however, will be using the new form -- only those who have difficulty with a male God. To that end, words such as 'Lord, he, his, him' have been removed; 'mankind' has been replaced with "world" in most instances. Traditionalists have criticized the changes on the grounds that they smack of political correctness and because they believe they are not consistent with the teachings of the Bible. The church's Liturgy Committee produced the new form in consultation with the Faith & Order Board of General Synod and the College of Bishops.

While it is true that God is beyond human gender-- both male and female were created in God's image-- the Biblical language of God is always male? C.S. Lewis, in That Hideous Strength, says that God is always the male and we are always the female. Which is to say, God is always the forceful one, we the passive. That sounds offensive to feminists, and so it should. Women are not necessarily passive. For this reason the language of God being male might be offensive to some.

However, just on a biological level, we need to recognize that the male is more aggressive, more apt to be forceful. This is hormonal, not cultural. And the Bible teaches that it is God who goes to war for us, it is God who is aggressive for us, so that we do not have to be. In some ways, for us males, God castrates us. He forces us to surrender our maleness and give it up to Him, allowing him to be the Alpha male.

For this reason, I think it is good to keep the traditional language. To recognize God in the traditional male role, giving us the freedom to remain submissive to Him.

Anawim Newsletter!

2010-09-03T09:22:00.001-07:00

We have e-published our first Anawim newsletter. If you have not received it in your email and you WANT to receive it, please send me your email address and I'll get it to you right away.

My email address is: stevekimes@aol.com

Religion and Wealth

2010-09-02T09:42:00.000-07:00

Those who need God more seek Him more. Those who are "self-sufficient" don't bother with God except superficially.

An article by Religious News Summaries:

Recently released data by Gallup reveals that religion plays a greater role in the daily lives of people in poor countries than those living in wealthy countries. Christian Today reports that 84 percent of adults in 114 countries say religion is an important part of their daily lives. In countries where per-capita income hovers under $2,000, that figure jumps to 95 percent of people. The percentage plummets in more wealthy nations. In countries where average per-capita income is above $25,000, just 47 percent of people say religion is important to their daily lives. In the United States, 65 percent of people said religion is important to their daily lives. In Estonia, only 16 percent of those surveyed agreed. Gallup said the survey results could indicate that religions plays a "more functional role" in poor countries by "helping many residents cope with a daily struggle to provide for themselves and their families."

Bangladeshi Christian Accused of Theft

2010-08-31T08:27:00.000-07:00

From Crosswalk Religious News Summaries:

Christian Convert in Bangladesh Falsely Accused of Theft

A Christian convert from Islam was falsely arrested for cattle theft last weekend as Muslims attempted to stop his Christian activities, area villagers said. Day laborer Abul Hossen, 41, was arrested on Aug. 21 for alleged cattle theft about 180 miles northwest of the capital, Dhaka. Christian villagers told Compass Direct News that Hossen was the victim of "dirty tricks" by influential Muslims. "There is another Abul Hossen in the village who might be the thief, but his father-in-law is very powerful," said Gonesh Roy. "To save his son-in-law, he imputed all the blame to a different Abul Hossen who is a completely good man." Hossen, who converted to Christianity from Islam in 2007, is very active in the community, and Muslims are harassing him with the charge so his ministry will be discredited and villagers will denounce his faith, Roy said. Some 150 villagers, about 20 percent of them Christian, went to the police station to plea for his freedom

Churches Helping Bring Justice Into Prisons

2010-08-19T09:41:00.001-07:00

"Six months before she was scheduled to be released on drug charges, Marilyn Shirley was raped in 2000 by a guard at the Texas prison where she was serving time. Her attacker said she wasn't "the only one." Now an assortment of 35 religious and human rights groups is pushing Attorney General Eric Holder to adopt standards that would clamp down on the estimated 60,000 cases that happen each year. "What we are witnessing is justice denied," said Tim Goeglein, vice president of external relations at Focus on the Family and one of the signers of a letter. Religion News Service reports that he standards, proposed last year, would subject correctional facilities to audits and establish a protocol for handling rape in their facilities. According to the 2003 Prison Rape Elimination Act, they were supposed to be enacted by Holder by June of this year."
-Religious News Summaries by Crosswalk

Judges Ruling in CA

2010-08-06T08:18:00.000-07:00

From Crosswalk Religious News Summary:

California's Proposition 8 Overturned, Christian Leaders Respond

On Wednesday, August 4, U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker struck down California's Proposition 8- a voter-driven referendum, which confirming that marriage should remain between one man and one woman. Many politically active Christian leaders spoke up against this decision, expressing deep concern over implications of the controversial ruling. "The religious liberty dimensions of the decision are momentous and deeply troubling. According to Albert Mohler, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary said that "while Judge Walker declared that the religious freedoms of citizens and religious bodies were not violated... the very structure of his argument condemned religious and theological objections to homosexuality and same-sex marriage as both harmful and irrational." "It's not just marriage that was put on trial," said Daniel Blomerg, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, "but the fundamental freedom of having your vote count and having the liberty to express and live by your religious beliefs. It's pretty shocking." On his radio program Thursday, August 5, author and President of Prison Fellowship Chuck Colson told listeners, "What's at stake here goes beyond California and even beyond marriage itself. The reasoning that overturned California's law, that said that the right of gays to marry is a fundamental constitutional right, would, if applied nationally, overturn similar laws throughout the country."

I am not an expert on the Constitution, although I know it, and I am certainly not an expert on the California-- I don't know if anyone is. But I do know that religious freedom cannot be hindered by giving someone else freedom, unless that freedom is to harm people for their religious beliefs. It is a lie to say that heterosexual marriage in general is harmed if homosexuals can get married. One freedom does not define other freedom. The only law that truly harms marriage is divorce laws, which applies to all.

If you want to save marriage, don't get divorced. Or commit adultery. Or cause someone else to get divorced or to commit adultery. Or you can discourage people from getting divorced or committing adultery. But don't think that giving someone else a freedom will break an already broken system.

