Political Idealogy in the Presidential Election

In response to an email looking at racism in the election by reversing the attributes of John McCain and Barack Obama:

I hope that we can all agree that racism in all of its varied forms is a great evil. You make a great point regarding the perceptions of the candidates in regard to how they are viewed and/or criticized in the media. Certainly it would seem unlikely that Obama could have risen as far as he has if he had the pedigree of John McCain, possible, but certainly not probable. Certainly there are those who refuse to vote for a Obama because of race but who otherwise agree with his policies. But race cuts both ways to greater or lesser extents as NY Times states: "And if Mr. Obama is losing support simply because he is black, that is not a one-sided equation. A crucial part of Mr. Obama’s theory for winning the election is turning out blacks in places like Florida and North Carolina, a state that Mr. Obama’s advisers view as in play largely because of the significant African-American population (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/15/us/politics/15race.html)."

But ultimately the election is less about individuals than it is about ideas. If it were about individuals then certainly Obama would be winning as he has a huge "excitement" lead in terms of his supporters (http://news.yahoo.com/page/election-2008-political-pulse-excited-voters) who are much more excited about him than the republicans are about McCain. But it's the ideas that bite the hardest, and that's why Obama still is failing to overwhelm the independents in the country. Obama continues to support a drastic increase to the capital gains tax even when explained that an increase in capital gains tax hurts the economy and raises less revenue. He says this is important "for fairness" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpSDBu35K-8). So if the economy is being hurt and less revenue is being raised, then who is being helped other than those who are jealous that someone makes more money than themselves? Certainly there are gaps between the lower classes and the upper classes and there are ways to address that by reigning in the Fed and decreasing the level of monetary inflation: monetary inflation first causes price inflation on goods and then with a couple year lag later causes wage inflation. This causes a perpetual gap between those earning the money off of the inflation of goods (the wealthy business owners) and those working for them. But "Redistribution of Wealth" as Obama so publically supports does not solve any issues nor does his labor policies (Certainly a biased article by Phil Gramm, but informative none the less: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122126282034130461.html?mod=googlenews_wsj).

While it certainly is true that every person's intrinsic work is equal, an economy based on that is always doomed to failure (See communist Russia, Cuba, Venezuela, etc or Marx's "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."). An outstanding article on "The Tragedy of the Commons" or "That which is common to the greatest number has the least care bestowed upon it" can be read here: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/11/the_tragedy_of_the_commons.html. Obama is not anywhere near a classical Marxist, but his ideology is highly flavored by a wide range of Marxist and Socialist influences. Often the counter argument to the Government caring for the poor is that the private sector or the church should be handling it... But we all know how well that has worked. It appears to me that there has to be an uncomfortable (so they are not encouraged to remain there) minimum standard that is assured to all from which personal advancement is highly encouraged and enabled. Ultimately, whatever the solution is to be it is clear that the Constitution provides no provision for the Federal Government to be involved in it, rather, that is a issue for the State Governments. As James Madison, considered the "Father of the Constitution" twice notes:

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
-Annals of Congress, House of Representatives, 3rd Congress, 1st Session, page 170
(This coming from the principal author of the Constitution!)

"The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."
-Speech, House of Representatives, during the debate "On the Memorial of the Relief Committee of Baltimore, for the Relief of St. Domingo Refugees"

Now none of that is to say that I am excited about John McCain or the policies of the most recent Republican administration, and while a part of me hopes that an Obama win might result in a return of the Republican party to it's roots (Non-interventionism, disciplined spending, states rights, and civil liberties), I don't know that it is worth the irreversible damage that a democratic socialist president with a super majority in both houses might do in terms of wrecking the economy (lowering everyone's standard of living) and providing unfinanceable entitlements.

Is the Constitution Dead?

Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution in condensed form reads:

“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes…provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States…To borrow money…To regulate Commerce…To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization…To coin Money…To establish Post Offices…To promote the Progress of Science…To constitute Tribunals…To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas…To declare War…To raise and support Armies…To provide and maintain a Navy…To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia…To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers...”

Then the tenth amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Ironically enough, there is only one word (Welfare- referring to the prosperity of the country as a whole, not to individual handouts) in there that can be [mis]construed as giving the federal government the power to control what amounts to over 63% of the 2007 Federal Budget (Medicare, Unemployment, Medicaid, Social Security, Transportation, and Education- all powers only granted to the states). Defense spending (19%) and Interest on the National Debt (8%) make up all but 10% of the remaining budget. All that to say, I don't have the least bit of a problem with Massachusetts providing universal health care, but when the federal government unconstitutionally tries to exert those powers then I get mad.

So I will either support a candidate who will work to amend the constitution to come in line with the focus of the actions of the current federal government, granting it those powers (Not on any policy sheet that I have seen...), or one who strives to actually line up the focus of the federal government with its constitutional authority. For that reason:

Vote Ron Paul!

National Review Article on Ron Paul
Another article on Ron Paul

Flirting with others is healthy for marriage?

Here's the article

Yuck, yuck, yuck

I happened across this article a little while back and was, frankly, appalled. Here are some of the quotes:
"And while I know that flirting can be a dangerous game if you're playing with the wrong people, I also believe that flirting can be healthy - as long as you're taking the energy you're building and putting it back into your relationship."
"What flirting allows you to do is feel like you're impressing another person and being attractive to another person... Bringing that sexual and romantic confidence back to your relationship helps you - and strengthens the relationship across the board."
"So in a way, you can use flirting as a kind of foreplay. Build a little frisky tension with the barista, get warmed up, then bring home the dividends."

Ok, so that last quote just made my blood curl! There is a reason that the marital infidelity rate is something around 50 percent (some statistics estimate that up to 75% of marriages encounter an affair), and that unfaithfulness rarely begins with the thought "I'm going to find someone to cheat with," but rather with a simple flirtatious smile, that leads to extended conversations, time alone, and then goes on from there. If your relationship is down then the last thing you need to do is to seek out another person to boost your ego!! You might say that the last place that I should look for moral advice is on Yahoo! editorials, and I agree. However, Christian rates of unfaithfulness and divorce are on par with those outside the church, leading one to believe that the morality within much of the church is the same as that outside as well. Very little makes me more mad than someone attempting to justify attitudes that lead towards thoughts or actions of infidelity. I refuse to spend time alone with any comparably aged member of the opposite sex, outside of family members, precisely because I know how susceptible we all are to infidelity. I had to make a strategic decision in college, as I began dating my wife, that my closest friendships were going to cease to be with women and that I would have to begin investing more in my male friendships. While many people may think that I am stupid for doing so, I am more than happy to give up depth in those friendship with other women if it means that in 15 years I might have prevented an affair. My wife and my future family mean more to me.

I would give up everything short of my faith in God to avoid engaging in an affair (and engaging in an affair would necessarily mean compromising my faith...). So when I see an article that is not only justifying, but also encouraging, married people to engage in activities that are proven to lead to affairs, it totally pisses me off!!

Documentary: Maxed Out

I just finished watching a documentary entitled "Maxed Out" which is written as an examination of the debt obsession of America. 2006 was the first year since the Great Depression in which America's net savings was negative and all indicators point to 2007 continuing that trend. The video starts out by thrashing the credit card companies who prey on college freshman, the recently bankrupt, and the fiscally challenged by offering them a variety of deceptive packages. One company spoke about how the best group to give credit cards to were the recently bankrupt as they couldn't file again for 7 years and were sure to rack up the debt again! Other interviews revealed the practices of debt collection agencies such as calling relatives to inform them of their relative's debt. Then they lead into the government policies that failed to keep the credit card companies in check or worse they even made policies specifically to empower the CC companies to enslave the debtors. Of course the whole video was filled with stories of suicides, tales of depression, and comparisons to share cropping and implicitly to slavery. The first half of the movie I found myself angry at the CC companies but as the movie progressed they began to shift the blame more and more on everything outside of the individuals, blaming the government and corporate America. And as much as I agree that the government has done little to help the situation and that many companies exacerbate the situation, the suggestion that the issue is one outside of individual responsibility slowly began to wear on me as I watched further.

There was the story of the California 50-something mother, whose husband died and left her with a $4000 a month mortgage which she couldn't pay. So she stayed in the house, alone, and racked up tens of thousands of dollars of CC debt at 29% interest leading her to depression and contemplation of suicide. And yet I was left wondering, in spite of the death of her spouse, why their financial planning had a 50 something with so much mortgage debt and yet she still failed to sell the house? Why didn't she sell the house, even if it meant a short sale, when she knew she couldn't cover the mortgage? Why didn't she have rentors move in to help cover the debt? Why did she spend so much on her hobbies (shown in the video) when she was in her late 50s with a huge outstanding mortgage debt? The more they tried to convince me that I should feel sorry for her, the more I thought of tons of reasons why I shouldn't... Frankly, I don't think people in their late 50s should have mortgage debt- you buy the house at 25-30, on a 30 yr mortgage (when really you should be on a 15 yr anyway...) and it should be at least mostly paid for by your late 50s... And if the mortgage is $4000 a month then you should have hundreds of thousands in equity at that point.

Then there were the three stories of suicide: separate tales of two college students and a mom who racked up tens of thousands in CC debt and then commit suicide rather than face paying it back or own up to their family that they had done that. They then lead into the oft told tale about how it is impossible to live today because of the rise in housing prices and food. But that is not the issue- if you want to live without the fear of CC debt in Atlanta you can purchasing a mobile home for 15K, pay it off with monthly payments of $250 and still save enough to make a 40% down payment on a better home in 15 years. But of course that is out of the question because that is below someone who makes 40k a year! Debt is not an issue of the poor, but an issue of everyone, at every level of income, refusing to live within their means.

The issue is not one of other people abusing you, but of people's absolute refusal to sacrifice the appearance of wealth for the path to obtaining financial freedom, and the peace of mind that comes with it. People are more likely to contemplate suicide as a means of getting out of debt than they are to seek the council, friendship, and help of friends to do so.

