Antinomianism

What relation do works and faith have to one another? This has been an age old question and one that many men of the faith have struggled with their entire lives. When I speak on this topic, I am truly standing on the shoulders of giants. How can a Christian justify saying that unless you are producing good works, you are not saved? 

This statement needs to be prefaced, but at it's core, there is a pivotal truth to be grasped. In John 3, Jesus is talking to the pharisee Nicodemus. Nicodemus is an intellectual and a teacher who has come to Christ by night. Nicodemus probably wants to talk about the finer points of theology, but Jesus has another plan. He sees the real issue at stake. He says to Nicodemus, "You need to be born again." This baffles the pharisee. Jesus tells him that "unless a man is born of water and spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven. That which is born of the flesh, is flesh and that which is born of the spirit, is spirit." You see, Nicodemus had been placing his trust in his Jewish heritage. He had been missing the big picture. It wasn't about his genetics or about his circumcision, it was about his heart. The externals could not change the internal. Faith saves today and it has always been the means of salvation. John told the pharisees in Matthew 4 that God could raise up sons of Abraham from the stones! Circumcision could not and would not save them. Jesus had to.

Jesus compares his sacrifice to the snake upon the pole. Do you remember that story? God sent serpents to plague the Israelites in the desert. God told Moses to put a serpent up on a pole and that any man who wished to be healed may look upon it and be healed. This is such an incredible story because it demonstrates the free grace of God but it also demonstrates man's hardness of heart. Surely some Israelites did not look and thus died in their unbelief! This comparison is followed by the ever famous John 3:16. "...that anyone who believes upon him shall not perish, but have eternal life." Now that would settle it right? But Jesus goes on in verse 20 and 21,  "for every man that doeth evil hateth the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be manifest, that they are wrought in God." Faith causes action! Faith is not passive. One does not simply say, "I believe" and his unbelief disappears. Faith requires a work of God in man's heart. Ephesians 2 says that God quickened our dead souls and it also says that we are saved by faith and even that faith is a gift of God! This is so no man can boast. So the question comes, if by faith we are saved, what room have works? Let's see what John says.

1 John 2:3-6  "And hereby do we know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know, and keepeth not his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him. He that abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he (Jesus) walked." John is absolutely crystal clear. If we are not seeking the Law of God, our faith is not real. James says that faith without works is dead. 

Here is where the problem arises. Am I saying that works save us? By no means! It is faith alone. As Martin Luther discovered, the righteous shall live by faith. It is through faith we are saved and made new. Yet, this faith must be real. A living and dynamic faith. Not a cold dead faith that is not faith at all. A living faith exhibits certain qualities. Just as a living human being performs functions such as breathing and heart beating, so too does a living faith exhibit a pursuit and love of God's commandments. A dead man may protest that he is alive, but if he does not exhibit the qualities of a living man, there is no way we can believe him! 

In summation, we are saved by faith alone in Christ's sacrifice to cancel the penalty of sin. But this faith exhibits a keeping of God's commandments. If that is not present, then it is not faith all. The problem is essentially a problem of cause and effect. The faith saves, but a living faith produces works. If you don't have the works, that is indicative of a dead faith. But I reiterate, it is the faith that saves.

God Bless,

Stanley

P.S. We are, of course, all sinners and we strive in this imperfectly. The key word is that we are striving. Romans says that no man seeks after God. If a man is seeking after God, it is only because God has quickened his dead soul because otherwise he would have no desire to commune with the Living God.

Enuma Elish

To compare the ancient Babylonian creation myth the Enuma Elish with the Genesis account is to compare apples and oranges. Yes, just as an apple and an orange are both fruits, the Enuma Elish and the Genesis account are indeed works of literature. That is where the similarities end.  Apples and oranges have different shapes, colors, tastes, textures, and come from different trees. Ultimately, this is the most important difference. The Enuma Elish is the product of a slave driven culture that is saturated with magic. The Creation Story is the very word of God. We can’t lose sight of that. When a pagan makes the assertion that they are so similar as to be counterfeits of one another (and usually the Bible is assumed to be the counterfeit), than they are perpetuating a ridiculous cliché.

            The obvious problem with claiming any sort of similarity is that the Enuma Elish isn’t really a creation story. It’s more a “puny gods decide to rearrange what’s already there” story. The water is already there. The fabric of space-time is already there. The gods are already there! Where did they come from? This stands in stark contrast to God’s creation of the universe ex nihilo. There was nothing but God. He spoke. Everything came into existence.  These two stories are fundamentally at odds with one another.

            Marduk is another serious issue with the Enuma Elish. Marduk simply is not like Yahweh. For one thing, Marduk has a father. God is eternally self-existent. Marduk is simply the greatest and strongest of the gods. What if a greater one were to arise? Just as Marduk’s father produced magnificent progeny, isn’t it possible for Marduk’s son to be even greater? There can be no threat to Jehovah’s glory and power. He is ultimate and transcendent in all His ways.

            In the Enuma Elish, men are simply cattle. The gods create the men out of pure laziness and greed for power. They do not show men love and their greatest act of mercy is sending crops.  In some ways, the Enuma Elish perpetuates a detached relationship between the gods and men. Men revere the gods and serve them in so far as they simply get what they want. After that, get back to your life.

            Yahweh shows us that He has so much more in store and a much greater purpose. The love between Him and the other members of the Trinity was so overflowing that, while He created us entirely superfluous to Himself, we are able to enjoy the benefits of His love and mercy. We are not His slaves. We are His sons. The Enuma Elish can never hold a candle to that.

Is Christianity Rational?