Celibate Homosexual Clergy Persecuted

2010-08-05T09:47:00.000-07:00

From Crosswalk Religious News Summaries:

The Associated Press reports that a Lutheran pastor has been reinstated after being outed for his membership in support group for Christians who struggle with same-sex attraction. The Rev. Tom Brock told his Minneapolis congregation on Sunday that he has never acted on his attraction. In June, the Minnesota gay magazine Lavender reported Brock's attendance at the support group, even though he's said he opposes openly gay clergy. "I am a 57-year-old virgin," Brock told the Hope Lutheran congregation during services upon returning to the pulpit on Sunday. A task force from the church said they found no evidence Brock ever had gay sex. Brock said he intends to step down as senior pastor at Hope Lutheran, but will retain his affiliation with the church. He told the AP he hopes to have a wider national audience with a new message: "You can have this struggle with same-sex attraction, say no to it, and still follow Christ."

I am sure the minister wouldn't appreciate my using the term "homosexual" for him. He probably doesn't see himself as a homosexual, but someone who struggles with the temptation for sexual sin, just like most of us.

This minister shouldn't have even been squinted at. He is an honest follower of Jesus, recognizing his temptation and trying to deal with it the best he could. It is sad he was persecuted for his faithfulness.

We need to distinguish between temptation and acting on sin. Having a sexual orientation-- any sexual orientation-- does not make one less of a Christian. Acting on it without repentance does.

"Burn A Qur'an Day"

2010-07-28T13:28:00.000-07:00

Burn a Qur'an Day

Somehow Dove World Outreach Center thinks that burning Qur'ans is an excellent way to show the love of Jesus.

Wow, this seems very Western-centric. Let's see, allowing the billion Muslims in the world to characterize Christianity as God-hating, scripture hating bigots-- is that the way to show Jesus' love?

The article reads, "Most people who criticize are also the people who don’t do anything,” said Jones. “If they do not like our method – they don’t have to like our method, they don’t have to adopt our method – then they should do something themselves,” he said, proposing they go door-to-door to distribute Christian literature about the love of Jesus.

Okay. I've gone to Bangladesh and talked to people in mosques. I taught the word of Jesus in a way that it could be heard. I made friends with Muslims and handed out New Testaments. I didn't change the world, but I was there. Jesus is about loving our enemies, not communicating that we hate them.

This isn't evangelism, it is war. Jesus did not come to judge or to destroy, but to save.

Mysticism and Fundamentalism

2010-07-21T12:26:00.000-07:00

A brilliant letter to an atheist by Mark Van Steenwyk:

Anabaptist letter to Atheist

A brief section of it:

"A mystic is one who connects directly with ultimate reality… spiritual truth… God. Such a posture is necessary to believe and sacrifice what is for what can be. It takes faith to seek a better world. Fundamentalists (either theist or atheists) don’t have faith. They rigidly grip certainty until all life has been squeezed out.

"Ultimately, the reason I stubbornly embrace Jesus has little to do with a logical worldview. I don’t cling to propositions the way a fundamentalist does. My convictions evolve and change. My way of seeing the world shifts. But through it all, the beauty of this man who sacrificed his life for the Kingdom of God compels me. His vision of a new humanity caused him to not only die for a cause, but to die for a cause when he could have killed to force his vision upon the world. His vision has seeped into my imagination. I have experienced him – deeply and truly – in the presence of failure and brokenness."

Freeing Slaves Isn't Enough

2010-07-14T08:33:00.001-07:00

From Religion Today Summaries:

Mission News Network reports that women trafficked in several Asian countries continue to struggle even if they are able to leave the sex trade. "The huge driving factor of the sex industry in East Asia is poverty," said Ella Grere, a missionary in an East Asian country with Pioneers. Many women are lured into the trade by acquaintances and family who offer them a job. Countries such as Burma have such a poor population that women can't afford to turn down a job opportunity. Grere says women endure so much abuse and forced addictions that they have trouble leaving the brothels. "We've had our business going for two years now, and really only three women have come out of the brothel to work for us full-time," she said. Tamarisk Tree, the ministry Grere works with, deliberately offers slightly lower wages than the brothels in order to ensure the women who come genuinely want to begin a new life.

So Getting Rid of Oppression is Secular Humanism?

2010-07-06T09:43:00.000-07:00

In Religion Today Summaries:

Christian Music Fest Draws Fire over Jim Wallis Invitation

The Christian Post reports that the inclusion of controversial Christian activist Jim Wallis has dampened enthusiasm for a popular Christian music festival. Lifest included Wallis among its 58 speakers this year in Wisconsin, drawing criticism and leading one sponsor to pull support for the event. "After researching extensively the words and published positions of Jim Wallis and his organization, Sojourners Magazine, and seeking fervently the guidance of the Holy Spirit in prayer, we believe the social justice message and agenda they promote is a seed of secular humanism, seeking an unholy alliance between the Church and Government," Q90 FM, a Christian radio station based in De Pere, Wis., state

If, as Christians, we aren't supposed to stop injustice and oppression, if we aren't supposed to help the needy, if we aren't supposed to love our neighbors, then I quit.

I'm not saying that Jim Wallis is always right-- their support of the Democrats was a huge mistake-- but they are about ceasing injustice, and that's what Jim talks about. Christians often bug me anyway, but when they call justice evil, that's when I publicly reject their message.

Jesus is always for justice. As long as that justice is for everyone. Jesus was one of the original humanists. He just wasn't secular.

Freedom of Speech

2010-07-05T09:40:00.001-07:00

It is the responsibility of every free citizen of the United States to point out the oppressions of our nation and culture. If we do not use our freedom of speech to better our society and help the outcast, then we have taken our freedom and thrown it in the garbage can.

Is The Kingdom for the Poor?

2010-06-28T09:42:00.000-07:00

Answering the question on Facebook: "Are the beatitudes really talking about the economically 'poor'? And if they are, is it all the poor? Does every poor person obtain the kingdom of God?"