I have two sets of friends, on opposite sides of the financial spectrum who illustrate this point. One couple is recently married, the wife an insurance saleswoman and the husband a Mechanical Engineer, who together, I am sure, make a very solid income. Many people in their shoes would have immediately purchased a home out of college at 100% financing (like I did...) that amounted to 30-40% of their monthly income, but instead they rented an apartment for 2 years and made a substantial down payment on their house. Even then the husband was frustrated to be in debt for the first time in his life... The other couple recently had a baby, the wife stays home, and the husband does philanthropic work, probably not exceeding the US poverty level (~$18000 for a family of 3) by much. And yet, as they minister in the inner city both through their work and their life, they make ends meet in a way that many of us presume is impossible. This kind of discipline is what prevents debt based depression, not government bail-outs!

Calculating Christmas

So generally I try to post things that are rumbling around in my head and which are fairly original to me. However, I read a blog about the subject of the origins of Christmas and just had to pass it along as it intrigued me so much. This is all based on an article in Touchstone magazine from a few years back. Here is an except followed by my summarization:

"Many Christians think that Christians celebrate Christ’s birth on December 25th because the church fathers appropriated the date of a pagan festival. Almost no one minds, except for a few groups on the fringes of American Evangelicalism, who seem to think that this makes Christmas itself a pagan festival. But it is perhaps interesting to know that the choice of December 25th is the result of attempts among the earliest Christians to figure out the date of Jesus’ birth based on calendrical calculations that had nothing to do with pagan festivals. Rather, the pagan festival of the “Birth of the Unconquered Son” instituted by the Roman Emperor Aurelian on 25 December 274, was almost certainly an attempt to create a pagan alternative to a date that was already of some significance to Roman Christians. Thus the 'pagan origins of Christmas' is a myth without historical substance."

But really, the idea that it stemmed from the pagans was of 17th century origins by two members of the reformation trying to establish the "degenerations that transformed pure apostolic Christianity into Catholicism" sometime around the 4th century, or so the article states. It goes on to explain that December 25th was the early approximation of the winter solstice and that there was thought that the Roman sun cults first celebrated this day. However, evidence actually goes to show that the Roman sun cults celebrated days in August and didn't have a feast on December 25th. Roman celebrations on December 25th didn't begin until 274AD, well after when the Christians had claimed that date as the birth of Christ, however, the confusion comes in because Christians did not begin to openly liturgically celebrate that date until around 336AD because some in the very early church through it was not Christian to celebrate a birth, but rather to celebrate the conception since that was the true beginning of life.

The calculations for why they believed December 25th was the birth of Christ are more interesting. The date was actually tied to beliefs about when Christ died: the early church came to settle upon two dates for the actual death of Christ: April 6th 33AD (in the Greek East) and March 25th 29AD (in the Latin West). The early Jews and Christians held to a peculiar belief that the conception of a prophet had to coincide with the same day as their repose (or death). From this logic, Jesus was then born 9 months after March 25th (December 25th) or April 6th (January 6th). These two dates, respectively, lead to the acceptance of Christmas on December 25th (Celebrated more in the West) and Epiphany on January 6th (Celebrated more in the East). As many of you know there are "12 days of Christmas" celebrated between the eve of December 25th and the morning of January 6th, hence the song and celebrations thereof.

Another interesting note that I just learned is that "Christmas" came from the contraction of "Christ's Mass." Well the article has a whole lot more detail in it and hopefully I didn't misstate any of it. I am certainly not a Church history expert, so I make no claim to the superiority of this article but it seems reputable and I found it all interesting none-the-less.

Merry Christmas to all!

Chrismation

This upcoming Sunday, Anna and I will join the Orthodox church. I find it interesting that after spending so much time in the charismatic church, then flirting with PCA all through college, I now find myself in the Eastern Orthodox church. I still find myself having to re-explain certain pieces of the liturgy to myself so that I don't react awkwardly to how differently the theology presents itself, though the number of pieces has progressively shrunk to only one or two. And yet knowing that it will be there each week is half the beauty for me. Being someone who naturally challenges everything, I grew weary of having to judge every sermon and worship song, and even more so each prophesy, at the churches I grew up in. There was little standard for what could be said in sermons and even less so in the words of egocentric worship songs (Why are they all focused on me? Isn't this about God?). And while that played itself out strongly in non-denominational charismatic churches, I found the same to be true to a lesser extent at every non-liturgical church I visited. In many churches a single service will yield little understanding of the underlying beliefs of the church, but a single Orthodox service yields primers on everything from the Incarnation, Eucharistic teaching, and Trinitarian theology all the way to the dual natures of Christ, the Orthodox doctrine of death, and the redemption of the physical world. I know where the liturgy is going in Orthodoxy and I know that if John Chrysostom and Saint James both played a large role in writing the very words (albeit translated) that we say then I have little room to judge myself more greatly than them by questioning it all. In that trust, both in the fathers of the church and the Preserver of the Church, I have found rest.

As a kid I can remember being told not to run in church for it was a sacred place, and yet in a multi-purpose building used for dodgeball as well as church services, it was hard for me to understand that concept. However, now there is little place I would rather rest than in an Orthodox parish, surrounded by reminders of the example and presence of those who have gone before, the scent of incense encouraging me about the efficacy of prayer, and the sacredness of the space helping me to obtain focus on Trinitarian worship. The ascetic practices of the church (constant fasts, frequent services, giving, and self discipline) leave little room for sincere coasting, and yet in being constantly reminded of falling short I have found a long-lost peace.

Saturday, November 24th 2007

Saturday, November 24^th 2007

This picture shows my cousin Shaun with his wife-to-be, Julia, sometime in 2006 in front of the Madison, Wi capital building.

The above three photos were taken during their beautiful ceremony in Wausau, Wi.

On Saturday, two days after Thanksgiving, my cousin Shaun passed away in a tragic hunting accident, leaving his wife of three months and many family and friends behind.

http://www.wsaw.com/home/headlines/11793816.html

I don’t even know how to respond to grief in a situation like this. I am too new to it, having been sheltered from death all my life. I will miss Shaun greatly. But for Julia and for my uncle Fran and Shaun's immediate family... Such loss as theirs I cannot comprehend.

This afternoon I looked back over the pictures I had taken from their wedding, a day of such joy and beauty. I visited their wedding website which was still open, reading the stories of how they had met, fallen in love and gotten engaged. Then I heard from my parents stories of the agony of the moment, and fear fading into frustration and unfounded guilt. Your prayers are greatly appreciated.

O God of spirits and of all flesh, Who has trampled down Death and overthrown the Devil, and given life unto Your world, give, we beseech You, eternal rest to the soul of Your departed servant, in a place of brightness, in a place of verdure, in a place of repose, from whence all pain, sorrow, and sighing, have fled away.

Choosing Faith

Response to Michael's post here: http://ruminationsofacox.blogspot.com/2007/09/choosing-faith.html

Michael, I appreciate reading your religious/ philosophical statements and thinking through them... While I would agree with Webster's definition of faith as you expressed it ("firm belief in something for which there is no proof"), I think that it is rather open-ended. There are many types of faith and various degrees of "no proof", and those differences have a great impact on one's attitude towards various religions movements. Here are my classifications on a few types of faith.

Blind faith: I believe in something for which there is no proof, and there is no proof because there is no evidence either way. I believe there is a tooth fairy who takes teeth from under pillows.

Stupid faith: I believe in something for which there is no proof (no proof in support, that is), and there is no proof because all evidence points against it. I believe in a tooth fairy who takes teeth from under pillows even though I have never heard of it ever happening and have run scientific tests and have seen that it has never happened, but still believe it anyway.

Wishful Faith: I believe in something for which there is no proof, and there is no proof because I don't want to find answers and I like the idea of it. I believe in the tooth fairy because I find money under my pillow which ration says comes from my parents but I like the idea of there being a tooth fairy so I will hold to it.

Clouded Faith: I believe in something for which there is no proof, and there is no proof because there is some evidence both for and against none of which is definitive. I believe in the tooth fairy because I have heard of it taking teeth from some people's pillows but have also heard others who have tried to test it and found no evidence.

In your pastor story example I think that they were making the statement that they felt that they had some mixture of blind and clouded faith (of which they have a high view) while Mormonism they would classify as stupid faith. That is a judgment call that they felt comfortable making that I gather you certainly wouldn't.

I think that founding religious belief on faith is the only path to follow- when one begins to rely fully on logical constructs (some version of natural theology) you wind up either completely ignoring anything that disagrees with your understanding and belief (whether or not it does: see the conservative evangelical response to evolution) or abandoning your faith repeatedly when you are unable to find definitive evidence. But I think there is a balance- seeking to maintain the awareness of the world in a clouded faith without biasing your view as much as possible (wishful faith) or ignoring everything (blind faith).

Anytime you have a cultural faith (See Islam in Saudi Arabia or Christianity in the American Bible-belt) the majority of adherents will either have a blind faith with a total ignorance of all opposing views or a wishful faith whereby they are comfortable with where they are and outright reject anything that comes against that comfort- it is easy to criticize that representation of religion, but that is not really fair.

You spoke previously about lenses and how everyone has different lenses by which to see, implying that everyone's spiritual vision differs: some are nearsighted, some farsighted, some can't focus well at all, and some have better vision etc... (Maybe I am reading into it too much?) But that seems like it is in itself a mighty western/ individualistic view both of religion and our spiritual state. Might it not be just as possible that we have the some spiritual vision that is all equally deficient and relying on the lenses of those before us to help us is the only way to reach reasonable spiritual sight within our life time? As in, why try to craft lenses from scratch when someone else has a functional pair that would fit our sight even if they were uncomfortable at first- do we think so highly of ourselves that we could start from scratch and come up with a better end product than everyone else? Or do we think that we can piece together the various lenses from different cultures and come up with a better result than that which was lived in the life of Jesus, Gandhi, or Mother Teresa, depending on our bent? From that framework (reliance on those before us rather than on ourselves), we then would assume that we must follow in the steps of others, not hoping to improve what they had but rather to learn from them hoping to attain to what they were. That still leaves us with making that choice of who to follow: Jesus, Buddha, Mohammad, Gandhi, Malcolm X, etc, but places us back in the fold of the traditional religions trying to decide which can be held without having to hold a blind, stupid, or wishful faith...