I was listening to a fantastic song by my favorite band Becoming the Archetype. The song "Evil Unseen" contained the lines "We exchange our faith for rational thought/ We trade our conscience for advanced reasoning" (These guys are a Calvinist death metal band. Epic.) The song then goes on to explain "There's no hope in justifying wrong/ Just death in rationalism/ I am not of this world/ And science cannot explain me/ I will transcend death/ This body will not contain me"


The aforementioned lines got me thinking though. How would a non-Christian view lines about rejecting rational thought? Clearly, they're out of context, but what would a pagan think? Nowadays, "rejecting rational thought" is laughed at and ridiculed. Reason is the god and anyone that claims that reason can't contain their religion is just a backward barbarian. Yet, God is a God of order. Surely reason has it's place? And yet...


So, is Christianity rational? The answer is complicated. Yes and no. 


Yes: When God created the universe, He made it in such a way as to be rational. One thing leads to another. Not only in how the universe operates, but also in the truth contained within the universe. Ultimately, God's laws, plans, and emotions make perfect logical sense in His infinite mind. Many of the things He reveals to us in The Bible are very logical. That's why studying the Bible is possible! We can compare passages and ideas and make rational conclusions about doctrine and life. 
On a side note, it annoys me when people will not listen to an argument that involves pulling together different ideas and multiple passages. Somehow studying and interpreting what the Bible is trying to say is wrong? If it isn't plainly stated in a single verse than they won't believe it. While I can see the many errors that this safeguards against, this type of thinking is overly simplistic. 
Also, God's truth is perfectly logical from an objective stance. When surveying the true state of man, God, and the universe, Christianity is entirely reasonable. I have broken the law of a righteous, holy, and eternal God. Now I must pay the punishment. That's logical. Now He has provided his Son as a sacrifice to take my punishment for me! Now, I can be returned to a right relationship with Him by having faith in His Son's work. That is so simple even children understand! This brings me to why Christianity doesn't appear rational. (Ironic, huh?)


No: Man's sinful mind has completely distorted God's truth and made it seem foolish and horrible. Every man is looking at the same story but some people are looking through the lens of sin. This is twisting the beautiful and logical plan of God's redemption. Now it doesn't seem logical at all. "I never broke God's law! How can He require anything of me? In fact, He doesn't even exist!" Atheism is a mortal man spitting in the eye of the Creator of the Universe. That isn't so logical now, is it? But at the time, the sinners sees it as the only right response! 
Another aspect of why Christianity isn't rational is its very nature. If there is a philosophy that attempts to explain to finite men about a holy and infinite God, there are going to be things beyond our comprehension! God is God because we cannot fully explain Him. He is so transcendent that we will never grasp him. And you know what? That's just the way it ought to be. Now, the Bible does tell us some things about God but we can't always fully understand them. They may not be logical to our brains, but they are no less true. If we could fit God into our box, we would have essentially denied His divinity! 


Christianity is rational because it is the true explanation of the universe God created. Christianity is rational because God is a God of order. Christianity is rational because we are sinful and cannot see the beauty of its truth. Christianity is irrational because it is conveying truth about an eternal God to finite men. 


God is Truth.


God Bless,
Stanley

The Church Has a Mission

This past week, I've been reading a fantastic book by Kevin DeYoung and Greg Gilbert. The title of the book is "What is the Mission of the Church?" Isn't that an interesting question? I think, as Christians, we all too often just go to church every Sunday and view church as an organization that is just there to serve our spiritual needs. That is one of the reasons some are in favor of taxing it because many view it as little more than a business that provides spirituality for a small fee.

However, Christ gave the church a mission! We have a task we need to be accomplishing! Right before Christ ascended into heaven, he told his disciples to go forth and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Ultimately, that's what the church is here to do. To gather in and disciple Christ's people. This is entirely consistent with the story of the Bible.

You know, the Bible has many amazing facets and one of them is the epic story that it tells. It reads like a novel! There we were, in the middle of Paradise and we threw it all away! Everything seemed so dark, but God showed us a little glimmer of hope with the nation of Israel. God protected His special people and promised a Messiah to come and rescue them from their sins. Then God stepped down into this dark world and took on flesh. He became a human being with all the same emotions and pains that we feel. As if that wasn't enough, he sacrificed everything to suffer a horrific and shameful death. What for? To pay the price for his people's sins and redeem them from the bondage of sin! It's so easy to lose sight of that.

DeYoung and Gilbert wrote their book to refocus the Church on this mission because they believe that she is straying from it. I have noticed this too. The American Church has begun to preach something new called the Social Gospel. It's all about equality, the poor, and changing the culture. I want to preface my comments with this; the Social Gospel has a basis in Scripture. That is why it has been so widely embraced. The problem is, it is an overemphasis of a less prominent theme. The actual Gospel has been pushed to the backseat while changing the culture has been brought to the forefront. The Bible absolutely supports justice, equality, loving others, serving the poor, widows, orphans, and being "a City on a Hill." However, those are not the church's primary objectives. I would argue that all those things are logical out-workings of a faithful pursuit of the Gospel and obedience to God's Word.

My goal in this post is not to discourage those who are fighting for the downtrodden and brokenhearted. However, it is a call to refocus our perspective. We have focused too much on one aspect of Christianity and because of that, Christ's mission to the church has suffered. Now, Christ's mighty word will always go forward, but are we doing what we can to aid it? To plant it? I know I don't do enough! This book has really opened my eyes to how I am not fulfilling my obligations to my Lord. My desire is to serve Him in many different capacities. I pray that He empowers you to serve Him and seek His will. He promises that if we call on Him, He will answer and strengthen us. He is the giver of every good gift.

God Bless,
Stanley

Am I Missing Something?

I was going to use this blog post to spew my typical libertarian ideas such as being in favor of civil unions. I'll explain my position briefly so you don't damn me as a heretic. 
 I posted this comment on White Horse Inn's blog. I think this explains my position well.