"Poor" in the beatitudes should certainly be taken literally. This is why it is combined with words like "mourning" and "hungry" and "hungry and thirsty for justice" and "meek". And it is in opposition to the "rich". Even "poor in spirit" means those who has an attitude like the poor. (see Proverbs 16:19)

However, we must be clear that the context doesn't allow us to say that it is about ALL poor people, regardless of action. In Luke 6 Jesus is speaking to his disciples when he says "Blessed are YOU that are poor; Woe to YOU that are rich"-- He is distinguishing among his own disciples those who surrender their possessions and those who keep them for their own personal use (Luke 14:33; Luke 12:33). In Matt. 5, the poor, the mourning and the meek are blessed, but so are the merciful, the peacemakers, the pure in heart. In other words, Jesus is narrowing the field even more. Those who own the kingdom are not only those who have suffered as the outcast in this life, but those who, in the midst of that suffering, acted like Jesus in His mercy for others.

What Would Jesus Preach Today?

2010-06-23T08:38:00.001-07:00

A response to the above question posed on Facebook today:

Jesus would preach the same today as He did 2000 years ago:

-That no law is greater than mercy
-That the merciful outcast are the owners of God's kingdom
-That political change happens through personal sacrifice and God's power
-That God's kingdom is yet to come and we should stop treating this world as our heaven
-That we would do well to rejoice in our suffering

Jesus would preach the same thing because those who call themselves by His name act more like Pharisees than His followers.

An Example To All Churches

2010-06-21T22:23:00.000-07:00

This is a commentary posted on Gospel.com blog. Just an amazing story of God's grace!

Sin, forgiveness and mental illness

Earlier this year, the Chicago Tribune ran a fascinating and moving story about a church that welcomed Jim Deichman, a mentally ill man, into their congregation. What elevates this story from inspiring church newsletter material to a national news report is the fact that Deichman ended up burning down the church building. Despite this, the church has responded with love and forgiveness.

There are many good questions raised by the story (see GetReligion’s discussion, for starters). Did the church behave responsibly in this situation, both toward Deichman and toward the rest of the congregation? What is the place of forgiveness when mental illness is involved?

Despite the inspiring grace and forgiveness shown by the church in the aftermath, the story doesn’t have a satisfactorily happy ending. Mental illness upsets our ordinary understanding of guilt, responsibility, sin, and forgiveness. Whether Deichman serves jail time for arson or (as the church hopes) receives treatment instead, it’s unlikely that anyone (even Deichman) will ever be able to answer “Why?”

Yet this remains an inspiring story—the patient love shown to Deichman by his brother, and the enthusiastic welcome extended to him by the church, are the very definition of Christ-like grace. And I think it’s a miracle—in the genuine act-of-God sense—that nobody was hurt or killed in the fire.

What’s your reaction to this story? Can you relate to the church’s actions—their embrace of Deichman and their forgiveness of his crime? How has your church interacted with mentally ill people in your community and congregation, and what have you learned as a result?

By Andy

Interdependence

2010-06-16T09:39:00.000-07:00

This very well expresses my point of view. Except I'd go on a bit more and give more reasons. Perhaps briefer is better :-)

Snapshots of Life

In a day when we pay tribute to the individual who can make a success of themselves and become financially independent, we are confronted with the reality of the New Testament. In the New Testament we are reminded of the interdependent nature of the Church.

I was reminded of this recently in a conversation. People have often asked why I don't get another job and support my family. The answer? We are called as a family to live by faith. I had a full time job, but had to make a choice when God opened the flood gates of ministry to the homeless.

If every follower of Christ were financially secure then half of the Church would be unnecessary. In I Corinthians 12 Paul gives us the picture of the Church as the body of Christ. EVERY PART is NEEDED and EVERY PART is DEPENDENT on the other parts. There are NO independent parts of the body.

In the Church God has ordained some Christians to make a good income, while others have been called to live by faith. Those who are called to live by faith must depend on the giving of those who are called to make a good income. Those called to make money are dependant on those who are called to live by faith so that they can fulfill their ministry of giving. BOTH are NECESSARY and BOTH are NEEDED in the Church.

There is much work needed to be done in the Kingdom that requires a full-time commitment whether it generates income or not. There are many people in the Bible called to leave security behind and live by faith. It seems like a wonderful thing that they did that,we look at their faith and look up to them, but we tend to think someone is off their rocker if you see someone do that now and we tend to not ever think of doing that ourselves. Acts 4 gives us an example of the Church made up of rich and poor. Those who had possessions sold them. The money was then given to the poor and there were then no needy persons. May we realize that those called to make money and those called to live by faith are dependent on each other for the glory of God. What an awesome gift God gave us of being able to work hand in hand together.

A New Confession for Reformed Believers

2010-06-10T08:06:00.000-07:00

The Reformed Church of America-- a small group of reformed believers compared to, say, the Presbyterians-- has decided to adopt a new confession of faith, in addition to their main one from the Reformation. It is called The Belhar Confession, and it is a wonderfully prophetic document created in South Africa during apartheid. You can read it here:

The Belhar Confession

It is a wonderful piece of theology, declaring the unity of the church and so denies the separation of church members based on race or any other reason. The summary statement is:

"Therefore, we reject any ideology which would legitimate forms of injustice and any doctrine which is unwilling to resist such an ideology in the name of the gospel."

Community Gardens With A Heart

2010-06-08T14:46:00.000-07:00

Great idea! I pass it along: From Crosswalk.com's Religion Today

NC church's Garden Provides Fresh Veggies to Food Banks

One North Carolina congregation is doing more than a Thanksgiving food drive for local food banks. Volunteer gardeners at Grace Covenant Presbyterian Church in North Asheville, NC, have already harvested hundreds of leafy greens for Steadfast House women's shelter, according to the Citizen-Times.com. About 25 families from the church spend a few hours in the garden each week, donating 50 percent of the produce to food pantries or community kitchens. Summers are particularly tough for pantries in the area, said Joshua Stack, with MANNA FoodBank, which provides food to pantries in 16 counties around Asheville. "It seems to me that the enthusiasm is just from people who pass by," said Kathy Meacham, a church and garden member.

Self Love and Other Love

2010-06-06T08:33:00.000-07:00

Adapted from the preface to Thomas Merton's book, No Man Is An Island.

Every human being ultimately seeks their own salvation and the salvation of those whom they live with. This salvation is the “good life”, not found in the realization of the “american dream”, but in the fulfillment of each individual’s God-given powers, in the love of others and of God. This fulfillment cannot come through one’s own ability, but each person must be found in and through others. These three Scriptures are fulfilled in this: “If any man would save his life, he must lose it”; and, “Love one another as I have loved you”; and “We are all members of one another.”