I think this decision is where one has to have faith in the object of one's faith: that I believe in God, and thus will trust that He has/is/will lead me to the correct faith. That means using one's heart, one's friends, and one's mind, but never relying solely on any one of them.

If we all have the same eyesight, rather than all having different, then there is a correct prescription for everyone- that is not to say that others might not be close, but they aren't right. But it isn't just Christianity who holds that they have the correct prescription- it is most every religion, even those eastern religions who claim non-exclusivity such as Buddhism or Janism because they view their non-exclusive construct and moral code as the correct model. I haven't met too many hardened Atheists who also aren't highly critical of organized religion- those who aren't critical of religion generally tend to be more agnostic with little opinion on the matter. But judging by my understanding of most religions, even the more legalistic (such as Islam based on my highly simplistic understanding), believe that eternal rewards are based more on merit (whether that be your merit in Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, etc or that be the merit of another who earned your way as in Christianity) than on strictly following their religious code- and that is certainly true with Christianity. And while that construct of necessary reliance on Jesus makes Christianity one of the more exclusive, it seems to me that the Grace-filled God of Christianity is not beyond interpreting "Viracocha" (http://justinwinter.blogspot.com/2007/08/eternity-in-their-hearts.html) as "Jesus".

Al and Robbie

Posted in response to Suburban Delusions.

I don't know Al or Robbie, but I know a couple Als and Robbies. There are a few that come to our church, mostly for the food afterwards, but certainly not only so. I think there is a slight sense of belonging, of recognition from a reputable community that boosts their self esteem. I recently realized how differently I relate to them than I would a more traditional visitor- with them I feel like all I want to do is get to know them and hear their stories so that I can help them, but realized that I should open myself up to them so much more and treat ourselves like the equals we are. It's a little awkward for me opening up to them as if sharing with a friend, but I know trust has to be built mutually... I'm not good at it or at sacrificing time spent with more comfortable friends... There are two in particular:

John is a poor middle aged black man with an affinity for making awkward physical contact when talking. His grandmother recently was one of the latest victims of being evicted from the Grant Park area as property taxes and rents rise, so he is going to have to move to Clayton County (the most ghetto Atlanta suburb) with his mother and leave the area he grew up in. He asked me for money after church the first couple week I met him, but since (over a year) has only asked me for money once- I think he is ashamed to ask for money and wants to be treated like an equal...

The other is Kelly. He is a middle aged white man with severe mental problems: hallucinations, schizophrenia, alcohol abuse, social problems, etc. He is the unloved among the unloved. We spoke for about 10 minutes last Sunday and he was brutally honest: He said he came for the food (even though he came for the whole service) and thanked me for talking to him as it made him feel included, he asked me for money without any qualms, he told about things he learned in AA. He spoke quietly and would randomly start telling stories of high school friends as if I knew them- it was hard to follow and I tried my best. But at the end when he sincerely told me how much it meant to him for me to take the time to talk to him, it made me feel about an inch tall: How could I justify not taking 10 minutes to talk to someone who was so appreciative, so longing for connection and affirmation? It is rare to find someone so appreciative, but that certainly should not be our sole motivation though it does help sometimes...

I have heard too many people, Christians, say that they can't give to those who won't make good use of what they are given. It simultaneously makes me mad and yet also is convicting to know that most of the time I do the same. The Lord speaks so much in the gospels about caring for the unloved: the widows, orphans, the poor, the outcasts and he showed the example of how to do that. Never is that qualified with "If they are deserving". It is true that there is much mention of being a good steward, but that is a command to us, the Christians, not a factor by which we should judge others...

It is sad to me that many of the more founded Christian churches know so little about care for the unloved while more often those churches that do care for the unloved often do so under the motivation of some degree of Liberation Theology: That our primary purpose as Christians is one of social justice rather than spiritual transformation. How does the suburb, facade-filled church become actively involved in the transformation of its community, starting with the unloved?

Article on Global Warming

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/08/how_plants_will_make_climate_c.html

The article describes how recent studies have shown that increased levels of CO2 make plants absorb less water so that they are predicting more flooding as global temperatures rise. It's interesting to note that they don't discuss what effect this is going to have in terms of water vapor. Most people don't realize that water vapor accounts for the vast majority of all greenhouse effect, but this is largely ignored in pop science. The cycle of water vapor in the atmosphere is such that the average atmospheric life is less than a year while that of CO2 is in the hundreds of years, meaning that it is much more difficult to reduce the global level of CO2 once it is there than it would be to reduce the Water Vapor levels. Because of this, Water Vapor is seen as largely influenced by the other global warming factors rather than as a driver in itself. However, this report is essentially saying that less water will be removed from the ground and evaporated into the air as a result of an increase in CO2. But there are only a couple options: 1) this amount is so insignificant that it won't cause any flooding or major change in the balance of water on and around earth 2) It will change the way that water is evaporated with less coming from vegetation and more coming from surface water with a net effect of no flooding and no atmospheric water vapor changes 3) Less water will be evaporated in total as a result of vegetation-based evaporation (as the article suggests). However, if the last part is true then the effect is that earth will serve as a sink of water, reducing the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere and greatly reducing the greenhouse effect, cooling the earth. So my conclusion to this fear-mongering is that either flooding will increase (as they report) but the earth will cool as a result or nothing will drastically change...

Granted, I'm not a climatologist but neither is the reporter who is selectively quoting the scientists...

Perseverance of the Saints- What's the Point?

So this might just ruffle some feathers, but I intend to lay out my thoughts on both Perseverance of the Saints (Once saved, always saved) as well as confront the common Protestant criticism of Orthodox/Catholic lack of "Assurance of Salvation" as they would say.

Perseverance of the Saints (POTS) is defined by Wikipedia as knowing that "None who are truly saved can be condemned for their sins or finally fall away from the faith." This is one of those doctrines of the church that I would call useless, because contrary to it implying that we have assurance of salvation, perseverance of the saints necessarily implies a lack of assurance of salvation. Let me explain: each of us who have been raised in the church surely know hundreds of people who, despite being fully committed to the Lord at one point in their life, encountered some situation or went through some trying time which led them to fall away from the faith, some much further than others. Because your POTS adherent also holds that salvation is independent of my own free will, these people, the POTS would say, either were never truly believers or they fell away from a sanctified life while retaining their salvation. Based on this argument then, there are some who lived an apparent life of faith at one point but despite their apparent faith and upright living, they were never predestined by God, fell away from such a life, and as a result were never really saved. Now then, since a life of evident faith and upright living does not necessarily imply one's salvation, the only way that I as a POTS adherent can attain assurance of salvation is to be assured that Christ has truly predestined and regenerated me in opposition to those who fell away. From the Wikipedia article, this is affirmed when it says that "On a practical level, Calvinists do not claim to know who is elect and who is not." Assuming that is then impossible, I can never be assured of my salvation for I too may fall away because of the Lord's choosing (or lack of choosing me), since my salvation is then wholly independent of any choice of my own. How this is not a conundrum is beyond me, thought I hope to hear some quality explanations that critique what is likely to be considered a strawman criticism on my part.

The wikipedia article then goes on to say "the only guide they have are the verbal testimony and good works (or "fruit") of each individual." And since the scriptures say that there are those who will cast out demons and heal in the Lord's name who he still does not know and will cast aside (Matt 7:21-23), then even the most visible signs can be completely misleading and deceive us in regard to who are the elect... One of the most common Protestant criticisms of the Orthodox faith (and often similarly the Catholics as well) is in regard to their inability to have assurance of salvation because of the libelous accusation that they believe in salvation by works. Orthodox see salvation not as an event but as a process of becoming Christ-like, the merging of sanctification and justification because they have no use for theoretical theology- that is, in all applications justification must be accompanied at all points by sanctification (not the doing of good works, but the transforming of one's nature towards Christ- theosis) as James so repeatedly explains. Orthodox see the work of Christ in redeeming the human will and nature through assuming them ("That which has not been assumed cannot be healed"- Gregory the Theologian) and only through this work of Christ can we be healed (That we are "Becoming by grace what God is by nature" - Athanasius). Christ then did not come to save man from the wrath of God (Penal Substitution- a decent job is done by Packer's "What did the Cross Achieve?"), but from the sinful choices of man which enslaved his will to Satan (See Orthodox view of Sanctification). But getting back to the point (gosh, am I rambling?), we see that in both an Orthodox system and a Calvinist system our assurance of salvation cannot be complete. Rather it is based on either a trust that God rewards those who seek Him (Orthodox: Matt 6:33, Heb 11:6, Matt 7:7-8, Jer 29:13) or a hope that God has chosen me to be a vessel of glory and not a vessel of wrath independent of any desire of my own.

Frankly, it brings me joy that I can say that God sacrificed to save man from something other than Himself.

*For scriptures on the subject see the end of the wikipedia article on perseverance of the saints.

Eternity in Their Hearts

The ancient Incas believed in a God, Viracocha, who was not a created being, but rather the author of all that was created. They believed that “He is ancient, remote, supreme, and uncreated… He manifests himself as a trinity when He wishes… He created all peoples by His ‘Word’… He is man’s Fortunus, ordaining his years and nourishing him… He is a bringer of peace and an orderer. He is in His own being blessed and has pity on men’s wretchedness. He alone judges and absolves them and enables them to combat their evil tendencies.” (Quoted from Don Richardson’s book “Eternity in Their Hearts” - Jenny, here's a book for you to try!) Don Richardson goes on to tell the story of 25 different cultures that had amazing precision in their revelation of the story of Christ which laid the foundation for missionary work there. Unfortunately, far too many missionaries today still feel the need to convert every aspect of the people they reach: teaching them western hymns, destroying their cultural heritage, instilling a dependence on the missionaries themselves, and teaching with pride that only what they bring bears truth.