"I feel that there is a concept here that hasn’t been touched on here. There are two aspects to marriage in this world. There is the spiritual aspect (covenantal) and then there is a legal aspect (government.) Where did this legal aspect come from? The government made it up! The government has got its hand into something that it really doesn’t have authority in. Yes, they may be able to give out marriage license and legal benefits, but what does that do? Just as two individuals may legally divorce, so too, I think, we should let homosexuals get “married.” The key here is that even though those divorcees may be legally divorced, God has not absolved them of their covenant. The same goes for the homosexuals. They may live together and have done a ceremony, but they can never partake in the spiritual benefits of marriage. Isn’t the spiritual dimension really the fullness of marriage? Marriage is a relationship sanctioned, preserved, and loved by God. Homosexuals can never partake in those benefits. So really, what they think they want is simply counterfeit marriage. I say we let them have it. If they want to live together and have joint tax accounts, they can do that. They will answer to God someday for it. It’s our job as Christians to minister to them and love them. Not use the government to force them into conformity with God’s law. Change does not come from the outside in. It comes from the inside out. They are unregenerate, so how can we expect them to live any other way?"


Originally, that was going to be the point of this article. But I've been reading about Theonomy lately. I also have a good friend of mine who provided a solid defense of it to me. Admittedly, theonomy simply means God's Law, but the "radical" ideas attached to the term are widely varied. The names that come to mind when I think of this school of thought are Rushdoony and Gary North. 
Now, I have never been one to shy away from a radical idea. In fact, I prefer "radical" ideas because that generally means that the idea is taking a stand on something. "Moderate" philosophies are often an amalgam of different ideas and are generally full of inconsistencies. I've come to realize that radical means black or white and moderate means something like grey because I don't want black and white to fight.
My point is this, I've been noticing inconsistencies with the foundation for my libertarian views. Obviously it's founded on total depravity which leads us to have a natural distrust of giving men power. This is healthy. However, what I've been having a problem with is my treatment of the Old Testament civil laws. No matter how hard I try, I can never satisfactorily explain them away. God is the king of the Universe, so shouldn't His good laws apply? Shouldn't the government being enforcing His righteousness? However, I shudder at what this would look like. The repercussions seem horrible. Where would the government end and church begin? Who makes the decisions? Who can question the decisions? In the name of God's Law, sinful men would seize power and bind their opponents. How can you object to God's law? The government simply cannot have that kind of authority. Those who support this view would say that I have taken their view too far in one direction. I would disagree. They are being too optimistic about the nature of man and how truly "Christian" a population would ever realistically became (barring an intervention by God Himself.) History has shown us this time and time again in things like The Catholic Church and the oppressive regimes of  Islamic countries.


In short, I cannot fully rid my mind of the sneaking suspicion that I am missing something. Yet, the conclusions I have reached seem correct. The opposite seems horrific. What is it?
Our church has been studying a fantastic book called "Living in God's Two Kingdoms" by Dr. David Van Drunen. Van Drunen is an adherent of the Two Kingdom's doctrine. The book is exceedingly interesting and actually provides, what I believe, a solid basis for a Christian libertarian. I want to study it further because I'm not quite ready to jump on the bandwagon, but I'm probably about 98% of the way there. Consider reading it. I urge you.


God Bless,
Stanley

Whale Wars

So, I was watching TV yesterday and I ran across a show called "Whale Wars." It looked interesting enough to hold my attention. However, I became suspicious very rapidly. I had heard of this before. Green Peace attacking whaling ships sounded very familiar. Before I could continue watching the show, I decided to do some research on whether they were acting with legal authority or were simply being vandals. My suspicions were correct. The members of "Sea Shepherd", the organization on Whale Wars, are no better than self-righteous vandals.


I want to preface this with the fact that I like whales. Whales are beautiful and majestic creatures. To see them butchered brings a tear to my eye. Guess what, that doesn't make what Sea Shepherd is doing right. The old saying "Two wrongs don't make a right" jumps readily to mind. Let's look at it this way: I believe that abortion is wrong. It is murder. That doesn't make it ok for me to go and assault or murder abortion doctors. I do not have the authority to do that. Just as I don't have authority to "execute" an abortion doctor, so too does Sea Shepherd not have the authority to harass, assault, and vandalize, whalers and their ships.
On a brief tangent, these people care enough about whales sacrifice their lives and time in the middle of the ocean to hunt down and harass whalers but they stand idly by while people murder unborn children. Since when are whales more valuable than human beings? Oh, I guess we have a lot more humans than whales so what is a few dead babies? Sin is not logical.


The reason Whale Wars irks me so much is twofold. (1. These people are getting famous. They have a television show and are getting air time. (2. This is the typical attitude of people. If the other person is doing something bad, all bets are off. I can do whatever I want and it's morally justified. These people have become no better than the whalers! You have lowered yourself to their level. At least the people who are whaling are technically within the law. The law allows whaling for research purposes. On the episode I watched, Sea Shepherd was harassing a ship that is run by the Cetacean Research Institute. Sea Shepherd is the organization that is breaking the law! They have no jurisdiction or legal basis for doing what they are doing. YET, they are lauded and lavished with praise for their actions.


It is sad to see the state of our society today. We value vigilante justice. If we lived in a world like that, we wouldn't like it. Then why do we applaud those kind of actions? I repeat. Sin is not logical.


God Bless,
Stanley

The "Old Time Religion"

Earlier this month, I had the opportunity to read Rob Bell's book "Love Wins." Now, I'd read much in the way of controversy and criticism of this book. Needless to say, I was very interested to see what it actually said. My fears as to the ideas put forth in the book were very much confirmed. Along with this reading, last night I watched an hour long interview of Rob Bell on a British radio show called Unbelievable. I suggest watching it >> http://www.premier.tv/index.php/show/unbelievable%3f_debate_-_heaven_%26amp%3b_hell?id=1_qkhmbyby


Originally, I was planning on spending this time discussing and dismantling Rob Bell's arguments. Frankly, that has been done so well by many other men. I am not going to spend time on that. I would simply suggest googling "Rob Bell love wins" and plenty of great articles will come up.