Some would say that salvation, then is discovered in the setting aside of ourselves. On the contrary, the discovery of Christ is never genuine if it is nothing but a flight from ourselves. Our salvation cannot be an escape. It must be a fulfillment. I cannot discover God—the power that raised Christ from the dead—unless I have the courage to face myself exactly as I am—a poor, limited perplexed soul.

Thus, salvation is a terrible tangle of paradoxes. We become ourselves by dying to ourselves. We gain only what we give up, and if we give up everything we gain everything. We cannot find ourselves within ourselves, but only in others, yet at the same time before we can go out to others we must first find ourselves. The best way to love ourselves is to love others, yet we cannot love others unless we love ourselves since it is written, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” But if we love ourselves in the wrong way, we become incapable of loving anyone else.

There are many errors in achieving a balance between loving others and oneself:

Giving for oneself
There is a spiritual selfishness which even poisons the good act of giving to another. It is possible for me to love selfishly in the very act of depriving myself of material things for the benefit of another. If my gift is intended to bind him to me, to put him under an obligation, then in loving him I am really loving myself. And this is a greater selfishness, since it traffics not in flesh and blood, but in other person’s souls. This says that in loving another we simply seek the most effective way to love ourselves.

Loving one other
We might be tempted to the hedonism of romantic love. In this, we deny ourselves just enough to share with one another the pleasures of life. We admit a certain selfishness, and feel that in doing so we are being realistic. Our self denial is just sufficient to provide us with a healthy increase in our mutual satisfactions. In a bourgeois world, romantic love knows how to mask as Christian agape. This limits love to only one, no other.

Destroying ourselves
There is the temptation to destroy ourselves for the love of the other. The only value is love of the other. Self-sacrifice is an absolute value in itself. And the desire of the other is an absolute value. No matter what the other desires, we will give up our life or our soul to please the other. This is a false love, which makes it a point of honor to follow the beloved even into hell. This says we must only love others.

Isolation
Another temptation is to go the other extreme and say, “Hell is other people.” In that case love itself becomes the great temptation and the great sin. Because it is an inescapable sin, it is also hell. But this is simply the love of self in solitude. It is the love that is mortally wounded by its own incapacity to love another, and flies from others in order to not to have to give itself to them. This says we must only love ourselves.

All these answers are insufficient. The true answer, which is supernatural, tells us that we must love ourselves in order that we would be able to love others, and that we find ourselves by giving ourselves to them. True love is the gift of ourselves—cared for and fully functional—for others.

This is not merely a helpful suggestion, it is the fundamental law of human existence. Man is divided against himself and against God by his own selfishness, which divides him against his brother. This division cannot be healed by a love that places itself only on one side of the rift. Love must reach over to both sides and draw them together. We cannot love ourselves unless we love others, and our love of others is incomplete without loving ourselves. And a selfish love of ourselves makes us incapable of loving others.

This truth never becomes clear as long as we assume that each one of us, individually, is the center of the universe. We do not exist for ourselves alone, and it is only when we are fully convinced of this fact that we begin to love ourselves properly and thus also love others.

What do I mean by loving ourselves properly? I mean, first of all, desiring to live, accepting life as a very great gift and a great good, not because of what it gives us, but because of what it enables us to give to others. We have what is called a “death instinct.” It is the power of a self-love that has turned into self-hatred and which, in adoring itself, adores the monster by which it is consumed. It is therefore of supreme importance that we consent to live not for ourselves, but for others.

We will only be able to do this when we face our own limitations. As long as we secretly adore ourselves, our own deficiencies will remain to torture us with an apparent defilement. But if we live for others, we will gradually discover that no one expects us to be “as gods.” We will see that we are human, like everyone else, that we all have weaknesses and deficiencies, and that these limitations of ours play a most important part in all our lives. It is because of them that we need others and others need us. We are not all weak in the same spots, and so we supplement and complete one another, each one making up in himself for the lack in another.

Only when we see ourselves in our true human context, as members of a race which is intended to be one organism and “one body,” we will begin to understand the positive importance not only of the successes but of the failures in our lives. My successes are not my own. The way to them was prepared by others. Nor are my failures my own. They may spring from the failure of another, but they are also compensated for by another’s achievement.

Every other man is a piece of myself, for I am a part and a member of mankind. Every Christian is a part of my body, because we are members in Christ. What I do is also done for them and with them and by them. What they do is done by me and for me.

Only when this truth is absolutely central do other teachings fit into their proper context. Humility, self-denial, action and contemplation, service, giving and community—none of these make sense except in relation to the central reality which is God’s love living and acting in those whom he has incorporated his Christ. Nothing at all makes sense unless we admit, with John Donne, that “No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent.”

To love others is to make a gift of oneself.

God v. Gods of Humanity

2010-06-06T08:21:00.000-07:00

No one is able to be enslaved by two lords. Either he will hate one and love the other or he will love one and despise the other. You are not able to be enslaved to God and Mammon. -Jesus

The audience of Jesus’ sermons knew exactly what Jesus was talking about. Sure, they all worshipped one God and served him at one temple. But in every nation all around them and even within their borders are people who worshipped more than one god. There were a ton of them: Jupiter, Caesar, Ishtar, Ra, and thousands of others. Many people tried to worship more than one god, just to make as many happy as possible. Ultimately, however, they had to rely on just one of them, and usually that became the god of the household, with specific holidays and rules and service that the particular god required. There really isn’t any room for any other.

But today, we don’t worship so many gods. Sure, there are a few Hindus who worship more than one god, but the far majority of us recognize that there is simply one God in the heavens, the Creator and Lord of all. If we worship, we worship only Him. There is only one God, and there exists no other.

To follow this line of reasoning, we are neglecting the wisdom of the ancients—including that of the Hebrews and the New Testament. There is more than one god in every society. And most of us don’t even know which one we serve.