Interestingly enough, my father has encountered just such a people: the Macuxi Indians of Northern Brazil. For centuries they had passed on their teachings of the uncreated “Halleluiah” God who sent his Son to die in order to save the people who had turned against him. They ritually practiced washing of feet and a form of communion, they rejected all outside attempts to convert them or change their teaching unless the teacher was first revealed by dream to the priest, and for centuries eagerly awaited the light skinned man who would bring further knowledge of the “Halleluiah” God. Despite centuries of persecution and the murder of hundreds of their people, they refused to renounce their beliefs. My dad feels blessed to have been able to work with these Indians over the last 6 or so years teaching them further truths about what they already believed. In many ways my father has learned more from them in regard to unbridled commitment and devoted prayer than he has taught them.

But this is not a proof of faith in God, for the atheistic counter-argument is simple: religion is intrinsic to mankind and the innate structure of the world and man’s mind lends itself to common strands of belief. Rather, hearing such stories is a comfort to those struggling with how God can condemn those who have never heard and a good dose of humility to those who esteem too highly their position as the sole deliverer of God’s message. For truly, as Christ said “If they keep silent, the rocks will cry out.”

Some like to call these "Redemptive Analogies" in the way that I can use the Matrix to tell the story of Christ and salvation, but that's totally not doing either Christ or the stories justice. Peace Child (one of his other books) was a redemptive analogy as he used a pagan belief to explain the story of Christ through their tradition. What he shares in this book varies from simple similarities to full blown Logos faith (though in some stories a faith they rejected). Similarly, my dad did not bring a saving faith to the Macuxi, but rather is just helping them grow in the True faith they already had...

There are two types of people who I have found that take issue with stories of God directly revealing himself to remote peoples: The extreme dispensationalist (or cessationalist ) who believes that no revelation after the apostles can occur outside of scripture and the hard-core Calvinist who takes too much joy in believing that others are condemned because they have not “heard”. I’ve already given my opinion of cessationalism and won’t lambaste it again. To the extreme Calvinist who takes issue with Christ revealing himself to others because it puts a wrinkle in their system of we’re saved and they’re not, I challenge you to read through the beatitudes. Then read them again. Then pray about them and read them again. If compassion still holds no place in your system then check yourself.

The non-Biblican principal of personal ownership

So what does the title mean? Basically, my statement is that I believe that a Christian having the attitude that your legal property (house, car, salary, etc) is something that you own, rather than God, is antithetical to Christianity. Furthermore, I believe that the often spoken 10% tithe is not only unscriptural, but is also cheating the American people out of truly living a life of abandon for Christ.

Rich Mullins made millions in royalties during his musical prime in the early and mid nineties, and yet all of his checks went to a board at his church who distributed the money to various charitable organizations, keeping only the average working man’s wage (around $20K at the time) to pay him. He lived on an Indian reservation as a representative for Compassion International and started the protestant monastic order Kid Brothers of Saint Frank. He once said “If I want to identify fully with Jesus Christ, whom I claim to be my Savior and Lord, the best way that I can do that is to identify with the poor. This I know will go against the teachings of all the popular evangelical preachers. But they’re just wrong. They’re not bad, they’re just wrong. Christianity is not about building an absolutely secure little niche in the world where you can live with your perfect little wife and your perfect little children in your beautiful little house where you have no gays or minority groups anywhere near you. Christianity is about learning to love like Jesus loved and Jesus loved the poor and Jesus loved the broken.”

Looking through some websites on money I found one that explained “there are roughly 2,350 verses concerning money. This is roughly twice as many as faith and prayer combined. Fifteen percent of everything Jesus said related to money and possessions. He spoke about money and possessions more than heaven and hell combined.” (http://www.hollywoodpres.org/treasure.htm) Now to me that is just interesting. Obviously, the Bible teaches strongly that money can easily corrupt and we must beware or it will happen to us. The average model I see in Christianity is the following: Give your ten percent tithe, occasionally a little more if you are generous, be wise with your money, and only give if you are cheerful.

The ten percent tithe is undoubtedly based on the OT principle of the tithe of ten percent of their goods (not income), but when looking at the New Testament principles of giving it is very hard to justify this ten percent as applying today: “But woe to you who are rich, for you have already received your comfort” (Luke 6:24); “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God” (Mark 10:25); “People who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil” (I Tim 6:9); “Jesus looked at him and loved him. ‘One thing you lack,’ he said. ‘Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me’” (Mark 10:21); “Command those who are rich in this present world … to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share” (I Tim 6:17); “For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also” (Matt 6:21); “No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need” (Acts 4:34-35). And I could go on, but the point is being rich is seen as a liability outside of the ability to give it. It is not evil to be rich, but it places one in a position of extraordinary temptation.

While we are told in the parables of Christ to be good stewards of what the Lord has entrusted us (debatably only referring to spiritual gifts, but surely applicable to both…), somehow we have used this as a justification to buy the $30,000 car, the nicer house, and the fashionable clothes. But this begs the question of whose money this really is? Is this the Lord’s money or is it ours? If the Lord’s then how do I justify spending four thousand on a bathroom remodel over sending that to save the life of someone needing an emergency surgery in another country as was recently the case (The Lord provided my parents the money from elsewhere before I had to make the decision, but the question stuck with me…). Or buying 1 pair of shoes a year instead of 4 and sending the difference to Africa to build a well where there isn’t fresh water? How can we justify our claim to the Lord’s money for materialistic pursuits over life threatening needs of others? I am utterly dumbfounded at the complete silence of American Christianity on this issue! Now I am by no means condemning the wealthy or advocating the role of government to disperse that wealth, but I am advocating the church being at the forefront of aiding the poor! I believe that the only reason why this has even become a political issue is because of the complete failure of the American Church to care for the poor as Christ commanded.

In Orthodox Theology, giving is seen as one of the three pillars of piety along with prayer and fasting. And just like we pray not because God or someone else needs our prayers but because we desperately need communion with God, so too our giving should not be founded on another’s need for the gift but on our need to experience obedience to God through Christian charity. This attitude is an amazing attitude to take the next time a homeless asks you for money. So give, not based on how worthy he is in your judgment of the money, but give on obedience to the Christian principle of charity.

So why is someone like Rich Mullins who lowers his standard of living to the bare minimum in order to help others, why is he considered strange? Shouldn’t he be the standard? Why are the Amish and their communal ownership and provision, who have no insurance but rather all just pitch in for anyone in need, considered backwards among today’s Christian churches? I’ll be the first to admit, while I try to give, I am also remodeling my bathroom, living in a nice house and driving a decent car. I ask the hard questions of myself, but yet I have so far refused to make any difficult decisions that greatly reduce my standard of living so that I can help others more. But why not?

Orthodox forms in the Charismatic church

In general, as opposed to being divisive as many of my posts might suggest, I tend to look for points of unity in any debate. While I love a good argument, if it is an issue of true division, I generally will present my case in a way that seeks common ground. That being said, the point of this post is to highlight some items of unity between the Charismatic church, in which I was raised, and the Orthodox Church which I currently am attending.

I am by no means an apologist for the Charismatic movement. While I have still many friends and most of my family that associate themselves with Charismatic churches, I stand firm in believing that the Charismatic church is off base in a few major points: It often glorifies the individual leaders at the expense of the church body as a whole (see nearly every TBN evangelist), it generally lacks any authoritative church government by which to keep the individual churches in line (The many very public scandals: Jim Bakker, Marjoe, Robert Tilton, Ted Haggard, etc or in MC's friend's post here), it spotlights individualism by praising those who possess the most charisma rather than those with the most inner devotion to the ways of the Lord (often more grounded in sociology than in Biblical Christian tradition), and, lastly, it is founded upon an unbased belief that the early church was completely non-liturgical and free form in worship style when it really was none of those (since it was based on Jewish liturgy as documented repeatedly in writings such as those of Justin Martyr or the Didache). But there are plenty of detractors from the Charismatic movement, and I gain nothing by heaping insults on a movement which, in attempting to react against a church that often denies the power of the spirit of God, seeks to re-establish a spiritual foundation for the church rather than an intellectual one.

In learning about the Orthodox church, one of the first things that I noticed was the elevation of the sacramental approach to God. That finding God is more about experiencing Him in the practices of the church and through the living of a life in union with Him rather than focusing on an intellectual pursuit. In Orthodoxy this can be seen everywhere from the short, poignant message to the focus on the sacraments to the mystical style of worship with candles and iconography. However, this same emphasis can be seen in the Charismatic church (minus the sacraments). I have heard it said that while most protestants focus on the "Power of the Word", the charismatic church is focused on the "Power of the Spirit," and I believe that is true from what I have seen. While certainly focusing on the emotional aspects of worship far more than the Catholic or Orthodox churches, the charismatic church still has an emphasis on accenting the experience of the presence of God in a way that much of the rest of the protestant church has seemed to have dropped centuries ago in regard to their church worship (Though that is often the approach of protestant ecumenical movements such as "One Day" or the "Passion" movement, though their worship styles are probably best described as charismatic though they likely wouldn't claim that title...).

I spoke previously about Cessationalism (the belief that miracles ended with the Apostles), and as much as Catholics or Orthodox would deny that God has stopped working in miraculous ways, the Charismatic church would do so just as strongly. Their belief in the miraculous is a return to the truth of the ancient faith, for denying the Spirit of God in that way is nothing more than an elevation of John Locke as spiritual guide over the likes of Peter and Paul. Now that is not to say that our faith should depend on miracles, but we are called to live life in acknowledgment of the active miraculous power of the Lord (for what is the point of prayer if it is stripped of the experiential approach to God and the expectation of him to use prayer miraculously?). Whether it is in a belief in healings, prophecy or speaking in tongues, while one can question the means, one is hard pressed to question if Charismatics approach God with an expectation of the miraculous.