What really concerns me, is the attitude that many American Christians have taken to truth. I experienced this first-hand just this last month. I have realized just how much personal experience leads to our theology. This felt alien to me. I, as a person, am not an incredibly emotional person. Those who know me scoff because well, I have one emotion that does capture me frequently. It's called excitement. Debates and argument incite it within me. The key difference is that this excitement is temporary. Think of your favorite thing to do and then just imagine how excited you get! That's simply how I feel. It's a fleeting feeling that doesn't ultimately have an impact on my soul. However, the emotion I'm talking about is very different. It is a strong, soul searching, intense emotion that leaves scars and imprints on the psyche. I'm not like that. I recently read the book "Blue Like Jazz" and it cemented my realization that people have those kind of emotions. The kind of emotions that change the way they think. Maybe I'm being entirely blind, but I'm very clinical about truth. Truth is sterile. It doesn't care how I feel. There are many things that I believe that break my heart and puzzle my mind and yet, they don't stop being true because I don't like them.


Many Christians in the modern Church are reacting to ideas that they feel are old-fashioned or mean. Frankly, I don't think old is an insult. I think that old things are amazing! I collect books and finding an old book is one of the most acute thrills. Why is new better? Why is the old thrown out? Christianity isn't a fad or a technology that needs to be upgraded every generation. Christianity is the religion of my father, my forefathers, and their fathers too! That's one of the most beautiful things about it. In the storm of life, Christ's Church stands firm. Time rolls over her head and yet she is as beautiful as ever. Are we going to reject orthodoxy because our parents and grandparents are sinners? How preposterous! How can we expect them to be anything else? The Bible says that there is none who is righteous. We want them to accept us and forgive our faults, yet we choose to reject their "Old-timey religion" because of their "hypocrisy" and uptightness. We're no worse than they are! Because they were "too strict", now we're going too far and giving our children a soft Christianity that won't preach the hard stuff like hell. So, because fallen sinners failed to live out God's perfect and upright law, it stops being true? To the contrary, it shows forth OUR own failings!


This, I feel, is a rampant problem. God has blessed me with a wonderful home life. I have two parents who love each other, amazing teachers and role models, an awesome sister, and stability in my life. I really don't understand situations and emotions that are strong enough to shape one's idea of truth. I simply believe The Bible as God's Word and Law. It doesn't change based on how I feel.


God Bless,
Stanley


P.S. I highly recommend reading Blue Like Jazz. It was soft on the Law of God, but it was orthodox on salvation. Also, Donald Miller is a talented writer who draws you in and interests you with his stories and observations.

How to Be Consistent in Christian Thought

Often times, I tend to be too opinionated. I'm very prideful and struggle with accepting others' ideas. So you might think that I'm following in that vein when I say that I think Christians should be conservatives. At first glance, it seems bigoted. The Bible says no such thing! You are indeed correct. Hear me out.


Clearly, the Bible does not say one must be a conservative. I won't pretend that it does. I would never claim that someone who votes Democrat can't be a Christian. In fact, some of the things that liberals claim to champion can be quite enticing to Christians. Love, tolerance, and helping the poor are absolutely Christian ideals! However, being a Christian and a Liberal at the same time is inconsistent.  The fundamental foundation of liberalism is at odds with God. God and liberalism are the antithesis of each other. Admittedly, not on the surface. It's easy to be fooled. But, the fundamental principles of liberalism are the eradication of God and the deification of the State. In essence, the goal of liberalism is to replace God with the government. This is absolutely logical from an atheistic point of view. With no God, the government is the highest institution of morality and perfection. If men's minds can define reality than what can the greatest minds all working in concert with one another achieve? They would be as gods.
Ever social program, every infringement of religion, every attempt to control people's minds, is all aimed at elevating the state to fill the role of God. Upton Sinclair said, "The American people will take socialism without the label." That's exactly what is happening right now! It's all the little things. We don't see them as major battlegrounds. But I'll tell you, this war isn't blitzkrieg. It's trench warfare.



My point is this: liberalism is the champion of these ideals. Whereas, conservative ideals preserve the dignity of man, freedom, and government's proper role. To claim that one is a Christian and yet vote for someone who is liberal is absolutely inconsistent. That's like being a vegan and voting for a butcher. Liberalism is absolutely dead-set on dethroning God and crowning the state. Many liberals don't even know that. They think they're helping the poor. Yes, that's admirable. But ultimately, you're just slowly handing over your freedom so that they can be your new king and savior. That's what the State wants to do. They don't want their people to have freedom! That means LESS power for them. Why would they want that? Hand them all of yourself. They won't stop until they've got your heart, mind, and allegiance. That's exactly what Christ requires. So, I pose this question to you, "Who do you choose? Who's it gonna be? Christ or the State?" That's what it all comes down to. That's what is at stake. It's a lot more than "I want guns." The real issue is "I want Christ to be my King. Not the state."

If you're reading this and you're a Christian democrat, I want you to think hard. Consider the implications of what you really believe. My goal is not to make you ashamed. That is the last thing I want. I want you see the root of what you really believe. I want you to abhor it for what it is. It's war against God. 


God Bless,

Stanley

Don't Hate The Lorax

Sunday was my birthday. Yay. It's tradition to go see a movie for my birthday. Being a lover of Dr. Seuss, I couldn't resist seeing the Lorax. I'd say that I made a really good choice. Not only was the animation beautiful, but the story was well written and fun. Also, the movie stays very true to the original book despite adding much to it. Overall, if I were Dr. Seuss, I would be very pleased with the adaption. What the filmmakers add only serves to draw out the points that Dr. Seuss attempting to make.

