holy long time, Batman!

to be honest, I'd more or less forgotten I even had a blog. I used to blog a fair amount back in the day (and by "fair amount," I mean I'd have stretches of a month or so where I'd blog followed by years where I wouldn't). anyway, I've been contemplating blogging for a few months now, and I said I'd review some material from Logos on here, so I may as well get back into the swing of things by trying to put thoughts on screen again.

I had a post rolling around in my head on the drive home from work today. Bethany wasn't with me, otherwise I would've had her write down some of my thoughts so I could remember. I'll probably try and compose it later, but the post was going to be a brief examination of the question of whether God knew Adam would sin. I've heard recently of a church that some friends go to where God set things in motion without knowing the outcome (that's really butchering the concept, by the way - I'm stating a complex concept as concisely as possible, so bear with me). I've also heard of a few churches that believe God created Adam to sin. I have my opinion, of course, and I'm not the best at being able to present all sides accurately, so what I intend to do is set up what I think the Bible says and then try to come up with objections. no promises it'll be any good, but hey, that's what comments are for.

speaking of Logos, I've more or less sold out to them as hard as I've sold out to Google. I'm doing grad school through them, I've got their highest base package, I've got our church using their presentation software, and I'd get a tattoo of them on my body if I thought it'd be proper (kinda hard to justify that one to the church board). aside from doing a review of some of their material that I said I'd do (Abraham: Following God's Promise - Complete Church Curriculum), I'll probably be describing my experiences with their software from time to time. likely I'll be talking about the classes I'm taking in future posts, assuming I'm able to get my work done within a reasonable time frame. I'd hate to find a new distraction, I've got enough of them already.

sitting in the haze of incense smoke

I'll preface with my growing awareness of an ever-increasing cynicism of American Christianity. I shouldn't be, but I'm comfortably distant from my target and can call out criticisms without fear of retribution. it's a luxury of a lazy bloke with nothing present to fight.

I was talking to my coworker yesterday. he's led an interesting life, to be sure. he's a fairly opinionated feller and is willing to share with just about anyone who has a somewhat-functioning cochlear nerve. I forget why the discussion came up, be we were talking religion again. why I do this to myself, I'll never know; perhaps because I feel like I can get a word in edgewise given my familiarity with the subject. plus he knows my pastoral training. not that it ever inclines him to make inquiries on my behalf, but it's still something to talk about regardless. but I digress.

he made the comment that he'd spent a fair amount of time in the foster care system while growing up. he's spent a fair amount of time doing just about everything, so this didn't surprise me too much. he did say, though, that the best homes to live in were the Mormon homes and the worst homes to live in were the Catholic homes. I believe we must've been talking about Christians using one another, or something along those lines. regardless, it made me think for a sec.

my immediate thought had to do with Mormon culture. my coworker mentioned how much Mormons gave to the church, mentioning something along the lines of a 90% tithe rate at the particular church he went to with this foster care family. he's one for exaggeration, so I'm sure this is skewed a bit. anyway, what got me thinking was the difference between Mormonism or any other religion that usually sounds like its adherents are decent chaps, and Christianity and how its adherents are ridiculed for not following the golden rule.

so finally, the point of the post: my thought. I wonder if perhaps those Mormons behaved well, took care of their family and foster kids, and paid out a lot of tithes because they had to earn their spot in heaven. I'm not sure on the particulars, but given that following Christ is the only religion that doesn't involve earning salvation, it's a safe assumption that this is the case for Mormonism (and I've heard the stories about 3 heavens etc.) I wondered right after that if perhaps the reason the Christian homes were so bad to my coworker because those were the homes where salvation was "entitled" to the occupants. sounds fairly American to me, again with the whole cynicism thing.

whether these thoughts of mine are reality or a gross farce, it still makes me want to rant at what I'm supremely susceptible to becoming. in a nation where the most-honored are those who have earned everything for themselves and the most-hated are those who have been given everything, it is no wonder "free" salvation has become so mutilated. my coworker mentioned the heavy restrictions and policies imposed by his Catholic caretakers. free anything is an abhorrence to American thought, at least when it comes to position and status. if you're the receiver of this free position, you hungrily take all of it for granted. if you're watching, you hate the new position-grubber.

so free salvation can't be free. it has to have restrictions, rules, regulations with heavy punishments for deviation. the Christian and Catholic homes would be awful for a dude like my coworker. the Mormon homes, who are earning their salvation directly instead of fabricating ways indirectly to earn it, would be a safe and easy place for my coworker.

I would hope I'm not naive enough to think this is the case across the board. human nature is human nature and there are members from across the gamut in any religion. still, for some reason this makes sense in my head why I've become cynical of the religion I prescribe to. because I'm insulated, safe, hidden, and an easy accuser of wrongs to the face of my "club".

speaking of ramifications

the current sermon series at church has been on David and his long journey to kingship over Israel. tonights sermon dealt with Saul and the witch of Endor (as Beff put it, she was an ewok) vs. David's inquiry of the Lord whether he should take revenge of the sack of Ziklag by the Amalekites. the point of the sermon was Saul's response to fear at the sight of the Philistine army was to find a quick fix (the Lord wasn't responding to his requests, so he did what he shouldn't to get an answer) whereas David's response to being at the bottom of the pit of despair was to take strength in the Lord. there was a lot more involved, and the two experiences were tied together better than what I just presented, but I'm not trying to relay the whole sermon, just give a brief recap.

cause I was reading while pastor Brandon was speaking, and noticed that Samuel condemned Saul to die for not executing God's judgment on the Amalekites.

and David's city (where all of his wives and children, and the wives and children of his followers who wanted to stone him after the sacking) was razed by the Amalekites.