One probably more controversial similarity that I have noticed, which stems from the experiential approach to God over the intellectual one, is the deemphasis, in parts, in both the Orthodox church and the Charismatic churches on finding the right words to be spoken during prayer. While in public prayers the Charismatic church still often highlights the flamboyant prayers of its members with an emphasis on the words, but in personal prayer it practices what is known as a "prayer language," or a prayer to the Lord in "tongues." Their belief in this is that it is the Holy Spirit speaking through them in unintelligible words, but the practice of this is a deemphasis on thinking of words to pray and an emphasis on approaching God spiritually. In this approach, I see a very basic similarity to the Orthodox practice of Hesychastic prayer in which the person praying repeats a prayer (such as the Jesus Prayer: "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner.") over and over while drawing into the presence of the Lord. I will be the first to say that my knowledge of Hesychasm is next to nothing, so if this is off base I welcome correction.

In a number of ways, such as the ones mentioned above, where the Orthodox church differs with mainstream Protestantism, I have found similarities with the Charismatic churches. And even though often those similarities are shallow, they seem to exist none the less and show that the Charismatic movements, while largely ungrounded, still has honest attempts to restore to the Protestant church some emphasis that have been lost from the early church.

Sola Scriptura and Cessationalism

Ok, so I am going to try to make this a rational argument but forgive me if it turns into a rant. Let me just say it: Cessationalism is the least biblical founded, most historically divergent, and Christologically errant theology of mainstream Christianity of which I am aware (off the top of my head that is…). So I said it. For the uninitiated, Cessationalism is the theology that the working of miracles ceased with the death of the last apostle. First, I will present a brief overview of the arguments for this theology, then I will explain why these arguments are baseless, and finally I will proceed to explain why Cessationalism is such an evil belief and how it is wholly incompatible with full Protestant adherence to Sola Scriptura, since it is wholly rejected by Catholics and Orthodox alike.

I searched to find the proponents of Cessationalism and found among them John MacArthur, pieces of John Calvin and Luther, BB Warfield, and Norman Geisler among others, while the opponents include John Piper, CS Lewis, Jonathan Edwards, John Wesley, George Whitfield, D L Moody, Wayne Grudem, the majority of the non-denominational church, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Catholics, and Orthodox. Now the protestant church by its very nature of lacking any definitive source has extremes and it is difficult to find fault for going to far in opposing an opposite extreme such as the cessationalists have done in opposing the extremes of hyper-Pentecostalism in Toronto, Pensacola, and Azusa Street. What I will address here is Total Cessationalism or the complete cessation of all miraculous gifts, which, like most other doctrines, has extremes that cannot be easily categorized. The verses quoted to support Cessationalism are few, but largely center around Eph 2:19-21 “You are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, Through him the whole structure is held together and grows into a temple sacred in the Lord,” with the belief that “built on the foundation” necessarily implies a discontinuation, while both the cornerstone (Christ) and the apostles and prophets continue to this day. Their interpretation requires that the church “grows” chronologically reaching perfection through the accumulation of greater knowledge, which is an post-reformation enlightenment concept. Also Eph 4:11-13: “It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.” But verse 14 and 15 continue “Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming. Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ,” so we are no longer infants, but have in all things grown up into Christ and the “whole measure of the fullness of Christ?!?” Obviously not, for this scripture is speaking of the establishment of Christ’s Kingdom here on earth and not the end of the Apostolic age. On occasion I Cor 13:8 is used to support this, but in general even cessationalists acknowledge that it does not speak in support of their view: “Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away,” because reading further we find “For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away.” (9,10) Again, the knowledge that we have is still every bit as incomplete or the Church wouldn’t be so divided on issues such as this! Heb 2:3,4 is also used as it references the workers of signs and wonders as “them” rather than “us,” which again is terrible exegesis- saying “They go to the store on Sundays” in no way implies that I never go to the store on Sundays: maybe they are known for it and I am not? Maybe the writer of Hebrews himself did not work miracles but those around him did… Far too many assumptions based upon a very faulty reasoning. In an obvious stretch to find further Biblical support for these tenuous claims I have seen Heb 1:1 (“Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets.”- lets try the logic here: I ate food yesterday. Thus I no longer eat food. Brilliant!) and Dan 9:24 (“Seventy weeks are decreed about your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place.” - ?) used to support Cessationalism. There are a number of scriptures referenced here in support of non-Cessationalism and you can search and find them just by opening the new testament- If God intended miracles only to establish the church and then disappear then why does nearly every chapter in the first five books have some form of a miraculous account and why is the rest of the new testament so chock full of references to the miraculous? Did he do so as to tempt us of what we cannot have? Or did God prepare those scriptures instructing us on the proper use of miraculous gifts and the workings of faith so as to confuse us? Certainly there are cultural and temporal instructions in the new testament, but would he have given us has “Fully Sufficient” word and yet had the better part of it filled with instructions which did not apply by the time they were publicly available?

But I continue to quote their evidence, and they uniformly quote the same Early Church Fathers as defenders of Sola Scriptura (here, and here) ignoring the plethora of other writings by these very same fathers which directly reference numerous miracles happening in their day (here ) and obviously they did not read the mystical desert fathers. Besides self defeating their belief in Sola Scriptura and massacring the early church fathers by quoting 4 sentences our of a wall of books, they also are denying the living power of the holy spirit to work miraculously in their lives. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy (which they surely don’t believe, for it is prophecy ;) ) for the lack of faith is a hindrance to the Spirit (now surely it doesn’t prevent miracles for we cannot stop the work of the Lord, but even when they do occur they are forced to interpret it within their framework and construct a logical excuse for the Lord’s work).

But even the Cessationalists will admit that their argument, while supported by their proof-texts, is not based on scripture, but rather on Sola Scriptura. That is, their belief that Scripture is the sole authority, while its very passages do not support their stance, leads them to the logical conclusion that God cannot reveal anything to us that is beyond scripture. That is to say that a strict Sola Scriptura adherent cannot believe that God could forewarn someone of lets say an impending famine (Acts 11:28) nor of an approaching storm (Acts 27:10), etc such as is done repeatedly in the Bible for this very scriptural precedent of the Lord speaking to His people of extra-Biblical knowledge violates the logical construct that extends from the reformation based doctrine of Sola Scriptura. So thus by their strict adherence to Sola Scriptura (Bible as the only source) they have denied their belief in Sola Scriptura by either contradicting what it really says or twisting it to fit their framework- relying first on their logical construct and not on the text itself. Thankfully, as CS Lewis put it “all prayers blaspheme, Worshipping with frail images a folk-lore dream, And all men in their praying, self-deceived, address, The coinage of their own unquiet thoughts, unless, Thou in magnetic mercy to Thyself divert, Our arrows, aimed unskilfully, beyond desert."

Sites:
http://jmoorhead.blogspot.com/2006_01_01_archive.html
http://covenant-theology.blogspot.com/2007/02/case-for-cessationism.html
http://www.adrian.warnock.info/2006/09/charismatic-debate-finishing-off-dan.htm
http://cessationism.totallyexplained.com/
http://faithandpractice.blogspot.com/2006/01/cessationisms-noble-lineage.html
http://www.adrian.warnock.info/2005/12/challenge-remains-out-there-show-me.htm
http://phillipjohnson.blogspot.com/2006/01/youre-probably-cessationist-too.html
http://worthen.wordpress.com/2006/01/13/cessationism-v-continuationism/
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=394
http://www.pneumafoundation.com/resources/articles/answers02.pdf

The Theology of Church Architecture

“If while remaining loyal to our respective dogmatic standpoints we could succeed in getting to know each other, above all in those points in which we differ, this would undoubtedly be a surer way towards unity than that which would leave differences on one side. For in the words of Karl Barth, ‘the union of the Churches is not made, but we discover it.’” –Vladimir Lossky

So since I have focused so much on criticisms and differences, possibly giving a false impression that I have some deep-seated animosity towards protestants, I will attempt to be more even handed in this post. I will endeavor to make an unbiased comparison of the different Christian branches in terms of how their theology can be revealed through the architecture and design of their churches, generally avoiding the order of the service itself. In so doing, for the sake of comparison, I will broadly characterize the churches into 4 divisions: the (Roman) Catholic Church, the (Eastern) Orthodox Church, the (Protestant) high church (Episcopalians, Lutherans, and some Presbyterians- those who generally are more liturgical), and the (Protestant) low church (Baptists, non-denominational Evangelicals, etc- those with little formal liturgy and more informal church hierarchies).