I've seen many people decrying this movie as a piece of liberal propaganda and I couldn't disagree more. This is a movie that Christians should support! By all means, enjoying and using God's creation responsibly is one of man's chief responsibilities. In the story, the Once-ler chops down the entire Truffula forest to provide materials for his products. This is clearly wasteful and wrong on his part! There is no liberal bias about it. The movie also demonstrates the complexity of ecosystems. When the Once-ler cuts down all the trees, the bears called barbaloots, the singing fish, and the birds all have to leave because they depended upon the trees for their livelihood. This is a simple example of how waste in one area can have a ripple effect in an ecosystem.

This is NOT a liberal message. This is a Christian message. God's creation was created for us to take dominion over and dominion does not mean wasting it. Remember how God said to take care of the Garden? The earth is the Lord's garden and we are it's caretakers. It's our job to be responsible with what God has given us. Protesting pouring toxic sludge into rivers is definitely not liberal.

I must note, there is one anti-business scene in the movie. There is a musical number where The Once-ler sings "How bad can I be?/I'm only doing what comes naturally" The scene depicts him as a corporate "fat cat" reveling in money and business. It shows the media deceiving the public. The Once-ler says the oft quoted business arguments like "I'm not doing anything illegal" and "You take care of yours, I'll take care of mine." At the very end, a portrait of the Once-ler is hung upon the wall and it says "Too big to fail" on it. Adults will get this and kids will not. It's subtle and well executed by the filmmakers. However, I am willing to overlook this scene (1) because it's very catchy and fun (2) and the movie as a whole is something that I can get behind. I don't need to agree with this part to agree with the rest of the movie.

One thing of interest during this sequence is that the Once-ler describes the concept of Survival of the Fittest, yet it's framed so as to be a bad thing. I don't understand how non-Christians can believe that all the variety in life could be produced through survival of the fittest yet it's not ok to run a business based on that principle? In theory, isn't that the greatest and most efficient principle to appeal to? It's simply inconsistent to say that survival of the fittest shouldn't apply to business but at the same time, appealing to it to explain away creationism.

Those are just the thoughts that have been swirling through my head after seeing the film. I would highly recommend going and seeing it! The message is certainly praiseworthy and both children and adults can enjoy this fun film.

God Bless,

Stanley

All of a Sudden It's Ok To Trash Other People's Religion?

I recently received this email from GOPUSA.

"Sharia Law Takes Root"

Dear Fellow American,

Last fall, a Muslim attacked a Pennsylvania man name Ernest Perce who had dressed up like Mohammed for a Halloween parade. The attack was caught on film, witnessed by dozens of parade watchers, and verified by a policeman.

The Muslim was charged. But when he was brought before Cumberland County Judge Mark Martin, the judge dismissed the assault charges against the Muslim and dressed down the Pennsylvania man for being insensitive to the Muslim religion. Not only did Martin rule in favor of the Muslim attacker, he lectured Ernest Perce for insulting Islam: "Islam is not just a religion, it's their culture. It's their very essence their very being... And what you've done is, you've complete trashed their essence, their being. They find it very, very, very offensive. I find it offensive."

Guess what—I'm offended too, but for an entirely different reason. This Sharia law sympathy is part of a pattern. We have identified similar cases in at least 20 states where a full-scale campaign has been launched by American Muslim organizations seeking to push Sharia law ahead of constitutional law."

Is this a joke? Since when is it ok to trash other people's religion? I have to agree with the comments that the judge made. They were spot on. People don't understand how religion affects people. Your religion is the foundation whereby you understand reality. It's your most core beliefs. That's not a joke! And for that man to dress up as Muhammed for Halloween is just flat out being a jerk. Admittedly, the muslim's response is definitely not legal, but we can also understand where he's coming from. I mean, I know I would not be happy if someone dressed up as Jesus for Halloween. Not to the point of assaulting them, but I would at least see it as rude and tasteless. The judge should have punished the muslim man, but I believe his sentence should probably have been reduced from a typical assault charge. In justice, circumstances should always be considered.

I don't like the email's attitude. I feel that it's rather widespread in the conservative community. Possibly I'm wrong, but I encounter it frequently. We abuse other people's beliefs and then get defensive when they get offended (heaven forbid!). Just because someone is wrong doesn't give you the right to be mean to them. I know I personally struggle with this. I am the kind of person who has strong opinions. Many times, I have a hard time respecting those who disagree with me. However, as someone who struggles with this sin, I feel I am in a better condition to pinpoint it when I see it. It takes one to know one, I guess. Anyways, to antagonize those of other religions is definitely not loving. As Christians, we are called to love our neighbors. How do you think our pagan friends view us when we treat their beliefs with contempt? The point is, this man should not have been dressing up as the spiritual leader of a religion. Especially considering how clear the muslims have made it that this is a big deal for them. The stories of journalists being threatened for joking about Muhammed are numerous. Why then would someone go and impersonate him? Does he have a deathwish?

Bottomline:

Don't make fun of people's religions. It's called being a jerk. Plus, they get offended.

Sharia Law is NOT taking root in America anytime soon.

Dressing up as Muhammed will likely end badly for you.

God Bless,

Stanley

Inherent Rights (and wrongs.)

On Facebook, someone posted a venn diagram that determines how conservative you are. It contained concentric circles that define what you think the government's role is. The circles got progressively smaller. I realized, that I was in the smallest circle. Apparently, I'm a minarchist. I hadn't heard that term before so I looked it up on Wikipedia. What I found was that a minarchist is basicly a libertarian. Yeah. That sounds about right. The circle said that the government's job is police force, courts, law, and order. That's the bare minimum. Admittedly, this ought to also include dealing with other countries, but that wasn't on any of the lists. So, we'll assume it's implied. I was tempted to go to the next circle up because it contained fire departments, but I don't even think that's the government's job. That could easily be a private company. Why not simply pay a monthly flat rate that guarantees protection by the fire department? No need for the government to get involved.