Systems of Meeting Needs
Humans, at their core, are pretty simple. We have millions of wants, but really only six needs. We need to have what we need to survive—nutrition, warmth, and we need to avoid death and illness. We need to have peace in our lives and to avoid anxiety and unmanageable stress. We need to have security and avoid attack or vulnerability. We need to have honor or respect and we need to avoid shame as much as possible. We need social connection with others, and we need to avoid isolation. And we need a certain amount of pleasure in our lives, and to avoid pain and lethargy.

There are millions of ways to meet these needs, and these are our wants. God wants to help us achieve these needs, and He said he would—but at times we may need to wait and not have our needs for a period of time so he can get us what we need in the best way possible. However, we are impatient, and we want what we want and we want it now. And there are systems—many systems—that assist us in meeting our needs outside of God. These could be the system of employment, the system of governments, the system of religions, or the system of education.

These systems, in the ancient world, were not seen as just human institutions or ideals, but seen as spiritual entities. They were called gods. There is no difference from the ancient world and today, except that we ignore the spiritual power of the gods, no matter how true they are.

Serving v. Using Gods
Are these gods all evil? Should we avoid things like medicine and science completely as evil entities? Absolutely not. God is the God over all gods, and He has given these systems to assist us to meet some of our needs. However, if the system itself becomes our god, if we are serving the system instead of using the system to serve God, then we are worshiping the wrong god.
How do we know if we are serving another god? We need to look at the following questions:

A. Do we trust in a lesser god? Do we see the system as what meets our needs, is the core of our fulfillment? Is the system itself our security, our contentment, our means of survival? Do we feel that we couldn’t live without the system?

B. Do we participate in a community whose focus is to serve the system? Do we find our well-being to be found in being a participant in that community, or in the community of God?

C. What images do we put around us? Do we honor and serve images that represent the system?

D. Do we ignore God’s limitations on the system? Do we feel the need to obey the system more than God?

If we answer “yes” to any of these questions, we may need to recognize that we are not worshippers of the Most High God, but of a lesser god.

Human Gods
We live in a secularized, materialistic society, but this doesn’t mean that we do not have our gods. The gods are simply shown as something we feel we need. There are many systems that Americans have served as gods, we simply have not recognize them as such. Below are four ancient gods whom most modern Americans worship daily, or almost daily.

Venus
Venus was the goddess of erotic love. Today, she is honored somewhat in Playboy, but more firmly in Cosmopolitan, Glamour and romance novels. In advertisements, sex is displayed as the final salvation, which the product helps you obtain. Lifestyles of sex are displayed on television and movies, and they are considered a healthy alternative in our society. It might be easy to think of pornography as the image of sex, which is worshiped by men through masturbation. But the image of Venus is also carved upon our own bodies as we all attempt to make ourselves look like models, and feel inadequate for every blemish and deviation from the “ideal” shape. Abortion is finally the ultimate destructive sacrifice to Venus, killing the children for the sake of “free love”.

Sex is not evil, but God has placed limitations around Venus, so that she may not roam free. Sex is to be placed within a life-long commitment, and should be given full freedom between a husband and wife. To be pure before God, sex is not a casual pastime, nor is it to be done between family members or the same sex.

Mars
Mars is the name of the ancient god of War, and he is the god of human weaponry. Weapons are the image of Mars, and those who serve him, honor weapons and recognize the gain of destruction. Those who display weapons, use weapons on people and depend on weapons for security. Those who join the military or the NRA, although they may be doing it for noble reasons, are joining organizations that fundamentally serve Mars.

God has used Mars many times to carry out his will. However, Jesus placed the limitation on those who follow Him to never join Mars, but to do good to one’s enemy, not evil. And God placed the additional limitation on all who use Mars’ power not to kill or oppress the innocent—the civilian or those not guilty of a crime.

Bacchus
Bacchus is the ancient god of parties and drunkenness. We can see an image of him in Fantasia, the original Disney film, riding on a donkey and holding a huge cup of wine. Today, however, Bacchus would just as well hold a bong, a pipe or a needle. To get drunk or high is to serve Bacchus, and to have a lifestyle of it is to declare Bacchus your god. Bacchus courts his worshippers with pleasure and then he keeps them with his promise of feeling no stress or guilt about anything. Bacchus rules on many college campuses, and people hold services to him in their homes on a frequent basis. Many rock concerts are traveling Bacchus worship vehicles and bars and casinos honor him daily.

However, God is not averse to a party. Jesus attended many parties himself, and drank much wine. Parties are a part of God’s kingdom. But they are limited by God as well. Drinking is okay, but God does not accept into his kingdom a drunk—one who cannot limit oneself. God does not allow of sexual immorality in his parties. And he welcomes the poor and the needy to join.

Mammon
Mammon was never a god worshipped in a temple in the ancient world, but is Jesus’ name for the god of material possessions and money. Everyone who says that “money is the bottom line” ultimately recognizes Mammon as their god. Advertisements serve Mammon by convincing the populace that they need what they have not even wanted up until then. The business section of the paper is about serving Mammon and who has succeeded in serving it the best. Those who serve Mammon will work just for their own personal gain and desire much. They will see money as the measure of all things, whether worth or security or pleasure or contentment.

The use of money is not evil in itself, but how we use it indicates whether it is a tool or a god in our lives. God told us that our money should be used to meet our basic needs and the rest is to be used to serve the poor. However, if we use money to obtain more for ourselves or if we are always looking for the next thing we can get, then we are not serving God but Mammon.

One or Two Gods?
Jesus was clear and plain. He didn’t say, “It’s really hard to serve two lords.” He said it was impossible. Just can’t be done. Perhaps one could coast along with two lords for a while, but eventually there will be a crisis point. At that point, everyone will know that they have to make a decision—will it be the God of the universe, or my personal god. Will I serve and love Yahweh, the Creator, the God of sacrificial love, the Most High above all gods? Or will I serve my own god whom I have cherished for years? And we may pretend—even for the rest of our lives—that we really can serve two gods. But we can’t. It’s one or the other. And as time goes on, it will be more and more clear. Make your decision. Serve the God of Jesus.

Complainin' Amos

2010-06-06T08:11:00.000-07:00

This is a chapter that I threw out of my book:

What does God do when a king or a nation or a town does the opposite of their command from God? What if they oppress instead of assist the poor? What does God do, how does He right the wrong?