The external structure. Surely, someone like T.Jack could delve much more deeply into this than I, and hopefully, for mutual benefit, maybe he could add some comments that are reflective both of his architectural expertise and his travels abroad. It is often amazing how quickly one can recognize the general type of a church from the quickest of external glances: The elaborate cathedral with towers and large crucifix in the heart of an old city is often Catholic, a beautiful, yet more simplistic, church in the average American city is often Lutheran, Episcopal, or other high church, and the store front or steel frame structure resembling an office building is more often than not a non-denominational evangelical church. Is there a reason for this other than church traditions? Donald Bruggink says that “Church architecture is… first and foremost a matter of theology rather than a matter of style." If that is true, then what does the it tells us? I found it interesting in my recent travels through Europe that nearly every Catholic cathedral that we entered had extremely high ceilings while the Orthodox churches of the same periods instead possess lower domes with Christ depicted arching over the people- In that structure, we see the Catholic emphasis on the grandeur of God and causal separation of sin while in the Orthodox tradition there is a greater emphasis on God surrounding us, with greater emphasis on the church as a place of experiencing union with him. But both display great intricacies through their theology of the church as essential to finding and experiencing God. And yet in many Baptist churches, hyperbolized in the more primitive, we see more of the “Four white walls and a pulpit,” displaying their emphasis on the church more simply as a functional gathering of believers, avoiding the “excesses” of the high churches. What one would call a minimalist approach to focus on the essentials another would call an avoidance of the fullness that could be encountered. Through this, the experience is greatly different: in one, a sense of awe and grandeur naturally compels itself on the observer, while in the other a comfort and relaxation are felt so as to experience God in a more “seeker-sensitive” form. I had a friend comment upon a very elaborate church, after returning from years over seas as a missionary, with disgust that they would “waste” so much money that could go so far in another country. And while his sentiments struck a chord with me at the time, assuming motives are correct, can one detract from someone who wishes to give the best they possibly can to the Lord? David’s greatest desire was to build the Lord the most wonderful Temple ever and the Lord did not castigate him for that, but instead said that it would come to his son in a time of peace. Surely there is a balance to be struck of humility, giving, and honoring of the Lord, and the whole spectrum can be seen in the churches of a city such as Atlanta.

The interior decorations. Saint John Climacus described the Eastern 6^th Century church as believing that “Seeing is better than hearing,” and that sight is the “noblest of the senses.” This is in such strong contrast to the low church, that the thought that worship could be done visibly was almost incomprehensible me. The low church tends to express corporate worship (simplifying) in one of two forms: the preaching of a message which could be thought of as a form of internal mental worship and the singing of songs as external auditory worship. In the more high church traditions, worship is thought of through all of the senses: through the voice in song, through sight in honoring symbolism, in smell through incense, through taste in the communion, and through touch in kissing the cross or an icon. Resultantly, upon entering an Orthodox church, and to a lesser extent a Catholic church, one is immediately engulfed with hundreds of images of the saints of the church- each replete with symbolism of the trinity and the focus of that saint and his life works. In contrast, many evangelical churches wish to avoid any depiction of saints or symbols other than the cross, stemming from their attempt to focus solely on the Christ himself. I find it interesting that often in the churches that focus almost entirely on the modern church and its saints, the praise is focused on living Christians instead of those that are deceased and whose whole lives are laid out before us: one Orthodox friend was at a large Baptist church which had a beautifully framed picture of the pastor displayed alone at the end of a hallway, lighted from above by an ornate chandelier which he said looked just like an icon of the pastor as if the people in the church were supposed pay their respects there… But I digress. Having been raised non-denominational charismatic, growing up largely without symbolism or ornate decorum in church services, seeing the chapel at Versailles and Notre Dame on a recent trip to Europe was even more breath taking. Certainly much has diverged in the church over the last 490 years and that is visibly evident in the churches of Christendom.

The interior layout. Anna and I had previously attended a Charismatic Episcopal church (unique, I know) where they had a worship band, fully robed, which was positioned off to the side of the front of the church, facing the cross rather than the people. This simple gesture of focus had an amazing impact on the tone of the worship- there was no worship director who was the visual focus of the service but rather a live band that literally pointed to the cross. Just the same, the layout of a church can reflect the theological or ecclesiastical focus of a church. Another interesting way that this is depicted is in the arrangement, type or lack of seats in a church. Strangely, some churches such as Quakers or the Local Churches arrange their seats so that they are not all facing one person, reflecting their theology of Christ alone as the head of the church to the point that they don’t have a particular leader. Also odd, in most Slavic Orthodox churches there are little to no pews which emphasizes two points: one that people pay attention more when they are standing than sitting and, two, that the whole service is interactional, rather than just the worship.

A couple more quotes to play with:

“I have visited many buildings in which the kitchen is the best planned room… What can one believe about this other than that the congregation understands better what goes on in the kitchen than what is meant for the sanctuary?” –Edward Frey

If Christ cannot be represented by an image then it “contradicts the whole divine economy of our salvation.” – Theodore the Studite

Response to MC's posts on religion

This is my response to MC’s three blogs: here, here and here. Regarding Jesus, generally you have three sources (excluding spurious books written centuries later): The historical teachings of the church, the bible, and extra-biblical historical accounts. I take from what you said that you discount the church because it twists things so as to manipulate itself into power, you discount the bible because if it is errant in some things then it is hard to trust it in crazy things like the virgin birth, and you find no evidence from extra-biblical accounts which have next to no mention of Jesus and certainly no verification of something like the resurrection. My response to that is that, yes, the church has historically twisted many things to give itself power, yes, the bible has flaws of translation and great uncertainty in what the original manuscripts even said, and, finally, extra-biblical accounts will never prove one way or the other much of anything about the life of Christ.

As a friend said, the number one thing that atheists attack about modern Christianity is the dependence on the inerrancy of the bible. And while they can’t prove much of anything against Jesus just as Christians can’t for him, an atheist can easily prove that the bible isn’t perfect. So I find it interesting that modern (specifically Western) Christianity has built itself up so much on a pedestal of logic: Books like The Case for Christ try to logically present the resurrection of Christ as irrefutable (when it must be founded on faith, not logic), the evangelical church has tried to present any belief in evolution as an attack upon Christianity and staked its future inseparably with the total inerrancy of scripture, and in the modern church “Faith” has become synonymous not with life changing trust but rather with knowledge. I would argue that this “Pedestal of Logic” as I called it is really just a straw man built by the church that the modern secularists are having a heyday destroying.

I attempted to answer in my last comment on MCs post why I believe what I believe- I made a mistake in my approach because I tried to simultaneously make it independent of logic while also cognitively explaining something as mystical as faith. So it turned out falling greatly short of anything spiritual or logical. What I alluded to at the beginning, however, is what I should have kept to- that God has revealed himself to me in mysterious, personal ways both minute and miraculous and that those revelations cannot be explained by the faiths of other religions. Each of those revelations were framed specifically within the context of faith in Christ. Not in a knowledge of who he is, but in a faith in the eternal, omni-present spirit of God. Not only is that the truth of why I believe what I believe, but it also is independent of logical construction (Do I abandon logic? Of course not, but I certainly don’t use it as the basis of my faith.)- and I think that is the way it should be: the church and the bible are not external proofs of Christianity but rather tools for the Christian to grow closer to the Lord. And when either the Bible or the Church is presented in a way that imposes itself on the non-believer, the message that it is supposed to convey (one of hope, faith, and mystery) becomes secondary.

MC asked “Can you believe in God and not believe in religion.” And I think the answer is a resounding “Yes!” God is all powerful, mysterious, and beyond our comprehension but he chose to relate to us in the person of Christ and chooses to reveal himself to us in ways that we can understand every day. In contrast, religion is a construct of man and is prone to every sickness that man possesses (For this very reason, the Orthodox Church avoids the Roman Catholic model of complete dependence on one man just as much as the Protestant model of dependence on individual charisma: “He’s such a great preacher” or “That worship band is so talented”). I don’t place my faith in religion, I place it in Christ; but I choose to seek the Lord within the Church (and that trust does not come easy for me) because I see in the Church the sacramental tools by which to draw near to Him. So often evangelical churches focus on a “Profession of Faith”, by which a person makes a statement claiming to align themselves with faith in Christ, which amounts to taking the name of “Christian”, and at times the name of the church itself, often without any “life confession” or change of living. The reason I bring this up is that the focus becomes on this title or affiliation (“Religion”) rather than on the life (“Spirituality”). From my readings of the Bible, I see where it says people will live in the name of Christ (Mat 7:21-23) but be cast aside, while a prostitute in a heathen nation was considered a beacon of faith (Heb 11:31). Read what you want into that, but I think that throws some monkey-wrenches into our traditional concepts of who the true followers of Christ are, and I don’t think it has much to do with titles or affiliations.

I certainly won’t go so far as to say that sincerity is what is most important and I will never deny that Christ is the only way to the Father, but that still begs the question of what is the way to Christ- and I am certain that the country Baptist church with “Turn or Burn” on the sign isn’t the only way.

2007 Republican Presidential Debate #1

So I decided to watch the debate last night (or try since my computer connection at home kept cutting in and out and then when to my mother-in-law’s to watch the last 15 minutes on TV, missing another 15 minutes in the process). I missed the first democratic debate, but read many commentaries on it that all basically concluded that Obama took a step ahead through his general like-ability and debating skills while Hilary lost some ground by trying to play it safe and not really answer the hard questions. Much in a similar manner, the republican leader (Guiliani) came across pretty flat- all he wanted to talk about was 9-11 and a couple policies that he enacted while mayor without presenting any real ideas himself. When they asked him about abortion it was hilarious as he tried to appeal to the RNC base by talking about how he thought abortion was bad while still saying that he sort of supported a woman’s right to choose. Romney really was the only one who came across with the air of a president while McCain looked like he was alternating between sleep and anger (I’ll follow Osama to the gates of Hell!).

Anyway, I was most impressed by Ron Paul. Who? Yeah, I had never heard of him before either. He was the only one who came across as believable and competent (Brownback was believable but also was only comfortable talking about abortion, Huckabee wasn’t bad but didn’t stand out, and the rest were pretty much not believable), and while I didn’t agree with everything he said, you could tell that he knew exactly what he thought about the issues, that he had spent considerable time thinking out his stances, and most importantly that he was straightforward about where he stands. There was no waffling, there was no attempt to appeal to the base in spite of what he thought, there were only his beliefs and 30+ years in congress to support them: He is adamantly pro-life. He is very intelligent. He opposes the Iraq war, and voted against it in 2002, not because he is a liberal pacifist, but because he is a historical conservative who supports American independence with sound reasoning. He supports the 2^nd amendment. He is consistently pro-business, but has no connections to big business. He supports a repeal of the 16^th amendment (Income taxes) in favor of a VAT or a national sales tax. He has always been small government and backs that up with his record (He annually returns a portion of his operating budget to the government as a statement of principal). And he is probably one of the few remaining strict constitutionalists, going so far as to oppose FIAT currency (currency not based on an external standard such as silver or gold).