Saul failed in his responsibility. and it cost David.

I'm sure the connection has been made a lot, and perhaps I'd heard it before, but for whatever reason I just put it together. Saul's failure cost David. David's faithfulness restored him and his men.

my failure won't just cost me. Saul lost his life, and his sons were cut off as well, because of his failure, but his mistake cost more than just his own life.

I'd better be awfully darn careful with what I do and keep myself from screwing up, cause I may be ruining someone else's life too.

when in Rome

I'm helping Bethany lead a small group for church. sign-ups started today, lasting through the beginning of February. it's a small group that aims to help a local charity organization. the whole acting out your faith thing.

certainly hope I'm ready to put my money where my mouth is. I'd rather not put my foot where my mouth is.

how I can kill and reject killing

at least a few people have pitched me flack for going hunting this hunting season. they aren't a fan of me harming helpless animals and callously butchering them for my own enjoyment or what have you. I like these people, and I like to hunt. so I've been composing this blog for a few days in my head now and thought I'd share.

usually I try to pacify the concerns of these people by mentioning that I'm a self-proclaimed pacifist. killing people is wrong in any context, anytime, anywhere. that probably begs the question: how can I think killing people is wrong and think killing animals (such as deer and rabbits) is ok? I'm glad you asked....

I don't believe animals have a soul. they aren't included in God's plan of salvation. so I am not refusing someone or something the opportunity for salvation. that is probably the biggest argument I can make for hunting (and the biggest reason I am a pacifist: in no way can I assume God's place and dictate who is worthy of salvation and who is worthy of death). placing an animal on the same level as a human is a disservice to God, given that humans are the image-bearers of God and animals are not. it'd be a slap in the face to say I created something after my own image and that image somehow informs me that an amoeba or a slug is on the same level as itself. my feelings certainly would be hurt (you're calling me an amoeba-faced slughead?!), not that God necessarily gets His feelings hurt (a topic beyond the scope of this piece).

that of course doesn't mean I can wantonly shoot and kill any animal I see or anything of the sort. it's just the foundation of my world-view; animals don't occupy the importance in creation that humans do. that being said, I hunt for several reasons. first and foremost, the family bonding between my father and relatives is beyond any other experience I've had in my life. I'm as close to my family and relatives now because of the time I've spent tromping through the woods with them (usually not finding much). hunting is also just about the only way to acquire deer meat, and I'm sure there's info somewhere on how much better deer meat is for you than any beef you could get.

the negative reasons are a little more plentiful. I don't believe hunting and killing a deer is worse than growing a cow simply to kill and butcher it. at least the deer have a fighting chance given their heightened senses and superior movement in forests (which they've proved again and again). I also don't believe killing a rabbit is worse than trapping it to die or poisoning it, for much the same reason as the deer (btw I kill rabbits as a service to farmers, who lose crops because of them [the whole humans being more important than animals thing again]). I also don't hunt and kill as a way to feel more like a man. guys who do have serious self-esteem issues and need Jesus more than they need a gun - killing an animal isn't a sign of masculinity or physical prowess, or at least it certainly shouldn't be.

if I'm going to kill an animal, I'm going to do it as a steward of creation (which God has tasked mankind to do). this is why I follow the rules: poaching is stupid, and taking care of forests and animal population is more important than filling my freezers. so I comply with state and federal regulations, and the deer have been more or less safe from my gun anyway (see above on more skillful movement through forests). hunting is how I enjoy God's creation best, how I experience the Maker and Savior of my soul through His creation of forests and animals.

I'd have to be ok with the raw act of taking an animal life if I'm ever going to be ok with the "sanitized" version presented to us at fast food joints. some vegetarians refuse meat based on the cruelty to animals argument (which I more or less reject on the basis that animals don't deserve more attention than humans do - fix the cruelty toward humans before you worry about the animals). I wouldn't argue someone to go against their conscience, whether I agree with their reasoning or not. however, many people who have a problem with hunting are not vegetarians. the only logic I see in eating beef and condemning hunting is that deer are fuzzier and cuter than cows, and now you've stepped into the realm of prejudice. thank God humans aren't given life or death based on their appearance.

I suppose I've tarried too long on the subject. it is what it is: I hunt animals with a healthy respect to God and His creation (and to the authorities placed above me), and I hate war and violence out of respect to God and His creation.

proud to be...

I just saw a page on Facebook. the title was "I'm Proud To Be A Christian". 4 of my Facebook friends have become fans of the page.

yet my first reaction was, hmm, difficult to describe....revulsion perhaps? yet not quite that strong...