Well, in ancient times, God would first send out a prophet. He might send an Elijah, to pronounce punishment on a nation, or he might send an Elisha to reform the government. But usually God will first send a spokesperson, a warner, to clearly inform the people what would happen if they continue in the route of oppression. This is Amos.

Amos was a shepherd, who cared for his flock and plowed his fields. He wasn’t doing much one day when God spoke to him—‘Amos, you’re my prophet now, go out and tell the king what I said.” Amos was shocked, “I am no prophet! Do you see me flailing around like a prophet? Do you see me speaking to kings? Do you see me trying to grab the ear of the high and mighty? I’m a humble man, just a shepherd.” “Try again, Amos—I make prophets, and so that’s what you are.” Most prophets of ancient days weren’t of the John the Baptist model. Most of them didn’t hang out in nowheresville, prefering their mesquite raw, straight off the tree, and hold the meat, please. No, most prophets liked the high life, the rich clothes, the occasional orgy (when they aren’t fasting, of course), and getting the attentions of the nobility—especially the female nobility. Most ancient prophets followed the model of Rasputin rather than Gandhi. The occasional trance, a flood of flattering comments, a lucky break in a prediction and a number of sermons against the king’s enemies and a prophet can have room and board for life, as well as a significant advisory position.

This model of prophet—shockingly!—led to much abuse. I know it’s hard to believe, but many prophets of this type didn’t actually hear from God at all! Some of them might even be said to—and I say this in fullest confidence—be deceiving those they spoke to. This is why God had to pull his true prophets from different stock. He didn’t want his prophets to be concerned primarily with the desires of the high and mighty. Rather, he wanted his chosen spokespeople to say the hard truths, and to speak for the lowly and needy. Thus, God made unlikely choices for prophets—Jeremiah, the young; Michaiah, the irritating; Jonah, the xenophobe; Habakkuk, the questioner of God; and Amos, the lowly shepherd.

Well, Amos had heard prophets before, and he knew that they flattered the nation and preached against the kings enemies. But Amos had a judgment against Israel—a nation his own home (Judah) has had border disputes for decades. How would the king of Israel, Jeroboam II, ever listen to that? Let’s see, Amos thought. Ah, I know. God has plenty to say about the surrounding nations, why not start with them? So Amos stood before Jeroboam II and opened his mouth and spoke first about Damascus.

“Damascus,” he said, “used excessive violence in war, and so Yahweh, the God of Jerusalem will destroy him.” So far, so good. Even though Amos mentioned that Yahweh was of Jerusalem, not Carmel where Jeroboam worshipped Yahweh, at least Jeroboam was still listening. “Gaza,” he continued, “enslaved a whole people, and so Yahweh will destroy them and all of the Philistines.” The king is nodding now—that’s a good sign. Then Amos continued with condemning Tyre, Edom, Ammon, and Moab. All neighboring countries, all condemned to punishment. The king wasn’t displeased, but he didn’t hear anything really new. This was the kind of stuff he could hear from any of his local prophets. Now, thought Amos, we can reel him in. “As for Judah, they have ignored Yahweh’s laws and so they will be destroyed by fire.” King Jeroboam II was smiling now, for Amos, a prophet from Judah, was condemning his own nation. He liked this new prophet—Amos was saying what he wanted to hear. But there was a bit of confusion as well… What were these laws of Yahweh? He couldn’t remember any laws that God had laid down that Judah wasn’t obeying that the king’s own nation was.

Now it was time for the coup d’gras. “But Israel, you are also condemned. You say that you worship Yahweh, but you ignore the law of God daily. Look at what you are doing to the poor? The poor have debts and so you steal their livelihood to force them to repay! You sell those who owe you money into slavery because they weren’t able to repay you for a pair of shoes! You raise the rents of the poor, so that they would be bound to you eternally! And if someone needs shelter for a night, you drive them away! You immoral, godless people! When you were under the thumb of the Amorites, didn’t God deliver you? And when you were enslaved in Egypt, didn’t Yahweh redeem you? Then why are you acting like the power, the great, the mighty? You are but a nation of slaves, set free by God! You are but the poor, made wealthy by God! Show your gratitude by doing justice to the needy!”

This rampage became so heated, that a priest, standing by his king said, “Why don’t you go back to Judah and prophesy to them? We have plenty of prophets here. We don’t need to hear your diatribe!” Amos responded, “I am not a professional prophet, but a shepherd, called by God to come here and speak to Jeroboam. Because, you priest, are complaining about God’s messenger, simply because he isn’t saying what you like, then your wife will trade her sexual favors to strangers for food and your house will be divided and sold to immigrants!”

A prophets life isn’t easy. It isn’t easy to tell people with power and authority God’s true message that they’re messing up and will face judgment unless they change their ways. It’s not a popular message. But God has always found someone to say it. Most of the time, God was telling his people to live according to His law, that he gave to Moses. And very frequently, he was reminding them to do right by the poor. Isaiah told the people not to steal from the poor.33 Ezekiel told them not to take interest on loans to the poor. Jeremiah reminded them to defend the needy in the court.35 And all of them, at one point or another, commanded the people to assist the poor when they were in need—do acts of charity. To not give to the needy was a sin before God, disobedience to his law.

It is so easy to forget the poor. And it is easier to blame the poor for the tragedies they face. “If only they would work harder!” “They are trying to steal from us!” In the end, though, all oppression comes from two sources—“We are afraid of these lower class,” and “They would be better off if only they were like us.” A person doesn’t become financially secure by being smarter than others or by being more like the middle class. A person doesn’t become wealthy by doing good or by being wise. A person becomes financially secure because some Fate has granted them a huge amount of Fortune. You can look at it one of two ways—either you get lucky, or God grants you a huge favor.

God, of course, sees wealth as a loan, a favor. He picks certain poor and lowly and says, “Here’s someone I can make lucky” and he grants them wealth or power or fame. Or some combination thereof. And they are released from poverty, from debt, from a lower class lifestyle.