As a minarchist, my basis for judging law is whether it comes down to a matter of faith, or a matter of life and property. I personally believe that the government's job is not to define morality for its citizens, but to protect its citizens. This means, giving them the right to do as they please as long as they are not infringing on another's rights. Such as if one wanted to smoke weed. My assessment would be this; I personally don't think they should be doing it. It's wrong. (UPDATE: This does not include medicinal marijuana. I see no problem with a doctor prescribing it for medicinal purposes.) However, in a free society they should be allowed to do it and suffer the consequences of their actions. Ultimately, every man will answer to God for his actions. Now, if he were to go out and drive high, that I would have a problem with. At that point, he is a danger to others and is violating their rights to life and property.

This is not to say that there isn't an all encompassing morality that every man is bound by. My point is that it should be binding upon a man not because the government says so, but because of his own conscience. Laws do not change men's hearts. The Lord does. For there to be true morality, God's law has to penetrate to the core of a man. This is the role of the church and the Gospel - to change men's hearts. If the government's goal in outlawing weed, tobacco, alcohol, pornography, video games, etc, is to change men's hearts, then it is usurping the role of the church. The State's job is not to spread the Gospel but to provide a stage whereby God can bring about His plan of redemption. In short, if the State is stepping in to legislate morality, then the church is falling down on the job. I want to reiterate that by morality here, I mean, things that are personal lifestyle choices, moral or immoral, that do not infringe on other's rights to life and property. Things such as homosexuality. In no way am I saying these things are good and wholesome. Quite the contrary. It is the condition of man that sin has pervaded every part of his being and a pragmatic approach to politics needs to understand that. How can we expect the non-Christians in our land to act like Christians if God has not changed them? In a country with such diverse people groups, it's simply not feasible to enforce a single morality on a widely varied population. Why are we causing them resentment by legislating their lives? Instead, we should be reaching out and praying for them. Preach the Gospel and pray for God's healing on their hearts. THAT is what truly transforms someone's morals. No law in the world can what God does.

I'd also like to briefly address the topic of abortion. Many libertarians are pro-choice (pro-murder, in more accurate terms) because they feel it is a matter of personal liberty. If you consider it however, abortion violates a child's right to life. That is a human being who has inherent worth and has a right to life. It is not in the same category as fornication. It's murder. And murder must always be against the law because it is the most fundamental evil that the State is in place to combat. I just wanted to diffuse that potentially volatile situation.

In short, the government needs to stay in it's place. That is, it must guard and serve it's people's inherent rights, but no more. The Church's job is to change hearts. That's the mission of the Church because it is the visible manifestation of Christ's kingdom. Christ came to redeem a people and conform them to his image. He doesn't accomplish this by a government, but by his work on the cross. The Church, permeated by the Holy Spirit, is how Christ applies this work and it's benefits to mankind.

God Bless,

Stanley

Ayn Rand's "Anthem"

My Amazon Kindle is a wonderful device. While browsing the books on the Kindle Store, I ran across a free copy of Ayn Rand's "Anthem". I've always wanted to read Ayn Rand, so I decided to give it a shot. Boy am I glad I read that book! Ayn Rand is a bit of a hero of mine when it comes to her political views. Her rugged individuality is a refreshing break from the relentless socialist messages that permeate society. How does the government work? It doesn't. According Ron Swanson, "I couldn't have said it better myself." That is Ayn's philosophy in a nutshell. As little government as possible and let individuals be individuals. She was a huge proponent of the free market. She touted aggressive self interest as the basic driving force behind all business and politics. This woman knew how people tick!

The philosophy of extreme individuality really shines forth in her novella "Anthem." It's a short read. I read it in a day. However, I'm so glad I did. The novel is a journal of a man named Equality 7-2521. He lives in a dystopian society on earth that forbids individual thought. He must not have any thought that other men do not have. He must not love any brother more than another. In his journal, he refers to himself as "we." Even if he is speaking solely of himself. At a young age, Equality 7-2521 was given the career of a street sweeper. Yet, he had always been the most curious and freethinking of the young children in the orphanage. He experiences a turning point in life when he discovers an ancient tunnel. There, he writes in his journal and works on science experiments. One day, he discovers electricity. He brings his incredible discovery before the science council but they are horrified by it. Before they can arrest him, he escapes into the forest. There was a woman whom he had fallen in love with over the course of the story and she ended up following him into the forest. There, they discover an old cabin filled with books. In that cabin, they discover the word "I" and resolve to form a settlement to repopulate the world with freethinking individuals. Equality 7-2521, who changed his name to Prometheus, resolves to teach his children the powers of I and the beauty of the individual. The story is quick paced and original. The concept is very well executed. The passages about individuality are powerful.

Now, it must all be taken with a grain of salt. Ayn Rand was an atheist. She believed that you alone are the master of your destiny and you alone must pursue your own ends. Men often place their hopes in the collective as a substitute for God, but Ayn Rand is the opposite extreme. The story of philosophy and the arts is movements reacting to each other. The romantics give birth to the realists. The Catholics give birth to the Protestants. The deists give birth to the existentialists. Every movement is a reaction against the other's extremes. However, I'm inclined to buy into this reaction IN THE POLITICAL SPHERE. I buy into this reaction because it is a more accurate reflection of who man is. As a Christian, I can look at Ayn Rand's philosophy of individualism and praise it. I can see that God made man in His image. That means will, emotions, and moral judgements. However, I also know that man is fallen and will invariably choose selfishness. Ayn Rand's philosophy reflects this very real aspect of man. God allowed Ayn the ability to see man's state, but not to understand the source of that state. In the Bible, God explains to me why man is in that state. That's why I can get behind Ayn Rand's philosophy of government and, generally, her views on man. This just goes to show that God, in His grace, gives unbelievers the ability to see things that are true and to produce good art. Just remember that as Christians, we have a foundation and source of all these things that unbelievers have merely stumbled into.