If you hadn’t guessed already, he formerly identified himself as a libertarian and carries much of that with him today. All of that being said, I don’t think he could ever be president, but the more votes he gets the better in my book as it will challenge the RNC to return to its conservative roots and just maybe someone will put him in a good cabinet position so they can learn from his constitutionality. I’ll watch a few more debates and keep reading, but I think he just might be leading for my vote at this point.

America's Tax Disadvantage

So in light of news such as Toyota overtaking GM as the world's top selling automaker, I am frustrated even more over the tax disadvantage that American manufacturing is placed at in the World Market. Here is a letter to the house ways and means committee ( a bit long) from Americans For Fair Taxation (The FairTax folks), that makes an outstanding point regardless of what you think of the FairTax.

Currently the US is the only country of the 30 OECD (The biggest most developed countries) that does not remove at least a portion of its consumption taxes on the export of its goods. All items produced in the US have substantial embedded taxes from the sales taxes of each of the items that made it up as well as the payroll taxes and corporation taxes on the companies who made the items. But it isn't just that, since US goods have embedded taxes they are taxed here and abroad (Foreign VAT), while foreign goods sold in the US have neither the US embedded tax nor the VAT of their home country! This makes them cheaper abroad and cheaper in the US. Currently among the OECD countries there is an average of 17% Value Added Tax (VAT) on exported items that is removed, which places the US at a huge disadvantage since we do not border adjust our taxes at all! Why? Well, America historically has supported free and open trade which means we have almost always had lower tariffs on imports than other countries. Since WW2 there has been a huge shift in which other countries have greatly reduced their tariffs (On average from 40% to 4% today) and replaced them with the VAT so as to allow free trade but to adjust imports for the difference in cost of government in the home country (Each country has their own amount of VAT which they remove on the export of an item and then place on any imports of items- the amount depends on the size of the government spending). Effectively, this leaves America as the only major industrialized country who has its imports sold without embedded taxes and its exports sold with a double tax.

The results are staggering- Toyota overtaking GM is only a simple example. It is for good reason that Daimler Chrysler chose their world headquarters in Germany (With border adjusted taxes) rather than the US or that companies like Accenture headquarter abroad for tax purposes. America has handicapped itself and unless we wish to send all of our manufacturing overseas and have foreign countries completely own both our government (in the form of debt) and our companies due to our trade deficit, then we desperately need a major overhaul on our system of taxation.

Lightening up the mood...

So I've been crazy busy with work trying to get things finished up before Anna and I head to Europe for 2 weeks of vacation (!) and haven't had the time to put together any well thought out posts. So, since I don't have anything useful to contribute, I will just post a video from my college days (I say that like it was a long time ago...) which a few friends have bugged me to put up somewhere. Some people drink lots in college which leads them to do stupid things, while others just do stupid things without the alcohol...

Maryphobia?

Growing up in a Charismatic Protestant church, I knew Mary to be both the mother of Jesus’ birth and the wife of Joseph. I knew that an angel revealed to her that she would bear the Son of God and that she willingly participated by carrying him. That was all well known Biblical history. But such titles as “Virgin Mary” or certainly the title “Theotokos” were very foreign to me as was any respect for her that went further than to say that she was “lucky” to have been chosen. Any consideration of her as a special saint was overboard and certainly any comparison between her and the Apostolic Fathers was totally out of bounds. But should it be?

First, for clarification, I will often refer to her throughout here by her title as affirmed at the Council of Ephesus in 431AD: “Theotokos” or “God-bearer” as it translates crudely. I will quote some scripture, but largely will focus on the historical view of her. A few quick scriptures on the Theotokos:

God says "I will put enmity between you and the woman, between your seed and her seed." Gen. 3:15. A virgin (the Greek word used is "parthenos") will bear a Son named Emmanuel, which means "God is with us” (Isaiah 7:14; Matt. 1:23, John 1:14). "Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you." (Luke 1:28) this “Full of Grace” is used in only one other place in scripture, and there in reference to Christ (John 1:14). “And the LORD said to me, ‘This gate shall be shut; it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter by it, because the LORD God of Israel has entered by it; therefore it shall be shut.’” (Ezek. 44:2) This prophecy has always been interpreted as regarding the Theotokos and that her womb would be sealed after the “Lord God of Israel has entered by it.”

So that is a really quick overview, and more time could be spend on old testament prophecies, allusions, and revelations that have been seen as applying to her. I’ll focus on couple points which protestants generally reject: Her perpetual virginity, and the general place of great admiration for her person. All of the above disputes could most certainly be supported on the basis of rationalism and personal hermeneutics, and yet if we look back before the 17th century we struggle to find such disputes (Even the Nestorians had great respect for her as their dispute over her title of Theotokos vs Christotokos was an issue of Christology not an issue of respect to her). However, the historical church always affirms that Mary was committed to God at an early age, served in the temple, and later married an elderly Joseph (who had other children) as a means of protecting her. It could be well argued that objections to the veneration of the Theotokos largely centered around a more general rejection by largely American Protestants of what is seen as later Catholic abuses.

These Catholic abuses are easy to find. From mixing her beliefs with black magic in the Bayou, to widespread Catholic belief that she is our co-redeemer, to the many, many statues (and their worship-like affection of them) of Mary throughout Latin America and their more recent invention: the “Immaculate Conception”- it doesn’t take much work to find highly objectionable practices. While these abuses are widely pointed to as justification by the present day church, rejection of one of the most widely accepted early church beliefs on the basis of its abuse is not sound doctrine. I could just as well (in hyperbole) say that since the doctrine of the incarnation has let to Nestorianism and Gnosticism, we should abandon teachings on the subject matter!

Looking to the Patristics, it does not take much effort to find a near unanimity of respect and reverence for the Theotokos: Tertullian, Origen (“This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate”), John Chrysostom (“And when he had taken her, he knew her not, till she had brought forth her first-born Son.' He hath here used the word till,' not that thou shouldest suspect that afterwards he did know her, but to inform thee that before the birth the Virgin was wholly untouched by man”), Athenasius (“O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin?”), Gregory of Nyssa, The Council of Ephesis (“If anyone will not confess that the Emmanuel is very God, and that therefore the Holy Virgin is the Theotokos… let him be anathema.”), Gregory of Nazianzas (“If anyone does not believe that Holy Mary is the Mother of God, he is severed from the Godhead.”), Cyril of Alexandria, Ambrose (“Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin”), Augustine (“We must except the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins”), Basil (“The friends of Christ do not tolerate hearing that the Mother of God ever ceased to be a virgin”), Jerome, Irenaeus and many, many more.

And the quotes could go on and on, but not just of fringe members of the Christian faith, but the very fathers through which the church was founded! A veritable “Who’s who” of the ancient church! Individually some of their comments could be easily cast aside, but in unison their beliefs are as a mountain of historical evidence. And yet I, perhaps like you, still grow uncomfortable reading those quotes, but why?

Well maybe this was just an ancient quirk of the faith of which we, the modern church, have greater wisdom, you might ask? I would refer back to my first post “Ancient and New” for my thoughts on the “great wisdom” of the modern church. However, to prove this not just an ancient belief, nor just a Catholic or Orthodox position, I will quote the reformers:

Martin Luther: “Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that.” And again: “Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him.” And finally: “Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity . . .when Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her . . . This babble . . . is without justification.”

John Calvin: “Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ's 'brothers' are sometimes mentioned.” And again: “That Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband . . . No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words… no man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.”

Zwingli: Title of Sermon: “Mary, ever virgin, mother of God.” And again: “I have never thought, still less taught, or declared publicly, anything concerning the subject of the ever Virgin Mary, Mother of our salvation, which could be considered dishonourable, impious, unworthy or evil . . . I believe with all my heart according to the word of holy gospel that this pure virgin bore for us the Son of God and that she remained, in the birth and after it, a pure and unsullied virgin, for eternity.”

John Wesley: “I believe... he [Jesus Christ] was born of the blessed Virgin, who, as well after as she brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin.”
Heinrich Bullinger: “In Mary everything is extraordinary and all the more glorious as it has sprung from pure faith and burning love of God.” And again: She is “the most unique and the noblest member [of the Christian community].”

I have appreciated, though not easily, learning both of the intense respect with which the Orthodox church holds for the Theotokos as well as the care they take to keep her in proper perspective: no statues of her, always pictured with Christ to signify her role, no incessant “Hail Mary’s” etc. My challenge, one that I am trying to take myself, is to take a critical look at the Protestant church’s teachings and attitude (explicit as well as implicit) on Mary and see what lies behind them: Is it a scripture-based teaching to avoid her or an adverse reaction to all things Rome? If the latter, then in the context of the Patristics and Scripture see where she falls in comparison to the Apostles. The results may just take you by surprise.

“Blessed are thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” -Luke 1:42,43

Notes (I do not endorse any, but rather recommend for thought and learning):
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theotokos
http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Homiletic/Jan98/mary.html
http://www.jesuscreed.org/?p=1133
http://www.markdroberts.com/htmfiles/resources/protestantmary.htm
http://www.stmaryofegypt.org/library/st_john_maximovich/on_veneration_of_the_theotokos.htm

On Politics and Morality

Emerging from the last post, I thought I would post my thoughts on this topic. Certainly there are many who have researched this issue much more than I have, but I never have and never will present my ideas as the most educated, more researched, or most rational… They are mine and for that I will disclose them rather than for any virtue they possess. This topic of Politics and Morality is one thing that I alluded to in the last post which I did not discuss in great detail. I find it quite telling that the New Testament scriptures reveal next to nothing (overtly) about how to handle social issues but rather how to be a Christian in those situations (it never condemns slavery, but tells slaves to be obedient, as an example) much less how Christians should run a government, if they are even to do so. Many people will point back to the Old Testament or principles therein as a model for Christian government, but I think that is extremely misleading- Israel is a model of the church and anyone who tries to extrapolate that to a country is making inferences that can scarcely be supported.