This doesn’t sound fair. And it isn’t. Why should God pick certain people for the “good life” and others are left behind? Many of the poor people I know and live with would say, “Why them? Why couldn’t it have been me?” And, from all I read in the Bible, I can say, “You are the lucky ones.” Because, no matter how much debt they have, they are free of the larger debt of God.
Personal wealth is a debt that is owed. Freedom is a debt that is owed. And God demands a repayment of the favor. His demands are not what some think. Some think that if we are wealthy, we owe the government, or maybe a tithe to a wealthy church. That if we are free, we owe it to veterans. That if we have power, we owe the people who have given us that power. But God demands something different. He says, “If you have wealth, you owe it to me to give it to the poor. Not to wealthy churches, or to a greedy government. Rather, you should use your wealth to help the poor. And if you have freedom, you have a debt to those who do not yet have freedom. Not to kill them, but to grant them life, to redeem them with your freedom. If you have power, you have a debt to assist the powerless—the elderly, the sick, the helpless, the outcast.

This is the message of the prophets—God set us free, and he wants us to grant freedom to others. God gave us power, so he wants us to assist the powerless. God gave us wealth, so he wants us to surrender that wealth to the poor. It doesn’t matter if the enslaved, the powerless or the poor are worthy according to our middle-class standards. That’s not our job, that’s God’s job. It is our task to pay the debt to God. And we pay it to God by giving to the needy.

It is a not well-known fact that for people who live on the street, socks are as good as gold. If you are walking around all day, trying to go to a meal or earn some money, it isn’t long until the wear of boots and the puddles one walks in wears a pair of socks out. On the street, if one’s socks have holes, then one’s feet will soon have holes. As a pastor to the homeless, it is one of my noble responsibilities to hand out socks. Because our resources are slim, I hand out one pair of socks per request, so I can hand out socks again next time.

But suppose, as sometimes happens, that I give to one of the folks on the street the responsibility to hand out socks to folks. I am handing to them the great wealth of socks to grant them to others. Some, whom I give this responsibility to, hand out two or three socks to certain people who really need it. I understand that compulsion. But suppose the person to whom I handed the bag of socks decided, in their anxiety, to keep all the socks for themselves. After all, eventually they would need them all, so why not keep them?

Because it is clear that the socks were not meant for one person—there are a hundred pairs of socks there! The socks were meant to be distributed, not horded by one. But once a person has a hold of a resource, no matter how enormous, they begin considering it their own. And once a possession is considered our own, we absorb it as a part of ourselves.

This is what happens to everyone who has wealth. It becomes a part of ourselves, inseparable from our own personal wants, needs and desires. Perhaps other people need that wealth, but an array of excuses come up in our minds in order that we might not separate from that which Another once gave us. The issue is not the need of others, or the worthiness of others, it is the fact that we do not want to separate our own from ourselves.

All Our Children

2010-06-02T09:18:00.001-07:00

by Heidi Unruah, Found at Evangelicals for Social Action site:

A little girl in my son’s first grade class, Desaree, was shot in the head while playing outside. The bullet was intended for two young men who happened to be running by. Thankfully, she is making a recovery, but her family will never be the same.

Some, though, consider this just par for the course After all, three other children here were shot in the same week. And Desaree is only one of 135 children who were shot in our community in this past school year, 20 of them fatally.

I’m not too worried about it.

Because actually, Desaree Sanders lives in the South Side of Chicago, not my hometown of Hutchinson, KS. Yep, I lied to get your attention. It took this report about a child my son’s age to grab my own awareness of this epidemic of violence. Before that, it was just something happening in another city, to other people’s children. The devastation of Chicago families—mostly minority, mostly poor—has largely swept by under our nation’s radar.

While the overall crime rate in the city has declined, Chicago has the highest juvenile homicide rate in the country. The violence in some neighborhoods is so out of hand that some state lawmakers want to call out the National Guard. More black children have been killed in Chicago than Chicago soldiers were killed in Iraq during the bloodiest years of that war. The murders didn’t just start this year: 42 children died in the 2008-2009 school year, 27 the year before that, 31 the year before that. The heartbreak keeps stacking up.

“When I was young, if a child was murdered, it was a big deal. Now, I’m sorry to say, it’s somewhat routine,” said Ester Stroud. Stroud’s 16-year-old son was stabbed to death on the way home from winning a dance contest.

What will it take to shake us out of this ennui? “We didn’t care about drugs until it hit everybody’s community,” remarked Chicago priest and activist Michael Pfleger, who himself lost a foster son to violence. “When it hit the suburbs, when it hit lawmakers’ children, all of a sudden we cared about drugs.”

Jesus said to love our neighbor as we love ourselves. We can wait until the violence literally hits our neighborhoods—and retreat ever further into protected enclaves to stave off that day. Or we can claim those who have been traumatized by violence as our neighborhood, our school system, our family. What if this truly had been my son’s first grade classmate? Are his friends any more precious than Desaree?

It takes a poet to say for us all what needs to be said. In a rally at a Chicago church the day after fifteen people were shot in fifteen hours across the city, Maya Angelou cried out: “The children are being murdered. … At some point, we have to stop this madness. We have to stop it! We have to say, ‘Wait a minute. Hello! Hello! Hello! No! No! Stop it!’ “

And He Talks More Than His Share, Too

2010-05-19T19:34:00.000-07:00

I have 27 blogs I contribute to, as well as a couple forums I'm a regular on. WHAT KIND OF A WRITING MASOCHIST AM I?

Jesus, Paul and the Law

2010-05-17T09:16:00.000-07:00

I received this anonymous comment on one of my blogs:

I am currently holding a discussion with a Jew who accuses Christians of lawlessness. I as a Sabbathkeeper thought I could do a better job of witnessing to him than Sunday keepers. NOT SO! He says that no Christian church is doing the right thing. He says that Matthew 5:17-19 is teaching the keeping of the whole Torah & the chuch is simply not obeying this command of Yeshua!

I then quoted Paul in Col 2:14-16 saying that the ceremonial laws have been done away with. He didn't appreciate that & thinks that Paul is a heretic who should be discarded. I said that is impossible as there'd be no Christian church w/o Paul taking the gospel to the Gentiles.

I simply do not believe that Paul would OPPOSE Jesus.

So what is the truth about him & Matthew 5:17-19??