God Bless,

Stanley

We're Not Worthless Machines? What a Relief!

Genesis 1:27 "So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them."

Earlier, God said "let us make man in our image, after our likeness." After this, He proceeds to set man in dominion over the animals. Because man is made in his Lord's likeness, there are certain things that are true about him. (1. Man has a will and volition that is coupled with intelligence and self-awareness. This is something that is true about God that cannot be said of the animals. (2. Man has dominion over the earth. The Lord gives him this in Gen. 1:26 and in the Noahic covenant. (3. Man makes moral judgements. We see this in the Fall and men have been doing since the beginning of time. Animals have no concept of morals. (4. Man has inherent value. The last one is the most pivotal of all. If man is made in the image of the Lord, killing a man is an act of rebellion against God. No, you didn't kill God, but if someone set fire to your image and jumped up and down on it, what do you think their opinion of you is? But also, man himself has inherent value. Amazingly enough, the deist Thomas Jefferson got it right when he said that man is endowed by his God with certain unalienable rights. This means that the value God created man with demands certain responses. This means a respect and love of human life.

This the true foundation for what the world calls "human rights." If man is simply an advanced animal, he has no rights. Random chemicals interacting don't have any inherent worth. That's all the human being is under an evolutionary system. There are no human rights! The universe owes us nothing. Man is worthless. Human rights have to be founded on an absolute. Evolutionists don't have this foundation and are simply stealing the idea from Christians. The logical end of atheism is Stalin' communist regime and Hitler's dictatorship. No truth, no rights, no morals. Nothing.

I'd also like to briefly note that Evolution fueled one of the things that atheists detest most. Slavery? Yes, it existed before evolution, but there was a difference. It was simply a social system. With evolution, it was more. In an evolutionary system, blacks are inferior to whites. The white man had the duty to subjugate and "tame" the lesser animal. This concept was the product of evolutionary thinking. After all, man's just an animal, right?

God Bless,

Stanley

In God I Trust

Well, today is President's Day. I hope that you felt blessed today. Yes, it's a minor holiday, but it's also a much needed break from work and school.

As we commemorate our presidents, I can't help but contemplate what our earliest presidents would think of the world we live in. George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, John Q. Adams, and Andrew Jackson composed the first 48 years of our country. If they were magically transported to our time, what would they think of our president? What would they think of our laws? What would they think of our culture? What would they think of our media? The thing that saddens me the most is that I think they would be filled with sorrow. However, I don't think they would be surprised. They knew that men were depraved.

America's decline is slow but steady. I don't see that changing. Only in God's grace are we preserved. I envision the mighty towers of our land crashing into the sea and the American flag slowly descending into the abyss, but God is still here with us. God is not in a government. God is not in a Constitution. The amazing thing is that America and the Constitution have been an incredible means whereby God has blessed His people and the earth. But it was only a means. I apologize for being vulgar, but God has no sacred cows. In His grand plan, America is another blade of soft sea grass. God has artfully manipulated the machinations of sinful man throughout history. Despite the people's blindness, the Lord will remain faithful and bring His plan to fruition. In the Old Testament, we see how weak the Israelites were. Yet, who are we to judge? We are even greater offenders!

The image that I described earlier may be terrifying. But, I find peace in it. Those towers are worthless. They will all be ground to dust. My Lord will not. There is nothing the liberals can do about it. No law Mr. Obama wants to pass can ever come close to separating me from my God. The liberal media can rage, but the Lord looks down from heaven and laughs. He laughs! He thinks they're a joke! Why do we tremble? Why do we get up in arms? They're throwing ping pong balls at our bank vault. God be praised. So to every statist, liberal, Mr. Obama, communist, and "social activist" I say, "Go ahead. Go right ahead. Take away my 'rights'! Burn the Constitution. Take God out of our pledge. Remove prayer from the schools. The price will be visited upon your head sevenfold. You will give the Lord an account of what you did. Nothing you do can ever take Him by surprise. You place your hope in the state and I pity you for it. Your savior is weak and fickle. Mine is strong and faithful. I pray God saves you from your delusion."

God bless America. We need it.

~Stanley

I Believe Tattoos Are Unwise

The topic of tattoos has been controversial amongst Christians for a while. Now, there are many Christians who have tattoos and that's what makes this subject so sticky. Frankly, I believe that the Bible is largely silent on the subject. Many point to the verse that says that Christians are the temple of God. This is true. However, this verse names no specifics and that's why I am inclined to believe that this is a matter of Christian liberty. It is a matter of wisdom, not right or wrong. In short, I am convinced that tattoos are not wrong, but are simply unwise.

Now there are ways to make tattoos wrong. Content can always change an issue. I won't take offense at your desire to tattoo your name in japanese on your arm, but I will take offense at naked women and blasphemy. The same philosophy governs my consumption of music. What makes music wrong is content, not the sound (An evil note? Obviously a guitar note. :P).

The tattoo originate from tribal markings and piercings. Pagan tribes used extensive body ink as well as body piercing as part of their religions. It was a ritual that was pivotal to their animistic beliefs. Is this really wise to associate ourselves with such origins? Now, considering I'm such a fan of rock music, which clearly had less than godly origins, this isn't a rock solid argument. However, I believe it needs to be taken into account. The origin of tattoos in the world was from pagan rituals, but the origin of tattoos in America is the prison system. I believe this a compelling argument. Inmates began to get tattoos and it spread to the outer culture. Are these people we want to emulate? Also, tattoos are considered a sign of being lower class or unprofessional. Employers want someone who looks clean cut and professional. You can debate the merits of this all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that it's the case. Tattoos are associated with rebellion. They are also permanent. Is it wise to make permanent decisions like that especially at a young age? All of these facts convince me that getting a tattoo is unwise. Now, if you want to make the choice to get one (maybe you're getting something tasteful), go ahead. It's absolutely your choice. However, consider the factors of why you want to get one and also what the consequences will be.