I believe that one’s morality will always color your thoughts and, in turn, especially for those in politics, their political views. However, even if you disagree and think that an individual’s morality should be the basis of all their political beliefs, I still do not think that justifies the corporate church’s involvement in pressuring politics. The church should be in the business of transforming individuals and through them changing a society, not in pressuring governments to adopt their ideas so that people are legally forced to “look” like Christians whether they are or not! Now these individual members of the church will be involved in politics, but it is my belief that they should do so first in the name of citizenship not in the name of the church, so as to prevent the inevitable compromises of politics from reflecting on poorly on the name of Christ.

The idea of outlawing all that opposes your legal belief smacks of Sharia law as Nate said. But that close associate of the church and state that we so easily criticize in Islamic states has easily been seen in Christian countries as well. In Russia, the church was extremely intertwined with the government when the Bolshevik Revolution took place and overthrew the sitting government. The resulting persecution and destruction of church hierarchy forced the church into a tailspin from which it is still reeling, largely because it lost the support of the governmental structure (Now certainly the persecution played a huge part in that, but with an independent church the overthrow of a government becomes much less of an issue).

In America, there are numerous laws on the books today that were established based entirely on personal morality. For example, many states have laws that outlaw any form of sex other than vaginal, NC has a law that outlaws fortune telling, and in Texas someone can be removed from public office if they do not believe in a Deity. But why stop there? As Nate alluded, we could outlaw alcohol, support slavery, and prevent women from voting all based on our “Biblical” principles (Oh, wait, that HAS already been done!). If “sinfulness” is the definition by which we should create law, then the Seventh Day Adventists should seek to outlaw going to church on Sunday for that is sinful. In some communities, dancing should be outlawed as the majority of people there hold it to be sinful. But then so is chewing gum and drinking coke to other extremists. It never ends. The Bible teaches that anything done not in faith is sin, so that inherently means that anyone who does not possess faith is living a life of sin and thus their life itself must be outlawed.

And so I hyperbolize, but the point remains: there is nothing which one personally believes to be wrong that cannot be outlawed if the belief is held by a majority and laws are to be determined by personal morality. But expanding, even generally held morality cannot be the basis of law or the same outrageous personal beliefs can become law if held by many, especially if the sample size of population is small. The ONLY reason that many in America today reject government mandate of Christianity is because the church tried it for centuries in Europe and failed miserably. If a nation does not regulate religion, then the laws of that country should not be based specifically on a single religions’ beliefs either (more on this below), especially in a highly multi-cultural country like America. Now I would be a dunce to say that there is this simple line which divides the “religious” morality from the non-religious and universally accepted morality. There is obvious gray area. But this is where we are blessed with intellectual faculties by which to make the judgment of whether or not something is an enactment of law on the basis of specific religious principles, which unduly ostracizes those who do not hold those beliefs, or whether a broadly recognized principle of public protection. As I am not a student of law, I would probably be well advised to not go further lest I dig deeper than I have developed thoughts to support.

Many American Christians are so quick to criticize other countries which outlaw the Christian minorities, and yet we are just as quick to remove the rights of the minorities in our own country. Seeking to avoid hypocrisy, we cannot justify both. In response to Jason’s statement that there are “Three theological uses for the law. The first use is to convict us of our sin and take away the presumption of righteousness. The second is to maintain civil order. And the third is to exhort believers to greater holiness. Law is a teacher; it helps teach society what is right and wrong.” In so many ways I agree, and yet I strongly disagree with this being handled through the law of the government but rather through the teachings of the church!! Pride will never be outlawed in a country (outside of a 1984 society) as it is not an action but a thought, but it is a sin none the less of which I am convicted through the teachings of the church and God given conscience. As scripture teaches, the true law of this world, inspired by God, is written on the conscience of men; this God given conscience, in conjunction with the church, is the means by which we are to be convicted, made aware of our own sin, and ultimately recognize our need for Christ. By putting this in the hands of government we risk placing government on a pedestal of which it is undeserving. Likewise, we risk diluting the Truth by creating an impression that state established law is reflective of Truth inclusive of bad laws and shady governments.

Homosexuality and the Church

This has to be one of the most exhausted topics of the last 30 years, but, alas, I will attempt to add my two cents and hopefully do so from a perspective that is both thought provoking and refreshing. I am NOT going to focus my rant at the homosexual community. I am not going to focus it on “liberal” churches and their acceptance of such practices. And I am not going to attack “conservative” churches for not accepting the homosexual life. However, I have a huge problem with the approach to Homosexuality of the Christian right: Get a megaphone and tell the world that homosexuals are evil, try to scientifically prove that they made a choice, and lobby politicians to outlaw it.

The church’s beliefs on this issue seem so irrational to me. Why is homosexuality such a far greater sin than the multitude of others which beset our country and the church itself? If marriage is so sacred in this country (and looking at the divorce and out of wedlock births, that is a highly disputable notion) then why isn’t the church just as busy lambasting the “Hollywood” notion of convenient marriage as it is the homosexual notion?! Why can’t the church focus on being a “Light set on a hill” rather than forcing the world to all carry candles? I would argue that in trying to conform the world to the church, rather than transforming the church and thus drawing the world, the church greatly waters down its own purpose and dilutes the message of Christ. But I guess I misread the Bible about when Jesus condemns to Hell the loose woman at the well, or that His condemnation of the Pharisees was because of their homosexual lifestyles, or even how the first aim of the early church after Pentecost was to establish a Christian government by which they could establish the church.

I blame the American church for the current state of the homosexual community. The church is called to be a place of redemption, renewal, and counsel, and in regard to homosexuality the church largely does none of these. There is no rational way in which one can expect to reach a community by public decrying one of the main criteria by which they identify themselves! There is this attitude in the Church that homosexuality is the greatest evil in the world, that those who struggle with it are unnatural, and that we need to oppose homosexuals at every corner, especially in the public arena. The church gets so caught up in arguing against the scientific merits of homosexual tendency and fighting the secular government’s recognition of commitment that the real losers are the 12 year old boys in their own church who are fighting something that they just can’t explain! The church tries to deny this by hiding behind “Hate the sin, love the sinner,” but that quiet message is lost in the midst of the shouting. The very place those kids should be looking for help is busy castigating anyone who resembles the struggle they so quietly bear. So rather than turn to the church for help or the church community for support, they are forced to look elsewhere for counsel: to the homosexual community and those who have bore their struggle.

But it isn’t just the kids who are left behind, it is also the unreached members of the community. It is in the church that healing and spiritual restoration should take place, but rather than helping them, the church’s obsession with fighting homosexuality renders the church a place of “intolerance.” How can the church expect to outreach to homosexuals when it simultaneously demands that they change before they reach the church?!? It seems that controlling the state of the “Christian” country is more important than the state of the church. But as our society grows more and more pluralistic, rejecting those who hold strong beliefs, it appears that the church will either be forced to change (abandon it's attempt to make this a Christianized nation), accept the lifestyle and avoid the confrontation, or be rendered ineffective in a country so dearly in need of it.

Ancient and New

So I was thinking back to perceptions of the church that I had as a child, and one that stands out strongly: the concept that Christianity is progressing greatly over time. I don't know the origins of this thought as it was never explicitly taught (that I can remember), but I know at least two sources from which I might have inferred this.
The first was the emphasis on "New" in the charismatic churches in which I was raised. I couldn't even begin to count the thousands of times that I heard someone say something like "God is doing a new work," or "The Spirit is falling with a new power," or "God has given me a new revelation." But why the emphasis on "New"? Was the work that God did through the Apostles to spread the Gospel to all the ancient world not a big enough work? When St. Polycarp in his martyrdom was thrown into a raging fire and not consumed, was that Spirit of the Lord not powerful enough? Is the faith and accumulated knowledge of Christendom in the last 2000 years not sufficient? Frankly, I would much prefer something ancient over something new. Give me the ancient faith by which Peter walked on water over the "New" faith of people barking like dogs in Toronto.
The second way in which I perceived this attitude was in the emphasis that today we have on greater knowledge. We have better technology, better ancient manuscripts, and better study Bibles and thus are able to "better" understand theology. Some how the theological understanding of the Apostles and early church fathers isn't quite complete, it needs just my additional touch. Growing up charismatic, this was much less of an attitude than is prevalent among many other protestant denominations, but it was still implied in parts. Now I don't mean to criticise thirst for knowledge or searching for Truth, I highly encourage this, but any attempt to do so with the understanding that "I" must come to a better understanding and figure everything out "Myself" is spiritual arrogance and is dangerous. Not only should scripture be studied in the context of other scripture, but also in the historical context and understanding of the church and in the Ecumenical discussions of the church. It is by reliance on scripture alone, in absence of any historical understanding, that creflo dollar (If "Jesus" is capitolized then creflo doesn't deserve it) teaches that Jesus "Grew into Sonship" and became God through great faith. It is by the epitome of reliance on scripture alone that the Jesus Seminar concludes that true scripture says that Jesus isn't God and that Jesus was never resurrected. It is this over emphasis on knowledge that has not only led modern Christians to deny the authentic faith, but also has led many to pursue that knowledge in absence of seeking God in a passionate, personal way. Just as Barlaam argued against Gregory Palamas in the 14th century, saying that time spent in prayer and seeking God was inferior to scholastic pursuit of God, so today theological understanding is often times considered the "Epitome" of being a good Christian rather than having a true, life-consuming relationship with Christ. This can be seen in the evangelical emphasis on sermons, which is a direct departure from the early churches which always possessed an ecclesiastical emphasis on the sacramental approach to God: experiencing him first hand and possessing head knowledge second.
You say you want the new? That's fine, I'll take the ancient.