I had to think for a minute or two why that was my gut-level reaction. shouldn't pride in that fact that you've been saved from sin be a good thing? can't you be proud that you have religious freedom?

after reflection, it hit me like a ton of bricks.




pride has absolutely no place in the kingdom of God. pride is the antithesis of a Jesus-follower. pride is the fault of Satan, the reason there is a Hell, the root of any sin conceivable. and yet....and yet it's attached to an individuals "chosen path/religion/status". even if the title of the page had been "I'm proud Christ saved me from myself, my sin, and hell" I'd still feel revulsion, because it is only by the extreme act of grace by God that any person "escapes" his true judgment and is saved from a self-destructive life of sin and bondage.

really, this post reminds me of a slogan: "I'm proud to be an American". they wrote a song about it. you could take pride in your country because you had freedoms and so on and so forth. our highschool cheerleaders had a whole routine to this song that was really powerful and involved an enormous American flag. the point of the slogan? take pride in what you are, because it makes you better than everyone else in the world. (that may be an oversimplification, but it really isn't that far off).

and the page on Facebook, well, it reminds me of that slogan. take pride in what you are (a Christian) because that makes you better than the rest of the world (pagans). yet, it is this world we are trying to reach. and elitism is a form of ostracization, and ostracization from the rest of the world is the opposite of spreading the light of the saving gospel of Jesus.




what would the title of my page be? if I'd ever thought that creating a Facebook page for my faith was a worthy goal, and I had to follow that form of a title....humm....I think "I'm Proud of Jesus and His Cross" is closer to Paul's boasting. because then the focus is no longer any "status" I've attained but rather the focus is on Jesus and what He has accomplished on my behalf.

freedom

I wish I could have written this yesterday while the thoughts were still fresh. it stems from a video shown at church. a couple lines caught my attention.

the video starts out describing aspects of freedom, mostly aspects of our "possessing" freedom, and ends by saying essentially freedom can only be found in Christ (which, of course, is absolutely true). it didn't use the word freedom until the very end, pasted across a background of the cross. the first half of the video, in describing all these aspects of freedom, use pictures of people holding flags and whatnot, people at rallies and so forth.

what caught my attention was a couple particular lines: "we were born with it" and "it is our right".

apparently the makers of this video were talking about Americans and not about Christians. Americans were born with all kinds of freedoms, freedom of speech, freedom of religion (the first few lines of the video talked about this freedom), and so on. it is indeed a right, written into the American constitution, that all Americans can and will be free (the definition of said freedom is open to interpretation, of course).

Christians were born into bondage, namely the bondage of sin. the foundational doctrine of Christianity is that we are slaves to our sin, slaves to this world, and we cannot "do right" or be righteous until Christ saves us out of our sin. we weren't born with freedom, we were born a slave to death. also, and more importantly in my opinion, once a slave to death becomes a Christian, he becomes a slave to righteousness (to use the words of a famous Christian author). our life is no longer our own (which isn't truly "our own" anyway given the sin nature) but instead is dedicated to the cause of Christ. or at least it should be.

many people in America seem to think that freedom in Christ is equivalent with religious freedom, freedom of speech, and the bill of rights. too many well-meaning Christians place a higher value on American values than on Christian values. too many people want to live their own lives in "freedom" without having to answer to anybody.

too many people forget the slave-nature of Christianity. we are called to be bondservants of Christ, not autonomous do-gooders. one will be told "well done good and faithful servant", another will be told "get away from Me, I never knew you".

the cause of Christ does not include the right to bear arms

unless I'm vastly mistaken and this pastor has the gospel correct.

we live in a country that is composed of freedom and "rights". I'm all for taking advantage of a right when it furthers the kingdom of God - Paul did as much in Acts by appealing to Caesar. but, the fundamental nature of Christianity is the sacrificing of ones "rights" - right to self-interest, right to self-promotion, right to egocentric living, even the right to possessions. we are called to be in the world and not of it, and the world holds its "stuff" very dear; but we are not called to be tied down to material possessions. nor are we called to rely on our own strength for protection.

somehow, the cause of Christ has been confused with the cause of American Values. the right to bear arms may be an important one to protect for Joe Blow American, but it is not one a Christian needs to fight for, let alone a pastor.

Christians have become used to their "rights", and I find it unfortunate given that the movement was founded in a culture that denied those Christians their rights. American Christians are comfortable with their stuff, their possessions and rights and status. if I understand the words of Jesus correctly, those who are materially rich (read: rich young ruler w/ possessions, rights, status) have an awful hard time entering the kingdom of God. it's not impossible, but when a person has all they need without needing God, that same person learns to rely on their own strength and not God's (Who is sufficient for us all, btw). God then becomes a crackerjack box toy that a dude can pull out as his ace up the sleeve when he "needs" it.

I own arms. I enjoy hunting. shooting guns is fun, and if it weren't for hunting and for shooting stuff the relationship I have with my dad and cousins would be vastly different. but I'm not going to fight for those. they're a luxury as a Christian, not a right.

and the church shouldn't be viewing them as such.