Excellent question, and it is a difficult issue.

The way I understand it, and how the early church decided it, is that Jesus' statement to keep every minute aspect of the law applies to only those who were born under the law. If we were not born under the burden of the law, then we should not be saddled with it, even though we are following Jesus. It is enough that we are following the law of Jesus. We are not antinomian if we are following the law of Jesus and not the law of Moses.

Your Jewish friend might argue that to follow the whole law of Jesus includes this one which tells us to follow every jot and tittle. However, Jesus said that the law would not pass away until "it is all accomplished." Well, Jesus DID accomplish the whole of the law, thus, the law has passed away.

History confirms this. At this point, it is not possible to obey every jot and tittle of the law. There is no Temple, no priesthood, there are no Levites. We cannot tithe properly, according to the law. We cannot sacrifice, according to the law. We cannot make the pilgrimage to Jerusalem, according to the Law. And who is going to bring back stoning of the adulterers or the rebellious sons? There is not a single person alive who can obey every jot and tittle of the law. And that has been true since 70AD.

Why is this? Because, first, Jesus fulfilled the law and so we, in Him, have the law fulfilled. Secondly, because the authorities of the Law-- the priests and the elders-- are the ones who declared the innocent Son of God to be a liar and a blasphemer and to be worthy of death. They defiled all the temple, all the priesthood, all the sanhedrin, and so they were unworthy to obey. They continued to persecute and martyr the innocent, and so God destroyed these institutions, even as He did in the sixth century BC. And He has chosen not to revive them.

This is not to say that the current Jewish fulfilling of the law, or yours my friend, is a sin. Absolutely not. It is a positive discipline. But let no one deceive themselves into thinking that they are obeying the law better than one who only obeys Jesus without concern for Moses. No one CAN fulfill the law of Moses today. Most Sabbath keepers recognize that they are only keeping part of the Mosaic law, not the whole. Jewish rabbis recognize that they are only obeying as much of the law as they can, praying instead of sacrificing, but that they are following the oral Torah, not the written, because they are unable to follow the written. Yet Jesus was talking about following the written, not the oral, even as he mentioned the actual writing.

We can only shake our heads and recognize that we are weak, living in the midst of a weak world. We cannot obey God as we please, as it seems necessary to us. Rather, we must fall upon the mercy of God, and ask for His pardon. Then, in the grace of Jesus, we stand up in the Spirit and love God and love our neighbor with all that we have. And in this, we are obeying the whole of the law.

How Poor Must We Be To Be "Blessed"?

2010-05-13T16:23:00.000-07:00

I got this email from a friend:

I have become highly critical of the cultural and spiritual repurcussions of the dominant message of Christianity in America being defined by middle and upper class churches, magazine publishers, book publishers, radio station owners, and radio preachers. Modern translations of the Bible themselves have copyrights which presumably would help to pay the research costs, which must have long ago been paid for. The NIV publishers are simply making a profit now off of the word of God. This has led me to value poverty.. both fiscal and of spirit. But I wonder how to measure it. When am I poor enough? Jesus viewed fiscal poverty as a virtue. What is the qualitative measure of being poor-enough to be virtuous? Is it income? Possessions? Dependence? What factor does state-dependence play? I'm interested in fiscal answers, not psyche. We'll save poverty of spirit for another time.

My response:

I don't know that Jesus actually put a measure on poverty. Paul did, he said, "If we have food and covering, with these we shall be content." I Timothy 6:8, but Paul also didn't say that having more than this was necessarily wrong.

The concept of "poverty" is typically wrong, I think, if we try to apply a fiscal measure. A great economist, Amartya Sen, said that poverty has less to do with what one has, than the societal measure of what one has. For instance, a family may live very well in Africa without electricity, but to do so in the U.S. is to threaten your children to be taken away from you.

Jesus' measure of poverty seems to be two things: first of all, being an outcast for the sake of Jesus and for those who need love. In other words, this measure of poverty has to do with social acceptance rather than any economic measure. This is a matter of persecution, which always has to do with the meeting of one's needs, as social acceptance to a certain degree is part of having one's needs met, but isn't necessarily about how much money one has in the bank. I am reminded of Clarence Jordan who, because he had a community of mixed blacks and whites, was not allowed to shop in the local stores even though he had the money for it. He was certainly poor, even though by a fiscal measure he was not.

The second measure Jesus puts to poverty is the surrender of what one has to meet the needs of those around us. This is where there is a contrast between the rich and the poor in the NT. Not so much that the rich have wealth, but that they keep it for their own personal use. There were a number of well-accepted wealthy people in the church, but these wealthy people also used their homes, servants, finances, food, possessions for the sake of those who were needy, as well as for their family and friends and their own power. They used what resources they had for those who didn't have as much. Jesus talks of it as a "surrender" of one's possessions. So I can have a house in my name, which makes me wealthy, but I use that house to bring in homeless folks. I have a DVD collection, but I use it for my household and church. Thus, it is not strictly "poverty" we are seeking, but extreme generosity-- a lifestyle of charity.

What the disciples did-- simply walking away from their homes and their business resources-- was acceptable. It was still a surrender. But I think that Jesus' command to surrender to the needy is the greater command.

I hope this answers your question. Somewhat.

Thank You, Benny!

2010-05-12T15:40:00.000-07:00

Found in Religion Today Summaries:

Pope Blames Church's Sins for Scandal

Washington Times reports that Pope Benedict XVI laid the blame for the ongoing abuse scandal on the heads of pedophile priests. The pontiff's Tuesday message did not attitribute any of the scandal to media exaggeration. "The greatest persecution of the church doesn't come from enemies on the outside but is born from the sins within the church," the pontiff said. "The church needs to profoundly relearn penitence, accept purification, learn forgiveness but also justice." Multiple bishops have resigned as their actions have come to light, severely tarnishing the trust the Catholic Church once held. The pope, who made his remarks on a trip to Portugal, said the current scandal has outstripped previous problems the church may have had. "[T]oday we see it (the Church) in a truly terrifying way," he said.

When the leadership acknowledges sin, that is the first step to a church's repentance. Now Pope Benedict must acknowledge his own responsibility for allowing the sin and true healing can begin.