God Bless,

Stanley

You Call That Love?

As Valentine's Day approaches, I am tempted to feel bad about myself. All those people with someone special. All I do on Valentine's Day is sit home and watch History Channel. But then perspective comes in. A relationship at my stage of life is pointless. I'm fine with where I am. It's just society's pressures that are making me feel inadequate. Then again, what exactly is society pressuring me to do? To love? Oh, is that what you call that? I thought that was fuzzy feelings or lust. Either one will do. My point is this: the world doesn't know what love is. Christians say, "That's easy. God is love!" Yadda yadda. What does that REALLY mean? We often spout random cliches just to avoid actual meaning.

God is true and endless love. And this isn't just fuzzy feelings or vague sense of affection. No. This is real, intimate and personal. Love has to have an object. We are that object. The reason we know this is because He proved it to us. There on the cross, Christ showed us true love. Love is sacrificial. That is the thing that the world doesn't understand. They don't understand that true love waits for sex because that's sacrifice. It's a sacrifice to protect something of value. The world doesn't understand that you still have to love your spouse when those fuzzy feelings go away. You don't get to leave or give up when you get bored. This is the love that the world teaches us!

Christ says that, "if you love me, you will keep my commandments." This is another key aspect of Biblical love. Biblical love isn't based on feelings or lust. It's based on action and commitment. If someone truly loves you, they will show it and not merely say it. It's like the example of Caleb's daughter. Caleb made the young men of Israel an offer. His daughter Acsah in return for the capture of the Canaanite city of Kiriath Sepher. Othniel took Caleb up on that offer. Othniel trusted the Lord and furthered His kingdom by defeating the giants in the land. This was a powerful demonstration of love. He laid his life on the line for her. It's like every fantasy story. The hero has to face the dragon and slay it. He has to go through his darkest hour for her, because he knows she's worth it.

Yes, God is love. But God isn't the kind of love that the world knows. It's beyond their comprehension. The love of the Lord is deep, personal, sacrificial, and most of all, unmerited.

God Bless,

Stanley

A Wristwatch Saved Harold Crick

My favorite movie of all time is "Stranger than Fiction" starring Will Ferrell, Emma Thompson, and Dustin Hoffman. It's magnificent. Every character is so vivid, interesting, and well acted. The story is just absolutely perfect. You have to watch it to believe. Yes, I sound like a raving fan-boy, but this movie genuinely is a masterpiece.

The last line of the movie is "A wristwatch saved Harold Crick." There Harold is. He's a bloody pulp prostrated in the road. We KNOW he's dead. But wait! He's still breathing! Yes, his wristwatch embedded itself into his arteries, saving him from bleeding to death. It's tempting for people to think of Christ as that wristwatch. We're dying and Christ is the last resort that saves us. This thinking is prevalent in the American church. This idea is dangerous and wrong. If there is some good, no matter how small, still left in man, then he isn't completely dependent on God. This simply is not the case. Romans 3 says that "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.." Man is hopelessly drowning in sin. God is no wristwatch. God gives life. Not simply saving life.

Ephesians 2:1-9

¹And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;

²Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

³Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

⁴But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,

⁵Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)

⁶And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:

⁷That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.

⁸For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

⁹Not of works, lest any man should boast.

God requires only faith and yet He gives us even the faith! None of salvation is our work. To think so would be blasphemously arrogant on our part. Now, the faith is an actual act. Faith is a product of flexing of volition. Paul tells us that this is a gift from God though. The key to understanding salvation is always understanding God's role and our role. God is the sovereign initiator and enactor, but we are the one being changed.

This is why I hold to predestination. Predestination puts the power back in God's hands and away from man. Man is no longer acting towards God in faith with God merely responding. Now, it's God initiating and man responding.

^{Ephesians 1:4-5}

4. According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

⁵Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

Be blessed and thankful for God's mercy. We're dead without God, but He loved us even while we were dead. While we were rebels.

God Bless,

Stanley

Since When Is Homosexuality The Worst Sin?

Recently, I had a fantastic discussion with a friend of mine about homosexual suicide rates. It is a horrible testament to the American church that homosexuals are 3 times as likely to commit suicide. What does that say about us that we pick them out specifically to vilify? Conservatives are often categorized as homophobes and discriminatory against homosexuals. The sad thing is that this is true. Yes, some of this is due to the fact that we believe this it's wrong. There is a kernel of truth to it. However, I've used that excuse long enough. I refuse to make excuses for the right wing any longer. They are absolutely horrible and vicious to homosexuals. (I don't say gay, because I don't like how they've hijacked a perfectly good word.)

Yes, the Bible is clear on the subject of homosexuality. Sodom and Gomorrah are destroyed for their sins of homosexuality. In Revelation, St. John lists "sodomites" as one of the sins that will be indicative of the damned. In Romans 1, Paul talks about the product of distorting God's reality. He says, "And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. [AIDs])" It's a sin. So is pride, greed, lust, and fornication. Your point? There is no reason to pick out homosexuality as this super sin that means we should hate someone. Jesus tells us to love our neighbors as ourselves. Sin is no reason to hate another human being. If anything, it should be a reason to love and disciple them.

It would seem to me that one reason why homosexuality is so hated is because it's misunderstood. Personally, I've never been tempted towards it. I think women are mesmerizing and I'm proud to say it. So, I really can't understand what it's like to struggle with that sin. The fear of the unknown is one of the strongest fears in man's psyche. We need to get past that and stop treating homosexuals like sub-humans. They are people who are struggling with sin same as us. Let's not pat ourselves on the back and think how righteous we are. The temptation towards that is strong but we need to remind ourselves to tend to the logs in our own eyes before we remove the specks in theirs. In short, let's be firm in our stance that it's a sin, while being loving and discipling those who struggle with it.

God Bless,

Stanley